Mod Update

[Big B]

I finished a major update on B-MOD, which can be found here.

I have taken down all previous scenarios (too hard to manage so many), and concentrated on One Mod.

Many changes, perhaps the biggest change is US Fleet Boats, but for all who like stock based scenarios - please give it a look.

EDIT: I give FULL permission to anyone trying to mod this game to borrow any or all portions of my work.

[oldman45]

Thanks B, I will give it a look this weekend.

[Big B]

Thanks,
I know many don't play it, but if I can infiltrate the awareness of the forum body and raise expectations - everyone will benefit. [;)]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Thanks B, I will give it a look this weekend.

[John 3rd]

Brian:

Good to see you working on Mod stuff!

What are your major changed/tweaks?

[Trugrit]

There is a read me doc on his site with updated scenario info. (Updated as of July 6)

I've been going over it and it looks very good.

K

[John 3rd]

Thanks!

This looks really nice. Like the detailed work and research.

[Halsey]

ORIGINAL: Big B

I finished a major update on B-MOD, which can be found here.

I have taken down all previous scenarios (too hard to manage so many), and concentrated on One Mod.

Many changes, perhaps the biggest change is US Fleet Boats, but for all who like stock based scenarios - please give it a look.

EDIT: I give FULL permission to anyone trying to mod this game to borrow any or all portions of my work.

I'm updating a unit graphics package to fit your modified scenarios.

Give me awhile, it might take some time, as I filter through AGP's and LCU ID#.
Already have the Chinese Warlords.

[PaxMondo]

B,

Digesting all of your CHI changes ... very interesting premise. I like the integral supply and static concept ...

[cardas]

I don't fully understand how you determine your armor durability modifier, take for example Furutaka/Aoba vs. Cleveland. My understanding is that on both Furutaka/Aoba and Clevland you have a main belt (76 mm on Furutaka/Aoba, 127 mm on Cleveland) that only protects the boilers/turbines and doesn't go all the way past the main guns. The magazines are below the waterline on both and are protected by a separate, thinner internal "belt" (51 mm on both Furutaka/Aoba and Cleveland). So why does Furutaka/Aoba get a 0,85 modifier while Cleveland gets 1,0?

As a caveat I should add that I can't claim to be a well read expert on these things so maybe I'm wrong on the details on the armor setup.

[Big B]

That's a good question, but the answer is that the Furutaka/Aoba classes main armor belt does not enclose the barbettes and magazine area (along the water line and below), whereas in the Cleveland class the belt encloses them - well past actually (from the edge of hanger in the stern - to the foc'sle, approximately to the tip of the muzzles of A Turrets' guns.
If you have a chance to look at Jane's Fighting Ships you can see it clearly illustrated.

So the Furutaka/Aoba's are still are rated as "patch armor", as are most of the Japanese CA's, the Pensacola's through the Portlands, etc.

B

ORIGINAL: cardas

I don't fully understand how you determine your armor durability modifier, take for example Furutaka/Aoba vs. Cleveland. My understanding is that on both Furutaka/Aoba and Clevland you have a main belt (76 mm on Furutaka/Aoba, 127 mm on Cleveland) that only protects the boilers/turbines and doesn't go all the way past the main guns. The magazines are below the waterline on both and are protected by a separate, thinner internal "belt" (51 mm on both Furutaka/Aoba and Cleveland). So why does Furutaka/Aoba get a 0,85 modifier while Cleveland gets 1,0?

As a caveat I should add that I can't claim to be a well read expert on these things so maybe I'm wrong on the details on the armor setup.

[cardas]

Ah, okay, the issue is with how Jane's shows it compared to what seems to be the actual case, look at e.g. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Online ... 11-43c.htm for a proposed Cleveland aircraft carrier conversion. Now it doesn't outright show the belt, but it shows the armored deck and you can clearly see that according to this the Cleveland class doesn't have the large belt as show in Jane's. At https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Online ... 11-01c.htm you also have a preliminary design for the Cleveland class that shows the same thing.
As I said, I'm no expert so feel free to take my words with a grain of salt, but assuming the schematics at ibiblio.org are correct then it would seem that Jane's Fighting Ships is in error.

[Big B]

Yeah, I don't know about that one...
One has to use a standard, and Jane's has been faulted for being occasionally inaccurate on some Axis ship details, but has a pretty solid reputation on British and American vessels, and Jane's is pretty clear on all ships as to belt armor and thickness as built. Coupled with the fact that the illustrations you sited are from initial drawings for only deck armor - I can't see reason as of yet for recasting it...

But - Hey! - Thanks for ACTUALLY LOOKING! ...and that by the way - is why I put the sources and formulas out there - so you guys can do exactly what you did - look.

The entire effort I did was to put a more informed effort into calculating durability than merely counting 1 point for every 200 tons displacement. If the game was as detailed as a micro miniatures effort at calculating armor for every 1% of ship space (like games I have seen) - this would be so much easier - but alas it does not - so one has to make calculations to account for many factors not even mentioned here (from construction quality, to armor vs gun quality), and to apply it equally - while keeping the results within the existing range of numbers from stock - so it won't break the game engine.

B [8D]

EDIT: May I also say - thanks to your informed and intrepid inquiry - You've pulled me back into WITP:AE....and made me think!,(I always check this forum after an update for quite a while) - and alas have taken me from my latest mania...going back to my roots - an ASL/ATS project. Such is life [:D]

Take care all.
B

ORIGINAL: cardas

Ah, okay, the issue is with how Jane's shows it compared to what seems to be the actual case, look at e.g. https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Online ... 11-43c.htm for a proposed Cleveland aircraft carrier conversion. Now it doesn't outright show the belt, but it shows the armored deck and you can clearly see that according to this the Cleveland class doesn't have the large belt as show in Jane's. At https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Online ... 11-01c.htm you also have a preliminary design for the Cleveland class that shows the same thing.
As I said, I'm no expert so feel free to take my words with a grain of salt, but assuming the schematics at ibiblio.org are correct then it would seem that Jane's Fighting Ships is in error.

[PaxMondo]

Ahhh .. ASL. [&o][&o][&o] Haven't seen those 3 letters in a long time ...

[Trugrit]

I finally got around to taking a closer look at this mod.

I show missing turrets unless I've done something wrong.
I know you wanted to modify the power turrets but I don't see it.

[Big B]

Truegrit - you must have downloaded that quite a while ago.
I know what the problem you saw is, and I fixed it many weeks ago (that problem only existed for about 24 hours - must have been when you downloaded it).
I just loaded the game this morning to confirm with a screenshot (seen below)
Just download a new copy -

Thanks!

ORIGINAL: Trugrit
I finally got around to taking a closer look at this mod.
I show missing turrets unless I've done something wrong.
I know you wanted to modify the power turrets but I don't see it.

[Trugrit]

That did not work for me.

Please check your files. I'm seeing a last modified 2015 date in your download.

Thanks,
Keith

[Big B]

Hmm, it should have said July 2016...
But no matter - I just re-uploaded it fresh, and can be downloaded here

Sorry for the trouble and confusion - let me know if you still see an issue

B

Edit: by the way - not all the individual files will change date - unless that file is modified.
I downloaded the new scenario into a separate install to double check, everything works fine with no errors...
The cam199.dat file, the scn199.cmt file, and the aei199.dat file - will NOT show a newer date - since those files were not modified.

ORIGINAL: Trugrit
That did not work for me.

Please check your files. I'm seeing a last modified 2015 date in your download.

Thanks,
Keith

[Trugrit]

That fixed it.

Many thanks,
Keith

[Big B]

Sorry for the confusion

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


That fixed it.

Many thanks,
Keith

[sanderz]

just a quick question about the latest version

i see you updated SCN199 on 9th Nov - my installed version is from early August 2016 - were there any major changes?
(apologies if i have missed a change log somewhere)


EDIT: - and will any changes need a "new game" to take effect?

many thanks