RE: Confirmed Additions

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Confirmed Additions

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 >> RE: Confirmed Additions

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/1/2011 10:41:00 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Do you think a pair of 6" guns will tip the balance?

Maybe the 8" guns she actually carried will.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 331

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/2/2011 4:43:12 AM

JeffroK

Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

So, other Allied powers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Britain
Terminus Force Z Recommendation:
I think we should start by allowing Indomitable to come to the party. No Caribbean grounding.

After that, Renown, Belfast (she gets rebuilt more quickly), and four K-class destroyers. After that, we assume that all the DD's in refit at Singers are available. PoW and Repulse deployed with almost no destroyer support, so it's not unrealistic to prioritize that.

This gives a Force Z like this:

BB Prince of Wales
BC's Repulse & Renown
CV Indomitable
CA Belfast
DDs
Jupiter, Electra, Encounter, Express, Stronghold, Kelvin, Kimberley, Kingston, Kipling

OK, I agree with this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. Improve Singapore's Aircraft composition to something more envisioned with the 335+ Front-Line Planes desired:
--How about a couple of Hurricane or, dare I say, Spitfire Squadrons?

All Spitfires are needed in Europe and Africa. This is late 1941, and British airforce is not in a good position - it might have and edge in numbers, but it is outclassed by Luftwaffe. Most likely scenario is adding 1-2 more squadrons of Hurricans/Bufalloes. Or maybe early Warhawks, if those are given to British.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
--Completely fillout the Vilderbeest and Swordfish units.
--More Recon/Air Search assets

OK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Air Comment: Replace Buffalo with Hurri IIA/B, Vildebeeste with Beaufort I, Blenheim IF with Beaufighter IF, Blenheim I with Blenheim IV.

See the comment on Spitfires above. Even if British evaluate the enemy more realistically, all modern planes are needed in the war that's already goes on. Heck, some squadrons in Britain itself still were flying Swordfishes in summer of 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
3. A somewhat built defense line north of Singapore.

North where? It makes sense along the northern border of Malaya.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
4. How about the 18th ID STARTING in Singapore or at sea in the IO and ready for the player to send it wherever?

Better in the sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
5. Better Commonwealth dispositions in Malaya/Burma:
Add an extra Brigade to 9th & 11th Indian Divisions.

If you do, I advise make them understrength and partially disabled and set very low experience, reflecting freshly raised troops. By that moment the pool of trained Indian troops was really drained.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Move 23 Australian Bde, 2/4 Pioneer and 2/4 MG Bn to Singapore.
7 Armoured Bde is at start in Burma

7th Armored was planned to be sent to Singapore, IIRC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Dutch
1. We had some ships thrown out for additional consideration earlier. What about them?

Add perhaps a couple DDs, fortuitiously saved from Germans, and that's that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. A few more modern planes for them?

From where? Dutch don't even have aircraft production anymore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
French
Available Free French Ships

Why they are in the Pacific? It is not like New Caledonia is that important for the Free French. Moving more British/American ships to combat Japanese makes more sense, because of simplified logistics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Australia
Would it be feasible to increase repair yards in Australia ?

During the war yes, but unfortunately we can't do it. Well, as a compromise between mechanics and realilty I can see the above-proposed expansion of the Sydney shipyard to 35.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Aussie Air/Land Ideas:
Wirraway replaced by P43 and P66, not required by the USAAF but better than the Wirra!

As it said, it was an attack aircraft... And again, Australians filled the squadrons with that they had. Give them some hand-me-downs from US, like Vindicators and B-24s in early 1942 maybe. Then open upgrade for B-20s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Bring the Aussie versions of the Beaufort, Beaufighter & Mustang forwards, these were the first modern aircraft produced and there were many delays in getting them going.

Why Australian ones?

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Australian Army
(The rump of 8th Div has gone to Malaya)
A Militia Bde moves from Melbourne to Darwin.
A Militia Bde goes from Sydney to Pt Moresby
A Militia Bde goes from Brisbane to Rabaul.
A Militia Bn to Tulagi
A Militia Bn to Lae, move the NGVR to Milne Bay

Except the move from Melbourne to Darwin, sending the militia units outside of Australia is politically problematic, AFAIK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
ECONOMY
Add Allied Economic Bases on the map for some flexibility.

OK. We'll need to discuss this in detail later.

Was this to be FatR telling us what to do or JohnIII seeking ideas, I hope he is in the japanese side of the thread telling them taht anything they think of is BS. (Which is why I have avoided it.)

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 332

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/2/2011 5:37:03 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

They were going to build 6 of the South Dakota's, is it reasonable to think they built all of the engines and if so, we could have all of the big 5 reboilered to give them a 25kn speed. I feel a snoopy dance coming on

Edit: One of my sources says that 5 sets of engines were complete with no record of what happened to them. How convenient, here we have 5 wonderful turbines and boilers just laying around waiting to be used.

Edit II: My source called back to remind me that the South Dakota engines probably would not fit in any of the Big 5. delete the happy dance

Oldman--YOu just about made me spew my tea reading this entry!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 333

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/2/2011 5:43:37 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

JeffK: I've really enjoyed the entire conversation we've had on both sides of the Mod. I've tried to serve as mediator over here while keeping my ears to ground over there.

FatR and I, as well as others, discussed so many concepts in the RA mammoth thread that we were already pretty close to agreement when it came the Japanese development side. The synergy over there has been excellent. Things have gotten passionate as they always do with people lobbying for their pet projects and interests and I think we've managed to chart a pretty successful course to this point. Having long-term Modders jumping in like JWE, Juan, Term and a couple of others has only served to open up new directions of thought as well as keep the 'are you CRAZY' thinking somewhat in check.

I'll add that last comment to BOTH sides of the Mod!

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/2/2011 5:52:32 AM >

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 334

RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/2/2011 5:45:47 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Do you think a pair of 6" guns will tip the balance?

Maybe the 8" guns she actually carried will.

Terminus just made the point I was trying to convery with the above Post!

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/2/2011 5:46:07 AM >

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 335

RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/2/2011 5:51:21 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Other Comments:

1. RevRick: I like the idea of the Upgrade for the Big 5. If they cannot get their speed upgraded then we might certainly look at the FULL upgrade for Dec 7th. Heck--the JFB inside me REALLY would love to clock those BBs even more if they were useful starting DAY ONE! Sorry but I do think the 1.1s have to stay...

2. Michael:

a. Changing the US Torps is an AFB Dream and I hate that idea! Wish we could simply do a gradual improvement as it historically occurred. Am still thinking about a device upgrade for all SS starting in--say Aug 42--when they figured out the depth problem and starting turning OFF that useless magnetic exploder.

b. The ARD arriving in late-42 is an interesting idea! We could allow for some expansion of the actual yard with then an ARD arriving as a reinforcement. It would elegantly solve the issue and allow for Capital Ship repair and upgrade.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 336

RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/2/2011 5:59:29 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

Just a thought, in the 1930's the British moved two 55k ton floating docks to Singapore. They would be similar to the ones the US built in 43/44. Just put them in the game. Then simply tow one or both to what ever port you want.

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 337

RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/2/2011 7:14:02 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I assume they didn't stay at Singgers. Where did they go?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 338

RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/2/2011 12:46:39 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Allied OOB Changes
Dec 7, 1941
Perfect War Mod

MARK II Version: I went through to last two pages of Posting and think I've got everything to this point.

USA
1. The USS Wasp is Yorktown-Class

2. There are 10 newer DDs (2 Porter, 4 Mahan, and 4 Sims--4 of these in Philippines)

3. The Big Five US BB (Maryland, California, West Virginia, Colorado, and Tennessee will start the war with a partial upgrade to their propulsion while still waiting for an AA Upgrade that will be available as of 12-41.

4.Strengthen the Air Pipeline/Base Prep along the following lines:
a. Wake, Midway, and Guam: add small BF, fill out Defense Btn, put something in Guam for an Inf Unit and raise Forts by 1.
b. Base the Marine Fighters AND Vindicators at Midway to serve as western outpost of Hawaii.
b. Con Bn at Christmas, Pago-Pago, Suva, and Noumea to begin base construction.
c. Dutch Harbor gains a Con Bn
d. AS with several S-Boats (like in RA) based at Pago Pago as well as Dutch Harbor

5. We may change the DUD Torp rate to 60% matching US ship launched Torps.

PHIL
1. Add an Inf unit to Legaspi taken from Northern Luzon

2. Fill out Fighters a bit more (adding 12-18), add a B-25 Squadron and an A-20 squadron

3. Add 4 newer DDs to the Houston or Boise TF or in Manila.

4. Raise Forts in Bataan by 1 and add 20,000 supply at this base.

BRIT
1. New FORCE Z: Prince of Wales, Repulse, Renown, and DDs Kelvin, Kimberley, Kingston, Kipling

2. Add one Hurricane Squadron to Singapore as well as add 12-18 more Buffalos.

3. Fill out Vildebreest and Swordfish units.

4. Add 3rd Regiments to the two Indian Divisions in Malaya: they will be at about 50% strength and low experience.

5. Just south of Ceylon sits two TF---CV TF: Indomitable, Belfast, and DDs Jupiter, Electra, Encounter, Express, and Stronghold. This TF is escorting the 18th Brit ID...

AUST
1. Sydney Repair Yard starts at normal number but is damaged to expand out to 50.

2. Switch out 2 Wirraway for A-24

3. Add some older Fighters to the Pool as mentioned (P-36, Buffalo, P-400, etc...)

FRENCH
1. Add a STF of 1 CA, 1 CL, 4 DD, 4 SS to New Caledonia or Tahiti.

2. AS Jules Verne and a US Lead-Lease AKE serve as Depot Ships.

3. Legionairre Rgt at NC or Tahiti, and a BF at each location

4. Move the French DD already in the game to join these units.

Economy
Add on-site facilities as described earlier.

I agree with almost everything here. Except I'd still keep the shipyard at Sydney at 35. Being damaged doesn't do anything, it will be repaired in a couple of weeks. Better to add more ARDs as discussed above.

About torpedoes - on one hand, Japanese ASW is now more powerful at the start, on another, IIRC, ASW only becomes fully effective in 1944. I recently tried actively hunting down Allied subs in deep water with super-Es and Type 2 DC-armed DDs (may of 1943), and results were completely unsatisfactory - I avoided losing some of my best DDs only thanks to the still-high dud rate, lost one of the escorts and did only marginal damage. Nothing like things I've seen in Downfall.
But considering far improved foresight in weapon development for Japanese, I think it would just be unfair to leave the biggest flaw in Allied arsenal completely untouched. If you absolutely hate the idea of lesser dud rate at the start, an upgrade in late spring-summer of 1942 can be a compromise... I belive subs themselves must be upgraded, replacing Mk14 torpedo device with Mk14 Mod1, with dud rate of 60%

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 339

RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/2/2011 1:44:27 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I assume they didn't stay at Singgers. Where did they go?

Yes they did, they were scuttled, when the Japanese took over.

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 340

RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/2/2011 2:26:11 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Stanislav: THAT is what I would like for US TTs. Set the upgrade time period for August and PRESTO the Americans have Torps that work 60% of the time and then allow the normal January 1, 1943 correction and life is FINE for the Allied Player.

It has been brought to my attention the terrible starting experience American Squadrons start with during the war. What do you think of raising their starting experience to better reflect America's rotation program? A good Japanese player has their on-map training program and can turn out superior pilots so I think it makes better sense for the American units to start in better shape. Thoughts?

As to ARDs and that shipyard lets go as you and Michael suggest. Size 35 with an ARD or 2 arriving in 1942. How does that sound to AFB?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 341

RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/2/2011 2:53:44 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

5. We may change the DUD Torp rate to 60% matching US ship launched Torps.

John. The only torpedo with problems was the Mk XIV (carried by the newer "Fleet Submarines"). Those carried by the S-Boats and Surface Ships worked just fine (Up to their specs, anyway. They didn't have the range or hitting power of the Jap Type-93---but then no other torpedo in the world did). Only the Mk XIV should have a "dud rate" at all.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 342

RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/2/2011 3:03:20 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I thought--and I show my lack of game knowledge here--that was what get gets the massive DUD rate within the game. I know all too well in my game with Bill that the S-Boats Torps work fine. If we go with the Mark 14, Mod 1 as FatR suggests then it can be set to the 60% rate with then the normal change in Jan 43 bringing it up from being annoying to downright terrifying.

Am I missing something here?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 343

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/2/2011 3:06:04 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Skyland: Would you be willing to do the unit choice and placement for the French in the Mod once we make up our minds about all this?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 344

RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/2/2011 3:08:26 PM

mike scholl 1

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I thought--and I show my lack of game knowledge here--that was what get gets the massive DUD rate within the game. I know all too well in my game with Bill that the S-Boats Torps work fine. If we go with the Mark 14, Mod 1 as FatR suggests then it can be set to the 60% rate with then the normal change in Jan 43 bringing it up from being annoying to downright terrifying.

Am I missing something here?

quote:

"DUD Torp rate to 60% matching US ship launched Torps." Might just be a typo..., but you implied a 60% DUD rate for US ship launched torpedoes, which would be totally wrong.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 345

RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/2/2011 3:12:34 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Sorry I wasn't clear about that. Now I think we are good.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 346

RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/2/2011 3:46:46 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

John, I would not allow the US to build the big ARD's any sooner. If we add the two the brits put in singers the players can just move one, or assume one was moved prior to the war to Sydney.

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 347

RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/2/2011 3:49:41 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Reasonable...

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 348

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/2/2011 3:57:15 PM

Skyland

Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Skyland: Would you be willing to do the unit choice and placement for the French in the Mod once we make up our minds about all this?

A vos ordres, Amiral !

_____________________________

War Options 1941 mod : https://sites.google.com/site/waroptionswitpaemod/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 349

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/2/2011 4:40:30 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Skyland: Would you be willing to do the unit choice and placement for the French in the Mod once we make up our minds about all this?

Just fyi, in Babes we added a bunch of French ships arriving in 1945 and snuck the art for them into the standard ship art set. Might be useful to Brother Skyland.

Adroit Class DDs at Class 772 (1941), 773 (1943) and bitmap 278; (Fortune, Alcyon, Forbin, Basque)
Duguay Trouin CL at Class 770 (1941), 771 (1943) and bitmap 227;
La Galissonniere Class CLs at Class 776 (1943 version only) and bitmap 226; (Gloire, Georges Leygues)
Emile Bertin CL at Class 765 (1943 version only) and bitmap 063.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 350

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/2/2011 4:45:55 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Well Done Sir!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 351

RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/2/2011 4:49:00 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

John. The only torpedo with problems was the Mk XIV (carried by the newer "Fleet Submarines"). Those carried by the S-Boats and Surface Ships worked just fine (Up to their specs, anyway. They didn't have the range or hitting power of the Jap Type-93---but then no other torpedo in the world did). Only the Mk XIV should have a "dud rate" at all.

All torpedoes in the game have a dud rate. US surface ship Mk15 has 60% in 1942. And considering that, AFAIK, most of torpedoes fired during the attempt to scuttle Hornet clearly were duds, yes, they were problematic IRL as well.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 352

RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/2/2011 4:52:38 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I thought--and I show my lack of game knowledge here--that was what get gets the massive DUD rate within the game. I know all too well in my game with Bill that the S-Boats Torps work fine. If we go with the Mark 14, Mod 1 as FatR suggests then it can be set to the 60% rate with then the normal change in Jan 43 bringing it up from being annoying to downright terrifying.

Am I missing something here?

Reduction in US dud rates in Jan 43 and then in September 43 is hardcoded. And January 43 reduction is by set 20%, so if we indroduce modified Mk14 torps with 60% dud rate, it will be reduced to 40% on 43/1.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 353

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/2/2011 6:42:42 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Skyland: Would you be willing to do the unit choice and placement for the French in the Mod once we make up our minds about all this?

Just fyi, in Babes we added a bunch of French ships arriving in 1945 and snuck the art for them into the standard ship art set. Might be useful to Brother Skyland.

Adroit Class DDs at Class 772 (1941), 773 (1943) and bitmap 278; (Fortune, Alcyon, Forbin, Basque)
Duguay Trouin CL at Class 770 (1941), 771 (1943) and bitmap 227;
La Galissonniere Class CLs at Class 776 (1943 version only) and bitmap 226; (Gloire, Georges Leygues)
Emile Bertin CL at Class 765 (1943 version only) and bitmap 063.

Careful, that might just get you a bottle of scotch when you come to Jax.

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 354

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/2/2011 11:14:41 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Skyland: Would you be willing to do the unit choice and placement for the French in the Mod once we make up our minds about all this?

Just fyi, in Babes we added a bunch of French ships arriving in 1945 and snuck the art for them into the standard ship art set. Might be useful to Brother Skyland.

Adroit Class DDs at Class 772 (1941), 773 (1943) and bitmap 278; (Fortune, Alcyon, Forbin, Basque)
Duguay Trouin CL at Class 770 (1941), 771 (1943) and bitmap 227;
La Galissonniere Class CLs at Class 776 (1943 version only) and bitmap 226; (Gloire, Georges Leygues)
Emile Bertin CL at Class 765 (1943 version only) and bitmap 063.

Careful, that might just get you a bottle of scotch when you come to Jax.

We'll need artwork for a Frenchie CA. Which CA is the most reasonable (I did not say BEST) choice?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 355

RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/2/2011 11:16:13 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I thought--and I show my lack of game knowledge here--that was what get gets the massive DUD rate within the game. I know all too well in my game with Bill that the S-Boats Torps work fine. If we go with the Mark 14, Mod 1 as FatR suggests then it can be set to the 60% rate with then the normal change in Jan 43 bringing it up from being annoying to downright terrifying.

Am I missing something here?

Reduction in US dud rates in Jan 43 and then in September 43 is hardcoded. And January 43 reduction is by set 20%, so if we indroduce modified Mk14 torps with 60% dud rate, it will be reduced to 40% on 43/1.

Now I am confused again. Can we set a Mk 14, Mk 2 at 60% in August 42, the allow the NORMAL changes for Jan 43 and Sept 43? Sorry if this is a stupid question but I need to ask.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 356

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/2/2011 11:24:52 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
We'll need artwork for a Frenchie CA. Which CA is the most reasonable (I did not say BEST) choice?

Probably best for Skyland to answer this one. There were 2 Duquesnes, 4 Suffrens, and Algerie. I believe that's about it. I'm guessing Sky will opt for a Suffren, but he might go for Algerie since it had way the best rangeof the lot. I really dunno.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 357

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/3/2011 8:05:14 AM

Skyland

Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
We'll need artwork for a Frenchie CA. Which CA is the most reasonable (I did not say BEST) choice?

Probably best for Skyland to answer this one. There were 2 Duquesnes, 4 Suffrens, and Algerie. I believe that's about it. I'm guessing Sky will opt for a Suffren, but he might go for Algerie since it had way the best rangeof the lot. I really dunno.

If it can be my choice, i vote for the Algerie for the range reason. I have the ART.
May be we can keep the Suffren and others arriving in the late reinforcements lot as in the official mod ?

Other question : what about the ships already in Indochina before the war ? Could we consider that some have escaped the Japs toward Singapore or HK ? May be with some damage ?
There was a CL, few PG, PC, SC, AM,... plus the xAPs/xAKs and a small ARD.

_____________________________

War Options 1941 mod : https://sites.google.com/site/waroptionswitpaemod/

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 358

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/3/2011 2:37:33 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Algerie it is then!

Yes: I agree on keeping the reinforcements where they are.

The ships that were in Indochina should be represented and placed accordingly. My vote would be the Singapore area, however, if we proceed under the historical premise we've thrown out (with a reinforcement TF being sent from the French in North Africa to STRENGTHEN their possessions but it doesn't arrive until the Japanese take their target) then perhaps we should start with several damaged ships in Singapore and the rest either at New Caledonia or in Tahiti?

Could you come up with a list of Ships and anything else relevant?

Going with that thought, Skyland WHICH of these two bases is the logical HQ for these new units? Which was more important/settled to the French? Was one an administrative Capital?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Skyland)

Post #: 359

RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/3/2011 2:52:54 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Now I am confused again. Can we set a Mk 14, Mk 2 at 60% in August 42, the allow the NORMAL changes for Jan 43 and Sept 43? Sorry if this is a stupid question but I need to ask.

Yes, of course. Changes will happen as usual - 20% reduction in dud rate on 43/1 (to 40%) and reduction of dud rate to the default 10% on 43/9.

By the way, John, you probably should put a link to the current RA file in your signature as well. The thread soon will fall far down the forum.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 360