RE: another serious problem

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: another serious problem

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: another serious problem

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: another serious problem - 11/14/2010 3:53:57 PM

John 3rd

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

I concur. It seems like the logical explanation for the bug that he is experiencing. Let us know if this is the problem!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 451

Reluctant Admiral 3.0 Ideas - 11/14/2010 4:54:06 PM

John 3rd

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

I alluded earlier about wanting to begin working on the 3.0 Version of the Mod. I think enough people are far enough into the Mod to be able to provide for substantial feedback and ideas.

Lets start with the easy stuff:
1. FIX Japanese CA NO Armor issue for 4 of the Heavy Cruisers
2. FIX Modern BB Ammo loadout issue

LCU Changes
1. I am thinking about starting the 9th Air Fleet (HQ, Air Flotilla, BF, and planes) active in Japan at the start but make the units at a cadre strength of 25%. The Daitai would also start as available but at a skill of 40-50%.

2. Instead of keeping starting Naval Air at normal or higher skill levels, we should reduce them somewhat. I got to thinking that in starting a rotation training program at the beginning of 1940 as well as expanding (somewhat) the OOB, these Daitai and Chutai should start at a lower experience percent. The CVs would be at the best but the land-based units would be lower.

3. Conversely, the quality of Naval Air Trainees would improve in 1942, peak in 1943, and crash in 1944.

4. The improved LCUs entering in with more engineers and engineer vehicles would all enter service at 75% instead of 100% strength.

Starting ENGINES needs to be checked to reflect the changed aircraft production.

Naval Construction
1. Thanks to the Thread work on large Japanese slipways and when the capital ships were on them, I intend to revamp the times for new construction as well as factor in the addition of the two new slips already created (at Shanghai and Port Arthur) when the Mod starts. It is my intention to actually draw out what ships are where to achieve a 'realistic' production schedule.

2. Intend to add some of the 1941 additional ship orders to the OOB. This will mean putting Taiho back into the que as well as a couple of cruisers and some more DDs. Whether the player can actually build them is another story.

Left my list at home and since I am at work and don't have my list in front of me I will stop with this much so people can begin thinking and contributing.

What say you?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 452

Reluctant Admiral 3.0 Ideas - 11/14/2010 5:00:02 PM

John 3rd

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

I forgot to mention that it might be a cool idea to move Lexington's TF down into the South Pacific covering the reinforcement convoy that starts at Suva...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 453

RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 Ideas - 11/14/2010 6:16:04 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

I'll post extended comments later, but I must say even if Japan can technically squeeze more carriers into shipyard queues (and their RL fleet building program was already overambitious), I'm against this for gameplay reasons. Carriers are so important that unless they totally suck (like Shinano), there is no question whether to build them or not, the only question is what you can axe to build them.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 454

RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 Ideas - 11/14/2010 6:56:58 PM

John 3rd

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

Exactly what I said with 'whether the player can actually build them!' Makes sense for the possibility, however, the player must actually make the choices. I LIKE forcing the player to make the decisions!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 455

RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 Ideas - 11/15/2010 10:34:15 AM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

When one of the options is clearly superior, that hardly is a decision. Unless there are as many carriers in the queue as in CV Enhanced, the player will build them all. Assuming smooth conquest of SRA, it is easily possible to just squeeze a Taiho-class in the building program without sacrificing anything. The economy will still run at modest HI surplus, assuming the player does not go overboard in other areas. Assuming the oil production was wrecked to the point of inhibiting industry, the player will just halt some of the more expensive surface combatants.

EDIT: If you want to give players a choice, place Kawachi-class CBs in ports at the beginning of the scenario in damaged state, ensuring that they are not repaired until their normal availability timeline and with an option of CV conversion (to supbar CVs, with about 40-45 planes each, although well-protected), that will delay their availability to second half of 1944. This will actually provide an interesting conundrum.

EDIT2: And to be honest, I'm not too keen on major changes in general. No one even reached the end of 1942 yet, my game vs. Yubari is the longest-running, AFAIK and it suffers from all of the bugs (so in addition to the oversized Chinese army I've just found that my surface force is crippled until the end of 1942).

< Message edited by FatR -- 11/15/2010 2:23:52 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 456

RE: another serious problem - 11/15/2010 9:20:54 PM

Lecivius

Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline

I would tend to agree. There is more than enough in this as it stands.

Just my 2 cents worth.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 457

RE: another serious problem - 11/16/2010 1:43:18 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

EDIT2: And to be honest, I'm not too keen on major changes in general.

+1, I agree. I am in may.

< Message edited by bigred -- 11/19/2010 12:05:03 PM >

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 458

RE: another serious problem - 11/16/2010 3:52:32 AM

John 3rd

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

The bug issues that need fixed or have been fixed are:

1. Modern BB Loadouts for Ammo.
2. The Zero Speed issue. Somehow they got some super high octane and are flying anywhere from 10-15 MPH faster.
3. The 4 CA that have serious armor issues.

FatR has handled the short-term fix of the BB Ammo problem as well as the Zeros. I can deal with the CAs. How about we put it all together so everything is fixed and Post that for active players to download? It is only database changes and so it SHOULD (cross your fingers) not cause any issues with current games.

Did I miss anything here?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 459

RE: another serious problem - 11/16/2010 3:57:03 AM

John 3rd

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

Perhaps I should also ask if there are other problems out there that we have missed?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 460

RE: another serious problem - 11/16/2010 7:24:55 AM

michaelm75au

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: yubari

The A6M3b, shown on the Kaga is not carrier capable, could that be the cause?

Non carrier planes count as three times what they would on land in order to make it hard to operate planes.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to yubari)

Post #: 461

RE: another serious problem - 11/16/2010 8:40:07 AM

gajdacs zsolt

Posts: 113
Joined: 9/16/2009
Status: offline

I have a few proposals :)

There a thread out there about jap CV airgroup sizes, i think it's worth watching to see what they figure out about this as it is a very important thing for every JFB I guess (or at least for me) :)

Kaigun states That the 'X' turret of the Yugumo's were never removed during the war because her turrets could be used in the AA role. In the game they are incorrectly removed with the 43/12 upgrade
Also, it is written in the page above that Akigumo was of the Kagero class, not Yugumo (as it is in the game right now)

Create a CS upgrade path for the Chitose class just like Mizuho's. That way the palyer is not force to upgrade, or stick with the pre-war AA suite.

And the last one :)
Create a small (2 plane) naval search squadron on every carrier with the D4Y1-C aircraft. If the player wants it he can expand or disband it, the point is to have the possibility to use this aircraft the way it was (and the D4Y2-C and the C6N). Of course this would have to be done with a delay as the plane arrives in 42/10 currently. Also, this might be a bit incorrect as I seem to remember (really just out of might head, have no time to check it right now) that one of the carriers at midway had D4Y1-C's aboard for evaluation...

EDIT: Just one more thing, this is more of a question: Right now the Ki-84a is set to upgrade to the Ki-84r and skips the 'b' version. Why is it like this? The 'b' version has better armament and a service rating of two! This late into the war (if I ever get there) I doubt I'd have the supply to just start to convert factories to the 'b' version. But if it would be in the upgrade line I definiately wouldn't use the 'r' version, even though that is a bit faster, a bit more manouverable and has a bit better climb rate.

EDIT2: ( :) )
You have added the G3M4-Q patrol craft, but the availability of the devices that it uses were not changed. Sure the H-6 radar is a late war thing, but they must have been able to produce MADs...right? :D
Right now (to me) this early addition is completly worthless as I can just use the old nells in this role...

< Message edited by Zsolo007 -- 11/16/2010 8:58:39 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 462

RE: another serious problem - 11/16/2010 11:28:35 AM

gajdacs zsolt

Posts: 113
Joined: 9/16/2009
Status: offline

Just a little bit of addition to the D4Y1-C:

Production date according to Kaigun:
660 D4Y1 production aircraft (spring 1942-Apr 1944)

According to wikipedia (and the sources linked in the wiki article) the first production versions were used for recce duties because of structural problems. Unfortunately I cannot find anything as to when these were solved, but it's obvious that the availability date of the D4Y1-C should be brought forward, and some consideration should be given to changing the DB 'version's' date (according to the wiki article the DB verion's production started in '43 march, the stated source is Huggins, Mark. "Falling Comet: Yokosuka's Suisei Dive-Bomber". Air Enthusiast, No. 97, January/February 2002, pp. 66�71. ISSN 0143 5430.)

< Message edited by Zsolo007 -- 11/16/2010 11:50:54 AM >

(in reply to gajdacs zsolt)

Post #: 463

RE: another serious problem - 11/16/2010 2:30:44 PM

guctony

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I concur. It seems like the logical explanation for the bug that he is experiencing. Let us know if this is the problem!

Well The problem is As you guess zero 3b planes are not suitable for CV task. I did not upgrade them with such a intenition. It was an open path so I used it. But the problem is it has no reverse position. now I cant upgrade them with A6-2 this is a serious issue. Can there be another Data base upgrade to solve the problem. Or else my best air groups will be un-avaible for war.

_____________________________

"Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder."
"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken."
"After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."
Mustafa Kemal

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 464

RE: another serious problem - 11/17/2010 1:53:38 AM

John 3rd

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

I think this can be done. FatR can this be worked out. You handled the air side is this something that can be done?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to guctony)

Post #: 465

RE: air loss data - 11/18/2010 4:56:53 PM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

air loss data Bigred against Dirtyharry. My zero losses jumped when I invaded Hilo. Look at my last air loss data report post #379. DHarry really has socked it to me.
I note my ops losses.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bigred -- 11/18/2010 5:11:48 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 466

RE: another serious problem - 11/18/2010 6:23:45 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think this can be done. FatR can this be worked out. You handled the air side is this something that can be done?

I wonder how this upgrade could have been done in the first place. A6M3b is not carrier capable, therefore it should be impossible to uprgade carrier-capable groups to it, unless it is in the upgrade path. And all carrier aigroups upgrade to A6M5 by default in this mod. The only fix I can propose is to put affected carrier units on the ground permanently and replace them with some of the ground units.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 467

RE: another serious problem - 11/18/2010 11:06:21 PM

guctony

Posts: 669
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think this can be done. FatR can this be worked out. You handled the air side is this something that can be done?

I wonder how this upgrade could have been done in the first place. A6M3b is not carrier capable, therefore it should be impossible to uprgade carrier-capable groups to it, unless it is in the upgrade path. And all carrier aigroups upgrade to A6M5 by default in this mod. The only fix I can propose is to put affected carrier units on the ground permanently and replace them with some of the ground units.

well That is what I did eventually

_____________________________

"Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder."
"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken."
"After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."
Mustafa Kemal

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 468

RE: another serious problem - 11/19/2010 6:47:11 PM

John 3rd

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

Sorry I haven't been more involved with this but I've been stuck running the Hotel for the last seven days with three to go. These are 10-12 hour days and they've been kicking my a**!

Have most of next week off so I should be able to get the changes done we've been talking about. Sorry for any inconvenience guys.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to guctony)

Post #: 469

RE: Tokyo only producing? - 11/28/2010 10:31:15 PM

mariandavid

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

Very strange - in the first six weeks of the game only Tokyo has been producing additional airframes and engines! Not sure if this is a problem or a passing aberration so intend to carry on. But wonder if this has happened to anyone else. Specifically after the first week Toyko added 1x Oscar and 1x Ha-33 per day while the rest of the economy stared at the sky!

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 470

RE: Tokyo only producing? - 11/28/2010 11:21:54 PM

John 3rd

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

I have had no major issues in this area except for resources and oil being so low to start.

Make sure you are careful about your levels within the cities. Is Tokyo running high with supply? There can be so many things to build that your build doesn't happen at all unless you have enough supplies present.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to mariandavid)

Post #: 471

RE: Tokyo only producing? - 11/29/2010 12:51:06 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Very strange - in the first six weeks of the game only Tokyo has been producing additional airframes and engines! Not sure if this is a problem or a passing aberration so intend to carry on. But wonder if this has happened to anyone else. Specifically after the first week Toyko added 1x Oscar and 1x Ha-33 per day while the rest of the economy stared at the sky!

Send you a PM to assist.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 472

RE: Tokyo only producing? - 11/29/2010 6:48:27 PM

mariandavid

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

My thanks to the members of this site for their response. Solved my problem!! My difficulty was that this is my first serious go on the Japanese side. Before was playing against the Japanese using the dreaded Ironman (Plus) - a very different set of problems!

Never realised when reading up on this mod - but in some ways the most valuable result of the IJN improvements is that priority can be given instead to beefing up the (now) relatively feeble IJAAF.

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 473

RE: Tokyo only producing? - 11/30/2010 3:35:18 AM

John 3rd

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

It is a good group that has helped to create and now play the Mod. Rather biased there...

You are really correct in stating the IJN's additional prep provides the chance for one to work on the IJA. That is an interesting point within the Mod. The IJN starts better prepared with a more organized, capable force forward-deployed when the war starts. It isn't that much bigger but it is BETTER. This really provides a chance to then work the army side because it can lean more on the navy. It isn't quite what I imagined when we created the thing...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to mariandavid)

Post #: 474

Getting the Bugs Out - 12/1/2010 2:32:14 PM

John 3rd

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

Big Red wants to start a new RA-70 Campaign and needs to make sure everything has been fixed.

I want to touch base and then get the fixes Posted.

These were the issues found earlier I believe:
1. A whole Class of CA without Belt Armor until their late-42 upgrade.
2. The Zero speed issue.
3. Zero Upgrade problems for CV and non-CB based.
4. Modern BB loadouts for Ammo.
5. A few Judy Recon units arriving inearly-42

Stanislav--You fixed the Zero Speed issue a bit ago and it is good--right? Did you do anything else in the aircraft area?

If you have, could you shoot me the most current set of files for the whole Mod? I can deal with the CAs, BBs, and Judys.

Juan--Can you walk me through how to fix this the RIGHT way? I know I can reduce the AMMO LOADS back to 12 (I believe) but I'd like to keep the additional ammo and said that could be done. Any chance you could explain that here?

Are there any issues from the Allied side? I am strongly considering moving the Lexington's Battle Group down to Pago Pago to cover the reinforcement occurring there. Might be a real positive change for the Allied player.

Should take too long to do the fixes...

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 12/1/2010 2:34:30 PM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 475

RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 12/2/2010 3:17:52 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

1. Am I ok to start inputting a dec7 turn or should I to wait?

2. Why exactly is the gun ammo forward turrent load issue not able to be fixed to max reload? Will Matrix support a fix?

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 476

RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 12/2/2010 3:53:49 AM

John 3rd

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

Hold for a day or two. I have tomorrow off and will try to get right on it.

Stanislav--I need the most current files you have. I'm on a new computer and am not sure which is the newest set. Just send the data files. I don't need the art files and other stuff.

To make sure I will also email Stanislav.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 477

RE: Yamato Replenishment Problem - 12/2/2010 1:39:49 PM

vaned74

Posts: 389
Joined: 11/17/2008
Status: offline

don't forget the HMS Nelson on the british side has 6 x 16 cm in forward mounts (x2).

My guess is it will also suffer the same ammo reload problem.

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 478

RE: Yamato Replenishment Problem - 12/2/2010 1:44:40 PM

John 3rd

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

I would not have thought of her. THANK YOU!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to vaned74)

Post #: 479

RE: Getting the Bugs Out - 12/2/2010 2:24:17 PM

John 3rd

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

OK. Got the Mod Files downloaded from the Scenario website. Will be working on the project this morning. This is my topic list below. Is there anything else that needs worked on?

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Big Red wants to start a new RA-70 Campaign and needs to make sure everything has been fixed.

I want to touch base and then get the fixes Posted.

These were the issues found earlier I believe:
1. A whole Class of CA without Belt Armor until their late-42 upgrade.
2. The Zero speed issue.
3. Zero Upgrade problems for CV and non-CB based.
4. Modern BB loadouts for Ammo.
5. A few Judy Recon units arriving inearly-42

Stanislav--You fixed the Zero Speed issue a bit ago and it is good--right? Did you do anything else in the aircraft area?

If you have, could you shoot me the most current set of files for the whole Mod? I can deal with the CAs, BBs, and Judys.

Juan--Can you walk me through how to fix this the RIGHT way? I know I can reduce the AMMO LOADS back to 12 (I believe) but I'd like to keep the additional ammo and said that could be done. Any chance you could explain that here?

Are there any issues from the Allied side? I am strongly considering moving the Lexington's Battle Group down to Pago Pago to cover the reinforcement occurring there. Might be a real positive change for the Allied player.

Should take too long to do the fixes...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 480

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

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