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

herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/28/2009 8:36:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac After we get patch 1 out there and official I need to spend some more testing cycles on the Allied AI especially late 42/43 so if anyone has any feedback please thats probably my next AI priority - its been tested but I need to retest and see how it does Andy, can you create a Midway scenario for people to work with?

oldman45 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/29/2009 5:22:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac After we get patch 1 out there and official I need to spend some more testing cycles on the Allied AI especially late 42/43 so if anyone has any feedback please thats probably my next AI priority - its been tested but I need to retest and see how it does I am in mid 43 and the only thing that bothers me is HQ's that have been withdrawn but the territory is still in friendly hands. Bases and units revert to "unknown" hq. Not sure if its a problem for logistics, at least I have not noticed any yet. Still have a problem where a piece of a HQ was saved from Singapore but it will not fill out with support units. I have tried changing superior HQ's, moved it to a bigger base, put it on rest mode. Nothing is working. Its not listed as 224/x just RAF 224.

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/29/2009 6:12:04 AM)
Andy - is just the patch required or a restart? I don't want to waste your time with feedback from a game in progress if it stays with the pre-patch AI after patching. PS: I am in September '42 Allies vs AI. You are evil, evil, evil. Not the spray can stuff. The concentrate. [:D]

Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/29/2009 8:00:06 AM)
Herwin huh ? I am not creatign scenarios I am testing the AI

Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/29/2009 8:00:29 AM)
Oldman not sure whats wnet wrong there

Walloc -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/29/2009 11:23:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 Still have a problem where a piece of a HQ was saved from Singapore but it will not fill out with support units. I have tried changing superior HQ's, moved it to a bigger base, put it on rest mode. Nothing is working. Its not listed as 224/x just RAF 224. I can add that i have the same problem with the 223 RAF HQ. It was loaded on 2 ships and one of them got sunk leaving a fragment. The Fragment eventually correctly rename it self from X/RAF 223 into the RAF 223 HQ non the less it hasnt been able to recieve any replacement since. To add, for a short periode and that might have some thing to do with it. A 223 RAF HQ was on reinforcement scheduel for GB but vanished from list/appeared in GB but isnt physically showing. Could be that a "ghost" fragment are hiding some where in cyberspace now and since it was the "parent" part of the unit even if remaining fragment was renamed it still "acts" like a fragment. Well its a theory. The AHF HQ was destroyed as a whole in malaya and has come back via GB and are functioning correctly. Kind regards, Rasmus

fbs -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/29/2009 3:21:24 PM)
Scenario 001: RAAF OTU Adelaide is under Australia Command That is inconsistent with the other "RAAF OTU" units, all of which are under RAAF Command (RAAF OTU Augusta, Sydney, Wagga, Canberra, Melbourne). Thanks, fbs

fbs -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/29/2009 6:10:34 PM)
Scenario 001 Unit "32th Australian Bn" should be "32nd Australian Bn". Thanks, fbs

pad152 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/29/2009 7:01:38 PM)
Seeing the AI operate B17's from level 2 airfields, seems like too much of a cheat. Heavy bombers should be limited to level 4 for even the AI. I don't mind the AI getting bonuses but, seeing it not even using the same game rules is a bit much.

Buck Beach -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/29/2009 9:30:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 Seeing the AI operate B17's from level 2 airfields, seems like too much of a cheat. Heavy bombers should be limited to level 4 for even the AI. I don't mind the AI getting bonuses but, seeing it not even using the same game rules is a bit much. I tend to agree with you here!

herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/29/2009 9:55:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 Seeing the AI operate B17's from level 2 airfields, seems like too much of a cheat. Heavy bombers should be limited to level 4 for even the AI. I don't mind the AI getting bonuses but, seeing it not even using the same game rules is a bit much. I tend to agree with you here! I believe that was historical. A number of the Dutch bases in Borneo were secretly set up to facilitate bombers flying in, flying a mission, and flying out. How big was Guadalcanal when the B-17s started using it in the same way?

Gary D -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/30/2009 4:14:25 AM)
The 99th and 100th Indian Brigades posted to Colombo start scenario 6 with a morale of zero. [image]local://upfiles/6715/0A0AD1BEC11242C7962D9D66EB736DCE.jpg[/image]

sven6345789 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/30/2009 11:32:30 AM)
probably already reported but under patch 1.083, hitting the button "toggle replacements for all units on or off" in the land unit overview, both buttons turn replacements on. scenario 1.

Iron Duke -> RE: AE Land and AI Issues (8/30/2009 4:09:46 PM)
scn. 1 slot 5348 86th Infantry Cav Division -- suffix is Cavalry Division -- should be Division

fbs -> RE: AE Land and AI Issues (8/30/2009 6:08:51 PM)
Scenario 001, v. 1.0.1.1083, new game: Beaverette A/C still has a very large load cost -- it should be 10, not 100. Cheers [:D] fbs

Blackhorse -> RE: AE Land and AI Issues (8/30/2009 6:28:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iron Duke scn. 1 slot 5348 86th Infantry Cav Division -- suffix is Cavalry Division -- should be Division Noted. What's causing the problem is that the Division points to the wrong TOE. It will be fixed for Patch 2.

pad152 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/30/2009 10:15:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin I believe that was historical. A number of the Dutch bases in Borneo were secretly set up to facilitate bombers flying in, flying a mission, and flying out. How big was Guadalcanal when the B-17s started using it in the same way? If your going to allow 4 engine bombers to operate from level 2 airfields, then air field size doesn't mean anything any more.[8\|] I don't know how big the airfield got on Guadalcanal, but today Honiara (Henderson Field) is the only international airport in the Solomon Islands at 7200ft long. My understanding is airfield size in WITP/AE represents more than just size but, also the facilities like fuel & bomb bunkers, repair facilities, etc.

rockmedic109 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/30/2009 10:24:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 quote: ORIGINAL: herwin I believe that was historical. A number of the Dutch bases in Borneo were secretly set up to facilitate bombers flying in, flying a mission, and flying out. How big was Guadalcanal when the B-17s started using it in the same way? If your going to allow 4 engine bombers to operate from level 2 airfields, then air field size doesn't mean anything any more.[8\|] I don't know how big the airfield got on Guadalcanal, but today Honiara (Henderson Field) is the only international airport in the Solomon Islands at 7200ft long. My understanding is airfield size in WITP/AE represents more than just size but, also the facilities like fuel & bomb bunkers, repair facilities, etc. Airfield size still matters. If the size is not at least 4 + (bombload/6500), then the unit will only carry extended range load, only have normal range and suffers more Ops losses.

rattovolante -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/31/2009 6:09:06 PM)
(this surfaced in another thread) In scenario 1 (possibly in the other variations too) some SNLF companies have an infantry icon instead of an amphibious infantry icon. Is this intentional? example: identical equipment/squads, different icon: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/32702/1306708722E5487F99417E6CF6E549DB.jpg

Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/31/2009 8:28:29 PM)
No mistake but to late for patch 1

rattovolante -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (8/31/2009 9:35:59 PM)
a very minor one from scenario 1 unit # 4382, 51st naval guard starts first turn (dec 7) with preparation Jaluit/0, loaded on "Makin invasion" TF 15, docked at Jaluit and heading to Makin unit # 4383, 52nd naval guard starts at Jaluit (and will stay there, the TF won't load it up), but has preparation Makin/50 I guess orders were mixed up and the TF commander loaded the wrong unit ;)

Montbrun -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (9/1/2009 12:01:37 AM)
Unit 176 - "II Australian" is missing "Corps" Unit 6402 - "3rd Carbiniers" - should be "Carabiniers."

medicff -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (9/1/2009 10:41:09 PM)
AI uses CV tf as ramming/bombard/sc tf clearing force??? Hey Andy, don't know if your dept or programing but AI send its CV's into Bali Base hex (not near) and ran into PT boats and AMc on station there. Were they just trying to move thru? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Balikpapan at 64,97, Range 30,000 Yards Japanese Ships CV Hiryu CV Soryu CV Zuikaku CA Tone CA Chikuma CL Oi DD Arashi DD Hagikaze DD Asashio DD Oshio Allied Ships MTB 7 MTB 8 MTB 9 MTB 11 MTB 12 MTB 26 MTB 27 Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards Range closes to 29,000 yards... CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 29,000 yards CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 29,000 yards Both TF attempt to withdraw! Range increases to 30,000 yards... Both Task Forces evade combat -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Day Time Surface Combat, near Balikpapan at 64,97, Range 30,000 Yards Japanese Ships CV Akagi DD Arashio DD Akatsuki DD Okikaze Allied Ships AMc MMS D Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards Range closes to 29,000 yards... Range closes to 25,000 yards... CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 25,000 yards CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 25,000 yards Both TF attempt to withdraw! Range increases to 30,000 yards... Range increases to 30,000 yards... Both Task Forces evade combat [:D]

Andy Mac -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/1/2009 11:36:38 PM)
I adjusted this in the patch I hope

scott64 -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/2/2009 12:51:50 AM)
Jap AI taking bases and throwing the defender out. The Japs move on and leave a unit not destroyed nearby. The allies move back to retake the base. This has happened more than once.

medicff -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/2/2009 2:43:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I adjusted this in the patch I hope Probably [;)], I patched over the stock GC scenario 2 so I did not get the AI changes. [:)]

John Lansford -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/2/2009 12:58:51 PM)
I still have an AI surface warfare TF sitting in Davao harbor. It arrived a week ago and just sat there, not bombarding or anything else, until an invasion TF showed up and began unloading. During that time the TF (a BB, CA and 2 DD's) had the BB torpedoed by a PBY, Dutch subs fired numerous torpedoes at them, and I ran a surface TF in there to shake them up. I also pulled all the Allied LCU's in the area to Davao when it was obvious that -something- was going to happen there soon. Now there's three infantry units dug in there instead of the one the AI was expecting, and the TF is STILL not bombarding! (BTW this is with the beta patch installed)

EasilyConfused -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/2/2009 2:18:32 PM)
The Beaverette A/C has a load cost of 100. I suspect it's a typo and should read 10, in line with the other armo(u)red cars.

fbs -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/2/2009 3:46:43 PM)
Scenario 1, 1.0.1.1083: Unit 5907 "Madion Base Force" should be "Madioen Base Force" Unit 5908 "Loemafjang Base Force" should be "Loemadjang Base Force" Unit 5916 "Den Passer Base Force" should be "Den Passar Base Force" Cheers! [:D] fbs ps: I can't believe I'm reviewing the spelling of all units named after places, to make sure they match the spelling of the place... hahahah [:D]

Page: << < prev 56 57 [58] 59 60 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.203125