Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Note for Modders

 
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 >> Note for Modders Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Note for Modders - 2/21/2021 1:43:14 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15121
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
OK I have written many scenarios and have now played a few mods one in particular and I have a few observations for modders.

1. Be really careful with adding new wonder weapons they are frequently over powered especially if the Japanese can research them in one game I had a 400mph, armoured, cannon heavy, 20 x 500Lb Japanese 4E in March 42 and could build thousands of them it was a game breaker we nerfed it 3 times before just making it equal to a B24 as the final nerf !!! - Aircraft like this especially if they can be researched are just game breaking so take some care.

2. The air model depends on people being reasonable and quasi historical if one or both players use lots of high level sweeps - there is NO defence against it not one or two but say 10 Sqns sweeping the same base will exhaust the ammo of the defending CAP even if the sweeps lose in A2A the bombers will always get through - adding lots and lots of sqns just makes it too easy for both sides to abuse the air model because the engine is not designed to cope with that level of concentration - the air model cannot cope with the uber concentration both player can achieve in some mods - in my game with Evoken as Japan I have maybe 3,000 Aircraft in Burma and I could have far more thats just crazy any base I sweep I will win and vice versa - he has probably more in India on the Burma front its just stupid and it breaks the air model

3. Night bombing we all know its too effective in the base scenarios in these kind of mods with over concentration - I just lost 144 aircraft on the ground in a lvl 4 AF which only had 180 based at it in one night when in the middle of the monsoon 230 mediums and 110 4E's night bombed the base - we have now agreed a house rule but the point is if you send 1,000 aircraft 350 will get through and flatten the base because the air model was not designed to handle these kind of extreme numbers

So again my point to modders is more is not always better - use restraint when adding stuff in and for both allies and japan watch giving too much production losses should mean something - 144 aircraft on the ground were replaced in a day.... a 200 v 200 air battle loss is meaningless to both side it breaks the air model.

4. Pilot quality when modding allowing pilots to come in at 70 or 80 xp just makes all of above points worse - the air model is not designed for every pilot to be elite - it DOESNT offset if both sides have 80+ elites - whoever is attacking because of sweeps or night bombing will get far more out of too high pilot xp.

So my advice to modders

A. Limit yourself on the number of wonder weapons you introduce and really test them before putting them in
B. Dont go mad in adding new production or increasing replacement rates - losses need to mean something for both sides moderate the pool depth you give both sides
C. More Sqns/Sentais is not a good thing - try to limit what you add 10 - 20 sqns each side wont cause total mayhem - 200+_ to each side will lead to situations where the air model breaks happening every turn - players will over concentrate (I am doing it and I hate myself for doing it but it happens).
4. Don't make pilot quality too high if you are gettign replacements at 80xp its just going to make 1 - 3 so much worse.

Anyway these are my thoughts - the mod Evoken and I are playing is totally broken for all of the above but we will play it out but any of the mods that add too much IMO become unplayable
Post #: 1
RE: Note for Modders - 2/22/2021 12:31:59 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17109
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Well commented upon Sir. Totally agree.

Be REASONABLE and try to ground your work in some form of historical model. Looks at variants and types that were RL and then make your choices.

I would add the note of having OTHERS help with your vision. Multiple people creating a Mod really help to balance it out as well.

My .02 as well...


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/22/2021 12:32:22 AM >


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2
RE: Note for Modders - 2/22/2021 2:51:17 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5098
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
Considering that John 3rd, you might want to tone down the Rita in the next iteration of BTS.
Looking at it, it is probably at least as good if not better that B-29s.





Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 3
RE: Note for Modders - 2/22/2021 9:15:26 AM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 2952
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
This is a wise and interesting thread.

This is one of the main reasons why I strongly recommend only using realistic research and development, especially in hypothetical modifications. If we allowed research and development in my mod it would also be broken.

Mod to be out very soon...

As regards the Rita, it actually was a very good plane in principle. I, however, have the toughness set quite a lot lower at 55. When you look at the toughness of an aircraft it should also be considered the general build quality, safety features etc. I think it's fair to say that despite the Japanese realizing they needed to build better and more robust aircraft, the psychology was still about attack. The allies had access to much better raw materials for making things, and the survivability for the aircrews was a strong consideration at all times. That is part of the western psyche. And when Japanese officials visited Germany, they were astonished by the quality and components of the aircraft building.

So generally, for hypothetical aircraft, I have the toughness settings around 10 to 15% lower or slightly more than for the equivalent allied. The other settings are also generally slightly lower. Rita is 55 for instance. In game the retailer should realistically appear as a slightly more modern B17/24 design . But still with a toughness around 10% or so less. However of course it has some improvements over those aircraft but we must all remember everything is hypothetical nobody really knows how this plane would have performed. The idea in the game is to make it fictional but not science fiction. That is what I have tried to do in mine.

Another good reason to use historical research and development is that nobody should know what is in the future. Most aircraft designs and features were in response to others' evolution. Some mistakes are made along the way and that is why new versions and improved versions of aircraft come along. It is completely dotty to use the research and development as it can be used in this game. However what I have done is have some aircraft arrive a bit earlier than their potential engine. And allow the player to research the engine to bring it forward should they want to. This will mean they can gain a few months, but that is it. I hope this idea works well in practice. It is also a lot more fun to make players use substandard elderly equipment at times. That is the mark of a good commander. And of course, the research and development machine as it exists in the game only benefits the Japanese player. In my game for instance the Liz, is actually available to build at the start as it probably historically was. This plane would only have very limited use because it is quite feeble very slow an extremely vulnerable to improving fighter aircraft. Even for Japanese realised this aircraft was not going to be really suitable as a long range strategic bomber. However it probably would have had a better role as a kind of long-range maritime aircraft similar to the FW200. So in my game there is scope to change its application. The Rita = better B24 and the G10 = similar but a bit weaker B29, are realistically the evolution of this aircraft to its conclusion. Again the idea is to make the evolution plausable it's fictional but it's not science fiction.

I can still not decide whether or not to take out the research and development aircraft factories that do exist in my game. They are designed to allow slight advancement of incoming aircraft that are just a few months away. That's it. They should not be used to bring forward extreme late war aircraft. I don't know if this will work or not.


< Message edited by Cavalry Corp -- 2/22/2021 9:18:23 AM >

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 4
RE: Note for Modders - 2/22/2021 10:16:16 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1537
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
@AndyMac: Question:

In order to avoid the flaws of the A2A combat system of point 2, may be just simply made the existing ones more bigger could fix the problem? Or at least, make it more manageable...

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)
Post #: 5
RE: Note for Modders - 2/22/2021 11:40:40 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15121
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
With the caveat that I HAVE NOT tested this

I think and believe that a sweep by 1 x 60 aircraft group is less effective than 6 x 10 Sqns

let me explain

the 60 aircraft sweep will do more damage to the CAP probably and will shoot down more but they willnot exhaust the CAP's ammo or of the CAP's ops point

whereas the 6 x 10 aircraft sweeps will probably do less damage to the CAP but will make it more inneffective at stopping the bombers as all the CAP's ops/ammo points have been used in the 6 combats before

So if you want to damage the CAP use big sqns, if you want to exhaust the CAP and get your bombers through use small Sqns.

Andy

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 6
RE: Note for Modders - 2/22/2021 3:31:31 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2453
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
In my experience, service ratings are too low, often FAR too low. You should not be able to run daily air missions for weeks and months at a time without basically losing the entire unit to equipment failure. Aircraft engines were not only leading edge technology, they were frequently finicky as hell and needed LOTS of tender loving care, something that wasn't consistently available in many of the small tropical airfields that make up most of this arena (especially in the early war). And in order for SRs to mean anything, there should not be ANY spare airframes in ANY air units. Even an SR4 B-17 doesn't suffer as it should, because a 12 airframe unit has another 4 sitting in reserve and the damaged ones just rotate in and out of service. Daily missions should quickly grind the effectiveness down, but that doesn't happen because of readily available spares.

High SRs, smaller unit sizes and no spares. That will change the dynamic.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 7
RE: Note for Modders - 2/22/2021 3:50:40 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5098
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
One of the things about the Rita in BTS is that it is a SR 4 and the B-29 is a SR 5. Doesn't seem right at all.

_____________________________


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 8
RE: Note for Modders - 2/22/2021 4:18:26 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15121
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
The main issue I had witht he Rita was i was able to research it in March 42 which was just stupid - but I agree higher service ratings all round would slow down the air war in any mod

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 9
RE: Note for Modders - 2/22/2021 4:23:35 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15121
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
So I would add another couple to my list above based on this thread

5. Dont give either side lots and lots of 80xp pilots at start all that happens is they end in TRACOM and destabilise the entire rest of game
6. When you have your air model I would recommend going through and adding +1 service rating to every aircraft you can (maybe apart from the simple pre war biplanes and fixed undercarriage types ie Claude, Waipiti, Vildebeeste etc etc) - if its a fighter or a bomber just add +1 it will slow everything down except in really big rear area bases

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 10
RE: Note for Modders - 2/22/2021 4:35:01 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2453
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
Unfortunately it appears that the availability (and count) of Reserve aircraft per air unit is hard coded - at least I could not find a way to modify it in the editor. Most units default to "4" but those on carriers get 3 and certain ship-based floatplanes max out to 1. Not sure what drives those differences, or if you could find a way to "fake it" so the reserve count at least dips to 1.

Barring that, smaller air unit sizes and higher SRs will certainly help. You can even justify the air unit size reduction historically. If B-17s had 8 airframes per unit in the early war, drop it to 4 and consider the 4 "reserves" as the hangar queens. You'll still have a unit with 8 airframes in it, but not at 100% availability (which was almost never the case, anyway).

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 11
RE: Note for Modders - 3/5/2021 3:53:43 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 2952
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

In my experience, service ratings are too low, often FAR too low. You should not be able to run daily air missions for weeks and months at a time without basically losing the entire unit to equipment failure. Aircraft engines were not only leading edge technology, they were frequently finicky as hell and needed LOTS of tender loving care, something that wasn't consistently available in many of the small tropical airfields that make up most of this arena (especially in the early war). And in order for SRs to mean anything, there should not be ANY spare airframes in ANY air units. Even an SR4 B-17 doesn't suffer as it should, because a 12 airframe unit has another 4 sitting in reserve and the damaged ones just rotate in and out of service. Daily missions should quickly grind the effectiveness down, but that doesn't happen because of readily available spares.

High SRs, smaller unit sizes and no spares. That will change the dynamic.


Yes I agree and in my mod the is a general rise in SR - esp on planes exposed to extremes of use and new arriving types. Its a shame there are not a wider band of levels as well. Only the simplest and most tried planes get SR 1. But we cannot be to over the top either.

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 12
RE: Note for Modders - 3/5/2021 3:56:52 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 2952
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

Unfortunately it appears that the availability (and count) of Reserve aircraft per air unit is hard coded - at least I could not find a way to modify it in the editor. Most units default to "4" but those on carriers get 3 and certain ship-based floatplanes max out to 1. Not sure what drives those differences, or if you could find a way to "fake it" so the reserve count at least dips to 1.

Barring that, smaller air unit sizes and higher SRs will certainly help. You can even justify the air unit size reduction historically. If B-17s had 8 airframes per unit in the early war, drop it to 4 and consider the 4 "reserves" as the hangar queens. You'll still have a unit with 8 airframes in it, but not at 100% availability (which was almost never the case, anyway).


I changed them - easy - in the editor top right in the plane sqdn or whatever, change it to what you like. I also reduced most to 0 at the start except KB.


< Message edited by Cavalry Corp -- 3/5/2021 3:57:19 PM >

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 13
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Note for Modders Page: [1]
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

0.422