Matrix Games Forums

Buzz Aldrins Space Program Manager is now available!Space Program Manager gets mini-site and Twitch SessionBuzz Aldrin: Ask Me Anything (AMA) on redditDeal of the week Fantasy Kommander: Eukarion WarsSpace 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!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread

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: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 1/28/2012 7:19:17 AM   

Posts: 1338
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Have you streamlined different gun types? Namely does same calibre Naval Guns have the same effect, as land-based guns toward Soft Attack?
It is possible it should also include Aircraft Guns. LMG is worth around 9 Soft-Attack, so 7.7mm/.303 should have around 9, or even more, because it is used from better position (from above, where you can not hide as easy).



As an example of changes, here are a few weapon comparisons. Changes are shown as X->Y, where X is the stock value and Y is the new value. Values with no arrow remain the same;

.50 Browning MG
Range 4
Effect 3
Penetration 2->5
Accuracy 29->31
Anti-Armor 20->10
Anti-Soft 3->4

7.7mm Type 89
Range 3
Effect 2
Penetration 1->2
Accuracy 27->23
Anti-Armor 10->4
Anti-Soft 2->4

Have you done tests to check what every statistics exactly do?
For example PENETRATION:
the only thing I am sure, is that 7.7mm have real trouble with damaging armored aircraft. That could mean, that penetration should be higher, that plane armor, but since most planes have 1 armor max, is there any difference between Penetration 3, and 8? Maybe it is also used against ships, but I can hardly find any ship, which have more than 0, but less than 25 armor.
The other problem is ANTI-ARMOR. I am guessing it is only used against vehicles, but they have only ONE armor statistics, and it is 50+ for tanks. So, since attack is made from above, against top of vehicle (so less armor), should not it actually be HIGHER? Also, considering that it is probably only used during strafing, which is suicide anyway, because you get into range of all those small AAMGs with ceiling below 3000, this ability will be hardly used.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 31
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 2/5/2012 12:54:53 AM   

Posts: 857
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
inqisitor; I have not done any device 'standardisation' across different types (Aircraft vs Ship weapons for example) simply because I do not know exactly how the game handles the data values, and so there may be a good reason for the differences (penetration measured at different ranges for example?). If more details on this ever come to light, then I will adapt them appropriately.

As promised last time, I’ll explain a little of what I've got planned for the industrial side today.


Without going into exact numbers (as these haven’t actually been nailed down yet), changes to industry sought to do the following things;

1) Increase the value of individual HI points, hence the cost of aircraft and other dependants indirectly
2) Modify supply production to get rid of refinery supply, and give LI a clear role
3) Do the above without reducing the need for shipping. Indeed, a case might be made for increasing it.
4) Alter the balance of target values for strategic bombing in favour of targets like refineries, engine factories, etc.

In stock AE scenarios, the industry works through the following components;

Resource Centres; Produce 20 resources per point, cost 1000 supply to repair
Oil Centres; Produce 10 oil per point, cost 1000 supply to repair
Refineries; Consume 10 oil, produce 1 supply and 9 fuel, cost 1000 supply to repair
Light Industry; Consume 15 resources, produce 1 supply, cost 1000 supply to repair
Heavy Industry; Consume 20 resources and 2 fuel, produce 2 supply and 2 HI points, cost 1000 supply to repair
Other components; Consume HI, produce various point types, cost 1000 supply to repair

As these components themselves cannot be changed, we need to adapt their inputs and outputs to any changes.

The preliminary plan is to redesign them to work as follows;

Resource Centres; Produce 15 resources per point, cost 500 supply to repair
Oil Centres; Produce 10 oil per point, cost 500 supply to repair
Refineries; Consume 20 oil, produce 18 fuel, cost 2500 supply to repair
Light Industry; Consume 10 resources, produce 1 supply, cost 500 supply to repair
Heavy Industry; Consume 15 resources and 2 fuel, produce 1 supply and 1 HI points, cost 1000 supply to repair
Other components; Consume HI, produce various point types, cost varying amounts of supply to repair

In addition, on map industry will be changes as follows to begin, then tweaked later.

Size of resource centres will be increased by 40%; this results in overall 5% more resources produced on map
Oil Centres remain as is; oil production remains as is, but easier to repair
Size of refineries halved; resulting in the same capacity, but more expensive to repair and easier to bomb
Size of LI plants increased by 50%; supply production increases 50% for same resource cost, easier to repair
Size of HI plants increased by 50%; HI capacity falls to 75% and supply production to 66% for 12.5% more resources

So; a scenario 1 Japan on Dec 7th will look as follows (bracketed numbers are stock scen 1); do note that these is an example of these concepts applied 'roughly' to the existing numbers in scenario 1.

Resources: 19362 RC producing 290430 points (13830 RC producing 276600 points)
Oil: 224 OC producing 2240 points
Refineries: 517 RF producing 9306 fuel from 10340 oil (1035 RF producing 9315 fuel and 1035 supply from 10350 oil)
Light Industry: 14010 LI producing 14010 supply from 140100 resources (9340 LI producing 9340 supply from 140100 resources)
Heavy Industry: 10425 HI producing 10425 HI, 10425 supply from 20850 fuel and 156375 resources (6950 HI producing 13900 HI, 13900 supply from 13900 fuel and 139000 resources)

Net Changes:

Resources: (+13830 Out) - (+17375 In) = -3545 Net
Oil: Unchanged
Fuel: (-9 Out) - (+6950) = -6959 Net
Supply: (+4670 Out) + (-3475 Out) = +1195 Out
HI: -3475 Net

Lastly, the 'special' industry buildings also get some changes;

Repair Shipyard: Repair cost to 1500 supply
Naval Shipyard: Repair cost 2000 supply
Merchant Shipyard: Repair cost 2000 supply
Engine Factories: Repair costs 1000-4000 supply
Armament Factory: Repair cost 1500 supply
Vehicle Factory: Repair cost 3000 supply

The changes outlined above result in the following;

1) Overall resource shipping needs slightly increased, Oil/Fuel shipping needs indirectly increased
2) Japan has a greater resource deficiency to begin with, in return for some more supply production
3) Reduced overall HI capacity to 75%
4) Cheap repairs for Resources and LI mean that repairing these facilities is more viable in regions like China/India
5) Cheap repairs for Oil means that repairing these is more viable in the SRA; high repair cost of refineries along with excess capacity in the HI means that it is more sensible to ship Oil for refining there; downside is inefficiency load wise (10 Oil = 9 Fuel)
6) Increased size of LI, HI and Resource centres means that strategic bombing against these targets is less effective
7) Higher repair costs for 'final' industries and refineries means that these targets are more valuable as strategic bombing targets due to the cost of repairs. This is particularly true for late game engine factories.
8) Reduced production/size for HI means expansion/repair of these facilities will be slower.

As a result of reducing the overall amount of HI, each HI point is more valuable, thus aircraft production and other final products also incur this increased value from the Japanese player’s point of view.

The reduced HI is partially compensated by a slight reduction in the amount of shipyard points required, as a result of a radical change to the way several ships are built in game. The basic concept is that the ships are built as empty hulls, which can then convert into a variety of designs through a 'fitting out' phase which lasts from 4-12 months. The catch is that like in the AltWNT scenarios with conversions, house rules are used to impose a cap on the number of ships of various sizes that can be fitted out simultaneously; in addition, these compete for space with any conversions the player wants to perform.

A similar but slightly more flexible option will exist for the allied players US ship construction.

In both cases, these hulls will appear in thr build list with names like II Large Destroyer Hull II, which allows them to be found easily by sorting by ship name, and allows them to be renamed before they are completed. If possible, I will try to include the name of the ship the hull historically corresponded to on the name, but I am unsure of being able to fit strings that long in the ship name field. If this is done, they might look like II Large Cruiser Hull (Alaska) II. I may also drop the preceding II as it is not needed for the naming, and replace it with a single X to make them even easier to find.

More on this and ship design in general next time. In the meantime, critique and questions welcome.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 2/5/2012 1:01:14 AM >


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 32
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 3/15/2012 9:23:39 PM   
Buck Beach


Posts: 1918
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline



Some more for you guys, I apologize for the delay, but my attention managed to get diverted into other things for a while. Then when I dropped back in here I got distracted catching up on the ongoing debate regarding the beta changes and air model, etc, etc.

My two cents on the issue is that I dont think there is anything fundementally broken in the system, but that the data used in stock isnt necessarily ideal for creating realistic results, leading to issues like too high operational tempos, etc.

So, in light of that, and since the last post was on aircraft weapons, I thought I would make this post about the changes to aircraft themselves, as well as air production, research.


One of the first things I did when I started on Mk2 was creating a spreadsheet to handle aircraft data, and to automatically calculate things like Extended and Normal ranges, Endurance, as well as useful non-game data like fuel efficiency and drop tank range effects which I could use to make sure all the data was sensible.

A lot of ranges were tweaked a little, and of course any new aircraft or non-historical models just had them extrapolated. The general pattern for ranges in stock is that Normal is 75% of Extended, which is ~70-95% of Maximum depending on aircraft type (though note that the game automatically halves Ext and Normal ranges since they involve a return trip. I chose to keep these ratios, though I did consider dropping the Ext/Normal ratio to 60% or so since it would push up Ops losses as a result, but so far there does not seem to be a need for it. As a general rule Extended was set as 80% of Maximum, with the except of recon aircraft which are at 95% and bombers with space for internal fuel which are at 70-75%.

Service Rating
Service ratings were completely redone, with all seeing increases. An interesting discovery I made while working using the .csv files is that although service rating is capped at 5 in the editor, if a value greater than this is used on a .csv and the scenario repackaged, the game will happily recognize that value. Im still doing tests on this, but if it works as advertised, then the likely values for service ratings will be something like below. Note that these are just guidelines, every plane will be asessed individually.

3 - Radial Single Engine (F4F, etc)
4 - 'Difficult' Radial Single Engine (A7M, B5N1), Radial Twin Engine (A-20, Ki-48), Inline Single Engine (Spitfire, Ki-61)
5 - Large Radial Twin Engine (B25, G4M, Ki-21), Inline Twin Engine (P-38), Jet-Prop Hybrids (FR-1)
6 - Four Engine (B-17), Jets (P-80)

I should note that the differences between 4 and 5 for example are much lower than those between 2 and 3, because of how SR works. What happens is that the SR is used to divide 100 to work out how much wear the aircraft can take before it needs maintenance; this is visible on the Planes tab of a squadron. So SR3 is 33, SR4 is 25, SR5 is 20 and SR6 is 16/17. As a result, I might even push up the upper end of the scale to SR8, which is 12/13. Probably something that needs a lot of testing.

My ongoing game with csatahajos uses the early version of this with everything rated from 3 to 5, and it has a noticable but realistic effect on sortie tempo; its possible to stage strikes with 100% operational squadrons, but dont expect to do so for several days in a row, availability will quickly drop to ~70-80% for single engine bombers, and less for the bigger stuff. Couple this with Babes style AV support limits for real fun.

Another thing that I had issue with was the marked difference between the way MVR values for the allied and japanese planes varied. Take for example a comparison of the F6F3 and the A6M5. The F6F-3 is rated as 17-17-17-17-14, with the A6M5 as 29-29-29-23-17. This just seems off, especially as even though both aircraft had superchargers, decreasing air density would result in reduced maneuvering ability even if engine power was unaffected; instead the values are constant until the critical altitude is reached and then drop off.

The same 2 aircraft under the new system I use are as follows; 24-22-20-18-14 for the F6F-3, and 31-28-25-20-13 for the A6M5. These are probably the most fluid part of the changes to aircraft right now, and have gone through about 6-7 iterations so far, with more to come as I get a chance to do more testing. In brief, I try to account for wing loading and general manuverability (the base value), the effects of super/turbochargers (fall off with altitude, point of steeper falloff), along with the effect of reduced air pressure resulting in less manueverability, with acrobatic aircraft suffering more.

An intesting side effect of testing this was that the stratospheric sweep effect is much less noticable, especially in the early war; even an unlayered CAP will do resonably against them, though layered is always better. I have yet to see how it plays out with late-war aircraft like the P-51H, etc.

Production and Research
Without going into too much detail on industrial changes, suffice to say that as a result of Japan having less HI overall, each point invested into aircraft will be that much more 'expensive'. This, coupled with the fact that the repair cost for each engine factory type can be different (from ~1000 supplies for Ha-33/35, to ~3000-4000 supplies for late war versions), should allow a more realistic representation of the limitations faced historically.

When it comes to R&D, I identified 2 main things that caused unrealistic results as Japan; the first was the sheer number of R&D centers, meaning you could easily afford to use 5-10 on an aircraft you really wanted, each at the 'optimum' size of 30-40. By cutting the number of R&D centers to two dozen or so, the player is forced to be much more selective about what to research, assuming realistic R&D is on of course. The second was the crazy ability to 'upgrade' an R&D plant without damage to any plane in an upgrade path. This was dealt with by removing the natural upgrade paths for all IJ aircraft; the ones ones where a shift like that is permitted is within subvariants (Ki-44-Ia to -Ib and -Ic), or when moving to an 'alternative version' (G4M1 to G4M1-L).

Comments and questions on the above would be appreciated. I will explain industrial changes in more depth next time, and might dabble into shipbuilding aswell.

You got me really hyped at some of the items you intended for this mod. Is it still alive?


(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 33
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 3/15/2012 9:35:28 PM   

Posts: 857
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline


ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

You got me really hyped at some of the items you intended for this mod. Is it still alive?


Yes, sort of; I managed to wear myself of trying to figure out a workable way to do the shipbuilding without either a) requiring a massive set of house rules, b) making it too complicated ingame and c) making it rigid enough to avoid exploitation.

As it stands I will probably just scrap that plan for now and just finish the rest as planned. Sadly theres so much going in real life at the moment that I can't find the time to do the project justice at the moment.


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 34
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 3/15/2012 10:01:31 PM   

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
What the problem? I have found a solution for both fixing the costs, as well to giving the player the freedom of choice within some dimensions.


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

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

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 35
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 3/16/2012 1:19:03 AM   
Mac Linehan


Posts: 1256
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
JuanG -

Just on (illicetly!) for a moment. Missed this post. Some very original thinking with a different approach. I will be very interested to see how it pans out.

There is no doubt that an enourmous amount of work is required on your part to make it all happen; you have my sincere respect, appreciation and admiration.



LAV-25 2147

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 36
RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread - 3/16/2012 2:34:35 AM   

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline
Yes, its a great mod! I had a PBEM on it, unfortunately only till 6/42, when my jap opponent lost interest.


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

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

(in reply to Mac Linehan)
Post #: 37
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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