With regard to Singapore holding out for a year in my game against the computer. Firstly, something I didn't point out in my first post, above, was that I actually reinforced Singapore with an extra British unit and didn't pull anything out, so that is a big reason why it managed to hold out.
But the main problem as fas as I am concerned is not the experience levels of the troops involved, but the fact that the readiness levels of the isolated units NEVER fell below the twenties even after a year of isolation. I think that over this period of time their readiness levels should gradually drop away towards zero and they would eventually surrender.
I realise that if you are only doing bug fixes at this stage it might not be feasible to modify this, but I do classify this behaviour as a bug
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website
Regarding Bomber, and all other Allied aircraft production - the problem is that in the latest version, the production cost for aircraft is between 25% to 50% higher than in the earlier version - which means very reduced rates of production. I think this was an adjustment made in the game to prevent a "too early" win by the Allies. In the first version of PacWar - the B24 cost 7 production points, in this version it cost 12. The B29 used to cost 9 production points, it now costs 14. That increas drastically reduces the ability to produce planes and wage an aggressive battle (which necessitates keeping the frontline squadrons fully filled with replacements.) I am fully in favor of playability - but I would like to see how this increase plays out with actual production of U.S. and Brit/Commonwealth A/C during this period. I think that the game may be as restrictive of A/C production as it is liberal with the ability to constantly run ships at full speed without refit/yard period/ overhauls, that is to say, just another pecadillo of this particular game - but on which can be adjusted with inhouse rules and an editor.
------------------
God Bless;
Rev. Rick, the tincanman
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
I am playing in early 42 as allies wil japanese computer. I sent a bombardment force to Rangoon. To my surprise, it was clobbered by a reactionary move by a large surface force from SIAGON. I may be wrong but it seems that the path from Siagon to rangoon is more than 15 hexes. It seems that the reationary distance was based on a direct route not the actual path travelled.
This may not be worth fixing in the current game but may need to be considered in the new one.
MCS: Has the Maru/Liberty bug been fixed? Also, Victory and Liberty ships should swap places. The Victories were faster successors of the Liberties.
Submarines: I'm disappointed with the performance of my subs (as CinC USN). Based far forward (Marcus Is., early 43), changing position every couples of turns and being positioned in a double row across the South China Sea, Bashi Strait and Formosa Strait, with others east of the Philippines, I get no hits, not even contacts, sometimes for several weeks in succession. There is plenty of Japanese shipping in routine convoy phase, still my subs seem to take a holiday. LBA can't be that good in keeping my subs deep.
Aircraft production: I agree with Sapphire. I want to change the factories as I wish (even being able to convert bomber factories to fighter production and vice versa would be fine). At least provide the possibility for changing production. If you want "historical" settings, then simply don't change factories. And lower production costs, they are too high for both sides. Halfway between the old and the actual costs would be ok.
Last point, New Guinea: In my own OCB I removed some land paths because in most cases once you secured Port Moresby and Milne Bay, you often can sent a single Aussie brigade or even batallion from Port Moresby to Sorong in a couple of turns. So improving the Japanese AI to garrison Guinea would be fine, together with missing paths this will force the human player to do some amphib invasions, as MacArthur did historically (with some other guys who accompanied him on his return to the Philippines). Does someone know more about the historical possibilities for overland movement all along the Guinea northern coast? Might have been possible, slow and in small units only, but the abstract LCU combat allows too much cheating, IMO.
Well, perhaps all this will be solved in WiP. The Matrix Team has already done a great job with PW. Thank you guys.
I had a quick look at a large scale map of todays New Guinea. There's a road starting at Sarmi going halfway between Aitape and Wewak.
There's another road going inland from Lae along the Bismarck Range upto approximately Madang but not into Madang.
Another road leads from Port Moresby across the Owen Stanley Range to the coast on the other side of the island (think I recognise this one).
That's about it. Although this is a large scale map it's also 50 years younger than the period we are interested in so I don't think it was possible to move any major forces along the coast. Even if you can move the forces I think it's very unrealistic to have supply move between these bases. This is probably also true for some of the routes on Sumatra and Borneo.
The AI seems to act according to this. In most games I've seen I think the AI has landed Japanese troops on the New Guinea bases from the sea rather than walking them across land.
Don't think we'll get any change in this area before WitP but it would have been nice. It's probably changing the balance a little bit in favor of the Japanese side but maybe that's good, at least when you are playing the Allies against the AI.
I may be wrong but the enhancement to allow TFs to follow the shortest path was not implemented and they are still following the old paths. Is this true for convoys? If it is not going to change can we get the old paths put back onto the map?
Any news on release of 2.2?????
Maybe as a christmas present... Huh?
whaddya mean COAL??? Whatya think I am, a train? Oh I'M the size of one? well pal....
V.B.G.- this was just an example of my holiday blues. If you release V2.2 -I'll go take my medicine....
Jim
[This (hold out in Sinapore, and Bataan) never happened in the old version of the game - there must have been some change in values that caused the extra hold out in this revamped version.
Of course a great what if is a better performance in Sinapore. Talk to any Australian, and they would say the Brits let them down with poor leadership, and support. You can wargame the drive down malaya by the Japanese, and see that there were plenty of opportunites to daley the advance. A delayed advance may have allowed a better evacuation on non-combatants, and a resupply in Sinapore. This - along with a fortress bataan was an allied pre-war plan.
PacWar give you a great chance to game this chance. What I like to do is run a few convoys to both places, along with
1) holding part of Sumatra
2) sending a reasonable fleet to java.
>>This (hold out in Sinapore, and Bataan) never happened in the old version of the game - there must have been some change in values that caused the extra hold out in this revamped version.<<
On the contrary, it was stunningly easy to hold out in Singapore and Bataan in the old version. Its now got a lot harder.
Well, I 'fixed' the long holdout delay. Occasionally Singapore holds out until mid 1942, but, rarely so. Bataan holds out until the computer is done clearing out all other bases in the Philippines, then sends in 3+ Divisions and ususally wipes out the Bataan forces in 2 months. The problem was, that with the Addition of the 18th Division, there were too many high quality Allied formations in Malaya. So, what I did was to lower the Malayan Infantry Brigades back to 25 and 30 (from 40 experience). The 18th Division is at around 45-40 experience.
Regarding land units holding out: I have just had an out of supply IJA brigade with a supply of 9 and 41 squads hold out against two divisions and a brigade (600 Squads, average supply around 90) for well over six weeks. What were these guys staging another Thermopylae? I have noticed that the land combat takes a lot longer to resolve even in the face of incredible odds. Eight or nine division attacks against one understrength and undersupplied division seems to do virtually nothing as well. Took virtually everything in the SE Asian theater to root one Japanese division out of Rangoon. And forget Bangkok - the only way to force that location is wait for Los Alamos and pull back to Rangoon while it gets vaporized. I think y'all might have over done the tenacity factor a tad.
------------------
God Bless;
Rev. Rick, the tincanman
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
