AE Map, Base, Economic Issues [OUTDATED]

[tbridges]

Thanks Brad, I'll check out the editor.

[fbs]

Base 1088 Chengchow... on the manual on 270 it says the factories in this base should be damaged from prior fighting, but they are intact. The other bases listed on that page are properly damaged. This is scenario #001 on 1.0.1.1084.

Thanks
fbs

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: fbs

Base 1124 Urumchi - it has 50 oil but only 20 refineries. This must be a mistake - every single base in the game has the same amount of refineries as oil.

Um, often true but there are quite a number of bases where the oil and refineries don't match. Goes both ways, sometimes more oil than refineries and sometimes more refineries than oil (look at Tokyo [:D])

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: fbs

Base 1088 Chengchow... on the manual on 270 it says the factories in this base should be damaged from prior fighting, but they are intact. The other bases listed on that page are properly damaged. This is scenario #001 on 1.0.1.1084.

Thanks
fbs

Noted. Thanks.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: erstad

ORIGINAL: fbs

Base 1124 Urumchi - it has 50 oil but only 20 refineries. This must be a mistake - every single base in the game has the same amount of refineries as oil.

Um, often true but there are quite a number of bases where the oil and refineries don't match. Goes both ways, sometimes more oil than refineries and sometimes more refineries than oil (look at Tokyo [:D])

Oh, I never played the Japanese (Allied fanboy here, hahaha). On the Allied side every single base has the oil # matching the refinery #, so any excess oil cannot be refined anywhere else (given that no refineries will be available).

Unless, of course, some oil wells are damaged somewhere, and you put Urumchi's extra oil on a boat and send it there for the now idle refineries. As Urumchi is in the middle of nowhere (it is close to Nepal), that might be difficult... hahaha... so I think it is a mistake.

Cheers [:D]
fbs


ps: Urumchi is actually farther away than Nepal, oh no!! It is almost in Siberia...

[jcjordan]

Any chance to get a new offbase area added at some point - the SE US? I know there'd be some art work changes as well as figuring out the x/y locs but to me the Eastern US represents the states north of the Mason Dixon line w/ most of the manufacturing capacity of supplies, a/c & large ships. In the SE you had most of the oil/refinery of the US along w/ imports from S America plus the merchant shipyards along the Gulf Coast & some of the a/c manufacturers. 
 
On another note about Pt Stanley - what was the reasoning behind it vs something in Chile or Peru as the southern gateway to the Pacific from the Atlantic. I know that they both were neutral until late in the war but ships at war could put into port there to refuel, couldn't they?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Any chance to get a new offbase area added at some point - the SE US? I know there'd be some art work changes as well as figuring out the x/y locs but to me the Eastern US represents the states north of the Mason Dixon line w/ most of the manufacturing capacity of supplies, a/c & large ships. In the SE you had most of the oil/refinery of the US along w/ imports from S America plus the merchant shipyards along the Gulf Coast & some of the a/c manufacturers.

The "Eastern US" base represents everything in the USA that is no on-map, so I don't think there is anything to be gained by splitting this base up. The map could be modded to add more bases though. Originally I was going to have other bases for Alexandria (Egypt) and Gibraltar, but this was never done - one day I might make a map with these added in.

On another note about Pt Stanley - what was the reasoning behind it vs something in Chile or Peru as the southern gateway to the Pacific from the Atlantic. I know that they both were neutral until late in the war but ships at war could put into port there to refuel, couldn't they?

As far as I am aware Port Stanley would have been the closest Allied "base" to the South Pacific (via Cape Horn).

I doubt that the Allies could have used neutral South American ports for refuelling warships, or forming up naval task forces. I admit I don't know for sure though...

Andrew

[jcjordan]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Any chance to get a new offbase area added at some point - the SE US? I know there'd be some art work changes as well as figuring out the x/y locs but to me the Eastern US represents the states north of the Mason Dixon line w/ most of the manufacturing capacity of supplies, a/c & large ships. In the SE you had most of the oil/refinery of the US along w/ imports from S America plus the merchant shipyards along the Gulf Coast & some of the a/c manufacturers.

The "Eastern US" base represents everything in the USA that is no on-map, so I don't think there is anything to be gained by splitting this base up. The map could be modded to add more bases though. Originally I was going to have other bases for Alexandria (Egypt) and Gibraltar, but this was never done - one day I might make a map with these added in.

On another note about Pt Stanley - what was the reasoning behind it vs something in Chile or Peru as the southern gateway to the Pacific from the Atlantic. I know that they both were neutral until late in the war but ships at war could put into port there to refuel, couldn't they?

As far as I am aware Port Stanley would have been the closest Allied "base" to the South Pacific (via Cape Horn).

I doubt that the Allies could have used neutral South American ports for refuelling warships, or forming up naval task forces. I admit I don't know for sure though...

Andrew

On adding the SE it was more of a possible wish list type thing but do see the logic of having to split the bases.
How much was Pt Stanley or Cape Horn used vs someplace in S Africa would probably be the best was to look at it to decide any change.

[EasilyConfused]

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: erstad

ORIGINAL: fbs

Base 1124 Urumchi - it has 50 oil but only 20 refineries. This must be a mistake - every single base in the game has the same amount of refineries as oil.

Um, often true but there are quite a number of bases where the oil and refineries don't match. Goes both ways, sometimes more oil than refineries and sometimes more refineries than oil (look at Tokyo [:D])

Oh, I never played the Japanese (Allied fanboy here, hahaha). On the Allied side every single base has the oil # matching the refinery #, so any excess oil cannot be refined anywhere else (given that no refineries will be available).

Unless, of course, some oil wells are damaged somewhere, and you put Urumchi's extra oil on a boat and send it there for the now idle refineries. As Urumchi is in the middle of nowhere (it is close to Nepal), that might be difficult... hahaha... so I think it is a mistake.

Cheers [:D]
fbs


ps: Urumchi is actually farther away than Nepal, oh no!! It is almost in Siberia...

Actually a few bases on the Allied side have more refinery space than oil, such as Melbourne and Sydney.

[fbs]

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

Actually a few bases on the Allied side have more refinery space than oil, such as Melbourne and Sydney.

Drats! Now I have to carry oil from Siberia to Australia too... oh no.... and I thought the Australians had been had already.




Cheers [:D]
fbs

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Any chance to get a new offbase area added at some point - the SE US? I know there'd be some art work changes as well as figuring out the x/y locs but to me the Eastern US represents the states north of the Mason Dixon line w/ most of the manufacturing capacity of supplies, a/c & large ships. In the SE you had most of the oil/refinery of the US along w/ imports from S America plus the merchant shipyards along the Gulf Coast & some of the a/c manufacturers.

The "Eastern US" base represents everything in the USA that is no on-map, so I don't think there is anything to be gained by splitting this base up. The map could be modded to add more bases though. Originally I was going to have other bases for Alexandria (Egypt) and Gibraltar, but this was never done - one day I might make a map with these added in.

On another note about Pt Stanley - what was the reasoning behind it vs something in Chile or Peru as the southern gateway to the Pacific from the Atlantic. I know that they both were neutral until late in the war but ships at war could put into port there to refuel, couldn't they?

As far as I am aware Port Stanley would have been the closest Allied "base" to the South Pacific (via Cape Horn).

I doubt that the Allies could have used neutral South American ports for refuelling warships, or forming up naval task forces. I admit I don't know for sure though...

Andrew

I am pretty sure that if Andrew adds any new bases, the very first will be Memphis !

[rattovolante]

More an improvement suggestion than an issue
Could you place 0(0) dot bases at the end of railway spurs?

For example, the line from Harbin to the Soviet border would be very useful in case of Soviet activation, but right now it's useless - or at least, my units won't accept the end of the rail line as a valid destination, is there a workaround?

There are a number of these spurs all over the map.

[rattovolante]

The road overlay shows a road between Tungchow and Wusih. This is misleading because the hexside is water (see pic, circled in black), so land units can't cross it even if there's a road. Is this supposed to represent a bridge? If so, it's not working, units won't cross the hexside.

Sorry if this has been reported already, a search returned no result

[bklooste]

Probably a ferry , i have been there and you cant even see the other side of the river so definitely not a bridge,

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: rattovolante

More an improvement suggestion than an issue
Could you place 0(0) dot bases at the end of railway spurs?

For example, the line from Harbin to the Soviet border would be very useful in case of Soviet activation, but right now it's useless - or at least, my units won't accept the end of the rail line as a valid destination, is there a workaround?

There are a number of these spurs all over the map.

If you want you could place a (0,0) base there with the editor...

...as to the Spurs being useless that is not entirely correct. In this particular instance Ground Units would move into a hex using the "Railway Trail Rate". So if the rail were not present an INF unit in move mode would only move 5 miles per day through the forest, however because of the Railway Trail the INF unit will move 10 miles per day.

Page 191 of the Manual and chart on 189-190.

[pad152]

I too am puzzled by ship repair rates, sometimes ships repair faster when not in a shipyard?

[mariandavid]

Apologies if this was covered before, but I am puzzled why a decent road, or for that matter any kind of road, is shown going west from Imphal to the Bengal plain. There was no such road - not even an usable track, which was the reason why all of the reinforcements had to take the road from Dinapur.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Apologies if this was covered before, but I am puzzled why a decent road, or for that matter any kind of road, is shown going west from Imphal to the Bengal plain. There was no such road - not even an usable track, which was the reason why all of the reinforcements had to take the road from Dinapur.

That's the Silchar Track.

[fbs]

1.0.1.1084, scenario 001:

Base 1377 Magadan has 4 light industries and 3 resources, plus 17 damaged resources. Should it have some damaged light industry also? Almost all bases that have these odd quantities like 6 or 7 of something usually have a bit more damaged that make up for a whole number like 10 or 20.

Thanks,
fbs

[mariandavid]

Herwin: Yes of course it is the Silchar - but the Silchar was virtually impassable, impossible to build any form of road through, broken into sections and, as I said before, utterly incapable of acting as a route for a large formation. None of this would matter except that now a Japanese force that captures Imphal could simply walk west into the Bengal plain instead of having to fight north through Kohima and Dinapur.