RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (Full Version)

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



Message

Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/15/2008 9:39:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

On a slightly different topic.....

are you planning on revising some of the max values of bases? Many of the islands in the Solomons chain in particular were potentially useable airfields, but were never developed. In WitP they are almost all listed as 0:0 bases. This is a little harsh - especially considering some tiny atolls are given higher ratings. Many of these bases should have an airfield rating of 1 or more, and some also have good natural harbours which could have been developed if needed. I noticed that many of the bases in the Aleutians were changed in CHS, but the south Pacific area generally remained the same. Just because they were not developed historically does not mean they could not have been.


I took a different approach to the airfield SPS values in AE. Instead of subjectively evaluating bases, or modifying the stock values, I decided to start from scratch with an objective approach. The airfield SPS values are based on terrain, presence of roads/railways and, for islands, the island size.

Andrew



bradfordkay -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/15/2008 10:01:24 AM)

Sounds sensible, Andrew.


Where's the emoticon for "waiting with baited breath"? [sm=innocent0009.gif] ???




Flying Tiger -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/16/2008 7:33:28 AM)

Sounds reasonable Andrew. And i'm very glad to hear you have at least looked at the values. Not sure how much influence the presence of roads/railways should have though? Certainly there were no major roads (and CERTAINLY no railroads) on Guadalcanal before the war, but a lot of infrastructure was built during the war because Henderson Field was developed into a reasonably major base. The same is true for most of the Sth Pac islands - lack of development prior to WWII should not indicate lack of potential to be developed. Terrain and island size are certainly key factors though. Will be interesting to see what figures you have eventually decided upon.

Keep up the great work
FT



Flying Tiger -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/16/2008 7:35:21 AM)

By the way Andrew, i loved the neat little line (on your map) showing where the Malaria zone was and was not. Will we see something similar on the AE map?



Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/16/2008 9:33:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

Sounds reasonable Andrew. And i'm very glad to hear you have at least looked at the values. Not sure how much influence the presence of roads/railways should have though? Certainly there were no major roads (and CERTAINLY no railroads) on Guadalcanal before the war, but a lot of infrastructure was built during the war because Henderson Field was developed into a reasonably major base. The same is true for most of the Sth Pac islands - lack of development prior to WWII should not indicate lack of potential to be developed. Terrain and island size are certainly key factors though. Will be interesting to see what figures you have eventually decided upon.

Keep up the great work
FT


Yes I know what you are saying, but I will try to explain why I give a bonus for the presence of railways/roads. I see these things as making it easier and quicker to build up infrastructure, compared to locations that were undeveloped. Such an effect can only be represented by having a higher SPS value, because this translates to a higher point at which the construction costs/times increase (being when the airfield value rises above the SPS value, +1 through to +3, when costs and times become much greater).

I realise that this also impacts the ultimate size of the airfield, which depends mainly on terrain as you say, but on balance I prefer to have this cost/time variation even with that side-effect (and you could even argue that better roads/railways should allow for more infrastructure anyway, due to good sites being more accessible in any case).

Andrew



Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/16/2008 9:34:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

By the way Andrew, i loved the neat little line (on your map) showing where the Malaria zone was and was not. Will we see something similar on the AE map?


No these are not on the map, but it would not be that difficult for me to come up with an alternative map with these lines. I do plan to do that but it will not be until after release, I expect.

Andrew



Shark7 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/16/2008 5:39:53 PM)

Andrew sorry if you've already answered this, but the search function being what it is, I have been unable to find it.

Will Corrigador be a separate base from Bataan on the AE map?



Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/17/2008 2:22:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Andrew sorry if you've already answered this, but the search function being what it is, I have been unable to find it.

Will Corrigador be a separate base from Bataan on the AE map?


No



dennishe -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/17/2008 3:38:25 AM)

quote:

I took a different approach to the airfield SPS values in AE. Instead of subjectively evaluating bases, or modifying the stock values, I decided to start from scratch with an objective approach. The airfield SPS values are based on terrain, presence of roads/railways and, for islands, the island size.


Awesome! I want to build airfields and ports where it was possible not where the Allies or Japanese decided to build them as I do not always agree with their strategies.



bradfordkay -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/17/2008 6:45:18 AM)

Keep in mind that it is unlikely that every hex will have a potential base site. We will have far more than we have now, and they should be more accurate as to their potential size - but please don't be upset if there aren't potential bases in just the locations where you want them. [;)]



Dili -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/17/2008 5:33:54 PM)

Probably in most hexes(at 40 miles each) should be possible to make an airfield of size 1.



dennishe -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/18/2008 2:03:56 AM)

quote:

Keep in mind that it is unlikely that every hex will have a potential base site. We will have far more than we have now, and they should be more accurate as to their potential size - but please don't be upset if there aren't potential bases in just the locations where you want them. [;)]


Will it be more difficult to build up airbases, so that even the Allies with all their seebeas will not be able to build up all bases to the full maximum?



bradfordkay -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/21/2008 10:11:17 AM)

Looking at one of the older screenshots, I don't see Dobadura on the map. Is the dot too small for my tired old eyes?


It's interesting to see what new bases have been added to the US mainland... it appears that US troops are going to be more scattered about on Dec 7 than in the old game.



Andy Mac -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/21/2008 12:14:50 PM)

Airbase construction is about the same as in stock as are ports - forts especially high level forts are harder

But with so many more bases engineering assets are going to spread thinner and massing 10 Seabee Bns on an Atoll will cause major problems if a player tries it as the stacking penalties for overstacking an atoll that badly will be nasty.




Mike Solli -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/21/2008 3:02:30 PM)

I'm looking at the new screen shots and am currently looking at the weather map.  I see malaria and cold zones marked.  The malaria zone is obvious but what effects does the cold zone have?

Thanks.



Kereguelen -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/21/2008 3:07:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I'm looking at the new screen shots and am currently looking at the weather map. I see malaria and cold zones marked. The malaria zone is obvious but what effects does the cold zone have?

Thanks.


Same effects as in WITP.



Mike Solli -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/21/2008 3:12:34 PM)

Ok, thanks.  Next dumb question.  I never knew there was a cold zone let alone effects for it.  What are they? [:D]



Kereguelen -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/21/2008 6:57:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Ok, thanks. Next dumb question. I never knew there was a cold zone let alone effects for it. What are they? [:D]


12.0



Pascal_slith -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/28/2008 10:30:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

I recently bought a reprint of the 1918 edition of "Weyers Flottentaschenbuch" (Pocket guide to the World's war fleets - still well worth having in the contemporary editions, lists all ships of all navies with photos and line drawings). Now I'm certain that the data about the navies participating in WWI is somewhat suspect, due to propaganda/fog of war, but this was an official reference for navy officers.

There is a section in the back listing the shipyard infrastructure of those countries that had a shipbuilding industry, and in the section about Japan - Navy yards there appear the following entries:

Port Arthur: two drydocks - repair shipyard

Pescadores: one drydock, one floating dock - ship repair facility

This is information from 1918 or earlier, and those docks were not marked as suitable for major warships, but in WitP stock, neither Port Arthur nor Pescadores have repair yards. I should guess that, if those entries are correct, Pescadores would rate 5-10 repair yards, and Port Arthur 10-20 repair yards. Does AE have those facilities?


I will have to check, but I have yet to spend much time reviewing the location of naval shipyards. It is on the list though, so any useful information is welcome.

Andrew


Check the Hyperwar website. There is a set of the 1945 studies done on Japanese Naval Shipbuilding, among other goodies like the two volumes on the building of bases by the Navy from before the war right through to 1945. You can find the status of every pre-war US Navy base/airfield as of Dec. 7 1941 too.



Pascal_slith -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/28/2008 10:40:29 AM)

Back to something I pointed out a few years ago. The original game had too much fuel sitting around in various bases at the start (my references were the volumes on Navy base building, a book titled "oil & war", and the log/combat book of CinCPac). This was partially corrected in CHS and more recent stock updates. Unfortunately, I did not have the data for the Japanese (not sure anyone has this except perhaps in the Japanese language official histories).

Will AE fully correct this? (Of course, as this data is part of the base database, we can always correct it later...).



Knavey -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/29/2008 11:46:30 AM)

Placekeeper post until my next visit. 

Sounds great Andrew (and others).  I never tried CHS (could not get it to install0 and so WitP AE will look like a new game for me!



witpqs -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/29/2008 10:18:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Placekeeper post until my next visit.


Just a thought - how about just record the "Post #" (lower right-hand corner of the post) of the last post you read?



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/30/2008 12:09:22 AM)

Or use the 'go to first unread post'-button in front of each thread title? [;)]



Charbroiled -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/30/2008 12:12:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Or use the 'go to first unread post'-button in front of each thread title? [;)]


Mine don't seem to be working today. I have read posts and they are still showing as being "unread".

Hey Knavey, knock yourself out with the placekeeper. We know you are actually just padding your post count anyway.[:D][:D]



Knavey -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (5/30/2008 1:17:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Knavey

Placekeeper post until my next visit.


Just a thought - how about just record the "Post #" (lower right-hand corner of the post) of the last post you read?


Three reasons...

1. I surf from different computers and wouldn't always have the number available especially since there are multiple main AE threads.

2. Can't use last post feature since if you logon, do not get to read everything and then logoff, it resets the flag showing that you actually read the posts even if you didn't.

3. Post padding...I am almost to 20,000 posts and I need to get there in a hurry!

4. I lied...I said three but the forth is because it is very easy to lookup this way!



Skyland -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (6/1/2008 3:52:46 PM)

A drydock (lenght 160m, depth 9.5m, width 22m) was build in Saigon in 1885 as well as some ship repair facilities  (French Arsenal de Saigon).
The drydock and facilities are still in use nowadays :  10°47'7.00"N, 106°42'35.00"E in Google Earth.

Will AE have those facilities?

Thx



Uamaga -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (6/2/2008 12:53:48 PM)

Hope this is right place to ask about Malaria zones (yet again?! - I hear you venting... [:'(]).

Did you change (or will you?) in AE criteria for deciding if units in a base within malaria zone are immune to malaria effects? Currently the only criteria - besides of explicit exclusion list based on base index (slot) - is Airfield SPS assigned to base by scenario designer. That is only units in bases with AF SPS > 8 are immune to malaria disease. That criteria does not seem to be very helpful (most such bases - like Singapore  -are excluded explicitly anyway), is rather counterintuitive (I would expect actual size of AF/Port to be used in criteria instead), and from what I remember is inconsistent with the manual (well, yes I know, I know ...).
OTOH the change would  be rather easy to do without (hopefully) much of side effect. Well, it always easier to talk then walk but I keep my hopes high [:)]



Skyland -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (6/2/2008 6:07:17 PM)

Busan (or Fusan) in Korea should have some merchant shipyards and repair yards (Chosen HI shipyard). The harbor was developped by Japanese since 1910. 3 building ways, 2 drydocks (<150m) and repair facilities are described on a map issued by US Army compiled in 1945 (available at Perry-Castañeda Library Map Collection, University of Texas Libraries)

Dairen (or Dalian, Dalny,...) harbor in Manchuko should also include merchant shipyards and repair yards points (Dairen Dock shipyard).
3 "large" drydocks (over 300 feet) and 3 building ways are located here according to "U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (Pacific): Japanese Air Target Analyses, Objective Folders, and Aerial Photographs, 1942-45."

Both have a build capacity of 25,000 grt each per year.



Shark7 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (6/4/2008 12:52:58 AM)

And for that matter, there should proably be a tiny ship repair yard on Chuuk/Truk. According to what I read the Japanese had built a small sub servicing yard there.

And weren't there a set of dry docks at Surubaya as well? USS Stewart was captured cause it fell off the blocks in the drydock there, so the drydock and destroyer were scuttled together. I can't remember if they are present in the stock game or not.



Flying Tiger -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (6/4/2008 3:01:48 AM)

quote:

Hope this is right place to ask about Malaria zones (yet again?! - I hear you venting... [:'(]).

Did you change (or will you?) in AE criteria for deciding if units in a base within malaria zone are immune to malaria effects? Currently the only criteria - besides of explicit exclusion list based on base index (slot) - is Airfield SPS assigned to base by scenario designer. That is only units in bases with AF SPS > 8 are immune to malaria disease. That criteria does not seem to be very helpful (most such bases - like Singapore  -are excluded explicitly anyway), is rather counterintuitive (I would expect actual size of AF/Port to be used in criteria instead), and from what I remember is inconsistent with the manual (well, yes I know, I know ...).
OTOH the change would  be rather easy to do without (hopefully) much of side effect. Well, it always easier to talk then walk but I keep my hopes high [:)]



Any response from the AE team???? This malaria issue comes up in the forums AGAIN AND AGAIN!! We all vent our frustration at the current system.... but very little response from anyone on the team.

Please, is anything being done about the malaria zone effects?

I have made my suggested improvements/changes previously (only units in combat effected, etc), but another suggestion is to restrict malaria effects to combat personnel ONLY (ie. any ITEM with AV greater than 1 (note ITEM not unit - so within a base force unit the combat troops ARE affected by malaria, but non-combat components NOT affected) - so support personnel, bulldozers, etc dont wither away).

And BTW - should it be effected or affected?????????????????? AAAARRRGGGHHHHH!! I hate english - and it is my language!



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875