Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Commentary

 
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 >> Commentary Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Commentary - 5/4/2011 3:22:52 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Heck--I don't know. The 4x20mm would ROCK!

Does anyone beyond FatR and I have a comment on this? Is there perhaps a benchmark text that AE follows as the Holy Grail (Fancillon?)?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1051
RE: Commentary - 5/4/2011 3:52:27 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		OK. My Francillon Notes on Mister Tojo:

I-A armed with 2 7.7mm and 2 12.7mm
I-B armed with 4x12.7mm
I-C same but slightly faster

II-B 2x7x7mm and 2x12.7mm with new engine
II-C-1 4x12.7mm
II-C-2 4x20mm (deployed in small numbers and effective vs. bombers)
II-C-3 2x12.7mm and 2x37mm

III-A 4x20mm with new engine
III-B 2x20mm and 2x37mm

What a MESS! I begin to understand FatR's confusion over the choices. ALL of these variants were built and used--NUTS!

Mondey's Book:

I-A 2x7.7mm and 2x12.7mm
I-B/C 4x12.7mm

II-A 2x7.7mm and 2x12.7mm
II-B 4x12.7mm
II-C 4x20mm OR 2 12.7mm and 2 40mm

III-A 4x20mm
III-B 2 20mm and 2 37mm

Working through the consistencies of the two resources we have the following:

Tojo I Series
A 2 7.7mm and 2 12.7mm
B/C 4x12.7mm

Tojo II Series
A 2 7.7mm and 2 12.7mm
B 4x12.7mm
C 4x20mm

Tojo III Series
A 4x20mm
B 2x20mm and 2x37mm

Proposal: How about we work this as allowing five possible Tojo choices over its deployment life?

I-A 2x7.7mm and 2x12.7mm (initial plane)
I-C 4x12.7mm (armament upgrade to reflect lessons learned fighting Allied fighters)

II-B 4x12.7mm (new engine and improved characteristics)
II-C 4x20mm (built to fight bombers but worsened stats due to same engine but heavier guns)

III-A 4x20mm (new engine and HEAVY armament for bombers--FINAL Variant)

For whatever this is worth. Shot it down if anyone TOTALLY disagrees!


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 5/4/2011 3:53:51 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 #: 1052
Tojo Proposal - 5/4/2011 4:12:58 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		AE lists the following deployment dates and their versions of Tojo as:

Ki-44 Tojo deployed in 9/42 armed with 2 7.7mm and 2 12.7mm

Ki-44-IIa Tojo deployed in 08/42 armed with 2 7.7mm and 2 12.7mm

Ki-44-IIb Tojo deployed in 7/43 armed with 2 12.7mm and 2 40mm

Ki-44-IIc Tojo deployed in 3/44 armed with 4 12.7mm

REVISED Deployment Times Proposal:
1. Ki-44 deployed in 08/42 2x7.7mm and 2x12.7mm (initial plane)

2. Ki-44-Ic deployed in 12/42 armed with 4x12.7mm (armament upgrade to reflect lessons learned fighting Allied fighters)

3. Ki-44-IIb deployed in 10/43 armed with 4x12.7mm (new engine and improved characteristics)

4. Ki-44-IIc deployed in 2/44 armed with 4x20mm (built to fight bombers but worsened stats due to same engine but heavier guns)

5. Ki-44-IIIa deployed in 6/44 armed with 4x20mm (new engine and HEAVY armament for bombers--FINAL Variant)

Players would see an improving fighter during the course of its life. The final version would make the choice between it and Frank a bit tougher and require some serious thinking as to which production lines to run and expand during the game.

I am not wedded to this set of Posts whatsoever. If there are other ideas/proposals out there then let us here them.




_____________________________



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 #: 1053
RE: Tojo Proposal - 5/4/2011 7:09:01 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I think you have misread your Francillon, John. Model I and Model II differed by their engine, and the latter was put into production by November-December of 1942. Most Model I planes apparently were built with 2x7.7/2x12.7 armament, while Model II started using 4 HMGs after the first few planes. Take note, that our model designation is in large part artificial and post-factum... which explains much of the confusion. To avoid profileration of minor versions I already noted that I propose building only one Model I version with lighter armament, and start Model II with 4 HMGs right away (12/42).

As about 40mm wing guns, as I mentioned before, developers or someone else provided strong evidence before that 40mm-armed Tojo was a major production version. I want to leave it as is, available on 43/7 (it will have armor like all Model IIs now, but less MVR).

4x20mm configuration was probably technically possible but never used in practice on Model II, possibly due to shortage of 20mm cannons. By summer of 1944 this problem was mostly solved with mass production of Ho-5, so Model III can use it... the question is, should we make make Ki-44 a good all-around in-game choice it easily can be with such armament? I believe it is not out of the realm of possibility that Shoki could have remained very competitive late in the war IRL, with a new engine, but this might only reinforce its current dominance in the game... If you want Model III to be offered as an option, I propose reducing range, compared to Model 2, so it will be only useful for point defense, reducing MRV a bit more and giving it Service Rating 2. Availability around 44/5.

Still would have been a bit too good, had I not intended to give Allies much boost in the number of available airframes from the end of 1943.

< Message edited by FatR -- 5/4/2011 7:10:36 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1054
Keeping it 'Right' - 5/5/2011 9:52:57 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Stanislav and I have had an email running during the day and I thought it better belonged on the Thread. Should be noted for every one or two Post we have here we have triple in emails I italics is Stanislav.

I am going to cut-and-paste the email in correct order so it is easier to read:

Subject: To avoid confusion...

Just take a direct look at my proposal for Tojos in the mod...

Also, fixed the number of turrets on Ibuki here.


Will place this file into my ‘Master’ file and will then take a serious look.

Got concerns yesterday about too many changes turning RA from an enhanced Japanese naval mod to something quite different. Think we need to be careful when it comes to that. Perhaps we settle on Tojo and then good enough. It is so tempting to work on everything, however, that is not the vision we settled on quite a while back. What do you think?

Am also concerned—the more I think about it—about Allied changes. I think ‘tweaks’ are OK, however, major changes could do the same thing I mentioned in the above paragraph. We’ll need to be careful there as well. Perhaps we should identify 2-3 things we all agree on for changes and leave it at that with the Allies...


I believe that what I'm doing to air side is not althistory but bringing stuff closer to history. Except Ki-44-III. Which we might avoid, if we don't want alternatives here... Believe me, if would have moved to far deeper changes, like making Nakakima fighters progress like Ki-44 -> Ki-87, while removing Frank and Oscars and adopting Mitsubishi's fighters for the Army instead, if I was making real alternatives. I think we still need a couple of major changes, like making Ki-67's range not ****, sorting out Ki-84s modifications, and tweaking aircraft weapons so that twin-engined fighters can shoot down anything. Then I'll need a weak or two to test new stuff.

Forgot to say what I think about Allied reinforcements:
- More less-than-cutting edge US planes from late autumn of 1943. In order of increase Second generation fighters -> Single-engine bombers -> Twin-engine bombers. More Hellcats late in 1944, no increase to other third-generation fighters or anything else.
- I think you should better shift extra Allied CVLs to 1944. Adding a dozen or two of subs and DEs would have been nice, but that's on your discretion, I can't think of names for them anyway.

Thanks for the response. My mind just sat chewing on this last night and I wanted to see what you thought. Spoke to Michael on the phone about it as well.


Would you mind if I posted these onto the Thread? Would love to comment and brainstorm some on the above and below Posts. I think we have some lurkers who have been afraid to jump into the discussion and contribute their thoughts. This might help.

John

Will place this file into my ‘Master’ file and will then take a serious look.







< Message edited by John 3rd -- 5/5/2011 9:59:03 PM >

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1055
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/5/2011 10:09:54 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Just wanted to clarify - I meant Ki-61 there, not Ki-67. John, you might edit that.

< Message edited by FatR -- 5/5/2011 10:11:05 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1056
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/5/2011 10:51:01 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Anyway, proposals for Ki-61 and Ki-84, very briefly this time:

Ki-61: This plane sucks from start to finish, except maybe for Ic version, which does not upgrade from earlier ones, and even Ic is good only for point-defense beyond Allied fighters range. Range is a hex or two too low on earlier modifications and much too low on KAId, MVR is worse than Tojo, altitude performace is just as bad as on other Japanese planes (all of this applies to Ki-100 derivatives as well, although them we have already mended, except perhaps forgetting to add greater ceiling to Ki-100-II, compared to Ki-100-I). Add Service Rating 3 and you'll see why it is only used to intercept bombers at major hubs. I already tried to raise high-altitude MVR a bit on the previous build, but did not go far enough. Needs major buff overall. And I think I did wrong by cutting its final model upgrade to Ki-100.

Ki-84: (I'm using Kagero #18 here as my main reference)

- The speed should increase later in the production. Pre-production Ki-84a were slower than FW-190A-4, late production Ki-84 were on late-war Corsair/Mustang level, with same fuel and service both times. Of course in real practice topspeed was worse due to fuel/mainenance problems but with increase in engine power by up to 175 hps one would except some serious boost. Reliability of the engine was also increased on later models (Ki-84's engine had two major problems, sudden loss of power due to malfunction of the fuel system and inefficient oil cooler, leading to easy overheating; the former was eventually dealt with, the latter wasn't, that's why I gave 84b Service Rating 2 in the current Scen 70 build).

- Ki-84b is not upgraded from Ki-84a, something I didn't notice for a looong time, because it makes no sense. I bet this was an unpleasant surprise to other people as well.

- Ki-84r, present in the game, was not greenlighted for prototype construction, never mind production. Ki-84N/Ki-117 using Nakajima Ha-44 engine was. And even it had not much chances of ever going into production, considering the condition of Japanese industry. If we want to stick close to reality, Ki-116, using Mitsubishi Ha-33 engine, and featuring slightly lesser speed, but even greater maneurability (due to lesser weight and much reduced wing loading) was the most likely final production model of Ki-84. It was built, tested and considered good.

- So I propose to up Ki-84b speed, to make it upgrade from Ki-84a, and to make it upgrade either to Ki-116, or to nothing.

< Message edited by FatR -- 5/5/2011 11:35:57 PM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1057
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/6/2011 1:44:22 AM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline 		Well, I was not going to say anything until I saw that John was already posing it, but this is getting very far afield from the 'admiral' mod i think in some danger of moving into just another buff out the japanese fanboi mod. especially hitting the allied planes, now adding a Army interceptor... i really liked this mod as an alt history, and there was a lot of interesting work put in. but this changing of plane stats is not encouraging. they were well researched using a uniform methodology originally, and a thread with a couple of whiners notwithstanding, i don't think changing them is justified by more than a bit of wishful thinking.

i realize it is your baby, and if i don't like it i don't have to play it but i played the last version and liked it, i was hoping for a more refined version of that. maybe we could get two versions, one with the changes that are rationalized with the origional premise, and a second one that is the 'FatR dream' mod? or is there at least a comprehensive change log so we can roll back some of the more... imaginative... changes?

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1058
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/6/2011 2:27:36 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		FatR and Darby: Thanks for the commentary.

Would really like some of the other RA Players to jump in and toss out their thoughts? My concerns are growing instead of diminishing.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 1059
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/6/2011 8:41:18 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Darbymcd, if you don't like my changes, you are more than welcome to state where they are historically incorrect or fanboyish. There are commonly observed facts that, for example:

Hellcat is inferior to Corsair in every single stat, except ceiling, and even in ceiling after a certain point, despite being much more successful IRL.
Hurricane was a flying coffin IRL, never achieving even close to 1:1 losses against Japanese, and is godly (by early-war Allied standards) in AE.
Ki-49 is the best overall IJAAF bomber in the game, even though it was a failure IRL.
Ki-51 is not worth building compared to the planes it historically replaced.
Ki-44 was the least common of IJAAF fighter types IRL, but it relegates anything else to secondary roles in the game until at least Ki-84r is available. Ki-61 was considered by Japanese a superior fighter overall, as evidenced, I don't know, by much higher production, but its stats are flatly inferior, even before we take into account crippling Service Rating; Ki-43 is no longer remotely capable of battling even Allied fighters into 1943; Ki-84 is better, but not by that much, and is crippled by SR.
Ki-45 KAIa should be never upgraded to later models and is quite probably your fighter-bomber for the entire war, its successors and other 2E fighters with a big centerline gun are useless, because these guns have 10-20% of a 20mm gun accuracy and don't even double its damage.

That, except probably Ki-51 bit, is not my bias, that's how people rate aircraft across multiple AARs, that's is what advised on forums to build (when we talk about Japanese aircraft), that is how things work. And they work not at all life-like.

Of course, darbymcnd, you or anyone, again, is also welcome to tell me why my position on a particular aircraft is wrong. I recognize, that my knowledge can be easily outdated or flawed, due to mostly coming from old and cursory secondary sources and reading j-aircraft.org. Without appeals to authority, though. I respect devs' work, but the very fact that it still gets constantly tweaked shows that it isn't flawless. And as you can see, if you look at all, my changes introduce not only improvements, but also significant nerfs to Japanese. With them they will never get a bomber as good as Ki-49-IIb, and their Ki-44s will never be as all-around good as Ki-44-IIc in stock, and this is pretty significant. So I don't get from where your fanboyism accusations are coming.

< Message edited by FatR -- 5/6/2011 8:44:02 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1060
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/6/2011 12:22:40 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline 		FatR, I understand what you are saying, I just think that philosophically, this game has gone the route of stat-ing the planes and letting the outcome happen, rather than trying to force a particular outcome via the stats (does that make sense, I am not sure...) for example, your talk about the corsair and hellcat and change the stats because the hellcat was "more successful", but the corsair, i believe, did outperform the hellcat. so the crux of your argument comes down to how are you evaluating that success. it is impossible to just use total kills, or even ratio of kills because of course they did not fly identical mssions against identical enemies, ie their 'success' is a factor of operational context as well as performance. so for you to change the stats to give 'real life' results is actually misguided, as those results are not the product of only stats, but also operations, which are controlled by the player and will be significantly different from the 'real life' you want to emulate.

I am not sure what your point is with the review of japanese planes, that there should be less choice? or that plane stats should be changed to reflect.... production runs, which bombers you think are 'failures'....? I just don't understand what you want to say here.

Don't take the fanboi comment too seriously! What I mean is, this mod had a specific focus in the beginning, what if yadayadayada.... ok, but now the focus is 'fix Japanese air deficiencies'. that is ok, but unless you think the japanese were not nearly as clever as you in their production analysis, you are starting to make changes that are based on much bigger 'what ifs', what if they had a much more efficient R&D process, access to more powerful fighter size engines sooner, more strategic materials, better avgas, pilot training regime, different design philosophy, etc etc. still, it is totally fine if you want that, it is your mod. but look at your comments above about -61, you seem to just be buffing planes because..... i don't know, you want to.

it would also probably be nice to see the change log. it is hard to know what are the changes, the thoughts, the wishes, over 36 pages of thread. i admit i probably missed some things, like not getting the -49IIb (although if they get the IIa it is fairly much absolutely a non-issue).

look, again i am not trying to be a nattering naybob of negativity, just saying keep it real. of course it would be cool to have an effective interceptor with 4x20mm, or for japanese planes to have great high alt mvr, they didn't. if you want them to, and your alt history rational is 'because they would fight better' you are probably into fanboi realm. but i think i am coming off as more negative than I intend, so I will drop it here. I like the idea of the mod and you guys have put lots of work into it, so drive on! I have one opponent lined up for this when it finally comes out and will kick his butt even with your fanboi uberbuffing! (ok, just kidding I'M COMING FOR YOU TONGUC!!!!!


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1061
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/6/2011 12:46:34 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Again, I'm not trying to fix Japanese deficiencies here. I'm mostly striving to bring the mod closer to history, while maintaining interesting options for the player...

Speaking of being closer to history... I finally found the thread about Ki-44 armament I wanted to find. Don't know how I managed to miss it the last week!

http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=5995.0

And it looks like the game has the data for Ki-44 absolutely right, except perhaps pushing Ki-44-Ia production to the date where you don't need it because Ki-44-II is already available. So I was in the wrong here, and Ki-44 should be used as it is in the game.

Another relevant thread, this time on protection:
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=9225.0


EDIT: Oh well, a good reminder about overconfidence to me.

2John: Anyway, if there are voices against adding anything to IJAAF side, I can propose only to keep models as they are, except removing cannon-armed Ki-43 and Ki-84r. I can replace the latter with Ki-116, if you want.

2darbycmd: "FatR, I understand what you are saying, I just think that philosophically, this game has gone the route of stat-ing the planes and letting the outcome happen, rather than trying to force a particular outcome via the stats (does that make sense, I am not sure...) for example, your talk about the corsair and hellcat and change the stats because the hellcat was "more successful", but the corsair, i believe, did outperform the hellcat."
The route you are talking about is not possible. First, we don't even have complete sets of performance data on the planes that participated in the war, particularly Japanese. Even famous aircraft, like A6M2 or Ki-84-I still have their performance disputed. Second, the level of abstraction that exists in the game is high and does not include all the various aspects of the combat model, like the differences of high/low speed or vertical/horizontal maneurability; or advantages of things like acceleration/deceleration rate, field of view, ease of handling, and so on. It is all rolled into Speed and MVR. And MVR has no direct RL equivalent, although it appears to be reflecting horizontal maneurability most closely. So AE database is not an attempt to directly translate RL stats into the game and cannot ever be such, because it's not an aviasim. It is an attempt to make things as powerful comparatively to each other as they were IRL, while keeping those of their stats that can be easily checked by customers, like number of weapons, or topspeed, recognizable as historical.
So when you look at the stats and see that effectiveness of some plane is vastly divergent from what it was against the similar opposition in RL, you can conclude that its stats are borked. The combat use is the ultimate test of a combat plane's performance after all. Of course tactics, numbers, pilots, etc, skew the picture there as well, but actual combat outcomes and opinions of people who used these planes IRL are the baseline AE tries to approach. That's why its air combat model evolved greatly since WitP.

< Message edited by FatR -- 5/6/2011 3:26:55 PM >

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 1062
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/8/2011 8:24:32 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		After some thinking I belive darbymcd had a point, I was a bit overenthusiastic. IJAAF will live without changes in models. Tweaked stats and availability dates will improve the game, IMO, though. I have some free time at the moment, so I'm going to test flak and plane performance after the tweaks.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1063
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/10/2011 3:29:33 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Hi Guys. Apologize for not being on over the last few days. I've massively been under the weather while working 12+ hours shifts at the hotel. Not very fun whatsoever!

Stanislav: I think you've made the right decision. Been mulling this over while working and was gonna recommend that we dial back the changes in the IJA side because it doesn't fit with the VISION of RA. We have built one heck of an AltNaval Mod that should be a GREAT time to play!

With this decision made FatR what do you have left for work?

I'd like to thank the contributors who care enough to PM and/or contribute their thoughts on the Thread to bring us back to the true purpose of the scenario. WELL DONE!

As a side note, Stanislav, once RA 3.0 is launched then maybe we can look at a new Mod project...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1064
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/10/2011 9:10:53 PM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline 		I for one would really like to see what you guys could come up with looking at all the Japanese forces, really let the imagination go and bring in more 'what if' planes for instance. In the old RHS he had japanese varients of Bf109s for early war interceptors and G8s for some late war heavy hitting for instance. Sort of sit down and do the planning for the entire Japanese side as you did for IJN.

but i would also say you should look at allied responses. i don't mean other planes, but the ability to redirect production from Europe, or just increase production, to meet increased threats. also, the newer ideas on the japanese economy could be looked at, as far as increased res use and, for instance, no supply from refineries (this would also cut down 'fortress palembang' early war gambit for allies).

So maybe it would be something like RA+scen 2+invasion response forces.

I think the amount of thought and effort you guys have put into this is great and I look forward to 1) playing this one (still looking at you Tonguc!!!) and seeing what else you can come up with.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1065
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/10/2011 9:25:02 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Only testing remains. Unfortunately, it is the most boring part. But thankfully I might look forward to a few free days on this week, which I'll use for it.

As about future modding work - I might propose "Perfect Japanese Foresight (with a good deal of favorable assumptions) + Allied Reaction" Mod, with naval side primarily based on alt_naval Japanese shipbuilding program and Gary Childress' art for it (American program will not require new classes, merely more ships late in the war and different classes distribution, so new ship art won't be needed), assuming Gary will be willing to let us use them. It will likely require someone who can draw a number of new planesides and planetops, though.


(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 1066
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/11/2011 2:11:54 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		LOVE THAT IDEA FatR!

You handle the testing and I will look at the starting positions for units and TF then I think we can FINALLY get this thing out.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1067
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/11/2011 9:53:34 PM   
guctony


Posts: 669
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline 		Well I am "TONGUC" and I am also waiting for you Darby. Also we both wait for Your Mod finger crossed. In the first one Darby proved more then a evil manace for me. I just give him the white flag. This time I am waiting eagerly for your Mod. So to taste sweet cold meal: "revenge". I think you give the correct decision on Air stat changes. But I humble suggestion would be to add some 4 engine bombers for japan. But with such later arrival date and cost to minimise its usefullness. And maybe creating a special recon unit out of H8s to mimic submarine fueled unit would be nice bonus. Ability to recon Pearl from far away would be primary target for reluctant admiral I guess.
What about more Midget Sub carriers.

And thanks for your great effort. I had more real fun and legal fun playing RA: rather the scen 2. which you know is dopping

_____________________________

"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 #: 1068
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/12/2011 3:28:54 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Thanks for the comments.

FatR is doing play-testing with some of the fighters and is working on a 'changelist' that will be Posted with the Mod.

Tomorrow I hope to go through all the starting units and TF to make sure things look good from direction. Will also continue working on a new scenario introduction.

It is hoped that all this can be Posted on an RA website where people can be directed for the Files, Mod Info, Commentary, and other relevant material. Safe to say we are not too far from being ready to Post this and see what players think.



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 1069
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/13/2011 5:34:59 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Am working my way through the starting forces and making little tweaks to the deployment of units and TF. No big changes but it is a page full of them nonetheless.

Really like the decision to pull back the 4 newest BBs and 2 CVEs to Hiroshima at war's start. Makes better sense that some sort of reserve is left behind in the Home Islands. The 3 CVLs are at Babeldoap but don't have the speed bonus so that will limit them to start with.

Placing Lexington down by Pago Pago covering the troop reinforcement of that island as well as Canton makes for an interesting opening for the Allied player.

Just a reminder that the Japanese Naval AF starts with a 10-15% reduction in their net skills to much more accurately reflect the problems of Yamamoto's expansion of units and improvements within the training system for Japan. The KB's pilots are still excellent but most of the other groups are now somewhere in the low 60s. They are good but not THAT good. Should see some impact with that change.

Can anyone tell me where to find the pilot production numbers for Mods? I know you can change the monthly number and their starting experience by year but am suffering some form of delusion in not being able to find it. Thanks!


EDIT: Nevermind--Found it!

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 5/13/2011 5:47:48 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 #: 1070
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/16/2011 11:15:35 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Take note John, that existing pilot production is (a)greater than demand (I believe I have reached the bottom of graduates' pool for IJAAF in my Scen 70 game and started pulling greener pilots that haven't finished the program by Decemeber of 1942, but that was with about half of available IJAAF units dedicated to on-map training) and (b)imposes HI tax. You absolutely should not change the size of training program, unless you want to make things harder for Japanese! Why you think Scen 2 is often considering "Do or Die" scenario, where you should shoot for auto-victory in 1943, before pilot traning HI tax will destroy your economy?

Now things could have been different, if the training produced pilots at EXP 65-70 or so. Unfortunately, at no point the training program in stock scenarios gives you pilots who are actually fit for combat. They still must be trained on-map for 3-4 months.

Well, you apparently CAN make pilots to graduate with better EXP... But take note that you probably should improve the situation here for Allies too, if you do, particularly for late war, in the interest of fairness. And also this will make air combat, already fiercer and bloodier than IRL, far more so and will allow Japanese to steamroll Allied aviation by sheer numbers for much longer. I prefer the existing model, as it forces the pilot conservation and hard choices about the percentage of your aviation you are willing to leave out of combat. Honestly, that part should better be left alone. Expansion of the naval aviation training program is sufficiently represented by new available units, IMO.

< Message edited by FatR -- 5/16/2011 11:22:28 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1071
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/17/2011 4:43:26 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Sorry about not responding earlier. BUSY hotel weekend!

Decided to leave our pilot number where they were originally placed. The numbers are lower then in Scenario 1 but with slightly higher starting IJN XP in 42 and 43. IT then crashes in 1944. Went back through this massive Thread and found our original comments on it and decided to leave well enough alone.

FatR: Have you had a chance to do some of your A-t-A testing? I think I've got things handled on my side for starting corrections.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1072
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/18/2011 12:02:26 AM   
bigred


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

What is IT?  
quote:

IT then crashes in 1944

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1073
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/18/2011 3:50:46 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		On testing: I've ran a significant number of flak tests. Japanese losses from new and improved US small-calibre AA are noticeably higher, but by less than I expected. If you want, I can post the results later.

About A2A, only a few runs so far. Effect from device changes seem minimal, but it is too early to tell. I'm testing new planes from Scen 70, like A7M3, too.

Night fighters still remain almost entirely ineffective against massed raids, by the way. I guess Japanese players should just make peace with the fact that if Allies get Marianas, their industry will burn whatever they do.


Two more things, regarding the air side:

1)Ohka-carrying planes do not seem to work. At all. Over dozens of tests (with exiting to the desktop each time) they never even sortied, despite test TFs hanging right in front of their airfield. Well, let's hope it's going to be patched eventually. I don't think I can do anything about it.

2)I still think that reducing Service Rating for transport planes was unwarranted. In the Ocean of Blood game bigred's transport aviation currently airlifts brigade-sized forces in mere days (despite old Service Rating values). I can only wonder what Allies will be able to do with their aviation in 1944.

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 1074
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/18/2011 4:38:49 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: bigred



What is IT?  
quote:

IT then crashes in 1944



Hey Sir.

IT refers to pilot experience numbers in 1944 and 1945 when the Japanese are simply overwhelmed.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 1075
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/18/2011 4:46:27 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		FatR: Thinks things are in good shape right now.

1. Good with AA news. American AA should be better but not invincible so that is probably about right.

2. How long do you want to work the A-t-A Testing side?

3. Simple reality: Japanese Night Fighters SUCK!

4. We'll have to see what happens with Ohka. Those things are NASTY when if and when they hit something.

5. The Transport Service Rating is something we could discuss. Do other players have any feelings based on their game experience with using Transports en masse? They should be useful (Lordy knows I have used them a bunch in my game with Lew) but do require serious down time.


SUBJECT CHANGE: We have been working on this 3.0 for so long, I think we should incorporate one of the latest Beta Patches from Michael M so the engine is up-to-speed and lots of items/code is fixed. If I understand correctly the B4 Version that just came out fixes 'the Divine Wind.' Should we look at updating RA to that and leave future updates to the player choice?


_____________________________



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 #: 1076
Deployment? - 5/18/2011 5:03:10 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I'd like to try and pen a date for releasing this new beast.

FatR do you think June 1st would be a workable option?


_____________________________



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 #: 1077
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/18/2011 5:27:39 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
On testing: I've ran a significant number of flak tests. Japanese losses from new and improved US small-calibre AA are noticeably higher, but by less than I expected. If you want, I can post the results later.

Your results sound similar to Babes. Have statistical analysis of several hundred test runs and mean/sigma results for pre and post 1943 when working with michaelm on the code in this area. Will not post them, and would appreciate it if no one else does either, but the results are available by pm, if you wish, such that you may compare your results to ours.

All run on standard, single variable, test bed.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 1078
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/18/2011 6:00:59 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Thank You John--Very Kind as always!

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 1079
RE: Keeping it 'Right' - 5/18/2011 6:19:48 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Okey dokey. I'll send a copy to you and Stan and ya'll can modulate amongst yourselves about it.

"Just give me weeeeed, whites and wine, and I'll be willin".

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1080
Page:   <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Commentary Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   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

0.985