RE: Between the Storms (Full Version)

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



Message

HansBolter -> RE: Between the Storms (3/31/2015 10:51:32 AM)

John 3rd,

Don't know what you did about the 9th Australian Division as I am still in my ongoing game with bugs that won't be fixed until I restart, but I just spent the 2300+ PPs to release it from Aden and discovered it has an TOE bug as well.

The TOE shows it only having 36 combat squads. I allowed it to upgrade and it was gutted. Since I already have one gutted British Division I replayed the turn with upgrade turned off.

My concern now is when it takes losses will it take replacements only up to the TOE level and not to the level its at now as a full division.

I may have to restart soon, like after your next patch.



John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (3/31/2015 11:27:29 AM)

Michael and I fixed 9th Aussie so it SHOULD be OK. Will check to be safe.

What date are you at?

Cavalry: This update will see some fixes in existing games but most of the changes will be seen in re-starts. Wish the game handled that better but that is the truth so we have to deal with it.



HansBolter -> RE: Between the Storms (3/31/2015 11:52:16 AM)

I just hit June 1st, 1943 last night.

Still playing my original release game but have updated with your patches to BTS 2.2

The Japanese have only 9 bases left in China. Hong Kong is their last base in southern China.

I have B24s at Shanghai, but not enough supply there to sustain a bombing campaign of the HI.

I'm allocating a small American Corps to mainland China for the '44 drive into Manchukuo including the 13th Armored Division which just arrived in Lashio to begin the long trek into China.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Between the Storms (3/31/2015 12:05:44 PM)

OK noted and thanks.



Symon -> RE: Between the Storms (3/31/2015 2:34:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Michael and I fixed 9th Aussie so it SHOULD be OK. Will check to be safe.

John’, you might want to look at your database first. When we redid the Aus OOB, we brought 9th Div in as component units to Aden; 20th, 24th, 26th Inf Brig, 9th Cav Recce, 2/4th LtAA, 2/3rd Pioneers, and with Field Eng, Arty, and AT, distributed among the brigades. I think 9th Div is a vestigial holdover of the Aus Invasion early reinforce stuff.

If you have the separate units (they are in slot 5980 or so) the 9th Div becomes irrelevant and you should just remove it. That’s what we are going to do shortly in an error correction update. Sorry ‘bout that [:'(]

[ed] BTW, if you are based on an older DBB and don't have Aussies separated out as brigades, your fix might well be ok. That's why I suggest you look first. Ciao. J



HansBolter -> RE: Between the Storms (3/31/2015 8:00:32 PM)

Been getting an art glitch that is probably my fault and I wanted to ask about it.

Every time I get the French fleet into surface combat the side art for the BCs has a large pink box background around the ships.

I know there are two types of ship side art and one is the pink box type.

Am I possibly getting the pink box outline in my surface combat resolutions because I copied that artwork into the wrong folder?

Has anyone else gotten these ships into combat yet? Has anyone else seen what I am seeing?

Is it a glitch in the artwork or my screw up in copying?

(Update): I checked last night and the artwork is in the correct folders. The ship art with a background sky is in the correct folder and the ship art with the pink background is in the correct folder.

I have no idea why I see the pink box background in the surface combat resolution. I hope some one can test a fight with these ships to see if it a problem local to my graphics.
All other French ship art is fine. It's just the two BCs.



HansBolter -> RE: Between the Storms (4/7/2015 10:51:04 AM)

Anyone had any opportunity to look into this?



John 3rd -> BTS Potential Issue (4/8/2015 9:58:39 PM)

OK. Michael and I have just gotten our BTS Lite game going and he pointed out that there does not appear to be a 'conversion' button on any of the CAV/CLV. Hans: You are farthest in. Have you done a conversion? Did it work? We're looking at the American CLV's Charlotte and Jacksonville, CAV's Melbourne and Auckland, and CAV G.6 (Japanese).

Anyone converted these yet?

Do we have a problem?

Thanks Guys!



JuanG -> RE: BTS Potential Issue (4/8/2015 10:07:16 PM)

John, just from looking at the editor, the conversions are set up to only become available after the first upgrade is done, so its not surprising they aren't visible at the start.

Conversions themselves seem to be wired up properly, and are available on the following dates;

Charlotte (6/42 upgrade) -> Jacksonville 10/42 onwards (duration 120, ready ~2/43)
Vindictive (1/43 upgrade) -> Vindictive-2 6/43 onwards (duration 180, ready ~12/43)
Melbourne (1/43 upgrade) -> Melbourne-2 6/43 onwards (duration 180, ready ~12/43)
G.6 (8/42 upgrade) -> G.6 Conversion 8/42 onwards (duration 270, ready ~5/43)

Overall the conversion times etc. look alright considering the overall sizes / capacities of the carriers.



John 3rd -> RE: BTS Potential Issue (4/8/2015 10:15:50 PM)

FANTASTIC! I THOUGHT that might be a reason but didn't trust myself. Thanks so much Mr. Juan!

Now if Michael gets his darned computer FIXED we can play...

I am working on updating the Web Page presently.



John 3rd -> Between the Storms--LITE (Scen 057) Released (4/8/2015 10:56:12 PM)

I've gotten an all new history written and added a page to the RA website. The history covers Treaty Mod (045)--Reluctant Admiral (050)--Between the Storms--Lite (057). There is an art folder there as well containing the art work for the G.6, Niitaka-Class CC, and Owari-Class BB. The Mod Folder is present so you may download it and take a look.

Hope you enjoy it!

Now shifting over to clean-up of BTS as per work detailed earlier.



HansBolter -> RE: BTS Potential Issue (4/9/2015 11:02:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

OK. Michael and I have just gotten our BTS Lite game going and he pointed out that there does not appear to be a 'conversion' button on any of the CAV/CLV. Hans: You are farthest in. Have you done a conversion? Did it work? We're looking at the American CLV's Charlotte and Jacksonville, CAV's Melbourne and Auckland, and CAV G.6 (Japanese).

Anyone converted these yet?

Do we have a problem?

Thanks Guys!



Yes I have already converted the two American ones and the two commonwealth ones are undergoing conversion now.

I can attach a save game if anyone wants a look at it.

My game is at June 18, 1943.



ny59giants -> RE: Between the Storms (4/11/2015 12:08:12 PM)

I cannot upgrade this small LCU until AFTER the Korean War. [:D]

[image]local://upfiles/15133/3C493F2AA6304F5ABB8B0C096AB58375.jpg[/image]



John 3rd -> RE: Between the Storms (4/14/2015 11:32:04 PM)

BTS and BTSL updated to 2.3 fixing many issues covered above. Posted on the website. ENJOY!



Lecivius -> RE: Between the Storms (4/15/2015 12:47:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I cannot upgrade this small LCU until AFTER the Korean War. [:D]

[image]local://upfiles/15133/3C493F2AA6304F5ABB8B0C096AB58375.jpg[/image]


LMAO [:D][:D][:D]



ny59giants -> RE: Between the Storms (4/24/2015 2:15:56 PM)

I readjusted the garrison requirements for my new game vs 1EyedJack in China and India. However, my current game vs John 3rd is now at Christmas '41 and I still have problems meeting many in India. This has effected the Allied players ability to build just forts at some bases in India. I serious believe that the garrison requirements need to be cranked down closer to historical as there isn't enough troops to go around in Dec '41. The Editor proves both Allied and Japanese requirements, so the values can be different for each side.



1EyedJacks -> RE: Between the Storms (4/26/2015 3:22:13 AM)

I've got a question about stacking limits. If you increase the port or airfield size on an island does the staking limit increase - say from 6k to 7k as an example - or is the current stacking limit on an island hard-coded and can never change?



ny59giants -> RE: Between the Storms (4/26/2015 5:57:54 AM)

Stacking limits are hard coded. They are in the PWHEX files.



DOCUP -> RE: Between the Storms (5/1/2015 12:50:29 AM)

John, I noticed in my version of BTS and BTS light some missing data. BTS Japanese CVs Kasigi and Katsuragi are missing 2 25mm sections in the editor. Now CVL Nisshin is missing numbers for ammo for 25mm guns, this is in both BTS and the lite version.



Symon -> RE: Between the Storms (5/1/2015 5:11:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks
I've got a question about stacking limits. If you increase the port or airfield size on an island does the staking limit increase - say from 6k to 7k as an example - or is the current stacking limit on an island hard-coded and can never change?

Stacking limits are hard coded in the pwhexe file. They are calculated on the basis of the "base" terrain, and use rivers and roads as adders. Base sizes do not apply. What you see is what you get. Ciao, JWE



1EyedJacks -> Regarding stacking limits (5/2/2015 11:35:12 PM)

Michael & John - thanks for the answer.



DOCUP -> RE: Regarding stacking limits (5/3/2015 6:29:37 AM)

In BTS the Dutch have very few engineers. Am I missing something?



John 3rd -> RE: Regarding stacking limits (5/3/2015 3:32:13 PM)

Hey guys.

Sorry about not checking the thread for a few days. Will catch up and comment...



HansBolter -> RE: Regarding stacking limits (5/6/2015 12:19:48 PM)

My current game is at August 23rd, 1943.

Haven't found any big glitches to report lately.

I did find a small anomaly in SC upgrades.

Some of the US AMs can convert to SCs.

After they do they are offered an upgrade in early '43.

They are also offered an SC conversion which is a little weird as they are already converted to SCs.

The SC conversion and the upgrade provide the same results.

However, the conversion only takes 14 days while the upgrade takes 18 days.

Obviously, faced with this choice any smart player is going to convert instead of upgrading.

I also wanted to ask what the design intent is for the old BBs to go through a 180 day conversion to a BB?



wdolson -> RE: Regarding stacking limits (5/6/2015 7:55:59 PM)

Some of the BBs damaged at Pearl Harbor went through extensive rebuilding while other ships of the same class did not have as extensive a refit. The conversion represents this rebuild and it's an option instead of a standard upgrade because not all ships of the class got that level of rebuild.

Bill



vicberg -> RE: Regarding stacking limits (5/10/2015 12:40:02 PM)

I'm getting back into WITP and looking at Scenario 55.

First, I love the work you are doing. I am noticing that with KB-1 and KB-2 (only) doing a PH strike, the results are much less. Is this due to a combo of DBB and RA changes? Is this typical? Compared to a stock attack, it's what I would consider "light" damaged. I have DB set to 10k and TB set to 9K if that makes a difference. With the air strikes, I'm noticing almost as many planes shot down by flak as destroyed on the ground. Tons of damaged planes, but not many destroyed planes. Again, am I doing something wrong? I accepted the setup out of the gate for KB-1, KB-2 and didn't change anything.

Is KB-3 supposed to make the trek to Pearl? It's axis is very different and takes it close to both allied carriers. I figured KB-3 is supposed to support DEI operations.



vicberg -> RE: Regarding stacking limits (5/10/2015 1:12:15 PM)

And I just installed the game on the laptop, applied .24 latest release and then applied RA 7.9 and BTS 2.3 per instructions



John 3rd -> RE: Regarding stacking limits (5/10/2015 7:17:17 PM)

KB-1 and -2 hit PH. I've seen good results and poor ones. I got a POOR one in my game with Michael (BTS--Lite).

KB-3 is for DEI Support or Port Attack: Manila.

Your choices as to target!



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Regarding stacking limits (5/28/2015 7:13:48 PM)

John Much enjoying RA7.9 now in April 42.

I should advise you that some of the French subs are actually Vichy units some of which were sunk by the allies... no matter this is a what if . But that got my thinking.
How about an alternative scenario with Vichy Islands of South Pacific as axis neutral. That is add some French fleet ( and some troops and planes) saved from Toulon etc and put them in pacific bases. These ships and bases( house rule if nothing else works) may be used by Japan from a date to be agreed. It seems that if the Vichy ships had been deployed in the Pacific they could have caused considerable problems to the allies early on?



BillBrown -> RE: Between the Storms (5/28/2015 9:45:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I readjusted the garrison requirements for my new game vs 1EyedJack in China and India. However, my current game vs John 3rd is now at Christmas '41 and I still have problems meeting many in India. This has effected the Allied players ability to build just forts at some bases in India. I serious believe that the garrison requirements need to be cranked down closer to historical as there isn't enough troops to go around in Dec '41. The Editor proves both Allied and Japanese requirements, so the values can be different for each side.


I just started a BTS as Allies and the garrison requirements are way high. I need more than 2000 AV just to meet garrison requirements, I do not have that much.

China is bad too. I have the troops to meet the garrisons, but then I most of my troops are stuck in cities.



Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.140625