RE: Scenario Commentary (Full Version)

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



Message


bigred -> RE: Scenario Commentary (9/22/2010 3:25:00 AM)

quote:

I wonder where so much Betties were lost in that campaign... Losses to flak are particularly massive.



Senario 2.


There where days after the japs invaded NZ where the betties would fly from NC unescorted and run into p39s.




John 3rd -> RE: Scenario Commentary (9/22/2010 4:23:58 AM)

I put the strength of the Japanese in RA roughly halfway between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2. With no Army changes to speak of the focus is just the Fleet. Makes for something in between I think...

HATE seeing unescorted Japanese bombers tangle with any sort of Allied fighter. VERY BAD!




FatR -> RE: Scenario Commentary (9/23/2010 10:39:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

Anyway, I am interested in your ratios also so I can judge myself as a player. I am concerned about my ops losses as the jap player and starting to think to use the zero only on sweep missions. Leave the Oscar for escort duty.

Sorry for not answering this earlier. I'm posting loss figures in my AAR at the beginning of every game month.




John 3rd -> RE: Scenario Commentary (9/23/2010 4:14:17 PM)

Op Losses on the Japanese side is always terrible. I hate seeing it when they are simply flying from base-to-base.




FatR -> RE: Scenario Commentary (10/1/2010 3:21:58 PM)

Any more feedback about Japanese fighter performance?

John, if you want, I can send you the corrected description of aircraft changes, so that you can edit the initial post.

One more moment. At the present, the lists of devices on ships look ugly, due to new devices on upgraded versions added to the tail end of the list, even if the ship already has devices of the same type, but on a different mounts (for example, different versions of 25mm guns). It's a gigantic work, but if you wish, I can try to go through the lists and fix the device placement, so that it will appear in a more readable form. This will sure take a long time, though.

Also, are you keeping track of various proposals for the future versions of the mod? I might have a few. For example, stuff I read since then indicates that early versions of Mitsubishi Ha-33 (used on Dinah) suffered usual Japanese difficulties with field maintenance, so increasing the service rating of the newly-added pre-1944 plane models that use this engine to 2 might be warranted.


And about ops losses - unless the situation is absolutely critical, I always rest squadrons before moving them between distant bases.




John 3rd -> RE: Scenario Commentary (10/5/2010 4:49:23 AM)

Stanislav--Sorry that I didn't see this Post until just now. Been working bunches at the Hotel. You Post some interesting thoughts to ponder. Let me do that and I'll comment more in the morning.

Would like to see a Posting on the corrected description of aircraft changes. This would be quite helpful I think.

Have to admit that I'm not too excited about doing any immediate work on the Scenario, however, there is appeal to cleaning things up some. Will think on that a bit...




FatR -> RE: Scenario Commentary (10/6/2010 3:35:35 PM)

I've sent you the amended air changes text.

Also, I and Yubari decided to dial back Japanese fighters stats for our game (changing the database for an ongoing PBEM can be accomplished through the button at the bottom of the "Preferences" screen - didn't know this before), but this somehow caused a bug in US battleships upgrades... Once the game is fixed an resumed, we'll see if this will influence the air combat significantly.




John 3rd -> RE: Scenario Commentary (10/6/2010 4:39:08 PM)

Got the email.

What did you do with the Fighters? Am curious and would like to know the results of the changes.

Didn't know you could do changes DURING a game! Are you sure about that?




John 3rd -> Comprehensive Air Changes Post (10/6/2010 4:53:46 PM)

Reluctant Admiral
Scenario 70
Comprehensive Aerial Changes


This scenario assumes that with Admiral Yamamoto taking the position of Aeronautics Department's head in 1936 and becoming the Naval Minister later, he intensifies Japanese naval aviation development a bit, and attempts to optimize the utilization of limited engineering and production resources. Chief engineers of aircraft design teams are given slightly greater input in formulating development directions and cooperation between various aircraft manufacturers is assumed to be somewhat improved.

In particular, the concept of new, dedicated land-based interceptor is abandoned and the Mitshubishi fighter design team under Jiro Horikoshi remains free to concentrate all of its efforts on modifying A6M and creating its successor A7M. Horikoshi's proposal to install the more powerful Mitsubishi Kinsei engine on Zero is approved in 1942, instead of late 1944, and A7M is developed to use Mitsubishi Ha-43 engine, as he desired, from the beginning. A6M3 is developed into a whole line of Zeros that sacrifice range in favor of superior armament and pilot protection, and eventually are officially designated as pure land-based models. Meanwhile, the development of standard Zero versions goes much more smoothly than in RL, resulting in their early availability.

IJN maintains the policy of sticking to just one single-engine fighter airframe, until Kawanishi team develops N1K1-J Shiden as a private initiative (this happens slightly earlier than in RL, because alternate projects of land-based interceptors, that tied Kawanishi resourses, do not exist). It is adopted as a stopgap measure until availability of A7M.

As a side effect of greater effort put into development and production of Mitsubishi Kinsei (Ha-33) and Mitsubishi Ha-43 engines, several planes that historically used these engines are added to the mod (if they existed only as prototypes by the war's end), or become available earlier, reflecting earlier focus on development of these engines. Ki-100, similar in concept to Ha-33 Zero, receives the biggest push forward (6 months).

This scenario also assumes mild overall boost to Japanese aircraft industry (at the cost of reduction in starting resources). As a result, several planes that historically faced severe problems with transition from prototypes to mass production, such as B6N, D4Y and G4M2, become available a bit earlier. G8N1, the Japanese 4E bomber that was successfully tested but not mass-produced in real life, becomes available in 1945.

Aircraft weapon development is streamlined, with a push for unification with IJAAF in this area (historically, IJN and IJA did cooperate in aircraft weapon production in this scenario their cooperation becomes much broader). Instead of attempts to produce licensed German machine guns, that ultimately failed to provide the fleet with sufficient numbers of them, IJN switches to the more powerful Army 7.7 cartridge and eventually adopts 12.7 Ho-103, the first aircraft HMG developed in Japan. This allows for improved armament on some planes, mostly 2E bombers.

In addition, there are many minor tweaks to various aircraft, intended to make their statblocks and performance closer to historical. The changes that can affect gameplay most noticeably include:

1. All Zeros, Oscars and Franks have their speed increased by 7-20 knots. This is a disputed change, that was discussed in early stages of Mod development, due to perceived understatting of these planes by the game, rejected on the ground of possible consequences to the game balance, but it appears that someone entered it into the database and forgot to remove.

Player feedback about its effects is welcome as it may need to be changed back in a different version of the Mod.

2. Some of early Japanese fighters (Ha-35 Zeros and some of Ki-43s) have their high-altitude MVR reduced. Ki-43 gets slower drop of low-altitude MVR on mid- and late-war modifications in return.

3. G4M has slightly better durability, G3M sligtly worse, to give G4M an edge over the older plane it historically had.

4. E16A1 Paul no longer has artificially reduced normal range.

5. Ki-44 uses Nakakima Ha-34 engine, instead of Ha-35, for historical accuracy.

6. Late Ki-61 versions are slightly-to-moderately improved (slightly better MVR, Ki-61-II KAI uses the better one of its historical armament configurations). Ki-100s are significantly improved (much better MVR). In RL they were supposed to be good, particularly Ki-100, but in AE they are very underwhelming.

7. Ki-84b has improved service rating of 2, reflecting historical fixes to its engine problems.

8. Ki-67-Ib does not lose the ability to carry torpedos.

9. Old Russian fighters no longer have unparalelled MVR. Their a-historical superiority to Nate is gone.


Following aircraft were added to this scenario (all but new Zeros and G3M4-Q existed in RL as prototypes or even production models):

A. A6M3b Zero. Replaces A6M3a and emphasized armor and weapons instead of range.

B. A6M4, A6M4-J, A6M8-J. Successors to A6M3b that follow the same design philosopshy but use Mitshubishi Ha-33 engine.

C. A7M3. The historical successor to A7M2. Carrier-capable and features 6x20mm armament. A7M2 factory upgrades to it, instead of A7M3-J.

D. B7A3. The historical armored successor to B7M2. Uses Mitsubishi Ha-43 engine.

E. D4Y5. Mitsubishi Ha-43, armor. D4Y3 upgrades to it. (D4Y4 was a kamikaze plane in RL.)
F. G3M4-Q. ASW patrol version of Nell.

G. G8N1. Fast, tough, long-ranged 4E bomber.

H. J6M1. IJN version of Ki-83.

I. N1K4-A. Carrier-capable Shiden.

J. N1K5-J. High-altitude interceptor Shiden. Uses Mitsubishi Ha-43 engine.

K. Yasukuni. IJN version of Ki-67. "Yasukuni" might actually be the name of the naval unit, that employed these bombers in RL, but I can't find any other designation for them.


CREDIT: Stanislav (FatR), BK, Juan, and John (Red Lancer) for their contributions in this area of the Mod.




FatR -> RE: Scenario Commentary (10/6/2010 5:17:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Got the email.

What did you do with the Fighters?

Dialed the speed on Zeros, Oscars and Franks back to Scen 1 values (or projections from them for new models).

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Didn't know you could do changes DURING a game! Are you sure about that?

Considering the result, looks like this is not advised.




yubari -> RE: Scenario Commentary (10/7/2010 2:18:03 PM)

I wouldn't recommend trying to do changes during the game, it has caused problems for all of my US battleships upgrade sequences, as you can see in the picture below. I dont know whether this is a mod specific problem or a game problem. It is notable that only the US battleships are affected, all of the British battleships and US cruisers and destroyers still have their correct upgrade paths.

[image]local://upfiles/20271/DB1BE9D662AB4F0B83EB5E9ED6321E88.jpg[/image]




FatR -> RE: Scenario Commentary (10/19/2010 12:46:23 PM)

I found another bug: Myoko-class cruisers mysteriously don't have any belt armor until their first upgrade. Can anyone check if this is true for their versions of the mod?




John 3rd -> RE: Scenario Commentary (10/19/2010 4:59:52 PM)

Wow. That sucks! Hmmm...start a list...




John 3rd -> No Armor (10/19/2010 5:03:26 PM)

HOW could this happen? Juan and I did the ship work so it is nuts to find this:



[image]local://upfiles/18041/E4297FA2C8174D5B962D8A0937A594C6.jpg[/image]




FatR -> RE: No Armor (10/19/2010 5:23:54 PM)

It is possible to reset a value to zero in the editor with an inaccurate click. I know this had happened with one of the planes before.

Anyway, I think this warrants a fixed version. I have a version with the fixed Japanese fighter speed issue, if you want, I can fix Myokos armor in it and upload it.




Historiker -> RE: No Armor (10/19/2010 7:10:28 PM)

afaik, there's no G5, is that correct?
Why? I liked having a 4e, too [:)]




John 3rd -> RE: No Armor (10/20/2010 6:51:49 AM)

FatR--Go ahead and take care of that. Guess this means we keep our Front Line CAs hidden in Port or only with the CVs until Nov 42? NEAT! Grrr...




John 3rd -> RE: No Armor (10/20/2010 6:53:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

afaik, there's no G5, is that correct?
Why? I liked having a 4e, too [:)]


Sorry for not responding earlier. You are correct that there is no G5, however, the Japanese do have 4E Bombers.

Their 'best in the world' CAs don't have armor but we DO have 4E Bombers...




FatR -> RE: No Armor (10/20/2010 11:48:05 AM)

Well, at least only one class is affected...

I've sent you the link to the fixed version (it also resets Japanese fighters speed back to normal).




John 3rd -> RE: No Armor (10/20/2010 4:31:56 PM)

We need to get the updated RA fixing this to the Scenario Mod site.




John 3rd -> RE: No Armor (10/20/2010 4:55:02 PM)

Can we do a database change fixing the armor issue without having to restart?




FatR -> RE: No Armor (10/20/2010 7:23:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

We need to get the updated RA fixing this to the Scenario Mod site.


I've sent you the link.

As about the database update, theoretically it can be done through the Preferences screen, but, as you can see above, bugs can happen.




guctony -> No reload for yamato (11/5/2010 6:51:46 AM)

Currently I have a PBEM playing Reluctant Admiral. I have two issues I could not solve. I cannot reload Yamato main guns. She is in tokyo with 400 naval supply and with largest avaible AKEs she wont load. Second issue is I just discover some of my CVs air group count is doubled.

Is there any suggestions
Here is their jpgs

[image]local://upfiles/32150/682BF6E828EC40D7BED5944AEFDC8729.jpg[/image]




guctony -> RE: No reload for yamato and 120 airgroup (11/5/2010 6:53:06 AM)

and this is airgroup jpg




John 3rd -> Yamato Replenishment Problem (11/6/2010 3:43:04 PM)

I've got Yamato deployed right now (March 13, 1942) but haven't had to do a reload of her main battery. There is no reason why that won't reload. WE changed nothing with that in RA. You tried that in Tokyo?!! Supply is a little low but everything else appears OK.

Anyone have any suggestions here? Is this a bug?

Can you Post your picture of the Air Group re-size issue?




Local Yokel -> RE: Yamato Replenishment Problem (11/6/2010 5:27:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Anyone have any suggestions here? Is this a bug?



One thing that does strike me is that Yamato's ammunition load has been increased from 9 factors (per rifle, I believe) in the standard scenario to 22 in RA.

In the test I've just set up to check whether in principle a Yamato can replenish main batteries from an ammunition ship, I was able to replenish the magazines only for the 6 forward rifles, at a cost of 722 operations points, from memory. I infer that to arrive at the operations point cost per ammunition factor, it's necessary to divide that 722 point total by the number of rifles times the number of ammunition factors in the standard load; i.e. 6 rifles X 9 factors yields a divisor of 54. Applied to the ops points total that means a cost of 13.73 operational points per factor loaded.

It looks to me as though Guctony partially succeeded in replenishing Yamato's main battery magazines, as she is showing a full load for the magazine of her aft main battery turret. If I'm right about the operational points calculation for such partial replenishment, the relevant calculation will be 13.73 points per factor per rifle X 22 factors (standard load for this mod) X 3 rifles of the aft turret = 882.42. Had the forward magazines been replenished the cost of doing so would have been 1764.84, but I suspect that once the cost goes past 1000 points per weapon slot, the operation just gets aborted - and that may be why it's proving impossible to reload the forward magazines.

No doubt someone with knowledge of the code can correct me if my analysis is wrong, but this seems to be a feasible explanation of what is taking place.




JuanG -> RE: Yamato Replenishment Problem (11/6/2010 5:37:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Anyone have any suggestions here? Is this a bug?



One thing that does strike me is that Yamato's ammunition load has been increased from 9 factors (per rifle, I believe) in the standard scenario to 22 in RA.

In the test I've just set up to check whether in principle a Yamato can replenish main batteries from an ammunition ship, I was able to replenish the magazines only for the 6 forward rifles, at a cost of 722 operations points, from memory. I infer that to arrive at the operations point cost per ammunition factor, it's necessary to divide that 722 point total by the number of rifles times the number of ammunition factors in the standard load; i.e. 6 rifles X 9 factors yields a divisor of 54. Applied to the ops points total that means a cost of 13.73 operational points per factor loaded.

It looks to me as though Guctony partially succeeded in replenishing Yamato's main battery magazines, as she is showing a full load for the magazine of her aft main battery turret. If I'm right about the operational points calculation for such partial replenishment, the relevant calculation will be 13.73 points per factor per rifle X 22 factors (standard load for this mod) X 3 rifles of the aft turret = 882.42. Had the forward magazines been replenished the cost of doing so would have been 1764.84, but I suspect that once the cost goes past 1000 points per weapon slot, the operation just gets aborted - and that may be why it's proving impossible to reload the forward magazines.

No doubt someone with knowledge of the code can correct me if my analysis is wrong, but this seems to be a feasible explanation of what is taking place.


Interesting theory; would be nice to know if there is infact a hard coded limit on it of some kind.

Im going to run a few tests of my own (since these ammo changes were my idea/fault), because if you're right then it may be more than Yamato that is affected.

UPDATE:
Yes, seems you were correct. There is a hard cap of 1000 ops points for loading, and as 'partial' loads arent possible, the most 46cm ammo you can load at a time is 12 'ammo units'. Not only does this affect Yamato, but I assume Nagato, Iowa and Colorado, etc all have the same problem.

There are a few ways to solve this in the short term;
1) Split turrets into small groups, so Yamato would have 3 '46cm/45' devices, 2 facing F and 1 facing R. This is the most elegant solution, but also monstrous amounts of work - I will probably do this for my Mk2 scenarios which have the same ammo changes. Might have a beneficial side effect of BBs using their main guns more often in Surface Combat.
2) Cut ammo counts for BB guns - simple, but also quite a bit of work, and sort of defeats the point of the changes in the first place. Would mean a max of 12 for Yamato, and 14-15 for the 16" crowd.
3) Drop the load cost - I think gun load cost is based on the Soft Attack value of the weapon, not effect, and so lowering this might allow the guns to load at the expense of weaker bombardment; which may or may not be a good thing. I will run some tests to see if this is correct and possible.

In the long term, it might be worth asking to see if this could be fixed in the code.

UPDATE 2:
Seems option 3 is not possible, it looks like the load cost is derived directly from effect. Guess this means its either gonna be 1 or 2 or something else altogeather.




John 3rd -> RE: Yamato Replenishment Problem (11/6/2010 9:20:27 PM)

This is good to know Juan. How can we replenish these big BBs if we have this problem? Will we simply have to settle for partial loads?




guctony -> RE: Yamato Replenishment Problem (11/6/2010 9:30:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

This is good to know Juan. How can we replenish these big BBs if we have this problem? Will we simply have to settle for partial loads?


That what I wonder also. at least I dont spend points to mushashi




JuanG -> RE: Yamato Replenishment Problem (11/6/2010 9:46:47 PM)

Well, basically, as things stand, if these big BBs go down below a certain amount of ammo (10 for Yamat0's) the front guns cannot be reloaded. At all. Unless this is changed in a code patch, then it will remain that way.

My suggestion is to do two things; release an interrim update to your scenarios that reduces the ammo load on all these BBs to 12 or so (solution 2 above). This should be the only change, and this update is intended for those who are already running a game.

The second is to make a modified version of the scenario with main batteries broken down further, into say a maximum of 4 devices per group (so an 8 gun BB is 4(F) and 4(R), a 9 gun BB is 3(F),3(F) and 3(R), and things like Fuso are 4(F) and 4(C) and 4(R), etc). This is solution 1 above, and takes a lot of work - basically having to modify most of the devices on all of the BBs. I can get started on this if you'd like, but it may take me a week or so. This one should be done in a seperate scenario slot (#71?) as changes like this tend to screw with ongoing games (as happened with the whole US BB mess; also my fault for not realizing how the update system worked).




Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625