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: B-Mod 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: B-Mod Update Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: B-Mod Update - 7/28/2019 3:23:27 AM   
darbycmcd

 

Posts: 381
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline
Hi there. Just a quick note. I started a game with your mod against a new player a month or so ago. We are just into Jan 42 so quite early. I would say that I think maybe you over did the beefy Chinese army a bit. Already my op has several multi-thousand point stacks rampaging around the countryside, and I can't concentrate force to do anything about it. I have lost several locations and he has almost 5000 AV attacking Hankow now, 1500 at Wuchang, a couple thousand at Kaifeng. That is just the stuff actually attacking locations. Add the 1000 points at Wenchow and Wuchow, there just isn't much scope for Japanese action. It is not the case that Japan can't be aggressive, it is that Japan is probably going to be pushed into the sea. The very large bump in starting AV plus the additional supply may have pushed the balance a bit too far, at least that is what seems to be happening in our game now.

We are going to keep it going and see what happens, but honestly I think this is a blowout for the Allies by the end of 42. The only way to avoid it is massive reinforcements, but then nothing will be going to other areas of operation. But we shall see!

(in reply to Korvar)
Post #: 181
RE: B-Mod Update - 7/28/2019 4:07:02 PM   
Moltrey


Posts: 147
Joined: 4/11/2010
From: Virginia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falken

I’m sorry but why the harsh words for Brian “Feel free to do it by bullet points like the real world does. “. Brian is one of the most knowledgeable people that I know on this board and he has worked very hard to provide us with a heck of a good mod, in his free time.

I fully understand if u don’t agree with an aspect of the Mod but please give Brian the respect that he deserves.

Also if you don’t agree, then u are free to build your own version

Thank you


I my admittedly limited experience on this forum, I would say that is just "WingCmdr being WingCmdr". He is our resident social "bull in the china shop". Some folks have tried to reason with him, but others ended up hitting the big green BLOCK button. I prefer to laugh at his childish antics and kick my cat when his irritating behavior bothers me too much.

(kidding on the cat part of course)

(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 182
RE: B-Mod Update - 7/28/2019 7:10:52 PM   
Falken


Posts: 236
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline
For my side, i'm playing B-MOD (from the dec 2018 version) in a PBEM as the IJN. It is true that China is a real hard slug, but that is the point of the MOD. After the initial slight progression early on, we've been basically at a stalemate in China. Mostly this is because of the heavy garrison requirements to maintain existing bases, and once you've captured one, you have to keep troops there to maintain the garrison levels. Unless you move a lot of troops from other areas, it's hard to make inroads, but again, that was the point of that aspect of the mod.

Anyway, we are in June 1942 in our game, and it's been really good.

(in reply to Moltrey)
Post #: 183
RE: B-Mod Update - 7/28/2019 10:08:55 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5300
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

For my side, i'm playing B-MOD (from the dec 2018 version) in a PBEM as the IJN. It is true that China is a real hard slug, but that is the point of the MOD. After the initial slight progression early on, we've been basically at a stalemate in China. Mostly this is because of the heavy garrison requirements to maintain existing bases, and once you've captured one, you have to keep troops there to maintain the garrison levels. Unless you move a lot of troops from other areas, it's hard to make inroads, but again, that was the point of that aspect of the mod.


+1

Perhaps the Chinese Army has been over-strengthened some too. I'm not a Japanese Player but the one thing I do know is that IRL the key to winning the stalemated war in China WAS NOT declaring war on the "rest of the world" (in several PBEMs the Japanese Player has pretty much completely overrun China and I can't see any point to it if that is not the key to a Japanese victory).

Just curious though. The Vichy French had an army in Indo-China of roughly 50,000 men (mostly colonial troops). Although the Japanese let the Vichy French administer the colony throughout most of the war (until 1945 Anyways the garrison requirement for all of Indo-China: 120 AV, seems pretty small compared to both the size of region and the potentially hostile forces present. Although the IJA/IJN begins the Stock Campaign with a lot more AV than required I would guess that they needed a lot more than 1 regiment of garrison troops. They certainly used a lot more than that to "disarm" the Vichy troops in 1945 (and by that time they were dealing with small scale attacks by the Viet Minh).

(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 184
RE: B-Mod Update - 7/30/2019 12:32:39 AM   
Falken


Posts: 236
Joined: 8/8/2007
From: ON, Canada
Status: offline
Hi darbycmcd,

if your opponent doesn't mind revealing it, do you think that he may have found a "bug/issue" in the mod that allows your opponent to amass such an AV LCU force?

Wondering if the "static" LCUs are not being restricted as they should, or if the garrison numbers aren't high enough for the Allies. On the IJN side, as you know, is pretty high. Maybe the Chinese side needs adjusting?

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 185
RE: B-Mod Update - 7/30/2019 1:47:57 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5300
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

Wondering if the "static" LCUs are not being restricted as they should, or if the garrison numbers aren't high enough for the Allies.


I haven't checked every city in my AI game vs the Japanese but it looks like the ALLIED garrison requirements for Chinese cities are double those in the Stock Scenario 1. Some that have no garrison requirement at all in Stock have a garrison requirement in B-Mod.

I have noted that initially a number of Regional Corps for the Chinese and all Warlord units have their movement button greyed out. I believe if they have been retreated by combat that the static part of their TO&E is destroyed so they will be able to move after that (but since this game is only in Jan 42 they would not have been able to build back up to strength if they first retreated).

I did notice that the ALLIED garrison requirement for Ichang (the only place captured from the Japanese in my AI game) is only 20 AV. This suggests that a solution to this sort of problem (as in the above game) would be to make the ALLIED garrison requirements for captured cities absorb a bunch of the attacking units as a garrison requirement (this would require a bunch more testing to get the levels correct - one game does not a valid sample make)

(in reply to Falken)
Post #: 186
RE: B-Mod Update - 7/30/2019 2:37:10 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
This is interesting.

Someone pointed out to me in a PM that of the 29 Chinese corps locked down as static, they can be divided ...and 2/3 of the total is instantly mobile - that's a lot of AV.
I can fix that in an update so it can't happen, sorry if you're being 'exploited; in your game. Players, like kids, push the bounds as far as they can.
However, in the mean time - reinforce from Japan, use your massive advantage in Air power/artillery/armor to break him down.

I'm interested as you are to see if he slows down.

Brian

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbycmcd

Hi there. Just a quick note. I started a game with your mod against a new player a month or so ago. We are just into Jan 42 so quite early. I would say that I think maybe you over did the beefy Chinese army a bit. Already my op has several multi-thousand point stacks rampaging around the countryside, and I can't concentrate force to do anything about it. I have lost several locations and he has almost 5000 AV attacking Hankow now, 1500 at Wuchang, a couple thousand at Kaifeng. That is just the stuff actually attacking locations. Add the 1000 points at Wenchow and Wuchow, there just isn't much scope for Japanese action. It is not the case that Japan can't be aggressive, it is that Japan is probably going to be pushed into the sea. The very large bump in starting AV plus the additional supply may have pushed the balance a bit too far, at least that is what seems to be happening in our game now.

We are going to keep it going and see what happens, but honestly I think this is a blowout for the Allies by the end of 42. The only way to avoid it is massive reinforcements, but then nothing will be going to other areas of operation. But we shall see!



_____________________________


(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 187
RE: B-Mod Update - 7/30/2019 3:13:32 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
You are correct spence, the movement for static units are grayed out - but as you assumed - they will become mobile thereafter if forced to retreat - that is working as designed.
The point of that was to create the tar baby of conquering Chinese locations, which will serve to create more Chinese offensive power in the long run...making further conquest or even holding gains tougher.

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Wondering if the "static" LCUs are not being restricted as they should, or if the garrison numbers aren't high enough for the Allies.


I haven't checked every city in my AI game vs the Japanese but it looks like the ALLIED garrison requirements for Chinese cities are double those in the Stock Scenario 1. Some that have no garrison requirement at all in Stock have a garrison requirement in B-Mod.

I have noted that initially a number of Regional Corps for the Chinese and all Warlord units have their movement button greyed out. I believe if they have been retreated by combat that the static part of their TO&E is destroyed so they will be able to move after that (but since this game is only in Jan 42 they would not have been able to build back up to strength if they first retreated).

I did notice that the ALLIED garrison requirement for Ichang (the only place captured from the Japanese in my AI game) is only 20 AV. This suggests that a solution to this sort of problem (as in the above game) would be to make the ALLIED garrison requirements for captured cities absorb a bunch of the attacking units as a garrison requirement (this would require a bunch more testing to get the levels correct - one game does not a valid sample make)



< Message edited by Big B -- 7/31/2019 1:29:34 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 188
RE: B-Mod Update - 7/30/2019 5:52:26 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5300
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
Not a big deal but at least one aircraft that could have played a role in an invasion of Japan in late 1945/46 has been omitted: the PV-2D. It was designed as an Attack Bomber with 8 fixed forward firing .50 cal MGs (plus a top turret with 2 more). 500 were ordered but the contract was cancelled in Sept 45 right after Japan surrendered. 8 of the order were completed.

A photo of one of those completed can be found at:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Lockheed-Vega-PV-2D-Harpoon-L-15/1075263

(in reply to darbycmcd)
Post #: 189
RE: B-Mod Update - 7/31/2019 12:48:30 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Do ya think it will last til 1946?
I'll look into it.

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Not a big deal but at least one aircraft that could have played a role in an invasion of Japan in late 1945/46 has been omitted: the PV-2D. It was designed as an Attack Bomber with 8 fixed forward firing .50 cal MGs (plus a top turret with 2 more). 500 were ordered but the contract was cancelled in Sept 45 right after Japan surrendered. 8 of the order were completed.

A photo of one of those completed can be found at:

https://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Lockheed-Vega-PV-2D-Harpoon-L-15/1075263



_____________________________


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 190
RE: B-Mod Update - 7/31/2019 5:02:08 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Updated and tested to fix any possible exploit to static Chinese units dividing to gain mobility.


_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 191
RE: B-Mod Update - 8/28/2019 3:02:18 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2143
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
Hi Brian - Thanks so much for your fantastic ship art, the "shipyard" is amazing!

I'm working on a "revolving ship sides" project that makes use of the 700+ series of ships used in B-Mod (and featured in the rev5 "Direct Replacement" download). That involved a careful perusal of Scenario 197 in the Editor, where I spotted a possible problem. As you can see in the attachment, the CA Kent ship class in 853 through 855 references two .bmp files that are not included in the ship-art download, specifically AnSide0788.bmp and AnSide0789.bmp. An oversight, or just a version of CA Kent that never made it into the mod?



Also, way back in the day TOMLABEL posted a couple previews featuring ship art that is not in your download file. Specifically the late war camo for several APAs:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Other stuff on the way........





As well as these tasty AOs:

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

How 'bout some AOs?





Any chance those could make it into an updated download file?


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Kull -- 8/28/2019 3:03:13 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 192
RE: B-Mod Update - 8/28/2019 1:57:53 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Hello Kull,
Good find! Yes that's an oversite.

New beasties uploaded in the art files on the web site.
No restart required, just upload.

Thanks!

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Hi Brian - Thanks so much for your fantastic ship art, the "shipyard" is amazing!

I'm working on a "revolving ship sides" project that makes use of the 700+ series of ships used in B-Mod (and featured in the rev5 "Direct Replacement" download). That involved a careful perusal of Scenario 197 in the Editor, where I spotted a possible problem. As you can see in the attachment, the CA Kent ship class in 853 through 855 references two .bmp files that are not included in the ship-art download, specifically AnSide0788.bmp and AnSide0789.bmp. An oversight, or just a version of CA Kent that never made it into the mod?








Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Big B -- 8/28/2019 3:37:53 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 193
RE: B-Mod Update - 8/28/2019 6:56:42 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2143
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

New beasties uploaded in the art files on the web site.





One more? I hadn't noticed earlier, but there's a shil without a corresponding side: AnShil0790.bmp

In comparing it to some of the other files, it *appears* to be an alternate camo scheme for HMS Renown. Yes?

Edit: Make that two. There's also AnShil0787.bmp, although that looks identical to AnShil0777.bmp

Edit2: It appears that neither 0777 nor 0787 are used in your mod, but that's probably OK since they are almost identical to the 6/42 upgrade for BB Tennessee (AnSide0013.bmp)

< Message edited by Kull -- 8/28/2019 7:40:24 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 194
RE: B-Mod Update - 8/28/2019 8:00:11 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Yes, #790 was for an alt Renown(and was recently removed), while nos 777 & 787 are also not used, and are of no consequence.

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

New beasties uploaded in the art files on the web site.





One more? I hadn't noticed earlier, but there's a shil without a corresponding side: AnShil0790.bmp

In comparing it to some of the other files, it *appears* to be an alternate camo scheme for HMS Renown. Yes?

Edit: Make that two. There's also AnShil0787.bmp, although that looks identical to AnShil0777.bmp

Edit2: It appears that neither 0777 nor 0787 are used in your mod, but that's probably OK since they are almost identical to the 6/42 upgrade for BB Tennessee (AnSide0013.bmp)



_____________________________


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 195
RE: B-Mod Update - 10/12/2019 5:12:27 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2143
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
Hi Brian - I spotted an error in the "Direct Replacement_Alliedship_Shils_rev6.zip" file. Your AnShil0244.bmp is an Allied Battleship (a copy of AnShil0250.bmp) and it overwrites the correct shil for the Saipan-class CVL. Also, there are 627 files in the shil download, but only 289 in the sides download. It looks like most of these shils are WitP-AE originals, so you could significantly reduce the size of the download by only including those which are associated with your new sides.

Of less concern (but something you might want to fix), the sides download contains a pair of superfluous files. The first ("AnSide0182.bmp") is a duplicate of an existing file (you can tell by the background), while "AnSide0213 - Copy.bmp" is just a mistake.

_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 196
RE: B-Mod Update - 10/13/2019 8:04:14 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Kull,

EDIT: It appears that the Wright and Saipan are not in the Data Base, and therefore do not appear in the game.

Brian


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Hi Brian - I spotted an error in the "Direct Replacement_Alliedship_Shils_rev6.zip" file. Your AnShil0244.bmp is an Allied Battleship (a copy of AnShil0250.bmp) and it overwrites the correct shil for the Saipan-class CVL. Also, there are 627 files in the shil download, but only 289 in the sides download. It looks like most of these shils are WitP-AE originals, so you could significantly reduce the size of the download by only including those which are associated with your new sides.

Of less concern (but something you might want to fix), the sides download contains a pair of superfluous files. The first ("AnSide0182.bmp") is a duplicate of an existing file (you can tell by the background), while "AnSide0213 - Copy.bmp" is just a mistake.



< Message edited by Big B -- 10/14/2019 3:23:19 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 197
RE: B-Mod Update - 10/13/2019 8:14:46 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2143
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
Happy to help. The reason I find this stuff is because your art is lovely, and I definitely use it! In addition to the amazing "camo friendly" updates to the Allied units, it was a tremendous relief (but not really a surprise) when I discovered that all your newer Japanese sides are in full accord with the early-to-mid war "bluish gray" paint employed by the Japanese shipyards. Great work!

_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 198
RE: B-Mod Update - 10/13/2019 8:18:19 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Thanks,
Yeah, the Japanese sides being in correct color was no accident - it was researched quite a number of years ago


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Happy to help. The reason I find this stuff is because your art is lovely, and I definitely use it! In addition to the amazing "camo friendly" updates to the Allied units, it was a tremendous relief (but not really a surprise) when I discovered that all your newer Japanese sides are in full accord with the early-to-mid war "bluish gray" paint employed by the Japanese shipyards. Great work!



_____________________________


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 199
RE: B-Mod Update - 10/14/2019 11:18:19 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2143
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Kull,

EDIT: It appears that the Wright and Saipan are not in the Data Base, and therefore do not appear in the game.

Brian


On the "Wright", I'm not sure what you are referring to. AV Wright definitely is in many (if not all) databases, and I'm not aware of any other ships with that name.

As for CVL Saipan, "it's complicated"

I maintain a game folder that is 100% vanilla, i.e. only the base game plus the v1.26a downloads from Matrix. In that system, you are correct, the CVL Saipan class does not exist in the Scenario #1 database. Or any of the other "standard" scenarios I looked at.

Even so, that vanilla game folder definitely includes a shipside named AnSide0244.bmp, which is a carrier, not a battleship.

Digging a little further (i.e in my "working game" folder), I discovered the CVL Saipan class (using the 0244.bmp file) is included in the DaBigBabes-A database (and perhaps in others, but that's the only one I've installed). Keep in mind that all ships required for the DaBabes mods are included in the Matrix 1.126a update, which means the "overwrite" will affect anybody who installs your direct replacement download AND is playing a DaBabes mod.

Long story short, it's a problem so you should make that fix.

_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 200
RE: B-Mod Update - 10/15/2019 3:28:32 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
I can work out a fix for that

Fix uploaded, done

< Message edited by Big B -- 10/15/2019 3:57:27 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 201
RE: B-Mod Update - 10/15/2019 4:54:19 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2143
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I can work out a fix for that

Fix uploaded, done




_____________________________


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 202
RE: B-Mod Update - 11/18/2019 3:05:18 AM   
joliverlay

 

Posts: 619
Joined: 1/28/2003
Status: offline
Just started a PBM as Allied, and found a bug I've never seen before.

On December 8th if I withdrawl the 19BG/30BS (B17D) from Clark Field, which I usually do when it gets bombed on December 7th, instead of showing up 60 days later in San Fran. with no planes set to B17D, it now appears the next day on the east cost with 10 B-29-25 Superforts.

I suspect there is a problem with the departure/arrival. The HQ/squadron appears as normal in 60 days. I can reproduce this in a reloaded game against Japanese AI on turn 1 by looking at arrivals screen immediately after it withdraw it.

I guess I'll part it somewhere out of the way and bring it on when it was supposed to return in late 44 or early 45. I'll check the unit history.

Otherwise I really like this mod.


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 203
RE: B-Mod Update - 11/18/2019 1:54:09 PM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
That's odd, I've never seen that before...let me check that out (and fix)
quote:

ORIGINAL: joliverlay

Just started a PBM as Allied, and found a bug I've never seen before.

On December 8th if I withdrawl the 19BG/30BS (B17D) from Clark Field, which I usually do when it gets bombed on December 7th, instead of showing up 60 days later in San Fran. with no planes set to B17D, it now appears the next day on the east cost with 10 B-29-25 Superforts.

I suspect there is a problem with the departure/arrival. The HQ/squadron appears as normal in 60 days. I can reproduce this in a reloaded game against Japanese AI on turn 1 by looking at arrivals screen immediately after it withdraw it.

I guess I'll part it somewhere out of the way and bring it on when it was supposed to return in late 44 or early 45. I'll check the unit history.

Otherwise I really like this mod.




EDIT: The withdrawal date got erased - reset now back to stock.
Fixed scenario uploaded.

Thanks,
B

< Message edited by Big B -- 11/18/2019 2:04:40 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to joliverlay)
Post #: 204
Page:   <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: B-Mod Update Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 6 [7]
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

0.234