War in the Pacific Release thread

[Elessar2]

Note that this is pretty close to a formal release candidate, and the only changes to come will likely be things to minimize loopholes, ensure game balance, and avoid gamey silliness.

Also note that OCB and I went with a house rule where fleet carriers could not be in full Fighter mode (tho CVLs could).

Enjoy.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Note that this is pretty close to a formal release candidate, and the only changes to come will likely be things to minimize loopholes, ensure game balance, and avoid gamey silliness.

Also note that OCB and I went with a house rule where fleet carriers could not be in full Fighter mode (tho CVLs could).

Enjoy.

Yeah..I would strongly encourage that house rule with the main carriers! It is the fix that works and makes things more reasonable.

[CaesarAug]

Interesting about your house rule on fleet carriers not being on all fighter CAP mode. The only way to implement that playing solo would be in hotseat mode, I suppose.

I vaguely remember reading about this somewhere, God knows where! Basically though, why is this desirable?

[Elessar2]

Because Fighter Mode gives CVs an extra defense bonus: they get to intercept at maximum effectiveness, THEN when the enemy bombing run commences, they get an additional defense bonus.

Start here in this AAR for all the gory details: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0&start=40

[Beriand]

Hi, so I played the newest version a bit Fighting on this map is great, though obviously quite sad for Japs, as the mod is more 'historical' in terms of power parity than regular World at War (where Axis is stronger, and Allies weaker than in history).
So below is my take on what might not be working that well, hm. Obviously just opinion, not like I played 5 multiplayer matches against equal opponents etc.

1. Super small note - you might want to note on initial popups and/or mod notes that MPPs are normalised for a longer period. I mean, when something on map display '10 MPPs', it is not 10 MPPs, more like 3. Thus one mine is quite irrelevant. Got me confused for some time.

2. I understood from previous posts that subs were changed with efficient convoy raiding in mind. But... whelp, that feels like a waste for sure. Subs are very hard to kill and quite cheap. They make for excellent... welll, everything. Great scouts. Nice vanguard in front of your fleet. Good at ambushes. And on top of that, they obliterate everything. Hit ships all right, and just tear carriers apart. Regular heavy ships cannot really touch carriers, but subs eat them alive. Thus - why would I send my subs to raid some distant convoy line for handful of MPPs, and they will be forced to submerge and get off the line anyway probably... while they are main fighting naval asset, along with carriers? Terribly powerful, that is for sure.

3.
When Japs conquer Dacca, there is some buggy popup, <TAG blah blah> and another empty one.
Other thing is Ledo spawning units. So when Japs have Dacca and all rails are cut off, India still can spawn (from production queue) 5 infantry corps around Ledo, protecting air corridor to China, hm. Quite strange. I would either block possibility to spawn units at Ledo, not sure if possible, or at least kill this air supply hub when Ledo or Dacca or Dimapur are taken, not just Ledo?

4. Land-land bombers are quite shitty. So in World at War, corps/army costs are 150/250. Here it is 80/160. And taking a single hex is also like 3x less important. Meanwhile, bombers cost full 300. Sure, they can attack twice a turn, but this only means they are dying faster. Infantry corps with +1 AA has 3 defense against aircrafts... and probably has another terrain bonus to mitigate damage. In my opinion, land-land bombers are absolutely not worth it, crippling costs for Japan. I guess US can use them in 43+, while swimming in MPPs, ok, but...

5. Carrier building times are ooof. 12 months for light carrier and 18 for fleet carrier. Basically, US build queue looks like this:

And with unholy amount of Japanese carriers from events, this means that US should not really move until mid 1943. Which is quite sad/bit boring. I understand that assembling these carriers is not a quick task, but this feels like too much. Being US, I would gladly give away 5-10% MPPs for 2/4 months quicker light/fleet carrier building... maybe could be done. Especially as, again, Japan is spitting magical event carriers one after the other.

6. Maybe YES in atomic bomb decision could be obligatory By mid 1944, Allies should be winning across all the fronts anyway, with crushing might and terrible speed. At least in current circumstances. Not sure why I would throw away 3000 MPPs then, could use them to just win earlier, who needs fat man in some super distant future.

7.
So this is amphibs, I think on tech 4, so tech 5 is another +1. Given how crucial they are in the Pacific, not sure why you did not change cancerous distribution of strength from the vanilla. 6 against hard, while 2 against anti-air, artillery and light armor? Yeah... we again get unbeatable anti-air units or artillery, while infantry corps are destroyed with much greater ease (first takes ~8 amphibs, second 2-3). Maybe it could be more unified.
Moreover, given how efficient battleships are at de-entrenching and damaging units on coasts, and also there are tons of carriers which can help, I believe that 3 attack strength would be ideal for late game amphibs. Amphibs with 6 strength against 'hard' unit type are ridiculous, swarm and kill anything, anywhere. Especially with a big map, so it is not like enemy can have strong setup everywhere (easier in WaW, I suppose).

Ah, and I forgot, when talking about amphibs:
8. I think that amphibious abilities of India and Australia are far too strong. When Allies start to really push, there can be tons (~5 each) amphibs from India and Australia both. If invested in tech, and it is ridiculous not to invest in this tech, they basically double US abilities. And smash Japs rapidly.

9. Battleships with 16 AP is bit too much pain With 10 AP zone of controls? It is extremely hard to get them to work during naval engagements, to the point of being semi-useless. And I doubt they want to sit in the front line of the fleet formation, being pricey vulnerable to subs/carriers. But then canot reach anything from the back line later, with extremely low speed... hm.
Or maybe naval ZoC could be decreased to like -7 AP, not -10?

Maybe something will help

[Elessar2]

Appreciate the feedback. Note I am on vacation right now and thus cannot remedy anything right now.

1. Normalized production vs. WYSIWYG: I'll do what I can-note awhile back I gave the DEI more oil wells for precisely this reason. Again game engine limitation.

2. Subs. I can likely tone down their direct offensive punch-note all of the recent changes were due to their ineffectiveness while embarking on deep convoy raids and my need to work around the core engine's limitations.

3. Unit builds in cut-off cities: that likely means that the city in question is an Industrial Center-easily changed in the editor. If there is something else at work-note it doesn't say that it is an IC on the map-that may be a game engine limitation or some arcane editor setting that I missed.

4. Land-based bombers. The Japanese air-force didn't have the ground attack doctrine that Germany had so start with L0, which is also consistent with how say WiF has them. Did you invest in the tech then test them again? They can be significant when stationed on islands and helping in fleet actions, Note I gave the J. AF a lot of experience bonuses in a recent update. Again can overcorrect and make them murder at higher tech levels, and make them cheaper/more numerous in which case they get spammed everywhere.

5. Carrier build times. Note every US fleet carrier which came out IRL up to 18 months later post 12/7/41 are all in the queue, and also note that an IJN win at Midway (or other big clash) would have meant that the US offensive would have been delayed as well. And that is before the DE giving Japan 4 more CVs, which was done precisely to give more game balance. So that is WAD. Also note that the NM penalties have been toned down twice now. The upthread impromptu AAR showed that the US can be drowning in carriers by early '44.

6. A-bomb. The vanilla cost I felt was massively cheap, so WAD here, along precisely the lines of reasoning that you laid out.

7. Amphibs overpowered. Yes, I read the relevant thread with interest, but the devs took away the unlimited attacks from sea about a year ago, hardcoded now. For Euro that is reasonable, but here for all the single hex objectives everywhere you only get one shot (vs. one shot from sea then another after it lands), so if you blow your one shot that unit has to waste time sailing back to a friendly port to land/re-embark, or wait for another unit to kill the garrison.

8. Amphibs for Aus/India. Yes, if they invest in it, but if the Japanese push hard for one or the other they may not have that luxury, and an early investment in the tech could backfire badly if they indeed end up being attacked. IIRC they start with 0 LR/1 Reg, which is as low as it can go. Note they are also Commonwealth countries and forcing the British faction itself to have to do all of the Amphib investing would likely be counterproductive.

9. Naval ZoCs. I wanted to avoid the silly hit-and run attacks that characterized vanilla. Also note that their slow speed (for the prewar tubs) did indeed limit their operational usefulness historically. I raised the ZoC limit to try to again give subs a bit of a break, but the editor only has 3 ZoC categories, 1 of which has to be reserved for land units (3rd is for units which have no ZoC at all). I could drop it back to say 8.

[Elessar2]

With the new game engine patch I'll be revising the sub changes here a bit, which may also involve reducing their naval attack effectiveness a bit, so hold on if you are planning a new match.

[OldCrowBalthazor]

This is great news...I like all the sub fixes and you got the credits.

[Lothos]

With the new game engine patch I'll be revising the sub changes here a bit, which may also involve reducing their naval attack effectiveness a bit, so hold on if you are planning a new match.

What game engine patch? Is their some official news out about it?

[OldCrowBalthazor]

With the new game engine patch I'll be revising the sub changes here a bit, which may also involve reducing their naval attack effectiveness a bit, so hold on if you are planning a new match.

What game engine patch? Is their some official news out about it?

Yes and it addresses the sub issues big time, amongst other things. Link:https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6&t=388532
There are patches for WiE, WaW and WW1...the latter which I and MdSmall worked on and tested quite extensively last year into this year.

[lobito79]

hey guys

Where Can I download this scenario?

thanks in advance

[rjh1971]

hey guys

Where Can I download this scenario?

thanks in advance

First post of the thread
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 7#p4889857

[OldCrowBalthazor]

Bump for mdsmall.

[Nginear]

I was messing around with your scenario. Very thoughtful! I am hoping to get a PBEM started soon.
I'm poking around in a Guadalcanal scenario myself and may "steal" some of your ideas.

I do have a suggestion for you. In my Guadalcanal, I changed an empty tech to "Underground Defenses" and it basically increases max entrenchments and damage evasion. Maybe this would be a good idea for the blank rocket artillery tech? I set Japan as a higher limit and USA for maybe a lower limit. You could apply it just to Coastal Guns, Pillboxes, Garrisons, whatever.

[Elessar2]

Appreciate the idea. I have shifted my focus wholly to my Euro map, note, but do have a list of changes that I could apply to a new version of this mod.

[Nginear]

Appreciate the idea. I have shifted my focus wholly to my Euro map, note, but do have a list of changes that I could apply to a new version of this mod.

Elessar, I assume you are working in the WiE editor for that? I'm curious how do the editors compare for WaW vs WiE? I do not have Europe, but It hasn't escaped me that more attention and love goes to Europe. I have wondered if my Guadacanal (if I get to alpha point) would be seen more in Europe (and if the editor is better).

[CaesarAug]

I think the editors for all three SC games are virtually identical.
But if you’re modding a large Europe map, it would seem to be easier modding the WIE map with the WIE editor.

I guess the choice of editor just depends on the scenario you’re making.

[Elessar2]

If the process proves painless I'll likely convert the WIE version to W@W.

[CaesarAug]

If the process proves painless I'll likely convert the WIE version to W@W.

You mean, just like your War in the Pacific mod based on the WAW engine? With some adjustments, ever thought of joining them in one huge game, i.e., similar to Lothos?

[Elessar2]

The smiley may mean the above post was tongue in cheek, but yes I have considered making a huge mega map at a 10-12 mile hex scale, thanks to a workaround that allows bigger maps (than the max 512×256) if you use the import map option. But even if the game doesn't crash or protest, it will eat up tons of RAM. And require probably 10 years to make. Note my Euro map is already at the maximum size.