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: CVL-1

 
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: CVL-1 Page: <<   < prev  28 29 [30] 31 32   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CVL-1 - 8/25/2015 7:18:42 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline 		On the Omaha CLAA did you leave the 3in guns and the 50s?

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 871
RE: CLAA Omaha - 8/25/2015 7:44:18 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		I set her up as follows:
5/38
4x2 F
4x2 C
4x2 RR

1.1"
4x4 F
4x4 RS
4x4 LS
4x4 R

.50cal Browning
2x1 RS
2x1 LS

9000 Endurance
1200 Fuel
8250 Tons Displacement

32kts Max

No radar

Upgrades as desired

(First refit was radar)

< Message edited by Admiral DadMan -- 8/25/2015 9:01:14 PM >

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 872
RE: CLAA Omaha - 8/25/2015 7:52:38 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Quick thing about the 1.1in AA: it only existed in a quad mount. Also, it was meant to replace, not complement, the .50cal AAMG.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/25/2015 8:55:47 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 873
RE: CLAA Omaha - 8/25/2015 8:00:04 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Quick thing about the 1.1in AA: it only existed in a quad mount.

Nice catch. Copied my numbers down wrong. Thanks.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Also, it was meant to replace, not complement, the .50cal AAMG.

Seriously? I thought the progression was .50cal to 20mm in tandem with 1.1in to 40mm?



< Message edited by Admiral DadMan -- 8/25/2015 9:11:31 PM >

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 874
RE: CLAA Omaha - 8/25/2015 8:14:31 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Quick thing about the 1.1in AA: it only existed in a quad mount.

Nice catch. Copied my numbers down wrong. Thanks.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Also, it was meant to replace, not complement, the .50cal AAMG.

Seriously? I thought the progression was .50cal to 20mm in tandem with 1.1in to 40mm?




Nope. The .50cals were realized to be too feeble well before the war, and well before the Oerlikon was a thing (much less the Bofors). The 1.1in was designed and produced to replace the .50cal, but took so long to get into mass production that the .50cal was still there in large numbers when the war began. Once used operationally, the Navy quickly realized that the 1.1in was bad as well, and that spurred deployment of 20mm and 40mm.

Remember that the pre-war navy had 3in and 5in AA guns to fill the medium and heavy flak roles.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/25/2015 9:17:48 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 875
RE: CLAA Omaha - 8/25/2015 9:11:25 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline 		Hmm. I knew the basic history of the .50 and the 1.1. I had it in my brain that the .50 still existed on ships that had not been gotten around to yet.

_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 876
RE: CLAA Omaha - 8/25/2015 9:26:50 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Correct. Also remember that production was permanently outpaced by demand in the early years of the war. That's why the Atlantas and the South Dakotas were commissioned with 1.1in guns, even though the Navy knew they were ****.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 877
RE: CLAA Omaha - 8/26/2015 5:54:24 PM   
Khanti

 

Posts: 317
Joined: 8/28/2007
From: Poland
Status: offline 		About Allied ground units replacement rates.

I don't know if alt time line includes Russo-German war of 1941, but if Germans attack Moscow in December, then how Russians would send 400 (!) squads of infantry monthly to Far East. It's even more than Chinese troops or American in 45.
In 1943 Russians have even more infantry monthly, which is also doubtful. It could be possible in 45, when they shifted all their power to Far East.

Another idea. Allied pools are set as 1200 or 600 monthly replacements of different support troops from the very 07.12.1941. I can't believe it was possible. I suggest making copy of Aviation, Naval, Engineers, Support troops for every year. Then use increasing numbers gradually for different years.

Example:
Naval Support 41 - 300 squads
Naval Support 43 - 600 squads
Naval Support 45 - 1200 squads


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 878
RE: CLAA Omaha - 8/29/2015 4:44:34 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I am going to zip all four scenarios to Michael where he is going to somewhat dial back the garrison requirements we bumped up for CBI.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Khanti)
Post #: 879
RE: CVL-1 - 9/2/2015 3:01:25 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

I've come up with this:





based on this:





Admiral: I was looking at the purposed flight deck cruisers. This one has a 390 ft deck. One of the other ones had a 420ft deck. Wouldn't that one be able to carry more air craft?

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 880
RE: CVL-1 - 9/4/2015 1:05:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I bought the Hybrid Warships books and have all the designs that were put forward during the 20s--40s and it is quite the story. The Americans, behind Reeves and Moffat's support, came within an eyelash of building several of these warships several times. They would have been interests combinations. On the American side the biggest complement of warplanes that would have fit on the 10,000 ton or less hull was 24.

Dadman and Michael are going to work on the Omaha line of possibilities that have been detailed above as well as garrison reductions in CBI and a few other things. I expect the guys the put there thoughts, questions, and change logs here. As noted in my AAR, my family is headed for Mt. Rushmore this weekend for a 4 day 'get away' trip.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 881
RE: CVL-1 - 9/8/2015 10:20:46 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Adm Dadman and Michael have been working on all four Mod Files getting the Omaha stuff as well as garrison changes handled. Will let everyone know when these are complete.


_____________________________



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 #: 882
RE: CVL-1 - 9/17/2015 8:16:58 PM   
Khanti

 

Posts: 317
Joined: 8/28/2007
From: Poland
Status: offline 		BTS. Kitakami CL (in ship view) has 21 upgrades ending with CA Kent (with aircraft view). I hope I've installed it well, but it does not look normal.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 883
RE: CVL-1 - 3/22/2016 12:58:06 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Michael and I are working on a comprehensive update of all four Mods. The items I keep finding in my game with Dan as well as comments from other players has led me to wanting to do a through-and-through of Treaty, Reluctant Admiral, Between the Storms, and Between the Storms: Lite.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Khanti)
Post #: 884
RE: CVL-1 - 3/30/2016 8:20:11 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 523
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline 		Is there a Between the Storms or Treat Mod AAR someone would recommend. RA is definitely out of the question for me as a new Allied player with a disdain for "the Japanese conquer EVERYWHERE!" games; however, the additions to from both the Treaty Mod and Between the Storms intrigue me. I'd like to get a sense of how they play before I start entertaining the idea of playing a game with one.

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 885
RE: CVL-1 - 3/30/2016 8:33:33 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Treaty is the easiest to play. It is just a few more ships due to changes at both Washington and London. Very simple with nothing else touched.

I LOVE Between the Storms as it puts together Treaty with a mix from RA. You can play the standard BTS or play BTS: Lite where the Japanese don't build Yamato but go in for a more conventional set of 16" gun BBs.

Don't confuse RA with the crazy player playing it! Additionally, the current version of RA is SOOOOOOOOOOOOO dialed back from the version Dan and I are playing...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 886
RE: CVL-1 - 3/30/2016 11:55:23 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Don't look at John's and my game as what you would expect from BTS. John pushed hard and fast in Eastern Pacific including the conquest of Hawaii. The version of RA you see in John vs Canoerebel had Japan way too strong and has been dialed back while Allies get a few more toys. Download them and look at OOB. PM John or I and we can answer some questions, as needed.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 887
RE: CVL-1 - 3/31/2016 12:45:00 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		We will be doing an update on ALL four Mods pretty quick so that will be good to.

I noticed that the 'change log' on the website is fairly woeful in that it really doesn't separate the different Mods and their changes. Want make a serious attempt at correcting this...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 888
RE: CVL-1 - 3/31/2016 5:54:45 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline 		I would like to ask which of the 4 mods has the most improvement for the Japanese?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 889
RE: CVL-1 - 4/1/2016 2:20:05 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Difficult to answer. Treaty has the least changes and covers the Treaty years of 1922-1936, Reluctant Admiral begins changes in 1937 through the war, Between the Storms ties BOTH Mods together and BTS: Lite goes just a bit farther by getting rid of the super-battleship project in exchange for 4 16" possible BBs. Guess that BTS: Lite has the MOST changes.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 890
RE: CVL-1 - 4/5/2016 3:01:49 AM   
Peever


Posts: 196
Joined: 3/17/2002
From: Minnesota
Status: offline 		Hi guys I'm looking for some clarification about training groups for Japan (Between the Storms scenario). Are their specific training groups like there are for the US? I see that Yokohama/Yokosuka has a number of Navy air groups that certainly look like decent training squads. They do say carrier capable but not carrier trained. Does that make a difference?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 891
RE: CVL-1 - 4/5/2016 4:54:14 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Those are some of your training units. They cannot be bought and can be used to train your carrier pilots.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Peever)
Post #: 892
RE: CVL-1 - 4/5/2016 2:54:54 PM   
Tophat1815

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
Very impressed with the effort and detail put into these mods,hats off to all of you! I am currently working up the Japanese 1st turn in a BTS scenario#55(not BTS Lite)and I have run into 2 problems.
Now this is before the first turn is finished by the Japanese and sent to the Allies...I have no button to select Japanese naval or ground reinforcement schedules. I had wanted to take a look at what was coming when for planning purposes. Is this a design element working as intended or did I manage to blow the installation process?

Secondly I used the cumulative ship art when installing but I don't have ship art for CVL-Kushiro or CVL-Tokachi. I may well have screwed up somehow. Tried to pm you John but your inbox is full. Sorry to sidetrack the discussion.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 893
RE: CVL-1 - 4/5/2016 3:22:13 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		When playing PBEM, you can NEVER see your future reinforcements until turn two regardless of scenario/mod. I've sent John email about missing ship art as I'm missing the new BBs in BTS Lite. Hopefully, when he is done working at Subway today, he will address this.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tophat1815)
Post #: 894
RE: CVL-1 - 4/5/2016 3:31:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I'll clean up my in box and get the art off to both of you. Tophat: PM me with your email.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 895
RE: CVL-1 - 4/5/2016 3:35:38 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline 		I am playing a BTS game and in a night surface action the French BCs were displayed as silhouettes with a purple background box.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 896
RE: CVL-1 - 4/5/2016 4:23:23 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		TopHat: I have your artwork and will send once I have your info.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 897
RE: CVL-1 - 4/5/2016 4:23:56 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I am playing a BTS game and in a night surface action the French BCs were displayed as silhouettes with a purple background box.


That is fixable. Let me try to remember how to fix that issue...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 898
RE: CVL-1 - 4/5/2016 9:37:42 PM   
Tophat1815

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 1/16/2006
Status: offline
PM sent John and thank you again!

Thanks ny59giants I figured that must be the case,puts a cap on my report mongering ways.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 899
RE: CVL-1 - 4/5/2016 11:50:10 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

When playing PBEM, you can NEVER see your future reinforcements until turn two regardless of scenario/mod. I've sent John email about missing ship art as I'm missing the new BBs in BTS Lite. Hopefully, when he is done working at Subway today, he will address this.


This was done because the player can configure the reinforcement schedule by having no variance to +/- 28 days (not sure if it is 28 or 30). So until the user sets the variance and runs the first turn, the AI cannot use the randomizer to populate the reinforcements.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 900
Page:   <<   < prev  28 29 [30] 31 32   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: CVL-1 Page: <<   < prev  28 29 [30] 31 32   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

0.750