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: Update

 
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: Update Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 9:05:41 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Yes Plus ONE....GP


I think he says YES to everything that adds to his OOB.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 151
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 10:21:21 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7104
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
OK......The DD's....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 ny59giants)
Post #: 152
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 10:22:13 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7104
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

Yes Plus ONE....GP


I think he says YES to everything that adds to his OOB.



Yes, That too....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 John 3rd)
Post #: 153
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 11:21:34 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Just did a look around for Brit DDs. There are not many at Singers (3 in Force Z and 2 in Port) to begin but I find 4 at Ceylon (Exeter TF), and 4 more at Bombay (Indomitable TF). That isn't bad once concentrated.

Looks like, as in real life, the Brits have to rely upon the American DDs. Good news here, the Asiatic Fleet is reinforced with a CA, CL, and 4 modern DDs. Add those to the standard US deployment and it helps.


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/11/2017 11:23:06 PM >


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 154
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 11:24:58 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Not comfortable with 100 PP/Day for each side so I've decided to lower it to 75. Originally we we at 60/Day. This will add some to the total.


_____________________________



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 #: 155
RE: Update - 2/11/2017 11:47:20 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Just need to go through Juan's off-map aircraft purchase system and I think we are done.


_____________________________



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 #: 156
RE: Update - 2/12/2017 9:52:22 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Got everything handled and think we're ready for release. Will Post when that is done.


_____________________________



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 #: 157
RE: Update - 2/12/2017 9:55:57 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7104
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
Excellent John....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 John 3rd)
Post #: 158
RE: Update - 2/12/2017 11:26:48 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Had to deduct supply and fuel from the Home Islands to reflect changes.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 159
RE: Update - 2/14/2017 10:50:35 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline
There might be something appealing with getting a fast capital ship like Renown and it is logical. Still, if I were allowed to choose I'd take a few more commonwealth DDs instead. The ratio of DDs to CLs and above is horrendously bad in the early game.

Let's use BTS with the assumption that all of your additions are present at the start. Hopefully I'm not overlooking some ships in my calculations here, but even if I do the overall picture should be reasonably accurate. I'm ignoring withdrawals and considering the entire Commonwealth. Also I'm looking at the early game here.

You have 18 (12 stock + 6 BTS) destroyers and one DE to screen for 15 CLs, 3 CAs, 2 CAVs (BTS), 1 BC, 2 BBs and 1 CVL -> 19:24. Disregarding the single Black Swan DE you only get 0,75 of a destroyer for every larger warship. 17 more destroyers join as reinforcement during 1942 while you get 18 larger warships. So the reinforcement ratio improves to almost 1:1, but the total is still not great.

In comparison USN ratio is (78 + 8 BTS):(34 + 10 BTS) -> roughly 2 destroyers for every larger warship at the start. 30 large warships are added in 1942 (8 of them slow CVEs). On the destroyer side you get an additional 45 destroyers. The reinforcements gives you a ratio that is worse than what you start with, but still much better than the Commonwealth ratio.

Granted if you play with withdrawals and assuming no losses, then 6 cruisers and 2 CVs are withdrawn during 1942 on the Commonwealth side. On the other hand so does something like 5 DDs (I haven't checked the exact number). That means even if you account for withdrawals you still can't provide one destroyer for every large warship.

Of course in the game you can, as you point out, use USN (or French or Dutch) destroyers instead.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 160
RE: Update - 2/15/2017 4:58:42 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Your math appears to hold up. Commonwealth DDs were in desperate need in 1941. Adding the 4 DD to NZ and Aust help some but then you have damaged ones starting in Port in Aussieland as well as Singers. Makes for some serious challenges to be sure. Considering how effective Japanese SS can be in that first critical month of time it reals jumps out how short on escorts the Allies are.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 161
RE: Update - 2/16/2017 3:09:40 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The update for BTSL is complete. I am about to bundle it and place it on the RA Site. Will Post when completed.


_____________________________



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 #: 162
RE: Update - 2/16/2017 4:01:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Am having issues with my website so we'll Post the update later today.


_____________________________



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 #: 163
RE: Update - 2/17/2017 2:44:52 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
OK. Between the Storms Lite 3.0 is loaded on the RA Website. The newest art folder is uploaded there as well. Download and take a look! Just click on the link in my footer to get there...



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/17/2017 2:45:22 AM >


_____________________________



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 #: 164
BTSL 3.0 Release - 2/17/2017 3:22:10 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Here is the new AltHist for Between the Storms Lite 3.0:

ALTNAV 1922-1937

The Treaty Mod for AE has been created to reflect a slightly different outcome of the historic Washington and London Naval Conferences to cover the time of 1922-1937. With little changes and tweaks to the Treaty System, a slightly a-historic outcome is produced. The Treaty Years give way to the ramping up of World War Two. Japan grapples with the consequences of exiting the Treaty System and works to create a more balanced Fleet under the able leadership of Naval Minister Yamamoto Isoroku.

The Washington Conference

Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes blueprint for naval disarmament gets out and the Japanese stonewall a Naval Conference for a full year. After considerable bickering and pressure being brought to bear, the Conference does take place in 1922 and disarmament is agreed upon, however, there are additions allowed due to the added time to get the meeting going. The whole Mutsu debate is scrapped due to Mutsu actually being ready and deployed at that point. While maintaining the 5-5-3 ratio between Great Britain, the United States, and Japan, there are several new outcomes:

1. The Japanese then argue to keep either a Tosa or one of the Amagi Class battlecruisers. The Americans carry the day in arguing for the Lexington-Class battlecruisers being completed. They gain the Ranger and Constellation (while scrapping BB Mississippi to maintain balance), Great Britain gets the option to build a pair of Super-Hoods (while additionally scrapping Royal Sovereign), and Japan completes Amagi-Class Ishitaka.

2. The whole subject of CVs is reworked:
a. Two 'experimental' CVs (two Hosho's and two Langley's) are allowed to be built for further carrier experimentation. The Americans use USS Langley and USS Ely throughout the years and start the war at the Panama Canal old, but still useful.
b. Two BC to CV conversions are still allowed (Lexington and Saratoga/Akagi and Amagi (still used after earthquake))but a further 9,000 Tons of treaty tonnage is added for one more CVL to be built by both Japan and USA. The Americans build the USS King’s Mountain (proto-Independence Class) and the Japanese back off the failed Ryujo design to build IJN Ryukaku (a proto-CVL as well).

3. The Big 3 allow for more research into 'Cruiser' Submarines. The American 'V Program is fulfilled with the building of 9 large submarines (3 each) of the Argonaut, Narwhal, and Flying Fish Classes. The Japanese add 3 KRS, 4 J1, and 3 J2-Class to their Fleet (since they are smaller displacement, more are built), and the French add another Surcouf.


The London Conference
Moving on to the London Conference (1930), the subject of Cruisers is re-worked:
1. Japan--at all costs--sticks to its goal of 70% for CAs (instead of 60%). This allows for GB and USA to build two more CAs (USA: Burlington and Rome) while Japan gains one.
2. Great Britain--who nearly scrapped the treaty due to the issue of CAs and CLs--stands firm over its argument and forces a larger tonnage for CLs. USA adds USS Anchorage and Dallas and Japan begins building their scaled-back Mogami-Cruisers.
3. Both Japan and the United States were looking at hybrid Cruiser—CVs and they force Great Britain, following the example set with the Washington BC—CV Conversions, to allow for two hybrids each to be built in the early-30s. USA builds CLV Charlotte and Jacksonville, GB builds CAV Melbourne and Wellington (sold/given to those respective navies), and Japan finishes up with CAV Kushiro and Tokachi. These hybrids are not true, useful CVLs not are they true, useful cruisers but they have a unique niche in 1941 and ALL of them can be converted into carriers later in 1942.

As detailed above, the building of additional large, cruiser submarines by the US Navy adds more tonnage to the allowable build of the Treaty signers sub fleet. Tonnage is raised from the historical 52,700 T to 64,000 T for the US, GB, and Japan.
***It should be noted that to take maximum advantage of the revised Treaty tonnages, Japan converts several of the oldest CLs into fast ML, builds additional Myoko-Class CAs and keeps the Mogami Class as 6” CLs.

Warship Construction AFTER the Treaty Years
Battleship Question and Decision
After abandoning the Treaty System, great discussion goes into the first new battleships to be built by Japan since the Nagato Class. The choices ends up centering on building two modern, fast conventional battlewagons as opposed to the mighty Yamato-Class. The prohibitive factors of cost, additional shipyard construction and time finally swing the decision to creating the Owari-Class (3x3 16.1" Rifles). While not sounding too exciting this change brings about a very interesting situation. Both Yamato and Musashi required their slipways to be expanded in length. The expansions were hugely expensive and took MONTHS to finish. By building the Owari-Class BBs the Japanese clear these slipways 12-18 months faster. The net result is two modern BBs (28 Knots) join the Kaigun BEFORE Pearl Harbor and their successors (two B-65 Class BCs) are either finished or near complete at war's start. Hoping to stay competitive vis-a-vis the Two Ocean Bill, two additional Owari-Class BBs are laid down just prior to the start of hostilities.

Command Cruisers
While debate rages on about the new battleship design, a new class of heavy cruiser is initiated. The proposed Tone-Class floatplane CA is discarded for a balanced, more capable cruiser. These large cruisers are better called command cruisers. The Niitaka-Class grows to over 15,000 tonnes and carries 3x4 8" guns, heavy torpedo armament, impressive secondaries, and strong floatplane complements. These fast, rugged cruisers are planned to be a six ship class. The initial two are complete at war's start, a second pair coming in late-1942, and a final pair in 1944.


The Rise of Admiral Yamamoto
As the Treaty Period ends, history takes another turn as Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku makes a greater contribution to the development of the Kaigun from 1936-1941. Yamamoto exerts a much greater influence first on the Japan Naval Aircraft Industry, then as Deputy Navy Minister, and finally as Navy Minister itself. Yamamoto chooses, at great risk to his life, to forego command of the Combined Fleet and dedicate himself to preparing Japan for the war he didn't want. He adds two new slipways (Shanghai and Port Arthur) for Fleet construction to facilitate a different, final pre-war expansion of the Kaigun. New and expanded Naval Yards, Heavy Industry, and Armaments are added at tremendous cost for the Japanese economy as the Admiral attempts to prepare Japan for a possibly long war. In so choosing to do this Yamamoto then changes the 4th Circle Building Plan dropping the 3rd and 4th Owari-Class Battleships for two improved Shokaku-Class CVs, a pair of Kawachi-Class fast Battlecruisers, an accelerated Light Cruiser deployment, and additional destroyers. Quick, reasonably cheap carrier conversions are moved forward seeing all of the pre-war CVs/CVLs deploy by December 7th or at slightly earlier dates in 1942. The highly unrealistic 5th Circle Plan is added in late-1941 and adds the 3rd and 4th Owari-Class BB back into building que. Despite Yamamoto's arguments this allocation of resources goes ahead with completion dates set in 1943-1944. Though only a few of these new ships are ready on December 7th, these additions make the Kaigun a force to be reckoned with well into 1944.

The Japan Naval Air Arm is changed so that everything is staked to the Zero Airframe with a specialization of the Zero into a Land-Based Interceptor as well as CV-Based Fighters. Research and production expansion is achieved by streamlining the air industry (cutting several models: J2M Jack) while bringing forward second generation aircraft: Judy, Jill, etc… By great effort the IJNAF deploys nearly all new aircraft on December 7th.

On the ground Yamamoto reorganizes the SNLF units into a Brigade-Sized offensive force and—knowing it will be a war of attrition—converts many Naval Guard into enhanced units with Coastal Defense artillery (using guns taken from refitted warships) for a stronger defensive unit. Additional small units are added to the IJN’s Troops and support units better reflecting Yamamoto's foresight into base building, defense, and expansion needs. While all these units are small and not in great number they promise to help the Japanese war effort.

The foresight of the Admiral pays off during late-1942 and 1943 as new ships, aircraft, and ground units enter into the Japanese Order-of-Battle, however, the cost is steep. Though expanded and using modern aircraft many Japanese Naval Air units start with their experience lowered to reflect the dilution of the experienced pilots into new units that start in Japan or arrive during 1942-1943.

Supply and fuel reserves start at a much reduced state. The Japanese MUST take the DEI as fast as possible!

Once war begins BTSL postulates Yamamoto’s influence upon the wartime Kaigun. Four more improved Shokaku-Class CVs are ordered, and the conversion of several CLs into CVLs is added. First class destroyers are accelerated and emphasis is shifted to the AA Akizuki-Class at the expense of the more balanced Yugumo’s. Manpower is at a premium within the Fleet so Submarines, Escorts, and ASW forces all see a major retooling reflecting the Japanese quality over quantity belief. Yamamoto chooses the immediately useful projects, large APs converting to CVEs, better 2nd-class destroyers, fast transports and coastal defense forces.

Allied Changes
It should be noted that not all the changes are for the Japanese. Between the Storms brings major additions and more choice for the Allied Player. The Allies see continued major changes in their starting locations, new air units, the addition of Training Squadrons on mainland USA to allow for an American pilot training program, enhanced aircraft production numbers, additional Allied FP groups, several ground units, additional New Zealand and Australian ships, a French Squadron at Tahiti, the CL Eendract for the DEI, a CLAA conversion for the Omaha-CL, an additional pair of CVLs, and optional conversion of the Kittyhawk Class AKV, Tangier Class AV, and Cimarron Class AOs into CVEs.

The added warships reflect a ‘stopgap’ counter to the increased Japanese strength found at war’s start.

How well can YOU do to use these new tools OR how well can you stop the Japanese Navy in its tracks as the Allies?

In addition to its own special modifications, Between the Storms has been made fully compatible with DaBabes and thus has more ship classes than stock, and many more of the smaller vessels comprising these classes for both sides: yard oilers, coastal minesweepers, auxiliary subchasers, patrol boats, minefield tenders, and many others designed to give a more robust and realistic feel to the development, population, capabilities, and logistical support of bases and rear and operational areas. Database elements have been modified to provide more realistic results for AAA (flak) combat, ASW combat, and certain minor, but nevertheless fun, aspects of naval combat, like land bombardment and coastal defense fire and new modifications to ATA combat. The modifications include lining-up and unifying data elements within certain fields, so that things interface more smoothly, as well as substantial changes to the data elements themselves.



Garrison requirements have been raised in China as well as India to, hopefully, better reflect the political environment of the regions.


If using the special road movement pwhexe.dat file this serves to slow movement in the CBI Theatre.

As war clouds gather on the horizon, the United States makes several important decisions (1) to slightly reinforce the Asiatic Fleet with an additional CA, CL, and 4 modern DDs, (2) Admiral Hart also decides to follow his inner thoughts and begin development of Cebu as an alternate anchorage, and (3) the Scouting Force, commanded by Vc-Adm Wilson, is sent south to protect the ships helping to develop Pago Pago into a forward operating base. This powerful Task Force serves to aid the convoy going to the Philippines (The Pensacola TF) and the empty TF returning from the Philippines (The Chester TF).

In a major development Winston Churchill decides, at the last minute, to add HMS Renown to Force Z to better demonstrate British 'resolve' reflecting the seriousness of Japan's overt aggression. Repairs on HMS Indomitable are rushed and this valuable carrier is just days away from assisting Force Z by providing invaluable air cover. Is it too little, too late?



Japan deploys its few new ships to protect the Invasion TFs coming from Babeldoap and Cam Rahn Bay as the Kido Butai steams towards its rendezvous with destiny at Pearl Harbor…

_____________________________



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 #: 165
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 2/17/2017 6:27:51 AM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 865
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline

quote:

In addition to its own special modifications, Between the Storms has been made fully compatible with DaBabes


quick question - is this mod still based on the Big B mod with all the changes he made (particularly to China) or have you reverted to DaBabes?

Thanks

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 166
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 2/17/2017 2:01:56 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
This is done in DaBabes and now that I have everything on ONE database I am shifting over to Big B. I had to get everything over to one database so I could move it all over and then simply differentiate the Mods by clicking and shifting.

Figure this SHOULD not take too long to do.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 167
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 2/17/2017 8:08:04 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline
Nice! Hopefully I don't come across as too negative by pointing out some issues directly :)

I have only taken a preliminary look at it for now but I do note that some errors still persist. From http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=4200191 the fixes from Sm GM and below in that post are still not in the database. Not a major issue in the big picture, but they should really be done.

E.g. now you are in a situation where the new, fancy Eendracht has 15cm guns that has less penetration than the 14cm guns on the old Japanese cruisers. Yet in reality all Dutch 15cm guns fired heavier rounds at a higher velocity, so unless they had very defective AP rounds they should without a doubt have better penetration.

Other errors (some inherited):
King George V (005): Same upgrade date as previous King George V slot (004) Issue inherited from stock database. Although the upgrade has no delay or damage or requirements so I'm not sure as to what's up with it.

Nevada (303): Has two slots (14, 15) with Brownings with the same ammo count, facing, and guns per "turret". Only the number is different. No idea what reason there would be to use two slots in this case instead of one slot with the number count added together. Issue inherited from stock database.

Pennsylvania (308, 309): Same as previous, Brownings in slots 12 and 13. Issue inherited from stock database.

West Virgina (336): Same as previous, Brownings in slots 12 and 13. Issue inherited from stock database.

Massachusets (376): Same upgrade date as previous Massachusets slot (375) Issue inherited from stock database.

Admiralty MMS (809): Can Upgrade instantly to APc-1 (810). Inherited from DBB, intentional? At least the bitmap shows a slightly longer vessel fro APc-1.

Tour de Cotes (910): Upgrades to empty ship class slot 2373.

Eendracht (994, 995, 996): Art is not included in the art file.

Grimsby RAN-I (166): Instantly upgrades to Grimsby RAN-II without delay (this is inherited from DBB). Intended?

Flying Fish (999, 1000): Don't put the mines of a submarine with special mine laying tubes in weapon slot 9. Slot 9 mines are exclusively launched from the torpedo tubes (and should have 0 number, 0 turret, 0 ammo) - or at least I think so. With how you've laid it out at the moment there might be problems using this submarine class for minelaying with the mines in weapon slot 9. The initial version (slot 998) does not have the mines in slot 9 and should therefore work without problems.

Tenryu (1008): Missing ammo for 25mm AA guns (slot 6 and 7).

Kuma (1016): Upgrade available to 1017 directly from start, intended?

Kuma (1017): No upgrade path from 1017 to 1018, probably not intended?

Kitakami (1028): Weapon oddities, you have for example two slots of rear facing DCs (weapon slot 9 and 14) and slot 10 is empty. I'm assuming the intention was to have 25mm AA guns in slots 9 and 10, but check it yourself.

Kitakami (1029): Two slots of Type 13 Radar (slot 7 and 13)

Type C (1317, 1318): Both have the same date (9/43), so if the first ship arrives in 9/43 it'd be able to upgrade instantly, intended?

Type D (1322, 1323): Same upgrade date issue as the Type C.

Shiratsuyu (1458, 1459): Has a right side AAMG (slot 10) without ammo.

Hiryu (1817): Has a 25mm AA slot (6) without ammo.

Hiryu (1819): Upgrades to empty ship class slot 1820.

Kamishima (1768, 1769): Two first weapon slots references empty device slots.


Following has radars that are not "All Sides" facing. Unsure if this actually matters though.
O16 Class (934)
Nagara (1038)
Mogami (1134)
Shimakaze (1503, 1504, 1505)
Heywood (2540)
C3-A Pres. Jackson (2542)

Following has ammo for their radars. Does it change anything ingame? I'd guess not. I'll list it anyway:
Colorado (342)
Repeat Benson (520)
Elan (884)
Tenryu (1004, 1005, 1010)
Yubari (1013, 1014)
Kuma (1018, 1019)
Kitakami (1029)
Tokoro (1072, 1073, 1074, 1075)
Minekaze (1411)
Amagi (1739)

Following has data for slots without a device (e.g. a weapon slot with ID = 0, but with say a facing other than "Front", or ammo or something specified anyway). Once again something that probably does not affect the game. Thought I could mention it anyway.
Jean Bart (781) - slot 12
Admiralty MMS (809) - slot 3
Ch 101 (830) - slots 6, 7
Vedette Douane (831) - slot 4
Mauviette (831) - slot 4
Mekong (840, 841) - slot 7
Nivose (842, 843) - slot 7
Adour (844, 845) - slot 7
X-Pacquebot (847) - slots 9-12
Surcouf (860) - slot 11
X-Bananier (862) - slot 12
X-Bananier (863) - slots 10, 11, 12
Jacques Coeur (864) - slot 4
Jeanne d'Arc (868, 869) - slots 11, 12
Bearn (871) - slot 10
Cap des Palmes (874) - slots 5-12
Elan (884) - slots 10, 11
Chamois (886) - slots 10, 11
Jules Verne (890) - slots 7-11
Jules Verne (891) - slots 8-11
Pluton (896) - slots 11-15
Pluton (897) - slots 13-15
Fr-M Cargo (905, 906) - slot 4
Fr Cargo mixte (912) - slot 4
Albatross (983) - slots 5-12
Albatross (984) - slots 8-12
Kittyhawk (990) - slots 5, 6
Kittyhawk (991) - slot 6
Tokoro (1074) - slot 14
W-1 (1203) - slot 7
W-5 (1213) - slot 7
W-13 (1223) - slot 7
Ansyu xPB (1271) - slot 7
Momi (1392) - slots 7, 8
Momi (1394) - slot 8
Mutsuki (1417) - slot 6
Kamikaze (1429) - slot 7
Yugumo (1482, 1483) - slot 9
Matsu (1512) - slot 12
Ch-1 (1603) - slot 3
Ch-1 (1604) - slot 4
CHa-1 (1621) - slot 5
Fuso (Hybrid) (1700) - slot 10
Ise (Hybrid) (1709) - slot 10
Ryujo (1843) - slots 11, 12
Chitose (1873) - slot 9
Aso (1890) - slot 9
Type J3 (1912) - slot 5
Type B1/B2 (1946) - slot 7
Aikoku Maru (2030) - slot 9
Natsushima (2188) - slot 6
Sokuten (2194) - slot 6
Hirashima (2196) - slot 2

< Message edited by cardas -- 2/17/2017 10:14:07 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 168
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 2/17/2017 9:29:30 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas
Grimsby RAN-I: Instantly upgrades to Grimsby RAN-II without delay (this is inherited from DBB). Intended?

Hi Cardas, Hi John 3rd,
Sort of intended in DBB. RAN-I was Yarra, built 1933, and Swan, built 1935. RAN-II were both built 1938. By Dec 7 1941, or soon thereafter, the Is could have gone to IIs. Could happen at any time. Player option as to when to do it. But there is a screw up, but different.

Id 166 Grimsby RAN-I is ok.
Id 167 Grimsby RAN-II should have Upgrade Delay of 21 - that makes the day-1 upgrade less of a freeby.
Id 167 Grimsby RAN-II should also upgrade to Id 168 Grimsby.
Id 168 Grimsby is ok.

The RAN-II stuff should have been done long ago, but never got around to it.

Matt

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 169
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 2/18/2017 3:11:49 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Lordy---where were you when I needed proofing?

I'll go through this and make corrections. PLEASE send more if you find them!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 170
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 2/22/2017 10:47:21 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I have started working on the fixes detailed above. If anyone finds more PLEASE let me know ASAP.


_____________________________



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 #: 171
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/1/2017 11:31:34 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Damn. I got that MONSTER list done and the database is somewhat cleaned up. Thanks for sending that over to me!

Will do a new upload later tonight.


_____________________________



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 #: 172
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/2/2017 3:23:54 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline
Looking forward to it. I haven't noticed any other clear bugs/errors, but as you are surely well aware of spotting problems isn't always easy.

There are some things that I notice now and then that seems odd, but usually nothing that is clearly wrong. Furthermore it's often from DBB to begin with. Generally I simply assume it's correct and promptly forget about it. Still here are two things that are strange but perhaps not wrong if you want something more to look into:

PBY-5 Catalina (Catalina I for the British): Has an armor value of 1 as a French or US aircraft. The Dutch, British and New Zealand version meanwhile gets an armor value of 0. Could be correct that the US version was up armored/got self-sealing fuel tanks as the war progressed and that's the reasoning behind the armor difference, but it looks odd.

37mm M3 AT Gun: Has a high Anti-Soft value of 16, when most 37mm guns of this type gets around 4. Might it be due to the canister round? But then e.g. the Soviet 45mm guns also had a canister round yet only get an Anti-Soft value of 6.


quote:

ORIGINAL: US87891

Hi Cardas, Hi John 3rd,
Sort of intended in DBB. RAN-I was Yarra, built 1933, and Swan, built 1935. RAN-II were both built 1938. By Dec 7 1941, or soon thereafter, the Is could have gone to IIs. Could happen at any time. Player option as to when to do it. But there is a screw up, but different.


Thanks for that answer. The lack of any upgrade damage was certainly one of the things that made it seem so odd.

< Message edited by cardas -- 3/2/2017 3:24:19 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 173
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/2/2017 4:47:53 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Ran out of time this morning to upload the changed files. Will get to it when home tonight.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 174
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/2/2017 5:21:24 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7104
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
John, Dutch Mitchell's show up in 3/42. US Mitchell's show up in 8/42. Something is wrong here....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 John 3rd)
Post #: 175
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/2/2017 11:20:50 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16822
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Ohhhh...that does sound a little strange...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 176
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/3/2017 6:53:19 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10377
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline

When Pearl Harbor happened there was an order of PBY and B-25 almost ready for delivery to the DEI. Despite the changed situation, it was deemed important to make the delivery to the Dutch. The B-25s got as far as Australia by the time the DEI collapsed where they sat for a while until Pappy Gunn stole them for the 5th AF. Production rates for many US aircraft were pretty low in late 1941 and early 1942.

The B-25B was not mass produced and was not seriously considered for combat, even though it was used for the Doolittle Raid. The first B-25Cs were the ones designated for the DEI. Initially the B-26 was intended for the Pacific and the B-25s were sent to units destined for the ETO and MTO. The B-26 had a little better range than the B-25, which on paper made it look like a better aircraft for the Pacific. The B-26 proved to be temperamental in the tropics, it had very poor ground clearance between the propeller tips and the ground which meant props kicking up rocks on the taxiways was common. The B-26 also had a higher landing speed than just about any aircraft in the world at the time. Another thing that made things dicey on primitive airfields.

The 5th AF B-25s proved to be more reliable in the field than the B-26s and the decision was made to send B-26s to the MTO and ETO and send B-25s to the Pacific. Most early B-25Cs went to units getting ready for the invasion of North Africa.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 177
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/3/2017 12:23:44 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: cardas
PBY-5 Catalina (Catalina I for the British): Has an armor value of 1 as a French or US aircraft. The Dutch, British and New Zealand version meanwhile gets an armor value of 0. Could be correct that the US version was up armored/got self-sealing fuel tanks as the war progressed and that's the reasoning behind the armor difference, but it looks odd.

37mm M3 AT Gun: Has a high Anti-Soft value of 16, when most 37mm guns of this type gets around 4. Might it be due to the canister round? But then e.g. the Soviet 45mm guns also had a canister round yet only get an Anti-Soft value of 6.

The armor for the PBN-5 is probably just an oversight in DBB and John 3d captured it. Too many data fields, too little time.

The 37mm is from doctrine, usage, and loadout. Marines used it routinely as an anti-personnel weapon. UoF was almost 30% canister. Army, not so much – standard UoF was 5% canister and doctrine (the field manual) said not to use it except in dire emergency. Most people used contact fused HE as alternative to AP. Some had canister, like the Russians, but didn’t use it much. It had the nasty habit of chewing the lands off the gun, making it less than optimum in AP mode.

Of course, this is merely why it was done this way in DBB. All this can be adjusted to suit the inclinations of the mod-master.

Matt

[ed] For a sanity check, the US 57mm HE round was the T18. 1.85 million produced. The canister round was the T17. The T17 did not even enter production until January 1945 and only 22,000 were produced. Brit 6pdr used the T17 and T18 rounds.

For those who want to play with the Russian guns, the 45mm M1932 (45x310mm R) had a canister round, designated Shch-240; 236mm, Bakelite casing, 137 lead/antimony balls, muzzle velocity ~370 m/s. The 57mm M1943 ZIS-2 (57x480mm R) had a canister round, designated UShch-271; 342mm, Bakelite casing, 223 lead/antimony balls, muzzle velocity ~600 m/s. Russians give 200m as effective range of UShch-271, US gives 250 yds as effective range of T17.

Hope this helps.

< Message edited by US87891 -- 3/3/2017 3:47:34 PM >

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 178
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/6/2017 6:23:13 PM   
cardas

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/8/2016
Status: offline
Thanks you once again for the answer (and the extra information about the 57 mm and 45 mm guns)! I don't want to come across as too nitpicky. With such a big database minor mistakes are bound to slip through (Catalina) and design decisions always comes into play. Generally I prefer the DBB database compared to stock though, so I'd call it a job well done.

Building upon your answer I still find it a bit odd that the 37 mm M3 has a higher anti-soft value than a 81 mm mortar (16 vs. 13). As an armchair general I'd value the mortar higher in an anti-soft role. On the other hand the mortars do get to bombard while the 37 mm can't do the same, so they aren't directly comparable. I don't know how to value the bombardment possibility vs. the higher anti-soft stat.

My gut feeling would be to halve the anti-soft of the 37 mm gun. On the other hand I wouldn't trust my gut feeling to actually be correct and I suspect that overall the DBB team has a better understanding of the game engine than I do. You'll have to trust your own judgement about this John.

(in reply to US87891)
Post #: 179
RE: BTSL 3.0 Release - 3/7/2017 2:22:04 PM   
US87891

 

Posts: 422
Joined: 1/2/2011
Status: offline
I do not think you are picking nits at all. Your questions are well posed and relevant. It’s a good opportunity to provide some context so that modders can better understand why certain things were done and give them a rational departure point for their own excursions. I don’t want to take John 3d’s thread off-track so I’ll start another that tries to answer your (and other’s) concerns in a more detailed fashion.

Matt

(in reply to cardas)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Update Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

0.197