RE: Updated Mods (Full Version)

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



Message


John 3rd -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 2:38:55 AM)

Was just looking over the starting map from both the Japanese and Allied sides and WOW there are lots of new toys with BOTH sides.

Allies
1. Saw those two gorgeous American Battlecruisers and the all the CA/CLVs.
2. Forgot about the French contingent in Tahiti.
3. The addition of all those specialized American SS (3 ML, 3 HUGE SS, and 3 seaplane SS--The Americans get their own Gadfly Recon Subs).
4. The augmented Force Z with Renown attached.
5. Reinforced Aussie and NZ Fleets (CAV, several DDs each, and a couple Aussie SS)
6. The reinforced Asiatic Fleet with an extra CA, CL, and 8 modern DDs.

What a wild and crazy game BTS is at start. YUMMY!

Had forgotten some of the additions...




Kitakami -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 2:43:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Was just looking over the starting map from both the Japanese and Allied sides and WOW there are lots of new toys with BOTH sides.

Allies
1. Saw those two gorgeous American Battlecruisers and the all the CA/CLVs.
2. Forgot about the French contingent in Tahiti.
3. The addition of all those specialized American SS (3 ML, 3 HUGE SS, and 3 seaplane SS--The Americans get their own Gadfly Recon Subs).
4. The augmented Force Z with Renown attached.
5. Reinforced Aussie and NZ Fleets (CAV, several DDs each, and a couple Aussie SS)
6. The reinforced Asiatic Fleet with an extra CA, CL, and 8 modern DDs.

What a wild and crazy game BTS is at start. YUMMY!

Had forgotten some of the additions...


The American BC's are much harder to upgrade than the French ones. Is that as designed?




John 3rd -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 1:01:10 PM)

How do you mean harder?




btd64 -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 1:05:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

How do you mean harder?



I think he's talking about the required shipyard size....GP




John 3rd -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 1:10:12 PM)

Well...they are rather large, perdy wessels...




btd64 -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 1:11:27 PM)

John,
Art wise, the following is missing;
G5N2 Liz and the A6M3b Zero. I would say that any new Japanese aircraft that you have made will need art. You could use existing art.

Allies;
French SS recon bird. Aussie and NZ naval aircraft from the Buff to the TBY's. All of this art can be had for the very low price of FREE from any Focus Pacific mod. I can Email to you, just PM your email again as I lost it....GP




btd64 -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 1:12:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Well...they are rather large, perdy wessels...



True....GP




BillBrown -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 1:33:05 PM)

In my BtS game, I had BC Repulse at Sydney( repair shipyard of 30 ) and it would not upgrade even though it says it needs a size 15 or larger shipyard.
I have her moving to PH now to see if that is big enough.




Kitakami -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 2:11:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
How do you mean harder?

I think he's talking about the required shipyard size....GP


Sorry for not being clear. GP is right, I meant shipyard size.

What does not feel right, and it can go either way for me is that the refit of the American BC's takes a size 40 (or 50) shipyard, while the refit off the French BC's takes a size ZERO shipyard. Perhaps the numbers should be closer to each other?

Just a thought.




Admiral DadMan -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 2:42:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
How do you mean harder?

I think he's talking about the required shipyard size....GP


Sorry for not being clear. GP is right, I meant shipyard size.

What does not feel right, and it can go either way for me is that the refit of the American BC's takes a size 40 (or 50) shipyard, while the refit off the French BC's takes a size ZERO shipyard. Perhaps the numbers should be closer to each other?

Just a thought.


I wonder what all is being done on the upgrade.




Kitakami -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 2:58:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
I wonder what all is being done on the upgrade.


BC Dunkerque class:

Upgrade dmg 5, upgrade delay 15, upgrade shipyard size 0 (Aug '42)

10x 37 mm AA -> 36x 40mm AA
32x 13.2 mm AA -> 32x 20mm AA
1x DEM AS radar -> 1x SA AS radar
1x DEM SS radar -> 1x SF SS radar


BC Constitution class:

Upgrade dmg 0, upgrade delay 30, upgrade shipyard size 40 (Feb '42)

8x 5in/25 Mk 10 + 4x 3in/50 Mk 10 -> 10x 5in/25 Mk 10
16x 1.1in Mk 1 AA -> 24 1.1in Mk 1 AA
12x 0.5in Mk III AA -> 16x 20mm AA
CXAM AS radar remains the same
CXAM SS radar -> SC SS radar

It may be me, but I do not see that much of a difference between the upgrades. Perhaps there is something I am not seeing? I am not an expert in this.




Lecivius -> RE: Updated Mods (8/24/2017 3:21:02 PM)

From an idjits point of view...

"8x 5in/25 Mk 10 + 4x 3in/50 Mk 10 -> 10x 5in/25 Mk 10 "

That is some serious work. The work on the Dunkerque is pop & swap. The Constitution is getting hydraulics, fire control, ready ammo storage...a lot of work...done.




John 3rd -> RE: Updated Mods (8/25/2017 4:07:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

In my BtS game, I had BC Repulse at Sydney( repair shipyard of 30 ) and it would not upgrade even though it says it needs a size 15 or larger shipyard.
I have her moving to PH now to see if that is big enough.


Let me know how that turns out.

Have you converted any of the CLV/CAV yet?




John 3rd -> RE: Updated Mods (8/25/2017 4:08:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
I wonder what all is being done on the upgrade.


BC Dunkerque class:

Upgrade dmg 5, upgrade delay 15, upgrade shipyard size 0 (Aug '42)

10x 37 mm AA -> 36x 40mm AA
32x 13.2 mm AA -> 32x 20mm AA
1x DEM AS radar -> 1x SA AS radar
1x DEM SS radar -> 1x SF SS radar


BC Constitution class:

Upgrade dmg 0, upgrade delay 30, upgrade shipyard size 40 (Feb '42)

8x 5in/25 Mk 10 + 4x 3in/50 Mk 10 -> 10x 5in/25 Mk 10
16x 1.1in Mk 1 AA -> 24 1.1in Mk 1 AA
12x 0.5in Mk III AA -> 16x 20mm AA
CXAM AS radar remains the same
CXAM SS radar -> SC SS radar

It may be me, but I do not see that much of a difference between the upgrades. Perhaps there is something I am not seeing? I am not an expert in this.


Will work on the consistency of the two. Have you found any others?




John 3rd -> RE: Updated Mods (8/25/2017 4:09:44 AM)

Michael and I had a great today, as I was driving around the various stores, and I think we have the potential of some very interesting plans based on the stronger reaction by USA to the Hepburn Report.




Admiral DadMan -> RE: Updated Mods (8/25/2017 4:25:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Michael and I had a great today, as I was driving around the various stores, and I think we have the potential of some very interesting plans based on the stronger reaction by USA to the Hepburn Report.


Well I don't think you mean this: Tropospheric Ducting Forecast for VHF & UHF Radio & TV

or this: The Hepburn Act of 1906

or this: Audrey Hepburn - Theater Actress, Film Actor/Film Actress, Actress - Bio

So it must be what is referred to in this: THE DECLINE AND RENAISSANCE OF THE NAVY, 1922-1944




John 3rd -> RE: Updated Mods (8/25/2017 4:28:10 PM)

Nope!

We're talking about the report regarding upgrading Fortifications/Bases in the American Central Pacific.




ny59giants -> RE: Updated Mods (8/27/2017 2:46:25 PM)

While John is away with family for weekend, I'm trying to do my part with Japan's OOB. I've got some of the IJN BFs, Spec BFs, and Port Units set to upgrade in mid-43. However, when I open a head-to-head game to check things out, they can upgrade immediately (various Air HQs have same issue). John wants to go back to refineries NOT producing supplies, so I need someone to see if I've created enough LI and Resources for this to occur. I need a better modder than me to PM me so I can send them the files and tell me after fixing them what I've done wrong.

Thanks in advance!! [&o]




BillBrown -> RE: Updated Mods (8/27/2017 4:48:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

In my BtS game, I had BC Repulse at Sydney( repair shipyard of 30 ) and it would not upgrade even though it says it needs a size 15 or larger shipyard.
I have her moving to PH now to see if that is big enough.


Let me know how that turns out.

Have you converted any of the CLV/CAV yet?



Repulse is still moving.

Yes, the two that I have left anyway.




Kitakami -> RE: Updated Mods (8/28/2017 1:17:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Will work on the consistency of the two. Have you found any others?


Hmm...

CA Algerie, 2 '42 upgrade (853) Upgrade Shipyard Size of zero? Equivalent USN upgrades require at least 5.

8x 37mm -> 16x 40mm
20x 13.2mm -> 32x 20mm
1x DEM AS Radar -> SA AS Radar
1x DEM SS Radar -> SF SS Radar

DD Le Hardi, 12 '41 upgrade (859) Upgrade Shipyard Size of zero?

2x 37mm -> 2x 40mm
8x 13.2mm & 5x 8mm -> 10x 20mm

DD La Galissonniere, 10 '42 upgrade (776) Upgrade Shipyard Size of zero?

2x 37mm & 2x 25mm -> 24x 40mm
8x 13.2mm -> 16x 20mm

In general, all the French upgrades seem to have an Upgrade Shipyard Size of zero. Perhaps there should be a non zero value?




John 3rd -> RE: Updated Mods (8/28/2017 1:50:24 AM)

Home from the weekend. Had a marvelous ride on the Royal Gorge Railroad and had a magnificent meal while riding. Highly recommend this experience to anyone coming to southern Colorado.

Will fix the French upgrades Kitakami. You are totally correct about that!




John 3rd -> RE: Updated Mods (8/28/2017 10:58:40 PM)

Double Post







John 3rd -> RE: Updated Mods (8/28/2017 11:06:42 PM)

Been percolating on a slightly more 'interesting' Allied deployment favored by Adm Kimmel and pushed by the Hepburn Report. The premise is that the United States, acting a greater concern regarding Japan, works to deploy and enhance base construction and garrisoning at a slightly faster rate then IRL. Anything NEW is listed with the base. You'll see some troops, shipping, base modifications, and supply/fuel additions. Nothing HUGE but enough to really provide the Allied player a few more options as well as a few rude surprises for the Japanese player.

The Hepburn Board. -- On June 7, 1938, acting Secretary of the Navy Charles Edison appointed a board consisting of Rear Admiral Arthur J. Hepburn, Commandant of the Twelfth Naval District, as senior member, and Rear Admiral Edward J. Marquart, Captain James S. Woods, Captain Arthur L. Bristol, Jr., Captain Ralph Whitman, C.E.C., as members, with Lieutenant Commander William E. Hilbert as recorder.

The board, which became known as the Hepburn Board, made an exhaustive survey of the strategic needs in connection with the naval defense of the United States and of existing facilities for meeting those needs. In an outstanding report submitted to Congress on December 27, 1938, the board recommended the establishment of new air bases and the expansion of existing bases to provide three major air bases on each coast, one in the Canal Zone, and one in Hawaii; with outlying operating bases in the West Indies, Alaska, and our Pacific island possessions. The board also recommended that the naval air training station at Pensacola be greatly enlarged and that possibly an additional air training station be established at Corpus Christi, Texas; new submarine bases be established in Alaska and the mid-Pacific area, and several existing stations be improved or retained. Some additional facilities were suggested for the existing destroyer bases at Philadelphia and San Diego. No new mine bases were considered necessary, but certain deficiencies were noted in existing bases. A general priority schedule was set up, based on the necessity for providing facilities when the ships and aircraft authorized by the Vinson bill would be completed. In addition, there was a list of projects, considered to be of immediate strategic importance, which should be undertaken at the earliest practicable date. These items were: (1) improvement of air facilities at Kaneohe Bay. Hawaii; (2) submarine and air bases at Wake Island, Midway Island, and Guam; (3) air facilities at Johnston Island and Palmyra Island; (4) air and submarine bases at Kodiak and Sitka; (5) and submarine facilities at San Juan, Puerto Rico.

In making its studies and formulating its report, the Hepburn Board drew upon the great mass of plans and projects that had been developed by the various bureaus of the Navy as being desirable. As Admiral Hepburn testified at the Congressional hearings on his report, "I would say that every item that the board has suggested has been considered in the past some time by one department or another or by the Joint Board involved, and they have been put down as projects to be attained when they can get the money."4 The board performed an invaluable service in taking all these proposals and, within the framework of definite strategic necessities and available facilities, formulating a comprehensive and coordinated plan for development, especially in the field of aircraft.

Although the estimated cost of the programs set up by the Hepburn Board report was $326,216,000, the first request for authorization from Congress to initiate the program was for $65,000,000 to cover a three-year program. However, events were mounting rapidly, and by the time this program was well under way it had been overshadowed by the need for even greater and more expensive developments. In the general defense program that was to begin a year later, practically all the board's recommendations, except those relating to Guam, were carried out and contributed materially to our position when war actually developed.


December 7, 1941
Changes in Deployment and Bases


NoPac

Umnak
Convoy: APs: Henry Allen, Examiner, Santa Inez, Santa Barbara, and 3 AK
Escort: CL Concord and DDs Harwood, Decatur, Hart, and Smith
47th Construction Regiment, and 1/153 Inf Bn
Supply: 2,500 Fuel: 250

Dutch Harbor
VP-24 (6 PBYs)

Cold Bay
808th Aviation Eng Bn and 3/153 Inf Bn (from Annette Isle)
Fort-1
Supply: 1,500 Fuel: 150

Imagine this pair of Task Forces first arriving at Cold Bay then unloading, moving on to Dutch Harbor and unloading supplies/fuel, and finally Umnak having just finished unloading on Dec 7th.

CenPac

Pearl Harbor
2nd USMC Para Bn, 2nd Pioneer Bn, 34th Inf Reg, and 198th Field Artillery

Midway
Task Force 419: 6 PT boats
VP-21 (11 PBYs)
1/298 Inf Bn
P-1 AF-3 Fort-2
Supply: 3,500 Fuel: 1,000

Wake
VP-14 (12 PBYs)
P-1 AF-2 Fort-2
Supply: 2,000 Fuel: 1,000

Canton
2/298 Inf Bn
P-2 AF-1 Fort-2
Supply: 1,800 Fuel: 8,000

Christmas Isle
3/298 Inf Bn
P-1 AF-0 Fort-1
Supply: 1,500 Fuel: 800

SoPac

Pago Pago
TF 421 (6 PT Boats)
VMSB-231 (18 Vindicators) and 51st/16th PS (18 P-40)
2nd and 7th Marine Def Bn, 104th USN Base Force, and 30th Base Group
P-2 AF-2 Fort-2
Disbanded in Port:
Convoy: APs: Pres Polk—Madison—Monroe, AKs Alcoa Pathfinder, Shooting Star, and Ruth Alexander, 4 SS (S-Boats), AS Fulton, and an AM
Escorts: CLs Detroit and Raleigh with DDs Oreleck, SP Lee, Woodbury, and Delphy


The SCOUTING FORCE Near Jarvis Isle
CLV Jacksonville (12 Buffalo and 6 SBD)
BCs Ranger and Constellation
CAs Indianapolis and Salt Lake City
DD: 6

CV Enterprise and Lexington's TFs begin in their historical locations.







Admiral DadMan -> RE: Updated Mods (8/29/2017 12:53:15 AM)

I found references in to the Hepburn Report here as well:

THE DECLINE AND RENAISSANCE OF THE NAVY, 1922-1944




InfiniteMonkey -> RE: Updated Mods (8/29/2017 4:25:26 AM)

Hey John,

One thing I really like about BTS is the 20mm armed Oscar. Have you considered what if's centered around fighter designs built around 12.7 mm and 20mm instead of 7.7mm and 12.7mm guns? Maybe turn the 7.7mm's into HMG squads in SNLF's?






John 3rd -> RE: Updated Mods (8/30/2017 5:09:59 PM)

Michael has sent me the files with his work done in them. I now have them for final work before being ready to release Between the Storms.

My 'To Do' list:
1. Check LCU Upgrades for Japan
2. Re-work the A6 development line to simplify production and useless clutter.
3. Check DB/TB upgrade paths.
4. Work all the IJN CV Air Group names to a more Japanese feel.
5. Change starting Allied Bases and LCU locations as detailed earlier.
6. Work French units.
7. IJN Pilot Pools
8. Slight reduction in IJN Pilot XP at start.

Is there something there not listed that needs to be done?





Lecivius -> RE: Updated Mods (8/30/2017 5:16:47 PM)

Give the AFB's a few toys? [:D][:D][:D]


[image]local://upfiles/26061/333D658F48F049DEB70562EC0E445147.jpg[/image]




durnedwolf -> RE: Updated Mods (8/30/2017 5:58:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Michael has sent me the files with his work done in them. I now have them for final work before being ready to release Between the Storms.

My 'To Do' list:
1. Check LCU Upgrades for Japan
2. Re-work the A6 development line to simplify production and useless clutter.
3. Check DB/TB upgrade paths.
4. Work all the IJN CV Air Group names to a more Japanese feel.
5. Change starting Allied Bases and LCU locations as detailed earlier.

Is there something there not listed that needs to be done?




Hi John,

In looking at the game I downloaded, it looks like several Divisions are scattered a bit. And a few have Chain-of-Command issues. Unless there's a need in your scenario, maybe you could just make all of those divisions start "whole" and let the player break them down if needed?

Are there any ship types that can be converted to mine sweepers? It looks like Japan is a little light in those.




Kitakami -> RE: Updated Mods (8/30/2017 8:07:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Michael has sent me the files with his work done in them. I now have them for final work before being ready to release Between the Storms.

My 'To Do' list:
1. Check LCU Upgrades for Japan
2. Re-work the A6 development line to simplify production and useless clutter.
3. Check DB/TB upgrade paths.
4. Work all the IJN CV Air Group names to a more Japanese feel.
5. Change starting Allied Bases and LCU locations as detailed earlier.

Is there something there not listed that needs to be done?


French upgrade shipyard sizes.




Kitakami -> RE: Updated Mods (8/30/2017 8:12:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Give the AFB's a few toys? [:D][:D][:D]


[image]local://upfiles/26061/333D658F48F049DEB70562EC0E445147.jpg[/image]


After going through 8 months of BtS Lite Allied play, doing 2-day turns against the AI. I think I will be seduced by the Dark Side (TM), and play as the Allies when the new iteration comes out.

Being totally honest, I do not see the need for more toys on the Allied side. With the additions to the USN and the British Navy, plus the appearance of the French Navy, I think there is enough toys to play with already. True, initial Japanese power is high, but there is more than enough to counter it if the Allied player is patient and cautious.




Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.90625