RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0

RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (Full Version)

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

Message

Misconduct -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (5/21/2010 1:20:41 AM)
Stupid question, is this mod able to be played Ai vs Allies? or would rather be Japanese vs AI? thanks

ny59giants -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (5/21/2010 2:55:50 AM)
What has to be looked at for the Allies is how would they have reacted to Japan's earlier build up of Naval assets?? If Japan is getting more carriers earlier, how long would it have taken Allied intelligence to spot this and what lag time would there be before they did something to counter it?? Would the Allies get a few ships or a class of ships out sooner?? Would the Wildcat been out in greater numbers??

FatR -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (5/21/2010 7:55:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Misconduct Stupid question, is this mod able to be played Ai vs Allies? or would rather be Japanese vs AI? thanks It is not very different from Scenario 1, so it should be playable vs. AI on both sides. As AI ignores all economic difficulties, nothing should go wrong.

FatR -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (5/21/2010 8:07:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants What has to be looked at for the Allies is how would they have reacted to Japan's earlier build up of Naval assets?? If Japan is getting more carriers earlier, how long would it have taken Allied intelligence to spot this and what lag time would there be before they did something to counter it?? Would the Allies get a few ships or a class of ships out sooner?? Would the Wildcat been out in greater numbers?? As was mentioned before, USN intelligence in RL expected Japanese to have more Shokaku-class carriers that they did. So, even though here Japanese buildup is somewhat bigger, I doubt that the US fleet building program will be expanded radically. Ranger might be added to the fleet in 1943, though (after Operation Torch). British might withdraw less capital ships. More squadrons might be kept active in the Pacific (although be careful with that, this can create an unstoppable force way too early). A bit more planes might be sent to Pacific, particularly level bombers (fighters Allies already have in surplus). Giving Allies a brigade loaded on transports to reinforce what they want in South Pacific is a good idea too.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (5/21/2010 9:41:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants What has to be looked at for the Allies is how would they have reacted to Japan's earlier build up of Naval assets?? If Japan is getting more carriers earlier, how long would it have taken Allied intelligence to spot this and what lag time would there be before they did something to counter it?? Would the Allies get a few ships or a class of ships out sooner?? Would the Wildcat been out in greater numbers?? Wouldn't the most likely event be a longer war? The Allies were still building a lot of ships and A/C when the historical war ended, and moving troops to the Pacific. If Japan does better early, wouldn't the real result be that they would have been pounded by more and for longer? The real winner in such an event would probably be the Soviet Union..., and the big loser a more radioactive Japan.

RedLancer -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (5/21/2010 5:58:16 PM)
John & Stan Happy to do the work - just need some clear orders on what you want - I'm working on something else at the moment so I'm not tuned to your needs. John

John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (5/21/2010 6:31:35 PM)
I'm not too big of fan of sweetening the pot for the Allies too much. Most of what we have done would never have reached Allied intelligence. Specifics: 1. FatR is correct in pointing out that Allied Int had always thought there was a 3rd Sho-Class CV. With cancelling the Shinano and Taiho the Japanese basically gain one additional flight deck. Certainly can make the argument that Shinano would never be built in AE, however, we're focused on building here. 2. Adding something different to the Allied OOB is certainly easy enough to do. Placing a TF carrying troops is easy enough. Moving a CTF as a Cover unit could work too. Crazy IDEA: What about having Ranger providing Escort for a convoy going somewhere in the Pacific and give a withdrawal date? This would reflect Torch and the Atlantic but put an additional asset out there for the Allies. The CV could have a small escort of a couple of cruisers and 5-6 DD. 3. Thanks John for the artwork thinking. FatR--What do we need to get done?

John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (5/21/2010 7:24:39 PM)
Juan--Is Stan right here about your Mods and China being stronger? Am trying to figure out how this occurred within the Mod.

John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (5/22/2010 6:42:00 AM)
I'm thinking we have got to do something to bring engines up to what is being produced by Japanese Naval Air at the start of the game. It is only logical that both would be expanded together. Simply have to deduct more supply and fuel to reflect the changes. Stanislav--What do you think engine production should be raised to? I increased Production in the following planes: Zero (100/month), Emily (starts in production at 24), Val (35), Kate (35), and Betty (cannot remember but it is I think 25-30 higher). Did not touch Army stuff whatsoever for the start.

FatR -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (5/22/2010 8:04:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd 3. Thanks John for the artwork thinking. FatR--What do we need to get done? I'll edit the aircraft file (can do it on the next week), restoring the old models to their places and placing new ones into their slot, then, I assume the position of new planesides/tops in their respective jpgs must be changed according to their new bitmaps, and the new ones restored to their places.

JuanG -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 (5/22/2010 11:12:09 AM)
China is stronger in my mods, but I made no changes here. My guess is that when the new IJN land based AA guns were added to TOE's, someone accidentally hit some button that filled out ALL the units to their TOE, or something like that. I'm not very familiar with the land unit editor, sorry.

John 3rd -> Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/22/2010 3:18:47 PM)
Sounds like we've work to do. Stan--Do you want to start on the plane files? Additionally did you keep notes on the engines? We need to get that in-line for the start of the war. Perhaps stronger research for the later engines on the new models of Naval Aircraft? Questions/Thoughts there? I'll assign myself to getting the China LCU issue dealt with. I don't know too much with ground units but will figure it out. Was truly shocked when I tried to clear out a hex around Ichang and found over 3,500 AV in Chinese there. YIKES! How do the Chinese troops normally start? Is it around 50% strength and then able to fill out? Has anyone found other issues within the Mod? What shall we do for the Allied player? No one has really responded to ideas thrown out there...

JuanG -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/22/2010 3:39:13 PM)
One thing to consider for the allies is to add in a few of the ships that were cancelled by the imminent end of the war. So possibly expand the '45/46 naval OOB by including another Iowa or Alaska, and another Essex or two. Another option is to consider allowing the allies to make conversions like in my CV variant, allowing for some further Sangamon class tanker-CVE conversions. You could also give the allied player more options for how they upgrade their old battleships, instead of basing it off the historical upgrades.

John 3rd -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/22/2010 4:16:48 PM)
Juan--Those are good ideas. I like the CVE Option and possibly the old BB Upgrade possibilities. What are those in your Mods? Michael's thoughts regarding starting with more F4F might be possible as well.

ny59giants -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/22/2010 4:30:10 PM)
For the Americans I would like to see three Naval training squadrons permanently restricted to the West Coast at San Diego. One each for fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers. Small size to start (18 planes) and then expands after mid-42 to 36 planes. Use the obsolete planes. The Americans don't really have a way to train up Naval pilots. I have Marine squadrons, but not Naval.

eloso -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/22/2010 4:53:21 PM)
Ranger TF: CV Ranger CA Augusta (Northampton class) CL Brooklyn (Brooklyn class) CL Savannah (Brooklyn class) DD Mayrant (Benham class) DD Trippe (Benham class) DD Rhind (Benham class) DD Ludlow (Gleaves class) DD Ericson (Gleaves class) CV Ranger Air groups: VF-5 F4F-3 VF-41 F4F-3A VBF-41 F4U-1D (delayed) VS-41 SBD2U-3 VS-42 SBD2U-3 VT-4 TBD-1 I've got everything set in a mod for my own use already including leaders for the capital ships. They appear in Eastern USA on 21 DEC 41 and must withdraw on 01 SEP 42. CV Ranger did appear as a ferry in 44 so I have her returning on 11 JUL 44. All the information that I could find indicated that she was used in the early war to ferry aircraft in the Atlantic theater. Art Suggestion I set up my aircraft art for custom aircraft as outlined in michaelm's word document found here: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2405660 The downside is they won't show in the editor with the show art checkboxes selected. The good thing about this method is that I can use Cathartes excellent air-tops mod without having to re-do all the work to embed all of the air art files into those large bitmaps. Also the other result is the mod is much smaller for distribution.

JuanG -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/22/2010 5:21:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Juan--Those are good ideas. I like the CVE Option and possibly the old BB Upgrade possibilities. What are those in your Mods? Michael's thoughts regarding starting with more F4F might be possible as well. In the current version of the CV mod, the remaining USN Cimarron/Neosho class AO can upgrade into more Sangamon class CVE's. The Standard BB's have two upgrade lines, one without rebuilds and major upgrades, and one with a rebuild and upgrade to 5in/38s - this allows the allied player to put the more damaged ones into complete overhaul, while using the others if needed in an active role. In the new version I'm working there will be 3 (basic, AA upgrade, complete rebuild) or even 4 upgrade 'paths' for each of the Standard BBs, to allow further flexibility. The nice thing is that as the allies have essentially unlimited 'industry', the fact that conversions cost nothing is not a limiting factor as it is for the Japanese, and one can have a lot of fun with options here. I second the suggestion about moving to the new aircraft art format for mods - I'm doing this for the next version of AltWNT and it is much more flexible and user friendly.

JWE -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/22/2010 5:29:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JuanG One thing to consider for the allies is to add in a few of the ships that were cancelled by the imminent end of the war. .. Another option is to consider allowing the allies to make conversions like in my CV variant, allowing for some further Sangamon class tanker-CVE conversions. You could also give the allied player more options for how they upgrade their old battleships, instead of basing it off the historical upgrades. Hi Juan. In Da Babes we completed the build and deployment of the Commencement Bay class and I would suggest that as a more reasonable late war alternative. They weren't much externally different from the Sangamon. They were on the T3-S2 hull and used the same engineering plant, but rather than being a make-do 'conversion', they were a full up design. Darn near the same flight deck, but had designed-in catapults and a lot of interior restructuring, and could (and did) host F4U, F6F airgroups with ease and efficiency. These were laid down in late '43, and the lead ship was launched 5/44 and commissioned 11/44, so there should be no problem with "what if" considerations. As to 'conversions' to Sangamons, the only available T3 hulls are the Cimmaron class AOs. The Sangamon CVE conversion was usually done during construction, but a few (I believe 3) were converted after launch, but before fitting out. It took these three an average of 6.2 months to convert to the CVE configuration after launch as an AO. If a T3 is operational as an AO, I think it likely that the conversion time to a CVE would be in the 8 - 9 month ballpark. Just my humble opinion. [;)]

John 3rd -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/22/2010 6:43:16 PM)
Navy Training Squadrons sound good to me. The BB Options sound good too. Those only make sense to me and aren't too out there. The CVE conversions could work. How many ships are we talking about? Ranger would be fun to add (thanks OSO) but we would need to have some sort of withdrawal date. What would happen if it was sunk? Does the American still need--no matter what--to pull a CV and escorts from the Pacific for Torch? Interesting thoughts...

eloso -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/22/2010 9:15:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Navy Training Squadrons sound good to me. The BB Options sound good too. Those only make sense to me and aren't too out there. The CVE conversions could work. How many ships are we talking about? Ranger would be fun to add (thanks OSO) but we would need to have some sort of withdrawal date. What would happen if it was sunk? Does the American still need--no matter what--to pull a CV and escorts from the Pacific for Torch? Interesting thoughts... I think I mentioned that they had to withdraw. As far as if she was sunk prior to that, it would have to be some sort of mutual house rule agreement between the players. I don't know if that's really kosher either. There are hundreds of ships that have to withdraw for one reason or another but there isn't a penalty if they're sunk other than the victory point loss.

oldman45 -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/22/2010 11:23:45 PM)
I really don't think the Ranger would be sent to the Pacific unless they were defending Pearl Harbor, the ship just did not have the operating range for use in there and the Navy kept it in the Atlantic. What you could do is not build as many Cleveland Class CL's and create more Independence CVL

FatR -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/22/2010 11:29:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Sounds like we've work to do. Stan--Do you want to start on the plane files? I hope to fix the file within about two days. quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Additionally did you keep notes on the engines? We need to get that in-line for the start of the war. Perhaps stronger research for the later engines on the new models of Naval Aircraft? No need for that, all late-war engines already should be accelerated to arrive on the same months as first planes that use them. Unfortunately, as yubari is currently away from home and we haven't exchanged a single turn this week, I cannot tell anything new about the balance of forces in China.

bklooste -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/23/2010 1:18:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Sounds like we've work to do. Stan--Do you want to start on the plane files? Additionally did you keep notes on the engines? We need to get that in-line for the start of the war. Perhaps stronger research for the later engines on the new models of Naval Aircraft? Questions/Thoughts there? I'll assign myself to getting the China LCU issue dealt with. I don't know too much with ground units but will figure it out. Was truly shocked when I tried to clear out a hex around Ichang and found over 3,500 AV in Chinese there. YIKES! How do the Chinese troops normally start? Is it around 50% strength and then able to fill out? Has anyone found other issues within the Mod? What shall we do for the Allied player? No one has really responded to ideas thrown out there... John someone needs to check all units the update button was hit on. IJA and allied units can also be filled up. Most CHnese units are 33% strength.

bklooste -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/23/2010 1:55:31 AM)
I wouldnt add too many Naval units to the allied player it affects balance and i would even argue for less with only 2 Yamatos. What the allied player needs early is some counter play but certainly not to diminish KB. Suggestion ( all of them) - Add another mine layer ( more mines , more mine production) - Add 1 more dutch Wildebeast squadron at start and an an english bomber one for Mid Jan - Bring home the Australian Div in North Africa as per the Australian goverments demands/plans - An OZ fPYB squadron In addition with the IJN building the BCs then the allies will try to build a countership..instead of the Alaskas.

John 3rd -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/23/2010 3:19:09 AM)
BK--I bet that is exactly what happened. I am sure when I was hitting update with Japanese units it did that for ALL units. Crap. This will truly make things very scary in China as I have already found out. OK. Can this be reversed by setting strength to 33% and then hit apply for Chinese LCUs? OR Does it need to be done manually for each unit? Stan--Thanks for taking the time to clear up the plane stuff. There is no need to rush. Whenever you have it done please email it to me in a Zip and I'll continue working on it. The discussion of adding things for the Allies does make me nervous. Balance is the key concern. The vast majority of Japan's improvements don't hit until late-42 and early-43. The Dec 7th Force Structure is changed very little (a few more planes, more modern planes, and 3 ships) so changing the Allied could really affect things. Thoughts: 1. How about establishing the Navy Training Squadrons as Michael threw out. They cannot move and could expand out for decent training purposes. 2. Concur about Ranger and her issues. What about moving Lexington's TF down near Pago Pago to reflect covering the TF unloading there at game start? 3. Go along with Juan's BB Upgrade ideas. 4. Allow for a few (2 or 3) of the Cleveland CLs to become CVLs that might arrive in early-1944. 5. Do the same for 2-3 CVE conversions as described earlier. Forces would remain, more-or-less, the same for Dec 7th but an Allied response would come into play with the conversions and upgrades. Would provide a bit more to play with but NOT throw things seriously out of balance for the beginning of the war. FatR--In engines I am mainly looking towards the engines needed to reflect the expanded Naval Air Production on Dec 7th. EDIT: What will John (Red Lancer) need to do?

bklooste -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/23/2010 1:53:50 PM)
John , every unit has a different TOE to the planned TOE some are 10% (eg suffered heavy losses , fitting out or a cadre / training) some 90% a few 100% a few more even have 150% , while updating it for an AA regimented wouldnt be too bad on most units like a div it would destroy the historical value and replace it with a standard/planned TOE . The allies could have 200% of their 1941 value ( excluding CHina ) or the Japanese / We really need to check a lot of units but of ot is soem key divs then my hunch is it will be easier getting the original land units and redoing the changes maybe somone who is good with spread sheets can check . quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd BK--I bet that is exactly what happened. I am sure when I was hitting update with Japanese units it did that for ALL units. Crap. This will truly make things very scary in China as I have already found out. OK. Can this be reversed by setting strength to 33% and then hit apply for Chinese LCUs? OR Does it need to be done manually for each unit? Stan--Thanks for taking the time to clear up the plane stuff. There is no need to rush. Whenever you have it done please email it to me in a Zip and I'll continue working on it. The discussion of adding things for the Allies does make me nervous. Balance is the key concern. The vast majority of Japan's improvements don't hit until late-42 and early-43. The Dec 7th Force Structure is changed very little (a few more planes, more modern planes, and 3 ships) so changing the Allied could really affect things. Thoughts: 1. How about establishing the Navy Training Squadrons as Michael threw out. They cannot move and could expand out for decent training purposes. 2. Concur about Ranger and her issues. What about moving Lexington's TF down near Pago Pago to reflect covering the TF unloading there at game start? 3. Go along with Juan's BB Upgrade ideas. 4. Allow for a few (2 or 3) of the Cleveland CLs to become CVLs that might arrive in early-1944. 5. Do the same for 2-3 CVE conversions as described earlier. Forces would remain, more-or-less, the same for Dec 7th but an Allied response would come into play with the conversions and upgrades. Would provide a bit more to play with but NOT throw things seriously out of balance for the beginning of the war. FatR--In engines I am mainly looking towards the engines needed to reflect the expanded Naval Air Production on Dec 7th. EDIT: What will John (Red Lancer) need to do?

FatR -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/23/2010 3:48:41 PM)
I doubt that it is as simple as accidentally filling out Chinese units. Some of the infantry units are 50/100, some 61/100, and some 80/100. Other Allied units seem to be unchanged.

John 3rd -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/23/2010 11:38:48 PM)
We'll need to pull up a vanilla Scen One and do some comparisons to see how different things are from standard. A quick perusal should be fairly easy. Michael--Since you are playing the Allies in ours would you be interested in checking this out?

ny59giants -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/24/2010 12:08:34 AM)
Having all those extra mouths to feed in China is going to hurt in a few months. I don't have enough supplies there already. The Chinese will be unable to do much offensively after a few rounds of combat due to the TO&E being filled out.

bklooste -> RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 (5/24/2010 12:50:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants Having all those extra mouths to feed in China is going to hurt in a few months. I don't have enough supplies there already. The Chinese will be unable to do much offensively after a few rounds of combat due to the TO&E being filled out. Not sure that is correct, they run out of supply anyway in most games (esp if strat bombing is not banned). This way you just suicide 2/3 of your army in the first 1-2 months using your supply stock - who cares about the losses your going to be in a better situation , end result is a weakened Japan vs a very experienced chinese army which can then wait to re supply his experienced units . The last thing Japan needs in 41 / early 42 is to send a stack of units to China though it will make the Chinese theater very interesting.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.169922