I've been reading a little Guadalcanal naval history recently, and it got me itching to find some Pacific theater combat. Really, there's no theater in history that combines major air, land and ground operations over a period of time between two well-matched foes (at least well-matched early on). Against my better instincts, I picked up WITP-AE and was quickly reminded of why I had never bought this thing: no AI control of theaters. . . .
:o
Anyway, a couple of questions. I just read through an old thread from this site about how hard the game is to learn. What if you have played WITP, knew it pretty well, and could knock out a normal turn in 15-20 minutes. How much is that WITP knowledge going to help me with WITP-AE? Is it so different that I should just try to start from scratch and learn it before playing, or can I dive in and do the same kind of stuff I did in WITP?
2nd question: I'm really really not interested in playing the Sino-Japanese ground war, especially in a game system that was designed to emphasize naval and air combat with ground war as the crazy aunt in the attic. What are people's experiences with ignoring or half-assing China. Will the other side gain a huge advantage from it in the real part of the war down in the SoPac and CenPac?
3rd question: This one is more specific. In Uncommon Valour, which I think came out AFTER WITP (is that right), shore batteries were really OP at resisting invasions and your invasion escort would just sit there and let them pound your transports unless you specifically sent in bombardment TFs first (which, of course, didn't happen at all in the actual Operation Watchtower). Do you still have to put in a major, massive effort against shore batteries before invading anywhere?
Those are my questions, and depending on the answers, I may never actually play this game - but I just might.
I'll throw in a quick story-time. I actually played the War In The Pacific board game back in the '70s. It was so big that the only way we could play it was to nail a big piece of tin on the wall, nail the map onto the piece of tin, and buy these little magnetized chit-holders to put all the pieces up on the wall. We actually got through about September of '42. My opponent had a clever strategy that he was going to bring the American carriers around through the Atlantic and hit Java with a surprise attack from the West. His only little problem was that I totally guessed his strategy, based on how vital Java was to my war effort - and also based on how handy Djakarta was as a base, since you could draw a lot of your fleet oil straight from the horse's mouth instead of having to round-trip it through Japan. When the American carriers showed up the whole Kido Butai and a buttload of land-based planes were sitting there waiting on them and sunk ALL the American carriers, while he barely even marred the paint job on my stuff.
:coolsmiley:
I couldn't really blame Mike for not wanting to go on after that.
Quote from: glen55 on January 20, 2015, 08:38:35 PM
Anyway, a couple of questions. I just read through an old thread from this site about how hard the game is to learn. What if you have played WITP, knew it pretty well, and could knock out a normal turn in 15-20 minutes. How much is that WITP knowledge going to help me with WITP-AE? Is it so different that I should just try to start from scratch and learn it before playing, or can I dive in and do the same kind of stuff I did in WITP?
2nd question: I'm really really not interested in playing the Sino-Japanese ground war, especially in a game system that was designed to emphasize naval and air combat with ground war as the crazy aunt in the attic. What are people's experiences with ignoring or half-assing China. Will the other side gain a huge advantage from it in the real part of the war down in the SoPac and CenPac?
3rd question: This one is more specific. In Uncommon Valour, which I think came out AFTER WITP (is that right), shore batteries were really OP at resisting invasions and your invasion escort would just sit there and let them pound your transports unless you specifically sent in bombardment TFs first (which, of course, didn't happen at all in the actual Operation Watchtower). Do you still have to put in a major, massive effort against shore batteries before invading anywhere?
Answers: WIPAE isn't fundamentally all that different from WItP.
2: I always ignore China as much as possible. You could find a PBEM opponent who feels the same way and there is a "quiet china" scenario out there. the Japanese can win the game there, but even when I was the Japanese (and with my Chinese name) I avoided doing much in China.
3: Uncommon Valor came before WitP. In WitPAE shore batteries and minefields can be brutal (eg. don't go near Corrigador if you are Japanese before you take it from the land side), but as a rule they are nowhere near as dangerous as Aircraft, ships and submarines most of the time.
Hey Glen-
1. Agreed. WitP isn't all that different from AE. AE just has many more details and more minutia.
2. I think you're ok with half-assing China. Although I've never played more than about a full year of AE, I never spent too much time in China. I guess you do have to spend some time moving things around, though, or you're going to lose a lot of points for lost troops, planes, and ships. Maybe give it a little attention- like 10% or less of any given turn and I suppose you should be alright.
3. UV came out before WitP. And sadly I don't know the answer to your question.
AE is a fantastic, but thorough game. I think you'll appreciate any time invested in getting good at it. It seems to be pretty well received at Matrix.
Quote from: Toonces on January 20, 2015, 11:01:52 PM
Hey Glen-
3. UV came out before WitP. And sadly I don't know the answer to your question.
In WitPAE, amphibious task forces will not only fire to suppress shore batteries, but smaller ships of the task force will go in close with each landing waves to suppress even field guns, possibly depending on their skill.
Quote from: glen55 on January 20, 2015, 08:38:35 PM
I've been reading a little Guadalcanal naval history recently, and it got me itching to find some Pacific theater combat. Really, there's no theater in history that combines major air, land and ground operations over a period of time between two well-matched foes (at least well-matched early on). Against my better instincts, I picked up WITP-AE and was quickly reminded of why I had never bought this thing: no AI control of theaters. . . .
:o
Anyway, a couple of questions. I just read through an old thread from this site about how hard the game is to learn. What if you have played WITP, knew it pretty well, and could knock out a normal turn in 15-20 minutes. How much is that WITP knowledge going to help me with WITP-AE? Is it so different that I should just try to start from scratch and learn it before playing, or can I dive in and do the same kind of stuff I did in WITP?
2nd question: I'm really really not interested in playing the Sino-Japanese ground war, especially in a game system that was designed to emphasize naval and air combat with ground war as the crazy aunt in the attic. What are people's experiences with ignoring or half-assing China. Will the other side gain a huge advantage from it in the real part of the war down in the SoPac and CenPac?
3rd question: This one is more specific. In Uncommon Valour, which I think came out AFTER WITP (is that right), shore batteries were really OP at resisting invasions and your invasion escort would just sit there and let them pound your transports unless you specifically sent in bombardment TFs first (which, of course, didn't happen at all in the actual Operation Watchtower). Do you still have to put in a major, massive effort against shore batteries before invading anywhere?
Those are my questions, and depending on the answers, I may never actually play this game - but I just might.
I'll throw in a quick story-time. I actually played the War In The Pacific board game back in the '70s. It was so big that the only way we could play it was to nail a big piece of tin on the wall, nail the map onto the piece of tin, and buy these little magnetized chit-holders to put all the pieces up on the wall. We actually got through about September of '42. My opponent had a clever strategy that he was going to bring the American carriers around through the Atlantic and hit Java with a surprise attack from the West. His only little problem was that I totally guessed his strategy, based on how vital Java was to my war effort - and also based on how handy Djakarta was as a base, since you could draw a lot of your fleet oil straight from the horse's mouth instead of having to round-trip it through Japan. When the American carriers showed up the whole Kido Butai and a buttload of land-based planes were sitting there waiting on them and sunk ALL the American carriers, while he barely even marred the paint job on my stuff.
:coolsmiley:
I couldn't really blame Mike for not wanting to go on after that.
1. Past WITP knowledge should get you off and running. My advice as I give all just starting the grand campaign is play the first 30 days saving your first turn and then start over until you understand most rules. Playing as the Allies you can make mistakes and still get after it when all your new toys come online.
2. One of the patches introduced quiet China if that's not your cup of tea. Keep in mind small islands and atolls have troop restrictions unlike WITP.
3. It all depends on the size of the shore batteries. If heavy guns are encountered you definitely need counter fire. When I expect heavy resistance I have bombardment TF & CA's or antiquated BB's embedded with the invasion TF as they tend to soak up more fire and of course are better armored.
Wait, go back a minute: no theater AI?? Not sure what that means; I've never cracked open the AE, but WitP (and even Warplan Orange, which I played more) had the ability to assign operations for any region to the AI, as many as one wanted. ???
Did AE get rid of that, or did you mean something else, Glen?
Quote from: JasonPratt on January 21, 2015, 08:36:23 AM
Wait, go back a minute: no theater AI?? Not sure what that means; I've never cracked open the AE, but WitP (and even Warplan Orange, which I played more) had the ability to assign operations for any region to the AI, as many as one wanted. ???
Did AE get rid of that, or did you mean something else, Glen?
Hi Jason. No theatre specific (or better yet , region specific) AI at your disposal.
Weird. They must have taken it out because of difficulties having it mesh with whatever region the player wanted to manage.
Yes, for some reason they have said it's impossible to assign theater control to the AI with the new global AI.
Thanks to all for the answers, they are encouraging. I'm especially going to look for that quiet China variant. Still probably not going to rush into anything, but considering I just started a new WITP history last night (Shattered Sword, highly recommended by a groggy friend), my interest can only build.
Quote from: JasonPratt on January 21, 2015, 03:54:11 PM
Weird. They must have taken it out because of difficulties having it mesh with whatever region the player wanted to manage.
They say the AI in AE is more cunning because it is not broken down into regions.
My understanding is that the theater AI didn't really work very well in vanilla WitP anyway. Certainly none of the serious players on Matrix used it (from what I've read).
Quote from: Toonces on January 21, 2015, 08:37:42 PM
My understanding is that the theater AI didn't really work very well in vanilla WitP anyway. Certainly none of the serious players on Matrix used it (from what I've read).
I'm sure if you were in a competitive PBEM game against a veteran, you have to do what you can unless you're playing with house rules, but I sure used it in single-player, and not having it is a serious consideration in playing WITP-AE. I was interested in the naval war in the south & central Pacific, and still am. The Sino-Japanese war and even the Brit-Japanese conflict in SE Asia and Burma are of markedly less interest because they're entirely different sorts of wars.
The point of turning part of the war over to the AI is to just get a relatively neutral result from that sector. Sure, the islands in the South China Sea are of great strategic importance, but so long as the AI is running both sides of the struggle over them, it is going to produce a result that doesn't massively impact the U.S.-Japanese naval war. In my game, the Japanese swept through that area in '42 just as in reality.
Which leads to another approach...
those not interested in managing every theater or micro details can also enjoy Vanilla WITP instead. No need to jump to AE.
Quote from: glen55 on January 21, 2015, 09:21:00 PM
Quote from: Toonces on January 21, 2015, 08:37:42 PM
My understanding is that the theater AI didn't really work very well in vanilla WitP anyway. Certainly none of the serious players on Matrix used it (from what I've read).
I'm sure if you were in a competitive PBEM game against a veteran, you have to do what you can unless you're playing with house rules, but I sure used it in single-player, and not having it is a serious consideration in playing WITP-AE. I was interested in the naval war in the south & central Pacific, and still am. The Sino-Japanese war and even the Brit-Japanese conflict in SE Asia and Burma are of markedly less interest because they're entirely different sorts of wars.
You can always rationalize that as the Japanese are really the Japanese Navy -- who thought the whole China and Russia orientation of the Japanese Army was a huge waste of time. All the Navy wanted was the Dutch East Indies and Singapore and Manila and Cam Ran Bay. The Army wanted to conquer China or at least keep a lot of puppet states there as well as eventually crushing Russia (a bad plan -- let's face it).
Anyway, I've been the Japs in WitPAE and Witp so much that I long ago took the (paradoxically chinese I guess) game-name MengJiao and I always neglected China and I always lost. There's a lesson there somewhere.
So: don't play the Japs if you want to neglect China. My current formula for PBEM victory is: Number One: Don't be the Japs; Number Two: Neglect China which enables Number Three: keep the turns simple enough by neglecting China so that you play the game long enough to win as the Allies.
The war in the Pacific was waged to support the war in China anyway.
Quote from: jomni on January 22, 2015, 08:04:25 PM
The war in the Pacific was waged to support the war in China anyway.
Right, but the player can rationalize his role as the Japanese as being the Imperial Navy rather than all of Japan -- if he wants to avoid the intricacies of China, Burma and Russia.
Quote from: jomni on January 22, 2015, 12:02:50 AM
Which leads to another approach...
those not interested in managing every theater or micro details can also enjoy Vanilla WITP instead. No need to jump to AE.
With the exception of waypoints, which I love, I actually prefer vanilla to AE. The 1942 scenario was perfect, IMO.
So I'm noW temped to install and start another campaign that will never end
I always come back to what is really good about WITP-AE. Its the smaller scenarios like 1942 or the Solomon's campaign. It really shines there, even against the AI. I think its crazy to expect any current game to perfectly model an entire war, including an economy, at the level of individual pilots and squads. But scale it down to even long campaigns and the game is very good.
The main issue is development of the game got taken over by rivet counters who also wanted to be able to play 5 years of war at the detailed level. So no smaller scenarios never really got developed. I think may 3 came out since the games release. This seems to happen with wargames. A good game comes out, the OCD rivet counters get involved, the devs spend all their resources making them happy, everyone else bails, and the game sinks into a morass of adding detailed features that few people really care about.
Examples of it happening...
WITP it definitely happened to
WITE has been caught up in it.
I see Command heading this way
If you read the Battle Command forums, you can see the pressure now and then
Agree. Not to mention WITE.
Back to WITP AE. I played several rounds of Guadalcanal PBEM that lasts for months with a buddy and it never gets old.
Maybe I'll try Guadalcanal/Solomons. That's where the action really is, anyway.
I have 2 dream wargames. The most realistic is a really good Guadalcanal campaign game with modern graphics, detailed maps of the theaters, including realistic topo maps of all the islands, and a realistic but playable engine for naval, air and ground war with top-notch AI. The WITP/UV versions are fun, but the ground combat is really skeletal, and half-day turns don't quite cut it for naval & air, either. I want to fight the battles, not just put the units in position for the AI to fight them.
The other involves American Civil War, eastern front, and involves roleplaying as an Army commander, not only by pushing units around but by training them, interacting with them, getting to know my unit commanders, political maneuverings with national and state governments, and basically everything that was involved, with a strategic map that breaks down into accurate tactical maps when there is significant contact between opposing forces. I have no hope whatsoever that this game will ever be made, but I think there's a really game out there to be made. The theater was small enough to tactically map the whole thing on modern commanders, and the roleplaying part just takes a little imagination, creativity and homework.
All my very own ideas. . . . :uglystupid2:
Quote from: glen55 on January 23, 2015, 02:30:00 PM
Maybe I'll try Guadalcanal/Solomons. That's where the action really is, anyway.
I have 2 dream wargames. The most realistic is a really good Guadalcanal campaign game with modern graphics, detailed maps of the theaters, including realistic topo maps of all the islands, and a realistic but playable engine for naval, air and ground war with top-notch AI. The WITP/UV versions are fun, but the ground combat is really skeletal, and half-day turns don't quite cut it for naval & air, either. I want to fight the battles, not just put the units in position for the AI to fight them.
The other involves American Civil War, eastern front, and involves roleplaying as an Army commander, not only by pushing units around but by training them, interacting with them, getting to know my unit commanders, political maneuverings with national and state governments, and basically everything that was involved, with a strategic map that breaks down into accurate tactical maps when there is significant contact between opposing forces. I have no hope whatsoever that this game will ever be made, but I think there's a really game out there to be made. The theater was small enough to tactically map the whole thing on modern commanders, and the roleplaying part just takes a little imagination, creativity and homework.
All my very own ideas. . . . :uglystupid2:
I have roughtly those same dream games. The Army command game -- I generally imagine it as happening in late 1941 in Russia. You get off the train under air attack and have to go find your formations (3 rifle brigades and a real division arriving by train plus some artillery and a few tanks and trucks) work out your communication net, reconnaissance, neighboring units, ...and avoid looking bad when STAVKA calls you on the phone etc.
Quote from: glen55 on January 20, 2015, 08:38:35 PM
2nd question: I'm really really not interested in playing the Sino-Japanese ground war, especially in a game system that was designed to emphasize naval and air combat with ground war as the crazy aunt in the attic. What are people's experiences with ignoring or half-assing China. Will the other side gain a huge advantage from it in the real part of the war down in the SoPac and CenPac?
Glen, you do know that 80% of the Imperial Japanese Army was tied up in China for most of the war? :) It may not have felt
real to most Americans or to the American historians writing about it, but it was plenty real to the people involved. Equally importantly, it was plenty real in terms of driving the whole strategic schism between the IJA and IJN that resulted in so many disfunctional decisions in other theaters throughout the war (e.g., a bold gamble on a Midway attack which had very little strategic value).
I'm really just busting your chops, though, as people sometimes do on this board when it's a slow day. ;)
I totally get your comment about the War in the Pacific from 1942-1943 being the only period of time where the Americans were one of two sides fighting with similar force levels and similar logistical capabilities. Two great books on battles fought during this era are
Shattered Sword (by Jon Parshall and Anthony Tully--it's the definitive retelling of the Midway story if you haven't read any of that English-language history in the last 20 years) and
Fire in the Sky by Eric Bergerud (which looks mostly at the air conflict in the South Pacific--it's a dry read but the scholarship is detailed and formidable).
Good luck finding a game to scratch your itch, but if you can't, maybe those two books can help?
Quote from: FarAway Sooner on January 25, 2015, 03:18:51 PM
Quote from: glen55 on January 20, 2015, 08:38:35 PM
2nd question: I'm really really not interested in playing the Sino-Japanese ground war, especially in a game system that was designed to emphasize naval and air combat with ground war as the crazy aunt in the attic. What are people's experiences with ignoring or half-assing China. Will the other side gain a huge advantage from it in the real part of the war down in the SoPac and CenPac?
Glen, you do know that 80% of the Imperial Japanese Army was tied up in China for most of the war? :) It may not have felt real to most Americans or to the American historians writing about it, but it was plenty real to the people involved. Equally importantly, it was plenty real in terms of driving the whole strategic schism between the IJA and IJN that resulted in so many disfunctional decisions in other theaters throughout the war (e.g., a bold gamble on a Midway attack which had very little strategic value).
I'm really just busting your chops, though, as people sometimes do on this board when it's a slow day. ;)
I totally get your comment about the War in the Pacific from 1942-1943 being the only period of time where the Americans were one of two sides fighting with similar force levels and similar logistical capabilities. Two great books on battles fought during this era are Shattered Sword (by Jon Parshall and Anthony Tully--it's the definitive retelling of the Midway story if you haven't read any of that English-language history in the last 20 years) and Fire in the Sky by Eric Bergerud (which looks mostly at the air conflict in the South Pacific--it's a dry read but the scholarship is detailed and formidable).
Good luck finding a game to scratch your itch, but if you can't, maybe those two books can help?
Oh, feel free to bust my chops, but when I say "real" I do it somewhat ironically and only mean "real to me." I know the land war in China wasn't actually an irrelevant sideshow. . . . But the American-Japanese conflict in the Pacific was not just unique to Americans, but to the world. It's the only war ever that was fought between major naval, air and ground forces far from the borders of either nation prosecuting the war and was I believe the only campaign ruled on both sides by carrier air power.
I'm actually reading and enjoying Shattered Sword right now, having received a previous enthusiastic recommendation from a friend. Thanks for the Bergerud recommendation, though: I just ordered it on Amazon based on your recommendation (so be right!) and think I'll read it next. I'm enough into the South Pacific war that dry is fine, so long as it is detailed. In fact, maybe my favorite read on the Guadalcanal campaign is a volume of the U.S. Army Official History (don't recall the exact name) and yes sir, it was dry.
I read that Army history book...I actually enjoyed it quite a bit.
Although China might have been important in the real war, it isn't much fun to play in game. In that sense, I agree on just ignoring the whole thing if possible by letting the AI play it.
All of the interesting stuff in WitP is happening in the south and central Pacific.
Quote from: Toonces on January 26, 2015, 08:18:35 PM
I read that Army history book...I actually enjoyed it quite a bit.
Although China might have been important in the real war, it isn't much fun to play in game. In that sense, I agree on just ignoring the whole thing if possible by letting the AI play it.
All of the interesting stuff in WitP is happening in the south and central Pacific.
I have the Army book on the early part of the Papua campaign. Combined with some books on the Cargo Cults it was the basis of a highly mutated WitpAE scenario featuring lots of Pro-Japanese tribes (which did exist -- where you would expect -- near Rabual and from Buna to Weiwak). I represented friendly tribes as naval support, and general support with a few armed squads.
On the other hand, Richard B. Frank's Guadalcanal is a masterpiece:
http://www.amazon.com/Guadalcanal-Definitive-Account-Landmark-Battle/dp/0140165614
IT'S ALIVE!!!!!
Biggest patch ever.
http://www.matrixgames.com/news/1630/War.in.the.Pacific.Admiral.Edition.gets.a.massive.update!
QuoteHi guys!
Here the complete list of changes! Be prepared
1. Seventh Update – This release is a comprehensive release updating all previous versions to V1.01.24
2. Code Changes
Fixed
1. Display of AF/Port icon between player saves based on player's intel
2. Return mines loaded on ship to pool when ship is upgraded. Otherwise, they are lost when weapon list updated
3. Reported cargo/troop safety values incorrect when no cargo/troop space
4. Allow smaller 'reserve' space for small groups on ships
5. Preserve some more data when swapping fragment and parent to prevent lost of parent
6. Correct attacking plane count before final post-air combat
7. Pilot promotion may have occured in error sometimes
8. Raid detect message sometimes dropped of the combat report
9. Some TFs did not auto-refuel when at base. TF with Support ships loaded with supply generally
10. Some pilot-leader connections were being corrupted
11. Movement bug with following units due to incorrect move indicator. Seems to fix a few other move issues due to the incorrect indicator
12. Wrong ship sometimes reported in Ops report for TF movement which causes some damage
13. Escorts being assigned to auto-convoy TFs when not in the AC ship pool
14. Status (static,restricted,etc) filter of ground reinforcement/withdraw not working with the date sort
15. ASW groups not allowed to attack sometimes
16. Fragment size not set sometimes at time of the fragment/parent swap. This was causing HQ/LCU to jump to reinforcement queue
17. Bug in bomber intercept if too many rounds of fighter v fighter combat
18. Required Aviation Support is NOT capped at 250 for the human pl;ayer. This was removed at start of AE but crept back in sometime during updates
19. Removed the fragment/parent swap during a TF unload as it could often orphan the fragment.
20. Clear patrol levels if the patrol leveles are not valid after a aircraft upgrade
21. Additional victory conditions for post 44/45 apply only to game-time of over 3 years (ie not short scenario). This was fixed in a previous patch but only for one of the VCs, not the full set
22. Certain sequence of actions allowed enemy LCUs to be visible at enemy base
23. Enabled 'z' to speed up all animations; was commented out in a few animation replays
24. Bug caused F/FB to sometimes bomb at low altitude
25. Aircraft factory upgrade not always happening on time resulting in short span upgrades not occurring properly.
26. Bug in Industry 'failed' indication not showing properly sometimes
27. Location check at scenario load to include small map sceanrios
28. Bug in air supply to fragments in a non-friendly base hex
29. Using way-points defeats some TF missions (eg bombardment) as the TF destination was being set to homebase before execution of the mission – ie was returning to base immediately
30. Error in Strategic map display
31. Additional and stockpile options were not turned off when base was captured
32. Correct LCUs that were being changed to a base (type 6) resulting in 2 bases showing on mouse over
33. Army experience being gained when not 100% prepared as per manual; changed to allow chance to gain experience if >75% prepare and < 50% national exp level
34. Army experience being gain while unit was not on map or was in a ship. Fix 33 added to alleviate the incorrect experience gaining happening while in reinforcement queue
35. Increased road path when using STRATEGIC_MOVE to allow unit to remain on RR – caused unit to jump "off-rail" and move overland
36. Captured base sometimes set to a incorrect HQ if LCU had a bad HQ
37. Excessive accident messages on unload from TF reported
38. Reworked editor sub-unit merging as some devices could drop off the unit list when merged causing smaller size unit than expected
39. Corrected possible TOE error in scenario data load for inactive units
40. Air transport by seaplane to enemy bases was being allowed; a commando type unit can however be allowed to do this.
41. Possible CTD if sinking ship's load was a group
42. Limit the number of devices built from resources per unit during LCU replacements; this was causing an over production for that turn
43. Retain day/night setting when creating group fragments
44. Adjusted supply and fuel values in base list not to overrun the space
45. CT_APc removed from Minesweeping TF;CT_AM removed from Local Sweeping TF, but added YMS to Sweep TF in line with manual and code
46. Auto-rebuild (1/3 of TOE) of Chinese ground unit devices is limited to Squad types as the rule relates to the abundance of manpower and is not covered by replacement pool. Normal rebuilding of destroyed units is not affected by this.
47. Carrier capable and trained text not showing together on Group screen
48. Handle any blank re-name changes by ignoring them
49. Possible CTD when air fragments combine
50. Unloading TF can freeze a LCU onto a ship under some conditions
51. AI not behaving if main HQs missing (affects small map mainly)
52. AI using AGC for normal land units – removed from TF if not needed
53. Soviet activation message not in Ops report
54. Correct off/on-map movement of LCU - not always behaving correctly due to the hex range
55. Clear Soviet air balance if not activated. Possible incorrect base switching
56. Sub attack against docked TF not happening for port size <3
57. Unit type changing unexpectantly
58. Torpedo replacement on plane sometimes is missed
59. Double handling of overstacked supply requirements
60. Fixed alternate weapons for port attacks
61. Corrected weapon system damage to show after combat on ships in port rather than wait till sometimer in the ship repair cycle.
62. Ship tonnage over 32K could cause repairs to fail
63. Display message for group on ship could cause crash
64. Allow upgrade of group when "withdraw" is off
65. Patrol sub TF doesn't return to base if it doesn't have home base
66. Setting TF name to max 25 characters wiped out TF
67. Corrected display of some weapons in a/c display
68. "Set Objective" will allow some prepare points to remain based on unit experience
69. Check torpedo supply available before deciding alternate torpedo load
70. Allow ship-based groups to draw reserve upto 3
71. Some display issues with weapon filters and missions for aircraft data
72. Issue where a weapon slot having multiple filters could lose some weapons
73. Forming TF in from base showed incorrect TF
74. Zero length TF name caused corruption to name
75. TF icon could show wrong side if TF from each side present
76. Parent LCU swapping not always working if fragment off-map
77. Error in rebuilding of editor sub-units not clearing original parent device numbers first
78. Split groups sometimes not counted as one for overloaded AF check
79. Burma Road not open if Rangoon is captured
80. Para unit not moving by seaplane
81. Partial weapon load not kicking in if ops needed exceeded ship's ops level and ammo load exceeded 1000
82. Fixed discrepancy in base AV on some lists
83. Protect against fragments being linked to other fragments for LCUs (as in un/loading on transports). Can lead to loss of ability to merge with unit's parent.
84. ASW combat could result against 'phantom' TF when one TF had been eliminated in an earlier combat round
85. Fixed groups could fly too far if escorting transports
86. Single plane filling of group not counting previous clicks.
87. Non-port base trying to build port (type = primary AF is NOT a port)
88. Fixed non-base disbanding of LCUs
89. Fixed transfer name box for veteran pilots missing
90. Overfilled TOE of LCU could lose a number of devices when device upgraded
91. Corrected device upgrade sometimes skipping an upgrade
92. Disabled devices not being carried forward for reinforcements when Japanese production is on
93. Restricted filter on Unit list for 'change all on list ..' not working
94. Don't show TF to enemy player (in case it happens)
95. Troop/supply can unload from TF at an enemy 'dot' base, but once base captured, unloading is almost impossible. Treat 'dot' base as no base for unloading purposes
96. AI swapping aircraft to different nationalities on reinforcement
97. Pilot training HI expenditure was not set in some cases
98. Strategic movement type not carried to 'set all follow/march' units
99. Missing '*' next to AA on class upgrade display
Quote100. Disbanding VS group when not returning wasn't merged
101. New scenario LCU move direction not always correct
102. Writeoff any active ships that are in enemy port base. Possible bug if ship repairing when base captured
103. CV groups should retain resize capability when moved back to ship. In general, any ship-based group which is carrier trained can be resized.
104. Possible overflow error when build list of ships
105. Change direction when set for direct move. Added description to March Direction on screen to help identify when direct move is set
106. Devices in TOE of less than 3 could cause subunits not to rebuild
107. TF destination (unload at) not allowing some TFs to return home
108. Direct move fix last patch broke scenario start move setup
109. Missing seaplane expenditure on repair attempts
110. Correct TF patrol issue when no destination hex
111. Bug in activating barge that could disband random TF (DCB)
112. Aligned unit type and suffix to coorect 'strangeness'
113. Low endurance ships not always using fuel for small moves
114. Some ships with system damage excluded from autobuild TFs
115. Some liquid capacity not used on xAK type ships
116. Stop multiple combats where more than 500 units in a stack
117. Fixed LCU device repair bug
118. Setting same destination won't clear march distance
119. City attack not allowing 'cities' and 'ports' to be bombed. Just the first type found.
120. Made emergency mobiliation forces arrive as delay 1 so get correctly setup
121. Moving units try to build non-base forts (using supply) which are zero'ed - wasted supply
122. Ignore empty convoys when checking for arrivals
123. Issue with '0' AV units continually retreating in combat
124. Adjust ship fuel after upgrade/conversion by adjusting ship/base fuel levels
125. Catered for only 2 ships in TF that becomes crippled
126. Flak factor could be randomly reduced when checking TF flak numbers
127. Flak calculation incorrect for land units
128. Ship-based groups could fly with torp if no torpedo slot on ship
129. Enemy base damage impacting ability to use paratroops
130. Tweaked Isolated units without supply can lose more devices
131. Fixed Retain extra data from fragment when parent restored from fragment
132. Fixed Auto-base capture not kicking in if non-combat friendly unit present
133. Fixed Group upgrade not performed if ANY fragment present on or off-map
134. Fixed retreat test for isolated units in supply phase
135. Protected use of 'unload at' destination when no destination is present that could cause TF to run off to some other destination
136. Correct display of port building % - out by factor of 10 on display
137. Port/AF attack only against bases
138. Correct barge rebuilding due to 1123n
139. Units could retreat from combat without triggering pursuit
140. CAP range not accounted for when flying with DTs in transport intercept
141. Show '0' port if ships sighted
142. Ships unable to repair should be able to go to crew-repairs (as long as no other limits)
143. AI issue with resource movement by TF
144. Port refuelling when lowest endurance ship in TF doesn't need fuel
145. Ships in port with full fuel should have full endurance
146. Fix AI over-diverting TFs to top off fuel (courtesy of Don)
147. Unloading unit attack mode not correct in some shock attacks
148. If base in hex belonged to enemy, the LCU display would still show some 'base' info (eg supply)
149. Damaged planes in reserve could interfer with normal plane repairs
150. LBA flying from small AFs sometimes
151. Setting patrol boundary could set destination on random TF.
152. Some errors in ship transfers due to tonnage limits
153. Error in setting Ground Reinforcements globally off by menu option
154. Cleared destination data on parent unit when rebuilding
155. Auto rebuilt Chinese squads are not affect by randomization. Other devices may have some randomly disrupted rather than lose the devices due to the randomization
156. Stop in-game update from wiping pilot HI cost
157. Forming TF in base with large ships does not undock TF.
158. Corrected replacement delay when rebuilding split air groups.
159. Tender causing resource TF not to finish loading
160. Fixed Potential to only service 150 mines if more than one ACM present
161. Fixed altitude reporting error when altitude less than 6000'.
162. Normally non-trained carrier group on a ship wont take replacements. Docked ship (in port >2 or in TF docked) should allow this.
163. Pilot losses caused be bombs (as in bombardments) to pilots was adjusting the Allied counts and not Japaense ones.
New
1. Show Port re-arm level on ship list screens at base. Does not account for tenders, just the port
2. On ship display, class ammo level will be in GREEN if weapon can be reloaded at base. Tenders not counted
3. When showing mine device on ship, show '!' next to mine ammo if can reload at base
4. Ability to transfer ship in TF screen directly (disband) to the base in the hex. Quick method to remove damaged ships from TF
5. New filter for "non-building" devices in Industry pool screen
6. New filter for "non-building" aircraft in Air Replacement pool screen
7. On base list, an indicator is shown next to port value if any friendly mines (*) or enemy mines (^) detected
8. New symbol setting of 19 for Commando/raider type unit. If there are extra icons in the 'button6..' image files, then these will be shown. If not, by default there are shown as standard parachute unit icons
9. Air/port damage and building is shown in base mouse over
10. On base list, an indicate 'b' is shown next to port/af that have building turned on
11. TF can be routed to stay within coastal hexes as much as possible
12. On Top Pilot screen show the 'ace' cut-off value if more than 1
13. Added option on group and LCU reinforcement screen to turn off replacements if game originally started with gloabal replacements ON.
14. Current base can get supply returned to it when reserve planes returned which were originally supplied from another base
15. Unit type filter on Troop Loading screen
16. Report killed ground units if not in combat report
17. "In port" and "In TF" filters for forming/transferring new TFs
18. Set all ships to current repair mode in base Repair screen
19. Add a cargo factor for the 3-day supply when showing Amphib TF for troop loading. Removed additional cargo factor (x4) but kept 3-day supply when showing Amphib TF for troop loading
20. Extended class name to some of the screens that have a mouse-over on the ship name.
21. Show Electronics data in in-game database view
22. Ability to change combat/strat mode in Load TF screen
23. Indicate moving unit on Location column mouse-over on army unit list
24. Show Upgrade and Replacement option by LCU on army unit list
25. Added message when LCU can't march directly to a hex
26. Added ability to return supply-driven ships to the pool from ship list screen. Slight menu alignment changes.
27. Added reinforcement numbers for small craft to show as (x/y), where x is normal delay and y is delayed but built (no additional building costs)
Changed
1. AF of 8+ have AV support doubled for purposes of determing support for air operations (complements fix 18 above)
2. Permanently increased pilot array to 70K
3. Increased number of air combat rounds are a factor of total aircraft involved
4. Allowed submap to submap movement if land connected for land units. Should have been so as per Andrew Brown
5. Restored the 'space' key operation for AI games. Added Cntl-Z to act as the quick message delay toggle instead
6. Aircraft being grounded for maintenance factors in durability also. This will spread out the maintenace a bit more
7. Support device replacements won't decrease the overall experience of LCU units. This does not alter the overall EXP change due when any replacements are received.
8. For symbol type 19, the unit acts as if a parachute type. There should be a distinction between the two but could break current games.
9. Some LCU Prep points may be retained if unit is experienced
10. Treating planes under maintenance as Reserves when calculating planes on ship if group is at maximum size
11. Added DT_ASW to aircraft weapon display (can still be used as weapon, but not shown on screen)
12. Cancelling from 'Form new TF' will return to original TF rather than close the TF screen
13. Only allow a/c weapon upgrade if profiling on to protect incorrect data in old scenarioes
14. Removed group type of CHUTAI from small unit check for overloaded AF check
15. Added any group with maximum size of <9 as small unit for overloaded AF check
16. Allow disabled planes in withdrawing groups to go to pool if base in mainland USA or Japan, rather than treated as losses
17. Mission run-in speed change. In some cases, TF can switch to mission speed for quick move in a phase (bombardment, near destination). The check for the distance to destination was based solely on max phase move (ie 12 hex) not the actual mission speed. The check has been changed to use the mission speed rather than the max 12 hex.
18. Increased effect of same air hq and group leader (and removed raid leader affect) on raid coordination
19. Removed 'torpedo failed' message when no hits made by sub
20. Land based flak influenced by device's 'accuracy' value inline with naval flak
21. Split LCU Upgrade from Replacement so both can be used independently
22. Allow Crippled (ESCORT) TF to auto-disband into port once it reaches its Home base
23. Auto-disbanded Escort TF with heavy damage (>50 float or >70 system) in port 3+ go into Pierside repair
24. Adjusted air filter to right justify in order stop overruns on wide font
25. Suppressed build rate if device has to be built from production/resources
26. Restored original code that allowed LI,REF to produce when enemy LUC in hex
27. Partially restore original code that allowed HI to produce, but only if no enemy LCU or for port >3, no enemy TF in hex
28. Restored original downgrading of device for arriving Japanese LCU if unable to fully satisfy from pool before dropping by 75% (production on)
29. Allow overdue ship groups to withdraw from ship in base hex rather than move ashore
30. Tweak TF transfer screen for ships in TF
31. Allow carrier based groups to pick out of range city attack. Inline with port/af attack
32. Show on LCU screen if enemy in next hex and/or crosssing river in movement
33. Check for enemy in hex only when moving into hex, allow move if own base present, or moving unit stronger than enemy AV, or no enemy combat units, or friendly combat units present – was interring with AI
34. Reverse base checking order for supply movement every 3rd turn. High numbered bases sometimes missed out on supply if in a nest of low numbered bases.
35. Allow AI to return to the supply pool some small ships. This also corrects the player returning small ships to the pool and having to pay Shipyard building points again.
36. Upgrading ships with any cargo will attempt to offload it while in port (ie not part of TF) so can start upgrade.
37. Units with static squad/engineer devices can't retreat. This is inline with the design but did not work if there were none left in the unit.
38. Re-arranged air transport intercept for messages
39. Naval bombardment sometimes stopped short range ships from firing if longer range ones present
40. Changed Allow inactive pilots to be selected if group 100% training
41. Maxed out ship ops on refueling
42. Add right-clock to 'Refuel ships in list' for ammo rather than fuel
43. Replenish from port with 'no refuel option' will attempt to replenish ammo only
44. Global replacement OFF now includes upgrades for reinforcements
45. Mark as "loaded" for ships that cannot load troops in Fast Transport TF – was stopping load process from ending
46. LCU don't start to move until unpacked (use to be that this only applied to units starting a STRATEGIC_MOVE)
47. Limit return fire from LCU in defend/bombard stance when being bombarded only.
48. Add option to activate pilots in a group
49. Modified ACM to use the ship's endurance/fuel rather than port fuel
50. Undocked TF in home base was not expending any endurance, although it does in a non-home base. Such TFs will randomly expend a small amount of endurance.
51. Added air groups filter to loading TF screen, and made items not selectable if filter is off
52. When checking for low ASW ammo, ignore ships with NO ASW weapons as distinct from having no ammo available.
53. Handle case where top HQ is also a Command Hq attached to another Command Hq. Not really expected.
Notes
1. The main HQs (slots 1-27 and 100-134 for Japanese and Allied respectively) in a scenario should not change player or HQ, even if not in play. These original HQs are used by the AI routines so changing or deleting them can put the AI off. Changing other elements should be okay.
2. Clarification to weapon filters for aircraft:
PM_CITY_ATTACK 1 // used for city attacks
PM_NAVAL_ATTACK 2 // used for naval attacks
PM_NAVAL_ATTACK2 4 // alternate for naval attack (like torp replacement)
PM_LAND_ATTACK 8 // used for land (ground) attack
PM_PORT_ATTACK 16 // used for port attack
PM_AF_ATTACK 32 // used for AF attack
PM_ASW_ATTACK 64 // used for ASW attack
Dropped any reference to secondary values for land and AF as they served no special use.
3. New symbol 19 (Commando/raider) was added in build 1112. This acts like symbol 13 in games started before 1123.
In newer games, parachute symbol (13) units can drop from planes, and commando symbol (19) units can be moved by submarine. Both types can be moved by seaplane to an enemy base.
If there is no specific art for units with symbol 19, then it defaults to the symbol 13 art. The art is in "Button6_AUS.bmp" files; the next block at the end of current file.
Clarification changes
1. Some clarification and changes in regard to use of the Soviet Motherland bases. These bases are those defined as having an original Soviet hex ownership of SOV_UNION (90), MONGOLIA(91) or TANNU_TUVA(92).
1. Allied non-Soviet groups can't transfer to Soviet Motherland bases
2. Allied non-Soviet LCUs can't move into Soviet Motherland hexes
3. Alied non-Soviet LCUs can be landed by ship or air at Soviet Motherland bases after Soviets are activated, but can't move
4. Allied non-Soviet TFs or ships can't replenish from Soviet Motherland ports, even if disbanded in port.
5. Allied merchant ships assigned to Soviet Hqs will become Soviet ships permanently
6. Re-assigning base command of Soviet Motherland bases needs to also be Soviet
dear lord. I'm currently using whatever the latest beta patch is at - is the consensus to move to this I take it?
I wish I'd picked it up during the Christmas sale. :(
You gotta hand it to those guys: they never, ever quit on this game.
Quote from: glen55 on March 16, 2015, 10:48:25 PM
You gotta hand it to those guys: they never, ever quit on this game.
Because it takes so long to finish as well.
Quote from: republic on March 16, 2015, 07:51:43 PM
I wish I'd picked it up during the Christmas sale. :(
I did but I think it might be easier to get PhD than to learn how to play this game. :D
Quote from: bbmike on March 17, 2015, 06:34:31 AM
Quote from: republic on March 16, 2015, 07:51:43 PM
I wish I'd picked it up during the Christmas sale. :(
I did but I think it might be easier to get PhD than to learn how to play this game. :D
LOL....yes, like the old expression, 'it isn't rocket science'.....well this game is!!
Not really a propos of anything in particular, other than the fact that I recently re-took up a witp ae grand campaign i left off over 2 years ago, one where i had gotten all the way to... December 30, 1941. (I know, why not just re-start.... because the first turn is such a bitch, that's why)...
anyway, i am so blown away by this that i wanted to bring it up:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3696410 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3696410)
Chemkid's breathtaking, stunning map has completely transformed this game for me. I'm not exaggerating. The stock WitP AE map always made my eyes bleed -- it's just hideous, there's no way around it. Chemkid's maps make what had been one of the least inviting thing about WitP one of its most inviting. They're just beautiful.
And as if that's not enough, he also produced a topographical map as well, although I prefer the ones in the link above.
Anyhoo -- if you're thinking of picking up WitP AE again... make *sure* you use one of Chemkid's amazing overhauled maps... O0
Great share, but I would not recommend these maps to a new person trying to learn the game. The art is too uniform and does not reflect several hex terrain modifiers you find on the stock map.
While this might not be a problem for the biggest part, you do get less info from the new map , despite it being a true work of art and a wonderfully looking map!'
Quote from: Yskonyn on July 16, 2015, 04:08:02 PM
Great share, but I would not recommend these maps to a new person trying to learn the game. The art is too uniform and does not reflect several hex terrain modifiers you find on the stock map.
While this might not be a problem for the biggest part, you do get less info from the new map , despite it being a true work of art and a wonderfully looking map!'
+1
Interesting point. Land combat in witp is a bit of an afterthought for me, although I suppose if I played PBEM it might be less so.
Check out this other masterpiece for Chemkid though -- may fit the bill better in term of modeling terrain:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3599038 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3599038)
The topo map is even less clear IMO. :)
But still, it does make the map look better. I just prefer getting more info from it and prefer the stock map.
I've been dipping my toes into this again, since I've become so fond of ASL. :)
Might I suggest this article (print it): http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3249215&mpage=1&key=�
An excellent basic tutorial by Gradenko2000 over at Matrix.
Then watch this playlist, where gRaider basically runs through Gradenko2000's post and record it in the form of a video tutorial 'walkthrough'. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXeRSW0IdSTd2NygEkAzn64mJRd3fX5gD
It helped me pretty well. The only thing it does not go into the supply, but a Matrix search brings up plenty of posts.
Question: When you do the Grand Campaign, are all the supply routes all set up on Auto and you can just tweak? Or do you actually have to set each and every one up? Think this is the biggest fear for me with ever attempting the GC!
Quote from: Tuna on July 17, 2015, 03:27:17 PM
Question: When you do the Grand Campaign, are all the supply routes all set up on Auto and you can just tweak? Or do you actually have to set each and every one up? Think this is the biggest fear for me with ever attempting the GC!
you have to do them on your own
Quote from: undercovergeek on July 17, 2015, 03:29:05 PM
Quote from: Tuna on July 17, 2015, 03:27:17 PM
Question: When you do the Grand Campaign, are all the supply routes all set up on Auto and you can just tweak? Or do you actually have to set each and every one up? Think this is the biggest fear for me with ever attempting the GC!
you have to do them on your own
Yup. But if you take the time to set it up right it's only a few hours of pain for many hundreds of hours of payoff. But setting it all up sucks. WitP:AE is more about managing logistics than it is about warfighting IMO.
Tuna and I are muddling through a game. I'm having problems setting up supply convoys. Do you have to limit yourself to one type of good to haul for an entire task force? I'm trying to move cargo and fuel to a base in low supply state but I can't seem to get my TF to load both even though I have AKs and AOs assigned to it. It'll load one or the other but not both. What am I missing?
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on July 17, 2015, 08:11:13 PM
Tuna and I are muddling through a game. I'm having problems setting up supply convoys. Do you have to limit yourself to one type of good to haul for an entire task force? I'm trying to move cargo and fuel to a base in low supply state but I can't seem to get my TF to load both even though I have AKs and AOs assigned to it. It'll load one or the other but not both. What am I missing?
I think you'll need to split and merge afterwards - iirc there's a load fuel or load supplies but not load everything
If this is going to be a regular run you can automate it
Thanks. I'll give that a try.
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on July 17, 2015, 08:11:13 PM
Tuna and I are muddling through a game. I'm having problems setting up supply convoys. Do you have to limit yourself to one type of good to haul for an entire task force? I'm trying to move cargo and fuel to a base in low supply state but I can't seem to get my TF to load both even though I have AKs and AOs assigned to it. It'll load one or the other but not both. What am I missing?
If you put an AK and a TK/AO in the same convoy, set the mission type to "Cargo" and then choose "Load Supplies" on the next screen, the TK/AO will default to loading fuel while the AK loads supply. I hope that makes sense.
Awesome Thanks!
I think I've found out why my ships would never finish loading. I read this in a guide and it would explain why I can't load my transports.
Quote
Should you have not planned right on the # of ships, it will say "loading troops". If you had enough ships it will say "loading supplies".
You must Cancel Loading or you just might find your ships still sitting in port on turn 2 loading. Note this!
If you build a TF to do a supply run, it will not load supplies until the end of the turn! Note this! Engrave it into your hand! It will be the cause of many screwed up turn #1's.
Now, here's the trap. Aircraft upgrade, factory changes etc all eat up supply. You ships are sitting there waiting to load that very same supply!
Should you burn through the supply doing *other* things, you will have your ships still sitting at the port when turn #2 starts, having not moved yet because they have run into the rule that prevents the base giving up all it's supply!
Hmm does this mean that SDR is loading troops! Should I be concerned?!!!!
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on July 22, 2015, 10:26:10 AM
I think I've found out why my ships would never finish loading. I read this in a guide and it would explain why I can't load my transports.
Quote
Should you have not planned right on the # of ships, it will say "loading troops". If you had enough ships it will say "loading supplies".
You must Cancel Loading or you just might find your ships still sitting in port on turn 2 loading. Note this!
If you build a TF to do a supply run, it will not load supplies until the end of the turn! Note this! Engrave it into your hand! It will be the cause of many screwed up turn #1's.
Now, here's the trap. Aircraft upgrade, factory changes etc all eat up supply. You ships are sitting there waiting to load that very same supply!
Should you burn through the supply doing *other* things, you will have your ships still sitting at the port when turn #2 starts, having not moved yet because they have run into the rule that prevents the base giving up all it's supply!
I don't think I've ever encountered this problem -- are you sure there isn't a more straightforward explanation? A couple of possibilities occur to me off the top of my head --
- Did you "verify load" after selecting troops to load? If you don't, the screen will still say "LOADING UNIT" even though it is not, in fact, loading anything until you've hit the "Verify" button, and then "Confirmed". Not sure why this has to be such a convoluted process, but it is.
- Are you loading troops from a small port? Small ports lacking Naval Support take forever to load and unload anything. Especially if the ship in question cannot be docked due to tonnage restrictions, but has to load 'over the beach.'
- You have your troops in Strategic Mode, not Combat Mode. Troops can be loaded in APs in Combat Mode for storming enemy beaches, but otherwise should be in the much more efficient Strategic Mode if you're just moving them from point A to point B.
Apologies if these seem too obvious to mention. I just mention them because that explanation you quote seems very obscure to me -- I find it hard to believe that's the cause of your difficulty.
Yup, I verified the load requirements and added some wiggle room in the form of an extra TK. It's a big port but it's got a yellow exclamation point so I think I might be trying to draw more supplies than its willing to give up. It's verified and gives me a list of troops loaded so far vs. total but it's stuck at a certain number and isn't getting any higher at the end of the turns. All the troops are in strategic mode.
strategic mode is the mode for using the railways AFAIK
if its an amphib TF, theyll load in combat mode - what mode is the TF in?
Quote from: Silent Disapproval Robot on July 22, 2015, 04:30:29 PM
Yup, I verified the load requirements and added some wiggle room in the form of an extra TK. It's a big port but it's got a yellow exclamation point so I think I might be trying to draw more supplies than its willing to give up. It's verified and gives me a list of troops loaded so far vs. total but it's stuck at a certain number and isn't getting any higher at the end of the turns. All the troops are in strategic mode.
Puzzling. Have you tried loading troops and specifying "Do Not Load Supplies" and "Do Not Load Fuel"? If it's getting hung up because it's trying to load supples the port doesn't want to give up, that should allow you to load just the unit's TOE and nothing else.
Out of curiosity, what port is it?
lol.. he can't tell you the port, cause then I'll know!!
Sounds like you are playing a stevedore or port master simulation.
Quote from: RyanE on July 23, 2015, 06:13:40 AM
Sounds like you are playing a stevedore or port master simulation.
LOL...I was thinking the same thing!
Quote from: Rayfer on July 23, 2015, 07:31:52 AM
Quote from: RyanE on July 23, 2015, 06:13:40 AM
Sounds like you are playing a stevedore or port master simulation.
LOL...I was thinking the same thing!
The ship-loading thing becomes second-nature. I played the game for years and it got to be a moderately fun routine. And the thinking about how to get supplies to the front can be kind of interesting in itself. For example you can try to sneak supplies into smaller ports with small slow ships or you can use shipping as bait, or you can spot and sink enemy shipping and so on. A well-timed cruiser or auxiliary raid on small ports can do some damage and so on.
I have no doubt at the importance of it to a war effort, but in a game where you command the entire Pacific War, why would need to actually have to do all that stuff. Couldn't the loading of ships be abstracted a little?
Quote from: RyanE on July 23, 2015, 09:27:51 AM
I have no doubt at the importance of it to a war effort, but in a game where you command the entire Pacific War, why would need to actually have to do all that stuff. Couldn't the loading of ships be abstracted a little?
Alas, there is not much abstraction in WitPAE. I never did very well at the game and I've stopped playing it. The idea of the game is great, but it verges on the unplayable for many reasons.
Quote from: Tuna on July 22, 2015, 08:44:29 PM
lol.. he can't tell you the port, cause then I'll know!!
You keep out of this then! ;)
@RyanE -- commanding the entire PTO means exactly commanding this kind of stuff. A sizable percentage of your total 'fleet' in WitP is just cargo and transport ships. So much of the challenge of the Pacific war was just the logistics of getting stuff from A to B. Logistics are a major challenge in land theaters too, of course, but in dealing with the vast Pacific and Indian oceans circa 1942, multiply the difficulty by 100 or 1000.
One of the things I like about the challenge (and headache) of logistics in WitP is that it makes your real 'toys,' your carriers and capital ships and subs, that much more valuable to you. You have to work so hard to keep your naval war machine running, it just heightens the stakes when you do get into actual battles. Carrier engagements in WitP, at least when playing the grand campaign, are incredibly tense experiences. It just feels like so much is at stake -- a feeling I've never had playing WitE, despite all you have to do to maintain railroads etc. etc.
anyone use witp tracker i have no idea how to load it at all
witp tracker can be a pita to get working. You need to install a 32-bit version of Java 6 or 7, and then run the tracker batch file from that.
I personally find Tracker kind of baffling. I much prefer the Combat Reporter -- in fact I find it essential:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2456864 (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2456864)
This requires Java 7, I believe.
How do i use this combat reporter is there like a tutorial
Does anyone know where I can get the latest version of Tracker? When I go to the Tracker Site the web link isn't working..
https://sites.google.com/site/witptracker/
Edit: Nevermind, I found that if I click on the arrow way over on the right instead of the filename. It works!
Question on the Replenishment Task force for resupplying a TF at sea? How do you set it up? If you say load fuel, will it only load fuel.. What is needed for Task Forces at sea, Fuel and Resources?
I assume you want to do underway refueling (i.e. not at a port) -- you need an oiler (AO) to do this, ordinary tankers cannot. Form a Replenishment TF and have your AO load fuel at a port, doesn't need to load anything else. Then give it a "Meet TF" order and specify "Refuel" for the TF you want to refuel.
Resources are only ever needed for industries located at bases, never for units.
So you don't have any way of replenishing armament for the planes? Except to go back to port? Not that I have issues right now with ammunition.. but just wanted to know ahead of time what I need to do, to keep the TF working at sea.
Boy so much to this game!.. don't know how those guys are doing a Grand Campaign!.. SDR and I are just doing Guadalcanal and we have a lot to learn! But I'm liking it.. lol.. 6 years after I bought it and didn't touch.
Do you mean planes aboard carriers? When you refuel an Air Combat TF at a port, you not only refuel but get fully supplied with ammunition (assuming you have the supply available at said port). What you need to keep an eye on with carriers is the "Sorties" percentage. Every time you fly yer carrier planes (I *believe* including CAP and naval search, although not 100% sure), you use up some of that Sorties value. When it gets to zero, your planes no longer fly. The big USN and IJN fleet carriers have large values, so it takes a good amount of time to completely wear that value down. (Your carriers also carrier a limited number of torpedoes for your torp bombers -- another number to keep an eye on, as that number will diminish quickly).
Otherwise, land-based planes only use Supply. They just draw Supply from the base, that's all that's involved in 'rearming' them. (Note -- confusing, but *only* ships use Fuel. Aircraft 'fuel' is abstracted as Supply.)
Getting plane *replacements* to squadrons that have suffered losses... that's a more complex matter. Long and short, it's not easy to do if you're not at a big base with ample supply and HQs nearby...
In terms of re-arming fleets at sea, not just refuelling? Short answer is -- you can't until later in the war. Underway ammunition replenishment is done by AE auxiliaries, but only in late '43 or '44 do they get the ability to rearm ships at sea. Only way to get your guns reloaded for TFs is to replenish them at ports.
...the game is so freaking complicated, and yet soooo satisfying when you pull something nifty off.
Do you need a supply line from a base, such as in the Phillipines, to the USA to keep fully supplied? If bases are isolated like that will they continue produce supply or will they," Wither on the Vine" so to speak?
Only 2 ways to get supply: (1) move it from place A that has a lot to place B that has a little, or (2) be connected to a land-based network that includes "Small Industry" which produces supply (provided it is supplied with Resources. Simple, right?).
Method 1 is definitely the most efficient way in areas that lack good infrastructure, which is most of the map. On the West Coast, you don't need to necessarily ship supply via TF from, say, San Francisco to Seattle. Both 'bases' are integrated into the land-based supply network via good railroads and roads, so supply can flow between them with relative efficiency.
So, with the Philippines -- bases like Manilla have small amounts of Small Industry (I believe -- don't have the game running atm) and so produce supply. But not much supply. Supply will flow internally, to Clark Field or Bataan. But here's the thing: any isolated landmass that doesn't internally produce supply, you *have* to ship it there from one port to another.
Long and short of it: if you're playing the Allies -- you have little choice but to ship supply via Cargo TFs from the West Coast to Pearl, and thence to SoPac (as well as to Alaska from Pacific Northwest). You have to ship supply from Capetown to India and Burma. Australia and New Zealand are the kickers. They're far from everything and don't really have the capacity to sustain a war effort on their own, in terms of producing Fuel and Supplies. And Oz's internal infrastructure sucks. Darwin is an isolated outpost, and once Japan owns the DEI and New Guinea... getting anything there is extremely hazardous.
Don't play Japan in GC. I've never even tried and have enormous respect for anyone who can do it. Playing Allies is hard enough, playing Japan is 1,000 X harder. Your logistics and production are just insanely complex and precarious...
Quote from: sandman2575 on July 29, 2015, 11:16:36 AM
Do you mean planes aboard carriers? When you refuel an Air Combat TF at a port, you not only refuel but get fully supplied with ammunition (assuming you have the supply available at said port). What you need to keep an eye on with carriers is the "Sorties" percentage. Every time you fly yer carrier planes (I *believe* including CAP and naval search, although not 100% sure), you use up some of that Sorties value. When it gets to zero, your planes no longer fly. The big USN and IJN fleet carriers have large values, so it takes a good amount of time to completely wear that value down. (Your carriers also carrier a limited number of torpedoes for your torp bombers -- another number to keep an eye on, as that number will diminish quickly).
Otherwise, land-based planes only use Supply. They just draw Supply from the base, that's all that's involved in 'rearming' them. (Note -- confusing, but *only* ships use Fuel. Aircraft 'fuel' is abstracted as Supply.)
Getting plane *replacements* to squadrons that have suffered losses... that's a more complex matter. Long and short, it's not easy to do if you're not at a big base with ample supply and HQs nearby...
In terms of re-arming fleets at sea, not just refuelling? Short answer is -- you can't until later in the war. Underway ammunition replenishment is done by AE auxiliaries, but only in late '43 or '44 do they get the ability to rearm ships at sea. Only way to get your guns reloaded for TFs is to replenish them at ports.
...the game is so freaking complicated, and yet soooo satisfying when you pull something nifty off.
Thanks for the clarification, I see the sortie percentage and torp percentage in Tracker, so good to know. I think most likely I will return my carriers to port when needed.. Thanks!
Yeah I stopped playing Australia at the moment I pulled my CV TF into Sydney or Brisbane or somewhere on the east coast and realized all the ports had a fuel of 0. And then I realized that the only way to get fuel to Australia, and hence to my ships, was to ship it all the way from Pearl Harbor. And then I started to get a huge headache looking at the pain of setting up that logistics network. And so that was that. I figured I'd get back to it when I had some "time" and it turns out I never have "time" I want to burn on something like that.
I'm having some issues with my Val dive-bombers throwing themselves face-first into Tuna's guns at Pt. Moresby. He has some nice, juicy ships in the area that I'd love to bomb but the planes often go to the port instead.
I have them ordered to do naval attack but I can't seem to find a way to limit this to just ships. Without specifically assigning a target (I sometimes lose sight of enemy ships) or moving my carriers in such a way that they're out of range of the port but still in range of the ships, is there a way to stop my bombers from killing themselves over the port?
do you have a secondary attack option chosen - naval and then port?