Happycat
-
Posts
318 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Happycat
-
-
Are there tables anywhere that show the percentage chance of various types of weather for each zone, according to month/season?
-
I have a Japanese paratroop unit in Batavia that for some reason will not convert to a transport and sail somewhere else. It’s readiness and morale is high, so no prob there---also, the port and city are in good supply now. Has anyone heard of any problem like this?
If it would ever stop raining, I would just fly him to where I want him (not far) but y'all know what Burma and the DEI weather is like
-
I suppose that we could look at intelligence as an abstract form of reconnaissance, and certainly the higher the level researched, the better it gets. But the Japanese can only research to level 2, while the US can get to 5. It might be interesting to give the Japanese the same (or close to same) potential, and see if researching that gives the Japanese the desired results (i.e. more spotting of enemy ships).
-
Yep that is the reason - also China has an auto-activation so it will join eventually anyway, plus you can hurry it along with diplomacy if you wish.
Guys - Please read my documents section! It has spreadsheets that explain most things, at least to some extent. If you don't have excel MS has free viewers.
I don't read manuals, why would I read the documents?
Kidding! I'll read the docs. Thanks!
-
An interesting 'what if" decision script awaited me at the final surrender of the Poles.
The question was whether the Germans would like to honor the Ribbentrop/Molotov pact of nonaggression and accept the partition of Poland or since my Panzers were located in the East, continue on?
Well, I decided to play it historical and not violate the treaty, but now I've been thinking about it. Obviously I believe it would have meant immediate hostilities with the USSR, which is interesting.
So to continue this parody of WW2, I'll ask the forum, and depending on whether Happycat will allow me to do the turn over, should I go East?
This is it forum...your one chance to play God, and change the events, rewrite history. So is it East or West?
Go east. I'll look after things in the west for you
-
I've tried, and I've come to the conclusion that I can't get it to do that, because I think the AI wants to know what it's going up against, and because of that it needs a carrier to show all the enemy units. Effectively it's a christmas present to the Allied player, but it does give away all of his units locations, so it's not as good as it looks.
That possibly is why this happens. I haven't seen it happen in the Midway scenario that comes with the game, however. Anyway, the human player can chose to decline this gift if he wants a more realistic/reasonable game.
-
Do you guys remeber SC2 v 1.08, there China was a minor so maybe that's were Nupremal got his idea from. There are a lot of similarites between those two maps if you take a close look at them.
Yes, but by 1939 China had been at war with Japan for over two years. In this mod, it will be necessary for Japan to DOW China, pay to transport units over there, and fight like hell to try to get to the historical lines of December 1941. There might be some grand design behind all of this, but it escapes me.
-
I have asked this question a couple of different ways, in a couple of different places, but I still have no answer.
Why is China neutral in the Nurpremal World mod? There is no historical basis for this, and I am wracking my brain trying to think how this impacts upon the gameplay. Since the World mod is otherwise very well thought out, I have to assume there was a good reason for this decision too.
Anyone? Nupremal? Are you there?
-
Happycat,
I wouldn't rule out playing my mod against the AI you worked on it to after all. Kruppt808 you're more than capable of playing against the AI and getting quite a challenge regardless of the side you pick in this mod. btw SeaMonkey got steamrolled when he played the AI as Japan, in the meantime I didn't. That AI that's in place can be challenging, the only problem is Japan doesn't do what I want her to do after implementing the battle for the Aleutians. I think I'm going to move the Soryu up to Hiroshima so that Japan can launch a surprise offensive against the Americans (Japan needs one carrier near a home port to do this offensive).
Did you fix the problem with the Japanese carrier wandering into the middle of the American fleet on the first turn? That was the basis for my "hedging" over playing the AI. For an Allied human player, the enemy carrier presenting itself like a Christmas gift is an advantage that most people don't require to beat the AI.
Otherwise, I agree, the AI works just fine.
-
And now for the truth from Poland: Warsaw fights bravely on, and the Polish HQ, Air Force and supporting elements are still largely intact. True, we have lost most of our cities, but after all, Warsaw is the capital, politically, culturally, every which way, really.
Meanwhile, the French are doing their part by staring intently at the Germans from behind their fortifications.
-
Hi all,long time fan of the SC and I recently remembered hearing something of new games that came out after SC1.
To find there were a couple was a nice surprise.
My question is what is the most enjoyable to play against the AI.
(I have no internet at my house,using work comp at lunch!)
The most replaybility and a big map.I have read of good mods so I am alos interested in those.
So its is basicly SC2 + WAW +PDE
or SC Pacific right?
I was reading about the new options for Patton Drive to the East and am leaning towards that one.
I would need to get SC2 /WAW bundle before?
To tell the truth I will probably get all of them at once because I played the Pacific demo and love the way carriers and other 2 strike units work.....
Sorry if this has been asked a billion times.
Cheers.
Nice to see a new "face"; welcome to the forum. I think PDE and PT are the best, but they're all good. Honch mods are good, and the Nupremal world mod for PT looks like it will be very enjoyable; I'm just starting a game. Scottsmm has done a lot of work making a campaign in PT that starts from Midway instead of Pearl. It's probably best as a pbem at this point, which of course doesn't work for you---unless you like hotseat solo?
Once you have tinkered with the editor for awhile, you will probably be creating your own mods
-
Way to go Nupremal! Excellent use of loop arrows to navigate the map, wonderful focus on the regions of WW2 interest.
Happycat and I will be starting a game this evening......anyone interested in seeing a transparent AAR?
OK, I don't mind confessing my ignorance. I know what an AAR is, but what will make it transparent?
Also, I hope you're volunteering to do the AAR, because I don't think I would have time to keep it up to date.
NOTE TO NUPREMAL: Nice map, and I like what I see so far of the balance between the various powers. The only thing I'm curious about is China---why is it neutral? The fighting had already been raging for two years by 1939, hadn't it?
-
Hi Happycat
Glad that my clarification helped clear things up. I appreciate the link - I was aware the Bolingbroke was the main bomber deployed to the Aleutians, but I had not looked it up on the net, so a quick reference was handy. I had a chance to look at a Bolingbroke a few years back at the National Aviation Museum in Ottawa. The Bolingbroke was not one of the planes out in the main area, but sort of stuck toward the back (it might have been one of the open houses they hold on Canada Day, which provide much better access to a lot of the collection than during 'normal' days I went to the Aviation Museum a fair amount when I lived in the area). The old Bolingbroke was not all that impressive to look at, especially when there were bigger aircraft to compare it to!
My main source of information was Volume II of the official history of the RCAF (The Creation of a National Air Force by WAB Douglas). The Pacific war is not all that big a part of this book (a few more than 60 pages out of 600 or so), but it is nicely covered and does give a pretty good idea of what happened.
I'd love to go see the Nation Aviation Museum. At least living in Fredericton, I'm closer than I used to be (Victoria).
I haven't seen a Bolingbroke, other than the one that was fished out of the water a few years ago near Sidney. I think the museum there is trying to restore it.
At the same museum, several years ago a B-17 and HE111 came in for a two day show. The Heinkel was acquired from Spain, and had originally been a gift of Hitler's to Franco.
Anyway, it was fun clambering around in both planes, the Flying Fort is very compact inside, and the HE111 even more so. When I climbed up through the belly hatch into the Heinkel, I stood up and promptly whacked my head on the butt of a machine gun installed for the dorsal position. I bled like a stuck pig, but still enjoyed the tour.
I guess this is all off-topic, but what the heck, it's YOUR topic
-
Hi Happycat
You are right that there are some other aspects that are also possible historical anomalies, and that this one is minor (note the title of the thread!). It is certainly not a gamebreaker, but it is definitely historically inaccurate. The solution I proposed may be awkward, however, and there may be better ways to address the problem within the existing game system, as is currently done with similar units.
What similar units? Historically, the RCAF bomber is analagous to the US west coast militia - it was very much intended for the defence of the west coast of North America ONLY (the deployment of some RCAF units to the Alaskan campaign actually proved politically difficult in Canada). In the game, the US west coast militia only appears if the Japanese start operating close to North America (not sure how close, it has only happened once so far for me). So rather then restricting the RCAF bomber to North America, another approach would be to keep it "hidden" via the scripts (as is the case with US militia units) until Japanese actions trigger it.
Even if the RCAF bomber remains hidden unless provoked into the game by Japanese aggressive actions, it is still possible to deploy Canadian units into many places in the Pacific. The Allied player (under the British forces) has the option to build many different units (although not bombers). I do not see this option being exercised very often - there are usually much better ways to spend British MPPs - but this is certainly consistent with historical reality. With enough pressure Canada could have deployed units into the Pacific, but the main theatre of operations for Canada was Europe, and the only way this would have changed would have been if Britain had been willing to spend quite a bit to change things. And Britain had generally better options to spend its scarce resources on British, Indian or Australian units.
So, yes, this is minor, and it is not a game breaker, but the current depiction of RCAF bombers being easily deployed willy-nilly around the Pacific is completely historically incorrect - and reasonably easily fixed. And since it is not a gamebreaker, why not fix something that is both small and completely wrong?
Excellent analysis. I enjoyed reading this, and especially the part about the RCAF units deployed to the Alaskan area of operations. My stepfather, rest his soul, served in the RCAF and was stationed in some forsaken part of Alaska from 1942-44. He said that after his time there, he forever hated the song "White Christmas"
You are right of course about the nature of the RCAF bomber unit. The bombers Canada deployed on the west coast were mainly Bolingbrokes (Blenheim IV's). You might enjoy the article at this link:
http://www.rcaf.com/aircraft/bombers/bolingbroke/serials.php?name=bolingbroke
Thank you clarifying what was behind your original comment.
-
New Decision Event Suggestion for SC2PT Operation Z
One of the key problems that any Japanese advance into India encounters is the lack of a rail connection from Thailand to Burma. This reflects the situation at the outbreak of war in the Pacific. Japanese plans to overcome this shortfall were prepared well before the outbreak of war. At great effort, and with the expenditure of the lives of approximately 60,000 slave labourers and 16,000 Allied prisoners of war, the Japanese completed a rail line from Thailand to Burma in 14 months.
A useful addition to this scenario would be a decision event reflecting this possibility. The effort to build this rail line was significant, not only in lives lost. Bridge structures from the Dutch East Indies were dismantled and then used on this line (some 600 bridges were needed, including the notorious ‘Bridge on the River Kwai’). The Decision Event could have parameters such as “Yes, Build the Thailand-Burma rail line, but lose 10 MPP a turn while building and 5 MPP from the Dutch East Indies forever” (rail line complete in, perhaps, ten or twenty Japanese turns?)” or “No, do not build the railroad (no loss of MPP).
That would be fun, and a great addition to the game. But as Nupremal points out, there is no mechanism for this. But, perhaps his suggestion of engineeers building rail could be considered for a patch. Japanese engineers don't have much else to do in 1942 and 1943 anyway.
-
The RCAF Bomber should be confined to North America.
Why?
The balance in the game is not that bad, and since there are already unrealistic things going on, such as amphibious invasions of India, American aircraft able to be deployed to India (beyond the historical such as 7th Bomb Gp), why worry about the pathetic little RCAF bomber. I'm using it in the Pacific, and I have to tell you---it's not a game breaker.
What is a game breaker is deploying four or five Marine tactical air to India. And in fact, until such time as the Japanese player land-locks China, massive numbers of American air units can be deployed there as well. Conversely, the Japanese player can pretend that the outer islands don't exist, and place all of his air units in China and beat them into submission fairly rapidly.
I'm all in favour of historical accuracy, but this game does not necessarily put that concept first and foremost.
-
There is a chance for it to escape, and that chance is under free unit in the scripts section of the game. It's likely to be either 10% or 20% depending on the unit naval/air/land. Hope this helps you in the future.
Thank you. If I had done more than just scan the manual, would I have known this?
Or is the lesson here that I should read the scripts? -
I note that when the DEI falls, the surviving Dutch ships remain in the game. So in my game with Abu, since he is systematically killing every Allied unit he can see, I thought it would be useful to save the remnants of the Dutch air unit. I flew it to India (unrealistic, yes) but it died when the DEI surrendered.
Does this sort of extinction occur randomly, or is it never possible to save the Dutch air?
The DEI air units were a hodge podge of Fokkers (the T9 bomber had an 1100 mile range), Brewster Buffaloes and the like. Some of them did escape to Australia before the Japanese consolidated their hold of the DEI. I have been unable to find hard information on numbers, but in addition to the "refugee" hardware, pilots also escaped, and a DEI air component was reconstituted in Australia, with a fairly significant naval patrol and interdiction capability.
So I would suggest that it might not be out of line to let the poor little Dutch air unit escape the evil minions of Imperial Japan, if the player so desires.
-
But again it begs the question, why would the US want to attack a useless, fortified island? What in-game benefit is there for either Japan to hold it, and for the US to take it? Supply isn't an issue. Both sides have plenty of places to re-supply both land and naval units in the Pacific.
And technically, the war is won and lost at sea. The US doesn't even need Marines until they want to retake important places, like the DEI and Japan. Once the USN controls the skies and sea, all those IJA divisions on the islands are just sitting ducks. The USN could even technically avoid them altogether and just make sure they can't transport away back to Japan.
From what I've been reading, historically the Allies took it to the Japanese at Guadacanal and Solomon Islands because the Japanese were building an airbase that would threaten Allied supplies and communications between the US and Australia, and could be a staging point for further invasions into the Pacific such as New Caledonia.
So I suppose two of those three concerns aren't really in the game (supplies and communications) and aren't a factor. The last one, concerns about further Japanese expansion, aren't really a factor either unless you're worried about Australia. The islands then only become important in the game if you end up having both navies fighting in that area, as having land-based air to support your fleet is definitely important.
You're right that supply and communication are not a factor, but I think that what some people are implying on this thread is that they should be, thus giving the islands a raison d'etre. Otherwise, they are just eye candy on the map.
For a game at this scale, it's hard to inject the realism that some people crave, but I think the game would be all the more interesting if it can be done.
-
Anti-Tank
I feel the anti-tank units should be eliminated from the game or modified. Modification should be like an arty defense when an armor unit (only armor) attacks an adjacent unit the anti-tank fires a defensive shot, kinda like lending supporting elements. Otherwise I feel they are useless.
Cav
Also... I think the game should include cavalry units for Japan, China and Russia as these were used during the war. The russians utilized cavalry up until the end of the war.... though not sure about the japanese though I suspect they had at least one cav unit left in china. The Japanese cavalry was small in comparison to the other combatants. China had a considerable number of cav divisions.
Supporting evidence of Japanese and Chinese Cav units/divisions in China
http://www.axishistory.com/index.php?id=9174
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Battle_Anti-Japanese_Allied_Army_Campaign_of_1933
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/J/a/Japanese_North_China_Area_Army.htm
Japanese OOB (a pretty good one)
http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/oob/jap.php?unit=5_Division
Cavalry were able to move during the rainy season when not much else could. I think it would add a little dimension to the game and allow players to move around and behind the enemy in difficult to move places... like the russians and chinese did during the war.
Good information here Abu. I knew that cavalry figured into operations in China and Manchuria (as well as Soviet Far East) but had not appreciation of the degree.
Like you, I wonder why the anti-tank units exist. The only reason I ever build them is to use as garrisons, or to hold non-critical portions of the line (or, if I'm just truly desperate and can't afford anything betteer). In Blitzkrieg and PDE I found them of some utility on the Russian front, but they seem fairly useless in SCPT (although I guess the Japanese could ship them to the islands).
I think it would be good to have cavalry for the appropriate nations, and that they NOT suffer a movement penalty in mud/rain.
So Hubert, make that two votes for the cav!
-
I dont think that the fall of Singapore so early in the game is a "game winner." Hell you can even lose china and make a comeback. I've done it in 1 game already. The power of the US is weak early on and requires the US player to really think, plan and take risks... in later turns the US becomes a power house that if deployed right can not only push japan back but starve her as well. A key aspect in the game for the Allies is "how" you deploy GB and Austrailia alongside the US to contain and delay Japan till the US can become the tipping point.
A mistake not to be made is giving up early because Japan rushes across the map. Strategy for the Allies in early game should be to slow and contain Japan without taking catastrophic carrier or fleet losses. Early Mid game should see a cessation of expansion for Japan as the reality and fear of where the allies will strike require a redeployment.
Absolutely! And I especially agree that the American player needs to pay attention to what Abukede says about starving Japan.
The challenge for me, at the moment is how quickly to fade back in China. I can contest every city and road intersection, but I can also run out of people really fast doing that, too. Abukede is being very aggressive with his air units in China, and has done some rude things to the Chinese production. Even more telling was his destruction of a Chinese HQ, again by air power.
Notwithstanding that this game is departing from the history track, big-time, it is shaping up to be one of the most interesting I have played.
-
Did you consider how much 2-3 amphibious units represent in terms of actual troops in game terms?
Did Japan send THAT many troops fighting in Singapore? If not and if it had then Singapore would have probably fallen much faster.
I always take out Singapore and DEI in one turn, I use a massive armada the likes of which Japan never did, but if it had... many of these countries would have fallen much faster.
Remember Japan did a very poor job pretty much everywhere since they spread out so much, while players will tend to do focused attacks. Any decent player should always succeed in taking out China, but Japan did not historically, is that unhistorical?
Remember that people will probably play Japan MUCH better than how they historically conducted their war in WW2 which IMO was terrible.
Japan's performance in the first few months of war was quite impressive in my opinion. They took Malaya in just over two months, against a numerically superior British army (although about half of it was non-European troops).
When you say that you take out Singapore and DEI in one turn, I assume it's not the FIRST turn. I guess I would be interested in what you do with the 25th Army and the SNLF's on turn one.
Most of Malaya did fall "that fast". Singapore held out until mid February. The 25th Army, consisting of three divisions, supported by some additional artillery and a tank brigade, was what western armies of the time would consider a corps. It was a very good one, with one division being highly experienced (China), one not so experienced but very efficient, and one that was quite green (Imperial Guards). So I think that Hubert's initial layout is quite accurate.
I have no problem with players making focused, and different attacks than those which occurred historically. My problem is with lack of realism. The Japanese attacked Singapore overland from the north specifically because the fortresses to the south of the city were too formidable. If a player wants to try that, great---but the fortresses should make that a more expensive proposition. When I see two SNLF's come ashore suffering only 20% casualties, on top of fortress tiles that represent the most formidable fixed defenses in the Far East at that time, I think it's safe to say that reality has been suspended.
I think that my opponent's strategy is a brilliant one, and it will probably win the game for him. I also think it will be an interesting game for both of us. But, it really isn't going to be instructive as to how Japan could have done better, because the game setup is allowing things that could never have happened. (specifically, focusing almost all Japanese airpower in China, and landing in the face of very strong fortifications).
I hasten to add, this is a criticism of one aspect of the game, not the entire game. And it is certainly NOT a criticism of how my opponent is playing the game. His strategy appears to me to be very well thought out.
-
Oh and Happy? Next game we play I will show you how to counter my moves.
Who knows? I may demonstrate how to counter them in THIS game
-
Everyone's threshold for how historical a game needs to be in order to be "acceptable" is different, but I imagine you'll always be able to find opponents even with house rules or mod changes. As long as it's fun, of course. Doesn't matter how historical and realistic it is if nobody else finds it fun to play!
Good point.
Paratroop won't board ship
in Strategic Command - PACIFIC THEATER
Posted
Thanks for responding. It turned out that my problem was that although the city of Batavia was "five", the port itself was only "four" (having sustained damage when I captured it, I guess). Once it went up to "five", the para went sailing