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: Das U-Boat

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Das U-Boat Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 5:23:33 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Did any of the uboats ? Another question is compared to british , US and Japanese in late 1941 how would you rate their experience?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Monsun group had no particularly "elite" crews.




Well, leaving aside the massive improbability of German U-Boats appearing in the Pacific from Day 1, it would be the Germans and British on top and Americans and Japs on bottom. The former had combat experience, the latter did not.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 601
RE: Fast late war Zeros - 2/1/2011 10:47:09 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
The gun club must still exist else the ships would get Ise or Kaga style conversions , they still got their 34 and 40 conversions ...And if it exists the battle line must be maintained. This also stops the moment the US pacific battle line is at the bottom. Interesting Stanislav is of the oppinion the changes favour the gun club...


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

A couple of us have written on how much more useful the Agano's are.

I'm not of the same opinion regarding the Battleline. Whole premise of this Mod is Yamamoto suppressing the 'Gun Club' enough to change building policy, force composition, aerial research, and initial deployment. Taking out the two oldest Japanese BB for Invasion Force protection would make sense since they were 'obsolescent' to the more 'Air Minded.'

I've yet to get the A6M4 and I WANT them! Looking forward to it.

Stanislav is researching the U-Boat Captains and checking the boat histories. This will help in establishing their experience. Think we can give high ratings to two of the AMCs and decent ones to the others...




_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 602
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 10:48:21 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
Is this reflected at the moment ie brittish much greater than Japanese sub experience ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Did any of the uboats ? Another question is compared to british , US and Japanese in late 1941 how would you rate their experience?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Monsun group had no particularly "elite" crews.




Well, leaving aside the massive improbability of German U-Boats appearing in the Pacific from Day 1, it would be the Germans and British on top and Americans and Japs on bottom. The former had combat experience, the latter did not.



_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 603
RE: Fast late war Zeros - 2/1/2011 1:34:54 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
As about relative benefits to Japanese surface and carrier forces in the latest builds (compared to Scen 1):

- Carrier party gets three CVs in 1943. Shinano isn't generally built by good players in Scen 1, so it does not count.
Allies get three extra light carriers and, IIRC, two conversions to balance this. Overall Japan gets about one CV worth of an advantage.

- Gun club gets two BCs, two CAs, one CL, and five sucky CLs are replaced with decent ones. Plus a few extra destroyers and whatever.
Allies don't get anything to compensate. As a result, Japanese surface force gets a greater relative improvement, compared to its Allied counterpart.

P.S.: I didn't have enough time to test late-war Japanese planes in Downfall rigorously, but if anyone is interested, I'll post some of the most obvious conclusions in my AAR thread today.

< Message edited by FatR -- 2/1/2011 1:36:29 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 604
RE: Fast late war Zeros - 2/1/2011 5:55:13 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I've been sitting here at home with no turn, the boys home due to no school (it is -8* currently), have been thinking about all we've talked about with the Mod in the last few days. Think I would like to take the time to settle our opening positions for the Fleet. This is what I think we've decided with a few recommendations added:

1. Kido Butai--The 6 CV opening in their normal position except they are in two Warp Speed TF, are at full air complement, have all four BC, and additional Screening Vessels.

2. The 3 CVL (Ryujo, Shoho, and Zuiho) will start at Saipan (think of them as the Tactical Reserve) with screening ships and NO WARP SPEED movement. The Japanese Player can send them into the DEI or SE towards Truk/Rabaul if they want. This placement allows for the Allied player to get a few days to run for their lives before more carrier power arrives. The aircraft here are all upgraded to modern planes.

3. The oldest pair of BB (Fuso/Yamashiro) in the Japanese Fleet are detached from the Battleline, due to the all the BCs moving to the KB, begin at Cam Rahn Bay to provide heavy protection for Invasion Convoys should Force Z make an appearance.

4. Strategic Reserve--At Hiroshima sits the four remaining BBs and two CVEs (Taiyo and Hosho). These CVLs will start with air groups aboard BUT the fighters are Claudes and need upgrading. They are released for duty as soon as word of Pearl Harbor's success is announced.

5. Combined Fleet HQ sits at Saipan in a forward deployment position at its newly expanded base.

6. There will only be a couple of I-Boats deployed in the IO/Bay of Bengal.


This is a synthesis of what we have spoken on. It certainly SHOULD make the opening a bit less horrific for the Allied Player. How does it sound?

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/1/2011 6:02:58 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 605
RE: Fast late war Zeros - 2/1/2011 5:57:44 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

As about relative benefits to Japanese surface and carrier forces in the latest builds (compared to Scen 1):

- Carrier party gets three CVs in 1943. Shinano isn't generally built by good players in Scen 1, so it does not count.
Allies get three extra light carriers and, IIRC, two conversions to balance this. Overall Japan gets about one CV worth of an advantage.

- Gun club gets two BCs, two CAs, one CL, and five sucky CLs are replaced with decent ones. Plus a few extra destroyers and whatever.
Allies don't get anything to compensate. As a result, Japanese surface force gets a greater relative improvement, compared to its Allied counterpart.

P.S.: I didn't have enough time to test late-war Japanese planes in Downfall rigorously, but if anyone is interested, I'll post some of the most obvious conclusions in my AAR thread today.


Stanislav: Good Relative Summary of Guns vs. CVs.

Would it be nuts to put Taiho into the Mod but place it back 6-8 months? Probably a bad idea but I am just thinking out loud.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 606
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 5:59:34 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Is this reflected at the moment ie brittish much greater than Japanese sub experience ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Did any of the uboats ? Another question is compared to british , US and Japanese in late 1941 how would you rate their experience?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Monsun group had no particularly "elite" crews.




Well, leaving aside the massive improbability of German U-Boats appearing in the Pacific from Day 1, it would be the Germans and British on top and Americans and Japs on bottom. The former had combat experience, the latter did not.




I thought that the two U-Boats starting in the IO were actually present on Dec 7th. Hadn't the Germans already sent a few out into the IO with their shadow replenishment ships and commerce raiders?

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 607
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 6:03:07 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
There were no German U-boats whatsoever in the Indian Ocean until the second half of 1942.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 608
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 6:05:03 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I thought that the Iron Man Scenario was working with true deployments to start with. CRAP! Terminus: Do you have those? Can you get them?

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 609
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 6:07:08 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Have a look at this link:

http://www.uboat.net/ops/monsun.htm

Especially section 2, about the Kriegsmarine's pre-Monsun activities around Cape Town.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 610
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 6:08:09 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thanks. That was quick. Greatly appreciate it.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 611
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 6:10:36 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
No problem.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 612
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 6:14:22 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I begin to understand the issues with the developers in that many of the U-Boats (many more then I thought) simply patrolled from France to Padang and then attempted to return. This was with a quick skim of the article. Will print it in full and try to figure out how to work it out. Would concur with your earlier assessment that there were no U-Boats in the Indian Ocean until mid-43 by the looks of it. Got U-Boats operating near Capetown but doubt if we can model that within the game...

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 613
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 6:25:41 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
We can't.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 614
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 6:34:59 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I have a question though: is it even possible to add ships for Japanese without having them to be a part of the consruction queue? If not, I'm far from convinced that we should even bother with German subs or anything German. If yes, well, I'm currently using www.uboat.net to form the list of subs that arrived to Japanese bases, marking those that also operated from them, instead of just refueling for the return trip.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 615
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 6:40:34 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
It's not possible, no. We left them out of stock for that reason, and the fact that they'd have to be Japanese, not German.

When I created a Monsun group for my old stock mod, I put a few house rules in the documentation, no accelerating the U-Boats being the main one.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 616
RE: Fast late war Zeros - 2/1/2011 6:43:38 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Stanislav: Good Relative Summary of Guns vs. CVs.

Would it be nuts to put Taiho into the Mod but place it back 6-8 months? Probably a bad idea but I am just thinking out loud.

It would. I can propose giving to Kawachis an option of carrier conversion that will give them aircraft capacity around 40. Unfortunately, for the timeframe of such conversion we have to choose between an unrealistic one (like, about 1 year) and one that will make it pointless.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 617
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 6:54:09 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
It's not possible, no. We left them out of stock for that reason, and the fact that they'd have to be Japanese, not German.

When I created a Monsun group for my old stock mod, I put a few house rules in the documentation, no accelerating the U-Boats being the main one.

I quite agree with T. Those boats operated mostly in the region that the game considers 'off map'. They reported to Doenitz, not the IJN, and didn't wander about the Pacific doing their uber/ober Nazi Master Race crap. Should they be included? Who the F knows. Personally, I think not. They were operationally insignifigant. to the theater.

Mod is a mod, so put 'em in, keep 'em out, don't really care. Just keep in mind how operationally worthless they were in the context of the pacific Theater of Operations. Ciao.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 618
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 7:10:23 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thank You John and Terminus.

Topics:

1. Monsoon Group--Toss this idea out. I don't want Japan to have to spend the points for the U-Boats. I now understand the Developer's issues and decisions. Makes a bunch more sense now.

Stanislav--Do you concur with this?

2. As to the Taiho idea toss that too. Was only a whisper of an idea.

3. Don't see the point of converting those new BC or providing the option for a lousy 40 planes.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 619
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 10:24:29 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Yes, I concur. I also would like to thank developers for coming here and helping us separate chaff from the wheat.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 620
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/1/2011 11:26:29 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Monsoon Group goes the way of CHAFF. Can we still keep Atlantis and Thor???


Semi-Serious about that...



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 621
Additional Construction - 2/1/2011 11:38:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Before I forget it, what about BK's comment about boosting late-war Zero speed?


Stanislav/Michael:

Did you notice several things I added in the ship que for Japan?

a. The Agano's I shifted to a more uniform production rate. Thanks to that other Thread about Japanese warship construction rates, I figured that a little less then two years is appropriate. This led to several slight changes for deployments.

b. Created an Agano-Kai that has slightly enhansed AA armament. There are four of them but they aren't available until early-44 and mid-45. Odds are they never see the light of day but they are interesting. The idea came from the site where I learned the construction rates.

c. I left Ibuki AND added a sister ship. This reflects the two CAs started in 1942 but then languished before conversion. They arrive slightly earlier then Ibuki's original date but would add a pair of CVLs to the inventory. They will have organic air groups.

Thought I had to share that so these don't slip into the Mod without discussion.

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 622
RE: Additional Construction - 2/2/2011 12:25:40 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I took a quickest look at that. You forgot to rename the class.

The preliminary problem I have with even more CLs is the fact, that in reality they would have suffered from the same fate as most of the planned ships from post-Midway RL building program, i.e., never built due to lack of materials/manpower/everything. In AE, well, you halt some subs, which are of limited use in 1943 and later anyway, and you build them. I'm not utterly opposed to the idea of more warships in the queue, but how about at least shifting the availability by 6-8 months back (more delay for later ships), to emulate economic difficulties above and beyond shipyard availability, that will plague Japan late in the war? This will actually make players to think, whether they even want more capital ships in 1945.
EDIT: They also carry way too many 25mm guns. I don't think you can ram more than 6x3 per side in a light cruiser, simply out of space considerations, and that's already stretches it.

To be totally honest, though, I don't think that Japan will actually lay down any non-carrier capital ships after the beginning of the war. Upgrading additional old CLs to CLAAs is more plausible. If you agree with the proposal about reduction in power to Japanese ASW, in the vein of DaBabes, as outlined above in the thread, we can look for possible improvements in the land of small warships (without breaking the game even harder, that is).

No problem with the modified queue for Aganos.

< Message edited by FatR -- 2/2/2011 1:24:12 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 623
RE: Additional Construction - 2/2/2011 1:26:05 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Also, I didn't forgot about our argument regarding early-game Allied OOB additions. Will return to it when I have enough time for a long answer.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 624
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/2/2011 5:26:45 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Monsoon Group goes the way of CHAFF. Can we still keep Atlantis and Thor???


Semi-Serious about that...




Well, Atlantis was sunk at the end of November 1941, so there seems little point. If you want Thor, then she entered the Indian Ocean in May of 1942, which means that the Jap player will also have to pay for her.

If you must have a second raider, then the Michel is the one you want.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 2/2/2011 5:30:17 PM >


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 625
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/2/2011 5:55:34 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Could it be the Atlantis II with two 20" Guns?

OK. That idea also goes the way of the Dodo...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 626
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/2/2011 6:07:33 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Any more dreams you need crushed?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 627
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/2/2011 7:40:13 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
You sound like my EX-Wife Terminus!

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 628
RE: Fast late war Zeros - 2/2/2011 7:53:31 PM   
gajdacs zsolt

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 9/16/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I've been sitting here at home with no turn, the boys home due to no school (it is -8* currently), have been thinking about all we've talked about with the Mod in the last few days. Think I would like to take the time to settle our opening positions for the Fleet. This is what I think we've decided with a few recommendations added:

1. Kido Butai--The 6 CV opening in their normal position except they are in two Warp Speed TF, are at full air complement, have all four BC, and additional Screening Vessels.

2. The 3 CVL (Ryujo, Shoho, and Zuiho) will start at Saipan (think of them as the Tactical Reserve) with screening ships and NO WARP SPEED movement. The Japanese Player can send them into the DEI or SE towards Truk/Rabaul if they want. This placement allows for the Allied player to get a few days to run for their lives before more carrier power arrives. The aircraft here are all upgraded to modern planes.

3. The oldest pair of BB (Fuso/Yamashiro) in the Japanese Fleet are detached from the Battleline, due to the all the BCs moving to the KB, begin at Cam Rahn Bay to provide heavy protection for Invasion Convoys should Force Z make an appearance.

4. Strategic Reserve--At Hiroshima sits the four remaining BBs and two CVEs (Taiyo and Hosho). These CVLs will start with air groups aboard BUT the fighters are Claudes and need upgrading. They are released for duty as soon as word of Pearl Harbor's success is announced.

5. Combined Fleet HQ sits at Saipan in a forward deployment position at its newly expanded base.

6. There will only be a couple of I-Boats deployed in the IO/Bay of Bengal.


This is a synthesis of what we have spoken on. It certainly SHOULD make the opening a bit less horrific for the Allied Player. How does it sound?


I know I'm a bit late here, and not really part of the developement discussion, but while reading this a few things struck my mind:

Why would the japanese put 3 CVLs under the nose of the americans at Guam? Why would Combined Fleet have their HQ at such a place when they have Truk and Badeldaob?

Also, for what reason would they put more ships (especially BCs) to the PH strike fleet? I seem to remember that they tried to keep the number of ships to the minimum as the more ships disappear from Japan the more likely it is the the americans figure out something. (From what I read so far about PH I got the impression that the japanese were quite 'paranoid' about the whole thing.)

Thanks!

EDIT: Or can you point me towards where was this discussed? It's possible that I missed it. (I'm really curious about the rationale for these. Thanks!)


< Message edited by Zsolo007 -- 2/2/2011 8:07:20 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 629
RE: Das U-Boat - 2/3/2011 12:49:10 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
So, about hindering Japan early...

The thing is, by the very nature of AE, operations in the game tend to unfold very rapidly, compared to RL, and you can't really buy as much time as in RL by trading territory for it. There are three main contributing factors to that:

1)Easy logistics. The RL complexity is reduced to providing fuel and supplies, only supplies to bases that aren't supposed to support fleet operations. And supply equation is such, that players often don't need to bother with secure naval lines of communication in the short term. Both sides also have sealifting capacity well in excess of their needs. Allies, in particular, have rather limited economic needs, and this gives them vast reserves of shipping that can be freely sacrificed to fuel military operations.

I'm not sure if anything can be done with this aspect of the game. A blanket reduction in ship cargo capacity will make feeding military operations in distant theatres more challenging, but also will impact Japanese economics rather hard. Now, I don't mind this aspect of the game to be more challenging, as in the game Japanese happen to have a significant surplus of merchants, instead of their RL constant shortage, but such profound changes are very hard to balance. I'm also not sure if other people really care about playing Transport Tycoon of the Pacific (I know you don't John, and often find micromanaging small convoys annoying myself).

2)Easy base building. Not even talking of extra perks Japanese get here in RA, in Scen 2 I made Tulagi into an airbase capable of launching attack missions (size 2) in about a month, without even a major commitment of construction units. Well, we all know how long it took Japanese to construct an operational airfield there in RL. Of course, this works even better for Allies. They can drop a bunch of troops in dot hexes and turn them into an airfield cluster of doom in a week or two - moves like this are more limited by amphibious capability than base-building one. Constructing an airfied capable of operating unlimited number of aircraft might take only about a month later in the game. This "Instant Base - Just Add Supplies" capability makes offensive operations faster and vastly reduces dependency on existing bases, allowing offensives also to be bolder. It is probably the main factor that makes deeply unrealistic Japanese moves, like early assault on Hawaii or moving into Southern Pacific with Rabaul as the closest forward base quite viable. It's also one of the main factors that allows the classic war-winning Allied gambit of jumping into a currently weakly-developed but strategically important region in force (like Cuttlefish was defeated by Q-Ball; I avoided this fate in my Ocean of Blood game only by destroying Allied carrier fleet).

In certain situations, this can make the game harder for Allies - if they fail to push back until about second half of 1943, they are likely to face the Japanese perimeter that looks like Atlantikwall and Maginot Line combined. But I believe such situation to be just a sympthom of deeper failings on the Allied player's part.

If it is possible to adjust the speed at which engineers work, I don't know how to do this. So, the only way of fixing the situation seems to be going through TOEs and cutting the number of construction troops at least in half for both sides (for Japanese - from their increased number in Scen 70, to keep the intended bonus).

3)Players' greater risk tolerance, loss tolerance and willingness to outright sacrifice troops, ships and planes, compared to RL planners. Affects the Japanese side too, as many players do not mind expending assets that will be useless late in the war anyway, but mostly impacts how the Allies are willing to act, compared to RL.
Nothing really can be done about this aspect, except outsmarting and punishing one's opponent for his aggressiveness.


As a consequence of all this, Japan in AE generally cannot be satisfied with the historical conquests, even with a few additions to complete the defensive perimeter, like Port Moresby. At the very least, the Japanese player must take Northern Australia, to safeguard Eastern DEI, that has a ton of dot bases and therefore is extremely vulnerable to an early, or even not-so-early Allied counterattack. Ideally, he should strike farther, to destroy Allied assets and disrupt their buildup whenever possible, and strike early, before the amphibious bonus will run out, and every Allied base of note will require a month of fighting to seize. Southern Pacific seems to be a rather popular direction for such assault, although after trying this direction for myself I'm not liking it very much. This requires bold advance and swift destruction of Allied forces in Malaya and DEI.
Conversely, a major slowdown in Phase 1 (reaching the historical perimeter) usually spells total disaster for Japanese. Again, see even my own example in Ocean of Blood AAR, Cuttlefish vs. Q-Ball and Aussies vs. Amis examples, heck, even Nemo121's game as an extreme example of what might happens when the Japanese player commits particularly grievous mistakes during the initial expansion phase.

And unless something is done to offset above-mentioned factors (those we can do anything about), I'm quite strongly opposed to make the initial DEI conquest harder. Yes, I know, in RL it was far from almost-sure thing it is in AE. But our goal with RA is to faciliate long-lasting campaigns that remain interesting as long as possible, and in the current metagame introducing small immediate bonuses for Allies at the start can give them an advantage snowballing in importance as the game goes on, and possibly shortening it by a year or two. In particular, significant reinforcement of Palembang, the base any Allied player who feels like hurting the enemy to the best of his ability, should already be reinforcing from Day 1, in hopes of causing severe damage to oil and refineries on capture, is likely to be very harmful for the Japanese in the long term.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 630
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Das U-Boat Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   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

0.703