Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0

 
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: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/26/2011 11:42:14 AM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline
Will it be possible to continue a game in progress once these corrections are installed?
Will the game in progress also be updated to reflect these corrections?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 91
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/26/2011 11:50:29 AM   
SoliInvictus202


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: SgtSwanson

Has 3.4 been posted yet?

Expect it tomorrow. The cause of delay (which I thankfully noticed before posting 3.4) is that a lot more than Chinese units were affected. Lots and lots of starting Allied units or early reinforcements enter the game understrength or with various fluctuations in device lists compared to TOEs. Thankfully most of the work is complete now.


that's great news - thanks a lot for the work!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 92
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/26/2011 3:04:56 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bk19@mweb.co.za

Will it be possible to continue a game in progress once these corrections are installed?
Will the game in progress also be updated to reflect these corrections?


Well...the GOOD news is that you'll have some experience playing the Mod...and BAD news is that you'll need to restart...

Sorry.



_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to bk19@mweb.co.za)
Post #: 93
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/26/2011 3:59:08 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline
Things could be a lot worse, my PBEM is still on its first turn, my AI version is a 1 game week old.

Thanks for the warning though.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 94
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/26/2011 4:14:08 PM   
SoliInvictus202


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline
another thing I just came across as I was checking the ship availability:

is it intentional that the main armament of the Kawachi-Class CBs doesn't have any pen listed and also don't show any devices?






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by SoliInvictus202 -- 9/26/2011 4:16:35 PM >

(in reply to bk19@mweb.co.za)
Post #: 95
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/26/2011 5:47:07 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Well...THAT is a new one! Mine is fine with the 3.0 I am running. Stanislav?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to SoliInvictus202)
Post #: 96
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/26/2011 7:08:41 PM   
SoliInvictus202


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline
another, this time probably stupid, question:

the G3M4-Q Nell is the ASW patrol plane - is it just patrolling (like an Emily) or does it have something to shoot at the damn buggers as well? - especially since it seems to auto-upgrade from one of my favourite flying torches - the G3M3 Nell...
because if it is just patrolling in the sky above the SS - then I'll stick to the usual "gamey" procedure and simply train my Helen and Sally pilots to 70 ASW...





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by SoliInvictus202 -- 9/26/2011 7:13:10 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 97
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/27/2011 1:04:13 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Not sure why these problems are surfacing again, SoliInvictus, most likely I forgot to reenter thi Kawachi maingun device after second replacement of the device list to one including improved stuff from DaBabes. What's bizarre, I clearly remember inserting it back again... Anyway, I double checked to see that these problems are not present in the version 3.4:

http://www.box.net/shared/0fap9a1q81p9p7fib9v2

OOB fixed, so that Chinese and other Allied units don't start with full strength where they shouldn't. Extra started Australian CD units fixed so that they do not register as Dutch and have correct guns (CD units from Cocos and Christmas IO removed, don't know what they were doing there, Rabaul unit is toned down, Moresby unit is actually stronger now due to superior guns).

John, please update the link in your signature.

Frankly, I feel very demoralized by all these repeated flaws. We need to dedicate far more time, including at least running a test turn 1 with full order routine for both sides, specifically to testing, before we release any major version in the future, because I, at least, clearly don't have necessary perceptiveness to spot mistakes. Full and detailed changelist is also clearly necessary for the work on Perfect War mod.

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/27/2011 1:15:53 AM >

(in reply to SoliInvictus202)
Post #: 98
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/27/2011 9:57:50 AM   
fcharton

 

Posts: 953
Joined: 10/4/2010
From: Nemours, France
Status: offline
Hi FatR,

First, thanks a lot for the quick response.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
Frankly, I feel very demoralized by all these repeated flaws. We need to dedicate far more time, including at least running a test turn 1 with full order routine for both sides, specifically to testing, before we release any major version in the future, because I, at least, clearly don't have necessary perceptiveness to spot mistakes. Full and detailed changelist is also clearly necessary for the work on Perfect War mod.


I believe it is, unfortunately, related to the fact that there are less mod players than there used to be. Test base is smaller.

What could be done to help checking new versions? I have the impression that 3.0 is better tester, because it was played more. Could we then have Tracker, or similar, exports, for 3.0 at start, and perhaps a minimal changelog? Comparing nr of units, AV, supplies, sum of base sizes, nr of planes, devices, is pretty easy to do in Excel, using Tracker.

This would not detect everything, but I'm sure it would eliminate frustrating flaws as this one (and of course it is not specific to RA, this approach could be used to any mod currently in development)

Francois

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 99
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/27/2011 3:14:48 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
THANKS Stanislav!

Not a bad idea. The Change Log for 3.0 is, more-or-less, included at the start of this.

Several of these problems that FatR just fixed are perplexing. HOW did the Chinese go to full strength? How did we lose the 12.1" Guns for Kawachi when I know they were put back in not once but TWICE?!! 'Tis a puzzlement...

Playtesters are most definitely needed for the Mods. Ours may not have the following of DaBabes but we still need help in spotting errors and issues. This will be even more true for the Perfect War Mod since the changes there are much more detailed and pervasive.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to fcharton)
Post #: 100
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/27/2011 6:04:23 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

THANKS Stanislav!

Not a bad idea. The Change Log for 3.0 is, more-or-less, included at the start of this.

Several of these problems that FatR just fixed are perplexing. HOW did the Chinese go to full strength? How did we lose the 12.1" Guns for Kawachi when I know they were put back in not once but TWICE?!! 'Tis a puzzlement...

Playtesters are most definitely needed for the Mods. Ours may not have the following of DaBabes but we still need help in spotting errors and issues. This will be even more true for the Perfect War Mod since the changes there are much more detailed and pervasive.


The think that occurs to me here is.... Are you not using source control management tools to help you in this?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 101
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/27/2011 6:13:31 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Is this BK from helping create the Mod or a new BK?

OK. I'll bite and betray my lack of knowledge here. How do you mean 'Source Control Management?'

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to bk19@mweb.co.za)
Post #: 102
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/27/2011 6:31:08 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline
Ah, no...

I was not trying to be smart here, but rather to ask if the Module developers had ever used software to manage the 'source' in their work packages.

What I mean by that is there exists software packages generally used by professional software developers to track/manage/audit changes to program source code.
From this practice and tool set derives the term 'source control management'. The fundamental idea is in the first instance to be able to establish what change, who changed and when a change took place and to record with each change the reason or motivation for the change.

One of the significant advantages is that it becomes possible to regenerate the current (or even an earlier version) of a particular piece of source in the event of error in the most recent version.

Another advantage is that it is possible in good tools to compare different versions of a particular piece and determine the differences.

Two public domain examples of this kind of tool are SVN and Git. I should add that although I have discussed source code and thus imply text files, some of these tools can also manage binary data with the same if not better confidence levels.



< Message edited by bk19@mweb.co.za -- 9/27/2011 6:35:08 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 103
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/27/2011 6:39:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thanks. That nicely clears things up.

I see you've just fairly recently joined the Forum. What do you think of things?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to bk19@mweb.co.za)
Post #: 104
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/27/2011 9:32:08 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline
Hi John,

I have been reading the forum for many years, going back to the early days of WITP... I was just not active in the forum.

To answer your question though;

In my experience, there are only two forums that have kept me interested for any length of time, and both of them are in the Matrix forums.

This forum has many benefits to all its members.

The first obvious one is the depth of historical knowledge of many members. Notwithstanding the occasional difference of opinion on some topics, there is always something to learn and/or discover...

The second obvious benefit is the value devolved to each player from the effort of a good part of the active membership in building interesting scenarios such as Reluctant Admiral and the immense effort in creating large volumes of high quality graphics.

The third obvious benefit is the knowledge base embedded in the memberships collective mind and the willingness of the group to pass on that knowledge to others in need.

And finally, the most significant benefit which elevates this forum and game above all others in any genre is that the developers of this latest version of the game are all active community members. I am willing to place a substantial cash sum that no other gaming community enjoys the ongoing interaction with the developers which result in implementation not only of corrections, but new ideas and technologies on a weekly basis.

I am quite sure I have overlooked a number of other valuable features of this community. If so, oops and sorry in advance :)

Many thanks to all of you for making this community what it is!!!

Bruce Knowles

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 105
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/28/2011 9:42:18 AM   
SoliInvictus202


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline
I thought I started to begin seeing things, and also started thinking that it might be me... but for some strange reason there still seems to a problem with the Kawachi CBs...

in the 3.4 version the G3M4-Q Nell has either a Torpedo or a few bombs - which is great... - however if I click on the ship in the "ship availability" screen it still shows without main armament...

now as I wasn't sure of myself anymore I asked my team-buddy for the upcoming 2vs2 to double-check this in his install (fcharton), and he confirmed this...
to quote him

quote:

I see the main armament in the ship database, but not when I click on the ship itself. So, yes, there seems to be a problem


I am sorry to bother you guys, but as the game start is getting closer and closer it would just be great if those CBs had some "heavy guns" to shoot with :)

I'll attach the 2 screenshots from the 3.4 version in the next post...

thanks for your patience and your effort in fixing these issues!

picture1 - shows the ship's data base stats







Attachment (1)

< Message edited by SoliInvictus202 -- 9/28/2011 10:20:27 AM >

(in reply to bk19@mweb.co.za)
Post #: 106
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/28/2011 10:21:25 AM   
SoliInvictus202


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline
and here the "ship availability" screen... - note that BEFORE 3.4 the ship's data base looked the same as the ship availability screen!






Attachment (1)

(in reply to SoliInvictus202)
Post #: 107
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/28/2011 4:39:19 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Thanks. That nicely clears things up.

That's a mighty wise fellow up there, John. Aggregating information coherently is one reason why Babes updates are far and few between.

We have a system of version, revision, date, and person, stamping that tends to keep things collectively organized for the 10 Babes scenarios. It's a bit folder and zip/rar intensive at first, but once the flow is established, it's not too bad. Not perfect; we've had a barf here and there, but it's pretty good, and we can always go back one generation and see where a barf happened and fix it. Will share if you wish. J

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 108
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/28/2011 5:23:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
PLEASE John! That would be great. Drives me nuts when we have an issue that we 'thought' was resolved crop back up due to operator error. Quite frustrating. Both FatR and I have done this and makes for 'interesting' times!

Solli: We'll get right on that. FatR?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 109
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/28/2011 5:29:56 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bk19@mweb.co.za

Hi John,

I have been reading the forum for many years, going back to the early days of WITP... I was just not active in the forum.

To answer your question though;

In my experience, there are only two forums that have kept me interested for any length of time, and both of them are in the Matrix forums.

This forum has many benefits to all its members.

The first obvious one is the depth of historical knowledge of many members. Notwithstanding the occasional difference of opinion on some topics, there is always something to learn and/or discover...

The second obvious benefit is the value devolved to each player from the effort of a good part of the active membership in building interesting scenarios such as Reluctant Admiral and the immense effort in creating large volumes of high quality graphics.

The third obvious benefit is the knowledge base embedded in the memberships collective mind and the willingness of the group to pass on that knowledge to others in need.

And finally, the most significant benefit which elevates this forum and game above all others in any genre is that the developers of this latest version of the game are all active community members. I am willing to place a substantial cash sum that no other gaming community enjoys the ongoing interaction with the developers which result in implementation not only of corrections, but new ideas and technologies on a weekly basis.

I am quite sure I have overlooked a number of other valuable features of this community. If so, oops and sorry in advance :)

Many thanks to all of you for making this community what it is!!!

Bruce Knowles



Well written and said Sir. I concur with all that. For the most part this is a magnificent group of people within the Forum.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to bk19@mweb.co.za)
Post #: 110
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/28/2011 8:38:54 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline
HI,

I probably should have reported this error before as it exists in both versions 3.3 and 3.4

Please examine the image provided. This is the only error I know of, but it causes witpstaff to get a bit tongue tied.





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bk19@mweb.co.za -- 9/28/2011 8:39:49 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 111
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 4:23:48 AM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1841
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline
In response to Johns question - here's a copy from another thread -

quote:

Yes, In Reliant Admiral (the mod) I was building Rita's in 44 with massive R&D, its a Japanese B29 (20k bombs and nice range) I wouldn't suggest building them - I basically did it for an advantage of having them and It basically murdered my engines, plus I couldn't build enough to take advantage of it.


You got into 44 in our Mod. How did that go? Oopps. Could you comment to the question in the RA 3.0 Thread?

Basically I got to September of 1945, I started off pretty great, took out most of NZ, Had the Eastern section of Australia from Cairnes down to Brisbane - also took Ceylon (with the improved airpower and more ships) I was able to hold it pretty firmly.

My Opponent basically started his war at Pago, drove north to take Marshal Islands which Ignored.
I forfeited New Zealand in 43 to strengthen the defenses and pulled most ground units (not airpower) out of Australia, which left him in a position to slowly grind from Sydney which eventually the airpower won -

I did make changes to the mod, where Ki84s and N1ks were more readily available to other squadrons (my opponent agreed if I could build, I should be allowed to use).

Basically I wore down my airframes on defense and survived to 9/1945 - overall we agreed it was much tougher for him to do anything, but the same principle existed - his Subs were causing to much of a problem for my tankers, also I shifted more men to protect the oil fields including bombers (I used the Rita because of its bombload/range) to Hammer the allied Bomber fields, using hit and run tactics flying at 30k)

I had 3 Squadrons of Ritas and they were invaluable to the defense, overall I think the mod was completely amazing and even working on updating the mod for (AI) use - I found a few tricks I believe will make the Japanese AI side, a much interesting sparring partner.

Before I submit anything, I am testing out RA (AI) vs myself - I believe with the extra equiptment and substantial (reserves of aircraft frames) the AI could be beefed quite nicely.

Far as the PBEM portion of it, My opponent says It really made it extremely possible for him to do much, however when the numbers grew by mid 1943 - I was pretty much overmatched by Sea/Airpower.

I think the mod is just amazing, it benefits a Japanese Player (new or experienced) and gives them a real chance to hold out longer then a typical easy loss in stock mode.

anything else ya need to know just ask



_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to bk19@mweb.co.za)
Post #: 112
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 10:52:17 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Version 3.4.1, the only change is Shokaku-kai upgrade fix:

http://www.box.net/shared/p6obxct5e0eylicutf51

Sorry for not participating in the discussion yet, I still don't have much free time at the moment.

And John, I note that the link in the top of the thread still leads to 3.3...

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/29/2011 10:53:06 AM >

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 113
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 10:55:52 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Ooops, Double post...

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/29/2011 10:57:19 AM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 114
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 10:58:50 AM   
SoliInvictus202


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Version 3.4.1, the only change is Shokaku-kai upgrade fix:

http://www.box.net/shared/p6obxct5e0eylicutf51

Sorry for not participating in the discussion yet, I still don't have much free time at the moment.

And John, I note that the link in the top of the thread still leads to 3.3...


so the mistake in the ship-availability screen is minor? - note that this mistake occured AFTER 3.4...

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 115
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 11:26:43 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

so the mistake in the ship-availability screen is minor? - note that this mistake occured AFTER 3.4...

Don't see any effects in the game itself - ship's screen doesn't show looping of upgrades or other negative impacts. It probably was there ever since Shokaku-kai class was added to the mod.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to SoliInvictus202)
Post #: 116
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 11:58:08 AM   
SoliInvictus202


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

so the mistake in the ship-availability screen is minor? - note that this mistake occured AFTER 3.4...

Don't see any effects in the game itself - ship's screen doesn't show looping of upgrades or other negative impacts. It probably was there ever since Shokaku-kai class was added to the mod.


sry - I wasn't clear enough... I was referring to the CB-Kawachi issue AFTER 3.4....


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 117
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 12:42:30 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
On the Kawachi issue - sorry for missing it. Not sure about the cause. I remade the device entry for the main guns and connected it as needed. This time guns show up properly. Take a look:

http://www.box.net/shared/m3iakobrs82fapx04z69

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to SoliInvictus202)
Post #: 118
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 12:45:41 PM   
SoliInvictus202


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

On the Kawachi issue - sorry for missing it. Not sure about the cause. I remade the device entry for the main guns and connected it as needed. This time guns show up properly. Take a look:

http://www.box.net/shared/m3iakobrs82fapx04z69


thanks a lot for the quick response and the effort to fix these issues ASAP!
I'll take a look this evening!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 119
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 3:51:42 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline
HI,

I am a little concerned at how vicious RA 3.4 appears to be relative to my experience with version 3.3.

Here is the result of the first days action at Pearl Harbour.

quote:


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Dec 07, 41
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midget Sub attack inside harbor of Pearl Harbor!!!

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-14

Allied Ships
BB Arizona, Torpedo hits 1





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Midget Sub attack inside harbor of Pearl Harbor!!!

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-19, heavy damage

Allied Ships
BB West Virginia, Torpedo hits 1





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Air attack on Pearl Harbor , at 180,107

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 117 NM, estimated altitude 13,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 43 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 102
B5N2 Kate x 147
D3A1 Val x 135



Allied aircraft
no flights

Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 7 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 7 destroyed by flak
B5N2 Kate: 10 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 5 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 19 damaged
D3A1 Val: 1 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
PBY-5 Catalina: 133 damaged
PBY-5 Catalina: 5 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 40 damaged
P-40B Warhawk: 6 destroyed on ground
B-18A Bolo: 43 damaged
B-18A Bolo: 2 destroyed on ground
B-17D Fortress: 35 damaged
B-17D Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground
B-17E Fortress: 12 damaged
B-17E Fortress: 1 destroyed on ground
SBD-1 Dauntless: 29 damaged
SBD-1 Dauntless: 1 destroyed on ground
A-20A Havoc: 28 damaged
A-20A Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground
F4F-3 Wildcat: 9 damaged
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed on ground
O-47A: 12 damaged
O-47A: 1 destroyed on ground
P-36A Mohawk: 11 damaged
P-36A Mohawk: 2 destroyed on ground
C-33: 1 damaged
C-33: 1 destroyed on ground
R3D-2: 2 damaged
SOC-1 Seagull: 1 destroyed
OS2U-3 Kingfisher: 5 destroyed

Allied Ships
CL Helena, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB California, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, heavy damage
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 2, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 7, on fire, heavy damage
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk
BB Oklahoma, Torpedo hits 5, and is sunk
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage
AG Argonne, Bomb hits 2, heavy fires
CA San Francisco, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DD Mugford, Bomb hits 1, on fire
CA New Orleans, Torpedo hits 1
CL St. Louis, Bomb hits 1
DD Downes, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
PC Reliance, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL Detroit, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
SS Cachalot, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage
DD Reid, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL Raleigh, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
PG Sacramento, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AM Grebe, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AV Wright, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DMS Perry, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
DD Ralph Talbot, Bomb hits 1, and is sunk
AV Curtiss, Torpedo hits 1
DD Dewey, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DD Shaw, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Cummings, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
DM Preble, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
AD Dobbin, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AO Ramapo, Torpedo hits 1


Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled


Airbase hits 29
Airbase supply hits 2
Runway hits 78
Port hits 16
Port fuel hits 1
Port supply hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
11 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
26 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
19 x A6M2 Zero bombing from 100 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
26 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
15 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
10 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
19 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
15 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
23 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
24 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
10 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
21 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
10 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
5 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
9 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
14 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb


Please express an opinion whether this result is really an abnormal condition, or whether the US forces have just been extremely unlucky.

(in reply to SoliInvictus202)
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: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 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

0.137