Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Preemptive Strike

 
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: Preemptive Strike Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Preemptive Strike - 6/16/2014 4:22:17 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5674
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
JuanG, Looks great. In terms of upgrades for the lex, Can't you just do small upgrades every few months or so. In the CV config she gets I think 3 upgrades during 42. GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

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

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 211
RE: Preemptive Strike - 6/16/2014 9:18:12 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Figure the major upgrade at the start and little ones each year after that.

LOVE THE WORK JUAN!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 212
RE: Preemptive Strike - 6/16/2014 9:18:55 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Sorry John, but I found one (hopefully last) air db error for you. Chinese I-16-III and V-VS I-16m24: has 4 x CT machine guns, both should be 2 CT + 2 F!


THANKS!

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 213
RE: Preemptive Strike - 6/16/2014 9:25:20 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
How many are excited to play with these wessels!!?? Cannot wait states the John.

Michael and John (JWE/Symon) are working on file stuff right now. Once they have things settled I shall begin the work on the Treaty Mod with the ships. I am serious that this will only take a few days to do since we're just ADDING a few ships to the OOB prior to a Dec 7th pure Babes vanilla scenario. EASY!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 214
RE: Preemptive Strike - 6/17/2014 1:03:00 AM   
btd64


Posts: 5674
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Looks to be interesting. But, will I have the time to play it? That is the question...I suppose I could cut back some more on sleep. Sleep is overrated you know. Who neeeeeeeedddddsssss sssllleeeppppp

< Message edited by General Patton -- 6/19/2014 6:47:24 PM >


_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 215
RE: Preemptive Strike - 6/17/2014 11:46:14 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
As mentioned in the RA Thread, JWE/Symon is working on importing all the RA material into a DB-C Mod. It will then become our working template for the Hybrid and a pure vanilla RA. Figure if we get the RA material fully brought in why not make ALL THREE Mods based fully off of DB-C? Makes good sense to me...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 216
RE: Preemptive Strike - 6/19/2014 2:27:14 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
All discussion on this thread shall now move to the Between the Storms Thread.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 217
RE: Preemptive Strike - 6/19/2014 2:31:31 PM   
derhexer


Posts: 251
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
OK, where's the Between The Storms Thread?

_____________________________

Chris
(Did you ever stop to think and forget to start?)

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 218
RE: Empire Additions - 6/30/2014 2:59:00 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

Since there is historical precedent, I'd suggest that the crews of both CLVs request to keep the names of their ships, and that the ships be given cruiser (ie. river) names. A few candidates are:

- Ishikari
- Teshio
- Tokachi
- Kushiro
- Shiribetsu
- Tokoro

Those are some of the longest rivers in Hokaido, which would suit the expected or perceived importance of the ships, after all.

As for how to arrange them, I'd divide Kido Butai in three CarDivs, with 2x CV and 1x CVL each, and would add the two CLVs to the CVE force. Locations... your choice :)


You will be happy to know I used nearly all these names in the Treaty Mod. THANKS!

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 219
Treaty Mod Description - 7/16/2014 1:33:55 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Here is the first draft of the Treaty Mod description that one would see when loading the Scenario:

The Treaty Mod
ALTNAV 1922-1937


The Treaty Mod for AE has been created to reflect a slightly different outcome of the historic Washington and London Naval Conferences: 1922-1937. With little changes and tweaks to the Treaty System, a slightly a-historic outcome is produced. It should be noted that no changes are made to any major power from 1937-1941.

The Washington Conference
Charles Evans Hughes blueprint for disarmament gets out and the Japanese stonewall a Naval Conference for a full year. The Conference does take place in 1922 and disarmament is agreed upon, however, there are additions allowed due to the added time to get the meeting going. The whole Mutsu Debate is scrapped due to Mutsu actually being ready and deployed at that point. While maintaining the 5-5-3 ratio between Great Britain, the United States, and Japan, there are several new outcomes:

1. The Japanese then argue to keep either a Tosa or a pair of the Amagi Class battlecruisers. The Americans carry the day in arguing for the Lexington-Class battlecruisers being completed. They gain the Ranger and Constellation (while scrapping BB Mississippi to maintain balance), Great Britain gets the option to build a pair of Super-Hoods (while additionally scrapping Royal Sovereign), and Japan completes Amagi-Class Ishitaka.

2. The whole subject of CVs is reworked:
a. Allow two 'experimental' CVs (two Hosho's and two Langley's)
b. Two BC conversions are allowed but further treaty tonnage is added for one more CVL to be built by both Japan and USA. The Americans build the King’s Mountain (proto-Independence Class) and the Japanese back off the failed Ryujo design to build Ryukaku (a proto-CVL as well).

The London Conference
Moving on to the London Conference (1930) and the subject of Cruisers is re-worked:
1. Japan--at all costs--sticks to its goal of 70% for CAs (instead of 60%). This allows for GB and USA to build two more CAs (USA: Burlington and Rome) while Japan gains one.
2. Great Britain--who nearly scrapped the treaty due to the issue of CAs and CLs--stands firm over its argument and forces a larger tonnage for CLs. USA adds USS Anchorage and Dallas.
3. Both Japan and the United States were looking at hybrid Cruiser—CVs and they force Great Britain, following the example set with the Washington BC—CV Conversions, to allow for two hybrids each in the early-30s. USA builds CLV Charlotte and Jacksonville, GB builds CAV Melbourne and Wellington (sold/given to those respective navies), and Japan finishes up with CAV Kushiro and Tokachi.

***It should be noted that to take maximum advantage of the revised Treaty tonnages, Japan converts several of the oldest CLs into fast ML, builds additional Myoko-Class CAs and keeps the Mogami Class as 6” CLs.

As war clouds gather on the horizon, the United States makes several important decisions (1) to slightly reinforce the Asiatic Fleet with an additional CA, CL, and 4 modern DDs, (2) Admiral Hart also decides to follow his inner thoughts and begin development of Cebu as an alternate anchorage, and (3) the Scouting Force, commanded by Vc-Adm Wilson is sent south to protect the Philippine reinforcement TFs going to the Philippines (The Pensacola TF) and the empty TF returning from the Philippines (The Chester TF).

Japan deploys its few new ships to protect the Invasion TFs coming from Babeldoap and Cam Rahn Bay as the Kido Butai steams towards its rendezvous with destiny at Pearl Harbor…


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 220
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/19/2014 6:03:40 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5674
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Hi everyone. I have just finished a test with the Treaty Mod to see if the AI would use the new Allied Air Frame purchase system developed by JuanG correctly. the findings are that it will not. The AI introduces the new aircraft at Karachi instead of a base that would be more Historically accurate. Also the AI was not using PP's for the purchase of these aircraft. Juan also looked into this and could not fine a way to get the AI to use the System correctly. So these three new mods will function as PBEM Only. The AI does seem to handle the Japanese side OK. John will post soon on expected release date. We do need artwork for a Aussie and NZ Buffalo. If you have any, please PM John3rd with the file so he can add it in. Thanks....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 221
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/19/2014 6:55:23 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 900
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
Thought I'd also comment on the above.

Essentially, I was hoping that because the bases the airgroups arrive at by default are entirely removed from play (being not only disconnected from the on-map area, but also the off-map area too), that any of the purchaseable airgroups would simply be left there by the AI.

Sadly this does not seem to be the case, though I am not entirely certain as to the exact mechanism by which they move them - it could be an 'AI friendly' version of the 'Transfer to Base' command, or it could be via withdrawing and returning them (this latter one also technically allows a player to move them to on map as well, but is obviously not intended in the system and thus can be HR'd out - sadly the AI doesn't respect HR's).

I attempted several different approaches to tackling this problem, from trying to change them to Replenisment or Training groups in hopes that the AI would ignore these as 'rear area' units, to trying to move the bases to no less than 5 different locations, both off-map and on-map, to trying different combinations of restricted HQs and nationalities. Nothing seems to prevent it, so for the moment I am out of ideas. I do think there might be a way to do it by editing the pwhexe files for the map, but as RA is intended to run off the extended map and I do not want to break that compatibility, I have left this avenue alone for now.

Many thanks to General Patton for catching this, as I had only playtested it from the allied side against the AI and so this behaviour and the unfortunate incompatibility was something I had overlooked entirely.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 7/19/2014 7:55:52 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 222
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/19/2014 7:05:35 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
It is an 'AI friendly' version of the 'Transfer to Base' command. It is the internal exe derived AI, not the script derived AI.

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 223
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/19/2014 7:10:33 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 900
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

It is an 'AI friendly' version of the 'Transfer to Base' command. It is the internal exe derived AI, not the script derived AI.


I figured it would be something in that direction, and hence out of my control. Thank you for the confirmation.

_____________________________


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 224
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/19/2014 9:30:22 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Hello All.

Have been crazy---busy with working on the caboose and getting ready for LaSalle Days weekend. This is busiest weekend of the year for my little Subway so it has been pretty crazy. We did something very COOL last Thursday. We got to ride the Heritage Union Pacific train from Cheyenne to Denver. Got to ride in an incredibly plush, comfyy, and GORGEOUS Pullman Dome car. It ROCKED! Will Post pictures once Paula downloads them.

The question from what Good Mister Patton found is this. Do we make a variant of all three Mods without the Off-Map aircraft system or just accept that Treaty, RA and BTS is PBEM only? Would like some comment here from the readership and other developers.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 7/19/2014 10:30:42 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 225
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/20/2014 6:44:35 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I would leave it as is and put a disclaimer in that you can only play Allies against the AI.

< Message edited by oldman45 -- 7/24/2014 12:55:51 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 226
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/24/2014 2:34:57 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3031
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Is there suppose to be a difference in Dutch forces between the Treaty mod and RA 7? I have also found some other differences. I don't know if these are suppose to be here or not. Just something that caught my eye.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by DOCUP -- 7/24/2014 3:35:34 AM >

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 227
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/24/2014 1:41:49 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5674
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Docup, There are some additional OOB changes for the Dutch in these mods. Don't know all the details. Should be clearer in BTS....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

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

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 228
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/24/2014 3:23:56 PM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9679
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Treaty Mod = Stock + new warships

RA = DBB + new warships, airframes, and some LCUs (Japan only)

This is why you are seeing the difference.

_____________________________


(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 229
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/26/2014 12:48:41 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I'm home and will be jumping on getting Treaty, RA and BTS out. To add to Michael's comment:

Treaty Mod: DBB-C with all changes by Symon/JWE.

RA: Same as above with "RA Variations"

Between the Storms: Links BOTH Mods into one ALTNAV History from 1922-1941.

All three Mods play with extended map, Juan's Allied off-map aircraft purchase system, and stacking limitations.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 230
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/26/2014 9:29:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Getting back to work here.

For BTS:
I plan to scale the French back to just a CL, 2-3 DD, and place an AS with 3 SS at Tahiti.

The Aussies will gain 3-4 DDs, 2 SS, and an AS as we have talked about earlier. The DDs make a lot of sense since the Ausiies would have certainly wanted some form of escort to go with CAV Melbourne.

RA:
Scale the French to what is described but add the other ships to become a TF centered on the 2 BC when they arrive.

No additional Aussie stuff in RA.



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 7/26/2014 10:51:08 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 231
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/27/2014 6:13:55 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
RA 7.0 is complete and ready for action. Will Post it on the website tomorrow...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 232
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/27/2014 1:06:20 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5674
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
John, I'm have been having some e-mail trouble the past few days. I looked at the Aussie and Dutch ground units and as DOCUP pointed out a lot of Aussie and Dutch ground units are restricted. I understand why that might be. However some Dutch Base unit are not. If you wanted to move them, I think you might want to have some infantry to defend them. Also, about 3 or 4 dutch bases have both naval and air units but no base units. Those locations are Sorong, Ternate, Sambas and Singkep. Also Koepang has air but lost its Base unit. Have you looked at these items for RA 7.0? I'm happy to see the Aussie's getting some escorts for Melbourne. Great work to you and everyone who worked on these mods....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 233
RE: Treaty Mod Description - 7/27/2014 2:44:08 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I have not. I've simply been interested in making sure the that 7.0 was up and running. John's (JWE's) new OOB is something I have hardly even glanced at. I know everything there is done in as historical a manner as possible. The one thing I did replace is putting those small additional CD units back into Cocos, Pt. Blair and Port Moresby.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 234
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Preemptive Strike Page: <<   < prev  4 5 6 7 [8]
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

0.160