RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (Full Version)

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



Message


Grollub -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/3/2009 9:43:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I might jump in here and point out that the effective "training system" is vastly different from stock.

In stock, in most of my games, the Allies didn't bother to "train" their pilots, since relatively speaking they already come in trained. On the other hand the Japanese (I've always played Japanese in my stock PBEM games) are always busy "training" their pilots. Typically this means "bombing" a dot you carefully didn't capture, some where deep in your own rear area, like near Java or the PI. In stock, I would "cycle" my air units to the front - use them there for a few days or weeks - then once they had been battered - I would send them to the rear - switch their planes to Nates or Oscars and "bomb" until I got to my release EXP level - usually 75 or 80 - and then switch to "front line" planes like Tony or Tojo and then return the unit to the front. A full cycle was several months - and typically only about a third - of say the IJA fighter force could be fighting "at the front" at a given moment.

Well, all this is different in AE. In AE, you can't much effectively bomb dots - especially if you are a fighter - because it will not help you one bit.

But, you can set you fighter unit to train on the "escort" mission which will help it be better at "air to air" combat. I've tried Allied fighter units up from EXP 30s to EXP 50s in a couple of months - and you can train up to about 70 via this method - on the skill in question. You can also train on "general skill" and affect all your skill ratings over time - but now we're talking much longer. Probably a year - to train up to 70 across the board.

So the "training" mission and related settings are key activities in AE and you will spend a LOT of time working with this. Roughly as much time as you Japanese players spent adjusting your units bombing the dots in stock.


Just a few questions to make sure I've understood this correctly.
1/ Depending on what type of training you choose, the air unit will eventually gain a "Major skill" as shown in the red box of the screen shot below?
2/ I saw on Jrcar's sreenshot of the Zero with drop tanks that it had the Major skills of 'Air, Strafing, Defensive'. To what kind of training do these kind of major skills correspond? How many major skills are there?

Cheers - Grollub
(any misytped words are the results of drool in the keyboard [;)])


[image]local://upfiles/18375/AC529F6667F44E53910AB62677FAFDE4.jpg[/image]




Cathartes -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/3/2009 9:45:24 PM)

quote:

I know you guys have covered the whole concept of witdrawing units on a historical basic but this one puzzles me. The unit in question will be off the map for potentially just three months. I know you are trying to have as historically accurate an OOB as possible but this seems to be over the edge a bit. Is there something else going on here beyond what appears to be self evident?


I'm not a an expert on the air OOB, but if you and/or your opponent would rather not bother with unit withdrawals, there is a way around it:

[image]local://upfiles/2187/A721DBA8F4D342E9AB5FBF93A05BC363.jpg[/image]

[:D]




pad152 -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/3/2009 10:16:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

quote:

I know you guys have covered the whole concept of witdrawing units on a historical basic but this one puzzles me. The unit in question will be off the map for potentially just three months. I know you are trying to have as historically accurate an OOB as possible but this seems to be over the edge a bit. Is there something else going on here beyond what appears to be self evident?


I'm not a an expert on the air OOB, but if you and/or your opponent would rather not bother with unit withdrawals, there is a way around it:

[image]local://upfiles/2187/A721DBA8F4D342E9AB5FBF93A05BC363.jpg[/image]

[:D]


Is there some sort of reporting telling you what is withdrawing and when?

When units return, do they show up at the same place where they were withdrawn from?




Cathartes -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/3/2009 10:23:29 PM)

quote:

Just a few questions to make sure I've understood this correctly.
1/ Depending on what type of training you choose, the air unit will eventually gain a "Major skill" as shown in the red box of the screen shot below?
2/ I saw on Jrcar's sreenshot of the Zero with drop tanks that it had the Major skills of 'Air, Strafing, Defensive'. To what kind of training do these kind of major skills correspond? How many major skills are there?

Cheers - Grollub


1/ Yes. Training and real missions will develop those skills. If "None" appears I interpret it to mean that the pilots don't have any outstanding skills--and this is what I see when I look at all the pilots in the group. Usually a major skill requires a number of pilots that excel in it.
2/ Air could correspond to sweeps, strafing might be developed by ground attacks, and defensive might be due to escort/cap.


quote:

Does the (R) in West Coast(R) mean restricted?


Yes.




jrcar -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/3/2009 11:25:07 PM)

Here is a screen shot of that Zero unit earlier, showing all the possible skills and what the pilots have in that skill.

The Skills are determined by code at the moment, based on on the base unit experiance and the TYPE of aircraft that the unit has at start (Ie a unit with a fighter class aircarft will have higher fighter type skills).

There is discussion at the moment on allowing these to be editable in the future ( a HUGE job in code and for the OOB designer...), won't be in the first release, and another discussion on tweaking how the skills are calculated (in particular in regards to search and ASW skills).

This is another of those complex problems that require complex soloutions e.g a fighter shouldn't have a high "search" skill compared to a trained Naval searcher... but has to have some skill 'cause fighters (like Buffaloes early war) WERE used to search out ships, and if they do overfly a TF they would see it... so what is high, what is high enough... etc.

This game, which we should be starting VERY soon has the latest tweaks in place.

Cheers

Rob



[image]local://upfiles/6237/08A380394EDE48708F442DDD70CB5404.jpg[/image]




jrcar -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/3/2009 11:26:37 PM)

I should note that experiance and skill are different. You can have pilots with high skills in an area (in particular after you have trained them) but still have low experiance.

Cheers

Rob




vettim89 -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 5:04:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

Here is a screen shot of that Zero unit earlier, showing all the possible skills and what the pilots have in that skill.

The Skills are determined by code at the moment, based on on the base unit experiance and the TYPE of aircraft that the unit has at start (Ie a unit with a fighter class aircarft will have higher fighter type skills).

There is discussion at the moment on allowing these to be editable in the future ( a HUGE job in code and for the OOB designer...), won't be in the first release, and another discussion on tweaking how the skills are calculated (in particular in regards to search and ASW skills).

This is another of those complex problems that require complex soloutions e.g a fighter shouldn't have a high "search" skill compared to a trained Naval searcher... but has to have some skill 'cause fighters (like Buffaloes early war) WERE used to search out ships, and if they do overfly a TF they would see it... so what is high, what is high enough... etc.

This game, which we should be starting VERY soon has the latest tweaks in place.

Cheers

Rob



[image]local://upfiles/6237/08A380394EDE48708F442DDD70CB5404.jpg[/image]


Of course there should be some level of cross training. The B-17's out of Oahu for example were largely used for Naval Search early in the war. My only concern is how high is too high. By that I mean where does the line come where using aircraft for a non-design purpose becomes futile enough to deter all but the most desperate of players. For example, at Coral Sea, the fighter groups were depleted enough that SBD's were flown as anti-torpedo bomber CAP. That was a desperate situation and one would think the fighter skills would be low enough in the VS/VB sq to deter such use as a standard tactic. As an AFB, we all dread Helens on ASW patrol. Please make the Army bombers ASW exp low enough so that at least the JFB's would have to spend time training these units up before they could use them as such. Only play testing will tell.




jrcar -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 5:17:40 AM)

Yup, that is what has been done for this build, Air ASW "should be" less effective than stock. If it isn't then further tweaking will be undertaken :)



quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89


Of course there should be some level of cross training. The B-17's out of Oahu for example were largely used for Naval Search early in the war. My only concern is how high is too high. By that I mean where does the line come where using aircraft for a non-design purpose becomes futile enough to deter all but the most desperate of players. For example, at Coral Sea, the fighter groups were depleted enough that SBD's were flown as anti-torpedo bomber CAP. That was a desperate situation and one would think the fighter skills would be low enough in the VS/VB sq to deter such use as a standard tactic. As an AFB, we all dread Helens on ASW patrol. Please make the Army bombers ASW exp low enough so that at least the JFB's would have to spend time training these units up before they could use them as such. Only play testing will tell.






jrcar -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 9:38:08 AM)

Ok well we have started!
Key info

2 day turns
PDU OFF
Realistic R&D (this means you can't convert R&D factories to production factories)
Non Historic first turn (Although no more invasions than what there is, just different targets)
Surpirse on.

The only "house rule" is if you move outside of a ground theatre (like Manuchia) then you have to pay PP's. Really only applies in Manchuria and India.

Cathartes can change airgroup orders, ships already in TF and forces in China.




Kaletsch2007 -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 9:40:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar


The only "house rule" is if you move outside of a ground theatre (like Manuchia) then you have to pay PP's. Really only applies in Manchuria and India.

Cathartes can change airgroup orders, ships already in TF and forces in China.


What about CHINA ?




jrcar -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 9:42:10 AM)

Ok I'll post some screen shots of interesting new units.

The first are "Shipping Regiments".

The Naval support helps in unloading.

The engineers in building ports/aflds.

This one is in a restricted command, I can pay PP's to move it out like in stock, as the "Attached to" is in yellow text.

If the "Attached to" was in white text then I can never move them (This applies to airgroups as well).

This feature helps to tie units down that historically didn't move, while allowing those that did, or realistically could have, to move into a different theatre.



[image]local://upfiles/6237/550F12E8590944B489BE513AC4FDD077.jpg[/image]




jrcar -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 9:45:39 AM)

Haven't paid your taxes?... no slap on the wrist in China!

I think I'll send them out to gather some revenue :)



[image]local://upfiles/6237/8AFD4F6136D74925A137FFD59C1EC5F2.jpg[/image]




cantona2 -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 9:51:42 AM)

Good to see the game has got rolling!

Tax Police! [:@][:'(]




Terminus -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 9:58:17 AM)

With machine guns. They do it that way in Russia as well today...




cantona2 -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 10:02:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

With machine guns. They do it that way in Russia as well today...


[:D] NO chance of tax returns coming in late then




jrcar -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 10:43:23 AM)

Ok I've finished the turn and sent it off, this is what I changed.

Moved one invasion to speed up the process a little, and a couple of others I tweaked a bit.

Started getting resources and oil moving.

I increased Armaments by 12 and AFV by 10.

Increased the supply demand in some of the bases that produce aircraft so that they can build quicker (see image below).

Increased Val (+12) and Kate (+5) production (Kates start off with 5 damaged production).

I also started loading an AirHQ and a Naval HQ to a key location, and formed some TF to send support ships.

I converted merchants to 2 AKE, and about 10 PB to start with.

And changed Harbin to Oscar 1C production.

It is a new experiance for me playing with PDU off, so I won't do too much until production wise until I get a feel for what is what.

The OOB guys have been very busy with a number of new units :)

Also note the new icons compared to the pictures earlier in the thread.


Look at where I have circled in Yellow, this allows you to increase the supply demand for the base (and decrease it if it is above wht is required). This allows you to "draw" more supply to this base, so you can replace aircraft, fix damaged industry etc etc. It is a very useful and effective tool!







[image]local://upfiles/6237/87060E0B804A4684A884B2E2C7FD1AD2.jpg[/image]




jrcar -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 10:48:33 AM)

With two day turns you loose a bit of tactical flexibility, for a game that tends to flow a bit more (as you don't loos track of things, or keep changing your mind). You also tend to be a little bit more cautious.

This way we hope to move this AAR along so we can show as much interesting stuff as poissible, and of course test further into the game.

I will be fairly conservative, but at some point I want to try one or two bold things to test them.

Well thats me done for the night, catch you all tomorrow.

Next week I'll be conducting a personal recon of both Darwin and Townsville state of defence, will try and post some real world pictures :) I will have my laptop with me.

Cheers
Rob




Mike Solli -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 1:33:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

Ok I'll post some screen shots of interesting new units.

The first are "Shipping Regiments".

The Naval support helps in unloading.

The engineers in building ports/aflds.

This one is in a restricted command, I can pay PP's to move it out like in stock, as the "Attached to" is in yellow text.

If the "Attached to" was in white text then I can never move them (This applies to airgroups as well).

This feature helps to tie units down that historically didn't move, while allowing those that did, or realistically could have, to move into a different theatre.



[image]local://upfiles/6237/550F12E8590944B489BE513AC4FDD077.jpg[/image]


Does the operations mode affect this unit's ability of the naval support or engineers to do their thing?




witpqs -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 1:34:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

Look at where I have circled in Yellow, this allows you to increase the supply demand for the base (and decrease it if it is above wht is required). This allows you to "draw" more supply to this base, so you can replace aircraft, fix damaged industry etc etc. It is a very useful and effective tool!

[image]local://upfiles/6237/87060E0B804A4684A884B2E2C7FD1AD2.jpg[/image]


There are no 'decrease' buttons there, only the increase buttons. Will decrease buttons appear when above some minimum level?




Mike Solli -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 1:36:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

Started getting resources and oil moving.


You can move resources and oil manually?! [X(]




treespider -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 1:39:17 PM)

Yes...notice all of the Air Assets at the base....which raises the minimum required substantially. If you have the required value set higher than the Minimum required, decrease buttons will appear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

Look at where I have circled in Yellow, this allows you to increase the supply demand for the base (and decrease it if it is above wht is required). This allows you to "draw" more supply to this base, so you can replace aircraft, fix damaged industry etc etc. It is a very useful and effective tool!

[image]local://upfiles/6237/87060E0B804A4684A884B2E2C7FD1AD2.jpg[/image]


There are no 'decrease' buttons there, only the increase buttons. Will decrease buttons appear when above some minimum level?





timtom -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 1:41:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

I know you guys have covered the whole concept of witdrawing units on a historical basic but this one puzzles me. The unit in question will be off the map for potentially just three months. I know you are trying to have as historically accurate an OOB as possible but this seems to be over the edge a bit. Is there something else going on here beyond what appears to be self evident?



Simply put, both the USN and USMC operated a system of unit tours lasting 6-12 months or so in general. This in contrast to fx the AAF who kept units in the field for the duration while rotating individuals rather than units. Upon completion of its tour, a unit was disbanded. Typically a new unit with the same numberical designation was activated in the rear. This new unit might recycle some of the assets of its predecessor, but was for all practical purposes an entirely separate unit. In the case of VP-44, it returned to CONUS in June '43 and was disbanded. Reformed in September and training at NAS San Diego until January '44 before transpac'ing to Hawaii following by one month of training, then on to Luganville for another two months on-the-job training. The sqd didn't actually deploy to the combat zone until a full year after its predecessor organisation had left it. This second incarnation of VP-44 returned to CONUS in April '45, disbanded but not reformed.

To put it differently, vanilla WitP overstates the actual USN & USMC force levels in the order of 100%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Is there some sort of reporting telling you what is withdrawing and when?



Lots, incl. a screen a la that for reinforcements. Clicking on a unit which is shown to be due on the menu will take you to that unit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

When units return, do they show up at the same place where they were withdrawn from?



As is evident from the above, generally no.




witpqs -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 1:50:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

To put it differently, vanilla WitP overstates the actual USN & USMC force levels in the order of 100%.


A most excellent improvement in AE, then.




drw61 -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 1:57:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

To put it differently, vanilla WitP overstates the actual USN & USMC force levels in the order of 100%.


Amazing.... AE will have a totally different feel than vanilla. It will take some time to unlearn our play styles from the original.

Thanks for a very informative AAR!




helldiver -> RE: Aden Look (2/4/2009 2:10:00 PM)

Greetings, Cathartes.

In post # 208, the Aden RN Base Force shows a "Garrison Unit (0) x1." What's the significance? Purpose? Are these actual troops or a representation of some value native to some static base forces?

I do not remember seeing this in stock. If I've missed a previous post on this, sorry. My mind is in a haze of new info...

Regards,
Helldiver




vettim89 -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 3:15:15 PM)

quote:

Simply put, both the USN and USMC operated a system of unit tours lasting 6-12 months or so in general. This in contrast to fx the AAF who kept units in the field for the duration while rotating individuals rather than units. Upon completion of its tour, a unit was disbanded. Typically a new unit with the same numberical designation was activated in the rear. This new unit might recycle some of the assets of its predecessor, but was for all practical purposes an entirely separate unit. In the case of VP-44, it returned to CONUS in June '43 and was disbanded. Reformed in September and training at NAS San Diego until January '44 before transpac'ing to Hawaii following by one month of training, then on to Luganville for another two months on-the-job training. The sqd didn't actually deploy to the combat zone until a full year after its predecessor organisation had left it. This second incarnation of VP-44 returned to CONUS in April '45, disbanded but not reformed.

To put it differently, vanilla WitP overstates the actual USN & USMC force levels in the order of 100%.


You know I knew this. I am sure a lot of Forum readers have read Baa Baa Black Sheep. Both the beginning and end of the story revolve around this process. VMF-214 was formed from remnants of withdrawing sq and unassigned pilots. The push to get Pappy his 26th kill was because the unit was within days of being withdrawn. At that late date (January 1944), it is unlikely Boyington would have rotated back to the theatre before the war ended. Interesting to see this included in AE. Even as an AFB, I have thought more than once that it seemed like I just had too many F4u sq.




Banquet -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 3:21:27 PM)

Thanks for this AAR, I'll be following it with great interest as a good newbie guide to AE when it's released and, to some extent, WitP strategies in general.  Please don't assume anything you're saying is too obvious..  At least one complete idiot is reading it (me!) who is trying to get back into the game in preparation for AE :)




Panther Bait -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 3:33:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom


Simply put, both the USN and USMC operated a system of unit tours lasting 6-12 months or so in general. This in contrast to fx the AAF who kept units in the field for the duration while rotating individuals rather than units. Upon completion of its tour, a unit was disbanded. Typically a new unit with the same numberical designation was activated in the rear. This new unit might recycle some of the assets of its predecessor, but was for all practical purposes an entirely separate unit. In the case of VP-44, it returned to CONUS in June '43 and was disbanded. Reformed in September and training at NAS San Diego until January '44 before transpac'ing to Hawaii following by one month of training, then on to Luganville for another two months on-the-job training. The sqd didn't actually deploy to the combat zone until a full year after its predecessor organisation had left it. This second incarnation of VP-44 returned to CONUS in April '45, disbanded but not reformed.

To put it differently, vanilla WitP overstates the actual USN & USMC force levels in the order of 100%.



In AE, when a unit is removed temporarily and then returned to action, like the PBY squadron shown above, will it keep the old, experienced pilots? Or will it come in with new pilots at basic green-pilot levels of experience?

Mike

P.S. Thanks for all of this information on AE. It is re-igniting my excitement for the product all over again.




Grotius -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 3:48:13 PM)

Great stuff!

Your screenshot of Takao shows you've exceeded the shipping limits, I think. At least it seems to. It says 45,595(48,000/24,000), and the 45,595 is in red. I assume you've got 45,595 tons anchored there. What do the two numbers in parentheses mean?

More importantly, what's the consequence of being over one or both of those numbers? Slower loading/unloading times? Slower movement in and out of port?




cantona2 -> RE: WITP AE AAR Feb 09 Cathartes-JRCAR (Jap) (2/4/2009 3:53:57 PM)

To add to Grotius' question, do overstacked ports also recevie overstacked penalties?




Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.984375