Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance Page: <<   < prev  57 58 [59] 60 61   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/4/2009 2:57:22 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
May want to review this unit, scenario 1, 1.0.1.1083:

Unit 5841 "Tapanoeli Gsn Bn", -perhaps- should be "Sibolga Gsn Bn"

Thanks!
fbs

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 1741
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/4/2009 8:44:11 AM   
Weidi72


Posts: 61
Joined: 6/10/2006
Status: offline 		I 've got some units were the headquarter is lost. There's a "unknown" now. Scen6.

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 1742
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/4/2009 11:22:16 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		I have a question about the 3" Mortars, devices 1040 to 1042. It seems you wanted more 3" production later in the war, but I am wondering how this upgrade works. Is it like normal weapons, so when they are 'upgraded' I end up with a whole lot of device 1040 3" Mortars in the pool, or is it an upgrade like we have for squads, where devices sent back to the pool are immediately upgraded ? And just out of curiosity, why is the 1041 device there ? No build rate, starts and ends 'production' on the same date, it doesn't look to useful.

(in reply to Weidi72)
Post #: 1743
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/5/2009 1:54:50 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline 		Scenario 1, 1.0.1.1083:

Both the Cavite USN Base Force and Manila USAAF Base Force are depleted of engineers. So there are no engineers in Manila to build me a fort -- is that right?

This lack of engineers is extensive on the Phillippines, by the way: all bases have little or no engineering.

Cheers
fbs

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 1744
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/5/2009 2:22:27 PM   
Dutch_slith


Posts: 330
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline 		Tapanoeli is the correct designation!

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 1745
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/6/2009 4:06:14 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Guys I am on Vacation for next three weeks - currently nursing a hangover in Las Vegas !!!

I have intermittent email contact and internet access especially for weeks in September when I will be in Canada.

keep posting feedback and I will consolidate it on my return

Viva las Vegas !!!

Andy

(in reply to Dutch_slith)
Post #: 1746
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/6/2009 4:08:36 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Smeuldurs quite correct I wanted to steadily increase 3" mortar production so its the same device and it upgrades over time - you will end up with two pools of devices I may take another look at it for patch 2

Re the one in the middle it was a error but I ran out of time to fix it it should be irrelevant (at least I hope so)

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1747
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/6/2009 4:27:17 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Scenario 1, 1.0.1.1083:

Both the Cavite USN Base Force and Manila USAAF Base Force are depleted of engineers. So there are no engineers in Manila to build me a fort -- is that right?

This lack of engineers is extensive on the Phillippines, by the way: all bases have little or no engineering.

Cheers
fbs


The US has one powerful Engineer unit at start -- the 14th Philippine Scouts at Clark. It is at battalion strength, but can expand into a regiment.

There are base forces at Bataan, Clark and Manila (x2) that will get a small number of engineers, if allowed to grow.

Between the end of December and mid-January three construction battalions (reservists mobilizing) will arrive on Bataan.


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 1748
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/10/2009 9:02:18 PM   
Montbrun


Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Unit 5172 - 275th USAAF Base Force - permanently attached to SWPAC ("white letters" v. "yellow letters").

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 1749
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/11/2009 11:22:36 AM   
Rainer79

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline 		1.00.84/ scen 1

The 4th Border Defense Fortress at Kotou has a few invisible guns (see screenshot). The unit TOE has the same problem.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 1750
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/11/2009 11:27:26 AM   
Rainer79

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 10/31/2008
From: Austria
Status: offline 		Also the other border forts do have 2 entries of 0 IJA infantry squads in their TOE while they currently possess none there. Is that intentional?






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Rainer79 -- 9/11/2009 11:36:41 AM >

(in reply to Rainer79)
Post #: 1751
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/11/2009 5:29:16 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK guys patch 1 is now out there with new AI scripts (beta/Offical are identical for Japanese AI) so if playing v AI japan on the beta its identical.

I am going to need feedback to try and keep making it better - feedback against either side is good

(in reply to Rainer79)
Post #: 1752
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/11/2009 5:37:55 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Andy - are those new scripts picked up mid-game? Started before beta. don't want to give you irrelevant feedback.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1753
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/12/2009 11:05:58 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Unit 5172 - 275th USAAF Base Force - permanently attached to SWPAC ("white letters" v. "yellow letters").


I think its HQ should be 100 West Coast instead of 104 SW Pac.

(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 1754
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/12/2009 11:58:09 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary D

The 99th and 100th Indian Brigades posted to Colombo start scenario 6 with a morale of zero.




That is OK. From the editor manual on page 36. "Morale indicates the overall morale of the ground unit‘s personnel. This should be between 0 and 99. If a 0 is entered, the unit will assume the standard experience for a ground unit given the nationality and time of arrival."

(in reply to Gary D)
Post #: 1755
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/13/2009 12:19:14 AM   
Jonathan Pollard


Posts: 584
Joined: 2/25/2007
From: Federal prison
Status: offline 		The absence of partisans on Hainan island could be an issue.  I read that partisan activity there was extensive.  I found a map of Japanese objectives in China for December 1941 that includes operations on Hainan Island on a par with the Hong Kong area.



_____________________________



http://www.ussliberty.org/index2.html
https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/but-sir-its-an-american-ship-never-mind-hit-her-1.5492908

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 1756
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/13/2009 1:00:46 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		Question about Madras Fort, in it's TOE, there are 100 naval support squads, but even though replacements are on and many are in the pools, they aren't getting any. Looking at the editor, it is has an initial 100 motorized support squads in the same slot as the naval has in the TOE (weapon 8). Could this be the cause of them not upgrading and if it is, is this WAD ?

Also noticed that the 2/11 Armoured Car Bn (Australian unit) starts with device 1078 Marmon Herringtons, but has device 1094 Marmon Herringtons in its TOE.

Edit so I don't have to double post:

Found out that it is possible to 'skip' certain device upgrades, for example NZ militia upgrading straight to the NZ inf 43'. However, in other test this wouldn't work (for example, device 921 radar to device 1048 has device 922 and 923 in between). Interesting with this path is that the final device is available 6/42, but intermediary stages are only available 1/44. Is this WAD to eliminate the shortcut ?

< Message edited by Smeulders -- 9/13/2009 1:18:13 PM >

(in reply to Jonathan Pollard)
Post #: 1757
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/13/2009 8:59:22 PM   
Montbrun


Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline 		v1084d - Device 6082 - 3rd RAN Base Force - has British "colors" (tan) rather than Australian "colors" (green).

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 1758
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/14/2009 2:24:38 AM   
Dr. Duh

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		v1084-Scen 1

There are several land units at Manila and Clark Field that start the scenario with movement orders already.
These movement orders are to either Bataan or Clark Field, yet the move direction on all these units is East, and they do in fact attempt to move to the east.

By reissuing the order (reset the destination), they start moving correctly towards the destination.

(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 1759
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/14/2009 2:30:07 AM   
Dr. Duh

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 9/21/2004
Status: offline 		I wasn't going to look through 100's of pages of posts, so I don't know if this is a known issue or not -

Since "Asiatic Fleet" is a subordinate HQ to a restricted HQ, it itself is restricted, however units reporting to it are not restricted. I have a feeling this is not intended. Is it a problem that you can't make subordinate HQ's restricted?

There is a similar issue with the AirHQ in Singapore.

(in reply to Dr. Duh)
Post #: 1760
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/18/2009 10:28:25 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		RAAF OTU Canberra has NZ Militia, rather than CMF Militia.

(in reply to Dr. Duh)
Post #: 1761
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/18/2009 12:40:19 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

The absence of partisans on Hainan island could be an issue.  I read that partisan activity there was extensive.  I found a map of Japanese objectives in China for December 1941 that includes operations on Hainan Island on a par with the Hong Kong area.


Interesting. Thanks.

Andrew

(in reply to Jonathan Pollard)
Post #: 1762
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 9/19/2009 9:38:12 AM   
loricas

 

Posts: 217
Joined: 3/29/2008
From: Scandiano(RE), Italy
Status: offline 		two AI stupid action: Wake: they unload here unit unit and again unit without attack\bombard: it' s mid april 42 and allied defense are only civil worker: i pick out the marine defence to see this help AI

Mandalay: i tried a surronding action (first time in this game)allied entrnched in city. Huge Japan AI army (four japan 1 thai division plus indipenden artillery 60000men) siege: a burma battalion (250 men) turn around cutting supply: no reaction for the main japan army and the few rear troop (a thai division) that go away from enemy

(i have save if needed)

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 1763
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/20/2009 7:10:54 PM   
Oliver Heindorf


Posts: 1911
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Hamburg/Deutschland
Status: offline 		Device # 322 USA Engeneer Squad is the only inf squad which has the option to be build switched YES.

That doesnt seem to be right becasue all other inf squads have the option selected NO.


version 1084e

< Message edited by Oliver Heindorf -- 9/20/2009 8:43:33 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 1764
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/21/2009 2:10:49 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I can verify that a HQ's naval support is not being counted on the base display screen.  I've got a HQ at Pearl with naval support and it isn't included in the total, and another at Aden and not counted there either.

Also, the AI landed a division (!!) at Koumac but never 'took' the base.  It's still listed as Free French and this has been several weeks after the landing.  I did sink a pile of the ships in the invasion TF but my recon says the bulk of the division is ashore, although probably with scarce supply levels.  Why haven't they taken the base yet?  I have no LCU's there at all.

(in reply to Oliver Heindorf)
Post #: 1765
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/21/2009 3:42:57 PM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1800
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline 		If they don't have supplies then it will not attack. Also is naval support in cbt mode.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 1766
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/21/2009 6:37:31 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Yes all my HQ's are in combat mode; the one at Pearl Harbor has been there since the game began.

As for the division not attacking due to loss of supplies, it's hard to imagine that no supplies made it ashore if the entire unit did before I sank the TF.  It's done nothing at all and so far the AI's made no effort to evacuate or resupply it either.

(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 1767
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/21/2009 9:30:05 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		del

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 9/21/2009 9:31:46 PM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 1768
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/22/2009 7:03:22 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Yes all my HQ's are in combat mode; the one at Pearl Harbor has been there since the game began.


Some naval HQs aren't providing support correctly. I posted a save in the tech support and Don Bowen confirmed it was a known issue and will be fixed. If I understand correctly, it's command HQs that are affected.

Here's the link
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2243783


(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 1769
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance - 9/22/2009 3:27:41 PM   
AvG

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 5/4/2005
From: The Netherlands
Status: offline 		1rst Campaign.
Most of Japanese landunits have understaffed Support.
Is this meant to be ?
The manual states that the new AE-support unit are bigger in size, but the program does NOT understand that and seems not to be able to work correctly with that statement.

AvG

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 1770
Page:   <<   < prev  57 58 [59] 60 61   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance Page: <<   < prev  57 58 [59] 60 61   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.641