Matrix Games Forums

Paypal System UpdateDistant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!Armageddon invasion starts in 2014Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!Servers UpdateThe Deal goes Fourth!Command Ops gets a Massive Update!Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Pacwar3 and Japs problems

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Pacwar3 and Japs problems Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Pacwar3 and Japs problems - 7/8/2002 4:45:55 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 1424
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		I'm playing Pacwar 3 as japanese with 1941 Campaign and tried out the Marianas aswell .
Found some things maybe Bugs :

The CVL Hosho did not get their 5.5/50 Guns and 3/60 DP Guns replaced/upgraded with 5/40 DP guns - all other CVL/CVE do .

Old Bug : US Salmon Sub fires japanese Type 6 torpedo at japanese DE instead of using their MK-14(conserving them for all other types maybe except of PF) . Seen this from the original release .

Seen some problems with allied subs - many subs based in Cairns patrolling near Singapur /Phillipines but Patrol range is 60-70 - maybe this is due to may japanese aircraft closed the seapath between Port Moresby and Darwin/Broome ?

Black Widow selectable for production as japanese - if I remeber correct this was reported earlier too .

Land combat : have huge problems eliminating enemy units with low readiness :
Port moresby : 1 Div 80 experience 5 Bde ~70exp and 1 doublestrenght Bde win 90+ exp at 99 readiness fighting against 2 Australian Bde with now around 60-70 inf some arty exp 80+ and readiness 25 and lower but it's not possible to kill them within some turns .
Enough PP are there and a good HQ-leader with 6/8 and base commander with 9/9(land combat/Agressivness)
Seems the lower the readiness the wronger it's combat strenght is calculated .
It took me about 8 month to get rid of 4 Div(3 phil + 1US) and two Reg(2US) without supply) in Bataan having 6 Div and 5 Bde with good experience and good supply and good commanders .

Is it possible to stop Resource transfer in Routine Convoy for some turns ?
I have 500.000+ in Pool but seems not enough freighters to get all my bases resupplied . > 90% AKA in Japan mainland
Does oil from japanese mainland bases have to be carried with Routine supply convoys or is it transferred to Oil pool ?
Seems fuel transferred with Routine Supply comes directly from oil pool and not from mainland bases as stated in the original manual so i'm sitting there on 20.000+ of fuel and I have to transfer it myself preventing oil pool beeing emptied shipping 6000 fuel (and15000+ supply)to china and Kwantung bases and nobody needs it there .

On both sides I have seen allied 1000lbs bombs getting often 4or 5 star hits on even good armored japanese carriers(A(Kagi) / Shokaku)) and many many torpedo hits get 5stars(both sides) . Seems a bit hard.

In the marianas scenario I've seen USMC Fighter groups are able to use some UK aircraft and even P47 ones .
Post #: 1
Re: Pacwar3 and Japs problems - 7/8/2002 10:19:18 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Denniss
[B]I'm playing Pacwar 3 as japanese with 1941 Campaign and tried out the Marianas aswell .
Found some things maybe Bugs :

The CVL Hosho did not get their 5.5/50 Guns and 3/60 DP Guns replaced/upgraded with 5/40 DP guns - all other CVL/CVE do .
[/B][/QUOTE]

The CVL Hosho should not get their weaponry changed from 5.5/50 and 3/60 to 5/40, as it never happened, and should not. Historically the Hosho had these weapons removed, and more 25mm guns added. I am thinking about changing the Hosho to a CVE for many reasons.

1. The Hosho was used mainly as a training carrier and ferry (what CVE's do)

2. The IJN CVL's all get 4.7" Rockets, the Hosho should not.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 2
Re: Pacwar3 and Japs problems - 7/8/2002 10:21:47 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Denniss
[B]I'm playing Pacwar 3 as japanese with 1941 Campaign and tried out the Marianas aswell .
Found some things maybe Bugs :

Old Bug : US Salmon Sub fires japanese Type 6 torpedo at japanese DE instead of using their MK-14(conserving them for all other types maybe except of PF) . Seen this from the original release .

Seen some problems with allied subs - many subs based in Cairns patrolling near Singapur /Phillipines but Patrol range is 60-70 - maybe this is due to may japanese aircraft closed the seapath between Port Moresby and Darwin/Broome ?[/B][/QUOTE]

I have checked the Salmon, and it says that it has Mk-14 torpedos, but this might be an EXE thing, that makes the sub either fire Type 6 (no matter what) or renames the torpedo Type 6. However, it is not too critical, as the torpedos are not that different.

Which subs had the 60-70 range? They might be coastal subs, as they have their range extremely limited and when they are posted at distance they really suffer.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 3
Re: Pacwar3 and Japs problems - 7/8/2002 10:24:18 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Denniss
[B]I'm playing Pacwar 3 as japanese with 1941 Campaign and tried out the Marianas aswell .
Found some things maybe Bugs :

Black Widow selectable for production as japanese - if I remeber correct this was reported earlier too .

Land combat : have huge problems eliminating enemy units with low readiness :
Port moresby : 1 Div 80 experience 5 Bde ~70exp and 1 doublestrenght Bde win 90+ exp at 99 readiness fighting against 2 Australian Bde with now around 60-70 inf some arty exp 80+ and readiness 25 and lower but it's not possible to kill them within some turns .
Enough PP are there and a good HQ-leader with 6/8 and base commander with 9/9(land combat/Agressivness)
Seems the lower the readiness the wronger it's combat strenght is calculated .
It took me about 8 month to get rid of 4 Div(3 phil + 1US) and two Reg(2US) without supply) in Bataan having 6 Div and 5 Bde with good experience and good supply and good commanders .
[/B][/QUOTE]

The Black Widow thing has been dealt with for 3.1.

I have asked Mika about the poor experience holding out, and it might be the fact that they are such poor experienced units. I have noticed that better experienced units in the same positions usually fall earlier. It is probably an EXE mixup when it comes to poor units and surrendering. Have you ever noticed that these units are really easy to PUSH from one base to another, but when they are trapped they are impossible to get rid of? I think this is where the problem arises.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 4
Re: Pacwar3 and Japs problems - 7/8/2002 10:28:02 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Denniss
[B]I'm playing Pacwar 3 as japanese with 1941 Campaign and tried out the Marianas aswell .
Found some things maybe Bugs :

Is it possible to stop Resource transfer in Routine Convoy for some turns ?
I have 500.000+ in Pool but seems not enough freighters to get all my bases resupplied . > 90% AKA in Japan mainland
Does oil from japanese mainland bases have to be carried with Routine supply convoys or is it transferred to Oil pool ?
Seems fuel transferred with Routine Supply comes directly from oil pool and not from mainland bases as stated in the original manual so i'm sitting there on 20.000+ of fuel and I have to transfer it myself preventing oil pool beeing emptied shipping 6000 fuel (and15000+ supply)to china and Kwantung bases and nobody needs it there .
[/B][/QUOTE]

I don't think that it is possible to stop resource transfer. Your bases probably are not getting enough supply due to zone of control issues and enemy interference. Put your MCS all at Nagoya, they seem to work best there.

I 'think' oil has to be transferred with routine convoys, however fuel does not. Oil is brought from the resource bases to Japan, which is then turned into Fuel which can be transferred to any base you want manually.

When Chinese bases get their fill of supply they will no longer act as a port of demand (as it will be used up very slowly.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 5
Re: Pacwar3 and Japs problems - 7/8/2002 10:34:00 PM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Denniss
[B]I'm playing Pacwar 3 as japanese with 1941 Campaign and tried out the Marianas aswell .

On both sides I have seen allied 1000lbs bombs getting often 4or 5 star hits on even good armored japanese carriers(A(Kagi) / Shokaku)) and many many torpedo hits get 5stars(both sides) . Seems a bit hard.

In the marianas scenario I've seen USMC Fighter groups are able to use some UK aircraft and even P47 ones . [/B][/QUOTE]


1000 lb bombs and torpedos are supposed to get critical hits of high values. There was a debate a while ago on the board about the low power of these weapons, and historically the large amount of damage they did. There were stories of vessels taking large numbers of hits of large weaponry, but the most common cases resulted in critical hits scored by one or two of these weapons.

The USMC using british and P-47 units is due to code limitations. The code combines BOTH Minor Allied and USMC aircraft usage into one lump sector in the code. What the USMC can use, minor allied must as well, and vice versa. I did my best to limit the use of USAAC in both minor and USMC, but these are the limits of the code.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 6
- 7/9/2002 12:59:13 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 1424
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		First thank you for the explanations .

Hosho : in my Marianas Test game it gets AA rockets .
In 12/44 it has : 4x5.5/50 2x3/60 DP 68x25mm 6x4.7" Rockets

The Salmon thing was seen yesterday after firing at a japanese DD and from earlier versions it was with PT boats too - not seen a PF torpedoed by a Salmon but this may happen and I report back .

The Sub patrol ranges are now 20-24 with subs based in Cairns(Gato S Salmon) but now I see a K.XIV from Sydney with 70+ Patrol Range .
No idea what happened to result in this range changes excepept moving some Ki49/Ki21-II in and out of Ambon Island and Dili/Koepang .

The Land combat thing is something with wrong calculated combat strength as the two Australian Bde with 17/10 inf 5/4 arty no afv 94/98 exp and 23/13 readyness gets 19 inf in combat and are holding against 500+ jap inf with over 100 arty 20 tanks and ~70+ experienced units .

Another thing :
Does the E13A jake search for / attack subs ? At least I have no findings/attaks reported from them but Ki46-II finds and attacks a sub in range 1 or two from base .

I have no japan mainland base except for Sapporo and Kagoshima marked with an asterix(oil and resource) as been carried with routine convoy system .

I sometimes have a Bug back trying to load a combat unit onto a ship but not loading it due to not enough capacity on ship > the LCU disapears from unit display and is listed as laded onto ship group . It will not reappear after unload TF or remove TF - you have to let a TF with one ship(usually 3000tons AKA) with the number listed as the unit loaded to be sunk by the enemy to get the unit back as reinforcement .

Please update the games weapons list as soon as possible - it is barely needed especially arrival dates from planes and weapon data if possible !

P.S. : I love this game - got only 3 hours sleep tonight due to playing this game:D

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 7
- 7/9/2002 6:16:37 PM   
Mika Väliviita


Posts: 106
Joined: 9/4/2000
From: Tampere,Finland
Status: offline 		When subs sink the last ship of a multiship group, and then fire again at another group, they use a weapon from another shipclass. In some cases this is another torpedo, in others I've seen flak guns used. Can't fix, but luckily it's rare and insignificant.

The LCU bug happens when there are no available slots to divide the unit.

See the "Ideas for Version 3.1" thread for other answers.

Mika

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 8
Hey, that smarts! - 7/10/2002 4:12:02 AM   
CynicAl


Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Denniss
[B]On both sides I have seen allied 1000lbs bombs getting often 4or 5 star hits on even good armored japanese carriers(A(Kagi) / Shokaku)) and many many torpedo hits get 5stars(both sides) . Seems a bit hard.[/B][/QUOTE]

Harder still is watching a big, tough Lexington-class CV explode after taking a single 250kg bomb hit: 5 *'s from one ~550 lb bomb. Ouch. Losing a Japanese CV (even one of the better ones) to a single 1000lb bomb is a little easier to believe - the IJN weren't exactly known for their world-class damage control.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 9
Re: Hey, that smarts! - 7/11/2002 6:03:15 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 583
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by CynicAl
[B]

Harder still is watching a big, tough Lexington-class CV explode after taking a single 250kg bomb hit: 5 *'s from one ~550 lb bomb. Ouch. Losing a Japanese CV (even one of the better ones) to a single 1000lb bomb is a little easier to believe - the IJN weren't exactly known for their world-class damage control. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's right, in NO instance was a USN Fleet carrier sunk as a result of a single bomb or torpedo hit, nor was any USN CA or BB sunk in this manner. heck, the South Dakota was hit by over 40 large caliber shells during the second naval battle of Guadalcanal (14-15 Nov 42) and continued to steam at full speed whereas its counterpart, Kirishima, was devastated by a like number of hits from the Washington. :eek:

However, several IJN ships fell to single hits.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 10
- 7/12/2002 2:31:20 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 3655
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline 		Funny things happen during wars. It is true that technically no USN carriers were sunk by single hits. But the "Lexington" herself was actually sunk by a damage-control error: someone left a fan running that spread gas fumes over a large area. (The same mistake sank the biggest Japanese CV during the Battle of the Phillipine Sea.)

As for the "South Dakota", I haven't been able to find out just how large those "large caliber" shells were. The Japanese were firing with heavy and light cruisers as well as the "Kirishima". You might want to compare the shell weight of a USN 16" shell versus an IJN 14" shell.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 11
- 7/12/2002 4:44:40 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		There were reasons why these IJN ships fell to one single hit, and why other allied ones lasted after sustaining many. Damage control is one. Also, many of the IJN vessels that fell to one hit did so under strange circumstances, for example, having their decks loaded with aircraft and live bombs and torpedos.

In regards to the Kirishima, South Dakota and Washington, you have to realize the differences between these classes of vessels. The South Dakota and Washington were equipped with 9x modern 16" weapons, and had modern sloping armour (being finished months before war broke out).

The Kirishima, part of the Kongo Class, were completed, starting in 1914. They were heavily modernized, but most of this modernization took place in machenery and secondary armament, with armour virtually untouched. The Kongo also was not a battleship, but designed as a Battle Cruiser, modernized to a Fast Battleship (in reality still a Battle Cruiser, with weaker armour then any of the British Battle Cruisers). It was also armed with 8x 14" guns.

So, for the South Dakota to take a series of hits from the Kirishima and escorting cruisers (14" and 8") and surviving, while the Kirishima taking an equal number of 16" hits and sinking is not truely an amazing feat on the part of the South Dakota.

I do believe that a single IJNAF bomb hit knocked out one of the turrets of a South Dakota class, killing around 50 of the crew, and risking the survival of the ship had the magazine been hit. Imagine that one of these single critical hits takes out the ship's magazine, or aviation fuel, or some other special event.


The USS Wasp was sunk by a submarine strike, I believe either just 1 or 2 torpedos. The HMS Ark Royal was sunk by one torpedo, primarily because it was hit in the only place that one torpedo could sink the ship, anywhere else and it would hae survived (it hit the area with electiral pumps, cutting power).

Things happen, ships die after 1 hit, some take 99. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean that it couldn't.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 12
- 7/12/2002 9:47:17 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 583
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		A few clarifications:

1. Three torpedos hit the Wasp, not 1 or 2.

2. The Ark Royal didn't sink right away from the U-boat torpedoes. It foundered while in tow back to Gibraltar 25 miles out. The Ark royal and Wasp were both not provided armor protection from torpedos.

3. The South Dakota took 42 combined 8" & 14" hits. It continued to steam at full speed, although damage was severe enough to require repair in the US. The Washington put 9 16" and 42 5" shells into the Kirishima, it lost power and had to be scuttled in the morning.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 13
- 7/12/2002 10:16:16 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		The weaponry has been edited (albiet it mainly started off as) to meet historical and documented potentials for damage. Penetration power as well as its warhead was calculated into their value.

Ship durability and armour have also been thouroughly developed and researched to meet actual strengths and weaknesses.

Citing history as by what did happen should happen is not a way to create a wargame. Indeed, things happened for a reason, but that reason does not always exist in every scenario. The Kirishima sank and the South Dakota survived due to a series of reasons in that situation. Another series of reasons in that situation could have had the Kirishima as the victor, limping off home, with the Dakota at the bottom.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 14
- 7/13/2002 7:24:46 AM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline 		Though the Arizona was hi by a torpedo and I think a bomb, its safe to day that ONE BOMB HIT did that ship in quite convincingly. Its not the size but the placement that counts.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 15
- 7/13/2002 11:47:51 AM   
BullHalsey

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 3/15/2002
From: Nebraska
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Denniss
[B]
Another thing :
Does the E13A jake search for / attack subs ? At least I have no findings/attaks reported from them but Ki46-II finds and attacks a sub in range 1 or two from base .

[/B][/QUOTE]

I have observed this phenomenon, also. I have had KI-46-II Dinahs (supposedly with no machine guns or bombs) attack and sink subs, but I have yet observed the E13A Jakes attack a sub.

Another peculiar thing I have seen are A6M5s in 1941 defending TFs with Nisshin Class CSs (now AVs). I assume that these "inherent" planes are from the CSs (now AVs) or are they future A6M5s from the converted Chitose CVL class making a cameo appearance?

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 16
- 7/14/2002 12:12:54 PM   
GET TRANSPT

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 12/10/2000
From: West Hollywood, CA
Status: offline 		A si've played about 84230275240570248524805 hours of thsi game, I observe the follwing:

Jakes sink subs-- do not despair

Dinahs sink subs far lesst han Jakes , actually, in my extensive experience. They seem to not sink anything at all after mid '42
A6M'sson Av'a represent "Rufes" a floatplane. They are of great use

NOTE: the "Rufes" sometimes do NOT appear if TF in question is a) low on PP or b) not a Combined Fleet TF or c) a non Transport( e.g Cargo) TF

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 17
- 7/15/2002 12:00:03 AM   
BullHalsey

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 3/15/2002
From: Nebraska
Status: offline 		Thanks, GET TRANSPT!

This explains much. I was wondering why the "Rufe" appearance seemed random- I didn't catch that an AV TF needed to be under the Combined Fleet.

Also, thanks for restoring the faith that a Jake can kill a sub!!:D

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 18
- 7/15/2002 5:52:27 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		The E13A was added to the game to make up for the lack of shipborne Battleship and Cruiser patrol aircraft. Having them as ASW aircraft is a secondary.

The main reason you probably have not seen an E13A attack a sub is because the way that air ASW is worked out is you take the range of an aircraft, cut it in half, and that is the range that they will attack subs in. With a range of 5, the E13A is not a great ASW aircraft, unless you place it directly in a base with high sub activity. The other Patrol aircraft, H-Series, Ki-46, Q1Y, PBY and PBM have very long ranges, which is the reason for them attacking subs. Cannon and Bomb load do not effect ASW at all, as you notice that the Ki-46 is unarmed yet still sinks subs!

I would recommend that you keep the E13A's as recon aircraft, as their range does not suit them well for ASW. They work very well in the South Pacific, as islands are close together, and the Solomans can hide a bunch of them, which means that virtually no USN TF can go on an operation in the area unspotted. Save your H6K/H8K as ASW escorts in Japan, Philippines and East Indies, with a few providing long range warning in the spread out Central Pacific.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 19
- 7/16/2002 9:14:03 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 583
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard
[B]The E13A was added to the game to make up for the lack of shipborne Battleship and Cruiser patrol aircraft. Having them as ASW aircraft is a secondary. [/B][/QUOTE]

What about the US shipborne aircraft? The US heavy cruisers and battleships (and there were a lot more of them than JN ships) all had between 1-3 floatplanes on them too.

Admittedly, the Japanese used their floatplanes much more effectively than the US did, but the US still had dozens of such planes. - btw, I have no ides what type they were. :D

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 20
- 7/16/2002 9:15:11 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 583
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		You can never have too many search / patrol plane groups in this game - I'm always finding myself short on these.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 21
- 7/16/2002 9:33:18 AM   
Jeremy Pritchard

 

Posts: 588
Joined: 9/27/2001
From: Ontario Canada
Status: offline 		I was really considering adding some allied light scout groups. The problem is, is that there were not many larger groups of scout aircraft that were based on the ground. The primary recon aircraft of the Allies is the PBY, with the only other variant I have seen was the Utility Wing at Pearl Harbour that had many light floatplanes. The Dutch MLD did have some light floatplane air groups, as did the Australians. If you can provide some land based light recon air groups for the USN I would really appreciate it.

I just added 2 more E13A groups for the IJNAF, one that was based around Okinawa, and another based in the Soloman Islands.

The USN did have a lot more seaplanes, but their level of use of them was a tiny fraction of the IJN. Plus, most cruisers got rid of theirs after the first few Soloman disasters when they easily caught fire and made their ships pretty targets. The Japanese used theirs until much later.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 22
- 7/16/2002 11:04:53 AM   
BullHalsey

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 3/15/2002
From: Nebraska
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger-75
[B]

What about the US shipborne aircraft? The US heavy cruisers and battleships (and there were a lot more of them than JN ships) all had between 1-3 floatplanes on them too.

Admittedly, the Japanese used their floatplanes much more effectively than the US did, but the US still had dozens of such planes. - btw, I have no ides what type they were. :D [/B][/QUOTE]

The US used the Curtiss SOC-1 Seagull and the Curtiss SO3C-1 Seamew on cruisers (other capital ships early in the war) and the OS2U Kingfisher for the Baltimore Class Cruisers and the later Battleships in the war. The Curtiss Seahawk was slated for a late war replacement- but there were numerous long-range A/C on hand (i.e. PB4Y-2's) which ship-based floatplanes less necessary.

Britain used the Sea Fox on cruisers and the Supermarine Walrus on the Battleships (at least on the King George V class).

By the way, what happened to the Short Sunderland inclusion to the British inventory?

The E13A Jakes are supposed to be a composite of floatplanes, but what about the late war replacement floatplanes E16A Pauls, E15K Shiun, and N1K Kyofu? Should the E13A have an upgrade?

I guess it is a fat chance we would see submarine floatplanes- like the Yokosuka E14Y Glen (the only Jap plane to bomb the US mainland)?

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 23
- 7/18/2002 4:17:50 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline 		Problem that I have is the difficulty to push Japanese away from Mandalay..**** units just bounce back, then retreat to Rangoon..then bounce back...vicious cycle. Of course it's good experience bulder for me, getting 2000+ odds every week have really grown their exp. I just wish I could just get them stay in Rangoon, so that my land "juggernaut" would slowly push them back towards south. I think I could make amphibious landing south of Rangoon, but I have only indian division to it, and I doubt it can handle that by itself. :D

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 24
- 7/18/2002 10:10:28 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 583
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Sardaukar
[B]Problem that I have is the difficulty to push Japanese away from Mandalay..**** units just bounce back, then retreat to Rangoon..then bounce back...vicious cycle. Of course it's good experience bulder for me, getting 2000+ odds every week have really grown their exp. I just wish I could just get them stay in Rangoon, so that my land "juggernaut" would slowly push them back towards south. I think I could make amphibious landing south of Rangoon, but I have only indian division to it, and I doubt it can handle that by itself. :D

Cheers,

M.S. [/B][/QUOTE]

Make them retreat enough times and they won't have the required 50% readiness on the Jap turn to move back. It also helps to bomb the supply dumps at their retreat base (Rangoon you said it was?).

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 25
- 7/18/2002 7:36:40 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ranger-75
[B]

Make them retreat enough times and they won't have the required 50% readiness on the Jap turn to move back. It also helps to bomb the supply dumps at their retreat base (Rangoon you said it was?). [/B][/QUOTE]

Hmm..why didn't I think that...my air force is bombing their land forces in Rangoon..but not their supply depot. Got to try that, thanks ! :)

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 26
- 7/20/2002 2:21:33 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 3655
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline 		If you have any British heavy ships available, it's also a good idea to send a Bombardment TF to Rangoon. After a couple of turns, there won't be much left of any defending air squadrons there, and it will keep the LCU's disrupted while your bombers concentrate on the supply depots. You will also get a report of what the Japanese have there while the bombardment is going on.

I've had the "bounce back" problem myself on several occasions. I wrote to Jeremy Pritchard about advancing from Bangkok, and he recommended an amphibious landing at Saigon (?!?). For human-to-human games, I suggest a "house rule" that LCU's forced to retreat cannot advance back into combat for one full turn.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 27
- 7/20/2002 2:34:05 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5493
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Malta
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Capt. Harlock
[B]If you have any British heavy ships available, it's also a good idea to send a Bombardment TF to Rangoon. After a couple of turns, there won't be much left of any defending air squadrons there, and it will keep the LCU's disrupted while your bombers concentrate on the supply depots. You will also get a report of what the Japanese have there while the bombardment is going on.

I've had the "bounce back" problem myself on several occasions. I wrote to Jeremy Pritchard about advancing from Bangkok, and he recommended an amphibious landing at Saigon (?!?). For human-to-human games, I suggest a "house rule" that LCU's forced to retreat cannot advance back into combat for one full turn. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yep...I was going to post about that too, but you got first. I was unable to force the Japanese to retreat fully from Mandalay until I did send both Surface Combat (I like them more than bombardment)and Brit CV TF to hammer Rangoon couple of times. Took really heavy hammering to prevent the "bounce"...and lot of time. Well..I don't really mind...considering the logistic troubles of that front.
Anyway...I'm playing with "max help allied"...since this is my first Campaign 41 game that I look to see to end...just to check how to play during 41-42. My favourite is Guadalcanal to end..as allied. And I have had PW since original Grigsby add on X22 :) Massive game..I still love it.

Cheers,

M.S.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 28
- 7/20/2002 4:26:16 AM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 1424
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		It usually helps to cut off Ranggon from supply by land and sea so if you move some B17 to India and bomb Moulemien supply travelled by land paths will be reduced or even stopped .

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 29
- 7/20/2002 6:09:46 AM   
Lokioftheaesir

 

Posts: 548
Joined: 3/26/2001
From: Oz
Status: offline 		"It took me about 8 month to get rid of 4 Div(3 phil + 1US) and two Reg(2US) without supply) in Bataan having 6 Div and 5 Bde with good
experience and good supply and good commanders."


Denniss

Have reached the 1st week of April in Ver3 PBEM
game with Varjager. Bataan fell in last week of
March. Can't exactly remember what allies had there(maybe my opponent can expand on this)but i put 4 Divisions and 2 Brig/Reg's on Bataan, set 14th Army HQ to ClarkField with army target Bataan and Hori commanding battle in that hex. Rather than let supply routine provide for my troops i also used AK's out of Formosa to dump more than 1000 supply a turn at Bataan by sea.
Used same system at Singapore which fell near end of Feb.
If you are playing against AI it may be a case of
the AI doing things behind the scenes to help it'self in slightly less than realistic manner. The AI in WiR does this.

As for Jap supply movement, half a dozen AK groups
constantly shuttle supply to forward bases (at the moment those that are launching attacks to take Indonesia,Balikpapan/Kendari/Singapore.. exct)
so there is enough supply there to be shipped to
LCU's that are in combat.

Loki

_____________________________

Gentile or Jew
O you who turn the wheel and look to windward,
Consider Phlebas, who was once handsome and tall as you.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Pacwar3 and Japs problems Page: [1] 2   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

0.316