RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (Full Version)

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



Message

Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 5:05:16 PM)

CW Aviation regt are now also removed instead what you get are a series of Aviation Wings to support the historic Air Wings.

Each wing has 75 Av Support and a CW Air Gp will have several wing units allocated to it.

Andy



VSWG -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 6:41:12 PM)

Have the terrain movement rates been changed? Can we have a list of all movement rates for the new terrains?



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 6:42:30 PM)

Cid- took a more elobarate aproach to describe what was my understanding as well, though after looking back over what I wrote it was clear I did not convey that. I can understand why perhps one would not want to include smaller suport units like Hospitials, or vetenary units, but Naval suport units for Barges,, I gues this would be a tad to complicated to realise, this kinda goes to what I was talking about for PT's, Barges operated from a bases or series of basses and each was supoted by a smalle unit of enginears a base force for this use.

If you remove these smaller enginear units that did on the whole do more than just work on a say road's, they built up what the game desctribes as the bases, how then are you going to represent their contrubation to the war effort?


What of the Larger Labor regements, are they represented in some way? As I mentioned above they did contribute signafagantly to many very large battles., not mention all the work they facalitited.










VSWG -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 6:43:07 PM)

Andrew said I should ask this here:

quote:

ORIGINAL:  VSWG

BigJ62 mentioned a "replacement delay" for LCUs in the Land Thread. Can someone elaborate? Does it mean that some LCUs won't receive replacements for a while?





Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 6:44:33 PM)

O-Were the Canadian Coastal defenses looked at, I know the stock game left out many battries and AA units.



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 7:19:38 PM)

I will get back to you on the replacement delay.

I looked at Canadian Coastal defences broady they are stronger (in fact Canada in general is stronger than I wanted it to be)

Prince Rupert, Vancouver and Victoria all have CD guns a mix of 9.2's and 6' Mk V/VII's

Typically the empire training base forces have small contingents of AA guns, RCN have a few, RCAF and RCMP are moslty AAMG's

There are also 2 independent AA Units (not quite Bdes) each with a 3 batteries of 3.7's and 3 of 40mm's - (So each unit has the equivalent if a LAA and HAA Rgt)



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 8:04:58 PM)

Movement rates have been changed but I am not releasing them until we have properly tested them



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 8:31:37 PM)

CC, I asked because I found a referance that showed that the stock game had no whear near the CD establishment than was actualy in place, espichaly for Prince Rupert, but I cant seam to find it at present.

Hear is the link I used but sadely it apears down[:(]

http://www.geocities.com/naforts/bc.html



Apollo11 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 8:54:03 PM)

Hi all,

Can stacking limits for small islands and atolls be more explained please?


From Press release:

"overstacking rules for atolls and small islands"


Thanks in advance!


Leo "Apollo11"



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 9:16:04 PM)

No because it might change I specced it so I know whats in all I can at moment is that its a graduated system depending on island size that will have increasing impact the more you overstack.

Broadly supply suage increases a lot (wastage) and disruption/fatigu rie as well.

Andy



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 9:16:27 PM)

I am happy to outline some stuff but things that are still under review/testing for tweaks I dont want to put out there because I need to be happy with its game impact 1st



Kereguelen -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 9:54:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Cid- took a more elobarate aproach to describe what was my understanding as well, though after looking back over what I wrote it was clear I did not convey that. I can understand why perhps one would not want to include smaller suport units like Hospitials, or vetenary units, but Naval suport units for Barges,, I gues this would be a tad to complicated to realise, this kinda goes to what I was talking about for PT's, Barges operated from a bases or series of basses and each was supoted by a smalle unit of enginears a base force for this use.


Naval support is handled by Naval Support Squads in the AE. For Japan, the device is part of Naval HQ's and Naval Base Forces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady
If you remove these smaller enginear units that did on the whole do more than just work on a say road's, they built up what the game desctribes as the bases, how then are you going to represent their contrubation to the war effort?


You'll even see some (Construction) Engineer Companies in the AE. But the OOB for Japanese engineer units is still causing troubles and we'll have to go for some abstractions (both for OOB reasons and for the sake of playability).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady
What of the Larger Labor regements, are they represented in some way? As I mentioned above they did contribute signafagantly to many very large battles., not mention all the work they facalitited.


I think I answered this question already: Labor regiments (that means: both the engineer and the engineer vehicle devices) always constributed to defense. This has not changed.

If you have some specific data (sources) about Japanese engineers, I would be happy to see it. But we already added some engineer units that were not in WITP as individual units.












witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 9:56:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
Rail movement is now superb although the period of vulnerability when a unit is packing or unpacking which can take 3 or 4 days.

An interesting sidebar - you need to be in strategic mode to load on a transport TF so that means 3 or 4 days per unit packing up before embarkation


This is fantastic! I love the realism. It also brings up an important point: evacuations. Whether evacuating from a base or the countryside (loading over the beach), units sometimes needed to get out in a hurry. When they managed to pull it off in real life they fought, lost elements of their rear guard, dumped most or all heavy weapons and got into the transport (either TF or fast TF in WITP terms) and got away mostly with just the men and personal weapons.

If AE is going to require strategic mode transition for loading, then the problem of evacuations must be accounted for. How about an option to load when not in strategic mode, but that action dumps all but the squads (and maybe really light stuff)?

Please consider this.



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 9:58:19 PM)

Combat mode will load on amphib TF's but I think there are timing penaltiers and load restrictions on these types of ships if not true amphib ships



witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 9:59:43 PM)

Too cool!



Apollo11 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 10:24:44 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Can stacking limits for small islands and atolls be more explained please?


From Press release:

"overstacking rules for atolls and small islands"


Thanks in advance!


No because it might change I specced it so I know whats in all I can at moment is that its a graduated system depending on island size that will have increasing impact the more you overstack.

Broadly supply suage increases a lot (wastage) and disruption/fatigu rie as well.

I am happy to outline some stuff but things that are still under review/testing for tweaks I dont want to put out there because I need to be happy with its game impact 1st


Thanks for info - I will keep my fingers crossed!

BTW, please do try to limit combat (an building ability for ENG units) regarding island size - IMO the supply wastage is only good for long run whilst 5 divisions attack on, let's say, Midway sized island resolves in days...


Leo "Apollo11"



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 10:41:46 PM)

OK a few things to be aware of the sheer number of bases is going to make the job of a defender difficult - The new map is superb and has so many more bases that either side will struggle to bottle up an advance the way it is possible to do in stock especially with fort limitations - building all 4 mariana islands to lvl 9 and sitting 100,000 men per island is no longer a viable tactic - but then neither is landing 300,000 men in 1 day to take em out.

Penalties for attacking unprepared are much higher and overstacking penalties apply to both sides - ally that to the slower unload rates and actually at present I dont know how the mix will fall out

We need to test it to check we have tried to achieve balance in the changes we have made so that both sides get the chance to play in a historical manner but I am certain sure sitting here today something will be out of kilter - we just need to test until we find it.

Raids against India/Australia/NZ are viable a long way into the war because the of the number of coastal bases, Ceylon alon has I think 5 bases on it all of which need to be protected and the allied player will need to cover a lot of ground defensively

On the other hand CENTPAC especially has a LOT of  dot and small islands.

Andy



Captain Cruft -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 10:54:39 PM)

Awesome stuff [:D]

Ceylon has 5 bases! Very cool. I already noticed that Okinawa has gone from 2 to 6 in the screenshot of that area.





Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 11:36:45 PM)

Kereguelen- Thank you (and every one else) for answering my questions, and I do apoligise if I have asked a question that has already been put forth, thier is realy a lot to digest hear.

Regarding Naval HQ's and Naval Base Forces. Are these then required to be present to operate barges for a specif location? Or do they serve to expidite the repair of these untis as before?





Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/9/2007 11:40:33 PM)

Naval Support is a new squad type that RN, RAN, IJN, USN etc Base forces get as well as naval HQ's.

It acts to help repairs similar to how an AR operates, they speed up loading and unloading and increase the reload capability for guns.

So lots of functrions

Andy



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/10/2007 12:09:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

CC, I asked because I found a referance that showed that the stock game had no whear near the CD establishment than was actualy in place, espichaly for Prince Rupert, but I cant seam to find it at present.

Hear is the link I used but sadely it apears down[:(]

http://www.geocities.com/naforts/bc.html


No problem, we purchased a reprint of a historical Canadian West Coast Gun emplacement study.




Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/10/2007 12:38:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

CC, I asked because I found a referance that showed that the stock game had no whear near the CD establishment than was actualy in place, espichaly for Prince Rupert, but I cant seam to find it at present.

Hear is the link I used but sadely it apears down[:(]

http://www.geocities.com/naforts/bc.html


No problem, we purchased a reprint of a historical Canadian West Coast Gun emplacement study.




![:)]



tsimmonds -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/10/2007 3:45:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Rail movement is now superb although the period of vulnerability when a unit is packing or unpacking which can take 3 or 4 days.

An interesting sidebar - you need to be in strategic mode to load on a transport TF so that means 3 or 4 days per unit packing up before embarkation



Excellent![&o]



Gunner98 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/10/2007 8:47:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Why would Canadian units be to US TO&E? Certainly the early ones were using the Empire scheme - at least. And probably all did.


Only applies to the 'new' 6th Canadian Division that started to form in 1945 to participate in the planned invasion of Japan. This division was not related to the earlier 6th Division (disbanded Dec 31st, 1944) and was scheduled to use US equipment and to train in Kentucky.

Earlier Canadian forces use (of course) CW TOE's.


The organization issue also applies to the 13th Cdn Bde who were organized allong US RCT lines for the unoposed landing at Kiska. The main drivers seem to be logistics and C2, the US were not too concerned with the detailed organization but the over all size of the units and the weapons needed to conform to US standards to ensure efficent re-supply. Also the HQ needed to be coherent with the US system. There was an option considered briefly to 'go it alone' in the Pacific but the Logistic overhead far outweighed the commitment of troops so it was dropped. I beleive but am not certain that all units involved in X Corps had the same constraints.



Gunner98 -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/10/2007 9:39:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I will get back to you on the replacement delay.

I looked at Canadian Coastal defences broady they are stronger (in fact Canada in general is stronger than I wanted it to be)

Prince Rupert, Vancouver and Victoria all have CD guns a mix of 9.2's and 6' Mk V/VII's

Typically the empire training base forces have small contingents of AA guns, RCN have a few, RCAF and RCMP are moslty AAMG's

There are also 2 independent AA Units (not quite Bdes) each with a 3 batteries of 3.7's and 3 of 40mm's - (So each unit has the equivalent if a LAA and HAA Rgt)


True North strong and free! [;)]
Acording to the ' Gunnerso of Canada' Vol 2:

27 AA Regt (Lt Col Goudey) - Ft Macaulay (Vancouver Island near Esquimalt) - June 42 ish
-3 x heavy Btys
-2 x lt Btys
-12 x 3.7in (Esquimalt harbour)
- 8 x Bofors (Victoria City)
- 8x 3.7in & 12 Bofors at Patricia Bay Air Station
-AAMGs (a bunch)

28 AA Regt Vancouver
29 AA Regt Prince Rupert
30 AA Regt Port Alberni

I can show the lay down of the other three Regts if you like.

CD Guns

Vancouver:
Yorke Island 2 x 4.7in (switched with the Stanley 6in guns in July 42)
Stanley Park 2 x 6in (switched with the Yorke 4.7in guns in July 42)
Point Grey 3x 6in (third gun was from 1902 and only for use in action - unsafe for training)
narrows North 2x 12Lber 3 x 90cm Beam Lights
Lulu Island 2 x 18Lber (replaced by 25lber in Apr 43)

Victoria
Albert Head - 3 x 9.2in
Fort Mary Hill -3 x 6in
Christopher Point - 2 x 8in RR Guns (US built) (established 4 Dec 41)
Macaulay Point -2 x 6in
Ogden pier & Golf Hill -4 x 6lber dual role guns ea- not installed until Jan 44
3 x 90cm Beam Lights

Prince Rupert (which is almost an inland port allong the Venn Pasage)
Barrett point - 3 x 6in (a 4th added in 42 but without control eqpt was LOS only)
Frederick Point -4 x 12lber
Dundas Point - An Anti-MTB boom protected by a 75mm gun and 2 x 18Lbers (25Lbers in 43)
Casey Point - ASW Boom, 2 x 18Lber
Charles Point - 6Lber Hotchkiss (replaced in 43 by 6Lber Duplex)

Port Edward (10 miles S or PR) - US Sub Base estb in (Apr?) 42 -2 x 8in RR guns

Hope this helps




Hortlund -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/10/2007 10:33:08 AM)

How will combat losses be handled? The model as it is now isnt exactly optimal, to put it lightly. Will combat losses be divided among the participating units? How will it be determined what unit takes which losses etc?



GI Jive -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/10/2007 1:33:42 PM)

Defunct websites can be accessed via  http://www.archive.org/index.php. Here's the Canadian info: http://web.archive.org/web/20050318143541/http://www.geocities.com/naforts/bc.html

The naval support suads are a great idea.



Knavey -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/10/2007 3:24:25 PM)

Kereguelen

Any chance we can have a brief description of some of the "love" the Soviets have gotten?

Right now it looks like they have supply issues later in the war if an extended campaign begins there.

Any chance the Allied player can have freedom to move stuff around even when Soviets are not active? Currently you have to house rule this since they are so disorganized. Any buildup by the IJA would have triggered redeployments to counter it IRL, but you cannot do this in game right now without house rules.

Placekeepers Anonymous Rule!



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/10/2007 6:17:04 PM)

Prince Rupert, I would not say it is akin to an inland port, haing lived most of my life in the Portland area, and comparing that to Prince rupert, their is a big diferance. Prince Rupert is on the Coast of BC shelded from the North Pacific by the inside passage, I road a 10,000 ton ship into the harbor thier and it is definatly not as tight as taking a modern Navy Agies Cruzer up the columbia river from Astoria to Portland. Portland is a large port complex, with Vancover and longview WA as well, but Prince Rupert is as well, with large loading facalitys for grain and lumber and other goods, all very evident in the Harbor area, a rail line conects it with the rest of Canada, and a Highway go's to the interiour of BC from thier.



Kereguelen -> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread (12/11/2007 12:57:23 AM)

@Brady

Your PM box is full



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6796875