Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message


Knavey -> Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (12/1/2010 5:59:52 PM)

There are 4 subs in the Downfall scenario that start with 0 endurance. No big deal...except these are in TFs off the coast of Japan and will have a long trip home to refuel.

Multiple surface ships start with no fuel also, but they are in port so no issue there.




rjopel -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (12/2/2010 1:47:38 AM)

The biggest issue IMHO is the number of ships with only thier early or no upgrades. A lot of the prewar USN ships are still in thier Dec 41 configurations. I know not every ship will be in the most current upgrade but I can't see any ship not being upgraded to its 1944 upgrades.




JeffK -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (12/3/2010 11:46:18 PM)

Balikpapan starts without AV support, but has aircraft.
Brunei starts without AV support, but has aircraft due to arrive.
Peleiu isnt a big enough port to support the BPF, maybe Ulithi was a more historical replacement for Manus.
Guam is also small for the USN.
Morotai should also be a major Land/Air base and the Australians use this as their entry
Both USN & RN CV need their squadrons resized to 1945 standards.
Attu (at least) should be developed, I should be able to threaten Paramushiro without spending months building up the base,

Hard to fix, LCU are prepped for assaults, it takes soooo long to change them.






Nemo121 -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (12/4/2010 12:52:58 AM)

IJA infantry quality is also too low.

IJA units which were deployed in China fighting guerillas etc shouldn't have an Exp of 25 when many US and other units which had almost no combat experience come in at 55 or 60.


The exact same upgrade situation ( lack of upgrades ) pertains to the Japanese side and, also, a thorough review of fortification levels and garrisons should be undertaken. Right now a large number of crucial island bases for Japan have no garrison. This makes it far too easy for the Allies to rapidly advance.




Andy Mac -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (12/4/2010 7:32:22 PM)

Corrected some of this stuff dont agree with it all.

Upgrades for ships, fuel and garrisons yes some forts and port sizes all fixed





stuman -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (12/17/2010 3:21:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Corrected some of this stuff dont agree with it all.

Upgrades for ships, fuel and garrisons yes some forts and port sizes all fixed




Can I make the changes to a game in progress , or do I to restart?




Fallschirmjager -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (12/17/2010 6:55:55 AM)

This is fantastic Andy. I like these smaller scenarios more than the full campaign. I wish there were a few more of them.
Most of all I wish a team would come together with an update south Pacific scenario that was like UVs and ran until Dec 31st 1943




Andy Mac -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (12/17/2010 3:34:10 PM)

Glad you enjoy it




Fallschirmjager -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (12/17/2010 10:48:37 PM)

Any thoughts of pushing the start date forward a few months and including Okinawa?




Andy Mac -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (2/23/2011 12:56:05 AM)

Bump as it has the ocrrection file for Downfall




traskott -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (2/23/2011 10:04:07 PM)

Thanks !!! It's a very good scenario [:)]




CPOCMAN -> Enterprise and Saratoga Access at PH (6/10/2011 3:48:37 AM)

Andy,

Just downloaded your scenario and giving it a try for the first time. Saw that Enterprise and Saratoga are showing on the CV ships list when I look at all the ships available. It shows them to be at PH. However, when I click on PH to show the ships ported there, they do not show up as available or show up as being repaired. Is this a possible error or is it intended to not have Enterprise and Saratoga available for use?

Looking forward to playing the scenario but will hold off pending any information/update you may have. Thanks for taking the time to design this to start - it must have taken you a while!

CPOCMAN




SimonDC -> RE: Enterprise and Saratoga Access at PH (6/10/2011 11:40:46 PM)

CPOCMAN, I believe the issue is that there are over 1000 ships at Pearl (same thing in Manila). With over 1000 ships not all show up, although I don't know the criteria. If you create an escort TF they should show up. The trick is to move a bunch of AKs to CONUS, to get the figure below 1000.

Simon




CPOCMAN -> RE: Enterprise and Saratoga Access at PH (6/20/2011 4:49:04 AM)

Simon DC -

Many thanks. That got it to work!

CPOCMAN




PaxMondo -> P-61C production rate? (6/22/2011 5:21:15 AM)

Are the Black Widows supposed to be out of production or is that an oversight?

P-61C starts with pool=38, but no build rate ....




Halsey -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (7/10/2011 2:24:27 AM)

bump...




JeffK -> RE: Official Downfall Scenario Erratta (7/11/2011 8:27:24 AM)

No so much eratta but a few different thoughts.   Andy has done a great job, but all of us have differing ideas.
If the war was going the way postulated in setting up the scenario, some different actions may have been taken.
So off to the editor.

1)  All USA Tank Bns get M4 Shermans ( and M26 Pershing if you want) Any M5 Stuarts are replaced by M24 Chaffee
2)  All USA units get 57mm AT to replace the 37mm, I left some RCT with the 37mm.
3)  All USA & USMC AAA gets upgraded, 20mm Oerliken replaces 50cal, 40mm Bofors replaces 37mm AAA and 90mm replaces 75mm or 3"
    I swap between the 2 90mm types to provide a mix of guns.
4)  The Australian Armd Bde gets Sherman MkV and the Armd Bns get Churchill VIII, these were trialled on Bouganville. Any 2pdr AT are replaced by 6 pdr.
5)  All British/Indian/Australian units have 20mm Oerliken/40mm Bofors/3.7" AAA
6)  I upgun the F8F Bearcat with 4 x 20mm HS406, who would put out a fighter with 4 x 50cals at this point!!
7)  Front left field, I add the Grumman P-65 in small numbers, the Army version of the F7F Tigercat, just for fun.
8)  I rename the RAAF P-51D as the CA-18 Mustang, chrome, chrome, chrome.
9)  5 Sqn RAAF gets the Mosquito FB40 instead of the Vengeance I.
10)  2 NZ Division was a "Mixed Division, 2 Inf Bdes and 1 Armd Bde, game has it as a standard Inf Div. I know in Italy it "grew" another Inf Bde but this was an ad hoc organization
10) maybe a bug, 3 Dutch air units start/arrive, I'll give them B25 & P51D instead of their 1941 aircraft.

These are chrome and add 0.0001% to the game.

More serious, IMHO, are:
Allied Experience and Morale are woeful, and the IJAAF & IJNAF are pretty good.
11)   I gave all Allied squadrons experience & morale in a 65-80 range (The editor does it for you)
12)   I gave all IJAAF & IJNAF squadrons experience & morale in a 20-80 range.
IMHO, his more accurately portrays the opposing Air Forces. The JFB should expect to be shot out of the sky, but occasional units have 'experten'.

I did the same for land units, but am thinking that maybe the ex ETO units should be a bit lower due to lack of experience in the PTO.

Does anyone else have ideas of other shiny bits to add to the game?






Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.050781E-02