Matrix Games Forums

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.

Well, I'd say that, actually, isolating Australia is a good strategy, because at the very least it decreases the frequency with which the allied player can supply Australia, by increasing the distance between the USA ports and the Australian ones. This simply puts that blocking strategy at the value it should have had from the beginning, because IRL the Allies could ship as much as they wanted to Australia through the West route, without fear of being intercepted (actually, U-boats interceptions were statistically irrelevant, because Germany had not the quantity of u-boats to make a decent cover of all the routes: at their peak capacity, they had barely enough to block UK, much less would have they been able to cover all the allied supply routes).

ORIGINAL: 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.

Because they had that magical back door historically?

Globe is round. [:'(]

One question came to my mind, the ability to change LCU's HQ in West Coast and make it "magically" appear in India, for example has been removed from the game?

I would hope offmap areas would fix a lot of map edge problems that can crop up too.

Sure there were often houserules about sending KB to Aden, but it looks like you won't even need such things now.

ORIGINAL: pad152
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.

Well, you know, the world really is round, despite what the Japanese high command might wish. [:D]

I don't see much of a problem here though? I presume it would take a LONG time to sail from San Francisco eastwards to Perth, much longer than it would take to sail to Brisbane.

...and IJ could always just take or interdict Perth to be sure?

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?

I'm not sure to what extent the AI uses off-map movement to move things around. Basically it follows historical assignments of units, and is script driven rather than fully dynamic, so there wouldn't be much of this anyway. One of the AI experts may be able to provide a better answer than I can.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
One question came to my mind, the ability to change LCU's HQ in West Coast and make it "magically" appear in India, for example has been removed from the game?

Yes.

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: pad152
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.

Well, you know, the world really is round, despite what the Japanese high command might wish. [:D]

I don't see much of a problem here though? I presume it would take a LONG time to sail from San Francisco eastwards to Perth, much longer than it would take to sail to Brisbane.

...and IJ could always just take or interdict Perth to be sure?

so taking Perth 'shuts' the back door? Do you physically see the ships if theyre using off map areas to supply Oz as pad152 suggests? so if kb is on west coast of oz we can still intercept the supplies?

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
so taking Perth 'shuts' the back door? Do you physically see the ships if theyre using off map areas to supply Oz as pad152 suggests? so if kb is on west coast of oz we can still intercept the supplies?

Well, I'm not a beta tester, so I dunno - but I presumed that you would access the off map areas from a map edge?

So if you sent stuff the Atlantic route after grinding its way through the Falklands zone or whatever, your ships would appear at the leftmost map edge, somewhere west or northwest of Perth, and it wouldnt magically appear in Perth itself.

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
so taking Perth 'shuts' the back door? Do you physically see the ships if theyre using off map areas to supply Oz as pad152 suggests? so if kb is on west coast of oz we can still intercept the supplies?

Well, I'm not a beta tester, so I dunno - but I presumed that you would access the off map areas from a map edge?

So if you sent stuff the Atlantic route after grinding its way through the Falklands zone or whatever, your ships would appear at the leftmost map edge, somewhere west or northwest of Perth, and it wouldnt magically appear in Perth itself.

never presume - you know what the say about presume!!! [:'(]

i would hope it doesnt magically appear - im not usually in agreement with pad152 - but if you can theres no point in isolating Oz, or indeed shutting down the eastern supply route to it surely?

ORIGINAL: pad152

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.

The off map movement system isn't a magic carpet. You don't pop a unit in at Panama and it appears at Mombasa the next day. The travel time off map is the same length it would be if that TF was sailing on map that distance. Yes the ships are safe from attack via that route, but the units are going to be off map a while.

So the US could send it's carrier fleet to the Indian Ocean if they want to, but they will be off map for a few weeks in transit. Just as the US could have done in the real war. The US didn't for both political and strategic reasons, but it was physically possible.

Someone also asked about sending British troops to the Aleutians. If you really want to, you can, but it's going to be a heck of a long voyage, more than 3/4 of the way around the world. The only reason I can think of why anyone would want to do it would be as an experiment. In a real game it's so impractical it would be pretty boneheaded to do. I would never do it. It would weaken my already weak forces in the Far East and those units would be unavailable for more than a month.

Bill

ORIGINAL: wdolson



So the US could send it's carrier fleet to the Indian Ocean if they want to, but they will be off map for a few weeks in transit. Just as the US could have done in the real war. The US didn't for both political and strategic reasons, but it was physically possible.


Bill

but they do eventually reappear in an 'attackable' hex? not just their destination? and if this is the case - is there any reason why i just wouldnt plant a load of subs of a SCTF at the 'reappear' hex?

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
but they do eventually reappear in an 'attackable' hex? not just their destination? and if this is the case - is there any reason why i just wouldnt plant a load of subs of a SCTF at the 'reappear' hex?

Well, that is a problem, the map edge stuff isn't eliminated. If there was a range of hexes and it plonked them down in one at random that would be ideal. That way you could go off any map edge and be OK. You could keep TFs together by giving them follow orders.

Somehow I suspect that isn't how it works, though. [:(]

Boy, no matter how much effort someone puts into a game to simulate WW2 conditions there will always be one person whining because it hurts their gameplay strategy.

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
so taking Perth 'shuts' the back door? Do you physically see the ships if theyre using off map areas to supply Oz as pad152 suggests? so if kb is on west coast of oz we can still intercept the supplies?

The Allied player can, of course, see all of the Allied TFs that are currently using off-map movement, or are at an off-map base. The Japanese player does not see Allied TFs (or anything else) in the off-map areas (reflecting the level of Japanese routine surveillance in the Atlantic).

Once "off-map" TFs enter the main map via one of the map edges, they act as any other TF, so are able to be detected and intercepted.

Andrew

see post #33

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
Well, I'm not a beta tester, so I dunno - but I presumed that you would access the off map areas from a map edge?

You may not be a beta tester but you got this right.

So if you sent stuff the Atlantic route after grinding its way through the Falklands zone or whatever, your ships would appear at the leftmost map edge, somewhere west or northwest of Perth, and it wouldnt magically appear in Perth itself.

That's right. TFs will appear at the map edge, not "magically" appear at the destination port.

Regarding the hex of entry, if the Allied player just selects Perth as the destination of a TF in, say, Cape Town, the TF will enter in a fairly reliably predictable hex on the map edge, which is basically on a straight line course between Cape Town and Perth (the game uses a "virtual" hex coordinate for the Cape Town base to work out this entry hex). However it is possible to select any hex on the map as a destination, so TFs could enter on pretty much any hex of the map edge, making it virtually impossible to "blockade" the entire map edge. This was done to try to minimise "map edge" effects.

I hope that explains how it works a bit better?

Andrew

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
i would hope it doesnt magically appear - im not usually in agreement with pad152 - but if you can theres no point in isolating Oz, or indeed shutting down the eastern supply route to it surely?

That's right. no "magic" appearence at the destination base. So in the example being discussed the Alled TF moving to Perth would appear on the left map edge, and is able to be detected and attacked while moving from there to Perth.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
but they do eventually reappear in an 'attackable' hex? not just their destination? and if this is the case - is there any reason why i just wouldnt plant a load of subs of a SCTF at the 'reappear' hex?

TFs do appear at the map edge. If the Allied player does not vary their routing then TFs moving from, say, Cape Town to Perth would indeed enter the map at a fairly predictable location, but sensible Allied players would vary the routing to avoid this (and/or maybe send ASW TFs to that area?).

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Regarding the hex of entry, if the Allied player just selects Perth as the destination of a TF in, say, Cape Town, the TF will enter in a fairly reliably predictable hex on the map edge, which is basically on a straight line course between Cape Town and Perth (the game uses a "virtual" hex coordinate for the Cape Town base to work out this entry hex). However it is possible to select any hex on the map as a destination, so TFs could enter on pretty much any hex of the map edge, making it virtually impossible to "blockade" the entire map edge. This was done to try to minimise "map edge" effects.

I hope that explains how it works a bit better?

Andrew

[&o][&o]

Surely this is absolutely ideal.

Blockading Australia completely would be quite hard, but not impossible. You can sew up the west coast through various means. Thanks to Miss Betty I doubt you'd even need Perth.

Incidentally if surface combat taskforces really do hunt down opponents like I've been dreaming about surely the deep blue sea west of Australia would be a perfect spot for some cruiser raider groups - far from airfields so you dont have to worry about being bombed so much. A single cruiser taskforce would force the Allies to divert significant force to that area for little cost to Japan, really.

This presupposes that your cruiser force could react to detected enemy convoys and thus actually engage them semi-reliably on the high seas. Submarines certainly can though from what I've seen from the AARs.