Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Dec 8 Mod questions

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Dec 8 Mod questions Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Dec 8 Mod questions - 8/5/2010 11:10:25 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Thanks Ryan good piccies

Not sure I understand Pax do you want to amend in the editor or have a dec 8th start ??

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 181
RE: Dec 8 Mod questions - 8/6/2010 1:41:39 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 9750
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac



Not sure I understand Pax do you want to amend in the editor or have a dec 8th start ??


There's the question!

So I have a personal mod which is based upon the Dec 8 scen. I would like to fold this onto your Ironman allied for testing until it is ready for PBEM. I can see 2 ways to do this:

1. Add my data to your mod and then have to edit everything to Dec 8
or
2. Take your allied data + AI and fold into my mod.

Just curious which you think less work. Both seem fairly laborious so I can't see which might be easier.

Of course I know exactly what I've done for my mod, putting that into your would be relatively easy. Editting the result for 8 Dec though, I have no idea how big that effort would be.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 182
RE: Ohka PGM - 10/1/2010 2:00:37 PM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		I noticed in my copy of Downfall that Ohka aren't being used.

When I check the editor, the device 197 is set to 'Can build' No even though it is has a Build rate of 36.
It should be Yes.

Any device that needs to be pooled and is not being directly build by industry, should have this flag set to Yes.
This flag basically turns the device off if No.


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 183
RE: Ohka PGM - 10/1/2010 4:17:06 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Thanks Michael ok I will adjust

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 184
RE: Ohka PGM - 10/4/2010 7:07:48 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		I only found the link to Ironman pt 1 and 2. Where are the links to download the other scenarios?

< Message edited by Pascal -- 10/4/2010 7:08:27 AM >

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 185
RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied - 10/14/2010 8:51:39 PM   
NAVMAN

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline 		Hi Andy: Played another game of Downfall(v4). I obtained a 7.3:1 victory point
ratio, yet the score screen only awarded a marginal victory. Should this not have
been a decisive victory?
Thx.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 186
RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied - 10/14/2010 8:53:40 PM   
NAVMAN

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline 		Here is the score screen:




Attachment (1)

(in reply to NAVMAN)
Post #: 187
RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied - 10/16/2010 1:49:29 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		The AI must be learning to cater for my errors.

Playing the Marianas v4, I had 4 Allied TFs with 3 or 4 CVs in each pounding the islands prior to landings.

Next minute, I was assailed by 3 Japanese (AI) carrier TFs coming in at me from the north, south AND west. A beautiful pincer movement...
Took out 2 CVs and 4 CVLs with heavy damage (probable most will sink before getting back to base) and several escorts sunk.

Didn't help that I forgot to take half of my carrier VF groups out of training.


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to NAVMAN)
Post #: 188
RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied - 10/16/2010 2:06:04 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NAVMAN

Hi Andy: Played another game of Downfall(v4). I obtained a 7.3:1 victory point
ratio, yet the score screen only awarded a marginal victory. Should this not have
been a decisive victory?
Thx.


Here is a brief summary of the victory levels for all scenarios

Victory Levels:
(a) Basic victory
Major Japan (VL = 1) - Japan VPs >= 1.75 times Allied VPs.
Minor Japan (VL = 2) - Japan VPs >= 1.25 times Allied VPs.
Draw (VL = 3) - if not one of the minor/major values
Minor Allied (VL = 4) - Allied VPs >= 1.25 times Japan VPs.
Major Allied (VL = 5) - Allied VPs >= 1.75 times Japan VPs.

(b) Time based victory modifiers
Year July 44+
Minor Allied (VL = 4) - Allied VPs > 2 times Japan VPs.

Year 46+ and time is the end of scenario or past it
VL is decreased by 2 levels

Atomic bomb used more than twice
VL is decreased by 1 level



_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to NAVMAN)
Post #: 189
RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied - 10/19/2010 5:22:59 AM   
NAVMAN

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 12/31/2002
Status: offline 		michael,
Thx for the reply. So, even though the Downfall scen does not start till '45, it is still subject
to the reduced victory level "penalty"? Perhaps the "penalty" should not apply to Downfall
due to the starting date and that it is a stand-alone scen.

Thx.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 190
RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied - 10/19/2010 8:41:14 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		Interesting. I'm playing Downfall myself and all I can get is a marginal victory? ;-) Just kidding--victory is in the eye of the beholder. I reckon if I take Kyushu and Honshu, and maybe Shikoku and Hokkaido, it'll be a pretty good innings.

BTW--Anyone else playing Downfall have trouble with USN CV-based squadrons being all over the map in size (with the usual Essex-class being VF at 18, VBF at 18, VB at 15 and VT at 15 if I remember correctly)? Or is it me doing something wrong?

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to NAVMAN)
Post #: 191
RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied - 10/28/2010 8:32:01 PM   
Nemo121


Posts: 5821
Joined: 2/6/2004
Status: offline 		Andy,

Is there a particular reason why the Manpower reserves in Downfall are so small? It looks like it takes over 200 days to build out your units just because of Manpower shortages. Surely in Japan in 1946 the one thing they had lots of was man ( and woman) power.

Sure they might have been using 12 to 18 year old kids for the jobs but if you used 2 x 12 year olds in place of every adult to serve ammo to a crew-served AAA gun you could make up for their smaller size/weakness with sheer numbers. I'm just asking because I would have thought that for Japan the problem wouldn't have been manpower but would, rather, have been armaments and vehicles etc.

_____________________________

John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 192
RE: Downfall, Buccaneer and Marianas and Ironman Allied - 10/28/2010 9:05:46 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Most of the units have already been mobilised and manpower was not endless.

Most of the Japanese units are disabled not understrength so with time they will recover to full strength.

I didnt add to much manpower because so much is already lost in Burma/Manchuria and the industry is still up and running.

Take a look at the base forces etc they can all get stronger

(in reply to Nemo121)
Post #: 193
RE: Ironman Allied - 11/1/2010 9:26:43 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		Andy:

Grimly playing against he Ironman Allied (and not even into the first week). Is it fair to say that (you utter swine) that Allied torpedos work from the start in this scenario? I am assuming so (from the results - not a single dud!!!) and therefore the entire IJA 1E and its older 2E are now heading for permanent ASW duty. And it suddenly becomes all important to muck up the Manila and Soerabaya SS bases!

Does anyone know if there is a better pattern than 70ASW/20Train/10Rest when there is no time to set up ASW training first?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 194
RE: Ironman Allied - 11/1/2010 10:07:00 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		;) the Mk 14 is a little better....

I hope you enjoy it I may have made it to hard...

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 195
RE: Ironman Allied - 11/1/2010 11:50:52 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline 		If it is too hard - will let you know. Not that I really mind - I am in any case penalising myself by not using either Tracker or Staff. Trying to get into the mind of what is must have been like for the real IJA and IJN leaders, without access to computers or timely data. Read somewhere that they only got production/resource data once a month (more accurately it was collected together once a month).

US SS nasty - on the other hand their carrier pilots seem senile. KB sank Lexington without a single air-to-air loss!!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 196
RE: Ironman Allied - 11/12/2010 5:04:02 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline 		Hey Andy,

Per my post in PH's AAR, here is a list of the issues I found in Downfall (v.4)

Bases that turn yellow or red in supplies almost immediately (within a week or less)

Miri
Brunei
Yap
Ulithi
Woleai
Satwai
Adak
Eniwetok
Bay Bay

Bases with a/c with inadequate AV support

Woleai - about 100 a/c there with 50 AV support
Samarinda - 2 PBY4 sq there with no Av support
Babeldaub - 226 a/c here with only 66 Av support

Underdeveloped bases (this is my opinion but I think historical fact backs it up)

Ulithi starts with Port 3(3). This was the major USN carrier refitting base from late 1944 on. It should be fully developed plus have a huge USN BF there. IN my opinion, the ARD's at Guam should be there instead because I beleive that was there location at war's end in RL. Also the huge fuel pile at Guam should be there instead. You may say why the fuss? Well because you need Guams port to support the 20th AF.

Guam starts with Port 4(2). Again at this point in the war that port should be fully developed

Amchitka Island starts with AB 0(4). This was the major USAAF base in the Aleutions by mid 1943. The NorPac is kinda left out of this scenario and I understand choices had to be made. That said if you at least started Amchitka and maybe Attu also as built up with some token Av support up there, it would at least give the Allied player a little more freedom if he chose to attack through the Kuriles to Hokkaido. Even if it's just enough to place some recon sq. up there to peek at the northern Japanese perimeter.

Engineers

You have that huge pile of CB's and EAB's at Port Hembla. Almost no xAP on the WCUSA. You have to send lift from PH to pick them up if you want to move them forward. If you do that, then you have to hold off considerable offensive operations for a couple of months while you get these guys forward. If you could move even half of them to the PI, it would be most helpful. I know others have brought up that troop lift is a big problem in the scenario. Rots and rots of xAK but precious few xAP. That means you have to use APA to move engineers which really wasn't there dedicated use. What few xAP that start at SF are needed to reinforce Adak (see above). At least that's what I had to use them for in my game

One other issue: No. 848 sq. on Formidible still has biplane TB's (oops)

Hope this helps. Now I'm going to play a couple of Downfall turns before I head to bed

edited to correct the port numbers at Guam and add a few not included in originle post

< Message edited by vettim89 -- 11/13/2010 3:50:48 AM >

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 197
Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? - 11/22/2010 11:28:30 PM   
LowCommand

 

Posts: 138
Joined: 8/14/2002
From: VA
Status: offline
I'm playing Downfall as Allied. I've noticed in the forum that ARD's only work if there is an AR present. Still, I can't get mine to work at all, in any port, with any number of AR's. Where "work" is defined as having the repair ship option avalable for stood down ships with more than a few points of flooding damage.

I tried a small experement and switched to Jap and sent a damaged DD to the one ARD they have. That didn't seem to work, but then the Japs don't seem to have any AR's left. Am I not doing something? I checked and the ships I'm trying to "lift" are all less than 50K tons. (3k tons for the lone Jap ARD.) Oh, yes and both the ARD and the AR's are disbanded. (Except for the Jap's having no AR's to disband.)

Then again, I keep finding things that I didn't know that everybody else (at least on the forum) seems to know. One example being that LCU radar isn't currently working or rather Observer data is over writting the radar data.

I did note that requiring an AR for the ARD to work probably will be addressed in some future patch.

Any comments, thoughts, etc?

_____________________________

"Mines reported in the fairway,
"Warn all traffic and detain,
"'Sent up Unity, Cralibel, Assyrian, Stormcock, and Golden Gain."

(in reply to sprior)
Post #: 198
RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? - 11/27/2010 11:28:04 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK Guys going to close this thread down - all my Scens were included in the patch so I will start a new thread to capture feedback - thanks guys for the help

(in reply to LowCommand)
Post #: 199
RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? - 11/27/2010 11:48:22 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline 		Andy,

The Allied Ironman doesn't seem to have been included as a standard scenario in Patch 4.

Will it still be supported here?



_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 200
RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? - 11/28/2010 12:09:42 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		I will be doing a new thread for that one it wasnt played enough for me to prove it worked ok to put it into the patch.

(Plus I have a nastier one in the works anyway !!!)

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 201
RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? - 11/28/2010 12:24:08 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
Bring it on.......

Thanks a million for your efforts.!!



_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 202
RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? - 12/2/2010 1:02:06 PM   
n01487477


Posts: 4779
Joined: 2/21/2006
Status: offline 		Hi Andy,
I'm having fun playing Marianas Scen14 - thanks for the great effort to do this.

If it hasn't been mentioned before:(A-historical scenario)
  • Okha's don't work until you change them to produce ... also think the production numbers could be tweaked a little for the IJN.
  • Kamikaze option
  • More AirSupport would be good too ;-)

    If it's going to be A-historical then ... go the whole hog ?

    Cheers

    _____________________________

    -Damian-
    EconDoc
    TrackerAE
    Tutes&Java

    (in reply to Reg)
    • Post #: 203
    RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? - 12/16/2010 6:37:06 AM   
    Fallschirmjager


    Posts: 6793
    Joined: 3/18/2002
    From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
    Status: offline     		Where can I get the latest version of Downfall?

    (in reply to n01487477)
    Post #: 204
    RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? - 12/16/2010 11:42:42 AM   
    mikkey


    Posts: 3142
    Joined: 2/10/2008
    From: Slovakia
    Status: offline     		Downfall scenario contains the latest patch and upgraded version by Andy you can download it from this post

    _____________________________


    (in reply to Fallschirmjager)
    Post #: 205
    RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? - 12/17/2010 6:54:02 AM   
    Fallschirmjager


    Posts: 6793
    Joined: 3/18/2002
    From: Chattanooga, Tennessee
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: mikkey

    Downfall scenario contains the latest patch and upgraded version by Andy you can download it from this post


    Thank you

    (in reply to mikkey)
    Post #: 206
    RE: Are ARD's "Turned Off" in Downfall? - 12/25/2010 7:05:08 PM   
    John 3rd


    Posts: 17178
    Joined: 9/8/2005
    From: La Salle, Colorado
    Status: offline     		Andy,

    I'm giving serious thought of adding the German SS, Tenders, and Raiders into my RA, Mk 3 version of my Mod. Do you have the info for these in a manner that can be emailed? Should I just download whichever Mod has them in and then add them?

    If you could, please email me with your thoughts: jrc_3@msn.com.

    Thanks Sir.


    _____________________________



    Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

    Reluctant Admiral Mod:
    https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

    (in reply to Fallschirmjager)
    Post #: 207
    IronMan Allied - 1/9/2011 4:37:45 AM   
    PaxMondo


    Posts: 9750
    Joined: 6/6/2008
    Status: offline
    quote:

    ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

    I will be doing a new thread for that one it wasnt played enough for me to prove it worked ok to put it into the patch.

    (Plus I have a nastier one in the works anyway !!!)


    Any news on this update? Really looking forward to it ...

    _____________________________

    Pax

    (in reply to Andy Mac)
    Post #: 208
    RE: Dec 8 Mod questions - 1/16/2011 3:44:34 AM   
    vettim89


    Posts: 3615
    Joined: 7/14/2007
    From: Toledo, Ohio
    Status: offline     		NOt sure if any one else has this problem but CVB Midway arrived with only one unit on board and it looks like this




    Attachment (1)

    _____________________________

    "We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

    (in reply to Andy Mac)
    Post #: 209
    RE: Dec 8 Mod questions - 1/16/2011 11:41:35 PM   
    NAVMAN

     

    Posts: 436
    Joined: 12/31/2002
    Status: offline     		vettim89,
    Yes, I have seen the same thing in my games.
    navman

    (in reply to vettim89)
    Post #: 210
    Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
    All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Dec 8 Mod questions Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 [7] 8   next >   >>
    Jump to:





    New Messages No New Messages
    Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
    Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
     Post New Thread
     Reply to Message
     Post New Poll
     Submit Vote
     Delete My Own Post
     Delete My Own Thread
     Rate Posts


    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

    1.969