I'm new and I come bearing questions

[John 3rd]

Welcome to HELL! Have fun and keep asking questions...

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I guess it's good to ask:

What are the best ways to use the WitP tracker? Is there a tutorial somewhere?

Moreover, do most people play with two monitors, one to keep the trackers, etc. on and what to keep the game screen on? It's a bit of a hassle to minimize and look at the tracker.

I play with 2 monitors because I run 2 monitors exclusively. I can't stand having only 1. I guess if I had a superwide, I'd consider it...

With Tracker, the Alerts screen is the most useful thing in it. It's easily accessible and you could play the entire game using only that screen, but there are deeper capabilities there. Play around with it a little bit, explore... you can find unit upgrades, convoy planning (most useful as Japan - with the Allies the ships and ports are so big/numerous that it's not necessary), ship upgrade data, information on ship classes including total numbers, device stats...it goes on and on. You can use the LCU screen, like I do, to keep rudimentary track of your invasions: sort by location then by "Planning for", and that can help you keep a handle on the logistics train necessary for launching each operation.

But back to the Alerts screen. I always click the column headings (once each) in the following order to sort ideally, for me. It's not perfect (I wish some of the things were higher up) but it works. (1) Value, (2) Alert Type, (3) Severity. This puts my LCU arrived/reach destination alerts at the top, with ship arrivals and repair notifications below that. Sprinkled in are alerts on enemy ships sunk, "ace" pilots getting kills/killed, and leaders. Below that is information on bases: expansions and captures. The rest I mostly ignore, but it's useful if you want to keep track of detection on TFs (you need to set the comment field on the TF to use this best) or supply at bases overall.

The only thing that Tracker won't do, which the in-game database will do (the 'D' key), is keep a current arrival date for Japanese planes as they are R&D'd. In Tracker, it retains the default arrival date no matter what.


I also keep notes in the form of sentence fragments in a Word doc on my second monitor. Sometimes a turn is 3-4 lines. Other times it's a full page. I type these up while watching the replay (I play in windowed mode), and bold "action items" while the rest is just there for my edification/reference as I do the orders. Not everything in the replay makes it into the Word notes.

[witpaemail]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: witpaemail


2) You dont need any extra tools. Everything that the tools do is mostly already in the game. The ONLY things "tracker" does that isn't in the game is tells you when a ground unit has arrived at its destination and how much supply/resources a base gained or lost.

This is far from true. Tracker does many things the game cannot. Two I use extensively are time series data on ship repairs and side-by-side stat comparisons of aircraft.

Don't use it if you don't want to, but don't misrepresent the work that went into it.

Like I said....."This is probably the biggest hot-button on the forum as there are people that swear the game cant be played without it."

Try it, and see if you want to use it or not. I personally dont find it useful at all, but then I know how to find the information Im looking for in the game

[Anachro]

Thanks for the responses.

What about the PDU option? Does this simply affect players' ability to choose what current planes can be upgraded into? If turned on, can you turn anything into anything else? Turning an Oscar into a Betty would seem kind of weird.

Or does it also affect R&D? I.e. Can I R&D modifications for future variants of planes/ships that aren't quite the same as their historical equivalent?

[Numdydar]

R&D is ONLY for Japan. If you are playing Allies PDU Off means you are restricted to have squadrons upgrade to whatever they did historically. PDU On allows you to upgrade anything to anything as long as you have enough planes of the type you want to upgrade to in the pool, and, if switching types, 1E to 2E, enough PP to pay for it. Typically the Allies have far more better things to do with their PP than switching squadron planes types around [:)]

[Anachro]

Loaded up Guadalcanal DBB Variant scenario in prep for a PBEM game (someone kindly offered to play me)

I noticed when looking at leader for one land HQ, it says he is best suited to lead an Assault Unit, whereas most potential replacements are suited to lead an Assault HQ. What's the difference? Is he better suited to leading an actual infantry unit and someone else leading the HQ? Im looking at the infantry unit in Kokoda fighting the aussies.

[witpaemail]

For a land HQ commander, the 3 main ratings you should look at are their "land", "admin", and aggres". The "this commander is best suited for" line is just a measure on how high these ratings are. Keep in mind that the HQ stuff was not fully implemented. Simply put, ran out of time. Could only do so many things. So like the naval ratings for US Army commanders you can ignore. Im not altogether sure if the air ratings of a base commander matter or not. I do know the air HQ commanders do.

But back to the question:

The Land rating is basically how good of a commander he is at land combat. This is not the only factor that plays into it. I generally look for guys that are 60+ (70+ for my assault HQ commanders).

The Admin rating is basically how good they are at recovering disruption and morale (Im keeping it simple here). Generally a 50+ is what I want in an assault HQ. The general trend here is the better they are at land, the worse they are at admin (not true in all cases of course, but even a casual look at a commander list will show you what I mean).

The Aggres rating is how aggressive of a commander they are. In the case of TF commanders (like Halsey for example), this will affect the chance they will react to enemy carriers (especially when they shouldnt). In the case of air group/squadron commanders, it will affect things like their chance to break off combat due to casualties and pressing home their attacks. You will lose many a bomber squadron because of the commanders aggres rating. Its part of the learning process of the game.

Trying to understand everything about the game before you play it will put you in the looney bin. Seriously, the best way is to take your lumps and learn as you go. If something pops up that you just can not figure out, by all means, this board is the place to ask.

Have fun and good luck.

[HansBolter]

Alfred may be able to correct any errors in my understanding, but I thought Leadership was the single most vital stat for a land commander.

Leadership is what is checked to determine if you will get a leadership bonus from combat and command HQs.

The leadership bonus is huge. So you want to have your best chance at getting a positive bonus and not a negative effect.

Inspiration also has an impact on morale so it isn't to be discounted.

Yes, Land skill is essential and aggressiveness is important, but having high leadership is paramount.

I'm pretty sure the recommended assignment is Assault HQ when a leaders aggressive is over 50.

[Ambassador]

I found this chart on this forum a while ago, and always viewed it as very useful.



EDIT: however I don't remember who made it. Not me, quite obviously.[:)]

[Anachro]

So, using that chart, am I correct in assuming a leader "best suited to lead an assault unit" should be leading an LCU - front line, whereas a leader "best suited to lead an assault HQ" should be leading an army/corps or command combat HQ? Or am I completely wrong?

After this, I'll shut up and get back to reading the forums, watching tutorials, and just playing. Thanks again for all your input.

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

So, using that chart, am I correct in assuming a leader "best suited to lead an assault unit" should be leading an LCU - front line, whereas a leader "best suited to lead an assault HQ" should be leading an army/corps or command combat HQ? Or am I completely wrong?

After this, I'll shut up and get back to reading the forums, watching tutorials, and just playing. Thanks again for all your input.

Myself, I don't trust what the game tells me about the "best suited for" officers. I use the chart to know which skills to check for valuable candidates, depending on what I want to use the unit for.

For combat units, I'll be looking for Inspiration & Land, and then Leadership (if low intensity fighting and few real losses planned, to improve the XP) or Admin (if the unit will be quickly be needed elsewhere) : you need to coax every single bit of AV, especially when assaulting an atoll or a well-defended fortress.
For base units and rear areas, Admin is the only skill which really matters - if they're in combat, you messed up somewhere. And even then, if the unit is already filled-up and does not face strenuous work (non-malaria zone, light duty), a good Admin isn't even necessary

For squadrons, Inspiration & Air for first-line units, Leadership if possible (for long term XP gain), and Naval if CV-groups (more planes flying is useless if they can't find the enemy fleet). Second rate leaders go to rear-area service and patrols. Flight schools benefit from high Leadership more than from high Inspiration or Air.

And for ships & TF, it really depends on the circumstances. At start, it might be more interesting to get high Leadership commanders for submarines, to build up their XP while their torpedoes are nigh useless, but Naval & Aggresiveness become paramount later. Cruisers meant for SAG need Naval & Aggresiveness, while those earmarked for CVTF might be better off with good Air skills, to better use their float planes.
Remember that flagships' commander are the default TF commanders : if your biggest ships in each class (BB, CA, CL, DD) are good at surface action, this means you won't have to spend PP to pick a better TF commander. It's particularly useful for ASW TF and other small small-ship TF (PT, minesweeping, cargo, submarines).

I also try not to let outstanding combat unit commanders stuck commanding restricted divisions on the West Coast if I can get them to command the 24th or 25th Infantry Divisions. It pays to check the units that you can't use for good officers (and good pilots, especially for squadrons meant to transfer to the ETO).

Finally, don't change too many commanders, or too often. It costs PP, and sometimes a lot, and they're better spent unrestricting units rather than switching commanders back and forth - once you've changed a leader, don't remove him, make your first pick the best pick. Hence the usefulness of good ship commanders for likely flagships, but also the usefulness of keeping important TF with hand-picked leaders (CVTF, first-rate SAG) in existence : don't disband them if you've finished using them for a time, even if some or most of their ships need yard time - instead, use the transfer options to keep them filled with a handful of ships, while you rotate the roster to repair everyone. Give appropriate names to your TF, to remember what you plan to use them for.


And don't shut up, keep asking ! [;)]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

One additional question

Do people leave their subs on computer control or tend to control them themselves?

Only one other poster touched on this so I will give a more definite opinion .... DO NOT let the AI control your subs! It does a terrible job with placements, patrol zone layouts and sub commanders.

Subs can be enormously useful if you use them in conjunction with your strategies and give them good commanders. Do not expect much at first from the US fleet subs because of the dud torpedoes, but they can find enemy TFs and help prevent surprises. It is not onerous to manage subs as you typically only need to pay attention to them a couple of times a month.

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Guys. Thank you for the responses so far. GetAssista, that AAR link you provided is interesting; I'll take a look at it (and it explains DBB a bit).

I guess my question regarding DBB mod is: Can you use DBB extended map scenarios with other versions of the Extended Map mod, or must you use the DBB extended map version with the base map extension art work?

My AAR is bit outdated, but feel free to ask questions on this forum. People are very helpful. [8D]

Even more outdated, but maybe helpful is my normal Scen 1 AAR:

tm.asp?m=2564541

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Alfred may be able to correct any errors in my understanding, but I thought Leadership was the single most vital stat for a land commander.

Leadership is what is checked to determine if you will get a leadership bonus from combat and command HQs.

The leadership bonus is huge. So you want to have your best chance at getting a positive bonus and not a negative effect.

Inspiration also has an impact on morale so it isn't to be discounted.

Yes, Land skill is essential and aggressiveness is important, but having high leadership is paramount.

I'm pretty sure the recommended assignment is Assault HQ when a leaders aggressive is over 50.

Not really.[;)]

The nitty gritty of leadership has never, and never will be, fully disclosed by the devs. However that doesn't mean that devs have never dropped hints about leaders.

Basically, the prime leader attributes one needs in about 95% of the time are:

LCU - land
Air unit - air
CV TF - air
other TF - naval

Where the real variability comes into play is in selecting the secondary leadership attribute and that very much depends on what the unit does. A squadron permanently restricted to CONUS and tasked with training does not need to have a leader with a high air rating and therefore the attribute which would normally be considered for his secondary attribute can be pushed to become the main consideration.

Similarly a LCU which is not engaged in frontline combat, either because it has been pulled out of the line for rebuilding or it is a support unit, can benefit more by having a commander who is stronger in other attributes than the land attribute. But even a frontline combat LCU may on occasion be better off with a commander with a high leadership rating instead of a high land rating. This can arise where the LCU is very poorly trained, say at only 25% experience, has poor morale and is caught in a malaria zone. That unit should not be in the frontline of combat but if it is, it's stats are so poor for the fire phase of combat that the benefit of a high "land" commander may not be that much but a leader with a high "inspiration" and "leadership" rating may at least get more of the devices ready to participate in combat.

Alfred

[zuluhour]

I didn't think they put all those values in the game for nothing...

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: zuluhour

I didn't think they put all those values in the game for nothing...

They didn't, but they're never going to say what all of them do exactly. In my experience Alfred is right about the primary attribute being primary most of the time. And for the Allies at least, flipping in a new CO to change one of the secondaries for an LCU with weak training takes PPs that probably aren't available until after it really matters. Not if you need to buy out restricted units.

[Anachro]

Question # 10003

If naval torpedo bombers are set to do a port strike will they only use bombs? I ask because game says "Mission against land targets will use bombs" and I noticed in a trial run my port strike only used bombs, no torpedos, despite my bombers being set to use torpedos.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

Question # 10003

If naval torpedo bombers are set to do a port strike will they only use bombs? I ask because game says "Mission against land targets will use bombs" and I noticed in a trial run my port strike only used bombs, no torpedos, despite my bombers being set to use torpedos.

The only time torpedo bombers will use torpedoes on a port strike is the Pearl Harbor strike on turn 1. In every other instance, they will use bombs. If the IJN unit is average XP 70+ and passes a check, they might use the monster 800kg SAP bombs instead of 2x250kg SAP bombs.

I'm not sure, but later strikes against Pearl might also use torpedoes, if available. It's been real-life years since I did that.

[Anachro]

If I attempted to transfer planes between KB on first turn, would transferred planes not participate in ensuing attacks between turn 1 and 2?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Anachro

If I attempted to transfer planes between KB on first turn, would transferred planes not participate in ensuing attacks between turn 1 and 2?

And why would you want to do that?

Alfred