What's the main flaw of WitP you think?

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Hope this isn't a thread hijack......

Here's how I think landing craft should be done, based on the goals of:

1) Representing the shortage of LC available to a nation.
2) Representing the difficulty of organizing and preparing them for operations.

• LC should be points in a limited pool, similar to how barge creation works.
• These points would be loaded onto AP (from size ? or better ports only) along with land units. LC would take up load points, i.e. the capacity for troops would be reduced if the intention was to land them using LC.
• During landing, these points could be destroyed by the invasion, causing disruption/loss of the equipment/men it was carrying.
• AP's returning to port could unload their LC points back into pool, or keep them on board and/or replenish them from the pool. Loading/unloading would follow normal WITP limitations.
• AP's could only unload troops in size 1 or greater ports unless it had LC points aboard.

Based on the original idea above, but adding the limitation of pool and load capacity of AP.

This is a very interesting idea. Throw in a chance for LC "points" to be lost during the operation and it looks even better. To represent the early Japanese amphibious bonus could either come in the form of an "exemption" to this rule or a free "pool" of landing craft points for game start. No hijack....a good idea.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


.
[*] AP's could only unload troops in size 1 or greater ports unless it had LC points aboard.

only problem i see here is that most invasion points on the map are size 1 or greater as ports. Thats the rub...how in a game to simulate the key differences between an amphibious operation and an an amphibious assault. A certain assault value present....maybe by the fortification level (to represent beach defences) or by some 2nd coded "port" size by which non-owning player assaulting the base must conform to based on what you wrote above.

[Big B]

Combine everything mentioned on these three pages and that's quite a list...
But I think it's the general Land Combat and lack of controlled supply distribution over land.

I think for all of it's flaws or quirks or whatever - that's about the only thing that can't be fixed in the editor or with a patch.

B

[Mynok]

only problem i see here is that most invasion points on the map are size 1 or greater as ports. Thats the rub...how in a game to simulate the key differences between an amphibious operation and an an amphibious assault. A certain assault value present....maybe by the fortification level (to represent beach defences) or by some 2nd coded "port" size by which non-owning player assaulting the base must conform to based on what you wrote above.

Well, I assume that an invasion is going to be against an enemy-controlled size 1 or greater port? Thus it would require an amphibious landing. My intent was to *require* landing craft in order to land troops at one's own dot hexes using AP's. Barges would not. *Any* landing at an enemy controlled hex or base would require landing craft.

[marky]

no 3rd or first person mayhem[:D]

[Titanwarrior89]

The Major flaw of the game is that it is unbalanced the first six or more months of game time. The number of units, types of units are not the flaw- the game modifiers are way too much. So much so that you have too totally play the game ahistorical to stay afloat in victory points.

It's way against the allies in the begining, then later, I think it shifts as much against the jap player. What are your thoughts on this guys?

Don't get me wrong, I really like the game- its the one ive waited years for. But this balance issue is way, way off. I am begining too see what "Ron" was trying to get across. [:D]

[BlackVoid]

I think it was even worse for the Allies at the start and later for the japanese as well.
eg. Singapore was conquered by a numerically inferior force. Try that in the game...
As subs are quite easy to kill, I cannot see Japan as cut off in the game in later stages as in real life.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Hope this isn't a thread hijack......

Here's how I think landing craft should be done, based on the goals of:

1) Representing the shortage of LC available to a nation.
2) Representing the difficulty of organizing and preparing them for operations.

• LC should be points in a limited pool, similar to how barge creation works.
• These points would be loaded onto AP (from size ? or better ports only) along with land units. LC would take up load points, i.e. the capacity for troops would be reduced if the intention was to land them using LC.
• During landing, these points could be destroyed by the invasion, causing disruption/loss of the equipment/men it was carrying.
• AP's returning to port could unload their LC points back into pool, or keep them on board and/or replenish them from the pool. Loading/unloading would follow normal WITP limitations.
• AP's could only unload troops in size 1 or greater ports unless it had LC points aboard.

Based on the original idea above, but adding the limitation of pool and load capacity of AP.

As a relatively quick fix ... One could create a LC Unit in the database with Device- #X =Landing Craft.

House rule would require invasions to include a LC Unit for each Assaulting unit.

The LC Units could be created with several different sizes in mind for Divisions, brigades, regiments etc.

The number of simultaneous invasions would be limited by the number of LC units in the game.

This "fix" wouldn't require the rewriting of any code, but would require House Rules and wouldn't function with the AI.

[bradfordkay]

" no 3rd or first person mayhem "

Any more of these comments, Marky, and your membership in the WITP Grognards Union will be revoked![:'(]