RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (Full Version)

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

Message

Nomad -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/12/2009 3:15:39 AM)
disregard

erstad -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/12/2009 4:19:01 AM)
Not sure where this fits in priority or even "is this a problem", but I've noticed two things with overland supply movement or lack thereof. 1) IJA inland airfields in Mongolia tend to get above the spoilage level, sometimes significantly so. It would seem desirable to have some of that flow to bigger bases. (part of the problem is that since they are airfield only, the "port + airfield" algorithm arguably shorts them. A different tweak might be to give airfields a bonus versus bases). I've tried to manually move some by selectively adjusting other bases but it's slow going because I'm trying to not jerk things around too much, especially because 2) It seems that when you increase the supply requirements at a base, the algorithm tends to overshoot target, sometimes quite significantly. I could probably generate some saves if folks think it's worth looking at. One observation is that I'm playing two day turns. I don't know that relates, but it might. (for example, if a calculation is done once for "how much extra should we send today" and the same amount is used for both days)

Blackhorse -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/12/2009 4:47:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rjopel The USMC I Amphibious Corps is available from game start in San Diego. The unit was not formed until 1 Oct 1942 according to Rottman's UMC WW2 Order of Battle. Also the unit is commanded by MG Clayton B. Vogel. Same source. The "early arrival" is by design. The "I Amphibious Corps" was the fourth name of a HQ that was formed in November, 1941. Also taken from Rottman's USMC WW2 Order of Battle: The West Coast counterpart [of the East Coast's I Corps (Provisional)] was the 2d Joint Training Force, activated 1 Nov 41, and consisting of the 2nd Marine Division and the Army's 7th Infantry Division. In February, 42 it was redesignated Amphibious Force, US Pacific Fleet. In April, 1942 it became Amphibious Corps, US Pacific Fleet, and Vogel assumed command. Using the same staff, Vogel's command became I Marine Amphibious Corps (IMAC) in October 1942. And if you look at the leadership ratings of MG Upshur, who commanded the unit at war's start, you'll see he makes a good training commander, but a mediocre warrior. If you plan to deploy the HQ you'll want to trade up to Vogel or another Marine before the HQ ships out.

herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/12/2009 9:43:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erstad Not sure where this fits in priority or even "is this a problem", but I've noticed two things with overland supply movement or lack thereof. 1) IJA inland airfields in Mongolia tend to get above the spoilage level, sometimes significantly so. It would seem desirable to have some of that flow to bigger bases. (part of the problem is that since they are airfield only, the "port + airfield" algorithm arguably shorts them. A different tweak might be to give airfields a bonus versus bases). I've tried to manually move some by selectively adjusting other bases but it's slow going because I'm trying to not jerk things around too much, especially because 2) It seems that when you increase the supply requirements at a base, the algorithm tends to overshoot target, sometimes quite significantly. I could probably generate some saves if folks think it's worth looking at. One observation is that I'm playing two day turns. I don't know that relates, but it might. (for example, if a calculation is done once for "how much extra should we send today" and the same amount is used for both days) Euler integration (which this game uses) does tend to overshoot. No professional modeller uses it. Probably should investigate one of the alternatives.

BigJ62 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/12/2009 1:03:55 PM)
1. For the most part we are still using the old push engine for human players but the ai has a new push engine that I think works pretty good and hopefully at some point we can get humans to use it as well at any rate Ill take a look and see if i can find something a miss. Btw that is the intention of the old and new is to push to bigger bases but... 2. Lots and lots of complaints when I tried to limit how much goes to a base when using additional supply requirement so it will keeep pulling until you tell it not, the assumption is the player knows what he is doing.

erstad -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/12/2009 2:02:28 PM)
Thanks for the quick response. I didn't quite understand the point 2. Are you saying that if you set for additional supplies, the engine assumes you always want "more" and keeps pulling, even if the base supply is already above the set target? That would be very important to know, and could explain my concerns. I had assumed (and would argue the manual asserts) that the engine is trying to hit the target. Or are you saying that the target is the target, but the pull algorithm tends to pull to make sure you get above the target, and when you hit the target there is some "inertia" in the supply pipeline and stuff keeps piling up for a while.

BigJ62 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/12/2009 9:15:34 PM)
Yes, the intention of additional supply requirement is that it will continue pulling until you tell it not to regardless of current supply.

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 1:49:24 AM)
Main scenario, British 5th Infantry Division (slot # 6502) - arrives at Mombasa (off map base in Africa). Reports to HQ India Command (R). That is a restricted HQ and the unit's (5th Div) reporting HQ cannot be changed, so it cannot leave the off map base Mombasa. [Did a search to see if this was already reported, didn't see it.]

Mistmatz -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 2:02:11 AM)
Two findings while working on the chinese forces. They are not based on historical knowledge but solely on the location were the units are on the map and where their respective HQs are. 7793 - 21st Chinese BF - attached to 4th War Area, should be another HQ. Presumably 8th Area HQ. 7531 - 33rd Group Army - attached to 3rd War Area, should be another HQ. Presumably 5th or 6th Area HQ.

pad152 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 3:47:09 AM)
Commands - don't understand, why are there commands that don't show up anywhere. Eastern command, it is sub to India Command or Far East Command? If I want to transfer a unit to the Eastern Command, it doesn't show up on the list? The same goes for the Combined Fleet Japan and others. How is one to know if your getting the benefits of a command, if you can't tell what command is what?

scott64 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 6:17:45 AM)
Tried searching for this...Found two 2nd Hyderabad Base Forces, Eng units...one at Bangalore and the other at Hyderabad. [8D]

Blackhorse -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 11:25:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 Eastern command, it is sub to India Command or Far East Command? If I want to transfer a unit to the Eastern Command, it doesn't show up on the list? The same goes for the Combined Fleet Japan and others. Eastern Command is an Army Corps HQ attached to India Command. Both are "restricted" HQs. What unit are you trying to transfer?

Speedysteve -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 12:24:10 PM)
Aleutians Scenario. 87th Mountain Rgt arrives with no leader assigned and also has 2 support troop line entries........... [image]local://upfiles/4211/5EBC8AE50C124DD4828B72A260F4E442.jpg[/image]

pad152 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 6:48:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 Eastern command, it is sub to India Command or Far East Command? If I want to transfer a unit to the Eastern Command, it doesn't show up on the list? The same goes for the Combined Fleet Japan and others. Eastern Command is an Army Corps HQ attached to India Command. Both are "restricted" HQs. What unit are you trying to transfer? I'm trying to transfer the 104 RAF Baseforce (6314) currently under Burma Command but when I try to transfer the unit, the Eastern command doesn't show up in the list of commands under India or anywhere else. [image]local://upfiles/105/1104AEFF97274DE79651ADF315467F41.jpg[/image]

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 6:57:08 PM)
Main scenario - The static base forces at the off-map bases (Africa and Middle East - didn't check the others) are hording supplies into July 1942. Each unit has about 47-48,000 supplies in spite of requiring only a small amount.

Sardaukar -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 7:01:47 PM)
Don't know it has mentioned here, but 70th Div in 8 Dec Campaign scenario does not have any infantry squads.

Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 7:15:44 PM)
70th Div is the HQ element only of the Div the inf are in the three combat Bdes 14th 16th ansd 23rd - this one is a weird one

Sardaukar -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 7:34:31 PM)
Ah, thanks :)

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/13/2009 7:34:37 PM)
Had a situation where a small KB loitered near Columbo. During an attack it's bomber force was shattered. In spite of having basically no bombers left (and making no attacks thereafter), it stayed around for quite a while, sometimes going away for one or two turns and then coming back. It seems lack of attack a/c should trigger a 'go home and get more' routine.

Buck Beach -> AI & Wake Island (8/13/2009 8:43:57 PM)
In WITP there were times that Wake (with help from CV TF) would survive the Japanese assult and eventually wipe out all the attackers. In AE will the AI try to re-invade or try to withdraw the Japanese beaten down troops? How about other such invasion trys?

witpqs -> RE: AI & Wake Island (8/13/2009 9:05:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach In WITP there were times that Wake (with help from CV TF) would survive the Japanese assult and eventually wipe out all the attackers. In AE will the AI try to re-invade or try to withdraw the Japanese beaten down troops? How about other such invasion trys? I've seen it re-invade Wake once.

Buck Beach -> RE: AI & Wake Island (8/13/2009 9:08:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach In WITP there were times that Wake (with help from CV TF) would survive the Japanese assult and eventually wipe out all the attackers. In AE will the AI try to re-invade or try to withdraw the Japanese beaten down troops? How about other such invasion trys? I've seen it re-invade Wake once. In AE?

witpqs -> RE: AI & Wake Island (8/13/2009 10:17:09 PM)
Yes, IIRC.

Buck Beach -> RE: AI & Wake Island (8/14/2009 12:20:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Yes, IIRC. Please explain IIRC (I think in means in real life). Also, if you know, what the hell is WAD.

witpqs -> RE: AI & Wake Island (8/14/2009 12:23:57 AM)
IIRC = If I Recall Correctly WAD = Working As Designed [:D]

Buck Beach -> RE: AI & Wake Island (8/14/2009 12:50:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs IIRC = If I Recall Correctly WAD = Working As Designed [:D] Thank you very much.

witpqs -> RE: AI & Wake Island (8/14/2009 1:11:35 AM)
Oh, and 'in real life' is IRL.

Chad Harrison -> RE: AI & Wake Island (8/14/2009 5:14:22 AM)
I am finding some more oddities in the editor with withdraw information on the Allies. This is all from Scen 1. The following units have the 1st withdraw option selected, but no date imputed: 5129 - 93rd Coast AA Rgt 5249 - 47th Coast Art Rgt Is this WAD? If so, what does it represent? Also, as pointed out on the previous page nearly all Dutch base forces have the 2nd withdraw option selected, but no date inputed. Is this WAD? If so, what does it represent? Also, I have found the following US units that have the same 'problem': 5169 - 9th Marine Def Bn 5177 - 12th Marine Def Bn 5183 - 10th Marine Def Bn 5186 - 14th Marine Def Bn 5270 - 17th Marine Def Bn 5295 - 52nd Marine Def Bn Thanks in advance. Chad

BigJ62 -> RE: AI & Wake Island (8/14/2009 5:54:20 AM)
Not sure what the oober intended but they will not be withdrawing.

Blackhorse -> RE: AI & Wake Island (8/14/2009 8:41:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison I am finding some more oddities in the editor with withdraw information on the Allies. This is all from Scen 1. The following units have the 1st withdraw option selected, but no date imputed: 5129 - 93rd Coast AA Rgt 5249 - 47th Coast Art Rgt Is this WAD? If so, what does it represent? Also, as pointed out on the previous page nearly all Dutch base forces have the 2nd withdraw option selected, but no date inputed. Is this WAD? If so, what does it represent? Also, I have found the following US units that have the same 'problem': 5169 - 9th Marine Def Bn 5177 - 12th Marine Def Bn 5183 - 10th Marine Def Bn 5186 - 14th Marine Def Bn 5270 - 17th Marine Def Bn 5295 - 52nd Marine Def Bn Thanks in advance. Chad It was/is an "editor" oddity. As we developed the OOB, and moved units around, once we set one of the withdraw/disband buttons there was no easy way to "clear" it. However, as BigJ points out, it is a harmless glitch -- as long as no withdraw date is set, the LCU won't withdraw.

Page: << < prev 50 51 [52] 53 54 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875