RE: Nandi Base force

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: Nandi Base force

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: Nandi Base force

Page: << < prev 26 27 [28] 29 30 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Nandi Base force - 8/14/2009 9:26:59 PM

witpqs

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

The following HQ units have "No TOE Available":

slot 153 - IX US Corps
slot 121 - III US Corps
slot 120 - Alaska Defense Cmd

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 811

RE: Nandi Base force - 8/15/2009 11:07:45 AM

BPRE

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

The following HQ units have "No TOE Available":

slot 153 - IX US Corps
slot 121 - III US Corps
slot 120 - Alaska Defense Cmd

It screws up the statistics for disabled contra total elements also. It's shown as 5000/5000 and 7000/9000. I noticed earlier that they are connected to the TOE for Corps Static which is defined as a City rather than a HQ so maybe that's the reason.

/BPRE

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 812

RE: Nandi Base force - 8/15/2009 11:29:54 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

I'll take a look at it, thanks.

_____________________________

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!

(in reply to BPRE)

Post #: 813

RE: Nandi Base force - 8/16/2009 5:00:25 AM

Xargun

Posts: 3690
Joined: 2/14/2004
From: Near Columbus, Ohio
Status: offline

I may be missing some things, but why would I have Light Industry Points in the pool ? I understand HI being stockpiled, but not LI.

Xargun

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 814

Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/16/2009 6:18:27 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

On Dec-1941 all the bases in the Aleutians are under West Coast, except for Kiska, Dutch Harbor and Kodiak, which belong to Pacific Fleet; that given an impression of knowing up months ahead of the Jap invasion of the Aleutians.

It doesn't make much sense: Nome is about the same size as Kodiak, but it is West Coast while Kodiak is Pacific Fleet; Attu is larger than Kiska, but it is West Coast while Kiska is Pacific Fleet.

Either make all the Aleutians to be Pacific Fleet and Alaska to be West Coast, or make Aleutians and Alaska to be West Coast. The HQ that a base belongs to doesn't have any effect, right?

Thanks

fbs

< Message edited by fbs -- 8/16/2009 7:26:28 PM >

(in reply to Xargun)

Post #: 815

RE: Nandi Base force - 8/16/2009 10:34:22 PM

tanksone

Posts: 390
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: St Paul, Mn.
Status: offline

Hi, can anyone tell me where Changchun is located in China?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Chad Harrison)

Post #: 816

RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/16/2009 11:40:50 PM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

On Dec-1941 all the bases in the Aleutians are under West Coast, except for Kiska, Dutch Harbor and Kodiak, which belong to Pacific Fleet; that given an impression of knowing up months ahead of the Jap invasion of the Aleutians.

Dutch Harbor and Kodiak were the Navy's primary bases in Alaskan waters and are appropriately assigned to the Pacific Fleet (and later, the USN's North Pacific Command, when that arrives in the Spring of 1942).

Kiska appears to be an oversight. It should probably be assigned to West Coast, like the other Alaskan bases. We'll take a look at it, thanks.

_____________________________

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 817

RE: Nandi Base force - 8/17/2009 1:45:20 AM

hunchback77

Posts: 189
Joined: 5/13/2002
From: Whitby, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline

Hello Tanksone, Changchun is not located in China, it is located in Manchukuo. On the map look North of Korea.

(in reply to tanksone)

Post #: 818

RE: Nandi Base force - 8/17/2009 2:42:24 AM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

That Chinese unit has some moxie!

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to hunchback77)

Post #: 819

RE: Nandi Base force - 8/17/2009 12:13:12 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

I'm getting increasingly more frequent screen updating issues. At first they were located in the West Coast region and involved the icons and other on-screen images not being replaced by non WC locations when I scrolled or jumped to a new location. I was able to reboot the computer to refresh the video card and get rid of this.

Now the same problem has appeared in CentPac and is taking place both during my part of the turn during setup and during the turn resolution. I get half of the Japanese home islands during displays of the DEI and PI's, and the night turn screen is only half the display at night. Rebooting only helps for a turn or two, then it returns.

Has anyone else had this problem, and what can be done about it? I'm not running a bare bones computer barely able to run the game either.

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 820

RE: Nandi Base force - 8/17/2009 12:19:38 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

That might be indication of graphics card trouble. Can you check for example that card fan is working and temperatures are not raising too high?

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 821

RE: Nandi Base force - 8/17/2009 1:40:39 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

I'll have to check this afternoon when I get home from work. It started yesterday but disappeared for a while after I rebooted, then returned last night. I rebooted again and this morning the problem returned immediately.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 822

RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/17/2009 9:33:08 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

On Dec-1941 all the bases in the Aleutians are under West Coast, except for Kiska, Dutch Harbor and Kodiak, which belong to Pacific Fleet; that given an impression of knowing up months ahead of the Jap invasion of the Aleutians.

Dutch Harbor and Kodiak were the Navy's primary bases in Alaskan waters and are appropriately assigned to the Pacific Fleet (and later, the USN's North Pacific Command, when that arrives in the Spring of 1942).

Kiska appears to be an oversight. It should probably be assigned to West Coast, like the other Alaskan bases. We'll take a look at it, thanks.

Very good; that makes good sense. So, can we change #5628 215th Coast AA Rgt, located in Dutch Harbor, from West Coast to Pacific Fleet? Otherwise that unit will stay the entire war reporting to a remote commander, and not to the local base commander.

Thanks,
fbs

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 823

RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/17/2009 10:48:40 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Coastal artillery I'm pretty sure was under army jurisdiction, not navy.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 824

RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/17/2009 11:04:32 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Coastal artillery I'm pretty sure was under army jurisdiction, not navy.

The Coastal AA Arty is in both, actually (in the game, that is): 65th, 75th, 78th, 215th, 216th and 217th Coastal AA Rgt are all under West Coast, while 64th, 97th, 98th, 206th and 251st Coastal AA Rgt are all under Pacific Fleet.

By the way, 110th USA Base Force is under Pacific Fleet (hahaha - take that, Army), as well as several Inf Rgt and the 198th FA Bn. They seem to belong to Pacific Fleet when they are in islands in the Pacific, what kinda makes sense.

Cheers

fbs

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 825

RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/17/2009 11:23:46 PM

witpqs

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

There's an infantry unit that begins scen 1 in Seattle assigned to a restricted command. It's target is Whittier, just outside Anchorage. You have to change hq to move it by sea, and it seems like the land journey would take upwards of a year (a number of hexes through mountains with no road). It's part of the same unit that's broken down and is garrisoning places like Nome and other Alaska bases.

Should this unit be considered for an hq change in the patch?

Edit to add: Looked it up, it's slot 5639 - 1/153rd Infantry Battalion

< Message edited by witpqs -- 8/18/2009 1:16:56 AM >

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 826

RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/18/2009 1:58:32 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

There's an infantry unit that begins scen 1 in Seattle assigned to a restricted command. It's target is Whittier, just outside Anchorage. You have to change hq to move it by sea, and it seems like the land journey would take upwards of a year (a number of hexes through mountains with no road). It's part of the same unit that's broken down and is garrisoning places like Nome and other Alaska bases.

Should this unit be considered for an hq change in the patch?

Edit to add: Looked it up, it's slot 5639 - 1/153rd Infantry Battalion

Normally, yes. But this is one of those units that starts on the West Coast but did not historically deploy for months (the 1/153rd did not leave Seattle to join the rest of the regiment in Alaska until April). In these circumstances, we required the player to spend PP if he wanted to release the unit. If we didn't do this the US would have 2 or 3 division equivalents of 'extra' troops available to deploy between December and March.

_____________________________

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 827

RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/18/2009 2:08:53 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

Coastal artillery I'm pretty sure was under army jurisdiction, not navy.

The Coastal AA Arty is in both, actually (in the game, that is): 65th, 75th, 78th, 215th, 216th and 217th Coastal AA Rgt are all under West Coast, while 64th, 97th, 98th, 206th and 251st Coastal AA Rgt are all under Pacific Fleet.

By the way, 110th USA Base Force is under Pacific Fleet (hahaha - take that, Army), as well as several Inf Rgt and the 198th FA Bn. They seem to belong to Pacific Fleet when they are in islands in the Pacific, what kinda makes sense.

Cheers
fbs

The Coast Artillery was a branch of the US Army. But once units were assigned to a theater, they reported to whatever HQ commanded that region, be it Army or Navy.

Historically, a lot of US Army divisions (and Coastal Anti-Aircraft Regiments) fought assigned to Nimitz' Pacific Ocean Areas HQ. Pacific Fleet HQ turns into POA in a few months.

One of the Marine Divisions, and other naval units (such as Seabees) fought as part of MacArthur's (Army) South West Pacific Command.

_____________________________

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 828

RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/18/2009 2:19:26 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

There's an infantry unit that begins scen 1 in Seattle assigned to a restricted command. It's target is Whittier, just outside Anchorage. You have to change hq to move it by sea, and it seems like the land journey would take upwards of a year (a number of hexes through mountains with no road). It's part of the same unit that's broken down and is garrisoning places like Nome and other Alaska bases.

Should this unit be considered for an hq change in the patch?

Edit to add: Looked it up, it's slot 5639 - 1/153rd Infantry Battalion

Normally, yes. But this is one of those units that starts on the West Coast but did not historically deploy for months (the 1/153rd did not leave Seattle to join the rest of the regiment in Alaska until April). In these circumstances, we required the player to spend PP if he wanted to release the unit. If we didn't do this the US would have 2 or 3 division equivalents of 'extra' troops available to deploy between December and March.

Ah, so good as is. Thanks.

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 829

RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/18/2009 5:43:58 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
The Coast Artillery was a branch of the US Army. But once units were assigned to a theater, they reported to whatever HQ commanded that region, be it Army or Navy.

Very good, so, can we change #5628 215th Coast AA Rgt from West Coast to Pacific Fleet? It is located on Dutch Harbor, and all Coast AA Rgt that are located on Pacific Fleet bases report to Pacific Fleet - except this one.

Thanks

fbs

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 830

RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/18/2009 11:31:33 AM

Blackhorse

Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
The Coast Artillery was a branch of the US Army. But once units were assigned to a theater, they reported to whatever HQ commanded that region, be it Army or Navy.

Very good, so, can we change #5628 215th Coast AA Rgt from West Coast to Pacific Fleet? It is located on Dutch Harbor, and all Coast AA Rgt that are located on Pacific Fleet bases report to Pacific Fleet - except this one.

Thanks
fbs

Possibly. (For Patch #2) I'll review.

The Aleutians are a command oddity. There was both an Army HQ (Alaska Defense Command -- subordinate to West Coast) and a Navy HQ (Pacific Fleet - later North Pacific). Unlike other theaters there was no "unity of command". The two HQs were instructed to cooperate together.

The need for 'restricted' units complicates matters. Alaska Defense Command is a 'restricted' command. So the only way to move Army units to/among the Aleutians is by spending PPs and transferring them to Pacific Fleet/NorPac. This is intended . . . otherwise the US player could strip Alaska of forces at game start to reinforce the Pacific.
But it means that sometimes LCUs that, historically, should be assigned to the Army HQ will be assigned to the Naval HQ, and vice-versa.

_____________________________

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 831

RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent - 8/18/2009 12:34:14 PM

steveh11Matrix

Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline

I posted this in the Manual thread, but it seems to have got nowhere...

quote:

ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix

Manual/Base question, I'll post it here (at least to begin with).

Section 9.1, Bases.
The example screen given on page 205 of the "LIGHT" manual gives the usual figures for "Supplies" and "Supplies Required". The text relevant to this says:

quote:

Supplies on hand (1728), Supplies Required (417) per day in order to function
at full efficiency

Per day? That's not how I remember it, or how it seems to work. Manual typo, or has something changed between 'vanilla' and AE, or have I just got this completely wrong?

Steve

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to Blackhorse)

Post #: 832

Terrace - 8/18/2009 11:47:59 PM

JSBoomer

Posts: 267
Joined: 11/5/2004
From: Edmonton Alberta
Status: offline

Thanks for including Terrace on the map. Not only is it my place of Birth it was also an important part of the defence of BC during the war. However its location is not quite right. It should be in the river hex or the river should be in the hex that Terrace is in. Terrace is about 150 klicks from Prince Rupert and is lays right next to the Skeena river and its outskirts are on the the other side. It was also at Terrace that the road crosses to the Eastern side of the river. It is hard to tell from the map if there is a road connection from Terrace to Prince Rupert. If there is it would be incorrect as two towns were only connected by rail and by river boat. It was during the war that the last 100 km of road were put it my American and Canadian engineers.

_____________________________

Jordan S. Bujtas
Deas Gu Cath

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)

Post #: 833

Ahmedabad vs Ahmadabad - 8/19/2009 1:37:48 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

Ahmadabad vs. Ahmedabad:

While some people write it as Ahmadabad, that doesn't seem to be the most common form: Ahmadabad produces some 750,000 hits on Google, while Ahmedabad produces some 18,000,000 hits. The Indian sites themselves write Ahmedabad (for example, Times of India).

I'd recommend to change base #824 Ahmadabad to Ahmedabad.

Thanks

fbs

ps: by the way, HMIS Ahmedabad, an AMc, is written correctly.

(in reply to JSBoomer)

Post #: 834

Indian Goa? - 8/19/2009 1:53:40 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

Shouldn't Goa be neutral during WW2? Right now it is an Indian Base under India Command, but India occupied Goa only on 1961. The presence of Indian troops and warships there doesn't seem right. Goa's neutrality was even tested during the sinking of the Ehrenfels in 1943.

I'd suggest keeping the map as is, but remove Goa as a base.

Thanks

fbs

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 835

RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 8/20/2009 4:14:58 PM

HistoryGuy

Posts: 80
Joined: 1/7/2009
From: Woodbridge, VA
Status: offline

Someday, mark my words, some Japanese player is going to invade the Panama Canal zone because there apparently aren't any CD guns in the base force.............boy, would that screw up things for the Allies.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)

Post #: 836

RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 8/20/2009 8:03:01 PM

BPRE

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HistoryGuy

Someday, mark my words, some Japanese player is going to invade the Panama Canal zone because there apparently aren't any CD guns in the base force.............boy, would that screw up things for the Allies.

Don't think you can. According to the manual only the Allied player is allowed to use the off-map areas. Haven't tried it but in case it's possible it might be a bug (or a fault in the manual).

/BPRE

(in reply to HistoryGuy)

Post #: 837

RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 8/21/2009 1:34:48 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BPRE

quote:

ORIGINAL: HistoryGuy

Someday, mark my words, some Japanese player is going to invade the Panama Canal zone because there apparently aren't any CD guns in the base force.............boy, would that screw up things for the Allies.

Don't think you can. According to the manual only the Allied player is allowed to use the off-map areas. Haven't tried it but in case it's possible it might be a bug (or a fault in the manual).

/BPRE

Yes. The off-map areas are for Allied forces only.

Andrew

(in reply to BPRE)

Post #: 838

Japan Production - 8/24/2009 7:13:35 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

I�m trying to find out how much of Heavy Industry is being used to see if I can expand any factories at the start of the campaign but, the numbers don't add up?

Campaign 2 � Japan Start Dec 7, 1941

Hi = Heavy Industry
__________________________________________________________
Aircraft production---(18 Hi) x 380 ------------------6840
Aircraft Research-----(18 Hi) x 16----------------------34
Aircraft Engine-------(18 Hi) x 492 ------------------8856
Naval Shipyard--------(3 Hi) x 1384 ------------------4152
Merchant Shipyard-----(3 Hi) x 807 -------------------2421
Vehicles--------------(6 Hi) x 98 ---------------------508
Armament--------------(6 Hi) x 650--------------------3900

Hi used at start-------------------------------------26711

Hi produced at start---------------------------------1,025

Total Hi Used--------------------------------------(-25686) Huh?

Why does Japan start with negative Heavy Industry?

So Japan gets no production on turn one?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 839

RE: Japan Production - 8/24/2009 7:22:20 PM

Mike Solli

Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

pad, note that aircraft production is 18*(# of engines). A two engine aircraft costs 36 HI for the airframe and an additional 36 HI for the engines.

Also note that the aircraft and engine production is for a month. Divide their totals by 30 to get the average daily production cost.

I also don't believe R&D costs HI. There's been debate about that for years.

_____________________________