Warpup,
you could rename Calcutta into India and put this base farther to the west, say at hex 13/1. Then India and Ceylon can cover each other.
LST
Querry Option for Version 2.4
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4908
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
-
Nightcrawler
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Newark, NJ
Just go to Rich Dionne's Pacific War page:Originally posted by gdpsnake:
By the way, can you tell me how to edit my own OBC files? Do I call up the Dos prompt and use edit or something like that? I'd like to experiment a little myself.
Gary[/QB]
http://home.earthlink.net/~tmflood/page2.html
There you will be able to download Rich's free pacwar database editor. It's pretty easy to use, even I figured it out. You do need Microsoft Excel 97 or later though.
-
Doug Olenick
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ny
I'm a little late getting to this thread, but here are my thoughts.
Making changes that dramatically change the historical accuracy of the game is a mistake. The fact is that China and the surrounding areas did exists during the war forcing both sides to keep an eye on the situation.
If the logic that it is a relatively dead area is followed, then why not eliminate all the northern bases from Alaska to the Kuriles? How about New Zealand, Perth or even all of Australia?
The fact of the matter is a player can use China. The Japanese player can pour all kinds of land units in and take it and India too. But that leaves huge gaps in other areas. These are strategic decisions that should be left in the player's hand.
My suggestion would be to make is easier to move land and air units out of China. If the Japanese commander wishes to all but abandon the place. Fine. Personally, one of the first things I do is fly the air units to a port, load them on ships to another base. Annoying but doable.
Making changes that dramatically change the historical accuracy of the game is a mistake. The fact is that China and the surrounding areas did exists during the war forcing both sides to keep an eye on the situation.
If the logic that it is a relatively dead area is followed, then why not eliminate all the northern bases from Alaska to the Kuriles? How about New Zealand, Perth or even all of Australia?
The fact of the matter is a player can use China. The Japanese player can pour all kinds of land units in and take it and India too. But that leaves huge gaps in other areas. These are strategic decisions that should be left in the player's hand.
My suggestion would be to make is easier to move land and air units out of China. If the Japanese commander wishes to all but abandon the place. Fine. Personally, one of the first things I do is fly the air units to a port, load them on ships to another base. Annoying but doable.
-
Doug Olenick
- Posts: 88
- Joined: Tue Sep 26, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: ny
I'm a little late getting to this thread, but here are my thoughts.
Making changes that dramatically change the historical accuracy of the game is a mistake. The fact is that China and the surrounding areas did exists during the war forcing both sides to keep an eye on the situation.
If the logic that it is a relatively dead area is followed, then why not eliminate all the northern bases from Alaska to the Kuriles? How about New Zealand, Perth or even all of Australia?
The fact of the matter is a player can use China. The Japanese player can pour all kinds of land units in and take it and India too. But that leaves huge gaps in other areas. These are strategic decisions that should be left in the player's hand.
My suggestion would be to make is easier to move land and air units out of China. If the Japanese commander wishes to all but abandon the place. Fine. Personally, one of the first things I do is fly the air units to a port, load them on ships to another base. Annoying but doable.
Making changes that dramatically change the historical accuracy of the game is a mistake. The fact is that China and the surrounding areas did exists during the war forcing both sides to keep an eye on the situation.
If the logic that it is a relatively dead area is followed, then why not eliminate all the northern bases from Alaska to the Kuriles? How about New Zealand, Perth or even all of Australia?
The fact of the matter is a player can use China. The Japanese player can pour all kinds of land units in and take it and India too. But that leaves huge gaps in other areas. These are strategic decisions that should be left in the player's hand.
My suggestion would be to make is easier to move land and air units out of China. If the Japanese commander wishes to all but abandon the place. Fine. Personally, one of the first things I do is fly the air units to a port, load them on ships to another base. Annoying but doable.
-
Blackhorse
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Eastern US
It's never too late to jump-start a forumOriginally posted by Skeets:
I'm a little late getting to this thread, but here are my thoughts.
Making changes that dramatically change the historical accuracy of the game is a mistake. The fact is that China and the surrounding areas did exists during the war forcing both sides to keep an eye on the situation.
I agree with your premise ("don't mess with what was / could have been important") but disagree with your conclusion.
For Japan the war against China was huge, sucking up two-thirds of their army until nearly the end of the war. IRL, that army was stretched to the limit just to *barely* garrison the cities and railroads Japan had already conquered, while the countryside, even in the "pacified" areas, teemed with division-sized guerrilla units -- Communists, Kuomintong, and independent "bandits". But in Pacwar, which has no garrison requirement, the Japanese player can just pile his (unreinforced) China Expeditionary and Kwantung Armies forward and inexorably overrun China, then India; an achievement beyond the ability of the Japanese Army IRL even if every Japanese soldier were sent to China.
China was important in WWII. The reason for deleting China is Pacwar does not, and can not, model China well.
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
In order for China to be accurate, you need about 20 more bases there, plus around 80 more Chinese Armies. I have tested the thing, and it does seem to work. More LCU's, air groups and bases are freed up for the Pacific battle, where the real action took place from 1941-1945. Frankly, including Russia would have been more important to the "plot of the game" than China.
Greetings
PacWar suffers most in it's abstract land combat system. It does a pretty fair job with air and naval combat. It is passable for the one turn amphib assault combat but fails miserably in areas like China. It would be wonderfull to have an acurate way of doing this theatre but this system can not do it. House rules can not fix it.
I have long wanted China to 'go away' what happens in the game there has ruined more then one session for me. No game will be a complete simulation of the war without it, but removing it from the limits of Pac War will gretly enhance the play of what most of us are really interested in seeing (the air and naval asspects).
I would require Japan to station air groups there (they can not be moved away but would be in range of allied TF's late in war. The port base concept works well here. The Home Islands are in desparte need of more air base space, This can be fixed by using the China bases. The US needs a 'safe' place with repair facilities and industry (it drives me crazy when IJN CV's have a major impact on US production.) I would make the east coast a port, change the map to allow sea access to it and then place a base (or bases) along it so the US can defend it. (it would be too far away for the Japanese to consider trying to attack it. (might require OBC just for human versus human-but Pacwar is really best when playing another human so should not be a problem)
PacWar suffers most in it's abstract land combat system. It does a pretty fair job with air and naval combat. It is passable for the one turn amphib assault combat but fails miserably in areas like China. It would be wonderfull to have an acurate way of doing this theatre but this system can not do it. House rules can not fix it.
I have long wanted China to 'go away' what happens in the game there has ruined more then one session for me. No game will be a complete simulation of the war without it, but removing it from the limits of Pac War will gretly enhance the play of what most of us are really interested in seeing (the air and naval asspects).
I would require Japan to station air groups there (they can not be moved away but would be in range of allied TF's late in war. The port base concept works well here. The Home Islands are in desparte need of more air base space, This can be fixed by using the China bases. The US needs a 'safe' place with repair facilities and industry (it drives me crazy when IJN CV's have a major impact on US production.) I would make the east coast a port, change the map to allow sea access to it and then place a base (or bases) along it so the US can defend it. (it would be too far away for the Japanese to consider trying to attack it. (might require OBC just for human versus human-but Pacwar is really best when playing another human so should not be a problem)
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
So far in version 2.4 the Chinese Inner bases have virtually disappeared. Here is what you have left...
The coastal cities, garrisoned by actual divisions (none of this 'army stuff'). So if the Allies should attempt to land in china, they will be up against Divisions and Brigades of the Chinese Expeditionary Army, along with supporting air (those Chinese Expeditionary Army IJAAF Sentai's that were located on the coast are still there). So china will not be a pushover.
Because I cut out the Chinese Armies in China, I could add more Allied forces. I added the 2nd, 54th and 55th KMT Armies attached to Burma HQ to appear late in the war. This will give the Allies more historical forces in Burma.
The bases in Japan I added were the following.
Sendai (North Japanese City)
Kagoshima (South of Nagasaki)
They help to ease up the conjestion of Japan.
- I have added many bases in India/Burma, and modified the map making the Indian Ocean a much more larger and viable theatre of war...
- I added Kolombangara, an island just north west of New Georgia to thicken up the Soloman Islands.
- Created Cook I. in the south east pacific, giving the allies an better TF destination base to avoid IJNAF Interdiction attacks on convoys.
- Created Cocos I. to give the British a base like Cook I., however, it could be easily captured by the Japanese to COMPLETELY cut off the British from Australia. Be warned...
- Toying with the idea of adding Dili (Portugese Timor) with a land path to the Koepang (Dutch Timor). This would give the East Indies another potential land battle.
I still have a few more optional bases, at least one will be on the US West Coast. Other ideas are adding bases in the South Pacific (south of the Solomans), Northern Australia (for more air bases), Central Pacific (to make defending it as difficult as it was), Burma (possibly just for the PBEM game, since the AI will probably not handle it too well).
The coastal cities, garrisoned by actual divisions (none of this 'army stuff'). So if the Allies should attempt to land in china, they will be up against Divisions and Brigades of the Chinese Expeditionary Army, along with supporting air (those Chinese Expeditionary Army IJAAF Sentai's that were located on the coast are still there). So china will not be a pushover.
Because I cut out the Chinese Armies in China, I could add more Allied forces. I added the 2nd, 54th and 55th KMT Armies attached to Burma HQ to appear late in the war. This will give the Allies more historical forces in Burma.
The bases in Japan I added were the following.
Sendai (North Japanese City)
Kagoshima (South of Nagasaki)
They help to ease up the conjestion of Japan.
- I have added many bases in India/Burma, and modified the map making the Indian Ocean a much more larger and viable theatre of war...
- I added Kolombangara, an island just north west of New Georgia to thicken up the Soloman Islands.
- Created Cook I. in the south east pacific, giving the allies an better TF destination base to avoid IJNAF Interdiction attacks on convoys.
- Created Cocos I. to give the British a base like Cook I., however, it could be easily captured by the Japanese to COMPLETELY cut off the British from Australia. Be warned...
- Toying with the idea of adding Dili (Portugese Timor) with a land path to the Koepang (Dutch Timor). This would give the East Indies another potential land battle.
I still have a few more optional bases, at least one will be on the US West Coast. Other ideas are adding bases in the South Pacific (south of the Solomans), Northern Australia (for more air bases), Central Pacific (to make defending it as difficult as it was), Burma (possibly just for the PBEM game, since the AI will probably not handle it too well).
-
Blackhorse
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Eastern US
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Major Tom:
So far in version 2.4 the Chinese Inner bases have virtually disappeared. Here is what you have left...
The coastal cities, garrisoned by actual divisions (none of this 'army stuff').
I wholeheartedly approve.
Because I cut out the Chinese Armies in China, I could add more Allied forces. I added the 2nd, 54th and 55th KMT Armies attached to Burma HQ to appear late in the war. This will give the Allies more historical forces in Burma.
2.3 already makes the Allies formidable in the CBI theatre. My preliminary assessment is that a human allied player can stop the (human) Japanese at Rangoon, unless the Japanese use amphibious invasions. But even if the Japanese can push beyond Rangoon, why bother? Capturing Mandalay-Lashio-Imphal provides no resources, nor any of the historical benefits of cutting the Burma road to China. And if the Japanese plan to invade India, the amphibious route will be easier and faster than hacking through the jungles and mountains.
My (long-shot) thought on giving Japan an incentive to move into Burma: Pacwar's code allows for "contingencies": If the Allies capture certain bases by 1944, then the Japanese get kamikazes . . . if certain ships are sunk, then they are replaced a year later. Can contingencies be used for supply or reinforcements? As in, "If the Japanese capture Mandalay and Lashio (cutting the Burma road) then Shanghai's oil and resource production increases (representing Japanese gains in China). Alternatively, provide extra divisions of reinforcements to the Japanese -- representing troops freed from China -- if the Japanese hold one of the "Burma Road" cities at the beginning of 1944. I'm guessing this sort of thing is not possible, or you would have done it before. But I won't know unless I ask.
- I have added many bases in India/Burma, and modified the map making the Indian Ocean a much more larger and viable theatre of war...
Excellent. Hopefully, Japanese Betty's will no longer be bombing British factories in India from Bangkok and Malaysia. (Although, is there any more depressing bombing report than, "Fulmar factory sustains light damage.?" I want to yell at my pilots "No! We want the Allies to fly Fulmars. Let them produce all they want!"
The current Pacwar map fails to reflect the difficulties the British had getting to Imphal and Mandalay. During the war the British took two months by rail(!) to move units and equipment from Bombay and Delhi across India to Imphal.
If "modifying the map" means that you can add depth to India, have you considered:
1. Create a land path from Imphal to Delhi,the objective of the Indian National Army, with two or three bases in between.
2. Sever the land connection between Calcutta and Dacca. (The Ganges Delta, two hundred miles wide, with dozens of rivers, lay between them) Use the now-surplus KMT headquarters for an "India" command, treating the Indian divisions on Ceylon, and along the coast from Madras to Calcutta as "garrison" forces like ANZAC, IGHQ, and the U.S. West Coast.
I still have a few more optional bases, at least one will be on the US West Coast. Other ideas are adding bases in the South Pacific (south of the Solomans), Northern Australia (for more air bases), Central Pacific (to make defending it as difficult as it was), Burma (possibly just for the PBEM game, since the AI will probably not handle it too well).
My only concern about bases is since every island in the game can be built up to an airfield of "four" capable of hosting heavy bombers, only those islands capable of holding long-range bombers IRL should be included. Question: is an airfield like a port so that if a base has a starting airfield level of "zero" the airbase could never be increased? If so, that might be the way to include small islands that could be used as anchorages, but would never have become airbases. It would be a good fix for Marcus Island as well; although in my test v2.3 game the Marcus airbase is still "1", even though an NGU unit has been there for five months.
Lest I forget -- great job with 2.3. Thanks for taking the time to try to work even more improvements. I'm glad you fixed the B17 -- 6/30 seems a good compromise. Don't forget to "readjust" the allied fighters durability in v2.4. And while you're at it, look at the Wellington again, willya? 37 durability seems high. I know it had a revolutionary geodesic frame and all, but it was a canvas-covered bomber.
So far in version 2.4 the Chinese Inner bases have virtually disappeared. Here is what you have left...
The coastal cities, garrisoned by actual divisions (none of this 'army stuff').
I wholeheartedly approve.
Because I cut out the Chinese Armies in China, I could add more Allied forces. I added the 2nd, 54th and 55th KMT Armies attached to Burma HQ to appear late in the war. This will give the Allies more historical forces in Burma.
2.3 already makes the Allies formidable in the CBI theatre. My preliminary assessment is that a human allied player can stop the (human) Japanese at Rangoon, unless the Japanese use amphibious invasions. But even if the Japanese can push beyond Rangoon, why bother? Capturing Mandalay-Lashio-Imphal provides no resources, nor any of the historical benefits of cutting the Burma road to China. And if the Japanese plan to invade India, the amphibious route will be easier and faster than hacking through the jungles and mountains.
My (long-shot) thought on giving Japan an incentive to move into Burma: Pacwar's code allows for "contingencies": If the Allies capture certain bases by 1944, then the Japanese get kamikazes . . . if certain ships are sunk, then they are replaced a year later. Can contingencies be used for supply or reinforcements? As in, "If the Japanese capture Mandalay and Lashio (cutting the Burma road) then Shanghai's oil and resource production increases (representing Japanese gains in China). Alternatively, provide extra divisions of reinforcements to the Japanese -- representing troops freed from China -- if the Japanese hold one of the "Burma Road" cities at the beginning of 1944. I'm guessing this sort of thing is not possible, or you would have done it before. But I won't know unless I ask.
- I have added many bases in India/Burma, and modified the map making the Indian Ocean a much more larger and viable theatre of war...
Excellent. Hopefully, Japanese Betty's will no longer be bombing British factories in India from Bangkok and Malaysia. (Although, is there any more depressing bombing report than, "Fulmar factory sustains light damage.?" I want to yell at my pilots "No! We want the Allies to fly Fulmars. Let them produce all they want!"
The current Pacwar map fails to reflect the difficulties the British had getting to Imphal and Mandalay. During the war the British took two months by rail(!) to move units and equipment from Bombay and Delhi across India to Imphal.
If "modifying the map" means that you can add depth to India, have you considered:
1. Create a land path from Imphal to Delhi,the objective of the Indian National Army, with two or three bases in between.
2. Sever the land connection between Calcutta and Dacca. (The Ganges Delta, two hundred miles wide, with dozens of rivers, lay between them) Use the now-surplus KMT headquarters for an "India" command, treating the Indian divisions on Ceylon, and along the coast from Madras to Calcutta as "garrison" forces like ANZAC, IGHQ, and the U.S. West Coast.
I still have a few more optional bases, at least one will be on the US West Coast. Other ideas are adding bases in the South Pacific (south of the Solomans), Northern Australia (for more air bases), Central Pacific (to make defending it as difficult as it was), Burma (possibly just for the PBEM game, since the AI will probably not handle it too well).
My only concern about bases is since every island in the game can be built up to an airfield of "four" capable of hosting heavy bombers, only those islands capable of holding long-range bombers IRL should be included. Question: is an airfield like a port so that if a base has a starting airfield level of "zero" the airbase could never be increased? If so, that might be the way to include small islands that could be used as anchorages, but would never have become airbases. It would be a good fix for Marcus Island as well; although in my test v2.3 game the Marcus airbase is still "1", even though an NGU unit has been there for five months.
Lest I forget -- great job with 2.3. Thanks for taking the time to try to work even more improvements. I'm glad you fixed the B17 -- 6/30 seems a good compromise. Don't forget to "readjust" the allied fighters durability in v2.4. And while you're at it, look at the Wellington again, willya? 37 durability seems high. I know it had a revolutionary geodesic frame and all, but it was a canvas-covered bomber.
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
It seems that more bases in Burma are useless unless the Japanese get a chance to take them -- and in my current V2.3 game, they don't. I didn't even do anything special, I just moved all forces I had in Burma to Rangoon over time; and the Japanese never got anywhere against Alexander'S 1600 point forces there. What's more, it was far to easy to invade Moulemein by sea, cutting off four Japanese divisions at Rangoon; and it seems Bangkok is not defended either, leaving British forces free to take Thailand. And this is August 1942!
One other complaint (sorry about that!): the cargo values of transports need to be adjusted, really, or else, troop formations need to be changed back. For a lousy 108 engineer force, I have to use 200 points worth of transport space. In fact, most formations end up just above a round 100-divisible cargo value, forcing me to use ridiculously large amounts of transport space.
Besides that, V2.3, especially the new map and the removed land paths are great, so keep up the good work!
One other complaint (sorry about that!): the cargo values of transports need to be adjusted, really, or else, troop formations need to be changed back. For a lousy 108 engineer force, I have to use 200 points worth of transport space. In fact, most formations end up just above a round 100-divisible cargo value, forcing me to use ridiculously large amounts of transport space.
Besides that, V2.3, especially the new map and the removed land paths are great, so keep up the good work!
-
Blackhorse
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Eastern US
Maybe your Quartermaster Corps needs more practice in packing soldiers into ships. The AI can do it -- check out the IJN after the "historic" start. The 56th Division out of Tokyo (size 1302) is loaded onto 1000 points of transports. Gives new meaning to the phrase, "close friends." The AI over-loading predates v2.3, by the way.Originally posted by BigE:
For a lousy 108 engineer force, I have to use 200 points worth of transport space. In fact, most formations end up just above a round 100-divisible cargo value, forcing me to use ridiculously large amounts of transport space.
Besides that, V2.3, especially the new map and the removed land paths are great, so keep up the good work!
But for us mere mortals who have to live within capacity limits, your comments are 100% on target. Japanese units also tend to be 1-10 points above the 'load limit' for the now-precious transports. It is less of a problem for the Japanese, because they have a swarm of DDs, CLs and AVs that can absorb the overflow -- but still irritating.
WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
Here is my solution to Marcus Island.Originally posted by Blackhorse:
My $0.02 on Islands . . .
What about eliminating Marcus Island? In the game, Marcus is a dagger pointing at the heart of Japan -- the shortest route for the Americans to "island-hop" to the Home Islands, bypassing Saipan and the Marianas. IRL, the U.S. made only a few insignificant carrier raids against the island, and AFAIK, never even considered an invasion. I suspect that the size/terrain of the island made it impossible to build airbases for heavy bombers (level 4 in the game). If Marcus could not have been a practical bomber base, then it shouldn't be in the game.
But I'm just speculating here . . . does anyone have some hard facts on Marcus?
What I did was to edit the base to have the following statistics.
Island Type: Atoll
Air Level: 1
Port Level: 0
This leaves Marcus Island as what it was, a tiny island in the middle of the Pacific with little other use than as a seaplane base. Without a port, it will remain perpetually in the hands of the Japanese, and with level 1 it can only hold seaplanes (which it only held in reality). Neither the Japanese nor the Allies can land any LCU's, including Engineers, so it will never get beyond level 1 (that can only take Floatplanes).
This solves the problem about the US taking it early in the game and making it a bomber base, yet still having it around as a vital seaplane patrol base to keep an eye on the central pacific.
The other bases around the area (Iwo Jima, Pagan and Bonin I.) could be used like Marcus I., but since they are so far West they are hard to take and easy to retake.
Hello everyone, Well a small Marcus will also increase the importance of Wake. Now any Japanese plans concerning Cen Pac will require everything to stage from here. When you play the allied side keep a close watch with SIGINIT on Wake. I still can not use the Lilly-II or the Tina (not that I would, but the game will not permit them to be exchanged.) Does the routine convoy system take ships from any port? ports in Japan or just Nagoya? I send damaged MCS/Tankers to Port Arthur trying to keep them from being used so they can repair but I think they might be getting used anyway. Several Japanese Divisions start with parts detatched 16th/38th/48th/56th I always spend the first 3-4 weeks returning the parts (I really do not want to use BN/RGT formations that have an onboard parent-it reduces the exp of the larger formation if you don't put them back. I'm not unhappy about the situation (since I end up with 4 nice oversized divisions) but if the slots could be used for new units that would be better (engineer types) I do not split units as Japan-(EVER) As allies the Aussie and British engineer units I do split (CBI theatre requires 3 engineer units for my stratagy) and of course Mac needs one at Cairns one a Morsby one at Milne Bay and at least one for Timor or Ambon Island (or if they are lost Darwin) He gets 2 sent to him from US units but with South Pac and Cen Pac and North Pac demands I usally have to split one or two) I don't like to splint regualar combat LCU. I know it is not possible in Pac War but I wish I could split airgroups. (just have to wait for WITP)
But if size is not hard coded how about a very few strength 20 airgroups (fast to train easy to carry for those areas where you need a little air but don't want to ruin a size 40 or larger airgroup)(Rufe fighter float planes?)(the 28knot AV produce fighter cover and I keep them together for transport TF's early in war (to keep Buffalo's and Wiraways off) it appears they each put up 2 Zeros-the Rufe float plane type no doubt)
[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]</p>
But if size is not hard coded how about a very few strength 20 airgroups (fast to train easy to carry for those areas where you need a little air but don't want to ruin a size 40 or larger airgroup)(Rufe fighter float planes?)(the 28knot AV produce fighter cover and I keep them together for transport TF's early in war (to keep Buffalo's and Wiraways off) it appears they each put up 2 Zeros-the Rufe float plane type no doubt)
[ February 08, 2002: Message edited by: Mogami ]</p>
I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!
-
Cmdrcain
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
- Contact:
Coming a bit late in this, but one base for above area would be Tuliga which was near to Guadalcanal.Originally posted by Johnny:
What an awesome idea <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
I would also look at perhaps adding some more in the Guadacanal area....with little or no air or port facilities...but giving the oportunity of building up more defenses.
Keep up the good work Major Tom <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
<img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!
Battlestar Pegasus
Battlestar Pegasus
-
Cmdrcain
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
- Contact:
Or Follow the links to Bears web Works, email Bear and see if can get his Pacwar Editor, which doesn't need any outside program it's what I used to create/edit the Alternative OBC's on Dan's pacwar page.Originally posted by DuaneR72:
Just go to Rich Dionne's Pacific War page:
http://home.earthlink.net/~tmflood/page2.html
There you will be able to download Rich's free pacwar database editor. It's pretty easy to use, even I figured it out. You do need Microsoft Excel 97 or later though.
<img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!
Battlestar Pegasus
Battlestar Pegasus
-
Cmdrcain
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
- Contact:
Originally posted by Major Tom:
I still have a few more optional bases, at least one will be on the US West Coast. Other ideas are adding bases in the South Pacific (south of the Solomans),
Tulagi Sp? Was a Base near to Guadalcanel, US invaded it.. ppgs 248,251-3,275,314-15,320,344,352-3,365,369,371,381,389,321-7,329,335 of costellos the pacific war
It was on florida island in the mid-solomons
If its possiable to setup a base only seaplanes could use... French Frigate Shoals might be of interest...
Through HAR would need a Scuba outfitted Garrison ;--) Since its actually just a shallows/reef ah well.. but Tulagi is something missing... Japanese used it also I think to bomb Marines near at Guadalcanel.
Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!
Battlestar Pegasus
Battlestar Pegasus
-
Cmdrcain
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
- Contact:
Originally posted by Skeets:
I'm a little late getting to this thread, but here are my thoughts.
If the logic that it is a relatively dead area is followed, then why not eliminate all the northern bases from Alaska to the Kuriles? How about New Zealand, Perth or even all of Australia?
My suggestion would be to make is easier to move land and air units out of China. If the Japanese commander wishes to all but abandon the place. Fine. Personally, one of the first things I do is fly the air units to a port, load them on ships to another base. Annoying but doable.
First... The Northern bases and area is of use, I've played both Japan and Allied and done the Northern Invasion route, it can be done..so Northern areas viable...too bad the AI isnt coded much to try that route.
If Japan got into Alaska it could base bettys to bomb northern usa..
Now as to moving units out of China, it be unhistorical, while 2.4 can reduce such, it cant eliminate it nor allow movement out, if Japanese had done so the Russians in RL would been tempted to move in, Japan was actually bordering Russia in northern china held areas.
<img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">
Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!
Battlestar Pegasus
Battlestar Pegasus
-
Cmdrcain
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
- Contact:
I have to wonder: Was it ever possiable to have edited the code so Tac bombers OR Heavy Bombers required a size 5 not 4 AF?Originally posted by Major Tom:
Here is my solution to Marcus Island.
What I did was to edit the base to have the following statistics.
Island Type: Atoll
Air Level: 1
Port Level: 0
This leaves Marcus Island as what it was, a tiny island in the middle of the Pacific with little other use than as a seaplane base. Without a port, it will remain perpetually in the hands of the Japanese, and with level 1 it can only hold seaplanes (which it only held in reality). Neither the Japanese nor the Allies can land any LCU's, including Engineers, so it will never get beyond level 1 (that can only take Floatplanes).
This solves the problem about the US taking it early in the game and making it a bomber base, yet still having it around as a vital seaplane patrol base to keep an eye on the central pacific.
The other bases around the area (Iwo Jima, Pagan and Bonin I.) could be used like Marcus I., but since they are so far West they are hard to take and easy to retake.
If The Bombers needed bigger then a 4 then The 4 and less bases would be for Fighters/Sbd/TBD's NO Level Bombers/Heavys... humm?
Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!
Battlestar Pegasus
Battlestar Pegasus