RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues

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: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues

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: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues

Page: << < prev 28 29 [30] 31 32 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/1/2009 8:03:08 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

I tried the search function. All six references to Howland were pages for which there was no preview, other than a portion of a single sentence or two.

Interestingly, one of those pages (p375) had this to say (but what I am typing here is all it would give me):

"The Marianas are some 800 miles north of New Guinea, and about 2300 miles northwest of Howland Island. No real evidence exists to support this theory."�� This appears to be talking about the theory that Earhart was flying a spy mission over the Marianas, whereas I always figured that she was supposed to fly over the Marshalls...that is, assuming one buys into the spy theory.

Another page quoted (p332) may have the information we are looking for:

"Howland is an oval oriented north to south and is just over \- Vi miles long and slightly less than a mile wide. There are no ship anchorages,"

This is where the preview cuts off. If you manage to dig up your copy you might check those two passages.

Thanks.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 871

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/1/2009 8:28:02 AM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

Just did a quick search on Yahoo and it seems there was a brief attempt to colonise in 1935 and a crude airstrip was built. I would assume a support team was sent to the island in preparation for Earhart's flight.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 872

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/2/2009 6:10:27 AM

LTC B

Posts: 34
Joined: 6/7/2002
Status: offline

Shortlands - curious why the AF SPS was increased to (4) - makes it some very valuable real estate in AE to support or contest an AF on Lunga.

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 873

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/2/2009 7:24:13 AM

Andrew Brown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LTC B

Shortlands - curious why the AF SPS was increased to (4) - makes it some very valuable real estate in AE to support or contest an AF on Lunga.

In AE, AF SPS values are set depending on terrain type, the presence of roads/railways and for islands, island size.

Andrew

(in reply to LTC B)

Post #: 874

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/2/2009 8:15:40 AM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Sorry if this has already been brought up, but just got my AE edition and have perusing the map and bases.

As I mentioned in earlier forums on WitP, there is far too much fuel available in many bases at the start of the game (and there is not enough in PH). I still have an old .doc file I did for WitP with the proposed corrected amounts. The PH amount, for example, is based on the testimony in the Congressional hearings on Pearl Harbor (available on-line). The rest is available from the Pacific Fleet combat command summaries. Nimitz often mentioned that his biggest worry was fuel, and often complained of the lack of fuel in major ports (including the Australian ones; Sydney, e.g., is indicated as having only 5000 tons of bunker fuel a couple months into the war).

Also, as defined in the past, many islands with a port level of 1 should be a port level of 0 at the start (e.g. many French islands, the US Channel Islands, etc.), unless the game assumes a simple, small pier to be a port of level 1. Most islands did not have anything. Offloading was simply done over the side or 'beached'.

I'll post the details soon.

First short update. PH should have fuel on hand on Dec. 7, 1941, of 610'000, which represents the 4.5 million barrels that were confirmed on hand in the PH hearings. The correct amount appears in the database if you use the editor on the scenarios starting on Dec. 7, 1941.

Lahaina did not have any significant fuel storage facilities, so the fuel amount on hand should be drastically reduced from the current figure (down to a few thousand at the most).

Over 40 million barrels were on hand on the West Coast on Dec. 7th. To represent this I would suggest increasing the fuel on hand in the California ports, especially Los Angeles (closest to oil producing area) to 900'000. I'll find my reference to the 40 million barrel figure soon.

< Message edited by Pascal -- 9/17/2009 6:50:29 AM >

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 875

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/2/2009 9:00:08 PM

rattovolante

Posts: 188
Joined: 8/30/2009
From: Italy
Status: offline

v.1.0.1.1083 - activating road overlay (R key) shows that

takamatsu (on shikoku) has major road connections (bridges?) to both okayama and fukuyama (on honshu)

the minor road in kochi (on shikoku) and kanoya (on kyushu) hexes doesn't appear to "work", i.e., the minor road pictured in the map doesn't show up in the road overlay

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 876

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/2/2009 10:18:07 PM

FOW

Posts: 499
Joined: 11/6/2008
From: England
Status: offline

Not had the chance to trawl through all 30 pages of this so apologies if it's been noted before:

Cristobal and Balboa are connected by road and rail - at least the 'R' and 'Y' keys show it to be so.
However when I try to move an LCU (unrestricted etc) it refuses to allow it.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 877

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/2/2009 11:44:00 PM

Andrew Brown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FOW

Not had the chance to trawl through all 30 pages of this so apologies if it's been noted before:

Cristobal and Balboa are connected by road and rail - at least the 'R' and 'Y' keys show it to be so.
However when I try to move an LCU (unrestricted etc) it refuses to allow it.

That doesn't sound right. I'll try to check it when I get time.

Thanks,
Andrew

(in reply to FOW)

Post #: 878

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/3/2009 2:06:31 AM

Gary D

Posts: 164
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline

Andrew;

Looking at China in scenario six I noticed (well actually WitpStaff was kind enough to inform me

) 40K+ of supply was starting the scenario in Chuhsien. Given how vulnerable Chuhsien is to loss in the first few turns of a game, my question is was this done intentionally or is it fair to move that supply to a "safer" location. Personally I have no knowledge on how the supply situation looked in China in December of 41, other than "not so good"!

Thanks for all your efforts over the years!

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 879

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/4/2009 9:32:37 PM

witpqs

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

Andrew,

Please see: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2229487&mpage=1&key=�

Here's the gist of it (my posts):

quote:

Is there something special about Fanning Island? It has a 0(0) Port, and it just will not build. I'm trying to build it to port level 1. It gained 1% the turn I landed a SeaBee there. It went to 2% when I landed a second one there. It's at 4% with 5 SeaBee units there and simply will not build up. Plenty of supply.

Is there something special about the terrain where it is not supposed to build up? If so, how can I tell that when I look at a base?

.
.
.

quote:

Well, it's got a size 3 airfield already from a base of (3) - could build to 6. I've had engineers there literally for several months and no joy at all on the port (as described).

.
.
.

quote:

I'm cool with the slow thing. It's just that other level 0(0) ports have built up to level 1 much faster. Actually, I should say 'at all' because Fanning Island simply is not building.

If it is intentional that Fanning Island (and some others) are impossible or nearly impossible to build up that is totally fine with me, I would just like a way to know which level 0(0) is which. Looking at the base display I cannot see anything different for Fanning Island than for any other 0(0) port. In fact, it has a troop capacity of 60,000, so it's not tiny size-wise.

BTW, even though this question is about ports I presume the same situation could exist with an airfield?

Andrew Brown - would you please comment on this?

(in reply to Gary D)

Post #: 880

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/6/2009 12:22:51 AM

dereck

Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

I don't know if this has ben mentioned yet, but shouldn't Howland Island have a level one airstrip? There was the airstrip that Amelia Earhart planned to use, was it so overgrown already by war start as to be a level zero?�

From "World War II Pacific Island Guide: A Geo-Military Study" by Gordon L. Rottman, page 332:

quote:

In 1937, a 2,400 foot airstrip was constructed on Howland to provide Amelia Earhart and Frederick Noonan a refueling stop between New Guinea and Hawaii for their round-the-world flight attempt. On 2 July, enroute to Howland, they disappeared and were never seen again. The search, conducted by substantial U.S. Navy forces, was halted on 18 July. The Japanese thought there was an operational airfield on the island and planned to strike it during the Pearl Harbor attack. It was later bombed by the United States to prevent its possible use by the Japanese and later the Japanese did the same to deny it to the United States. It was repaired by U.S. forces in late 1943 for use as an emergency landing strip.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 881

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/6/2009 1:56:32 AM

tigercub

Posts: 2004
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: brisbane oz
Status: offline

charters towers is 135kms by road from Townsville closer to 2 hexes than one.(but whos counting)

Tiger!

< Message edited by tigercub -- 9/6/2009 1:59:33 AM >

_____________________________

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to dereck)

Post #: 882

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/6/2009 3:10:48 AM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

Just to check - is it correct that there is no railroad in 82,51? The rail in 83,51 runs to the left of the hex and just ends... And there's another rail that it could pick up on the other side.

I have no knowledge of whether there should be a rail or not, it just looks weird. Plus there's no actual game use for a rail that goes to a hexside and stops, unless someone wanted a rail trail there for some reason.

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 883

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/6/2009 3:14:47 PM

Andrew Brown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Andrew,

Please see: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2229487&mpage=1&key=�

My understanding is that port and airfield construction rates are unchanged from old WitP. Fort construction has been made harder, though. I will try to check whether this is actually the case or not.

Andrew

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 884

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/6/2009 3:17:06 PM

Andrew Brown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

Just to check - is it correct that there is no railroad in 82,51? The rail in 83,51 runs to the left of the hex and just ends... And there's another rail that it could pick up on the other side.

I have no knowledge of whether there should be a rail or not, it just looks weird. Plus there's no actual game use for a rail that goes to a hexside and stops, unless someone wanted a rail trail there for some reason.

That is not a map error. On my source maps there is a break in the rail line in that location. I assume that it was torn up at some point during the ongoing Sino-Japanese war, but I do not know for sure. However I have matched the gap on the AE map.

Andrew

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 885

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/6/2009 3:21:26 PM

Andrew Brown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

charters towers is 135kms by road from Townsville closer to 2 hexes than one.(but whos counting)

Tiger!

That may be true, but base location is derived from where the real life base ends up when a hex overlay is added to an actual map. So since the hex scale is 40 NM per hex, the highest possible real life distance between two bases occupying adjacent hexes is about 80 NM, or 148 km. Without going back to my original map work, I am guessing that this is one of those cases.

Andrew

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 886

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/6/2009 4:21:22 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Andrew,

Please see: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2229487&mpage=1&key=�

My understanding is that port and airfield construction rates are unchanged from old WitP. Fort construction has been made harder, though. I will try to check whether this is actually the case or not.

Andrew

It's actually a Port that I'm trying to build (not fort). Thanks for checking. If you like I can send you a save - 5 USN SeaBees present and it will not budge past 4% at 0 port size. I'm thinking:

- Not all 0(0) ports are equal (different internally).
- There's some data problem (pwhex.dat type).
- There's a bug.

The thing is this - There are several 0(0) ports around. Put some engineers in and they build very slowly, but they do build. Fanning Island just won't move. Other posters mentioned some other places too (Norfolk Island maybe?). So that made me wonder if there was some additional data that is hidden from player view that says how difficult it is to build up a particular place (and some places are coded as "impossible").

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 887

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/6/2009 9:42:13 PM

Andrew Brown

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
It's actually a Port that I'm trying to build (not fort). Thanks for checking. If you like I can send you a save - 5 USN SeaBees present and it will not budge past 4% at 0 port size. I'm thinking:

- Not all 0(0) ports are equal (different internally).
- There's some data problem (pwhex.dat type).
- There's a bug.

Sure. They can be posted in the support forum.

quote:

The thing is this - There are several 0(0) ports around. Put some engineers in and they build very slowly, but they do build. Fanning Island just won't move. Other posters mentioned some other places too (Norfolk Island maybe?). So that made me wonder if there was some additional data that is hidden from player view that says how difficult it is to build up a particular place (and some places are coded as "impossible").

There is no such hidden data that I am aware of.

Andrew

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 888

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/6/2009 11:18:45 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

There is no code. Building 0,0 bases to level 1 is supposed to be tough, but there may be something going on that is making it tougher for some reason.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 889

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/7/2009 5:17:48 AM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

There is no code.� Building 0,0 bases to level 1 is supposed to be tough, but there may be something going on that is making it tougher for some reason.

Bill

I agree it's supposed to be tough, but other similar bases do build and that one doesn't. It starts with a 0(3) airfield, which built to 3 normally.

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 890

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/7/2009 7:22:38 PM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

Question on Singapore and the port starting at 50% damage. Is that supposed to be correct or an error?

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 891

RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 9/9/2009 6:21:23 AM

CEDeaton

Posts: 149
Joined: 4/16/2003
From: Plano, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alexander Seil

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Supresses thoughts about how the japanese used and abused their POW's

I assume you already suppressed any thought about the Allied treatment of Japanese POWs? There's hardly much evidence for the Allies having a high moral horse to sit on, in the Pacific at least

Although, it's rather unfortunate that many operational wargames ignore this issue. Certainly, shepherding, organizing, directing POW's to the camps and guarding them took up a lot of time and effort, although more so in Europe than in the Far East.

Please explain more, apart from the disinclination to take japanese prisoners, who were disinclined to allow themselves to be captured, I find very little organised and officially sanctioned maltreatment, starvation & outright murder of japanese POW.

Always willing to learn a bit more.�

I'm with Jeff on this one - what do you (Alexander) know about Allied mistreatment of Jap POWs?? I know of some very 'nice' (relatively speaking) prison camps for Jap POWs around rural Aus. And� i know that generally the Japanes soldiers chose not to surrender, but have not heard much (any??) about Jap POWs being mistreated. Please enlighten us!

I'm not with any of you on this topic. Crosses the line into politics. Take it elsewhere please.

Then why not delete the post? Shouldn't be able to throw vague accusations like that out there and then leave them unanswered.

_____________________________

Semper Fi,
Craig

It's always pilot error. Sometimes the idiot just doesn't know how to fly a broken aircraft.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 892

Allied Shipyards - 9/12/2009 4:56:16 PM

tbridges

Posts: 263
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

What's the best way to increase the size of an Allied shipyard? I would like to increase the size of the shipyard at PH. If I turn off repair for all the other resources and just leave repair "On" for the shipyard, will this focus resources on the shipyard so it will build up faster?

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 893

RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues - 9/12/2009 6:31:55 PM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

Following the logic of port size and easy cargo handling capacity, there are many bases in the South Pacific that, on Dec. 7, 1941, should be simple beach hexes.

Luganville, for example, had no facilities for cargo handling. Again the two best sources are the US Navy's "Building the Navy's Bases" volumes (2) and Gordon Rottman's "WWII Pacific Island Guide".

Given this, what was the game logic of having so many Port Level 1 islands in the South Pacific?

I have compiled a list of bases that should be beach hexes on Dec. 7, 1941, if you wish me to post it.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 894

RE: Allied Shipyards - 9/12/2009 11:25:45 PM

wdolson

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tbridges

What's the best way to increase the size of an Allied shipyard? I would like to increase the size of the shipyard at PH. If I turn off repair for all the other resources and just leave repair "On" for the shipyard, will this focus resources on the shipyard so it will build up faster?

Allied shipyards and factories can't be increased. If damaged, they can be repaired. This is the same as it was in WitP.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to tbridges)

Post #: 895

RE: Allied Shipyards - 9/13/2009 4:42:45 PM

tbridges

Posts: 263
Joined: 6/25/2005
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Ok, thanks.

(in reply to wdolson)

Post #: 896

Repair Shipyards - 9/16/2009 8:09:40 AM

elpaco

Posts: 16
Joined: 7/16/2006
Status: offline

Hi,

Please have a look at the picture below.
Is this designed as intended?

low priority : 964 days
high priority : 980 days

I know the difference is not huge but shouldn't it be the other way ?

Attachment (1)

(in reply to tbridges)

Post #: 897

RE: Repair Shipyards - 9/16/2009 9:12:31 AM

JamesM

Posts: 1017
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: QLD, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: elpaco

Hi,

Please have a look at the picture below.
Is this designed as intended?

low priority : 964 days
high priority : 980 days

I know the difference is not huge but shouldn't it be the other way ?

I am finding that this is a common issue, when putting ships into shipyards low, normal. high and critical does not seem to make a difference in the majority of cases.

(in reply to elpaco)

Post #: 898

RE: Repair Shipyards - 9/18/2009 5:14:55 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

Hello Andrew

Far be it for me to critique your wonderful map, but I cant help but wonder if it wouldnt have been better for game purposes that Clark Field be located in the Cabatuan hex (80/76) . I know scale wise it technically wouldnt be correct by a few miles, but it doesnt feel right that Clark is subject to direct sea assault and that the Fort Wint CD and Olangpao port is located in the Clark field hex. IMHO I feel that Subic bay and Olangpao are important enough to have their own hex. Regardless Kudos for your overall fantastic map.

(in reply to JamesM)

Post #: 899

RE: Repair Shipyards - 9/18/2009 6:03:17 AM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

Hello Andrew

Far be it for me to critique your wonderful map, but I cant help but wonder if it wouldnt have been better for game purposes that Clark Field be located in the Cabatuan hex (80/76) . I know scale wise it technically wouldnt be correct by a few miles, but it doesnt feel right that Clark is subject to direct sea assault and that the Fort Wint CD and Olangpao port is located in the Clark field hex. IMHO I feel that Subic bay and Olangpao are important enough to have their own hex. Regardless Kudos for your overall fantastic map.

Practically speaking, Clark is not subject to direct sea assault as you have to pass through the Bataan hex with its minefields and CD guns to get there. Trust me, I learned the hard way when I tried to bombard Clark

(in reply to TIMJOT)

Post #: 900