RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (Full Version)

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



Message

n01487477 -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/3/2009 4:38:02 AM)

quote:

we click on any hex and have to refer to the Map key ...but some hexes are so small a land mass in it makes em hard to guess.


Try some of the hotkeys, like 1



Chad Harrison -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/3/2009 3:43:12 PM)

I dont know if this has been brought up, but I am having a hard time moving fuel overland - namely in Australia. Even though there is a large required fuel level there, none is moving.

Thanks



[image]local://upfiles/8898/C618F1CAF922425A86B2286A7958E4A3.jpg[/image]



pad152 -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/3/2009 6:17:48 PM)

Map Question:

Is there a road from (Butuan 638 to Malaybalay 1511)?
It seems to take a 10 days for a LCU to move between these two bases!




fbs -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/6/2009 11:16:04 PM)


Hmm... Cape Town has 80 shipyard... and Britain has 100 shipyard...

What's the rationale? I don't know of any large ship built in South Africa during WW2, so why all that capacity? Tone down a bit, perhaps?

Thanks,
fbs



wdolson -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/6/2009 11:40:48 PM)

The shipyards are repair shipyards, not construction shipyards.  The Allies don't get any construction shipyards.  South Africa had a couple of locations with dry docks.  The Smithtown drydock conducted repairs on a fair number of British warships during the war.  Durban also had a dry dock.  The Cape Town hex is really a conglomeration of South African ports.

Bill



Andrew Brown -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/6/2009 11:53:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs
and Britain has 100 shipyard...


wdolson answered about the Cape Town shipyard.

Regarding the repair yard in the UK - in reality the actual repair capacity for the UK yards was massive, much greater than 100 of course. The size of the UK repair yard in AE was set to to 100 to represent the fraction of the repair capacity that could have been allocated to ships from the Pacific, if there were enough damaged ships to require the use of domestic repair yards.

Andrew



fbs -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/7/2009 4:58:58 AM)


Very good, both answers clarify that. Appreciate it.

fbs



fbs -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/7/2009 5:01:18 AM)

Base 1124 Urumchi - it has 50 oil but only 20 refineries. This must be a mistake - every single base in the game has the same amount of refineries as oil.

As 1 refinery can refine 1 oil, the extra Urumchi oil will just accumulate (unless some refineries are destroyed somewhere else, of course, in which case I guess the oil would slowly go through the Himalayas to whatever destination).

Cheers
fbs



tbridges -> Porduction System (10/7/2009 6:59:55 PM)

When I read Chapter 13 of the manual on "Production", the section starts out by saying "When the production system is on, etc." Actually, several of the first few paragraphs of the section start out by saying that. This leads me to think that is possible to turn off the production system, if desired, and just play the military end of the Jap side without worrying about running the economy, more like the Allied side.

But no where do I see a way to turn off the Production system and play the Jap side without it. Can this be done?



Montbrun -> RE: Porduction System (10/7/2009 7:58:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tbridges

When I read Chapter 13 of the manual on "Production", the section starts out by saying "When the production system is on, etc." Actually, several of the first few paragraphs of the section start out by saying that. This leads me to think that is possible to turn off the production system, if desired, and just play the military end of the Jap side without worrying about running the economy, more like the Allied side.

But no where do I see a way to turn off the Production system and play the Jap side without it. Can this be done?



You can turn production "off" in the editor - you still have to haul oil and resources to the home islands for conversion to fuel and supplies.



tbridges -> RE: Porduction System (10/7/2009 9:01:52 PM)

Thanks Brad, I'll check out the editor.



fbs -> RE: Porduction System (10/8/2009 2:54:28 AM)

Base 1088 Chengchow... on the manual on 270 it says the factories in this base should be damaged from prior fighting, but they are intact. The other bases listed on that page are properly damaged. This is scenario #001 on 1.0.1.1084.

Thanks
fbs



erstad -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/8/2009 6:19:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Base 1124 Urumchi - it has 50 oil but only 20 refineries. This must be a mistake - every single base in the game has the same amount of refineries as oil.



Um, often true but there are quite a number of bases where the oil and refineries don't match. Goes both ways, sometimes more oil than refineries and sometimes more refineries than oil (look at Tokyo [:D])



Andrew Brown -> RE: Porduction System (10/8/2009 11:08:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Base 1088 Chengchow... on the manual on 270 it says the factories in this base should be damaged from prior fighting, but they are intact. The other bases listed on that page are properly damaged. This is scenario #001 on 1.0.1.1084.

Thanks
fbs


Noted. Thanks.



fbs -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/8/2009 6:44:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Base 1124 Urumchi - it has 50 oil but only 20 refineries. This must be a mistake - every single base in the game has the same amount of refineries as oil.



Um, often true but there are quite a number of bases where the oil and refineries don't match. Goes both ways, sometimes more oil than refineries and sometimes more refineries than oil (look at Tokyo [:D])



Oh, I never played the Japanese (Allied fanboy here, hahaha). On the Allied side every single base has the oil # matching the refinery #, so any excess oil cannot be refined anywhere else (given that no refineries will be available).

Unless, of course, some oil wells are damaged somewhere, and you put Urumchi's extra oil on a boat and send it there for the now idle refineries. As Urumchi is in the middle of nowhere (it is close to Nepal), that might be difficult... hahaha... so I think it is a mistake.

Cheers [:D]
fbs


ps: Urumchi is actually farther away than Nepal, oh no!! It is almost in Siberia...



jcjordan -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/9/2009 3:03:38 AM)

Any chance to get a new offbase area added at some point - the SE US? I know there'd be some art work changes as well as figuring out the x/y locs but to me the Eastern US represents the states north of the Mason Dixon line w/ most of the manufacturing capacity of supplies, a/c & large ships. In the SE you had most of the oil/refinery of the US along w/ imports from S America plus the merchant shipyards along the Gulf Coast & some of the a/c manufacturers. 

On another note about Pt Stanley - what was the reasoning behind it vs something in Chile or Peru as the southern gateway to the Pacific from the Atlantic. I know that they both were neutral until late in the war but ships at war could put into port there to refuel, couldn't they?



Andrew Brown -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/9/2009 3:14:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Any chance to get a new offbase area added at some point - the SE US? I know there'd be some art work changes as well as figuring out the x/y locs but to me the Eastern US represents the states north of the Mason Dixon line w/ most of the manufacturing capacity of supplies, a/c & large ships. In the SE you had most of the oil/refinery of the US along w/ imports from S America plus the merchant shipyards along the Gulf Coast & some of the a/c manufacturers.


The "Eastern US" base represents everything in the USA that is no on-map, so I don't think there is anything to be gained by splitting this base up. The map could be modded to add more bases though. Originally I was going to have other bases for Alexandria (Egypt) and Gibraltar, but this was never done - one day I might make a map with these added in.

quote:

On another note about Pt Stanley - what was the reasoning behind it vs something in Chile or Peru as the southern gateway to the Pacific from the Atlantic. I know that they both were neutral until late in the war but ships at war could put into port there to refuel, couldn't they?


As far as I am aware Port Stanley would have been the closest Allied "base" to the South Pacific (via Cape Horn).

I doubt that the Allies could have used neutral South American ports for refuelling warships, or forming up naval task forces. I admit I don't know for sure though...

Andrew



jcjordan -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/9/2009 3:22:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Any chance to get a new offbase area added at some point - the SE US? I know there'd be some art work changes as well as figuring out the x/y locs but to me the Eastern US represents the states north of the Mason Dixon line w/ most of the manufacturing capacity of supplies, a/c & large ships. In the SE you had most of the oil/refinery of the US along w/ imports from S America plus the merchant shipyards along the Gulf Coast & some of the a/c manufacturers.


The "Eastern US" base represents everything in the USA that is no on-map, so I don't think there is anything to be gained by splitting this base up. The map could be modded to add more bases though. Originally I was going to have other bases for Alexandria (Egypt) and Gibraltar, but this was never done - one day I might make a map with these added in.

quote:

On another note about Pt Stanley - what was the reasoning behind it vs something in Chile or Peru as the southern gateway to the Pacific from the Atlantic. I know that they both were neutral until late in the war but ships at war could put into port there to refuel, couldn't they?


As far as I am aware Port Stanley would have been the closest Allied "base" to the South Pacific (via Cape Horn).

I doubt that the Allies could have used neutral South American ports for refuelling warships, or forming up naval task forces. I admit I don't know for sure though...

Andrew


On adding the SE it was more of a possible wish list type thing but do see the logic of having to split the bases.
How much was Pt Stanley or Cape Horn used vs someplace in S Africa would probably be the best was to look at it to decide any change.



EasilyConfused -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/9/2009 11:53:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Base 1124 Urumchi - it has 50 oil but only 20 refineries. This must be a mistake - every single base in the game has the same amount of refineries as oil.



Um, often true but there are quite a number of bases where the oil and refineries don't match. Goes both ways, sometimes more oil than refineries and sometimes more refineries than oil (look at Tokyo [:D])



Oh, I never played the Japanese (Allied fanboy here, hahaha). On the Allied side every single base has the oil # matching the refinery #, so any excess oil cannot be refined anywhere else (given that no refineries will be available).

Unless, of course, some oil wells are damaged somewhere, and you put Urumchi's extra oil on a boat and send it there for the now idle refineries. As Urumchi is in the middle of nowhere (it is close to Nepal), that might be difficult... hahaha... so I think it is a mistake.

Cheers [:D]
fbs


ps: Urumchi is actually farther away than Nepal, oh no!! It is almost in Siberia...


Actually a few bases on the Allied side have more refinery space than oil, such as Melbourne and Sydney.



fbs -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/10/2009 2:36:54 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

Actually a few bases on the Allied side have more refinery space than oil, such as Melbourne and Sydney.



Drats! Now I have to carry oil from Siberia to Australia too... oh no.... and I thought the Australians had been had already.

[sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif][sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif][sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif][sm=Christo_pull_hair.gif]


Cheers [:D]
fbs



stuman -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/10/2009 6:37:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Any chance to get a new offbase area added at some point - the SE US? I know there'd be some art work changes as well as figuring out the x/y locs but to me the Eastern US represents the states north of the Mason Dixon line w/ most of the manufacturing capacity of supplies, a/c & large ships. In the SE you had most of the oil/refinery of the US along w/ imports from S America plus the merchant shipyards along the Gulf Coast & some of the a/c manufacturers.


The "Eastern US" base represents everything in the USA that is no on-map, so I don't think there is anything to be gained by splitting this base up. The map could be modded to add more bases though. Originally I was going to have other bases for Alexandria (Egypt) and Gibraltar, but this was never done - one day I might make a map with these added in.

quote:

On another note about Pt Stanley - what was the reasoning behind it vs something in Chile or Peru as the southern gateway to the Pacific from the Atlantic. I know that they both were neutral until late in the war but ships at war could put into port there to refuel, couldn't they?


As far as I am aware Port Stanley would have been the closest Allied "base" to the South Pacific (via Cape Horn).

I doubt that the Allies could have used neutral South American ports for refuelling warships, or forming up naval task forces. I admit I don't know for sure though...

Andrew


I am pretty sure that if Andrew adds any new bases, the very first will be Memphis !



rattovolante -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/11/2009 11:56:20 AM)

More an improvement suggestion than an issue
Could you place 0(0) dot bases at the end of railway spurs?

For example, the line from Harbin to the Soviet border would be very useful in case of Soviet activation, but right now it's useless - or at least, my units won't accept the end of the rail line as a valid destination, is there a workaround?

There are a number of these spurs all over the map.



[image]local://upfiles/32702/080B58ADBA524F0389FA4C8CF05498BA.gif[/image]



rattovolante -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/14/2009 3:16:02 PM)

The road overlay shows a road between Tungchow and Wusih. This is misleading because the hexside is water (see pic, circled in black), so land units can't cross it even if there's a road. Is this supposed to represent a bridge? If so, it's not working, units won't cross the hexside.

Sorry if this has been reported already, a search returned no result

[image]local://upfiles/32702/1F882120D7874E76A7FC0309ACEAFC5D.gif[/image]



bklooste -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/15/2009 1:57:53 PM)

Probably a ferry , i have been there and you cant even see the other side of the river so definitely not a bridge,



treespider -> RE: AE Map, Base, Economic Issues (10/15/2009 2:51:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rattovolante

More an improvement suggestion than an issue
Could you place 0(0) dot bases at the end of railway spurs?

For example, the line from Harbin to the Soviet border would be very useful in case of Soviet activation, but right now it's useless - or at least, my units won't accept the end of the rail line as a valid destination, is there a workaround?

There are a number of these spurs all over the map.



[image]local://upfiles/32702/080B58ADBA524F0389FA4C8CF05498BA.gif[/image]



If you want you could place a (0,0) base there with the editor...

...as to the Spurs being useless that is not entirely correct. In this particular instance Ground Units would move into a hex using the "Railway Trail Rate". So if the rail were not present an INF unit in move mode would only move 5 miles per day through the forest, however because of the Railway Trail the INF unit will move 10 miles per day.

Page 191 of the Manual and chart on 189-190.



pad152 -> RE: Repair Shipyards (10/15/2009 4:54:20 PM)

I too am puzzled by ship repair rates, sometimes ships repair faster when not in a shipyard?



mariandavid -> RE: Road west from Imphal (10/16/2009 6:40:24 AM)

Apologies if this was covered before, but I am puzzled why a decent road, or for that matter any kind of road, is shown going west from Imphal to the Bengal plain. There was no such road - not even an usable track, which was the reason why all of the reinforcements had to take the road from Dinapur.



herwin -> RE: Road west from Imphal (10/16/2009 8:49:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Apologies if this was covered before, but I am puzzled why a decent road, or for that matter any kind of road, is shown going west from Imphal to the Bengal plain. There was no such road - not even an usable track, which was the reason why all of the reinforcements had to take the road from Dinapur.


That's the Silchar Track.



fbs -> RE: Road west from Imphal (10/17/2009 5:01:40 PM)

1.0.1.1084, scenario 001:

Base 1377 Magadan has 4 light industries and 3 resources, plus 17 damaged resources. Should it have some damaged light industry also? Almost all bases that have these odd quantities like 6 or 7 of something usually have a bit more damaged that make up for a whole number like 10 or 20.

Thanks,
fbs



mariandavid -> RE: Road west from Imphal (10/17/2009 5:11:27 PM)

Herwin: Yes of course it is the Silchar - but the Silchar was virtually impassable, impossible to build any form of road through, broken into sections and, as I said before, utterly incapable of acting as a route for a large formation. None of this would matter except that now a Japanese force that captures Imphal could simply walk west into the Bengal plain instead of having to fight north through Kohima and Dinapur.



Page: <<   < prev  30 31 [32] 33 34   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.828125