Port and AF Build Size Refresher (Full Version)

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



Message

Tanaka -> Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/9/2021 9:37:13 PM)

Coming back to this game after a long while and need a refresher on build sizes.

2(0) port/AF vs 2(2) port/AF. What is the difference if they are both size 2 ports/AFs? The 2(2) is built and the 2(0) is not?

Is a 2(0) port/AF already a size 2 port/AF or is a 2(0) just a potential spot to build up to a size 2 port/AF?

In other words is it better to land at a 1(1) port than a 2(0) port because the 1(1) has been build up but the 2(0) port has not been built?

Or is 2(0)already a size 2 port? And if it is already size two then why is it not a 2(2)at game start?





Oddball67 -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/9/2021 9:48:48 PM)

2(0) : the port is 2, it can be built up tu 0+3 = 3
2(2) : the port is 2, it can be built up tu 2+3 = 5
1(3) : the port is 1, it can be built up tu 3+3 = 6



RangerJoe -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/9/2021 9:59:42 PM)

Naval support will not work at a base with a (0) initial port, not even if it is built up. That is, if I remember correctly.



Tanaka -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 1:25:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oddball67

2(0) : the port is 2, it can be built up tu 0+3 = 3
2(2) : the port is 2, it can be built up tu 2+3 = 5
1(3) : the port is 1, it can be built up tu 3+3 = 6


Ah yes thanks for the reminder. So it's just +3 for everything then? 1(0) : the port is 1, it can be built up tu 0+3 = 3 as well?

For the 2(0) the first two SPS builds are just to get to three and mean nothing then?



Tanaka -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 1:25:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Naval support will not work at a base with a (0) initial port, not even if it is built up. That is, if I remember correctly.


Thanks! But you can still build up to level 3 from a level (0)?



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 1:54:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Naval support will not work at a base with a (0) initial port, not even if it is built up. That is, if I remember correctly.


Correct, it is something that slipped in inside a patch, and no-one told MichaelM before he retired.



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 1:57:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Naval support will not work at a base with a (0) initial port, not even if it is built up. That is, if I remember correctly.


Thanks! But you can still build up to level 3?


Yes, it should build to 3. Don't forget there are a couple of islands (Howland Is being the one likely to be important) with no port number at all, so no port can be built.



rustysi -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 1:59:47 AM)

So, to be clear here, the numbers #(#) represent the, # = current size of the base, and (#), the SPS of the base. SPS being the Standard Potential Size of the base. Bases may be built to the SPS+3. A #(0) port or airfield may be built to a maximum of size 3, or 3(0). While a #(2) port or airfield may be built to a maximum of size 5, or 5(2).



RangerJoe -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 2:10:56 AM)

For some reason, on my current map in my current game, Baker Island can have no port while Howland Island can have a port.



Tanaka -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 2:16:37 AM)

Thanks for the reminders guys! If everything can be built to level 3 then why doesn't everything start at (2)? Are those first two levels just extra time?



Tanaka -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 2:17:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Naval support will not work at a base with a (0) initial port, not even if it is built up. That is, if I remember correctly.


Correct, it is something that slipped in inside a patch, and no-one told MichaelM before he retired.


Ah interesting hate that he left us he and AndyMac were keeping this game alive! Last one that will ever be made like this!



Tanaka -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 2:20:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

For some reason, on my current map in my current game, Baker Island can have no port while Howland Island can have a port.


Interesting another bug that was missed?



Tanaka -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 2:21:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

So, to be clear here, the numbers #(#) represent the, # = current size of the base, and (#), the SPS of the base. SPS being the Standard Potential Size of the base. Bases may be built to the SPS+3. A #(0) port or airfield may be built to a maximum of size 3, or 3(0). While a #(2) port or airfield may be built to a maximum of size 5, or 5(2).


Roger that!



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 5:06:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

For some reason, on my current map in my current game, Baker Island can have no port while Howland Island can have a port.


In stock scenario 1, they are both type 01 locations - a port. With a listed Port SPS of '0'. So it must be something to do with map data. However, you are correct it is Baker which has the expand port button greyed out, not Howland, my bad. Norfolk island is the other one I remember.



RangerJoe -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 2:26:56 PM)

When a port or an airfield gets expanded past the maximum normal build level - that is, the extra levels up to three(3) levels - then the rate of building slows way down as it takes extra effort.

As the saying goes “The difficult we do immediately; the impossible takes a little longer” the training slogan of the Ordnance Department of the Army the training slogan of the Ordnance Department of the (US) Army.

https://quoteinvestigator.com/2015/06/10/impossible-longer/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CThe%20difficult%20is%20that%20which%20takes%20a%20little,the%20pages%20of%20the%20mass-circulation%20periodical%20%E2%80%9CReader%E2%80%99s%20Digest%E2%80%9D.



GetAssista -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 2:33:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka
Thanks for the reminders guys! If everything can be built to level 3 then why doesn't everything start at (2)? Are those first two levels just extra time?


Because (2) can be built to 5 though. Not to mention if you need exactly 3 port it is much easier to build (2) to 3 port, than to build (0) to same 3 port.
(0) locations need time to develop and have a lower limit, so every (x) has it's specifics



HansBolter -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 3:27:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Thanks for the reminders guys! If everything can be built to level 3 then why doesn't everything start at (2)? Are those first two levels just extra time?


You still aren't getting it.

No one stated that everything can be built to level 3.

What was stated, but perhaps not too clearly is that any base can be built up 3 levels above its (S)tandard (P)otential (S)ize, with a maximum level of 9.

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3. An SPS of (7) means you can build that base to level 9.

This applies to both Ports and Airfields. Building above the SPS requires additional resources and engineering time.



Tanaka -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 7:08:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Thanks for the reminders guys! If everything can be built to level 3 then why doesn't everything start at (2)? Are those first two levels just extra time?


You still aren't getting it.

No one stated that everything can be built to level 3.

What was stated, but perhaps not too clearly is that any base can be built up 3 levels above its (S)tandard (P)otential (S)ize, with a maximum level of 9.

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3. An SPS of (7) means you can build that base to level 9.

This applies to both Ports and Airfields. Building above the SPS requires additional resources and engineering time.


Very clear thank you sir! Boy am I rusty!



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 8:49:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3.


With a couple of exceptions - Baker Is and Norfolk Is, where no port building is allowed. This seems to be determined by map data, not the location data.



rustysi -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 9:55:13 PM)

quote:

Boy am I rusty!


Doesn't take long with this beast. Just a short time away to begin to tackle MWiF had me notice some loss of what I was doing.[8|]




Ambassador -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/10/2021 10:45:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3.


With a couple of exceptions - Baker Is and Norfolk Is, where no port building is allowed. This seems to be determined by map data, not the location data.

Weird, I have absolutely no problem building a port in Baker, and I don’t remember tinkering that hex with PWHEXE editor.[&:]

Well, it takes some time, as with any SPS 0 base, but it gets built up.

I even just checked the old Quiet China files, which I haven’t updated since installing the game, and Baker’s Port building option is available, so it’s not a matter of using some fixed database.



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 12:45:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

An SPS of (0) means you can build that base to level 3.


With a couple of exceptions - Baker Is and Norfolk Is, where no port building is allowed. This seems to be determined by map data, not the location data.

Weird, I have absolutely no problem building a port in Baker, and I don’t remember tinkering that hex with PWHEXE editor.[&:]

Well, it takes some time, as with any SPS 0 base, but it gets built up.

I even just checked the old Quiet China files, which I haven’t updated since installing the game, and Baker’s Port building option is available, so it’s not a matter of using some fixed database.



Ranger, like me, has the option to expand port "greyed out". The little button is absent.

What map are you using?




Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 1:17:22 AM)

[image]https://i.imgur.com/Tv4PNvn.jpg[/image]



GetAssista -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 1:32:33 AM)

Stock scenarios should have all bases buildable to +3 according to the rules, no exceptions. Mine stocks surely do for Baker

[image]local://upfiles/32892/3C265A413DB04C4EA28591F099A8A604.jpg[/image]



Alfred -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 2:07:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

[image]https://i.imgur.com/Tv4PNvn.jpg[/image]


This has nothing to do with the map.

Someone has changed Baker Island from a Base to an Airfield. It is not possible to build a port at an Airfield, only at a Base.

Alfred



Tanaka -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 2:18:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

[image]https://i.imgur.com/Tv4PNvn.jpg[/image]


This has nothing to do with the map.

Someone has changed Baker Island from a Base to an Airfield. It is not possible to build a port at an Airfield, only at a Base.

Alfred


Which scenario are we talking about here? Is this a bug in Stock Scenario 1 that can be corrected in the editor?



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 5:08:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

This has nothing to do with the map.

Someone has changed Baker Island from a Base to an Airfield. It is not possible to build a port at an Airfield, only at a Base.

Alfred



Not someone, something under the hood.

Here is the scenario location data in the editor of my game in progress - it is a type 01 port.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/wiX3eAr.jpg[/image]


Here is the base screen two days in, same game - still a type 01 port


[image]https://i.imgur.com/pYWLb5U.jpg[/image]


Here is the base screen under temporary IJ ownership in June 1943 - something has reset the base type to primary airfield.

[image]https://i.imgur.com/WwnSDE8.jpg[/image]





Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 5:42:22 AM)

I just opened as few archived saves to find the timing - the alteration from 'base' to airfield happened on the turn resolution of 23 December 1941.

Both Norfolk Is and Baker Is changed status, and both were still in allied hands at the time.



Tanaka -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 6:29:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

I just opened as few archived saves to find the timing - the alteration from 'base' to airfield happened on the turn resolution of 23 December 1941.

Both Norfolk Is and Baker Is changed status, and both were still in allied hands at the time.


So it is a bug then? Wonder if anyone knows how you would fix it? I'm starting a new game using AndyMacs Updated Scenario 1 and I wonder if it has the same issue?



Ian R -> RE: Port and AF Build Size Refresher (3/11/2021 6:36:22 AM)

Have a look on 24 December 1941 and see if it (or Norfolk Is) has changed type.

Ambassador is saying he has never had the problem, so it's all very mysterious at the moment.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.234375