Thanks to help me class them in the right category:
1- Japanese super sub: I got some really uber japanese SS one week: 43 attack, 37 merchant sunk, and an handfull of DD. And the sub was impervious to air and escort attack. So ? bug, or a bad week ? just the sub placed on the goddamn bad place ?
2- SS-3 : I got a sub group killed type T west of Singapour, being a good hunting place i put my next sub group ( also type T ) at the same position. Few turn away I check it and see it is down from 8 to -3 !! in size. I try to move it and see I have 2 sub group in the hex a -3 and a 8 size one. Definitly a bug, and if the AI is plagued with it it can alter it efficiency with sub.
3- Aussies are sissies : Australian troups are really weak in combat, something really strange. I got battle with Aus and Us in the same hex , 4 div of each against 3 div of Japanese. All unit have same exp and readyness, same troops, the aus have ent 9 the Us ent 2. The australian take in average from 2 to 10 more losses than the US ... why ?
4- No surface battle: I am now in 1945 and I haven't seen any surface action from the whole game , wich is somewhat STRANGE. Especially has I have had US cruiser/DD/BB group in the same hex than japanese merchant ship group or light group. I also notice that if your ships come to bomb the base they just dont care about the port and shipping, something really unhistorical IMHO.
5- Airplane in China no more replenishing : I have liberated a good part of China and my air unit still dont replenish, even the SpitVII and SeafireIII that are built in India. Perhaps China need to be a supply source for china made aircraft ? After all they build some design by license and fight the japanese from 1937 to 1941 alone so they DID have some military industry of their own.
6- The wandering UK: Odd AI behaviour, I see the whole UK Eastern fleet make a trip to the south of Java, taking a lot of airplane attack then go back to their port... the question I have is : why do they behave so stupidly ?
Also I notice a large transfert of ships from India to Australia, the AI settle the convoyu in a rather stupid manner: All the CV in the same group, all the BB in the same group, CL in 2 different group and finnaly all the merchant, AO, tanker, AP .. in the same defenceless group. As they cross the indian neerland island , fully manned by japanese Betty and Zero squadron I let you imagine the slaughter... Any way to say AI that spending hex of travel around an AI operationnal or supposed operationnal Airbase is stupid ? especially when you can avoid this ?
7- CW troops in India and Malaya build readiness far to slowly: the uniwue reason why I am still bogged there and not already back to singa. Even if I own the hex, even when not in presence of the ennemy, CW troops build only a few readiness point a turn when in SEAC territory, in NewGuinea the build rate is ok, any reason why ?
8- CV making strike against AB : I notice AI love to send CV TF against ennemy Airbase ( isolated or not ). The pb is that he launch his bomber out from his fighter range... so they get repeatdly slaugthered. Can we provide some AI routine saying : dont lauch strike at an airfield without fighter support...
Also the CV love to send strike, getting mauled by flak, even long after achieving nothing. As a result I see a Japanese carrier group sail to Port Moresby, taking a lot of air attack in the way. Arrived there launch a strike with his few remaining aircraft, get them slaughtered by interceptor and flak, and be sunk in his way back with no more plane on them... ( PS: it wasn't a bold port attack move but a stupid airfield strike, why dont they strike from above Guniea and make all the trip to south of Moresby is another thing I just cant answer ).
That is all right now, but I like to have some replys about them ... thanks and great game anyway...
My list of oddities, bugs and way of improvement...
-
Doug Olenick
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ny
i also notised a large transfer of ships but not to australia.........to timor
sendt in groups of no more than 5 ship[groups]
they where cut to pieces by jap airforces
i lost 3BB 1CV 1CVL 5CA 1CLAA 6CL 11DD
i that turn early november1942 had a VERY hard time recovering from that blow
was preparing to invade sumatry[palembang,oosthaven,medan] but it had to wait for almost 2years now <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
sendt in groups of no more than 5 ship[groups]
they where cut to pieces by jap airforces
i lost 3BB 1CV 1CVL 5CA 1CLAA 6CL 11DD
i that turn early november1942 had a VERY hard time recovering from that blow
was preparing to invade sumatry[palembang,oosthaven,medan] but it had to wait for almost 2years now <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
poep
I found the pb with the CW fleet, 2 porth north of Darwin are still SEAC because they weren't attacked by Japanese and are defended by Dutch. So sometimes CW send his fleet to patrol area ( really stupid move IMHO ). I change the ports control to ANZAC and everything is fine now.
except:
9- Strategic bombardment force should be set to night by default: I see several flight of B29 get mawled repeteatdly by Japanese fighter over Tokyo and Osaka.2 different things :
- First case: the P51 of escort ( departing from the same base ) fly to other city : P51 to Osaka , B29 to tokyo = 50 B29 destroyed by 125+ japanese fighter.
- Second case: the B29 fly alone or with just 3 or 4 P51 right into the Imperial Air Force headquarter.
Please make the AI fly the Strat Bombardement mission at night if no escort and Japanese fighter around ( I.E Japanese mainland and airbase that intercept previous turn ).
Anyway this game is great, but a bit too cumbersome to me <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> and I need an old PC for my oldies <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
except:
9- Strategic bombardment force should be set to night by default: I see several flight of B29 get mawled repeteatdly by Japanese fighter over Tokyo and Osaka.2 different things :
- First case: the P51 of escort ( departing from the same base ) fly to other city : P51 to Osaka , B29 to tokyo = 50 B29 destroyed by 125+ japanese fighter.
- Second case: the B29 fly alone or with just 3 or 4 P51 right into the Imperial Air Force headquarter.
Please make the AI fly the Strat Bombardement mission at night if no escort and Japanese fighter around ( I.E Japanese mainland and airbase that intercept previous turn ).
Anyway this game is great, but a bit too cumbersome to me <img src="tongue.gif" border="0"> and I need an old PC for my oldies <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
I fixed the Ambon/Timor RN bug by changing the Higher HQ of ABDA to ANZAC from SEAC. When ABDA falls all previous ABDA bases change to ANZAC control instead of SEAC, so the RN keeps in the Indian Ocean.
(er, just to let you know, I used to have the handle "Major Tom", to cut confusion...)
[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Jeremy Pritchard ]</p>
(er, just to let you know, I used to have the handle "Major Tom", to cut confusion...)
[ September 28, 2001: Message edited by: Jeremy Pritchard ]</p>
Jeremy, when did you make this change? is it in the "upcoming" version 2.3??
To everyone else complaining of wierd TF movements:
What are all you guys doing with your HQs on Computer control??? The only HQ that you can safely do this is the Nat China HQ, and even that one is iffy. Since China is basically abstracted, I just reinforce Nanning with 1 unit and re-organize the Chinese air force and then I don't do anything unless the air force gets depleted.
If the Aussies are taking more casualties than US units, it means that they are fighting MORE than the US. Oddly, this was a historical truth. The Australian units had a better reputation for performance in New Guneia than the US troops.
Don't put 2 subs in the same hex, I didn't even think this was possible.
That "lucky" sub attack was probably just that. You were probably on a hex that several convoys passed through . The Allied convoys seem to get very large sometimes.
Supplies will have an effect on how fast units recover readiness. I have seen it happel in the CBI theatre and in the Central Pacific to US units. also prior combat sometimes has an effect (possibly a leader check was failed).
Surface units - sometimes (most of the time) they don't seem to want to engage. I see it happen far too frequently. I think that if one TF gets your surface combat TF's "attention" then any others will be able to "sneak" in.
Bombardment TF - Don't make bombardment TFs make Surface Combat TFs. If you send a surface combat TF to a coastal hex and there is no emeny TF to fight, the Surface Combat TF will AUTOMATICALLY bombard the hex, 2 or 3 times even!!!
To everyone else complaining of wierd TF movements:
What are all you guys doing with your HQs on Computer control??? The only HQ that you can safely do this is the Nat China HQ, and even that one is iffy. Since China is basically abstracted, I just reinforce Nanning with 1 unit and re-organize the Chinese air force and then I don't do anything unless the air force gets depleted.
If the Aussies are taking more casualties than US units, it means that they are fighting MORE than the US. Oddly, this was a historical truth. The Australian units had a better reputation for performance in New Guneia than the US troops.
Don't put 2 subs in the same hex, I didn't even think this was possible.
That "lucky" sub attack was probably just that. You were probably on a hex that several convoys passed through . The Allied convoys seem to get very large sometimes.
Supplies will have an effect on how fast units recover readiness. I have seen it happel in the CBI theatre and in the Central Pacific to US units. also prior combat sometimes has an effect (possibly a leader check was failed).
Surface units - sometimes (most of the time) they don't seem to want to engage. I see it happen far too frequently. I think that if one TF gets your surface combat TF's "attention" then any others will be able to "sneak" in.
Bombardment TF - Don't make bombardment TFs make Surface Combat TFs. If you send a surface combat TF to a coastal hex and there is no emeny TF to fight, the Surface Combat TF will AUTOMATICALLY bombard the hex, 2 or 3 times even!!!
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
[ September 29, 2001: Message edited by: Ivan GREYWOLF Kerensky ]Originally posted by Mike Santos:
What are all you guys doing with your HQs on Computer control???
That simple, I just dont want to crew and play all and every HQ in the game <img src="tongue.gif" border="0">
Also if they do weird in FC that probably mean they weren't smarter in AI control <img src="wink.gif" border="0">
If the Aussies are taking more casualties than US units, it means that they are fighting MORE than the US.
Seems you didn't understand my concern, I didn't say they lost more troups globaly, they lost more troup in those peculiar battle ! I say that when fighting AUS troops with same stats lost more troups than US troups with the same stats fighting in the same battle...
Don't put 2 subs in the same hex, I didn't even think this was possible.
Once again I didn't intentdly do that , it just a ghost sub TF that appear.
That "lucky" sub attack was probably just that. You were probably on a hex that several convoys passed through . The Allied convoys seem to get very large sometimes.
Yep probably, also is peculiarly annoying that the allied convoy use so few or no escort at all... <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
Bombardment TF - Don't make bombardment TFs make Surface Combat TFs. If you send a surface combat TF to a coastal hex and there is no emeny TF to fight, the Surface Combat TF will AUTOMATICALLY bombard the hex, 2 or 3 times even!!!
Hum nice trick , and a usefull one <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> too bad we cant launch a group of DD/CL against a peculiar merchantmen TF <img src="frown.gif" border="0">
[ September 29, 2001: Message edited by: Ivan GREYWOLF Kerensky ]</p>
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Yes, the HQ change will be in the v2.3 patch, which is virtually done (am waiting for some tweaking to be done that I cannot do). I was hoping for this weekend, but due to a busy week at school, it might have to be pushed back a bit.
The rise in Australian casualties might be because they have a higher experience level than most United States Army divisions. They start off with 80 (excluding the 3rd, 5th and 11th Divisions), so that means that they will, on average, send out more troops to battle than a division of say 60-70 (the average for a US division). Remember, getting the Japanese off bases is tricky, and will cause a lot of casualties, the Australians just have more experience, thereby engage more troops.
In regards to the sub bug, I saw it while running the game on 'computer' vs 'computer'. The only way that I see fixing this is to go in the editor and repair the groups, and possibly to avoid that spot.
To have TF's engage one another is tricky. You have to send your Surface TF's to the same base as your enemy on the same turn. This will give you the best chance at figthing.
Getting into battle with Carrier and Transport groups is another story. It is VERY hard to get into a fight with a TF that is a 'Carrier' or 'Transport'. These TF's, in reality, would clear out of a situation rather than to duke it out short range. They put all their efforts in avoiding conflict, so they rarely get caught by Surface TF's. I have seen it happen, but, it rarely does. Also, do not expect a TF of 30 ships to catch a Carrier/Transport TF. The larger the TF, the better chance it gets spotted, and the only way to catch these Carrier/Transport groups is if a surface TF arrives at the same base UNSPOTTED.
So, if you want to kill off a bunch of enemy transports, best to use air power, but if you have ships, use them in small TF's (ie. 2 or so cruisers and a few destroyers). If they get caught by an enemy surface TF, there is a good chance they get destroyed though...
Factory production was fixed. Your B-29 groups fill out a lot faster (usually keep to in between 25-40 per group by late 1944).
The rise in Australian casualties might be because they have a higher experience level than most United States Army divisions. They start off with 80 (excluding the 3rd, 5th and 11th Divisions), so that means that they will, on average, send out more troops to battle than a division of say 60-70 (the average for a US division). Remember, getting the Japanese off bases is tricky, and will cause a lot of casualties, the Australians just have more experience, thereby engage more troops.
In regards to the sub bug, I saw it while running the game on 'computer' vs 'computer'. The only way that I see fixing this is to go in the editor and repair the groups, and possibly to avoid that spot.
To have TF's engage one another is tricky. You have to send your Surface TF's to the same base as your enemy on the same turn. This will give you the best chance at figthing.
Getting into battle with Carrier and Transport groups is another story. It is VERY hard to get into a fight with a TF that is a 'Carrier' or 'Transport'. These TF's, in reality, would clear out of a situation rather than to duke it out short range. They put all their efforts in avoiding conflict, so they rarely get caught by Surface TF's. I have seen it happen, but, it rarely does. Also, do not expect a TF of 30 ships to catch a Carrier/Transport TF. The larger the TF, the better chance it gets spotted, and the only way to catch these Carrier/Transport groups is if a surface TF arrives at the same base UNSPOTTED.
So, if you want to kill off a bunch of enemy transports, best to use air power, but if you have ships, use them in small TF's (ie. 2 or so cruisers and a few destroyers). If they get caught by an enemy surface TF, there is a good chance they get destroyed though...
Factory production was fixed. Your B-29 groups fill out a lot faster (usually keep to in between 25-40 per group by late 1944).
Thanks for your answers...
About surface combat, especially against transport it seems really weird...
I mean a transport fleet is SLOW and cant escape a DD or a CL battle group. Also when the Fleet is operating the loading/unloading they are very vulnerable to attack from air and from surface.
The way the game is right now I dont see how can a surface group blocade an ennemy port for transport or intercept an unloading ennemy force...
About surface combat, especially against transport it seems really weird...
I mean a transport fleet is SLOW and cant escape a DD or a CL battle group. Also when the Fleet is operating the loading/unloading they are very vulnerable to attack from air and from surface.
The way the game is right now I dont see how can a surface group blocade an ennemy port for transport or intercept an unloading ennemy force...
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
Historically it was very hard for a surface fleet to catch a transport group, even when it was unloading. Can only think of a few examples where a surface fleet was sucessful against a transport group. Usually the transports remained on high alert, and had friendly surface forces between them and their enemy. Remember, this is an abstraction of 100's of Km's. Being in one square does not mean that they will necessarily find eachother. Surface forces usually look for others, while transport groups and carrier TF's try to keep away from surface groups. Top speed is irrelevant.
Ivan, I was reading your comment correctly. Either the australians have higher experience as Jeremey pointed out (even a few points can make a difference), or possibly the australians are programmed for higher engagement ratres than the US units. Each "country"'s units has unique charasterics built into them for attacking, retreating, surrendering, etc.
The Surface TF bombarding is not a trick, it is right in the original rule book which states (p23) "If a surface combat TF has a destination that is an enemy controlled base and there are no enemy TFs present, The TF will bombard the enemy base".
It's very effective, I send out 4-5 surface TFs per week to bombard / harass enemy bases.
I have seen many cargo / transport TFs turn when one of my bombarding surfacr combat TFs is in a hex. Actually catching one is a different matter, It is hard, especially if there are multiple enemy TFs in the hex. On the rare occasions that they do catch one, it's a nice easy way to rack up the sunk tables.
The allied convoy escorts seem to be more reactive to enemy surface activity, you need at least 20 DD (total ships not units 5-6 units of 4 each) to make effective escorts. And even then, the Japanese subs will still get shots off at your convoys, especially if the sub is on a "hot" hex".
The Surface TF bombarding is not a trick, it is right in the original rule book which states (p23) "If a surface combat TF has a destination that is an enemy controlled base and there are no enemy TFs present, The TF will bombard the enemy base".
It's very effective, I send out 4-5 surface TFs per week to bombard / harass enemy bases.
I have seen many cargo / transport TFs turn when one of my bombarding surfacr combat TFs is in a hex. Actually catching one is a different matter, It is hard, especially if there are multiple enemy TFs in the hex. On the rare occasions that they do catch one, it's a nice easy way to rack up the sunk tables.
The allied convoy escorts seem to be more reactive to enemy surface activity, you need at least 20 DD (total ships not units 5-6 units of 4 each) to make effective escorts. And even then, the Japanese subs will still get shots off at your convoys, especially if the sub is on a "hot" hex".
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
I have also noticed some rather odd behaviors.
1. the tendancy for units to ignor surface action as mentioned. I had a British SAG bombarding Siagon and a japanese resupply convoy moved into the hex to resupply siagon. Given that the bombers from Phenong Phen had been attacking it every time it moved it could not have been a surprise to the SAG yet it did nothing. Nor did the MTB SAG group react nor did a CA SAG in singapore react. Something is deciedely odd here. It is possible it was ignored because it was retiring. I have only rarely seen a CBG or SAG perform a reaction move either...and my HQs have lots of PPs left so I don´t know what needs be done to trigger one. Of course the one time one did occur I lost 3 CVs and had the 4th crippled.
2. I had a CBG with orders to attack taskforces ignor a taskforce in the next hex and instead launch attacks on cities. I am sorry but that drove me nuts. True the carriers had been denuded of their aircraft but still sinking the carriers themselves should have had a higher priority than expending planes on cities that land based heavy bombers are targeting anyway.
3. Kamikazi attacks are far too effective. In the real war no major warship was ever hit by one. I have lost one CV, and had another CV and a CVL hit by them. And these are in groups with in excess of 6000 flak...ok the CV that was sunk was the Wasp and was in a group with only 4500 flak but the others were in a group with 6200 or 6500 pts. Just had another 2 CV hit and this in a group with 6900 pts of flak.
4. The biggest one. I lost the 5th and 6th Marine divisions attacking the Marcus Islands. Why? Because when they failed to takke the base the computer auto evacuates them but it does a number of stupid things when this occurs.
4-1. It changes the task force from transport to cargo. Why????
4-2. It loads a single unit accross all transports within a single task force. In the case above I also landed 3 Bn of raiders, by the end of the combat they were basicly down to 0 squads and a single gun. It used 5 APD ship groups to load a single Bn and left the other 2 on the Island.
4-3. Not all supplies are offloaded. This leads to a big problem in conjunjunction with 4-4 and 4-2.
4-4. When evacuating the unit the computer removes all unused ships from the group. In my case this meant instead of their being 48 APA in my task force there is 4.
You can see now what happens. You go "unload" to remove the badly distributed troops from the task force. Supplies are unloaded and the size of the troops increases but of course your APA are now in the pool where you can´t access them and so you now have to deciede who to abandon and who to recover. The only good news to this is that APD are immune.
5. Titanium Japanese PC. I have had over 150 tac-bombers and fighters attack a group of 7 PC. I sunk one(1). I have never seen a bomb hit them, regardless of what is said in the documentation the allied bombers attack with only AC cannon or rockets. It still takes on the order of 18-20 hits with AC cannon or rockets to sink a single PC (Japanese) I found mine were much more vulurable. Also two times I had a CA SAG react and attack a PC task force. They shrugged off hits by 4" guns with no problem. 4 CA, 2 CL and 8 DDs firing on 7 PC did not sink a single one, the second case they did manage to actually sink all 4 or 5 PC but it took up to 12 hits by 4" guns to sink a single PC. Err what is up doc? These are balsa wood (or bamboo or whatever) boats. 42 Mosquito VI fighter bombers would rip 9 of them appart with their cannon alone no matter dropping bombs on them yet I sunk not a single one during that attack. Had that been 9 DDs I suspect none of them would have lived...or at least 3-4 would have sunk since a single 500 lb bomb hit can sink a DD. Odd that the PC are that much tougher.
6. The message shows up "escorts attacking submarine" when there are no escorts only the MCS themselves.
7. The CVE bomber groups don´t do anything. I would have thought they would have at least attacked ground units while the transports were unloading troops...minor grumble though.
8. Allied base flak is considerably lighter than Japanese flak. I loose considerably more bombers during airfield attacks than do the japanese. Also I fail to understand how the damage is calculated I hit airfields with 3 attacks of 200K lbs of bombs or more and kill no aircraft loosing 20 planes each attack. I think..."ah nothing there" then come the japanese turn 105 aircraft launch on my carrier group. True they were all shot down but still. Same is true of attacks of 500K lbs doing nothing and a single japanese fighter will drop 1000 lbs and kill 3 planes of mine.
I have not noticed that the aussies take higher casulties. They have been fighting well and have fairly low losses. The british and the Indians have on the other hand 16K casulties between them. I think that the experience of the CW troops is far too low. 25 is beyond ridiculus...either that or the Japanese should not be having so many troops with 90+ experience to start with. I have yet to figure out how they get all these 99 experience units.
I don´t expect any changes...hey the game is free...but maybe the people working on the new version will want to make sure the above sort of stupidity (pardon me for being blunt) does not occur.
1. the tendancy for units to ignor surface action as mentioned. I had a British SAG bombarding Siagon and a japanese resupply convoy moved into the hex to resupply siagon. Given that the bombers from Phenong Phen had been attacking it every time it moved it could not have been a surprise to the SAG yet it did nothing. Nor did the MTB SAG group react nor did a CA SAG in singapore react. Something is deciedely odd here. It is possible it was ignored because it was retiring. I have only rarely seen a CBG or SAG perform a reaction move either...and my HQs have lots of PPs left so I don´t know what needs be done to trigger one. Of course the one time one did occur I lost 3 CVs and had the 4th crippled.
2. I had a CBG with orders to attack taskforces ignor a taskforce in the next hex and instead launch attacks on cities. I am sorry but that drove me nuts. True the carriers had been denuded of their aircraft but still sinking the carriers themselves should have had a higher priority than expending planes on cities that land based heavy bombers are targeting anyway.
3. Kamikazi attacks are far too effective. In the real war no major warship was ever hit by one. I have lost one CV, and had another CV and a CVL hit by them. And these are in groups with in excess of 6000 flak...ok the CV that was sunk was the Wasp and was in a group with only 4500 flak but the others were in a group with 6200 or 6500 pts. Just had another 2 CV hit and this in a group with 6900 pts of flak.
4. The biggest one. I lost the 5th and 6th Marine divisions attacking the Marcus Islands. Why? Because when they failed to takke the base the computer auto evacuates them but it does a number of stupid things when this occurs.
4-1. It changes the task force from transport to cargo. Why????
4-2. It loads a single unit accross all transports within a single task force. In the case above I also landed 3 Bn of raiders, by the end of the combat they were basicly down to 0 squads and a single gun. It used 5 APD ship groups to load a single Bn and left the other 2 on the Island.
4-3. Not all supplies are offloaded. This leads to a big problem in conjunjunction with 4-4 and 4-2.
4-4. When evacuating the unit the computer removes all unused ships from the group. In my case this meant instead of their being 48 APA in my task force there is 4.
You can see now what happens. You go "unload" to remove the badly distributed troops from the task force. Supplies are unloaded and the size of the troops increases but of course your APA are now in the pool where you can´t access them and so you now have to deciede who to abandon and who to recover. The only good news to this is that APD are immune.
5. Titanium Japanese PC. I have had over 150 tac-bombers and fighters attack a group of 7 PC. I sunk one(1). I have never seen a bomb hit them, regardless of what is said in the documentation the allied bombers attack with only AC cannon or rockets. It still takes on the order of 18-20 hits with AC cannon or rockets to sink a single PC (Japanese) I found mine were much more vulurable. Also two times I had a CA SAG react and attack a PC task force. They shrugged off hits by 4" guns with no problem. 4 CA, 2 CL and 8 DDs firing on 7 PC did not sink a single one, the second case they did manage to actually sink all 4 or 5 PC but it took up to 12 hits by 4" guns to sink a single PC. Err what is up doc? These are balsa wood (or bamboo or whatever) boats. 42 Mosquito VI fighter bombers would rip 9 of them appart with their cannon alone no matter dropping bombs on them yet I sunk not a single one during that attack. Had that been 9 DDs I suspect none of them would have lived...or at least 3-4 would have sunk since a single 500 lb bomb hit can sink a DD. Odd that the PC are that much tougher.
6. The message shows up "escorts attacking submarine" when there are no escorts only the MCS themselves.
7. The CVE bomber groups don´t do anything. I would have thought they would have at least attacked ground units while the transports were unloading troops...minor grumble though.
8. Allied base flak is considerably lighter than Japanese flak. I loose considerably more bombers during airfield attacks than do the japanese. Also I fail to understand how the damage is calculated I hit airfields with 3 attacks of 200K lbs of bombs or more and kill no aircraft loosing 20 planes each attack. I think..."ah nothing there" then come the japanese turn 105 aircraft launch on my carrier group. True they were all shot down but still. Same is true of attacks of 500K lbs doing nothing and a single japanese fighter will drop 1000 lbs and kill 3 planes of mine.
I have not noticed that the aussies take higher casulties. They have been fighting well and have fairly low losses. The british and the Indians have on the other hand 16K casulties between them. I think that the experience of the CW troops is far too low. 25 is beyond ridiculus...either that or the Japanese should not be having so many troops with 90+ experience to start with. I have yet to figure out how they get all these 99 experience units.
I don´t expect any changes...hey the game is free...but maybe the people working on the new version will want to make sure the above sort of stupidity (pardon me for being blunt) does not occur.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
1. Already covered. Transport/Cargo groups are 'sneaky', and rarely are discovered. The reason that your TF's do not attack is because they have not seen them. Your scouts have seen them, but your TF did not. In order for you to have even a good chance at getting one of those caught in surface combat is to have your ship actually sent to the same base as the transport TF, and even catching them here is rare. The best that surface TF's can do, which I think in some ways is better than actually sinking a TF, is to turn it away.
2. I have noticed that air groups behave 'strangely' when near factories and cities. They see these as a VP priority, since bombing and killing a few thousand civilians/production is actually WORTH MORE POINTS than sinking ships, even carriers. A way to possibly get around this is to change orders on all CV's going to near these city bases to NI. You can do this even if you get a memory error by pressing "C" to change, and "M" for mission, then select NI. They still might not go for enemy CV TF's, but enemy cargo TF's. Yet again, sinking 10 Transports is worth more, and is a lot easier than sinking 2 Carriers.
3. Just one question, are these 'excessive' Kamikaze attacks ocurring in the OBC41 scenario, or the OBMARI scenario? If you play the OBC41 scenario, the IJAAF tends to have better experience in 1944 than historically (since most people, and the AI do not do what the Japanese did and bleed away the IJAAF like the IJNAF). With higher levels of experience, they can fight through CAP much better than lower experience. With more getting through the CAP, more get through AA. I have seen (in computer vs. computer) games where the Japanese had some 90 experience Ki-61's on Kamikaze missions, which were very effective. Most ships that I see sunk are CVE's and AP's. How do you get around this? Make many Carrier strikes against the Philippines/Formosa/Japan before you actually send troops on the Philippines (kamikaze's are activated when US troops land in the Philippines in 1944). Weaken their air forces, like the USN did historically, then they will neither have the experience, nor the aircraft pools to wage an effective Kamikaze war. I have seen the Japanese AI run out of aircraft in the pools because of excessive Kamikaze use.
4.
4-1. It changes the TF to cargo in order that the tactical AI GETS IT THE HELL OUT OF THERE. Otherwize you might complain that your evacuation TF sits around in the target base and gets pounded by enemy LBA.
4-2. This is probably to symbolize panic and disordered loading. Remember, these are hostile beaches that they are retreating from. There are no facilities in which to quickly and efficiently load troops aboard these vessels. In 'reality' these APD's were probably very empty, however, as in loading troops you could load a 1000 point division in transports worth 2000 points in carrying capacity, yet it still says it is full. Also, landing craft are not really modeled in the game, but are abstracted. In an evacuation it might be determined that there is not enough landing craft left to life all the troops deployed.
4-3. Here's how you get around this. In the sea hex, click "Create TF" like you would normally do at a port. Then select "G"et TF instead of "P"ort, which has you create the TF from ships already in a TF at the same hex. Select all of the MCS supply ships. Then select this new TF, and unload it.
4-4. The AI routinely messes with MCS and AP numbers. Notice that when you have a cargo/transport TF with MCS and you select "load supply", check the TF again. If there was too few supply on the base to fully load the AI shrinks down the TF so it's maximum load is below the maximum amount of supply on the base. If the supply MCS TF has less cargo capacity than the base does supply, the AI will add an extra MCS to your TF (not a group, but a single ship from the pool). Ie. if you have a 12 MCS TF, load it with supply from a base with 10 000 supply, you will have a 13 MCS TF. Don't ask me why the AI changes these things...
4-5. Here's what you do to avoid these things. NEVER send an amphibious attack with ALL AP's in the same TF. Split them up. Have each TF carry one LCU. It may not give you the same 'punch' as landing 4 divisions at one time, but it results in the case of an evacuation more troops surviving, a MUCH more historical battle (rarely has more than 1 division landed at one time from one TF!), and it is better in case some of your TF's get turned away from enemy LBA and surface forces, invariably at least 1-2 transport TF's get through.
5. I fixed the AIR attack problem on PC type vessels. When ANY aircraft attcks a PC, it uses the AIR CANNON function, which is the same for ANY aircraft. Originally, in ALL of the game versions (including the original) AIR CANNON/MG was rated only as a factor of 1, or 0, cannot remember. This cannot even get through PC armour of 1. What I did was to raise up AIR CANNON war factor to "3". I noticed that PC's started to sink in record numbers. PC's have always been a problem in Pacific War. Many people suggested removing them all together. I have no problem with that, since I do not feel that they are adequately modeled in ANY aspect.
6. The message ALWAYS appears, but notice that when there are no escorts (ie. no DD/DE/PC) that no subs are sunk! It probably says this message, then determines the probability that an escort will sink a ship, with no escorts the probablility is around 0, but there is still a mention of an 'attack'.
7. I am not quite sure about CVE airgroups. They put up CAP, but I rarely use them otherwize. Possibly it has something to do with the fact that most USN and RN CVE groups are not one ship, but a group of ships? Do the IJN CVE's act this way?
8. You have to figure out the size of the Port and Airfield. If they are both high numbers (ie. 9) then the AA value will be higher if one or more are lower. I noticed that lowering Pearl Harbour's Port and Air Base by just 1 (each) results in FAR fewer IJNAF aircraft being lost in the Pearl Harbour Strike. Maybe Allied bases attacked by enemy air have less AA due to they had a smaller Port/Airbase than Japanese bases attacked? The larger the airbase, the better chance that aircraft will be dispersed and have fewer, even NO aircraft losses. PP level also affacts this, if the ground crews are 'on the ball' they can protect the aircraft on the ground much better than if they were not prepared.
9. In the 2.3 version the Commonwealth forces (ie. Indian Divisions) experience higher experience levels. There are going to be around 4-5 divisions that start off with, when they reach full strength (ie. full squad reinforcements) will have 50 experience. This will be enough to contain the Japanese, but hopefully not enough to steamroll them in 1942-43. The forces in Malaya SHOULD have low experience (around 30) since they not only were very green, but had EXTREMELY LOW morale. It does, and should take a lot of work to hold Malaya.
Jeremy
2. I have noticed that air groups behave 'strangely' when near factories and cities. They see these as a VP priority, since bombing and killing a few thousand civilians/production is actually WORTH MORE POINTS than sinking ships, even carriers. A way to possibly get around this is to change orders on all CV's going to near these city bases to NI. You can do this even if you get a memory error by pressing "C" to change, and "M" for mission, then select NI. They still might not go for enemy CV TF's, but enemy cargo TF's. Yet again, sinking 10 Transports is worth more, and is a lot easier than sinking 2 Carriers.
3. Just one question, are these 'excessive' Kamikaze attacks ocurring in the OBC41 scenario, or the OBMARI scenario? If you play the OBC41 scenario, the IJAAF tends to have better experience in 1944 than historically (since most people, and the AI do not do what the Japanese did and bleed away the IJAAF like the IJNAF). With higher levels of experience, they can fight through CAP much better than lower experience. With more getting through the CAP, more get through AA. I have seen (in computer vs. computer) games where the Japanese had some 90 experience Ki-61's on Kamikaze missions, which were very effective. Most ships that I see sunk are CVE's and AP's. How do you get around this? Make many Carrier strikes against the Philippines/Formosa/Japan before you actually send troops on the Philippines (kamikaze's are activated when US troops land in the Philippines in 1944). Weaken their air forces, like the USN did historically, then they will neither have the experience, nor the aircraft pools to wage an effective Kamikaze war. I have seen the Japanese AI run out of aircraft in the pools because of excessive Kamikaze use.
4.
4-1. It changes the TF to cargo in order that the tactical AI GETS IT THE HELL OUT OF THERE. Otherwize you might complain that your evacuation TF sits around in the target base and gets pounded by enemy LBA.
4-2. This is probably to symbolize panic and disordered loading. Remember, these are hostile beaches that they are retreating from. There are no facilities in which to quickly and efficiently load troops aboard these vessels. In 'reality' these APD's were probably very empty, however, as in loading troops you could load a 1000 point division in transports worth 2000 points in carrying capacity, yet it still says it is full. Also, landing craft are not really modeled in the game, but are abstracted. In an evacuation it might be determined that there is not enough landing craft left to life all the troops deployed.
4-3. Here's how you get around this. In the sea hex, click "Create TF" like you would normally do at a port. Then select "G"et TF instead of "P"ort, which has you create the TF from ships already in a TF at the same hex. Select all of the MCS supply ships. Then select this new TF, and unload it.
4-4. The AI routinely messes with MCS and AP numbers. Notice that when you have a cargo/transport TF with MCS and you select "load supply", check the TF again. If there was too few supply on the base to fully load the AI shrinks down the TF so it's maximum load is below the maximum amount of supply on the base. If the supply MCS TF has less cargo capacity than the base does supply, the AI will add an extra MCS to your TF (not a group, but a single ship from the pool). Ie. if you have a 12 MCS TF, load it with supply from a base with 10 000 supply, you will have a 13 MCS TF. Don't ask me why the AI changes these things...
4-5. Here's what you do to avoid these things. NEVER send an amphibious attack with ALL AP's in the same TF. Split them up. Have each TF carry one LCU. It may not give you the same 'punch' as landing 4 divisions at one time, but it results in the case of an evacuation more troops surviving, a MUCH more historical battle (rarely has more than 1 division landed at one time from one TF!), and it is better in case some of your TF's get turned away from enemy LBA and surface forces, invariably at least 1-2 transport TF's get through.
5. I fixed the AIR attack problem on PC type vessels. When ANY aircraft attcks a PC, it uses the AIR CANNON function, which is the same for ANY aircraft. Originally, in ALL of the game versions (including the original) AIR CANNON/MG was rated only as a factor of 1, or 0, cannot remember. This cannot even get through PC armour of 1. What I did was to raise up AIR CANNON war factor to "3". I noticed that PC's started to sink in record numbers. PC's have always been a problem in Pacific War. Many people suggested removing them all together. I have no problem with that, since I do not feel that they are adequately modeled in ANY aspect.
6. The message ALWAYS appears, but notice that when there are no escorts (ie. no DD/DE/PC) that no subs are sunk! It probably says this message, then determines the probability that an escort will sink a ship, with no escorts the probablility is around 0, but there is still a mention of an 'attack'.
7. I am not quite sure about CVE airgroups. They put up CAP, but I rarely use them otherwize. Possibly it has something to do with the fact that most USN and RN CVE groups are not one ship, but a group of ships? Do the IJN CVE's act this way?
8. You have to figure out the size of the Port and Airfield. If they are both high numbers (ie. 9) then the AA value will be higher if one or more are lower. I noticed that lowering Pearl Harbour's Port and Air Base by just 1 (each) results in FAR fewer IJNAF aircraft being lost in the Pearl Harbour Strike. Maybe Allied bases attacked by enemy air have less AA due to they had a smaller Port/Airbase than Japanese bases attacked? The larger the airbase, the better chance that aircraft will be dispersed and have fewer, even NO aircraft losses. PP level also affacts this, if the ground crews are 'on the ball' they can protect the aircraft on the ground much better than if they were not prepared.
9. In the 2.3 version the Commonwealth forces (ie. Indian Divisions) experience higher experience levels. There are going to be around 4-5 divisions that start off with, when they reach full strength (ie. full squad reinforcements) will have 50 experience. This will be enough to contain the Japanese, but hopefully not enough to steamroll them in 1942-43. The forces in Malaya SHOULD have low experience (around 30) since they not only were very green, but had EXTREMELY LOW morale. It does, and should take a lot of work to hold Malaya.
Jeremy
Thank you for the reply but I am afraid I have a few comments.
1. As far as "sneaky" task forces go: the task force in question had been hit 4 times by air strikes on the way to siagon (last 4 movment hexs it used it was attacked by planes from Phenong Phen), plus by 4 airstrikes when it got to Saigon harbor plus I imagine a Sunderland was orbiting it the whole time. So I have difficulty in imagining the that neither the SAG bombarding Siagon nor the CA SAG based 3 hexs away nor the MTB SAG also based 3 hexs away didn´t know where it was at all times. Sneaky taskforces are not in general composed of 50 MCS and 8 Subchasers plus a few DDs. Tad hard to hide that sort of thing. A few CL and DD trying a tokyo express are sneaky but 12 knot cargo ships and APs are not. And even so the Tokyo express were routinely intercepted by DD and CA taskforces and many night actions resulted from this. I have almost never seen surface action in the entire war.
3. The kamakazi attacks are in the 41 scenario (it is now 45). I find it difficult to believe they still have experienced pilots left given the overall number of losses they have suffered during the war. Plus it is difficult to quite understand how they got close enough to the carriers to hit them, the carriers are in the centre of the taskforce not the edge.
In response to your question about the state of the IJAAF...
The RAF chewed up the IJAAF in 42-44 over Rabul, Bangkok, and Phenon Pheng. The USAAF and RAAF chewed up the anything japanese in a series of month long battles over Port Morsby, Rabul, Kaiveng, plus the conquest of the indonesian Islands. I use CBGs to hammer airfields and so on before assulting. I have consistantly over run bases with 100 or so aircraft on them. Given the air battles that I see normally I know that the overall air situation for the Japanese is dire. One turn a short while ago I destroyed 830 aircraft. By the end of the air battle in and around Rabul Kittyhawk IIs were blowing zeros out of the sky and any japanese air attack on an allied base generally resulted in 90% Japanese losses. No air power remains in China at all. The Chinese air force flys unopposed missions including the bombing of Port Author.
I am currently preparing to take out formosa with a british assult while the yankee troops prepare for the attack on okinawa. The japanese hold a single base in the philipeans and that only because they have about 8 divisions there and I am only attacking with 2. That will change once the rements are crushed on 2 other bases but for the moment I am content to let the japanese troops batter away at 2 95 experience marine divisions. The Kamakazi attacks are occuring mainly because my CBGs seem to feel some need to hug the japanese coast when I send them to do strikes on the japanese fleet cowering in those norther japanese ports.
Worse I have seen a routine convoy move right thru the hex where I had a CBG. Sure...
4. LBA? What LBA...how do you normally conduct assults that there is still LBA around? This stupid Island had 2 CBGs standing offshore for 3 or 4 weeks (if not more) subjecting it to air attacks plus weekly visits by a bombardment task force. If the CBG assigned to hit taskforces had not consistantly ignored its orders there would not have been 3 divisions on the damned Island in the first place. Plus it had been bombed by liberators for about 8 weeks so LBA was a thing of the far distant past. Changing the type of task force would be forgivable if that didn´t mean that the computer is also free to unallocate APAs.
That assult used 3 transport task forces, 1 bombardment task force and 2 CBGs. If the computer had not removed 44 APA from one group and 6 APA(L) from the other than there would have been no problem getting the troops off. But once it removed those 44 APAs I was left with nothing I could do but hope the Japanese were also baddly hit (and they were), but I have noticed the random number generator is glitched since multiple plays will not yield different results...so it was pointless to try to see if the troops would hold, scratch 2 divisions for little gain. The combat 2 weeks later when the 2nd marine division plus supporting infantry landed was over in a single brief battle (2 japanese squads showed up). I am sorry but this whole thing infuriates me! I can not remove ships from or add ships to a task force at sea so what gives the computer the right to do so?
5. I have no problem with removing them. I still find it difficult to believe a PT boat surviving 12 hits by 4" guns though. Rockets seem to work ok...though it still normally takes 10 hits before they sink. Rockets are more or less in-effective on all other ships though.
6. I believe I have had submarines damaged or sunk by non-existant escorts but I may be mistaken.
7. CVE assigned to air combat TFs function normally or at least so far as I can see this is the case (I have one british air combat TF with all the CVLs plus 2 groups of CVEs) but the bombers assigned to a CVE group will not fly in defence of say a transport or cargo TF. And I have never seen them attack the troops defending the Island being assulted or anything like that. I can´t say with the japanese, I have never played them.
8. Well the allied bases getting hit were scale 4-6 in general while the japanese bases have, at least recently, been higher, but I don´t recall this sort of losses when they attacked Pearl Harbor a second time. It is hard to believe that dropping a half a million pounds of bombs doesn´t do some damage though. But still the other thing is the numbers that show up during combat never agree with the numbers in the summary at the end of the air battle or bombardment. There is always more planes destroyed then what you saw during the combat.
9. With respect to experience it may be best to increase it after a short time. The japanese enjoyed a brief period when everyone fled before them but this stopped. With the current combat system any unit with an experience less than 33% is virtually useless. Part of the problem is also the japanese experience is far to high. I kept (keep) running into troops with 99 experience but where are they coming from? Another thing is that troops loose combat experience far too easily. The British and Indian troops have been fighting continously for 3 years now but they are among the least experienced troops that I have (low 60s). The 2nd Marine Division has the most combat experience of any US division but is among the least experienced (as in rating) of any of the marine divisions (87 or so). The 2nd has been involved in over 9 assults spaning 3 years of the war no other american unit has been in this much combat yet I have other units that were at 99 (they now are down to 93 or so) that saw only a third of that much combat. From what I can see you loose experience taking a base and then you gain it while crushing the remnents.
Also from what I have seen the japanese do nothing much more than over-run undefended bases or those defended by units with so little experience they never fight and from this get a large number of 99 experience units. Unless all these 99 experience super troops come from the sieges of singapore and bataan I can´t think of where else they can be coming from.
1. As far as "sneaky" task forces go: the task force in question had been hit 4 times by air strikes on the way to siagon (last 4 movment hexs it used it was attacked by planes from Phenong Phen), plus by 4 airstrikes when it got to Saigon harbor plus I imagine a Sunderland was orbiting it the whole time. So I have difficulty in imagining the that neither the SAG bombarding Siagon nor the CA SAG based 3 hexs away nor the MTB SAG also based 3 hexs away didn´t know where it was at all times. Sneaky taskforces are not in general composed of 50 MCS and 8 Subchasers plus a few DDs. Tad hard to hide that sort of thing. A few CL and DD trying a tokyo express are sneaky but 12 knot cargo ships and APs are not. And even so the Tokyo express were routinely intercepted by DD and CA taskforces and many night actions resulted from this. I have almost never seen surface action in the entire war.
3. The kamakazi attacks are in the 41 scenario (it is now 45). I find it difficult to believe they still have experienced pilots left given the overall number of losses they have suffered during the war. Plus it is difficult to quite understand how they got close enough to the carriers to hit them, the carriers are in the centre of the taskforce not the edge.
In response to your question about the state of the IJAAF...
The RAF chewed up the IJAAF in 42-44 over Rabul, Bangkok, and Phenon Pheng. The USAAF and RAAF chewed up the anything japanese in a series of month long battles over Port Morsby, Rabul, Kaiveng, plus the conquest of the indonesian Islands. I use CBGs to hammer airfields and so on before assulting. I have consistantly over run bases with 100 or so aircraft on them. Given the air battles that I see normally I know that the overall air situation for the Japanese is dire. One turn a short while ago I destroyed 830 aircraft. By the end of the air battle in and around Rabul Kittyhawk IIs were blowing zeros out of the sky and any japanese air attack on an allied base generally resulted in 90% Japanese losses. No air power remains in China at all. The Chinese air force flys unopposed missions including the bombing of Port Author.
I am currently preparing to take out formosa with a british assult while the yankee troops prepare for the attack on okinawa. The japanese hold a single base in the philipeans and that only because they have about 8 divisions there and I am only attacking with 2. That will change once the rements are crushed on 2 other bases but for the moment I am content to let the japanese troops batter away at 2 95 experience marine divisions. The Kamakazi attacks are occuring mainly because my CBGs seem to feel some need to hug the japanese coast when I send them to do strikes on the japanese fleet cowering in those norther japanese ports.
Worse I have seen a routine convoy move right thru the hex where I had a CBG. Sure...
4. LBA? What LBA...how do you normally conduct assults that there is still LBA around? This stupid Island had 2 CBGs standing offshore for 3 or 4 weeks (if not more) subjecting it to air attacks plus weekly visits by a bombardment task force. If the CBG assigned to hit taskforces had not consistantly ignored its orders there would not have been 3 divisions on the damned Island in the first place. Plus it had been bombed by liberators for about 8 weeks so LBA was a thing of the far distant past. Changing the type of task force would be forgivable if that didn´t mean that the computer is also free to unallocate APAs.
That assult used 3 transport task forces, 1 bombardment task force and 2 CBGs. If the computer had not removed 44 APA from one group and 6 APA(L) from the other than there would have been no problem getting the troops off. But once it removed those 44 APAs I was left with nothing I could do but hope the Japanese were also baddly hit (and they were), but I have noticed the random number generator is glitched since multiple plays will not yield different results...so it was pointless to try to see if the troops would hold, scratch 2 divisions for little gain. The combat 2 weeks later when the 2nd marine division plus supporting infantry landed was over in a single brief battle (2 japanese squads showed up). I am sorry but this whole thing infuriates me! I can not remove ships from or add ships to a task force at sea so what gives the computer the right to do so?
5. I have no problem with removing them. I still find it difficult to believe a PT boat surviving 12 hits by 4" guns though. Rockets seem to work ok...though it still normally takes 10 hits before they sink. Rockets are more or less in-effective on all other ships though.
6. I believe I have had submarines damaged or sunk by non-existant escorts but I may be mistaken.
7. CVE assigned to air combat TFs function normally or at least so far as I can see this is the case (I have one british air combat TF with all the CVLs plus 2 groups of CVEs) but the bombers assigned to a CVE group will not fly in defence of say a transport or cargo TF. And I have never seen them attack the troops defending the Island being assulted or anything like that. I can´t say with the japanese, I have never played them.
8. Well the allied bases getting hit were scale 4-6 in general while the japanese bases have, at least recently, been higher, but I don´t recall this sort of losses when they attacked Pearl Harbor a second time. It is hard to believe that dropping a half a million pounds of bombs doesn´t do some damage though. But still the other thing is the numbers that show up during combat never agree with the numbers in the summary at the end of the air battle or bombardment. There is always more planes destroyed then what you saw during the combat.
9. With respect to experience it may be best to increase it after a short time. The japanese enjoyed a brief period when everyone fled before them but this stopped. With the current combat system any unit with an experience less than 33% is virtually useless. Part of the problem is also the japanese experience is far to high. I kept (keep) running into troops with 99 experience but where are they coming from? Another thing is that troops loose combat experience far too easily. The British and Indian troops have been fighting continously for 3 years now but they are among the least experienced troops that I have (low 60s). The 2nd Marine Division has the most combat experience of any US division but is among the least experienced (as in rating) of any of the marine divisions (87 or so). The 2nd has been involved in over 9 assults spaning 3 years of the war no other american unit has been in this much combat yet I have other units that were at 99 (they now are down to 93 or so) that saw only a third of that much combat. From what I can see you loose experience taking a base and then you gain it while crushing the remnents.
Also from what I have seen the japanese do nothing much more than over-run undefended bases or those defended by units with so little experience they never fight and from this get a large number of 99 experience units. Unless all these 99 experience super troops come from the sieges of singapore and bataan I can´t think of where else they can be coming from.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
1. There is no instant communication. The USAAF might have spotted the TF, but that does not mean that the USN knows about it, its true designation, etc... Read some history books. I can cite the "Battle of the Coral Sea". Both the IJN and USN were within 2 hexes (of PW geography) of eachother, but had a VERY hard time spotting one another. The IJN sent out a strike force against the USS Neosho (Oiler) thinking it was the main US force, the USN sent out a strike force against the Shoho, thinking it was the main IJN force. It was only after a lot of luck that both sides finally found eachother.
3. I notice that the IJAAF tends only to send 1/4 of its forces to face the Allies in New Guinea and Burma. It leaves the most of their aircraft training in the East Indies and the Philippines. What you see is only a small amount of what they have. Plus, they tend only to send fighter groups to New Guinea and Burma, resulting in most of their bomber groups in 1944 having 80-90 experience. When they survive CAP, they tend to hit a lot, especailly when Kamikaze. When you overrun bases, you might be overunning 'new' groups, whose experience is lower. They tend to keep at least 50% of their good groups in the rear areas.
Regarding that routine convoy, remember, THIS IS AN ABSTRACTION. Each square is about 100 km (I think) of open sea, or coastline, with plenty of places to hide. We are not prevy to effects of weather as well. It might seem logical for one thing to happen, but we do not know the full story. Remember, the SIZE of a TF also increases/decreases the chance that it is spotted. Each ship type has a spotting rating as well.
4. Actually, I have removed/added ships at sea. While on your turn, grab a TF at sea, press left (or right?) button, and the option to create a TF appears. You take from one TF.
5. You might think that the larger the gun, the better the chance that a small ship is sunk. That is not always the case. Actually, the larger the calibur, and the weaker the armour, the better chance of survival for the small vessel. USN destroyers repreatedly stated that most heavy IJN shells tended to go straight through their vessel, doing very little damage. Now if it had strong armour, the shell would have actually caused more damage. The same with PT boats, who have viertually no protection, a 4" shell would go right through it, not even slowing the thing.
7. The IJN CVE's are actually named, like Allied CVL's and CV's. Possibly this is why the CVE's of the Allies do not attack, the computer probably does not know how to do an offensive attack with multiple ships in a group.
8. I noticed the number glitch, usually off by a few planes. I really noticed the difference in losses when I lowered Pearl Harbour's airfield, when the IJNAF attacked the airfield they had around 50% less losses. It does make a big difference. Plus, having low or high PP really affects it as well.
9. The Japanese forces you encounter in Burma (18, 33, 55 and 56 Divisions) who are good came from years of fighting in China. They start the game off from 75-80 experience. The 18th Division fights through Malaya, increase 5-10 points. The 33rd, 56th and 55th have the ease in taking bangkok (1 experience) plus get to easily take Rangoon (usually a couple battles). They raise up in experience so much because they are fighting against poor troops, so they suffer fewer losses. The Allied forces are weaker, so in order for them to win they must attrition the Japanese (air bombardment), then attack with land forces. Japanese experience is correct, and I only encounter a few heavily used units with the 99 experience factors. Remember, sometimes holding out in Singapore/East Indies/Philippines is not a good thing because it gives the Japanese player good bases in which to train their troops and airgroups.
[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: Jeremy Pritchard ]</p>
3. I notice that the IJAAF tends only to send 1/4 of its forces to face the Allies in New Guinea and Burma. It leaves the most of their aircraft training in the East Indies and the Philippines. What you see is only a small amount of what they have. Plus, they tend only to send fighter groups to New Guinea and Burma, resulting in most of their bomber groups in 1944 having 80-90 experience. When they survive CAP, they tend to hit a lot, especailly when Kamikaze. When you overrun bases, you might be overunning 'new' groups, whose experience is lower. They tend to keep at least 50% of their good groups in the rear areas.
Regarding that routine convoy, remember, THIS IS AN ABSTRACTION. Each square is about 100 km (I think) of open sea, or coastline, with plenty of places to hide. We are not prevy to effects of weather as well. It might seem logical for one thing to happen, but we do not know the full story. Remember, the SIZE of a TF also increases/decreases the chance that it is spotted. Each ship type has a spotting rating as well.
4. Actually, I have removed/added ships at sea. While on your turn, grab a TF at sea, press left (or right?) button, and the option to create a TF appears. You take from one TF.
5. You might think that the larger the gun, the better the chance that a small ship is sunk. That is not always the case. Actually, the larger the calibur, and the weaker the armour, the better chance of survival for the small vessel. USN destroyers repreatedly stated that most heavy IJN shells tended to go straight through their vessel, doing very little damage. Now if it had strong armour, the shell would have actually caused more damage. The same with PT boats, who have viertually no protection, a 4" shell would go right through it, not even slowing the thing.
7. The IJN CVE's are actually named, like Allied CVL's and CV's. Possibly this is why the CVE's of the Allies do not attack, the computer probably does not know how to do an offensive attack with multiple ships in a group.
8. I noticed the number glitch, usually off by a few planes. I really noticed the difference in losses when I lowered Pearl Harbour's airfield, when the IJNAF attacked the airfield they had around 50% less losses. It does make a big difference. Plus, having low or high PP really affects it as well.
9. The Japanese forces you encounter in Burma (18, 33, 55 and 56 Divisions) who are good came from years of fighting in China. They start the game off from 75-80 experience. The 18th Division fights through Malaya, increase 5-10 points. The 33rd, 56th and 55th have the ease in taking bangkok (1 experience) plus get to easily take Rangoon (usually a couple battles). They raise up in experience so much because they are fighting against poor troops, so they suffer fewer losses. The Allied forces are weaker, so in order for them to win they must attrition the Japanese (air bombardment), then attack with land forces. Japanese experience is correct, and I only encounter a few heavily used units with the 99 experience factors. Remember, sometimes holding out in Singapore/East Indies/Philippines is not a good thing because it gives the Japanese player good bases in which to train their troops and airgroups.
[ October 01, 2001: Message edited by: Jeremy Pritchard ]</p>
A couple of points.
First, most major USN and RN warships were hit by kamikazes through 1944 and 1945. Just about every US fleet carrier in service at the time got hit at least once (Ranger excepted, for obvious reasons); some of them more than once; some of them quite badly (Franklin, for example, was very nearly sunk, and didn't return from the dockyards until postwar).
Second, I've never had any problem with the CVE groups not attacking - they've always done just fine. I just create an Air Combat TF or six with CVEs rather than fast carriers, set them to attack LCUs, and send them out to do some harm. Maybe that's the difference - when you form your TFs, are you using actual "Escort Carrier" TFs or Air Combat TFs which just happen to be centered around CVEs? Just a thought.
First, most major USN and RN warships were hit by kamikazes through 1944 and 1945. Just about every US fleet carrier in service at the time got hit at least once (Ranger excepted, for obvious reasons); some of them more than once; some of them quite badly (Franklin, for example, was very nearly sunk, and didn't return from the dockyards until postwar).
Second, I've never had any problem with the CVE groups not attacking - they've always done just fine. I just create an Air Combat TF or six with CVEs rather than fast carriers, set them to attack LCUs, and send them out to do some harm. Maybe that's the difference - when you form your TFs, are you using actual "Escort Carrier" TFs or Air Combat TFs which just happen to be centered around CVEs? Just a thought.
Some days you're the windshield.
Some days you're the bug.
Some days you're the bug.
-
Howling H R Bryars
- Posts: 59
- Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Paul:
Referring to Kamikazes, you state that (in the game) "...attacks are far too effective. In the real war no major warship was ever hit by one."
Please permit me to correct this misconception. Kamikaze attacks were possibly the greatest threat the U.S. Navy ever faced in combat, and almost certainly the most terrifying. To name just some of the "big" ships that were hit by kamikazes (just those I could dig up in about 15 minutes) here is a list for you.
Nov. 25th, 1944
CV Essex
CV Intrepid
CV Hancock
CVL Cabot
Nov. 29th, 1944
BB Maryland
Jan. 5th, 1945
CA Australia
BB California
BB New Mexico
Apr. 7th, 1945
BB Maryland (again!)
Apr. 11th, 1945
BB Missouri
May 11th, 1945
CV Bunker Hill (out for the duration of the war)
May 14th, 1945
CV Enterprise (out for the duration of the war)
Fortunately, damage control methods and technology had advanced far enough that we didn't actually lose any of these ships. Many people were killed, though, and in several cases the vessels were knocked out of action.
Anyway, I thought you might like to know.
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">
Referring to Kamikazes, you state that (in the game) "...attacks are far too effective. In the real war no major warship was ever hit by one."
Please permit me to correct this misconception. Kamikaze attacks were possibly the greatest threat the U.S. Navy ever faced in combat, and almost certainly the most terrifying. To name just some of the "big" ships that were hit by kamikazes (just those I could dig up in about 15 minutes) here is a list for you.
Nov. 25th, 1944
CV Essex
CV Intrepid
CV Hancock
CVL Cabot
Nov. 29th, 1944
BB Maryland
Jan. 5th, 1945
CA Australia
BB California
BB New Mexico
Apr. 7th, 1945
BB Maryland (again!)
Apr. 11th, 1945
BB Missouri
May 11th, 1945
CV Bunker Hill (out for the duration of the war)
May 14th, 1945
CV Enterprise (out for the duration of the war)
Fortunately, damage control methods and technology had advanced far enough that we didn't actually lose any of these ships. Many people were killed, though, and in several cases the vessels were knocked out of action.
Anyway, I thought you might like to know.
<img src="wink.gif" border="0">
HRB3
I've noticed that CVL airgroups, when operating alone (or in TF's with 'only' CVL types) do not do anything either. I've tried several times to get them to launch attacks and have chkd to ensure good levels of PP's.Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard:
7. I am not quite sure about CVE airgroups. They put up CAP, but I rarely use them otherwize. Possibly it has something to do with the fact that most USN and RN CVE groups are not one ship, but a group of ships? Do the IJN CVE's act this way?
Jeremy
My appologies I wrote something other than what I was thinking. What I meant to say was no major warship was sunk by kamakazi´s. Beyond that my references are on the other side of the atlantic and so debate is pointless.
I have also now observed another oddity. I had forgotten about it before this but I just lost 2 leaders during my own bombing. I can only assume that the pilots bombed their own HQ. A tad embarasing I think.
I have also now observed another oddity. I had forgotten about it before this but I just lost 2 leaders during my own bombing. I can only assume that the pilots bombed their own HQ. A tad embarasing I think.
-
Jeremy Pritchard
- Posts: 575
- Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Ontario Canada
That bombing bug has been there from the start. I tend never to have leaders at bases I am 'softening up' since it is so prevailent.Originally posted by Paul McNeely:
My appologies I wrote something other than what I was thinking. What I meant to say was no major warship was sunk by kamakazi´s. Beyond that my references are on the other side of the atlantic and so debate is pointless.
I have also now observed another oddity. I had forgotten about it before this but I just lost 2 leaders during my own bombing. I can only assume that the pilots bombed their own HQ. A tad embarasing I think.