Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week: Command Ops goes half price!New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios - 8/13/2009 10:57:53 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41343
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I'm looking at your display of battleship shils above. "X" and "Y" turrets seem a bit "off by themselves", so to speak.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 91
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios - 8/13/2009 10:59:25 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'm looking at your display of battleship shils above. "X" and "Y" turrets seem a bit "off by themselves", so to speak.


Yes, I suppose they do - though the gap gets filled by an AA gun later!

I'll see about moving them a little more, I just dont want to do anything too radical or else it wont look like Nagato anymore.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 92
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios - 8/13/2009 11:01:00 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41343
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
I understand what you mean, but to get a fast battleship for the same amount of horsepower, you'll have to save on armour, and the most economic way to do that is probably to close up superstructure and turrets.

Your call, obviously.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 93
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios - 8/13/2009 11:10:36 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I understand what you mean, but to get a fast battleship for the same amount of horsepower, you'll have to save on armour, and the most economic way to do that is probably to close up superstructure and turrets.

Your call, obviously.


True, of course. I moved them 3 pixels further in, and it still looks good.

Nagato was designed for 26.5 knots, and only slowed to 25 upon reconstruction historically (here she retains her speed, because of a more complete reconstruction). Given that Harima is some 2500tons heavier than her, getting a little over 27 knots should be reasonable, especially if armour weight is approximately the same - though in Harima's case the improved deck armour adds a little more than what is saved from the shorter citadel. Hence why more tonnage, both for the armour and the engines.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 94
wnt error p-400 - 8/14/2009 9:15:47 PM   
ggm


Posts: 127
Joined: 5/26/2007
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
p-400 bombs listed as centerline should be external. gives display over lap in scenario 40 and 41 v4

ggm



< Message edited by ggm -- 8/14/2009 9:44:11 PM >


_____________________________

Alas, poor Yorick!--I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rises at it.
William Shakespeare Hamlet

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 95
RE: wnt error p-400 - 8/14/2009 9:24:59 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41343
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
NM.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/14/2009 11:49:19 PM >


_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ggm)
Post #: 96
RE: wnt error p-400 - 8/14/2009 11:38:39 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ggm

p-400 bombs listed as centerline should be external. gives display over lap in scenario 40 and 41 v4

ggm





Display bug was caused by Normal and Extended range loadouts having a different .30 cal weapon device. This was messing up the display for some reason. The bombs and DTs were fine - bug has been fixed for v5.

Thanks for the heads up ggm!


Question to anyone who knows;
-How do I link a new aircraft into the universal upgrade paths? It was easy enough for the newer/older models of existing stuff like the A7M1, N1K4-A, ect - but now I want to link the new J100 (He100) so that IJN land based fighters can upgrade to it. I realise for PDU off I have to explicitly define it in the airgroup list, but how do I get it to show up for the other groups with PDU on?

Juan

< Message edited by JuanG -- 8/14/2009 11:40:14 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to ggm)
Post #: 97
RE: wnt error p-400 - 8/15/2009 7:51:09 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
quote:

-How do I link a new aircraft into the universal upgrade paths? It was easy enough for the newer/older models of existing stuff like the A7M1, N1K4-A, ect - but now I want to link the new J100 (He100) so that IJN land based fighters can upgrade to it. I realise for PDU off I have to explicitly define it in the airgroup list, but how do I get it to show up for the other groups with PDU on?


Give it to a later war airgroup. Then all fighters of that "nation" should be able to upgrade to it.

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 98
RE: wnt error audax -1 - 8/16/2009 12:05:29 PM   
ggm


Posts: 127
Joined: 5/26/2007
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
audax airgroups 2975 and 2976 are not changed to single engine and 4 x 20  2 x 20 for some reason airgroups must be edited by hand

ggm



_____________________________

Alas, poor Yorick!--I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rises at it.
William Shakespeare Hamlet

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 99
RE: wnt error audax -1 - 8/16/2009 1:06:52 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ggm

audax airgroups 2975 and 2976 are not changed to single engine and 4 x 20  2 x 20 for some reason airgroups must be edited by hand

ggm




Thanks, fixed. Just a case of not having run an update on the airgroup files.

I'm still having trouble getting new aircraft to show up properly as an upgrade. Any more advice?

I'm away later next week, I'll probably have BB Variant ready by then.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to ggm)
Post #: 100
Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/18/2009 4:11:12 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
I've just finished running a long series of SC tests in a limited scenario around Luzon and Formosa. As a result of this, the following changes will be made, due out in Version 5;

-Accuracy of Battleship (14in and upwards) guns increased 100% (Now equal to ~ 2 x ROF)
-Accuracy of Heavy Cruiser (8in up to 14in) guns increased 50% (Now equal to ~ 1.5 x ROF)
-Ammo values for BBs increased 2 points (12->14, ect)
-Ammo values of CAs increased 2 points (14->16, ect)
-Accuracy values of early US surface radar reduced by 5-10 points (SC SS, CXAM SS)

This eliminates a lot of the problems the larger ships had landing blows on enemy ships, and overall, surface combat feels more 'right'. Its still a bloody affair, and in the right conditions any of the capital ships is a lethal force. Despite people arguing their relative merits, these were still massive beasts hurling incredibly heavy shells around, which were bound to hurt whatever they hit - even eachother.

I've noticed 2 major issues at the moment;
1) The amount of critical-hit related ship deaths is too common. In the course of running some 50 battles I had atleast 5 capital ships lost to this, probably more.
2) Even in daylight, the SC AI will make TFs close to 10,000-15,000yards despite opening fire at 27,000yards, even when they have no business doing so. This often makes the resulting battles bloodier, as ships that might have otherwise mitigated damage due to a good IZ cannot do so. Oh well, I can hope this will change later on.

Things I've noticed as a side effect of these tests and changes;
1) The LL is a lethal weapon, but it cannot be relied on in every battle. When they do hit they tend to be devastating, especially if fired off before the enemy is aware, but they wont get hits every battle, especially against small forces. The same can be said for the allied torpedoes, though to a lesser extent.
2) Smaller guns still remain useful, especially the USN 6in/47, as even when they do not penetrate they will often shred (especially in the case of IJN CAs) turrets and other systems via the event hits. They're more likely to put a target into a repair yard with high Sys damage than sink it, though at close ranges at night they do that well enough too.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 8/18/2009 7:52:04 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 101
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/18/2009 7:22:15 PM   
csatahajos

 

Posts: 701
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline
I have to say that the devs should very well listen to this post as these should make it into the game! It's exactly how surface comat should be instead of the secondary gun duals now. Can't wait to get the final version based on the first patch or the battleship version.

I know the developers have put in al ot of effort and all of us greatly appreciate it but I thing naval gun data is one of the things that were a bit neglected so this is really an awesome mod from what I've read so far.

I only wonder if it would be possible to combine all this with the plane data from Ryan's scenario? Is there a file that can be ported over to this?


_____________________________



Art by Wayne Scarpaci
http://www.artbywayne.com/

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 102
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/18/2009 7:49:20 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
I have had a look at Ryans scenario and most of the aircraft from there will be in the full version (everything except the naval only scenario 40).

I have also added some more aircraft in addition to those he did, and am working on artwork for them (easy, as theyre just different models).

Currently added are;

J100K (He100 - using modified Ha-40/60 engine, comes into full production early 42, though performance suffers from inferior engine and low octane fuel - needs name!)
A7M1 Sam
A7M3 Sam
B7A3 Grace
N1K4-J George
N1K4-A George
J7W1-A Shinden
G5N Liz

F2G-2 'Super Corsair'
F8F-2 Bearcat
B-27 'Super Marauder'
B-36 Peacemaker
C-74 Globemaster
P-40Q Warhawk
P-71 (Needs name)
P-75 Eagle
P-81 (Needs name)
TB2D Skypirate (Recommend HR allowing use only on Midway class...)
TBY Sea Wolf
AD Skyraider
FH Phantom

I'll look into adding some more RAF aircraft like the later model Spitfires.

Im sorry its taking so long to get the BB Variant out, but its taken a lot longer than expected to do all the smaller ships and conversions - though I'm sure people will enjoy them when theyre done!

< Message edited by JuanG -- 8/18/2009 7:53:43 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to csatahajos)
Post #: 103
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios - 8/18/2009 8:27:23 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13791
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
If you are intending to play this v the Ai I would make sure you have added a lot of DD's and fast CL's the AI  will need thme to form all the TF's I would also if i were you go throught eh scripts and increase the size of the AI TF's up to Normal/Normal

If its to hard to do in all 13 scripts pick one and release it with that only

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 104
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios - 8/18/2009 8:41:05 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

If you are intending to play this v the Ai I would make sure you have added a lot of DD's and fast CL's the AI  will need thme to form all the TF's I would also if i were you go throught eh scripts and increase the size of the AI TF's up to Normal/Normal

If its to hard to do in all 13 scripts pick one and release it with that only



Cheers for the heads up. To be honest I have yet to even consider the AI part! I was operating along the principle of "make the changes and then close my eyes and pray it works..." with regards to the AI to be honest.

There are several more CLs for the IJN in the scenario, the full list being;

2 x CL Furutaka (converted from CA)
5 x CL Kuma (DL configuration)
6 x CLAA Nagara
4 x CL Sendai (Torpedo configuration)
1 x CL Yubari
1 x CL Sorachi (6 x 5.5)
4 x CL Ayase (8 x 5.5)
4 x CL Agano (8 x 5.5)

Wartime builds are
2 x CL Oyodo (6 x 5.5)
4 x CL Sakai (9 x 5.5)
4 x CLAA Katori (24 x 3.9)

There are some 35kt worth (~18) more DDs in the start of the scenario too, mostly in the form of late Fubuki and onwards models.

The USN has a few more CLs too, in the form of Brooklyns.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 8/18/2009 8:47:03 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 105
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/18/2009 8:58:15 PM   
csatahajos

 

Posts: 701
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline
Sounds very cool!! BTW I guess Ryan would allow you to use his art, IMHO it's pretty good.

This scenario is shaping up to be a dream coming true for me! many thanks for your hard work you've put into it!

_____________________________



Art by Wayne Scarpaci
http://www.artbywayne.com/

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 106
new aircraft - 8/18/2009 9:54:58 PM   
ggm


Posts: 127
Joined: 5/26/2007
From: Toronto, Canada
Status: offline
any chance to add the b-19 in your mod. Also what about the japanese me-109 and ju-88 from the empires ablaze mod?

ggm




_____________________________

Alas, poor Yorick!--I knew him, Horatio; a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy: he hath borne me on his back a thousand times; and now, how abhorred in my imagination it is! my gorge rises at it.
William Shakespeare Hamlet

(in reply to csatahajos)
Post #: 107
RE: new aircraft - 8/18/2009 10:46:25 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ggm

any chance to add the b-19 in your mod. Also what about the japanese me-109 and ju-88 from the empires ablaze mod?

ggm





Definately the later two for a 'German-Japanese' Variant, but not for the basic scenarios.

As for the B-19, I suppose its also a good choice. Got any artwork for it?

And a big thanks for Ryan for agreeing to let me use and modify his brilliant artwork for this project, and cheers to csatahajos for actually making me realise I hadnt asked him, a major oversight on my behalf.

I'm in the process of 'AE-ising' some of his work, as well making modifications for different models (J100K1, J100K2, ect)

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to ggm)
Post #: 108
RE: new aircraft - 8/18/2009 11:33:07 PM   
csatahajos

 

Posts: 701
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline
Ryan has the B-19 and some new goodies now (TB2F, Mauler and all wing bombers) in his lates version (both art and data :D)

_____________________________



Art by Wayne Scarpaci
http://www.artbywayne.com/

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 109
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/19/2009 4:18:12 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG


Currently added are;

J100K (He100 - using modified Ha-40/60 engine, comes into full production early 42, though performance suffers from inferior engine and low octane fuel - needs name!)



NOTE - this is culled from the Wikipedia entry for the He 100; this particular entry seems, however, well documented.

"The three D-0s arrived in Japan in May 1940 and were re-assembled at Kasumigaura. They were then delivered to the Japanese Naval Air Force where they were re-named AXHei, for "Experimental Heinkel Fighter"

"In tests, the Navy was so impressed that they planned to put the aircraft into production as soon as possible as their land-based interceptor (...) Hitachi won the contract for the aircraft and started construction of a factory in Chiba for its production. With the war in full swing in Europe, however, the jigs and plans never arrived. Why this wasn't sorted out is something of a mystery, and it appears there isn't enough information in the common sources to say for sure what happened.

The DB 601 engine design was far more advanced than any indigenous Japanese design, which tended to concentrate on air-cooled radial engines. To get a jump into the inline field, Kawasaki had already purchased the license for the 601A from Daimler Benz in 1938. The adoption process went smoothly, they adapted it to Japanese tooling and had it in production by late 1940 as the Ha-40."

(My emphasis)

Apparently the IJNAF intended this aircraft for the role that the J2M was later developed to fill. The J2M stemmed from a 14-Shi (1939) specification. I see no problem in assuming, that, had all gone as intended, the He 100 would have filled the slot of the J2M.
Call it the J2Hei and use it instead of the J2M Jack, your date for full production = service introduction (Jan or Feb 1942) seems plausible if the factory was started in late 1940.

Performance data are somewhat scarce, again Wikipedia's take:

Performance

* Maximum speed: 668 km/h (362 kts, 416 mph)
* Range: 900 km (486 nm, 560 mi)
* Service ceiling: 11,000 m (36,090 ft)

Armament

* 1 × 20 mm MG FF cannon
* 2 × 7.92 mm (.312 in) MG 17 machine guns


The range mentioned above means normal combat radius without drop tanks, around 50-60% more than the contemporary Bf 109 E . Wiki notes that production aircraft might have had a maximum speed of about 628 km/h (340 kts, 390 mph)

The performance quoted is for an aircraft with a 1175 hp DB601, which is the same rating as the Ha-40 had, so no need to assume a different performance for Japanese-built examples. Climb rate is mentioned nowhere, but I would assume that to be at least that of the Ki-61, 2970 ft/min.

Japanese-style armament would be initially
1 x Type 99 20mm firing through the propeller hub (=centre-line)
2 x 7.7 mm Type 89 MG in the wings

As the He 100 C model carried a 20 mm cannon in each wing, I think later models could change the wing guns to 13.2 mm Type 3 or 13 mm Type 2 MG's or even 20mm Type 99-2 cannon, with some loss of performance, of course. Later models might also carry drop tanks.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 110
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/19/2009 6:35:27 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Currently, you begin the game with some 17 J100K1 airframes in the pool and a factory producing 2(4). The Ha-39 engine (early Ha-40) arrives 02/42, but there are 35 engines in the pool to tide you over until then.

The J100K1 is currently as follows;
Available 12/41
Ha-39 Engine

Max Speed 392
Climb 3350
Ceiling 36090
Maneuver 27/27/27/21/15
Durability 24
Armor 0
Service Rating 15-25 days
Max Range 495
Ext Range 380
Nor Range 300

Weapons
1 x 20mm T99 (Centerline)
2 x 7.7mm T89 (Front)

J100K2
;
Available 11/42
Ha-39 Engine

Max Speed 397
Climb 3130
Ceiling 35650
Maneuver 26/26/26/21/16
Durability 26
Armor 0
Service Rating 10-20 days
Max Range 530/710
Ext Range 410/570
Nor Range 330/460

Weapons
1 x 20mm T99-2 (Centerline)
2 x 7.7mm T89 (Front)
(1 x 150l DT)


J100K3;
Available 9/43
Ha-40 Engine

Max Speed 413
Climb 3280
Ceiling 37490
Maneuver 26/26/26/22/18
Durability 26
Armor 0
Service Rating 5-15 days
Max Range 430/650
Ext Range 330/500
Nor Range 260/390

Weapons
1 x 20mm T99-2 (Centerline)
2 x 13mm T2 (Front)
2 x 30kg Bomb (External)
(1 x 220l DT)

J100K3b;
Available 11/43
Ha-40 Engine

Max Speed 404
Climb 3090
Ceiling 37120
Maneuver 25/25/25/21/17
Durability 26
Armor 0
Service Rating 10-20 days
Max Range 430/650
Ext Range 330/500
Nor Range 260/390

Weapons
1 x 20mm T99-2 (Centerline)
2 x 20mm T99 (Front)
2 x 60kg Bomb (External)
(1 x 220l DT)

I may redesignate it J2 for the BB Variant, but I dont want to do that for the altered stock scenario (41) as I dont want to deny the player access to any of the original a/c.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 8/19/2009 6:36:53 AM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 111
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/19/2009 7:22:31 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
Always armour 0?
Didn't it have at least the usual self sealing fuel tanks and an armour plate behind the pilot?


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 112
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/19/2009 12:37:07 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Possibly, but I assume the Japanese would have stripped it of such features to reduce weight and increase performance further.

I am considering adding an armour value of 1 to the J100K3 and 3b as around the same time the first armoured IJN fighters were showing up.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 113
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/20/2009 10:41:35 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
Do you already reflect that stripping of armour in the performance? So faster, more agile, increased range?

Moreover, is it possible that you create all your scenarios without device changes, too? The actual data are quite good researched and also playtested intensively. It would be really annoying to be forced to restart after some weeks or even months of play because of a typo...


_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 114
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/21/2009 12:13:24 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Do you already reflect that stripping of armour in the performance? So faster, more agile, increased range?




Yes, I increased both the range and agility slightly because of it. Speed too, though its hard to notice because as said, the inferior quality of Japanese AvGas limited the performance they could get out their engines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Moreover, is it possible that you create all your scenarios without device changes, too? The actual data are quite good researched and also playtested intensively. It would be really annoying to be forced to restart after some weeks or even months of play because of a typo...



Sorry, its very unlikely. The original naval gun data, while "somewhat" (ie in the right ballpark) accurate, was really not up to the standard of the rest of the game, essentially being identical to WitP, and this is why all the scenarios (even 40) include the naval device changes, theyre a cornerstone of this project. They are still under revision, but after v5 there will be no major changes, I promise.

As it looks like patch 1 will be out next week, I'll hold off on releasing until then so that I can correct things based on changes in the patch and also re-run my AtA and SC tests to verify the respective changes are still working as intended.


I am also considering revising armour values for my scenarios, as currently they are simply based on thickness in mm and do not account for other factors such as quality, ect. This means some of the surface combat results are a little off with regards to IZs, but then again, WitP/AE's armour model is so rudimentary anyway that I'm not sure changing them to some standard format (such as a T/D weighted value in mm of USN Class A) is worth it. Though all light surface vessels will in my scenarios (where I'm redoing the data anyway) receive nominal armour to account for structural metal. The same of most gun mounts that had splinter shields/casings.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 8/21/2009 12:27:33 AM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Historiker)
Post #: 115
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/21/2009 4:53:02 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Currently, you begin the game with some 17 J100K1 airframes in the pool and a factory producing 2(4). The Ha-39 engine (early Ha-40) arrives 02/42, but there are 35 engines in the pool to tide you over until then.



To quote Timtom,
quote:

We're limited to 20 engine slots unfortunately, so some fudging has been necesary.


and all those slots are in use, did you overwrite one of the existing engine slots or define a new one for the Ha-39? Because an additional engine slot is not going to work. Anyway, maybe you should probably use the Aichi Ha-60 (Atsuta), the Navy version of the DB 601.

As to inferior fuel, all German engines (including the DB 601) were designed for 87 octane (B4) fuel. I don't think the Japanese used worse fuel qualities, at least not at the beginning.

I'm also unhappy about the ranges you propose:
quote:

Max Range 495
Ext Range 380
Nor Range 300


Timtom says:
quote:

The editor automatically halves any input in the RNG EXT, RNG NORMAL, RNG EXT DT & RNG NORMAL DT fields, but not in the RNG MAX & RNG MAX DT fields. The DT fields are range w/ drop tanks. All ranges are in presumed to be in nautical miles 'cos this is the measurement used for the map, but the editor doesn't automatically adjust for this.

RNG MAX is the transfer ranges while the RNG EXT, NORMAL are the tactical ranges.
...
Enter 392 (2x196) in the RNG NORMAL field (or RNG EXT if you think this number represents a reasonable maximum tactical range). If this was an "official" AE bird the RNG NORMAL would be 80% of RNG EXT, ie RNG EXT = 392/80x100 = 490. This makes the assumption that it'd possible to push the a/c somewhat further on the same fuel load but at greater risk. But you can enter whatever value you like in the range fields obviously.

(this was an example for an aircraft with a tactical radius of 196 miles)

The He 100 had a longer than usual range for an European type interceptor, I think that should be reflected here.

So my proposal for the initial version would be:
max range 990
ext range 486
normal range 440

As this version does not have external stores, the difference between normal and ext range would be minimal, just to represent a fuel-conserving flight profile.

I've also thought of a different armament progression, a bit more extreme. The purpose of the aircraft was mainly defensive, that is protecting bases against enemy bombers. The original armament (1-20mm + 2-7.7mm) looks a bit underpowered for that, so I thought that a logical mod would be swapping the 7.7 mm MGs for 20 mm Type 99s and maybe the centerline 20 mm for a 13 mm MG after a few months of combat experience, and a later model might reintroduce MGs in the engine cowling, so maybe

J100K1 1-20 mm Type 99 CL, 2-7.7 mm Type 89 F 1/42
J100K1a 1-20 mm Type 99 CL, 2-20 mm type 99 F 4/42
J100K1b 1-13 mm Type 2 CL, 2-20 mm type 99-2 F 6/42
J100K2 1-20 mm Type 99-2 CL, 2-13.2 mm Type 3 CL, 2-13.2 mm Type 3 F, 1 DT CL 3/43
J100K2a 1-20 mm Type 99-2 CL, 2-13.2 mm type 3 CL, 2-20 mm Type 99-2 F, 1 DT CL 6/43

The -2 versions would have to take a performance hit, of course.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 116
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/21/2009 3:33:48 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

To quote Timtom,
quote:

We're limited to 20 engine slots unfortunately, so some fudging has been necesary.


and all those slots are in use, did you overwrite one of the existing engine slots or define a new one for the Ha-39? Because an additional engine slot is not going to work. Anyway, maybe you should probably use the Aichi Ha-60 (Atsuta), the Navy version of the DB 601.

As to inferior fuel, all German engines (including the DB 601) were designed for 87 octane (B4) fuel. I don't think the Japanese used worse fuel qualities, at least not at the beginning.



Thanks for the heads up on the slot limitation, I had no idea. Rather dissapointing, as I was planning of splitting up the engine industry even further.

The early versions are now using the Ha-60.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

I'm also unhappy about the ranges you propose:
quote:

Max Range 495
Ext Range 380
Nor Range 300


Timtom says:
quote:

The editor automatically halves any input in the RNG EXT, RNG NORMAL, RNG EXT DT & RNG NORMAL DT fields, but not in the RNG MAX & RNG MAX DT fields. The DT fields are range w/ drop tanks. All ranges are in presumed to be in nautical miles 'cos this is the measurement used for the map, but the editor doesn't automatically adjust for this.

RNG MAX is the transfer ranges while the RNG EXT, NORMAL are the tactical ranges.
...
Enter 392 (2x196) in the RNG NORMAL field (or RNG EXT if you think this number represents a reasonable maximum tactical range). If this was an "official" AE bird the RNG NORMAL would be 80% of RNG EXT, ie RNG EXT = 392/80x100 = 490. This makes the assumption that it'd possible to push the a/c somewhat further on the same fuel load but at greater risk. But you can enter whatever value you like in the range fields obviously.

(this was an example for an aircraft with a tactical radius of 196 miles)

The He 100 had a longer than usual range for an European type interceptor, I think that should be reflected here.

So my proposal for the initial version would be:
max range 990
ext range 486
normal range 440

As this version does not have external stores, the difference between normal and ext range would be minimal, just to represent a fuel-conserving flight profile.



Ill review the ranges, but as data for a production version of the He100 is rather scarce, I improvised. I am aware of how the ranges work though, and the ratio of Ext/Nor should be the same regardless of DTs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

I've also thought of a different armament progression, a bit more extreme. The purpose of the aircraft was mainly defensive, that is protecting bases against enemy bombers. The original armament (1-20mm + 2-7.7mm) looks a bit underpowered for that, so I thought that a logical mod would be swapping the 7.7 mm MGs for 20 mm Type 99s and maybe the centerline 20 mm for a 13 mm MG after a few months of combat experience, and a later model might reintroduce MGs in the engine cowling, so maybe

J100K1 1-20 mm Type 99 CL, 2-7.7 mm Type 89 F 1/42
J100K1a 1-20 mm Type 99 CL, 2-20 mm type 99 F 4/42
J100K1b 1-13 mm Type 2 CL, 2-20 mm type 99-2 F 6/42
J100K2 1-20 mm Type 99-2 CL, 2-13.2 mm Type 3 CL, 2-13.2 mm Type 3 F, 1 DT CL 3/43
J100K2a 1-20 mm Type 99-2 CL, 2-13.2 mm type 3 CL, 2-20 mm Type 99-2 F, 1 DT CL 6/43

The -2 versions would have to take a performance hit, of course.



An interesting thought, though I would not switch to the Type 3 13.2mm until 44 as it was not in wide use until then. I'll see about splitting it up further as per your suggestions however.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 8/21/2009 3:34:43 PM >


_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 117
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/24/2009 5:29:14 PM   
51st Highland Div


Posts: 329
Joined: 7/23/2005
From: Glasgow,Scotland
Status: offline
Looking foward to the rest of the scenarios being posted..any update on the great work your doing ?

_____________________________


______________________________________________

The beatings will continue until morale improves....

Banner thanks to RogueUSMC

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 118
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/24/2009 10:55:23 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 845
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 51st Highland Div

Looking foward to the rest of the scenarios being posted..any update on the great work your doing ?


I've just got back from a 3 day business trip, so I promise I'll post some updates soon. Spent most of my free time working on modifying the aircraft sides and creating the Royal Navy artwork.

Currently for the BB Variant I have the IJN almost complete, the USN major units done and the RN worked out but not done in the editor yet.

Plan is to get that stuff done this week, and then when the patch comes out just run some tests and make corrections, and then release. After that, I may do the CV Variant or the Enhanced BB Variant, I dont know which yet.

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to 51st Highland Div)
Post #: 119
RE: Further WNT Naval Changes - 8/25/2009 7:47:02 AM   
Historiker


Posts: 4738
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
Hey, if you need good webspace, call in! I've plenty on a top level domain!

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.120