How often are you moving these darned engineers that they are such a problem??? If you are so concerned, then grab those Manley APD's to make up the extra space!!
I did not DRASTICALLY change stats for the units, they are not perfect round numbers anymore, but not drastically changed.
I also eliminated many of the AP's because both sides were continually short of these things! You should not be able to move 50% of your army on one turn wherever you want. Your convoys have to be better planned. You cannot land everywhere at once.
Frankly, you should not have much of a problem since Divisions have been GREATLY reduced in size, from a top value of 1800 to that of just over 1000.
[ January 23, 2002: Message edited by: Major Tom ]</p>
Pacific War: Matrix Edition Released
For engineer units. (108 Capcity)Originally posted by BigE:
Major Tom:
The problem with the APs is not that they are fewer or that they have higher capacity, but that their capacity and the "cargo value" of the troops doesn't match at all. For example, two of the new Henderson class APs are required to lift a lousy engineer unit, because it has a 108 size now instead of a fine 100.
Even more seriously, the 250 point Wakefields and Duke Whatever are continously oversized for any troop movement. In V2.2, you could rely on it that Liners would be able to lift a division of troops (say size 790) from the West Coast to Pearl with pretty little underloading. I usually got something around 108% or so capacity. Now, I regularly have to employ a mixture of Hendersons and Wakefields to get anything CLOSE to that, or else Hendersons alone. Even that results in 180% capacity loads as in the mentioned engineer example. It's a problem with so little transports available.
1x Henderson AP and 1x Manley APD = 115 Capacity (7 Deviation)
For Brigades (588 capacity)
5x Henderson AP or 2x Wakefield AP and 1x Henderson AP = 600 Capacity (12 Deviation)
For Divisions (1083 capacity)
11x Henderson AP or 4x Wakefield AP and 1x Henderson AP = 1100 Capacity (17 Deviation)
What's the problem?
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4915
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
I side with Major Tom, the capacity and unit sizes work well. I don't use single APs anyway - one lousy torpedo hit from a sneaky sub might sink the ship and with it the entire unit embarked.
Some other points (on 41 campaign):
- I have Japanese tankers making 19 knots - I know they were scared of Alllied subs, but I didn't know that they were THAT scared...
- I see very few tankers used in Japanese routine supply - only about 2-4 in a month in early 42! My spies tell me that there is an abundance of fuel in Japanese ports. Do the tankers not move because there is enough fuel available? Where does it come from if not by sea?
- Allied submarines are too effective now - they sink one or two dozen ships each week in early 42 - has the warhead size and accuracy of torpedos been overcompensated?
- Del Monte is captured too easily. In v2.2 and earlier it held a couple of turns longer - historically it was still in US hands in early March 42.
- British forces in Burma are a bit too strong (especially with the supply bug), Japanese units are stalled at Rangoon forever (can't the supply bug be traced and eliminated?
- Forces in Malaysia are too weak - Singapore is often gone by mid-January
- isn't the B-17 now a bit underrated? Same capacity like the B25/B-26?
- no LSTs anymore???
Some unimportant nit-picking:
- Spelling: CA Dorsetshire, Gen Eichelberger, Moulmein
- first turn: CAs Astoria and New Orleans should trade places - Astoria was with Lady Lex, N.O. was in PH
- flags near Japanese warship icons should show the rising sun, not the plain meatball, and if flags at all (nice, but hardly necessary), then include the AP/MCS/etc., too
Jeremy and Rich, well done and thank you!
LST
Some other points (on 41 campaign):
- I have Japanese tankers making 19 knots - I know they were scared of Alllied subs, but I didn't know that they were THAT scared...
- I see very few tankers used in Japanese routine supply - only about 2-4 in a month in early 42! My spies tell me that there is an abundance of fuel in Japanese ports. Do the tankers not move because there is enough fuel available? Where does it come from if not by sea?
- Allied submarines are too effective now - they sink one or two dozen ships each week in early 42 - has the warhead size and accuracy of torpedos been overcompensated?
- Del Monte is captured too easily. In v2.2 and earlier it held a couple of turns longer - historically it was still in US hands in early March 42.
- British forces in Burma are a bit too strong (especially with the supply bug), Japanese units are stalled at Rangoon forever (can't the supply bug be traced and eliminated?
- Forces in Malaysia are too weak - Singapore is often gone by mid-January
- isn't the B-17 now a bit underrated? Same capacity like the B25/B-26?
- no LSTs anymore???
Some unimportant nit-picking:
- Spelling: CA Dorsetshire, Gen Eichelberger, Moulmein
- first turn: CAs Astoria and New Orleans should trade places - Astoria was with Lady Lex, N.O. was in PH
- flags near Japanese warship icons should show the rising sun, not the plain meatball, and if flags at all (nice, but hardly necessary), then include the AP/MCS/etc., too
Jeremy and Rich, well done and thank you!
LST
-
Blackhorse
- Posts: 1415
- Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Eastern US
MT,
Thanks for the quick response to our feedback. And thanks (again) for all your work on this great game. I ever-so-slightly disagree with LST on a couple of points (frankly, I think he's just miffed because you eliminated LSTs) <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
TRANSPORT CAPACITY: Let's not blow this out of proportion. It's a minor annoyance, not a game-stopper. But would Admirals Turner and Tanaka roll over in their graves if v2.4 saw size 100 (vice 108) U.S. engineers and size 200 (vice 201) Japanese regiments? I don't think so.
SHIP FLAGS: I like 'em. I especially like how the warships are flagged, and the targets, er, merchants, are not. When you're getting old and nearsighted like me, you come to appreciate these visual aids.
SOLOMON BASE SIZE: O.K. I understand why the airbases were increased to help the Japanese A.I. (and thanks for taking the time to explain.) But did they have to be increased for the PBEM games as well? I hope these airfields will return to lush, tropical jungle (in the human-human campaigns) in v2.4.
Note on the B17. The B17 could either carry a very heavy load for a short distance; or a small load a long way. The v2.2 B17 was an "uberFortress" -- maximum load, maximum distance. I think MT and Rich made the right choice for v2.3: this plane carries a medium-bomber load, but farther than a medium bomber. IRL, the most impressive characteristic of the B17 was neither its range, nor its bombload, but its ability to fly unescorted through enemy fighters and bomb enemy bases. I think the B17v2.3 captures the historical "feel" of the plane.
Thanks for the quick response to our feedback. And thanks (again) for all your work on this great game. I ever-so-slightly disagree with LST on a couple of points (frankly, I think he's just miffed because you eliminated LSTs) <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
TRANSPORT CAPACITY: Let's not blow this out of proportion. It's a minor annoyance, not a game-stopper. But would Admirals Turner and Tanaka roll over in their graves if v2.4 saw size 100 (vice 108) U.S. engineers and size 200 (vice 201) Japanese regiments? I don't think so.
SHIP FLAGS: I like 'em. I especially like how the warships are flagged, and the targets, er, merchants, are not. When you're getting old and nearsighted like me, you come to appreciate these visual aids.
SOLOMON BASE SIZE: O.K. I understand why the airbases were increased to help the Japanese A.I. (and thanks for taking the time to explain.) But did they have to be increased for the PBEM games as well? I hope these airfields will return to lush, tropical jungle (in the human-human campaigns) in v2.4.
Note on the B17. The B17 could either carry a very heavy load for a short distance; or a small load a long way. The v2.2 B17 was an "uberFortress" -- maximum load, maximum distance. I think MT and Rich made the right choice for v2.3: this plane carries a medium-bomber load, but farther than a medium bomber. IRL, the most impressive characteristic of the B17 was neither its range, nor its bombload, but its ability to fly unescorted through enemy fighters and bomb enemy bases. I think the B17v2.3 captures the historical "feel" of the plane.
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!
I don't have any complaints about the AP's. You've just got to plan better and maximize every hull.
- In the Historical 41 scenario the I've lost 5-7 battleships sunk as the US. Thats because there are 108-120 Kates with torpedoes in the first wave and 40-70 Kates with torpedoes in the second wave. solution Play the "Tora, Tora, Tora" scenario.
- In the "Tora..." scenario the Australian 49/30th Inf Bn has IJN Infanty colors and say it belongs to (JN) but acts like an Aussie.
- The Japanesse Oil Reserves rapidly fall to about 150 by mid to late February.
- IJN Tankers congregate at some remote island.
Halsey payed a visit to Wake Is. in April 42 and found 36 tankers plus 4AO's with only a light cruiser and 4 DE's in port with them. 36 Tankers anchored at Wake Is.?
- The AI doesn't take Rabaul. In my current game in Mid May 42 Rabaul is still held by a lone AUS bn
- The AI hasn't gone after Java yet either. It Finally took Palembang about the last week in April, thats worth about 40 Oil resorces if memory serves me correctly.
haven't had the time yet to analyze this with the editor, has any of the starting HQ's changed?
- Did someone mention that we lost our LST's I was under the impression that they represented the Army Amphibious Engineer brigades that enabled MacAuthur to leapfrog up the coast of New Guinea.
- Reaction movement appears to have been tweaked. It appaers that the moving task force is stopped while the reacting task force move upto 15 square to pull of an ambush.
- Started the "Guadalcanal scenario a couple of times but have yet to be able to land as an IJN heavy cruiser tf reacts to the landing smashing up several smaller allied tf's and repulsing the landings
Well thats it for my observations for now. Thanks again to Jeremy, Ritch and all the others who through there Hurculean efforts have squezed the last ounce of performance from this DOS classic
Mike
- In the Historical 41 scenario the I've lost 5-7 battleships sunk as the US. Thats because there are 108-120 Kates with torpedoes in the first wave and 40-70 Kates with torpedoes in the second wave. solution Play the "Tora, Tora, Tora" scenario.
- In the "Tora..." scenario the Australian 49/30th Inf Bn has IJN Infanty colors and say it belongs to (JN) but acts like an Aussie.
- The Japanesse Oil Reserves rapidly fall to about 150 by mid to late February.
- IJN Tankers congregate at some remote island.
Halsey payed a visit to Wake Is. in April 42 and found 36 tankers plus 4AO's with only a light cruiser and 4 DE's in port with them. 36 Tankers anchored at Wake Is.?
- The AI doesn't take Rabaul. In my current game in Mid May 42 Rabaul is still held by a lone AUS bn
- The AI hasn't gone after Java yet either. It Finally took Palembang about the last week in April, thats worth about 40 Oil resorces if memory serves me correctly.
haven't had the time yet to analyze this with the editor, has any of the starting HQ's changed?
- Did someone mention that we lost our LST's I was under the impression that they represented the Army Amphibious Engineer brigades that enabled MacAuthur to leapfrog up the coast of New Guinea.
- Reaction movement appears to have been tweaked. It appaers that the moving task force is stopped while the reacting task force move upto 15 square to pull of an ambush.
- Started the "Guadalcanal scenario a couple of times but have yet to be able to land as an IJN heavy cruiser tf reacts to the landing smashing up several smaller allied tf's and repulsing the landings
Well thats it for my observations for now. Thanks again to Jeremy, Ritch and all the others who through there Hurculean efforts have squezed the last ounce of performance from this DOS classic
Mike
You can run but you'll die tired!
My early feel for 2.3,
No major bugs in '41 playing as US. I did notice some oddities though...
1) one bomber group (imported somewhere in PI) bombs Lingayen, Clark Field, and Bataan, with 000 of bombs for no damage consistently each turn. I dont see any unit # for the bombers and I cant see any red line or circle to find out where its coming from...
2) Major Tom is right- I have to work much harder to schedule AP loadings-but its more historical so I'll deal with it.
3) Funny, but I thought it was the IJN subs that got much better, I lost a cruiser going to PH from SD, as well as daily attacks on merchantmen off the West coast, again a deal with it situation...
4) I've only had time to get to May 42, Japan kicked my butt all over the Pacific- lost Lady Lex, Hornet & Wasp for 1 CVL and damage to 2 CV's around Guadalcanal, (oh yeah in my stupidity I left Kimmel at PH and Nimitz died when Lady Lex bought it. Not a good move!)
Graphics upgrade and game overall very good, brought me back again to late night playing and posting... Excellent job Jeremy, Rich, Matrix.
No major bugs in '41 playing as US. I did notice some oddities though...
1) one bomber group (imported somewhere in PI) bombs Lingayen, Clark Field, and Bataan, with 000 of bombs for no damage consistently each turn. I dont see any unit # for the bombers and I cant see any red line or circle to find out where its coming from...
2) Major Tom is right- I have to work much harder to schedule AP loadings-but its more historical so I'll deal with it.
3) Funny, but I thought it was the IJN subs that got much better, I lost a cruiser going to PH from SD, as well as daily attacks on merchantmen off the West coast, again a deal with it situation...
4) I've only had time to get to May 42, Japan kicked my butt all over the Pacific- lost Lady Lex, Hornet & Wasp for 1 CVL and damage to 2 CV's around Guadalcanal, (oh yeah in my stupidity I left Kimmel at PH and Nimitz died when Lady Lex bought it. Not a good move!)
Graphics upgrade and game overall very good, brought me back again to late night playing and posting... Excellent job Jeremy, Rich, Matrix.
Major Tom:
Relax man, I'm just calling the shots as I see them. The problem is that even if full-size units are, as you say, possibly moved with less problem by using different kinds of transports, most units are not full when I lift them from the West Coast. I don't want to invade everywhere at all times, I'd just prefer if I could be sure not to waste ridiculous amounts of space. And I don't have Manleys at every port anyway. And I move my engineers pretty frequently, thank you.
Relax man, I'm just calling the shots as I see them. The problem is that even if full-size units are, as you say, possibly moved with less problem by using different kinds of transports, most units are not full when I lift them from the West Coast. I don't want to invade everywhere at all times, I'd just prefer if I could be sure not to waste ridiculous amounts of space. And I don't have Manleys at every port anyway. And I move my engineers pretty frequently, thank you.
To move engineers I use either 2 Wakefields or eight Manleys. Yes that may be a waste of space but I don't want to risk am engineer unit to a lucky submarine.
In my Current Game the AI just took Java in late July 42. Rabaul still held by the Lark battalion and about a dozen Kittyhawks, The AI seems to ignore it.
The Australian APD Stuart has a 0 capacity.
The CVE Long Island has arrived with a 28 capacity but no airgroup. If this is intentional then I'd guess that I'll have to use her in the aircraft ferry role.
the 1st Mar Div appears with 42 tanks, making it potentially the strongest unit todate.
More later.
In my Current Game the AI just took Java in late July 42. Rabaul still held by the Lark battalion and about a dozen Kittyhawks, The AI seems to ignore it.
The Australian APD Stuart has a 0 capacity.
The CVE Long Island has arrived with a 28 capacity but no airgroup. If this is intentional then I'd guess that I'll have to use her in the aircraft ferry role.
the 1st Mar Div appears with 42 tanks, making it potentially the strongest unit todate.
More later.
You can run but you'll die tired!
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4915
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Dead on target, Blackhorse. Before I even started playing v2.3 I checked the obc with the editor to make sure everything is where it belongs. Imagine my shock and utter disbelief <img src="eek.gif" border="0"> when I discovered that the LSTS were eliminated! I instantly reinstated them, of course - but I'm still pretty upset about this, I tell you. <img src="wink.gif" border="0">Originally posted by Blackhorse:
(frankly, I think he's just miffed because you eliminated LSTs) <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Frankly said, that was probably a bad move. I used the Wakefield and Duke slots to restore the LSTs and their smaller brothers (LSMs) from my obc version. Well, they are only half as fast as the APAs, so the shipping bottleneck will become even more severe.
LST
Have you really looked into LST's? If they are to be adequately modeled in Pacific War then their capacity should be rated at 50, since they were, at best 3000t vessels during WWII, carrying around 140 troops. Only afterward were there 8000t LST ships used.
Sure LST's were used in the Pacific War, but so were MTB's. LST's were not used (as much) to transport troops over large distances, but mainly as assault vessels. Using LST's to carry troops from San Francisco to Manila just is not right. About 40% of all LST losses (around 60 of 1100) were due to bad weather. This is because they are shallow drought (SP) vessels, not meant for long durations of rough seas. LST's were cut for much of the same reason as MTB's, as you cannot really model them.
Now if you want to talk about LSI, which were MUCH larger, and much more seaworthy, then that is another conversation.
Regarding the CVE's, many of them appear without any air group. The Long Island was used as an aircraft ferry throughout most of its life.
Sure LST's were used in the Pacific War, but so were MTB's. LST's were not used (as much) to transport troops over large distances, but mainly as assault vessels. Using LST's to carry troops from San Francisco to Manila just is not right. About 40% of all LST losses (around 60 of 1100) were due to bad weather. This is because they are shallow drought (SP) vessels, not meant for long durations of rough seas. LST's were cut for much of the same reason as MTB's, as you cannot really model them.
Now if you want to talk about LSI, which were MUCH larger, and much more seaworthy, then that is another conversation.
Regarding the CVE's, many of them appear without any air group. The Long Island was used as an aircraft ferry throughout most of its life.
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4915
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Oops, seems I forgot to switch on the 'self-mockery mode'. Of course I'm not really upset about the elimination of LSTs. I just miss them, period. PW may not be able to model them adequately, but with the same logic you could eliminate all LCUs, too. IMO the LSTs deserve to be included in PW due to their sheer numbers. And since I know that they were much smaller than LSIs (but more numerous), I have reduced their capacity to 60 for LST and 30 for LSM while increasing their numbers to make up for the lost capacity. So far I have the impression that PW handles these modification quite well. But nobody is forced to copy those changes, LSTs yes or no is a matter of taste, and after all - it's only a game. No need to be <img src="mad.gif" border="0"> at me, Major Tom.
Hmmmm. Didn't notice the loss of LST's. If we get a more realistic modelling of total sealift capacity, I think that this is a "win".
The severe cutback in B17E capability is a bit much, IMO. I agree that the B24 has superior capacity and range, but not that much. (I am a former Boeing employee and thus may have a slight bias, though). Even on a good day, the B25 shouldn't have the capacity of the B17E. Especially if you give the B25 range 5. 30/6 penalizes the B17E too much, 30/8 I can see, 55/6 I can also see, but not 30/6. Especially when the B24 keeps its range of 9 with a pretty good payload. From the Japanese point of view, the B17s and B24s put limits on their behavior because they had to assume that if they were within 700 miles of a B17 base, they would be observed (800 from a B24 base).
So far, no complaints. Only small glitches easily fixed with the editor. I do miss getting to watch the heroic defense of Wake Island, and I think the IJN timetable for taking Tarawa is a bit fast, but this is definitely playable. I do miss the AF3 at Medan though, you have taken away one of my favorite tactics.
Chanman
The severe cutback in B17E capability is a bit much, IMO. I agree that the B24 has superior capacity and range, but not that much. (I am a former Boeing employee and thus may have a slight bias, though). Even on a good day, the B25 shouldn't have the capacity of the B17E. Especially if you give the B25 range 5. 30/6 penalizes the B17E too much, 30/8 I can see, 55/6 I can also see, but not 30/6. Especially when the B24 keeps its range of 9 with a pretty good payload. From the Japanese point of view, the B17s and B24s put limits on their behavior because they had to assume that if they were within 700 miles of a B17 base, they would be observed (800 from a B24 base).
So far, no complaints. Only small glitches easily fixed with the editor. I do miss getting to watch the heroic defense of Wake Island, and I think the IJN timetable for taking Tarawa is a bit fast, but this is definitely playable. I do miss the AF3 at Medan though, you have taken away one of my favorite tactics.
Chanman
"As God is my witness, I thought that turkeys could fly"
I am not mad, I just think that the internet is one of the poorest places in which to express opinion. Many people worded criticism in a manner that seemed insulting, using words like "Irritating" "Blatantly Wrong" etc.. come off like we at the Matrix Team are incompetant for making these OBC files wrong. The statements regarding Wake Island and the loss of the LST classes appeared as an attack on my decision to remove them without asking why they were removed. All that was typed was they are gone, and it is wrong that they are (instead of asking why were they removed).
There is mutual misinterpretation going on here, not just me misinterpreting you...
There is mutual misinterpretation going on here, not just me misinterpreting you...
i have played pacwar since it first came out and have tried every obc i could find and your right you can not please everyone. critics should be careful what they say because it takes alot of effort to make these obc,s and patches. as for 2.3 well so far i tried the 41 campaign as both sides and find it alot more of a challenge than older ver. it seems alot harder to for the ijn than the allies. the fuel problem seems to reach a critical level as early as june 42. well keep up the good work. p.s the flags are nice
I haven't had to sink my teeth into v2.3 yet, but I'm sure it's a great improvement over v1.1x22 which I've been playing for some time. With the exception of my inability to defend myself from the allied carriers, I've had little difficulty in v1.1x22 overrunning the allies by being very aggressive towards the Hawaiian Islands in early 1942. Is there somewhere I can find a list of changes between v1.1x22 and v2.3? That would be of immense help since so much has changed.
-
Cmdrcain
- Posts: 1161
- Joined: Mon Aug 21, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Rebuilding FLA, Busy Repairing!
- Contact:
Originally posted by crusher:
i have played pacwar since it first came out and have tried every obc i could find and your right you can not please everyone. critics should be careful what they say because it takes alot of effort to make these obc,s and patches. as for 2.3 well so far i tried the 41 campaign as both sides and find it alot more of a challenge than older ver. it seems alot harder to for the ijn than the allies. the fuel problem seems to reach a critical level as early as june 42. well keep up the good work. p.s the flags are nice
Indeed, I've used my Bears Editor to create OBC's in past and it can be a work, theres hardwires all around, I had on old HD Text file notes on what slots were hardwired for what, but unless able get the crashed HD back up, and accessed, looks like I'll need dig through my backup floppys...must have boxes of em 2,000-3,000 ;--)
Anyway if change an Obc w/o knowing the slots hardcoded funny things can occur so it is a job, anyway I see other OBC's as ahistorical what-ifs unless developed to be more historical.
I even made and have out an Alternative OBC for both What if Tech had improved faster...basically start out with better planes etc both sides and Jets appearing later on.. converse is an OBC where what if Tech was slower so You have japan starting out with Claudes for a long while and USA like using F2A's for a long while.. and some of the future plane types cut out... Neither historical but eithers fun in their way.
Its just a drag to have to Remember which 41obc is which...
Noise? What Noise? It's sooooo quiet and Peaceful!
Battlestar Pegasus
Battlestar Pegasus
-
GET TRANSPT
- Posts: 93
- Joined: Sun Dec 10, 2000 10:00 am
- Location: West Hollywood, CA
Great work, Major Tom!
I second Captain Akira's request for posting rules/mechanics changes like the "update.pdf" file in v. 2.1. For example,
a) are NGU's still able to build AF's/ports like SBF's, OR, are engineers now the ONLY units to do so?
b) Are the new naval units who took up "slots" of the PC's in any way able to attack subs?. PC's used to fire back at subs (I don't own Excel, nor am i an editing whiz). OR, are DD's/DE's now the only ships that may attack subs?
When looking for such a file showing rules/ mechanics changes in v 2.3, i only saw "changes to Version 2-3.TXT "
Are the "Changes to Version 2-3.TXT" file values for air units entirely proofread? I noticed the A2M2 Zero has a MAN rating of 23, but when playing the (1941) game it's 22. The Ki-27 Nate also has disparity: game(1941) MAN rating 21, "Changes to Version 2-3.TXT" rating 20.
any more?
finally ( for now)
re the earlier "southwest airlines" ( funny!) post about beefed up air base in the Solomons: I agree with your rationale of for upping these values , Major Tom. However, when i ran the frist turn of the 1942 campaign scenario in ver. 2.3 i noticed those bases ( e.g. Guadalcanal) were NOT built up like in 1941( AF: 1)!
I like the idea of fiddling with land paths. Great idea. I also enjoyed your work on making the British in India " survivable", and th flags are great. I'm pleased with the attention to detail, like the work on the French DD "Le Fantasque" and its weapon types.
thanks!
sergio ( pac warrior since '92)
I second Captain Akira's request for posting rules/mechanics changes like the "update.pdf" file in v. 2.1. For example,
a) are NGU's still able to build AF's/ports like SBF's, OR, are engineers now the ONLY units to do so?
b) Are the new naval units who took up "slots" of the PC's in any way able to attack subs?. PC's used to fire back at subs (I don't own Excel, nor am i an editing whiz). OR, are DD's/DE's now the only ships that may attack subs?
When looking for such a file showing rules/ mechanics changes in v 2.3, i only saw "changes to Version 2-3.TXT "
Are the "Changes to Version 2-3.TXT" file values for air units entirely proofread? I noticed the A2M2 Zero has a MAN rating of 23, but when playing the (1941) game it's 22. The Ki-27 Nate also has disparity: game(1941) MAN rating 21, "Changes to Version 2-3.TXT" rating 20.
any more?
finally ( for now)
re the earlier "southwest airlines" ( funny!) post about beefed up air base in the Solomons: I agree with your rationale of for upping these values , Major Tom. However, when i ran the frist turn of the 1942 campaign scenario in ver. 2.3 i noticed those bases ( e.g. Guadalcanal) were NOT built up like in 1941( AF: 1)!
I like the idea of fiddling with land paths. Great idea. I also enjoyed your work on making the British in India " survivable", and th flags are great. I'm pleased with the attention to detail, like the work on the French DD "Le Fantasque" and its weapon types.
thanks!
sergio ( pac warrior since '92)