Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: 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!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: RA 6.3 Change Log

 
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 6.3 Change Log Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/16/2013 1:46:57 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11063
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
QUERY: When Sherwood and I did our new install JWE's aircraft changes DID NOT appear. I just pulled JWE's file and we added it in again and THEN it updated. If you can please check.

I am going to wait to see if the file was not correctly added and then do a new upload to the website.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to chemkid)
Post #: 421
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/19/2013 3:04:32 PM   
FatR

 

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

QUERY: When Sherwood and I did our new install JWE's aircraft changes DID NOT appear. I just pulled JWE's file and we added it in again and THEN it updated. If you can please check.


Those changes clearly are in the 6.3 file still on site...

Do you want any comments on how they are likely to interact with the RA additions (tried to post them anyway, but forgot, that you should always save your posts before sending on Matrix forums...)?

_____________________________

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 #: 422
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/19/2013 4:09:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11063
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
FatR! Nice to see your Post.

Has anyone had any other issues with plane art, art period, install issues, 6.3 as a whole, etc...

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 423
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/19/2013 4:16:28 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 518
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
I am giving the scenario a test drive, Allies (oh, the horror!) against the AI, 2-day turns. I have played 4-5 turns so far, and it feels good. Will let you know if I find anything weird. I want to see if the AI can handle it, as there are many who would like to play it that way.

BTW... Dunkirk and Strasbourg? O.O Isn't that going a bit over the top? Their AA suites are... horrible! (spoken with my IJN fanboy hat on, of course).

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 424
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/19/2013 4:19:46 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11063
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

I am giving the scenario a test drive, Allies (oh, the horror!) against the AI, 2-day turns. I have played 4-5 turns so far, and it feels good. Will let you know if I find anything weird. I want to see if the AI can handle it, as there are many who would like to play it that way.

BTW... Dunkirk and Strasbourg? O.O Isn't that going a bit over the top? Their AA suites are... horrible! (spoken with my IJN fanboy hat on, of course).




Well...we did have to provide SOMETHING for the Allied player!

Would welcome your perspective and thought here Kitakami. Really value your comments anytime they appear in one of my threads.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 425
RE: Dutch LCU errors - 11/23/2013 4:45:44 PM   
thinman

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 9/24/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thinman

Hi John,

FUSO-BB can convert to ISE- and FUSO-Hybrid. No conversion from ISE-BB to ISE-Hybrid avaiable. Bind 104 + 105 (only ISE-BB). Was reporting that some days ago.


Same with 6.3

(in reply to thinman)
Post #: 426
RE: Dutch LCU errors - 11/23/2013 4:58:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11063
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: thinman


quote:

ORIGINAL: thinman

Hi John,

FUSO-BB can convert to ISE- and FUSO-Hybrid. No conversion from ISE-BB to ISE-Hybrid avaiable. Bind 104 + 105 (only ISE-BB). Was reporting that some days ago.


Same with 6.3


Grrrr....

I am working on USA Economic stuff as well...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to thinman)
Post #: 427
claa path - 11/24/2013 1:34:05 PM   
Adolf Galland


Posts: 30
Joined: 12/30/2012
Status: offline
path to japs claa not ready... or not unavailable !!! Sendai class have not claa path ???

The Hai can class need better upgrade or not ;) strong escort with ASW or big APD (APCL)

The old IJN heavy cruiser need perhaps more heavy AA guns, they are big ships with many space and the heavy Navals guns was build out...

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 428
RE: claa path - 11/24/2013 2:37:52 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7051
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
French DDs have only ONE upgrade!?! It happens in 4/42 and there is NO delay. They should a few more that mirror the American DDs.

EDIT - Just did some Omaha CL conversion to CLAA. When they get done their 120 days for conversion, they are due an upgrade in 9/42 for their 1.1" AA guns to go to 40mm Bofors. You get system damage, but NO delay. Why not??

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 11/24/2013 6:15:26 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Adolf Galland)
Post #: 429
RE: claa path - 11/24/2013 8:29:22 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1393
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
Hi Michael.

Here's the supply replacement of LI for the refinery supply loss. Just put the supply basis into the corresponding Base LI. There's only 12, so they shouldn't be hard to do. This will get all the missing supply back where it was, in the same place. Same as the new Babes scens.
Slot-Base-Refinery- LI values
222-Akita-40-20-->60
225-Fukuoka-10-280-->290
244-Niigata-50-40-->90
246-Osaka-200-1900-->2100
250-Shimonoseki-160-80-->240
252-Tokyo-200-2240-->2440
255-Wakayama-50-60-->110
257-Yokohama-150-440-->590
258-Yamagata-20-20-->40
259-Iwaki-10-create 10 LI
356-Port Arthur-120-80-->200
443-Bangkok-20-60-->80



_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 430
RE: claa path - 11/24/2013 8:54:16 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1393
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
And then, there's that one last bit about getting the refinery ratios right and moving things around to make sure they are historicaly accurate. So:

1534-Tokuyama, change refineries from 5 to 170. Add a 527 device (LI) to line 005, with "num" 170.

1140-Palembang, change refineries from 1020 to 750.
1165-Balikpapan, change refineries from 300 to 400.

That's it. And that's what's in Babes.

JWE

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 431
RE: claa path - 11/24/2013 9:49:25 PM   
moore4807


Posts: 1056
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Blackwood NJ
Status: offline
LarryF and I have made it to Dec 16th 1941 in our Allies vs. A.I. game. Larry is the Allies (all others besides US) and then he is saving the game and sending it to me for the US part of the turn.

I'm noticing with this version (6.3) I have not gotten the message that the files have changed, but also don't get the in-game reports even though we are shipping the #02 file back and forth. Its not a game breaker since I run the turn and copy all 6 of the text files to Larry. I'm just alt-tabbing between the game and desktop screens to look up info.

6.3 so far? Awesome! If I put my Allied fanboy hat on - I want to cry at the reduced AK loads and REDUCED supplies... <grin> but it seems much more historical.

2 unhistorical acts worth noting, Larry put together a SCTF of Dutch CL's and DD's and went over to Borneo and mixed it up witha 4 ship TF of Nagato and 1 CA + 2DD's... thirty five hits on the Nagato and she is limping back home with heavy fires... The Dutch TF is banged up but nothing sunk... Tip of the cap to Larry for that move! I also still can sink SS with fighters around Pearl. Chose P-40E group naval attack/sweep and 1000ft and sure enough 2 bombs sent one of the RO boats to the bottom... I notice you can't choose LRCAP and have the Naval attack target still work, but if they are still in normal range of the fighters, you can still choose Naval sweep and choose the enemy TF... just sayin I'm not complaining

So far The A.I. on hard is pretty accurate as far as targeting bases as IRL. Early returns look like they send more than enough to take the objectives, not seeing the 2-3 ship TF going for obscure bases like before.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 432
RE: claa path - 11/25/2013 12:24:19 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7051
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Thanks Symon(John).
I'll have to talk with John 3rd about who will make these changes, him or me.

_____________________________


(in reply to moore4807)
Post #: 433
RA 6.4 - 11/26/2013 3:56:06 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11063
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Michael got the economic stuff detailed earlier done today. I've got the files.

Plan to fix the small issues detailed above and then update this to the RA Website. Fixing: BB Hyuga--Ise conversion issue, we'll add a mid-war upgrade for French DDs, and add some delay time to the items mentioned by Michael.



_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 434
RA 6.4 - 11/28/2013 5:32:21 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11063
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
6.4
Change Log

1. USA Economy is trashed. That should help for a bit to reflect the build-up to economic juggernaut.
2. Ise Conversion fixed (I think).
3. Omaha upgrades now slightly 'delayed.'
4. French DDs get an AA addition in 1944.
5. Refineries, LI, and 'Japanese' economy notes Posted by JWE added.

Should be able to release this tomorrow.

Will send revisions to Michael to take a look.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 435
RE: RA 6.4 - 11/28/2013 7:27:26 AM   
moore4807


Posts: 1056
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Blackwood NJ
Status: offline
PITA question - This update is patchable or a new game start?

Were still pretty early in the game, Larry's talking about doing an AAR for the vs.AI game and we could always start over...

Thanks to all who work so hard on this game!

Happy Turkey day!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 436
RE: RA 6.4 - 11/28/2013 12:29:22 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7051
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Like Symon mentioned in another thread, most of these latest changes require a re-start for them to show up.

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 11/28/2013 1:29:57 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to moore4807)
Post #: 437
RE: RA 6.4 - 11/28/2013 12:39:47 PM   
moore4807


Posts: 1056
Joined: 6/2/2000
From: Blackwood NJ
Status: offline
OK - thanks for the quick reply.

Now we'll just wait for John to post it

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 438
RE: RA 6.4 - 11/28/2013 1:23:16 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1393
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
Whoop. Hold up for a second John. People are freaking over the resources needed to feed the increased LI. So I'm going to back it out and just stick it in as an addition to 'daily supply'. That should make them happy. Won't take but a minute after I get the turkey in the oven. I'll send the instruction notes to you and Mike.

Ciao. JWE

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to moore4807)
Post #: 439
RE: RA 6.4 - 11/28/2013 1:52:06 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14645
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Whoop. Hold up for a second John. People are freaking over the resources needed to feed the increased LI. So I'm going to back it out and just stick it in as an addition to 'daily supply'. That should make them happy. Won't take but a minute after I get the turkey in the oven. I'll send the instruction notes to you and Mike.

Ciao. JWE

Are you going to increment the scenario version numbers for that change?

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/site/staffmonkeys/

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 440
RE: RA 6.4 - 11/28/2013 3:08:03 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1393
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Are you going to increment the scenario version numbers for that change?

Yes. v 12a. Sending the changes to John and Mike now.

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 441
RE: RA 6.4 - 11/28/2013 5:36:17 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11063
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
OK. Got the info from John. Michael I am resending you the files. You should have more time today then I will with 12 people due here at any point. Might just PREFER working on the Mod1 Ooops I did not SAY that!

Do the readers want me to renumber the Scenario? I've already updated to 6.4 with these changes but could upload the game files as Scenario 55. For new players you would have to change the other pertinent art files to the new Scenario number.

Opinions?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 442
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/28/2013 7:37:00 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

FatR! Nice to see your Post.


Thanks. Now that I've finally returned all the turns I owed, here are the thoughts:

(1)A7M line as it stands is a trap in RA. Compare A7M2/3 to N1K4-A. The latter is actually slightly better now (wins in MVR), but comes out of an established line of mid-war fighters and with no research HRs can be obtained up to a year earlier. Shidens already have no alternatives in Scen 2 (J2M is pretty terrible without JWE changes, not sure why, it is doesn't seem that much inferior stat-wise, but gets shot down in droves by anything post-Warhawk whenever I try to use them). In early versions of RA I'd say they too must be the core of IJNAF through 1943 and most of 1944, if you want tolerable exchange rates.

That might be due to the fact, that A7Ms still use the standard Francillon data on speed, while other late-war Japanese fighters, if I undestand correctly, are using TAIC data. Addin 20-25 of mphs to its in-game speed might be warranted (the same logic applies to A6M8 as well, but as it is available very early in RA, it can have an in-game role as is...).

On the other hand, it should be noted that early availability of some IJN aircraft, like A6M8 and, to an extent, A7M was at least partially meant to compensate their (underwelming for their normal availaibility date, to say the least) statblocks. If those are not as much of an issue, due to being brought in line with the new set of data, their availability can be pushed back several months. The simplest and most consistent with the previous releases solution still is to leave A6M8, etc, as they are, and improve A7M2's stats. If you don't want to touch speed, for lack of real reference, then its MVR values (Reppu had slightly lower wing loading than Shiden IRL, but worse MVR in-game) and particularly durability can be corrected (A7M was by far the biggest and heaviest single-engine Japanese Navy fighter, but it still has the standard Japanese durability 30 in the game). How about, for example, and assuming no shifts in availability dates, giving A7Ms +3 MVR at top MVR altitude bands, +2 at higher bands, and Durability 32, with the same speed values?


(2)As I noted before, J2M is back to the scenario, even though it shouldn't be there

(3)S1A1 is a pile of it again, it seems. Note that with the engines they hoped to fit on production aircraft it was supposed to get to 422 mph even by Francillon standard numbers. Now, of course, they were not likely to succeed to actually make them work, but the same logic can be applied to every Japanese aircraft model that wasn't a modification of stuff already in mass production starting from the spring of 1945. It is highly unlikely that J7M, Ki-94 could have been mass-produced in case of Japan keeping up resistance for several more months, given the condition of Japanese aircraft industry IRL and its likely condition in any sane alternative. Jets were perhaps the only one new designs that had a chance of seeing a production run, as rocket engines/easy turbojets were rather simple compared to top-end endwar piston engines.

(4)As, I believe, is noted by JWE upthread, I was incorred assigning Mitsubishi Ha-43 engine to D4Y5 in this mod. Should be Nakajima Ha-45.

If you send the files for the next release version to me for half a day before posting them, I can apply those changes myself and return files to you. Don't worry, I'm free tomorrow and therefore not likely to disappear from the net without some sort of disaster striking my area...

EDIT: ny59giants is going to send me the files anyway, so if you approve, I can go forth and apply the above-outlined changes, then return the aircraft file to you.

< Message edited by FatR -- 11/28/2013 8:58:54 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 #: 443
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/28/2013 7:45:07 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7051
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
John - I just PM Stanislav so I can forward the latest changes.

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 444
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/29/2013 4:17:36 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11063
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I just saw this and need to think on it some. Been a long day here with lots of people at the house.

Anyone else have thoughts to the proposal above?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 445
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/29/2013 6:21:52 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11063
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
FatR: Michael sent you the files and I have not done anything with them so go ahead and make the changes.

If anyone has comments make sure to Post them today/tomorrow. Once Stanislav is done with his tweaking and sends me the files, I will be ready to upload them to the site pretty quickly.

Should I re-number the scenario since it has all these changes now? OR Do I leave it as 50 and replace the files already on 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 #: 446
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/29/2013 2:21:37 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1393
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
Thanks. Now that I've finally returned all the turns I owed, here are the thoughts:

Strasv'i Stan, just some quick thoughts in return.

The Francillon data on the very late war prototypes were of the planned, calculated, performance of the airframe and engine, unlike the operational planes which data he reported from the acceptance trial tear sheets. Operationally, the engines never seemed to have quite the power output that they were planned, calculated to have. Since many of the protos never got off the ground, there were no actual trial data. I did verify Francillon’s numbers with my own curves and thought they were “close enough”. Just fyi.

p.s., the A6M8 was “dialed in”. I have great specs on the actual performance of the Kinsei 62 ( Ha-33, MK8, Ha-112, Ha-112-II, Ha-112 Ru) when assembled correctly and well maintained. And the airframe characteristics are well characterized.

I like what ya’ll did with the A7. It’s carrier capable, and the N1K isn’t. That should be a reason to keep it.

For mvr, while wing loading is a factor, but don’t forget power loading; especially power loading at various altitudes. I have a sanity check on ‘operational’ weight that I’ll send you if you want.

For the J2M, I just stuck them in there for John to use if he wanted. I knew he didn’t use them, but didn’t realize, at the time, that people could grab them anyway with PDU=on. Ya b’yl glyun, izvenitye.

Anyhow, ciao. JWE


_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 447
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/29/2013 2:24:32 PM   
FatR

 

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

FatR: Michael sent you the files and I have not done anything with them so go ahead and make the changes.

OK, I will send you the files in a few hours.

_____________________________

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 #: 448
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/29/2013 3:37:02 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: Symon

Strasv'i Stan, just some quick thoughts in return.

Thanks for your comments.


p.s., the A6M8 was “dialed in”. I have great specs on the actual performance of the Kinsei 62 ( Ha-33, MK8, Ha-112, Ha-112-II, Ha-112 Ru) when assembled correctly and well maintained. And the airframe characteristics are well characterized.

Ki-100 which also was a result of hastily installing Ki-62 on a preexisting airframe is supposed to demonstrated better speed than A6M8 despite being 600kg heavier (in empty weight). And actually now that I look at your numbers, Ki-100-I is now 36 mph faster in the game! I find that hard to believe, even though having an older airframe with relatively obsolete aerodynamic decisions can play a significant role (just like with P-40 having lower performance than Mustangs with the same Allison engines). Too big of a gap. Even Francillon states 356 mph for A6M8, not 350 it has in the game. This leads me to believing that the same peculiarities of Japanese airframe testing conditions that apparently caused them to systematically produce lower numbers than their combat performance later revealed, as seen with J2M, N1K-J, Ki-84, Ki-61-II KAI and Ki-100, should be taken into account for A6M8 and A7M, i.e., those aircraft that were fully tested before the war's end, and so are not using theoretical calculated speed values.

In some cases there's also gamist reasoning, like with S1A1 - for a 1946 plane it is so bad with its current stats, that probably no player among those few who survived long enough had ever produced it in the grand campaign. With the projected production model speed figures (or 10-15 mph lower, to reasonably cover failings in production quality), avoiding it might no longer be a no-brainer.


quote:

ORIGINAL: SymonI like what ya’ll did with the A7. It’s carrier capable, and the N1K isn’t. That should be a reason to keep it.

There is carrier-capable version of George (that never got anywhere IRL for obvious reasons) in RA since the first version of the mod. I'd say it was pretty close to A7M2 even when N1K-J wasn't a rocket, compared to the rest of IJN roster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SymonFor mvr, while wing loading is a factor, but don’t forget power loading; especially power loading at various altitudes. I have a sanity check on ‘operational’ weight that I’ll send you if you want.

Yes, please, I'll be glad to see them.




< Message edited by FatR -- 11/29/2013 4:47:48 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 Symon)
Post #: 449
RE: RA 6.3 Change Log - 11/29/2013 3:52:19 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1393
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
Yes, please, I'll be glad to see them

Stan, for you, I will open my overcoat. Lets chat. We got lots to talk about. You got my pm, but I prefer to go direct.

Ciao. John

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RA 6.3 Change Log Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   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

0.109