I am still somewhat confused as to why someone on this board is allowed to promote other companies products so blatantly, but I'll let go of that too. It ain't my forum.



I also found it strange this person seems to put down the SPWAW version quite a bit... when in fact it was imho better
then ...

The Escort/CAP ratio plays a very big part in the calculations determining if a mission sorties.

Given that only a small squadron of attack planes can be operationally placed on the LI with no possibility of any Escorts, it would be very unlikely to launch a strike without another carrier ...

That particular air unit in scen2 arrives in 5/43 with 10 C-46A and a max size of 25(no idea how the AI would have resized it).

The start date for planes is when free ones start arriving, not when they are available overall. Units using them can and do arrive before that date, they just shouldn't ...

Yes, Sandoway is one of the new bases.


Seems the holiday industry sponsored the adding of this base, cuz when I google the location only resorts and hotels etc come up :lol: Yes I said already the only reasonable move by the AI is to try evacuating the giant unit.

Ofc all fatatasy as these ...

This WAD, see this old thread with much info:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 4&start=20

Chris21wen wrote: Wed Nov 13, 2024 7:54 am Think you missed the point! I know that. How does it deal with the new y/n disband thing.

At least in 11.27 beta this still works like before, means NO "new y/n disband thing" pops up

Well, something is wrong with AI logic if it can augment an air group's size by 450%.


That was the only monster unit I found tho... so not a common thing at all.

AND this is more a sign the AI did something good, as it tried to safe these 120 planes.
The location where it was bases is also ...

Opened Allied side and FOUND a mega C46 unit:

Zwischenablage02.jpg


Here the combat:

Day Time Surface Combat, near Sandoway at 49,51, Range 19,000 Yards

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
C-46A Commando: 59 destroyed

Japanese Ships
DD Takanami
DD Hibiki
DD Shirayuki ...

Hmm I don't know what it is but I am finding that setting all specific type of Japanese float planes to search or recon or ASW in a TF does not always set all of the same types to that mission...


Works only w/ units on DAY missions btw. Planes on night search for example will not get changed w ...

I would not. 26a has really (I mean really) old scripts that are also written for a different map with different bases etc.

I think the chance is high that the AI would just break & go braindead on you, notwithstanding that you would have map issues (TF's getting stuck or going through dry land ...

Which scenario is this? An Ironman one?


It is Scen2 with a few edits by me (mostly "streamlining production for Japan, deleting many merchants and small craft and lots of land unit updates)...

But did not change ANY Allied transport plane numbers or data...and to add I do not like "Ironman ...

RangerJoe wrote: Tue Nov 12, 2024 4:32 pm Check the Chinese start date as well . . .

7/42 must be an oversight I guess.... and 10 per month at least in my version.

I did not overrun a Chinese base this turn and how many trans squadrons do they have 2 or 3 I guess.
They get ony 1 DC3 but 10 of these huge planes so early?

The Aircraft Losses screen shows both Alied and Japanese losses. That's why there are Catalinas, B-17s and Venturas on that list too.


I know ofc but where should these planes have been lost?

And as I wrote they are " Not supposed to be there " they start a smaller production for the US army ...

Here the Wiki for this plane type, I did not note it before much...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtiss_C-46_Commando

And a also somewhat funny picture with the undertitle:

"A U.S. C-46 aircraft conducting an aerial evacuation of wounded American troops from Manila, the capital of the ...

Is this funny or disturbing, can´t decide... but rather laugh I am Japan.

And btw these planes aren´t even supposed to be there at this time in the game ) EDIT, Cuz they start only in 8/43 and we have 5/43 I just checked in editor.

RangerJoe wrote: Mon Nov 11, 2024 3:15 am They give new opportunities plus they help the AI.

There is not A"I" but scripts.
----
Btw: I did not need or wanted any new bases (esp. not "off map" ones) so my opinion here the same like disband yes/no crap that was added

It depends on what the waters are infested with. In past games I've noticed the E types tend to fall victim to Allied bombs and shells far more than submarine torpedoes.


Main prob w/ the E types is 2 of them are too slow and generally their AA is weak: I know IJ AA is generally not the best ...

Yes, in my games against the Allied AI I've always looked askance by game's end in early '43 at the number of Allied subs idle in port. I'm pretty sure it was the majority of the sub fleet. I counted 25 at Pearl, 19 at San Franscisco, 10 at Townsville, etc. A few were doing offensive patrols, but ...

Yea, the new (last beta) off-map bases were total waste, adding just more complications and adding nothing to game.

DaBabes scenarios (that I like to play) has lot of ships that I haven't found much (if any) use, e.g. YO (Yard Oiler) ships. Maybe as emergency tanker support in remote base, but ...

That issue do not apply to everyone, so it should be an option.


To add my Senf to this topic, I had almost zero problems w/ disbanding TFs... so I vote for leave this like it was.
I understand some may have accidently disbanded TFs - but then deal with it and pay more attention next time :lol ...