RE: Tanks and A-T (Full Version)

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



Message

Cavalry Corp -> RE: Tanks and A-T (6/15/2012 1:47:56 PM)

John,

Not hijacking your ideas but ...
If you wanted to get more allied players interested in this mod...

How about making the Midway super CV available at say end 44? That is a monster.

you mentioned there were some more CLAA for the allies - not sure I saw them but it was a quick look -

CAV



John 3rd -> RE: Tanks and A-T (6/15/2012 10:20:52 PM)

All the Omaha's CLs are available for CLAA conversion starting 1-42.

Perks:
1. The Allies get additional TK--AO Conversion to CVEs. Kittyhawk and her sister can additionally be converted to CVE. This allows for up to 8 CVEs in 1942.
2. Several new CVL and CLs.

Everything is designed as stopgap measures until the Two Ocean Fleet comes into being in late-43.



John 3rd -> Allied Perks (6/15/2012 10:38:04 PM)

Additional Allied Add-Ons:

1. A whole WING (54 Planes) of A-24s in the DEI that don't have to be withdrawn.
2. Additional starting warships in varying locations.
3. Forward deployed LCUs at vital locations (Pago Pago, Cocos, Pr Blair, etc...)
4. Chinese Garrison requirements that slowdown the war there.
5. 3 Naval Training Squadrons and 3 Army Training Squadrons (each are 36 Plane units) to reflect an Allied Opportunity to do Japanese-Style On-Map Training.

Do I need to keep going? This is a FANTASTIC Mod for either side. This is why I am starting an Allied game to demonstrate these things. I plan to PUMMEL my Japanese Opponent!

[:'(]



viberpol -> RE: Allied Perks (6/16/2012 12:43:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Do I need to keep going? This is a FANTASTIC Mod for either side. This is why I am starting an Allied game to demonstrate these things. I plan to PUMMEL my Japanese Opponent!

[:'(]


Pride comes before a fall... [;)]
John, did you get my comments both on database changes and HRs?
Waiting for your feedback then.... [8D]



Kitakami -> RE: Allied Perks (6/16/2012 1:04:19 AM)

John, you have convinced me. RA 4.4 (unless there is a 4.5 before I return from a funeral on Monday) shall be my next game. I even found an opponent that needs to play as slowly as I do! AAR will be slow, but it will be geared towards new players to look at, ask questions, etc. Hopefully The War of the Training Cruisers will begin within a fortnight :)



khyberbill -> RE: Allied Perks (6/16/2012 3:41:55 AM)

quote:

1. A whole WING (54 Planes) of A-24s in the DEI that don't have to be withdrawn.


These make an interesting addition and this is for sure a fun Mod for the Allied player.



Don Bowen -> RE: Allied Perks (6/16/2012 4:54:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

1. A whole WING (54 Planes) of A-24s in the DEI that don't have to be withdrawn.


These make an interesting addition and this is for sure a fun Mod for the Allied player.


Although 54 aircraft in the US Army Air Corps would be a Group....

The US and British systems are so confusing. Group and Wing are reversed between he two. A British Brigade is a US Regiment, a British Regiment is a US Battalion, a US (Army) Squadron equates to a British Battalion, while a British Atmy Squadron is a US Troop. A US Troop, of course, is a British Company and a British Troop a US Platoon.

Go figure.



John 3rd -> RE: Allied Perks (6/16/2012 5:11:05 AM)

Thanks Guys.

There will be a 4.5 this weekend. Worked a bit on it before taking the family to see Avengers for the SECOND time. Rousingly fun action film in my opinion!

This is what I did:
1. Following Michael's request, I worked on some leaders within the IJN who might be more capable of leading a few of the SNLF Assault Brigades.
2. Fixed the issues detailed by Viperpol regarding SNLF Squads. They now upgrade in 1943 and STAY that way.
3. Worked on allowing the Light Tanks to go to Type 2 Light Tank.

Kyberbill: Good to hear from you. Too bad our play didn't coincide so we could rematch! Appreciate the comments regarding the Mod.

Did I miss anything above?

Viperpol: Don't think I'll have time to respond tonight but will tomorrow if possible. It is Paula and I's 10th Anniversary and I intend to be unavoidably detained for a good chunk of time tomorrow. Sunday is wide open though...



John 3rd -> RE: Allied Perks (6/16/2012 6:39:19 AM)

Think I fixed the ship art issue as well. Found the Kuma-Class CLs didn't have the right piece of art to use so it wouldn't appear. Fixed it and now I can see the ship.

To be safe I copied all the Japanese Ship Art into a Zip Files and will send it to FatR to make sure it is present and available on the site.



John 3rd -> RE: Allied Perks (6/16/2012 7:39:36 AM)

Files sent.



khyberbill -> RE: Allied Perks (6/16/2012 10:36:30 AM)

quote:

oo bad our play didn't coincide so we could rematch!

I know you are afraid of me and you should not be ashamed to admit it. And I would kick your ass in Oz just like I did at PH (now the largest artificial reef in the AE world) where I sacrificed BB after BB and CV's galore for the greater good![:)]



moonraker65 -> RE: Allied Perks (6/16/2012 11:01:33 AM)

Can I just ask - Is there a major difference that is likely to affect game performance between RA 4.3 (The version I am using in my Allies v Jap AI game now) and 4.4 or 4.5. Should I overwrite the existing files with the new ones ?



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Allied Perks (6/16/2012 12:06:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
The US and British systems are so confusing.


A while ago I came across a story of British carrier pilots landing on US carriers. When the landing signal officer was holding his paddles high for signaling "too high", the British pilots went even higher. When holding the paddles low signaling "too low", the British pilots went even lower. The confusion was due to the fact that the USN and RN-FAA used different signaling systems - the USN indicating the relative position of the aircraft and the RN-FAA giving orders to the pilot. Hence holding the paddles up meant "too high" for US pilots but "go higher" for the Brits...

Sorry, slightly OT...



FatR -> RE: Tanks and A-T (6/16/2012 1:31:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol

OK. But the question is: does AA LCU are treated the same way as AT LCUs during combat?

Yes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol
FatR, it's not about making them stronger... or adding extra divisions... Speaking about logic.

Logically, the only way to model scarcity of Japanese armor and AT guns in the game is to leave some units with no upgrades, because otherwise everyone will be using brand new tanks and 47mm AT guns soon after their month of availabilty.

So, while I agree that Type 2 anti-soft stats seem too low for no reason I disagree with letting everything upgrade to new types. State of Japanese ground armament late in the war should be a big "Deal With It" situation. As about economic cost, this is only a drawback if Japanese economy is not supercharged. I have a feeling that stockpile reduction in Scen 70 might actually become a big factor if a player goes crazy with industry expansions, but cannot confirm that. In normal scenarios Japan can pretty much build whatever it wants. I might support letting everything upgrade in Perfect War, where the Japanese industry will have more restrictions (if we'll ever finish that mod), but not here.

Well, it seems that upgrade to type 2 is already in the 4.5 version of the scenario... This will boost units stuck with Type 95 considerably, not so much for Type 98. While this is no big deal next to hordes of Type 1 and Type 3 mediums available already, I still don't like this. But, as John wishes.

EDIT: I strongly disagree with letting all Japanese AT guns upgrating to 47mm Type 1, though. It greatly relieves Japanese AT defense problem from the beginning of 1943. Currently, I need to plan my defense of outlying islands around the fact that nearly any amount of Allied armor can massacre unsupported SNLFs. With Type 1s everywhere... not so sure about that. Technically they don't seem to have enough penetration for dealing with vanilla Shermans, but I've seen seemingly good results against Allied armor where I had Arty units with these guns as support.


Meanwhile, I've added the new scenario files to the site.




FatR -> RE: Tanks and A-T (6/16/2012 1:34:52 PM)

Nevermind, doublepost.



John 3rd -> RE: Tanks and A-T (6/16/2012 2:35:19 PM)

I didn't touch the A-T abilities of the IJA. Historic weakness that doesn't fit RA. Only things I touched for the IJA were fixing the 'soft' score to 14 and allowing the upgrade move to Type 2. Tanks were another totally historical weakness. Having just read Nomonhan and the Tank action there it astounds me that the Japanese didn't FIX this issue with the IJA. If this is totally inappropriate FatR please sound off and let me know.

Everything else--as normal--went to the IJN if there were changes.

Thanks for Posting the Files.



FatR -> RE: Tanks and A-T (6/16/2012 2:46:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I didn't touch the A-T abilities of the IJA. Historic weakness that doesn't fit RA. Only things I touched for the IJA were fixing the 'soft' score to 14 and allowing the upgrade move to Type 2. Tanks were another totally historical weakness. Having just read Nomonhan and the Tank action there it astounds me that the Japanese didn't FIX this issue with the IJA. If this is totally inappropriate FatR please sound off and let me know.

Device 735 (37mm Type 1) now upgrades to Device 736 (47mm Type 1), which meand all Jap AT guns will end as 47mm Type 1 once it becomes available. I don't see this in Scen 1-2 or in older versions of RA. I think this will greatly enhance Japanese AT capabilities and is not really appopriate. Can fix it right now and repost on the site.



viberpol -> RE: Tanks and A-T (6/16/2012 3:15:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
EDIT: I strongly disagree with letting all Japanese AT guns upgrating to 47mm Type 1, though. It greatly relieves Japanese AT defense problem from the beginning of 1943. Currently, I need to plan my defense of outlying islands around the fact that nearly any amount of Allied armor can massacre unsupported SNLFs. With Type 1s everywhere... not so sure about that. Technically they don't seem to have enough penetration for dealing with vanilla Shermans, but I've seen seemingly good results against Allied armor where I had Arty units with these guns as support.


FatR, that upgrade had been introduced earlier
if not from the very beginning of DaBabes mod you've based the RA on...

As Kitakami pointed it out:
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami
- In RA 4.4, device 734 upgrades to device 735, which in turn upgrades to device 736. I believe it should stay as is.


So in RA 4.4 (the first and last I ever seen) every Japanese AT ends with 47 mm AT gun.

I only commented on adding some late war (meaning '45) upgrade for those 47 mm AT guns such as 57 or 75 mm AT guns.
But if they're not added, I'll not for me to cry out loudly... [;)]



Again, let me repeat that there's an important factor that sometimes is just ignored by AFBs.
Do you know how much it costs in resources to upgrade a single device for Japan?
When the resources are limited (as it is in RA) every upgrade can be very costly, so players should think it out very cautiously...

Speaking about tanks...
Here are official info concerning the real life production (41 - 44, about 4,6k tanks) and compared to (should be called "boosted") capabilities of my economy from a real time PBEM scenario (scen 2, date 9.44, about 5,4k tanks?; compare column "used" roughly meaning "produced"). I don't see a really big difference (in numbers) between RL amounts and a PBEM.

The real difference throws at my eyes is that type 97 medium tanks were IRL produced in bigger numbers than in PBEM, while AE scenarios 1 or 2 (stock) allows to upgrade it all into Type 1 and/or directly to Type 3, which is kind of a decent tank. But it had always been like that! (WITP or AE)

Secondly, IRL those type 95/98 light tanks really has been modified and upgraded (as I quoted, mainly into Type 4 Ke-Nu) which is not reflected in this synthetic comparison.

(Scenario 2 being compared gives more resources/opportunities than the Empire really had.
I think I will not be so lucky to get that many resources in RA to allow frequent upgrades of TOEs).

[image]local://upfiles/18529/CF7C4DBF354741819804ED91EC8D1CFB.jpg[/image]



FatR -> RE: Tanks and A-T (6/16/2012 3:39:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol
FatR, that upgrade had been introduced earlier
if not from the very beginning of DaBabes mod you've based the RA on...

Actually yes, it is in Babes. I still don't like this luxury, hopefully devs based this decision on more experience than I have...

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol
Do you know how much it costs in resources to upgrade a single device for Japan?

I don't remember exact vehicle/armament point upgrade costs per device. I know that in RA 4.1 I ended up rather short on supply and (to a lesser extent) fuel, but that was after accelerating all Unryu CVs in conjunction with a massive research programm and stockpiling armaments and vehicles well above the necessary baseline for arriving units.






viberpol -> RE: Tanks and A-T (6/16/2012 3:59:07 PM)

When a non-vehicle weapon or squad is required to fill out or replace a ground unit element armament points are expended. 1 armament point and manpower points equal to the load cost of the squad will be expended from their pools for each squad. For weapons, armament points and manpower points will be expended equal to the load cost of the device.

So if 47 AT gun has a load of 7, upgrade of 1500 37 mm guns (only counting the starting value in RA, new LCUs bring more weapons!) costs 10 500 armament points and 10 500 manpower, which is half of the starting armament/manpower pools (20k/30k)… and this is only a single device that is due to be upgraded during the war. So IMHO every device upgrade is quite a factor to think about. [;)]
Upgrading vehicles steals also vehicle points which is quite scarce in the Japanese Empire. [:(]

Of course there is a way to limit those "all over the board" upgrades... but it means more modding and creating more TOE upgrade shells (id est an upgrade for every single LCU when compared with single device ID upgrade). [;)]




PaxMondo -> RE: Tanks and A-T (6/16/2012 4:00:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol
Do you know how much it costs in resources to upgrade a single device for Japan?

I don't remember exact vehicle/armament point upgrade costs per device.

Based upon load cost. As viperpol states, for IJ, very $$$$. You need to carefully consider upgrades or you will run out of ARM points (and especially VEH pts) and then your arriving units will arrive at only 1/3 strength. [:(]



John 3rd -> RE: Tanks and A-T (6/16/2012 10:42:22 PM)

FatR got me thinking about something and then some of the questions on the preceeding page provoked some thoughts:

When you load the Scenario be aware of all the bells and whistles:
1. New Plane Art
2. New Ship Art
3. The magnificent Loading Screens and additional pages made by SuluSea

These are all available on JWE's great site.

Always make your RA Mod a separate folder within your AE Games. The Mod is NOT COMPATIBLE with the standard stuff. Only work with our updates so things stay OK.

Thought this might clarify things some.



Iridium -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 (6/17/2012 2:07:20 AM)

Great looking mod (4.5), I have one question though: Is the 1200 naval shipyard point deficit a day intentional? If so where to begin cutting in order to break even... hmm. Seems interesting overall.



moonraker65 -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 (6/17/2012 9:58:44 AM)

I have overwritten the 4.3 SCEN files with the 4.5 ones. Updated the art ok. The only stuff I can't see is the loading screens and additional pages. Is there a specific location for these to go ?



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 (6/17/2012 8:05:22 PM)

The Art by Sulusea should be right there on the Babes Site with RA. I'll take a quick look. It is wonderful work he did. Remember that he did Loading Screens for the Japanese as well as ALLIED players.

Iridium: Choices must be made but your deficit should not be that great. To keep my production going (including Yamato and then Musashi) I've pretty much stopped all my I-Boats until August 42 (Musashi's completion).



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 (6/17/2012 8:06:35 PM)

Just checked. Click my link on my Footer and then click the Art page. You will see the Loading and Screens option right there.



Iridium -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 (6/17/2012 8:23:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Iridium: Choices must be made but your deficit should not be that great. To keep my production going (including Yamato and then Musashi) I've pretty much stopped all my I-Boats until August 42 (Musashi's completion).



Well, this is what I'm showing on Turn 0, maybe it won't display properly till a turn has been completed? Or perhaps I've messed up the installation somewhere...

[image]local://upfiles/16037/682330BF37F94C988668A1E64B3AE2A7.jpg[/image]



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 (6/17/2012 10:05:53 PM)

It will straighten out after Turn One is run. This is--at least--what I THINK will happen! Post and let us know.



Iridium -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 (6/18/2012 12:41:03 AM)

Just did a turn for the sake of testing, seems to even out quite a bit. Now the deficit is just ~200 pts. Much more in line with what I was expecting, at -1200 you'd have to cancel half of the IJN's reinforcements to get ship production working effectively again.

[image]local://upfiles/16037/DC5DC13C3160460DA22EFA95C6B7B9BA.jpg[/image]



John 3rd -> RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 (6/18/2012 2:07:07 AM)

GOOD!

I always expand my Nvl Shipyards by 100-150 during the first months of the war. This tends to work fairly well. Still have to juggle the ships until Yamato and Musashi are out but it isn't too bad.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625