Change #1 Wing (the first Spitfire unit) from Spitfire VIII to Seafire III. This unit was equiped with Spitfire V and the Seafire III is just a navalised Mk V. Also, the Seafire III comes on stream at about the right time, allowing the unit to build up to strength and replace losses. You'd also need a house rule preventing other CW LBA from being changed to Seafires.Originally posted by Major Tom:
I am working on the OBC's for the next Patch, and I would be interested to see what changes anyone else has done to the OBC files.
Request to Pacific War modders
Increase the starting experience (80 to 85 is not unreasonable) for the RN carrier airgroups. These units all came from extensive experience in the med against heavy axis opposition.Originally posted by Major Tom:
I am working on the OBC's for the next Patch, and I would be interested to see what changes anyone else has done to the OBC files.
Increase the armour of the King George V battleships (130 to 136 is about right). These ships were better armoured than the USN South Dakotas and are terribly short changed.Originally posted by Major Tom:
I am working on the OBC's for the next Patch, and I would be interested to see what changes anyone else has done to the OBC files.
Also, if there's room add in Vanguard (a KGV with 8 * 15"). This ship could easily have been ready by late 44 and was built specifically for Far Eastern deployment.
-
Greg Wilmoth
- Posts: 52
- Joined: Sun Feb 18, 2001 10:00 am
- Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
LargeSlowTarget mentioned he added the German merchant cruisers Thor and Michel. I didn’t realize you could already do this with the PacWar editor. I don’t know if they would work better as “subs” or surface ships. For the next patch, if you want to include the less successful Japanese merchant cruisers, here is some information on them:
[Source: Japanese Warships of World War II, A. J. Watts, London: Ian Allen, 1966. Page 318.]
“Armed Merchant Cruisers”
“Merchant conversions: 14”
“At the start of the Second World War 14 merchant ships were taken over by the Navy, armed and sent out as armed merchant raiders.”
“Armament varied considerably from ship to ship. The guns fitted were of 5.9, 5.5, or 4.7 in. calibre, and some ships carried one or two seaplanes. Three ships—Bankok Maru, Kinjosan Maru and Saigon Mru—carried mines (Kinjosan – 400, Bankok and Saigon –500) in addition to 4-4.7 in. and 1-7.7 mm guns.”
“The German armed merchant cruisers were extremely successful but the Japanese vessels did not distinguish themselves and the raiding campaign soon petered out. At the end of 1943, 5 vessels had been los and 7 had been converted to other roles. The remaining 2 units were lost in 1944.”
“The 14 vessels are listed below. The names of all ships have the suffix Maru.”
[The tonnage is in British Registered Tons and R/R means rerated (reconverted to a merchant ship). Dimensions, year built, and builder are omitted.]
Aikoku, 10,437, R/R transport 10/43.
Akagi, 7,398, Lost 17/2/44.
Asaka, 7,398, R/R transport 11/43.
Awata, 7,397, R/R transport 11/43.
Bankok, 5,350, Lost 20/5/43.
Gokoku, 10,438, R/R transport 10/43.
Hokoku, 10,439, Lost 11/11/42.
Kinjosan, 3,260, Lost ?/?/43.
Kinryu, 9,310, R/R transport 7/42.
Kiyosumi, 6,984, R/R transport 10/43.
Kongo, 7,043, Lost 10/3/42.
Norshiro, 7,184, R/R transport 8/42.
Saigon, 5,350, Lost 18/9/44.
Ukishima, 4,730, Lost 26/1/43?
Good luck!
[ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: Greg Wilmoth ]
[Source: Japanese Warships of World War II, A. J. Watts, London: Ian Allen, 1966. Page 318.]
“Armed Merchant Cruisers”
“Merchant conversions: 14”
“At the start of the Second World War 14 merchant ships were taken over by the Navy, armed and sent out as armed merchant raiders.”
“Armament varied considerably from ship to ship. The guns fitted were of 5.9, 5.5, or 4.7 in. calibre, and some ships carried one or two seaplanes. Three ships—Bankok Maru, Kinjosan Maru and Saigon Mru—carried mines (Kinjosan – 400, Bankok and Saigon –500) in addition to 4-4.7 in. and 1-7.7 mm guns.”
“The German armed merchant cruisers were extremely successful but the Japanese vessels did not distinguish themselves and the raiding campaign soon petered out. At the end of 1943, 5 vessels had been los and 7 had been converted to other roles. The remaining 2 units were lost in 1944.”
“The 14 vessels are listed below. The names of all ships have the suffix Maru.”
[The tonnage is in British Registered Tons and R/R means rerated (reconverted to a merchant ship). Dimensions, year built, and builder are omitted.]
Aikoku, 10,437, R/R transport 10/43.
Akagi, 7,398, Lost 17/2/44.
Asaka, 7,398, R/R transport 11/43.
Awata, 7,397, R/R transport 11/43.
Bankok, 5,350, Lost 20/5/43.
Gokoku, 10,438, R/R transport 10/43.
Hokoku, 10,439, Lost 11/11/42.
Kinjosan, 3,260, Lost ?/?/43.
Kinryu, 9,310, R/R transport 7/42.
Kiyosumi, 6,984, R/R transport 10/43.
Kongo, 7,043, Lost 10/3/42.
Norshiro, 7,184, R/R transport 8/42.
Saigon, 5,350, Lost 18/9/44.
Ukishima, 4,730, Lost 26/1/43?
Good luck!
[ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: Greg Wilmoth ]
Michael is right about moving bases and problems with the AI.
However, sometimes you can 'get around it'. Not all of the time, but, some times.
I moved HOBART from ANZAC to MOULEMIEN to SEAC. The IJA 15th Army took Moulemien, because it was directly on the route to Rangoon. Even though they never had their HQ targetting MOULEMIEN, but always RANGOON, they went through it and took it, even with LCU's there. I assume that SEAC will do the same thing, except having Bangkok as their desired target. ANZAC did target MOULEMIEN after the IJA took it over, however, since ANZAC is a limted HQ (ie Units cannot leave it) they did absolutely nothing about it regarding LCU's, Ships, or Air Groups even as late as 1945. The base remained as SEAC controlled after it was liberated by the British as well.
Also, when I moved that Aleutian Island, I tested wether or not the US North Pacific HQ would target it. Other bases, even under US control in the North Pacific were targetted, and this base was completely ignored.
You cannot move EVERY base around, especailly the IJA Kwantung and Chinese Expeditionary army, to other HQ's, but, some you can. Some bases auto change to other HQ's (ie many ANZAC bases switch to SW Pacific, as well as many IJN bases switch to their respective 'armies' HQ regarding the region that they took, for example, every base in the Philippines changed to 14th Army, no matter what HQ the unit that took them was, and in 1944, specific bases in the South of the Philippines change to 35th Army).
The best thing for you to do to test if the game works, is to set both players as COMPUTER, and run the game for a few turns, periodically stopping to see what HQ's are targetting what base, so you can get a sense of what the AI is doing in regards to your base changes. Also, notice where LCU's are being garrisoned. You would not want to have all of your 15th Army IJA divisions going off to the North Pacific!
Regarding the Seafire, I changed it to the Spitfire V, as, most Seafires used since 1943 were Spitfire V's. The #1 Wing was changed to Spitfire V's.
I was going to add the Vanguard, however, it was not completed until 1946. With the game ending in late 1945, it would be unfair to give the Allies ships that would never have seen service at this time.
However, sometimes you can 'get around it'. Not all of the time, but, some times.
I moved HOBART from ANZAC to MOULEMIEN to SEAC. The IJA 15th Army took Moulemien, because it was directly on the route to Rangoon. Even though they never had their HQ targetting MOULEMIEN, but always RANGOON, they went through it and took it, even with LCU's there. I assume that SEAC will do the same thing, except having Bangkok as their desired target. ANZAC did target MOULEMIEN after the IJA took it over, however, since ANZAC is a limted HQ (ie Units cannot leave it) they did absolutely nothing about it regarding LCU's, Ships, or Air Groups even as late as 1945. The base remained as SEAC controlled after it was liberated by the British as well.
Also, when I moved that Aleutian Island, I tested wether or not the US North Pacific HQ would target it. Other bases, even under US control in the North Pacific were targetted, and this base was completely ignored.
You cannot move EVERY base around, especailly the IJA Kwantung and Chinese Expeditionary army, to other HQ's, but, some you can. Some bases auto change to other HQ's (ie many ANZAC bases switch to SW Pacific, as well as many IJN bases switch to their respective 'armies' HQ regarding the region that they took, for example, every base in the Philippines changed to 14th Army, no matter what HQ the unit that took them was, and in 1944, specific bases in the South of the Philippines change to 35th Army).
The best thing for you to do to test if the game works, is to set both players as COMPUTER, and run the game for a few turns, periodically stopping to see what HQ's are targetting what base, so you can get a sense of what the AI is doing in regards to your base changes. Also, notice where LCU's are being garrisoned. You would not want to have all of your 15th Army IJA divisions going off to the North Pacific!
Regarding the Seafire, I changed it to the Spitfire V, as, most Seafires used since 1943 were Spitfire V's. The #1 Wing was changed to Spitfire V's.
I was going to add the Vanguard, however, it was not completed until 1946. With the game ending in late 1945, it would be unfair to give the Allies ships that would never have seen service at this time.
I think it would be better to leave it as Seafire. The only converted model of Seafire were the Mk I (converted from Spitfire II). These were followed by the Seafire II (built in limited numbers, used mainly for training) which was very similar to the Spitfire V, but with a slightly more powerful engine. The main production model was the Seafire III (a Mk II with folding wings). Very similar (functionally identical in game terms) to the Spitfire V, but a different aircraft.Originally posted by Major Tom:
Regarding the Seafire, I changed it to the Spitfire V, as, most Seafires used since 1943 were Spitfire V's. The #1 Wing was changed to Spitfire V's.
However, more importantly, the only unit to operate Spitfire Vs in the Far East was #1 Wing (3 RAF and 1 RAAF squadrons), whereas the Seafire III did see extensive service in the Far East on RN carriers.
Vanguard's contruction was slowed in early 43 when it became clear that the situation in the Far East had stablised. If it had not, she would have been ready in late 44 (her intended completion date). Maybe a ship for some later "what if" senarios.Originally posted by Major Tom:
I was going to add the Vanguard, however, it was not completed until 1946. With the game ending in late 1945, it would be unfair to give the Allies ships that would never have seen service at this time.
-
Joe Kemper
- Posts: 54
- Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 10:00 am
I don't know if these have already been mentioned but they pertain to OBC 42:
1. Musashi BB doesn't show up
2. Japanese 66th, 50th Divisions and 68th Brigade arrive at Bikini regardless of control of base.
3. There are 3 B-29 groups that are identified as Chinese(sorry, I forgot to write down the numbers).
I have tried to do some research on the Japanese army regiments and had good luck on all but two. Could you please identify their parent organization and where they were used historically:
64th Regiment and 188th Regiment
Thank you for all of the work you have done on this great game.
1. Musashi BB doesn't show up
2. Japanese 66th, 50th Divisions and 68th Brigade arrive at Bikini regardless of control of base.
3. There are 3 B-29 groups that are identified as Chinese(sorry, I forgot to write down the numbers).
I have tried to do some research on the Japanese army regiments and had good luck on all but two. Could you please identify their parent organization and where they were used historically:
64th Regiment and 188th Regiment
Thank you for all of the work you have done on this great game.
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4908
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Any chance we can get a list of the hard coded base numbers for each command? Would make tinkering around with the obc a bit easier. Same goes for ships, if I'm not mistaken there is some hard coded stuff for the ship pool, too.Originally posted by Mike Wood:
Each command in the game has a hard coded set of bases that it is responsible for attacking and defending. These are identified by number.
[ April 20, 2001: Message edited by: Mike Wood ]
1. Factories and aircraft pools. I don't know if the matrix 2.2 revisions were for play balance or what, but Hurricanes (model IIB), Wildcats and Dauntlesses & Mitchells should all exist in the pools with about at least 40 each and all their factories, except maybe the Hurricane factories, should be in production at the beginning. The US planes mentioned were all in production for a year or more before attack on PH.
2. Ditch the Kittyhawk, make it P40E (same plane)
3. Lower the cost of the HBs (I think this is already being planned).
4. Make Capacity 5 on P51, P38F, 10 on P47 and make the P38F a FB not just an F.
5. Range of 4 on 2nd Gen USN carrier aircraft, F6F, F4U, SB2C, TBF, TBM and perhaps make an optional SBD-7 with Range 4. The Dauntless had a range of over 1000 miles, but in the game it is 3??? Play balance might be a factor here, so making a new SBD model, using the eliminated kittyhawk type, available Jan-Feb 1943, with range 4 might be better than putting the 1941 plane at range 4.
2. Ditch the Kittyhawk, make it P40E (same plane)
3. Lower the cost of the HBs (I think this is already being planned).
4. Make Capacity 5 on P51, P38F, 10 on P47 and make the P38F a FB not just an F.
5. Range of 4 on 2nd Gen USN carrier aircraft, F6F, F4U, SB2C, TBF, TBM and perhaps make an optional SBD-7 with Range 4. The Dauntless had a range of over 1000 miles, but in the game it is 3??? Play balance might be a factor here, so making a new SBD model, using the eliminated kittyhawk type, available Jan-Feb 1943, with range 4 might be better than putting the 1941 plane at range 4.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
I've downloaded LST's OBC and played it thru 44. I Like the way he handles the PH attack the sunk and later raised battleships show up in 43-44 as reinforcements. I think that the Texas and New York show up too early. Ellice Islands work well, however there is an addtinal base between Rangoon and Impal I think that always seems to be out of supply. Allied LST's don't show up. I think he took the land routes out between bases in New Guinea, probably pretty realistic. Changing the F8F's to Spitfires causes the AI to try and change f6f's to spitfires. I think the slot may be hard coded. His rework of heavy bomber production values works well. So much for this post. Thanks, Large Slow Target!
You can run but you'll die tired!
Two more for you Tom,
1. Hermes, capacity - I read 15, 18, 20 denending on the author. I use 18. It also needs a fighter group, there is an open slot about a dozen lines down. I change 815 Sqn to 10 Fulmars (or whatever, they get replaced with Wildcats right away) and make the blank space Sqn 814 of 8 Swordfish. I also make all but 2 planes on each group damaged. The Hermes was actually caught with any A/C embarked when and without escorts, when she was sunk. What was the Eastern Fleet high command thinking???
2a. Readiness and Entrenchment at start. Readiness is function of supply (as is all past GGrigsby games). I find it absurd that units in bases with 8,000 supply are at 10 readiness.
Lack of readiness on higher command's parts can and is taken care of with the non-existent PPs that the Allied side starts out with (this and leaders checks also affect readiness, WIR showed me how a leader rating can matter, Manstein can work wonders), but not being able to "march" which in Malaya meant "drive" since even there, the British Army was fully motorized, because the readiness is 10 when there is 8,000 supply is wrong. The lack of PPs will take its toll, and that's fine but the units should be able to move.
2b. entrenchment - all the USMC should be a level 9 entrenchment, they were there for years and they weren't hanging out at the disco. Even in Malaya, the Indians and Australians were always digging in whenever they moved -maybe between 3 and 5 there (I just re-read Arthur Swinson's book on Malaya, and again, what the hell was Percival doing over there ???
The Phillipines, i'm not so sure, again Mac didn't build up any supply dumps on Bataan, (and he was caught with his pants down at Clark) but that should be reflected in the supply level. The experience there makes it just about a lost cause, but the Jap AI shouldn't be able to conquer the entire place in 4 weeks.
For Indonesia, it doesn't really matter, the 5 experience of the Dutch units makes me laugh (and cry at the same time), but in the Solomons and New Guinea, the Australians on the ground need to have higher entrenchment. Again the Jap AI should not be able to waltz in on Rabual on turn 2.
Lastly (what is this 4 now), the entire RAF was not concentrated in Singapore at the start, about half of it was in northern air fields (where it was trounced in the air and on the ground).
1. Hermes, capacity - I read 15, 18, 20 denending on the author. I use 18. It also needs a fighter group, there is an open slot about a dozen lines down. I change 815 Sqn to 10 Fulmars (or whatever, they get replaced with Wildcats right away) and make the blank space Sqn 814 of 8 Swordfish. I also make all but 2 planes on each group damaged. The Hermes was actually caught with any A/C embarked when and without escorts, when she was sunk. What was the Eastern Fleet high command thinking???
2a. Readiness and Entrenchment at start. Readiness is function of supply (as is all past GGrigsby games). I find it absurd that units in bases with 8,000 supply are at 10 readiness.
Lack of readiness on higher command's parts can and is taken care of with the non-existent PPs that the Allied side starts out with (this and leaders checks also affect readiness, WIR showed me how a leader rating can matter, Manstein can work wonders), but not being able to "march" which in Malaya meant "drive" since even there, the British Army was fully motorized, because the readiness is 10 when there is 8,000 supply is wrong. The lack of PPs will take its toll, and that's fine but the units should be able to move.
2b. entrenchment - all the USMC should be a level 9 entrenchment, they were there for years and they weren't hanging out at the disco. Even in Malaya, the Indians and Australians were always digging in whenever they moved -maybe between 3 and 5 there (I just re-read Arthur Swinson's book on Malaya, and again, what the hell was Percival doing over there ???
The Phillipines, i'm not so sure, again Mac didn't build up any supply dumps on Bataan, (and he was caught with his pants down at Clark) but that should be reflected in the supply level. The experience there makes it just about a lost cause, but the Jap AI shouldn't be able to conquer the entire place in 4 weeks.
For Indonesia, it doesn't really matter, the 5 experience of the Dutch units makes me laugh (and cry at the same time), but in the Solomons and New Guinea, the Australians on the ground need to have higher entrenchment. Again the Jap AI should not be able to waltz in on Rabual on turn 2.
Lastly (what is this 4 now), the entire RAF was not concentrated in Singapore at the start, about half of it was in northern air fields (where it was trounced in the air and on the ground).
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
1. From what I have read about the Hermes is that it only had a scout-torpedo squadron, and no Fighter Squadron. I actually increased the Capacity of the ship to 20, and the capacity of the airgroup to 18. If you can point out otherwize (regarding the existence fighter squadron), I would gladly include it!
2a. The low readiness experienced at the beginning of the game simulates the relative shock experienced by being thrown into the war by a suprize attack. Even though they knew war was coming, and did experience hours, if not days before actual invasion, most units were not war ready during the first few days of action. They might have had a lot of supply, but were not quite ready.
2b. Yes, in the next version the USMC Defense battalions will be fully entrenched, and have a total of 99 Readiness, instead of 70. They were generally on full alert since the fleet moved to Pearl Harbour.
Most of my understanding of MacArthur's plan in the Philippines was that he changed his mind relatively late as to where he should defend. Instead of allowing the Japanese to land free of resistance, and giving up Manila without a fight he hastaly changed plan to cover the beaches and the approaches to Manila. These defences were nowhere near ready, and the forward defence probably constituted the major loss of supply, since more dumps were created forward from the supplies at Bataan. They never had the time to move BOTH the troops and the supply from forward bases to Bataan.
Dutch units will be better experienced, especially those on Java (which contained the greatest number of trained troops).
I moved the correct RAF units to Jitra in this latest version, it seems to behave alright. I put them all at Singapore before because the Japanese tended to ignore Northern Malaya, which gave the British some airgroups to severely harass the Japanese landings. It seems to work out now.
Mike,
Where did you get LST's OBC? I think that I had it a while ago, but this was before my infamous hardrive crash!
2a. The low readiness experienced at the beginning of the game simulates the relative shock experienced by being thrown into the war by a suprize attack. Even though they knew war was coming, and did experience hours, if not days before actual invasion, most units were not war ready during the first few days of action. They might have had a lot of supply, but were not quite ready.
2b. Yes, in the next version the USMC Defense battalions will be fully entrenched, and have a total of 99 Readiness, instead of 70. They were generally on full alert since the fleet moved to Pearl Harbour.
Most of my understanding of MacArthur's plan in the Philippines was that he changed his mind relatively late as to where he should defend. Instead of allowing the Japanese to land free of resistance, and giving up Manila without a fight he hastaly changed plan to cover the beaches and the approaches to Manila. These defences were nowhere near ready, and the forward defence probably constituted the major loss of supply, since more dumps were created forward from the supplies at Bataan. They never had the time to move BOTH the troops and the supply from forward bases to Bataan.
Dutch units will be better experienced, especially those on Java (which contained the greatest number of trained troops).
I moved the correct RAF units to Jitra in this latest version, it seems to behave alright. I put them all at Singapore before because the Japanese tended to ignore Northern Malaya, which gave the British some airgroups to severely harass the Japanese landings. It seems to work out now.
Mike,
Where did you get LST's OBC? I think that I had it a while ago, but this was before my infamous hardrive crash!
Tom, I never did see LST's OBC, I read about his changes here.
Hermes, I didn't know that there was a setting for airgroup capacity, where can one see this in Rich's editor (or is it not visible in the editor)??? The addition of the fighter group is my change. If the Hermes didn't get sunk, then the eastern fleet would possibly have come to its senses and put a fighter group in the ship and reduced the scout-torpedo group.
I still think that unit readiness should be at least 50 to allow marching. Otherwise, the allies lose TWO turns not one with historical first move. After all it's supposed to be "historical first week" not "historical first week with no second week move allowed" Keeping the PPs low will prevent too much movement and will lower performance in the land / sea battles, so depriving the units the ability to move is wrong in my opinion. In both Malaya and Phillipines, the Allies made several large moves (mostly wrong in Malaya, some ok in Phil) during the first few days, but a player can't do anything until 21 Dec the way it is now.
And speaking of historical first move, what is the IJN doing invading Rabual on turn 2? They didn't land until mid Janurary..
LST's or Mogami's solution of "damaging" all except 9 Kates each on the Pearl Harbour striking force seems to me to be the best way of keeping the losses at PH in line with historical happennings. I like it and it seems to work ok.
Air Groups & Factories. You didn't mention the F4Fs SBDs and B-25s. I'm all for,keeping the F2A's on the Lex at start, but there were F4Fs around and the last Buffalo was produced in June 1941, the factory should be producing 27 F4Fs at the start, not F2As and there should be some in the pools.
By the way, I think I figured out the way the computer handles future enabling of factories. I am able to have the future factories produce what I want them to automatically (like P51s instead of P61s since they were available at about the same time) All the status 1 amount 0 are factories that are not yet built. They get built when plane they were selected for becomes available. By changing the aircraft (being careful to keep the same plane category and a similar initial availability date) I can set the factories to computer control and not worry about checking it every turn to see what assinine changes it made on me and I also don't have to wait the 4 week penalty for a mmanual change when i have to change it back or when a new factory starts building something I don't ever want to use.
Hermes, I didn't know that there was a setting for airgroup capacity, where can one see this in Rich's editor (or is it not visible in the editor)??? The addition of the fighter group is my change. If the Hermes didn't get sunk, then the eastern fleet would possibly have come to its senses and put a fighter group in the ship and reduced the scout-torpedo group.
I still think that unit readiness should be at least 50 to allow marching. Otherwise, the allies lose TWO turns not one with historical first move. After all it's supposed to be "historical first week" not "historical first week with no second week move allowed" Keeping the PPs low will prevent too much movement and will lower performance in the land / sea battles, so depriving the units the ability to move is wrong in my opinion. In both Malaya and Phillipines, the Allies made several large moves (mostly wrong in Malaya, some ok in Phil) during the first few days, but a player can't do anything until 21 Dec the way it is now.
And speaking of historical first move, what is the IJN doing invading Rabual on turn 2? They didn't land until mid Janurary..
LST's or Mogami's solution of "damaging" all except 9 Kates each on the Pearl Harbour striking force seems to me to be the best way of keeping the losses at PH in line with historical happennings. I like it and it seems to work ok.
Air Groups & Factories. You didn't mention the F4Fs SBDs and B-25s. I'm all for,keeping the F2A's on the Lex at start, but there were F4Fs around and the last Buffalo was produced in June 1941, the factory should be producing 27 F4Fs at the start, not F2As and there should be some in the pools.
By the way, I think I figured out the way the computer handles future enabling of factories. I am able to have the future factories produce what I want them to automatically (like P51s instead of P61s since they were available at about the same time) All the status 1 amount 0 are factories that are not yet built. They get built when plane they were selected for becomes available. By changing the aircraft (being careful to keep the same plane category and a similar initial availability date) I can set the factories to computer control and not worry about checking it every turn to see what assinine changes it made on me and I also don't have to wait the 4 week penalty for a mmanual change when i have to change it back or when a new factory starts building something I don't ever want to use.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
Making the allies complete dolts has resulted in Japanese players who conquesr PI with 2 divisions and Malaya with 2 divisions resulting in 3+ divisions being available for use else where. Throwing the entire game out of whack. Singapore goes down in 3-4 weeks PI takes awhile longer but is hopless for allies. And Japan is in India by Feb. I don't know how to represent the allied units but if its the same as no unit just remove them. Other wise make Japan have to send enough to kill them rather then have them just die of fright. (Look...in the actual event Hong Kong lasted till Christmas. PI till May Singapore even with Percy held out till Feb 16 (in Current PBEM game Ceylon was gone before Feb 16)If Japanese LCU in supply and with training in 70's+ can't beat allied units out of supply and traind 50- then the combat routine is broke. Making the allies unready and untrained and unsupplied results in Japan ignoring them with the bulk of their forces being directed to more important areas (Cen Pac/South PAc/India) Make Japan fight to capture the Southern resourse area. (They can't be stopped but at moment they don't have to commit more then token forces to secure the reason they went to war in the first place)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
Amen Mogami, There needs to be a serious re-evaluation of the starting experience and readiness. The combination of the 10 exp and 10 read means a full strength division will give a "2 squad defense", which was absolute BS.
All the units that have any supply in their base should start at 99 readiness. No exceptions, use low PPs in the HQ's to limit strategic actions, but tactical moves need to be made on turn 2.
Experience on the Indians needs to be higher, at least 25 on any Dutch, Ind, Phil (higher on 11th Ind Div), 50 on any AUS /BRIT /NZ unit, 75 on any delpoyed USMC /Aus unit and b/w 50-75 on all US army units.
All USMC / Aus units deployed off the home country should be at 9 ent, forward units in Malaya a 3 or 4 with the garrison in Singapore at 9. The Artillery of the 2 Malay brigades should be increased to partially account for the coastal artillery, as should the USMC in Wake and Guam.
Singora should not be a Japanese base in turn 1 (but it should have no allied units in it either). The Japanese actually had to land there at the same time that they landed at Kota Baru (someone should read Swinson's book for details). That's why Force Z sailed in the first place. Lastly this TF should be on REACT orders not a "sail out to your destruction" orders.
If Singora is to be a Japenese base, the the 8th Australian division should be in Kota Baru at the start.
The land path fron Kuantan should not go to Singapore, but to Kuala Lumpur, there was no traverse from Kuantan to Singapore, the road network went from Singapore to Kuala Limpur and from there north to Jitra and Northeast to Kota Baru. Look at the campaign maps, the Japanese never went south from
Kota Baru. They went across to the west side and down from there.
I have more, but that's all for now.
All the units that have any supply in their base should start at 99 readiness. No exceptions, use low PPs in the HQ's to limit strategic actions, but tactical moves need to be made on turn 2.
Experience on the Indians needs to be higher, at least 25 on any Dutch, Ind, Phil (higher on 11th Ind Div), 50 on any AUS /BRIT /NZ unit, 75 on any delpoyed USMC /Aus unit and b/w 50-75 on all US army units.
All USMC / Aus units deployed off the home country should be at 9 ent, forward units in Malaya a 3 or 4 with the garrison in Singapore at 9. The Artillery of the 2 Malay brigades should be increased to partially account for the coastal artillery, as should the USMC in Wake and Guam.
Singora should not be a Japanese base in turn 1 (but it should have no allied units in it either). The Japanese actually had to land there at the same time that they landed at Kota Baru (someone should read Swinson's book for details). That's why Force Z sailed in the first place. Lastly this TF should be on REACT orders not a "sail out to your destruction" orders.
If Singora is to be a Japenese base, the the 8th Australian division should be in Kota Baru at the start.
The land path fron Kuantan should not go to Singapore, but to Kuala Lumpur, there was no traverse from Kuantan to Singapore, the road network went from Singapore to Kuala Limpur and from there north to Jitra and Northeast to Kota Baru. Look at the campaign maps, the Japanese never went south from
Kota Baru. They went across to the west side and down from there.
I have more, but that's all for now.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...