Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Improving Grand Campaing scen#1

 
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 >> Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 6/29/2019 9:55:47 AM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 1869
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline
I finally got to Japan figure out her resources reserved and noticed it was inaccurate. She should have enough resources for six months, in my calculation I got around three months. So while using the editor, only highest field I can enter under resources are 999,999. Having too many of those in low installations (bases) will cause it to spoil. So manage to do some testing and finally got it where feel about right and unfort I had to change the inputs and outputs on these centers...

Oil Center will produce 10 oils. (untouch)
Resource Center will produce 12 resources (instead of 20).
Heavy Industrial require 1 fuel + 10 resources (instead of 20) = 2 supplies and 2 HIs. *Note Japan didn't use much fuels for HIs, mostly from coal burning, etc. Use 1 instead of 2.
Light Industrial require only 5 (instead of 15) resources = 1 supply point. *Note only change Light Industry usage 5 resources instead of *was(10)15, that's half what Heavy Industry use.
Oil Refinery require 10 oils = 9 fuels and 1 supply point. (untouch)
Manpower Center generate 3 (instead of 5).

So this setup is the only way it will work above.
Japan need 13,825 resources for Light Industry and 50,170 resources for Heavy Industry. She will generate 9,312 resources on her own and behind -4,513 resources to make up for complete Light Industry. So sometime after six months better have positive resources or not be able to make any Heavy Industrial Points. Also need 5,017 fuels to make up for this.

Since some changed have been made, decided to reduce the payloads for those merchant ships by 33% and will not touch the troop transports. This included Allies as well.

Also added some Daily Supplies (free) in bases, these supplies will run in from fishing villages, nearby farms, residence's basement, underground networks, etc. Similar to partisans that are hidden in the areas.

Been messing with this editor for over a month, almost finish up the Soviets. Still a long way to go. After played it few times in the last four or five years and noticed some stats on units, devices or even the setups in the game, doesn't feel right or at least I wanted to do some changes to it.

I do like to hear some feedbacks from you guys, what you think I should do and don't. When I started working on the Soviets, noticed some units are alittle off with XP, Morale, etc. Even added extra features for the Soviets, so they can produce supplies. But still there a lot of things all over the place need to be growing, instead of having full strength industries. Also noticed most of all these Soviet reforcements were close to full strength before they are deployed. Infact should have been breaking down to at least 90%, cause take time to put these units together and most men and equipment were sent to Western Fronts. Depending on the units, some were pretty skilled and withdrawal to the Western Fronts.

One thing that bother me is that, when the units is deployed, wanted to place it Soviet Union, rather having them put in front line. The fortress of course will be placed where ever they are setup, of course the strength of the fort will be down to 90%. It will take time for that fort to develop rather having all that setup right way.

Have lower the experiences (XP) for most units and boost morale in some. For example, Region Fort, reduce the XP down to 60 and morale up to 65, the reasons I boost the morale, cause they feel protected or safe. Did the same thing for armored units as well. Regular troops will have at least 50 morale instead of 60 or 65, esp the recruited one. Some special forces will have minor boost, except for experience that are being recruited.

By the time I looked into the aircrafts and air groups, noticed some guns were way too high in accurate, I mean over 108 accurate!!! So I lowered it down to reasonable numbers compare to others. I did some research on those devices, nothing special compare to others. Now some aircrafts are alittle off as well, for example maneuverable craft. I did some research on MiGG-3, that aircraft is almost like a American P-51. So this MiGG-3 wasn't good at low altitude and it was meant for high altitude, so changing the numbers on those maneuver depending on the altitude, the higher the better compare some aircrafts. Took me awhile to set this up for all Soviet planes. Least I got it pretty well balance, also noticed only fighters and fighter-bombers have maneuver rating, so I put this on all aircraft regardless.

Also some of these planes are highly agile, but it doesn't mean it will do well in the air or even hit the targets with their armaments. For example, I-15bis, a standard biplane with good maneuver for lower altitude and it wasn't good aircraft to control that is trying to shoot at something, I-153s were even worst, cause it wobble pretty bad that doesn't have proper airframe or for its size. So this is why I lowered the accurate of those guns.

So the best Soviet interceptors are MIGG-3, Yak Series and La Series compare to Focke-Wulf 190 Series. Also reduce most air group size, most of them are way too big. Some Soviet air groups will be half of that size even reforcements too.

And now I wanted to add Armament and Vehicle Factories in Soviet Union, for some reasons it was invisible and dunno why. I mess with it, couldn't tell if it was doing anything, so I removed it. But I did however add some aircraft productions in Soviet Union, wanted to add aircraft's engine factories, but wasn't sure if that was working or not.

Finally finish up the Chinese, look like it will be pretty good setup there. But China is limited what they can do and her industrial zones is rather low.

< Message edited by Rising-Sun -- 7/19/2019 12:48:42 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 6/29/2019 5:08:00 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2389
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
What you propose is a massive change in the economy for Japan, and makes them much, much stronger than real life.

By halving the fuel needed by HI, you've effectively halved Japanese fuel consumption. That's massive.

Halving the resources needed for LI, you've also halved the Japanese demand for resources. That's also massive (and the whole reason for the war in the first place.

Changes to oil, resources and refineries does not balance the above decisions you've made.

I am now very wary of these supposed "improvements" to Scen 1...

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 2
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 6/30/2019 9:01:46 AM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 1869
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What you propose is a massive change in the economy for Japan, and makes them much, much stronger than real life.

By halving the fuel needed by HI, you've effectively halved Japanese fuel consumption. That's massive.

Halving the resources needed for LI, you've also halved the Japanese demand for resources. That's also massive (and the whole reason for the war in the first place.

Changes to oil, resources and refineries does not balance the above decisions you've made.

I am now very wary of these supposed "improvements" to Scen 1...


Things will change for Japan as well. Not trying to make Japan stronger at all. Just that some numbers in some areas doesn't add up.

Halving the fuel needed for HI was necessary, things will change in Japan too.

Halving the resources needed for LI was also necessary, compare to HI doesn't make any sense, it was way too high. This will be useful for small bases to get some supplies rather daily (free) supplies. As long they have the resources pouring in.

And you don't have to play this grand campaign, something I want to do for myself. Been wanted to do this some years back, been caught up with life and other issues.

< Message edited by Rising-Sun -- 6/30/2019 9:02:16 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 3
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 6/30/2019 9:51:29 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 3853
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
I do't get it. You cannot alter scenarios 001 to 025 in the Editor since these slots are reserved for the devs. So you must be taking scen 001 and saving is as i.e scen026, right?

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 4
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 6/30/2019 12:25:59 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 1869
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

I do't get it. You cannot alter scenarios 001 to 025 in the Editor since these slots are reserved for the devs. So you must be taking scen 001 and saving is as i.e scen026, right?


That is correct, I cannot or wont mess with the original scen #1, leave that as it is, since they made it.

Got this one saved as slot #50 for now.

@mind_messing, I can understand that not much resources are pouring in LIs that should have been 15. Sadly there isn't no aviation fuels in the game for aircraft usages. So I will put 10 resources for LI instead of 8, that is half of what HIs uses.

I am hoping to finish up this project by December, try out Japan and see how it feels.


< Message edited by Rising-Sun -- 6/30/2019 12:29:51 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 5
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 6/30/2019 1:17:46 PM   
sanderz

 

Posts: 853
Joined: 1/8/2009
From: Devon, England
Status: offline
What are the new (total) levels of production of Fuel/Oil/LI/HI/Resources compared to scenario 1?

< Message edited by sanderz -- 6/30/2019 1:19:50 PM >

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 6
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 6/30/2019 3:34:47 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2389
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rising-Sun

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What you propose is a massive change in the economy for Japan, and makes them much, much stronger than real life.

By halving the fuel needed by HI, you've effectively halved Japanese fuel consumption. That's massive.

Halving the resources needed for LI, you've also halved the Japanese demand for resources. That's also massive (and the whole reason for the war in the first place.

Changes to oil, resources and refineries does not balance the above decisions you've made.

I am now very wary of these supposed "improvements" to Scen 1...


Things will change for Japan as well. Not trying to make Japan stronger at all. Just that some numbers in some areas doesn't add up.


You are making Japan fundamentally far more powerful both by reducing the dependency on oil for industry, as well as freeing more fuel for naval operations.

With your proposed changes, the IJ player can increase by 80% his HI on turn 1 and have no adverse effects. That's massive.

quote:

And you don't have to play this grand campaign, something I want to do for myself. Been wanted to do this some years back, been caught up with life and other issues.


I have no issue with you making a mod to suit yourself. I do object to presenting it as an improvement on Scen 1, when in fact you're making large changes to the core economy of the game.



(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 7
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 6/30/2019 4:05:09 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1619
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
But why Soviets? Who cares about Soviets? Most games don't even reach point, when they become active. And then, it is just force strength difference, not some T-34 statistics. They flood Korea with pure numbers.

As for industry modification, you should check late game AARs. I would say, from my observations, those are main problem points:
1. Japan produces too few supplies. They seem to have shortage already in 1944, even if Allies don't interfere much. USA produces far too much supplies (like several millions wasting at the end of 1942 on West Coast).
2. There is too few oil. Most games, which reach 1945 have all oil in DEI sucked dry already.
3. There is some shortage of fuel, Japan have to scale their fleet movement even during success into 1944.
4. There is far too low demand for Resources. I am using maybe 10% of my Cargo Capacity for that purpose. Losing even half of your Transport Fleet, wouldn't influence your carrying capacities in any way. So instead of lowering demand for LI, you should probably increase it for HI.
5. Manpower is completely irrelevant. You have so much surplus, it could not even exist as a resource.

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 8
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 6/30/2019 4:26:03 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 3853
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
ad 4. In the game, civilian population is not simulated. Thus, as Japan, you have surplus cargo ships which, in the wartime, carried resources for civilians like rice from Thailand. Also, supply production is universal, further reducing the need to use merchant marine, since you can fight in Burma on supplies generated in Indochina or Malaya.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 9
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 6/30/2019 10:17:14 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5108
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
The Japanese STARTED the war short by several million tons of merchant shipping needed to keep their economy going and population fed. The IJA and IJN had borrowed some of that to support the initial expansion of the empire and tended not to return it to serving the needs of the economy/civilian population. The USN submarine offensive aggravated this shortage tremendously thus by 1944 the TOKYO TIMES was publishing "delicious" recipes for grass for the average housewife to "enjoy" serving up to bheir family. Then by 1945 the B-29 mining offensive against Japanese waters eclipsed the submarine offensive and brought the Japanese population in the cities across the threshold to outright starvation.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 10
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/1/2019 8:53:43 AM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 1869
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sanderz

What are the new (total) levels of production of Fuel/Oil/LI/HI/Resources compared to scenario 1?


It will be pretty much the same, just alittle different. I haven't gotten to Japan yet, but I do remember it will be change in minor ways. Just have to see it for yourself when it is done.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rising-Sun

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

What you propose is a massive change in the economy for Japan, and makes them much, much stronger than real life.

By halving the fuel needed by HI, you've effectively halved Japanese fuel consumption. That's massive.

Halving the resources needed for LI, you've also halved the Japanese demand for resources. That's also massive (and the whole reason for the war in the first place.

Changes to oil, resources and refineries does not balance the above decisions you've made.

I am now very wary of these supposed "improvements" to Scen 1...


Things will change for Japan as well. Not trying to make Japan stronger at all. Just that some numbers in some areas doesn't add up.


You are making Japan fundamentally far more powerful both by reducing the dependency on oil for industry, as well as freeing more fuel for naval operations.

With your proposed changes, the IJ player can increase by 80% his HI on turn 1 and have no adverse effects. That's massive.

quote:

And you don't have to play this grand campaign, something I want to do for myself. Been wanted to do this some years back, been caught up with life and other issues.


I have no issue with you making a mod to suit yourself. I do object to presenting it as an improvement on Scen 1, when in fact you're making large changes to the core economy of the game.


Yeah that the problems, Japan was getting too much HIs at the beginning and Japan had enough resources and oils for six months. Resource pool, are not accurate. So this is why I am changing it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

But why Soviets? Who cares about Soviets? Most games don't even reach point, when they become active. And then, it is just force strength difference, not some T-34 statistics. They flood Korea with pure numbers.

As for industry modification, you should check late game AARs. I would say, from my observations, those are main problem points:
1. Japan produces too few supplies. They seem to have shortage already in 1944, even if Allies don't interfere much. USA produces far too much supplies (like several millions wasting at the end of 1942 on West Coast).
2. There is too few oil. Most games, which reach 1945 have all oil in DEI sucked dry already.
3. There is some shortage of fuel, Japan have to scale their fleet movement even during success into 1944.
4. There is far too low demand for Resources. I am using maybe 10% of my Cargo Capacity for that purpose. Losing even half of your Transport Fleet, wouldn't influence your carrying capacities in any way. So instead of lowering demand for LI, you should probably increase it for HI.
5. Manpower is completely irrelevant. You have so much surplus, it could not even exist as a resource.


Soviet happen to be my first step, just wanted to go over details. Pretty much almost done, moving to China now. But the Manpower is going to be completely different in this scenario. Soviet strength in ground forces were way off, most should have been 10-20% strength when recruited. And some were sent off to Western Fronts deal with the germans and came back with alittle more experiences.
I don't want to over do this whole Pacific, by giving extra resources or supplies. There already been so many bases having daily supplies (free supplies) and want to add those industrial make up for it. But Most Allies will have to build up to be more effective, when the Japanese hit Pearl, USA wasn't at full strength in industrial regions and that will take several years to do.

Also players in PBEM will give more options to choose from on all sides, decide what to expand, repair, etc. For there liking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

The Japanese STARTED the war short by several million tons of merchant shipping needed to keep their economy going and population fed. The IJA and IJN had borrowed some of that to support the initial expansion of the empire and tended not to return it to serving the needs of the economy/civilian population. The USN submarine offensive aggravated this shortage tremendously thus by 1944 the TOKYO TIMES was publishing "delicious" recipes for grass for the average housewife to "enjoy" serving up to bheir family. Then by 1945 the B-29 mining offensive against Japanese waters eclipsed the submarine offensive and brought the Japanese population in the cities across the threshold to outright starvation.


That is correct, that is why I trying to do some changed to the scenario here.

Anyway once I get this going, gonna let the two sides running my computer and see how it plays out. Will be going over the details a lot trying to get things in order.
For example, Force Z should have arrive Dec 9/10 not to sink at 7th of Decemeber. Fuchida, Mitsuo (captain) should have been on abord Akagi as Akagi-3 leader.
Going to add Midwestern USA Base as well, that included Oklahoma and Texas. This base has some good production as well, esp aircrafts.
Some misspelling in the game, etc.

So this is why I am doing this for my parts. You guys don't have to like it and please don't flame the thread.

< Message edited by Rising-Sun -- 7/1/2019 9:09:56 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to sanderz)
Post #: 11
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/1/2019 10:14:20 AM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2389
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
quote:


Yeah that the problems, Japan was getting too much HIs at the beginning and Japan had enough resources and oils for six months. Resource pool, are not accurate. So this is why I am changing it.


I don't follow - Japanese HI is more or less constant (depending on conquests) throughout the entire war.

quote:


Also players in PBEM will give more options to choose from on all sides, decide what to expand, repair, etc. For there liking.


In practice, you're going to massively over-power Japan. Japanese players have, for quite some time, been exceptionally effective at min-maxing air production.


quote:

So this is why I am doing this for my parts. You guys don't have to like it and please don't flame the thread.


Nobody has any issue with you changing the game scenarios to suit yourself. The issue is presenting it as an improvement to Scenario 1, when the changes you're making will have a massive negative effect on the balance of that scenario...

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 12
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/1/2019 10:24:08 AM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 1869
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:


Yeah that the problems, Japan was getting too much HIs at the beginning and Japan had enough resources and oils for six months. Resource pool, are not accurate. So this is why I am changing it.


I don't follow - Japanese HI is more or less constant (depending on conquests) throughout the entire war.

quote:


Also players in PBEM will give more options to choose from on all sides, decide what to expand, repair, etc. For there liking.


In practice, you're going to massively over-power Japan. Japanese players have, for quite some time, been exceptionally effective at min-maxing air production.


quote:

So this is why I am doing this for my parts. You guys don't have to like it and please don't flame the thread.


Nobody has any issue with you changing the game scenarios to suit yourself. The issue is presenting it as an improvement to Scenario 1, when the changes you're making will have a massive negative effect on the balance of that scenario...


1) Japan HIs and LIs wont change much, like I said I haven't gotten into that yet.
2) I will not over power Japan, wont be any fun of that. Just have to do what you can to survive.
3) Negative? You haven't even tried it yet.

_____________________________


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 13
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/1/2019 10:25:38 AM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 1869
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline
Anyway I am gonna to keep this close for now, still a lot to do in this project of mine. It look like people here are trying to cause negative and not being helpful.

So I probably keep this mod to myself.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 14
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/1/2019 10:34:38 AM   
Mandai

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 10/11/2016
Status: offline
Without suggesting too many changes to the stock scenario and upsetting vested interests, I have the following suggestions:

1. OHKA

This is not activated in the stock scenario. So the new Grand Campaign should "activate" the Ohkas.

There was a modification that introduced an end date to the production for Ohka 11 carried by the G4M2e. I would remove the end date - since with PDU on, the japanese may build many G4M2e - it will be absurd that G4M2e will run out of "weapon" by that end date. If they do not have Ohka 11, can an option be made for them to carry bombs?

The G4M2e is also a modification from G4M2 (literature can be found in google). Should an upgrade path be traced to the G4M2?

For players that disagree with this, they can opt to stand down all G4M2e when that end date for Ohka 11 arrive. Likewise, players can also not elect the upgrade path of G4M2 to G4M2e.

2. Rufe and Rex Float Fighter

Many players are puzzled that the Rufe can upgrade to A6M5. I cannot find any literature to support such an upgrade. However, N1K1 Rex Float Plane was used to design the N1K1-J George Fighter (google and you can find some literature on this). I would suggest incorporating an upgrade path for the Rex to the George.

Again, for players that disagree with this, they can continue to upgrade the Rufe to Zero and not use the Rex upgrade route even when its available.

3. Thai and French Units

There was a scenario mod that introduce these units. The new campaign can incorporate these LCU, air units and ships.

For players that disagree with this, they can disband these units at the start of the game and give up the victory points and political points that accrue.

4. Jap Transport Plane - Tabby

Literature claimed that Tabby is available in Dec 1941. The new campaign can make this available too.

However, for players that disagree with this, they can always hold off production until Jan 1944 or another date (per stock scenario)

5. Truck repair yard

This should be introduced with the Japanese player bounded by house rule not to increase the shipyard beyond a certain size.

Players that disagree with this can elect not to repair their ships at Truck shipyard.

My suggestion introduce options, not hard coded changes to the grand campaign. Players may agree to some suggestion and disagree with other, so if changes to resources, garrison requirements etc, that may lead to debates without resolution and hold up the campaign "improvements"

I am supportive of more suggestion along this line since I can choose play the scenario but not use the option.


(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 15
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/1/2019 12:23:07 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2389
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

1. OHKA

This is not activated in the stock scenario. So the new Grand Campaign should "activate" the Ohkas.

There was a modification that introduced an end date to the production for Ohka 11 carried by the G4M2e. I would remove the end date - since with PDU on, the japanese may build many G4M2e - it will be absurd that G4M2e will run out of "weapon" by that end date. If they do not have Ohka 11, can an option be made for them to carry bombs?

The G4M2e is also a modification from G4M2 (literature can be found in google). Should an upgrade path be traced to the G4M2?

For players that disagree with this, they can opt to stand down all G4M2e when that end date for Ohka 11 arrive. Likewise, players can also not elect the upgrade path of G4M2 to G4M2e.


This was fixed in a Scenario 1 database update, and can be found on the forum.

quote:

2. Rufe and Rex Float Fighter

Many players are puzzled that the Rufe can upgrade to A6M5. I cannot find any literature to support such an upgrade. However, N1K1 Rex Float Plane was used to design the N1K1-J George Fighter (google and you can find some literature on this). I would suggest incorporating an upgrade path for the Rex to the George.

Again, for players that disagree with this, they can continue to upgrade the Rufe to Zero and not use the Rex upgrade route even when its available.


Rationalizing upgrade paths is a good topic worth of discussion.

quote:


3. Thai and French Units

There was a scenario mod that introduce these units. The new campaign can incorporate these LCU, air units and ships.

For players that disagree with this, they can disband these units at the start of the game and give up the victory points and political points that accrue.




I personally feel that French Indochina units are better abstracted. As for the Thai Navy and Air Force, that's something worth considering.

quote:

4. Jap Transport Plane - Tabby

Literature claimed that Tabby is available in Dec 1941. The new campaign can make this available too.

However, for players that disagree with this, they can always hold off production until Jan 1944 or another date (per stock scenario)


The distinction should be made between an aircraft used in the utility role (eg as a courier plane) and a combat role (eg used to drop paratroopers). IIRC the Tabby's introduction rate reflects the latter.

quote:

5. Truck repair yard

This should be introduced with the Japanese player bounded by house rule not to increase the shipyard beyond a certain size.

Players that disagree with this can elect not to repair their ships at Truck shipyard.


Truk should never have a repair yard at all. IJN repair capabilities at Truk were very limited, and there was nothing approaching what a shipyard facility in game is representative of.

quote:

1) Japan HIs and LIs wont change much, like I said I haven't gotten into that yet.


In which case you need to seriously reconsider your proposals to Japanese industry. Your initial suggestions around Light and (especially) Heavy Industry seem small, but are in fact massive changes.

quote:


2) I will not over power Japan, wont be any fun of that. Just have to do what you can to survive.


By halving the fuel used by HI, you've given Japan a much, much more stable fuel situation. That has serious ramifications on Japanese capabilities across the entire game.

quote:

3) Negative? You haven't even tried it yet.


It's not off to a good start, and I question the logic behind a number of your design choices. To be specific:

- High accuracy aircraft weapons have high accuracy tied to rate-of-fire. The I-153s used an armaments package that had an absurd rate of fire.
- Tinkering with aircraft statistics without a good understanding of the game's metrics will be messy.
- Drawing down Soviet strength (ahistorically, I might add) has serious ramifications for game balance.

(in reply to Mandai)
Post #: 16
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/4/2019 2:14:33 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 1869
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mandai

Without suggesting too many changes to the stock scenario and upsetting vested interests, I have the following suggestions:

1. OHKA

This is not activated in the stock scenario. So the new Grand Campaign should "activate" the Ohkas.

There was a modification that introduced an end date to the production for Ohka 11 carried by the G4M2e. I would remove the end date - since with PDU on, the japanese may build many G4M2e - it will be absurd that G4M2e will run out of "weapon" by that end date. If they do not have Ohka 11, can an option be made for them to carry bombs?

The G4M2e is also a modification from G4M2 (literature can be found in google). Should an upgrade path be traced to the G4M2?

For players that disagree with this, they can opt to stand down all G4M2e when that end date for Ohka 11 arrive. Likewise, players can also not elect the upgrade path of G4M2 to G4M2e.

2. Rufe and Rex Float Fighter

Many players are puzzled that the Rufe can upgrade to A6M5. I cannot find any literature to support such an upgrade. However, N1K1 Rex Float Plane was used to design the N1K1-J George Fighter (google and you can find some literature on this). I would suggest incorporating an upgrade path for the Rex to the George.

Again, for players that disagree with this, they can continue to upgrade the Rufe to Zero and not use the Rex upgrade route even when its available.

3. Thai and French Units

There was a scenario mod that introduce these units. The new campaign can incorporate these LCU, air units and ships.

For players that disagree with this, they can disband these units at the start of the game and give up the victory points and political points that accrue.

4. Jap Transport Plane - Tabby

Literature claimed that Tabby is available in Dec 1941. The new campaign can make this available too.

However, for players that disagree with this, they can always hold off production until Jan 1944 or another date (per stock scenario)

5. Truck repair yard

This should be introduced with the Japanese player bounded by house rule not to increase the shipyard beyond a certain size.

Players that disagree with this can elect not to repair their ships at Truck shipyard.

My suggestion introduce options, not hard coded changes to the grand campaign. Players may agree to some suggestion and disagree with other, so if changes to resources, garrison requirements etc, that may lead to debates without resolution and hold up the campaign "improvements"

I am supportive of more suggestion along this line since I can choose play the scenario but not use the option.




Mandai, I will look into this, but can you expain what you mean by Truck Repair Yards? Do you have any leads, it really help though.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mandai)
Post #: 17
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/4/2019 6:26:56 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4563
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
I always thought that Japan gets too much resources from own territory and Korea.

There are also many things to fix in Japanese ships/weapons.

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 18
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/4/2019 6:30:27 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 1869
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

I always thought that Japan gets too much resources from own territory and Korea.

There are also many things to fix in Japanese ships/weapons.


Yeah its way too much. I believe they did that so AI wouldn't go broke in 1942, so mostly if you play Japan vs. AI should be interesting as well PBEMs.

Some years back, I had some fans wanted me to do something like this and didn't get a chance to catch up. Hopefully this time I will.

_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 19
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/4/2019 8:28:13 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3929
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
My impression as well. In my mod I have significantly reduced the resource centers in Japan and correspondingly increased those in the SRA. Fukuoka for example went from 960 to just 300. OTOH Babeldaop which has no resource center in stock, got 30 - that island was an important source for Bauxite and thus Japan's production of aluminium. Another example - Japan had secured significant pre-war mining rights in the SRA and in the British colony Malaya from the 1920s until 1945, the biggest and richest iron ore deposits known at that time in Southeast Asia - the Bukit Besi = Iron Hill mine, was exploited by the Nippon Mining Company, and the output went mostly to Japan. The location is missing in stock, it has 600 resource centers in my mod. However, my changes are pretty rough guesstimates, so if you get around to do some work on this topic, I would be interested in your results and your sources.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 20
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/4/2019 9:20:12 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16598
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
Whoever did the original Soviet database was a Soviet fanboy - or perhaps had a reason
to deliberately over-state statistics. The database is riddled with suspect or even
outrageous numbers.

With all things AE, which never had an editor, systematic review of data is in order.
If only we live long enough!

(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 21
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/5/2019 6:36:14 AM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 1869
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

My impression as well. In my mod I have significantly reduced the resource centers in Japan and correspondingly increased those in the SRA. Fukuoka for example went from 960 to just 300. OTOH Babeldaop which has no resource center in stock, got 30 - that island was an important source for Bauxite and thus Japan's production of aluminium. Another example - Japan had secured significant pre-war mining rights in the SRA and in the British colony Malaya from the 1920s until 1945, the biggest and richest iron ore deposits known at that time in Southeast Asia - the Bukit Besi = Iron Hill mine, was exploited by the Nippon Mining Company, and the output went mostly to Japan. The location is missing in stock, it has 600 resource centers in my mod. However, my changes are pretty rough guesstimates, so if you get around to do some work on this topic, I would be interested in your results and your sources.


Thank, I will look into this as well. I got pretty good sources on those resources and if you or any of you guys have any sources, please share them. I do agreed about those resources is off the scale in most places.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Whoever did the original Soviet database was a Soviet fanboy - or perhaps had a reason
to deliberately over-state statistics. The database is riddled with suspect or even
outrageous numbers.

With all things AE, which never had an editor, systematic review of data is in order.
If only we live long enough!


Oh yes, it was Soviet fanboy alright. Most units from the beginning were recruit (new units) with very little men and hardware in it, infact most were shipped off to deal with the Germans. I need to go over each units and making sure if this is correct and that going to take time to do. But I will do this part last, since it is end of the game. Funny all units after Germany surrenders got mostly 85 experience and morale, true that some did see some actions and some didn't. Rarely see any units get that high, but it is possible.

< Message edited by Rising-Sun -- 7/5/2019 6:41:16 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 22
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/7/2019 6:10:34 AM   
Mandai

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 10/11/2016
Status: offline
Sorry, I meant Truk.

Wikipedia has this in its Truk write up.

"Five airstrips, seaplane bases, a torpedo boat station, submarine repair shops, a communications center and a radar station were constructed during the war."

A nominal shipyard of size 3 should be included for Truk to reflect the repair shops. It will help:

a. repair seriously damaged japanese submarines and smaller vessels.
b. entice Allies to raid and damage the repair facilities.

A rule can be in place that this shipyard cannot be expanded beyond a limited size eg. 5? The allied player can police this by recon Truk by submarine or plane.

This inclusion of this will not affect any players as the japanese player can abstained (using house rules which this game is fond of) from using the repair yard and sail its small vessels all the way to Home Islands for serious repairs.


(in reply to Rising-Sun)
Post #: 23
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/7/2019 6:43:05 AM   
Mandai

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 10/11/2016
Status: offline
The current upgrade paths for japanese aircraft is puzzling.

Many of the recon, night fighters etc are variants of existing planes. For the japanese player to search R&D from scratch is not rational.

In the game, if there is an upgrade path, the R&D factories are not damaged. (a. Size is reduced, b. R&D will start from zero).

Using the "Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War" by R J Francillon and Japanese Aircraft Wire Chart by Hanzberger, I note the following can be adopted for the Japanese R&D.

The red text are departure from the suggested upgrade paths in the Stock Scenario.

For example, I have allowed A6M5 to upgrade to A6M2 Sen Baku. Players that disagree, can upgrade to it and immediately switch to A6M5b. That way the R&D factories will avoid damages and it is same as stock scenario, with no research done for the A6M2 Sen Baku, which is basically putting a larger 250kg bomb onto the A6M2.

For Ki 44 Tojo, the stock scenario used Sep 42 for both the Ki 44 and Ki 44 IIa, RJ Francillion book page 218 stated the Ki 44 was in production in Jan 42. To align this with historical fact, the change proposed was to start in Feb 42. For players that disagree, they can opt not to produce the Ki44 until Sep 42, which is the same as the stock scenario.

The allies does not have an R&D option. But if they can state the discrepancies noted in the stock scenario, they can also highlight it here for changes.

The proposed changes are not hard coded and players can agree among themselves which upgrade paths can be used before the start of the game, rather than being imposed by a stock scenario that requires R&D to start all over for variants of the same plane, eg. Ki 102 Randy.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Mandai -- 7/7/2019 7:08:45 AM >

(in reply to Mandai)
Post #: 24
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/8/2019 7:18:00 PM   
Rising-Sun


Posts: 1869
Joined: 11/5/2009
From: Clifton Park, NY
Status: offline
@Mandai, thanks for the inputs and I will look into it.

_____________________________


(in reply to Mandai)
Post #: 25
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/8/2019 9:52:13 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2389
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mandai

Sorry, I meant Truk.

Wikipedia has this in its Truk write up.

"Five airstrips, seaplane bases, a torpedo boat station, submarine repair shops, a communications center and a radar station were constructed during the war."

A nominal shipyard of size 3 should be included for Truk to reflect the repair shops. It will help:

a. repair seriously damaged japanese submarines and smaller vessels.
b. entice Allies to raid and damage the repair facilities.

A rule can be in place that this shipyard cannot be expanded beyond a limited size eg. 5? The allied player can police this by recon Truk by submarine or plane.

This inclusion of this will not affect any players as the japanese player can abstained (using house rules which this game is fond of) from using the repair yard and sail its small vessels all the way to Home Islands for serious repairs.



quote:

A nominal shipyard of size 3 should be included for Truk to reflect the repair shops. It will help:


Repair shops =/= shipyards.

The ability to actually conduct repairs at Truk was severely limited IRL. In game, you get a very good approximation for what repairs could be done at Truk from tenders + the 3k capacity ARD. There is no need for shipyards at Truk.

quote:

a. repair seriously damaged japanese submarines and smaller vessels.
b. entice Allies to raid and damage the repair facilities.



A: this can already be done by the 3k ARD at Truk + other specialized tenders types in game. Serious repairs require return to the Home Islands (as it did IRL).

B: if anything, adding a small shipyard will discourage the Allies from raiding Truk. Shipyards in game can be repaired. Tender type ships can be sunk via port attack (and stay sunk). Adding shipyards gives Japan a ahistorical, enhanced and exceptionally resilient repair capability at Truk.

(in reply to Mandai)
Post #: 26
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/11/2019 1:43:48 AM   
Mandai

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 10/11/2016
Status: offline
Mind_Messing

The war ended > 70 years ago, no one can prove if the sub repair shops cannot repair major damages. In my mind,the japanese naval commanders would be silly to build repair shops that cannot handle major submarine damages when quite a bit of their submarine fleet are in south pacific area.

Like all my other proposed change, players can decide among themselves using the "house rules" not to:

a) use the repair yard at Truk
b) limit the expansion of the repair yard at Truk

Introduction of the repair yard will increase flexibility for the players - just like one can decide if the US torpedoes should follow the historical dud rates at the start of the game.

By not including a repair yard at Truk, players cannot even choose. It is just like the designers can remove the dud torpedo choice at the game start and every US player will just have to go through the dud torpedo formula.

Personally, I am against "hard coding the modifications". eg changing garrison requirements, location of resources, new bases, formulas relating to production of HI, LI etc. Players cannot choose not to adopt it... and then choose not to play that mod...

If anything, why must expansion of HI, LI capacities be in 1,000 supplies? Economies of scale tells us that after a certain size, expansion should be cheaper..

But then, I am not the one working on the mod and every player will have different views on how much or little more supply should be used for expansion, and the forum will be flooded with views that bogged down the modification.

So I believe mods will have a wider following if players can decide which mod they would like to adopt and which one they can elect not to adopt.


(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 27
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/11/2019 2:01:56 PM   
Gridley380


Posts: 464
Joined: 12/20/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mandai

In my mind,the japanese naval commanders would be silly to build repair shops that cannot handle major submarine damages when quite a bit of their submarine fleet are in south pacific area.



You mean like it would be silly for the IJA and IJN not to cooperate closely?

Or like it would be silly to start a war without a large stockpile of fuel? Why didn't IJN commanders just build up a bigger stockpile?

(Hint: the answer to their second is that they would have loved to, and I'm sure they would have loved to build major repair shops all across the Pacific. They lacked the resources to do that, or at least the resources to do that while doing everything else they needed to do.)

(in reply to Mandai)
Post #: 28
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/11/2019 7:19:38 PM   
mind_messing

 

Posts: 2389
Joined: 10/28/2013
From: Glasgow, Scotland
Status: offline
quote:

The war ended > 70 years ago, no one can prove if the sub repair shops cannot repair major damages.


Yes you can. Check the TROM for major IJN warships. You'll see plenty of cases where warships put in to Truk for patching up before going back to Japan.

AFAIK, no major warship underwent serious repair in Truk, though my knowledge is far from perfect. Feel free to prove me wrong here.

You may or may not have seen Bullwinkle around on the forums. He's a former bubblehead and was critical of the speed with which submarines can be repaired in game. It's not easy to get at the complex, constricted machinery in a submarine, and doubly so to do so when you don't have proper repair facilities (which Truk definitely did not have).

quote:

In my mind,the japanese naval commanders would be silly to build repair shops that cannot handle major submarine damages when quite a bit of their submarine fleet are in south pacific area.


The more you learn about the IJN, the more you realize that they actually were quite silly in regards to anything that wasn't orientated towards combat. The IJN fleet train, for example, left a lot to be desired.

There was some good stuff from Symon (one of the AE devs) on what facilities Truk actually had from Japanese sources - I'll try to dig it up. That's another big point: if the US Navy says that Truk had a submarine repair yard, it does not automatically mean that it can conduct full repairs. It may just be four walls and a roof with a bunch of spare parts and a couple greasemonkeys.

(in reply to Mandai)
Post #: 29
RE: Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 - 7/12/2019 12:19:17 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5588
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
It is not a good idea to produce a scenario for public distribution which requires a HR.  Plenty of players don't believe in HRs which would therefore result in a known unbalancing in favour of one side.  The unbalancing is more obvious when the required HR only ties down one side.

In this instance even with the adoption of a HR regarding Truk, there is a structural impact which cannot be reversed even with a HR.  The point is that AE is built on abstractions..  Not every thing found in the historical record can or should be attempted to be incorporated within this game engine.

Alfred 

(in reply to mind_messing)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Improving Grand Campaing scen#1 Page: [1] 2   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

0.234