Page 87 of 109
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Aug 29, 2009 6:55 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
ORIGINAL: pad152
Seeing the AI operate B17's from level 2 airfields, seems like too much of a cheat. Heavy bombers should be limited to level 4 for even the AI. I don't mind the AI getting bonuses but, seeing it not even using the same game rules is a bit much.
I tend to agree with you here!
I believe that was historical. A number of the Dutch bases in Borneo were secretly set up to facilitate bombers flying in, flying a mission, and flying out. How big was Guadalcanal when the B-17s started using it in the same way?
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:14 am
by Gary D
The 99th and 100th Indian Brigades posted to Colombo start scenario 6 with a morale of zero.

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 8:32 am
by sven6345789
probably already reported but under patch 1.083, hitting the button "toggle replacements for all units on or off" in the land unit overview, both buttons turn replacements on.
scenario 1.
RE: AE Land and AI Issues
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 1:09 pm
by Iron Duke
scn. 1
slot 5348 86th Infantry Cav Division -- suffix is Cavalry Division -- should be Division
RE: AE Land and AI Issues
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:08 pm
by fbs
Scenario 001, v. 1.0.1.1083, new game:
Beaverette A/C still has a very large load cost -- it should be 10, not 100.
Cheers [:D]
fbs
RE: AE Land and AI Issues
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 3:28 pm
by Blackhorse
ORIGINAL: Iron Duke
scn. 1
slot 5348 86th Infantry Cav Division -- suffix is Cavalry Division -- should be Division
Noted. What's causing the problem is that the Division points to the wrong TOE. It will be fixed for Patch 2.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:15 pm
by pad152
ORIGINAL: herwin
I believe that was historical. A number of the Dutch bases in Borneo were secretly set up to facilitate bombers flying in, flying a mission, and flying out. How big was Guadalcanal when the B-17s started using it in the same way?
If your going to allow 4 engine bombers to operate from level 2 airfields, then air field size doesn't mean anything any more.[8|] I don't know how big the airfield got on Guadalcanal, but today Honiara (Henderson Field) is the only international airport in the Solomon Islands at 7200ft long. My understanding is airfield size in WITP/AE represents more than just size but, also the facilities like fuel & bomb bunkers, repair facilities, etc.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sun Aug 30, 2009 7:24 pm
by rockmedic109
ORIGINAL: pad152
ORIGINAL: herwin
I believe that was historical. A number of the Dutch bases in Borneo were secretly set up to facilitate bombers flying in, flying a mission, and flying out. How big was Guadalcanal when the B-17s started using it in the same way?
If your going to allow 4 engine bombers to operate from level 2 airfields, then air field size doesn't mean anything any more.[8|] I don't know how big the airfield got on Guadalcanal, but today Honiara (Henderson Field) is the only international airport in the Solomon Islands at 7200ft long. My understanding is airfield size in WITP/AE represents more than just size but, also the facilities like fuel & bomb bunkers, repair facilities, etc.
Airfield size still matters. If the size is not at least 4 + (bombload/6500), then the unit will only carry extended range load, only have normal range and suffers more Ops losses.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 3:09 pm
by rattovolante
(this surfaced in another thread)
In scenario 1 (possibly in the other variations too) some SNLF companies have an infantry icon instead of an amphibious infantry icon. Is this intentional?
example: identical equipment/squads, different icon:
upfiles/32702/1306708722E5487F99417E6CF6E549DB.jpg
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 5:28 pm
by Andy Mac
No mistake but to late for patch 1
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 6:35 pm
by rattovolante
a very minor one from scenario 1
unit # 4382, 51st naval guard starts first turn (dec 7) with preparation Jaluit/0, loaded on "Makin invasion" TF 15, docked at Jaluit and heading to Makin
unit # 4383, 52nd naval guard starts at Jaluit (and will stay there, the TF won't load it up), but has preparation Makin/50
I guess orders were mixed up and the TF commander loaded the wrong unit
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Mon Aug 31, 2009 9:01 pm
by Montbrun
Unit 176 - "II Australian" is missing "Corps"
Unit 6402 - "3rd Carbiniers" - should be "Carabiniers."
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 7:41 pm
by medicff
AI uses CV tf as ramming/bombard/sc tf clearing force???
Hey Andy, don't know if your dept or programing but AI send its CV's into Bali Base hex (not near) and ran into PT boats and AMc on station there.
Were they just trying to move thru?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Balikpapan at 64,97, Range 30,000 Yards
Japanese Ships
CV Hiryu
CV Soryu
CV Zuikaku
CA Tone
CA Chikuma
CL Oi
DD Arashi
DD Hagikaze
DD Asashio
DD Oshio
Allied Ships
MTB 7
MTB 8
MTB 9
MTB 11
MTB 12
MTB 26
MTB 27
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards
Range closes to 29,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 29,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 29,000 yards
Both TF attempt to withdraw!
Range increases to 30,000 yards...
Both Task Forces evade combat
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Balikpapan at 64,97, Range 30,000 Yards
Japanese Ships
CV Akagi
DD Arashio
DD Akatsuki
DD Okikaze
Allied Ships
AMc MMS D
Maximum visibility in Clear Conditions: 30,000 yards
Range closes to 29,000 yards...
Range closes to 25,000 yards...
CONTACT: Japanese lookouts spot Allied task force at 25,000 yards
CONTACT: Allied lookouts spot Japanese task force at 25,000 yards
Both TF attempt to withdraw!
Range increases to 30,000 yards...
Range increases to 30,000 yards...
Both Task Forces evade combat
[:D]
[Deleted]
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:25 pm
by Anonymous
[Deleted by Admins]
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:36 pm
by Andy Mac
I adjusted this in the patch I hope
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 9:51 pm
by scott64
Jap AI taking bases and throwing the defender out. The Japs move on and leave a unit not destroyed nearby. The allies move back to retake the base. This has happened more than once.
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:43 pm
by medicff
ORIGINAL: Andy Mac
I adjusted this in the patch I hope
Probably [;)], I patched over the stock GC scenario 2 so I did not get the AI changes.
[:)]
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 9:58 am
by John Lansford
I still have an AI surface warfare TF sitting in Davao harbor. It arrived a week ago and just sat there, not bombarding or anything else, until an invasion TF showed up and began unloading. During that time the TF (a BB, CA and 2 DD's) had the BB torpedoed by a PBY, Dutch subs fired numerous torpedoes at them, and I ran a surface TF in there to shake them up.
I also pulled all the Allied LCU's in the area to Davao when it was obvious that -something- was going to happen there soon. Now there's three infantry units dug in there instead of the one the AI was expecting, and the TF is STILL not bombarding!
(BTW this is with the beta patch installed)
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 11:18 am
by EasilyConfused
The Beaverette A/C has a load cost of 100. I suspect it's a typo and should read 10, in line with the other armo(u)red cars.
RE: AI Air Combat loss tolerance
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:46 pm
by fbs
Scenario 1, 1.0.1.1083:
Unit 5907 "Madion Base Force" should be "Madioen Base Force"
Unit 5908 "Loemafjang Base Force" should be "Loemadjang Base Force"
Unit 5916 "Den Passer Base Force" should be "Den Passar Base Force"
Cheers! [:D]
fbs
ps: I can't believe I'm reviewing the spelling of all units named after places, to make sure they match the spelling of the place... hahahah [:D]