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: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe

 
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: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/29/2009 3:24:28 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Yes, potentially it can be a hard road for the Japanese......but like in RL, the true indicator of success is based not on ground strength but on air and sea control. If one side has both of those, it largely doesn't matter how strong the ground forces are....eventually they will wither and die.

That being said.....yes, it is a challenge for the Japan player. I won't kid you. Historically, the Japanese GHQ hugely underestimated the strength of the Allied force occupying Guadalcanal and as a result their Infantry reinforcement of the area was piece meal and totally inadeqate to the task at hand.

The primary IJA reinforcement (ground) for 1942 constitutes two full divisions. This is easily matched by the two Marine divisions that appear in 42 but not as quickly. Additionally, the Americal army division is also present and, if paid for, can also be factored into the battle.

Not counting indepedant brigades and other LCU's, the IJA gets a further 2 divisions in Jan of 43, but by which time the Allies get get 1.75 more US army divisions themselves (+ other reinforcements) in addition to the two USMC divisions and the Americal division.

Overall, it's fairly even in terms of strength, until one counts the substantial Allied forces in Oz, which include several division's worth of troops. Worse, the historical time line favors the Allies in terms of their arrival. Overall, yes....troop levels in the game favor the Allies for the historical setup.

Factoring in these realities, + the string of USN ship and air reinforcements are why I judged Joe's strategy to be ultimately flawed. By waiting and waiting until he had his ducks "in a row", he was in essense playing into the Allied player's hands because by the end of 42, the Allies only get stronger and stronger while the reletive strength of the IJN, supporting it's army compatriots received it's greatest boost much earlier in the scenario.

To help balance things as well as to better represent historical realities (in RL one simply can't push everything forward), I implemented a rear area command structure which limit's the Allied player's ability to rush forward strong LCU's while the Japan side is weak (awaiting it's own troops)

Additionally, I have taken the recent step in equalling the VP for Port Morosby and Milne Bay to that of Lunga and Tulagi. Japan thus is given more flexability in pursuing it's strategy and the Allied player, constrained by limited PP's and logistics, has to content with what area to prioritize. Though i'm sure there's a person out there who will prove me wrong, for the most part Japan simply isn't strong enough to acomplish both objectives......counterattack in the lower Solomons, "and" capture New Guniea.

There is the WitP option of randomizing deployment dates for assets. This has the potential of shaking things up and providing a much greater challenge to players of the scenario. Havn't tested this yet but for those who want things more shaken up, its an option.

Having played the scenario many times now, i can assure you that if Japan achieves sea and air control around Lunga, that all the LCU's in the world won't help in the end. A base out of supply with more and more LCU's will only exponentially increase the burden of the side that tries to stuff a base with troops but fails to keep them supplied. In one past game back in stock days, I did this to Joe as the Japan side. Ultimately the starving Marines on Lunga base proved easy meat for my troops once they marched from Tass to Lunga due to the supply situation coupled with continuous air and sea bombardments. Siege also doesn't have to absolute....and the success of it will be dependant both on how well (and how lucky) the IJN assets are in battle along with how many LCU's are present on the forward bases. If the interdiction level is substantial, having an overabundance of LCU's forward can result in accelerating the degree of logistical decay. In this sense, the scenario bug that prevented me from pushing forward more infantry LCU's was beneficial in that by being restricted to a single USMC division, my logistical burden was 'eased'. A supplied force ultimately fights far better than one deficient of supply, even if larger.

As in real life, a player who holds his forces back only for specific operations as the Japan player ultimately did this round defeats himself. You have to be far more proactive and continuous as were the real life Japanese. Logistical constraints of course make it impossible to do this using the whole of one's assets, particularily heavy units, but then again neither did the real life Japanese do this for the very same reasons....and "continuous" doesn't imply "every turn" or even "every other turn". It simply means being alot more active than what one has seen in this PBEM. As Allied player i can assure you that Joe's 95% absence from the battlefield made my job very very easy in the long run. The situation i described in the last paragraph was acomplished by a far greater utilization of my assets in terms of turns actually witnessing assets (air and sea) in action.







< Message edited by Nikademus -- 6/29/2009 3:29:59 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Cribtop)
Post #: 181
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/29/2009 7:48:51 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 14, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Night Time Surface Combat, near Shortlands at 109,131, Range 25,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
E Harukaze
E Hatakaze, Shell hits 2, on fire
PB Shosei Maru, Shell hits 9, and is sunk
PB Sozan Maru, Shell hits 14, and is sunk
xAK Canberra Maru, Shell hits 19, and is sunk
xAK Kano Maru, Shell hits 16, and is sunk
xAK Keiyo Maru, Shell hits 16, and is sunk
xAK Tatumiya Maru, Shell hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Wales Maru, Shell hits 22, and is sunk
xAK Ikuta Maru, Shell hits 14, and is sunk
xAK Kasyu Maru, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
xAK Sansei Maru, Shell hits 10, and is sunk
xAK Tangyang Maru, Shell hits 16, and is sunk

Allied Ships
CA Australia, Shell hits 1
CA Canberra, Shell hits 1
CL Leander
CL Boise, Shell hits 1
DD Jarvis
DD McCall
DD Dunlap
DD Drayton, Shell hits 1
DD Lamson
DD Case
DD Shaw
DD Perkins, Shell hits 1



Reduced sighting due to 53% moonlight
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions and 53% moonlight: 12,000 yards
CONTACT: Allies radar detects Japanese task force at 35,000 yards
Range closes to 30,000 yards...
Range closes to 25,000 yards...
Allies open fire on surprised Japanese ships at 25,000 yards
CL Boise fires at E Hatakaze at 25,000 yards
CA Australia fires at E Harukaze at 25,000 yards
CL Boise fires at PB Sozan Maru at 25,000 yards
CL Boise fires at PB Shosei Maru at 25,000 yards
CA Australia fires at xAK Wales Maru at 25,000 yards
CA Australia fires at xAK Keiyo Maru at 25,000 yards
Range closes to 21,000 yards
CA Australia engages E Harukaze at 21,000 yards
CL Boise engages xAK Wales Maru at 21,000 yards
CL Leander engages xAK Wales Maru at 21,000 yards
CA Canberra engages xAK Sansei Maru at 21,000 yards
CA Canberra engages xAK Wales Maru at 21,000 yards
Range closes to 20,000 yards
CA Australia engages xAK Keiyo Maru at 20,000 yards
CA Canberra engages PB Sozan Maru at 20,000 yards
CA Australia engages xAK Wales Maru at 20,000 yards
CA Australia engages xAK Keiyo Maru at 20,000 yards
CA Australia engages xAK Canberra Maru at 20,000 yards
Range closes to 18,000 yards
CA Canberra engages xAK Wales Maru at 18,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Harukaze at 18,000 yards
CL Boise engages xAK Wales Maru at 18,000 yards
CA Canberra engages PB Shosei Maru at 18,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Sansei Maru at 18,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Kasyu Maru at 18,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Wales Maru at 18,000 yards
DD McCall engages xAK Wales Maru at 18,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages xAK Wales Maru at 18,000 yards
CA Canberra engages xAK Canberra Maru at 18,000 yards
Range closes to 17,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Hatakaze at 17,000 yards
xAK Wales Maru sunk by CL Boise at 17,000 yards
CL Boise engages PB Shosei Maru at 17,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Tangyang Maru at 17,000 yards
CL Boise engages xAK Sansei Maru at 17,000 yards
CL Boise engages xAK Kasyu Maru at 17,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Ikuta Maru at 17,000 yards
CA Canberra engages xAK Tatumiya Maru at 17,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Kano Maru at 17,000 yards
Range closes to 13,000 yards
CL Leander collides with DD Case at 109 , 131
CL Boise engages E Hatakaze at 13,000 yards
CL Boise engages PB Sozan Maru at 13,000 yards
DD Shaw engages xAK Sansei Maru at 13,000 yards
DD Case engages xAK Kasyu Maru at 13,000 yards
CA Canberra engages xAK Ikuta Maru at 13,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Keiyo Maru at 13,000 yards
Range closes to 11,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Harukaze at 11,000 yards
CL Leander engages xAK Keiyo Maru at 11,000 yards
CA Canberra engages xAK Kasyu Maru at 11,000 yards
DD Lamson engages xAK Tangyang Maru at 11,000 yards
DD Dunlap engages xAK Keiyo Maru at 11,000 yards
DD McCall engages xAK Canberra Maru at 11,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages xAK Sansei Maru at 11,000 yards
Range closes to 9,000 yards
xAK Kasyu Maru sunk by CA Canberra at 9,000 yards
xAK Sansei Maru sunk by CA Australia at 9,000 yards
CL Leander engages PB Shosei Maru at 9,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Keiyo Maru at 9,000 yards
DD Shaw engages xAK Tangyang Maru at 9,000 yards
DD Lamson engages xAK Keiyo Maru at 9,000 yards
DD Drayton engages xAK Tangyang Maru at 9,000 yards
DD Dunlap engages xAK Tangyang Maru at 9,000 yards
DD McCall engages xAK Canberra Maru at 9,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Canberra Maru at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 10,000 yards
CA Canberra engages xAK Keiyo Maru at 10,000 yards
CL Boise engages E Harukaze at 10,000 yards
CL Boise engages xAK Tangyang Maru at 10,000 yards
CL Boise engages PB Shosei Maru at 10,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Keiyo Maru at 10,000 yards
DD McCall engages xAK Ikuta Maru at 10,000 yards
DD Case engages xAK Tangyang Maru at 10,000 yards
DD Drayton engages xAK Keiyo Maru at 10,000 yards
DD Dunlap engages xAK Keiyo Maru at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 6,000 yards
CA Canberra engages xAK Ikuta Maru at 6,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Harukaze at 6,000 yards
xAK Keiyo Maru sunk by CL Leander at 6,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Tatumiya Maru at 6,000 yards
DD Shaw engages xAK Tangyang Maru at 6,000 yards
DD Case engages xAK Tangyang Maru at 6,000 yards
DD Lamson engages xAK Ikuta Maru at 6,000 yards
DD Drayton engages xAK Tatumiya Maru at 6,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages xAK Ikuta Maru at 6,000 yards
Range increases to 7,000 yards
CL Boise engages E Hatakaze at 7,000 yards
CA Australia engages E Harukaze at 7,000 yards
CA Canberra engages PB Sozan Maru at 7,000 yards
CL Leander engages xAK Canberra Maru at 7,000 yards
DD Drayton engages xAK Ikuta Maru at 7,000 yards
DD Shaw engages xAK Canberra Maru at 7,000 yards
xAK Tatumiya Maru sunk by DD Case at 7,000 yards
DD Dunlap engages xAK Canberra Maru at 7,000 yards
DD Jarvis engages xAK Canberra Maru at 7,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Hatakaze at 9,000 yards
CA Australia engages E Hatakaze at 9,000 yards
CL Boise engages E Hatakaze at 9,000 yards
PB Shosei Maru sunk by CA Canberra at 9,000 yards
DD Lamson engages xAK Canberra Maru at 9,000 yards
DD Dunlap engages xAK Ikuta Maru at 9,000 yards
DD McCall engages xAK Canberra Maru at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 10,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Hatakaze at 10,000 yards
CA Australia engages E Harukaze at 10,000 yards
PB Sozan Maru sunk by CA Canberra at 10,000 yards
CL Leander engages xAK Ikuta Maru at 10,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Ikuta Maru at 10,000 yards
DD Drayton engages xAK Canberra Maru at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Hatakaze at 8,000 yards
CA Australia engages E Hatakaze at 8,000 yards
CL Boise engages E Hatakaze at 8,000 yards
DD McCall engages xAK Canberra Maru at 8,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Kano Maru at 8,000 yards
DD Shaw engages xAK Canberra Maru at 8,000 yards
DD Case engages xAK Canberra Maru at 8,000 yards
DD Lamson engages xAK Kano Maru at 8,000 yards
DD Dunlap engages xAK Kano Maru at 8,000 yards
xAK Canberra Maru sunk by DD McCall at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Hatakaze at 9,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Harukaze at 9,000 yards
DD Case engages xAK Kano Maru at 9,000 yards
DD Perkins engages xAK Kano Maru at 9,000 yards
DD Drayton engages xAK Kano Maru at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 10,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Hatakaze at 10,000 yards
CA Australia engages E Harukaze at 10,000 yards
CL Boise engages xAK Kano Maru at 10,000 yards
DD Case engages xAK Kano Maru at 10,000 yards
DD Dunlap engages E Harukaze at 10,000 yards
DD McCall engages xAK Kano Maru at 10,000 yards
Range closes to 8,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Hatakaze at 8,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Harukaze at 8,000 yards
xAK Kano Maru sunk by CL Boise at 8,000 yards
Range increases to 9,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Hatakaze at 9,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Harukaze at 9,000 yards
DD Shaw engages E Harukaze at 9,000 yards
DD Case engages E Harukaze at 9,000 yards
DD Lamson engages E Harukaze at 9,000 yards
DD Dunlap engages E Harukaze at 9,000 yards
Range increases to 14,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Hatakaze at 14,000 yards
CA Australia engages E Harukaze at 14,000 yards
Range increases to 21,000 yards
CA Canberra engages E Hatakaze at 21,000 yards
CA Australia engages E Hatakaze at 21,000 yards
Range increases to 27,000 yards
CA Australia engages E Harukaze at 27,000 yards
Range increases to 34,000 yards
Task forces break off...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Could it be that surface engagements now are the total opposite from what they were in WITP? While in WITP the average from such an engagement would probably be three AKs sunk it seems to be that in AE the TFs get annihilated most of the times. At least thatīs what many surface combats showed. I donīt want to judge from just this engagement and donīt take it as critism (which seems to happen by many people all the time lately).

_____________________________


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 182
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/29/2009 9:42:12 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Could it be that surface engagements now are the total opposite from what they were in WITP? While in WITP the average from such an engagement would probably be three AKs sunk it seems to be that in AE the TFs get annihilated most of the times. At least thatīs what many surface combats showed. I donīt want to judge from just this engagement and donīt take it as critism (which seems to happen by many people all the time lately).


The Japanese TF was docked at Shortlands (unloading stuff). Sitting ducks and surprised. I think that many AE results you have seen in this forum by now are (to a certain extend) a result of AE players//designers/testers not being completely familiar with the new AE rules (they behave as if they were playing stock WITP).

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 183
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/29/2009 9:57:58 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
Could it be that surface engagements now are the total opposite from what they were in WITP? While in WITP the average from such an engagement would probably be three AKs sunk it seems to be that in AE the TFs get annihilated most of the times. At least thatīs what many surface combats showed. I donīt want to judge from just this engagement and donīt take it as critism (which seems to happen by many people all the time lately).


The Japanese TF was docked at Shortlands (unloading stuff). Sitting ducks and surprised. I think that many AE results you have seen in this forum by now are (to a certain extend) a result of AE players//designers/testers not being completely familiar with the new AE rules (they behave as if they were playing stock WITP).




thx for your answer

_____________________________


(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 184
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/29/2009 10:55:45 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
The Japanese TF was docked at Shortlands (unloading stuff). Sitting ducks and surprised. I think that many AE results you have seen in this forum by now are (to a certain extend) a result of AE players//designers/testers not being completely familiar with the new AE rules (they behave as if they were playing stock WITP).


Four cruisers + fairly heavy DD escort surprise an essentially unescorted merchant convoy at anchor.

If there wasn't slaughter, I'd be surprised!

_____________________________


(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 185
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/29/2009 10:56:41 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
E Harukaze


"E"? What's that stand for?


_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 186
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/29/2009 11:27:07 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
E Harukaze


"E"? What's that stand for?



"Escort", Japanese ship classification.

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 187
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/29/2009 2:16:45 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		yup....usually an old destroyer no longer fit for frontline duties.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 188
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/29/2009 9:40:01 PM   
greg_slith


Posts: 490
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline 		Nik, How bad was the CL Leander and the DD Case damaged in their collision? How often have you seen collisions?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 189
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/30/2009 3:21:20 AM   
Cribtop


Posts: 3890
Joined: 8/10/2008
From: Lone Star Nation
Status: offline 		Nik,

Thanks for the detailed response. I agree with you on the importance of air/sea control and its effect on logistics outweighing the number of LCUs. I am very pleased to hear about the VP equalization of PM/Milne with Lunga/Tulagi. I think this allows the Japanese player to pick a spot to concentrate his air/sea/ground force while the Allies must defend both areas. This plus the scenario's design to prevent the Allies from pulling a PP infused Zergling rush in the beginning alleviates my concerns.

PS - In fact, I'm thinking of playing this scenario as the Japanese (err, once I have AE, that is).

(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 190
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/30/2009 2:51:46 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

Nik, How bad was the CL Leander and the DD Case damaged in their collision? How often have you seen collisions?


Leander didn't come off too badly. Case was substnatially damaged. 23+ SYS and 11% engine damage (some major) After patch up she'll head to Pearl for permanent repairs. This was the first collision of the current game for me IIRC.




_____________________________


(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 191
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/30/2009 4:32:53 PM   
greg_slith


Posts: 490
Joined: 9/14/2004
Status: offline 		I see that the collision was smack in the middle of the friggin' huge combat report. Will we be seeing all of that? I have heard that some of the "CAP doing something" and "DD SinkUs manouvering" stuff will not be visable to the player. What will and won't be seen?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 192
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/30/2009 4:57:11 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		collison events are reported in the combat replay. You might miss it though if you have your naval combat msg delay set to short though.

_____________________________


(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 193
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/30/2009 5:20:00 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Collisions during surface combat are reported as they happen on the combat screen and are included in the saved combat report.

Collisions during routine TF movement are reported as they happen on the combat events scroll and are included in the saved combat events report.



(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 194
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/30/2009 6:26:23 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ecwgcx

I see that the collision was smack in the middle of the friggin' huge combat report. Will we be seeing all of that? I have heard that some of the "CAP doing something" and "DD SinkUs manouvering" stuff will not be visable to the player. What will and won't be seen?

Yeah, we need a "concise" and "verbose" switch - my eyes just glaze over looking at those reports. I want information, not facts.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to greg_slith)
Post #: 195
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/30/2009 8:09:19 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 838
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

a Japanese AM manuvering ...(Ev 56 / Sp 18)
a Japanese CL manuvering changes...(Ev 52 / Sp 12)
a Japanese APD manuvering changes...(Ev 57 / Sp 21)
a Mutsuki class APD manuvering changes...(Ev 58 / Sp 13)

CA Ashigara manuvering well...(Ev 31 / Sp 31)
CA Ashigara manuvering changes...(Ev 33 / Sp 32)
CA Ashigara manuvering changes...(Ev 36 / Sp 32)
CA Ashigara manuvering changes...(Ev 28 / Sp 34)
CA Ashigara manuvering changes...(Ev 30 / Sp 33)
CA Ashigara manuvering changes...(Ev 36 / Sp 27)
CA Ashigara manuvering changes...(Ev 29 / Sp 37)
CA Ashigara manuvering changes...(Ev 33 / Sp 34)



Is this part telling us something important as far as the game mechanics is concerned?

I think I've seen a note we won't see any of these info during the game, but...
Can somebody explain how it makes a difference in the real game?
For example... we see that that "a Mutsuki class APD manuvering changes.".. Does it mean that the change is permanently applied to all ships of the class??
How come?
Also, infos like the "manuvering changes...(Ev 28 / Sp 34)"... then the values rise, then drop... changes seem to be random, not only increasing (due to experience in avoiding bombs gained?) but sometimes decresing...
What does "Ev" and "Sp" mean?

< Message edited by viberpol -- 6/30/2009 8:27:50 PM >

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 196
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 6/30/2009 8:24:01 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I believe this will be removed. It was there for debugging purposes. EV = Evasion. SP= Speed.

These values do change a bit as a ship attempts to evade attacks. There are so randoms involved to represent the fact that at different times a ship is more vulnerable than at other times depending on what it's trying to do within the course of the battle.

_____________________________


(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 197
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 7/4/2009 2:19:29 AM   
doc smith

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		I have a question - not sure if I should raise it here or elsewhere.  When an air mission gets to target, they go in regardless of weather.  I can't see pilots doing dive bombing or torpedo runs in a severe storm/thunderstorm.  There would be more ops loses, a priori, attacking in adverse weather.  Can missions be aborted given the weather?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 198
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 7/6/2009 4:51:11 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		yes.

_____________________________


(in reply to doc smith)
Post #: 199
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 7/6/2009 10:42:17 PM   
moose1999

 

Posts: 788
Joined: 10/26/2006
Status: offline 		Will we be informed if a mission was aborted due to weather or other things - so we're not just left wondering why on earth those damn B17s didn't do what they were told?

_____________________________

regards,

Briny

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 200
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 7/7/2009 12:38:08 AM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: briny_norman

Will we be informed if a mission was aborted due to weather or other things - so we're not just left wondering why on earth those damn B17s didn't do what they were told?



Sometimes....but you may have to pay attention or actually read reports.

_____________________________

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 moose1999)
Post #: 201
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 7/7/2009 2:59:37 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		also, there's still visual ques in the form of the "rainy hex" graphic on the map.



_____________________________


(in reply to moose1999)
Post #: 202
RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe - 7/11/2009 3:20:52 AM   
doc smith

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Yeah, but those visual cues don't show up when planning a strike (I'd need to see storm clouds + wind direction to guess whether the planes will hit the hex during a storm). I think there needs to be either 1) a rule that air strikes abort given X, Y, Z weather conditions, or (logical "or") 2) a way to pre-set all air strikes such that WHEN such weather conditions are in a target hex, planes will abort (unless you throw a flag and let them attack duing storms but not during severe storms). Implicitly, knowing the consequences of attacks during bad weather would help one make decisions.

Thanks for any thoughts.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 203
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Guadalcanal AE AAR Allied NoJoe Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
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

6.500