RE: RA 5.0

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: RA 5.0

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: RA 5.0

Page: << < prev 8 9 10 11 [12]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: RA 5.0 - 2/28/2013 5:19:36 PM

Lecivius

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

FWIW, I'm into June '44, I have not seen F4F-7's on any Essex class to this date.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 331

RE: RA 5.0 - 3/3/2013 3:16:16 PM

FatR

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

I've posted RA 5.4 update on the site.

1)It makes F4F-7 carrier capable (just in case - I did not look into Allied airgroups).

2)Added a number of tweaks to Japanese landing ships and mine warfare ships. Mostly historical corrections, the biggest mod-change is allowing some of their DMS to stay DMS, instead of convering to E-class ships. Some changes will make Japanese commanders happier, some won't, but nothing should affect balance in a major way.

3)And most importantly (ATTENTION, those who are about to start RA games), I've fixed a bug due to which C/D-class escorts ## 1-33 did not appear in the scenario. John, by chance, did you do any bulk relocations of table entries when you added new shis? Not as impactful as the repeated China bug, of course, but a considerable blow to Japanese ASW in 1944.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Lecivius)

Post #: 332

RE: RA 5.0 - 3/3/2013 5:57:19 PM

John 3rd

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

Hey Stanislav! GREAT WORK!

I did not do any bulk relocations of ships within the tables whatsoever. Don't know how to do that so--for once--I am (I think) innocent of that bug. China I know to have been my issue at least once!

If you get the chance can you detail the changes in Point 2?

For those playing RA currently can they do an upgrade with the Mod in an existing game?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 333

RE: RA 5.0 - 3/3/2013 7:38:15 PM

Uncivil Engineer

Posts: 1014
Joined: 2/22/2012
From: Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

Not as impactful as the repeated China bug, of course, but a considerable blow to Japanese ASW in 1944.

OK, stupid question (site search yielded only this post) - what's the repeated China bug? And has it been fixed? I'm currently playing RA as the Japanese and can attest to the fact that ASW sucks, both naval and air. Is it going to get worse (and how is that possible)?

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 334

RE: RA 5.0 - 3/3/2013 8:06:48 PM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncivil Engineer

OK, stupid question (site search yielded only this post) - what's the repeated China bug? And has it been fixed?

Yes it was fixed. The cause was updating TOE info for the entire location list, without realising that this sets Chinese units to full strength at start, instead of normal 1/3.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Uncivil Engineer

I'm currently playing RA as the Japanese and can attest to the fact that ASW sucks, both naval and air. Is it going to get worse (and how is that possible)?

Not worse, it just won't get as much better as it should. You can try to update to 5.4, though.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Uncivil Engineer)

Post #: 335

RE: RA 5.0 - 3/3/2013 8:24:25 PM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

If you get the chance can you detail the changes in Point 2?

Late war dedicated LSTs/APDs go faster and have greater range, as they should. AA armament is weaker initially, stronger after final upgrades.

DMSs have, on average, less range and speed. AA armament is generally weaker. A couple classes, including W-19 that is built during the war, do not change to Es with midwar upgrades. Simpler upgrades to DMSs. I think these ships are already scarce, and some Allied players love surprise mining.

Hirashima/Sokuten minelayers do not change to Es with upgrades. AA armament is weaker initially, stronger after upgrades. A few of the most valuable minelayers get extra AA guns over historical levels, but not very much, mostly just 13.2 MGs they had before replaced with 25mm guns.

Subchasers get less depthcharge throwers with more ammo (for all ships I stuck to the current formula of having roughly half of the historical DC load on board), a bit less AA guns. CHa-1 small subschasers now can make 3 hexes in a phase, making them somewhat more useful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
For those playing RA currently can they do an upgrade with the Mod in an existing game?

Adding new things to the database is the most problematic sort of change, and once I realised that this must be done anyway, I changed a few upgrades too. You can try, but I strongly advise to create a backup save before doing so, and check what the game says about your ship availability, as well as about the above-listed classes of ships afterwards.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 336