Hi, Version 2.2 patch should be out soon. Here are some fixes...
PBEM Allied supply problem is fixed.
The US 6th and 38th Divisions SHOULD NOT appear on Truk or in China. We think this was due to these divisions being attached to the American 10th Army when they appear, instead of the Central Pacific. This might have caused this bug to occur.
OBC changes.
I changed back most of the ship armour and durability to how it was originally done in PacWar. Through A LOT of research, the stats of the ships originally included in the game were as accurate as you can get.
Destroyers no longer have an armour value, but, their durability is increased. DD's didn't have any armour plate, and relied on speed and manuverability to escape enemy fire.
A few extra IJA formations are included, and the LCU's have been shifted around to allow for ALL of the free spaces to utilize the 50 spaces at the end of their OB's.
Version 2.2 stuff
-
Supervisor
- Posts: 5160
- Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 12:00 am
Major Tom:
Did you get the MTB/Torpedo Boat swap fixed?
Also, Check out the Hobart - RAN CL - she has no main battery, at least in OBSOL.
Also, and this would be a biggie. The US 16"45 cal weapon on the North Carolina and South Dakota classes fired a much larger shell than the 16" guns on other BB's of other nations. It was the same capacity as the AP weapon on the 16"50 on the Iowa, but with a range of only about 37K yards as opposed to 42K yards.
Regarding AAA. Only the USS South Dakota was outfitted with the 16 5"38's in that class. The rest of the class had all 20 of them. The South Dakota was fitted as a force flag, and had one pair of 5"38 twin mounts removed. Indiana, Massachussetts, and Alabama all had all ten twin mounts.
Also - the IJN Nagatos should have a speed of 27 knts. They were found to have a real speed of 26.75 knots after records were examined following the war, though they were only credited with 25 knots.
Friedman's book on cruisers shows a much larger medium and light AA fit than is shown in the game for USN CLAA's (Reno class especially). Might check that record. Should read something on the order of 20-24 40MM and about 12-16 20MM. Actual fits varied with the commissioning of the ships. Some of the later ships in the class were outfitted with as many as 32 40MM - though they appeared late in the war.
------------------
God Bless;
Rev. Rick, the tincanman
Did you get the MTB/Torpedo Boat swap fixed?
Also, Check out the Hobart - RAN CL - she has no main battery, at least in OBSOL.
Also, and this would be a biggie. The US 16"45 cal weapon on the North Carolina and South Dakota classes fired a much larger shell than the 16" guns on other BB's of other nations. It was the same capacity as the AP weapon on the 16"50 on the Iowa, but with a range of only about 37K yards as opposed to 42K yards.
Regarding AAA. Only the USS South Dakota was outfitted with the 16 5"38's in that class. The rest of the class had all 20 of them. The South Dakota was fitted as a force flag, and had one pair of 5"38 twin mounts removed. Indiana, Massachussetts, and Alabama all had all ten twin mounts.
Also - the IJN Nagatos should have a speed of 27 knts. They were found to have a real speed of 26.75 knots after records were examined following the war, though they were only credited with 25 knots.
Friedman's book on cruisers shows a much larger medium and light AA fit than is shown in the game for USN CLAA's (Reno class especially). Might check that record. Should read something on the order of 20-24 40MM and about 12-16 20MM. Actual fits varied with the commissioning of the ships. Some of the later ships in the class were outfitted with as many as 32 40MM - though they appeared late in the war.
------------------
God Bless;
Rev. Rick, the tincanman
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
-
Andrew Offen
- Posts: 11
- Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2000 9:00 am
- Location: Singapore
Why would you demand the removal of the war end early upon the withdrawal of the "Unconditional Surrender" demand? I do believe that the Japanese were in fact gambling on this very attitude/event.... to fight the US into a standoff or negogiated peace. A stiff war ending a negogiated peace is what happened in the earlier Russo-Japan war.
John D.
John D.
The reason that this happens is that the Allies are given a lot more LCU's, airgroups, ships, etc. at the beginning of the game which if lost early on will give the Japanese enough KILL points to win the game. They don't have to surpass the Allies in TOTAL points, just KILL points, to symbolize the Allies not having the stomach for such a bloody war.
As the Allies, you just have to be careful to make sure you don't have any unecessary losses (such as a few CV's) WITHOUT causing any damage to the Japanese for points compensation.
As the Allies, you just have to be careful to make sure you don't have any unecessary losses (such as a few CV's) WITHOUT causing any damage to the Japanese for points compensation.
Major Tom:
Just ran into a bug - I think. Playing OBSOL - which I use as a benchmark since that's the first game I ran (personal peccadillo) - and found that a lot of DD's (Fletchers) reach "Turns 0" and then never appear - also same with some of the APA(L)'s. Ran ahead for several turns,and they still showed "Turns O" on PW Editor 1.22.
Also - interesting sideline. Decided that the US War Plans office got off their collective posteriors and told Curtiss that they did not want him to build P-40N's, but rather he retool and build P51B/C beginning in about July of 43
Fighter Man. (24) Cannon (8) Load (5) Range (6) [at least - probably should be 7] Dur. (28) [SWAG] availability about between 78-85 (rough approximation.)
And I think y'all have jacked aircraft costs way up too high. It costs way to much to build later fighters, and there is no way it cost half of the cost of a B-29 to build a P-38 (IMHO)(FWTW).
------------------
God Bless;
Rev. Rick, the tincanman
Just ran into a bug - I think. Playing OBSOL - which I use as a benchmark since that's the first game I ran (personal peccadillo) - and found that a lot of DD's (Fletchers) reach "Turns 0" and then never appear - also same with some of the APA(L)'s. Ran ahead for several turns,and they still showed "Turns O" on PW Editor 1.22.
Also - interesting sideline. Decided that the US War Plans office got off their collective posteriors and told Curtiss that they did not want him to build P-40N's, but rather he retool and build P51B/C beginning in about July of 43
Fighter Man. (24) Cannon (8) Load (5) Range (6) [at least - probably should be 7] Dur. (28) [SWAG] availability about between 78-85 (rough approximation.)
And I think y'all have jacked aircraft costs way up too high. It costs way to much to build later fighters, and there is no way it cost half of the cost of a B-29 to build a P-38 (IMHO)(FWTW).
------------------
God Bless;
Rev. Rick, the tincanman
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Does this ship thing just happen with OBSOL? I wonder why?
I will look at the P-51B issue, I am not sure wether or not they were just mostly sent to Europe. I cannot really find any information on the numbers that served in the Pacific. I think too many of my sources just blended the P-51B and D together. Could you post some units and times? And I'll take a look at them.
I will look at the P-51B issue, I am not sure wether or not they were just mostly sent to Europe. I cannot really find any information on the numbers that served in the Pacific. I think too many of my sources just blended the P-51B and D together. Could you post some units and times? And I'll take a look at them.
I'm not sure, but, I don't think so. The Matrix team is only trying to fix bugs created by the patch, not to fix further ones from the original. They can't spend forever on fixing Pacific War, or else they would never get to War in the Pacific.
You can, however, manually fix this using any number of editors.
You can, however, manually fix this using any number of editors.
A request:
Can we go back to allowing the B-24 plants to be changed to B-29? If I want to standardize on the B-29, that ought to be my choice. I know it's not "historical" but no more so than not attacking the the right island at the right time. Besides, with the lower production it's hard enough to get squadrons up to fighting strength with one pool of bombers let alone two.
Same principle though less important would apply to the patrol aircraft.
Look for a post soon on "historical" production vs. player choice on the WitP forum.
Can we go back to allowing the B-24 plants to be changed to B-29? If I want to standardize on the B-29, that ought to be my choice. I know it's not "historical" but no more so than not attacking the the right island at the right time. Besides, with the lower production it's hard enough to get squadrons up to fighting strength with one pool of bombers let alone two.
Same principle though less important would apply to the patrol aircraft.
Look for a post soon on "historical" production vs. player choice on the WitP forum.
-
Andrew Brown
- Posts: 4087
- Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hex 82,170
- Contact:
I have been playing a game of Pacwar 2.1 as the Allies against the Computer Japanese and I think the game is terrific.
One thing I noticed that seemed a bit strange, though, was that I had several divisions in Singapore that got completely cut off in early 1942, when the Japanese captured the base (after already grabbing the rest of Malaya), but they managed to hold out for over a YEAR without being supplied!! I thought they might last a month or two but twelve months later the Japanese were still launching attacks against them and losing hundreds of men each week, while the level 9 entrenched allied forces lost maybe a squad or two. Their experience levels eventually reached 99 but their readiness levels never dropped below the twenties. I wasn't supplying them by sea or air during this time. Eventually I relieved them by attacking Malaya in early 1943 just as they began to weaken to the stage where they were taking higher casualties.
Should't a group of units that are cut off for this long, especially when the base they are located at is in enemy hands, suffer more of a decline in their readiness levels over this length of time??
Could this be something that could be tweaked for 2.2?? Or is there some explanation that I am not aware of?
One thing I noticed that seemed a bit strange, though, was that I had several divisions in Singapore that got completely cut off in early 1942, when the Japanese captured the base (after already grabbing the rest of Malaya), but they managed to hold out for over a YEAR without being supplied!! I thought they might last a month or two but twelve months later the Japanese were still launching attacks against them and losing hundreds of men each week, while the level 9 entrenched allied forces lost maybe a squad or two. Their experience levels eventually reached 99 but their readiness levels never dropped below the twenties. I wasn't supplying them by sea or air during this time. Eventually I relieved them by attacking Malaya in early 1943 just as they began to weaken to the stage where they were taking higher casualties.
Should't a group of units that are cut off for this long, especially when the base they are located at is in enemy hands, suffer more of a decline in their readiness levels over this length of time??
Could this be something that could be tweaked for 2.2?? Or is there some explanation that I am not aware of?
It's been a while, but, what are the starting experience levels for the 8th Australian and 18th British? In the latest mod, I have their experiences at 50 and 40. This will result in them fighting a bit, but, not hanging on. In reality, their experience should be 60 for the 8th, and 50 for the 18th, as, they were both heavily trained, but, inexperienced. For some reason they hang in there if they all don't surrender when Singapore falls if their experience is above 50. Reinforcements will knock the 8th Division down to 40, while the 18th Division will not have time to build up to 50. This should stop the forces from hanging in there till 1943.
Back to the B-29's---
Someone at some point decided that you shouldn't be able to build all B-29's. The same person probably decided the U.S. shouldn't build Sunderlands. I think these were bad calls and suggest you change them back. Just go back to the old version of the code.
And yes I do think this is important--with two different bomber pools it takes forever to get heavy bomber squadrons up to fighting strength.
Someone at some point decided that you shouldn't be able to build all B-29's. The same person probably decided the U.S. shouldn't build Sunderlands. I think these were bad calls and suggest you change them back. Just go back to the old version of the code.
And yes I do think this is important--with two different bomber pools it takes forever to get heavy bomber squadrons up to fighting strength.
-
Ed Cogburn
- Posts: 1641
- Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Greeneville, Tennessee - GO VOLS!
- Contact: