TM, RA, and BTS Re-Write
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: Allied Wessels
4. A-24---A-24b upgrade fixed. Should they be allowed to convert to something after A-24b?
According to this, the 389th Bombardment Squadron trained on dive bombers, but was switched to A-36 Apaches and sent to the Pacific to join the Fifth Air Force. Later equipped with P-40s and finally with A-20s. Something similar could be allowed.
http://www.digplanet.com/wiki/389th_Bom ... t_Squadron
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!
“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child
- ny59giants
- Posts: 9881
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm
RE: Allied Wessels
Engines: It looks like both the Mitsu Ha-42 & 43 which don't start production until Sept or Oct '45 may need to be moved up (maybe 6 months) as they each have airframes coming online in late '44 (Sam) to early '44 (Peggy). I'm steadily expanding these two engines, but they will need time to advance at least 12 months.
[center][/center]
RE: Allied Wessels
Did some quick work and got the following done:
1. 9th Aust ID TOE fixed.
2. Brit 2nd ID TOE fixed.
3. 14th NZ Brigade could not find the issue. I was told to look at it compared to the 8th NZ Brigade and they are the same. What am I missing?
Will check on the engine dates Michael.
1. 9th Aust ID TOE fixed.
2. Brit 2nd ID TOE fixed.
3. 14th NZ Brigade could not find the issue. I was told to look at it compared to the 8th NZ Brigade and they are the same. What am I missing?
Will check on the engine dates Michael.
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Allied Wessels
ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Engines: It looks like both the Mitsu Ha-42 & 43 which don't start production until Sept or Oct '45 may need to be moved up (maybe 6 months) as they each have airframes coming online in late '44 (Sam) to early '44 (Peggy). I'm steadily expanding these two engines, but they will need time to advance at least 12 months.
In my game with Dan those dates have been advanced into mid-44. Will check BTS.
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Allied Wessels
Following the thread with DOCUP, I have decided to have the Americans build several of their Argonaut/Narwhal Class with the original design spec of a small Floatplane and hangar. YES AFB you will get 2-3 MORE SS (joining French Surcouf and her sister) for air search and recon of Japanese base/shipping.
I am going to need a Floatplane. Anyone want to 'design' one for me?
I am going to need a Floatplane. Anyone want to 'design' one for me?
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Allied Wessels
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I am going to need a Floatplane. Anyone want to 'design' one for me?
- Attachments
-
- th.jpg (6.39 KiB) Viewed 483 times
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
RE: Allied Wessels
I believe that---KIND SIR---is a flying Sub...
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Allied Wessels
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I believe that---KIND SIR---is a flying Sub...
Well, if I was gonna design a flying scout from a sub... [:D]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
RE: Allied Wessels
Ahhhhhhhhhh...that makes better sense to me. I was confused. Now you have shown the light of knowledge on me...
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Recon
ORIGINAL: BillBrown
BTS scenario. 9th Australian inf division has toe #2706 which is a CMF Inf Bn TOE. Makes this unit very fragile, loses will not be made up. Should probably be a TOE # 2693 or 2694.
9 Div should arrive as UK 1942 TOE motorised infantry division, and transition to an AIF jungle TOE light division, with excess devices going to the pool, but all vehicles were left behind in Egypt. Also, the Marmon Harringtons in the AIF/AMF TOEs are a furphy. The divisional cavalry regts were essentially mech infantry scouts, with a squadron of tanks. At times in the MTO they used Vickers MkVI, captured Italian tanks, or captured Vichy French R-35/H-35. On return to the PTO they had no tanks issued, and ultimately re-roled as commando btn HQs.
"I am Alfred"
RE: Recon
Michael has found a major glitch in BTS-L with the economy. Thankfully it doesn't appear to be in TM, RA, and BTS.
Michael: Can you Post what you found?
Michael: Can you Post what you found?
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
- ny59giants
- Posts: 9881
- Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm
RE: Recon
Gremlins got loose in the editor of BTS Lite long ago (before 1EyedJack vs me now in Nov 42) where "HI Fuel In" went from 2 to 4 and "LI In" went from 15 to 8. Then, I started my game as Japan vs Gen Patton and we had gotten to late July 42. I'm very much into micro-management (Tracker fan boy [:)]), but I saw my fuel go from 4 million (M) at start to 1.5M and Oil from 3M to 1M while Res went from 7M to 41M and enough in Japan for 13,462 days.
So any Japanese players using BTS Lite (scen 60), please hit the "J" button to pull up your economy. Select just "HI" and if any factory has 4x the fuel under "Requirements" for your any HI factory then the gremlins hit you to. [:(] Please PM if you want the newest version, with fixes and tweaks.
Needless to say, both my games are being restarted with newest version. This time I cannot use my rust of not playing Japan often vs Gen Patton nor can 1EyedJack use his lack of familiarity with this mod as excuse for losing two CV vs CV battles in early 42 as Japan.[;)]
So any Japanese players using BTS Lite (scen 60), please hit the "J" button to pull up your economy. Select just "HI" and if any factory has 4x the fuel under "Requirements" for your any HI factory then the gremlins hit you to. [:(] Please PM if you want the newest version, with fixes and tweaks.
Needless to say, both my games are being restarted with newest version. This time I cannot use my rust of not playing Japan often vs Gen Patton nor can 1EyedJack use his lack of familiarity with this mod as excuse for losing two CV vs CV battles in early 42 as Japan.[;)]
[center][/center]
RE: Recon
Thanks Michael.
We have done a ton of changes and updates over the last week or two and I think we are about ready for a general release. When that happens there will be a Post announcing the release as well as all the details Posted here.
We have done a ton of changes and updates over the last week or two and I think we are about ready for a general release. When that happens there will be a Post announcing the release as well as all the details Posted here.
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Recon
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Thanks Michael.
We have done a ton of changes and updates over the last week or two and I think we are about ready for a general release. When that happens there will be a Post announcing the release as well as all the details Posted here.
Best of luck guys!
RE: Recon
Hope no new gremlins creeps in!
I did notice some errors with the Soviet ships as well. This is probably not something that matters as you usually don't see much of them in action. These errors are present in the stock scenarios as well.
In fact there's so much odd going on there that I don't know where to start. I'll be lazy and simply give you the navypedia links instead of pointing out exactly every thing. Of course navypedia isn't an infallible source but it's usually quite accurate. Still as always take things with a grain of salt.
Kalinin and Kaganovich are of the Kirov-class ingame, in reality they were a slightly larger type: http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/r ... gorkiy.htm - change the Kirov-class to this.
The Leningrad-class has some incorrect weapons, among others 2x2 torpedoes rather than 2x4. http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_minsk.htm - check this to correct it (Tblisi is the ship in the game)
Most of the Gnevnyi-class ships in the Pacific seems to have had 3x1 or 4x1 37mm guns, not 1x2 as currently. http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_gnevnyy.htm
The two ships represented by the Novik-class probably didn't have DP guns or 533 mm torpedoes. See http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/r ... editel.htm (Stalin) and http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/r ... metyev.htm (Voykov), check the outfits at 1946.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_71-57_m1932.htm
The 180mm/57 gun seems to lower penetration than I'd expect. Something along the lines of 275 might be more correct. That might sound like a lot for something that's not a 203 mm gun, but it's a rather high velocity gun. The Japanese 15.5 cm gun already has 231.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-50_m1936.htm
The 130mm/55 should be 130mm/50. The penetration here is also low, it should probably be around 90+, upper bound probably in the vicinity of 110.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_4-60_m1911.php
102mm/60 P1911 - used on the Novik-class. Guess at stats:
Type: Naval Gun, Range: 17, Accuracy: 40, Penetration: 48, Effect: 38, Ceiling: 0, Anti-Armor: 24, Anti-Soft: 22
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_39-56_m1940.php
I'm somewhat unclear as to whether the 100mm/56 P1940 was used on any of the ships in the Pacific. It might very well have been used in the coastal forts though (it's currently in the Vladivostok fort as an example). So the device should probably stick around but an additional gun added.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_39-51_m1931.htm
100mm/56 B-24 - replaces all instances of the 100mm/56 P1940 gun on ships.
Same stats as the P1940 except it's a single purpose gun, not a DP gun.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_85mm-52_90k.htm
85mm/52 90K - used on the two cruisers. Guess at stats:
Type: DP Gun, Range: 17, Accuracy: 36, Penetration: 36, Effect: 20, Ceiling: 33450, Anti-Armor: 18, Anti-Soft: 17
(If using witploadAE extra stats - AA Penetration: 18, AA Effect: 24, AA Accuracy: 50)
As an curiosity I don't really get why three of the Soviet classes are given a 18 knot cruise speed, rather than the normal 15.
I did notice some errors with the Soviet ships as well. This is probably not something that matters as you usually don't see much of them in action. These errors are present in the stock scenarios as well.
In fact there's so much odd going on there that I don't know where to start. I'll be lazy and simply give you the navypedia links instead of pointing out exactly every thing. Of course navypedia isn't an infallible source but it's usually quite accurate. Still as always take things with a grain of salt.
Kalinin and Kaganovich are of the Kirov-class ingame, in reality they were a slightly larger type: http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/r ... gorkiy.htm - change the Kirov-class to this.
The Leningrad-class has some incorrect weapons, among others 2x2 torpedoes rather than 2x4. http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_minsk.htm - check this to correct it (Tblisi is the ship in the game)
Most of the Gnevnyi-class ships in the Pacific seems to have had 3x1 or 4x1 37mm guns, not 1x2 as currently. http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_gnevnyy.htm
The two ships represented by the Novik-class probably didn't have DP guns or 533 mm torpedoes. See http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/r ... editel.htm (Stalin) and http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/r ... metyev.htm (Voykov), check the outfits at 1946.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_71-57_m1932.htm
The 180mm/57 gun seems to lower penetration than I'd expect. Something along the lines of 275 might be more correct. That might sound like a lot for something that's not a 203 mm gun, but it's a rather high velocity gun. The Japanese 15.5 cm gun already has 231.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-50_m1936.htm
The 130mm/55 should be 130mm/50. The penetration here is also low, it should probably be around 90+, upper bound probably in the vicinity of 110.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_4-60_m1911.php
102mm/60 P1911 - used on the Novik-class. Guess at stats:
Type: Naval Gun, Range: 17, Accuracy: 40, Penetration: 48, Effect: 38, Ceiling: 0, Anti-Armor: 24, Anti-Soft: 22
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_39-56_m1940.php
I'm somewhat unclear as to whether the 100mm/56 P1940 was used on any of the ships in the Pacific. It might very well have been used in the coastal forts though (it's currently in the Vladivostok fort as an example). So the device should probably stick around but an additional gun added.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_39-51_m1931.htm
100mm/56 B-24 - replaces all instances of the 100mm/56 P1940 gun on ships.
Same stats as the P1940 except it's a single purpose gun, not a DP gun.
http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_85mm-52_90k.htm
85mm/52 90K - used on the two cruisers. Guess at stats:
Type: DP Gun, Range: 17, Accuracy: 36, Penetration: 36, Effect: 20, Ceiling: 33450, Anti-Armor: 18, Anti-Soft: 17
(If using witploadAE extra stats - AA Penetration: 18, AA Effect: 24, AA Accuracy: 50)
As an curiosity I don't really get why three of the Soviet classes are given a 18 knot cruise speed, rather than the normal 15.
RE: Recon
When I have been loading Scen 60: Between the Storms--Lite, I am noticing missing ship art work. This is my 'working' Scenario number for the update that is to come. Am going to go through and see just what is missing so I can fix and then update the folders on the RA Website.
Additionally want to draw up an EXACT set of warship additions to all the Allied Fleets as well as Japan so people can see that as well. Think it might go a long way towards addressing cocerns about this being a JFB-ONLY Mod!
Additionally want to draw up an EXACT set of warship additions to all the Allied Fleets as well as Japan so people can see that as well. Think it might go a long way towards addressing cocerns about this being a JFB-ONLY Mod!
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Recon
John, it depends on how you play it....GP
Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330
AKA General Patton
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
AKA General Patton
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester
DW2-Alpha/Beta Tester
New Game Development Team
"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton
-
- Posts: 3637
- Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:28 pm
- Location: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
RE: Recon
Please list the changes for RA so we can see how its developing - and what if any will help games in progress. I am in March 43 in RA 7.9 AS ALLIES - yes its good. Have the issues around ship withdrawl and PP for certain units that should not have them and also allied destroyed units not being able to be bought back but I guess I can live with this. Did the Victory points change much from the original game.
If you want to see the game please PM and I will send you the file.
Also what were the recommended house rules for RA?
Thanks for all the good work.
If you want to see the game please PM and I will send you the file.
Also what were the recommended house rules for RA?
Thanks for all the good work.