RE: AE Land and AI Issues

RE: AE Land and AI Issues (Full Version)

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

Message

AvG -> RE: AE Land and AI Issues (9/22/2009 3:33:28 PM)
1rst Campaign. Land bombardment. It happens very often that the bombarding party suffers more losses than the enemy does. It happened even that the bombarding side was the only one with losses. Can anyone explain this? AvG

Kereguelen -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/22/2009 3:58:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AvG 1rst Campaign. Most of Japanese landunits have understaffed Support. Is this meant to be ? Yes quote: ORIGINAL: AvG The manual states that the new AE-support unit are bigger in size, but the program does NOT understand that and seems not to be able to work correctly with that statement. AvG Please, could you be more specific (which para of the manual are you referring to?).

EasilyConfused -> RE: AE Land and AI Issues (9/22/2009 4:43:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AvG 1rst Campaign. Land bombardment. It happens very often that the bombarding party suffers more losses than the enemy does. It happened even that the bombarding side was the only one with losses. Can anyone explain this? AvG Presumably counter-battery fire.

AvG -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/22/2009 6:23:28 PM)
Page 179 of the manual. Part printed in red. It is NOT historical to have so many Japanese support-units understaffed at the start of the war. They started with a very good support system. AvG

Andy Mac -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/22/2009 10:02:11 PM)
Guys I am in Victoria BC at present on vacation will try to look when I get back K knows more (a lot more) than me about Japanese OOB's anyway

stuman -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/22/2009 10:52:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Guys I am in Victoria BC at present on vacation will try to look when I get back K knows more (a lot more) than me about Japanese OOB's anyway Well have fun in BC ( that is a looong way from Scotland [:)] )

Mynok -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/23/2009 2:54:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AvG Page 179 of the manual. Part printed in red. It is NOT historical to have so many Japanese support-units understaffed at the start of the war. They started with a very good support system. AvG I would suspect that peacetime staffing isn't the same as war footing staffing.

Kereguelen -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/23/2009 10:18:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AvG Page 179 of the manual. Part printed in red. It is NOT historical to have so many Japanese support-units understaffed at the start of the war. They started with a very good support system. AvG Well, the functionability of the Japanese supply system would be a tale of its own. But Japanese infantry divisions had far less organic 'support' assets than comparable Allied formations (with the exception of the Chinese, of course), especially when it comes to trucks (most divisions used carts). Due to the limited availability of motor transport, the IJA tended to pool MT in transport battalions and regiments under Army (Corps) or Area Army (Army) control (it is quite interesting that British India produced more trucks during WW2 than Japan). Anyway, we tried to represent the defeciencies of the Japanese support/supply system by giving IJA divisions less organic support than comparable Allied formations. But you'll notice that certain IJA HQ's (25th Army etc.) start with more support squads than Japanese armies that arrive later. This represents the attachment of additional support units to these units during the early campaigns.

Barb -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/23/2009 9:46:44 PM)
16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right: 1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only? 33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det. Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec. 2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec. 16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec. (while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi) Source: http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V2%20P1/ch6.htm#p89

Kereguelen -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/25/2009 9:04:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barb 16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right: 1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only? 33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det. Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec. 2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec. 16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec. (while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi) Source: http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V2%20P1/ch6.htm#p89 "I./33rd Bn" is a unit created by Andy for the demands of the AI (disbands in June 1942; historically part of Kimura Detachment). Miura Detechment was III./33rd IR. Don't know what happened with the 9th IR (still planning for Lingayen). Probably another AI issue, have forgotten what the matter was with this one. Originally we had everything right, but it was neccessary to change some of the Japanese starting operations (and some troop locations) to make the AI work.

JeffroK -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/26/2009 12:37:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kereguelen quote: ORIGINAL: Barb 16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right: 1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only? 33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det. Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec. 2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec. 16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec. (while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi) Source: http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V2%20P1/ch6.htm#p89 "I./33rd Bn" is a unit created by Andy for the demands of the AI (disbands in June 1942; historically part of Kimura Detachment). Miura Detechment was III./33rd IR. Don't know what happened with the 9th IR (still planning for Lingayen). Probably another AI issue, have forgotten what the matter was with this one. Originally we had everything right, but it was neccessary to change some of the Japanese starting operations (and some troop locations) to make the AI work. As K's explanation covers every LCU at start, dont be surprised at a myriad of differences for at start units.

Kereguelen -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/26/2009 11:40:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK quote: ORIGINAL: Kereguelen quote: ORIGINAL: Barb 16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right: 1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only? 33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det. Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec. 2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec. 16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec. (while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi) Source: http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/MacArthur%20Reports/MacArthur%20V2%20P1/ch6.htm#p89 "I./33rd Bn" is a unit created by Andy for the demands of the AI (disbands in June 1942; historically part of Kimura Detachment). Miura Detechment was III./33rd IR. Don't know what happened with the 9th IR (still planning for Lingayen). Probably another AI issue, have forgotten what the matter was with this one. Originally we had everything right, but it was neccessary to change some of the Japanese starting operations (and some troop locations) to make the AI work. As K's explanation covers every LCU at start, dont be surprised at a myriad of differences for at start units. No, just some differences, certainly not a myriad. We tried not to repeat that what was done in WITP. But sometimes the functionability of the AI had priority.

Andy Mac -> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance (9/26/2009 5:38:12 PM)
About 10 small japanese units (some of which may have existed but probably didnt) were added strictly for the AI and also to relfect the ability of large ships companies to sieze bases There was one unit I added that I regret calling it I/33rd it was basically a small detachment I needed to allow the AI to do something The rest are the Indpt SNLF Companies basically the Japanese have a lot of ground to cover and the AI especiallty does not recycle overly well some units so I needed a few ants so I added some in total its probably less than 100AV but I needed it. Apart from that main issue is Australian units not always in the right city on 7/12/41 - I think they are int eh right region and broadly in the right place but a few are in the wrong cities - some of this is deliberate some of it is because I dont have better data

Barb -> RE: IJ 16th Division (9/26/2009 8:22:49 PM)
K: could you give me a source where Miura Detachment has III/33rd and not I/33rd? or the oposite for Kimura Det. (I just put it "Miura Detachment" into google and 2 more sources were revealed where it was stated that Miura Det. has 1st Bn of 33rd regiment) Couldnt be 9th Regiment put into 2nd (1st Bn) and 3rd� (2nd+3rd Bn) wave of Lingayen invasion? Will the AI have problems with it? Couldnt the AI cope with 20th Regiment + 22 FA + rest landing in Lamon Bay? If its for the AI, I think we have to live with it or make our own non-AI mods [:D]

Roko -> RE: IJ 16th Division (9/29/2009 1:08:37 PM)
Manual 8.1.3 "All engineer squads and vehicles can construct and repair base facilities. Combat Engineers can also destroy enemy fortifications" I made some tests and combat engineers never construct anything. I check it separately for japanese device 267 and 711

Kereguelen -> RE: IJ 16th Division (9/29/2009 1:44:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barb K: could you give me a source where Miura Detachment has III/33rd and not I/33rd? or the oposite for Kimura Det. (I just put it "Miura Detachment" into google and 2 more sources were revealed where it was stated that Miura Det. has 1st Bn of 33rd regiment) Couldnt be 9th Regiment put into 2nd (1st Bn) and 3rd� (2nd+3rd Bn) wave of Lingayen invasion? Will the AI have problems with it? Couldnt the AI cope with 20th Regiment + 22 FA + rest landing in Lamon Bay? If its for the AI, I think we have to live with it or make our own non-AI mods [:D] Miura Detachment was III./33rd according to 'Sword of the Emperor' by Martin Favorite and Minoru Kawamoto who name Senshi Soshu (the official - but not translated - Japanese War Histories) as their primary source. The material available via Google seems to be based on sources based on US intelligence reports/documents which are notoriously unreliable when it comes to the IJA (most US army reports I've read about this matter are abysmal; USN reports much better and much more precise - but rarely covering the IJA). Don't know if there would be problems with the AI when it comes to historical landings. Originally their setup was historical, but this was later changed (by Andy, I think). I assume that he changed it because there were problems, but I don't know for sure.

BigJ62 -> RE: IJ 16th Division (9/29/2009 1:55:40 PM)
Fixed in patch 2. quote: ORIGINAL: Roko Manual 8.1.3 "All engineer squads and vehicles can construct and repair base facilities. Combat Engineers can also destroy enemy fortifications" I made some tests and combat engineers never construct anything. I check it separately for japanese device 267 and 711�

Rainer79 -> RE: IJ 16th Division (9/29/2009 5:16:18 PM)
Could you perhaps let units in "move" mode automatically revert back to "combat" mode once they have reached their destination? That would make things MUCH easier as it removes a lot of micromanagement.

rockmedic109 -> RE: IJ 16th Division (9/29/2009 8:20:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rainer79 Could you perhaps let units in "move" mode automatically revert back to "combat" mode once they have reached their destination? That would make things MUCH easier as it removes a lot of micromanagement. Yeah, I'd like to see this as well. In a game as immense as this, loosing a unit or six from my age-weakened memory is to be expected.

EasilyConfused -> RE: IJ 16th Division (10/2/2009 3:58:12 PM)
Some oddities I've noticed that may be errors (apologies if already reported) 1. Auckland Fort (6194) has a Japanese 4.7in CD Gun (293) in slot 3. 2. A number of units are given devices that have a "9999" availability date. Not sure if that is intentional. If it isn't supposed to happen, I can make up a list for you. 3. Similarly, some units have a build rate, but are set to unbuildable. For example, 81mm Mortar (935). 4. Malayan Air Wing (6632) has a nationality of "none" 5. Many units set to withdraw have neither "1" or "2" selected next to the withdrawal date. Malayan Air Wing is an example of this too. 6. M10 Wolverine TD (1183), M18 Hellcat TD (1184), and M36 Jackson TD (1185) all have a start date 6/43. 7. Black Force (5980) is set to withdraw on 9/31/42.

Montbrun -> RE: IJ 16th Division (10/2/2009 5:55:18 PM)
Unit 5200 - "857 Engineer Aviation Battalion" should be 857th for consistancy.

EasilyConfused -> RE: IJ 16th Division (10/2/2009 9:30:52 PM)
Another possible issue, 3.7'' Mk II AA Gun (1063) has a ceiling of 24,000 and 3.7'' Mk VI AA Gun (1064) has a ceiling of 42,000. Perhaps that is correct, but I suspect it may be a typo.

EasilyConfused -> RE: IJ 16th Division (10/2/2009 11:33:53 PM)
Also, Beaverette A/C (1099) has a load cost of 100, should probably be 10 in line with the other armored cars.

EasilyConfused -> RE: IJ 16th Division (10/3/2009 2:35:16 AM)
Convoy WS.29/OS.45 (7858) delivers 12 units of nothing (1058) in weapon slot 10. Convoy OS.47/48 (7860) has the same in slot 5.

Chad Harrison -> RE: IJ 16th Division (10/3/2009 3:40:36 PM)
Dont know if this has been brought up, but in my AI game (Scen 1) as the Allies, the British HQ's that were in Singapore when it fell did not rebuild. I got this message the day they should have arrived: quote: 223 Group RAF arrives at Aden 224 Group RAF arrives at Aden III Indian Corps arrives at Aden AHQ Far East arrives at Aden But when I go to Aden, only AHQ Far East is there. Should the others have rebuilt? Unfortunately, I ran the next turn so I dont have the save either. Thanks Chad

Andy Mac -> RE: IJ 16th Division (10/3/2009 5:09:08 PM)
OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look

khyberbill -> RE: IJ 16th Division (10/3/2009 5:50:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rainer79 Could you perhaps let units in "move" mode automatically revert back to "combat" mode once they have reached their destination? That would make things MUCH easier as it removes a lot of micromanagement. Yeah, I'd like to see this as well. In a game as immense as this, loosing a unit or six from my age-weakened memory is to be expected. This is also very helpful for two or three day turns!

Chickenboy -> RE: IJ 16th Division (10/3/2009 5:56:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look Andy, Would this be the proper place to ask for clarification of whether malaria will be implemented in this game after patch II? Thanks.

Chad Harrison -> RE: IJ 16th Division (10/3/2009 7:14:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look Thanks for the reply Andy. Do you need more details than what I provided above? Heres the general breakdown: 1. Singapore falls and all troops surrender with no fragments anywhere else. 2. The reinforcement list shows that 223, 224 RAF, III Corps and AHQ are all going to be rebuilt and arrive at Aden. 3. All four HQ's continue to show up correctly on the reinforcement screen pervious to the arrival date. 4. The arrival date comes, I get an ops message that all four have arrived. 5. I go to Aden and only AHQ is there. The other three are not at Aden, not anywhere else on the map, and no longer listed on the reinforcement screen. Again, I dont know whether they should have even rebuilt in the first place. Hope this helps. Chad

Sonny II -> RE: IJ 16th Division (10/3/2009 7:21:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chickenboy quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look Andy, Would this be the proper place to ask for clarification of whether malaria will be implemented in this game after patch II? Thanks. Yes malaria will affect your troops in patch 2.

Page: << < prev 58 59 [60] 61 62 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6171875