RE: OFFICIAL Release BTS/BTSL 4.5 (Full Version)

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



Message

John 3rd -> RE: OFFICIAL Release BTS/BTSL 4.5 (1/6/2018 7:25:06 PM)

Thanks. Need to Post the update.



John 3rd -> RE: OFFICIAL Release BTS/BTSL 4.5 (1/6/2018 7:36:45 PM)

Done. I left the Mod at 5.1 since the changes were relatively minor.



Edward75 -> RE: OFFICIAL Release BTS/BTSL 4.5 (1/9/2018 7:32:11 AM)

Some ships and planes without pictures (For example: CA Niitaka, CVL Kushiro (G. 6 Class), G5N Liz, G8N Rita, may be more.).
What is wrong?



John 3rd -> OFFICIAL Release BTS/BTSL 5.2 (2/7/2018 12:04:16 AM)

I just placed the new Between the Storms onto the website. Many changes are detailed on the webpage.



John 3rd -> OFFICIAL Release BTS/BTSL 5.2 (2/7/2018 4:14:20 AM)

BTSL now uploaded onto the website.



John 3rd -> RE: OFFICIAL Release BTS/BTSL 5.3 (2/13/2018 2:51:14 PM)

Michael caught that the new SS Upgrades do not include their GLENS. Whoops! Here is the updated BTSL and BTS Mods FIXING that. Stupid Mod designer...



BillBrown -> RE: OFFICIAL Release BTS/BTSL 5.3 (2/28/2018 5:44:46 PM)

I was looking at BTSL and saw that ship class 1892 CVL Aso 'upgrades' to ship class 1891( this is a down grade )

And another question:
Ship class 2052 is available 12/41, it upgrades to 2010 and then 2011.
But it starts with capacities of 510 troop and 4367 cargo and the two upgrades are 410 troop and 3930 cargo,
they do get a little more small AA guns, but it doesn't seem worth it to upgrade.



John 3rd -> Treaty 3.0 (3/18/2018 1:03:07 AM)

Have been plinking on the Mods and have brought Treaty Mod up to the changes we've worked with in Between the Storms. Just so you know. There are no changes to Treaty other then the new ships and vessels allowed by the Washington and London Naval Conferences. Past those addition, this is a straight out Scenario One Campaign. Players get a few shiny new toys to enjoy and that is it. Always remember it is 5:5:3.5 so the Allies ALWAYS get MORE!

Will Post when the Mod is Posted on the RA website.



John 3rd -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (3/18/2018 1:15:35 AM)

Treaty 3.0 Posted.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (3/19/2018 4:01:22 PM)

Dear John and all involved in RA7.9 which I am playing.

Play by email two-day turn human opponent. I am playing allies. Current game just starting September 1943

If you like I would like to send you the game turned see you can see what is going on.

Firstly the scenario is very entertaining and is obviously designed to be very challenging for the allies. However I want to comment on a few things.

Firstly I think with this beefed up Japan the allies need at least double the amount of political points. I have almost no capability in this area at all. I cannot imagine the allies (British particularly) would sit on the border of Burma and not want to try and re-invade.
If we have a house rule of restricted units not crossing borders which we do this is impossible. The alternative is to make a lot more units unrestricted.

The second issue is submarines. I am still having around 75% or more misses or duds and its end of August 43 ( must have had 8 opportunities on Jap CV only 1 hit) . Is this something you can check. I have done all the upgrades and changed the captains - still very little success compared to all my other games. they cannot even hit AK or PB.


The next thing and more important is that the Japanese player has seemingly built all the best Japanese fighters like the N2 George he has his CV. This fighter is better than the hellcat it seems which it shreds in droves. As soon as these guys turn up I lose every battle ( he even takes on LBA easily) . I will admit at times he has only faced land-based fighters and CVE, Hellcats and Wildcats. With this fighter around the Wildcat is a dud... plus it also shreds P38 AND P47. In Burma the allies only have Hurricanes and they are nop match for the Jap fighters there - waste of time flying.
This issue in particular means the allies have only made very limited gains. I know Andreas posted to you before about how he achieved this. But I find the idea that Japan can help build and out technology the allies a little bit too fanciful, of for technology but not both. Then there is the issue of plane building itself. There is woefully short production on important allied types it seems. Maybe that is by design as I am not playing any other game as allies. Can you advise if you changed this.

Michael





John 3rd -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (3/19/2018 4:34:39 PM)

Thanks Cavalry. Am headed to work. Will write when I get home.



Cavalry Corp -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (3/22/2018 3:46:28 PM)

Any news?




John 3rd -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (3/22/2018 6:01:29 PM)

Am home and checking things out.

Haven't played around with RA in about 18-20 months.



John 3rd -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (3/22/2018 7:04:57 PM)

OK. Had a bit of time to respond.

1. I concur on the Political Points. Michael (designer) beefed his up and doubled it for his current game. While this was BTSL, it does not matter. We have already moved Political Points up in BTS and BTSL. Will do so for RA as well. Am leaving Treaty as is.

2. To be safe, I went into the database and checked US TTs. There have been no changes from Stock. It appears you have had TERRIBLE luck with your TTs. Dan's worked without issues in our recently completed game.

3. The George is a very important question. He should only have the -4 on his CVs. Is that what is flying? Those are not available until very late-44. Can you check this please?

In my game with Dan, the George proved to be my most capable Naval Fighter. It should shred Wildcats and be slightly better then Hellkittens. The plane proved very tough against Dan's LBA as well. If it has good pilots then the plane is formidable.

Check that model and when he first deployed it!

Problem here is imagination on my part. I never, EVER imagined a player devoting so much of their aircraft industry. Michael did this in his campaign. I don't quite know how to really work this issue without some sort of HR.



Edward75 -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (3/22/2018 7:49:07 PM)

This is mistake or what? Same name Subs.

[img]https://c.radikal.ru/c08/1803/f6/dbfa526ff9d7.jpg[/img]



Lecivius -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (3/22/2018 8:09:21 PM)

Which data base you looking at Eddward75? Or is it in all of them?



John 3rd -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (3/22/2018 8:56:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edward75

This is mistake or what? Same name Subs.

[img]https://c.radikal.ru/c08/1803/f6/dbfa526ff9d7.jpg[/img]


That looks like a very weird boo-boo...



Edward75 -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (4/9/2018 12:26:05 PM)

This is your mod BtS 4.6 (4.7).
Don't laugh, it's stupid. I showed your mistake in your Mod.

Another question. I have small art bug (see screen). What is reason for this problem? Newer happens before. May be I have not properly installed this mod, or I have a problem with my computer? Has anyone had the same problems?
Windows 8.1 (64-bit)
[img]https://d.radikal.ru/d31/1804/b2/a680d61e57fe.png[/img]



John 3rd -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (4/10/2018 3:44:35 PM)

Looks like the ship in question has the artwork reversed. The Shil and the Side appear to be flipped. Check to be certain.



ny59giants -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (4/12/2018 1:49:12 PM)

Just started BTS (Scen 56) which is the latest. We may need to decide on which Dutch air and some ground can be bought out. Right now, they have DBB type permanent restrictions on too many units.

In regards to Cav posting about PP shortage and air frames, maybe greater PP at start for Allies and look again at 43 and beyond airframes since we did tweak up the 42 airframe numbers.



durnedwolf -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (4/15/2018 2:42:40 AM)

TF 110 near San Diego has seven subs, three of which show a 1 for FP capacity but they don't have Glens. The subs are the I-74, 75, & 76. Do these subs get their float planes when they make port later? Also - thanks for making this mod. Its certainly fun to poke around in it. [:)]



John 3rd -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (4/17/2018 3:00:21 AM)

Good Look. Which scenario do you have loaded?



durnedwolf -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (4/17/2018 3:40:12 AM)

Between the Storms 53. Thanks for checking on this.




John 3rd -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (4/17/2018 1:03:59 PM)

Will get on this and see...



John 3rd -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (4/18/2018 12:06:19 AM)

You are correct. I-74/75/76 should have Glens. There isn't much that can fix this with a new game, however, I can fix this for the future games. Thanks for the catch. Will Post when the newest iteration is ready to be downloaded. It will fix this oversight.



durnedwolf -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (4/20/2018 2:24:11 AM)

Hi John, in BTSL it looks like you can add the I-6 to the I-74, 75, & 76.




John 3rd -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (4/20/2018 1:10:31 PM)

Keep looking. I've been devoting time to doing some clean-up on the Mods. Really appreciate the catches and updates!



John 3rd -> RE: Treaty 3.0 (4/20/2018 3:42:21 PM)

OK. Fixed the I-Boats with their Glens so that is good.

Michael and I bantered some and we've discussed an interesting idea of switching out the VMF-211 F4F-3a (12 at Wake and 6 at Midway) to Buffalo. This frees up 18 Wildcats to then go on Lexington replacing her Buffalo. There are five extra Buffalo doing this and they go into the Buffalo pool.

What do you think of this idea?



John 3rd -> BTS and BTSL 5.4 (4/21/2018 3:33:42 AM)

Have done the modifications to Between the Storms and Between the Storms Lite. We now have each at 5.4. They are loaded on the website.

Here is the description of the Mod Changes (posted on the website):

4-20-18 5.4 released with a decent number of changes: IJA Changeover to triangle Infantry Divisions fully occurs allowing for three more ID to be created (1 in China, 1 in Manchuria, and 1 for Southern Army), this change weakens NINE ID who lose their fourth Regiment, Lexington Fighters start as F4F-3a instead of Buffalo, VMF-211 (Wake and Midway lose their F4F-3a and revert to Buffalo, four Glen I-Boats get their Glens, nine LCU in Java are now deployable as of Turn One, and 300 Political Points (now 600) added to Allied starting number to allow more first turn flexibility.



Kitakami -> RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 (4/24/2018 2:06:43 PM)

John,

- BTSL has CV Amagi, Shokaku & Zuikaku start with 45 torpedoes out of a possible 54. Is that intended or a typo?
- BTSL has CV Hiryu & Soryu start with 36 torpedoes out of a possible 42. Is that intended or a typo?
- BTSL has CVL Tokachi & Kushiro start with 15 torpedoes out of a possible 18. Is that intended or a typo?

Had not had time to go through the scenarios with a fine comb. Hope the above helps :)



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.672852