I had ALL my units landed and they were still shock attacking. I can't see any reason to have to shock attack after the initial landing since they'd have beachheads established. Just another wacky thing about this game I don't agree with but that everybody else thinks is just honky dory.
Well...it's not decision I like either. I usually land to atolls with such forces that they tend to stop unloading week after base is captured...[:D]. You are probably right about atoll shock combat. I'd like it to be that after troop odds get up to some (insert your opinion here..[8D]) value one should not have to shock attack anymore.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-
Well the problem with witp is the player... but in 4 tf with any allied cv ? no problem
Cover with 20 bbs ? Bring in 6 divisions to take an atoll ? Punch em with 1000 bombers for 2 weeks ?
Or on the other side:
bring in EVERY carrier, bb or ca, concentrate 98% of your strike force to hit the enemy ?
but 10 divisions on palau ? etc...
that is the problem. We all play with 10times the risk they do in rl. One mistake (say a kamikaze attack breaks through, kill 6-8 Essex-Carrier) and you are in big trouble. But in the game we say "bad luck next try".
Sure, land combat is, err, broken and way to fast and air war is to bloody... but most of the results are produced by "wrong" playing.
Against the AI everybody can control himself, against humans you use houserules.
For "planes on stereoids" use the editor. If the corsair needs durability 22 to be "realistic" you can change it (just an example). If the japanese can produce 2 times the planes, half the industry capacity (so he burn supply and HI to enlarge)... or play one of the wonderful modificated games...
Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit
Japan was not content and did not dig in, instead they went for Midway and the Aleutians. They also went on the counter-attack on Guadalcanal. None of this was planned before the war. They were planning for a perimeter defense and then for a decisive battle on the DEFENSE!
The apocalyptic battle also happened at Midway, that 1 day pretty much decided the issue.
You blame players for concentrating force, but that is not right. In RL, Japan failed to concentrate force at Midway and Guadalcanal and look at the results. Some historians also say that the 2 pronged offensive by the US lengthened the war considerably. That was mainly because of an influental general named MacSomething [:-] . He also insisted on landing on the PI - total waste of effort under the circumstances.
WITP players have a more sound strategy - concentrate force and hit hard.
But I agree that the pace is too fast and massing force is too easy. But I don't agree that it is the play style. People pick a strategy that works and that is hitting with your fist and not with your fingers.
Try Nik's mod. It reduces A2A bloodiness, reduces 4E bombload, increases AA effect and also reduces transport capacity. I tested a carrier battle with the mod at Wake. Japan: 3 CVs + 2 CVLs, Allies: 2 CVs. Result was 1-2 japanese carriers crippled (meaning they will not make it to port), 1 allied carrier sunk, other moderate damage. I only ran this test twice, but its very different from stock and the result was the same both times. Japan must be more careful with carriers and I suppose later on allied carriers are not invincible either. Makes playstyle a lot more conservative, because any CV battle far from a major port is VERY RISKY. This also means, the allies can fight KB on the defense even in early 42. Later in the game increased AA strength, on-map training and PDU gives Japan a better chance as well.
