Matrix Games Forums

By the way, the ground units moved fine regardless of whether their Direction field said "E" (East) or not. So no fix needed there as far as I can tell.

Wow – lots of good ideas. With your permission I will plagiarize … er, make that base additional research on … your work.

So Don, what do you think of the following particular ideas from Pry's scenarios? Forgive me if you've already incorporated one or more of them; I couldn't tell from the various CHS threads I visited.

1. Most airgroups are chutai size. As I've already said, I was really surprised how much I like this in Pry's scenarios. It didn't seem like that much more work, and I tend to divide air units anyway.

2. Reduced cargo capacity for transports. Too early for me to say how this affects Pry's games, but I like the idea in principle. Anything to slow us down a bit.

3. Pry's changes to Japanese pilot training. I know this is a hot-button issue, but even with 25 a month and the new "Get Pilot" button, I'll still probably run out of trained pilots quickly. Gotta playtest Pry's games more to see.

I noticed there are no pilots in the editor of your scenario but this has no noticable effect in the game. What purpose do the pilots that exist in the editor of stock games play?

I'm waiting patiently and appreciatively for your correction upload. Although I haven't finished setting up the first turn of your alpha version I could tell that I liked the breakdown of airgroups into Chutai's. I'm hopeful reduced cargo capacity slows down the game. If you have created something that would satisfy you I'm sure it would satisfy me. I was thrilled with the very first version of this game....and get excited about every improvement.

I like to play Japanese against AI which leads to the question of the AI's ability to manage the smaller air groups, among other things. I follow Mogami's house rules in China....no outside force unless PP paid. No bombing resource/manpower. Meet all garrison requirements. Also no invasions out of recon range.

Enough chat...don't want to slow you down reading.

Grotius,
Don (and crew) have made all airgroups to the squadron level. I don't know for sure how small they made Japanese squadrons (I don't know if Daitai or Chutai is smaller), but I think they made small groups for them as well.

They have reduced cargo capacity across the board as well. I think they reduced them almost as much as Pry did. Theirs was done in two stages (90% at first then another 25%, I think)

I don't know what changes are being made to Japanese pilot replacement. Probably none as there aren't too many Japanese experts in their crew.

bc

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Grotius,
Don (and crew) have made all airgroups to the squadron level. I don't know for sure how small they made Japanese squadrons (I don't know if Daitai or Chutai is smaller), but I think they made small groups for them as well.

They have reduced cargo capacity across the board as well. I think they reduced them almost as much as Pry did. Theirs was done in two stages (90% at first then another 25%, I think)

I don't know what changes are being made to Japanese pilot replacement. Probably none as there aren't too many Japanese experts in their crew.

bc

CHS has changed only the Allied airgroups to squadrons - due largely to the limit on divided groups that Pry mentioned. Doing the same for the Japanese is on the "ain't got to yet" list.

Also we did indeed reduce capacities - a little more on AK, a little less on AP. We have also added many new ships, giving a net reduction in total capacity compared to Scenario 15 but probably leaving total capacity somewhat higher than Pry's Scenario 33.

Pry is very knowledgeable and we are watching for comments on the results of his reductions and considering additional reductions for CHS.

Paul - sorry for cluttering up your thread.

Don, Bradley7735, Dukemourn -- thanks for your comments. Don, I'm glad to hear you'll be monitoring how these scenarios go, because I plan to keep playing Pry's to see how the small chutai (which, yes, are the smallest Japanese squadrons) and higher IJN replacement pilot pool work out.

Paul - sorry for cluttering up your thread.

No no, my fault. I now return you to your regularly-scheduled discussion of Pry's scenarios.

BTW, Pry, I assume you'll post here when the new version of your scenarios is available? In the meantime, I've just left my newfound Tojo chutai to hang out at their bases and drink sake. [:)]

I take it when the new scenario is uploaded with corrected Tojos, we'll need a restart?

My game is still going well (up to 25th Dec 41) Things are definitely going slower and I like it that way. The slower Japanese advance makes it more tempting for me to re-arrange my defenses somewhat - yet the lower capacity of transports means I risk more ships by doing so. From a gameplay point of view it's an interesting dilemma.

ORIGINAL: Dukemourn

I noticed there are no pilots in the editor of your scenario but this has no noticable effect in the game. What purpose do the pilots that exist in the editor of stock games play?

The pilots specified in the pilots data base are assigned to specific groups, for instance Sakai and Thatch, I just removed them all and let the computer assign the names after doing a total rewrite of the aircraft data base I did not feel up to also having to do the pilots to get them back to the right groups.

I'm waiting patiently and appreciatively for your correction upload.

New files are uploaded to fix the aircraft, just down load the scenario from the 1st page again and over write the files. Fix requires a restart

Although I haven't finished setting up the first turn of your alpha version I could tell that I liked the breakdown of airgroups into Chutai's. I'm hopeful reduced cargo capacity slows down the game. If you have created something that would satisfy you I'm sure it would satisfy me. I was thrilled with the very first version of this game....and get excited about every improvement.

I like to play Japanese against AI which leads to the question of the AI's ability to manage the smaller air groups, among other things. I follow Mogami's house rules in China....no outside force unless PP paid. No bombing resource/manpower. Meet all garrison requirements. Also no invasions out of recon range.

Enough chat...don't want to slow you down reading.

I like the way it plays but have only made it up to 9/42 twice before having to restart because I changed things... All feed back is very welcome..

ORIGINAL: Banquet

I take it when the new scenario is uploaded with corrected Tojos, we'll need a restart?

My game is still going well (up to 25th Dec 41) Things are definitely going slower and I like it that way. The slower Japanese advance makes it more tempting for me to re-arrange my defenses somewhat - yet the lower capacity of transports means I risk more ships by doing so. From a gameplay point of view it's an interesting dilemma.

Correct, in one test game I was playing the Allied side and things were going slow enough that I actually considered reinforcing both Malaya and the Philippines and make a knock down drag out fight of it... However new changes required a restart before I had time to make up my mind about that. [:D]

Just re-downloaded scenarios and saw 9 Tojo's in 3 chutai (47TH) at canton? (andrew brown scenario 34 and 35) Edit: Nevermind i guess they are there in the stock scenarios as well...

ORIGINAL: treespider

Just re-downloaded scenarios and saw 9 Tojo's in 3 chutai (47TH) at canton? (andrew brown scenario 34 and 35) Edit: Nevermind i guess they are there in the stock scenarios as well...

Correct theose 3 Chutai's are supposed to be Tojo's

I have uploaded updated scenario fies this morning, I added 6 new bases to the AB Map scenarios and moved the Japanese 21st Division back to Hanoi in all 6, This is one of these cases I often mention where Historical reality and the game do not mix because the players have total intel on where every unit is located before they ever run turn 1.

I see Allied players rushing the Chinese into Indo-China on turn 1 if the 21st is not there to prevent that move.

ORIGINAL: pry

I see Allied players rushing the Chinese into Indo-China on turn 1 if the 21st is not there to prevent that move.

Hi,

maybe there is another solution for this problem (along with certain OOB clarifications I've compiled):

I've noticed that both 33rd and 55th Divisions begin at full strength in Scen. 15/16. But historically both divisions were understrength. The 144th Regiment of 55th Division made up the major part of the South Seas Detachment (the division's other regiments being 112th and 143rd Regiment; some sources claim that 114th Regiment also belonged to the division making it a "square" formation, but 114th Regiment did arrive later with 18th (square) Division in Burma). The 33rd Division had only its 214th and 215th Regiments on Dec 7th 1941. Its 213th Regiment was, according to Rothwell, "left behind in China due to lack of shipping" and rejoined the division at the end of March 1942 in Burma. The 33rd Division had been at Shanghai before (I always wondered why the Japanese needed nearly 4 months to have this regiment rejoin its parent division), but information about its location on Dec 7th remains very confusing. I think the 213th Rgt would be the perfect choice as a garrison force at Hanoi: (1) it may have been in Indochina ; seems plausible to me that it moved to Indochina with the rest but stayed behind as a garrison, (2) it would free up 21st Division for its historic tasks, (3) it would weaken the forces that made the first thrust into Burma by reducing both 33rd and 55th Divisions [that is, by giving them only their historical strength].

Consequently one should create 213th Rgt as independent force (IJA Rgt with 24x 75mm mountain guns added to its starting strength but not its TOE), reduce the starting strength of 33rd Division by one rgt and 24 guns [but not the TOE, it should be up to the Japanese player if he wants to bring the division to full strength by receiving reinforcements, but not too easy in Burma or wherever he sends it] and further reducing the TOE to historical size [33rd Division had no Recce or Cav rgt.; later it added a platoon of 4 Type 95 Lt. Tanks from 2nd Tank Regiment]. And of course reduce 55th Division's strength by one Rgt. (144th); this division had a divisional Cavalry Rgt.

Just a (somewhat lengthy) proposal.

K

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: treespider

Just re-downloaded scenarios and saw 9 Tojo's in 3 chutai (47TH) at canton? (andrew brown scenario 34 and 35) Edit: Nevermind i guess they are there in the stock scenarios as well...

Correct theose 3 Chutai's are supposed to be Tojo's

I have uploaded updated scenario fies this morning, I added 6 new bases to the AB Map scenarios and moved the Japanese 21st Division back to Hanoi in all 6, This is one of these cases I often mention where Historical reality and the game do not mix because the players have total intel on where every unit is located before they ever run turn 1.

I see Allied players rushing the Chinese into Indo-China on turn 1 if the 21st is not there to prevent that move.

Also Lemurs has suggested adding some of the "active militia" Battalions to the on map garrison in Indo-China to permit "historical" deployment of 21st division ... we will be testing that in a few days hopefully.

I just loaded up new scenario 31, and I have another question for you, pry. In this scenario, Tokyo is worth 240 points to the Japanese and 15,000 to the Allies; whereas in your scenario 16, Tokyo is worth 570 to Japan; and in stock scenario 15, Tokyo is worth 30 to Japan. I know you use Tokyo to reflect Japanese victory points gained at Pearl Harbor. Why the difference in points between scenario 16 and 31?

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I just loaded up new scenario 31, and I have another question for you, pry. In this scenario, Tokyo is worth 240 points to the Japanese and 15,000 to the Allies; whereas in your scenario 16, Tokyo is worth 570 to Japan; and in stock scenario 15, Tokyo is worth 30 to Japan. I know you use Tokyo to reflect Japanese victory points gained at Pearl Harbor. Why the difference in points between scenario 16 and 31?

I have not added the points for the Arizona and Oklahoma in 31 to Tokyo, Gave them 99/99/99 damage trying to get them to sink on turn 1 (Dont always happen) so players can see that they indeed sunk and get the points. I took alot of grief over this issue in scenario 16... Folks PO'd cause they could not see the 2 sunk... Trying this and hope it works...

I like it. Because if they don't always sink, then one can always think that maybe the old Okie could have been salvaged.

Excellent, I like it too. I've been playing as Japan vs the AI, so I haven't seen anything sink what with Fog of War and all. But I like this idea: in a December 8 scenario, the Arizona should show up on the Sunk Ships list.

Now the only question is whether they will sink! Time for me to test that.

More feedback on Scenario 31; I'm playing as Japan against the AI, Very Hard setting:

1. If I try to move the 18th Division from Canton to Hong Kong, it tells me that it can't move from one enemy ZOC to another. The 18th seems to think it's in Malaya or something! Does it think it's in an Allied ZOC? I don't see any A in the Canton hex.

2. Likewise, the 33rd infantry, now in Shanghai, seems to think it is ALSO in Malaya. It's got movement orders to Bangkok, which is about 400 million hexes away. For now, I set it to sit and await transports.

3. The landings at Khota Baru and Songhkia both include AKs (not just APs) transporting troops. I actually like this; it removes one of my complaints about the stock scenario 15, in which it takes forever to unload any supply at those places because APs unload supply so much slower than AKs. Just curious what the rationale for the change is -- if indeed it is a change. But so far I like it.

4. Along the same lines, I'm generally finding the transport limitations make a BIG difference in Japan's play. I think I like it, even though I tend to play Japan these days; it feels like more of a "big deal" to choose an invasion site now because transports are far more limited. Still, it may be too big a slowdown when coupled with the relocation of major units like the 33rd and 18th, but it's still way too early to tell. My playstyle is to pick up ground units in one turn by designating 3 or 4x the necessary number of APs: 80000 for 20000 load unit, for example. That way they unload and load fast. Well, I can still do that, but it means making more round trips. So for someone like me, this definitely is slowing things down big time. I'm conducting two or three landings on Luzon, not five or six.

5. Many air units have fatigue around 14 or 15. As designed?

6. No damaged air units at all in Japan's starting OOB. As designed? Not that I mind.

7. I assume Singapore and Clark haven't been bombed yet; I see no damage there. Do we get the first-turn surprise bonuses for bombing them on the December 8 turn?

ORIGINAL: Grotius

More feedback on Scenario 31; I'm playing as Japan against the AI, Very Hard setting:

1. If I try to move the 18th Division from Canton to Hong Kong, it tells me that it can't move from one enemy ZOC to another. The 18th seems to think it's in Malaya or something! Does it think it's in an Allied ZOC? I don't see any A in the Canton hex.

Dont click on the flag icon at HK, click somewhere in the hex and the 18th will get march orders if you click on flag you get the ZOC message...

2. Likewise, the 33rd infantry, now in Shanghai, seems to think it is ALSO in Malaya. It's got movement orders to Bangkok, which is about 400 million hexes away. For now, I set it to sit and await transports.

Error will fix

3. The landings at Khota Baru and Songhkia both include AKs (not just APs) transporting troops. I actually like this; it removes one of my complaints about the stock scenario 15, in which it takes forever to unload any supply at those places because APs unload supply so much slower than AKs. Just curious what the rationale for the change is -- if indeed it is a change. But so far I like it.

stock game also has AK's in invasion forces so no real change, I did add a few more ships to the TF

4. Along the same lines, I'm generally finding the transport limitations make a BIG difference in Japan's play. I think I like it, even though I tend to play Japan these days; it feels like more of a "big deal" to choose an invasion site now because transports are far more limited. Still, it may be too big a slowdown when coupled with the relocation of major units like the 33rd and 18th, but it's still way too early to tell. My playstyle is to pick up ground units in one turn by designating 3 or 4x the necessary number of APs: 80000 for 20000 load unit, for example. That way they unload and load fast. Well, I can still do that, but it means making more round trips. So for someone like me, this definitely is slowing things down big time. I'm conducting two or three landings on Luzon, not five or six.

I generally load troops only in TF with 25K for a 20K unit, then follow up with a TF loaded with supply

5. Many air units have fatigue around 14 or 15. As designed?

This comes from the game engine, air units always start with some fatigue on scenario turn 1 or turn unit arrives no way around that.

6. No damaged air units at all in Japan's starting OOB. As designed? Not that I mind.

Had them damaged in previous versions I need to take a look and see what happened

7. I assume Singapore and Clark haven't been bombed yet; I see no damage there. Do we get the first-turn surprise bonuses for bombing them on the December 8 turn?

Yes they are damaged, Japanese player should not be able to see that on 12/8 you need to do some recon 1st to start getting estimate of damage to bases.

Players should never use the historical 1st turn or 1st turn suprise in the 12/8 start

Note... I am time crunched right now, big event at work that will keep me very busy thru Saturday (Annual vendor show and customer BBQ) plus as if I needed anything else to happen one of my interent servers (The one I have Navsource.org on) is having major problems that require urgent attention...