Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Fortification not in a "base" location

 
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 >> Fortification not in a "base" location Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 9:42:43 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1421
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline
Can it be done by a unit?

How?


"unit with X Forts": is this? Why some unit have it, and why others do not?

In general, can a "entranchement" or "fortification", of any kind even at base, be reduced by bombardment?

TIA,

Adar

Post #: 1
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 9:47:35 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5544
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Look up my answer on the subject.  It was recently provided again in another thread.  But of course then you would have to make an effort to understand what someone else, that is someone other than you, has written.  Far easier for you to find fault with the game when your nonsense ideas are not supported.

Alfred

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 2
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 9:55:28 AM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 1091
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
Alfred is the nearest thing to an AE guru we have, but he get understandably tired of having to repeat things and also the fact that new people simply fire off lots of questions rather than do some digging themselves....

Speaking of digging, units will over time dig in where they sit when not in a base hex, you have no control over this, it just happens. Some of my Chinese have reached level 3 fortifications in this way and I have done nothing other than leave them alone.

Some dig in faster than others, this may be a result of commander, engineers, fatigue level, the state of the weather, what they had for breakfast, whether the local wildlife need protection....

Some of the above are not true, some are, we have no real idea which.....

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, previous posts 898+1515.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 3
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 10:06:38 AM   
adarbrauner

 

Posts: 1421
Joined: 11/3/2016
From: Zichron Yaaqov, Israel; Before, Treviso, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Look up my answer on the subject.  It was recently provided again in another thread.  But of course then you would have to make an effort to understand what someone else, that is someone other than you, has written.  Far easier for you to find fault with the game when your nonsense ideas are not supported.

Alfred

The gratest effort here is to find the threads actually....

Thank you for the frank answer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson III

and also the fact that new people simply fire off lots of questions rather than do some digging themselves....



As said above..
For example where is to be found the thread he was referring to?

And what about fortificaton level to be reduced by bomardment?

Thank you!

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 4
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 10:15:48 AM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 1091
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
From another thread:


quote:

ORIGINAL: glyphoglossus

The plus ("+") sign tells Google that the search term has to be present in the results (as opposed to just increasing its score/ranking if it happens to be present), while words in quotes, of course, searches for the entire phrase as opposed to each word individually.

I have had quite a bit of success with this formula to search for, e.g. posts with "training" and/or "mission":

site:matrixgames.com +"War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition" training mission


Or, more strictly (each result must have BOTH "training" AND "mission"):

site:matrixgames.com +"War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition" +training +mission


Or, even more strictly (each result must have the exact phrase "training mission"):

site:matrixgames.com +"War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition" +"training mission"


What is challenging is telling Google to find posts by author, e.g. Depending on things, you can just do:

site:matrixgames.com +"War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition" +Alfred training mission


but, of course, this returns any page with "Alfred" on it anywhere, rather than post specifically by "Alfred" mentioning "training" .




Fortifications are only ever degraded by assault, combat engineers are the best fro this though by themselves they get killed. Generally the larger the adjusted AV the better to take down forts. Bombardment does nothing to them at all. Bombardment disables and kills defenders, disables and destroys enemy guns and generally disrupts and fatigues the enemy - however it can also do the same to your own troops by inviting counterbattery fire.

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, previous posts 898+1515.

(in reply to adarbrauner)
Post #: 5
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 4:06:29 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8667
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
To be fair, Alfred, adarbrauner started this thread with nothing but respectful questions. This is the sort of post we should be encouraging.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 6
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 4:24:23 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8719
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
I am not aware of "field" fortifications ever really being degraded by assaults. I think they remain until the unit moves or is evicted.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 7
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 4:26:45 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4239
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Fortifications are only ever degraded by assault...

Roger


This applies only to base forts if my understanding is correct. Field fortifications can never be reduced unless the creating unit moves out of them. Unless something has changed or my understanding is faulty, field fortifications are never reduced during combat in non-base hexes.

< Message edited by SqzMyLemon -- 12/14/2016 4:27:18 PM >


_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 8
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 4:35:04 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1909
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
I am not aware of "field" fortifications ever really being degraded by assaults. I think they remain until the unit moves or is evicted.

Yup, and I dare say this is (or should be) the first thing affecting the long-term planning of the land war. Damn hard to dislodge dug in LCUs in x3 terrain - Chinese with 4 forts can kick some serious butt, if they are given time to dig

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 9
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 5:38:02 PM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 1091
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

I am not aware of "field" fortifications ever really being degraded by assaults. I think they remain until the unit moves or is evicted.

Indeed sorry I was using fortifications there to just talk about bases, didn't make that clear. I would concur with you on the field forts entirely.

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, previous posts 898+1515.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 10
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 5:43:25 PM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 1091
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

To be fair, Alfred, adarbrauner started this thread with nothing but respectful questions. This is the sort of post we should be encouraging.

I can see your point, but adarbruner has appeared recently as an apparent newbie to the game and has posted on many threads now, sometimes unfortunately with a tone which has not helped him in his quest for knowledge. I guess he is becoming a little irritating to some people on here.

I suspect a lot is down to cultural/language issues, but he does come across at times as someone who gets close to being green lighted by me and I have only twice I think used the green light so far on here.

He would seem genuinely to want to learn the game but at times he has difficulty understanding the helpful response he gets - over on this side of the pond we use the helpful advice' when digging yourself into a hole, stop digging'

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, previous posts 898+1515.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 11
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 9:33:21 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12827
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online
One thing I'm sure many have learned, but might be useful for some, is that not all units can dig to above forts level 2. An IJA division sitting in a hex will dig to level 2 and never get past that even if it sits for months ( I haven't tried this with Allied units).

A brigade or another smaller unit with engineers will dig to at least forts 6, maybe higher, although I've not seen this. I've had Thai divisions at level 6.

An IJA division will dig to level 3 and beyond, up to level 6, if you split it into it's three regiments. This seems counterintuitive, but it works. Then if all units are the same fort level at some time later you can recombine them and keep the higher forts level.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 12
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 9:42:07 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8719
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

One thing I'm sure many have learned, but might be useful for some, is that not all units can dig to above forts level 2. An IJA division sitting in a hex will dig to level 2 and never get past that even if it sits for months ( I haven't tried this with Allied units).

A brigade or another smaller unit with engineers will dig to at least forts 6, maybe higher, although I've not seen this. I've had Thai divisions at level 6.

An IJA division will dig to level 3 and beyond, up to level 6, if you split it into it's three regiments. This seems counterintuitive, but it works. Then if all units are the same fort level at some time later you can recombine them and keep the higher forts level.


I would need to revisit an old turn, but I am fairly certain that I recently had IJA units in the jungle with forts 4. Without dividing.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 13
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 9:48:28 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12827
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert

One thing I'm sure many have learned, but might be useful for some, is that not all units can dig to above forts level 2. An IJA division sitting in a hex will dig to level 2 and never get past that even if it sits for months ( I haven't tried this with Allied units).

A brigade or another smaller unit with engineers will dig to at least forts 6, maybe higher, although I've not seen this. I've had Thai divisions at level 6.

An IJA division will dig to level 3 and beyond, up to level 6, if you split it into it's three regiments. This seems counterintuitive, but it works. Then if all units are the same fort level at some time later you can recombine them and keep the higher forts level.


I would need to revisit an old turn, but I am fairly certain that I recently had IJA units in the jungle with forts 4. Without dividing.


I've sat units for a good six months never getting above a level 2, and they had supply, so if yours did go above, that would be interesting for me.

Maybe mine are short on shovels?

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 14
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 9:50:49 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2039
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
As far as I can tell:
1. I was wrong, you do not need engineers
2. the unit has to be in combat mode.

I have some Chinese units with forts of 5 in non-base hexes.

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 12/15/2016 1:43:52 PM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 15
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 9:59:53 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12827
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

As far as I can tell:
1. the unit has to have engineers active.
2. the unit has to be in combat mode.

I have some Chinese units with forts of 5 in non-base hexes.


I forgot to say that I have achieved higher levels with Chinese units. This is in fact what made me think about it originally, because when I played the Allies I noticed Chinese Corps going to level 3 and upward, and I hadn't seen my IJA divisions doing this.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 16
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/14/2016 10:06:31 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2039
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
I have only played Allied so I have no idea about the IJA.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 17
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 12:45:30 AM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9695
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Going back to the original question. If a non-base hex has multiple units (say three Chinese Corps, a few artillery, and a BF), they each will have different levels of forts. The three different Corps may have forts of 2, 3, and 4 and the support units have 1 or 2 forts. If you just do ground bombardment, they will never lose a fort level. Like attacking a base, you need to actually assault the hex. However, what happens in a non-base hex is that each unit will retreat based on its fort level. If I remember right, they retreat only if the odds are the fort level plus 1. So, the units with forts of 2 will retreat from hex if the overall odds are 3:1 and the two Corps with forts of 3 and 4 will remain (their fort levels don't change). So, its more of a process to get the units with lower forts to retreat first. Many times the attacker will need to move fresh troops in and out before they can take control of a hex with x3 terrain modifiers in it with troops dug in to level 3 forts.

_____________________________


(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 18
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 2:41:13 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8667
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

To be fair, Alfred, adarbrauner started this thread with nothing but respectful questions. This is the sort of post we should be encouraging.

I can see your point, but adarbruner has appeared recently as an apparent newbie to the game and has posted on many threads now, sometimes unfortunately with a tone which has not helped him in his quest for knowledge. I guess he is becoming a little irritating to some people on here.

I suspect a lot is down to cultural/language issues, but he does come across at times as someone who gets close to being green lighted by me and I have only twice I think used the green light so far on here.

He would seem genuinely to want to learn the game but at times he has difficulty understanding the helpful response he gets - over on this side of the pond we use the helpful advice' when digging yourself into a hole, stop digging'

Roger



Roger, I had become just as tired of the "it doesn't work how I think it should, the game is therefore bugged" aspect of many of his threads and posts. I was merely pointing out that this thread was started with the type of post we should be encouraging him to make rather than using this thread to attack him for what he has said in his other threads.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 19
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 3:22:43 AM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 1091
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
We don't disagree....

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, previous posts 898+1515.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 20
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 3:42:16 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8667
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
You and I rarely have, IIRC. BTW: I still miss your Flashman AARS...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Roger Neilson 3)
Post #: 21
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 5:00:58 AM   
Roger Neilson 3


Posts: 1091
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
Indeed.

Kind of you to mention my Flashman AARs, I also miss them, but reality is with two games that I get a move for once a week on average for its not the material that generates AARs. I keep wondering whether to offer another game, but too many of my previous new starts have not gone the distance and there is nothing worse than starting an AAR then the game stops.

You have, however, just provoked an interesting thought in my head.

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, previous posts 898+1515.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 22
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 7:30:00 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8719
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

As far as I can tell:
1. the unit has to have engineers active.
2. the unit has to be in combat mode.

I have some Chinese units with forts of 5 in non-base hexes.


I forgot to say that I have achieved higher levels with Chinese units. This is in fact what made me think about it originally, because when I played the Allies I noticed Chinese Corps going to level 3 and upward, and I hadn't seen my IJA divisions doing this.


There are IJA divisions that don't have any engineers, but they will still dig in (slowly).

The units that I saw go higher are the bigger, frontline divisions. I had no weak divisions in that hex. I'll look back in a few minutes and give you a screenshot if applicable.

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 23
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 7:36:02 AM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 8719
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

As far as I can tell:
1. the unit has to have engineers active.
2. the unit has to be in combat mode.

I have some Chinese units with forts of 5 in non-base hexes.


I forgot to say that I have achieved higher levels with Chinese units. This is in fact what made me think about it originally, because when I played the Allies I noticed Chinese Corps going to level 3 and upward, and I hadn't seen my IJA divisions doing this.


There are IJA divisions that don't have any engineers, but they will still dig in (slowly).

The units that I saw go higher are the bigger, frontline divisions. I had no weak divisions in that hex. I'll look back in a few minutes and give you a screenshot if applicable.


This is from some weeks back. I checked the units themselves - they were not listed as "building", so perhaps these are in fact the maximum levels. Note the tanks at 3, and the infantry at 2. However, I had been rotating the INF units and the tanks had been sitting there forever so that could just be an artifact of the time there. Note also the INF unit with 0 forts - it is moving on this particular day, which clears the forts level to 0. So don't start moving unless you mean it.

Note the HQ at 4. I clicked into the other HQ that is at 2 and it does not say "building" either.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 24
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 1:44:41 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2039
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
You are right and I was wrong, you do not need engineers for the unit to make forts.

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 25
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 4:34:58 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1909
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
One thing I'm sure many have learned, but might be useful for some, is that not all units can dig to above forts level 2. An IJA division sitting in a hex will dig to level 2 and never get past that even if it sits for months ( I haven't tried this with Allied units).

A brigade or another smaller unit with engineers will dig to at least forts 6, maybe higher, although I've not seen this. I've had Thai divisions at level 6.

An IJA division will dig to level 3 and beyond, up to level 6, if you split it into it's three regiments. This seems counterintuitive, but it works. Then if all units are the same fort level at some time later you can recombine them and keep the higher forts level.

I would need to revisit an old turn, but I am fairly certain that I recently had IJA units in the jungle with forts 4. Without dividing.

I've sat units for a good six months never getting above a level 2, and they had supply, so if yours did go above, that would be interesting for me.
Maybe mine are short on shovels?

What an interesting stuff, thanks. So the devs artificially restricted Japan IDs so that the game does not turn into a stalemate on land later.
I have another observation to boot - if you look at Japan border fortresses around USSR which sit in combat mode building forts forever, they seem to accumulate fort levels differently even when being identical units. I have one in the clear terrain with 4 forts, and another one with the same TOE in the WoodRough with 6 forts in May 43. They are in combat mode since start, static, not attacked ever and with supply all the time. Yet..

Edit: Also! I do have IJ infantry divisions with 3 forts in my AI game save. They siege enemy bases (Krasnoyarsk & Voroshilov) so looks like you can have forts above 2 at least when in base hexes

< Message edited by GetAssista -- 12/15/2016 5:26:47 PM >

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 26
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 6:39:37 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 13208
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

You are right and I was wrong, you do not need engineers for the unit to make forts.

I have noticed HQs and such with no engineers getting forts, but it seemed like it was only when their were other friendly units with engineers in the hex. The progression seemed to be that when the units with engineers got level 3 forts built the units without engineers would finally get a level built. In other instances where there were no engineers in the hex, I had units in situ for months with no forts built so I assume in the first example that the engineers assisted the other units at some point. Can't say for sure though as I did not keep a log of progress - or lack thereof.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 27
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 7:40:46 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8667
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

You are right and I was wrong, you do not need engineers for the unit to make forts.

I have noticed HQs and such with no engineers getting forts, but it seemed like it was only when their were other friendly units with engineers in the hex. The progression seemed to be that when the units with engineers got level 3 forts built the units without engineers would finally get a level built. In other instances where there were no engineers in the hex, I had units in situ for months with no forts built so I assume in the first example that the engineers assisted the other units at some point. Can't say for sure though as I did not keep a log of progress - or lack thereof.



The HQ units just appropriated someone else's fortifications. "Sorry boys, we need this dugout. You can go dig another."

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 28
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 9:29:54 PM   
obvert


Posts: 12827
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna


quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

As far as I can tell:
1. the unit has to have engineers active.
2. the unit has to be in combat mode.

I have some Chinese units with forts of 5 in non-base hexes.


I forgot to say that I have achieved higher levels with Chinese units. This is in fact what made me think about it originally, because when I played the Allies I noticed Chinese Corps going to level 3 and upward, and I hadn't seen my IJA divisions doing this.


There are IJA divisions that don't have any engineers, but they will still dig in (slowly).

The units that I saw go higher are the bigger, frontline divisions. I had no weak divisions in that hex. I'll look back in a few minutes and give you a screenshot if applicable.


This is from some weeks back. I checked the units themselves - they were not listed as "building", so perhaps these are in fact the maximum levels. Note the tanks at 3, and the infantry at 2. However, I had been rotating the INF units and the tanks had been sitting there forever so that could just be an artifact of the time there. Note also the INF unit with 0 forts - it is moving on this particular day, which clears the forts level to 0. So don't start moving unless you mean it.

Note the HQ at 4. I clicked into the other HQ that is at 2 and it does not say "building" either.



Very interesting. Curious to see if the IDs go over forts 2. I know I mentioned this in the game where it happened I'd had units sitting forever in Burma against Jocke's 500k Allied megastack, so I'll see if I can locate the posts, or even a save.

_____________________________


"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 29
RE: Fortification not in a "base" location - 12/15/2016 10:29:06 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 1909
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert
Very interesting. Curious to see if the IDs go over forts 2. I know I mentioned this in the game where it happened I'd had units sitting forever in Burma against Jocke's 500k Allied megastack, so I'll see if I can locate the posts, or even a save.

Took mine IJ IDs abount a month to get to forts 3 in enemy base hexes. Not all of them though. Will try later run some more turns in that save to see if all of them make it eventually and where is the final fort level

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Fortification not in a "base" location 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

0.191