NEW SCENS FEEDBACK

[wernerpruckner]

Playing Scn 2 Allied vs AI

I like that there is a limited amount of supply in the start of the game - it slows it down nicely.
The same with the idea of Suez/Alexandria - also here the troop movement is now more realistic and it would be nice to see some sub action here (not a single Japanese sub entered the Indian Ocean)

My main problems are the data errors that are in the game:
for example
19BG /28BS just arrived a bit early in the game (June 1st 1942),
I also got the DE William C Cole in May 42.

[RangerJoe]

Yes, the limited supply is challenging. But for the Allies when Manila has more supplies on the 9th of May 1942 than San Francisco has, it just seems funny.

But with the build up of supplies in Cape Town from the new CD supply dumps, I guess that I won't have to send as many ships to the United Kingdom and the East Coast as I would usually do. I like to send the APs and AKs there until they get their assault upgrades so I don't accidentally lose them. With this supply situation now, there are more than enough xAPs and xAKs to do all of the heavy lifting.

If a developer asked me privately, I could suggest how to also slow down the supply build up plus getting "bonus" supplies available.

[wernerpruckner]

19BG /28BS just arrived a bit early in the game (June 1st 1942),

forgot to say, that they arrived with the Superfortress

[RangerJoe]

19BG /28BS just arrived a bit early in the game (June 1st 1942),

I see that as well, the B-29-25, maybe I should assign them to ASW duty at 1000 feet!

forgot to say, that they arrived with the Superfortress

[RangerJoe]

The DD Renshaw is in the game a tad bit too early. In June of 1942, I have her busy off of Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Renshaw_(DD-499)

I could inform someone on the team on how to slow down the initial blast of supplies in CONUS and Big Canada Land . . .

[RangerJoe]

The USS Phillips comes in too soon:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Philip_(DD-498)

[RangerJoe]

New scenario 2, beta testing. This Chinese base force has no Support squads but an extra set of 40 Infantry. The TOE does state 100 Support and 40 Infantry. Is this an error or does it need an upgrade to fix it.

[Yaab]

Is there any work being done on the beta update?

[Omat]

Hello

I wrote this in the beta patch thread. But I think this one is more correct

Some Data Question // suggestions: (I took scen 01) But I think this will be also an issue in other scenarios

Ships:
3280 Boise => Question: Should the ship have a withdrawdate 08.06.1942 // return 15.11.1942? (Was in the Mediterranean)

Ship Class:
679 Lexington => Wpn 10 20 mm => Looks wrong maybe left side => see ID678

1046 Sendai => Wpn17 25mm => Question is this right also front as Wpn 16? Or Facing rear?

1055 Katori => Wpn17 Type 21 Radar => Should be facing to ALL Sides

2174 Soya => Wpn 6 13,2mm => Should be facing to Left Sides

3229 Leander => Cptain Bevan, Robert Hesketh should command the ship (this leader has to be created)
https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4003.html

3230 Achilles => Leader 17167 Barnes,Hugh Merriman should command the ship
https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4001.html

2390 Kanawha => Wpn 7 SG SS Rdar => Should be facing to ALL Sides

2483 Manoora AMC => Wpn 7 .303 cal Lews => Should be facing to Left Sides

2555 Pres. Coolidge => Here all AA Guns should be checked 20mm and 0,5 in

2625 C2S Mt. Hood => Wpn 7 20mm => Should be facing to Left Sides4

2669 C Hamul => Wpn 7 20mm => Should be facing to Left Sides

2678 C1 Acontius => Wpn 5 20mm => Should be facing to Left Sides

2679 C1 Acontius => Wpn 5 20mm => Should be facing to Left Sides

2688 LST Type-II => Wpn 8 20mm => Should be facing to Left Sides

3101 Bathurst => Wpn 5 20mm => Should be facing to Right Sides ?

4983 S-47 => remove cpatain Hayler (was cpatain later the cpaitain of the USS Honolulu) (( James White Davis would be the correct one... but he is already appointed // other suggtestion would be Frank Edward Hayler, USN => Commanded the S-47 from 30. Sep 1942 till late 1944. But this leader has to be created.
See:
https://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/4842.html

Leaders:
9010 Hayler, Robert W. => Should be Rank 28 or Type 04 (was promoted 1944 to rear admiral) => problem: a leader with rank higher 28 and Type 05 will vanish ingame because of the code restriction

8689 Conolly, Richard L. => Only suggestion Would promote him to 29 rear admirla (he was promoted July 1942 maybe put his delay to this date)

9311 DuBose, Laurance => Should be Rank 28 or Type 04 => problem: a leader with rank higher 28 and Type 05 will vanish ingame because of the code restriction

9782 Fletcher Frank Jack => Fletcher, Frank Jack

10158 Ginder, Samuel Paul => Should be Rank 28 or Type 04 => problem: a leader with rank higher 28 and Type 05 will vanish ingame because of the code restriction

12359 => McMorris, Chas H. => Should be Type 4 => problem: a leader with rank higher 28 and Type 05 will vanish ingame because of the code restriction

Omat

[Moltrey]

I just don't understand why to break things that did work previously...

It's the nature of making changes to game code. Also, remember these volunteers haven't worked on this stuff since the last patch. A lot has happened since then so I am giving the guys a pretty long rope here.
While I wondered as everyone did at the changes to locations, etc. I am trying to be patient with the process. I don't think Joe and Co. will leave us hanging, it is just going to take the community help them work through issues.

[RangerJoe]

I just don't understand why to break things that did work previously...

It's the nature of making changes to game code. Also, remember these volunteers haven't worked on this stuff since the last patch. A lot has happened since then so I am giving the guys a pretty long rope here.
While I wondered as everyone did at the changes to locations, etc. I am trying to be patient with the process. I don't think Joe and Co. will leave us hanging, it is just going to take the community help them work through issues.

I believe that it was AndyMac that said he added some of the new bases, especially in Burma and possibly Malaya, to help the AI. I do believe Andrew Brown, the map maker, did other changes to more accurately reflect what it was like.

[Sardaukar]

Additional on-map bases I do understand.

Additional off-map bases, I don't. Those just add extra complexity that is IMHO not needed, since they are...well..off-map.

[Yaab]

Scen001, beta patch v1

Penhryn Island (Allied base, base id 1054) starts with 10 supplies. Since the scenario spawns an Allied unit there in late December 1941, the unit faces immediate starvation. Upping the starting supply on the island from 10 to 100 supplies would be enough to keep the unit alive until some xAK brings supplies to Penhryn Island from PH.

[BBfanboy]

Scen001, beta patch v1

Penhryn Island (Allied base, base id 1054) starts with 10 supplies. Since the scenario spawns an Allied unit there in late December 1941, the unit faces immediate starvation. Upping the starting supply on the island from 10 to 100 supplies would be enough to keep the unit alive until some xAK brings supplies to Penhryn Island from PH.

IIRC there is another unit that spawns a couple of months later at another island in SoPac (Bora Bora?) where there is no supply. I like to keep a few of those small Dutch transports (500/750) in the area to shuttle troops like that around.

[RangerJoe]

Scen001, beta patch v1

Penhryn Island (Allied base, base id 1054) starts with 10 supplies. Since the scenario spawns an Allied unit there in late December 1941, the unit faces immediate starvation. Upping the starting supply on the island from 10 to 100 supplies would be enough to keep the unit alive until some xAK brings supplies to Penhryn Island from PH.

IIRC there is another unit that spawns a couple of months later at another island in SoPac (Bora Bora?) where there is no supply. I like to keep a few of those small Dutch transports (500/750) in the area to shuttle troops like that around.

Yes, Bora Bora gets a couple of small units.

[Sardaukar]

I am pretty much against the new off-map bases and complicating their supply system.

It just does not add anything but extra complications.

Historically Allies (especially USA) did not have any problems with supply being available. Problem was to get it where it was needed. That is nicely already in game in form of e.g. tanker shortage in early game when it comes to West Coast etc.

Thus, "slowing down" the allied supply system by forcing player to concentrate shuffling supply between meaningless additional off-map bases is just time-consuming additional chore that adds absolutely nothing to game. It actually greatly benefits Japan, since it causes ahistorical problems for Allies to supply Australia and New Zealand (which was never problem since SUPPLY was plentiful available in e.g. West Coast, but SHIPS moving them were not (especially when it game to fuel).

So, I don't think those off-map changes add anything good, just complications and possibly unbalances the early game in favour of Japan.

[Shellshock]

I am pretty much against the new off-map bases and complicating their supply system.

Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I enjoy having the Land of the Pharaohs in the game.

[Sardaukar]

I am pretty much against the new off-map bases and complicating their supply system.

Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I enjoy having the Land of the Pharaohs in the game.

But ask yourself, what does it add to Indian Ocean/Pacific game?

Alexandria was never supply hub for those areas, not even after Mediterranean was opened for shipping. Before that, Alexandria was used to supply 8th Army, which is totally out of the game concept. It was supplied via Cape Town, which is already in game. And after Med was open for shipping, convoys would not stop to unload in Alexandria, but would pass straight to Suez Canal and to Indian Ocean.

So, historically, Alexandria etc. had nothing to do with Indian Ocean operations and/or supplying India etc.

[RangerJoe]

I am pretty much against the new off-map bases and complicating their supply system.

Different strokes for different folks I suppose. I enjoy having the Land of the Pharaohs in the game.

But ask yourself, what does it add to Indian Ocean/Pacific game?

Alexandria was never supply hub for those areas, not even after Mediterranean was opened for shipping. Before that, Alexandria was used to supply 8th Army, which is totally out of the game concept. It was supplied via Cape Town, which is already in game. And after Med was open for shipping, convoys would not stop to unload in Alexandria, but would pass straight to Suez Canal and to Indian Ocean.

So, historically, Alexandria etc. had nothing to do with Indian Ocean operations and/or supplying India etc.

Historically, the British 8th Army is where the Aussie units come from that now show up at the Suez base instead of Aden.

Australian Light AA unit with 3.7 inch guns.png (506.67 KiB) Viewed 1402 times

But there is another problem where an Australian Light AA unit has 3.7 inch cannons instead of the 40mm Bofors . . .

[Sardaukar]

And exactly what difference is on game in which off-map base units arrive if the travel time is same and it's in region... You still have to ship them to theatre of operations as before.

I am against complicating things unnecessarily. Which exactly what those new off-map bases do, without adding anything useful to gameplay. They just add more things that can go wrong, both for player and scenario designer. Adding "more moving parts" is not really beneficial, just "chrome".