Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan


Then you have an issue if it the Japanese player leaves bases in place like in the Philippines, or Guam.

Guam? I haven't looked and counted but no, I don't think so.

Philippines, I suppose so. But that situation is different than Wenchow, which produces a good amount of supply to keep units alive AND those units have limited offensive potential. An enclave left with supply generation in the Philippines with USA units would be able to upgrade to '43 standard squads (and perhaps tanks) by January '44 and would pose an actual thorn in Japan's side.

Obviously it's up to Michael. My 2 cents worth.

I was incorrect about Guam, it does not fall within 20 or fewer hexes.

But an enclave left without supply in the Philippines would be an issue.

Thank you for the pushback. It's always good to have issues/ideas fleshed out.

Or they could just never attack Batan Island, and make sure/hope the rowboat corps does not take it over.

The AV in the above screenshot is because in the calculations for that screen, noncombat troops have some nominal assault value for defensive purposes.

Or they could just never attack Batan Island, and make sure/hope the rowboat corps does not take it over.

It is the presence of troops. An empty dot base does not do it.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Or they could just never attack Batan Island, and make sure/hope the rowboat corps does not take it over.

It is the presence of troops. An empty dot base does not do it.

Are you sure it's not just the following?

1) Within 20 hexes
2) AF 1+

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Or they could just never attack Batan Island, and make sure/hope the rowboat corps does not take it over.

It is the presence of troops. An empty dot base does not do it.

Are you sure it's not just the following?

1) Within 20 hexes
2) AF 1+

Correct.

What about when you land troops at an enemy owned base?

Everything I've read, both rules and forum say AF 1+, 20 sea hexes or less. Nothing about having troops on the ground

Here is what I found, mostly by Alfred, including

here: RE: Kamikaze Activation Map

here: RE: Kamakazi border??

and here RE: kamikaze activation question

Interestingly, in the last one, there's a post from Michael that says Chinese National bases are excluded . I'm wondering if that means Wenchow would not be activated if not taken by Japan.

One that I would like to see is having certain TF numbers reserved for just SC TF and another for CV TFs. Maybe 30 to 40 for the SC and then another 10 just for CV. Experienced players know the AI will move the lowest numbered TF first and when you create TFs, they may last months if not years before you disband them. I want to be able to have my DD and CLs in the lowest and not have my BB TF go into action first. When you create a new TF as is, you don't know what number it will be and how it will fall into the others you have if you order a bunch to sweep a base before the big BBs come in to bombard it.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

One that I would like to see is having certain TF numbers reserved for just SC TF and another for CV TFs. Maybe 30 to 40 for the SC and then another 10 just for CV. Experienced players know the AI will move the lowest numbered TF first and when you create TFs, they may last months if not years before you disband them. I want to be able to have my DD and CLs in the lowest and not have my BB TF go into action first. When you create a new TF as is, you don't know what number it will be and how it will fall into the others you have if you order a bunch to sweep a base before the big BBs come in to bombard it.

+1

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Everything I've read, both rules and forum say AF 1+, 20 sea hexes or less. Nothing about having troops on the ground

Here is what I found, mostly by Alfred, including

here: RE: Kamikaze Activation Map

here: RE: Kamakazi border??

and here RE: kamikaze activation question

Interestingly, in the last one, there's a post from Michael that says Chinese National bases are excluded . I'm wondering if that means Wenchow would not be activated if not taken by Japan.

That is how I interpret it.

So you can stuff Wenchow or Chushien with B-29s, bomb Home Islands, and the kamis still will not activate?

ORIGINAL: Yaab

So you can stuff Wenchow or Chushien with B-29s, bomb Home Islands, and the kamis still will not activate?

How realistic is that?

ORIGINAL: Yaab

So you can stuff Wenchow or Chushien with B-29s, bomb Home Islands, and the kamis still will not activate?

Good luck trying to own any base on the Chinese coast before mid-1944. You'd have to be a fortunate Chinese/Allied player or a very bad Japanese player.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Yaab

So you can stuff Wenchow or Chushien with B-29s, bomb Home Islands, and the kamis still will not activate?

How realistic is that?

You'd need level 7 to even fly normally... beyond that, after the very first time you did that, that base is going to get shut down permanently. China doesn't have the engineers to keep fields open.

Both Wenchow and Chuhsien airfields can be developed to level 8. Chuhsien is inland. It may work against an inept Japanese player who neglects China.

I have a question on A2A combat. I noticed that even when fighting 3 Bombers with 30+ fighters, every single one on them seems to take defensive fire.
I feel that in case of severe outnumbering some fighters would probably attack at the same time from the same direction, so at least the one or other should not take defensive fire.

Is this just a feeling? Does the game take into account several fighters approaching from the same direction at the same time?

What bombers? B-17E has six slots of defensive weapons, including two turrets which can shoot in different directions. If you attack B-17E from front you face 3 MGs, side attack gets you 4 MGs etc.

Cannot tell you how fighter attacks are packeted (pairs, threes ets). Wish I knew this myself.

ORIGINAL: RichardAckermann

I have a question on A2A combat. I noticed that even when fighting 3 Bombers with 30+ fighters, every single one on them seems to take defensive fire.
I feel that in case of severe outnumbering some fighters would probably attack at the same time from the same direction, so at least the one or other should not take defensive fire.

Is this just a feeling? Does the game take into account several fighters approaching from the same direction at the same time?

This question is better suited for The War Room or the Main Forum.

Speaking of a "surrender" button...How about an "Open City" button which would eliminate a friendly city from costing VP's on a city you no longer need, and it might allow the movement of certain portions of "static" assets?

I ponder if its possible to add a "only refuel at home port option".

ORIGINAL: Gräfin Zeppelin
I ponder if its possible to add a "only refuel at home port option".

"Do not refuel" works exactly like this for CS convoys

---------------
Also, I've had this posted earlier in some other beta-related thread but since this is the official suggestions one, better keep it all in the same place

LCUs lose all movement progress if new destination is given manually by clicking on the map even if direction of movement in the hex remains the same. It is rather painful to pursue enemy LCUs on land, because you always need to give new hex destinations as enemy moves.
Thing is, option to preserve movement progress is there in game, but to capitalize on it currently you need another LCU in a hex:
Give new destination to another LCU -> choose "March All" -> Presto, movement progress is preserved for other LCUs, assuming new destination leads to the same movement direction out of the hex.

Would be nice if this mechanics applied to manual changes of destination too, assuming marching direction in the hex remains the same.