RE: Nandi Base force

RE: Nandi Base force (Full Version)

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

Message

witpqs -> RE: Nandi Base force (8/14/2009 9:26:59 PM)
The following HQ units have "No TOE Available": slot 153 - IX US Corps slot 121 - III US Corps slot 120 - Alaska Defense Cmd

BPRE -> RE: Nandi Base force (8/15/2009 11:07:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs The following HQ units have "No TOE Available": slot 153 - IX US Corps slot 121 - III US Corps slot 120 - Alaska Defense Cmd It screws up the statistics for disabled contra total elements also. It's shown as 5000/5000 and 7000/9000. I noticed earlier that they are connected to the TOE for Corps Static which is defined as a City rather than a HQ so maybe that's the reason. /BPRE

Blackhorse -> RE: Nandi Base force (8/15/2009 11:29:54 AM)
I'll take a look at it, thanks.

Xargun -> RE: Nandi Base force (8/16/2009 5:00:25 AM)
I may be missing some things, but why would I have Light Industry Points in the pool ? I understand HI being stockpiled, but not LI. Xargun

fbs -> Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/16/2009 6:18:27 PM)
On Dec-1941 all the bases in the Aleutians are under West Coast, except for Kiska, Dutch Harbor and Kodiak, which belong to Pacific Fleet; that given an impression of knowing up months ahead of the Jap invasion of the Aleutians. It doesn't make much sense: Nome is about the same size as Kodiak, but it is West Coast while Kodiak is Pacific Fleet; Attu is larger than Kiska, but it is West Coast while Kiska is Pacific Fleet. Either make all the Aleutians to be Pacific Fleet and Alaska to be West Coast, or make Aleutians and Alaska to be West Coast. The HQ that a base belongs to doesn't have any effect, right? Thanks [:D] fbs

tanksone -> RE: Nandi Base force (8/16/2009 10:34:22 PM)
Hi, can anyone tell me where Changchun is located in China? [sm=00000436.gif] [image]local://upfiles/12681/347B7A5D405E4AE4B47BE4C388673C54.jpg[/image]

Blackhorse -> RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/16/2009 11:40:50 PM)
quote: On Dec-1941 all the bases in the Aleutians are under West Coast, except for Kiska, Dutch Harbor and Kodiak, which belong to Pacific Fleet; that given an impression of knowing up months ahead of the Jap invasion of the Aleutians. Dutch Harbor and Kodiak were the Navy's primary bases in Alaskan waters and are appropriately assigned to the Pacific Fleet (and later, the USN's North Pacific Command, when that arrives in the Spring of 1942). Kiska appears to be an oversight. It should probably be assigned to West Coast, like the other Alaskan bases. We'll take a look at it, thanks.

hunchback77 -> RE: Nandi Base force (8/17/2009 1:45:20 AM)
Hello Tanksone, Changchun is not located in China, it is located in Manchukuo. On the map look North of Korea.

Mynok -> RE: Nandi Base force (8/17/2009 2:42:24 AM)
That Chinese unit has some moxie! [:D]

John Lansford -> RE: Nandi Base force (8/17/2009 12:13:12 PM)
I'm getting increasingly more frequent screen updating issues. At first they were located in the West Coast region and involved the icons and other on-screen images not being replaced by non WC locations when I scrolled or jumped to a new location. I was able to reboot the computer to refresh the video card and get rid of this. Now the same problem has appeared in CentPac and is taking place both during my part of the turn during setup and during the turn resolution. I get half of the Japanese home islands during displays of the DEI and PI's, and the night turn screen is only half the display at night. Rebooting only helps for a turn or two, then it returns. Has anyone else had this problem, and what can be done about it? I'm not running a bare bones computer barely able to run the game either.

Sardaukar -> RE: Nandi Base force (8/17/2009 12:19:38 PM)
That might be indication of graphics card trouble. Can you check for example that card fan is working and temperatures are not raising too high?

John Lansford -> RE: Nandi Base force (8/17/2009 1:40:39 PM)
I'll have to check this afternoon when I get home from work. It started yesterday but disappeared for a while after I rebooted, then returned last night. I rebooted again and this morning the problem returned immediately.

fbs -> RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/17/2009 9:33:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse quote: On Dec-1941 all the bases in the Aleutians are under West Coast, except for Kiska, Dutch Harbor and Kodiak, which belong to Pacific Fleet; that given an impression of knowing up months ahead of the Jap invasion of the Aleutians. Dutch Harbor and Kodiak were the Navy's primary bases in Alaskan waters and are appropriately assigned to the Pacific Fleet (and later, the USN's North Pacific Command, when that arrives in the Spring of 1942). Kiska appears to be an oversight. It should probably be assigned to West Coast, like the other Alaskan bases. We'll take a look at it, thanks. Very good; that makes good sense. So, can we change #5628 215th Coast AA Rgt, located in Dutch Harbor, from West Coast to Pacific Fleet? Otherwise that unit will stay the entire war reporting to a remote commander, and not to the local base commander. Thanks, fbs

Mynok -> RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/17/2009 10:48:40 PM)
Coastal artillery I'm pretty sure was under army jurisdiction, not navy.

fbs -> RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/17/2009 11:04:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok Coastal artillery I'm pretty sure was under army jurisdiction, not navy. The Coastal AA Arty is in both, actually (in the game, that is): 65th, 75th, 78th, 215th, 216th and 217th Coastal AA Rgt are all under West Coast, while 64th, 97th, 98th, 206th and 251st Coastal AA Rgt are all under Pacific Fleet. By the way, 110th USA Base Force is under Pacific Fleet (hahaha - take that, Army), as well as several Inf Rgt and the 198th FA Bn. They seem to belong to Pacific Fleet when they are in islands in the Pacific, what kinda makes sense. Cheers [:D] fbs

witpqs -> RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/17/2009 11:23:46 PM)
There's an infantry unit that begins scen 1 in Seattle assigned to a restricted command. It's target is Whittier, just outside Anchorage. You have to change hq to move it by sea, and it seems like the land journey would take upwards of a year (a number of hexes through mountains with no road). It's part of the same unit that's broken down and is garrisoning places like Nome and other Alaska bases. Should this unit be considered for an hq change in the patch? Edit to add: Looked it up, it's slot 5639 - 1/153rd Infantry Battalion

Blackhorse -> RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/18/2009 1:58:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs There's an infantry unit that begins scen 1 in Seattle assigned to a restricted command. It's target is Whittier, just outside Anchorage. You have to change hq to move it by sea, and it seems like the land journey would take upwards of a year (a number of hexes through mountains with no road). It's part of the same unit that's broken down and is garrisoning places like Nome and other Alaska bases. Should this unit be considered for an hq change in the patch? Edit to add: Looked it up, it's slot 5639 - 1/153rd Infantry Battalion Normally, yes. But this is one of those units that starts on the West Coast but did not historically deploy for months (the 1/153rd did not leave Seattle to join the rest of the regiment in Alaska until April). In these circumstances, we required the player to spend PP if he wanted to release the unit. If we didn't do this the US would have 2 or 3 division equivalents of 'extra' troops available to deploy between December and March.

Blackhorse -> RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/18/2009 2:08:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok Coastal artillery I'm pretty sure was under army jurisdiction, not navy. The Coastal AA Arty is in both, actually (in the game, that is): 65th, 75th, 78th, 215th, 216th and 217th Coastal AA Rgt are all under West Coast, while 64th, 97th, 98th, 206th and 251st Coastal AA Rgt are all under Pacific Fleet. By the way, 110th USA Base Force is under Pacific Fleet (hahaha - take that, Army), as well as several Inf Rgt and the 198th FA Bn. They seem to belong to Pacific Fleet when they are in islands in the Pacific, what kinda makes sense. Cheers [:D] fbs The Coast Artillery was a branch of the US Army. But once units were assigned to a theater, they reported to whatever HQ commanded that region, be it Army or Navy. Historically, a lot of US Army divisions (and Coastal Anti-Aircraft Regiments) fought assigned to Nimitz' Pacific Ocean Areas HQ. Pacific Fleet HQ turns into POA in a few months. One of the Marine Divisions, and other naval units (such as Seabees) fought as part of MacArthur's (Army) South West Pacific Command.

witpqs -> RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/18/2009 2:19:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs There's an infantry unit that begins scen 1 in Seattle assigned to a restricted command. It's target is Whittier, just outside Anchorage. You have to change hq to move it by sea, and it seems like the land journey would take upwards of a year (a number of hexes through mountains with no road). It's part of the same unit that's broken down and is garrisoning places like Nome and other Alaska bases. Should this unit be considered for an hq change in the patch? Edit to add: Looked it up, it's slot 5639 - 1/153rd Infantry Battalion Normally, yes. But this is one of those units that starts on the West Coast but did not historically deploy for months (the 1/153rd did not leave Seattle to join the rest of the regiment in Alaska until April). In these circumstances, we required the player to spend PP if he wanted to release the unit. If we didn't do this the US would have 2 or 3 division equivalents of 'extra' troops available to deploy between December and March. Ah, so good as is. Thanks.

fbs -> RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/18/2009 5:43:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse The Coast Artillery was a branch of the US Army. But once units were assigned to a theater, they reported to whatever HQ commanded that region, be it Army or Navy. Very good, so, can we change #5628 215th Coast AA Rgt from West Coast to Pacific Fleet? It is located on Dutch Harbor, and all Coast AA Rgt that are located on Pacific Fleet bases report to Pacific Fleet - except this one. Thanks [:D] fbs

Blackhorse -> RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/18/2009 11:31:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs quote: ORIGINAL: Blackhorse The Coast Artillery was a branch of the US Army. But once units were assigned to a theater, they reported to whatever HQ commanded that region, be it Army or Navy. Very good, so, can we change #5628 215th Coast AA Rgt from West Coast to Pacific Fleet? It is located on Dutch Harbor, and all Coast AA Rgt that are located on Pacific Fleet bases report to Pacific Fleet - except this one. Thanks [:D] fbs Possibly. (For Patch #2) I'll review. The Aleutians are a command oddity. There was both an Army HQ (Alaska Defense Command -- subordinate to West Coast) and a Navy HQ (Pacific Fleet - later North Pacific). Unlike other theaters there was no "unity of command". The two HQs were instructed to cooperate together. The need for 'restricted' units complicates matters. Alaska Defense Command is a 'restricted' command. So the only way to move Army units to/among the Aleutians is by spending PPs and transferring them to Pacific Fleet/NorPac. This is intended . . . otherwise the US player could strip Alaska of forces at game start to reinforce the Pacific. But it means that sometimes LCUs that, historically, should be assigned to the Army HQ will be assigned to the Naval HQ, and vice-versa.

steveh11Matrix -> RE: Aleutian bases are inconsistent (8/18/2009 12:34:14 PM)
I posted this in the Manual thread, but it seems to have got nowhere... [;)] quote: ORIGINAL: steveh11Matrix Manual/Base question, I'll post it here (at least to begin with). Section 9.1, Bases. The example screen given on page 205 of the "LIGHT" manual gives the usual figures for "Supplies" and "Supplies Required". The text relevant to this says: quote: Supplies on hand (1728), Supplies Required (417) per day in order to function at full efficiency Per day? That's not how I remember it, or how it seems to work. Manual typo, or has something changed between 'vanilla' and AE, or have I just got this completely wrong? Steve

JSBoomer -> Terrace (8/18/2009 11:47:59 PM)
Thanks for including Terrace on the map. Not only is it my place of Birth it was also an important part of the defence of BC during the war. However its location is not quite right. It should be in the river hex or the river should be in the hex that Terrace is in. Terrace is about 150 klicks from Prince Rupert and is lays right next to the Skeena river and its outskirts are on the the other side. It was also at Terrace that the road crosses to the Eastern side of the river. It is hard to tell from the map if there is a road connection from Terrace to Prince Rupert. If there is it would be incorrect as two towns were only connected by rail and by river boat. It was during the war that the last 100 km of road were put it my American and Canadian engineers.

fbs -> Ahmedabad vs Ahmadabad (8/19/2009 1:37:48 AM)
Ahmadabad vs. Ahmedabad: While some people write it as Ahmadabad, that doesn't seem to be the most common form: Ahmadabad produces some 750,000 hits on Google, while Ahmedabad produces some 18,000,000 hits. The Indian sites themselves write Ahmedabad (for example, Times of India). I'd recommend to change base #824 Ahmadabad to Ahmedabad. Thanks [:D] fbs ps: by the way, HMIS Ahmedabad, an AMc, is written correctly.

fbs -> Indian Goa? (8/19/2009 1:53:40 AM)
Shouldn't Goa be neutral during WW2? Right now it is an Indian Base under India Command, but India occupied Goa only on 1961. The presence of Indian troops and warships there doesn't seem right. Goa's neutrality was even tested during the sinking of the Ehrenfels in 1943. I'd suggest keeping the map as is, but remove Goa as a base. Thanks [:D] fbs

HistoryGuy -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (8/20/2009 4:14:58 PM)
Someday, mark my words, some Japanese player is going to invade the Panama Canal zone because there apparently aren't any CD guns in the base force.............boy, would that screw up things for the Allies.

BPRE -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (8/20/2009 8:03:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HistoryGuy Someday, mark my words, some Japanese player is going to invade the Panama Canal zone because there apparently aren't any CD guns in the base force.............boy, would that screw up things for the Allies. Don't think you can. According to the manual only the Allied player is allowed to use the off-map areas. Haven't tried it but in case it's possible it might be a bug (or a fault in the manual). /BPRE

Andrew Brown -> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread (8/21/2009 1:34:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BPRE quote: ORIGINAL: HistoryGuy Someday, mark my words, some Japanese player is going to invade the Panama Canal zone because there apparently aren't any CD guns in the base force.............boy, would that screw up things for the Allies. Don't think you can. According to the manual only the Allied player is allowed to use the off-map areas. Haven't tried it but in case it's possible it might be a bug (or a fault in the manual). /BPRE Yes. The off-map areas are for Allied forces only. Andrew

pad152 -> Japan Production (8/24/2009 7:13:35 PM)
I�m trying to find out how much of Heavy Industry is being used to see if I can expand any factories at the start of the campaign but, the numbers don't add up? Campaign 2 � Japan Start Dec 7, 1941 Hi = Heavy Industry __________________________________________________________ Aircraft production---(18 Hi) x 380 ------------------6840 Aircraft Research-----(18 Hi) x 16----------------------34 Aircraft Engine-------(18 Hi) x 492 ------------------8856 Naval Shipyard--------(3 Hi) x 1384 ------------------4152 Merchant Shipyard-----(3 Hi) x 807 -------------------2421 Vehicles--------------(6 Hi) x 98 ---------------------508 Armament--------------(6 Hi) x 650--------------------3900 Hi used at start-------------------------------------26711 Hi produced at start---------------------------------1,025 Total Hi Used--------------------------------------(-25686) Huh? Why does Japan start with negative Heavy Industry? So Japan gets no production on turn one? [image]local://upfiles/105/87A6552BAEED47FA936611D00C0DF7FE.jpg[/image]

Mike Solli -> RE: Japan Production (8/24/2009 7:22:20 PM)
pad, note that aircraft production is 18*(# of engines). A two engine aircraft costs 36 HI for the airframe and an additional 36 HI for the engines. Also note that the aircraft and engine production is for a month. Divide their totals by 30 to get the average daily production cost. I also don't believe R&D costs HI. There's been debate about that for years.

Page: << < prev 26 27 [28] 29 30 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375