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: Reluctant Admiral 2.0

 
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: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 - 5/21/2010 1:20:41 AM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline
Stupid question, is this mod able to be played Ai vs Allies? or would rather be Japanese vs AI? thanks

_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 61
RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 - 5/21/2010 2:55:50 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9748
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
What has to be looked at for the Allies is how would they have reacted to Japan's earlier build up of Naval assets??

If Japan is getting more carriers earlier, how long would it have taken Allied intelligence to spot this and what lag time would there be before they did something to counter it??

Would the Allies get a few ships or a class of ships out sooner??

Would the Wildcat been out in greater numbers??

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 62
RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 - 5/21/2010 7:55:15 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Misconduct

Stupid question, is this mod able to be played Ai vs Allies? or would rather be Japanese vs AI? thanks

It is not very different from Scenario 1, so it should be playable vs. AI on both sides. As AI ignores all economic difficulties, nothing should go wrong.

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 63
RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 - 5/21/2010 8:07:58 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

What has to be looked at for the Allies is how would they have reacted to Japan's earlier build up of Naval assets??

If Japan is getting more carriers earlier, how long would it have taken Allied intelligence to spot this and what lag time would there be before they did something to counter it??

Would the Allies get a few ships or a class of ships out sooner??

Would the Wildcat been out in greater numbers??

As was mentioned before, USN intelligence in RL expected Japanese to have more Shokaku-class carriers that they did. So, even though here Japanese buildup is somewhat bigger, I doubt that the US fleet building program will be expanded radically. Ranger might be added to the fleet in 1943, though (after Operation Torch). British might withdraw less capital ships. More squadrons might be kept active in the Pacific (although be careful with that, this can create an unstoppable force way too early). A bit more planes might be sent to Pacific, particularly level bombers (fighters Allies already have in surplus).

Giving Allies a brigade loaded on transports to reinforce what they want in South Pacific is a good idea too.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 64
RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 - 5/21/2010 9:41:55 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

What has to be looked at for the Allies is how would they have reacted to Japan's earlier build up of Naval assets??

If Japan is getting more carriers earlier, how long would it have taken Allied intelligence to spot this and what lag time would there be before they did something to counter it??

Would the Allies get a few ships or a class of ships out sooner??

Would the Wildcat been out in greater numbers??



Wouldn't the most likely event be a longer war? The Allies were still building a lot of ships and A/C when the historical war ended, and moving troops to the Pacific. If Japan does better early, wouldn't the real result be that they would have been pounded by more and for longer? The real winner in such an event would probably be the Soviet Union..., and the big loser a more radioactive Japan.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 65
RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 - 5/21/2010 5:58:16 PM   
RedLancer


Posts: 4071
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
John & Stan

Happy to do the work - just need some clear orders on what you want - I'm working on something else at the moment so I'm not tuned to your needs.

John

_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 66
RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 - 5/21/2010 6:31:35 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I'm not too big of fan of sweetening the pot for the Allies too much. Most of what we have done would never have reached Allied intelligence.

Specifics:
1. FatR is correct in pointing out that Allied Int had always thought there was a 3rd Sho-Class CV. With cancelling the Shinano and Taiho the Japanese basically gain one additional flight deck. Certainly can make the argument that Shinano would never be built in AE, however, we're focused on building here.

2. Adding something different to the Allied OOB is certainly easy enough to do. Placing a TF carrying troops is easy enough. Moving a CTF as a Cover unit could work too.

Crazy IDEA: What about having Ranger providing Escort for a convoy going somewhere in the Pacific and give a withdrawal date? This would reflect Torch and the Atlantic but put an additional asset out there for the Allies. The CV could have a small escort of a couple of cruisers and 5-6 DD.

3. Thanks John for the artwork thinking. FatR--What do we need to get done?



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to RedLancer)
Post #: 67
RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 - 5/21/2010 7:24:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Juan--Is Stan right here about your Mods and China being stronger? Am trying to figure out how this occurred within the Mod.


_____________________________



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 #: 68
RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 - 5/22/2010 6:42:00 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I'm thinking we have got to do something to bring engines up to what is being produced by Japanese Naval Air at the start of the game. It is only logical that both would be expanded together. Simply have to deduct more supply and fuel to reflect the changes.

Stanislav--What do you think engine production should be raised to?

I increased Production in the following planes: Zero (100/month), Emily (starts in production at 24), Val (35), Kate (35), and Betty (cannot remember but it is I think 25-30 higher). Did not touch Army stuff whatsoever for the start.




_____________________________



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 #: 69
RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 - 5/22/2010 8:04:56 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

3. Thanks John for the artwork thinking. FatR--What do we need to get done?

I'll edit the aircraft file (can do it on the next week), restoring the old models to their places and placing new ones into their slot, then, I assume the position of new planesides/tops in their respective jpgs must be changed according to their new bitmaps, and the new ones restored to their places.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 70
RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 - 5/22/2010 11:12:09 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 900
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
China is stronger in my mods, but I made no changes here.

My guess is that when the new IJN land based AA guns were added to TOE's, someone accidentally hit some button that filled out ALL the units to their TOE, or something like that. I'm not very familiar with the land unit editor, sorry.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/22/2010 11:14:26 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 71
Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/22/2010 3:18:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Sounds like we've work to do.

Stan--Do you want to start on the plane files?

Additionally did you keep notes on the engines? We need to get that in-line for the start of the war. Perhaps stronger research for the later engines on the new models of Naval Aircraft? Questions/Thoughts there?

I'll assign myself to getting the China LCU issue dealt with. I don't know too much with ground units but will figure it out. Was truly shocked when I tried to clear out a hex around Ichang and found over 3,500 AV in Chinese there. YIKES! How do the Chinese troops normally start? Is it around 50% strength and then able to fill out?

Has anyone found other issues within the Mod?

What shall we do for the Allied player? No one has really responded to ideas thrown out there...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 72
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/22/2010 3:39:13 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 900
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
One thing to consider for the allies is to add in a few of the ships that were cancelled by the imminent end of the war.

So possibly expand the '45/46 naval OOB by including another Iowa or Alaska, and another Essex or two.

Another option is to consider allowing the allies to make conversions like in my CV variant, allowing for some further Sangamon class tanker-CVE conversions. You could also give the allied player more options for how they upgrade their old battleships, instead of basing it off the historical upgrades.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/22/2010 3:40:15 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 73
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/22/2010 4:16:48 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Juan--Those are good ideas. I like the CVE Option and possibly the old BB Upgrade possibilities. What are those in your Mods?

Michael's thoughts regarding starting with more F4F might be possible as well.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 74
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/22/2010 4:30:10 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9748
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
For the Americans I would like to see three Naval training squadrons permanently restricted to the West Coast at San Diego. One each for fighters, dive bombers, and torpedo bombers. Small size to start (18 planes) and then expands after mid-42 to 36 planes. Use the obsolete planes. The Americans don't really have a way to train up Naval pilots. I have Marine squadrons, but not Naval.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 75
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/22/2010 4:53:21 PM   
eloso


Posts: 335
Joined: 5/28/2006
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area, USA
Status: offline
Ranger TF:

CV Ranger
CA Augusta (Northampton class)
CL Brooklyn (Brooklyn class)
CL Savannah (Brooklyn class)
DD Mayrant (Benham class)
DD Trippe (Benham class)
DD Rhind (Benham class)
DD Ludlow (Gleaves class)
DD Ericson (Gleaves class)

CV Ranger Air groups:
VF-5 F4F-3
VF-41 F4F-3A
VBF-41 F4U-1D (delayed)
VS-41 SBD2U-3
VS-42 SBD2U-3
VT-4 TBD-1

I've got everything set in a mod for my own use already including leaders for the capital ships. They appear in Eastern USA on 21 DEC 41 and must withdraw on 01 SEP 42. CV Ranger did appear as a ferry in 44 so I have her returning on 11 JUL 44. All the information that I could find indicated that she was used in the early war to ferry aircraft in the Atlantic theater.

Art Suggestion

I set up my aircraft art for custom aircraft as outlined in michaelm's word document found here:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2405660

The downside is they won't show in the editor with the show art checkboxes selected. The good thing about this method is that I can use Cathartes excellent air-tops mod without having to re-do all the work to embed all of the air art files into those large bitmaps. Also the other result is the mod is much smaller for distribution.


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 76
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/22/2010 5:21:46 PM   
JuanG


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Juan--Those are good ideas. I like the CVE Option and possibly the old BB Upgrade possibilities. What are those in your Mods?

Michael's thoughts regarding starting with more F4F might be possible as well.


In the current version of the CV mod, the remaining USN Cimarron/Neosho class AO can upgrade into more Sangamon class CVE's.

The Standard BB's have two upgrade lines, one without rebuilds and major upgrades, and one with a rebuild and upgrade to 5in/38s - this allows the allied player to put the more damaged ones into complete overhaul, while using the others if needed in an active role. In the new version I'm working there will be 3 (basic, AA upgrade, complete rebuild) or even 4 upgrade 'paths' for each of the Standard BBs, to allow further flexibility.

The nice thing is that as the allies have essentially unlimited 'industry', the fact that conversions cost nothing is not a limiting factor as it is for the Japanese, and one can have a lot of fun with options here.


I second the suggestion about moving to the new aircraft art format for mods - I'm doing this for the next version of AltWNT and it is much more flexible and user friendly.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 5/22/2010 5:23:46 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 77
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/22/2010 5:29:31 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
One thing to consider for the allies is to add in a few of the ships that were cancelled by the imminent end of the war.
..
Another option is to consider allowing the allies to make conversions like in my CV variant, allowing for some further Sangamon class tanker-CVE conversions. You could also give the allied player more options for how they upgrade their old battleships, instead of basing it off the historical upgrades.

Hi Juan. In Da Babes we completed the build and deployment of the Commencement Bay class and I would suggest that as a more reasonable late war alternative. They weren't much externally different from the Sangamon. They were on the T3-S2 hull and used the same engineering plant, but rather than being a make-do 'conversion', they were a full up design. Darn near the same flight deck, but had designed-in catapults and a lot of interior restructuring, and could (and did) host F4U, F6F airgroups with ease and efficiency.

These were laid down in late '43, and the lead ship was launched 5/44 and commissioned 11/44, so there should be no problem with "what if" considerations. As to 'conversions' to Sangamons, the only available T3 hulls are the Cimmaron class AOs. The Sangamon CVE conversion was usually done during construction, but a few (I believe 3) were converted after launch, but before fitting out. It took these three an average of 6.2 months to convert to the CVE configuration after launch as an AO. If a T3 is operational as an AO, I think it likely that the conversion time to a CVE would be in the 8 - 9 month ballpark.

Just my humble opinion.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 78
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/22/2010 6:43:16 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Navy Training Squadrons sound good to me.

The BB Options sound good too. Those only make sense to me and aren't too out there.

The CVE conversions could work. How many ships are we talking about?

Ranger would be fun to add (thanks OSO) but we would need to have some sort of withdrawal date. What would happen if it was sunk? Does the American still need--no matter what--to pull a CV and escorts from the Pacific for Torch? Interesting thoughts...

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 79
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/22/2010 9:15:38 PM   
eloso


Posts: 335
Joined: 5/28/2006
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Navy Training Squadrons sound good to me.

The BB Options sound good too. Those only make sense to me and aren't too out there.

The CVE conversions could work. How many ships are we talking about?

Ranger would be fun to add (thanks OSO) but we would need to have some sort of withdrawal date. What would happen if it was sunk? Does the American still need--no matter what--to pull a CV and escorts from the Pacific for Torch? Interesting thoughts...


I think I mentioned that they had to withdraw. As far as if she was sunk prior to that, it would have to be some sort of mutual house rule agreement between the players. I don't know if that's really kosher either. There are hundreds of ships that have to withdraw for one reason or another but there isn't a penalty if they're sunk other than the victory point loss.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 80
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/22/2010 11:23:45 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I really don't think the Ranger would be sent to the Pacific unless they were defending Pearl Harbor, the ship just did not have the operating range for use in there and the Navy kept it in the Atlantic.

What you could do is not build as many Cleveland Class CL's and create more Independence CVL

_____________________________


(in reply to eloso)
Post #: 81
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/22/2010 11:29:53 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Sounds like we've work to do.

Stan--Do you want to start on the plane files?

I hope to fix the file within about two days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Additionally did you keep notes on the engines? We need to get that in-line for the start of the war. Perhaps stronger research for the later engines on the new models of Naval Aircraft?

No need for that, all late-war engines already should be accelerated to arrive on the same months as first planes that use them.

Unfortunately, as yubari is currently away from home and we haven't exchanged a single turn this week, I cannot tell anything new about the balance of forces in China.






< Message edited by FatR -- 5/22/2010 11:32:19 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 82
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/23/2010 1:18:10 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Sounds like we've work to do.

Stan--Do you want to start on the plane files?

Additionally did you keep notes on the engines? We need to get that in-line for the start of the war. Perhaps stronger research for the later engines on the new models of Naval Aircraft? Questions/Thoughts there?

I'll assign myself to getting the China LCU issue dealt with. I don't know too much with ground units but will figure it out. Was truly shocked when I tried to clear out a hex around Ichang and found over 3,500 AV in Chinese there. YIKES! How do the Chinese troops normally start? Is it around 50% strength and then able to fill out?

Has anyone found other issues within the Mod?

What shall we do for the Allied player? No one has really responded to ideas thrown out there...



John someone needs to check all units the update button was hit on. IJA and allied units can also be filled up. Most CHnese units are 33% strength.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 83
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/23/2010 1:55:31 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
I wouldnt add too many Naval units to the allied player it affects balance and i would even argue for less with only 2 Yamatos. What the allied player needs early is some counter play but certainly not to diminish KB.

Suggestion ( all of them)
- Add another mine layer ( more mines , more mine production)
- Add 1 more dutch Wildebeast squadron at start and an an english bomber one for Mid Jan
- Bring home the Australian Div in North Africa as per the Australian goverments demands/plans
- An OZ fPYB squadron

In addition with the IJN building the BCs then the allies will try to build a countership..instead of the Alaskas.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 84
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/23/2010 3:19:09 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
BK--I bet that is exactly what happened. I am sure when I was hitting update with Japanese units it did that for ALL units. Crap. This will truly make things very scary in China as I have already found out.

OK. Can this be reversed by setting strength to 33% and then hit apply for Chinese LCUs? OR Does it need to be done manually for each unit?

Stan--Thanks for taking the time to clear up the plane stuff. There is no need to rush. Whenever you have it done please email it to me in a Zip and I'll continue working on it.

The discussion of adding things for the Allies does make me nervous. Balance is the key concern. The vast majority of Japan's improvements don't hit until late-42 and early-43. The Dec 7th Force Structure is changed very little (a few more planes, more modern planes, and 3 ships) so changing the Allied could really affect things.

Thoughts:
1. How about establishing the Navy Training Squadrons as Michael threw out. They cannot move and could expand out for decent training purposes.
2. Concur about Ranger and her issues. What about moving Lexington's TF down near Pago Pago to reflect covering the TF unloading there at game start?
3. Go along with Juan's BB Upgrade ideas.
4. Allow for a few (2 or 3) of the Cleveland CLs to become CVLs that might arrive in early-1944.
5. Do the same for 2-3 CVE conversions as described earlier.

Forces would remain, more-or-less, the same for Dec 7th but an Allied response would come into play with the conversions and upgrades. Would provide a bit more to play with but NOT throw things seriously out of balance for the beginning of the war.

FatR--In engines I am mainly looking towards the engines needed to reflect the expanded Naval Air Production on Dec 7th.

EDIT: What will John (Red Lancer) need to do?


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 5/23/2010 3:46:17 AM >


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 85
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/23/2010 1:53:50 PM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline
John , every unit has a different TOE to the planned TOE some are 10% (eg suffered heavy losses , fitting out or a cadre / training) some 90% a few 100% a few more even have 150% , while updating it for an AA regimented wouldnt be too bad on most units like a div it would destroy the historical value and replace it with a standard/planned TOE .

The allies could have 200% of their 1941 value ( excluding CHina ) or the Japanese /
We really need to check a lot of units but of ot is soem key divs then my hunch is it will be easier getting the original land units and redoing the changes maybe somone who is good with spread sheets can check .


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

BK--I bet that is exactly what happened. I am sure when I was hitting update with Japanese units it did that for ALL units. Crap. This will truly make things very scary in China as I have already found out.

OK. Can this be reversed by setting strength to 33% and then hit apply for Chinese LCUs? OR Does it need to be done manually for each unit?

Stan--Thanks for taking the time to clear up the plane stuff. There is no need to rush. Whenever you have it done please email it to me in a Zip and I'll continue working on it.

The discussion of adding things for the Allies does make me nervous. Balance is the key concern. The vast majority of Japan's improvements don't hit until late-42 and early-43. The Dec 7th Force Structure is changed very little (a few more planes, more modern planes, and 3 ships) so changing the Allied could really affect things.

Thoughts:
1. How about establishing the Navy Training Squadrons as Michael threw out. They cannot move and could expand out for decent training purposes.
2. Concur about Ranger and her issues. What about moving Lexington's TF down near Pago Pago to reflect covering the TF unloading there at game start?
3. Go along with Juan's BB Upgrade ideas.
4. Allow for a few (2 or 3) of the Cleveland CLs to become CVLs that might arrive in early-1944.
5. Do the same for 2-3 CVE conversions as described earlier.

Forces would remain, more-or-less, the same for Dec 7th but an Allied response would come into play with the conversions and upgrades. Would provide a bit more to play with but NOT throw things seriously out of balance for the beginning of the war.

FatR--In engines I am mainly looking towards the engines needed to reflect the expanded Naval Air Production on Dec 7th.

EDIT: What will John (Red Lancer) need to do?




_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 86
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/23/2010 3:48:41 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I doubt that it is as simple as accidentally filling out Chinese units. Some of the infantry units are 50/100, some 61/100, and some 80/100. Other Allied units seem to be unchanged.

(in reply to bklooste)
Post #: 87
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/23/2010 11:38:48 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
We'll need to pull up a vanilla Scen One and do some comparisons to see how different things are from standard. A quick perusal should be fairly easy. Michael--Since you are playing the Allies in ours would you be interested in checking this out?



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 88
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/24/2010 12:08:34 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9748
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Having all those extra mouths to feed in China is going to hurt in a few months. I don't have enough supplies there already. The Chinese will be unable to do much offensively after a few rounds of combat due to the TO&E being filled out.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 89
RE: Assignments and Ideas for 2.0 - 5/24/2010 12:50:16 AM   
bklooste

 

Posts: 1103
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Having all those extra mouths to feed in China is going to hurt in a few months. I don't have enough supplies there already. The Chinese will be unable to do much offensively after a few rounds of combat due to the TO&E being filled out.


Not sure that is correct, they run out of supply anyway in most games (esp if strat bombing is not banned). This way you just suicide 2/3 of your army in the first 1-2 months using your supply stock - who cares about the losses your going to be in a better situation , end result is a weakened Japan vs a very experienced chinese army which can then wait to re supply his experienced units . The last thing Japan needs in 41 / early 42 is to send a stack of units to China though it will make the Chinese theater very interesting.

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Reluctant Admiral 2.0 Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

0.203