New BTS

New BTS (Full Version)

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

Message

John 3rd -> New BTS (8/31/2017 10:10:19 PM)
Current List of work to do: 1. Fix A-24 upgrade issues. 2. Figure out a USN Re-Size solution. 3. Fix Sho-Zui starting aircraft numbers. 4. Nisshin AA issue. 5. Check Aoba, Furutaka, Colorado-Class binds. 6. Change HMNZS Wellington to NZ Pilots. 7. SIX brings up the issue of the NZ/Aust Pilot Pools and Pilot production. Will check that. 8. Reikan to Kantei 9. Changing names of all Japanese Air Fleets to actual Japanese Names. 10. Add the Wind-Class Ice Breakers to Allied OOB. More?

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (8/31/2017 10:11:08 PM)
Michael and I had a great chat talking about re-sizing, Allied Fighter units, and a host of other things today. Will Post when these thoughts become a bit more solid.

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (8/31/2017 11:09:29 PM)
Color me an idiot. You think you get stuff done and DON'T! FIXED: 1. A-24 upgrade done. 2. Sho-Zui Air Groups done (21-24-24-3). 3. Nisshin 25MM AA ammo good. 4. Aoba/Furutaka/Colorado Conversions FIXED. Didn't know they were wrong. STUPID!!! 5. Air units on the HMNZS Wellington are now--dare I say--NEW ZEALAND planes. DOUBLE STUPID! Will get to the rest later tonight...

Lecivius -> RE: New BTS (9/1/2017 12:46:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Color me an idiot. OK [:D] [image]local://upfiles/26061/0314BF37C21D427D8B7D98828862079D.jpg[/image]

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (9/1/2017 12:58:25 PM)
Thanks Lecivius. Appreciate that... [sm=00000924.gif]

Lecivius -> RE: New BTS (9/1/2017 1:12:44 PM)
Anytime, man. I got your back [;)] [image]local://upfiles/26061/9118E43C393D415DAB74BD4291E18EBE.jpg[/image]

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (9/1/2017 4:16:55 PM)
Changed all Reikan units to the correct Kantei. Found a major error that somehow got by all of us. We deleted the Jack from the Mods reflecting design changes and differing emphasis. In the process we, somehow, did not think to change the units coming in with Jacks to something actually offered within the Mods. Oooopps. This looks like it applied to 6-8 Fighter units. Not much but it does make a difference. Stupid mistake that I will take full blame for. Since I streamlined the ZERO Production line, had to make sure that the Jack mistake didn't occur with Models deleted. That would have impacted six more Fighter units. Need the Japanese Numbers for the Air Fleets. Just the numbers--1 through 14--and then I can work on that.

Admiral DadMan -> RE: New BTS (9/1/2017 4:53:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Changed all Reikan units to the correct Kantei. That's for Carrier borne only. quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Need the Japanese Numbers for the Air Fleets. Just the numbers--1 through 14--and then I can work on that. 1st Air Fleet = Dai-ichi KōKū Kantai 2nd Air Fleet = Dai-ni KōKū Kantai 3rd Air Fleet = Dai-san KōKū Kantai 4th Air Fleet = Dai-shi KōKū Kantai 5th Air Fleet = Dai-go KōKū Kantai 6th Air Fleet = Dai-roku KōKū Kantai 7th Air Fleet = Dai-shichi KōKū Kantai 8th Air Fleet = Dai-hachi KōKū Kantai 9th Air Fleet = Dai-kyū KōKū Kantai 10th Air Fleet = Dai-jū KōKū Kantai 11th Air Fleet = Dai-jū ichi KōKū Kantai 12th Air Fleet = Dai-jū ni KōKū Kantai 13th Air Fleet = Dai-jū shi KōKū Kantai 14th Air Fleet = Dai-jū yon KōKū Kantai I've discovered that all the text will not fit. You can delete "Kantai" ("Fleet") if you wish as the game includes the suffix "Fleet" in English.

btd64 -> RE: New BTS (9/1/2017 6:02:20 PM)
Hey John, Admiral Dadman has some nice BB conversions for the Allies. Since the Midway class has been removed you may want to add these conversions....GP

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (9/1/2017 11:35:13 PM)
Air Fleets are turning Japanese now.

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (9/1/2017 11:36:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: General Patton Hey John, Admiral Dadman has some nice BB conversions for the Allies. Since the Midway class has been removed you may want to add these conversions....GP Do you mean Montana's?

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (9/1/2017 11:49:02 PM)
The vastly simplified ZERO Line now works along these lines: CV-Based: A6M2 to the A6M5 in Oct 1942 Ground-Based: A6M2 to A6M3 in Feb 42 and then the A6M4 in Oct 1942 The player will have to research in Georges and Sams. These do come in earlier but heavy research will help to save the Japanese Kansen pilots...

Admiral DadMan -> RE: New BTS (9/1/2017 11:58:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd CV-Based: A6M2 to the A6M5 in Oct 1942 (Kansen) Ground-Based: A6M2 to A6M3 in Feb 42 and then the A6M4 in Oct 1942 (Shikisen) The player will have to research in Georges and Sams. These do come in earlier but heavy research will help to save the Japanese Kansen (carrier-borne) and *Shikisen* (land-based) pilots... quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd quote: ORIGINAL: General Patton Hey John, Admiral Dadman has some nice BB conversions for the Allies. Since the Midway class has been removed you may want to add these conversions....GP Do you mean Montana's? The conversions I did were for Alaska and Iowa class. If you implement the hypothetical 12-inch Alaska, I would really hate to convert it...

btd64 -> RE: New BTS (9/2/2017 12:03:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd quote: ORIGINAL: General Patton Hey John, Admiral Dadman has some nice BB conversions for the Allies. Since the Midway class has been removed you may want to add these conversions....GP Do you mean Montana's? Yes. I guess you know about them then.[8D]....GP

ny59giants -> RE: New BTS (9/2/2017 12:22:01 AM)
quote: The vastly simplified ZERO Line now works along these lines: CV-Based: A6M2 to the A6M5 in Oct 1942 Ground-Based: A6M2 to A6M3 in Feb 42 and then the A6M4 in Oct 1942 The player will have to research in Georges and Sams. These do come in earlier but heavy research will help to save the Japanese Kansen pilots... I just called John about this, but it's girls night out and he is grilling steak with the boys. [8D] I say there is NO land based Zero line. I would like it to be A6M2 to M5 to A7 Sams. The Georges can be easily R&D to come in Oct/Nov '42 and take the role for land based. I would keep some of smaller A6M2/5 air groups for escort mission of Nells. I have 3 x 30 George factories doing R&D on 2nd gen Georges. They should come in in mid-43. What say you?!?

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (9/2/2017 2:01:57 AM)
If we do this then ALL Japanese Fighter research goes into George and Sam. What impact would that bring? We could still allow for the Jack if wanted as well...

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (9/2/2017 3:20:15 AM)
Went back into Scenario ONE for the original dates of the Fighters coming in. Here are the three Naval possibilities with their various model dates for entry: George 9/43--11/44--10/45 Jack 9/43--4-44--1/45 Sam 9/45--1/46 As stated this comes from Scenario ONE. If the ZERO team ends development of the ZERO airframe/family early then it stands to reason we could see advancement elsewhere. We know that the George was an independent project so what would happen if resources were thrown behind it much earlier then planned? LOTS of possibilities and we are open for ideas, thoughts, and comments.

1EyedJacks -> RE: New BTS (9/2/2017 6:25:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Went back into Scenario ONE for the original dates of the Fighters coming in. Here are the three Naval possibilities with their various model dates for entry: George 9/43--11/44--10/45 Jack 9/43--4-44--1/45 Sam 9/45--1/46 As stated this comes from Scenario ONE. If the ZERO team ends development of the ZERO air frame/family early then it stands to reason we could see advancement elsewhere. We know that the George was an independent project so what would happen if resources were thrown behind it much earlier then planned? LOTS of possibilities and we are open for ideas, thoughts, and comments. So the Carrier Zero goes to A6M5 in 10/42 - right? So out go the 5b, 5c, and 8. And the Army stops at A6M4 in 10/42? So the Zero team stops in October but would they work on an army fighter or a naval fighter? Politics being politics, my thinking is that they's go navy/Jack. I guess you could shave 1-3 months off of the 1st generation Jack, SAM, or George and then 4-5 months off of the 2nd & 3rd generations of whichever of the three air frames you finally chose to advance.

Kitakami -> RE: New BTS (9/2/2017 7:18:10 PM)
I think there are a few things to consider: 1. If A6M production is stopped early, both research people and production lines would be free. ----- a. Horikoshi Jiro and his closest people would probably want to work on the A7M. ----- b. Others would gravitate to where they are needed. ----- c. Installations at Mitsubishi in Nagoya could be used for something else. 2. The J2M was also a Mitsubishi plane. ----- a. It is logical that design engineers not close to Horikoshi Jiro gravitate to this project. ----- b. It used the Mitsubishi Kasei (Ha-32) engine... which is already in production at the start of the war. 3. The N1K-J was a Kawanishi plane. ----- a. I do not think that Mitsubishi would send their engineers to work at another company. ----- b. It used the Nakajima NK9A Homare engine (Ha-45), which begins production in 9/43 unless it is accelerated. 4. The A7M is the design will come much later in the war. ----- a. It is a Mitsubishi design, so Horikoshi Jiro and his closest would probably move to this project. ----- b. It used the Nakajima NK9A Homare engine (Ha-45), which begins production in 9/43 unless it is accelerated. So, a few of thoughts: - The A6M production factory perhaps could upgrade to the A7M if it is not changed to anything else. It is not the amount of supply saved I am thinking of, but rather the amount of TIME. - The resources freed by closing down A6M production would mostly go to the J2M. That would probably advance both the initial production model and the follow up versions by a bit. - I do not see N1K-J production being affected. - A7M production could be brought forward a bit. - The A7M would be benefited indirectly if the A6M-5 factories upgrade to the A7M2. Just my two cents. Take everything with a grain of salt, as usual.

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (9/2/2017 9:13:06 PM)
Solid, thoughtful thinking. Let's get more thinking done here. We are not in an immediate rush to crank this update out so we can spend a bit of time working on things.

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (9/2/2017 9:18:46 PM)
I picked up Scraps of Paper and just finished it. This book is rather thought-provoking in that several things jumped out at me. The author makes the case that the United States would have gone for the 10:10:7 Ratio if Japan truly planned to walk without getting its way. The Treaty Years within these Mods (Treaty--BTS--BTSL) is built along the lines of 10:10:6 for Washington but 10:10:7 for London. The reality is that we allow for the building of BC Ishitaka with the Americans then getting BCs Ranger and Constellation. Factoring tonnage brings us to pretty much a 10:10:7 ratio. Perhaps we simply go with that and establish that the Japanese planned to walk away NO MATTER WHAT if they didn't get this number. Since the US is reading Japan's mail, then Charles Evans Hughes knows exactly how much he can push the Japanese delegation. We settle at 10:10:7 for the ten years of Washington. Am going to work out the math and put out a thoughtful proposal...

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (9/2/2017 9:37:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kitakami I think there are a few things to consider: 1. If A6M production is stopped early, both research people and production lines would be free. ----- a. Horikoshi Jiro and his closest people would probably want to work on the A7M. ----- b. Others would gravitate to where they are needed. ----- c. Installations at Mitsubishi in Nagoya could be used for something else. 2. The J2M was also a Mitsubishi plane. ----- a. It is logical that design engineers not close to Horikoshi Jiro gravitate to this project. ----- b. It used the Mitsubishi Kasei (Ha-32) engine... which is already in production at the start of the war. 3. The N1K-J was a Kawanishi plane. ----- a. I do not think that Mitsubishi would send their engineers to work at another company. ----- b. It used the Nakajima NK9A Homare engine (Ha-45), which begins production in 9/43 unless it is accelerated. 4. The A7M is the design will come much later in the war. ----- a. It is a Mitsubishi design, so Horikoshi Jiro and his closest would probably move to this project. ----- b. It used the Nakajima NK9A Homare engine (Ha-45), which begins production in 9/43 unless it is accelerated. So, a few of thoughts: - The A6M production factory perhaps could upgrade to the A7M if it is not changed to anything else. It is not the amount of supply saved I am thinking of, but rather the amount of TIME. - The resources freed by closing down A6M production would mostly go to the J2M. That would probably advance both the initial production model and the follow up versions by a bit. - I do not see N1K-J production being affected. - A7M production could be brought forward a bit. - The A7M would be benefited indirectly if the A6M-5 factories upgrade to the A7M2. Just my two cents. Take everything with a grain of salt, as usual. Where was Kawanishi's home base of operations?

1EyedJacks -> RE: New BTS (9/3/2017 12:23:01 AM)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_Aircraft_Company

John 3rd -> RE: New BTS (9/3/2017 12:31:42 AM)
Hyogo Prefecture--Capital is Kobe.

John 3rd -> Dailing in on Washington (9/5/2017 3:44:59 AM)
OK. Some would say I have way TOO MUCH life and at other times I will make the case of having no life whatsoever. My brain has been chewing on the Washington and London Naval Treaties. Let us first say that I am a military historian first and foremost so I have to cite my sources, make the case, and BE ACCURATE. Since we added the BCs Ishitaka, Constellation, and Ranger, it has bothered me that I did not actual do the physical math to make sure the Washington numbers jibe and are ACCURATE for the Treaty. Here is my current intro to the changes in the Washington Treaty for the Treaty and Between the Storms Mods: The Washington Conference Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes blueprint for naval disarmament gets out and the Japanese stonewall a Naval Conference for a full year. After considerable bickering and pressure being brought to bear, the Conference does take place in 1922 and disarmament is agreed upon, however, there are additions allowed due to the added time to get the meeting going. The whole Mutsu debate is scrapped due to Mutsu actually being ready and deployed at that point. While maintaining the 5-5-3 ratio between Great Britain, the United States, and Japan, there are several new outcomes: 1. The Japanese then argue to keep either a Tosa or one of the Amagi Class battlecruisers. The Americans carry the day in arguing for the Lexington-Class battlecruisers being completed. They gain the Ranger and Constellation (while scrapping BB Mississippi to maintain balance), Great Britain gets the option to build a pair of Super-Hoods (while additionally scrapping Royal Sovereign), and Japan completes Amagi-Class Ishitaka. 2. The whole subject of CVs is reworked: a. Two 'experimental' CVs (two Hosho's and two Langley's) are allowed to be built for further carrier experimentation. The Americans still convert USS Langley and USS Ely to seaplane carriers and they are both then transferred to the Asiatic Fleet. b. Two BC to CV conversions are still allowed but further treaty tonnage is added for one more CVL to be built by both Japan and USA. The Americans build the USS King�s Mountain (proto-Independence Class) and the Japanese back off the failed Ryujo design to build IJN Ryukaku (a proto-CVL as well). 3. The Big 3 allow for more research into 'Cruiser' Submarines. The Americans build an additional Argonaut and Narwhal, the Japanese add three Mine Layers, and the French add another Surcouf. What bothered me is that in reading the book Scraps of Paper recently, an opinion I have had since I wrote my Thesis was borne out by Mr. Hyde's belief that the Americans would have accepted a 10:10:7 ratio instead of traditional 5:5:3 of 1922. We were desperate to get out from under the 1916 and 1918 Building Programs while the Japanese were desirous of the same thing but really WANTED to finish their almost complete hulls. The new premise is for the Japanese to hold out for the higher tonnage. Now--AFB--keep in mind if the Japanese get ONE of anything, the USA and British gain nearly 3 between them. Here is a potentially reworked intro to the Washington Treaty changes: The Washington Conference Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes blueprint for naval disarmament gets out and the Japanese stonewall a Naval Conference for a full year. After considerable bickering and pressure being brought to bear, the Conference does take place in 1922 and disarmament is agreed upon, however, there are additions allowed due to the added time to get the meeting going. The whole Mutsu debate is scrapped due to Mutsu actually being ready and deployed at that point. A slightly higher 10:10:7 ratio between Great Britain, the United States, and Japan is agreed upon, there are several new outcomes: 1. The Ratio Change to 10:10:7: a. The Japanese argue to keep the nearly complete battleship Tosa and the Amagi-Class battlecruiser Ishitaka. The Americans gain the fourth Colorado-Class Washington and battlecruiser Constellation (while scrapping the old battleships Florida and Utah while making the Wyoming into a gunnery training ship to maintain balance), Great Britain gets the option to build a pair of Super-Hoods (while additionally scrapping Royal Sovereign). b. Tonnages are left open for the British to build two 35,000 Ton battleships and the United States has 28,000 Ton available for a new Capital Ship. This warships is designed through the late-20s and is authorized for building at the time of the London Naval Conference. The decision is made to build a fast Light Battlecruiser armed with 4x3 12" Guns. 2. The whole subject of CVs is reworked: a. Two 'experimental' CVs (two Hosho's and two Langley's) are allowed to be built for further carrier experimentation. The Americans convert USS Langley and USS Ely to CVEs and they begin the war at the Panama Canal. b. Two BC to CV conversions are still allowed but further treaty tonnage is added for one more CVL to be built by both Japan and USA. The Americans build the USS King�s Mountain (proto-Independence Class)and use the last of their allotment to make Wasp a 4th Yorktown'Class CV. The Japanese back off the failed Ryujo design to build IJN Ryukaku (a proto-CVL as well) and create Soryu as a Hiryu-Class CV. 3. The Big 3 allow for more research into 'Cruiser' Submarines. Since no one had any real idea of where submarines were headed, this allows for further experimentation. The Americans build an additional Argonaut, Narwhal, and three Seaplane carrying subs. The Japanese add three Mine Layers and four large ocean-going Glen SS, and the French add another Surcouf. Will post the ship listings along with the exact tonnage figures later on tonight.

Ian R -> RE: New BTS (9/5/2017 12:58:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Went back into Scenario ONE for the original dates of the Fighters coming in. Here are the three Naval possibilities with their various model dates for entry: George 9/43--11/44--10/45 Jack 9/43--4-44--1/45 Sam 9/45--1/46 As stated this comes from Scenario ONE. If the ZERO team ends development of the ZERO airframe/family early then it stands to reason we could see advancement elsewhere. We know that the George was an independent project so what would happen if resources were thrown behind it much earlier then planned? LOTS of possibilities and we are open for ideas, thoughts, and comments. As long as you don't go the nasty nasty iron man route where the IJN gets carrier capable 500mph Shuseis in 1944, any realistic development path is OK. Speaking of which, has anyone done art for the FH-1, FJ-1 and F9F? I have had to put them into my Long, long road to Tokyo mod appearing 45/46/47 to deal with all the IJ vapourware that turns up there. If so may I use the art? Apologies for the thread diversion, John.

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/5/2017 1:15:53 PM)
Spent some of the night, after the above Post, examining real BB designs drawn up between 1928 and 1933. The choices I come up with are true designs made by the navy that are detailed in Norman Friedman's book U.S. Battleships. This is where you the player get to make a choice. There are two possibilities: Option A Page 231 Option 8 Tonnage 31,000 Speed 30 Knots Armament: 12 12"/50 guns in four twin turrets, twelve 5"/38 in twin mountings Cruising Radius 13,250 NM at 15 Knots Aircraft 6 Planes Armor Deck 5", Belt 13", Barbettes 14" Option B Page 231 Option 11 Tonnage 28,500 Speed 32.5 Knots Armament: 6 14"/50 guns in three twin turrets, twelve 5"/38 in twin mountings Cruising Radius 12,000 NM at 15 Knots Aircraft 6 Planes Armor Deck 5", Belt 13", Barbettes 14"

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/5/2017 1:38:23 PM)
Let's go through the Real Life Numbers and ships from Washington vs. the revamped Ships and Numbers for the Mod: USA Utah 21,825 Florida 21,825 Wyoming 26,000 Arkansas 26,000 Texas 27,000 New York 27,000 Nevada 27,500 Oklahoma 27,500 Pennsylvania 31,400 Arizona 31,400 Mississippi 32,000 New Mexico 32,000 Idaho 32,000 Tennessee 32,300 California 32,300 Maryland 32,600 West Virginia 32,600 Colorado 32,600 TOTAL: 525,850 Japan Settsu TARGET SHIP Kongo 27,500 Hiei 27,500 Haruna 27,500 Kirishima 27,500 Fuso 30,600 Yamashiro 30,600 Ise 31,260 Hyuga 31,260 Nagato 33,800 Mutsu 33,800 TOTAL: 301,230 525,280 x .6 = 315,510 Japan has 14,280 T available but nothing can be built to that tonnage. NEW NUMBERS USA Wyoming TARGET SHIP Arkansas 26,000 Texas 27,000 New York 27,000 Nevada 27,500 Oklahoma 27,500 Pennsylvania 31,400 Arizona 31,400 Mississippi 32,000 New Mexico 32,000 Idaho 32,000 Tennessee 32,300 California 32,300 Maryland 32,600 West Virginia 32,600 Colorado 32,600 Washington 32,600 Constellation 43,500 +1 New Capital Ship to be built 30,000 T TOTAL: 597,300 Japan Settsu TARGET SHIP Kongo 27,500 Hiei 27,500 Haruna 27,500 Kirishima 27,500 Fuso 30,600 Yamashiro 30,600 Ise 31,260 Hyuga 31,260 Nagato 33,800 Mutsu 33,800 Tosa 39,900 Ishitaka 41,220 TOTAL: 382,440 567,300 x .7 = 397,110 Japan has nearly the same available tonnage (14,670 T) but nothing can be built to that tonnage. That is the Treaty by specific math and ships.

Ian R -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/5/2017 1:39:21 PM)
Hi John, I'm glad to see you are looking at real designs based on no-treaty extrapolations. This is what the RN's Director of Naval Gunnery had to say about the proposal to convert the two incomplete Lion hulls into hybrid BBCVs in 1941 [;)]: quote: "The functions and requirements of carriers and of surface gun platforms are entirely incompatible ...the conceptions of these designs ...is evidently the result of an unresolved contest between a conscious acceptance of aircraft and a subconscious desire for a 1914 Fleet ...these abortions are the results of a psychological maladjustment."

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/5/2017 1:43:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R Hi John, I'm glad to see you are looking at real designs based on no-treaty extrapolations. This is what the RN's Director of Naval Gunnery had to say about the proposal to convert the two incomplete Lion hulls into hybrid BBCVs in 1941 [;)]: quote: "The functions and requirements of carriers and of surface gun platforms are entirely incompatible ...the conceptions of these designs ...is evidently the result of an unresolved contest between a conscious acceptance of aircraft and a subconscious desire for a 1914 Fleet ...these abortions are the results of a psychological maladjustment." Fantastic QUOTE! I've tried to allow the six Hybrids in this game to be useful but limited ships. They have guns but not much ammo. They have planes but not many sorties available. It makes them far easier to convert into full-fledged CVs. I work the Treaty portion of the Mods in a serious, realistic manner. The delegations would have hammered out some sort of agreement that no one would have liked--meaning it would be fairly BALANCED! Sort of how Congress used to work... Your Spock quote is one of my favorites. It sums up many issues in life.

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.75