Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Admiral DadMan
Posts: 3366
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by Admiral DadMan »

My bad on PoW and Repulse. Thought I read that they were in Colombo on 2 Dec and didn't reach Singapore until 8 Dec. Now I can't find the source (figures).

I'm working on specifics on the USN BB rebuilds.
Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Image
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

My bad on PoW and Repulse. Thought I read that they were in Colombo on 2 Dec and didn't reach Singapore until 8 Dec. Now I can't find the source (figures).

I did find this - http://www.microworks.net/pacific/perso ... epulse.htm

I cannot vouch for the validity, but it seems that the PoW and Repulse arrived in Singapore on the 2nd. The Japanese spotted them there on the 3rd.
I'm working on specifics on the USN BB rebuilds.

That would be fantastic.
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by Lecivius »

I would be interested as well. Everything I can find shows the upgrades are pretty darned historically accurate. A good example of data can be found at

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/batt ... b-list.asp
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
Admiral DadMan
Posts: 3366
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by Admiral DadMan »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

My bad on PoW and Repulse. Thought I read that they were in Colombo on 2 Dec and didn't reach Singapore until 8 Dec. Now I can't find the source (figures).

I did find this - http://www.microworks.net/pacific/perso ... epulse.htm

I cannot vouch for the validity, but it seems that the PoW and Repulse arrived in Singapore on the 2nd. The Japanese spotted them there on the 3rd.

Yeah, it must have been a dream, or wishful thinking. I just hate being forced to lose them right off the bat.
Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Image
User avatar
Admiral DadMan
Posts: 3366
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by Admiral DadMan »

Nevada and Pennsylvania rebuilds ok.

Tennessee and California rebuilds started started in July 42, not Jan 43
TENNESSEE: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VII, pp. 88-100
CALIFORNIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. II, pp. 14-15

Maryland 5"/38 rebuild started in May 45 for 90 days, not 270
MARYLAND: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. IV, pp. 257-259

West Virginia 5"/38 rebuild started June 43 until June 44, but that time included hull repair. Currently she morphs into the Maryland tree, and doesn't get upgrade until 1945.
WEST VIRGINIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VIII, pp. 222-227.

I'm of the opinion that Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia should have an option to start rebuilding no later than Oct 42 (much like the Tennessee class) with a maximum of 120-180 days to rebuild
Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Image
User avatar
pontiouspilot
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2012 7:09 pm

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by pontiouspilot »

Sorry for being slightly off topic but based on existing 1 or 2, the scenario I would love to see (I have zero ability to create myself!!)would involve the Japanese ability to attack non-USA until they choose otherwise. The US would be able to move assets (I suppose) but could only themselves enter the war based on random events ie. x percentage if Soviets attacked, x percentage each turn after Sing falls, x percentage each turn if DEI key cities fall, x percentage if Aust mainland attacked....etc, etc. This is based on what I take to be the fairly low chance of USA declaring war without first being attacked in Pearl or Philippines. This would also allow for the rationalization of the Japanese war strategy in a more global sense.
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

My bad on PoW and Repulse. Thought I read that they were in Colombo on 2 Dec and didn't reach Singapore until 8 Dec. Now I can't find the source (figures).

I did find this - http://www.microworks.net/pacific/perso ... epulse.htm

I cannot vouch for the validity, but it seems that the PoW and Repulse arrived in Singapore on the 2nd. The Japanese spotted them there on the 3rd.
I'm working on specifics on the USN BB rebuilds.

That would be fantastic.
warspite1

Yes, Force Z arrived on the afternoon of the 2nd. HMS Repulse then sailed on the 5th for Australia with the destroyers Vampire and Tenedos but was recalled in view of the worsening situation and returned to Singapore on the 7th.

Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
User avatar
warspite1
Posts: 41896
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 1:06 pm
Location: England

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by warspite1 »

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

The only reason they were sunk was because they were stupid enough to sail into an enemy AZoC without air support THREE DAYS after the Pearl Harbor attack.
warspite1

[8|] Deleted. Can't be bothered.


Now Maitland, now's your time!

Duke of Wellington to 1st Guards Brigade - Waterloo 18 June 1815
mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Nevada and Pennsylvania rebuilds ok.

Tennessee and California rebuilds started started in July 42, not Jan 43
TENNESSEE: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VII, pp. 88-100
CALIFORNIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. II, pp. 14-15

Maryland 5"/38 rebuild started in May 45 for 90 days, not 270
MARYLAND: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. IV, pp. 257-259

West Virginia 5"/38 rebuild started June 43 until June 44, but that time included hull repair. Currently she morphs into the Maryland tree, and doesn't get upgrade until 1945.
WEST VIRGINIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VIII, pp. 222-227.

I'm of the opinion that Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia should have an option to start rebuilding no later than Oct 42 (much like the Tennessee class) with a maximum of 120-180 days to rebuild

Q1: In game terms, is this merely a case of moving the upgrade dates or do changes need to be made to the upgrades themsevles?

Q2: Does the WV deserve a "class" of it's own in light of it's upgrade?

Q3: Was the WV hull repair due to operational damage or a deliberate decision to modify the design of the ship? If the former, how long should the rebuild take, assuming no damage to be repaired.

ORIGINAL: warspite1
ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

My bad on PoW and Repulse. Thought I read that they were in Colombo on 2 Dec and didn't reach Singapore until 8 Dec. Now I can't find the source (figures).

I did find this - http://www.microworks.net/pacific/perso ... epulse.htm

I cannot vouch for the validity, but it seems that the PoW and Repulse arrived in Singapore on the 2nd. The Japanese spotted them there on the 3rd.
I'm working on specifics on the USN BB rebuilds.

That would be fantastic.
warspite1

Yes, Force Z arrived on the afternoon of the 2nd. HMS Repulse then sailed on the 5th for Australia with the destroyers Vampire and Tenedos but was recalled in view of the worsening situation and returned to Singapore on the 7th.


Thanks for the clarification. On Dec 7th they were in Singers. In Singers they shall stay.

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Sorry for being slightly off topic but based on existing 1 or 2, the scenario I would love to see (I have zero ability to create myself!!)would involve the Japanese ability to attack non-USA until they choose otherwise. The US would be able to move assets (I suppose) but could only themselves enter the war based on random events ie. x percentage if Soviets attacked, x percentage each turn after Sing falls, x percentage each turn if DEI key cities fall, x percentage if Aust mainland attacked....etc, etc. This is based on what I take to be the fairly low chance of USA declaring war without first being attacked in Pearl or Philippines. This would also allow for the rationalization of the Japanese war strategy in a more global sense.

Interesting idea. The only problem is that it's waaaaaay beyond the scope of what we're trying to do here. I don't even know if what you suggest is even possible without extensive modification to the game.
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by JeffroK »

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by Barb »

Well I've got all US Subs written down, and data exported from scenario 1 tracker. Now to match them [;)]
Image
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by JocMeister »

MM, any plans on looking into China besides a small supply bump?
Image
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by ny59giants »

China - I increased device production by 50 to 100% for RA, Treaty, and BTS mods. It does help some. I decreased the number of disabled industry to help with organic production of supply. There is plenty of resources for LI and HI. Check out BTS mod changes.

PP - The Allies have 60 PP with these mods. I would go with that or 65 per day.
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by Barb »

Got all the available sub data together ...
You will find differences in few things:
- class differences on 4 Gato boats listed in game as Balao (SS-361-364)
- class differences on 2 Balao boats listed in game as Tench (SS-425&426)
- some subs should be at sea, or another base at the start of the game

- actual departure and arrival dates on relevant bases when possible
- in game arrival dates and bases
- in game departure dates from game
- notes of various characters

With some calculating and guess, one can fill up the missing data (like arrival at base X, when departure from base Y is known), etc.
Attachments
USSubmarines.zip
(58.29 KiB) Downloaded 11 times
Image
User avatar
Admiral DadMan
Posts: 3366
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by Admiral DadMan »

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Nevada and Pennsylvania rebuilds ok.

Tennessee and California rebuilds started started in July 42, not Jan 43
TENNESSEE: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VII, pp. 88-100
CALIFORNIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. II, pp. 14-15

Maryland 5"/38 rebuild started in May 45 for 90 days, not 270
MARYLAND: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. IV, pp. 257-259

West Virginia 5"/38 rebuild started June 43 until June 44, but that time included hull repair. Currently she morphs into the Maryland tree, and doesn't get upgrade until 1945.
WEST VIRGINIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VIII, pp. 222-227.

I'm of the opinion that Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia should have an option to start rebuilding no later than Oct 42 (much like the Tennessee class) with a maximum of 120-180 days to rebuild
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Q1: In game terms, is this merely a case of moving the upgrade dates or do changes need to be made to the upgrades themselves?

Q2: Does the WV deserve a "class" of it's own in light of it's upgrade?

Q3: Was the WV hull repair due to operational damage or a deliberate decision to modify the design of the ship? If the former, how long should the rebuild take, assuming no damage to be repaired.

Q1: Change need to be made to the Maryland's class 346 5"/38. Rebuild should be shortened to a 90 day upgrade.

Q2: West Virginia should have a class path of it's own in light of her upgrade.

Q3: West Virginia's hull repair was the permanent repair of the Pearl Harbor Attack damage. It's hard to put a "what if" on this, because "what if" she was only lightly damaged in the attack, would her rebuild have been done? If so, would it have been later like Maryland, or very little, like Colorado? My thought is that she gets her own path with 1/42 upgrade (radar), 6/43 upgrade of at least 120 days to near similar loadout/specs of Maryland's in 4/45, and then upgrades to Maryland's 4/45.

The fly in all this ointment is that the Allied player doesn't know which BB's will get hurt the worst, if at all. In my PBeM game, my IJN opponent eschewed the Pearl Harbor strike and hit the DEI with Kido Butai instead. All of my 9 BBs would have been available for rotation into the modernization program. If the option were available, as the Allied Player, I would definitely send my old BBs to the yard and spend 120-180 days modernizing them.

In all the reading I've done (hopefully I'll get more books for Christmas), it appears that the thinking after the start of war shifted when the importance of air power was realized. I would further conjecture that had the war begun differently, that the Colorado class would have been taken in hand immediately for rebuild, as they were the "newest" of the pre-war BBs.
Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Image
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

You might want to consider looking over the Focus Pacific mod.

In that one the emergency reinforcements do not enter automatically as a triggered result.

The Allies have to buy them. They can also buy them at any time, not trigger dependent.

The cost for these units is considerably higher than the cost of buying out ordinary on map restricted units.

You might want to consider a similar high cost for release of the West Coast garrison units.

I'll have a look. Focus Pacific changes too much for my tastes. At the core, I just want to give the Allied player the option of buying out the units that start on the West Coast. The emergency reinforcements are not something I want to change.

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Re-base the Prince of Wales and Repulse TF to Colombo headed for Singapore. The only reason they were sunk was because they were stupid enough to sail into an enemy AZoC without air support THREE DAYS after the Pearl Harbor attack.

USN pre-war BB upgrades are borked. Their re-builds are about 2 years behind schedule.

PoW and Repulse will stay at Singapore as that's where they were on Dec 7th.

What USN BB upgrades do you speak of, and do you have any documentation to back it up?


Side Note: when I said "can you make a good argument for it [your proposed changes ]to be there?" that was me politely asking for some evidence to back up what you say. I like some hard facts to back things up.



Wasn't advocating for developing a mod as out there as FP. Only suggesting that increasing the cost for buyout of the "garrison" units above the norm as was done in FP might be worth considering to quell the opposition to allowing such a buyout.
Hans

mind_messing
Posts: 3394
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:59 am

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by mind_messing »

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

MM, any plans on looking into China besides a small supply bump?

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

China - I increased device production by 50 to 100% for RA, Treaty, and BTS mods. It does help some. I decreased the number of disabled industry to help with organic production of supply. There is plenty of resources for LI and HI. Check out BTS mod changes.

PP - The Allies have 60 PP with these mods. I would go with that or 65 per day.

It is my view that the problem with China is, at it's core, supply. If the Japanese subject the Chinese to a solid campaign of airbase bombing (and it would be stupid not to), I don't think that the Chinese can gather enough supply to effectively utilize their device pools. It's no good boosting device production if bases don't have enough supply to take replacements.

To that end, I'm thinking of the following:

- Give a bit more supply to the Chungking stockpile on Dec 7th, and perhaps the Sian stockpile as well.
- Boost automatic supply generation all across China.
- Less disabled industry in Chinese held cities.

Hopefully, this should mean that Chinese units remain poorly equipped (as historical) but don't end up being starved to death.

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Nevada and Pennsylvania rebuilds ok.

Tennessee and California rebuilds started started in July 42, not Jan 43
TENNESSEE: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VII, pp. 88-100
CALIFORNIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. II, pp. 14-15

Maryland 5"/38 rebuild started in May 45 for 90 days, not 270
MARYLAND: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. IV, pp. 257-259

West Virginia 5"/38 rebuild started June 43 until June 44, but that time included hull repair. Currently she morphs into the Maryland tree, and doesn't get upgrade until 1945.
WEST VIRGINIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VIII, pp. 222-227.

I'm of the opinion that Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia should have an option to start rebuilding no later than Oct 42 (much like the Tennessee class) with a maximum of 120-180 days to rebuild
ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Q1: In game terms, is this merely a case of moving the upgrade dates or do changes need to be made to the upgrades themselves?

Q2: Does the WV deserve a "class" of it's own in light of it's upgrade?

Q3: Was the WV hull repair due to operational damage or a deliberate decision to modify the design of the ship? If the former, how long should the rebuild take, assuming no damage to be repaired.

Q1: Change need to be made to the Maryland's class 346 5"/38. Rebuild should be shortened to a 90 day upgrade.

Q2: West Virginia should have a class path of it's own in light of her upgrade.

Q3: West Virginia's hull repair was the permanent repair of the Pearl Harbor Attack damage. It's hard to put a "what if" on this, because "what if" she was only lightly damaged in the attack, would her rebuild have been done? If so, would it have been later like Maryland, or very little, like Colorado? My thought is that she gets her own path with 1/42 upgrade (radar), 6/43 upgrade of at least 120 days to near similar loadout/specs of Maryland's in 4/45, and then upgrades to Maryland's 4/45.

The fly in all this ointment is that the Allied player doesn't know which BB's will get hurt the worst, if at all. In my PBeM game, my IJN opponent eschewed the Pearl Harbor strike and hit the DEI with Kido Butai instead. All of my 9 BBs would have been available for rotation into the modernization program. If the option were available, as the Allied Player, I would definitely send my old BBs to the yard and spend 120-180 days modernizing them.

In all the reading I've done (hopefully I'll get more books for Christmas), it appears that the thinking after the start of war shifted when the importance of air power was realized. I would further conjecture that had the war begun differently, that the Colorado class would have been taken in hand immediately for rebuild, as they were the "newest" of the pre-war BBs.

Fantastic work, that's something I can get started on right away!

ORIGINAL: Barb

Got all the available sub data together ...
You will find differences in few things:
- class differences on 4 Gato boats listed in game as Balao (SS-361-364)
- class differences on 2 Balao boats listed in game as Tench (SS-425&426)
- some subs should be at sea, or another base at the start of the game

- actual departure and arrival dates on relevant bases when possible
- in game arrival dates and bases
- in game departure dates from game
- notes of various characters

With some calculating and guess, one can fill up the missing data (like arrival at base X, when departure from base Y is known), etc.

Thanks for this!
JocMeister
Posts: 8258
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 10:03 am
Location: Sweden

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by JocMeister »

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

It is my view that the problem with China is, at it's core, supply. If the Japanese subject the Chinese to a solid campaign of airbase bombing (and it would be stupid not to), I don't think that the Chinese can gather enough supply to effectively utilize their device pools. It's no good boosting device production if bases don't have enough supply to take replacements.

To that end, I'm thinking of the following:

- Give a bit more supply to the Chungking stockpile on Dec 7th, and perhaps the Sian stockpile as well.
- Boost automatic supply generation all across China.
- Less disabled industry in Chinese held cities.

Hopefully, this should mean that Chinese units remain poorly equipped (as historical) but don't end up being starved to death.

While I certainly agree supply is one of the main issues in China I think garrison requirements could help with some of the issues too. If increased on both sides it will tie down more forces lessening the amount of combat which in turn would burn less supply.

Personally I would like to see a substantial increase in Japanese garrisons of Chinese held territory. This would stop the Japanese from steamrolling all over China in a couple of months as AV would bleed off the attack to become garrisons for each captured city. At least enough to force the Japanese to commit unrestricted troops in order to knock China out.

As it is now China is almost a "freebie" even with existing troops. I don´t think Japans ability to knock China out should be removed completely but it should require a huge investment in troops to do so (including a good chunk of the unrestricted Japanese IDs).

Another thing that could be looked at is the many Manchurian armor and artillery units that can be bought out. When these are sent to China the engine goes bonanza as Chinese squads simply cannot deal with the firepower. Perhaps make at least some of them perma restricted?

Obviously this is hard to balance right but it can´t get much worse then it already is.

Image
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by Lokasenna »

RE: China -

A problem that I don't think anyone has realized with China is that almost all of the Chinese units (maybe it is actually all) start with X number of devices... but half of those are disabled. The Allied player can't stop these squads from repairing to active status, and as they do so the unit will require more supply than it did before repairing. I would look at changing this in some way.
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Community Project: Improved Scenario 1?

Post by ny59giants »

Manchurian artillery in China - Many of the big guns are siege type guns and in reality would take months, not just a few weeks to move. So, my way to slow this down would be add a static device to those units and be able to upgrade to a non-static device say in mid-42 to reflect the amount of time needed to relocate them.
[center]Image[/center]
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”