Matrix Games Forums

dwbradley,
 
If you look at the general discussion threads there are many examples of battles that appear to have been weighted one way or the other, or had some really odd outcomes.  It may just be the result of now being able to intercept in midocean (more intercepts=more combat=more varied outcomes), or it may be that the subroutine needs to be tweaked somewhat.

You should lead with a surface combat TF and follow with the amphib TF.

What happens if the amphib TF doesn't have enough speed?

The SCTF should wait on it.

Isn't the leading TF that defines the speed?

If the following TF is slower, it falls behind.

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


If the following TF is slower, it falls behind.

Both TFs will adjust speed, if possible. But none will stop and wait, so follow distance can not always be maintained when TFs have wildly different speeds. Also an issue when TFs are too far apart.

Very nice change. Thanks Don.

[left]As a reminder for those who are reporting "combat balance" issues. If you are playing against the AI with the "Very Hard" setting, per the manual: "Computer is given some logistical and combat advantages". So before we send the developers off on a wild goose chase, please include your "AI Difficulty" setting along with your report.[/left]

Thanks Don.

I don't know if this has been reported before, but in Scenario 6, the December 8 start, the CLs Achilles and Leander are commanded by ensigns.  The correct COs for these ships should be W E Parry for Achilles and S W Roskill for Leander.

Also, some of the Australian DDs were being refit at the start of the war.  Stuart was in the shipyard in Melbourne, Voyager was in Sydney, and Vendetta was in Singapore.  Voyager completed her refit in March 1942, Stuart finished in April 1942, and Vendetta was scheduled to complete in April 1942.  In the event, Vendetta had to be towed from Singapore to Melbourne, and didn't complete refitting until September 1942.

Voyager and Stuart start Scenario 6 with 10 and 15 points system damage, respectively, but that takes just a few days to repair, rather than the 4-5 months actually required.  They should have a lot more damage to start.  Vendetta is undamaged to start in the scenario; she should have about the same damage as Stuart.

One more thing, which is maybe less significant.  The scenario has all the US Asiatic Fleet submarines (except S-36 and S-39, which were at sea) in Manila.  Several of the submarines (Sturgeon, Pike, Shark, Tarpon, Pickerel, and S-38), along with the AS Otus, were actually in Mariveles Bay, on the Bataan penisula, and one sub, Porpoise, was at Olongapo, in Subic Bay, which would also be in the Bataan hex (or maybe the Clark Field hex).  Bataan has just a size 1(1) port in the scenario, but Mariveles and Olongapo were fairly significant ports, and it seems like Bataan's port size should be at least 3.  And of course, Subic Bay became a major USN base after the war, so there was clearly a lot more potential for development than in the game.

The Indian ship AMC Cornwallis (11173) (flower Q-boat) has no cargo capacity, is that correct?

ORIGINAL: msieving1

I don't know if this has been reported before, but in Scenario 6, the December 8 start, the CLs Achilles and Leander are commanded by ensigns.  The correct COs for these ships should be W E Parry for Achilles and S W Roskill for Leander.

Also, some of the Australian DDs were being refit at the start of the war.  Stuart was in the shipyard in Melbourne, Voyager was in Sydney, and Vendetta was in Singapore.  Voyager completed her refit in March 1942, Stuart finished in April 1942, and Vendetta was scheduled to complete in April 1942.  In the event, Vendetta had to be towed from Singapore to Melbourne, and didn't complete refitting until September 1942.

Voyager and Stuart start Scenario 6 with 10 and 15 points system damage, respectively, but that takes just a few days to repair, rather than the 4-5 months actually required.  They should have a lot more damage to start.  Vendetta is undamaged to start in the scenario; she should have about the same damage as Stuart.

One more thing, which is maybe less significant.  The scenario has all the US Asiatic Fleet submarines (except S-36 and S-39, which were at sea) in Manila.  Several of the submarines (Sturgeon, Pike, Shark, Tarpon, Pickerel, and S-38), along with the AS Otus, were actually in Mariveles Bay, on the Bataan penisula, and one sub, Porpoise, was at Olongapo, in Subic Bay, which would also be in the Bataan hex (or maybe the Clark Field hex).  Bataan has just a size 1(1) port in the scenario, but Mariveles and Olongapo were fairly significant ports, and it seems like Bataan's port size should be at least 3.  And of course, Subic Bay became a major USN base after the war, so there was clearly a lot more potential for development than in the game.

FYI - Subic Bay is considered part of the Clark Field hex. The "Subic Bay Defenses" LCU includes two 10" guns.

Guadalcanal scenario.

I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(]

ORIGINAL: Curty

Guadalcanal scenario.

I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(]

Are you sure you sank it? [:D]

It's probably Fog Of War working as designed.

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Curty

Guadalcanal scenario.

I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(]

Are you sure you sank it? [:D]

It's probably Fog Of War working as designed.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers[:-]

ORIGINAL: Curty

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Curty

Guadalcanal scenario.

I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(]

Are you sure you sank it? [:D]

It's probably Fog Of War working as designed.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers[:-]

Post a save, I'll take a look.

Occasionally you will find that a reported sunk ship has been identified as not being sunk. You can find these messages near the bottom of the Ops report.

ORIGINAL: Curty
I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(]

I've had this happen in testing. FOW in AE can drive you nuts if you are used to knowing things "for certain". First, the "combat report" isn't necessarily accurate. These are the same pilots that could report an oiler and a DD as a cruiser and a carrier..., and sank more "battleships" than either side ever had.

And now you can't get immediate confirmation from the intel screens. It changes as time permits more data to be gathered. The Allies will eventually get it right (code breaking)..., but I don't know if the Japanese player can ever be certain.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Curty

ORIGINAL: Iridium




Are you sure you sank it? [:D]

It's probably Fog Of War working as designed.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers[:-]

Post a save, I'll take a look.

On the way Don

ORIGINAL: Curty

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Curty




Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers[:-]

Post a save, I'll take a look.

On the way Don

So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill[&:]