RE: BTSL 3.0 Release

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: BTSL 3.0 Release

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: BTSL 3.0 Release

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/7/2017 11:14:52 PM

John 3rd

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

It is fine with me. This is useful discussion. I was stunned when Cardas Posted that list of errors dating back to stock. WTH?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to US87891)

Post #: 181

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/10/2017 5:56:05 PM

cardas

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline

Oh, talking about stock errors that reminds me about some tonnage errors that I've had forgotten about. Note that tonnage is a subject that I'm not that confident about. Sources can often be wrong and either way how much the ships displaced changed throughout their lifetime.

As always; don't take my word as gospel. I rely on the internet for much of the information and that's always fraught with danger.

'D' Class (68, 69): 6000 is probably full load displacement. Guessing ~4900 ton standard displacement.

'D' Class (70): Assuming full load going from 6000 -> 6500 ton is true, then: 4900 + 500 = ~5400 ton standard displacement.

'D' Class Delhi (71, 72): Navypedia puts Delhi at 6500 ton full, that'd mean ~5400 standard displacement.

'C' Class AA (73): Tonnage of 4800 is presumably full load displacement rather than standard displacement. I've seen references that would put Caledon in it's AA form at ~4350 ton standard displacement. Tower Armor should probably be 75. Note that not a single ship can upgrade to this class at the moment. This is only a concern if you are playing with withdrawals = off however, as all the ships that should upgraded to this outfit are withdrawn from the Pacific theatre.

'C' Class (74): Should upgrade to 73, not 76.

'C' Class (74, 75, 76): Tonnage of 5468 is roughly full load displacement rather than standard displacement. Standard displacement around ~4500 ton.

'C' Class (77): No idea which, if any, of the 'C' class cruisers had such an outfit. Maybe Caradoc did? Of course just because I am not aware of a ship having a certain outfit doesn't mean it didn't actually have it, that's important to remember. Either way presumably the same tonnage issue is present, so standard displacement would be ~4350?

Birmingham (78): 5000 ton sounds a bit high, but might be true. I'd guess around 4700 though.

'E' Class (126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131): I'm very uncertain about this one, but I'd increase it to ~8000 ton standard displacement.

I have some question marks about the tonnage of the Japanese cruisers as well. That's such a big can of worms due to their extensive refits though. A murky subject overall that I'm not that confident dealing with considering what sources I have.

All of this is of course based on the notion that tonnage = standard displacement. If you decide to change anything here you'd also have to change durability to follow suit.

< Message edited by cardas -- 3/10/2017 6:03:41 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 182

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/17/2017 3:32:25 PM

John 3rd

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

This is a pick-up from the General Discussion going on over in the other thread. We have endemic industry issues with Japan in these Mods. Truth to tell, that is totally appropriate considering the whole point of the Mods is to better prepare Japan for the war while at the same time making it imperative to grab any and all forms of oil, fuel, HI, LI, and resources as fast as possible.

The proposal that Michael sent over today is this:

Ok, so now comes what to do to adjusts Japan�s economy so it works. I think doing the least amount of changes is best.

Proposal #1
1. All refineries to produce supplies daily again (at start would mean 1240 supplies; once expansion is done about 3500).
2. Decrease at start HI from 7625 to about 7300 (this will reduce supplies by about 650, resources requirements by 6500).
3. Adjust HI resource requirements from 20 down to 18 or 17 per center. Down to 17 means slightly more than 20k in less resources needed per day at start.
4. Slight bump in oil in Japan produced
5. Help at start with a bump of 1M for oil, fuel, supplies, and resources stockpiled in Japan. More than Scen 1, but less than Scen 2.

These changes would give Japan the ability to stockpile resources as my early April Tracker report with these numbers mean about 23k in extra resources per day. It would make the capture of the main oil/refinery bases even more a priority and something to defend vigorously later.

If not this proposal, what would you like to do? I may be your assistant with this mod, but any criticism will almost always be directed at you. So your word is final.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/17/2017 3:33:20 PM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to cardas)

Post #: 183

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/17/2017 3:35:35 PM

John 3rd

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

Michael: When you get the chance, could you Post the Scenario 1--2--DBB 30--BTSL comparisons here?

_____________________________

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 #: 184

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/17/2017 3:43:36 PM

John 3rd

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

My, initial, gut feeling is to place the 'solution' for Japan's economy is 'out there' in the DEI and elsewhere to force the Japanese player to be thinking economics and ONLY economics when they start the war.

Specific Points:
1. I think building in a certain amount of automatic supply generation might be a better idea then allowing refineries to produce supply.
2. To a certain degree this seems OK.
3. No idea. Not something I've ever played with. Is it 'gamey' to change?
4. You could make the case that Yamamoto pushes this idea. Would it be more appropriate at Sakhalin or Manchuria or the Home Islands. There were several thoughts in the other thread speaking directly to this point. Could those Posters come over here and make their case?
5. No. The whole scenario is designed to squarely place Japan behind the economic Eight-Ball. We could place more oil centers, limited HI/LI bumps and, possibly, resource additions. It needs to be 'out there.'

Jump in gang. Comments and/or thoughts?

_____________________________

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 #: 185

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/17/2017 10:49:16 PM

John 3rd

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

Wow. I expected a bunch of Posts while at work. Nothing. Nada.

Just might want to cry...

_____________________________

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 #: 186

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/17/2017 10:49:53 PM

John 3rd

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

Fine. When I get back home I will Post an official proposal.

_____________________________

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 #: 187

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/17/2017 11:49:10 PM

cardas

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline

1. Agree with John here. You could perhaps change refineries to produce 10 fuel rather than 9 though.
2. Leave as is if you go with something along my proposal.
3. The issue with reducing the resource consumption for HI in my mind is that HI pulls double duty. It doesn't just give you the supply, it also gives you HI. Don't think you really want to give the Japanese player cheaper HI.
4. No opinion right now. Probably fine with a small bump.
5. Agreed that you want to force the Japanese side to actually rely on shipping stuff in to supports its economy. The question is where and what kind of stuff is to be shipped.

Now in an ideal world I'd want to place additional resources mainly in the DEI while expanding initial LI on the home islands. The problem is that it squeezes the Japanese merchant marine and its escorts quite severely. It's simply a difficult proposal to pull off.

Hopefully I don't mess this up as here's some crude math on how it'd look;

2000 LI additional in Japan = +2000 supply/day
1500 RES added in DEI = +30000 resources/day

Generic Cargo xAK: 2500 cargo, 5 fuel/hex, cruises at 6 hexes/day, e.g. 30 fuel/day
75 hexes to DEI (150 hexes there and back), e.g. 25 days at 6 hexes/day + 5 days load&unload = 30 days

(30000 resources/day x 30 days)/(2500 resources/ship) = 360 xAKs (300 at sea)
300 ships x 30 fuel/day = 9000 fuel/day

Yeah... the problem is that the DEI is in fact quite far away from Japan. Fuel is actually not such a big issue if you could rely on refuelling in the DEI rather than doing it in Japan. Except that even the DEI struggles to supply 9000 fuel a day if you take into account that refineries are unlikely to be taken completely undamaged. That's also without accounting for the fuel required by the escorts. I suppose you could try to use some kind of land conveyor belt to move resources around?

No, ultimately resources are too low "quality" in this game to really be worth shipping from far away. They'd have to be mainly placed in Korea/China. That you can't turn LI off is also a big issue with this idea.

Okay, so a more realistic(?) proposal this time. Details not hammered out;

1000 RES added in China = +20000 resources
200 RES added in Philippines = +4000 resources
300 RES added in DEI = +6000 resources
600 OIL added in DEI = +6000 oil
400 REF added in DEI = +4000 fuel, -4000 oil (assuming change of 10 oil => 9 fuel to 10 oil => 10 fuel)

-1200 fuel/day shipping resources from China to Japan (30 hexes total), 80 xAK
-720 fuel/day shipping resources from Philippines to Japan (90 hexes total), 32 xAK
-1800 fuel/day shipping resources from DEI to Japan (150 hexes total), 72 xAK
= -3720 fuel/day, 172 xAKs used

-640 fuel/day shipping oil from DEI to Japan (150 hexes total), 44 TK (small)
+2000 fuel/day after refined in Japan (assuming change to 10 oil => 10 fuel)
= +1360 fuel/day, 44 TKs (small) used

-X fuel/day escorting additional shipping
+X fuel/day in DEI from undamaged refineries
+1240 fuel/day from 10 oil => 10 fuel from refineries that are under control of Japan at the start

That's some initial thoughts at least. Getting the economy right is a tricky thing as it also depends quite a bit on what kind of play style you are using.
The great additional burden of shipping/escorting is difficult to assess, someone more experience than me has to give their thoughts on that subject. Also I'll underline that these are simplified calculations and I might have messed up somewhere. I assumed a 5 day loading&unloading(&extra) for the xAKs, 2 days for the same with the small TKs.

quote:

Wow. I expected a bunch of Posts while at work. Nothing. Nada.

Edit: The scenario subforum is simply less active than the main I'm afraid. You'd probably have a better chance of getting responses in either your AAR (although it would be quite off-topic) or the main forum.

< Message edited by cardas -- 3/17/2017 11:56:23 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 188

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 12:47:02 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

I asked for some tracker numbers from Michaels' current game date. Without those, I can't comment as insufficient data.

If he does not want to post, he can send me either via email or message me.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to cardas)

Post #: 189

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 1:43:48 AM

John 3rd

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

Thanks for the comment Pax. Michael: Try to get a couple of Tracker shots into this if you can.

Solid Post cardas. Let me read and digest it some. Looks like some good ideas in there...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 190

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 5:16:23 AM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Thanks for the comment Pax. Michael: Try to get a couple of Tracker shots into this if you can.

My prior post:

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

"... due to only getting about 2K in supply surplus per day ..."

Ok, this is a supply balance issue foremost. forget about oil, fuel, resources, et al. Let's focus solely on supply.

There are only two sides to the equation: production and use. Tracker gives you production. What is your TOTAL daily supply production from tracker? in Apr 42, it should be something North of 28K/day based upon your starting point of 25K/day and a normal IJ early war expansion into the DEI/Malay/China/Burma.

If it is, then you have a usage issue. (If not, then we have a supply production problem which is a different direction)

check to be sure you are not accidently repairing factories. You're a good player, so I doubt this, but we've all made that mistake before. Use the Factory screen, sort by the repair column. EVERYTHING should be OFF except those very few that you want repairing. It only takes a couple to screw you up. Ask Joseph.

If nothing found, go to air sorties, how many avg/day?

At this point, I'll wait for answers before any other suggestions. Need the above to know which way to flop here. But it is a zero sum game, just tedious to go through.

< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 3/18/2017 5:18:48 AM >

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 191

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 8:14:45 AM

ny59giants

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

Here is the "at start" comparison from other thread.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 192

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 8:30:16 AM

ny59giants

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

Pax,

I hope this info is what you requested. Taken from Tracker on 42 April 5th.

26358 sup generated - 8k (engines repairing) - 3k (6 R&D factories repaired over last 2 days) - 6069 (daily LCU consumption) = 9293 (Global Supply surplus). The only activities this day were a ground bombardment at Bataan and 130 Lily/Sally attacking there. I turned off ALL base construction two days ago. Are these values within a 'normal' range or is there something off?

Thanks,
Michael

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 193

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 8:48:50 AM

ny59giants

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

No "free supply" is in current BTS Lite mod. When JWE/Symon integrated the original RA/BTS OOB to his last version of DBB OOB, we overlooked making changes to supply generation once refineries were no longer making it. So, that needs to be fixed by adding in the "free supply" or have increased industry.

While my first proposal dealt with changing the economic asset values needed to make HI, I thought further on the issue and favor a few minor tweaks to make it more of a cross between Scen 1 and DBB "at start" values. If anything, I might add in some slight increase in resource values and new LI outside of Japan to generate more supply and require less shipping out of Japan. I played Gen Patton briefly in RHS, and Sid has added many small resource and LI at bases throughout the map.

_____________________________

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 194

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 12:41:02 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Pax,

I hope this info is what you requested. Taken from Tracker on 42 April 5th.

26358 sup generated - 8k (engines repairing) - 3k (6 R&D factories repaired over last 2 days) - 6069 (daily LCU consumption) = 9293 (Global Supply surplus). The only activities this day were a ground bombardment at Bataan and 130 Lily/Sally attacking there. I turned off ALL base construction two days ago. Are these values within a 'normal' range or is there something off?

Thanks,
Michael

Michael,

This is really good, thanks.

With a starting point of 25K supply/day, and this being 4/42, 26538 is on the low side. Just in HI/LI conquests, I would have expected more. I don't have your mod, so these will be stock numbers, these are conservative as I only assume about 50% factory on capture:

HK = 80HI + 200LI => 360 supply/day
DEI = 60HI + 100LI => 220 supply/day
Burma = 20LI => 20 supply/day
SE Asia 80HI + 20LI => 180 supply/day
PI = 70LI => 140 supply/day
Total => 920 supply/day

This doesn't include anything in China/Oz/India or any builds to HI that you might have made. So the 26.5K/day is plausible, just on the low side. It says you've only taken the historical area AND you have done no HI facotry expansion. If that is accurate, then the 26.5K/day is spot on.

Now let's look at usage. Here you state 9k/day surplus, but before you had stated only 2K/day. If you are expanding 11K/day factories then your balance looks right. The loss of the refinery supply is going to cost you 2 factory repairs per day.

AirCraft sorites are NOT just your Lilly strike. When you look at the daily summary popup where the VP's are tallied daily, there is also a sortie tracking, this is ALL flights. I suspect you will see a much higher number. 6Kday supply usage for LCU + AC if you are NOT engaged in an offensive is a bit high. You may wish to check to see how many units are adding replacements (device LC = supply usage), your CAP% in remote areas, and Patrol/Recon %.

Otherwise, I think the supply economy looks like what John intended:
Lower supply gen => slower econ growth and lower ultimate growth. You have to pick and choose you factory expansion more carefully.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 195

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 2:55:27 PM

John 3rd

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

Thank You Pax. Are there other comments?

Glad you got those Posts in Michael!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 196

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 5:40:42 PM

John 3rd

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

There was a set of queries made by people playing the Mod and I have addressed these issues first:

1. British CV withdrawal dates have been changed to six-nine months later or taken out completely.
2. Kittyhawk-Class CAVs have have their upgrade times fixed.
3. The starting ARDs for Japan have been shifted from Babeldoap--Saipan--Truk to Babeldoap--Kwajelein--Truk.
4. A small Repair Yard (3) has been added to Saipan. If the Japanese player chooses to expand this then Saipan takes on new importance for BOTH sides.

_____________________________

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 #: 197

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 6:00:06 PM

John 3rd

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

Have thought about this issue a bunch the last couple of days and have made some changes/additions. The spirit of what I have chosen to do complies with the vision of the Mod in that Japan ramps up its Naval Side preparing for war from 1939-Pearl Harbor. These changes COST supply, fuel, oil, and resources. What Michael has discovered within the Mod perfectly demonstrates the success of this vision.

Japanese players start the war in slightly better shape, will grow in 1942, and peak in 1943 but they are behind the 8-Ball IMMEDIATELY with the economy. Lots of expansions, changes, and new directions cost bunches and must be taken into account.

I have focused changes and additions on ideas brought up by readers and players. I agree that the Home Island production of 'optional' fuels is not shown well so I've bumped that just a bit to reflect limited Japanese success in this area. The Anshan, Manchuria project shows its success as well. All other tweaks and additions is 'out there' where the Japanese player MUST GO and take. If anything we continue to grow the economic motivation for the war, taking the DEI, HOLDING the DEI, and monsterous headache of transporting all this stuff back home. Since we have the Allies starting in a slightly stronger strength, I have taken the idea presented earlier to add some industry into Java making that location even more important.

Economic Changes:
1. Home Islands +50 Oil spread in little amounts at Yamagata, Tokyo, Sapporo, and Niigata.

2. Non-DEI additions: Anshan +50 Oil, Shikuka +20 Oil, Magwe +50 Oil

3. DEI: Palembang +100 Oil +80 Resources, Medan +40 Oil, Toboali +50 Resources, Bandjermasin +40 Resources, Tarakan +25 Oil TOTAL: +165 Oil and +130 Reources

4. Java Changes: Batavia +25 HI, +50 LI, +20 Resources, Djokjakarta +30 LI and Soerabaja +20 Resources, +50 Oil, +30 HI, +10 LI TOTAL: +55 HI, +90 LI, +40 Resources, +50 Oil

Overall Totals: 385 Oil, 170 Resources, +90 LI, and +55 HI.

I thought about adding to Australia to make that location more enticing for invasion but wasn't sure.

Am not wed to this. What do you think?

The files are being sent over to Michael so he can crunch them with Tracker.

_____________________________

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 #: 198

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 7:33:54 PM

John 3rd

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

Is this enough? Too much?? Not enough???

_____________________________

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 #: 199

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 10:35:29 PM

John 3rd

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

Michael suggests a net reduction of 325 HI and 400 LI in the Home Islands. Here is what I did:

Fukuoka -100 HI and LI
Hiroshima -100 HI and LI
Kobe -100 HI and -200 LI
Muroran -25 HI

_____________________________

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 #: 200

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/18/2017 11:26:45 PM

John 3rd

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

Aircraft Engines are re-tooled to better reflect the industry changes.

Got to thinking about old airframes. The US Fleet is expanded in the Treaty Years with CVL King's Mountain and CLVs Charlotte and Jacksonville. It only makes sense the there would be some extra Buffalos, Helldivers, Vindicators, and Devastators. Didn't add a bunch but the Allied player now has a bit of a pool to play with.

The Japanese gain CVL Ryukaku and CAVs Kushiro and Tokachi. Did the same for Claudes, Jeans, and Mabels.

_____________________________

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 #: 201

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/19/2017 7:13:56 PM

PaxMondo

Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have thought about this issue a bunch the last couple of days and have made some changes/additions. The spirit of what I have chosen to do complies with the vision of the Mod in that Japan ramps up its Naval Side preparing for war from 1939-Pearl Harbor. These changes COST supply, fuel, oil, and resources. What Michael has discovered within the Mod perfectly demonstrates the success of this vision.

Japanese players start the war in slightly better shape, will grow in 1942, and peak in 1943 but they are behind the 8-Ball IMMEDIATELY with the economy. Lots of expansions, changes, and new directions cost bunches and must be taken into account.

My analysis on supply supports your statements. Some day, I hope, I will get a chance to play this.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 202

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/20/2017 1:06:08 AM

cardas

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline

All of this depends on how you want the economy to function. The example I gave in my post was with +2000 supply/day in mind which could then easily be scaled to the desired supply increase.

Anyway putting LI in the conquered areas as you've done now is one easy way to do it. It means you won't have to ship quite as much stuff back and forth. Supply generation in the DEI can obviously help the Allied defenders as well in the early game. I'd be a bit more generous with the resources additions though (some of which you could even put in Australia, as you said). Shipping resources from far away is rather expensive past time anyway so I'd think adding more in the far-off DEI or Australia won't suddenly make Japan an economic juggernaut.

Remember that HI is halved every time it's captured. 55 HI isn't much after you've halved it (+ damage) when you capture it.

quote:

Michael suggests a net reduction of 325 HI and 400 LI in the Home Islands. Here is what I did:

Fukuoka -100 HI and LI
Hiroshima -100 HI and LI
Kobe -100 HI and -200 LI
Muroran -25 HI

That's a rather large decrease in supply generation compared to your suggested additions in the outlying areas?

(in reply to PaxMondo)

Post #: 203

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/20/2017 1:38:47 AM

DOCUP

Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline

John: Would you recommend the same changes to the BTS mod. My mod is based off the BTS mod. So I'm just wondering.

(in reply to cardas)

Post #: 204

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/20/2017 3:15:19 AM

John 3rd

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

The issues we have here should also apply to BTS. Your call but I would wager similar problems will plague your Japanese players.

cardas: I agree with you. Might add a bit of the LI back in. Nice note of the HI getting halved.

Pax: Your opinions are always most welcome. Thanks for those thoughts.

Think we're more or less done. Will probably Post the newest version on the web site tomorrow. Want to do a final Naval Additions Posting just so new players have half a clue as to what is where and WHY!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)

Post #: 205

RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/21/2017 4:05:12 AM

John 3rd

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

Did the final work this evening.

I dialed back some of the garrisons in India to make that a little less stressful for the Allied player.

Made sure the upgrade path for Japanese Air HQ/Fleet/Divisions/Flotilla was correct. Somehow they had gotten fairly screwed up.

Fixed an error on the AMCs that start the game. Hadn't given them their air search capability.

Moved the new (old) Japanese I-Boats from their location in the Eastern DEI. Since they are long-range, older boats, I took Michael's advice and moved them towards the West Coast.

Will be Posting the finished product tomorrow...

_____________________________

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 #: 206

BTSL 3.1 Release - 3/22/2017 12:12:17 AM

John 3rd

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

New files have been uploaded to the website. Please take a look.

_____________________________

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 #: 207

RE: BTSL 3.1 Release - 3/22/2017 1:24:40 AM

DOCUP

Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline

John: How much of a big deal would it be if I didn't reduce the HI and LI in the Home Islands?

Whats up with the upgrade path for the Japanese air HQ/Div/flotilla's.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 208

RE: BTSL 3.1 Release - 3/22/2017 1:51:15 AM

ny59giants

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

The problem with LI and HI in the Home Islands is the shortage of resources. The prior version of BTS Lite had Japan short about 26k in resources per day. Its now down to about 10k. These numbers are 'at start' values for all her territory.

_____________________________

(in reply to DOCUP)

Post #: 209

RE: BTSL 3.1 Release - 3/22/2017 2:10:23 AM

DOCUP

Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline

ny59giants: So the extra HI and LI will drain the few resources to fast. Am I correct in this guess? My mod is based off of BTS, so I am trying to make sure that I am not short changing the Japanese side.

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 210