RE: Pry's New Scenarios

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: Pry's New Scenarios

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Pry's New Scenarios

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/11/2005 2:37:21 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Dec 19 1941 in Scen 31 stock map vs IJ AI (hard difficulty, first turn surprise/historical first turn off)). Wake has not been invaded so far (?), is this intentional ? Hongkong fell too early, maybe upping the prep points for infantry too and/or adding fort levels ? Other than that, it has gone very well (not for me as allies, getting worst butt-kicking vs. AI so far) gamewise .

Cheers,

M.S.

I took out the Wake invasion in the 12/8 starts, the AI will get around to it in time... As far as Hong Kong goes the AI ends up using 2 divisions to attack HK and it will always fall early 2X troops means HK gone sooner... Simply not many ways around that...

Looking into an issue with Russian activation that might mess a few things up and make me have to change a few things...

Glad you are finding this a challange that was the intent..

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 91

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/11/2005 2:55:58 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

I took out the Wake invasion in the 12/8 starts, the AI will get around to it in time... As far as Hong Kong goes the AI ends up using 2 divisions to attack HK and it will always fall early 2X troops means HK gone sooner... Simply not many ways around that...

Ah, figures. Now I'm tempted to throw in one RCT from West Coast to up the Wake I....but with my luck so far, I'll run into KB or something.

I've managed to avoid some mistakes from my previous games, even tho sending PoW and Repulse to Khota Bharu was maybe one..but previously I've gotten away with it...not this time..

. I'll tell how the PI and Singapore will go, In my previous campaigns they too have fallen too early.

I have to say I've having best time with WitP campaign so far with the Scen 31 !!

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to pry)

Post #: 92

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/12/2005 6:04:17 AM

ckk

Posts: 1268
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: Pensacola Beach FL
Status: offline

bump

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 93

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/12/2005 5:36:05 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Singapore fell Jan 15, which is OK. I must admit I was surprised by AI with PI. Bit different approach than before..and things go in schedule for Japanese...just different approach.

I was able to get RCT, SBDs and 1000 mines into Wake I., so it remains to be seen how AI reacts. I also occupied Akyab with 2+ divisions...with plans to keep the Burma road open too. That's probably in vain, since AI seems to be slower in schedule, but working with force.

It's now Jan 19 1942 and IJ AI has done good job so far. It just landed to Aparri with force. PI is now completely encircled by IJ, nice pincer movement. And it didn't cost too many ships to IJN even, despite my efforts. I can still get the B-17s out, but I doubt I can get any P-40 units out of PI.

Pry:
Have to admit you have a good scen here (stock map 31) !!

And question: There are units called "Infrastructure" (actually there is a typo..since they are "Infastructure" in my game

)...they are static units in places like Sydney and Brisbane, belonging to Base Forces. What is their function...and why are they not replaceable ? (AFAIK, there are no such units in any pool..or do they belong to some hard-coded entity ))

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to ckk)

Post #: 94

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/12/2005 7:50:24 PM

Banquet

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline

My game is up to 18th Feb 42 so far.

The AI has stationed a unit on the railroad north of Rangoon, cutting off my units there. I've diverted a supply convoy into Rangoon to drop off supplies and am keeping my fingers crossed it doesn't get hammered by LBA. (AVG, get ready for some LR CAP duties!)

Singapore still stands. I have about 32000 troops there, but lost a good 5000-10000 troops cut off to the north as the Japanese swept south.. could kick myself for that!

The Americans are under attack in Clark Field and Manilla.. however they are holding out well so far. Supplies in both Singapore and PI are getting low and this could be critical. In both area's any shipping attracts airstrikes like bees to honey but I can't see either area holding out long unless they get some more supplies.

Guam and Wake haven't been attacked yet. I have received intel that a Japanese attack on Guam is planned for early July.

The attack on Rabaul commenced about a week or so ago. Fighting there is still in the balance.

I have the China area under AI control and the Japanese have made some good advances there. The Chinese actually took one base themselves! (forget which one)

The Japense have landed at, and taken, all the bases along the northern coast of Sarawak/Borneo. Fighting is ongoing in Balikpapan and Taraken. Palembang has fallen.

I've noticed that my LBA seems more effective than previous games. If so this is likely due to changes in the 1.5 patch. I commonly see flights of 3 B17's getting 1 or 2 hits where this used to be rare in 1.4. However the list of sunk ships for Japan isn't much bigger than usual so they must have more damaged ships (and FOW is a factor of course) but it certainly isn't hampering their ability to move their troops.

The game continues to be very enjoyable. (This is the 8th Dec scenario on AB's map)

Good stuff Pry!

I'll keep you informed as things progress. I'm planning on seeing this scenario through for quite a while yet.

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 95

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/13/2005 2:10:25 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Pry:
Have to admit you have a good scen here (stock map 31) !!

All 6 are based on the same set of ideals, so all should play nearly the same. So far I am very pleased with both the how the scenarios play and the positive feedback. Several changes can not be determined until the game has advanced into 43/44 to see if things worked as intended.

quote:

And question: There are units called "Infrastructure" (actually there is a typo..since they are "Infastructure" in my game )...they are static units in places like Sydney and Brisbane, belonging to Base Forces. What is their function...and why are they not replaceable ? (AFAIK, there are no such units in any pool..or do they belong to some hard-coded entity ))

This is something I added, it is a static place holder. When the scenario designer gives something to the players they will always use it if they are given access to it. I did the place holder to provide the additional benefit but at the same time keep them hands off. If they were not static then the Brisbane base force would be transported to PM faster than the Japanese player could blink. I only used this in well supplied bases so they should never become disabled and allow the player to move the unit...

I'll fix the spelling

nobodys perfect.

Again thanks for the feedback..

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 96

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/13/2005 2:18:24 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet
Good stuff Pry! I'll keep you informed as things progress. I'm planning on seeing this scenario through for quite a while yet.

It seems to be following the historical time line fairly well... Really Good to see Singapore and Manila still in Allied hands in mid-February 42, Are you feeling the pinch with the reduced numbers of Alied heavy bombers?? one thing for sure no strategic bombing campaigns in early 42...

_____________________________

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 97

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/13/2005 3:23:27 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

This is something I added, it is a static place holder. When the scenario designer gives something to the players they will always use it if they are given access to it. I did the place holder to provide the additional benefit but at the same time keep them hands off. If they were not static then the Brisbane base force would be transported to PM faster than the Japanese player could blink. I only used this in well supplied bases so they should never become disabled and allow the player to move the unit...

I'll fix the spelling nobodys perfect.

Again thanks for the feedback..

I thought it was to prevent moving of the big base forces in large cities. Good idea indeed !. Even tho I'm not going to move anything to PM just now...Catalina Is that I have in PM just (Jan 23) spotted IJN CV TF couple hexes east of Gili Gili..eeeekk !!

. I have lots of ASW TFs running near Australia and I had to divert on Minelayer TF back...it was going to mine Lunga etc...but with IJN CVs around..I don't think so now !!

About Allied heavy bombers...I still have enough to do quite good naval attacks with B-17C/Es and LB-30s. Can even spare one LB-30 squadron to bomb Rangoon...I think I'll have to fly them at 30 000 ft first

. No massed bomber raids anywhere, though...just squadron-size harassment.

I sure hope I can get the B-17C/E units off the PI before it falls. Japan has just started major attack against PI, and I excpet it to fall before middle of Feb. I doubt I can get the P-40s out though.

And this time I don't wait around Balikpapan or Soerabaja with Surface Combat TF to catch IJN landings...KB is merciless if it arrives into Java Sea.

IJN has lost 6 subs so far, I've lost 1 with several moderately damaged...so that probably puts the losses to approximately twice the historical rate...but that's just how the game plays, so I'm not complaining. At least Air ASW works now properly.

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to pry)

Post #: 98

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/13/2005 7:45:31 PM

Banquet

Posts: 1184
Joined: 8/23/2002
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet
Good stuff Pry! I'll keep you informed as things progress. I'm planning on seeing this scenario through for quite a while yet.

It seems to be following the historical time line fairly well... Really Good to see Singapore and Manila still in Allied hands in mid-February 42, Are you feeling the pinch with the reduced numbers of Alied heavy bombers?? one thing for sure no strategic bombing campaigns in early 42...

Yep, definitely noticed less heavy bombers although the seemingly better results after the patch means if anything I'm doing more damage to Japanese shipping than I was in 1.4 with a standard scenario.

Singapore fell on 22nd Feb - The Japanese threw thousands more men into the battle (they had about 65-70 thousand in the end) My troop strength fell off and the supplies were down to 2000 of a requested 3500(ish).. and then.. gone.. overrun by the hoardes! I still have 3 squads of an AA unit further north but they didn't seem to want to retake Malaya on their own for some reason.

_____________________________

http://i904.photobucket.com/albums/ac241/norfolktraveller/command-banner_zps8a55d0fa.jpg

(in reply to pry)

Post #: 99

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/15/2005 3:35:58 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

Is anyone playing any of these from the Japanese side besides me for test purposes ??? Tanaka, Brady ???

If so I would appreciate any feedback that you would care to share...

_____________________________

(in reply to Banquet)

Post #: 100

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/16/2005 5:13:14 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

First serious combat is starting at Clark Field, Feb 18 1942. Wake is still going strong, with several air and land units..and 1047 mines...

.

Some interesting combat from Jan:

Night Time Surface Combat, near Laoag at 45,49

Japanese Ships
ML Washizaki, Shell hits 16, and is sunk
PC Ch 1, Shell hits 3
AK England Maru, Shell hits 2, heavy damage
AK Erie Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy damage
AK Kagu Maru, Shell hits 4, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
AP Kumagawa Maru, Shell hits 2, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AK London Maru
AK Taketoyo Maru, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
AK Yamazuki Maru
AP Yasukuni Maru
AP Tsuruga Maru
AK Uzan Maru, heavy damage
AK Shiganoura Maru
AP Peking Maru
AP Miyako Maru

Allied Ships
PT PT-31
PT PT-33
PT PT-34
PT PT-35

Those PT-boats have been quite valuable in slowing down IJN so far. I'd have hated to be on that minelayer...first it was hit by B-17s and then finished by 20 mm & .50 cal from PT-boats

.

Cheers,

M.S.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 5/16/2005 5:14:04 PM >

(in reply to pry)

Post #: 101

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/17/2005 5:34:32 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

March 3 1942 and I still hold Clark F. Manila and Bataan. Palembang has been lost and there are probably soon invasions to Java. Also, AI did kick me off the Burma Road quite rudely, but I hold Akyab quite strongly. Some AI combat activity near Indochina border but otherwise China is silent. Lae, Salamaua etc. have been lost and AI has invaded some islands NW of Lunga..nothing much I can do about it unless I want to commit CVs...and I don't until upgrades and when Zero-bonus is gone.

Scen plays quite well, AI has been slower than in Scen 16. I got ejected from Philippines and Singapore *very* fast in that campaign. Also, 2nd Marine Div is still in San Diego, due to it been assigned to West Coast..good idea ! I have enough PPs to get it to fight, but I want to see what AI is up to next.

I've not noted any "bugs" or needs for modification yet in this last version as Allies.

Cheers,

M.S.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 5/17/2005 5:35:38 PM >

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 102

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/17/2005 11:32:11 PM

Grotius

Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline

I'm playing Scenario 31 as Japan, Pry, but I'm still only in December 1941. RL has caught up to me over the past week. I should be able to rattle off some turns in a day or two.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 103

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/23/2005 5:17:21 AM

treespider

Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

bump

(in reply to pry)

Post #: 104

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/23/2005 2:08:57 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Clark F. fell in early April, San Marcelino few days later. There is now combat in Bataan, which I suppose won't last too long due to fact that most of the supplies are gone. Same with Manila, even though it's not invaded yet. IJA is steamrolling bases in PI with one 70 000 troop "monster". It's now 4/11/1942, and I've managed to keep Soerabaja still, even though IJA has landed there. I rushed extra Dutch regiment there..and with some lucky hits to invasion TF, Dutch still fight on.
I managed to extract the last two fighter squadrons from PI into China !! Never thought that before..but I think it was a good idea. China is lacking fighter cover anyway..and even Philipino FS with P-39Ds can do well there.
Wake hasn't been invaded at all, I bet that AI sees it's already too strongly defended. If it continues like this, I'll start to use it and Kiska as forward sub bases..just need couple more AS to arrive.
Good scenario so far, I'm still impressed.

Cheers,

M.S.

< Message edited by Sardaukar -- 5/23/2005 2:10:32 PM >

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 105

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/24/2005 2:00:50 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Bataan fell 4/18/1942. It's now 4/21/1942 and last defenders are under siege in Manila. Soerabaja is getting more Japanese troops, but is still holding. Most of the air units, including ones evacuated from Singapore (they helped a lot against IJN landing so far) are gone...0 planes. Batavia was just hit with IJN Bombardment TF, 1400+ casualties. I think Japan will get Java within month.

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 106

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/26/2005 2:47:15 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

A Note, as a result of testing the Japanese side in moving the 33rd back to Shanghai has proven to be an error (the ole historicaly correct verses what the the game engine can and can not do theory). The AI will not use the division as intended so in the next update i will instead have the 33rd division arrive as a reinforcement in Bangkock somewhere around 1/1/42...

Not a big deal with two human players but when relying on the AI a little help now and again is in order, so allowing the 33rd to come in as a reinforcement in the zone it was used will continue to 1.) slow down the Japanese advance in Burma by delaying its arrival and 2.) allow the AI to utilize the unit in the historic area by plopping into Bangkock sometime in January.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 107

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/27/2005 5:53:32 AM

stonefoot

Posts: 32
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Small Database issue in Scen 31, Are not the Colorado's forward guns supposed to be marked as forward??? Do these now work as 360 guns?? Or just don't work at all??

(in reply to pry)

Post #: 108

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/27/2005 3:57:50 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Small "bug" in Scen 31, I think...ABDA HQ has Port Moresby as base for preparation points.. I don't think that's intentional

. Probably Batavia would be more likely, not that it does effect gameplay that much.

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to stonefoot)

Post #: 109

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/28/2005 10:15:25 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

"Bug" I found may just be my doing...I changed ABDA under SWPac HQ... Just did wonder why ABDA had 100 prep for Port Moresby. It may have gotten it from the change.

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 110

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/28/2005 1:01:23 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Pry:
Any plans to modify ASW/subs in way the CHS-folks are doing ?? I don't mind the ASW as it is, though, playing against AI exclusively. But toughening subs or something might be a good idea. Or have you already done that ?

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 111

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/29/2005 2:41:42 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stonefoot

Small Database issue in Scen 31, Are not the Colorado's forward guns supposed to be marked as forward??? Do these now work as 360 guns?? Or just don't work at all??

dont work at all will fix, good catch.. same problem also exists in the official 15 and 16 scenarios... Error will correct itself after the class upgrades in 4/42

_____________________________

(in reply to stonefoot)

Post #: 112

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/29/2005 2:43:01 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

"Bug" I found may just be my doing...I changed ABDA under SWPac HQ... Just did wonder why ABDA had 100 prep for Port Moresby. It may have gotten it from the change.

Cheers,

M.S.

Yep you did that...

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 113

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/29/2005 10:05:36 PM

KHawk

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

Pry,

First, I would like to thank you for your great 31 scenario.

I have noticed that the three A-24 squadrons that were part of the Pensacola convoy are carrier trained. Just wondering if this is intentional or an oversight as the 16th, 17th, & 91st are Army bomber squadrons.

Thanks,
KHawk

(in reply to pry)

Post #: 114

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/29/2005 10:15:21 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KHawk

Pry,

First, I would like to thank you for your great 31 scenario.

I have noticed that the three A-24 squadrons that were part of the Pensacola convoy are carrier trained. Just wondering if this is intentional or an oversight as the 16th, 17th, & 91st are Army bomber squadrons.

Thanks,
KHawk

Limitation in the game engine any group that starts on a ship is automatically carrier trained, Will require a house rule not to use these 3 groups off of carriers... If a player really wanted to exploit this these groups will eventually upgrade to B-29's that would be carrier trained... Now that could be interesting

_____________________________

(in reply to KHawk)

Post #: 115

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/29/2005 11:26:10 PM

pry

Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Pry:
Any plans to modify ASW/subs in way the CHS-folks are doing ?? I don't mind the ASW as it is, though, playing against AI exclusively. But toughening subs or something might be a good idea. Or have you already done that ?

Cheers,

M.S.

nope...

I have never seen the carnage constantly reported by the same few folks over and over again in these forums in games I play. Of course I play in a rather dull historical manner and don't drive my subs up to the beach near every base on the map in an attempt to blockade the base (That is a bad habit left over from UV that some folks have yet to unlearn). I also don't use a-historical mega ASW taskforces or mega escorts for transport missions... all of which are exploits of the game engine...

Nik and I spent weeks working on sub/ASW balance and even trying to sink subs we never got anywhere near the carnage reported.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 116

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/30/2005 3:56:19 AM

Halsey

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline

Make one a B-25 and we could have Dolittles Group.

_____________________________

(in reply to pry)

Post #: 117

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/30/2005 5:14:46 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

nope...

I have never seen the carnage constantly reported by the same few folks over and over again in these forums in games I play. Of course I play in a rather dull historical manner and don't drive my subs up to the beach near every base on the map in an attempt to blockade the base (That is a bad habit left over from UV that some folks have yet to unlearn). I also don't use a-historical mega ASW taskforces or mega escorts for transport missions... all of which are exploits of the game engine...

Nik and I spent weeks working on sub/ASW balance and even trying to sink subs we never got anywhere near the carnage reported.

I haven't seen any carnage either. I guess it's really all about playing style.

BTW, Manila fell 5/23/1942 and Batavia about week and half later. AI seems to work lot more methodically and slower than in stock scenarios. And I'm having vastly more trouble from KB than I have had earlier. In previous games it's been around in Dutch East Indies..now they are taking pleasure cruises around New Guinea..sinking my convoys trying to reach Port Moresby.

I'm having very good time with this game !!

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to pry)

Post #: 118

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/30/2005 11:52:22 PM

akdreemer

Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline

Congratulations everyone who worked on this... I just recently downloaded and installed the CHS and the overall impression was very positive.

I love the map.. great to see Anchorage in its correct locationamd okat base stats, however i would make the Port of Anchorage airfield potential a 9. There were at least one main field (Elmendorf), and several auxillary fighter fields (one being located at Cambell creek, the other at Birchwood that I know of) and plenty of flat space to contruct additional fields, etc.

The USA West Coast ports received their own base units. However, the forts guarding the US West COast Ports are sadly defecient. I find it interesting that some effort was made to improve the Commonwealth Forts in both Canada and Australia, meanwhile the forts protecting Hawaii and the US West Coat lanquished. As an example Puget Sound/Seattle was protected by three major forts, the locations of which allowed for triangulation of targets in the kill zone. These forts were Fort Flagler, Fort Casey, and Fort Worden, not to mention other forts located along the Juan de Fuca Straits at the mouth and along the south shore. Maybe there is insufficient space for adding these, and some justification at least for the West Coast Ports of not having any of them there at all. There is no way the Japanese can ever truely threaten amhibious assault on the West Coast. I would suggest either beefing them up or removing them and instead add additional forts located on Oahu, primarily Fort Ruger at Diamond Head and Fort Hase at Kaneohe Bay in north Oahu. See:

http://www.cdsg.org

On TO&E error is incorporating 4.2" mortars into the organic TO&E of the US Army Infantry units (I originally commented on this during the early comment phase). This weapon was exclusively under the control of the Chemical Corp in the form of Chemical Mortar Battalions. I would like to know just where in the historical Divisional organization in WWII there were organic 4.2" mortars??? In fact the first use of the 4.2" mortars in combat was in the landings in Sicily in 1943 by the 2nd and 3rd CMB. What is interesting is that the mortar is not even listed in the US Army standard ordnace catalogue for 1944. For more information see the following webpages, as well as the US Army Official Histories covering the Chemical Corps in WWII:

http://www.4point2.org/
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_infweapons_mortars_heavy.php

There needs to be a sperate upgrade path for the US 37mm ATG. The largest organic Divisional ATG used by both the Army and Marines was the 57mm. In the Pacific there was a delay in converting to the 57mm by both the Army and Marines because the 37mm was found to be both adequate in defeating Japanese armor and that the gun was easily transportable in the jungle.

On a side note has there been any discussions on how to get the CHS to include mulitble choice aircraft upgrades given to us in patch 1.5???

Again thanks guys for all the hard work. I am going to enjoy spending hours with this baby...

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 119

RE: Pry's New Scenarios - 5/31/2005 12:05:57 AM

Tanaka

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Congratulations everyone who worked on this... I just recently downloaded and installed the CHS and the overall impression was very positive.

I love the map.. great to see Anchorage in its correct locationamd okat base stats, however i would make the Port of Anchorage airfield potential a 9. There were at least one main field (Elmendorf), and several auxillary fighter fields (one being located at Cambell creek, the other at Birchwood that I know of) and plenty of flat space to contruct additional fields, etc.

The USA West Coast ports received their own base units. However, the forts guarding the US West COast Ports are sadly defecient. I find it interesting that some effort was made to improve the Commonwealth Forts in both Canada and Australia, meanwhile the forts protecting Hawaii and the US West Coat lanquished. As an example Puget Sound/Seattle was protected by three major forts, the locations of which allowed for triangulation of targets in the kill zone. These forts were Fort Flagler, Fort Casey, and Fort Worden, not to mention other forts located along the Juan de Fuca Straits at the mouth and along the south shore. Maybe there is insufficient space for adding these, and some justification at least for the West Coast Ports of not having any of them there at all. There is no way the Japanese can ever truely threaten amhibious assault on the West Coast. I would suggest either beefing them up or removing them and instead add additional forts located on Oahu, primarily Fort Ruger at Diamond Head and Fort Hase at Kaneohe Bay in north Oahu. See:

http://www.cdsg.org

On TO&E error is incorporating 4.2" mortars into the organic TO&E of the US Army Infantry units (I originally commented on this during the early comment phase). This weapon was exclusively under the control of the Chemical Corp in the form of Chemical Mortar Battalions. I would like to know just where in the historical Divisional organization in WWII there were organic 4.2" mortars??? In fact the first use of the 4.2" mortars in combat was in the landings in Sicily in 1943 by the 2nd and 3rd CMB. What is interesting is that the mortar is not even listed in the US Army standard ordnace catalogue for 1944. For more information see the following webpages, as well as the US Army Official Histories covering the Chemical Corps in WWII:

http://www.4point2.org/
http://www.olive-drab.com/od_infweapons_mortars_heavy.php

There needs to be a sperate upgrade path for the US 37mm ATG. The largest organic Divisional ATG used by both the Army and Marines was the 57mm. In the Pacific there was a delay in converting to the 57mm by both the Army and Marines because the 37mm was found to be both adequate in defeating Japanese armor and that the gun was easily transportable in the jungle.

On a side note has there been any discussions on how to get the CHS to include mulitble choice aircraft upgrades given to us in patch 1.5???

Again thanks guys for all the hard work. I am going to enjoy spending hours with this baby...

dont get Pry's scenarios and the CHS confused. these are two different types of scenarios. ill move your comments so the CHS guys can see them....

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 5/31/2005 12:06:33 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to akdreemer)

Post #: 120

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Pry's New Scenarios