RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa

RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (Full Version)

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

Message

Cribtop -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/20/2009 7:41:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball Nik; Joe played a conservative Japan game, and was losing to you pretty handily. You are playing more aggressively as Japan, and it appears that you will likely lose as well, perhaps even worse than Joe. Do you think this scenario is skewed to the Allies? IRL, taking Lunga or PM was probably a stretch for the Japanese, so maybe you modelled the history too well. If you need to take one of those to have a chance in this scenario, then maybe that's too high a bar if this is historically accurate? While in part I share Q-Ball's concerns, which I expressed in the previous AAR, I also sense that Nik was just "having fun with it" in this run through. Nik's strategy has been to basically throw all naval and air assets at the Lunga landings as soon as those assets can get into position. In other words, his strategy has been almost fanatically aggressive. An IJN player adopting a strategy somewhere in between Joe's conservative approach and Nik's super-BANZAI may have more success. I sincerely hope Nik has adopted the super-BANZAI because he knows AE will be released so soon that he has no time to adopt a longer term operational plan. [:D]

Fishbed -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/20/2009 8:04:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball Nik; Joe played a conservative Japan game, and was losing to you pretty handily. You are playing more aggressively as Japan, and it appears that you will likely lose as well, perhaps even worse than Joe. Do you think this scenario is skewed to the Allies? IRL, taking Lunga or PM was probably a stretch for the Japanese, so maybe you modelled the history too well. If you need to take one of those to have a chance in this scenario, then maybe that's too high a bar if this is historically accurate? Well historically the IJN subs accounted for two CVs and one BB put out of the picture, that was already a pretty lucky roll. Historically speaking, there's no way the IJN could expect to win a fight without the intervention of the subs. I'd say seing the KB overwhelmed is quite historically accurate... so far ;)

AttuWatcher -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/20/2009 9:40:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Cribtop I sincerely hope Nik has adopted the super-BANZAI because he knows AE will be released so soon that he has no time to adopt a longer term operational plan. [:D] I'm going with this explanation...but only until I get to play the scenario myself [:)]

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/20/2009 10:38:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK So this amazingly accurate mod starts off with errors? If you are going to stir, could you do it without flying the Australian flag? It makes me cringe. I have to start telling people I am from New Zealand.

IndyShark -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 2:24:31 AM)
When carriers sink with aircraft on board, where do they show up in the aircraft losses? Ops? quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus . [image]local://upfiles/452/E42410D9F6CE49B1A0427436DFB41559.jpg[/image]

greg_slith -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 2:59:17 AM)
I have a follow up question, too. In the old days, even with FOW, you could count on the intelligence screen to give the staight dope. Does that still hold true? With FOW on will player A ever know what player B lost?

Nikademus -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 3:06:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ecwgcx I have a follow up question, too. In the old days, even with FOW, you could count on the intelligence screen to give the staight dope. Does that still hold true? With FOW on will player A ever know what player B lost? no longer the straight dope

Nikademus -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 3:06:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: IndyShark When carriers sink with aircraft on board, where do they show up in the aircraft losses? Ops? ops

Nikademus -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 3:13:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Q-Ball Nik; Joe played a conservative Japan game, and was losing to you pretty handily. You are playing more aggressively as Japan, and it appears that you will likely lose as well, perhaps even worse than Joe. Do you think this scenario is skewed to the Allies? IRL, taking Lunga or PM was probably a stretch for the Japanese, so maybe you modelled the history too well. If you need to take one of those to have a chance in this scenario, then maybe that's too high a bar if this is historically accurate? Last year, the scenario worked pretty darn well in terms of balance. A well managed Japan campaign had a good chance of winning and the onus was on the Allied player to play a smart game and avoid MAD with the carriers, which along with troop assets are their main trump cards. Obviously alot has happened to AE in that time. The way things stand now......its looking like its pretty hard to lose as Allies. Its rather frustrating to be honest after all the work put into this beast. I spent a portion of last nite pondering what i could do to adjust things to re-establish balance within a historical framework. Some things i can't control, but there were a couple areas i thought i might make an impact. I have made several more tweaks in the hopes of doing this. I hope it will make the cut in time. I didn't have alot of time to test it, but it seems to have resolved the most outstanding issue. That said, yes...it remains hard for the Japanese, primarily because the schedule rate of their troop arrival is the bane of quickly retaking Lunga. The restricted command slows down the Allies but unless a successful series of naval battles are achieved and a state of siege established, the Japanese will never retake the island.....just like in real life. Keep in mind too that there is an oft not used WitP feature that randomizes unit arrivals. That was playtested once and it did make things...."interesting"

Nikademus -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 3:26:13 AM)
Guadalcanal Admiral Yamamotto is convinced that we are ju ju cursed. 3 subs launch 3 salvos at 3 different targets....including the CV Wasp. All torpedoes miss. We need to purify our HQ. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 28, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ASW attack near Kirakira at 115,142 Japanese Ships SS I-171 Allied Ships DD Bagley DMS Southard I-171 diving deep .... DD Bagley fails to find sub, continues to search... DMS Southard attacking submerged sub .... DD Bagley attacking submerged sub .... DMS Southard fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Bagley attacking submerged sub .... DMS Southard attacking submerged sub .... DD Bagley fails to find sub, continues to search... DMS Southard attacking submerged sub .... Escort abandons search for sub -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack near Rennell Island at 114,140 Japanese Ships SS I-21, hits 3 Allied Ships CV Wasp BB North Carolina CA Minneapolis CA New Orleans DD Grayson DD Russell DD Frazier DD Farenholt DD Buchanan SS I-21 launches 6 torpedoes at CV Wasp DD Russell fails to find sub and abandons search DD Frazier fails to find sub and abandons search DD Farenholt fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Buchanan fails to find sub and abandons search DD Farenholt attacking submerged sub .... DD Farenholt fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Farenholt fails to find sub, continues to search... Escort abandons search for sub -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on 144th Infantry Regiment, at 99,130 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 21 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 6 minutes Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 4 No Allied losses Japanese ground losses: 37 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Aircraft Attacking: 4 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on 144th Infantry Regiment, at 99,130 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 13 NM, estimated altitude 10,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 3 minutes Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 6 No Allied losses Japanese ground losses: 13 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled) Aircraft Attacking: 6 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Yokoyama Tai , at 99,130 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 37 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 10 minutes Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 27 Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra: 2 damaged Japanese ground losses: 56 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Guns lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled) Aircraft Attacking: 15 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000' Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb 10 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000' Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb 2 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000' Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb Also attacking I/55 Mtn Gun Rgt ... Also attacking 15th Engineer Regiment ... Also attacking Yokoyama Tai ... Also attacking I/55 Mtn Gun Rgt ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Horii Group , at 99,130 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 26 NM, estimated altitude 14,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 7 minutes Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 15 Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra: 1 damaged Japanese ground losses: 25 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Aircraft Attacking: 13 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000' Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb 2 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000' Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack near Rennell Island at 114,140 Japanese Ships SS I-21, hits 4 Allied Ships DD Balch CA Vincennes CLAA San Juan DD Dale DD Worden DD MacDonough DD Farragut SS I-21 launches 6 torpedoes at DD Balch DD Dale attacking submerged sub .... DD Worden attacking submerged sub .... DD MacDonough attacking submerged sub .... DD Farragut fails to find sub and abandons search Escort abandons search for sub -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Aug 29, 42 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TF 125 encounters mine field at Rabaul (106,125) Allied Ships SS Grayling, Mine hits 1 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack near Truk at 114,112 Japanese Ships DD Tokitsukaze DD Oyashio Allied Ships SS Sculpin SS Sculpin launches 4 torpedoes at DD Tokitsukaze DD Tokitsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Oyashio fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Tokitsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Oyashio fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Tokitsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Oyashio fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Tokitsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Oyashio fails to find sub, continues to search... Escort abandons search for sub -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub attack near Rennell Island at 114,140 Japanese Ships SS I-21, hits 4 Allied Ships DD MacDonough CA Vincennes CLAA San Juan DD Balch DD Dale DD Worden DD Farragut SS I-21 launches 6 torpedoes at DD MacDonough DD Dale fails to find sub and abandons search DD Worden fails to find sub and abandons search DD MacDonough fails to find sub and abandons search DD Farragut attacking submerged sub .... DD Farragut attacking submerged sub .... DD Farragut fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Farragut fails to find sub, continues to search... Escort abandons search for sub -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Morning Air attack on Yokoyama Tai , at 99,130 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 39 NM, estimated altitude 11,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 11 minutes Allied aircraft B-17E Fortress x 9 No Allied losses Japanese ground losses: 70 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Guns lost 2 (0 destroyed, 2 disabled) Aircraft Attacking: 4 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb 5 x B-17E Fortress bombing from 6000 feet Ground Attack: 8 x 500 lb GP Bomb -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on Horii Group , at 99,130 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 48 NM, estimated altitude 16,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 14 minutes Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 26 Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra: 4 damaged Japanese ground losses: 25 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Aircraft Attacking: 15 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000' Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb 9 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000' Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb 2 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000' Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb Also attacking 144th Infantry Regiment ... Also attacking Horii Group ... Also attacking 144th Infantry Regiment ... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Afternoon Air attack on 15th Engineer Regiment, at 99,130 Weather in hex: Clear sky Raid spotted at 37 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet. Estimated time to target is 10 minutes Allied aircraft P-39D Airacobra x 15 Allied aircraft losses P-39D Airacobra: 1 damaged Japanese ground losses: 8 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled Aircraft Attacking: 13 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000' Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb 2 x P-39D Airacobra diving from 10000' Ground Attack: 1 x 500 lb GP Bomb

oldman45 -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 4:23:50 AM)
How much of the combat results are just luck? If you reran the turn a few times are the results going to be the same with the 3 carriers sunk?

Kull -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 1:12:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 How much of the combat results are just luck? If you reran the turn a few times are the results going to be the same with the 3 carriers sunk? Luck is always going to play a role, but Kwik-E probably nailed the biggest factor: quote: ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart ...plus, weather over US carriers was Hvy Rain, weather over Jap carriers was Partial Clouds...might account for the poor AAA performance...i think the weather gods played a big role in this battle... From an overall strategy standpoint, it may be worthwhile for the Japanese player to bluff the KB rush - thus holding the Allied Carriers on patrol in the area - with the real goal being to flood the zone with subs and hope for a CV hit. Based on the number of intercepts that Nik posted, that seems like a viable strategy. Unfortunately for him, there's no KB left to take advantage of a potential Wasp sinking or disablement.

Nikademus -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 3:30:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 How much of the combat results are just luck? If you reran the turn a few times are the results going to be the same with the 3 carriers sunk? Very little. rerunning the turn will usually give you the same results. This is by design (security)

Erik Rutins -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 3:35:39 PM)
PBEM security and variability are two different aspects of this question. PBEM security locks down the random factors, but that doesn't change the fact that in the game design, there are a lot of random factors. Based on the game design, if you re-ran that turn allowing the random "rolls" to be rolled fresh each time, you could get very different results. So several different PBEMs each coming to the same kind of battle in the same scenario could get very different results.

vettim89 -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 6:11:16 PM)
If you look at the historical basis for this scenario, many things went the Japanese way early in the fight for Guadalcanal. While these did not alter the final outcome, they did prolong the battle. Some of these are: * The Battle of Savo Island which could not have gone better for the IJN in terms of Allied combatants lost. True, Mikawa did not pursue the transports but he did force the Allies to leave the GC garrison woefully undersupplied. * Fletcher's decision to withdraw his CV's during the initial landings. Even if Savo Is had not gone so badly for the Allies, they still would have been had to depart the next day without unloading the supplies * Not having Wasp at the Battle of the Eastern Solomons. Again, Fletcher mismanaged his units so that he had 1/3 of his striking force out of the battle. * The loss of Wasp and withdraw of North Carolina from the most successful torpedo attack ever. These are the type of things that needed to happen for the Japanese to even hope to contest GC. They would be very difficult to achieve in a game like AE but as long as there is a reasonable chance to achieve these type of results, I am happy. It is obvious that AE is a very different game than WiTP. This just seems to be a lot more challenging to me. WiTP made it too easy for both sides to have overwhelming success at the opposite ends of the war. It appears AE will make both sides work a lot harder. BTW, Nik was not pushing it. His CV battle occurred almost on the identical date of the Battle of the Eastern Solomons - 24-26 August 1942. See what happened when the USN had all three of their CV's available? Fletcher was not much of a CV admiral IMO.

Ursa MAior -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 7:52:04 PM)
What happened with that rule which was saying something like no/unlikely coordinated USN DB/TB attacks in 42? Or is my memory flcikering?

Local Yokel -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 7:58:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vettim89 Fletcher was not much of a CV admiral IMO. I would have thought that a 2:1 exchange rate in fleet carriers in favour of the US suggested a more creditable assessment. But then, I'm something of an FJF fanboy [;)] What struck me about Mikawa's surface action was this: "Day Time Surface Combat, near Tulagi at 114,137, Range 31,000 Yards" (my emphasis) So was Mikawa given 'do not retire' orders when he reached Savo Sound? Not only would that have exposed him to a daylight gunnery action in which he would not enjoy the advantage the Japanese had in night combat but it would also have left him under the carrier cosh - as seems to have been the case.

Nikademus -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 8:00:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Local Yokel So was Mikawa given 'do not retire' orders when he reached Savo Sound? Not only would that have exposed him to a daylight gunnery action in which he would not enjoy the advantage the Japanese had in night combat but it would also have left him under the carrier cosh - as seems to have been the case. In game? no. Retirement allowed. However he retreated into Lunga hex which caused a another whole series of battles which led to a daylight engagement then slaughter by air. Turns out this was a good thing. It exposed a boo boo which has been fixed.

Nikademus -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 8:02:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior What happened with that rule which was saying something like no/unlikely coordinated USN DB/TB attacks in 42? Or is my memory flcikering? Its still there....but you can suppress it by insuring your CV's launch at the same distance from the target with all airgroups set to the same altitude.

Local Yokel -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 9:58:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus quote: ORIGINAL: Local Yokel So was Mikawa given 'do not retire' orders when he reached Savo Sound? Not only would that have exposed him to a daylight gunnery action in which he would not enjoy the advantage the Japanese had in night combat but it would also have left him under the carrier cosh - as seems to have been the case. In game? no. Retirement allowed. However he retreated into Lunga hex which caused a another whole series of battles which led to a daylight engagement then slaughter by air. Turns out this was a good thing. It exposed a boo boo which has been fixed. Thanks Nik. If the boo boo was the game mechanism that causes TF's to retreat away from their home base (as reported by Yamato Hugger in this thread - post #302) and it has been changed so this no longer happens then that's good news. quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus Its still there....but you can suppress it by insuring your CV's launch at the same distance from the target with all airgroups set to the same altitude. So this is how those dastardly Allies will circumvent that irritating non-coordination rule from day 1!

Nikademus -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 10:15:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Local Yokel Thanks Nik. If the boo boo was the game mechanism that causes TF's to retreat away from their home base (as reported by Yamato Hugger in this thread - post #302) and it has been changed so this no longer happens then that's good news. You could still see it 'happen' but what was messed up was the % value in calculating retreat hex. Its supposed to be heavily weighted towards the hex entered from, instead it was accidently weighted for any other hex but the one entered from. This has been corrected. So you can still see some random move into another hex but its far less likely now.

JeffroK -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 10:26:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK So this amazingly accurate mod starts off with errors? If you are going to stir, could you do it without flying the Australian flag? It makes me cringe. I have to start telling people I am from New Zealand. Unlike many I am proud of where I live, and also live in a country that still allows people to fly the flag of their choice, unlike the place you choose to live. I also hate the PR that pushes AE as being super-historical, but still has errors. Yes I know a lot about this small corner of the map, what other areas will need questioning? The conversation has moved from 30 Bde to the "AE Mod" Until VERY recently AE needed WITP,(Good to see comon sense put in place here) and it still uses the WITP format and much of the same base so its a Mod.

Nikademus -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 10:32:24 PM)
its not an error. I put it there on purpose. Sorry if that twists your bonnett into a knot.

crsutton -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 10:33:00 PM)
To me it looks like the Allied SBD coordination was just too good. 150 DB attacking the target at once was most likely beyond the capability of the Allies at this time-or Japan for that matter. Was this a freak result of some very good die rolls or can this be expected as the norm?

Nikademus -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 10:34:05 PM)
it was.

Don Bowen -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 10:38:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Local Yokel Thanks Nik. If the boo boo was the game mechanism that causes TF's to retreat away from their home base (as reported by Yamato Hugger in this thread - post #302) and it has been changed so this no longer happens then that's good news. That "issue" is in fact opinion. A TF will retreat away from a strong enemy threat. If the enemy is between the TF and it's home base, then of course it will be away from the home base. Not exactly sure how a TF can "retreat" through the enemy to get to its base. The issue mentioned by Nik is a little check at the end of surface combat that determines how the TF(s) leave the hex. The assumption being that course changes during combat could possibly leave the TF in such a position in the hex that it would be at a random edge of the hex and might exit in any (valid) direction. The check was supposed to give a very strong preference to the TF leaving the hex via the same hex side that it entered. This required a reciprocal calculation to convert from one hexes� side of the hexside to another. A "hexside" is actually formed by the intersection of two hexes and the SE side of one is the NW side of the other. If not properly reciprocal-ized, a TF that really, really wanted to go NW would go SE. It appears that the hexside check was severely under-reciprocal-ized by some unknown programmer or another.

UniformYankee -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 10:40:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK Nope, Its a mod of WITP, otherwise we wouldn't need to own it to run the new mod. Looks like the "argument" will need an "upgrade" .... er a "mod" I guess ... since it needs AE in order to exist.

Kwik E Mart -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 10:45:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen ...This required a reciprocal calculation to convert from one hexes� side of the hexside to another. A "hexside" is actually formed by the intersection of two hexes and the SE side of one is the NW side of the other. If not properly reciprocal-ized, a TF that really, really wanted to go NW would go SE. It appears that the hexside check was severely under-reciprocal-ized by some unknown programmer or another. damn, that just made my head hurt a lot... [8D]

Fishbed -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 11:10:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ursa MAior What happened with that rule which was saying something like no/unlikely coordinated USN DB/TB attacks in 42? Or is my memory flcikering? Basically don't forget also that the raid was launched from the adjacent hex...!

Fishbed -> RE: Guadalcanal AAR - The rematch///Noa Joa (7/21/2009 11:13:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK quote: ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK So this amazingly accurate mod starts off with errors? If you are going to stir, could you do it without flying the Australian flag? It makes me cringe. I have to start telling people I am from New Zealand. Unlike many I am proud of where I live, and also live in a country that still allows people to fly the flag of their choice, unlike the place you choose to live. I also hate the PR that pushes AE as being super-historical, but still has errors. Yes I know a lot about this small corner of the map, what other areas will need questioning? The conversation has moved from 30 Bde to the "AE Mod" Until VERY recently AE needed WITP,(Good to see comon sense put in place here) and it still uses the WITP format and much of the same base so its a Mod. Sorry Jeff but will you please stop this bullshit? Even if AE still needed WitP to run, that still wouldn't be a mod, that would be an addon. If you can't get your vocabulary straight, at least stop pissing the people off about that very one. It's provocating and insulting to anyone who worked on that project, although, of course, there are great mods out there - but that's simply not the same thing.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.984375