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  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/14/2013 3:59:15 PM   
Symon


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

ORIGINAL: bigred
I sent a pm to JWE and asked his review.

Got it. Thank you.

Devices 001 – 088, 103 – 145, 256 – 517, and 529 – 690 are vestiges from the old WiTP days. They have “original” original 2009 WiTP data values. These values are bad and do not work within the game system.

Recommend people delete these devices to avoid confusion. All of BigBabes has these devices deleted.

Also think you have a different device file than any of the ones used in BigBabes. Device 1064 3.7” Mk VI AA is of a type and has specs way different from what’s shown on the screen shot. I suspect you are using a pre-2011 device file. Michaelm made major changes made to the code in this area, before release of UpdateComp-v1108r9 (the last ‘official’ one) and all gun specs are modified to fit within the system. Believe your device file is 2 generations behind.

JuanG is exactly right; if it’s a DP gun, the data you see in the editor is for the Naval combat portion of the code. You have to look at columns V, W, X, and Y in the WiTPdevxxx.csv file to see Sec_Attrib, Sec_Eff, Sec_Pen, Sec_Acc data values for the AA combat portion of the code.

Ciao. JWE

_____________________________

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

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 241
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/14/2013 4:21:08 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		Also, there's a lot of different data out there, from many different modders, as well as a few revisions to Babes. I've noticed several different departures.

Think I need to get off my butt and finalize this aspect: publish the spreadsheets, along with the algorithms. They will be in the same form and format as a device csv file, and with the same UnitNumbers so replacement can be a simple one-to-one cut-and-paste operation.

A few other notes. Don't forget that the game code dinks with a gun's data depending on the year, so AA data needs to adapted to 1945 and go backwards in order to work properly (with respect to the other side's guns) in the early/mid war period. Also, don't forget the altitude band effects/reductions: a gun with a lower Acc but higher Ceiling may well have the same "AA effectivity" as a gun with higher Acc, within its "envelope". One cannot use the raw performance specs as a judge. One must take "everything" into account: eff-ceiling, eff-slant, fuse cutters, fire-directors, mount-characteristics, yadda-yadda-yadda.

Ciao. John

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 242
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/15/2013 3:22:31 AM   
bigred


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

ORIGINAL: Symon


quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred
I sent a pm to JWE and asked his review.

Got it. Thank you.

Devices 001 – 088, 103 – 145, 256 – 517, and 529 – 690 are vestiges from the old WiTP days. They have “original” original 2009 WiTP data values. These values are bad and do not work within the game system.

Recommend people delete these devices to avoid confusion. All of BigBabes has these devices deleted.

Also think you have a different device file than any of the ones used in BigBabes. Device 1064 3.7” Mk VI AA is of a type and has specs way different from what’s shown on the screen shot. I suspect you are using a pre-2011 device file. Michaelm made major changes made to the code in this area, before release of UpdateComp-v1108r9 (the last ‘official’ one) and all gun specs are modified to fit within the system. Believe your device file is 2 generations behind.

JuanG is exactly right; if it’s a DP gun, the data you see in the editor is for the Naval combat portion of the code. You have to look at columns V, W, X, and Y in the WiTPdevxxx.csv file to see Sec_Attrib, Sec_Eff, Sec_Pen, Sec_Acc data values for the AA combat portion of the code.

Ciao. JWE

Also note I am operating RA version 1. I suspect RA 6.0 will have all the updated data. So my post may be of no great issue.

I also note a big differential between the mk2 and the DPmk4. I wonder if the 3.7"mk2 needs a look also.

Not many AFBs around here so I feel a need to speak up when I might spot an allied issue. Thanks ALL for the response and explanation.


< Message edited by bigred -- 7/15/2013 3:39:47 AM >

_____________________________

---bigred---

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

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 243
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/15/2013 4:53:52 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline 		In RA 5.5 CVE Saiyen( class # 1892 and 1893) has the intended aircraft sorties in the ammo box instead of the armor box. Thus, they have 0 sorties. They also have their torpedo allotment in the ammo box instead of the armor box.

< Message edited by Cpt Sherwood -- 7/15/2013 4:57:27 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to razanon)
Post #: 244
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/15/2013 4:14:00 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Lordy. Life takes over for four days and I look over here and spot this! Great discussion and commentary. Need to read all of it thoroughly and will then comment.

FatR: To answer your question, I haven't had time to do NADA. Michael has been going through the Allied side with his suggestion Posted earlier.

Please check my most recent Postings over in the AAR. Really NEED to free-up a bit of time to help here and fell like I have dropped the ball big time!


_____________________________



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 #: 245
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/17/2013 1:54:53 AM   
vonmoltke


Posts: 182
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Bloomfield, NJ
Status: offline 		If you need any help, John, I have a few hours free a night for the next few days. I could do database QA or something like that.

_____________________________

This space reserved for future expansion

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 246
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/17/2013 3:51:56 PM   
razanon

 

Posts: 123
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vonmoltke

If you need any help, John, I have a few hours free a night for the next few days. I could do database QA or something like that.



and me im a graphic designer too... if you need something related about interface or SHIP art i can help (few posts ago i put the (CL ART needed)

(in reply to vonmoltke)
Post #: 247
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/20/2013 2:43:13 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		KAITENs have better accuracy (they had identical to standard torpedoes) from Inquisitors mod - maybe this should be applied to this mod as well as Kaiten are man controlled???

(in reply to razanon)
Post #: 248
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/20/2013 3:49:21 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

KAITENs have better accuracy (they had identical to standard torpedoes) from Inquisitors mod - maybe this should be applied to this mod as well as Kaiten are man controlled???

I saw/read (forget where) recently that Kaiten had much worse accuracy than standard sub-launched torpedoes. The theory was good, but in practice they were difficult to control, the biggest factor being poor visibility.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 249
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/24/2013 3:04:41 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline 		Any new update on when this mod might be ready? It has been about 22 days since John said it would be ready in 10.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 250
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/24/2013 4:44:55 AM   
bigred


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

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Any new update on when this mod might be ready? It has been about 22 days since John said it would be ready in 10.

Some people have a life...

_____________________________

---bigred---

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

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 251
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/24/2013 4:51:08 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline 		Please excuse my ignorance. I don't want to interrupt your lives with any questions. Just forget about it, I'll look elsewhere.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 252
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/24/2013 7:54:41 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Any new update on when this mod might be ready? It has been about 22 days since John said it would be ready in 10.


Real life happened with John. He has suspended his PBEM and AARs in an effort to get some time back. I think that one of his goals is to work on the mod, but it might not be completed until after "life" happens.

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 253
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/27/2013 4:35:29 AM   
John 3rd


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

I apologize for not jumping on earlier. Things have been CRAZY--BUSY as described above. I am taking a couple of weeks off from the game. Just got back from a quick 48 trip to see my life-long friend of 33 years in Kansas City. Got to see my Royals for the first time in eight years at Kauffman Stadium and they even WON 7--1! NICE. Just got back tonight.

The PLAN is to try to work on RA 6.0 next week. SHOULD have time for doing this. I know a bunch of you want to play the new version and am sorry for the hold-up on this but life (work, family, WORK, and time spent on our restoration of our caboose) has truly taken over for the last 2-3 weeks. Will stay the same until the boys start school August 12th. Will Post updates as I get the nose to the grindstone with the Mod.



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 254
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/27/2013 4:36:09 AM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Any new update on when this mod might be ready? It has been about 22 days since John said it would be ready in 10.


Sorry Cpt. I know you REALLY want to get started...



_____________________________



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 #: 255
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/27/2013 4:41:12 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Any new update on when this mod might be ready? It has been about 22 days since John said it would be ready in 10.


Sorry Cpt. I know you REALLY want to get started...




I understand, I was just interested in the status. I have advertised for either a scenario 2 or 5.5 RA game. I might not get any takers by the time you guys get done. We will just have to wait and see.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 256
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/28/2013 3:50:19 AM   
John 3rd


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

Just found out that my wife has been asked to help with VBS (Vacation Bible School) Mon--Fri night next week. I just MIGHT have 5-8pm open to work on the Mod EACH day. If this is true then I can get things done and ready by the end of the week. Want to do a bunch of little things to work on the Allied Side to help them them a few little surprises...

Will detail when I begin the work on Monday Night.


_____________________________



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 #: 257
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/28/2013 3:55:33 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I've got to work out the bugs in Dan and I's game FIRST and then I shift to 6.0.

As I see it, the plan will be to re-read the Thread and make notes of all suggestions made for the Allied Side and then decide what is creative and interesting to add.

Things remembered:
1. Aircraft Cruiser Charlotte starting with the Pensacola TF at Darwin. Will start with 12 Buffalo and 6 SBD. The planes will be allowed to upgrade to F4F-3/-4 and stay Dauntless. Ship is WAY too small to handle any of the later aircraft.
2. An American RCT somewhere in the South Pacific with escort.
3. A serious check of aircraft production numbers as per Michael's detailed recommendations.
4. Perhaps a slightly further development of Pago Pago...

Japanese Side:
1. Review of FatR changes.
2. Placement of additional merchant hulls to allow for initial movement. This is quite important since the carrying capacity of hulls has been lowered.
3. Review of aircraft production numbers, industry, and other points.

The MAP:
1. I want to incorporate the recommendation regarding Ramree to make that a much more realistic base for either side.
2. China and India Garrison requirement additions to slow offensives and reinforcements for BOTH sides.
3. Several other recommended changes on map and bases are within the Thread and I need to find them.

These are my goals for the week...

A lot of you have 'pet' ideas and items you might like to see worked on. NOW is the time for you to jump in! If you are an RA player PLEASE contribute thoughts. If you are not, you are welcome to add to the discussion...


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 7/28/2013 4:12:14 PM >

_____________________________



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 #: 258
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/29/2013 2:15:52 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		All worth the wait I am sure
Like the idea of further improving Garrison levels- too much action In china and too early in Burma - agreed.
When this come out I will post for a game.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 259
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/29/2013 2:22:47 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		Pet ideas for jap side mainly

Can you make a couple of Jap subs have AV style support(as they did) to support 1 or 2 seaplanes? Is the Seiran SP included?
cannot remember if you allowed or had a good reason not to allow the old Jap CL to become CLAA?
Do the Japs have a chance to build a 4E bomber?

How about another couple of French ships?

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 260
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/29/2013 4:07:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		OK. I am taking notes from the beginning of this Thread to now for pertinent changes to my area of work.

Cavalry: Thanks. I do believe that FatR added the CLAA upgrade possibility to the old CLs. Will check. We have the French in Perfect War. Might be a thought...

Certainly raising the Gar requirements of India and China. Will do it equally for both sides so it stays 'fair.'


_____________________________



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 #: 261
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/29/2013 6:30:43 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		In China, there may need to be an adjustment in Light Industry at start and what is disabled to help them out. Where and how much, I don't have any idea.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 262
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/29/2013 6:32:23 PM   
John 3rd


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

Michael: What about disabling the US Economy more? I know you've looked at that a BUNCH!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 263
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/29/2013 6:38:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Just created new Folder entitled RA--6.0, newest Beta, and extended map installed. THINK that is everything needed!


_____________________________



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 #: 264
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/29/2013 7:00:09 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Install looking great. Just opened FatR's work on 6.0. Holy CATS! There are some serious changes here that the ALLIES will love. You didn't mention some of this FatR. Talk about some surprises...

HINT: Did someone ask for some Free Frenchies?


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 7/29/2013 7:02:29 PM >

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 265
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/29/2013 7:00:46 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Michael did you LOOK at the starting Allied Naval Forces and dispositions?


_____________________________



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 #: 266
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/29/2013 7:38:55 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		The last version I have is from 6/29. Has FatR sent you a newer version?? The were errors I posted before about the French ships, lack or alternative upgrades (TK/AO to CVE, old CL to CLAA, etc.), and some airframes issues for the Allies.

If you have new version, please send it.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 267
RE: RA 6.0 - 7/29/2013 8:13:31 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Am not sure if it is newer or not but I have sent the file.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 268
USS (CLV-1) Charlotte - 7/30/2013 3:01:28 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Like you to be introduced to a lovely Lady:






Attachment (1)

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 269
RE: USS (CLV-1) Charlotte - 7/30/2013 3:02:50 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		There will have to be House Rule regarding Charlotte. She is not capable to anything bigger then F4F/FM and SBD. I'd prefer her to carry 16 Fighters and 8 DB but the Navy Specs list 12 and 12.


_____________________________



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 #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   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  7 8 [9] 10 11   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

0.734