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: New Version of Ironman Nasty

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/7/2014 11:30:39 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		AndyMaC,

Been hooked on IronBabes C for a while, but decided to give this a try again.

A little confused on what is the correct "most recent" version.

I have a "Nasty Version 5" that is scenario 10. I started it up over the weekend.

I also seem to have one that is a scenario 60....any idea what this is?

Is the version 5, scenario 10 the correct one?

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 61
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/7/2014 4:02:45 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		The 60, that's THE scenario. Death, blood and tears...

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 62
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/8/2014 3:36:18 PM   
Peever


Posts: 196
Joined: 3/17/2002
From: Minnesota
Status: offline 		I think scenario 10 was added to the list in the last official patch right? The one newest one though is #60.

_____________________________

"Sergeant the Spanish bullet isn't made that will kill me," Bucky O'Neil seconds before receiving a fatal shot to the head at the battle of San Juan Hill.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 63
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/8/2014 3:51:39 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Thanks guys.

I'll take a look at 60.

I had already started 10 and it is pretty well over the top with a first turn CV strike on Seattle along with invasions of Coal Harbor, Midway, Johnston and Hilo as well as infiltrators in Burma and India.

All this in addition to the Pearl strike.

Is 60 even beyond this?

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Peever)
Post #: 64
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/8/2014 4:37:04 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		The 60 is the 10 in steroids.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 65
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/9/2014 2:40:34 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		Those dacoits in Burma are ridiculous. They can practically clear the country out by themselves. ;-)

To me the big issue is the robust commerce raiding. This scenario requires a lot of micromanagement of convoys to avoid losing all of your merchies and tankers in three months. Those far southern borders are not immune.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 66
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/9/2014 11:07:13 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		+1. Dacoits rules

Andy, im dissapointed, its 15 january 1942 and in still hold java, singa, bataab and manila. But half CDN is under attack ( poor canadians ).

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 67
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/9/2014 2:06:53 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline 		Hopefully, Andy is working on an updated version of Allied Ironman ... Nasty, Nasty

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 68
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/10/2014 5:52:10 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I am not sure how to make that one nastier maybe add some more BB's or a few more CVE' in late war or perhaps a few more Cruiser/Carruiers

Anyway thanks to everyone that sent a save in much appreciated a big help has anyone got a game going where the AI didn't go for SOPAC strategy ??

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 69
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/10/2014 6:11:36 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		January,26. Im being invaded at Aus, tahiti, cdn, alelutianas, new guinea, line islands... Looks like i got the "attack everywhere " script.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 70
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/10/2014 6:45:21 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Hmmm ok thanks

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 71
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/10/2014 6:49:12 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Now serioulsy: BBs dont give more headaches to the allied player, and the CVE fall to the british and dutch SS. Some CL "uber raider" would be more troublesome.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 72
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/11/2014 2:22:32 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I am not sure how to make that one nastier maybe add some more BB's or a few more CVE' in late war or perhaps a few more Cruiser/Carruiers
[/quote
CAn you point a link, or report, the Nastiest Allied Ironman. Cannot figure out if I have it or not ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 73
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/11/2014 8:30:39 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		I was thinking an invasion by Germans out of Canada, or the Afrika Korps popping out of northern India would be pretty cool. Actually, I shouldn't be giving Andy any ideas.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 74
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/11/2014 10:19:30 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

I was thinking an invasion by Germans out of Canada, or the Afrika Korps popping out of northern India would be pretty cool. Actually, I shouldn't be giving Andy any ideas.

Cheers,
CC


Manstein at Vancouver, Rommel on Karachi... Hummm, too easy with those wonderful replacement rates and no experienced troops.

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 75
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/11/2014 10:56:32 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		Remind me of an old board game I have titled Tomorrow the World.

Predicated on the assumption that Germany conquered Europe and then went rampaging across the globe.

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/7625/tomorrow-world

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 7/11/2014 11:56:52 AM >

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 76
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/11/2014 11:05:43 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		lol

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 77
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/12/2014 6:10:30 PM   
Califvol


Posts: 135
Joined: 11/8/2002
From: The Land of Yore
Status: offline
I am still in Apr '42. My comment is (besides GREAT Scenario, THANK YOU! ) Too many airplanes and carriers. When you have a seven carrier TF sailing in your rear, your options are limited to run away; not much of a give and take game when that happens. On the other hand, make them seven BB's, CA's, raiders- far different story, even with the limited Allied OOB there are options beside run and hide. There also maybe too many killer gnats (B3N5 very small graphic, hence killer gnat). They are great as raiders, but they are showing up more and more in my game as the primary bomber for invasions. I suppose that is a result of code since they are based off the very ships that go into invasion TF's.

So, change up the mix to more surface and less air would be my suggestion.

P.S. I see no reason why the Bismarck can't be in game. Yes, it was sunk before Dec 7. So, what? This is a fantasy OOB game.


_____________________________

Why am I sharing my opinion? Because I am such a special snowflake that others need my knowledge. What…there are like a billion snowflakes? Oh, well isn't that special.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 78
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/12/2014 6:25:30 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Califvol
P.S. I see no reason why the Bismarck can't be in game. Yes, it was sunk before Dec 7. So, what? This is a fantasy OOB game.


Tirpritz? Graf Zeppelin? I haven't run into either yet. I wanted to see Italians in the Indian Ocean...

(in reply to Califvol)
Post #: 79
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/14/2014 3:52:34 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		I ran across a DD or CL the other day that sounded pretty Italian to me. I need to see if I can find it on the sunk list.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 80
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/15/2014 7:41:13 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		What you mean there are Regia Marina ships in the Orbat surely not......

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 81
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/15/2014 7:42:42 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Guys would I do that to you honestly do you think I would include fictional Italian naval vessels the I find the lack of trust disturbing......

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 82
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/15/2014 8:48:16 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		I find a lack of safe hubs to OZ even more disturbing. On the plus side my anzac cruisers have never sank so many ships with so many jap troops at so faster time. Churcjill would be proud of them.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 83
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/16/2014 10:34:10 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		AndyMac,

How about a Paratroop drop on Ankang by Japan on day one or two? That would be a pain for the Chinese to deal with!



(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 84
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 7/19/2014 9:16:54 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		I have found the answer to the scen: reliable USN torpedoes. With soo many targets my silent service gets lots of kill per day. On the other side, once INA troops get ashore im done and there is no choice but flee.

Ps: suppling oz is a PITA.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 85
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 8/1/2014 4:18:42 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		A couple of thoughts to give this a bump: I'm now at Dec 31, 1942 and my offensive progress is slow. All IJN CVs and all CVLs but one are afloat as the AI doesn't do as many partial CV raids as it did in previous versions (it has done some, but my CVs have been elsewhere and thus unable to take advantage of superior force). My movements are somewhat slow as I expect the full and righteous wrath of the KB to strike at any moment. OZ is cleared except the central north and Normanton, and I'm gearing up to take Moresby, Horn and the Tulagi cluster. An occasional AMC hits the Cape Town-OZ supply run, but it's not a big issue. Christmas and points north and west, except for the Hawaiian Islands, are still in IJ hands. I'm experimenting with supply and fuel runs from Cristobal to Rura Tira or Hiva Oka or whatever that Gauguin-reminiscent island is).

The AI has lost a few BBs and other surface units gallivanting around Tahiti, although they have taken a toll on SBDs and TBFs stationed there.

One question: Why so many new bases in Burma?

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 86
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 8/1/2014 8:51:49 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		To allow me to hopefully better script the AI's defence of that region

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 87
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 8/5/2014 10:03:30 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline 		Andy -

Have just returned from my summer job, in the Colorado Mountains, driving a rafting bus on the Arkansas River. My newer i7Intell stays home; the older AMD warhorse goes with me (lots of lightening strikes...).

The AMD was stellar the past eight weeks - I continued to play scn 50 DBB Ironman NN quick and dirty port.

Unfortunately, much to my surprise, when I set up the AMD at home, it died on me - no signal in to the monitor. So, back to the shop it goes - with all my current game saves.

Sooo, in the meantime, (and despite the fact that I just bought Command Ops Battles from the Bulge and two expansions [on sale]), I will fire up your Scn 60 and give it a whorl. If it is nastier than scn 50, I will not be disappointed...<grin>

Gotta go to work at 0430 tomorrow morning (it's been nice sleeping in till 0700); but the party is over. Still have time to get a turn in.

Ironman Forever Mac

< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 8/5/2014 11:05:44 PM >

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 88
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 8/5/2014 10:35:58 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline 		I was messing around with game starts and discovered something fairly interesting.

I normally always play 2 day turns vs the AI.

I started a game up with 1 day turns instead, and the game is much, much easier. The early amphib operations at Pearl can be intercepted and hurt in 1 day turns, while in 2 day turns it is a done deal and very nasty.

Also, I was able to save the CA/DMS force that steams to Pearl. Normally it is savaged by KB planes.

Finally, I was able to sink a small CV and several BB below Pearl by having the Yank CVs steam there, meeting up with the CA/DMS force. I wasn't really gaming the system, but simply trying to save the Yank CVs.

And finally in Seattle the BBs in port survived.

So, if you want a greater challenge, play 2 day turns.

(in reply to Mac Linehan)
Post #: 89
RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty - 8/5/2014 11:42:53 PM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I was messing around with game starts and discovered something fairly interesting.

I normally always play 2 day turns vs the AI.

I started a game up with 1 day turns instead, and the game is much, much easier. The early amphib operations at Pearl can be intercepted and hurt in 1 day turns, while in 2 day turns it is a done deal and very nasty.

Also, I was able to save the CA/DMS force that steams to Pearl. Normally it is savaged by KB planes.

Finally, I was able to sink a small CV and several BB below Pearl by having the Yank CVs steam there, meeting up with the CA/DMS force. I wasn't really gaming the system, but simply trying to save the Yank CVs.

And finally in Seattle the BBs in port survived.

So, if you want a greater challenge, play 2 day turns.


Lowpe -

I will take your advice, tighten my belt (have always done one day turns) and set the game for two day turns - on "Hard".

Have always wanted to try two day turns, never had enough testosterone...<grin>

Will get back to you.

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: New Version of Ironman Nasty Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   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

4.172