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: Reluctant Admiral 3.0

 
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: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/21/2011 2:55:13 AM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline 		It applies to AI games only. And the more realistic thing about multiple day turns is you have to plan more carefully. Move your carriers into range and then retire out of range, although I do agree it can be very tricky, probably a bit of practice to make work just right for that particular situation.

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 31
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/21/2011 1:28:00 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I thought it is possible to change turn cycles for PBEMs, but looks like I was wrong...

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 32
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/22/2011 3:38:09 AM   
derhexer


Posts: 251
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
quote:

After a seemingly endless time, RA 3.0 is complete and released for anyone who is curious to check out a Mod that features a stronger Japanese Navy with little changes to the IJA. The Mod sort of fits between Scenario 1 and Scenario 2 when it comes to Japanese strength within the war. Instead of Scenario 70, we've placed into the 069 slot.


69 is the same scenario number used for Sharp's May 1, 1942 scenario. Can you use a different number??

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 33
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/22/2011 8:14:22 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		We could look at going to Scen 71 or simply replace 70. Does anyone have an objection if we replace the old Version 2 and keep the Scenario 70 designation?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to derhexer)
Post #: 34
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/25/2011 9:41:55 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		If there are no opinions to the contrary, I can rename the current scenario as Scen 70 and reload it to Box.net.

Also, I've found a couple of very minor bugs (ASW mortar on the last Mikura upgrade firing to the left, instead of front; plus some clear mistakes not of our doing - DC racks having ammo of 1, Type 95 and Type 2 DCs being present at once in some of Wakatake APD/E upgrades), if no one minds, I can use this opportunity to fix them.

< Message edited by FatR -- 7/25/2011 10:40:36 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 35
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/25/2011 9:49:50 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Sounds good to me. Go ahead.

I've been very happy with things so far. Haven't noticed any glaring mistakes or issues to this point. Think our thoroughness--read that as being VERY anal--really paid off here as things do look solid.



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 36
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/25/2011 11:16:33 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Okay - RA 3.2, now as Scen 70 again:

http://www.box.net/shared/bfvja98f11u843fmmzjt

Save for changing the scenario number, the changes are really minimal, just fixing a couple of minor errors.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 37
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/26/2011 1:09:09 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		Thanks, d/l and installed!

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 38
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/26/2011 2:38:57 AM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Thanks, d/l and installed!


+1 :)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 39
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/26/2011 4:41:15 PM   
John 3rd


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

Since others have loaded the Scenario do you guys have any comments thus far?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 40
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/26/2011 11:19:49 PM   
Falken


Posts: 242
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline 		Hi John (3rd),

I posted an earlier question about possibilities of playing this w/AI. Replies indicate that the IJN scripts should work, but i'm worried about the new IJN CVs etc. Would the current scripts handle the new ships, or would they simply stay in Port because the AI is unaware that they exist.

I've done a few turns now (btw, attack on PH, all BBs sunk, all but 2 cruisers sunk, and over 6 DDs sunk, most devastating PH attack i've ever seen) but i'm worried about hitting a problem earlier than expected.

In your tests, did anyone ever let the AI play AI to see how it would respond over time? Any input would be helpful. I really really want to keep playing but if anyone is aware of issues, I might as well know ahead of time.

Thanks, and amazing job to all on this scenario.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 41
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/26/2011 11:33:33 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I never really did much with the AI except to test Turn One.

Stanislav: I know you ran tests. Do you think that there would be an issue?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 42
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/26/2011 11:37:09 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		I created a mod using babes, ironman, RA, and a couple of others. I only play against the AI and all the Japanese ships that I have added had no problem in showing up and slapping my unescorted merchants around ;) Trust me the AI has no problem using them.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 43
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/27/2011 1:11:31 AM   
Falken


Posts: 242
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline 		Thanks for the quick replies. On to turn 4.... Have no major ships left already, but it's a lot fun.
Seriously though, thanks for answering my query about the AI.

I know that PBEM is the way to go, but with my work schedule, it's not really feasible.

Back to RA....

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 44
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/27/2011 4:40:55 AM   
parman72

 

Posts: 14
Joined: 5/30/2011
Status: offline 		I looked in the Editor and the Kawachi class CB indicates bitmap 434 as its image. There is no image 434 in either JnSide or JnShil. Please advise.

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 45
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/27/2011 5:11:05 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Ohhhhh...I'll take a look with my morning turn. Good catch if indeed there is an issue!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to parman72)
Post #: 46
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/27/2011 4:36:15 PM   
SoliInvictus202


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: parman72

I looked in the Editor and the Kawachi class CB indicates bitmap 434 as its image. There is no image 434 in either JnSide or JnShil. Please advise.


thx - I just wanted to post the same thing.. :)

(in reply to parman72)
Post #: 47
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/27/2011 4:46:05 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I am playing my current turn with Bill now and will take a look when it is finished. Thanks guys.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to SoliInvictus202)
Post #: 48
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/27/2011 5:10:44 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		You are correct. Stanislav--You have that art. Could you attach it and replace the game files on the hot link?


_____________________________



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 #: 49
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/29/2011 11:12:52 AM   
21pzr

 

Posts: 22
Joined: 2/11/2011
Status: offline 		John;

New to AE (about 6 months) and brand new to RA, just downloaded a couple of days ago, so please excuse me if this has been mentioned previously and I didn't see it.

I noticed that many of IJA engineer units (e.g. slot 2222) have a device #703, which is a blank. Is this a "holder" slot, or should this be a different device?

Thanks, and really enjoying the mod.

Bill

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 50
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/29/2011 2:54:44 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I've updated the Scen 70 file available by the link above with the missing image. John, you probably should put that link in the first post (check if the Kawachi image if there first, though).

(in reply to 21pzr)
Post #: 51
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/29/2011 5:48:00 PM   
John 3rd


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

21pzr: Let me take a look at what you describe and I will get back to you. Thanks for the joining the group!

FatR: I now have time available (without a job) to begin working on our next Mod.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 52
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/29/2011 5:53:02 PM   
Lecivius


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

FatR: I now have time available (without a job) to begin working on our next Mod.


I dunno weather to cheer or cry

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 53
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/29/2011 5:56:57 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		You just made me laugh!

The times where I had to pull FatR back to the vision of RA. In exchange for keeping his feet to the Mod, I agreed to help with his ideas for another Mod. Quid Pro Quo. There was lots of ideas within that 39+ page thread we had going and so it just might be a bunch of fun to create something new.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 54
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/29/2011 7:06:38 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		John, I think you should replace the link in the second post of this thread with the one to the updated Scen 70...

Anyway, about the new mod... First of all, I think we did a good work with Scen 70, so we can use its devices list and parts of the naval list (extra historical ships, and so on) as the basis for the further work.

As someone probably have mentioned, we thought about making an alt_naval mod before. Unfortunately, since them my issues with the alt_naval's concept had increased significantly. I can explain them in detail, but for now briefly:

1)The changes do not plausibly follow from the premise.
2)Assumed Japanese foresight extends to knowing the year when the war will begin.
3)Proposed surface forces not only suffer from (1), but have crippling weaknesses, which might have been not very relevant IRL, but which will be in AE.
4)The fleet develops in revolutionary jumps, skipping parts of the gradual evolution of designs, that took place IRL.
5)The issue of producing planes and pilots for the oversized carrier fleet which was noticed by the author himself.

I don't think the idea is completely unsalvageable, but it needs very large modifications.

I have a rather big conceptual proposal for the air side (which I'll outline as soon as I have the time), but I have a hard time coming up with a plausible concept of my own for the navy. Partially because I don't know this side of things as well. It is really hard to imagine the way to achieve a major improvement here without giving Japanese some economical breaks or greater foresight (I love Scen 70 as much as you, John, but I have to admit that it does both), particularly if changes aren't introduced from early thirties. The more I look at development of IJN, the more I see that their key fleet-building decisions were generally good or at least passable (at the time they were made). And without economical breaks they need not as much greater foresight, as outright seeing the future. If we want to not break away from reality too much, just to create a mod based on really good Japanese foresight (well, and Allied response), I think that we should go right to late 20s-early 30s and consctuction of their first generation of modern warships and what could have been done better then. I have a few ideas, but I want to read through Kaigun carefully to give them a reality check, and there are some other books I want to read before throwing ideas around. So, if you, by chance, have any big concepts you want to see in a mod, I'd love to hear about them.

Also, I think we should determine if we have anyone capable of helping with art (particularly air art, there are many existing shipsides for various Japanese ship designs already), before starting forming the concept.

Finally, what are your first impression of Scen 70 in actual play? Do things like changes to engineering and flak have a effect already?

< Message edited by FatR -- 7/30/2011 1:38:03 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 55
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/30/2011 1:56:45 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Stanislav: How about you copy and paste your above Post in a new Thread? What do you want to call it? This way we can keep the feedback and commentary with Scen 70 focused here and run with ideas for the new one over there. Will gladly throw some initial thoughts out at that point because I have been thinking on this since you first broached the idea.

Tell you one thing about Scen 70 3.0 is one wonders (in my game) if Allied TT are set to actually WORK! Man Bill is hitting me left and right with Fleet Boats. Driving me to drink heavily.

One thing I've really noticed is the teeth given to the Allies in the Central Pacific by adding those S-Boats to the areas around Wake and down at Pago Pago. They have good skippers and FOR SURE working Torps.

The Japanese may only start with an extra CVL but I think the biggest CV difference is in starting with the air groups FULLY filled out. The full plane complement really adds to the offensive and defensive striking power of the IJN.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 56
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/30/2011 2:02:11 AM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: 21pzr

John;

New to AE (about 6 months) and brand new to RA, just downloaded a couple of days ago, so please excuse me if this has been mentioned previously and I didn't see it.

I noticed that many of IJA engineer units (e.g. slot 2222) have a device #703, which is a blank. Is this a "holder" slot, or should this be a different device?

If I understand correctly, it is supposed to hold a fake squad that replaces engineers, removed as a part of Da Babes' overall reduction and only increases the load of the unit in Da Babes. As Allied units don't seem to get burdens like this, I decided to not include them.


(in reply to 21pzr)
Post #: 57
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/30/2011 2:06:21 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I don't see any torpedo changes - you must be just unlucky).

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 58
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/30/2011 2:10:05 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		It has been TERRIBLE in the first month. I am used to seeing a Fleet Boat appear and then laugh as its TTs do nothing. Within this scenario I've probably lost 10 ships and had an equal number damaged in less then a month. This does not count the work of the S-Boats which I EXPECT to work.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 59
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 7/30/2011 2:10:55 AM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: 21pzr

John;

New to AE (about 6 months) and brand new to RA, just downloaded a couple of days ago, so please excuse me if this has been mentioned previously and I didn't see it.

I noticed that many of IJA engineer units (e.g. slot 2222) have a device #703, which is a blank. Is this a "holder" slot, or should this be a different device?

If I understand correctly, it is supposed to hold a fake squad that replaces engineers, removed as a part of Da Babes' overall reduction and only increases the load of the unit in Da Babes. As Allied units don't seem to get burdens like this, I decided to not include them.




JWE can better answer this but as I understand it FatR is completely correct.



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

2.969