Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Port and AF Build Size Refresher

 
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 >> Port and AF Build Size Refresher Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/9/2021 9:37:13 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline 		Coming back to this game after a long while and need a refresher on build sizes.

2(0) port/AF vs 2(2) port/AF. What is the difference if they are both size 2 ports/AFs? The 2(2) is built and the 2(0) is not?

Is a 2(0) port/AF already a size 2 port/AF or is a 2(0) just a potential spot to build up to a size 2 port/AF?

In other words is it better to land at a 1(1) port than a 2(0) port because the 1(1) has been build up but the 2(0) port has not been built?

Or is 2(0)already a size 2 port? And if it is already size two then why is it not a 2(2)at game start?




_____________________________
Post #: 1
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/9/2021 9:48:48 PM   
Oddball67

 

Posts: 20
Joined: 12/13/2020
Status: offline 		2(0) : the port is 2, it can be built up tu 0+3 = 3
2(2) : the port is 2, it can be built up tu 2+3 = 5
1(3) : the port is 1, it can be built up tu 3+3 = 6

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 2
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/9/2021 9:59:42 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		Naval support will not work at a base with a (0) initial port, not even if it is built up. That is, if I remember correctly.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Oddball67)
Post #: 3
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 1:25:03 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oddball67

2(0) : the port is 2, it can be built up tu 0+3 = 3
2(2) : the port is 2, it can be built up tu 2+3 = 5
1(3) : the port is 1, it can be built up tu 3+3 = 6


Ah yes thanks for the reminder. So it's just +3 for everything then? 1(0) : the port is 1, it can be built up tu 0+3 = 3 as well?

For the 2(0) the first two SPS builds are just to get to three and mean nothing then?

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 3/10/2021 1:37:27 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Oddball67)
Post #: 4
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 1:25:49 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Naval support will not work at a base with a (0) initial port, not even if it is built up. That is, if I remember correctly.


Thanks! But you can still build up to level 3 from a level (0)?

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 3/10/2021 1:57:06 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 5
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 1:54:41 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Naval support will not work at a base with a (0) initial port, not even if it is built up. That is, if I remember correctly.


Correct, it is something that slipped in inside a patch, and no-one told MichaelM before he retired.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 6
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 1:57:32 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Naval support will not work at a base with a (0) initial port, not even if it is built up. That is, if I remember correctly.


Thanks! But you can still build up to level 3?


Yes, it should build to 3. Don't forget there are a couple of islands (Howland Is being the one likely to be important) with no port number at all, so no port can be built.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 7
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 1:59:47 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline 		So, to be clear here, the numbers #(#) represent the, # = current size of the base, and (#), the SPS of the base. SPS being the Standard Potential Size of the base. Bases may be built to the SPS+3. A #(0) port or airfield may be built to a maximum of size 3, or 3(0). While a #(2) port or airfield may be built to a maximum of size 5, or 5(2).

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 8
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 2:10:56 AM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		For some reason, on my current map in my current game, Baker Island can have no port while Howland Island can have a port.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 9
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 2:16:37 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline 		Thanks for the reminders guys! If everything can be built to level 3 then why doesn't everything start at (2)? Are those first two levels just extra time?

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 3/10/2021 2:18:15 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 10
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 2:17:55 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Naval support will not work at a base with a (0) initial port, not even if it is built up. That is, if I remember correctly.


Correct, it is something that slipped in inside a patch, and no-one told MichaelM before he retired.


Ah interesting hate that he left us he and AndyMac were keeping this game alive! Last one that will ever be made like this!

_____________________________


(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 11
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 2:20:46 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

For some reason, on my current map in my current game, Baker Island can have no port while Howland Island can have a port.


Interesting another bug that was missed?

_____________________________


(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 12
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 2:21:38 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

So, to be clear here, the numbers #(#) represent the, # = current size of the base, and (#), the SPS of the base. SPS being the Standard Potential Size of the base. Bases may be built to the SPS+3. A #(0) port or airfield may be built to a maximum of size 3, or 3(0). While a #(2) port or airfield may be built to a maximum of size 5, or 5(2).


Roger that!

_____________________________


(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 13
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 5:06:03 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

For some reason, on my current map in my current game, Baker Island can have no port while Howland Island can have a port.


In stock scenario 1, they are both type 01 locations - a port. With a listed Port SPS of '0'. So it must be something to do with map data. However, you are correct it is Baker which has the expand port button greyed out, not Howland, my bad. Norfolk island is the other one I remember.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 14
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 2:26:56 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline 		When a port or an airfield gets expanded past the maximum normal build level - that is, the extra levels up to three(3) levels - then the rate of building slows way down as it takes extra effort.

As the saying goes “The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer” the training slogan of the Ordnance Department of the Army the training slogan of the Ordnance Department of the (US) Army.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/10/impossible-longer/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20difficult%20is%20that%20which%20takes%20a%20little,the%20pages%20of%20the%20mass-circulation%20periodical%20%E2%80%9CReader%E2%80%99s%20Digest%E2%80%9D.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 15
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 2:33:08 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
Thanks for the reminders guys! If everything can be built to level 3 then why doesn't everything start at (2)? Are those first two levels just extra time?


Because (2) can be built to 5 though. Not to mention if you need exactly 3 port it is much easier to build (2) to 3 port, than to build (0) to same 3 port.
(0) locations need time to develop and have a lower limit, so every (x) has it's specifics

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 3/10/2021 2:35:08 PM >

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 16
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 3:27:12 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Thanks for the reminders guys! If everything can be built to level 3 then why doesn't everything start at (2)? Are those first two levels just extra time?


You still aren't getting it.

No one stated that everything can be built to level 3.

What was stated, but perhaps not too clearly is that any base can be built up 3 levels above its (S)tandard (P)otential (S)ize, with a maximum level of 9.

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3. An SPS of (7) means you can build that base to level 9.

This applies to both Ports and Airfields. Building above the SPS requires additional resources and engineering time.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 17
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 7:08:48 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Thanks for the reminders guys! If everything can be built to level 3 then why doesn't everything start at (2)? Are those first two levels just extra time?


You still aren't getting it.

No one stated that everything can be built to level 3.

What was stated, but perhaps not too clearly is that any base can be built up 3 levels above its (S)tandard (P)otential (S)ize, with a maximum level of 9.

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3. An SPS of (7) means you can build that base to level 9.

This applies to both Ports and Airfields. Building above the SPS requires additional resources and engineering time.


Very clear thank you sir! Boy am I rusty!

_____________________________


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 18
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 8:49:36 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3.


With a couple of exceptions - Baker Is and Norfolk Is, where no port building is allowed. This seems to be determined by map data, not the location data.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 19
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 9:55:13 PM   
rustysi


Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

Boy am I rusty!


Doesn't take long with this beast. Just a short time away to begin to tackle MWiF had me notice some loss of what I was doing.



_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 20
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/10/2021 10:45:46 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3.


With a couple of exceptions - Baker Is and Norfolk Is, where no port building is allowed. This seems to be determined by map data, not the location data.

Weird, I have absolutely no problem building a port in Baker, and I don’t remember tinkering that hex with PWHEXE editor.

Well, it takes some time, as with any SPS 0 base, but it gets built up.

I even just checked the old Quiet China files, which I haven’t updated since installing the game, and Baker’s Port building option is available, so it’s not a matter of using some fixed database.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 21
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/11/2021 12:45:00 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3.


With a couple of exceptions - Baker Is and Norfolk Is, where no port building is allowed. This seems to be determined by map data, not the location data.

Weird, I have absolutely no problem building a port in Baker, and I don’t remember tinkering that hex with PWHEXE editor.

Well, it takes some time, as with any SPS 0 base, but it gets built up.

I even just checked the old Quiet China files, which I haven’t updated since installing the game, and Baker’s Port building option is available, so it’s not a matter of using some fixed database.



Ranger, like me, has the option to expand port "greyed out". The little button is absent.

What map are you using?



_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 22
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/11/2021 1:17:22 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 23
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/11/2021 1:32:33 AM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 2732
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline 		Stock scenarios should have all bases buildable to +3 according to the rules, no exceptions. Mine stocks surely do for Baker




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 24
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/11/2021 2:07:17 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R




This has nothing to do with the map.

Someone has changed Baker Island from a Base to an Airfield. It is not possible to build a port at an Airfield, only at a Base.

Alfred

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 25
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/11/2021 2:18:06 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R




This has nothing to do with the map.

Someone has changed Baker Island from a Base to an Airfield. It is not possible to build a port at an Airfield, only at a Base.

Alfred


Which scenario are we talking about here? Is this a bug in Stock Scenario 1 that can be corrected in the editor?

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 26
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/11/2021 5:08:20 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This has nothing to do with the map.

Someone has changed Baker Island from a Base to an Airfield. It is not possible to build a port at an Airfield, only at a Base.

Alfred



Not someone, something under the hood.

Here is the scenario location data in the editor of my game in progress - it is a type 01 port.




Here is the base screen two days in, same game - still a type 01 port





Here is the base screen under temporary IJ ownership in June 1943 - something has reset the base type to primary airfield.






_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 27
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/11/2021 5:42:22 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline 		I just opened as few archived saves to find the timing - the alteration from 'base' to airfield happened on the turn resolution of 23 December 1941.

Both Norfolk Is and Baker Is changed status, and both were still in allied hands at the time.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 28
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/11/2021 6:29:12 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I just opened as few archived saves to find the timing - the alteration from 'base' to airfield happened on the turn resolution of 23 December 1941.

Both Norfolk Is and Baker Is changed status, and both were still in allied hands at the time.


So it is a bug then? Wonder if anyone knows how you would fix it? I'm starting a new game using AndyMacs Updated Scenario 1 and I wonder if it has the same issue?

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 3/11/2021 6:30:27 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 29
RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher - 3/11/2021 6:36:22 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline 		Have a look on 24 December 1941 and see if it (or Norfolk Is) has changed type.

Ambassador is saying he has never had the problem, so it's all very mysterious at the moment.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Port and AF Build Size Refresher Page: [1] 2   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

0.750