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: Updates

 
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: Updates Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Updates - 9/30/2014 4:47:46 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17100
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Heads up on a few possible BTS glitches. I'm running 1.6.

The two Aussie brigades that start in Malaya usually combine with the Lark, Gull and Sparrow battalions to create the 8th Division.

BTS shows them combining to create the 20th Brigade. I'm a little concerned that I'm gonna get shorted another Allied division here.

Also, the Aussie militia brigades somehow skyrocketed in PP cost to release. They are over 1k PP.

They used to be about 450 PP. It is cheaper to buy out a US divisional regiment at about 650 PP to ship to Port Moresby than it is to free up a militia brigade.

Is this WAD?


The Aussies are completely re-tooled by Symon/JWE. This is his ball of wax to work with. There is certainly a stronger Brigade presence in the Aussie OOB.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 451
RE: Updates - 9/30/2014 4:56:17 PM   
Frolix8

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 6/10/2014
Status: offline
In BTS v1.6 there also is a propossible problem with Torres Strait Bn (5943) which has TOE 2719 at start which has a delay of (4207) then upgrades to 2720 on (4305) then 2721 on (4305). In the TOE it is down as a US Army unit.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 452
RE: Updates - 9/30/2014 8:22:57 PM   
btd64


Posts: 8599
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Frolix8

In BTS v1.6 there also is a propossible problem with Torres Strait Bn (5943) which has TOE 2719 at start which has a delay of (4207) then upgrades to 2720 on (4305) then 2721 on (4305). In the TOE it is down as a US Army unit.


John, I looked at this unit in v1.6 and in game it says Aussie unit. Also if Frolix8 has the right version, the unit name should be Torres Str lt inf. Still can't get into the editor so I couldn't check the oob. But the Papuan Inf Bat at PM shows 30 inf sections, but no inf numbers and no assault strength....GP



_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

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

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

(in reply to Frolix8)
Post #: 453
RE: Updates - 9/30/2014 10:53:38 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17100
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
OK. Thanks guys. This gives me plenty of places to look and FIX.

Am gonna watch the ROYALS game and work on this as well. Once done, Michael gets it for changes to USA economy.

He and I talked about China and we agreed to raise the garrison requirements by 400 on the Chinese side, 400 on the Japanese side, and 500 in Manchuria. This should continue to SLOW DOWN the BS that is China.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 454
RE: Updates - 10/1/2014 12:17:42 AM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
<snip> Once done, Michael gets it for changes to USA economy.
He and I talked about China and we agreed to raise the garrison requirements by 400 on the Chinese side, 400 on the Japanese side, and 500 in Manchuria. This should continue to SLOW DOWN the BS that is China.


One thing to be taken into consideration in China is the VPs that can be lost when not meeting the garrison requirements. O am not saying you do not tweak them, just that you need to be careful.

My 2 cents :)


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 455
RE: Updates - 10/1/2014 12:55:11 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3072
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
The two Aussie BDE's in Malaya can recombine into a single BDE or you can keep them as two with the same numbers.  Your Choice.  I am still looking at BTS 1.5, so things might of been changed.  The Marine CD units are stuck with their 5in CD guns until 43.  In stock there was an immediate upgrade to 155mm 1918 GPFs. The problem is I don't see any production of 5in CD guns.  I could of missed it but didn't see it. 

China: Is there a way to restricting some of the Jap units in Manchuria until mid 42 or something.  From what I am reading its the Manchurian units that is tipping the balance of China and the deep thrust into India or Aussie land?  Just asking here.  Please don't shoot me.

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 456
RE: Updates - 10/1/2014 1:04:03 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17100
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
This is why I am raising the Garrison Requirements in Manchuria. Should help a bit but we can only do so much.

DOCUP: What is the ID number of those 5" CD guns?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 457
RE: Updates - 10/1/2014 1:08:00 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3072
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
1141

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 458
RE: Updates - 10/1/2014 1:29:46 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17100
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thanks!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 459
RE: Updates - 10/1/2014 1:00:02 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Heads up on a few possible BTS glitches. I'm running 1.6.

The two Aussie brigades that start in Malaya usually combine with the Lark, Gull and Sparrow battalions to create the 8th Division.

BTS shows them combining to create the 20th Brigade. I'm a little concerned that I'm gonna get shorted another Allied division here.

Also, the Aussie militia brigades somehow skyrocketed in PP cost to release. They are over 1k PP.

They used to be about 450 PP. It is cheaper to buy out a US divisional regiment at about 650 PP to ship to Port Moresby than it is to free up a militia brigade.

Is this WAD?

The Aussies are completely re-tooled by Symon/JWE. This is his ball of wax to work with. There is certainly a stronger Brigade presence in the Aussie OOB.

One of these is a 'burp'. 22nd and 27th Brigades (slots 6639 and 6644, respectively) should not recombine. Replaced the old 8th Div with 23rd Brig for the 'Birds" to recombine into but neglected to remove the primary unit dependency from 22nd and 27th Brigades. Sorry about that. Please, John 3rd, replace 5981 as primary unit with a '0' for these. Thanks.

The other is WAD. Intended to make it politically expensive to deploy Australian militia units. They had to jump through lots of hoops to obtain out-of-country deployability. Hopefully, only those that actually did will get the opportunity.

Ciao. JWE

< Message edited by Symon -- 10/1/2014 2:21:10 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 460
RE: Updates - 10/1/2014 2:30:39 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7520
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
Thanks Symon.

Appreciate the response.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 461
RE: Updates - 10/2/2014 4:45:33 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
One minor point...

3rd Transport Chutai (1169) begins the game in Kompong Chhnang... and assigned to 2nd Air Division [R]
Perhaps it would make more sense to have it assigned to another Air HQ at the beginning of the war?

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 462
RE: Updates - 10/2/2014 8:25:11 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7520
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

The other is WAD. Intended to make it politically expensive to deploy Australian militia units. They had to jump through lots of hoops to obtain out-of-country deployability. Hopefully, only those that actually did will get the opportunity.

Ciao. JWE


Symon,

Been thinking about this one for a few days now and want to bring up a point for consideration.

First let me say that I have no problem whatsoever with the change. I like it. Slightly handicapping for the Allies, but that's ok. Makes the game more historically accurate and I am always for that.

The point I want to bring up is: Has the same kind of consideration of actual political cost been applied to transfers from Manchukuo or are the transfers from there strictly calculated by device costs?

Shouldn't it cost much more political capital than simply the unit cost to pull tanks out of Manchukuo where the IJA would be likely to say "no way jose...not with us facing all those Soviet tanks"?

I don't play Japanese and I don't know if this is already the case, but what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 463
BTS Update - 10/3/2014 3:27:43 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17100
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I've gone through and done the changes described in the last page or so of the thread.

Here is the Change List:

1. Followed the Gun recommendations made earlier: 16"/50 range changed to 37,000, 3330MM penetration dropped to 700, and Dunkerque Class main guns reduced to 13 rounds of ammo.

2. Torres Detachment (#5943) changed so that it is Aussie through all the upgrades: 2719--2670--2721

3. Checked the Papuan Inf Bn and did not find any issues with it. Upgrades look good as well.

4. #1141 5" CD Guns: Allowed very limited production of them for the American Player.

5. Fixed the Aussie Brigades for the 22nd and 27th so that it does not have a bad Primary Unit. They are now on their own in Malaya.

6. #1169 3rd Transport Chutai HQ changed to the Air Division based in Saigon at war's start.

7. Garrison Requirements: Raised Manchuria by 500, Occupied China by 500, and Nationalist China by 500. Specifics:
---Manchuria: Harbin and Mukden raised 250 each.
---Occupied China: Peiping, Nanking, Tsingtao, Shanghai, and Tientsin all raised by 100 points.
---Nationalist China: Changsha, Kunming, Kweiyang, Sian, and Yenan all raised by 100 points.

Important to note that each location had BOTH sides raised by the amount given. PERHAPS this will help slow stuff down...maybe...



Am now sending the files to Michael for the USA Economy to be further degraded.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 464
RE: BTS Update - 10/3/2014 10:39:29 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7520
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
John,
I don't share the confidence of others that garrison requirements are going to work.
They can simply be ignored at need.
If I have to choose between meeting a garrison requirement or getting a vital unit to the front line that might turn the tide and save the entire country you can damn sure bet that I'm gonna ignore the garrison requirement.

The only thing that is ever gonna fix China is putting a stop to the evaporation of Chinese supply by the bombing of unoccupied air bases.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 465
RE: BTS Update - 10/3/2014 1:22:29 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17100
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I don't have any confidence in this at all, however, it should force some players to better 'behave.'


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 466
RE: Updates - 10/3/2014 3:08:42 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Symon,
Been thinking about this one for a few days now and want to bring up a point for consideration.
First let me say that I have no problem whatsoever with the change. I like it. Slightly handicapping for the Allies, but that's ok. Makes the game more historically accurate and I am always for that.
The point I want to bring up is: Has the same kind of consideration of actual political cost been applied to transfers from Manchukuo or are the transfers from there strictly calculated by device costs?
Shouldn't it cost much more political capital than simply the unit cost to pull tanks out of Manchukuo where the IJA would be likely to say "no way jose...not with us facing all those Soviet tanks"?
I don't play Japanese and I don't know if this is already the case, but what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander.

Don't want to step on John 3rd's thread, so this will be the quick and dirty version. Good points .. butt .. Australia is easy; one Nation, localized area of operations, "small" OOB, well understood changes of status. Totally restricted units (like LH Motor Regts) can disband and return as something else (like Army Tank Bns) that are deployable. Not easy, but straight forward HQ definitions and straight forward movement options.

Japan is a "Side", rather than a Nationality, has a huge OOB, is deployed everywhere, and change of status coding must be universally applicable across the entire map. There's no room to move in the present game system. PP cost is calculated by device costs and initial restriction status (and a bit by HQ dependency flow). Some of the implications were not clear before release, and some weren't even considered until the gamey bois figured out how to cheat the intent. Still chasing our tails on this one without much hope of catching it.

Hope I didn't depress you too much . Ciao. JWE

_____________________________

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

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 467
RE: Updates - 10/3/2014 5:43:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17100
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
You're fine John.

Helps to hear your knowledge and insight in these topics.



Michael has the files for the US Economy. Will Post this--hopefully--last major update this evening.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 468
RE: Updates - 10/4/2014 11:55:23 AM   
btd64


Posts: 8599
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
John, The following pic is from BTS v1.6 after one turn has been run. I ran the turn to see if the units would develope there assult and infantry numbers. Started with historical first turn off....GP




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by General Patton -- 10/4/2014 12:56:23 PM >


_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 469
RE: Updates - 10/4/2014 12:48:47 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
They're not supposed to have an assault value. Their anti-soft is 10. A squad device won't have an AV till anti-soft goes to 11 or above. A squad device shows as 'other troops', not infantry, unless its anti-soft is 11 or higher.

We normally use the Papuan Vol Inf as patrollers, hexside control blockers, base stealers, and sometimes designated runners

But, of course, ya'll can up the anti-soft to 11 if you want.

But think about it for a teensy minute. This is in an area where you shouldn't have monster stomping fanboi gorilla stacks. So small unit tactics is the prefered mode of operations. Suppose there was some officer who said "I think is time for you to assault those Japanese positions." I would say "Good on you, but no frikkin way. Time to trot, Bwana."

Use native infantry how it was meant to be used. Ciao. JWE

< Message edited by Symon -- 10/4/2014 8:00:08 PM >


_____________________________

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 470
RE: Updates - 10/5/2014 5:40:42 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 2878
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
John,

Now in Dec 17th of RA playing as allies 2 day turns - getting to grips with the allies is not easy. cannot find almost any non R land units an the PP to change any R units is so high. I know non R units come on later but are the allies going to survive or move any troops in the first few months? Also the exp and morale is so very low was that as designed?

A few notes on ships - cannot find French CA Algerie or the LE T DD? Also there are only 2 French subs not 4 - was this a change? I was really looking forward to playing with these ships.
The Banshe DB pilots at Darwin are worse than useless some have naval attack values at 5 ( 5 not 50 - not a typo) - was that intended?
Not being critical just observing ( I am living in a new RA world - so we go as if its the real thing) - maybe the notes need updating?

cav

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 471
RE: Updates - 10/5/2014 6:03:09 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 2878
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
Sorry I see some of these ships come on later but still not sure what has happened to Le Triumphant DD?

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 472
RE: Updates - 10/5/2014 6:37:40 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17100
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Hey Cavalry! Glad to hear you are playing RA. Will take a look and see on several of these issues. You do have amore LCU available in the start of this as the Allied player. Check the additional units at Darwin and Pago Pago.

Those air units are TERRIBLE. Ask Michael how he works with them. I think he sits the A-24s down for 10-14 days to build-up morale and do some training. He lets them loose in the DEI where they tend to CRUSH lightly defended Invasion Forces. A single 1,000lb bomb pretty much sinks any AP/AK. NASTY!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 473
RE: Updates - 10/5/2014 6:38:33 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17100
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I've been so focused on BTS and TM that RA has sort of slipped through the cracks, Keep me up on things you see (beyond what you have mentioned).


_____________________________



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 #: 474
RE: Updates - 10/5/2014 6:49:03 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9829
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
General rule of thumb - within the first week of play, I spend PP on the leaders for American training groups and the A-24s. I tend to rest until Morale gets to 99 and then start training.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 475
RE: Updates - 10/6/2014 2:19:31 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 2878
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
Thanks NYG - I have done the same - btw is leadership and inspiration the most important thing for the training squadrons? Does air skill have any benefit?

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 476
RE: Updates - 10/7/2014 11:08:23 AM   
btd64


Posts: 8599
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Does air skill have any benefit?


I feel it does. I will look for a leader with a good balance of the three for fighter pilot training and substitute the air skill with naval skill when training naval, etc....GP


_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

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

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

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 477
RE: Updates - 10/7/2014 12:38:52 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9829
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
I haven't done the changes for American industry yet. Out of work yesterday with cold and over weekend. Got to get caught up there first before getting to this.

May recommend to future Allied players that they repair the industry that can be done in 60 to 90 days to allow you have some supplies to ship out and once those are done, to do those that may take years (oil at Bakersfield, as example).

_____________________________


(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 478
RE: Updates - 10/7/2014 1:12:41 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17100
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Morning All.

Michael: Hope you are feeling better. When do you think you can have those changes. Thinking about an above Post, we'll need to do the same thing to RA. SHOULD we do it to Treaty?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 479
RE: Updates - 10/7/2014 1:16:57 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9829
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
RA - Yes
Treaty - No (remember this is stock type set up with JUST naval changes)

Maybe not until end of week to get to changes.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Updates Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   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

0.271