New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Mods and Scenarios



Message

explorer2 -> New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (11/9/2008 6:01:46 PM)

New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks
SHIP HULLS STILL NOT WORKING - Cannot build BB, CVs correctly

I've tried to address all the suggestions I've found in previous posts. New SFType- Coastal Battery, many fixes and other tweaks that add to an already great game. Find it in the scenario bank, sandbox. I've tested it, so hopefully no bugs, but let me know if you find any. Let me know what you think.

Complete Change Log:
(All changes based on v33d, unless noted)

Event Changes

-Abandon Paris Card fixed
-Changed Abandon Paris Card: Soviets not awakened from this any longer, new event does this now.
-Changed Eastern Blitz card: GE rewarded for early invasion, as time progresses, no rewards.
If played before 1941, SU readiness is reduced for 1 turn by 100% and Germany receives 150 PP.
If played in 1941 AND SU is NOT forward deployed, SU readiness is reduced by 100% for 1 turn, & GE receives 100PP.
If played in 1941 AND SU IS forward deployed, SU readiness is reduced by 50% for 1 turn & SU recieves 50PP.
If played in 1942, AND SU is NOT forward deployed, SU readiness is reduced for 1 turn by 25% & Germans & Soviets receive 50PP each.
If played in 1942, AND SU IS forward deployed, there is no SU readiness loss & GE & SU receive 50PP each.

-Changed GE-SU Garrison Event: GE garrison on SU border must be maintained starting in 1941, whether SU is awake or asleep. If not, SU declares war on GE. Garrison not necessary before 1941.
-Added SU Wakes Up Due To GE Border Massing Event: When German garrison has more than 1600 unadjusted power points on border prior to Axis Minors joining GE, or 2600 unadjusted power points after Axis Minors join GE, the Soviet Union will awake.
-Added US Joins West Card: Available in March 1942. Costs 240pp (equal to the number of PP points incoming USA cities produce in 2 turns). Thanks to GrumpyMel.

Unit Changes

-Added new SFTType: Coastal Artillery. They are expensive, will heavily damage enemy fleets within 1 hex of them, are very resistant to naval attacks, but easily destroyed from land. (Ports don't get pounded with little chance to defend any more)
-Deleted Long Range Transports
-Deleted Long Range Artillery
-Increased Artillery range to 2
-Fixed building Ship Hulls bug reported by Altair, & changed build percentage to 20%
-Increased Carrier II, III, IV recon values slightly
-Reduced Ship supply costs by 25%
-Doubled cost to build engineers
-Placed Coastal Artillery in major port cities
-Strengthened Hawaiian garrisons, added garrisons to Wake and Midway

Map Changes

-Added 2 Resource Centers in England. Thanks GrumpyMel
-Changed Cairo, Tripoli, & Algiers to producing cities (size 2). Thanks GrumpyMel.
-Changed Lagos from becoming Vichy to remaining in West
-Changed Kunming from city size 2 to size 4
-Added Chinese Nationalist Supply 1 hex north of Chungking
-Changed Kazan from city size 4 to size 8
-Added Siberian Supply Resource east of Urals
-Made road between India and Soviet Union impassible
-Doubled cost of building roads & bridges

MISC

-Eliminated Victory condition of capturing Munich
-Soviet factories in Urals (created after fall of Western Soviet cities) now able to produce supply
- Increased Germany's starting pool of manpower, but reduced Germany and Japan's monthly gains. Increased West's monthly gains. Thanks GrumpyMel
-Decreased slightly amount cities auto repair themselves
-Decreased Research costs 20%



82ndtrooper -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (12/19/2008 12:17:48 PM)

hi

I would just like to post that I have found a bug.

when playing the germans the game takes the two Battle ship hulls and uses them to build two cruisers, one each on the first two turns. after that it hasnt once built a battle ship for me. but will build cruisers.

other than that this version is the best I have played yet :)



explorer2 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (12/20/2008 12:02:14 AM)

Thanks for the feedback.  I too have discovered this.  In addition, in this version, like any version since ship hulls instituted, carriers cannot be built, though you can select them and waste PP trying to do so.

Fixes for this and some other improvements, mostly regarding navy, coming soon.  Probably by New Years.



82ndtrooper -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (12/21/2008 11:32:01 AM)

thats good to hear 

I play against the comp ao not being able to make BB's is making it hard to compete against 10+ BB fleets and being 50 years old I cant figure out the game editor at all, in fact I cant even figure out how to load this scenario into it to even try and do anything.

If someone could just remove the whole ship hull thing and make it so you can just build ships I would really appreciate it. Leave everything else the same though in this version.



von altair -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (12/21/2008 3:33:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 82ndtrooper

thats good to hear 

I play against the comp ao not being able to make BB's is making it hard to compete against 10+ BB fleets and being 50 years old I cant figure out the game editor at all, in fact I cant even figure out how to load this scenario into it to even try and do anything.

If someone could just remove the whole ship hull thing and make it so you can just build ships I would really appreciate it. Leave everything else the same though in this version.


All this event bugs were discovered few months ago. I told them to Tweber but I guess he has been busy for while.

Last totally working and fixed version is: World at War v33c2

http://www.advancedtactics.org/scenario.php?nr=45

This version is working, tested in multiple multiplayer games. It has everything but that delayed ship construction system which doesn't work.



82ndtrooper -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (12/21/2008 6:05:18 PM)

ok great

thank you

thats a version I didnt have so ill try it. all the others I have  all lock up with a math error around 1942 and i cant finish. So i hope this one works :)

after I play a little more ill be ready to try against a human player and get my butt waxed !!



82ndtrooper -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (12/22/2008 6:18:53 AM)

actually that version has the same ship hull constrction as the others but does it work on this one ?



explorer2 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (12/22/2008 1:59:56 PM)

Very sorry, but 34b still has a problem with the ship hulls.
Tom did a fix for 2 of the ship hull problems, which is in this vesion.
Unfortunately, 2 others have shown up.
I have managed to figure out the other problems with ship hulls, and am testing.
Next version will have one with "fixed" ship hulls, (with more testing than last time) and another version with no ship hulls at all.

Sorry for the huge inconvenience of playing a game when the ship hulls system isn't working properly.

I'm hoping to post the new versions by Jan. 1.



82ndtrooper -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (12/23/2008 5:18:47 AM)

thanks explorer

I really like all the features of your version its just a pain to play for 10 0r 15 turns and then realise you cant build certian ships. Thats the problem with the whole ship hull system its such a random thing that you have no idea if the version your using is working or not till you have wasted several hours waiting for that 10% chance to build a BB. if not for that its a great idea and adds a certian realistic feel for production, it will be fun once its all working properly.

also in this 33c version altair  it never builds a ship in rome so I think its bugged also. it will build them in germany though so thats a big help.

But like i said explorer your version is spot on with the engineers and building roads and such, I really like that  and the coastal guns are nice. All of your tweaks have made your version my favorite and it will be nice when we get the ships working properly

thanks again

PS: explorer if you need a tester to give you a hand i would be glad to help you.



A900 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/9/2009 10:30:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: von altair

quote:

ORIGINAL: 82ndtrooper

thats good to hear 

I play against the comp ao not being able to make BB's is making it hard to compete against 10+ BB fleets and being 50 years old I cant figure out the game editor at all, in fact I cant even figure out how to load this scenario into it to even try and do anything.

If someone could just remove the whole ship hull thing and make it so you can just build ships I would really appreciate it. Leave everything else the same though in this version.


All this event bugs were discovered few months ago. I told them to Tweber but I guess he has been busy for while.

Last totally working and fixed version is: World at War v33c2

http://www.advancedtactics.org/scenario.php?nr=45

This version is working, tested in multiple multiplayer games. It has everything but that delayed ship construction system which doesn't work.




That's ture! I got 1 BB in the 2nd round. But I want to know how to change the random rate!



bebert -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/12/2009 4:01:43 PM)

Hi everybody,

I am the newbie of the day [:D], a french player in fact, and I do apologize, because my english is not as good as I would...[8|]

I like very much the scen WaW 34b2, I think that explorers' tweaks are very good [&o], and this version seems to be the best - anyway, the best for me, I enjoy it. but, as everybody, I am very desapointed with the " ship building's bug", but I am not sure that your building system (the hull, then the boat) is the most realistic. In fact, may be it could be possible to have a simple system (building simply the boat) , but with the biggest boat very expensive? actually, you can have a BB hull with 8000, and after that, you have to wait the BB hull becomes a BB. But, it could be next turn (or not) and, without your bug, you can have a BB in three turn at Hambourg or Amsterdam (if you are lucky, but good generals are often lucky [:D])

But, if the price for a BB were 40 000 and not 8 000 for a BB hull, you would have to spent 10 month to have a BB. Anyway, you woold have to spend  40 000 and not 8 000 too, but I think it could be a little better for the game balancy. And I think you could have to spend 15 or 20 months to have a CV (actually a little less expensive than a BB hull), and a lot of ressource. In the real life, it was very expensive to build a CV or a BB during second world war...

What do you think about this idea? I know it is a different way, but it could be more realistic. I am affraid Japan could have three or four CV in three months actually, if they manage China and south asia conquest  very well..., and carrier aircraft are very cheaps (I don't understand why, in fact) and very efficient, even against land troops [:(]

But, I think thère is another lack in the game. Axe has no interest to make war in North Africa in your game, actually, but Cairo was a very strategic place for Great Brittain. I do think Germans could not win without take Cairo and Suez. But, in your game, they could do that: win without cut the Suez Canal... And Malta should have a little garrison at the beginning, may be 20 or 30 rifle and 1 fighter.

May be the italian fleet is a little to weak at the beginning...they don't have a little CV in the beginning of the WWII?



lechenne -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/12/2009 4:11:05 PM)

Hi Bebert, you too have try this new game, welcome

I'm just starting playing game against A.I, after, I'm ready for the 1941 scen



explorer2 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/12/2009 4:53:12 PM)

Beber!
Welcome indeed!
RE: BBs, ship hulls. My next version will have ship hull problems totally solved (I hope!)
Yes, having them cost 40000 would also do the trick, but I believe disproportionate cost to other units in the game.
And yes, though carriers took awhile in the early war to build, they did start getting cranked out quicker, and escort carriers were produced increibly quickly. I'm actually reducing their cost in next version, because WWII naval was mostly about carrier and subs, not BBs. I hope my new values enhance that.
N Africa: I think Cairo was a producing city in the version you played? If an Axis player doesn't see the value of cutting off the supply route through Cairo, woe is them!
Malta will indeed have a garrison in the beginning in the next version.
Italian fleet - I've done some research and they did not have (from anything I've seen) a carrier, but they did have more subs, so I'm adding these. They used land based air for their operations in the central Med.

Thanks for all your ideas. And on a side note, as an American who is not fluent in anything except English, I GREATLY respect all you guys who speak/write multiple languages. Our school systems are in the dark ages when it comes to getting us beyond English only.



british exil -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/12/2009 5:20:45 PM)

Having only played SU in WaW I have had no real need to produce a strong Navy. So I do not have any experience how fast/expensive ship building is.

Looked on the net to see how many ships were produced during WWII.

Found this link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_production_during_World_War_II

List quite a number of weapons produced large and small.



bebert -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/12/2009 7:29:34 PM)

@Lechenne: Yes, I am like you, this game is for me a new game, in fact since christmas [sm=00000436.gif] May be a PBEM one of these days? But, actually, I try to win against AI++ with bonus, and it is not so easy. I am trying a strategy "early barbarossa" against USSR, and it is not so bad.


@ Explorer, yes, french people have to learn english to play wargame, and, sometimes, to work...it's a pity, I know, but, even when a french firm like Ageod make a wargame, he does in english [8|][:D]

I understand that Cairo has a stratégic importance for german, and I agree with you on this point, but I think german can win without cairo, maybe not against a human being, but certainly against AI, even AI++ with bonuses. Defend Italy if AI has the idea to invade italy (but, I am not sure that AI can have this good idea) is not so hard, with somme rifle and mortar. The firts time, I played as historical as I could,with some rifle and armour in Africa, to take Alexandry and Cairo (and I fail, but it was the firts time), but it is a waste of time if Cairo is not a victory condition for the german. German could have a different way to win and beat allies in england, after russian, and simply defend Italy, may be Yougoslavia.

It could be different if Cairo were a victory condition to win the game, as London and so on. I know historically Hitler didn't care very much about Cairo, but at the end he loose the war. We don't know what english people did if London became a german town, but it is possible that they tried to continue to fight, and it would be possible with Cairo and india behind.

I hope you will fixe the "damned ship building's bug" very soon, it is very hard with japan without building CVs.[sm=00000289.gif]

Anyway, thanks for your job, this ,scénario is one of the best, and I expect the next version to do some PBEM... [:)]



Bombur -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/13/2009 11:20:37 PM)


quote:


RE: BBs, ship hulls. My next version will have ship hull problems totally solved (I hope!)
Yes, having them cost 40000 would also do the trick, but I believe disproportionate cost to other units in the game.


-However, these units ARE very costly and very, very few countries are able to build them. If you take all the XX century, only USA, Japan and UK were able to build sizable carrier forces ate some moment, and only the USA was able to keep it for a long time. Battleships are too expensive too, only the USA was able to build a good number of them after 1940, so it makes sense to have these units very, very expensive. For Germany and other lad based powers, build a few of these ships was a waste of resources.

quote:


And yes, though carriers took awhile in the early war to build, they did start getting cranked out quicker, and escort carriers were produced increibly quickly. I'm actually reducing their cost in next version, because WWII naval was mostly about carrier and subs, not BBs. I hope my new values enhance that.


How much a carrier will cost in your scenario?

quote:


Thanks for all your ideas. And on a side note, as an American who is not fluent in anything except English, I GREATLY respect all you guys who speak/write multiple languages. Our school systems are in the dark ages when it comes to getting us beyond English only


-But most of you can read and speak Spanish, right? I can´t (well, I can read) despite the fact the language is similar to portuguse and spoken by our neighbours...



A900 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/15/2009 4:09:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bébert

@Lechenne: Yes, I am like you, this game is for me a new game, in fact since christmas [sm=00000436.gif] May be a PBEM one of these days? But, actually, I try to win against AI++ with bonus, and it is not so easy. I am trying a strategy "early barbarossa" against USSR, and it is not so bad.


@ Explorer, yes, french people have to learn english to play wargame, and, sometimes, to work...it's a pity, I know, but, even when a french firm like Ageod make a wargame, he does in english [8|][:D]

I understand that Cairo has a stratégic importance for german, and I agree with you on this point, but I think german can win without cairo, maybe not against a human being, but certainly against AI, even AI++ with bonuses. Defend Italy if AI has the idea to invade italy (but, I am not sure that AI can have this good idea) is not so hard, with somme rifle and mortar. The firts time, I played as historical as I could,with some rifle and armour in Africa, to take Alexandry and Cairo (and I fail, but it was the firts time), but it is a waste of time if Cairo is not a victory condition for the german. German could have a different way to win and beat allies in england, after russian, and simply defend Italy, may be Yougoslavia.

It could be different if Cairo were a victory condition to win the game, as London and so on. I know historically Hitler didn't care very much about Cairo, but at the end he loose the war. We don't know what english people did if London became a german town, but it is possible that they tried to continue to fight, and it would be possible with Cairo and india behind.

I hope you will fixe the "damned ship building's bug" very soon, it is very hard with japan without building CVs.[sm=00000289.gif]

Anyway, thanks for your job, this ,scénario is one of the best, and I expect the next version to do some PBEM... [:)]


You can change the "Check Random Percent" in the shipHull event. I changed the value to 51, so I got ships quickly.
But I also found a bug which you build shiphull in the factory and there isnt shiphull picture to show.
And I played German and japan against other AI++,there was a overflow event when it happened to finish Japen turn after June in 1940.
Then The AI steps count coundnt stop, I think it must be the sencond bug in WaW v33c2. And it also happened in v34b. So I hope somebody can
fix those bugs .



explorer2 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/15/2009 5:39:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: A900
But I also found a bug which you build shiphull in the factory and there isnt shiphull picture to show.

I'm aware of that one, have fixed it.

quote:

And I played German and japan against other AI++,there was a overflow event when it happened to finish Japen turn after June in 1940.
Then The AI steps count coundnt stop, I think it must be the sencond bug in WaW v33c2. And it also happened in v34b. So I hope somebody can
fix those bugs .


Thanks for reminding me of this one. Since I never play AI, I haven't checked it out. I thought we had that one fixed, at least when tested with humans.
I'll try to reproduce it and see what I can find out.

I"ve found lots of "bugs" in the hull system, and in the act of trying to fix one, I can accidentally create more [&:]
There are so many interrelationships in the many parts of AT.
I"m doing my best to get it working "perfectly" but I know I will fall short, but hopefully be good enough.




bebert -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/15/2009 9:45:40 AM)

I had overflow and crash too, and I didn't undertand why, I thought it was my graphics mods, I removed them. I am expecting the bug again, now.

Bad news...I found a new bug: when I build heavy bomber in germany (and Italy), few turns later, I had CV instead heavy bombers...it's a funny bug, now, I have a carrier ship at Berlin, near Unter den linden Allee, and I am sure tourist like that, but it is not very usefull, in Berlin, a CV, to make war.

So, I will build a lot of heavy bomber and a lot of carrier aircraft in Germany, and later I will invade Great britain [:D]



A900 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/15/2009 9:51:58 AM)

Update:
I Found the damned shiphull bug.  The longRng transporter was deleted from the ItemType pool, and its original number is 110 .So CA becomes 116, BB is 117, and CV is 118 in the ItemType pool now.When you change the those values in the shiphull event, the shiphull will work!  So have fun with your CV fleet!



A900 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/15/2009 9:58:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bébert

I had overflow and crash too, and I didn't undertand why, I thought it was my graphics mods, I removed them. I am expecting the bug again, now.

Bad news...I found a new bug: when I build heavy bomber in germany (and Italy), few turns later, I had CV instead heavy bombers...it's a funny bug, now, I have a carrier ship at Berlin, near Unter den linden Allee, and I am sure tourist like that, but it is not very usefull, in Berlin, a CV, to make war.

So, I will build a lot of heavy bomber and a lot of carrier aircraft in Germany, and later I will invade Great britain [:D]


I think that Bomber bug is caused by the wrong number pointed in the ItemType pool too. Fix them, you will enjoy the game!



A900 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/15/2009 10:13:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: A900

Update:
I Found the damned shiphull bug.  The longRng transporter was deleted from the ItemType pool, and its original number is 110 .So CA becomes 116, BB is 117, and CV is 118 in the ItemType pool now.When you change the those values in the shiphull event, the shiphull will work!  So have fun with your CV fleet!

A little mistake, that's SFTypes pool but not ItemType pool. You wont find the longRng transporter in the SFTypes pool. So the shiphull dont build CV. And when you upgrade Bombers, CVhulls will work and become heavy bomber.
So I suggest that anyone who want to create your own scenarios or update scenarios do not delete the SFType in the SFType pool. Just change the value, disable them!



bebert -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/15/2009 1:35:15 PM)

In fact, I think I will try to make my own version, when I'll understand the engine (it's not the case actually [:D]).

This one (explorer tweak) is very good, especially the strategic cards about barbarossa and the major jap offensive in China, but main ships are too cheaps.

I did some research (not a lot, I just found wiki in fact[8|]) to verify the italian navy, and I found that italian spend two years and many ressource to transform a liner (Roma) in CV (aquila), between 1941 and 1943, and it was the only CV they build during the war. Actually, we could have in the game a CV in three month at Roma or Venice, or Hambourg. It is too fast, and the price is too low. There is the same for the BB. In an other hand, I don't uderstand why carrier aircraft are less expensive than fighter. It is not so easy to build a carrier aircraft group and put some young pilot inside these aircrafts. And a aicraft group is more expensive, in the real life, than fighters, because in a carrier aircraft group, we have some carrier fighter, and some carrier bomber, and some carrier torpedo, and there are not the same engine.

I wonder if CV in the game must be a single CV, or a task force around a big CV. But, anyway, the version doesn't authorize a différence between big CV like the enterprise, for instance, and the smaller CV escort.


In my game, now, in 1942, Germany can make 50 carrier aircraft II/turn [X(] and a lot of supply and political point. And they have some magic heavy bomber in Hambourg Harbour, which will become CV! [:D]

May be the time scale is not the right scale, may be a round would be figure 2 month but not one month. Actually I am thinking about that.

Anyway, the explorertweak version would be actually the best if some bug would be fixed [&o]



explorer2 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/15/2009 2:25:44 PM)

@A900: Thanks for the suggestion about not deleting an SFType, just nullifying its values. That mistake was mine. This is my first attempt at modding anything so I'm learning . . . . slowly.

@ Bebert re: carrier air, and values, etc...
IMHO it seems like one of the things you have to do in deciding production values and combat values is not just its historical accuracy, but how it compares to other values in the game and how it affects overall gameplay. I'm an expert at none of this and attempt to not make major changes unless pretty well justified for all 3 of those reasons, since I know Tom, who created the scenario, I would consider to be an expert.

My "guess" has been that carrier air was created at half the cost of regular fighters because in the game as a whole they have less value, and because, in their original combat values, it takes a whole bunch of them to sink pretty much anything. You've got a really good point about they were really 3 types of planes and training for carrier combat is longer than for ground fighters.

In my next version, carrier air comat values will be much higher. Rationale: the best BB in existence at the time, the Bismark, was sunk by just 2 raids of obsolete biplanes (9 on raid 1, 15 on raid 2) with just 2 torpedo hits, and none of the planes were hit by the AA fire of the Bismark. Air warfare changed everything.

I also think carriers should be able to carry more carrier air.
So to sum, the goal of the settings IMHO should be to get the final result to be reflective of the type of engagements that occurred, not just historical accuracy of any one factor. With this in mind, the set of all values ideally would have it so that carriers, not BB/cruisers, are king and should be greatly feared. They should not be as rare to create as BB, though still not easy, and carrier air should be pretty deadly if they get to ships undefended by other air.

What does everybody think?





*Lava* -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/15/2009 8:10:39 PM)

Quantifying carrier air versus land based is very difficult because the two are distinctly different.

First of all, a CV has only so much room, so only so many planes can be put aboard. Because the ship is at sea, it only has a finite amount of parts available for repairing aircraft. In fact, stripping an aircraft to the bone to keep others flying is a common practise, when necessary.

Another limiting factor on CVs is that they can't launch aircraft "en masse" and thus, you have a launch window to get off as many aircraft as possible before the mission must set out.

So there are all kinds of limitations on Carrier Air Wings which ground based aircraft do not have.

At the Battle of Midway, Bombing Squadron 6 (VB-6), had 19 Douglas SBD-2 and SBD-3 (Dauntless) assigned, but only 15 took part in the attack on the Japanese CVs.

Another limitation on Carrier Air is doctrine, especially in CV vs CV battles. Normally, the first to find the enemy and attack is the one that wins. The Fleet Commander will want to engage the enemy at maximum range so as to reduce his vulnerability to counter strike and thus, the aircraft themselves cannot be loaded with the maximum amount of ordnance they are capable of. Fuel is the most important factor, getting there, attack and then getting back and having enough fuel to wait in line to land.

There are lots of limiting factors on Carrier based Air Wings which reduce their effectiveness that land based air just doesn't have to take into account.

So yes, an equivalent amount of land based aircraft will have far more punch than an equal amount of carrier based aircraft.

For what it is worth...

Ray (alias Lava)



*Lava* -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/15/2009 8:35:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: explorer2

In my next version, carrier air comat values will be much higher. Rationale: the best BB in existence at the time, the Bismark, was sunk by just 2 raids of obsolete biplanes (9 on raid 1, 15 on raid 2) with just 2 torpedo hits, and none of the planes were hit by the AA fire of the Bismark.


Not to be anal here... but that is a really poor characterization of the sinking of the Bismark.

The Brits did hit the Bismark with a torpedo from a Swordfish which damaged the aft steering area of the ship. The Swordfish, however, did not sink the ship. After disabling the Bismark's steering, she was pretty much a target and the British pummeled her with guns to the point of almost completely destroying her superstructure. Destroyers also launched torpedoes into the vessel, however, it took an enormous amount of damage before it was scuttled by its crew.

The Japanese BB Yamato also took a huge amount of damage from over 400 aircraft before being sunk. She was pummeled with bombs and torpedoes until one of her magazines exploded and she sank.

Carriers, on the other hand, were far more susceptible to air attack because penetration of bombs through their flight decks or exploding on their flight decks ignited aviation fuel and ordnance that was not protected by armor plating. Japanese CVs did not have armored flight decks unlike their American and I believe British counterparts.

Ray (alias Lava)



A900 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/16/2009 3:31:46 AM)

Update:
Good News: When I disabled building shiphulls in the "Factory" and the "Military Base" only could produced supply, the overflow problem didnt happened before July in 1941. So I think the bug is fixed! So West,Su and China AI worked!



explorer2 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/16/2009 4:08:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: A900

Update:
Good News: When I disabled building shiphulls in the "Factory" and the "Military Base" only could produced supply, the overflow problem didnt happened before July in 1941. So I think the bug is fixed! So West,Su and China AI worked!


That's a great find A900.

Just to clarify, do you mean for location type factory and military base, you made the "can build item group" for ships false? Or did you make it so location types factory and military base could produce ONLY supplies?
And could you tell me which version you're playing on?

Thanks.



bebert -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/16/2009 9:38:29 AM)

About carrier aircraft, I think for the balancing that they might have a cost beetween fighters and dive bombers - 1500 pp - but with the same combat value as actually. Actually, a player can make a lot of carrier and no other aircraft to overwhelming the adverse airpower. Even carrier aircrafts are not as good as fighters, they have a very low cost, half the cost of a fighter, and a player can use them instead fighter: when you are 30 carrier aircaft against 15 fighters, I am not sure the 15 fighters survive, even 20 aircraft die. They are also efficient against ground troops in plain. It's a good way, and a low cost way, actually for germany to build a lot of carrier in the beginning to plan a "see lion operation" instead try to build enough fighter, dive bomber and level bomber to overwhelming RAF.

If the cost of carrier aircraft were a little higher, higher than fighters, players (and IA) could build carrier aircraft only for their carrier, and build other aircraft for the job they have to do.

It is just my opinion, may be I am wrong...[:)]




A900 -> RE: New WAW version: v34b Explorers Tweaks (1/16/2009 11:15:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: explorer2


quote:

ORIGINAL: A900

Update:
Good News: When I disabled building shiphulls in the "Factory" and the "Military Base" only could produced supply, the overflow problem didnt happened before July in 1941. So I think the bug is fixed! So West,Su and China AI worked!


That's a great find A900.

Just to clarify, do you mean for location type factory and military base, you made the "can build item group" for ships false? Or did you make it so location types factory and military base could produce ONLY supplies?
And could you tell me which version you're playing on?

Thanks.


Both WAW V3.4 and 3.2c have overflow bugs. So just make the "can build item group" for "ships=false" in factory and only "Non-combat=ture" in military base. And then everything is OK! By the way, I had passed Nov in1941 and no problems.

[&o]And I need some helps! In the "people's" option, how to add "people group"? Now I want to create a scenario about Vietnam War, but I met some problems, that is the first one!



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.0625