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: Recon

 
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: Recon Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Recon - 1/5/2017 4:02:13 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1611
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

BTS scenario. 9th Australian inf division has toe #2706 which is a CMF Inf Bn TOE. Makes this unit very fragile, loses will not be made up. Should probably be a TOE # 2693 or 2694.



9 Div should arrive as UK 1942 TOE motorised infantry division, and transition to an AIF jungle TOE light division, with excess devices going to the pool, but all vehicles were left behind in Egypt. Also, the Marmon Harringtons in the AIF/AMF TOEs are a furphy. The divisional cavalry regts were essentially mech infantry scouts, with a squadron of tanks. At times in the MTO they used Vickers MkVI, captured Italian tanks, or captured Vichy French R-35/H-35. On return to the PTO they had no tanks issued, and ultimately re-roled as commando btn HQs.





_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 91
RE: Recon - 1/5/2017 4:48:05 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thanks Ian. Appreciate it.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 92
RE: Recon - 1/24/2017 10:52:59 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Michael has found a major glitch in BTS-L with the economy. Thankfully it doesn't appear to be in TM, RA, and BTS.

Michael: Can you Post what you found?


_____________________________



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 #: 93
RE: Recon - 1/25/2017 12:53:44 PM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9622
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
Gremlins got loose in the editor of BTS Lite long ago (before 1EyedJack vs me now in Nov 42) where "HI Fuel In" went from 2 to 4 and "LI In" went from 15 to 8. Then, I started my game as Japan vs Gen Patton and we had gotten to late July 42. I'm very much into micro-management (Tracker fan boy ), but I saw my fuel go from 4 million (M) at start to 1.5M and Oil from 3M to 1M while Res went from 7M to 41M and enough in Japan for 13,462 days.

So any Japanese players using BTS Lite (scen 60), please hit the "J" button to pull up your economy. Select just "HI" and if any factory has 4x the fuel under "Requirements" for your any HI factory then the gremlins hit you to. Please PM if you want the newest version, with fixes and tweaks.

Needless to say, both my games are being restarted with newest version. This time I cannot use my rust of not playing Japan often vs Gen Patton nor can 1EyedJack use his lack of familiarity with this mod as excuse for losing two CV vs CV battles in early 42 as Japan.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 94
RE: Recon - 1/25/2017 10:35:35 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thanks Michael.

We have done a ton of changes and updates over the last week or two and I think we are about ready for a general release. When that happens there will be a Post announcing the release as well as all the details Posted here.


_____________________________



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 #: 95
RE: Recon - 1/26/2017 1:05:03 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4775
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Thanks Michael.

We have done a ton of changes and updates over the last week or two and I think we are about ready for a general release. When that happens there will be a Post announcing the release as well as all the details Posted here.




Best of luck guys!

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 96
RE: Recon - 1/26/2017 10:05:52 AM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline
Hope no new gremlins creeps in!

I did notice some errors with the Soviet ships as well. This is probably not something that matters as you usually don't see much of them in action. These errors are present in the stock scenarios as well.
In fact there's so much odd going on there that I don't know where to start. I'll be lazy and simply give you the navypedia links instead of pointing out exactly every thing. Of course navypedia isn't an infallible source but it's usually quite accurate. Still as always take things with a grain of salt.

Kalinin and Kaganovich are of the Kirov-class ingame, in reality they were a slightly larger type: http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_cr_maxim_gorkiy.htm - change the Kirov-class to this.

The Leningrad-class has some incorrect weapons, among others 2x2 torpedoes rather than 2x4. http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_minsk.htm - check this to correct it (Tblisi is the ship in the game)

Most of the Gnevnyi-class ships in the Pacific seems to have had 3x1 or 4x1 37mm guns, not 1x2 as currently. http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_gnevnyy.htm

The two ships represented by the Novik-class probably didn't have DP guns or 533 mm torpedoes. See http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_pobeditel.htm (Stalin) and http://www.navypedia.org/ships/russia/ru_dd_kapitan_izylmetyev.htm (Voykov), check the outfits at 1946.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_71-57_m1932.htm
The 180mm/57 gun seems to lower penetration than I'd expect. Something along the lines of 275 might be more correct. That might sound like a lot for something that's not a 203 mm gun, but it's a rather high velocity gun. The Japanese 15.5 cm gun already has 231.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_51-50_m1936.htm
The 130mm/55 should be 130mm/50. The penetration here is also low, it should probably be around 90+, upper bound probably in the vicinity of 110.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_4-60_m1911.php
102mm/60 P1911 - used on the Novik-class. Guess at stats:
Type: Naval Gun, Range: 17, Accuracy: 40, Penetration: 48, Effect: 38, Ceiling: 0, Anti-Armor: 24, Anti-Soft: 22

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_39-56_m1940.php
I'm somewhat unclear as to whether the 100mm/56 P1940 was used on any of the ships in the Pacific. It might very well have been used in the coastal forts though (it's currently in the Vladivostok fort as an example). So the device should probably stick around but an additional gun added.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_39-51_m1931.htm
100mm/56 B-24 - replaces all instances of the 100mm/56 P1940 gun on ships.
Same stats as the P1940 except it's a single purpose gun, not a DP gun.

http://navweaps.com/Weapons/WNRussian_85mm-52_90k.htm
85mm/52 90K - used on the two cruisers. Guess at stats:
Type: DP Gun, Range: 17, Accuracy: 36, Penetration: 36, Effect: 20, Ceiling: 33450, Anti-Armor: 18, Anti-Soft: 17
(If using witploadAE extra stats - AA Penetration: 18, AA Effect: 24, AA Accuracy: 50)


As an curiosity I don't really get why three of the Soviet classes are given a 18 knot cruise speed, rather than the normal 15.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 97
RE: Recon - 1/29/2017 2:14:20 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
When I have been loading Scen 60: Between the Storms--Lite, I am noticing missing ship art work. This is my 'working' Scenario number for the update that is to come. Am going to go through and see just what is missing so I can fix and then update the folders on the RA Website.

Additionally want to draw up an EXACT set of warship additions to all the Allied Fleets as well as Japan so people can see that as well. Think it might go a long way towards addressing cocerns about this being a JFB-ONLY Mod!

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 98
RE: Recon - 1/29/2017 3:32:14 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5275
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
John, it depends on how you play it....GP

_____________________________

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

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TotS-Alpha 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 #: 99
RE: Recon - 1/29/2017 8:36:22 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2348
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
Please list the changes for RA so we can see how its developing - and what if any will help games in progress. I am in March 43 in RA 7.9 AS ALLIES - yes its good. Have the issues around ship withdrawl and PP for certain units that should not have them and also allied destroyed units not being able to be bought back but I guess I can live with this. Did the Victory points change much from the original game.

If you want to see the game please PM and I will send you the file.

Also what were the recommended house rules for RA?

Thanks for all the good work.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 100
RE: Recon - 1/29/2017 11:05:30 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thanks Cavalry and GP.

The work done here is for Between the Storms which folds in the Treaty Mod work and then RA. I shall separate them once this version is completed. The goal was to get ALL the changes on one database so I can then use just that database to create TM and RA from it. Does that make sense?

Cavalry--I would like to see your work but in a little while.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 101
RE: RA 7.9 - 1/31/2017 5:20:19 AM   
aga2008


Posts: 9
Joined: 11/8/2008
From: Vienna,Austria
Status: offline
Playing RA 7.9 and it's April 1943.
I just got the 752 KuS-1 (27 Zeroes) but it needs to be withdrawn immediately (since Dec 1942 it says).

Keeping it costs me 27 PP per day ...





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by aga2008 -- 1/31/2017 3:40:59 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 102
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/1/2017 3:08:14 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
THERE is a problem. Will correct in new version. Thanks for letting me know!

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to aga2008)
Post #: 103
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/3/2017 11:56:07 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Between the Storms: Lite
The Additions to the Allied Fleet


United States Navy
CV Wasp (built as Yorktown-Class)
CVL King's Mountain
CVE Ely
CLV Charlotte and Jacksonville
BB Colorado-Class (Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia start on West Coast upgrading as planned but never done IRL)
BC Ranger and Constellation (Lexington-Class)
CA Burlington and Rome
CL Anchorage and Dallas
DD 8 additional (4 more of two different classes)
SS 6 additional (1 Argonaut, 2 Narwhal, and 3 Narwhal with a Float Plane)

French (based at Tahiti)
CL Jean de Vienne
DD 2
SS 2

Royal Australian Navy
CAV Melbourne
DD 4
SS 2

Royal New Zealand Navy
CAV Wellington
DD 2

Dutch Navy
CL Eendracht

Total additional NEW Allied ships added (not including those upgrading--Colorado Class--or variations--Wasp:
1 CVL
1 CVE
2 CAV
2 CLV
2 BC
2 CA
4 CL
14 DD
10 SS




< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/3/2017 11:57:53 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 #: 104
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/5/2017 1:30:09 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1570
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
What is the status of RA and BTS? Will you be doing upgrades to these scenarios?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 105
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/5/2017 3:59:29 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Between the Storms is close to release. RA will take a while. I have standardized the databases of TM, RA, and BTS to be located to just ONE set of files. It is only a matter a changing which ships or air groups come in when and the POOF I have a new variant...

If I had half a day we would be OK. BTS goes first and then RA. They will be far superior to the current versions.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 106
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/6/2017 6:23:44 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1570
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
Any timetable on the upgrades? Xargun and I are going to start a new PBEM game of either RA or BTS.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 107
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/6/2017 8:19:06 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1570
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
It looks like we will be using BTS.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 108
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/6/2017 8:46:53 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Good. This will push me along to get it done. I will Post updates here over the next several days as I work on what remains.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 109
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/7/2017 2:31:48 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 3468
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: offline
I have the latest version of BTS installed and while looking at planes in Tracker I am noticing missing art work for them. Is there another art file I need besides that which comes in the BTS zip ?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 110
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/7/2017 2:34:09 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5275
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Xargun, I would list the aircraft art that is missing so John can fix it....GP

_____________________________

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

AKA General Patton

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

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

(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 111
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/7/2017 2:54:53 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1570
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
There is a page of art work that is needed and you can find it here. https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/home/ra-4-0-the-art

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 112
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/7/2017 2:59:10 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5275
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

There is a page of art work that is needed and you can find it here. https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/home/ra-4-0-the-art


Not sure that art is up to date. It's 3 years old....GP

_____________________________

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

AKA General Patton

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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 113
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/7/2017 3:50:47 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1570
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
Yes, that is the artwork that is available. John may do some updating on the art files also.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 114
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/7/2017 4:26:18 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

There is a page of art work that is needed and you can find it here. https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/home/ra-4-0-the-art


Not sure that art is up to date. It's 3 years old....GP


The aircraft art hasn't changed so it should be good to use. Getting fresh planes sides and such into the artwork has never been successful for me and so I have farmed that work out over the years.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 115
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/7/2017 4:26:59 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

Yes, that is the artwork that is available. John may do some updating on the art files also.


Correct Bill. Am trying to make sure ALL the updated ship work is correct and in its proper place.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 116
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/8/2017 1:06:11 PM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9622
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
Go thru the IJN leaders and find some Lt that can be promoted to Cmd that have good land skills so there are more options for the Assault Div. Not many choices there.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 117
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/8/2017 1:29:36 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1570
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: online
A question John. You have the IJN CV air groups setup to be able to resize from day 1. But the USN CV air groups are not and must follow
the historical resize path. Don't you think it would be fair if the USN were able to resize their air units from day 1 also?

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 118
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/8/2017 2:00:28 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5275
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

A question John. You have the IJN CV air groups setup to be able to resize from day 1. But the USN CV air groups are not and must follow
the historical resize path. Don't you think it would be fair if the USN were able to resize their air units from day 1 also?


A big PLUS ONE....GP

_____________________________

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

AKA General Patton

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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 119
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/8/2017 3:19:11 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15867
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I have not changed anything from what is normal here.

The Japanese start with slightly changed air groups due to the Recon Kates. The Allies cannot due to being at sea. Shouldn't Saratoga have the chance on Day One? Might be off here so if so, please expand your comments. Isn't resizing the same for the Allies as the Japanese?



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/8/2017 3:20:03 PM >


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Recon Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

0.152