Broken ground combat

[fbastos]

2- Kill India
3- Kill Australia

Kill India? Kill Australia???

None of these were historically feasible, ya know...

F.

[tsimmonds]

1- Kill china
2- Kill India
3- Kill Australia

4- Kill Bill

[Nikademus]

Yes, if you have the detailed map display on. (i always leave it off because it slows down the screen scrolling so much)

[IKerensky]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

2- Kill India
3- Kill Australia

Kill India? Kill Australia???

None of these were historically feasible, ya know...

F.

Yes I know, especially for Australia. But the fact they aren't historically feasible doesnt make them less viable as a plan for Japanese WITP player ( wich is somewhat more successfull than his historical counterpart ) or for the historical Japanese commander wich doesnt know he cant do that

BTW "Kill" is just a bit too strong, "attack" would be a better term, or even neutralise.

Also in real life, who can really know wich impact would have had a Japanese landing/invasion on Australian Northern Ports or India in late '42. Perhaps it would have been the drop too much for the Allies to start talking peace. Also an Australian invasion mean than Australian division will be called back from Africa ( if they manage to get back ) and a far better situation for Rommel ....

You see that is the reason why we cant really say what is possible historically or not. In France 1940 every specialist, military officier or expert of any nation would have laught at your face if you said that Germany will won in 6 weeks... it was historically impossible at this time...

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: moses
Now for those who designed the game this is a hard modeling problem. How do you simulate invasions in cases where there are 2 totally different approaches. The first is essentially a shock attack against the harbor. It will be extremly bloody and will probably succeed or fail on the first day. The second would allow a landing at much lower cost but require at least a week or two of fighting at various intensity levels until at some point a decisive battle can be attempted.

(Emphasis added.) That right there is the critical factor. The land battles are effectively over too fast. The victor is determined in only a day or two. The rest (when there is any "rest") is just the winner chasing down ground troops that can't fight back in any meaningful way. (Which, paradoxically, takes far too long. [8|])

No, I don't have an answer for that. At this point I think we are still trying to pin down exactly what is causing the problem.

[Halsey]

I don't think that the programers are going to rewrite the land resolution phases, and we
probably shouldn't expect them to. Even though a lot of us would wish it.

So with that being said. What ideas can the WITP community come up with that will help resolve some of the mechanic conflicts in the game? Ideas that can help them to implement solutions to problems without rewriting the entire game.

Shock attacks across rivers?
Increased disruption?
Limit artillery to one attack per day?
Higher expenditure for supplies used in combat?
Slow down land movement?

Any other reasonable ideas that might help these guys? Remember, try not to piss these people off! We need their support to make this game greater than it already is.[;)]