RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (Full Version)

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



Message

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 1:11:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Hey Don,
Yeah, I'll fix it. But I have never seen one of these show up in a combat replay. I'd like to stick with A/C that we will actually see. I can't get to it til tonight though. I'll post the results in our new Scenario Design thread. Nice work by the way[&o]


Catalinas and PBYs do all the time during night attacks. Don't scrap these.

Come to think of it, neither have I! Might be a waste of time to even do one! Why don't you skip it for now - no since expending all that effort if it is not going to be used.



TheElf -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 5:24:52 AM)

Not scrapping them. Just not in any hurry to fix them if broken. In the interest of [&o]Grogdom[&o] though they will be fixed eventually.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 6:03:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Not scrapping them. Just not in any hurry to fix them if broken. In the interest of [&o]Grogdom[&o] though they will be fixed eventually.


How aboutthe Russian palne tops...they lookweird



TheElf -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 6:52:34 AM)

Oh yeah...that is definitely on my list. In my first rather amatuerish attempt in MSPaint I modded the I-16. Turned out fine but that was back when I didn't realize the Alhpa file had to be modded too. Mike Wood brought it to my attention and I have since learned how to do it well. Unfortunately I never got around to redoing my original Allied Planetop mod. This collective effort has been the motivation I needed to get back into it.

Besides, since my French PBEM opponent (Thanks Fdeutsch! Our game is much more interesting now [;)]) has decided to finally put things right in Russia, I have to look at the stock Russkie planetops all day. If that isn't motivation I don't know what else is!

I-16, Pe-2, SB-2, and MiG-3 are first on the list.



akdreemer -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 6:58:35 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior


Shouldn't be. That's one of the two sources I used. And the main purpose of the
whole exercise is to discourage players from doing things their historical counter-
parts wouldn't even think about---or making those players who "can't resist" trying
the foolish pay the price for their temerity. Hopefully the rest of the group will think
this is a worthwhile idea as well


I would suggest a progressive upgrade for all forts. What you ahve listed probably would be only available by 1943. By mid-war the US armed forces were getting man-power hungry. Thus a lot of the coast defense units were disbanded. Not much of a chance of a Japanese invasion by then! I am working on a yearly breakout of the composition of the CD units at Hawaii, thus maybe can figure out an upgrade path for these units, with the West Coast units coming last. As an example, it appears that all of the 12 mortars were disbanded late 43 or early 44. i will post to the forum when as I compile the various CD Zones...

Richard



akdreemer -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 7:35:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
We need to be careful here. Before we start adding every iteration of a given A/C we need to make sure the base line A/C are represented. For example lets just get one F8F, one F7F, one Fireball, one of any new aircraft before we go hog wild with 10 different P-47D or Wildcat models and sub-variants.

[SNIP]

Thoughts?


That is my view as well. I would rather have a broader representation of different aircraft before having a great veriety of a single type. Within reason of course.

Andrew


I agree also. I would like to see the 7F7 as carrier capable.

RM



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 7:41:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
We need to be careful here. Before we start adding every iteration of a given A/C we need to make sure the base line A/C are represented. For example lets just get one F8F, one F7F, one Fireball, one of any new aircraft before we go hog wild with 10 different P-47D or Wildcat models and sub-variants.

[SNIP]

Thoughts?


That is my view as well. I would rather have a broader representation of different aircraft before having a great veriety of a single type. Within reason of course.

Andrew


I agree also. I would like to see the 7F7 as carrier capable.

RM


Then we'ed need aircraft size limitations for CVs.



CommC -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 7:47:39 AM)

This mod will never happen. You guys are going to argue about every little detail until the end of time. [&:]



TheElf -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 7:51:58 AM)

Checks and balances my friend. The cornerstone of Democracy. even if we'll neveer see the completion of this project[;)]



Don Bowen -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 7:54:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CommC

This mod will never happen. You guys are going to argue about every little detail until the end of time. [&:]


Naw - we have a snarly old progamming manager that knows when to cut off debate and just do it.



akdreemer -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 8:29:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf
We need to be careful here. Before we start adding every iteration of a given A/C we need to make sure the base line A/C are represented. For example lets just get one F8F, one F7F, one Fireball, one of any new aircraft before we go hog wild with 10 different P-47D or Wildcat models and sub-variants.

[SNIP]

Thoughts?


That is my view as well. I would rather have a broader representation of different aircraft before having a great veriety of a single type. Within reason of course.

Andrew


I agree also. I would like to see the 7F7 as carrier capable.

RM


Then we'ed need aircraft size limitations for CVs.


The only carriers that can carry this plane are the Midways. If the Midways are not in the database then no problem leaving the F7F off the carrier capable list. Only the Sqadrons aboard the Midways could upgrade to the F7F's, all the rest would be land based Marine Corp aquadrons.



PeteG662 -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 7:15:23 PM)

Guys,

I will be doing some research on LCUs for the mod. The LCUs in the game are partially abstracted by the devices so I will concentrate on finding the correct weapon systems and run from there. I have some sites with US and Commonwealth OOBs but TOEs are harder to come by. How would you like the data? Should I try to keep it to WitP editor format or just list the weapon systems by unit, etc.?

Pete



Mike Scholl -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 8:02:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

I would suggest a progressive upgrade for all forts. What you ahve listed probably would be only available by 1943. By mid-war the US armed forces were getting man-power hungry. Thus a lot of the coast defense units were disbanded. Not much of a chance of a Japanese invasion by then! I am working on a yearly breakout of the composition of the CD units at Hawaii, thus maybe can figure out an upgrade path for these units, with the West Coast units coming last. As an example, it appears that all of the 12 mortars were disbanded late 43 or early 44. i will post to the forum when as I compile the various CD Zones...

Richard


NO..., what I was suggesting was to reflect the capabilities as of 12/7/1941. In areas
where improvement was an option (Oahu, the West Coast) they would be much more
potent by the end of 1942 with increased numbers of Medium and Light Calibre Weapons
(155 mm and smaller---in Oahu at least 24 additional 155's were added). The point is
that these installations were "avoided like the plague" by enemy TF's throughout the
war---and as represented in the game currently, that is not the case. Given the limits
of the coding, increasing the numbers (as a means of representing the increased ac-
curacyof fixed coast artillery) is an easier way to correct the situation.



mlees -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 8:06:04 PM)

The only thing I would note is that to increase the number of guns in a CD unit SOLELY to increase its effectivness against ships would ALSO increase that CD units power vs land units in it's hex. I'm not sure if you could do one without affecting the other.



PeteG662 -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 8:07:28 PM)

We may be able to change the raw data for the "device" in the device tables to make the weapon systems more potent instead of increasing the number of weapons.....just a thought here.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 8:19:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees

The only thing I would note is that to increase the number of guns in a CD unit SOLELY to increase its effectivness against ships would ALSO increase that CD units power vs land units in it's hex. I'm not sure if you could do one without affecting the other.


Yea.., this is a point I'd considered too. One of the reasons I felt the heavier calibres
were the ones to increase. These big guns were devestating against THINGS, but
should really not be that effective against troops. Troops were much more highly ef-
fected by lighter and fastter firing weapons which could bring down effective fire
quickly. But you are right, it's a problem.



mlees -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 8:32:43 PM)

I have not messed with the editor. Please forgive noob question.

Is it quantified in the editor what affect a 16inch MK-Omigod would have on land units?

Is it editable?

I seem to remember folks mentioning a penetration value (I assume for hits on ship type targets). I think there was a "warhead" or "destructiveness" value. Modding THAT would also affect the damage done to BOTH land and sea targets, if that same value is used for both targets. I am a glass-half-empty kind of guy. Sorry I can't offer good advice.



PeteG662 -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 8:51:22 PM)

There are two separate values for devices - one is versus soft targets (troops, etc) and one versus hard targets (tanks and ships etc). I think that manipulating the device for one of these values would work to increase effectiveness (in theory at least) but not increase numbers and potentially have the same outcome.



mlees -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 8:58:43 PM)

Tanks AND ships? Hmmm.
(Imagining a 16 inch naval gun in an Antitank direct fire role sounds amusing, but not realistic.)
How are aircraft classed? Soft?



PeteG662 -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/4/2005 9:02:53 PM)

Unsure of the classification of individual pieces. I would ASSUME that ships and tanks would be coded as Hard targets for purposes here and and aircraft and troops would be Soft. Take a look at the editor and maybe you could figure out if this would work in lieu of adding numbers of weapons.



Tanaka -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/5/2005 1:11:31 AM)

So when do u guys think u can get this monster out by??? [:D]



Tankerace -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/5/2005 5:45:14 AM)

2005 [:D]



akdreemer -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/5/2005 10:03:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

I would suggest a progressive upgrade for all forts. What you ahve listed probably would be only available by 1943. By mid-war the US armed forces were getting man-power hungry. Thus a lot of the coast defense units were disbanded. Not much of a chance of a Japanese invasion by then! I am working on a yearly breakout of the composition of the CD units at Hawaii, thus maybe can figure out an upgrade path for these units, with the West Coast units coming last. As an example, it appears that all of the 12 mortars were disbanded late 43 or early 44. i will post to the forum when as I compile the various CD Zones...

Richard


NO..., what I was suggesting was to reflect the capabilities as of 12/7/1941. In areas
where improvement was an option (Oahu, the West Coast) they would be much more
potent by the end of 1942 with increased numbers of Medium and Light Calibre Weapons
(155 mm and smaller---in Oahu at least 24 additional 155's were added). The point is
that these installations were "avoided like the plague" by enemy TF's throughout the
war---and as represented in the game currently, that is not the case. Given the limits
of the coding, increasing the numbers (as a means of representing the increased ac-
curacyof fixed coast artillery) is an easier way to correct the situation.


If you examine all of the coast defense for Oahu (Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, and the North Coast) in December 1941 you get the following totals (current game in parenthesis):

16" CD 4 (4)
14" CD 2 (2)
12" CD 4 (4)
12" M 20 (15)
240mm 12 (0)
8" CD 20 (10)
6" CD 6 (4)
155mm CD 42 (20)
5" CD 2 (0)
3" CD 6 (0)

So what you are suggesting is not too far off. I would hesitate in increasing the number of guns above historical levels, and instead would suggest tweaking the stats.

RM



von Murrin -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/8/2005 10:44:00 AM)

I'm curious. Will this project be AI capable, so to speak? I know PBEM is where it's at, but I'm wrapping up my current PBEM and it's very likely that I'll soon be in a position where regular email turns won't be possible. The AI will be all I'll have, and I'd love to play this.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/8/2005 2:04:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

I'm curious. Will this project be AI capable, so to speak? I know PBEM is where it's at, but I'm wrapping up my current PBEM and it's very likely that I'll soon be in a position where regular email turns won't be possible. The AI will be all I'll have, and I'd love to play this.


Well, Don Bowen is an ardent AI user(never plays PBEM) so I think your interests and concerns will be well represented.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/8/2005 8:12:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

[
If you examine all of the coast defense for Oahu (Pearl Harbor, Honolulu, and the North Coast) in December 1941 you get the following totals (current game in parenthesis):

16" CD 4 (4)
14" CD 2 (2)
12" CD 4 (4)
12" M 20 (15)
240mm 12 (0)
8" CD 20 (10)
6" CD 6 (4)
155mm CD 42 (20)
5" CD 2 (0)
3" CD 6 (0)

So what you are suggesting is not too far off. I would hesitate in increasing the number of guns above historical levels, and instead would suggest tweaking the stats.

RM


The figures given aree generally accurate..., but even then they error on the LOW
side by a fair amount. And they totally fail to reccognize the inherent superiority
in accuracy that fixed CD installations have over guns afloat. The FIRE CONTROL
was an order of magnitude better than that of ships. The best ship afloat in 1941
had a range finder with a base distance of perhaps 30 meters---on shore the dis-
tance could easily exceed a mile. The larger the base of the triangle, the more
accurate the "triangulation" of the length of the other legs (range) will be. Couple
that with pre-figured tide tables, fixed solid emplacements that don't have to allow
for their own movements. mine fields to channalize the posibilities of approach, and
all the other advantages of a designed, shore mounted facility, and the chance of
a hit is closer to 20% than the 2% that would be considered good afloat. That's one
of the main reasons that CD instalations don't need to have the number of guns in
a battery that a Battleship would.

Now add in that a shell from a ship that doesn't hit the CD gun itself basically hits
nothing of consequence but a lot of dirt and concrete---while if a shell from a CD
diesn't hit a BB's turret (a larger target in itself), it can still inflict damage on the
other 200+ yard-long portions of the ship. The game does not seem to allow for
this increased accuracy..., and to do so would require re-writing code. What I pro-
posed was a way of reflecting at least SOME of this advantage by increasing the
number of guns (and shots). It's not a perfect solution---but it is easy to imple-
ment



von Murrin -> RE: Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod. (1/8/2005 9:25:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: von Murrin

I'm curious. Will this project be AI capable, so to speak? I know PBEM is where it's at, but I'm wrapping up my current PBEM and it's very likely that I'll soon be in a position where regular email turns won't be possible. The AI will be all I'll have, and I'd love to play this.


Well, Don Bowen is an ardent AI user(never plays PBEM) so I think your interests and concerns will be well represented.


Excellent. Thank you.[:)]



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375