Thanks for the Year! (Full Version)

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



Message

John 3rd -> Thanks for the Year! (12/24/2014 7:08:51 PM)

Wanted to take a moment to thank all the people who have helped develop, contribute, and play our Mods. The creation of TM, RA, and BTS was not possible without a ton of support and help.

Merry Christmas ALL!



JuanG -> RE: Updates (12/24/2014 8:56:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I can do an update whenever. Need to put together a list.

QUERY: Don't players have the ability to re-name ships? I was reading the above Posts and remembered several American players do that. Can Japanese do that?

Anyone who has noticed an issue please post/re-post after this and we'll get ready for an update.

Juan: Do you need all the scenario files to do your changes? I cans end the Master's over without issue whenever you want.


The renaming is only for ships still in the construction que, and only for those that contain the symbols II, III or IV in their names. As far as I know they can be Japanese or Allied, it shouldn't make a difference.

Sendings me the files is probably the easiest way, though Ill need a few days to plan out exactly what to change. Mostly its just a matter of bumping back a few of the 'early' arrivals based on some of the feedback, as well as flipping a few of the '42 Additional squadrons to Diverted squadrons with a corresponding cost increase.



John 3rd -> RE: Updates (12/24/2014 10:12:18 PM)

Juan:

I've sent all three of the Mods. These are the most current files. Take your time and enjoy yourself!

John



John 3rd -> RE: Updates (12/24/2014 10:12:43 PM)

Do we have any other issues beyond the STUPID naming issues???



btd64 -> RE: Updates (12/25/2014 12:27:49 AM)

Petrel IV at Tahiti. Still 60 troop cap. I believe JuanG has this though....GP



JuanG -> RE: Updates (12/25/2014 2:44:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Petrel IV at Tahiti. Still 60 troop cap. I believe JuanG has this though....GP


Yeah, that one is specific to our game. If its ok with you, I will update that next turn as I think its the only real issue present, the aircraft purchase upgrades as said are not applicable as they will take effect only for new games.



btd64 -> RE: Thanks for the Year! (12/25/2014 12:46:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Wanted to take a moment to thank all the people who have helped develop, contribute, and play our Mods. The creation of TM, RA, and BTS was not possible without a ton of support and help.

Merry Christmas ALL!


John, Thank you for your work and direction. Have a Happy Christmas and a Merry New Year.[:)]....GP



btd64 -> RE: Updates (12/25/2014 12:47:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Petrel IV at Tahiti. Still 60 troop cap. I believe JuanG has this though....GP


Yeah, that one is specific to our game. If its ok with you, I will update that next turn as I think its the only real issue present, the aircraft purchase upgrades as said are not applicable as they will take effect only for new games.


Thats fine. Ho ho ho....GP



HansBolter -> RE: Updates (12/31/2014 11:04:31 AM)

Hey John 3rd,

We have been discussing the Surcouf in your esteemed opponents thread.

I was pointing out to him what a versatile combatant it is with twin 8" guns, a 274 cargo capacity and room for a single float plane.

I did some reading up on it and it seems that the French planned to build three of them and scrapped the plans for the latter two when one of the Naval Treaties forbid more than a single super sub.

So, I was thinking that since this mod is based on assumptions that the outcomes of the treaties differed from the historical perhaps you would consider throwing the AFBs another bone by giving us the other two.

Three Allied subs carrying float planes would give the Japanese player a taste of what its like to have every shipping lane under aerial surveilance.



John 3rd -> RE: Updates (12/31/2014 2:56:50 PM)

Never adverse to ideas. Let me read up on the SS Section of the Treaties. Will make commentary from that.



DOCUP -> RE: Updates (12/31/2014 3:42:44 PM)

I have always wanted subs with planes on the allied side. Did the US think about carrier subs. I know some have 6in guns in the game. I also just saw the Brits did have subs with planes in the teens. Not a bad idea.
Devils advocate
If you do Surcouf for everyone, Japan would of accelerated the I400. I don't want them around.



wdolson -> RE: Updates (12/31/2014 10:09:27 PM)

The Serian was not available even when the I-400s were commissioned in the real war. Even if the I-400s are available sooner, the sub-borne strike aircraft shouldn't be available.

Bill



DOCUP -> RE: Updates (1/1/2015 4:10:43 AM)

I guess the US did study air craft subs and cruiser subs. Some of these are beasts.

http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/albums/s584-ss.htm



Skyland -> RE: Updates (1/1/2015 2:00:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Hey John 3rd,

We have been discussing the Surcouf in your esteemed opponents thread.

I was pointing out to him what a versatile combatant it is with twin 8" guns, a 274 cargo capacity and room for a single float plane.

I did some reading up on it and it seems that the French planned to build three of them and scrapped the plans for the latter two when one of the Naval Treaties forbid more than a single super sub.

So, I was thinking that since this mod is based on assumptions that the outcomes of the treaties differed from the historical perhaps you would consider throwing the AFBs another bone by giving us the other two.



Slightly smaller variant of Surcouf (2200t) was studied in 1936 with one turret with double or even triple 155mm guns for colonial service.

Among other variants studied in the 20s were :
- 5000t sub with 2 triple 305 mm turrets
- 5000t sub with 2 double or triple 240 mm turrets with 4 planes
- 3400t with one 305 mm gun front turret


John, if you choose to add one or 2 Surcouf like, the following names could be chosen : Bouvier, Dupetit-Thouars or Du Chayla.



bigred -> RE: Updates (1/5/2015 3:31:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Hey John 3rd,

We have been discussing the Surcouf in your esteemed opponents thread.

I was pointing out to him what a versatile combatant it is with twin 8" guns, a 274 cargo capacity and room for a single float plane.

I did some reading up on it and it seems that the French planned to build three of them and scrapped the plans for the latter two when one of the Naval Treaties forbid more than a single super sub.

So, I was thinking that since this mod is based on assumptions that the outcomes of the treaties differed from the historical perhaps you would consider throwing the AFBs another bone by giving us the other two.

Three Allied subs carrying float planes would give the Japanese player a taste of what its like to have every shipping lane under aerial surveilance.

[:D][:D]



ny59giants -> RE: Updates (1/5/2015 9:51:55 AM)

CLAA Omaha upgrades - maybe look at some of the upgrades for hybrids in BTS/RA like this old CL that is now a CLAA. Only an upgrade in 9/42 and no others. Should more closely follow CLAA Atlanta upgrade schedule.



wdolson -> RE: Updates (1/5/2015 10:16:36 AM)

Is she the same class as the Atlanta? The real Omaha was one of the oldest CLs in the navy.

Bill



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Updates (1/5/2015 12:02:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

We have been discussing the Surcouf in your esteemed opponents thread.

I was pointing out to him what a versatile combatant it is with twin 8" guns, a 274 cargo capacity and room for a single float plane.


Well, maybe a nice transport or scouting submarine - but combatant? A submarine is too fragile to engage warships in a gun battle - to fight with just two slow-firing 8-inchers against a DD with four to five QF guns or cruisers which host several times the number of guns would be suicide. For hunting merchantmen, 8-inchers surely are overkill, and to ensure hits without wasting too much ammo the sub would have to close into the range of the merchies defensive armament - not too sexy either. For hunting unarmed merchies you do need overgunned monster-subs. In short, Surcouf had no real role to play other than to prove it was technically possible to mount heavy guns and planes on a sub.

Anyway, Happy New Year everybody!



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Updates (1/7/2015 5:48:57 PM)

John,
Thanks for all the ongoing support on this game!!

Michael



John 3rd -> Need some names! (1/8/2015 11:21:17 PM)

Hey Cavalry.

I am going to fix the name issues first. Does anyone have any good names for US DDs? Was thinking about early war people killed that a DD might be named for. Could use some suggestions...

It doesn't have to be the idea above just need some appropriate names. Could use at least two.

Does anyone have a creative appropriate name for a Japanese CV? Something unique but works within their naming conventions.



John 3rd -> RE: Updates (1/8/2015 11:22:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton


quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

Duplicated base in Scen 50 current file.

Oro Bay at 100, 130 in Papua New Guinea is listed as both ID 987 and 994. The map shows two bases located in the hex.


Here it is John. 2 pages back....GP


Need to work on this...



John 3rd -> RE: Treaty and Between the Storms Updates (1/8/2015 11:23:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Edit: Disregard, haven't used the editor in a while and misread.

Re-Edit: Princeton II still present as a CV name.
Also, aircraft #695 G5N3 Liz has a weapons mismatch between loadouts - slots 3-5 are 12.7mm Ho-103, while slots 14-15 are 12.7mm Type 1. This is causing display errors on the aircraft data sheet.
Also, aircraft G8N1 Rita present twice, with identical data but different entry dates (1/45 vs 4/45). Suggest swapping the 4/45 to a (fictional) G8N1a or something.


Checking this as well...



John 3rd -> RE: Treaty and Between the Storms Updates (1/8/2015 11:29:21 PM)

Shot a note off to Juan to check on his update of the off-map system.



DanSez -> RE: Need some names! (1/9/2015 8:09:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Does anyone have a creative appropriate name for a Japanese CV? Something unique but works within their naming conventions.



(from Google Translate - might want to double check this)
Angry Dragon
Okorryū
怒っ竜

Retaliation (vengeful) Dragon
Hōfuku ryū
報復竜

Battle Dragon
Sentoryū
戦闘竜

Really appreciate your (and your team's) work
thanks so much
[&o]








John 3rd -> RE: Need some names! (1/10/2015 12:25:03 AM)

Thanks Dan. I will use a few of those. Appreciate the help and sentiment.



Skyland -> RE: Updates (1/10/2015 12:44:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


Well, maybe a nice transport or scouting submarine - but combatant? A submarine is too fragile to engage warships in a gun battle - to fight with just two slow-firing 8-inchers against a DD with four to five QF guns or cruisers which host several times the number of guns would be suicide. For hunting merchantmen, 8-inchers surely are overkill, and to ensure hits without wasting too much ammo the sub would have to close into the range of the merchies defensive armament - not too sexy either. For hunting unarmed merchies you do need overgunned monster-subs. In short, Surcouf had no real role to play other than to prove it was technically possible to mount heavy guns and planes on a sub.



I agree but Surcouf was finally to be use as a tool of deterrence in convoy escort toward colonies. Also, one of the initial requirements was the ability to bombard enemy port but it is not possible in game.


JeSuisCharlie



John 3rd -> RE: Updates (1/10/2015 11:39:32 PM)

I read up on the American side of this in Warships After Washington and no American planned monster sub was even remotely considered for building. There were plans, however, for several more of the Argonaut/Narwhal class...



HansBolter -> RE: Updates (1/12/2015 11:21:38 AM)

In fairness on my request for more Surcoufs I did read that it was far from an optimal design.

It was difficult to maintain trim during a dive and took a full 2 minutes to reach periscope depth making it vulnerable to air attack.

In game terms it is an interesting toy to play with though.



btd64 -> RE: Need some names! (1/12/2015 6:26:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hey Cavalry.

I am going to fix the name issues first. Does anyone have any good names for US DDs? Was thinking about early war people killed that a DD might be named for. Could use some suggestions...

It doesn't have to be the idea above just need some appropriate names. Could use at least two.



Hey John,
First, did you get the email attachment I sent you? Though you might find the info useful.
Second, The 12 names below are former USN officers from the Revolution thru about the late 1800's. This list has been edited base on names currently used in WITP AE. In perticular, BTS's. I looked in tracker to make sure there were no dups.

Bainbridge (I believe this name is or was the name of one of the first USN nuclear powered cruisers)
Barney (Not the purple dino)[:D]
Barron
John Barry (Though the whole name sounded better in this case)
Decatur
John Paul Jones (The one and only)(unless your a Zeppelin fan, which I am[:)])
McGiffen
Perry (Current name of a class of Frigates and the decommisioned FFG-7)
Preble
Seyburn
Stockton
Truxton

[:)]....GP




Cavalry Corp -> RE: Need some names! (1/15/2015 5:05:10 PM)

John

V7.7 looks like the French CL issue ( witdrawl) still exists?
We have both uploaded 7.7 now or should I wait one more turn

Michael



Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.8125