Previews of 3.2

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Here are some things that are going to appear in 3.2.

1. Retrofitting Japanese and American Industry.

2. Replacing the PBM Mariner (redundant with the PBY) with the F4U-4 Corsair (F4U-1 Corsair will be a fighter and land based, while the F4U-4 Corsair will be a fighter-bomber and carrier based)

3. Retrofitting all Japanese and Allied aircraft "Dogfighting" to better reflet the combination of speed, manoeverability climb and dive rate. There are some interesting changes in this, with many planes better than they were, and some weaker.

4. Compressing LCU's to free up more empty spaces so no more dissappearing units.

5. Improving the AI OBC41 scenarios so they are more challenging.

6. Adding AI OBC42 scenarios for solo play to maximize the abilities of the AI. (so you can play a challenging AI without having to start in 1941).

7. Changing Japanese and French weaponry to follow the correct Metric descriptions instead of using Imperial (for example, the 18.1" guns are now 460mm).

8. Most new Allied Airgroups appear at full, or close to full strength (for example, the TOE of a 1942-43 USMC VMF was 18 aircraft, while in 1944-45 was 24, so one that appears in 1942-43 will start with 18 planes).

Plus many other small changes.

[henhute6]

Do these AI improvements concern also the allied AI?

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Yes

[CynicAl]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
2. Replacing the PBM Mariner (redundant with the PBY) with the F4U-4 Corsair (F4U-1 Corsair will be a fighter and land based, while the F4U-4 Corsair will be a fighter-bomber and carrier based)

Thanks!

What do you know - looks like that horse I was beating wasn't quite dead after all...

[IntellWeenie]

Make some way of differentiating between CVEs that have and those that do not have airgroups without having to click open the ship group. Having a different picture or different names would be OK by me.

Also, can you bring back the national flags in the CVx.SYM files? (at least as an option)

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I am not sure that I can add different looking CVE's, as it would require not only an extra Icon, but extra ship classes as well. I will try to see what I can do. I will see if there is time to create a new set of icons with the national flags back in them.

The F4U-1 and F4U-4 was done because the F4U appears so early in the game (late 1942) and that one basic F4U could be put on any USN carriers, nobody with a right mind will not replace all their F4F's with F4U's in 1942, even though this version was totally unsuitable for carrier duty. Also, there were enough differences in the two versions to warrant the creation of two separate types. So you will see the F4U-1 appear in late 1942, with no bombs, as a fighter, and only able to serve on USMC LBA groups (not a carrier aircraft). THe F4U-4 will have better dogfight ability, bombs, be a fighter bomber and can be based on carriers, but this appears late in 1944. Thanks for beating that horse, it usually ends up in some positive change!

[Jeff Norton]

Sounds great, but, when???

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I cant say how long, as it depends on everything that I want to get into the game.

Here are some other things I just added.

Added shipyards to the following bases.

Sydney
Pearl Harbour
Singapore

Even though there are not 'shipyards' (as they never built large vessels), they represent extensive repair and operation facilities at these specific ports. Sydney is smaller then Pearl and Singapore, but still offers increased repairs for damaged vessels. I did not give Truk shipyards as I don't think that the facilities there were quite as extensive as the 3 Allied bases, plus this forces the Japanese to send all heavily damaged vessels back to the Home Islands (which was usually done).

This also give the Allies an incentive to try and hold Singapore, as it is the closest base to the main frontline with facilities to repair heavily damaged vessels. If it is captured it is destroyed (so the Japanese dont get the benefits from it).

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I also managed to improve the Historical First Turns. All that I had to do was to give HQ's targets using the editor, and carrier strikes actually occurred against other carriers (there was a problem with this not occurring in some scenarios). Also, attacks are also done with better effect (notably the US Marianas attack in OBMARI and the US Leyte attack in OBC_F). So historical first turns will end up with more historic results (ship battles are also more intense).

[pasternakski]

Thank you for all your hard work in turning an already excellent game into a great one. Maybe someday they'll let you work on one that's supposed to bring in revenue (kidding - just kidding).

(Now that we fed him the molasses, let's give him the sulfur) Please straighten out the CVE situation once and for all. It's tough enough having to figure out what to do with the blasted things without knowing exactly what their capabilities and roles are. Most all of us have studied the history and know what CVEs were good for - and not good for - in reality. PacWar should not have such a tough time modeling that. Other ship types have not presented such a difficult conundrum (no, Nancy, just 'cause I have a conundrum doesn't mean you can stop taking the pill).

Anyway, thanks again. I am an admirer of your work. We salute you!

[CynicAl]

Right on about Truk, too. Even though it was the Combined Fleet's principal base outside the Home Islands, for various reasons it never got built up the way Pearl Harbor did. It was much more comparable to the later US bases at Majuro and Ulithi.

One other minor request: the F7F Tigercat should be limited to land bases only - it was less suitable for CV ops than even the earliest F4Us, and the problems were more intractable.

[Blackhorse]

Add me to the list of those thanking Jeremy for his time and effort.

My question -- will the 3.2 patch find a way to get the Japanese Main Carrier Strike Force back to port in time in the Tora, Tora, Tora scenario?

[Nomad]

jeremey, i was wondering. would it be better to give all fighters at least 1 for bomb load? with 0 as a bomb load, any attack on ports, LVUs, or Supplies allways equates to 000. it would seem that even a few straffing runs would have some effect.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I will probably do something about the Pearl Harbour Raid, although I don't know what. Probably have a house rule stating that a Historical First Turn is required, or else the Japanese got a magic strike attack and transport ability. So the ships will remain in the game without appearing as reinforcements.

I will look at aircraft load capacity, possibly a value of 1 might be included to replicate strafing.

Tigercats might be non-carrier this version, it might be left in (because it will take some effort to move them out of there).

I don't know if much can really be done about CVE's that don't have aircraft. However, it is easier to spot them now. All Bogue CVE don't have aircraft, and all USN CVE's with names do. The only carriers of contention are the USN Casablanca and RN CVE's. Also, those CVE's located early in the list will have a good chance of having an airgroup, while those at the rear will not. I will see what I can do.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
I will probably do something about the Pearl Harbour Raid, although I don't know what. Probably have a house rule stating that a Historical First Turn is required, or else the Japanese got a magic strike attack and transport ability. So the ships will remain in the game without appearing as reinforcements.

Again, thanks for all your work and your constant attention to detail. We really appreciate it.

1. Requiring a Historical First Move defeats the entire purpose of the Tora Tora Tora scenario, which is to allow the Japanese to replicate the surprise attack on Pearl, while changing the mix of first-week invasions. Would "damaging" all the a/c on the Strike Fleet carriers at the start of T3 so they can't make (another) first week attack be a workable fix? If so, do the same for the Allied carriers, or start the American carriers on the West Coast so they can not interfere with the first week's invasions -- which are supposed to be catching the Allies by surprise.

1a. As a "House Rule" alternative; start the Strike Force as a TF in Tokyo that the Jpn player can not move on the first week of T3. Prohibit the allied player from moving *any* air or surface combat task forces on the first turn (possible exception: the Prince of Wales TF). The allies could form other combat task forces to defend their home bases, or set them to "react".

2. Oil in Mandalay? IIRC, the game routine only picks up oil from unisolated ports.

3. Troop movements are still far too easy. For example, on the first turn *four* entire U.S. Divisions on the West Coast can load up on transports and head for the Pacific. One reason is the built-in game 'cheat' that encourages players to ship newly-formed divisions forward ASAP so the extra squads/tanks/artillery arrive without any shipping needed. Possible solutions:
3a. Delay the entry of most reinforcements until they arrive at full strength.
3b. Have newly-arriving units assigned to "defensive" HQs (4th Army, ANZAC, IHQ) until they would normally reach full strength, then transfer them to an appropriate combat HQ.

Just my thoughts. . . keep up the great work!

[Blackhorse]

One of the major avoidable shortcomings of PacWar is that it "shrinks" the Pacific by allowing TFs to travel far faster (and further) each week than they could IRL.

While the top speed of a "West Point" class transport may well be 24 knots, I doubt there was a single transport TF in the entire war that averaged anywhere near 24 knots from the Golden Gate to Pearl. Ships would cruise long distances at the most "fuel efficient" rate: 7-10 knots for transports, 10-16 knots for fast combat ships, IIRC.

Jeremy, is there a line of code that could be edited so that ships travel at 1/2 their listed speed? A fast task force of 30+ knot ships would travel port-to-port at 15 knots (15 'hexes' per week) and slower transport TFs would travel at 6-10 hexes/week.

[Obviously, one could use the editor and cut the speed of every ship in half -- but this edit would make the ships easier to hit in combat, and might have other unintended consequences.]

This small change would have a huge impact on game play, and would make the Pacific a big, empty ocean, again.

[Ranger-75]

Originally posted by pasternakski


(Now that we fed him the molasses, let's give him the sulfur) Please straighten out the CVE situation once and for all. It's tough enough having to figure out what to do with the blasted things without knowing exactly what their capabilities and roles are. Most all of us have studied the history and know what CVEs were good for - and not good for - in reality. PacWar should not have such a tough time modeling that. Other ship types have not presented such a difficult conundrum

How about selecting one ship class - say Bouge for all the carriers WITHOUT air groups and leave the rest With air groups. Adjust the numbers accordingly so that the correct number of ships have air groups. A CVE is a CVE to most of us - historical accuracy has sufferred in a lot of other areas and I don't see a big problem with this.

That way, we can tell by looking at the main screen what to put in a replenish TF and what to put in a support group TF.

[frank1970]

Sounds like a good idea for me!

[moore4807]

I second (or is it third?) the motion to make one class of CVE for replenishment and the others support TF -may I suggest that IF POSSIBLE support TF's get F4F's only,( with no upgrade ) so we dont go hog wild Japan bashing with them... 1943 is a pretty bad year for the IJN whenever I play the US 1941 v3.1 campaign... I use these support TF's exactly like Jeremy asks us NOT to in the Northern Aleutians and Home Islands and the AI just cant handle it (just like he says too, lol!) Now I've tried not allowing the TF's to upgrade and busting them back to F4F's and it seems to slow me down considerably (enough for the AI to kick my butt once or twice) so maybe it can be coded and the house rule wont have to be enforced, then again maybe not!
what do you think?

[Jeremy Pritchard]

I think that most USN CVE's are equipped with FM2's, which do not auto-upgrade to F4U or F6F's. There are a few CVE's that start with F4F's, but not many. I think I included in a preview of house rules that small USN CVE's cannot be issued F6F and F4U's (primarily because of the size differences between FM2's and these larger ones should result in a smaller complement of aircraft on these CVE's, but a plane is a plane in PacWar terms). This is the same house rule that limits IJN CVE and CVL's to use B5N's, as other TB's were too large.

Were USN CVE's routinely equipped with TBF/M groups? What was their mission anyway? Was it ground support, ASW, or sometimes fleet work? This is what makes it a bit difficult for the IJN player, as CVE's can be used to perform unrealistic duties. However, USN CVE's are not quite as potent in the original when you had some 4x Casablanca groups equipped with aircraft that had more planes then most IJN TF's. Should we get rid of TBM/F's from the CVE's (at least the Casablancas), or are we limiting the USN too much?

Another problem could be that USN CVE's turn into CAP weapons of mass destruction. Those 2x Casablanca groups could possibly have 40+ FM2's (if TB's were removed), and a TF of just 5 of these groups could have upwards of 200 planes on CAP. This might be realistic for covering landings, but what do you do about using this as a Carrier squasher? You put this TF ahead of your main one, to eliminate enemy opposition through massive CAP and have your fleet carriers clean up. However, limiting the usage to FM2's might not make this appealing (as late war A6M versions outclass the FM2, but just barely).

So, we should come to a consensus on what we should do with the small USN CVE's (I think the larger ones can be left as is, as they were comparable to slow CVL's).


I think that I can do the ferry CVE thing so that all of them are Bogue class vessels, as they are not too different from Casablanca CVE's.