RE: Supply Problem? (Full Version)

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



Message

Andy Mac -> RE: Supply Problem? (8/23/2010 1:59:03 AM)

I canot comment about my supply status in this thread but if you read mine you will some of the steps I had to take.

re Supply routines I know some folks dont like them but we have reached the end of the road on this one they are what they are there are so many consequential knock ons that its almost impossible to change it again now.

maybe someday if someone rewrites the whole thing but it wont be soon and it wont involve me that much I know !!!

Some of the devs had some really nifty ideas to make all this better but they would have killed to speed of the game and send the code round in circles.

Believe me when i say we have looked at this a lot and what we have now is the best set of bad compromises we can put in place for the 3 bad areas (China, Burma, North Aus)

I am not saying there wont be tweaks but fixing the core of this issue without buggering up everywhere else is I suspect a total re write job. As WITPQS is saying do not under estimate the impact FOW




witpqs -> RE: Supply Problem? (8/23/2010 3:03:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Thank you for the caution. I wondered if I should have been more clear referencing PzB AAR. I'm referencing his AAR not because of anything he said, but because I'm questioning the supply rules based on my experience with it and reading his AAR. I did ask MY opponent about his supply situation and he did tell me that his troops remaining in supply every day.

That's why I'm posting in this thread vs. others, like tech support or the general forum. I'd like to know what's happening. I'd like to know if this truly is a problem, because it doesn't feel right. I understand there has to be a positive supply value. How is that calced? In my situation, the closet Chinese base was 8 hexes away. I "owned" every hex around Chuhsien, every road and had troops stationed in strategic junctions. Does supply move through enemy owned hexes? If so, then that adjusts my strategy significantly. Even without owned hexes, the positive supply value still seems a bit high because of the distance and off road that the supply lines must have taken and the strategic junctions I did have troops stationed at.

Please don't get me wrong. Living with it is something I'm more than willing to do. Understanding how it works is the goal. Understanding if the devs see something as a problem and are going to work on it helps also.


If you definitely have something that looks like a problem - a completely surrounded unit that seems to keep receiving supply by ground (he's not airlifting in supply, is he?), then post a save game here in the Tech Support sub forum. I am not a developer but I see them be very helpful constantly. You have to give them something to look at or else the most they can do is say "Gee, that sounds strange." If they have a save game they can see what is happening. Maybe it is what it looks like to you, maybe it is something else and they can tell you that.



witpqs -> RE: Supply Problem? (8/23/2010 3:05:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

maybe someday if someone rewrites the whole thing but it wont be soon and it wont involve me that much I know !!!


Say it ain't so!



crsutton -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (9/7/2010 4:00:07 PM)

Andy,

I posted in the tech forum but wanted to make sure you saw this.

I have two games going both started when AE came out and both patched up to current with patches applied at the same times. Both are scen #2. One is in 6/42 and the other is in 2/43. In my 6/42 game the 4th Australian cav brigade has recently upgraded to a fully mobile armor unit and looks like this.

It is already filling out and looks to be like a very nice unit indeed.....

Now see my next post.


[image]local://upfiles/8095/5CACAC241A334261A4C9BB72E4E39570.jpg[/image]



crsutton -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (9/7/2010 4:02:24 PM)

Now in my game that is much further along, 2/43. The same unit looks like this. It is still an infantry class unit and has pretty much looked like this from the start. Which is correct? (Prays it is the first..) and can it be fixed?



[image]local://upfiles/8095/7BB3A256866E4038B17766AD711E06D6.jpg[/image]



Nomad -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (9/7/2010 4:55:46 PM)

The unit in your 1943 game has a TOE upgrade available and the 1942 doesn't( you can tell by the yellow text at the top). Try putting it at rest opmode and see if it doesn't change it's TOE.



crsutton -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (9/7/2010 7:22:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

The unit in your 1943 game has a TOE upgrade available and the 1942 doesn't( you can tell by the yellow text at the top). Try putting it at rest opmode and see if it doesn't change it's TOE.

I don't think that is the problem. The unit in the game currently at 6/42 has just changed from a cavalry (infantry) into a armored brigade and is now upgrading to that nice fat tank brigade that you see in image one. The very same unit in my 2/43 game is already at the shown TOE, is still an infantry unit and does not look to upgrade any further than it already has. This is the exact same unit in both games. Resting the unit with upgrades on makes no difference as the actual TOE is the same as the shown future TOA. This unit and the 3rd tank brigade both seem to be stuck as cavalry (infantry) brigades in the 2/43 game and will not upgrade. They have been knocked about a few times so I a fairly certain that I have had them at rest and in plenty of supply numerous times since 6/1942, (8 months) so I think this is a bug.

I am currently marching away from an action but as soon as I get it back to a base I will rest it to see but have my doublts.



crsutton -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (9/8/2010 4:28:57 AM)

Never mind..... I got it. I was my mistake. A double check shows that you are correct Nomad. I never knew that a second click of the yellow TOE lable gave you the added information. (Garbage in-garbage out[;)]) I must have just not ever rested those units. Thanks for helping me out.




Shark7 -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (9/9/2010 2:52:38 PM)

I've been playing with an invasion of Russia in 01-1942 for a couple of games and restarts. One thing I have noticed is that the Russian AI has a considerable weakness...it only leaves a few CD and base force units at Vladivostok.

The problem is that I have captured Vladivostok on the 3rd day of the invasion by sea...my BBs are easily able to absorb enough of the CD fire for a significant landing force to get ashore (generally 2-3 divisions is sufficient) and I capture Vladivostok on the first deliberate attack....along with about 700k of supplies.

The second problem with this is that this allows a Japanese player to effectively cut off around 70 Russian units from supply and strand them in the middle of nowhere...you just have to have enough AV to hold the line...the Russian units seem to take the same route every game. A player would not make this mistake, the AI has done it on 6 games so far.

AI may need to be tweaked a bit in this area to prevent such as easy take-over of the Vladivostok area.



Pascal_slith -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (10/9/2010 7:29:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I've been playing with an invasion of Russia in 01-1942 for a couple of games and restarts. One thing I have noticed is that the Russian AI has a considerable weakness...it only leaves a few CD and base force units at Vladivostok.

The problem is that I have captured Vladivostok on the 3rd day of the invasion by sea...my BBs are easily able to absorb enough of the CD fire for a significant landing force to get ashore (generally 2-3 divisions is sufficient) and I capture Vladivostok on the first deliberate attack....along with about 700k of supplies.

The second problem with this is that this allows a Japanese player to effectively cut off around 70 Russian units from supply and strand them in the middle of nowhere...you just have to have enough AV to hold the line...the Russian units seem to take the same route every game. A player would not make this mistake, the AI has done it on 6 games so far.

AI may need to be tweaked a bit in this area to prevent such as easy take-over of the Vladivostok area.


Sounds like a workable way to get the Soviets out of the game very early and free IJA units for work elsewhere...



Andy Mac -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (10/9/2010 11:19:33 PM)

I will be honest it wasnt high on the priority list because why on earth would any sane japanese player attack Russia

There is an Ai script but its not one I played with in 1941 or early 42 a lot.



Shark7 -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (10/10/2010 9:20:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I will be honest it wasnt high on the priority list because why on earth would any sane japanese player attack Russia

There is an Ai script but its not one I played with in 1941 or early 42 a lot.


It is exploitable against the AI...if you are willing to move troops from other fronts. No way I'd attack Russia against a real player as that would be insane, but I just had to see what would happen vs the AI. [;)]

The main problem is that all the Soviet Units around Vladivostok head straight to Yenki and Mut...(I can't spell it without looking), stripping the ports of defenses. In the late game, the Japanese player probably can't stop it (not enough ships for the landing for one thing), but early enough, and with proper planning, you can slow the advance enough to cut those troops off by taking Vladivostok by sea. Move the troops in position, give it at least 60 days for the preparation to build up, and attack in mid February or early March.

All in all, its not a high priority, as you pointed out most sane Japanese players wouldn't do it...not too sure what that says about me. [:'(]



rjopel -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (12/19/2010 9:31:12 AM)

Device upgrade loop.

I checked a couple of different scenarios and it's in all that I checked.

Device 973 KNIL Rifle Squad upgrades to Device 996 KNIL Rifle Squad 45.

Device 996 KNIL Rifle Squad 45 upgrades to Device 973 KNIL Rifle Squad.




Andy Mac -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (12/19/2010 11:41:41 AM)

Bugger



rjopel -> RE: Australian Cavalry units (12/31/2010 7:22:25 PM)

Difference in SQD replacement rates.

SCN 001 Chinese Rifle Sqds 1301-1303 have a replacement rate of 350/month

SCN 002 Chinese Rifle Sqds 1301-1303 have a replacement rate of 350/month

SCN 006 Chinese Rifle Sqds 1301-1303 have a replacement rate of 200/month

SCN 007 Chinese Rifle Sqds 1301-1303 have a replacement rate of 200/month

SCN 008 Chinese Rifle Sqds 1301-1303 have a replacement rate of 200/month

SCN 009 Chinese Rifle Sqds 1301-1303 have a replacement rate of 200/month

SCN 007 - 009 are Quiet China Scenarios.

SCN 010 Chinese Rifle Sqds 1301-1303 have a replacement rate of 350/month


It looks like SCN 006 should have the 350/month replacement rate of the other full scenarios.


It would also be nice if the SQDS were relabeled for what year they arrive rather then all having the same name.



inqistor -> Japan infantry squads (1/18/2011 6:11:13 PM)

So what is the deal with Japan infantry squads? Some units use device 707, which do not upgrade, and some device 709, which actually downgrade at 4301.
Also, why SNLF, and para squads are so weak? Why there are no upgrades at all for Japan infantry?
What with 20mm AT Rifle? I see it in editor (device 607), probably as WITP artifact, but it is not in WITP AE database list.



inqistor -> Type 90 75 mm Field Gun (1/22/2011 8:03:23 AM)

Why does long-barrel Type 90 75 mm Field Gun have the same hard attack, as short-barrel 75mm? I can see, in editor, that hard attack in old version was 90. Were not this THE ONLY real Japanese long-barrel Antitank gun?



inqistor -> Extra (?) Air Support in some SNLF Coys (1/23/2011 11:38:56 AM)

In scenario 1.
A few small SNLF units, namely 2327, and 2330 tables, and
4438, 4440-4443 units have additional Air Support size 0 in OOB. Not, that with 0 number it doing anything, but if old WITP code, about adding Air Support at airfields still works, who knows?



Andy Mac -> RE: Extra (?) Air Support in some SNLF Coys (1/23/2011 12:02:47 PM)

Thats for the AI only so just ignore it.

I set it that way because the AI if it needs Av Support can add a point or two to any unit with zero av support.

Its a redundancy to allow the AI to move air groups around.

(The AI cannot skip bases in a chain so if the AI needs to move aircraft from Base A to Base B to Base C the AI must have at least one point of Av Support at Base B and C - if it doesnt then no plane will move so just in case a player sinks a critical base force or 2 I set it with some redundancy so the air war doesnt stall

Your other questions Kereguelen will need to answer he is the japanese OOB expert
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

In scenario 1.
A few small SNLF units, namely 2327, and 2330 tables, and
4438, 4440-4443 units have additional Air Support size 0 in OOB. Not, that with 0 number it doing anything, but if old WITP code, about adding Air Support at airfields still works, who knows?




PaxMondo -> DEvice 1161 Long Tom Accuracy (1/27/2011 12:13:19 PM)

Andy,

Could you take a look at the accuracy of the the Long Tom (device 1161)? Looks like a typo copied from the range. at accuracy = 25, it is about 6x the accuracy of similar weapons in the game and it is really deadly. Maybe moreso than reality.

Discussed in MAIN in this thread.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2705238

Thanks.



PaxMondo -> RE: Extra (?) Air Support in some SNLF Coys (1/27/2011 12:15:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Thats for the AI only so just ignore it.

I set it that way because the AI if it needs Av Support can add a point or two to any unit with zero av support.

Its a redundancy to allow the AI to move air groups around.

(The AI cannot skip bases in a chain so if the AI needs to move aircraft from Base A to Base B to Base C the AI must have at least one point of Av Support at Base B and C - if it doesnt then no plane will move so just in case a player sinks a critical base force or 2 I set it with some redundancy so the air war doesnt stall

I oftened wondered about this ... thanks for the explanation!



PaxMondo -> RE: Japan infantry squads (1/27/2011 12:22:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

So what is the deal with Japan infantry squads? Some units use device 707, which do not upgrade, and some device 709, which actually downgrade at 4301.
Also, why SNLF, and para squads are so weak? Why there are no upgrades at all for Japan infantry?

I'm guessing part of the reason is the cost.

INF upgrades are really expensive as opposed to other devices as (per the manual) the old INF units are returned as MP. So you have both the HI cost of building the new ones (6x load cost in HI per squad) plus the supply cost (load cost). That's about 30,000 HI and 4500 supply per division, IJ has about 200 divisions, so 6,000,000 HI and 900,000 supply ... you need a new economic balance to allow for this ...



inqistor -> RE: Japan infantry squads (1/27/2011 6:41:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

So what is the deal with Japan infantry squads? Some units use device 707, which do not upgrade, and some device 709, which actually downgrade at 4301.
Also, why SNLF, and para squads are so weak? Why there are no upgrades at all for Japan infantry?

I'm guessing part of the reason is the cost.

INF upgrades are really expensive as opposed to other devices as (per the manual) the old INF units are returned as MP. So you have both the HI cost of building the new ones (6x load cost in HI per squad) plus the supply cost (load cost). That's about 30,000 HI and 4500 supply per division, IJ has about 200 divisions, so 6,000,000 HI and 900,000 supply ... you need a new economic balance to allow for this ...


Someone tested it in WITP, and in fact, upgrades took less, than manual claimed. Probably situation in AE is similar.
There are, like 100-200 Para squads in Japan army, and 1000-2000 SNLF squads. That would be quite cheap, yet they do not upgrade either.



PaxMondo -> RE: Japan infantry squads (1/28/2011 4:12:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Someone tested it in WITP, and in fact, upgrades took less, than manual claimed. Probably situation in AE is similar.
There are, like 100-200 Para squads in Japan army, and 1000-2000 SNLF squads. That would be quite cheap, yet they do not upgrade either.

Now that is interesting ... I will have to go back and search for that. Or was the info ever posted up on Spooky's site?



rhohltjr -> Impossible odds shock attack anyway? (1/29/2011 10:53:48 PM)

Andy,
Sorry if this has been mentioned before or perhaps fixed in the latest patch,
but why do my Marines or Infantry land on (not over) the beach and immediately
go to shock attack? No matter if I set them to defend or bombard or duck and cover they
go shock attack and get wiped out. This is very repeatable. Is this hardcoded in the AI?
I want them to wait till I get some help on the beach before attacking and I never ever attempt
shock attack. But the little electronic commander(s) all seem to carry death wishes with them.

[&:][&:][&:]



Andy Mac -> RE: Impossible odds shock attack anyway? (1/30/2011 1:14:31 AM)

Atolls are auto shock attacks other places arent - on atolls no room to marshall forces its attack or die



witpqs -> RE: Impossible odds shock attack anyway? (1/30/2011 4:12:37 AM)

Atolls, and also regular islands that are size 1 or 2 (means capacity 6,000 or 30,000) are auto shock attacks.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Impossible odds shock attack anyway? (1/30/2011 6:59:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Atolls, and also regular islands that are size 1 or 2 (means capacity 6,000 or 30,000) are auto shock attacks.


This is actually a fault. Shock attack should only be dependent on island size only (size 1 or 2). Whether it is an atoll or not should not be relevant.

Andrew



inqistor -> RE: Japan infantry squads (1/30/2011 11:00:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Someone tested it in WITP, and in fact, upgrades took less, than manual claimed. Probably situation in AE is similar.
There are, like 100-200 Para squads in Japan army, and 1000-2000 SNLF squads. That would be quite cheap, yet they do not upgrade either.

Now that is interesting ... I will have to go back and search for that. Or was the info ever posted up on Spooky's site?


Found it.

Overall, interesting thread. I have not remembered, that armament points were THIS tight in WITP.



Kereguelen -> RE: Japan infantry squads (1/30/2011 12:25:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

So what is the deal with Japan infantry squads? Some units use device 707, which do not upgrade, and some device 709, which actually downgrade at 4301.
Also, why SNLF, and para squads are so weak? Why there are no upgrades at all for Japan infantry?
What with 20mm AT Rifle? I see it in editor (device 607), probably as WITP artifact, but it is not in WITP AE database list.


Device #709 'downgrades' to #710 because the IJA eventually reduced the number of men in the infantry regiments of their 'strengthened' (reiforced B-Type) divisions. Device #709 (only existing as a device in strengthened divisions) is stronger than #707 because the additional 50mm grenade dischargers (light mortars) existing in strengthened divisions are figured in its anti-soft value and load cost (infantry platoons in ordinary divisions had three grenade dischargers while infantry platoons in strengthened divisions had five grenade dischargers). The trained infantrymen that became surplus by this reorganization then provided cadres for newly raised and rebuild formations (however, this change was apparently not implemented in divisions fighting in Burma). There was no other way to represent this with the game engine.

Para Squads are weaker than infantry squads because they did not have grenade discharger teams. SNLF Squads are not weaker as IJA Infantry Squads (#707)

The 20mm AT Rifle was not manufactured in sufficient numbers and thus not issued in enough numbers to warrant its inclusion. Btw., (WITP) device #607 stood for the 20mm Type 98 AA machine-cannon (AE device #724) and not for the (Type 97) 20mm AT Rifle.



Page: <<   < prev  66 67 [68] 69 70   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7734375