Focus Pacific Re-Write

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Focus Pacific Re-Write

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 >> Focus Pacific Re-Write

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Focus Pacific Re-Write - 5/3/2017 8:44:44 PM

paradigmblue

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

It's become clear in play-testing and in other's games using the Focus Pacific mod that there are some significant issues with the mod that need to be fixed. The most crucial of these issues is the fact that a hard-fought game of Focus Pacific will exceed the engine's ability to handle the number of aircraft pilots needed, which can break the game.

Also, when I created Focus Pacific, I did in a haphazard and piecemeal fashion, adding features and units on in an inconsistent manner. Organizationally within the mod, and with the units in game, this piecemeal nature can show through, especially in naming conventions and TOEs.

Moreover, Focus Pacific was built on a non-ideal starting platform - the Ironman scenario. This scenario wasn't tuned correctly for the Japanese economy, and had a Japanese naval OOB that didn't make sense for what Focus Pacific was intended to accomplish.

With all of that said, I'd like to do a ground-up re-write of the Focus Pacific mod, using the existing mod as a resource along with a better foundation.

Goals

*Start with a DBB Extended Map Scenario as the starting point, with stacking limits. The DBB scenarios, with their numerous ship additions and improved air model are a great starting point.
*Tone down allied air-power in Focus Pacific, both in number of fighter squadrons and in replacement airframes. There are far too many allied fighter squadrons in Focus Pacific, with France and USAAF being the biggest offenders.
*Remove the Allied Aircraft Purchase system, it takes up too many pilot slots, and aircraft numbers can be adjusted via replacement rates.
*Remove the Lend-Lease simulation. I live in Fairbanks, Alaska, so while adding lend-lease squadrons flying to IAP bases in the Soviet Union was fun and interesting for me, it was tedious and didn't need to be simulated (it also took up a lot of valuable pilot slots)
*Tone down the Dutch CD guns in Focus Pacific. They are just a bit too effective.
*Increase Japanese late-game naval power. Most of Focus Pacific's additions to the IJN are front-loaded to 1941, and I would like to see additional Japanese ships entering the game 1943-1945.
*Tone down the alt-history aircraft, such as the P-50 Skyrocket, so that they are not day-1 Zero killers.
*Add the Naval OOB from Focus Pacific
*Add the ground OOBs from Focus Pacifics, but in a less haphazard way with more attention to HQs, entry dates and TOEs.

Post #: 1

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 5/3/2017 10:53:13 PM

BillBrown

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

Are you planning on reducing the Japanese aircraft numbers also, or just the Allies?

(in reply to paradigmblue)

Post #: 2

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 5/4/2017 6:09:55 AM

paradigmblue

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Are you planning on reducing the Japanese aircraft numbers also, or just the Allies?

Japanese aircraft squadrons will decrease as well, but not to the extent as the allies. In the games I've played, I've found that my early 42, a period of time where Japan should enjoy relative air superiority, the sheer number of USAAF and French squadrons make things more even, if not tilted toward the allies.

I know that you've played further in with a PBEM opponent than most - what are you balance thoughts?

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 3

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 5/4/2017 9:02:24 AM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

I have played it, but only against AI or head to head ( against myself

). All your suggestions looks like correct. Especially the french ones!!!

I think you should add some end dates of production of several allied airplanes which enter on production early 1942 but never end. It's overkill, as they are useful 2nd line airframes, releasing even more top airplanes for the main front.

Agree with the CD. They are real killers....

Duth OOB is a bit "boring", may be could be improved with some new formations or LCU types....

(in reply to paradigmblue)

Post #: 4

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 5/4/2017 10:57:02 AM

ny59giants

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

I would look to eliminate some of the broken down units that start the game. Many of the Japanese divisions could be formed into their whole divisions (2, 5, 18). Zero and many of the recon groups could be recombined at start. Eliminate any of the 5 plane HQ groups that the Americans have withdrawn by mid-42. Maybe have the Allies get 50 plane or 75 plane groups rather than 3x 25 air groups later in war. 48 plane bomber groups vs 12 x 4 groups for the 4e bombers. Don't overlook adding some planes to the convoys that dump devices at Cape Town.

_____________________________

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 5

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 5/4/2017 11:17:21 AM

BillBrown

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

Some ideas. Your recommended settings has No Unit Withdrawals = ON. I would change that to OFF. But, then you will need to go in and change most if not all of the
soviet LCUs to not withdraw. You have increased the USAAF air hq squadrons to 24-27. That adds a lot of extra aircraft. I think there are too many training air
units available. I would only give the USAAF one fighter trainer to start and then have one enter in July 1943. Eliminate one set of the British trainer units.
Without knowing what else you are doing in regards to the Japanese, it is hard to make a lot of recommendations. The ones you have listed above are a good start, but
there are a lot of areas that I am concerned about, but you might have all ready made changes.

One thing that ny59giants and I agree on is that late in the war the USAAF should have some air squadrons
withdraw and reenter as combined large units. Three size 25 fighters leave and a single size 75 fighter unit
appears. Same with bombers. They do not have to leave, some could be just the three squadrons do not arrive
but a single large unit does.

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 5/4/2017 11:21:05 AM >

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 6

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 5/12/2017 10:30:05 PM

Majork

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/9/2012
Status: offline

This a great idea. My brother and I played PBEM for six months of game time and have experienced what may be several problems. 1. All Allied ground forces have reverted to defense only. They can't be changed. 2. the allies have over 100,000 troops at Clark Airfield, after 5 months of bombing aND ground attacks they are still unbeatable. Something seems wrong somewhere.

(in reply to paradigmblue)

Post #: 7

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 5/12/2017 11:06:36 PM

paradigmblue

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: pike214

This a great idea. My brother and I played PBEM for six months of game time and have experienced what may be several problems. 1. All Allied ground forces have reverted to defense only. They can't be changed. 2. the allies have over 100,000 troops at Clark Airfield, after 5 months of bombing aND ground attacks they are still unbeatable. Something seems wrong somewhere.

The second issue is fixable - I built in too much supply generation at Clark and Manilla. The first issue is baffling- I have not idea what would cause all allied units not be able to attack or move.

(in reply to Majork)

Post #: 8

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 5/16/2017 7:18:24 PM

Revthought

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown
Your recommended settings has No Unit Withdrawals = ON. I would change that to OFF. But, then you will need to go in and change most if not all of the
soviet LCUs to not withdraw.

I am fine with LCU and squadron withdrawl. In fact, I encourage it in some cases. Mostly because I do not want to get saddled with ABDA for the duration of the war.

But, please, please no ship withdrawls. They do not really make much sense in this particular mod, and I'm selfish. As an Allied player one of the most annoying things of the game... in fact, the one annoying thing in the game for ~~the Allies~~ me is remembering when I need to get ships off map.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to BillBrown)

Post #: 9

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 5/17/2017 4:25:54 AM

paradigmblue

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown
Your recommended settings has No Unit Withdrawals = ON. I would change that to OFF. But, then you will need to go in and change most if not all of the
soviet LCUs to not withdraw.

I am fine with LCU and squadron withdrawl. In fact, I encourage it in some cases. Mostly because I do not want to get saddled with ABDA for the duration of the war.

But, please, please no ship withdrawls. They do not really make much sense in this particular mod, and I'm selfish. As an Allied player one of the most annoying things of the game... in fact, the one annoying thing in the game for ~~the Allies~~ me is remembering when I need to get ships off map.

There will be no ship withdrawals, even if squadron withdrawals return.

(in reply to Revthought)

Post #: 10

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 6/9/2017 8:33:04 AM

Joglinks1

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

My two cents as an axis player. I am playing with Bill Brown and we are on version 1.03 I think. Bill, correct me if I am wrong about the version.
Apart from what you list here are my impressions from the Japanese side:
Air power:
Look at the bomb load of the allied and Japanese heavies.
B17g has 8*500 lbs bombs > actual load on normal mission 8000 lbs
B29 has 20 * 500 lbs > actual load on normal mission 20000 lbs
B19 has 24 * 500 lbs > actual load 18700 lbs or 37100 lbs with racks.
B24J has 8*500 lbs bombs > actual load on normal mission 8000 lbs
G5N has 12*250 kg bombs equal to the actual load but cannot carry Torpedoes.
In stock the allied heavies were toned down to about 50% of the actual load.
I would also tone down the Japanese 4E to 2500 kg bombs but add the torpedo load for the IJN 4E's
I think a big factor is the experience of the allied pilots. Tone it down a bit. The Japanese side tone down the experience of the arriving squads so the pilots are less than 80 exp.
Navy:
You mentioned the changes you want to do and I think that is sufficient. The upgrade path of the DC T95 mod-2 could allow later to upgrade to the Type 2 DC. that is not happening in stock but it would give the Japanese player better CHa and PB's for deep water hunting in proximity to the coast.
Army:
Give the Axis player better AT capability.
The AF base forces that start the game have 72 Air support, the later ones come in with 24. If this is intended it is ok but if not look at the base force formations to increase the max air support to 72. Bit of an anachronism to have a AF coy with 72 air support but a AF unit with only 24 air support.
When the inf Squads are upgrading to the 43 type squad, add some firepower to them. They are left as in stock and are actually weaker than the 41 type squad.
Map/Industry
expand the port or port build up in base fields where you increased the production for raw materials. I am struggling to move the amount of produced to the industry in my game and I maxed out the port build on those ports. You might have done this already as I posted this before.
Increase the amount of supply production to match the increase in Japanese military. You might consider reducing the refinery prod of SP to zero and increasing SP point production for HI to 4. That was done in the DBB mods and it works fine. It also requires the player to ship more supply to oil/refinery centres to re-build them when they get damaged
Remove the small LI centres dotted all over the place. If they are allied owned, add more supply to start with to keep them going. The big SP centres should be in Japan, Manchuko, parts of China, SIngapore and maube Java and Luzon. There was nothing that was manufactured in New Guinea or on the small islands. It would make the movement of raw materials more challenging for the Japanese player.
General
Consider some lend lease type for the axis. For example the jap player could have MG42 blue prints and their Hvy weapon squad will upgrade to this type of weapon. Some blue prints for tanks, PzKwIV for example. Same could be said for planes. A FW 190 would be an early option to the Ki43 or Ki44.

All you listed in your first post I agree with.
Thks for reading this
Joerg

(in reply to paradigmblue)

Post #: 11

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 9/1/2017 2:26:38 AM

Majork

Posts: 3
Joined: 1/9/2012
Status: offline

Just a quick question. Is this effort underway or just in the discussion phase?

(in reply to paradigmblue)

Post #: 12

RE: Focus Pacific Re-Write - 11/26/2017 4:41:40 AM

Lovejoy

Posts: 240
Joined: 12/16/2015
From: United States
Status: offline

Just to throw my $0.02 if I may:

I really like this mod!

Reducing the number of French and American fighter squadrons is good
Reducing the effectiveness of Dutch Coastal Guns is also good: they're a bit too deadly
The P-50 does seem inordinately deadly to Japanese fighters.
[It kills me to say this all, I'm an AFB and not getting the stuffing completely beat out of me in 1942 is pretty nice!]

The one suggestion I'd make is:

A few submarines for the Australia and New Zealand: not too many, but both of them seem like they would be nations that would have their own (small) submarine forces. Perhaps a few old S-Boats like Canada now has, or some Odin-Class subs.

(in reply to Majork)

Post #: 13