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: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 1:53:25 AM   
asdicus

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline 		I think there are going to be some more problems re changing v1.52 database for weapon 451 155mm field gun from navy to army gun.

There is at least one allied cd unit at the beginning of scenario 15 with the 155mm field gun - 56 coast artillery rgt at san francisco. This unit is now not going to be able to fire on ships at all yet it is a coast defence unit.

In my existing pbm game started under v1.5 all my weapon 454 5" cd guns have upgraded to weapon 451 155mm field guns - thus they will no longer be able to fire on ships eg in the USN base forces. For existing rather than new games this is a problem even if you stop the 5" cd gun from upgrading in future.

I propose you reconsider the change to navy-army change for weapon 451 - it seems to me it will cause more damage than good.

(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 31
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 2:37:12 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
The US 155mm Gun M1A1 and the M1918 that it replaced were both capable of use as coast defense weapons. The US Marine Defense Battalions traded in most of their 5/51 Naval CD Guns for 155mm M1A1 Guns, retaining their coast defense capabilities and also using the guns as traditional artillery.

I'm not 100% sure of the exact tradeoff between army weapon and naval gun but I believe the 155mm should retain it's CD capability and there should probably be a naval gun.


(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 32
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 2:58:10 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		The 155mm Long Tom was used as both a heavy field artillery piece and a coast defense weapon and was emminently suitable for either role.
One only needs to look at the loooooooong barrel to see that it is designed as a relatively high velocity weapon capable of firing AP shells with great acccuracy at ships. Not sure exactly what it is but for more or less permanent installations a modified mount called a "Panama Mount" was used to increase stability and hence accuracy even further. But the ordinary field mount was quite suitable for the coast defense role.
The US Army did have an older 155mm howitzer (M1918 I think) which would not have been particularly useful engaging ships but it is beyond belief that coast defense units would be equipped with a weapon incapable of engaging ships.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 33
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 3:26:12 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Great, Allied Fanboy club having a party again

I heard some Japanese private somewhere, once, perhaps, maybe, shot a USN ship with his Artisaka rifle, does that mean IJA infantry squads should be given anti ship capability? No make that *deadly* anti ship capability.

If CD capability of 155mm "field gun" was intended, I wonder why Pry changed this attribute for the next patch...

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 34
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 3:38:21 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko

Great, Allied Fanboy club having a party again

I heard some Japanese private somewhere, once, perhaps, maybe, shot a USN ship with his Artisaka rifle, does that mean IJA infantry squads should be given anti ship capability? No make that *deadly* anti ship capability.

If CD capability of 155mm "field gun" was intended, I wonder why Pry changed this attribute for the next patch...

O.


The US 155mm Gun was intended to be used as both an artillery piece and a coast defense gun. That is why it was designed as a gun instead of as a howitzer. That is not fan-boyism, it is fact. Like it or not.


< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 6/11/2005 3:41:18 AM >

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 35
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 3:49:02 AM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline 		Not to worry all geez you all get carrier away in a hurry... a slight mis-understanding during discussions led to the 155 change it is already changed back to its original device type...

The reason I rated the changes as high is that it put one side at a disadvantage by not having one of the tools in its kit working the way it as supposed to no great conspiracy here folks...


_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 36
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 3:51:02 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Ooookay Mr. Not-Fanboi! Here's the unit that sunk 3 DDs, half dozen MSWs and PGs, and at least 20+ APs (that I care to remember) with 15-some more APs to sink of damage in coming weeks, when I did my Guadalcanal invasion:

US Army Field Artillery regiment! I guess heavily trained in anti ship coastal defence operations yes? I guess if they had one officer with navy training then it's OK for them to sink half the Japanese navy?

If you still think this is OK then Im afraid this discussion is really pointless.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 37
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 3:53:06 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Here's the screenshot from my last assault on Lunga, proving that this field ARTY unit was indeed the only "CD capable" (sic!) unit on the island.

O.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 38
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 4:10:26 AM   
Skyros


Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline 		Great news, plus Erik Mike and Joel all in the same thread. THe planets must be aligned
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Talked with Joel. Adding routine to update saved game device file data, using key press in the game. Must update each saved game individually and only with key press (to avoid corrupting 3rd party scenarios). Update will only apply to devices. Will be in build 1.54 (already finished 1.53).

Bye...

Michael Wood

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Mike,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood
Well, actually not. If it would be useful to any one, I could add a hot key in the save screen that would update the OOB changes in version 1.60 (1.52 at the moment, but released as 1.60). Would not be hard.


Had no idea - I think that would make a lot of people very happy.

Regards,

- Erik





_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 39
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 4:14:03 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline 		The gun was capable of use as a CD gun. That is an entirely different statement than saying it is correct to have regular artillery units units equipped with it sink ridiculous numbers of ships.

Use as a CD weapon and the ability to sink approaching vessels is within the design capability of the weapon. The large hex size and need for generalization within WITP make it impossible to specify that one unit with a 155mm Gun is CD capable and another is not.

Since both the M1A1 and M1918 155mm guns were CD capable, they should have that ability in the game. It would be wholly inappropriate to remove an historical capability of a weapon because the game cannot accurately map that capability in all circumstances. If there is a perceived need to have the 155mm guns of standard artillery units NOT be CD capable, a separate device would be required.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 40
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 4:17:19 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Smells suspiciously of sour grapes to me Oleg. The IJN has battleships apparently capable of firing thermonuclear warheads in the shore bombardment role (at least sometime). Seems to me you tried your landing on the cheap and got spanked for it.
As to anti-ship gunnery, training helps accuracy but the mechanics of shooting are just high school trigonometry and artillery units were provided with many charts and tables and even primitive analog computers to do their number crunching for them. Point the gun and pull the lanyard. Adjust the range/azimuth. Pull the lanyard. Repeat as necessary. A fat MARU anchored out and unloading troops into barges is not much different than a road junction or ridge line as far as its target characteristics.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 41
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 4:40:53 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Smells suspiciously of sour grapes to me Oleg. The IJN has battleships apparently capable of firing thermonuclear warheads in the shore bombardment role (at least sometime).


I don't have sour grapes with that particular opponent. In fact I didn't even mention this "incident" to him as we have entirely pleasurable game, and I tend to reduce "in-game" whining to least possible amount (ie. none). I try not to whine about bad luck.

What "ticked me off" were not the game results per se, but the apparent stubbornness with which some posters tend to defend some abilities of some weapons and/or units (gee, usually Allied?), usually rationalized by "Sgt. Hugh Jackman of 2nd USMC Regiment once fired this weapon on Imperial Death Star, when wounded and half blind, destroying it in one shot, so it's OK" or variations thereof. Sorry but that is fanboyism for me.

Fanboyism, as defined: taking one freak instance as rationalization for hugely disproportionate results (I have 30+ ships sunk by a "field gun" so sorry for bringing this up )

Thermonuclear bombardments happen once in a blue moon, and I am sure are result of some math anomaly. I had them happen once (out of more than 60 bombardment runs I did in various games) and they seemed wrong. Most bombardments are very benign. I am all for this "anomaly" being fixed if possible.

quote:

Seems to me you tried your landing on the cheap and got spanked for it.


Not on the cheap. My invasion was supported by lots of BBs and other heavies. They did 12 or so bomb runs (one of them "thermonuclear anomaly") but were apparently incapable of trageting un-armored field guns that devastated my ships. I *think* though I am not sure, that+s because ships during bomb runs target CD units in port, but this mighty Army Arty Rgt is nomilnally not a CD unit (even tho its armed with CD weapons ) so I assume it was never targeted by my bomb missions (but this is just an assumption on my part).

O.


_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 42
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 5:47:41 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline 		Ok, in case anyone missed Paul's post above - the change has been reverted. 155mm field guns were used historically as CD and have that capability in game. In fact, if you look at many of the dedicated CD units from other nations a 155mm is a pretty decent size gun for this work.

The US was aware of this use of it and did use it in that capability, so this isn't a rare usage resulting in a game imbalance either, as far as I've read in any case. The "no escorts" bombard should help shut them down if you are concerned that the Allies might have them at an invasion site.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 43
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 6:09:50 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

The US was aware of this use of it and did use it in that capability, so this isn't a rare usage resulting in a game imbalance either, as far as I've read in any case. The "no escorts" bombard should help shut them down if you are concerned that the Allies might have them at an invasion site.



Erik I am not sure bombardments tactical AI will target a unit if it is not "formally" a CD unit (for AI purposes). Thus you get invulnerable army ship killing units equipped with "field guns". If that's what's intended, we can all go to sleep and let this thread die

I did bomb run after bomb run just to shut up his artillery. He kept on pounding my ships right to the end, based on that I assume he wasn't affected.

One of those bomb runs was even a "thermonuclear run" (anomaly of some kind obviously) but that's different problem altogether. Not even the nuclear run did stop his field guns.

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 44
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 6:10:27 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Well you did what you ought to seemingly to support the invasion Oleg. But...the 155mm M1A1 was designed with a coast defense role envisioned and the gun was fully capable of being so used with or without special modifications to its mount.
It seems to me that the invader in an amphibious op had to bring along an awful lot of firepower and keep it focused on suppressing the shore batteries for the shore guns to not reek havoc.
I can't cite lots of examples of shore battery successes in history but I can cite some where the shore guns either prevented the landing or screwed it up really badly:
1) WWI Dardenelles Naval Expedition (1915) - the shore guns were aided by mines and virtually ran out of ammunition but in the end the Brits/French retreated with heavy damage to their fleet (mostly by mines I think though).
2) WWII Wake Is attempted invasion 12/11/41 - 3 days air bombing apparently damaged some of the shore guns' range finders and sights but all 6 5 inch guns were more or less operational when the landing attempt was made. Although the IJN had a pretty decent advantage in number of gun tubes and the Marine guns were damaged to some extent they did tear up the invasion force pretty well hitting I think 2/3rds of the ships involved and sinking 1 DD. The defense battalion 5" guns were aided by some of the 3" AA guns which also suffered from some material defects from the previous days bombings.
3) WWII Russian Landing in the vicinity of Novorossisk (1943) - German Army field guns employed in a coast defense role mucked up a substantial landing pretty well. Can't really recall the details other than it involved the better part of the Russian Black Sea Fleet.

A problem with the game mechanics simulating ship/shore combat might be at fault. Once the field artillery guns opened fire on the invasion fleet the guns of the ships ought to attempt to specifically engage the firing guns. However, historically ships have not had the best of luck against shore guns either due to their ability to hide "in the bush" or their ability to protect themselves with fortifications/entrenchments unless their counterbattery fire was truly overwhelming.


(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 45
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 6:27:41 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Great examples spence (apart from 3, which needs more data) but those were dedicated coastal guns with anti ship training firing from prepared emplacements. My ships were devastated by an army unit (equipped with allegedly "CD capable" gun ).

Unit that apears to be invulnerable to bombardments too (this needs more testing though) because of it's classification as "simple land artillery" (not CD).

Not to mention that this same unit was priceless in ground combat on Lunga too. Definitely a MVP as they say in american sports

I don't know how many "army arty units with CD capable guns" are in the game - perhaps this was the only one, but I can see this leading to all sorts of funny results.

What needs to be done is differentiate between 155mm in "field" role and (technically) same weapon when operated by dedicated CD unit and trained men. I have no problem if trained CD unit wants to use this same gun in prepared CD position, but I have problem with army regiments killing my DDs during night, and infantry during day, with same unimpeded efficacy.

I believe there are already some examples of technicaly same weapons appearing in the database twice (depending on the use).

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 46
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 6:40:56 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
Erik I am not sure bombardments tactical AI will target a unit if it is not "formally" a CD unit (for AI purposes). Thus you get invulnerable army ship killing units equipped with "field guns". If that's what's intended, we can all go to sleep and let this thread die


Hm, that should be checked into to make sure that having them as non-CD units isn't making them too resistant to suppression through bombardment or port attacks.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC



For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Oleg Mastruko)
Post #: 47
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 7:02:20 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"Fanboyism, as defined: taking one freak instance as rationalization for hugely disproportionate results (I have 30+ ships sunk by a "field gun" so sorry for bringing this up ) "

Another example of "Fanboyism" is when one wishes to remove the raison d'etre for a whole class of unit merely because of an anomaly that he encountered in the game. Many CD units were equipped with the 155mm gun, and Oleg wants to prevent them from performing their duties because he has lost a lot of ships to them. Hmmm....

I have no problem with either classifying FA units as CD units for bombardment targetting purposes, or in having two versions of the M1A1 155mm gun (one for CD units and one for FA units) but I have a serious problem with removing that gun from CD use because someone whines about losing too many ships to it.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 48
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 7:21:47 AM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
I have no problem with either classifying FA units as CD units for bombardment targetting purposes, or in having two versions of the M1A1 155mm gun (one for CD units and one for FA units) but I have a serious problem with removing that gun from CD use because someone whines about losing too many ships to it.


Wasn't that the reason behind every single pro-allied change this game went thru since 1.0?

Losing too many B17 to op losses? Presto, lets blackmail developers into lowering oplosses for 4E bombers... (Who cares about real world data regarding oplosses.)

Losing too many P-40 for someone's taste? Presto, lets flood the board with complaints and get the changes we need...

Etc ad nauseam.

Sorry, Allied fanboy club is ruling the development of this game, usually ruining it in the process. If I seem to be too passionate about some issue (and I rarely am, really) that's not because I love Japs but because I'm trying too hard to make a counterbalance

BTW I'd pay 10 bucks to see the outcry when the first Allied player attacks some island only to be rudely surprised by IJA field artillery regiment armed with 155mm pieces The resulting thread would grow to ten pages in one afternoon. Well, well, maybe (just maybe) IJA really did have one elite arty unit capable of targeting ships with unstabilised field arty piece from a mud-field nearby? Ah no lets rule out that possibility...

O.


_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 49
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 7:34:01 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
"the 155mm M1A1 was designed with a coast defense role envisioned and the gun was fully capable of being so used with or without special modifications to its mount. "

In a Book I have on Coastal defensese, it mentions how 155 mm Weapon types fielded by the US were intended to be used, withouht taking the time to do a lot of quoting the distiled vershion is that they were only realy usable in this role from very well prepared posations, and with units espichaly trained in this role. Which is somthing that realy imo is not well represented in game, generaly speaking the caned game has the Allies over guned over armed and over equiped and over capable, the shore gun aspect is in keeping with this aparently. Granted that last statement smacks of fanboism but it is true to a point.







_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 50
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 8:06:24 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		In the ideal world there would be two Long Tom devices, one used by the Marine Defense battalions and coast gun units (that would be a Naval Gun) and one used by the Army Corps artillery and FA Groups (that would be an Army Weapon). This would account for the doctrine and training of the different units. Will Pry bother doing this, I can't say. Is it really that big of a deal? In going over this with Mike I found only 2 units with Long Tom's that probably should have Army Weapons that are in the game prior to 1944 (both available at start). Oleg obviously ran into one of them at Lunga. Since there are many more Marine coast defense units in the game, until two Long Tom devices are created, it's better to accept the extra 2 CD capable units then it is to elminate the capability from the Marine units.

< Message edited by Joel Billings -- 6/11/2005 8:17:48 AM >

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 51
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 8:26:49 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

In the ideal world there would be two Long Tom devices, one used by the Marine Defense battalions and coast gun units (that would be a Naval Gun) and one used by the Army Corps artillery and FA Groups (that would be an Army Weapon). This would account for the doctrine and training of the different units. Will Pry bother doing this, I can't say. Is it really that big of a deal? In going over this with Mike I found only 2 units with Long Tom's that probably should have Army Weapons that are in the game prior to 1944 (both available at start). Oleg obviously ran into one of them at Lunga. Since there are many more Marine coast defense units in the game, until two Long Tom devices are created, it's better to accept the extra 2 CD capable units then it is to elminate the capability from the Marine units.

The Marines were not the only ones to use the 155 for coast defense,and here is a site that shows they did not even require special modification,nor "mounts"..

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/douglas/gun.html

another site with several examples of the same gun being used in different locations as a coast defense weapon,some maintaining the wheeled-mount,(with a picture of same).
Obviously this is not a case of "a single incident" being used by "fanboys" to justify the 155 as a CD weapon.Notice the major complainant in this thread continually refers to the game weapon as a FA,(or similar),but this DUAL-PURPOSE gun is never referred to as such.Yeah,I gotta believe it's sour grapes over trying to assault an armed beach with too little prep and too many transports..(BTW,I'm no "fanboy",just big on accurate history..)

http://209.165.152.119/panama/155.html


< Message edited by m10bob -- 6/11/2005 8:36:54 AM >

_____________________________




(in reply to Joel Billings)
Post #: 52
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 8:42:08 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Joel failed to mention the US Army CD units that are equipped with the 155mm gun. He obliquely referred to them by mentioning that he could find only two US Army Field Artillery units that should be listed as "army guns" as opposed to being listed as "naval guns" like the CD units. I think that his idea about setting up the two different devices would place the US Army CD units in the naval gun camp alond with the US Marine Defense Battalions, if Pry deems it worthwhile. I agree with Joel that if only two units available in the first two years of the war were not CD units, then it doesn't make sense to prevent all of the units equipped with this gun from being able to fire on naval targets.


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 53
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 8:49:59 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		Hi
I performed a quick test between a CD and Arty LCU.

Created a Arty LCU with 2 x 155mm (device 451 as NavGun) and 10 X Support.
Cloned it and changed type to CD.
Placed both units in a base by themselves with plenty of supply.
Had the Yamato and Hiei bombard them for two turns.
Ran the test twice.

Results:
(Run 1) The total bombardment disabled the 2 guns from the CD with some support from both LCUs.
(Run 2) The total bombardment disabled the 1 gun from the CD and destroyed one gun from the Arty with some support from both LCUs.

To get an absolute view, I would need to run this test many times, but from the above results though it would appear that bombardment seems to be affecting both unit types. Probably the device type is attracting the hits.

I then changed type to ArmyWeapon and ran test again.
The total bombardment disabled the all guns from both units (CD and Arty) with some support from both LCUs.
EDIT:
When the device is ArmyWeapon, the CD did not fire back!!


< Message edited by michaelm -- 6/11/2005 9:16:36 AM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 54
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 8:52:42 AM   
Joel Billings


Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline 		Good clarification. When I said "and coast gun units" I meant those army CD units, but I can see how it could be read to mean Marine CD units. I agree that those army CD units should have a Naval Gun in any case.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 55
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 12:24:37 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Wood

Hello...

Talked with Joel. Adding routine to update saved game device file data, using key press in the game. Must update each saved game individually and only with key press (to avoid corrupting 3rd party scenarios). Update will only apply to devices. Will be in build 1.54 (already finished 1.53).

Bye...

Michael Wood



Thank you, Mike.

What does "Update will only apply to devices." mean? Does that mean ship and plane updates will not be brought in?

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 56
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 2:02:36 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

Talked with Joel. Adding routine to update saved game device file data, using key press in the game. Must update each saved game individually and only with key press . Update will only apply to devices. Will be in build 1.54 (already finished 1.53).


Does this mean if we started a game with the 155 field gun listed as an Army weapon instead of as a CD weapon we can now update the game in progress with the upcoming patch v1.5x?

quote:

(to avoid corrupting 3rd party scenarios)


Will we be able to use the patch to update games utilizing 3rd party scenarios?

(in reply to Mike Wood)
Post #: 57
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 2:03:36 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		For those who may find this interesting I direct your attention to the repulse of a Russian landing at Ozereka (sic) Bay on 4 Feb 1943 mostly by German/Rumanian field artillery.

If one was insistent that Army field artillery units should not be allowed to shoot at ships then I suggest that someone should dig out from somewhere some kind of difference in the ammunition load out between the Army FA units the CD units. Although a lack of armor piercing ammo might make an Army 155s less effective against warships 155 mm HE rounds are still gonna make a mess out the 3/8ths inch, mild steel, shell plating on a Maru though.


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 58
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 3:17:31 PM   
eMonticello


Posts: 525
Joined: 3/15/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/douglas/gun.html

http://209.165.152.119/panama/155.html

Interesting websites. The conclusion that took away from the information in both websites is that Oleg has a case in support of two versions of the Long Toms.

Yes, mobile Long Toms were used as coastal guns, however, they did require the proper infrastructure for that use. In other words, a "typical" Long Tom field artillery unit would not merely point their guns to the sea and expect to destroy transports. Otherwise, why bother building those structures?

From the picture's caption: " One of the Port Moresby Gun Batteries. Built on the coastal hills immediately behind Boera village. These guns were the American 155mm mobile guns and had slightly different structures built to emplaced the guns. Spread over several hills, the battery also had search light and support buildings nearby."




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 59
RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes - 6/11/2005 4:34:35 PM   
Oleg Mastruko


Posts: 4921
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
such.Yeah,I gotta believe it's sour grapes over trying to assault an armed beach with too little prep and too many transports..(BTW,I'm no "fanboy",just big on accurate history..



Of all things, I'd like to put the "sour grapes" argument finally to rest. Game with this opponent was (and still is) most enjoyable and gentlemanly game possible. We never whine, we just joke when exceptionally good or bad luck hits us in the game. When one of my bombing runs vs his base turned out to be "thermonuclear anomaly" it was me who first admitted it felt wrong.

Finally, battle of Lunga ended with my victory, despite his Harpoon ASM equipped field arty regiment I'd give 20 APs to have Lunga and eliminate 30k+ of his troops there any time.

So no sour grapes here and lets get at least this issue cleared.

M10 if you're so "big on accurate history" as you say I think you should agree no US *army* regiment, ever, was capable of destroying 20-30 ships, *regardless* of the weapon they happened to posses at the moment.

O.

_____________________________


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Significance of v1.52 OOB changes 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

4.141