Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Thanks BB.

I'm playing a Babes based mod that uses the original map (non-extended) but with the stacking limits everywhere data files from the Babes site linked by BBfanboy.

Others may have an interest in an extended map stacking limits update.

Is this the B-Mod? https://sites.google.com/site/bigbsshipyard/b-mod-ae

Or the Bottlenecks in the Pacific? https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4262848

I had forgotten about these. If so how do you like compared to stock and Dbabes?

You play AI only correct? Have you played AndyMac's updated stock scenario AI's? Or do you still prefer B-Mod/Bottleneck/Dbabes?

I see a lot of people now using these stacking limits as house rules sounds like they are an improvement on the game and I should transition as well...so indeed others would have interest...

I was an early fan of AndyMac's Iron man scenarios and have played most of them including with updated AIs.

I played his scenario #40 to early '46 and enjoyed it immensely.

Am currently playing my own slightly modded version of The Long Road to Tokyo.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Thanks BB.

I'm playing a Babes based mod that uses the original map (non-extended) but with the stacking limits everywhere data files from the Babes site linked by BBfanboy.

Others may have an interest in an extended map stacking limits update.

Is this the B-Mod? https://sites.google.com/site/bigbsshipyard/b-mod-ae

Or the Bottlenecks in the Pacific? https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4262848

I had forgotten about these. If so how do you like compared to stock and Dbabes?

You play AI only correct? Have you played AndyMac's updated stock scenario AI's? Or do you still prefer B-Mod/Bottleneck/Dbabes?

I see a lot of people now using these stacking limits as house rules sounds like they are an improvement on the game and I should transition as well...so indeed others would have interest...

I was an early fan of AndyMac's Iron man scenarios and have played most of them including with updated AIs.

I played his scenario #40 to early '46 and enjoyed it immensely.

Am currently playing my own slightly modded version of The Long Road to Tokyo.

Ah thank you. So many interesting scenarios. Which one have you found to be most difficult against the AI?

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... age=1&key=

Didn't mean to hijack this thread.

The honest answer is that none of the AI scenarios are difficult for an experienced player.

Ones that significantly beef up the AI side allow the AI side (at least the Japanese AI side) to achieve a greater initial overrun of the Allies and also allows the AI to remain a somewhat viable opponent for far longer than a more historically configured AI side is capable of.

Giving the AI side much more to lose before it runs out of stuff to lose is a key factor.

Balancing that so the AI doesn't lose all its stuff before it loses the ground the active player wants to take is the real design challenge.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Thanks BB.

I'm playing a Babes based mod that uses the original map (non-extended) but with the stacking limits everywhere data files from the Babes site linked by BBfanboy.

Others may have an interest in an extended map stacking limits update.

I am working on a map data file for my updated stock map that includes the stacking limits from DaBabes. I will post a note in this forum when it is ready.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Thanks BB.

I'm playing a Babes based mod that uses the original map (non-extended) but with the stacking limits everywhere data files from the Babes site linked by BBfanboy.

Others may have an interest in an extended map stacking limits update.

I am working on a map data file for my updated stock map that includes the stacking limits from DaBabes. I will post a note in this forum when it is ready.

Andrew, thanks for all your support to the game over the past decade! Is there an updated map data set with stacking limits for the revised stock map?

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Thanks Andrew - probably raised before, but hex 66/110, Kalao - is it intentional that ships cannot dock/load/unload "at this location due to coastal conditions"?

No I am not aware of that. What is the exact issue?

I'm using stock map.

You can fly engineers support squads and supply into kalao by Catalina and like flying boats, and build up the air strip, and them use transport aircraft to get the building moving. But ...

Any attempt to move troops or supply there by (amphibious) TF is met with a message that the TF can't unload there due to "coastal conditions".

I'm wondering if this is intentional. There are other 0 port islands where you can't build the port at all, but yoiu can usually at least unload from an amphib TF there.

This is the reason for the Kalao amphib problem:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Thanks Andrew - probably raised before, but hex 66/110, Kalao - is it intentional that ships cannot dock/load/unload "at this location due to coastal conditions"?

No I am not aware of that. What is the exact issue?

I looked at the old official map - the east side of the hex has a reef and is a red hexside, but the island should be approachable from other directions. The SPS is (0), so it would be affected by the inability of Naval Support squads to help with loading/unloading (even after a port was built). That may be the reason people thought there was a problem unloading there.

No, that is not the problem.

The problem is that if you direct an amphib TF to that destination to unload supply or anything else, you get a message that the TF can't unload due to "coastal conditions

Edit: See LST's post above. The question is, is it set that way for a reason?

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

This is the reason for the Kalao amphib problem:

Thanks LST. I should have thought to check that.

I have fixed that in my updated 'stock' map data file and I have uploaded a version of my map with that file to my website. The link to the site is:
War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition: Updated Official Map

I also finished creating a version of the 'stock' map data file that includes the stacking limits that were added by the Da Babes scenario designers (I have my own system for that, but haven't created an updated map data file with my version of the stacking limits yet. When I do I will make that file available as well). The map data file with the stacking limits included is also available at my site using the link above.

Next, I need to add this fix to the extended map, but that is a work in progress...

If anyone spots any other map errors please let me know.

ORIGINAL: Ian R
The problem is that if you direct an amphib TF to that destination to unload supply or anything else, you get a message that the TF can't unload due to "coastal conditions

Edit: See LST's post above. The question is, is it set that way for a reason?

No, it was just an error. The coastal hexes that are configured to disallow amphibious assaults are those with swamp, tundra, or icefield terrain, and no base. Everything else should be able to be invaded. My map update has now been updated (shades of Monty Python) to include this fix.

Thanks for the continued support.

Old titles are invaluable part of our digital cultural heritage.

Your efforts are on par with things such as DOSBOX.

I spotted an error in the updated stock map art (as opposed to the map data): I inadvertently "imported" the extended map version of Western Luzon (i.e. Subic Bay) and Western Malaya (i.e. Batu Pahat) into the stock map art update. It is only the map art that is not correct - the map data is correct.

I have fixed that and uploaded new versions of the stock map to my website.

Sorry for the mixup. I think I got too enthusiastic when I was "backporting" some of the map updates from my extended map to the stock map.

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Thanks for the continued support.

Old titles are invaluable part of our digital cultural heritage.

Your efforts are on par with things such as DOSBOX.

Markshot, are you trying to subtly belittle Andrew's continuing work here?

Your post comes across as a bit dismissive.

Was that your intent?

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I spotted an error in the updated stock map art (as opposed to the map data): I inadvertently "imported" the extended map version of Western Luzon (i.e. Subic Bay) and Western Malaya (i.e. Batu Pahat) into the stock map art update. It is only the map art that is not correct - the map data is correct.

I have fixed that and uploaded new versions of the stock map to my website.

Sorry for the mixup. I think I got too enthusiastic when I was "backporting" some of the map updates from my extended map to the stock map.

Sssshhhh . . . . . iiitttt happens![;)]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown




No I am not aware of that. What is the exact issue?

I looked at the old official map - the east side of the hex has a reef and is a red hexside, but the island should be approachable from other directions. The SPS is (0), so it would be affected by the inability of Naval Support squads to help with loading/unloading (even after a port was built). That may be the reason people thought there was a problem unloading there.

No, that is not the problem.

The problem is that if you direct an amphib TF to that destination to unload supply or anything else, you get a message that the TF can't unload due to "coastal conditions

Edit: See LST's post above. The question is, is it set that way for a reason?

I managed to land troops there amphibiously without noticing a problem but after that I could only resupply by air. I tried using barges and it didn't work. I had put a full aviation engineer battalion on there and some infantry and I built up the port (to no avail). Eventually I put an aviation company on it (by air) and evacuated the rest by air.

Here is the shopping mall on Pulau Kalaotao. As you can see there are no roads to it and there's not much selection in the mall.

.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

ORIGINAL: MarkShot

Thanks for the continued support.

Old titles are invaluable part of our digital cultural heritage.

Your efforts are on par with things such as DOSBOX.

Marksnot, are you trying to subtly belittle Andrew's continuing work here?

Your post comes across as a bit dismissive.

Was that your intent?

Ian R, I do not see anything dismissive in what MarkShot wrote, and wonder whether your misspelling of his name was on purpose. I think you have not done the forgive, forget and move on step that was asked of us.

The keys are next to each other, and corrected.

I accept that you have read the post differently to me.

Personally, I think consigning this (windows) game to the "relics" pile that includes DOS pacwar etc and requires backward emulation to 1992 is not warranted.

So I asked the question.

Mark has chosen not to post here for the foreseeable future based on the reception he originally received.

I also would have read his post as a compliment. DOSBOX is an amazing creation that kept a lot of old games playable when they would otherwise have been lost to history. WITP-AE is over ten years old at this point, based on an engine that's about twenty years old. It is quite impressive that it's still working, playable and that the community continues to improve it through mods of various kinds. Mark was giving credit where it's due to one of those that continue that work.

Regards,

- Erik