In AE what positives will there be for Japan?

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Andy Mac
Posts: 12578
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: In AE what improvements for the Allies

Post by Andy Mac »

Convoys are variable are editor driven and are entirley at modder discretion
 
e.g. Convoy OS. 43 arrives Capetown 1st May 1943
 
20 Cargo Ships and 4 Tankers
 
It has 120,000 supply points and 72,000 fuel
 
Devices it has
18 x RAF Regt Squads (RAF Base forces recently had a TOE upgrade requiring RAF Regt Rifle Sections)
24 x 6 Pounder A/T Guns
24 x 25 Pounder Guns
12 x Commando/Para Sections
54 General Grant Tanks (the first shipment of Indian Grant Tanks arriving in theatre)
 
Andy
 
 
Andy Mac
Posts: 12578
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 8:08 pm
Location: Alexandria, Scotland

RE: In AE what improvements for the Allies

Post by Andy Mac »

 
 
Typically convoys etc mean we reduce the month by month replacement rate to compensate.
 
e.g. the monthly replacement rate for an Indian General Grant is 2 per month to reflect reconditioned units or the odd machine arriving from other stocks and they dont arrive until 3/43.
 
The vast majority arrive via the convoy system
 
 
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: In AE what improvements for the Allies

Post by spence »

Japanese get a benefit because their lighter TOE's use less supply.

Yet it was the Japanese who suffered massive losses of personnel to starvation and disease. It was the Japanese who rationed shells for their artillery. All this occurring at the point of the spear in the Solomons, New Guinea, and Burma from mid 1942 onwards.
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: In AE what improvements for the Allies

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: spence
Japanese get a benefit because their lighter TOE's use less supply.

Yet it was the Japanese who suffered massive losses of personnel to starvation and disease. It was the Japanese who rationed shells for their artillery. All this occurring at the point of the spear in the Solomons, New Guinea, and Burma from mid 1942 onwards.


Yep...while that lighter TO&E is sitting in the jungle in New Guinea...the Japanese are going to have to decide whether to use an xAK to transport supplies to the unit or transport resources to the HI.

In stock the Japanese were required to transport something in the order of 2.6 million resource points to the Home Islands in a given year...in AE they will need to transport somewhere in the neighborhood of 18-20 million resource points to the Home Islands.


But its not all bad the Japanese are much more efficient in packing men into freighters than the Allies are....and receive an unload bonus the first few months of the war.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
joey
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sat May 08, 2004 8:00 pm
Location: Johnstown, PA

RE: In AE what improvements for the Allies

Post by joey »

18 million resource points or supply troops? Tough decision: you lose either way.
User avatar
Chad Harrison
Posts: 1384
Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2003 9:07 pm
Location: Boise, ID - USA

RE: In AE what improvements for the Allies

Post by Chad Harrison »

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

It was this or have huge replacement rates for every allied squad type to allow for the required upgrades to happen in stock most US Units at the end of the war still have the 1st gen squads because they take so long to convert.

What it means is that the trained manpower of an USMC 41 Squad gets a few new toys and becomes a USMC 43 Squad and it means we can have more realistic (i.e. lower) squad replacement rates.

The trained manpower does not change its the small arms and squad level weapons they get that change

Andy

Thank you! Glad to see that that feature made the final cut. How about the malaria issue? (ie. large bases with large supply should have zero malaria effects on morale)
bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: In AE what improvements for the Allies

Post by bradfordkay »

Andy, I want to say that I love the convoyable devices system y'all have implemented in AE.

It brings the game closer to my dream Quartermaster in the Pacific game (I'd like to see all devices show up as cargo to be transported by ship or rail to the units or replacement depots, but I'll wager that I'm in the minority on that one).
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6429
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: In AE what improvements for the Allies

Post by JeffroK »

ORIGINAL: joey

I wonder how all of these modifications affect overall game play? I hope some sort of balance is maintained.

joey,

I dont think balance is intended, more like historical accuracy.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: In AE what improvements for the Allies

Post by Dili »

So a typical Division has about 1,400 Devices so thats 1 tonne per month per device if resting before replacements and disabled squad repair.
 
Hmm shouldnt that be driven by device weight? certainly an AT gun doesnt need same supply like a big heavy Howitzer or a Tank.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: In AE what improvements for the Allies

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: Dili
So a typical Division has about 1,400 Devices so thats 1 tonne per month per device if resting before replacements and disabled squad repair.

Hmm shouldnt that be driven by device weight? certainly an AT gun doesnt need same supply like a big heavy Howitzer or a Tank.

Since the game really doesn't define what a 'supply point' really is, it's hard to say. What exactly does 1 'supply point' represent? A ton of ammo? A ton of food? It's a bit too abstract in its current form, since supplies are supplies are supplies.


Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 8257
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

Ugumbugum

Post by jwilkerson »

The definition of "a supply point" seems to include the concept that it is one "ton" of cargo. Beyond that it would include virtually anything of use to military forces and also items of use by industry.

WITP Admiral's Edition - Project Lead
War In Spain - Project Lead
Xargun
Posts: 4396
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2004 11:34 pm
Location: Near Columbus, Ohio
Contact:

RE: Ugumbugum

Post by Xargun »

Are these 'convoys' sinkable ? If I happen to be raiding Ceylon with a CV TF and the convoy 'pops up' can I sink it too ? Or are they not on the map ?

Also, what happens if a convoy is supposed to dock at a base and the enemy has control of that base ?

Also, can you open a screen and see the arrival dates of these convoys ? Would be important if they are sinkable so you can make sure you have some fighters around to provide CAP. Or even important so you know when the next batch of equipment will show up for replacements.

Xargun
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Ugumbugum

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: Xargun

Are these 'convoys' sinkable ? If I happen to be raiding Ceylon with a CV TF and the convoy 'pops up' can I sink it too ? Or are they not on the map ?

Also, can you open a screen and see the arrival dates of these convoys ? Would be important if they are sinkable so you can make sure you have some fighters around to provide CAP. Or even important so you know when the next batch of equipment will show up for replacements.

Xargun


The convoys are abstract....more like land units that automagically disband a couple days after arriving. When they disband their component devices go their respective pools.


IIRC they do not arrive in Ceylon but places like Durban and Aden.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: In AE what positives will there be for Japan?

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: joey

I am in favor of most of the changes listed above for AE except for one. I do not see a need for the 40% increase in Allied suppy usage. Realistically the US was able to supply its bases in both the Pacfic and Atlantic theaters. To this day, I do not understand how they managed this, but they did. I am not sure what the 40% increase in suppy does for realism or for the game in general.


This is absolutely correct. What the Allies (especially the US) considered to be "minimal requirements", the Japanese would have called the "lap of luxury". The most striking single example of this I've ever come across is the list of "absolutely vital repairs" made to the Yorktown during her "all-hands, emergancy repair" prior to heading out to Midway. Among the items: "replacement of the ship's ice cream freezer". I doubt any Japanese ship even had an ice maker, let alone an ice cream freezer.
pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

RE: In AE what positives will there be for Japan?

Post by pad152 »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: joey

I am in favor of most of the changes listed above for AE except for one. I do not see a need for the 40% increase in Allied suppy usage. Realistically the US was able to supply its bases in both the Pacfic and Atlantic theaters. To this day, I do not understand how they managed this, but they did. I am not sure what the 40% increase in suppy does for realism or for the game in general.


This is absolutely correct. What the Allies (especially the US) considered to be "minimal requirements", the Japanese would have called the "lap of luxury". The most striking single example of this I've ever come across is the list of "absolutely vital repairs" made to the Yorktown during her "all-hands, emergancy repair" prior to heading out to Midway. Among the items: "replacement of the ship's ice cream freezer". I doubt any Japanese ship even had an ice maker, let alone an ice cream freezer.
quote:

ORIGINAL: joey

I am in favor of most of the changes listed above for AE except for one. I do not see a need for the 40% increase in Allied suppy usage. Realistically the US was able to supply its bases in both the Pacfic and Atlantic theaters. To this day, I do not understand how they managed this, but they did. I am not sure what the 40% increase in suppy does for realism or for the game in general.




This is absolutely correct. What the Allies (especially the US) considered to be "minimal requirements", the Japanese would have called the "lap of luxury". The most striking single example of this I've ever come across is the list of "absolutely vital repairs" made to the Yorktown during her "all-hands, emergancy repair" prior to heading out to Midway. Among the items: "replacement of the ship's ice cream freezer". I doubt any Japanese ship even had an ice maker, let alone an ice cream freezer.

The US always had and still does, have the longest tooth to tail ratio of any force on planet earth. In WWII it was about 15:1 (need fifteen guys for every trigger puller), in Vietnam it was about 30:1, today it's about 50:1. More likely 60:1 or 70:1 if you count all the contractors. So with 100,000 men, 20,000 pull triggers and 80,000 are there to support them and keep all the fun toys working!

Do the bad guys hiding out in Iraq get toilet paper, chewing gum, razors, skin cream, soap, gallons of bottled water, and about 45 other items per week? Not to mention food, guns, ammo, and things that go boom! An Navy F18 Hornet lands in Iraq and has a flat tire, the carrier flys in a team of mechanics, a security detail, and spare parts to repair and recovery the plane and crew. So what if it takes 50 people and $65,000 just to replace a tire, who cares your in the US Navy. [;)]

We really should sell aircraft carriers, M1 Tanks, F18's, million dollar a shot missiles and everything else to any country with the cash who wants it, that way, no one would be able to afford to fight the next war! [8|]




pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

RE: Ugumbugum

Post by pad152 »

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Xargun

Are these 'convoys' sinkable ? If I happen to be raiding Ceylon with a CV TF and the convoy 'pops up' can I sink it too ? Or are they not on the map ?

Also, can you open a screen and see the arrival dates of these convoys ? Would be important if they are sinkable so you can make sure you have some fighters around to provide CAP. Or even important so you know when the next batch of equipment will show up for replacements.

Xargun


The convoys are abstract....more like land units that automagically disband a couple days after arriving. When they disband their component devices go their respective pools.


IIRC they do not arrive in Ceylon but places like Durban and Aden.

I like the idea of reducing the never ending growing list of allied equipment (devices) but, I'm not sure I like the abstracted part! no chance to interfere with rear area supply lines! Mining enemy ports doesn't do much good if the convoys that arrive are abstracted! [8|] I would have like to have seen entry/exit hexes where convoys come and go!


User avatar
Blackhorse
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Eastern US

RE: Ugumbugum

Post by Blackhorse »

ORIGINAL: pad152
I like the idea of reducing the never ending growing list of allied equipment (devices) but, I'm not sure I like the abstracted part! no chance to interfere with rear area supply lines! Mining enemy ports doesn't do much good if the convoys that arrive are abstracted! [8|] I would have like to have seen entry/exit hexes where convoys come and go!

The devices may be abstracted, but the reinforcing units themselves, and supplies necessary to build/support the devices, still have to be shipped in-theater from Capetown and Aden. These convoys are vulnerable to subs, mines and raiders.

You will have the opportunity, as we used to say in the US Army, to "service a target-rich environment."
[8D]


WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Ugumbugum

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

ORIGINAL: pad152
I like the idea of reducing the never ending growing list of allied equipment (devices) but, I'm not sure I like the abstracted part! no chance to interfere with rear area supply lines! Mining enemy ports doesn't do much good if the convoys that arrive are abstracted! [8|] I would have like to have seen entry/exit hexes where convoys come and go!

The devices may be abstracted, but the reinforcing units themselves, and supplies necessary to build/support the devices, still have to be shipped in-theater from Capetown and Aden. These convoys are vulnerable to subs, mines and raiders.

You will have the opportunity, as we used to say in the US Army, to "service a target-rich environment."
[8D]




Its not as if Convoy XYZ automatically appears in Singapore or Karachi...the convoy appears in "Off-Map" boxes that the Japanese cannot enter...then the 'convoy' disbands and its devices go to the pools and its supply goes to the base....the supply then needs to be shipped into theater for the units to burn the supply to receive the replacements.

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”