Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It?

 
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 >> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/7/2013 10:28:43 PM   
zeke99


Posts: 376
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
The Cptn is right, I meant per turn.

I checked last turn #117
A6M production 47, Ki43II production 55
oil 198000, resources 888000

I take the A6M as example as they are training only. I should get 47 ac per turn but the pool increases by max 10 per turn. It looks like the production does not get into the pool or only a fraction of factory capacity is produced.

Anyway, the effect is that the game becomes totally frustrating as nearly no ac action is possible

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 31
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/8/2013 1:30:16 AM   
Skipjack_


Posts: 208
Joined: 12/7/2008
Status: offline
quote:


4) I"m not sure what version the two of you are playing. However, after sereral games playing both sides and with input from players some aircraft production was adjusted in later versions. Also I believe I have the non usable factor problem fixed.

I also wonder if we are playing an older version of the scenario. I noticed this in the "Details of Changes" document:
quote:

Bases
Anchorage - Juneau - Seattle march paths removed.


I started a game vs the computer to test out how the scenario works, and I see the march paths in Alaska are indeed gone. In our game, they are present.

Zeke, does the version of the scenario appear on the scenario select menu when you bring it up?





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Skipjack_ -- 5/8/2013 1:33:49 AM >

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 32
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/8/2013 3:59:14 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 376
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
No, my is Version 1.00 which is strange as I recall that we swapped the version zip at the start to avoid playing different versions

Just checked, I have an other folder with Brad's Version 1.05 D12

< Message edited by zeke99 -- 5/8/2013 4:01:41 AM >

(in reply to Skipjack_)
Post #: 33
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/8/2013 12:10:48 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
V 1.00 very experimental. I'm to 1.061 now.

Since Zeke is playing IJ, his obc controls.

First turn production

A6M2

V 1.000, two factories, 18 and 15, total 33
V 1.061, two factories, 21 and 15, total 36

Ki 43

V 1.000 14
V 1.006 24

Total aircraft factories
V 1.000 20
V 1.061 22

Lots of variation in what happens in a game. I ran probably a dozen AI vs AI games (with production set to human) to try to determine some sort of average results.

It would take probably an hour or more to get the data but I after evaluation of early versions I also increased the number of aircraft in to be activated airgroups.

Rough estimate is between higher initial production and an additional fighter factory (one of the additional factories mentioned is a bomber factory) that the newest version in 190 turns produces about 3000 more IJ fighter aircraft than produced the in Zeke/Skpjack game. I can't even make a rough estimate of how many more are available due to increases in the number of aircraft new airgroups activate with but its much less than the production increase.

----------------

Initial Allied Production.

F4F
V 1.000 23
V 1.061 21

P39
V 1.000 23
V 1.061 21

P40
V 1.000 20
V 1.060 22

P39 Export
V 1.000 1
V 1.061 3

P40 Export
V 1.000 1
V 1.061 3

I can see why Zeke is highly unhappy and Skipjack somewhat unhappy. Obviously I was unhappy with it after testing, which is why the changes were made.

I hope its noticed here that coming up with initial production numbers like 18, 21, and 22 is indicative of a close study and evaluation. I think it a lot of cases a decision would be made that "its about 20, let's make it 20". I wanted to be more precise than that.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 34
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/9/2013 3:40:31 PM   
Fishbreath

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 2/2/2012
Status: offline
As before, I'm always happy to host files should you release another version.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 35
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/9/2013 8:54:39 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4791
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

What's that airfiled in the So Pac that can be built up to level 8? Don't remember the name.


I believe you're thinking of Espirtu Santo. Note, though, that Fiji also fits that description, and it's not out of reach for an aggressive/skilled Japanese player. Having both those and stocked with Netties would really put a crimp in the Allied counter-attack!

_____________________________

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 bradk)
Post #: 36
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/10/2013 4:05:57 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbreath

As before, I'm always happy to host files should you release another version.


Thank you. Will send when available. I expect to return to work on this at some point.

I received a suggestion to increase the exp of Indian LCUs. I was doing some experimentation with that when real life got in the way. Hate it when that happens!

Athough not an issue except with an aggressive and successful IJ player, Matrix changes placed Seattle in the Artic combat zone, air bascially doesn't work. I suspect is a side effect of drawing a box that includes the northern Japanese islands. I inquired whether anyone kenw how to fix that (apparently requires and exe edit) but have had no luck with that.

Would also prefer some suggestions from those who have played the latest version.

(in reply to Fishbreath)
Post #: 37
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/10/2013 4:07:08 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt. Harlock

quote:

What's that airfiled in the So Pac that can be built up to level 8? Don't remember the name.


I believe you're thinking of Espirtu Santo. Note, though, that Fiji also fits that description, and it's not out of reach for an aggressive/skilled Japanese player. Having both those and stocked with Netties would really put a crimp in the Allied counter-attack!


I know there's something down there but didn't check prior to posting.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 38
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/10/2013 10:52:50 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skipjack_

On the plus side, getting the F6F in April was a big improvement.


The F6F activating on carriers before it could be selected for production is an error not in all Matrix scenarios, but apparently in the ones people prefer to play. The production availability date for all scenarios I've checked is the same BUT the carrier activation dates are different.

What I think happened is there was a base scenario from which others were derived, and the carrier activation date in some was changed. It was not noticed that the new activation date of carriers with F6Fs was before the production availability date of F6Fs. One of those things that happens when a change affects other things.

There's an IJN carrier that has a similar problem, which I fixed at some point by giving it an older aircraft that was in production.

In the newest version, when a new aircraft activates the first few airgroups activate with their maximum number of aircraft. Over time, new airgroups with that aircraft activate with fewer aircraft, and fill out from production. The change occurs gradually, for example, USMC fighter groups have 24 of a new aircraft shortly after activation, after a few months get 14, and then eventually activate with 4.

SSI uses a similar method. Matrix scenarios give almost all Allied airgroups a full complement upon activation which adds something like 10,000 aircraft to the game versus SSI, while leaving IJ on the SSI method.

(in reply to Skipjack_)
Post #: 39
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/10/2013 10:56:53 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Although availability has been increased since V 1, I'm wondering how the two of you are doing on patrol aircraft.

For those not familiar with the scenario, there are no factories for patrol aircraft. The game automatically produces one per turn even with no factory, and the rest are provided by an initial pool and those that come with new airgroups. There are no combat losses on these aircraft, however, they can be destroyed in a air attack on a base. Also, if a base where they are located is captured, many are lost. I estimated enough to cover a couple of catestrophic events (like loss of a base) a year.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 40
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/13/2013 3:11:29 AM   
Skipjack_


Posts: 208
Joined: 12/7/2008
Status: offline
I have been careful (and fortunate) to not lose patrol squadrons when bases fall. So no issues with PBY availability.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 41
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 5/13/2013 10:39:52 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skipjack_

I have been careful (and fortunate) to not lose patrol squadrons when bases fall. So no issues with PBY availability.


Cool. That's consistent with, for example, with Nimitz instruction that if Midway was in danger of falling to bring out the heavy stuff. This is the sort of behavior the scneario is intended to encourage.

Thank you for the information. The number of patrol aircraft to provide was a very difficult estimate.

(in reply to Skipjack_)
Post #: 42
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 6/17/2013 7:11:07 PM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
I looked at the aircraft chart and I don't know where you decided on the ludicrously short ranges for the USN carrier planes from. Ex the F4F's range of 845 mi was 2/3 of the A6M 1260 miles, but you have the F4F at 1/2 the range. And it gets worse.



_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 43
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 6/25/2013 10:18:18 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranger-75

I looked at the aircraft chart and I don't know where you decided on the ludicrously short ranges for the USN carrier planes from. Ex the F4F's range of 845 mi was 2/3 of the A6M 1260 miles, but you have the F4F at 1/2 the range. And it gets worse.





For the most part the range ratings of aircraft are the same as used for years by SSI and/or Matrix.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 44
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 6/26/2013 7:44:23 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
That's part of my point Brad, It's never been right. The Dauntless had a range about equal to the Zero. Of course the game doesn't handle widely differing ranges on the carrier air groups very well.

_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 45
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 6/27/2013 12:47:42 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranger-75

That's part of my point Brad, It's never been right. The Dauntless had a range about equal to the Zero. Of course the game doesn't handle widely differing ranges on the carrier air groups very well.


There have been discussions here and on the old pacwar mailing list about range. Many of them. Similar points have been made by people for 20+ years. Someone says the range of an aircraft is x and someone else says yes, but not combat loaded, and someone else says its longer with a drop tank, and someone else says there's no... what's the term... linger time?... over the target at that range.

Anyway, I've seen nothing in any of those multiple discussions convincing enough to make changes in the range of significant numbers of aircraft. Of course, anyone can modify the ranges to their liking, regardless of community consensus... as long as their opponent agrees!

As far as "never been right" goes, well, the contraints of the game are that the same forumla for application of the range rating applies to all aircraft. Range to ships and LCUs is as rated, to ports, airfields, and factories 1.5 the rating (rounded down), and over a certain range bombers may carry a lighter load based on a comparision between capacity and weapon warhead. WHen changing the range rating because of one characterisitc, it must be considered whether there are resultant consequences more undesireable than the one being corrected.

Or, in short terms, I don't have an answer to a problem that has been discussed by many knowlegeable people over a 20 year period without coming up with an answer.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 46
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 6/27/2013 9:49:35 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
Thanks Brad, I'm not singling you out, because even the original versions had these ratings. It's just that it has vexed me for as long as it has been in existence, and you're right; "correcting" one thing can have strange 2nd and 3rd order effects on other things.

PacWar is a fun game - if one likes massive strategic level games ;-), but I'm under no illusion that it is highly realistic, especially where modelling logistics comes into play.


_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 47
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 7/2/2013 1:06:16 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranger-75

Thanks Brad, I'm not singling you out, because even the original versions had these ratings.


I know you weren't. I just happened to be available at the time.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 48
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 7/2/2013 1:55:05 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbreath

As before, I'm always happy to host files should you release another version.


Thank you. Will send when available. I expect to return to work on this at some point.

I received a suggestion to increase the exp of Indian LCUs. I was doing some experimentation with that when real life got in the way. Hate it when that happens!

Although not an issue except with an aggressive and successful IJ player, Matrix changes placed Seattle in the Artic combat zone, air bascialy doesn't work. I suspect its a side effect of drawing a box that includes the northern Japanese islands. I inquired whether anyone knew how to fix that (apparently requires and exe edit) but have had no luck with that.

Would also prefer some suggestions from those who have played the latest version.



Is Seattle really in the Arctic zone in the latest versions? If so when did this change? I think I'll move it south a row to get it out of the zone.

Arctic Blue is a nice color for my convertible, but we can't have Seattle in the Arctic zone now...

_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 49
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 7/2/2013 1:42:46 PM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
Zeke99, this is just for you! (but everyone is welcome to read as well).

From Shattered Sword, p 89:

"Japan would produce just 56 carrier attack aircraft in all of 1942 (Vals, Kates, and Judy & Jill prototypes), a pathetically low figure". Nakajima and Aichi had actually stopped production of Kates & Vals to try and work out production problems with the new models, and had to (slowly) re-start production of these two types.

The rest of this is on a new thread.



< Message edited by Ranger-75 -- 7/2/2013 4:16:51 PM >


_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 50
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 7/3/2013 12:11:35 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ranger-75

Is Seattle really in the Arctic zone in the latest versions? If so when did this change? I think I'll move it south a row to get it out of the zone.



Yes. Apparently as an undesired effect of wanting some northern IJ islands in the zone. I assume the zone is defined by a single x/y entry in the exe.

Moving Seattle one hex south may not solve the problem. We don't know whether the artic zone extends just to Seattle or farther south. And also for air action the arctic effect is calculated twice, once at the originating hex and once at the target hex. So a TF NW of Seattle would still be affected.

I haven't found anyone with knowledge and ability to fix this in the exe.

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 51
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 7/3/2013 10:07:36 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
OK, well the map goes straight across, so I'll just look at those islands in Japan and cruise the cursor due east and see where it hits the North America west coast.

I don't think this change was in effect in the Matrix v 2.2 and 2.3 editions.

_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 52
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 7/5/2013 6:47:38 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 376
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
moved to other thread

< Message edited by zeke99 -- 7/5/2013 6:52:57 AM >

(in reply to Ranger-75)
Post #: 53
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 1/31/2014 11:43:19 PM   
shortty

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 10/4/2008
Status: offline
I see that in this scenerio the starting Control and Production points are reduced to maximize the effect of Kill points. How did you modify the Control points?

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 54
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 9/14/2014 8:52:11 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: shortty

I see that in this scenerio the starting Control and Production points are reduced to maximize the effect of Kill points. How did you modify the Control points?


Sorry for the late response. Real life has intervenes for many months.

I wouldn't say I maximized the effect of kill points. I returned the relationship between them to close to SSI values.

Control points are affected by many things including airfield and port size, factory size, resources, and oil. When I changed heavy industry, oil, and resources to the SSI values, control points were reduced to close to SSI values.

(in reply to shortty)
Post #: 55
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 9/27/2014 3:38:41 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
I finally got around to working on this after over a year of no activity.

Zeke had previously suggested increasing the experience of the Indian LCUs. Actually, upon consideration, I decided that all the Allied LCUs in Burma/India, and DEI probably have experience set so allow IJ AI to take over on schedule, and thus are under rating for a human opponent. So I did the following:



  • Indian LCUs, plus 15 experience (most are now 35 or 40)
  • Dutch LCUs, plus 20 experience (most are now 40)
  • Aus home defences LCUs, plus 10 experience (most are now 50)


To answer the protests in advance

No, I don't think the Ind LCUs are as good as the Dutch, and I don't think either is 80% as good as the Aus home defense LCUs. The rating changes are not based on real life evaluations but rather what I think it takes to make the game work well.

I'm also going to fix the exe so there are no factory and airgroup upgrades, so the players don't have be be careful about setting the game ot human factory control. It really gets messed up if they don't.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 56
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 10/17/2014 12:49:01 PM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Zeke previously reported woefully inadequate aircraft supplies in human/hunan game. However, he accidentally loaded a scenario that was a test scenario for AI/AI.

I have a game going with V1.06 where my opponent and I are playing largely for data collection purposes. On turn 96 we shared data on aircraft pools.

Game date is Oct 43, turn 96.

IJ holds fairly close to its maximum historical area plus India and a couple of bases on Aus. Multiple fighter groups are involved in fighter sweeps where bases are close. IJN has lost several carriers in central Pacific island chain battles. USN carriers have mostly survived, but with significant damage, against IJ LBA and carrier air.

I'm not sure how typical this game is as far as aircraft useage but anyway, here are the pools. Comments appreciated.

Game Turn 96

Pool-Model-# Turns Available

670 F4F 96
142 FM2 26
62 F6F 26
95 Spit V 26
308 P40 export 96
242 Hurricane IIB 96
25 Hurricane IIc 8
247 P39 export 96
139 F4U-1 50
129 P47D 16
697 P40 96
179 P38G 50
38 P38J 6
38 P51B 6
848 P39 96
1363 SBD 96
7 SB2C 6
724 TBF 70
73 Barracuda 20
160 Albacore I 93
323 Blenheim IV 96
216 Hudson 96
173 B26 export 96
263 Wellington III 86
230 Beaufighter X 41
223 Beaufort Turn 91
155 Martin 139 Turn 96
153 PBY 96
156 A20 96
1643 B25 93
428 B26 96
184 B24 42
150 C47 96


718 A5M 96
50 A6M2 96
27 A6M5 11
609 Ki27 96
115 Ki43 96
182 Ki61 31
89 J2M 16
155 J1N 56
61 Ki43II 54
45 Ki45 60
493 D3A 96
241 D4Y 36
433 B5N 96
6 B6N 6
512 Ki32 96
346 Ki48 96
211 Ki21II 96
376 Ki 49 96
356 G3M 96
726 G4M 96
84 E13A 96
161 H6K 96
707 Ki51 96
149 Ki46II 96


There's something here that has worked out very well. This game has no factories for patrol or transport aircraft. But the pools are good. Amounts intially placed in the pools and airgroups plus auto production of 1 aircraft per turn (this occurs even without a factory) has provided adequate number of these aircraft.


(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 57
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 10/17/2014 7:20:40 PM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 4791
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline
quote:

I'm not sure how typical this game is as far as aircraft useage but anyway, here are the pools. Comments appreciated.


The levels of Hellcats and A6M2 Zeroes seem rather small -- have there been heavy losses of these types? On the other hand, the numbers of G4M's are (for an Allied player) alarmingly high. Has there been a concentration on production of Betties?

_____________________________

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 bradk)
Post #: 58
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 10/18/2014 3:44:58 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
I think fighter losses have been exceptionally heavy in this game.

The Hellcat has been in production only 26 turns. The Allied player has converted all the carrier based Wildcats to Hellcats. Then we had the huge carrier battles around the atolls. Of course, that used up Zeros too.

Its been a very fighter oriented game between the land based airgroups. I have a base with a level 6 airfield. Its under heavy attack from two Allied bases. I have 6 fighter groups there - no bombers because even 6 fighter groups can't take on replacements fast enough to maintain their size. I have to rotate them out every few turns.

The G4M pool is high because of how I've chosen to use it. I've had G4Ms mostly on ASW since the beginning of the game. Also, I did not change any G3M groups to G4Ms. Production is 13 per week.

(in reply to Capt. Harlock)
Post #: 59
RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Lik... - 10/19/2014 4:19:45 AM   
bradk

 

Posts: 332
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradk

I finally got around to working on this after over a year of no activity.

Zeke had previously suggested increasing the experience of the Indian LCUs. Actually, upon consideration, I decided that all the Allied LCUs in Burma/India, and DEI probably have experience set so allow IJ AI to take over on schedule, and thus are under rating for a human opponent. So I did the following:



  • Indian LCUs, plus 15 experience (most are now 35 or 40)
  • Dutch LCUs, plus 20 experience (most are now 40)
  • Aus home defences LCUs, plus 10 experience (most are now 50)


To answer the protests in advance

No, I don't think the Ind LCUs are as good as the Dutch, and I don't think either is 80% as good as the Aus home defense LCUs. The rating changes are not based on real life evaluations but rather what I think it takes to make the game work well.

I'm also going to fix the exe so there are no factory and airgroup upgrades, so the players don't have be be careful about setting the game ot human factory control. It really gets messed up if they don't.



This worked out satisfatorily for the Dutch LCUs. I finished the DEI campaign in early March which is about right. I think we've probably all seen low experience Dutch LCUs surrender even when they had a path to retreat. That didn't happen. So I like the results.

Actually, there's one Dutch base I haven't taken but I could have. I elected to use my prep points elsewhere.

I don't have any information on perormance the Indian LCUs. The Allied player elected to retreat back to India.

In contrast to the Burma strategy, the Allied player elected to defend southeast New Guinea and the northwest Solomons. He even has a CV group deployed in the area. So since I'm dealing with that, I haven't had a chance to see how the Aus home defense LCUs do.

(in reply to bradk)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> RE: Multi Dimensional Scenario Available, Would You Like To Try It? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

0.199