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: RA 7.9

 
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: RA 7.9 Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/8/2017 3:32:57 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2158
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
NO. The IJN CV air groups have a resize date of 12/41. This means that they never have to follow the historical resize path.

The USN CV air groups have no resize date which means they have to follow the historical resize path.

If you set the USN CV air groups to have a resize date of 12/41 they can then act like the IJN ones.

In stock scenarios the IJN CV air groups have no resize date.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 121
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/8/2017 3:37:56 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2158
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
here is akagi-1 in the BTS 2.5 scenario





Attachment (1)

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 122
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/8/2017 3:38:31 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2158
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
Here is VF-2 in BTS 2.5 scenario





Attachment (1)

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 123
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/8/2017 3:39:38 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2158
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
If there is no resize-1 date input then this is the resize paths taken
When the 'resize to fit' option is enabled, the groups try to resize to fit the space on the CVx as per the old rules of version 1806 of stock.
These rules are based on Allied/Japanese, type of CVx, number of groups onboard, etc.

Only carrier capable F. FB, NF, DB and TB groups can resize according to the first applicable condition below.

a) if only one group on the CVx, then new size is 9/10 of CV capacity.
b) if Japanese and ship type is CV or CVB and date is less than 7 months since Dec 1941, new size is 1/3 of CV capacity.
c) if Japanese and ship type is CV or CVB, new size depends on group type:
(i) type is F, new size is 0.375 times CV capacity.
(ii) type is DB, new size is 0.375 times CV capacity.
(iii) type is TB, new size is 0.25 times CV capacity.
(iv) any other type, new size is 0.13 times CV capacity.
d) if Japanese and ship type is CVL, new size depends on group type:
(i) type is F, new size is 0.6 times CV capacity.
(ii) any other type, new size is 0.4 times CV capacity.
e) if British, new size depends on group type:
(i) type is F, new size is (0.6 times CV capacity) divided by number of fighter groups on board.
(ii) if more than one fighter group present and any other type, new size is (0.4 times CV capacity) divided by number of non-fighter groups on board.
f) if Allied and ship type is CV or CVB and capacity >99, new size depends on group type:
(i) type is TB, new size is 0.132 times CV capacity.
(ii) any other type, new size is 0.28 times CV capacity.
g) if Allied and ship type is CV or CVB and year<44, new size depends on group type:
(i) type is F and date is less than 7 months since Dec 1941, new size is 0.3 times CV capacity.
(ii) type is F, new size is 0.4 times CV capacity.
(iii) type is DB and year<43, new size is 0.2 times CV capacity.
(iv) type is DB and year=43 and one DB group present, new size is 0.4 times CV capacity.
(v) type is TB and year=42, new size is 0.17 times CV capacity.
(vi) any other type, new size is 0.2 times CV capacity.
h) if Allied and ship type is CV or CVB and year>43, new size depends on group type:
(i) type is F and date is less than 31 months since Dec 1941, new size is 0.45 times CV capacity.
(ii) type is F and date is less than 37 months since Dec 1941, new size is 0.47 times CV capacity.
(iii) type is F, new size is 0.4 times CV capacity.
(iv) type is DB and date is more than 36 months since Dec 1941 and more than 3 groups present, new size is 0.17 times CV capacity.
(v) type is DB and date is more than 36 months since Dec 1941 and more than 3 groups present, new size is 0.17 times CV capacity.
(vi) type is DB and date is more than 30 months since Dec 1941 and less than 4 groups present and one DB group present, new size is 0.36 times CV capacity.
(vii) type is DB and date is less than 31 months since Dec 1941 and less than 4 groups present and one DB group present, new size is 0.38 times CV capacity.
(viii) type is TB and year=45 and more than 3 groups present, new size is 0.17 times CV capacity.
(ix) any other type, new size is 0.2 times CV capacity.
i) if Allied and ship type is CVE and date is greater than 28 months since Dec 1941, new size depends on group type:
(i) type is F , new size is 0.71 times CV capacity.
(ii) any other type, new size is 0.3 times CV capacity.
j) if Allied and ship type is CVE or CVL , new size depends on group type:
(i) type is F , new size is 0.7 times CV capacity.
(ii) any other type, new size is 0.3 times CV capacity.
k) anything else, new size is CV capacity / number of groups

If there is a date in the resize-1 field, then after that date the units are able to resize as the player wants.

< Message edited by BillBrown -- 2/8/2017 3:40:37 PM >

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 124
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/8/2017 3:49:06 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2158
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
And just so you know, RA 8.1 is the same way.

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 125
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/8/2017 11:59:01 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
I have been thinking on this Post some and I think I changed the Japanese resize date to keep the Japanese from AUTO-resizing. This is a pet peeve of mine. HATE being forced to auto-resize in June 1942 or something like that. Lordy. Doing ALL the Allied Squadrons might take forever. Is there an easier way? Hmmm...

Ideas?

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 126
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/9/2017 1:14:52 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2158
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
Do you know how to use witploadAE? It would be the fasted way.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 127
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/10/2017 8:32:02 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
OK. Going to work on the Mod.

I've decided to allow the resize option for all active flightdecks available on Dec 7th. That should work to help with this issue.

Will update as I make my way through various items in the Mod.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 128
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/10/2017 9:31:34 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
All starting American carriers can now resize from Day One.

Fixed TT issue with Japanese CVs. All carry two basic loads for their TB now.


_____________________________



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 #: 129
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/10/2017 10:23:26 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
From the Sub Thread:

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

So the USN get three that can resize and the IJN gets all of theirs?


No. You inferred. ALL pre-war US CV/CVL ships can: Lex, Sara, King's Mountain, Ely, Langley, Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet, and Wasp. Make sense? The others come in and do their thing as per normal.

_____________________________



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 #: 130
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/10/2017 10:24:16 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
Starting the three new V-Program Subs at PH on Dec 7th along with Narwhal and Argonaut.


_____________________________



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 #: 131
Update - 2/10/2017 10:35:49 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: aga2008

Playing RA 7.9 and it's April 1943.
I just got the 752 KuS-1 (27 Zeroes) but it needs to be withdrawn immediately (since Dec 1942 it says).

Keeping it costs me 27 PP per day ...





Fixed.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to aga2008)
Post #: 132
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/10/2017 11:40:04 PM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2158
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

From the Sub Thread:

quote:

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

So the USN get three that can resize and the IJN gets all of theirs?


No. You inferred. ALL pre-war US CV/CVL ships can: Lex, Sara, King's Mountain, Ely, Langley, Yorktown, Enterprise, Hornet, and Wasp. Make sense? The others come in and do their thing as per normal.


No, but, your mod, your call.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 133
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/11/2017 12:44:59 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
We're good. I figure this is a fair change allowing for all Japanese and American (pre-war) CVs the option.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 134
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/11/2017 1:23:25 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2158
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
I just decided to not play this mod after all.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 135
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/11/2017 2:53:38 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
Otay.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to BillBrown)
Post #: 136
RE: RA 7.9 - 2/11/2017 2:53:59 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
Thanks for helping get this update finished.


_____________________________



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 #: 137
Update - 2/11/2017 4:16:14 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
Just spent the last 45 minutes going through all the ship art. Found some stuff missing as well as things in the wrong area. Got that all fixed and will be uploading a new set of CORRECT art files within the next few days.


_____________________________



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 #: 138
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 4:43:03 AM   
Mijast727

 

Posts: 5
Joined: 11/20/2009
Status: offline
John,

Don't know if you've already addressed this in your fixes, but the devices for the three Hvy AA units in Malaya are a bit wonky. The devices don't match the ToE slots which can lead to some weird replacements. I'm running the current release version of BtS and the following changes in the scenario editor seemed to fix the issue:

Unit# 6626 - 2nd HK&S Heavy
Wpn1 - 1063 Num - 18
Wpn2 - 1049 Num - 01
Wpn3 - 253 Num - 16
Wpn4 - 00 Num - 00 (empty slot for AEC Matador in the ToE)
Wpn5 - 1062 Num - 04
Wpn6 - 252 Num - 02

Unit# 6629 - 1st Indian Heavy
Wpn1 - 1062 Num - 16
Wpn2 - 1049 Num - 01
Wpn3 - 253 Num - 16
Wpn4 - 00 Num - 00
Wpn5 - 1061 Num - 16
Wpn6 - 252 Num - 02

Unit# 6640 - 1st HK&S Heavy
Wpn1 - 1063 Num - 16
Wpn2 - 1049 Num - 02
Wpn3 - 253 Num - 22
Wpn4 - 00 Num - 00
Wpn5 - 1062 Num - 02
Wpn6 - 1060 Num - 08

Looking forward to the new update. Thanks for all your hard work!

Mike

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 139
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 1:43:34 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
I'll fix that this morning. Was unaware of issues so thanks.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Mijast727)
Post #: 140
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 3:38:22 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mijast727

John,

Don't know if you've already addressed this in your fixes, but the devices for the three Hvy AA units in Malaya are a bit wonky. The devices don't match the ToE slots which can lead to some weird replacements. I'm running the current release version of BtS and the following changes in the scenario editor seemed to fix the issue:

Unit# 6626 - 2nd HK&S Heavy
Wpn1 - 1063 Num - 18
Wpn2 - 1049 Num - 01
Wpn3 - 253 Num - 16
Wpn4 - 00 Num - 00 (empty slot for AEC Matador in the ToE)
Wpn5 - 1062 Num - 04
Wpn6 - 252 Num - 02

Unit# 6629 - 1st Indian Heavy
Wpn1 - 1062 Num - 16
Wpn2 - 1049 Num - 01
Wpn3 - 253 Num - 16
Wpn4 - 00 Num - 00
Wpn5 - 1061 Num - 16
Wpn6 - 252 Num - 02

Unit# 6640 - 1st HK&S Heavy
Wpn1 - 1063 Num - 16
Wpn2 - 1049 Num - 02
Wpn3 - 253 Num - 22
Wpn4 - 00 Num - 00
Wpn5 - 1062 Num - 02
Wpn6 - 1060 Num - 08

Looking forward to the new update. Thanks for all your hard work!

Mike


Fixed. Thanks.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Mijast727)
Post #: 141
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 3:40:32 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
Decided to add the Conch Class (was Seahorse but this makes the naming easier. Argonaut minus a 6" gun but adding a hangar for 1 Gadfly plane) as Conch, Mollusk, and Abalone. They begin at PH. Slow fairly useless as a sub BUT they have a seaplane. All Allied FB now have FIVE FP carrying subs!

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/11/2017 3:46:54 PM >


_____________________________



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 #: 142
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 3:49:16 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
The fully completed 'V Program' is detailed below:

Argonaut Class: Argonaut, Manatee, and Seahorse
Narwhal Class: Narwhal, Nautilus, and Dungeness
Conch Class: Conch, Mollusk, and Abalone

Reflecting the increased number of platforms I have also bumped the number of starting mines for these ships as well as their production. Makes sense right?


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/11/2017 4:44:23 PM >


_____________________________



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 #: 143
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 4:12:08 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Between the Storms is close to release. RA will take a while. I have standardized the databases of TM, RA, and BTS to be located to just ONE set of files. It is only a matter a changing which ships or air groups come in when and the POOF I have a new variant...


That's definitely the way you want to go about it. Best to keep it that way as well for the fixes that you'll have to fix. Almost unavoidable that no error will creep in with such a large mod. Hopefully you will try to keep a proper changelog around as well.

One thing I've always found a bit amusing though is how blasé the British seems in your mods. In your BTS allied additions for example you've got a good chunk of new ships for the US navy, among those 2 large Lexington capital ships. The British response? Nothing.

This isn't a call to add more ships for the Commonwealth though! You can easily handwave away it as an example with British ships being occupied by stronger Axis navies in Europe than what was the case in real life. It's just a bit humorous, that's all.

Looking forward to the imminent release!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 144
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 4:29:21 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
Treaties go BOTH ways. The USN completes the V Program and adds 12,970 Ton to her SS Fleet.

Japan then adds 4 J1 and 2 J2 I-Boats for a total of 11,500 Ton.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 145
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 4:35:14 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Between the Storms is close to release. RA will take a while. I have standardized the databases of TM, RA, and BTS to be located to just ONE set of files. It is only a matter a changing which ships or air groups come in when and the POOF I have a new variant...


That's definitely the way you want to go about it. Best to keep it that way as well for the fixes that you'll have to fix. Almost unavoidable that no error will creep in with such a large mod. Hopefully you will try to keep a proper changelog around as well.

One thing I've always found a bit amusing though is how blasé the British seems in your mods. In your BTS allied additions for example you've got a good chunk of new ships for the US navy, among those 2 large Lexington capital ships. The British response? Nothing.

This isn't a call to add more ships for the Commonwealth though! You can easily handwave away it as an example with British ships being occupied by stronger Axis navies in Europe than what was the case in real life. It's just a bit humorous, that's all.

Looking forward to the imminent release!


Hey Cardas. You make excellent points!

The Brits do get their new shiny toys but they do stay in the Atlantic. Guess we could have some fun and have more ships arrive with the Fleet in late-1944. That would be sort of cool. With the tonnage increase in Capital Ships we could add two more Rodney-Class BB but wouldn't a pair of 'Super-Hoods' ROCK!!??

Some of the treaty allowances are, in fact, added to the OOB by way of the CAVs being 'given' to New Zealand and Australia as well as a few DDs and SSs.

Have often thought it would be exciting to add Renown to Force Z. This addition could reflect those additional new warships sitting in Scapa Flow and PM Churchill figuring a slightly 'stronger' message could be sent to the Japanese. Thoughts regarding that idea?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 146
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 4:39:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16437
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: online
Really LIKE adding Renown...anyone want to have six more 15" rifles to cause chaos against the Japanese in Dec 1941?


_____________________________



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 #: 147
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 7:17:52 PM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9695
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
NOPE!! Really would like 6 to 8 more Brit DDs to cause havoc. You have the British CLs and a few larger warships (R Class BBs later), but they are very short of DDs. If not British, then maybe a Canadian Class of DDs.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 148
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 7:28:12 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5947
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
Yes Plus ONE....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 ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 149
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 8:47:53 PM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9695
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Is that yes to the BB or to the DDs?

_____________________________


(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 150
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: RA 7.9 Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   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

0.186