Updated Scen 1 and 2

[Ambassador]

I don’t know if it’s already been said, but there are a few minor « features » in Scen 1 and 2, regarding the Sprague admirals (which were not brothers, if I remember correctly). (Leaders #14051 and #14052)

They are both listed as Ship-type leaders, yet their rank prevents them from being assigned to ships in-game. So you’d either need to make their rank CPT, or change their type from Type 05 Ship to Type 04 Task Force.

Moreover, Clifton Sprague is assigned to PT-74 (Ship #6563)... I can’t really figure why.

[Ambassador]

Further checks also show the following USN RADM as having as Type of command Type 05 Ship - preventing their use (or preventing their use once they’re removed from their Editor-assigned ship) :
- #10158 : Ginder, Samuel Paul (« Cy » Ginder, another good CV TF commander)
- #9009 : Davis, Glenn Benson
- #12359 : McMorris, Chas H.
- #9311 : DuBose, Laurance
- #9010 : Hayley, Robert W. (EDIT: and he’s assigned to S-47, when he arrived with USS Honolulu originally and had nothing to do with submarines)

For the record, there is also a LCDR Ramsey, D., with identical stats to Saratoga’s CPT Ramsey, looking like a database error.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

I don’t know if it’s already been said, but there are a few minor « features » in Scen 1 and 2, regarding the Sprague admirals (which were not brothers, if I remember correctly). (Leaders #14051 and #14052)

They are both listed as Ship-type leaders, yet their rank prevents them from being assigned to ships in-game. So you’d either need to make their rank CPT, or change their type from Type 05 Ship to Type 04 Task Force.

Moreover, Clifton Sprague is assigned to PT-74 (Ship #6563)... I can’t really figure why.

Rank is irrelevant. What is relevant is the type of leader as that solely determines which unit he can be assigned to. Hence to make a Sprague available for assignment to command any USN Task Force, they must be changed to a type 04 leader. Doing so of course makes them ineligible to command a ship.

Alfred

[Ambassador]

Rank is relevant.

For example, a TF with CV or BB can only have a TF commander of CPT or above, not LCDR for example.
A CV/CVE ship can only have a CPT as ship commander, not a LT/LTJG for example, nor a RADM.
A PG-type ship can only have a junior officer (IIRC it’s LT at the highest), whatever their tonnage.
A TF leader (type 04) of the VADM rank can’t be assigned to a single-CV task force, you have to include multiple CV (or BB). I don’t remember if it’s 2 or 3.
Etc.

As such, both Sprague are RADM with Type 05 as their command - they won’t be available when you try to assign them to a ship, even a CV. And they won’t be available to be assigned to a TF either, even one including one or more CV.

[Alfred]

That is not stated in the Editor Manual.

Alfred

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

That is not stated in the Editor Manual.

Alfred

Do you know not everything is stated in the Manual ?

In fact, a lot of crucial informations are NOT written in the Editor Manual.

But it’s not just a problem with the Editor : the limitations on assignment of leaders based on rank is seen in-game.

[Alfred]

Your ship examples are irrelevant.

Read this thread and the two relevant dev comments.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... r&#2809517

Devs were not in the habit to state something was so if the the actual code was written to the contrary, irrespective if the "something" publicly disclosed. Naval leaders were handled differently from Land leaders.

Alfred

[Evoken]

Alfred you are wrong about this one , rank does change what type of ship or a task force leader can be assigned to , ambassador is right.

[Ambassador]

Alfred, that’s like the third affirmation of your part in a week which is wrong (after the timeline of withdrawing Soviet units and the base where disbanded Soviet LCU’s reappear). Maybe you should start checking in-game how it really works, instead of exclusively relying on the Dev’s statements. Your extensive knowledge of their declarations, and of the Forum history, is commendable, but you’re not infaillible. I’m starting to find your attitude very irritating given those mistakes.[:-]

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Your ship examples are irrelevant.

Read this thread and the two relevant dev comments.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... der�

Devs were not in the habit to state something was so if the the actual code was written to the contrary, irrespective if the "something" publicly disclosed. Naval leaders were handled differently from Land leaders.

Alfred

Besides, Don Bowen’s statement is regarding difference in performance.

Said nothing about ranks.

[LargeSlowTarget]

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

I don’t know if it’s already been said, but there are a few minor « features » in Scen 1 and 2, regarding the Sprague admirals (which were not brothers, if I remember correctly). (Leaders #14051 and #14052)

They are both listed as Ship-type leaders, yet their rank prevents them from being assigned to ships in-game. So you’d either need to make their rank CPT, or change their type from Type 05 Ship to Type 04 Task Force.

Moreover, Clifton Sprague is assigned to PT-74 (Ship #6563)... I can’t really figure why.

The leader of PT-73 should be corrected as well, as in the picture below [;)

[Ambassador]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

I don’t know if it’s already been said, but there are a few minor « features » in Scen 1 and 2, regarding the Sprague admirals (which were not brothers, if I remember correctly). (Leaders #14051 and #14052)

They are both listed as Ship-type leaders, yet their rank prevents them from being assigned to ships in-game. So you’d either need to make their rank CPT, or change their type from Type 05 Ship to Type 04 Task Force.

Moreover, Clifton Sprague is assigned to PT-74 (Ship #6563)... I can’t really figure why.

The leader of PT-73 should be corrected as well, as in the picture below [;)

All good !

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Bump

Sorry Yaab not going to jump into that one I lost my detailed squad relative firepower bible years ago when my laptop melted down so going to have totrust whatwe did at the time

Hi Andy anymore plans for any more updates? Help us Obi One you are our only hope! [&o] Is michaelm75au or any of the rest of the team still around? I guess 1126b will be the last beta patch? Since this looks to be the last WITP game ever I hope it continues to stay alive!

[Sardaukar]

Quinton McHale is good transport commander, for decent naval skill and low aggressiveness...[8D]

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Both scenarios are AI and PBEM capable - although experienced players for either side will cream the AI in either scenario.

Just curious are you saying the AI is worse in your updated scenarios? Or the same or better?

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Both scenarios are AI and PBEM capable - although experienced players for either side will cream the AI in either scenario.

Just curious are you saying the AI is worse in your updated scenarios? Or the same or better?

The AI is better in these updated scenarios - no doubt about that. However, these are still historical OOB scenarios (Japan gets more in Scen 2, but not a lot), and as history proves, they were running on a shoestring right from the start. A good human player will burn through AI Japan's air and naval OOB in no time, and after that it's curtains. For the Allies it's similar - not enough material at the start and by the time that's fixed, it's too late.

Which means the experienced human player has to face an "Ironman" level AI opponent in order to have a challenging game. The new AI does far fewer "stupid things", and so it's better, but against a human player it all comes down to "more stuff". The more it has, the more the AI can do, and the more leeway it has to absorb what would otherwise be crippling blows if received in Scen 1 or 2.

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Both scenarios are AI and PBEM capable - although experienced players for either side will cream the AI in either scenario.

Just curious are you saying the AI is worse in your updated scenarios? Or the same or better?

The AI is better in these updated scenarios - no doubt about that. However, these are still historical OOB scenarios (Japan gets more in Scen 2, but not a lot), and as history proves, they were running on a shoestring right from the start. A good human player will burn through AI Japan's air and naval OOB in no time, and after that it's curtains. For the Allies it's similar - not enough material at the start and by the time that's fixed, it's too late.

Which means the experienced human player has to face an "Ironman" level AI opponent in order to have a challenging game. The new AI does far fewer "stupid things", and so it's better, but against a human player it all comes down to "more stuff". The more it has, the more the AI can do, and the more leeway it has to absorb what would otherwise be crippling blows if received in Scen 1 or 2.

Thanks was worried this new update was only made for multiplayer games and the stock was better for SP. Getting my game on again with this one! Looking forward to the new changes and better AI!

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: Kull
Which means the experienced human player has to face an "Ironman" level AI opponent in order to have a challenging game. The new AI does far fewer "stupid things", and so it's better, but against a human player it all comes down to "more stuff". The more it has, the more the AI can do, and the more leeway it has to absorb what would otherwise be crippling blows if received in Scen 1 or 2.

With my regular playing against Ironman I now believe that in some cases it can be too much quality, not just quantity. E.g. it is mostly pointless to wage offensive air war against Ironman Japan - you have no hopes of denting AI forces in exchange for your regular bloody nose, and AI is everywhere. So the game becomes more trivial - you can only capture his air bases via land campaign, or bombard them to oblivion from the sea. Bombers become essentially useless in their primary role.

Not to mention regular Sydney vs Kormorant encounters that are even more one-sided than the real thing

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Kull
Which means the experienced human player has to face an "Ironman" level AI opponent in order to have a challenging game. The new AI does far fewer "stupid things", and so it's better, but against a human player it all comes down to "more stuff". The more it has, the more the AI can do, and the more leeway it has to absorb what would otherwise be crippling blows if received in Scen 1 or 2.

With my regular playing against Ironman I now believe that in some cases it can be too much quality, not just quantity. E.g. it is mostly pointless to wage offensive air war against Ironman Japan - you have no hopes of denting AI forces in exchange for your regular bloody nose, and AI is everywhere. So the game becomes more trivial - you can only capture his air bases via land campaign, or bombard them to oblivion from the sea. Bombers become essentially useless in their primary role.

Not to mention regular Sydney vs Kormorant encounters that are even more one-sided than the real thing

Which level of Ironman are you referring to, since there are 3 for the Japanese AI? My current game is Scen 102 (Ironman 1 test version), and I find that bombers are quite effective. 2Es must fly at night, and while 4Es can survive day missions, the heavy attrition keeps most of them working nights as well. The AI does have a lot of good fighters and pilots, so there's plenty of bloody noses to be had, but well trained Allied pilots flying defensive missions can - just barely - stay ahead of the curve. The airframe losses are significant, but I actually like the fact that you have to ration out the replacements. As for those killer AMCs, yes that was a shock the first time they tore up a light cruiser TF, but hey? Once you know they exist, you operate differently.

In early 1943 I'm dealing with brutal air and jungle warfare along the Indo-Burmese border, a meat grinder in the Solomons, a slowly losing situation in China, and the opening moves of the Central Pacific atoll-hopping campaign. Against an opponent that is still deadly and dangerous, with most of KB alive, hidden, and biding it's time. What's not to like?

[Moltrey]

Andy:

Could you please check your Scenario 1 at start and verify whether the Mauna Loa AE (C2 Lassen class) ship is at Pearl Harbor or even in the game, period?
I am working on your latest version as Allies and doing my first turn Dec 8th setup. Discovered she is missing and in none of the Intel lists or usual areas or reinforcement charts, etc.
Kull did some editor and other digging (see his War Room thread on the setup spreadsheet) and it looks like there is some confusing and/or conflicting game info concerning this ship.

Thanks!