Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RA 5.4

 
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 >> RA 5.4 Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RA 5.4 - 3/4/2013 2:52:48 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11070
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I decided to pull this out of the development thread and simply Post that a new version of RA is Posted on our site. Here are the relevant notes from FatR:

I've posted RA 5.4 update on the site.

1)It makes F4F-7 carrier capable (just in case - I did not look into Allied airgroups).

2)Added a number of tweaks to Japanese landing ships and mine warfare ships. Mostly historical corrections, the biggest mod-change is allowing some of their DMS to stay DMS, instead of convering to E-class ships. Some changes will make Japanese commanders happier, some won't, but nothing should affect balance in a major way.

3)And most importantly (ATTENTION, those who are about to start RA games), I've fixed a bug due to which C/D-class escorts ## 1-33 did not appear in the scenario. John, by chance, did you do any bulk relocations of table entries when you added new shis? Not as impactful as the repeated China bug, of course, but a considerable blow to Japanese ASW in 1944.


This fixes a problem on the American side plus a bug or two on the Japanese side. ENJOY!
John


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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

Post #: 1
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/6/2013 8:16:43 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I should note, that because I was in haste to post a fix to the escorts bug (by the way, did updating work for you, John), I forgot to transfer a couple of minor tweaks (adding, removing or repositioning an MG or two here or there). If you make a next update, John, please send it to me before posting, by themselves they aren't anywhere near meriting a new version.

_____________________________

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 #: 2
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/6/2013 4:48:11 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7063
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
What about the recent posting about SBD-3/4 production numbers?? Would that be worthy of a change?? It would be nice as Americans have multiple 18 plane groups of FPs (Kingfisher) that can update to SBDs, but you don't have the airframes to do so in mid to late '42.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3280252

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 3/6/2013 7:19:32 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 3
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/7/2013 1:40:16 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
SBD-3 production in the current version of Scen 70 is already increased to 33 planes/month, extra 12 arrive from automatic replacements.

_____________________________

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 ny59giants)
Post #: 4
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/7/2013 4:09:29 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11070
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
FatR is right on that. I'll read the thread Michael Posted.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 5
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/11/2013 4:20:06 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Reviewing the latest version of RA, I hardly can approve of the number of extra ships added since 4.0. CVLx2, CVEx2, large CLx2 (I've already talked about the alternatives for cruisers in the previous thread) - a bit too many additions to the naval program that already stretched boundaries of plausibility from the inception of RA. Don't even know if any DDs were added, not big enough memory to hold them all...

Anyway, John, I have a proposal for the future of this mod, or at least its naval side, which I'll detail when I have some free time (need to deal with my work and the turn I owe at the moment), and which hopefully you will find interesting.

_____________________________

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 #: 6
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/11/2013 7:09:05 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11070
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I should all the additions and/or changes written down SOMEWHERE. Will look for it and we'll get that all Posted here.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 7
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/13/2013 2:52:03 PM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rdI should all the additions and/or changes written down SOMEWHERE. Will look for it and we'll get that all Posted here.


I'll be very glad, if you do.

_____________________________

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 #: 8
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/17/2013 1:45:09 PM   
FatR

 

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

_____________________________

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 FatR)
Post #: 9
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/17/2013 3:37:32 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11070
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I just got your email detailing your proposal. Printed it off and will read it but am headed to church. Perhaps you ought to Post it to here for commentary?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 10
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/17/2013 8:30:04 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Okay. A note for people who haven't forgotten about the Perfect War yet: in fact, most of these changes resulted from me rereading notes on light forces for this mod, as I worked on the database, and realising that they can be done better. Then I thought that many ideas can be applied to RA as well (and in a more realistic timeframe), so here they are.




Emergency fleet programs modifications.

1)Yamamoto's increases influence postulated by the mod brings a greater degree of awareness regarding the possibility of a protracted war, as Japan slides into conflict in 1941.

2)The Circle Five program is not even discussed. A conference between the Naval General Staff and the Navy Ministry is held in September of 1941, soon after the historical beginning of war preparations (the reconstruction of Junyo and Hiyo), but nine months before the historical adoption of the Circle Urgent program. This, by the way, also explains why the equivalent of the pair of heavy cruisers that historically belonged to the Circle Urgent program (Ibuki and hull #301 IRL, Iwaki/Hikari RA) is completed so early, and why reconstruction of the shadow carriers happen faster. The Circle Urgent program is formulated on this meeting. The full program is not activated until August of 1941 (one month earlier than IRL), but some of its parts that were not clearly unfit for peacetime needs, including construction of the new cruisers, were gradually put into action before this date (just like IRL the shadow fleet reconstruction began before IJN officially started its shift to war footing). More importantly, extensive work on future "mobilisation ships" designs and consctruction schedules was done ahead of time, to be put in action the case war is inevitable. While the Circle Urgent program is still primarily concerned with the needs of the initial blitzkrieg and doing what can be done rapidly, foundations of, let's call it the "Circle Perimeter" program are laid down well in advance, instead of being put together in haste in 1942-43.

3)After the Supreme War Council decides to go to war in November 1941, another conference between Naval General Staff and Navy Ministry is held that puts the Circle Perimeter program in action.

4)Additional features of the Circle Urgent program compared to RL:

-Provisions for rapid conversion of a large number of smaller merchant ships and trawlers into auxilary escorts and mine warfare ships, as well as fast merchants into auxilaries and landing transports. This does NOT result in actual changes to the database - Japan's ability to convert well over a hundred of merchants into patrol boats within December of 1941, then even more xAKs into auxilaries and AKs early in 1942 is not historical, IRL those processes were far less drastic.

-Provisions for rapid arming of the merchant fleet in case of a conflict. MOSTLY does NOT result in actual changes to the database, as the bulk of the Japanese transport fleet already starts the game with anti-air armament. However, the most valuable xAPs and tankers receive minor upgrades later in the war. Deficit of AA guns prevents anything more extensive.

-Construction and conversion of new major naval units during the last pre-war year happens as it alredy happens in RA.

-Measures are taken to expand production of antiaircraft armaments for IJN. Production of 127/40 Type 89 gun is stopped completely in favor of 100/65 type 98, and 127/50 3rd YT is prepared to be phased out as soon as orders for the last ships of the Yugumo class is completed. As in RL (but earlier) production of 120/45 type 10 is restarted, because this gun was the one most suited for mass production and covering the obvious shortages of 100/65 mounts. This is necessary to explain faster AAA upgrades.

-Subs (comment will be added once I know the present picture)

-A general agreement on providing for Army's amphibious operations is worked out during the discussion of the Circle Urgent plans in IGHQ. According to it, the Navy takes the entire responsibility for design and construction of all types of ocean-going ships, with a certain share of budget and construction facilities set apart for the Army's needs. So that we won't have bullshit like Army submarines and escort carriers. Fulfilling said agreement, the first series of tank landing ships is laid down in late 1940, with the first ships available shortly after the war's outbreak:
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_aux_ss.htm

-A program of increasing IJN's convoy-escorting capabilities is set forth, but the only thing that actually gets done within the bounds of the Circle Urgent is mass reconstruction of old destroyers into escort ships (already applied in RA). Laying down of Etorofu-class escorts in 1941 is considered, but not proceeded with, due to lack of funds and materials, consumed by more immediate needs. However, designs for the new classes of ASW ships are drawn at this stage, creating a basis on which wartime conctruction programs will be built.


5)The Circle Perimeter program, adopted in late January of 1942, is based on the assumption that Japan needs to exploit the wealth of DEI, and further expand military production to protect the defensive perimeter around its conquests and soon-to-be-conquests, and the deficit of merchant tonnage, already significant at the beginning of the war, is the biggest obstacle to that. Therefore, naval production priorities for 1942-1943 are established as (1)merchant shipping; (2)escorts and other light forces necessary for protection of shipping; (3)aircraft carriers; (4)destroyers; (5)submarines; (6)large surface combatants. Most orders for ships that weren't laid down yet previous circles are canceled, to streamline planning. The two guiding principles for newly conctructed merchants and escort forces are simplification of construction, with no considerations for commercial efficiency, possible post-war use or long-term reliability; and standardization of designs, adopting designs from existing ship classes wherever possible. As designs for "mobilization ships" were partially prepared in advance in this alternative, their production begins faster.


6)Additional features of the Circle Perimeter program compared to RL:

-Designs of standard transport ships are prepared by the Naval Technical Office during 1941. They are similar to designs of RL 2nd War Standard Programme, except with improved compartmentation and double-bottom compartments, to increase survivability. This most likely will NOT result in any changes to the database, Japanese merchant production in-game is already sufficient. Rather, this change should explain, why it is sufficient.

-Only 11 subchasers of the Ch-28 class are ordered (those laid down before the adoption of the Circle Perimeter program), and the concept of the large subchaser is abandoned thereafter, to conserve manpower and resources. Similarly, no orders are placed for minsweepers of the W-19 class, beyond the first four which were laid down before the war. Escorts of the Etorofu class and its successors are not ordered, due to being too big and expensive for immediate construction.

-According to the Circle Perimeter programm, the fleet's light and escort forces should be composed of following classes of shis: (a)The Class A destroyer, that should be able to handle both anti-air and anti-submarine protection duties, as well as torpedo attacks. Unfortunately placing 3 twin 100/65 Type 98 turrets on a Yugumo hull will add over 6 tons of topweight, and a similar weight increase due to flak and DCs addition IRL forced Japanese to remove the turret #2. So, no real changes from RA as it is, continue to build as many Akizukis as possible and accept decrease in torpedo capabilities.
(b)The Class B destroyer, primarily meant to serve as a cheap, fast escort for convoys and slower (due to inclusion of slow shadow fleet carriers in the fleet) carrier taskforces, with reduced anti-surface capabilities. An enlarged Matsu type, with 1400 tons of standard displacement and 2x2 100/65 type 98 guns in open mounts (note that these mounts, unlike closed turrets, installed on Akizuki DDs, had practically the same weight as 127/40 Type 89 mounts, an increase in displacement provides for one extra barrel). Deliveries of this class will begin around May of 1943.
(c)The large escort. Based on the hull of the Sokuten/Hirashima minelayer class
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_ml_sokuten.htm
, instead of the bigger and more expensive Etorofu. Said minelayers were only slightly smaller than later C/D-class escorts, had good seaworthiness, and after wartime modifications that increased their oil storage had endurance of about 3800-4000 nm at cruise speed. Not as good and capable as Etorofu/Mikura/Ukuru escorts, probably even somewhat worse than C/D, but big enough to carry sufficient ASW equipment, suitable for production in large numbers and following the principle of using existing projects when suitable. Armament (initial) of 2x1 120/45 10th YT, 2x3 25/60, 60 DCs. Deliveries of this class will begin around December of 1942, with initially all ships using diesels, and a subtype running on steam turbines introduced later. Later in the war an extremely simplified version of these escorts, based on this
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_ml_kamishima.htm
will be introduced.
(d)The coastal escort. A very small, cheap subchaser with a wooden hull, suitable for building on every small commercial shipyard. Basically, the RL Cha-1 class. These ships should be used for protection of coastal convoys, and port defense. Deliveries of this class will begin around June of 1942.

-In addition, the same Sokuten hulls will be used as the basis for construction of new minelayers and minesweepers in modest numbers.

-The Circle Perimeter program is modified when planning production for 1943. SBD/SBT LSTs are initially planned to replace slower SS LSTs in late 1942, and orders for them are greatly expanded when the need for a fast transport for resupplying forward garrisons becomes apparent. Deliveries begin in June of 1943.


7)Other changes:

-In second half of 1940 an expanded technical mission is sent to Germany to learn of German experiences regarding modern naval warfare. Among other things it optains blueprints for large-calibre automatic cannons (both Rheinmetall 37mm and Bofors), passive hydroacoustics devices, and ground AAA fire control stations.

-As IRL, Japanese experiment with the 40mm Bofors gun (37mm Rheinmetall guns are rejected, apparently Germans themselves considered them inferior for naval use), but mass production is never achieved. A few very late-war ships might carry 40/60 Type 3 guns in single mounts.

-PT boats development starts before the war, and is based on German S-boats (Lurssen boats). Lack of resources prevents mass conctruction until 1943, but early introduction of this class of ships allows to overcome most of the early teething troubles by that time (IRL T51 boats were an S-boat knockoff, but the hastily created project was a failure, with insufficient seaworthiness and speed). Non-seaworthy small boats are not considered to be an effective weapon, and only begin to be produced in any numbers in early 1945, to protect the Home Islands.

8)Also, I wonder if we should increase pilot replacements for IJNAF only. The existing numbers are insufficient if you approach the air war properly (as I recently demonstrated in my AAR).

_____________________________

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 #: 11
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/18/2013 8:29:12 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Also, I tried to put together construction dates of Japanese ships from cruiser and above (including large passenger liners, used for CVE conversion) to prove my point about Japanese shipyard availability, but the data left myself puzzled. Maybe because I'm not taking into account smaller combatants (although of Japanese destroyers only those of Akizuki-class were constructed on any of these shipyards) and merchant construction. The stated periods is the time that ships spent on slipways. I might be getting building sequences wrong.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 FatR)
Post #: 12
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/18/2013 3:39:51 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
By comparison - the same table with carriers and battlecruisers from RA mapped to it (I'm assuming roughly 1.5 years on the slipways for a Shokaku-class carrier and 2 years for a battlecruiser). Looking at this, Ryukaku should be probably available earlier, 1-2/1943, and Renkaku later, 2-3/1944.





P.S. Also, it strikes me now that we have two Ikomas in our fleet - a carrier and a battlecruiser! This needs fixing...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/18/2013 3:44:24 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 FatR)
Post #: 13
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/20/2013 6:05:58 AM   
FatR

 

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

_____________________________

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 FatR)
Post #: 14
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/21/2013 1:36:18 PM   
tigercub


Posts: 1551
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: chiang mai ,thailand
Status: offline
I looked around but did not find anything that helped yet...I am not able to get full screen mode for RA any tips?

_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 15
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/21/2013 9:11:46 PM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub
I looked around but did not find anything that helped yet...I am not able to get full screen mode for RA any tips?


Not sure what you're talking about. There is nothing in the mod that interferes with the screen resolution, indeed, it is impossible to mod that even if we wanted. To solve a problem of that sort, please visit the general tech support thread.

Or do you mean new loading screens?

_____________________________

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 tigercub)
Post #: 16
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/21/2013 9:50:51 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
As about cruisers, my thoughts continue to go in endless circles, John. I cannot choose among the following:

(1)The RL Agano

Pros: Can be built cheaply and rapidly, using second-rate shipyards, therefore can be built in relatively large numbers. I find myself using old 5500-ton CLs very actively in my games, because they are numerous and expendable, RL Agano can be same but better, and with pre-planning probably at least 8 can be constructed.

Cons: IRL it was too vulnerable and likely to sink or completely lose power from one torpedo hit against machinery spaces, which is not desirable for a fairly large ship. And not that cheap in the end - almost half the cost of an Unryu-class carrier. In the game qualitative inferiority within your class is punished harshly.


(2)A Super-Agano

An example, is, again:



Pros: Actually can take on Allied cruisers, at least in the night, while possibly still being relatively cheap and suited for mass construction.

Cons: Cheapness and suitability for mass construction on second-rate shipyards are not guaranteed. Is almost as vulnerable as RL Agano, but even bigger and more painful to lose.


(3)An Oyodo-sized cruiser

By the current point "Aganos" in RA actually approach this. I prefer this project, already posted in the previous thread, however:


Pros: More reasonable protection, can hold its own against American CLs at least in night combat, a better TF escort, due to powerful AA armament. The best balance of qualities required from a cruiser.

Cons: It's unclear if shipyards that built Aganos and training CLs can handle this. The first four can be armed with turrets taken from Mogamis, cutting down on the expenses, but after that they won't be cheap. Still weaker than Washington cruisers.

(4)The standard Japanese Washington CA

Note, that Ibuki and Hull #301 were based on Suzuya, not Tone, IRL.

Pros: More powerful and useful than any other cruiser, maybe not IRL, but certainly in the game. Good survivability and relatively little chance of being taken out with a single lucky shot. A pure artillery cruiser, a Tone-type scout and a Tone-based cruisers with increased medium AA armament all are very useful

Cons: Very big expensive, due to being an erzatz battleship, like all Washington heavy cruisers, but particularly Japanese ones. Why not just build battleships, after you are no longer bound by treaties? Japanese IRL certainly thought so, and laid down new CAs as a part of the Circle Urgent RL program only because they needed ships right now and hoped to complete those hulls quickly.


I think that the initial RA plan of building four of #3 and two of #4 is pretty nice and not particularly outlandish (considering, again, availability of turrets from Mogamis, absence of training cruisers, etc, etc), but I don't the idea of just adding more cruisers very much. Unless they arrive in 1945, making them more like "build at your own risk" projects, rathet than something Japan is expected to have.


Note that for Perfect War I now want to pick one of these options and build only that, to maximize production efficiency, but just cannot make a choice...

_____________________________

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 FatR)
Post #: 17
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/23/2013 8:15:48 AM   
tigercub


Posts: 1551
Joined: 2/3/2003
From: chiang mai ,thailand
Status: offline
there was talk about judy/jills coming in early into the game etc… By great effort the IJNAF deploys nearly all new aircraft on December 7th has this changed?

_____________________________


You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 18
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/23/2013 1:20:34 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7063
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
FatR,

Rather than push through another series of CLs that are not powerful enough to have a chance against the "pocket CAs" called the Cleveland Class CLs, would it be better to have a more heavily armed DD that 'may' be able to stand up to the Fletchers?? My understanding of the inter-war period was each nation trying to arm and protect their warships from the guns of the other navy ships of the same class (CA vs CA, CL vs CL, DD vs DD).

_____________________________


(in reply to tigercub)
Post #: 19
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/23/2013 2:43:48 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
The problem with Fletchers in the game is their goddamn armor, that allows them to say "nope" to about half of 127/50 3YT hits in a typical engagement. I'm not knowledgeable enough in shipbuilidng to say if it is justifed, but this gives them a very big advantage in what otherwise is an equal matchup. Now, even I can tell their speed is overrated by the game, which contributes to their overpoweredness, but 2 knots won't make much of a difference during calculation. I tweaked Japanese DD uprades in the current RA version, so that late-war upgrades won't reduce anti-surface armament, but this probably won't help that much, considering that I avoid many of such upgrades anyway in my games, and Jap DDs still get punked more often than not.

For Perfect War I'm redoing the evolution of Japanese DP guns from mid-1920s to deal with this problem, although as my alternative 120mm DP guns won't have be that much better against surface targets, I assume that Fletchers will still rule.


To clarify my notes about protection, Agano was armored against 6in shells, but, IIRC, had no real anti-torpedo protection.



EDIT: Also, disregarding light cruisers and tasking second-rate shipyards from my table above with mass destroyer conctruction is what I'd probably do in this situation, but (a)I'm not sure we should change the mod this radically at the present stage and (b)I don't want to intrude too much on John's playground. Just describing relatively plausible options here...

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/23/2013 5:04:15 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 ny59giants)
Post #: 20
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/23/2013 2:44:44 PM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub
there was talk about judy/jills coming in early into the game etc… By great effort the IJNAF deploys nearly all new aircraft on December 7th has this changed?


Please clarify what do you mean. Judys and Jills certainly aren't available at the beginning of the war.

_____________________________

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 tigercub)
Post #: 21
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/23/2013 6:59:45 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2878
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

The problem with Fletchers in the game is their goddamn armor, that allows them to say "nope" to about half of 127/50 3YT hits in a typical engagement. I'm not knowledgeable enough in shipbuilidng to say if it is justifed, but this gives them a very big advantage in what otherwise is an equal matchup. Now, even I can tell their speed is overrated by the game, which contributes to their overpoweredness, but 2 knots won't make much of a difference during calculation. I tweaked Japanese DD uprades in the current RA version, so that late-war upgrades won't reduce anti-surface armament, but this probably won't help that much, considering that I avoid many of such upgrades anyway in my games, and Jap DDs still get punked more often than not.

For Perfect War I'm redoing the evolution of Japanese DP guns from mid-1920s to deal with this problem, although as my alternative 120mm DP guns won't have be that much better against surface targets, I assume that Fletchers will still rule.


To clarify my notes about protection, Agano was armored against 6in shells, but, IIRC, had no real anti-torpedo protection.



EDIT: Also, disregarding light cruisers and tasking second-rate shipyards from my table above with mass destroyer conctruction is what I'd probably do in this situation, but (a)I'm not sure we should change the mod this radically at the present stage and (b)I don't want to intrude too much on John's playground. Just describing relatively plausible options here...

I urge caution and restraint concerning modifications to the IJN DD OOB. Reminder FatR is in the heat of battle(1944) in both his games.

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 22
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/24/2013 4:49:45 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11070
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Any comments, John?


Stanislav:

I read everything in the proposals and have wanted to comment but have simply been trying to get my turns kept up and do something with the AAR. Did not see all these additions you've made since posting the proposals. PROMISE to go through this tomorrow and comment...

Will say that some of these original proposals make a bunch of sense.

John


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 23
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/24/2013 8:57:43 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Another note, John - I'm against the addition of extra CLs and CVLs in RA's current version... but I should note, that Japanese had at least 4 additional APs suitable for CVE construction.

Of those present in the mod:

Argentina Maru (what the heck, she was reconstructed as Kayo - magical AE hull duplication!)
Brazil Maru (scheduled for a CVE reconstruction, sunk in 1942 before it happened)
Kamakura Maru
Tatsuta Maru
Asama Maru

All these ships started the war as troop transports. Reconstuction took less than a year for most of them. Standard destroyer engines could be used, like on Kayo. Those CVE will be pretty vulnerable with poor speed and no protection, but it is the least resource-intensive way to further increase Japanese carrier fleed during the war.


< Message edited by FatR -- 3/24/2013 8:58:36 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 John 3rd)
Post #: 24
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/24/2013 11:21:56 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11070
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I used two of those vessels to allow for the building of two new CVEs.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 25
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/25/2013 8:03:48 AM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I used two of those vessels to allow for the building of two new CVEs.


But they still are present as APs... How about giving them a CVE conversion option, active late 1942 or early, instead of adding them to the construction queue?

_____________________________

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 #: 26
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/25/2013 5:19:48 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11070
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Deal! Conversion Option makes great sense to me.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 27
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/26/2013 1:37:43 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
And the last thing - I'm thinking it would be good to include Babes' additions to the naval OOB into RA. I'm willing to transfer RA additions to the Babes' classes/ships lists, but that's why I need the list of the current changes: can't remember what exactly was added on the level of destroyers and below. I'll also most likely need your help adjusting taskforces and ship placement for Turn 1, after it is done. What do you think about overhauling RA for 6.0, by including both Babes and the changes proposed above, if you like them?

_____________________________

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 #: 28
9999 days upgrade - 3/28/2013 8:19:08 PM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 177
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italia
Status: online
Hi all,
After upgrading to RA 5.3, I've some air HQ that upgrade in... 9999 days!?! so I'm afraid thay'll never get radar and AA . I wonder if there is a solution
Thanks in advance



(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 29
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 3/28/2013 9:25:02 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
In 5.4 the TOE of Japanese air flotillas upgrades on 430615. Or at least is supposed to. Hopefully John can clarify that, not exactly my area.


EDIT: Actually, upon reading a manual it seems that there might be a mistake in assigning TOE upgrades for IJN air fleets and flotillas. Tomorrow I will test it and post a 5.5 version with this bug and this bug only fixed, if I'm correct in my reading of the editor's manual.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/28/2013 9:48:17 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 MrBlizzard)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RA 5.4 Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   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

0.133