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 Land and AI 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 Land and AI Issues Page: <<   < prev  58 59 [60] 61 62   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 9/22/2009 3:33:28 PM   
AvG

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		1rst Campaign.
Land bombardment.
It happens very often that the bombarding party suffers more losses than the enemy does.
It happened even that the bombarding side was the only one with losses.
Can anyone explain this?

AvG

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1771
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/22/2009 3:58:28 PM   
Kereguelen


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

ORIGINAL: AvG

1rst Campaign.
Most of Japanese landunits have understaffed Support.
Is this meant to be ?


Yes

quote:

ORIGINAL: AvG

The manual states that the new AE-support unit are bigger in size, but the program does NOT understand that and seems not to be able to work correctly with that statement.

AvG


Please, could you be more specific (which para of the manual are you referring to?).

(in reply to AvG)
Post #: 1772
RE: AE Land and AI Issues - 9/22/2009 4:43:08 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AvG

1rst Campaign.
Land bombardment.
It happens very often that the bombarding party suffers more losses than the enemy does.
It happened even that the bombarding side was the only one with losses.
Can anyone explain this?

AvG


Presumably counter-battery fire.

(in reply to AvG)
Post #: 1773
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/22/2009 6:23:28 PM   
AvG

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		Page 179 of the manual. Part printed in red.

It is NOT historical to have so many Japanese support-units understaffed at the start of the war. They started with a very good support system.

AvG

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 1774
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/22/2009 10:02:11 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Guys I am in Victoria BC at present on vacation will try to look when I get back K knows more (a lot more) than me about Japanese OOB's anyway

(in reply to AvG)
Post #: 1775
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/22/2009 10:52:28 PM   
stuman


Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Guys I am in Victoria BC at present on vacation will try to look when I get back K knows more (a lot more) than me about Japanese OOB's anyway


Well have fun in BC ( that is a looong way from Scotland )

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1776
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/23/2009 2:54:34 AM   
Mynok


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

ORIGINAL: AvG

Page 179 of the manual. Part printed in red.

It is NOT historical to have so many Japanese support-units understaffed at the start of the war. They started with a very good support system.

AvG


I would suspect that peacetime staffing isn't the same as war footing staffing.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to AvG)
Post #: 1777
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/23/2009 10:18:53 AM   
Kereguelen


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

ORIGINAL: AvG

Page 179 of the manual. Part printed in red.

It is NOT historical to have so many Japanese support-units understaffed at the start of the war. They started with a very good support system.

AvG


Well, the functionability of the Japanese supply system would be a tale of its own. But Japanese infantry divisions had far less organic 'support' assets than comparable Allied formations (with the exception of the Chinese, of course), especially when it comes to trucks (most divisions used carts). Due to the limited availability of motor transport, the IJA tended to pool MT in transport battalions and regiments under Army (Corps) or Area Army (Army) control (it is quite interesting that British India produced more trucks during WW2 than Japan).

Anyway, we tried to represent the defeciencies of the Japanese support/supply system by giving IJA divisions less organic support than comparable Allied formations. But you'll notice that certain IJA HQ's (25th Army etc.) start with more support squads than Japanese armies that arrive later. This represents the attachment of additional support units to these units during the early campaigns.

(in reply to AvG)
Post #: 1778
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/23/2009 9:46:44 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right:
1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only?
33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det.
Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec.
(while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi)

Source:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V2%20P1/ch6.htm#p89


_____________________________


(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 1779
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/25/2009 9:04:37 PM   
Kereguelen


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

ORIGINAL: Barb

16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right:
1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only?
33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det.
Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec.
(while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi)

Source:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V2%20P1/ch6.htm#p89



"I./33rd Bn" is a unit created by Andy for the demands of the AI (disbands in June 1942; historically part of Kimura Detachment). Miura Detechment was III./33rd IR. Don't know what happened with the 9th IR (still planning for Lingayen). Probably another AI issue, have forgotten what the matter was with this one. Originally we had everything right, but it was neccessary to change some of the Japanese starting operations (and some troop locations) to make the AI work.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 1780
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/26/2009 12:37:14 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right:
1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only?
33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det.
Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec.
(while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi)

Source:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V2%20P1/ch6.htm#p89



"I./33rd Bn" is a unit created by Andy for the demands of the AI (disbands in June 1942; historically part of Kimura Detachment). Miura Detechment was III./33rd IR. Don't know what happened with the 9th IR (still planning for Lingayen). Probably another AI issue, have forgotten what the matter was with this one. Originally we had everything right, but it was neccessary to change some of the Japanese starting operations (and some troop locations) to make the AI work.



As K's explanation covers every LCU at start, dont be surprised at a myriad of differences for at start units.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 1781
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/26/2009 11:40:29 AM   
Kereguelen


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

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right:
1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only?
33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det.
Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec.
(while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi)

Source:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V2%20P1/ch6.htm#p89



"I./33rd Bn" is a unit created by Andy for the demands of the AI (disbands in June 1942; historically part of Kimura Detachment). Miura Detechment was III./33rd IR. Don't know what happened with the 9th IR (still planning for Lingayen). Probably another AI issue, have forgotten what the matter was with this one. Originally we had everything right, but it was neccessary to change some of the Japanese starting operations (and some troop locations) to make the AI work.



As K's explanation covers every LCU at start, dont be surprised at a myriad of differences for at start units.


No, just some differences, certainly not a myriad. We tried not to repeat that what was done in WITP. But sometimes the functionability of the AI had priority.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 1782
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/26/2009 5:38:12 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		About 10 small japanese units (some of which may have existed but probably didnt) were added strictly for the AI and also to relfect the ability of large ships companies to sieze bases

There was one unit I added that I regret calling it I/33rd it was basically a small detachment I needed to allow the AI to do something

The rest are the Indpt SNLF Companies basically the Japanese have a lot of ground to cover and the AI especiallty does not recycle overly well some units so I needed a few ants so I added some in total its probably less than 100AV but I needed it.

Apart from that main issue is Australian units not always in the right city on 7/12/41 - I think they are int eh right region and broadly in the right place but a few are in the wrong cities - some of this is deliberate some of it is because I dont have better data

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 1783
RE: IJ 16th Division - 9/26/2009 8:22:49 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		K: could you give me a source where Miura Detachment has III/33rd and not I/33rd? or the oposite for Kimura Det. (I just put it "Miura Detachment" into google and 2 more sources were revealed where it was stated that Miura Det. has 1st Bn of 33rd regiment)
Couldnt be 9th Regiment put into 2nd (1st Bn) and 3rd  (2nd+3rd Bn) wave of Lingayen invasion? Will the AI have problems with it?
Couldnt the AI cope with 20th Regiment + 22 FA + rest landing in Lamon Bay?

If its for the AI, I think we have to live with it or make our own non-AI mods


< Message edited by Barb -- 9/26/2009 8:29:48 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1784
RE: IJ 16th Division - 9/29/2009 1:08:37 PM   
Roko

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/4/2008
Status: offline 		Manual 8.1.3
"All engineer squads and vehicles can construct and repair base
facilities. Combat Engineers can also destroy enemy fortifications"

I made some tests and combat engineers never construct anything.
I check it separately for japanese device 267 and 711 

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 1785
RE: IJ 16th Division - 9/29/2009 1:44:55 PM   
Kereguelen


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

ORIGINAL: Barb

K: could you give me a source where Miura Detachment has III/33rd and not I/33rd? or the oposite for Kimura Det. (I just put it "Miura Detachment" into google and 2 more sources were revealed where it was stated that Miura Det. has 1st Bn of 33rd regiment)
Couldnt be 9th Regiment put into 2nd (1st Bn) and 3rd  (2nd+3rd Bn) wave of Lingayen invasion? Will the AI have problems with it?
Couldnt the AI cope with 20th Regiment + 22 FA + rest landing in Lamon Bay?

If its for the AI, I think we have to live with it or make our own non-AI mods



Miura Detachment was III./33rd according to 'Sword of the Emperor' by Martin Favorite and Minoru Kawamoto who name Senshi Soshu (the official - but not translated - Japanese War Histories) as their primary source. The material available via Google seems to be based on sources based on US intelligence reports/documents which are notoriously unreliable when it comes to the IJA (most US army reports I've read about this matter are abysmal; USN reports much better and much more precise - but rarely covering the IJA).

Don't know if there would be problems with the AI when it comes to historical landings. Originally their setup was historical, but this was later changed (by Andy, I think). I assume that he changed it because there were problems, but I don't know for sure.

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 1786
RE: IJ 16th Division - 9/29/2009 1:55:40 PM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline 		Fixed in patch 2.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko

Manual 8.1.3
"All engineer squads and vehicles can construct and repair base
facilities. Combat Engineers can also destroy enemy fortifications"

I made some tests and combat engineers never construct anything.
I check it separately for japanese device 267 and 711 



_____________________________

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

(in reply to Roko)
Post #: 1787
RE: IJ 16th Division - 9/29/2009 5:16:18 PM   
Rainer79

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline 		Could you perhaps let units in "move" mode automatically revert back to "combat" mode once they have reached their destination? That would make things MUCH easier as it removes a lot of micromanagement.

(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 1788
RE: IJ 16th Division - 9/29/2009 8:20:49 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainer79

Could you perhaps let units in "move" mode automatically revert back to "combat" mode once they have reached their destination? That would make things MUCH easier as it removes a lot of micromanagement.

Yeah, I'd like to see this as well. In a game as immense as this, loosing a unit or six from my age-weakened memory is to be expected.

(in reply to Rainer79)
Post #: 1789
RE: IJ 16th Division - 10/2/2009 3:58:12 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline 		Some oddities I've noticed that may be errors (apologies if already reported)
1. Auckland Fort (6194) has a Japanese 4.7in CD Gun (293) in slot 3.
2. A number of units are given devices that have a "9999" availability date. Not sure if that is intentional. If it isn't supposed to happen, I can make up a list for you.
3. Similarly, some units have a build rate, but are set to unbuildable. For example, 81mm Mortar (935).
4. Malayan Air Wing (6632) has a nationality of "none"
5. Many units set to withdraw have neither "1" or "2" selected next to the withdrawal date. Malayan Air Wing is an example of this too.
6. M10 Wolverine TD (1183), M18 Hellcat TD (1184), and M36 Jackson TD (1185) all have a start date 6/43.
7. Black Force (5980) is set to withdraw on 9/31/42.

< Message edited by EasilyConfused -- 10/2/2009 4:00:50 PM >

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 1790
RE: IJ 16th Division - 10/2/2009 5:55:18 PM   
Montbrun


Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Unit 5200 - "857 Engineer Aviation Battalion" should be 857th for consistancy.

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 1791
RE: IJ 16th Division - 10/2/2009 9:30:52 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline 		Another possible issue, 3.7'' Mk II AA Gun (1063) has a ceiling of 24,000 and 3.7'' Mk VI AA Gun (1064) has a ceiling of 42,000.  Perhaps that is correct, but I suspect it may be a typo.

(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 1792
RE: IJ 16th Division - 10/2/2009 11:33:53 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline 		Also, Beaverette A/C (1099) has a load cost of 100, should probably be 10 in line with the other armored cars.

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 1793
RE: IJ 16th Division - 10/3/2009 2:35:16 AM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline 		Convoy WS.29/OS.45 (7858) delivers 12 units of nothing (1058) in weapon slot 10. Convoy OS.47/48 (7860) has the same in slot 5.

< Message edited by EasilyConfused -- 10/3/2009 2:37:42 AM >

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 1794
RE: IJ 16th Division - 10/3/2009 3:40:36 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline 		Dont know if this has been brought up, but in my AI game (Scen 1) as the Allies, the British HQ's that were in Singapore when it fell did not rebuild.

I got this message the day they should have arrived:

quote:



223 Group RAF arrives at Aden
224 Group RAF arrives at Aden
III Indian Corps arrives at Aden
AHQ Far East arrives at Aden



But when I go to Aden, only AHQ Far East is there. Should the others have rebuilt? Unfortunately, I ran the next turn so I dont have the save either.

Thanks

Chad

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 1795
RE: IJ 16th Division - 10/3/2009 5:09:08 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 1796
RE: IJ 16th Division - 10/3/2009 5:50:41 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:



ORIGINAL: Rainer79

Could you perhaps let units in "move" mode automatically revert back to "combat" mode once they have reached their destination? That would make things MUCH easier as it removes a lot of micromanagement.


Yeah, I'd like to see this as well. In a game as immense as this, loosing a unit or six from my age-weakened memory is to be expected.
This is also very helpful for two or three day turns!

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 1797
RE: IJ 16th Division - 10/3/2009 5:56:46 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look

Andy,

Would this be the proper place to ask for clarification of whether malaria will be implemented in this game after patch II?

Thanks.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1798
RE: IJ 16th Division - 10/3/2009 7:14:03 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look


Thanks for the reply Andy. Do you need more details than what I provided above?

Heres the general breakdown:

1. Singapore falls and all troops surrender with no fragments anywhere else.
2. The reinforcement list shows that 223, 224 RAF, III Corps and AHQ are all going to be rebuilt and arrive at Aden.
3. All four HQ's continue to show up correctly on the reinforcement screen pervious to the arrival date.
4. The arrival date comes, I get an ops message that all four have arrived.
5. I go to Aden and only AHQ is there. The other three are not at Aden, not anywhere else on the map, and no longer listed on the reinforcement screen.

Again, I dont know whether they *should* have even rebuilt in the first place.

Hope this helps.

Chad

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1799
RE: IJ 16th Division - 10/3/2009 7:21:01 PM   
Sonny II

 

Posts: 2878
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look

Andy,

Would this be the proper place to ask for clarification of whether malaria will be implemented in this game after patch II?

Thanks.



Yes malaria will affect your troops in patch 2.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 1800
Page:   <<   < prev  58 59 [60] 61 62   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Land and AI Issues Page: <<   < prev  58 59 [60] 61 62   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

1.703