Matrix Games Forums

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 Ask Buzz Aldrin!
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  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 4:12:40 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1841
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bk19@mweb.co.za

HI,

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


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



I don't think its abnormal, I had similar success on my first RA PBEM, I believe I stayed around the 2nd day to pound the airfield after the Port was trashed on the first turn.
My thinking was - the major warships were completely trashed, however I wanted to stop all chance he could resupply other areas with the remaining aircraft - so I'd be leary about that second strike on the AF.





_____________________________

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 #: 121
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 5:18:30 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
OK. Updated the note at the front of the Thread on 3.4.1. I have downloaded the current Scen 70 to my desktop. Stanislav: The box needs updated with the current game file. I don't have the password to do so.

The PH Attack (if using the 6 CVs) SHOULD be more devastating due to the air groups on the CVs be fully filled out. This adds about 15-20% more Striking Power. The result Posted above is NASTY! I rarely hit PH with 6 CVs so this is quite impressive work. Have you loaded the game in a different slot issued orders and struck PH again? Am curious if similar results occur.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 122
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 5:55:39 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1877
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline
I have V 3.3 ? Is that the correct one.

I loaded it up ok i think but notice the nice Jap CB units have no main guns - that is no divice?

Please advise.

Cav

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 123
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 6:03:12 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1877
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline
Sorry i see this has been mentioned before and there is a 4.41

Cav

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 124
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 6:03:23 PM   
SoliInvictus202


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline
it's been adressed by the mod-creators...
btw - 3.4.2 is already up..

< Message edited by SoliInvictus202 -- 9/29/2011 6:06:36 PM >

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 125
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 6:05:32 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1877
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline
thanks - posts seem to have crodssed.

(in reply to SoliInvictus202)
Post #: 126
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 6:30:16 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Could everyone check and make sure things are taken care of? Stanislav did good work fixing these issues and I hope we are good at this point. If anyone finds another problem do not hesitate to Post and let us know.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 127
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 6:50:34 PM   
SoliInvictus202


Posts: 367
Joined: 8/27/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline
the entire "2vs2" team is checking the DB as we speak... we said we'd give it about a week to thoroughly look through it...

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 128
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 7:24:26 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The PH Attack (if using the 6 CVs) SHOULD be more devastating due to the air groups on the CVs be fully filled out. This adds about 15-20% more Striking Power. The result Posted above is NASTY! I rarely hit PH with 6 CVs so this is quite impressive work. Have you loaded the game in a different slot issued orders and struck PH again? Am curious if similar results occur.


All 6 carriers were used here. However, as I tried to indicate, I have just played GT 1 on the 3.3 and 3.4 versions using exactly the same combat units with identical operational orders and got vastly different combat results.

Following is the combat report from my first time around (Version 3.3). You will note there is a more than dramatic difference.
This is the reason I thought it necessary to ask questions.

quote:


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

Japanese Ships
SSX Ha-19

Allied Ships
BB Pennsylvania, Torpedo hits 1





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASW attack near Patani at 54,73

Japanese Ships
DD Shinonome

Allied Ships
SS KXVII



SS KXVII launches 4 torpedoes at DD Shinonome
Sub escapes detection


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

Weather in hex: Clear sky

Raid detected at 101 NM, estimated altitude 12,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 37 minutes

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



Allied aircraft
P-36A Mohawk x 1
P-40B Warhawk x 5
F4F-3 Wildcat x 2


Japanese aircraft losses
A6M2 Zero: 2 damaged
A6M2 Zero: 1 destroyed by flak
B5N2 Kate: 2 damaged
B5N2 Kate: 1 destroyed by flak
D3A1 Val: 10 damaged
D3A1 Val: 2 destroyed by flak

Allied aircraft losses
P-36A Mohawk: 1 destroyed
P-36A Mohawk: 1 destroyed on ground
P-40B Warhawk: 2 destroyed, 2 damaged
P-40B Warhawk: 4 destroyed on ground
F4F-3 Wildcat: 1 destroyed, 1 damaged
A-20A Havoc: 2 destroyed on ground
PBY-5 Catalina: 8 destroyed on ground
B-18A Bolo: 2 destroyed on ground
O-47A: 2 destroyed on ground
SBD-1 Dauntless: 3 destroyed on ground
R3D-2: 1 destroyed on ground

Allied Ships
BB Pennsylvania, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
BB Nevada, Bomb hits 4, Torpedo hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
BB Oklahoma, Bomb hits 8, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires
BB Tennessee, Bomb hits 3, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
BB Maryland, Bomb hits 5, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
BB West Virginia, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
BB Arizona, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
BB California, Bomb hits 6, Torpedo hits 2, heavy fires
CA San Francisco, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, on fire
AV Curtiss, Torpedo hits 1
CL Helena, Bomb hits 1, Torpedo hits 1, heavy fires
AV Wright, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
CA New Orleans, Bomb hits 2, on fire
CL Honolulu, Bomb hits 2, on fire
DD Jarvis, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires
DD Phelps, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DD Dewey, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
DM Pruitt, Bomb hits 1, on fire
AM Grebe, Bomb hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
DMS Perry, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk
CL Raleigh, Bomb hits 1
CL St. Louis, Bomb hits 1, on fire
DMS Wasmuth, Bomb hits 1, on fire, heavy damage


Allied ground losses:
15 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled


Repair Shipyard hits 1
Airbase hits 46
Runway hits 54
Port hits 22
Port fuel hits 3
Port supply hits 1

Aircraft Attacking:
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
27 x B5N2 Kate launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 18in Type 91 Torpedo
23 x A6M2 Zero bombing from 5000 feet
Airfield Attack: 2 x 60 kg GP Bomb
14 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
13 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
21 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
15 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
24 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
24 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
13 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
12 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
24 x B5N2 Kate bombing from 9000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 800 kg AP Bomb
2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
City Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
11 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
6 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
2 x D3A1 Val releasing from 10000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
1 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
13 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
8 x A6M2 Zero sweeping at 15000 feet
7 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
7 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
3 x D3A1 Val releasing from 3000'
Airfield Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 2000'
City Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb
4 x D3A1 Val releasing from 1000'
Port Attack: 1 x 250 kg GP Bomb

CAP engaged:
VMF-211 with F4F-3 Wildcat (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes
18th PG/19th PS with P-40B Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 48 minutes
18th PG/44th PS with P-40B Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
15th PG/45th PS with P-36A Mohawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 1 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 2 minutes
15th PG/47th PS with P-40B Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 2 being recalled, 0 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 6 minutes
18th PG/78th PS with P-40B Warhawk (0 airborne, 0 on standby, 0 scrambling)
0 plane(s) not yet engaged, 0 being recalled, 1 out of immediate contact.
Group patrol altitude is 10000
Time for all group planes to reach interception is 49 minutes

Magazine explodes on BB Tennessee
Massive explosion on CL Raleigh

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 129
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 8:35:46 PM   
John 3rd


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

the entire "2vs2" team is checking the DB as we speak... we said we'd give it about a week to thoroughly look through it...


This is an exciting development! Who are the four players? Will there be an AAR? Would love being able to watch and question the teams as the game proceeds.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to SoliInvictus202)
Post #: 130
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 8:38:55 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
That second attack is pretty solid and I would say reasonable. Looks like 1 BB sunk (Mag Explos), 4 BB HD, and 3 in better condition. Seems about right. The number of other damaged/hit ships is fairly large and one never knows what will happen from attack to attack.

I sank NONE in my PH Attack on Bill!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 131
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 8:42:13 PM   
SoliInvictus202


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: SoliInvictus202

the entire "2vs2" team is checking the DB as we speak... we said we'd give it about a week to thoroughly look through it...


This is an exciting development! Who are the four players? Will there be an AAR? Would love being able to watch and question the teams as the game proceeds.



the players are swift and undercovergeek as Allies vs fcharton and myself as Japan...

the AARs already started....

the Allied section is called "Big trouble"...

the Japanese section is found under:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2913394

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 132
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 8:52:24 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1841
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline
If there's anything I can help you with John let me know, Im bored I need something to do :\

_____________________________

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 SoliInvictus202)
Post #: 133
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 9:37:31 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
What might this offer entail? Anything you're interested in specifically?

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 134
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 9:49:13 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
On PH attack: available strength of Allied units in Pearl was copied from DaBabes (Scen 26), so AA fire should remain within the intended parameters, and there was no change at all to the attacking force. I think you're just seeing the standard deviations, courtesy of the random number generator. Getting 4 battleships in one attack is well above average, but not unprecedented, you might find some complaits about nuclear PH strikes in the War Room, I believe. And looking at your combat report, the "lucky" strike has all Kates dropping torpedoes, while the "poor" one 4 of 6 squadrons used much less effective bombs. Torpedo/bomb choice is made semi-randomly by the game engine, and data changes we can make have no impact on it.

_____________________________

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 Misconduct)
Post #: 135
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 10:24:09 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline
OK FatR and everybody else who responded.

Many thanks for your remarks and observations.


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 136
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/29/2011 10:25:00 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1841
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

What might this offer entail? Anything you're interested in specifically?


nothing specific, anything I can help work on for the mod or mods

_____________________________

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 John 3rd)
Post #: 137
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/30/2011 12:51:15 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Have you worked with the Editor?

How about art skills or page design? We need a page where we can place the Mods...

Am more then willing to have help but need to know what might be of benefit.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 138
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/30/2011 5:44:48 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Don't even want to mention this but wouldn't it be fun to add the French into RA? FatR----DON'T SHOOT ME! Just being funny...

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 139
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 9/30/2011 8:49:38 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

If there's anything I can help you with John let me know, Im bored I need something to do :\


I have a job for you Sir! Could you look over on the Allied Thread of the Perfect War Mod and compile--as you see it--a Change List for the Allies. I know I did one about 50% of the way through the development/brainstorming but haven't done anything else to update it. Should be cut-and-[aste or you can actually work it out as a fresh document and Post it. Would save us some serious time if it all sits in one Post.

Went into slightly more detail in that Thread.

Interested?


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/30/2011 8:53:00 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 140
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 10/1/2011 11:31:29 AM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1940
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

I sank NONE in my PH Attack on Bill!

That is because we wear white hats. Also, the condition has been rectumfied!

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 141
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 10/1/2011 5:12:06 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1841
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

If there's anything I can help you with John let me know, Im bored I need something to do :\


I have a job for you Sir! Could you look over on the Allied Thread of the Perfect War Mod and compile--as you see it--a Change List for the Allies. I know I did one about 50% of the way through the development/brainstorming but haven't done anything else to update it. Should be cut-and-[aste or you can actually work it out as a fresh document and Post it. Would save us some serious time if it all sits in one Post.

Went into slightly more detail in that Thread.

Interested?



You sir have got it! :) I will start a new thread and cut out all the information you are requesting on "changes" to the allies side (as best as I can)

< Message edited by Misconduct -- 10/1/2011 5:16:50 PM >


_____________________________

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 John 3rd)
Post #: 142
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 10/1/2011 10:30:02 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Great! PM sent--and--THANKS!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 143
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 10/23/2011 6:28:43 PM   
dirtyharry


Posts: 26
Joined: 8/18/2008
From: france
Status: offline
playing this mod against bigred, i can say one thing : if you play allies,  do'nt move a finger until mid '43 ! even,japs will mash you!

_____________________________

do you think you are Lucky punk?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 144
RE: Reluctant Admiral 3.0 - 10/23/2011 7:17:31 PM   
John 3rd


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: dirtyharry

playing this mod against bigred, i can say one thing : if you play allies,  do'nt move a finger until mid '43 ! even,japs will mash you!


What has happened so far in your game?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to dirtyharry)
Post #: 145
RA, 4.0? - 10/25/2011 4:36:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I've been thinking over an idea we've had in the Perfect War Mod and am curious as to it actually fitting into RA far better. The idea is to specialize the IJN Infantry units. Since RA is almost exclusively a Kaigun enhanced scenario I thought this might work into the vision pretty well. Here is what I wrote in the Perfect War Thread:


Michael and I had a good chat yesterday and a couple of interesting ideas occurred due to the conversation. We were speaking about the IJN Troops and came up with an interesting proposal. Since the Navy and Army didn't trust each other and the Navy is now planning to fight an attritional war, the Infantry units of the Kaigun are completely overhauled. Here is the proposal:

1. SNLF Units are deployed at the start of the war as normal. As we have discussed, those units are then withdrawn to make room for the creation of Atoll Defence Forces. There will be two types of these units:

a. The first is based off of the SNLF Coy and is a Battalion-Sized unit of about 1,000 men. There would be Inf, Mortars, MG, a few Combat Engineers, and a few CD guns (thinking 2 5" and 4 smaller DP guns).

b. A regimental-sized unit of about 4,000+ men that would pack some serious punch. Imagine two SNLF, combat engineers, about 20 CD guns of differing sizes, and support.

The SNLF would all need to be withdrawn by the end of 1942 and the new units become available starting just a few months later. If my counting is correct we would be looking at roughly 4-6 smaller ADU and 6-8 larger ADU. In terms of manpower costs the only additions would come in the area of Combat engineers and the men to many the CD Guns.

2. Naval Guard units are totally revamped so they are able to form-up into larger OFFENSIVE Brigades. In this are we would totally disolve the traditional Naval Guard units and replace them with a Brigade that is broken into 3 pieces at the start of the war. Imagine 1st Naval Guard Brigade-A/-B/-C. The original Naval Guard units will be thrown out and replaced with an all-new TOE containing a heavy amount of Inf, MG, Mortars, 75MM Howitzers, and support. The components would be about 1,500-2,000 men with the Brigade filling out at about 6,000 men. Manpower and Industrial additions will come in the Mortar and MG areas. Try to imagine these as Shock Units to be used in the early campaign to grab bases and combined later for a viable reaction force to Allied assaults.

Figure the IJN starts with 3-4 of these units in Dec 1941 and then gain a couple more during 1942. Will simply go through the old Naval Guard units and do the math of 3-to-1.


What do people think?

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 146
RE: RA, 4.0? - 10/25/2011 4:56:52 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

Posts: 258
Joined: 7/26/2011
Status: offline
I saw this discussion. Whilst I had nothing of value to add to support or oppose the idea in principle, I did take note of the follow up posting regarding the Japanese Paratroopers.


I have say that I did not take it too kindly that my beloved paratroopers would be 'retired'!.
I think they have more tactical and strategic value than the motivation underpinning that idea.

The other remark which bothered me is "The SNLF would all need to be withdrawn by the end of 1942 and the new units become available starting just a few months later."

How many months later? Why do they need to be withdrawn? Why can they not be restructured/retooled in the field?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 147
RE: RA, 4.0? - 10/25/2011 8:25:30 PM   
John 3rd


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bk19@mweb.co.za

I saw this discussion. Whilst I had nothing of value to add to support or oppose the idea in principle, I did take note of the follow up posting regarding the Japanese Paratroopers.


I have say that I did not take it too kindly that my beloved paratroopers would be 'retired'!.
I think they have more tactical and strategic value than the motivation underpinning that idea.

The other remark which bothered me is "The SNLF would all need to be withdrawn by the end of 1942 and the new units become available starting just a few months later."

How many months later? Why do they need to be withdrawn? Why can they not be restructured/retooled in the field?



Good Point. Hadn't thought about those Paras. What about allows the Para SNLF the ability to combine into a small Regiment-sized unit?


_____________________________



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 #: 148
RE: RA, 4.0? - 10/25/2011 9:38:02 PM   
bk19@mweb.co.za

 

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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Good Point. Hadn't thought about those Paras. What about allows the Para SNLF the ability to combine into a small Regiment-sized unit?


That might be a very nice feature indeed. I would like to see this in operation if only to see how this might work out in game. However, are they not already regiments?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 149
RE: RA, 4.0? - 10/26/2011 3:44:21 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The SNLF and Naval Guard were--to me--reinforced Battalions or very weak Regiments. Using the SNLF for Coastal Defense Units (excepting Paras) and making the Naval Guards into true Brigades could be a lot of fun. Could do an entirely new TOE for them. Does anyone know if their was some sort of 'vision/mission' statement for these units. I mean was one type designed as an offensive unit and other defensive? Might need to shift these around the making the SNLF the Brigades and the Naval Guards the Coast Defense Units. Any help from knowledgable people would be great!

EDIT: Did some researching and the SNLF are definitely the Offensive troops and the Naval Guard defensive. We will tool along those lines. SNLF will be used to create Brigades and Naval Guards the Coastal Defense units.


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 10/26/2011 4:30:09 PM >


_____________________________



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 #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.111