RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (Full Version)

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



Message

Walloc -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 6:14:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


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.



Okies good to know. Btw i only been finding this 1 example, not that i have specificly looked for it.

Kind regards,

Rasmus



Blackhorse -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 6:17:44 AM)

quote:

Okies good to know. Btw i only been finding this 1 example, not that i have specificly looked for it.

Kind regards,

Rasmus


I understand. There is no reason why you should have known why the units were 9999ed -- you gave us an opportunity to explain to the Forum. Thanks!



Bliztk -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 9:35:15 AM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2/1st_North_Australia_Observer_Unit

Should arrive in May 42, not begin at the start of game on hex 74,126



JeffroK -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 9:57:04 AM)

Would it be possible to find the source used to work out the Australian at start setup?

I have some major discrepancies with my understanding of the Dec 7 positions.

For example AE has:
28Bn at Augusta
25 MG Bn ( S/be Lt Horse MG Rgt) at Albany
44 Bn at Kalgoorlie
16 Bn in Perth
11 Bn north of Perth
10 Lt Horse Rgt at Geraldton

My records (usually unit diaries or similar) have

13 Bde with 11, 16 & 28 Bns in Perth
44 Bn as the core of the "Special Mobile Force" in Perth (This unit has attachments from 25 LH MG Rgt, 10 LH Rgt & Arty etc)
25 Lt Horse MG Rgt & 10 Lt Horse Rgt in Perth (I'm not 100% on these)


I have  A LOT more queries on the rest of the set up, but would like to see your sources first (In case they are right[8D])

PS. I have a lot more queries on the Guadalcanal scenario setup as well!



JeffroK -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 10:38:02 AM)

Plus the normal spelling, as used by the Brigade of Gurkhas, isnt Ghurka.



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 1:05:30 PM)

Always happy to get better data but the hardest thing I had to do on the Australian side was those damned light horse Bns.

If you have better location data happy to look at it as I ended up doing the Australian OOB after our initial contributer had to drop out.

The Australian OOB is about as good as we could make it but there were comprmises made on the Cav/Motor Bde side to make the OOB work.

List your questions comments issues and I will try to answer them.

My sources were the War Diaries from the Australian national site (fascinating reading) a few internet sources and gleaned facts from a dozen different books.

TOE's I had excellent sources for less great was the locations on 7th December.

If in doubt I went with plausible and sensible
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Would it be possible to find the source used to work out the Australian at start setup?

I have some major discrepancies with my understanding of the Dec 7 positions.

For example AE has:
28Bn at Augusta
25 MG Bn ( S/be Lt Horse MG Rgt) at Albany
44 Bn at Kalgoorlie
16 Bn in Perth
11 Bn north of Perth
10 Lt Horse Rgt at Geraldton

My records (usually unit diaries or similar) have

13 Bde with 11, 16 & 28 Bns in Perth
44 Bn as the core of the "Special Mobile Force" in Perth (This unit has attachments from 25 LH MG Rgt, 10 LH Rgt & Arty etc)
25 Lt Horse MG Rgt & 10 Lt Horse Rgt in Perth (I'm not 100% on these)


I have  A LOT more queries on the rest of the set up, but would like to see your sources first (In case they are right[8D])

PS. I have a lot more queries on the Guadalcanal scenario setup as well!





Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 1:13:51 PM)

Please note I joined the team to do the Indian and Brit OOB's after other contriutors dropped out I ended up doing Dutch/French/Aus NZ/Canadian and a lot of work on the others as well.

I think we got the balance right but its always possible a Bn or two are in the wrong base sometimes we used judgement to get close



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 1:20:40 PM)

Based on John L's feedback I need to up the ASW TF's between Camran Bay and Malaya and maybe off north PI



JeffroK -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 1:49:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Please note I joined the team to do the Indian and Brit OOB's after other contriutors dropped out I ended up doing Dutch/French/Aus NZ/Canadian and a lot of work on the others as well.

I think we got the balance right but its always possible a Bn or two are in the wrong base sometimes we used judgement to get close


As one of those who dropped out, some 15-18 mths back, I suppose I am one of those to blame. But I did offer if help was wanted down the track to contact me.

But the Australian at start position is terrible, I only showed a few examples.

You have 53 Bn at Townsville, IRL it was in Sydney.

1 Motor Bde is shown at Cairns, IRL it had 5 mot Bn at Gympie (nr Brisbane) and 11 Mot Bn & 2/14 Lt Horse MG Rgt at Toowoomba, west of Brisbane.

5 & 8 Bdes are in Canberra, IRL 8 Bde had its 34, 30 & 35 Bns in Sydney's western suburbs. 5 Bde had 20 Bn in Sydney, 34 Bn in Woolongong, 54 Bn in Orange, 56 Bn in Cootamundra and may have been reasonably located as a Bde in Bathurst, though the system allows the breakdown.

39 Bn, famous for its Kokoda campaign, is shown at Sydney whereas it was forming at Darley (Bacchus Marsh) 40 miles west of Melbourne.
And there's more.




Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 1:57:39 PM)

[:D][:D][:D] I think terrible is an overstatement we did a lot of work to get it right if a few units are in the wrong locations we can move them but it wont be mateiral to the game.



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 2:01:46 PM)

Note to self take another look at Cover for North PI



treespider -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 2:06:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

[:D][:D][:D] I think terrible is an overstatement we did a lot of work to get it right if a few units are in the wrong locations we can move them but it wont be mateiral to the game.




I think "terrible" as used by Jeff is an expression of the Ozzie brashness that others discussed elsewhere...it isn't meant as being rude....but sometimes we other Anglo/Saxons have a difficult time understanding it....not sure i expressed myself well here probably "lost in translation"



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 2:19:37 PM)

Thats ok Treespider I am not that thinskinned - anyway I was at lords for the last day to watch the Aussies get thrashed so I am oblivious to all taunts from down under for at least the next 5 days !!!



John Lansford -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 3:03:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Based on John L's feedback I need to up the ASW TF's between Camran Bay and Malaya and maybe off north PI


Oh, you're thinking MY subs aren't being found by ASW TF's? No, it's the other way around; I can't find any Japanese subs! My subs on the routes around Camranh Bay and north of the PI's are being attacked, just unsuccessfully for the most part. I think I had one get hit by a depth charge so far (in an invasion hex, shallow water) and one shot up by a merchant ship/Q-ship, but have had several ASW contacts with my subs.

No, I'm wondering where the Japanese subs are.



JSBoomer -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 5:04:00 PM)

ooops



JSBoomer -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 5:07:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


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!


I'll check out the Provincial Archives here in town and there is a couple other avenues I can check. I'll send you a PM if I find anything.



fbs -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 5:35:22 PM)

An engineer unit with no engineers: scenario 002, unit 5712 (Fort Lewis); should be Coastal Defense, but it is set as Engineer Unit even if it doesn't have a single engineer on the TO&E. Also 5714 Fort Ord, and 5713 Camp Adair; there are probably a few more in this situation.

Also B/C/D Det USN Port Svc; I don't know which type they should be, but they are set as Engineer Unit with no engineers.

Cheers [:D]
fbs



fbs -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 5:49:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

An engineer unit with no engineers: scenario 002, unit 5712 (Fort Lewis); should be Coastal Defense, but it is set as Engineer Unit even if it doesn't have a single engineer on the TO&E. Also 5714 Fort Ord, and 5713 Camp Adair; there are probably a few more in this situation.

Also B/C/D Det USN Port Svc; I don't know which type they should be, but they are set as Engineer Unit with no engineers.

Cheers [:D]
fbs



Reverse case for 6677 - Rosyth and Plymouth Fortress and 6678 - Falklands Fortress. They are set as a coastal defense unit but only have engineers and aviation support. I guess it should either receive some 12" guns (for Rosyth) and something for the Falklands, or change them to engineer unit.

Cheers [:D]
fbs



fbs -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 6:10:38 PM)


Scenario 002.

Units 121 III Corps, 153 IV Corps, 120 Alaska Defense Cmd. None of them have a TO&E.

Cheers [:D]
fbs



bsq -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 7:13:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

An engineer unit with no engineers: scenario 002, unit 5712 (Fort Lewis); should be Coastal Defense, but it is set as Engineer Unit even if it doesn't have a single engineer on the TO&E. Also 5714 Fort Ord, and 5713 Camp Adair; there are probably a few more in this situation.

Also B/C/D Det USN Port Svc; I don't know which type they should be, but they are set as Engineer Unit with no engineers.

Cheers [:D]
fbs



Reverse case for 6677 - Rosyth and Plymouth Fortress and 6678 - Falklands Fortress. They are set as a coastal defense unit but only have engineers and aviation support. I guess it should either receive some 12" guns (for Rosyth) and something for the Falklands, or change them to engineer unit.

Cheers [:D]
fbs


Light guns (6pdrs = 57mm ish) and 40 mm bofors. Seems we only stuck big guns to guard straits (Dover, Singapore etc). The threat was perceived to be E-Boats and other light craft that may have evaded the complex minefields etc, so guns were positioned appropriate to the threat.



fbs -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 7:14:22 PM)

A few more oddities:

Unit 5712 has 4 garrison units, but TO&E doesn't have them. So if this unit is attacked and the 4 garrison units are destroyed, the unit suddenly changes from static to mobile. I'd say better add the 4 garrison units to the TO&E.

Unit 5608 has 0x 90mm gun and 0x 16" CD guns on the TO&E; similarly 5600 SF Harbor has 0x 90mm gun. Better remove them, as quantity of 0 does nothing for the TO&E.



bsq -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 7:25:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

A few more oddities:

...

Unit 5608 has 0x 90mm gun and 0x 16" CD guns on the TO&E; similarly 5600 SF Harbor has 0x 90mm gun. Better remove them, as quantity of 0 does nothing for the TO&E.


Doesn't this allow them to be retrofitted as soon as spares are produced. Fitted for but not with is a fairly common military phrase - so perhaps 0x ?? equates to the mount and the emplacement?



fbs -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 7:27:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

An engineer unit with no engineers: scenario 002, unit 5712 (Fort Lewis); should be Coastal Defense, but it is set as Engineer Unit even if it doesn't have a single engineer on the TO&E. Also 5714 Fort Ord, and 5713 Camp Adair; there are probably a few more in this situation.

Also B/C/D Det USN Port Svc; I don't know which type they should be, but they are set as Engineer Unit with no engineers.

Cheers [:D]
fbs



Reverse case for 6677 - Rosyth and Plymouth Fortress and 6678 - Falklands Fortress. They are set as a coastal defense unit but only have engineers and aviation support. I guess it should either receive some 12" guns (for Rosyth) and something for the Falklands, or change them to engineer unit.

Cheers [:D]
fbs


Light guns (6pdrs = 57mm ish) and 40 mm bofors. Seems we only stuck big guns to guard straits (Dover, Singapore etc). The threat was perceived to be E-Boats and other light craft that may have evaded the complex minefields etc, so guns were positioned appropriate to the threat.




Agreed, some 6 pounders would look good.

Cheers [:D]
fbs



Barb -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 7:28:22 PM)

Naval AI for Aleutian scenario isnt very smart.
Played as Allies, got CVE Nassau, 3 old BBs, 4CAs, 4CLs. Japanese got Shokaku, Zuikaku, one CVL, Musashi, cca 10 CAs.

Only thing that left Paramushiro except submarines was small convoy of 2 xAK and E.
1. Why is this japanese stuff there? They were supposed to go to Aleutians but Attu fell and operation was recalled. Shouldnt be there.
2. If they are supposed to be there, shouldnt they cruise around? With all that force Japan could easily take Adak and sink whatever allies have.
3. I have been sailing here and there around Attu for two weeks with - Japs got plenty of spottings. Only thing that showed up were Betties and subs.



fbs -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 7:28:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

A few more oddities:

...

Unit 5608 has 0x 90mm gun and 0x 16" CD guns on the TO&E; similarly 5600 SF Harbor has 0x 90mm gun. Better remove them, as quantity of 0 does nothing for the TO&E.


Doesn't this allow them to be retrofitted as soon as spares are produced. Fitted for but not with is a fairly common military phrase - so perhaps 0x ?? equates to the mount and the emplacement?




These units have no 16" or 90mm guns, and with 0x on the TO&E they have no way of acquiring any either, so I reckon that the 0x entry does nothing (even if the 90mm guns upgrade to something, the quantity will still be 0x).

Cheers [:D]
fbs



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 7:29:15 PM)

Not required off map bases are immune to invasion so the base forces are only there for air and naval support



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 7:30:49 PM)

90mm TOE is a flow through to an upgrade to the TOE in June 43



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 7:31:54 PM)

If Tacoma is invaded having the unit retreat is the least of the issues the players will have !!!



fbs -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 7:32:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Not required off map bases are immune to invasion so the base forces are only there for air and naval support


Right, so they should be changed from coastal defense to engineering units. My point is that it makes little sense to call an unit coastal defense if it has no guns -- so either give them guns or change the type. As the units actually represent off-map engineering resources, change of type may work better.

Cheers [:D]
fbs



Andy Mac -> RE: Land OOB and AI Issues (7/29/2009 7:32:40 PM)

AI on Aleutians noted will take another look



Page: <<   < prev  44 45 [46] 47 48   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625