Nik
Sorry I missed you last post.
regards
A Question
Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
I think your right. The challenge faced here is that the designers have to try to create an engine that can encompass a wide range of possible combat situations. Yet in many ways each campaign or battle possessed some unique factor which helped one side or the other. It makes it a very challenging issue.
I agree. Simulating the state of unreadyness present at game start and certain Japanese attributes that aided them will be a challenge. EXP and Morale penalties at startup could help though with the present system will make little difference
Going with the 'current' model, the only way i see it would be to disable a good # of the weapons/squads at start up and raise disruption levels. Its the only game-way i can think of at the moment.
Of course if supplies are plentiful they will start repairing at a rapid rate. Then there's the specific tactical setup, if you have a guadalcanal situation where one has tight lines and plentiful heavy weapons, Japanese unit, even crack outfits are going to have a tough time cracking, or at least not without severe casaulties.
Greater dynamics in Morale might help here......if morale is midling or low....and attacking EXP and Morale are high, chances of a Jap breakthrough should be better. If defender morale is high, and EXP good and entrenchments are there....then that should spell trouble.
Then there's Burma. Favorite IJA tactic there was the short, sharp and rapid flanking maneuvers which forced defenders to give up their defensive positions or be cut off from supply. Dont know how the game can sim that given the fatigue/disruption penatlies unless one is on a road hex
a problem indeed!
But i agree overall......land combat needs tweaks to make it more flexible like the air model
I agree. Simulating the state of unreadyness present at game start and certain Japanese attributes that aided them will be a challenge. EXP and Morale penalties at startup could help though with the present system will make little difference
Going with the 'current' model, the only way i see it would be to disable a good # of the weapons/squads at start up and raise disruption levels. Its the only game-way i can think of at the moment.
Of course if supplies are plentiful they will start repairing at a rapid rate. Then there's the specific tactical setup, if you have a guadalcanal situation where one has tight lines and plentiful heavy weapons, Japanese unit, even crack outfits are going to have a tough time cracking, or at least not without severe casaulties.
Greater dynamics in Morale might help here......if morale is midling or low....and attacking EXP and Morale are high, chances of a Jap breakthrough should be better. If defender morale is high, and EXP good and entrenchments are there....then that should spell trouble.
Then there's Burma. Favorite IJA tactic there was the short, sharp and rapid flanking maneuvers which forced defenders to give up their defensive positions or be cut off from supply. Dont know how the game can sim that given the fatigue/disruption penatlies unless one is on a road hex
a problem indeed!
But i agree overall......land combat needs tweaks to make it more flexible like the air model
If one considers "expirence" as a function of being able to successfully conduct tactical manuevers like flanking, encircleing, infiltration and feints, then perhaps greatly increasing the effect expirence has on combat along with a morale check that triggers rout or collaspe would be enough to slant odds appropriately.
I think the present system works realitively well in UV because both sides are pretty much equal and balanced. You wouldnt expect either side being able to get the advantage with 1:1 odds. So having manpower and supply being the determineing factor models the situation well enough for game purposes.
This will not be the case early in WitP, where skill, expirence, tactics, and morale was more determinalistic than shear numbers. Nor will it be late WitP where squad for squad the quality of efficient and effective firepower was more deterministic than shear numbers.
I think the present system works realitively well in UV because both sides are pretty much equal and balanced. You wouldnt expect either side being able to get the advantage with 1:1 odds. So having manpower and supply being the determineing factor models the situation well enough for game purposes.
This will not be the case early in WitP, where skill, expirence, tactics, and morale was more determinalistic than shear numbers. Nor will it be late WitP where squad for squad the quality of efficient and effective firepower was more deterministic than shear numbers.
I'm thinking of combination of exp, morale, and fortification level tweaks could produce adequate grounds for the needed variability.
And perhaps one last thing...already in place that will make the above not as radical in terms of needed change. That last thing is the terrain conditions. Right now in UV we basically only have one type in the forward areas......thick, malarial jungles that made movement and cohesion a nightmare.
This will not be the case in all the other theaters though Malaya comes close. Burma in some areas though i suspect most fighting will occur along established or rudimentary established communications lines. (hence the ability to flank......formations didn't stretch to far into the anterior)
Even for the areas that are, perhaps some units, based on training, exp, morale and national doctorine, can be made to suffer less disruption and fatigue allowing them to operate more effectively than seen now in UV where the jungle pretty much socks any force that attempts to march and attack. One might even consider a "speed" bonus in terms of movement allowing some units trained for say jungle warfare, to move quicker than a normal more heavily encombered unit.
And perhaps one last thing...already in place that will make the above not as radical in terms of needed change. That last thing is the terrain conditions. Right now in UV we basically only have one type in the forward areas......thick, malarial jungles that made movement and cohesion a nightmare.
This will not be the case in all the other theaters though Malaya comes close. Burma in some areas though i suspect most fighting will occur along established or rudimentary established communications lines. (hence the ability to flank......formations didn't stretch to far into the anterior)
Even for the areas that are, perhaps some units, based on training, exp, morale and national doctorine, can be made to suffer less disruption and fatigue allowing them to operate more effectively than seen now in UV where the jungle pretty much socks any force that attempts to march and attack. One might even consider a "speed" bonus in terms of movement allowing some units trained for say jungle warfare, to move quicker than a normal more heavily encombered unit.
Originally posted by Nikademus
Even for the areas that are, perhaps some units, based on training, exp, morale and national doctorine, can be made to suffer less disruption and fatigue allowing them to operate more effectively than seen now in UV where the jungle pretty much socks any force that attempts to march and attack. One might even consider a "speed" bonus in terms of movement allowing some units trained for say jungle warfare, to move quicker than a normal more heavily encombered unit.
Yeah, that's a possibility. As long as you say that it pertains to specific specialized units and not just a blanket " All IJN units have jungle warfare advantage" because certainly that wasnt the case. Yamashitas Malaya Divisions did have specialized training but most of the IJA divisions transfered from China to the SoPac had none. Just to balance things out Allied units like Raider Bns, Merrils Marauders and the Philipine Scouts could also have the advantage.
That way players would have to make careful and hard decisions on where to deploy these specialized units so as to make the most of them.
I just thought of something. I wonder if WitP will have a training option for ground units like there is for aircrews and ships? Or would that be too much micro-management for a game they may already have too much micro-management.
Oh definately. No army is all "crack units" any more than any other type of formation. Just certain qualifying units, represesnted either via the usual EXP/MOR combo or that and an additional flag which marks the unit as having a special attribute above and beyond the normal run of the mill unit.
Tricky one on your last. Yes, the game will already have a formidable level of management options. I'm wary of it for similar reasons as with being able to fiddle with production values. I can see players taking every non-engaged infantry unit down for "jungle training" in the same vein as players would shut down P-39 production in favor of more palatable choices.
So in leu of that i think id rather have the units be selected beforehand based on historical precedents with future (add'l) units being marked as reinforcements.
This of course is assuming that the special attributes are seperate from EXP/MOR. I dont have a problem with INF units being able to "train" in the same vein as air units though just as with them.......once you get to "trained" but unbloodied (usually EXP 50) Training above that should be more difficult and time consuming vs actual combat.
Tricky one on your last. Yes, the game will already have a formidable level of management options. I'm wary of it for similar reasons as with being able to fiddle with production values. I can see players taking every non-engaged infantry unit down for "jungle training" in the same vein as players would shut down P-39 production in favor of more palatable choices.
So in leu of that i think id rather have the units be selected beforehand based on historical precedents with future (add'l) units being marked as reinforcements.
This of course is assuming that the special attributes are seperate from EXP/MOR. I dont have a problem with INF units being able to "train" in the same vein as air units though just as with them.......once you get to "trained" but unbloodied (usually EXP 50) Training above that should be more difficult and time consuming vs actual combat.
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
Several Thoughts
Originally posted by Nikademus
Oh definately. No army is all "crack units" any more than any other type of formation. Just certain qualifying units, represesnted either via the usual EXP/MOR combo or that and an additional flag which marks the unit as having a special attribute above and beyond the normal run of the mill unit.
Tricky one on your last. Yes, the game will already have a formidable level of management options. I'm wary of it for similar reasons as with being able to fiddle with production values. I can see players taking every non-engaged infantry unit down for "jungle training" in the same vein as players would shut down P-39 production in favor of more palatable choices.
So in leu of that i think id rather have the units be selected beforehand based on historical precedents with future (add'l) units being marked as reinforcements.
This of course is assuming that the special attributes are seperate from EXP/MOR. I dont have a problem with INF units being able to "train" in the same vein as air units though just as with them.......once you get to "trained" but unbloodied (usually EXP 50) Training above that should be more difficult and time consuming vs actual combat.
Has anyone mentioned using Ground Commanders as a means
of weighting an "edge" for the Japanese early? They certainly
had a lot more Colonels/Generals who had recent combat
experiance. And on the Allied side, especially in the National
Guard formations taken into Federal Service, there were a fair
number of "seriously unprepared" or "incompetent" officers to
be "weeded out". It's almost a process that could be "weight-
ed" to produce a decreasing level of Japanese "Tactical Edge"
during the first 18 months of the war.
The potential Production Problems are real, and need the REAL
solution. P-39's and P-40's kept coming out because Bell and
Curtis already had them in mass production. And re-tooling a
Production Line for a different aircraft produces major delays.
The question is, would you rather have P-39's and P-40's---
OR NOTHING? ...for MONTHS? Same thing is true across the
board. Even when you do build new aircraft types you still have
to train the pilots and the entire serviceing staff to use them.
That's more delay. My personal thinking is that adding any real
ability for the Theatre Commanders to get deeply involved in
Production Questions is a mistake. Let them be limited to a
"wish list" of things they feel are important---and have the list
modify the reinforcements they are sent. But don't get them
involved in actual weapons decisions. It's going to be a big
"can of worms". And make it a meaningful decision---if they want
more shipping up front under their command, then there will be
less available to bring supply/fuel to their bases. You want more
long-ranged bombers, fine---but you will probably get less of something else.
Originally posted by TIMJOT
I know a lot of people waiting for this game want to be able to manipulate production, but I for one hope there will be a "Historical production only" option for those of us who dont want to micromanage this aspect of the game.
Not only that....what about all those Divisions sitting on the Soviet border......are we going to be historically restrained from using them?
Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
Originally posted by Nikademus
This of course is assuming that the special attributes are seperate from EXP/MOR. I dont have a problem with INF units being able to "train" in the same vein as air units though just as with them.......once you get to "trained" but unbloodied (usually EXP 50) Training above that should be more difficult and time consuming vs actual combat.
I'm begining to think now that it is probably just as well to make these special attributes a function of EXP/MOR. Creating specialized units may just open up a whole can of worms that will be more trouble than its worth. Just make EXP/MOR much more a factor in the outcome of ground combat and you should with some skill, good planing and a little luck, make historic outcomes attainable