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: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a

 
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: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 12/15/2021 4:49:11 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
So here's the text of what I wrote over 10 years ago about the base sizes and fuel storage at different bases on the map at the start of the war. Remember, this was over 10 years ago with the state of the game back then. Some of these modifications may have already been implemented.

WitP AE Database notes and modifications

Locations/Bases

This part was meant as a guide to quickly find bases.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Japanese Empire starts at 220
Japan at 221; Japanese Islands at 262; Ryukyu Islands at 280; Sakhalin/Kurile Islands at 293; Korea at 304; Formosa at 323; Manchukuo at 333; Occupied China at 364; Hainan at 412; Indochina at 416; Thailand at 441; Mariana Islands at 456; Caroline Islands at 465; Marshall Islands at 476; Marcus Island at 496.

United States starts at 498
Continental US starts at 499; Alaska at 531; Hawaii at 573; Line Islands at 586; Ellice Islands at 590; Phoenix Islands at 596; American Samoa at 602; Other Islands at 606; Off-Map (US) at 613; The Philippines at 618; Luzon at 619; Mindanao at 637; Other Phil. Islands at 645.

British Commonwealth starts at 686
Ceylon at 687; Burma at 694; Malaya at 713; Sarawak at 725; Maldives at 735; Solomon Islands at 739; Fiji at 756; Gilbert Islands at 770; Line Islands at 783; Santa Cruz Islands at 792; Tonga at 798; Other Islands (incl. DG, HK, Nauru, Ocean) at 808; Off-Map (UK) at 814; India at 821; Nepal at 894; Indian Islands at 897.

Australia starts at 903
Mainland Australia at 904; Tasmania at 966; Papua New Guinea at 972; New Britain at 988; Bismarck Archipelago at 995; Louisiade Archipelago at 1007; Bougainville at 1016; Other Islands at 1021.

New Zealand starts at 1031
New Zealand at 1032; Cook Islands at 1046; Samoa at 1058; Other Islands (Niue) at 1062.

Canada starts at 1065

China starts at 1085

The Netherlands starts at 1130
Sumatra at 1131; Java at 1149; Borneo at 1164; Celebes at 1177; Dutch New Guinea at 1189; Timor at 1203; Other Islands at 1208.

Free French starts at 1274
New Caledonia at 1275; New Hebrides at 1285; Society Islands at 1300; Tuamotu Islands at 1309; Austral Islands at 1340; Marquesas Islands at 1346; Other Locations at 1354.

Soviet Union starts at 1360
Soviet Union at 1360; Off-Map (USSR) at 1398.

Other locations start at 1403 and end at 1535 (various that were not incorporated elsewhere).
-----------------------------------------------------------


MODIFICATIONS

Main Sources for US base information:
Building the Navy’s Bases in World War II: History of the Bureau of Yards and Docks and the Civil Engineer Corps 1940-1946 Volumes 1 & 2.
These can be found at: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Building_Bases/index.html#contents1

World War 2 Pacific Island Guide by Gordon Rottman.

For the moment here are modifications for US held islands/bases.

United States
Los Angeles (506) – fuel set to 950’000 (from 353’500); reason – there was over 40 million barrels of oil on the West Coast in 1941 with the main production center in and around Los Angeles. Fuel availability was no problem; tanker availability was the problem. Source: Pearl Harbor Hearings available at http://ibiblio.org/pha/index.html

Pearl Harbor 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.

Lahaina (577) – fuel set to 200 (from 58200); reason – Lahaina had no major fuel storage facilities. This was an old whaling station. It was only used as a deep-water anchorage site by the Navy.

Palmyra (588) – fuel set to 0 (from 3400), supply set to 500; reason – no fuel storage facilities however large avgas storage was built or building.

Funafuti (591) – Nationality set to New Zealand, fuel set to 0 (from 400); supply set to 50 (from 10); port set to 0 (from 1); reason – NZ coastwatchers present prior to war. No facilities built pre-war.

Nanumea (592) – fuel set to 0 (from 700), nationality set to New Zealand; reason – no facilities built pre-war.

Nukufetau (593) – fuel set to 0 (from 1000), supply set to 0 (from 10), port set to 0 (from 1), nationality set to New Zealand; reason – no facilities built pre-war.

Vaitupu (594) – supply set to 0 (from 10), port set to 0 (from 1); reason – no facilities built pre-war.

Canton Island (597) – fuel set to 0 (from 8000), port set to 1 (from 2); reason – only air facilities were developed by war’s beginning by the US Army. Units present should be US Army, not US Navy. The US Navy occupied the civilian seaplane base after the start of the war. No real garrison per se until February 1942.

Pago Pago (603) – fuel set to 500 (from 4200), port set to 1 (from 3), airfield set to 0; reason – little construction was done by Dec. 7, 1941, no airfield, only very small wharf already in place for Navy radio station. No indication that the fuel storage facilities were finished, let alone had any fuel, by the beginning of the war.

Ta’u (604) – port set to 0 (from 1); reason – no pre-war facilities.

Baker Island (607) – airfield set to 0 (from 1), fuel to 0 (from 800), supply to 0 (from 10). No pre-war facilities.

Johnston Island (610) – no changes.

Wake Island (611) – airfield to 2 (from 3); reason – work was started on 2 airstrips, but incomplete as of Dec. 7, 1941, however enough was ready for fighter operations.





Shortlands (749) – port to 0 (from 1); reason – no pre-war facilities.

Tulagi (753) – fuel to 200 (from 1700). No significant pre-war fuel storage.


Nandi (763) – correct name to “Nandi” and airfield to 3 (there were two 7000+ runways built before the war).

Abemama (771) – fuel to 0

Makin (776) – fuel to 0

Tarawa (781) – port to 0, fuel to 0

Christmas Island (785) – port to 0, airfield to 0, fuel to 0, supply 10, all forces back in PH or US, though Navy base unit should probably be a USAAF base unit instead and the ‘civilian’ construction unit should probably disappear outright. The island was unoccupied by any significant Allied forces at the start of the war. First units arrived on Feb. 10, 1942.

Tongatapu (805) fuel to 0

Hong Kong (810) – fort to 7 (from 3). This is an increase to allow for a more ‘historical’ outcome as at 3, Hong Kong is taken fairly quickly whereas at 7 it falls a little later (HK fell on Dec. 25, 1941).

Rabaul (992) supply to 1500 (from xxxx); there is no reason for so much supply to be there, though your indication that the base/fuel was for the purposes of a Japanese computer player is probably why.

Kavieng (999) supply to 50



1022 Christmas Island IO fuel to 0

1060 Upolu fuel 0

1276 0 0
1278 fuel 0
1279 fuel 0
1281 fuel 0

1289 Efate port to 0, airfield to 0, fuel 0 ; no pre-war facilities

1293 Luganville port to 0, airfield to 0, fuel 0 ; no pre-war facilities
1296 0 0

1358 Wallis 0 0 fuel 0

A note about other Allied bases in the Pacific:

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).

This was the extent I got to 10 years ago. Most of the ports around the map unless significant pre-war ports or bases should have far less fuel and supplies on hand.

I like what you did about Truk. I think the logic may be applied to many pre-war Japanese ports/bases on the islands in the Pacific at the start of the war. All this begs for someone to write something about Japanese logistics in the first six months of the war.

I know this all may lead to a game that is "Logistics in the Pacific", but as people who have been involved in real military operations know, logistics is the key concern and drives operational tempo. And as the scenario is really not meant to be for fighting against the computer but rather for head to head/PBEM, then this should do a lot.





< Message edited by Pascal_slith -- 12/15/2021 5:04:57 AM >


_____________________________

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


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 241
RE: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 12/15/2021 4:10:14 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cavalry Corp

I also once had the durability 0 issue in my mod a long way back - I think thats the issue.

the same applies to ships if durability is 0 I think they cannot come on the map.

Hope my mod gains some traction eventually...


Took a look at your mod post but do not see a summary of what the mod does or is or what the key features are? What your goal is? I would recommend putting something like that at the top of your post to gain more traction...



ok have done this.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 242
RE: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 12/15/2021 7:15:42 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Thanks Pascal, I'll take a look and may do a final update when I find the time.

_____________________________


(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 243
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 1/22/2022 4:46:31 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Updated PWhexedat files 1.3a 22/01/2022 fixing hexside error at 83,54 (thanks gervabit!), adding rail connections to Mildura (thanks orabera!) & Canberra (thanks kull!):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qj7d4ebhuvejsap/pwhexedat1-3a.zip?dl=0***



_____________________________


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 244
RE: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 1/23/2022 10:19:18 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
A couple of erratas:

The 'Babes Lite' scenario didn't catch the fact that the USCGC Taney transferred to the Atlantic after a yard period at the very end of 1942 and spent the next two years there before being converted to an AGC and returning to the Pacific in 1945.

No Japanese MTBs carried reloads for their torpedoes.

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 245
RE: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 1/24/2022 3:31:39 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Not with the game at the moment, but going from memory the Taney in my mod has an upgrade to 5"/38 guns in early 1943, a withdrawal date in autumn 1943 and a return date in 1945 as an AGC (I hope the conversion is actually being carried-out while the ship is off-map).

This is still wrong though, after verification it appears that the 5"/38 battery has been installed during a refit at Mare Island at the end of 1943, and photo evidence suggests that Taney was still at Mare Island on Feb. 18, 1944. Sources have her arriving at Boston on March 14, 1944 and commencing Atlantic escort duty in April 1944. Not big enough an impact to release a scenario update, but noted for inclusion in the future.

My Japanese MTBs have no torpedo reloads.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 1/24/2022 6:11:43 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 246
RE: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 1/24/2022 7:30:22 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
You are correct re CGC Taney however Da Babes Lite has her only refit converting her to the configuration of her sister ships as convoy escorts in the Atlantic and never leaving the Pacific at all. IRL she converted first near the end of 1943 to the unique 5"/38 cal configuration leaving the Pacific to escort ships to the Mediterranean and then to an AGC at the end of 1944 before returning to the Pacific. She arrived at Pearl Harbor as an AGC similar to Ingham, Spencer, Campbell and Bibb on the 18th of February after transiting the Panama Canal and passing through San Diego.

BTW CGC Campbell and CGC Bibb are not included in Da Babes Lite at all. Bibb was served as an AGC at Okinawa while Campbell arrived at Okinawa pretty much as the war ended.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 247
RE: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 1/24/2022 7:38:06 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
I have Ingham, Spencer, Campbell and Bibb as AGCs in my mod

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 248
RE: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 1/24/2022 10:56:51 PM   
Falken


Posts: 242
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline
Hi LST,

Just wondered with the latest updates if you have found a way of reducing the KB's starting Torpedo loadouts as the PH attack has already occurred.
If you have, apologies for asking.. :)

Thanks.

< Message edited by Falken -- 1/24/2022 10:57:07 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 249
RE: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 1/25/2022 3:12:41 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Hi Falken, no unfortunately not. THe Wpn 19 slot in the editor only indicates the max number of torps, apparently there is no way to indicate the actual number of torps remaining.

_____________________________


(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 250
RE: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 1/30/2022 4:05:43 PM   
the1henson

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 12/6/2013
Status: offline
In Mundy's AAR he discovered that civilians can have an outsized effect on combat. I think you nerfed it subsequently, but it occurred to me that another solution would be starting them all in Strat mode, if that's possible.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 251
RE: Updated 22/01/2022: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 1/30/2022 11:20:34 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


• Manila subs are not waiting to be sunk by a first-turn port strike – IMO that popular opening move is a silly “20:20 hindsight” exploit, as much as first-turn carrier hunting. Most of them are assigned to TFs – it’s an Dec 7th PM scenario and after the Clark Field strike they got orders to move or pull the plug to hide

Cheers,
LargeSlowTarget


I assume you left Sealion and Seadragon in port? Both were undergoing overhaul and unable to submerge even in the shallows of the bay on 10 Dec (local time) when the Japanese turned their attention to Cavite. Sealion's engines were dismantled (Blair, p.142).


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 252
RE: Updated 22/01/2022: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 2/1/2022 10:19:38 AM   
JanSako

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 1/16/2022
Status: offline
He did not. I have been chasing that B*****d Seadragon all over the South China see for weeks now... :-)
Well, him & like 20 others but you know, Type-95 DC's...

BTW, LST - Are you familiar with the mechanic where Base forces 'grow oversized' when located on large airfields?

I do not recall if this was Vanilla or DBB, but I remember reading that the game picks one base force 'at random' & designate it as a 'home' base force (Indicated by an * or something in the name). Then as you are expanding the airfield, this one base picks up extra devices so you don't have to keep dozens of units there. Pretty sure it does not apply to Company-sized units though.

The question (finally!) is if you left this in place or not. No idea if it is moddable to begin with.
Would be good to know so I can plan to be able to move some base forces later (or expand the AF a bit more than intended to trigger it) or knowing they will be stuck for the duration. In my PBEM game I am really limited in how many planes I can fly (JAP, 1/42) because of the lack of Air Sup elements. (no doubt as intended). Trouble is I will simply not have nearly enough to support the air force I can field/need to field when I expand to historical extent.

Example: I can support Malaya & PI & have some in Rabaul, but then there is nothing left for DEI beyond the bare min needed to protect the oilfields. Let's not even talk about China but I love the mess you made there!
I get you that it is about slowing down, but the Malaya air support units will be needed in Burma later. Yeah, logically PI support then goes to DEI but PI can't stay uncovered either!

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 253
RE: Updated 22/01/2022: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 2/3/2022 9:49:35 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

In Mundy's AAR he discovered that civilians can have an outsized effect on combat. I think you nerfed it subsequently, but it occurred to me that another solution would be starting them all in Strat mode, if that's possible.

Not sure about this, would require a house rule not to switch the move mode, units on dot bases cannot be switched to strat mode and air attacks can easily push the attacked unit out of strat mode.

quote:

I assume you left Sealion and Seadragon in port? Both were undergoing overhaul and unable to submerge even in the shallows of the bay on 10 Dec (local time) when the Japanese turned their attention to Cavite. Sealion's engines were dismantled (Blair, p.142).

quote:

He did not.


Yes, I did - they start in port and pierside repair mode, with 10 points sys and 20 points engine damage. But when switched to shipyard repairs, they get fixed pretty fast. May have to increase damage levels.

quote:

BTW, LST - Are you familiar with the mechanic where Base forces 'grow oversized' when located on large airfields? [...] The question (finally!) is if you left this in place or not. No idea if it is moddable to begin with.


I think you are referring to what Andy Mac explains in the quote below - and the answer is "not moddable since a mechanic for the AI only" - you will need to make do with a shortage of aircraft mechanics, like the Japanese had to.

quote:

Andy Mac -> RE: HQ types (5/29/2020 10:10:09 AM)

Av Support in some units is an AI crutch basically the AI is allowed to increase Av Support to meet its needs if its at a base

So say an AI script send a sqn of 24 fighters to a particular base it will only do so if the base has av support present

Now if the base force that was supposed to provide the av support either was destroyed or delayed then the air move wont happen - to minimise when this happens numerous units have 0 av support in their TOE although I believe its suppressed to a human player on screen.

It give redundancy to the AI basically the Ai will see ah base x is not missing av support it has 0 av support - the difference between 0 and not existing is quite profound for the AI as it allows the AI to proceed with the script.

The AI also gets a cheat that if a base has insufficient av support for the number of aircraft the AI can increase by normal reinforcement the number of AV support squads in an LCU above its TOE

So lets assume a Japanese Area Army with 0 Av support is the only unit at a base with 100 Zeros - the 0 av support will over time increase above TOE to 100 Av Support to help the Ai manage its Av Support






_____________________________


(in reply to JanSako)
Post #: 254
RE: Updated 22/01/2022: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 2/4/2022 9:56:22 AM   
JanSako

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 1/16/2022
Status: offline
quote:

I think you are referring to what Andy Mac explains in the quote below - and the answer is "not moddable since a mechanic for the AI only" - you will need to make do with a shortage of aircraft mechanics, like the Japanese had to.


I meant this part, found it today:

Manual, section 16.5 (p262)
16.5 BASE FORCE REPLACEMENTS
Base Forces also receive replacements just as any ground unit does, but their expected full
strength level for the computer player can change during the game. Every friendly airfield with
at least one Base Force unit at the airfield will pick one Base Force to be its primary Base
Force. The primary Base Force will have its expected full strength value for aviation support
points change so that its expected value equals 30 times the current size of the airfield (never
greater than 250). This change in the expected value can cause replacement units to be built
even when losses have not been taken. This will provide sufficient aviation points to support
growing airfields.

I 'forgot' that it was 'computer player' only. Thank you!

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 255
RE: Updated 22/01/2022: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a - 2/6/2022 10:55:30 PM   
gervabit


Posts: 49
Joined: 7/2/2019
Status: offline
good morning, does anyone have the base-region definition for witptracker? I tried the ones that come by default but there are poorly defined bases

(in reply to JanSako)
Post #: 256
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/7/2022 3:58:01 AM   
Tanaka


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

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

The R&D at game start is set to airframes which were under development in Dec 41 in the real war. You can change the R&D factories to whatever other airframe you want to research, but to acctually accelerate R&D you will need to pay the price in HI and supplies to expand and repair the R&D - otherwise any airframe you choose will become available at the historic date. And with the limited number of R&D factories available you will have to choose wisely which airframes to accelerate.

To take your example: There is a Judy R&D factory and an Emily R&D factory at start. Since the Emily will become available in 4/42 without accelerating R&D, you may decide it is not worth spending HI and supplies to expand and repair its R&D factory in order to advance the availability date one month, if at all - 4/42 is too close to get the necessary 100 research points. So you can switch it to something else, like a second Judy R&D factory. But you will still need to pay the price for factory expansion if you want to accelerate the availability date of the Judy - even twice if you assign two R&D factories to Judy.

It is the very idea of this scenario to slow down the Japanese R&D. You can still accelerate airframe availability dates, but not for multiple airframes all at once. I expect that experienced players will concentrate R&D to get the AM5 Zero and the first Tojo asap, then switch R&D to George or Jack or Sam and to Frank.


I really like this idea. It combines the best of both worlds. You get PDU on but it still slows you down like PDU off without all of the permanent upgrade restrictions and dead ends. Very nice. This would have been a great option in the base game. Gotta give this a try sometime!

There are some positives for Japan with PDU off as well. I take it this is the allied balance offset to that?

• To model the “on a shoe-string” condition of the Allies in regards to military supplies at the beginning of the war and the rising production over time, many Allied light industries and resource centers start 33% - 50% damaged. No 1945 production levels from Day 1!


quote:

ORIGINAL: SierraJuliet

So here I am diving off the deep end. I hate diving. Not prone to frolicking in water too much either. I do, however, digress. Mundy has been patiently throwing a line out for some time now (… fishing. Also, not on my list of favourite past times) casting for an opponent to take him on in LargeSlowTarget's Bottlenecks Mod. Since my last game with Tocaff wrapped up I’ve been a little removed from AE. Travel is my excuse. I was thinking of getting a game up and going next year but Mundy’s persistence has won out. A little peek at what LST has offered in this Mod and it is intriguing. Reminds me of what first attracted me to Pac War… the chance to put yourself in the shoes of the great and famous and see if you could do better. This Mod looks like it will do just that. Pearl Harbour and the first up aerial attacks and beach landings of 7/8 December are hard coded in. We take over as Pearl Harbour burns and Kimmel rips off his Admiral insignia.

What is there to like about this Mod. No full Sir Robin, Fortress Palembang, Mersing Gambit, Manila Sub Slaughter or first turn deep invasions! Civilian units, blockade runners, U-Boats, Doolittle Raiders, the Thai Airforce and Navy plus lots more.

What to get used to. Slowed down ops tempo and the brakes are on for production and decreased shipping availability. No more Japanese merchant shipping sitting idle I expect. Expect to see me under the hammer straight away.

Here’s to a most intriguing MOD from LST. And thanks Mundy for taking me on.

Now to find out just what I have here and work out a plan of attack.


Very intriguing! What is full Sir Robin?

Is it possible to use Andrew Browns new map updates with your mod? Or will you be incorporating them?

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 2/7/2022 4:51:01 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 257
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/7/2022 10:02:28 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
"Full Sir Robin" means avoiding fighting if possible and the evacuation of all movable assets from the SRA to "safe" areas like India and Australia - in other words limiting losses as much as possible for maximum force preservation. The term comes from a Monty Python sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

Don't want to blow my own trumpet, but Andrew Brown's new map updates have in part been inspired by my mod and he has incorporated them into his map update.

I strongly recommend using the map mod I provide with the mod files, because I have made some changes NOT included in Andrew's map update in order to fit some bases I have added.

I have followed the various forum posts about map errors, wrong hexsides etc. and I have provided an updated Pwhexdat file only recently.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 2/7/2022 10:07:09 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 258
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/7/2022 6:35:28 PM   
Tanaka


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

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

"Full Sir Robin" means avoiding fighting if possible and the evacuation of all movable assets from the SRA to "safe" areas like India and Australia - in other words limiting losses as much as possible for maximum force preservation. The term comes from a Monty Python sketch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZwuTo7zKM8

Don't want to blow my own trumpet, but Andrew Brown's new map updates have in part been inspired by my mod and he has incorporated them into his map update.

I strongly recommend using the map mod I provide with the mod files, because I have made some changes NOT included in Andrew's map update in order to fit some bases I have added.

I have followed the various forum posts about map errors, wrong hexsides etc. and I have provided an updated Pwhexdat file only recently.


Gotcha love Monty Python

Roger on all that! Sounds like your mod will be the next PBEM I play! I love that I can get the current map updates and still use the Kamikaze Bellum map which is my favorite map art. Kudos for all of your work looks great!

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 2/7/2022 7:34:01 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 259
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/7/2022 8:19:56 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
Taking a look around your mod as the Japanese so many interesting changes! One thing I noticed is how you have already set up sub patrols and land units moving everywhere and most air units are stood down and set to training. I am assuming this is to save a lot of first turn set up time and planning. Could you elaborate more on this? Just curious thanks!

_____________________________


(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 260
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/11/2022 10:31:17 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
@Tanaka: The air units are stood down and training because this is a "Dec 7th post-attack" scenario with the historic damage done to PH, Clark Field, Malaya, Wake etc. - no additional airstrikes are supposed to fly on the first turn. And yes, many land units and subs have move or patrol orders and most ships scattered around the map have been put into convoys heading for "collection points" in order to save time and reduce the first turn clickfest. While modding I had to make so many restarts and I got tired of doing the same thousands of clicks time and again to setup my standard opening moves.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 261
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/11/2022 6:12:16 PM   
Tanaka


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

@Tanaka: The air units are stood down and training because this is a "Dec 7th post-attack" scenario with the historic damage done to PH, Clark Field, Malaya, Wake etc. - no additional airstrikes are supposed to fly on the first turn. And yes, many land units and subs have move or patrol orders and most ships scattered around the map have been put into convoys heading for "collection points" in order to save time and reduce the first turn clickfest. While modding I had to make so many restarts and I got tired of doing the same thousands of clicks time and again to setup my standard opening moves.


Thanks! This is a very nice convenience bonus added to the mod! Great work here as well! Love the mod! Cheers!

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 262
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/13/2022 10:09:14 AM   
JanSako

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 1/16/2022
Status: offline
@LST I have one comment to your initial Japanese setup.

You have made most of base forces on the Home Islands strat move to Yokohama (I think), which is not so good for all those disabled factories in the places they are leaving. It took me a few turns to realize why my prod factories are not repairing... no ENG units present...

Also it would help if cargo ships that will be allocated to Korea-Home Islands res convoys would go to their ports instead of Yokohama (wasting fuel going there & then back), but that is really just me being lazy & wanting someone else to do the calculation how many ships & from where can ship the 180K resources/day I need for Home Islands.

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 263
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/13/2022 3:50:14 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Hey JanSako, Eng units do not help with and are not needed for factory repairs, they only play a role in port and airbase repairs and port / airbase / fort construction. However, you need 10k supplies minimum at a base for factory repairs to occur.

People have different ideas about what ships to use for the various convoy routes, so anything I do could find approval or disapproval. Nothing prevents you from creating new convoys to send the ships to where you want them to go .

_____________________________


(in reply to JanSako)
Post #: 264
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/14/2022 9:31:54 AM   
JanSako

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 1/16/2022
Status: offline
I saw the other thread, thanks for the clarification! Are there some 'rolls' as well that need to be passed? Does it repair just one type of factory or one of each type of damaged factory?

If I have a damaged LI, HI, Air Prod & R&D factory (Hello from Tokyo) all in the same base with plenty of supply, what will get repaired?

We learn something new every day!

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 265
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/15/2022 9:15:45 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
All industries except R&D and resources / oil usually repair one point of damage per turn, provided enough supplies are available (minimum 10k plus the amount needed for repairs - 1k per point in stock scenarios, different values in my mod). R&D have just a chance to repair one point per day, the probability of repairs going up as the arrival date gets closer.

So a damaged LI, HI, Air Prod & R&D factory all in the same base with plenty of supply will repair one LI, one HI and one Air Prod point per day, and maybe an R&D point as well.

_____________________________


(in reply to JanSako)
Post #: 266
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/18/2022 5:19:20 PM   
gervabit


Posts: 49
Joined: 7/2/2019
Status: offline
Consult, someone has been able to take and raise the level of ports, of all the bases from Hanoi, to Shanghai? If that feat is achieved, is it possible that the oil/fuel/resources offloaded in saigon will reach HongKong, Shanghai?

What did the river crossings with yellow X mean?

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 267
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 2/19/2022 9:40:43 PM   
JanSako

 

Posts: 47
Joined: 1/16/2022
Status: offline
quote:

Consult, someone has been able to take and raise the level of ports, of all the bases from Hanoi, to Shanghai? If that feat is achieved, is it possible that the oil/fuel/resources offloaded in saigon will reach HongKong, Shanghai?


Yes, possible BUT.
- offload in Cam Ranh Bay is better than Saigon. Pretty sure anything unloaded in Saigon gets pulled to Singapore if you have that set to 'accumulate'.
- you would 'probably' have to take & improve the railroad across China. I don't think the resources would flow through so many hexes without road connection as they are on the coast. Think once a week jump between each hex times how many hexes? It would take a long time before anything would make it through.

quote:

What did the river crossings with yellow X mean?


There is a 'railroad' connection between the hexes, BUT you are not to use it until you improve the ports on both sides to their max 'normal' value (the number listed). This is a house rule only, the game engine would let you strat-move stuff through there normally.

The crossings with 'Red X' do not have a railroad connection so you cannot ship stuff through directly no matter what. This simulates places where there were no railway bridges in real life at that time (& long afterwards).






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by JanSako -- 2/19/2022 9:47:38 PM >

(in reply to gervabit)
Post #: 268
RE: Mod Update: Bottlenecks in the Pacific 1.1. Release... - 2/20/2022 1:28:26 AM   
Tanaka


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anomander Rake

Hi LST. We are still playing your mod. Now we have end of February 1943.
I understand that some things in mod was changed so maybe many of my comments are no longer valid.
1. A plenty of dot bases good working in China but it is annoying when those deprived of troops pass "for free" to Japan side (and it need garrisons).
2. I'm not sure that is good idea in Burma. I think taht baselines significantly simplify the supply even without roads.
3. I have some problems with ASW weapons in aircrafts. I don't know if this is due to the general weakening of ASW or the reason is similiar to this http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4503597
4. Some aircraft performance is very bad. Oscars, even IIb version are very weak. Sonias also are useless when enemy have even few AA guns. Bombers should be harder. Now a little defence fighter advance gives bombers butchery.


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Hi AR,

thanks for your feedback.

1. All Chinese-owned dot bases in China have a tiny Chinese "Civilian Administration" garrison unit in order to prevent the auto-flipping of dot bases to the Japanese side. All dot bases also have a minimum daily supply of 1 in order to keep the Administrators alive. Don't see where your issues comes from.

2. The dot bases in Burma and elsewhere do have a supply CAP, which in roadless jungle is very low (10 per day IIRC). If the supply CAP is working as I believe it does, supply flow through dot bases should be limited.

3. The version you are using should have only one plane using the dedicated ASW weapon filter and a "depth charge" - the Jake. The "depth charge" is actually a renamed bomb device, so should behave like a regular bomb. Could you please give more details about the problems you face?

4. Oscars have always been weak and I did not even touch their stats at all in my mod. The KI-51 is now a dive bomber with "Attack bomber" ability and armor even for the A model - the plane has been designed as ground attack airplane for both low-level and dive bombing. However, in the game anything lighter than 100kg bombs is pretty ineffective against troops in terrain other than "clear", and no Allied player worth his salt will keep troops in the open as long as Japan has air superiority. Best use for the Ki-51 and similar light bombers is hitting airfields or ports in order to prevent fort construction.


Still exploring your wonderful mod. This post interested me after the feedback I received on attacking land units with carrier aircraft and divebombers (Vals). If you set Vals to attack land targets at 10-15K they will dive bomb land targets and get more exposed to AA. Thus here in your mod since the Sonias are now dive bombers you will get the same effect at these altitudes dive bombing and not level bombing. So like Vals you will need to set the Sonias in your mod to attack land targets below 10K or above 15k to avoid more intense AA from divebombing...

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 2/20/2022 1:29:05 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 269
RE: Mod Update: Bottlenecks in the Pacific 1.1. Release... - 2/20/2022 2:28:42 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
Also I take it you will not be updating your map to the most current version of Bellum Pacifica or a non-hexside version?

I also saw you noted there are no AI files included but I did notice there are AI files for Scen 59, 60, and 61 included in the mod folder. These are perhaps from DaBabes mod?

How does the Historical First Turn On/Off option work with your mod since you already include historical strikes? Do you recommend on or off?

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 2/20/2022 3:15:32 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Update 25/11/2021: Bottlenecks in the Pacific v1.3a Page: <<   < prev  6 7 8 [9] 10   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

3.766