Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

keep in mind here that even after you take the base...you'll also have to spend time "mopping up" since Japanese troops dont surrender en-masse. It took me over 3 weeks to completely clear Saipan in one playtest 'after' i'd taken the base (and that was with alot of support attacks)

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

WitP is primarily a naval forces game. Very little focus is given to ground combat. It's the same with UV. Which is fine, it's still a great game, but the modeling of ground combat is not its strong point.

Thats pretty much completely wrong [:D]

Ground combat is probably more then a 3rd of the game now. The majority of your Victory Points will come from how you do at ground combat.

Ships just get you where you need to be to fight, they are no longer the primary score like in UV days.

That is exactly why because I'm disappointed to see how quick Japanese garnisons are crushed in 44-45 in the AAR available on this forum.

And you're right to point I speak from my UV experience. My WITP loading is now 93%, so I should be more clever in my some days (I just hope to be able to stop playing for work and maybe some sleep). But I am afraid that 1943-and-later PBEM will simply be impossible as the Japanese bases will be unable to hold against any attack for more than two days.

Seeing 60 000 Japanese take 2 months to crush 40 000 men holding Manilla is OK for me, but seeing 100 000 Marines land on Tarawa in 3 days isn't.

My main concern is the hability of Allied attacks to reduce forts level from 9 (the "best in the world" type) to 0 in some days. All my WWII knowledge shows that fortified areas were really hard nuts to crack.

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Keep in mind, a full division is about 8,000 troops. To that are about 25,000 rear area folks supporting in.

In reality, only the 8,000 boys would be coming ashore to fight. The support guys would be doing their usual jobs.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

troop limits for small landmasses was discussed however it was dropped due to other priorities, not to mention it was hard to come to any kind of consensus as to "what" limit should be enforced....more so given that it is simply impossible and unfeasible to try to represent land masses (i.e. Atolls) with different or unique requirements. The game is too large for such nicities.

So you have bases like Midway which are obviously very small but also have larger atolls and whole islands as well. The Japanese did a good job stuffing a division+ on Tarawa and Saipan, and Okinawa packed 100,000 troops within a smaller sector of the landmass (and under it)

Where does one draw the line? It also would have required a morass of testing, especially with the new LCU rules in place. Given how potentially bloody atoll combat can be, the attacker is going to want at least a 5:1 edge in troopage and firepower.

Any "restrictions" or stacking limits on an island or atoll would have required a seperate stacking rule for the attacker, otherwise you'd have little chance to take them.

Rather than look at the troop levels that are being employed, i think a simpler solution to potential game-exploits vis-a-vis amphibious operations would be to re-examine the 'objective' tab functionality.

ORIGINAL: Banquet

Didn't I read somewhere that the A.I looks for your weak spots? If you emptied half the map defending where they were next going to attack, wouldn't it then find all your newly created weak spots? (at last on hard difficulty - where it gets to peak at your bases) Ot am I being overly optimistic? Otherwise what does 'looks for weak spots' mean?

ORIGINAL: Banquet

That's a shame. In my first try at the full campaign I remember sending units from Kuantan to strengthen Khota Bharu when the Japs attacked. After nearly emptying Kuantan the Japs attacked it.. I was hoping that was an example of the AI being clever, but maybe it was just a coincidence..

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I mentioned this before but the thread appears to have died without comment due to the busy message board. Is anyone else struck by the fact that ground combat in the game is far too quickly resolved?

If you have two identical units in clear terrain without forts, then the attacker will always win on day one of the combat if he simply shock attacks (assault values are doubled for shock attacks). I cannot for the life of me understand why the attacker is favored so heavily in this game. WWII combats usually required at a minimum 3-1 odds or better to launch a successful assault, I can think of no examples where 1-1 odds were always victorious.

I do understand the need to simulate Japans early expansion, but how many AAR’s have talked about the 'titanic' [8|] two day struggle to capture Bataan or Singapore. I mean common, these were some of the worst case tactical situations possible for the defenders and they still managed to hold out for months historically. Why is no one worried about how quickly these locations seem to fall in every game discussed so far?

How on earth will Japan be able to hold out for 4 years after their initial expansion if each battle only takes a few days to resolve? Combat in the Pacific was a grueling attrition war that sometimes lasted for months. I see no way to get any disputed hex to last for more than maybe a week with our current rules.

If the defender has 9 forts it may take about 5-9 days for the attacker to reduce those forts, and then boom it’s all over. Defensive advantage is non-existent in the current combat system, as long as the attacker uses airpower and costal bombardments then the defenders will probably give up within a couple days of fighting.

If some people prefer simple and quick ground combats, then how about giving those of us who wish to see historically long attrition campaigns, a game options toggle that increases the 2-1 victory rule to 5-1 or even 8-1. It would be all that is required to extend the ground combats from a few days to a few weeks or months. We may even see some Japanese units forced to withdraw and rebuild after the PI or Malaya campaigns, or the same for the 1st Marines after Guadalcanal.

Jim

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Well, I can't say my experience has been the same, but certainly we'll keep an eye on this. In my current retail release grand campaign, I've been holding at Rangoon, Johore Baru and Bataan for around three months. Ongoing attrition, deliberate and shock attacks, outnumbered in each place at least 2:1... terrain is definitely taken into account, as are HQs, supplies, disruption, fatigue, etc. Joel, Mike or one of the testers could probably add more to this, but from my own experience those long historical stands are definitely possible.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

WitP is primarily a naval forces game. Very little focus is given to ground combat. It's the same with UV. Which is fine, it's still a great game, but the modeling of ground combat is not its strong point.

Thats pretty much completely wrong [:D]

Ground combat is probably more then a 3rd of the game now. The majority of your Victory Points will come from how you do at ground combat.

Ships just get you where you need to be to fight, they are no longer the primary score like in UV days.

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

At a guess i'd say people are taking my "2day major assault" battles and isolating them from rest of the battle. (when they're looking at the AAR i did at least)

ORIGINAL: captskillet

I haven't noticed this too much either. Sinapore held out until middle of Jan 42 and it is now early Feb and Clark Field, Manila and Battan still in American hands.

ORIGINAL: Black Cat

I do think and with all due respect Jim, it`s unlikely the sitution you set up as example ,i.e. " equal numbers" and "no forts" will happen much.