Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Pac 3.2.15 test

 
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 >> Pac 3.2.15 test Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/10/2019 2:51:36 PM   
zeke99


Posts: 404
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
Hi Rich,

I didn't want to spoil your threat therefore I open this one.

Run the first tests in Linux dosemu for 1941, historical, Jap AI.
Tried 3x different starts, from these 3 first moves some observations:

Pearl Harbor: 2x only 1 BB sunk, 1x no BB sunk.
TF53 Lexington: 3x sub attacked: 2x hit with 99% damage on Lex, 1x sub failed to hit.
Subs sunk 4-7MCS during each supply phase, very active.

There are sqn's with B17 + B26 but no production, also not showing in factory list in xls editor. Is this meant to be?

I try to get a complete move done soon.

Cheers,
Chris

Post #: 1
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/10/2019 2:53:19 PM   
zeke99


Posts: 404
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
forgot re 83) all HQ on computer control, does 83) only apply human vs human?

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 2
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/10/2019 8:22:48 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline
Thanks for the great comments Zeke! I’ll respond to these when I get home later today.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 3
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/11/2019 4:00:59 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zeke99

forgot re 83) all HQ on computer control, does 83) only apply human vs human?


This was supposed to fix the initial game setup so that if you were playing as human (against AI or another human), the HQs would show up as human control. I always hated to have to change every HQ to human control at the start of a game. I thought I had fixed this, but for some reason, this is still not happening for OBC42 or OBMARI, so I have some more fixing to do. Thanks for finding this!

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 4
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/11/2019 4:09:17 AM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zeke99

Hi Rich,

I didn't want to spoil your threat therefore I open this one.

Run the first tests in Linux dosemu for 1941, historical, Jap AI.
Tried 3x different starts, from these 3 first moves some observations:

Pearl Harbor: 2x only 1 BB sunk, 1x no BB sunk.
TF53 Lexington: 3x sub attacked: 2x hit with 99% damage on Lex, 1x sub failed to hit.
Subs sunk 4-7MCS during each supply phase, very active.

There are sqn's with B17 + B26 but no production, also not showing in factory list in xls editor. Is this meant to be?

I try to get a complete move done soon.

Cheers,
Chris




Great comments Zeke!

Re: Pearl Harbor Attack - Yes, this is looking a bit wimpy. I already know how to fix, so I'll update and upload soon!

Re: Lexington - Hmmm, I haven't seen this at all; just random?

Re: Sub activity - Yes, you will see more active AI (only AI) Allied Submarine warfare. The tested MCS and TK losses seem to match historical losses.

Re: B-17 and B-26 - Yes, I took away their factories, but gave them actual semi-historical numbers to work with before they were actually pulled from the Pacific theatre. This forces the AI to use these aircraft a bit more historically, I think. Also, I wanted to save the factories for aircraft that were more dedicated to the Pacific theatre.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 5
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/11/2019 2:22:34 PM   
zeke99


Posts: 404
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
Thanks for your fast reply Rich.

I've done about 15 starts, in summary:

Pearl: hit rate is of 250kg bbs is not bad ~40% but damage is mostly 0* on BBs, rarely 1* or 2**. Problem is B5N also use 250kg instead torpedo, distance of TF too fare away?

TF53: 6 times sub attack, 4x hit Lex with 4**** (1x sunk)

other observations:

MCS & AP symbol same in combat display

B17 from Clarke bombing Kagoshima

Dutch Harbour - Midway now out of range for ac with range 4, so ship transfer to Hawaii needed instead of flying via Midway.

Enough with starts, starting playing turns now .

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 6
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/11/2019 10:52:31 PM   
Rich Dionne

 

Posts: 383
Joined: 7/11/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: zeke99

Thanks for your fast reply Rich.

I've done about 15 starts, in summary:

Pearl: hit rate is of 250kg bbs is not bad ~40% but damage is mostly 0* on BBs, rarely 1* or 2**. Problem is B5N also use 250kg instead torpedo, distance of TF too fare away?

TF53: 6 times sub attack, 4x hit Lex with 4**** (1x sunk)

other observations:

MCS & AP symbol same in combat display

B17 from Clarke bombing Kagoshima

Dutch Harbour - Midway now out of range for ac with range 4, so ship transfer to Hawaii needed instead of flying via Midway.

Enough with starts, starting playing turns now .



Zeke,

Re Pearl: Yes, TF1 is too far, range needs to be less than 1/2 of normal range to use torpedoes or 800 kg bombs I believe. When I moved TF1 to range of 1 (100 miles, although historical was 200 miles), the Kates use torpedoes and the BB loss appears to be quite historical. Also, too many Allied aircraft are flying CAP; if I put the P-40s on training, the number of aircraft responding on CAP drops to ~10-12 I think (actual was 8). So these are the changes I plan to make.

Re Lex: Still don't know why this is. I didn't change code for IJN subs against Allied capital ships. I wonder if we need to move Lex by a hex or 2?

Re MCS / AP symbols: do you mean the icons used to display an image of the ship? I think some of MCS and AP types do share the same symbol...

Re Dutch Harbor: Dutch Harbor is actually about 1900 miles from Midway. The latest map has them 1800 miles (18 hexes) away. So an aircraft with range of 4, shouldn't be able to transfer between the 2 bases.

Re B-17 bombing Kagoshima: Kagoshima is actually 1240 miles from Clark Field, and the latest map has it at 1200 miles, so it looks like a B-17 from Clark Field could just reach Kagoshima.

Great comments, keep at it!

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 7
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/12/2019 8:01:34 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 404
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
Hi Rich,

1. Pearl, sounds reasonable & like your proposed changes
2. If I recall correct, historically there where many Jap subs out there
3. Yes, same symbol, was different in 3.2.14
4. Dutch, it worked before and was a fast route to get B25s and others into the theater

Cheers,
Chris

(in reply to Rich Dionne)
Post #: 8
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/13/2019 8:44:46 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 404
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
This will not be an AAR, I will just write if something unexpected happened.

Turn 1: for first time I saw Jap air supply happening. Not much load delivered but something new.

Turn 3: More LCU action in China, Jap attacked. Chines experience higher, do not shatter, same in Burma, like it.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 9
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/25/2019 10:23:44 AM   
zeke99


Posts: 404
Joined: 11/26/2005
Status: offline
01/25/42 #75wing arrived in Sydney with 4 Beaufort, which is not in stock or production.

03/08/42 Beaufort production started.

Was the range of F4 Wildcat changed (shows 2) but can jump from Island to island?

Combat TF automatic get ROS assignment, can be tricky, don’t like it. Better commander decision or nothing.

4/5/42 Singapore finally taken, fighting going on.

It is far harder for Jap LCU to make progress in Indian sector.

6/7/42 15th FG grew to 59 on a 5 base, how?

Air attacks on air ports not effective, usually 0 planes destroyed, both sides.

Plane icon for G3 & G4 green not Navy white.

8/9/42 Jap CV with A5M sqn? Looks like Kaga. Also some land based sqns.

Ac mission menu: can Disband be put as last option? Deleted a sqn again by accident :(

9/27/42 production for army very high: 3418 sqds / 19399art / 3883armor

11/15/42 Bombardment of Amadan damaging OIL Ind???


(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 10
RE: Pac 3.2.15 test - 6/25/2019 2:22:02 PM   
Istfemer

 

Posts: 186
Joined: 7/19/2014
From: Kyiv, Ukraine
Status: offline
It is apparent to me that 3.2.15 is unsuitable for our PBEM game. Some important (and questionable) changes it brought appear to have been underdocumented.
My concern here is that 3.2.16 may turn out to be not much of an improvement over 3.2.15 in this regard. And I want it to be an improvement.
---
Keep on reporting, Zeke. I appreciate your feedback. We all do.

(in reply to zeke99)
Post #: 11
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Pac 3.2.15 test 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

0.120