Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006 From: UK Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: witpqs
IIRC they said that the cost of not sending the required ships back will be overwhelming. In other words, you will withdraw the required ships!
IIRC every ship has a withdrawl date, if they left the Pacific. Ships that were sunk before they could be withdrawn (PoW, Repulse etc) don't have withdrawl dates. Ships can be kept past their date, but like witpqs said the cost is expensive. Or as I understand it, it starts at expensive for destroyers etc and climbs to crippling for carriers. Every day extra that the ship is kept costs PPs.
Posts: 343
Joined: 1/27/2003 From: Lacey Washington Status: offline
quote:
IIRC every ship has a withdrawal date, if they left the Pacific. Ships that were sunk before they could be withdrawn (PoW, Repulse etc) don't have withdrawal dates. Ships can be kept past their date, but like witpqs said the cost is expensive. Or as I understand it, it starts at expensive for destroyers etc and climbs to crippling for carriers. Every day extra that the ship is kept costs PPs.
Is this major change correct? PP points are charged on a daily basis for not withdrawing ships?
Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002 From: Olympia, WA Status: offline
One can only hope that the per day PP cost will be substantially lower than the WITP one time cost. Otherwise, this could become an expensive PP tax on senility...
Can we now withdraw heavily damaged ships? Now I need to repair ship to sysdmg < 50 (?).
Do we need in AE to keep out of harm ships which are just about to be withdrawn? To avoid penalty of not withdrawing damaged ship which we couldn't withdraw.
Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000 From: Eastern US Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffK
Andy.
Has there been a reappraisal of some of the Leader stats for AE.
Just picking 1/10,000, "Piggy" Heath in Malaya suffers in CHS for poor setup by the highers and the overwhelming inexperience of his troops.
Given his experiences in Abbysynia & Western Desert I beleve he rates as average rather than poor.
As Terminus said, the leader database has been thoroughly scrubbed.
For land leaders, virtually every two-star General and above will be a genuine historical leader (vs stock, where 3/4s of the US Generals were fictional, and the Australian LCU commanders all had identical ratings, depending on their rank).
As part of the US reappraisal, most US Army Generals have low aggressiveness ratings. Throughout the war this was a constant sore point between the Army and the Marines/Navy. MacArthur, whose overall ratings are not impressive, has value to the Allies as one of the only HQ-level land commanders with good aggressiveness.
There will always be controversies about leader rankings, especially for the allied ground leaders that were overwhelmed in the opening months -- then relieved -- but might have been average or better if they had happened to appear later in the war.
< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 1/5/2009 3:05:26 AM >
_____________________________
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change? Moriarty: Crap!
Heath ratings are difficult he was experienced and capable but he severely under rated the Japanese and his Corps was not trained.
He wasnt able to overcome his dislike of Percival and that severely compromised the defence.
His Land Rating is given as 45 and Admin at 45 as well.
I would have made them higher given his experience but he he gets a big reduction for not being able to get over the fact that he worked for Percival.
Thanks Andy, this puts him in the middle somewhere at least, but shouldnt the effect of your last comment be taken away from Heath, what if someone replaced Percival and Heath got along famously with him (Any Indian Army General??)
< Message edited by JeffK -- 1/5/2009 5:43:58 AM >
_____________________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Possibly but thats out of scope for us you also need to factor in that pretty much no general in theatre was really senior to Heath so the only way would be if Heath were given Malaya Command at which point he would probably interfere with his battlefield commander.
I can only rate leaders on the basis of the tools we have and there proven abilities.
We know Heath/Percival was dysfunctional therefore they both get a reduction for the inability to act professionally
< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 1/5/2009 11:36:46 AM >
Posts: 266
Joined: 8/8/2004 From: bendigo, Victoria, Australia Status: offline
I know this is possibly a very late suggestion, but would it be possible to make all nations in the game either active or inactive. This would be similar to what is currently available with the Soviets in WITP. The rational would be that doing so would open many more possibilities for mod writers.
ie: Japan attacks the Soviets ( a Northern startegy rather than South), Japan attacks only Britain and France (etc) no USA attack.
Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000 From: Georgetown, Texas, USA Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: trojan
I know this is possibly a very late suggestion, but would it be possible to make all nations in the game either active or inactive. This would be similar to what is currently available with the Soviets in WITP. The rational would be that doing so would open many more possibilities for mod writers.
ie: Japan attacks the Soviets ( a Northern startegy rather than South), Japan attacks only Britain and France (etc) no USA attack.
what do you think
Just my opinion but a very emphatic NO! The Soviet active/inactive complicates things beyond believe and multiplying that times more nations would be a Mark 1, Left Handed, Bitch.
Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004 From: Sunderland, UK Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: trojan
I know this is possibly a very late suggestion, but would it be possible to make all nations in the game either active or inactive. This would be similar to what is currently available with the Soviets in WITP. The rational would be that doing so would open many more possibilities for mod writers.
ie: Japan attacks the Soviets ( a Northern startegy rather than South), Japan attacks only Britain and France (etc) no USA attack.
what do you think
If Japan went north, Churchill would have declared, and Roosevelt would have ordered the USN to co-operate closely (sail in company) with the RN until the Japanese gave him a casus belli. So no.
_____________________________
Harry Erwin "For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
I know this is possibly a very late suggestion, but would it be possible to make all nations in the game either active or inactive. This would be similar to what is currently available with the Soviets in WITP. The rational would be that doing so would open many more possibilities for mod writers.
ie: Japan attacks the Soviets ( a Northern startegy rather than South), Japan attacks only Britain and France (etc) no USA attack.
what do you think
If Japan went north, Churchill would have declared, and Roosevelt would have ordered the USN to co-operate closely (sail in company) with the RN until the Japanese gave him a casus belli. So no.
Just to be Devil's Advocate here. The USS Reuben James was sunk on 23 October 1941 by U-532. While there was considerable outcry over it, the US did not go to war. Isolationist feelings were still running very high in late 1941. Roosevelt desire to get the US into the war was obvious but the fact that he hadn't even asked Congress for a declaration tells me he knew he couldn't get it. Pearl Harbor changed all that.
I have seen many posts about mods/scenarios where the Japanese wartime economy and ship building programs are completely turned on their heads are far as the true reality. Yet, those of us who would like to see the "Go North" strategy explored are told that is pure fantasy and the its unrealistic that the US would stay out of the war. WHe England was on the ropes in the summer of 1940, the US did not enter the war. When all of Europe fell under Nazi domination, the US did not go to war. WHen Hitler invaded the USSR, the US did not go to war. So what makes people think that the US would have automatically gone to war if the Japanese attacked Malaya and the NEI or the USSR?
_____________________________
"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
I have seen many posts about mods/scenarios where the Japanese wartime economy and ship building programs are completely turned on their heads are far as the true reality. Yet, those of us who would like to see the "Go North" strategy explored are told that is pure fantasy and the its unrealistic that the US would stay out of the war. WHe England was on the ropes in the summer of 1940, the US did not enter the war. When all of Europe fell under Nazi domination, the US did not go to war. WHen Hitler invaded the USSR, the US did not go to war. So what makes people think that the US would have automatically gone to war if the Japanese attacked Malaya and the NEI or the USSR?
While I suspect many people agree that it might have been possible for the Japanese to get away with a limited war against the English and Dutch without bringing the U.S. in; however, I am not sure it would make a very fun war game. Would victory be determined by whether India falls by May 42 or holds out till June?
The Japanese were so totally incapable of fighting the Russians effectively on the ground, the Go North scenario would also seem a poor game. At the small unit scale it would humorous to try and stop a platoon of KV1s with an IJA division. Might make a fun Squad Leader scenario for Russian Armor Fanboys.
Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000 From: NSW, Australia Status: offline
I was just browsing through a some of the other AE threads and some of the posts reminded me of a question regarding the date format used in AE as I cannot remember seeing an answer posted to date:
Will the AE date format be made configurable to international standards as I am always confused by a date such as 1/10/43 (January or October??). This is particularly problematic when it is quoted out of context!!
I am sure this question is of interest to everyone who drives on the 'correct' (as opposed to the 'right') side of the road....
_____________________________
Cheers, Reg.
(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....) Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
Its always possible to work out the date, but when they start talking Fall, Summer, Winter they forget that half the world doesnt share their weather patterns!!!!!
_____________________________
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
As you were upside down (and hanging on for dear life by your toes) when you wrote that you obviously had 'right' and 'left' confused. No wonder you drive on the wrong side of the road!
I'm sure it's too late for AE, but I suppose somehow making the date unambiguous would be a good thing. With all that blood already rushing to your head you shouldn't be under any additional disadvantage!
Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000 From: NSW, Australia Status: offline
quote:
ORIGINAL: JeffK
Reg,
Its always possible to work out the date, but when they start talking Fall, Summer, Winter they forget that half the world doesn't share their weather patterns!!!!!
Touche...
What's this 'Fall' thing anyway.... Around here when the leaves fall off the trees, we call that a drought!!!
quote:
ORIGINAL: witpqs
As you were upside down (and hanging on for dear life by your toes) when you wrote that you obviously had 'right' and 'left' confused. No wonder you drive on the wrong side of the road!
quote:
I'm sure it's too late for AE, but I suppose somehow making the date unambiguous would be a good thing. With all that blood already rushing to your head you shouldn't be under any additional disadvantage!
What would be the best solution?
Check out the regional settings on your computer. dd-MMM-yy (19-Jan-09) date format is pretty unambiguous and it is used by the military for this reason.
However, I suspect the ripple effect on date dependent functions throughout the code if this were to be implemented would be horrendous but we can only hope.
_____________________________
Cheers, Reg.
(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....) Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
I was thinking about something like that when I wrote my reply, but I wasn't sure what is more common. Other considerations too: something like 2009-01-17 allows for easy sorting by date. Obviously in WITP that might apply most to saved reports or whatever.
Damn, it just occurred to me that all that blood rushing to your brain might be making you smarter. Remind me not to PBEM with anybody in the southern hemisphere.
Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread 
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 
It's much less arbitrary. Thanks!
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