Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

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.

Good idea, but isn't there a limit of five air units per CV?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

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.

Good idea, but isn't there a limit of five air units per CV?

Should it be the case that CVs can only have five air entities, though, then why couldn't a fighter squadron be divided up into three "sections"? That would give five, wouldn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

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.

Good idea, but isn't there a limit of five air units per CV?

Should it be the case that CVs can only have five air entities, though, then why couldn't a fighter squadron be divided up into three "sections"? That would give five, wouldn't it?

It depends on the rest of the air group. For British carriers, which frequently only carried two types, that might work (plus allow splitting of the torpedo squadron into two groups). For US early-war CVs, it would require merging the VB and VS squadrons into one large squadron, reducing bombing flexibility. Another issue; I think CVs need to have one squadron slot free in case they need to take aboard "orphans" from another carrier.

Can someone more knowledgeable please comment on this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet

So far I'm up to 18th Dec as US/Allies. The reduced capacity of transports seems to be working out well. I'm no expert on the oob for starting AK's, TK's, etc in this scenario compared to the original (I understand there are more transports) but even with the reduced load I'm finding I have enough vessels to supply my forces so far

quote:



I've noticed there has been no Japanese attempt to invade Wake, or rabaul as yet (can't remember when that started in the original scenario, but got a feeling I'd have got a sniff of it by now) Also, the invasion of Malaya, Borneo and the Philippines is going at a slower pace than normal against the AI.

quote:


An interesting game! I've played the first 2 months of the standard scenario so many times.. it's really refreshing to get a different feel to the early stages. I'm really enjoying it. Others that know a lot more than me about the whole PTO will no doubt have more meaningful comment

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tristanjohn

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX


It depends on the rest of the air group. For British carriers, which frequently only carried two types, that might work (plus allow splitting of the torpedo squadron into two groups). For US early-war CVs, it would require merging the VB and VS squadrons into one large squadron, reducing bombing flexibility. Another issue; I think CVs need to have one squadron slot free in case they need to take aboard "orphans" from another carrier.

Can someone more knowledgeable please comment on this?

No it wouldn't. You start with three squadrons. Divide one squadron (fighters) into three sections and now you have five
groups of planes: three fighter "sections" and two bomber squadrons.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Pry: I fired up scenario 32, and I'm enjoying it so far. I actually really like the small aircraft squadrons! A few questions and comments:

1. I see a whole bunch of Ki-44-IIb Tojos; e.g., at Canton, all over the place. These don't arrive til August 42, do they?

quote:


2. The scenario notes say no orders have been prepared, but I did find one TF formed up: the replenishment TF with KB. I assume that's as designed.

quote:


3. I am a bit surprised to see almost nothing garrisoning Hanoi or Haiphong. I gather you've already considered this.

quote:


4. By the same token, three divisions in Canton; didn't one of those participate in the Malaya operation historically? There are no transports at Canton to carry them away if so.

quote:



5. I love having 25 trained IJN pilots a month!

quote:


6. To my surprise, I also really like the division of aircraft into chutai. I thought it might be overwhelming, but it's not that big a deal, and there are big upsides. I'm one of those players who's always dividing air squadrons anyway, so this gives me what I want -- without costing me a "divided" slot. This might also lessen the danger of database errors caused by dividing squadrons, right? Is there room for all these new air units you've created? Do we still get a total of 18 slots for further division of stuff -- like ground units?

quote:


7. This may be more a comment about the stock game. I note that ground units do have marching orders already set. Invariably, regardless of what direction they're going, they say they're headed "East." Should the player change these orders? Here's one example:

quote:

I'm glad I could help with all those Tojos. There are a bunch of 'em. Again, this is scenario 32; I dunno if the others have the same problem

quote:

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Grotius,
Don (and crew) have made all airgroups to the squadron level. I don't know for sure how small they made Japanese squadrons (I don't know if Daitai or Chutai is smaller), but I think they made small groups for them as well.

They have reduced cargo capacity across the board as well. I think they reduced them almost as much as Pry did. Theirs was done in two stages (90% at first then another 25%, I think)

I don't know what changes are being made to Japanese pilot replacement. Probably none as there aren't too many Japanese experts in their crew.

bc

quote:

Paul - sorry for cluttering up your thread.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dukemourn

I noticed there are no pilots in the editor of your scenario but this has no noticable effect in the game. What purpose do the pilots that exist in the editor of stock games play?

quote:


I'm waiting patiently and appreciatively for your correction upload.

quote:


Although I haven't finished setting up the first turn of your alpha version I could tell that I liked the breakdown of airgroups into Chutai's. I'm hopeful reduced cargo capacity slows down the game. If you have created something that would satisfy you I'm sure it would satisfy me. I was thrilled with the very first version of this game....and get excited about every improvement.

I like to play Japanese against AI which leads to the question of the AI's ability to manage the smaller air groups, among other things. I follow Mogami's house rules in China....no outside force unless PP paid. No bombing resource/manpower. Meet all garrison requirements. Also no invasions out of recon range.

Enough chat...don't want to slow you down reading.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet

I take it when the new scenario is uploaded with corrected Tojos, we'll need a restart?

My game is still going well (up to 25th Dec 41) Things are definitely going slower and I like it that way. The slower Japanese advance makes it more tempting for me to re-arrange my defenses somewhat - yet the lower capacity of transports means I risk more ships by doing so. From a gameplay point of view it's an interesting dilemma.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Just re-downloaded scenarios and saw 9 Tojo's in 3 chutai (47TH) at canton? (andrew brown scenario 34 and 35) Edit: Nevermind i guess they are there in the stock scenarios as well...

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

I see Allied players rushing the Chinese into Indo-China on turn 1 if the 21st is not there to prevent that move.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Just re-downloaded scenarios and saw 9 Tojo's in 3 chutai (47TH) at canton? (andrew brown scenario 34 and 35) Edit: Nevermind i guess they are there in the stock scenarios as well...

Correct theose 3 Chutai's are supposed to be Tojo's

I have uploaded updated scenario fies this morning, I added 6 new bases to the AB Map scenarios and moved the Japanese 21st Division back to Hanoi in all 6, This is one of these cases I often mention where Historical reality and the game do not mix because the players have total intel on where every unit is located before they ever run turn 1.

I see Allied players rushing the Chinese into Indo-China on turn 1 if the 21st is not there to prevent that move.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I just loaded up new scenario 31, and I have another question for you, pry. In this scenario, Tokyo is worth 240 points to the Japanese and 15,000 to the Allies; whereas in your scenario 16, Tokyo is worth 570 to Japan; and in stock scenario 15, Tokyo is worth 30 to Japan. I know you use Tokyo to reflect Japanese victory points gained at Pearl Harbor. Why the difference in points between scenario 16 and 31?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

More feedback on Scenario 31; I'm playing as Japan against the AI, Very Hard setting:

1. If I try to move the 18th Division from Canton to Hong Kong, it tells me that it can't move from one enemy ZOC to another. The 18th seems to think it's in Malaya or something! Does it think it's in an Allied ZOC? I don't see any A in the Canton hex.

quote:


2. Likewise, the 33rd infantry, now in Shanghai, seems to think it is ALSO in Malaya. It's got movement orders to Bangkok, which is about 400 million hexes away. For now, I set it to sit and await transports.

quote:


3. The landings at Khota Baru and Songhkia both include AKs (not just APs) transporting troops. I actually like this; it removes one of my complaints about the stock scenario 15, in which it takes forever to unload any supply at those places because APs unload supply so much slower than AKs. Just curious what the rationale for the change is -- if indeed it is a change. But so far I like it.

quote:


4. Along the same lines, I'm generally finding the transport limitations make a BIG difference in Japan's play. I think I like it, even though I tend to play Japan these days; it feels like more of a "big deal" to choose an invasion site now because transports are far more limited. Still, it may be too big a slowdown when coupled with the relocation of major units like the 33rd and 18th, but it's still way too early to tell. My playstyle is to pick up ground units in one turn by designating 3 or 4x the necessary number of APs: 80000 for 20000 load unit, for example. That way they unload and load fast. Well, I can still do that, but it means making more round trips. So for someone like me, this definitely is slowing things down big time. I'm conducting two or three landings on Luzon, not five or six.

quote:


5. Many air units have fatigue around 14 or 15. As designed?

quote:


6. No damaged air units at all in Japan's starting OOB. As designed? Not that I mind.

quote:


7. I assume Singapore and Clark haven't been bombed yet; I see no damage there. Do we get the first-turn surprise bonuses for bombing them on the December 8 turn?