RE: Dec 8 Mod questions (Full Version)

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



Message

Andy Mac -> RE: Dec 8 Mod questions (8/5/2010 11:10:25 PM)

Thanks Ryan good piccies

Not sure I understand Pax do you want to amend in the editor or have a dec 8th start ??



PaxMondo -> RE: Dec 8 Mod questions (8/6/2010 1:41:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac



Not sure I understand Pax do you want to amend in the editor or have a dec 8th start ??


There's the question! [:D]

So I have a personal mod which is based upon the Dec 8 scen. I would like to fold this onto your Ironman allied for testing until it is ready for PBEM. I can see 2 ways to do this:

1. Add my data to your mod and then have to edit everything to Dec 8
or
2. Take your allied data + AI and fold into my mod.

Just curious which you think less work. Both seem fairly laborious so I can't see which might be easier.

Of course I know exactly what I've done for my mod, putting that into your would be relatively easy. Editting the result for 8 Dec though, I have no idea how big that effort would be.



michaelm75au -> RE: Ohka PGM (10/1/2010 2:00:37 PM)

I noticed in my copy of Downfall that Ohka aren't being used.

When I check the editor, the device 197 is set to 'Can build' No even though it is has a Build rate of 36.
It should be Yes.

Any device that needs to be pooled and is not being directly build by industry, should have this flag set to Yes.
This flag basically turns the device off if No.



Andy Mac -> RE: Ohka PGM (10/1/2010 4:17:06 PM)

Thanks Michael ok I will adjust



Pascal_slith -> RE: Ohka PGM (10/4/2010 7:07:48 AM)

I only found the link to Ironman pt 1 and 2. Where are the links to download the other scenarios?



NAVMAN -> RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied (10/14/2010 8:51:39 PM)

Hi Andy: Played another game of Downfall(v4). I obtained a 7.3:1 victory point
ratio, yet the score screen only awarded a marginal victory. Should this not have
been a decisive victory?
Thx.

[image]local://upfiles/8265/138A7114AB7B4E4899F15BF40A88820C.jpg[/image]



NAVMAN -> RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied (10/14/2010 8:53:40 PM)

Here is the score screen:

[image]local://upfiles/8265/1E87C85F84884F9B9DB5FDF297B22C75.jpg[/image]



michaelm75au -> RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied (10/16/2010 1:49:29 AM)

The AI must be learning to cater for my errors.

Playing the Marianas v4, I had 4 Allied TFs with 3 or 4 CVs in each pounding the islands prior to landings.

Next minute, I was assailed by 3 Japanese (AI) carrier TFs coming in at me from the north, south AND west. A beautiful pincer movement...
Took out 2 CVs and 4 CVLs with heavy damage (probable most will sink before getting back to base) and several escorts sunk.

Didn't help that I forgot to take half of my carrier VF groups out of training[:o].



michaelm75au -> RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied (10/16/2010 2:06:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NAVMAN

Hi Andy: Played another game of Downfall(v4). I obtained a 7.3:1 victory point
ratio, yet the score screen only awarded a marginal victory. Should this not have
been a decisive victory?
Thx.


Here is a brief summary of the victory levels for all scenarios

Victory Levels:
(a) Basic victory
Major Japan (VL = 1) - Japan VPs >= 1.75 times Allied VPs.
Minor Japan (VL = 2) - Japan VPs >= 1.25 times Allied VPs.
Draw (VL = 3) - if not one of the minor/major values
Minor Allied (VL = 4) - Allied VPs >= 1.25 times Japan VPs.
Major Allied (VL = 5) - Allied VPs >= 1.75 times Japan VPs.

(b) Time based victory modifiers
Year July 44+
Minor Allied (VL = 4) - Allied VPs > 2 times Japan VPs.

Year 46+ and time is the end of scenario or past it
VL is decreased by 2 levels

Atomic bomb used more than twice
VL is decreased by 1 level




NAVMAN -> RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied (10/19/2010 5:22:59 AM)

michael,
Thx for the reply. So, even though the Downfall scen does not start till '45, it is still subject
to the reduced victory level "penalty"? Perhaps the "penalty" should not apply to Downfall
due to the starting date and that it is a stand-alone scen.

Thx.



CaptBeefheart -> RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied (10/19/2010 8:41:14 AM)

Interesting. I'm playing Downfall myself and all I can get is a marginal victory? ;-) Just kidding--victory is in the eye of the beholder. I reckon if I take Kyushu and Honshu, and maybe Shikoku and Hokkaido, it'll be a pretty good innings.

BTW--Anyone else playing Downfall have trouble with USN CV-based squadrons being all over the map in size (with the usual Essex-class being VF at 18, VBF at 18, VB at 15 and VT at 15 if I remember correctly)? Or is it me doing something wrong?

Cheers,
CC



Nemo121 -> RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied (10/28/2010 8:32:01 PM)

Andy,

Is there a particular reason why the Manpower reserves in Downfall are so small? It looks like it takes over 200 days to build out your units just because of Manpower shortages. Surely in Japan in 1946 the one thing they had lots of was man ( and woman) power.

Sure they might have been using 12 to 18 year old kids for the jobs but if you used 2 x 12 year olds in place of every adult to serve ammo to a crew-served AAA gun you could make up for their smaller size/weakness with sheer numbers. I'm just asking because I would have thought that for Japan the problem wouldn't have been manpower but would, rather, have been armaments and vehicles etc.



Andy Mac -> RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied (10/28/2010 9:05:46 PM)

Most of the units have already been mobilised and manpower was not endless.

Most of the Japanese units are disabled not understrength so with time they will recover to full strength.

I didnt add to much manpower because so much is already lost in Burma/Manchuria and the industry is still up and running.

Take a look at the base forces etc they can all get stronger



mariandavid -> RE: Ironman Allied (11/1/2010 9:26:43 PM)

Andy:

Grimly playing against he Ironman Allied (and not even into the first week). Is it fair to say that (you utter swine) that Allied torpedos work from the start in this scenario? I am assuming so (from the results - not a single dud!!!) and therefore the entire IJA 1E and its older 2E are now heading for permanent ASW duty. And it suddenly becomes all important to muck up the Manila and Soerabaya SS bases!

Does anyone know if there is a better pattern than 70ASW/20Train/10Rest when there is no time to set up ASW training first?



Andy Mac -> RE: Ironman Allied (11/1/2010 10:07:00 PM)

;) the Mk 14 is a little better....

I hope you enjoy it I may have made it to hard...



mariandavid -> RE: Ironman Allied (11/1/2010 11:50:52 PM)

If it is too hard - will let you know. Not that I really mind - I am in any case penalising myself by not using either Tracker or Staff. Trying to get into the mind of what is must have been like for the real IJA and IJN leaders, without access to computers or timely data. Read somewhere that they only got production/resource data once a month (more accurately it was collected together once a month).

US SS nasty - on the other hand their carrier pilots seem senile. KB sank Lexington without a single air-to-air loss!!



vettim89 -> RE: Ironman Allied (11/12/2010 5:04:02 AM)

Hey Andy,

Per my post in PH's AAR, here is a list of the issues I found in Downfall (v.4)

Bases that turn yellow or red in supplies almost immediately (within a week or less)

Miri
Brunei
Yap
Ulithi
Woleai
Satwai
Adak
Eniwetok
Bay Bay

Bases with a/c with inadequate AV support

Woleai - about 100 a/c there with 50 AV support
Samarinda - 2 PBY4 sq there with no Av support
Babeldaub - 226 a/c here with only 66 Av support

Underdeveloped bases (this is my opinion but I think historical fact backs it up)

Ulithi starts with Port 3(3). This was the major USN carrier refitting base from late 1944 on. It should be fully developed plus have a huge USN BF there. IN my opinion, the ARD's at Guam should be there instead because I beleive that was there location at war's end in RL. Also the huge fuel pile at Guam should be there instead. You may say why the fuss? Well because you need Guams port to support the 20th AF.

Guam starts with Port 4(2). Again at this point in the war that port should be fully developed

Amchitka Island starts with AB 0(4). This was the major USAAF base in the Aleutions by mid 1943. The NorPac is kinda left out of this scenario and I understand choices had to be made. That said if you at least started Amchitka and maybe Attu also as built up with some token Av support up there, it would at least give the Allied player a little more freedom if he chose to attack through the Kuriles to Hokkaido. Even if it's just enough to place some recon sq. up there to peek at the northern Japanese perimeter.

Engineers

You have that huge pile of CB's and EAB's at Port Hembla. Almost no xAP on the WCUSA. You have to send lift from PH to pick them up if you want to move them forward. If you do that, then you have to hold off considerable offensive operations for a couple of months while you get these guys forward. If you could move even half of them to the PI, it would be most helpful. I know others have brought up that troop lift is a big problem in the scenario. Rots and rots of xAK but precious few xAP. That means you have to use APA to move engineers which really wasn't there dedicated use. What few xAP that start at SF are needed to reinforce Adak (see above). At least that's what I had to use them for in my game

One other issue: No. 848 sq. on Formidible still has biplane TB's (oops)

Hope this helps. Now I'm going to play a couple of Downfall turns before I head to bed

edited to correct the port numbers at Guam and add a few not included in originle post



LowCommand -> Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? (11/22/2010 11:28:30 PM)


I'm playing Downfall as Allied. I've noticed in the forum that ARD's only work if there is an AR present. Still, I can't get mine to work at all, in any port, with any number of AR's. Where "work" is defined as having the repair ship option avalable for stood down ships with more than a few points of flooding damage.

I tried a small experement and switched to Jap and sent a damaged DD to the one ARD they have. That didn't seem to work, but then the Japs don't seem to have any AR's left. Am I not doing something? I checked and the ships I'm trying to "lift" are all less than 50K tons. (3k tons for the lone Jap ARD.) Oh, yes and both the ARD and the AR's are disbanded. (Except for the Jap's having no AR's to disband.)

Then again, I keep finding things that I didn't know that everybody else (at least on the forum) seems to know. One example being that LCU radar isn't currently working or rather Observer data is over writting the radar data.

I did note that requiring an AR for the ARD to work probably will be addressed in some future patch.

Any comments, thoughts, etc?



Andy Mac -> RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? (11/27/2010 11:28:04 PM)

OK Guys going to close this thread down - all my Scens were included in the patch so I will start a new thread to capture feedback - thanks guys for the help



Reg -> RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? (11/27/2010 11:48:22 PM)

Andy,

The Allied Ironman doesn't seem to have been included as a standard scenario in Patch 4.

Will it still be supported here?




Andy Mac -> RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? (11/28/2010 12:09:42 AM)

I will be doing a new thread for that one it wasnt played enough for me to prove it worked ok to put it into the patch.

(Plus I have a nastier one in the works anyway !!!)



Reg -> RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? (11/28/2010 12:24:08 AM)


Bring it on....... [sm=Cool-049.gif]

Thanks a million for your efforts.!!




n01487477 -> RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? (12/2/2010 1:02:06 PM)

Hi Andy,
I'm having fun playing Marianas Scen14 - thanks for the great effort to do this.

If it hasn't been mentioned before:(A-historical scenario)
  • Okha's don't work until you change them to produce ... also think the production numbers could be tweaked a little for the IJN.
  • Kamikaze option [;)]
  • More AirSupport would be good too ;-)

    If it's going to be A-historical then ... go the whole hog ? [8D]

    Cheers



    • Fallschirmjager -> RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? (12/16/2010 6:37:06 AM)

    Where can I get the latest version of Downfall?



    mikkey -> RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? (12/16/2010 11:42:42 AM)

    Downfall scenario contains the latest patch and upgraded version by Andy you can download it from this post



    Fallschirmjager -> RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? (12/17/2010 6:54:02 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: mikkey

    Downfall scenario contains the latest patch and upgraded version by Andy you can download it from this post


    Thank you



    John 3rd -> RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? (12/25/2010 7:05:08 PM)

    Andy,

    I'm giving serious thought of adding the German SS, Tenders, and Raiders into my RA, Mk 3 version of my Mod. Do you have the info for these in a manner that can be emailed? Should I just download whichever Mod has them in and then add them?

    If you could, please email me with your thoughts: jrc_3@msn.com.

    Thanks Sir.



    PaxMondo -> IronMan Allied (1/9/2011 4:37:45 AM)


    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

    I will be doing a new thread for that one it wasnt played enough for me to prove it worked ok to put it into the patch.

    (Plus I have a nastier one in the works anyway !!!)


    Any news on this update? Really looking forward to it ...



    vettim89 -> RE: Dec 8 Mod questions (1/16/2011 3:44:34 AM)

    NOt sure if any one else has this problem but CVB Midway arrived with only one unit on board and it looks like this

    [image]local://upfiles/25806/65041F5B74EF4B169958EC87A86D6753.jpg[/image]



    NAVMAN -> RE: Dec 8 Mod questions (1/16/2011 11:41:35 PM)

    vettim89,
    Yes, I have seen the same thing in my games.
    navman



    Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
    0.875