Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Mod Update: Bottlenecks in the Pacific 1.1.Beta

 
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 >> Mod Update: Bottlenecks in the Pacific 1.1.Beta Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Mod Update: Bottlenecks in the Pacific 1.1.Beta - 4/1/2017 8:55:13 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3517
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline



For those interested in “historic” mods, I hereby present you an enhanced version of “DaBigBabes” scenario 29C.

As some of you may know, some time ago I have posted a “beta” version of my mod in the “Sharing mod ideas” thread. In the meantime, I have corrected data glitches (and probably created new ones), did some tweaking and added a few more things. I have reached the point where I have run out of ideas and for the moment have nothing more to add (except stuff to fix discovered in playtesting). So I figure it is time to make my humble efforts available “officially” and more visible in a dedicated thread.

The overall goal of my mod is to slow down the pace of the game and to add missing historic ships and units.

Please find details and screenshots in the documentation.

In the spirit of the “Sharing mod ideas” thread, feel free to plunder ideas and data for your own mods. Questions and feedback welcome. Do not hesitate to point out errors, misconceptions, improvements etc.

Installation:
• Backup your files or use a fresh install
• Download v1.0 file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nj9j19gpyqxx9dj/%23LST_Mod.zip?dl=0
• Unzip the file into a temp folder, then copy&paste the files into the appropriate game folders

UPDATE: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4384356

• Download v1.1 patch file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/wrufj7y5k9raxr8/Bottlenecks%201-1beta.zip?dl=0
• Unzip the file into a temp folder, then copy&paste the files into into the appropriate game folders of the v1.0 installation and overwrite the old files


Cheers,
LargeSlowTarget


Some key features:

• Downsized base sizes and potential bases sizes of many bases, esp. in Central Pacific, PNG/Solomons and Aleutians > slows loading/unloading, requires more time-consuming construction efforts, prevents unrealistically large “monster air bases“ in hostile terrain/climate, unrealistic port sizes etc. - atolls for example may have large anchorages, but usually very limited port facilities.

• Added many bases and dots to CBI theater, PI, Solomons / Papua / Northeaster New Guinea / Dutch New Guinea / New Britain / Admiralty Is. / Northern Australia and Queensland areas and even Japan - until I ran out of base slots

• Dot bases in China have a garrison requirement for Japan (usually 10). They also have a minimal daily supply production (1-5 depending on terrain) for the Allied side (= local population supporting the partisans > see “Ground” section). The garrison requirements should make it much more difficult for Japan to advance deeply into China and keep the rear area under control

• Bases and dot bases throughout Asia, esp. along railroads / roads, have supply caps to represent poor transport infrastructure > bad or lack of roads, low capacity railways (as compared to the good infrastructure in CONUS for example

• Downsizing of roads in Asia [a bit like the “gnarly Asian roads” by Symon]

• Eliminated river crossings of the lower Jangtze River, Gulf of Martaban (north of Moulmein) and Brahmaputra (Assam Railroad) since bridges did not exist at these places until after the war > no more railroads and major/minor roads crossing the rivers! Added bases at opposite river banks of railroad crossing and added “railway trail” to simulate ferries >> interrupts strategic movement of troops and thus slows down the railroad blitzkrieg.


• To model the “on a shoe-string” condition of the Allies in regards to military supplies at the beginning of the war and the rising production over time, many Allied light industries and resource centers start 33% - 50% damaged. I also added a number of new 100% damaged factories and resources in CONUS for more late-war supply production (also added daily supplies to pay for the repairs - do not forget to use the “supplies required” function to keep bases with damaged factories at more than 10.000 supplies per turn – otherwise the factories will not repair thus supply production may suffer in the long run!).

• Got rid of most of the “first turn movement bonus” TFs and ahistorical pre-set invasion TFs intended to help the AI – this is a no-AI scenario anyway

• Force Z starts at Singers with no orders - instead of being sent to auto-demise at the hand of Netties from Saigon). Historically it left Singers on Dec 8th so players should have the choice where to send it.

• Manila subs are not waiting to be sunk by a first-turn port strike – IMO that popular opening move is a silly “20:20 hindsight” exploit, as much as first-turn carrier hunting. Most of them are assigned to TFs – it’s an Dec 7th PM scenario and after the Clark Field strike they got orders to move or pull the plug to hide

• Lots of ships added - including hospital ships, tugs, net layers, patrol yachts, small fry - but also elimination of duplicate ships

• Ground forces OOB changes and additional units - Railroad Engineers, POW Labor units, civilians, even yummy nurses!

• Some GUI improvements to ease identification of TF types and key assets
and much more...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 11/23/2017 10:02:33 AM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/1/2017 11:12:02 PM   
Gary Childress

 

Posts: 6590
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
Sounds intense. I like the idea of atolls having large anchorages but lesser port facilities. I'm curious how you set that up in the game? Is anchorage size controlled by the PWHEX file?

Thanks and keep up the great work!

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 2
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/2/2017 12:34:37 AM   
Falken


Posts: 155
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline
I am so glad that you have finally officially put this out. Thank you.
Can't play it right now as I have 2 games going, but will set it up to look at the changes.

You've been working on this for years. Again, congratulations.

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 3
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/2/2017 8:22:09 AM   
AlessandroD


Posts: 298
Joined: 12/28/2014
From: Italy
Status: offline
You guys are amazing

Thanks for your effort!

_____________________________


(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 4
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/3/2017 12:02:54 AM   
Falken


Posts: 155
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline
Hi LST,

For the actual realism settings, you have two different set of instructions in your files.

The 049 Scenario file shows:
+ Historical First Turn on
+ December 7th Surprise off

while the word doc shows for recommended settings:
- Surprise On, Historic First Turn off

Before I start the setup, can you please confirm the settings?
Thanks, Dave...

(in reply to AlessandroD)
Post #: 5
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/3/2017 1:54:17 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 15220
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
This is a well thought out scenario. Like a bunch of your ideas. Will load it and take a peek.

Did you try to model the Burma Monsoon any differently? The worse roads help and I like the 'ferry' idea at the rivers. Anything to slow things down for both sides...

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 6
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/3/2017 10:02:01 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3517
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Thanks for the feedback!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I like the idea of atolls having large anchorages but lesser port facilities. I'm curious how you set that up in the game? Is anchorage size controlled by the PWHEX file?


Hi Gary,

There is no anchorage size in the game, you can disband the entire US Navy and Merchant Marine into a 0/0 dot if you want. The port size however is limiting the number, size and total tonnage of ships that can be "docked" (i.e. tied-up along a wharf or quay) and thus loaded / unloaded without penalties.

The port sizes stand for port infrastructures, like wharfs, quays, docks (in the sense of repair docks), lifting equipment, storage space, manpower (port equipment operators, "wharfies" etc.) and such.

Stock scenarios and DBB have given what IMO are generous port sizes to many locations. Places like Ulithi, Eniwetok and Kwajalein may have had large anchorages, but port facilities were limited to non-existent. The Japanese strategy did not see any need to build fleet support bases outside Japan - the "decisive battle" was to be fought near the PI islands, close to Formosa / Home Islands - and forward bases in the Mandates were developed only for seaplanes, medium bombers and submarines. Yet stock and DBB give those locations size 3 ports, able to dock ships up to 12k tons and 24k total. In my mod I have "nerfed" port sizes.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Falken

Hi LST,

For the actual realism settings, you have two different set of instructions in your files.

The 049 Scenario file shows:
+ Historical First Turn on
+ December 7th Surprise off

while the word doc shows for recommended settings:
- Surprise On, Historic First Turn off

Before I start the setup, can you please confirm the settings?
Thanks, Dave...


Hi Dave,

Well spotted! Must be a brain-fart or fat-fingers or both. In fact you can use whatever settings you like. Initially the mod had been designed for Surprise on and Historic First Move on - in order to prevent Japanese players from conducting a second round of attacks against PH, Clark and Khota Baru (or Allied players to launch naval strikes against the Khota invasion) This is a Dec 7th PM scenario which assumes those attacks have already taken place and the historic damage has been done (e.g. the damaged Awazisan Maru off Khota). This also forces the historic initial invasion forces to leave for Bataan Is. Aparri, Vigan, Legaspi etc.

But after all, myself wants to modify the historical invasions to my taste. So in the end, it is ok to go with Surprise and First Turn off - as long as you do not use KB, the bombers on Roi-Namur, the IJN on Formosa and the IJA 3rd Air Division on turn 1. They must remain on stand-down.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Did you try to model the Burma Monsoon any differently?


Hi John,

The dot bases all over Burma and their supply caps (which are halved during monsoon) should make active operations in that theater more difficult.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 7
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/3/2017 12:29:46 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1580
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: online
This is good. Very good.

Edit: Very good indeed.

< Message edited by Ian R -- 4/3/2017 12:32:13 PM >


_____________________________

"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 LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 8
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/4/2017 7:27:12 PM   
Tanaka


Posts: 2889
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
Wow this looks really interesting! Has anyone tried a PBEM game with this mod?

_____________________________


(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 9
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/7/2017 2:00:27 AM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2982
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
LST, If I want to load this into a new installed separate folder, do I have to upgrade the game to include the DBB mod first? I believe you said scenario 26? I'm not sure how to proceed. Thanks for any assistance. Hal

_____________________________


(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 10
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/7/2017 7:23:06 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3517
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
No need to install DBB first, I have taken the DBB scenario 29, saved it as scenario 49 and then did my stuff.

My mod install file should include all necessary scenario, art and pwhexedat files.

Just download it, unzip it into a temp folder and then copy/paste the modded files to the appropriate folders.

However, your game installation needs to be at least version 1106i - in order to include the DBB art files (they have been included in this official update).

I would recommend to update to the latest official patch and even better to the latest Beta patch.


_____________________________


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 11
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/7/2017 6:25:21 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9172
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
Cape Town auto CD/TFs - The game has these almost monthly device dump LCUs with some supply and fuel. If there were enough slots, I would do the same at Eastern USA and cut way back on daily supply. There really needs to be a way to slow down supplies in USA. I did this with John in RA/BTS mods to some extent with the damaged industry.

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 12
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/7/2017 6:41:17 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 1244
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
In my BTS 2.4 game I started with a lot of damaged industry of all types, but never had any problem
with having enough supply and fuel to ship out from the West Coast.

Consider that the 60,000 supply generated at the East Coast is about 22,000,000 per year.

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 4/7/2017 7:15:45 PM >

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 13
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/10/2017 2:13:28 AM   
Falken


Posts: 155
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline
If anyone uses the amazing Aircraft/Engine Planner by Kull, here is a version I just finished for LST's Bottlenecks of the Pacific.

Please note that it is based on the current version of LST's new mod, so if he makes any updates, don't forget to check the contents of this spreadsheet.

Dave...

EDIT 2017/04/23 - Added new version (name change + 1 fix)





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Falken -- 4/24/2017 1:33:49 AM >

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 14
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/11/2017 9:29:04 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3517
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Thanks Dave - although the purpose of my experimental engine mod was to render external tools for management purposes unnecessary, that planning sheet remains useful .

It also raises a point I have forgotten to update in the changelog - it says there are only six engine types, but in fact there are eight.

I forgot about the "obsolete engine" - which replaces the Ha-5, the Amakaze, the Hitachi (early) and the Kawasaki (early) engines - used mostly for planes no longer in production (like the Mary), low production airframes (like the Glen) and planes that probably never get build at all or in numbers (like the Hickory). The existing engine pool should cover requirements in most cases.

The other engine is the "foreign engine" - it is being used by the planes of the Thai airforce which are not of Japanese origin. The pool is 0 and it is self-evident the engine should not be produced, nor should the associated airframes.


While I am at it - found a glitch, location 193 RNZAF Command has as nationality Australian, should be Kiwi of course. Sorry!

_____________________________


(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 15
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/12/2017 3:16:38 PM   
Fixin

 

Posts: 1
Joined: 12/27/2016
Status: offline
Need help. How to play both sides head to head. cannot access allied side. Thanks for a great design and your help

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 16
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/12/2017 7:33:50 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


• Some GUI improvements to ease identification of TF types and key assets



Just had a read through the documentation and thought it worth pointing out some of the really great ideas and timesavers included in the short bullet point quoted above! Hard to say which is my favorite but if i had to choose then "Added 'parent tags' in front of subunit names" would be right up there

quote:


All East Coast LCU reinforcements are pre-set to strat move to San Francisco automatically


Many ground units on map on Day 1 have pre-set move orders – according to my usual opening moves (remember, this is a personal mod…) > Japanese units in the HI concentrate at Yokohama, US Army at SF, Marines at SD, Aussies at Sydney, garrison swapping in India.


Added “parent tags” in front of subunit names for easier identification of subunits belonging to same parent, e.g. “PSD 57th PS Inf RCT” indicated the Rgt is a subunit of the Philippine Scout Division, “5ID ” = 5th Infantry Division, “2TD” = 2nd Tank Division etc.


Added markers in unit names for easier visual identification of units with special attributes:
~ unit has withdrawal date
´ unit will undergo name change
> unit will undergo major TOE change (like Aussie Cav to Armor)
- Chinese 2-division Corps (as opposed to standard 3-division Corps)
* static (warlord device)
! Chinese German trained / equipped (start with Chinese “43” squads instead of “41”


“Quickstart Convoys” > created “QS” convoys to collect the merchant ships scattered around the map (got tired of the hundreds of clicks on turn 1 at each restart…). Destination is set to certain collecting points (e.g. Yokohama, Sydney, Manila, Colombo, San Francisco) for sorting out (I tend to create convoys with ships of same class or at least same speed) resp. conversion. Ships are in convoys at historic start locations, so if you have other ideas for them, you can pull the ships out. Some merchant ships are left out because intended for conversion at start base, also most warships are left out as usage will vary.


The task force icons use the same mission symbol for Transport TF, Amphibious TF and Escort TF- I have added colors to tell them apart, Amphib TF symbol is (earth-)brown, Escort symbol is grey, Transport TF stays white. I also added colors for easier identification of TFs used mostly “locally” in a base hex – blue for ASW and yellow for Local Minesweeping. Finally, the important replenishment / support TFs (AOs, AEs, ADs etc.) are black.



An amazing amount of work seems to have gone into this mod, thanks for sharing. I do have a few questions on some of the more novel and interesting new concepts that i'll post about separately.

thanks again



(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 17
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/12/2017 7:36:25 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fixin

Need help. How to play both sides head to head. cannot access allied side. Thanks for a great design and your help


choose "head to head" play from the main screen

do jap turn

end turn

game switches to allied player without running the turn

do allied turn

end turn

the turn then runs as usual except you see info from both sides

(in reply to Fixin)
Post #: 18
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 9:10:35 AM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: online

Hi LST


I have been having a look through your mod documentaion, an amazing piece of work, must have taken you endless hours. I do however have a few questions/comments that i hope you can help with.


1) How did you set the new repair costs for engines? I see from the editor that there is a value for "load cost" that ties in with the values you mention, does the game use this "load cost" as the repair cost or is there another field somewhere that defines this? Reason for asking is that in my DBB-C game the editor shows a load cost for engines of zero and i had assumed the repair cost was hard coded.



2) How have your new rules for supply production worked out? How far into the game have you played using this mod?



3) Did you ever create the alternative version of your mod with standard engine production and standard HI / supplies production?



4) I think your your changes to the plane upgrade paths for the Zero actually make it very much easier (rather than harder) to beeline for the later model Zeros.



5) You say "It is recommended to ship excess resources from Australia / India / Aden/ Cape Town etc. to CONUS and UK to feed the industries there." Does this mean Oil/Fuel as well? I have no idea how allied production works and assumed they just got fixed amounts of everything. Do you mean that the Allies also need Fuel and Resources for HI and that then affects their production? Or are you saying to do it for historical reasons?


6) Regarding the section on Supply Cap House Rules i.e.

What does "SPS-size base" mean? (what does SPS stand for?) [?Something?PortSize] ???.

"House Rules: 1. Expand ports (not air bases or forts) when aim is purely logistics, 2. no strategic movements of ground and air units unless uninterrupted string of port SPS-size bases exists along the intended route (i.e. if the inland port has an SPS of 3, it must be built to 3 before strategic rail movement is allowed in that hex – further expansion up to max size 6 simulates further improvements to the Railroad capacity, like added sidings, switching yards etc.)"

I really don't understand item 2 here and how its supposed to work, please could you elaborate and perhaps give an example or two based on locations on the map (e.g. Ledo and Anyang where seemingly no rail transport of units would be allowed).



7) I see you have made changes to the Chinese OOB but whats the supply situation like for the Chinese now, has it been increased at all?



8) I am thinking of starting a game, however are there any updates due in the next few weeks?



Many thanks, and sorry to bombard you with all these questions.

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 19
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 10:31:12 AM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
SO did you change too many unit values ? I was working in a own scen (with some more bottlenecks too) based on the recent AI and "make stuff more worthwhile and scarce" threads..also added some fun plane design (mostly upgraded to exiting models, so all NOT fantasy but possible in the real WW2)

While working in the editor I also checked unit values (eg. tanks) and some were quite "strange", eg. US tanks seem to be overrated and some 43/44 squads too. Also tank destroyers had too high armor as well too high soft attack...

Will check you mod if time :)

PS:If you edited/corrected the unit values too and AA values and some more fun airplanes, I will try you mod. But I am too historic a guy to find most values others enters as wrong, mostly tanks and guns. Both versions the ORIG scens coming with the game (WAY TOO HIGH often) and the updated Andy Mac scen2 (sometimes TOO low) need re-work sadly. But it is possible these values have no big impact on the game, as I remember in JI AI game years ago I had not much problem with eg. the 43+ Allied tank units - and this must have been the original TOO HIGH values version. But this was against AI, so no real measuering stick. I just remember this early AI game was broken somehow, the Allies would not bring the big units like Brits guards tanks to the front for some reason. They bunched up in some Indian cities I found out.....never much bothered to do fighting (guess Indian tea is the best for some reason!)

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/20/2017 1:56:04 PM >

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 20
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 1:25:36 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 520
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
So bear with me here, I've only ever played the Allies s my knowledge of the game economy is far less than your typical Japanese player; however, if only Ali produces supply then what purpose does HI serve, other than being a strategic bombing target?

_____________________________

Playing at war is a far better vocation than making people fight in them.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 21
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 1:37:55 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3517
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


Hi LST


I have been having a look through your mod documentaion, an amazing piece of work, must have taken you endless hours. I do however have a few questions/comments that i hope you can help with.


1) How did you set the new repair costs for engines? I see from the editor that there is a value for "load cost" that ties in with the values you mention, does the game use this "load cost" as the repair cost or is there another field somewhere that defines this? Reason for asking is that in my DBB-C game the editor shows a load cost for engines of zero and i had assumed the repair cost was hard coded.

Yes, the "load cost" governs the supply expenditure for repairing industries and engines.


2) How have your new rules for supply production worked out? How far into the game have you played using this mod?

Frankly, I don't know - therefore the disclaimer in the changelog that it is a seat-of-the pants approach. I have only played two full months, the rest of my testing was done by changing the start date of the scenario in order to see how late-coming units look and behave. The at-start supplies production for Japan has not changed much, so I do not expect major issues. It will just be slower to increase production, since only LI repairs will add supply generation (and not HI and LI repairs simultaneously).


3) Did you ever create the alternative version of your mod with standard engine production and standard HI / supplies production?

Not yet, but summer holidays are coming...


4) I think your your changes to the plane upgrade paths for the Zero actually make it very much easier (rather than harder) to beeline for the later model Zeros.

Don't think so. in stock, the Rufe shortcut allows to start M5 research with fully repaired factories in 4/42. In my mod, M5 cannot be researched before M3 6/42 and M3a 12/42 have been researched. Should slow it, assuming no "jumping the queue" takes place (i.e. all models of a line need to be researched).



5) You say "It is recommended to ship excess resources from Australia / India / Aden/ Cape Town etc. to CONUS and UK to feed the industries there." Does this mean Oil/Fuel as well? I have no idea how allied production works and assumed they just got fixed amounts of everything. Do you mean that the Allies also need Fuel and Resources for HI and that then affects their production? Or are you saying to do it for historical reasons?

UK and CONUS have huge amount of industries but do not generate equivalent resources, so will face a deficit. UK has LI only, so needs resources only. CONUS has HI as well, so needs resources and probably oil/fuel as well (from the Caribbean Sea Frontier (ex Cristobal base). Allied player actually does not need HI points for production, but I would recommend a house rule that HI must be kept running.


6) Regarding the section on Supply Cap House Rules i.e.

What does "SPS-size base" mean? (what does SPS stand for?) [?Something?PortSize] ???.

Standard potential size - a term from the AE manual. A port size "3(3)" indicates a port built-up to the SPS of 3. It can be "overbuild" to 6(3).

"House Rules: 1. Expand ports (not air bases or forts) when aim is purely logistics, 2. no strategic movements of ground and air units unless uninterrupted string of port SPS-size bases exists along the intended route (i.e. if the inland port has an SPS of 3, it must be built to 3 before strategic rail movement is allowed in that hex – further expansion up to max size 6 simulates further improvements to the Railroad capacity, like added sidings, switching yards etc.)"

I really don't understand item 2 here and how its supposed to work, please could you elaborate and perhaps give an example or two based on locations on the map (e.g. Ledo and Anyang where seemingly no rail transport of units would be allowed).

This applies only to destroyed or yet-to-be-build railroads (dotted black-grey railroads on my map). Ledo is linked to Calcutta by a regular rail line, so no restrictions apply.

Classic example for the above house rule would be the "Burma-Thailand Death Railway" which was built during the war. It does exist as railroad in the pwhexe.dat file - but in order to use it, all bases along the railroad must be build to their SPS port size (3 if I am not mistaken) before rail strat movement for units is allowed over that stretch of railway.



7) I see you have made changes to the Chinese OOB but whats the supply situation like for the Chinese now, has it been increased at all?

Gosh, it has been so long I worked on China - I can't remember if I have modified China supply generation, but I don't think so. However, "my" China is covered with dot bases which do have a very small inherent supply generation (local farmers) to feed the "civil administration units" which are there to prevent the auto-switching of hex ownership. The consumption of these "placeholders" is smaller than the minimum daily supply generation, so each dot will generate a small supply surplus. In isolated areas supplies may accumulate (which may entice the Japanese player to launch the infamous "rice offensives" to steal the harvest...), unless guerilla operations use it up.



8) I am thinking of starting a game, however are there any updates due in the next few weeks?

No major updates planned. I will wait for player feedback and collect things I discover during my own slowly advancing H2H game for an later update - depends on how many things needs to be fixed and how urgent.


Many thanks, and sorry to bombard you with all these questions.

No problem, my pleasure




_____________________________


(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 22
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 1:41:34 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

So bear with me here, I've only ever played the Allies s my knowledge of the game economy is far less than your typical Japanese player; however, if only Ali produces supply then what purpose does HI serve, other than being a strategic bombing target?


HI builds everything, ships, planes, guns. HI is converted to eg. nav, veh, arm points...this is from which stuff is build. Eg. a tank with 20 tons weight will cost 20 VEH points (or 200? cant remember) I only know if you upgrade a tk unit or it has huge losses a lot of veh points will be eaten up...and also planes cost per frame and per engine. so Emily eg. is the most expensive plane you can have


VEH points build vehicles and tanks.... quite simple actually.

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/20/2017 1:45:14 PM >

(in reply to Revthought)
Post #: 23
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 1:55:14 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3517
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

SO did you change too many unit values ? I was working in a own scen (with some more bottlenecks too) based on the recent AI and "make stuff more worthwhile and scarce" threads..also added some fun plane design (mostly upgraded to exiting models, so all NOT fantasy but possible in the real WW2)

While working in the editor I also checked unit values (eg. tanks) and some were quite "strange", eg. US tanks seem to be overrated and some 43/44 squads too. Also tank destroyers had too high armor as well too high soft attack...

Will check you mod if time :)


No, as far as I can remember I did not tinker much with the DBB device values - not exactly my area of expertise. Exception are load costs which I have modified in some cases, for example certain AFVs which had load costs allowing air transport have been increase above the air transport threshold. I may have modified some other device values if knowledgeable forumites suggested that tweaking / bugfixing is necessary.

_____________________________


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 24
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 1:58:32 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3517
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

quote:

ORIGINAL: Revthought

So bear with me here, I've only ever played the Allies s my knowledge of the game economy is far less than your typical Japanese player; however, if only Ali produces supply then what purpose does HI serve, other than being a strategic bombing target?


HI builds everything, ships, planes, guns. HI is converted to eg. nav, veh, arm points...this is from which stuff is build. Eg. a tank with 20 tons weight will cost 20 VEH points (or 200? cant remember) I only know if you upgrade a tk unit or it has huge losses a lot of veh points will be eaten up...and also planes cost per frame and per engine. so Emily eg. is the most expensive plane you can have


VEH points build vehicles and tanks.... quite simple actually.


Dankeschön Landsmann, warst schneller als ich (muß nebenbei so tun als würde ich arbeiten ).

_____________________________


(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 25
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 2:04:07 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Bitte, ich habe SPWAW über Jahre gespielt - and also made scens and oob for it, and this is for 95% landbased stuff in this game. Also TOAW the same. I researched a lot of tanks, guns mostly. I had not so much knowledge of ships and Japanese stuff before this game actually, but learned a lot. So you had a Sherman that the Allies get in 12/42, this must be the 1st Sherman version. This one has the early armor model (cast??) and the low velocity short 75mm gun. I believe in the game this has more armor as the 1944 version of the T34/85 and perhaps even more AT value But the 85mm of T34 was almost as good the 75/48 German gun. So totally impossible. The 85mm russian ofc more HE than the 75/48. But this one was what the late Pz4 and Stugs had. The Russian 85 a bit less PEN then the 75/48.


However you also get a later Sherman, which has newer armor version, wet storage, better tracks and a 76mm 3 inch AT gun (instead the 75mm) but the 75mm was also build continued. So which one is it ? If the 76mm it has more AT value, the 75mm shell was more effective as HE.....

No Sherman can have more "armor" than a T34, impossible. Perhaps the ones from the Korea war ("easy8")....and NO Sherman 75mm gun can have more PEN than the late war Russian 85 (or 75/48 German): Not possible. Andy Mac corrected this partly but now eg. the Sherman has TOO LOW armor LOL

I tried to find a middle ground between the orig and andy values... too much work tho. I also assumed the late Sherman the Russian get is the 76mm version, but the Brits one ? No idea, guess more the orig 75mm one as the Brits had the Sherman Firefly (only in Europe) with 17pdr too (guess they had no 76mm Shermans at all - simply cause the 17pdr was the best AT gun from the Allies and the Brits cramped it somehow in a Sherman turret, not much room for crew left ofc. They did not need a 76mm Sherman)

Also the first M3 Stuart and Valentine were ridiculous overpowered (guess they should be renamed M48 Patton or Leopard1 which sounds more correct *irony*). Valentine early only had 2pdr gun and 2 MGs iirc. 2pdr has NO HE shell, only AP..and 2 MGs for Valentine can never generate the high HE value it has in the game. We can add 2 points for the 2 pdr AP shell (not explosive only KE)

Btw, what is with SU152/JSU152, they had only 12 or so shells storage space for these huge guns. They should get a malus or every one of them needs 2 trucks assigned with ammo. YUP these beasts could kill Tigers, but only if not run out of ammo and get a chance to shoot with the very low ROF they had. However feared by Germans anti infantry and anti entrechment weapons. But they had also a so high AT value in orig game version, they could kill 2 Tiger in a row...

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/20/2017 7:02:42 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 26
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 2:32:22 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz


Hi LST


I have been having a look through your mod documentaion, an amazing piece of work, must have taken you endless hours. I do however have a few questions/comments that i hope you can help with.


1) How did you set the new repair costs for engines? I see from the editor that there is a value for "load cost" that ties in with the values you mention, does the game use this "load cost" as the repair cost or is there another field somewhere that defines this? Reason for asking is that in my DBB-C game the editor shows a load cost for engines of zero and i had assumed the repair cost was hard coded.

Yes, the "load cost" governs the supply expenditure for repairing industries and engines.


2) How have your new rules for supply production worked out? How far into the game have you played using this mod?

Frankly, I don't know - therefore the disclaimer in the changelog that it is a seat-of-the pants approach. I have only played two full months, the rest of my testing was done by changing the start date of the scenario in order to see how late-coming units look and behave. The at-start supplies production for Japan has not changed much, so I do not expect major issues. It will just be slower to increase production, since only LI repairs will add supply generation (and not HI and LI repairs simultaneously).


3) Did you ever create the alternative version of your mod with standard engine production and standard HI / supplies production?

Not yet, but summer holidays are coming...


4) I think your your changes to the plane upgrade paths for the Zero actually make it very much easier (rather than harder) to beeline for the later model Zeros.

Don't think so. in stock, the Rufe shortcut allows to start M5 research with fully repaired factories in 4/42. In my mod, M5 cannot be researched before M3 6/42 and M3a 12/42 have been researched. Should slow it, assuming no "jumping the queue" takes place (i.e. all models of a line need to be researched).



5) You say "It is recommended to ship excess resources from Australia / India / Aden/ Cape Town etc. to CONUS and UK to feed the industries there." Does this mean Oil/Fuel as well? I have no idea how allied production works and assumed they just got fixed amounts of everything. Do you mean that the Allies also need Fuel and Resources for HI and that then affects their production? Or are you saying to do it for historical reasons?

UK and CONUS have huge amount of industries but do not generate equivalent resources, so will face a deficit. UK has LI only, so needs resources only. CONUS has HI as well, so needs resources and probably oil/fuel as well (from the Caribbean Sea Frontier (ex Cristobal base). Allied player actually does not need HI points for production, but I would recommend a house rule that HI must be kept running.


6) Regarding the section on Supply Cap House Rules i.e.

What does "SPS-size base" mean? (what does SPS stand for?) [?Something?PortSize] ???.

Standard potential size - a term from the AE manual. A port size "3(3)" indicates a port built-up to the SPS of 3. It can be "overbuild" to 6(3).

"House Rules: 1. Expand ports (not air bases or forts) when aim is purely logistics, 2. no strategic movements of ground and air units unless uninterrupted string of port SPS-size bases exists along the intended route (i.e. if the inland port has an SPS of 3, it must be built to 3 before strategic rail movement is allowed in that hex – further expansion up to max size 6 simulates further improvements to the Railroad capacity, like added sidings, switching yards etc.)"

I really don't understand item 2 here and how its supposed to work, please could you elaborate and perhaps give an example or two based on locations on the map (e.g. Ledo and Anyang where seemingly no rail transport of units would be allowed).

This applies only to destroyed or yet-to-be-build railroads (dotted black-grey railroads on my map). Ledo is linked to Calcutta by a regular rail line, so no restrictions apply.

Classic example for the above house rule would be the "Burma-Thailand Death Railway" which was built during the war. It does exist as railroad in the pwhexe.dat file - but in order to use it, all bases along the railroad must be build to their SPS port size (3 if I am not mistaken) before rail strat movement for units is allowed over that stretch of railway.



7) I see you have made changes to the Chinese OOB but whats the supply situation like for the Chinese now, has it been increased at all?

Gosh, it has been so long I worked on China - I can't remember if I have modified China supply generation, but I don't think so. However, "my" China is covered with dot bases which do have a very small inherent supply generation (local farmers) to feed the "civil administration units" which are there to prevent the auto-switching of hex ownership. The consumption of these "placeholders" is smaller than the minimum daily supply generation, so each dot will generate a small supply surplus. In isolated areas supplies may accumulate (which may entice the Japanese player to launch the infamous "rice offensives" to steal the harvest...), unless guerilla operations use it up.



8) I am thinking of starting a game, however are there any updates due in the next few weeks?

No major updates planned. I will wait for player feedback and collect things I discover during my own slowly advancing H2H game for an later update - depends on how many things needs to be fixed and how urgent.


Many thanks, and sorry to bombard you with all these questions.

No problem, my pleasure





thanks for the info - much appreciated

cheers

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 27
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 2:40:26 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
But movies get it even more wrong ofc, I just googled Sherman versions and found this:

snip

in the film, since a point is made in the movie that Collier loves his tank, and he and the crew have named it “Fury” – the name they’ve painted on its 76 mm gun barrel. Supposedly, they’ve all been fighting together – in Fury – since the North Africa campaign in 1942. If that was so, Fury would have probably been a much earlier model M4 Sherman, like an M2 or M4A3, each of which went into production in 1942. But with a 50 percent casualty rate in most mid-WWII tank battles, an earlier M2 or M4 model that survived 3+ years of combat would have been unheard of. (In fact, only one Sherman tank – a Canadian one – is known to have survived as long as from June 1944’s D-Day all the way to May 1945’s V-E Day.)

n real life, the Easy Eight, equipped with its 76 mm gun, was a relatively late addition to the war effort – only in production since late 1944. The Easy Eight featured a bigger gun and a better suspension. And they were not completely at the mercy of German tanks.

snip.....


https://jerrygarrett.wordpress.com/2014/10/01/fury-the-problem-with-brad-pitts-tank/




BTW: It is not 100% correct, that Shermans were "On the mercy of German tanks" this depends on more factors. The 76mm Sherman could kill a Tiger if the right angle and distance and Tiger crew newbies. Also there not many Tigers in France anyway and the Sherman could deal with Pz3 and Pz4 ofc. Vs. Panther again depends, side shot on Panther will punch through. Not front ofc.

And he also has it wrong, when it sounds like only the easy8 had the 76mm, nope there was another version with 76 before (just based on the 75M3 and gun swapped)

And he also glorifies German tnaks toomuch lol, even the Panther was not perfect. In fact the crew conditions were on par with T34. But gun much better ofc



@ LST: Do I need a seperate install for your mod ? Can I not unzip in the scen folder

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/20/2017 7:12:39 PM >

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 28
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 2:51:54 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alpha77

SO did you change too many unit values ? I was working in a own scen (with some more bottlenecks too) based on the recent AI and "make stuff more worthwhile and scarce" threads..also added some fun plane design (mostly upgraded to exiting models, so all NOT fantasy but possible in the real WW2)

While working in the editor I also checked unit values (eg. tanks) and some were quite "strange", eg. US tanks seem to be overrated and some 43/44 squads too. Also tank destroyers had too high armor as well too high soft attack...

Will check you mod if time :)

PS:If you edited/corrected the unit values too and AA values and some more fun airplanes, I will try you mod. But I am too historic a guy to find most values others enters as wrong, mostly tanks and guns. Both versions the ORIG scens coming with the game (WAY TOO HIGH often) and the updated Andy Mac scen2 (sometimes TOO low) need re-work sadly. But it is possible these values have no big impact on the game, as I remember in JI AI game years ago I had not much problem with eg. the 43+ Allied tank units - and this must have been the original TOO HIGH values version. But this was against AI, so no real measuering stick. I just remember this early AI game was broken somehow, the Allies would not bring the big units like Brits guards tanks to the front for some reason. They bunched up in some Indian cities I found out.....never much bothered to do fighting (guess Indian tea is the best for some reason!)


I have only looked at whats called the Sherman V whose stats do indeed appear to be way off. Google tells me that the Sherman V was actually the M4A4.

LSTs mod however uses the data from the dababes mod so not sure if it was their mistake or (just as likely) i am missing something obvious.

It may be helpful to look at Big Bs mod as he has the Sherman V stats on a par with the other Shermans - however i think he re-calculated stats for all AFVs so the values may not be directly compatible with this mod, however looking at the relative values may be useful if you want to make your own changes.

(in reply to Alpha77)
Post #: 29
RE: Mod Release: Bottlenecks in the Pacific - 4/20/2017 2:54:42 PM   
Alpha77

 

Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/24/2010
From: Westfalen
Status: offline
Sherman V is the Brits one, yes ?

I always get confused they named their tanks different from the US ones typical always want their own thing

I have already edited this one, so do not know the orig values anymore (but too high for sure, but we can agree it is the 75mm Sherman so easy to find the values. We can add some AT for late war better ammo perhaps, buzt believe the 75 got no APCR ammo only the 76)

Just downloaded the LST mod to check, but not sure if I can use it at all, I do not want a 2nd version of the game (I only can try out scens)....mh, seems I need to overwrite also game files with this mod, or can I only unzip the art and scen folders and itz works and the other scens still work too?


I also checked the ironman ones, all to fantasy/scifi for my taste.
UPDATE: The tank values in ironman are much better, but you get fanatasy units

< Message edited by Alpha77 -- 4/20/2017 3:32:45 PM >

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Mod Update: Bottlenecks in the Pacific 1.1.Beta Page: [1] 2   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

0.190