Sharing Mod ideas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message


LargeSlowTarget -> Sharing Mod ideas (12/15/2012 12:57:11 PM)

Modding AE is going strong, with several well-known big projects like DBB, RHS, RA, Perfect War, Almost Historical Mod, Treespider etc. available or under construction.

Judging from many posts, there are also a lot of less public, private projects going on - probably because the "big mods" do not go far enough in some aspects or do not contain some personal pet features or units etc.

I believe it could be for the benefit of all to share the ideas of those private projects.

Everyone could pick any idea he likes and apply or adapt it to his own project in order to create the perfect private mod.

The ideas could be shared in one or maybe better two dedicated threads (one for Historic Mods, one for What-Ifers) in the form of changelogs, bullet-point listings or texts.

The threads should stay "reference threads" without distracting discussions - any questions or data exchanges by interested modders could be handled by PM or spin-off threads.

Is this a stupid idea or would there be takers?




Symon -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/15/2012 7:00:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Is this a stupid idea or would there be takers?

Takers. And it's not a stupid idea. Some of the "private" projects you mention are for limited scenarios that support some of the deeper OOB slices that the game engine supports.

Two things are happening: tweaks on campaign games, and tweaks on more specific scenarios. Thoughts on one might not be appropriate for the other. It takes a completely different mindset to play a super grainy "problem" than to play a GC game. And it takes a completely different view of unit TOEs and their specific breakdowns to have a successful "problem" scenario, as opposed to a GC "game".

Take this as you will. Ciao. JWE




LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/16/2012 1:01:18 AM)

I was thinking GC only, but of course sharing ideas for modding limited scenarios would be nice, too.

Ok, since I started this, I will post the changes I have made in my mod. Nothing great and probably quite useless, but just maybe someone wants to pick a thing or two.

I would be happy if others join in sharing their modding ideas so everyone can copy elements they like.


(Incomplete) “Changelog” for LST Variant of DaBigBabes

Remarks:
• “Historic” mod based on DBB Scen 29C Extended map
• Stock scenarios and to a lesser extend DBB-A/B allow rather fast-paced operations and “impossible” strategies like Japan invading India, Australia or Hawaii or early Allied counter-offensives. I attempt to create a more historic gameplay by slowing down the ops tempo. This is done on the one hand by limiting production and transportation assets, on the other hand by adding more units that need to be transported and supplied.
• I have made some corrections and changes to the OOB for more historical accuracy, e.g. starting locations of certain units, spelling mistakes of names or designations, added quite a number of missing ships, units, leaders etc.
• I have also added some units and features which you may find ‘esoteric’ but for which I have a soft spot and felt they deserve a kind of “virtual memorial” by being included in my mod (e.g. Joseph Rochefort and Codebreaking units, Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels, Death Railway and POW Labor units, “Chick” Parson and PI guerillas etc.).
• Some experimental features are following a seat-of-the-pants approach > I may have gotten things horribly wrong
• I did not aim for 100% accuracy in everything. For example, characteristics for certainship classes are rather approximate and generic (e.g. small ship classes, blockade runners). Reason: Hard data is difficult to find and I did not want / could not spend too much time & money into research. But if anyone has better data, I would be pleased if you share it.
• Some ideas have been inspired by or “stolen” from forum posts or other mods (like good old CHS), in some cases I thought I have had a new idea and then it turned out that other forumites have had more or less similar ideas (great minds… ;-) , and a few things may be my own “brain-farts”.

Ok, enough of the preliminaries, here are the changes:

Bases/Map:
• Downsizing of base sizes and potential bases sizes of many stock/DBB bases, esp. in PNG/Solomons and Aleutians > slows loading/unloading, requires more time-consuming construction efforts, prevents monster bases in hostile terrain/climate

• Added numerous bases and dots in CBI theater, PI, Solomons / PNG, Australia and even Japan (no base slots left - could use more...)
- Mostly bases of secondary importance, minor battle sites, logistical bases (for supply caps), “emergency landing grounds”, guerilla bases etc.
- Dot bases in China have a low garrison requirement for Japanese side and low supply production for Chinese side (to support Guerillas etc.) > see “Ground” section) [need to apply to PI as well - in next mod version]
- some unimportant bases in the deep South Pacific (French Polynesia) and Russia have been converted to more useful bases in China and elsewhere
- Note: I did not include the “Shortlands / Buin base split” of the latest DBB map revision – lack of base slots in my mod (all are being used) plus I already have added the Treasury Islands in this area

• Added supply caps for many SRA bases (and new dot bases) to represent poor transport infrastructure > bad or lack of roads, low capacity railways (compared to CONUS) - Railway lines have highest supply cap (major RR = 1000 per base size), roadless jungle-covered mountains the lowest (10)

• Added supply caps also for Australia due to chaotic state of Aussie railway system with at least 3 different gauges with break-of-gauge between states (simulated as stretches of minor RR at break-of-gauge bases) > slows flow of supplies and may entice use of coastal shipping

• Supply caps can be raised through construction work on base levels, this simulates potential upgrades of transport infrastructure > have added potential port sizes for inland hexes to simulate road/railroad construction > ports will be useless in inland hexes for anything but raising supply cap and this helps to avoid strings of monster airbases and/or high fort levels

• Added “Burma-Thailand Death Railway” using the port / supply cap approach
• Added Ledo Road using the port / supply cap approach
• Added railroads in China which had been destroyed prior to 1941 (but could have been rebuilt) using the port / supply cap approach
• Added North Borneo railway with small supply / resource production at new base
• South Sumatra Railway: base Lahat replaced by railway terminus Lubuk Linggau, at 46,91 - location of rubber plantations and thus has small resource production
• Port Swettenham RR branch line added
• [Project] Sumatra Death Railway Sawahloento-Pakanbaroe to be added as “constructible” RR line

• The dot/supply cap approach requires House Rules: 1. Expand ports (not air bases or forts) when aim is purely logistics, 2. no strategic movements on rebuilt/new construction railroads unless uninterrupted string of port size 1 bases along the line

• Changes to Pwhexe.dat file to extend navigable rivers in China and Burma for small craft > small craft were able to reach Ichang, Chungking and the Burma oil fields and beyond.

• Changes to major river crossings in China and Gulf of Martaban (north of Moulmein) since permanent bridges did not exist until after the war > crossing sites use “railway trail” movement rates >> interrupts strategic movement!

• Added “Occupied Europe” base in the South-Eastern corner. Intended for German blockade runners and transport submarines between Japan and Germany (see “Ships” section). Has small LI to slowly convert resources shipped to “Europe” into supplies (=war materials provided by Germany) -slow to lengthen turnaround time. No Allied ships allowed within 4 hexes of base (tentative value subject to testing), but outside this radius anti-blockade runner patrols are allowed. Provided additional Omaha class CLs at Falklands (renamed “South Atlantic Station”) for “South Atlantic patrol” against blockade runners (Omaha and sisters captured many blockade runners in the South Atlantic in WWII). Allied LCU spawns at base in May 1945 in order to “liberate” it.

• Added indicators behind names of Japanese main bases with large pre-war installations (i.e. base forces with large numbers of naval / air support) for better identification in transfer/destination menus:
= IJAAF Base (e.g. Akita=)
# IJNAF Base (e.g. Oita#)
+ Naval Base (e.g. Ominato+)


Industry:
• Experimental changes:
- Refineries no longer produce supplies
- HI no longer produces supplies
- To compensate, I have doubled the supply output of LI
- changes to repair costs to make players think twice about expansion, e.g. ship yards costs = 5000, HI = 2000 (but LI only 500 - tentatively and experimental I said)

• Slightly increased resource point output of resource centers (out 20>25) but also increased resource point requirements for industries (in 20>25) so more resources needed for same output >> increases shipping requirements

• Reduced number of resource centers in Japanese Home Islands, added corresponding number of resource centers to various bases in Korea, China and SRA (to further increase shipping requirements for Japan)

• To model Allied shoe-string conditions at the beginning of the war and rising production over time, many light industries and resource centers start 33% - 50% damaged + added a number of new 100% damaged factories and resources in CONUS for more late-war supply production (added daily supplies to pay for the repairs - do not forget to use the “supplies required” function to keep bases with damaged factories at more than 10.000 supplies per turn – otherwise the factories will not repair thus supply production may suffer in the long run!)

Devices:
• Added new devices for additional units and ships when necessary
• Changed build rate of aviation support (device 254) from 600 to 200:
• Build rate is the same for Allies and Japan, put Japan lacked skilled aircraft mechanics throughout the war, so equal build rate is unhistorical
• Made up Allied deficit by creating convoys which will dump up to 1200 aviation support squads into the Allied pool every three months (like the British Capetown convoys).

Air:

• experimental simplified engine production with early-, mid- and late-war radial engine, early and late inline engine plus jet and rocket - counterballanced by increased repair costs for engines (tentatively 2000 for early, 3000 for mid and 4000 for late)

• Increased aircraft service ratings across the board: 5 for 4E, 4 for 2E, 3 for single engine planes > slows down air ops, IRL it was rare that an air unit had all or almost all planes serviceable

• Added Arado 196 float plane for German Navy (aboard AMCs) plus engine and armament devices

• Added airgroups for Shinano CV conversion option > one small fighter unit for self-defense and three replenishment units for F, DB and TB types (groups start land-based in case player elects to build her as BB)

• Doolittle Raiders: added one airgroup of 16 carrier-capable B-25 “Special” available in April 1942 > House Rule: only one attack allowed, must be disbanded after use

• Experimenting with new aircraft weapons filters > PBY has different bomb loads depending on mission [this is a huge new modding potential – will leave it to more knowledgeable persons to provide new aircraft loadouts]

• Added “(T)” to names for easier identification of IJNAF training group > e.g. “Fukuyama Ku K-1 (T)”

• Naval District air groups (assigned to guard Sasebo, Kure etc.) are subordinate to corresponding Naval Base Force but can be switched to other HQs for full PPs

• 2nd Air Div now permanent restricted to avoid exploit of buying out Kwantung ground units on the cheap

Ships:

• Find it odd that all ships start in pristine condition with no sys or eng damage - have added small random amounts of sys and eng damage to all ships (yes, even new construction - there were always some kinks to iron out).

• addded marker to ship names for easier tracking:
- "~" means ship has a withdrawal date
"+" means ship is scheduled to convert to hospital ship


• Added Hospital ships for the flavor
- a number of Japanese, US, RN, Dutch, Aus and NZ ships start or can convert to hospital ships
- modelled as conversion to AV type for want of a better option but without AV support capacity
- created one corresponding "Hospital" LCU per ship as base force with 30 support squads
- idea is that the hospital ships can transport the "Hospital" LCU from port to port, adding a modest support capacity to the base > house rule that hospital ships and hospital LCU must always stay together in same hex
- set withdrawal dates for certain US ships converted to hospital ships for ETO and thus no longer available for regular transport duty


• “Quickstart Convoys” > created “QS” convoys to auto-collect the merchant ships scattered around the map (got tired of the hundreds of clicks on turn 1 at each restart…). TFs are already filled with ships and destination is set to certain collecting points (e.g. Yokohama, Sydney, Manila, Colombo, San Francisco) for sorting out (I tend to create convoys with ships of same class or at least same speed) resp. conversion. Ships are in convoys at historic start locations, so if you have other ideas for them, you can pull the ships out. Some merchant ships left out because intended for conversion at start base, also most warships left out as usage will vary.

• Odd DBB-C cargo capacity values rounded to full hundreds for easier ‘port / convoy size’ calculations (e.g. 1197 > 1200)

• Unarmed US merchant ships: new ship classes without weapons since arming of US ships was authorized only three weeks before Pearl Harbor > upgrade period decreases shipping availability >> Note: I did not conduct research into the state of armament for each individual ship at the start of the war, so changes are across-the-board by class

• SC and esp. SG radar upgrades pushed back a bit since availability in stock / DBB just “feels” too early > widespread use of SG in started in late 42, not in April 42 (in the November battles at Guadalcanal only 40-50% of ships present already had SG)

• Corrected starting location and armament of PY-10 Isabel > returning from “Defensive Information Patrol” and depth charge upgrade on 12/41 available

• added upgrades for Asheville class > crew added “homemade” DC rack, later got Y-gun and 20mm AA

• Allied Fast Transport: added small cargo/troop capacities for Allied DD types, gunboats, mine craft etc. > could and were used as fast transports when circumstances required

• Allied submarines likewise have small cargo/troop capacities for evacuation and special missions (see “Ground” section)

• Added coastal craft like trawlers and small sailing ships since local transport played an important role (e.g “US Army Small Ships section” in PNG) > rumor has it that Don and Buck have more data on these babies

• Added USN, RN, IJN and Chinese river gunboats (crude art files available)

• Added German and Italian ships (most art files courtesy of Kirk23): AMC Thor and Michel, a dozen blockade runners, AP Comte Verde (of CHS fame) as well as “Monsoon” submarines and “Mercator” transport submarines (also see
“Bases” section about “Occupied Europe” base)

• Added sailing ship “Pamir”, a NZ war prize (crude art file available)

• Added PG Averoff (of CHS fame – but need better art file!)

• Corrected starting locations of various ships and reinforcements (e.g. Warspite & Colorado at Bremerton shipyard, Mutsu at Kure, Asiatic Fleet submarines)

• Yamato “Local Yokel variant” with “bugged” main armament (accuracy halved) requiring upgrade period before being fully operational

• Shinano Option:
- arrives as BB hull without armament with conversion options for BB or CV
- arrival date tentatively set to April 43 > should be accelerated for late-42 arrival date of the hull in order to burn more construction points (in order to compensate a bit for the fact that conversions do not use construction points)

• Minor corrections e.g. of radar device facings or bind class errors (as pointed out in the forum)

• Leader change for USS Houston > historic CO Capt. A.H. Rooks added to leader database

• Added damage and changed repair status of certain ships at Manila which IRL were docked for repairs at Cavite at the start of the war

• Corrected skippers of Sailfish and Sealion > Mumma and Voge

• US submarines equipped with the infamous und unreliable H.O.R. engines split into separate classes with penalties on speed and endurance > upgrade paths including a long refit (for new engines, requiring a West Coast shipyard), then merge with the normal upgrade path

• Most upgrades (anything not limited to adding light AA) now have minimum shipyard requirements since bigger weaponry and electronics required a minimum of specialized equipment and trained workforce

• Reduced fuel for ships in TFs at sea at day one (some already had less than 100%, others still had 100%)

• Added a number of barges, sampans and junks to the Japanese OOB – they operated many hundreds of them

• Added missing float planes for a number of IJN and USN cruisers

• added Thai Navy (data and art taken from War Option 1941 mod with permission from Skyland)

Ground:
• Added "markers" in front of subunit names to help identify subunits belongig to same parent more easily (e.g. PSD = Philippine Scout Division, 5ID = 5th Infantry Division)

• Added "markers" behing unit names for certain units to help with identification and tracking:
- "~" means units has withdrawal date
- "'" means units will undergo name change
- ">" means unit will undergo major TOE change (e.g. from Cavalry to Armour)


• In DBB-C (reduced capacity), in the pre-loaded “Pattani 2nd wave” TF (TF 123) a sub-unit of the 56th Eng Rgt is left behind at Hiroshima due to lack of transport capacity > have added one xAK to 56th Div TF 8123 – maybe unhistoric but more convenient

• Changed PI landings setup:
- only Appari, Vigan and Batan Is. Invasion forces are present on day 1 as task forces and without first-turn movement bonus for historic landing dates around Dec. 10th
- historically, the convoys of the PI main landings at Lingayen and Lamon Bay did sail only on Dec. 17th due to delays in loading > in my mod, those convoys have been disbanded and ships and ground units are at historic starting locations >> need to create and load convoys and lack of first-turn movement bonus hopefully will lead to more historic landing dates in the PI
- 9th Inf Rgt of 16th Div was part of Lingayen Invasion, not of Legaspi Invasion TF as in stock/DBB game > moved to Pescadores

• Added Naval HQs to represent German Naval Command structure in Japan and Asia (for Kriegsmarine warships and blockade runners – see ships section)

• Changes to Aussie OOB:
- Added 8th Military District HQ at PM (7th MD at Darwin is already in DBB)
- Added Milne Force HQ which becomes 11th Division later
- 30th Bde split in component Bns and historic start locations (1 Bn at PM, 2 in Australia)
- Minor HQ changes e.g. for units in 7th and 8th Military Districts
- Changed basic structure of CMF units from divisions to brigades (Div HQ + 3 Bde) i.e. cannot combine to full Divs > limits offensive value of theses Militia forces
- applied restrictions and withdrawal dates to brigades which never saw service outside Australia and/or which were disbanded
- Added a few Garrison Bns I have found in some Aussie OOB on the Net
- Added “Emergency Landing Field” ELG Base Forces with minimum TO&E (“four men and a jeep” - Bergerud) for new bases like “Hood Point Emergency landing field” > more “eaters” to ship around and occupy the coastal shipping
- Added 1st and 2nd New Guinea Inf Bns which combine with Papuan Bn to form the Pacific Islands Rgt
- Added “Fuzzy Wuzzy Angels” ENG unit > support services as the PNG Natives did in WWII
- Start location changed according to info provided by JeffK on land issues forum thread

• All NZ units restricted except 3rd Div + subunits and certain base forces

• Malaya Army restricted > defense of Singapore historically mandatory for political reasons >>”Sir Robin” evacuation of Malaya will cost many PPs

• HQ changes for units in Alaska from West Coast to Alaska Command

• Added experimental Philippines Guerilla units (fighting troops) and “Agents” (radar device with long range and low accuracy – might not work as intended and should probably be changed to squad device) plus HQ unit under “Chick” Parson in Australia > intended for submarine special missions and Intel gathering

• Removed “teleported” units (e.g. Bora-Bora garrison, Americal Div etc.) > now arrive at CONUS and have to be shipped out

• Added a number of small Japanese “Kempeitai” units for a bit more flexible covering of garrison requirements (new device “security squad”) > also more mouths to feed and stuff to move

• Added a number of ENG units for the RR construction projects > IJA Railroad Regiments, POW and Romusha Forced Labor units (actually in game terms squad devices, so unlike history do not building anything – to avoid overboosting Japan ENG capacities)

• Split and spread Japanese and puppet units in China to garrison RR and roads since all China dots have garrison requirements added

• Created small Chinese “Administration” units to prevent auto-change of ownership of dot bases

• Historic OOB changes to 6th Marine Div > 1st-4th Raider Bns combine to form 1st Marine Raider Rgt > renamed 4th Marines > 4th and 22nd Marines form 1st Provisional Marine Bde > with 29th Marines form 6th Marine Div

• Historic OOB changes to 1st Def Bn and detachments > Palmyra Det = parent unit for reconstituted 1st Def Bn, Johnson Det. = parent unit for 16th Def Bn

• 2nd Yokosuka Bn was trained as para units, but not used as such. Since it had the ability, it is a para unit in my mod

• Added experimental “Civilians” units to many Allied bases (representing the ‘white oppressors’ i.e. colonial officials, planters, settlers etc. and their families)
- Main purpose: to prevent “Sir Robin Defense” retreat of Allied forces and shipping - you need keep ships in the SRA in order to save the civilians
- Units are composed of a number of “non-combat personnel” devices and corresponding number of support squads plus a high number of “victory points” devices
- device “victory points” has load cost = 0 > need no support squads
- resulting units have low load costs, low support requirements, but many devices = many victory points
- you should evacuate the Civilians instead of losing them in order to save the VPs!
- Downside: high number of devices in Civilian units will consume a lot of supplies, so they act as “supply sinks”. You should put the Civilians on ships and get them out of the theater or you may run out of supplies for military use in the SRA. I have given Civilian units lots of “internal” supplies and upped base supplies to retard the effect, but keep your shipping occupied by removing the Civilians to safety
- Civilian units can be disbanded at main bases (Sydney, Dehli etc.) to end the supply drain, also drop surviving squads into pools so small gain of support squads representing Civilians entering the Military after evacuation

Edit: New stuff added in the meantime in italics




JeffK -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/16/2012 2:42:37 AM)

Are we talking historical only or ahistorical as well??

To add to LST's list, the arrival dates and locations of the RAN in stock needs fixin'

Any one who wants it should send me a PM with their email address as its currently an openoffice spreadsheet.
I'll work at converting it to work here.

IMVHO, OZ, NZ & India didnt get the detail required as it was probably assumed they would see little action. As we have seen they are common targets for the JFB. Plus, as with all Allied units, additions and removals are as per history, not game position.

1) I believe all bases in these countries should have a LCU representing the Local Defence Volunteers or similar in OZ & NZ and the substantial Training/Policing forces in India. They could be poorly supported and not heavily armed and immobile but these veterans of WW1 would put a a fair fight. My estimate was a Bde sized force for Sydney & Melbourne, Bn size for all other bases except those in the Northern Territory and north of Geraldton & Cairns. NZ would have a Bde in Wellington & Auckland and Bns for the remaining bases. India would see a similar mix, I hadnt got to this as my mod was only an Invasion of OZ.

2) The Australian Army formed 3 Armoured Divisions, in game we only have individual Armoured Regiments. They definately formed 1st Armoured Division and had divisional exercises in late 1942. This 2 Bde unit(2 Arm Bdes & Support Gp) split into 2 Divisions each with 1 Armd Bde & 1 Motor Bde. These should be capable, especially if OZ is invaded, to form and fight as Armoured Divisions. The 3rd Division was a little more shaky in its existance, the Armoured Rgts were more "mechanized" with Tank Sqns and Infantry Coys in their TOE, I wouldnt recommend them as Division/Bde units but should show as Regiments (12, 13 & 14 Armoured Rgts)

AHISTORICAL
JFB have all the dreams they want, AFB gets history.
What if??? (Some thought through, some WAD)
From the Commonwealth side, Malaya & Burma were backwaters, continually drained of trained troops and leaders and at the bottom of the equipment ladder.
In my world, Wavell pushed on to Tripoli(Libya)instead of going to Greece & Crete. While this gives the Allies the African shores it is a bit of a dead end until the US Industry winds up.
This takes away a drain of men and machines, in addition I made the RAF command see sense and drop much of the waste caused by the air campaign into France which allowed Hurricanes to be release and Spitfires available earlier.
Suggestions:
9 & 11 Indian Division get the extra Bde to bring them up to strength. Morale & Experience are increase by 5-10 pts.
23 Aust Bde & 2/4 MG Bn are moved to Singapore, Bird Force remain as filled out by Militia Bns.
All Malaya Art Rgts get 25 Pdrs
2RTR & 7 Hussars are in Malaya.
RAF Buffalos are replaced by Hurricane IIA
Blenheim 1F replaced by Beaufighter 1F
Swordfish & Vildebeest replaced by Beaufort I
The RAF had modern aircraft available to reinforce, Boston, Maryland, Marauder etc coming instead of Blenheims and Hudson.


The 2 Canadian Bns are taken to Singapore, why were they letting the brits run the war!!
6, 7 & 9 Aust Divs & NZ Division available in January 1942 (I had them training for a Dododecanese adventure)
4 & 5 Indian Divs similarly available in January 1942.

The Phillipine Army had mobilized a bit sooner, morale and experience gets a few pts improvement.
The reinforcement Divisions arrive a bit sooner.
USAFFE gets another Regiment (NG Rgt) plus the artillery which was in transit.
Air force units in the PI are upgraded, P26 & P35 to P36, P40B to P40E, B17 to B17E and A24 units have arrived.

Hawaiain Air Force is similarly upgraded and 2 Sqns get P38E.

RAAF replaces its Wirraway with either P400 (Airacobra I) or P43 and 2 Sqns of Hudsons were replaced by Beaufort I (just coming into service).

I also diverted some of the force which went into NW Africa to the Pacific. Cutback LL supplies to the USSR, much needed material which in hindsight wasnt appreciated.

Lots of ideas which the Allies could have done and not affected the war in Europe to any great extent.










dwg -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/17/2012 12:29:18 AM)

I started with a standard Babes Database and have slowly been adding to it, either from my own ideas, or shamelessly stolen from other people ;)

I've made one across the board change that will probably be somewhat controversial - I've removed all restrictions as representing an artificial cap on orders that I can better reflect in my own decisions (I'm not modding for release as there's a large alternate history element in my mod). Another change is to remove many disbandment dates, as often these represent historical decisions not to rebuild units that had been nearly destroyed in combat or similar, but if the unit hasn't been destroyed, why disband it?

Naval

One significant change is adding limited troop and cargo capacities to pretty much all warships, there are too many tales of troops being pulled out of threatened bases, or run in to hostile shorelines, on vessels which weren't remotely amphibs.

I plan on adding refits so that I can reflect the ability to change some RN destroyers over to minelaying (and back) with not much more than a day's downtime and the similar rapidity with which the RAN reconfigured HDMLs for troop transport missions. In fact there are so many potential HDML, ML, MTB and MGB configurations it's difficult to know where to stop! (And as a related change I'm pondering changing HDMLs and MLs over to a different category as I don't think the mission restrictions entirely reflect the way they were used).

In scenario specific changes, the NEI naval forces are significantly increased, based largely on a what-if supplement for 'Second World War at Sea'. There's also a significant French fleet at Cam Rahn Bay on the assumption there was an outbreak of sanity at Oran and the Vichy fleet relocated out of the Med. The additional French strength means that Indo-China hasn't been occupied by Japan, which adds a significant extra dimension to the opening drive South.

Air

Changes are primarily scenario specific: lots of might-have-been designs, for instance the Hawker Henley (which was put forward for just about every UK Light Bomber/Attack requirement from 1934 through the end of the war). And based on greater militarization, a bunch of extra air units representing local auxiliaries in the Commonwealth, a more developed NEI and a stronger Filipino AF.

Land

I'm picking up OOB discrepancies as I find them, but also adding smaller units that were simply not covered, for instance the Sarawak Rangers and British North Borneo Police. They don't make a lot of change to the outcome, but the colour they add is well worth the slot.

I'm slowly working through the Commonwealth base forces, retitling them with RAF/RAAF/RNZAF station names, city names, and so on. A lot of the reinforcement base forces will probably get RAF Wing names when I have time to do some further research, for the moment they're being tied to their parent Groups.

I've added, or rather split out, all of the 'Letter' Heavy Batteries, RAA. Again not a major combat force, but worth it for the colour. Related to this, I plan to rework the coastal defences in Australia and New Zealand. The Cavalry (Commando) Regiments have been reworked as small HQs for the Independent Companies, which are left as separate units.

Burma: I plan on revisiting the OOB to split up the Frontier Force Bns from the 'BFF Brigade' and add the Frontier Force columns FF1 to FF7, plus any other colourful units I come across, such as the detachments at Fort Hertz.

Scenario specific: KNIL gets the planned mechanized brigades, while the Filipino Army is developed to the planned levels.

At a lower level of detail I'm making changes to TOEs where I don't think the devices entirely reflect actual historical TOEs. The most fundamental being one I haven't quite gotten around to yet, because it's so all encompassing. Every full-strength Commonwealth infantry section had a Bren (or a Vickers-Berthier for Indian Army units), but the TOEs universally divide Commonwealth sections into Infantry and Bren sections. The distinction is appropriate for a minority of units which didn't have that set-up, such as units in the initial Malayan and Burmese campaigns (often because they were below establishment, not because the TOE didn't call for Bren armed sections), but for the majority it doesn't make sense. A related TOE point is AT Rifles, one argument would be that they are subsumed into the AT strength of infantry sections, but that doesn't really work when in some of the early campaigns there were often only one or two ATRs per battalion (if that - luckily Japan issued tanks on a similar scale!).

Geographical
I've added a lot of dot bases, particularly in Burma, Borneo and Indo-China. They add colour, make for a more nuanced campaign, and the Burmese ones make the Chindit operations possible.

I'm experimenting with splitting Hong Kong into Hong Kong and the New Territories, otherwise it falls far faster than was historically the case. I still need to work out the whether Victoria Harbour is best represented by a river between them, or by making Hong Kong the island it truly is and forcing an amphibious assault.

Based on proposals by US President Wilson at Versailles (which the Australians went understandably ballistic over), Japan in this scenario has owned the former German Pacific territories, with the exception of Northern Papua, since the early 20s. This means Rabaul starts the game as a IJN base on a similar scale to Truk, which makes the Australian position in PNG even more precarious than it was historically.

I'm constantly evolving the changes I plan to incorporate. As an example a couple of days ago I came across a listing of Japanese atoll bases forces http://www.oocities.org/dutcheastindies/japan_garrison.html, at a cursory glance at least one island group, Mortlock, seemed not to be on map, that's now on the list to look into.




dwg -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/17/2012 2:40:10 AM)

quote:

“Quickstart Convoys” > created “QS” convoys to auto-collect the merchant ships scattered around the map (got tired of the hundreds of clicks on turn 1 at each restart…).


Good tip. One I've implemented is to preset air units to appropriate missions - fighters on CAP, bombers on Port, Airfield or whatever, Maritime Recon on Search and so on.




Symon -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/17/2012 4:03:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg
At a lower level of detail I'm making changes to TOEs where I don't think the devices entirely reflect actual historical TOEs. The most fundamental being one I haven't quite gotten around to yet, because it's so all encompassing. Every full-strength Commonwealth infantry section had a Bren (or a Vickers-Berthier for Indian Army units), but the TOEs universally divide Commonwealth sections into Infantry and Bren sections. The distinction is appropriate for a minority of units which didn't have that set-up, such as units in the initial Malayan and Burmese campaigns (often because they were below establishment, not because the TOE didn't call for Bren armed sections), but for the majority it doesn't make sense. A related TOE point is AT Rifles, one argument would be that they are subsumed into the AT strength of infantry sections, but that doesn't really work when in some of the early campaigns there were often only one or two ATRs per battalion (if that - luckily Japan issued tanks on a similar scale!).

Quick fyi, dwg. Commonwealth inf squads already include a Bren in their stats. BARs, LMGs, etc., are included in squad manpower and firepower totals. The Bren Section was a convenient way of representing the men (around 55 EM) and guns (11, to 13 depending on establishment) in the Carrier Platoons for each battalion. Bren Section, iirc, represents 3x Brens, a proportional part of 2" mortars, and 9 men. Arbitrarily added 4 of these to each battalion making 12 to a brigade, nominally. There were 18 more, similar, in the recce "regiment". The Bren Sections are "squad" type, not AFV type, because the carrier platoons belonging to brigade fought as infantry rather more often than not.




dwg -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/17/2012 5:11:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon
Quick fyi, dwg. Commonwealth inf squads already include a Bren in their stats. BARs, LMGs, etc., are included in squad manpower and firepower totals. The Bren Section was a convenient way of representing the men (around 55 EM) and guns (11, to 13 depending on establishment) in the Carrier Platoons for each battalion. Bren Section, iirc, represents 3x Brens, a proportional part of 2" mortars, and 9 men. Arbitrarily added 4 of these to each battalion making 12 to a brigade, nominally. There were 18 more, similar, in the recce "regiment". The Bren Sections are "squad" type, not AFV type, because the carrier platoons belonging to brigade fought as infantry rather more often than not.


Aha! Carrier platoons were also on the list to address. I'll have to give this some thought as to whether I want to stick with your mechanism, or go with one of my own, but they're definitely getting retitled!




Symon -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/17/2012 5:40:05 PM)

Don’t know if this kind of detail is appropriate for this thread. Trying to give modders some explanations as to how things work and how they are derived. If it’s not, LST, please holler.

Same sort of thing with AT rifles. AT capability is subsumed in the anti-armor of a squad. It’s AT rifles, Piats, bazookas, sticky mines, suicide grenades, etc.. There’s no way to individually call out these weapons, so every squad gets “one”, whether it had none or 10. Think of it this way, there’s 2-300 some odd squads and very likely 2-300 total personal AT weapons, so they get distributed equally. One last thing. It’s not possible to model numbers of these. 20 AT rifles will penetrate the same armor as 1 AT rifle. Adding scads of AT rifle (or Piat, or bazooka) units requires adding an equal scad of Sup squads, increasing troop count to such an extent that a well equipped battalion would not fit on a very small island, and it would require half of your merchant fleet to lift a division.[;)]

Last year we upped the anti-armor of early war squad devices, in Babes, to 15, in order to reflect a nominal 15mm of penetration of typical AT rifles at typical engagement ranges.

[edit] This business of 'every fighting device requiring a Sup device' has led to some device and TOE adjustments, by doubling, or even trippling of "low load-cost, but high content count" devices. The idea is to define battalions, regiments and divisions with their actual troop count, or as close as possible. I'll collect some of these and post them in a bit.




Gridley380 -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/17/2012 6:22:26 PM)

I've been compiling some bugs; even Babes has some... oddities.

1. Plan to make the USMC Tank and Pioneer battalions part of their parent divisions (they were historically). Need to make sure this doesn't break something in gameplay terms.
2. The USA Boat & Shore Battalions need to be combined into regiments and their TO&E completely redone. The Boat & Shore regiments each had a single boat battalion and a single shore battalion (plus lesser units). The regiments also need 37mm AT guns, a few engineer vehicles, and some Pioneer squads but no Naval Support Squads.
3. Some more digging to do, but plan to add more USMC HQa "Air Group" units; 15th, 25th, 35th, and probably 43rd-45th. Also add some Motorized Support, AA, and radar to each - hunting for TO&E data but just on manpower the groups are too small.
4. Each US infantry division had ten "Grasshopper" observation/liaison birds. Really want to add these in even though their short range will make them of limited use in game terms.
5. I really don't understand the US ground TO&Es in general - too many rifle squads and not enough support weapons, not enough combat engineer squads in the combat engineer units, regular "engineer" squads where there should be combat engineer squads.
6. Need to add the 1st and 2nd Separate USMC Engineer battalions (served from Guadalcanal to VJ day).
7. Several USN ships are missing FPs that had them historically.




traskott -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/17/2012 6:42:47 PM)


What a fantastic thread!!!
[:)]


I just have one idea, by now: Create two threads/wiki... with the stats of the typical what-ifs planes and warships people add.









Symon -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/17/2012 8:45:35 PM)

Ok, mod stuff.

Arty:
We split the arty out of the division proper, and have the division unit, and a div-arty unit. Divisions still split, but into more rational components, which do include all arty organic to regiments, etc.. This seems to work much better with respect to the land combat system. The counter-battery is counter-battery and doesn’t trash every unit in the hex. Prep with arty for a turn or 2, then assault with your infantry. After a while, infantry divisions begin to look like regiments, with an almost complete arty component. Kinda like how it happened, yeah?

Problem is it takes lots o’ slots; one for each division. Actually, we break down our divisions and the div-arty down into regiments/brigades and arty Bns. Gobbles slots, so admittedly only good for smaller scenarios, but holy shimoly, does it make the land combat system work!

Basic Considerations:
Couple rules we try to keep in mind. Unit TOEs affect many things, not just the land combat algorithm, and we try and maintain the National tactical differences in the unit makeup, so they respond appropriately within the combat algorithm.

There’s a bombardment phase that happens first (see above). Then the activated defenders get to shoot at the attackers. Then, the surviving (undisrupted) attackers close and the AV calculation is done. That is a major reason the Allies have proportionately more firepower, while the Japanese have proportionately more raw AV. It is the human wave against bullets paradigm. If you can kill them fast enough … The game engine takes significant account of fatigue, disability, and disruption, not just deaders.

That’s the proportionality rule. Another rule is load-cost and troop-count. The total troop count of a unit ought to be such that it will fit onto size-restricted hexes. Don’t forget that stock has a 6000 hard limit for very small islands, whether you use stacking limits or not. So monster regiments, particularly monster division splits, need to be carefully adapted for the terrain allowed by the game.

Btw, there is no way to edit up a very small island. We thought of that and made sure they are hard coded at 6000, no matter what you do [;)]

A third rule is the lift rule. We wanted to make sure it took the “right” amount of ships to lift units of any given size (plus or minus a couple). So the load-cost, proportionately allocated between troop and cargo, is also important.

A fourth rule is ‘avoid extraneous extras’. Load costs for big guns, requiring prime movers, have already been adapted to account for prime movers and MotSup has been calculated as a consequence. There’s no reason to include Matadors, or any other prime mover, in the TOEs of any unit. Halftracks and Universal Carriers don’t contribute much of anything to a unit’s firepower or AV, but they do require corresponding Sup squads. So what’s the point of having them? They contribute nothing except a “pretty” TOE, but skew rule 2 and way skew rule 3.

Gonna have to do device minimization in another post. Notes are way too extensive to add it to this one. Think the philosophy here is good enough for a ‘first bite’.




oldman45 -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/18/2012 12:28:45 AM)

LST, thanks for starting this, JWE, thanks much for the insight. Things make more sense now.




dwg -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/18/2012 1:56:35 AM)

I agree with Oldman45, this is really useful stuff to have available. I don't necessarily agree with all the design decisions, but understanding what drove them does make it easier to work with them (or occasionally around them <g>).




DD696 -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/18/2012 10:59:00 PM)

Takers, absolutely!

Actually, I think it could be broken out mods for that can be played against another player and one for those who play against the AI, of which I am one.

I have a personal mod based on the Big Babes versus the Japanese AI which undergoes constant modification. My original grump was that the Japanese economy was largely mishandled by the AI. Oil, fuel, and resources were not being transported as they should be - which is a code problem and something that I have no control over. I still find that most Japanese transports spend the war sitting in port and never doing what they should be doing. But, what I can do is take the Japanese economy as set up in the Ironman scenario and move it into my scenario, and then adjust it further to suit me. I also add the extra ships to help account for some of the numbskull moves the AI makes....this is not meant to be a derogatory comment about the AI as I have nothing but praise for the improvement in the AI since WiTP days. I also replace the Japanese units the the Big Babes with the units from Babes Lite, which is something the AI is expecting. I have always had a problem with the Betties, their torpedoes, and their ability to sink everything within their range, so I create another torpedo for the level bombers and am satisfied with the result. I didn't like it that submarines seem way too effective, in my opinion and obliviously much in conflict with the general opinion that subs are worthless , so I adjust the torpdoes so that they are much less effective. I add in a few extra Allied ships, increase some of the Allied aircraft production, and am generally satisfied with the results.

I'm at the end of April 1944 and keep my pace a bit behind the historical pace, and it works out well for me. It is the first time since I started playing the original WiTP that I am satisfied with the game to this point. Of course, I have more changes to make for my next restart, but I'm quite content. I used to bitch a lot because of the lack of an in-game editor, but with the tools we now have to modify a game in progress it seems to work out so that those of us who play the AI can make some of the changes we deem necessary and those of you who play PBEM don't harass those of us who enjoy the AI. I feel that a good overall compromise has been achieved.

Next time I restart I am eagerly awaiting Andy Mac's latest AI scripts....wish they could be updated within a game.




inqistor -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/18/2012 11:27:57 PM)

So... we are making requests?
In that case I would like someone to change Downfall, so Russia would be on the same side as Japan (Patton got its way in Germany). That should create interesting balanced Scenario.

I would also like someone to make monsoon map, where during monsoon, there are NO roads in monsoon areas (railroads could be OK), and every hex terrain is changed into swamp. Will it be enough to stop early attacks in Burma?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

• Added indicators behind names of Japanese main bases with large pre-war installations (i.e. base forces with large numbers of naval / air support) for better identification in transfer/destination menus:
= IJAAF Base (e.g. Akita=)
# IJNAF Base (e.g. Oita#)
+ Naval Base (e.g. Ominato+)

HEY! That is GREAT idea!

quote:

• Slightly increased resource point output of resource centers (out 20>25)

I do not think it is necessary. There is already serious outproduction of Resources, and if player will be forced to get anything extra from such places, as Ocean Island - even better.

quote:

• To model Allied shoe-string conditions at the beginning of the war and rising production over time, many light industries and resource centers start 33% - 50% damaged + added a number of new 100% damaged factories and resources in CONUS for more late-war supply production (added daily supplies to pay for the repairs - do not forget to use the “supplies required” function to keep bases with damaged factories at more than 10.000 supplies per turn – otherwise the factories will not repair thus supply production may suffer in the long run!)

I was recently wondering if Pacific should get ANY extra supply from off-map in early war. Also - should not British supply be actually send from US?
Anyway, Eastern USA makes 65k per turn - this is enough for repairs.

quote:

• Changed build rate of aviation support (device 254) from 600 to 200:
o Build rate is the same for Allies and Japan, put Japan lacked skilled aircraft mechanics throughout the war, so equal build rate is unhistorical

You have to test if this actually works. I have checked it one patch ago, and production cap have NO influence on Japanese production. They just get what they need from armament production.
Similar issue works for planes. Only on-map production works, replacement rate creates NO planes for Japan.

quote:

• Added airgroups for Shinano CV conversion option > one small fighter unit for self-defense and three replenishment units for F, DB and TB types (groups start land-based in case player elects to build her as BB)

Without CV there would be no CV groups, you should check how it is made for CS->CVL conversion, and make several FP groups onboard BB, to convert into CV groups IF CV conversion occurs.

quote:

• Unarmed US merchant ships: new ship classes without weapons since arming of US ships was authorized only three weeks before Pearl Harbor > upgrade period decreases shipping availability >> Note: I did not conduct research into the state of armament for each individual ship at the start of the war, so changes are across-the-board by class

It would be PITA, but you can damage starting weapons on ships. So their "installation" would require yard work.

quote:

• Allied Fast Transport: added small cargo/troop capacities for Allied DD types, gunboats, mine craft etc. > could and were used as fast transports when circumstances required

In Italy some British forces landed from CA.

quote:

• [Project] to add Thai and Manschukuo Navies > someone has done this already and wants to share the data?

IIRC elCid made Thai navy, and airforce.

quote:

• In DBB-C (reduced capacity), in the pre-loaded “Pattani 2nd wave” TF (TF 123) a sub-unit of the 56th Eng Rgt is left behind at Hiroshima due to lack of transport capacity > have added one xAK to 56th Div TF 8123 – maybe unhistoric but more convenient

You would have to check on TFs tab, but even in original Scenarios some units just stay entirely on land, because there is no capacity in initial waves.




Buck Beach -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/19/2012 2:25:17 AM)

Well I am interested in following this although from the sidelines. As you know Uwe, I have been tweaking for quite a while and have sort of dug a hole for myself. DaBabesBig is da bomb mod as far as I am concerned but its updates without a clear map of changes to compare too (at least for me) adds to my dilemma.

Pet issues with me are or have been (not in any order of importance): 1) Japanese additional merchant shipping (as replacements for those sunk and to bring in resources); 2)Allie Merchant ship weapons and timing; 3) tanker and oiler capacities; 4) Fire support/approx fuse adjustment down for merchant weapons. Seems like there should be more but having a series of brain farts right now.

Buck




Andy Mac -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/19/2012 10:53:01 AM)

What Symon said is 100% correct

Also in most CW divisions in 43 these Bren Sections were dismounted and turned into Assault sections in both Australian and Indian/Brit Divs

This is reflected by the reduction in motor support as the junglification of the Divisions continues through the war

This was the reason for not having them as vehicles or AFV's as they did fight dismounted and then in 43 were deprived of transport or moved to manpack or animal transport

Andy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg
At a lower level of detail I'm making changes to TOEs where I don't think the devices entirely reflect actual historical TOEs. The most fundamental being one I haven't quite gotten around to yet, because it's so all encompassing. Every full-strength Commonwealth infantry section had a Bren (or a Vickers-Berthier for Indian Army units), but the TOEs universally divide Commonwealth sections into Infantry and Bren sections. The distinction is appropriate for a minority of units which didn't have that set-up, such as units in the initial Malayan and Burmese campaigns (often because they were below establishment, not because the TOE didn't call for Bren armed sections), but for the majority it doesn't make sense. A related TOE point is AT Rifles, one argument would be that they are subsumed into the AT strength of infantry sections, but that doesn't really work when in some of the early campaigns there were often only one or two ATRs per battalion (if that - luckily Japan issued tanks on a similar scale!).

Quick fyi, dwg. Commonwealth inf squads already include a Bren in their stats. BARs, LMGs, etc., are included in squad manpower and firepower totals. The Bren Section was a convenient way of representing the men (around 55 EM) and guns (11, to 13 depending on establishment) in the Carrier Platoons for each battalion. Bren Section, iirc, represents 3x Brens, a proportional part of 2" mortars, and 9 men. Arbitrarily added 4 of these to each battalion making 12 to a brigade, nominally. There were 18 more, similar, in the recce "regiment". The Bren Sections are "squad" type, not AFV type, because the carrier platoons belonging to brigade fought as infantry rather more often than not.





oldman45 -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/20/2012 5:46:47 PM)

Something to throw in for the modders;

According to Lentons book, pg 709 there are two large docks that were towed to Singapore. Cool thing about these docks, AFD 9 (55k lift) and 10 (50k lift) you can move them like you can the US late war heavy lift docks. I used the US art for them and added these docks to my game.




LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/21/2012 3:11:20 PM)

Thanks to all the takers so far! Interesting and helpful hints and advice being shared - keep it coming!


Re the Singapore docks:

There is an older thread here in this mod forum: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2289335&mpage=1&key=�

The thread states as well that AFD 10 had a capacity of 50.000 tons.

However, I have come accross other forums that state the capacity as only 5.000 tons.

According to them, AFD 10 was a former Dutch floating drydock stationed at Sabang, purchased by the RN in 1939 and moved to Singapore in order to service DDs.

http://francefightson.yuku.com/topic/935#.UNRolWemXa0

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=158223&sid=527cc426accc5dc084ac6c2a3e325e6d&start=15

I think the figure of 5.000 tons is more credible.

Why the scenario designers decided not to include AFD 9 and 10 is open to speculation.

Maybe it has to do with the dilemma that those docks were scuttled by the British but salvaged and used by the Japanese (and later sunk again by Allied bombing raids) - something that cannot be modelled in the game.

Am toying with the idea to create British and Japanese versions of these ARDs.




oldman45 -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/21/2012 4:51:23 PM)

It does look like Lenton had it wrong, thanks for sharing those two forums.




John 3rd -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/21/2012 5:53:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Is this a stupid idea or would there be takers?

Takers. And it's not a stupid idea. Some of the "private" projects you mention are for limited scenarios that support some of the deeper OOB slices that the game engine supports.

Two things are happening: tweaks on campaign games, and tweaks on more specific scenarios. Thoughts on one might not be appropriate for the other. It takes a completely different mindset to play a super grainy "problem" than to play a GC game. And it takes a completely different view of unit TOEs and their specific breakdowns to have a successful "problem" scenario, as opposed to a GC "game".

Take this as you will. Ciao. JWE


DAMNED fine to see you Posting SIR!





Symon -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/21/2012 7:13:39 PM)

Thank you, John 3rd. Good to see your RA mod is getting some real traction. You and Stan put a lot out there, and it's nice to see people picking up on it.

Ciao. JWE




Hotschi -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/22/2012 7:40:12 PM)

Excellent thread and full of good ideas!

I'd second traskott, a separate thread for posting stats for new unit types would be nice - there's a couple interesting ones which pop up in my mind, like Des Moines and Worcester, like Skyraider and Mauler, like a Agano with triple turrets (but that's in RA already anyway as far as I think), or whatever...




traskott -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/23/2012 11:45:36 PM)

I will begin the air/ships threads this week.




RisingSun -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/26/2012 8:12:16 AM)

Well i though about modding one or least do some of these things...

1)more accurate on aircraft plants
2)deploying units in proper place, reforcements should deploy in homeland rather than forward bases. (that what make me quit the game for not being accurate or realistic)
3)some many other ideas can make this game even better, as long dont abuse it.




RevRick -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (12/26/2012 1:13:27 PM)

[QUOTE] junglification [/QUOTE]?!?!?!?

Sir, as an English major, I need to see your license for Word Manufacturing, if you please!

This is a great thread. I have been playing with personal mods since the editor came out for WitP The Original Seri.. or Computer Game. Being a naval history nut, I know next to nothing about anything beyond the first bar off the beach, which means several things.

I have cobbled together several episodic mods with AltWNT at differing levels up to a 625Kton Capital Ship level, with the IJN at both 3:5 and 3.5:5 ratio in BBs etc. Now in doing this, I have bankrupted several economies (unless the naval build up helped fight the depressions with government spending - a 'stimulus' package, so to speak.), with the IJN/USN/RN investing in several larger building ways, developing synthetic fuels, learning how to make turbo chargers sooner, so on and so forth. All this to say, that there is a lot of data lying around in a number of files on my computer which may or may not make someone pant like a lizard on a hot rock (Can you say Eichezen Class BB with 12 16.1s and 32 kts, or a built up Montana with 18" 45s) Off the wall, fantasy, alternative history - sure. But some What Ifs are fun.

I also have a fairly serious look at re-engining and reconstructing the Big Five (or Big Six is Washington is completed), as well as the Fuso/Yamashiro/Ise/Hyuga (leading to two Hiragas), and the reconstruction of the QE class. (Not a lot can be done with the Resolutions except a funnel cap job!) (But I did have them replace by a Queen Victoria Class - QE with Q turret amidships!) in one case when the White Hall decided to not regress in WWI.

NOW!! This is not done from an professional naval engineer/historian/armorer/industrial standpoint. This is just a fly by the seat of the pants INT WTF IF this had been done rather than sit on one's hands protecting turf - i.e., Why was the P-39 castrated by removing the turbocharger? I know, $ $ $ $ $ $ $ - but if the understanding is there, someone usually finds a way to get the job done. It was more blind bureaucratic bovine scatology and Keep your nose out of my business than common sense. I mean, the USAAC really did not need a short legged, high flying, fast, somewhat maneuverable, adequately for the time armed aircraft, now did they?

Anyway... stopping the ranting. Anyone who wants some of this date, just send me a PM..
And anyone who has some information put together on IJA/IJN late aircraft upgrades, send me a PM.

If you want a just over the modified WNT limit 40,000 ton fast battleship with 8 16/50 Mk 3s as a primary battery, send me a PM.

It is a least grist for the mill, and I do love spending time grinding my way in this game...
when I quit thinking of what-ifs, that is.




venividivici10044a -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (7/13/2014 5:12:40 PM)

Long-time reader on the forum, infrequent poster. First and foremost many thanks to all the mod and scenario makers who have done amazing work to the stock product. Its interesting to see how game strategy has evolved over the lat few years in some of the AARs.

What I like to see in a mod entails the game following a more historical modeling of events. China as a static front, Japan not needing/desiring to invade large swaths of India and Australia, counter-invasions centering upon the DEI by US troops.

I do hope to see Treespider's v2 appear at some point to see how his China ideas play out, and appreciate LSTs efforts to slow logistical tempo in his mod (another I hope to see here at some point!)

I'm not looking at this as a JFB or AFB, rather as an individual who wants to see either side have potential for victory centered upon period (1937-1945) geopolitical thinking prevalent amongst the Japanese and Allied powers. A novel approach to some of these issues could involve the PP system.

Example using the Big B no attack on Pearl Harbor scenario with Japan solely going for the SRA, one could set a PP charge for US entry. This could be extremely high at the onset, with decrements occurring over time due to Japanese atrocities.

I like LST's use of civilians in the SRA as an example for atrocity generation. The civilian concept I also like as a means of drawing off supply/logistics to both sides. Could this system work in China to make it a static front? Another area of thought for China involves the Manchukuo garrison; I think the pressure to keep the area garrison intact should take into consideration the turning of the tide for the USSR after mid-1942. The USSR could enter early using a system of PP/garrison requirements.

Some of the thoughts that I float may not have the capability of modeling in the game's code but could certainly lend themselves to a multiplayer game. I love the concept of a 2 player Japanese team (one Navy and one Army) each having to spend PP to obtain support of the other service to better represent service rivalry; the Allies would play similarly with the US player at odds to British/Dutch goals to restore imperial territories. "You want us to expend American lives to restore your imperialist colony holdings". One could further model the China situation by having the 2 allied groups splitting the Nationalists and Communists.

Just thoughts; again I enjoy where the game has been and where it goes.




Dili -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (7/13/2014 11:36:46 PM)

quote:

Example using the Big B no attack on Pearl Harbor scenario with Japan solely going for the SRA, one could set a PP charge for US entry. This could be extremely high at the onset, with decrements occurring over time due to Japanese atrocities.


This is an interesting idea. But i to be interesting needs doubts about intervention, it would need some sort of link with UK/NL losses or Japanese troop levels in those areas. For the first example( UK/NL losses) if UK/NL fall too fast US doesn't intervene since it i is "fait accompli", if the combat level is low = low losses the same. All in between US intervenes.




derhexer -> RE: Sharing Mod ideas (7/15/2014 3:10:26 AM)

The original WiTP had a campaign game that started on 1/1/1943. I'd like to see that one appear for WiTP AE. The Japanese have no chance of defeating the Allies, but they can make it very very bloody.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.1796875