Matrix Games Forums

So have been paying attention to the forums and think I have some ideas I would like to try out. Some of this is to address issues that have popped up and some is to address some issues that have been on my "to do" list since WiTP

What's in:

* Fighters with no supercharger or early war one stage superchargers have a max altitude of 25k. In addition all those a/s have there high alt MAN rating quartered. All level bombers have there ceilings lowered to 25 k as a play balance. Only the US made 4-E's can fly above 25k now along with late war Russian and IJAF bombers. I didn't fiddle with later a/c like the P-38/47/51 nor Tojo/Frank/George etc. Hopefully this will bring the air battle down to historical levels early in the war. If either side wants to go higher as the war progresses, at least neither side will have an advantage.

* I have added depth charge devices for the IJN with very low hit rates to siumulate those ships that had no sonar. This should tone down early war ASW a little but not hamper the IJN later. In addition, all Japanese DC's have there accuracy bumped down just a tad to represent the fact that they had a slower sink rate and could not be set as deep (this is a minor adjustment)

* I have added two torpedo devices with abysmally low accuracy to be put on PT boats. This will defang them significantly. PT lacked any sort of fire control system to aim their torpedoes (unlike DD's). They were pretty much aimed by pointing the boat at the target. Keep in mind the target was unmercilessly trying to blow the PT out of the water at that time. This has not been play tested yet but I think it will work. Japanese TB/PT would also be nurfed

What's being considered:

* Increasing the ammo allowances on capital ship main batteries and all ship AAA. The AAA thing seems to be a real problem and at the very least this needs to be adjusted.

* Increasing the garrison requirements in China. Every reference I have read suggests the Japanese had their hands full just keeping LOC's open. By increasing the garrison requirements, the Japanese player will be forced to use more units to hold bases or risk the destruction of industry. This might be modified so that bases in northern China where the CCP was strongest might suffer worse than further south.

* Toying with the Chinese OOB. First would be to bump the replacement rate for infantry squads only. The Chinese never had problems with troops numbers. Have even read some accounts of Chinese troops fighting with swords and spears in close combat. In addition, some of the Chinese units should be marginal as far as EXP goes. Cadre's of the eight German trained Inf Div still existed on 7 December 1941 even though these divisions were really roughed up at the Battle of Nanking. Also toying with the idea of adding small partisan units for the CCP. That is an idea that would require much play testing and tweaking to make work.

* Changing the SPS of a lot of bases. Mostly this would be reducing the SPS of almost all the non-developed port hexes on the map. To actually expand a port significantly was beyond even the Allies with their uber construction abilities to accomplish. This may require addition Nav support units to make work. Again an idea that would require much play testing. Also a few AB's might get bumped up a bt to give both sides some flexibility. There are a lot of locations that could have been developed into major AB's that were not because of the course of the war. Changing the SPS around the map might give both sides some operational flexibility

Comments? Suggestions?

* I have added depth charge devices for the IJN with very low hit rates to siumulate those ships that had no sonar. This should tone down early war ASW a little but not hamper the IJN later. In addition, all Japanese DC's have there accuracy bumped down just a tad to represent the fact that they had a slower sink rate and could not be set as deep (this is a minor adjustment)

* I have added two torpedo devices with abysmally low accuracy to be put on PT boats. This will defang them significantly. PT lacked any sort of fire control system to aim their torpedoes (unlike DD's). They were pretty much aimed by pointing the boat at the target. Keep in mind the target was unmercilessly trying to blow the PT out of the water at that time. This has not been play tested yet but I think it will work. Japanese TB/PT would also be nurfed

These I'm actually pretty interested in. Let me know how it playtests out.

ORIGINAL: vettim89
Comments? Suggestions?

Your thinking is exactly the sort of thing that the game encourages. You go boy !!

Don't know squat about China or airplanes, but your Naval suggestions make sense to me. Funny how a bit of thoughtful database manipulation can alleviate a lot of the problems that people are demanding a hard-code solution for, isn't it?

Sending you a pm on the why's and wherefore's of ammo specifications. There's a few implications that have to be considered, but think you can deal with those pretty easily. All I ask in return is that you send me your calculation values so that DaBigBabes don't torque your twinkie too much.

An interesting list. I'm considering similar changes for my own scenarios, particularly with regards to adding seperate DCs for PBs and other escorts that were not designed for the role, and ammo changes.

Regarding the DC changes however, I would have thought that the lower sink rate and limited depth were already represented by the inferior (compared to allied) values on the devices, so further reductions might be overkill. I suppose its a matter of testing.

I would also be very interested to see the numbers you come up with for ammo, as it might help give some reference to my own estimates.

AS a player, I am interested in this mod. I have been working a very poor copy for my own little world war and would gladly scoff it off.

A couple questions / comments -
1. BB ammunition - Perhaps there is another solution. Since way back in early WITP days, I have been curious why at sea ammo resupply is not allowed until 1945. Perhaps it is a play balance mechanism. I comment on that, because in my experience it is one of the most important rules relating to how the amphibious war is prosecuted. Perhaps a mix of lower ammuniation and earlier sea rearmament. Anyway...a thought.

2. PT's torpedo efficacy. I think we all know the SOP PT tactics. Lie in ambush in coastal waters at night in groups of about 4. SPrint in and laucnh Torpedoes en-mass from an optimal distance of 1000 yards and hits were likely. They mostly targeted coastal transports and their escorts. While I dont know the Naval CRT specifics, let me suggest PT's always attempt to close on the enemy and will fire their TP's at a range of 3500 yards or less (2 miles) in day or 1700 yards (1 mile) at night. Beyond those distances, they will not execute an attack.

3. SPS - After absrobing the multiple threads on this topic, I am for a significant reduction, forcing more battles on smaller bases with higher supply consumption and requiring more support of all kinds.

4. China - I am a bigger fan of higher garrsions for the incremental cities the Japs take. My personal read of history implies Japan's limited exploits were much more a factor of the garrsioning requirements of newly held territory than the quality of the Chinese opponent. Specifically, I would make the incremental penalty higher - 2 to 3 VP's per day - so high that it prohibits undersupported attacks.

Are you thinking about fiddling with any permastricted HQ's or their units and replacing with garrison requirements? This way, the player can choose the units to cover the requirements but are still restricted to an amount of forces covering rear areas.

Very interesting ideas! I think the answer is yes, but does the engine allow modifications like this to be added in selectively. (Akin to the torpedo mod)? It does lead to a conclusion - instead of overhauling the entire engine for everyone, these "specific issue" mods could then be used on a game by game basis subject to player desires.