Slitherine

Posted: **Sun Aug 19, 2018 6:26 am**

Tinian:

Japanese got really low supply points and after losing main city (that will always happen in the first 3 turns considering naval might of US) they have no way to keep the fighting inland. I'd say they badly need some supply points inside the island. I am aware that there is 25 supply point on the north pier but that's even easier to cut off than the city. I know that historically they were undersupplied but I feel that the scenario should give at least minimum fighting chance for the defending side.

Posted: **Sun Aug 19, 2018 10:59 am**

Edgewalker

Thanks for reporting. I've sent you a PM.
Doubled Japanese supply.

Link updated in first post.

Posted: **Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:47 pm**

Watchtower (USA):

"Land units will arrive at Lunga Point if there are no enemy naval units within range of 4 hexes" - although I have ground control over a point (flag) a lot of japanese ships are parked around Lunga in my game but the land reinforcements are still arriving regardless.

Posted: **Thu Aug 30, 2018 11:05 am**

Edgewalker wrote: ↑Wed Aug 29, 2018 1:47 pm Watchtower (USA):

"Land units will arrive at Lunga Point if there are no enemy naval units within range of 4 hexes" - although I have ground control over a point (flag) a lot of japanese ships are parked around Lunga in my game but the land reinforcements are still arriving regardless.

Fixed.
Thanks for reporting.

Posted: **Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:28 am**

Santa Cruz:

Perhaps it would be good to reduce a number of japanese recon planes - right now it is possible to make full screen of them (7 planes) over any ship to make him almost immune to any air attacks. Also it may be used as fighter surrounded by 6 recon planes formation to protect any asset in a fleet.
Well, I think the same goes for any Pacific scenario with more than 5-6 recon planes per side (Both US and Japan).

Posted: **Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:54 pm**

Edgewalker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:28 am Santa Cruz:

Perhaps it would be good to reduce a number of japanese recon planes - right now it is possible to make full screen of them (7 planes) over any ship to make him almost immune to any air attacks. Also it may be used as fighter surrounded by 6 recon planes formation to protect any asset in a fleet.
Well, I think the same goes for any Pacific scenario with more than 5-6 recon planes per side (Both US and Japan).

Reduced strength from 10 to 5.
Hopefully this should make it easier to break through a recon screen.

Link updated in first post.

Posted: **Sun Sep 02, 2018 6:35 pm**

Erik2 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 12:54 pm
Edgewalker wrote: ↑Sun Sep 02, 2018 11:28 am Santa Cruz:

Perhaps it would be good to reduce a number of japanese recon planes - right now it is possible to make full screen of them (7 planes) over any ship to make him almost immune to any air attacks. Also it may be used as fighter surrounded by 6 recon planes formation to protect any asset in a fleet.
Well, I think the same goes for any Pacific scenario with more than 5-6 recon planes per side (Both US and Japan).
Reduced strength from 10 to 5.
Hopefully this should make it easier to break through a recon screen.

Link updated in first post.

Yeah, it's even better, it solves the problem without nerfing army's vital recon ability.

Posted: **Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:59 pm**

New Britain - balance concern

I feel that Japanese defenders need a serious buff, preferably somewhere deep inland. Strong air presence and ability to counterattack US landings is great, first stage of the battle is very dynamic and exciting. Then it's a long trek to the last victory point and... it turns out it's almost undefended. I am aware that this force disparity is historically accurate but I feel that Japan needs way stronger ground forces to put a fight at their last bastion. US has 2 cruisers and 2 destroyers and 2 gunboats to really swing the dynamic in all coastline battle in their favor anyway. Perhaps making another 4th victory point in the east-south corner with additional garrison of at least several fighting (non-aa) units would also help?

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:39 am**

Santa Cruz - bug

Game result shows a "draw" when the game ends as US victory (only primary objective is Henderson's field for both sides).

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:46 am**

Midway - objectives

US primary objectives show only "defend midway" and lack "do not lose all three carriers". Right now if you achieve all your primary objectives as US you still get a draw which is mighty confusing.

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2018 12:44 pm**

Edgewalker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:46 am Midway - objectives

US primary objectives show only "defend midway" and lack "do not lose all three carriers". Right now if you achieve all your primary objectives as US you still get a draw which is mighty confusing.

Thanks for reporting.

Fixed objectives.
Added commanders.
Added specialisations.
Other smaller changes.

Link updated in first post.
Note that there is now only one Midway scenario (1v1 free deployment)

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:00 pm**

Edgewalker wrote: ↑Tue Sep 04, 2018 6:59 pm New Britain - balance concern

I feel that Japanese defenders need a serious buff, preferably somewhere deep inland. Strong air presence and ability to counterattack US landings is great, first stage of the battle is very dynamic and exciting. Then it's a long trek to the last victory point and... it turns out it's almost undefended. I am aware that this force disparity is historically accurate but I feel that Japan needs way stronger ground forces to put a fight at their last bastion. US has 2 cruisers and 2 destroyers and 2 gunboats to really swing the dynamic in all coastline battle in their favor anyway. Perhaps making another 4th victory point in the east-south corner with additional garrison of at least several fighting (non-aa) units would also help?

Thanks for reporting

Adding garrison units to Talasea.
Changed the primary objectives. Simple capture/hold at least x/y objectives which provide options for both players where to attack/defend.
Fixes to sec objs.

Link updated in first post.

Posted: **Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:31 pm**

Edgewalker wrote: ↑Fri Sep 07, 2018 6:39 am Santa Cruz - bug

Game result shows a "draw" when the game ends as US victory (only primary objective is Henderson's field for both sides).

Thanks for reporting.

Fixed objectives.
Split US land/naval air into 2 factions with separate resource income.
Split Japanese land/naval air into 2 factions with separate resource income.
Replaced land-based Zero units with Ki-44 Shoki and D3A2 units with Ki-51. This to limit the carrier-available air units to 'correct' units.

Link updated in first post.

Posted: **Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:48 am**

Dang Erik. That's an inspiration. I'm struggling to pull together my first one.

Thanks for all you do!

conboy

Posted: **Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:51 am**

conboy wrote: ↑Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:48 am Dang Erik. That's an inspiration. I'm struggling to pull together my first one.

Thanks for all you do!

conboy

Amen to that brother

Posted: **Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:59 am**

Coral Sea 2v2 - bug

Game ended abruptly (around turn 22 I think). I launched my turn and got empty outcome prompt and that was that.
Was there supposed to be a sudden end trigger in this scenario?
Japanese side managed to capture the point on the island, but it was some time (like 1-2 turns?) before this happened.

Posted: **Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:59 pm**

Edgewalker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:59 am Coral Sea 2v2 - bug

Game ended abruptly (around turn 22 I think). I launched my turn and got empty outcome prompt and that was that.
Was there supposed to be a sudden end trigger in this scenario?
Japanese side managed to capture the point on the island, but it was some time (like 1-2 turns?) before this happened.

Thanks for reporting, Mr.Bughunter.

Don't know why the game stopped at turn 22.
Edited objectives. The game should now run until the end or until the Japanese reach both their objectives.
Changed core units to aux.
Updated a number of Japanese/British/Australian ships with more proper classes.
Added all specialisations (it is 1946 after all).

Link updated in first post.

Posted: **Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:10 pm**

Okinawa

Changed objectives.
Replaced Japanese off-map airfields with standard off-map exits/redeployments.
Updated British carriers/air units.
Updated specialisations.

Link updated in first post.

Posted: **Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:16 pm**

Erik your a star thank you for all you great work as i said in another post its people like yourself and others that keep these games going for us to enjoy so thank you

Posted: **Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:51 pm**

Grizzly

Thanks

Slitherine

Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios

Re: Erik's Multiplayer scenarios