Senario 1 vs Senario 2
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
Senario 1 vs Senario 2
Where can I read up on the exact differences between the senario's.
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
Here's a smidgeon of what I'm working on, comparing all 3 scenarios:
Here's the just Fighter Aircraft Diffs:
Aircraft Type Base Hakko Ironman Iron-Dec41
=========================================
A6M2 Zero 249 357 478 +144
A5M4 Claude 171 174 189
Ki-27b Nate 518 518 493
Ki-43-Ia Oscar 24 24 49
Ki-43-Ib Oscar 32 80 80
=======================================
TOTALS 994 1153 1289 1433
The main diff for other planes is the Betty bumpup:
G4M1 Betty 157 277 277 +144
Done most the work comparing and finding the diffs in all 3, just got to present it in a good format.
Also, most Exp levels for Val squadron are higher by 10. For Kates, its 10 higher for carrier based, 20 for land based. For Fighters, most non-China squadrons range from 10-20 points higher, a few China Squadrons are better.
Most Light Bombers are 10 points higher in Exp, while Nells and Betties are 10-20 higher.
Recon planes are also 10-20 higher, mainly just float planes, but some land based ones also.
Here's the just Fighter Aircraft Diffs:
Aircraft Type Base Hakko Ironman Iron-Dec41
=========================================
A6M2 Zero 249 357 478 +144
A5M4 Claude 171 174 189
Ki-27b Nate 518 518 493
Ki-43-Ia Oscar 24 24 49
Ki-43-Ib Oscar 32 80 80
=======================================
TOTALS 994 1153 1289 1433
The main diff for other planes is the Betty bumpup:
G4M1 Betty 157 277 277 +144
Done most the work comparing and finding the diffs in all 3, just got to present it in a good format.
Also, most Exp levels for Val squadron are higher by 10. For Kates, its 10 higher for carrier based, 20 for land based. For Fighters, most non-China squadrons range from 10-20 points higher, a few China Squadrons are better.
Most Light Bombers are 10 points higher in Exp, while Nells and Betties are 10-20 higher.
Recon planes are also 10-20 higher, mainly just float planes, but some land based ones also.
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
Just saw the Pearl invasion thread done under Scenario 2 (Hakko Ichiu) - one concern was the Hakko Ichiu had a big enough bump in land forces to enable one to greatly expand the capability to invade. It is NOT so. There is only about 300 extra AV made available to the IJ player at the beginning - 3 extra militia reg'ts in the China Exped Army. Then, by the end of '41 - mainly 2 extra Inf units of a total of 286 AV = the 15th Guards Regiment (143 AV) and the 17th Indpt Guards Regiment (ditto) both in the 21st Army.
Here are the values for the diffs in land forces - the top part is number of distinct units (fragmented units were taken into account). The bottom is in AV strength:
Type Unit --- Base ---Hakko---Ironman
================================
AA 93 93 93
Armor 31 31 34
Artillery 74 74 74
Coastal Def 58 58 58
Engineer 269 269 269
HQ 50 50 50
Infantry 270 273 287
AV values
Unit Type Base Hakko Ironman
================================
Armor 1295 1295 2143
Coastal Def 1688 1688 1874
Engineer 2176 2176 2371
Infantry 33586 33823 46546
Here are the values for the diffs in land forces - the top part is number of distinct units (fragmented units were taken into account). The bottom is in AV strength:
Type Unit --- Base ---Hakko---Ironman
================================
AA 93 93 93
Armor 31 31 34
Artillery 74 74 74
Coastal Def 58 58 58
Engineer 269 269 269
HQ 50 50 50
Infantry 270 273 287
AV values
Unit Type Base Hakko Ironman
================================
Armor 1295 1295 2143
Coastal Def 1688 1688 1874
Engineer 2176 2176 2371
Infantry 33586 33823 46546
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
Naval Forces
Not much of a bang for Scenario 2, here are the only diffs:
Combat Ships:
Base Hakko Ironman
CV 6 6 8
CVL 2 2 6
BB 10 10 12
CA 18 18 24
CL 20 20 33
CS 3 3 0
DD 115 123 153
The only diffs (besides DDs) between Base and Hakko are following:
Ship Base Hakko
E 12 16
DMS 20 26
LSD 1 2
Not much of a bang for Scenario 2, here are the only diffs:
Combat Ships:
Base Hakko Ironman
CV 6 6 8
CVL 2 2 6
BB 10 10 12
CA 18 18 24
CL 20 20 33
CS 3 3 0
DD 115 123 153
The only diffs (besides DDs) between Base and Hakko are following:
Ship Base Hakko
E 12 16
DMS 20 26
LSD 1 2
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
Nice work, I've been doing something similar for scenario 2, but haven't gotten beyond LCU and ships due to time constraints. Maybe you'd be interested in updating this topic on the AE wiki ?
I do see quite a number of differences between your work and mine, I have got a lot more extra ships and LCU's. (Though most under construction/delayed) How did you go about finding the differences ? I used the csv output from Tracker and compared the excel sheets that came from that.
I did seem to miss the extra militia troops in the China expeditionary army, which units are they ?
http://hc-strategy.com/ae/wiki/index.php?title=Scenarios
I do see quite a number of differences between your work and mine, I have got a lot more extra ships and LCU's. (Though most under construction/delayed) How did you go about finding the differences ? I used the csv output from Tracker and compared the excel sheets that came from that.
I did seem to miss the extra militia troops in the China expeditionary army, which units are they ?
http://hc-strategy.com/ae/wiki/index.php?title=Scenarios
The AE-Wiki, help fill it out
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
thank you so very much
So where has my oponeent been hiding his betties?
So where has my oponeent been hiding his betties?
"Tanks forward"
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
I did the WitP Tracker dump to .csv files, but I loaded it into Access database - combined the files into one table. Made up and ran a bunch of queries to group similar types and get counts on them.
By sorting it various ways you can see what's extra what's changed. I can dump it out into an Excel files with different sheets - will do that over the weekend. Want to show summary sheets and then high detail full blown sheets. One easy way is the ID field, it is the same for all 3 scenarios - one problem was Ships don't have it, but adding in a auto-incrementing counter field gets you 99% - Ironman has one ship ID that throws off the remainder, but I fixed that.
Just a matter of exporting from Access into Excel, and then combining it all into one Excel file with several sheets.
By sorting it various ways you can see what's extra what's changed. I can dump it out into an Excel files with different sheets - will do that over the weekend. Want to show summary sheets and then high detail full blown sheets. One easy way is the ID field, it is the same for all 3 scenarios - one problem was Ships don't have it, but adding in a auto-incrementing counter field gets you 99% - Ironman has one ship ID that throws off the remainder, but I fixed that.
Just a matter of exporting from Access into Excel, and then combining it all into one Excel file with several sheets.
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
GOOD STUFF. THANKS TO ALL
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
I think the biggest boost in Jap capabilities is in the pilot reinforcement rate. Scenario 2's rates are way higher than scenario 1
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
ORIGINAL: awaw
I think the biggest boost in Jap capabilities is in the pilot reinforcement rate. Scenario 2's rates are way higher than scenario 1
How much higher is the pilot reinforcement rate?
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
ORIGINAL: Smeulders
I did seem to miss the extra militia troops in the China expeditionary army, which units are they ?
http://hc-strategy.com/ae/wiki/index.php?title=Scenarios
Sorry, forgot your question! You might have missed them due to location:
#4961 - 1st Militia Regiment - Hanoi
#4980 - 2nd Militia Regiment - Haiphong
#4985 - 3rd Militia Regiment - Haiphong
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
There are also more Zero groups for the Japanese. This makes a big difference in the first few weeks.
Oops looks like this was mentioned.
Oops looks like this was mentioned.
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
- Attachments
-
- a1.jpg (123.95 KiB) Viewed 247 times
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
Remember, the Wiki is still incomplete, finishing up exams first before I finish off that list. I seem to have at least forgotten a couple of garrison units, and ships need to be checked more thorough then I did the first time around. Air units etc. haven't even been started yet.
The AE-Wiki, help fill it out
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
Thanks for doing this. I'm playing a Scenario 2 PBEM as Japan, and I realize I'm getting terribly spoiled. :\
- Chickenboy
- Posts: 24520
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
- Location: San Antonio, TX
- Canoerebel
- Posts: 21099
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
- Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
- Contact:
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
Grotius spoiled
Quit WitP:AE
Plays WitW
Quit WitP:AE
Plays WitW
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
- Chickenboy
- Posts: 24520
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
- Location: San Antonio, TX
- Canoerebel
- Posts: 21099
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
- Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
- Contact:
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
5:7:5
"spoiled" is two syllables for haiku purposes*
"spoilt" would be one**
*Helsinki Haiku Accords, 1976
** Paris Climate Accords, 2010, redacted and modified per the Monroe Doctrine, 1811
"spoiled" is two syllables for haiku purposes*
"spoilt" would be one**
*Helsinki Haiku Accords, 1976
** Paris Climate Accords, 2010, redacted and modified per the Monroe Doctrine, 1811
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
- Chickenboy
- Posts: 24520
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
- Location: San Antonio, TX
RE: Senario 1 vs Senario 2
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
5:7:5
"spoiled" is two syllables for haiku purposes*
"spoilt" would be one**
*Helsinki Haiku Accords, 1976
** Paris Climate Accords, 2010, redacted and modified per the Monroe Doctrine, 1811
4:7:5. Do you think "Grotius" is pronounced Gro-ti-us or Gro-she-us? Everyone* pronounces it "Gro-shus".
*Not everyone really. As a matter of fact, no one else that I've ever met at all has ever attempted to pronounce this user name. So I'll 'initiate coverage' by coining the proper pronunciation my way. Since this is the current standard (June 5, 2017, 11:16am CDT/12:16pm EDT), you are now in violation of cited Accords.
ETA: Neener. [:'(]