Why all of the off map areas?

[jwilkerson]

When I was testing with the Allies, the most useful thing about the offmap areas was being about to move stuff between them. No more convoys through the Tasmanian Sea as the only way to send US planes to CBI. Just move them to a US off map port and then move them directly to Capetown or Aden - then pick them up and move them where you want them. Saves a lot of time and hassel.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: pad152

I played the CHS mod for WITP, and off map area for British forces coming into India made sense but, Panama didn't! I mean just have stuff show up on the west cost of the US/Canada a week later.

In the AE manual I see off map areas for the Soviet Union, Eastern Canada, Eastern US, Monbasa, Cap Town, Port Stanley, plus others. I just don't see the reason for most of these and forcing the player to moving troops, ships, supplies, etc. not only across the pacific but, also move them to/from all these other off map places seems like a bit. What the pacific map wasn't big enough, there wasn't enough already for the player to do? What is the purpose of these? What does this add to the game other than waste player time?

Andy mac has already given a lot of answers, but one of the main reasons for having the off-map bases is to provide a flexible way for the Allies to move forces between theatres (e.g. to/from the CBI, from other areas of the map) just as they had in Real Life. Firstly, movement "off" the map is done via the actual map edges, not bases near the map edges. This is more realistic. To provide the flexibility, there are off-map bases that are relatively close to each of the separate map edges. So TFs can move to these "nearby" off-map bases, then be moved to any one of the other map edges (via their "nearby" off-map bases) as the Allied player wishes.

For example, if the Allies wish to move ships to the US East coast for repair, then move them back to the map, then they can choose to send the TF to the US West Coast via Panama, then the Western map edge, or to the CBI via Cape Town, then the Eastern map edge. The existence of the Panama bases and the Cape Town base, apart from the reasons Andy Mac has given, also allow direct transfer between them, instead of having to travel to/from the US East coast. So that is another aspect of the flexibility. None of this flexibility would be possible if there were only, say, a US East coast base, and not the other ones.

I hope that makes some sort of sense?

Andrew

[Rob322]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

When I was testing with the Allies, the most useful thing about the offmap areas was being about to move stuff between them. No more convoys through the Tasmanian Sea as the only way to send US planes to CBI. Just move them to a US off map port and then move them directly to Capetown or Aden - then pick them up and move them where you want them. Saves a lot of time and hassel.

I like that idea right there. It always felt both fast and gamey (even though it was working as intended) when you had a LCU in the US and you changed it's HQ to Southeast Asia and the unit reappeared in Karachi 60 days later.

Besides, if you want to get down to it, this game is already ludicrously detailed as it is, a little more honestly isn't going to harm much IMO. The player has always had more direct control over the decisions of all the various elements of the war than ANY of the commanders (up to and including the politicians) ever had.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: pad152
The player now has to worry about refueling ships in the Atlantic and the Med, are you kidding?

You don't need to worry about refuelling ships moving between off-map bases. Ships get to do this without using up fuel (they are considered to be refuelling from sources that are not otherwise represented in the game, and besides, it would otherwise be a hassle as you suggest). Ships DO use fuel moving on or off the map though, so they won't appear at a map edge fully fuelled.

Do auto convoys (AI control) even work for moving stuff between these areas?

Yes, at least for moving to/from the map itself. I don't know why anyone would want to set up an auto convoy between two off-map bases. Most of them generate their own supplies.

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Japanese players could use the map edges with the stock map and even Andrew's extended map to isolate Australia. Capture of Exmouth (Australia) and then either NZ or the Society Islands would make this happen. Many Allied players have lost shipping due to the restrictions of the current map edges. IMO, this will take away those possibilities and make for a more balanced game.   

Yes, that was one of the considerations. This was especially true for the Indian Ocean. The off-map movement system removes this "map edge" problem (although the larger map helps as well).

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc
The off map areas doesn't rid us of the map edge problem...just narrows it down. It works both ways though...allows your opponents to set ambushes in select locations but allows you to patrol those same concentrated areas. Just my two cents...

To minimise this as much as possible, we don't use the same system that was used for the CHS map. The map edge zones for allowing ships to move to/from the map cover almost the entire map edge. There are no "channels" that connect to the map, allowing Japanese TFs to lurk near the channel entrances. To ambush moves from off-map, the Japanese TFs would have to cover pretty much the entire map edge.

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: sven6345789
btw, aren't there some scheduled convoys coming into capetown and other cities from time to time? thought i saw a screenshot a few months ago showing such a convoy (turned into a base force or something like that after unloading, but i am not sure).

Yes there are. The reason we added "convoys" was to have a way to add supplies to the off-map bases in an irregular way. Having a constant amount of supplies added every day (using a Daily Supply value for the base) doesn't allow for the possibility of having a small flow of supplies early in the war, and a large flow later.

Do the u-boats make trouble? (like getting a small chance of system damage while on the way to britain? Not that i want it in, but would be interesting.

I don't think so, although I would have to get the Navy team to answer. There may be a small chance of damage when travelling off-map.

I wanted to add the U-boats themselves - not off-map, but the ones that were operating in the Pacific ocean. But I was outvoted on that one [:)]

Is my guess correct that major british warships released for the pacific become available in Great Britain at the time released historically?

Not really. Most will appear in Cape Town (or later, Aden) as it is assumed that they will be going to the Indian Ocean, and this removes one off-map move for each ship. If players really want to send them to the Pacific instead, then they can always move them to Panama from these entry points.

The main reason for having the UK base is to provide some shipyard capability for the British. It is not useful as a staging base or supply source. It won't be used much in the game.

Andrew

[Fallschirmjager]

How many of these new bases get automatic supplies of supplies and fuel each turn?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

How many of these new bases get automatic supplies of supplies and fuel each turn?

All of them in varying amounts, except for Port Stanley (Falklands). The only reason Port Stanley is there is to help with movement to/from the South Pacific (via Cape Horn). There is no real reason for the Allies to use that route, but it is there in case they really want to use it.

Andrew

[TheTomDude]

So the allied AI will use the "off-map-zones" to send it's ships and/or troops the other way around the globe? I.e. US troops/ships to India or British troops/ships to the Aleutians?

[JeffroK]

TheTomDude,
 
As the North west Passage hasnt opened, it becomes a long trip to get the Brits into Alaska [8D]
 
I see the advantage of the off map bases in that I am not forced by historical references, into sending my US forces into the Pacific or my British Forces into India.
 
It allows a number of approaches, all of which must be guarded against.

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: pad152
... you might as well place troops on the moon ...

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Naw - those moonie divisions have a very poor combat record.

Couldn't adjust to the gravity of the situation? [:D]

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc
The off map areas doesn't rid us of the map edge problem...just narrows it down. It works both ways though...allows your opponents to set ambushes in select locations but allows you to patrol those same concentrated areas. Just my two cents...

To minimise this as much as possible, we don't use the same system that was used for the CHS map. The map edge zones for allowing ships to move to/from the map cover almost the entire map edge. There are no "channels" that connect to the map, allowing Japanese TFs to lurk near the channel entrances. To ambush moves from off-map, the Japanese TFs would have to cover pretty much the entire map edge.

Andrew

To clarify here...

You have a TF in Cape Town. Most of the "west" edge of the map connects to Cape Town.

So you order the TF in Cape Town to Columbo. In XX days it will arrive on map on the "west" edge at hex X#, Y# and proceed to Columbo.

However had you ordered the same TF to Perth, it may arrive on map on the "west" edge in YY days (instead of XX) at hex X$, Y$ (instead of hex X#, Y#) and proceed to Perth.

Since the entire edge is in play as an entry point it is almost pointless to try and set up the so called traps that were prevalent in CHS.

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

When I was testing with the Allies, the most useful thing about the offmap areas was being about to move stuff between them. No more convoys through the Tasmanian Sea as the only way to send US planes to CBI. Just move them to a US off map port and then move them directly to Capetown or Aden - then pick them up and move them where you want them. Saves a lot of time and hassel.

I don't have an issue with moving stuff to/from the UK but, the off limit areas that can't be attack or intercepted I don't think is the answer, having multiple entry/exit hexes where convoys arrive or exit to/from the UK would have been a better solution.

Allowing the allied player to move forces from one side of the map to the other with zero chance of attack or intercept without using the map just seems gamey. How is this not a big advantage to the allied player? Forcing both players to use the same map should be the way to go.

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

ps 30 minutes with the editor and you can move everything that arrives there to arrive on map I would strongly recoommend removing about 40% of the allied shipping if you do btut thats your choice

I don't see how this prevents the allied player from moving forces without risk from one side of the map to the other.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: pad152



Allowing the allied player to move forces from one side of the map to the other with zero chance of attack or intercept without using the map just seems gamey. How is this not a big advantage to the allied player? Forcing both players to use the same map should be the way to go.

They aren't moving from one side of the map to the other, they're going the long way around the world. Even as a sometimes-JFB I have to admit there's no real opportunity for an IJN intercept in mid-Atlantic [:D]

[Grotius]

Even as a sometimes-JFB I have to admit there's no real opportunity for an IJN intercept in mid-Atlantic

I suppose he means that Allied ships could be hunted by U-Boats in the Atlantic or some such.

I usually play Japan, but I'm not worried about it. I think the off-map movement system looks cool.

[Andrew Brown]

Allowing the allied player to move forces from one side of the map to the other with zero chance of attack or intercept without using the map just seems gamey. How is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

Off-map movement is simulating the ability for the Allies to move forces between Pacific theatres via the Atlantic, without fear of interception by the Japanese along the way. I do not believe that this is gamey. It was common for them to do this in reality, such as moving US forces to the CBI. In fact this AE feature replaces the existing CBI transfer feature in the current game.

One could argue that there should be a chance of interception by U-boats - and this was discussed during development - but I don't think it is necessary to model this specifically, as I do not think there were many successful interceptions of Pacific-bound Allied warships or troop carrying convoys in the Atlantic by U-boats.

Note that the off-map movement data is stored in external files, not built into the game code, so modders could change or eliminate this feature if they wanted to.

Andrew

[TheTomDude]

ORIGINAL: TheTomDude

So the allied AI will use the "off-map-zones" to send it's ships and/or troops the other way around the globe? I.e. US troops/ships to India or British troops/ships to the Aleutians?

Sorry to bring it up again but my question has not been answered yet. Anyone?

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: erstad

ORIGINAL: pad152



Allowing the allied player to move forces from one side of the map to the other with zero chance of attack or intercept without using the map just seems gamey. How is this not a big advantage to the allied player? Forcing both players to use the same map should be the way to go.

They aren't moving from one side of the map to the other, they're going the long way around the world. Even as a sometimes-JFB I have to admit there's no real opportunity for an IJN intercept in mid-Atlantic [:D]

In Witp if you wanted to get ships to India or Australia from the west coast of the US they had to sail across the map but, now in AE you can used the magical off map transport system where ships can't spotted or attacked, how is that not an advantage to the allied player? The allied player could send a carrier battle group or half the fleet this way. This makes the strategy of trying to cut off supplies to Australia mood, because the Allies can send everything through the magical back door.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: TheTomDude

ORIGINAL: TheTomDude

So the allied AI will use the "off-map-zones" to send it's ships and/or troops the other way around the globe? I.e. US troops/ships to India or British troops/ships to the Aleutians?

Sorry to bring it up again but my question has not been answered yet. Anyone?

Dude,
Very few of us can answer your question except to say its possible, who knows how the AI will work?

Everyone else,
How about waiting for the release before working out exactly how it works?