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: RA 6.0

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RA 6.0 Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RA 6.0 - 4/17/2013 11:24:24 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The Southerner in me likes Fredericksburg. Charlotte is interesting as a tip of the hat to the past.

Gettysburg? Hmmm...

How about it starts somewhere in the DEI (perhaps covering the Pensacola Convoy that starts in Darwin?) carrying 12 Buffalo and 6 Helldivers?




_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 121
RE: RA 6.0 - 4/18/2013 2:53:32 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2140
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The Southerner in me likes Fredericksburg. Charlotte is interesting as a tip of the hat to the past.

Gettysburg? Hmmm...

How about it starts somewhere in the DEI (perhaps covering the Pensacola Convoy that starts in Darwin?) carrying 12 Buffalo and 6 Helldivers?





I didn't see that it had a catapult, not sure if the buffalo can use that deck. Might need the biplane version of the wildcat. The name escapes me right now.

I like Fredericksburg too, not a bad idea using it as a covering force.


< Message edited by oldman45 -- 4/18/2013 2:54:55 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 122
RE: RA 6.0 - 4/18/2013 3:50:07 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8095
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

Two other US flight deck cruiser designs were prepared in 1940.

CF-1 had a triple 8-inch turret forward and three twin 5-inch (one superfiring the 8-inch turret and the others fore and aft of the island). 420 foot flight deck and two short catapults (one forward and one aft). The catapults did not extend to the ends of the flight deck and (I surmise) gave only a rolling start instead of actually launching the aircraft.

In CF-2 the twin 5-inch and triple 8-inch forward were replaced with triple 6-inch fore and aft. Flight deck length was reduced to 390 feet. Four quad 28mm were to be included.

SB2U and OS2U were specified for both designs but the small flight deck restricted the take off of the SB2U to the extent that "significant pilot skill would be required" for a successful take-off.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 123
RE: RA 6.0 - 4/18/2013 8:17:20 AM   
Terrion

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The Southerner in me likes Fredericksburg. Charlotte is interesting as a tip of the hat to the past.

Gettysburg? Hmmm...

How about it starts somewhere in the DEI (perhaps covering the Pensacola Convoy that starts in Darwin?) carrying 12 Buffalo and 6 Helldivers?





I didn't see that it had a catapult, not sure if the buffalo can use that deck. Might need the biplane version of the wildcat. The name escapes me right now.

I like Fredericksburg too, not a bad idea using it as a covering force.



The F3F Gulfhawk, or so sayeth the google. Apparently there were about 100 used as trainers IRL.

Fredricksburg sounds good. It seems insufficiently awesome to be named Gettysburg.

As far as usefulness goes, it seems like it would be a nice convoy escort for exposed bases. Enough gunpower to chase off an AMC or similar raider and some patrol planes for subhunting. And even Buffs/biplanes can shoot down unescorted Betties for bases that have to deal with those. With budget concerns being what they were though, I'm not sure the USN would have gone for this over something more conventional. My 2c worth.


< Message edited by Terrion -- 4/18/2013 8:18:18 AM >

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 124
RE: RA 6.0 - 4/18/2013 1:45:53 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6744
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
I'm also using the names of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln for my CVs.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terrion)
Post #: 125
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/18/2013 3:53:42 PM   
viberpol


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

Is there any reason why the Japanese light tanks are made to be airlifted?

The heavy equipment (id est devices of a load cost >9) cannot be transported between bases by air. That's why almost all tanks has LC of 10 or more.

By the way.. I always wondered why the T90 75 mm Japanese gun has been classified as "heavy"? It has LC of 10. But in my games the "motorized support" and T90s has always been the source of frustration... when all other squads of a division has been transferred by air and the guns must have been left behind...

Sooo If I can suggest something, I'd upped the LC of tanks and lowered those of T90 75 mm guns...






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by viberpol -- 4/18/2013 3:58:04 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 126
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/18/2013 10:28:04 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Hey Viperol. How are you doing Sir?

Your comment is more along FatR's lines of strength. Stanislav?

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 127
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/19/2013 12:12:40 PM   
rev rico

 

Posts: 124
Joined: 5/7/2010
Status: offline
I sadly found out the hard way that the Japanese Ohka device isn't available in the stock game. Is it available in RA?

Thanks
Bob

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 128
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/19/2013 5:32:44 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
RA is based off of Da Babes. I do believe that these are available. JWE do you have a definitive on that?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to rev rico)
Post #: 129
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/19/2013 6:45:57 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1098
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
RA is based off of Da Babes. I do believe that these are available. JWE do you have a definitive on that?

Yes they are, but one must do the AndyMac tweak.

Ohkas (PGMs) are treated more like planes/engines than simple bomb devices. The Ohkas in the device file are listed correctly; build=yes, etc.., but there needs to be a factory producing them, so the location file needs to conform. Andy stuck his Ohka factory in Osaka. But it could be in any location that has industry stuff and an extra slot. Osaka looks like this, so just stick the Ohka build wherever and fill it out accordingly.

Ciao. JWE




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 130
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/19/2013 9:31:45 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Good to know that about Ohkas.

I'm about finished with PT boats. Will start writing down capital ships for RA tomorrow, probably.

Also, if you want an idea about making the Allies stronger - production of various US ship types, like PT boats or LSTs, that stops by early to mid 1945 now can continue until the end of the scenario, if we actually assume a stronger Japan, that can survive this far. I'm not adding all that myself, though - sorry, that's going to be a lot of drudgework.

A simpler idea, is adding an upgrade for some xAK types for late 1945, that converts them to flak barges with minimal load. AFAIK, ships like these were contemplated as a part of RL plans to invade Home Islands, to be used as bait for kamikazes.



_____________________________

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 Symon)
Post #: 131
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/19/2013 10:49:41 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6744
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Take a look at the Australian recon unit - ID 3137 is "No1 PRU RAAF" with B-339-23 airframes. Its nice that you can divide the air unit up, but when you look at the screenshot there are very few recon aircraft available and by the end of '42 you run out of them. In my DDB 30 PBEM, I have this unit sitting at a base without any aircraft. I will not get any until sometime in '44. So, I have about 18 months or close to it without it being usable. I already got John to increase the American recon airframe production, but I've run across this one now.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 4/19/2013 10:50:38 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 132
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/21/2013 4:17:26 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Not a bad thought Michael.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 133
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/21/2013 4:51:30 AM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
Another note. The F7F-3P, recon version of the TigerCat is not CV capable. I would guess that since the FB version is, the recon version should be.

_____________________________

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 134
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/22/2013 3:07:03 PM   
viberpol


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
Good to know that about Ohkas.


Maybe the Ohkas will appear maybe not...
There's some nasty typo I had informed John about quite a long ago.
But is seems that in RA 5.5 it is still present.

Take a look at the screen attached.
Ohka 11 will be available since 44.10 till 45.03
Ohka 22 will start to be produced since 45.12
What happens in between 9 months? No production.
Shouldn't the Ohka 11 be produced simultaneously id est till 46.03?







Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 135
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/26/2013 3:53:55 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Thanks for the tip, viberpol. Your point regarding tanks is worth considering too. I think we should indeed change loads as you propose.


Meanwhile, I've finally done all the common work for both works, and currently in the process of copying things from RA to the Babes-based file. Cruisers are now almost done.

_____________________________

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 viberpol)
Post #: 136
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/26/2013 9:56:55 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1098
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: viberpol
Maybe the Ohkas will appear maybe not...
There's some nasty typo I had informed John about quite a long ago.
But is seems that in RA 5.5 it is still present.

Take a look at the screen attached.
Ohka 11 will be available since 44.10 till 45.03
Ohka 22 will start to be produced since 45.12
What happens in between 9 months? No production.
Shouldn't the Ohka 11 be produced simultaneously id est till 46.03?

Viberpol is quite right. The Ohka 11 doesn't upgrade to the Okha 22. And there is a disconnect with regard to timing. We never cared about Ohkas and so didn't give a darn about them, but understand that some people do. Oh well. So we'll give them a look. Ciao. John

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 137
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/27/2013 10:02:18 AM   
viberpol


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon
Viberpol is quite right. The Ohka 11 doesn't upgrade to the Okha 22. And there is a disconnect with regard to timing. We never cared about Ohkas and so didn't give a darn about them, but understand that some people do. Oh well. So we'll give them a look. Ciao. John


Well, I never cared too... till I reached the '45 in my 4 years old scenario...
Looking for any help to stop the Allies.

There is some confusion of how they actually work. It's because not many games reach this late stage of war.
Is the factory needed for Ohkas to be produced or not.
In my old game I've got no factory, but the production goes on and icreasing number in pool. But funny thing is I am in 3.45 in my PBEM against Ross (crsutton) and never got the Betties with Ohkas to fly a combat mission.
They fly of themselves (in naval searching part) but have never seen the actual strike.

Maybe that's because of old database corruption, but... you never know.

Ohkas are not the same as the airframes: they'll no upgrade nor autoupgrade.
Those are "bombs"/missiles. Only a "load" of different plane frames (Betties "e" and Frances model 3). it's not that Frances appearing in '46 make the Betties unnecessary. So, again, they should be available simultaneously.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 138
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/28/2013 4:39:02 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
On the BRIGHT side one hit usually equals ONE KILL!

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to viberpol)
Post #: 139
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs - 4/29/2013 3:14:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10501
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
FatR: Have you made any progress?

I want to work on adding that aircraft cruiser and attach it to the Pensacola TF. Think it will provide some interesting options for the Allied player. It isn't much but it is SOMETHING. Think it would start with 12 Buffalo and 6 Helldivers...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 140
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/2/2013 9:04:28 PM   
John 3rd


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

Have had a couple of queries regarding when this big modification to the Mod might be out. What is your status?

John


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 141
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/4/2013 3:49:05 PM   
MAurelius


Posts: 198
Joined: 6/28/2012
Status: offline
another general question - I might simply have overlooked the answer - if so - my apologies:

when you say "Full DBB-compatible" - does that mean that you will input the huge changes to the Allied-OOB that comes along with DBB? - I mean the reduced Aviation Support, all those small little engineer and port units etc...I rechecked RA 5.3 (my latest version) and it wasn't there yet - still the stock standard OOB...

thx for the answers!

< Message edited by MAurelius -- 5/4/2013 3:50:06 PM >


_____________________________

formerly known as SoliInvictus202

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 142
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/6/2013 9:03:42 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 1292
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
Ok, let's see if I can get this in the right thread.


Having played RA into March '45, have you considered increasing allied air production slightly? In this mod, with all the streamlining of Japanese air production, you can get airframes almost a year ahead of RL production( the M8 Zero comes to mind, sitting here at work). As Allies, you have so many LSI's and LST's you can walk across the pacific if you put them bow to stern. But virtually every air campaign will come to a halt due to a lack of airframes. Fighter pools are very tight, so are heavy bomber pools, and light bomber pools will dry up. Reducing Landing Ship inventories and increasing airframe production would seem an intelligent trade off. Real Life production was drawn down due to the fact that the Japanese economy, and by association it's war machine, was noticeably being impacted by early '44. Air superiority had been achieved. That is not the case here, where the Japanese war machine can sustain itself with "banked" industry far beyond historical norms.

Just an opinion.

(in reply to MAurelius)
Post #: 143
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/11/2013 3:50:27 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Sorry for absence from forums. However, I was not idle this time, and the rewrite had advanced significantly. See the current changelog:



CRUISERS (RELUCTANT ADMIRAL)

(1)Modifications from the previous versions of RA are copied. Small-calibre flak upgrades for heavy cruisers are brought more in line with my earlier work for the Perfect War mod, however, they are available on later dates in RA.

(2)The Tone class is corrected to Durability 58, belt armor 140. It is unclear why its durability and protection are reduced in stock, while IRL Tones were the most sturdily built and heavily armored IJN cruisers. This change makes the Tone-kai class from previous RA version largely redundant, Iwaki and Hikari now belong to the Tone class.]

(3)Effective range for 5500-ton cruisers is reduced to 5000(14) across the board, to reflect their RL state by 1941 (see Lacroix/Wells p.555). Flak armament and its wartime upgrades tweaked, with the final configurations reflecting the most interesting RL versions of AAA armament and its positioning, but avaialable earlier than IRL.

(4)As surface Allied superiority often proves an even worse problem than air superiority by 1944, all conversion of old cruisers to CLAAs (provided for Tenryu, Kuma and Nagara classes) are optional. A player can keep them all as surface combatants. Nagara CLAAs also keep their torpedo armament.

(5)4 Yahagi-class cruisers (as Oyodo, but constructed as destroyer leaders with full armament) are present in the mod currently (slots 106-109). I've noticed that the cost of Agano vs Oyodo was just 26 400 vs 31 160 thousands of yen (again, from Lacroix/Wells). This, of course, does not fully reflect relative complexity of construction, but it still made me more inclined towards the latter type. Also, it is far closer to what the RA mod player are already familiar with, so maybe we should stick with this type? Art needed (see the beginning of the thread).
However, statblocks for the Modified Agano class also are provided in the file, in case the final vote will be in their favor.



FIRST-CLASS TORPEDO SHIPS (RELUCTANT ADMIRAL)

(1)120/45 guns on Mutsuki-class destroyers are changed from the 10YT (DP) to the historically correct 3YT (non-DP), so that these ships have practically no AA potential at the beginning of the war, as they should.

(2)Upgrades for the Mutsuki class are tweaked in line with the most optimal historical configuration. Less reduction in anti-surface armament during the late war, but ASW potential is reduced (AA potential is lower too, due to #1).

(3)The Mutsuki class APDs are not converted to escorts lare in the war (that didn't happen IRL), upgrades are tweaked accordingly.

(4)Destroyer upgrades are tweaked. Reduction in surface armament in late-war upgrades is nonexistent or much less severe. In particular, torpedo armament is always retained. However, much fewer automatic AA guns are installed in the same upgrades. If surface combat was as important IRL as it is in the game, Japs would do the same.

(5)As the result of points above, Japanese destroyer fleet generally has far weaker and almost bordering on nonexistent AA armament throughout most of 1942. However, as Akizuki-class destroyers start to appear in large numbers, upgrades happen earlier than IRL, and some upgrades actually switch pure naval guns from DP guns (althought usually the same 127/50 3YT, which have pretty bad AA stats), and other DP guns aren't removed (as every old player should know, DP guns are the core of any TF's anti-air defense; they have a chance of firing at any attacker, while automatic guns seem to only protect a ship which carries them), the anti-air potential of IJN combat screen rapidly increases far above the stock levels.

(6)14 Yugumo-class destroyers (including 6 late-war hulls) are removed from the scenario (slots 159-166 and 2938-2943). The remaining 14 DDs of this class are available earlier, in 1942 - first two months of 1943. The Yugumo class is moved to slots 153-166.

(7)Shimakaze is removed from the scenario.

(8)18 Akizuki-class desroyers are added to the scenario (slots 142-148 and 8235-8249). Also, all Akizuki-class destroyers arrive early (before the end of 1944). 10735-10756

(9)Matsu and Tachibana classes are modified. Their standard displacement is increased to 1500 tons, and they carry 2x2 100/65 T98 guns as their main armament. Quintuple and sextuple torpedo launchers are used instead of quadruple (using larger torpedo launchers was planned for these classes IRL, but they were not ready in time). Matsus can upgrade to Kaiten carriers in mid-1945.

(10)9 Tachibana-class destroyers are added to the scenario for late 1945. In addition, other destroyers of Matsu and Tachibana classes arrive much earlier, starting from July of 1943. There is no large numerical increase, because these types are larger than in stock.



SECOND-CLASS TORPEDO SHIPS

(1)20 old 2nd-class destroyers of Momi and Wakatake classes are converted to numbered patrol boats, undergoing a major reconstruction (using old AA weapons removed from first-line ships). The PB-51 class of patrol craft is added to the scenario. Armament includes 1x120/45 3 YT, 1x2 40/61 T91, 2x4 13.2 T93, 1x2 53cm torpedoes, 48 DCs. Speed 25 knots, endurance 5000(14).

Wakatake (PB-51), Kuretake (PB-52), Sanae (PB-53), Asagao (PB-54), Fuyo (PB-55), Karukaya (PB-56), Yugao (PB-57), Hasu (PB-58), Kuri (PB-59), Tsuga (PB-60), Nire (PB-61), Take (PB-62), Kaki (PB-63), Ashi (PB-64), Sumire (PB-65), Hishu (PB-66), Kiku (PB-67), Susuki (PB-68), Tsuta (PB-69), Yomogi (PB-70) are included in this class.

Kaya, Nashi - decomissioned 1940 IRL, become PB-71 and PB-72 (slots 416-417).

(1.2)Added upgrade options for those destroyers of Momi and Wakatake classes that start the war converted to APDs.

(2)2 old destroyers of Momo class begin the war as second-rate escorts. Not reconstructed beyond replacing cannons with DCs and AAMGs.

(3)The Tomozuru class is renamed to Chidori class, for historical accuracy. All TBs remain classified as TBs, insread of Es, as they retain their torpedo armament.

(4)120/45 guns on unupgraded Minekaze and Kamikaze classes are changed from the 10YT (DP) to the historically correct 3YT (non-DP), so that these ships have practically no AA potential at the beginning of the war, as they should.

(5)6 old Minekaze-class DDs are convered to APDs in 1941, instead of 2 (Tachikaze to Nadakaze, slots 317-322), to compensate for absence of Momi/Wakatake APDs. These ships undergo a thorough reconstruction with installation of DP guns and increase of radius at the expense of speed. Those APDs have options for both APD and E upgrades for late war.



SECOND-CLASS TORPEDO SHIPS (RELUCTANT ADMIRAL)

(1)All ships of Minekaze and Kamikaze classes (that aren't converted to APDs and escorts) receive upgrades to the Kamikaze class standards.






ESCORT SHIPS

(1)The only historical class of escorts in the scenario is Shimushu. All other escort classes presented in the scenario are derived from Sokuten/Hirashima minelayer class, rather than Shimushu class. Also, all escort hulls differ only in their degree of simplification and adaptation for rapid building techniques, no building of different-sized ships.

(2)The first class of new escorts is Matsuwa class, first ships laid down in the last months of 1941 and entering service in late 1942. Consists of 12 ships (slots 353-364). 725 tons of standard displacement; initial armament of 2x120/45 3YT (non-DP guns), 2x3 25/60 T96, 60 DCs; Speed 20 knots, Radius 4000 (14).

(3)The second class is Miyake class, first ships laid down in second half of 1942 and entering service in second half of 1943. The slightly improved variant of the previous class, the main differences are replacement of old 120/45 3YT guns with 10YT DP guns and 120 DCs. Consists of 10 ships (slots 365 - 374).

(4)The third class is Okinawa class, built through 1943 to 1945, with the first ships entering service at the end of 1943. A simplified and improved design, with slightly inreased fuel storage. 730 tons of standard displacement; initial armament of 2x120/45 10YT, 3x3 25/60 T96, 120 DCs; Speed 20 knots, Radius 4500 (14). 48 ships (slots 375-412).

(5)C and D class escorts are using the same hull and basic armament as Okinawa class, but less powerful and simpler to make engines. Armament is the same as IRL. Speed is slightly higher, while endurance is lower. Consists of 157 ships (slots 416-546, 613-622 and 6981-6999).

(6)Only 10 subchasers of the Ch-28 class are ordered (Ch-28 through Ch-37, those laid down before the adoption of the Circle Perimeter program), and the concept of the large subchaser is abandoned thereafter, to save manpower and resources for construction of large escorts and destroyers.

(7)3-ship historical Ch-251 class is added to the scenario (slots 8337-8339).



AMPHIBIOUS TRANSPORT SHIPS

(1)4-ship historical Kibitsu Maru LSD class is added to the scenario, arriving from December 1943 to 1945 (slots 2991-2994).

(2)16-ship historical SS LSI/LST class is added to the scenario. The number of ships is lower (16, slots 7385-7399), but they are available early in 1942-early 1943.

(3)Type SB (previously T-101) LSI/LST class is available from summer of 1943, and the number of ships in it is increased to 95 (slots 7441-7499 and 8575-8599) as production contunues throughout 1945.

(4)The number of Type 1 LSI/APDs is increased to 50 (slots 7411-7440 and 8550-8596), as the fist ship become available in mid-1943 and production continues until the end of the scenario.




MINE WARFARE SHIPS

(1)3-ship Ajiro minelayer class (slot 2898 and 14407-08) is added to the scenario (IRL this class consisted of 1 ship, not represented in stock), arriving in late 1943-early 1944.

(2)12-ship Kamishima minelayer/minesweeper (convertable both ways) class (slots 14410-21) is added to the scenario for late 1944 and 1945 (IRL this class also consisted of only one ship).

(3)2-ship Eijo minelayer class (historical) is added to scenario (slots 2899-2900).

(4)W-19 destroyer minesweeper class consists of only 4 ships. 13 more ships starting from W-23 are not ordered, with priority being given to escort construction and, later, smaller minelayers on a standardized hull.

(5)W-101 minesweeper class (historical ships made from captured British hulls) is added to the scenario (slots 624-625).

(6)Many small changes to flak upgrades are introduced for practically every class.





AUXILARIES, GUNBOATS, MERCHANTS, ETC

(1)The old former cruiser Asahi (slot 14405), reconstructed as a submarine tender, is included in the scenario.

(2)Three very old Japanese cruisers (Yakumo, Izumo, Iwate, slots 14402-4) are included in the scenario as patrol gunboats. Just don't expect them to participate in naval combat...



MOTOR TORPEDO BOATS

(1)All Japanese motor torpedo boats in the scenario belong to S-30 class, purchased from Germany or built on license: http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_mb_s30.htm

(2)195 of new S-30 class large MTBs (slots 880-885 and 8040-8115, 8120-8229) replace 585 MTBs and MLs from the previous versions of Reluctant Admiral. Deliveries begin in May of 1943 and end in January of 1946. Note that expanded PT boats production also replaces nearly all of midget submarines' wartime production.


GENERAL

(1)In-game fuel loads on various cargo ships, auxilaries, escorts, and mine warfare ships are reduced by 1/3, to compensate for the reduction of their cargo loads compared to stock. These ships effectively take less fuel to travel the same distance. In some cases, where data regarding historical fuel loads is available, it is used instead of the normal reduction, as the game seems to burden Japanese auxilaries and small ships with excessive fuel consumption anyway.

(2)Many upgrades are tweaked. In general, the number of AAMG increased on many classes, but is often lower than in stock before upgrades.

(3)Displacements and other stats on Japanese warships are brought in line with data provided by Jentschura (and most of the sources). Capital ships usually have lesser dispacements than in stock, many older destroyers have bigger (past pre-war reconstruction), and so on.




_____________________________

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 #: 144
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/11/2013 3:58:28 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
The only remaining annoying part is subs. Manually seeking through the files to see what has been changed in RA so far was very frustrating. Still, I hope to complete everything by the end of May at the latest.

Also, a couple things regarding the air side. No "modding" strictly speaking, just realism tweaks:


(1)D3A range.

In the real life Vals (D3A2s) flew, for an example their attack against Guadalcanal/Tulagi during the I-Go operation on 7 April of 1943 after refueling at Buin (the Shortlands hex, in AE). This is the minimal attack range of 8 hexes, which is not possible for AE. The low range of Val in the game also doesn't fit well the numbers in Francillion and other sources putting its range to around the same values as B6N1. The normal range of D3A2 should be at least around 8 hexes, and D3A1 slightly higher.


(2)Ki-61 range.

In the real life Ki-61s (probably of Ia model, but possibly Ib), flew combat missions from Wewak to Cape Gloucester and Arawe:

http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/248th/248th-3.htm

This is 8 and 9 hexes, respectively in the game, and therefore flatly impossible (beyond extended droptank range).

Then Ki-61-Id (and following models) had its range greatly improved, carrying more internal fuel than Oscar and slightly less than A6M3a, the longest-ranged Jap fighter in the game (550 liters for Ki-61-Id and every following model up to Ki-100-II, 570 for A6M3a). Note, that for Id the engine was not more powerful (and thus more fuel-demanding) than Sakae, although less-fuel efficient, but still. But still, the in-game range for this series seems to be severely underrated. Ki-84, by comparison, hauled only slightly more than 20% extra internal fuel, had an engine with 50% to 30% more horsepowers, but still has much higher range than any of late models from the Ki-61 family.

The conclusion is, Ki-61 is undermodeled, and commonly restated in the books and articles data on its low range must contain some form of error, in the light of actual combat examples.

(3)Ki-84 climb.

Speaking of Ki-84, its climb is heavily underrated. As far as I can see, the game uses the initial climb figures, and that is 3790 ft/min for Ki-84 (at least of late production series of Ki-84-Ia). I didn't raise this issue before, because Frank was the Allies' nightmare already, but as the recent betas introduce massive nerfs to air support, both with tne new model for large airfield and overall increase of service times for aicraft with high SR, I think it should be OK, as now maintaining 100% or near-100% operational readiness of Franks seems to be extremely hard even in the periods of total lull in combat. In the bad news for Frank fans, Ki-84-Ib should not have 4x20mm armaments - that was a rare configuration, maybe only 10% or less of all late-series Ki-84-Is

_____________________________

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 #: 145
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/11/2013 4:15:35 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


Having played RA into March '45, have you considered increasing allied air production slightly? In this mod, with all the streamlining of Japanese air production, you can get airframes almost a year ahead of RL production( the M8 Zero comes to mind, sitting here at work). As Allies, you have so many LSI's and LST's you can walk across the pacific if you put them bow to stern. But virtually every air campaign will come to a halt due to a lack of airframes. Fighter pools are very tight, so are heavy bomber pools, and light bomber pools will dry up. Reducing Landing Ship inventories and increasing airframe production would seem an intelligent trade off. Real Life production was drawn down due to the fact that the Japanese economy, and by association it's war machine, was noticeably being impacted by early '44. Air superiority had been achieved. That is not the case here, where the Japanese war machine can sustain itself with "banked" industry far beyond historical norms.

Just an opinion.



My opinion on the air balance is still colored by my own Allied experience in JuanG's mod, where odds in the air shifted in the Allied favor in late 1942, even though in that mod all Japanese aircraft were faster. And to be honest, I think that outside of Scen 2 the problem with Japanese production is overrated. By the end of 1944 at the latest my pilot training program for IJNAF will be completely dry in my Scen 70 game even if I maintain a roughly 1:1 kill ratio (which is only achievable by fighting the air war defensively, even with RA airframes and the most meticulous pilot management), and at this point it won't matter how many airframes I make (and it won't be actually more the Allies will have by that point).

However, I'm playing with the very old mod versions. Certain things in the more recent versions might have made the air situation easier for Japan. So I think air production for some types can be increased. As long as we aren't talking about cutting edge airframes - adding more Thunderbolts will just make the Allied player auto-win the air war regardless of skill.

_____________________________

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 #: 146
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/11/2013 4:16:51 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MAurelius

another general question - I might simply have overlooked the answer - if so - my apologies:

when you say "Full DBB-compatible" - does that mean that you will input the huge changes to the Allied-OOB that comes along with DBB? - I mean the reduced Aviation Support, all those small little engineer and port units etc...I rechecked RA 5.3 (my latest version) and it wasn't there yet - still the stock standard OOB...

thx for the answers!


No, I've only introduces the additions to the naval OOB from Big Babes.

_____________________________

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 MAurelius)
Post #: 147
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/11/2013 8:40:24 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
Having played RA into March '45...


And forgot to ask: any comments on new and improved airframes? Flak? Did anything performed especially well in 1944-45 (A6M8 is cool for 1943, but clearly lacks performance against Thunderbolts/Corsairs/Spitfires, I found myself deploying primarily Georges until Sam became available).

_____________________________

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 #: 148
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/11/2013 10:01:54 PM   
John 3rd


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

Good to see you Posting. I've read through everything you've just listed and think it matches all that we have talked about and emailed on. Looks GOOD.

We need to add the Flightdeck Cruiser (as part of a TF protecting the Pensacola TF) as talked about earlier. Am thinking we could have the USS Charlotte, an Omaha CL, and 4 newer DDs. These would add more ships to the DEI fo rthe Allied player without getting too carried away. I'd just pull them from the West Coast, PH, or Panama. Thoughts?

I think we can certainly tweak the Allied Air stuff mentioned above. Got to make sure the Wildcats comes with a CV-Capable Recon Version. Think you already fixed this but just wanted to add it back onto the list in case it hasn't been fixed.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 149
RE: RA 6.0 - 5/12/2013 11:53:19 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
As about the Allied air reinforcements. I've made a list of production adjustments that already exist in RA 5.0 (only increases are listed, not the total production).

Wildcat V +8/month
Wildcat VI +10/month

Blenheim IV +4/month
Blenheim VD +10/month, produced until 8/44
Hurricane IIb Trop +5/month
Hurricane IV +10/month, produced until 12/44
Mohawk IV +2/month
Spitfire Vc Trop produced until 12/44
Sunderland III +1/month
Sunderland GR.V +2/month
Vengeance IV +20/month


A-20G produced until 9/45
A-24 +3 month, produced from 12/41 to 10/42
P-40E +10/month
P-40N1 produced until 7/44
P-40N5 produced until 12/44
P-61C +15/month
P-70A-1 +15/month


F4F-3A +4/month
F4U-4 +50/month
PBJ-1J +6/month
PBM-3 and PBM-5D +3/month
PBY-5 and following models +2/month
SBD-3 +12/month.
SB2C5 +90/month, produced until the end of the scenario.
TBM-1C +40/month

Also minor additions to initial pools for several types.

This means that (a)The Allies get a few more fighters and divebombers to survive 1943; (b)Some tight spots, like NF and patrol planes production, are partially fixed; (c)There are over a thousansd more Warhawks, plus some Hurricanes and older Spitfires to cover for the slump in USAAF stock fighter reinforcements in 1944; (d)Production of USN/USMC aircraft continues at its maximum intensity until the end of the scenario.

Should that be enough already?

< Message edited by FatR -- 5/12/2013 11:55:13 AM >


_____________________________

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 #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RA 6.0 Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.117