Returning player - various questions (Full Version)

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



Message

Ambassador -> Returning player - various questions (6/11/2020 2:42:57 PM)

Hi all,

While I’ve been playing this game a couple years ago, the last few years have been very busy, and I had to drop it a couple years ago (even against AI). Professional situation changed, and I now have a little more time on my hands, but I realize there are a few things I don’t remember (or misremember, or never knew), and there’s only so many answers I can find by using Google with the « site: » tool.

It would be kind of you, gentle sirs, to enlighten me of your all-encompassing knowledge.[;)]


1) disbanded ships in port

I know they’re only attacked part of the time during port strikes, and that the whole « disbanded ships contribute 50% of their AA » is false. But, do they actually contribute AA to defend a base, when planes attacking it are on an airfield or ground strike mission ?

And, related, do disbanded ships contribute their radar sets to detect incoming air strikes ?


2) drawing pilot reserves into squadrons

I got my pilot training program quite good, but I have problems getting them to join their front line squadrons. Last time I played the game (couple years ago), I used to request veterans, but I remember it was tedious (first, many clicking, to request veterans, sort the list by skill, pick the number required, exit, do it again to have spare pilots, then opening the squadron pilot screen to make them all active when some of the latter were arriving grayed out).
But, when I was using the « get X pilots » button with setting to Reserve, I often ended up with mismatched pilots (getting fighter pilots for my bombers, or the opposite).

Is that feature borked, or did I use it wrongly somehow ? I was under the impression that the pilots would be drawn from the appropriate type of pilots (fighter reserve for F/FB/NF, bomber reserve for DB/TB/LB, etc). Is there a link to somewhere explaining how to set it to get the appropriate pilots (and I don’t even think about setting automatic replacements...) ?


3) 5’’ rockets

I tested the GA rockets from the official scenarios, and concluded that they only get used on amphibious assaults, is that correct ? I tried putting them on DD in a test scenario, and bombardments missions would not use them (and they wouldn’t be used in ship-to-ship combat either, off course). But do they really work on amphibious assaults, or are LSM(R) and LCI(R) ?
But I found they could be used on aircrafts (I had fun with the editor and a test scenario). Has anyone had any experience with GA rockets on fighter (or FB) in a modded scenario ?
(Maybe it might be better to ask this in the modding subforum ?)


4) Ironman (might be the biggest question)

A friend of mine whom I played with a couple of years ago might be willing to give a go to a full campaign again, but would want to play Japan in the Ironman scenario - off course, with boosting the Allied side too, too keep things entertaining and fun for both. On the principle, I’m inclined to agree, but as I’ve never really played Japan, nor the Ironman scenario against the AI, I don’t know for sure what all the changes are.

From looking at the editor and firing the scenario in-game (without playing it), I felt like it does the following :
- many more ships, with notably several more CV/CVL at start
- bigger starting piles of supply and fuel, with some more automatic supply/fuel generation
- better starting XP for pilots
- better industry, so probably an acceleration of many late-war airframes/engines designs and ramped up production
- more ground forces (several thousand more AV in Manchukuo alone)

So, I suppose I could expect (If we kept things as such) a much stronger offensive phase in ‘42, probably extending well into ‘43 ; losing India and/or Australia ; not to achieve CV parity until ‘44 at best ; facing more numerous and more advanced fighters when I can eventually go on the offense.
As our goal is not to make an alternate history where a JFB lives his wet dream of « winning » WWII, we’re looking to make some adjustments to level the field accordingly. Our goal is not to have a realistic simulation of the war, but to have fun without things getting too much out of hands.

So far, we’ve agreed on the following :
- reliable USN torpedoes from the start
- a bit more free (daily) supply/fuel appearing in off-map bases (to run convoys from, say, Aden, Capetown, or the Falklands)
- redeploying Chinese units, improving fort levels and starting supply stockpiles
- accelerating the arrival of the new plane models (by 1/2/3/4/6 months whether their initial arrival was in 41/42/43/44/45) (and maybe likewise for ship upgrades)
- adding a couple ships (essentially the cancelled CV/cruisers/DD, Ironman Allied’s AMCs, a single super-submarine (we were both fan of the SeaQuest TV show[:D], etc)

What’s your opinion on such a deal ? Are such modifications to the Allied situation enough to compensate Ironman Japan’s improvements ?


Thanks in advance for any insight of yours[&o]



geofflambert -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/11/2020 3:18:34 PM)

2) Oh dear. This is the most important part of the game, pilot selection, whether for training or action. You have to spend the time. Some pilots you raise like bonsai trees and save them up for a very special day.



Andy Mac -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/11/2020 6:22:52 PM)

If it was me and a Japanese player wanted to play Ironman against me (and I am assuming you are using the updated version in the scen section)

I would want 5 things
1. Cancel Withdrawal dates on all 4 RN Fleet Carriers so they stay all game
2. Increase and accelerate replacement rate for a USAAF Bomber - doesn't need to be the best one (any one of Hudson/Havoc/Bolo/b25C give them at least 20 - 30 replacement rate from 1/42 allies will simply not have enough bomber airframes to do anything without a basic trainer level bomber)
3. Increase and accelerate replacement rate for an RAF bomber by preference to Wellington Ic from 6 - 12 and start 1/42
4. I would want to add at least one and possibly 2 or 3 of the emergency reinforcement convoy units in my replacement list e.g. LCU 7967/7976/7989 I would want 1 - 3 of these arriving 4/42 7/42 10/42 if all three other dates if less
5. I would want 200 PP's per day to allow me to buy out LCU's but Japan stay with 50 or 100 given the sheer number of additional LCU's I added to Japan in this scenario

Remember all his carriers are now 90 capacity and he gets 2 more CV's and 2 more CVL's early in the war plus another Nagato and Yamato and a lot of light surface combat ships so as part of this I yould possibly request 20 - 30 ships added from Allied ironman list (by agreement agree which ones and when and how many capital ships as part of the mix e.g. 2 CV's, 2 BB's/BC's/CB's/6 Cruisers and 12 Destroyers all to arrive say 6/42 so it doenst block Japanese expansion) - Allied Ironman Units are in 17950 on ship database if carriers with air groups as assigned)




Andy Mac -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/11/2020 6:31:22 PM)

Actually I would probably want to cancel withdrawal for Malaya Sqns and maybe give a n increase to one Aus and NZ aircraft type as well



Nomad -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/11/2020 9:50:16 PM)

You could look at the focus Pacific mod. It has the Japanese start with ironman forces and the allies are enhanced also.



Yaab -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/12/2020 4:42:48 AM)

ad1.

How is "disbanded ships' AA" false? Four years ago we had this bug which made merchant ships automatically gain huge exp while shooting AA guns when disbanded.

If you play the Allies, go to your ship list in Pearl Harbor and see which ships spent OP (operation points) during the Jap attack. If AV Curtiss with her 646 AA rating is not on top of the list, then she is probably sunk. You should find that xAKLs with 0.303 AAMG have spent 0 points, since the ceiling on their AAMGs is 1700 feet, and only a handful of Jap divebomber drop bombs from 1000 feet.



Ambassador -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/12/2020 8:36:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ad1.

How is "disbanded ships' AA" false? Four years ago we had this bug which made merchant ships automatically gain huge exp while shooting AA guns when disbanded.

If you play the Allies, go to your ship list in Pearl Harbor and see which ships spent OP (operation points) during the Jap attack. If AV Curtiss with her 646 AA rating is not on top of the list, then she is probably sunk. You should find that xAKLs with 0.303 AAMG have spent 0 points, since the ceiling on their AAMGs is 1700 feet, and only a handful of Jap divebomber drop bombs from 1000 feet.

Hi, maybe I misunderstood one of Alfred's post, but the "false" was in relation with the 50% automatic contribution. I know they do use their AA, at least when doing a port strike when ships get attacked (even if I don't know if there's a penalty to their contribution). I probably wasn't clear enough that my question really is about contributing AA during airfield or ground strikes.



Ambassador -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/12/2020 9:17:05 AM)



quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

If it was me and a Japanese player wanted to play Ironman against me (and I am assuming you are using the updated version in the scen section)

I would want 5 things
1. Cancel Withdrawal dates on all 4 RN Fleet Carriers so they stay all game
2. Increase and accelerate replacement rate for a USAAF Bomber - doesn't need to be the best one (any one of Hudson/Havoc/Bolo/b25C give them at least 20 - 30 replacement rate from 1/42 allies will simply not have enough bomber airframes to do anything without a basic trainer level bomber)
3. Increase and accelerate replacement rate for an RAF bomber by preference to Wellington Ic from 6 - 12 and start 1/42
4. I would want to add at least one and possibly 2 or 3 of the emergency reinforcement convoy units in my replacement list e.g. LCU 7967/7976/7989 I would want 1 - 3 of these arriving 4/42 7/42 10/42 if all three other dates if less
5. I would want 200 PP's per day to allow me to buy out LCU's but Japan stay with 50 or 100 given the sheer number of additional LCU's I added to Japan in this scenario

Remember all his carriers are now 90 capacity and he gets 2 more CV's and 2 more CVL's early in the war plus another Nagato and Yamato and a lot of light surface combat ships so as part of this I yould possibly request 20 - 30 ships added from Allied ironman list (by agreement agree which ones and when and how many capital ships as part of the mix e.g. 2 CV's, 2 BB's/BC's/CB's/6 Cruisers and 12 Destroyers all to arrive say 6/42 so it doenst block Japanese expansion) - Allied Ironman Units are in 17950 on ship database if carriers with air groups as assigned)



Thank you for those ideas. I did not see the increase in CV capacity, that's a big change too !

1-2-3. We might well play with withdrawal off, keeping all those RN ships and a lot of West Coast squadrons to devote them to training and ASW. Ensuring having enough basic training planes is good indeed.
4. My friend/opponent agreed to trigger the invasion mobilisations no later than mid-42, using sub-transported small "commando" groups.
5. Duly noted. We already agreed to increase the PP/day, as we both like to keep our OOB coherents and organized, but we'll increase it some more for the Allied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

You could look at the focus Pacific mod. It has the Japanese start with ironman forces and the allies are enhanced also.

Thanks, I'll check it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

2) Oh dear. This is the most important part of the game, pilot selection, whether for training or action. You have to spend the time. Some pilots you raise like bonsai trees and save them up for a very special day.

I wish we could streamline this some more, to set automatic replacements taking the current strong skills of the squadron in account, like "this squadrons is ASW" "this attack bomber squadron needs low naval bombing NOT ground bombing" or "this squadron needs Search/NT/NB". Wishful dreaming...[8|]



Ian R -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/12/2020 9:46:56 AM)

3- rockets

At some point information was disclosed as to how the rocket device needed to be adjusted so that the rockets actually work in amphib assaults.

As far as I know, that change has been incorporated in most modded scenarios.



Andy Mac -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/12/2020 10:55:50 AM)

Ok withdrawal off has some unintended consequences LCU's not a major issue but Air Groups some need to withdraw to get the better later group so it can be a pain.

Also don't forget the 5k free Oil/Supply/Fuel and Resources the AI gets at Tokyo per day in this scenario you may want to remove that and replace it with on map LI and Resources so the allies can bomb it as it is now its not stoppable by a player



Ambassador -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/12/2020 12:32:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Ok withdrawal off has some unintended consequences LCU's not a major issue but Air Groups some need to withdraw to get the better later group so it can be a pain.

Also don't forget the 5k free Oil/Supply/Fuel and Resources the AI gets at Tokyo per day in this scenario you may want to remove that and replace it with on map LI and Resources so the allies can bomb it as it is now its not stoppable by a player

Withdrawal : I didn’t think about that. I’d rather go through the list to remove ship and LCU withdrawal dates, and add some restricted training group in the US then.

We’re discussing those free supply/fuel/oil currently, whether to replace them by on-map production or not, and doing the same with China. Last game, he thoroughly crushed me there, so we plan on increasing the Chinese supply, and setting forts at level 6 at least at each base.



Alfred -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/12/2020 4:16:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ad1.

How is "disbanded ships' AA" false? Four years ago we had this bug which made merchant ships automatically gain huge exp while shooting AA guns when disbanded.

If you play the Allies, go to your ship list in Pearl Harbor and see which ships spent OP (operation points) during the Jap attack. If AV Curtiss with her 646 AA rating is not on top of the list, then she is probably sunk. You should find that xAKLs with 0.303 AAMG have spent 0 points, since the ceiling on their AAMGs is 1700 feet, and only a handful of Jap divebomber drop bombs from 1000 feet.

Hi, maybe I misunderstood one of Alfred's post, but the "false" was in relation with the 50% automatic contribution. I know they do use their AA, at least when doing a port strike when ships get attacked (even if I don't know if there's a penalty to their contribution). I probably wasn't clear enough that my question really is about contributing AA during airfield or ground strikes.


You are probably thinking of this thread (and links contained within it) on flak.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3100412&mpage=1&key=flak�

Note the significance of whether the anchored ships are attacked or not in a Port Attack mission.

Alfred



fcooke -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/12/2020 5:34:33 PM)

I have a sudden desire to acquire a bonsai tree. or re-set up my fish tank.



Ambassador -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/12/2020 6:53:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

ad1.

How is "disbanded ships' AA" false? Four years ago we had this bug which made merchant ships automatically gain huge exp while shooting AA guns when disbanded.

If you play the Allies, go to your ship list in Pearl Harbor and see which ships spent OP (operation points) during the Jap attack. If AV Curtiss with her 646 AA rating is not on top of the list, then she is probably sunk. You should find that xAKLs with 0.303 AAMG have spent 0 points, since the ceiling on their AAMGs is 1700 feet, and only a handful of Jap divebomber drop bombs from 1000 feet.

Hi, maybe I misunderstood one of Alfred's post, but the "false" was in relation with the 50% automatic contribution. I know they do use their AA, at least when doing a port strike when ships get attacked (even if I don't know if there's a penalty to their contribution). I probably wasn't clear enough that my question really is about contributing AA during airfield or ground strikes.


You are probably thinking of this thread (and links contained within it) on flak.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3100412&mpage=1&key=flak�

Note the significance of whether the anchored ships are attacked or not in a Port Attack mission.

Alfred

Yes, that’s the one.

What I understood (but I might be mistaken, English is not my native language) is the following :
- if the attack is port attack, ships have at most 50% chance to be attacked
- if ships are attacked, their AA will be eligible to fire on the attacking airplanes
- if ships are not attacked, they sit idle
- there is no confirmation regarding an eventual penalty on their AA contribution
- given all the above, the saying about ships contributing flat out 50% of their AA is a myth, as reality (as in, actual game code) is far more random

What I failed to get an answer from that reading (and lots of others threads), was that :
- do the radars on anchored ship contribute to detect the raid (and if so, only in port strikes or all other attacks in the hex)
- does the die roll about attacking ships or not happen before the first phase of the AA (so do attacked ships fire on the planes with their 5in/38 DP guns and similar)

I’m starting to get the feeling that ships in port would absolutely not help ground or airfield strikes...



RangerJoe -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/13/2020 1:42:18 PM)

You might also want to increase the production of the early Wildcat models to indicate that their decided to hire more workers and have the factories work more shifts. This should help increase the possible tempo of early American carrier operations and/or increase the effectiveness of the land based Navy and Marine air units.

I would also suggest a simple upgrade with a time of 0 days to increase the American carrier capacity when the F4F-4 Wildcat is carrier deployed to indicate the increased aircraft carrying capacity due to the folding wings.



Alfred -> RE: Returning player - various questions (6/13/2020 4:00:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


...I’m starting to get the feeling that ships in port would absolutely not help ground or airfield strikes...


A very sound feeling.[:)]

Terrestrial facilities are defended by terrestrial assets. The air missions Ground/Airfield/Port/City Attack are all attacking terrestrial facilities; abstracted facilities in a 46 statute mile hex at that. It is why a Port Attack at best has only a 50% chance of attacking disbanded ships because the disbanded ships are not necessarily disbanded where the docks and piers are located.

A base itself is defended by the terrestrial assets located in situ and those assigned specifically to defend it (eg LRCAP). In AE ships themselves do absolutely nothing by themselves, they have to be in a TF to accomplish anything. Hence to utilise naval assets to defend a base from a naval threat they have to be in a TF "assigned" for that specific task.

Alfred



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.735352