First turn campiagn mystery (Full Version)

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



Message

abulbulian -> First turn campiagn mystery (9/13/2012 12:01:50 AM)

Ok, really starting to have a hard time understanding all the underlying mechanics of why some TFs do what they're suppose to and why others don't. The last mystery of why my BB task force didn't bombard I solved, surprising nobody seemed to have/know right answer on forum. Although I'm not happy with the unhistorical aspect that a few old bombers attacking a large BB task force (w/no hits) could prevent it from bombarding that night phase of the turn. Oh well...silly but as long as it works both ways.. guess I can live with it.

This next mystery seems a bit more serious, maybe even some sort of flaw. I was testing the campaigns and for #2 I decided to just see what the stock moves would result in for Japan. As far as invasion landings and such. I was puzzled with the results. Supposedly there are landings set for PI including Appari, which didn't take place on t1.

Specifically on turn 1 TF#87 docked in Pescadores has a destination of Appari. It is followed by surface TF14 and TF#19 docked at Takao. Although in TF#87 display it only lists T#14, maybe limited to only showing one in display. So after running a turn I'd expect all 3 TFs to be at Appari, since assisting is some first turn move bonus (which I need to find explanation of in docs?). But my expectations were shattered. Not only were the 3 TFs not at Appari on turn 2, but they were now all sitting at Takao. Also for kickers TF#87 now was listed as being followed by TF19 and not TF14 as previous. Silly little inconsistent bug, but I can let that go as it's an easy programmer mistake and only really a display issue. More to the point, why are my TFs all in Takao??? So if I have TFs set to follow in different ports they really don't follow but rather force the main followed TF to stop in the followers port for a turn??? Sorry, but I don't see any logic in that outcome. Is this a bug or really WAD (working as designed).

Sorry lots to absorb in this game so when this don't work as expected or within common sense (historical) context, I tend to lose patience with the learning curve of a game on this scale. Unless of curse I'm actually in the mode of alpha/best testing. [;)]

Hoping very much there's a simple and sensible explanation. Not sure it can be operator error, because I just let t1 run without touching anything.



abulbulian -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/13/2012 12:24:08 AM)

Ok, my guess after a few more tests is that there must exist a special rule about PI which explains Battan Island needs to be secured before any invasions of PI proper may take place. So if this is the case, if I AB land troops on Batann Island first can my landings happen on T1 too? I will try that next. Is that the best place to try a Japanese AB landing in PI?



Hooper82 -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/13/2012 12:35:03 AM)

Only task forces with a (*) in their name get the Turn 1 Magic Move bonus. Check KB (TF1) for an example.

Yes, I've found this really annoying too, especially coming from WITP.



abulbulian -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/13/2012 12:50:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hooper82

Only task forces with a (*) in their name get the Turn 1 Magic Move bonus. Check KB (TF1) for an example.

Yes, I've found this really annoying too, especially coming from WITP.


ok thanks.

I did determine that even a para assault on Battan Island doesn't allow any landings on PI proper (i.e. Appari). Guess you can only do those real invasions of PI on turn 2. [:(]



Dan Nichols -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/13/2012 1:34:12 AM)

Considering that the actual landings at Appari and Vigan occurred on the morning of December 9, 1941 and the game usually gets them there that day, I don't think there is any mystery.



abulbulian -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/13/2012 6:20:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Considering that the actual landings at Appari and Vigan occurred on the morning of December 9, 1941 and the game usually gets them there that day, I don't think there is any mystery.




Not sure, but are you trying to be a little sarcastic with your response? I know the timeline of the historical invasions took place at this point in the game and probably a lot more about this campaign than you. But we can have that discussion offline if you like.

Also, let me ask you this since you seem to be stating that when people play this game that all meaningful battles (or invasions in this case) have to mimic a historical timeline. So Dan, when people play the War in the Pacific campaign when does the battle of midway usually take place for them or maybe even the allies re-conquest of Guadalcanal?

This ought to be good. Remember the premise you placed on this happening on a very historical date range in your prior post, before you respond. Because in your opinion of this game it's not up to the players to decide what to do and when. The game controls all decisions to force outcome on the historical timeline. Do I have that right?

Dan, I suggest next time you decide to respond to a post, maybe think twice on whether your response is helpful or if you're just trying to be insulting and maybe cute. [:-]

The question still stands... where in the manual does it state that the Japanese player can't invade PI proper before taking Battan Island or before Dec 9th. Simple question. Also, what other restrictions like this type might I come across in the campaign that are hidden somewhere in the manual.

Thanks



treespider -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/13/2012 12:24:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Considering that the actual landings at Appari and Vigan occurred on the morning of December 9, 1941 and the game usually gets them there that day, I don't think there is any mystery.




Not sure, but are you trying to be a little sarcastic with your response?


I believe you set the tone for the thread with your first post...


quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Ok, really starting to have a hard time understanding all the underlying mechanics of why some TFs do what they're suppose to and why others don't. The last mystery of why my BB task force didn't bombard I solved, surprising nobody seemed to have/know right answer on forum. Although I'm not happy with the unhistorical aspect that a few old bombers attacking a large BB task force (w/no hits) could prevent it from bombarding that night phase of the turn. Oh well...silly but as long as it works both ways.. guess I can live with it.


Looked at that thread and you did not answer any of the questions posed to you...so how do you expect the forum members to answer your question?

quote:



This next mystery seems a bit more serious, maybe even some sort of flaw. I was testing the campaigns and for #2 I decided to just see what the stock moves would result in for Japan. As far as invasion landings and such. I was puzzled with the results. Supposedly there are landings set for PI including Appari, which didn't take place on t1.

Specifically on turn 1 TF#87 docked in Pescadores has a destination of Appari. It is followed by surface TF14 and TF#19 docked at Takao. Although in TF#87 display it only lists T#14, maybe limited to only showing one in display. So after running a turn I'd expect all 3 TFs to be at Appari, since assisting is some first turn move bonus (which I need to find explanation of in docs?). But my expectations were shattered. Not only were the 3 TFs not at Appari on turn 2, but they were now all sitting at Takao. Also for kickers TF#87 now was listed as being followed by TF19 and not TF14 as previous. Silly little inconsistent bug, but I can let that go as it's an easy programmer mistake and only really a display issue. More to the point, why are my TFs all in Takao??? So if I have TFs set to follow in different ports they really don't follow but rather force the main followed TF to stop in the followers port for a turn??? Sorry, but I don't see any logic in that outcome. Is this a bug or really WAD (working as designed).

Sorry lots to absorb in this game so when this don't work as expected or within common sense (historical) context, I tend to lose patience with the learning curve of a game on this scale. Unless of curse I'm actually in the mode of alpha/best testing. [;)]


Hoping very much there's a simple and sensible explanation. Not sure it can be operator error, because I just let t1 run without touching anything.


But to answer your question if you let the game run you will see the invasions occur on the actual day of the landing.

Why you saw what you saw...if you open the scenario with the scenario editor, which can be found in the SCEN folder, and you click on the TF tab and you scroll down to TF 87...you will see TF 87 does not have the Magic Move box checked. Therefore TF 87 will not move all the way to Appari on Turn 1...I imagine it spent most of the day loading the troops assigned to it...likewise w/ TF 14, itwas loading troops but does have the MM box checked....and I suspect that is why you saw TF 19 replace TF 14 in the "TF Following" indicator for TF 87.....even though TF 14 is still following.



jzardos -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/14/2012 5:49:44 AM)

TreeSpider

I've tried to play this game in the past, but had found that many oddities were just not explainable in the manual or in patch errata. Which is still much appreciated. There has been many wonderful improvements in WitP:AE which was a good investment.

quote:

But to answer your question if you let the game run you will see the invasions occur on the actual day of the landing.



To me this is unacceptable answer for game that cost almost $100. If certain criteria need to be accomplished (i.e. per-requisite) in order for TF to carry out mission which the UI suggest will be carried out, then it needs to be mentioned somewhere. Maybe in a section for scenario notes?

I think your post is just sucking up to the developers/matrix and also enabling this game to have incomplete documentation. If you're suggesting that I need to go into the editor to determine what is going with certain mechanics behind the scenes, you need a reality check.

You bought the game to TreeSpider thus you are entitled to opinion, but IMO your post was not helpful and just another example somebody that wants to be confrontation. Kind of like my post which I had to submit, but I'm really sick of people that are suckups and don't use their efforts to maybe help the game become better or enlighten the community with some useful information.

I'm going to spend some time to actually research what is going on in WitP regarding this post, because I have some respect for abulbulian as he's had many post that have been incredibly helpful in many Matric titles I've been playing over the years. Also, I would like to know as well what other special conditions exist on T1.

quote:

Why you saw what you saw...if you open the scenario with the scenario editor, which can be found in the SCEN folder, and you click on the TF tab and you scroll down to TF 87...you will see TF 87 does not have the Magic Move box checked. Therefore TF 87 will not move all the way to Appari on Turn 1...I imagine it spent most of the day loading the troops assigned to it...likewise w/ TF 14, itwas loading troops but does have the MM box checked....and I suspect that is why you saw TF 19 replace TF 14 in the "TF Following" indicator for TF 87.....even though TF 14 is still following.


Oh TreeSpidey if you would have taken the time to look at TF#87 in the game UI on T1 you would have seen that it's labeled with 'Loading Completed'. Are you suggesting it will continue to load troops and supplies at this point?

Also where do you get this from?

quote:

Looked at that thread and you did not answer any of the questions posed to you...so how do you expect the forum members to answer your question?


I looked at post and see no questions posed? Just making stuff up now? Please do show me one of the questions posed in this thread to abulbulian that he needed to respond to? Should be simple for you to find it, cause only two others posted to this thread before you. Waiting on your reply... thanks.



[image]local://upfiles/37867/8E2C35558904446D8F574087DB911D17.jpg[/image]



treespider -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/14/2012 6:48:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos

quote:

Looked at that thread and you did not answer any of the questions posed to you...so how do you expect the forum members to answer your question?


I looked at post and see no questions posed? Just making stuff up now? Please do show me one of the questions posed in this thread to abulbulian that he needed to respond to? Should be simple for you to find it, cause only two others posted to this thread before you. Waiting on your reply... thanks.



If you refer to the thread about the BB's that abulbian was refering to when he wrote...
quote:

The last mystery of why my BB task force didn't bombard I solved, surprising nobody seemed to have/know right answer on forum.


Which is found in...

Bombardment group never fires

You will see that abulbulian posed this question:

quote:

I'm guessing my BB bombardment group did not fire because it was attacked by air? It came from a high level port on t1 and reached it's destination of and now it's a 'Surface Combat' mission with 0 ops on all ships. So do I have to send it back to port to re-arm to bombard? If so, I'm not sure I agree with this logic as it was only attacked by a few weak groups of planes with all misses. That can't be enough to deter or expend all my BB's heavy guns ammo for bombarding???


To which SqzMyLemon asked:
quote:

Are you using waypoints?


And n01487477 asked:
quote:

Are you saying that there is now no ammo ? Did you have any to begin with?


And jmalter asked:
quote:

but if your BombTF gives up on its mission, look at the flag-captain - did he have good Nav & Agg ratings?

another point is, how far away was the BombTF from its target at the beginning of the turn?


and to none of these questions did abulbulian post a reply.



treespider -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/14/2012 6:59:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos

quote:

But to answer your question if you let the game run you will see the invasions occur on the actual day of the landing.



To me this is unacceptable answer for game that cost almost $100.


And that was not my only response as you quote the rest of my answer later in your post...
quote:

Why you saw what you saw...if you open the scenario with the scenario editor, which can be found in the SCEN folder, and you click on the TF tab and you scroll down to TF 87...you will see TF 87 does not have the Magic Move box checked. Therefore TF 87 will not move all the way to Appari on Turn 1...I imagine it spent most of the day loading the troops assigned to it...likewise w/ TF 14, itwas loading troops but does have the MM box checked....and I suspect that is why you saw TF 19 replace TF 14 in the "TF Following" indicator for TF 87.....even though TF 14 is still following.


quote:



If certain criteria need to be accomplished (i.e. per-requisite) in order for TF to carry out mission which the UI suggest will be carried out, then it needs to be mentioned somewhere. Maybe in a section for scenario notes?


Or maybe in the manual on page 22
quote:

>>Japanese naval TF s may have enhanced first turn movement, depending on TF settings in the scenarion (see Editor Manual for details)


quote:



I think your post is just sucking up to the developers/matrix and also enabling this game to have incomplete documentation. If you're suggesting that I need to go into the editor to determine what is going with certain mechanics behind the scenes, you need a reality check.


Except the manual says explicitly to check the editor manual...like your sarcastic tone by the way.

Not going to waste any more time on this...



treespider -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/14/2012 7:22:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jzardos

[image]local://upfiles/37867/8E2C35558904446D8F574087DB911D17.jpg[/image]


Abulbulbian wrote:

quote:

Specifically on turn 1 TF#87 docked in Pescadores has a destination of Appari. It is followed by surface TF14 and TF#19 docked at Takao. Although in TF#87 display it only lists T#14, maybe limited to only showing one in display. So after running a turn I'd expect all 3 TFs to be at Appari, since assisting is some first turn move bonus (which I need to find explanation of in docs?). But my expectations were shattered. Not only were the 3 TFs not at Appari on turn 2, but they were now all sitting at Takao. Also for kickers TF#87 now was listed as being followed by TF19 and not TF14 as previous. Silly little inconsistent bug, but I can let that go as it's an easy programmer mistake and only really a display issue. More to the point, why are my TFs all in Takao??? So if I have TFs set to follow in different ports they really don't follow but rather force the main followed TF to stop in the followers port for a turn??? Sorry, but I don't see any logic in that outcome. Is this a bug or really WAD (working as designed).



If you click on TF #87 you will see the TF route takes it through the Takao hex which is exactly two hexes away from Pescadores.

TF#87 is not a Magic Move TF ...which page 22 of manual refers you to the game editor to determine. So it gets no movement bonuses.

You also see that the cruise speed of the TF is 2...which iirc is signified by the 2 in the 3/2 of the TF speed. The TF will utilize cruise speed most of the time if set to mission speed. p.91 of manual

Then since it is the first turn there is not a night naval movement phase...so the TF will only move in one phase...which is two hexes which takes it to Takao.





Alfred -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/14/2012 9:45:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian


... The question still stands... where in the manual does it state that the Japanese player can't invade PI proper before taking Battan Island or before Dec 9th. Simple question. Also, what other restrictions like this type might I come across in the campaign that are hidden somewhere in the manual.

Thanks



You will not find it in the manual, nor any other similar restrictions because they do not exist. Prior Japanese occupation of Batan Island is not a pre-requisite for invading the Philippines proper.

Look at the speed setting of your amphibious invasion TFs. Other than the first turn, which is a single phase turn only, all other turns are two phases (one night, one day) so task forces will travel 2x their indicated hex speed rating. The only exception are those * magical move TFs which have already been noted in earlier posts.

Alfred



abulbulian -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/14/2012 6:10:07 PM)

I didn't get a chance to look yesterday, but jzardos did PM with an answer similar to TreeSpiders which now makes some sense. The only real problem I had was with Dan's initial response. Which warranted a reply for his being snarky.

Not sure why TreeSpider had to try and join in with 75% of his posts being confrontation as well. Oh well, try and keep it civil.

To recap my question was about why the landings didn't take place and I now understand the mechanics and more about the first turn magic (quick move) that some Japaneses TFs have.

So we're good here. Unfortunate that this thread had to be bloated with other nonsense, since the real answer was not that tricky.

I do thank jazrdos and treespider for finally enlightening me with a proper answer.

Oh Treespider you are correct, I should have respond to questions in my bombardment thread. Had already answered my original question and posted it, so got distracted from previous post. An air attack on a naval bombard mission TF that turn will force it to abort it's mission and reset it to Surface Combat. From what I saw.



abulbulian -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/14/2012 6:39:44 PM)

Oh and thanks Alfred too. This is probably another thread. But trying to find in manual if as Japan I will need to take all cities or if taking just key ones (capitals and such) will force and area to surrender. For example the DEI, does it ever just surrender and all of it's hexes with non-significant enemy units become Japanese?

Guessing this has been answered before, sorry still a WitP:AE noob. Also, never had much luck in forum search feature.



treespider -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/14/2012 7:07:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Oh and thanks Alfred too. This is probably another thread. But trying to find in manual if as Japan I will need to take all cities or if taking just key ones (capitals and such) will force and area to surrender. For example the DEI, does it ever just surrender and all of it's hexes with non-significant enemy units become Japanese?

Guessing this has been answered before, sorry still a WitP:AE noob. Also, never had much luck in forum search feature.



All bases need to be captured...there is a minor routine in code that will cause a single vacant base to switch sides during the turn if certain conditions are met ...usually it is in proximity to your units.

But othewise capturing Batavia or Soerbaja does not cause all of the bases in the DEI to switch sides.



LoBaron -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/14/2012 7:13:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

I didn't get a chance to look yesterday, but jzardos did PM with an answer similar to TreeSpiders which now makes some sense. The only real problem I had was with Dan's initial response. Which warranted a reply for his being snarky.

Not sure why TreeSpider had to try and join in with 75% of his posts being confrontation as well. Oh well, try and keep it civil.


Tree is one of the most respected members on this forum and confronts when somebody is off target. Why not? He knows more than 75% of the WitP players will ever learn.
Dan was suggesting you should wait until it sorts out. Which it did, no?

No worries, if you ask friendly, understandable questions, you will get the answers. Welcome by the way. [:)]




PS: WitE is nothing compared to this, expect to learn for a couple of years...



janh -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/14/2012 7:48:19 PM)

Dan's response may have been a little sarcastic, but I don't think anyone here wants to provoke or call newcomers names. You'll find the going here a lot more relaxed and less about exploiting this and bugger that than the WitE forum. Little wonder, AE is so polished since it already had a 10 year evolution period. If you hang around you will notice some of the volunteer devs of AE hang around, and it won't take long to realize how much expertise and effort they put into AE.

Whenever you stumble about something strange or not immediately understandable -- which will happen no matter whether you play AE for a week or 3 years -- in the vast majority of all cases it will come down to "should go back to the manual...". I'd say in better than 95% of all cases it is the player who missed something, or misunderstood. Things like "why got my KB obliterated while itself not flying any strike..." often end up having simple explanations like weather issues, but may be hard to gather for if you don't know to pay attention to the important details from the huge amounts of information you'll get in the turn reports and UI screens.

It may not be the best way to start your post indicating that this and that part of the game is buggy or not to your liking when it in fact is working fine. The manual is a good start, but there are a myriad of threads (see the War room in particular) that have some excellent guides on many a topic like the one Alfred posted. And then there is lots to be learned here by just dropping by occasionally and reading other AARs or other, say technical threads. And least this crowd is pretty good at answering questions, and looking through the mist of details if something really seems inexplicable at first glance.

Lastly, there are huge differences between AE and WitE. Unlike in the latter, no country in AE is going to surrender en masse. Air war and many other things are very different. I don't think you can transfer experiences between both games. It is more like relearning.



obvert -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/14/2012 11:52:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols

Considering that the actual landings at Appari and Vigan occurred on the morning of December 9, 1941 and the game usually gets them there that day, I don't think there is any mystery.




Not sure, but are you trying to be a little sarcastic with your response? I know the timeline of the historical invasions took place at this point in the game and probably a lot more about this campaign than you. But we can have that discussion offline if you like.

Also, let me ask you this since you seem to be stating that when people play this game that all meaningful battles (or invasions in this case) have to mimic a historical timeline. So Dan, when people play the War in the Pacific campaign when does the battle of midway usually take place for them or maybe even the allies re-conquest of Guadalcanal?

This ought to be good. Remember the premise you placed on this happening on a very historical date range in your prior post, before you respond. Because in your opinion of this game it's not up to the players to decide what to do and when. The game controls all decisions to force outcome on the historical timeline. Do I have that right?

Dan, I suggest next time you decide to respond to a post, maybe think twice on whether your response is helpful or if you're just trying to be insulting and maybe cute. [:-]

The question still stands... where in the manual does it state that the Japanese player can't invade PI proper before taking Battan Island or before Dec 9th. Simple question. Also, what other restrictions like this type might I come across in the campaign that are hidden somewhere in the manual.

Thanks



Do you realize at all that you gave a response twice as assumptive and rude as the one that annoyed you so much? Maybe you should have some patience and actually see that the people here are trying to help you. Dan is an incredibly knowledgeable player, and often ready with a quick response for players in need of help. If you haven't realized it yet, after these gracious responses to your own combative posts, the manual for this game IS the players. You will learn more from them than from any official text written about the game.



Alfred -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/15/2012 5:52:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Oh and thanks Alfred too. This is probably another thread. But trying to find in manual if as Japan I will need to take all cities or if taking just key ones (capitals and such) will force and area to surrender. For example the DEI, does it ever just surrender and all of it's hexes with non-significant enemy units become Japanese?

Guessing this has been answered before, sorry still a WitP:AE noob. Also, never had much luck in forum search feature.



All bases need to be captured...there is a minor routine in code that will cause a single vacant base to switch sides during the turn if certain conditions are met ...usually it is in proximity to your units.

But othewise capturing Batavia or Soerbaja does not cause all of the bases in the DEI to switch sides.


abulbulian,

Expanding further on treespider's answer. Treespider is commenting on the actions which are often described here as the "rowboat corps".

Bases do not automatically flip over from one side to the other side. It is possible therefore to have an Allied owned base completely surrounded by Japanese bases. That state of affairs will only change if the Japanese player organises an invasion ground force to enter and successfully attack and capture the base after achieving 2:1 odds in adjusted assault value. The one exception is when the "rowboat corps" becomes involved. The conditions for that development to occur are:

1. The enemy base has no enemy garrison present.

2. The enemy base is adjacent to and shares contingous land borders with your own bases.

3. Your own adjacent bases must have a friendly garrison present. Merely owning ungarrisoned friendly owned adjacent bases will not suffice to effect the automatic ownership flip over.

Alfred



Empire101 -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/15/2012 10:09:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


Do you realize at all that you gave a response twice as assumptive and rude as the one that annoyed you so much? Maybe you should have some patience and actually see that the people here are trying to help you. Dan is an incredibly knowledgeable player, and often ready with a quick response for players in need of help. If you haven't realized it yet, after these gracious responses to your own combative posts, the manual for this game IS the players. You will learn more from them than from any official text written about the game.


+1



JocMeister -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/15/2012 10:17:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

Do you realize at all that you gave a response twice as assumptive and rude as the one that annoyed you so much? Maybe you should have some patience and actually see that the people here are trying to help you. Dan is an incredibly knowledgeable player, and often ready with a quick response for players in need of help. If you haven't realized it yet, after these gracious responses to your own combative posts, the manual for this game IS the players. You will learn more from them than from any official text written about the game.



+2



CV 2 -> RE: First turn campiagn mystery (9/15/2012 1:50:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: abulbulian

Oh and thanks Alfred too. This is probably another thread. But trying to find in manual if as Japan I will need to take all cities or if taking just key ones (capitals and such) will force and area to surrender. For example the DEI, does it ever just surrender and all of it's hexes with non-significant enemy units become Japanese?

Guessing this has been answered before, sorry still a WitP:AE noob. Also, never had much luck in forum search feature.



All bases need to be captured...there is a minor routine in code that will cause a single vacant base to switch sides during the turn if certain conditions are met ...usually it is in proximity to your units.

But othewise capturing Batavia or Soerbaja does not cause all of the bases in the DEI to switch sides.


abulbulian,

Expanding further on treespider's answer. Treespider is commenting on the actions which are often described here as the "rowboat corps".

Bases do not automatically flip over from one side to the other side. It is possible therefore to have an Allied owned base completely surrounded by Japanese bases. That state of affairs will only change if the Japanese player organises an invasion ground force to enter and successfully attack and capture the base after achieving 2:1 odds in adjusted assault value. The one exception is when the "rowboat corps" becomes involved. The conditions for that development to occur are:

1. The enemy base has no enemy garrison present.

2. The enemy base is adjacent to and shares contingous land borders with your own bases.

3. Your own adjacent bases must have a friendly garrison present. Merely owning ungarrisoned friendly owned adjacent bases will not suffice to effect the automatic ownership flip over.

Alfred


This is not entirely true.

First off, you do NOT have to be adjacent. Bases within 2 hexes are subject to this flipping.

Secondly, they do NOT have to be land hexes. And a base that is 2 hexes away can flip even though a base 1 hex away hasnt.

The friendly base does indeed have to have troops present, but it can NOT be a dot hex. It must actually have a base in the hex. The more AV and the more supply you have in the hex seems to increase its chances of flipping a base.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.5