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: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/10/2004 12:22:56 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		36th UK Division I am fairly sure it served in Burma why is it not shown ?

Alos I think Indian Army replacements are to low and British are to high given contraints on British replacements)

I would like to see it at 55 or 60 for Indian as I cannot believe Australians get 80 given population and mid to late war industry it strikes me as weird that Indian replacements are so low. (Alternatively change Orbat of Indian Army Divisons to have some British and Commonwealth (Ghurka) squads.

Andy

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 61
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/10/2004 2:31:06 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline 		Didn't know it was that small of a ML thought it might be a larger ML like one of the Dutch, if that's the case no problem then.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 62
Too much supply in too many bases - 11/10/2004 10:27:24 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		Well, as I've been harping over and over again, there are too many supply points lying around at base hexes that were no more than quaint little spots on Dec. 7th 1941. It has been mentioned by Matrix that because of AI issues, it is not possible to convert these bases to simple beach hexes (which is what most of them should be). But why weren't the supply point levels at these bases reduced at least to very low numbers?

Here's a preliminary list of the only island bases that should exist on Dec. 7th 1941. Preliminary because it may have a few errors, is unfinished concerning the Japanese, and it wasn't exhaustive concerning 'continental' bases in Asia and in North America. There are also corrections for fuel supply levels (these are from my readings on the subject so far like 'Oil and War' and 'Pacific War Revisited'). I also indicate the bases that should simply be beach hexes. It also corrects my earlier post about the 7th Marine Defense Batt. and indicates what units were actually present for the Allies in most of these islands where different from the current WitP setup.


Allies

Only the following militarily significant facilities existed on Dec. 7, 1941

Hawaiian Islands Group

Oahu (Pearl Harbor, etc.)
Only significant modification is the increase in the fuel points available on Dec. 7, 1941, to 610’000 (this represents the 4.5 million barrels available at the tank farm according to testimony at the Pearl Harbor attack hearings).


Central and South Pacific

Midway Islands

Wake

Guam

Johnston Island

Palmyra Island

Canton Island

American Samoa
Pago-Pago: A small refueling station and communications center. 7th Marine Defense Battalion (+) and 1st Samoan Marine Reserve Battalion present at start of war.
Upolu had a New Zealand company-sized defense force while Wallis was empty. Move 116th USN Base Force to SF.

Tongatabu
New Zealand base at beginning of war. One battalion of Tonga troops (442) with NZ cadre (Tongan Defense Force). No American units present. No airfield.

Fiji
New Zealand garrison. Move VMR-252 to SD.


Noumea
Australian garrison. Move SoPac to PH. Move 117th USN Base Force to Seattle. Move AK Surigao, AK Wawa and AP Royal T. Frank to SF.


Efate
A few Australian troops and a seaplane base (small seaplanes, not patrol-type). Create 4 Walrus 1/22 RAAF flight.


Bases in scenarios starting in Dec. 1941 that are reduced to no facilities
(port 0, airfield 0, no fuel, no supplies)
Christmas Is.
Makin Atoll
Tarawa Atoll
Apamama
Nauru Is. (Isn’t this a phosphate source? Resource production?)
Baker Is.
Nanomea Atoll
Nukufetau Is.
Funafuti Is.
Wallis Is.
Espiritu Santo
Koumac (New Caledonia)
La Foa (New Caledonia)
Norfolk Is.

Hex 77,89 should be undeveloped base Ocean Is.


New Guinea-Bismarck-Solomons


Hollandia

Lae

Salamaua

Port Moresby

Tulagi



Hex 53,89 should be an undeveloped base area (potential airfield 1). This was the location of the …. gold mines.



Bases in scenarios starting in Dec. 1941 that are reduced to simple port facilities
(port 1, airfield 0, no fuel, no supplies)

New Guinea
Sorong
Babo
Aitape
Madang
Wewak
Finschafen
Salamaua
Buna
Gili-Gili


Bismarck Archip.
Kavieng
Gasmata


Solomons
Tulagi
Shortlands





Bases in scenarios starting in Dec. 1941 that are reduced to no facilities
(port 0, airfield 0, no fuel, no supplies)

New Guinea
Sansopor
Manokwari
Noemfoor
Biak
Sarmi
Dagua
Hansa
Siador
Goodenough Is.
Kiriwina Is.
Woodlark Is.
Thursday Is.
Merauke


Bismarck Archip.
Admiralty Is.
Emirau Is.
Sag Sag
Talasea
Arawe


Solomons
Green Is.
Buka
Torokina
Buin
Vella Lavella
Munda
Russell Is.
Tassafaronga
Lunga




Dutch East Indies-British Borneo

Amboina

Kendari

Menado

Macassar

Kuching

Singawang

Pontianak

Brunei

Balikpapan

Tarakan

Samarinda

Lautem

Dili

Koepang

Lombok

Bali

Pamakasan

Malang

Soerbaja
Reduce available fuel drastically to 40000.

Madioen

Djokjakarta

Tjilitjap

Bandoeng

Batavia
Reduce available fuel to 40000.

Toelekbetoeng

Binkep

Sinkolen Is.

Padang

Palembang

Banka

Medang

Kuala




Bases in scenarios starting in Dec. 1941 that are reduced to simple port facilities
(port 1, airfield 0, no fuel, no supplies)
Aru
Morotai
Tomini
Miri
Jesselton
Sandakan
Waingapu
Maumere
Raba
Kragan
Merak
Toboali
Muntok
Jambi
Sabang






Bases in scenarios starting in Dec. 1941 that are reduced to no facilities
(port 0, airfield 0, no fuel, no supplies)
Namlea
Kai
Tenimbar
Bulla
Pomala
Pinrang
Makale





Philippines

Manila

Bataan

Clark Field

San Marcelino

Lingayan

Lamon Bay

Vigan

Laoag

Aparri

Tuguegarao

Naga

Legaspi

Iloilo

Cebu

Jolo

Cagayan

Davao

Cotabato

Zamboanga?




Bases in scenarios starting in Dec. 1941 that are reduced to simple port facilities
(port 1, airfield 0, no fuel, no supplies)

San Jose
Roxas
Ormoc
Tacloban
Guiuan
Tawi Tawi
Butuan
Dadjangas



Bases in scenarios starting in Dec. 1941 that are reduced to no facilities
(port 0, airfield 0, no fuel, no supplies)



Alaska

Juneau

Sitka Is.

Anchorage
Move NoPac to Seattle.

Kodiak Is.

Dutch Harbor

Nome



Bases in scenarios starting in Dec. 1941 that are reduced to simple port facilities
(port 1, airfield 0, no fuel, no supplies)



Bases in scenarios starting in Dec. 1941 that are reduced to no facilities
(port 0, airfield 0, no fuel, no supplies)

Cold Bay
Umnak Is.
Atka Is.
Adak Is.
Ogliuga Is.
Amchitka Is.
Kiska Is.
Attu Is.





Japanese

Central and South Pacific

Marcus Is.
Small airbase force should be available at start?

Bonin

Pagan

Saipan

Tinian
Small airbase force should be available at start?

Palau

Yap

Ulithi
Small naval base force should be available at start?

Wolaei


Truk

Eniwetok
Small airbase force should be available at start?

Ponape

Kwajalein


Wotje


Malolelap
Small airbase force should be available at start?




Bases in scenarios starting in Dec. 1941 that are reduced to simple port facilities
(port 1, airfield 0, no fuel, no supplies)

Tori Shima
Iwo Jima
Majuro




Bases in scenarios starting in Dec. 1941 that are reduced to no facilities
(port 0, airfield 0, no fuel, no supplies)

Satawal
Bikini
Rongelap
Kusaie
Namorik
Ebon
Mili

< Message edited by Pascal -- 11/10/2004 9:34:52 AM >

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 63
RE: Too much supply in too many bases - 11/10/2004 2:51:23 PM   
Andrew Brown


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

Very interesting information!

However aren't some of your proposed reductions a bit extreme? For example, is it really the case that established towns such as Anchorage and Juneau in Alaska have no functional ports or airfields?

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 64
RE: Too much supply in too many bases - 11/10/2004 3:19:38 PM   
strawbuk


Posts: 289
Joined: 4/30/2004
From: London via Glos
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

For example, is it really the case that established towns such as Anchorage and Juneau in Alaska have no functional ports or airfields?


Define functional - I think Pascal means able to handle a decent naval task force arriving in a hurry or all the gubbins needed to run significant air ops; sure Anchorage had a 'port' but so does tey Cornish fishing village I went on holiday to.

_____________________________



Twinkle twinkle PBY
Seeking Kido Bu-tai
Flying o' the sea so high
An ill-omen in the sky
Twinkle twinkle PBY
Pointing out who's next to fry

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 65
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/10/2004 3:49:45 PM   
asdicus

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline 		Re oob changes for 1.40 I would like to mention again my request for the removal of radar from Oi and Kitakami in 1941. I have mentioned my supporting evidence in a longer post under the old oob thread. To summarise those posts the Type 13 naval airsearch radar was only developed in 1943 and operational use began in early 1944. This radar (also called Type 3 mark 1 model 3) did not exist in 1941 at all. See books by Lacroix/Wells and Nakagawa for more information on japanese radar development and specification.

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 66
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/10/2004 6:14:51 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		Pry,

See the thread below called "Ops report showing reinforcements"

I didn't want to put it in here, because it isn't technically an OOB error. But I'd like you to look at it and if you like the idea, try to convince Matrix to allow you to implement it.

Thanks, bc

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 67
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/10/2004 6:24:45 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		BLIMPS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
O.K.,I know I asked for this before,and was told "No",(as it was not known how to move them around)..O.K.,how about assigning bases for the blimps,and giving them a static ZOC(much like the coastal defense units have).
The blimps would be player assignable,and given a range out to maybe 2 or 3 hexes with a "possibility" of enemy detection of so-much,maybe based on the size of the target?..
I believe this has merit as the U.S. had HUNDREDS of the blimps,divided into known squadrons,and they were used effectively for sub detection and convoy support,and maritime recon..
(Besides,I think with the GREAT icon art,a "blimp" unit would be a HOOT!)
BTW,if an enemy fighter unit was in that ZOC,it would of course also have a possibility of destroying said percentage of the blimp squadron..
The blimp units might even be limited to Pearl(after the initial attack),and the U.S. west coast,to prevent any "mis-use"?
Come on guys,have an open mind.....after all,they are historically correct and were WAY more prolific mileage and number wise than some of the other units in this game)..
http://www.americanblimp.com/blimps.htm
http://moffetthistoric.arc.nasa.gov/history/history9.html
and this site gives the squadron numbers and their base locations!:
http://www.bluejacket.com/usn_avi_ww2_blimps.html

< Message edited by m10bob -- 11/10/2004 11:54:17 AM >

_____________________________




(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 68
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/10/2004 7:01:41 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		I just went to this website and when I punched U.S.M.C. units on Dec 7th,it gave a good list of where even sub-units were stationed,(including China,Johnston Island,Canton Is.,etc..
http://www.bluejacket.com/

< Message edited by m10bob -- 11/10/2004 12:02:16 PM >

_____________________________




(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 69
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/11/2004 12:55:43 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline 		I would like to see filterable/switch combat animations where I could set the game to show only sub/naval/air-air/air-sea combat animations instead of on/off like it is now.
Also something for Kid's wishlist - display leaders with major stats sortable by what they are commanding, rank, available, land, air, naval. IE
R L I C Type
John Doe CAPT xx xx Arizona Naval
J Schmoe MAJ xx xx Available Land

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 70
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/11/2004 5:35:30 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		Soryu class Device 195 Ordinance was fixed for inital class, but not for upgrade classes 605 - 608

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 71
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/12/2004 5:22:54 AM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline 		The list below are the BB/CV/CVL/CA/CL built by the US during WWII that were:
a) Commissioned before the 1946 end of game
b) Could have reasonably been assigned to the Pacific
I find it extremely annoying that the game can go past Aug 45, but US ship reinforcements come to a screeching halt. Not very realistic, historically or otherwise.

Notes on the list below:
a) The names for several of the Essex Class CV's commissioned late are my best WAG. Given how the renaming of vessels after ones lost in battle mucked up the naming. I have tried to use the name given to the ship when it was laid down.
b) Cruisers were more difficult. I could not find the original planned name with sources I have at ahnd in Anchorage, AK.
c) For aircraft carriers I gave a 4 month lead time for post commissioning stuff like working up the air groups and transit time to the West Coast, since all of these ships were constructed at East Coast ports.
d) Some ships were recorded as showing up at Pearl Harbor instead of San Diego, but they probably wet through San Diego first. As such, some of the arrival dates are extrapolations (aka WAG).

Pennant Name Arrival Port
CV-2 Lexington 12/7/41 TF12
CV-3 Saratoga 12/7/41 PSNY
CV-6 Enterprise 12/7/41 TF8
CA-24 Pensacola 12/7/41 Convoy
CA-25 Salt Lake City 12/7/41 TF8
CA-26 Northampton 12/7/41 TF8
CA-27 Chester 12/7/41 TF8
CA-28 Louisville 12/7/41 TF
CA-29 Chicago 12/7/41 TF12
CA-30 Houston 12/7/41 Panay
CA-32 New Orleans 12/7/41 PH
CA-33 Portland 12/7/41 TF
CA-34 Astoria 12/7/41 SD
CA-35 Indianapolis 12/7/41 TF12
CA-36 Minneapolis 12/7/41 Patrol
CA-38 San Francisco 12/7/41 PH
CL-7 Raleigh 12/7/41 PH
CL-8 Detroit 12/7/41 PH
CL-10 Concord 12/7/41 SD
CL-12 Marblehead 12/7/41 MH
CL-46 Phoenix 12/7/41 PH
CL-47 Boise 12/7/41 Cebu
CL-48 Honolulu 12/7/41 PH
CL-49 St. Louis 12/7/41 PH
CL-50 Helena 12/7/41 PH
CL-9 Richmond 1/1/42 SD
CL-11 Trenton 1/1/42 SD
CV-5 Yorktown 3/1/42 SD
CL-43 Nashville 3/20/42 SD
CA-44 Vincennes 4/2/42 SD
CV-7 Hornet 4/15/42 SD
CL-51 Atlanta 5/1/42 SD
CL-53 San Diego 5/22/42 SD
CA-39 Quincy 6/19/42 SD
CL-54 San Juan 6/30/42 SD
CV-8 Wasp 7/1/42 SD
CL-52 Juneau 8/22/42 SD
CL-56 Columbia 11/21/42 SD
CL-57 Montpelier 11/30/42 SD
CA-45 Wichita 12/12/42 SD
CL-55 Cleveland 1/1/43 SD
CL-58 Denver 1/29/43 SD
CL-60 Santa Fe 3/15/43 SD
CA-68 Baltimore 4/15/43 SD
CV-9 Essex 6/2/43 SD
CL-63 Mobile 7/1/43 SD
CV-10 Bon Homme Richard 7/7/43 SD
CL-95 Oakland 7/16/43 SD
CVL-22 Independence 7/24/43 SD
CV-17 Bunker Hill 7/26/43 SD
CVL-23 Princeton 7/28/43 SD
CVL-24 Bellau Wood 8/9/43 SD
CL-80 Biloxi 8/15/43 SD
CL-62 Birmingham 8/25/43 SD
CV-16 Cabot 9/5/43 SD
CVL-25 Cowpens 9/13/43 SD
CVL-26 Monterey 10/20/43 SD
CVL-28 Cabot 11/8/43 SD
CA-69 Boston 12/10/43 SD
CVL-27 Langley 12/25/43 SD
CL-96 Reno 12/28/43 SD
CV-11 Intrepid 1/5/44 SF
CA-70 Canberra 1/25/44 SD
CA-71 Quincy II 1/26/44 SD
CV-18 Oriskany 2/24/44 SD
CV-12 Kearsarge 2/26/44 SD
CVL-29 Bataan 3/17/44 SD
CVL-30 San Jacinto 4/25/44 SD
CL-64 Vincennes 5/1/44 SD
CL-89 Miami 5/1/44 SD
CL-81 Houston II 5/15/44 SD
CV-13 Franklin 6/1/44 SD
CV-19 Hancock 8/10/44 SD
CL-97 Flint 9/15/44 SD
CV-14 Ticonderoga 9/19/44 SD
CL-65 Pasadena 10/1/44 SD
CL-103 Wilkes Barre 11/10/44 SD
CL-90 Astoria II 11/27/44 SD
CL-104 Atlanta 12/1/44 SD
CV-20 Benington 1/1/45 SD
CA-37 Tuscaloosa 1/10/45 SD
CL-86 Vicksburg 1/12/45 SD
CV-15 Randolf 1/20/45 SD
CA-72 Pittsburgh 2/1/45 SD
CL-98 Tucson 2/3/45 SD
CV-38 Shangri-La 2/7/45 SD
CL-66 Springfield 2/11/45 SD
CL-67 Topeka 3/25/45 SD
CL-87 Duluth 4/15/45 SD
CA-136 Chaicago II 4/20/45 SD
CL-91 Oklahoma City 4/26/45 SD
CL-101 Amsterdam 5/15/45 SD
CL-105 Dayton 5/15/45 SD
CV-31 Bon Homme Richard 5/17/45 SD
CA-73 St. Paul 5/30/45 SD
CA-74 Columbus 6/8/45 SD
CL-82 Providence 7/31/45 SD
CV-36 Antietam 8/24/45 SD
CV-21 Boxer 9/1/45 SD
CL-102 Portsmouth 9/12/45 SD
CL-92 Little Rock 9/15/45 SD
CV-39 Constellation 10/1/45 SD
CA-131 Fall River 10/12/45 SD
CL-40 Brooklyn 10/12/45 SD
CA-135 Los Angeles 11/3/45 SD
CA-31 Augusta 11/10/45 SD
CL-41 Philadelphia 11/12/45 SD
CA-75 Helena 11/15/45 SD
CA-132 Macon 11/30/45 SD
CA-130 Bremerton 12/15/45 SD
CL-42 Savannah 1/1/46 SD
CV-37 Valley Forge 2/1/46 SD
CL-119 Juneau II 2/15/46 SD

Other things I noticed:

All ships transiting from the Atlantic to Pacific made either Sand Diego or Peral Harbor their destination, not San Francisco. The only instance I can find that an East Coast warship ship went straight to San Farancisco was the intrepid after hitting a rock.

Sand Diego was the Primary West Coast training base. San Francisco, however, served as athe primary port of embarkation for bean, bullets, and black oil. The other major West Coast ports acted in a subsidiary role.

West Coast built ships should show up in the port where it was built. This applies to mostly to merchants, CVE's, DD's, and DE's. As a Example, in 1942/43 the following DD's were commissioned at Seattle (From Friedman's U.S. Destroyes book):
Seattle/Tacoma (Todd)
Benson Class:
DD493 - Carmick-12/28/42
DD494 - Doyle-01/27/43
DD495 - Endicott-02/25/43
DD496 - McCook-03/15/43
DD497 - Frankford-03/31/43
DD624 - Baldwin-04/30/43
DD625 - Harding-05/25/43
DD626 - Satterlee-07/01/43
DD627 - Thompson-07/10/43
DD628 - Welles-08/16/43
Fletcher Class:
DD554 - Franks-07/10/43
DD555 - Haggard-07/31/43
DD556 - Hailey-09/30/43
DD557 - Johnston-10/27/43
DD558 - Laws-11/28/43
DD559 - Longshaw-12/04/43
DD560 - Morrison-12/18/43

Primary Sources:
Friedman, Norman
U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History
U.S. Battleships: An Illustrated Design History
U.S. Cruisers: An Illustrated Design History
U.S. Destroyers: An Illustrated Design History

Terzibaschitsch, Stefan
Cruisers of the US Navy 1922-1962

Faltum, Andrew
The Essex Class Carriers

Pavlowski, Gareth L.
Flattops and Fletchings: A History of American Aircraft Carriers

More to come....

Richard L. Martin
Professional Archaeologist and WWII Pacific War nut...

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 72
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/12/2004 9:39:01 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline 		More IJN OOB Notes:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=688919

_____________________________


(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 73
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/12/2004 8:13:36 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		Pry...I have a question about SC 12 & SC 14...
SC 14 - beginning 04 AUG 42 has No. 12 RAAF, No. 23 RAAF, No. 24 RAAF, and No. 25 RAAF all flying Wirraways. In the SC 12, beginning 28 JUN 43, all four are flying Vengeance DBs. Not sure, but in 1.21, all four were flying Boomerang IIs.

Still have problems with UMC F4F-4 which start the game on board and upgrade to F6Fs vice F4Us in both Scenarios. This could be because SC 14 UMC squadrons start, by and large, with F4F-3s, which upgrade to F4F-4s, and there is no way around the automatic upgrade of F4F-4s to F6Fs.

Also, in SC. 14, Midway starts the game with a Level 3 Port, yet in SC 12, 10 months later, the port is Level 2.

< Message edited by RevRick -- 11/12/2004 6:14:00 PM >

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 74
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/12/2004 8:43:45 PM   
Moquia


Posts: 174
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		I think the allies should get the option to use the AZON bomb. We need some precision bombing




Attachment (1)

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 75
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/13/2004 1:56:53 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The A6M3a cannot operate from a carrier.
This aircraft is in slot 8 of the database (using scenario#16). Only aircraft in slot 1-7 and 15-23 can operate from carriers, as per editor.

The upgrade path from A6M2 (slot3) to A6M3a (slot8) to A6M5 (slot5) takes the aircraft from carrier capable to not back to can.

IIRC slot 8 was blank in v1.2 and this aircraft was added in v1.3. It probably needs be moved to slot range 15-23 if can operate from carriers.

Michael

What is going to be done about the A6M3a issue? It only exists for those who started using a campaign with it in the db, but it will be an issue.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 76
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/13/2004 11:49:02 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline 		None of the Rufe Groups in Scen 15 Database have a Maximum Aircraft Number Assigned. I assume it should be 9. They are currently set at 0.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 77
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/13/2004 1:56:37 PM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		I wonder if the available slots for Japanese carrrier aircraft can be increased to cover the gap.

Michael

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 78
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/13/2004 2:02:52 PM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		In most of scenarios WITHOUT poduction, the build rate of the Japanese devices seem to set to zero.
Eg in #004, the build rate for all the "IJA Infantry" and other squads is zero.

Is by design or just in error?

Michael

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 79
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/13/2004 2:11:33 PM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline 		Data Collected

Rich and I are starting back to work on the data base this weekend, I will look at the A6M3a issue first and try to get you all an answer as quick as I can.

< Message edited by pry -- 11/13/2004 6:36:39 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 80
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/13/2004 5:04:04 PM   
Herrbear


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

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

None of the Rufe Groups in Scen 15 Database have a Maximum Aircraft Number Assigned. I assume it should be 9. They are currently set at 0.


According to the Editor manual, if the Max setting is 0, then the value will be determine by the unit's Group Class (page 25)

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 81
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/13/2004 6:03:26 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		I would suggest that the SB2U Vindicator be representative of the SB2U-3 as it is only used by the Marines. This model was developed for the U.S. Marine Corps which needed a dive bomber with longer range. A contract was signed on 29 September 1939 for 57 aircraft. The aircraft made its first flight on 10 January 1941 and deliveries to operations squadrons began in March 1941. The main difference is a longer range and the MGs are .50 and not .30. The version in the game mimics the -1 and -2 versions which were used by carriers. The specifications should be IMHO:

MS=243
CS=143
MA=23600
Climb=1070
Armor=1
End=470
Mx Ld=1000
Gun Value=6

Thank you for your consideration.

Sources : Donald, American Warplanes of WWII; Weale, Combat Aircraft of WWII and http://www.microworks.net/pacific/aviation/sb2u_vindicator.htm

< Message edited by Herrbear -- 11/13/2004 4:04:59 PM >

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 82
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/13/2004 9:08:40 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		First Kudos to Pry and Rich for the extensive oob corrections in 1.3 Excellent work guys.

Just a few things I have noticed that might be worth considering for 1.4

1) VSMB 231 (Vindacaters) should start the game on turn one aboard the Lex. Its the reason the Lex was heading to Midway in the first place. It currently arrives at PH in June 42 IIRC.

2) All the initial Sopac garrison fighter squadrons are missing from the oob. Specifically 67th FS (New Cal) 68th FS (Tonga) 70th FS (Fiji).

The 70th FS should be embarked one day out from SF on turn one or at least start the game at SF equiped with P-36s (upgrade to P-39s).

The 67th FS should arrive equiped with P-400s, the same time and at the same location as the Americal Division since it was historically embarked with the same convoy from the east coast.

The 68th FS should arrive at SF in Mid January equiped with P-40E.

Now the tricky part is these three independent squadrons were combined to form the 347th FG in October 1942. The 347th is in the game arriveing on Oct 42. IMHO since these squadrons actually were deployed in theater almost a year prior to the acitvation of the 347th and since each squadron was historically equiped with 3 different aircraft, it would preferable to remove the 347th from the oob and replace with the 3 independent squadrons.

(Source) USAAF in WWII

Thankyou for your consideration

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 83
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/13/2004 9:15:21 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		The 70th British Division in Scenerio 15 does not have an arrival date. Listed as 9999 in the database. I believe it arrived in theater in May 42 to garrison Ceylon.

Regards

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 84
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/13/2004 9:32:15 PM   
BlackVoid


Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline 		Maybe already on the list, but could not find in this thread:

Please revise japanese plane upgrade paths. Especially Oscar II should not be a final upgrade. It is not that hard in real life to convert from one fighter to another, so all aircraft should be able to upgrade to a later design (meaning 44-45 design, instead of 42).

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 85
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/15/2004 3:52:37 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline 		From my problem with air leaders being in command of ships. I noticed 2 OOB things but there maybe several more in Ver1.3 Scen15.
EW Grenfell (12065) arrival date 420201 should be 411206 or 411207 as SS Gudgeon is at start sub.
AK Sipora has RADM in charge J van Staveren (19075), should his rank be changed or another random leader placed in charge & his arrival date is 420301 should it be 411206 or 411207.

< Message edited by jcjordan -- 11/14/2004 8:13:28 PM >

(in reply to BlackVoid)
Post #: 86
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/15/2004 8:53:53 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Japanese CL - Oi Kitakami class has 20 type Torpedoes

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 87
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/15/2004 10:57:55 PM   
Arkady


Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Japanese CL - Oi Kitakami class has 20 type Torpedoes

it's a correct !

special cruiser for a night attacks

excerpt from http://www.combinedfleet.com/kitakami_t.htm

30 September 1941:
Sasebo. The modifications are completed, but only ten sets of Type 92 Model 3 quadruple mounts (shielded) were available for installation, a total of 40 tubes. The TT are arranged in two broadside rows of five, i.e. 20 per side.

Arkady

< Message edited by Arkady -- 11/15/2004 9:59:19 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 88
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/15/2004 11:01:35 PM   
Arkady


Posts: 1262
Joined: 5/31/2002
From: 27th Penal Battalion
Status: offline 		there are duplicates for 33rd Ftr.Sentai

see database entry for airgroups (scen #15) 75 and 192

Arkady

_____________________________


(in reply to Arkady)
Post #: 89
RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 - 11/16/2004 2:34:42 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		Ship number 7378 Ogalala is misspelled, should be Oglala.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

1.906