Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 6:28:26 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I want to issue a challenge to the forum just to make it interesting.

Tiger Force is in the game arriving late 45/46 it has X Commonwealth Corps HQ and has several formations as it never actually happened I had to pick a commander for the formation (as the original leader was a placeholder)

It had to be an experienced Corps Commander acceptable to the US and CW Govts not just to the British - someone used to dealing with allies and respected.

I came down to three names for that command

My 1st choice Lt General Bernard Freyberg VC
My 2nd choice Lt General Richard O'Conner
My 3rd Choice Lt General Leslie Morshead (but he was already in game and I wanted to add something different !!!!)

This is your chance to influence the commander of the land component of X Corps I selected Freyberg for the command because I always had a sneaking regard for the man and its the only area in the whole ORBAT where I allowed myself artistic licence.

BUT if the forum can pick a better candidate for a force that arrives in 46 I am happy to hear it so go ahead !!!!

(p.s. NO MONTY I dont want to spend 10 years arguing about stats)

I'm no expert, but I've read a bit about the 2nd New Zealand Division and I think he's a good choice.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 121
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 6:29:12 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Bernard Freyberg, was the CO on Crete right...?

Yes.

_____________________________


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 122
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 6:31:18 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Japanese Enginear units:

From WiTP my isues with Japanese enginear units werre prety much that thye did not realy seam to mimic what I come to understand they were suposed to look like at all, buy my impreshions were based on infermation I got from OOB's in books about the various island campagines, and from reading the Handbook on The Japanese Army (the war department book), which I know is a dated referance work, and some other sources.

The impreshion I had was that some Japanese enginear units were very large in size manpower wise, and would break off chunks to use to tackle a given construction task, a core or brain power unit would supervise a large labor force, this labor force would consist of what ever troops were in the area, or be drawn from a labor force that was specificaly created for that end, such as an Okinawan labor unit, or a Korean labor unit. These labor units (regements) would also fight, or they did on Okinawa and on other islands, and provided a manpower pool for replacements,they were typicaly not armed, the labor regements, but as a mater of course for these battles were aloted arms and made use of weapons that came to have no owner when used as replacements.

  Some Japanese Specialised units like road construction or airfield construction had inhearent enginearing vehicals, rolers, road graders, tractor's,Trucks, cement mixers exc...which were totaly absent from the stock game .

_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depends on our point of view

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 123
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 6:32:05 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 22403
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline
Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I want to issue a challenge to the forum just to make it interesting.

Tiger Force is in the game arriving late 45/46 it has X Commonwealth Corps HQ and has several formations as it never actually happened I had to pick a commander for the formation (as the original leader was a placeholder)

It had to be an experienced Corps Commander acceptable to the US and CW Govts not just to the British - someone used to dealing with allies and respected.

I came down to three names for that command

My 1st choice Lt General Bernard Freyberg VC
My 2nd choice Lt General Richard O'Conner
My 3rd Choice Lt General Leslie Morshead (but he was already in game and I wanted to add something different !!!!)

This is your chance to influence the commander of the land component of X Corps I selected Freyberg for the command because I always had a sneaking regard for the man and its the only area in the whole ORBAT where I allowed myself artistic licence.

BUT if the forum can pick a better candidate for a force that arrives in 46 I am happy to hear it so go ahead !!!!

(p.s. NO MONTY I dont want to spend 10 years arguing about stats)


You will be forgiven...

BTW, I also think that general Freyberg is very good choice for that post (although I have aprsolutely nohing against Monty )...


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 124
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 6:34:37 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1774
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Do Japanese Engenering units model some Enginear vehicals, or do they still just use humans and abstrat thier combat abalitys, in many Big battles during the war Japanese Enginear units provided large manpower researves, which in game was represented by giving them a limited combat value. Also many Japanese enginear units that didi have Earth moving equipment did not in game. Also many Japanese "Truck" or transport units that were used as pools for other units were not in game and as a result many units that benifited from having truck transpot available did noit have any represented at all in game has this been looked at?

BTW TY for answering all these questions.


Currently (some) of them have engineer vehicles. We added the vehicles just to make you happy because we were remembering old forum discussions about this topic.

Truck transport units are not in the game, they're (abstractly) represented by support (squads) found in HQ units.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 125
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 6:36:17 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
, I was just looking those old topic's up thanks, her's a pick I snaged from one of them:



_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depends on our point of view

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 126
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 6:40:07 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10552
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
This kinda what I am refering to with the manpower aspect:

From Peleliu 1944:

Japanese forces present Palau District:

14th Divishion HQ-300(number of men)
2nd Infentry regement-3,960
15th Infentry regement-3,160
57th infentry regement-3,160
14th divishion tank unit-130
14th divishion signal unit-235
14th divishion transport unit-130
14th divishion sea transport unit-1,540
14th divishion independent service unit-130
14th divishion ordance duty unit-100
14th divishion water suply and purification unit-160
14th divishion field hospital-595

" The 14th Divishions 15th (-3rd battalion) and 59th Infentry regements (-1st Battalion) defended Babelthuap along with the 53rd IMB (-346th Battalion), almost 21,000 troops and 10,000 Korean and Okinawan labors."

" Yap Island was defended by 4,000 troops of the 49th IMB, 3,000 IJN personal of the 46th base force and 1,000 labors."

Other tables show the actual Enginer units asigned to these areas, but the number of men in them is very small, like:

53 IMB Enginer Unit-220

which clearly is in no way reflective of the men at their disposal.


Finialy some Motor transport suport for some of the Heavy Artillery and AA Units.


_____________________________



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depends on our point of view

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 127
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 7:08:09 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6737
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Ground Bombardments reseting movement orders

I have various LCU's at Myitkyina and I want to move some of them to Ledo and then India to be rebuilt. Currently, they get reset to their base of origin when my opponent does a bombarment attack. Is there going to be a way (i.e. - have a specific AV ratio between forces, maybe) that would allow me to withdraw troops instead of them being suck in a particular base??

_____________________________


(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 128
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 7:43:57 PM   
Gunner98


Posts: 763
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I want to issue a challenge to the forum just to make it interesting.

Tiger Force is in the game arriving late 45/46 it has X Commonwealth Corps HQ and has several formations as it never actually happened I had to pick a commander for the formation (as the original leader was a placeholder)

It had to be an experienced Corps Commander acceptable to the US and CW Govts not just to the British - someone used to dealing with allies and respected.

I came down to three names for that command

My 1st choice Lt General Bernard Freyberg VC
My 2nd choice Lt General Richard O'Conner
My 3rd Choice Lt General Leslie Morshead (but he was already in game and I wanted to add something different !!!!)

This is your chance to influence the commander of the land component of X Corps I selected Freyberg for the command because I always had a sneaking regard for the man and its the only area in the whole ORBAT where I allowed myself artistic licence.

BUT if the forum can pick a better candidate for a force that arrives in 46 I am happy to hear it so go ahead !!!!

(p.s. NO MONTY I dont want to spend 10 years arguing about stats)

I'm no expert, but I've read a bit about the 2nd New Zealand Division and I think he's a good choice.


Freyberg is a good choice, and probably good to keep him away from Monty by that stage!!

Curious if there is a Canadian Corps planned for early 46? I believe it was the 6th & 7th Cdn Divs and would have been 3rd Cdn Corps probably commanded by Simonds or Hoffmeister (perhaps even Foster). Not sure if one of the Armd Divs was lined up for the task. Big political issues but many of the existing troops (restricted enlistment) in those divisions would likely have been replaced by NWE vets from the 5 regular divisions.

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 129
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 7:46:59 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Ah …. Finally understand the original question about ‘devices’. I’m slow, but get there eventually.

OOBs (TO&Es) were sliced and diced at the battalion level, to identify those support weapons (and crews) that would naturally be found at the FEBA. The Allies generally had more support weapons at the company level, and those weapon’s firepower (and crew constitution) have been incorporated into what we all call ‘infantry squads’. Company and battalion level machine guns have been directly addressed (for both sides), so that the inherent firepower of a unit is much more adequately modeled.

Infantry support MGs are aggregated into a device type called ‘squad’ (more than one gun in a squad), so that units show a net benefit to AV, as well as firepower. These “MG squads” are aggregated so that loading costs and support requirements are not skewed, by counting every nose as separate.

Basically, the OOBs much better reflect the combat potential of a unit, and are way better able to be accurately represented.


< Message edited by JWE -- 12/8/2007 7:48:51 PM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 130
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 8:49:52 PM   
drw61


Posts: 763
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: Newport, Washington
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

1) Earler it was mentioned that Japanese Enginear units could not be modeled in as detailed a maner as was wanted, referng to the larger ones Construuction units.

2)Also what about CD unts arree they as generic as before?

3) Are their any specialised units in game that their were not before?


1) Joe was referring to a problem with the game function(s) of the Combat Engineer device and we're still working on this. Another problem is that information about Japanese Construction units (formation date, TOE etc.) is hard to get and our source material (and thus the game OOB) may be somewhat incomplete. Still trying to improve this.

2) No, they're much more detailed/individual.

3) Yes (lots of).




This is getting better and better!

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 131
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 10:31:44 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13721
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
OK Freyberg it is

At the moment I have not included a Canadian Corps HQ (didn't know one was planned)

My sources indicate Tiger Force - ground element

X Corps HQ
Was an Australian Div (which I ignored as we dont disband other Aus Divs)
6th Can Div
3rd British Div
4th NZ Bde
and a Royal Marine Commando Div (there were also a large number of RM Beach Bns but I ignored these as they were really support not combat troops)
and 2 Armoured Bdes

I added an AGRA because that was appropriate

All formation use US equipment and TOE except the Commando Div.

Now the above arrives late 45 early 46 so its unlikely to see action but we wanted to add it as it was going to exist.

Andy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98


quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I want to issue a challenge to the forum just to make it interesting.

Tiger Force is in the game arriving late 45/46 it has X Commonwealth Corps HQ and has several formations as it never actually happened I had to pick a commander for the formation (as the original leader was a placeholder)

It had to be an experienced Corps Commander acceptable to the US and CW Govts not just to the British - someone used to dealing with allies and respected.

I came down to three names for that command

My 1st choice Lt General Bernard Freyberg VC
My 2nd choice Lt General Richard O'Conner
My 3rd Choice Lt General Leslie Morshead (but he was already in game and I wanted to add something different !!!!)

This is your chance to influence the commander of the land component of X Corps I selected Freyberg for the command because I always had a sneaking regard for the man and its the only area in the whole ORBAT where I allowed myself artistic licence.

BUT if the forum can pick a better candidate for a force that arrives in 46 I am happy to hear it so go ahead !!!!

(p.s. NO MONTY I dont want to spend 10 years arguing about stats)

I'm no expert, but I've read a bit about the 2nd New Zealand Division and I think he's a good choice.


Freyberg is a good choice, and probably good to keep him away from Monty by that stage!!

Curious if there is a Canadian Corps planned for early 46? I believe it was the 6th & 7th Cdn Divs and would have been 3rd Cdn Corps probably commanded by Simonds or Hoffmeister (perhaps even Foster). Not sure if one of the Armd Divs was lined up for the task. Big political issues but many of the existing troops (restricted enlistment) in those divisions would likely have been replaced by NWE vets from the 5 regular divisions.



(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 132
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/8/2007 10:43:55 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13721
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
The new hexside control fixes this (we hope) as yu can now select a base to exit to and not have your movement reset as long as you have control of one hex facing - but these are areas we need to test further.

Broadly we have made huge changes to ground systems - we have more or less finished testing the database (upgrades, renaming units, disbandments etc)

But a big series of LCU movement and combat tests including this type of thing is on the list to do - I need to make sure it works as intended in all circumstances and I cannot come here and say it works now - I think it does but I need to spend a few months trying to break it to be sure. It will become a lot easier when we get the AI working as playing both sides to test is a real pain.

Andy


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Ground Bombardments reseting movement orders

I have various LCU's at Myitkyina and I want to move some of them to Ledo and then India to be rebuilt. Currently, they get reset to their base of origin when my opponent does a bombarment attack. Is there going to be a way (i.e. - have a specific AV ratio between forces, maybe) that would allow me to withdraw troops instead of them being suck in a particular base??


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 133
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 12:17:35 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2151
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

2. Mandatory Disband (i.e. 267th Indian Armoured Bde, most Dutch units) devices for these units go to the pool and may be redeployed. on the disband date.



I just had a thought about this feature. I understand that it's there to discourage the Sir Robin and account for historical withdrawals from theater, but it could potentially penalize a player that fights hard for the DEI. (I always do so and have always managed to maintain a foothold somewhere in the DEI.)

For the Dutch, could this feature be tied to whether or not the unit is still in Dutch territory or not?

Edit: While I doubt most players would do it, it could also lead to a strategy of "let's conquer the Pacific and mop up the DEI after the Dutch Regiments disband."

< Message edited by ctangus -- 12/9/2007 12:48:30 AM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 134
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 1:00:10 AM   
Kid


Posts: 6624
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I think you are wrong on this Jim but I will check repairs do not take supplies its merely having the squads in the base and feeding them thats taking them.

But as I said I will check


Supplies are not the only problem with not being able to turn off repairs. Why would I want to repair an airfield in a base I know I'm going to lose? That is just crazy.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and currently testing War in the East.


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 135
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 1:10:38 AM   
Kid


Posts: 6624
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline
Is rail movement going to be faster? It is painfully slow right now.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and currently testing War in the East.


(in reply to Kid)
Post #: 136
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 1:11:28 AM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1792
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I think you are wrong on this Jim but I will check repairs do not take supplies its merely having the squads in the base and feeding them thats taking them.

But as I said I will check


Supplies are not the only problem with not being able to turn off repairs. Why would I want to repair an airfield in a base I know I'm going to lose? That is just crazy.


I have not added a button for this but there is a way to stop repairs, any units that are not in combat mode do not contribute to base construction which includes repairs.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to Kid)
Post #: 137
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 1:21:18 AM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1792
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

Is rail movement going to be faster? It is painfully slow right now.


Oh yes but actual speed depends on type of rail (Minor Railway, Major Railway – single track, Major Railway double track). Strat mode is your friend for moving long distances.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to Kid)
Post #: 138
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 1:23:01 AM   
Gunner98


Posts: 763
Joined: 4/29/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK Freyberg it is

At the moment I have not included a Canadian Corps HQ (didn't know one was planned)

My sources indicate Tiger Force - ground element

X Corps HQ
Was an Australian Div (which I ignored as we dont disband other Aus Divs)
6th Can Div
3rd British Div
4th NZ Bde
and a Royal Marine Commando Div (there were also a large number of RM Beach Bns but I ignored these as they were really support not combat troops)
and 2 Armoured Bdes

I added an AGRA because that was appropriate

All formation use US equipment and TOE except the Commando Div.

Now the above arrives late 45 early 46 so its unlikely to see action but we wanted to add it as it was going to exist.

Andy

Just checked and you are right about the Cdn Corps HQ, it was considered allong with 7th Div but then discarded. The 6th Cdn Div also had a Tank Bn and two Medium Regts attached, so your assumption on the AGRA is correct. I believe the Tk Bn was to operate within the Div but am not sure. Div Comd is Hoffmeister.

< Message edited by Gunner98 -- 12/9/2007 1:26:08 AM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 139
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 2:26:54 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14113
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I think you are wrong on this Jim but I will check repairs do not take supplies its merely having the squads in the base and feeding them thats taking them.

But as I said I will check


Supplies are not the only problem with not being able to turn off repairs. Why would I want to repair an airfield in a base I know I'm going to lose? That is just crazy.


I have not added a button for this but there is a way to stop repairs, any units that are not in combat mode do not contribute to base construction which includes repairs.


Work-around noted but a button would be better, as units not in combat mode would get their tails kicked by the enemy. This is feedback, not criticism!

(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 140
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 3:50:07 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13721
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
The disband dates apply only to certain units primarily the base forces and HQ's and happen in mid 43 which I think is reasonable - basically most (not all some are left alone) units with generic squad types i.e. support or aviation support have a disband date otherwise we would have the same issue as stock.

BUT - if you dont like it change it it takes about 10 minutes in the editor to adjust it !!!!

Infantry and other combat units don't withdraw for the very reason you indicated although there are NO dutch monthly replacements you get a one time injection of troops in Feb 42 for final mobilisation and a few in the pool at start so if you want to do a Sir Robin you can but you will need to cannialise rescued units to create a full strength one which I believe is reasonable.

As the Can Divs are US TOE I have included an Armoured Bn integral to the Divs.

I think its fair to say we will take input after we get this out the door and the editor is now a dream to use so modders will I am sure be disagreeing with the new stock ORBAT in seconds of release - thats just the way it is !!! 

But we had to close down the scope to allow important things like scenario building, testing and the AI to get underway.

I have my own little triage list of things that didnt make the cut and I am sure others will have more to add the fact is we need to get on with the 3 priorities I listed above so the project team closed down the scope.

As you have read in the various threads we have a lot to test and make sure it all hangs together.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 141
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 3:52:05 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13721
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Rail movement is now superb although the period of vulnerability when a unit is packing or unpacking which can take 3 or 4 days.

An interesting sidebar - you need to be in strategic mode to load on a transport TF so that means 3 or 4 days per unit packing up before embarkation


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 142
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 6:47:08 AM   
Knavey

 

Posts: 2968
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline
Placekeeper for the next time I pick up reading.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 143
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 12:05:46 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 1940
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
What about Aviation Regiments?  They cannot be broken down into Aviation Battalions now.  Can they break down in AE?  Might be usefull to staff the extra bases that appear to be coming.  Hell, they'd be usefull now.

(in reply to Knavey)
Post #: 144
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 12:14:13 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14897
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Why would Canadian units be to US TO&E? Certainly the early ones were using the Empire scheme - at least. And probably all did.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 145
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 12:18:02 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14897
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

I think you are wrong on this Jim but I will check repairs do not take supplies its merely having the squads in the base and feeding them thats taking them.

But as I said I will check


Supplies are not the only problem with not being able to turn off repairs. Why would I want to repair an airfield in a base I know I'm going to lose? That is just crazy.


I have not added a button for this but there is a way to stop repairs, any units that are not in combat mode do not contribute to base construction which includes repairs.


It does seem a button is a better concept: one might want to be in combat mode to fight effectively - to deny the base to the enemy- but NOT build up the base - so as not to hand it over to him in better form. Japan actually did that at Guadalcanal - handed over an almost completed airstrip of significant operational value. Not nice from their point of view all the work and supplies sent to build it ended up serving their enemy.

(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 146
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 12:45:14 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1774
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Why would Canadian units be to US TO&E? Certainly the early ones were using the Empire scheme - at least. And probably all did.


Only applies to the 'new' 6th Canadian Division that started to form in 1945 to participate in the planned invasion of Japan. This division was not related to the earlier 6th Division (disbanded Dec 31st, 1944) and was scheduled to use US equipment and to train in Kentucky.

Earlier Canadian forces use (of course) CW TOE's.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 147
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 12:53:56 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1774
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

What about Aviation Regiments? They cannot be broken down into Aviation Battalions now. Can they break down in AE? Might be usefull to staff the extra bases that appear to be coming. Hell, they'd be usefull now.


At least for Japan, aviation support units tend to be smaller now (you may discover the reasons for this in the AE Air Thread). But you'll find more aviation support units in the game. Airfield Battalions and some Aviation Regiments for the JAAF and Airfield Units for the JNAF (+ Air HQ's contributing Aviation Support).

The aviation regiments may even completely vanish in the AE because they were not maintenance units but command staffs. We'll only keep them if we need them for game purposes.

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 148
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 12:58:07 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 14897
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Japanese Enginear units:

From WiTP my isues with Japanese enginear units werre prety much that thye did not realy seam to mimic what I come to understand they were suposed to look like at all, buy my impreshions were based on infermation I got from OOB's in books about the various island campagines, and from reading the Handbook on The Japanese Army (the war department book), which I know is a dated referance work, and some other sources.

The impreshion I had was that some Japanese enginear units were very large in size manpower wise, and would break off chunks to use to tackle a given construction task, a core or brain power unit would supervise a large labor force, this labor force would consist of what ever troops were in the area, or be drawn from a labor force that was specificaly created for that end, such as an Okinawan labor unit, or a Korean labor unit. These labor units (regements) would also fight, or they did on Okinawa and on other islands, and provided a manpower pool for replacements,they were typicaly not armed, the labor regements, but as a mater of course for these battles were aloted arms and made use of weapons that came to have no owner when used as replacements.

  Some Japanese Specialised units like road construction or airfield construction had inhearent enginearing vehicals, rolers, road graders, tractor's,Trucks, cement mixers exc...which were totaly absent from the stock game .


There were very different kinds of engineers in Japanese formations. Broadly speaking, these break into two categories: engineers organic to other LCUs and "independent" engineer "regiments" (battalions). There were officially five kinds of these - given designations from the Japanese syllabic alphabet - but by 1941 only three seem to have existed in IJA - although there was also a JAAF version and a IJN version. The organic units were platoons or companies of either assault engineers or pioneers or construction engineers to do something useful to the larger unit: build fortifications or repair airfields, etc.

The independent engineers were - and two of these seem to be in the game OBs - general engineer regiments, road construction engineer regiments, and railroad engineer regiments (not in the game). The general engineer regiments also had a variation: one regiment was "electric" - and fitted with numbers of both wire and radio controlled micro AFVs used for demolition work. These formations had some vehicles and specialized vehicles - such as bulldozers - trucks - tiny 12 inch gage rail lines easily laid and requiring no motive power (manpower was used - and US Marines used one on Guadalcanal they nicknamed "the toonerville trolly"). But they were very short of labor and were not able to work effectively unless they had labor provided from outside the regiment: these might be prisoners, civilian conscripts, civilian hirees, other military units, or various labor elements - usually associated with logistics / shipping work. The engineer regiments had the specialists and a LIMITED amount of labor and vehicles - and would be more effective if they had more. I simulate this by providing them with TOO FEW support elements - so if they are in a hex with more support - the regiments build faster.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 12/9/2007 1:02:01 PM >

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 149
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 12/9/2007 4:47:46 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10231
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Japanese Enginear units:

From WiTP my isues with Japanese enginear units werre prety much that thye did not realy seam to mimic what I come to understand they were suposed to look like at all, buy my impreshions were based on infermation I got from OOB's in books about the various island campagines, and from reading the Handbook on The Japanese Army (the war department book), which I know is a dated referance work, and some other sources.

The impreshion I had was that some Japanese enginear units were very large in size manpower wise, and would break off chunks to use to tackle a given construction task, a core or brain power unit would supervise a large labor force, this labor force would consist of what ever troops were in the area, or be drawn from a labor force that was specificaly created for that end, such as an Okinawan labor unit, or a Korean labor unit. These labor units (regements) would also fight, or they did on Okinawa and on other islands, and provided a manpower pool for replacements,they were typicaly not armed, the labor regements, but as a mater of course for these battles were aloted arms and made use of weapons that came to have no owner when used as replacements.

  Some Japanese Specialised units like road construction or airfield construction had inhearent enginearing vehicals, rolers, road graders, tractor's,Trucks, cement mixers exc...which were totaly absent from the stock game .


There were very different kinds of engineers in Japanese formations. Broadly speaking, these break into two categories: engineers organic to other LCUs and "independent" engineer "regiments" (battalions). There were officially five kinds of these - given designations from the Japanese syllabic alphabet - but by 1941 only three seem to have existed in IJA - although there was also a JAAF version and a IJN version. The organic units were platoons or companies of either assault engineers or pioneers or construction engineers to do something useful to the larger unit: build fortifications or repair airfields, etc.

The independent engineers were - and two of these seem to be in the game OBs - general engineer regiments, road construction engineer regiments, and railroad engineer regiments (not in the game). The general engineer regiments also had a variation: one regiment was "electric" - and fitted with numbers of both wire and radio controlled micro AFVs used for demolition work. These formations had some vehicles and specialized vehicles - such as bulldozers - trucks - tiny 12 inch gage rail lines easily laid and requiring no motive power (manpower was used - and US Marines used one on Guadalcanal they nicknamed "the toonerville trolly"). But they were very short of labor and were not able to work effectively unless they had labor provided from outside the regiment: these might be prisoners, civilian conscripts, civilian hirees, other military units, or various labor elements - usually associated with logistics / shipping work. The engineer regiments had the specialists and a LIMITED amount of labor and vehicles - and would be more effective if they had more. I simulate this by providing them with TOO FEW support elements - so if they are in a hex with more support - the regiments build faster.


Yup, Sid is helping to explain my earlier statement that the IER just don't fit nicely into the existing code base. Expanding the scope a bit further, neither road construction, bridging nor shipping engineers have any direct modeling in the game. And stock models these respectively as regular construction engineers, assault engineers or absent from the game.


_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.180