Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Will the pilot training program require fuel (actually supply in the game)?

Good question, but I don't know the answer - the question should be put to the air team. But it would be supplies rather than fuel that would be expended.

Andrew

Sorry if this is a repeat - will the allied victory points for noumea be dialed down?

ORIGINAL: erstad

Sorry if this is a repeat - will the allied victory points for noumea be dialed down?

There have been no changes to the VP values of bases at this point. At the moment, I can't say whether they will be adjusted or not. Some adjustment may be necessary, however, due to the number of new bases that have been added.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I was just discussing something in another thread and came up with another question concerning Japanese production. Currently squads, weapons and vehicles are all produced with combinations of manpower, armament and vehicle points while the Allies get production rates of all their stuff. It seems that if the Japanese have sufficient points in the pool, they can pretty much produce whatever they need, based on the whims of the AI, of course. Sounds kind of unfair. Is there going to be any change to this facet of production?

(OMG, I'm a JFB and I'm asking this question! [X(])

It would be too big a change to provide full Allied production (or equivalent to the Japanese at least - even the Japanese do not have complete control over their production). But I don't think that the Allied player should necessarily have as much control as the Japanese player anyway. What I would like to see though is more reactive allied production - meaning that if there are deficiencies in some areas the Allied production would compensate for it. But that would be for a future game.

The other thing that we should pay attention to is that the Japanese production rates are realistic.

Andrew

Perhaps you could give the allied player the ability to shift production by allowing him to set some prioritys and perhaps set othe stuff on the backburner. So he could prioritize for example wildcats and army squad production wich then would slowly rise over a time of 4 - 8 weeks until it arrived at its increased production.

ORIGINAL: soeren01
Perhaps you could give the allied player the ability to shift production by allowing him to set some prioritys and perhaps set othe stuff on the backburner. So he could prioritize for example wildcats and army squad production wich then would slowly rise over a time of 4 - 8 weeks until it arrived at its increased production.

I agree that sounds good, but it is out of scope for AE.

Andrew

Totally not knowing what has been done in AE.
 
Is there any differentiation with naval bases which provide a port but not a legitimate invasion point.
 
to better explain, Wyndham, West Australia is about 40 miles up an estuary that is heavily tidal and flanked by mud & salt flats. Even the frontage at the port is lined by mangroves.
 
While this allows a port to be constructed, I cant see much in the way of beaches to allow an amphib invasion. I would suggest an uncotested landing could occur.
 
A lot of bases in the tropics would be like this (Palembang) which if replicated on the map would lower the number of options to the attacker and allow the defender to concentrate their defences.
 
 
Also, will the chain of islands about 60-100 miles south of Tokyo be represented. These appear capable of having landing fields which would allow the japanese to extend their ASW cover plus allow the Allied player to take and provide CAP cover to any invasions. They aren't big but appear to be good enough for a L2 base.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Totally not knowing what has been done in AE.

Is there any differentiation with naval bases which provide a port but not a legitimate invasion point.

to better explain, Wyndham, West Australia is about 40 miles up an estuary that is heavily tidal and flanked by mud & salt flats. Even the frontage at the port is lined by mangroves.

While this allows a port to be constructed, I cant see much in the way of beaches to allow an amphib invasion. I would suggest an uncotested landing could occur.

A lot of bases in the tropics would be like this (Palembang) which if replicated on the map would lower the number of options to the attacker and allow the defender to concentrate their defences.


Also, will the chain of islands about 60-100 miles south of Tokyo be represented. These appear capable of having landing fields which would allow the japanese to extend their ASW cover plus allow the Allied player to take and provide CAP cover to any invasions. They aren't big but appear to be good enough for a L2 base.

These sorts of things are important during planning for amphibious operations.

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Totally not knowing what has been done in AE.

Is there any differentiation with naval bases which provide a port but not a legitimate invasion point.

to better explain, Wyndham, West Australia is about 40 miles up an estuary that is heavily tidal and flanked by mud & salt flats. Even the frontage at the port is lined by mangroves.

While this allows a port to be constructed, I cant see much in the way of beaches to allow an amphib invasion. I would suggest an uncotested landing could occur.

A lot of bases in the tropics would be like this (Palembang) which if replicated on the map would lower the number of options to the attacker and allow the defender to concentrate their defences.


Also, will the chain of islands about 60-100 miles south of Tokyo be represented. These appear capable of having landing fields which would allow the japanese to extend their ASW cover plus allow the Allied player to take and provide CAP cover to any invasions. They aren't big but appear to be good enough for a L2 base.

AE does have the ability to prohibit invasions of selected coastal hexes, but it is an all or nothing choice. It isn't possible to prevent invasions but also allow landings if a base is empty. The main use of this feature is to prevent invasions of swamp hexes, but I haven't prohibited landings at hexes that contain bases because of the all or nothing choice.

Andrew

Andrew
even the Japanese do not have complete control over their production)

That's one of the major problems, it always seemed that production in WITP was half finished. I hope the player in AE has full control of Japanese aircraft production in AE. Either the player is in control or the computer, not both (the computer changing the players changes)! Rather than fixing this, we ended up with the ability to change aircraft type upgrades which just made things worst and even more unrealistic.

What's being done to address this?

Is anything being done with engine production? (eliminating the useless engine types)?

Malaria effect outside bases

There is a problem with current WitP where LCUs in the malaria zone but not in a base do not suffer the malaria effect. Will this be fixed for AE?

Thanks.

Are zocs going to be placed for all controlled hexes from game start so we don’t see weird retreat results? I hate having to run units all over the place placing my zoc in hexes just to assure I have zocs in my territory so my opponents units won’t retreat forward into my lines.

Jim

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Are zocs going to be placed for all controlled hexes from game start so we don’t see weird retreat results? I hate having to run units all over the place placing my zoc in hexes just to assure I have zocs in my territory so my opponents units won’t retreat forward into my lines.

Jim

Good one Jim. Fixing this would be great. Maybe there could be a 'starting ZOC' file or something for a scenario?

ORIGINAL: pad152

Andrew
even the Japanese do not have complete control over their production)

That's one of the major problems, it always seemed that production in WITP was half finished. I hope the player in AE has full control of Japanese aircraft production in AE. Either the player is in control or the computer, not both (the computer changing the players changes)! Rather than fixing this, we ended up with the ability to change aircraft type upgrades which just made things worst and even more unrealistic.

What's being done to address this?

Is anything being done with engine production? (eliminating the useless engine types)?

Giving the Japanese (or Allies) greater control over production is OTS for AE.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Malaria effect outside bases

There is a problem with current WitP where LCUs in the malaria zone but not in a base do not suffer the malaria effect. Will this be fixed for AE?

Thanks.

In AE, malaria is set per hex rather than per base, so this should be fixed for AE, but has yet to be tested.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Are zocs going to be placed for all controlled hexes from game start so we don’t see weird retreat results? I hate having to run units all over the place placing my zoc in hexes just to assure I have zocs in my territory so my opponents units won’t retreat forward into my lines.

Jim

ZOCs are changed in AE - they are temporary rather than permanent, which is as it should be (and is in every other game I have ever played). Therefore there is no setting of ZOCs at game start. What you describe is more properly described as "hex control", which would be defined at game start, be permanent, and control such things as supply paths and retreat preference, but this concept is not included in AE (the old WitP ZOC rules are an unfortunate combination of ZOC and hex control rules).

Andrew

Guys, please put this place in NW New Guinea on the AE map......just for prurient interest and because it is funny as Hell (I am easily amused). Just substitute this for Babo.

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Are zocs going to be placed for all controlled hexes from game start so we don’t see weird retreat results? I hate having to run units all over the place placing my zoc in hexes just to assure I have zocs in my territory so my opponents units won’t retreat forward into my lines.

Jim

ZOCs are changed in AE - they are temporary rather than permanent, which is as it should be (and is in every other game I have ever played). Therefore there is no setting of ZOCs at game start. What you describe is more properly described as "hex control", which would be defined at game start, be permanent, and control such things as supply paths and retreat preference, but this concept is not included in AE (the old WitP ZOC rules are an unfortunate combination of ZOC and hex control rules).

Andrew

I can speak to this...there is now hexside ZOC.

- A hexside is composed of two parts - one part for each hex that the hexside is between - picture the two sides of a door.

-If you are the only side in a hex you control all of the hexsides in your hex.

-If the enemy is an adjacent hex he will control the part of the hexside that is in his hex, and you will control the hexside in your hex - again think of hexsides like a door with two sides and you each control one side of the door.

-The last side to cross a hexside to enter a hex will control the hexside in that hex.

-You may only LEAVE (through movement or retreat) a hex through a hexside (side of a door) that you control.

-There are many implications to this - the old tactic of dropping off a small force behind an army engaged in combat, to "cut it off" no longer applies because the "cut-ff" Army can still move into the smaller forces hex because the "cutoff" Army would be leaving its hex across a hexside that it controls. Under existing WitP Rules this is impossible.

-Another instance - a paradrop will not have a retreat path until the paratroopers control the hex and thus the hexsides in the hex.

-Likewise -an invasion will not have a retreat path until the invasion takes the hex and controls the hexsides in the hex so they can leave the hex.

As Andrew said the ZOC's are not permanent and only exist so long as a unit is present in the hex.

I think that covers it except for one point/question.

If an invasion over the beach goes badly, the force should be able to attempt to embark over the beach for an evacuation, although it might be pretty bloody. Is this allowed?

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think that covers it except for one point/question.

If an invasion over the beach goes badly, the force should be able to attempt to embark over the beach for an evacuation, although it might be pretty bloody. Is this allowed?

Good question. Right now you have to wait for the next turn and manually load them back into the APs. And if only half unloaded in the first place, it dumps the second half on the beach anyway.

One would think that if the odds against are at or above a certain level, the Invasion would be repulsed, the unit would evacute with great loss of men and material, and the amphibious task force would withdraw home.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think that covers it except for one point/question.

If an invasion over the beach goes badly, the force should be able to attempt to embark over the beach for an evacuation, although it might be pretty bloody. Is this allowed?

Good question. Right now you have to wait for the next turn and manually load them back into the APs. And if only half unloaded in the first place, it dumps the second half on the beach anyway.

One would think that if the odds against are at or above a certain level, the Invasion would be repulsed, the unit would evacute with great loss of men and material, and the amphibious task force would withdraw home.

Can you guys name where that happened historically?

Closest I can think of is Dieppe....how many got out?