Slitherine

What's with the weird fog of war on the New Zealand map which makes everything go dark, as if you are blind every turn, and you have to rescout even positions RIGHT NEXT TO YOU?

are the Kiwis using their disco fog machines?

also, the ai turns were taking a horrendously long time to process, and nearly melting my cpu.

also, whoever designed the last half of that map should seriously rethink it. I mean, first you encourage a quick marine foray to the east to capture the base near the radar station... even going so far as to mention it not once but twice, and giving "special marines" and supply ships.

but it's a stupid trap, and you get ambushed by an entire invasion force. an invasion force, I might add, who lands on the beach at least 2 levels of efficiency higher than ANY of your troops can. hell, one of the marines landed FULLY READY TO FIGHT... and did, attacking my troops as soon as they landed, at full strength.

ridiculous.

it's a freaking strategy game, not fantasy game.

all the maps previous to this none of this crap was pulled.

I think this map needs a serious rework... one for the fog of war issues, and two, well... for the rest of it.

the ONLY good part of the map was you get to play defender for a time, and that was fun. but the rest?

no.

In regards to the map/scenario I can't comment as I haven't played that yet.

Concerning the AI performance, there is a beta patch available, see here.

Ichthyic wrote: also, whoever designed the last half of that map should seriously rethink it. I mean, first you encourage a quick marine foray to the east to capture the base near the radar station... even going so far as to mention it not once but twice, and giving "special marines" and supply ships.

but it's a stupid trap, and you get ambushed by an entire invasion force. an invasion force, I might add, who lands on the beach at least 2 levels of efficiency higher than ANY of your troops can. hell, one of the marines landed FULLY READY TO FIGHT... and did, attacking my troops as soon as they landed, at full strength.
...
no.

Where was the rest of your army? Sitting around at Christchurch doing nothing? Send it to the south east as soon as you have finished Christchurch off. Nothing ever says that you can't.

Also, the invasion force appears in some useless sand bar far away from Akaroa. There are no ports anywhere near, so sinking their supply ships (there are 2) ends their bold attack. After that they are easy pickings for your other forces, who should have arrived near the sand bar now.

Ichthyic wrote:ridiculous.

Not at all. The landing force is smaller than your core force, has no supply except for two weak ships, and doesn't come with air support.

Ichthyic wrote:it's a freaking strategy game, not fantasy game.

Actually, besides the fact that it's set in New Zealand there is nothing completely fantasy about it. I seem to recall the Japs landing (and taking) Guadalcanal, only to have the USMC land on top of them.

Remember that this scenario comes from a branch in history assuming Japan has won Coral Sea and Midway, destroying the US fleet almost entirely. The IJN in real life wasted somewhere between 1 and 3 hours changing its planes from torpedoes to bombs and back again, only to have the US planes come and sink the carriers when they were about to launch. Had this delay not occurred, it is not to bold to say all three US carriers would be sunk. With that, a lot of skilled US personnel (who would go on to train the 1943 and 1944 recruits) and equipment has been destroyed. Guadalcanal and New Caledonia have been lost (probably also Fiji and possibly Samoa), forcing any US supply to take a long path from San Francisco to South New Zealand - far longer than San Francisco to Guadalcanal.

So sure, the US has a lot of resources, but they are fairly limited in what they can do if there is an excessive amount of travel involved to get to a target.

Ichthyic wrote:I think this map needs a serious rework... one for the fog of war issues, and two, well... for the rest of it.

FoW issues: I've never seen them (although admittedly I'm still using 1.94 most of the time). So I can't make any statement there.
The rest: NZ isn't a very difficult map if you play it properly (ie. using more than 2 units to stave off a landing). If the map was redesigned so that 2 units would suffice, I don't think I would see much challenge. For a penultimate mission in a campaign, I expect quite a bit of challenge.

- BNC

no, sorry, but you're wrong. you didn't pay any attention to what I said about the units landing with near full efficiency. all of them. including the tanks. marines land WITH full efficiency, and able to attack the same turn they land! NO SUPPLY SHIP NEEDED.

that's the fantasy part.

what's more, those units fight wayyyyyy beyond the normal ability of any unit I have ever seen. their 3 star marine unit took out my 5 star paratrooper unit easily. should have been the other way around.

also... again, you didn't pay attention when I noted the game LITERALLY tells you to take an expeditionary force by sea to the east, and even gives you them and supply ships! the implication is that you should take and defend christchurch with your main force, and take the eastern objective with your marines.

so, yeah.. given that previous in this mission the AI was given free units to attack you from behind your lines... I took seriously the idea I would need to leave a lot of units around to defend Christchurch.

your logic... it fails you.

Rood wrote:In regards to the map/scenario I can't comment as I haven't played that yet.

Concerning the AI performance, there is a beta patch available, see here.

thanks, I had tried that and it does indeed work for that map.

Ichthyic wrote:no, sorry, but you're wrong. you didn't pay any attention to what I said about the units landing with near full efficiency. all of them. including the tanks. marines land WITH full efficiency, and able to attack the same turn they land! NO SUPPLY SHIP NEEDED.

DD Tanks etc. That's kind of the whole idea about them. Or are we assuming that at Leyte, Normandy, Tarawa and everywhere else the landers just got on shore without fighting one bit?

I will admit I didn't think about the fact that if you are just using a marine expedition to Akaroa then the landers would be able to draw supply from the towns between the two objectives (that you haven't bothered to go after), but if that is the case then how do you have units on the sand bar waiting for the enemy landers, who can attack you the same turn they land??

Ichthyic wrote:what's more, those units fight wayyyyyy beyond the normal ability of any unit I have ever seen. their 3 star marine unit took out my 5 star paratrooper unit easily. should have been the other way around.

They're the same stuff and quality used at Brisbane, except for maybe the DD tank upgrade and a new model of Sherman. Nothing excessively strong, especially in comparison to Brisbane. Or are you playing on difficulty 5?

Ichthyic wrote:also... again, you didn't pay attention when I noted the game LITERALLY tells you to take an expeditionary force by sea to the east, and even gives you them and supply ships! the implication is that you should take and defend christchurch with your main force, and take the eastern objective with your marines.

It gives you 2 units plus a supply ship. Hardly enough to take over any objective (having played 10 scenarios before getting here, you should know the AI defends its stuff well). Seeing as it never says "Defend Christchurch" specifically, are we somehow forced to go with an implied meaning (which I have never thought of). If an AI stack did appear next to Christchurch, I would simply detach a group from my "hammer" and send them back up to clear out the enemy. No reason to side around for 40 turns doing nothing.

Ichthyic wrote:so, yeah.. given that previous in this mission the AI was given free units to attack you from behind your lines... I took seriously the idea I would need to leave a lot of units around to defend Christchurch.

The earlier units (turn 5 IIRC) are still connected to the enemy supply lines in 90% of playthroughs, so are actually able to do stuff once they appear. IF I CONQUER CHRISTCHURCH, then it is expected that the land to the west of it has been taken at roughly the same time. Hence, if AI units do pop up, they come with no supply. 0 supply pretty much means 0 threat. To be safe, one or two units left behind is entirely reasonable.

Ichthyic wrote: your logic... it fails you.

my logic... has won me the whole jap campaign. 3 times.

Many of the greatest generals in history have completely ignored orders and done what their gut said immediately after they saw a problem. That's basically my approach to this and PzC (And most other wargames I play). When I play this scenario, I ignore orders and go with the gut: result is victory without resorting to the forum.

The tactic of ignoring orders works astonishingly well in Melbourne: I beat that one in 27 turns. When going the conventional tactic it takes about 80.

- BNC

OK, you're just being obtuse. the landers aren't drawing supply from ANYTHING. they start off 2 levels of efficiency higher than they should as soon as they hit the beach, no matter how you slice it. When YOUR troops land, even with a supply ship right behind them, they start off on the beach in orange, unable to do anything but wait for the next turn.

when THEY land, they start off eitther bright yellow (just one under full efficiency) or if marines, start at full efficiency... even though there is not a supply ship within two space of them. what's more, the marines can attack as soon as they land, no waiting a turn like yours do.

is this clear enough? I can't think of any other way to explain this to you.

"my logic... has won me the whole jap campaign. 3 times."

irrelevant, and you know it.

I'm beginning to think you don't listen to anyone, ever.

is that true? do you just spew garbage endlessly and not ever actually listen to what people are saying to you? please tell me now, so I won't waste any more time trying to converse with you.

It gives you 2 units plus a supply ship. Hardly enough to take over any objective

Which is why I sent another few units with them, as it was suggestive, as many things are in this game; but again, just a few units IS enough to take that target. It in fact is NOT very well defended at all. no artillery. just base level infantry and only 3 units of that, plus an anti air unit which is ignorable.

IF I CONQUER CHRISTCHURCH, then it is expected that the land to the west of it has been taken at roughly the same time. Hence, if AI units do pop up, they come with no supply.

unless, of course, they come as an invasion force from the sea where your fleet left from.

again... there's that lack of logic of yours. If I had gone east in force, instead of sending an expeditionary level force, I would have been forced to double back to defend christchurch. Go figure... this is what I was worried about.

I was not thinking the AI would pop a fully formed entire invading force with cruiser support next to my tiny expeditionary force. it isn't like ANYTHING that has happened on the 10 previous scenarios... you know, those 10 scenarios you claim should have given me the experience to know better?

If you played this campaign 3 times (really?) then likely you are experiencing a bit of recall bias. likely the last time you played affected how you think you actually deployed your forces the first time.

I'm not buying it.

They're the same stuff and quality used at Brisbane

yeah... I can see you aren't actually listening to me. you must be great fun at parties.

go on, tell me how a 3 star marine battalion can easily beat a 5 star paratrooper battalion one on one (and I reloaded just to see if it was luck... it wasn't). never happened before, ever, in any other scenario, but go on and tell me how everything is the same... in your head.

The tactic of ignoring orders works astonishingly well in Melbourne: I beat that one in 27 turns. When going the conventional tactic it takes about 80.

you know why they give you "orders" in games like this? it's to give you clues as to where interesting stuff on the map is, or events will occur.

yeah, you can blast straight to melbourne, but you likely will miss the prison along the way, and other stuff. It's a game, not a real damn war. I get that sometimes a mapmaker will drop "clues", which could make a map easier, or it could just be to lead to you some easter egg for fun.

your claim to be a modern major general fails to impress.

Just wanna state the point on landing and efficiency, if marine land on beach hex they do not lose efficiency, other unit does. If you haven't cut off the supply from the town to the east then the supply connected will be provided to the landing force hence no lost of efficiency even without the supply ship. Press spacebar to chk. NZ map is 1 of my favorite map

Take it easy Ichthyic. I've played my way through the New Zealand scenario once. Had no trouble with the invasion force at all. Most of my units had moved toward the last objective in the southeast (can't recall the name), so I quickly moved to intercept the invasion fleet. My tac bombers made quick work of the two supply ships, an artillery gun line blasted what was left, and a few infantry units moved in to mop up a few out of supply US units. Not difficult at all. The only difficulty was believing the US would actually try to mount an invasion force without air support from some of the almost 30 aircraft carriers they would have had at this time, ridiculous.

My main problem with most of these "hypothetical" scenarios is that they seem based on fantasy whims. The Japanese win Coral Sea, Midway, and hold the Solomon Islands so obviously they become an invincible force sweeping the US aside like they were Italy. Take a look at this article called "Why Japan Really Lost The War"—http://www.combinedfleet.com/economic.htm. US industrial capabilities were so much greater than the Japanese, that even had the US lost all the above battles, with no Japanese losses, ship/plane parity is still achieved by the end of 1943 and by the end of 1944 it's about 2 to 1. And this is not just a quantitative lead, but also a qualitative one with better equipment and training in almost every aspect. If the designers are going to make hypothetical scenarios, they need to have a better grasp of what the situation would probably be. By the time of the supposed Japanese invasions of Australia and New Zealand, both would likely be garrisoned with US soldiers and equipment on a par with England. New Zealand would be your proverbial unsinkable aircraft carrier with so many planes based there no Japanese invasion force could get close. These hypothetical scenarios need to be made much tougher for the Japanese. As it is, the Japanese basically just waltz through Australia and New Zealand. It's far from what the likely reality would have been—unless your assessment of the situation is that the US essentially quits fighting the war after the above setbacks in 1942 (which were possible given the situation in 1942). Frankly, it's a real disappointment playing them, because they lack both imagination and an understanding of US production capabilities. A missed opportunity to show how US setbacks in 1942 would likely have been overcome by the US by 1944.

Ichthyic wrote:OK, you're just being obtuse. the landers aren't drawing supply from ANYTHING. they start off 2 levels of efficiency higher than they should as soon as they hit the beach, no matter how you slice it. When YOUR troops land, even with a supply ship right behind them, they start off on the beach in orange, unable to do anything but wait for the next turn.

Is there a "green tile" connection to Akaroa and/or Christchurch? If so they are getting supply from there. Otherwise there are supply ships providing 40, which is plenty for that force.

Ichthyic wrote:"my logic... has won me the whole jap campaign. 3 times."

irrelevant, and you know it.

That was just me defending a point you made against my logic, which you claim is flawed. I'm not trying to say anything negative there.

Ichthyic wrote:I'm beginning to think you don't listen to anyone, ever.

is that true? do you just spew garbage endlessly and not ever actually listen to what people are saying to you? please tell me now, so I won't waste any more time trying to converse with you.

You posted up here saying you had no idea how to beat the NZ map. Having played through it victoriously a few times, I was suggesting advice. Sure, some of this advice is based off assumptions made by how I play the game, but I have never said that another situation is impossible.

I am only replying here to help you and others who want advice.

Ichthyic wrote:

It gives you 2 units plus a supply ship. Hardly enough to take over any objective

Which is why I sent another few units with them, as it was suggestive, as many things are in this game; but again, just a few units IS enough to take that target. It in fact is NOT very well defended at all. no artillery. just base level infantry and only 3 units of that, plus an anti air unit which is ignorable.

Basing it off the fact that every other major VP (Bataan, Henderson Field, Noumea, Brisbane) is heavily defended, it is fair judgement to say that it is likely Akaroa will be the same. And Brisbane certainly could not be taken with 2 units.

Ichthyic wrote:again... there's that lack of logic of yours. If I had gone east in force, instead of sending an expeditionary level force, I would have been forced to double back to defend christchurch. Go figure... this is what I was worried about.

I never said that you had to leave no units in Christchurch. I said something along the lines of "leave a few there just in case, but move the main force to where they are more useful". If something bad does turn up, then your holding force can delay the enemy until proper reinforcements can arrive (from the south), but if they don't then 80% of your army isn't sitting around wasting time.

Ichthyic wrote:I was not thinking the AI would pop a fully formed entire invading force with cruiser support next to my tiny expeditionary force. it isn't like ANYTHING that has happened on the 10 previous scenarios... you know, those 10 scenarios you claim should have given me the experience to know better?

In the previous scenario, do you recall that a bunch of paratroops come up and attempt to take your (probably) UNDEFENDED stuff far to the north away from any chance of help? From that, an enemy counterattack is not to be unexpected, although one of such magnitude may have been. (But keep at the back of your mind that something might come.)

Ichthyic wrote:If you played this campaign 3 times (really?) then likely you are experiencing a bit of recall bias. likely the last time you played affected how you think you actually deployed your forces the first time.

I have played the campaign three times (why is this hard to believe?). The first time I played NZ I didn't expect the first counterattack and deployed my forces in such a way that they could go and (try to) hammer Christchurch ASAP (Armaki got hit down to strength 6), but after that was crushed I turned my piledriver on the south and got lucky that the enemy decided to walk in to it. The 2nd time I cut off the north and left an artillery up there. The 3rd I had LOTS (40%) of artillery and so hammered the enemy in record time (~35 turns).

It is probably true that I am not recalling stuff perfectly, but I am certain I didn't leave a huge stack guarding coasts and stuff. My game instinct is to build a piledriver and turn it on enemy once he has been found.

Ichthyic wrote:

They're the same stuff and quality used at Brisbane

yeah... I can see you aren't actually listening to me. you must be great fun at parties.

go on, tell me how a 3 star marine battalion can easily beat a 5 star paratrooper battalion one on one (and I reloaded just to see if it was luck... it wasn't). never happened before, ever, in any other scenario, but go on and tell me how everything is the same... in your head.

A Sherman-M4A2 will always be a Sherman-M4A2. Equipment between March and October of 1944 isn't very different (esp. in comparison to 1942 and 1944). Why are you of the opinion that the same unit somehow fights better simply because it is on a different map?

Marines are also considered to be one of the best infantry formations to exist, while paratroops fail rather quickly if cut off. Was the case that the paras were cut off? If so then I would fully expect them to be ripped apart.

Ichthyic wrote:

The tactic of ignoring orders works astonishingly well in Melbourne: I beat that one in 27 turns. When going the conventional tactic it takes about 80.

you know why they give you "orders" in games like this? it's to give you clues as to where interesting stuff on the map is, or events will occur.

yeah, you can blast straight to melbourne, but you likely will miss the prison along the way, and other stuff. It's a game, not a real damn war. I get that sometimes a mapmaker will drop "clues", which could make a map easier, or it could just be to lead to you some easter egg for fun.

Imagine you are a commander in the field (or on a transport), and there are two ways to attack an enemy base. One of them (the west side) contains a large town (Geelong - a city nowadays), while the other side contains fewer towns or much of significance aside from a radar base.

Using the logic that an enemy would defend his good city, which is also known to contain important documents, there is, in all likelihood, going to be a lot of troops there - meaning there will be far fewer on the other side.

Assuming a 1:1 kill ratio (not always the case, but good enough for this), where are more losses going to occur. And supposing you want to keep as many men alive as possible, why wouldn't you attack where the enemy is [thought to be] weakest?

If that means ignoring orders, then so be it. Patton was told not to go anywhere near the Seine, but he had already gotten there. As a result, he became a hero (if he wasn't already).

bjarmson wrote:Take it easy Ichthyic.

No-one here wants to start a fight. We just want you to be able to enjoy the game. Throwing potentially offensive comments such as labelling people "obtuse" isn't going to improve your game at all.

When trying to fight fire with fire, remember that firefighters use water. Hence, find another way to win the scenario if plan A doesn't work. Along with anyone else who posts on this thread, I am just trying to help you find plan B.

- BNC

I'm beginning to think you don't listen to anyone, ever.

and your response was:

You posted up here saying you had no idea how to beat the NZ map.

Nowhere ever did I say I could not, nor had any idea how to, beat that map. Instead, I was complaining about a bug in the FOW, and the fact that you get a surprise ambush that does not at all fit with any other map previous, nor with the actual running dialogue of the map, AND that the units that spawn the devs obviously cheesed to have better efficiency than normal.

again, I'm dead right. you don't actually pay attention to what people are saying. you just go rambling on, strangling whatever strawmen you choose to erect.

wow.

Is there a block feature for this forum? I really want to put you on it.

really.

btw, just finished Melbourne, did ALL the side quests... took me only 2 turns longer than your "ignoring orders" approach did.

did not lose a single core unit.