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: Fighters

 
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: Fighters Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Fighters - 8/16/2016 12:52:14 PM   
btd64


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Izumo would be a cool name if it's not already in the scenario.

By the way, that's an interesting looking "destroyer."

Cheers,
CC


What destroyer?....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 CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 301
RE: Fighters - 8/18/2016 3:55:12 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
Sorry I haven't been active here for a while - my new position at work has absorbed every waking moment of free time lately. In addition to managing the 14,500sf liquor store, I now also am the wine buyer for the other 22 stores in the chain, and I'm swamped.

If there is a pressing bug that needs fixing, please pm me, as I won't be able to monitor this threat daily like I used to be able to. Thanks!

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 302
RE: Fighters - 8/18/2016 4:35:08 AM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline
A promotion, congratulations....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 #: 303
RE: Fighters - 8/19/2016 3:55:14 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
GP: If you click the link, the Izumo, a "helicopter destroyer," looks about as big as an Essex.

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 304
RE: Fighters - 8/19/2016 4:17:16 AM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline
Saw it. A little bit modern for WITPAE....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 CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 305
RE: Fighters - 8/19/2016 9:11:06 AM   
wdolson

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

GP: If you click the link, the Izumo, a "helicopter destroyer," looks about as big as an Essex.

Cheers,
CC


The Izumo class is a bit lighter in displacement than an Essex, but they have a wider beam and about the same length. Much smaller complement too, partly due to the very small air group and partly due to modern automation.

Bill



_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 306
RE: Fighters - 8/20/2016 3:01:56 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
British CVL Colosus has 0 armor values. Is this intentional?

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 307
RE: Fighters - 8/20/2016 9:08:14 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Glad I could help GP. I think they add a nice flavor to the game. A couple of the old armored cruisers are listed as PGs for Japan also.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 308
RE: Focus Pacific: Release - 8/23/2016 8:56:11 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 523
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

Focus Pacific Stuff


I really need an explanation of the alternate timeline before I'm capable of suspending disbelief (not really, but it helps!) I know you say in the original post that you'll detail these, but as far as I can tell haven't really yet. Do you still plan to do this?


_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 309
RE: Focus Pacific: Release - 8/27/2016 3:50:26 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
Scenario 71, B19E Raider upgrades(?) to the B19D Raider.

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 310
RE: Focus Pacific: Release - 8/27/2016 4:02:42 PM   
btd64


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Scenario 71, B19E Raider upgrades(?) to the B19D Raider.


Thank you Bill. It's on the list for 75 at the moment. Para will add as well.....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 BillBrown)
Post #: 311
RE: Focus Pacific: Release - 9/3/2016 12:09:49 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
I want to thank all who worked on this mod. I am playing the Allies in scenario 71 and it is a blast.
We are at March 18, 1942 and there has been non stop action since day 1. To others who may be interested in
playing the Allies, do not be put off by how much Japan starts with, the Allies have plenty to defend
with and in a few years they will have enough to crush Japan. We are playing version 1.03 with no house
rules and no withdrawals.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 312
RE: Focus Pacific: Release - 9/3/2016 1:02:02 AM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline
Thank you Bill. It's hard to believe that paradigm blue and I started working together on this 2 1/2 years ago. I have a list of fixes and couple additions for the next update of scenario 75. Para can add as he seems fit....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 BillBrown)
Post #: 313
RE: Fighters - 9/5/2016 3:47:04 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
Scenario 71

French mixed Colonial units use device #1340 60mm M1 1935 Mortar which is marked in the scenario file as available 9999 ( never )

They also use device #428 81mm Mortar which is also marked as 9999

They use device #1729 13.2mm mle 29 AAMG which has a build of 0 and no upgrade.
A number of other type units use #1729 also.

It is also interesting that the French use a number of Japanese DP and Naval guns in their CD units.
Of course there are no replacements for these which is probably correct.

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 9/5/2016 3:48:31 AM >

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 314
RE: Fighters - 9/5/2016 6:34:32 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline
Thanks again bill. I'll look into it and make any adjustments 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 BillBrown)
Post #: 315
RE: Fighters - 9/9/2016 4:05:46 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
Patton, what do you think about adding that Dutch Buccaneer that Gary created in place of the Dutch Vengeance DBs that we currently have in the game?

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 316
RE: Fighters - 9/9/2016 6:13:43 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline
I looked at the art and like it. Yes, let's do it. I read about it as well. Looks like a cross between the original helldiver and a dauntless....GP

< Message edited by General Patton -- 9/9/2016 6:14:56 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 paradigmblue)
Post #: 317
RE: Fighters - 9/9/2016 11:48:49 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline
Para, Can you email the process you use to package your scenarios and later updates. Thanks dude....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 btd64)
Post #: 318
April 42 - 9/14/2016 10:05:49 PM   
Joglinks1

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/13/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
Bill Brown and I have been playing the mod for a while now. We are at the 9th of April '42.
We are playing Scen 071, Russ active, no withdrawal of units, PDU on. The only house rule we had is I was not to invade Mersing on my first turn.
As we all know, Japan needs to start an all out attack to gain the resources and point to win the game. I don't think the Axis player is able to archive this in scen 071. I am a average player having played several stock games and some of the other mods. Some I won some I lost.
Air war:
At this date I have lost 7900 planes to 2900 on the allied side. My IJN pilot pool is depleted to the point where I have only 700 pilots in training on the first cycle (month) All other pilots are in fighting units. I added the max to the IJN training squads and have 200 pilots in the training command. My + 80 pilots in my land based AF squads are depleted. On a normal sweep I lose 3 to 1 planes to the allies, mainly USSR. I have tried high level, low level best altitude for the plane I employed to no avail. My fighters get slaughtered.
There are probably several reasons:
1.No armour on the Japanese planes.
2.Skill of allied pilots is set to high
3.Weapons in the Ki43c are useless against all but the most obsolete allied fighters in 1942. The Ki43c is a good plane in stock but here it seems the guns just don't make the kill. The A6M2 fears slightly better but is lacking the high level mvr values. Only with 70+ pilots can I get a balances 1 to 1 loss ratio.
4.Bill has not started a strategic bombing campaign towards Manchuko and northern Japan. If he would do that I have no plane that would be able to stop him except the A6M2. It would be costly for him due to the short legs of the Russian escort fighters but the damage he could inflict would knock me out in a years time.
Suggestions:
1. Bring the Ki44 online earlier. It is equipped with 20 mm canons like the A6M2 and will have a better chance to make the kill against the armourd allied planes
2. As Japan is at war with the USSR, the assumption could be that it was on the bequest of her German ally. One can further assume that this was planned for some time and the Germans lend a hand in developing better protected planes, convincing the IJA/IJN that protection of the pilots is imperative. This can result in having armour added to the existing Ki43/Ki44 and A6M's or in a newly developed plane(s) like the ME109 or FW190.
3.Increase the pilot pool and replacement rate for IJN pilots. The downside here is that it cost HI points every month to have them in the training pool. Therefore HI production would need to be increased.

Land war:
The IJA inf squads are too lightly armed to stand up against the improved allied troops in the DEI/PHI/Malaya.
At this point I have captured Singapore in March (later then historical), Phi was captured early (February)
I have not taken Java, Batavia and Surabaya are still in allied hands. I have not landed on Sumatra.
I took Burma, the usual Chinese cities, the south pacific islands and even moved into the New Hebrides and took some other small islands that were not defended. They didn't take many troops to take so I discount them here.
Suggestions:
1. Improve device stats for Japan. Better AT capability and soft target to compensate for the higher exp and morale of the allies.
2. As under air war, assume German - Japanese cooperation to form Panzer Div along the German line instead of penny packing them in independent Regiments. With the USSR in the war, it becomes more a land war like war in the east.
3. More Artillery would help to counter the Soviet superiority in that area.

Navy:
ASW: The Russian subs are active and roaming the Home waters of Japan. The current ASW capability with the Type 95 and 95-2 DC does not reach the deep diving subs. The PB converted from small AK's do not upgrade the the better type 2 DC in the game which makes them next to useless in open water ASW patrols. Either have them equipped with the type 2 DC or change the parameters of the Type 95 DC to reach greater depth.

Industry:
My industry had a massive expansion to increase AC and Navy production as well as vehicle and armament points. That has drained my Supply point pool to a point where no offensive operations are possible. The IJ forces had such an increase in units but the industry cannot fill them and replace war losses.
I am still ok on the Oil and fuel side and i wont run out of it until later 43 with the current sources I have available.
With the battles more intense, a large amount of resources, oil and refineries were destroyed and need rebuilding costing precious supply points. The destruction is a consequence of the improved defense capability of the allies.
Suggestions:
Increase output of supply to 2 on LI or to 3 on HI. If you like increase the input of resources but leave the fuel input as is. Another options is to increase the HI in Japan.
To cope with the losses, japans air industry needs to be ramped up. That could be done by having more air and engine points under constructions and increase the supply that is available at the start. I think that is better than having full production running.
With the increase in re-enforcement the manpower points are running out whenever a large group of units come online rendering the troops useless until fully equipped which can take a while. Consider increasing the MP to reflect the higher demand.

All in all we like the Mod and keep playing. I look at it as a test for you guys and provide feedback whenever I can.
For Japan to have a fighting chance, it still need to occupy the usual area speedily and then decide to move into India, Australia or just slug it out and get enough points. With the current set up the speed required is not archivable. I will be taking the places eventually but at a very high cost that give the allied player enough points to make it impossible to win for the Japanese player.

With the USSR active Japan would have planned differently and would have cooperated with their Axis partners to improve their war making capabilities.

Bill, pls post any comments from your side as I don't have an insight of your situation.

Back tot he war then :)
J

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 319
RE: April 42 - 9/14/2016 10:12:56 PM   
Joglinks1

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/13/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
one more thing.
when you increase the resources, oil and fuel production in ports, it might be worth to consider increasing the max port size that can be built.
Sorong and Balikpapan are good examples. With the max port size limited to 5/4 respectively, you cannot dock enough shipping to ever transport the produced goods to wherever you need them.

(in reply to Joglinks1)
Post #: 320
RE: April 42 - 9/14/2016 10:44:04 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline
Joglines1, Thank you for the imput. With the last update we made some big adjustments to the Japanese econ. Is the latest update(8/2016) the version you are using? If so then we have some adjusting to do....GP

Bill has been posting some stuff FYI.......

< Message edited by General Patton -- 9/14/2016 10:45:48 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 Joglinks1)
Post #: 321
RE: April 42 - 9/14/2016 10:48:04 PM   
Joglinks1

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/13/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
Hi General.

no we are on an older version prior to the revamp of the econ. We decided to keep going with it to see what other feedback we can provide.
Also, I was too lazy to start again with the first turn always being the killer :)

we are using 1.03.
J

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 322
RE: April 42 - 9/14/2016 11:57:22 PM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline
I think some of the econ stuff may solve some issues. The allies do have an edge in the beginning. I'm planning on some dutch forces going to the reinforcement pool and have some show up at CapeTown. That will help out a little. I'm also Toning down the allied aircraft pool. At the moment the Japanese have a lot of xAK's and more escorts. Give me some time to fix scenario 75 or for Para to review your comment, I would recommend a restart....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 Joglinks1)
Post #: 323
RE: April 42 - 9/15/2016 1:03:04 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 784
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
Thanks for the feedback Joglinks.

I think many of your points have been addressed in patches, but that doesn't mean that there aren't concerns that still exists.

Air Combat

The most recent patch significantly reduces Soviet starting fighter group experience, which had been set much too high. It is now much easier for Japan to achieve 1:1 and even 2:1 results against the Soviet air force.

Allied fighter replacements have been adjusted down, but I think even now they need a little more downward tweaking.

You had mentioned how out-classed the gun-value of the Oscar was. To that effect, the most recent patch introduced the Oscar D, which has two center-line mounted cannons, which makes it much more effective.

I believe that I increased the pilot replacement rate in the most recent version compared to the one you're playing as well.

Ground War

I have to say that I haven't experienced a similar issue with the ground war in the DEI. Once supply is cut off here, these troops wither on the vine, and as most of the hexes are coastal, any force concentration can be softened up by naval bombardment. I'll look into having the Dutch mechanized force start in a different location as Patton does, however.

The most recent patch also increases the amount of troops that are available early on, and provides more political points to buy out troops on the home islands for Japan.

I'll look into adding more artillery.

Naval Warfare

The most recent patch introduced 15+ additional sub-chasers for Japan to keep tabs on those pesky Soviet subs.

Industry

We did a large industry re-vamp which seems to be working OK for players - I'm not afraid to tweak it more however as needed to increase Japan's ability to support expanded aircraft manufacturing.

Manpower has been increased, but as above I'm not afraid to tweak it more.

Port Size

Good point, and an easy fix.

Apolgies

I'd like to apologize that the version of Focus Pacific that you're playing has these flaws. I wish that I had kept the mod in "beta" status a while longer as Patton and I worked out some kinks, especially when it comes to the economy.

Please download the latest version and take a look around to see what you think has been fixed between the two versions, and what you think still needs tweaking.

Thank you for your thoughts, without feedback like this we can't continue to improve the mod to make it a better experience for everyone.

(in reply to Joglinks1)
Post #: 324
RE: April 42 - 9/15/2016 1:31:43 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
I have a bad case of the flue so I will be answering in short posts when I can.

Soviet Subs have sunk about 88 ships and lost none to DC attack. I am not sure that more SCs are going to be effective, some need
to start with Type 95-2( in spite of Jogs assertion, they do go deeper than the type 95s) It might also be that he does not have
enough air ASW assets patrolling.

The air war. I have been very successful, I would guess some is from experience starting too high. And maybe I have lucky and/or good.

I would possible suggest that most of the Allied air training units come in 3-6 months after the start of the war. I was very diligent
in setting up my trainers and finding 81+ experience trainers. I have a core of about 400 USAAF fighter pilots with 50/70/70 stats and
more are on the way.

Ground war, I feel Jogs did make a mistake in moving into Voroshilov and Rytolov. I would not have advance out from those positions
attacking in +3 terrain is costly. I show he has about 58 units in the two cities when 6-10 could have easily held the fortified positions
in Manchukuo. I have been able to create a stalemate in China for now. I hope to keep it that was for about 2 years or so.

Not starting a bombing campaign against his factories was a decision I made. I was waiting for the MiG-3 AM-38 with its drop tanks.

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 325
RE: April 42 - 9/15/2016 1:45:04 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
A quick glance at 1.03 vers 1.04a shows that 1.04a starts with 2120 less LI than 1.03. Doesn't seem to be an improvement.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 326
RE: April 42 - 9/15/2016 1:58:59 AM   
paradigmblue

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

A quick glance at 1.03 vers 1.04a shows that 1.04a starts with 2120 less LI than 1.03. Doesn't seem to be an improvement.


Light industry is a huge resource sink, but relatively inefficient in converting those resources to supply. The balance of HI to LI was changed to ensure that there were enough resources to feed HI.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 327
RE: April 42 - 9/15/2016 8:57:44 AM   
Joglinks1

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/13/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
Paradigmblue, there is no need to apologize. When doing so many changes and additions there are bound to be hickups and tweaks to be done. I appreciate you are open for feedback.

Bill is correct, moving these large armies into Voroshilov and the other city. It is a sinkhole for troops. I never played with the USSR active it was a trial and error approach here which failed.
I am still concerned about an intensive strat bombing campaign from the USSR. If this happens the Japanese industry could falter quickly.
The answer to that is tricky as increase in Flak and or fighter might temped the Japanese player to employ them otherwise. As we have not come to that stage yet, I would like to continue this game to see how it plays out.
Stronger and more Flak might be needed.

Type 95DC. Bill is correct, the 95-2 has a greater depth reach. I looked at the ID 107 and 1699 marked slots in tracker. 107 seems to be not in use
However the PB's still don't upgrade to the more potent weapon. They are stuck with the earlier model.

Ground war, once supply is cut off you are correct. However it is speed that the Japanese player needs. If you cannot reach the historical area taken by Japan by June/July then it becomes next to impossible. Not sure how I would address this in a new game. There are lots of small units which I used to take small islands in the SoPac but the larger Divisional/Brig size forces are all needed in Malaya, Phi, China and Burma.
I think I have to go after no more than two targets at the time and focus on it. and then move to the next step instead of the usual jumping all out attack

There is air unit 342 which flies Ki27b's, classified as a IJA training unit but assigned to the IJN. Can you take a look?

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 328
RE: April 42 - 9/15/2016 12:01:39 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
I think it is unreasonable to expect an ability to maintain a historical timetable of conquest in a scenario with such a beefed up Allied force.

Nothing about this scenario should be expected to follow historical lines.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Joglinks1)
Post #: 329
RE: April 42 - 9/15/2016 12:15:33 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

A quick glance at 1.03 vers 1.04a shows that 1.04a starts with 2120 less LI than 1.03. Doesn't seem to be an improvement.


Light industry is a huge resource sink, but relatively inefficient in converting those resources to supply. The balance of HI to LI was changed to ensure that there were enough resources to feed HI.


HI is identical in both 1.03 and 1.04a. It seems that the supply production has been reduced. Joglinks1 is
concerned with not having enough supply.

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 330
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Fighters Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   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

2.094