Simple Guide to Production

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

xj900uk
Posts: 1345
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:26 pm

Simple Guide to Production

Post by xj900uk »

Am currently battling with the manual. Has anyone actually done a synopsis that makes more sense and included a few examples? Also are there any hints or tips on how to do the Japanese production/options as that seems very easy to get completel wrong?
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 16278
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: Simple Guide to Production

Post by Mike Solli »

I'd recommend going to The War Room and checking out the various threads there concerning different aspects of Japanese production.  Good stuff!
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
Schanilec
Posts: 4038
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Grand Forks, ND

RE: Simple Guide to Production

Post by Schanilec »

Any tips on allied production?
This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.
anarchyintheuk
Posts: 3958
Joined: Wed May 05, 2004 7:08 pm
Location: Dallas

RE: Simple Guide to Production

Post by anarchyintheuk »

Don't touch anything . . . except for that B-25C factory in LA . . . maybe. Always good to start off a scenario by turning off repairs to industry in China.
Walloc
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Denmark

RE: Simple Guide to Production

Post by Walloc »

ill add to allied side. Other than B-25C factory the only that is possible to consider also "touching" is Aussie Beaufort VIII factories to keep them from upgrading to Beaufigther 21.
After looking it over that the only 2 options that has any merit to consider IMHO.

Kind regards,

Rasmus
User avatar
hermanhum
Posts: 2209
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:48 am
Contact:

Question

Post by hermanhum »

What would you do with the B-25C factory in L.A.?
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Question

Post by Lecivius »

ORIGINAL: hermanhum

What would you do with the B-25C factory in L.A.?

Turn off the upgrade. Allied attack bombers blow big time.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
ckammp
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Rear Area training facility

RE: Question

Post by ckammp »

IMO, there is no need to turn off the Allied airplane upgrades.
 
IMO, there is nothing wrong with Allied attack bombers.
 
 
User avatar
Torplexed
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 10:37 am
Location: The Pacific

RE: Question

Post by Torplexed »

Japanese production is easy.

Convert all your aircraft factories over to Nates, then build bucketloads of 'em and victory is assured. [:D] Who needs the R&D headache?

Can't understand why Tojo fired me. [&:]
User avatar
Grfin Zeppelin
Posts: 1514
Joined: Mon Dec 03, 2007 2:22 pm
Location: Germany

RE: Question

Post by Grfin Zeppelin »

ORIGINAL: Torplexed

Japanese production is easy.

Convert all your aircraft factories over to Nates, then build bucketloads of 'em and victory is assured. [:D] Who needs the R&D headache?

Can't understand why Tojo fired me. [&:]
Because one needs bombers and Tojo knows that.One has to build Nates AND Idas to succeed.
Oh the joy of the Idas, anihilating everything and also bringing photos of the slaughter.However some people prefer the Sonja, thats why there are countless Sonja vs Ida threads in these fora.

Image
Walloc
Posts: 3143
Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Denmark

RE: Question

Post by Walloc »

ORIGINAL: ckammp

IMO, there is no need to turn off the Allied airplane upgrades.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with Allied attack bombers.


Ppl might wana look at this thread:

tm.asp?m=2553508
In regards to issues with the ABs.


Kind regards,

Rasmus
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12723
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Question

Post by Sardaukar »

Yea, there is bug with Attack Bombers. Hopefully after next patch they start to function properly.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
ckammp
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Rear Area training facility

RE: Question

Post by ckammp »

ORIGINAL: Walloc
ORIGINAL: ckammp

IMO, there is no need to turn off the Allied airplane upgrades.

IMO, there is nothing wrong with Allied attack bombers.


Ppl might wana look at this thread:

tm.asp?m=2553508
In regards to issues with the ABs.


Kind regards,

Rasmus


Edit:

I'm sorry, I really should learn to read the entire thread before posting comments. [:(]
ckammp
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Rear Area training facility

RE: Question

Post by ckammp »

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Yea, there is bug with Attack Bombers. Hopefully after next patch they start to function properly.


I wasn't aware that any dev had identified a bug with attack bombers.

Could you please explain what the bug is, or give a link to where a dev has identified the bug?
Thank you.
User avatar
bigred
Posts: 4041
Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 1:15 am

RE: Question

Post by bigred »

ckammp, check this link.
tm.asp?m=2553508
---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
tm.asp?m=2597400
ckammp
Posts: 756
Joined: Sat May 30, 2009 4:10 pm
Location: Rear Area training facility

RE: Question

Post by ckammp »

ORIGINAL: bigred

ckammp, check this link.
tm.asp?m=2553508


Thank you.

In my experience, attack bombers are still very effective.
When set to Port Attack at 10000ft, I did receive the message "B-25D1 STRAFING to suppress flak", but still got several hits on 3 xAKLs in the port.
When set to Port Attack at 5000ft, I did not receive any STRAFING message, and got several hits on 5 xAKs (with 2 sunk) in the port.
My crews, however, were very well trained (EXP-70, GrndB-70, LowG-65, Straf-60).
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12723
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Question

Post by Sardaukar »

I think problems arises when they are set to 100ft.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
Schanilec
Posts: 4038
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Grand Forks, ND

RE: Question

Post by Schanilec »

So really the only thing to do is just keep running resources and oil to convert over to supplies and fuel. I'm currently running convoys from DEI to Western australia ports with resources and oil. And from Capetown, Aden and Abadan to India. Also have some small convoys running to and from Eastern US to Panama. That should be good, right? Or should Canada and England be utilized? Those are quite the distances. What about Port Stanley? Any need to use that port. Or is Port Stanley for a just in case things aren't going well, need?
 
Thanks,
 
Marc
This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.
User avatar
Torplexed
Posts: 365
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2002 10:37 am
Location: The Pacific

RE: Question

Post by Torplexed »

ORIGINAL: Schanilec

So really the only thing to do is just keep running resources and oil to convert over to supplies and fuel. I'm currently running convoys from DEI to Western australia ports with resources and oil. And from Capetown, Aden and Abadan to India. Also have some small convoys running to and from Eastern US to Panama. That should be good, right? Or should Canada and England be utilized? Those are quite the distances. What about Port Stanley? Any need to use that port. Or is Port Stanley for a just in case things aren't going well, need?

I see no need as the Allies to run convoys from the Eastern US to Panama. Panama gets plenty of supplies free and it's needs aren't that substantial. The West Coast churns out more than enough fuel, oil and resources to keep the eastern half of the map supplied. Capetown and Abadan are enough to keep the western half going.

I've never used Port Stanley, although some CD convoy units do show up there in the course of the game.
Schanilec
Posts: 4038
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2010 6:30 pm
Location: Grand Forks, ND

RE: Question

Post by Schanilec »

Thanks Torplexed. Now I can consentrate on consulidating my forward bases. Date is 1 January 1942. BTW keep the flow of supplies (resources and oil) coming to Australia and New Zealand?
 
Well I'm outta here. I'll be back in tomorrow for a couple of hours. Gotta love that overtime.
 
Thanks again all.
This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”