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: April 42

 
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: April 42 Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: April 42 - 9/15/2016 2:29:59 PM   
Joglinks1

 

Posts: 61
Joined: 7/13/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
Hans, your statement is valid, however there is code in the game that gives an advantage to landings and I believe to air to air combat to the Japanese.
With the 1.3 scen 71 setup there is just not enough supply and troops to go around to sustain major offensives and expend the industry on a massive scale.

I also said that it is possible to take all the historical taken land but at a higher cost which translates in more points for the allied player making it difficult to archive a point victory

J

ooops

< Message edited by Joglinks1 -- 9/15/2016 7:01:15 PM >

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 331
RE: April 42 - 9/15/2016 6:18:06 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
Just be complete, we are playing scenario 71, not 75

(in reply to Joglinks1)
Post #: 332
RE: April 42 - 9/15/2016 7:18:40 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7427
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
Understood....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 BillBrown)
Post #: 333
RE: April 42 - 9/16/2016 8:55:47 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
I am not sure if this is what you wanted or not. Ship Class 642 Gato 4/42 does not have an upgrade path to a Gato-A model. There are about 50 of them appearing in 1942.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 334
RE: April 42 - 9/17/2016 12:39:38 AM   
btd64


Posts: 7427
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I am not sure if this is what you wanted or not. Ship Class 642 Gato 4/42 does not have an upgrade path to a Gato-A model. There are about 50 of them appearing in 1942.




I'll check and fix if nessecary. Thank you....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 BillBrown)
Post #: 335
RE: April 42 - 9/18/2016 9:42:53 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7427
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I am not sure if this is what you wanted or not. Ship Class 642 Gato 4/42 does not have an upgrade path to a Gato-A model. There are about 50 of them appearing in 1942.



Bill,
Current versions of FP include a Gato "A" model.
Just checked....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 BillBrown)
Post #: 336
RE: April 42 - 9/18/2016 9:52:21 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
I will try one more time. Gato class 641 has an upgrade to a Gato-A class. That is bind # 613 which binds 641 to 1001.
There is no bind # listed for Gato class 642( this is the first upgrade of 641 ). There are 29 Gato class 642s that
appear in 1942, they have no path to a Gato-A class.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 337
RE: April 42 - 9/18/2016 9:59:47 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7427
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
Ah, once 641 upgrades to 642 the A model is no longer available. Did I forget to mention that.So you do have a "window of opportunity"....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 BillBrown)
Post #: 338
RE: April 42 - 9/18/2016 10:55:30 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
Forget it.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 339
RE: April 42 - 10/11/2016 6:46:25 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2155
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: online
Bump: How's this coming?

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 340
RE: April 42 - 10/16/2016 7:46:19 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
In both scenario 71 and 75 the air unit #342, IJA FF Training is listed as a Navy unit and it draws pilots from the navy pilot pool instead of the Army pilot pool.
Also, unit #343 , IJA bomber Training is listed as a Navy unit.
Units #30, 31, 32,33 are all listed as IJ Navy but fly the K5Y1 willow Light Bomber. These are also training units.

Now I know why my opponent Joglinks1 ran out of Navy pilots so quick.

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 341
RE: April 42 - 11/5/2016 3:22:59 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

In both scenario 71 and 75 the air unit #342, IJA FF Training is listed as a Navy unit and it draws pilots from the navy pilot pool instead of the Army pilot pool.
Also, unit #343 , IJA bomber Training is listed as a Navy unit.
Units #30, 31, 32,33 are all listed as IJ Navy but fly the K5Y1 willow Light Bomber. These are also training units.

Now I know why my opponent Joglinks1 ran out of Navy pilots so quick.


I feel the need to quote myself and bring thins up again. As far as I am concerned, this would be a game breaker. I will not start another focus pacific scenario until it is fixed, but no one has responded to my first posting.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 342
RE: April 42 - 11/5/2016 4:06:15 PM   
Adolf Galland


Posts: 43
Joined: 12/30/2012
Status: offline
Hallo

Nice Mod

Idea: take over the Landunits structure from RA or bets Mod and the Naval design. We have old BB desgin in the buildlist from WW 1 Nagato class and from 20s Amagi class ! I think never build this naval design in 40s...... and cancel the catastrophe Agano and Oyodo light cruiser design.

- More CD units vs the Hordes off Allied BB ?
- Correct the German 28 cm Gun range and 28 cm turrets of the Deutschland class (2 x 3) (Scharnhorst,Deutschland klasse) range is not 24000...
- We can add Bismarck,Tirpitz,Graf Zeppelin with no air group at start to the mod ?
- more mine ships and mine production

i hope the ideas are ok...

sorry for my bad english

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 343
RE: April 42 - 11/5/2016 5:01:26 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7427
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown


quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

In both scenario 71 and 75 the air unit #342, IJA FF Training is listed as a Navy unit and it draws pilots from the navy pilot pool instead of the Army pilot pool.
Also, unit #343 , IJA bomber Training is listed as a Navy unit.
Units #30, 31, 32,33 are all listed as IJ Navy but fly the K5Y1 willow Light Bomber. These are also training units.

Now I know why my opponent Joglinks1 ran out of Navy pilots so quick.


I feel the need to quote myself and bring thins up again. As far as I am concerned, this would be a game breaker. I will not start another focus pacific scenario until it is fixed, but no one has responded to my first posting.


Sorry for not responding Bill. Scenario 75 has been modified for the last time, for reasons I can't get into, but I will fix this problem and email you the files. PM or email me your email address....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 BillBrown)
Post #: 344
RE: April 42 - 11/5/2016 7:02:50 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
I can do the changes, there are some others I would want to do also, but I will wait and see if we do a restart in the future.

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 11/5/2016 7:03:43 PM >

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 345
RE: April 42 - 11/5/2016 7:49:55 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7427
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

I can do the changes, there are some others I would want to do also, but I will wait and see if we do a restart in the future.


I have them done. Or go ahead and mod it yourself. That's fine....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 BillBrown)
Post #: 346
RE: Feedback - 11/22/2016 7:29:13 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
Hi Paradigmblue,

I hope you're having a swell time with the increased opportunities of your job. Hopefully it compensates you most adequately (cha-ching!)

I'd like to submit a suggestion regarding the increased oil output in Hokkaido that is a part of Scenario 71. Since you bumped up oil production at Asahikawa, Muroran,& Sapporo, it seems to me that one of those bases would have a refinery built [hint-hint wink-wink]. Also, with the increased oil output at Shikuka and Toyohara, it would make sense to me for them to route oil to Hokkaido if there is no refinery for the bases in Sakhalin.

Perhaps you've decided to just use the refineries on the home islands but if not then I think it would be cool to see some kind of refinery processing on Hokkaido - perhaps at Sapporo, since it's got the largest oil output or at Wakkanai, which is closest to Toyohara and Shikuka.

Best of Thanksgiving cheer to you & yours,

Mike

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 347
RE: Feedback - 11/22/2016 7:40:36 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 777
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Hi Paradigmblue,

I hope you're having a swell time with the increased opportunities of your job. Hopefully it compensates you most adequately (cha-ching!)

I'd like to submit a suggestion regarding the increased oil output in Hokkaido that is a part of Scenario 71. Since you bumped up oil production at Asahikawa, Muroran,& Sapporo, it seems to me that one of those bases would have a refinery built [hint-hint wink-wink]. Also, with the increased oil output at Shikuka and Toyohara, it would make sense to me for them to route oil to Hokkaido if there is no refinery for the bases in Sakhalin.

Perhaps you've decided to just use the refineries on the home islands but if not then I think it would be cool to see some kind of refinery processing on Hokkaido - perhaps at Sapporo, since it's got the largest oil output or at Wakkanai, which is closest to Toyohara and Shikuka.

Best of Thanksgiving cheer to you & yours,

Mike



I'm still around, thought I'm sure Patton wants to kill me (completely understandable) as I've not gotten back to him on many issues.

I think this is a good thought, and Japan's economy still isn't quite in the shape I'm like to to be in, so this would be a good start. I still feel that Japan needs a little more resource production on the Home Islands as well.

I'm in town for four days until I have to fly out again for work, so I'll extend an olive branch to Patton and see if we can get an updated release out with some economy adjustments and some bug fixes.

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 348
RE: Feedback - 11/22/2016 8:19:53 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
<laughter>

Good to see that you are still around. My wife & I will be doing Thanksgiving in Las Vegas. I'm planning on a sinfully good holiday <grin>.

Lemme know if you'd like to invest in a slow game or do some more testing of Scenario 71. I like a lot of what I see in this scenario and would enjoy seeing how 1943-1944 evolve. Of course, with the amount of travel you seem to be doing, you'd probably have to invest in a laptop.

I'll keep an eye out for the update you hope to get out. And thanks much to you and Patton. I've spent quite a few enjoyable hours poking and prodding in the 71 scenario so I just wanted to extend my thanks to both of you.

TTFN,

Mike


_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 349
RE: Feedback - 11/23/2016 3:28:36 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 777
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
I have bought a laptop, so now I can play WitP on the road! I would be interested in a slow game if you don't mind interruptions when I have long days.

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 350
RE: Feedback - 11/27/2016 12:43:41 AM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
Groovy Bruce - lemme know when you've got the changes that you want added and we'll give it a go.



_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 351
RE: Feedback - 11/27/2016 5:55:44 AM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 777
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
Any specific requests that you'd like to see in the mod before we get started?

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 352
RE: Feedback - 11/27/2016 8:36:57 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline
Well - since you asked… :-) I can't really say anything for the allies as my attention has been on Japan, but I'd like to see:

• More refineries for Hokkaido. Justification: Increased oil production @ Hokkaido & Sakhalin.
• Increase mine production by 50/month. Justification: ASW for allies will increase in 43/44 while Japan's ASW will remain virtually the same as from the start of the war. Adding additional mines gives Japan the opportunity to help protect/defend more of the 4ward islands/bases when the allies start rolling Japan back towards the home islands in late 43 / early 44.
• Add another 25 FP air groups to help Japan with detection levels for subs and enemy tasks forces.
• Add another 75 Air Support Engineer units of at least 24 Air Support. Justification: Air support for air groups.
• Add another 20 Combat Engineer Regiments of 126 AV. Justification: For Japan to help with assaults
• Remove the static device on all of the CD units. Justification: So I can move them around if I want.
• Add 5 more ARD or the option to convert some of the AK to ARDs. Justification: 4ward repair support in the islands of the Pacific.

• Something for you to ponder:
○ Japan starts with 2239 fighters/fighter bombers on the board (Japan starts out with 0 FB). Over the next 90 days they'll add 4 Air Groups adding another 123 AC… And they'll add 1 Air Group of 36 FB.
○ The allies start out with 4434 fighters/fighter bombers. Over the next 90 days the allies will add something like 95 fighter groups and five FB groups with what looks like what - about 1200 more F/FB?
○ My thoughts:
□ Japan can make more fighters but I'm thinking that w/o the additional air groups to put fighters in, that the air combat will rapidly get one-sided with Japan holding the short end of the stick. If you are thinking the same thing then perhaps we should either reduce the number of fighter air groups the allies receive or increase the number of Japanese fighter air groups that arrive. And since part of the intent seems to be for Japan to really ramp up production, maybe we add a bunch of air groups for Japan with only 1-6 aircraft with a max size of say 27, 36, or 48 and let Japan's production fill out the air groups? And if we do this we'd have to bump up the air support engineer units to meet the support needs…


_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 353
RE: Feedback - 11/27/2016 10:15:11 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 777
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

• More refineries for Hokkaido. Justification: Increased oil production @ Hokkaido & Sakhalin.

Added in my test build.
quote:


• Increase mine production by 50/month. Justification: ASW for allies will increase in 43/44 while Japan's ASW will remain virtually the same as from the start of the war. Adding additional mines gives Japan the opportunity to help protect/defend more of the 4ward islands/bases when the allies start rolling Japan back towards the home islands in late 43 / early 44.

Definitely doable.
quote:


• Add another 25 FP air groups to help Japan with detection levels for subs and enemy tasks forces.
• Add another 75 Air Support Engineer units of at least 24 Air Support. Justification: Air support for air groups.
• Add another 20 Combat Engineer Regiments of 126 AV. Justification: For Japan to help with assaults

Unfortunately, the "locations" fields in the editor are almost full, which means there simply isn't more space to add more than one or two units. In Focus Pacific, I've greatly increased the Aviation Support value of existing Japanese units, but I will look at doing so again, so individual Aviation Support units have a greater value. I can probably squeeze a few Combat Engineer regiments in, but not 20.
quote:


• Remove the static device on all of the CD units. Justification: So I can move them around if I want.

I'll look at this on a case by case basis. Fort units should not be mobile, but I have no problem making smaller CD units transportable.

quote:


• Add 5 more ARD or the option to convert some of the AK to ARDs. Justification: 4ward repair support in the islands of the Pacific.


Totally reasonable and doable.

quote:



• Something for you to ponder:
○ Japan starts with 2239 fighters/fighter bombers on the board (Japan starts out with 0 FB). Over the next 90 days they'll add 4 Air Groups adding another 123 AC… And they'll add 1 Air Group of 36 FB.
○ The allies start out with 4434 fighters/fighter bombers. Over the next 90 days the allies will add something like 95 fighter groups and five FB groups with what looks like what - about 1200 more F/FB?
○ My thoughts:
□ Japan can make more fighters but I'm thinking that w/o the additional air groups to put fighters in, that the air combat will rapidly get one-sided with Japan holding the short end of the stick. If you are thinking the same thing then perhaps we should either reduce the number of fighter air groups the allies receive or increase the number of Japanese fighter air groups that arrive. And since part of the intent seems to be for Japan to really ramp up production, maybe we add a bunch of air groups for Japan with only 1-6 aircraft with a max size of say 27, 36, or 48 and let Japan's production fill out the air groups? And if we do this we'd have to bump up the air support engineer units to meet the support needs…


Yes, I can add additional fighter groups that arrive under-strength, as well as more FP groups as well.

I'll work on all of this and should have an updated version for you to take a look at by Wednesday.

(in reply to 1EyedJacks)
Post #: 354
RE: Feedback - 11/29/2016 1:17:05 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9768
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Since you're running low on Location slots, you can create a new device like "Aviation Support II" that becomes available on 1 Jan '43. Add this device to existing LCUs so when that date comes, they increase each by 12 Aviation support.

_____________________________


(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 355
RE: Feedback - 11/29/2016 7:08:46 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 777
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Since you're running low on Location slots, you can create a new device like "Aviation Support II" that becomes available on 1 Jan '43. Add this device to existing LCUs so when that date comes, they increase each by 12 Aviation support.


How would I get the new device to contribute Aviation Support? I could create the device, but I think the regular aviation support device slot is hard-coded for aviation support, and any new device would not provide the AS value.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 356
RE: Feedback - 11/29/2016 11:12:33 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 777
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
Okay, patch is ready for testing. It can be downloaded HERE.

Unlike other patches, this patch requires the previous patches to be installed first, so be sure you have1.04a installed first, and then install 1.05.

I'll update the front page with the patch once someone else confirms that it works.

Major Changes

Economy

Japan now starts with additional resource generation compared to 1.04a
Hokkaido now has a refinery

Air Power

Japan now receives additional fighter squadrons during the first year of the war. They start nearly empty, and need to be filled with fighters. All told, this is 30 IJN squadrons, 30 IJA fighter squadrons and 5 IJA FB squadrons.
Japan receives 20 additional float plane groups at the start of the war. These start as 6 plane groups, but upgrade to 12 plane groups in early spring.
The allies have a few more assorted patrol and float plane groups, including some Wildcatfish and SeaDevastator squadrons.

LCU Changes

Both Japan and the Allies receive some Aviation Support upgrades in the form of increased Aviation Support TOE values.
Japan has additional IJA Engineering squads added to the TOE of some infantry units.

Ship Changes

CVL Bearn receives some sister ships. They are slow and have poor AA value, but are an interesting X factor.
The IJN receives two additional 45-plane CVLs in 1942.
Japan receives 6 ARDs, scattered around the empire. Two begin the game at Truk.

Bug Fixes

IJA/IJN Training units drawing from the wrong pilot pools has been fixed.
The Gato upgrade issue has probably been fixed. If not, the later Gatos just won't get the opportunity to upgrade to the Gato A.
An issue with the wrong gun values for some French cruisers has been fixed.

< Message edited by paradigmblue -- 11/29/2016 11:13:07 PM >

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 357
RE: Feedback - 11/29/2016 11:56:49 PM   
paradigmblue

 

Posts: 777
Joined: 9/16/2014
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Status: offline
Jacks - once you have downloaded the patch and have looked it over, go ahead and send me a turn if it looks good to you.

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 358
RE: Feedback - 12/7/2016 3:51:11 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 2666
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
Just about to start this mod - looks really nice
How can i see if the latest patch is worked - looking fro I on a screen but cannot see anything.

(in reply to paradigmblue)
Post #: 359
RE: Feedback - 12/7/2016 5:40:35 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7427
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
The latest is 2 posts above. Everything else is on the first post....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 #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: April 42 Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   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

0.180