RE: RA 7.9 (Full Version)

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



Message

Mundy -> RE: RA 7.9 (7/29/2017 3:49:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Good note Sir. Will look into it with my Site.



[sm=Cool-049.gif]



Admiral DadMan -> RE: RA 7.9 (7/29/2017 4:52:01 PM)

Shokaku-
Displacement:
25,675 long tons
Length: 257.5 m (844 ft 10 in)
Beam: 29 m (95 ft 2 in)
Draft: 8.8 m (28 ft 10 in)
Installed power: 160,000 shp (120,000 kW)
Propulsion: 8 Χ water-tube boilers; 4 Χ shafts; 4 Χ Kampon geared steam turbines
Speed: 34.5 knots
Range: 9,700 nmi at 18 knots

Hiryu-
Displacement:
17,300 long tons
Length: 227.4 m (746 ft 1 in)
Beam: 22.3 m (73 ft 2 in)
Draft: 7.8 m (25 ft 7 in)
Installed power: 153,000 shp (114,000 kW)
Propulsion:8 Χ Kampon water-tube boilers; 4 Χ shafts 4 Χ geared steam turbines
Speed: 34 knots (63 km/h; 39 mph)
Range: 10,330 nmi at 18 knots

It looks like that it's a function of Length to Beam ratio- Shokaku is 9.38:1, Hiryu is 10.21:1 - Higher ratio = thinner = easier to push thru the water.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/5/2017 3:04:03 PM)

POSTED IN THE AAR:


Michael and I just chatted for about 45 minutes on the phone.

School starts for my 8th and 6th Grade Sons on Monday. Paula goes back to work for the School District at the same time.

This translates to time HOME and--most importantly--ALONE!

It is time to get back to serious Mod work on all four Mods and, perhaps, we can look at a new one.

Michael has minor surgery coming up in a couple of weeks and we plan to tag team the Mod Work at that point.

For those weeks leading up to his surgery, I will stay off of Mod working and, instead focus on getting an extra turn per day in with Dan. Want to get to 1945. It is as simple as that. These lessons that are being learned right now really are going to help with the Mod work as well...

Am going to copy this Post onto the Mod Design Thread.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/5/2017 3:10:22 PM)

The main idea that Michael and I chatted about was changing a portion of the Mods into STREAMLINING Japanese production even more. Perhaps the best answer for Japan is LESS choice then MORE!??!

EXAMPLE:
The decision to get rid of Jack and replace with dedicated Interceptor and Carrier-Based A6 variants creates a huge number of different models that upgrade every 4-6 months until the better George and Sam models come into production.

What about:
1. Produce a much more limited line of A6 Models. Carrier-Based: M2 to M3a to M5 and DONE Ground-Based: M2 and ONLY M2.
2. Focus on bringing in George with massed work. Even if this means having bunches of Hangar Queens to start with when they begin.

Tentative and, hopefully, thought-provoking start...



Kitakami -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/5/2017 8:53:04 PM)

Will be looking forward to what comes out of this line of thinking.

I am waiting for a new version of BtS and BtS Lite before I start seeking an opponent. I am considering playing the Allies for the first time.



durnedwolf -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/6/2017 1:38:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The main idea that Michael and I chatted about was changing a portion of the Mods into STREAMLINING Japanese production even more. Perhaps the best answer for Japan is LESS choice then MORE!??!

EXAMPLE:
The decision to get rid of Jack and replace with dedicated Interceptor and Carrier-Based A6 variants creates a huge number of different models that upgrade every 4-6 months until the better George and Sam models come into production.

What about:
1. Produce a much more limited line of A6 Models. Carrier-Based: M2 to M3a to M5 and DONE Ground-Based: M2 and ONLY M2.
2. Focus on bringing in George with massed work. Even if this means having bunches of Hangar Queens to start with when they begin.

Tentative and, hopefully, thought-provoking start...



In doing a little searching on the internet, it appears that there was a lot of opportunity for German influence of aircraft design during WWII. While it looks like it would be a stretch to use German aircraft designs for your carrier-capable fighter aircraft for anything other than perhaps weapons upgrades, You could make a good argument to use the Bf 109 and Fw 190 fighter models for the Army. I read that the Bf 109 G series - which came out in 1942 for Germany, had a greater rate-of-climb than the P-51! I'd argue that a high rate of Climb would be of great advantage to Japan when they start going on the defense.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany%E2%80%93Japan_industrial_co-operation_before_World_War_II#Aircraft



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/6/2017 2:33:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The main idea that Michael and I chatted about was changing a portion of the Mods into STREAMLINING Japanese production even more. Perhaps the best answer for Japan is LESS choice then MORE!??!

EXAMPLE:
The decision to get rid of Jack and replace with dedicated Interceptor and Carrier-Based A6 variants creates a huge number of different models that upgrade every 4-6 months until the better George and Sam models come into production.

What about:
1. Produce a much more limited line of A6 Models. Carrier-Based: M2 to M3a to M5 and DONE Ground-Based: M2 and ONLY M2.
2. Focus on bringing in George with massed work. Even if this means having bunches of Hangar Queens to start with when they begin.

Tentative and, hopefully, thought-provoking start...


Let the player make the choices - not the scenario. Focusing production should require sacrifice, but you should allow the player to make those choices. That's part of the fun of being Japan.

Limiting the number of research and engine factories, but not the available models is a better approach imo. Build the new scenario with the expectation that the Japanese player will be able to skip research steps and choose appropriate arrival dates so that between skipping and using the bulk of their limited resources (factories) the player can focus to whatever models they want - and get them earlier than they arrived historically. Insert "precursor" models like the Ki-44 and Ki-43-Id so players can use those models to start the research.

Another thing I think is missed (at least in scenario 1) is how engines dictate the possibilities. I think more engines that must be researched (by hp class/manufacturer/etc.) to get to the models. The game treats engines as static - but progressive models of aircraft also often used the newest developments in the engines. Scenario 1 (and the game) treats the engines as less important than the air frame, yet one of Japan's biggest problems was the lack of high horsepower engines of the correct size.

On a completely different note, would you be interested in getting a Scenario Checker Report on your scenarios as I develop that piece of the scenario editor?



Kitakami -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/6/2017 2:43:23 AM)

I agree with giving the player the tools, but allowing him (or her) to make the choices. Variety is not bad in itself. Lack of focus is.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/6/2017 4:14:55 AM)

Nice comments guys.

Infinite Monkey: What is a Scenario Checker Report? Curious I am! (Sound like Yoda.)



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/6/2017 5:07:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Nice comments guys.

Infinite Monkey: What is a Scenario Checker Report? Curious I am! (Sound like Yoda.)



A simple checker that verifies data consistency in your scenario files. Some of the checks I'm thinking about/planning are listed below. Make suggestions if you have em. I'm working on it now, and hopefully tomorrow. If all goes well, I will have screenshots and a simple report that I can show you - maybe as soon as tomorrow night.

• AIR-Aircraft
• Invalid device of type XXX - not an aircraft device
• Aircraft does not have ordnance for mission]
• Mission ordnance exceeds load
• Unused Aircraft (nothing upgrades to it, nothing equips it)
• Mismatched device slots
• CLS-Ship Classes
• Invalid device of type XXX - not a ship device
• Unused Class (nothing upgrades to it, nothing equips it)
• Aircraft ordnance missing on AV/CS/CV/etc
• Torpedo ordnance missing on AV/CS/CV/etc
• Has AC capacity but has no air groups
• Air groups exceed AC capacity
• More than 5 air groups
• AC/Torpedo Ordnance in wrong slot

• DEV-Devices
• End Date before Available
• Unused Device warning (nothing upgrades to it, nothing equips it)
• GRP-Air groups
• Air Group not at airfield, laid ship, float equipped? (on ak, etc.?)
• Invalid device of type XXX - not an aircraft device
• LDR-Leader
• LOC-Bases
• Docked ships exceed tonnage limit
• Garrison requirement exceeds starting troop AV
• Invalid device of type XXX - not a base device
• LOC-Task forces
• Has no ships
• LOC-LCU's
• ???
• PLT-Pilots
• Pilot type does not match assigned group
• SHP-Ships
• In location with no port
• Not in valid TF or Port base
• Aircraft ordnance missing on AV/CS/CV/etc
• Torpedo ordnance missing on AV/CS/CV/etc
• Has AC capacity but has no air groups
• Air groups exceed 115% of AC capacity
• Air groups exceed ready AC capacity
• More than 5 air groups
• AC/Torpedo Ordnance in wrong slot
• Incomplete device slots
• Bitmap does not exist in ART folder
• Bitmap not entered
• Ship arrives before class
• Tolerances
○ Maneuver out of tolerance for class
○ Belt/Deck/Tower Armor vs tonnage for class
○ (Cargo + Troop + Liquid)/tonnage out of tolerance for type
○ Endurance * (Cargo + Troop + Liquid)/fuel out of tolerance for type
○ Durability/belt-tower-Deck armor/tonnage out of tolerance for type
• AK/etc. check. Fragment too big for ship
• Invalid device of type XXX - not a ship borne device



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/6/2017 1:22:49 PM)

Damn. That would be useful. In scenario creation finding many of those mistakes usually takes a person actually playing the Mod to see them. Like the idea.



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/7/2017 12:32:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Damn. That would be useful. In scenario creation finding many of those mistakes usually takes a person actually playing the Mod to see them. Like the idea.


John,

Rather than hijack your thread, I updated mine:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4317059&mpage=1&key=�

I only got an hour or two to work on it today. Had hoped to implement more - will possibly get a few more hours tonight to add more checks.

IM



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/7/2017 9:26:05 PM)

We plan to revisit and change the late-war Japanese DD builds as well as talk about dedicated ASW ship types.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/7/2017 9:29:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The main idea that Michael and I chatted about was changing a portion of the Mods into STREAMLINING Japanese production even more. Perhaps the best answer for Japan is LESS choice then MORE!??!

EXAMPLE:
The decision to get rid of Jack and replace with dedicated Interceptor and Carrier-Based A6 variants creates a huge number of different models that upgrade every 4-6 months until the better George and Sam models come into production.

What about:
1. Produce a much more limited line of A6 Models. Carrier-Based: M2 to M3a to M5 and DONE Ground-Based: M2 and ONLY M2.
2. Focus on bringing in George with massed work. Even if this means having bunches of Hangar Queens to start with when they begin.

Tentative and, hopefully, thought-provoking start...


Let the player make the choices - not the scenario. Focusing production should require sacrifice, but you should allow the player to make those choices. That's part of the fun of being Japan.

Limiting the number of research and engine factories, but not the available models is a better approach imo. Build the new scenario with the expectation that the Japanese player will be able to skip research steps and choose appropriate arrival dates so that between skipping and using the bulk of their limited resources (factories) the player can focus to whatever models they want - and get them earlier than they arrived historically. Insert "precursor" models like the Ki-44 and Ki-43-Id so players can use those models to start the research.

Another thing I think is missed (at least in scenario 1) is how engines dictate the possibilities. I think more engines that must be researched (by hp class/manufacturer/etc.) to get to the models. The game treats engines as static - but progressive models of aircraft also often used the newest developments in the engines. Scenario 1 (and the game) treats the engines as less important than the air frame, yet one of Japan's biggest problems was the lack of high horsepower engines of the correct size.

On a completely different note, would you be interested in getting a Scenario Checker Report on your scenarios as I develop that piece of the scenario editor?


The problem with this is that the ALTHIST side of this is the whole reason for the Mods. Japan faces serious trade-offs within these Mods and that is the cost of Yamamoto coming to power as well as changes to the Treaty System. If Japan gains one ship then GB and USA gain that change of 5 to Japan's 3. Japan adds a 30,000Ton BC then the United States and Great Britain gain up to 50,000T of comparable warship.



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/7/2017 10:10:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The problem with this is that the ALTHIST side of this is the whole reason for the Mods. Japan faces serious trade-offs within these Mods and that is the cost of Yamamoto coming to power as well as changes to the Treaty System. If Japan gains one ship then GB and USA gain that change of 5 to Japan's 3. Japan adds a 30,000Ton BC then the United States and Great Britain gain up to 50,000T of comparable warship.


I get that, but the aircraft r&d feature allows you to leave open the alt hist for aircraft, but not for ships. I can't effect what ships are laid down and I cannot determine how many of each I get. I can cut/stop production, but that's it.

Applying the same mindset to aircraft decisions as you make for ships is a limitation you do not have to make as a scenario designer. If Japan had 10-20? aircraft R&d factories instead of the 80 plus she has now, the Japanese player would not be able to get The Jack, the George and the Sam early - he'd be forced to choose one path. This is why I said the key is to limit the r&d and production facilities since they effectively limit the number of research paths you can pursue. Stock scen 1 gives Japan with a huge excess of r&d facilities. Simply repairing all of the initial research facilities ~80 x size 30 x 1000 supply means the JFB expends 2.4 million supply to fully build out all r&d. I do not do that and end up with excess r&d I choose not to use because the supply costs to build and repair them are huge.

That 2.4 million supply amounts to most of your starting supply stockpile or roughly 100 days of daily production. Part of why so much is possible in stock is that there is an overabundance of research factories combined with the arrival dates being "free". Each research line needs to be balanced from a perspective of impact, historical availability, and cost (r&d facilities) to research. The choice to advance one aircraft should cause a corresponding delay in another aircraft. That does not happen because the JFB can pay supply to advance both OR pay noting and get the model for free on the historical date. Limit the r&d facilities, set arrival dates beyond historical and make it so that dedication of sufficient R&D facilities allows one or two models to arrive before historical dates, but at the cost of other models appearing AFTER historical dates.

In that case, you can have the Jack and the George both in the scenario - but the player gets to choose his path without imbalancing the game.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/10/2017 1:37:59 AM)

Thanks for recommendations. Just got Friedman's US Battleships. Wow. Looks cool with LOTS of options and ideas.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/12/2017 8:02:31 PM)

Topics of work from my specific point-of-view:

1. 1st vs. 2nd Class DDs
2. Re-Working the ASW Escort Classes. Want to look at picking...say...two classes and work on mass producing them.
3. Use of the original weaponry taken off of CLs and larger. Specifically the old 5" guns and 4.7s that are replaced by the 3.9" AA Guns.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/13/2017 3:28:11 AM)

The Mod creates SNLF Assault Brigades by combining three normal SNLF units into a Brigade-Sized Force.

Wonder if it might be logical to allow for an upgrade to the units and incorporate defensive characteristics in mid-43 on? Thinking about adding a CD component from all those extra guns taken off of warships in 41-42-43. Additionally, would a slight increase in the units engineers/combat engineers be of use? We wouldn't see an increase in AV (presently between 190-200) instead it would toughen the unit as an atoll defense force.

Don't know. Just ideas...



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/13/2017 2:56:07 PM)

Got a proposal to make the CLV/CAV into CVE designations. Right now--due to the limits of the game--it is difficult to create a surface ship with aircraft ability and get it to do EVERYTHING.



btd64 -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/13/2017 3:02:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Got a proposal to make the CLV/CAV into CVE designations. Right now--due to the limits of the game--it is difficult to create a surface ship with aircraft ability and get it to do EVERYTHING.



How about a CVL? The CAV/CLV should be able to convert without a problem....GP



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/13/2017 3:07:17 PM)

Could you go from a CVE to a CVL?



btd64 -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/13/2017 3:32:10 PM)

I'm thinking no, speed requirements....GP



Kitakami -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/13/2017 3:46:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The Mod creates SNLF Assault Brigades by combining three normal SNLF units into a Brigade-Sized Force.

Wonder if it might be logical to allow for an upgrade to the units and incorporate defensive characteristics in mid-43 on? Thinking about adding a CD component from all those extra guns taken off of warships in 41-42-43. Additionally, would a slight increase in the units engineers/combat engineers be of use? We wouldn't see an increase in AV (presently between 190-200) instead it would toughen the unit as an atoll defense force.

Don't know. Just ideas...


I like the idea of the CD/AA component, as long at is based on using whatever is not used anymore to reinforce existing units, not on adding more to the force totals. The addition of the engineers I am not sure of, although I am not saying no, I just don't know enough about Japanese engineer training doctrine in WW2



Admiral DadMan -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/13/2017 3:58:12 PM)

The role of the CAV/CLV was to augment the Scouting Force’s ability to spot enemies at a distance, and only use its main guns in self-defense.

See post below for comments on game mechanics.



Kitakami -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/13/2017 4:02:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The problem with this is that the ALTHIST side of this is the whole reason for the Mods. Japan faces serious trade-offs within these Mods and that is the cost of Yamamoto coming to power as well as changes to the Treaty System. If Japan gains one ship then GB and USA gain that change of 5 to Japan's 3. Japan adds a 30,000Ton BC then the United States and Great Britain gain up to 50,000T of comparable warship.


I have been thinking about this since it was written. I have two thoughts, not necessarily valid:

1. I seem to recall that one mod had a 10-10-7 ratio. With the French fleet active in the Pacific, it may be warranted.

2, It may also be interesting to maintain a slower pace of naval production during the Treaty period, mostly investing in slipways and air, and increase the tempo of surface ship production only after the treaties are abandoned. I do not know the psyche of the national policy makers of the time, but it could be that playing low key for a while may be the solution.

I do think that increased naval building during the treaty period is not the solution for a stronger Japan. At least not big surface combatants. Carriers might be a different story, especially if Yamamoto Isoroku could convince the powers that be that an expanded air naval arm is in the best interests of the Empire of the Rising Sun.

Just my 2 cents. RA and BtS are seriously thought-provoking what ifs, and I am eagerly waiting for the next version.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/13/2017 10:56:07 PM)

Appreciate the thoughtful commentary. It is the kind of stuff I really enjoy.

Friedman's Battleship book is quite thought-provoking regarding American BB Design and options studied. May just pull something out from that as an added American change to the OOB.

Am finishing Scraps of Paper and it provides a lot more detail regarding the London Naval Conference that might provide some sound additional 'tweaks' to OOBs as well.



Admiral DadMan -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/13/2017 11:14:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

The role of the CAV/CLV was to augment the Scouting Force’s ability to spot enemies at a distance, and only use its main guns in self-defense.

Right now in-game, CAV/CLVs are designated as light carriers - CVL. This classification allows them to operate aircraft, but restricts them to only AirCom or Escort TFs.

CVs and CVLs are subject to the carrier reaction "step-in". This is coded to the ship type and only applies to CVs and CVLs, but not to CVEs.

So, if you're operating a CAV/CLV as cover for other ships, and an enemy CV/CVL jumps your TF with your CAV/CLV in it as a CVL, either or both TF WILL react "step-in" and the CAV/CLV will get creamed.

CVEs on the other hand, are not subject to this reaction "step-in", regardless of the type of TF they're in, including an AirCom TF.

CVEs can operate in many types of TFs, in particular CV Escort, but NOT SurCom TFs. CVEs are NOT subject to the "step-in" reaction feature, even when placed in an AirCom TF (without CVs or CVLs).

In terms of game mechanics, I think that classifying CAV/CLVs as CVEs will get them to do what they were intended to do. When they get rebuilt they can transition to CVL type.



btd64 -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/13/2017 11:24:28 PM)

I was thinking along those lines. Thank you Admiral Dadman....GP



paradigmblue -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/14/2017 1:44:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

The role of the CAV/CLV was to augment the Scouting Force’s ability to spot enemies at a distance, and only use its main guns in self-defense.

Right now in-game, CAV/CLVs are designated as light carriers - CVL. This classification allows them to operate aircraft, but restricts them to only AirCom or Escort TFs.

CVs and CVLs are subject to the carrier reaction "step-in". This is coded to the ship type and only applies to CVs and CVLs, but not to CVEs.

So, if you're operating a CAV/CLV as cover for other ships, and an enemy CV/CVL jumps your TF with your CAV/CLV in it as a CVL, either or both TF WILL react "step-in" and the CAV/CLV will get creamed.

CVEs on the other hand, are not subject to this reaction "step-in", regardless of the type of TF they're in, including an AirCom TF.

CVEs can operate in many types of TFs, in particular CV Escort, but NOT SurCom TFs. CVEs are NOT subject to the "step-in" reaction feature, even when placed in an AirCom TF (without CVs or CVLs).

In terms of game mechanics, I think that classifying CAV/CLVs as CVEs will get them to do what they were intended to do. When they get rebuilt they can transition to CVL type.


I've been considering re-classifying my CAVs and CLVs in game from CVLs to CAs and CLs so that they can operate in surface TFs. I think they would be more useful there, where their air wing can act as integrated CAP and scouting arm for the surface TF.



John 3rd -> RE: RA 7.9 (8/14/2017 11:20:42 AM)

Looks like we need to experiment some on the different classifications to see what we can get from each.



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.96875