War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition...what's stopping you?

[Jarhead0331]

FUC.....   >:(  See, I thought I had try to switch my transports to amphibious previously and couldn't...now I know why.

I don't know how I'm going to salvage this operation.  I don't want to re-load an old save, so I'm going to have to figure something out.  I have like 500 Marines landed.  Should be enough to hold out against 8000 Japanese until I come up with something...  ;)

Typical Navy guy mentality...land a few Marines and then leave them there, out-numbered and surrounded with no supplies, until you "figure things out."

[Herman Hum]

I'm a tad confused with mixing amphib with transports in, say, an amphib TF. If I was to create an amphib TF with both amphib and transports and load troops - how would those troops load? I guess if they are in combat mode, then only the amphibs would load troops - so what about the transports? Would they just be empty, or would I then change some units to strat mode and load them...or...could I even work out which units to leave in combat mode, change others to strat mode and select Load Troops from the options for the TF and the troops would automatically be loaded into the appropriate vessels in the TF?

You could create two separate task forces, one Amphibious and one Transport.  Personally, I would only use one type to avoid confusion.  If you have an Amphibious TF with amphibious-class landing vessels like LSTs mixed in with normal transports like AKs and APs, the tanks would tend to load upon LSTs, the troops tend to load on the APs while the equipment is mostly on the AK transports.  The AI takes care of the distribution and it is not set in stone.  It will place some troops on transports that normally carry cargo if it is possible.

But - I would presume it's best to keep your transports away from danger and use them in transport TF's - leaving out any confusion anyway.

That is a common use for Transport Task Forces.  I think you are mistaken by the word 'Transports'.  Any merchant ship (x-AK or AK) is a transport and can included in Amphibious TFs along with dedicated amphibious assault vessels like LST, APA, AKA, and AK types.  Transport-type vessels tend to carry more cargo than troops, but usually have space allocated for both.  The Transport TFs are commonly used between friendly ports due to their unload rate and higher loading efficiency.

[JudgeDredd]

FUC.....   >:(  See, I thought I had try to switch my transports to amphibious previously and couldn't...now I know why.

I don't know how I'm going to salvage this operation.  I don't want to re-load an old save, so I'm going to have to figure something out.  I have like 500 Marines landed.  Should be enough to hold out against 8000 Japanese until I come up with something...  ;)

Typical Navy guy mentality...land a few Marines and then leave them there, out-numbered and surrounded with no supplies, until you "figure things out."

You can handle it - what are you crying about?  :P

[JudgeDredd]

I'm a tad confused with mixing amphib with transports in, say, an amphib TF. If I was to create an amphib TF with both amphib and transports and load troops - how would those troops load? I guess if they are in combat mode, then only the amphibs would load troops - so what about the transports? Would they just be empty, or would I then change some units to strat mode and load them...or...could I even work out which units to leave in combat mode, change others to strat mode and select Load Troops from the options for the TF and the troops would automatically be loaded into the appropriate vessels in the TF?

You could create two separate task forces, one Amphibious and one Transport.  Personally, I would only use one type to avoid confusion.  If you have an Amphibious TF with amphibious-class landing vessels like LSTs mixed in with normal transports like AKs and APs, the tanks would tend to load upon LSTs, the troops tend to load on the APs while the equipment is mostly on the AK transports.  The AI takes care of the distribution and it is not set in stone.  It will place some troops on transports that normally carry cargo if it is possible.

But - I would presume it's best to keep your transports away from danger and use them in transport TF's - leaving out any confusion anyway.

That is a common use for Transport Task Forces.  I think you are mistaken by the word 'Transports'.  Any merchant ship (x-AK or AK) is a transport and can included in Amphibious TFs along with dedicated amphibious assault vessels like LST, APA, AKA, and AK types.  Transport-type vessels tend to carry more cargo than troops, but usually have space allocated for both.  The Transport TFs are commonly used between friendly ports due to their unload rate and higher loading efficiency.

Thanks again.  :)

[SgtRock]

Cargo Transports
- Supplies & Cargo (supply, fuel, oil, resources)
- Transport & Cargo Taskforces/ship types (AK, TK, AKL, OL, LB)

Troop Transport
- Transport (AK, AKL, LB's, AD, ADV) - Troops must be in Strat Op mode
- Used to move troops to/from Large ports, otherwise it will take forever to unload at a small port

Amphibious
- Always start with AP, APA, AD, LST, (troops) then add AK's (for equipment & supplies)
- Troops must be in Combat Op mode, Troops should be trained for target for assaults
- Used to assault enemy islands or used to move troops to small ports
- Japan can use just AK's for Amphibious for the first 6 months of the war.

Fast Transport
- Fast unload of troops and supplies
- Troops must  be combat Op mode
- Japan can use CS, CA, CL, DD, AD, AV
- Allies can use ADP, AD, AV

[Toonces]

^ Awesome.

Yep, I definitely screwed the pooch on this one...

[Toonces]

Ok, I might have salvaged this.  Through no proper planning on my part, I serendipitously happened to have a ton of APs in Sydney, coinciding with a huge Australian army.  Since the Marines were bellyaching I decided to go with the Aussies.

They're loaded up onto an Amphibious task force now and headed to Lunga.  The only real concerning part is that my CV TFs are going to start running low on fuel soon.  I'm desperately hoping they'll have just enough to get the landing done, and then I can start cycling them through Sydney and ports south for replenishment. 

It's going to be close...

[mikeck]

FUC.....   >:(  See, I thought I had try to switch my transports to amphibious previously and couldn't...now I know why.

I don't know how I'm going to salvage this operation.  I don't want to re-load an old save, so I'm going to have to figure something out.  I have like 500 Marines landed.  Should be enough to hold out against 8000 Japanese until I come up with something...  ;)

Typical Navy guy mentality...land a few Marines and then leave them there, out-numbered and surrounded with no supplies, until you "figure things out."

Worked at Guadalcanal...

There was a time when I actually knew how to play this game in its vanilla iteration. Now I start it and stare at the screen. After a few seconds, my left eye twitches uncontrollably and I start to drool. Once I'm done seizing, I shut it off.

[JudgeDredd]

Ok, I might have salvaged this.  Through no proper planning on my part, I serendipitously happened to have a ton of APs in Sydney, coinciding with a huge Australian army.  Since the Marines were bellyaching I decided to go with the Aussies.

They're loaded up onto an Amphibious task force now and headed to Lunga.  The only real concerning part is that my CV TFs are going to start running low on fuel soon.  I'm desperately hoping they'll have just enough to get the landing done, and then I can start cycling them through Sydney and ports south for replenishment. 

It's going to be close...

lol

For the record I don't think there was ever ANY military person from ANY arm of the military that I met that didn't bellyache. It's part of your training!

[JudgeDredd]

Something that always seems to catch me is this...

I see all the islands. I know I have combat troops and ships and task forces. I know I have to go and take these islands.

I know all that.

But what I don't really get is - which islands? I could go for the usual (if I was so knowledgeable). But how do you determine which islands to go for (if you don't follow the norm).

For example - maybe I see and island uninhabited and I think "I'll have that". I have no way of knowing (or do I) that if I was to spend resources on that island to build an airfield that I would be able to get aeroplanes to the airfield - and even if I could, I don't know what coverage they would have (Like being able to click on the island in question and select one of your aircraft that you have in your arsenal (not currently on the island - remember - your thinking about taking it) and seeing the range of that aircraft from that island.

Is that just knowledge people have or can you do something like that in game - because I would have thought a crucial part of an island hopping game is maximising your resources by building airfields and ports where you need them - and as that is the case, then a key part of that would be knowing the range of your aircraft from those islands...no?

So - how do you play this game with "land grab"? Do you identify your island targets by their VP point? I presume that is linked to their usefulness/importance hence possibly negating your requirement to know ranges of aircraft.

Thanks

[Toonces]

I don't know how everyone else does it, but I tend to follow historical precedent.  One of the neat things about WitP, in my opinion, is that as you play it you start to see why the war, and the U.S. strategy evolved as it did.

Just for example, in my current campaign I'm in mid-March, 1942.  In Feb, Japan had captured Espiritu Santo and Efate, as well as Lunga in the Solomons.  Japan starts with, or gets Rabaul early on, and Rabaul controls the upper Solomons and gets you into New Guinea.  Lunga controls the southern Solomons.  From Lunga you can work down into Espiritu Santo and Efate and if you have them you've essentially severed the SLOC to Australia.

So, from the U.S. perspective it's pretty vital to control the Solomons, which means Lunga is a key objective. 

In my game, I know I want Lunga.  But in order to support forces going to Lunga I need to be able to get Land Based Air (LBA) forward on Espiritu Santo so I can CAP over my CVs, which will project their CAP over invasion forces on Lunga.  This is "island hopping".  In order to get the next objective you have to capture a field behind it, get LBA on it that can CAP your CVs, and use your CVs to CAP invasion forces forward. 

So in my game I went Efate-->Espiritu Santo-->Lunga.  But I cheated forward a bit and am trying to seize Lunga before Espritu is fully developed. 

You don't have to follow history exactly, but you'll want to see what locations can be developed into a decent airfield (in () ) and those should be focus points.  You hop from point to point.  You know that the end-game will involve deploying bombers over homeland Japan to end the war, so that is one objective.  You also have a victory point track, too, to keep it "gamey."  But anyway, I've never fought all the way into 1943, so I really don't know how the end game plays out in the game.

For now, my goal is to secure the Solomons just like was done historically, and then I'll figure out what to do from there. 

I don't know any easy way to show a range of what you can cover with a captured island.  You just have to figure out what you're going to station there and see what their range is to figure that out.

[Zulu1966]

Cargo Transports
- Supplies & Cargo (supply, fuel, oil, resources)
- Transport & Cargo Taskforces/ship types (AK, TK, AKL, OL, LB)

Troop Transport
- Transport (AK, AKL, LB's, AD, ADV) - Troops must be in Strat Op mode
- Used to move troops to/from Large ports, otherwise it will take forever to unload at a small port

Amphibious
- Always start with AP, APA, AD, LST, (troops) then add AK's (for equipment & supplies)
- Troops must be in Combat Op mode, Troops should be trained for target for assaults
- Used to assault enemy islands or used to move troops to small ports
- Japan can use just AK's for Amphibious for the first 6 months of the war.

Fast Transport
- Fast unload of troops and supplies
- Troops must  be combat Op mode
- Japan can use CS, CA, CL, DD, AD, AV
- Allies can use ADP, AD, AV

This to me is what's wrong with the game, in fact most of Grigsby games, nothing is obvious or even remotely intelligible without an enormous amount of work. He delves into such micro minutiae that the system disappears up its own arse. The detail would be fine and I like it, but he is just not capable of building the systems or interface to support it. Couple that with the fact that most of his games end up having more addendum to the original manual than the size of the original manual they rapidly become unplayable to all but the most dedicated.

I have WITP AE and every time I start it I just sit there going WTF do I do now ?

I love the concept but to me with other things to do in life even remotely playing this game in any sensible way is an impossibility.

[Herman Hum]

This to me is what's wrong with the game, in fact most of Grigsby games, nothing is obvious or even remotely intelligible without an enormous amount of work. He delves into such micro minutiae that the system disappears up its own arse. The detail would be fine and I like it, but he is just not capable of building the systems or interface to support it. Couple that with the fact that most of his games end up having more addendum to the original manual than the size of the original manual they rapidly become unplayable to all but the most dedicated.

I have WITP AE and every time I start it I just sit there going WTF do I do now ?

I love the concept but to me with other things to do in life even remotely playing this game in any sensible way is an impossibility.

I totally agree with the sentiment.  The level of minutiae is incredible.  Coupled with the unnecessarily unwieldy user interface, the amount of work required to perform the simplest tasks is doubled.  It takes years to play primarily because of the wretched user interface and not necessarily the level of detail.  You get the feeling that you are personally putting gas into every plane and ship with a hand-cranked pump.

[Jarhead0331]

Ok, I might have salvaged this.  Through no proper planning on my part, I serendipitously happened to have a ton of APs in Sydney, coinciding with a huge Australian army.  Since the Marines were bellyaching I decided to go with the Aussies.

They're loaded up onto an Amphibious task force now and headed to Lunga.  The only real concerning part is that my CV TFs are going to start running low on fuel soon.  I'm desperately hoping they'll have just enough to get the landing done, and then I can start cycling them through Sydney and ports south for replenishment. 

It's going to be close...

lol

For the record I don't think there was ever ANY military person from ANY arm of the military that I met that didn't bellyache. It's part of your training!

Why do you think they call them Grunts?  Or why do you think they are called infantry, which comes from the word "infant"?

[sandman2575]

I totally agree with the sentiment.  The level of minutiae is incredible.  Coupled with the unnecessarily unwieldy user interface, the amount of work required to perform the simplest tasks is doubled.  It takes years to play primarily because of the wretched user interface and not necessarily the level of detail.  You get the feeling that you are personally putting gas into every plane and ship with a hand-cranked pump.

Sums up my feelings as well.  The GG games go "all in" on minutiae and the micro level of detail, and then the UI and presentation of information get short shrift.  It gives rise to that classic situation:  "In theory, it's an absolutely amazing game. In practice however..."  At least WITP has some quirky visual charm to it, and manages to create a really immersive experience in some ways.  WitE on the other hand... one of the most antiseptic, uninspired, clumsy, frustrating UIs I've ever come across, making the game all but unplayable for me.