RE: Dailing in on Washington

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: Dailing in on Washington

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: Dailing in on Washington

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/5/2017 1:49:21 PM

John 3rd

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

With a different number of battlewagons, the US Fleet would probably be deployed differently in 1941. Proposal:

Atlantic Fleet
Arkansas 26,000
Texas 27,000
New York 27,000
Mississippi 32,000
New Mexico 32,000
Idaho 32,000

Pacific Fleet
Nevada 27,500
Oklahoma 27,500
Pennsylvania 31,400
Arizona 31,400
Tennessee 32,300
California 32,300
Maryland 32,600
West Virginia 32,600
Colorado 32,600
Washington 32,600
Constellation 43,500
+1 New Capital Ship to be built 30,000 T

Deployment on Dec 7th:
Two Colorado-Class BBs upgrading on the West Coast: Colorado and Washington
The Scouting Force is at sea near Jarvis Isle: Constellation and the new BC
At Pearl Harbor: the Original EIGHT Targets

_____________________________

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 #: 481

RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/5/2017 2:08:24 PM

John 3rd

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

On the Aircraft Carriers at Washington I made a mistake. When we added a CVL each (Ryukaku and King's Mountain), it unbalances the tonnage numbers.

Original Washington Treaty
USA 135,000 T Japan 81,000 10:6/5:3 Ratio

US CVs: Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, Enterprise, and Wasp (Wasp-Class)
Japan CVs: Akagi, Kaga, Ryujo, Soryu, and (kind of) Hiryu

Adding Ryukaku and King's Mountain gives Japan too much. We could go with Ryukaku (no change of Soryu to Hiryu-Class) and allow the Americans King's Mountain and Wasp as Yorktown-Class. That would be about right.

The problem is the solution is based on 10:6/5:3. The plan is for Japan to go to 10:7.

Re-Worked Washington Treaty
Option A
USA 135,000 Japan 94,500 Japan gains 14,500 T.

US CVs: Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, Yorktown, Enterprise, and Wasp
Japan CVs: Akagi, Kaga, Ryujo, Ryukaku, Soryu (as Hiryu), and Hiryu

USA No King's Mountain
Japan Add a CVL and make Soryu into Hiryu-Class

If we want to add King's Mountain back in then we could simply bump up the tonnage by 10,000 T

Option B
US CVs: Lexington, Saratoga, Ranger, King's Mountain, Yorktown, Enterprise, and Wasp (as Wasp-Class)
Japan CVs: Akagi, Kaga, Ryujo, Ryukaku x2 OR 3 Hiryu-Class, Soryu (as Hiryu), and Hiryu

At 10:7 + 10,000T
USA gains a CVL
Japan gains 1 CVL (for 2 Ryukaku-Class) or loses CVL Ryukaku but gains a Hiryu-Class CV with Soryu also being built as Hiryu-Class

What do you like for choices here?

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/5/2017 2:10:26 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 #: 482

RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/5/2017 2:51:57 PM

Kitakami

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

Hmm...

Regarding BB/BC tonnage, what if Constellation is replaced by a smaller ship? That would balance the numbers some towards 10:7. Perhaps two of the 12x 12in/50 ships are built instead of only one?

As for CVs, I think a third Hiryu-class would be more useful than two Ryukaku-class, so I'd add the USN King's Mountain and the DNTK Seiryū.

Just my two cents.

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 483

RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/5/2017 2:53:50 PM

John 3rd

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

We have a vote!

That is an interesting idea. Build two of the either the 6 14" ships or 12 12" ships.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/5/2017 2:54:20 PM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Kitakami)

Post #: 484

RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/5/2017 3:14:38 PM

btd64

Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Spent some of the night, after the above Post, examining real BB designs drawn up between 1928 and 1933. The choices I come up with are true designs made by the navy that are detailed in Norman Friedman's book U.S. Battleships.

This is where you the player get to make a choice. There are two possibilities:

Option A
Page 231 Option 8

Tonnage 31,000
Speed 30 Knots
Armament: 12 12"/50 guns in four twin turrets, twelve 5"/38 in twin mountings
Cruising Radius 13,250 NM at 15 Knots
Aircraft 6 Planes
Armor Deck 5", Belt 13", Barbettes 14"

Option B
Page 231 Option 11

Tonnage 28,500
Speed 32.5 Knots
Armament: 6 14"/50 guns in three twin turrets, twelve 5"/38 in twin mountings
Cruising Radius 12,000 NM at 15 Knots
Aircraft 6 Planes
Armor Deck 5", Belt 13", Barbettes 14"

Option "B". It's the Tonnage. I can fix this thing at OZ. Better speed as well....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 485

Dailing in on London - 9/5/2017 3:15:31 PM

John 3rd

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

The London Conference of 1930 is a far easier subject to work on. With the Treaty ratio set at 10:10:7 the math works fairly well.

ORIGINAL London Treaty

USA
CA 180,000
CL 143,500
DD 150,000
SS 52,700

GB
CA 146,800
CL 192,200
DD 150,000
SS 52,700

Jpn
CA 108,400
CL 100,450
DD 105,500
SS 52,700

CAs were set at the following numbers:
USA 18
GB 16
Jpn 12

Working on the percentage moving to 10:7, we would see:

USA
CA 180,000
CL 143,500
DD 150,000
SS 52,700

GB
CA 146,800
CL 192,200
DD 150,000
SS 52,700

Jpn
CA 126,000 +17,600T
CL 100,450 No Change
DD 105,500 No Change
SS 52,700

CAs would change to the following numbers:
USA 18
GB 16
Jpn 14 A net gain of 2 ships.

Changes to Japanese Building:
Mogami-Class goes to six cruisers with the first two (Mogami and Mikuma) being CAs and the remaining four (Suzuya and Kumano adding Tone/Chikuma to the class--as planned) come in as originally built with 15 6.1" guns.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/5/2017 3:50:22 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 #: 486

RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/5/2017 3:21:56 PM

Admiral DadMan

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

The basis of the total tonnage was Japan's stated desire to build three carriers @ 27,000 tons, totaling 81,000 (and included Hiryu). The 135,000 US/UK number was extrapolated from the 81,000.

Also, Akagi and Kaga were reported at 26,900 so that they could both mount the full ten 8-inch guns as provided by treaty for carriers under 27,000 tons (if converted over 27,000 but under 33,000 tons, they could only mount eight 8-inch as with Lexington.)

The Japanese were "shorting" their tonnage by 20-30% in terms of carriers and cruisers. Giving them 13,500 more would be the equivalent of a larger Hiryu (as tonnage reported). It would take some mental gymnastics to include King's Mountain, like modifying or not closing the sub-10,000 ton loopohole. That in itself would free up another 7,100 tons for Japan, totalling 21,600 with which they could build an additional two Soryu/Hiryu class. King's Mountain would have to be built on less than 10,000 tons.

< Message edited by Admiral DadMan -- 9/5/2017 3:26:09 PM >

_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 487

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/5/2017 3:47:45 PM

John 3rd

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

The revised description of the London Conference for the Mods:

The London Conference
Moving on to the London Conference (1930), the subject of Cruisers is re-worked:
1. Japan--at all costs--sticks to its goal of 70% for CAs (instead of 60%). Japan is authorized to build a total of 14 CAs.

2. Great Britain--who nearly scrapped the treaty due to the issue of CAs and CLs--stands firm over its argument and forces a larger tonnage for CLs. This brings no change to the Treaty since Japan was already at 70% in this category.

3. Both Japan and the United States were looking at hybrid Cruiser�CVs and they force Great Britain, following the example set with the Washington BC�CV Conversions, to allow for two hybrids each to be built in the early-30s. The nations are allowed with ONLY these two vessels to place 8" guns on them. USA builds CLV Charlotte and Jacksonville (3x3 6" and 18 Planes), GB builds CAV Melbourne and Wellington (sold/given to those respective navies with 2x2 8" and 15 Planes), and Japan finishes up with CAV Kushiro and Tokachi (3x2 8" and 27 Planes). These hybrids are not true, useful CVLs not are they true, useful cruisers but they have a unique niche in 1941 and ALL of them can be converted into carriers later in 1942.

***It should be noted that to take maximum advantage of the revised Treaty tonnages, Japan converts several of the oldest CLs into fast ML, builds additional Myoko-Class CAs and keeps the last four Mogami Class as 6� CLs.

_____________________________

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 #: 488

RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/5/2017 3:49:37 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

The basis of the total tonnage was Japan's stated desire to build three carriers @ 27,000 tons, totaling 81,000 (and included Hiryu). The 135,000 US/UK number was extrapolated from the 81,000.

Also, Akagi and Kaga were reported at 26,900 so that they could both mount the full ten 8-inch guns as provided by treaty for carriers under 27,000 tons (if converted over 27,000 but under 33,000 tons, they could only mount eight 8-inch as with Lexington.)

The Japanese were "shorting" their tonnage by 20-30% in terms of carriers and cruisers. Giving them 13,500 more would be the equivalent of a larger Hiryu (as tonnage reported). It would take some mental gymnastics to include King's Mountain, like modifying or not closing the sub-10,000 ton loopohole. That in itself would free up another 7,100 tons for Japan, totalling 21,600 with which they could build an additional two Soryu/Hiryu class. King's Mountain would have to be built on less than 10,000 tons.

In Scraps of Paper, Hyde really goes into detail about the Japanese cheating and how the Allies simply turned a blind eye to it. STUPID! It was disarmament through HOPE and rosey-colored sun glasses!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)

Post #: 489

RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/5/2017 4:01:51 PM

Admiral DadMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

The basis of the total tonnage was Japan's stated desire to build three carriers @ 27,000 tons, totaling 81,000 (and included Hiryu). The 135,000 US/UK number was extrapolated from the 81,000.

Also, Akagi and Kaga were reported at 26,900 so that they could both mount the full ten 8-inch guns as provided by treaty for carriers under 27,000 tons (if converted over 27,000 but under 33,000 tons, they could only mount eight 8-inch as with Lexington.)

The Japanese were "shorting" their tonnage by 20-30% in terms of carriers and cruisers. Giving them 13,500 more would be the equivalent of a larger Hiryu (as tonnage reported). It would take some mental gymnastics to include King's Mountain, like modifying or not closing the sub-10,000 ton loopohole. That in itself would free up another 7,100 tons for Japan, totalling 21,600 with which they could build an additional two Soryu/Hiryu class. King's Mountain would have to be built on less than 10,000 tons.

In Scraps of Paper, Hyde really goes into detail about the Japanese cheating and how the Allies simply turned a blind eye to it. STUPID! It was disarmament through HOPE and rosey-colored sun glasses!

Exactly. Like Hyde described the Kellogg/Briand Pact was a sort of "peace through incantation". Outlawing war - to keep the peace.

Funny, I'd always attributed that analysis to Samuel Eliot Morison.

< Message edited by Admiral DadMan -- 9/5/2017 4:33:44 PM >

_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 490

RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/5/2017 4:28:15 PM

John 3rd

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

Love Adm Morison's work.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)

Post #: 491

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/5/2017 5:32:38 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

GB builds CAV Melbourne and Wellington (sold/given to those respective navies with 2x2 8" and 15 Planes)

I have real misgivings about the usefulness of these. Do you want a light carrier, or a cruiser? I suppose it has to be accepted that that RN guy who, to be fair, sunk this sort of half assed thinking, was a junior officer in 1922 and mistakes would be made.

But, I'm looking at this design, and thinking in game that whatever groups you give it (9 Fulmars, 6 Swordfish, in a trade protection role?) get dumped off ASAP, and least the fighter group is resized to 15 x 115% = 17, switched to Seafires tasked with point defence, and they just become a useful consort to USN air combat TFs in the SOPAC area.

Actually that's not so bad.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 492

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/5/2017 5:39:00 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

GB builds CAV Melbourne and Wellington (sold/given to those respective navies with 2x2 8" and 15 Planes)

I have real misgivings about the usefulness of these. Do you want a light carrier, or a cruiser? I suppose it has to be accepted that that RN guy who, to be fair, sunk this sort of half assed thinking, was a junior officer in 1922 and mistakes would be made.

But, I'm looking at this design, and thinking in game that whatever groups you give it (9 Fulmars, 6 Swordfish, in a trade protection role?) get dumped off ASAP, and least the fighter group is resized to 15 x 115% = 17, switched to Seafires tasked with point defence, and they just become a useful consort to USN air combat TFs in the SOPAC area.

Actually that's not so bad.

I have opened a line of NZ/Aust carrier-based planes to give options. These two vessels can convert to CVLs and have a much more useful life.

The Americans move to Independence-Class CVLs.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 493

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/5/2017 5:55:41 PM

Ian R

Posts: 3420
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I have opened a line of NZ/Aust carrier-based planes to give options. These two vessels can convert to CVLs and have a much more useful life.

I can see the RNZN FAA flying whatever the USN is using, and maybe even transiting to F4Us ahead of them. The RAN is more questionable. Eventually, post war, when they fielded carriers they started with FAA aircraft - but they soon changed to USN sourced machines.

I would suggest that RAAF and RNZAF FAA squadrons should follow USN aircraft upgrade paths.

_____________________________

"I am Alfred"

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 494

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/5/2017 6:27:44 PM

ny59giants

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

When it comes to CV options, I like them coming as pairs rather than have a third.

For the hybrids, I think the Brits have some FB type airframes that can be used in different roles. They would like them to carry some sort of bombs, but also be able to used as fighters over their own TFs.

(in reply to Ian R)

Post #: 495

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/5/2017 6:57:47 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

When it comes to CV options, I like them coming as pairs rather than have a third.

For the hybrids, I think the Brits have some FB type airframes that can be used in different roles. They would like them to carry some sort of bombs, but also be able to used as fighters over their own TFs.

So you would prefer 2 CVLs and a pair of Hiryus instead of 1 CVL and 3 Hiryus?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 496

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/5/2017 7:38:10 PM

Admiral DadMan

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

If you continue the sub 10,000 ton exemption, Japan's carrier lineup could look like this (as under-reported)"

Akagi 26,900
Kaga 26,900
Ryujo -
Soryu 10,175
Hiryu 10,175
Hiryu 10,175
Hiryu 10,175
Total 94,500

_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 497

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/5/2017 7:54:14 PM

ny59giants

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

We are going with the premise of a Japanese CarDiv being 2 CVs and a CVL. The CVL will remain fighter heavy to provide CAP over the TF. We have discussed this many times and think it is a good concept. If you choose to vary this, will future builds bring this back into line??

Edit - Will a fourth Hiryu be built? If so, will a pair of CLs not be built?

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 9/5/2017 7:57:03 PM >

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)

Post #: 498

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/5/2017 11:20:32 PM

John 3rd

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

Good Thinking MISTER MICHAEL!

OK. Let us go by speed and Division

December 7, 1941

CarDiv1
Akagi--31 Knots
Amagi--31 Knots
Ryukaku--32 Knots

CarDiv2
Hiryu--34 Knots
Soryu (as Hiryu-Class)--34 Knots

CarDiv5
Shokaku--34 Knots
Zuikaku--34 Knots
NEW CVL--32 KNots

CAVs
Tokachi--34 Knots
Toshiro--34 Knots

CarDiv3
Ryujo--29 Knots
Shoho--28 Knots
Zuiho--28 Knots

CarDiv4
Shoho--25 Knots
Ibuki--25 Knots
Taiyo--21 Knots

Adding the 2nd Ryukaku-Class CVL to CarDiv5 makes a bunch of sense.

The CAVs--until the option to convert occurs--could be attached to CarDiv2 then all three CarDiv would be able to move at 32+ Knots. Sounds pretty good to me...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 499

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/5/2017 11:29:19 PM

DOCUP

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

John are you going to let 15k of capital ship tonnage go to waste. I think NOT. There has to be a plan for a cruiser size ship with big guns, in one of your books about IJN.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 500

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/6/2017 5:09:21 AM

John 3rd

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

They didn't act on it in RL so I am going to pass with it this time.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)

Post #: 501

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/6/2017 5:41:26 PM

John 3rd

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

The real answer to your question is that each ship left was left BY NAME and that became the near tonnage number for the respective fleet.

I like building the 3x2 14" BC to accompany the Constellation. Think of it as a precursor to the Alaska-Class.

_____________________________

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 #: 502

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/6/2017 10:57:01 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

That sounds good....the more BCs, the merrier

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 503

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/7/2017 12:14:14 AM

John 3rd

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

I like fast, nasty wessels! Sort of like my...wife??!!

Crap. I am sure she is going to see this!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to traskott)

Post #: 504

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/7/2017 1:43:23 AM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

Okay, alpha version of scenario comparison tool is done. Here is a complete list of the changes between BTS 2.6 and BTSL working posted on John's site, in case you were wondering. :)

Attachment (1)

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 505

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/7/2017 1:45:03 AM

Admiral DadMan

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I like fast, nasty wessels! Sort of like my...wife??!!

Crap. I am sure she is going to see this!

ohHH I LIKE that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

Okay, alpha version of scenario comparison tool is done. Here is a complete list of the changes between BTS 2.6 and BTSL working posted on John's site, in case you were wondering. :)

I will play with this tomorrow.
NOT something a wife wants to hear I think...

< Message edited by Admiral DadMan -- 9/7/2017 1:46:08 AM >

_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 506

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/7/2017 1:49:17 AM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

The prettier version. Note that those "Fix?" check boxes and the "Merge Checked" button will allow you to selectively merge any change to the target scenario.

EDIT: OH, and the report attached in the above post was saved using the "Save As" button pictured here.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by InfiniteMonkey -- 9/7/2017 1:52:45 AM >

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 507

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/7/2017 1:00:01 PM

John 3rd

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

That looks very useful. One could go back and look to see if you did this or did that. Like the looks of it.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 508

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/7/2017 4:53:39 PM

InfiniteMonkey

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That looks very useful. One could go back and look to see if you did this or did that. Like the looks of it.

I see it's value two fold:

1. Provides a thorough change log of the scenario between versions.
2. Allows modders that use another mod(s) as the base of their mod to incorporate changes to the base mod without exhaustive work.

So let's say you really like a mod's ground and naval OOB, but really hate the air OOB. You decide to build your own mod that overhauls the air OOB. A few months later, the base mod makes changes that are really interesting and you want to incorporate SOME of them. You can us the scenario comparison to identify changes and then selectively apply those changes to your scenario.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 509

RE: Dailing in on London - 9/7/2017 5:40:14 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

Thats an AMAZING feature!!

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)

Post #: 510

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

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