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 6.0

 
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 6.0 Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/12/2013 1:36:09 PM   
ny59giants


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

I pulled up my version of RA and looked at the Allied fighters. I see a few places that I would change.

P-40N1 @ 70/mo - 7/43 to 7/44
P-40N5 @ 55/mo - 7/43 to 12/44

The N1 has better speed while the N5 has betters stats. One of them ends in early '44 (around 3/44 or before). By this time they are best just as escorts.

P-47D2 @ 56/mo - 7/43 to 2/44
P-47D25 @ 175/mo - 3/44 to 6/44
P-47N @ 100/mo - 3/45

Change the D25 to 90/mo and have it go from 3/44 until 2/45.

P-38J changed from 10 to 20/mo. Thus, the P-38L which comes out in 6/44 will produce 90/mo.



_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 151
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/12/2013 4:03:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Doesn't look too bad to me. Good thoughts Michael.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 152
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/12/2013 4:04:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		When we get back from Iron Man 3 (after church) I am going to try and 'build' the Charlotte and Post it here for viewing and commentary.

_____________________________



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 #: 153
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/12/2013 6:25:30 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Stanislav,

I pulled up my version of RA and looked at the Allied fighters. I see a few places that I would change.

P-40N1 @ 70/mo - 7/43 to 7/44
P-40N5 @ 55/mo - 7/43 to 12/44

The N1 has better speed while the N5 has betters stats. One of them ends in early '44 (around 3/44 or before). By this time they are best just as escorts.

P-47D2 @ 56/mo - 7/43 to 2/44
P-47D25 @ 175/mo - 3/44 to 6/44
P-47N @ 100/mo - 3/45

Change the D25 to 90/mo and have it go from 3/44 until 2/45.

P-38J changed from 10 to 20/mo. Thus, the P-38L which comes out in 6/44 will produce 90/mo.





D25 should be reduced to at about 65/month if it is to be produced until 2/45. The overal delivery still be higher (780 vs. 700 airframes). Extra Lightnings are not so bad, they are limited by high SR, at least but Thuds? All versions of Thunderbolt are the most overpowered fighters in the game because they have amazing stats AND SR 1.


Otherwise - OK.

_____________________________

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 ny59giants)
Post #: 154
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/13/2013 2:46:40 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		What about the many American FP groups (size 18) that are able to upgrade to the SBD-3s and/or -5s also being able to upgrade to the Avenger airframes. I would attach a PP cost for this to happen to slow it down. You could balance it by not increasing the SBD production and having some FP groups able to convert to Avengers without paying PP cost. They could fill in for some of the low Army bomber production/replacement rate.

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 5/13/2013 4:16:28 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 155
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/13/2013 3:59:30 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		THAT is an outstanding idea!!!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 156
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/17/2013 9:05:31 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
THAT is an outstanding idea!

How about this one?

Come up with lots of very interesting specs for later war J aircraft. Now I know the plane designers used Francillon a lot and tried their best to keep their sources unitary, consistent, and comprehensive; a good thing. But I am seeing vast differences between the Francillon data and the actual performance data as measured by TAIC for later model J planes.

There’s really no accounting for this, since I checked the test data and saw that every single plane tested used simple 92 octane avgas (ok, Japan used 87 octane, but so what?). Did Francillon use original Japanese data? And how was that data collected and under what conditions? Is Francillons data consistent across nationalities given their different testing/reporting conditions?

I really like the TAIC stuff because it is so completely consistent and uniform for every airframe tested and it has graphs and charts and notes up the wazoo. The Allied stuff is dead on Francillon’s numbers. The Japanese stuff is waaaay off. To a lesser extent, the German, Italian, and Russian stuff is a bit tweaked as well.

So I have N1K1-Js at 405 mph.; N1K2-Js at 414 mph; and Ki-84-Is at 421 mph. Right off the performance charts. If I do a Hp/Wt calculation, it fits super well and I can get some decent numbers for other late model planes that weren’t tested.

Following the evolution of the A6M series, my algorithm works great for the M2, M3, M5 models and returns numbers closer to the TAIC test results than “internet received wisdom”. So pumped it up for the A6M7-63 and A6M8-62 and got 378 mph for the A6M8 given nominal weight conditions (exactly the ones used in the TAIC tests).

Anyway, all this is fine, but for the altitude differential of maneuverability. Read many reports of performance at altitude and have a sketchy algorithm running, but nothing definitive. Gonna take a lot of game runs with different scenarios, at various times, to capture and render the data, so it’s not straight forward. Needs a lot of work, but is looking good in our scenarios, so far.

JWE

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 157
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/18/2013 10:23:55 AM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

What about the many American FP groups (size 18) that are able to upgrade to the SBD-3s and/or -5s also being able to upgrade to the Avenger airframes. I would attach a PP cost for this to happen to slow it down. You could balance it by not increasing the SBD production and having some FP groups able to convert to Avengers without paying PP cost. They could fill in for some of the low Army bomber production/replacement rate.


I have no problems with this idea. But how does one sets optional upgrade possibilities in the editor?

_____________________________

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 ny59giants)
Post #: 158
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/18/2013 10:36:58 AM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: Symon

How about this one?


It is most excellent, and I'll be very glad to see your set of TAIC-based performance data. Though if it is used, MVR rating for some Japanese airframes can probably be reduced if it is use. Assuming, as I do, that MVR in the game generally corresponds to wing loading, and it wasn't that different for, say, F6F-5 and N1K2-J as it is in the game (184 vs 166 kg/m2; but MVR 30 vs 19 in the game - more difference in the in-game stats than between Hellcat and P-47D with its massive 284 kg/m2 wing loading).

_____________________________

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 Symon)
Post #: 159
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/18/2013 11:41:31 AM   
ny59giants


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

From DBB Scenario 30, I found two air groups that have the data for SBDs and Avengers.

ID 2841 (VS-53) has the FPs and SBDs upgrades.
ID 2681 (VMTB-233) has the SBD and Avenger upgrades.

Hope this helps.

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 160
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/18/2013 1:58:34 PM   
John 3rd


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

John: I like your aircraft information. Make sure you and FatR exchange back and forth.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 161
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/18/2013 6:23:58 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Make sure you and FatR exchange back and forth.

Perhaps not really something that works in a GC environment. I did this for a late war re-conquest of the PI Ops Problem. The umpire wanted a real tough Ops Problem, so Japan was allowed reasonable remaining carrier and surface assets. But air was pretty whacked-out unbalanced so, with a lot of help/info from Mike Williams and Rick Dunn, there¡¦s some Sentai and Kokutai with some planes that are as good as they ¡§could have been¡¨.

Didn¡¦t take much, just 3 assumptions: Japan did have some (not a lot, but some) strategic materials floating around (addresses the total lack of spare parts issue); some IJA and IJN aviator wives said ¡§enuff of this crap¡¨ and forced their way into the aircraft workforce (addresses the utterly pathetic workmanship issue); and Japan still had some 92 octane production capability (no need to collect pine-nuts for turpentine as an 82 octane avgas source). Not too far-fetched ƒº.

So with stuff built right, tuned right, maintained right, and with decent fuel, they may well perform like they did at Wright. Note: the TAIC tests (and the many other flight tests for aircraft on both sides) were done in the clean/light condition. Many of the tests have performance at ¡§overload¡¨ weight (drop tanks primarily), but not much in the nominal, dirtied-up drag, actual combat regime. So the 420+ speeds of Corsairs and Thuds need to be taken with a grain of salt. And that same grain of salt becomes sauce for the gander as well as the goose.

Other thing I did was redefine planes and squadrons to make some CAP/Fighter optimized and others GA optimized, again using TAIC data. The Marine Aviation guys wanted that and it made things very interesting. It forced serious altitude considerations with respect to mission posture and forced strike packages to a more rational mix. But that's not something that AE gamers do, and it's only valid in in short-time/map scenarios, so it's not something you would want to do for R.A.

What I didn¡¦t do was dink with maneuver bands. Thought what I did was good enough. If I was to dink with them, I would try to rationalize the comparison reports of relative performance along the speed and altitude regime. But the game algorithm for this is very complex. Not sure I even want to go there. It would take a lot of time and a lot of cranking, on both the algorithm and the performance data, to get it reasonable; too much to make it ¡¥right¡¦.

Butt ¡K can make my Aircraft file available to Stan, if he wants. Can explain some things off-line where they may not be clear.

JWE

< Message edited by Symon -- 5/18/2013 6:29:26 PM >

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 162
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/20/2013 5:38:15 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
Having played RA into March '45...


And forgot to ask: any comments on new and improved airframes? Flak? Did anything performed especially well in 1944-45 (A6M8 is cool for 1943, but clearly lacks performance against Thunderbolts/Corsairs/Spitfires, I found myself deploying primarily Georges until Sam became available).



The Japanese fighter production of late war air frames is above normal, but within reason. The allied fighter pools attrit the advanced Japanese air frames at expected levels of about 3-5 to 1. I was surprised at the speed that these airframes came into production vs. the AI. Example, the A6M8 came into theater production in Aug '44. AA effects are pretty intense, as are Ops losses, in late 44 to mid-45. If you do anything stupid with your bombers as allied in 44-45, the advanced fighters combined with AA, combined with the current coordination issues noted elsewhere, can effectively eliminate an entire production line in 1 or 2 turns...and that hurts. Example, I have various B-25 groups set to bomb a stack in an open area, and then follow up with a ground attack. The Japanese stack is dislodged & retreats to another hex. If I do not stand down these bombers, they will attack a random defended target. Any defended target, with CAP and AA, can and usually does cause 90% plus casualties, even if the bombers have Escort (which also take a beating). Not that I do anything stupid . Do something stupid 2 times in 1 game, you are done. That can be pretty unforgiving. With the advanced airframes being encountered, plus the higher production rate, the game becomes a-historical. That is fine, but allies are limited by the historical.

Once a foothold is gained on the Homeland, any bomber attack on any city target generates some pretty severe casualties as well, even at altitudes of 15k plus. I got to the end of March '45, and I had to stop. I was using B17's and B26's by this time. I was moving some Marine PBJ's in from the United States, as those were the only pools that had any air frames. Night raids by B29's received 20%-30% casualties each raid from night fighters, AA, and Ops combined (1 raid a week, 30% set to rest, altitude 7k). B-24's in day strikes altitude 12k with 20 plus escorts received the same casualty rate. I was disbanding groups into others in an attempt to keep squadrons operating. I had 9 squadrons of 29's, @ 11 24's, about 7 A-20's and about the same in 25's on initial invasion in Jan 45. I had stood down my B-24's, A-20's & B-25's almost entirely by early spring. From this point forward I used Bombardments exclusively.

I won the game as expected long before I got to this point. And I'm not complaining, just offering an opinion from an end game perspective. I was just playing to see "What comes next?" I had seized all Hokkaido and Honshu to Tokyo. At this point it became a stalemate due to the oversized stacks in Japanese held points, and the elimination of the US Air Force bomber command as an effective force.


< Message edited by Lecivius -- 5/20/2013 5:52:45 PM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 163
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/21/2013 9:16:57 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Thanks for the comments, Lecivius. I'm pretty surprised to see such bomber casualty rates. In my own experience by mid-1944 I have only 3 bases in the whole Empire with enough AAA to systematically inflict significant losses (Moulmein, Rabaul, Truk), plus a few more with token/disruption only protection. Tests in Downfall made me think that Japanese ground AA is largely ineffectual, even with 20+ units at Tokyo. Might we have gone too far with the number of barrels in RA?

2Symon (and everyone): Sorry, I'm busy at them moment. Hopefully, I will be able to write a response in a couple of days.

_____________________________

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 Lecivius)
Post #: 164
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/22/2013 8:27:51 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Thank you as well Lecivius.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 165
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/27/2013 7:51:17 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Note: The Saiyen Class CVE doesn't come in with ANY sorties. Ooops.

_____________________________



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 #: 166
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/30/2013 11:13:16 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		In my DBB scenario 30 game, the Dutch Air Force ends up reappearing at Aden. It would be nice if they got a low rate of pilot replacements throughout the war (maybe 10/month). They would also need a low rate of airframe replacements. Maybe some of the P-40 line and B-25 line at about 5 per month.

Allied FG - Rather than have the Americans get the 3 FS with 25 planes each, what about them getting some as 50 plane FG. I haven't looked, but there are some 2x FS for a FG that could be used. Maybe one in '42, two in '43, and three in '44.

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 167
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/31/2013 12:56:55 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline 		Ship class 152 has an error in the DB. The 20mm Oerlikon AA gun has no ammo.

_____________________________

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 168
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/2/2013 7:52:02 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Ship class 152 has an error in the DB. The 20mm Oerlikon AA gun has no ammo.

'T' War Emergency boats? They seem to be OK in the version I use.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
In my DBB scenario 30 game, the Dutch Air Force ends up reappearing at Aden. It would be nice if they got a low rate of pilot replacements throughout the war (maybe 10/month). They would also need a low rate of airframe replacements. Maybe some of the P-40 line and B-25 line at about 5 per month.

Speaking of that, where do we change the pilot replacement numbers for a scenario?


Regarding everything else - my job destroys me again, so I'm afraid to even read the forums... However, I'm just about 1 good day away from finishing my work on the ships/classes. Only carriers now remain.

_____________________________

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 Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 169
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/2/2013 9:55:44 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		It is at the very back of the editor.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 170
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/2/2013 10:53:50 PM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Ship class 152 has an error in the DB. The 20mm Oerlikon AA gun has no ammo.

'T' War Emergency boats? They seem to be OK in the version I use.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
In my DBB scenario 30 game, the Dutch Air Force ends up reappearing at Aden. It would be nice if they got a low rate of pilot replacements throughout the war (maybe 10/month). They would also need a low rate of airframe replacements. Maybe some of the P-40 line and B-25 line at about 5 per month.

Speaking of that, where do we change the pilot replacement numbers for a scenario?


Regarding everything else - my job destroys me again, so I'm afraid to even read the forums... However, I'm just about 1 good day away from finishing my work on the ships/classes. Only carriers now remain.


It is not in mine, RA 5.3.
I also have a RA 5.5 and it is not right.

If you fixed it in a later release, that is good.

Here is a picture.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Cpt Sherwood -- 6/2/2013 11:02:56 PM >

_____________________________

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 171
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/2/2013 11:07:28 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		THANKS! FatR can easily fix that.

I just found why the Saiyen Class CVE don't have any sorties. I placed them in the right area, however, I reversed them and so there are none! EASY FIX!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 172
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/4/2013 1:52:21 AM   
bigred


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

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Stanislav,

I pulled up my version of RA and looked at the Allied fighters. I see a few places that I would change.

P-40N1 @ 70/mo - 7/43 to 7/44
P-40N5 @ 55/mo - 7/43 to 12/44

The N1 has better speed while the N5 has betters stats. One of them ends in early '44 (around 3/44 or before). By this time they are best just as escorts.

P-47D2 @ 56/mo - 7/43 to 2/44
P-47D25 @ 175/mo - 3/44 to 6/44
P-47N @ 100/mo - 3/45

Change the D25 to 90/mo and have it go from 3/44 until 2/45.

P-38J changed from 10 to 20/mo. Thus, the P-38L which comes out in 6/44 will produce 90/mo.





D25 should be reduced to at about 65/month if it is to be produced until 2/45. The overal delivery still be higher (780 vs. 700 airframes). Extra Lightnings are not so bad, they are limited by high SR, at least but Thuds? All versions of Thunderbolt are the most overpowered fighters in the game because they have amazing stats AND SR 1.


Otherwise - OK.

after reading this about the tbolt Probably better to get all the frames early and pass on the extra 80 frames overall. Allies need the mass when time for a push. So I vote no change in p47 production. exception- add those 80 planes in after the initial distribution spread over the non delivery months.

< Message edited by bigred -- 6/4/2013 1:57:07 AM >

_____________________________

---bigred---

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 173
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/4/2013 2:09:38 AM   
bigred


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

ORIGINAL: FatR

Thanks for the comments, Lecivius. I'm pretty surprised to see such bomber casualty rates. In my own experience by mid-1944 I have only 3 bases in the whole Empire with enough AAA to systematically inflict significant losses (Moulmein, Rabaul, Truk), plus a few more with token/disruption only protection. Tests in Downfall made me think that Japanese ground AA is largely ineffectual, even with 20+ units at Tokyo. Might we have gone too far with the number of barrels in RA?

2Symon (and everyone): Sorry, I'm busy at them moment. Hopefully, I will be able to write a response in a couple of days.

FYI -Moulmein--I as allied player was incurring to much flak damage below 15000 ft at moulmein so stopped any air attack. Very rough below 10000ft. Effect was making the b24 sqns unable to continue mission because of losses. Did not complain because I figured FatR has set up moulmein as a flak trap for allies. If FatR would like I could make a run at 10000ft for sandbox using all allied airframes available.

_____________________________

---bigred---

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 174
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/4/2013 2:34:15 AM   
bigred


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

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


Having played RA into March '45, have you considered increasing allied air production slightly? In this mod, with all the streamlining of Japanese air production, you can get airframes almost a year ahead of RL production( the M8 Zero comes to mind, sitting here at work). As Allies, you have so many LSI's and LST's you can walk across the pacific if you put them bow to stern. But virtually every air campaign will come to a halt due to a lack of airframes. Fighter pools are very tight, so are heavy bomber pools, and light bomber pools will dry up. Reducing Landing Ship inventories and increasing airframe production would seem an intelligent trade off. Real Life production was drawn down due to the fact that the Japanese economy, and by association it's war machine, was noticeably being impacted by early '44. Air superiority had been achieved. That is not the case here, where the Japanese war machine can sustain itself with "banked" industry far beyond historical norms.

Just an opinion.



My opinion on the air balance is still colored by my own Allied experience in JuanG's mod, where odds in the air shifted in the Allied favor in late 1942, even though in that mod all Japanese aircraft were faster. And to be honest, I think that outside of Scen 2 the problem with Japanese production is overrated. By the end of 1944 at the latest my pilot training program for IJNAF will be completely dry in my Scen 70 game even if I maintain a roughly 1:1 kill ratio (which is only achievable by fighting the air war defensively, even with RA airframes and the most meticulous pilot management), and at this point it won't matter how many airframes I make (and it won't be actually more the Allies will have by that point).

However, I'm playing with the very old mod versions. Certain things in the more recent versions might have made the air situation easier for Japan. So I think air production for some types can be increased. As long as we aren't talking about cutting edge airframes - adding more Thunderbolts will just make the Allied player auto-win the air war regardless of skill.


I agree concerning overproduction of p47 causing imbalance.
One possible solution would be to increase the p40n25 production by about +30 per month and the p38 by about +15 per month during 43/44. This would lessen the load for the p4725 while waiting for the p47n. Allies could use the p40 for escort more aggressively.

In addition I have a problem keeping the b25 sqn's up to full strength. No such problem concerning the b24s. Might need to up b25 production by 20 per month to balance the uptempo jap players.


< Message edited by bigred -- 6/4/2013 2:37:43 AM >

_____________________________

---bigred---

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 175
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/4/2013 2:40:13 AM   
bigred


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

I agree concerning overproduction of p47 causing imbalance.
One possible solution would be to increase the p40n25 production by about +30 per month and the p38 by about +15 per month during 43/44. This would lessen the load for the p4725 while waiting for the p47n. Allies could use the p40 for escort more aggressively.

In addition I have a problem keeping the b25 sqn's up to full strength. No such problem concerning the b24s. Might need to up b25 production by 20 per month to balance the uptempo jap players.


Above idea could be a win/win for both sides as those shot down p40s give the japs more victory points!!!

_____________________________

---bigred---

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

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 176
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/4/2013 2:51:52 AM   
bigred


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

A-20G produced until 9/45
A-24 +3 month, produced from 12/41 to 10/42
P-40E +10/month
P-40N1 produced until 7/44
P-40N5 produced until 12/44
P-61C +15/month
P-70A-1 +15/month


F4F-3A +4/month
F4U-4 +50/month
PBJ-1J +6/month
PBM-3 and PBM-5D +3/month
PBY-5 and following models +2/month
SBD-3 +12/month.
SB2C5 +90/month, produced until the end of the scenario.
TBM-1C +40/month

Also minor additions to initial pools for several types.

This means that (a)The Allies get a few more fighters and divebombers to survive 1943; (b)Some tight spots, like NF and patrol planes production, are partially fixed; (c)There are over a thousansd more Warhawks, plus some Hurricanes and older Spitfires to cover for the slump in USAAF stock fighter reinforcements in 1944; (d)Production of USN/USMC aircraft continues at its maximum intensity until the end of the scenario.

Sorry guys...I am playing thread catch-up. Looks like FatR is thinking same thing concerning p40s. Still may need some b25s.

_____________________________

---bigred---

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

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 177
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/4/2013 6:58:18 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Your help is ALWAYS appreciated BigRed!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 178
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/5/2013 1:58:20 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		BigRed's comments about Sho-Kai having a deck armor of 75 needs to be examined as well. See the thread over in the War Room.



_____________________________



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 #: 179
RE: RA 6.0 - 6/7/2013 8:56:48 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Thanks to Bigred, I've run a sanbox flak test, against my troop and airfield at Moulmein, where I'm trying to stop the Allied offensive (in vain, as I've just realized, sorry, Bigred, the turn isn't there yet because I didn't figure out immediately just what you did, so now I need to think how I can delay the disaster). As Magwe and Rangoon had pretty heavy flak forces and Moulmein is a very important hex, it is now loaded with medium-calibre AAA.

Flak Rating at Moulmein: 115-112 (for comparison: Tokyo in Downfall has flak rating 164, after all AAA units get supplied, probably around 200 if all AAA units are allowed to achieve full strength; my other bases around the map have no more than 40).

Passes/losses in sandbox replays:

6000 feet
A-20G: 25/3
B-25: 121/11
B-24-J: 157/21
B-29-1: 64/7
Airfield damage 54 service, 26 runway

10 000 feet
B-24-J: 31/5
B-29-1: 57/10
Airfield damage none

15 000 feet
A-20G: 16/2
B-25: 136/15
B-24-J: 141/17
B-29-1: 122/7
Airfield damage none


The obvious observation: small-calibre Japanese ground flak does almost nothing. Meanwhile, 120mm guns do most of the work - Truk has only flak rating 40, but is almost as unhealthy for Allied aircraft, at least during nuisance night raids.

Another observation: late-war ground flak might be quite excessive... I wonder if hex stacking limits will have impact on ability to concentrate so much guns in a single hex. Regardless, these results seem quite extreme.

More for me later (will read whatever I missed in the thread later too).

< Message edited by FatR -- 6/7/2013 8:57:22 PM >

_____________________________

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 #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RA 6.0 Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.172