Idea how to finally balance the bombers (Allied and Japanese) in WitP...

[Banquet]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Ships on bombardment missions can hit mines. I've had several DD's bump into them in recent games.

Mogami has been treated to many mine strikes around Java in our game. I used to think that there might be a problem but really, you have to lay a lot of mines (500+) in a hex to realistically expect a hit once in awhile.

Noob question : can your ships hit mines you've laid?

[The Gnome]

One of my complaints about the game is the "new math".

3 plane flight gets intercepted and everything is shot down. Combat report shows 7 planes shot down. This is with "fog of war" *off*.... makes me wonder if fow just makes it wronger.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Banquet

Noob question : can your ships hit mines you've laid?

Yes. Doesnt happen often, but it happens. I have noticed (maybe just bad dice rolls) but if I lay mines in a non-base hex, it seems as if they are free for all mines, that is I seem to hit them as much as enemy ships do. Is it my imagination? I tried mining the straights between Singapore and Sumatra and My ships passing through took some pretty good hits.

[Halsey]

Never lay mines in hexes that are not controlled by your own forces. If you drive a TF through them, they have the same chance of hitting them as the enemy does.[;)]

[Feinder]

Yes, you can hit your own "friendly" mines. The chance is small, but it's there (and boy will you be pissed when it happens).

I think mines are well done in WitP. Yes, it's annoying to have 1000+ mines, and see your base get clobbered 2x, and a little DD finally hits a mine on the 3rd raid. Or you spend the time to drop 1000 mines somewhere, and some knuckle-head in a sampan comes and sweeps the place clean in 2 days. (* shrug *). Players are infatuated with mines. They mine EVERYTHING. If you didn't make them easy to sweep, and make it so that MSWs respawned, the game would come to a screeching halt when your MSWs got killed (which is exactly what would frequently happen in UV).

As it stands now, if you want to spend the effort to mine a place, go for it. There's a "reasonable" chance that you can surprise your opponent, and have something hit a mine. By the same token, the solution is easy, to sweep with MSWs. You -will- garner a few hits with mines. Maybe even a few kills on small vessels. But you're not going to (or supposed to be able to), win the game with mines.

Regards,
-F-

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Never lay mines in hexes that are not controlled by your own forces. If you drive a TF through them, they have the same chance of hitting them as the enemy does.[;)]

Actually, this is the best place to lay mines in my opinion.

[Nikademus]

its possible i believe but very unlikely

[Halsey]

Also, never mine an enemy base that you plan to bombard with a surface TF. Some very nasty results may happen.[:D]

[doktorblood]

I've never had friendly mines bite any vessels in my own base hexes but I have had ships strike them in both non base hexes and enemy base hexes. I had one incident where had an ML lay mines in an open coastal hex, where upon it promptly struck one of it's own mines and sank ... what an indignity!

[Halsey]

As long as you know not to drive your boys through the hex it can be a good thing.[;)]

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

TJ You forgot to mention the map,,,. much of which seems to have been "made up as they went along".
RR's that never existed, highways that never were, distorted distances...

Mike I meant to ask you if you've tried Andrew's map mod yet. If not, do you plan to play the CHS when it's done? (I presume you will play it.)

Yea, I had a chance to look at it finally. Certainly easier on the eyes for playing, and it fixes the Australian RR problem. The section in the Thailand-Burma border area is totally hosed though. I'm talking to him about some corrections.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Bombur


-Are you so dissapointed with WiTP? I don´t agree they failed to deliver us a simulation. Despite some obvious flaws, the WiTP player if faced with many real decisions that were presented to "real world" commanders in 1941-45, at both strategic and operational levels. I would call it a simulation, althought an imperfect one. However, I put some hopes in the editor. I´m using the scarce time I have to make some tests with the editor, in order to fix some game engine flaws. As you points, some of them are hard coded and cannot be fixed. Of course, another trouble is in the fact there are disagreements between us about what needs to be fixed.

Yes I am dissappointed, I'm dissappointed because a lot of those "real decisions that were presented to 'real world' commanders" you mention AREN'T real. You have a map that makes the Burma Campaign far to easy for the Japanese to support overland instead of having to take Rangoon so ships could supply the rest of the effort. Bogus. It also gives the Allies a free ride in supporting NW Australia overland through map errors. Bogus. Bombardment TF's can successfully
enter and duel with Singapore, Manilla, Oahu, and other major Coast Defense Installations. Bogus. China can be over-run in a few months (after holding out for years). Bogus. A "player" can wipe out the Soviets with some "gamey" tactics.
Bogus. The list goes on....

[bradfordkay]

"The section in the Thailand-Burma border area is totally hosed though. I'm talking to him about some corrections. "

Mike, I've been playing exclusively on Andrew's map since it came out in January, and I tend to agree with you in that it seems awfully easy to drive into Burma form Thailand now. At the same time, however, the two Burmese brigades are no longer completely cut off and useless as they are in their starting positions on the original map. Are you willing to share your ideas about his map, or is that a private conversation?

[Tristanjohn]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

TJ You forgot to mention the map,,,. much of which seems to have been "made up as they went along".
RR's that never existed, highways that never were, distorted distances...

Mike I meant to ask you if you've tried Andrew's map mod yet. If not, do you plan to play the CHS when it's done? (I presume you will play it.)

Yea, I had a chance to look at it finally. Certainly easier on the eyes for playing, and it fixes the Australian RR problem. The section in the Thailand-Burma border area is totally hosed though. I'm talking to him about some corrections.

Sounds good. Let me know what shakes out.

[Halsey]

Something to consider on AB's new map.

An auto shock attack for units crossing rivers is being worked on for the upcoming patch. Add this little feature in, and the defensive possibilities will improve everywhere for defending LCU's.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"The section in the Thailand-Burma border area is totally hosed though. I'm talking to him about some corrections. "

Mike, I've been playing exclusively on Andrew's map since it came out in January, and I tend to agree with you in that it seems awfully easy to drive into Burma form Thailand now. At the same time, however, the two Burmese brigades are no longer completely cut off and useless as they are in their starting positions on the original map. Are you willing to share your ideas about his map, or is that a private conversation?

No, but it will be off the top of my tired head. There was no Thailand-Burma RR at game start. It wasn't really ready
until almost 1944..., and then it was a narrow-gaged, low capacity route. Actually, there wasn't much of anything
on that Westernmost route ((witness that the Japs frist moved into Burma on Jan. 20th..., and didn't take Rangoon
until March 8th). The "road" shown on the original map was a generous if necessary compromise. Another problem
that he failde tonotice is that the RR heading north in Thailand farther east goes at least 1 hex too far north, and then
is linked over the mountains by a road (not trail) hex. Should be no connection at all, but 2 hexes of trail would be far closer to the truth than what is there now. On the original map, this is the "best route" (kinda makes you wonder why
Japanese never took it---or why they didn't build their RR there). In truth, it WASN'T there. The original map required one hex of "road" movement to get to Burma. Andy's "improvement" was to make an "all rail connection" available. Both
are garbage in real life. They make not only Japanese unit movement far to easy (why bring the 18th and 56th Divisions
in by boat in April as was the historical case? All those nasty subs to risk when you could just "take a train"?)---but more
importantly they make Japanese supply to easy. The Japanese supplied the majority of their Burma Campaign by sea
through Rangoon. In the game this isn't necessary. The overland connections are too good. It's the same problem
Andy fixed in NW Australia---but here he made it worse.

[bradfordkay]

I thought that's what you were getting at, but wanted to know for sure. I agree with you about the "Kwai railway", I think that Andrew wanted to reward all those prisoners who gave their lives to build it. Of course, rewarding them by making life easier for their enemy doesn't quite work, does it?

[Nikademus]

Burma's unique geography is all but impossible to simulate in a game of the scale of WitP. It should also be noted that the map hardly favors only the Japanese but favors the Allies too making the entire theater much more "active" than it historically was. The Japanse can enter with all their equipment and vehicles from the south, but so can the Allies come down from India with all their equipment and enough supply to be mostly effective. Historically the major Commonwealth offensives into Northern and Centra Burma in 1944 were only made possible by the employment of massive airlift supply transport. Central Burma is actually tank country around Mandalay and Japanese movement was in reality quite rapid after they'd crossed the Sittieng bridge.

Case in point....an AI game i am playing, SCN 12, first thing i did was mass two armored brigades an INF div and two brigades and start heading into Northern Burma. It takes a couple weeks to move but once there they had more than enough combat power to start assaulting Burmese towns. No need for air support.

Burma in the end is a compromise situation as far as WitP is concerned. If anything it's tougher on the Japan player because of the generous Burma road supply rule where Mykt. is concerned. The town is hard to hold.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Burma's unique geography is all but impossible to simulate in a game of the scale of WitP. It should also be noted that the map hardly favors only the Japanese but favors the Allies too making the entire theater much more "active" than it historically was. The Japanse can enter with all their equipment and vehicles from the south, but so can the Allies come down from India with all their equipment and enough supply to be mostly effective.

I would agree with you up to a point. Burma's unique geography SHOULD favor whichever side controls and can make use of RANGOON. This was as true for the Japanese as for the Allies. But the game provides the Japanese with Road and Rail
connections to Burma (depending on what map you use), while the Allies must use several hexes of Trails from their side.
My point is that Burma's LAND communications with ALL her neighbors were poor. The maps only make this true for the Allies. It needs to be fixed.

[Nikademus]

I'd have to think that between hindsight and the game mechanics, changing the hexes between Tavoy and Moulmein to 'trail' would make it all but impossible for the Japan player to even invade Burma. This is due to the abstractions involved in the land combat

The most probable result from a map change of this nature would be frequent amphib operations in Rangoon itself.

Another problem would be if the Allied player deploys LCU's forward they could more easily be trapped or cut off.

Moot point. No map changes are planned, this point has been made clear by the dev's several times. Perhaps Andrew can experiment but i'd recommend serious testing on any such change.