Between the Storms

[btd64]

SuluSea, Really nice work. Can you send it to me as well. Want to use it as a wall paper on my laptop.[:)]....GP

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Those damned ships have proven to be elusive buggers. It is to my BELIEF that they are now in the French Ship Art File. Will---for about the 50th time--take a look...

Hi John,

If you are having issues managing your art it might be worth your while
downloading my Distribution Manager from here Revolving Bitmap Distribution Manager V1.6



Option F then 2 creates and displays a HTML page which shows all the bitmaps in your art (or any other) folder cross referenced against scenario data.
(If you aren't using rotating ship art, everything will be in the 1941/All column).
Very handy for finding missing art or mismatch problems like this.....

It's written in MSDOS and a bit slow* so please be patient...

* [size=-2]I was expecting MSDOS to be blindingly fast on modern processors but no, Microsoft has nobbled DOS. [:@] I believe DOS is emulated under Windows now and uses the Windows disk access libraries (making it slower than windows itself).[/size]



If you have any problems drop me a line.

[oldman45]

Can I assume it does the airplanes too?

[HansBolter]

Just wanted to report that BTS 1.6 did not fix the 9th Indian Division.

At least not in an ongoing game that has reached March 13th, 1942.

It may be fixed for new game starts.

Someone else will have to report on that as I don't intend to let this glitch cause me to restart.

[ny59giants]

Hans,

As far as I know, ongoing updates don't fix things like the 9th Indian for games in progress. Ships that go through an update will have the fix applied when they upgrade. The "TOE ID" is something that is set in stone when the game first start. However, we do need to identify them so they can be fixed for newer games.

[HansBolter]

10-4

I'll continue to report what turns up in my current game.

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Can I assume it does the airplanes too?

If you are talking about the Art Distribution Manager then yes. Option E then 1 will display installed rotating aircraft art. Example outputs can be seen here.

[size=-2](The tool also automates the compilation of valid rotating ship and air artwork distributions but I don't think that function is needed here).[/size]

Sorry about hijacking your thread John but I thought this tool might make the job of verifying large quantities of custom artwork easier for you.

[JuanG]

John,

I found another LCU that seems to have lost its TOE in the upgrade to DBB.

Units #0093-0095 use TOE #2148, which in previous versions was the 'heavy' base force which would upgrade to TOE #2232 and include organic 12cm and 8cm AA guns. However, right now there is no TOE #2148 or #2232.

Also, Eighth USAAF, LCU #0150, starts with 180 AvSup, but uses TOE #2514 with a TOE of only 48 AvSup - is this intentional?

[John 3rd]

Hell no---It is not intentional. This is simply the after effects of converting fully over to DB. We'll get it handled but...grrrr...it is frustrating!

Keep looking everyone. I'll do another clean-up on Sat. When more is found, Post here so we can get the list taken care of.

JUAN: What do you think of SuluSea's great new loading page??!! COOOOOOOL...

[oldman45]

Reg, I am looking for a way to identify where I can add aircraft to the existing set without overwriting. Thanks

Juans new cover is great!!!

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Reg, I am looking for a way to identify where I can add aircraft to the existing set without overwriting. Thanks

Juans new cover is great!!!

You should be able to just do that via the 'ART/AlliedPlanes' directory. See the guide attached to the first post in this thread.

Also, I think you meant SuluSea's cover, and I do agree it is very impressive!

[John 3rd]

I have SuluSea's new loading screen. Will add it to the Allied Art Folder so everyone can enjoy it. NICE!

[btd64]

John, I have been trying to review the allied OOB but can't access the scenario in the editor. I was looking at the indian 7th inf . It has half 42 squads. So I looked at the DBB's version and it did also. So I looked at Scenario 1 stock, Same thing so nothing to worry about then. But I would like to beable to look thru tomorrow as I am off for the next 2 days. Have some stuff to do, but I have about 10 to 12 hours I can use to review. PM me if there is something I can look at....GP

[John 3rd]

GP: I am going to work on the Update tonight and tomorrow. PLEASE take a look and see if you spot anything additionally. Really want to go through, fix things, and STEP AWAY for people to play!

[oldman45]

Thanks JuanG.

[John 3rd]

Went through and FIXED:

1. The Japanese base Force issue of it being set to 2148 when it is 2146. Did a little tweak on the 8cm, 4cm, and 12.7mm gun allotment.

2. The 8th Air Force Air Support amount and TOE was screwed up. I set the unit (and all US Air Force units) to the correct line and changed air support from 48 to 72. I am sure this was reduced for DB from its 150. Looks like the individual units were not refreshed after the downgrade. Since the US Air Force 41 Air Support was 36 I raised the US Air Force 42 Air Support to 72. Figured that as an improvement but still followed DB outlines on reduction in Air Support.

Am going to wait for a day to Post these updates on the website. GP: You're getting an email so you can look through BTS. These changes were in all three Mods so the new Mod number shall be:
045 Treaty Mod 1.5
050 RA 7.5
055 Between the Storms 1.7

Anyone else see something we have until tomorrow night to fix it under this update.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Went through and FIXED:

1. The Japanese base Force issue of it being set to 2148 when it is 2146. Did a little tweak on the 8cm, 4cm, and 12.7mm gun allotment.

John, you will note that in RA v6 this was not the case - there were two distinct types of IJN base forces - the standard (#2146), and the type that upgraded to include the 12cm/8cm AA section (#2148->#2232). I do not think the issue is what you describe it as, rather the issue is that the latter two TOE units never made it across during the update.

I would also be very wary about hiking ALL US Air HQ supports up from 48 to 72 from 1942 onward - I pointed out the Eighth as it arrives late game and was clearly overstrength to its TOE, the others are in line with the 48. I worry that doing this in 1942 or without a corresponding increase to the IJN/IJA Air HQs might upset the balance in late 42 already. If you want larger US Air HQs I would suggest perhaps adding a '43 or '44 version with 72, and leaving the '42 one along at 48.

[ny59giants]

See JuanG's post in my AAR for BC fixes.

tm.asp?m=3657481&mpage=7

[John 3rd]

Here is what he said:

I have no idea where the numbers for that 330mm on the Dunkerque came from. The 16in/50 numbers were produced by JWE (because RA/BTS use the DBB naval guns numbers, which he is the authority of) and are largely in line with my own estimates.

At first glace it looks like the range on the 330mm is correct - it had a maximum range of ~45,600 yards at 35 degrees elevation when firing its 1235lb AP rounds, and a muzzle velocity of 2850fps (which is damn fast).

In comparison, the 16in/50 Mk3 which only ever saw use as a coastal mounting had a range of ~45,100 yards, at an angle of 46 degrees and a muzzle velocity of 2650fps when firing 2240lb AP (same shell as on Colorado class).

However, I believe JWE ran the numbers for them with a maximum elevation of 30 degrees, like the turrets on the Colorado class, which would put their maximum range in the 36-37,000 yard mark. For reference, Colorado firing the same shell at 2520fps and 30 degrees has a range of 35,000 yards. I would probably have picked 36-37,000 yards for the 16in/50s, but the difference is fairly minor.

As for penetration - the 2240lb Mk5 APC at 2650fps (Constitution class) penetrates 22.3in of Class A at 15,000 yards, and 19in at 20,000 yards. In comparison the same shell at 2520fps (Colorado) has a penetration of 20.7in and 17.5in respectively. I think the 16in/50 Mk3 is a little underrated currently at only 2 more penetration than the 16in/45 on the Colorado, something in the 760-770 range would be more appropriate.

The French shell is a newer design than the 2240lb Mk5 (the post-44 US shells do not seem to be modelled apart from on the 16in/50 Mk7), and due its high velocity its performance is impressive despite its size, however it does seem to be overperforming here. At 2850fps its penetration is 19.8in and 16.8in of Class A respectively. This would put it between the 16in/45 on the Colorado and the 14in/50 on the Tennessee/NM, with a penetration value around 700. For reference the French 15in on the Richilieu is only 754 in game.

One last thing I notice is the Ammo count on the Dunkerque - these carried 110 rounds per gun, so an ammo number of 16 is a little high. Consider that the Alaska class CB carried 166 rounds per gun of 12in (so a fairly close comparison), and also gets a 16. I would give Dunkerque a 14 at most, probably a 13, given that the 14in gunned US Standard BBs get a 12 at 100 rounds per gun.

So, potential fix list;
1) Increase range on 16in/50 to 37,000 yards.
2) Decrease penetration on 330mm to 700-710 (maybe JWE could run the numbers for the DBB model?)
3) Decrease ammo on Dunkerque main battery to 13.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Went through and FIXED:

1. The Japanese base Force issue of it being set to 2148 when it is 2146. Did a little tweak on the 8cm, 4cm, and 12.7mm gun allotment.

John, you will note that in RA v6 this was not the case - there were two distinct types of IJN base forces - the standard (#2146), and the type that upgraded to include the 12cm/8cm AA section (#2148->#2232). I do not think the issue is what you describe it as, rather the issue is that the latter two TOE units never made it across during the update.

I would also be very wary about hiking ALL US Air HQ supports up from 48 to 72 from 1942 onward - I pointed out the Eighth as it arrives late game and was clearly overstrength to its TOE, the others are in line with the 48. I worry that doing this in 1942 or without a corresponding increase to the IJN/IJA Air HQs might upset the balance in late 42 already. If you want larger US Air HQs I would suggest perhaps adding a '43 or '44 version with 72, and leaving the '42 one along at 48.

The difference in 6 vs 7 is the DB conversion. Do you think we need to return those 12CM guns Juan? Was that the standard? I've got absolutely no issue fixing this.

The comment regarding American Air Force HQ units makes a lot of sense. Any other comments here?