Test of new scenario #21 "Nasty" AI

[larryfulkerson]

Dr. Brian Doctor has developed a new scenario to be tested to work out all the bugs before the next WITP-AE release and I agreed to do that. My task is to play the Allied side for about 3 months of game time and then take on the JAP side and play it to the end. That could take quite a while so I decided to get started soonest. According to Dr. Doctor this scenario is truely "Nasty" and I should expect quite a ride.

I have loaded the scenario and taken a look around and I'm starting now to set up the Allied side and I'll post a save game file for you guys to take a look around, contingent on whether or not Dr. Doctor agrees that's okie dokie with him, etc. I've got my work set out ahead of me. Wish me luck.

Charlotte says go for it.

charlotte.jpg (12.69 KiB) Viewed 1176 times

[larryfulkerson]

Here's the settings for the scenario:

Nasty Scenario Settings 1.png (1.1 MiB) Viewed 1173 times

Nasty Scenario Settings 2.png (1.09 MiB) Viewed 1173 times

Nasty Scenario Settings 3.png (1.08 MiB) Viewed 1173 times

[larryfulkerson]

I thought I ought to take a look at when I'm going to receive some new equipment and take a look at what kinds of planes are in the pools at game start, not that I can do anything about it. I see the Dutch getting some new aircraft and that will help a lot, probably.

temp.jpg (386.05 KiB) Viewed 1172 times

[BBfanboy]

Japanese players have been using FPs in the fighter role to spoil attacks and occasionally shoot down an enemy plane. Perhaps your Kingfishers could do something like that.

[larryfulkerson]

Japanese players have been using FPs in the fighter role to spoil attacks and occasionally shoot down an enemy plane. Perhaps your Kingfishers could do something like that.

That's a great idea. I'll make it happen. Thanks.

deck crew launching aircraft.jpg (879.14 KiB) Viewed 1151 times

[larryfulkerson]

I was trying to decide whether or not to try to upgrade my recon squadron currently training at San Louis Obispo and so I did a cut and paste of the characteristics of each plane and ( the squadron is currently flying the O-47A ) judging from the stats of the O-49 Vigilant I'm thinking I should upgrade it and let the O-47A's go to the combat units out in the field to the squadrons that really need it. The only problem with that plan is that there aren't any planes of either type in the pool(s). So I'll do this later I guess.

temp.jpg (148.67 KiB) Viewed 1139 times

[larryfulkerson]

There's a bomber squadron at Boise that is flying the B-26 Marauder and it has a B-25B Mitchell in it's upgrade path and I'm wondering if I should schedule it for an upgrade; I believe it would be beneficial but alas, there are 0 planes of both types in the pool(s) so far.

temp.jpg (177.76 KiB) Viewed 1132 times

[larryfulkerson]

I was wondering what the difference was between the OS2U-3 Kingfisher and the SOC-1 Seagull and it looks like the Kingfisher has a fabulous range and endurance but the Seagull has a much better Altitude/Maneuver Modifier. So if I wasn't going to fight with them the better range would be better but if I was going to go hunting for enemy ships ( subs, etc. ) then it appears that the Seagull would be more advantageous. What to do? Maybe the answer is a mix of both types in the same TF, one to search and one to fight ( CAP, ASW, escort, etc. )? Or on those ships that have two squadrons of FP's you could have one squadron of each types on the ship, one to search and one to fight? What would you guys do?

temp.jpg (173.78 KiB) Viewed 1126 times

[larryfulkerson]

I was surprised to find out that the P-43 Lancer doesn't have a bomb loadout but the P-40E does. But the P-43 is a better fighter. But it doesn't have any armor to protect the pilot. But it does have a better range and a lightly better speed and a much better Altitude/Maneuver Modifier. So the aircraft to choose depends on what you're going to do with it. Bombing demands the P-40E but dogfighting suggests the P-43. Again, maybe a mix of types is the answer?

temp.jpg (164.47 KiB) Viewed 1120 times

[CaptBeefheart]

I only use Kingfisher and Seagull seaplane squadrons for naval search, ASW or training. You can use them to train USN fighter pilots using sweep. Some scenarios have such a dearth of appropriate squadrons to train USN fighter pilots that you should use some Kingfishers for that. Those squadrons are also great to train patrol pilots in ASW and nav search.

I wouldn't use them for CAP or naval bombing missions except in rare circumstances where there isn't anything else. I'm also not sure those squadrons have a CAP button. Something to check, anyway.

EDIT: USAAF doesn't get very many P-43s. Due to the low numbers, I usually use them for training. I think China gets more of the type usually.

Cheers,
CB

[BBfanboy]

Another thing to consider in selecting your fighters is loiter time. The Lancer may fly fast but it uses up its fuel more quickly and will spend more time on the ground.

About the P-40Es - you start out with some in the Philippines and they cannot compete with the Zeros sweeping their bases. So arm them with bombs and set them on Naval Attack at 100 feet. I sank a Japanese Atago class CA that way! Also drowned a lot of troops before they got landed.

[btd64]

Just a note, this is Andy Mac's baby not mine....GP

[larryfulkerson]

I used to have trouble with my display in that when I selected a base on the map the stuff at that base displayed in the lower left of the screen usually got truncated before the industry icons could be displayed at the bottom of the display on the map so I couldn't see what the industry icons were so I used "Seabee" to do some fine tuning and I found a setting in the X and Y of the resolution that would display them just fine and I thought there may be some of you out there that had the same problem. Here's MY workaround for that problem.

Here's the invocation I'm using in my shortcut:

"C:\Matrix Games\WITP-AE anti-AI games\War in the Pacific Admiral Edition.exe" -dual -wd -pxf1440 -pyf830 -dd_sw -altFont -skipVideo -archive

temp.jpg (179.75 KiB) Viewed 1041 times

[BBfanboy]

You may still find that having the Windows Bar at the bottom is troublesome because it is too close to the game icons and controls. Same at the top of the screen. I move mine to the right side of the screen (just unlock it and drag it over there) and it is well out of the way.

[larryfulkerson]

I've discovered something curious. Tracker says that virtually ALL of my aircraft are due for withdrawl but there's nothing on the unit display that says anything about being withdrawn. I've highlighted one of the aircraft units to explain what I mean.

temp.jpg (1020.07 KiB) Viewed 987 times

[fcooke]

Maurader slower than a b-25, that seems 'odd'.

[fcooke]

Hopefully back for good this time.

[larryfulkerson]

I've decided to play the Japanese side of scenario #21 and here's what I'm discovering all over the map with my fighters. This particular squadron is stationed at Truk and most of it's pilots are candidates for TRACOM and I must decide whether or not to move them there. This single squadron can provide instructors for all my training squadrons all by itself. In order for it to participate in the war I will have to move it closer to any potential targets because it's not in range of any Allied targets yet. And as you can see from the bottom part of the image I have many many squadrons of very very high experience levels all over the map. I wasn't prepaired to see things like this and I'm of course delighted to find things like this.

temp.jpg (458.85 KiB) Viewed 921 times

[Nomad]

Really? You are going to take the IJN side using an ironman scenario?

[larryfulkerson]

Really? You are going to take the IJN side using an ironman scenario?

What could possibly go wrong? I'll keep you guys posted on what happens.

deck crew launching aircraft 2.jpg (67.47 KiB) Viewed 902 times