Info about 2.3 Patch

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 12:17 am

Well, I am recovering from my disaster and started putting this stuff back together.

Anyway, it will take a little while before the next patch will come out, since there is a lot of work to recover.

I am also waiting for an internet article to come out. Some guys on a historical webboard are compiling information on Japanese garrisions bypassed by the Allies during the Pacific War, giving out a lot of information on units at bases not conquered. They said it will be out next week, but that is an optimistic proposal.

There will be A LOT of changes, to fix problems as well as to enhance gameplay.

GrahamFife · Post by **GrahamFife** » Mon Jul 16, 2001 2:38 am

That's very, very good news.

Take as long as it takes to get it done without any more disasters.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Tue Jul 17, 2001 12:19 pm

Hi Major Tom, Remember when we used to debate whether or not the Japanese could make an early offensive to capture Midway or Johnson Island? Well having played many PBEM games since that time as the Allies it seems not only can they, it is unstoppable. (unless of course I happen to be playing Japan). Most Japanese players just send 3 divisions into the Indian Ocean right off the bat and capture Ceylon, Isolating India. The British just withdraw the Eastern Fleet anyway and since the HQ has no PP's it does not react to the transports. With the other half of the Japanese Navy they go to Fiji or Hawaii. It only requires a few SNLF to capture most of the Southern resourse area. (and 2-3 divisions that are released for duty else where after Singapore and Java) What I once considered a risky/bold opening plan is now in my view a timid overly cautious approach. I am aware that the IJN did in fact have their CV's make an Indian Ocean adventure (bagging the Hermes and also bombing Broome and Darwin) I did not realize they had all those LCU's and transports so handy. India is 2 bases in the game. And has no overland supply. Capture Ceylon and the entire China/Burma/India theatre goes down the tube.
Ethier the allied readiness is too low or the Japanese grossely over estimated the allies (something that does not happen with players who have figured out to the last transport what is needed where.) As Japan I used to make a major effort for Port Blair and was happy if it worked. Every Japanese player I have encountered has no problem securing the entire IO. (I was always afraid of all those 'R' class BB's) but it seems they are worthless. I have had landings take place right on top of them and they just withdraw the next turn. There is no Allied unit that can be spared for SW/S Pacific duty since Japan can without effort be on Midway/Johnson Island even before units can be sent to Pearl. I once considered it a requirement for Japan to threaten what I find they can have without to much risk.
I am sure you have seen my house rules before, but i don't know how to restore balance. Japan has to have a chance of winning the game. But it now appears they only lose if they don't just go and win right out of the starting gate (and there is nothing to stop them.) Even if the allies are lucky enough to get their CV's to react the US carriers seem to sink remarkably easy
(unless of course I am Japan) Just kidding since I have been shown the way I have been able to win a few as Japan but my recored as the allies has suffered (I once thought it nearly impossible to lose as the allies)
Just wondering what your current thoughts on the matter are.

PS Part of the loss of realism is accouted for splitting units. Japan just breaks down a division/regt/bn the parent rebuilds and they have a new unit. It captures a few empty bases and is now more experanced then any allied unit. The allied player can not do this since dividing a 40/50 exp unit with no place to gain exp. The British 20/30 units need several years to train and they only get a few months (at most) and they ar out of supply. Any way to have it that a Division minus a brigade does not rebuild to 240 with out the brigade or other unit being returned? (I call all these indepent Bn/Regt/Brigades 'bastard' formations) within a few months of the start they are every where. (perhaps this is something I used to over look since I never considered breaking off parts of units to create new ones.)

[ July 17, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Wed Jul 18, 2001 1:20 am

The Allies in the 2.3 patch will be stronger than in other PW versions, including the original. Allied experience will not be quite as low at the beginning, and later experience will be better as well. Later Japanese experience in aircraft will be decreased also.

I have revamped the industries, resulting in original cost strengths for aircraft (none of these B-29 groups without aircraft!) which will give the Allies a greater pool of aircraft over the Japanese. I have cut down the production of Japanese AFV's (as a change from the 2.2 version which has NO production!). The Allies will produce more stuff, which will make Japanese units much weaker. Allied Units will also start off in larger formations (ie. New USN Carriers will start with already formed airgroups instead of wasting time/experience levels in growing them).

I am working on increasing the strength of Allied forces in the Indian Ocean. I am thinking about modifying the Indian division at Ceylon to have higher experience, as well as those garrisoning India (20th, 26th and 23rd). PP levels will be slightly increased for HQ's farther from the frontline (SEAC, Central Pacific, South Pacific, North Pacific, West Coast) to represent that only really the frontline HQ's were in a severe state of shock.

Both the IJAAF and IJNAF are going through a major revamp to more historically represent their strength and composition.

I am going to increase the power of the Marine Defence Battalions in Midway, Johnston and Palmyra.

Presently their strength was...
40 Infantry
12 Artillery

Now their strength will be, with new Infantry maximums...
54 Infantry
18 Artillery
8 AFV's

This will make them stronger forces (as they were heavily reinforced), and cause more problems to an invading force (especially since they are on an atoll). I will put them at full entrenchment and Preparation levels.

There will be a few versions of the OBC41.

OBC41 for a PBEM (with everything as historical as possible)

OBC41 for a Japanese AI (with unit positions and experience to benefit a Japanese AI, who cannot handle certain situations and units very well)

OBC41 for the Allied AI (with units in places to better defend)

The AI versions will hopefully make up for the shortcomings of the AI, as the AI does not like to attack or defend certain critical areas.

Warpup · Post by **Warpup** » Wed Jul 18, 2001 8:44 am

I'm concerned about the idea of making the Japanese weaker later in the game. A couple of months ago I finished a PBEM game with an expert human opponent who was playing the Japanese. We ended with his surrender exactly 2/3 of the way through (August '44) after the allies invaded Guam. Comparing notes, it seemed to us both that the Japanese LBA and CV air both should have done better against the USN, but they were completely creamed. This was in spite of massive power in 25 land airfields and 3 CV TFs of 2 CV and 3 CVL each, all with experience in the 80s. The USN and allied LBA were not superior in experience.

We couldn't believe the results of the massive battle. I would have had a hard time achieving victory because of the piles of Japanese divisions in the inner perimeter, but the game was clearly not going to be fun for the Japanese if his forces would not fight even when clearly equal or superior to what I threw at him.

I suspect that the problem might be with the very high durability of the allied aircraft. I know it's a historical superiority, but the numbers may be so high that the late war allied planes just romp all over great late war Japanese planes. I see this a serious problem for play balance and fun in the long game.

With respect to Ceylon, I would suggest that one of the Australian crack divisions appear there, as it starts there in the 1942 campaign. This would be both historical and a play balance mechanism at the same time.

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Wed Jul 18, 2001 11:00 pm

Mogami's suggestion of not allowing the division to rebuild is a good one, but it might not be possible with the limiations of the code. If that can't be done, then limiting the NUMBER of divided (or "bastard" units as Mogami call them) to say 10 per side including any already present at the start, would go far to keep that tactic from doubling the size of one's army at the start of the game. Historically both sides did separate out units to a limited extent, but never like what we see here, and the "division shell" did not fill out to a whole division in addition to its detached brigade.

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 1:17 am

Agreeing with Warpup concerning mid-late war Japanese air group performance. While I would understand low training levels to not do well it is heartbreaking to see 80+ trained units not achive anything. Even the newer IJN/IJA aircraft with high training are slaughtered for nothing. Japan is forced into just using poor aircraft with untrained pilots in Kamakaze strikes just to sink a CVE or DD since the better units using conventional attacks never hit anything. (I have seen 300+ aircraft strikes with good training lose 200 planes for nothing. The result is Japan can not hold a base since the aircraft deployed to protect it are worthless. It would be hoped the US would first have to negate a airbase before trying to make landings but as it is they can ignore Japanese landbase/CV air. (Ever see those CV strikes on the homeland where hundreds of trained pilots do nada?)

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 1:34 am

I think that I will be tweaking the mid-late war Japanese fighters. They appear to be modeled to be weaker than they actually were. The Ki-61 was totally superior to the P-40, and was almost the equal of the P-38, yet in the game it is just a little better than the P-40 in Dogfight, but is lacking everywhere else (this was the first Japanese mono-engine fighter with self sealing fuel tanks, and durable hull).

The Ki-84 and N1K were equals to the P-51, and should be upped in durability, since they were tough to kill as well.

This should probably help the Japanese player as they will have, by 1943, aircraft that aren't exploding left and right to small calibur shots. The IJNAF should be in a tougher position, as only the IJAAF realized that manuverability is not the answer, but created aircraft of high speed and durability as well (Ki-45, Ki-44, Ki-61, Ki-102).

Marc · Post by **Marc** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 2:32 am

Very interesting opinions and exactly what I think.

It's too easy for Japan in the beginning and the airforce is too weak later in the war.

If Ceylon is japanese controlled India shouldn't be cut off from supply. What about making India a source for supply? Is this possible?
In addition British ships should arrive for example in Australia if Columbo is under Japanese control.

It should also not be possible for Japan to conquer China completely. It's way too easy in Ver.2.2

Opinions?

mogami · Post by **mogami** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 4:40 am

When playing Japan you should just forget China. Nothing in the game here is acurate. The allies in China are totaly helpless. In 2 player games if the allies do not bomb Japan from China I leave it alone. If bases in China are used to bomb the home Islands this will trigger my attempt to capture them (historic) However one of my house rules is Japan must garrision all their bases in China and can send no LCU to China unless said bombings take place (this makes it so Japan can not take more then 1 or 2 bases without allies giving them a reason to.
Regarding splitting units. There are valid reasons for doing this. Unit to large for available transport so you have to make more then one trip or multiple missions (you want to capture more then one base in a single turn) However the parent unit should not replace the detached formation (unless it is destroyed) What really makes me crazy is human players who split every formation in China and are in India within a year with a Massive Japanese land army.

[ July 18, 2001: Message edited by: Mogami ]

moore4807 · Post by **moore4807** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 6:11 am

I have found when playing as Allies- I immediately move Clark Field units to HK, then move them to Kunming or adjacent fields. I swap out the British units from Singapore & India to China while moving the Chinese units as far away from the fight as I'm allowed. Then putting them on training, I pretty much leave them alone til they're 70's exp then throw them into the fray-relieving the Battered Brits n Americans...
It seems to work surprisingly well, and while I dont overpower the Japs it seems to stall thier advance- I consider that a winning formula for not too much effort... (about 5-6 months of waiting)
Try it-see if it works for you

Ringbolt · Post by **Ringbolt** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 6:44 am

Originally posted by Major Tom:
I think that I will be tweaking the mid-late war Japanese fighters. They appear to be modeled to be weaker than they actually were. The Ki-61 was totally superior to the P-40, and was almost the equal of the P-38, yet in the game it is just a little better than the P-40 in Dogfight, but is lacking everywhere else (this was the first Japanese mono-engine fighter with self sealing fuel tanks, and durable hull).

The Ki-84 and N1K were equals to the P-51, and should be upped in durability, since they were tough to kill as well.

That sounds like a good balance. The problem
with AC, as you know all too well I'm sure, is the dogfight rating has to cover too many aspects of a planes abilities. Making most allied and japanese planes closer in dogfight is more historic IMO. The Zero and F4F are the best examples. The Zero was FAR superior to the F4F in every way, but only at low speed. As its speed increased, so its manuverability decreased, to the point at over 250 it was far LESS manuverable than the F4F. No question the Zero should be rated higher than the F4F in PACWAR, but it might need to be closer (lower) to the F4F and later IJAA planes closer (higher) to allied.

Ringbolt

Dan in Toledo, OH · Post by **Dan in Toledo, OH** » Thu Jul 19, 2001 7:17 am

I just have one suggestion. Can we make every fighter carry bombs?? Although their weapons for attacking ships has been upgraded from MG to AC Cannon, every fighter should have the oppurtunity of dropping bombs. P39s and P40s are a lot better now that you did this but the Zero is the same. In the war the zeroes carried bombs at pearl. In this game zeroes, lightnings, and mustangs dont carry bombs. Thats so annoying. Fighters could carry bombs; albeit light loads. Please allow the fighters to carry something more exciting than machine guns or cannons.

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Sun Jul 22, 2001 9:01 pm

Dan, You can use the editor to make fighters fighter-bombers, but watch out, the A6M2 and A6M5s will get eaten up by flak. Any FB will take bombs (usually 500lb) but if even one fighter rises up for CAP over the target, they will jettison the bombs.
I suspect the notation "AC Cannon hits whatever" is a terminology change. The planes are using their cannon rating which in a lot of cases is medium caliber MGs. The 16 cannon rating on the P-47 is because of its Eight 12.7mm MGs. These are like small cannons. They're so destructive, that it is actually against the Geneva Convention to use a 12.7mm MG (.50 caliber) or larger against ground troops in the open. Small cannon or large MGs no real difference, its the numerical rating of the plane that's important.

Mogami, that's part of the problem, splitting the units to capture more bases. This effective doubling on the size of the army was not done by either side. Yes both sides sometime left part of the unit back because of shipping limitations, but they didn't sent the remainder out on another invasion somewhere else. Unless the "parent can be be made to not grow back, I still think limiting the # of splits to 10 (and no multiple splits off a single unit) is the best way to stop wayward players from gobbling up the entire map as the Japanese (either that or trusted opponents with agreeable house rules).

To Major Tom, Regarding Dan's suggestion, all the P38 and P-51 should have a capacity of at least 5 (The P-38s should really be 10) and the P47 should have a capacity of 10. All these, including the Mustang were extensively used in the ground attack mode. They could all carry either wing (belly) tanks or bombs, sometimes both. I would also consider making the P38F a FB not an F.

VictorH · Post by **VictorH** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 6:15 am

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
Dan, You can use the editor to make fighters fighter-bombers, but watch out, the A6M2 and A6M5s will get eaten up by flak. Any FB will take bombs (usually 500lb) but if even one fighter rises up for CAP over the target, they will jettison the bombs.
I suspect the notation "AC Cannon hits whatever" is a terminology change. The planes are using their cannon rating which in a lot of cases is medium caliber MGs. The 16 cannon rating on the P-47 is because of its Eight 12.7mm MGs. These are like small cannons. They're so destructive, that it is actually against the Geneva Convention to use a 12.7mm MG (.50 caliber) or larger against ground troops in the open. Small cannon or large MGs no real difference, its the numerical rating of the plane that's important.

Mogami, that's part of the problem, splitting the units to capture more bases. This effective doubling on the size of the army was not done by either side. Yes both sides sometime left part of the unit back because of shipping limitations, but they didn't sent the remainder out on another invasion somewhere else. Unless the "parent can be be made to not grow back, I still think limiting the # of splits to 10 (and no multiple splits off a single unit) is the best way to stop wayward players from gobbling up the entire map as the Japanese (either that or trusted opponents with agreeable house rules).

To Major Tom, Regarding Dan's suggestion, all the P38 and P-51 should have a capacity of at least 5 (The P-38s should really be 10) and the P47 should have a capacity of 10. All these, including the Mustang were extensively used in the ground attack mode. They could all carry either wing (belly) tanks or bombs, sometimes both. I would also consider making the P38F a FB not an F.

Hi,

Is it really true that using something greater than a 50 caliber on the open field is against the Geneva Convention? I find that truly absurd. What about a 20 milimeter or an Mortar or Artillery?

Bulldog61 · Post by **Bulldog61** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 7:29 am

Hi VictorH!
Yes it is true, .50 cal MG's are not supposed to be used aggainst troops in the open. That's why when I was in armored units in Germany 78-86 we always gave the fire command "Helmets and rifles in the open".

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Mon Jul 23, 2001 7:38 am

Victor, that is correct, but I forgot to mention that the prohibition is only in direct fire mode, i.e aiming right at the leg infantry.

It doesn't apply to any type of vehicle, or emplacement "I swear sir, they were riding in APCs when I opened up on them with the 25mm Bushmaster cannon (used in the M2 and M3 IFV and CFV) and blew them all to hell"...

That's why most tanks carry 7.62 or 7.92mm MGs as their hull mounted or coaxial MG. The 12.7 (.50 cal) on the turret top was strictly for AA purposes.

It also does not apply to indirect fire weapons, like artillery and mortars. You can't use a mortar in direct fire mode, they don't depress below 45 degrees. Some field artillery can be used in direct fire (back in WWII most could) but it was cumbersome and if the enemy was that close to your artillery, you are already screwed.

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 1:13 am

There are going to be a lot of major changes.

Regarding the AC Cannon problem. I have decided to increase the power of the AC Cannon, so that when it hits a PC, it will cause A LOT of damage. I am making it about as powerful as 3" rockets, but increasing its accuracy. This is to simulate not just one strafing run on a ship, but a series of them, combined with small bombs (which ALL fighters had the ability to carry). This makes PC's less the aircraft killer, but the problem about them and Kamikazie's will still exist...

Yes, the P-38F will become a fighter bomber. The problem about 'stated' range and bomb capacity, is that range is usually published with minimum load, while load is usually published as maximum. Rarely could a plane achieve near its maximum range with a high load. In the game the P-51 is primarily going to be used as the long range escort at expense of its fighter-bomber role. If I made it a fighter-bomber, I would have to cut its range so that it could not reach Japan and escort the B-29's. This is the problem about hardcoded stats.

The problem with making more fighter bombers is exactly what Victor states, that they will get killed by AA. Pure fighters will only take on aircraft, while during the ship attack they hang out of range. Fighter bombers will take part in air combat, but then will put themselves at risk of AA.

I am going to increase the number of Chinese armies, so that they will not be a walk over. Especially since the Japanese forces in China have been abstracted, they will not quite be as effective as they were when every division was represented 1:1.

If Columbo is taken, British Units (air, land and sea) appear at Auckland and operate from there.

Ranger-75 · Post by **Ranger-75** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 5:43 am

That's some good news Tom,

Did you figure out a way to keep split off units and their parents from swelling to full size? Or is this going to be something without a solution (in which case I still think lowering the allowed number of split units to 10 is the best alternative - that should be a single byte change in some control variable with minimal code to prevent someone from loading a unit on too small an AP unit while already having the max number of splits).

VictorH · Post by **VictorH** » Tue Jul 24, 2001 4:41 pm

Originally posted by Mike Santos:
Victor, that is correct, but I forgot to mention that the prohibition is only in direct fire mode, i.e aiming right at the leg infantry.

It doesn't apply to any type of vehicle, or emplacement "I swear sir, they were riding in APCs when I opened up on them with the 25mm Bushmaster cannon (used in the M2 and M3 IFV and CFV) and blew them all to hell"...

That's why most tanks carry 7.62 or 7.92mm MGs as their hull mounted or coaxial MG. The 12.7 (.50 cal) on the turret top was strictly for AA purposes.

It also does not apply to indirect fire weapons, like artillery and mortars. You can't use a mortar in direct fire mode, they don't depress below 45 degrees. Some field artillery can be used in direct fire (back in WWII most could) but it was cumbersome and if the enemy was that close to your artillery, you are already screwed.

I have to admit, that if I were under fire and I had 20mm to fire at enemy ground troops, I wouldn't be thinking about the Geneva Convention. See ya all at the Hague for the War Crimes Trial.