Matrix Games Forums

Hell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: A New 6.7+ Variant

 
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: A New 6.7+ Variant Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/19/2014 1:51:49 PM   
General Patton


Posts: 1181
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
John, As per the thread by ChrisH about missing ship art for the french, I just looked at all of the downloaded files and in my own PBEM game with JuanG and the following french art does seem to be missing; DD Le Fler, AS Jules Verne, BC Dunkerque, and BB Jean Bart. Also a ship called CM Pluton. Although I can't find that one in the mod. I thought I saw this art fixed at some point. I may be wrong. Sorry for the extra work. Let me know if I can help. GP

_____________________________

win 7, AMD A8-352M APU w/ RADEON HD GRAPHICS, 1600Mhz, 4 CORES, 6 GB RAM

"I don't like paying for the same real estate twice" General George S. Patton

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 571
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/19/2014 6:54:08 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 520
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
John, check your inbox for 2 emails from me. Not much to be found, mind you. Most of what I found are questions to make sure things work as intended :)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 572
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/19/2014 10:54:38 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Got both emails Kitakami. THANKS!

General: I am going through ship art to take a look. Just had an encounter with both French BCs and there was no art with them. Rather disappointing...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 573
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/20/2014 11:10:45 AM   
Skyland


Posts: 216
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


General: I am going through ship art to take a look. Just had an encounter with both French BCs and there was no art with them. Rather disappointing...



John, i am ready to send you everything (again) if you need

_____________________________

War Options 1941 mod : https://sites.google.com/site/waroptionswitpaemod/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 574
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/20/2014 2:38:38 PM   
General Patton


Posts: 1181
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
John, Have the art now. Skyland sent it to me and ChrisH. I have it saved and can send it to anyone who needs it. GP

_____________________________

win 7, AMD A8-352M APU w/ RADEON HD GRAPHICS, 1600Mhz, 4 CORES, 6 GB RAM

"I don't like paying for the same real estate twice" General George S. Patton

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 575
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/20/2014 2:53:04 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thanks AGAIN Skyland. Don't understand why those pesky BC keep having art problems.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to General Patton)
Post #: 576
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/20/2014 3:26:52 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2363
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
John did Hitler have the SS steal them like all the other French art?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 577
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/21/2014 1:09:14 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Hadn't thought of that. I love conspiracy theories! Perhaps HYDRA did it...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 578
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/21/2014 1:26:17 AM   
General Patton


Posts: 1181
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Hey, The additional french art works just fine. By the way. I tend to save a lot of files on my computer, can't explain it just disappearing like that. GP

_____________________________

win 7, AMD A8-352M APU w/ RADEON HD GRAPHICS, 1600Mhz, 4 CORES, 6 GB RAM

"I don't like paying for the same real estate twice" General George S. Patton

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 579
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/22/2014 4:46:19 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1443
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
Found a small database error in RA6.6: A6M4-J has type 99 cannons while they should probably be Type 99-2s.

Also A7M2 seems to upgrade to A7M3-J(with upwards-pointing cannons that I'm not sure if they are of any use in fighter vs. fighter combat in the game) while the notes say it upgrades to M3. Bug or intended?


Some suggestions, nothing big but could be interesting historical/pseudohistorical details:

If you wish to boost IJN(if we stick just to the Navy) a bit more you could consider making the L2D transport available at start or soon - I think IRL the factories were running in 1942 already. Depending on source and which of the IRL production series is used for reference the G4M2 could perhaps have higher durability than the M1(new things being at least rubber protection to the bottom of wing fuel tanks), bit more range and maybe even armor(in game terms). That could make the G4M line more used late game instead of most players building G4M only because the factory happens to already exist after G3M3 becomes available.

On the other hand Ha-33 Zeros(the M4 project and M8) were apparently planned to have turbo-superchargers so they perhaps should have service rating of 2 instead of 1 or even 3 for the first model, like the J2M series in other scenarios.

(in reply to General Patton)
Post #: 580
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/22/2014 9:56:30 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 520
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Found a small database error in RA6.6: A6M4-J has type 99 cannons while they should probably be Type 99-2s.

<snip>


Same with the A6M8-J


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 581
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/23/2014 12:06:21 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Great notes guys. THANKS!

I told Michael today that I am taking a third day off and intend to do some editor work. Am thinking that I wills imply clean-up 6.6 with the notes made ove rthe last page or so of the thread and have 6.7 set. Will then shift over to working the new wessels in the Treaty Mod using a DaBabes C template.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 582
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/23/2014 2:05:54 PM   
General Patton


Posts: 1181
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Sounds great John. Let me know if I can be of assistance. GP

_____________________________

win 7, AMD A8-352M APU w/ RADEON HD GRAPHICS, 1600Mhz, 4 CORES, 6 GB RAM

"I don't like paying for the same real estate twice" General George S. Patton

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 583
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/23/2014 7:13:24 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 520
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Ki-61-Ic Tony (aircraft 811), wpn 2: 166 (20mm MG151 Cannon)... that is an Allied cannon. Perhaps it should be weapon 191 (20mm Ho-5 Cannon) instead?

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to General Patton)
Post #: 584
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/23/2014 8:29:47 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1443
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

Ki-61-Ic Tony (aircraft 811), wpn 2: 166 (20mm MG151 Cannon)... that is an Allied cannon. Perhaps it should be weapon 191 (20mm Ho-5 Cannon) instead?


I think the Ic represents those Ki-61-Ias and Ibs that were field-equipped with German-made Mauser MG151/20 cannons. I think yes, because its not on the upgrade path either. The Japanese only ever received enough guns to equip about 300 planes, though.

Interestingly though the MG151 in-game has has the worst accuracy of 20 mm cannons... That one probably needs to be checked. It wasnt the least accurate nor had it the worst rate of fire. It was also belt-fed, I know Bf 109 had 210 shells for it and Fw 190's inner guns had 240(compared to, say, 60 to 120 for Zero and Spitfire). Maybe the reason behind that low ACC value is that there werent many spare guns available so they were probably unreliable in battle once they wore out. And I guess they had to use Japanese ammo too.

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 585
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/23/2014 9:00:38 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 520
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami
Ki-61-Ic Tony (aircraft 811), wpn 2: 166 (20mm MG151 Cannon)... that is an Allied cannon. Perhaps it should be weapon 191 (20mm Ho-5 Cannon) instead?

I think the Ic represents those Ki-61-Ias and Ibs that were field-equipped with German-made Mauser MG151/20 cannons. I think yes, because its not on the upgrade path either. The Japanese only ever received enough guns to equip about 300 planes, though.

Interestingly though the MG151 in-game has has the worst accuracy of 20 mm cannons... That one probably needs to be checked. It wasnt the least accurate nor had it the worst rate of fire. It was also belt-fed, I know Bf 109 had 210 shells for it and Fw 190's inner guns had 240(compared to, say, 60 to 120 for Zero and Spitfire). Maybe the reason behind that low ACC value is that there werent many spare guns available so they were probably unreliable in battle once they wore out. And I guess they had to use Japanese ammo too.


Thank you for enlightening me :) I did find it weird that the accuracy of the MG151 was lower, but if it is simulating a specific event, I have nothing against it.


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 586
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/23/2014 10:36:04 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2258
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
My only thought and I am not familiar with the later war Japanese 20mm, the Germans figured out pretty early that the 20mm was a good weapon if it shot fast enough and so they redesigned their 20mm's to shoot faster to put more "lead" on target. One of the reasons why the 50 caliber was so lethal was the amount of "lead" they could put on target.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 587
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/24/2014 4:30:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Fascinating on the whole Cannon topic. Didn't know a good portion of it.

I am beginning to put together the 'change list.' Will Post it when I begin work on cleaning things up. If anyone spots more or has question SING OUT!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 588
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/24/2014 7:30:59 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1443
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Fascinating on the whole Cannon topic. Didn't know a good portion of it.

I am beginning to put together the 'change list.' Will Post it when I begin work on cleaning things up. If anyone spots more or has question SING OUT!



Well heres some more tiny details that might require look


The 2 Sutherlands have durability of 28(retains from stock scenarios) - probably should be a bit higher for a 4-engine patrol aircraft(in the 40s maybe?).

Corsair V(interestingly?!? just the Brit version), Hurricane IId trop, Hurricane IV, P-63A, F2G1 Corsair, Il-2s, Il-2 and the Tigercats have armor of 2. Probably only the Il-2s and Il-10 should have armor 2. Or at least I have a hard time figuring out why those Hurricanes especially have armor 2 and just about every other armor 1 plane in the game does not.

Yak-9 and 9D: should have 12,7 mm BS heavy machine gun in the place of 7,62mm ShKAS.

Technically Yak-9U and La-7 should have B-20 cannon instead of ShVak but AFAIK the performance was same for just weight savings IRL.

La-7: I think most or even nearly all examples after the pre-production run were fitted with 3 guns instead of 2.

A-36 could perhaps be called Apache or even Invader instead of Mustang? Apache was the first name of the plane used by the US, until the British-given name became popular outside of the RAF too.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 589
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/24/2014 7:32:13 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1431
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
From the weapon characteristics, the MG-151 looks to be a good gun. Not the best, but pretty good. Japan got 800 total of German manufactured MG-151s. They didn't have the excess manufacturing capability (or the specialty metals) to make a knokn-off, so 800 is all they gets. From the gun notes from 2009, it suggests Japan got the electrically fired versions. Japan couldn't reproduce the propellant so did their own version, with consequent reduced muzzle velocity and a different shape to the round.

For what it's worth. John

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 590
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/24/2014 7:33:41 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1443
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

From the weapon characteristics, the MG-151 looks to be a good gun. Not the best, but pretty good. Japan got 800 total of German manufactured MG-151s. They didn't have the excess manufacturing capability (or the specialty metals) to make a knokn-off, so 800 is all they gets. From the gun notes from 2009, it suggests Japan got the electrically fired versions. Japan couldn't reproduce the propellant so did their own version, with consequent reduced muzzle velocity and a different shape to the round.

For what it's worth. John


Okay so there was a reason and it was the Japanese ammo as I thought. Didn't know about that before!

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 591
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/25/2014 3:49:07 AM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 520
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
Japanese air unit 677 Shokatsu-1, starts the game active, but is based... nowhere!

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!


(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 592
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/25/2014 1:28:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Keep lookin' Sir. Am planning on a RA clean-up session today!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 593
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/26/2014 2:02:17 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7106
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Partial List of Allied warships missing FP groups:

BBs - Richelieu, Jean Bart, Strasbourg, Dunkerque, Queen Elizabeth, Revenge, Royal Sovereign, Ramillies, Renown, New York, Arkansas, Texas

CAs - Sussex, London, Norfolk, Suffen (missing device data also)

CLs - Jeanne d'Arc, Emerald, Gambra, Bermuda, New Foundland, Nigeria, Uganda, Jamaica, Fargo, Duguay Trouin

Missing devices - CL Gloire, Georges Leygues, Duguay Trouin

Airframes:
A slight correct in some airframes replacement rates
Hurricane PR II - 1 to 3/month (would help in India in '42)

Beaufighter VIf (NF) - 2 to 4/month
P-70 Havoc (NF) - from 8/42 to 9/42 changed to 8/42 to 1/43 at 10/month (US Army)
F4U-2 (NF) - change to 9/43 to 3/44 at 4/month (currently none produced for USN)


< Message edited by ny59giants -- 5/26/2014 3:31:38 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 594
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/26/2014 3:56:55 PM   
General Patton


Posts: 1181
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
John, How difficult would it be to change a pilot from USAAF to Marine pool. The pilot in question is Greg Boyington. He started out as a marine pilot, Went to the AVG and then back to the Marines. But in game he ends up in the USAAF pilot pool after the AVG disband. There are probably others but Greg is the one i'm familiar with. GP

_____________________________

win 7, AMD A8-352M APU w/ RADEON HD GRAPHICS, 1600Mhz, 4 CORES, 6 GB RAM

"I don't like paying for the same real estate twice" General George S. Patton

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 595
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/26/2014 10:30:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
NICE Michael!

PAPPY is an army choice??? STUPID!!! He'll be a Marine coming up...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to General Patton)
Post #: 596
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/27/2014 2:32:02 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
If all goes well I have 2-3 hours available right now to clean-up the bug list. Will update this morning as I get stuff dealt with.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 597
RE: A New 6.7+ Variant - 5/27/2014 4:57:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Have got my change list together and am going to work my way through it. If there are issues, I shall let everyone know.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 598
Change List - 5/27/2014 5:09:03 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
This is the Change List I am working off of. If anyone does not see something we have spoken about please Post here:

Greetings, RA team!

Please consider these honest questions and observations, as I am not privy to the decision process. I am just going through the database (after a few months of being away from RA and AE in general) and asking about what feels weird to me :)

Fuso BB Class:
1697 has 8+8 1661's (15cm/50 41YT Singles)
1698 has 7+7
1699 has 8+8 again
Is that correct? It does not happen with Ise class.
Going by date, 1696 & 1697 should be able to upgrade FROM, to 1700. Any reason they don't?

Ise BB Class
Going by date, 1705 & 1706 should be able to upgrade FROM, to 1709. Any reason they don't?

Momi DD/E/APD Class
Bind 131 links 1382, 1395 & 1396, but 1395 & 1396 have neither convert TO nor convert FROM.
Wouldn't it make sense that 1385 and 1395 become only one class? To have two final-version Momi E, differing by 3x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun feels weird.

Wakatake DD/E/APD Class
Wouldn't it make sense that 1389 and 1400 become only one class? To have two final-version Wakatake E, differing only by 1x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun feels weird.

Mutsuki DD/APD Class
Bind 138 links 1418 & 1419, but they have neither convert TO nor convert FROM.

Kawachi CB Class
1738 & 1739 are not being used. Bind 1734 links 1738 to... nothing? This might just be an unused leftover, I included it just in case it is not.

CVL Ryujo's (KB1), and Zuiho's (KB2) planes are set to target Manila. Perhaps the default should be changed to Pearl Harbour?
CV Hiryu's and CV Soryu's (KB3) planes are set to target Pearl. Perhaps the default should be changed to Manila?

Found a small database error in RA6.6: A6M4-J has type 99 cannons while they should probably be Type 99-2s.

Also A7M2 seems to upgrade to A7M3-J(with upwards-pointing cannons that I'm not sure if they are of any use in fighter vs. fighter combat in the game) while the notes say it upgrades to M3. Bug or intended?


Some suggestions, nothing big but could be interesting historical/pseudohistorical details:

If you wish to boost IJN(if we stick just to the Navy) a bit more you could consider making the L2D transport available at start or soon - I think IRL the factories were running in 1942 already. Depending on source and which of the IRL production series is used for reference the G4M2 could perhaps have higher durability than the M1(new things being at least rubber protection to the bottom of wing fuel tanks), bit more range and maybe even armor(in game terms). That could make the G4M line more used late game instead of most players building G4M only because the factory happens to already exist after G3M3 becomes available.

On the other hand Ha-33 Zeros(the M4 project and M8) were apparently planned to have turbo-superchargers so they perhaps should have service rating of 2 instead of 1 or even 3 for the first model, like the J2M series in other scenarios.

Same with the A6M8-J

Ki-61-Ic Tony (aircraft 811), wpn 2: 166 (20mm MG151 Cannon)... that is an Allied cannon. Perhaps it should be weapon 191 (20mm Ho-5 Cannon) instead?

I think the Ic represents those Ki-61-Ias and Ibs that were field-equipped with German-made Mauser MG151/20 cannons. I think yes, because its not on the upgrade path either. The Japanese only ever received enough guns to equip about 300 planes, though.

Interestingly though the MG151 in-game has has the worst accuracy of 20 mm cannons... That one probably needs to be checked. It wasnt the least accurate nor had it the worst rate of fire. It was also belt-fed, I know Bf 109 had 210 shells for it and Fw 190's inner guns had 240(compared to, say, 60 to 120 for Zero and Spitfire). Maybe the reason behind that low ACC value is that there werent many spare guns available so they were probably unreliable in battle once they wore out. And I guess they had to use Japanese ammo too.

Well heres some more tiny details that might require look


The 2 Sutherlands have durability of 28(retains from stock scenarios) - probably should be a bit higher for a 4-engine patrol aircraft(in the 40s maybe?).

Corsair V(interestingly?!? just the Brit version), Hurricane IId trop, Hurricane IV, P-63A, F2G1 Corsair, Il-2s, Il-2 and the Tigercats have armor of 2. Probably only the Il-2s and Il-10 should have armor 2. Or at least I have a hard time figuring out why those Hurricanes especially have armor 2 and just about every other armor 1 plane in the game does not.

Yak-9 and 9D: should have 12,7 mm BS heavy machine gun in the place of 7,62mm ShKAS.

Technically Yak-9U and La-7 should have B-20 cannon instead of ShVak but AFAIK the performance was same for just weight savings IRL.

La-7: I think most or even nearly all examples after the pre-production run were fitted with 3 guns instead of 2.

A-36 could perhaps be called Apache or even Invader instead of Mustang? Apache was the first name of the plane used by the US, until the British-given name became popular outside of the RAF too.

Japanese air unit 677 Shokatsu-1, starts the game active, but is based... nowhere!

Partial List of Allied warships missing FP groups:
BBs - Richelieu, Jean Bart, Strasbourg, Dunkerque, Queen Elizabeth, Revenge, Royal Sovereign, Ramillies, Renown, New York, Arkansas, Texas

CAs - Sussex, London, Norfolk, Suffen (missing device data also)

CLs - Jeanne d'Arc, Emerald, Gambra, Bermuda, New Foundland, Nigeria, Uganda, Jamaica, Fargo, Duguay Trouin

Missing devices - CL Gloire, Georges Leygues, Duguay Trouin

Airframes:
A slight correct in some airframes replacement rates
Hurricane PR II - 1 to 3/month (would help in India in '42)

Beaufighter VIf (NF) - 2 to 4/month
P-70 Havoc (NF) - from 8/42 to 9/42 changed to 8/42 to 1/43 at 10/month (US Army)
F4U-2 (NF) - change to 9/43 to 3/44 at 4/month (currently none produced for USN)

Greg Boyington

Since RA is an Alt Hist scenario, there is one point I’d like to suggest… either allow all 4 Takao-class CAs to becom CAAA, or none. The Maya was a fortuitous occurrence, yes, so there is argument for none. I’d, of course, prefer all to be able to make the change ;P


Allied Navies:
There are a number of classes that upgrade to 0 instead of themselves. I gather that works fine?

King George BB Class
004 does not upgrade to 005. Is that correct?

Hawkins CA Class
034 does not upgrade to 035. Is that correct?

Dido CLAA Class
Nothing upgrades to 063, 064 or 065. Is that correct?

'C' CL CLass
074 upgrades to 073.
075 upgrades to 076 and then to 077.
That means that although 074 and 075 are identical, the upgrade paths are set in stone, and the player cannot chose what to do. Is that as intended?

Grimsby PC Class
169 upgrades to 168 and then to 167.
That means that the RIN Grimsby first loses DCs and gains AA, but then can regain the DCs and gain torpedoes? Just asking if this is as intended.

Pennsylvannia BB Class
308 upgrades to 310 and then to 312.
309 upgrades to 311 and then to 312.
308 and 309 are identical. 310 and 311 are identical but there is a 2-month difference in availability. Are those 2 months worth having 2 additional classes?

New Mexico & Colorado BB Classes
Although I understand the historicity of it, the upgrade trees are quite convoluted. Leave them as is, but man are they complicated. I wish the scenario editor had a cleaner, more elegant way of expressing the processes.

North Carolina BB Class
357 is redundant. It is identical to 355, and costs nothing to upgrade to. Perhaps it should be eliminated and have 355 upgrade to 358?
359 & 360 seem not to be used. Perhaps they should be eliminated?

Fletcher LB & HB DD Classes
I see no difference at all between them, not even in availability dates. What is the reason there are two separate upgrade trees for these?

Fr-M Cargo xAK Class
Bind 210 binds 905 & 906 (French) with 2066, 2111 & 2112 (Japanese). Should that be so?

Bogue-2 CVE Class
Should 923 upgrade to 924? Currently it does not.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 599
RE: Change List - 5/27/2014 5:15:37 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11123
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
This is Kitakami's Japanese Change List feedback

Japanese Navy:

Tenryu CL/CLAA Class
Bind 121 links FROM 1003, TO 1008, TO 1009. If I understand correctly, that means that frpm 4/43 onwards, I can convert FROM 1003 TO 1009... and the delay would be only 12 days... is that intended? If not, maybe 1009 should be removed from the bind?

Katori CL CLass
1052, 1053, 1054 and 1055 may be erased, as there are no Katori Class CLs

Agano CL CLass
1062, 1063, 1064 and 1065 may be erased, as there are no Agano Class CLs

Aoba CA Class
1153 has 4+2+2 1678's (10cm/65 Type 98 Gun), whereas 1149 (the Furutaka equivalent) has 4+4+4. Is that as intended?

Minekaze DD/E/APD Class
Perhaps bind 135 should be an example as to how the DD->APD conversions in the Momi and Wakatake classes should work... any DD version can be converted into an APD. Otherwise, see the next two comments.

Momi DD/E/APD Class
Bind 131 links 1382, 1395 & 1396, but 1395 & 1396 have neither convert TO nor convert FROM. Perhaps the bind should be FROM 1382 TO 1392?
Wouldn't it make sense that 1385 and 1395 become only one class? To have two final-version Momi E, difering by 3x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun feels weird.

Wakatake DD/E/APD Class
Wouldn't it make sense that 1389 and 1400 become only one class? To have two final-version Wakatake E, difering only by 1x 25mm Type 96 AA Gun feels weird.

Mutsuki DD/APD Class
Bind 138 links 1418 & 1419, but they have neither convert TO nor convert FROM. Perhaps it should be eliminated?

Fuso BB Class
1697 has 8+8 1661's (15cm/50 41YT Singles)
1698 has 7+7
1699 has 8+8 again
Is that correct? It does not happen with Ise class.
Going by date, 1696 & 1697 should be able to upgrade FROM, to 1700. Any reason they don't?

Ise BB Class
Going by date, 1705 & 1706 should be able to upgrade FROM, to 1709. Any reason they don't?

Kawachi CB Class
1738 & 1739 are not being used. Perhaps they should be erased?
Bind 1734 links 1738 to nothing. Bind 1738 links 1734 to nothing. Perhaps both should be eliminated?

Unryu CV Class
1853 & 1854 are not being used. Perhaps they should be erased?

Taiyo CVE Class
1865 upgrades to 1867. Is that as intended, or should it uograde to 1866?

Mizuho CS/CVL Class
1877, 1878, 1879 & 1880 are not being used. Perhaps they should be erased?

Nisshin CVL Class
1884 &1885 are not being used. Perhaps they should be erased?





_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 600
Page:   <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: A New 6.7+ Variant Page: <<   < prev  18 19 [20] 21 22   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

0.137