out of supply and transports?

[generalfdog]

I get if you are blockaded that it makes sense not to be able to board transports and escape, but when you can't draw supply because you haven't conquered other things like in Australia, Fiji, or US west coast it is super annoying, I have control of the ocean yet my starving guys are stuck on islands!

[Bo Rearguard]

I have control of the ocean yet my starving guys are stuck on islands!

With control of the ocean couldn't you destroy at least some of the blockaders?

[generalfdog]

I have control of the ocean yet my starving guys are stuck on islands!

With control of the ocean couldn't you destroy at least some of the blockaders?

there are no blockaders, there are special supply rules on areas you have to control before you can draw supply to distant places mainly to keep you from unrealistically jumping to far, for example Japan can't trace supply to eastern Australia unless they control the Solomons all the way down to New Caledonia, in principal I don't have a problem with this rule, my issue is if you do invade either because you didn't know the rule or because you wanted to do a spoiling attack, you should still be able to extract your forces if you are NOT blockaded. The rule now is if you are out of supply you can't embark, it has nothing to do with being blockaded

[stjeand]

I believe the issue is more around air support..without it the transports would be decimated...but since air support is more static that can't happen.

Just 2 bombers could sink a lot of transports but in the game it does not allow that. Basically they are saying there is air everywhere...maybe a few planes here and there and the high command will not let you send transports unprotected to their doom.

Maybe a change could be made in WP2 to allow this but with a good chance of heavy losses.

[MattFL]

I agree, it's super annoying.

As far as exfiltrating the troops stranded in Australia, it makes little sense to me and there is no need to blockade them at all as they can't leave even if they have the entire Kido Butai in support. Personally, i don't like artificial rules like this saying "can't do this or that until X is done". Perhaps it's a balance issue. And really, taking the requirements for for invading eastern australia is probably pretty simple to do .... if you are aware that the rule exists.

As for transports, they do get sunk by air while moving. But if moving with 6 carriers, air attacks on transports shouldn't be an issue. If you own a port, you should be allowed to board up and leave, irrespective of if it's in supply or not. Further, you should also be allowed to disembark more troops in a controlled port regardless of if it's in supply. May not be a good decision, but the game shouldn't prevent it.

[AlvaroSousa]

The sea is vast, especially in the Pacific. It is 4x the size of the Europe map.

Every naval battle but one occurred near a coast, Bismarck took half the RN to find it.

Also no transport commanded would willingly continue going into an area full of aircraft. As soon as the hint of all this air is there they would turn back.

Thus why transports are wiped out. If it was that easy D-Day in Europe would have huge casualties before they landed as with hindsight the Germans could save their airforce from obliteration.

[MattFL]

The sea is vast, especially in the Pacific. It is 4x the size of the Europe map.

Every naval battle but one occurred near a coast, Bismarck took half the RN to find it.

Also no transport commanded would willingly continue going into an area full of aircraft. As soon as the hint of all this air is there they would turn back.

Thus why transports are wiped out. If it was that easy D-Day in Europe would have huge casualties before they landed as with hindsight the Germans could save their airforce from obliteration.

Sure it's vast, but we're talking about 6 hexes between Port Moresby and Cairns. 545 Miles in RL. Henderson field is about 20% further away from Rabaul for example. So why can i supply henderson field but not Dairns once Moresby is in Axis hands? Further if the Axis at the time of these operations has total sea and air dominance, it makes little sense. Essentially it forces the Japanese to fight for the solomons where what if they just want Rabaul and Papua New Guinea and want to go directly after Australia without wasting time in the solomons.

Further your point about it taking half the RN to find the Bismark sort of reinforces my point. The transports wouldn't be so easy to find if Cairns and the other port coasts are not occupied by the aliies. This somewhat artifical rule allows the Australians to simply ignore defending their own coast and send troops elsewhere.

And i say this knowing full well that it should be a very small and easy task for the Japanese to meet the requirements for providing supply to Eastern Australia. I just don't like that it forces you to do this and artificially allows Australia to defend the solomons instad of their own coastline which is pretty ahistorical when you think about it. If the Kido Butai and 100,000 Japanese are massed Port Moresby, are the Australian gonna go fight for henderson field or defend their own coast?

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Of course it's your game (and wonderful one at that!), so im sure you have your reasons beyond the vast distances.... Perhaps a compromise on this could be something to the effect of the existing rule as it is today requiring the Japanese to take all of those ports to supply eastern Australia is only in effect if Cairns, Townsville, and Mackay are occupied by Allied Forces. At least force the Australians to defend their coast and not just shuttle troops to the Solomons knowing there's a rule that their coast can't be supplied....

[stjeand]

I will have to disagree. The Japanese could barely supply what they had let alone an invasion of Australia.

The artificial rule is there for many reasons.

1) The US could invade Japan and end the game in 1943..
2) The Japanese could invade the US and end the game in 1942.
3) There is no true naval supply system at the moment which is what would be required to. The Japanese had X transports that have to supply the entirety of the Pacific area that they owned. There was no way they could do this will the amount that they possessed.
They did not have the ship building that the US had and could not keep up with enough transports to both supply and move troops. Hopefully that will be addressed in WP2 but will be difficult to do I suspect.

The issue early on was Australia was being conquered nearly every game.
Same with New Zealand and India.
Basically it was ruining the game.


The thought behind the change was that for the Japanese to supply they required shipping routes devoid of allied air and within their own air coverage. I don't believe Japan ever owned the skies in the Solomons...but I could be wrong. I know they were always highly contested.
Therefore the requirement was to make it so the Japanese needed to occupy all of the Solomons in order to clear the skies and be able to have a safe shipping route there.

It is not perfect but better than it was.

Realistically there should be X supply ships and X transports. Each supply ship would have to transfer supplies to each island each turn. If it gets sunk then no supplies arrive and...well that causes issues.
Transports would move troops and/or goods.
As well there is air everywhere...2, 3 even 4 bombers could decimate a handful of transports far from air cover.
The game does not allow for that at the moment.

I hope that helps...

[MattFL]

I totally understand if there are game balance issues at work and i wasn't aware that this was a "change" as i only got the game maybe a month ago. So if balance issues are the reason, i can absolutely accept that having not played any previous iterations.

That being said, if the Japanese can supply Guadalcanal, surely they can supply Cairns if they are not supplying Guadalcanal....

To me, Port Moresby should really never fall in this game. The US or Australians can stick a corps in there and it becomes difficult in the extreme to capture it if the allies are determined to defend it. So why not make just Port Moresby the requirement for supplying the Australian East Coast?

In any case, if the real issue is that prior to these rules the game was out of hand in favor of the Japanese, then that's an answer i can live with. Realism in a good wargame often has to take a back seat to playability.

[stjeand]

I think Port Moreby can fall early easily. Japan can blockade it to the point no units can land there and the one there slowly deteriorates. The allies do not have the navy to stop them early. I have done that in the past and would if I could invade Austalia with its capture.
Turn 1 I would capture Lae as I always do...then blockade Moreby. Once the Kido Butia is back the US can do nothing naval wise in the area for about a year...one marine can take Moreby without issue in 3 months...if that long. I normally bring and army in so it might fall in less than that if I push it.
I don't bother any more because it does not give the Japanese any bonus to take it.

Not saying that the option is not possible.

For me the Japanese should have to take all of New Guinea then they could possibly supply one port in Australia.
If I remember there is an event file that could be modified if you wanted to test that out. I would have to look at it again.
Just have to make a new scenario, modify the file. Either play hotseat or you have to give the file to another player and they have to do what you did...then you could PBEM.



A few things I would like to see is that home countries should have to be garrisoned. I would force a country to have units there or there is civil unrest and production could be lost.
Being able to have the US have no troops in it makes no sense. They were always concerned about invasion even though they had no idea that Japan could never pull it off.
Even as the war gets worse of a side, say when Japan starts its downfall they would want to garrison Japan else the citizens would be worried.

But that is a future discussion.

[AlvaroSousa]

Technically you could supply an invasion in Australia. It was be very hard and now effective using naval supply and air transports. But this is not enough supply to take out these countries.

Also just because supply is tough it doesn't mean you can't invade. If NZ is left open regardless of supply or not it will fall once invaded.

Technically you could do the same with Australia. But the Allies would have to pretty much remove every unit or keep such a weak force the Japanese can destroy them with the initial landings.

[MattFL]

I think Port Moreby can fall early easily. Japan can blockade it to the point no units can land there and the one there slowly deteriorates. The allies do not have the navy to stop them early. I have done that in the past and would if I could invade Austalia with its capture.

Let me restate - sure, anything can fall easily if you're willing to dedicate the resources to it. But doing that, strips those resources from something else. The Japanese never have enough to do all that they want to do, particularly in the first 3 turns when the oil situation is horrific.

Turn 1 I would capture Lae as I always do...then blockade Moreby. Once the Kido Butia is back the US can do nothing naval wise in the area for about a year...one marine can take Moreby without issue in 3 months...if that long. I normally bring and army in so it might fall in less than that if I push it.
I don't bother any more because it does not give the Japanese any bonus to take it.

Yes, there really isn't too much bonus i guess other than if you are going for an Australia strategy.

For me the Japanese should have to take all of New Guinea then they could possibly supply one port in Australia.
If I remember there is an event file that could be modified if you wanted to test that out. I would have to look at it again.
Just have to make a new scenario, modify the file. Either play hotseat or you have to give the file to another player and they have to do what you did...then you could PBEM.

Appreciate the tip on changing things, but i'm not gonna mess with that as i prefer to play the game as is regardless if i disagree with elements. I do like the idea that if all of New Guinea/West Papua is captured, to me that should open up all of Australia, not just one port (again, unless this is a major balance issue).

A few things I would like to see is that home countries should have to be garrisoned. I would force a country to have units there or there is civil unrest and production could be lost.
Being able to have the US have no troops in it makes no sense. They were always concerned about invasion even though they had no idea that Japan could never pull it off.
Even as the war gets worse of a side, say when Japan starts its downfall they would want to garrison Japan else the citizens would be worried.

I like this idea as well, however, if the US/Australia/NZ etc is forced to garrison and Japan is forced to Garrison its a bit of a wash so i'm not sure it would change anything.

[ncc1701e]

Ah ah ah, again the same topic. And this is perfectly normal. Supplies are not flying. Or they do but with planes. Supplies must be transported by ships. Supplies ships that must be intercepted by enemy ships, subs, planes to prevent them to reach their destination. Reinforcements of units, same thing, ships and/or planes must bring manpower replacements.

Old subject but real subject.

[DeepTyphoon]

And i say this knowing full well that it should be a very small and easy task for the Japanese to meet the requirements for providing supply to Eastern Australia. I just don't like that it forces you to do this and artificially allows Australia to defend the solomons instad of their own coastline which is pretty ahistorical when you think about it. If the Kido Butai and 100,000 Japanese are massed Port Moresby, are the Australian gonna go fight for henderson field or defend their own coast?

Hmm.

I must disagree.

I feel these limitations are a necessity to prevent wildly ahistorical and, therefore, unrealistic gameplay.

In real life, the Japanese could never seriously threaten the United States or even Australia with conquest. For game balance issues, I think we're already being very generous with Japanese military power. Likewise, the United States could never have invaded Japan without having conquered half the Pacific and established a vast logistics network first.

I feel these rules add more to the game than they take away. It's just important to be aware of them before the game starts so you can plan accordingly.

You might have heard of restrictor plates for racecar safety. These rules are necessary restrictor plate wargaming.

south.jpg (94.98 KiB) Viewed 1229 times

[ncc1701e]

I feel these limitations are a necessity to prevent wildly ahistorical and, therefore, unrealistic gameplay.

Limitations are there to prevent unrealistic supply rules.

[MattFL]

I must disagree.

I feel these limitations are a necessity to prevent wildly ahistorical and, therefore, unrealistic gameplay.

In real life, the Japanese could never seriously threaten the United States or even Australia with conquest. For game balance issues, I think we're already being very generous with Japanese military power. Likewise, the United States could never have invaded Japan without having conquered half the Pacific and established a vast logistics network first.

I feel these rules add more to the game than they take away. It's just important to be aware of them before the game starts so you can plan accordingly.

You might have heard of restrictor plates for racecar safety. These rules are necessary restrictor plate wargaming.
south.jpg

Well, given that I'm playing the Japanese in my two ongoing campaigns and am suffering from recency bias, I'll disagree. If i was allies i'd think it was the greatest rule ever!

Seriously though, one could say the same about the Germans in WWII - that they never really had any chance of conquering Russia and in fact Barbarossa failed at Smolensk in the summer of '41. Yet we play the games.

The main issue that i have is that it makes no sense to me that the Japanese can have a full fledged invasion of Australia going and the capture of a single small port part of an island chain 800 miles away suddenly renders 6+ ports useless. It's gamey. Makes it such that there is really no need to defend Australia at all other than Canberra as the Allies just need to capture a single port out of 6 or something to remove any threat and lay waste to the Japanense in Australia. Suffice it to say, in future games, I'll just hunker down in the South Pacific and avoid Australia, it's too vulnerable to this rule.

The funny thing about my two current campaigns is that even though I'm playing as the Japanese in both, I think i may be learning more about how to play the Allies and what they should be doing. Looking forward to trying out some theories on how to punish Japan based on what I'm experiencing across the two campaigns.

[DeepTyphoon]

I must disagree.

I feel these limitations are a necessity to prevent wildly ahistorical and, therefore, unrealistic gameplay.

In real life, the Japanese could never seriously threaten the United States or even Australia with conquest. For game balance issues, I think we're already being very generous with Japanese military power. Likewise, the United States could never have invaded Japan without having conquered half the Pacific and established a vast logistics network first.

I feel these rules add more to the game than they take away. It's just important to be aware of them before the game starts so you can plan accordingly.

You might have heard of restrictor plates for racecar safety. These rules are necessary restrictor plate wargaming.
south.jpg

Well, given that I'm playing the Japanese in my two ongoing campaigns and am suffering from recency bias, I'll disagree. If i was allies i'd think it was the greatest rule ever!

LOL!