RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

Knavey -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/7/2007 11:31:23 PM)

Any kind of limit on how many units can be stacked in a hex?



BigJ62 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/7/2007 11:40:42 PM)

Still in testing but all LCUs have a built in replacement delay.

Didn't write the code in game but there is a garrison requirement field in the editor for bases.

Atols and small islands have stacking limits that effect fatigue, disruption and more profoundly supply.



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/7/2007 11:48:21 PM)

Is suply still consumed the same for all land units no mater who's they are? I know a biger unit will eat more suply, but their have been several referances listed in the past that show that American units consumed far more material than UK/Comenwealth troops and that Japanese troops even less, that is pound for pound it took less material to maintian a Japanese unit in the field per day than an Allied one, but in WiTP all were created equil in this regard.



Apollo11 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 12:08:38 AM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Any kind of limit on how many units can be stacked in a hex?


I think there is stacking limit for certain places (like atolls) - I saw it in press info!

BTW, this is something that many of us (including me - quite elaborately and vocally on several ocassions in the past here) have pleaded for years and years... [:)]


Leo "Apollo11"



BigJ62 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 12:32:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Is suply still consumed the same for all land units no mater who's they are? I know a biger unit will eat more suply, but their have been several referances listed in the past that show that American units consumed far more material than UK/Comenwealth troops and that Japanese troops even less, that is pound for pound it took less material to maintian a Japanese unit in the field per day than an Allied one, but in WiTP all were created equil in this regard.


No distinction is made based on nationality.



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 1:15:23 AM)

"BTW, this is something that many of us (including me - quite elaborately and vocally on several ocassions in the past here) have pleaded for years and years... [:)] "

 
Midgets![:)]





jcjordan -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 2:08:05 AM)

In finally looking at the site for AE, what is the diff between move & strategic move? Happened to see answer mixed in for original question so changed



TommyG -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 2:22:08 AM)


Will there be an ability to surrender LCUs? Now, cutoff and useless units in China are often kept alive by the Japanese player in order to bomb them mercilessly at a one hex range, thereby building experience without paying any operation loss. I'd like to see that stopped somehow.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 2:24:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

"BTW, this is something that many of us (including me - quite elaborately and vocally on several ocassions in the past here) have pleaded for years and years... [:)] "

 
Midgets![:)]



Please tell us that if this is the case their use has been been subject to much historical research, and their effects will be historically valid as well. In other words, they will be virtually...

WORTHLESS!



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 2:26:59 AM)

Let Brady be happy, Mike... He's had his heart set on them for the last three and a half years...[:D]



Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 2:35:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Let Brady be happy, Mike... He's had his heart set on them for the last three and a half years...[:D]



Sorry...., you're right. I should have let him have his "moment in the sun". I just couldn't resist responding to the oversized font. Can't let a "straight line" go un-joked.



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 2:44:42 AM)

Well as long as they can put  torps into as many war ships as the PT's did in the Pacific I will be happy.[:)]



VSWG -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 2:45:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TommyG


Will there be an ability to surrender LCUs? Now, cutoff and useless units in China are often kept alive by the Japanese player in order to bomb them mercilessly at a one hex range, thereby building experience without paying any operation loss. I'd like to see that stopped somehow.


Since the pilot training routine has been completely reworked (different ratings for bombing, A2A combat etc. - see the Air War Thread) this strategy is now obsolete. [:)]



KDonovan -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 2:54:11 AM)

can rail lines, bridges be targeted by airpower to slow down the movement of troop/reinforcements in the rear areas (like the Allies did at Normandy)?



BigJ62 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 3:57:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

In finally looking at the site for AE, what is the diff between move & strategic move? Happened to see answer mixed in for original question so changed


Operations mode “Move” is normal lcu movement by road or terrain. Units in move mode are somewhat vulnerable to attack.

Operations mode “Strategic Movement” is by rail or for allies only major road or by troop transport. Units in strat mode are very vulnerable to attack. Can only be done from friendly base to friendly base if by land. There is a pack/unpack delay of 2-6 days depending on size of unit.

Speed or rather the distance a units moves each turn is average across source hex and the next hex the unit is moving into. Speed is modified by operation mode and fatigue, the higher the fatigue the slower it will go.

Normal pathing is based on fastest route available, you can also use direct hex movement, if destination is set to any valid adjacent hex then that is the direction the unit will move toward.



BigJ62 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 4:03:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TommyG


Will there be an ability to surrender LCUs? Now, cutoff and useless units in China are often kept alive by the Japanese player in order to bomb them mercilessly at a one hex range, thereby building experience without paying any operation loss. I'd like to see that stopped somehow.



No but, there is manual disband.



BigJ62 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 4:04:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

can rail lines, bridges be targeted by airpower to slow down the movement of troop/reinforcements in the rear areas (like the Allies did at Normandy)?


Not that I’m aware of.



Williamb -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 4:26:56 AM)

And on a similar note can we have the option to "Turn off" landings reports on empty bases ? It takes to damn long a game replay to watch them all.



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 5:19:11 AM)

No limit to unit count in a hex only total manpower on atolls and small islands.

I have seen midgets hit BB's at PH with Torps not often but it does happen

Supply the same for all nations

Rails and bridges targeted we did look at how to do this but it was just to big a change with everything else we are doing

Garrison requirements in China is still osmething we are looking at no decision yet probably will be tested but as BigJ62 indicated you can mod it to your hearts desire - for stock scenarios not sure where we will end up.

Surrender units no disband to pool yes.

Re Devices the allies especially are almost always short of devices and even more so now. In the main scenario some nations will get 0 replacements i.e. Dutch although there may be a single timed replacement draft to represent final mobilisation.

This will be especially apparent in the CW nations British Squads especially will be in short supply as will Indian Squads in early years.

Tanks are going to be seriously short for the CW and in fact the allies will have far more Armoured units as they did historically but not enough modern tanks so there will be forced consolidation in 43 i.e. 267th Armoured - this allows a historic ORBAT to handle defence without making some nation to powerfull later when  they go on the attack.

In fact as it currently stands in 44 I have set it up so that AA Regts that were disbanded to provide British Inf replacements do so and a one off injection of squads goes into the pool.

In stock they averaged those over the whole war which is why you never feel some of the real crunch decisions - there was a reason why Indian Inf Divs started to lose Brit Bns - lack of replacements - players will now feel this pressure keeping large numbers of British or even NZ formations at war is going to be a struggle.

The extra slots for devices has allowed us to be creative and I am sure moddders will love this feature. 



Knavey -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 5:31:14 AM)

Andy,

It sounds like there are going to be land unit withdrawals for Brits.  Does this mean if I have XX division locked in combat in Burma that it is possible I will have to pull it out of combat?



Jim D Burns -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 5:39:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62
the first allied unit must shock attack because the opposing hexside is enemy controled however the second unit does not have to shock attack because hexside control has changed at this point.


Are attackers forced to retreat if they lose this shock attack? If not this rule is wide open to exploitation by sending a small unit ahead of the main body. Attackers should have to win the shock attack in order to establish a bridgehead that negates river penalties for follow up units.

Jim



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 5:43:16 AM)

Yup there is a report telling you which ones and also the unit screen will tell you which these are mandatory you have no control over it (other than in the editor it also applies to some US west coast formations)

Off the top of my head

Withdrawn
7th Amoured Bde
5th UK Div

Disbanded in theatre
267th Armoured Bde
A lot of Bn's that are independent as the TOE's of Div increase to 10 Bn Divs in 43
Several Cavalry Regts
An Indian Motorised Bde
70th British Div -> Chindits

The units in question tend to be allocated to India West Coast or NZ Command so you would need to pay PP's to release them and then move them out of the theatre in order to have them committted in Burma (most withdrawals occur in 43 so India and NZ/Australia should be safe by then)

Basically before paying the PP's check if a unit is due to leave you or else you could waste a lot of PP's

Andy



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 5:44:06 AM)

Good question Jim we are still debating this one



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 5:59:42 AM)

OK guys because I am an evil person and I can I am now off to do another Malaya testing run through .... (its so pretty now) [:D][:D]  because I can.

I will be back to answer questions in the morning.



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 6:01:51 AM)

A lot of focus on the AI its high on my list to get it working and hopefully make it more sneaky and unpredictable it is a scripted AI so there will be limitations to what we can achieve but I really want to make it as nasty as I can so we will try.

Andy



Jim D Burns -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 6:02:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Re Devices the allies especially are almost always short of devices and even more so now. In the main scenario some nations will get 0 replacements i.e. Dutch although there may be a single timed replacement draft to represent final mobilisation.


The problem with a limited pool for one power and not the other has been discussed over and over on these forums. If you're going to hold one player to historical limitations then both must be.

Currently Japan can produce unlimited devices of any type it has, yet you state the intention of limiting the allies even more than they are in stock. The allies were the guys who out-produced Japan historically by tenfold, if anyone deserves further limiting it’s the Japanese.

Also the allies had the capacity and flexibility to make up for unexpected losses by shifting production if needed. Just because it didn’t happen in the historical fight, doesn’t mean the capacity to make up shortfalls wasn’t there. There should be some capacity to do this if needed and less hard coded restrictions for both players.

By hard coding too few tanks, you virtually guarantee that Japan will always target the allied tank units to try and take them out since they cannot rebuild damage.

Jim

P.S. with a weaker Indian and British command are the Indian Colonial units going to start on map as fixed units to prevent India's early capture? There was a very large Indian home force in India that isn't in the current game.



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 6:08:50 AM)

True to some extent Jim but thats the nature of the beast and its why you get several tank one off timed replacements as well.

Most devices will not be a huge problem but some like CW Armour and some squad devices will be heavily restricted and BTW these were never produced in theatre so actually you couldnt divert production in fact as I said we all need to accept that the Allies were fighting a global conflict and the Japanese were not and in reality these devices were restricted hence the disbanding of AA regts to generate Infantry replacements.

The fact is a lot of this is still to be tested so its all WIP

But if you dont agree do your own scenario its why the editor is so great.




BigJ62 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 6:09:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62
the first allied unit must shock attack because the opposing hexside is enemy controled however the second unit does not have to shock attack because hexside control has changed at this point.


Are attackers forced to retreat if they lose this shock attack? If not this rule is wide open to exploitation by sending a small unit ahead of the main body. Attackers should have to win the shock attack in order to establish a bridgehead that negates river penalties for follow up units.

Jim



Well as Andy stated we are still testing this but if the defender loses wouldn’t that mean it would have to retreat and I might be wrong but I don’t think there are that many units that qualify to change hex-side control and still be very small and if the unit that shock attacks and loses you are going to be wasting valuable av that could be difficult to replace so I don’t see this as viable tactic at least in the long run but still a good question. I strongly suspect a lot of tactics can and will be tried and hopefully testing will weed out any potential flaws.



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 6:12:31 AM)

Yes Peshawar, Punjab and Waziristan Divisions are on map at start as are many of the ISF and Frontier Inf Bns (the Divs are static at lahore, Karachi and I cannot remember the other base)

Some are static and some disband in 43 to make up numbers in the new 10 Bn Divisions but in general India is strong defensively and weak offensively in 42 and early 43.

Assuming no rescues and rebuilds which are now very difficult to afford India will be able to produce 4 or 5 Divisons for offensive ops byt he time of the historic Arakan Offensive but the experience levels will be low.



Knavey -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/8/2007 6:14:06 AM)

BigJ62...you are going to need to change your signature!



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75