Page 1 of 2
Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:58 pm
by scott64
Ok, I was not looking at my guys to see who I took on a fast jaunt to Baker Island.
Ground combat at Baker Island
Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles
Defending force 0 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles
Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 (fort level 0)
Japanese forces CAPTURE Baker Island base !!!
It seams the 2 lone support guys decided to camp out on the beach and get drunk on saki. They woke up in the morning and looked at the naked Island and declared Baker Island captured and went back to bed. [:'(][:D]
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:11 pm
by Feinder
Baker Island is litterally a rat-hole. According the CIA factbook, Baker has been overrun by rats (don't ask me how), and is covered knee-deep in rat dung. The island is also completely devoid of vegetation.
I'm thinking your 2 guys will want to leave as soon as possible.
Canton Island (a little to the south), is only marginally better. In WW2 the island was completely devoid of vegetation, except for one lone palm tree. Was just a fuel depot and a way-point for PBYs.
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:21 pm
by Speedysteve
Seriously F,
Full of rats?!? Maybe we should introduce either Birds of Prey, Pythons or Komodo Dragons. They would soon sort the island [:D]
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:29 pm
by Feinder
CIA Factbook
I'd have find the links. Some nature conservancy has bought up a lot of the old WW2 atoll-bases in the SoPac from WW2. You can find current information the islands from them (they're evidently tracking eco-systems and whatever, so they send a survey team out over 3 months or so to check on status).
-F-
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:17 pm
by Terminus
Ah yes, the CIA Factbook... Notoriously inaccurate, which is rather ironic...
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:23 pm
by Speedysteve
Indeed [:D]
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:25 pm
by Roger Neilson
That's a bit worrying, cos a few weeks ago in a PBEM we contested this with probably around 5K troops on there and a level 3 airbase.... and stockpiled supplies.
The guys must have been standing on each other's heads and taking turns to fight I suppose.
Up to now I hadn't realised why there should be some stacking limits.
Roger[X(]
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:26 pm
by Speedysteve
Hi Roger,
Agreed. Also look at places like Eniwetok for example [X(]
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:35 pm
by Roger Neilson
Hmmm, indeed. Has anyone ever tried to work out some sort of 'house rule' for a relationship between the size of port/airstrip and a corresponding overall population it can support?
I know for many games this would be a detail too far, but it might be interesting to see the effect it had on actual operations in the game, albeit it would have to be applied via the players' own efforts.
Roger
[&:]
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 5:51 pm
by Mynok
The guys must have been standing on each other's heads and taking turns to fight I suppose.
Think "Bloodsport".........
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 6:36 pm
by Yamato hugger
ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson
Hmmm, indeed. Has anyone ever tried to work out some sort of 'house rule' for a relationship between the size of port/airstrip and a corresponding overall population it can support?
I know for many games this would be a detail too far, but it might be interesting to see the effect it had on actual operations in the game, albeit it would have to be applied via the players' own efforts.
Roger
[&:]
Well when a friend and I play, we have a stacking limit of 1 Bde in the defense, and 2 divs on the assult. Would have been nice if the developers had thought that far ahead since GG has been messing around with pacific war games since the 80s that I am aware of.
As for the rats on Baker Is. What do they eat to support that population? I suspect that is BS. I could see a few there (most likely got there from a passing ship I suspect), but "over run"? I doubt that.
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:31 pm
by Gen.Hoepner
I've landed with 5 Jap divisions,2 tank regiments,3 arty units, 2 HQs and 2 Eng regiments at Canton Island, where 25,000 allies were waiting for us...
LOL
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:31 pm
by Mynok
What do they eat to support that population?
Rats breed prolificly and have no moral compunction against cannabilism.
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 7:35 pm
by Roger Neilson
I guess the water around the island shelves very gently for about 10 miles round about it then.....
Roger
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:49 pm
by niceguy2005
But without an outside source of energy (food) they can't sustain a population for long. Eventually your down to one rat and it dies of starvation. There could however be bugs, fish or something in tidal pools that they eat. Perhaps moss and alge.
ORIGINAL: Mynok
What do they eat to support that population?
Rats breed prolificly and have no moral compunction against cannabilism.
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 9:18 pm
by Blackhorse
Up to now I hadn't realised why there should be some stacking limits.
Here's another good reason --
French Frigate Shoals, where the runway is bigger than the atoll.
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 12:45 am
by JeffroK
A lot of the Atolls which can be occupied in WITP would struggle to handle a Bde or more. Most had a small Air base capable of servicing transitting Aircraft. Often they were surrounded by reefs and minimal ability to be developed as a port.
Its a pity WITP couldnt make it impossible to land too many land forces, like they stop you from disbanding TF's or landing Air Units if the Port/Airfield numbers arent sufficient.
I've had half of the US Army, a few hundred Aircraft and a large fleet tied up at some of these Atolls.
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 6:27 am
by GaryChildress
ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner
I've landed with 5 Jap divisions,2 tank regiments,3 arty units, 2 HQs and 2 Eng regiments at Canton Island, where 25,000 allies were waiting for us...
LOL
LOL! [:)] A stacking rule would definitely be nice for a future patch.
Gary
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 7:30 am
by NemRod
ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson
Hmmm, indeed. Has anyone ever tried to work out some sort of 'house rule' for a relationship between the size of port/airstrip and a corresponding overall population it can support?
I know for many games this would be a detail too far, but it might be interesting to see the effect it had on actual operations in the game, albeit it would have to be applied via the players' own efforts.
Roger
[&:]
Well when a friend and I play, we have a stacking limit of 1 Bde in the defense, and 2 divs on the assult. Would have been nice if the developers had thought that far ahead since GG has been messing around with pacific war games since the 80s that I am aware of.
As for the rats on Baker Is. What do they eat to support that population? I suspect that is BS. I could see a few there (most likely got there from a passing ship I suspect), but "over run"? I doubt that.
Why 1bde for defense and 2div for attack? Are the attackers smaller than the defenders[:)]? Or is it just to make sure the attacker will always win?
IMHO a logical stacking rule should apply equaly to attaker and defender but this would create an other problem: the attaker will never succeed.
That's the problem with stacking limits: this one will make attack impossible while this other one will make defense impossible because of the simplistic land combat system.
WITP makes divisions far too easy to move, use ,supply and stack.Stacking is just a part of the problem.If you want to keep historical flavor just rename bataillons what they call divisions in the game[;)].
RE: Baker Island captured
Posted: Sat Nov 05, 2005 8:58 am
by JeffroK
ORIGINAL: NemRod
ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson
Hmmm, indeed. Has anyone ever tried to work out some sort of 'house rule' for a relationship between the size of port/airstrip and a corresponding overall population it can support?
I know for many games this would be a detail too far, but it might be interesting to see the effect it had on actual operations in the game, albeit it would have to be applied via the players' own efforts.
Roger
[&:]
Well when a friend and I play, we have a stacking limit of 1 Bde in the defense, and 2 divs on the assult. Would have been nice if the developers had thought that far ahead since GG has been messing around with pacific war games since the 80s that I am aware of.
As for the rats on Baker Is. What do they eat to support that population? I suspect that is BS. I could see a few there (most likely got there from a passing ship I suspect), but "over run"? I doubt that.
Why 1bde for defense and 2div for attack? Are the attackers smaller than the defenders[:)]? Or is it just to make sure the attacker will always win?
IMHO a logical stacking rule should apply equaly to attaker and defender but this would create an other problem: the attaker will never succeed.
That's the problem with stacking limits: this one will make attack impossible while this other one will make defense impossible because of the simplistic land combat system.
WITP makes divisions far too easy to move, use ,supply and stack.Stacking is just a part of the problem.If you want to keep historical flavor just rename bataillons what they call divisions in the game[;)].
You penalise units for overstacking, higher Combat losses, high attrition % (like malaria), In theory you could put an Army on Baker is, but every bomb dropped or shell fired will hit a number of troops.