RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (Full Version)

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



Message

bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/6/2010 4:04:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tone

Hello - In my game against JonReb - with heavy Chinese army group size of attacks - I have been loss big number of infantry squads - when will Japanese economy produce replacement squads please - thank you tone.


They are replaced as needed put the unit in a base with 20K + supplies.



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/6/2010 4:17:24 AM)

Good luck having that amount of supply in China. I've been able to keep Shanghai over 20,000 but that has mostly been it.



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/6/2010 4:29:37 AM)

I just ran Tracker (thanks to Michael's help yesterday) and found how HORRIBLE the engine shortage is for Japan at the start of the war. I need to expand engine production by about 400 for the START of the war! That is a bunch. Guess it makes sense since the Emily starts at 24/month (100 engines), doubled Zero and Val, raised Kate,and added to Betty. It all adds up fast.

Stan is correct also in needing a massive expansion for the Helens and Tojos when they come in later in 1942.

Shipyards:
1. On the positive side, my Shipyards are running a slight surplus (halted Musashi for the moment)so everything there is moving forward. Don't really see the need for massed expansion of the Naval Shipyards so that is good.
2. The Merchants are running about 100 short. About half of this comes from yard conversion in the Mod. Will have to address somewhat.


EDIT: The only changes I see from this for the Mark Two Mod is in the engine area.



FatR -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/6/2010 8:55:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Good luck having that amount of supply in China. I've been able to keep Shanghai over 20,000 but that has mostly been it.

I'm running a major supply convoy to China from Day 1. Plus, now that my troops started taking Chinese industrial centers, this should ease the burden somewhat.



FatR -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/6/2010 8:57:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Stan is correct also in needing a massive expansion for the Helens and Tojos when they come in later in 1942.

This is something that should be left to players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. The Merchants are running about 100 short. About half of this comes from yard conversion in the Mod. Will have to address somewhat.

Strange, in my game I have a steady surplus of Merchant points (you can see it in my AAR). Maybe you did some shipyard conversions?









John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/7/2010 12:07:39 AM)

FatR--Good idea to keep the supplies running into China.  Need to get rolling with that pronto.

On the Helen and Tojo engine comment, I meant that the Naval Engines need to be expanded to reflect current needs as of Dec 7th.  Anything else is up to the player to handle!  Sorry if that was confusing...


Juan--Do you have a ballpark idea of when you'll be able to work on your stuff?



bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/9/2010 3:49:53 AM)

One more it would be nice to have Tojo Chutai which was at Saigon when the war started ?  It really helps vs those pesky low level B17 raids on Saigon. ( Note these were test planes and you cant replace them..)




yubari -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/9/2010 12:50:49 PM)

We are about a month in to the war by now.

As somewhat of a masochist, I like the fact that the Japanese will have carrier superiority until early 1944. I wouldnt recommend adding more than a couple of CVLs for the allies.

I like the Ranger task force idea. If it had to be withdrawn in maybe February 1942, then it would somewhat limit the early Japanese freedom of movement, but also not unbalance the carrier balance of power later on.

I think that a China increased in strength makes a nice counter balance to the more powerful Japanese navy, and at least gives the allied player somewhere he can do limited offensives early in the war. However, in the version we are playing China starts off far too powerful. Going from Tone`s figures in post 115, maybe a starting strength of around 30000AV would be a good balance? As others have previously stated, China would then need additional supply to support this army.




John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/9/2010 3:38:17 PM)

BK---There was a second Tojo Chutai or do you mean the one that traditionally starts in Canton? If there were TWO Chutai at start, I have no issue with that correction. Why aren't they there to start with?

Yubari---Comments:

1. I think there needs to be some sort of enticement for an Allied player. If I had my druthers, I would leave things like they are due to the fact we know the Americans will crush Japan anyway, however, adding a little bit to the OOB as an emergency program makes sense and will be highly anticipated by the American players...

2. The Ranger--to me--is a far more interesting option but I simply cannot figure how to work the withdrawal side of the things. Bringing the CV into the fracas would be a lot of fun but how many players can you imagine wanting to pull a Yorktown-Class if they lost Ranger? It could be run like the Brits but I find it to be a royal pain, thus, we go back to point one with adding a couple of CVL.

3. China---I HATE CHINA but the goal of the Mod is to be as historical as possible for the Dec 7th start. A fully fleshed out China is insane. In my game with Michael I dread the moment they can move and attack.




bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/10/2010 6:39:11 AM)

WHats it doing in Canton ...Who is the commander

"The pre-production Ki-44 aircraft and two of the prototypes were turned over to the Army for service trials on 15 September 1941. The type commenced operations with one experimental unit, the 47th Chutai (Independent Air Company) ("Kawasemi Buntai", Kingfisher Unit) sent to Saigon, Indochina in December 1941 with nine aircraft under the command of Major Toshio Sakagawa."



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/10/2010 3:05:40 PM)

In RA the 47th starts with 12 Ki-44 under command of Maj Sakagawa in Saigon.

Guess that certainly works!



bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/11/2010 2:32:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

In RA the 47th starts with 12 Ki-44 under command of Maj Sakagawa in Saigon.

Guess that certainly works!


Great ..



bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/11/2010 2:47:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


1. I think there needs to be some sort of enticement for an Allied player. If I had my druthers, I would leave things like they are due to the fact we know the Americans will crush Japan anyway, however, adding a little bit to the OOB as an emergency program makes sense and will be highly anticipated by the American players...





IMHO The best enticements for the allied player are non naval and especially non CV. Suggestions have been made earlier .
- More TK at start
- a marine reg or Australian Brigade in theater earlier etc

The game gets boring once the US fleet gets all powerfull.



bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/11/2010 3:00:10 AM)

One more thing the CVE attached to BAT1  was scheduled to sail to the Bonin islands and provided cover for the BBs from Dec 8-9 ,  Not sure if this is Honsho or Taiyo ( prob the latter)   however in AE stock there are no fighter units i can move on this because its restricted.



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/11/2010 3:44:37 AM)

I start the CVEs with air groups on board. I think Hosho has her normal 12 Zero and 6 Kates while Taiyo has 9 Zero and 12 Vals. Not much but it is something at the start of the war. They both start at Babeldoap.



bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/11/2010 12:32:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I start the CVEs with air groups on board. I think Hosho has her normal 12 Zero and 6 Kates while Taiyo has 9 Zero and 12 Vals. Not much but it is something at the start of the war. They both start at Babeldoap.




Thats fine another stock issue resolved

Ben



yubari -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/12/2010 11:42:49 AM)

John 3rd,

I hate China too! I would be perfectly happy to leave it just as a quite area, but in stock the Japanese have the power to push the Chinese around easily. To have a game where Malaya and Palembang are flattened in the first week, as the Japanese have the power to do, and in addition to that the Chinese are destroyed as a fighting force by the end of December is not an enticing prospect for an allied player. In our game, FatR has been able to utterly rout the Chinese forces in the North, despite their much increased strength, although the Chinese are on the move in the south, where it appears the Chinese are significantly overpowered.

I haven`t looked into the editor at all. Does it provide any disincentive for the allied player not to use his ships that are due to be withdrawn on dangerous missions, besides of course from the victory points lost? It would be very tempting to use a theoretical Ranger task force on a suicide mission somewhere in the DEI.

Bklooste,

The two CVEs that start at Badelbaob both have their own airgroups, and are a formidable force in their own right at the game start. FatR used them in the Philippines and around Manado, their Zeroes should be able to shoot down anything that attacks them, and they make getting anything at all out of Manila a very difficult challenge indeed.



bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/12/2010 3:08:56 PM)

John what sort of skill levels are those free CVE pilots ?



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/12/2010 5:24:01 PM)

Yubari--The Victory Point negative is the only real thing tyo keep an Allied Player from doing a suicide run as you describe. This is why I think adding a couple of CVL/CVE is a far better choice.

Do you think it adds a bit more incentive to play as the Allied person?

BK--Hosho had her normal Air Complement while I pulled those planes from two small Chutai and assigned them to Taiyo. Didn't understand your point 'til right now about having permanent groups assigned to the CVE. Is there ANY record of what was assigned to these CVE? If so, I would happily put something on them...

Juan--Haven't heard from you recently. What is your status Sir?



bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/13/2010 4:13:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: yubari

John 3rd,

I hate China too! I would be perfectly happy to leave it just as a quite area, but in stock the Japanese have the power to push the Chinese around easily. To have a game where Malaya and Palembang are flattened in the first week, as the Japanese have the power to do, and in addition to that the Chinese are destroyed as a fighting force by the end of December is not an enticing prospect for an allied player. In our game, FatR has been able to utterly rout the Chinese forces in the North, despite their much increased strength, although the Chinese are on the move in the south, where it appears the Chinese are significantly overpowered.

I haven`t looked into the editor at all. Does it provide any disincentive for the allied player not to use his ships that are due to be withdrawn on dangerous missions, besides of course from the victory points lost? It would be very tempting to use a theoretical Ranger task force on a suicide mission somewhere in the DEI.



The strength of the Chinese here is not how strong they will be in 41/ early 42 ( since their low moral and exp will make them run and get massacred) but the fact that if they conserve supplies and fight lots ( in favourible terrain) they will take heavy losses but they will have a very experienced force in 43 ( provided you dont get cut off) when the Burma road is reopened ( Hard to stop) the supplies will flow and this force will be devistating in NVietnam and S China. .



bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/13/2010 4:17:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Yubari--The Victory Point negative is the only real thing tyo keep an Allied Player from doing a suicide run as you describe. This is why I think adding a couple of CVL/CVE is a far better choice.

Do you think it adds a bit more incentive to play as the Allied person?

BK--Hosho had her normal Air Complement while I pulled those planes from two small Chutai and assigned them to Taiyo. Didn't understand your point 'til right now about having permanent groups assigned to the CVE. Is there ANY record of what was assigned to these CVE? If so, I would happily put something on them...



For teh allies to have counterplay in 42 they need tankers and troops at the moment the troops they have need to garrison key locations. With CVLs it will jsut shift the initiative / strategic balance.

re the CVE i know she was to provide CAP for the Battle fleet ( Combinbed fleet Battleships that sailed on Dec 8 for the Bonin Islands) , i imagine those pilots would be drawn from the Zero /Claude squadrons restricted in Japan.

The reason for my question was i dont think these pilots should be KB calliber so just checking .



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/13/2010 5:53:34 AM)

BK--I agree regarding the experience quality of the pilots on the CVEs.

The addition of a pair of CVLs shouldn't affect thing too much. The CVLs starting 3 months early to come in allows for there to be some hope for the Allied player. Keep in mind that the American loses two early Cleveland-Class CLs so that is a draw back but the CVLs will be a nice addition at a lean time.

China in 1943-1944 is the real boondoggle with Version One's issue. Cannot stand. The Japanese will be driven out of China into Manchuria if those armies gain experience in 1941-1942 with their full strength. NOT gonna happen in Version Two.

As per the Thread elsewhere, I think I will have each Japanese CVE come in with an attached Kate Chutai of 9 planes. The Chutai cannot upgrade to Jill or Grace to reflect the CVE limitations. Other planes can be added but the Kates will be there to reflect the ASW component of their time.



yubari -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/13/2010 11:30:55 AM)

How about pushing a couple of the Essex classes forwards a couple of months? Having the two carriers which normally arrive in July 1943 arrive instead in April or May would make things more interesting. That would give rough carrier parity between mid 1943 to the start of 1944.

A good idea with putting the Kates on the escort carriers. Maybe one of the home islands training units could be set to be withdrawn at the same time?



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/14/2010 12:06:37 AM)

I think the Essex idea deserves some thought, however, I figure they are already accelerated the moment the war begins on Dec 7th.

The Kate idea is excellent and will do exactly as you describe.





FatR -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/14/2010 9:58:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
As per the Thread elsewhere, I think I will have each Japanese CVE come in with an attached Kate Chutai of 9 planes. The Chutai cannot upgrade to Jill or Grace to reflect the CVE limitations. Other planes can be added but the Kates will be there to reflect the ASW component of their time.

This can be done only as a recommended houserule with PDU ON.

I think Allies should be OK in the mid-game. Particularly with two extra CVLs. But if you want, you can accelerate arrival of Essexes so it roughly coincides with availability of Shokaku-kai carriers. What Allies need is some early-game bennies, like above-menetioned brigade loaded on transports and available for deployment in the Pacific, because Japanese get some serious starting advantages. Also, Chinese troops should be returned to their original size, but get some improvements in experience. Even with new garrizon requirements, it is too easy to steamroll them early in the game. Increased size of Chinese army is the only reason why Japanese meet any serious problems in my game against yubari.



bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/14/2010 3:42:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
As per the Thread elsewhere, I think I will have each Japanese CVE come in with an attached Kate Chutai of 9 planes. The Chutai cannot upgrade to Jill or Grace to reflect the CVE limitations. Other planes can be added but the Kates will be there to reflect the ASW component of their time.

This can be done only as a recommended houserule with PDU ON.

I think Allies should be OK in the mid-game. Particularly with two extra CVLs. But if you want, you can accelerate arrival of Essexes so it roughly coincides with availability of Shokaku-kai carriers. What Allies need is some early-game bennies, like above-menetioned brigade loaded on transports and available for deployment in the Pacific, because Japanese get some serious starting advantages. Also, Chinese troops should be returned to their original size, but get some improvements in experience. Even with new garrizon requirements, it is too easy to steamroll them early in the game. Increased size of Chinese army is the only reason why Japanese meet any serious problems in my game against yubari.



Here is what the allies get in my game .. ( which has some more Japanese ships)


UK

A Brigade with shipping West of Burma
2 Huricane and a Beaufire squadrons in Burma from the 9th
SOme escorts for the BB ( CL and 2 DD)


US
2 more TK
4 more TK in mid 42.
1 BB
Option to upgrade Iowa to Montana
Some more aircraft
More west coast fuel and supplies at start

SOme Haiwaii airfields upgraded.

Regading China , suggest you increase the experience and morale of the artilliary unit this allows the chinese 1 poitn to defend or atatck as was done at CHangsha. I would bump the experience of the units at Ichang but frop their prep to 20 , they were just kicked out of ichang and they may be too strong.



Terminus -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/14/2010 5:24:03 PM)

I'd be curious how you rationalize "upgrading Iowas to Montanas"...[&:]



Falken -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/14/2010 9:56:11 PM)

Hi,

Sorry if this is somewhere else, but i'm about to start a campaign using the Reluctant Admiral Scen 70 version, and wanted to make sure that I have the latest version.

I've downloaded V3. Is this the correct latest version?

Thanks.



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/15/2010 2:40:06 AM)

Falken and Rader--please wait a bit.

The Second major release will be done sometime soon. Juan G has the files to do the items detailed earlier and then I am going to make changes as described on the previous page. As soon as this is done then the revamped version will be Posted at the same location.

I hope this doesn't discourage you but the whole China issue is BIG and we want the Allied players will get a bit more due to realistic response to the superior Japanese force deployment and new warships.

Do you guys have any questions about the Mod or thoughts there since we are finishing the newest version?



bklooste -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (6/15/2010 3:22:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'd be curious how you rationalize "upgrading Iowas to Montanas"...[&:]


House rule ; can only done on the day they arrive and they go back in the dock for an upgrade to show the extra time.. My Scenario is based on exploring what would happen if teh US didnt tape the Japanese and they get 70% so they get the almsot finished Tosa and Kaga as BBs .. When 1935 hits The US plans for a more aggressive expansion to counter the imbalance ( they also help China and guarantee Vietnam to try to contain Japan) , it is very likely they would have built Montanas however some players may still prefer the Iowas.

Anyway this is about the Reluctant Admiral.

BTW my kids were on the ground laughing at your Avatar..[:)]



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.109375