Matrix Games Forums

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

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

OOB Issues

 
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 >> OOB Issues Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
OOB Issues - 12/28/2012 1:02:44 AM   
linrom

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 2/20/2002
Status: offline
Is there a thread for requesting corrections to OOB for 12/7/1942 start date. For instance:

56 Division
I would like to request that the 2 newly formed 56th Division('40) regiments not land in Patani. 56 did not participate in the Malay invasion 1941-42, it went to Burma and was attached to 15Army in 3/42. The Sakagauchi detachment 146th Reg. was part of 16th Army and is correctly stationed in Palau.


Post #: 1
RE: OOB Issues - 12/28/2012 12:03:24 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2734
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: online
Funny, just this morning I was googleing for information on the 56th Div. Originally it was assigned as "strategic reserve" to 25th Army. The balance of the division (less Sakaguchi Det.) was still assembling in Japan on Dec 7th 1941. However, on Dec 24th Yamaguchi was asked by Southern Army HQ to release part of his forces to support operations in the PI. Yamaguchi agreed to release the 56th division. I have not found any info yet whether the division was deployed in the PI. However, 56th Div was transported from Singapore to Rangoon with the first convoy leaving Singapore on March 19, 1942. So somehow 56th Div found its way to Malaya before ending up in Burma. Anyone has more info about this unit?

linrom, this would be something for the "AE Land and AI Issues" thread in the "sticky" section above.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 12/28/2012 12:04:11 PM >


_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to linrom)
Post #: 2
RE: OOB Issues - 12/28/2012 4:12:33 PM   
linrom

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 2/20/2002
Status: offline
Sakaguchi's 146th lands in Davao in mid December which is in PI. Elements of 146th then get send to Jolo which us used as a staging area for 48 Div for NEI invasion. The 146th then goes to Southern Borneo where it joins 48th in Balikapalan as part of the eastern force in Java invasion.

Then it appears it re-joins 56th in Singapore in March and the whole division gets attached to 15th Army in Burma.




(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 3
RE: OOB Issues - 12/28/2012 4:43:21 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2734
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: online
Yes, the deployment of the 146th Rgt is rather well-known. But I have found nothing in online sources about the deployment of the 113th and 148th Rgts and the divisional assets. Apparently they were in Japan on Dec. 7th and in Singapore in March 1942. Did they ship to Singapore directly (when?) or have they been used elsewhere in between?


_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to linrom)
Post #: 4
RE: OOB Issues - 12/29/2012 12:33:25 AM   
linrom

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 2/20/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Yes, the deployment of the 146th Rgt is rather well-known. But I have found nothing in online sources about the deployment of the 113th and 148th Rgts and the divisional assets. Apparently they were in Japan on Dec. 7th and in Singapore in March 1942. Did they ship to Singapore directly (when?) or have they been used elsewhere in between?



The things I looked at are just terrible from the standpoint of historical accuracy. They're plain wrong. I mean there is not even LAMON BAY invasion. This is the 16th Div landing at the start of PI invasion. It's 2 battalions of 33rd Regiment land at Legasi, the rest of Div lands at LAMON BAY. It's 9th Regiment should land at Lingayen in late December but Matrix has it all going into Legasi. It's LAMON BAY (Matrix Legasi invasion--almost a 1/2 of full division)from Amani Shima(its Ryukyu for historians)is escorted by 2 PGs(WTF.)

The Batan Island Invasion is wrong. Only an AO, 2 Net Layers and 2 CMs with some PCs, PGs land there with 2nd Naval Grd Unit and a detachment of Army Air Service Unit. There is also 1 DD with Yok 3 sailing to occupy Calayan Island. Matrix has it still stationed in Samah?

There are many baffling issues with OOB like 38Div whose regiments fight all over the Pacific from Hong Kong, to Sumatra, Java, Timor, Papua, Solomons etc, yet they are represented as as a whole division rather than as distinguished individual regiments.

Where is the Nagano detachment from 21 Div? Nagano made arrangements for US surrender at Bataan.

There are likely hundreds of errors with OOB.


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 5
RE: OOB Issues - 12/29/2012 1:16:43 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2734
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: online
Well, for a commercial product AE is really not too bad. I have seen far worse "historic" scenarios in for example "Pacific Storm" or Silent Hunter IV. There are limits how much research and design efforts can be put into creating "historic" scenarios, otherwise the product would never be ready for release. Things like the invasion of Calayan Islands are very minor events in the scope of the game.
I also suspect the scenario setup has been made under the assumption that the majority of players will play Human vs. Japanese AI. This would explain why the Japanese side has many ahistoric invasion TFs ready to go on day one - in order to help the AI. With the editor you can modify scenarios and correct what you deem necessary. If you haven't done so, you may want to take a look at the modding subforum.

_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to linrom)
Post #: 6
RE: OOB Issues - 12/29/2012 4:02:07 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 7043
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: linrom


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget



There are likely hundreds of errors with OOB.





Hi and welcome to the forum. It is important that you understand that a lot of very smart and talented people worked very hard to work up the OOB for this game. And we are talking about a process that began over a decade ago. It was not just pulled from the sky and perhaps they had access to sources that differ from yours or in cases where the information was cloudy made a best guess. However, a blanket statement like yours above is just as likely to get a lot of people pissed off at you and that is no way to start on what is a very nice and participatory forum.

There have been many OOB changes in numerous patches in over three years that the game has been out and it has come from thoughtful comments and presentation to the community and designers. You need to exercise a little tact and then go to the proper place and present a case for your argument.

One thing to keep in mind is that this is a game. Nobody plays it historically so any starting historical deployment is going to go out the window by turn two anyways. I recommend that you not lose a lot of sleep over this.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to linrom)
Post #: 7
RE: OOB Issues - 12/29/2012 7:13:55 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1324
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: linrom
There are likely hundreds of errors with OOB.

At last count there were close to 1000 of one form or another

As many people say, this is a game. It is not OOB Central. We try to keep Kosher, but making a ham & cheese sandwich is a bit of a problem. The original scenario OOBs are tagged to the AI scripts, so it is not possible to edit them, without a man years worth of work tweaking the AI files. So what you get in the game is what is in the game.

Several mods have been made to address some of these issues, but they are, necessarily, not compatible with the AI. It all depends on what you are looking to do.

If you are looking to play a Pacific War Game, then you get what you get, and are expected to deal with it. As many people have noticed, historicity goes out the window on turn 2, so what is the problem?

If all you are looking for is to have a nice little data base of "perfect" units, without regard as to how they play out in the engine, there is the editor. You can address the editor and make your units be whatever you want, and appear wherever you want. You can adapt the game to whatever paradigms you want.

You wanna play the game, then deal with the data as it is given.

You wanna play the OOB game, then come to the Scen Design and Mod forum.

(in reply to linrom)
Post #: 8
RE: OOB Issues - 12/29/2012 8:04:59 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3115
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline
Good old Uncle Symon is our OOB expert, and he is dead on the money.

Stock AE is currently the best combination of AI playability, verses historic accuracy.

_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 9
RE: OOB Issues - 12/29/2012 8:45:28 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2734
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: DivePac88
The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!


That one will go straight into my quotes collection!

_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 10
RE: OOB Issues - 12/29/2012 8:54:46 PM   
linrom

 

Posts: 86
Joined: 2/20/2002
Status: offline
Exactly my point! You spend over a decade designing a game that can't even manage to have historically correct initial movement OOB.

The playability issue does not involve disposition of Japanese Army, Air and Naval forces on Dec 7, 1941. As far as to location, movement, intent, leadership of units on Dec 7, 1941 there is a plethora of information which does not contradict itself. What source has the whole of Div 16 going to Lagasi? You are sending 1 company and the whole engineer regiment escorted by 1 DD to Kuching on Dec 7, 1941? Give me a break? The Japanese were lucky that the whole Kutching invasion fleet wasn't sunk by the Dutch in late December.

I understand that I am coming here 3 years after the game release, but I am not a newbie as far War in Pacific. I remember Gary Grisby from his days on Pdodigy in '90s and Pacwar. I also purchased WiTP The Struggle Against Japan(never played it). I thought I would wait until all the bugs were out because the game involves lots of time investment on my part, but I never suspected issues with initial 12/41 OOB.

I might sound harsh, but I am mostly disappointed.

I was being diplomatic when I said that there likely hundreds of OOB errors. I suspected that there very likely thousands.

Sorry!

< Message edited by linrom -- 12/29/2012 8:55:33 PM >

(in reply to DivePac88)
Post #: 11
RE: OOB Issues - 12/29/2012 9:52:47 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1775
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: linrom

Exactly my point! You spend over a decade designing a game that can't even manage to have historically correct initial movement OOB.

The playability issue does not involve disposition of Japanese Army, Air and Naval forces on Dec 7, 1941. As far as to location, movement, intent, leadership of units on Dec 7, 1941 there is a plethora of information which does not contradict itself. What source has the whole of Div 16 going to Lagasi? You are sending 1 company and the whole engineer regiment escorted by 1 DD to Kuching on Dec 7, 1941? Give me a break? The Japanese were lucky that the whole Kutching invasion fleet wasn't sunk by the Dutch in late December.

I understand that I am coming here 3 years after the game release, but I am not a newbie as far War in Pacific. I remember Gary Grisby from his days on Pdodigy in '90s and Pacwar. I also purchased WiTP The Struggle Against Japan(never played it). I thought I would wait until all the bugs were out because the game involves lots of time investment on my part, but I never suspected issues with initial 12/41 OOB.

I might sound harsh, but I am mostly disappointed.

I was being diplomatic when I said that there likely hundreds of OOB errors. I suspected that there very likely thousands.

Sorry!


Hi,

there are certainly many errors in the Japanese OOB, but the issue you identified with 56th Division is no OOB 'error' (same with 16th Division) but was a deliberate design decision to satisfy the demands of the AI.

Sad to say, but to guarantee smoothly working initial attacks of the AI, we had to make some concessions when it comes to historical accuracy.

That from the land OOB design perspective, but there were similar modifications neccessary regarding the composition and location of (historical and not historical) TF's.

Anyway, research was not confined to looking at the Niehorster webpage (which contains several errors), btw.

Regards

'K'

(in reply to linrom)
Post #: 12
RE: OOB Issues - 12/29/2012 10:10:46 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13791
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
As has been said above decisions were made based on maximising AI performance if you dont like it feel free to do what you like.

I ended up making a lot of these calls after discussion with the relevant OOB responsible person in order to try and ensure the AI perfpormed to the best of its ablility

"Stock AE is currently the best combination of AI playability, verses historic accuracy"

Divepac pretty much nailed it

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 13
RE: OOB Issues - 12/30/2012 12:01:25 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2734
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: online
2 different sets of scenarios would have been fine - one "playability for human vs AI" version and one "historic accuracy for H2H/PBEM" version .

_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 14
RE: OOB Issues - 12/30/2012 12:09:35 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13791
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Not allowed clear rule from the start only one set of scens and they all must be playable by the AI

That was both a Matrix and team rule and it did cause some friction as it meant all scenarios ultimately were subserviant to the AI.

It was less of an issue for the allies but for the Japanese opening especially it lead to some minor adjustments given the pace it needs to move at and the fact that with hindsight its easy to derail the opening.

On balance I think it was correct as a rule.

Almost everyone (including me) on the team was a PBEM player but the majority of the playerbase is v AI.

Like it or not had we been allowed to do PBEM only scenarios the Ai would have suffered as it would have been an afterthought the scenarios would have been slightly more accurate on day 1 (and for all the bitching it is minor changes)but the AI would have been materially worse.

Andy

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 15
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> OOB Issues 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

0.082