RE: RA 6.0 (Full Version)

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



Message

Symon -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/14/2013 3:59:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred
I sent a pm to JWE and asked his review.

Got it. Thank you.

Devices 001 – 088, 103 – 145, 256 – 517, and 529 – 690 are vestiges from the old WiTP days. They have “original” original 2009 WiTP data values. These values are bad and do not work within the game system.

Recommend people delete these devices to avoid confusion. All of BigBabes has these devices deleted.

Also think you have a different device file than any of the ones used in BigBabes. Device 1064 3.7” Mk VI AA is of a type and has specs way different from what’s shown on the screen shot. I suspect you are using a pre-2011 device file. Michaelm made major changes made to the code in this area, before release of UpdateComp-v1108r9 (the last ‘official’ one) and all gun specs are modified to fit within the system. Believe your device file is 2 generations behind.

JuanG is exactly right; if it’s a DP gun, the data you see in the editor is for the Naval combat portion of the code. You have to look at columns V, W, X, and Y in the WiTPdevxxx.csv file to see Sec_Attrib, Sec_Eff, Sec_Pen, Sec_Acc data values for the AA combat portion of the code.

Ciao. JWE



Symon -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/14/2013 4:21:08 PM)

Also, there's a lot of different data out there, from many different modders, as well as a few revisions to Babes. I've noticed several different departures.

Think I need to get off my butt and finalize this aspect: publish the spreadsheets, along with the algorithms. They will be in the same form and format as a device csv file, and with the same UnitNumbers so replacement can be a simple one-to-one cut-and-paste operation.

A few other notes. Don't forget that the game code dinks with a gun's data depending on the year, so AA data needs to adapted to 1945 and go backwards in order to work properly (with respect to the other side's guns) in the early/mid war period. Also, don't forget the altitude band effects/reductions: a gun with a lower Acc but higher Ceiling may well have the same "AA effectivity" as a gun with higher Acc, within its "envelope". One cannot use the raw performance specs as a judge. One must take "everything" into account: eff-ceiling, eff-slant, fuse cutters, fire-directors, mount-characteristics, yadda-yadda-yadda.[8D][8D][8D]

Ciao. John



bigred -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/15/2013 3:22:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon


quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred
I sent a pm to JWE and asked his review.

Got it. Thank you.

Devices 001 – 088, 103 – 145, 256 – 517, and 529 – 690 are vestiges from the old WiTP days. They have “original” original 2009 WiTP data values. These values are bad and do not work within the game system.

Recommend people delete these devices to avoid confusion. All of BigBabes has these devices deleted.

Also think you have a different device file than any of the ones used in BigBabes. Device 1064 3.7” Mk VI AA is of a type and has specs way different from what’s shown on the screen shot. I suspect you are using a pre-2011 device file. Michaelm made major changes made to the code in this area, before release of UpdateComp-v1108r9 (the last ‘official’ one) and all gun specs are modified to fit within the system. Believe your device file is 2 generations behind.

JuanG is exactly right; if it’s a DP gun, the data you see in the editor is for the Naval combat portion of the code. You have to look at columns V, W, X, and Y in the WiTPdevxxx.csv file to see Sec_Attrib, Sec_Eff, Sec_Pen, Sec_Acc data values for the AA combat portion of the code.

Ciao. JWE

Also note I am operating RA version 1. I suspect RA 6.0 will have all the updated data. So my post may be of no great issue.

I also note a big differential between the mk2 and the DPmk4. I wonder if the 3.7"mk2 needs a look also.

Not many AFBs around here so I feel a need to speak up when I might spot an allied issue. Thanks ALL for the response and explanation.



Cpt Sherwood -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/15/2013 4:53:52 AM)

In RA 5.5 CVE Saiyen( class # 1892 and 1893) has the intended aircraft sorties in the ammo box instead of the armor box. Thus, they have 0 sorties. They also have their torpedo allotment in the ammo box instead of the armor box.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/15/2013 4:14:00 PM)

Lordy. Life takes over for four days and I look over here and spot this! Great discussion and commentary. Need to read all of it thoroughly and will then comment.

FatR: To answer your question, I haven't had time to do NADA. Michael has been going through the Allied side with his suggestion Posted earlier.

Please check my most recent Postings over in the AAR. Really NEED to free-up a bit of time to help here and fell like I have dropped the ball big time!



vonmoltke -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/17/2013 1:54:53 AM)

If you need any help, John, I have a few hours free a night for the next few days. I could do database QA or something like that.



razanon -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/17/2013 3:51:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vonmoltke

If you need any help, John, I have a few hours free a night for the next few days. I could do database QA or something like that.



and me im a graphic designer too... if you need something related about interface or SHIP art i can help (few posts ago i put the (CL ART needed)



Cavalry Corp -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/20/2013 2:43:13 PM)

KAITENs have better accuracy (they had identical to standard torpedoes) from Inquisitors mod - maybe this should be applied to this mod as well as Kaiten are man controlled???



witpqs -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/20/2013 3:49:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

KAITENs have better accuracy (they had identical to standard torpedoes) from Inquisitors mod - maybe this should be applied to this mod as well as Kaiten are man controlled???

I saw/read (forget where) recently that Kaiten had much worse accuracy than standard sub-launched torpedoes. The theory was good, but in practice they were difficult to control, the biggest factor being poor visibility.



Cpt Sherwood -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/24/2013 3:04:41 AM)

Any new update on when this mod might be ready? It has been about 22 days since John said it would be ready in 10. [8D]



bigred -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/24/2013 4:44:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Any new update on when this mod might be ready? It has been about 22 days since John said it would be ready in 10. [8D]

Some people have a life...



Cpt Sherwood -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/24/2013 4:51:08 AM)

Please excuse my ignorance. I don't want to interrupt your lives with any questions. Just forget about it, I'll look elsewhere.



MateDow -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/24/2013 7:54:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Any new update on when this mod might be ready? It has been about 22 days since John said it would be ready in 10. [8D]


Real life happened with John. He has suspended his PBEM and AARs in an effort to get some time back. I think that one of his goals is to work on the mod, but it might not be completed until after "life" happens.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/27/2013 4:35:29 AM)

Thanks Matedow!

I apologize for not jumping on earlier. Things have been CRAZY--BUSY as described above. I am taking a couple of weeks off from the game. Just got back from a quick 48 trip to see my life-long friend of 33 years in Kansas City. Got to see my Royals for the first time in eight years at Kauffman Stadium and they even WON 7--1! NICE. [sm=00000436.gif] Just got back tonight.

The PLAN is to try to work on RA 6.0 next week. SHOULD have time for doing this. I know a bunch of you want to play the new version and am sorry for the hold-up on this but life (work, family, WORK, and time spent on our restoration of our caboose) has truly taken over for the last 2-3 weeks. Will stay the same until the boys start school August 12th. Will Post updates as I get the nose to the grindstone with the Mod.




John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/27/2013 4:36:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Any new update on when this mod might be ready? It has been about 22 days since John said it would be ready in 10. [8D]


Sorry Cpt. I know you REALLY want to get started...




Cpt Sherwood -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/27/2013 4:41:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Any new update on when this mod might be ready? It has been about 22 days since John said it would be ready in 10. [8D]


Sorry Cpt. I know you REALLY want to get started...




I understand, I was just interested in the status. I have advertised for either a scenario 2 or 5.5 RA game. I might not get any takers by the time you guys get done. We will just have to wait and see.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/28/2013 3:50:19 AM)

Game Plan:

Just found out that my wife has been asked to help with VBS (Vacation Bible School) Mon--Fri night next week. I just MIGHT have 5-8pm open to work on the Mod EACH day. If this is true then I can get things done and ready by the end of the week. Want to do a bunch of little things to work on the Allied Side to help them them a few little surprises... [sm=00000289.gif]

Will detail when I begin the work on Monday Night.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/28/2013 3:55:33 PM)

I've got to work out the bugs in Dan and I's game FIRST and then I shift to 6.0.

As I see it, the plan will be to re-read the Thread and make notes of all suggestions made for the Allied Side and then decide what is creative and interesting to add.

Things remembered:
1. Aircraft Cruiser Charlotte starting with the Pensacola TF at Darwin. Will start with 12 Buffalo and 6 SBD. The planes will be allowed to upgrade to F4F-3/-4 and stay Dauntless. Ship is WAY too small to handle any of the later aircraft.
2. An American RCT somewhere in the South Pacific with escort.
3. A serious check of aircraft production numbers as per Michael's detailed recommendations.
4. Perhaps a slightly further development of Pago Pago...

Japanese Side:
1. Review of FatR changes.
2. Placement of additional merchant hulls to allow for initial movement. This is quite important since the carrying capacity of hulls has been lowered.
3. Review of aircraft production numbers, industry, and other points.

The MAP:
1. I want to incorporate the recommendation regarding Ramree to make that a much more realistic base for either side.
2. China and India Garrison requirement additions to slow offensives and reinforcements for BOTH sides.
3. Several other recommended changes on map and bases are within the Thread and I need to find them.

These are my goals for the week...

A lot of you have 'pet' ideas and items you might like to see worked on. NOW is the time for you to jump in! If you are an RA player PLEASE contribute thoughts. If you are not, you are welcome to add to the discussion...



Cavalry Corp -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/29/2013 2:15:52 PM)

All worth the wait I am sure
Like the idea of further improving Garrison levels- too much action In china and too early in Burma - agreed.
When this come out I will post for a game.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/29/2013 2:22:47 PM)

Pet ideas for jap side mainly

Can you make a couple of Jap subs have AV style support(as they did) to support 1 or 2 seaplanes? Is the Seiran SP included?
cannot remember if you allowed or had a good reason not to allow the old Jap CL to become CLAA?
Do the Japs have a chance to build a 4E bomber?

How about another couple of French ships?



John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/29/2013 4:07:19 PM)

OK. I am taking notes from the beginning of this Thread to now for pertinent changes to my area of work.

Cavalry: Thanks. I do believe that FatR added the CLAA upgrade possibility to the old CLs. Will check. We have the French in Perfect War. Might be a thought...

Certainly raising the Gar requirements of India and China. Will do it equally for both sides so it stays 'fair.'



ny59giants -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/29/2013 6:30:43 PM)

In China, there may need to be an adjustment in Light Industry at start and what is disabled to help them out. Where and how much, I don't have any idea.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/29/2013 6:32:23 PM)

Suggestions there?

Michael: What about disabling the US Economy more? I know you've looked at that a BUNCH!



John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/29/2013 6:38:43 PM)

Just created new Folder entitled RA--6.0, newest Beta, and extended map installed. THINK that is everything needed!



John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/29/2013 7:00:09 PM)

Install looking great. Just opened FatR's work on 6.0. Holy CATS! There are some serious changes here that the ALLIES will love. You didn't mention some of this FatR. Talk about some surprises...

HINT: Did someone ask for some Free Frenchies? [:'(]



John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/29/2013 7:00:46 PM)

Michael did you LOOK at the starting Allied Naval Forces and dispositions?



ny59giants -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/29/2013 7:38:55 PM)

The last version I have is from 6/29. Has FatR sent you a newer version?? The were errors I posted before about the French ships, lack or alternative upgrades (TK/AO to CVE, old CL to CLAA, etc.), and some airframes issues for the Allies.

If you have new version, please send it.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (7/29/2013 8:13:31 PM)

Am not sure if it is newer or not but I have sent the file.



John 3rd -> USS (CLV-1) Charlotte (7/30/2013 3:01:28 AM)

Like you to be introduced to a lovely Lady:



[image]local://upfiles/18041/E35ED9E71DA3499DA6805F5780A7CE84.jpg[/image]



John 3rd -> RE: USS (CLV-1) Charlotte (7/30/2013 3:02:50 AM)

There will have to be House Rule regarding Charlotte. She is not capable to anything bigger then F4F/FM and SBD. I'd prefer her to carry 16 Fighters and 8 DB but the Navy Specs list 12 and 12.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.09375