Post Map and OOB Comments Here

[Belphegor]

It is Songkhlia in the reports... Songkhla on the map...

[pasternakski]

In both cases, it should be "songhklia."

[JohnK]

Well,

I'd call the game potentially extending to March 1946, but devoid of any Allied Aircraft beyond the F4U-1D, P51, etc. in terms of advancement, an "OOB error."

Much of the high end of the Japanese plane set is comprised of aircraft that arrived VERY late and in tiny numbers.....but the F4U-4, which DID see combat, is omitted.

I'm not talking about all sorts of jets and such being avaliable and turning this into some sort of fantasy Secret Weapons of the Luftwaffe in the Pacific, I'm talking more about the F4U-4 (a MASSIVE upgrade in engine power to the Corsair), the P-47N, and yes, the Bearcat, etc.

Unfortunately there's no room to add any Allied carrier capable aircraft without deleting some that already exist.

Once the game can potentially last 6 months beyond the actual war, you're getting into "fantasy" whether you like it or not....and the US wasn't going to fight those 6 months with the identical aircraft it had in August 1945.

[ycwang]

The base between Taipei and Tainan in Formosa, "Taichu", is confusing. There are two big cities between Taipei and Tainan, one called "Hsinchu" and another "Taichung". I guess the correct one should be Hsinchu judging from the location of it on the map. I live in Taiwan so my guess should have some merits.
The base above Hong Kong, Canton, is misleading, too. Canton is the name of a province, not a city. The name of that city should be called Kwangchow (spelling not sure, it's a Chinese name after all) .

[TheElf]

Where is Lt. Gen Tomoyuki Yamashita? He commanded the Japanese 25th Army(MAlaya Attack Force) during the Malaya campaign. I could not find him in any of the Malaya Attack force LCU's or HQ's, nor the 5th or 18th division commanders, General Takuro Matsui and Maj. Gen. Renya Mutaguchi respectively.

[akbrown]

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Yeah there are problems with the Aust map but all in all in was a good compromise. The aussie testers even had to push to get Alice Springs added. As Jcar has stated, the current map does not effect the game play.

Out of interest, what were the different viewpoints that eventually ended in compromise?

I am not sure if the Australian map innacuracies won't affect gameplay. I would have thought that there would be a big difference between Darwin being connected by rail and Darwin not being connected by rail (the actual situation). That is a pretty big departure from reality that could affect the defence of Australia quite a bit.

Apart from that there is the aesthetic (sp?) problem of the railway lines and roads being drawn in the wrong places. Maybe it is just me but it looks very odd, especially for a game that is a historical simulation.

One other thing I thought of - there sould be some type of road between the two bases in Tasmania (yeah - I don't expect THAT would affect gameplay).

[Lemurs!]

Hi all,

The Japanese transport aircraft are all screwed up.
The 'Mc-21' never existed; the Mc-20 was a Dai Nippon airliner version of the Ki-21 Sally that was not used by the military. The L4M1 was the navy's version of the Sally Transport while the Ki-57 Topsy is the armies version.

The Ki-34 Thora and the L1N1 are the same aircraft.
There are no L2D Tabbys even though that was the largest produced transport for Japan. Does Douglas aviation have a patent on the plane that says Japan cannot use it in a historical game? We have been talking about this since UV days and it still fell through the cracks.

There were no air transport units equipped with the Ki-54 at game start. The plane was used as a bomber trainer till '43 when they started using a new model as a light liason transport. I am not sure the plane should be represented at all as it's services are mostly outside the scope of this game.

Mike

[Brady]

"Much of the high end of the Japanese plane set is comprised of aircraft that arrived VERY late and in tiny numbers.....but the F4U-4, which DID see combat, is omitted"


It had 9 kills for the entire war and was only operational at Okinawa, and then only at the end, thats 9 kills for all F4U-4's during all of WW2, or so says my Americas 100,000 by Dean.

..............................

PT's: Last night While transefering some PT's across a long streach of ocean in a Convoy with a Tender, they were atacked by a Japanese sub, the PT' depth charged the sub. I have never sean evadance of PT's carrying torps and Depth charges at the same time, is this an over sight? Also I was prety suprised that since No ship in the TF had any sonar waht so ever that they managed to sink the sub.

[mccavage]

US ships that would have been available by 1946 and in a variable arrival game could be useful in 45.

CV Midway was completed on September 9, 1945
CV Rooseveldt (renamed from Coral Sea which became the third unit in class) completed on october 27, 1945

[JohnK]

Addu Atoll is missing from the map.

Kind of odd to have the base of the Far Eastern Fleet when the Kido Butai was operating in the Indian Ocean missing completely.

[sven6345789]

a) PoW all turrets pointing forward (actually affects all BB's of the King George class)

b) 2. Marine Division available in 1941?

c)according to another poster->upgrades for british carriers are not able to launch planes

[Brady]

How Come Portland has no Port Capacity? It was a Huge port on the west Coast during the war it and Vancover are whear the Kaiser yards were, which as well know produced Tons of Liberty Ships, even CVE's, ect...Asoria was also a port so It would realy qualify or shuld as a base hex, what with the Forts on eiter side of the Columbia their as well, their was even an airbase their.

Why No Blimps in the game as well?

[sven6345789]

just played the Manchuria scenario for two turns.

The Russians got 13 MSW. That is nice, but they don't do any good at CHITA!!!!, right in the middle of siberian wasteland.

[thebeis]

Hello all,
Just a possible error.
In Scenario 2, Unit 1891, the 121st IJA Base Force, has Weapons slots 4 & 5 as Type 252 "Support". All the other IJA Base Forces have Slot 4 as Aviation Support and Slot 5 as Support.

For game play this affects Phenom Phen(sp?). Not any, or enough aviation support.

Thanks for the wonderful game!

Thebeis

[Iron Duke]

Hi

b. According to 'Rottman-US marine corps ww2 order of battle' - Dec 41 2nd Mar. Div on west coast in defensive positions between Oceanside and Mexican border minus 6th marines in Greenland and 2nd Engineers in Hawaii

[jrcar]

In 1941 Darwin was connected by rail to Birdum. From there road was used to Alice Springs, which had rail to Port Augusta. So that part of the map is ok.... the rest of the roads/rail are very wrong, ie no rail from Darwin to Brisbane ( rail ended at Longreach). No rail from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie. rail direct from Kalgoorlie to Perth. Rail should go from Sydney to above Canberra and there to Melbourne. There is no rail from Sydney to Melbourne near the coast.

Actually I'm very disapointed in it, considering it was flagged in the Alpha screenshots and I offered to do the research for it.


Cheers

Rob

ORIGINAL: akbrown

ORIGINAL: Raverdave

Yeah there are problems with the Aust map but all in all in was a good compromise. The aussie testers even had to push to get Alice Springs added. As Jcar has stated, the current map does not effect the game play.

Out of interest, what were the different viewpoints that eventually ended in compromise?

I am not sure if the Australian map innacuracies won't affect gameplay. I would have thought that there would be a big difference between Darwin being connected by rail and Darwin not being connected by rail (the actual situation). That is a pretty big departure from reality that could affect the defence of Australia quite a bit.

Apart from that there is the aesthetic (sp?) problem of the railway lines and roads being drawn in the wrong places. Maybe it is just me but it looks very odd, especially for a game that is a historical simulation.

One other thing I thought of - there sould be some type of road between the two bases in Tasmania (yeah - I don't expect THAT would affect gameplay).

[Raverdave]

I hope this will be addressed in a later patch.

[Knavey]

The SS Narwhal is a little undergunned.

The Narwhal should have 4 MORE! torpedo tubes than is actually listed.

"Not readily visible on NARWHAL were the "deck-firing" torpedo tubes, also carried on 8 other U.S. submarines built between 1900 and 1936. NARWHAL was equipped with only 6 submerged tubes but also carried 4 pressure-proof surface-only tubes in the superstructure half-deck amidships. Adjacent to each was a storage tube to provide one reload. One-third of NARWHAL's torpedoes were carried topside." - Narwhal Description

She actually had a pretty impressive war record and I am sure those tubes contributed to it.

[Belphegor]

Scenario 15, a couple of nitpicks

Ship 637 ... is it really the Bisan Baru (s/b Maru?)
Ship 644 ... Maru not capitalized

[Nomad]

In Marianas senario, all of the Allied LSTs have 3 40mm bofers with ammo set to 0. Replenishment does not fix it.

Same senario, the LSTs have 20mm Obers. 2 RS and 2 RS, none on LS.

USN AE have 2000 ACCapacity( super carriers? [:D] )