RE: 6.4 Release (Full Version)

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



Message

ny59giants -> RE: 6.4 Release (2/18/2014 10:13:48 PM)

Political Points at start:
Japan - 1000
Allies - 150

Was this your intent for version 6.6??

If so, then that explains why I'm seeing all those Manchurian Tank Rgts in China so soon. [X(]



Skyland -> RE: 6.6 Release (2/22/2014 10:30:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

833 "BC Dunkerque"


This ship art is STILL MIA!!! [X(] [:(]

I just got the two BCs at Panama and no ART. Get on it!


You can use the one attached.



John 3rd -> RE: 6.6 Release (2/22/2014 1:47:52 PM)

Fantastic. Thanks Skyland. Moving it to the French Art Folder.

Talked with Michael a couple of days ago and the starting Japanese PP number should be 800. I set this level early in RA to allow the Japanese to buy out the Imperial Guards Brigade if they so desired. Will change.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: 6.6 Release (2/26/2014 7:48:19 AM)

The Oyodo was commissioned and could carry 6 small FP and did in 43 later it was changed to just 2 after removing the hanger.
How is this modelled in the game as Oyodo with a capacity of 6 would be very useful indeed. Even if you agreed the had to be the Norm as a house rule???


I am not sure how its modelled in the game?




John 3rd -> RE: 6.6 Release (2/26/2014 3:40:30 PM)

That design is not in the game. We elected to go with the original design of 3x3 6" guns, good AA secondary, strong Torps, and just 2-3 planes. The good news is that you can build up to eight of them. They are the earliest class to come in with radar as well. Very VALUABLE!



Cavalry Corp -> RE: 6.6 Release (2/27/2014 7:15:20 AM)

OK noted at least you considered it and its your mod - in my scn 2 game I use her as raider just caught AV Langley and a DD an sank both.



btd64 -> RE: 6.6 Release (3/2/2014 2:40:06 PM)

John, is the french art folder updated? just checked and it has the 1/8/14 date. Thanks
cheers [sm=00000436.gif]



moore4807 -> RE: 6.6 Release (3/7/2014 9:40:17 PM)

I don't want to make this sound like sour grapes, but I was wondering why I can't even keep my CV groups at strength in this RA mod,
much less equipping any of the Marine groups with F4F3 or 3A's. Only EIGHT replacements per month? isn't that a LOT more severe than IRL????

[image]local://upfiles/493/DF9D3269224647B89EEA13683FD69063.jpg[/image]


Criminey! I'm losing that many planes in accidents per week! [:D][:D][:D]



John 3rd -> RE: 6.6 Release (3/8/2014 12:20:11 AM)

What is the F4F-4 replacement rate? THAT is where the replacements should be ramping up. Let me know.



moore4807 -> RE: 6.6 Release (3/8/2014 4:15:58 AM)

F4F replacement rate is 45, but the problem is as I noted to Michael in "our" AAR, IRL the eleven USN/USMC squadrons were completely switched over to F4F3/3A's by 2/42 (the game expansion)...
Right now 50% of my Marines are still flying F2A3 Buffs and I STILL cannot fill out the Navy groups now they are expanded to 27 because 8 planes doesn't even cover the monthly flying/training accidents or maintenance on the Navy Groups...

Maybe I'm not understanding the background - I believe I understand where the 8 replacement planes comes from, the 285 planes Grumman's Bethpage NY factory produced and divided by the months of production until upgrading... but the G.M. Eastern Aircraft Division's Trenton/Linden NJ factory began producing the FM-1/F4F-4 11 months before its introduced in the game. Those planes would be a huge help if they were released as they were IRL...



John 3rd -> RE: 6.6 Release (3/9/2014 8:07:35 PM)

Michael and Jim had an email exchange and everything is now OK.



ny59giants -> RE: 6.4 Release (4/11/2014 2:09:41 PM)

Free French Troops:

Since Japan seems to like New Caledonia [;)], there needs to be some changes to French OOB.

Change the French troops to Militia and have the replacement rate increased to about 4 per month. See LCU with ID 6263.

The BF (Screenshot) should have the regular 90mm AA guns, not the 43 version which is DP 90mm guns.

Don't forget the 2 FP groups need for the 2 French BC that come in late April '42 at Panama.



[image]local://upfiles/15133/AA4E24D0695947749CD23DAD9B88CD8D.jpg[/image]



oldman45 -> RE: 6.4 Release (4/11/2014 2:33:45 PM)

Why couldn't they be legionnaires?



ulysisgrunt -> RE: 6.4 Release (4/11/2014 4:50:35 PM)

Where may I find this scenario to download?

Many thanks

Danny Weitz



JuanG -> RE: 6.4 Release (4/11/2014 4:51:58 PM)

https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/



ny59giants -> RE: 6.4 Release (4/11/2014 6:10:02 PM)

Sir John,

Don't forget to do this change too per Symon/JWE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
John,

I've lost a few USN BFs in RA and see that the "155mm M1918 GPF" (Device 1143) and see their is no replacement rate for them. Pulling up DBB Scen 30, I see the upgrade is to "155mm M1A1" (Device 1144) and it does not start producing until 10/42. I then went into stock Scen 1 and the 155m M1A1 starts producing 6 guns per month in 12/41. Which is correct?? Did not want to bring it up John 3rd until I check with you.

Thanks, Michael


Hi Michael. I think that's a very good point. The 155mm M1 didn't finish development and trials till the summer of '41, so it shouldn't 'really' show up 12/41. It was relatively new to the artillery in the fall of '42 (November), but production was beginning to ramp up. I think, what we did, was determine when it was first released to the Coast Artillery to replace the GPF authorizations in newly formed and newly reorganized units.

Perhaps the solution is to have some production of GPFs till the M1 intro date. There's 30 in the pools but I agree that making a few more would be beneficial. The GPF wasn't a bad gun at all; kinda clunky and with a not-too-mobile carriage, but there were a lot of Marine Defense Forces still shooting them in 1945.

I would make a build rate of 2, and an end date of 4302. But be careful, because in some scenarios one of the GPF "Naval Guns" upgrades to an M1 "Army Weapon", while another upgrades to an M1 "Naval Gun".

Please feel free to repost or forward this. Ciao. John



John 3rd -> RE: 6.4 Release (4/11/2014 10:12:37 PM)

Got it.



DOCUP -> RE: 6.4 Release (5/3/2014 5:49:12 AM)

Mr J3 I'm late again as always. Found something off in RA. It might have been fixed since I last updated. If so sorry. Great work to you and the rest of the team.

[image]local://upfiles/35564/9151E03C2A1A44C6AB226AD6EA129EC5.jpg[/image]



John 3rd -> RE: 6.4 Release (5/3/2014 1:25:11 PM)

Do believe that is fixed, however, I'll pull it up and take a look when I get home from work. Thanks for Posting it.



miv792 -> RE: 6.4 Release (5/13/2014 4:26:01 PM)

Flew here is a bug. Characteristics base and the base itself Touwsville teleportation in Port Moresby.


http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3608939



Kitakami -> RE: 6.4 Release (5/13/2014 7:32:45 PM)

Greetings, RA team!

Please consider these honest questions and observations, as I am not privy to the decision process. I am just going through the database (after a few months of being away from RA and AE in general) and asking about what feels weird to me :)

Fuso BB Class:
1697 has 8+8 1661's (15cm/50 41YT Singles)
1698 has 7+7
1699 has 8+8 again
Is that correct? It does not happen with Ise class.
Going by date, 1696 & 1697 should be able to upgrade FROM, to 1700. Any reason they don't?

Ise BB Class
Going by date, 1705 & 1706 should be able to upgrade FROM, to 1709. Any reason they don't?

Momi DD/E/APD Class
Bind 131 links 1382, 1395 & 1396, but 1395 & 1396 have neither convert TO nor convert FROM.
Wouldn't it make sense that 1385 and 1395 become only one class? To have two final-version Momi E, differing by 3x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun feels weird.

Wakatake DD/E/APD Class
Wouldn't it make sense that 1389 and 1400 become only one class? To have two final-version Wakatake E, differing only by 1x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun feels weird.

Mutsuki DD/APD Class
Bind 138 links 1418 & 1419, but they have neither convert TO nor convert FROM.

Kawachi CB Class
1738 & 1739 are not being used. Bind 1734 links 1738 to... nothing? This might just be an unused leftover, I included it just in case it is not.

That is just a cursory look through the Japanese ship classes. I did not look too deep, so it may be that the above just makes perfect sense :)



John 3rd -> RE: 6.4 Release (5/14/2014 12:51:28 AM)

Thanks Kitakami. Much appreciate the update and notes. KEEP LOOKING!



Kitakami -> RE: 6.4 Release (5/14/2014 3:19:37 AM)

John,

CVL Ryujo's (KB1), and Zuiho's (KB2) planes are set to target Manila. Perhaps the default should be changed to Pearl Harbour?
CV Hiryu's and CV Soryu's (KB3) planes are set to target Pearl. Perhaps the default should be changed to Manila?



John 3rd -> RE: 6.4 Release (5/14/2014 3:35:03 PM)

Let me know if you see other issues.



John 3rd -> A New 6.7+ Variant (5/14/2014 8:36:16 PM)

OK. I've been wanting to completely move RA over to DaBabes-C but time is absolutely thwarting this plan.

Have decided to do an RA 6.7 fixing some of things listed here and over in the regular RA Thread. This will impact two Mods:

1. Those changes will stay as a pure vanilla RA with no other massive changes within OOB or anything else. We'll just fix errors in the Mod and then leave it as is.
2. Will bring over the new ships, as discussed in Washington Treaty Thread, to create a Treaty Variant of Reluctant Admiral. In will come the Lexington-Class BCs, an additional CLV, and a few other cruisers and ships. The Japanese will get the gains described in the earlier pages of that thread as well. These additions will create a new flavor for an RA Varaint and should be quite enjoyable to play.

Going this route will provide the advantage of just 5-6 hours of Editor work instead of a CRAPLOAD of time spent going line-by-line cleaning up RA as well as creating the Treaty Mod and RA--Treaty Combo.

This is a realistic plan. Will keep you up as we work on the development and deployment of the Mods.



John 3rd -> RE: A New 6.7+ Variant (5/14/2014 8:40:45 PM)

Kitakami: Can you work through the Mod over the next couple of days and create a single comprehensive 'change list' that is Posted here? I intend to fix things in a single swoop and it will truly help if everything is listed within one Post. Michael and DOCUP: This goes as well for you.

THANKS guys!



Kitakami -> RE: A New 6.7+ Variant (5/14/2014 9:45:20 PM)

Will do. Two days will only give me time to check the Japanese side, hopefully it will help :)
Will post what I have found so far plus any new findings on Saturday or so.



John 3rd -> RE: A New 6.7+ Variant (5/16/2014 12:41:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

Will do. Two days will only give me time to check the Japanese side, hopefully it will help :)
Will post what I have found so far plus any new findings on Saturday or so.



Kitakami: Take a few extra days. When you have the Japanese list please email/Post then move on to the Allies side. Really appreciate the effort. A clear set of eyes are happily taken and used for this. THANKS!



Kitakami -> RE: A New 6.7+ Variant (5/17/2014 3:05:20 PM)

Will definitely do!



DOCUP -> RE: A New 6.7+ Variant (5/17/2014 4:23:58 PM)

Slowly but surely, I am turning this into my mod.  Only a few more changes and it will be mine.[8|]  I'll take a look at it.  Might take me a few days.



Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.591797