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: Focus Pacific

 
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: Focus Pacific Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/30/2015 2:09:39 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: EHansen

A note or two and a couple of recommendations:

Notes:
1. New Zealand F2A-3 Buffalo has production end date of 5/41. Should be 5/42?
2. Australian F2A-3 Buffalo has production end date of 5/41. Maybe 5/42?
3. Was the USN TBD-1P supposed to have a camera?

Recommendations:
1. On the 1/45 Essex Long Hull upgrade increase aircraft capacity from 90 to 100.
2. Increase the Allied Recon aircraft production. Very low production numbers tend
to be a bit wonky and the ops losses tend to be higher than in RL.



I don't know if "long hull" means something different in this scenario, but the long hull Essex class did not have extra capacity. They had extended stern and bow tubs that provided for extra AA at the end of the carrier deck. The total length increase was about 10 feet. The short hull ships were never extended and the USN did not recognize the long hull ships as a different class.

If it's a mod thing, knock yourself out, but you might want to use a different term.

Bill

Yeah, I'm not increasing the capacity on the long hulls with the upgrade - it seems like it would be a pretty arbitrary increase (not that other elements in this mod are exactly grounded in history!).

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 31
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/30/2015 7:46:09 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Para: nice looking mod. Do you know how much of the Joffre was actually completed when the France fell? I bet the Dutch would of loved to have had a CAV and atleast one of there BCs completed and ready for action by the start of the war.

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 32
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/30/2015 9:12:03 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Para: nice looking mod. Do you know how much of the Joffre was actually completed when the France fell? I bet the Dutch would of loved to have had a CAV and atleast one of there BCs completed and ready for action by the start of the war.

Historically, Joffre was only about 25% complete when the war started, and after that time resources were diverted elsewhere.

In this scenario's timeline, the French accelerated construction on the Painleve and Joffre so both had been launched but not commissioned at the time of Germany's invasion.

Here's my alternate and admittedly a bit silly timeline:
1934

Japan gives formal notice that it will terminate its participation in the Washington Naval Treaty, and immediately thereafter embarks on ambitious ship-building program with the intention of matching combined naval power of Great Britain and the United States.

1937

With Japan's invasion of China, France sees the threat of not only Germany invading France, but also the threat of Japan invading French Indochina and eventually threatening French Caledonia and even French Polynesia. With that in mind, French warships and base forces are dispatched to French Indochina, New Caledonia and to French Polynesia.

Due to the difficulty supplying their forces half a world away, France encourages the development of light industry in French Indochina, Pondicherri and French Polynesia, as well as expanding the ports, airfields and shipyards in their territories.

It becomes apparent to the French Air Council that domestic manufacturers could not equip the Armee de l'Air with enough airframes. In addition to contracting other countries to produce foreign designed aircraft to help fill the void, French Aircraft manufacturers are encouraged and subsidized to license their designs to foreign manufacturers, especially in the US. American companies begin manufacturing French aircraft, some of which make their way to bases in French Indochina, New Caledonia, Pondicherri and French Polynesia.

1938

France begins retrofitting their aging carrier Bearn to contemporary naval standards, and rushes production on their two Joffre class fleet carriers.

1939

America's eventual entrance to WWII seems inevitable. Aircraft factories ramp up production, which has already expanded considerably to fill French aircraft orders.

1940

In June, Japan invades Northern French Indochina. During the invasion, French intelligence obtains documents that were to be presented at the Konoe Cabinet in Japan later that year that listed French Polynesia as one of Imperial Japan's eventual targets. This information is made known to French naval command, including Admiral Marcel-Bruno Gensoul.

In July, British Captain Cedric Holland gives the French fleet under the command of Admiral Marcel-Bruno Gensoul at Mers-el-Kebir an ultimatum to surrender their ships, sail to Martinique for internment, or be fired upon (Operation Catapult). In tense negotiations, Britain agrees to let France evacuate the bulk of its fleet, naval personnel and naval aviation assets to French Polynesia as an alternative to Martinique. The agreement allowed the British to achieve their goal of removing French naval forces that might fight for Vichy France from the Atlantic, Med and Suez, and gave an opportunity for the French Navy to maintain their autonomy and still defend French colonies. This precedent from what came to to be called the Mers-el-Kebir accords is honored for the remaining French Naval forces in the Western Hemisphere.

French carriers Joffre and Painleve are launched. Unfinished, they sail to Tahiti to join the bulk of the French Navy and to avoid capture by the Germans.

Later in July, France signs the Armistice, while French carrier Bearn is docked on the East Coast picking up its order of Curtiss P-36s, SBC Helldivers and Brewster Buffalos. The precedent set by Admiral Gensoul at Mers-el-Kebir allows the Bearn to avoid internment at Martinique and instead sail to French Polynesia to join the French fleet.

French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Chad, the French Congo and Cameroon, join the Free French along with France's Indian colony, Pondicherri. The French navy, now mostly operating in the Pacific, joins the Free French forces.

The U.S. allows aircraft manufacturers to continue their French contracts, but with the airframes delivered to the Free French colonies. Free French colonies around the world receive deliveries of aircraft.

1941

Free French ships, including the Bearn, support Free French operations off the coast of Equatorial West Africa, French Somaliland and Madagascar. With British and Commonwealth support, Free French forces continue to build up infrastructure in the Pacific and Pondicherry India.

In July, Japan invades South Indochina with 140,000 troops. While French forces in French Indochina were nominally under Vichy control, the remaining French forces there choose to evacuate to Free-French held Noumea and join the Free French.

December 7th, The United States enters the war. Desperate for carrier strength in the Pacific, the United States offers to finish the construction of the carriers Joffre and Painleve.

Edit: Holy typos batman

< Message edited by paradigmblue -- 1/30/2015 11:02:50 PM >

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 33
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/30/2015 9:19:52 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Nice back story for the French. I'm looking your mod over right now.

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 34
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 12:49:41 AM   
EHansen


Posts: 360
Joined: 12/6/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: EHansen

A note or two and a couple of recommendations:

Notes:
1. New Zealand F2A-3 Buffalo has production end date of 5/41. Should be 5/42?
2. Australian F2A-3 Buffalo has production end date of 5/41. Maybe 5/42?
3. Was the USN TBD-1P supposed to have a camera?

Recommendations:
1. On the 1/45 Essex Long Hull upgrade increase aircraft capacity from 90 to 100.
2. Increase the Allied Recon aircraft production. Very low production numbers tend
to be a bit wonky and the ops losses tend to be higher than in RL.



I don't know if "long hull" means something different in this scenario, but the long hull Essex class did not have extra capacity. They had extended stern and bow tubs that provided for extra AA at the end of the carrier deck. The total length increase was about 10 feet. The short hull ships were never extended and the USN did not recognize the long hull ships as a different class.

If it's a mod thing, knock yourself out, but you might want to use a different term.

Bill


I did not pick then because of the name. There are 9 "short hull" Essex CVs and their last update is 6/44. I felt that was too early for a capacity upgrade. There are 10 "long hull" Essex CVs with a last update of 1/45. I thought they were the right ones to use. It would allow the USN to base 3 x 36 air units on a CV. In this scenario the Japanese will have a lot of very good LBA that the USN will have to contend with.

The terms "short hull" and "long hull" come directly from the stock scenario data base. Am I to invent some other term to refer to them?

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 35
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 1:58:49 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
You gotta give the French a division of North African colonials or a brigade or three at least! I want to see a B1Bis or Souma tanks!

Very intrigued by your scenario!




Attachment (1)

(in reply to EHansen)
Post #: 36
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 2:09:16 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EHansen


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson


quote:

ORIGINAL: EHansen

A note or two and a couple of recommendations:

Notes:
1. New Zealand F2A-3 Buffalo has production end date of 5/41. Should be 5/42?
2. Australian F2A-3 Buffalo has production end date of 5/41. Maybe 5/42?
3. Was the USN TBD-1P supposed to have a camera?

Recommendations:
1. On the 1/45 Essex Long Hull upgrade increase aircraft capacity from 90 to 100.
2. Increase the Allied Recon aircraft production. Very low production numbers tend
to be a bit wonky and the ops losses tend to be higher than in RL.



I don't know if "long hull" means something different in this scenario, but the long hull Essex class did not have extra capacity. They had extended stern and bow tubs that provided for extra AA at the end of the carrier deck. The total length increase was about 10 feet. The short hull ships were never extended and the USN did not recognize the long hull ships as a different class.

If it's a mod thing, knock yourself out, but you might want to use a different term.

Bill


I did not pick then because of the name. There are 9 "short hull" Essex CVs and their last update is 6/44. I felt that was too early for a capacity upgrade. There are 10 "long hull" Essex CVs with a last update of 1/45. I thought they were the right ones to use. It would allow the USN to base 3 x 36 air units on a CV. In this scenario the Japanese will have a lot of very good LBA that the USN will have to contend with.

The terms "short hull" and "long hull" come directly from the stock scenario data base. Am I to invent some other term to refer to them?

I think that wdolson wasn't taking issue with you using the name "long hull", but rather pointing out that the long hull Essexs did not have any more space for aircraft than a short hull Essexs did.

(in reply to EHansen)
Post #: 37
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 2:11:24 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You gotta give the French a division of North African colonials or a brigade or three at least! I want to see a B1Bis or Souma tanks!

Very intrigued by your scenario!




Hi Lowpe, I have several units of French Colonial Infantry in the scenario. I actually have "French Tank Brigade" written in my "To Do" list, but I'm going to have to do some research on what kind of unit composition that would be, and what those device stats would look like.

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 38
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 2:43:48 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

I don't know if "long hull" means something different in this scenario, but the long hull Essex class did not have extra capacity. They had extended stern and bow tubs that provided for extra AA at the end of the carrier deck. The total length increase was about 10 feet. The short hull ships were never extended and the USN did not recognize the long hull ships as a different class.

If it's a mod thing, knock yourself out, but you might want to use a different term.

Bill


quote:

ORIGINAL: EHansen
I did not pick then because of the name. There are 9 "short hull" Essex CVs and their last update is 6/44. I felt that was too early for a capacity upgrade. There are 10 "long hull" Essex CVs with a last update of 1/45. I thought they were the right ones to use. It would allow the USN to base 3 x 36 air units on a CV. In this scenario the Japanese will have a lot of very good LBA that the USN will have to contend with.

The terms "short hull" and "long hull" come directly from the stock scenario data base. Am I to invent some other term to refer to them?


quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue
I think that wdolson wasn't taking issue with you using the name "long hull", but rather pointing out that the long hull Essexs did not have any more space for aircraft than a short hull Essexs did.


Yes. Since the discussion was about a mod I haven't investigated, I didn't know whether the discussion was about some other kind of Essex.

I just double checked and the Essex classes have consistent air group sizes throughout the war in stock. Increasing the size by another 10 would not be very realistic within the historical design.

Bill

< Message edited by wdolson -- 1/31/2015 3:44:26 AM >


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 39
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 3:42:49 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

You gotta give the French a division of North African colonials or a brigade or three at least! I want to see a B1Bis or Souma tanks!

Very intrigued by your scenario!





So, from what I can tell, to include a quasi accurate French Armored Brigade based on DeGaulle's Vers L'armee de Meier, I would need to include 2 heavy tank battalions, 2 light tank battalions, 1 mechanized infantry battalion and 1 artillery regiment. This would look something like this:

50th Bataillon de Chars de Combat
*34 B1bis Heavy Tanks

51st Bataillon de Chars de Combat
*34 B1bis Heavy Tanks

52nd Bataillon de Chars de Combat
*45 H-39 Light Tanks

53rd Bataillon de Chars de Combat
*45 H-39 Light Tanks

18th Mechanized Chasseurs Battalion
*43 FFR Infantry Squads
*8 FFR MMG Sections
*3 60mm Mortars
*2 81mm Mortars
*9 25mm Hotchkiss Anti-Tank Guns
*9 APCS (using the M3 halftrack stats for this I think)
*40 Motorized Support

401st FFR Artillery Regiment
*24 105mm Howitzers
*8 47mm AT Guns
*6 25mm AA Guns

I'm wary about spitballing device stats - does anyone have a good idea what the Char Leger Modele 1935 H Modifie 39 (H-39) and the B1bis would look like stat wise in the device editor?

I'm thinking that in this alternate history this tank brigade was in service in Tunisia under Vichy France control, but switched sides to the allies when Admiral Darlan began cooperating with allied forces there. I'll probably have it arrive summer of 1943, after German forces in North Africa surrendered in May of 43.



< Message edited by paradigmblue -- 1/31/2015 4:44:03 AM >

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 40
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 9:05:50 AM   
Skyland


Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline
What you describe here is a Division Cuirassée (DCr) composed of 2 half brigade + BCP (Battalion Chasseurs) + Artillery Rgt + AT battery + Support.

You may want to add some engineers (Compagnie de Sapeurs) and a Division HQ
There should be 12 AT guns, 3 60mm mortars and 4 81 mm in BCP. You should add also some motorized support in all sub-units.
Lessons learned from the 1940 battle was the lack of AA guns. You can add more 20 mm AA to replace 25 mm AA guns.

Regarding the stat for tanks, i think you can use stat from R-35 tank that should be in my mod to represent H39. And for B1bis, armor is 60mm and an idea is to use stat of 75mm field gun for antisoft and stat of a 47mm AT gun for antiarmor value. Loadcost is weight i think so 31 (tons).



_____________________________


(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 41
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 9:28:35 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyland

What you describe here is a Division Cuirassée (DCr) composed of 2 half brigade + BCP (Battalion Chasseurs) + Artillery Rgt + AT battery + Support.

You may want to add some engineers (Compagnie de Sapeurs) and a Division HQ
There should be 12 AT guns, 3 60mm mortars and 4 81 mm in BCP. You should add also some motorized support in all sub-units.
Lessons learned from the 1940 battle was the lack of AA guns. You can add more 20 mm AA to replace 25 mm AA guns.

Regarding the stat for tanks, i think you can use stat from R-35 tank that should be in my mod to represent H39. And for B1bis, armor is 60mm and an idea is to use stat of 75mm field gun for antisoft and stat of a 47mm AT gun for antiarmor value. Loadcost is weight i think so 31 (tons).




This is all incredibly helpful, thanks Skyland.

If you could also provide some insight for me on air group naming conventions, that would be fantastic. Currently I'm using GC I.1, I.2, etc, but I've seen several different contradictory numbering and naming conventions, and I'm not sure which ones should be used for fighters, which ones for bombers, etc.

Thank you again for your insight!





< Message edited by paradigmblue -- 1/31/2015 10:31:32 AM >

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 42
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 11:59:05 AM   
Skyland


Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline
A Escadre is 2 or sometimes 3 Groupes
A Groupe is composed of 2 Escadrilles
An Escadrille is 9 planes + spares (3)

GC is Groupe de Chasse (Fighter)
GB is Groupe de Bombardement (Bomber) or GBA (GB Assault)
GR is Groupe de Reconnaissance (Reco)

Example :
4th Escadre de Chasse (4°EC) is composed of
GC I/4 with Escadrilles n°1 and n°2
GC II/4 with Escadrilles n°3 and n°4

GAO are Groupe Aerien d'Observation (tactical reco group attached to army corps HQ)


_____________________________


(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 43
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 12:54:30 PM   
Skyland


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Para: nice looking mod. Do you know how much of the Joffre was actually completed when the France fell?


I think this is the last picture of Joffre (end march 1940). Main deck is finished and hangar wall are being raised.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 44
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 1:04:36 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline
Para,
Don't forget the CV capable fighters at Tahiti are not CV Capable. Small adjustment. Also, did you get the ship art I sent to you? Also, as someone mentioned above or on previous page, The Japanese start with a greatly enhanced navy. So, I would increase Allied naval aircraft production by maybe 10% and include at least one more USN CV. As a Alternate player option, Set no unit withdrawals to ON. I have played Andy's Scenario 60 twice and I am in oct 42 on number three and this time I set withdrawals to ON to balance a little. This does help some, against the AI. Not really sure if it would be necessary against a "LIVE" opponent with a additional USN CV group. In this current game I didn't change any production numbers on airframes and I am feeling it. About half of my LBA fighter squadrons are at half strenght or less. CV aircraft are OK. As I have a few in the pool.
I mention scenario 60 because you mentioned Andy's Nasty AI scripts in one of your first posts. PM me and I can send you the info I have on my extra CV group....GP

< Message edited by General Patton -- 1/31/2015 2:05:38 PM >


_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 45
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 1:54:31 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

Hi Lowpe, I have several units of French Colonial Infantry in the scenario. I actually have "French Tank Brigade" written in my "To Do" list, but I'm going to have to do some research on what kind of unit composition that would be, and what those device stats would look like.


I do love those tanks, in fact any early war French stuff, but in truth, any Free French armored units would have gone to Cairo. I can't imagine the French would be able to service and maintain tanks out of Tahiti, or even India, well maybe India given your history and timeline.

Once the war in Europe is over, however, French Forces might be freed up and sent over but by then they would be using lend lease equipment.

So if you throw a tank brigade over to the Pacific...pools should be very, very low imho.

In addition, you might send some more French pilots over once the Battle for Britain is over.

And finally, you might want to have withdraw dates for the French forces, as you see fit, the closer we get to DDay since I am sure the priority would be fielding forces in France proper before the Pacific.

Great work

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 46
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 5:33:41 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyland

A Escadre is 2 or sometimes 3 Groupes
A Groupe is composed of 2 Escadrilles
An Escadrille is 9 planes + spares (3)

GC is Groupe de Chasse (Fighter)
GB is Groupe de Bombardement (Bomber) or GBA (GB Assault)
GR is Groupe de Reconnaissance (Reco)

Example :
4th Escadre de Chasse (4°EC) is composed of
GC I/4 with Escadrilles n°1 and n°2
GC II/4 with Escadrilles n°3 and n°4

GAO are Groupe Aerien d'Observation (tactical reco group attached to army corps HQ)



Fantastic, I'll make the name changes this weekend.

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 47
RE: Focus Pacific - 1/31/2015 6:02:14 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Para,
Don't forget the CV capable fighters at Tahiti are not CV Capable. Small adjustment.


Those fighters weren't historically CV capable, but they have an upgrade path that allows them to upgrade to CV capable fighters. I'm almost tempted to remove those two groups from the game, and have them arrive with lend-lease CV capable planes 6 months in.

quote:

Also, did you get the ship art I sent to you?


Yes, thank you. I actually was using Gary's art in the mod for most of the French units - if there are specific ships missing artwork let me know, I will just have to add them to the dropbox file. All of the art looks present on my end, so I'm not sure why it's not showing up on yours. Please re-download the art folders in dropbox and let me know if any ships aren't showing up.

quote:

Also, as someone mentioned above or on previous page, The Japanese start with a greatly enhanced navy. So, I would increase Allied naval aircraft production by maybe 10% and include at least one more USN CV.


The allies have a lot more carrier power already vs stock. At the beginning of the game, the allied player starts with two additional CVLs (The Bearn and Ares), six additional CAVs (The Vindictive, Vengeful, Melbourne, Wellington, Charlotte and Jacksonville), has two AVs that can immediately start a conversion to CVEs, and receives an additional CVL with the Yorktown (King's Mountain). The addition of the Joffre and Painleve also gives the allied player two additional CVs by April.

Allied naval aircraft production is increased significantly vs stock. Additionally, the allied player can buy more air frames via the aircraft purchase system. This is not a small emergency amount like in Between the Storms, but significant amounts of aircraft that can be purchased this way. Between these two changes, I would be surprised if the allied player wasn't swimming in air frames. This is intentional, as I want the allied player to have the confidence in challenging the Japanese even while Japan is expanding.

quote:

As a Alternate player option, Set no unit withdrawals to ON. I have played Andy's Scenario 60 twice and I am in oct 42 on number three and this time I set withdrawals to ON to balance a little. This does help some, against the AI. Not really sure if it would be necessary against a "LIVE" opponent with a additional USN CV group.


I had the same thought when creating the mod. 90% of the ships and airgroups that withdraw in stock no longer need to in this scenario. This is especially significant for British carrier power. When they don't withdraw, you wind up having a British Carrier Task Force that is nothing to sneeze at.

quote:

In this current game I didn't change any production numbers on airframes and I am feeling it. About half of my LBA fighter squadrons are at half strenght or less. CV aircraft are OK. As I have a few in the pool.


LBA production numbers are also much higher, which allows the allied player to keep their 50 additional air groups well stocked with planes throughout the war. I may be wrong, but I really think that the allied player isn't going to be hurting for planes unless the Japanese player is smarter in the air war than they are. Now quality air frames that won't be shot down en masse by the Japanese? That's another story.


(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 48
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/1/2015 5:16:52 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline
Para,
CV capable aircraft made available 6 months in is a good idea. At that point the French CV's would be ready or at least close to ready.
Good on the production.
Juan has updated arrival dates of some purchase groups by the way. Just released with the new BTS's 2.1 update.
Let me know when you need another look at your next update. Email/PM me or post here. Although I check email more often....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 49
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/2/2015 2:50:59 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
Updated the scenario files this morning. Changes include:

Addition of a Division Cuirassée for the French, arriving in mid 43.

Changed the names of French air units to a more accurate naming convention.

Thanks to Skyland for help with both of the changes!

< Message edited by paradigmblue -- 2/2/2015 6:48:34 PM >

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 50
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/3/2015 4:01:22 AM   
EHansen


Posts: 360
Joined: 12/6/2013
Status: offline
So, is this scenario ready to try?

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 51
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/3/2015 5:04:22 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EHansen

So, is this scenario ready to try?

Try, yes. Ready for full release yet? No. It still needs a polish pass, a balance pass and most importantly some more testing to make sure that it's fun.

I'm looking for someone to play a PBEM game with me to help with all three.

(in reply to EHansen)
Post #: 52
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/3/2015 11:59:45 AM   
MadmanRick


Posts: 579
Joined: 4/9/2004
From: New York City, U.S.A.
Status: offline
As a significant contributor of plane art to both the Ryan Art Mod and various other ventures, I offer up my services. So if you are in need of any additional aircraft artwork, just drop me a line. I will be in D.C. for a conference beginning this Friday, but I will be back home in less than a week. So I should be able to get any request(s) turned around pdq.

Rick

_____________________________


"Our lives begin to end the moment we become silent about things that matter". Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 53
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/3/2015 12:53:57 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
If u need a player to test the scen, im available.

(in reply to MadmanRick)
Post #: 54
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/3/2015 10:53:46 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue


quote:

ORIGINAL: EHansen

So, is this scenario ready to try?

Try, yes. Ready for full release yet? No. It still needs a polish pass, a balance pass and most importantly some more testing to make sure that it's fun.

I'm looking for someone to play a PBEM game with me to help with all three.


Available if needed....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 55
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/4/2015 9:04:40 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MadmanRick

As a significant contributor of plane art to both the Ryan Art Mod and various other ventures, I offer up my services. So if you are in need of any additional aircraft artwork, just drop me a line. I will be in D.C. for a conference beginning this Friday, but I will be back home in less than a week. So I should be able to get any request(s) turned around pdq.

Rick

Thank you for your generous offer!

(in reply to MadmanRick)
Post #: 56
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/26/2015 2:35:48 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
Quick question - I'm adding air art kindly provided by Madman Rick.

How do I ensure that I'm lining up the planes correctly on the top view and the AtopAlpha and the JtopAlpha .bmps?

I'm adding the planes in the appropriate spaces, but I'm just not sure how to make sure that they are pixel perfect in being aligned to where they're supposed to go.

Also, does anyone have some good stats and/or art for the Nakajima G5N?

< Message edited by paradigmblue -- 2/26/2015 3:39:06 AM >

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 57
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/26/2015 2:56:48 PM   
ny59giants


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

Also, does anyone have some good stats and/or art for the Nakajima G5N?


Check the RA/BTS thread. I think John 3rd added her.

_____________________________


(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 58
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/26/2015 3:37:11 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Also, does anyone have some good stats and/or art for the Nakajima G5N?


Check the RA/BTS thread. I think John 3rd added her.

Right you are, thank you!

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 59
RE: Focus Pacific - 2/28/2015 11:36:31 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
I have updated the scenario, and those that have previously downloaded the scenario will need to redownload the scenario files, as well as allied and japanese plane art files.

The specific changes are two numerous to mention, with a lot of the work being miscellaneous polish and clean-up, but the noticeable changes give the allies a bit more to fight back with in 1942 vs the last version.

I hope you enjoy! As always, please let me know of any bugs are inconsistencies you find so I can make the fix.


(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Focus Pacific Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.688