Sorry for the delayed response. Haven't been here in months. Lots of going on real life... settling into my new house, daughter got married, preparing to sell my parents house, had a hard drive failure... you get the picture...
Anyway.
1) Amounts of oil and resources at bases exactly match SSI. Players using the Rich Dionne method of conserving oil and resources may not experience shortages intended by both SSI and Matrix.
2) Heavy industry production is exactly the same as SSI.
3) If an exactly historical game is played, we don't know if aircraft losses will match historical losses. So talking about historical aircraft production is irrelevant. We do know, however, that in a typical game with the Matrix version, the US accmulates tac bombers and fighters far in excess of what anyone can use. I have no idea how the production in SSI, Matrix, or my modification compare with actual produciton. Again, its irrelevant unless it can be shown losses in an exactly historical game match historical losses.
4) I"m not sure what version the two of you are playing. However, after sereral games playing both sides and with input from players some aircraft productionw was adjusted in later versions. Also I believe I have the non usable factor problem fixed.
5) The aircraft produciton system in SSI and Matrix was designed for computer controlled production. We know the computer is a lot less effective than a human. So the production is designed to present some challenges for a human.
6) No adjustments in weapons except to reduce the warhead of strafe run (in Matrix is was higher than rockets) and to add a 100 kg bomb for the Ki 32. So the IJN torpedo is exactly as in Matrix.
7) Withdrawal of the B17 duplicates the feature in SSI.
8) If you're playing an early version B29 production will be inadequate.
9) While availabiltiy of the P 39 and P40 to non-US airgroups is limited, I want to remind players that in a Matrix PBEM game these aircraft ar not available at all. In Matrix non-US fighter groups are stuck with British aricraft and the F4F until the F4U1 (turn 50) and F6F (turn 70) which is a long time to go without better historically available fighters. Perhaps the availability of the P39 and P40 isn't enough of an improvement but its a step in the right direction.
For those who don't have the scenario, here are some of the scenario notes to help understand the issues being raised.
Production Capacity, % of SSI, includes factories and cost
IJ Fighters
Turn Matrix PWB 1.06
45 119% 86%
130* 160% 79%
Final* 181% 80%
* A6M2, A6M5, N1K, Ki43 II, Ki44, Ki61, Ki84
US Fighters
Turn Matrix PWB 1.06
50 * 121% 80%
91 ** 107% 70%
* P38, P40, F4F
** P38, P47, P51, F6F, F4U, FM2, includes Australian
factories originally producing Export models but
expected to be converted to produce US aircraft.
US Tac Bombers
Turn Matrix PWB 1.06
To 150 250% 83%
This scenario will not be liked by everyone. It perhaps will not be liked by most. Both SSI and Matrix have limits on how many ships and LCUs a player can have. Players must get good value for their ship and LCU losses. This scenario requires players also get good value for their aircraft losses.
Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
Thanks for reply Brad.
Playing the Japs the lack of ac is no fun!
Although I restricted air combat so losses are around 30ac per turn my sqns are not filling up and I have only around 300Zeros and 100Ki43II in pool.
Bottom line, the production is way out of line compared with e.g.11000 build Zeros.
Playing the Japs the lack of ac is no fun!
Although I restricted air combat so losses are around 30ac per turn my sqns are not filling up and I have only around 300Zeros and 100Ki43II in pool.
Bottom line, the production is way out of line compared with e.g.11000 build Zeros.
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
As stated earlier I didn't consider actual production during scenario design. I considered that 1) Matrix allows the production of a lot more aircraft than SSI, 2) both SSI and Matrix production were designed so AI which functions without a feedback loop could produce a reasonably effective number of aircraft, 3) a human player can run circles around AI when making production decisions, and 4) aircraft production decisions should present the player with some difficult choices and some risk that decisions may not work out well (just like the rest of the game). And as also stated earlier, this approach won't match the prefernces of some players and perhaps most players.
I think one of the reasons for the success of the Matrix version is increased offensive capability for both sides versus SSI. Many players like that.
I did not consider actual production because, as stated earlier, we don't know if aircraft consumption in a game played historically matches historical aircraft consumption. However, curiousity got the better of me concerning scenario production versus actual, and here is what I've determined.
Production estimate listed is based on a game from Dec 1941 to August 1945 and based on data from several games where both another person and I played IJ. Note there is some variability in production because, among other things, factory expansion has some variability built in.
A6M2, A6M5 production
9081 estimated average production
100 Aircaft in initial pool
262 Aircraft on carriers
332 Aircraft in land based airgroups
9775 Total A6M2/A6M5 availability
10989 historical production
Difference is -11%.
You've characterized production as grossly out of line with historical but I can't consider -11% versus historical grossly out of line. I can say its somewhat out of line with historical, but perhaps not as much as -11%. For example, the game doesn't simulate non-combat losses of aircraft which we know was substantial. Neither is there any simulation of the admitedly much smaller number of aircraft held back for testing, evaluation, and modification.
However, even playing the original SSI version would be a shock to someone who has only played Matrix, which has overall fighter production 181% of SSI!
I think one of the reasons for the success of the Matrix version is increased offensive capability for both sides versus SSI. Many players like that.
I did not consider actual production because, as stated earlier, we don't know if aircraft consumption in a game played historically matches historical aircraft consumption. However, curiousity got the better of me concerning scenario production versus actual, and here is what I've determined.
Production estimate listed is based on a game from Dec 1941 to August 1945 and based on data from several games where both another person and I played IJ. Note there is some variability in production because, among other things, factory expansion has some variability built in.
A6M2, A6M5 production
9081 estimated average production
100 Aircaft in initial pool
262 Aircraft on carriers
332 Aircraft in land based airgroups
9775 Total A6M2/A6M5 availability
10989 historical production
Difference is -11%.
You've characterized production as grossly out of line with historical but I can't consider -11% versus historical grossly out of line. I can say its somewhat out of line with historical, but perhaps not as much as -11%. For example, the game doesn't simulate non-combat losses of aircraft which we know was substantial. Neither is there any simulation of the admitedly much smaller number of aircraft held back for testing, evaluation, and modification.
However, even playing the original SSI version would be a shock to someone who has only played Matrix, which has overall fighter production 181% of SSI!
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
Hi Brad,
you miss the point. Something is wrong in that scenario. I keep the A6M out of the fight, the factories should produce 60-80 per month for 40 turns now = 2400 to 3200 ac and all I have is 300 in the pool! Lets put 300 more in new sqns, that's 600. You see the problem?
you miss the point. Something is wrong in that scenario. I keep the A6M out of the fight, the factories should produce 60-80 per month for 40 turns now = 2400 to 3200 ac and all I have is 300 in the pool! Lets put 300 more in new sqns, that's 600. You see the problem?
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
From memory, about 15 people have had the opportunity to evaluate this scenario. At present I have received comments from perhaps six.
I haven't worked on it for over a year due to some of the events mentioned previously. I would like to return to working on it and would appreciate comments from anyone who has played it.
Lots of what can be done is a general solution. Its often difficult to achieve a precise result especially without creating undesirable consequences.
Since the discussion mostly involves aircraft, I'll direct my comments to aircraft. The issue with aircraft availabiltiy is not just how many but when they're available.
Factory expansion is randomized, and this can make a big difference in early produciton of new aircraft. For example, a couple of lucky rolls can result in double the production of a new aircraft during the first six months or so. This is a significant event.
Aircraft can be brought into the game four ways: 1) Factory production (variable), 2) Pool, 3) number contained in airgroups (including active and to be activated airgroups), 4) automatic production in addition to factory production of one per turn (every active aircraft has a procution of one per turn even without a factory). These features can be used to somewhat influence not only how many aircraft are availble but when they are available. Obviously its a juggling act.
It is not possible to have a new factory activate for an existing aircraft. New factories only activate with new aircraft. So, for example, its not possible to activate an F6F factory on turn 70 and another on turn 100 or 120 or whatever. Not being able to do so is obviously not realistic. But that's the breaks.
IJ factories wih high intial capacity (in IJ terms) almost never expand. For example, a fighter factory that starts with a production of 20 will remain at 20 for many turns, possibly forever, while a US factory that starts at 20 will expand to 35 or so within six months.
Each line is the aircraft data table has specific uses which I cannot change. It would be great to be able to give non-US airgroups access to the standard P39 and P40 but this is not possible, hence the creation of identical but separately produced export versions. A general but imprecise solution, a problem metioned above.
The aircraft database offers these choices for the Allies.
Land based, USAAF
Land based, non-US
Land based, USMC, non-US
Land and carrier based, USN, USMC, RN, non-US
Land based, USAAF, USMC, non-US
The last would look to be ideal to provide P39s and P40s to non-US airgroups early in the game. But there are only two lines that function this way, and they're occupied by the P47D and P47N. Lots of compromises are necessary.
And some more quirks.
Any airgroup can be assigned any aircraft, but its upgrade availability may not be the same as for other airgroups flying the same aircraft. For example, an USAAF airgroup flying B25s can upgrade to the A26. A USMC with B25s cannot change aircraft. A non-US airgroup with B25s can change only to non-US tac bombers.
The game obsoletes ten aircraft Jan 1943. Pools become zero. Even if you build them, the airgroups don't take on replacements. Pool drops to zero after every production phase.
Airgroups will not take on replacements if the pool amount is low (exact amount unknown). Land based airgroups will not take on replacments no matter how large the pool is unless supply at the base is high (replacement aircraft consume supply points)
IJ factories will not expand if oil and/or resource is low.
According to the manual, if a base with a factory is captured the factory is destroyed. What happens if the base is recovered? 1) The factory continues to produce the aircraft assigned to it prior to being captured, 2) the type of aircraft produced cannot be changed, 3) the production points for the factory are not included in the score.
I haven't worked on it for over a year due to some of the events mentioned previously. I would like to return to working on it and would appreciate comments from anyone who has played it.
Lots of what can be done is a general solution. Its often difficult to achieve a precise result especially without creating undesirable consequences.
Since the discussion mostly involves aircraft, I'll direct my comments to aircraft. The issue with aircraft availabiltiy is not just how many but when they're available.
Factory expansion is randomized, and this can make a big difference in early produciton of new aircraft. For example, a couple of lucky rolls can result in double the production of a new aircraft during the first six months or so. This is a significant event.
Aircraft can be brought into the game four ways: 1) Factory production (variable), 2) Pool, 3) number contained in airgroups (including active and to be activated airgroups), 4) automatic production in addition to factory production of one per turn (every active aircraft has a procution of one per turn even without a factory). These features can be used to somewhat influence not only how many aircraft are availble but when they are available. Obviously its a juggling act.
It is not possible to have a new factory activate for an existing aircraft. New factories only activate with new aircraft. So, for example, its not possible to activate an F6F factory on turn 70 and another on turn 100 or 120 or whatever. Not being able to do so is obviously not realistic. But that's the breaks.
IJ factories wih high intial capacity (in IJ terms) almost never expand. For example, a fighter factory that starts with a production of 20 will remain at 20 for many turns, possibly forever, while a US factory that starts at 20 will expand to 35 or so within six months.
Each line is the aircraft data table has specific uses which I cannot change. It would be great to be able to give non-US airgroups access to the standard P39 and P40 but this is not possible, hence the creation of identical but separately produced export versions. A general but imprecise solution, a problem metioned above.
The aircraft database offers these choices for the Allies.
Land based, USAAF
Land based, non-US
Land based, USMC, non-US
Land and carrier based, USN, USMC, RN, non-US
Land based, USAAF, USMC, non-US
The last would look to be ideal to provide P39s and P40s to non-US airgroups early in the game. But there are only two lines that function this way, and they're occupied by the P47D and P47N. Lots of compromises are necessary.
And some more quirks.
Any airgroup can be assigned any aircraft, but its upgrade availability may not be the same as for other airgroups flying the same aircraft. For example, an USAAF airgroup flying B25s can upgrade to the A26. A USMC with B25s cannot change aircraft. A non-US airgroup with B25s can change only to non-US tac bombers.
The game obsoletes ten aircraft Jan 1943. Pools become zero. Even if you build them, the airgroups don't take on replacements. Pool drops to zero after every production phase.
Airgroups will not take on replacements if the pool amount is low (exact amount unknown). Land based airgroups will not take on replacments no matter how large the pool is unless supply at the base is high (replacement aircraft consume supply points)
IJ factories will not expand if oil and/or resource is low.
According to the manual, if a base with a factory is captured the factory is destroyed. What happens if the base is recovered? 1) The factory continues to produce the aircraft assigned to it prior to being captured, 2) the type of aircraft produced cannot be changed, 3) the production points for the factory are not included in the score.
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
ORIGINAL: zeke99
Hi Brad,
you miss the point. Something is wrong in that scenario. I keep the A6M out of the fight, the factories should produce 60-80 per month for 40 turns now = 2400 to 3200 ac and all I have is 300 in the pool! Lets put 300 more in new sqns, that's 600. You see the problem?
Well, I don't know. Please explain.
60 aircraft produced for 190 turns is 11,400, plus 262 on carriers, 332 land based, 100 in pool, plus your proposal to add 300 to airgroups is 12,394 total against a presumed goal of matching historical of about 11,000. But then, these estimates assume full production for 190 turns which will not be the case if the US as it did historically starts reducin IJ factory capacity through bombing from the Mariannas.
I'm not against increasing production but as stated earlier the standard cannot be historical production unless its known that the game simulates losses accurately in a game played historically. A lot of what goes into these things is educated guesswork based on certain presumed circumstances.
I don't object to the game providing more than the historical 11,000 Zeros under certain conditions: 1) Allies do not reduce factory capacity through bombing at the historical time, 2) the game lasts longer than 190 turns, 3) it can be shown losses in a game played historically are greater than historical losses. I agree there may be a problem with this scenario but don't intend that either side should have a comfortably adequate supply of everything in all circumstances. That's not the point of the scenario.
The point of the scenario is frankly to get rid of what is almost a functionally infinite supply of capable aircraft for both sides which is present when the Matrix production system is under human control. Perhaps an easeir way of somewhat accomplishing that would have been a house rule that all aircraft production and airgroup upgrades we left on computer control! [:)]
Maybe someday, if this project is ever done, I'll make a scenario where IJ has the good sense to give up on China and the USN certifies Corsairs for use on carriers in 1942! I bet a lot of players would like that.
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
Wow, this thread has lit up. Cool!
-
Capt. Harlock
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
60 aircraft produced for 190 turns is 11,400, plus 262 on carriers, 332 land based, 100 in pool, plus your proposal to add 300 to airgroups is 12,394 total against a presumed goal of matching historical of about 11,000. But then, these estimates assume full production for 190 turns which will not be the case if the US as it did historically starts reducin IJ factory capacity through bombing from the Mariannas.
[...]
I don't object to the game providing more than the historical 11,000 Zeros under certain conditions: 1) Allies do not reduce factory capacity through bombing at the historical time, 2) the game lasts longer than 190 turns, 3) it can be shown losses in a game played historically are greater than historical losses.
To examine the first point, Zeke99 actually said "60-80 aircraft per month" -- not per turn. Either he got his wording wrong, or there is indeed a problem. My guess is the former. But it does raise the possibility that the game is not correctly adding the factory output to the pools.
As to the conditions for improved production, I can think of one other: that there is no effective shortage of oil or resources. If a skilled Japanese player can keep the sea lanes open for longer than happened IRL, one would expect the Japanese economy to churn out more product.
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
--Victor Hugo
--Victor Hugo
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
Good points by Harlock... including apparently my misreading Zeks's post.
Anyway, INITIAL production for the A6M2 is two factories, one at 21 and one at 15, total of 36. Times 4.3 that's 154 a month. Is the request for another 60 per month on top of that?
The J1N and Ki 45 both activate with a factory. I can't imagine anyone doing anything but a short production run of those two, if indeed any were built at all. Build Zeros with those factories. The Ki 43 has a factory and the Ki 43 II activates with a factory. If a player chooses to use Zeros for "everything" he certainly can reduce IJA aircraft production. After all, he has the power to tell Togo what to do... not very historical there! [:D]
Anyway, I can't make a good evaluation of the Zeke/Skipjack game without seeing the complete data. The deal with airgroups not taking replacements from the pool, well, there has to be supply points at the bases and some airgroups haven't taken replacements correctly since the beginning of time... that would be 1991 with SSI. [8|]
Anyway, INITIAL production for the A6M2 is two factories, one at 21 and one at 15, total of 36. Times 4.3 that's 154 a month. Is the request for another 60 per month on top of that?
The J1N and Ki 45 both activate with a factory. I can't imagine anyone doing anything but a short production run of those two, if indeed any were built at all. Build Zeros with those factories. The Ki 43 has a factory and the Ki 43 II activates with a factory. If a player chooses to use Zeros for "everything" he certainly can reduce IJA aircraft production. After all, he has the power to tell Togo what to do... not very historical there! [:D]
Anyway, I can't make a good evaluation of the Zeke/Skipjack game without seeing the complete data. The deal with airgroups not taking replacements from the pool, well, there has to be supply points at the bases and some airgroups haven't taken replacements correctly since the beginning of time... that would be 1991 with SSI. [8|]
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
Catastrophic events
What's that airfiled in the So Pac that can be built up to level 8? Don't remember the name.
Well, if the Allies build it up to 8, pack it with aircraft, then loses the base, then say sometime in 42 lose it, the Allied player is in a world of hurt. Losses could be as high as 400 aircraft, depending on the fighter/bomber mix and the USMC/USAAF mis. Well, I think loss of that many aircraft all at once SHOULD cause a problem!
What's that airfiled in the So Pac that can be built up to level 8? Don't remember the name.
Well, if the Allies build it up to 8, pack it with aircraft, then loses the base, then say sometime in 42 lose it, the Allied player is in a world of hurt. Losses could be as high as 400 aircraft, depending on the fighter/bomber mix and the USMC/USAAF mis. Well, I think loss of that many aircraft all at once SHOULD cause a problem!
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
The Cptn is right, I meant per turn.
I checked last turn #117
A6M production 47, Ki43II production 55
oil 198000, resources 888000
I take the A6M as example as they are training only. I should get 47 ac per turn but the pool increases by max 10 per turn. It looks like the production does not get into the pool or only a fraction of factory capacity is produced.
Anyway, the effect is that the game becomes totally frustrating as nearly no ac action is possible [:(]
I checked last turn #117
A6M production 47, Ki43II production 55
oil 198000, resources 888000
I take the A6M as example as they are training only. I should get 47 ac per turn but the pool increases by max 10 per turn. It looks like the production does not get into the pool or only a fraction of factory capacity is produced.
Anyway, the effect is that the game becomes totally frustrating as nearly no ac action is possible [:(]
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
I also wonder if we are playing an older version of the scenario. I noticed this in the "Details of Changes" document:4) I"m not sure what version the two of you are playing. However, after sereral games playing both sides and with input from players some aircraft production was adjusted in later versions. Also I believe I have the non usable factor problem fixed.
Bases
Anchorage - Juneau - Seattle march paths removed.
I started a game vs the computer to test out how the scenario works, and I see the march paths in Alaska are indeed gone. In our game, they are present.
Zeke, does the version of the scenario appear on the scenario select menu when you bring it up?
- Attachments
-
- PWNew_Setup.jpg (106.93 KiB) Viewed 262 times
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
No, my is Version 1.00 which is strange as I recall that we swapped the version zip at the start to avoid playing different versions [&:]
Just checked, I have an other folder with Brad's Version 1.05 D12
Just checked, I have an other folder with Brad's Version 1.05 D12
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
V 1.00 very experimental. I'm to 1.061 now.
Since Zeke is playing IJ, his obc controls.
First turn production
A6M2
V 1.000, two factories, 18 and 15, total 33
V 1.061, two factories, 21 and 15, total 36
Ki 43
V 1.000 14
V 1.006 24
Total aircraft factories
V 1.000 20
V 1.061 22
Lots of variation in what happens in a game. I ran probably a dozen AI vs AI games (with production set to human) to try to determine some sort of average results.
It would take probably an hour or more to get the data but I after evaluation of early versions I also increased the number of aircraft in to be activated airgroups.
Rough estimate is between higher initial production and an additional fighter factory (one of the additional factories mentioned is a bomber factory) that the newest version in 190 turns produces about 3000 more IJ fighter aircraft than produced the in Zeke/Skpjack game. I can't even make a rough estimate of how many more are available due to increases in the number of aircraft new airgroups activate with but its much less than the production increase.
----------------
Initial Allied Production.
F4F
V 1.000 23
V 1.061 21
P39
V 1.000 23
V 1.061 21
P40
V 1.000 20
V 1.060 22
P39 Export
V 1.000 1
V 1.061 3
P40 Export
V 1.000 1
V 1.061 3
I can see why Zeke is highly unhappy and Skipjack somewhat unhappy. Obviously I was unhappy with it after testing, which is why the changes were made.
I hope its noticed here that coming up with initial production numbers like 18, 21, and 22 is indicative of a close study and evaluation. I think it a lot of cases a decision would be made that "its about 20, let's make it 20". I wanted to be more precise than that.
Since Zeke is playing IJ, his obc controls.
First turn production
A6M2
V 1.000, two factories, 18 and 15, total 33
V 1.061, two factories, 21 and 15, total 36
Ki 43
V 1.000 14
V 1.006 24
Total aircraft factories
V 1.000 20
V 1.061 22
Lots of variation in what happens in a game. I ran probably a dozen AI vs AI games (with production set to human) to try to determine some sort of average results.
It would take probably an hour or more to get the data but I after evaluation of early versions I also increased the number of aircraft in to be activated airgroups.
Rough estimate is between higher initial production and an additional fighter factory (one of the additional factories mentioned is a bomber factory) that the newest version in 190 turns produces about 3000 more IJ fighter aircraft than produced the in Zeke/Skpjack game. I can't even make a rough estimate of how many more are available due to increases in the number of aircraft new airgroups activate with but its much less than the production increase.
----------------
Initial Allied Production.
F4F
V 1.000 23
V 1.061 21
P39
V 1.000 23
V 1.061 21
P40
V 1.000 20
V 1.060 22
P39 Export
V 1.000 1
V 1.061 3
P40 Export
V 1.000 1
V 1.061 3
I can see why Zeke is highly unhappy and Skipjack somewhat unhappy. Obviously I was unhappy with it after testing, which is why the changes were made.
I hope its noticed here that coming up with initial production numbers like 18, 21, and 22 is indicative of a close study and evaluation. I think it a lot of cases a decision would be made that "its about 20, let's make it 20". I wanted to be more precise than that.
-
Fishbreath
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2012 12:53 pm
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
As before, I'm always happy to host files should you release another version.
-
Capt. Harlock
- Posts: 5379
- Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Los Angeles
- Contact:
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
What's that airfiled in the So Pac that can be built up to level 8? Don't remember the name.
I believe you're thinking of Espirtu Santo. Note, though, that Fiji also fits that description, and it's not out of reach for an aggressive/skilled Japanese player. Having both those and stocked with Netties would really put a crimp in the Allied counter-attack!
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?
--Victor Hugo
--Victor Hugo
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
ORIGINAL: Fishbreath
As before, I'm always happy to host files should you release another version.
Thank you. Will send when available. I expect to return to work on this at some point.
I received a suggestion to increase the exp of Indian LCUs. I was doing some experimentation with that when real life got in the way. Hate it when that happens!
Athough not an issue except with an aggressive and successful IJ player, Matrix changes placed Seattle in the Artic combat zone, air bascially doesn't work. I suspect is a side effect of drawing a box that includes the northern Japanese islands. I inquired whether anyone kenw how to fix that (apparently requires and exe edit) but have had no luck with that.
Would also prefer some suggestions from those who have played the latest version.
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock
What's that airfiled in the So Pac that can be built up to level 8? Don't remember the name.
I believe you're thinking of Espirtu Santo. Note, though, that Fiji also fits that description, and it's not out of reach for an aggressive/skilled Japanese player. Having both those and stocked with Netties would really put a crimp in the Allied counter-attack!
I know there's something down there but didn't check prior to posting.
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
ORIGINAL: Skipjack_
On the plus side, getting the F6F in April was a big improvement. [8D]
The F6F activating on carriers before it could be selected for production is an error not in all Matrix scenarios, but apparently in the ones people prefer to play. The production availability date for all scenarios I've checked is the same BUT the carrier activation dates are different.
What I think happened is there was a base scenario from which others were derived, and the carrier activation date in some was changed. It was not noticed that the new activation date of carriers with F6Fs was before the production availability date of F6Fs. One of those things that happens when a change affects other things.
There's an IJN carrier that has a similar problem, which I fixed at some point by giving it an older aircraft that was in production.
In the newest version, when a new aircraft activates the first few airgroups activate with their maximum number of aircraft. Over time, new airgroups with that aircraft activate with fewer aircraft, and fill out from production. The change occurs gradually, for example, USMC fighter groups have 24 of a new aircraft shortly after activation, after a few months get 14, and then eventually activate with 4.
SSI uses a similar method. Matrix scenarios give almost all Allied airgroups a full complement upon activation which adds something like 10,000 aircraft to the game versus SSI, while leaving IJ on the SSI method.
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?
Although availability has been increased since V 1, I'm wondering how the two of you are doing on patrol aircraft.
For those not familiar with the scenario, there are no factories for patrol aircraft. The game automatically produces one per turn even with no factory, and the rest are provided by an initial pool and those that come with new airgroups. There are no combat losses on these aircraft, however, they can be destroyed in a air attack on a base. Also, if a base where they are located is captured, many are lost. I estimated enough to cover a couple of catestrophic events (like loss of a base) a year.
For those not familiar with the scenario, there are no factories for patrol aircraft. The game automatically produces one per turn even with no factory, and the rest are provided by an initial pool and those that come with new airgroups. There are no combat losses on these aircraft, however, they can be destroyed in a air attack on a base. Also, if a base where they are located is captured, many are lost. I estimated enough to cover a couple of catestrophic events (like loss of a base) a year.