Neruz posted:

I think I shall wait patiently for the day when one of these grognard wargame makers realises how to sensibly price their product and blows all the competition out of the water as a result.

Until then this thread will be a source of entertainment.

Baloogan posted:

This is a must buy. I consider WITP AE one of the finest videogames in all of history.

witp manual pg. 162 posted:

Bombers attacking ports will attack any ships at anchor 50% of the time, however, TF’s docked in port will not be attacked. These attacks use bombs with only a small percentage of torpedo bombers using torpedoes (as it is assumed these ships may be in dry dock or protected by torpedo nets). If there are less than 10 ships at port, the chance of bombers attacking ships lessens with each number less than 10 (so, bombers would be more likely to attack ships if 9 were in port as opposed to 4).

uPen posted:

Move is regular walking. Standing straight and just going for a normal walk, barely tires.
Quick is jogging, tiring over distances or long periods of time.
Hunt is slowly walking while looking for enemies, much more tiring than the move command.
Slow is crawling, pulling yourself along on your elbows and pushing with your feet. Incredibly tiring over even short distances, crawling for more than a few minutes is exhausting.
Fast is a sprint, as fast as you can go and impossible while tired. Your guys will quickly drop out of Fast into Quick if you give them a distance that's too long.

Lord Windy posted:

In War in the Pacific, is it possible to get bombing points against American cities? I've never had the chance of doing it in game, but assuming you can get enough bombers hitting Seattle/Los Angeles/San Fran can you start firestorms and get points for it? Or is it Japan only?

Drone posted:

Is it even possible to "win" the war as the Japanese in War in the Pacific, or is it more that you just have to aim to not lose?

mllaneza posted:

Once upon a time I decided to make a real fight for Rangoon. The IJA showed up and settled in for a siege. I had a ton of artillery and a couple of British armored brigades in the city. I decided to make one nasty Shock attack and see how that went. I was ok with shipping the valuable units out if things went poorly. In the event, it was the most brilliant victory in the history of the British Army; the Japanese retreated and left all their artillery behind. Six months later I'm retaking Singapore and this happens.



Those two victories were either bugs or sheer luck. Probably bugs.

ArchangeI posted:

How the hell did Ise get from Hiroshima to Rabaul in 4 days That is some serious warp drive technology. Not much you can do if the AI can bend time and space to its whims.

dtkozl posted:

Can you suppress naval AA with strafe or is it just ground AA?

Caconym posted:

On the contrary. The key point is low naval skill. Normal navB is pretty much useless for non-dive bombers, exception being a secondary skill for torpedo pilots. I train all medium bombers in lownav and normal ground, heavy bombers in normal ground and nav search. One on the crappy dutch bomber squadrons out of batavia landed two 300kg SAPs on the Hiryu last turn resulting in a fuel storage explosion and heavy fires. They had about one month of 100% lownav training and about 50 lownav skill. Took a heavy toll but so worth it. Blenheims out of singers landed enough 250lbs on the Kongo for keep it on fire for several days and forced it to withdraw.1000 feet for ever.

Baloogan posted:

Hey guys, tomorrow I'll be doing a stream about Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations. Also, incidentally, I got hired by Warfare Sims (the guys who make Command) as a developer.

Gonna be at http://baloogancampaign.com/

COOL CORN posted:

That I do understand, but I mean like - how do people think "I need 4 CVs, 2 CVEs, 2 DDs for this TF", like what is the criteria for composition? Or is it just trial and error?

HisMajestyBOB posted:

Thanks! Yeah, I'm playing the stock scenarios.
That's useful to know about bases that receive supply automatically. My supply situation seems to have improved: Lunga and Milne Bay are no longer short of supply (yellow !). Tulagi, Efate, and Loganville are still short, but supply ships are headed towards the latter two.

I have B-17s flying to Tulagi on supply runs. They were earlier flying to both Lunga and Tulagi. They were never intercepted, but they didn't seem effective in raising the supply, either. Is it worth continuing these flights to Tulagi on the assumption that a trickle of supply input is better than nothing?

Also, is it possible to order tankers to take on only half a load? I'd like to send some fuel to Port Moresby to refuel subs there, but I don't want to ship all 10,000 units from Brisbane, and none of my tankers appear to have a max load smaller than 10k.

SubG posted:

What's the most recent version? I just downloaded the thing straight from Matrix last weekend, and the auto update thing just throws an error.

Mr. Showtime posted:

One of these days I'm going to get around to effortposting on how you should go about using your toys, since that's something the game never really tells you.

Hav posted:

Lord Windy posted:

In WITP:AE, do the Naval Search airplanes attack boats they find? I got a message processing a turn that a H6K4 hit and sunk a cargo ship. I know ASW seems to do this, but I thought they would bring up a screen for it.

gazza posted:

The only reason Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord made it onto GOG is because Battlefront didn't have the license to it when it got put up. I think this was the case for the first Strategic Command game too. Battlefront still sells both of them for $5 more, naturally. I'm surprised they haven't seriously tried to get those games taken down. Combat Mission 1 is still enjoyable by the way.

Is the ground combat in WITP that bad? Everything else about it sounds great but I'm not sure I can muster enough interest in the naval and air campaign to plunge into it. I know naval and air was pretty much the Pacific in a nutshell, but I was kind of interested in China being a major theater.

BulletHole posted:

Just starting a new game myself and wondering the same thing. Anyone have guidance on this?

Matrix Forums Grog posted:

Remember though, that for reducing administrative stacking penalty, both base and Air HQ has to be under same command

Pharnakes posted:

So I've got some Fulmars now, and I'm wondering what the gently caress do do with them. Initially I thought that they could be used for low level bombing of merchant convoys but their pilots come with no Low Nav skill, even the ones stationed on carriers. Is this because they use the strafe skill instead? (which they do have).

Also what do I do with the fragments of squadrons from sunk ships, I can't withdraw them for some reason, only disband them, which it tells me will lose me the pilots and planes. Since these are highly experienced carrier pilots, loosing them is the last thing I want to do. Is the only way to save them wait until the parent group arrives back on the map, then transport them back and recombine them once they are in the same base?

Lunsku posted:

The thing is, I have absolutely no recollection of this kind of issue with CMBN. It's been two years since I touched that so I certainly may have just forgotten it, but with CMBS it immediately started to bother me.

And with the old CMBO the only graphical issue I had back in the day was how unclear terrain height differences were sometimes, unmodded.

Edit: Also notice the green tinted buildings in the pictures. Same is going on with a lot of vehicle textures in game, and is apparently some shader issue with newest Catalyst drivers. Might need to roll back to solve that.

Nenonen posted:

They're like in all the previous CM titles, so the latter, except Tunguskas kill 'em all with missiles and gunfire and then continue to rape enemy ground forces with gunfire. My main problem is that all air missions are either heavy, medium or light, with no indication what the options stand for?

Lunsku posted:

Man portable SAM like Stinger and Igla are around. Russian side also has Tunguska and vehicle mounted Strelas.

AA assets outside the tactical area in the map are not modeled. I assume air superiority is a matter of a side having or not having air assets available in the particular mission, by designer's will.

HisMajestyBOB posted:

I'm trying to figure out Allied pilot training in WitP:AE. I've read about the details on the Matrix forums as well as nifty flowcharts, and I've already set most airgroups to train at 70-80%. A few more questions:

1. Where does TRACOM come into play?
I've been moving my American Philippines pilots there (cheesy, but I justify it by saying they escaped by sub), is there a certain number I should aim for? Should TRACOM have a mix of pilot types (fighter, naval bombing...) and nationalities?

2. Saratoga just left Sydney and I discovered she's 8 fighter pilots short. I can't request a veteran, and don't want to recruit scrubs unless I don't have a choice. I have decent pilots training in carrier-capable airgroups in Eastern US, and tried sending some to Reserves, but still can't request veteran pilots. Does the Saratoga need to be in port to take on veteran pilots or something?

What's the difference between Group reserves and Reserve reserves?

3. The pilot training flowcharts are nifty, but how do you keep track of everything, like when to send these guys from torpedo attack training to naval search training? Spreadsheets? I've already created a few spreadsheets to help track supplies n scores, but there's just so many pilots and airgroups that I'm at a loss for how to organize it.

Sorry for the WitP question bombardment.

HisMajestyBOB posted:

pthighs and Caconym, you guys are my heroes. Thanks!
That really clarifies things and makes it seem less daunting, if slightly tedious.

I assume that Japan is pretty similar, just with fewer squadrons to work with and crappier replacements?

I figured it would increase accident rate/fatigue if they were at 100%.
How high should I set percentages on combat missions, then?

Lockmart Lawndart posted:

Well I wanted to but looks like not going to happen. I'm so irritated with this game that I deleted it off my hard drive.



I was hoping to run say, operation linebacker or rolling thunder but the most you ever get out of the stock command scenarios is a carrier or a couple of air bases. Theres only a few scenarios set in Vietnam and only one of them has any decent amount of aircraft in them. Even outside of vietnam scenarios involve micromanaging a small handful of ships or a squadronish amount of aircraft.

So tried the "Down Town" scenario in which you launch a deck strike and was fairly disappointed that I couldn't set waypoints/times, etc. Theres no easy way to have them use a package formation or prioritize targets that I could tell. There was none of the basic stuff I'm used to in DCS or Falcon where I could set ingress/egress vectors, Distance to engage, weapons to engage with, number of bomb runs/attempts, etc. No way to set offensive/defensive tactics such as "evasive vertical maneuver" or "Afterburner to this rally point at contact with X type aircraft". AI didn't show any real ability in air combat other than fly straight at enemy and fire missiles. Also the trigger system didn't seem nearly as robust as DCS for handling AI behavior so that was kinda out (For example in DCS I can trigger ground units change formation based on the type of helicoptor gunship is in the area after its fired its missiles). It seemed the only way to get my units to do what I wanted was to constantly micromanage them. Sure I could code my own AI through .lua files but for 80 making GBS threads dollars I should not have to do their coding for them.

So figured I'd give the mission editor a shot and see if I could cook up something approaching linebacker but no dice there. Again, the issues above would make such a large scenario unplayable. Also there is no discernable supply management system other than "airbase has x type of bomb left." so that there's no way to replenish the airbase that I could tell. Theres no maintenance team/ team experience level so all the timers for aircraft maintenance are the same. No pilot management or hell even pilots to speak of. So all your aircraft have the same exact skill level. And likewise no pilots progressing and becoming more experienced as the battle progressed. No way to simulate "WWII vet" pilots like Robin Olds being able to dogfight and the young guys getting their rear end handed to them by mig 17's. No Engineer units to fix facilities that are damaged so there's no target repair once you've hit it. No way to set doctrine in any meaningful way outside of ROE. So in other words, a "campaign" style scenario is completely undoable.

I'm sure there are ways of doing whats above but I just did not want to put up with any more of the confusing microsoft access menus. Considering Falcon does an operational level air campaign so much better, there's no real reason for me to fight with this thing anymore.

dublish posted:

No, I meant the column for Combat Mission: Black Sea.