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: Updated Scen 1 and 2

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 12/10/2019 9:05:06 PM   
JamesHunt

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 5/7/2016
Status: offline
Thanks for keeping improving the scripts for the WOTPAE AI.

I have recently downloaded the 2012 AI update for these scenarios but do I assume correctly that 001v5 and 002v6 from this thread are the current state of the art script versions of the 001/002 scenario AI?

< Message edited by JamesHunt -- 12/10/2019 9:09:57 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 121
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 12/10/2019 9:54:50 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2178
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JamesHunt

Thanks for keeping improving the scripts for the WOTPAE AI.

I have recently downloaded the 2012 AI update for these scenarios but do I assume correctly that 001v5 and 002v6 from this thread are the current state of the art script versions of the 001/002 scenario AI?


Only if you use the ENTIRE scenario. These AI scripts cannot be migrated to older scenarios, because the database includes a lot of new bases, and the new AI scripts assume they exist (and thus reference them). Since the new bases do NOT exist in the older scenarios, well.....

_____________________________


(in reply to JamesHunt)
Post #: 122
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 12/10/2019 10:44:49 PM   
JamesHunt

 

Posts: 180
Joined: 5/7/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull


quote:

ORIGINAL: JamesHunt

Thanks for keeping improving the scripts for the WOTPAE AI.

I have recently downloaded the 2012 AI update for these scenarios but do I assume correctly that 001v5 and 002v6 from this thread are the current state of the art script versions of the 001/002 scenario AI?


Only if you use the ENTIRE scenario. These AI scripts cannot be migrated to older scenarios, because the database includes a lot of new bases, and the new AI scripts assume they exist (and thus reference them). Since the new bases do NOT exist in the older scenarios, well.....

I guess this also means that I should stay away from merging the AI files with babeslite or dabigbabes when using this as they either don´t have the new bases or come with different bases then the database which this scenario is based upon.

< Message edited by JamesHunt -- 12/10/2019 10:46:13 PM >

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 123
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 12/11/2019 3:53:53 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2178
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
Yeah, that's kinda where I figured you were taking this, so wanted to make it clear. Again, up through the 2012 updates, everything is in synch. After? No.

_____________________________


(in reply to JamesHunt)
Post #: 124
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 1/7/2020 7:34:04 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2942
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
Some feedback - liking the changes overall with the added bases. Makes for some more interesting options for development in certain areas.

Too early to tell what impact the boost to LI will have, but will keep it in mind.

One thing I do have a mild concern about is the dot hexes in Malaysia. A prompt Japanese player can relocate some paratroopers and be in position to cut up Allied rail links within the first few days. End result is that it's brigades and regiments in Singers rather than Brit and Indian Divisions.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 125
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/11/2020 6:08:46 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4153
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 5/11/2020 6:38:34 AM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 126
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/16/2020 4:15:09 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14751
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Agreed the bases in Burma make hindsight attacks easier but both sides get 2020 hindsight so I figure it evens out

Anyone else played the scens interested in feedback either PBEM or v AI

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 127
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/16/2020 7:40:56 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4153
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Started a new campaign scen001 in May, 2020 as Allies. Currently on turn 9.

Some thoughts:

-Jap AI never uses sweeps. The same thing happened in my scen100 campaign in 2018. I haven't peeked into the Jap side yet, by my guess is the Zeros on Formosa use CAP/Escort with 11 hex range or greater, because I get those "Catalina destroyed by enemy CAP messages" with the point of interception somewhere over Luzon.

-AI is hampered by spells of bad weather. I did several restarts of my campaign this May and with Clear weather Jap air raids come escorted every time over Clark Field/Manila. But there are restarts when it is wave after wave of unescorted Nell, Sally or Lily, because weather is bad for 5-6 days.

-Nells on Naval Attack as always overfly such heavily CAP-ed bases like Singapore and Manila. Since I have AMc , AM TFs deployed there at all times, the Nells impale themselves on my CAP, going after those AMc, AM TF which have 10/10 detection every turn. To prop up the AI, I have to disband those TFs.

-Some bases in China could use bigger airfields at start to store more supply without spoilage. It beggars belief that such an important base like Sian starts with just level 1 airfield , which give the base maximum 8000 supply storage. I had to walk out the HQs so LCUs can develop airfield without suffering spoilage to supplies. Liuchow, Chengtu and Changteh also start absurdly small in terms of supply storage.


EDIT: In Burma, with some splitting hairs, I was able to cover with local LCUs all the new bases that are on railroad from Rangoon to Lashio. As per manual, those bases need to be in Allied control so the Burma Road is open. Does the code really checks those new bases you added?

Also, Tracker cannot recognise Port Dickson in Malaya - it sees just a non-base hex. Maybe some glitch in the Editor. All other new bases show up properly in Tracker.



< Message edited by Yaab -- 5/16/2020 8:02:24 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 128
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/17/2020 3:32:33 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4153
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Scen 001 ver 5, Allies

I think I found an undocumented feature.

Why does every SINGLE base in China have supply caps now? I thought maybe the stacking limits, which I use in my game, were somehow responsible for this, but then I checked bases in CONUSA, Australia, India, Java etc. and they do not have supply caps. In China, supply is not moving from Chungking to other bases. As of turn 9, I still have 64,000 supplies in Chungking, way above my spoilage limit of 53,000 supplies. South of Chungking, a string of your new bases strangles supply movement because each bas has only 150 supply caps . That's insane! Bases in Northern Burma have 1000 supply caps.

Please load scen001 as Allies and see if Chungking has 6000 supply cap, Yenan 450, Ankang 300 etc and Zuny'i (new base N of Kweiyang) 150 supply cap.

EDIT: I see that in your notes for version 5 of scen001 you talk about amending some Chinese bases and their supply caps. Nowhere do you talk abot a wholesale application of supply caps in every base in China.

EDIT 2: Just loaded scen007 Quiet China. Bases in China have no supply caps in this scenario just like in the old stock scen001.


Here is Yenan with 450 supply cap





Here is Chungking. Turn 9, and it still has 62,000 supplies , way above its 53,000 supply capacity. In scen 100, on turn 3, I had only 34,000 supplies in Chungking.





< Message edited by Yaab -- 5/17/2020 5:24:51 AM >

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 129
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/17/2020 4:32:48 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14751
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
-Jap AI never uses sweeps. The same thing happened in my scen100 campaign in 2018. I haven't peeked into the Jap side yet, by my guess is the Zeros on Formosa use CAP/Escort with 11 hex range or greater, because I get those "Catalina destroyed by enemy CAP messages" with the point of interception somewhere over Luzon.

-Nells on Naval Attack as always overfly such heavily CAP-ed bases like Singapore and Manila. Since I have AMc , AM TFs deployed there at all times, the Nells impale themselves on my CAP, going after those AMc, AM TF which have 10/10 detection every turn. To prop up the AI, I have to disband those TFs.

BOTH OF ABOVE ARE IN CODE AND I CAN DO NOTHING THE AI DOESNT SWEEP OTHER THAN OCCCASIONALLY - NOTHING I CAN DO ABOUT IT

-Some bases in China could use bigger airfields at start to store more supply without spoilage. It beggars belief that such an important base like Sian starts with just level 1 airfield , which give the base maximum 8000 supply storage. I had to walk out the HQs so LCUs can develop airfield without suffering spoilage to supplies. Liuchow, Chengtu and Changteh also start absurdly small in terms of supply storage.

I WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AS ONE OF THE POINTS OF THE MOD WAS TO SLOW DOWN CHINA FOR BOTH SIDES I MAY HAVE GONE OVERKILL

Also, Tracker cannot recognise Port Dickson in Malaya - it sees just a non-base hex. Maybe some glitch in the Editor. All other new bases show up properly in Tracker.

I DONT KNOW TRACKER SORRY NOT SOMETHIGN I KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT
[/quote]

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 130
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/17/2020 4:34:40 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14751
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
thanks YAAB the supply caps were deliberate to slow both sides down - as its a theatre most players ignore until they cannot any more I may have to increase the supply levels outside of chungking or increase the base build levels in some bases

Quiet China hasn't been touched in 10 years !!!


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Scen 001 ver 5, Allies

I think I found an undocumented feature.

Why does every SINGLE base in China have supply caps now? I thought maybe the stacking limits, which I use in my game, were somehow responsible for this, but then I checked bases in CONUSA, Australia, India, Java etc. and they do not have supply caps. In China, supply is not moving from Chungking to other bases. As of turn 9, I still have 64,000 supplies in Chungking, way above my spoilage limit of 53,000 supplies. South of Chungking, a string of your new bases strangles supply movement because each bas has only 150 supply caps . That's insane! Bases in Northern Burma have 1000 supply caps.

Please load scen001 as Allies and see if Chungking has 6000 supply cap, Yenan 450, Ankang 300 etc and Zuny'i (new base N of Kweiyang) 150 supply cap.

EDIT: I see that in your notes for version 5 of scen001 you talk about amending some Chinese bases and their supply caps. Nowhere do you talk abot a wholesale application of supply caps in every base in China.

EDIT 2: Just loaded scen007 Quiet China. Bases in China have no supply caps in this scenario just like in the old stock scen001.


Here is Yenan with 450 supply cap





Here is Chungking. Turn 9, and it still has 62,000 supplies , way above its 53,000 supply capacity. In scen 100, on turn 3, I had only 34,000 supplies in Chungking.






(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 131
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/17/2020 4:36:52 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14751
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
So in the Yenan example only 450 tonnes of supply can arrive or despatch per day max if you build up the AF or forts that will increase but until you improve the infrastructure it is limited

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 132
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/18/2020 11:56:24 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4153
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

But AndyMac, adding supply caps to all China bases is a huge change.

Your updates notes for scen001 (post 1 in this thread) speak of amending supply caps in a few bases in China. I instantly thought of Paoshan-Tsuyung-Kunming bases. Started a new campaign and only noted the supply caps in other bases in China on turn 9. I can attest that supply propagate at a lower rate and I have still 59,000 supplies in Chungking on turn 10 down form the starting pile of 83,000 supplies. Plus, the new BFs start without engineers so you have to fill them up first before you can start building forts in new bases.

There are some obvious bottlenecks like Zunyi (base ID 1704) which has a measly 150 supply cap.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 133
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/18/2020 3:28:25 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4153
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Scen001v5, Allies, turn 10.



Seems British leaders can be assigned to lead Dutch infantry regiments. Same goes for the Dutch BF units.







< Message edited by Yaab -- 5/18/2020 4:04:18 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 134
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/20/2020 12:13:31 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14751
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
That's weird never saw that one before - that's not my fault !!!

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 135
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/20/2020 12:14:36 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14751
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


But AndyMac, adding supply caps to all China bases is a huge change.

Your updates notes for scen001 (post 1 in this thread) speak of amending supply caps in a few bases in China. I instantly thought of Paoshan-Tsuyung-Kunming bases. Started a new campaign and only noted the supply caps in other bases in China on turn 9. I can attest that supply propagate at a lower rate and I have still 59,000 supplies in Chungking on turn 10 down form the starting pile of 83,000 supplies. Plus, the new BFs start without engineers so you have to fill them up first before you can start building forts in new bases.

There are some obvious bottlenecks like Zunyi (base ID 1704) which has a measly 150 supply cap.


China isn't a decisive theatre for either side the extra supply caps keep it that way unless you really commit ie bring in Seabees to China

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 136
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/20/2020 4:41:06 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4153
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
It is not a corrupted save, as those British leader can be selected on turn 1.

If you change Dutch LCU's attachement from KNIL Army HQ to ABDA HQ, then the British leaders disappear and only the correct Dutch leaders remain in the selection window.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 137
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/24/2020 12:38:12 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2942
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
Some feedback from playtesting. Currently Nov '42 in PBEM.

- Supply caps in China didn't change much, still rolled China up fairly effectively. The extra bases didn't make much difference, but I like the notion of dispersing Chinese LI so that losing the big cities doesn't immediately cripple the Chinese.

- Extra dot bases in Burma really changes things for the better, for both sides. Lots more consideration needs to be given to rear-area garrisons due to the possibility for amphib invasions/paratroops causing problems (as was the case historically). Burma feels more fluid: the Arrakan front has a bit more nuance than just a frontline somewhere between Ramree Island and Akyab.

- Supply throughput from Thailand to Burma once Chang-Mai/Uttaradit have bene built up seems fine.

- One consideration is that added industry in Oz (especially in Northern Oz) is VP's on the vine for the IJ in the early war, and the Allied player can do very little to oppose it.

- I think adding LI to the DEI needs to be thought out properly. Given that Japan tends to float resources globally and has a glut in the DEI, this could be exploited somewhat. While the return on expansion for LI isn't great (1100 days), there are "out of the way" places where I think it could be exploited to minimize supply exports from the Home Islands. The areas that stick out most to me in this are:
1. Celebes
2. Borneo
3. Sumatra.

I've not ran the numbers, but I suspect that a diligent Japanese player who invests supplies in expanding LI in these key areas could establish a degree of autarky. While that is already possible in the base game, I think these changes have made it much more viable given the number of LI sites (10x10 LI can double in size quicker than 1x100 LI site can) and the LI sites dispersed geography away from traditional Japanese industry centres (harder to bomb).

Thoughts on this?

< Message edited by mind_messing -- 5/24/2020 1:05:21 AM >

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 138
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/24/2020 7:27:46 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14751
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Some feedback from playtesting. Currently Nov '42 in PBEM.

- Supply caps in China didn't change much, still rolled China up fairly effectively. The extra bases didn't make much difference, but I like the notion of dispersing Chinese LI so that losing the big cities doesn't immediately cripple the Chinese.

- Extra dot bases in Burma really changes things for the better, for both sides. Lots more consideration needs to be given to rear-area garrisons due to the possibility for amphib invasions/paratroops causing problems (as was the case historically). Burma feels more fluid: the Arrakan front has a bit more nuance than just a frontline somewhere between Ramree Island and Akyab.

- Supply throughput from Thailand to Burma once Chang-Mai/Uttaradit have bene built up seems fine.

- One consideration is that added industry in Oz (especially in Northern Oz) is VP's on the vine for the IJ in the early war, and the Allied player can do very little to oppose it.

- I think adding LI to the DEI needs to be thought out properly. Given that Japan tends to float resources globally and has a glut in the DEI, this could be exploited somewhat. While the return on expansion for LI isn't great (1100 days), there are "out of the way" places where I think it could be exploited to minimize supply exports from the Home Islands. The areas that stick out most to me in this are:
1. Celebes
2. Borneo
3. Sumatra.

I've not ran the numbers, but I suspect that a diligent Japanese player who invests supplies in expanding LI in these key areas could establish a degree of autarky. While that is already possible in the base game, I think these changes have made it much more viable given the number of LI sites (10x10 LI can double in size quicker than 1x100 LI site can) and the LI sites dispersed geography away from traditional Japanese industry centres (harder to bomb).

Thoughts on this?


Thanks Mind_Messing appreciate the feedback I didn't think there was that much in DEI I will take another look - my only observation is even if the LI is doubled or trebled is it going to be decisive and its on map and can be bombed so it shouldn't be a major issue player will still need to send supply convoys to do offensive operations.

Having said that I have a game about to start myself as a PBEM so I will make sure to take a good look over next few weeks as most of my testing has been v the AI so far

Once again greatly appreciate the feedback


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 139
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/24/2020 7:58:06 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2942
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac


quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Some feedback from playtesting. Currently Nov '42 in PBEM.

- Supply caps in China didn't change much, still rolled China up fairly effectively. The extra bases didn't make much difference, but I like the notion of dispersing Chinese LI so that losing the big cities doesn't immediately cripple the Chinese.

- Extra dot bases in Burma really changes things for the better, for both sides. Lots more consideration needs to be given to rear-area garrisons due to the possibility for amphib invasions/paratroops causing problems (as was the case historically). Burma feels more fluid: the Arrakan front has a bit more nuance than just a frontline somewhere between Ramree Island and Akyab.

- Supply throughput from Thailand to Burma once Chang-Mai/Uttaradit have bene built up seems fine.

- One consideration is that added industry in Oz (especially in Northern Oz) is VP's on the vine for the IJ in the early war, and the Allied player can do very little to oppose it.

- I think adding LI to the DEI needs to be thought out properly. Given that Japan tends to float resources globally and has a glut in the DEI, this could be exploited somewhat. While the return on expansion for LI isn't great (1100 days), there are "out of the way" places where I think it could be exploited to minimize supply exports from the Home Islands. The areas that stick out most to me in this are:
1. Celebes
2. Borneo
3. Sumatra.

I've not ran the numbers, but I suspect that a diligent Japanese player who invests supplies in expanding LI in these key areas could establish a degree of autarky. While that is already possible in the base game, I think these changes have made it much more viable given the number of LI sites (10x10 LI can double in size quicker than 1x100 LI site can) and the LI sites dispersed geography away from traditional Japanese industry centres (harder to bomb).

Thoughts on this?


Thanks Mind_Messing appreciate the feedback I didn't think there was that much in DEI I will take another look - my only observation is even if the LI is doubled or trebled is it going to be decisive and its on map and can be bombed so it shouldn't be a major issue player will still need to send supply convoys to do offensive operations.

Having said that I have a game about to start myself as a PBEM so I will make sure to take a good look over next few weeks as most of my testing has been v the AI so far

Once again greatly appreciate the feedback




No problem - just to stress that am very much enjoying the changes!

On the question of LI, you might be right, just a thought I'd had for something "out of the box". Bombing it might be hard, given how it's so dispersed and the DEI tends to be out of the way of most Allied advances.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 140
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/25/2020 5:21:15 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4153
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Scen001

Something that has bothered me for a long time

Such an important USN base like Cebu (base ID 659) starts with no fuel, yet a backwater like Boac (base id 651) starts with over 1000 fuel. I have a hard time believing that USN stuffed Cebu with naval support and depth charges, but forgot to leave any fuel. Andy, can you put a small dump of fuel (200-500) in Cebu and reduce Boac fuel stocks? Since the scenario does not have any small tankers and I play with "no fuel transported by xAK ships" house rule, I have to risk precious TKs at the time tankers are actually evaced south. Small fuel dump in Cebu can top up PTs and other Allied small craft.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 5/25/2020 6:32:39 AM >

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 141
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/25/2020 10:39:11 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14751
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
next time I do an update I will take a look for now give yourself a pass and send one xAk with fuel !!!

I guarantee the AI wont complain about breaking HR's !!

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 142
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/25/2020 6:17:19 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2178
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
Hi Andy - Here are some data base problems. Following a limited search, I think they apply to all standard and DaBabes scenarios:

Major problems:

1) Ship Class ID-4: King George V (BB) - There are 5 database line items, and all upgrade correctly except #4, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-5)

2) Ship Class ID-35: Hawkins (CA) - There are 3 database line items, and all upgrade correctly except #35, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-36)

3) Ship Class ID-358: North Carolina (BB) - There are 13 database line items, and most upgrade correctly. The first problem is #358, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-359)

4) Ship Class ID-359: North Carolina (BB) - There are 13 database line items, and most upgrade correctly. The second problem is #359, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-360)

5) Ship Class ID-376: Massachusetts (BB) - There are 3 database line items, but the upgrade date for ID-376 is the same as ID-375 (both are set to upgrade on 5/44). The only difference between the two is that ID-376 adds Wpn1644 (SR AS Radar). Looking through the database, I see that BB Indiana (ID-372) has an identical upgrade, but it takes place on 4/45. Accordingly, I recommend you shift the upgrade date for ID-376 to 4/45.

6) Air Group ID 1871: Brit No.810 Sqn FAA - Broken upgrade. The first upgrade is to Swordfish I (the starting airframe) which doubles the upgrade and thus breaks the path. Shift the 1st upgrade (00) to Albacore I and the 2nd upgrade (01) to Barracuda II (which should be doubled to conclude the upgrade path)

7) Air Group ID 3594: US 3rd BG/13 BS - Incorrect upgrade. Upgrades from Banshee to the Dutch B-25C (#157). It should upgrade to the US B-25C (#295)


Minor stuff:

1) Ship Class ID-266: Thronycroft HDML (HDML) - Typo. The manufacturer's name s/b spelled "Thornycroft"

2) Ship Class ID-788: Alder ACM (ACM) - Duplicate ship name. There are 12 ships in this class and "Sumac" arrives twice (ship IDs 9967 and 9970). I did some research, and the second ship should be named "Lupine"

3) Ship ID ID-353: Typo. The ship name "Etofuro" should be spelled the same as the ship class name, "Etorufo"

4) Ship ID ID-894: Typo. The ship name "Hayamoto" is incorrect. It s/b spelled "Hayatomo"

Lastly, in 2017 there was a post from cardas in which he identified a vast number of database issues involving "weapon facing". The topic was DaBabes, but from what I can see, most of the ships are also present in the standard scenarios, and most of those still have these issues (I confirmed that by checking a few of them in your new Scen 1 v5).

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 143
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/25/2020 8:27:06 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2178
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
I'll preface this next bit by noting that my comments are based on a long-running game involving Scenario 102, the Ironman tier 1 that used the new bases and the first cut of the new AI. So perhaps some of these comments may no longer apply. I would also caution anyone reading this however, that there are spoilers, so you are warned.


1) Perhaps the biggest single monkey wrench the Japanese AI could throw at the human player would be a VERY early invasion of Sinkawang. In combination with a large base support element and torpedo-bearing aircraft with long-legged (Zero) escorts. At one stroke this would shut-off the Allied ability to brave sir robin units out of Singapore (or, conversely, to heavily reinforce it) and would also slam the door shut on fuel exports out of Palembang or any direct troop landings there. Right now it's just too easy for the Allied player to do anything they want in either location.

2) The new bases and AI in Burma are excellent, but there's one noticeable issue. When the Japanese capture Shwebo, the next base on the AI target list is Katha, but the problem is that it's 3 hexes away and in between are the retreated British units sitting to the NE in 60,44. Unfortunately, the AI doesn't "see" them as something to be attacked, but rather an obstacle to move around. So it sends forces across the river into 60,45 (Jungle Rough) then 61,44 (Jungle) and finally performs an across river shock attack into Katha (Jungle). During which time the Allies can quickly use the (ignored by the Japanese AI) road network to move those retreated forces into Katha and have ample time to recover and crush the attacking Japanese (who are likely to arrive and attack separately). I understand how the AI works and this sort of thing can happen anywhere that you are unable to string dot bases together, but the impact is particularly egregious when the AI takes a roundabout path which involves crossing rivers and traipsing through horrible movement allowance terrain. Anyway, a couple more dot bases would solve the problem!

3) The new AI does a nice job of snapping up all the SRA islands which used to sit untouched, but there's one exception. The band of islands which stretches north and west from Borneo to Malaya (Groot Natoena, et al). There's no strategic implication that I've seen, but they are too far for the rowboat corps, and it would clean things up.

4) Not a big deal, but the base at 59,92 in Borneo (Sintang) is the only non-coastal base on the whole large island, and simple confuses the AI. It has no idea what to do with that thing. Sure you could probably add some scripts to go after it, but to me it's just a useless dot base of no benefit to either side. Put it to better use somewhere else.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 144
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/26/2020 5:18:09 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4153
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Scen001v5, Allies


A couple of new bases in Burma start with fort level 6. Is this intentional?

Listed below, from Mount Victoria to Fort Hertz.




< Message edited by Yaab -- 5/26/2020 5:21:13 AM >

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 145
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/26/2020 8:20:23 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14751
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Nope that's an error I will fix

Fortunately apart from Tenchung and possibly Fort Herz not an issue really as no one will fight in those locations before the Japanese can take them

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 146
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/27/2020 8:18:23 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4133
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Major problems:

1) Ship Class ID-4: King George V (BB) - There are 5 database line items, and all upgrade correctly except #4, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-5)

Not sure it is an error. #4 and #5 have same upgrade date 2/44. Note they have different displacements. POW can upgrade from #1 through #4, KGV arrives as #4, but Howe, Anson and Duke of York arrive as #5. Guess these are two sub-groups of the KGV class.

2) Ship Class ID-35: Hawkins (CA) - There are 3 database line items, and all upgrade correctly except #35, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-36)

Good find!

3) Ship Class ID-358: North Carolina (BB) - There are 13 database line items, and most upgrade correctly. The first problem is #358, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-359)

4) Ship Class ID-359: North Carolina (BB) - There are 13 database line items, and most upgrade correctly. The second problem is #359, which upgrades to itself (thus breaking the link to ID-360)

Not sure it is an error, looks more like additions for "what-if" scenarios or "leftovers" from abandoned scenario design "musings". #347 - #349 of the North Carolina class aren't even used, NC and Washington enter as #350. #356 named Washington and not NC is not used either, seems to be a variant "musing" which finally did not made it into the scenario. I think that the line is supposed to end at #358. #359 actually has less AA than #358 and #359 and #360 have no upgrade delay, unlike the other upgrades - looks to me that they are finally not supposed to be used.


5) Ship Class ID-376: Massachusetts (BB) - There are 3 database line items, but the upgrade date for ID-376 is the same as ID-375 (both are set to upgrade on 5/44). The only difference between the two is that ID-376 adds Wpn1644 (SR AS Radar). Looking through the database, I see that BB Indiana (ID-372) has an identical upgrade, but it takes place on 4/45. Accordingly, I recommend you shift the upgrade date for ID-376 to 4/45.

Good find!

6) Air Group ID 1871: Brit No.810 Sqn FAA - Broken upgrade. The first upgrade is to Swordfish I (the starting airframe) which doubles the upgrade and thus breaks the path. Shift the 1st upgrade (00) to Albacore I and the 2nd upgrade (01) to Barracuda II (which should be doubled to conclude the upgrade path)

Good find!

7) Air Group ID 3594: US 3rd BG/13 BS - Incorrect upgrade. Upgrades from Banshee to the Dutch B-25C (#157). It should upgrade to the US B-25C (#295)

No, it is actually WAD - quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/13th_Bomb_Squadron#World_War_II :

quote:

When the unit arrived in Australia in January 1942, they were still without airplanes. While waiting for aircraft, the Reapers learned there were 24 brand new North American B-25 Mitchells sitting on the ramp in nearby Melbourne, but the planes were earmarked for the Dutch. Soon after, 24 Reaper pilots arrived in Melbourne, presented a confused Officer of the Day with an authorization letter, and nonchalantly flew away with the airplanes before anyone realized the mistake.


Also see http://warbirdsnews.com/warbirds-news/13th-bomb-squadron-appropriating-bomber.html for a more credible source than Wikipedia.

One has to admire the level of detail the designers have put into the game!





< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 5/27/2020 8:21:36 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 147
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/28/2020 3:22:59 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2178
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
Hi LST - Thanks for the "course corrections", and I agree with all three of them. However, while looking a bit closer at the BB upgrade paths, I noticed an oddity involving Device 1644 (SR AS Radar). According to NavWeaps (who I find to be pretty reliable), it was a "small sized but longish antenna shaped as an inverted V, installed in older battleships, some arrangements with two antennas were known."

NavWeaps has listings of radar sets by BB, including when they were added, and while it shows that most of the pre-war BBs gained the SR radar system in 1942, none of those BBs ever get it in AE. Paradoxically, in AE we see it installed only on some of the newer BBs, and even then, only in 1945.

Accordingly, I suspect that SR AS Radar is actually a substitute for the late war SP Radar (not included in the AE device list), which was installed on several of the newer BBs as an alternate radar system. Which brings us to ship ID 360, the final upgrade for the North Carolina BB class, which included more AA and the SR Radar. In real life, BB NC never received the SP Radar but BB Washington did, so like you, I suspect that the devs originally intended to have a dual upgrade path for NC and Washington, but it was never implemented.

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 148
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/28/2020 5:38:36 PM   
Pentakomo

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 11/13/2014
Status: offline
Any luck with device 1467 for japan in scenario 2?

(in reply to Moltrey)
Post #: 149
RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 - 5/28/2020 6:12:22 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2178
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
Hi Andy - As good as the AI may be (and you are working wonders with it), there is a fundamental problem specific to the Japanese AI. Specifically, while it is possible to open an AI-opponent game in "head-to-head" mode, thereby giving the human player the ability to make adjustments to the AI's force dispositions for a turn or more, it soon becomes impossible to do this for the Japanese AI, because of the Manchukuo Garrison requirements:

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: stretch

Be warned that the Japanese AI can allow the garrison requirements to fall without risk of the Soviets becoming active. Once that loads up as human, they activate. Thus in my current game vs the AI I can't do anything as the AI to help it out. I can only stop, look, and then reload the old save with the Soviets inactive and continue.

That's true. Since I almost always play as IJ, I never run into this issue. But if you are playing as the allies, it is a real issue that will develop by mid-'42 and then continue on … meaning the IJ AI in most games can't be helped and so the game doesn't tend to be as challenging as you can't help the AI past some bottlenecks. In these cases you will find that you have to cede the base in question (let the AI win), or choose to continue beating the AI until it no longer has capability to attack and then the game goes quite easily and monotonously to its end.


For those who may be unsure how the AI determines which units count against the Garrison, here's a helpful description from Alfred:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

A.  Manchukuo Garrison

1.  The threshold is 8,000 available Japanese Assault Value ("AV").  Since Patch #6 (Change #116), the relevant area is the Manchukuo hex ownership (= the nationality code).  It includes both bases and non base hexes within the relevant area.  Previously it was the old North West Zone left over from classical WITP. 

2.  Be above the threshold, even by only 1 AV, and there is no die roll check.

3.  Be below the threshold, even by only 1 AV, and a die roll check is made to see if the Soviets are activated.  This check is made every turn the garrison is below the threshold.

4.  The die roll is weighed against the size of the garrison.  The smaller the delta between what is the currently present AV and the 8,000 AV threshold, the less likely an adverse die roll will result.

5.  An adverse die roll for Japan always results in activating the Soviets.  There is no other penalty applied nor is there any variability.


This would seem to be a real problem, because one of your primary "Japanese AI assist" methods is to harvest Kwantung Army units and send them off on various missions. It's a good idea and it works well, but as you see there is a downside. However. What if we could ensure that the Garrison requirements are always met, right up until Soviet Activation occurs on August 1 1945?

It turns out, that's pretty easy to do. All you need is a single new unit, the "Manchukuo Fort". See item #1 in the attachment for the unit stats as it appears in the editor and then look at Item #2 for the unit's appearance in-game. A few features and issues:

1) You'll note that it's set to withdraw on the date of the Soviet Activation and it also can't be disbanded (red arrows).

2) You have a very active AI that's busy harvesting units from this region, yet it never touches any of the existing Manchurian Forts, so I'm assuming this new one will remain unaffected by any of your existing scripts.

3) The new fort is located in an unoccupied Manchurian city, far from the Soviet border, but you could place it anywhere you like. The only caveat is the new unit has a heavy supply requirement, so you may want to add some sort of automatic supply mechanism for the city, just to make sure we're not adversely affecting the Japanese supply flow in this region.

4) Lastly, this could be problematic for any scenario which is designed for "both" players, as it would allow the Japan-human player to effectively ignore the Manchukuo Garrison requirements. Accordingly is it possible to script the unit to arrive only on January 7th 1941, and only if the Japanese player is human?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Updated Scen 1 and 2 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   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

0.234