First game questions
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: First game questions
It starts right away. But just like everything else in the game, all AC ships have to get to where they need to go. Which takes a long time [:(]
Many people hate the AC system. I actually like it quite a bit. One thing that really helps it is a little button on every Base screen that you can toggle, Auto convoy Off/On. So if you do not want a base to be a part of the AC system, you can easily turn it off [:)]
This way you can actually control exactly where you want the AC ships to sail to (or not). This is a great way to keep these ships out of hostile waters while still getting supplies/resources to where they need to be.
Many people hate the AC system. I actually like it quite a bit. One thing that really helps it is a little button on every Base screen that you can toggle, Auto convoy Off/On. So if you do not want a base to be a part of the AC system, you can easily turn it off [:)]
This way you can actually control exactly where you want the AC ships to sail to (or not). This is a great way to keep these ships out of hostile waters while still getting supplies/resources to where they need to be.
-
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:06 am
RE: First game questions
I see, the AI is creating auto convoys, docking them, filling the holds, and then sending them off the next day. That makes sense, but with a bunch of convoy targets this is going to take awhile.
-
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:06 am
RE: First game questions
I am slowly digesting everything, but I have two things giving me some trouble now.
1) It looks like the situation in China could get dangerous without my significant input. Right now, its just a mess of units to my eyes.
2) The HQ structure is very messy too.
I suppose my only option is to take a lot of notes and make plans in China. Will tactical withdrawals to straighten out my line in China hurt me much in the VP department?
1) It looks like the situation in China could get dangerous without my significant input. Right now, its just a mess of units to my eyes.
2) The HQ structure is very messy too.
I suppose my only option is to take a lot of notes and make plans in China. Will tactical withdrawals to straighten out my line in China hurt me much in the VP department?
RE: First game questions
Do not worry about the HQ structure for any power in AE. It does not matter. It is not like it is in Hearts of Iron for example.
As long as units are with the range of an HQ, regardless if it is directly attached or not the unit will get the benefit of any leaders. If a lower level HQ is within range of a higher level HQ AND the unit is within range of BOTH HQs, the unit will get the benefits of both HQs.
Most lower level HQs have a range of 1, while higher ones have a range of 5.
This same concept applies to all units, land, air, etc. You will never have enough Political Points as either side to restructure the entire OOB to the way you want like you can in HoI.
This is something that OCD people will have a very hard time adjusting to as it is 'just not right' [:D] I will freely admit I have occasionally spent a few PP to change things around. But once you realize how much points that takes and you are then short PP to buy something you REALLY need, you learn to adjust to the way the game is designed. Or go nuts. Or maybe both [8|]
As long as units are with the range of an HQ, regardless if it is directly attached or not the unit will get the benefit of any leaders. If a lower level HQ is within range of a higher level HQ AND the unit is within range of BOTH HQs, the unit will get the benefits of both HQs.
Most lower level HQs have a range of 1, while higher ones have a range of 5.
This same concept applies to all units, land, air, etc. You will never have enough Political Points as either side to restructure the entire OOB to the way you want like you can in HoI.
This is something that OCD people will have a very hard time adjusting to as it is 'just not right' [:D] I will freely admit I have occasionally spent a few PP to change things around. But once you realize how much points that takes and you are then short PP to buy something you REALLY need, you learn to adjust to the way the game is designed. Or go nuts. Or maybe both [8|]
RE: First game questions
Are lover level HQs monogamous?
ORIGINAL: Numdydar
Most lover level HQs have a range of 1, while higher ones have a range of 5.
RE: First game questions
You need you eyes checked as that is not what it said. You obviously changed my wording around. You do not work in the media do you? [:D]
-
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:06 am
RE: First game questions
That's actually great advice Numdydar! I must let go... I must let go...
But I have to point out the contradiction- this game is made for OCD micromanagers! For god sakes you must deploy minefield tenders and match engines to airframes!
But I have to point out the contradiction- this game is made for OCD micromanagers! For god sakes you must deploy minefield tenders and match engines to airframes!
RE: First game questions
Will tactical withdrawals to straighten out my line in China hurt me much in the VP department?
IMHO, you want your 'lines' in China as messy as possible. This gives you the opportunity to cut/hinder Japanese supply lines, etc. It makes it more difficult for Japan to move forward when he has to keep one eye behind him.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
RE: First game questions
Remember he IS Japan so that advice will not work for him [:)]
RE: First game questions
Oops.[:(]
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
-
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:06 am
RE: First game questions
Another question for a Japanese veteran: I have a bunch of short endurance ASW vessels; what is the best way to use them? I assume just forming up ASW TFs that sail around and look for subs is not the most efficient way to employ them. Or maybe so, that's why I ask
RE: First game questions
Well that is what I do [:)]
I set them up on short patrol routes around Japan and turn on the computer control button. That way I no longer have to bother with them unless I want to upgrade them.
I set them up on short patrol routes around Japan and turn on the computer control button. That way I no longer have to bother with them unless I want to upgrade them.
- LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4801
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
RE: First game questions
I put them in ASW TFs sitting at choke points with react orders. They will react to subs spotted by air search.
RE: First game questions
I put them in ASW TFs sitting at choke points with react orders. They will react to subs spotted by air search.
Yep. Also you can use them to escort short haul convoy's, such as from Sakhalin, or Port Arthur. And what Numdydar said. So as you can see there are numerous uses for these vessels.
It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche
Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb
-
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:06 am
RE: First game questions
I do appreciate all of the advice, I think I have digested much of the basics to the point where I almost understand what is going on. I just need a couple of clarifications:
1) How do you figure out how much space a crated plane will take up?
2) How do you train carrier capable squadrons to carrier trained squadrons?
1) How do you figure out how much space a crated plane will take up?
2) How do you train carrier capable squadrons to carrier trained squadrons?
RE: First game questions
1) Not much. I guess a fighter takes 10-12 points of cargo space. Just load the grand campaign as the Allies and try to load different aircraft in San Francisco.
RE: First game questions
On point 2 just put them on a CV and set them to train. In about 3 months they will become carrier trained.
However you can freely use carrier capable planes freely on CVs and the impact on op losses is non-existent as far as I can tell. So I freely use carrier capable and CV trained on CVs as needed.
However you can freely use carrier capable planes freely on CVs and the impact on op losses is non-existent as far as I can tell. So I freely use carrier capable and CV trained on CVs as needed.
RE: First game questions
The space taken up by crated planes is the same as the cost of buying them. The quantums are found in the Logistics 101 guide.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2878790&mpage=1&key=supply�
Alfred
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2878790&mpage=1&key=supply�
Alfred
-
- Posts: 199
- Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:06 am
RE: First game questions
I have successfully climbed the learning cliff and am proceeding to play out my game. I have played from May - September '42, as the Japanese. Needless to say, its been a tough road. Little things keep annoying me about the game, little details about managing this or that, but overall I am accepting the game for what it is.
The biggest problem I am having right now is figuring out why the Japanese are sucking in A2A combat. In situations where I am fighting the Allies with the best available fighters with experienced crews (75+) versus allied fighters of unknown skill, but flying in many cases some variant of the P-39 (or lesser types), and on occasion P-40s. In 4+ months of fighting, the Allies have lost very few fighters (probably less than 20 that weren't P-36s)in A2A combat and have equaled or bested my fighter pilots in almost every encounter. The only encounters I could claim to have won were versus P-36s. The AI is hording his carriers, so I haven't even had a chance to go A2A versus Wildcats.
Mind you, we are talking about a variety of situations: CAP, LR CAP, Escort, Sweep. The one time I did an opposed sweep, my Zeros with wiped out. My last A2A encounter, 25 Zeroes escorting a naval strike tangled with 25 P-39s. While the Zeroes did decently occupying the allied fighters, I lost at least 14 Zeroes shot down and 3 damaged to the allies 1 loss. This was probably my best land based squadron, experience wise. I know that any particular result can be explained away, but this is a definite pattern. Also, I will add that in 90% of A2A encounters I have numerical superiority (many times doubling what the allies bring).
I doubt I am missing some major game feature, though I probably am missing some nuisance or other about A2A combat. What am I missing? From other games I have played, I am expecting a bit more competence by the Japanese in A2A combat in 1942.
The biggest problem I am having right now is figuring out why the Japanese are sucking in A2A combat. In situations where I am fighting the Allies with the best available fighters with experienced crews (75+) versus allied fighters of unknown skill, but flying in many cases some variant of the P-39 (or lesser types), and on occasion P-40s. In 4+ months of fighting, the Allies have lost very few fighters (probably less than 20 that weren't P-36s)in A2A combat and have equaled or bested my fighter pilots in almost every encounter. The only encounters I could claim to have won were versus P-36s. The AI is hording his carriers, so I haven't even had a chance to go A2A versus Wildcats.
Mind you, we are talking about a variety of situations: CAP, LR CAP, Escort, Sweep. The one time I did an opposed sweep, my Zeros with wiped out. My last A2A encounter, 25 Zeroes escorting a naval strike tangled with 25 P-39s. While the Zeroes did decently occupying the allied fighters, I lost at least 14 Zeroes shot down and 3 damaged to the allies 1 loss. This was probably my best land based squadron, experience wise. I know that any particular result can be explained away, but this is a definite pattern. Also, I will add that in 90% of A2A encounters I have numerical superiority (many times doubling what the allies bring).
I doubt I am missing some major game feature, though I probably am missing some nuisance or other about A2A combat. What am I missing? From other games I have played, I am expecting a bit more competence by the Japanese in A2A combat in 1942.
- geofflambert
- Posts: 14887
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2010 2:18 pm
- Location: St. Louis
RE: First game questions
ORIGINAL: Numdydar
On point 2 just put them on a CV and set them to train. In about 3 months they will become carrier trained.
However you can freely use carrier capable planes freely on CVs and the impact on op losses is non-existent as far as I can tell. So I freely use carrier capable and CV trained on CVs as needed.
Actually, in my experience, they will become carrier trained regardless. If you make them operational and do searches or ASW or CAP, whatever, they will become carrier trained.