Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Pacific War is a free update of the old classic, available in our Downloads section.
User avatar
Skipjack_
Posts: 208
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2008 10:03 pm

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by Skipjack_ »

I have been careful (and fortunate) to not lose patrol squadrons when bases fall. So no issues with PBY availability.
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by bradk »

ORIGINAL: Skipjack_

I have been careful (and fortunate) to not lose patrol squadrons when bases fall. So no issues with PBY availability.

Cool. That's consistent with, for example, with Nimitz instruction that if Midway was in danger of falling to bring out the heavy stuff. This is the sort of behavior the scneario is intended to encourage.

Thank you for the information. The number of patrol aircraft to provide was a very difficult estimate.
User avatar
Ranger-75
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Giant sand box

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by Ranger-75 »

I looked at the aircraft chart and I don't know where you decided on the ludicrously short ranges for the USN carrier planes from. Ex the F4F's range of 845 mi was 2/3 of the A6M 1260 miles, but you have the F4F at 1/2 the range. And it gets worse.

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by bradk »

ORIGINAL: Ranger-75

I looked at the aircraft chart and I don't know where you decided on the ludicrously short ranges for the USN carrier planes from. Ex the F4F's range of 845 mi was 2/3 of the A6M 1260 miles, but you have the F4F at 1/2 the range. And it gets worse.



For the most part the range ratings of aircraft are the same as used for years by SSI and/or Matrix.
User avatar
Ranger-75
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Giant sand box

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by Ranger-75 »

That's part of my point Brad, It's never been right. The Dauntless had a range about equal to the Zero. Of course the game doesn't handle widely differing ranges on the carrier air groups very well.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by bradk »

ORIGINAL: Ranger-75

That's part of my point Brad, It's never been right. The Dauntless had a range about equal to the Zero. Of course the game doesn't handle widely differing ranges on the carrier air groups very well.

There have been discussions here and on the old pacwar mailing list about range. Many of them. Similar points have been made by people for 20+ years. Someone says the range of an aircraft is x and someone else says yes, but not combat loaded, and someone else says its longer with a drop tank, and someone else says there's no... what's the term... linger time?... over the target at that range.

Anyway, I've seen nothing in any of those multiple discussions convincing enough to make changes in the range of significant numbers of aircraft. Of course, anyone can modify the ranges to their liking, regardless of community consensus... as long as their opponent agrees!

As far as "never been right" goes, well, the contraints of the game are that the same forumla for application of the range rating applies to all aircraft. Range to ships and LCUs is as rated, to ports, airfields, and factories 1.5 the rating (rounded down), and over a certain range bombers may carry a lighter load based on a comparision between capacity and weapon warhead. WHen changing the range rating because of one characterisitc, it must be considered whether there are resultant consequences more undesireable than the one being corrected.

Or, in short terms, I don't have an answer to a problem that has been discussed by many knowlegeable people over a 20 year period without coming up with an answer.
User avatar
Ranger-75
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Giant sand box

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by Ranger-75 »

Thanks Brad, I'm not singling you out, because even the original versions had these ratings. It's just that it has vexed me for as long as it has been in existence, and you're right; "correcting" one thing can have strange 2nd and 3rd order effects on other things.

PacWar is a fun game - if one likes massive strategic level games ;-), but I'm under no illusion that it is highly realistic, especially where modelling logistics comes into play.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by bradk »

ORIGINAL: Ranger-75

Thanks Brad, I'm not singling you out, because even the original versions had these ratings.

I know you weren't. I just happened to be available at the time.
User avatar
Ranger-75
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Giant sand box

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by Ranger-75 »

ORIGINAL: bradk

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!

Although not an issue except with an aggressive and successful IJ player, Matrix changes placed Seattle in the Artic combat zone, air bascialy doesn't work. I suspect its a side effect of drawing a box that includes the northern Japanese islands. I inquired whether anyone knew 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.


Is Seattle really in the Arctic zone in the latest versions? If so when did this change? I think I'll move it south a row to get it out of the zone.

Arctic Blue is a nice color for my convertible, but we can't have Seattle in the Arctic zone now...
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
User avatar
Ranger-75
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Giant sand box

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by Ranger-75 »

Zeke99, this is just for you! (but everyone is welcome to read as well).

From Shattered Sword, p 89:

"Japan would produce just 56 carrier attack aircraft in all of 1942 (Vals, Kates, and Judy & Jill prototypes), a pathetically low figure". Nakajima and Aichi had actually stopped production of Kates & Vals to try and work out production problems with the new models, and had to (slowly) re-start production of these two types.

The rest of this is on a new thread.

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by bradk »

ORIGINAL: Ranger-75

Is Seattle really in the Arctic zone in the latest versions? If so when did this change? I think I'll move it south a row to get it out of the zone.

Yes. Apparently as an undesired effect of wanting some northern IJ islands in the zone. I assume the zone is defined by a single x/y entry in the exe.

Moving Seattle one hex south may not solve the problem. We don't know whether the artic zone extends just to Seattle or farther south. And also for air action the arctic effect is calculated twice, once at the originating hex and once at the target hex. So a TF NW of Seattle would still be affected.

I haven't found anyone with knowledge and ability to fix this in the exe.
User avatar
Ranger-75
Posts: 572
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Giant sand box

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by Ranger-75 »

OK, well the map goes straight across, so I'll just look at those islands in Japan and cruise the cursor due east and see where it hits the North America west coast.

I don't think this change was in effect in the Matrix v 2.2 and 2.3 editions.
Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...
User avatar
zeke99
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 6:31 am

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by zeke99 »

moved to other thread
shortty
Posts: 20
Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 10:52 am

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by shortty »

I see that in this scenerio the starting Control and Production points are reduced to maximize the effect of Kill points. How did you modify the Control points?
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by bradk »

ORIGINAL: shortty

I see that in this scenerio the starting Control and Production points are reduced to maximize the effect of Kill points. How did you modify the Control points?

Sorry for the late response. Real life has intervenes for many months.

I wouldn't say I maximized the effect of kill points. I returned the relationship between them to close to SSI values.

Control points are affected by many things including airfield and port size, factory size, resources, and oil. When I changed heavy industry, oil, and resources to the SSI values, control points were reduced to close to SSI values.
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by bradk »

I finally got around to working on this after over a year of no activity.

Zeke had previously suggested increasing the experience of the Indian LCUs. Actually, upon consideration, I decided that all the Allied LCUs in Burma/India, and DEI probably have experience set so allow IJ AI to take over on schedule, and thus are under rating for a human opponent. So I did the following:

  • Indian LCUs, plus 15 experience (most are now 35 or 40)
  • Dutch LCUs, plus 20 experience (most are now 40)
  • Aus home defences LCUs, plus 10 experience (most are now 50)

To answer the protests in advance [:D]

No, I don't think the Ind LCUs are as good as the Dutch, and I don't think either is 80% as good as the Aus home defense LCUs. The rating changes are not based on real life evaluations but rather what I think it takes to make the game work well.

I'm also going to fix the exe so there are no factory and airgroup upgrades, so the players don't have be be careful about setting the game ot human factory control. It really gets messed up if they don't.
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by bradk »

Zeke previously reported woefully inadequate aircraft supplies in human/hunan game. However, he accidentally loaded a scenario that was a test scenario for AI/AI.

I have a game going with V1.06 where my opponent and I are playing largely for data collection purposes. On turn 96 we shared data on aircraft pools.

Game date is Oct 43, turn 96.

IJ holds fairly close to its maximum historical area plus India and a couple of bases on Aus. Multiple fighter groups are involved in fighter sweeps where bases are close. IJN has lost several carriers in central Pacific island chain battles. USN carriers have mostly survived, but with significant damage, against IJ LBA and carrier air.

I'm not sure how typical this game is as far as aircraft useage but anyway, here are the pools. Comments appreciated.

Game Turn 96

Pool-Model-# Turns Available

670 F4F 96
142 FM2 26
62 F6F 26
95 Spit V 26
308 P40 export 96
242 Hurricane IIB 96
25 Hurricane IIc 8
247 P39 export 96
139 F4U-1 50
129 P47D 16
697 P40 96
179 P38G 50
38 P38J 6
38 P51B 6
848 P39 96
1363 SBD 96
7 SB2C 6
724 TBF 70
73 Barracuda 20
160 Albacore I 93
323 Blenheim IV 96
216 Hudson 96
173 B26 export 96
263 Wellington III 86
230 Beaufighter X 41
223 Beaufort Turn 91
155 Martin 139 Turn 96
153 PBY 96
156 A20 96
1643 B25 93
428 B26 96
184 B24 42
150 C47 96


718 A5M 96
50 A6M2 96
27 A6M5 11
609 Ki27 96
115 Ki43 96
182 Ki61 31
89 J2M 16
155 J1N 56
61 Ki43II 54
45 Ki45 60
493 D3A 96
241 D4Y 36
433 B5N 96
6 B6N 6
512 Ki32 96
346 Ki48 96
211 Ki21II 96
376 Ki 49 96
356 G3M 96
726 G4M 96
84 E13A 96
161 H6K 96
707 Ki51 96
149 Ki46II 96


There's something here that has worked out very well. This game has no factories for patrol or transport aircraft. But the pools are good. Amounts intially placed in the pools and airgroups plus auto production of 1 aircraft per turn (this occurs even without a factory) has provided adequate number of these aircraft.

User avatar
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?

Post by Capt. Harlock »

I'm not sure how typical this game is as far as aircraft useage but anyway, here are the pools. Comments appreciated.

The levels of Hellcats and A6M2 Zeroes seem rather small -- have there been heavy losses of these types? On the other hand, the numbers of G4M's are (for an Allied player) alarmingly high. Has there been a concentration on production of Betties?
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by bradk »

I think fighter losses have been exceptionally heavy in this game.

The Hellcat has been in production only 26 turns. The Allied player has converted all the carrier based Wildcats to Hellcats. Then we had the huge carrier battles around the atolls. Of course, that used up Zeros too.

Its been a very fighter oriented game between the land based airgroups. I have a base with a level 6 airfield. Its under heavy attack from two Allied bases. I have 6 fighter groups there - no bombers because even 6 fighter groups can't take on replacements fast enough to maintain their size. I have to rotate them out every few turns.

The G4M pool is high because of how I've chosen to use it. I've had G4Ms mostly on ASW since the beginning of the game. Also, I did not change any G3M groups to G4Ms. Production is 13 per week.
bradk
Posts: 376
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 1:21 pm

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

Post by bradk »

ORIGINAL: bradk

I finally got around to working on this after over a year of no activity.

Zeke had previously suggested increasing the experience of the Indian LCUs. Actually, upon consideration, I decided that all the Allied LCUs in Burma/India, and DEI probably have experience set so allow IJ AI to take over on schedule, and thus are under rating for a human opponent. So I did the following:

  • Indian LCUs, plus 15 experience (most are now 35 or 40)
  • Dutch LCUs, plus 20 experience (most are now 40)
  • Aus home defences LCUs, plus 10 experience (most are now 50)

To answer the protests in advance [:D]

No, I don't think the Ind LCUs are as good as the Dutch, and I don't think either is 80% as good as the Aus home defense LCUs. The rating changes are not based on real life evaluations but rather what I think it takes to make the game work well.

I'm also going to fix the exe so there are no factory and airgroup upgrades, so the players don't have be be careful about setting the game ot human factory control. It really gets messed up if they don't.


This worked out satisfatorily for the Dutch LCUs. I finished the DEI campaign in early March which is about right. I think we've probably all seen low experience Dutch LCUs surrender even when they had a path to retreat. That didn't happen. So I like the results.

Actually, there's one Dutch base I haven't taken but I could have. I elected to use my prep points elsewhere.

I don't have any information on perormance the Indian LCUs. The Allied player elected to retreat back to India.

In contrast to the Burma strategy, the Allied player elected to defend southeast New Guinea and the northwest Solomons. He even has a CV group deployed in the area. So since I'm dealing with that, I haven't had a chance to see how the Aus home defense LCUs do.
Post Reply

Return to “Pacific War: The Matrix Edition”