Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1

 
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 4.1 Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 - 6/10/2012 5:15:00 AM   
CRations


Posts: 75
Joined: 2/21/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

CRations: The Oi and Kitakami are not TT Cruisers in RA. You will see that their mounts get used elsewhere. Oi, Kitakami, and two others are training cruisers in RA. The Katori-Class Training CL does not exist. It isn't built in this AltNavHist.


Ok - I was just curious.

CR

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 91
RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 - 6/10/2012 12:22:55 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2140
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
That was one amazing air strike. Been a long time since I have seen one that destructive. As they say, "you got a bad roll of the dice."

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 92
RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 - 6/10/2012 2:58:21 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I'd pay good money and/or sacrifice one of my cats for that result!

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 93
RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 - 6/10/2012 4:01:02 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 1292
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
Aye, all of KB hit Pearl. Land based air wiped out Force Z, as well as the destroyers out of Hong Kong. Manila took a beating, but nothing strange there. It's my 1st RA turn, thought I would ask

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 94
RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 - 6/10/2012 4:56:06 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 459
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: On the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
I hope I have the same rolls for my next attack of Pearl! I had never seen such a good 1st turn.

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 95
RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 - 6/10/2012 5:00:21 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 459
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: On the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
I don't know if these have surfaced before (RA 4.3), but:

Japanese land unit 3994 - 36th Field AA. Bn. is attached to 71st Air Flotilla (R)... and based in Kompong Trach at start?
Dutch land unit 5908 - Loemafjang Base Force... shouldn't it be Loemadjang, with a "d", same as the base?

Just my 0.02

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 96
RE: Reluctant Admiral 4.1 - 6/10/2012 8:13:28 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thanks Kitakami. I will add those to the list.

Anyone spotting other little problems please Post them here so I can keep notes and provide a change log when 4.4 comes out.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 97
Tanks and A-T - 6/14/2012 6:55:46 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Got this email and thought it might be worth Posting. Considering RA is an enhanced naval mod, I am not sure but thought it might generate some thinking and discussion:


[1] Type 2 light tank (device number 780) has it's anti-soft value mistaken. It's 4. It should be 14.

It has the same value of 4 in your RA database. IMHO should be 14.


[2] Dead end for the Japanese light tanks in all scenarios.

In old WITP both type 95/98 light tanks (devices 778/779) were upgrading with Type 2 light tank somewhere in '44.

Now in AE the link is broken. Device 779 (type 98) upgrades with device 780. BUT there's no or almost no type 98 tanks in this scenario! Device 778 stays with typ 95 tanks througout the war.
That's IMHO wrong.
IRL those type 95 tanks were being rebuild and fitted with the 57 mm tank gun becoming Type 4 Ke-Nu light tanks...

Maybe the availability of Type 98 should be changed for... say 08.42?

Like 95 --> Type 98 (08.42) --> Type 2 (6.44)
Or, better yet and as suggested, maybe a new REALType 4 Ke-Nu should be introduced (also about 100 built IRL and foreseen as a real successor of Type 98 as an upgrade for Type 95 in '44?

Trying to find some logic here... Why the Japanese player is stuck with mediocre Type 95 if he has full contingents of Type 3 tanks? (IRL equally rare as Type 4 Ke-Nu ; but now in 9'44 scenario 2 I have almost 1300 of them active).


[3] Lack of AT capability for the Japaneseside late war ...


[3a] Device no 734 (37 mm AT) is a dead end too, while 735 (almost the same 37 mm AT) upgrades with 736 (47 mm). I think in some point of time both 734 & 735 should upgrade into 736.

[3b] Talking about the experiences... Late war Allied tanks are almost immune to the Japanese anti tank guns... I thinks it's safe to assume the Army could have noticed the danger and come out with some countermeasure...

IRl there were some experimental 75mm and 105 mm Anti-Tank Guns in plans.



Again... we're talking about what if scenario. So my suggestion is to introduce a 75 mm AT gun late war (the caliber widely used and found very useful by the Japanese side) as some 75 mm AA guns were IRL used in anti-tank role or introduce the stop-gap 57 mm gun (some were used to fit into mentioned Type 4 light tanks).










_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 98
RA 4.4 - 6/14/2012 7:04:20 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Barring changes from the discussion above, I have RA 4.4 set and ready to roll.

CHANGE LIST:

1. Changed Files to 4.4 so there is no confusion.

2. Added 13 AK-t conversions to starting Japanese Forces at Truk and Saipan.

3. Truk started WAY over-stacked for Dec 7th. Changed this by moving the following units to these locations:
a. Tinian--1st and 2nd Base Force and 1st China Assault SNLF
b. Ponape--4th Base Force and 2 Nvl Con Bn
c. Eniwetok--4th Fleet HQ

Truk now starts slightly over-stacked at a little over 2,000 too many. Roughly 5,000 supply added to Tinian and Ponape that is subtracked from Truk.

4. Fixed Kitakai's notice for a Japanese AA Unit HQ and a Dutch unit's position.

5. Somehow the small CD units we added at the start of RA for the Allies got deleted. I reinstated them at Port Moresby, Cocos, and Pt. Blair. They are patterned on the CD unit starting at Rabaul.

6. Added 20,000 fuel to Babeldoap and subtracked the same amount from Hiroshima.

Like I said, nothing major just fixing little things now.

Will send 4.4 to FatR for loading onto the RA Site.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 99
RE: RA 4.4 - 6/14/2012 7:07:21 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Files have been sent and I asked FatR to Post here when they are available.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 100
RE: RA 4.4 - 6/14/2012 12:46:26 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1792
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline
John, Thanks

Was it by design that the extra Tone class CA have a/c capcity at 8 when the others are 6 I think - I only had a brief look, maybe I am wrong.
Also it would be nice if all the Mogami class were able to upgrade to the CACV? Just a small point.

I am looking forward to getting into this game as the setup looks very realistic in this alt world and interesting.

Michael


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 101
RE: RA 4.4 - 6/14/2012 12:57:01 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6744
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
I did a quick look and everything looks OK.

I think you will need to go in and adjust some of the naval leaders as you will need some better choices for the SNLF divisions. There are only three of good enough quality that I would use to replace existing leaders. Load up Tracker and then modify about 6 leaders to make them good division leaders (maybe more).

OT - A Japanese player can now load a full SNLF division at Saipan and use the bonus move SC TF (changed over to Amphib TF) and invade somewhere on Dec 7th or 8th. Add in the bonus TF at Tokyo that can load the Gds Mixed Bde (bought using PP) and the Solomons/New Guinea area can heat up very quickly. Rabaul invaded on Dec 8th here I come!!

OT 2 - Due to the HQ 'bug' I would advise Japanese players NOT to include any HQs with invasion TF anywhere. Often part is "lost at sea" and that includes the torpedo carrying part for over 30 days.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 102
RE: RA 4.4 - 6/14/2012 1:01:02 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1792
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline
Any comment on the Mogami class conversion - its the same as stock as of now.

M

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 103
RE: RA 4.4 - 6/14/2012 2:39:40 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The Tone Kai do have the AC at 8 figuring on a slightly better ship.

I THINK--have to look--that we made all four of that group possible to upgrade into CA--CS carrying 6 FP. Have to look in the Editor but I do think Mogami, Mikuma, and their two sisters all have that opportunity. Remember--or checkout--the Agano carry 4 FP in this scenario since they are much larger CLs and you get up to EIGHT of them.

Nice catch on the Leaders Issue Michael. Will look at that as well.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 104
RE: Tanks and A-T - 6/14/2012 2:48:39 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
[1] Type 2 light tank (device number 780) has it's anti-soft value mistaken. It's 4. It should be 14.
It has the same value of 4 in your RA database. IMHO should be 14.


This one is clearly a mistake in the database. John. Should be 14 for sure.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
So my suggestion is to introduce a 75 mm AT gun late war (the caliber widely used and found very useful by the Japanese side) as some 75 mm AA guns were IRL used in anti-tank role or introduce the stop-gap 57 mm gun (some were used to fit into mentioned Type 4 light tanks).


I don't know how the game mechanics works and I wonder how the AA LCUs are used when in stack with other units.
Do they (AA LCUs) fire at tanks?
If yes, that's ok... I think the Japs may benefit from German experiences with their marvellous 88 mm flak guns and used the 75 mm in both AA and AT role... If not, maybe it is possible to change the 75 mm gun device so that it fulfill both functions?













_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 105
RE: RA 4.4 - 6/14/2012 2:49:48 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1792
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline
Did they ( Mogami conversions not carry 11 ?

Thanks for all you great work so far - the more I hear the more I like.

M

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 106
RE: RA 4.4 - 6/14/2012 3:28:27 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Yes: Mogami's carried the higher number.

Got no issue fixing device 780.

RA has a decent number of additional AA units added the Kaigun's LCUs. They are 88s.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 107
RE: RA 4.4 - 6/14/2012 4:26:41 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 1292
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
Please post when the updated version is up.  It will be a great excuse to start over for some of us

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 108
RE: RA 4.4 - 6/14/2012 8:22:45 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I've loaded 4.4 on site.

As about the tanks stuff, I'll comment on it in detail by tomorrow evening. Generally, though, I don't have much belief in making Japanese motorized forces even stronger. Because the game as it exist already allows Japs to deploy numbers of medium tanks that exceed their entire RL production in a single attack, field 3 (4 in Scen 2) full tank divisions and so on.

< Message edited by FatR -- 6/14/2012 8:25:29 PM >


_____________________________

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 Lecivius)
Post #: 109
RE: Tanks and A-T - 6/14/2012 9:40:53 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 459
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: On the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Got this email and thought it might be worth Posting. Considering RA is an enhanced naval mod, I am not sure but thought it might generate some thinking and discussion:


[1] Type 2 light tank (device number 780) has it's anti-soft value mistaken. It's 4. It should be 14.

It has the same value of 4 in your RA database. IMHO should be 14.


[2] Dead end for the Japanese light tanks in all scenarios.

In old WITP both type 95/98 light tanks (devices 778/779) were upgrading with Type 2 light tank somewhere in '44.

Now in AE the link is broken. Device 779 (type 98) upgrades with device 780. BUT there's no or almost no type 98 tanks in this scenario! Device 778 stays with typ 95 tanks througout the war.
That's IMHO wrong.
IRL those type 95 tanks were being rebuild and fitted with the 57 mm tank gun becoming Type 4 Ke-Nu light tanks...

Maybe the availability of Type 98 should be changed for... say 08.42?

Like 95 --> Type 98 (08.42) --> Type 2 (6.44)
Or, better yet and as suggested, maybe a new REALType 4 Ke-Nu should be introduced (also about 100 built IRL and foreseen as a real successor of Type 98 as an upgrade for Type 95 in '44?

Trying to find some logic here... Why the Japanese player is stuck with mediocre Type 95 if he has full contingents of Type 3 tanks? (IRL equally rare as Type 4 Ke-Nu ; but now in 9'44 scenario 2 I have almost 1300 of them active).


[3] Lack of AT capability for the Japaneseside late war ...

[3a] Device no 734 (37 mm AT) is a dead end too, while 735 (almost the same 37 mm AT) upgrades with 736 (47 mm). I think in some point of time both 734 & 735 should upgrade into 736.

<snip>


A couple of personal (and thoroughly uninformed) notes:

- At the very least, I think the Type 95 could be allowed to convert to the Type 2. I am not so sure about changing availability dates.
- In RA 4.4, device 734 upgrades to device 735, which in turn upgrades to device 736. I believe it should stay as is.

Just my 2 cents.

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 110
RE: Tanks and A-T - 6/14/2012 10:01:30 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
OK.

Cavalry: Could you send any other errata you find to my email?

Got notes on:
1. CLs Shokatsu and Ishikari not having aircraft assigned.
2. Mogami-Class not having upgrade to CS.
3. A6M3b and 4j having no Art.

The need for an outside set of eyes doing a thorough look for issues is a MOST WELCOME thing!

Tanks are outside my paygrade. What other people decide and talk about will be most watched. Seems the penetration issue is an easy fix. As to the rest...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 111
RE: RA 4.4 - 6/14/2012 10:03:28 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

I've loaded 4.4 on site.

As about the tanks stuff, I'll comment on it in detail by tomorrow evening. Generally, though, I don't have much belief in making Japanese motorized forces even stronger. Because the game as it exist already allows Japs to deploy numbers of medium tanks that exceed their entire RL production in a single attack, field 3 (4 in Scen 2) full tank divisions and so on.


Thanks Stanislav!

I tend to concur in that this is a NAVAL MOD and not an ARMY MOD. If there is some sort of clear cut error or major factual issue with the armor then I am all for fixing, otherwise, it does not fit into the vision of the Mod.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 112
RE: Tanks and A-T - 6/14/2012 10:45:40 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
RA has a decent number of additional AA units added the Kaigun's LCUs. They are 88s.


OK. But the question is: does AA LCU are treated the same way as AT LCUs during combat?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
As about the tanks stuff, I'll comment on it in detail by tomorrow evening. Generally, though, I don't have much belief in making Japanese motorized forces even stronger. Because the game as it exist already allows Japs to deploy numbers of medium tanks that exceed their entire RL production in a single attack, field 3 (4 in Scen 2) full tank divisions and so on.


FatR, it's not about making them stronger... or adding extra divisions... Speaking about logic.
In my PBEM scenario 2 (which is scenario 1 on steroids) there I've got in 9.44 roughly 1k type 3 tanks active in all available LCUs (while about 100 were build IRL). So why not have Type 2 light tanks upgrade if an assumption the upgrade is based says: Japan HAS resources to build 1k Type 3 "heavy" tanks.

Important. Mind that every upgrade is not without the cost for the Japanese Empire!
Every upgrade costs both in scarce vehicle points and armament points!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

[2] Dead end for the Japanese light tanks in all scenarios.

In old WITP both type 95/98 light tanks (devices 778/779) were upgrading with Type 2 light tank somewhere in '44.

Now in AE the link is broken. Device 779 (type 98) upgrades with device 780. BUT there's no or almost no type 98 tanks in this scenario! Device 778 stays with typ 95 tanks througout the war.
That's IMHO wrong.
IRL those type 95 tanks were being rebuild and fitted with the 57 mm tank gun becoming Type 4 Ke-Nu light tanks...

Maybe the availability of Type 98 should be changed for... say 08.42?

Like 95 --> Type 98 (08.42) --> Type 2 (6.44)
Or, better yet and as suggested, maybe a new REALType 4 Ke-Nu should be introduced (also about 100 built IRL and foreseen as a real successor of Type 98 as an upgrade for Type 95 in '44?

Trying to find some logic here... Why the Japanese player is stuck with mediocre Type 95 if he has full contingents of Type 3 tanks? (IRL equally rare as Type 4 Ke-Nu ; but now in 9'44 scenario 2 I have almost 1300 of them active).


A couple of personal (and thoroughly uninformed) notes:

- At the very least, I think the Type 95 could be allowed to convert to the Type 2. I am not so sure about changing availability dates.



I am with Kitakami here. Those Type 95 should at least be allowed to eventually upgrade with Type 2 tanks.
In the old WITP both light tanks' types were upgrading with Type 2 (see the printscreen; avail 99/99 come from old database).
Type 4 Ke-Nu would be fun, though!





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by viberpol -- 6/14/2012 10:47:48 PM >


_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 113
RE: Tanks and A-T - 6/14/2012 11:17:42 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
A couple more super-brief comments...

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

2. Mogami-Class not having upgrade to CS.

Anyone actually ever upgraded Mogami to a floatplane carrier in the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
3. A6M3b and 4j having no Art.

These should have art. At least planesides. It was there since version 1-something I'm still using. No new planetops, though.


_____________________________

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 #: 114
RE: Tanks and A-T - 6/14/2012 11:19:57 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Should we put out a call for a pair of planetops?

Red Lancer---Where are you?

Anyone interested?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 115
RE: Tanks and A-T - 6/15/2012 12:03:20 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I love knowing the Editor now. OK. Fixed:

1. CL's Shokatsu and Ishikari so they have air groups
2. CA's Mikuma, Suzuya, and Kumano may all now upgrade to CA-CS and they have 11 plane groups built and attached. Am sure we did this but I was unaware that there are two development lines for this class. Mogami follows her historical line while the other 3 just did their CA Upgrade thing.
3. Fixed Device 780 to 14.

Other stuff?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 116
RE: Tanks and A-T - 6/15/2012 2:12:14 AM   
Hooper82

 

Posts: 41
Joined: 11/8/2006
Status: offline
Hey Guys,

I'm pretty keen to try out RA, however I do have some questions
. Is there a comprehensive list of changes? New aircraft upgrade paths etc?
. How do I install it. Is there a how-to or something? Where do I extract the art zips too?


Cheers,
Hooper

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 117
RE: Tanks and A-T - 6/15/2012 12:31:25 PM   
viberpol


Posts: 827
Joined: 10/20/2005
From: Gizycko, Poland, EU
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I love knowing the Editor now. OK. Fixed:

1. CL's Shokatsu and Ishikari so they have air groups
2. CA's Mikuma, Suzuya, and Kumano may all now upgrade to CA-CS and they have 11 plane groups built and attached. Am sure we did this but I was unaware that there are two development lines for this class. Mogami follows her historical line while the other 3 just did their CA Upgrade thing.
3. Fixed Device 780 to 14.

Other stuff?



Device 712 in 1.43 upgrades with device 716 which again downgrades to 712 which ends it's production at 1.43?

IMO you should remove that downgrade of ID716 'cos it'll suck the resources downgrading and upgrading every turn...






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Przy lackim orle, przy koniu Kiejstuta Archanioł Rusi na proporcach błysł

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 118
RE: Tanks and A-T - 6/15/2012 1:34:43 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1792
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I love knowing the Editor now. OK. Fixed:

1. CL's Shokatsu and Ishikari so they have air groups
2. CA's Mikuma, Suzuya, and Kumano may all now upgrade to CA-CS and they have 11 plane groups built and attached. Am sure we did this but I was unaware that there are two development lines for this class. Mogami follows her historical line while the other 3 just did their CA Upgrade thing.
3. Fixed Device 780 to 14.

Other stuff?




John,

OK good stuff, I did not see anything else but it was a quick look. I assume you will issuing a new file.

cav

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 119
RE: Tanks and A-T - 6/15/2012 1:41:17 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 1792
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Blackboys East Sussex UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hooper82

Hey Guys,

I'm pretty keen to try out RA, however I do have some questions
. Is there a comprehensive list of changes? New aircraft upgrade paths etc?
. How do I install it. Is there a how-to or something? Where do I extract the art zips too?


Cheers,
Hooper



Hooper

This is what I did

Copy the whole AE game folder - save as RS ( takes about 9 mins ) or whatever but you need to also copy your short cut and make sure it refers to excatly the same folder if you have got your existing settings right for widescreen etc.

I downloaded the map and scn file to desk top only then printed the readme . Then follow what it says in the readme excatly - take your time as it could be easy to move the wrong file. Take the files from the zip folder and just past them into the correct folders given in the readme. Then you will have a new AE RS and your original normal AE so you can play both games without impeeding the other .

I am no PC expert but i got it right the first time.

Cav

(in reply to Hooper82)
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 4.1 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

0.211