Matrix Games Forums

Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 10/16/2012 1:33:56 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13803
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Any feedback on beta scenarios please post in this thread

Feedback should be on Beta Scenarios only

To be helpfull Feedback should be posted as

Scenario X, Air/naval/Data/Land/AI etc etc

Description of issue as specific as possible please

thanks

Andy
Post #: 1
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 10/22/2012 7:58:33 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13803
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
nada yet ??

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 10/22/2012 10:07:06 PM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1195
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
Scenario 1, 1119e, daily turns, Allied vs AI Japanese, Dec 1944

No issues whatsoever observed

Japanese E Boat menace greatly reduced


EDIT: I should probably add I played 8 turns after the Data Base Update

< Message edited by Rainer -- 10/22/2012 10:11:04 PM >


_____________________________

WitP/AE
1.7.11.23x10 beta
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg
Topo Map by chemkid

WitW
1.00

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 3
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 10/23/2012 2:19:29 AM   
rjopel

 

Posts: 591
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Peterborough, UK
Status: offline
Downfall Scenario.

Thanks getting the upgrades done for Allied shipping.

US TOEs and squad updates are still badly out of date.

(in reply to Rainer)
Post #: 4
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 10/23/2012 9:23:59 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 484
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Any feedback on beta scenarios please post in this thread

Feedback should be on Beta Scenarios only

To be helpfull Feedback should be posted as

Scenario X, Air/naval/Data/Land/AI etc etc

Description of issue as specific as possible please

thanks

Andy


There are the following errors/suggestions for the Dutch OOB LCUs

1. In most of the scenario's has the LCU 5800 the Dutch Mobiele Eenheid on weapon2 the 180mm CD Gun. it must be a VCL light Tank.

2. TH LCU 5808 KNIL Mariener Bde ,must be renamed to Mariniers Bde. And is no KNIL Unit.It's raised and trained in the US.

3. The KNIL Marine squads must be renamed to Mariniers Squads. And they also are no KNIL. This is also for the other squads in the Mariniers Bde.

4. The LCU 5809 1st KNIL (T) Bde must be renamed to T Bde or Tijger Brigade. And it's no KNIL unit. But a unit from the Koninklijk Landmacht or KL (Royal Army) and it come from the Netherlands. This is also for the squads.

5. I do miss the following Dutch unit in the Pacific where from medio 1942 NSO, on 1 aug 42) named Korps Insulinde. Raised from a part of the Princess Irene Brigade that was underway to the NEI, but because the surrender was stranded on Ceylon, Mariniers and KNIL troops. it was about company size, But may 1945 reinforced with 154 men (part No 2 Dutch Troop). disbanded may 1946.

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
The CrazyDutch

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 5
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 10/28/2012 9:18:37 PM   
Harald Velemans


Posts: 266
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
How about these?

It's a scenario28 Dutch Forces Mod, including 1945/1946 KL/KNIL units.

Harald

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 6
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 10/29/2012 7:25:01 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 484
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Harald Velemans

How about these?

It's a scenario28 Dutch Forces Mod, including 1945/1946 KL/KNIL units.

Harald


Thanks. I have see it and looks good. To bad that one KL unit is still missing. Namely Korps Insulinde.



_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
The CrazyDutch

(in reply to Harald Velemans)
Post #: 7
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 10/29/2012 6:52:10 PM   
Rainer

 

Posts: 1195
Joined: 11/21/2000
From: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany
Status: offline
Started a new campaign (scen #1, Allied vs. Japanese AI) a couple of days ago.
Current game date Dec 17, 1941.
No adverse effects observed.


_____________________________

WitP/AE
1.7.11.23x10 beta
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg
Topo Map by chemkid

WitW
1.00

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 8
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 10/29/2012 9:11:30 PM   
latosusi

 

Posts: 306
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline
Could even historically sunk ships like HMS Hermes have a upgrade path?

(in reply to Rainer)
Post #: 9
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/3/2012 4:42:31 AM   
dr. smith

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: lost in space
Status: offline
Also started scenario 1, Allied vs. Computer Japan.
Naval
Not running beta.
Up to 12 December 1941 when got this anomaly:

Had spotted IJN TF 1 hex NW of Balabac (off NE Borneo) so sent Houston, Marblehead, 5 4-stackers from Tarakan to intercept near Sandakan. Was 16 xAK and 12 xAKL carrying Sasebo 8th SNLF, most of them with under 10% capacity filled (with supplies). Half the xAK has 1 or 3% filled, the xAKLs are more filled - only half under 10%. 3 Surface TF IJN on patrol, 1 near Brunei/Jesselton (in Beaufort hex - 3 CL, 3 DDs), another 4 hexes WNW of Miri in deepwater, and one actually in Davao (BB Hyga, CA, 2 DDs), patrolling around Davao.

No invasion of Davao yet, none on Borneo, so leapfrogging air support (CVL in Babeldaob)

The transport TF was going to Jolo with no escorts, so was ripped to pieces by Houston/Marblehead.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Day Time Surface Combat, near Sandakan at 71,87, Range 5,000 Yards

Japanese Ships
xAK Thames Maru, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
xAK Nansin Maru
xAKL Nichizui Maru, Shell hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Nissen Maru #2, Shell hits 5, on fire
xAK Nittei Maru
xAK Ryugi Maru, Shell hits 2
xAKL Saiko Maru, Shell hits 1
xAK Sanuki Maru, Shell hits 1, heavy fires
xAK Shoho Maru, Shell hits 41, and is sunk
xAK Taibun Maru, Shell hits 9, heavy fires
xAK Tatsuho Maru, Shell hits 2
xAK Tone Maru, Shell hits 6, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Uyo Maru, Shell hits 43, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Ume Maru, Shell hits 12, on fire
xAK Yuzan Maru, Shell hits 10, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Yubari Maru, Shell hits 21, and is sunk
xAKL Akita Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire
xAKL Ayaha Maru, Shell hits 1
xAKL Awa Maru, Shell hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Heiyo Maru, Shell hits 3
xAKL Higashiyama Maru, Shell hits 3
xAKL Tonegawa Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires
xAKL Yagi Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire
xAK Okuni Maru, Shell hits 15, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Hachirogata Maru
xAK Azuchisan Maru, Shell hits 8, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
xAK Amakusa Maru, Shell hits 38, and is sunk
xAKL Fukuyo Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires

Allied Ships
CA Houston
CL Marblehead, Shell hits 1
DD Barker
DD Bulmer
DD Paul Jones
DD Parrott, Shell hits 1
DD Stewart, Shell hits 2

Japanese ground losses:
1539 casualties reported
Squads: 42 destroyed, 49 disabled
Non Combat: 27 destroyed, 52 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 14 (7 destroyed, 7 disabled)
Vehicles lost 4 (2 destroyed, 2 disabled)

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

2 questions -

1 - unescorted??? So many cargo ships, could have used much less.

2 - The patrol zones, why not one for Jolo if it's being targeted?

Have never posted a save file, can do so with instruction.


< Message edited by dr. smith -- 11/3/2012 4:43:07 AM >

(in reply to latosusi)
Post #: 10
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/3/2012 3:49:20 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7421
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

Could even historically sunk ships like HMS Hermes have a upgrade path?


+1

And why should NZ aircraft production (read US deliveries to NZ) come to a halt in 1945?. Is there a historical reason for this when Australia continues to receive aircraft after the historical war end date?

If the conflict continued after 8/45 would some Canadian air units be released for service in the Pacific? Not a big deal but I like the flava.

BTW great job and much appreciation for what you all are doing? The game just gets better.


Sorry, I now see that this may not have been the suitable place to post these questions?


< Message edited by crsutton -- 11/3/2012 3:50:33 PM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to latosusi)
Post #: 11
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/10/2012 8:22:45 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1338
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
It seems there is something wrong with Scenario 1.



I have not checked everything, but surely neither Radar upgrades, nor Dutch loop is repaired, nor tank have better firepower. Also, there are no Device with any values in second field (although I do not know if this is THE AA fix).

I actually thought, that it does not updated at all, so I have installed it again, but it is the same. Super Es are reduced, so Scenario is definitely modified.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 12
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/11/2012 2:04:03 AM   
Kull


Posts: 1066
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
A few comments on Scenario 17:

1) Since the whole purpose of this scenario is to make life difficult for the Japanese player (FOW on), there's a certain ship in Pearl Harbor which really shouldn't be there on December 7th.

2) Several days in I decided to mount a large Port attack to sink the "stragglers" hanging out in Manila. And nailed 14 subs. Much as I hate to say this, every Allied sub should sortie on the morning of December 8th. From every port.

And yes, Ican't believe the requests here are to make life even HARDER, because God knows, this scenario can be hair raising. (Definitely NOT "enjoying" the other surprises coming my way!)

_____________________________

AE-Japan Setup

AE-Allied Setup

Japan Air-Engine Plan

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 13
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/12/2012 3:38:09 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13803
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Have ben away for a few days will investigate and report back if there is something wrong

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 14
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/17/2012 12:44:48 AM   
dr. smith

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: lost in space
Status: offline

I redid the turn before my Jolo problem where an unescorted TF with just xAK and xAKL went to Jolo with no air cover so that my surface TF did not react and thus scared the cargo ships away from Jolo without encountering them

Now its Jan 22, 1942 turn, and another problem with Scnario 1. The day after first IJA units enter Singapore - get this over optimistic cargo TF:

Naval Gun Fire at Singapore
xAK Igasa Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Hokuriku Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Hokko Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Hokko Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Enju Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Chihaya Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Ayato Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAKL Kasui Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAKL Kashi Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAKL Meiko Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Kuroshio Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Kisogawa Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Enju Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Chihaya Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Ayato Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAK Syunko Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAKL Nittatsu Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAKL Tatebu Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore
xAKL Tatibana Maru hits Mk XVII Mine at Singapore

Then it gets bad:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Gun Fire at Singapore - Coastal Guns Fire Back!

104 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAK Kuroshio Maru, Shell hits 5, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Kiyozumi Maru, Shell hits 11, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Kisogawa Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Igasa Maru, Shell hits 3, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Hokuriku Maru, Shell hits 2, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Hokko Maru, Shell hits 11, Mine hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Enju Maru, Shell hits 4, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Chihaya Maru, Shell hits 4, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Ayato Maru, Shell hits 7, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Syunko Maru, Shell hits 3, on fire
xAKL Nittatsu Maru, Shell hits 1, on fire
xAKL Tatebu Maru, Shell hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Tatibana Maru, Shell hits 3, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Kasui Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
xAKL Kashi Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy damage
xAKL Meiko Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage



Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Kuroshio Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Kiyozumi Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Kisogawa Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Igasa Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Hokuriku Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Hokko Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Enju Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Chihaya Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Ayato Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Syunko Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAKL Nittatsu Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAKL Tatebu Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAKL Tatibana Maru

Now the finishing touch as the TF retreats
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 211 encounters mine field at Singapore (50,84)

Japanese Ships
xAK Kuroshio Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Kisogawa Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Enju Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Chihaya Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Ayato Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Syunko Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
xAKL Nittatsu Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
xAKL Tatebu Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAKL Tatibana Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage

=========================

All ships end up sunk.


Also for carrier ops, it sent the CVL Ryujo with just a CA and a single DD to Midway on Dec 24th. When spotted the 2nd time in early Jan, I sent Lex & Enterprise after it was spotted coming back. Sank CA and DD and heavily damaged Ryujo. After Singapore snafu, looked again and now Akagi is going to Midway solo with just a quarter of DD to accompany. KB had been split in 2, one in S China Sea, the other in Celebes Sea and down to Makassar and Kendari.


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 15
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/17/2012 1:43:33 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13803
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Singapore is an old issue can you send me a save before it happened

(in reply to dr. smith)
Post #: 16
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/17/2012 3:35:03 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 15173
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Andy,

This is not strictly scenario data, but could you communicate with Michael about USMC and USN LCUs being enabled for strategic road movement? Before you went away a while back you said you didn't have time to verify that before you left.

Also, Indian LCUs are enabled for strategic road movement - is that correct or should they be taken off the list?

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 17
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/17/2012 4:10:30 AM   
michaelm


Posts: 9464
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
I thought I had answered this before:
Strategic move by RD+ if nationality is
USA AUS NAT_NZ NAT_BRIT NAT_IND NAT_CAN

Mobility would be based on how high units of those nations were generally mobile (high % of trucks, AFV, etc). As we don't monitor overall transport availability (by using a points system for each nation), or check if units have organic transport units, we have to compromise and generalize on the 'strategic' mobility of said country.
USMC units I didn't think would be as mobile as say a US Army unit


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 18
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/17/2012 6:30:05 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 15173
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

I thought I had answered this before:
Strategic move by RD+ if nationality is
USA AUS NAT_NZ NAT_BRIT NAT_IND NAT_CAN

Mobility would be based on how high units of those nations were generally mobile (high % of trucks, AFV, etc). As we don't monitor overall transport availability (by using a points system for each nation), or check if units have organic transport units, we have to compromise and generalize on the 'strategic' mobility of said country.
USMC units I didn't think would be as mobile as say a US Army unit


You did respond previously, basically that the list was as is from day one. But Andy was going to check on it because it seemed like USMC and USN should be on the list and (perhaps, at least) IND should not. Before he went away he indicated that he had some old materials to look through (or something like that, I'm paraphrasing from memory) but lacked time to do it until after his trip.

I'm not so sure that a USMC unit of the era (or a USN unit) would be less strategically mobile than a US Army unit or an Indian Army unit. Andy is the ground guru, so that's why I had forwarded the question to him after your prior response.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to michaelm)
Post #: 19
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/17/2012 10:15:58 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2239
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: offline

Blackhorse did say he was comfortable with the strategic movement of the USMC units.....



_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has introduced a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 20
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/17/2012 11:24:25 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15173
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg


Blackhorse did say he was comfortable with the strategic movement of the USMC units.....



I missed that. Do you mean he said he was comfortable with them as is, or comfortable with them being able to move strat road?

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 21
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/18/2012 9:10:02 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13803
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
We decided not to make a change other changes were higher priority and this one wasnt clear cut

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 22
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/18/2012 9:12:18 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13803
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Scen 1 is ok are you sure you installed to correct directory

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 23
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/18/2012 9:13:36 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13803
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Coy level units post mid 42 are not included as game moves to min Bn scale at this point

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 24
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/18/2012 9:15:51 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13803
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Will change nme of dutch bde and fix armoured unit TOE

NZ air will amend

Can Sqns arrice as part of tiger force

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 25
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/18/2012 9:19:09 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15173
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

We decided not to make a change other changes were higher priority and this one wasnt clear cut

Cool, thank you.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 26
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/19/2012 8:56:15 PM   
Natali

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

We decided not to make a change other changes were higher priority and this one wasnt clear cut

Cool, thank you.

I don't know if they talked to Andy, but I asked the question from the Babes guys and they said six of one and half dozen of the other, but they think no strat road move is more realistic.

land units weren't generally strategicaly mobile on their own anyway, even US Army divisions. The USA divisions had to get a big number of QM Truck units from Corps to lift everybody. But the game abstraction lets them get strategic movement by using those "hidden" QM Truck units.

The USN and USMC didn't have any of that kind of upper echelon help. The USMC division had lots more troops, but lots less trucks than an Army division. It was not set up to go running around on roads. USN engineers had lots of gear, but you can't strategically drive bulldozers down a highway, you need a transporter. On mainland US it doesn't matter because there's railroads to everyplace. Off mainland US, they had to walk, so make them walk.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 27
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/20/2012 10:05:08 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Natali


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

We decided not to make a change other changes were higher priority and this one wasnt clear cut

Cool, thank you.

I don't know if they talked to Andy, but I asked the question from the Babes guys and they said six of one and half dozen of the other, but they think no strat road move is more realistic.

land units weren't generally strategicaly mobile on their own anyway, even US Army divisions. The USA divisions had to get a big number of QM Truck units from Corps to lift everybody. But the game abstraction lets them get strategic movement by using those "hidden" QM Truck units.

The USN and USMC didn't have any of that kind of upper echelon help. The USMC division had lots more troops, but lots less trucks than an Army division. It was not set up to go running around on roads. USN engineers had lots of gear, but you can't strategically drive bulldozers down a highway, you need a transporter. On mainland US it doesn't matter because there's railroads to everyplace. Off mainland US, they had to walk, so make them walk.

I asked this question couple years back and got the same answer for the same reasons. Made sense to me then and still does. I'm ok with it. I was actually quite pleased with the granularity of the model that it could split up the movement between USN and USArmy.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 11/20/2012 10:07:07 AM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Natali)
Post #: 28
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/20/2012 2:31:23 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 15173
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
I didn't know about the previous round of Q&A.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 29
RE: Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD - 11/20/2012 3:10:46 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5925
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Its in the Mod forum somewhere .... ~2 yrs ago ... maybe a bit longer ...

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> Patch 7 Data Update FEEBACK THREAD Page: [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

0.113