RE: CV Shinano (Full Version)

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



Message

MateDow -> RE: CV Shinano (12/7/2011 5:42:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

The thing about the liner conversions, the link that Don sent me would be ships that the allied player would not want to give up. One of them that comes to mind was the Wakefield. I would rather convert more AO's to CVE's or more Cleveland's to Independence.

For the record, in RA the Omaha conversion is 120 days. Its a nice addition to the Allied OB for convoy escort and amphib close support.


I think that was the case originally when it came to the liner conversions. It would be nice to have the option I guess. Heck, I always want the option to convert some to AMCs, but I am old fashioned that way.



oldman45 -> RE: CV Shinano (12/7/2011 8:11:02 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

The thing about the liner conversions, the link that Don sent me would be ships that the allied player would not want to give up. One of them that comes to mind was the Wakefield. I would rather convert more AO's to CVE's or more Cleveland's to Independence.

For the record, in RA the Omaha conversion is 120 days. Its a nice addition to the Allied OB for convoy escort and amphib close support.


I think that was the case originally when it came to the liner conversions. It would be nice to have the option I guess. Heck, I always want the option to convert some to AMCs, but I am old fashioned that way.


I am actually with ya on this in so far as I like to have many conversion options.



John 3rd -> RE: CV Shinano (12/8/2011 3:23:44 PM)

Concur on the liners. We had set a few AOs and the Kittyhawk/Hammondsport to be able to convert to CVEs in RA. Seemed to work reasonably well there.



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (12/9/2011 3:00:01 PM)

No more comments on air side? By the way, we'll need some new art, although most of it could consist of existing planes in new color schemes. I'll post a list once the final list is determined.

EDIT: To kfsgo - can you, please send me your shipsides' art, so I'll add it to the scenario?



DOCUP -> RE: CV Shinano (12/9/2011 4:23:35 PM)

Is it the Big Babes C scen you guys are using for the basis of this mod?  If so I want to take a peak at the OOB and changes before you guys roll out this game.



MateDow -> RE: CV Shinano (12/9/2011 4:57:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Concur on the liners. We had set a few AOs and the Kittyhawk/Hammondsport to be able to convert to CVEs in RA. Seemed to work reasonably well there.



There should probably be some liners available for xCVL conversions as well. I'll see what I can find in my references for possibilities. It would be a tough choice for many players since those large liners are very useful for moving troops around.



oldman45 -> RE: CV Shinano (12/9/2011 5:35:16 PM)

This is the link that Don had sent me.

CVE Conversions



MateDow -> RE: CV Shinano (12/9/2011 8:41:51 PM)

Here is another link, unfortunately, it doesn't have any details about the conversions, only that they were planned.

US Liner Conversions



kfsgo -> RE: CV Shinano (12/9/2011 8:43:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

No more comments on air side? By the way, we'll need some new art, although most of it could consist of existing planes in new color schemes. I'll post a list once the final list is determined.

EDIT: To kfsgo - can you, please send me your shipsides' art, so I'll add it to the scenario?


I think this is everything I've done so far that currently has an in-game entity.



MateDow -> RE: CV Shinano (12/9/2011 9:41:14 PM)

I moved the discussion about US liner conversions to the Allied side of these threads.



John 3rd -> RE: CV Shinano (12/10/2011 4:18:01 AM)

I saw. That is a pretty good pair of sites the two of you put out there



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (12/10/2011 11:23:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo
I think this is everything I've done so far that currently has an in-game entity.


Thanks! Meanwhile I finished ironing out heavy cruisers (I afraid I got into the airgroups list to add necessary airgroups, but if you've need to work on this list, don't worry, I'll just redo this work later) and did all changes to 1E fighters discussed above. Decided to make Ki-61 go to Ki-100s, after all - we already have art and stuff, and the direction is sensible enough, moreover, I found that Ki-100 was in the works before the Kawasaki engine factory got bombed, so they wanted to do it anyway IRL. Ki-100-I is available in mid-1944 (not big deal at this point) and Ki-100-II with its good high-altitude stats in mid-1945.



kfsgo -> RE: CV Shinano (12/10/2011 11:59:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo
I think this is everything I've done so far that currently has an in-game entity.


Thanks! Meanwhile I finished ironing out heavy cruisers (I afraid I got into the airgroups list to add necessary airgroups, but if you've need to work on this list, don't worry, I'll just redo this work later) and did all changes to 1E fighters discussed above. Decided to make Ki-61 go to Ki-100s, after all - we already have art and stuff, and the direction is sensible enough, moreover, I found that Ki-100 was in the works before the Kawasaki engine factory got bombed, so they wanted to do it anyway IRL. Ki-100-I is available in mid-1944 (not big deal at this point) and Ki-100-II with its good high-altitude stats in mid-1945.


Everything I've done so far is confined to LCUs; anything I am likely to do with airgroups in the future should be confined to the USAAF/CW sector, which are in a nice separate block and can be merged into a post-modification scenario with witpload painlessly. So, go nuts.



John 3rd -> 'War' Progress (12/13/2011 5:47:58 PM)

Been a few days so how is it coming fellas?



John 3rd -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/19/2011 6:57:51 PM)

Bump: Any progress Gents?



kfsgo -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/20/2011 7:29:01 AM)

China is mostly 'done' (it won't be Done until a couple of people play through it for a year or so and I can see what happens, I guess, but still) but I am trying to pump out one last bit of uni work before the holiday season kicks in - ideally I should have the thing ready to merge around the end of the week.



John 3rd -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/20/2011 7:32:48 AM)

GREAT!

FatR?



FatR -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/21/2011 5:49:45 PM)

I wrote down 2E fighters changes as proposed above, and ship changes up to destroyers. Unfortunately, my job situation still gives little respite, as my opponents can unfortunately attest. I'll have the rest of the air proposals in my head, but no time to write them down. I hope to get to it around New Year.



kfsgo -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/22/2011 11:38:29 AM)

John: I sent you an e-mail on China; I think it's pretty much good to go (on a "there will be stuff I forgot" basis, so subject to modifications!)

Next on the agenda is the merger of Commonwealth aircraft types, if that's ok with everyone - I pretty much know what I'm doing with that (having done it for a couple of personal mini-scenarios) so I will crack on with it and if it's not felt desirable then no harm done. Not like I have much else to do at the moment...



John 3rd -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/22/2011 7:20:10 PM)

kfsgo: I have not seen an email. Could you resend please? Make sure to send a copy over to FatR as well.

As to Commonwealth planes, I think FatR should should onto that one. What do you think Stanislav?



FatR -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/22/2011 11:15:51 PM)

Kfsgo, do you want to do this merge yourself, so that I should send you the files for now?

Also, my job situation finally shows signs of improvement, so I hope that I will be able to finish everything fleet and aviation related in January.

Another note - I thought about end-war Japanese aircraft more, maybe we should just include all of the and let the player choose? We'll need someone to draw them, though.

Yet another note, not entirely mod-related - I just noticed that radars on most Japanese nightfighters in stock actually are surface search radars... And this was pretty much true to RL state of their air search radar development. Only S1A (1/46) and Ki-102c (10/45) nightfighters have radars that actually do something. Just wanted to give a warning, if anyone thinks that radar-equipped Francices and Irvings will help them. Given nature of the mod, Japanese get a little bit of break here, but take note, that now the first nightfighter with proper radar (J1N3) is available 4/45, and the first one capable of actually catching most of the newer Allied bombers (S1A1) 9/45.
I must note that I mellowed out a bit about Allied night bombing rampage in stock. You just have to grit your teeth, and accept the casualties, because you can afford to lose airframes. Of course sending your most worthess 1E fighters to die in night A2A (as far as I know, Bigred has multiple 4E aces by now, thanks to it) instead of more expensive twin-engine planes is ahistorical, but c'est la vie. In this mod, if we plan to seriously expand Allied air numbers, this issue needs further investigation, though.



DOCUP -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/23/2011 1:13:13 AM)

Put me in coach, I'll play centerfield  ahh I mean Allies.  I beta test it for you all.



kfsgo -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/23/2011 2:40:42 AM)

Sure, I can do it myself - shouldn't take more than ten minutes or so. You should have my e-mail address - geo[etc]@gmail.com - as I cced you in on the one yesterday.



John 3rd -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/23/2011 4:52:55 AM)

GREAT to read solid and positive progress. Thanks DOCUP for volunteering...



kfsgo -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/23/2011 2:57:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Yet another note, not entirely mod-related - I just noticed that radars on most Japanese nightfighters in stock actually are surface search radars... And this was pretty much true to RL state of their air search radar development.


Remember that per the recent changes to nightfighter interaction with radar, radar devices on nightfighters are treated as air-search radars even if they're not defined as such in the database, I guess to cover just this sort of problem.



FatR -> RE: 'War' Progress (12/23/2011 4:51:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo
Remember that per the recent changes to nightfighter interaction with radar, radar devices on nightfighters are treated as air-search radars even if they're not defined as such in the database, I guess to cover just this sort of problem.


Ah, that's good to know, I guess I missed the news. Earlier (current on my version of the game) state of Japanese nightfighting capabilities is one of those things like flak which might be historical in itself (no, as you might remember if you followed RA discussion, I don't think that stock flak was the least bit underpowered, with shooting down 20-30% of the attackers in 1945), but starts to fail in its function when confronted with other aspects in the game. I do hope devs will make night defensive bomber fire less murderous. Even Georges stand little chance against it, and these are the best combination of firepower and protection JFBs will have until well into 1945.

I just sent the files to you, please return them when you can.



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (12/23/2011 7:20:44 PM)

Thanks for the files, kfsgo. New look of China is very impressive, although I can't dig deeply into it right now.



DOCUP -> RE: CV Shinano (12/24/2011 12:52:56 AM)

Your welcome John.  I don't have the skills or the knowledge to help with the mod.  But I do like the way it sounds.  So I will do what I can to help you all out.



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (12/25/2011 10:09:24 AM)

A few more notes:

- On expanding Allied production. While in 1942-43 greater numbers of planes at the Pacific can primarily appear at the cost of other theatres, in 1944 US already started reducing their military program IRL because the perspective of victory was obvious. Some players notice a drop-off in fighter reinforcements in second half of 1944 and complain about it. In case of stronger Japan, 1944's US air reinforcements can be increased by several times. Any tweaks in this area so far, John (I don't have time to read the entire Allied side thread)?

- I believe we need to reduce accuracy for 4E defensive armament, after all (not for other bombers, these are undergunned, for both sides).



John 3rd -> Status (1/13/2012 4:02:07 PM)

Same question as in the Allied Thread. What is our status here? What is left to do?



Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.671875