Scenario 51 by David Freer (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message

Halsey -> Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/1/2006 12:48:26 PM)

Where's the Akagi?

It's not listed anywhere.
Am I missing something?



Halsey -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/3/2006 1:13:54 AM)

Ok, Akagi is in scenario 51.

Indian units with US troops.
Seabees with British troops.
CD units are Aviation Rgts in Canada.
Indian Bde with CD TOE.
Chinese air units in Australia.

A bunch of things are screwy in this scenario.
Is it still playable?
There aren't many scenarios that I don't have to go through the first 6 month blitzkreig.[:D]

Is the Nick mod scenario more accurate for this starting point.
I'm kind of wary of the improved AA and reduced Allied air replacements.
Since there doesn't seem to be any alteration to Japanese production to balance them out.[;)]



tsimmonds -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/3/2006 2:46:16 AM)

Nik scenario? Sounds more like a Nikelodeon scenario to me[;)]



Sardaukar -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/3/2006 2:49:23 PM)

I had some problems with David Freers May 42 campaign scenario based on CHS. Pity since I'm getting fed up with constant Dec 41 restarts...[:'(]. Some base forces were not present without corrections (like SF, LA and San Diego..). Townsville had 120 planes there and no base force either and 0 AV support...



Halsey -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/3/2006 10:53:19 PM)

Yeah, I noticed this too. Lot's of missing BF's and weird starting positions.
Too much for me to mess with.

I was hoping AB would update his 113 scenario for his 5.1 map.
Hint, hint.[;)]

Looks like I'll give the Nik mod a try, though I'm not all that crazy about the AA fix.
I can already see 12 flak units based at Rabaul.[:D]



Strela_Oz -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/8/2006 4:06:05 PM)

How the flock did I do that???

Guys having a quick look now - I used the excel upload and something has gone screwy....

Will have a new version out this week and happy for any comments/fixes...



Sardaukar -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/8/2006 5:21:41 PM)

Anything is possible with WiTP editor...[:'(]...especially uninteded changes...[:D]

It'll be very appreciated if you get fixed version out. I really hate continuous Dec 41 restarts...[:@]



Strela_Oz -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/8/2006 5:25:30 PM)

Ok - New version ready - who wants to have a look at it before I post it officially? [8D]

Just PM me and I will send a copy...



Sardaukar -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/9/2006 4:18:29 PM)

OK, got from you the version 1.02. That seem similar as the version 1.02 I did download from somewhere some time ago..."bugs" are same it seems...

1. SF, LA, San Diego lack base forces. They are in database but are not assgned to base. Thus, they are not there.

2. Townsville doesn't have base force either. That is more serious than West Coast cities, since there is no AV support and 120 planes. I don't know what BF belongs to there, original Dec 41 Base Force (in CHS 106th RAN or RAAF, hard to remember just now) is in Darwin now.



Strela_Oz -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/9/2006 6:02:53 PM)

Hi - Keep them coming...

1. Base forces in Scenario 13 where 101st USN thru 103rd USN - no loger in the CHS data base. Will add them back in.
2. 91 RAAF should be in Townsville - shows as reinforcement in Dec 42 using CHS - will place.

Will see what else you find then resend...



Sardaukar -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/9/2006 6:10:23 PM)

I have to check what Halsey said:

"Indian units with US troops.
Seabees with British troops.
CD units are Aviation Rgts in Canada.
Indian Bde with CD TOE.
Chinese air units in Australia."

Those can well be caused by slots moving one or 2 when using editor. Have to check what I can find, not at home now.



Sardaukar -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/10/2006 1:41:29 PM)

I have not found much more things to worry about in 1.02 version. Certainly not anything I quoted above.

Some little things.

1. Edmonton Base Force: It has immobile 6" CD guns and such. I think it has wrong BF TOE.

2. Efate has VP-9 Catalinas but no AV support. I think there should have been AV/AVD ?? Or base force ??

3. Many US air units are still designed as groups even when plane numbers are 12-24. It's cosmetic if human plays Allied, but AI may divide those and thus they should be correctly designate as squadrons.

I think US cities should have very large AV support in their base forces, BTW. And many Canadian cities have no base forces...is that by design or omission ?

Anyhow, looks good to me from Allied side. I'm really no expert on IJ and I play only Allied anyway, so I didn't look at Japanese.



Sardaukar -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/16/2006 2:05:17 PM)

*bump*..where did Stela-Oz go ?? [8D]



DrewBlack -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/16/2006 5:54:19 PM)

Yer am waiting for my update also!!!

Drew



Strela_Oz -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/17/2006 11:42:56 AM)

Working on it now :)

Update now done and sent! Please post any further changes in this thread.



Sardaukar -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/20/2006 12:46:37 PM)

Couple of things still left:

1. You should remove the armour from subs now since ASW has been very much remodelled after 1.7xBetas and especially after 1.8. That armour will make subs too hard to sink with DCs. IIRC, CHS will remove that too in next version and will add correct number of DC racks/throwers to ships again. In CHS 1.06 modifications were done to tone down unreasonable ASW model..but now it is remodelled by code, so not needed anymore.

2. Couple of late war sub classes had typo (from CHS 1.06). Some of them (like Tench) had their SJ radar set to have forward arc only (01-F) instead of All (05-A). Not a biggie.



DD696 -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/20/2006 3:27:34 PM)

Hi,

Do a sort by arrival base for ship reinforcements and you will find that there are numerous Allied ships set to arrive in Tokyo and a few set to arrive at "unknown". Air and ground reinforcements look good altho ABDA Float is hanging around out there set to arrive at "unknown". San Diego still missing a base force. Have not checked the Japanese side.

I am also one who dreads the 8 Dec 1941 allied initial turn and play allies only against the AI, but do miss the units I can salvage out of the PI, SE Asia and the DEI. I hope this mod can be updated after the new version of CHS comes out in another couple weeks or so.

Edit: In the editor these ships have a nationality of zero-(nothing) rather than 004-US Navy.



Strela_Oz -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/23/2006 3:44:59 PM)

Thanks Sardauker - will have a look. So the armor should be 0 for both deck and hull?

DD696 - will follow up. Do you have the latest version? I checked Allied ships to Tokyo and couldn't find one going to base 342. One ship CVL Glory was set to nationality 0. If you don't have it PM me your email and I will send it through.



DD696 -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/23/2006 4:35:27 PM)

Hi,

I have version 1.03. It is the nationality of the ships that are the problem. Check CV Lake Champlain, CVL San Jacinto, CVL Unicorn to name just a few of perhaps around 100 ships. The nationality of the ship is zero, whereas they should be "4", meaning USN. I am guessing that if the ship is set to zero nationality, then the game assumes that the ship is Japanese and should arrive in Tokyo. Start the game, go to the intelligence screen, and sort the allied ships by arrival location. You will find that a great many US ships want to go to Tokyo. If you need more examples jsut let me know.



Sardaukar -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/23/2006 4:36:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Strela_Oz

Thanks Sardauker - will have a look. So the armor should be 0 for both deck and hull?


Yes, 0/0 as in stock. Also you might consider doubling the effect and accuracy of depth charges since both were halved in CHS (for similar reasons as in previous posts). I already did that in version you emailed to me and results are reasonable.

Then I installed another copy and replaced CHS aircraft gun values with RHS and liked that too...to lessen A2A losses. But that is matter of taste [8D].



Strela_Oz -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/25/2006 7:38:13 AM)

DD696 - Well spotted! There appears to be a problem in the excel upload program I am using. Every ship followed by a blank line has it nationality cleared - will fix. Please PM your email so I can send the next version to you when ready.

Sardauker - looking at subs now. Will consider aircraft gun values.

Andrew Brown had asked for a version to adjust to his 6.1 map. I will complete all the data changes and then convert.

Please keep the bugs coming. I will issue version 1.04 in the next couple of days. This is finally coming together..



DD696 -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/25/2006 1:26:09 PM)

Hi,

PM sent. Will you consider redoing the scenerio when the new version of CHS comes out? That would be ideal but also a great deal of work I suspect.



Strela_Oz -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/25/2006 4:53:38 PM)

Version 1.04 sent



Andrew Brown -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/27/2006 3:02:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DD696

Hi,

PM sent. Will you consider redoing the scenerio when the new version of CHS comes out? That would be ideal but also a great deal of work I suspect.


I can do the conversion for the new map fairly easily, once I have a copy of the scenario, but not until the next CHS is released as that is keeping me busy right now.

Andrew



Strela_Oz -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/30/2006 4:11:41 PM)

Ok - well there seems to be no further comments on bugs etc. So I will get started on the conversion to Andrews 6.1 map. Just downloaded it...  [:)]



Sardaukar -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (5/30/2006 4:36:40 PM)

I'm modding your scen for myself (the A2A part) based on info on this page:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm

Reducing range and firepower. That way I don't have to change AA/DP guns like if I was adding durability.



Sardaukar -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (6/5/2006 2:52:06 PM)

In version 1.04 SF, LA and San Diego base forces are not present. Also there are some ground units arriving without TOE (load cost 0), for example Eastern Fleet.



Strela_Oz -> RE: Scenario 51 by David Freer (6/7/2006 6:33:18 AM)

Ok will have another peak...



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.859375