Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Barb

16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right:
1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only?
33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det.
Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec.
(while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi)

Source:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... h6.htm#p89

"I./33rd Bn" is a unit created by Andy for the demands of the AI (disbands in June 1942; historically part of Kimura Detachment). Miura Detechment was III./33rd IR. Don't know what happened with the 9th IR (still planning for Lingayen). Probably another AI issue, have forgotten what the matter was with this one. Originally we had everything right, but it was neccessary to change some of the Japanese starting operations (and some troop locations) to make the AI work.

As K's explanation covers every LCU at start, dont be surprised at a myriad of differences for at start units.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: Barb

16th Division initial dispositon doesnt seem to be completely right:
1st Bn/33rd Inf Regt is positioned at Amami Oshima while it went to Davao on 20th Dec as Miura Det. Shouldnt it be one unit only?
33rd Inf Regt (-1st Bn) goes for Legaspi (rightly) as Kimura Det.
Umejima Detachment (1st Bn/ 9th Inf Regt & elms) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
2nd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Army Reserve) and 3rd Bn/9th Inf Regt (Left flank detachment) landed at Lingayen on 22nd Dec.
16th Div (-9th, 33rd Inf Regts & other elms) landed at Lamon Bay on 24th Dec.
(while in game 9th Infantry is loaded together with rest of 16th Division scheduled to land at Legaspi)

Source:
http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/ ... h6.htm#p89

"I./33rd Bn" is a unit created by Andy for the demands of the AI (disbands in June 1942; historically part of Kimura Detachment). Miura Detechment was III./33rd IR. Don't know what happened with the 9th IR (still planning for Lingayen). Probably another AI issue, have forgotten what the matter was with this one. Originally we had everything right, but it was neccessary to change some of the Japanese starting operations (and some troop locations) to make the AI work.

As K's explanation covers every LCU at start, dont be surprised at a myriad of differences for at start units.

No, just some differences, certainly not a myriad. We tried not to repeat that what was done in WITP. But sometimes the functionability of the AI had priority.

About 10 small japanese units (some of which may have existed but probably didnt) were added strictly for the AI and also to relfect the ability of large ships companies to sieze bases
 
There was one unit I added that I regret calling it I/33rd it was basically a small detachment I needed to allow the AI to do something
 
The rest are the Indpt SNLF Companies basically the Japanese have a lot of ground to cover and the AI especiallty does not recycle overly well some units so I needed a few ants so I added some in total its probably less than 100AV but I needed it.
 
Apart from that main issue is Australian units not always in the right city on 7/12/41 - I think they are int eh right region and broadly in the right place but a few are in the wrong cities - some of this is deliberate some of it is because I dont have better data

K: could you give me a source where Miura Detachment has III/33rd and not I/33rd? or the oposite for Kimura Det. (I just put it "Miura Detachment" into google and 2 more sources were revealed where it was stated that Miura Det. has 1st Bn of 33rd regiment)
Couldnt be 9th Regiment put into 2nd (1st Bn) and 3rd  (2nd+3rd Bn) wave of Lingayen invasion? Will the AI have problems with it?
Couldnt the AI cope with 20th Regiment + 22 FA + rest landing in Lamon Bay?

If its for the AI, I think we have to live with it or make our own non-AI mods [:D]

Manual 8.1.3
"All engineer squads and vehicles can construct and repair base
facilities. Combat Engineers can also destroy enemy fortifications"

I made some tests and combat engineers never construct anything.
I check it separately for japanese device 267 and 711 

ORIGINAL: Barb

K: could you give me a source where Miura Detachment has III/33rd and not I/33rd? or the oposite for Kimura Det. (I just put it "Miura Detachment" into google and 2 more sources were revealed where it was stated that Miura Det. has 1st Bn of 33rd regiment)
Couldnt be 9th Regiment put into 2nd (1st Bn) and 3rd  (2nd+3rd Bn) wave of Lingayen invasion? Will the AI have problems with it?
Couldnt the AI cope with 20th Regiment + 22 FA + rest landing in Lamon Bay?

If its for the AI, I think we have to live with it or make our own non-AI mods [:D]

Miura Detachment was III./33rd according to 'Sword of the Emperor' by Martin Favorite and Minoru Kawamoto who name Senshi Soshu (the official - but not translated - Japanese War Histories) as their primary source. The material available via Google seems to be based on sources based on US intelligence reports/documents which are notoriously unreliable when it comes to the IJA (most US army reports I've read about this matter are abysmal; USN reports much better and much more precise - but rarely covering the IJA).

Don't know if there would be problems with the AI when it comes to historical landings. Originally their setup was historical, but this was later changed (by Andy, I think). I assume that he changed it because there were problems, but I don't know for sure.

Fixed in patch 2.

ORIGINAL: Roko

Manual 8.1.3
"All engineer squads and vehicles can construct and repair base
facilities. Combat Engineers can also destroy enemy fortifications"

I made some tests and combat engineers never construct anything.
I check it separately for japanese device 267 and 711 

Could you perhaps let units in "move" mode automatically revert back to "combat" mode once they have reached their destination? That would make things MUCH easier as it removes a lot of micromanagement.

ORIGINAL: Rainer79

Could you perhaps let units in "move" mode automatically revert back to "combat" mode once they have reached their destination? That would make things MUCH easier as it removes a lot of micromanagement.

Yeah, I'd like to see this as well. In a game as immense as this, loosing a unit or six from my age-weakened memory is to be expected.

Some oddities I've noticed that may be errors (apologies if already reported)
1. Auckland Fort (6194) has a Japanese 4.7in CD Gun (293) in slot 3.
2. A number of units are given devices that have a "9999" availability date. Not sure if that is intentional. If it isn't supposed to happen, I can make up a list for you.
3. Similarly, some units have a build rate, but are set to unbuildable. For example, 81mm Mortar (935).
4. Malayan Air Wing (6632) has a nationality of "none"
5. Many units set to withdraw have neither "1" or "2" selected next to the withdrawal date. Malayan Air Wing is an example of this too.
6. M10 Wolverine TD (1183), M18 Hellcat TD (1184), and M36 Jackson TD (1185) all have a start date 6/43.
7. Black Force (5980) is set to withdraw on 9/31/42.

Unit 5200 - "857 Engineer Aviation Battalion" should be 857th for consistancy.

Another possible issue, 3.7'' Mk II AA Gun (1063) has a ceiling of 24,000 and 3.7'' Mk VI AA Gun (1064) has a ceiling of 42,000.  Perhaps that is correct, but I suspect it may be a typo.

Also, Beaverette A/C (1099) has a load cost of 100, should probably be 10 in line with the other armored cars.

Convoy WS.29/OS.45 (7858) delivers 12 units of nothing (1058) in weapon slot 10. Convoy OS.47/48 (7860) has the same in slot 5.

Dont know if this has been brought up, but in my AI game (Scen 1) as the Allies, the British HQ's that were in Singapore when it fell did not rebuild.

I got this message the day they should have arrived:

223 Group RAF arrives at Aden
224 Group RAF arrives at Aden
III Indian Corps arrives at Aden
AHQ Far East arrives at Aden

But when I go to Aden, only AHQ Far East is there. Should the others have rebuilt? Unfortunately, I ran the next turn so I dont have the save either.

Thanks

Chad

OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look

ORIGINAL: Rainer79

Could you perhaps let units in "move" mode automatically revert back to "combat" mode once they have reached their destination? That would make things MUCH easier as it removes a lot of micromanagement.


Yeah, I'd like to see this as well. In a game as immense as this, loosing a unit or six from my age-weakened memory is to be expected.

This is also very helpful for two or three day turns!

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look

Andy,

Would this be the proper place to ask for clarification of whether malaria will be implemented in this game after patch II?

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look

Thanks for the reply Andy. Do you need more details than what I provided above?

Heres the general breakdown:

1. Singapore falls and all troops surrender with no fragments anywhere else.
2. The reinforcement list shows that 223, 224 RAF, III Corps and AHQ are all going to be rebuilt and arrive at Aden.
3. All four HQ's continue to show up correctly on the reinforcement screen pervious to the arrival date.
4. The arrival date comes, I get an ops message that all four have arrived.
5. I go to Aden and only AHQ is there. The other three are not at Aden, not anywhere else on the map, and no longer listed on the reinforcement screen.

Again, I dont know whether they *should* have even rebuilt in the first place.

Hope this helps.

Chad

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK guys I am back from vacation I will pick up these issues and others for patch 2 keep em coming - if it looks odd in the OOB flag it up and I will take a look

Andy,

Would this be the proper place to ask for clarification of whether malaria will be implemented in this game after patch II?

Thanks.

Yes malaria will affect your troops in patch 2.