RE: CVL-1 (Full Version)

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



Message

DOCUP -> RE: CVL-1 (8/25/2015 7:18:42 PM)

On the Omaha CLAA did you leave the 3in guns and the 50s?



Admiral DadMan -> RE: CLAA Omaha (8/25/2015 7:44:18 PM)

I set her up as follows:
5/38
4x2 F
4x2 C
4x2 RR

1.1"
4x4 F
4x4 RS
4x4 LS
4x4 R

.50cal Browning
2x1 RS
2x1 LS

9000 Endurance
1200 Fuel
8250 Tons Displacement

32kts Max

No radar

Upgrades as desired

(First refit was radar)



Terminus -> RE: CLAA Omaha (8/25/2015 7:52:38 PM)

Quick thing about the 1.1in AA: it only existed in a quad mount. Also, it was meant to replace, not complement, the .50cal AAMG.



Admiral DadMan -> RE: CLAA Omaha (8/25/2015 8:00:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Quick thing about the 1.1in AA: it only existed in a quad mount.

Nice catch. Copied my numbers down wrong. Thanks.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Also, it was meant to replace, not complement, the .50cal AAMG.

Seriously? I thought the progression was .50cal to 20mm in tandem with 1.1in to 40mm?




Terminus -> RE: CLAA Omaha (8/25/2015 8:14:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Quick thing about the 1.1in AA: it only existed in a quad mount.

Nice catch. Copied my numbers down wrong. Thanks.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Also, it was meant to replace, not complement, the .50cal AAMG.

Seriously? I thought the progression was .50cal to 20mm in tandem with 1.1in to 40mm?




Nope. The .50cals were realized to be too feeble well before the war, and well before the Oerlikon was a thing (much less the Bofors). The 1.1in was designed and produced to replace the .50cal, but took so long to get into mass production that the .50cal was still there in large numbers when the war began. Once used operationally, the Navy quickly realized that the 1.1in was bad as well, and that spurred deployment of 20mm and 40mm.

Remember that the pre-war navy had 3in and 5in AA guns to fill the medium and heavy flak roles.



Admiral DadMan -> RE: CLAA Omaha (8/25/2015 9:11:25 PM)

Hmm. I knew the basic history of the .50 and the 1.1. I had it in my brain that the .50 still existed on ships that had not been gotten around to yet.



Terminus -> RE: CLAA Omaha (8/25/2015 9:26:50 PM)

Correct. Also remember that production was permanently outpaced by demand in the early years of the war. That's why the Atlantas and the South Dakotas were commissioned with 1.1in guns, even though the Navy knew they were ****.



Khanti -> RE: CLAA Omaha (8/26/2015 5:54:24 PM)

About Allied ground units replacement rates.

I don't know if alt time line includes Russo-German war of 1941, but if Germans attack Moscow in December, then how Russians would send 400 (!) squads of infantry monthly to Far East. It's even more than Chinese troops or American in 45.
In 1943 Russians have even more infantry monthly, which is also doubtful. It could be possible in 45, when they shifted all their power to Far East.

Another idea. Allied pools are set as 1200 or 600 monthly replacements of different support troops from the very 07.12.1941. I can't believe it was possible. I suggest making copy of Aviation, Naval, Engineers, Support troops for every year. Then use increasing numbers gradually for different years.

Example:
Naval Support 41 - 300 squads
Naval Support 43 - 600 squads
Naval Support 45 - 1200 squads




John 3rd -> RE: CLAA Omaha (8/29/2015 4:44:34 PM)

I am going to zip all four scenarios to Michael where he is going to somewhat dial back the garrison requirements we bumped up for CBI.



DOCUP -> RE: CVL-1 (9/2/2015 3:01:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

I've come up with this:

[image]local://upfiles/5778/27AB19BA8A17411FB751DA9EEF648010.jpg[/image]


based on this:

[image]http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/OnlineLibrary/photos/images/s-file/s511-05.jpg[/image]



Admiral: I was looking at the purposed flight deck cruisers. This one has a 390 ft deck. One of the other ones had a 420ft deck. Wouldn't that one be able to carry more air craft?



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (9/4/2015 1:05:42 PM)

I bought the Hybrid Warships books and have all the designs that were put forward during the 20s--40s and it is quite the story. The Americans, behind Reeves and Moffat's support, came within an eyelash of building several of these warships several times. They would have been interests combinations. On the American side the biggest complement of warplanes that would have fit on the 10,000 ton or less hull was 24.

Dadman and Michael are going to work on the Omaha line of possibilities that have been detailed above as well as garrison reductions in CBI and a few other things. I expect the guys the put there thoughts, questions, and change logs here. As noted in my AAR, my family is headed for Mt. Rushmore this weekend for a 4 day 'get away' trip.



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (9/8/2015 10:20:46 PM)

Adm Dadman and Michael have been working on all four Mod Files getting the Omaha stuff as well as garrison changes handled. Will let everyone know when these are complete.



Khanti -> RE: CVL-1 (9/17/2015 8:16:58 PM)

BTS. Kitakami CL (in ship view) has 21 upgrades ending with CA Kent (with aircraft view). I hope I've installed it well, but it does not look normal.



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (3/22/2016 12:58:06 AM)

Michael and I are working on a comprehensive update of all four Mods. The items I keep finding in my game with Dan as well as comments from other players has led me to wanting to do a through-and-through of Treaty, Reluctant Admiral, Between the Storms, and Between the Storms: Lite.



Revthought -> RE: CVL-1 (3/30/2016 8:20:11 PM)

Is there a Between the Storms or Treat Mod AAR someone would recommend. RA is definitely out of the question for me as a new Allied player with a disdain for "the Japanese conquer EVERYWHERE!" games; however, the additions to from both the Treaty Mod and Between the Storms intrigue me. I'd like to get a sense of how they play before I start entertaining the idea of playing a game with one.



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (3/30/2016 8:33:33 PM)

Treaty is the easiest to play. It is just a few more ships due to changes at both Washington and London. Very simple with nothing else touched.

I LOVE Between the Storms as it puts together Treaty with a mix from RA. You can play the standard BTS or play BTS: Lite where the Japanese don't build Yamato but go in for a more conventional set of 16" gun BBs.

Don't confuse RA with the crazy player playing it! Additionally, the current version of RA is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO dialed back from the version Dan and I are playing...



ny59giants -> RE: CVL-1 (3/30/2016 11:55:23 PM)

Don't look at John's and my game as what you would expect from BTS. John pushed hard and fast in Eastern Pacific including the conquest of Hawaii. The version of RA you see in John vs Canoerebel had Japan way too strong and has been dialed back while Allies get a few more toys. Download them and look at OOB. PM John or I and we can answer some questions, as needed.



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (3/31/2016 12:45:00 AM)

We will be doing an update on ALL four Mods pretty quick so that will be good to.

I noticed that the 'change log' on the website is fairly woeful in that it really doesn't separate the different Mods and their changes. Want make a serious attempt at correcting this...



BillBrown -> RE: CVL-1 (3/31/2016 5:54:45 PM)

I would like to ask which of the 4 mods has the most improvement for the Japanese?



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (4/1/2016 2:20:05 AM)

Difficult to answer. Treaty has the least changes and covers the Treaty years of 1922-1936, Reluctant Admiral begins changes in 1937 through the war, Between the Storms ties BOTH Mods together and BTS: Lite goes just a bit farther by getting rid of the super-battleship project in exchange for 4 16" possible BBs. Guess that BTS: Lite has the MOST changes.



Peever -> RE: CVL-1 (4/5/2016 3:01:49 AM)

Hi guys I'm looking for some clarification about training groups for Japan (Between the Storms scenario). Are their specific training groups like there are for the US? I see that Yokohama/Yokosuka has a number of Navy air groups that certainly look like decent training squads. They do say carrier capable but not carrier trained. Does that make a difference?



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (4/5/2016 4:54:14 AM)

Those are some of your training units. They cannot be bought and can be used to train your carrier pilots.



Tophat1815 -> RE: CVL-1 (4/5/2016 2:54:54 PM)


Very impressed with the effort and detail put into these mods,hats off to all of you! I am currently working up the Japanese 1st turn in a BTS scenario#55(not BTS Lite)and I have run into 2 problems.
Now this is before the first turn is finished by the Japanese and sent to the Allies...I have no button to select Japanese naval or ground reinforcement schedules. I had wanted to take a look at what was coming when for planning purposes. Is this a design element working as intended or did I manage to blow the installation process?

Secondly I used the cumulative ship art when installing but I don't have ship art for CVL-Kushiro or CVL-Tokachi. I may well have screwed up somehow. Tried to pm you John but your inbox is full. Sorry to sidetrack the discussion.[;)]



ny59giants -> RE: CVL-1 (4/5/2016 3:22:13 PM)

When playing PBEM, you can NEVER see your future reinforcements until turn two regardless of scenario/mod. I've sent John email about missing ship art as I'm missing the new BBs in BTS Lite. Hopefully, when he is done working at Subway today, he will address this. [;)]



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (4/5/2016 3:31:47 PM)

I'll clean up my in box and get the art off to both of you. Tophat: PM me with your email.



BillBrown -> RE: CVL-1 (4/5/2016 3:35:38 PM)

I am playing a BTS game and in a night surface action the French BCs were displayed as silhouettes with a purple background box.



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (4/5/2016 4:23:23 PM)

TopHat: I have your artwork and will send once I have your info.



John 3rd -> RE: CVL-1 (4/5/2016 4:23:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I am playing a BTS game and in a night surface action the French BCs were displayed as silhouettes with a purple background box.


That is fixable. Let me try to remember how to fix that issue...



Tophat1815 -> RE: CVL-1 (4/5/2016 9:37:42 PM)


PM sent John and thank you again!

Thanks ny59giants I figured that must be the case,puts a cap on my report mongering ways.



BBfanboy -> RE: CVL-1 (4/5/2016 11:50:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

When playing PBEM, you can NEVER see your future reinforcements until turn two regardless of scenario/mod. I've sent John email about missing ship art as I'm missing the new BBs in BTS Lite. Hopefully, when he is done working at Subway today, he will address this. [;)]


This was done because the player can configure the reinforcement schedule by having no variance to +/- 28 days (not sure if it is 28 or 30). So until the user sets the variance and runs the first turn, the AI cannot use the randomizer to populate the reinforcements.



Page: <<   < prev  28 29 [30] 31 32   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125