Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 12:40:44 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

If the Japanese cross the 'magic' line with more than 40 AV then a unit with 400 Canandian 1941 'mobile' squads appears in the Canada Box - this unit has not support or other weapons its sole purpose is to be disbanded to the pool thus instantly making most of the Canadian Ground Units mobile as the Militia upgrade - once again ahistorical actions have consequences.

Just so you know in the core game the CW recieves similar 'timed' device replacements on 4 other occasions.

Brilliant!!

It would be awesome if a Japanese invasion of India or Oz would trigger a similar event.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 211
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 12:42:01 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

LCUs can have "personalized" TO&Es, which can upgrade multiple times. For example, each Marine Corps Defense Bn starts with a different 'fit" of CD guns . . . and in 1944 most of the Defense Bns convert to AAA Bns.

Will be be able to see what a unit will look like after their next "upgrade" without opening the editor?


_____________________________


(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 212
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 12:47:35 AM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

LCUs can have "personalized" TO&Es, which can upgrade multiple times. For example, each Marine Corps Defense Bn starts with a different 'fit" of CD guns . . . and in 1944 most of the Defense Bns convert to AAA Bns.

Will be be able to see what a unit will look like after their next "upgrade" without opening the editor?



Yes, units that have upgradable TO&Es can be viewed in the same manner as your current TO&E.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 213
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 1:05:43 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Yes all base forces now have a company sized garrison (12 Squads) rather than 40 and British Forces use either ISF forces or later in the war RAF Regt Rifle Sections for this garrison.

Line by line TOE was considered but is deemed out of scope and probably not even on the list for the patch

Japan is hamstrung by a much more realistic carrying capacity, non neutered allied subs and other new economy stuff but I agree its not perfect but this aspect shold be better.

Remember TOE changes during the war forcing Japanese units to change will suck in more production as well.

OK let me explain the British Sections in detail how I have modelled them because it is an important distinction

There are 4 types of squads that appear in British Formations

British 1941 12 per month
British 1943 20 per month
Chindit 5 per month (Ghurka and British but not WA)
Commando/Para 5 per month (shared with other CW nations)
RAF Regt 3 per month

In addition the British get one off injections of the following

54 1941 Sections in Feb 41
328 1941 Sections in October 41 (this is from 70th Div conversion to Chindit only some of these should be allowed which is why the 1941 rate is only 12 not 20)
300 1943 Section in June 44 (Converted AA Gunners)

In addition almost all British Division or Bdes that arrive in theatre arrive at 100% (or for the few that don't 90%)

Indian Divisions from the Middle East typically have 3 Brit Bns but these also arrive at full strenght

Now the place where British Sections are needed is in bringing Indian Divs up to strength about 2/3 of at start Indian Army formations need British troops typically they have 2/3 of the British sections they need.

(p.s. British replacements were short in the far east from 42 onwards not just 44 there was a reason for the Indianisation of the Indian Army and it was that shipping didnt exist to keep two fronts operational until the Med opened and after that they didnt exist the manpower shoretage was not just a timing issue it was a real issue as prime infantrymen ran short (partly because of the siphoning effect of special forces that I try to show above)

The Indian replacement rate is not great in 42 either as they are also keeping 2 fronts going but enough replacements are available to allow a limited late 42 offensive or a build up i.e. what actually occured in Arakan.

2nd British Div arrives with 43 Sections so will not need to upgrade
5th British Withdraws
70th British Disbands
36th British arrives from the ME over time and excess thrwon off by the Indianisation of the Indian Army will allow replacements for it
18th British is destroyed.

56th British only appears if India north of Madras is incaded
44th British only appears if Australia south of Brisbane is invaded

In 43 all Indian TOE forces get an upgrade reducing by 1 Bn the British component of the Divs i.e. 1 Bde goes totally Indian Army
In 44 all Indian Divs (bar 1 I think) go to a full Indian TOE.

British Sections thrown off by this process RETURN to the pool and may be used to keep other forces up to strength they are not lost.

My worry isnt that I have to few British Sections its that I may have allowed to many. BUT the fact is Jim if you lose a large chunk of British Div at sea the replacement do not and did not exist to replace them easily so don't do it.

The fixed static Infantry squads only apply to Canada - depending on where we get to on invasion coding (probably in the patch) India will have static Peshawar, Punjab and Waziristan Divs in the North if the invasion coding goes in two of these will move to invasion only forces.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Hi Andy,

Have you taken the 40 squads out of the baseforce units so they don't suck up all the replacements? Your whole minimalist approach goes out the window if all the squads get sucked into baseforce units that are merely trying to keep air support squads at close to maximum.

A better solution would be to give the player the ability to shut off individual lines in the TO&E. So if I want no squads to go to a baseforce unit, I simply toggle that line off, the rest of the equipment will still be drawn.

Also how is Japan being hamstrung? With such limited replacements, a non-historical strategy by Japan will be devastating to the allies since they are now hamstrung with historical limits for almost the entire game. Can Japan still build unlimited equipment items of all types?

Don’t get me wrong, I want and enjoy historical accuracy and appreciate all your efforts. But it has to be a two sided coin or Japan can simply exploit the weakness.

In the current system, Japan can build 10,000 tanks if he needs them. Granted he probably won’t need them and won’t build 10,000 tanks, but he can if he needs to, the system places no limits on anything other than raw production power. There is absolutely no historical basis for this and it is pure fantasy, but there it is.

So while Japan has a completely flexible and responsive production system, you are hog tying the allies into some pretty restrictive and non-responsive corners, with little or no ability to make up for non-historic outcomes in the game.

That’s the biggest weakness to this approach. Let’s say you’re transporting a division to India and a big chunk gets sunk. Since the replacement rates have been tailored to specifically allow x number of units to flesh out, you now can never replenish that division. Or if you do some other unit will never flesh out, because there are a finite number of squads in the replacement stream and there is no potential to make up for your battle losses.

The British didn’t run out of men and stop building new divisions when they did, but your replacement system seems to go off that premise. The British replaced losses just like anyone else, and when replacements ran low they cannibalized their AAA battalions. The US did this as well, but it was in Europe that this happened, not in the Pacific. Or if it did happen in the Pacific it was to a much lesser degree.

Losses after D-Day were far higher than planned and there were not enough replacements in the pipeline to refill depleted units, so cannibalization occurred. But eventually the replacement pipelines adjusted and caught up with the shortfalls.

By using the replacement system to try and recreate the British reluctance to launch an offensive in Burma, you’ve taken away the system that is supposed to allow players to make up their battle losses.

I like the idea of fixed militia squads used to hold units in place with timely reinforcements used to change over equipment items to release them. The problem is you chose to use infantry squads to fix them instead of some other non-essential equipment item that is less needed by the replacement engine.

Make it a special AAA gun that is immobile and upgrades to a mobile one rather than infantry squads. Then you can give the British enough troop replacements to make up for unexpected losses like they should be able to do without breaking your timed releases.

I’d say Britain should get at least a brigades worth of extra squads a year to make up for unexpected battle losses, probably closer to a division if baseforces still use infantry.

Jim



(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 214
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 1:07:42 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Any friendly base but replacements will still need to meet the other normal criteria.

i.e. it will help repair disabled sections, it will help reduce fatigue and disruption but without supply and an HQ it does not speed up replacements

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

It should be much improved with the new rest/training mode where the speed of squad draw down from the pool is increased if in that mode (I think it still maxes at 1 per day per device line though)

Andy


Since you mentioned the rest/training mode, I have a question concerning it. Will this setting be allowed on any friendly base, or will we need to have a HQ unit present? Currently I believe you need the HQ unit in the same base to really get the replacements in a timely manner (or it seems to help).


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 215
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 1:08:39 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Agreed but he was a choice acceptable to the other CW nations and he was a dammed fine Divisional commander.


quote:

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

I was looking through Alanbrooke's diaries last night, and he indicates that while Freyberg and the NZ division were desired for the invasion of Japan, he did not feel Freyberg was qualified to command the corps and that he had a conversation with Freyberg where Freyberg had suggested himself as a potential candidate. Alanbrooke doesn't seem to have been very impressed by him.


(in reply to HMS Resolution)
Post #: 216
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 1:14:26 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
The plan is this will be in and it will be similar and it will be a designated range in the editor so if you dont want to play with it just delete it !!!!

I have 3 sets I want in but probably not until a patch

1. West Coast
2. Australia South of a line running 1 hex below Brisbane so north east and west coasts are vulnerable but south coast has consequences
3. NZ anywhere on NZ will trigger a small response
4. India north of line running 1 hex below Delhi - so again the South is vulnerable and so is ceylon

Broadly I dont want to make this like the old West Coast line where even a limited attack is a waste of time the Japanese must be able to achieve something which is why I chose those lines.

BUT it is unlikely this will make the release version and will probably be a patch (although we are building the database to accomodate it)

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

If the Japanese cross the 'magic' line with more than 40 AV then a unit with 400 Canandian 1941 'mobile' squads appears in the Canada Box - this unit has not support or other weapons its sole purpose is to be disbanded to the pool thus instantly making most of the Canadian Ground Units mobile as the Militia upgrade - once again ahistorical actions have consequences.

Just so you know in the core game the CW recieves similar 'timed' device replacements on 4 other occasions.

Brilliant!!

It would be awesome if a Japanese invasion of India or Oz would trigger a similar event.


(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 217
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 1:15:43 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

56th British only appears if India north of Madras is incaded
44th British only appears if Australia south of Brisbane is invaded





Will invasions of India and Oz trigger other reinforcements (squadrons, ships), too?

EDIT: Nevermind, crosspost. THANKS, Andy Mac!

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 218
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 1:24:44 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
The exact forces that will be released are pure judgement on my part

As things stand now

India gets a Corps HQ (XXI Corps), 56th British Div (that has to leave in 43 for Italy if it appears), 6th Indian Div and 8th Indian Div both in the ME at this time as well as 251st Armoured Bde and an AA Bde

Australia gets 44th British Div (en route round the cape at this time arrives in Capetown), 9th Aus Div accelerated at Aden, 2nd Para Bde and an AA Bde (I may also allow a SA Motorised Bde but I am mulling the last one over)

NZ gets 2nd NZ Div, 32nd Army Tank Bde an AA Bde (all Aden), 12th NZ Bde (in NZ) plus possibly the Militia mounted rifle regts (6 of them in NZ) if I decide not just to have them on map.

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 219
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 1:26:46 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Oh and probably a reinforcement draft which may be disbanded to provide replacements but setting this up so the AI will use it is difficult

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 220
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 2:19:02 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline
Could something similar be done for the IJA militia divisions as well? It doesn't make sense that they'd be available to use against a '45 invasion, but not earlier. (Maybe slightly fewer divisions, but there still would have been mass mobilization.)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 221
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 2:28:04 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Possibly as I said this hasnt been coded yet and probably wont be for release

(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 222
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 2:43:32 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline
While I'd like to see it, I realize this feature might not make the initial release. I suppose my point was simply that if and when the code allows the allies to benefit from counter-invasion reinforcements, so should Japan. I'm mostly an AFB, but it just seems fair.

Keep up the good work! BTW - damn bright idea on those "replacement drafts" or whatever you call them.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 223
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 2:53:25 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
I did a little testing once that tended to indicate that a tank is a tank is a tank. The 5 ton tinfoil toys with low velocity 37mm guns that the Japanese tended to use seemed to hold up pretty well against Soviet T34/85s in stock. Though tank vs tank warfare doesn't figure very prominently in WitP I would hope that such armored clashes as occur would make some sense.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 224
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 3:02:01 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
We havent tested them yet but broadly a tank is a tank except when it comes to destruction and disruption not on the agenda to fix this one same story as before a full rewrite of the land model is out of scope its just to big a job - we are tweaking it to try and make it better but we are not re writing it

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 225
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 3:05:44 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
ctangus the fact is NOTHING I am doing on ORBATS is not moddable there are literally thousands of new slots and device slots by the gazillion.

At heart I am Divisions should fight as Divisons man and I think thats the level WITP is designed for but if someone wants to convert the whole thing to a UV scale with HQ's for every Division and Engineer Regts and combat regts well then they can I personally think it would be a nightmare but thats a choice the modders have

If you really want to you can is the rule for the new editor

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 226
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 9:06:49 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Possibly as I said this hasnt been coded yet and probably wont be for release


This brings to mind a question. If you have the OB for this in the database, and a game is started with that database, then when the patch comes out, will the feature work for games in progress because you already had the units in the database when the game started?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 227
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 9:25:36 AM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline
Are bases going to have a "Maximum buildable Fort Level", now you can have atolls better fortified than Maginot line....

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 228
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 9:40:03 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
Will ASW and A-MTB nets or other static defences be incorporated into base structure?

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 229
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 10:21:43 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Thats why we are building theOB we know we want to do it so if we build theOOB for it it is a code only change ergo no need to restart thats the theory at any rate.

Blitztk no but some terrain types, island sizes have restrictions and lvls 7 and above are now a total swine to build (plus so many extra bases make it a swine to build forts in em all)

Gunner98 no thats not in

(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 230
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 11:41:15 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


Also how is Japan being hamstrung? With such limited replacements, a non-historical strategy by Japan will be devastating to the allies since they are now hamstrung with historical limits for almost the entire game. Can Japan still build unlimited equipment items of all types?

Don’t get me wrong, I want and enjoy historical accuracy and appreciate all your efforts. But it has to be a two sided coin or Japan can simply exploit the weakness.

In the current system, Japan can build 10,000 tanks if he needs them. Granted he probably won’t need them and won’t build 10,000 tanks, but he can if he needs to, the system places no limits on anything other than raw production power. There is absolutely no historical basis for this and it is pure fantasy, but there it is.

So while Japan has a completely flexible and responsive production system, you are hog tying the allies into some pretty restrictive and non-responsive corners, with little or no ability to make up for non-historic outcomes in the game.



Hi,

the Japanese OOB looks quite different from WITP and this will lead to some delays in making newly arriving units combat-ready (somewhat difficult to explain here because one has to actually see the OOB and to understand certain new functions to understand it completely). This does not completely solve the problem with Japanese production, but we are still working on this aspect but we'll have to do some more testing.

Producing lots of tanks will not help much due to the somewhat limited amount of tank units available to Japan until the second half of 1944.

K

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 231
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 11:49:32 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I did a little testing once that tended to indicate that a tank is a tank is a tank. The 5 ton tinfoil toys with low velocity 37mm guns that the Japanese tended to use seemed to hold up pretty well against Soviet T34/85s in stock. Though tank vs tank warfare doesn't figure very prominently in WitP I would hope that such armored clashes as occur would make some sense.


Well, this ('a tank is a tank is a tank') is only partially correct. The basic assault value is the same, but the modified assault value (in this regard: firepower of individual devices) makes a big difference (and this does not only apply to tanks).

Not easy to test because there're many other factors that can modify the assault value (lots of variables; 'dice-throws' one could say).

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 232
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 3:37:10 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
And the Improvised AFV's used in the early war Indian, NZ and Australian units are basically a truck with no armour and a Lewis gun on top - when I tested them against japanese tanks they took horrific casualties only mitigated by the fact that the bloke on the back had the ability to throw a grenade or 2.

In one fight they are ok after 1 days fight in either attack or defence they are crippled do not use them unless you have to.

The main reason for including them is that almost all the Indian Armoured units start with very very low experience by training via PP point accumulation the experience level will rise but I didnt want them to take a massive hit to that experience by filling up over time with tanks as they arrive.

So instead they get some improvised vehicles to practice and train on and when the tanks start to trickle into combat units they upgrade existing vehicles.

I expect on a Sqn Base (Armoured Regts) or Regt basis (Armoured Bdes) that Indian Armour will have a very mixed feel to it.

The 2 upgrade paths for CW Heavy Armour are

1. Improvised AFV - Vickers VIB - Valentine III - General Lee - General Grant (I) - Sherman V (Indian/British and some NZ forces).

2. Matilda II - General Grant - Sherman V (Mostly Australian Armoured units) 

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 233
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 7:19:43 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
How do tank units fair in situatioins whear they have to atack a heavely fortified hex, I know on Iwo Jima and Okinawa for example the US armored units suffered over 100% losses, that is to say that every tank they startted with was destroyed and they brought more on shore to keep the units going.

How is the extream historical fortification leval of these islands, and others, represented?

_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 234
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 8:05:20 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
The extreme fort levels of these islands are a combination of forts and terrain.

After much heartsearching we DID NOT change the multiplicative nature of terrain and forts.

Believe me this was a hard fought battle with my inner demons....

As a result high level forts in mountainous or heavy rough terrain are still incredibly powerfull. You can still build forts up to level 9 which will result in a x4 multiplier x whatever the terrain effect is typically 2 or 3 for adjusted AV's of 8 - 12x for the defenders.

The cost of level 9 forts is now a lot more expensive (to get above lvl 6 you need 25,000 supplies just to start building lvl 7 forts to reflect specialist construction required - not to mention that building forts from 6 - 9 will now take longer than a month more like 4 or 5 I think - BUT those two bases you mention Brady are a couple of the places where I would anticipate japanese players making the effort to get the forts up.

Allied with terrain I still expect those two places and a few others to be extremely nasty to attack especially if the stacking rules work as anticipated.

What you wont find now is every base on map having lvl 9 forts - de facto its not possible for either side to many bases and to long to build higher level forts in all bases.

Andy

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 235
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 10:56:34 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Andy Mac-Sounds good to me, Aside from the obvious, adding more enginers to the pile (is their a limt to this?), and HQ's/Leaders,what can be done to expidate fortifacation?


   

_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 236
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 11:27:23 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Not much can be done to expedite forts as per stock 1 - 4 are pretty easy to build and fairly quick there is still a cap on the number of engineers that can work in one place I think its maxed at 250 engineer squads

5 and 6 are a little tougher to build but more or less the same as stock

7 - 9 are now nasty to build you will not NOT be able to expedite them much they will take months even with a lot of engineers given that these are intricate multilayered fixed defences  this seems approriate

But this needs to be tested further

(p.s. you need to look at this as a whole and remember that we have made other tweaks like substantially increasining under prepared invasion penalties for the allies)

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 237
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/13/2007 11:52:48 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Will the Japanese still have the ealy war invasion bonus??

Will there be any penalty for them to jump from base to base during those early months which often happens now (most are probably done with little to no prep points)??

They may need to have some level of prep done to get the bonus.
10, 15, 20 points worth?!?

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 238
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/14/2007 12:04:04 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
No the Japanese are expempt for 5 months -I thought about taking it out but without building a new at start module that allows the Japanese to designate prep areas that we couldnt do it - it was too hard

And with all the new bases and the ground the Japanese need to cover it was just easier to leave it in

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 239
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/14/2007 12:39:13 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
OK Guys wearing my other hat now not land team lead

I ended up doing the entire CW, Dutch and other ORBATS on AE.

Now I am doing my final final final tweaks and I discover I have a few leader slots free at HQ level I have already added a lot of leaders to round out CW nations but I do have a few left so here is a little challenge to you suggest a leader..

The rules must be an HQ (Naval, Ground or Air HQ)
Can be for British, Indian, CW, NZ, Australian, or Canadian Forces
I need the name the rank anbd the date of arrival - don't worry about stats I will generate them after I research the suggestions as I need to keep them consistent.

HQ Level Leaders
NZ Land HQ's (3), Air HQ's (1) (plus Park but he counts in the Brit Leader list), Naval 0 (no Naval HQ's)
Canada Land (2), Air (1) (has 1 air HQ but no leader)
Aus Land (6) Air (8) (balance is wrong need a couple more land HQ leaders)
Brit Land (17), Air (15), Naval (4)


Obvious areas for me to add are a Canadian Air HQ leader for Western Command and a couple of Australian REMF's to command area HQ's

Fire away I look forward to recieving suggestions

(These exclude TF leaders which are navy team business.)


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.844