RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Herrbear -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (12/3/2004 4:25:16 AM)

According to this site below, the HMAS Bungaree was a minelayer and not a minesweeper, or at least laid 10,000 mines in Australian and New Zealand waters

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/general/ww2.htm



rhohltjr -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (12/6/2004 5:20:20 PM)

Oops. This should not be in the OOB suggestion box.

Oh well. Hats off to Pearl Harbor vets today.[&o]



Ron Saueracker -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (12/6/2004 7:53:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

According to this site below, the HMAS Bungaree was a minelayer and not a minesweeper, or at least laid 10,000 mines in Australian and New Zealand waters

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/general/ww2.htm


Yep. Don Bowen pointed this out and is a minelayer in our scen we are doing.



stubby331 -> More Australian ships incorrectly listed in the database. (12/9/2004 3:33:53 AM)

Listed below are HMAS ships which are incorrectly listed in the database as British.

3728 Napier J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42
3729 Nepal J' Class DD British 15-Aug-42
3730 Nestor J' Class DD British 15-Jan-42
3731 Nizam J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42
3732 Norman J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42

See links for RAN website detailing ships histories:


http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/napier.htm

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/nepal.htm

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/nestor.htm

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/nizam.htm

http://www.navy.gov.au/spc/history/ships/norman1.htm



Herrbear -> RE: More Australian ships incorrectly listed in the database. (12/10/2004 5:55:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Listed below are HMAS ships which are incorrectly listed in the database as British.

3728 Napier J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42
3729 Nepal J' Class DD British 15-Aug-42
3730 Nestor J' Class DD British 15-Jan-42
3731 Nizam J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42
3732 Norman J' Class DD British 15-Feb-42




I thought these were changed in 1.3.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: More Australian ships incorrectly listed in the database. (12/10/2004 5:59:28 PM)

Surprised the OOB corrections I sent ya (pry) did not make the list of 1.4 adjustments. Awful lot of ships left out and incorrect entry dates left in.[:(]



Herrbear -> RE: More Australian ships incorrectly listed in the database. (12/10/2004 6:11:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Surprised the OOB corrections I sent ya (pry) did not make the list of 1.4 adjustments. Awful lot of ships left out and incorrect entry dates left in.[:(]


Are your changes on the thread here? Or could you post it or send me a copy?

Thanks.



Tankerace -> RE: More Australian ships incorrectly listed in the database. (12/10/2004 10:04:35 PM)

A lot of other misspellings left in too... like Ogalala....should be Oglala.

Oh well, always next time.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: More Australian ships incorrectly listed in the database. (12/11/2004 1:53:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

A lot of other misspellings left in too... like Ogalala....should be Oglala.

Oh well, always next time.


Yep. And our scen.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: More Australian ships incorrectly listed in the database. (12/11/2004 1:54:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Surprised the OOB corrections I sent ya (pry) did not make the list of 1.4 adjustments. Awful lot of ships left out and incorrect entry dates left in.[:(]


Are your changes on the thread here? Or could you post it or send me a copy?

Thanks.


There is a thread with an attachment whichlist most of them I think. Lot more of late.



pry -> RE: More Australian ships incorrectly listed in the database. (12/11/2004 3:42:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Surprised the OOB corrections I sent ya (pry) did not make the list of 1.4 adjustments. Awful lot of ships left out and incorrect entry dates left in.[:(]


lots of things did not make 1.4 that we were planning to do...

The decision to release the patch came real quick and Rich and I got caught off guard, we thought we had more time, I was spending most of my available time the last few weeks working on the leader issue instead of the data base... This surprised us both.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: More Australian ships incorrectly listed in the database. (12/11/2004 7:16:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Surprised the OOB corrections I sent ya (pry) did not make the list of 1.4 adjustments. Awful lot of ships left out and incorrect entry dates left in.[:(]


lots of things did not make 1.4 that we were planning to do...

The decision to release the patch came real quick and Rich and I got caught off guard, we thought we had more time, I was spending most of my available time the last few weeks working on the leader issue instead of the data base... This surprised us both.


Caught us by surprise too, considering the "rumour" mill. Figured it was that and less with my recent unpopularity among the Matrix crowd.

Regarding "runour" surrounding leaders. No visibl;e signs of leader issues in either a 1.3 stock game I've got going or with the Lemurs 4.0. AND...I've managed to all but fix my scen build. Only one leader shift to go. As to whatis causing it is REALLY difficult to isolate. Man, this is like ironing checked tablecloths for a living. Starting to see spots, letters and numbers.[X(]



Andy Mac -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (12/11/2004 8:53:58 PM)

OK a couple of small points.

1. Valentine III and Matilda what exactly is the point of these tanks in the game seem to be a waste of space.

If they actually were used at any level we probably need a couple of Sqn sized units as they would have been attached to Inf Divison to support attacks.

I think the Australian Army Units are represented but equipped with Grants and actually I am fairly sure the Indian/UK ORBAT with the required fudge for 7th Armoured is probably correct as well so I would just remove them and save a few slots.

Alternatively give the allied player a few 20 Tank 40 Motorised Support Units in mid 43 to use as attached Infantry Support Armour in India/ Australia to reflect Army tank suort for Infantry formations.As these tanks were obselete in every other theatre I dont get to excited about it.

I would be more inclined to take them out as they seem to serve little purpose.

2. Shoudnt the UK Inf Divisions have a Squadron or Regimental sized Reconnasaince/ Cavalry Gp.

(I would be inclined to stick at Sqn sized as even UK Divisins were on short establishment in India so say 16 - 20 Armoured Cars probably)

3. OK now for the big one as I have commented many times in various threads I think Indian / CW ORBAT is wrong in replacement terms.

I am now offering a concrete proposal to be shot down.

1. Indian Forces As is now except a new Infantry Upgrade becomes available 1/43 at 40 Squads at the same stats as the 12/41 upgrade i.e. we double the replacements of the earlier TOE from 1/43 but no change to fighting ability. (this reflects a lessening of requirement for replacements being drawn off to ME or Near East after Stalingrad El Alamein/ Tunis)

2. CW Forces the 12/41 replacement is cut to 10 as given who these brigades are supposed to represent 40 is waay to high.

Put in a 6/43 upgrade at 3 or 4 Armoured Attack points less than the Indian 12/41 squad i.e. to represent improved equipment and the arrival of Nigerian Gold Coast etc regiments into India (These were typicaly of lesser TOE especially in heavy equipment but were not of pre war standard as is reflected in ratings in system now) Have these replacements set to 30 not forgetting that many of these regiments are battle hardened having fought in Abyssinia and Eritrea / Somaliland.

3. British I think British replacements are to high the British Divisoins are supposed to be the most fragile of the Allied forces in the Far East. Compared to Indian formations they are getting to many replacements. (I am certain some of this reflects re training of existing UK Support troops in Theatre to an Infantry role as the Indian Army expands)

So I would set UK 12/41 replacements to 25 but as the 12/43 upgrade is really an equipment upgrade I would keep that at 40 squads.



Herrbear -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (12/11/2004 10:11:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

[Yep. Don Bowen pointed this out and is a minelayer in our scen we are doing.


Do you have any specs on the ship? How many mines did it carry? Thanks.



pry -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (12/11/2004 11:10:34 PM)

Data Collected Thread now closing...



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 5 [6]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.40625