RE: RA 5.0

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: RA 5.0

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: RA 5.0

Page: << < prev 8 9 [10] 11 12 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/22/2012 9:20:10 PM

FatR

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

Another note on Agano-class cruisers...

1)At this stage we might as well call it Oyodo-class, because the armament is almost that of Oyodo built as a normal CL.

2)This raises a couple questions, first of them is the price. There are now 8 of them in the construction queue and available at the start. Agano was a very budget cruiser, save for its flak guns - gunhouses instead of true turrets, and with two barrels instead of planned three, reusal of old 152mm guns, a relatively simple protections scheme (with no antitorpedo protection, although it is not clear if said protection on Oyodo was of any use, she was done for by near misses and beached due to a near miss before that) and powerplant. Oyodo reused old guns too, but otherwise was more expensive. Speaking of that, 8 cruisers in their current shape will need 72 155mm guns, but only 36 were built for Mogamis.

3)Even if we get around price and lack of suitable shipyards (the latter can be circumvented by planning and starting the construction earlier, I think), I'm not sure if it is technically possible to place torpedo mounts on centerline in an Oyodo-style hull, that has enough space for 100mm flak guns. It is 1.4m wider.

4)Tactical function. Original Aganos were built to replace obsolete (and increasingly decrepit) 5500-ton cruisers as destroyer leaders. For their small displacement (slightly more than half of a Cleveland) they were adequate (we, Jap players, primarily think they suck because in the stock we just get too few ships in all, and when our ships can't go against the most common Allied ones one on one this seems an insult to injury) and sufficiently simple to be constructed in wartime. I'm not sure they were worth the investment of men and materials, though. Their size was inadequate for placing sufficient medium-calibre AA armament and they were about as vulnerable as DDs to torpedo hits. Building moderately powerful light cruisers like the Swiftsure class (and maximally powerful battleships/battlecruisers) is arguably the best course of action post-treaties, interbellum CAs just ended up an attept to create pseudo-battleships on limited displacement. So technically what is present in RA as the Agano class is not far from optimum (assuming technical and industrial vialbility, which I doubt above). But what was rationalization for that?

This is not a call for any immediate changes... rather a material for discussion, maybe.

P.S.: On a brighter note, I learned that my earlier doubts about placing so many Type 98 twins everywhere were unfounfed. An open mount, like those employed on RL Oyodo, has almost exactly the same weight as a 127/40 Type 89 mount.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 271

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/22/2012 10:52:02 PM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

If anyone has an experience with playing RA into late war, any comments on the game balance at that stage would be much appreciated here.

FatR is having too much fun...

< Message edited by bigred -- 11/22/2012 10:53:06 PM >

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 272

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/22/2012 11:43:27 PM

John 3rd

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

What would you do for a Japanese version of the Swiftsure class?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 273

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/22/2012 11:45:40 PM

John 3rd

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

Here are the details of that class:

Class and type: Minotaur-class light cruiser
Name: HMS Swiftsure
Builder: Vickers Armstrong at Newcastle-on-Tyne

General characteristics
Displacement: 8,800 tons standard
11,130 tons full
Length: 555.5 ft (169.3 m)
Beam: 63 ft (19 m)
Draught: 17.25 ft (5.26 m)
Propulsion: Four Admiralty-type three drum boilers. Four shaft Parsons steam turbines 72,500 shp
Speed: 31.5 knots (58.3 km/h)
Range: 2,000 nautical miles (3,700 km) at 30 knots (60 km/h)
8,000 nautical miles (15,000 km) at 16 knots (30 km/h); 1,850 tons fuel oil
Complement: 867

Armament:
Three triple BL 6 inch Mk XXIII naval guns
Five dual QF 4 inch Mark XVI guns HA
Four quad 2 pdr
Six single 40 mm AA
Two triple 21-inch (530 mm) Torpedo Tubes.

Armour:
3.25 to 3.5-inch (89 mm) belt
2 inch deck
1 to 2-inch (51 mm) turrets
1.5 to 2-inch (51 mm) bulkheads

_____________________________

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 #: 274

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/23/2012 12:09:21 AM

John 3rd

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

If you go by the recylced idea then the 5 6" Triples taken off of the 4 Mogami Class provide 20 Turrets.

We build Yamato and Musashi yielding 8 of those 20.

Twelve left would provide us 4 3 Triple Turret CLs. We could CALL these the Agano's.

Any turrets after that require building more...

_____________________________

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 #: 275

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/23/2012 7:19:32 AM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
What would you do for a Japanese version of the Swiftsure class?

Either this:

10x152mm
8x76mm
12x25mm (initially)
8x610mm tordedoes (no reloads)
1 floatplane (maybe switch it for torpedo reloads?)

or this:

9x155mm
12x100mm
12x25mm (initially)
8x610mm torpedoes (with reloads) (It seems my worries about centerline TT placements were unfounded)
2 floatplanes
General data as for RL Oyodo class (note that Oyodo still had a significant reserve of stability even after late-war modernizations, that's why so many 100/65 twins)

Concepts and images (c) Eugen Pinak.

The first project is cheaper and more suitable for mass production, but requires research of a new AA gun and most likely of a new AP shell for the 152mm gun (it only had HE shells IRL, just like Japanese DD guns, so that's why it has unusually low penetration in AE) and is also less powerful. The second is more complex, but more potent.

Tactical/conceptual niche: the first project is a mega-leader, capable of taking on Two Oceans' Navy's cruisers in night combat during the night phase of the Decisive Battle (tm). It is more or less with the RL Improved Agano project, except with more armament and more realistic speed requirements.

The second project is an all-purpose light cruiser, capable of leading destroyers in night attacks, providing anti-air defense for carrier divisions and long-distance raiding (instead of building dedicated CLAAs, which Japanese wanted, but never got to building). Again, is primarily supposed to tackle its USN counterparts in night combat. Although it can stand up to British cruisers in day battles too.

In either case, drafting the plans begins as soon as the decision to leave the treaties is made, so construction is started before 1940. Won't judge how many of either can be build under the new RA vision...

< Message edited by FatR -- 11/23/2012 7:22:29 AM >

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 276

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/23/2012 9:56:25 AM

Cavalry Corp

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

John,

I cannot get a screen shot i tried to do it with windows snip...but alas.

I can tell you I did the first upgrade but there is no more - all the others are ok. I can also tell you that the Maya is listed in your shot as Maya class but its Takao? Doe that make any difference.

should I send you the game so you can see what it looks like in Sept42 anyway?

cav

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 277

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/23/2012 3:25:59 PM

John 3rd

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

Cavalry: Email sent to you.

FatR: Mighty interesting. These were actual Japanese blueprints/designs? Hmmm...

I like the 2nd class a lot. Would those turrests be the cast-offs from the Mogami's? The 3.9" would already be in production...

The first design with the 76mm harkens back to the original designs. Those twin Turrets---could they be the conventional DD Turrets and become more of a Dido-Class?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)

Post #: 278

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/23/2012 3:45:57 PM

John 3rd

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

Tracked down some of Pinak's work and discussion boards. They are FASCINATING! Have some reading to do...

_____________________________

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 #: 279

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/23/2012 8:34:42 PM

John 3rd

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

Tracked down the Maya issues that Cavalry is writing about. For some reason Maya was set to her own set of upgrades from when FatR and I were bouncing CA ideas around A LONG TIME AGO! Am not changing this yet on the RA Site due to looking for other issues...

_____________________________

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 #: 280

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/23/2012 8:41:58 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Cavalry: Email sent to you.

FatR: Mighty interesting. These were actual Japanese blueprints/designs? Hmmm...

I like the 2nd class a lot. Would those turrests be the cast-offs from the Mogami's? The 3.9" would already be in production...

The first design with the 76mm harkens back to the original designs. Those twin Turrets---could they be the conventional DD Turrets and become more of a Dido-Class?

The more I look and think about this the more I like the idea. Could you go with 4 of the second design (you've got the triple turrets AND 3.9" in production so this is simple) starting with Circle 4 and have 2 built and two more due in early-42 THEN change to the new DL's (Destroyer Leaders) with the twin turrets for a further run of 4-6 ships in pairs (early-43/early-44/early-45)? They would be simpler, quicker, and less costly to build as a replacement for the old CLs. The initial four would serve as excellent CLAAs for the new CVs being built and the second class serve as more of a true DL. This would serve both the Kido Butai AND the more conservative elements of the Big Gun Kaigun...

_____________________________

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 #: 281

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/24/2012 2:47:31 AM

John 3rd

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

I plan to move the starting locations of: Sturgeon, Pike, Shark, Tarpon, Pickerel, S-38 and Porpoise to Bataan. This moves them away from Manila and closer to their historic starting locations. It also clears the path for a decent Manila attack without hitting undue targets.

Got Maya fixed. Are there ANY MORE ISSUES? I shall wait until tomorrow morning before sending the final 5.2 Files to FatR.

_____________________________

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 #: 282

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/24/2012 3:57:45 AM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

Finally, now I need to think about finding an Allied player and try out this thing from the Japanese side.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 283

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/24/2012 1:49:25 PM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

One quick question, will 5.2 use the old extended map or the new one with Buin and Shortlands separated?

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 284

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/24/2012 3:50:33 PM

John 3rd

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

It will use whatever is the DBB standard right now. The map and stacking limits are downloaded from DBB sites.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 285

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/24/2012 4:02:22 PM

John 3rd

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

Just checked Buin. It is one complex at this point.

_____________________________

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 #: 286

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/25/2012 3:42:38 PM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

Sent direct to John.

< Message edited by Dan Nichols -- 11/25/2012 3:45:25 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 287

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/25/2012 4:16:37 PM

John 3rd

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

On it....grrrrrrrrrrrr...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 288

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/25/2012 6:32:02 PM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

While you are at it, the new extended map has room to include Buin where Shortlands is now and a place right beside it for a new Shortlands. the DBB guys used slot 749 for Buin and slot 1019 for Shortlands.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 289

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/25/2012 7:29:01 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

There are also three dot base around Buna that my influence combat in the great Port Moresby area. I opened up a the newest DBB scenario 30 and those base (3 around Buna and the split between Buin and Shortland show up). However, when I open up my current PBEM game using DBB 30 from some time ago, the split of Buin and Shortland does NOT show up.

So you can easily add the three dot bases around Buna to current RA. The question will be adding the Buin and Shortland split which will mean using the newest map panels. I would suggest that you do two versions of the new RA. One without the addition of the Buin and Shortland split, but adds the three bases around Buna and uses the older map panels (version 5.3). Another that will use the newer map panels and adds the split between Buin and Shortland (version 6.0).

Buna - these three bases can be added to existing and future versions
972 - Kokoda @ 98,129 - Port 0(0) AF 0(1) with 25k stacking
986 - Dobabura @ 99, 130 - Port 0(0) AF 0(1) with 25k stacking
987- Ora Bay @ 100, 130 - Port 0(1) AF 0(1) with 35k stacking

Old Shortland in now Buin and will need newer map panels
749- Buin @ 109, 131 - Port 1(1) AF 0(3) with 35k stacking
1019 - Shortland @ 110, 132 - Port 1(3) AF 0(1) with unlimited stacking

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 11/26/2012 3:45:23 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Dan Nichols)

Post #: 290

RE: RA 5.0 - 11/25/2012 11:38:19 PM

John 3rd

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

I'd love to add the options. The question is how will this impact existing games? Does it require a complete different map install or just adding a couple of panels? If it is simply adding the extra panels then--by all means--lets add it.

Been a busy day: went to church, drove to Denver for a Railroad Convention, just got back, and now am heading to work.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 291

NEWS! RA Players Read - 11/26/2012 4:21:25 PM

John 3rd

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

MAJOR POSTING

Michael and I just got off the phone and we did the following things:

1. The radar issue is now fixed with changing the device from #140 (a FIXED Radar) to 1474. Units (when they upgrade in June 43) will be able to move with this correction and not be frozen in place.
2. Added the following Bases: Kokoda, Dobadura, Ora Bay. We separated Buin and Shortland into their own bases.

ISSUE:
In doing this change you CANNOT use the base changes/additions with an existing game. This impacts the Turn One work I have gotten done with Dan. Additionally separating Buin and Shortland requires use of the latest DBB Map. Games started prior to this Map Change cannot use it regardless.

Thinking SOLUTION:
We have separated the Mods. RA 70 will reflect database changes to existing campaigns and RA 72 will use the database changes AND the new map info. Make sense?

Questions?

We're going to sit on this for a day or two before release to get feedback and see if there any additional issues.

Sorry for any issues this causes...
John

_____________________________

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 #: 292

RE: NEWS! RA Players Read - 11/26/2012 7:38:28 PM

Natali

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline

Hello. Trying to help out. If this is not helpful or you thing I'm sticking my nose where it doesn't belong, say so.

The old sweats who did the Map and Base changes tried to make everything as painless as possible.

I hope I can explain this right. Both old games without the Buin-Shortlands split and new games with the split can use the new Extended map with the new split graphics. Older games that just have Shortlands will have Shortlands showing up in the same place regardless. All that happens is the map graphics will say Buin and the drawing of the islands will move across the hex boundary. So old games can use the new Extended Map without problem.

The new Buin base is in the same slot as the old Shortlands base so that�s just a text name change in the locations file. The new Shortlands base is in a previously unused slot so it�s a never mind to existing games and the AI. There�s some Guadalcanal and Operation SF scenarios going on and they have dropped in the new map and new bases without any problems at all.

Only time a problem comes up is if a new scenario file moves LCU units from an old scenario file onto the new base in the database. That confuses the savegame file but if everything is set to arrive in base #749, whatever it�s called, it should be �transparent�.

If you think I can help you some, call me. I�m in the middle of doing just this with my �42 Babes scenario. If you think my nose is out of joint, call me too and I'll step away.

Regards. Sam

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 293

RE: NEWS! RA Players Read - 11/26/2012 9:34:14 PM

John 3rd

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

Natali:

I added dot bases near Buna and the new map. When I loaded the game I have just started Turn One prep on for Dan and I, it did not show anything new...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Natali)

Post #: 294

RE: NEWS! RA Players Read - 11/26/2012 9:43:27 PM

John 3rd

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

Yep. Just checked and the new bases do not show up in a game that hasn't even had Turn One sent. Very sad. Time to redo 3 hours of work with Dan and I's game...

_____________________________

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 #: 295

RE: NEWS! RA Players Read - 11/26/2012 9:52:53 PM

Natali

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/18/2012
From: Ocatillo Land
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Yep. Just checked and the new bases do not show up in a game that hasn't even had Turn One sent. Very sad. Time to redo 3 hours of work with Dan and I's game...

So sorry John 3rd. Maybe I got confused, it's easy to do. Hope I didn't do anything bad for your mod. I would get bad beat up if that happened.

Sam

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 296

RE: NEWS! RA Players Read - 11/27/2012 7:57:03 AM

JeffroK

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

MAJOR POSTING

Michael and I just got off the phone and we did the following things:

1. The radar issue is now fixed with changing the device from #140 (a FIXED Radar) to 1474. Units (when they upgrade in June 43) will be able to move with this correction and not be frozen in place.
2. Added the following Bases: Kokoda, Dobadura, Ora Bay. We separated Buin and Shortland into their own bases.

ISSUE:
In doing this change you CANNOT use the base changes/additions with an existing game. This impacts the Turn One work I have gotten done with Dan. Additionally separating Buin and Shortland requires use of the latest DBB Map. Games started prior to this Map Change cannot use it regardless.

Thinking SOLUTION:
We have separated the Mods. RA 70 will reflect database changes to existing campaigns and RA 72 will use the database changes AND the new map info. Make sense?

Questions?

We're going to sit on this for a day or two before release to get feedback and see if there any additional issues.

Sorry for any issues this causes...
John

Should be Kokoda, Dobodura (http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/papua_buna_1942.jpg), Oro Bay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oro_Bay)

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 297

RE: NEWS! RA Players Read - 11/29/2012 1:02:49 AM

John 3rd

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

Thanks Jeff. Will correct.

have found no other issues so the new Mod Version shall be sent to FatR later tonight or tomorrow morning.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to JeffroK)

Post #: 298

RE: NEWS! RA Players Read - 11/29/2012 5:25:25 PM

John 3rd

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

RA 5.3 is complete. The dot bases have been added near Buna, Buin--Shortland are split, and the names are spelled correctly. Have sent the scenario to FatR. Everything stays within RA 70 using the current extended map of DBB with Stacking Limits.

_____________________________

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 #: 299

RE: NEWS! RA Players Read - 11/29/2012 6:26:06 PM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

5.3? the ones you sent me said 6.3. I guess I am ahead of things.