Slitherine

quote:

Pilot Changes
Japanese
Changed IJAAF to 35 per month Changed IJNAF to 25 per month

quote:

Added (202) P-80A Shooting Star available 4/45 build rate 100 per month

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr

quote:

Pilot Changes
Japanese
Changed IJAAF to 35 per month Changed IJNAF to 25 per month

* * * *
Looks interesting. I like it. The above scares me a little, but not much.

One question - with Jap fleets starting in harbors, will a historic CV group be able to reach Pearl? I tried something like this once in a mod and couldn't warp my carriers all the way. They stopped something like 5 hexes out of range.

quote:

ORIGINAL: doktorblood

quote:

Added (202) P-80A Shooting Star available 4/45 build rate 100 per month

This is pretty interesting. Looks like you spent a lot of time trying to tweak the game for more realistic results ... I'm wondering why you chose to add this aircraft this early and at such a fantastic production level.

Only 45 of these aircraft were actually delivered prior to the end of the war and only 2 were sent overseas ... England.

The initial order of 1,000 didn't begin until Feb. of 45 and a second order placed in June of 45. But this aircraft was no where near operational status before the war ended. Production aircraft were still in trials when top US ace Dick Bong was killed flying one just a few days before the war ended.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Wow – lots of good ideas. With your permission I will plagiarize … er, make that base additional research on … your work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Wow – lots of good ideas. With your permission I will plagiarize … er, make that base additional research on … your work.

quote:

Device Changes
Japanese
Dropped the 47mm AT gun load cost to 6 from 7 (Air transportable)
Device 139 Type 13 radar changed to air search

Allied
Added device 345 Canadian Rifle Squad, replacement rate of 10 per month
Added device 352 Canadian Rifle squad (12/43) rate of 10 per month
Added device 362 Canadian Engineer rate of 3 per month
(All the above was to make Canadian units stop drawing from and being a burden on British replacements)
Device 454, 5Inch CD Gun no longer upgrades to 155mm Field gun (451) In US Naval base forces

Ship Changes

Allied
Added damage to all Allied ships undergoing overhaul or repair on 12/7/41, to reflect historic limited availability status.
Reduced endurance of several USN BB classes to more real world numbers.
Adjusted arrival dates of most of the USN ships (especially Submarines) to correct historic availability date.


Aircraft Changes
Japanese
Added L2D2 Tabby factory to Nagasaki with production of 10 per month (This was also added to 1.5)
Added 1 armor to HI-27 and Claude (Out classed Yes, but not as bad as the stock game makes them they should not fall from the sky like rain anymore (Subject to testing))

Air Group Changes
Japanese
Removed damaged aircraft from all starting Japanese squadrons and made them operational (w/pilots)

Location Changes
Japanese
Moved Japanese 33rd Division to historical starting location (Shanghai, China)
Moved Japanese 4th Division to historical starting location (Shanghai, China)
Moved Japanese 21st Division to historical starting location (Tsingtao, China. One small detachment was located in Indo-China)
Moved Japanese 2nd Division to historical starting location (Naha, Okinawa)
Moved Japanese 18th Division to historical starting location (Canton, China)
Broke down 5th Division into 2 reinforced Brigades, 9th Brigade target Khota Bahru and 21st Brigade target Songkhia (Note. 5th Division is now unable to recombine to form a full division, division was historically used as garrison for Malaya after capture)
Changed Nissan engine production in Tokyo to produce Nakijima engines instead
Changed Ishikawajima engine production in Tokyo to produce Nakijima engines instead
Changed Nissan engine production in Shimizu to produce Nakijima engines instead
Changed Nissan engine production in Hamamatsu to produce Nakijima engines instead
Changed Armament assembly in Osaka/Kure from 0 to 10
Changed Armament assembly in Marizuru from 0 to 10
Reduced all Japanese land units to 0% disabled, they started the war at the time and places of their own choosing and were totally ready.
Increased aviation support to Japanese home island static base forces.

Allied
Added 20 point Shipyard to Soerbaja
Added 15 point shipyard to Perth
Added 20 point shipyard to Manila
Replaced British infantry and engineers from Canadian units and Hong Kong Fort and replaced with Canadian infantry and engineers
Removed all daily supply and fuel from West Coast bases and moved to United States base 330, supply will now have to trickle down to the coast from the supply center. Reduced total daily supply and fuel on to 30,000 supply and 20,000 a day each.(again subject to long term testing, also in testing so far this has caused an occasional bottleneck at US West coast ports while waiting for fuel and supply to trickle down to the ports, values subject to change based on test results)
Reduced daily supply and fuel at Karachi (10,000, 5,000) and removed all daily supply and fuel from Bombay. Karachi is now the only supply point in India, values subject to change based on test results.
Added 50 Indian infantry squads to each of the Static base forces in India as garrisons.
Increased Aviation support at the following Australian bases, Perth (90), Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne (150) each and made them static.
Increased aviation support at Auckland to (90) and made unit static
Increased aviation support (250) to Major West coast base forces and made them static.

Pilot Changes
Japanese
Changed IJAAF to 35 per month Changed IJNAF to 25 per month

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

Pilot Changes
Japanese
Changed IJAAF to 35 per month Changed IJNAF to 25 per month

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Pry,

my sources disagree on land unit locations. Obviously, you are correct on the 21st division, but for CHS we are going to leave it in Hanoi because otherwise frisky Chinese can romp through Indo China.
Plus, my sources show Shanghai not Tsingtao

The 33rd division i agree on and had already moved to Shanghai.
The 4th division i have not moved because i have 3, count them 3 seperate locations listed from 3 sources! 2 of these sources list Japan as the location.
2nd Division i have listed as in Kanazawa, Honshu on December 8th.
18th Division had 1 brigade on Hainan island and 1 brigade in Guangdong.


Mike

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry
Removed all daily supply and fuel from West Coast bases and moved to United States base 330, supply will now have to trickle down to the coast from the supply center. Reduced total daily supply and fuel on to 30,000 supply and 20,000 a day each.(again subject to long term testing, also in testing so far this has caused an occasional bottleneck at US West coast ports while waiting for fuel and supply to trickle down to the ports, values subject to change based on test results)

quote:


Added 50 Indian infantry squads to each of the Static base forces in India as garrisons.
Increased Aviation support at the following Australian bases, Perth (90), Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne (150) each and made them static.
Increased aviation support at Auckland to (90) and made unit static
Increased aviation support (250) to Major West coast base forces and made them static.

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


I was told that fuel would not move overland, which has resulted in the daily fuel supply at the "united States" base being moved in the CHS. So does the fuel move overland or not? I would test it myself but I am busy doing scenario revision...

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


I was told that fuel would not move overland, which has resulted in the daily fuel supply at the "united States" base being moved in the CHS. So does the fuel move overland or not? I would test it myself but I am busy doing scenario revision...

Yes it will move along rail lines overland to port locations

quote:

Broke down the entire Japanese air force (IJAAF and IJNAF) to the Chutai (9 - 12 aircraft) level where possible, Japanese player now has 744 groups to control.

Overhauled the entire USAAF OOB and reduced down to squadron level where possible. Allied player now has 1210 groups to control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Interesting, and mostly nice changes... BUT...

quote:

Broke down the entire Japanese air force (IJAAF and IJNAF) to the Chutai (9 - 12 aircraft) level where possible, Japanese player now has 744 groups to control.

Overhauled the entire USAAF OOB and reduced down to squadron level where possible. Allied player now has 1210 groups to control.

...why do all you "historic mod" etc. people insist on this? Having that many groups to manage is major pain. I'd be happy to have most of my aircraft in chunks of 50-60 if at all possible (that's "hikotai" in Japanese parlance I believe, or "group" for Allies), with like 20% of my airforce divided into smaller groups (to be used in small isolated bases). (Incidentally, and perhaps unintentionally, stock game gives you this, more or less.)

Having to manage thousands of aircraft in ~800 10-aircraft chunks looks like a MAJOR pain. What do you think players will gain with this change except interface being more cluttered?

O.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry
I wanted the additional level of detail and designed it into the scenarios as a scenario I personally wanted to play, and I am sharing these with the WitP community, some members of which also would like to see this level of detail in the games they play.

When I first announced I was working on these scenarios I made it known that they were designed for the detail freak in mind not the folks who are already overwhelmed by the stock game. I am well aware that some members of the community already think the game it too detailed as is, no one is being forced into this As I stated above Play them or don't play them the choice is totally up to the individual player but some of us wanted the additional level of detail and micro-management. A pain to some and enjoyment to others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Pry--

I'm a detail freak myself, but I wonder, in most cases, how much more control are you really gaining by modeling individual squadrons, than you could have by simply dividing groups? I haven't had a chance to look at your scenarios yet (I will after finals are over), but this was a question that occurred to me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Pry--

I'm a detail freak myself, but I wonder, in most cases, how much more control are you really gaining by modeling individual squadrons, than you could have by simply dividing groups? I haven't had a chance to look at your scenarios yet (I will after finals are over), but this was a question that occurred to me.

And a good question at that, let me explain my thinking on this.. in the stock game we are VERY limited as to how many groups can be broken down due to the way the stock data base is laid out, you have less splits available after 1.5 the you had in 1.4, one side can hogg them all and you are out of luck.

Second, my thinking went along these lines and it happens to be the way I tested these so far, I generally leave 1/3rd on combat ops, 1/3rd resting and the last 1/3rd refitting and training. Right off the bat players will not be flying as many aircraft each turn so Op losses will decrease also due to a bad roll of the dice you will no longer lose whole groups in one engagement that can and does cripple you in a stock game so by adding more squadrons you will fly them less, this should allow the Japanese player to preserve their airforce in fighting shape longer than can possiby be done in the stock scenarios, (The Japanese airforce should start showing signs of degrading in 8-9/42 not 1/42 as happens now) this tends to protract operations and further slow things down.

The US bombed Rabaul for nearly two years to subdue that base, with 64 plane groups you can put it totally out of action in one turn... and keep it closed the big groups have too much firepower for me... you can do the same thing by massing smaller groups but the effect is spread out as each group makes it own roll.

Another plus is that it allows better dispersal of forces and does not over load the 30 AV support base forces by simply dumping a 64 or 72 plane group in a 30 AV support base and losing half of them to damage right away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet

Edit.. Pry, I have squadrons of P-38F's appearing on 9th Dec 41. Is that correct? I didn't think they went into production until early 42..

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Pry--

I'm a detail freak myself, but I wonder, in most cases, how much more control are you really gaining by modeling individual squadrons, than you could have by simply dividing groups? I haven't had a chance to look at your scenarios yet (I will after finals are over), but this was a question that occurred to me.

And a good question at that, let me explain my thinking on this.. in the stock game we are VERY limited as to how many groups can be broken down due to the way the stock data base is laid out, you have less splits available after 1.5 the you had in 1.4, one side can hogg them all and you are out of luck.

quote:


Second, my thinking went along these lines and it happens to be the way I tested these so far, I generally leave 1/3rd on combat ops, 1/3rd resting and the last 1/3rd refitting and training. Right off the bat players will not be flying as many aircraft each turn so Op losses will decrease also due to a bad roll of the dice you will no longer lose whole groups in one engagement that can and does cripple you in a stock game so by adding more squadrons you will fly them less, this should allow the Japanese player to preserve their airforce in fighting shape longer than can possiby be done in the stock scenarios, (The Japanese airforce should start showing signs of degrading in 8-9/42 not 1/42 as happens now) this tends to protract operations and further slow things down.

quote:


The US bombed Rabaul for nearly two years to subdue that base, with 64 plane groups you can put it totally out of action in one turn... and keep it closed the big groups have too much firepower for me... you can do the same thing by massing smaller groups but the effect is spread out as each group makes it own roll.

quote:


Another plus is that it allows better dispersal of forces and does not over load the 30 AV support base forces by simply dumping a 64 or 72 plane group in a 30 AV support base and losing half of them to damage right away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Pry, I tried installing this, and one file already was in my SCEN directory. It's wpa030.dat. I was kinda nervous about overwriting it, so I didn't copy it for the time being. What's up with this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Pry--

I'm a detail freak myself, but I wonder, in most cases, how much more control are you really gaining by modeling individual squadrons, than you could have by simply dividing groups? I haven't had a chance to look at your scenarios yet (I will after finals are over), but this was a question that occurred to me.

And a good question at that, let me explain my thinking on this.. in the stock game we are VERY limited as to how many groups can be broken down due to the way the stock data base is laid out, you have less splits available after 1.5 the you had in 1.4, one side can hogg them all and you are out of luck.

Second, my thinking went along these lines and it happens to be the way I tested these so far, I generally leave 1/3rd on combat ops, 1/3rd resting and the last 1/3rd refitting and training. Right off the bat players will not be flying as many aircraft each turn so Op losses will decrease also due to a bad roll of the dice you will no longer lose whole groups in one engagement that can and does cripple you in a stock game so by adding more squadrons you will fly them less, this should allow the Japanese player to preserve their airforce in fighting shape longer than can possiby be done in the stock scenarios, (The Japanese airforce should start showing signs of degrading in 8-9/42 not 1/42 as happens now) this tends to protract operations and further slow things down.

The US bombed Rabaul for nearly two years to subdue that base, with 64 plane groups you can put it totally out of action in one turn... and keep it closed the big groups have too much firepower for me... you can do the same thing by massing smaller groups but the effect is spread out as each group makes it own roll.

Another plus is that it allows better dispersal of forces and does not over load the 30 AV support base forces by simply dumping a 64 or 72 plane group in a 30 AV support base and losing half of them to damage right away.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet

Edit.. Pry, I have squadrons of P-38F's appearing on 9th Dec 41. Is that correct? I didn't think they went into production until early 42..

The scenario F version is actually a combination of all C, D, E and F versions produced I just called them all F versions to simplify things

quote:


ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn


It would be better still if squadrons themselves could be broken up, say, for fighters on CVs and recon squadrons. In that manner players would gain more practical operational control of at least some of their CV air assets. Fighters still wouldn't be able to perform ASW patrol, but that can't be helped now. They would now be able to be assigned more realistically to other duties, however, such as some planes of a fighter squadron assigned to CAP while others fly escort or sweep. For patrol squadrons, this change would allow players to assign part of a squadron to day search and another to night naval attack or whatever. That would give players more useful control in the game, so call it good detail. Better yet if CV bomber squadrons could also be split up.