Matrix Games Forums

I just can't wrap my head around his fixation on this issue.

Tristandacuhnaphobia?

[:)]

If I may chime in...

Pad152,

As far as I can tell, all the concerns you have exist in stock WITP with its abstraction of forces arriving from off map. That was a more abstracted, but otherwise identical system. In some cases, it actually required reinforcements arriving in on-map locations without having to transit from off-map. I think the new off-map system actually increases realism for the on-map part of the game.

As far as what's going on off-map, I'm not sure I'm clear on why it's hard to believe that given all the assets and bases the Allies had off-map, that they would have any problem refueling or escorting these ships once they are off-map up until they return to an on-map area. If you didn't have a problem with off-map reinforcements transiting these bases in WITP (without you seeing it or being able to control it) then I don't see why this would bother you. The distances and transit times are realistic and the Allied off-map assets were realistically enough to handle the rest.

Regards,

- Erik

Pad,

Perhaps another way of looking at this situation is via House rules. House rules don't simply exist to counter perceived "flaws" in a wargame but also exist to enforce existing historical situations that were deliberate choices on the part of certain participants. My impression here from your concerns is that your worried that a major USA based effort will "circumvent" the Pacific and attack Japan from a rear door. Ok.

Consider though.....dispensing with all other arguments, including supply and support required, and debate over narrow vs. wide front.........that what is being discussed here in regards to US coast to the Indian Ocean was limited more by politics vs. assets. The US military was dead set against any type of actions that they perceived to be supporting foreign colonialism, and this viewpoint included their closest ally, the UK. Players who wish to preserve certain historical 'flavors' will still find reasons for house rules whether AE or WitP original. A simple rule that forbids a major US committment of LCU/air/sea strength outside of what was done historically would solve the major part of your concern.

For those who wish greater political freedoms......you can utilize the off map areas to do this, but there are built in delays on arrivals and the logistical situation remains. Neglect of other Theaters in favor of such a strategy also means that the Japan player is more free to pursue their own strategy. In RL for example, Burma and the Indian Ocean were backwater areas....under a new situation, that might change resulting in entirely new dyanmics. Given the improvement of logistics overalll in AE, you may find this is harder to pull off than you fear.

ORIGINAL: TalonCG2

[&:]

This guy can't be for real. He has to just be a forum troll looking to make trouble and aggravate people.

Every question (in all of their multiple forms asking the same thing over and over) he has asked has been answered and explained left right and sideways.

If I wind up playing as the Japanese in AE, I hope the allied player does choose to move a large portion of his forces "off map" the long way around. Each unit he decides to send that way will be out of my hair for 60 days or more! How is that an advantage to the allied player? The unit will be safer, but it will be gone, untouchable by the allied player for a much longer period of time. It's a trade off.

I just can't wrap my head around his fixation on this issue. It's like a car wreck. You don't want to see it, but you can't look away.[8|]

pad has been a part of this forum for a long time and has been an active contributor. I hesitate to label him a troll at this time. Even if the incessant posting of the same thing over and over again is a little over the top.

Semper Fi,
Lee

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc
pad has been a part of this forum for a long time and has been an active contributor. I hesitate to label him a troll at this time. Even if the incessant posting of the same thing over and over again is a little over the top.

Semper Fi,
Lee

agreed. There are certain people posting on this subforum recently who've never even owned and played the game in all it's years on the market, yet are being given consideration without such accusation being thrown at em. Pad's concerns don't make him a troll.

Actually, in general I find Pad's posts to be very insightful - the fact that his posts often stir up the AE team is proof that he can find the corner cases.

I don't happen to think the AE off map movement system is a bad thing - I think it is a good thing. But Pad is certainly entitled to his opinion. [:)]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

pad has been a part of this forum for a long time and has been an active contributor. I hesitate to label him a troll at this time. Even if the incessant posting of the same thing over and over again is a little over the top.

Semper Fi,
Lee

Granted, perhaps the label of troll is a bit harsh. However, no one can deny that his behavior has been a bit "trollish" at least in this thread.

Apologies if any offense was given.[&o]

ORIGINAL: TheTomDude

Let's see if he can make it to 10 pages with the same questions over and over and over again. [8|]
Put question -> ignore answers -> copy /paste questions -> ignore answers -> copy /paste questions ->ignore answers -> copy /paste questions ...

I think we are dealing with a mild to serious case of OCD here. I'm talking seriously.

All his doubts have been answered - in detail and with historical examples. If he is unable to elaborate them there is nothing it can be done from our part, and it's time to move on.

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Right, I've asked the rest of the AE team to get back to work. I'd be happy to answer any remaining questions about the off map areas.
.....
If there are further questions - please ask away!
[:)]

Okey Dokey... If you send your task force around the world through the off site network, will the ships still suffer maintenance hits to systems that they normally get on map after a while? NOT Combat damage, but normal
maintenance hits. If they're gone 256 days I'm sure some maintenance hits will take place....Hope that's different enough for yall. And JW and Nik get back to yer AAR.[:D]
[:D][:D]

Damage is one thing, but supply/fuel is quite another. Just suppose for example that an off-map case is just 10 hexes off-map. When these units become on-map, are they both completely shiney new -and- completely fueled/supplied up? Now you might explain the completely full with the fuel example as being part of off-map and therefore not a concern, as indeed you could do with escorts, that's if they turned back, but you can't do that with the very same ships which are now on-map. This naturally may not be worth the time and effort to make it work like this, but if I understand pad's objection, the fleets are coming in as if the off-map location was actually better than literally one hex just off the map. For even if the off-map location were literally just one hex away, it would still cost something to get to that first on-map hex. The way around that, sticking to fuel for a moment, would be to calculate just how far off map the last base they stopped for re-fueling is, and then deduct that from the capacity they will have when they beam in on-map.

Another problem as well, which I think is more inline with his complaint. Suppose one of the off-map hubs, if not all, have a limited supply/fuel store. It would not be possible to use such a base for a massive re-deployment and it not cost a considerably heavier amount of time for the buildup due to not regularly having enough capacity for such a move. If the allies didn't manage such a move from an off-map location, it may very well have to do with what was sent always being much more gradual, or that they weren't sent to such a large extent because the bases didn't have that sort of capacity. Of course, if all the bases are uber-bases, then this shouldn't be a problem, but I doubt that's the case.

So historically, if you have a fleet which IRL would had showed up at the first on-map location as half depleted of fuel, as opposed to being completely full, that's a 'bonus' to the Pacific that wasn't really there, as the base which will later re-fuel them has far less fuel it has to spend to get them fueled up again.

I think somebody mentioned earlier that you will have some ships show up with 'some' damage, which they should have, but I'm not sure that also means the fuel and supply levels are also accounted for.

When the ships "appear" in the off-map boxes, is fuel deducted to move them onto the map depending on how far away the box is to the edge of the map?  Also, is there a delay from when they are moved out of the off-map box onto the map to simulate the time taken to transit to the edge of the map?

I'm not sure of that myself, but not accounting for fuel loss, therefore having them topped off, sounds pretty likely.

Fuel I have no problem with...

But can the holding box have the same die roll to chance system damage just like a TF underway does?

ORIGINAL: pad152

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: pad152
Andrew, stated this can be fixed by the player with the editor (removing/disable some of this map movement), I hope that's true. I'm just surprised that this is even in AE, it seems like such an advantage to the allied player. I think both players should be forced to move their forces on the same map.

It really isn't such a huge advantage. The offmap trip the long way around to Australia is very long. In the first year or so the Allies are going to find merchant ships tight. Especially long haul merchant ships. When we were testing moving supplies from Cape Town to India, Allied players found that while doable, it sucked up most of their longest range merchant ships. The haul to Australia from Cape Town is even further than India with very little in the way of bases to stop and get a refill.

Unless the Japanese have occupied the entire South Pacific, it is always much more economical for the Allies to ship supplies to Australia hooking south of Japanese possessions in the Central and South Pacific.

I have played AE as the Allies and I didn't see your concerns as a serious consideration. In the real world the Allies could ship supplies and troops via the southern route around Africa. They did it very little for the same reasons the Allies don't do it much in AE. It's a very long trip and very taxing on your limited resources.

The Allies don't have the bounty of merchies and supplies they had in WitP. At least not in 1942. Tying up all your valuable long range merchant ships on world cruises just to avoid the occasional Japanese sub is a foolish choice and an Allied player who does it will likely end up in worse shape down the line because a lot less supply is getting to Australia than would make it with the on map route.

If it takes twice the time and twice the fuel to go the long way (I haven't counted hexes, but that's a rough guess), you will be delivering half the cargo to Australia than using the on map route. If you want to move something from the eastern Pacific (near or in the US) to the Indian Ocean, it might be reasonable to do, but it's going to be costly in time and effort.

You have the disadvantage of not having played the game. It really isn't as bad as you think.

Bill

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

How can this not, be a big advantage to the allies?

I am very disappointed with Matrix Games and the AE Team. We have been told repeatedly that there would be no Open Beta and no Evaluation Copies distributed but it obvious that Pad 152 has gotten his copy and evaluated the game very closely. Through his hours of playing and reviewing how the game operates he has come up with some darn good conclusions. I am just surprised that it had to be voiced here as I would think there would be a secret forum for the Open Beta Team. Alas, I wasn't even asked. Man I miss out on everything

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
These are all done by ships that did not see action in the Pacific theatre - they were just used to get the stuff to the Middle East or South Africa. Now if you want to track all that stuff, then you need to give the allies ALL the shipping that was used in the Atlantic as well. Is this what you want?

I think so. If we add the Atlantic fleets in we might as well add in the German U-Boats. Why have an off-map area, we can just put the routes through Panama and to England in and let the Japanese control the U-boats. Hmmm...this might cause a problem as Atlantic ships were historically needed for offensives against Germany and to keep the war going there.

Hmmmm....we better have the Allied player run D-Day so that this works correctly along with the bombing campaigns against the Reich and the Battle of the Med so that we can accurately limit the use of Allied shipping. Better let the Japanese player run the Italian and German air defenses too and recreate the battles in North Africa. Unfortunately this means that the Germans will unhistorically want to use forces that were sent to Russia....well, there's nothing for it but to run the Russian front too.

New problem, now we have to have a fairly arbitrary start on the Russian front in 1941. We better move the game start date back to the invasion of Russia though we could more accurately start it from the invasion of Poland. Hmmm....still, this may be an oversimplification. After all, it's quite possible the various powers might have had different alignments had things gone a little differently. I think we need a political module to track the changes in nation's relationships from 1935 or so.

Even then, we're diminishing the importance of World War I and how actions there could have effected available resources. I'm afraid there's no solution except to fight it out too using an expanded WITP engine.....

Well, AE team, get on the case. [;)]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

. . . but it obvious that Pad 152 has gotten his copy and evaluated the game very closely.

[:D]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

And since most of you probably have not been around long enough to remember that game - I'll briefly describe it. This game - called WITP (War in the Pacific) came out in 1978 (IIRC). It was 60 mile hexes, divisional scale (with regiments), 10 plane "air points" individual ships down to cruiser, pairs for DD, etc. But this was a huge game - and had full production system on both sides - etc. Obviously one of the inspirations for the 2by3/Matrix edition over 20 years later.

Oh, man, I loved that game! Although the level of bookkeeping - all done with pen&paper or various charts/displays - would seem unbelievable to anyone who thinks Witp has a lot of micromanagement. How can you not love a game that fills an entire ping-pong table - overlaid with several 4x8 sheets of plywood because a ping-pong table just wasn't big enough! (not counting the various auxiliary tables to keep all the charts/displays on)

ORIGINAL: erstad

How can you not love a game that fills an entire ping-pong table - overlaid with several 4x8 sheets of plywood because a ping-pong table just wasn't big enough! (not counting the various auxiliary tables to keep all the charts/displays on)

Someone needs to computerize Europa. It takes up the bulk of my 37' x 23' downstairs family room. [:D]

Well, there's Computer War in Europe - originally the SPI version of the ETO in WW2.

http://www.decisiongames.com/wwii/europe/europe.htm

Recently revised and revamped to run under windows. I still have the earlier DOS version somewhere.

Steve.

I didnt say War in Europe. I said Europa.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(wargame)