Page 79 of 112
Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:36 pm
by John 3rd
THAT is my point Christian. I cannot wait for realistic island fighting. This whole thing is a farce for both sides.
Day Two:
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:44 pm
by FeurerKrieg
ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Look at the 'realistic' combat occurring on Wake! Wasn't this the scale of one of the Kyushu Landing set for November 1945? Cannot wait for AE...
if you look at your garrison then there´s no need to cry about your opponent´s invasion. No chance to fit all those troops on Wake, not even your baseforces alone would have fit on that atoll I guess. Doesn´t mean I´m doing it differently in my WITP games but when you say you can´t wait for AE then it has to be because of both sides, insane number of Japanese troops as the defender (with an even more insane fort level) and an insane number of Allied troops as the attacker.
In fairness to John, he did say sanity for atoll invasions and GARRISONS. But I agree - the realistic model is pretty much that atolls cannot be held against an invasion that has solid naval and air support. We use HR's to set atoll troop levels in my game, and all the atoll invasions that have occurred felt much more realistic to me.
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:13 pm
by vettim89
Breaking Silent Mode:
My opponent Greasylake and I are palying the same mod as John and Dan. We have a HR limiting atolls to a max of 30,000 troops total in defense. Larry put 30,000 combat troops on Tarawa in our game no BF, no CD, etc. Well it took a Marine Div, 3 RCT teams, a Tank BTN, and an ENG RGT three weeks to dislodge them. So even putting more realistic troop levels did not make taking an atoll any easier. My concern is that with AE's troop limits, it will aloow a player to take a base, load it up with engineers until forts are 6 (the new max), then pull all the engineers in lieu of INF units and create an inpregnible fortress that the opposing player has no hope of breaking because AE's stacking penalites will disrupt his invasion force to the level of total ineffectiveness.
Return to Silent Mode
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 6:27 pm
by FeurerKrieg
In my game we base it on the sbs numbers. So Midway (AF SBS + port SBS equals 2), for example can have max 2 forts, max 20,000 defenders and max 40,000 attackers. It seems decent to me. You can check it out in my AAR if you want to see it in action. Christmas Island, Palmyra and Midway have all been recaptured by the US.
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:07 pm
by FOW
Re the last Allied attack at Wake:
engineers reduce forts by 1 level to 7, yet the 8:1 attack does not reduce any more fort levels!!!!! - what gives? (9:1 would have captured the base)
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:14 pm
by Mike Solli
Maybe the engineers took a beating on that first attack. If they are ineffective, the chances of the fort level going down is reduced.
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:19 pm
by John 3rd
Thanks for the House Rules commentary. Had I thought about this when we started (ages ago) I would have recommended something like that too. Make good policy by my view. Can still be abused though.
Vettim 89--always good to see you!
FOW--I was shocked at the change in odds. Have figure that since the defense is based around 2 Brigades, the 5,000 Cas yesterday and 5,000 today basically wipes these units out.
I shifted the 100 Transport flying in supplies (with NO interference) to pulling out fragments...
Also decided, while Dan is occupied, to send a Brigade to Pagan and a Brigade to Marcus. These units should raise the AS to such a point as make holding these islands much more reliable. The Marcus Brigade will exchange itself for several fragments sitting there.
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:55 pm
by Mistmatz
I feel atoll house rules are needed in the current WitP incarnation but a specific number of troops, doubled for the attacker could hold forever if behind decent forts. Well at least unless it's totally cut off. Not sure if this is practical gamewise with WitP as it is now.
Guess I'm just another guy waiting for the joys of AE... [:)]
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 7:57 pm
by MrPlow9
I can barely comprehend the amount of work and effort put into this AAR. Thank you for all the months of entertainment you and Dan have provided me with throughout this epic game (I started late but read pretty much continuously for hours until I caught up, I was that addicted!). Both of you deserve a toast of Sake, well maybe not for Dan, that might be a morale destroyer, maybe whiskey would better suffice for him[:)]. If this may be the last "decisive battle" for the Nihon Kaigun, I know that whatever the outcome, you have played one of the best japanese games I have ever read (well maybe not the economy [:D])
Godspeed and Goodluck! [&o]
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:14 pm
by John 3rd
Mister PLOW 9---Thank was a very kind thing to say! I appreciate the commentary and thought.
In my other Campaign, I sent a comment to the other players that perhaps we need a HR on the subject of atolls. In the spirit of continuing to grow the conversation regarding other topics, Steve (in our 2x2 First Team AAR) sent the following proposal for atoll attacks in our game:
[font="arial"]with no mechanism to automatically increase disruption, fatigue and supply useage/wastage if you overstack how would it work?[/font][/align] [/align] [font="arial"]
As for force levels:[/font][/align] [font="arial"]
ATOLLS (port size+airfield size)x2= 000's e.g. (1+ 2)x2 = 6000 [/font][/align] [font="arial"]
ISLANDS - how to differentiate between small and large (as AE does)? [/font][/align] [font="arial"] or (port+airfield) x5 = 000's[/font][/align] [font="arial"]
above sizes are based upto SPS - overbuild doesn't give you more.[/font][/align] [/align] [font="arial"]
I haven't looked at typical bases yet to see if the above makes sense, just threw it into the discussion[/font][/align] [/align] [font="arial"]
The max fort level of 6 for Atolls is something that we might agree on
We would enjoy a discussion on this topic to hammer out a realistic House Rule that might be usable for ourselves and others.
[/font][/align]
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 8:16 pm
by FeurerKrieg
ORIGINAL: Mistmatz
I feel atoll house rules are needed in the current WitP incarnation but a specific number of troops, doubled for the attacker could hold forever if behind decent forts. Well at least unless it's totally cut off. Not sure if this is practical gamewise with WitP as it is now.
Guess I'm just another guy waiting for the joys of AE... [:)]
I hope you are right (I play as Japan)! Forts is the key and at least on the CHS map, with our HR - I'm hard pressed to find any atoll that supports more than level 4 forts. Kwaj is only 4, maybe Truk is 5, but that's it.
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:04 pm
by John 3rd
I think placing a limit on Forts in Big B would be OK. What number would be decent?
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:11 pm
by FeurerKrieg
Our fort limit is the two SBS numbers added together, with a minimum of 1 fort for places that are 0/0.
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 9:26 pm
by Mistmatz
I agree Feurer, introducing a max fort level in addition to the amount of men is probably the most feasible way to deal with the problem in current WitP. Good thought.
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:50 pm
by Big B
For what it's worth (not much) I'm not sure introducing a HR on fort limits for atolls is the way to go.
1) I can't think of an historical example of not allowing concrete & steel re-enforced bunkers, and entrenchments to be built if you want to expend the effort.
2) If there is to be a desirable limit on atoll defenses - I would think a maximum garrison limit would be more in order...I mean you couldn't realistically maintain 1,000,000 troops on a 1 square mile atoll - there are physical limits to such a confined space.
My 2c anyway
B
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I think placing a limit on Forts in Big B would be OK. What number would be decent?
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:50 am
by JeffroK
I would agree with Bg B, the effect of forts is relative to the number of troops.
IMHO, a workable limit on the amount of supply & fuel allowed would limit the number opf troops unless you ran a continuous line of OK to them.
My understanding is the "wastage" doesnt work in WITP and this is an AE improvement.
Also IMVHO, ground combat work out OK in WITP, of course it has problems but often players expect a 1 day battle to sort things out.
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 1:41 am
by vettim89
ORIGINAL: Big B
For what it's worth (not much) I'm not sure introducing a HR on fort limits for atolls is the way to go.
1) I can't think of an historical example of not allowing concrete & steel re-enforced bunkers, and entrenchments to be built if you want to expend the effort.
2) If there is to be a desirable limit on atoll defenses - I would think a maximum garrison limit would be more in order...I mean you couldn't realistically maintain 1,000,000 troops on a 1 square mile atoll - there are physical limits to such a confined space.
My 2c anyway
B
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I think placing a limit on Forts in Big B would be OK. What number would be decent?
AH, Master Brian appears [&o], Sensai. Like many things in WITP, the designers seemed to take the extreme cases rather than the average. Most historians consider the invasion of Betio to be an object lesson for how NOT to do an amphibious assault. Even though it was touch an go through the first day an casualties were considered to be beyond the acceptable limit, the whole battle lasted three days with complete annilation of the Japanese garrison. The fortifications at Tarawa were the best the Japanese constructed on any atoll. Point being that it is pure fantasy to have any sizable battle last for weeks on an atoll. It was just geographically impossible. The first battle of Wake Island was over in a day. Once the IJN realize they had not brought enough, the quickly withdrew. One of the PTO games I playe had this in it: if the assualting force became combat ineffective, it loaded back up on the transports automatically. If you cannot overwhelm the defenses of an atoll in short order you have no choice. It is not possible to maintain 20 k or moretroops on a beach head for more than a few days.
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 3:01 am
by Big B
Then perhaps we should think in terms of limiting troops involved...you may eat now, if you are hungry...
ORIGINAL: vettim89
ORIGINAL: Big B
For what it's worth (not much) I'm not sure introducing a HR on fort limits for atolls is the way to go.
1) I can't think of an historical example of not allowing concrete & steel re-enforced bunkers, and entrenchments to be built if you want to expend the effort.
2) If there is to be a desirable limit on atoll defenses - I would think a maximum garrison limit would be more in order...I mean you couldn't realistically maintain 1,000,000 troops on a 1 square mile atoll - there are physical limits to such a confined space.
My 2c anyway
B
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I think placing a limit on Forts in Big B would be OK. What number would be decent?
AH, Master Brian appears [&o], Sensai. Like many things in WITP, the designers seemed to take the extreme cases rather than the average. Most historians consider the invasion of Betio to be an object lesson for how NOT to do an amphibious assault. Even though it was touch an go through the first day an casualties were considered to be beyond the acceptable limit, the whole battle lasted three days with complete annilation of the Japanese garrison. The fortifications at Tarawa were the best the Japanese constructed on any atoll. Point being that it is pure fantasy to have any sizable battle last for weeks on an atoll. It was just geographically impossible. The first battle of Wake Island was over in a day. Once the IJN realize they had not brought enough, the quickly withdrew. One of the PTO games I playe had this in it: if the assualting force became combat ineffective, it loaded back up on the transports automatically. If you cannot overwhelm the defenses of an atoll in short order you have no choice. It is not possible to maintain 20 k or moretroops on a beach head for more than a few days.
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 5:33 am
by castor troy
ORIGINAL: Big B
For what it's worth (not much) I'm not sure introducing a HR on fort limits for atolls is the way to go.
1) I can't think of an historical example of not allowing concrete & steel re-enforced bunkers, and entrenchments to be built if you want to expend the effort.
2) If there is to be a desirable limit on atoll defenses - I would think a maximum garrison limit would be more in order...I mean you couldn't realistically maintain 1,000,000 troops on a 1 square mile atoll - there are physical limits to such a confined space.
My 2c anyway
B
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I think placing a limit on Forts in Big B would be OK. What number would be decent?
While I guess atoll combat in AE will be overall better than in WITP I have to agree with BigB here. As long as the atoll doesn´t sink under the weight of your forts [;)] you should be able to build a level 99 fort on an atoll. How much supplies and engineers it takes is another question. If you want to make an atoll one big pillbox, why not. Will it help you? I don´t know. When I think about the Nazi flak bunkers in Germany and Austria, why shouldn´t you be able to build something like that on an atoll if you have room for it. And those bunkers are indestructable, there were several tries to destroy them after the war (with explosives INSIDE the bunkers) but not even that worked.
RE: Wake Landings!
Posted: Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:38 am
by John 3rd
BRIAN!