RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (Full Version)

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



Message

HansBolter -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/7/2014 11:30:39 AM)

AndyMaC,

Been hooked on IronBabes C for a while, but decided to give this a try again.

A little confused on what is the correct "most recent" version.

I have a "Nasty Version 5" that is scenario 10. I started it up over the weekend.

I also seem to have one that is a scenario 60....any idea what this is?

Is the version 5, scenario 10 the correct one?



traskott -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/7/2014 4:02:45 PM)

The 60, that's THE scenario. Death, blood and tears... [:D]



Peever -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/8/2014 3:36:18 PM)

I think scenario 10 was added to the list in the last official patch right? The one newest one though is #60.



HansBolter -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/8/2014 3:51:39 PM)

Thanks guys.

I'll take a look at 60.

I had already started 10 and it is pretty well over the top with a first turn CV strike on Seattle along with invasions of Coal Harbor, Midway, Johnston and Hilo as well as infiltrators in Burma and India.

All this in addition to the Pearl strike.

Is 60 even beyond this?



traskott -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/8/2014 4:37:04 PM)

The 60 is the 10 in steroids.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/9/2014 2:40:34 AM)

Those dacoits in Burma are ridiculous. They can practically clear the country out by themselves. ;-)

To me the big issue is the robust commerce raiding. This scenario requires a lot of micromanagement of convoys to avoid losing all of your merchies and tankers in three months. Those far southern borders are not immune.

Cheers,
CC



traskott -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/9/2014 11:07:13 AM)

+1. Dacoits rules

Andy, im dissapointed, its 15 january 1942 and in still hold java, singa, bataab and manila. But half CDN is under attack ( poor canadians ).



PaxMondo -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/9/2014 2:06:53 PM)

Hopefully, Andy is working on an updated version of Allied Ironman ... Nasty, Nasty



Andy Mac -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/10/2014 5:52:10 PM)

I am not sure how to make that one nastier maybe add some more BB's or a few more CVE' in late war or perhaps a few more Cruiser/Carruiers

Anyway thanks to everyone that sent a save in much appreciated a big help has anyone got a game going where the AI didn't go for SOPAC strategy ??



traskott -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/10/2014 6:11:36 PM)

January,26. Im being invaded at Aus, tahiti, cdn, alelutianas, new guinea, line islands... Looks like i got the "attack everywhere " script.



Andy Mac -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/10/2014 6:45:21 PM)

Hmmm ok thanks



traskott -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/10/2014 6:49:12 PM)

Now serioulsy: BBs dont give more headaches to the allied player, and the CVE fall to the british and dutch SS. Some CL "uber raider" would be more troublesome.



PaxMondo -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/11/2014 2:22:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I am not sure how to make that one nastier maybe add some more BB's or a few more CVE' in late war or perhaps a few more Cruiser/Carruiers
[/quote
CAn you point a link, or report, the Nastiest Allied Ironman. Cannot figure out if I have it or not ...



CaptBeefheart -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/11/2014 8:30:39 AM)

I was thinking an invasion by Germans out of Canada, or the Afrika Korps popping out of northern India would be pretty cool. Actually, I shouldn't be giving Andy any ideas.[sm=00000289.gif]

Cheers,
CC



traskott -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/11/2014 10:19:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

I was thinking an invasion by Germans out of Canada, or the Afrika Korps popping out of northern India would be pretty cool. Actually, I shouldn't be giving Andy any ideas.[sm=00000289.gif]

Cheers,
CC


Manstein at Vancouver, Rommel on Karachi... Hummm, too easy with those wonderful replacement rates and no experienced troops.



HansBolter -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/11/2014 10:56:32 AM)

Remind me of an old board game I have titled Tomorrow the World.

Predicated on the assumption that Germany conquered Europe and then went rampaging across the globe.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7625/tomorrow-world



Andy Mac -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/11/2014 11:05:43 AM)

lol



Califvol -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/12/2014 6:10:30 PM)


I am still in Apr '42. My comment is (besides GREAT Scenario, THANK YOU! [&o]) Too many airplanes and carriers. When you have a seven carrier TF sailing in your rear, your options are limited to run away; not much of a give and take game when that happens. On the other hand, make them seven BB's, CA's, raiders- far different story, even with the limited Allied OOB there are options beside run and hide. There also maybe too many killer gnats (B3N5 very small graphic, hence killer gnat). They are great as raiders, but they are showing up more and more in my game as the primary bomber for invasions. I suppose that is a result of code since they are based off the very ships that go into invasion TF's.

So, change up the mix to more surface and less air would be my suggestion.

P.S. I see no reason why the Bismarck can't be in game. Yes, it was sunk before Dec 7. So, what? This is a fantasy OOB game.



Lowpe -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/12/2014 6:25:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Califvol
P.S. I see no reason why the Bismarck can't be in game. Yes, it was sunk before Dec 7. So, what? This is a fantasy OOB game.


Tirpritz? Graf Zeppelin? I haven't run into either yet. I wanted to see Italians in the Indian Ocean...



CaptBeefheart -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/14/2014 3:52:34 AM)

I ran across a DD or CL the other day that sounded pretty Italian to me. I need to see if I can find it on the sunk list.

Cheers,
CC



Andy Mac -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/15/2014 7:41:13 PM)

What you mean there are Regia Marina ships in the Orbat surely not......



Andy Mac -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/15/2014 7:42:42 PM)

Guys would I do that to you honestly do you think I would include fictional Italian naval vessels the I find the lack of trust disturbing......[:D] [:D]



traskott -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/15/2014 8:48:16 PM)

I find a lack of safe hubs to OZ even more disturbing. On the plus side my anzac cruisers have never sank so many ships with so many jap troops at so faster time. Churcjill would be proud of them.



Lowpe -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/16/2014 10:34:10 AM)

AndyMac,

How about a Paratroop drop on Ankang by Japan on day one or two? That would be a pain for the Chinese to deal with!





traskott -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (7/19/2014 9:16:54 AM)

I have found the answer to the scen: reliable USN torpedoes. With soo many targets my silent service gets lots of kill per day. On the other side, once INA troops get ashore im done and there is no choice but flee.

Ps: suppling oz is a PITA.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (8/1/2014 4:18:42 AM)

A couple of thoughts to give this a bump: I'm now at Dec 31, 1942 and my offensive progress is slow. All IJN CVs and all CVLs but one are afloat as the AI doesn't do as many partial CV raids as it did in previous versions (it has done some, but my CVs have been elsewhere and thus unable to take advantage of superior force). My movements are somewhat slow as I expect the full and righteous wrath of the KB to strike at any moment. OZ is cleared except the central north and Normanton, and I'm gearing up to take Moresby, Horn and the Tulagi cluster. An occasional AMC hits the Cape Town-OZ supply run, but it's not a big issue. Christmas and points north and west, except for the Hawaiian Islands, are still in IJ hands. I'm experimenting with supply and fuel runs from Cristobal to Rura Tira or Hiva Oka or whatever that Gauguin-reminiscent island is).

The AI has lost a few BBs and other surface units gallivanting around Tahiti, although they have taken a toll on SBDs and TBFs stationed there.

One question: Why so many new bases in Burma?

Cheers,
CC



Andy Mac -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (8/1/2014 8:51:49 PM)

To allow me to hopefully better script the AI's defence of that region



Mac Linehan -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (8/5/2014 10:03:30 PM)

Andy -

Have just returned from my summer job, in the Colorado Mountains, driving a rafting bus on the Arkansas River. My newer i7Intell stays home; the older AMD warhorse goes with me (lots of lightening strikes...).

The AMD was stellar the past eight weeks - I continued to play scn 50 DBB Ironman NN quick and dirty port.

Unfortunately, much to my surprise, when I set up the AMD at home, it died on me - no signal in to the monitor. So, back to the shop it goes - with all my current game saves.

Sooo, in the meantime, (and despite the fact that I just bought Command Ops Battles from the Bulge and two expansions [on sale]), I will fire up your Scn 60 and give it a whorl. If it is nastier than scn 50, I will not be disappointed...<grin>

Gotta go to work at 0430 tomorrow morning (it's been nice sleeping in till 0700); but the party is over. Still have time to get a turn in.

Ironman Forever Mac



Lowpe -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (8/5/2014 10:35:58 PM)

I was messing around with game starts and discovered something fairly interesting.

I normally always play 2 day turns vs the AI.

I started a game up with 1 day turns instead, and the game is much, much easier. The early amphib operations at Pearl can be intercepted and hurt in 1 day turns, while in 2 day turns it is a done deal and very nasty.

Also, I was able to save the CA/DMS force that steams to Pearl. Normally it is savaged by KB planes.

Finally, I was able to sink a small CV and several BB below Pearl by having the Yank CVs steam there, meeting up with the CA/DMS force. I wasn't really gaming the system, but simply trying to save the Yank CVs.

And finally in Seattle the BBs in port survived.

So, if you want a greater challenge, play 2 day turns.



Mac Linehan -> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty (8/5/2014 11:42:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I was messing around with game starts and discovered something fairly interesting.

I normally always play 2 day turns vs the AI.

I started a game up with 1 day turns instead, and the game is much, much easier. The early amphib operations at Pearl can be intercepted and hurt in 1 day turns, while in 2 day turns it is a done deal and very nasty.

Also, I was able to save the CA/DMS force that steams to Pearl. Normally it is savaged by KB planes.

Finally, I was able to sink a small CV and several BB below Pearl by having the Yank CVs steam there, meeting up with the CA/DMS force. I wasn't really gaming the system, but simply trying to save the Yank CVs.

And finally in Seattle the BBs in port survived.

So, if you want a greater challenge, play 2 day turns.


Lowpe -

I will take your advice, tighten my belt (have always done one day turns) and set the game for two day turns - on "Hard".

Have always wanted to try two day turns, never had enough testosterone...<grin>

Will get back to you.

Mac



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.515625