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: Admiral's Edition Map Thread

 
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: Admiral's Edition Map Thread Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/2/2008 6:16:55 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline 		Andrew, does this mean that these large atolls will show up as 2 bases on the map? IE Kwajalein and Roi-Namur. Twice as much to defend, and twice as much to neutralize for an attack if it is the case.


_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 331
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/2/2008 8:26:43 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Andrew, are there going to any small air bases between Whyalla and Kalgoorlie to facilitate transferring short ranged fighters between SE Oz and Perth? I find it hard to believe that the RAAF was unable to shift Hurricanes from one coast to the other without placing them aboard ships.

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 3/2/2008 8:27:40 PM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 332
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/3/2008 1:44:27 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Andrew, does this mean that these large atolls will show up as 2 bases on the map? IE Kwajalein and Roi-Namur. Twice as much to defend, and twice as much to neutralize for an attack if it is the case.



Yes. Two bases in separate, adjacent hexes.

Andrew

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 333
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/3/2008 5:46:07 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Andrew, are there going to any small air bases between Whyalla and Kalgoorlie to facilitate transferring short ranged fighters between SE Oz and Perth? I find it hard to believe that the RAAF was unable to shift Hurricanes from one coast to the other without placing them aboard ships.


The RAAF only had 1 Hurricane.

Put them on a train, they would arrive on the East Coast overnight.

Ceduna would be the only base between Kalgoorlie & Whyalla and was an RAAF AOB.


< Message edited by JeffK -- 3/3/2008 5:47:25 AM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 334
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/3/2008 7:33:19 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Well, if in reality they only had one more airfield on that route that's all they should get. Oh well...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 335
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/3/2008 1:39:42 PM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Ceduna would be the only base between Kalgoorlie & Whyalla and was an RAAF AOB.



Ceduna is included. So is Esperance.

Andrew

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 336
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/7/2008 9:41:28 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Will we see river movement?


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 337
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/8/2008 2:22:09 PM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: pad152

Will we see river movement?




There are a few "navigable" rivers that can accommodate ships up to 15,000 tons. Navigation along smaller rivers is not possible (as currently).

Andrew

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 338
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/8/2008 5:03:49 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Will we see river movement?




There are a few "navigable" rivers that can accommodate ships up to 15,000 tons. Navigation along smaller rivers is not possible (as currently).

Andrew


Hmm Littoral Warfare...

I assume we're going to have River patrol boats?


_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 339
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/8/2008 8:22:35 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Will we see river movement?




There are a few "navigable" rivers that can accommodate ships up to 15,000 tons. Navigation along smaller rivers is not possible (as currently).


In CHS 2.08 I can send barges from Shanghai to Nanking but, not to Ichang or ChungKing!



(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 340
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/8/2008 11:59:57 PM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Will we see river movement?




There are a few "navigable" rivers that can accommodate ships up to 15,000 tons. Navigation along smaller rivers is not possible (as currently).

Andrew


Hmm Littoral Warfare...

I assume we're going to have River patrol boats?



No river patrol boats. Remember it is only the biggest of rivers that are navigable, and the navigable stretches are only short. The longest of them is the Yangtse, which is navigable all the way to Hankow.

Andrew

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 341
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/9/2008 12:01:05 AM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: pad152

In CHS 2.08 I can send barges from Shanghai to Nanking but, not to Ichang or ChungKing!


That is as designed - the Yangtse is only navigable as far as Nanking on my current WitP map.

Andrew

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 342
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/10/2008 5:02:20 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		Does this mean that the Columbia river to Portland, Oregon is closed and that is not a port city?

Edit, I may have misinterpreted your post as the Yangtze was the only navigable river.

< Message edited by Buck Beach -- 3/10/2008 5:05:35 PM >

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 343
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/10/2008 11:29:29 PM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Does this mean that the Columbia river to Portland, Oregon is closed and that is not a port city?


No, Portland is still a port.

Andrew

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 344
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/11/2008 4:36:23 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Does this mean that the Columbia river to Portland, Oregon is closed and that is not a port city?


No, Portland is still a port.

Andrew




Afterall it is named PORT-land...

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 345
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/17/2008 4:02:55 AM   
Flying Tiger

 

Posts: 496
Joined: 3/11/2008
From: ummmm... i HATE that question!
Status: offline 		Is Nadzab included as a seperate base from Lae? Lae itself was never very suitable for airstrips - Nadzab on the other hand is perfect. Both should be included seperately. In 1944 a highway was built connecting Lae to Nadzab, previously only a track - not sure how you work that in game terms.

Is Gove included (east of Darwin)? One of the best protected (and biggest) deep water harbours in Australia, but never developed because even today there is no all weather road to it! Was a smallish fighter strip (but could have been much bigger if needed) and large PBY base.

Is Goroka included (highlands of PNG). a track (at best!) should connect it to Nadzab. No port (obviously!!) and only size 1 airfield (no heavy bombers). BUT... it should be NON malarial - too high for mosquitoes. It was not a significant base at any point in the war (too difficult to supply), but japs were there until at least 1943, and it could add some interesting options.

Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!


(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 346
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/17/2008 7:01:20 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Will we see river movement?




There are a few "navigable" rivers that can accommodate ships up to 15,000 tons. Navigation along smaller rivers is not possible (as currently).

Andrew


Hmm Littoral Warfare...

I assume we're going to have River patrol boats?



No river patrol boats. Remember it is only the biggest of rivers that are navigable, and the navigable stretches are only short. The longest of them is the Yangtse, which is navigable all the way to Hankow.

Andrew


Please note although the Yangtse is very long and wide its quite shallow and very shallow at times of the year - I know I have been on it all the way to Wuhan then on to Chonqing- barges yes - most others no
M

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 347
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/17/2008 8:20:07 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Will we see river movement?




There are a few "navigable" rivers that can accommodate ships up to 15,000 tons. Navigation along smaller rivers is not possible (as currently).

Andrew


Hmm Littoral Warfare...

I assume we're going to have River patrol boats?



No river patrol boats. Remember it is only the biggest of rivers that are navigable, and the navigable stretches are only short. The longest of them is the Yangtse, which is navigable all the way to Hankow.

Andrew


Please note although the Yangtse is very long and wide its quite shallow and very shallow at times of the year - I know I have been on it all the way to Wuhan then on to Chonqing- barges yes - most others no
M



So basically you're saying that anything with a deeper drought than a flat bottom river boat (IE Panay) would likely bottom out on the Yangtse?


_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 348
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/17/2008 8:48:53 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		Yes from Wuhan up river only shallow drafts allowed - its still a very long way

M

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 349
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/18/2008 4:11:48 AM   
Herrbear


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

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

...

Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!




IIRC bases are malaria free if combined air and port = 10.

(in reply to Flying Tiger)
Post #: 350
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/18/2008 2:15:04 PM   
Gen.Hoepner


Posts: 3645
Joined: 9/4/2001
From: italy
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

...

Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!




IIRC bases are malaria free if combined air and port = 10.

That rule never worked unfortunately




_____________________________

[image]http://yfrog.com/2m70331348022314716641664j [/image]

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 351
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/18/2008 2:44:46 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner


quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

...

Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!




IIRC bases are malaria free if combined air and port = 10.

That rule never worked unfortunately





I've noticed this, too.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Gen.Hoepner)
Post #: 352
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/18/2008 3:45:04 PM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

Is Nadzab included as a seperate base from Lae? Lae itself was never very suitable for airstrips - Nadzab on the other hand is perfect. Both should be included seperately. In 1944 a highway was built connecting Lae to Nadzab, previously only a track - not sure how you work that in game terms.


Nadzab is not currently included, but I might change that.

quote:

Is Gove included (east of Darwin)? One of the best protected (and biggest) deep water harbours in Australia, but never developed because even today there is no all weather road to it! Was a smallish fighter strip (but could have been much bigger if needed) and large PBY base.


Gove is included.

quote:

Is Goroka included (highlands of PNG). a track (at best!) should connect it to Nadzab. No port (obviously!!) and only size 1 airfield (no heavy bombers). BUT... it should be NON malarial - too high for mosquitoes. It was not a significant base at any point in the war (too difficult to supply), but japs were there until at least 1943, and it could add some interesting options.


No plans to include Goroka, but Wau is included.

quote:

Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!


I don't look after the code, just the map graphics and the base list. This would be best posted in the land thread. I basically agree with the reasoning, by the way.

Andrew

(in reply to Flying Tiger)
Post #: 353
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/18/2008 3:49:20 PM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: cavalry
Please note although the Yangtse is very long and wide its quite shallow and very shallow at times of the year - I know I have been on it all the way to Wuhan then on to Chonqing- barges yes - most others no
M


This is how the Yangtse is represented on the AE map:

- A series of coastal hexsides links Nanking to the Pacific, so ships of any size can reach Nanking (just as they can on my current WitP map).

- Series of navigable river hexsides between Nanking and Hankow. Only ships of 15,000 tons or less can cross navigable river hexsides.

- Normal river hexsides, uncrossable by ships, upstream from Hankow. So TFs cannot move past Hankow.

Andrew

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 354
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/18/2008 6:42:20 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline 		Andrew, will your map art make clear the differences of the various parts of the Yangtse?

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 355
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/19/2008 6:30:11 AM   
Flying Tiger

 

Posts: 496
Joined: 3/11/2008
From: ummmm... i HATE that question!
Status: offline
quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear



quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

...

Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!





IIRC bases are malaria free if combined air and port = 10.

That rule never worked unfortunately



2 problems:
1. the rule does not work!!
2. The rule does not make sense!! Yes, if a unit is IN COMBAT (ie. guys are spending their time crawling through swamps with leeches in their ears and snakes in their boots, getting bitten by a million mosquitoes, etc, etc, etc...) then there needs to be a morale penalty. BUT if the unit is happily living out the war in some small remote base (maybe a port 0, AF 0 - so max of 3 and 3) they should not be penalised - they are sleeping in huts under mosquito nets, spending their days catching waves (and the odd fish), and DDT has killed all the local bugs. Sounds like a holiday to me!! So i think the combined port+AF total of 10 is wrong - 6 should be fine - for NON combat units NOT in combat.

any arguments? (and yes, i know i was exaggerating the conditions slightly, but you get the picture...)

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 356
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/19/2008 7:49:10 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline 		So what do you suggest when one side is in a 3 - 3 base and the other guy is in the same hex...but no fighting occurs today ...but it does on Wednesday...but not on thursday and maybe resumes on Saturday?

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Flying Tiger)
Post #: 357
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/19/2008 1:32:48 PM   
Andrew Brown


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

ORIGINAL: mlees

Andrew, will your map art make clear the differences of the various parts of the Yangtse?


The different types of river are drawn differently, so hopefully it won't be too confusing.

Andrew

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 358
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/19/2008 6:00:45 PM   
mlees


Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

Andrew, will your map art make clear the differences of the various parts of the Yangtse?


The different types of river are drawn differently, so hopefully it won't be too confusing.

Andrew


Thank you, sir.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 359
RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread - 3/20/2008 2:01:17 AM   
Flying Tiger

 

Posts: 496
Joined: 3/11/2008
From: ummmm... i HATE that question!
Status: offline
quote:

So what do you suggest when one side is in a 3 - 3 base and the other guy is in the same hex...but no fighting occurs today ...but it does on Wednesday...but not on thursday and maybe resumes on Saturday?


Try to picture the reality of the situation.... if opposing units are occupying the same lump of coral then they can be considered 'in combat' even if they are not actively shooting at each other - the guys are forced to spend their days and nights sitting in foxholes or on patrol and a a result getting bitten by mozzies, eaten by scorpions, and generally feeling irritated - thus a morale penalty. If on the other hand the particular lump of coral is secure then the majority of personnel can be assumed to NOT be 'suffering' in this way - thus no penalty. Make sense?? 

(in reply to mlees)
Post #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition Map Thread Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   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

1.563