RE: BTSL Complete (Full Version)

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



Message

John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/23/2017 4:16:40 PM)

Files uploaded for anyone to download. Need to finish the artwork (as said above) and revamp the Scenario Descriptions.



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/23/2017 5:36:53 PM)

I have attached a list of the changes from BTS 2.6 to BTS 4.0. The comparison report is a little cryptic, but you can probably guess what most codes mean. In time, this report will get more readable. I haven't worked on that part of the editor in awhile, but thought people might like to have a list of the changes.



InfiniteMonkey -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/23/2017 6:04:46 PM)

Some examples of how to interpret the file:

Example 1
Ships 12487 Values changed: shp_baselocid (616 -> 0), shp_tflocid (0 -> 8441), shp_dly (420128 -> 411206) N
Technical translation: Ship 12487 was removed from a base "baselocid" and added to a Task force "tflocid" and the Delay was changed from late January 42 to being active at game start.
Simpler version: Ship 12487 () is in TF 441 at game start instead of arriving as a replacement at base 616 on 28 Jan 1942.

Example 2
Ships 3825 Values changed: shp_name (src:Anchorage -> ), shp_clsid (415 -> 0), shp_baselocid (584 -> 0), shp_nation (4 -> 0), shp_fuel (1892 -> 0), shp_dly (411206 -> 0), shp_hqid (102 -> 0), shp_wpdev01 (1570 -> 0), shp_wpnum01 (6 -> 0), shp_wptur01 (3 -> 0), shp_wparm01 (165 -> 0), shp_wpamo01 (18 -> 0), shp_wpdev02 (1570 -> 0), shp_wpnum02 (3 -> 0), shp_wpfac02 (1 -> 0), shp_wptur02 (3 -> 0), shp_wparm02 (165 -> 0), shp_wpamo02 (18 -> 0), shp_wpdev03 (1570 -> 0), shp_wpnum03 (6 -> 0), shp_wpfac03 (2 -> 0), shp_wptur03 (3 -> 0), shp_wparm03 (165 -> 0), shp_wpamo03 (18 -> 0), shp_wpdev04 (1624 -> 0), shp_wpnum04 (4 -> 0), shp_wpfac04 (3 -> 0), shp_wptur04 (2 -> 0), shp_wparm04 (5 -> 0), shp_wpamo04 (22 -> 0), shp_wpdev05 (1624 -> 0), shp_wpnum05 (4 -> 0), shp_wpfac05 (4 -> 0), shp_wptur05 (2 -> 0), shp_wparm05 (5 -> 0), shp_wpamo05 (22 -> 0), shp_wpdev06 (1581 -> 0), shp_wpnum06 (8 -> 0), shp_wpfac06 (3 -> 0), shp_wptur06 (4 -> 0), shp_wpamo06 (28 -> 0), shp_wpdev07 (1581 -> 0), shp_wpnum07 (8 -> 0), shp_wpfac07 (4 -> 0), shp_wptur07 (4 -> 0), shp_wpamo07 (28 -> 0), shp_wpdev08 (1582 -> 0), shp_wpnum08 (4 -> 0), shp_wpfac08 (3 -> 0), shp_wptur08 (1 -> 0), shp_wpamo08 (36 -> 0), shp_wpdev09 (1582 -> 0), shp_wpnum09 (4 -> 0), shp_wpfac09 (4 -> 0), shp_wptur09 (1 -> 0), shp_wpamo09 (36 -> 0) N

Simpler version: Ship 3825 (Anchorage) was removed from the game.


As I work more on the comparison tool, messages will get closer to the "simple message" but the first goal was to identify all the changes.



John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/24/2017 4:17:49 AM)

Have now updated the scenario descriptions for BTS and BTSL on the website. Will tackle the art folder tomorrow.



Kitakami -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/24/2017 4:36:42 PM)

Bind 410 has CL & CLAA Omaha and CL & CA Mogami. Converting the Omahas to Mogamis might be too much, even for AFB's ;p



John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/24/2017 6:49:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

Bind 410 has CL & CLAA Omaha and CL & CA Mogami. Converting the Omahas to Mogamis might be too much, even for AFB's ;p


What the HE**? Will look into that ASAP.

We are canning spaghetti sauce and salsa today in the Cochran Household.



Kitakami -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/25/2017 3:14:40 AM)

Another thing, and this one I don't know much about. The F8F-1 Bearcat has a maximum load of 1K lbs, but a default load of 2x 1K lb bombs. Is that correct?



John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/25/2017 3:41:37 AM)

Haven't touched any Allied aircraft for that late in the war so I do not know.

Anyone?



DOCUP -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/25/2017 12:20:45 PM)

John. Did you fix the Tigercat? Also with the increase in BB and CA tonnage. Did you increase CV tonnage?

Have to say Friedmans BB book is very interesting.



Kitakami -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/25/2017 3:20:36 PM)

Another USAAF plane with a maximum load smaller than the default load: P-43A Lancer. Maximum load is 200, default load is 250 lb bomb.



John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/25/2017 10:02:58 PM)

Am going to jump on this right now and fix the issues for both Mods.



John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/25/2017 10:30:29 PM)

When this is localized changes go very quickly. FIXED P-43a, F8F-1, and Mogami Bind (now 415 instead of 410).

Thanks for finding these mistakes!



Kitakami -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 12:55:21 AM)

Hmm... F8F-1 seems ok, but P-43A does not. CL/CA binds seem to be OK too.



John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 2:05:29 AM)

I raised the P-43A to 250. Isn't that there?



John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 3:06:18 AM)

I just checked the files and both have the P-43A at max load 250 now. SHOULD be OK.



Kitakami -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 4:19:04 AM)

Hmm... weird...

[image]http://ultraimg.com/images/2017/09/26/YGBh.png[/image]



John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 12:38:22 PM)

I'll re-save them and see if that fixes what you have.



ny59giants -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 1:58:32 PM)

With this newest version, both the George and the newly re-introduced Jack will be allowed to have their 2nd gen planes "CV Capable." Will an AFB check to ensure the Allies are getting adequate 2nd gen Corsairs? The Zero was better that the Wildcat. The Hellcat is better than the Zero. Now the Jack/George should be better than the Hellcat. The 2nd gen Corsair should be equal to Jack/George.

In my current game, I should be getting 2nd gen Georges the same time the Hellcat comes out. How is A2A between these two models?



John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 2:51:36 PM)

Should prove to be interesting.

Am really curious what players find with their additional opportunities with choice on researching Jack or George or Sam. It will be expensive but LOVE giving the chance for players to go with they are really interested in flying.



BillBrown -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 2:52:40 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

With this newest version, both the George and the newly re-introduced Jack will be allowed to have their 2nd gen planes "CV Capable." Will an AFB check to ensure the Allies are getting adequate 2nd gen Corsairs? The Zero was better that the Wildcat. The Hellcat is better than the Zero. Now the Jack/George should be better than the Hellcat. The 2nd gen Corsair should be equal to Jack/George.

In my current game, I should be getting 2nd gen Georges the same time the Hellcat comes out. How is A2A between these two models?


In my BtS 2.4 I am getting 78 F4U-1a and in BtS 4.0 it says I would get 90. I really think that 500 would be adequate, but I guess 90 is good. [:)]

And define "equal", it looks like both the Jack and George A types are superior to Corsairs. What fun.



Lecivius -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 3:07:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

With this newest version, both the George and the newly re-introduced Jack will be allowed to have their 2nd gen planes "CV Capable." Will an AFB check to ensure the Allies are getting adequate 2nd gen Corsairs? The Zero was better that the Wildcat. The Hellcat is better than the Zero. Now the Jack/George should be better than the Hellcat. The 2nd gen Corsair should be equal to Jack/George.

In my current game, I should be getting 2nd gen Georges the same time the Hellcat comes out. How is A2A between these two models?



If Japanese are getting ahead of the tech curve, the allies should as well. Are you planning on bumping up the date & production of the next gen Hellcats? I kind of see this as a spiral that can get out of control.



BillBrown -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 3:14:29 PM)

I think there is a problem with the J2M5 upgrading to the N1K4-A. It should upgrade to the J2M3a.

Right now it looks like this
J2M2 -> J2M3 -> J2M5 -> N1K4-A
and then
J2M3a -> J2M3 Jackb -> J2M5



ny59giants -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 3:23:51 PM)

Zeros and Jacks upgrade to Mr George. I've talked with John about this already. So, it's your turn. [;)]



BillBrown -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 3:45:11 PM)

Apparently Johns intention is for Japan to have superior CV fighters for the entire war. [&:]



btd64 -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 5:14:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

With this newest version, both the George and the newly re-introduced Jack will be allowed to have their 2nd gen planes "CV Capable." Will an AFB check to ensure the Allies are getting adequate 2nd gen Corsairs? The Zero was better that the Wildcat. The Hellcat is better than the Zero. Now the Jack/George should be better than the Hellcat. The 2nd gen Corsair should be equal to Jack/George.

In my current game, I should be getting 2nd gen Georges the same time the Hellcat comes out. How is A2A between these two models?



If Japanese are getting ahead of the tech curve, the allies should as well. Are you planning on bumping up the date & production of the next gen Hellcats? I kind of see this as a spiral that can get out of control.


Bingo....GP



Kitakami -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 6:13:33 PM)

I will second (or third, or fourth) concerns about the current upgrade path. I see three consequences:

1. That factories will not need to be repaired in the following upgrades (there may be other, have not checked, but fighters tend to be the most important):
----- A6M5 -> N1K2-J
----- J2M5 -> N1K4-A
----- A6M3 -> J2M2
----- A6M2-N -> N1K1

2. That the N1Kx family can be massively accelerated by assigning all research naval fighter research factories to research the A6M5, and then pushing them up the A6M5 -> N1K2-J -> N1K4-A -> N1K5-J line. I may be wrong, but my nose tells me that the IJN could have the 1945 N1K4-A some time in 1943. The cost would be front-loaded, but it would not be more than researching other models (and I think it would be well worth it).

3. Same with the J2Mx family, assigning research factories to the A6M3 and then pushing them up all the way to the N1K4-A.

I am a JFB, but this seems to me a bit too much. I would suggest that the A6M5 factories DO NOT upgrade to N1K2-J, nor the J2M5 factories to the N1K4-A. That should help to make things more realistic (retooling Mitsubishi factories for a Kawanishi design does not strike me as kosher).

Just my 2 cents.

BTW, the name of the J2M3b is wrong in the database. It is written as "J2M3 Jackb".

EDIT: added comments regarding the A6M3 upgrade line.




Kitakami -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 8:46:32 PM)

On the other hand... there are several IJN seaplane units onboard AV and CS ships that can be upgraded to A6M2-N Rufes but not to N1K1 Rexes. Is that as intended?



John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 10:42:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Zeros and Jacks upgrade to Mr George. I've talked with John about this already. So, it's your turn. [;)]


THOUGHT I shifted this back into pure research lines for George, Sam, and Jack.

Like the idea of 2nd Gen Hellkittens. Other thoughts there?

As to Carrier Fighter superiority throughout the war that is not at all true. There is a massive gap between the M5 and the shaky CV-Jack/CV-George. These planes are rushed into production and they are both Hangar queens with SR of 3. Might get one good day with them then you are screwed.



John 3rd -> RE: BTSL Complete (9/26/2017 10:47:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

I will second (or third, or fourth) concerns about the current upgrade path. I see three consequences:

1. That factories will not need to be repaired in the following upgrades (there may be other, have not checked, but fighters tend to be the most important):
----- A6M5 -> N1K2-J
----- J2M5 -> N1K4-A
----- A6M3 -> J2M2
----- A6M2-N -> N1K1

2. That the N1Kx family can be massively accelerated by assigning all research naval fighter research factories to research the A6M5, and then pushing them up the A6M5 -> N1K2-J -> N1K4-A -> N1K5-J line. I may be wrong, but my nose tells me that the IJN could have the 1945 N1K4-A some time in 1943. The cost would be front-loaded, but it would not be more than researching other models (and I think it would be well worth it).

3. Same with the J2Mx family, assigning research factories to the A6M3 and then pushing them up all the way to the N1K4-A.

I am a JFB, but this seems to me a bit too much. I would suggest that the A6M5 factories DO NOT upgrade to N1K2-J, nor the J2M5 factories to the N1K4-A. That should help to make things more realistic (retooling Mitsubishi factories for a Kawanishi design does not strike me as kosher).

Just my 2 cents.

BTW, the name of the J2M3b is wrong in the database. It is written as "J2M3 Jackb".

EDIT: added comments regarding the A6M3 upgrade line.




I printed this email off and will run the thoughts by Michael as we talk about this some more. Think I screwed up a couple of the upgrade paths just by what is Posted here and above. Some of it is not by intention.

Hang tight for a bit as we sort this out.



John 3rd -> Aircraft Pathways (9/26/2017 11:30:00 PM)

Damn, Kitakami caught several major OOOOOPS.

Here are the Lines with Scen 1 Date and then current date in BTS:

ZERO Line
A6M2 12/41
A6M5 8/43 (10/42)

ZERO FB Line
A6M2 Sen Baku 10/42 (10/42)
A6M7 5/45 (4/43)

SAM
A7M2 9/45 (2/44) CV Variant
A7M3-J 1/46 (12/44)
A7M3 (6/45) CV Variant

JACK
JNM2 9/43 (9/43)
JNM3 4/44 (4/44)
JNM5 1/45 (1/45)

JACK-CV Variant
JNM3a (9/44)
JNM3b (2/45)

GEORGE
N1K1-J 9/43 (1/43)
N1K5-J 10/45 (5/45)

GEORGE-CV Variant
N1K2-J 11/44 (1/44)
N1K4-A (1/45)

This is how the production lines are SUPPOSED to look like. Michael and I were talking on the phone twice while I was working on this and we kept bouncing ideas around and I think this is what led to the confusion of the development lines.

I've not looked at these dates side-by-side in a long time and it look like we need to do some corrective work.

We accelerate some lines due to the abandonment of the ZERO Line just months after the war begins. The ZERO Team shifts over to full work on Jack and Sam. The George group gets direct support and help from the Naval Air Ministry. These are the 'background changes' setting up the differing development lines and times.

I shall Post this and then jump back in with revised dates for deployment to get serious commentary.




Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.6865234