Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/28/2010 5:57:55 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

A while back I was asked if I would be presenting an updated version of my old mod series for AE. I have been tinkering with SCN4 in an attempt to create a better presentation of that conflict. The main mod is still in the testing stage but should be done shortly. I was planning on updating it to Spooky's site but will also post it here in this thread when ready.

Changes as follows:

1) A2A lethality tweak -

As with the original Nikmod, immediate goal was to address bloodiness in the game. This of course was also a major AE goal and does reduce it compared to stock. However while much improved pace of A2A ops remains overly high. (For example, it is still highly possible to gut whole squadrons in singlular raids or turns resulting in a much quicker pace vs. the slow attrition which was the norm for WWII. Challenge to this was that Fighter v Fighter and Fighter v Bomber operate very differently. carrier and land base air combat also presented different situations. Central problem remains that too many planes get too many "rounds" of combat resulting in too many hits and kills. For lower DUR planes this exaserbates into too many outright kills. After testing each variable and combos of variables I think i've found a good way to reduce the total combat rounds without messing with the stats of the planes too much. In addition to reducing overall losses it helps de-nerf the overpowered Sweep mission to a degree. Testing is ongoing, but so far results are very encouraging.

2) IJN flak adjustment

Japanese navy flak is way overmuscled. Mod reduces IJN flak effectiveness by 75%.

3) Air to ground Accuracy tweak

Air to ground devices (i.e. bombs/torpedoes) accuracy halved. This is done in part to compensate for the increased survivability of airplanes in the mod as well as to address the somewhat over-heavy effect ordinance has against ports and airbases. Goal is to slow pace of air operations in terms of quick suppression of targets.

4) Servicability tweak

Servicability in AE remains overly efficient (assuming adequate AV) averaging above 90% unless airbase is badly damaged or crowded. This is the critical "behind the scenes" culprit for accelerated pace of air operations. AE fortunately introduces variable "service rating" to editor. This has been tweaked upwards. Tentative schedule is a) fighters = 3, b) 2E bomber =4 c) 4E bomber = 5. Current version is testing universal service rating 5

Also experimenting with all ratings at max (5) Testing is ongoing.

5) SPS increase for Lunga

As many who've played with Scn04 are familiar with, a major change for SCN4 was altered SPS values of bases in this area to reduce the ability for players to quickly build up other bases and thus negate the challenges faced by both sides during the period covered. For Lunga, SPS 0 has been increased to 4 and Rabaul's SPS has been increased from 1 to 2 allowing it to achieve level 5. Originally this was restricted to zero to prevent Lunga from being quickly turned into a 4E megabase, something that did not occur till after the period primarily covered in SCN4. While effective, PBEM play has also shown that at level 2 Henderson is extremely vulneable to bombardment from the shore and with limited #'s of squadrons that can be held there, makes the airfield largely untendable....which kind of defeats the purpose of the struggle. Subject to change - testing is ongoing. Goal is to make Lunga more resistant to bomardment but not too much so. The lowered servicability %'s should help curb player tendancies to stuff the forward airbase with airpower.

Schedule -

May be able to release version 1 by this weekend (Memorial day)

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Nikademus -- 5/29/2010 9:58:15 PM >

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/28/2010 6:14:18 PM

moonraker65

Posts: 556
Joined: 7/14/2004
From: Swindon,Wilts. UK
Status: offline

Good stuff Nikademus

. Any chance of making an Aug '42 start Grand Campaign with "Watchtower" as the main emphasis then "Cartwheel" as the next major operation ?

< Message edited by moonraker -- 6/1/2010 10:53:09 AM >

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 2

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/28/2010 6:19:33 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Possibly but that would require a fairly serious time investment so mod work has had to take a low priority for me of late. A 1942 start in general is something i'd like to see.

_____________________________

(in reply to moonraker65)

Post #: 3

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/28/2010 10:42:57 PM

Pratzen

Posts: 80
Joined: 3/7/2010
From: Shawnee
Status: offline

The biggest problem with scenario 4 is the nuclear subs. Exasperated by so many subs being in such a small area. If you are not going to look at that, well, what is the point of a mod of this scenario?

Quite frankly, compared to stock WITP, AE doesn't need a mod for the areas you address, IMO. (I am wondering if you and I are playing the same game...) And NiK A2A in WITP was a disaster. IMO. As bad as stock, only in the opposite direction.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 4

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/28/2010 11:38:37 PM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

Sounds like an interesting changelist.

I'm particularly curious to see how those service rating changes you're testing pan out, because I'm doing something similar though perhaps not as extreme for my own scenarios.

Looking forward to it.

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 5

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/29/2010 12:43:01 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pratzen

The biggest problem with scenario 4 is the nuclear subs. Exasperated by so many subs being in such a small area. If you are not going to look at that, well, what is the point of a mod of this scenario?

Quite frankly, compared to stock WITP, AE doesn't need a mod for the areas you address, IMO. (I am wondering if you and I are playing the same game...) And NiK A2A in WITP was a disaster. IMO. As bad as stock, only in the opposite direction.

Well i guess its a good thing its both free of charge and free to use or not use at your discretion.

_____________________________

(in reply to Pratzen)

Post #: 6

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/29/2010 7:23:42 AM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

Sounds like interesting changes. I have been quite vocal that there has been something strange in how IJN flak works..and service ratings seem to be good way to reduce intensity of the air war.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 7

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/29/2010 6:04:47 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Sounds like an interesting changelist.

I'm particularly curious to see how those service rating changes you're testing pan out, because I'm doing something similar though perhaps not as extreme for my own scenarios.

Looking forward to it.

Ditto. Looking forward to seeing the impact of service rating. This is definitely my favortie AI scenario. Playing as JAP always gives a good game.

Any chance that you will be able to add a couple more AI alternatives? The early Rebaul air raid is a good one, forcing the JAP player to be careful early. Maybe an early Milne Bay growth focus? Divert one ENG and INF and a bunch of supply from Lunga/Tulagi would create a real twist to the scenario. Lunga/Tulagi become more vulnerable, but PM becomes a very tough nut and Shortlands a very unsafe base from 2 sides. Not suggesting this is better than reality, but as a twist, it just gives the player something to consider. Maybe even going after Shortlands as a raid with Lunga invasion? A raid there can really upset the JAP plans.

Just some thoughts ....

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 8

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/29/2010 8:32:37 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Yes....Joe has been complaining for a long time that the scenario is just not balanced (aka too historical)......he can't develop his nefarious plans with oodles of logistical support, so i'm thinking of presenting a more balanced scenario that gives the Japan side a better chance. I'm debating on whether or not to leave in the PP restrictions as the LCU edge on the Allied side is pretty overwhelming. Then again with a massive increase in Japanese land assets, the Allied player would have to be more careful to watch their rear areas.

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 9

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/29/2010 10:06:34 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Version one is up on post one. Please note that current playtest values for servicability.

Feedback welcome.

- A word on Servicability.

I ask that players be a tad open minded regarding servicability percentages before sending comments my way that its over the top or other such. WitP, the game has conditioned players to expect "Five Nines" servicability at bases with enough AV and reletively free of bombardment. RL was not so rosy. While %'s varied from nation to nation, and situation to situaiton a more realistic "average" for an airbase under normal operating conditions and sortie count would fall more around 75%. This assumes good facilities and logistics. In situations of heavy combat and/or degraded servicing and supply situations, average servicability averages can fall as low as 30% or worse. This change will require the most 'adjustment' from players in that there will be less instances of setting aircraft to a mission and letting them go about their business. Units in heavy combat will require monitoring and rotation. Current playtest setting is Five for all units. Tentative setting is as listed in the FAQ on post 1, but more playtesting is required. Its easier to start from max and work down as needed in this case. Fortunately, this being a small scenario, testing and management duties are far lower than in the campaign game.

enjoy.

_____________________________

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 10

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/30/2010 10:02:59 PM

Mac Linehan

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

Hi, Nik -

Looks like a great Mod!

While I understand the serviceability concept in AE, I am still not clear as to how this is implemented in AE. I do understand that aircraft serviceability ratings differ in accordance with each aircraft's size, complexity and the maintenance effort required to keep it operational. I also understand the requirement of one AV support for each aircraft; and the airfield size requirements for larger aircraft.

So - when I periodically review each aircraft's numerical fatigue rating, is it best to stand down upon reaching (for example) 30% fatigue to perform preventive maintenance as opposed to 80% fatigue - that would down the aircraft for a much longer period of time?

Nik, I appreciate any thoughts and insight you might have on the matter. As a very detailed player (read "micromanager") I hope to squeeze the most serviceability out of HIJM's treasured air units.

Penguins Forever,

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 11

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/31/2010 6:38:16 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Yes....Joe has been complaining for a long time that the scenario is just not balanced (aka too historical)......he can't develop his nefarious plans with oodles of logistical support, so i'm thinking of presenting a more balanced scenario that gives the Japan side a better chance. I'm debating on whether or not to leave in the PP restrictions as the LCU edge on the Allied side is pretty overwhelming. Then again with a massive increase in Japanese land assets, the Allied player would have to be more careful to watch their rear areas.

Please don't! :)

This is tough for the JAP player, and it should be. IT is a great 2nd scenario for new players a Allies, and then once your up to speed there, it provides endless play value as JAP.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 12

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 5/31/2010 6:43:59 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Version one is up on post one. Please note that current playtest values for servicability.

Feedback welcome.

- A word on Servicability.

I ask that players be a tad open minded regarding servicability percentages before sending comments my way that its over the top or other such. WitP, the game has conditioned players to expect "Five Nines" servicability at bases with enough AV and reletively free of bombardment. RL was not so rosy. While %'s varied from nation to nation, and situation to situaiton a more realistic "average" for an airbase under normal operating conditions and sortie count would fall more around 75%. This assumes good facilities and logistics. In situations of heavy combat and/or degraded servicing and supply situations, average servicability averages can fall as low as 30% or worse. This change will require the most 'adjustment' from players in that there will be less instances of setting aircraft to a mission and letting them go about their business. Units in heavy combat will require monitoring and rotation. Current playtest setting is Five for all units. Tentative setting is as listed in the FAQ on post 1, but more playtesting is required. Its easier to start from max and work down as needed in this case. Fortunately, this being a small scenario, testing and management duties are far lower than in the campaign game.

enjoy.

It isn't that I disagree with your concept and statements about serviceability, but if all aircraft are 5's that removes one of the comparative criteria between planes. Also, kinda funny to think of a Wapitila taking as much effort as a B-17 next to it to maintain. I'm sure you are already thinking of this.

Is your plan to ask the dev's to expand the serviceability range to 10? Honestly, I can see some need for that.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 13

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/1/2010 12:44:11 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

So - when I periodically review each aircraft's numerical fatigue rating, is it best to stand down upon reaching (for example) 30% fatigue to perform preventive maintenance as opposed to 80% fatigue - that would down the aircraft for a much longer period of time?

Nik, I appreciate any thoughts and insight you might have on the matter. As a very detailed player (read "micromanager") I hope to squeeze the most serviceability out of HIJM's treasured air units.

Penguins Forever,

Mac

In general aircraft don't really need to be stood down unless they are either in heavy combat or are in a situation of inadequate AV support. There are several exceptions to this such as aircraft with a very high serv rating and high number of engines (aka B-17). Also a base that suffers damage will have it's ability to maintain aircraft impaired. Bigger airbases do a better job vs. smaller ones.

_____________________________

(in reply to Mac Linehan)

Post #: 14

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/1/2010 12:57:43 AM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

It isn't that I disagree with your concept and statements about serviceability, but if all aircraft are 5's that removes one of the comparative criteria between planes. Also, kinda funny to think of a Wapitila taking as much effort as a B-17 next to it to maintain. I'm sure you are already thinking of this.

Is your plan to ask the dev's to expand the serviceability range to 10? Honestly, I can see some need for that.

As one of the "devs", I can tell you are no concrete plans to make further code changes at this time. Focus remains on bug hunting and correction of any major boo boo's found. Keep in mind that the serv rating is only one component of the formula that determines end servicability. This aspect of the mod is a work in progress too. I noted after several months of playing AE that planes with serv ratings between 1-3 did not noticably behave differently than in stock. The only real change i noticed was with the 4E's with the highest serv value. Between the increased AV requirement (based on engine #) coupled with the high serv rating and DUR value....4E serv values in places come off more historical. I've been playtesting the mod all weekend and the different aircraft types are certainly not all acting like 4E's despite the maxed out serv value.

For example, with a careful managed Rabaul my G4M/Zero force serv value remains 95-100%. A Zero datai at Lae ranges from 50% to 90% depending on the level of engagement. With regular stand downs, the serv value quickly goes up. An interesting result from the carrier battle i had was that numerous damaged Japanese planes remained out of service for quite some time after the battle encouraging withdraw to rest and retool (hence the carrier camping tactic is far less viable after heavy engagement)

Testing is ongoing. If i expand the mod to grand campaign i'll probably adust serv value downward for patrol planes to reduce micromanagement duties. Observations on patrol and CAP's show varied results thus far. Some units maintain high serv while other units fell sharply after a week or more. So far i'm not seeing any 'game breaking' results.

Air to air losses are improved but at times are still high. (This mod version is the "carrier friendly" version......i have a 2nd version which is "airbase friendly" but nerfs Carrier battles in that it makes bombers too survivable) lol...maybe i'll make both available and let interested parties decide which they like. Carrier battles are of course important but land based ops dominate the game overall.

Its been particularily interesting to compare the results as i'm also playing Hard Sarge in the "Big Week" scenario using BTR/BoB. One really notes the difference in the combat models when you get a message like 35 P-51B bouncing ME-110 group and you either get zero outright losses or maybe 1-2 destroyed. Put 35 x P51's against an unescorted 2E group in WitP and you'll get high losses 9 times out of 10 due to all the high number of individual combat rounds from almost every aircraft involved.

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 15

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/3/2010 7:34:43 PM

Mac Linehan

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

So - when I periodically review each aircraft's numerical fatigue rating, is it best to stand down upon reaching (for example) 30% fatigue to perform preventive maintenance as opposed to 80% fatigue - that would down the aircraft for a much longer period of time?

Nik, I appreciate any thoughts and insight you might have on the matter. As a very detailed player (read "micromanager") I hope to squeeze the most serviceability out of HIJM's treasured air units.

Penguins Forever,

Mac

In general aircraft don't really need to be stood down unless they are either in heavy combat or are in a situation of inadequate AV support. There are several exceptions to this such as aircraft with a very high serv rating and high number of engines (aka B-17). Also a base that suffers damage will have it's ability to maintain aircraft impaired. Bigger airbases do a better job vs. smaller ones.

Nik -

Thank You for your thoughts - I now have a much clearer picture of how servicability is implemented in the game.

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 16

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/4/2010 4:20:00 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

Well, I am looking forward to playing a game of it soon. The GUA scenario is always fun.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Mac Linehan)

Post #: 17

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/4/2010 9:41:11 PM

LoBaron

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

This sounds very interesting.

Thanks for this work.

I�m VERY interested to test this one against my old opponent.

Edit:

What I really like about the idea behind the A2A lethality tweak. In A2A, morale is an important factor and this comes closer to the truth though.

What I am not so sure about is the effect of IJN AAA. Do you think summer to fall 42 already had an increased discepancy in AAA cap between IJN and USN?
I still wonder if there is this small bug in the pre combat AAA and if yes does it get solved in a patch.
AAA is severely handicapped by numbers and many historical examples we have available are either Allied AAA overwhelming IJN planes (by sheer numbers)
or IJN AAA overwhelmed by Allied air (by sheer numbers). There are deviations to this of course, but few enough to make them deviations.

Counting all those assumptions it could be that the numbers are just right, or theres a small bug that hands one AAA phase more to a pre-CAP (I hate that term) situation

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 6/4/2010 10:05:17 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 18

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/5/2010 3:19:55 PM

vettim89

Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

It isn't that I disagree with your concept and statements about serviceability, but if all aircraft are 5's that removes one of the comparative criteria between planes. Also, kinda funny to think of a Wapitila taking as much effort as a B-17 next to it to maintain. I'm sure you are already thinking of this.

Is your plan to ask the dev's to expand the serviceability range to 10? Honestly, I can see some need for that.

As one of the "devs", I can tell you are no concrete plans to make further code changes at this time. Focus remains on bug hunting and correction of any major boo boo's found. Keep in mind that the serv rating is only one component of the formula that determines end servicability. This aspect of the mod is a work in progress too. I noted after several months of playing AE that planes with serv ratings between 1-3 did not noticably behave differently than in stock. The only real change i noticed was with the 4E's with the highest serv value. Between the increased AV requirement (based on engine #) coupled with the high serv rating and DUR value....4E serv values in places come off more historical. I've been playtesting the mod all weekend and the different aircraft types are certainly not all acting like 4E's despite the maxed out serv value.

For example, with a careful managed Rabaul my G4M/Zero force serv value remains 95-100%. A Zero datai at Lae ranges from 50% to 90% depending on the level of engagement. With regular stand downs, the serv value quickly goes up. An interesting result from the carrier battle i had was that numerous damaged Japanese planes remained out of service for quite some time after the battle encouraging withdraw to rest and retool (hence the carrier camping tactic is far less viable after heavy engagement)

Testing is ongoing. If i expand the mod to grand campaign i'll probably adust serv value downward for patrol planes to reduce micromanagement duties. Observations on patrol and CAP's show varied results thus far. Some units maintain high serv while other units fell sharply after a week or more. So far i'm not seeing any 'game breaking' results.

Air to air losses are improved but at times are still high. (This mod version is the "carrier friendly" version......i have a 2nd version which is "airbase friendly" but nerfs Carrier battles in that it makes bombers too survivable) lol...maybe i'll make both available and let interested parties decide which they like. Carrier battles are of course important but land based ops dominate the game overall.

Its been particularily interesting to compare the results as i'm also playing Hard Sarge in the "Big Week" scenario using BTR/BoB. One really notes the difference in the combat models when you get a message like 35 P-51B bouncing ME-110 group and you either get zero outright losses or maybe 1-2 destroyed. Put 35 x P51's against an unescorted 2E group in WitP and you'll get high losses 9 times out of 10 due to all the high number of individual combat rounds from almost every aircraft involved.

These results are very historical. Both Eastern Solomons and Santa Cruz ended because both sides (esp the IJN) had run out of undamaged a/c. And yes USN AAA was that scary by that point. The US fighter control was so poor that CAP was not as effective as it could have been. Yet both battles saw the Japanese Strikes shredded by AAA. That doesn't mean huge numbers were shot down but instead the airframes were damaged beyond use in the short term which forced a witdraw.

So you results are not only historical, they feel "right"

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 19

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/5/2010 5:57:15 PM

Rob Brennan UK

Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

quote:

my old opponent

Less of the OLD !

Back OT , Hi Nik, Looks like LoBaron and I will be picking this up as our next challenge so a big thank you for giving it a tweak and it'll hopefully be differant enough to be a great challenge once again.

PS can you give Japanese subs wake homing anti CV torpedoes please as he definately had them in the last game we played .. and now i want them !

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to vettim89)

Post #: 20

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/7/2010 3:00:18 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Certainly, just watch out for nuclear contamination.

_____________________________

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)

Post #: 21

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/7/2010 7:40:44 PM

Rob Brennan UK

Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Certainly, just watch out for nuclear contamination.

they wont live long enough to notice

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 22

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/8/2010 5:08:54 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

What I am not so sure about is the effect of IJN AAA. Do you think summer to fall 42 already had an increased discepancy in AAA cap between IJN and USN?

USN/IJN flak effectiveness, in terms of outright losses did not signifigantly diverge till the Battle of Santa Cruz though damage per plane was divergent earlier. Eastern Solomons would probably have seen more of a discrepancy save for the fact that Nagumo held back his torpedo bombers from the attack out of fear of heavy losses to enemy fighters and AA defenses. The main issue however, besides general comparable losses to USN flak during 1942 is the over effectiveness of IJN flak in term of outright losses, esp when players stack BB's in their TF's. In all four carrier battles, IJN flak never brought down more than 2 planes directly per engagement. At Santa Cruz AA firmly accounted for but one SBD.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 23

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/9/2010 11:15:05 AM

Jaroen

Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Amsterdam
Status: offline

Hey Nik, what great ideas you have for creating/modding your own scenario again!
Somehow I'm wishing some or all of these will make it to the Grand Campaign eventually.

I'll bet you read 'Fire in the Sky' from Bergerud as well!? What surprised me mostly from that account was the importance of nearby bases. Both Japanese and Allies were fighting hard for bases as close as possible to the ongoing operations. Apparently close distance bases were a much more important factor as represented in the game. Well, that's my opinion at least. Especially the Japanese can do some good in the game with their long range aircraft without suffering much. While in real life it was a struggle and they really were wanting the bases on New-Guinea and down the string of Islands.

Aside from an interesting discussion in the view of game development I was wondering if you were considering this as an extra change (number 6) in your mod?

Thanks!

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 24

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/9/2010 2:58:08 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

"Fire in the Sky"

Yes.....good book. Been in my library for many years.

quote:

Aside from an interesting discussion in the view of game development I was wondering if you were considering this as an extra change (number 6) in your mod?

The development of bases? Well, the standard Scn004 modifies SPS values to retard this very thing. This is because players always do that very thing (attempt to immediately develop supporting and/or alternate bases close to the fighting) in order to benefit from hindsight and because the standard WitP build rules make it very easy using the SCN01 SPS values. In RL immediate development of new bases was mostly beyond both side's current logistical siutation...which was what made the bases in contention so important.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jaroen)

Post #: 25

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/11/2010 10:59:54 AM

Jaroen

Posts: 169
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Amsterdam
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

Aside from an interesting discussion in the view of game development I was wondering if you were considering this as an extra change (number 6) in your mod?

The development of bases? Well, the standard Scn004 modifies SPS values to retard this very thing. This is because players always do that very thing (attempt to immediately develop supporting and/or alternate bases close to the fighting) in order to benefit from hindsight and because the standard WitP build rules make it very easy using the SCN01 SPS values. In RL immediate development of new bases was mostly beyond both side's current logistical siutation...which was what made the bases in contention so important.

Thanks for answering Nik.

If I understand correctly that would make it a little harder to quickly develop 'new' bases. But I believe I failed trying to tell that new bases were not necessary because the long range planes don't require nearby bases.

With the game we find planes always being capable of doing operations on maximum range and doing some fighting in between. In reality it was very hard and usually impossible to do long range operations. Even the Japanese preferred nearby bases for their Zero's to have some flying time for combat. Again, I think this is not represented in the game, the need for nearby bases isn't very strong I think. As an example. Historically the allies fought very hard for bases around Buna to gain a shorter range to Lae etc. With Port Moresby nearby there is hardly an incentive for the Allied player to do this as well in the game. You could go for Lae immediately. Similarly with bases on the Solomon Islands. Why fighting for New Georgia when you can go for Bougainville or even New Britain with the same trouble.

By the way, I was thinking the allies did manage to build small support bases (level 1-2 in the game) almost from scratch in a very short time. Although that was from 1943 onwards mainly.

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 26

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/11/2010 2:59:17 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jaroen

Thanks for answering Nik.

If I understand correctly that would make it a little harder to quickly develop 'new' bases. But I believe I failed trying to tell that new bases were not necessary because the long range planes don't require nearby bases.

With the game we find planes always being capable of doing operations on maximum range and doing some fighting in between. In reality it was very hard and usually impossible to do long range operations. Even the Japanese preferred nearby bases for their Zero's to have some flying time for combat. Again, I think this is not represented in the game, the need for nearby bases isn't very strong I think.

The game does overcredit the bombers in terms of their being effective (especially against static bases) out too and including their maximum extended range. Joe and I find this out intimately in our current PBEM with the dastardly Aussies when we found our rear most bases in NW NG being pummeled by 1E bombers based all the way from island bases near PM in SE NG....or from Darwin etc etc. A possible solution would be to use the editor to lower max ranges to better represent combat effective ranges vs. theoretical operational ranges but of course, this would be somewhat arbitrary and subject to much debate. Fighters on the other hand, are the opposite. At longer ranges they suffer greatly in effectiveness due to pilot fatigue. For example A6M2 units, even with high 90's exp are hard pressed to be effective at range 14 vs Marine F4F units with exp levels in the 60's. (sweeps help due to the bonuses but its still a rough road)

the high serv ratings for all planes in the mod due help address the above issue to a signifigant degree in that they require players to lower the pace of their operations, employing rotation, rest and lower CAP/Search %'s.

In tooling with the game, I am enjoying the maxed out values more and more. Initially some of the situations made me think that it was a bit over the top in places. (such as with search planes and standing CAP's) Then i started adjusting my play, particularily for the small bases (level 1 bases for example you have to really watch your sortie count otherwise you go unservicable quick). For the first time, the "Rest" button has value for me. (Setting for example 30% rest for the USN CV's during the initial cover op for WATCHTOWER greatly reduced the high escort #'s while bombing, lowering plane fatigue.) Using rest at Milne Bay i kept a high level of serv there with the Kitty hawk squadron. The only cases now where i employ the typical ultra high CAP%;s are during critical situations such as unloading supply. This can only be sustained for limited periods of course which is very realistic. Radar is more critical than ever now as it can scramble planes not on standing patrol. Rotation and standdown....similar. Less planes in the air helps reduce the bloodiness.

Yes....the development of bases along a line of advance was key to US success in the Solomons. SCN004 of course however, focuses specifically on WATCHTOWER and the associated defense of PM so represents the pre-capability of the Allies to develop such bases as well as the Japanese logistical challenge for having neglected the Theater prior to the Marine landings.

_____________________________

(in reply to Jaroen)

Post #: 27

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/11/2010 6:15:11 PM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

It isn't that I disagree with your concept and statements about serviceability, but if all aircraft are 5's that removes one of the comparative criteria between planes. Also, kinda funny to think of a Wapitila taking as much effort as a B-17 next to it to maintain. I'm sure you are already thinking of this.

Is your plan to ask the dev's to expand the serviceability range to 10? Honestly, I can see some need for that.

As one of the "devs", I can tell you are no concrete plans to make further code changes at this time. Focus remains on bug hunting and correction of any major boo boo's found. Keep in mind that the serv rating is only one component of the formula that determines end servicability. This aspect of the mod is a work in progress too.

I just talked to Lt. Rico and Sgt. Zim. They're ready and willing to help....

< Message edited by RevRick -- 6/11/2010 6:16:02 PM >

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Nikademus)

Post #: 28

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/11/2010 7:35:30 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick
I just talked to Lt. Rico and Sgt. Zim. They're ready and willing to help....

To the everlasting glory of the infantry;
shines the name, shines the name;
of Roger Young

(in reply to RevRick)

Post #: 29

RE: Nikmod AE - Guadalcanal - 6/11/2010 7:59:12 PM

Nikademus

Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

Violence has resolved more conflicts than anything else. The contrary opinion that violence doesn't solve anything is merely wishful thinking at its worst.

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 30