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: B-Mod, Last Update

 
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: B-Mod, Last Update Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 12/19/2018 4:43:44 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4820
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wineguy

Hi Brian, it looks like scenario 197 was just updated yesterday. I am just in the process of starting a game with an opponent who is in the middle of Japan turn1. Is there anything critical in the update?

Thanks, Steve.


It was not critical, I just reassigned a starting HQ to two divisions that arrive in UK.

_____________________________


(in reply to Wineguy)
Post #: 121
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 12/19/2018 9:12:32 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 4972
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
I'm presently involved in a PBEM (Beta version 1.8.1126b of DBB Lite). I have some questions.

1) If I install the various ship/plane files in the Art sub-folders do the do the new files supplant the old ship/plane files in that PBEM or only in scenarios 197/198/199?


2) If those new ship/plane files do supplant the old ones in the PBEM what happens if my opponent doesn't have those same files?

3) The game is playable agsinst AI?

< Message edited by spence -- 12/19/2018 9:31:11 PM >

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 122
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 12/19/2018 10:04:26 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4820
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Hi Spence,
Art only changes what you see (or don't see at all) for the ships and aircraft on your pc - your opponent is not affected.

If you install art from B-Mod, in the various art folders, they will replace the existing stock art where there is a conflict or duplicate.
B-Mod Art files are fully compatible with stock, ...but I don't know for certain if DaBabes has some conflicts with any new boats/ships they may have added - conflict with B-Mod additional art added that is.
But both DaBabes and B-Mod art are compatible with all stock scenarios.

B-Mod is fully playable vs AI.

I hope that answers your questions...?

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I'm presently involved in a PBEM (Beta version 1.8.1126b of DBB Lite). I have some questions.

1) If I install the various ship/plane files in the Art sub-folders do the do the new files supplant the old ship/plane files in that PBEM or only in scenarios 197/198/199?


2) If those new ship/plane files do supplant the old ones in the PBEM what happens if my opponent doesn't have those same files?

3) The game is playable agsinst AI?



_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 123
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 12/19/2018 10:12:02 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 4972
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
Thanks for the rapid response.

OK, here goes.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 124
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 12/23/2018 1:59:14 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 4972
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
It seems some of the ships in DaBabes (lite) don't exist in the B-mod (being an old Coastie I noticed the 165 ft USCG cutters missing right off).

So if I like the AAA and ASW from the DaBabes Mod then I have to forgo the increased Mk XIV torpedo effectiveness of the B-mod and vice versa?

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 125
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 12/23/2018 2:52:14 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4820
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Hi Spence,
Well, unless you're really familiar using the Editor to pick and choose from one scenario to the other, and graft on changes...it does come down to pick one OR the other unfortunately.

...maybe I should do a straight up DaBabe's/B-Mod conversion...? It would take quite a while, but I have often thought of doing that.

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

It seems some of the ships in DaBabes (lite) don't exist in the B-mod (being an old Coastie I noticed the 165 ft USCG cutters missing right off).

So if I like the AAA and ASW from the DaBabes Mod then I have to forgo the increased Mk XIV torpedo effectiveness of the B-mod and vice versa?



_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 126
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 12/24/2018 1:28:28 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 4972
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
I can wait for your DaBabes update or maybe for DaBabes to update to your Mod. Thanks for attending to my question anyways.

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 127
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 3/17/2019 1:38:52 PM   
Falken


Posts: 220
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline
Hi Brian,

Just wanted to let you know that Wineguy and I have started a B-Mod PBEM campaign since Dec, and we are having a blast. Everything is going well, and haven't hit any issues. We are currently days away from Feb 1942.

But boy oh boy, it is different than other mods.

First, China, well done. Hard as heck to get anything going there, which was the whole point :), Definitely not an easy thing to conquer, and my opponent is making it very hard to gain any ground. Because of the garrisson requirements, even if you manage to get something, you lose the whole unit/part of the unit as you need to garrison the thing. Again.. as expected, and as per code, but big difference to other mods.

Second, is A/C lost. Yes, we are losing planes, but have to admit, much less than I ever did in DBB-C. Could be the way that we are playing the game, but both of us (Wineguy/I) have not been afraid of confrontation.

I think I might be able to provide more info later on as we are approaching Feb '42, and Wineguy's forces should start getting stronger soon, as we approach May '42.

Anyway, nothing for you to do, or reply to, just wanted to let you know that things are going really well, and all the conversion to the "stock" map seems to have gone well, and haven't had any issues with replacements, reinforcements, schedules, and other stuff.

Seems to be really clean.

< Message edited by Falken -- 3/17/2019 1:39:34 PM >

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 128
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 3/19/2019 9:28:45 PM   
Falken


Posts: 220
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline
Hey Big B, can you do me a favor, and check out the last few posts in the Bottlenecks thread. I'm asking about the L2D2 entry date into the war. In Bottlenecks, it's 12/41 but in our BMOD game, it's 1944. I think, but cannot confirm, that it's also 1944 in DBB.

LST has really provided good stats on his reasoning, and seems to make absolute sense, but i'm not a war expert. I don't want the date changed for my current PBEM, but it might be something you want to check for any future updates to your MOD.

Thanks
Dave...

(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 129
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 3/20/2019 2:07:47 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4820
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Falken

Hey Big B, can you do me a favor, and check out the last few posts in the Bottlenecks thread. I'm asking about the L2D2 entry date into the war. In Bottlenecks, it's 12/41 but in our BMOD game, it's 1944. I think, but cannot confirm, that it's also 1944 in DBB.

LST has really provided good stats on his reasoning, and seems to make absolute sense, but i'm not a war expert. I don't want the date changed for my current PBEM, but it might be something you want to check for any future updates to your MOD.

Thanks
Dave...


Hi, for the record, I have the L2D2 Tabby arriving in Jan 1944 - because that's what Stock listed. Not being particularly interested in the L2D2 - I never researched it.
However, because of your request, I went back to the original Air Team documents, and sure enough, the L2D2 Tabby is noted as beginning production in Sep 1939. I crossed referenced this with other sources and got the same answer.

So, a starting date of 12/41 is quite accurate.

And I will update B-Mod to match

Brian

< Message edited by Big B -- 3/20/2019 2:12:31 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 130
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 3/20/2019 2:06:07 PM   
Trugrit


Posts: 509
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Thanks again.

I still regard this as the best historical player modification available for this game.

K

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 131
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 3/20/2019 5:10:34 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5481
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Timtom was quite clear on the AE criteria for the starting availability date of aircraft models.  It was not based on the date the model first came off the factory line.  Instead it was determined on the date the first air unit equipped with that model became operational in the theatre.

Alfred 

(in reply to Trugrit)
Post #: 132
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 3/20/2019 5:32:54 PM   
Anachro


Posts: 1758
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline
Which makes sense to me for a PDU-off game, but not so much for a PDU-on game. Then again, there might have been reasons for the delay between operational use and production. It seems they were used in the Philippines and China, though I'm not sure at what point in the war.

< Message edited by Anachro -- 3/20/2019 5:36:57 PM >

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 133
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 3/20/2019 8:47:43 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3865
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Timtom was quite clear on the AE criteria for the starting availability date of aircraft models.  It was not based on the date the model first came off the factory line.  Instead it was determined on the date the first air unit equipped with that model became operational in the theatre.

Alfred 


Raises the question what the Japanese did do with the Tabbies produced in 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943 if the first unit equipped with that model really became operational only in January 1944.

From what I have found, the first few Tabbies have been operated by the civilian airline Dai Nippon Koku or Imperial Japanese Airways. Before the war the airline was 50% government-owned, shortly after Pearl Harbor it became 100% government-owned and began operating exclusively for the Army and the Navy as "Dai Nippon Koku Choyo Yusoki Tai" or "Imperial Japanese Airways Commandeered Transport Unit".

I also found crash reports for "Douglas DC-3 (Nakajima L2D)" aircraft in March 1942, October 1942 and August 1943, plus others from January 1944 onwards: https://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=10415

So it appears that Tabbies have been used well before January 1944.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 134
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 3/21/2019 11:03:24 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5481
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Timtom was quite clear on the AE criteria for the starting availability date of aircraft models.  It was not based on the date the model first came off the factory line.  Instead it was determined on the date the first air unit equipped with that model became operational in the theatre.

Alfred 


Raises the question what the Japanese did do with the Tabbies produced in 1940, 1941, 1942 and 1943 if the first unit equipped with that model really became operational only in January 1944.

From what I have found, the first few Tabbies have been operated by the civilian airline Dai Nippon Koku or Imperial Japanese Airways. Before the war the airline was 50% government-owned, shortly after Pearl Harbor it became 100% government-owned and began operating exclusively for the Army and the Navy as "Dai Nippon Koku Choyo Yusoki Tai" or "Imperial Japanese Airways Commandeered Transport Unit".

I also found crash reports for "Douglas DC-3 (Nakajima L2D)" aircraft in March 1942, October 1942 and August 1943, plus others from January 1944 onwards: https://aviation-safety.net/database/operator/airline.php?var=10415

So it appears that Tabbies have been used well before January 1944.


I don't know when the first air unit equipped with the Tabby entered operational service so I can't comment on whether Timtom made a mistake.

In the absence of Timtom from the forum all these years to explain his decision I will point out that in scenario 1 the unit you refer to appears to not exist in the OOB. That it had been a civilian airline might have been a relevant consideration for him and in the absence of any known to him military unit equipped with the Tabby operating before 1944, that would explain the introduction date of the model as it would be consistent with his criteria.

Players can always invest in R&D to get the Tabby before 1944. There is nothing written in stone that says only 1945 fighters can be advanced via R&D.

Alfred


Edit:

Have tracked down a 2009 explanation from Timtom regarding the Tabby:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2052368&mpage=1&key=tabby?

Post #21 is the relevant one.

Note how Timtom confirmed the introduction criterion I listed. Also note how, as usual, he had not overlooked during game development issues which players accused him of getting wrong. As always the AE devs were far advanced of the players and had to take into account many legacy engine/design limitations. To have the Tabby before 1944 would require having the much greater US transport capacity which is not in the OOB, incorporated into the official scenarios.

As always people who advocate "fixing" a part of AE don't see the forest for the trees. Player produced mods or use of the editor, can "fix" things but such unbalanced "fixes" are not appropriate for official scenarios.



Edit #2:

Another relevant post from Timtom. Look for post #11 in this thread:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2030910&mpage=1&key=tabby�

Every time Timtom has commented there doesn't appear to be anyone providing solid evidence of a unit, using his stated criteria, which was overlooked.

< Message edited by Alfred -- 3/21/2019 12:25:15 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 135
RE: B-Mod, Last Update - 3/21/2019 2:21:39 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3865
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Thanks Alfred for your research, but I have never accused anyone of having made mistakes and never asked for corrections in official scenarios, so your "rebukes" concerning people who advocate fixing not seeing the forest etc. must be meant for someone else?

I understand the reasoning regarding the absence of utility planes, communications aircraft etc. in the OOB of official scenarios.

However, the change of the availability date concerns my personal mod. I don't feel bound by the "operational units" criteria used in official scenarios. My mod adds a few small "civilian" transport units to the Allies which can be (and historically were) impressed into military service. So I feel less guilty about advancing the Tabby for the Japanese. After all, the impact is minimal - the IJFN start with a whopping two transport units and gets a third one in mid-43 before the operational Tabby-equipped units arrive in 1944. That's two 27-plane Tina units and a six-plane Mavis-L that may be converted to Tabbies earlier than in the official scenarios - and the Tina and the Mavis-L have their merits in range resp. not needing airbases. So in the end I may end-up with one Tina unit converting to Tabby earlier than "allowed" - don't think this will unbalance the game, no?




_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 136
RE: B-Mod Update - 3/24/2019 2:16:28 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4820
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Whenever I get to finish a campaign game I update with any new discoveries made during play.
I recently finished a CG early, and put updates in as usual.

Update completed as of 3/23/2019
Changes made:
1) Put L2D2 Tabby into limited production Dec 1941;
2) Added missing Coast Guard cutters (added from DBB Database);
3) Minor DB fixes to a few Chinese units upgrade path;
4) Identified and fixed the problem with the Ohka series flying bombs being unavailable (problem inherited from stock).



A note on the L2D2 Tabby, a ridiculous controversy arose on this thread over making the Tabby available before 1944, since the aircraft was already in production and use by the Japanese military before 12/41.
Note that the L2D2 Tabby is a real aircraft that the Japanese military actually produced and used...not a drawing board prototype fantasy aircraft that the game allows you to magically rush into the war 18 months early...
That was the most childish non-troversy I have ever read here.


< Message edited by Big B -- 3/24/2019 4:56:28 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 137
RE: B-Mod Update - 3/24/2019 4:58:48 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 8654
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B
... since the aircraft was already in production and use by the Japanese military before 12/41.
Note that the L2D2 Tabby is a real aircraft that the Japanese military actually produced and used...not a drawing board prototype fantasy aircraft that the game allows you to magically rush into the war 18 months early...
That was the most childish non-troversy I have ever read here.


My research agrees with you … and like you, I was rather dumb-founded by the "non-troversy" as well.



_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 138
RE: B-Mod Update - 3/24/2019 11:25:45 AM   
Falken


Posts: 220
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline
HI BigB

Thanks for the update. I actually felt kinda bad about mentioning the L2D2 after all was said. It started a conversation that i didn't expect. My only goal was to highlight a possible need for a change/update. It seemed odd to me and my only intent was to figure out if we should fix it, not that we had to.

Thanks again.


(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 139
RE: B-Mod Update - 3/24/2019 5:44:35 PM   
Anachro


Posts: 1758
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline
I'm not sure what everyone here is angry about or what the non-troversy is, but Alfred and Timtom raise a good point regarding the design of the game as a whole. As Alfred mentions, Timtom states that there are balance issues with adding in additional transport units such as the early L2D2. I don't think they overlooked the problem so much as made a game design decision on it; it isn't as simple as adding in a plane because it was produced in a specific period. The relevant text from the posts Alfred referenced:

quote:

We've gone back and forth on whether to explicitly include some of the command transports more than a few times. As the Air Team OOB-wallah, my main concern is that doing would be opening the lid on a industrial-sized can o' worms not least considering the number of Allied transports found in echelon or similar - fx the entire US Air Transport Command in the Pacific is omitted and the argument for doing so is probably weaker than that for the IJN transports.


So the real question for me, I guess, is that if you are going to come down on one side of the issue that the developer team struggled with (i.e. whether to explicitly include some of the command transports), how will you compensate for what they saw as the repercussions of doing so? As timtom states, doing such would probably further require fixing the Allied transport OOB, which he believes is an "industrial-sized can o' worms" with the number of Allied transports/capabilities also omitted from the in-game OOB. So my question for BigB and LST is if they considered this in deciding to introduce these planes.

< Message edited by Anachro -- 3/24/2019 5:48:41 PM >

(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 140
RE: B-Mod Update - 3/24/2019 6:18:41 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4820
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

I'm not sure what everyone here is angry about or what the non-troversy is, but Alfred and Timtom raise a good point regarding the design of the game as a whole. As Alfred mentions, Timtom states that there are balance issues with adding in additional transport units such as the early L2D2. I don't think they overlooked the problem so much as made a game design decision on it; it isn't as simple as adding in a plane because it was produced in a specific period. The relevant text from the posts Alfred referenced:

quote:

We've gone back and forth on whether to explicitly include some of the command transports more than a few times. As the Air Team OOB-wallah, my main concern is that doing would be opening the lid on a industrial-sized can o' worms not least considering the number of Allied transports found in echelon or similar - fx the entire US Air Transport Command in the Pacific is omitted and the argument for doing so is probably weaker than that for the IJN transports.


So the real question for me, I guess, is that if you are going to come down on one side of the issue that the developer team struggled with (i.e. whether to explicitly include some of the command transports), how will you compensate for what they saw as the repercussions of doing so? As timtom states, doing such would probably further require fixing the Allied transport OOB, which he believes is an "industrial-sized can o' worms" with the number of Allied transports/capabilities also omitted from the in-game OOB. So my question for BigB and LST is if they considered this in deciding to introduce these planes.


You've hit the nail on the head - in bold above - adding in additional transport units.
No additional transport units have been added.
What has been added is offering the Japanese player the chance to spend resources on upgrading their transport aircraft - a real life decision that they were free to make.
If the Japanese decides to do so - you will note that not a single transport unit is added to the OOB. They will have the exact same number of squadrons available with the exact same maximum number of air transport aircraft available. There are no 'new units', merely a hardware upgrade...one that they will have to pay fore incidentally.
This is precisely the type of economic decision and management that is historical and realistic.
Furthermore, this does NOT require a re-balance on the Allied side of air transport... say the way bringing futuristic high performance fighter aircraft drastically effects the game - rendering allied fighters that were dominate - into sub-par cannon fodder, with no way to respond to a dramatically changed environment.... such as often happens to the US Navy's F6F Hellcat in this game for example.

B

_____________________________


(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 141
RE: B-Mod Update - 3/24/2019 6:51:38 PM   
Anachro


Posts: 1758
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline
Right, I get where you are coming from on this and understand the reasoning behind your choices. It doesn't add additional units and can be seen as an economic decision that the Japanese player has to make, nonetheless it does represent a design issue in that I'm not sure if what a Japanese player has to "pay" through the in-game production/economic system to ramp up production is enough of a balance for the increased ahistoric transport capacity that the plane would provide early on. That is to say, if the player can get these planes early and use them in ways they weren't used until '44, perhaps the Allied player should also have additional transport capacity that is also explicitly not modeled in-game. That is a key issue for me here (though most likely the impact on the game is pretty minimal so not a big worry).

Keep in mind, I'm not attacking the decision to add or not add the plane earlier in game. It's an interesting question. I, for one, was not aware of the R&D implementation as modeled by timtom until this thread, but there is another question which I don't have the historical data to answer (I am well aware you have researched these issues far better than me).

A quick look at the production figures leaves me with an estimate that one L2D2 or its variants was produced every four days from 1940-45, but was manufactured by two separate companies. The first 71 were manufactured by Nakajima, but they ended production in '42 and shifted to other combat plane production. Following this, the Showa company then started producing the rest of these planes and took awhile to ramp up. My question is when did this take place and how long until the full production was achieved. Plane production/manufacturing doesn't instantly shift from one company to another (and this plane seems more laborious to produce than, say, a zero) and there is a learning process to doing so that might be modeled in-game by the R&D/Production system. Depending on this, it might affect which date you decide to set as the introductory date for the L2D2. Like I said, I don't know the answer here, so interested in what you think.

EDIT
i.e. Maybe start with 71 Nakajima L2D2s in the pools and then model factory introduction according to the Showa production history.

< Message edited by Anachro -- 3/24/2019 7:02:37 PM >

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 142
RE: B-Mod Update - 3/24/2019 7:02:47 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4820
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
What I did was decide not to have any in the pool, and start production (in Tokyo I believe) at One aircraft.
This matches the historical number produced there that month (12/41).
This gets rid of R&D (as it should), but also requires Japan to invest resources for expansion should they decide to go with the L2D2.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 143
RE: B-Mod Update - 3/27/2019 11:53:51 AM   
Akos Gergely

 

Posts: 709
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline
Dear Big B!

Any chance for a '42 May version of this scenario. I remember you used to have (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2753637) one, but I wonder if there is a more up-to-date version available?



_____________________________



Art by Wayne Scarpaci
http://www.artbywayne.com/

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 144
RE: B-Mod Update - 3/27/2019 2:36:49 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4820
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Akos Gergely

Dear Big B!

Any chance for a '42 May version of this scenario. I remember you used to have (http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2753637) one, but I wonder if there is a more up-to-date version available?




Thanks, I may work on one for the future

B

_____________________________


(in reply to Akos Gergely)
Post #: 145
RE: B-Mod Update - 3/30/2019 5:41:43 PM   
Anachro


Posts: 1758
Joined: 11/23/2015
From: The Coastal Elite
Status: offline
@BigB Since, we are going down this route, what do you currently have set as the introduction date for the K5Y1 Willow? From what I can tell, DBB and stock have the introduction date as 5/45 but the airplane was in service in 1934,used primarily for flight training, and was produced throughout the war. No doubt, the 5/45 introduction date here reflects the fact that they were first used by operational units in-game (kamikaze units) in 1945. Probably low priority for a lot of players, but it's nonetheless there.

EDIT

Another one I found: K11W1 Shiragiku is listed in-game as being introduced in 2/45, but according to *ahem* Wikipedia it was produced from 1942-1945 and introduced in 1943. You have better sources that can probably prove or disprove this. I also don't know when it switched from prototyping to actual production.

EDIT #2

The H8K1 Emily also appears to have gone into production before its listed date of 7/42, though its unclear to me when actual production and not prototyping was done. Frankly, based on the number produced, they might have all been prototypes, which makes it very unclear to me then when the H8K1 should be introduced.

quote:

Production: A total of 167 H8Ks were built by Kawanishi Kokuki K.K. in their Naruo and Konan plants as follows:
1 H8K1 prototype (Dec 1940)
2 H8K1 pre-production aircraft (1941)
14 H8K1 production aircraft (1941-42)
112 H8K2 production aircraft (1943-45)
2 H8K3 prototypes (1944)
(2) H8K4 prototypes modified from H8K3 frames (1945)
36 H8K2-L production aircraft (1943-45)


Some sources say production started in mid-to-late 1941 whereas others say this was still prototyping. Again, judgement calls here and you have better data to confirm.

< Message edited by Anachro -- 3/30/2019 6:04:14 PM >

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 146
RE: B-Mod Update - 3/30/2019 7:46:19 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4820
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anachro

@BigB Since, we are going down this route, what do you currently have set as the introduction date for the K5Y1 Willow? From what I can tell, DBB and stock have the introduction date as 5/45 but the airplane was in service in 1934,used primarily for flight training, and was produced throughout the war. No doubt, the 5/45 introduction date here reflects the fact that they were first used by operational units in-game (kamikaze units) in 1945. Probably low priority for a lot of players, but it's nonetheless there.

EDIT

Another one I found: K11W1 Shiragiku is listed in-game as being introduced in 2/45, but according to *ahem* Wikipedia it was produced from 1942-1945 and introduced in 1943. You have better sources that can probably prove or disprove this. I also don't know when it switched from prototyping to actual production.

EDIT #2

The H8K1 Emily also appears to have gone into production before its listed date of 7/42, though its unclear to me when actual production and not prototyping was done. Frankly, based on the number produced, they might have all been prototypes, which makes it very unclear to me then when the H8K1 should be introduced.

quote:

Production: A total of 167 H8Ks were built by Kawanishi Kokuki K.K. in their Naruo and Konan plants as follows:
1 H8K1 prototype (Dec 1940)
2 H8K1 pre-production aircraft (1941)
14 H8K1 production aircraft (1941-42)
112 H8K2 production aircraft (1943-45)
2 H8K3 prototypes (1944)
(2) H8K4 prototypes modified from H8K3 frames (1945)
36 H8K2-L production aircraft (1943-45)


Some sources say production started in mid-to-late 1941 whereas others say this was still prototyping. Again, judgement calls here and you have better data to confirm.


This is a case where I think it would be inappropriate to introduce the K5Y1 Willow into the game earlier than 5/1945, I'll explain;
My records indicate there were 556 K5Y1 Willow's produced 1931-1945. All 556 were produced prior to 1941, so in effect - it didn't remain in production.
Furthermore it was a trainer throughout the war, but the game introduces it as a level bomber for kamikaze use in 1945. It's claim to fame seems to be sinking the destroyer USS Callaghan on July 29, 1945, the last US warship lost to kamikaze attack during the war.

So the game correctly limits it's use and time frame as a combat aircraft.
To introduce it as a trainer would upset the balance of the game - you would have to introduce the thousands of allied trainers, to put it in proper perspective.

So in short, I won't be touching the K5Y1 Willow, and probably not the others listed.



_____________________________


(in reply to Anachro)
Post #: 147
RE: B-Mod Update - 4/7/2019 8:49:51 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4820
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
I see one more update coming, before looking into some kind of fun What-If scenario.

For reasons unknown, the basic tool of the trade for all US Army and USMC rifle companies has been left out of the standard OOB.
Namely - the 60mm M2 Mortar, a platoon of which was inherent to every rifle company.

Other nations had 45mm/50mm mortars in a similar role, but they are factored into the rifle squad FP already.
On the other hand, the 60mm M2 was quite a different weapon, who's presence is not in the game (as a portion of squad FP it is not represented as are the other grenade launcher/light mortars for Japan/British Empire, etc).

In a matter of weeks or days I will do the math and update the scenario database, that should prove to be the final change for a stock based scenario... then I will look into a What-If.

B

< Message edited by Big B -- 4/8/2019 1:05:05 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 148
RE: B-Mod Update - 4/9/2019 12:07:13 AM   
Falken


Posts: 220
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline
Hi BigB,

Can you please check the following for your next BMOD Update.

In a game with Wineguy, we are at Feb 15 1942. I just received the Yokohama Ku T-1 Det H8K1 Emily at Yokohama; however, it is slated to be available only in July 1942, but we are currently in February 1942.

I will attach a picture for your analysis

If Wineguy is reading this, I will ensure that this group stays on Standby at Yokohama until July 1942.

Dave...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Falken -- 4/9/2019 12:08:34 AM >

(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 149
RE: B-Mod Update - 4/9/2019 8:48:52 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3865
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
I think this is WAD.

Two prototype / pre-production Emilies have been used in "Operation K" a.k.a. the second bombing of Pearl Harbor in March 1942.

I think the Yokohama Ku T-1 Det represents these two aircraft.

The regular production run of the Emily started later in the year.

_____________________________


(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 150
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: B-Mod, Last Update 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

0.256