RE: Enhanced Details (Full Version)

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



Message

FatR -> RE: Enhanced Details (12/24/2009 2:18:05 PM)

A few comments about the BB scenario:

1)Late-war Japanese carriers come with squadrons of old planes, is this intentional?
2)It seems, that there is no British battleships on the reinforcement queue. I'm not so much comlaining, as thinking that it's a bit strange.

Also, is there a list of changes somewhere?



JuanG -> RE: Enhanced Details (12/24/2009 3:10:42 PM)

1) Yes, this is intentional. Its basically so that even if you accelerate CVs you wont get planes before theyre available otherwise. The other choice would have been to bring in the airgroups at 0 pilots and planes, which is also not ideal. I may switch the last few to A6M5 or so, but yes, it is mostly by design.

2) Really? I seem to have no problems with them.
[image]http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/7681/ukbb.png[/image]
If they really arent showing up in the latest versions, please send me a savefile by email and I'll try to see whats amiss.

3) No, there is no complete changelist at the moment, mainly because a whole list would be much too time consuming. I try to point out key changes between versions, but I'm pretty bad at documentation. Sorry.



FatR -> RE: Enhanced Details (12/24/2009 3:25:52 PM)

Actually after reloading and rechecking, British BBs were in place. Sorry for the bother.

Oh, and one more question: are your scenarios compatible with WitP Tracker?



ny59giants -> RE: Enhanced Details (12/24/2009 3:29:27 PM)

quote:

Oh, and one more question: are your scenarios compatible with WitP Tracker?


All mods are. [:)]  You may get a glitch if there is an error in the mod itself, but it will pick up some errors to help the modders.



JuanG -> RE: Enhanced Details (12/24/2009 3:46:42 PM)

Should be, but as I dont use any of those tools myself I can't say for sure.

If you do run into any issues with them, let me know and I'll take a look to see if its a problem with the mod (which it likely will be).



Shark7 -> RE: Enhanced Details (12/24/2009 3:53:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

1) Yes, this is intentional. Its basically so that even if you accelerate CVs you wont get planes before theyre available otherwise. The other choice would have been to bring in the airgroups at 0 pilots and planes, which is also not ideal. I may switch the last few to A6M5 or so, but yes, it is mostly by design.

2) Really? I seem to have no problems with them.
[image]http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/7681/ukbb.png[/image]
If they really arent showing up in the latest versions, please send me a savefile by email and I'll try to see whats amiss.

3) No, there is no complete changelist at the moment, mainly because a whole list would be much too time consuming. I try to point out key changes between versions, but I'm pretty bad at documentation. Sorry.


Hmm, I see you did a mod to add in some of the really old BBs and some of the never were's ala St. Andrew. Pretty much what I did in a mod I'm running through some tests atm. [:)]



FatR -> RE: Enhanced Details (12/24/2009 3:58:43 PM)

There seems to be a problem with aircraft tables when I attempt to initialize a database in Tracker:

[image]local://upfiles/33131/ED3EF12F867644EA8AF863EEE65A0E20.gif[/image]

As a result, Tracker refuses to launch.



JuanG -> RE: Enhanced Details (12/24/2009 4:34:28 PM)

Shark7;
The Invincible are not the WW1 ships, nor are the Saints the pre-WNT ones (N3s). Theres a ship list on page one of this thread that is mostly accurate.


FatR;
Seems to be an issue with two of the big allied planes. Ill take a look into fixing it.




ny59giants -> RE: Enhanced Details (12/24/2009 5:03:17 PM)

JuanG
I would suggest that you try to load each scenario of your mod with Tracker for each side. Like FatR found, it may show an error in your database for either side. I know both Damian and Floyd are very helpful in finding fixes if it is their utility (Tracker). Some prefer WitpStaff, but I have used Tracker for a long time. They will be adding in some of the usefulness of Bodhi's utility (map with intel info, for example) in the future.



bsq -> RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios (12/24/2009 8:21:13 PM)

Ignore - missed the date on the original post...



FatR -> RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios (12/25/2009 7:12:39 PM)

Yet another question: are scenarios 42-43 using Patch 1 nerfed pilot training? After running three turns, I see all of the symptoms: no or very little skill increases after intensive combat, traning units does not improve Defense skill...



JuanG -> RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios (12/25/2009 8:20:51 PM)

They shouldnt be, and I'm not even sure its possible to do so.

The only change to pilots is the reduced expereince and replacement rate of early navy pilots for both sides.

The PBEM I'm running with Scen42 v6 is working fine after the update with regards to pilot training too.

Ill run some tests just to be sure however.



FatR -> RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios (12/25/2009 10:14:51 PM)

Okay, no need to test, the situation went back to normal after reinstalling the patch.

Anyway, so far the play has been quite enjoyable. I decided to play the enhanced scenario against AI on Hard (maybe I'll change it to Very Hard, but I just don't like when increased difficulty gives combat bonuses to AI units), with no withdrawals, for maximum carnage between the gigantic fleets.

Higlights of gameplay so far include Netties not dying quite as badly as they did in Patch 1 AE, at least to old fighters, and Nates suffering or inflicting very, very few losses. They fly circles around Bufalloes when on CAP. And then can't damage them. Maybe I see (or had seen in the old game) some statistical aberrations, but the differences seem noticeable. AI acts as it did in normal AE so far, all the normal stupidity with leaving ships in Hong Kong to be bombed into scrap. This time, I decided against follow-up strikes at Pearl, AI is disadvantaged enough already. Having all Kates on port attack and sinking Yorktown there was a nice surprise to IJN.

Also, the size of IJN battle line in this is really impressive (not that Allies don't have even more avesome BBs in queue). I don't know where to scrounge enough escort forces for it, though. There seems to be less long-range DDs in Japan than BBs))).



ggm -> RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios error (12/26/2009 7:42:58 AM)

de zeven provincien has an error in main and secondary gun. main guns id offset by one so are listed as secondary. secondary guns are offset by one so are listed as radars.

ggm



JuanG -> RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios error (12/26/2009 8:52:16 AM)

Wow, thanks for spotting that.

Will put a new version up asap.


I've also managed to isolate the issue with Tracker/Staff - basically they didnt like my endgame allied aircraft with loads of over some figure. After reducing them to 24,000 it ran fine. Ill try to increase them incrementally to find the maximum for now. Who should I speak to about fixing this, as it looks like an error with tracker?



JuanG -> New Version 10b (12/26/2009 9:39:58 AM)

New version out.

This fixes (or should fix!) both the problem with De Zeven Pronvincien and with WitP Tracker & WitPStaff.

Latest version - v10b - 26th December 2009

Scenario 42 - Alternate WNT BB Variant;
RAR - http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/8/1/2529503/Scen42v10b.rar
ZIP - http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/8/1/2529503/Z_Scen42v10b.zip

Scenario 43 - Alternate WNT Enhanced BB Variant;
RAR - http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/8/1/2529503/Scen43v10b.rar
ZIP - http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/8/1/2529503/Z_Scen43v10b.zip



FatR -> RE: New Version 10b (12/26/2009 4:35:29 PM)

Thanks for the fixes. I find Tracker immensely useful, particularly for looking up what airgroups can upgrade to what and monitoring the industry.



ggm -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/26/2009 9:07:38 PM)

JuanG do you have any plans of expanding your mod with the babes mod style small ships? I wonder if you would also consider adding scrap planes like the f3f and gloster gladiator. perhaps not realistic but pools of old aircraft could replentish air groups decimated by early hard combat...

ggm



JuanG -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/26/2009 9:32:12 PM)

I'm waiting to see what the final version of babes is like, and how extensive the changes will be, before I make any decisions on that front.

I'm pretty happy to add most planes as long as they are reasonable, and someone can provide some artwork - my own skills arent up to the task really. The F3F in particular is an interesting choice...



ussdefiant -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/29/2009 12:44:59 AM)

A question regarding the BB/BBE version: are the air OOBs of the two sides changed at all?

I've opened up BBE from the Japanese side, and i can't really say i see anything in the way of difference when it comes to LBA, aside from the extra Nell/Mike group in Tokyo. I was sort of expecting that a Japan that had managed to develop a larger industry would have at least a few more air groups ditting around, similar to stock Scen 2 or so...



JuanG -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/29/2009 8:21:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HMSImperator

A question regarding the BB/BBE version: are the air OOBs of the two sides changed at all?

I've opened up BBE from the Japanese side, and i can't really say i see anything in the way of difference when it comes to LBA, aside from the extra Nell/Mike group in Tokyo. I was sort of expecting that a Japan that had managed to develop a larger industry would have at least a few more air groups ditting around, similar to stock Scen 2 or so...



I did consider adding a few more groups, and its still possible I might. I definately will for CV Variant. I thought that for BB Variant it was reasonable not to add any more as while Japan does have a larger industry, they did not focus that towards aircraft production.



ny59giants -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/29/2009 9:54:28 AM)

It might be more logical to have an increase in the number of patrol daitai available for your BBE mod. Following Japanese doctrine to have the decisive battle, they would focus on finding the Allied fleet to make this happen. 



JuanG -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/29/2009 10:17:20 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

It might be more logical to have an increase in the number of patrol daitai available for your BBE mod. Following Japanese doctrine to have the decisive battle, they would focus on finding the Allied fleet to make this happen. 


This is a very good and reasonable idea. I'll see what I can take out of Scen 2 along these lines.

Thanks.



ny59giants -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/29/2009 1:38:58 PM)

A few possibilities for your CV Enhanced that I'm patiently waiting for. [;)]
1) American CVs can have a few of the initial land based, but carrier capable/trained Marine squadrons able to fit on existing CVs. If you follow what AE has and have 90 capacity a/c CVs, then the possible fifth squadron would start with either 9 to 12 planes and be able to fill out to about 15 to 18 planes. As long as I can keep the CVs under 99 planes, then I can conduct flight ops. Looking for survivability early in the war.
2) American AVs can go through the conversion process and become CS.
3) Create or use a small class of American subs that come with Seagull FPs. In Empire's Ablaze, I got Nemo to use the three subs of the Barracuda Class for this. It can freak out a Japanese player when Truk is spotted by FPs until he realizes these are what are doing it. These precious few subs can be forward recon for Allied CVs.

Right now, I'm planning on finding an PBEM opponent for this specific mod when it comes out, either side. I want both of us NOT to have opened the mod/game yet until we decide who is going to play which side to add to the uncertainty.



Terminus -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/29/2009 1:49:31 PM)

The Seagull is much too big to be launched from a submarine, and the Barracuda isn't big enough for the job anyway.



JuanG -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/29/2009 5:02:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

A few possibilities for your CV Enhanced that I'm patiently waiting for. [;)]
1) American CVs can have a few of the initial land based, but carrier capable/trained Marine squadrons able to fit on existing CVs. If you follow what AE has and have 90 capacity a/c CVs, then the possible fifth squadron would start with either 9 to 12 planes and be able to fill out to about 15 to 18 planes. As long as I can keep the CVs under 99 planes, then I can conduct flight ops. Looking for survivability early in the war.
2) American AVs can go through the conversion process and become CS.
3) Create or use a small class of American subs that come with Seagull FPs. In Empire's Ablaze, I got Nemo to use the three subs of the Barracuda Class for this. It can freak out a Japanese player when Truk is spotted by FPs until he realizes these are what are doing it. These precious few subs can be forward recon for Allied CVs.

Right now, I'm planning on finding an PBEM opponent for this specific mod when it comes out, either side. I want both of us NOT to have opened the mod/game yet until we decide who is going to play which side to add to the uncertainty.



1) Most of the later CVs are sized to either 90 or 92 a/c at the moment, so this should work fine. I'll see how many suitable groups there are right now and look at adding more.
2) Which specific AVs did you have in mind for this?
3) I'm not sure about this - I may do some research to see if the USN ever proposed building these kinds of submarines, and what they would have operated. If anyone has any data on this, it would be appreciated.



Terminus -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/29/2009 5:26:35 PM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_S-1_%28SS-105%29



ny59giants -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/29/2009 7:29:12 PM)

quote:

2) Which specific AVs did you have in mind for this?


Curtiss Class - they can support 36 FP now and if the conversion to a CS allowed them to base one of those 18 plane Kingfishers. It has a speed of 20, but would be unable to keep up with the CV/CVLs. However, it would be a nasty ASW platform to keep with Allied transports and CVEs.



JuanG -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/30/2009 8:33:52 PM)

Heres some IJN stuff from the 'Super BB Variant' I'm working on with csatahajos - some of these ships will also be appearing in the CV Variant.

BC Amagi
[image]http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/3396/jnside0409.png[/image]

BB Settsu (No.13)
[image]http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/2676/jnside0411.png[/image]

CB Kawachi (B65)
[image]http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/7928/jnside0414.png[/image]

CA Asama
[image]http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/3895/jnside0556.png[/image]



FatR -> RE: New Version 10b the future (12/31/2009 3:51:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Right now, I'm planning on finding an PBEM opponent for this specific mod when it comes out, either side. I want both of us NOT to have opened the mod/game yet until we decide who is going to play which side to add to the uncertainty.


I wouldn't mind to play a PBEM of this mod (even if I like the concept of Battleship mod better), if you don't mind slaughtering an opponent who only played against AI before). I can say, that I'll prefer the Allied side, though, as it is more forgiving.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875