Hell Hath Frozen Over (Scout1 (J) vs Lowpe (A)

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

HQc influence is not 0-10%, it is more than x2 increase on adjusted AV on average when fully prepped. I had a research on that in the usual place.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Speaking of HQs, does anyone know if there is a benefit from having multiple HQs.

IF a unit fails one check, does it get a 2nd check if another HQ is within range? Or can it get multiple positive influences from distinct HQs.

Several HQc - did not test that, I assume than the highest prep wins. Except the mundane "more support squads - better R&R"
Multiple positive - definitely no. Unless it is HQc and command HQ, those two do accumulate to potentially enormous bonuses.

I just re-read a lot of your research...I was merely quoting the manual. [:)]

For the other questions I was thinking along the more hidden benefits of HQs. Would multiple HQs with high Admin stack to help repair disablements for example or even merit a fresh check. Although does having x% more support squads than needed is an interesting question too for better R&R.

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

HQc influence is not 0-10%, it is more than x2 increase on adjusted AV on average when fully prepped. I had a research on that in the usual place.

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
Speaking of HQs, does anyone know if there is a benefit from having multiple HQs.

IF a unit fails one check, does it get a 2nd check if another HQ is within range? Or can it get multiple positive influences from distinct HQs.

Several HQc - did not test that, I assume than the highest prep wins. Except the mundane "more support squads - better R&R"
Multiple positive - definitely no. Unless it is HQc and command HQ, those two do accumulate to potentially enormous bonuses.

I just re-read a lot of your research...I was merely quoting the manual. [:)]

For the other questions I was thinking along the more hidden benefits of HQs. Would multiple HQs with high Admin stack to help repair disablements for example or even merit a fresh check. Although does having x% more support squads than needed is an interesting question too for better R&R.

I have a similar question - would bringing another HQc to Diamond Harbor - have one in Burma that can get there pretty quick - potentially help the adjusted AV or would it be redundant given that I already have both the Southern Army Command HQ and the 25th Army Corps HQ in the area?

To be honest I am still trying to grasp the functions of the different HQs in the game, but I am getting there.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

HQc influence is not 0-10%, it is more than x2 increase on adjusted AV on average when fully prepped. I had a research on that in the usual place.


Several HQc - did not test that, I assume than the highest prep wins. Except the mundane "more support squads - better R&R"
Multiple positive - definitely no. Unless it is HQc and command HQ, those two do accumulate to potentially enormous bonuses.

I just re-read a lot of your research...I was merely quoting the manual. [:)]

For the other questions I was thinking along the more hidden benefits of HQs. Would multiple HQs with high Admin stack to help repair disablements for example or even merit a fresh check. Although does having x% more support squads than needed is an interesting question too for better R&R.

I have a similar question - would bringing another HQc to Diamond Harbor - have one in Burma that can get there pretty quick - potentially help the adjusted AV or would it be redundant given that I already have both the Southern Army Command HQ and the 25th Army Corps HQ in the area?

To be honest I am still trying to grasp the functions of the different HQs in the game, but I am getting there.

It depends what you are trying to accomplish with the HQc. I think if it is prep for Attack or Defense at one base and the other HQs are already prepped for it, then no. But if it is for other reasons, then the answer is an unknown from maybe to maybe yes to definitive yes depending what you are trying to do with it.

Hope that helps.[;)]

[DesertWolf101]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: DesertWolf101

ORIGINAL: Lowpe





I just re-read a lot of your research...I was merely quoting the manual. [:)]

For the other questions I was thinking along the more hidden benefits of HQs. Would multiple HQs with high Admin stack to help repair disablements for example or even merit a fresh check. Although does having x% more support squads than needed is an interesting question too for better R&R.

I have a similar question - would bringing another HQc to Diamond Harbor - have one in Burma that can get there pretty quick - potentially help the adjusted AV or would it be redundant given that I already have both the Southern Army Command HQ and the 25th Army Corps HQ in the area?

To be honest I am still trying to grasp the functions of the different HQs in the game, but I am getting there.

It depends what you are trying to accomplish with the HQc. I think if it is prep for Attack or Defense at one base and the other HQs are already prepped for it, then no. But if it is for other reasons, then the answer is an unknown from maybe to maybe yes to definitive yes depending what you are trying to do with it.

Hope that helps.[;)]

[:D]

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Also, the Tojo comes in month 9 and not month 6.

I thought the Tojo always comes in September. In my current Ironman game it does.

In the last scenario 2 game, the first Tojos came in June. Maybe there was an update later.

[rustysi]

This is going to be a different game:

Scenario 2 (with AndyMac's latest patch) Read that to mean more light cruisers and destroyers (for Japan), lots more bases, and other joy.

So, I'm not following this AAR page by page, but I'm looking in when I have time. I have questions...

Is this some kind of mod, or just AndyMac's scenario updates?

I ask because I intend to load his scenario updates, but not if he's adding all kinds of things... Its just not for me.

Extra light cruisers, destroyers, and bases does't sound like a scenario update, but a mod.

Please let me know... Especially if it ends in this...

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: GetAssista
Everything else is crap, except maybe some aviation support units

Where do you get this "early Sam" idea from? It does not have upgrade chains, so research should be done honestly. First research factories will come online late 43, and then there is research to be accumulated.

I plan on buying out a Dutch AA unit on Lautem and shipping them to Oz early on.

Andy didn't fix it. It doesn't show up in the mod notes, and in the thread Andy says he fixed it. I checked in scenario 1 it is fixed, but I never checked scenario 2 and now it is too late.

The Sam being an extension of the Zero line just does not sit well with me. JMHO.

[Alfred]

It is Andy Mac's latest changes. Enough differences to almost qualify as a mod. But remember, scenario 2 has always meant to be a bit ahistorical.

Also, Andy's updates are always focused on improving the AI's capability (specifically a Japanese AI) to go mano a mano with a human player. You will find the changes overwhelmingly are earmarked to a Japanese AI.

The better question is with the latest changes, does scenario 2 remain playable for two human players or should it now be considered to be played only by a human Allied player v a Japanese AI.

Alfred

[rustysi]

Wow, that was quick.[:D]

So are the scenario 1 additions just pretty much corrections to the data base as I've understood?

[rustysi]

The better question is with the latest changes, does scenario 2 remain playable for two human players or should it now be considered to be played only by a human Allied player v a Japanese AI.

Isn't there already a scenario like that? Four or something?

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

The better question is with the latest changes, does scenario 2 remain playable for two human players or should it now be considered to be played only by a human Allied player v a Japanese AI.

Isn't there already a scenario like that? Four or something?

Yes, the Tier 3 Ironman versions. They are absolutely not meant for PBEM. Even with the latest scenario 2 changes, it remains borderline playable for PBEM, particularly if the Jqpanese side is played by a much weaker/less experienced human than is the Allied side.

What probably nudged Andy to not declaring the latest Scneario 2 to be a human v AI only game is that there is only a single updated script, not the usual 13 scripts.

Alfred

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Wow, that was quick.[:D]

So are the scenario 1 additions just pretty much corrections to the data base as I've understood?

No idea as I haven't checked, and I find it very easy to resist any urge to so check. Kull is probably on top of it however.

Alfred

[rustysi]

Thanks Alfred.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

Wow, that was quick.[:D]

So are the scenario 1 additions just pretty much corrections to the data base as I've understood?

Here is Andy's change log for both Scen 1 and 2:



Attached to this thread are revised and updated Scen 1 and 2.

Main changes.
Bases - Lots of new bases in NZ/Aus/China/Burma/Malaya some are to make the AI perform better some are purely because it offended me to have railway lines on the map that couldn't be used bases are in the 1600 - 1720 range if you want to look at them - some of the names may be slightly out especially in China.

Resources etc - A little more on map LI for both sides to better reflect food production reduced off map supply and 'magic supply to compensate in most cases. (China/Burma/SEA/Russia mostly)

A few minor aircraft tweaks - eg Beaufighters now attack bombers becdause the code handles them better as attack bombers than FB's same with Mosquitoes - if you don't like change back

More allied aircraft set to CW nationality especially FAA types as FAA sqns are a mix of nationalities and this allows them all to use the aircraft.

Small tweaks to OOB in China (splitting units) to cope with new bases

Post 6/45 increases in US and CW device replacements to reflect re prioritisation of replacement to the hot war - basically just in case the game is still going until mid 46

An updated AI file please delete all existing aei01-00x.dat and aei01-00x.dat files if you want to keep them copy to a subfiolder - at present the new AI file has NO variants and therefore will not overwrite the existing files so you need to delete them or you wont be using the latest files.

Scen 2 only on top of existing Scen 2 increases - added about 30 additional ships to the IJN to make them a little stronger in mid war period 6/42 - 12/43 specifically 2 extra CA's and few tankers, Ak's, DD's and a couple of my surprise AMC's again feel free to delete they are at the end of the file - they give both the AI and an IJN player a couple of extra toys to play with when the Fletchers start rolling in but not enough to unbalance scen.

Lots of tweaks and corrections that have been sent in as well over the last couple of years - I am sure I have missed a few so feel free to let me know of any errors in the thread below.

Edit v2
Added Cav Designation to 1st Chinese Cav Corps
Adjusted MG device in 7811 Chinese corps
Changed Device in Mobile Eenhid
Amended Wiraway Bomb Load
Removed Port from Reid River
Moved starting Location 1st motor Bde (aus) to Brisbane
Updated Dutch and Soviet Subs to match class files
Wright now arrives day 3 at PH
Moved Alchiba/Aries and Mauna Loa to later arrival dates


v3 a few HQ changes in 45 per Kulls spot on Air groups and a few Chinese HQ changes
Enjoy

v4 fixed Boomerang bomb load and tried again with Kulls updates !!!

v5 Corrected a couple of issues with Chinese supply caps on bases, amended 24th Chinese Base Force, Corrected 2 ships from list above moved from PH to Anchorage, reverted Beaufighters and Mosquitos back to FB's undoing change above as on balance not an air guy so trusting original team more than my testing, added 5 new Gulf bases in Australia, removed Fairey Battle except as Invasion reinforcements

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The better question is with the latest changes, does scenario 2 remain playable for two human players or should it now be considered to be played only by a human Allied player v a Japanese AI.

Alfred

Hopefully we will find out.

Rusty,

Scenario 2 usually forces the Allies to figure out a way to generate VP to stave off AV earlier than Scenario 1. So there is a constant conflict of interest save resources for later when it is much easier to earn VP with the resources (due to better training, leader, and technology) or expend them for VP in a favorable manner or to reduce overall VP gains (by buying time).

It has been a long time since I played scenario 2 style game. The biggest changes past the economic & r&d strength of Japan, which is very significant, is more Tank units and changing the Shinano that I recall easily. There is a post somewhere on the forum detailing the differences, but I am not looking for it.

I always was of the opinion that Scenario 2 was too slanted towards Japan for pbem. Between players of different skill levels you need to figure out the reason for the skill difference...strategy, tactics, game mechanics, oob knowledge. Some of these can be radically improved upon very quickly while others not so much.

It does give a Japanese player a buffer to make some mistakes especially with respect to the economy, and if the Allies can avoid AV then it also usually offers a longer game.

My biggest fear is a 1944 Japanese AV. If Japan plays for that, rather than swinging for the fences during the amphibious invasion bonus period and seeking a 1943 AV -- well, that could prove very difficult to stop in this game.

Perhaps the 2 day turns will prove to be my best friend in staving off AV...as I feel it favors the defender if used correctly.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

The Sam being an extension of the Zero line just does not sit well with me. JMHO.

It will be tough if it comes really early, and hard not to see that happening tbh.

It hurts the normal Allied advantage in mid 1943 in CV clashes that the Hellcat normally provides. Although, like all fighters it is significantly weaker in the escort role, and the Americans still have a strong radar and flak advantage. It also has short legs, not as short as the M8, but it is still something to consider when engineering a CV clash.

And, generally speaking engineering a CV clash is an Allied strength - increasingly as the game progresses.

The Sam is also a great counter to Jugs and ground based Corsairs in 1943.

[Lowpe]

Fair disclosure ---- I am a HB noob. Pretty much no experience bombing anything past 1942 and next to no experience with HB. Lots of experience being bombed into dust.[:)]

I do plan on using Allied bombers very differently, whether that will be good or bad, I don't know.

But here are some general thoughts on the mechanics of bombing I think I have everything correct here:

HR: 50 planes max night strike on ports and runways

2e need size 4AF
4e need size 5AF
B29 need size 7AF

AS needs to hit minimum required to avoid penalties
Supply needed to avoid penalty

HQa in same command with squadrons improve coordination
HQa and base in same command improve administrative stacking the best, as does a Command HQ. Command radius higher & closer the better.

Size 9 and 10 AF no stacking limits of any kind

Use naval strike primary mission, target secondary mission to fly afternoon raids.

Lots of checks...lots of skill, traits, morale, interdependencies

Ops losses are real killers

Inherent Japanese flak for the most part stinks. Japan does get good dedicated AA but never enough.

DL the higher the better. Night DL helps too.

More bombs in bombloads generally means more hits. Lower altitude more hits. Balloons at 6k and below (more engines harder to avoid). Bigger bombs means more destruction.

High skill and most importantly high experience are force multipliers.

Usually a lag in recon versus damage. Airfield damage on mouseover can be misleading, runways can operate with heavy mouseover damage rating. There is a sliding scale formula based on runway size for the damage it can take before being closed.

Smaller base (port or runway) easier it is to damage ships or planes. Overstacking is very dangerous.

[RangerJoe]

The Naval Strike range must be 0 for the bombers not to fly a strike in the am.

Mi up the heights to defeat CAP. Sweeping lower than the bombers will tend to ensure that the sweeps come in before the bombers. But both can suffer problems with that. The Sweep can get bounced and the bombers won't be as accurate. But doing so in the am with an afternoon raid taking on the remnants of the CAP . . .

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

The Naval Strike range must be 0 for the bombers not to fly a strike in the am.

Only if there is a target.[;)]

[Lowpe]

Just perused Allied bombers thru early 43.

A NZ plane has radar, none have cameras, and the Navy liberator has radar and the night time British bomber.

Ouch.[:(] I was hoping for some cameras, especially among the Americans.