RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (Full Version)

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



Message

Yamato hugger -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 1:38:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61

7 of the BBs sunk....ouch! 
assuming this is FOW, I would love to see what happened from the allied side

what settings are you using? 


Actually when it says sunk on this report, it usually is. All 7 in Pearl and the PoW show on the sunk ships report which doesnt mean much. 8 DDs, 2 AVs, 3 DMs, an AVD, 3 merchies (2 at Davao), and the torpedoed PT round out the list. 4 of the 5 minis were lost.

As far as settings:

[image]local://upfiles/14252/D8EEAADB238B4D3081B4DE4A56F0152A.jpg[/image]



rjopel -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 1:58:12 PM)

Bloddy First day for the allies.



rjopel -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 1:58:22 PM)

Bloddy First day for the allies.



Odin -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 1:59:11 PM)

Ok. Iam pretty shure about this.

WITP was the biggest game i´ve ever seen and played.

With AE, we will find ourselfs in the bughouse soon.[:D]



Lützow -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 2:03:08 PM)

Whatever. Just give us finally a 'gone gold' news.



Odin -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 2:19:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lützow

Whatever. Just give us finally a 'gone gold' news.



Possibly they won´t until their game reaches mid-1946 its end and they found nothing else.[:D]



Kaletsch2007 -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 2:33:18 PM)

I guess, that should be the first house rule. Enable only two CV's to use torpedos, as the Japanese had only 48 of these torpedos in PH (if I recall it right).
Even as a JFB, the attack is far to effektive IMO.

Did you agree on any rules for chinese div crossing the border to BURMA, to support there ?

Regards
Rene'



Terminus -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 2:37:42 PM)

This particular PH attack is not representative of what AE delivers on 12/7. I've done something like 20 or 25 of them, and seen everything from 0 to 8 battleships sunk.



Shark7 -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 2:44:01 PM)

I'm guessing that they may have adjusted the damage model a bit, given the sheer number of ships sunk at PH.



Terminus -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 2:45:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I'm guessing that they may have adjusted the damage model a bit, given the sheer number of ships sunk at PH.


Please re-read my post above. Damage model is different, true, but that has little to do with the outcome of this attack.



castor troy -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 2:48:51 PM)

while I´ve noticed it already in earlier AE AARs, again the PH attack is totally excessive. Far too much damage done to the BBs IMO. What has changed that the PH attack in AE always seems to kill AT LEAST half a dozen BBs... [&:]



Kaletsch2007 -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 2:50:11 PM)

Of course, you know better then I do !
But 84 torpedos seems to much to me (if we compare it with the real attack back then. Or am I am wrong ?)

Thanks for the quick answer !




Erik Rutins -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 2:52:17 PM)

I've really seen the full range of results from the PH attack in AE. You're as likely to sink 1 BB as to sink 6 or 7, usually it's more like 4 BBs sunk in my experience. I think the best thing to say is that it's more variable than stock in that regard.



Flying Tiger -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 2:56:19 PM)

quote:

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 7,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes
a Maryland class BB manuvering ...(Ev 63 / Sp 20)
DMS Trevor manuvering ...(Ev 63 / Sp 22)
a Tennessee class BB manuvering ...(Ev 65 / Sp 21)
a Pennsylvania class BB manuvering ...(Ev 59 / Sp 17)
an Allied CM manuvering ...(Ev 68 / Sp 14)
an Allied CV manuvering ...(Ev 55 / Sp 21)
an Allied CV manuvering ...(Ev 68 / Sp 15)
an Allied BB manuvering ...(Ev 67 / Sp 13)
an Allied CV manuvering ...(Ev 68 / Sp 15)
a Royal Sovereign class BB manuvering ...(Ev 68 / Sp 21)
DD Downes manuvering ...(Ev 57 / Sp 20)
an Allied CL manuvering ...(Ev 61 / Sp 21)


What does all this mean???



Flying Tiger -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 2:58:25 PM)

quote:

CAP engaged:
No.243 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Raid is overhead
No.453 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (2 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
2 plane(s) intercepting now.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Raid is overhead
No.488 Sqn RAF with Buffalo I (3 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
3 plane(s) intercepting now.
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 3 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 22 minutes

Raid detected at 40 NM, estimated altitude 18,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 14 minutes
BB Prince of Wales manuvering ...(Ev 56 / Sp 28)
Prince of Wales manuvering changes...(Ev 51 / Sp 33)
Prince of Wales manuvering changes...(Ev 57 / Sp 35)
Prince of Wales manuvering changes...(Ev 60 / Sp 33)
Prince of Wales manuvering changes...(Ev 55 / Sp 23)
Prince of Wales manuvering changes...(Ev 55 / Sp 30)
Prince of Wales manuvering changes...(Ev 50 / Sp 30)
Prince of Wales manuvering changes...(Ev 50 / Sp 27)
Prince of Wales manuvering changes...(Ev 65 / Sp 25)
Prince of Wales manuvering changes...(Ev 57 / Sp 30)
Prince of Wales manuvering changes...(Ev 58 / Sp 21)


And what is the 'time to target' and 'time to interception' for?




Terminus -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 2:58:54 PM)

Don't worry about it. It's output for testing purposes, and will be gone with release.



pad152 -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 3:48:15 PM)

Most ships seem to be one hit wonders, this looks more like the Brit Navy (aluminum ships) in the Falklands then steel ships of WWII! 



Flying Tiger -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 3:48:34 PM)

Thanks T. Although i thought this was 'the real game' being played?



wgs_explorer -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 3:52:00 PM)

Just wanted to point out a nit-picky error: "manuvering" is mis-spelled. It should either be manoeuvring or maneuvering--not manuvering.

Wouldn't want mis-spelled words hard-coded.

Hope I'm not too annoying.

Bill



Yamato hugger -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 4:03:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

Thanks T. Although i thought this was 'the real game' being played?


Frankly I did too. I was under the impression all the testing stuff had been removed. Guess this got over looked.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wgs_explorer

Just wanted to point out a nit-picky error: "manuvering" is mis-spelled. It should either be manoeuvring or maneuvering--not manuvering.

Wouldn't want mis-spelled words hard-coded.

Hope I'm not too annoying.

Bill



Wont be in there.



Chad Harrison -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 4:06:22 PM)

Thanks for the AAR Yamato Hugger!

Any pics you can share are obviously most appreciated!



Roughtor -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 4:19:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

5) Drive into the Aleutians. There are several regiments here that could be killed and maybe tie up allied resources. Biggest problem here is the allies know they can give it up with no real effect. Still, might be nice to take to base sub flotillas and maybe a couple of CVLs to raid west coast convoys.


I like that idea ;)

As for PH attack results and all AAR results so far... let's just wait for the release and cry havoc then. Right now it seems every time there is an "odd" result people rise up. Just MO.



Mistmatz -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 4:34:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
...
3) Drive to Perth. Once the immediate area is under control, its a long march or sail for the allies to come back into the area. Rail movement can only be done between controlled bases, meaning the allies would have to hoof it to get back in the area (unlikely) meaning a sea attack would be the only allied option.
...


If I understand this correctly you cannot use a railroad unless you own the starting and the destination base. What kind of movement is used instead - road, path, cross country? Does this restriction only apply for movement or also supply transportation?

And what happens to units that started moving on a railroad but then a base is lost during its movement? And is there a difference between a 'fleeing' movement (start base is lost) and an 'advance' movement (destination base is lost)?

In principle I like the idea of loosing RR movement this way as it should slow down the game in contested places like China or Burma. And of course its a good idea as you pointed out for the extremely long RR between the Perth area and Australias SE.

On the other hand I'm not sure if this is not too much off a limitation, especially if supply is also limited and the cross country option was chosen. Looking forward to some clarifications and thanks for starting this AAR. [:)]


If you are between bases, and the rail becomes blocked, the unit will hold in place in strategic mode (which is used for rail or naval transport). So at that point you have a choice, you can send it back to whence it came, or you can change modes and continue to move by whatever means you can. In 1 game I was in northern Thailand and the rails became blocked, so I had to hoof it 3 hexes through jungle with no roads. Took a day or 2 [;)]



Thx for the quick respone YH. Any idea about supply? If the algorithm is similar to WitP moving supply costs less via RR than for instance a road or path. But does it need those two bases to benefit from the lesser burden of RR transportation?

This is not so much about the cost of supplying units away from the RR network but more about if they get enough supply at all.



dwesolick -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 4:34:31 PM)

Thanks very much for this AAR Yamato! It is very much appreciated and more pics to go along with the excellent narrative would be great! [:)]

Like others, I too thought the PH results were a tad excessive ("horrifying", actually, as an AFB [;)]). I wonder, with AEs massive attention to other details, if it might not be possible to code the PH attack (Dec 7 only), where some of the BBs would be immune to torpedo attack (Arizona, Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc...the ones that were inboard or drydock). They would still be vulnerable to bombs, of course, but not torps (just for that day only). How hard would it be to code something like this?
Sorry if this is a stupid question/suggestion, you could place everything I know about coding in a thimble...and have plenty of room to spare!

Thanks again for the great AAR!



Jim D Burns -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 4:43:57 PM)

quote:

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 5 destroyed, 21 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 14 damaged


Are these losses correct numbers or FOW? Only 8 planes downed by flak when historically the Japanese lost 29 means flak is still far too ineffective.

Jim




steveh11Matrix -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (5/14/2009 4:51:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 destroyed, 1 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 5 destroyed, 21 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed, 14 damaged


Are these losses correct numbers or FOW? Only 8 planes downed by flak when historically the Japanese lost 29 means flak is still far too ineffective.

Jim




This time.

If they ran it again, would they likely get the same numbers?

My reading is that the Japanese got lucky in *this* strike at Pearl. No more than that. Anyhow, at the end of the day it's only Battlewagons... [;)]

Steve.



Yamato hugger -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 4:52:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

Thx for the quick respone YH. Any idea about supply? If the algorithm is similar to WitP moving supply costs less via RR than for instance a road or path. But does it need those two bases to benefit from the lesser burden of RR transportation?

This is not so much about the cost of supplying units away from the RR network but more about if they get enough supply at all.


No, supply works same old. It will rail as far as it can, then go to whatever road rates or cross country, whatever the situation warrants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

I wonder, with AEs massive attention to other details, if it might not be possible to code the PH attack (Dec 7 only), where some of the BBs would be immune to torpedo attack (Arizona, Pennsylvania, Maryland, etc...the ones that were inboard or drydock). They would still be vulnerable to bombs, of course, but not torps (just for that day only). How hard would it be to code something like this?
Sorry if this is a stupid question/suggestion, you could place everything I know about coding in a thimble...and have plenty of room to spare!

Thanks again for the great AAR!


This was actually discussed more than a few times in various aspects. Limiting numbers of "special" torps, limiting the ships that could be damaged, ect. It was decided that it wasnt worth the time it would take to program it for 1 days result. In the case of the torpedoes it was decided random was better. The designers (I think) actually want a wide degree of variance in this attack, and I cant say I disagree with that decision (although I wasnt part of that process).



Mistmatz -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 5:04:07 PM)

If players don't want the uncertainty of the PH result they can agree on a replay beforehand. That way you get the result you want and have plenty of room for those who prefer the randomness of the attack.

After all PH was just a single incident that turned out the way it did. It could have been any other result as well, like a total disaster or a total success. It just happened to be a mediocre result that we take as a guideline and expect to be reproduced by the game.

But this is not about replaying history, if you want that, read a book. The game has to be within historical plausible boundaries, thats all. Comparing to real history leads you nowhere because you're not replaying history, nor can you with a (any) game.



Yamato hugger -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 5:08:28 PM)

I have started grinding away on my turn. First thing I do in a new game as the Japs is reset my float planes to 100% search. This is generally a 1 squadron at a time thing very tedious, but its a 1 time deal (I do the same thing in WitP, so its no additional burden). I also take this time to replace any air groups on ships/carriers that happen to be at a base. In AE, you have to have a modified level 7 airfield to upgrade your planes. What I mean by this is the combination of current airfield size and the "command range" of any air HQs that are in range of the base must add up to 7 or greater. If it does, and the other WitP condition of having 20,000 supply there, you can change the squadron. Please note, this is JUST for upgrading aircraft, not replacements. Air replacements is pretty much as it was before.

After I am done with ship air units, I start on land air units. Unlike WitP, not all air units can be released with PPs (as you have probably heard almost all the air in the PI cant be released). This isnt all JFB stuff. The following pic is 12th air flot in Japan. Most of these units cant change HQ either and therefore stuck in Japan (which is something an allied player should think about before he decides to run his carriers and raid Japan).

[image]local://upfiles/14252/8016129CDA3B4BF28EB5D40764BE7032.jpg[/image]

Some of these will go in training to be used as carrier replacements of course. All of the floats will be on ASW search so also consider that when you decide to park subs off Japan proper in the early war before the subs have radar. There are reasons they didnt do it in the real war, and you will find many of those same reasons here.

Edit: And with that, its bed time. Back in 8 to 10 hours [:'(]



witpqs -> RE: AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX) (5/14/2009 5:12:33 PM)

Problem:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

[image]local://upfiles/14252/6FB2680CDF5C4C049CAC541870886AB5.jpg[/image]


YH,

Trying to play along with you as you asked, but this screen doesn't work (doesn't accept mouse clicks). Please re-send me the software, maybe the first install was bad...






[sm=scared0018.gif]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7695313