New Public Beta - v1128 Live Now!

[Nazcatraz]

I always put 25 ships in my 3 or 4 CV ships TFs. They need all the protection they can get.

[Tanaka]

I'm noticing that none of my Nate fighters set to 100% train in China are getting any fatigue even though this patch is supposed to give training fatigue? While everything else seems to be getting the fatigue. I am wondering if setting to 100ft sweep training has anything to do with it?

On that note I remember a time when fighter strafing at 100ft was worth doing in this game. You could actually destroy more than a few planes at Pearl Harbor. Not sure when that changed but now you just destroy a few planes and get shot to hell unlike the damage they did historically to the airfields. I don't know anyone that actually does 100ft strafing with fighters in this game anymore. Not worth it.

[Platoonist]

On that note I remember a time when fighter strafing at 100ft was worth doing in this game. You could actually destroy more than a few planes at Pearl Harbor. Not sure when that changed but now you just destroy a few planes and get shot to hell unlike the damage they did historically to the airfields. I don't know anyone that actually does 100ft strafing with fighters in this game anymore. Not worth it.

I've often thought maybe the US Army AA units present at Pearl Harbor should be handled as reinforcements which arrive on December 8th. Although the ships anchored at Pearl responded pretty quickly with intense AA fire, the attack caught the Army at a particularly bad time. General Short had his troops at a high state of alert in the weeks before the attack, but chose the weekend of the attack to let his men stand down, rest up, and do maintenance on their equipment (the following quoted from the 2011 book Attack on Pearl Harbor by Alan Zimm):

During the week proceeding 7th December, the entire Hawaiian Department, by order of General Short, engaged in a full-scale exercise for seven consecutive days. Army units from Schofield Barracks deployed, antiaircraft units drew ammunition and set up stations all over the island, and the Hawaiian Air Force armed aircraft and dispersed them to protective revetments. The warnings center was fully operational and launched aircraft against simulated attacking targets....

... However, on Saturday, 6th December, we were told to take down all arms and lock [them] in [the] Armory and take our passes to Honolulu.

As a consequence, the sixty mobile 3"(75mm) Army antiaircraft guns were parked away from their firing positions and had no ammunition. Only two of the Army antiaircraft batteries around the harbor came into action, firing just 116 3" rounds (but claiming two aircraft shot down.) This left the defense of the warships mostly to their own antiaircraft guns and left the airfields under-defended. Had the Japanese attacked the previous weekend, they likely would have encountered a garrison prepared to rapidly man its guns and sortie its aircraft.

[Tanaka]

On that note I remember a time when fighter strafing at 100ft was worth doing in this game. You could actually destroy more than a few planes at Pearl Harbor. Not sure when that changed but now you just destroy a few planes and get shot to hell unlike the damage they did historically to the airfields. I don't know anyone that actually does 100ft strafing with fighters in this game anymore. Not worth it.

I've often thought maybe the US Army AA units present at Pearl Harbor should be handled as reinforcements which arrive on December 8th. Although the ships anchored at Pearl responded pretty quickly with intense AA fire, the attack caught the Army at a particularly bad time. General Short had his troops at a high state of alert in the weeks before the attack, but chose the weekend of the attack to let his men stand down, rest up, and do maintenance on their equipment (the following quoted from the 2011 book Attack on Pearl Harbor by Alan Zimm):

During the week proceeding 7th December, the entire Hawaiian Department, by order of General Short, engaged in a full-scale exercise for seven consecutive days. Army units from Schofield Barracks deployed, antiaircraft units drew ammunition and set up stations all over the island, and the Hawaiian Air Force armed aircraft and dispersed them to protective revetments. The warnings center was fully operational and launched aircraft against simulated attacking targets....

... However, on Saturday, 6th December, we were told to take down all arms and lock [them] in [the] Armory and take our passes to Honolulu.

As a consequence, the sixty mobile 3"(75mm) Army antiaircraft guns were parked away from their firing positions and had no ammunition. Only two of the Army antiaircraft batteries around the harbor came into action, firing just 116 3" rounds (but claiming two aircraft shot down.) This left the defense of the warships mostly to their own antiaircraft guns and left the airfields under-defended. Had the Japanese attacked the previous weekend, they likely would have encountered a garrison prepared to rapidly man its guns and sortie its aircraft.

Always impressed with your historical research and knowledge Platoonist and you make a great point here!

[Tanaka]

Having issues with troops unloading from transports into enemy bases in strategic mode as well as paratroops para dropping into enemy bases in strategic mode. Anyone else experiencing this? Very odd...

[BBfanboy]

Having issues with troops unloading from transports into enemy bases in strategic mode as well as paratroops para dropping into enemy bases in strategic mode. Anyone else experiencing this? Very odd...

? Are you saying they were loaded while they were in Combat mode but switched to Strategic mode for landing? That would be a significant bug. But if you loaded them in Strat mode and they landed in Strat mode that would be as expected.

[Tanaka]

Having issues with troops unloading from transports into enemy bases in strategic mode as well as paratroops para dropping into enemy bases in strategic mode. Anyone else experiencing this? Very odd...

? Are you saying they were loaded while they were in Combat mode but switched to Strategic mode for landing? That would be a significant bug. But if you loaded them in Strat mode and they landed in Strat mode that would be as expected.

Ah no cannot load in combat mode only strategic mode. I thought they always hit the beaches and para landed in combat mode though...

Edit: Scratch that I never put my paras in combat mode after railing them my mistake! And Amphibious mode vs transport mode for combat vs strategic...

[insecttoid3]

Edit: Scratch that I never put my paras in combat mode after railing them my mistake!

Now I'm imagining them just plummeting out of the plane one at a time with their luggage while troops in the target base stand around confused.

[RangerJoe]

Edit: Scratch that I never put my paras in combat mode after railing them my mistake!

Now I'm imagining them just plummeting out of the plane one at a time with their luggage while troops in the target base stand around confused.

No, they are dropping while unpacking their parachutes!

[darbygray]

And then when I play the game and press Disband TF, it would give me 2 options YES and NO but I cannot click on either one. I have to press Esc to get out of the option UI. and I just can't disband my TF at all.

Try using the keystrokes Y or N instead.

Well that works! Thanks. But what's the point of forcing a Y and N question to Disband TF when players can't even click it on their screens?

This was a change done in 27b, because enough people got tired of accidentally disbanding task forces. So now you have to "confirm" it by typing the letter.

[Dili]

Thanks, unfortunately is only a very allied centric update.
Was there no Japanese team member to fix the issues in Japanese side?

[RangerJoe]

Thanks, unfortunately is only a very allied centric update.
Was there no Japanese team member to fix the issues in Japanese side?

Which issues need to be fixed?

The option to massively increase the aircraft production way beyond the historical levels?

The unthinkable Army-Navy cooperation from the very beginning of the war?

The ability to speed up the construction of certain ships while not producing other ships?

The ability to replace troops and devices if there are enough of the appropriate points available?

There were some map changes that do make it harder on the Japanese to move units around but apparently those are historically accurate.

[homer82]

Thanks, unfortunately is only a very allied centric update.
Was there no Japanese team member to fix the issues in Japanese side?

I'm an admittedly very inexperienced Japanese player (but learning) so this may be obvious but what are the issues you feel need to be fixed on the Japanese side?

[Kitakami]

One month into a game against the computer, this is what I have found:

Progress south the eastern coast of Malaya is slower, but not terribly so.
Progress towards Rangoon, also a bit slower.
China is basically split into three different theaters instead of two, which I find is not so bad.

The rest feels the same. I will not give an opinion as to whether same is good or not. It is a game, after all, someone’s interpretation of what was and could have been.

Just my two cents.

[Tanaka]

One month into a game against the computer, this is what I have found:

Progress south the eastern coast of Malaya is slower, but not terribly so.
Progress towards Rangoon, also a bit slower.
China is basically split into three different theaters instead of two, which I find is not so bad.

The rest feels the same. I will not give an opinion as to whether same is good or not. It is a game, after all, someone’s interpretation of what was and could have been.

Just my two cents.

Considering how many people complain about how easy it is for Japan to conquer China these all sound like good changes to me...

[Dili]

Thanks, unfortunately is only a very allied centric update.
Was there no Japanese team member to fix the issues in Japanese side?

Which issues need to be fixed?

The option to massively increase the aircraft production way beyond the historical levels?

The unthinkable Army-Navy cooperation from the very beginning of the war?

The ability to speed up the construction of certain ships while not producing other ships?

The ability to replace troops and devices if there are enough of the appropriate points available?

There were some map changes that do make it harder on the Japanese to move units around but apparently those are historically accurate.

Floatplanes specially Glen which was rarely used for sea search, so should have a much lower Dur and instead have a camera for its usual mission: recon. Btw all Floatplanes/Patrol etc both sides should have cameras.
Example none of the japenese submarines sent as tripwire for Midway Op was a class with a floatplane. Glen most missions were to recon ports and anchorages. Not to be permanently sea searching.
Marginal fighters and bombers versions like if it they were fundamental version and not chrome.
Corrected ships starting with replenishment ones. Minekaze APDs with 29kt even if without an engine. Revising of most ships. Too many destroyers with DP guns.

[RangerJoe]

Thanks, unfortunately is only a very allied centric update.
Was there no Japanese team member to fix the issues in Japanese side?

Which issues need to be fixed?

The option to massively increase the aircraft production way beyond the historical levels?

The unthinkable Army-Navy cooperation from the very beginning of the war?

The ability to speed up the construction of certain ships while not producing other ships?

The ability to replace troops and devices if there are enough of the appropriate points available?

There were some map changes that do make it harder on the Japanese to move units around but apparently those are historically accurate.

Floatplanes specially Glen which was rarely used for sea search, so should have a much lower Dur and instead have a camera for its usual mission: recon. Btw all Floatplanes/Patrol etc both sides should have cameras.
Example none of the japenese submarines sent as tripwire for Midway Op was a class with a floatplane. Glen most missions were to recon ports and anchorages. Not to be permanently sea searching.
Marginal fighters and bombers versions like if it they were fundamental version and not chrome.
Corrected ships starting with replenishment ones. Minekaze APDs with 29kt even if without an engine. Revising of most ships. Too many destroyers with DP guns.

To me, those are issues that could be fixed in the editor and not the .exe itself. However, I do understand your concerns.

Some of the destroyers with DP guns, if I remember correctly, just did not have quite enough elevation to be truly DP guns as far as firing at high angles yet they were used in the anti-aircraft role so they were given DP status. Unless each gun is modeled with its elevation (+/-) that issue won't be fixed but then neither would being "under the guns" be modeled either if that should ever be the situation.

But also remember that this is a game based on history and not a simulation as I had previously been informed when I made certain comments. You are free to modify the scenarios in the editor to fix some issues, I have done so for a game that I have played and suggested one such change to another individual who did use the suggestion.

[Kitakami]

.
.
.
Considering how many people complain about how easy it is for Japan to conquer China these all sound like good changes to me...

Agreed.

[Ian R]

Thanks, unfortunately is only a very allied centric update.
Was there no Japanese team member to fix the issues in Japanese side?

Yet, the paucity of replacement allied airframes was not fixed.

[koopanique]

Hi,
So reading from this thread, I understand that it's best to apply this new patch on top of a vanilla installation -- but should this vanilla installation also be patched with the previous official patch (Update v1.01.26a)? Or by vanilla, do you mean "the base game without any patch whatsoever"?
Thank you for any answer,
Have a nice day