NEW SCENS FEEDBACK

[Andrew Brown]

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.

Alexandria is not added to be a supply hub - that remains Cape Town - but is there for its availability for naval repair. The main reason for adding the Egyptian bases though, is to represent Suez as the location for reinforcements arriving from the Mediterranean, rather than Aden.

I understand some people do not want extra off-map bases added though - so a question: What is the preference amongst those interested in the new update?: Keep the old map or use the new map? Either way I can make an update of both the old and new maps available (as I have made my extended map available in the past), along with scenarios modified for both maps.

[Sardaukar]

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.

Alexandria is not added to be a supply hub - that remains Cape Town - but is there for its availability for naval repair. The main reason for adding the Egyptian bases though, is to represent Suez as the location for reinforcements arriving from the Mediterranean, rather than Aden.

I understand some people do not want extra off-map bases added though - so a question: What is the preference amongst those interested in the new update?: Keep the old map or use the new map? Either way I can make an update of both the old and new maps available (as I have made my extended map available in the past), along with scenarios modified for both maps.

One problem with new bases is that most map mods won't be compatible.

[Trugrit]

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.

Alexandria is not added to be a supply hub - that remains Cape Town - but is there for its availability for naval repair. The main reason for adding the Egyptian bases though, is to represent Suez as the location for reinforcements arriving from the Mediterranean, rather than Aden.

I understand some people do not want extra off-map bases added though - so a question: What is the preference amongst those interested in the new update?: Keep the old map or use the new map? Either way I can make an update of both the old and new maps available (as I have made my extended map available in the past), along with scenarios modified for both maps.

I’m good with the new map, it can work fine but it needs to be studied.

It is not just the off-map bases but there are a lot of new bases that were added
to the tactical map, by scenario, as well.

A hard look needs to be taken at what that does to supply, garrison requirements
and victory points.

Players can increase their victory points by expanding ports and airfields.

You don’t want to get into a situation where the Allied player can win
an auto victory by just expanding ports and airfields without fighting
The Japanese at all. Same for the Japanese.

There is no reason why you can’t have three maps…..you want to keep
the 26a and 26b versions with all the scenarios that come with them.
I don’t think anyone wants to scrap the map the 26a and 26b were built on.

Just leave the old map alone…..works fine with the 26a and 26b.
Don’t need to do anything with that.

Create a new map that makes the on map graphic changes to that map,
(without the new off map bases)….for players who want the new map
Bases without the new off map bases. Should be easy modify that one.

Keep the new map with the off map bases and let players decide which map
they want to use and which version of the game they want to run.

Then modify any scenarios as required for the new map versions.

[RangerJoe]

I am fine with the new map but Trugrit is correct about the Alled side for getting VPs for building them up so have them maxed out at their starting level.

The new map does open up the possibility of stockpiling supplies - if a player can actually have enough to stockpile - at Gibraltar for a push in SEAC.

[Trugrit]

I am fine with the new map but Trugrit is correct about the Alled side for getting VPs for building them up so have them maxed out at their starting level.

The new map does open up the possibility of stockpiling supplies - if a player can actually have enough to stockpile - at Gibraltar for a push in SEAC.

Just setting the off map bases to max airfield and port is not what I had in mind.

The Idea with the new off map bases is to allow for expansion of ports and airfields.
Then you re-balance the victory points to make that a strategic choice.

The Allied player must decide to either devote supplies to building up the off map
ports and airfields or to send those supplies on map to fight the Japanese.

But….the Allied player should not be able to win just by expanding bases and ports alone.

If the victory points are balanced right it can make for a more exciting game of
behind the scenes strategy

[Sardaukar]

Is the "new and exciting strategy" to click off-map base to expand port and airfield?

Sorry, could not resist!

[Trugrit]

Is the "new and exciting strategy" to click off-map base to expand port and airfield?

Sorry, could not resist!

It is not just supplies. There are new bases as well on the new map.

There are new bases in the Australian outback like Fenton.
If the victory points are adjusted it can be important.

As the allied player I want to increase my victory points by
expanding that airfield. I need engineers to do that and those
engineers are also needed to build airfields in the Solomon Islands.

Fenton 90.jpg (130.71 KiB) Viewed 1564 times

[RangerJoe]

Is the "new and exciting strategy" to click off-map base to expand port and airfield?

Sorry, could not resist!

It is not just supplies. There are new bases as well on the new map.

There are new bases in the Australian outback like Fenton.
If the victory points are adjusted it can be important.

As the allied player I want to increase my victory points by
expanding that airfield. I need engineers to do that and those
engineers are also needed to build airfields in the Solomon Islands.


Fenton 90.jpg

But with the Allied supplies so restricted now, it is hard to justify expanding any base that I don't need otherwise I will not be able to push 300k+ to almost 600k of supplies to the Chinese through Hong Kong in 1942 . . .

Even though I don't need the resources per se, I also have my cargo hold loaded with resources as well. The Allies flew Chinese Tungsten over the Hump to India, it was that important.

[RangerJoe]

Before I forget to do so, Thank YOU Andrew Brown for your continuing work on the game. Thank you for your requests for information and your feedback on what we find. It is better than the big silence or "It is coming" that I otherwise read.

[Trugrit]

Is the "new and exciting strategy" to click off-map base to expand port and airfield?

Sorry, could not resist!

It is not just supplies. There are new bases as well on the new map.

There are new bases in the Australian outback like Fenton.
If the victory points are adjusted it can be important.

As the allied player I want to increase my victory points by
expanding that airfield. I need engineers to do that and those
engineers are also needed to build airfields in the Solomon Islands.


Fenton 90.jpg

But with the Allied supplies so restricted now, it is hard to justify expanding any base that I don't need otherwise I will not be able to push 300k+ to almost 600k of supplies to the Chinese through Hong Kong in 1942 . . .

Even though I don't need the resources per se, I also have my cargo hold loaded with resources as well. The Allies flew Chinese Tungsten over the Hump to India, it was that important.

With all the new bases there are going to have to be adjustments made to the supplies as well.
Otherwise they may just bog down the way it is now.

Right now I can't recommend that anyone play the new beta. Especially the campaign games PBEM
as they may run into a problem down the long road.

This can all be fixed with time.

[Sardaukar]

Is the "new and exciting strategy" to click off-map base to expand port and airfield?

Sorry, could not resist!

It is not just supplies. There are new bases as well on the new map.

There are new bases in the Australian outback like Fenton.
If the victory points are adjusted it can be important.

As the allied player I want to increase my victory points by
expanding that airfield. I need engineers to do that and those
engineers are also needed to build airfields in the Solomon Islands.


Fenton 90.jpg

Fenton is in old version of map too. So, it's not new, though easy to miss as dot base.

[Trugrit]

Is the "new and exciting strategy" to click off-map base to expand port and airfield?

Sorry, could not resist!

It is not just supplies. There are new bases as well on the new map.

There are new bases in the Australian outback like Fenton.
If the victory points are adjusted it can be important.

As the allied player I want to increase my victory points by
expanding that airfield. I need engineers to do that and those
engineers are also needed to build airfields in the Solomon Islands.


Fenton 90.jpg

Fenton is in old version of map too. So, it's not new, though easy to miss as dot base.

You could be right….I can’t remember if Base build factors into auto victory.
Seems like base VP is added into the total right away.

Still a lot of new builds out there…..the Allies have a lot of Seabee units.
I use to be a Seabee and I would like to have duty in Australia.

airfield.jpg (197.6 KiB) Viewed 1510 times

Control of Base - Each base has a basic VP level for Allied ownership and one for Japanese ownership.
The final victory point value that is awarded to the controlling player at the end of the game is
figured by the following formula:

● Basic VP# x [(current size of port) + (current size of airfield x 2)]

The basic VP and final VP numbers for each side are displayed for each base when the
mouse cursor is placed over a base (the basic VP number value is in parenthesis).

This full amount of the final VP value is only scored at the end of the game if the
base has supplies at least equal to its needed supplies.

If supplies are lower than the required amount, the VP’s scored will be less than this maximum,
(the lower the supplies the lower the scored VP’s).
Bases with 0 supplies would score 25% of the full final points.

Example: Rabaul has a Basic Japanese VP level of 3.
Assuming the size of the airfield is 8, and the size of the port is 7, the Final VP level for Japanese
ownership of Rabaul is 3 x [ (7) + (8 x 2) ] or 69. As long as Rabaul had more than its supplies needed,
the Japanese player would score 69. If Rabaul’s supplies were only equal to 30% of its needs,
the Japanese player would score only 33 VP’s.

[Sardaukar]

Damn...that's lot of new bases.

Going to be difficult to balance those point-wise, to avoid that "victory by building".

[Yaab]

I like to browse this thread for nostalgia.

[Tanaka]

I like to browse this thread for nostalgia.

I've always thought you were the funniest guy on the WITPAE forums

[Yaab]

Thanks. I am just trying to keep the morale up!

[Tanaka]

Thanks. I am just trying to keep the morale up!

You certainly have kept up mine at times! Lol

[Yaab]

Scen001, beta patch v1

Not a bug per se.

Just recently I have noticed that the Chinese construction regiments have combat engineers in their TOE (4 squads). It has been so since the game launched. However, this creates a strange situation, when standard Chinese corps have zero combat engineers (only the few US-equipped corps have them), while combat engineers linger in construction units. Right now, if you want to reduce forts via combat engineers as the Chinese, you are forced to use construction regiments in assualts. Maybe those combat engineers in construction regimenst were meant to be actually support/infantry squads?

EDIT: I have checked USA and Soviet construction battalions. USA has pure construction units, Soviets have pure construction units plus mixed ones (eng+combat engineers), however the latter are always properly named as "Engr-Sapper" units. The Chinese ones are an outlier.

[Yaab]

Scen001, beta patch 1

It seems all Jap mountain gun battalions lack the small white TRIANGLE in their LCU icons. Mountain gun regiments have the white TRAINGLES. Thus, when you look at LCUs icons, a mountain gun battalion looks like a standard field arty battalions. It is misleading and makes browsing units a chore.

[BBfanboy]

In the game's stock versions, anti-tank guns have the triangle, not the mountain guns. Is that changed in this new 1127 Beta?