Matrix Games Forums

New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Japan infantry squads

 
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: Japan infantry squads Page: <<   < prev  67 68 [69] 70 71   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Japan infantry squads - 1/30/2011 1:49:40 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5619
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo


quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Someone tested it in WITP, and in fact, upgrades took less, than manual claimed. Probably situation in AE is similar.
There are, like 100-200 Para squads in Japan army, and 1000-2000 SNLF squads. That would be quite cheap, yet they do not upgrade either.

Now that is interesting ... I will have to go back and search for that. Or was the info ever posted up on Spooky's site?


Found it.

Overall, interesting thread. I have not remembered, that armament points were THIS tight in WITP.

Thanks. Interesting read. Wonder if pompak's data is still relevant. AE's economic engine appears to have been completely overhauled from WitP ...

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 1/30/2011 1:52:43 PM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2041
RE: Japan infantry squads - 1/30/2011 6:03:39 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Device #709 'downgrades' to #710 because the IJA eventually reduced the number of men in the infantry regiments of their 'strengthened' (reiforced B-Type) divisions. Device #709 (only existing as a device in strengthened divisions) is stronger than #707 because the additional 50mm grenade dischargers (light mortars) existing in strengthened divisions are figured in its anti-soft value and load cost (infantry platoons in ordinary divisions had three grenade dischargers while infantry platoons in strengthened divisions had five grenade dischargers). The trained infantrymen that became surplus by this reorganization then provided cadres for newly raised and rebuild formations (however, this change was apparently not implemented in divisions fighting in Burma). There was no other way to represent this with the game engine.


But in game Japan have to pay for "upgrades", and can turn them off, to avoid. So we actually lose 10% of strength, and have to pay for it? And do not get anything in exchange either?

quote:

Para Squads are weaker than infantry squads because they did not have grenade discharger teams.


You sure about it? Was it through entire war? Maybe GDs were incorporated into squads? I see them mentioned as equipment.

quote:

The 20mm AT Rifle was not manufactured in sufficient numbers and thus not issued in enough numbers to warrant its inclusion.


What exactly are those numbers, and how many should be produced, to include it? It IS mentioned in every text, about Japan island defence.

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 2042
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 2/23/2011 1:26:14 AM   
jcjordan

 

Posts: 1738
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline
There's a Brit unit that comes in May44 that I'm not sure if it's meant to be like supply convoys or it's actually meant to be a land unit. The unit is #6684 Retrained AA Units. In scen #1 it comes in like it's a regular land unit but to my logic it seems like it's meant to be more like a supply convoy & add the devices to the pool. It does w/d after a couple of months though so I guess the end result would be about the same just 2 months instead of days before the devices go into the pool.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 2043
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 2/23/2011 2:05:29 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Northern Rockies
Status: offline
A withdrawal will NOT put the devices into the pool. Since it is in Delhi, try disbanding it and see what happens.

_____________________________



Don't ask me any questions, apparently I know nothing about WitP:AE

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 2044
Lack of Device in Scenario 6 - 3/15/2011 6:55:43 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Scenario 6(the one beginning on 8th December).

Device 1486 is empty, while it should be 88mm AA gun (at least it is in scenario 1, and 2). Quite a lot of Japan AA units use them, and now they look like this:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2045
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 3/26/2011 7:23:51 PM   
BJStone


Posts: 120
Joined: 1/31/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK going to try and answer a lot of questions

A historic base forces we have removed a lot of them and with the new disband units features we force the disbandment of some (not all because players need some flexibility) dutch, PI base forces.

Also base forces tend to be smaller in game

Yes we have French units in Tahiti and New Cal not US ones.

Units will be able to be allocated to Corps and Command HQ's and via the editor direct to Armies at present Corps can only be allocated to command HQ's (although this is something that will be looked at not sure when)

Restricted command units are always allocated to the top level HQ as Corps HQ's allocated in that way do not pass on the restricted nature to sub HQ's.

HQ combat bonuses and leaders - the coders have explained it to me about 3 times now and I still don't quite have it - when I understand it I will explain it to everyone else - suffice to say I think (and dont holdme to it) there will be an additional bonus if a units 'own' HQ is present in the Hex. i.e. there will be a command HQ bonus and a corps HQ bonus per stock (but there will be an additional bonus if a corps HQ is present that the units belong to

Repairs dont take supply in stock the reduciton you see is from bombing the base not from repairing the AF so there will be no change to this (I will double check this point)



Hi Andy Mac,

Did this Corps-belongs-to-unit bonus actually get placed in the game? I don't see anything about this in the manual and I was just wondering if this was one of those little gems that are not documented.


Regards,

BJ

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2046
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 3/26/2011 7:25:03 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13791
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
no it didnt

(in reply to BJStone)
Post #: 2047
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 3/26/2011 7:28:50 PM   
BJStone


Posts: 120
Joined: 1/31/2009
Status: offline
Rats!

But thanks for answering so quickly!


Regards,

BJ

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2048
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/22/2011 11:51:41 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13791
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
It should be a convoy its bassically th econversion of British AA Regts that were retrained as inf whent he critical shortage in inf occured
quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

There's a Brit unit that comes in May44 that I'm not sure if it's meant to be like supply convoys or it's actually meant to be a land unit. The unit is #6684 Retrained AA Units. In scen #1 it comes in like it's a regular land unit but to my logic it seems like it's meant to be more like a supply convoy & add the devices to the pool. It does w/d after a couple of months though so I guess the end result would be about the same just 2 months instead of days before the devices go into the pool.


(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 2049
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/3/2011 1:51:06 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline
Hi Andy (and everyone else),

I've gotten back into this game after some months away and I've got some error reports and some questions.

First the errors, apologies if some of these have already been posted, the lack of search feature is extremely annoying.
1.  18th Canadian Brigade (6280) has a presumably invalid rename date of 43101.
2.  1/1 Ceylon Det. (6437) has the outdated device entry 137 in TOEDevID7.
3.  Many of the other divided Indian Base Forces (6348-51, 6357-60, 6362-6, 6369-70, 6372-4, 6376, 6378) have the outdated device entry 143 in TOEDevID7.
4.  North Java Base Force (5900) has the outdated device entry 143 in WpnDevID8.
5. KNIL Rifle Squad 45 (996) upgrades to KNIL Rifle Squad (973).

Questions:
1.  I've noticed quite a few units have devices in different slots than their TOE does.  Does this effect replacements?  If so, how?
2.  I'm sure I remember seeing the answers to this some months ago, but can someone clarify the effects of the attributes Static HQ, Static Attached, Restricted Temp, and Restricted Permanent (as well as the various permutations)?
3. What do the Symbol and Size fields do?

Thanks for your great work on this game.


< Message edited by EasilyConfused -- 7/3/2011 2:18:07 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2050
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/3/2011 5:23:02 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

Questions:
1. I've noticed quite a few units have devices in different slots than their TOE does. Does this effect replacements? If so, how?
2. I'm sure I remember seeing the answers to this some months ago, but can someone clarify the effects of the attributes Static HQ, Static Attached, Restricted Temp, and Restricted Permanent (as well as the various permutations)?
3. What do the Symbol and Size fields do?


Hey Easy, welcome back . . .

1. Especially at the beginning of the war, a lot of units had a hodge-podge of weapons that were eventually standardized, or discarded. A great example are the US Marine Corps Defense battalions. There are only a handful of them, but each of them seems to be equipped with a different battery of coastal defense guns (old navy 3", 5", 6" and 7" guns; and World War I era 155mm guns). Eventually, they all upgraded to modern M1A1 155mm PDF guns. The old M1918 is in that slot on the defense battalion TOE. Eventually the different guns of the various battalions should upgrade to that one model. The M1918 gun (device 1143) in turn will upgrade to the M1A1 (device 1144). So we can capture the subtle differences of half-a-dozen units using just one TOE.

In practice, this approach did not always work out perfectly when the game was first released, and michaelm has spent some time in patches (and with the beta) making it work better.

2. "Restricted" applies to HQs -- units assigned to a restricted HQs cannot load on ships, and, by most house rules, should not cross a national boundary. "Static Attached" means that the LCU can not change its headquarters assignment, invariably to a "restricted" headquarters. (Used to keep Japanese militia in Japan, US West Coast forces from sailing into the Pacific, &tc.).

3. As best I recall, the symbol field is used only to give cavalry units a cavalry-slash symbol ("12") instead of a default infantry or armor symbol -- purely cosmetic; or to designate an airborne unit ("13"), which makes it parachute-able as well as showing the "double-hump" airborne symbol.

All the other symbols are determined by the LCU's "type" designation

< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 7/3/2011 5:32:50 PM >


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 2051
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/3/2011 7:10:07 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

Questions:
1. I've noticed quite a few units have devices in different slots than their TOE does. Does this effect replacements? If so, how?
2. I'm sure I remember seeing the answers to this some months ago, but can someone clarify the effects of the attributes Static HQ, Static Attached, Restricted Temp, and Restricted Permanent (as well as the various permutations)?
3. What do the Symbol and Size fields do?


Hey Easy, welcome back . . .

1. Especially at the beginning of the war, a lot of units had a hodge-podge of weapons that were eventually standardized, or discarded. A great example are the US Marine Corps Defense battalions. There are only a handful of them, but each of them seems to be equipped with a different battery of coastal defense guns (old navy 3", 5", 6" and 7" guns; and World War I era 155mm guns). Eventually, they all upgraded to modern M1A1 155mm PDF guns. The old M1918 is in that slot on the defense battalion TOE. Eventually the different guns of the various battalions should upgrade to that one model. The M1918 gun (device 1143) in turn will upgrade to the M1A1 (device 1144). So we can capture the subtle differences of half-a-dozen units using just one TOE.

In practice, this approach did not always work out perfectly when the game was first released, and michaelm has spent some time in patches (and with the beta) making it work better.

2. "Restricted" applies to HQs -- units assigned to a restricted HQs cannot load on ships, and, by most house rules, should not cross a national boundary. "Static Attached" means that the LCU can not change its headquarters assignment, invariably to a "restricted" headquarters. (Used to keep Japanese militia in Japan, US West Coast forces from sailing into the Pacific, &tc.).

3. As best I recall, the symbol field is used only to give cavalry units a cavalry-slash symbol ("12") instead of a default infantry or armor symbol -- purely cosmetic; or to designate an airborne unit ("13"), which makes it parachute-able as well as showing the "double-hump" airborne symbol.

All the other symbols are determined by the LCU's "type" designation


Thanks for your helpful reply.

In regard to devices, I'm more wondering whether there are any issues between slots. For example, if the TOE of a unit has its Motorized Support in Device 3, but the unit has Motorized Support in Device 5, will the replacements work properly?

As for the restricted designation, what is the difference between "temporary" and "permanent" restricted?

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 2052
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/4/2011 3:23:52 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

In regard to devices, I'm more wondering whether there are any issues between slots. For example, if the TOE of a unit has its Motorized Support in Device 3, but the unit has Motorized Support in Device 5, will the replacements work properly?

As for the restricted designation, what is the difference between "temporary" and "permanent" restricted?


Re: motorized support devices in different fields. It should still work -- but there were problems early on with misaligned devices upgrading and I can't say for certain that all the bugs were quashed.

. . . and I've completely forgotten what "temporary" restricted was supposed to be used for.

We'll have to wait for AndyMac or a dev with a better memory than me to check in.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 2053
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/4/2011 7:13:18 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
I think temporary restricted means you can change the HQ with PP's. Permanent restricted means you can't change the HQ.



_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 2054
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/4/2011 1:10:13 PM   
Itdepends

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Question regarding TOE- this is an British Air HQ (225 Group RAF) in scenario 2. It only has air support, support and torpedoe ordinance at the moment- but the full TOE looks very strange for an air HQ- is it correct?






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 2055
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/4/2011 2:19:12 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I think temporary restricted means you can change the HQ with PP's. Permanent restricted means you can't change the HQ.




Bingo! That is exactly correct.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 2056
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/4/2011 2:32:34 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

Question regarding TOE- this is an British Air HQ (225 Group RAF) in scenario 2. It only has air support, support and torpedoe ordinance at the moment- but the full TOE looks very strange for an air HQ- is it correct?








That's a glitch. According to the Editor the unit's TOE is 2856 (Air Group HQ) which has only support and aviation support squads (and the torpedos). So the design is correct, and it should show up in-game as an Air HQ.

The screen shot appears to be TOE 2855 (Ind 43 Bde). If this is occuring in-game, I recommend that you post a save in the tech support forum.


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Itdepends)
Post #: 2057
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/8/2011 12:55:09 AM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline
Another replacements question.  I've noticed that a lot of the Commonwealth base forces have a different radar/sound detector than their assigned TOE does.  By my understanding of how replacements work, the base force will consider the initial radar as extra equipment and draw on the replacement pool for the TOE's radar.

So,
1. Am I correct in the above?
2. If so, is this intentional?'

Thanks

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 2058
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/9/2011 7:25:30 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Radar is, in most cases, upgrade of Sound Detector Device.

I have not checked it for Allies, but Japan have, like 5 possible paths for this. There are actually 5 separate Sound Detector Devices (with different Device number, but the same name), which upgrade to different Radars, at different dates.

Just think of it, as with squad upgrades. You should not see Sound Detector, if there is Radar present, so Device is no extra, and TOE will try o fill it, when short.

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 2059
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/9/2011 12:12:02 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Radar is, in most cases, upgrade of Sound Detector Device.

I have not checked it for Allies, but Japan have, like 5 possible paths for this. There are actually 5 separate Sound Detector Devices (with different Device number, but the same name), which upgrade to different Radars, at different dates.

Just think of it, as with squad upgrades. You should not see Sound Detector, if there is Radar present, so Device is no extra, and TOE will try o fill it, when short.


But don't squad upgrades work differently from other device upgrades? Or is ground radar another exception?

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2060
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/10/2011 4:49:54 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
But don't squad upgrades work differently from other device upgrades? Or is ground radar another exception?


The only difference, I can think of, is that squads returned to pool will upgrade, but that is no concern of recently upgraded LCU.

Radar sets must be produced first, but this is just simple upgrade. Same as artillery, AA guns, tanks etc.

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 2061
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/10/2011 11:52:37 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

Another replacements question.  I've noticed that a lot of the Commonwealth base forces have a different radar/sound detector than their assigned TOE does.  By my understanding of how replacements work, the base force will consider the initial radar as extra equipment and draw on the replacement pool for the TOE's radar.

So,
1. Am I correct in the above?
2. If so, is this intentional?'

Thanks



If the radar or sound detector device is set (in the device field of the editor) to upgrade to the TOE radar, then the upgrade will occur if the unit is set to "replacements allowed," there are enough of the appropriate radar devices in the pool for an upgrade, and the unit has sufficient supply &tc.

Even if the non-TOE radar or sound detector that the unit starts with is in a different "weapons slot" from the TOE radar, the TOE radar should appear whenever the conditions above are met, and the non-TOE radar-ish device that the unit has at start will also be replaced whenever enough of the TOE devices in its slot are in the pool to warrant an upgrade.

Inquisitor is correct -- Infantry and Engineer devices have a special rule where they upgrade when they return to the pool, all other devices (including sound detectors and radars), are simply sent to the pool whenever they have been replaced.



_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 2062
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/11/2011 3:41:42 AM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

Another replacements question.  I've noticed that a lot of the Commonwealth base forces have a different radar/sound detector than their assigned TOE does.  By my understanding of how replacements work, the base force will consider the initial radar as extra equipment and draw on the replacement pool for the TOE's radar.

So,
1. Am I correct in the above?
2. If so, is this intentional?'

Thanks



If the radar or sound detector device is set (in the device field of the editor) to upgrade to the TOE radar, then the upgrade will occur if the unit is set to "replacements allowed," there are enough of the appropriate radar devices in the pool for an upgrade, and the unit has sufficient supply &tc.

Even if the non-TOE radar or sound detector that the unit starts with is in a different "weapons slot" from the TOE radar, the TOE radar should appear whenever the conditions above are met, and the non-TOE radar-ish device that the unit has at start will also be replaced whenever enough of the TOE devices in its slot are in the pool to warrant an upgrade.

Inquisitor is correct -- Infantry and Engineer devices have a special rule where they upgrade when they return to the pool, all other devices (including sound detectors and radars), are simply sent to the pool whenever they have been replaced.




I may have been unclear, let me give an example.

20th RAAF Base Force [6129] has Sound Detector (A) [1046] as its radar. However its TOE (RAAF Base Force [2773]) uses Sound Detector (A) [920]. Despite the same name, they are on different upgrade paths.

From my understanding of the way replacements work, the 20th RAAF Base Force should end up with duplicate radars.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 2063
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/11/2011 11:45:55 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

I may have been unclear, let me give an example.

20th RAAF Base Force [6129] has Sound Detector (A) [1046] as its radar. However its TOE (RAAF Base Force [2773]) uses Sound Detector (A) [920]. Despite the same name, they are on different upgrade paths.

From my understanding of the way replacements work, the 20th RAAF Base Force should end up with duplicate radars.


In principal, since the unit's sound detector (1046) is in weapon's slot #9, and the TOE sound detector (920) is also in weapon's slot #9, then the TOE sound detector should replace 1046 once the unit arrives, and there are sufficient 920s in the pool.

AndyMac crafted the various commonwealth OOBs and TOEs. I defer to him on which sound detector's were intended for which unit.


< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 7/14/2011 10:45:34 AM >


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 2064
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/14/2011 10:06:20 AM   
Omat


Posts: 619
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline
Hello

Some leader will never be accessible in game because they where wrong flaged. I belive this is a mistake because why should someone create a leader for nothing?


Leader 14051 Sprague, Thomas L. He is a Radm but flaged as „05 - Ship“. Because that there are never Radm selctable for ship`s (highest Rang is Captain) and leader which are are flaged as „05 -ship“ could never selected as a Task force commander I suggest to re flaged him as a „04 – Task Force“.

The same problem for e.g. McMorris, Chas H.; Number 12359. In Scenario 28 he is Right now he is classified as "type: 05-ship". So if u remove him (maybe by accident) he seems not to be accessible because he has a rank of an Rear Admiral.
Would it be better to give him the "type 04 Task Force" or "Type 01 Headquarters" like Leader Mitscher, Marc A?
Mitscher`s Number is 12510 and he is used as a ship commander but is internal a Task Force leader.
In WW2 McMorris was a ship Commander, Task force Commander and Chief of Staff of the Pacific Fleet.

There are also some Leader which have the same Problem
Number:
9009
9010
9311
10158
12359
14051
14052

P.S. I did not look at the axis side.

I suggest simply to reflaged them all to type “04 - Task Force"

Maybe Leader 16376 Erskine should be reflaged as “02 – Large Ground Unit”

Omat

_____________________________

"All changes, even the most longed for, have their melancholy; for what we leave behind us is part of ourselves; we must die to one life before we can enter another."
Anatole France

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 2065
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/14/2011 10:52:38 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Omat

Hello

Some leader will never be accessible in game because they where wrong flaged. I belive this is a mistake because why should someone create a leader for nothing?


Leader 14051 Sprague, Thomas L. He is a Radm but flaged as „05 - Ship“. Because that there are never Radm selctable for ship`s (highest Rang is Captain) and leader which are are flaged as „05 -ship“ could never selected as a Task force commander I suggest to re flaged him as a „04 – Task Force“.

The same problem for e.g. McMorris, Chas H.; Number 12359. In Scenario 28 he is Right now he is classified as "type: 05-ship". So if u remove him (maybe by accident) he seems not to be accessible because he has a rank of an Rear Admiral.
Would it be better to give him the "type 04 Task Force" or "Type 01 Headquarters" like Leader Mitscher, Marc A?
Mitscher`s Number is 12510 and he is used as a ship commander but is internal a Task Force leader.
In WW2 McMorris was a ship Commander, Task force Commander and Chief of Staff of the Pacific Fleet.

There are also some Leader which have the same Problem
Number:
9009
9010
9311
10158
12359
14051
14052

P.S. I did not look at the axis side.

I suggest simply to reflaged them all to type “04 - Task Force"

Maybe Leader 16376 Erskine should be reflaged as “02 – Large Ground Unit”

Omat


Omat,

Good observations. You should probably post this on the "Naval" thread.

In several cases, having Admirals start the game in command of ships, but set as 'HQ' or Task Force commanders was intentional; the game engine does not promote leaders, so this was the only way to accurately show leaders who started the war commandiung ships, but later commanded TFs and HQs. But, as you point out, flagging a Flag Rank officer as a 'ship' commander rather defeats the purpose, as he will never be listed as available to be selected to command a ship.


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Omat)
Post #: 2066
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/15/2011 12:49:51 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

I may have been unclear, let me give an example.

20th RAAF Base Force [6129] has Sound Detector (A) [1046] as its radar. However its TOE (RAAF Base Force [2773]) uses Sound Detector (A) [920]. Despite the same name, they are on different upgrade paths.

From my understanding of the way replacements work, the 20th RAAF Base Force should end up with duplicate radars.


In principal, since the unit's sound detector (1046) is in weapon's slot #9, and the TOE sound detector (920) is also in weapon's slot #9, then the TOE sound detector should replace 1046 once the unit arrives, and there are sufficient 920s in the pool.

AndyMac crafted the various commonwealth OOBs and TOEs. I defer to him on which sound detector's were intended for which unit.



Sorry to keep on this, but I think I may have misunderstood how replacements work. If a TOE has device X in weapon slot Y, will it replace or add on to a unit with device Z in weapon slot Y?

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 2067
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/16/2011 12:48:52 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

I may have been unclear, let me give an example.

20th RAAF Base Force [6129] has Sound Detector (A) [1046] as its radar. However its TOE (RAAF Base Force [2773]) uses Sound Detector (A) [920]. Despite the same name, they are on different upgrade paths.

From my understanding of the way replacements work, the 20th RAAF Base Force should end up with duplicate radars.


In principal, since the unit's sound detector (1046) is in weapon's slot #9, and the TOE sound detector (920) is also in weapon's slot #9, then the TOE sound detector should replace 1046 once the unit arrives, and there are sufficient 920s in the pool.

AndyMac crafted the various commonwealth OOBs and TOEs. I defer to him on which sound detector's were intended for which unit.



Sorry to keep on this, but I think I may have misunderstood how replacements work. If a TOE has device X in weapon slot Y, will it replace or add on to a unit with device Z in weapon slot Y?



A weapons slot can only contain 1 type of device at one time. If a sound detector is in weapon slot #9, and the TOE calls for a radar, eventually the sound detector should be replaced by the radar -- even if that particular radar is not in the upgrade path for the sound detector device.

When AE was initially released this did not always work as intended; in some situations a particular device would never upgrade if the TOE device was not in the upgrade path. Michaelm has done some fixing in the various patches.


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 2068
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/16/2011 8:27:41 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
So, does LCU will always try to "smooth" its Device slots to what is shown in TOE, or upgraded TOE?

Does that mean, that if LCU starts Scenario with some non-standard equipment, it should be in slots not-used by parent TOE?

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 2069
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 7/16/2011 9:09:16 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

So, does LCU will always try to "smooth" its Device slots to what is shown in TOE, or upgraded TOE?

Does that mean, that if LCU starts Scenario with some non-standard equipment, it should be in slots not-used by parent TOE?


Yes, if you don't want the non-standard device to be replaced by a TOE device.



_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 2070
Page:   <<   < prev  67 68 [69] 70 71   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Japan infantry squads Page: <<   < prev  67 68 [69] 70 71   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

0.133