Question about previous campaigns

Order of Battle is a series of operational WW2 games starting with the Pacific War and then on to Europe!

Moderators: The Artistocrats, Order of Battle Moderators

terminator
General - Elite King Tiger
General - Elite King Tiger
Posts: 4217
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 12:48 pm
Location: the loveliest country in the world

Re: Question about previous campaigns

Post by terminator » Sun Oct 11, 2020 12:34 pm

PearlHarborUSA

Did the Jap submarine attacks the US Battleship (Special Event) ?

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3657
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Question about previous campaigns

Post by kondi754 » Mon Oct 12, 2020 12:57 am

Nope, no in my game

GabeKnight
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Lieutenant-General - Do 217E
Posts: 3180
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Question about previous campaigns

Post by GabeKnight » Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:15 pm

terminator wrote:
Sun Oct 11, 2020 12:34 pm
Did the Jap submarine attacks the US Battleship (Special Event) ?
I'm not sure. Why?

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3657
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Question about previous campaigns

Post by kondi754 » Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:24 pm

I remember when I played a few years ago, then it was underwater attack on a battleship, that's why there is a core-destroyer to detect and eliminate the enemy submarine IMO

TheFilthyCasual
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:56 am

Re: Question about previous campaigns

Post by TheFilthyCasual » Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:15 pm

The Japanese minisub in in the US Pearl Harbor scenario seems to sit in the channel rather than entering the harbor and will try to ambush the last battleship when it tries to leave the map.

The Pacific campaigns need an overhaul. Not only are they far too condensed (they span 4 years in only 12 scenarios) but there's some weird design decisions and oversights. For instance, the universal light cruiser than is shared by every single faction, has no upgrades and ends up being outclassed by late-war destroyers; the lack of US light carriers; the absence of the Taiho; the relatively small number of kamikaze units in Okinawa and Tokyo; and how useless a lot of the Japanese specializations are given it's an alt-history campaign where you're always on the offensive. There other thing too - for instance, the US Pearl Harbor mission is waaaaaaaaay too easy because the Japanese units have no veterancy. I think Japanese carrier planes should start at 3 stars and go down as they take losses at the Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal. Likewise, Japanese troops in the Philippines and Guadalcanal should have veterancy but be fewer in number (since they were, in fact, outnumbered).

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3657
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Question about previous campaigns

Post by kondi754 » Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:11 pm

TheFilthyCasual wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 7:15 pm
The Japanese minisub in in the US Pearl Harbor scenario seems to sit in the channel rather than entering the harbor and will try to ambush the last battleship when it tries to leave the map.

The Pacific campaigns need an overhaul. Not only are they far too condensed (they span 4 years in only 12 scenarios) but there's some weird design decisions and oversights. For instance, the universal light cruiser than is shared by every single faction, has no upgrades and ends up being outclassed by late-war destroyers; the lack of US light carriers; the absence of the Taiho; the relatively small number of kamikaze units in Okinawa and Tokyo; and how useless a lot of the Japanese specializations are given it's an alt-history campaign where you're always on the offensive. There other thing too - for instance, the US Pearl Harbor mission is waaaaaaaaay too easy because the Japanese units have no veterancy. I think Japanese carrier planes should start at 3 stars and go down as they take losses at the Coral Sea, Midway and Guadalcanal. Likewise, Japanese troops in the Philippines and Guadalcanal should have veterancy but be fewer in number (since they were, in fact, outnumbered).
It's hard to disagree with that
In addition, an appropriate balance between units, because in the last scenarios of US Pacific vanilla game I used all slots for land and air units, but I had 19 free CPs for naval units

TheFilthyCasual
Corporal - Strongpoint
Corporal - Strongpoint
Posts: 62
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2018 3:56 am

Re: Question about previous campaigns

Post by TheFilthyCasual » Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:37 pm

kondi754 wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:11 pm
It's hard to disagree with that
In addition, an appropriate balance between units, because in the last scenarios of US Pacific vanilla game I used all slots for land and air units, but I had 19 free CPs for naval units
The US campaign needs way more Japanese air units at Leyte, Okinawa and Tokyo. The number of planes you can deploy totally swamps the Japanese and the fact there's only 2 enemy fighter units max in those scenarios (and 0 at Okinawa) means you face no serious opposition.

kondi754
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Lieutenant-General - Karl-Gerat 040
Posts: 3657
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2015 8:52 am

Re: Question about previous campaigns

Post by kondi754 » Thu Oct 22, 2020 9:44 am

TheFilthyCasual wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 10:37 pm
kondi754 wrote:
Wed Oct 21, 2020 9:11 pm
It's hard to disagree with that
In addition, an appropriate balance between units, because in the last scenarios of US Pacific vanilla game I used all slots for land and air units, but I had 19 free CPs for naval units
The US campaign needs way more Japanese air units at Leyte, Okinawa and Tokyo. The number of planes you can deploy totally swamps the Japanese and the fact there's only 2 enemy fighter units max in those scenarios (and 0 at Okinawa) means you face no serious opposition.
Maybe more kamikaze
Because Japanese have a lot of aircraft but very little trained pilots (especially fighters) in 1944-45
Those who remained were used to fight with US strategic bombers expeditions

Kamikaze were mostly young boys with very little training. They volunteered and there were quite a lot of them

EDIT. There were several raids by a groups of US Navy fast aircraft carriers to the Japanese Islands in the spring and summer of 1945.
More than a dozen huge US carriers sailed several hundred miles to the Japanese coast, formations consisting of 600-900 on-board planes took off from the decks and did whatever they wanted over Osaka, Kobe, Hiroshima and other large ports, sinking the remains of the Japanese fleet buried in these ports. They did it basically with almost no threat from Japanese fighters. The main danger was anti-aircraft artillery.
However, leading US Navy aces, then increased their kill account with several Japanese planes trying to counter.

Post Reply

Return to “Order of Battle Series”