Hello. New guy with a few questions.

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Hello. New guy with a few questions.

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 >> Hello. New guy with a few questions.

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 2:59:19 AM

airtrooper

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/25/2005
Status: offline

First off HI

Just found out the computer version to my favorite board game does indeed existe .... assuming that its intentional and not a coincdance ... and had to get it as i was never able to find anyone willing to play the board game version.

I have been playing around with the game trying to learn how to play it but not wanting to start a new game untill the patch is out. Using the time lurking on this forum to help me with learning the game and I have a few questions.

First I have tried playing as the japanese and noticed that it is hard to attack Pearl harbour without getting my own carriers hit... best i have managed so far is to damage a lot of ships with minor damage to one carrier. I have even tried using that bug that was talked about in one of the posts but the best i can get using that is sinking 4bs and losing one of my own carriers ...only got this result by setting computer AI to easiest level if i set it to head to head the damage i do is close to what i get not using this bug. I have played around with the settings of the aircraft in the task force like altitudes, escort for fighters or sweep or naval attack ... naval than port or just port attack etc but cant reproduce the results that seem to be( at least from what i have read here) standard of sinking 2bs... i suspect that my problems are in how i set the attack heights as i might not understand exactly how they relate.

Maybe you change the starting compostion of the fleet? I have been using the ones that are programed to start by the ai and just change the aircraft orders.

Another thing i have been unable to learn the answer to is in regards to how to make use of captured ports. after capturing a new port i try to base the ships that landed troops there out of the port but they never go in.... i suspect it has to do with the need of support troops in place first. Is this guess correct? If it is another question comes to mind are these support troop units limited or is a new one put on the reinforcement list as soon as you capture the base? or do you get 1 new base support unit for x captured bases? Or are you SOL and only get the ones you are supposed to get no matter how many new bases you take.

My last question for now is to know the reasoning behind one of the game features. Why are the US carriers that get sunk given back after a year or so? It does not make sense to me to do this in that you would think that there is no spare shipyard capacity considering all the ships the allies get later in the war. Its all being used to build these ships that come later in the game and if they had the spare capacity to do this than it would have meant another carrier being built in that time frame even if the orginal carrier was not sunk.

Well thats all the questions for now... still trying to figure out this game so i might run into more in the future.

Post #: 1

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 3:08:47 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: airtrooper

My last question for now is to know the reasoning behind one of the game features. Why are the US carriers that get sunk given back after a year or so? It does not make sense to me to do this in that you would think that there is no spare shipyard capacity considering all the ships the allies get later in the war. Its all being used to build these ships that come later in the game and if they had the spare capacity to do this than it would have meant another carrier being built in that time frame even if the orginal carrier was not sunk.

Hi, and welcome to the forum.

This particular feature is because several Essex class carriers were built, named after ships that were sunk. Lexington, Hornet, Yorktown, and Wasp particularly. With this feature, these ships are not built. However, if you loose any prewar US CV, they will be. If you don't lose any prewar carriers, then the Allies actually will be 4 CVs short, but you have the potential to get 3 additional CVs. Figure it this way, in reality these ships were being built anyway. So if you lose 4 CVs, its as per history. If you loose all 6, then you can assume that the 2 additional ones are ones that were completed to late for WWII, but the game actually extends into 1946.

_____________________________

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 airtrooper)

Post #: 2

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 3:14:16 AM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

Welcome to the wacky world of WitP!

quote:

ORIGINAL: airtrooper

First I have tried playing as the japanese and noticed that it is hard to attack Pearl harbour without getting my own carriers hit... best i have managed so far is to damage a lot of ships with minor damage to one carrier. I have even tried using that bug that was talked about in one of the posts but the best i can get using that is sinking 4bs and losing one of my own carriers ...only got this result by setting computer AI to easiest level if i set it to head to head the damage i do is close to what i get not using this bug. I have played around with the settings of the aircraft in the task force like altitudes, escort for fighters or sweep or naval attack ... naval than port or just port attack etc but cant reproduce the results that seem to be( at least from what i have read here) standard of sinking 2bs... i suspect that my problems are in how i set the attack heights as i might not understand exactly how they relate.

Maybe you change the starting compostion of the fleet? I have been using the ones that are programed to start by the ai and just change the aircraft orders.

If you are losing a carrier it is because you are not hitting the airfields. My preferred setting, assuming you do not want to use a historic first turn, would be to set all the Kates on port attack and set the Vals on airfield attack. That way you won't get hit back. I would also set the Zeros to escort rather than airfield attack and 100 foot sweeps. This will save them from getting hit by flak and save you a bunch of good pilots

quote:

Another thing i have been unable to learn the answer to is in regards to how to make use of captured ports. after capturing a new port i try to base the ships that landed troops there out of the port but they never go in.... i suspect it has to do with the need of support troops in place first. Is this guess correct? If it is another question comes to mind are these support troop units limited or is a new one put on the reinforcement list as soon as you capture the base? or do you get 1 new base support unit for x captured bases? Or are you SOL and only get the ones you are supposed to get no matter how many new bases you take.

Ships can only be disbanded into ports size 3 or greater. Base force units are not tied to number of bases. You start out with so many and you will get more as reenforcements. But that is fixed by your reenforcement schedule, not the number of bases you have.

quote:

My last question for now is to know the reasoning behind one of the game features. Why are the US carriers that get sunk given back after a year or so? It does not make sense to me to do this in that you would think that there is no spare shipyard capacity considering all the ships the allies get later in the war. Its all being used to build these ships that come later in the game and if they had the spare capacity to do this than it would have meant another carrier being built in that time frame even if the orginal carrier was not sunk.

Oh no, not that question!

The designers argue that spare shipyard capacity would have been made available. They have no intention of changing it.

Again, welcome aboard. Happy sailing.

(in reply to airtrooper)

Post #: 3

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 3:37:39 AM

airtrooper

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/25/2005
Status: offline

Thanks for the answers.

First off regarding the last question it was more in the way of curiosity than wanting it changed. Forgot about the name change for the replacements.

Next second question.... ah of course i was trying to put them into a place that had a size 1 port. ( I figured i might not get all of them in there due to its small size but thought it would take a few ships at least)

with the first question I tried settings with my fighters all on escort all on sweep and half and half ( with 50 percent cap settings) PH still launched some lucky air attacks. The computer seemed to launch multple attacks of less than 20 planes in the same turn. The first few got creamed but the following ones made it thro. When on escort my fighters never seemed to fly with the attack planes leaving them to get slaughtered about 70 percent of the time(rough estimate). Keep seeing numbers like less than 20 fighters in cap 200+planes attacking 300+ of my planes toast with damage but nothing sunk. ( i understand combat reports are flawed) When checking back with my torp and bomber groups most would be down at least 50percent some with only a couple planes left.

funny tho whenever my fighters did escort my bombers there was no allied cap. Maybe i am just very unlucky.

(in reply to airtrooper)

Post #: 4

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 3:45:08 AM

airtrooper

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/25/2005
Status: offline

reread your answer.

do you still manage to sink any bs? every time i do sink one it seems the vals are doing the damage with their bombs. never seen one go down to a torp ... at least in the PH attack.

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 5

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 4:10:33 AM

fbastos

Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline

quote:

My last question for now is to know the reasoning behind one of the game features. Why are the US carriers that get sunk given back after a year or so?

I bet that 20 years from now, when we're trying to figure out how to run WiTP on our new holographic 8000x6000x60000 displays on a Hexium IV with 64 TBytes RAM, this question will still pop up on a recuring basis.

I guess it is to ask too much to have a little tiny itsy command line flag like -norespawn to make the miraculous ressurection of sunk ships a player's option. But then again, hey, we could make Midway respawn somewhere else if it is captured, after all, the US could make another base if it wanted to.

F.

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...

(in reply to airtrooper)

Post #: 6

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 4:27:57 AM

Blackwatch_it

Posts: 247
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline

I never had a ship hit by PH attacks even if keeping KB in the area for 2/3 days. And never managed to hit any ship playing allied.
If you always have this kind of result I think that you should check your CAP settings.

(in reply to airtrooper)

Post #: 7

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 4:33:35 AM

CapAndGown

Posts: 3206
Joined: 3/6/2001
From: Virginia, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: airtrooper

reread your answer.

do you still manage to sink any bs? every time i do sink one it seems the vals are doing the damage with their bombs. never seen one go down to a torp ... at least in the PH attack.

Vals cannot damage a BB. Their 250kg bombs just bounce off. This is why I set them to attack the airfields. The Kates attack with both torps and 800kg bombs. The torps are very deadly. And the 800kg's will penetrate the BB armor most of the time. (watch the combat animation are read the messages)

When resetting your aircraft, be sure that they have Pearl Harbor set as their target. This includes your escorts. Don't let the computer chose your target for you! Be sure to hit those airfields. There is no way you should see a return strike! Forget the sweeps. Change to escort. Maybe a few Zeros should attack the airfields. But my guess is that the Vals should be able to shut down the airfields on their own.

(in reply to airtrooper)

Post #: 8

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 4:49:16 AM

airtrooper

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/25/2005
Status: offline

yea just tried the turn again with those settings. with good results surprised at the diffrance it made... did not know the vals where not the ones dropping the 800kg bombs... dont think my TF got attacked once guess i dont need my cap set to 50 percent doing it this way....

Learned something with this.... the proper way to attack airbases with aircraft before i thought the sweeps by the fighters with a 50 percent cap setting would wipe out most of the planes on the ground or in the air but guess not. you must bomb the runways to keep the planes supressed.

quote:

I never had a ship hit by PH attacks even if keeping KB in the area for 2/3 days. And never managed to hit any ship playing allied.
If you always have this kind of result I think that you should check your CAP settings.

guess this bad luck I had will ensure i have no shortage of people wanting to play against me in a PBEM game

(in reply to CapAndGown)

Post #: 9

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 4:56:09 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

Also be sure and keep some level of CAP; I typically assign 70% for the Allies and 50% for the Japanese in the early war period, but I am a bit overly protective. Even if you don't hit the airfields a 50% Japanese CAP should keep out any Allied attack at PH.

(in reply to airtrooper)

Post #: 10

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 5:21:45 AM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

These are actually two seperate questions, though you did not know that when you wrote your question:

quote:

My last question for now is to know the reasoning behind one of the game features. Why are the US carriers that get sunk given back after a year or so?

Nearly endless debate on this one. The final answer is: the game was made this way.

It does not make sense to me to do this in that you would think that there is no spare shipyard capacity considering all the ships the allies get later in the war.

Here the question is: "was the USA at the limit of its ship building capacity?" The answer is no, especially when you consider that the game can run to 1946. The USA cut back on ship production (and all other production) once we were sure we were going to win, which was some time in 1944. There was unused capacity to build CVs because we did not need it.

One of the things I always find ironic about the people who like to discuss Axis wonder weapons or alternate histories (with the Axis fighting smarter, in some way shape or fashion) is that they never ask: "what would the American response be?" Because if they did the answer is more of everything, improvement of certain equipment, and large scale nuclear bombardment. The country with the greatest potential to wage war in the 1940s is also the country that applied the least of its total potential to actually fighting the war. Not to say that the USA did not work hard, but there was a lot that could be done but was not because we were not that desperate.

Its all being used to build these ships that come later in the game and if they had the spare capacity to do this than it would have meant another carrier being built in that time frame even if the orginal carrier was not sunk.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 11

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 6:57:30 AM

airtrooper

Posts: 11
Joined: 4/25/2005
Status: offline

Sure i can see how in 44+ for sure or maybe late 43+ an extra carrier or three would barely be noticed in the war production going on. but in the case of sinking the carrier or three at the time or close to pearl harbour, US war industry was gearing up and would i think be hard pressed to replace them that soon in the war.

but like i said was just curious about why that was done and not really interested in rehashing a debate that apperantly has already been done.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 12

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 8:02:55 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, No replacement CV can arrive before Essex (Mid 43) no matter how early the CV it is replacing was sunk.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to airtrooper)

Post #: 13

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 9:42:22 AM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

"The USA cut back on ship production (and all other production) once we were sure we were going to win, which was some time in 1944. There was unused capacity to build CVs because we did not need it."

Selected build times:

CV9 Essex was laid down 28-4-41, commissioned 31-12-42. 613 days. Plus a trials/workup period. Launch to commissioning 5 months

CV10 Yorktown II ex BHR 1-12-41/15-4-43 - 470 days, plus trials. Launch to commissioning , 84 days.

Cv11 Intrepid same lay down as Cv10, commissioned 4 months later than it on 16-8-43. launch to commissioning 113 days.

All the above were built at Newport News.

Cv12 Hornet II ex Kearsage, 483 days including 92 from Launch date.

Cv13 Franklin - 420 days/ including 114 days.

Build times range generally from about 15 months to a about 2 years for hulls laid down in 1941 -1943, but as the Yorktown II shows, even within a ship yard some ships were accelerated over others. On the other hand CV39 Lake Champlain was laid down at Norfolk NY 15-3-43 and not completed until 3 June 1945 even though it was launched in November 1944 and could have been in action in say March 1945, or launched earlier if needed.

There were no Essex hulls laid in 1943 after 14-9-43 (the first two Midways were, 1 each at Newport News and Norfolk NY). No 1944 lay downs were commissioned before 8-12-45 (CV40 Tarawa). But there were plenty of hulls on slips which could be accelerated. eg CV37 Princeton, ex Valley Forge, ld 14-9-43. commissioned aftrer the war. Or CV 40 laid down 1-3-44. If they were needed more quickly.

In short the designers approach is logical. They have taken a median rather than fastest time approach. The alternative would be to include the 4 Essexes which replaced the sunk CVs, and allow the Alllied player to accelerate production of some other CVs if he lost any more at some large Political point cost (20,000 say?). The mechanics of working out when accelerated ships arrive would be complex - you need to take into account not only historically available hulls, but the ability (if any) to lay down more. Which means considering slip capacity.

In 1942 BB65 and BB66 (Illinois and Kentucky) were laid down. Despite the suspension of building on Kentucky, they didn't need to launch it to clear the slip until 1950. On the other hand I have read elswhere that Illinois was broken up to free the slip for LST construction. (2 at a time perhaps?). Slip capacity is finite, but accelerating a CV launch to the schedule the Franklin was launched on (306 days from lay down) actually frees a slip for LSTs or whatever. Having said that there is probably a break point where accelerating more CVs adversely impacts launches of other vessels.

The designers

perhaps handle this implicitly by imposing a longer period over 500 days to allow for slipway availability (plus post commissioning trials and the like). Only they can answer this and I suspect that sometime over the last 5 years they probably have.

< Message edited by Ian R -- 4/27/2005 9:59:39 AM >

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 14

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 1:29:54 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

Here we go again....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 15

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 6:14:54 PM

Nikademus

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

Remove all fighters from the sweep mission. It doesn't add much to your planes destroyed on the ground tally and worse, removes those airgroups from either escorting your bombers or protecting your carriers. (it also greatly increases pilot losses as these Zeros on sweep get wacked by AA.)

I usually set half my Val's to port attack and leave the other half (3 carrier's worth) set on airfield attack. You still reap a bounty in destroyed aircraft and get to pummel the port a bit more. True alot of the Vals will go after the BB's but while they cant take out the their vitals they can start fires and destroy secondary and teritary weapons systems which reduces AA and increases repair times for the BB's. Some of the Val's will also attack other ships. I've taken out a few CA's and CL's on occasion using this strategy.

_____________________________

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 16

RE: Hello. New guy with a few questions. - 4/27/2005 6:24:53 PM

Gem35

Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Dallas, Texas
Status: offline

welcome to the forums and have fun !

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 17

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Hello. New guy with a few questions.

Page: [1]