Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


There is an on/off control for the mouseover. Some folks like it, some don't.

Gotcha! Thanks much for your time and trouble!

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

I'd like for allied squads in the pools to upgrade over time as well. At the moment it is possible to upgrade squads in the front line with the latest small arms, but not to do the same to troops sitting in a safe rear are base.

You sure about that, Smeulders? That would multiply the production of squads. Say that you build 100 Inf Sqd (43) per month, so you're adding so many to the pool; if you add to that upgrades from pool Inf Sqd (39), you'll get way more than 100 squads per month...

Cheers!
fbs

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

I'd like for allied squads in the pools to upgrade over time as well. At the moment it is possible to upgrade squads in the front line with the latest small arms, but not to do the same to troops sitting in a safe rear are base.

You sure about that, Smeulders? That would multiply the production of squads. Say that you build 100 Inf Sqd (43) per month, so you're adding so many to the pool; if you add to that upgrades from pool Inf Sqd (39), you'll get way more than 100 squads per month...

Cheers!
fbs

It is my understanding that there is an "end time" on squad production in AE. In many (I actually think all) cases this means that you will stop producing the previous squad when the "upgraded" squad start becoming available. The upgrade of squads in the pool would then only be an update in training and weaponry for soldiers mobilized earlier, but not yet sent to on-map units, the actual production would stay whatever the production rate for the most recent squad is. The effect would be that a player isn't punished for husbanding his forces carefully, as squads that remain in the pool when an update comes along are now lost.

(Though there are exeptions, Aus and NZ militia upgrade to regular infantry, but there is an overlap in production, in this case the upgrade of squads in pool would have to start later, when Militia production is stopped)

Help me understanding this better. Say that you have in the pool

100 USA Rifle Sqd (1939)

Now the rifle sqd upgrades to 1942, and 50 are produced; you'll have in the pool

100 USA Rifle Sqd (1939)
50 USA Rifle Sqd (1942)

With your change, how would pool look like after those 50 USA Rifle Sqd (1942) are built?

Cheers!
fbs

There would be 150 USA Rifle Sqd 42'. 

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

There would be 150 USA Rifle Sqd 42'. 

Understood; summarizing it that way. That's for squads only, right -- not for equipment.

Cheers [:D]
fbs

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

There would be 150 USA Rifle Sqd 42'. 

Understood; summarizing it that way. That's for squads only, right -- not for equipment.

Cheers
fbs

Of course, can't make a Sherman tank out of one of those 'Improvised AFVs'. The only thing I'm asking is that units in the pool have the same possibility to upgrade as those in LCUs

Actually, it seems to me that upgrading a squad shouldn't return a squad to the pool. It's not like you are gaining men.

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Actually, it seems to me that upgrading a squad shouldn't return a squad to the pool. It's not like you are gaining men.

You aren't, a squad is taken out of the pool first, then the squads that were already in the LCU are sent to the pool. You end up with the same number of squads, only with more of the upgraded variety.

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Actually, it seems to me that upgrading a squad shouldn't return a squad to the pool. It's not like you are gaining men.

If you're playing the Japs, they don't... the upgraded infantry/engineering squads go back as manpower instead of to the pool [:D]

fbs

Either a "Do Not Dock" toggle, like the "Do Not Unload" toggle, - OR- the TF does not dock if the "Do Not Unload" toggle is on.

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Either a "Do Not Dock" toggle, like the "Do Not Unload" toggle, - OR- the TF does not dock if the "Do Not Unload" toggle is on.

Hmm... in order to dock, you need to click on the "Dock TF" button... what will the "Do not Dock" option do?

Cheers!
fbs

I'm seeing some TFs dock automatically. If I'm managing TFs, and don't want one to dock when it gets to its destination...

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

I'm seeing some TFs dock automatically. If I'm managing TFs, and don't want one to dock when it gets to its destination...

I think that this is what you're seeing:

"Refueling in port causes the TF to “attempt” to dock, up to the Port Docking Maximum." (pag 106)

Very good; adding that to Naval.

Thanks, [:D]
fbs

ps: By the way, you realize that by requesting that change, the automatic refuelling will take longer, and you may end up losing a turn to refuel the TFs, right?

I don't know if know anybody has asked for this but on the ship selection screen have a switch to show ships only in port. Would be great when I'm trying to make several AK type convoys. If I sort by space the ships already in port won't show up.

Good initiative fbs!!

I would like to see a "halt/start" button on Allied HI factories as it is the case for the japanese factories.

To be able to stop where i want the use of fuel by allied HI centers as fuel is also used by ships.

Wow, what's this thread doing all the way down here? Time to resurrect.

I would like to see malaria effects implemented.

There should be some rationale for wanting to occupy malaria-free zones and avoid the verminous fen that is malarial jungle bases. It seems as though a number of players have not seen any malaria effect even with months in small bases in the jungle. This is simply not a reflection of reality. Combat forces on both sides lost quite a bit of strength due to malaria, dengue, yellow fever, scrub typhus and the like. The 'malaria zone' reflects the predominating effect of these disabling diseases.

I request that malaria be reinstated, with the goal of implementation similar to the expected effect of malaria in WiTP. Namely, larger AF/Port sizes and /or HQ presence reduces the effect. This change never really did get implemented into the WiTP model, even though it was a nice idea.

Up with Plasmodium spp.!

Would it be possible to synchronize the unit detail displays to the filter/sort settings of the higher level diplays? This works somewhat for individual ships, i.e., if the CV/CVL filter is set, the details screen cycles through only CV/CVL (unsorted). Not so much for the ACU and LCU contingent. In fact, on the AC unit detail screen, there are no NEXT/PREVIOUS buttons at all. Unless they are in stealth mode.

Thanks for all the goodly works,
Doug

ORIGINAL: fbs

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

I'm seeing some TFs dock automatically. If I'm managing TFs, and don't want one to dock when it gets to its destination...

I think that this is what you're seeing:

"Refueling in port causes the TF to “attempt” to dock, up to the Port Docking Maximum." (pag 106)

Very good; adding that to Naval.

Thanks, [:D]

This mostly affects the "round-trippers," so refueling isn't really an issue.
fbs

ps: By the way, you realize that by requesting that change, the automatic refuelling will take longer, and you may end up losing a turn to refuel the TFs, right?

Better SiGint for everyone. Give wrong results if you must, but make it at least partially useful.

"Tsushima Fortress is located at Tsushima, Heavy Radio transmissions at Pearl Harbor"... okaaay. Thanks, I guess.

Oh, and more staff reports while we are at it. If my bombers weren't escorted by fighters, I want to know why.