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: BTS and BTSL 5.4

 
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: BTS and BTSL 5.4 Page: <<   < prev  30 31 32 33 [34]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 7/29/2019 6:49:43 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2402
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
May I add in RA 7.9 Japan FEB 1944 is or I think is outbuilding the allies on planes . I a the allies and very short of bombers especially but also most fighters except Helcats and Wildcats and old Hurricanes. I can send you the file if you want to take a look. I maybe to do witrh the fact as well that Japan has accelerated may types of fighters - the best ones.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 991
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/1/2019 11:54:49 AM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9701
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
American CV in Jan '45 and beyond

I have just reached Jan 1st, 1945. The American CVs get a 4th air group, which doesn't fit.

Dec '44 has the VF = 42 fighters (Hellcats or Corsairs-1A), VB = 36 DBs (SBD or Helldivers), and VT = 18 Avengers for 96 total (6 over 90 capacity).

Jan '45 has the VF = 36 (lose 6), VBF = 36 (Corsairs-1D which are new and more FB than F), VB = 15 (which is major loss in striking power vs KB), and VT = 15 (only 3 loss) for 102 planes.

Since this is a mod, we shouldn't be totally restricted to historical in which the new air groups did lots of ground attack missions. In these mods with stronger IJN, the American CVs should have some flexibility in 45/46.

So, my BIG question is what should the CVs look like going forward? John and I will need to adjust the next version to reflect this.

John 3rd - Check the Editor for all of these VBF groups as they come in WITHOUT any pilots.

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 992
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/1/2019 12:35:48 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1715
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Guys,

The 1945 reorganisation reflects Admiral Mistcher's recommendations - the best source I have on these is Clark Reyonalds' The Fast Carriers. At pages 356-357.

I think what we have lost in all our modding is the "resize to fit ship" function. I think Don, the Elf, et al took this into account and if you are in port, it sorts itself out.

Basically, you are looking at (pre Olympic) a CAG of:

48 VF - F6F or F4U
24 VBF - F4U to replace SB2C
18 VT - TBF to replaced by BT2D (aka AD Skyraider) or BTM
2 F6FP
6 x F6F-5N
6 x TBM-N

The CVLs would initially spot 36 x F4U, and "ASAP" 48 x F8F which had a much smaller "footprint" on the carrier.

As an interim measure, carriers in operational theatres would transition to:

32 VF - (24 day, 4 night, four PR)

24 VBF - (F4U)

24 VB (SB2C)

20 VT (Turkeys)

The CVLs were to immediately to land their VTS and embark 36 F6Fs, with the intention these transition to F4U ASAP - and then to the smaller Bearcat, which they could spot 48 of.

As stated, my gut says that Elf was all over this and if you leave them in port for few days the CVs will sort themselves out.

On the other hand, you'll need to:

(a) Offload the VTs from the CVLs

(b) edit in, in say August 1945 (when the F8F is operational), a further upgrade to the CVLs.

I suggest you set it to -

- minimum shipyard 5

- minimum delay say 2 days

- Aircap increase to 48.

I put some of this in my Mod.



_____________________________

"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 ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 993
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/1/2019 1:25:08 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 422
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants_MatrixForum

American CV in Jan '45 and beyond

I have just reached Jan 1st, 1945. The American CVs get a 4th air group, which doesn't fit.

Dec '44 has the VF = 42 fighters (Hellcats or Corsairs-1A), VB = 36 DBs (SBD or Helldivers), and VT = 18 Avengers for 96 total (6 over 90 capacity).

Jan '45 has the VF = 36 (lose 6), VBF = 36 (Corsairs-1D which are new and more FB than F), VB = 15 (which is major loss in striking power vs KB), and VT = 15 (only 3 loss) for 102 planes.



If you look at the USN's "Location of US Naval Aircraft" reports, you'll find that the Essex's started carrying groups of well over 90 birds as early as late '44. By late '45 groups of 103 aircraft were common, but I've only found one instance of 104 and nothing larger. I suggest that the Essex class in the game should have an aircraft capacity of 94, which at the 110% operating limit will let you have 103 operational aircraft.

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 994
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/1/2019 2:22:05 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1715
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
The limit is 115%.

An Essex (90 cap) will operate 103 aircraft.

_____________________________

"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 Gridley380)
Post #: 995
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/1/2019 3:04:26 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 422
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

The limit is 115%.

An Essex (90 cap) will operate 103 aircraft.


A carrier with 115% embarked will still operate aircraft, true... just not all of them. If you load a carrier to 115% and leave it, you'll see birds drop into reserve even if the capacity of each individual squadron isn't exceeded.

At 110%, all aircraft are available (assuming no damage, grounded for maintenance, etc.).

I seem to recall issues pulling in replacements if the carrier is at or above 110%, but its been a while.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 996
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/2/2019 1:12:51 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1715
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
Does it make a practical difference though? I ask because whether launching a strike package, or maintaining CAP, not all operational aircraft launch anyway (in game).

I did give the Essex's a capacity increase to 100 machines with their '45 AAA upgrade in my mod to test it out. The temptation to put 115 aircraft on board is overwhelming though.

_____________________________

"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 Gridley380)
Post #: 997
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/2/2019 10:00:24 AM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9701
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Thanks for the brief history lesson.

For purpose of this mod/game, what size would you want for EACH of the four airgroups (VF, VBF, VB, & VT)?? Right now I'm resizing them to 42, 18, 18, 18 = 96. I haven't thought about NFs yet, but should going forward.

Thanks in advance.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 998
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/2/2019 1:59:12 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 422
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

Does it make a practical difference though? I ask because whether launching a strike package, or maintaining CAP, not all operational aircraft launch anyway (in game).

I did give the Essex's a capacity increase to 100 machines with their '45 AAA upgrade in my mod to test it out. The temptation to put 115 aircraft on board is overwhelming though.


I have seen "full squadron" strikes (when search and such is set to 0) from time to time, but it certainly won't be a huge change either way (4 planes out of a group of over a hundred). However it bugged me to have aircraft in reserve that "should" have been ready (again, allowing for maintenance, damage, etc.), so it was worth it to me to change. :-)

I hear you on the temptation - I've considered adjusting some of the USN carriers DOWN so that their maximum historical groups are 110% of rated capacity just to remove any temptation while playing. However that would reduce their ferry capacity which is already too low in some cases.

On that note BTW I never saw an Independence with more than 35 operational aircraft embarked - granted those were Hellcats and Avengers, but they were really going to cram *48* Bearcats on board?!?

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 999
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/2/2019 2:11:55 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1715
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline
I just tested what happens if you set all four to 'resize to fit ship'. You get 21/21/18/18 = 78 aircraft. If you push 3 reserve machines into each group you actually go to sea with 90 on board.

That is probably unsatisfactory to most Allied players.

For setting some sizes, the "in-theatre reorganisation", based on what was actually planned is probably -

24VF/24VBF/24VB/20VT = 92 machines with room to add some -Ns and -Ps, or just upsize the VF to 32.

Your proposal of 42/18/18/18 is only +/- 6 VF/VA compared to that.

So it looks fine to me.

_____________________________

"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 ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 1000
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/2/2019 2:55:58 PM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 1715
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Sydney
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380


but they were really going to cram *48* Bearcats on board?!?


This is on page 357 of Reynold's book:

quote:

Mitscher...recommended the light carriers turn in all their Avengers and Hellcats for 36 F4U ... these to be replaced "as soon as practicable" by 48 of the smaller, speedy F8F Bearcats. These all-fighter carriers would provide the combat air patrols.


Reynolds cites as his source "Mitscher to Nimitz, 00220, 31 May 1945". My attempts at locating that document have not yet yielded any result.

I understand in the RN's case they had cardboard (plywood?) layouts of the deck/hanger space, and cardboard cut-outs of the parked (wings folded) aircraft- they gathered round a table and worked out how many machines they could fit on board a carrier.

_____________________________

"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 Gridley380)
Post #: 1001
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/2/2019 3:07:43 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 422
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gridley380


but they were really going to cram *48* Bearcats on board?!?


This is on page 357 of Reynold's book:

quote:

Mitscher...recommended the light carriers turn in all their Avengers and Hellcats for 36 F4U ... these to be replaced "as soon as practicable" by 48 of the smaller, speedy F8F Bearcats. These all-fighter carriers would provide the combat air patrols.



Reynolds cites as his source "Mitscher to Nimitz, 00220, 31 May 1945". My attempts at locating that document have not yet yielded any result.


Not disputing just... amazed.

quote:



I understand in the RN's case they had cardboard (plywood?) layouts of the deck/hanger space, and cardboard cut-outs of the parked (wings folded) aircraft- they gathered round a table and worked out how many machines they could fit on board a carrier.


The USN did cutouts as well: http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/images/E/s/Essex_class__planning_full.jpg

In both navies the system was also used on board (by late war, no idea when it started) to keep track of flight operations.

So, yes, we can reasonably assume that if they proposed an aircraft loadout the birds would fit on the ship while leaving enough room for flight operations... I'm just amazed the Bearcats were apparently THAT MUCH smaller.

(in reply to Ian R)
Post #: 1002
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 8/5/2019 11:24:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16303
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Appreciate the discussion a bunch. I checked my copy of Fast Carriers as well. Recommend that book to anyone wanting to understand the developmental changes that occurred in the Fleet in 43-44-45. GOOD STUFF!

With Michael moving into 1945 as an Allied player, I am curious to see what he learns and recommends for additions/changes to the Mods.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 1003
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 9/4/2019 5:49:03 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2402
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
Dear all,

My opponent has had to reload the game due to a computer failure. And he is proposing to load version 8. When I look in my scenario menu it says scenario 50 version 7.9 does that mean I definitely have 7.9 can I upgrade to version 8? Bearing in mind he will have a fresh install of version 8 and I already have an install of 7.9. I am fairly certain I would have upgraded to version 8 if it was out regardless. Is there anywhere else I can see what version I have if the scenario menu list is wrong.

Please advise. Thank you.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1004
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 9/13/2019 3:02:41 PM   
cavalry

 

Posts: 2402
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
Any reply please

(in reply to cavalry)
Post #: 1005
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 9/13/2019 3:30:02 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5895
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
I would have your opponent update his copy and send you the files he is using. That way you will both have the same version regardless....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-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)
Post #: 1006
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 9/13/2019 6:11:32 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16303
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Hey Sir. Which Mod is it?

Think that GP has the right idea.

I've done nit-picky work on BTSL. Not a bunch of big changes just work brought about by finding errors within the Mod as shown through game play.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 1007
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 9/14/2019 6:51:26 AM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9701
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Look at the last two upgrades for the Colorado Class BBs. The very last one in 4/45 has "NO DELAY." Please adjust it.

Air Group ID 3850 - It's part of 444th BG, but this B-29 group isn't allowed to upgrade to 10 and then 15 planes. Fix it!

< Message edited by ny59giants_MatrixForum -- 9/14/2019 7:19:15 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1008
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 9/15/2019 11:40:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16303
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Will tackle this. Keep the list going!

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 1009
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 9/19/2019 3:02:34 PM   
Historian

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/31/2008
Status: offline
Some important files seem to be missing from the Treaty Scenario at the Reluctant Admiral website, including the file that puts the scenario name in the list.

Thank you for the help.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1010
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 9/19/2019 3:43:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16303
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
How do you mean?

The downloaded files should crate their folder and you have access. Right?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Historian)
Post #: 1011
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 9/19/2019 4:21:35 PM   
Historian

 

Posts: 4
Joined: 1/31/2008
Status: offline
I'm missing at least the .cmt file and the AI .dat file. There are only 9 files in the .rar

It could be something to do with my computer; I've been having this kind of trouble with at least 1/2 the mods I've download and installed (my hard drive crashed recently, so I had to download them all over again). Their zips seem be missing files, perhaps my computer is blocking them? I'm using WinRAR to unzip them, just like I always have.

I will note that all these mods worked fine before the crash (including your Treaty mod), and the 3 other mods from your website still work fine as well.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 1012
RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 - 9/19/2019 4:25:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16303
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
To be safe I will check the google site and make sure everything it present and OK.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Historian)
Post #: 1013
Page:   <<   < prev  30 31 32 33 [34]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: BTS and BTSL 5.4 Page: <<   < prev  30 31 32 33 [34]
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

0.145