RE: hexside control (Full Version)

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



Message

Odin -> RE: hexside control (6/10/2009 8:15:38 AM)

[&o]<-----thats me, smashing my head on the floor.



Yamato hugger -> ship repair (6/10/2009 10:40:24 PM)

Here is a sample of the repair process. This is 1 of at least 2 methods you can use (I will show the other in a moment).

If you display the ships in port (this is the only ship in this particular port), you can click on the ships name. In the lower right corner you will see "repair type" and "priority". These are toggles. This ship has pierside and shipyard as its only choices. If there were a repair ship in port, this would also be an option. You will also see a repair estimate of time to repair. When a ship is done repairing or can no longer be repaired at this port you will get a message in your operations report.

[image]local://upfiles/14252/7919F009193A47AA80C6F208E195C174.jpg[/image]



Yamato hugger -> RE: ship repair (6/10/2009 10:47:39 PM)

Clicking "Manage ships under repair" from the port display will show a list of ALL ships that are damaged in that current port (even with 1 sys damage!) and the repair type can be toggled for any ship. Note the line at the bottom that says what your capacity is and your current total. In some cases (like after the Pearl Harbor raid for example) this screen is far more useful than putting them in 1 ship at a time because you can better manage your yard space here.

You can also see your choices for "priority".

If a ship is on fire, you cant start repairs until the fire is out.

[image]local://upfiles/14252/63AC40BF76C943CF84A084172AC154F8.jpg[/image]



Yamato hugger -> RE: ship repair and pilot training (6/10/2009 11:19:12 PM)

As an experiment, I selected "general training" on a few air units and after a few days, you will see that all of their stats will begin to climb (including defense).

[image]local://upfiles/14252/8A604A93131A4CCFB4494400AB133F76.jpg[/image]



kfmiller41 -> RE: ship repair and pilot training (6/11/2009 12:06:59 AM)

YH quick question. When you get a pilot after he completes his initial training and he is a 35 exp (or 25 I can't recall) how long does it take to get him trained up to a reasonable level, say 60? 



Yamato hugger -> RE: ship repair and pilot training (6/11/2009 1:20:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: miller41

YH quick question. When you get a pilot after he completes his initial training and he is a 35 exp (or 25 I can't recall) how long does it take to get him trained up to a reasonable level, say 60? 


Depends on what you are talking about. There are 13 categories that a pilot train in now. If you are just talking about a bomber pilot getting to 60 bombing or a fighter pilot getting to 60 air to air as I have already shown that can be done in no time at all (weeks/days). But if you are talking about getting his "experience" (ie the column just to the right of the "kills" column) to 60 I'd have to say I dont know. Thats why I put a few squadrons on general training. To see if this would raise his over all experience rating as it seems to me that the guys with the lowest experience are the ones that train (which makes sense).



kfmiller41 -> RE: ship repair and pilot training (6/11/2009 2:12:07 AM)

Thanks also got an answer in PM from Erik, tried to reply but his mailbox was full:-)




Yamato hugger -> RE: ship repair and pilot training (6/11/2009 2:13:38 AM)

I should clean out mine as well, its getting there.



Yamato hugger -> RE: ship repair and pilot training (6/13/2009 10:24:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

As an experiment, I selected "general training" on a few air units and after a few days, you will see that all of their stats will begin to climb (including defense).

[image]local://upfiles/14252/8A604A93131A4CCFB4494400AB133F76.jpg[/image]


Snapshot of the 1st Sentai a few days later. Their raw experience levels havent changed (yet) but the defense is starting to come up.

[image]local://upfiles/14252/F0BC2F0007A84B8EACD9067D74595B45.jpg[/image]



Yamato hugger -> Sub patrols (6/15/2009 5:07:03 AM)

Sub patrols can be very effective:

I-8 is to patrol between the 3 green hexes.



[image]local://upfiles/14252/9942EF8ACF8D4B3D895A2A3FE1A28938.jpg[/image]

She makes contact with a passing AK and decided to follow her for a bit when:
Submarine under attack near Palmyra at 176,124

Japanese Ships
SS I-8

Allied Ships
xAKL Hirondelle, Shell hits 26, heavy fires, heavy damage



SS I-8 is sighted by xAKL Hirondelle
SS I-8 attacking on the surface

Edit: I-8 is the sub at the very top edge of the map. I-169 is the other one near the patrol zone. I-169 spotted and attacked the AK earlier in the turn and missed. I-169s patrol zone is south of I-8s. An AP that was carrying troops was torpedoed also this turn (by I-168) in the same area, heavy damage was reported from the single torp hit. I operate my subs in groups of 4. 1 "Glen boat" in a central patrol zone (I-8 is this flotillas Glen boat) and 3 others patrolling around that patrol zone. So the entire 4 subs end up patrolling an area about 15 hexes square.



Yamato hugger -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 5:36:59 AM)

Here is a look at the over-lapping patrols and the attacks in the area this turn:

1st contact on AK by I-168 on its patrol path in hex "X".
2nd contact I-169 spots an AP on its patrol and follows it to hex "Y" hitting (and probably sinking) it. It does not appear on the sunk ships display however.
3rd contact I- 8 reacts to I-168s contact report on the AK, finds it and sinks it with gunfire in hex "Z".

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 29, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Palmyra at 176,130

Japanese Ships
SS I-168

Allied Ships
xAKL Hirondelle



SS I-168 is sighted by xAKL Hirondelle
SS I-168 attacking on the surface


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Palmyra at 180,130

Japanese Ships
SS I-169

Allied Ships
xAP Santa Maria, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
18 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


SS I-169 is sighted by xAP Santa Maria
SS I-169 launches 4 torpedoes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine under attack near Palmyra at 176,124

Japanese Ships
SS I-8

Allied Ships
xAKL Hirondelle, Shell hits 26, heavy fires, heavy damage



SS I-8 is sighted by xAKL Hirondelle
SS I-8 attacking on the surface


[image]local://upfiles/14252/2B551B4E05844C8986E2C92B975E1FA6.jpg[/image]



Grotius -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 7:09:13 AM)

Extremely cool! A question about these incidents:

quote:

She makes contact with a passing AK and decided to follow her for a bit when:


quote:

2nd contact I-169 spots an AP on its patrol and follows it to hex "Y" hitting (and probably sinking) it. It does not appear on the sunk ships display however.
3rd contact I- 8 reacts to I-168s contact report on the AK, finds it and sinks it with gunfire in hex "Z".


Do you have any control over whether subs "follow" the targets as you described?

I was especially intrigued to read that I-8 reacted to I-168's contact report. (I suppose that's why you have a Glen sub in each of your patrol groups.) It sounds like sub ops are much more interesting in AE!



Yamato hugger -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 7:41:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Do you have any control over whether subs "follow" the targets as you described?



I THINK it has to do with setting the react range, the I-8 attack was certainly react movement. It maybe just pure skipper aggression as to following (as in the case of the 169 boat above). I had them until 2 turns ago with their default "0" setting with nothing happening, so I tried setting this flotilla to 6 to see what happens. Needless to say all my sub patrols are on "6" now. I just now this turn changed my ASW patrols to 6 also to see what happens there.



Kull -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 7:57:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I THINK it has to do with setting the react range, the I-8 attack was certainly react movement. It maybe just pure skipper aggression as to following (as in the case of the 169 boat above). I had them until 2 turns ago with their default "0" setting with nothing happening, so I tried setting this flotilla to 6 to see what happens. Needless to say all my sub patrols are on "6" now.


Looks like you just recreated the "wolfpack". Pretty neat.



EUBanana -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 11:16:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Sub patrols can be very effective:



OMG

Please tell me that surface combat taskforces behave similarly as regards reactions. The inability to get surface ships to engage anywhere other than a port or by blind luck has always irked the hell out of me.

[&o][&o][&o]



EUBanana -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 11:28:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Sub patrols can be very effective:



OMG

Please tell me that surface combat taskforces behave similarly as regards reactions. The inability to get surface ships to engage anywhere other than a port or by blind luck has always irked the hell out of me.

[&o][&o][&o]


As an addendum, I suppose if this is so, then ASW taskforces should react to and prosecute any submarine contacts that are detected over the course of a turn? This would also be very cool if so, as far as I can tell thats generally how it worked in reality in the late Atlantic war - aircraft do the spotting, and hunter-killer groups then hunt the target down.



Yamato hugger -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 1:57:30 PM)

Yes, in fact it took some effort to tone it down. Originally (about a year ago?) TFs were reacting (as many as 5 times in one test run), all over the place even on un-spotted TFs.

As for the ASW, thats why I just set them to 6. To see if this is the case.



EUBanana -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 2:19:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Yes, in fact it took some effort to tone it down. Originally (about a year ago?) TFs were reacting (as many as 5 times in one test run), all over the place even on un-spotted TFs.


[&o][&o][&o][&o]

I'd buy AE for this alone, let alone everything else. [:D] Japanese fanboys have no complaints here, cruiser raiders on long Allied supply lines would be a lot more viable with this.

And I hope to see more of that sweet, sweet surface combat action that I crave so much. [:D]

quote:


As for the ASW, thats why I just set them to 6. To see if this is the case.


Cool, let us know how they react! (or fail to react)



Yamato hugger -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 3:03:48 PM)

A perfect chance to test my ASW react, and I forgot to set that TF to react! An allied sub was spotted in the marked hex in the am air phase.

[image]local://upfiles/14252/20ED11A425144EF48378B63862A95BCE.jpg[/image]



Sardaukar -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 3:05:52 PM)

I think that unescorted troop transports might be a bad idea in AE...[8D]



Yamato hugger -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 3:08:11 PM)

Cant post 2 screenshots in 1 post so I split this one to another post and yes, unescorted merchies is not a good plan.

This turn, I-169 finished off the AP. I saw a post on the devs forum from Tree on this TF (he had a question about unloading an escort TF). It had 57 float damage and elements of the 8th Marine regiment (2nd Marine division) aboard. 99% sure it sank (heard sinking sounds right after the hit). This hex is 5 hexes due east of Palmyra and 8 hexes off I-169s patrol path meaning it followed its prey, it didnt react to it. It was attacked last turn in hex "Y" and sunk this turn in hex "X". And is now on its way back to its patrol area as you can see.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 30, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sub attack near Palmyra at 175,133

Japanese Ships
SS I-169

Allied Ships
xAP Santa Maria, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
14 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


SS I-169 launches 4 torpedoes


[image]local://upfiles/14252/73EEFC33C93B4A6DAAA49B3088106678.jpg[/image]



EUBanana -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 3:14:34 PM)

I don't envy the Japanese in 1943 facing Allied submarines...  You'll have to keep Catalinas well clear of any supply lines.  Might make coastal China important.



Fishbed -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 3:28:31 PM)

That new sub routine feels like a new game in the game, very nice [:)]



Yamato hugger -> RE: Sub patrols (6/15/2009 3:42:11 PM)

You can do the same with SCTFs, ASWs, supply TFs, anything really. I have never seen a carrier react to anything though. I had 2 CV groups in the Coral Sea shooting up transports between Moresby and Townsville and they never reacted to any of them. I know he had a carrier in this area just before I got here (south of Guadalcanal actually).

In this shot, the Hiryu/Soryu (western most TF) is covering 2 divisions enroute to Moresby with 2 CVLs, a BB division and a replentishment TF. The Akagi/Kaga is south of Guadalcanal escorting a division to Fiji. The Shokaku/Zuikaku shot up some mine sweepers and transports off Townsville 2 turns ago and are now headed to help out the Akagi group. A 2nd division is about 8 hexes south of Ponape that will be going to New Calidonia if they arent needed in Fiji. I believe the bulk of his carriers are waiting near Java (one attacked ships in the Ambon area a week ago). 3 more bomb hits on the Repulse in Singapore harbor this turn.

[image]local://upfiles/14252/302AF5169C7543B7B3DD467060A77E18.jpg[/image]



Yamato hugger -> RE: Sub patrols (6/16/2009 8:12:52 AM)

No ASW react attacks, but then I dont think I spotted any subs this turn. Several sub attacks south of Java resulting in 2 large tankers sunk and a large AP hit and heavily damaged. The Moresby force landed and based on what I see shooting at me, I dont think I will have a problem taking it next turn:

Ground combat at Port Moresby (98,130)

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 3750 troops, 48 guns, 20 vehicles, Assault Value = 141

Defending force 28995 troops, 215 guns, 32 vehicles, Assault Value = 883

Japanese ground losses:
83 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 7 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled


Allied ground losses:
38 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)


Assaulting units:
49th Australian Battalion
2/1st Ind Coy
Lark Battalion
Port Moresby Brigade
Rabaul Det. Base Force
15th RAAF Base Force
148th Field Artillery Battalion
131st FA Bn /1

Defending units:
4th Division
21st Division



Yamato hugger -> RE: Sub patrols (6/17/2009 2:17:15 AM)

Still no ASW reacts even though there was at least 1 sighting within range of a patrol.

Morseby fell. PoW was spotted, attacked, and missed 3 or 4 hexes west of Batavia. Escorts sank the sub. 2 other subs have been vectored into the area.



EUBanana -> RE: Sub patrols (6/17/2009 9:25:29 AM)

quote:

Morseby fell.


So Japan still managed this very quickly, then.

Do you think you purposely committed quite a lot to SOPAC, or did the rapid overrunning of this part of the map not really cost you much in terms of LCUs or transports?

I see you're using carriers over there, so I guess the answer is 'yes it did'.



Flying Tiger -> RE: pilot training. (6/17/2009 10:55:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

but as you can see its only training one of 12 lists that can be inproved a pond so not that big of a deal.  


But that ONE may be the only one that counts for this plane type. We dont need all our pilots to excel at everything - who needs a P51 pilot who excels at torpedo bombing???



steveh11Matrix -> RE: pilot training. (6/17/2009 11:33:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

but as you can see its only training one of 12 lists that can be inproved a pond so not that big of a deal.  


But that ONE may be the only one that counts for this plane type. We dont need all our pilots to excel at everything - who needs a P51 pilot who excels at torpedo bombing???


Easy - an Avenger squadron! <rimshot!>

Steve.



Yamato hugger -> RE: pilot training. (6/17/2009 12:51:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

but as you can see its only training one of 12 lists that can be inproved a pond so not that big of a deal.  


But that ONE may be the only one that counts for this plane type. We dont need all our pilots to excel at everything - who needs a P51 pilot who excels at torpedo bombing???


No plane has only 1, unless of course DEFENSE doesnt matter to you, then I suppose...

Course when he gets rotated out doesnt mean he will come back in a fighter squadron either. Note the squadron commander of this Zero group. 75 experience, 78 defense, but only a 36 air to air rating. Look at Nav B and Nav T. He was clearly a Kate pilot.

[image]local://upfiles/14252/555FBBBC26D744F4AC2CF74491E5D95B.jpg[/image]



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.421875