Guadalcanal scenario - winning conditions

Share your gameplay tips, secret tactics and fabulous strategies with fellow gamers here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
Galahad78
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:10 am

Guadalcanal scenario - winning conditions

Post by Galahad78 »

I understood from the briefing of the scenario that it would finish on 6th February, 1943. It is 15th February in my game and it won't stop. I have conquered Tulagi, Lunga, Tassafaronga and Rabaul. Do I need to seize Buna or any other bases for the scenario to finish? [&:] The briefing is not clear enough.
Lifer
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 3:37 am
Location: East Coast, USA

RE: Guadalcanal scenario - winning conditions

Post by Lifer »

It ends around 2 Apr according to the config button.  Top row second from the left.
Man does not enter battle to fight, but for victory. He does everything that he can to avoid the first and obtain the second.
Ardant du Picq
Knavey
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 4:25 am
Location: Valrico, Florida

RE: Guadalcanal scenario - winning conditions

Post by Knavey »

240 turns
x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"
Galahad78
Posts: 370
Joined: Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:10 am

RE: Guadalcanal scenario - winning conditions

Post by Galahad78 »

Thanks guys!!! Guess I've still some time left to grab some bases [:D]
Lifer
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 3:37 am
Location: East Coast, USA

RE: Guadalcanal scenario - winning conditions

Post by Lifer »

Have you seen or noticed that when you spend the PPs to go from Australia Command to SW Pac that you pay a reduced cost but when you change from So Pac Rear to So Pac you pay full cost?  Really slow things down in the eastern campaign for me.  My question for those reading the thread is this WAD?

Greg
Man does not enter battle to fight, but for victory. He does everything that he can to avoid the first and obtain the second.
Ardant du Picq
Knavey
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 4:25 am
Location: Valrico, Florida

RE: Guadalcanal scenario - winning conditions

Post by Knavey »

Can't speak for WAD, but I know it has balanced the scenario for my PBEM. If I could have all the troops on the map, I would have won long ago. If my opponent had fuel, he would have won long ago. I think lack of PPs on the Allied side and fuel on the Japanese side makes the scenario balanced.
x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"
Lifer
Posts: 393
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2003 3:37 am
Location: East Coast, USA

RE: Guadalcanal scenario - winning conditions

Post by Lifer »

What is confusing me is that the manual says that moving units within a command pays a reduced cost.  Full cost is paid outside command.  I just find it odd that Australian assigned units going to SW Pac pay the reduced cost and not SoPac Rear/SoPac side.  I love this scenario as Allied.  A lot of fun planning the PP expenditure and hoarding supplies/fuel for that next push.  Also fun getting bent ships to repair point and scheduling and moving ships into/out of the shipyard at Sydney. 

Another side issue is with some ASW ships not replenishing Mk 20(or is it 22) Mousetraps.  I've got ships wandering around without them in November.
Man does not enter battle to fight, but for victory. He does everything that he can to avoid the first and obtain the second.
Ardant du Picq
User avatar
Rob Brennan UK
Posts: 3685
Joined: Sat Aug 24, 2002 8:36 pm
Location: London UK

RE: Guadalcanal scenario - winning conditions

Post by Rob Brennan UK »

Drat -- I'm in a PBEM mid october and i learn this now ! [:D]..

Time to check out the aussie divisions on the mainland as paying for Noumeas infantry is a PP killer esp if like me you tinker with commanders too much [;)]
sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)
Knavey
Posts: 2565
Joined: Thu Sep 12, 2002 4:25 am
Location: Valrico, Florida

RE: Guadalcanal scenario - winning conditions

Post by Knavey »

ORIGINAL: Lifer

Another side issue is with some ASW ships not replenishing Mk 20(or is it 22) Mousetraps.  I've got ships wandering around without them in November.

I have noticed that my SC type ASW ships do not replenish the Mousetraps either.
x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"
Halsey
Posts: 4688
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 10:44 pm

RE: Guadalcanal scenario - winning conditions

Post by Halsey »

ORIGINAL: Knavey

ORIGINAL: Lifer

Another side issue is with some ASW ships not replenishing Mk 20(or is it 22) Mousetraps.  I've got ships wandering around without them in November.

I have noticed that my SC type ASW ships do not replenish the Mousetraps either.


Might want to put this in the tech thread.

Apparently the ship data wasn't upgraded.
Mousetraps, and other asw weapons were mistakenly set on 99 for replenishment.
This one must've slipped through the cracks.
Nice catch.[;)]
Post Reply

Return to “The War Room”