Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Fletcher

inquistor

In my own experience with BB Yamato, and another 4 BBs with CAs and DDs bombarding at short (2.000 yards) against LCUs at Lunga, I got 2 disabled USMC squads... this was the last of my bombardment mission over enemy ... frustrated after another 4 similar missions, I thought that was better be docked at Truk.

Well, if those ships had full ammo, I would say, that should not happen. Even without recon, simple luck should produce good result in at least one case.

The only explanation, although not very possible, would be, that you guys patched the game mid-way, and it somehow influenced results. But it should worked for boyh sides, not only one.

As I said, I do not closely look at LCUs ground bombard results, but I surely can easily destroy dozens of planes in bombarded base.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

See Treespider's mod.

His mod isnt really going to solve anything. If the Jap player wants to find a way to unbalance things in China, they will find it, so the mod doesnt really solve it, it just makes it more difficult. And the problem is once its unbalanced, the Allied player has no way to put it back into balance. Again, the "best" house rule in China is to not use it at all.

ORIGINAL: CV 2

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

I'd agree 100%. Historically, the campaign there had been pretty much of a stalemate for more than a year. One of the big reasons the IJA supported the war with the Western Powers was in hopes of cutting off aid to China. In the game this front if far too active and fluid. Simply shutting it down is the quickest fix for what will be a major "balancing act" if/when the designers ever choose to tackle it.

See Treespider's mod.

His mod isnt really going to solve anything. If the Jap player wants to find a way to unbalance things in China, they will find it, so the mod doesnt really solve it, it just makes it more difficult. And the problem is once its unbalanced, the Allied player has no way to put it back into balance. Again, the "best" house rule in China is to not use it at all.

So "what if" IRL the Kwantung Army general's weren't such horses asses and decided to shift a great deal of their assets to China in late 41 and 42, rather than planning for a Soviet offensive pipe dream? They finally did so in 44 and the result was Ichigo.

My mod address this political aspect to a degree by placing much of the Kwantung Army in a Restricted Status until late in the war. This coupled with House Rules prevents it from marching into China.

In addition the additional bases and garrison requirements suck away much of the initial Japanese offensive punch resulting in a stalemate until later in the war.

I think TS mod does a good job of what you would look for in China. It gives the walking in mud feeling for the Japanese, and you find yourself thinking more about shifting garrisons around than about tank dashes into the hinterlands. The extra politico units really do crank up the FOW effect as well. I am not saying it is fun, but it does give a good feel for the type of warfare that went on there. I think the way he used broken down units to limit them in time is brilliant. But yes, you still need some houserules, and if you don't use them, I suppose a Japanese player can do some odd things there.

China is as it is, both players can make some hay there, or lose. Hate the playa' not the game!!

I have no problem standing as the chinese in scen 1 or 2 as long as the HR about no buy outs on the cheap is enforced - just make sure you defend in decent terrain and keep the small guerilla corps active on the Jap supply lines

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: CV 2

ORIGINAL: witpqs



See Treespider's mod.

His mod isnt really going to solve anything. If the Jap player wants to find a way to unbalance things in China, they will find it, so the mod doesnt really solve it, it just makes it more difficult. And the problem is once its unbalanced, the Allied player has no way to put it back into balance. Again, the "best" house rule in China is to not use it at all.

So "what if" IRL the Kwantung Army general's weren't such horses asses and decided to shift a great deal of their assets to China in late 41 and 42, rather than planning for a Soviet offensive pipe dream? They finally did so in 44 and the result was Ichigo.

My mod address this political aspect to a degree by placing much of the Kwantung Army in a Restricted Status until late in the war. This coupled with House Rules prevents it from marching into China.

In addition the additional bases and garrison requirements suck away much of the initial Japanese offensive punch resulting in a stalemate until later in the war.

Well thats exacly my point. Look at the - was it called "I Go"? Operation in 1944. When B-29s started to base in southern China, the Jap army swept through the entire area in a few months. Now anyone going to say that the Japs couldnt have done this in 1941 if they had wanted to? Of course they could have. They didnt because they didnt need it and the area wasnt under Changs control, so why bother? And therein lies the problem with the game. And it isnt a problem that can be corrected easily. The Japs didnt do a lot of things in China that they certainly could have (and history is proof of it) had they wanted to. And the exact reason I have said from the beginning of the testing period way back when that China and Manchuria should be removed from the game outright.

The game just isnt designed to handle the political issues going on. The mess in China is a prime example. You have the Red Chinese, the Nationalists, and a few dozen warlords all with their own agendas and goals. The in-fighting within India is another case in point. The game is designed to be the "allies" vs the Japanese. But the real war wasnt that cut and died.

ORIGINAL: CV 2

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: CV 2




His mod isnt really going to solve anything. If the Jap player wants to find a way to unbalance things in China, they will find it, so the mod doesnt really solve it, it just makes it more difficult. And the problem is once its unbalanced, the Allied player has no way to put it back into balance. Again, the "best" house rule in China is to not use it at all.

So "what if" IRL the Kwantung Army general's weren't such horses asses and decided to shift a great deal of their assets to China in late 41 and 42, rather than planning for a Soviet offensive pipe dream? They finally did so in 44 and the result was Ichigo.

My mod address this political aspect to a degree by placing much of the Kwantung Army in a Restricted Status until late in the war. This coupled with House Rules prevents it from marching into China.

In addition the additional bases and garrison requirements suck away much of the initial Japanese offensive punch resulting in a stalemate until later in the war.

Well thats exacly my point. Look at the - was it called "I Go"? Operation in 1944. When B-29s started to base in southern China, the Jap army swept through the entire area in a few months. Now anyone going to say that the Japs couldnt have done this in 1941 if they had wanted to? Of course they could have. They didnt because they didnt need it and the area wasnt under Changs control, so why bother?

Actually the Kwantung Army was unwilling to let go of the forces necessary for conducting the operation...my mod addresses that aspect.

And therein lies the problem with the game. And it isnt a problem that can be corrected easily. The Japs didnt do a lot of things in China that they certainly could have (and history is proof of it) had they wanted to. And the exact reason I have said from the beginning of the testing period way back when that China and Manchuria should be removed from the game outright.

The game just isnt designed to handle the political issues going on. The mess in China is a prime example. You have the Red Chinese, the Nationalists, and a few dozen warlords all with their own agendas and goals. The in-fighting within India is another case in point. The game is designed to be the "allies" vs the Japanese. But the real war wasnt that cut and died.

And my mod also address that aspect as well necessitating Chiang and his Chinese warlords to maintain sizable garrisons over and above the stock requirements in places that do not necessarily affect the war against the Japanese.

Unwilling perhaps, but they released what? 17 divisions for I-Go wasnt it? Does you mod account for the Japanese player committing virtually all the IJA airforce in China as well? That more than anything is what screws the Chinese.

Ed Actually if memory serves they used 17 divisions total in the operation, about half were from Manchuria iirc. I could be off on that, it was quite a while ago since I looked at that. You would know those numbers better than I would.

CV2 while searching for R&D questions I stubled onto Elfs post. It looks like you've already been corrected on this by Ian but you continue to sell it, dunno why?

Gamey question thread

The Elf said in post #87
hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:

1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.

The Elf said in Post #93


I may have said something. But given the facts in this thread I would have to assume that I was commenting on the feature as a whole WAD. Meaning that the intent was for restricted commands to be convertible to unrestricted etc. but I was likely unaware that all subordinate attached Ground units (gamey) would be freed up from manchuria. This seems a bit extreme and against the intent of the feature.

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

CV2 while searching for R&D questions I stubled onto Elfs post. It looks like you've already been corrected on this by Ian but you continue to sell it, dunno why?

Gamey question thread

The Elf said in post #87
hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:

1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.

The Elf said in Post #93


I may have said something. But given the facts in this thread I would have to assume that I was commenting on the feature as a whole WAD. Meaning that the intent was for restricted commands to be convertible to unrestricted etc. but I was likely unaware that all subordinate attached Ground units (gamey) would be freed up from manchuria. This seems a bit extreme and against the intent of the feature.

Keep searching. witpqs has already said he saw his post also. And question, why are YOU bringing it up? Also note, I am NOT talking about attaching ground units to an air HQ. Im talking about attaching a ground HQ to a ground HQ and transferring ground units to that ground HQ, which has NOTHING to do with Elf. What Elf had said originally was that releasing most of the Manchurian air units (the ones attached to 2nd air div) for the cost of changing the HQ was working as designed. But again, I am NOT talking aboutn transferring ground units to an air HQ, so again, outside Elfs area. I personally do feel that attaching ground units to an air HQ shouldnt be allowed (except perhaps base units).

Also note, not 1 dev has said it isnt working as designed (referring to changing a HQs command). I for 1 have been doing it since the beginning. And if Im not terribly mistaken I pointed it out in some pre-launch AARS that Tree and I did, way back when. So to come along and claim its "gamey" at this stage of the game is frankly laughable.

I also pointed out that you could disband the west coast HQ and release all the west coast units. This was changed shortly after to NOT allow that to happen. But the ability to change an unrestricted HQ to a restricted HQ and release units at 1/4 cost has always been there.

Ed. You can also change a bases HQ and move "restricted units" to these bases. For example, changing Australian bases to ABDA and basing restricted Dutch air units there. Im sure some would call that gamey also, but then, the PP cost of some of these base changes is pretty steep, so I personally dont see anything wrong with that either. One particular game I was in the Jap player circled Australia 3 times with the KB, so while he amused himself of what I considered a gamey move, I evacuated most of the Phil army to Australia by changing 2 bases command to FFE and flying them out by PBYs. Do I consider that gamey? Yes I do. But was in response to something the other guy was doing that I felt was.

You keep misrepresenting things by citing them out of context to twist them to your desired outcome. I have not made statements lending support to your assertions.

Hello every body,

Excuse me, but many of you are loosing the target of this threat.
Several problems arise in my game against Cantona2:

-4E´s invulnerability in the first stage of the war a dailight missions with heavy CAP over target.
-Naval bombardment issue (only for IJN ?)
-Chinese too weaks (a little effort to seize Chungking) in only 9 months of war.
-Torpedo duds (80% or 100%??). Duds for dutch and british at high percentage too.
-Air mission coordination strikes under good supplied airbase with HQ and aircrafts less than air support. 05 Daitais for Size 5 airbase.

I hope anybody can light us about all of this, but please take out another questions or post in another thread. Thank you very much.

Ramón

Ramon - I read this thread and from my limited AE experience have seen some of the issues you comment about. Continually dud torpedoes, certain ships are torpedo magnets, naval bombardment nightmares and easily and continually routed Chinese Army units...But from reading threads I have learned to modify my tactics for each problem - not eliminate them but adjust to them.

Naval bombardments - I had gotten away from close-in TF bombardments and couldn't understand why my results sucked until I reset my TF for point blank fire and include escorts - causing plenty of damage to my bombardment ships but plenty of shore damage too. Its kind of a sliding scale for me, how bad do I want to wreck the target vs how much damage am I willing to suffer?

Dud Torpedoes - No answer other than I see multiple repeated duds (SS dudded SIX torps vs. Kaga - paid for it with thier lives as DD/ASW took her down... I had to walk away from the computer after that to cool off. [:)]

Chinese Armies - they are weak and easily routed, so I am learning what was stated here... Location, Location, Location!!! Just as Chiang did in real life, trade land for time and set up resistance/guerilla type actions, not Army actions.

Finally my comments about gamey tactics and who does what;

"Because the corner deli person opened the cash register and bent over to get change out of the safe, doesnt mean I have been invited to the cash registers contents because it was opened for me."

" A police officer asks to be invited into your home to discover what type of person you are - The person who lives with many locks usually is the thief"

moore4807

Thank you very much for share your experience !.. Taking notes. I am awaiting for the next official patch and test it to take a decission about it
thanks a lot !
Best wishes
Ramón

I'm sorry to help derail the thread Ramon, from reading your AAR I believe you're one of the nicest people on the forum and wouldn't want to upset you. However, I do feel when someone distorts what a developer says it should be challenged for the benefit of newcomers to the game.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

You keep misrepresenting things by citing them out of context to twist them to your desired outcome. I have not made statements lending support to your assertions.

Post 90 of the link provided by Sulu Sea:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: TheElf

hmmm. I don't recall ever addressing this. If I did I don't know what I said, but based on this discussion I can say the following:

1. It seems gamey
2. I didn't have anything to do with the PP system
3. I don't believe that the intent was to free up untold riches of Air units for the price of one Air HQ.

I remember seeing what you wrote, but not exactly what you wrote. It did not have to do with land units, only air groups.

Enough has been added to this subject since then (not just this thread) that it's obsolete anyway, so I've never bothered going back and trying to find it.

How am I misrepresenting this? I said: "witpqs has already said he saw his post also."

How am I misrepresenting this?

ORIGINAL: Fletcher

moore4807

Thank you very much for share your experience !.. Taking notes. I am awaiting for the next official patch and test it to take a decission about it
thanks a lot !
Best wishes
Ramón

I would add that as an Allied player my 4EB have not been invulnerable even in the early game. They are indeed very tough. I have some trouble telling you how my opponents have gotten most of their success when they shoot them down (sometimes really maul a raid), but I suppose it has to do with having the right kind of fighters present (cannons mostly), fully trained pilots, mutually supporting bases, and so on. Against a good defense an Allied player does not have carte blanche with 4EB, and must be careful with them.

witpqs,

Thanks for your post. In my own game, I had more than 40 Ki-44IIa on CAP over allied target (Munda) and they were unable to down one enemy 4E. It was not only one time, it was maaaaanyyyyy times... I am talking about 12-14 B-17s at daylight time with good weather.

I'm left mostly to guess, which is difficult for this. My first thought is that the relative skill/experience levels make a significant difference.

witpqs

I knew that, and I had my best IJAAF pilots on those fighters (several from TRACOM with skill over 80).. It have been shared at my own AAR. Cantona2 known too due I was impressive about 4E capability to strike at daylight without losses against a large CAP over their targets... It´s veryyyy strange.

Best wishes
Ramón