Combined Historical Scenario-ALPHA- troubleshooting

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Before we go crazy with Hong Kong i would like to actually chart this. In my experience HK falls at about the correct date IF you use the correct amount of troops.

I would like to know from some of our alphas, what did the Japanese use in taking HK and what day did it fall.

Historically Japan used one triangle division, 1 engineer battalion, and 1 siege artillery battalion.
At Canton is a larger force however.

I am curious to here players reaction to the new Japanese OOB I did. The force at Canton especially is quite a bit different.

Mike

I'm still checking out the Allies! I'm not too familiar with the Japanese non naval OOB, as I've played only Allied since UV.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Before we go crazy with Hong Kong i would like to actually chart this. In my experience HK falls at about the correct date IF you use the correct amount of troops.

I would like to know from some of our alphas, what did the Japanese use in taking HK and what day did it fall.

Historically Japan used one triangle division, 1 engineer battalion, and 1 siege artillery battalion.
At Canton is a larger force however.

I am curious to here players reaction to the new Japanese OOB I did. The force at Canton especially is quite a bit different.

Mike

Historically the Japanese took Hong Kong using the 38th Division. The "Gin Drinker's" line on Kowloon was breeched early and the defenders fell back to the Island. Hong Kong itself fell on Christmas Day, 1942 (17 days).

With the Alpha the Japanese AI does use the 38th Division. I can not speak to the TOE values for the 38th but those for the Hong Kong garrison appeaar correct (perhaps a little high on CD guns). With the initial "Alpha" values, which I believe are the same as Scenario 15, Hong Kong always falls on the 2nd or 3rd day.

I've been experimenting and a Fort value of "55" for Hong Kong seems to work pretty well - Hong Kong falls on the 19th or 20th. Japanese engineers seem to reduce the fort value by about 5 per attack.

I am poised to set Hong Kong (base 421) to a fort value of 55. Comments?? Condemation??

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Before we go crazy with Hong Kong i would like to actually chart this. In my experience HK falls at about the correct date IF you use the correct amount of troops.

I would like to know from some of our alphas, what did the Japanese use in taking HK and what day did it fall.

Historically Japan used one triangle division, 1 engineer battalion, and 1 siege artillery battalion.
At Canton is a larger force however.

I am curious to here players reaction to the new Japanese OOB I did. The force at Canton especially is quite a bit different.

Mike

Historically the Japanese took Hong Kong using the 38th Division. The "Gin Drinker's" line on Kowloon was breeched early and the defenders fell back to the Island. Hong Kong itself fell on Christmas Day, 1942 (17 days).

With the Alpha the Japanese AI does use the 38th Division. I can not speak to the TOE values for the 38th but those for the Hong Kong garrison appeaar correct (perhaps a little high on CD guns). With the initial "Alpha" values, which I believe are the same as Scenario 15, Hong Kong always falls on the 2nd or 3rd day.

I've been experimenting and a Fort value of "55" for Hong Kong seems to work pretty well - Hong Kong falls on the 19th or 20th. Japanese engineers seem to reduce the fort value by about 5 per attack.

I am poised to set Hong Kong (base 421) to a fort value of 55. Comments?? Condemation??

Hey, if it works, why not? What about Bataan and Corregidor then?

[Don Bowen]

Hey, if it works, why not? What about Bataan and Corregidor then?

You know - I don't think I've run a game far enough for Bataan/Manila to fall since last year!

Don

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Hey, if it works, why not? What about Bataan and Corregidor then?

You know - I don't think I've run a game far enough for Bataan/Manila to fall since last year!

Don

In my stock scen 15 match vs Mogami, I lost Luzon within a month! BS land combat movement/ZOC/supply rules and massive committment by Mogami conspired against me even getting a chance to get settled.

[Don Bowen]

Here are the items that are currently under discussion for update:

1. Setting of Hong Kong Fort to "55"

2. Adding of Sys damage to ships at Pearl Harbor that were under overhaul (no flood damage for California!)

3. Change of arrival of 102nd Reserve Division to December 15th so it can arrive before Cagayan is taken.

4. Addition of a few floating dry docks - "Dewey" Dock in Manila for sure (pending icon).

5. Rename of Base 489 from "Ban Don" to "Ban Ron"

6. Gathering about a dozen US Merchants currently starting the war at India, New Zealand, Australia and place them at the Canal.

7. Raising supply on Negros Island to 200.

8. Inclusion of Soviet Fleet (investigation ongoing).

9. Setting of "Planning" numbers for several units (review needed)


Questions:

1. US Marine Transport Squadrons were designated "VMJ" thru 1943, then it was changed to "VMR". They are VMR in the Alpha and there is some possible confusion with the replenishment "VR" squadrons. Should we change them to "VMJ".

2. Possible inclusion of the US Naval District patrol squadrons. There were several - primarily at Pearl - and several saw action at Tulagi, around New Caledonia, and at Samoa. Equipped with Seagull/Kingfisher type aircraft.

3. Possible inclusion of Japanese Training Squadrons. These were in one or two previously released scenarios (by others) - should they be in ours?

4. Inclusion of the B-52 Stratofortress in 1941. OK - not really but I wanted to check and see if you were listening.


Don

[Bradley7735]

I am poised to set Hong Kong (base 421) to a fort value of 55. Comments?? Condemation??

Huh?? Aren't forts between 0 and 9? Are you talking prep or something else?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I am poised to set Hong Kong (base 421) to a fort value of 55. Comments?? Condemation??

Huh?? Aren't forts between 0 and 9? Are you talking prep or something else?

Nope - Forts go way up there. Seems to work OK except that fort reduction seems to be done a percentage of current value so a bigger number gets hacked down faster. Still - a number in the 50s works good for Hong Kong.

Don

[Bradley7735]

That's new to me. Construction of forts always stops at 9.

Are we talking about the same thing? Or have you guys changed forts with your mod?

Is this just something you can set with the starting OOB number? (IE, you can't construct forts higher than 9, but can set them higher with the initial start)

[Lemurs!]

If we include Japanese training sqds it should only be the advanced units flying combat aircraft. The basic units are subsumed into the training structure of the game.

Mike

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

That's new to me. Construction of forts always stops at 9.

Are we talking about the same thing? Or have you guys changed forts with your mod?

Is this just something you can set with the starting OOB number? (IE, you can't construct forts higher than 9, but can set them higher with the initial start)

You're right - not constructon but initial value, set with the editor. Forcing things a bit but seems to work. Nothing else gets Hong Kong anyway near historical surrender dates.

You may also notice that we have some "improper" unit suffixes that can not be set with the editor (Andrew figured that one out).

Don

[TheElf]

Yes, This was my next question, Nice segway Mike!

Should wo look at the Japanese OOB. Perhaps in the cases where HK fall searly the IJ Player is using an ahistorically stronger force?

What say you all?

[Lemurs!]

Well, those forces were available in Canton... they were not all used because of fears of a Chinese counter attack.

I have noticed a tendency of players to throw in everything but the kitchen sink into Hong Kong and then bemoan that the game is broken because it fell early.

Mike

[Don Bowen]

Should wo look at the Japanese OOB. Perhaps in the cases where HK fall searly the IJ Player is using an ahistorically stronger force?

I'm playing my test games against the Japanese AI and it is using the historically correct force (38th Division). Allied force also historically correct. Something in the game mechanics just has Hong Kong fall way too early. Not to worry, can be fixed.

[Don Bowen]

Something in the body field

[Bradley7735]

Shouldn't the durability be a little higher? Otherwise, small machine guns will sink her quickly. (not to mention one small bomb) I just assume that a drydock is pretty durable.

[Andrew Brown]

I went through the OOB changes for the 1.4 patch and I checked all of them vs. the combined mod, which I believe was based on a 1.3 version of scenario 15? Nearly everything was OK except for the following few minor things (the numbers are from the 1.4 release notes list:

12) Corrected class (0117) spelling from Tomodzuru to Tomozuru
13) Corrected class (0113) spelling from Ootori to Otori

The next two things MAY need correcting, but I am not sure, as I have little experience with editing weapons with the editor:

4) Corrected Nevada class 3/50 from all RS to 2 RS and 2 LS (Nevada
12/41 class)
14) Corrected Lexington CV (Class 237) listed as having 2 TRIPLE 5"/25
Mk 10 mounts on each side. Instead of 6 guns in triple turrets, they
need to be in single mounts. (Not sure about this one??)

The last one MAY need doing, but it may already be taken care of. Tankerace would probably know:

19) Corrected Allied BB Class Names: 172 Arkansas should be Wyoming...


Finally, I noticed that the Baltra Island base needs to be changed. Its initial values should be 0 for airfield and port (it was undeveloped in 1941).

[Tankerace]

Also note in the later Lexingtons (not sure class numbers at the moment) their 5"/38s on the RS and LS mounts are listed in twins. These should be singles, and I think 5"/25s.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Also note in the later Lexingtons (not sure class numbers at the moment) their 5"/38s on the RS and LS mounts are listed in twins. These should be singles, and I think 5"/25s.

We went through the Lexington class with some detail - it had a few errors and there's a post somewhere in one of our threads or perhaps the OOB items thread (with a picture, too). I think they are good in the alpha.

The original 5in armament was 12 single 5/25, three in each quadrant. While under repair in 1942 the 5/25 were replaced with single 5/38 on a 2-for-3 basis giving two 5/38 in each quadrant. At the same time four twin 5/38 were fitted, two each fore and aft of the island.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I went through the OOB changes for the 1.4 patch and I checked all of them vs. the combined mod, which I believe was based on a 1.3 version of scenario 15? Nearly everything was OK except for the following few minor things (the numbers are from the 1.4 release notes list:

12) Corrected class (0117) spelling from Tomodzuru to Tomozuru
13) Corrected class (0113) spelling from Ootori to Otori

This is my fault. My reference (Watts - Japanese Warships of World War II) uses the spelling Tomodzuru and Ootori and I changed them to this spelling. More than that, it's what I am used to. If you-all are sure it should be t'other way, I will change them back.

The next two things MAY need correcting, but I am not sure, as I have little experience with editing weapons with the editor:

4) Corrected Nevada class 3/50 from all RS to 2 RS and 2 LS (Nevada
12/41 class)

Good catch - fixed!

14) Corrected Lexington CV (Class 237) listed as having 2 TRIPLE 5"/25
Mk 10 mounts on each side. Instead of 6 guns in triple turrets, they
need to be in single mounts. (Not sure about this one??)

Already fixed (in the Alpha). Lexington was a bit of a mess but we got it cleaned up.

The last one MAY need doing, but it may already be taken care of. Tankerace would probably know:

19) Corrected Allied BB Class Names: 172 Arkansas should be Wyoming...

Tankerace and I went over this once before. The class was officially named Wyoming but, when Wyoming was reclassified as a training ship the battleship class was more frequently called Arkansas to avoid confusion. But it can be changed back - votes??

Finally, I noticed that the Baltra Island base needs to be changed. Its initial values should be 0 for airfield and port (it was undeveloped in 1941).

Fixed