RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message

JuanG -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (2/22/2010 7:02:00 PM)

Thanks Chicken,

I honestly have no timeframe for Mk2, however it will be much more extensive than the current ones. I want to document and modify pretty much all of the IJN (sea, land and air), and some of the IJA too. If I were to throw a rough number out there, maybe atleast a month, at most two or three. I was originally hoping to use Big Babes as a 'base' for it, but as I am no longer certain about the fate of that scenario, I have opted to get started on my own regardless. Thankfully AE's scenario structure makes merging limited changes easy.

I'm playing the Ultimate BB Mod vs cstahajos, and it -is- different. While the effect of strong surface forces is already apparent in the BB Variant somewhat, its very pronounced here. Theres a whole spectrum in terms of naval power to be considered, and I find myself hesitating to use some of the weaker units (Kongo, Fuso, Ise classes) when I know the opponent may have something with 16 or 18in guns around. Logistics is also a problem, even moreso than with CVs, mostly because a 8-ship BB fleet is a horrid drain on fuel supplies, and ammo needs to be accounted for too. It is nearing the end of december, and so far we have not had a major surface action, although BC Takao just swallowed a pair of torpedoes off Singapore from some stringbags and did not agree with them.


Moonraker - Ouch, that does put a dent in your forces! I am not sure what to think of the 'multi-day' PH scripts, and most likely when I write my own AI I will try to stop it from doing that if possible (no idea if it actually is!). You might want to look into converting the two Lexington battlecruisers to make up for that loss.



moonraker65 -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (2/23/2010 12:07:39 PM)

I've converted Constitution and Constellation to CV's although they too were badly damaged. But at least they made it back to port.



FatR -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/6/2010 5:47:55 PM)

A question about CV Enhanced mod: as far as I know, factories auto-upgrade according to upgrade paths of the planes they make. What happens, when a plane arrives earlier than a plane preceding it in the upgrade path? A6M2 Sen Baku arrives 43/3 and A6M5b 42/12 in this mod, but Sen Baku upgrades to A6M5b



ChickenOfTheSea -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/6/2010 6:24:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

A question about CV Enhanced mod: as far as I know, factories auto-upgrade according to upgrade paths of the planes they make. What happens, when a plane arrives earlier than a plane preceding it in the upgrade path? A6M2 Sen Baku arrives 43/3 and A6M5b 42/12 in this mod, but Sen Baku upgrades to A6M5b


I'm not sure if this is what Juan intended. but the effect would be that the A6M2 factory could only upgrade to A6m5b after going through Sen Baku in 43/3 whereas an A6M5 factory could upgrade to A6M5b in 12/42. So you would have A6M5 to A6M5b in 12/42, but A6M2 to Sen Baku to A6M5b would not occur until 3/43.



JuanG -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/6/2010 6:39:08 PM)

Yeah, thats an error. The A6M2 Sen Baku isnt meant to upgrade to anything.



ny59giants -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/7/2010 9:09:13 PM)

In your next version can you add a small Chutai (3 to 4 planes) of Judy (D4Y1-C) that become available in 3/42 to each heavy carrier?? They would be a nice recon asset and still not be enough to halt flight operations. They could be there at start or as reinforcements on March 1st.



JuanG -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/11/2010 3:33:34 PM)

Yes, thats a good idea.


I dont want to put up a new thread yet since I have nothing to release, so I'll list some of the changes that will happen compared to the current edition;

1) Changes to aircraft devices, including both air to air cannons/MGs and to bombs and other weapons. This includes the addition of laterwar Allied missiles in the form of the SWOD-9 and possibly the VB-6.

2) Changes to ship ammo. I'm still crunching numbers, but ammo numbers will go up for most ships by 25-75%. So your average USN BB will probably have 20-24 rounds for the primary battery, 30-36 for the secondaries, and 40-60 for the light AA. There are some ship classes that do suffer from this, namely IJN DD's.

3) Changes to pilot training. I am experimenting with reducing the experience and number of replacement pilots for both sides somewhat. This will probably mean a 10-15 point XP reduction and a 10-20% reduction in numbers.

4) Changes to aircraft - I'm looking at making the Service Ratings of most aircraft atleast 2 with the exception of a few older simple types. This is in order to slow down air operations a little. I'm also looking at the manuever ratings of some of the planes, and these many see some changes.

5) Changes to Japanese shipbuilding - the ship construction schedule before and during the war is getting an overhaul to be more inline with the available construction space and materials. More details on this later.

6) Changes to weapons development for Japanese - the normal scenarios will now feature the 25mm AA, with a few 40mm mounts showing up in '45 for capital ships. The Enhanced scenarios will feature the current mix of new 25mm and 40mm, but with less 40mm in the first years. The 55mm will be removed. The 12cm/60 in the CV Variants will be replaced with the 12.7cm/50 Type 1. The 14cm/60 may be replaced in all scenarios with a 'new' 15cm/60.

7) Expanded conversions for allied ships - more options on what to do with the standards, including AA only upgrades to full rebuilds. The CV Variants will see some of the standards begin the war with 5in/38's already in place.



chesmart -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/11/2010 5:00:22 PM)

Ok will you be doing An AI version of the new updates ? And when do you think we will have an ETA ? 



JuanG -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/11/2010 8:05:30 PM)

I will be releasing AI-friendly versions of the scenarios for both sides at the same time as the 'basic' PBEM version.

Theres no current ETA, but I've thrown around 1-3 months earlier. Releases will most likely be in the form of the 'adapted' stock scenario first, and then either the BB/BBE or CV/CVE scenarios.

To give an idea of where I am, I've finished most of the air device changes and mostly am just waiting for AI-AI tests to run on my desktop while I tinker away with the other stuff like the ammo changes.



NormS3 -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/12/2010 8:11:09 PM)

Juan,

Have you had to add ship commanders to your senario or are they being randomly created? I've had some issues with French ships/commanders.

Thanks

norm



JuanG -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/12/2010 8:20:27 PM)

Considering I haven't added any French ships, I have not had that problem. I am planning to add a french BB for the Ultimate BB scenario, so I guess I'll find out when the time comes. Sorry I can't help you further.



traskott -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/25/2010 12:00:52 AM)

The "expanded conversions for Allied ships" will be for the BB variant, or the CV ? 



JuanG -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/25/2010 12:19:00 AM)

Both, though in the CV Variant you will see some of the USN Standards already upgraded with 5in/38's at the beginning of the war.



traskott -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (3/25/2010 12:39:31 AM)

Ok, thanks....



CaptBeefheart -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (4/15/2010 10:15:33 AM)

Juan: Looks like you've done some very thoughtful and detailed work here. Many thanks for the effort.

I was wondering what your plans are for a Japan Ironman CV Enhanced scenario? That would be the one I'd like to try next (yes, I know I should play PBEM, but could probably only do 2 turns a week at best, which would take longer than the real war).

Muchas gracias,
CC



FatR -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (4/17/2010 11:48:19 AM)

A question for you, Juan: a few of the new Allied planes, particularly B-19, seem to miss their art, both sides and planetops. Is this a bug?



Historiker -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (4/17/2010 12:05:27 PM)

JuanG, the Graf Spee might have stayed in the Indic Ocean, the battle with the three cruisers might have happend at the easter island and the Graf Spee might have stayed at Palau...
This way, you give axis fanboys another big ship, the jap player a nice LR surface raider and some additional firepower for a BB version.



kfmiller41 -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (4/17/2010 3:33:52 PM)

Juan,

I am one of the allied players playing a mod of yours in the 2x2 shipwreck of our hopes. The issue is that as the allies we have over 80+ ground units that are organizing and have not entered the game? Now I have played as the allies alot over the years and dont ever remember that many units being help back due to equipment and/or troops. Could this be a bug. Can send you a save if you need one.




JuanG -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (4/17/2010 4:12:21 PM)

Hey,

I've never heard of an issue like that, but I'll take a look anyway. Might be worthwhile posting in Tech Support as well, considering that allied LCU's are almost completely unchanged from stock.

Regarding the plane art, I'll check the files I've got uploaded, but that will have to wait until tonight as I'm currently away on the US on business.



ChickenOfTheSea -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (4/17/2010 6:35:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: miller41

Juan,

I am one of the allied players playing a mod of yours in the 2x2 shipwreck of our hopes. The issue is that as the allies we have over 80+ ground units that are organizing and have not entered the game? Now I have played as the allies alot over the years and dont ever remember that many units being help back due to equipment and/or troops. Could this be a bug. Can send you a save if you need one.




This is a known bug from Patch 3 that is more of a interface display issue (involving units being transported by sea and perhaps some others) than a real game issue (they aren't really organizing) . What you are seeing is seen by all in patch 3 no matter what scenario.



Nomad -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (4/18/2010 1:06:09 AM)

I am about to embark on a perilous mission of being Japan against miller41 playing scenario 46, the Enhanced CV scenario. Are there any big changes to the IJA or the IJA industry? Are most of the changes in the IJN ships and aircraft( including production)? I could only find the 12b version and there was no readme detailing any changes, was there one for an earlier version? And could someone send it to me?



TWolf -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (4/26/2010 10:44:03 PM)

Hi Juan,

Just wondering how your MK2 scenarios are comming along.

Thanks,

T



FatR -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (4/27/2010 9:46:20 AM)

No news about art yet, Juan? Also, looks like B-19 and B-36 have negative max range, although this does not seem to affect their capabilities so far.



JuanG -> RE: Version 12 - Enhanced CV Variant (4/27/2010 2:36:54 PM)

Hey,

Sorry, cant do anything about the art yet as I'm still stranded in the US flowing that delightful little cloud of ash we had over Europe last week...[8|]

The maximum range error sounds interesting, I hadnt noticed it before. Sounds like it might be some kind of overflow issue, but I wonder if its a problem with the database itself (ie they really do have negative range now), or just a display one (they only appear to, but functionally they dont). Ill take a look at it when I get back home.



akdreemer -> RE: Further WNT Naval Changes (4/29/2010 6:17:12 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Still waiting on the final patch, but things look good so far.

I will probably reverse the Radar changes, but I still think the changes I've made to BB/CA weapons makes surface combat more reasonable. I'll have to test it with the final patch version to see.

I may also increase the maneuver ratings on PTs again, though I might also drop the accuracy of the Mk8 Torpedo to account for the bad launch platform.


I am well aware of that site csatahajos, and its been a great inspiration for concepts (like the Omaha CVE) and ideas. I'm also familiar with Warship Projects and it has been a vital source of information particularly on the Royal Navy designs.


While we wait for the patch and the release, is there anything anyone would like to see in particular? Artwork, ship states, upgrade lists? Information about the CV Variant? [;)]

I'd also like to ask if anyone has some ideas for conversions that I might not have thought of at the moment. One idea I'm toying with at the moment is an I-400 Minelayer conversion, though I'm unsure if I will actually keep that class ingame.

And speaking of 'über gunships', this is the überest in the BB Variant - when the USN wants a badass battleship, it gets one;
[image]http://img42.imageshack.us/img42/1714/anshil0709.png[/image]
BB Illinois Class
BB-71 Illinois (February 1945), BB-72 Kentucky (August 1945)
Standard Displacement 73,600tons
Durability 250
Speed 33 Knots
Manuever 25
Range 15200nm (8460tons fuel)
Belt 16in (405mm)
Deck 7.9in (200mm)
Tower 16.6in (420mm)
12 x 16in/50 Mk7 - Turrets 18.8in (480mm)
24 x 5in/54 Mk16 - Turrets 0.5in (12mm)
88 x 40mm Bofors
72 x 20mm Oerlikon

All sounds good, however the armor on the 5" mounts would be more like ~65mm (100lbs STS)as it was with the 5"/38 twin mounts mounted on the BB's and the the 5"/54 on the Montana.

The single and twin 3"/50 auto mounts would have been available sooner if necessary. The would replace one for one quad/twin 40mm Bofors. The 3" was the smallest round that could handle the VT fuses. The USN in 1945 was also experimenting with a quad 20mm, again something that could have been available sooner. I ahve also pondered some cross-fertilization between the US Army and Navy concerning the 90mm M1/M2 AA gun. In particular the 90mm M1A1 using a navalized AMTB mount would have been a useful replacement for the 3"/50 on many vessels.



JuanG -> RE: Further WNT Naval Changes (4/30/2010 10:07:45 AM)

Finally back.

Regarding the artwork, I checked the artwork pack on the first page and it should have everything. Try redownloading it, and let me know if the issue persists.

Regarding the negative ranges, I cant see to get them to show up negative in my game. Could you post more details or a screenshot? Thanks.

Regarding the 5in mounts on the USN BBs - what you say is true, however as stock uses similar values for these mounts, and as this was only a splinter shield and not a complete turret and barbette, Ill have to consider what they should be increased to. Thanks for pointing this out however.

Nomad - there is no complete changelist, because simply put it would take as long to make such a list as it would take to make a scenario. The only thing that has not changed much in these Mk1 scenarios is the IJA and IJN land units, and that will change for Mk2. Industry is stronger in all areas, including (in the Enhanced versions), limited Oil production in Japan itself to represent synthetic oil industry. The largest changes are by far to the Naval OOB, and in the CV Variant to the aircraft too.



Toddr22_slith -> RE: Further WNT Naval Changes (6/25/2010 9:46:05 PM)

Juan,

Thank you for your wonderful scenario's. Have you been able to finish your AI friendly scenarios yet?

Thanks,

p.s. Which of your Scenario's gives IJ the most extra punch?



moonraker65 -> RE: Further WNT Naval Changes (6/26/2010 7:53:56 PM)

Try the Enhanced CV Scenario (46). That gives Japan a fair amount of extra firepower early on.



FatR -> RE: Further WNT Naval Changes (6/26/2010 10:08:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Finally back.

Regarding the artwork, I checked the artwork pack on the first page and it should have everything. Try redownloading it, and let me know if the issue persists.

No redownoading seems to have fixed it. Maybe I was using wrong tops.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Regarding the negative ranges, I cant see to get them to show up negative in my game. Could you post more details or a screenshot? Thanks.

Looks like this bug disappeared after one of the patches. Sorry, looks like I bothered you without a good reason[:(].






Brock007 -> RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios (7/21/2010 7:26:52 PM)

This is my first post on this site. I have worn out War Plan Orange and I'm ready to try a new game. Money is tight and I hope to purchase this game. When every one plays the IJN player please be careful because my dad was stationed at Schofield Barracks @ Pearl. We have some great pictures of the fleet and the base as of 1941.

I would like to add the following comments about the scenarios. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1. If I were the IJN commander in chief with knowlege of American culture I would have attacked at 7:00 local time on December 25th.

The reason being that most ships would be in port for the holiday (Carriers) and a lot of the crew would be on leave. The result would be fewer IJN planes destroyed and more destruction of American forces.

2. If I were the IJN commander I would have loaded 7-10 old cargo ships with TNT and sail them into the Panama Canal on a suicide run. I would time it for daybreak on the @25th also. I believe the American High command would at first think "accident" and because of the contempt America had for the Japanese people. They did not have the brains to pull something like this off.

The resulting damage would close the canal for years. Every thing would take months longer to go around South America. Repair times would be huge with the east coast ship yards so far away. It would give the IJN a free hand for a year or two longer. Australia would be in serious jepardy.

3. I would not tweak the American forces much. I believe the actual naval force in 1941 is close to what would have been available had their not been any naval treaties in place. The actual depression lasted until 1941. My parents offer testimony to this fact. Un employment was 17-20 per cent. Roosevelt was a very liberal president and he wasn't going to build up the navy at the risk of his "New Deal" or any of his make work programs. The administration was dealing with what they felt was a much greater risk in Germany and this wouldn't change despite any Pacific senario. Remember their thinking that the Japonese were greatly inferior. Also I believe that the American and British forces combined would still greatly outnumber anything Japan could come up with. Also until 9-11 we thought we were safe from attack (except Gen. Billy Mitchell) because of the 2 huge oceans that surrounded us.

4. Because of #1 and 2 the war would last until 46 or 47. the allies would still have to fight their way close enough to drop the atom bomb.

5. Because of poor intel Japan would be able to and would greatly increase naval construction and we may not have picked up on it. Remember it was the 20-30's. Everone tries to underestimate the Japs.If the ruler said build carriers and battleships the people would to the last piece of steel. I believe that Japans naval constructon would not stop until the flow of raw materials was cut off. If #1 and 2 were in place then it would be 1944 before production was weakened.

6. I would think that a Japan built on empire building would never let a souce of oil slip thru their fingers. While items 1 and 2 play out I would think that the IJN would be pumping the guts out of the oil fields of Indonesia.

Please remember I am just a rookie but would love comments.



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 13 [14] 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2