Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Pascal

Posted from Base sticky forum.

Christmas Island (785) – all forces here on Dec. 7, 1941 should be back in PH or US and Navy base unit should probably be a USAAF base unit instead; the ‘civilian’ construction unit should probably disappear outright. The island was unoccupied by any significant Allied forces at the start of the war. First units arrived on Feb. 10, 1942.

While I agree that the forces on Christmas Island could hardly be called 'significant' there were a few hundred engineers there on December 7th -- 150 men from the 804th EAB and between 70 and 200 (accounts differ) civilian contractors. In late November, two 75mm field guns arrived with 800 rounds and one artillery sergeant to train gun crews from the engineers. The island was commanded by Cpt J.T. Shields. The unit has low morale because the contractors and the military had a poor working relationship. After Pearl Harbor the contractors on Christmas Is. rioted and demanded to be sent home -- martial law was declared. [As opposed to Wake, where the contractors provided support for the Marines in combat, and manned a few of the crew-served weapons.] All this is reflected in-game.

As you say, on February 10th the permanent garrison force arrived -- about 2000 men in Birch Force, built around the 1/102nd Infantry Regiment, and two coast artillery (AA) battalions.

The main island is called Kirimati today. It is the largest coral atoll in the world.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I posted this below but thought I would move it to here so it would be noticed in time for the next patch if thought to be appropriate.

Realizing that any Internet information site may not be 100% accurate, in an about the following site, show that a Bn of the 201st Infantry Reg. and a company of Engineers were at the Sitka, Alaska base location in addition to the Base Force.

http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41 ... alaska.htm

That site also reflects elements of the Alaska Coastal and AA Defense Regiments, but those seem to have already been account for in the Naval Base Force. However, the base force does not include the Marine Guard Detachment which is reflected at the USN OOB of the above site. The game's bases of Dutch Harbor and Kodiak do reflect their Marines at 10 squads each (the site shows a Marine Barracks at Kodiak and Dutch Harbor NB & NAS have a guard Detachment each).

I sort of think the absence of the above are just oversights but if not, the overall impact (other that the additional ongoing supply requirement to continuously support them)is not that great but may more historically accurate. .

From my first glance at my sources, it looks like you are correct about the 201st. I'll make a note to try to insert a fix into an upcoming patch. WARNING: It may not happen, because adding 1 new unit means we need to adjust every scenario and every applicable AI script.

The base force is intended to include the engineer and AA companies -- and the marine garrison will naturally 'fill out' as the 10 marine squads are part of the TOE.

Question re  auto withdrawing units.

I want to provide a regular supply line into Port Darwin and not force an ahistorical reliance on using shipping to supply the base. Might relate to other areas such as replicating ALCAN or similar.

If I create a LCU to arrive in Port Darwin with the required amount of supply and then withdraw it after a day or two will the supply with the unit go into the Port Darwin pool??

Better to use the convoy LCU they automatically disband to pool.

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I posted this below but thought I would move it to here so it would be noticed in time for the next patch if thought to be appropriate.

Realizing that any Internet information site may not be 100% accurate, in an about the following site, show that a Bn of the 201st Infantry Reg. and a company of Engineers were at the Sitka, Alaska base location in addition to the Base Force.

http://niehorster.orbat.com/013_usa/_41 ... alaska.htm

That site also reflects elements of the Alaska Coastal and AA Defense Regiments, but those seem to have already been account for in the Naval Base Force. However, the base force does not include the Marine Guard Detachment which is reflected at the USN OOB of the above site. The game's bases of Dutch Harbor and Kodiak do reflect their Marines at 10 squads each (the site shows a Marine Barracks at Kodiak and Dutch Harbor NB & NAS have a guard Detachment each).

I sort of think the absence of the above are just oversights but if not, the overall impact (other that the additional ongoing supply requirement to continuously support them)is not that great but may more historically accurate. .

From my first glance at my sources, it looks like you are correct about the 201st. I'll make a note to try to insert a fix into an upcoming patch. WARNING: It may not happen, because adding 1 new unit means we need to adjust every scenario and every applicable AI script.

The base force is intended to include the engineer and AA companies -- and the marine garrison will naturally 'fill out' as the 10 marine squads are part of the TOE.

Thank you.

Thanks Andy, I assumed they were LCU's


PS Found them, after the Chinese & Filipinas & Russians.

Sent a convoy there and the 500,000 supply pts went into Port Darwins pool, excellent.
Now to work out a monthly requirement to keep approx 1 Div & Airpower happy.

It can be in any slot Jeff there is a check box middle left on the loc screen that determines whether a unit is a convoy or not

Andy

In a new addon for modders you can now add aircraft to convoy units in the same way as LCU devices so if you need one off injections of aircraft you can have them arrive in convoys as well.

I have only used that functionality for the invasion reinforcement convoys but it does exist

Andy,

With regard to what you stated above about the AI being a moron please consider the following feedbackwhen looking into tweaking the AI:

Since the AI will do incredibly stupid things that no human would ever do it is not very difficult to trounce it, even during the Pearl attack.

In my most recent game, the Hakko Ichiu scenario, the AI brought it's carriers to within 3 hexes of Pearl on day 2. The AI has a bad habit of leaving air combat TFs in the same hex turn after turn after turn. On turn 3 I sortied every available combat ship in Pearl (2 CAs 10 DDs and 3 groups of PTs). Both CAs limped back to Pearl heavily damaged, 2 DDs and numerous PTs were sunk, but 3 IJN Fleet Carriers limped home in flames.

The AI detached the heavily damaged Shokoku and some DD escorts and that TF limped due eastward while the rest took off to the NW to make the historical hit on Midway.

The Shokuko TF limped right into the waiting arms of my two carriers returning to Pearl after sinking the Wake Island invasion force. The result was the sinking of a Jap carrier in the first week of the war.

The key here is that the AI is so predictable in leaving it's ACTFs in the same hex turn after turn I was able to gamble with my remaining SC ships at Pearl with a good chance of success.

I am in late January now with the AI running carrier raids on Java while I sorty SCTFs out of Darwin to slaughter one transport TF after another in places like Kendari, Makkasar, Ternate and so on. Only once, after a run on Kendari did the AI react by bringing in a BB SCTF. It has made no effort to cover the area with either LBA or Carrier air to deter my runs. It also routinely runs both invasion and supply convoys to the "front lines" (meaning the edge of possible Allies retaliation) with little to no surface combat escort.

I can undersdand the AI running supply convoys to Batan Island with only TB, E or PB escorts, but doing so at Wake (the second attempt) or Kendari in Jan '42 is definitely a moronic move.

After beating up the AI in the first 3 months in the historical sceanrio I moved on to the Hakko Ichiu sceanrio and the AI is less aggressive and further behind in taking historical objectives.

I guess I'll try the Iron Man scenario next and try my best to play as "shocked and off balance" as the Allies were historically to give the AI a better chance to succeed in the early months.

Hope this AI performance feedback is useful.

A good player will always eventually pick up on AI patterns and exploit them nothing I can do about that Hans

Feedback is alway welcome and I will take a look but there is a limit to what an AI can achieve.

You are taking advantage4 of a pattern you have observed from your first few games fair enough not a lot I can do about it

The AI still uses dinky little TF's again not something I can do a lot about its actually benefifical in unloading speed but it puts a hell of a strain on japanese escorts int he early going with so much ground to achieve

In Scen 1 AI really doesnt have enough escorts to do what it needs so some TF's are vulnerable
Scen 2 less so as we added more ahistoric escorts
Scen 10 very much less so as I went crazy and made sure the Ai had enough escorts.

Andy: I concur with Hans on the one 'blot' on the AI performance - the tendency of CV TF to remain on station when they should move well away. Playing against your Ironman (as nasty creature indeed!) I checked one case - a TF that started with the usual 50 F, 50 DB, 50 TB was still hanging around Suva with its strength down to 40F, 4B, 0TB! Is it possible to code a withdrawal trigger in terms of time and strength - ie override with return to base after a random 2-3 days, a random less than x% of strength?

Andy,
trying to understand how and why the British 70th Div is organized the way you have it. It looks like you have one unit titled 70th Div that appears to be the 16th Bde + all the division troops and the other two bdes (14th and 23rd) are split out. There is no rebuild unit option.

I admit I don't know the Division's history well. My memory is many of its units became Chindit formations. Just trying to follow your logic.

thanks.

Are you seeing the not withdrawing when understrength in 1094 i thought we had fixed it ??

70th Div HQ has all the Divisional Assets and disbands when the 3 compnoent bdes concvert to Chindit

Its not designed to rebuild

I would have liked to have had a special convert to Chindit option for 70th Brit Div but it jhust wasnt possible to justify the coding time for one conversion.

So each Bde converts to a Chindit TOE and the Div Assets are disbanded to the pool at a point in time

Andy, re the 70th Brit Div, I may not be close enough to its withdrawal date to see the flag yet. I will check the unit withdrawals list tonight.

Andy, re 70th Brit Div withdrawal in version 1.0.2.1094. It is 1 Apr 42 in my game and the division is scheduled to withdraw in 426 days (1 Jun 43). So it looks like it can fight in the 1st Arakan (as I understand some of its units historically did) before becoming Wingate's personal army...

Andy; Let me check over the next few turns. The TF that was floating endlessly around Suva and safe because its 40 crack F would wreck the few DB and TB I have left (!) seems to have vanished. I want to see what happens with the second one that seems to appear and disappear near Pt. Moresby. Whatever happens at the very least your patch change has created uncertainty.
 
One other AI 'blemish' I have noted; when attacking India it seems to only use one attack route, staggering north of Akyab rather than at the same time advancing inland against Imphal or launch an amphib attack in the vicinity. That makes it easy to check (at least so far he hastily added!)

[:D][:D]

The AI scripts dont get updated in the patch unfortunately (I dont think at least) so you are seeing the code improvements

Re the India attack variant lets just say I spent the best part of a week on that script alone play it on scen 1 and its a lot tougher play it on scen 10 and its downright scary.....

of course I am not going to tell you which one it is that would be unssporting on the AI

Hope this is the right place to post this observation and that the AI guys don't take umbrage - so here goes...

Are there two sets of rules concerning aspects such as supply usage and attrition due to island stacking limits being exceeded?

By this I mean one for the AI (hence posting here) and one for a human player?

I ask because I am noticing that the AI seems not be as heavily penalised for overstacking

(worked examples - I over-stacked Canton by 100% and lost all excess troops in around 10 turns (600 per turn) whereas the AI currently has Iwo Jima over 100% over stacked and is losing only around 50 excess troops per turn - the latter despite constant attention from 12 CV, 6 CVL, 12 BB, numerous CA, CL, DD and 6 Sqns of B-24's for 2 months)

Also the AI seems to be able to run a deficit budget in terms of supply.  Notice this when a location runs out of supply, but gets subjected to air attack - it will fight back by drawing on non-existent supplies creating negative values for supply.

I am all for giving the AI every chance it needs, but this type of advantage is an open cheque book.  How can I be sure when the AI is going to adopt creative accounting making any assault on that location pointless or at the very least not cost effective.  I am on the point of sticking 16 subs around Iwo-Jima and moving on as clearly the AI is not playing by the same rules that constrain me.  This is not the only location where this is occuring, but I particularly wanted IJ to see if my B-29 losses could be reduced by the use of long range fighters.

AI doest get exemption from overstacking rules I see the opposite in my AI games when the AI is out of supply no aircraft fly so I know its not getting help.

Sounds like a bug

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

AI doest get exemption from overstacking rules I see the opposite in my AI games when the AI is out of supply no aircraft fly so I know its not getting help.

Sounds like a bug

Strike missions don't fly. CAP does. Ground units fire Flak. Coastal guns kill my landing craft, reload (with what?) and kill the next wave and the next and the next... Checking the numbers they are doing this with pretty generous supply 'overdrafts'. Makes it hard where to plan to go next because no matter how tight the blockade, the ability of the AI to creatively account (whether by accident or design), negates any degree of planning and I might as well invade location by location with a 10:1 local numerical advantage (which takes the fun of planning campaigns away as all that needs to be done is to amass overwhelming force and strike - which slows the pace of the game down as there is only enough lift capacity to conduct one op at a time)