Matrix Games Forums

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 41War in the East: Lost Battles is here!Conflict of Heroes: Awakening the Bear! Let's Play videoLost Battles Scenario Manual excerpts available!A sneak peek from Allied Corps!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Scen 1 vs Scen 2

 
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 >> The War Room >> Scen 1 vs Scen 2 Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Scen 1 vs Scen 2 - 10/18/2010 6:52:50 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5264
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: online 		I am curious what everyone thinks of the gameplay of Scen 2 v Scen 1.

In my game vs. Canoerebel he asked for Scen 2; maybe I am biased as Japan, but I think it gives a more balanced game than Scen 1.

I was a stickler for historical force levels, but I have softened on that a bit, as overall it's just a game. I'll probably ask for Scen 2 in my next game.

Obviously Scen 2 departs from history, and I would argue gameplay in general favors Japan vs. history in any scenario (not VPs though), but I'm talking purely from gameplay.

What do you guys prefer, and why? (And instead of Scen 2, substituting any alternative IJN is stronger mods)
Post #: 1
RE: Scen 1 vs Scen 2 - 10/18/2010 7:07:19 PM   
VSWG


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

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I was a stickler for historical force levels,

I still am, but so many new PBEMs use Scen. 2 that I would really like to know more about this scenario.

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 2
RE: Scen 1 vs Scen 2 - 10/18/2010 7:16:25 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5264
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: online 		From a ground level, here is what you get Scen 2:

1. FUEL: You get more FUEL and SUPPLY at-start, particularly at Truk, Saigon, and other key places
2. WARSHIPS: You get more DDs early (4 more at-start), plus more in the queue; about 6-8 extra in 1942, and a whole Shimakaze-class later in 1943/44. You also get 3 extra AGANOs in the queue. You have to pay for all this of course with HI.
3. CVs: You don't get ANY extra CVs; however, SHINANO is now a Taiho-class CV, and the CVEs come in with organic airgroups (useful!)
4. AIR: You get lots of extra air units, particularly the IJN AIR is expanded, with more Zeros, Bettys, and other stuff in particular
5. PILOTS: You get more added to the pool every month; this is actually a MINUS, though, as you get more than you really need, and it chews up piles of HI.
6. LCUs: There are lots of extra LCU goodies; primarily, 4 extra divisions in 1942 (4th,5th,and 6th Guards, plus 1st Gds Tank), plus extra PARAS.
7. MERCHANTS: You get more Tankers in the queue

So, you don't really get extra capital ships (unlike, say, Reluctant Admiral), but you get more 2nd-tier stuff accross the board which helps in logistics and staying power.

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 3
RE: Scen 1 vs Scen 2 - 10/18/2010 7:22:56 PM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I'm fine with most of these changes in general, but some of them happen to early IMO. Why boost Japan in 1941/42 (especially the extra divisions), when it is dominant already? After 1942, a stronger Japan should make for a better game, I agree.

< Message edited by VSWG -- 10/18/2010 7:24:15 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 4
RE: Scen 1 vs Scen 2 - 10/18/2010 7:43:28 PM   
Djordje

 

Posts: 537
Joined: 9/12/2004
Status: offline 		Q-Ball said it nicely, I'll just add:

8: PATROL SQUADRONS - Several large and really useful Mavis squadrons
9: PILOT EXPERIENCE- Lots of really good pilots added to several squadrons, including some with experience of 90. My estimate is that you have at least 300 pilots capable of going into TRACOM at start.
10: KB SQUADRON SIZE - KB have squadron size fixed to certain dates, first size change is in June 42. That is a really big MINUS as you are stuck with 6x18=108 Zeroes in KB instead of usual 150 or so, which is reduction of about 30%. Because of that KB is much more vulnerable to air strikes. And no, increased pilot experience does not make up for it from my experience in PBEM.
11: FACTORIES - Japan gets additional small unrepaired 0(5) factory for every plane type in production on December 41. It does not give additional production but allows for a much more flexible industry planning.


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 5
RE: Scen 1 vs Scen 2 - 10/18/2010 7:58:23 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6053
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
quote:

10: KB SQUADRON SIZE - KB have squadron size fixed to certain dates, first size change is in June 42. That is a really big MINUS as you are stuck with 6x18=108 Zeroes in KB instead of usual 150 or so, which is reduction of about 30%. Because of that KB is much more vulnerable to air strikes. And no, increased pilot experience does not make up for it from my experience in PBEM.


I easily counter this by pulling the Vals off Hiryu and placing a 36 plane Zero air group on board.

(in reply to Djordje)
Post #: 6
RE: Scen 1 vs Scen 2 - 10/18/2010 11:21:29 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1871
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		I'm not categorically opposed to stronger Japan mods, but I'm no fan of scenario 2. My main problem is the 4 early extra divisions, these seem to give a very big advantage to the Japanese in large-scale land campaigns. Any Japanese player worth his salt will use that advantage which will create large-scale slogging matches on the ground, if I wanted that I'd be playing War in the East. I'd also vote for more goodies arriving later, especially ships (maybe even some capital ones), somewhat faster plane development etc... Maybe even more ground troops, but of the smaller kind to give better garrisons to islands. Like VSWG I think a good stronger Japan scenario would lengthen the period of parity, not give steroids to the expansion phase.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 7
RE: Scen 1 vs Scen 2 - 10/18/2010 11:39:46 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 5264
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: online 		If we try and marry an enhanced-Japan scenario with reality, it would be easier to hypothesize different ship construction priorities, than it would creating 4 new divisions, I agree; after all, it's not like the IJA wasn't in an expansion mode.

If you wanted to make Japan stronger in 1943 (a good goal for play balance I think), maybe the way to go is to assume:

1. SHINANO and HULL 111 are never started.
2. Air Advocates win more internal IJN political battles, resulting in:
a) Building of 2-4 UNRYU-class CVs in the two dry-docks from the cancelled YAMATOS. Have two completed in early 1943, with another pair in mid-1943.
b) Additional R&D resources fix problems in JUDY and JILL quicker, accelerating those planes
c) Air advocates win additional resources toward creation of 2 more AIR FLOTILLAS in late 1942
3. BETTER FUEL PREPARADNESS (still more fuel at start)
4. Cancel MIDGET program to save resources
5. Allow for immediate conversion of CHITOSE, NISSHIN classes to CVL. Most players would do this, resulting in CVLs available in late 1942.
6. Maybe cancel OYODO and throw in another UNRYU.

These would seem like realistic changes that would be attainable if the IJN had 20-20 vision in it's priorities.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 10/18/2010 11:44:06 PM >

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 8
RE: Scen 1 vs Scen 2 - 10/18/2010 11:41:42 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9028
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

If we try and marry an enhanced-Japan scenario with reality, it would be easier to hypothesize different ship construction priorities, than it would creating 4 new divisions, I agree; after all, it's not like the IJA wasn't in an expansion mode.

If you wanted to make Japan stronger in 1943 (a good goal for play balance I think), maybe the way to go is to assume:

1. SHINANO and HULL 111 are never started.
2. Air Advocates win more internal political battles, resulting in:



Resulting in what???? On your post it looks lke a thin black line results.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 9
RE: Scen 1 vs Scen 2 - 10/18/2010 11:58:30 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1727
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline 		For me I would like this for no other reason than Japan needs the flexability to build a lot more DD. In both my games of WITP the main one now in FEB44 my biggest problem is lack of DD.

Cav,

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 10
RE: Scen 1 vs Scen 2 - 10/19/2010 1:38:05 AM   
vonTirpitz


Posts: 510
Joined: 3/1/2005
From: Wilmington, NC
Status: offline 		It may just be me but I've found that balancing the Japanese economy is a little more interesting in Scenario 2 (mostly due to the ~36000 HI that gets consumed for pilots each month). Careful growth of the industrial base to support these needs as well as those of the extra units seemed to be a requirement in the first 6 months.

As my game now moving into August 1942 it will be interesting to see if too much or not enough economic growth exists to carry Japan into the later years of the war.

_____________________________


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Scen 1 vs Scen 2 Page: [1]
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

0.219