Admiral's Edition General Thread

[BB57]

Beta testers, that is great. I take that to mean you guys are progressing in the right direction and the day we will see AAR's is getting closer.

Keep up the good work.

[Dixie]

At what point are Allied reinforcements 'cut off'  Are ships/units that were on their way but didn't arrive befor VJ-day included?  How about units which were earmarked for the Far East but never set off due to the end of the war (which may not arrive in Aug 1945)?

[The Gnome]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: USS America

Thanks, Joe!

First general question has been asked elsewhere while waiting for you to arrive late to the party. [;)]

Any higher screen resolutions available? The game looks awesome on my 20 inch flat panel, but is stuck in the relatively tiny 1024x768 window.

No, changing the resolution was an "Engine" change and this bordered on a "start over again" rewrite, so this got axed fairly on. Note that AE is "not" to be considered the sometimes mentioned "WITP_II" in the sense that WITP_II usually means a complete re-write. For AE we are sticking with the original WITP engine(which means "UI" in witp code speak) but just adding piles and piles of enhancements to the game code. Some of us still have the idea of doing a WITP_II one day, but wanted to first crawl (do some patches) then walk (do this enhancement add-on pack) then run (do WITP_II).

Sorry I missed this post before bringing up the UI. I had had the sad feeling that the interface was intermingled with the rules engine. If we could maybe get a the buttons upsized some maybe that will help out until WiTP II.

If you ever need any ideas for that feel free to ask, I L O V E UI design.

[DrewMatrix]

(Jumping back in after a bit of an absence)

In response to "How can you move the Dutch or PI troops a little without them leaving their own area" problem:

Can't this be solved with a movement rule?

Starting simply, make the hexside between Batavia and Teloekboeteng (bases across the straits in Java and Sumatra) a "ferry hex" and let DEI (or any other) units move from one base to the other with the appropriate delay and making it like a river crossing for combat.

Next level, let the bases in the DEI connect in some sort of a web. You couldn't go any base to any base but you could hop from island to island Palembang > Tobaoli > Kuching.

What you are doing is letting the Dutch (or anyone else) move selected short distances across water. Can the map/new hexside movement rules handle that fairly simply? You could "sneak past" an enemy that way, but only along a known web of movement. It might even make the enemy actually garrison his bases.

And the Dutch won't be able to evacuate to Karachi or Oz since the web doesn't extend out of the DEI.

If you want hand waving to explain it you are using "even smaller than barges" to get across.

Next level: Connect a lot of the Phillipines the same way.

You might connect Devonport (in Tasmania) and Melbourne.

Yes, you could cross from one island in the Phillipines to another without the need to marshall AKs and LSTs but on the other hand would you need those in many places on the map? Couldn't the PI units in '42 and the IJA units in 44 move a bit from island to island across short straits? They couldn't go hog wild. Just restrict the web to a few selected ports.

(and I am still playing and looking forward to the AE even though I haven't posted for a while)

[bradfordkay]

The downside to that idea, Beezle, is that it negates the need for shipping after the original landing. Offensives agaisnt these archipelagos would be much less expensive, and it alllows for an ahistoric ease of transport.

IRL, the Japanese lost several ships to aerial attack (and many of the soldiers aboard) trying to reinforce their troops on Leyte (from Luzon). With the ferry solution in place, this won't happen.

[DrewMatrix]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

The downside to that idea, Beezle, is that it negates the need for shipping after the original landing.

Shipping for reinforcement or shipping for supply? For reinforcement with other units you need to move another unit. To replace losses/for supply you need supplies on the other side of the strait.

Is it intrinsic to the map code that the "land supply oozing" (you still have that, right?) would go across the straits if land movement were possible across the straits? I.e. is the supply oozing a function of LCU movement points?

Remember this isn't Pearl to Midway supply. This is a little more than Hong Kong to Mainland. Supplies get into Hong Kong without using shipping to move them.

There are already small stretches of water (Singapore and Hong Kong, right?) that you can cross without in-game shipping. So limit it to nearby islands in the PI and DEI and not necessarily all of those.

[DrewMatrix]

(I bet you wish I'd go away for another couple of years <G>)

The game is an abstraction. You have to decide which you want to include and what you need to give up. You want to have some units limited to certain areas so the Dutch/Canadians/Australian home guard can't be used in an Allied Offensive too soon.

Australia and Canada and China and such are contiguous nets of land bases but the PI and DEI are archipelagoes. You would like to keep them in their respective archipelagoes but if you let them get on a ship the ship could go anywhere so each unit is stuck on the island where it starts.

Which is a bigger loss? Not being able to do air interdiction on troops crossing from Java to Sumatra or not letting the Dutch move between Java and Sumatra ?

Actually in the grand scale of the game the Dutch and Phillipine units shouldn't have much effect so keeping them from having much effect should be the main goal.

Which brings up interdiction of land movement (does this belong in the Land subforum?)

_Is_ their land movement interdiction? Narrow straits. railroad, highway or jungle trail a unit should take a more attrition moving from one hex to another than sitting in place if in reach of enemy air units. Is attrition affected by Air Balance or anything like that? If not is that something to consider and if so make the attrition for moving across narrow straits bad (maybe as bad as rail movement which should be pretty risky if the enemy has a positive air balance in the hex). The faster you move, the worse the attrition if in negative Air Balance.

[JeffroK]

It could be a good idea if limited to allowing DEI or PI units move around. But you also would get japanese or Americans laning at Davao and just steamroll through to Aparri.
&nbsp;
IMHO you should allow shipping to carry units of their own command to & from ports within their own command.
&nbsp;
Its up to the experts to code it!!!!

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

It could be a good idea if limited to allowing DEI or PI units move around. But you also would get japanese or Americans laning at Davao and just steamroll through to Aparri.

Indeed, which is why this is not a feasible approach, in my opinion. it eliminates the need to launch invasions, and use shipping, to get to the next connecting island.

If you could add code to the game to allow only "friendly" LCUs to make use of such connections it might work, but that isn't an option.

Andrew

[Dutch_slith]

The Dutch didn't move any units on a grand scale! The smaller Battalions had to guard the airfields and oil installations. The main force on Java should stay there, almost all of the Dutch in the NEI lived on Java. No Dutch Commander ever, would move his troops away from them. The Dutch decided to make their last stand at Bandoeng (and to a lesser extent at Soerabaja).

They did however evacuated a Battalion from Sumatra to Java, and moved a Battalion from Biliton to Java (with Sloet van de Beele; sunk by Japanese aircraft).

Moving Battalions around is possible (just pay the pp), but should not occur to frequently.

[DrewMatrix]

They did however evacuated a Battalion from Sumatra to Java, and moved a Battalion from Biliton to Java (with Sloet van de Beele; sunk by Japanese aircraft).

My reference says that was actually the Sloet van de _Beezle_.

I love dealing with odd units. Trying to make use of some AT unit or following the fortunes of a small detachment of one of the minor powers. But as I said, the most important thing is not to cause a problem with a larger aspect of the game just to have the fun of dealing with small corner of the action.

Oh well.

[mdiehl]

Any chance that the Allied base symbols will be standardized such that the Japanese player won't be able to cogit out the Allied command structure on the basis of the symbol on an Allied base?

[Andy Mac]

1st US Army is in, Commonwealth X Corps is in and the three returning Indian Divs (4th/8th and 10th) arrive at Aden at their historical return dates.

If you want to launch Olympic the historical forces will be available.

ORIGINAL: Dixie

At what point are Allied reinforcements 'cut off'  Are ships/units that were on their way but didn't arrive befor VJ-day included?  How about units which were earmarked for the Far East but never set off due to the end of the war (which may not arrive in Aug 1945)?

[Ron Saueracker]

What do people think about this idea? I wrote it in the Air thread but thought it might be cogent here as well.

IMO, AF damage models are too simplistic. No matter what size, 1-10, they are viewed as a single entity. I'd change it so that each numerical increment is a seperate entity (lvl 10 airfield has ten actual seperate airfields). As such, each lvl has to be knocked out, not just a single airfield that happens to have a size 10 capability. Added to this, the AF's levels do not get smacked from the highest to lowest, but can take damage simultaneously (ie Rabaul is a lvl 9 AF...after a B-17 strike the damage might look like this 1: 50% runway, 12% service; 2: 2% runway, 41% service) Knockout one level, it becomes a lvl 8 field until repaired, not a smouldering ruin as we have now.

This should make AFs much more resilient to both air and bombardment attacks.

[witpqs]

Here are my thoughts from that thread.
______________________________________



Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? ]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.

[The Gnome]

Should we discuss AI in this thread? Or is that not being touched in this version? Thanks!

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Here are my thoughts from that thread.
______________________________________



Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? ]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.

The actual base value should reflect base development. The potential base value should reflect maximum base size with balanced development (adequate dispersal and hardening of facilities). If the actual base value exceeds the potential base value, the additional facilities should be 'brittle'--expensive to add and maintain and easily damaged. The primary meaning should be the size of the air unit that can be supported, but the footprint of heavier aircraft should be greater. A bomber base usually needs fighter support, so the base size should reflect not just more aircraft but more types of aircraft.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Here are my thoughts from that thread.
______________________________________



Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? ]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.

The actual base value should reflect base development. The potential base value should reflect maximum base size with balanced development (adequate dispersal and hardening of facilities). If the actual base value exceeds the potential base value, the additional facilities should be 'brittle'--expensive to add and maintain and easily damaged. The primary meaning should be the size of the air unit that can be supported, but the footprint of heavier aircraft should be greater. A bomber base usually needs fighter support, so the base size should reflect not just more aircraft but more types of aircraft.

Somone on the DEV team once suggested removing the SPS of airbases and replacing it with a second value...the first value would be a representation of the sheer number of airfields in the hex and the second number would be a respresentation of the infrastructure of those fields...perhaps sometime in the future we will see such a system.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Somone on the DEV team once suggested removing the SPS of airbases and replacing it with a second value...the first value would be a representation of the sheer number of airfields in the hex and the second number would be a respresentation of the infrastructure of those fields...perhaps sometime in the future we will see such a system.

What is 'SPS'?

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: treespider

Somone on the DEV team once suggested removing the SPS of airbases and replacing it with a second value...the first value would be a representation of the sheer number of airfields in the hex and the second number would be a respresentation of the infrastructure of those fields...perhaps sometime in the future we will see such a system.

What is 'SPS'?

The Potential Size...when you look at an airfield you see its size represented as 1(3). The (3) is the SPS.