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

Files Sent

 
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 >> Files Sent Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Files Sent - 12/28/2011 3:14:06 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I just sent the files over to Stanislav to work on.

He'll add his Change List here and I'll wrap up some finishing touches and we'll ready to go.

I'll be restarting both of my RA Campaigns (with Adm Nelson and Soli Invictus) once the work is finished and am looking forward to it.

QUERY: How does one install--and load--the Extended Map?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 211
RE: Files Sent - 12/28/2011 3:42:36 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
OK, I got the files. Hope to add the changes within this week.

_____________________________

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 John 3rd)
Post #: 212
RE: Files Sent - 12/28/2011 4:05:31 PM   
JWE

 

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



quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
QUERY: How does one install--and load--the Extended Map?


Just follow the instructions;

https://sites.google.com/site/dababeswitpae/map-and-art


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 213
China--India Garrisons - 12/30/2011 11:21:32 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I've been emailing a bit recently and wanted to Post an update here.

Developments:
1. Stanislav is finishing up his changes so we're good there.

2. I have to finish the LCU IJN upgrades/changes. Perhaps 3 hours of quiet time to do that. This is as long as my sons allow that to occur!

2. Had the suggestion made to make China more along the lines of Perfect War where there are higher garrison requirements and static Chinese forces. kfsgo said he couldn't get to it for at least two weeks. I know we have players hot to start new games so I am thinking about how we could 'simply' make China a bit more static.

The idea I've come up with is to bump garrisons throughout ALL of China. This would force more units to cover cities for by BOTH sides and at least slow things down. We could also do this in India...

Am open to ideas/comments on this. Does anyone have any?

EDIT: WOW--This was my 7,000th Post! I definitely have NO LIFE...



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 12/30/2011 11:24:14 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 214
China--India Garrisons - 12/30/2011 11:22:40 PM   
John 3rd


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE




quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
QUERY: How does one install--and load--the Extended Map?


Just follow the instructions;

https://sites.google.com/site/dababeswitpae/map-and-art



Thanks John. Looks like I need to create yet another WitP: AE Folder...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 215
A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 1:40:27 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Just got this email from kfsgo:

Ok, rushed and simple...I can do rushed and simple, I guess. You get some backstory to make it complicated, though.


Garrison requirements are an interesting one; it's a bit of a balancing act between overweighting (which obviously reduces army flexibility) and underweighting needs; you get an essay since it's a quick one to write and is interesting as well as relevant:


The Japanese army was more or less capable, after late 1942 or so, of going wherever it wanted in China; its great problem was supporting itself once it got there. The Chinese were basically in a situation where they had far more manpower than they could arm - the population of Szechwan alone (think the basin from Chungking to Chengdu) was something like 80 million even then - annual Chinese intake of conscripts was usually not far off the total number of rifles the Chinese had available for the whole war! - but unfortunately it never clicked, on an institutional scale, that some proportion of the draftees the military apparatus was rounding up could be used for wider-scale logistical efforts. So, you also see these enormous numbers of people drafted from the civil population to do stuff like build airfields for B-29s etc - and while that's going on the army is more or less left to starve, because it's not capable of meeting its own supply needs beyond a subsistence level (through extraction from the local population) and the labour force which it could be using to acheive that is being diverted to do other things. In other words - for all the griping those of us who have to command the Chinese do about the inability of the NRA to supply itself, the game works pretty well in that respect. So, garrison requirements for the Chinese are effectively a political problem - it's a question of, where is the Kuomintang up against a local...government is the wrong word, but government - that has priorities other than prosecuting the war? There are three key poles to this:


- Yunnan; this is the main pathway for American supply flow into China and a significant amount of political 'pull' had to be expended in keeping Long Yun (who was the warlord/governor/administrator/whatever at the time) cooperative in not being a disruption to that pathway. Yunnan was also a significant poppy-growing (and so opium-producing) region for most of the war and a lot of time and effort was put into suppressing that - a lot of the Chinese Air Force earned their wings shooting at poppy farmers rather than the Japanese, though the problem was solved eventually - the price of rice got so high towards the late-war period that they switched to growing that!


- Szechwan; after the Japanese advances in the first four years of the war this is the Chinese 'heartland'. The trouble is that the KMT is more or less a foreign government - Chiang Kai-Shek et al's direct control never extended too far beyond Chungking proper and you've got a situation where the local warlords have far more military power than the "government" - so you have retention of KMT troops (ie the competent, motivated ones) to keep a lid on them.


- Shaanxi; speficially, the area that's controlled by the CPC, so in game terms the 'Yanan' base. Obviously the Communists were a major preoccupation for CKS; unfortunately, in the stock scenario the base produces no supplies and is therefore incapable, given the way supply flow to bases works, of supporting a garrison. That can't be helped, but can be used - give the place a significant garrison requirement and it becomes, politically, an unsolvable problem - which is pretty accurate, really - you can either garrison it and starve the garrison to death, or not and take a PP hit.


Now, the Japanese are a little more unhinged. There is a lot of guff put out about movement of a million tons of oil a week from Singapore through to Port Arthur etc - unfortunately, the logistical situation we see in WITPAE games is more or less nonsensical in a lot of ways, and is particularly so in China; the Chinese transportation system can move an effectively unlimited quantity of material extremely quickly if it's actually available - and given the Japanese capacity for production of supplies it generally will be - and that is more or less the polar opposite of reality - support for the later Japanese offensives involved a huge overstretch of their logistical system, with enormous diversions of motor transport, riverboat and barge shipping and railway rolling stock away from civil and 'back-end' military needs, the effects of which you see towards mid-1945 - they were effectively running for the coast by the end of the war, because even that movement had ground to a halt courtesy of the USAAF and they weren't even getting food, never mind ammunition etc. Unfortunately the game is very binary as regards infrastructure - you either control a road/railway or you don't; the vehicles or trains needed to make use of them aren't considered. This is where the Japanese had huge, huge problems - f.e the Burma-Siam railway used stock and materials looted from the Malayan railways (the line from Malacca to Kota Bharu was ripped up to build it - even the rails themselves!), the Pakanbaroe railway stuff looted from Java - basically the Japanese were never able to make really effective use of the infrastructure they had without wrecking their capability somewhere else.


Now, that isn't something that can be effectively replicated in-game - there's not really such a thing as dedicated supply interdiction (by which think attacking motor transport, sub-Yangtze level shipping, supply columns etc) - so the expansion of garrison requirements isn't really meant to represent the need to garrison areas per se. Broadly speaking, there was a low-level insurgency going on that was more or less independent of and unaffected by Japanese troop concentrations, and there was also a surprising continuity of actual Chinese government control, or at worst influence, in areas occupied by the Japanese, but these never really translated into an organised military challenge - if it were going on in 2003 rather than 1943 it'd be "terrorism" and "insurgency"; as it was it was "banditry", I suppose. Rather, garrison requirements are meant to be a logistical lock - a "you can support an army this far forwards, but if you go any further you're going to have problems" sort of thing. So, take a look at this:


http://i.imgur.com/dZt5u.jpg


The red line is the Japanese logistical 'wall'; beyond that they're basically beyond their logistical ability. Note it basically follows navigable rivers. So - on the red-circled bases Japanese garrison requirements should increase substantially and Chinese requirements modestly. The effect is - if the Japanese want to take these places, they can, but they will have to either garrison them heavily (with consequent 'static' troops - much easier to keep them fed if they ain't moving!); or, if they want to use the troops for further offensives, skip that, which will come at a political cost - ie deterioration of the civil infrastructural system. Remember that until the US 10th AF started to be a problem everyone involved here beyond the actual front-line troops was basically in it for the money - the last thing your officers want is anything that'll stop them feathering their nests. On the blue-circled bases Chinese garrison requirements should increase substantially and Japanese requirements modestly. Realistically there is not a particular impact on the Japanese beyond that already inflicted by regular garrison requirements and their 'stop line' in these areas; meanwhile, they're a big political problem for the Kuomintang, because the locals have their own agendas and aren't likely to be cooperative without several thousand NRA rifles aimed at their backs.


So, that's a concept. I can't give you concrete numbers for the Japanese without spending half a day looking at numbers because these things are all basically arbitrary, dependent on the forces theoretically available, and you will know more about what those are than I do. Pick some numbers that would make you wonder whether taking the places would be a good idea, I guess, then set the Japanese to require slightly less than that number and the Chinese something halfway between the new number and the old one. For the Chinese side of the line you might be looking at something like:


Chengdu 400
Chungking 550
Neikiang 60
Kienko 60
#
Sian 240
Yenan 160
#
Kunming 240
Kweiyang 140
Mengtze 60
Tsuyung 60


Also, conceptually any bases with no garrison requirements at all should have a minimal number - maybe 10 or 20 - representing the actual dispersed low-level resistance. The problem in that is finding units small enough to fill the gaps...but then that's fair enough.


Ok, enough for tonight - it's nearly 1am here. Have a think about that and I will get back to you tomorrow if necessary.








_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 216
RE: A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 1:48:11 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2263
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Love reading his stuff. Its a shame there is not a way to interdict supply even abstractly.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 217
RE: A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 3:55:06 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
You have that right Oldman! Let us see more. I think this would serve to tie down troops yet still allow for action if either side so desired...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 218
RE: A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 2:17:26 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Just so you know, John, I tinkered with upgrades on Japanese CAs too, bringing them more in line with Lacroix/Wells, with adjustment to the nature of the mod. None of them ends up with more than 60-something MGs, but many of these are installed somewhat earlier than historical, and fire arcs are, IMO, more reasonable (stock suffers somewhat from big very bunches of MGs grouped to fire forward/rear). I inted to tinker with DDs as well, special type upgrades might be historically suspect (no high-angle turrets in wartime upgrades), never mind some of them actually being downgrades in game terms.

Adjusted displacements (mostly down), speeds and fuel loads (both up) on major Japanese combatants with the help of Jentschura's data. Note that a bigger fuel load just means that a ship burns more fuel to go the same distance.

_____________________________

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 John 3rd)
Post #: 219
RE: A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 2:53:33 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2896
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
Hi John, I was reading and thinking about the china supply/garrison changes issue.  What if some of the rail and major roads where changed to trail at some locations to guarantee the break up of the resource flow.  This would force the japs to use resupply via river traffic from Shanghia.
W/ the merge w/ Babes, would some of the small resupply craft be able to travel farther than stock upriver to resupply IJA.
Also this would stop the misuse of the singers to PA resource move.
No sure these are good ideas or has been said previous on this thread.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 220
RE: A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 3:47:27 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
FatR: More accurate modeling of the IJN is rarely a problem with me. Nice work.

BigRed:
--Changing the roads to trails would help but would have additional complications. This is the fundamental porblem when one starts playing around with trying to do what we're thinking about. It is like a tar baby. Where you start with one thing, another piece enters the pictures, then another, and another...
--Am not sure regarding small craft going further up-river. Anyone know anything about that?

Thanks for the ideas. ALWAYS good!

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 221
RE: A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 4:32:19 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
Currently navigability on the Yangtze is binary; you either have a 'navigable' river, which can take ships of up to 15000t, or you have a major non-navigable river which can't take shipping at all. In stock, navigability goes as far as Wuhan and then ends. The Yangtze was navigable as far as Chungking, up to a point - the water level was too low for large ships at some times and flow too rough at others - the rapids from Ichang on upwards are infamously lethal. So, you have a relatively small number of military ships that are capable of making the trip - this was a motivation behind some of the RN, USN, MN etc gunboats - and most of the traffic is handled by motorised or sailing junks and barges that are light enough to be towed upstream when the rapids are in full blast and handy enough to make it downstream without capsizing, but these are so small that in a lot of ways they're really better represented by ground supply movement. The only way around this as far as I'm aware is the "planned" solution in PFW, which is making the Yangtze "navigable" further up but inserting a reef crossing at Wuhan, which limits movement between the systems to vessels of 100t or less. There aren't many of those - frankly it's still not a good solution - I don't think there is one, really.

Degrading road quality isn't a bad idea per se. I avoided approaching it in thinking about PW as the art changes were liable to be a pain and I am not actually certain of road quality issues in the key areas - lots of anecdotes about terrible conditions but I haven't seen anything concrete. It's probably sensible insofar as neither side really has anything resembling a motorised force and so better roads are of limited use as far as concerns accelerated movement - but most of the 'critical' areas run along the railways anyway, so the difference is limited. Probably one of those issues that make little difference either way, since none of the combatants can make use of strategic redeployment on roads, so I can't see any harm in doing it if the desire is there.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 222
RE: A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 5:11:48 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2896
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

Currently navigability on the Yangtze is binary; you either have a 'navigable' river, which can take ships of up to 15000t, or you have a major non-navigable river which can't take shipping at all. In stock, navigability goes as far as Wuhan and then ends. The Yangtze was navigable as far as Chungking, up to a point - the water level was too low for large ships at some times and flow too rough at others - the rapids from Ichang on upwards are infamously lethal. So, you have a relatively small number of military ships that are capable of making the trip - this was a motivation behind some of the RN, USN, MN etc gunboats - and most of the traffic is handled by motorised or sailing junks and barges that are light enough to be towed upstream when the rapids are in full blast and handy enough to make it downstream without capsizing, but these are so small that in a lot of ways they're really better represented by ground supply movement. The only way around this as far as I'm aware is the "planned" solution in PFW, which is making the Yangtze "navigable" further up but inserting a reef crossing at Wuhan, which limits movement between the systems to vessels of 100t or less. There aren't many of those - frankly it's still not a good solution - I don't think there is one, really.

Degrading road quality isn't a bad idea per se. I avoided approaching it in thinking about PW as the art changes were liable to be a pain and I am not actually certain of road quality issues in the key areas - lots of anecdotes about terrible conditions but I haven't seen anything concrete. It's probably sensible insofar as neither side really has anything resembling a motorised force and so better roads are of limited use as far as concerns accelerated movement - but most of the 'critical' areas run along the railways anyway, so the difference is limited. Probably one of those issues that make little difference either way, since none of the combatants can make use of strategic redeployment on roads, so I can't see any harm in doing it if the desire is there.

FYI, in a previous game i invaded the Chungking plain from Sian thru the mountains w/ the 1st and 12th Armies. I was using trail supply from Sian. I did arrive at Chungking and laid siege. In that campaign I suffered permanent damage to my IJN infantry because of a shortage of overland supply. I could not get my damaged IJN infantry to rebuild themselves. I later(after a 6 month mistake) opened a supply path from the south on a major road. In some of my Jap divisions the squads were reduced by 50% caused by eating earth worms(lack of supply via trail).

I think if you want to create a more static front then we need to remove the major road access to CK from the south. Make these major roads trails. Then the Japs will have a hard time getting in and the Chinese a hard time getting out. The Chinese will come out to play in 44 when the Americans can get them some coastal resupply or reopen the Burma road.

i guess this would really be the "middle kingdom" solution. Hard to get in, hard to get out.
I will ask El Sid for his library opinion.


< Message edited by bigred -- 12/31/2011 5:33:02 PM >

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 223
RE: A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 5:39:48 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

FYI, in a previous game i invaded the Chungking plain from Sian thru the mountains w/ the 1st and 12th Armies. I was using trail supply from Sian. I did arrive at Chungking and laid siege. In that campaign I suffered permanent damage to my IJN infantry because of a shortage of overland supply. I could not get my damaged IJN infantry to rebuild themselves. I later(after a 6 month mistake) opened a supply path from the south on a major road. In some of my Jap divisions the infantry strength was reduced by 50%.

I think if you want to create a more static front then we need to remove the major road access to CK from the south. Make these major roads trails. Then the Japs will have a hard time getting in and the Chinese a hard time getting out. The Chinese will come out to play in 44 when the Americans can get them some coastal resupply or reopen the Burma road.

i guess this would really be the "middle kingdom" solution. Hard to get in, hard to get out.
I will ask El Sid for his library opinion.



As far as I'm aware during such periods as the Japanese were actually thinking about moving into the Szechwan basin the preferred option was up the Yangtze - so in game terms, start from Ichang and move upriver - with other avenues of entry being considered impractical. I guess it's easier to have a hundred Yangtze barges built than several thousand trucks, and practically speaking they'd get more done. Unfortunately non-navigable rivers aren't supply pathways in-game except insofar as they interact with base supply draw limits, which aren't in force in China outside Yunnan.

In game terms, you can get a similar level of supply flow from anywhere - in the sense that troops in hostile bases or open country will draw whatever amount they need, as long as the movement cost to do so isn't too extreme. Any Japanese in Chungking should be able to draw supply from as far away as Pusan if they need to and have a pathway - they'll just only be able to do so once a week rather than two or four times. Practical cost of doing so will be higher in that wastage in transport will be higher, but it'd be possible to do. To actually make that impractical you'd probably have to reroute roads entirely, rather than just degrading their quality - make'em sinuous so that movement from one hex to the next takes twice as much effort as it would with a straight link.

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 224
RE: A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 7:55:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I seems to me simply raising the garrison requirements would go a long way towards doing what we've discussed. Would LOVE to do some of these other ideas, however, the work needed to be done to achieve this would be high. Just ask kfsgo abouot the work he has done in Perfect War! Buckets o' time!

Are there other options?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 225
RE: A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 10:05:24 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2896
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:




In RHS, the Upper Yangtze is a navigable river. While not a land supply path, it is a naval supply path - either manually (move the ships yourself) or automatic (use convoy routing). The defense for the Allies is best by air - planes will kill the small supply vessels. Above Wuhan, the Yangtze is not navigable to ocean ships (as IRL). Wuhan shipyard is very old - and built ocean ships in the 19th century - and submarines today (deep draft vessels, modern subs).

However, in RHS there are more supply sources. vs a dumb opponent, who did not garrison his interior cities, one might attempt an airborn coup - then both fly in and move via road regular army units - to open up a new axis and - more important - to isolate the Chinese defense. I find it is best to cut off the enemy from supply sources before trying to drive him out of an area, or wipe him out.

Sid
Email from ElSid:



< Message edited by bigred -- 12/31/2011 10:06:29 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 226
RE: A China Proposal - 12/31/2011 10:10:39 PM   
elcid

 

Posts: 226
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Lakewood Washington
Status: offline
Reply to query re supply in China.

This depends a great deal on the scenario. SOME mods have a good deal more supply in China than stock does. Even so, the real variable is - does the mod
permit you to use the river systems? IF it does - the Yangtze was the major logistical route of China then - you may both move and supply using the river.
Ocean ships - deep draft - should be able to reach Wuhan (since the 19th century this was possible, and Wuhan shipyard build and still builds ocean ships -
the Great Bridge in Nanking built post war was designed to permit the Queen Mary to sail benieth it). Above Wuhan, the Yangtze should be an ordinary navigable
river - all the way to Chunking. If it is, you can move supply along the river - manually or using auto convoys. The Allied defense is best by air. Planes can chew
up small river shipping badly. Again, depending on the mod, this may be a real option: the Chinese air force should be strong in the interior - far from Japanese bases -
and priorities. China should be making some airplanes - see Liowing for example - unless it is threatened by the Japanese in Burma (as IRL). See my post on the CW-21
Demon - a remarkable fighter which is about to enter production in China when the war begins - a bomber interceptor that can escape fighters bout climbing out of reach.
It was successful in Dutch hands (although overwhelmed - they assembled it in Bandoeng on Java). But a serious Japanese effort should be a problem for China.
See the late war offensive to get B-29 bases. They got em all, and linked up rail lines all the way to Indochina (which means the map ought to have such rail lines to link up).


(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 227
RE: A China Proposal - 1/1/2012 5:06:45 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
How hard would it be to makes changes to the map? (I dread asking this question)

kfsgo: Have you done something like this in PW?



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 1/1/2012 5:07:31 AM >


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to elcid)
Post #: 228
RE: A China Proposal - 1/1/2012 12:02:05 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

How hard would it be to makes changes to the map? (I dread asking this question)

kfsgo: Have you done something like this in PW?




Editing the pwhex file is easy - there's an editor, after all. Editing the art so that the appearance of it corresponds to the new reality on the ground is also pretty easy. Editing the art so that the new stuff looks good...that might take a bit longer.

I haven't done any of this in PW yet - though it'll need to be done at some point to implement the Yangtze navigability changes etc.

e: the only thing is that although there's an editor it doesn't address the issue of the new terrain troop limits; are you using that stuff now? It might break it (and might not, but the point is I don't know).

< Message edited by kfsgo -- 1/1/2012 12:11:00 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 229
RE: A China Proposal - 1/1/2012 10:43:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
While I would really LOVE to do some of the things detailed above, I think we simply opt to tweak China by raising the garrison requirements as outlined earlier. This is the easier move that won't take a bunch of time and effort. We've got a number of people waiting for this to be released so lets simply go with it.

kfsgo: Should I shoot the files to you once Stanislav is done with them or is this something I can do? You outlined the garrison #s for the Chinese. What do you think with the Japanese side of the line?

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 230
RE: A China Proposal - 1/2/2012 12:38:56 AM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
You could do it yourself but it might be quicker for me to since I know exactly what to do (since it'll be similar to the PW setup...not identical, but similar); so, sure, send'em over.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 231
FatR Changes - 1/2/2012 12:46:07 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Here is the note I just got with the files from Stanislav:


1)Revised stats like displacement, speed, fuel load, MVR on nearly all major Japanese surface combatants.

2)Nearly completely revised pre-Akizuki DD upgrades, partially for historical accuracy, as far as I could judge from scraps of information I could get (no single 25mm mounts in 1941 and so on), partially to reflect reality of the game and enhanced nature of the mod (so while I hope there is no physically impossible upgrades, a large number of upgrades is considerably advanced compared to RL and somewhat advanced compared to older dates). In general, older DDs get a bit more MGs with more rational placement, treaty DDs get less, and Kageros/Yugumos get a lot less, but mostly keep their anti-surface armament. Kagero DDs get their rear turrets replaced with 127/40 twins in late 1943 (allegedly, although sources are not very clear, some Yugumos got a single 127/40 twin in place of their turret #2 late in the war, in this alternative lots of 127/40 mounts are lying around after upgrading large warships, and their installation will allow to save weight for flak/ASW upgrades). You'll like Akizukis here, not because they are significantly better, but because of how much more flak MGs and depth charges they can pack, compared to their precedessors.

Another big change is introduction of a late-war upgrade for APD versions of Mutsuki/Minekaze/Kamikaze, so you won't need to upgrade them to escorts if you want late-war equipment.

3)Heavily revised CA upgrades, mostly changing when they get extra flak MGs, and flak MG positioning.

4)Added Ki-45d into Ki-45 upgrade line, and added radar-equipped Ki-45e for late 1944. That reminds me - I forgot to make any Army nightfighter groups available sooner! Although with upgrade line like this, it will be possible to automatically turn any Ki-45-equipped groups into nightfighter groups.

5)Made a few other planes tweak - better S1A like I posited for Perfect War, Ki-67 and Ki-119 using Ha-42 engines as they should, twin HMGs replacing single cannons on late Frances version as they probably should.





_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 232
RE: A China Proposal - 1/2/2012 12:47:03 AM   
John 3rd


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

You could do it yourself but it might be quicker for me to since I know exactly what to do (since it'll be similar to the PW setup...not identical, but similar); so, sure, send'em over.



DEAL. Files being sent to you right NOW!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 233
RE: A China Proposal - 1/2/2012 6:27:20 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Wanna talk about Fast? I mean FAST?? kfsgo has already done his work and sent the updated files back to me. How about that??!!

Fantastic.

Home Phase. I need to get some work done and make sure the IJN LCU changes are finalized and then we can release 4.0. NICE!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 234
RE: A China Proposal - 1/2/2012 10:01:48 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
One more note on my changes - I added 5mm of armor to main guns of all Jap destroyers that have fully enclosed turrets, as Allied DDs have similar protections. Don't think it really matters, just in the interest of fairness.

Also, I should mention, that due to more powerful Japanese military industry in this mod, some upgrades happen faster. Cruisers get their main flak upgrades in late 1943 and DDs throughout 1943, surface search radars also are available a couple months earlier. Though in some cases ships still carry fewer 25mms that they did previously in the game, particularly throughout 1942.

_____________________________

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 John 3rd)
Post #: 235
RE: A China Proposal - 1/2/2012 4:13:23 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Files sent back to FatR for a quick fix on his side.

Michael had commented on the surface search radars as well. Good work there.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 236
RE: A China Proposal - 1/2/2012 8:01:50 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Stanislav already has sent the files back to me after his quick 'fix.' Once I've finished the IJN LCUs, the 4.0 will be released. It will be placed at the start of this Thread for easy download. As I get to thinking about it, I need to make sure the artwork and scenario description is attached to it. That will take a little time. Will update the Intro as well...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 237
Christmas Break Ends - 1/4/2012 3:26:53 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The boys are back in school today and so, FINALLY, I can devote myself to getting RA 4.0 complete. Plan to have things done by Thursday or Friday. Will Post the 'things done' list here as I go.

Who might like to see the files BEFORE release to look for any issues that may have been missed by Stanislav, kfsgo, or myself? If interested, email me at jrc_3@msn.com.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 238
Da Babes Site - 1/4/2012 5:10:21 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11244
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
We got excellent news this morning. JWE and his team has agreed to allow RA to be Posted on their excellent Da Babes site! Since RA is now patterned off of Da Babes Scenarios, this made a lot of sense to me. How about that?!!

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 239
Things Done - 1/4/2012 5:17:27 PM   
John 3rd


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

1. A Fighter, 2EB, and 4EB Training Wings have been added as a static unit at Wendover Field to allow for a limited US Army Training Program. This allows for the Army to gain some training just as the Navy does with their VF, VB, and VT units. Each Training Wing can expand up to 48 planes.

2. USA starting Supply and Fuel is slashed 50% to better reflect a slower start for the Good Ole USA.

3. Added an Air Fleet/Air Flotilla Upgrade for the Japanese in 1943 allowing these units to gain more AA Guns and Radar.

4. Deleted 12 Naval Guard units and replaced them with 10 Atoll Defense units as described above in earlier Posts.

5. Checked China Garrison requirements done by kfsgo and am really hopeful the increased requirements will force a real slowdown in this theatre. More units will be tied up if China or Japan starts major offensive operations.

6. Added a Tina Production Line at Nagasaki since none were being produced at war's start and there are slightly more planes operational at start. It begins producing 6 planes a month.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 1/4/2012 5:40:47 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Files Sent Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   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

0.125