AE, the real game (YH v TS mk IX)

[Andy Mac]

1. You can do it I think but you don't really have as many ships available - the logisitcs constraints on both sides until mid 44 allies are tough.
2. Early in the war you can take more risks with this allied and even JAAF aren't that great or experienced so what would be suicide for an LCU in 44 PI is an acceptable and low probability risk in 41/42

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

The computer will make no distinction for speed of the TF or the remaining size of a unit when you hit add ships (I have seen the computer select a large AP for a few squads and I have seen it select a damaged AK when undamaged ships were available. Word to the wise.

The ship selected by Add Ships will be at least as fast as the slowest ship alread in the TF if possible. But if you have a 20 knot TF and only 10 knot ships in port - you'll get a slow one.

The program's recognition of "operational and available for service" includes accepting a few points of damage. Whenever you use any type of Automatic ship selection, you might get a dinged ship - but not a seriously damaged one.

[SuluSea]

Enjoying the reading from the testers and pics offered by Yamato. Looking forward to seeing more.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Well, in the game as it exists you can only give a Fast Transport TF orders to evacuate. Only a limited range of ship types can go into such a TF. In AE, can you put whatever ships you like into this kind of TF? If not, your options may be unduly limited.

AE has added Amphibious TF, which can do evacuations.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Great AAR, YH! A couple questions of my own.

1. In WITP, it's often advantageous to use many more ships than are strictly speaking required to carry, say, a division. I typically choose 3-4x the "load cost". So I might use 40+ transports, with say a total of 100,000 capacity, to carry a division with load cost of 25,000. Doing that allows one to load/unload in a day. Concededly this is unrealistic. In AE, having "extra" ships won't make the TF load any faster?

2. Earlier you were asked about your ground units sitting in trains in Malaya. Why aren't you worried that the enemy will bomb your guys sitting in trains? Do you routinely set CAP over each such collection of vulnerable troops?

1) Well as Ive said, the limit isnt on numbers of ships, its port size. Truk for example is a level 6 port. A level 6 port can only dock 84,000 tons of ships in a day. Thats it. Thats not per TF, thats all TFs - total - docked at the same time. And there again, how much can be put on ships is a factor of the port size and nav support. They can only move so much stuff in a day. In WitP you didnt have these limits. You could load 10 - 100 ship TFs at any port, any day. In AE you cant do that. You are limited by dock space. Frankly the first time the KB put into port it took 3 days to refuel and rearm them before going back out. This also counts against the amount of available op points a base has to load stuff. Yes Virginia, bases have op points now too.

2) Well 2 reasons. First, I have played more than a dozen games against Tree, and I know his tactics. Secondly here is a screenshot that pretty much shows the limit of the allied air force in Malaya. This is at start. In this first days attacks he lost about 2 dozen destroyed and I dont know how many damaged (of the ones in Malaya that is, he lost nearly 400 map-wide). Damaged planes take several days to be repaired and can be written off as losses during the repair process. Also I hit his airfields every day damaging and destroying more. PI units cant leave the PI for the most part (the B-17s can after PPs) and the AVG can only go to China without PPs. Same with the Dutch and Indian airforces as well. So bottom line, this is what he has to fight with in Malaya.

Oh, and the PPs to change command of an air unit is based on its TO&E strength now, so this means it doesnt matter if you have 1 plane or 25 in that fighter squadron, its still going to cost you 100PPs to release.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Great AAR, YH! A couple questions of my own.

1. In WITP, it's often advantageous to use many more ships than are strictly speaking required to carry, say, a division. I typically choose 3-4x the "load cost". So I might use 40+ transports, with say a total of 100,000 capacity, to carry a division with load cost of 25,000. Doing that allows one to load/unload in a day. Concededly this is unrealistic. In AE, having "extra" ships won't make the TF load any faster?

There are two types of troop transport TFs in AE - regular transport and amphibious.

Amphibious - which Yammy is showing - is meant to load combat-ready troops in combat mode and use them to invade an enemy base. Combat mode is less efficient than "regular" load and also requires the TFs load a miniumum 3-days supply for the troops (even if you select Load Troops Only). Amphibious TFs can also perform other missions that you would expect - they can unload at non-port or poor-port locations better than regular transports** and they do a better job of evacuations - includding loading troops from non-port hexes.

Regular Transport is intended for pier-to-pier transport between friendly bases. You would NOT want to use one of them for an invasion. There are two options for Regular Transport - use all ships and use minimum ships. Minimum says cram them in into minimum number of ships, with as little unused space as possible. Use all will spread the unit(s) as best as possible among all ships. Any remaining capacity will be used by supply (depending on Load Troop only switch and supply availability).

** Note that the ability of Amphibious TFs to unload a small ports is primarily based on amphibious capability of the ships in the TF, not the TF mission. APAs, with lots of embarked landing craft, will greatly speed up unloading at the dinky little port that Yammy always wants to use. A civilian freighter not so much.

You'll get used to all this. As mentioned somewhere up in the thread, loading and unloading is much more realistic in AE. That means it's harder, slower, and you have to do more planning. You especially have to make sure you are using the right ships for the right task.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

** Note that the ability of Amphibious TFs to unload a small ports is primarily based on amphibious capability of the ships in the TF, not the TF mission. APAs, with lots of embarked landing craft, will greatly speed up unloading at the dinky little port that Yammy always wants to use. A civilian freighter not so much.

Well, Japan only starts with 7 ports that are larger than size 4 outside the home islands and they dont get APAs, so it isnt like I WANT to use "the dinky little ports", its I have no choice [;)]. Heres a list of at start Jap bases sorted by port size:



Ooops, 8 larger than 4. I missed Port Arthur, not that its terribly useful to the war effort [:D]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

** Note that the ability of Amphibious TFs to unload a small ports is primarily based on amphibious capability of the ships in the TF, not the TF mission. APAs, with lots of embarked landing craft, will greatly speed up unloading at the dinky little port that Yammy always wants to use. A civilian freighter not so much.

Well, Japan only starts with 7 ports that are larger than size 4 outside the home islands and they dont get APAs, so it isnt like I WANT to use "the dinky little ports", its I have no choice [;)].

True, but Japan has some goodies for early operations. There is a special bonus for the first few months of the war to give near-amphbious ships benefits to non-amphib ships in amphib TFs. After a few months this bonus ends but is replaced with another (smaller) bonus for the rest of the war. This represents the extensive use of freighters as army and navy transports on-and-off during the war.

Japan gets a number of "naval" transport/cargo ships at the start of the war and can convert more later on. Naval Transport types (AP/AK) are in between true Amphibs (APA/AKA, etc) and merchants (xAP/xAK) in ability.

There is also the Japanese-only "convert cargo space to carry troops". Japanese freighters (with some size limits) can have (some of their) cargo spaces converted to troop space in a few days - then coverted back to full cargo when desired. This makes Japanese freighters much more useful as troop transports.

Japan does get a few interesting amphibious ships - the Army landing ships. Classed as LSD, with Shinshu Maru available on the first day.

All in all, the limitations of both sides in amphibious operations are well represented. Until the allies start getting plenty of everything in the last half of the war, they are in equally poor shape.

[Grotius]

Thanks for the quick replies, guys. It all sounds great.

Frankly the first time the KB put into port it took 3 days to refuel and rearm them before going back out.

Cool - sounds much more realistic.

Secondly here is a screenshot that pretty much shows the limit of the allied air force in Malaya.

Heh, I get the picture. Interesting.

Combat mode is less efficient than "regular" load and also requires the TFs load a miniumum 3-days supply for the troops (even if you select Load Troops Only).

I'd never even thought about this, but it sounds like a sensible fix. Right now, I routinely load up troops and deprive them of food and water for 2-week voyages over open ocean. [8|]

You'll get used to all this. As mentioned somewhere up in the thread, loading and unloading is much more realistic in AE. That means it's harder, slower, and you have to do more planning. You especially have to make sure you are using the right ships for the right task.

Sounds terrific to me.

[ny59giants]

I have a feeling I may play the first two months of the war a few times over and over again to learn from my mistakes. [8|] The AI may have a few lessons to teach me.
 
Will there be a 6 month scenario like in stock that just covers the SRA region?? It would be a good learning tool.

[Terminus]

Not in the initial release. Post-release is still up in the air.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Well, in the game as it exists you can only give a Fast Transport TF orders to evacuate. Only a limited range of ship types can go into such a TF. In AE, can you put whatever ships you like into this kind of TF? If not, your options may be unduly limited.

AE has added Amphibious TF, which can do evacuations.

Thanks, Don.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

There are two types of troop transport TFs in AE - regular transport and amphibious.

Amphibious - which Yammy is showing - is meant to load combat-ready troops in combat mode and use them to invade an enemy base. Combat mode is less efficient than "regular" load and also requires the TFs load a miniumum 3-days supply for the troops (even if you select Load Troops Only). Amphibious TFs can also perform other missions that you would expect - they can unload at non-port or poor-port locations better than regular transports** and they do a better job of evacuations - includding loading troops from non-port hexes.
...

** Note that the ability of Amphibious TFs to unload a small ports is primarily based on amphibious capability of the ships in the TF, not the TF mission. APAs, with lots of embarked landing craft, will greatly speed up unloading at the dinky little port that Yammy always wants to use. A civilian freighter not so much.

You'll get used to all this. As mentioned somewhere up in the thread, loading and unloading is much more realistic in AE. That means it's harder, slower, and you have to do more planning. You especially have to make sure you are using the right ships for the right task.

Much better! Management/preservation of your precious attack transports becomes critically important.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Japan does get a few interesting amphibious ships - the Army landing ships. Classed as LSD, with Shinshu Maru available on the first day.

Excellent; glad Shinshu Maru has received has received the special treatment she deserves as a groundbreaking design.

This is not just going to be a learning cliff - more like an ascent of El Capitan on prusik loops.

[Local Yokel]

Another question, if I may.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I send them to Bangkok rather than northern Malaya for several reasons.
1) They unload faster and out of harms way. Bangkok is a level 4 port and thus can handle 48,000 tons of shipping docked at any given time, so when the ships arrive I form 2 TFs. The first is docked and unloading. The 2nd is anchored (and subject to sub attack) so I put all my ASW ships in this TF. This one will unload, but much slower. When a ship in the docked TF is unloaded, I split it from the TF and disband it and add more to the docked TF until they are all unloaded. When I have enough disbanded in port to do something else with, I will form a TF and head out to points unknown, again using waypoints to take me where I want to go.

As the game stands, TF's are immune from submarine attack in level 3 ports and above. I can understand this not applying to midget submarine attacks, where penetration of a defended harbour was the essence of the exercise. But in AE do all submarines get to attack TF's in port? Is there no port level that confers immunity from the 'base squatters'?

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Another question, if I may.

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I send them to Bangkok rather than northern Malaya for several reasons.
1) They unload faster and out of harms way. Bangkok is a level 4 port and thus can handle 48,000 tons of shipping docked at any given time, so when the ships arrive I form 2 TFs. The first is docked and unloading. The 2nd is anchored (and subject to sub attack) so I put all my ASW ships in this TF. This one will unload, but much slower. When a ship in the docked TF is unloaded, I split it from the TF and disband it and add more to the docked TF until they are all unloaded. When I have enough disbanded in port to do something else with, I will form a TF and head out to points unknown, again using waypoints to take me where I want to go.

As the game stands, TF's are immune from submarine attack in level 3 ports and above. I can understand this not applying to midget submarine attacks, where penetration of a defended harbour was the essence of the exercise. But in AE do all submarines get to attack TF's in port? Is there no port level that confers immunity from the 'base squatters'?

Docked and disbanded are 2 different things. Minis hit the disbanded ships (I think anyways, I have never seen them attack the TFs at Pearl). I dont think they would attack a docked TF. So (as far as I have seen) docked TFs are immune to sub attacks, period, regardless of port size. If Im wrong, Im sure Don will correct me [;)]

[rroberson]

Whoa! 24 hours for the first turn.  Hmm maybe this isn't for me after all.  I like to micro manage as much as the next guy.  But i'd like a shot at finishing a game as well.  Are you changing all unit dispostiions?  Or is there a Historical scenario that plays out the first turn as it happened?

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Whoa! 24 hours for the first turn.  Hmm maybe this isn't for me after all.  I like to micro manage as much as the next guy.  But i'd like a shot at finishing a game as well.  Are you changing all unit dispostiions?  Or is there a Historical scenario that plays out the first turn as it happened?

You haven't played WITP? It depends on how much you want to adjust the first turn. It seems most people want to dedicate that first turn to knocking out most of the adjustments at once, and not space it out, though naturally some things such as changing factories may be waited on till a following turn. I think it's everyone's guess, that things are generally easier to handle then because at that point there's nothing in your control yet (plus they may want to get control ASAP). If you wait till a later turn, especially to do much with your fleets, you start to wonder if what you're seeing is what you ordered, or if the game set it up that way. With doing it all at once, you know it's all you. The first turn is a fluke basically, though if you're doing a lot of planning, turns afterwards can still be long, they're not even close to that long though.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: Charles_22

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Whoa! 24 hours for the first turn.  Hmm maybe this isn't for me after all.  I like to micro manage as much as the next guy.  But i'd like a shot at finishing a game as well.  Are you changing all unit dispostiions?  Or is there a Historical scenario that plays out the first turn as it happened?

You haven't played WITP? It depends on how much you want to adjust the first turn. It seems most people want to dedicate that first turn to knocking out most of the adjustments at once, and not space it out, though naturally some things such as changing factories may be waited on till a following turn. I think it's everyone's guess, that things are generally easier to handle then because at that point there's nothing in your control yet (plus they may want to get control ASAP). If you wait till a later turn, especially to do much with your fleets, you start to wonder if what you're seeing is what you ordered, or if the game set it up that way. With doing it all at once, you know it's all you. The first turn is a fluke basically, though if you're doing a lot of planning, turns afterwards can still be long, they're not even close to that long though.

Oh I have logged 100s of hours in WITP, ask my poor wife [:D]. I usually find myself playing the Japanese side because most PBEMers seem to be Japanese phobic because that first turn is so overwhelming. Anymore with new games I go with the historical start because beyond spending 4 hours doing day one setup it takes care of a 1000 "house" rules to keep evil "gamers" from gaming the allies into submission via the first turn enhancements. Thus my question if there was a "historical" first turn available like vanilla.

The thought of having to spend 24 hours to get that first turn out...ouch...

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Thus my question if there was a "historical" first turn available like vanilla.

Having only played Japanese in PBEM in stock WITP with "historical start" for the reasons you name I can sympathize - and yes there is a "historical start" option in AE as well.

[rroberson]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: rroberson

Thus my question if there was a "historical" first turn available like vanilla.

Having only played Japanese in PBEM in stock WITP with "historical start" for the reasons you name I can sympathize - and yes there is a "historical start" option in AE as well.

Damn glad to hear that...still fully intend to get it then .

[TheElf]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

Ummm, wouldn't it stand to reason that in an atypically more devastating naval attack (as stated by the design team this attack was atypical) that flak losses would be lower than usual?  Meaning the damage was worse to the ships because the flak was unusually ineffective?  Or even the opposite, a lucky combination of early hits severely reduced later flak and therefore later waves of attack craft were more effective than usual? 

If the design team knows off hand, what is a typical range of Japanese air losses that you are seeing the PH attacks?

Right, but my point was/is Pearl was a unique event in the war. In game all attacks are treated the same, so the results we see for the Pearl attack will be the same kind of results we will see for all attacks (unless they've added something new to the engine).

So that said, the Pearl attack should probably always be worse than historical when it come to flak losses, as historically it was a total surprise, but the game should treat it as a normal attack if the game can't differentiate the Pearl raid from other attacks that occur in game.

If the average result is what Terminus posted (10-40 shot down out of 300+ attackers), then we can assume all attacks in game will see total surprise levels of losses instead of historical *wartime footing* levels of flak losses, which were much higher than Pearl.

Jim

AN important thing to keep in mind is that there are always limitations in the code. These limitations make it difficult to PRECISELY replicate every Real World result we have to point to and say "See, it should look like this!"

IRL the PH raid benefitted from Surprise. The losses tell the story, 9 lost in the 1st wave, 20 lost to a battered but more than alerted fleet in the 2nd wave. Someone mentioned that the US had lost combat effectiveness after the first wave, likely true, but they still managed to slighty more than double IJN losses in the second wave as compared to the 1st.

In this case the AE Game limitations for the PH attack are thus:

1) We don't simulate a two wave PH attack. That's not to say you won't see the strike won't be divided up between two waves (Or even 3), it means that SURPRISE will be on for the whole turn.

2) Surprise being lost between waves is not simulated. Thus the more brutal retaliation from the US PACFLT will not be replicated and the doubled losses sustained by IJN Airmen will not occur.

Don't let game/code limitations, that result in slightly less or more than historical results, skew your perception or opinion of AE. A game like AE is VERY difficult to massage into a state of being that pleases EVERYONE. There will always be a result somewhere in your upcoming AE match that irritates the $#!t out of you. You'll say, "WTF, that's fucking impossible...no F-ing way that should happen...I hate this game, who desgined this crap?!"

The other 95% of the result will look good...