|
SIGSEGV posted:I'm betting he's shipping them to Palembang, because you dared hope he wouldn't have done that. It's a mess, unsuprisingly. Ground and air units that are completely destroyed can be bought back for a political point cost. They'll then spawn as empty containers consisting of a single disabled device in the national home base in anywhere from 30-60 days I think. They then have to reinforce/rebuild by drawing devices from the pools the same way as any other damaged unit. This rate of reinforcement happens based on base size, leader abilities, support squad presence, device availability in the pools, supplies present and probably some more rules, but it'll take months for a large unit like a division to fully rebuild. Some units start as separate sub-units like batallions that can merge into parent brigades/regiments, for instance at game start the Australian Port Moresby Brigade doesn't exist, but the battalions it consists of do, spread around New Guinea. If you can get all the sub-units together in the same place, under the same HQ and in the same movement mode (Strat/combat), the Port Moresby Brigade can be formed, but can then never be split back up into separate battalions again. For division size, some divs also start/spawn as separate sub units(regiments/brigades), but most divisions (though not all) can also be split into 3 sub-units again later. Not actually the original sub-units though, but new ones, all consisting of 1/3 of the devices in the parent, and named like "3rd Marine Div/A" "3rd Marine Div/B" and "3rd Marine Div/C" I'm not sure what happens if for instance "3rd Marine Div/A" is then totally destroyed, if it must be bought back, or if the B and C sub-units can still merge back into the full division, but then missing the devices from the A, and has to pull those devices from the pools. If a unit is split up by loading on different transports, eighter ships or planes, other sub-units called fragments are formed, like "3rd Marine Div/1". If the parent "3rd Marine Div" is then destroyed "3rd Marine Div/1" will transform into the parent "3rd Marine Div" immediately, and can start rebuilding from the pools, no matter how small "3rd Marine Div/1" was, even if it was a single support squad. Fragments will automatically merge with the parent as soon as they're in the same place again automatically assuming the parents mode, but incurring a new pack/unpack delay for the whole parent if they're not the same, and I don't think you can change their HQ independently. So fragments can be cheesed to avoid paying the PP cost, the delay before reforming, and the teleportation of the unit back to home base, but in all cases lost devices must be pulled from the pools, and this will take a lot of time. For the allies it can be quite damaging, as you don't get any extra devices in the pools, and pools are filled by a fixed "production rate" with an end date to signify when that device historically went out of production/use. Because of complicated rules for upgrading devices/TOEs this might result in some units never managing to upgrade their devices and for instance being stuck with some early war artillery in 1945. For the japanese side most devices are produced from thin air when they're used (but not all,
|
#
¿
Feb 20, 2021 02:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Counterpoint: move it the other way and go to war with Peashooters Well, there's at least one PAAC squadron with P-26s in the game so you already do. 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 24, 2021 22:39
|
|
|
Guper posted:Man, it seems like you have really done a number on his Tankers. How much does this hurt the Allies/what does it mean for them? Less ability to run task forces around/difficulty supplying bases? The allies start with 69 tankers (TK) and 21 oilers (AO) total, though 6 of the AOs are tiny Dutch things with low range (3000nm), speed (12kn) and capacity (1500 tons). The allies get about 150 new TKs and about 50 AOs during the war, mostly medium to large, as well as every single Liberty and Victory ship (hundreds) being able to load 500 tons of liquid cargo along with supplies and/or troops (don't load fuel and troops at the same time, please). So every 10 liberty ships crossing the Pacific with supplies equals one medium tankers worth of "extra" fuel cargo. You can load xAKs with just fuel too, but it's not very economical, a Liberty ship can only load about 3000 tons of fuel in the cargo spaces, but with enough ships it works. So hurting their tankers means they can't have ample fuel everywhere, but "just" most places, it's probably not enough to prevent them from doing what they really want to do, but it means that they might not be able to respond to what you do. As in, with no tanker losses they'll quickly be able to stockpile enough fuel in forward bases in every area to refuel a carrier TF on zero notice, so if a target of opportunity pops up they can run in at full speed without worrying about running dry. With severe tanker losses they might only be able to pre-position fuel for their own planned operations, and not for contigencies. Port sizes also come into play, fuel needs trans-shipment from major regional hubs like PH/Colombo/Sydney/Noumea, and that means using smaller tankers, lose too many and you'll have to use xAKs. I mean, this is Midway Eastern Island, in-game this would probably be port size 2 or thereabouts, with a max TF size of 12k tons, and max ship-size of 9k tons. You just can't put a tanker TF of 6 huge tankers direct from LA in there and expect anything to happen, you'll need smaller convoys with smaller ships arriving more often. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2021 00:00
|
|
|
Annoying thing about the IJA light bombers is that (according to wikipedia) they were pretty much all specifically designed to be dive bomber capable, but aren't in-game. Guessing it's a balance issue, that giving the japanese heaps of land-based dive bombers would be too powerful in the anti-shipping role, but it's still annoying. In-game the IJA only gets the ki-48 IIb and IIc as dive bombers. At least the Ki-30 Ann, Ki-32 Mary and Ki-51 Sonia could also be dive bombers, and the Ann and Mary even have useful anti-ship bombs at 1x250kg, same as the Val. The Sonias 4x50kg would be pretty much useless against anything but small merchants though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2021 15:53
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:The game doesn't allow for multiple roles/designations for a single airframe. I know, I meant they could "also be dive bombers" along with the later Lilys, not as a sub-role. (But "attack bomber" is implemented as a check-box that can be applied to any air-frame to allow them full performance at low-level bombing, so as usual, the game is... less than consistent.)
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2021 11:31
|
|
|
Grumio posted:Ground Combat at Paddock (420,69) 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 21, 2021 08:06
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:
He'd also have to have a non-US airHQ at Milne itself, or a US airHQ at PM, to be able to fly with torpedoes out of Milne. (Milne is 5 hexes from PM. The US airHQs have a command range of 5 hexes, the Brits just get 3, and torpedo bombers have to be within command range of an airHQ to fly with torps) As allied airHQ are few and far between at this point in the war, placing one at a forward base like Milne would be risky in the extreme. He almost has to have one at PM though, to help alleviate the overstacking and help with coordination, but the US doesn't get any Marine TB squadrons untill '43 unless the mod added some. Would he even have a single non-swordfish/vildebeest land-based TB squadron atm? The rebuilt devastators from the sunk carrier I guess? Aussie Beuforts also show up later.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:
God knows what effect actually does in game, but the entry itself seems to be based solely on the weight of explosives in the shell in pounds. At least when I looked at the naval guns the effect field in the DB very closely matched the http://www.navweaps.com/ entry for explosive weight on the AP shells. A bit surprising really, that the game doesn't model HE vs AP shells for naval battles, with some random chance based on commanders naval skill and crew XP that they go with the wrong shell type for the target to model target misidentification. I seem to recall it playing an important role both for Hiei at Guadalcanal (had incendiary ammo loaded and in the hoists in preparation for bombarding Henderson Field) and the Battle off Samar, where Kuritas TF might have fired overpenetrating AP at the the DEs and CVEs, thinking they were CAs and CVs, thus partially explaining how light the American losses were. Caconym fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jun 16, 2021 |
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:
Tavoy is also a small base in the Malaria zone, so units there with inadequate support will accumulate fatigue even at rest.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2021 13:15
|
|
|
zetamind2000 posted:Has anyone that plays this game ever tried to do a landing in Tokyo to test how Toyko Bay Fortress holds up in combat? I imagine if it's guarding Tokyo the caliber of its guns must be massive Well, that's the thing, it's actually guarding Yokohama/Yokosuka in-game, the hex to the south of Tokyo proper. That's part of the thing about it, the repeated intel reports about it says "Tokyo Bay Fortress is located at Yokohama/Yokosuka" It's at the entrance of the bay, so it'll have to be traversed by any TFs destined for Tokyo, and I think there's a chance it'll engage any TFs traversing the hex, but it won't engage during any actual landing phases in Tokyo.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2021 10:18
|
|
|
aphid_licker posted:Holy cow that feature must've been a pain to implement In the database it looks quite similar straight ship class refits and land unit TOE upgrades. It's a field on the ship class where you can specify what other ship classes it can convert to, what kind of shipyard is required and how long it takes. The real PITA is defining all the ship classes, because devices have no affinities whatsoever, so you have to hunt down the device-IDs of every device on the ship, or scroll through the entire device table in a drop down. Everything from naval rifles or malayan milita squads to engineer vehicles is in one giant "devices" list, and the game happily lets you mix and match freely, the device just wont do anything if it's of the wrong type for the unit container you put it in. So a ship is an instance of a ship class, and a land unit is an instance of a TOE, and those are just containers for a set of devices.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2022 22:03
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:
Do you have all pilots equally good at low attack and normal ground attack, or do you find the altitude bonus overrides skill that much? I'd think pilots at say 70 Grd and 40-50 lowGrd would be more effective at 7k than 5k, that is, to stay just above the 6k cutoff so they use the right skill, but I haven't tested it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2022 00:08
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:
Goddamm this game. I've played two full allied campaigns against the AI, ran 80 turns of testing on the air ASW mechanics myself (conclusion: normal naval search is almost totally worthless compared to asw missions regardless of pilot skills), followed every goon LP for years, and read most of the matrix forums, and never found a peep about this. I knew 1k feet was especially good, but not that 2k feet used normal bombing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:Churchill is going to be.. Mildly upset here. Perhaps even irritated. He.. May be drinking a litle more than usual, mightways. Yeah, hard to starve Bengal when it's occupied by the Japanese
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2022 15:52
|
|
|
Can't you use them for asw patrols? I don't think I've ever seen an ASW TF react (I assume because TFs move before the air phase, and sub detection ratings degrade a lot at the start of every 12h pulse, so any sightings from the last air phase degrade before the ASW TFs get to react?) so they pretty much have to stumble upon the same hex as the sub, but decent for choke points?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2022 02:59
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:
A unit that lacks devices will slowly replenish them from the "replacement pool" or from the appropriate manufacturing points, based on dice rolls. Greater chance when the unit is in a major base, with an HQ nearby, with lots of supply, and if the unit is in "rest" mode I think. High fatigue and disruption are probably maluses, but I'm not sure. When you buy back a destroyed unit it spawns with only a fraction of it's devices, and most of them also disabled. Filling out an empty division-size unit will take months at rest in a major base, even if there's no lack of devices/manufacturing points in the pools. The Japanese can manufacture most devices directly using manufacturing points, while the allies only get replacements from the replacement pool directly. Some limited devices like radar sets cannot be manufactured by the Japanese eighter, but only drawn from the pools. Devices that only come from the replacement pool generates at a set amount per month. Manufacturing points are produced by dedicated facilities, along with the well known oil, refinery, resources, light industry and heavy industry, there's also armament (for artillery), vehicle (for.... vehicles, like tanks) and manpower (for squads) facilities in some cities, mostly in the Home Islands. Armament and vehicle points take heavy industry points to create, accumulate if unused, and are consumed when a unit draws replacements.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2022 00:39
|
|
|
Kylaer posted:Thank you for explaining. So since Pharnakes controls Calcutta and it has a lot of industry, will units parked there replenish to full, or do they have to be shipped all the way back to Japan to recuperate? They'll replenish anywhere, the points are very fungible. Don't need industry nearby, it's all handled by global pools.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2022 01:02
|
|
|
Engineer vehicles and heavy guns unload _really_ slowly from amphib TFs with non AKA/APA/LST support as I learned from trying to put a heavy gun battery at Tarawa once. At port level 0 with an amphib TF I think it was just one device per day...
|
|
#
¿
Mar 27, 2022 21:27
|
|
|
Gort posted:wait, why are they worse Because the historical Japan was worse off later in the war, and this game chooses to reflect that by later war Japanese squad-device "upgrades" actually being downgrades. No, this makes _no_ sense according to what has actually happened in this campaign, why do you ask?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2022 22:11
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:
Source seems to be this: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10683&t=400722&start=20 It's not that search arcs are bugged, but it's possible that the 360-degree search is, so that it gives slightly better results than arcs. If so that would mean arcs are pointless for anything other than avoiding searching specific hexes, like ports with heavy CAP. Seems like the detection malus for 360 degree search is too small, or the automatic 4-hex search is used for all hexes in plane range or something. Or the malus is just applied to detection level, meaning you get more hits, but lower DLs on the hits, we can't be sure when the test criteria was "The detected TF reported seeing a plane" and not the actual DLs the spotting side got. If the "better" search just results in a lot of detection level 1 hits, they will be reset to DL 0 on the next 12-hour pulse, so effectively not very useful and may not even be visible (I'm not sure if the order phase takes place within a 12-hour pulse or between them, that is if the reduction of DLs happen between last turns day pulse and the orders phase or during turn resolution just before the night pulse.). "Interesting, but needs more testing" would be my verdict.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2024 02:51
|
|
|
Caconym posted:Source seems to be this: https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10683&t=400722&start=20 I'll post this in the other thread too, but wow... I ran some tests and I'll never set another search arc again. I modded the Coral Sea scenario to test, for manageability. (tested in beta 1123) I tested with three japanese TFs stationary in different hexes, but all at range 9 from Port Moresby. The TFs ranged from 6 ships at 25k tons, 16 ships at 61k tons and a carrier TF at 10 ships and 91k tons. (TFs 4, 7 and 1 in the scenario) All three were within a 60 degree arc.  The search squadron was VP-11 out of Port Moresby, flying PBY-4s, with 55-70 NavS-skill and ~70 exp.  I ran the test for a total of 40 turns, so 120 potential detections (3 TFs x 40 turns). 10 turns each at 30% search with arc (single pass) and 60% search with arc (double pass), and then 10 turns each at 30% and 60% search and no arc. Range 10 for every test.  Detections and spottings were pretty much equal between arc and no arc, going up with the number of planes flown. At 30% search I spotted the TFs about 60% of the time, at 60% search about 80% of the time. But! The no arc planes got double(!) the detection levels. 10/10 detections were common in the no arc group, and 5/5 more common in the arc group (I never got more than 9/9 in the arc group, and that only once). From 0/0 unspotted to DL 12/10 on the first day of 60% search, no arc...   Weather didn't seem to matter much if at all for search, I got 10/10s in thunderstorms and 1/4s and total misses in clear sky. So setting search arcs seems to be actively harmful even if you KNOW the enemy is at that bearing, to say nothing of the chance of the enemy being outside the arc. It's of course possible the effect changes with increasing range, I think I'll run some more tests at max betty range just in case. Other trivia: - If a TF reported being seen in the OPS log, is was always visible to the enemy on the map next turn. The flavor text (snooped, followed, shadowed, sighted, detected etc.) did not seem to matter. - If a TF reported being seen by a specific plane model (PBY-4 Catalina) it was always the correct plane, but when they reported generics like Float Plane, Patrol, Recon or LevelBomber, it was almost never correct (but they at least never mistook the Catalinas for carrier planes).  - The "TF Spotted" mouseover text the japanese got was NOT always correct, that is, they were commonly spotted even when "TF Spotted" was missing, but never unspotted if it was present. - The OPS log of the observing (allied) side was garbage, and never generated a message for actually observed TFs. This has to be another bug. The only exception was when they reported seeing a specific ship or ship class, the positions of those were correct. But that happened once in those 40 turns and 85 observations. None of the other 84 were visible in the Allied OPS log, ONLY on-screen during the turn resolution and on the map in the next orders phase. Every single "PBY-4 from VP-11 reports X japanese ships at Y, Z heading foo, speed bar" was random bullshit like you get even when no enemy is present.  When I think of the collective player-hours spent painstakingly setting search arcs through the years... 
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2024 01:33
|
|
|
I... ah, found something else... Naval search (and ASW) range is bugged. It stops at range - 1. Search at range 9 will never find a TF at range 9, only at 8 or closer. Same for ASW, if you want to search to range 2 you need to set range 6, not 4. (ASW ranges are halved, rounded down). I tested with odd ranges like 3 and 5 as well, in case the subtraction happened before the halving but to no effect (so the actual range is range - 1 for NavS and (range/2)-1 for ASW). Naval strikes themselves will fly to the full range set. This has rather serious implications for naval strike squadrons set to some percentage search, you have to set them to 1 range more than you want to strike at, with the implication that if something else spots an enemy at that range your strike will fly there, maybe with extended loadouts or without escorts...
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2024 12:20
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Oh for Christ sakes. That would explain a lot for me. So my Cats flying ASW missions at range thirteen are only going out to range six? Nono. They should only go to 6, the halved ASW range (rounded down) is in the manual and everything. But they only go to range 5.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2024 15:00
|
|
|
SerthVarnee posted:The first one is because they are playing a modded scenario since they both got tired of the regular one where Japan has them until they lose them, unless they want to deal with billions of years worth of clicking to set up pilot training programs in the background. Regarding pilots Pharnakes, did you adjust the japanese pilot replacement rates as well? In a straight up scen 2 I belive the replacement rate has been set so high that the Heavy Industry costs of pilots ends up crippling the economy, and gives you a lot more pilots than you could ever need. In real terms it ends up being a nerf instead of a boost to the japanese player. So I assume you adjusted it, but I'm curious what replacement rates you ended up at.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 13:34
|
|
|
Pharnakes posted:I have no opperational plans beyond "win in India" which translates into be as conservative as possible with airframes everywhere else so we can achieve that. So yes, we will be winding our necks in considerably, and soon enough the first Essexes will be out, which won't bring carrier parity but will mean we can no longer just do whatever the gently caress without really worrying. I'm on my first japanese playthrough against the AI and I haven't quite cracked the "China code". I've killed 10k Chinese AV, but that just means Chunking now has 6k AV and growing, and I don't see my own 10k AV doomstack cracking that in a timely manner. Do you have to take pains to not kill Chinese units entirely and beeline Chungking and Changsa? I keep worrying that the mostly empty shells will cut me off and stop resupply to my doomstack. I thought I'd go for the northern route from Sian into the Chungking Valley to ignore the dug-in units in the bad terrain in the south, and the river crossing into Chungking itself, but charging though the south might be faster? In my mind there's a clock starting when you nuke Loyang before a lot of units respawn and that timeline is just too tight. I'll trivially win a major victory on 1/1/43 barring a miracle, so I'll have to mod VPs extensively to prolong the war for another time, but I _want_ to conquer China. Caconym fucked around with this message at 12:32 on Mar 12, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 12:29
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I think you basically have to make a beeline for Chunking as soon as possible, nuking anything in your way. The shattered divisions reform, yeah, but at a very low strength. Also China is critically low on supplies throughout the entire war, so the faster you can cut the Burma Road the better. The Burma road supplies show up on the border, in a base i can't remember. Tsuyung? Chunking gets another 400 supplies/day for free regardless as long as it's controlled by the Chinese, so the respawned units can't really be starved out, and sit behind forts in 3x-terrain across a river. Ugh. Shattered units reform at 1/3 strength, but the max of a chinese corps is 700+ AV and they're never at full strength to begin with, so you basically have to fight them again at about the same strength they had the first time around.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 12, 2024 15:17
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Oh, i thought the BR supply appeared in Chunking too, but I guess it makes sense to spawn at the terminus town. Just a few regiments, totaling a few hundred AV. Guards Tank Division with 200 tanks spawns in Cam Ranh Bay in Vietnam in the spring of '42, but that's a bit late and is also unrestricted and better used elsewhere. Tanks are pretty invulnerable to Chinese infantry, but they can be overrun with pure AV and forced to retreat, taking heavy losses from the retreat, so they need infantry support, and ideally open terrain.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2024 00:25
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:Its just Pharnakes taking an IJNAF squadron and using it in India. A really good example to look at is the G3M/Nell bomber squadron photo at the bottom of the most recent update, compared to the subsequent shot of the Helens. The Nells are marked Navy, the Helens Army. Ki-15 (IJA)/C5M(IJN) Babs reconnaissance plane is the only one that comes to mind, but even that had variants, and are represented in-game as different planes, needing different factories.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2024 12:43
|
|
|
Jobbo_Fett posted:
Stock witpae has like 20 different japanese aircraft engines. Some are widely used, some not so much. Sometimes the same plane family suddenly starts using a new engine on the next model, so gently caress you if you didn't pay attention and planned ahead, no new planes for you until you scale up engine production. There's also a research bonus for new plane models if you have more than 500 of the right engines in the pool, so you _better_ have a massive excel sheet planning all of this out in advance, including how many supplies you are willing to burn on factory retooling. Caconym fucked around with this message at 02:05 on Apr 24, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2024 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Quote still isn't edit.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2024 02:03
|
|