RE: Getting the Bugs Out (Full Version)

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



Message

vaned74 -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (12/2/2010 2:31:04 PM)

John - I downloaded the link that FatR put earlier and already made the changes to the BBs. Send me a PM with your e-mail and I will send you the ship class file. I changed all front mounts of 6 16 in or larger guns to 2 slots of 3 and then added a rear slot of 3 large guns at the end. Ammo updated to what it was already for the 3 gun turret slots (ie 22, 26, etc)

-Don



John 3rd -> RA--2D (12/2/2010 4:20:54 PM)

Don,

Note and Email address sent. Would like to have known someone else was working on this. Just wasted an hour-and-a-half of work. Thank you though for the help.

We need to update the file to RA, Scenario 70 2D so people can separate the versions. I've all sorts of ideas for a Version 3 but will hold off until players get farther into the Mod.

John



vaned74 -> RE: RA--2D (12/2/2010 5:20:23 PM)

Got your e-mail. Sent back the files. Didn't take long to make the changes, just kinda started looking at it and then I was done before I knew it. I sent back files as Scen 069 - just the c and g files for the classes and groups.

Also made the suggestion via e-mail to:

1) reduce transport plane service ratings by 1 across the board
2) same for patrol planes (emily, cataline, sunderland, mavis, etc)

Both of these seem to pull an inordinately high number of ops losses and/or poor availability even at low %utilization (30% on naval search). I could be using them wrong though and I should maybe test at shorter search ranges. Transport planes really do seem to die at high rates - although that could be the mission and not the plane.



John 3rd -> RE: RA--2D (12/2/2010 5:33:10 PM)

Thanks Sir. Just updated my AAR. Will take a quick look at the email and comments.

I concur with your notes. I can't keep my Mavis and Emily flying. I've had other comments regarding that too from other players.



vaned74 -> RE: RA--2D (12/2/2010 6:27:55 PM)

Files are in your inbox.

The following changes made:

1) turrets separated on BBs; ammo adjusted back up accordingly
2) checked - belt armor on Japanese CAs was fixed
3) late war Japanese CVs that can be accelerated appear with mid-war fighters now (A6M5b) to avoid problem of them arriving in mid-43 with A7 Sams.
4) patrol planes and transports have service rating reduced by 1 to hopefully reduce ops losses and increase serviceability
5) allied patrol plane & transport production up'd by 1/3 to reflect that these planes have high ops losses, Japan can react with production adjustment/Allies cannot
6) small Japanese subs now have reduced production cost - durability 10 - but then upgrade immediately to their regular durability requiring a few days of repairs to be sea ready



John 3rd -> RE: RA--2D (12/2/2010 7:05:05 PM)

Thanks for the work and clarification regarding changes.

Got the files and will do some quick polishing.



FatR -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (12/2/2010 9:14:59 PM)

EDIT: Thanks to vaned74 for fixing the problem before I even looked here. Looks like my immediate assistance wasn't needed. John, we probably should post files provided by vaned in the first post of the thread. I can put them on the same filesharing site.

Sorry again for not answering earlier. Really didn't have the time and energy for doing much AE-related besides current turns. I'll try to add more comments within a few days.

For now I can only say that I have few, if any, problems with searchplane maintenance at 60%/40% rest, altitude of 5-6k and range set to their normal range, so I don't think they need lesser service rating. As about transports I don't know. They do tend to take significant ops losses, but this might be historical.



John 3rd -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (12/2/2010 9:55:37 PM)

Stanislav--I was worried about you. Glad things are OK. We'll shoot the modified files to you for Posting. I have an email ready to go to all the current players that I know of.

Thanks!



John 3rd -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (12/2/2010 10:02:44 PM)

Don--Send the finished files to Stanislav.



FatR -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (12/3/2010 1:29:08 PM)

John, a few questions before posted the updated version of the scenario. Are you sure we need reduced service ratings on patrol and transport planes? This will only encourage players to use them with abandon. It's enough that ops losses outside of combat for all of the other plane types are ahistorically miniscule (assuming the player treats his squadrons responsibly). I don't mind giving Allies more production of that types, but reducing service ratings will make things too easy and reward careless play.

Also, should we remove droptank capabilities from Judy, to bring it in line with the official scenarios, and, apparently, RL.




John 3rd -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (12/3/2010 2:32:57 PM)

We should make Judy correct. Go ahead and change that FatR.

As to the search planes, I'd like to experiment to see what result this might bring. By reducing Service Rating by 1, I'm curious to see how much of a change this makes. Do you really think it'll have that big of impact? Don floated it as an idea and my experience with the Mod is that roughly 50% of my search planes are down at any one time. I think that is REALLY high and no I don't have them at 100% search! [:'(]



John 3rd -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (12/3/2010 3:03:18 PM)

FatR--When you have the Update done and Posted could you Post that here? I know you plan to place 2D at the front of this Thread as well as the Mod Site--correct?



FatR -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (12/3/2010 4:14:49 PM)

Link to the new version, that includes all the fixes, and the key changes from the patch 5 (I decided to go ahead and introduce those that weren't really minor and insignificant. Other than Judies, the main gameplay-affecting change includes greater reinforcement rate for Chinese infantry):

http://www.box.net/shared/gtfpzqv03m



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (12/3/2010 4:43:43 PM)

Thank You Sir.



FatR -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (12/3/2010 6:09:25 PM)

Saving a link to this thread, devoted to the discussion of real Judy range for possible use in development of 3.0 version:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2631884



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (12/11/2010 4:37:33 AM)

We've been talking about the Mod over in Yubari's AAR. If anyone has comments to toss in they would be welcome.



bigred -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (12/11/2010 5:13:38 AM)

Study as she goes. I have had no complaints from Dirty Harry. He is the allies in our game and an ex-fighter pilot. Has not said anything to me about system/mod issues.



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (12/11/2010 10:26:34 PM)

That is good. Could you encourage him to hop on here at some point and post some thoughts/commentary?



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (12/19/2010 3:59:31 PM)

Doing some Editor work and have a question. How do you make a Squadron permanent restricted? I ask because I thought I did that with the three Navy Training Squadrons in RA? They are currently assigned to West Coast but that--apparently--doesn't keep them from being bought out. Which command should they be attached to?



kfsgo -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (12/19/2010 11:55:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Doing some Editor work and have a question. How do you make a Squadron permanent restricted? I ask because I thought I did that with the three Navy Training Squadrons in RA? They are currently assigned to West Coast but that--apparently--doesn't keep them from being bought out. Which command should they be attached to?



You'd want to check the 'Static HQ' box in the AirGroups editor (bottom one of the top right checkboxes) to keep them under that command permanently as opposed to being available for buyouts.



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral Feedback (12/20/2010 5:05:08 AM)

Thank you Sir. I will change that.



darbycmcd -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (1/2/2011 9:45:09 AM)

One more request for the next version, although it would be a bit of (boring) work, could you please use the naming convention for land squads/devices they use in DBB, at least as far as the nationality indicators for the allied devices. It makes it soooo much easier to figure out which pool is for whom. For example, in the normal db there are 3 versions of 105mm how. but they track to 3 different upgrade paths. it is sort of frustrating. actually, in general i would say use the ground units of dbb if they would let you. the reimagined base units add an element of planning to the game.

thanks for the mod, we are having a good time with it!

darby



John 3rd -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (1/3/2011 3:56:21 AM)

Darby,

Glad you're playing and enjoying yourself.

I haven't looked at DBB. How is there unit designations different? Could you provide a specific example? I've been working on differing ideas for 3.0 so it might be possible if I have a clearer knowledge of what you are talking about.

Thanks,
John



darbycmcd -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (1/3/2011 10:47:52 AM)

the first thing is small but helps me a lot as an allied player planning LCU upgrades. In the stock db, there are several devices that have the same names but are part of different national TO&E, for example there are 3 different 105 mm howitzer, but they are from 3 different countries. In the Babes mod they just rename them "PH 105..." or "CH 105..." like I said it is small but it really helps!

A larger change is the way they restructured base units. I believe they are more historical as far as composition and capability. There is less total AV support available so it makes the player plan more carefully where they want large airbases. I think some of the issues with the air model are down to it being far too easy to maintain very high tempo of air ops, this change makes it less easy.

I really think your mod can also be somewhat balanced simply by playing with withdraws off. I know some people freak about this but it isn't such a big deal. It gives the allies a few more land units, and several more squadrons of training AC. If you don't change the units, they are restricted for the most part and can't upgrade, so they don't do much other than releasing other units from the training role. And it seems plausible, the Allies, especially the US would have scaled their response to Japan by its perceived strength so they simply would have sent more to the Pacific vice Europe. I think it helps balance within the historical framework.

I have only gotten into mid 42 with the two games I am playing so I can't really say what will happen in the mid-game when it is more about allied 4E bombers though....





John 3rd -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (1/6/2011 3:54:01 AM)

Thanks for the commentary and clarification Good Sir. Will think on it. Am working on some ideas right now and will take these thoughts with me as I work on things.

kfsgo--Shifted those HQ to 'static.' Thanks for that simple help.



FatR -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (1/19/2011 11:26:32 PM)

Not much seems to have been written since I last had time for the mod...

For now, just so won't lose the information, two more bugs to report (sorry if they were already mentioned):

-J6M1 still seem to have wrong picture. It should be, at least, the picture of Ki-83, not Shinden.
-The research facility for A6M5d-S in Maebashi seems to not be properly changed for A6M8-S.

John, have any ideas about desirable changes for v.3? I'd prefer to play more before giving my opinion on general balance of the mod, but I think I'll write up possible ideas here for the future:
- Setting Judy's range back to historical level, it now falls short of, thanks to the droptank removal.
- Maybe upping the service rating of Mitsubishi Ha-33 planes available in 1943 to 2, again to reflect RL relative unreliability of the earlier versions of the engine.
- Giving Ki-61 line its upgrade path to Ki-100 back, although in with improved Ki-61 KAI in Scen 70 there might be a reason not to follow it.
- It requires more research, but I'm increasingly starting to believe that the stock got it wrong by completely shafting early Ki-61s range and giving Tojos relatively decent one, and in RL it was the opposite. However, as this is a gamechanger, I want to see more of these planes' performance in the game before thinking of introducing it.



John 3rd -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (1/19/2011 11:39:35 PM)

Good notes to remember regarding J6M1 and A6M5d-S!

Stanislav--I have been quietly experimenting with some ideas reflecting lessons learned so far in my game with Lew as well as some PMs from players with on-going campaigns. Do you want me to toss out my thoughts and/or ideas?

I'd be happy to do this but I don't want to discourage anyone with a campaign already going. Would a serious discussion of RA 3.0 be an issue for anyone currently playing the Mod?



FatR -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (1/19/2011 11:44:29 PM)

I edited the post above a bit. I think we shouldn't actually make 3.0 before at least some of us plays at least to early 1944, but why not discuss the ideas? Well, when there is time...



John 3rd -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (1/19/2011 11:58:53 PM)

I like chatting about stuff and we can then see where it goes.

Would like to fire the first salvo Sir? [:D]



BigBadWolf -> RE: Getting the Bugs Out (1/20/2011 1:51:51 PM)

If I may add few, have you guys thought about introducing G5N Liz as precursor to G8N? We had it in CHS, IIRC. The plane was crap in RL,just few prototypes were made and it never went into production but maybe under assumptions of RA, it may be viable to have it.



Page: <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375