Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by Nemo121 »

Changes in V1.3

1. Review of Soviet bases and re-assignation from Oz command back to the Soviet Union.

2. Review of Soviet CD units and assignation of rifle squads to help them fight off smallish ( less than a division ) amphibious invasions. If the Japs want the Soviet Union they should have to commit significant forces just as it would have been in real life.

3.Review of availability of Soviet airplanes and replacement rates. Time into service of La-5 etc has been moved forward such that they appear at much the same time as the Ki-44 III.

4. Service ceiling of the Helldiver has been reduced by 200 feet so as to obviate the need for a 25,000 foot ceiling rule on all dive-bomber Naval Attack missions and kamikaze missions.

5. Ki-264 series has been re-graded as regards production cost. Each Ki-264 A ( dumb bomb version), B ( guided bomb version ) or G9M ( torpedo-bomber version) now requires SIX (6) Mansyu engines. This increases their cost to 216 HI per plane. So, if Japan turned 10% of its entire 12000 per day HI to making these planes it would still only be able to build 5 per day. Pretty damned expensive planes!!!! Truly these would be the battleships of the sky.

6. Ki-264L transport version has been added in place of the Thalia. This requires 180 HI per plane ( 5 engines ) and gives Japan a very interesting set of options in terms of transports and paraborne landings.

7. USAAF late-war ( 1944 onward) fighters swap the 0.5 cals for a lesser number of 20mm cannon. In this mod this makes them significantly more effective.

8. Japanese OIL reserves in the Home Islands have been cut by 50% so Japan has less than a year's reserve at war's beginning. This is to help pull the focus toward the DEI. A player who romps across the Pacific and Soviet Union but neglects the DEI will find himself in deep trouble by the middle of 42 as his OIL reserves run low.

9. Fixed various errate with naming of base forces, unit formation types and upgrade paths for various merchant ships, BBs etc.

10. Added a production rate for the Ki-293 ( the guided bomb used by the Ki-264B ) such that only 1200 are produced per month. Since a 30 plane formation of Ki-264Bs can carry 120 of the bombs in a single mission that means that you can only launch 10 Daitai-strength attacks per month before you run out of the bombs required. (ps. The same sort of trick can be used to limit the Bettys-always carry torpedoes problem everyone always bitches about. I haven't done this in my mod since I'm assuming Japan prepared rationally BUT this is the solution. ) This acts to put a cap on the Ki-264B numbers and effectiveness as I am a bit concerned they could prove unbalancing.

11. Various other production tweaks and resource balancing to get the right economic traps etc in place for the unwary.


Topic for 1.4: I have, possibly, 4 Allied and 1 to 2 Japanese plane slot available. What do people think should go there? I already have the F7, F8 and P-80 for the allies SOO I was thinking that we could add:

1. Shiden ( jet-powered )
2. Kika ( IJA version of Me-262)

3. Meteor
4. jet-powered US strategic bombers.
5. Soviet version of Me-262 following collapse of Germany.
6. Something else?

This mod continues into end of 46 and thus there's ample scope for a new generation of ueber-fighters etc to be deployed at the end of the war. Comments?
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by ny59giants »

I was thinking that you need to remove the possibility of building HI, engines, and plane factories on Allied bases that do not have any manpower. Having manpower at a base signifies having a local workforce able to actually run the new factories once the Japanese capture them.
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by Nemo121 »

Well that isn't how manpower works. Manpower is a measure of the number of Japanese-friendly local men of military age... not of the number of people who could be pressed into action to produce small engine or armament parts.
 
In any case once you capture an Allied base the aircraft and engine factories transition into armaments and vehicle factories so Japan can't actually build planes in these places. It can, however, starting from a base of 0 ( zero ) factories invest thousands of tons of supplies to improve production should it want to do so.

Do I think this makes sense? Almost never BUT I wanted to give players LOTS of options, including really stupid ones :-).
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
goodboyladdie
Posts: 3470
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: Rendlesham, Suffolk

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by goodboyladdie »

Hi Nemo

Mike and I are doing a restart. Is 1.3 ready to go? If not are any of the tweaks ready for upload for an improved interim version? Mike is hoping to start his new turn 0 later today I think.

Many thanks and very best regards

Carl
Image

Art by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by Nemo121 »

Hi 1.3 is ready to go and has been sent to Mifune. I'm not sure why it isn't up yet. I will email him and ask.
 
In the meantime anyone who wants it can email me. FWIW we're up to 1.31 now as I managed to find a misattributed bitmap for an RTN ship - nothing which will FUBAR the game but something still worth fixing.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
1EyedJacks
Posts: 2300
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 6:26 am
Location: Reno, NV

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by 1EyedJacks »

PM sent - it looks like Carl and I need to do a restart so we might as well go to the latest version... I left the sub ops on and the game keeps stealing Carl's Russian and Dutch subs <grin>.
TTFN,

Mike
User avatar
goodboyladdie
Posts: 3470
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 8:35 pm
Location: Rendlesham, Suffolk

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by goodboyladdie »

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

PM sent - it looks like Carl and I need to do a restart so we might as well go to the latest version... I left the sub ops on and the game keeps stealing Carl's Russian and Dutch subs <grin>.

I just logged in to my gmail and the other Michael has sent us 1.3. [:)] What a fantastic bloke! [&o] Are we going with that or waiting for the 1.31?
Image

Art by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by ny59giants »

Nemo,
I just found 3 extra CDs at Vancouver - Anchorage Militia CD, Seward Militia CD, and Fairbanks Militia CD (don't know thier IDs). Along with the two already there, I feel safe from attack. [:D]&nbsp;However, they are all static. [:(]&nbsp; Why would Fairbanks need a CD??
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by Nemo121 »

Thanks for this. I've found what the problem was. The wpl069.dat file wasn't being automatically loaded by WiTP Editor so the changes I made to Fairbanks, Anchorage and Seward to aid the Allies resulted in all of these Forts spawning in Anchorage.

I've solved the problem and these forts now spawn in their respective bases. I added them in order to prevent the Japs getting uncontested landings in december 41 before the Allies could respond ( or paradropping men onto Fairbanks --- one of my favourite gambits ).

P.s. Its a fort so doesn't necessarily JUST have to be a CD Fort. As to why they are static. Since they represent ahistorical units designed to boost the Allied player's defence in 41 and 42 AND since the Allies have MORE than enough in 43 I figured I'd make them static so they wouldn't be moved away from their starting locations and thus couldn't be used to unbalance things elsewhere.


So, we're up to 1.32 now that these 3 fixes are in.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by ny59giants »

Nemo,
The 4 Chinese attack squadrons flying the V92C Corsair (IDs 1062-1065) have upgrade paths that include the Ki-32 Mary and the Russian IL-2 DBs. I happen to look what they upgraded to as I'm unfamilar with them and saw this. I like the IL-2 option. [:D]
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by Nemo121 »

Yes, this isn't a bug. It is a feature to help offset the IJA/IJN commonality. You will also see, for example, Soviet transport squadron with low replacement rates being able to upgrade to Dakotas ( which are plentiful ).
&nbsp;
In addition have a look at the USAAF and USN and USMC squadrons. Note the Hellcat and Corsair availabilities ;-)...
&nbsp;
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by n01487477 »

Nemo,
just started your Mod V Michael (nygiants) ... any reason there are a few SS-I 2's ?

Also, can I recommend, not having the area names after the Base Name,(or make some of them smaller), it makes for some difficulty when scrolling(a list of unit's or bases) and the game takes you to that unit, instead of still scrolling the list ... because the scroll is over-layed with the name.

Lastly, this is not a request, it is a question really ... & it is NOT specific to your mod.

Why, do scenario's use LCU TOE, when in my view, the implementation of LCU reinforcements is a little broken ? (reinforcements take 10 years and a day to fill a unit out)

(I'm not a scenario designer, so please take what I say in that vein ...[;)])

OK, This might initially seem like a stupid question, but if a unit arrives with X/Y equip, and then a few days later, changes to its' TOE, which might be vastly different, why not just have the unit come in with reduced equip of its TOE, not with equip that is NOT in its TOE parent unit.

It seems silly to me to expend Man/Arm/Veh Points on something that will change quickly. Sure I think you get this equip back into the device pool later ... but, isn't this double dipping? Why would any military bring in a unit, that they will re-equip in a few days and have to produce and use HI to change that.

I realise upgrades are cool, but can't they rely on device upgrades, like a/c groups can upgrade. If scenario's used the device upgrade field more ... then can't this be implemented in this way ?

Or the delay, in the TOE units... to upgrade...(not sure here) [edit][:@] actually just tested, that and it doesn't work ... wants to bring in the Parent unit ...

Please if I don't understand the dynamics, then that is my failing ...
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by Nemo121 »

I-2s.. That was a SNAFU which I think I have now fixed.
&nbsp;
I think this issue of upgrading/swapping out is due to real-life changes in TO&E. As such I just went with what CHS and RHS thought was most reasonable.
&nbsp;
Base names: Hmm, lots of people like them. I'll take it under advisement. If others feel the same way then I can remove the Region Location from after the base name. Let me know if you have an opinion one way or the other.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: Nemo121
I think this issue of upgrading/swapping out is due to real-life changes in TO&E. As such I just went with what CHS and RHS thought was most reasonable.
No problem, it is just my desire to see a more streamlined approach given the inadequacy of reinforcing units ... hope you don't mind me doing some testing and getting back to you if I find a different approach.
Base names: Hmm, lots of people like them. I'll take it under advisement. If others feel the same way then I can remove the Region Location from after the base name. Let me know if you have an opinion one way or the other.
Don't get me wrong, I like the descriptions, just wish that for some of them, they were a little shorter, so that they didn;t go over the scroll & I didn't get the switch to unit effect.

Thanks again


User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by Nemo121 »

If you can find a way to improve things which works better than what I have ( and doesn't impinge on the fundamental production modelling goal ) then I am 100% happy to make whatever changes are necessary.
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by n01487477 »

Nemo,
last question then I'm out ...

why did you decide to leave such a long gap between carrier fighters ? Effectively, 1 year 5 months between the A6M2 and the A6M5 ... I haven't checked the Allies, but won't I be completely outclassed in late 42, early 43 ? Is this why I need so many carriers ?

[edit] I'd rather have a mid-production CV fighter model than some of the other planes on offer



Image
Attachments
Capture.jpg
Capture.jpg (46.28 KiB) Viewed 76 times
User avatar
Nemo121
Posts: 5828
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2004 11:15 am
Contact:

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by Nemo121 »

Ki-44 III in February 43 *cough* *cough*.
&nbsp;
Not quite as good as a Corsair BUT its a damn sight better than any A6M5 and it is more than a match for the F6F5 Hellcat
John Dillworth: "I had GreyJoy check my spelling and he said it was fine."
Well, that's that settled then.
User avatar
Capt. Harlock
Posts: 5379
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by Capt. Harlock »

Topic for 1.4: I have, possibly, 4 Allied and 1 to 2 Japanese plane slot available. What do people think should go there? I already have the F7, F8 and P-80 for the allies SOO I was thinking that we could add:

1. Shiden ( jet-powered )
2. Kika ( IJA version of Me-262)

3. Meteor
4. jet-powered US strategic bombers.
5. Soviet version of Me-262 following collapse of Germany.
6. Something else?

This mod continues into end of 46 and thus there's ample scope for a new generation of ueber-fighters etc to be deployed at the end of the war. Comments?

How about the XP-72 (a streamlined version of the P-47 capable of 480 mph)?
Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo
el cid again
Posts: 16980
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by el cid again »

Early jets are short legged - and in many cases - remarkably slow. The situation is worse for Japan - the engines are both too small - and too unreliable. I doubt they can produce enough to matter - but IF they can - they get planes of modest performance. Working out data for Kikka - being optimistic - it isn't worth having compared to high performance propeller designs.

The US didn't have very good jet bomber options. The projects available needed more time than was available to become operational - and were not worth it. There is a very interesting US "medium bomber" not built - a contingency program - with centerline engines instead of wing engines. It was possible to replace the piston engines with a centerline jet plant. But - aside from the problem of actually producing an engine powerful enough on a production basis without waiting years to get it - the resultant bombers lost its great range advantage - jets of that era were not fuel efficient. The first US jet bomber in fact was a two engine on the wings affair - permitting less power per plant means you can start production sooner - and it was not very impressive. Allied jets were not designed with proper swept wings until AFTER we captured German materials - notably the Hermann Goering Instiute - which we did not even know existed before the surrender. Strait wing jet aircraft are not going to be efficient performers.
User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Empires Ablaze Ver 1.3 Changes etc

Post by n01487477 »

Just to show I wasn't being too stupid ... I had checked from a claude and not a zero.


Image
Attachments
Capture.jpg
Capture.jpg (50.6 KiB) Viewed 76 times
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”