RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (Full Version)

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



Message

Terminus -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 4:20:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

One of the Japanese Infantry regiments in Korea...I cannot recall the name at the moment (at the office)...has 108 5.5 guns instead of squads...

I keep seeing 3325 in my recollection...but I could be wrong...I'll double check this evening unless someone beats me to it.


Ooh, I like it. [;)] [:D]


It's the 80th Infantry Regiment (#3329) at Keijo, Formosa. Somebody typed "07" instead of "707" for the device number.



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 5:03:02 PM)

OK good o keep em coming



John Lansford -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 6:47:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

John sorry are you saying Singapore has to many or to few guns ??


Singapore has 15" guns but no 8" guns. I thought IRL there were both sizes there.



Quixote -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 6:50:10 PM)

Not specifically Land/AI issues, but they don't fall into Air or Naval any better so...

1. The Coral Sea scenario says it runs from May 1 to May 15, but the first turn is May 4th?

2. Perhaps it's just my computer, but when looking at combat summaries, if I use the slider bar instead of the up/down arrows, all the text disappears. Sometimes for good, sometimes it comes back, but it always disappears. Small issue, but never had a problem with it in WitP on the same machine.

3. The effort all of you guys put in is extremely evident - even after only a few turns of play. Thank you again to the whole team.



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 6:56:32 PM)

Nope my source say 5 x 15", 6 x 9.2" and 18 x 6" which is what the fort has if you quote me a source for 8"ers I will take a look



bsq -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 7:06:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Not entirely true Herwin.

The Comet/Challenger and just post war Centurion were all good tanks

It took them a while to get there but eventually they were producing good AFV's


We used to say that nothing could beat a Chieftain if it happened to break down in a good firing position. The problem was neither the protection or the fire control; the power train was underengineered. Back when I was working on my math PhD--the one I didn't complete--I learned about English power train engineering excellence. Diane and I bought an Austin America (a.k.a. the 'gumdrop'). It was cheap, and the transmission wore out every 14000 miles. The third time we had to rebuild it, we bought an Audi.

True story: after I bailed out on the math PhD and went to work for TRW, we lived in Redondo Beach, just south of Watts. One hot July day we decided to drive the gumdrop up to Mount Wilson. Coming back, it started back-firing, and we back-fired our way through Watts. Not a good place to be doing that! When we took the car in to find out what had happened, the mechanic discovered the glue that held the points on the rotor had melted. Apparently the English engineers who designed the gumdrop hadn't realised how high or hot the conditions were that it would have to deal with in North America.

The British Army is currently afflicted with a shortage of helicopters in Afghanistan. The ones the British Government bought for them can't deal with the heat or the altitude.

My point? The Comet, Challenger, and Centurion all had under-engineered power trains. Sure they were good tanks, as long as they broke down in a good firing position.


The Comet/Cromwell were amongst the fastest tanks in the war. True they had issues, especially the Cromwell, but the Comet had something no other allied tank had as standard - a decent gun. The 77mm short breech variant of the 17 pdr, although a compromise, was the best allied tank gun for a long time. The Comet was the tank the Cromwell should have been and should be in the game. Certainly if the OOB includes the 4th AB and the 9th AB (should that really be the 8th AB?) then they should come with the tanks with which they were equipped - Comets.

As for the comment about the lack of army helicopters - they have loads - it's the RAF helicopters (or lack thereof) that is the issue. Buy more by all means, but who will fly them.



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 7:15:21 PM)

X Corps when it arrives has US Tanks as it was organised on US Lines irt has 2 Armoured Bdes - 4th and 9th because that what my source indicated were the X Corps Armoured element each one has 54 Chaffees and 104 Shermans

Happy to be corrected if you have a source that can give better data.

As its one of the never weres I went with a policy of giving X Corps US Equipment



Blackhorse -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 10:05:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
The Marine Defense Battalion on Midway at the start of the campaign game has too many heavy CD guns.  There's a battery of 7" CD guns shown on the TO&E for that unit, and IIRC there's also 12 5" guns too. 


This is as intended.

In AE the 6th Marine Defense Battalion on Midway includes detachments from other units which were reinforcing it when the war began. The 6th starts with 6x 5" Coastal Defense guns -- these will eventually upgrade to 8x 155mm Coastal Defense guns.

Along with two infantry companies (10 squads each) four disabled 7" guns are attached to the 6th Defense Battalion. These are not part of the battalion's TO&E, so if they are lost, they are not replaced. Historically, on December 7th, only 1 of the 7" was on Midway. The other three were on Oahu, awaiting transport, and were shipped in a few weeks later.




Jim D Burns -> RE: AE Land and AI Issues (7/28/2009 10:12:29 PM)

I found 2 AA regiments with typo's for their entry dates. Both the 1st and 2nd HK&S AA regiments are slated to arrive on 1 Jan 43, but their HQ (Malay Command) will no longer even be in game. So I'm pretty sure they should appear on 1 Jan 42 instead.

One unit I'm less sure of is the 6th New Chinese Corp slated to appear in Lashio on 16 May 44. Stilwell actually launched his counter-attack (Galahad) in Northern Burma in February of 1944.

Jim

Edit: I should correct myself a bit. Actually it was the Albacore Plan that was the beginning of Stilwell's drive into Northern Burma. And fighting erupted for that on 30 Oct. 43 in the Hukawng Valley.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-CBI-Command/USA-CBI-Command-1.html



[image]local://upfiles/5815/698609E44F4F43078C640BBD07F70ABA.jpg[/image]



Blackhorse -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 10:19:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

X Corps when it arrives has US Tanks as it was organised on US Lines irt has 2 Armoured Bdes - 4th and 9th because that what my source indicated were the X Corps Armoured element each one has 54 Chaffees and 104 Shermans

Happy to be corrected if you have a source that can give better data.

As its one of the never weres I went with a policy of giving X Corps US Equipment


And, for AE, that is the correct policy.

In 1945 MacArthur was adamant that all forces participating in Operation Downfall (the invasion of Japan) be organized and equipped on US lines.

Apart from not wanting to share the glory, MacArthur had valid logistical reasons for demanding this. The Sea LOC for Downfall was to go direct from San Francisco to Japan. There was not enough shipping available to support separate Sea LOCs for Commonwealth forces. By the early Summer of 1945 the British and Canadians had agreed to these conditions. The Canadian 6th division was in the US, learning US equipment and organization, when the war ended.

FWIW, the Australians were still holding out -- they agreed to use US equipment and eat US rations (a major concession, IMHO) but wanted to use their own weapons. But since they couldn't establish a separate LOC, they were unlikely to win the arguement.



JSBoomer -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 10:49:16 PM)

As impressed as I ame with the game... There is OOB issues with the Canadian Army Units. 38, 39, 40, and 41 Bdes were not created until 1998 and should not appear in this game. Or as a member of 41 Bde is there something I should know... Perhaps I should request some Bren guns and enfields from war stores and get my troops ready for some time travel action ala The FINAL COUNTDOWN.
The rest of the CDN Army oob is very accurate. In early 1942 Canada formed three Infantry Divisions for home defence. The 6th Division HQ was in Prince George and consisted of the 13th, 14, and 15 Canadian Infantry Brigades. The 7th Division was in Atlantic Canada with 16, 17, and 18 Canadian Infantry Brigades. 8th Division HQ was on Vancouver Island with 19, 20, 21 Canadian Infantry Brigades. The brigades of this divisions spread out in different locations and the composition of the units changed as subunits were disbanded, reformed, shipped over to Europe, ect. ect...
I know that this will have little impact on the majority of players, however it very strange for me to see these modern formations (and very empty ones at that) in the game. Or perhaps they should get a large increase in firepower...



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 10:59:13 PM)

J Boomer not wantiong to disagree with you and its very possible I was wrong but my understanding is that for example 41 Brigade was established in Military District 13 (Alberta and the western portion of the Northwest Territories) to administer the Reserve Army. The Brigade was formed on 1 Apr 1942 and disbanded on 30 Jan 1946 and later reformed in 1998 so it did exist as did the other Bdes in 42

I will admit I didnt know the strength of these units which is why they only have 3 weak home guard/militia style Bns with no heavy equipment but as far as I am aware they did exist.

Happy to be corrected but all my info is they were there....



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 11:00:02 PM)

Jim yes HK&S is an error



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 11:02:17 PM)

p.s. my understanding is that post 46 until 98 the same reserve units were administered by a regular army Bde HQ as part of the reserve forces



JSBoomer -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 11:15:57 PM)

No... It would seem Andy Mac that you are right and I am wrong. I was very suprised to learn that the current Militia Brigade group names come from old formations. Though like today these formations may have been more administrative than anything. Thanks for getting me to dig further into our own history.



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 11:20:23 PM)

[:D][:D] you did cause me some concern for a few minutes though - in all honesty I did what research I could but Canadian/Dutch and New Zealand OOB were my biggest challenges

Lack of non internet sources I did what I could from the IWM reading room but there wasnt much around.

Canadian units tend to be locked down in defence of Canada so there are not a huge issue but getting the Dutch right or close to right was a major pain but I got some help from Harald to make it better



JSBoomer -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 11:27:10 PM)

Andy Mac

That is a very obscure tidbit, I'm VERY impressed... You guys really did your homework. These Bdes are have been mostly forgotten in most references.. Well done you.[&o]



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 11:27:21 PM)

Chinese units are really weird and hard to keep track of what we have now is sorta an approximate version of the truth its one of those I am probably going to wait for real game feedback before I do anything with China as its to easy to break



JSBoomer -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/28/2009 11:35:16 PM)

You have done your homework, so you should have little to fear. It must have been real difficult with some those OOBs. China must have been real difficult for you, so much information must have been lost or never recorded.

Thank you again for your efforts; not only have you provided an excelent game you have given me something to add to the next Regimental History lesson!



tbridges -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 12:11:40 AM)

As an Allied noob I am in search of a thread that discusses the best ways to maximize the flow of supplies and fuel to the US West Coast bases for further distribution to the war zone. I have searched and found several posts regarding the Allied supply situation but nothing I can really get my teeth into.

Is there a thread on how best to handle Allied supply issues? These forums are already so extensive its proving difficult to find things without starting a new thread that covers issues that have already been thoroughly analyzed.

Thanks for your help.



Blackhorse -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 12:22:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: J Boomer

No... It would seem Andy Mac that you are right and I am wrong. I was very suprised to learn that the current Militia Brigade group names come from old formations. Though like today these formations may have been more administrative than anything. Thanks for getting me to dig further into our own history.



Jordan,

You'd be contributing to the AE effort if you could find the names of the Brigadiers or Colonels who led those militia brigades during the war. We have the names of the historic commanders for the regular Canadian Army brigades (and even some other units, like the Victoria Forts) but not the militia units. PM me if you have access to that information, thanks!



Halsey -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 1:13:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Quixote

Not specifically Land/AI issues, but they don't fall into Air or Naval any better so...

2. Perhaps it's just my computer, but when looking at combat summaries, if I use the slider bar instead of the up/down arrows, all the text disappears. Sometimes for good, sometimes it comes back, but it always disappears. Small issue, but never had a problem with it in WitP on the same machine.



This is a CPU/RAM issue.

Click the arrow down, don't scroll.

Takes a little longer, but you'll see the whole report.





Walloc -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 2:18:37 AM)

In Scn 1. USA Engineer Squad has an availbility date from 99/99. I assume its a mistype of some sort.



jwilkerson -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 2:23:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: J Boomer

You have done your homework, so you should have little to fear. It must have been real difficult with some those OOBs. China must have been real difficult for you, so much information must have been lost or never recorded.

Thank you again for your efforts; not only have you provided an excelent game you have given me something to add to the next Regimental History lesson!


Our primary source for the Chinese OOB is:

Hsu Long-hsusen, Chang Ming-kai, History of The Sino-Japanese War (1937-1945), Chung Wu: Taipei, 1971

The Chinese seem to have documented their part of the war better than the Japanese - trying to get Japanese data on the China war is the tougher part.




Mike Solli -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 3:03:04 AM)

I just found something interesting. Note the unit strength and the circled area in the upper left corner. Then check out my next message.



[image]local://upfiles/1598/88BF55110B3D4005972F8EEBEB268344.jpg[/image]



Mike Solli -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 3:04:16 AM)

Then I clicked to see the unit TOE. Error?



[image]local://upfiles/1598/732CC654FCF141449540466BEBC41576.jpg[/image]



RAM -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 3:15:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I haven't looked at that scenario...however if units from both sides start the scenario in the same hex...then neither side is given control of any of the hexsides in the hex.

This could be what happened in this situation.


Maybe it's that...but it shouldn't happen that way. Is there any way to fix it? ;)



treespider -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 4:39:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RAM


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

I haven't looked at that scenario...however if units from both sides start the scenario in the same hex...then neither side is given control of any of the hexsides in the hex.

This could be what happened in this situation.


Maybe it's that...but it shouldn't happen that way. Is there any way to fix it? ;)



Well it should since that is the way the game is coded...it would be simply too difficult to try and code indivdual hexside control for each individual scenario where both sides happened to start in the same hex...so perhaps the scenario designer did not take that into consideration.

A work around for the scenario designer would be to set that hex as a destination for both sides, with travel time nearly complete such that both sides enter the hex on turn 1 thus establishing appropriate hexside control.



bilbow -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 5:36:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Then I clicked to see the unit TOE. Error?



[image]local://upfiles/1598/732CC654FCF141449540466BEBC41576.jpg[/image]


The rest of the unit is on a ship, apparently not loaded completely



Blackhorse -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 6:05:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc

In Scn 1. USA Engineer Squad has an availbility date from 99/99. I assume its a mistype of some sort.



No. Most of the devices in the 250-700 range are "9999"ed. These are all placeholders with the device definitions and ratings from stock. Early on, we decided not to clear them out of the database. I forget why. [&:]

But none of these devices are actually used in the game. US devices, for example, begin at 1101. The Engineers are now "US Cmbt Eng Sqds" in slots 1108-1110, as well as some nasty US Marine Corps "Assault Squads" in slot 1118 that arrive in 1945.



Page: <<   < prev  43 44 [45] 46 47   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.078125