Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Request to Pacific War modders

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Request to Pacific War modders Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Request to Pacific War modders - 4/10/2001 11:19:00 PM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
I am working on the OBC's for the next Patch, and I would be interested to see what changes anyone else has done to the OBC files. Base locations, paths, OOB's, weapons, graphics, and any other OBC files with changes would be greatly appreciated. I am trying to make these OBC's as realistic as possible, and any input from other work would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeremy e-mail is jpritcha@uoguelph.ca

_____________________________

Post #: 1
- 4/11/2001 3:05:00 AM   
Mark

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 3/28/2001
From: USA, Miami
Status: offline
Patch: Does it mean new scenario/data files only, or does it mean code, too? Incorrect data: Mohawk IV was, AFAIK, not a carrier plane. F8F Bearcat WAS definitely a carrier plane.

_____________________________

Best Regards, Mark.

(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 2
- 4/11/2001 11:32:00 AM   
Svar

 

Posts: 381
Joined: 9/7/2000
From: China Lake, Ca
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Major Tom: I am working on the OBC's for the next Patch, and I would be interested to see what changes anyone else has done to the OBC files. Base locations, paths, OOB's, weapons, graphics, and any other OBC files with changes would be greatly appreciated. I am trying to make these OBC's as realistic as possible, and any input from other work would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Jeremy e-mail is jpritcha@uoguelph.ca
The armament for the Gearing Class Destroyer is wrong. The Gearing is an improved Sumner with a 14 foot hull section added. The game lists the armament as 6-5" 38 cal guns, 12-3" AA guns, and 11-40mm AA guns. The correct armament should be 6-5" 38 cal guns, 12 to 16-40mm AA guns, and 11-20mm AA guns. If there are 10-21" torpedo tubes there were 12-40mm AA guns but in some ships 5-21" torpedo tubes were replaced with an additional quad 40mm mount bringing the total to 16. My source is Jane's Fighting Ships of World War II 1989 edition. The confusion comes from The Encyclopedia of the Worlds Warships by Hugh Lyon published in 1978. In a table of U.S destroyer specifications it lists the Gearing as mounting 6-5" guns, 4 to 6-3" guns, 4 to 16-40mm guns, and 11 to 15-20mm guns. However in the text it mentions that the 3" guns replaced the 40mm guns. They were never mounted at the same time and the conversion was done after the war. This book covers warships up to 1978. Svar

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 3
- 4/11/2001 10:25:00 PM   
Mark

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 3/28/2001
From: USA, Miami
Status: offline
In Marianas scenario, the armor of Sumner class destroyers is 255 instead of typical 0.

_____________________________

Best Regards, Mark.

(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 4
- 4/13/2001 7:57:00 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
well i certainly dont want to be accused of not putting my money where my mouth is ;-) Here's the OOB changes i've been working on so far. Torp warheads (as previously debated ;-) ) doubled. Bomb warheads restored for time being after several more months of play testing. the 1000 and 800kg'ers do still seem weak but there's a random in there that creates higgidy piggidy with the results so focused on other areas to account for inconsistancies with warship and merchant preformance. Currently playing around with trebled DD durability ratings. Also have halved durability of MCS. TK class left alone. Pearl Harbour first move. US airpower way to heavy. Causes IJN fighter casualties far in excess of those actually suffered (on the order of 55 - 75% !!!) Given that PH 'historical' first move was complete surprise this is incorrect and historically only a handful (less than a dozen) P-40's got airborne. Changes to US FG's all but 11 and 12 respectively are "damaged" for the first move. IJN 'torpedo' issue: One of the things that clouded the overall torpedo issue was player complaints that too many US BB's were being "sunk" as opposed to historical Since PacWar can neither simulate the ability of the US repair facilities to refloat and repair sunken BB's at Pearl, nor the fact that of the entire two waves, only 40 B5N's were equipped with torpedoes (rest either 500ILB bombs or converted 16.1" naval shells) the solution as i saw was to "damage" a large preportion of the B5N contingent thus limiting their presence over the Harbour TF1, all but 54 B5N's changed to "damaged" (the higher # than 40 to account both for Flak losses over the airfield and to account for any % based attacks (vs full # of aircraft) all six carriers changed so that each had 9 operational B5N's, rest damaged. # may need to be reduced further as the IJN gets two attack waves over the harbor, each with torpedo bombers. In playtesting the total # of attacking B5N's were about 30 + 18 (1st and 2nd wave) for a total of 48 torpedo runs The results in three playtestings were very positive. 1st playtest, three US BB's were "sunk" and for #2 and #3 playtests, the numbers lost matched historical at two US BB's "sunk" These results were recieved even with the Torp warheads doubled.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 5
- 4/15/2001 1:07:00 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Increase all at-start USAF LBA exp by 10 points. All subsequent USAF new units start with full complements and exp ratings of 65. All subsequent USMC USN LBA start with full complements of 80. All subsequent USN carrier based ac start with full complements and exp 85. Increase all at start USMC LBA exp by 20 points. Increase all USN CV AC exp by 30 points and change out F2As for F4Fs. Increase all US Patrol Wing exp ratings by 20%. Reduce Yamato class durability by 50% and 18" gun accuracy by 10%. Reduce IJN fleet CV durabilities to same as USS Wasp except for Shinano (modified as Yamato above less half the armor). Add weapon type for US 10" torpedo with effective contact exploder used on USN S-class submarines and Clemson class DDs. Add late war variants of PT class to include upgraded deck gun intallations. Reduce speed of IJN 3000 ton MCS to 6 knots. reduce all other IJN MCS to 8 knots. Reduce all at-start Allied MCS to 10 knots. All post start US MCS additions to retain current ratings. Reduce airbase Kendari to capacity 4.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 6
- 4/15/2001 2:07:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
I meddled around with starting experience for Allied air groups, and figure that 60-65 for existing airgroups in 1941 works pretty well. They still get nailed, but, not quite as nastily. I also gave all USN CV groups full air-group compliments and experience levels of 75 (vs starting off at 4 planes per group, and 60 experience). All USN Patrol wings now have 80 experience, equal to that of their IJN counterparts. The Lexington had an F2A air group for the first few months of the war, changing that to F4F's would be unhistorical, and I think that 90 experience for each of the early war USN CV's is a bit too much, attrition will quickly solve the problem of disparity. Plus, historically, the USN bloodied its CV air crews on raids against weakly defended bases like Marcus, Wake, Kwajelien and other islands in the Central-South Pacific while the IJN was busy losing its edge in the Java and Indian oceans. The reason that I didn't raise these even further was, that as the game progresses the Allies get a distinctive advantage over the Japanese in experience through the way replacements have been developed. Already posted on another part of the message board, when a Japanese air group recieves replacements their experience level drops at a much higher rate than a comparable allied group. I noticed that the IJN does fairly well until mid-late 1942, where by that time constant attrition has equalized all CV and LBA (those that participate in combat). By November 1942, most Allied air groups are at 75-85 experience, while Japanese air groups are at 55-75, even those that started off at 90 experience. I am contemplating about changint torpedo warheads, yet, am weary about modifying bombs. Bombs are already pretty potent in killing ships, especially the 500 lb bombs. I will do some tests, on varius torpedo groups, with different experience to determine how much experience determines accuracy, and wether or not if they are increased in warhead size, wether accuracy should drop or not.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 7
- 4/15/2001 2:10:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
Almost forgot. I don't think that changing the speeds of the MCS will work too well. Other OBC mods did this, with noticable results. The AI does not behave very well with MCS at such slow speeds. Their attacks and resupply operations tend to get really screwy, because it takes so much longer for ships to travell. When a base is not supplies, because a TF is taking too long, they send out another, resulting in sever congestion and TF's being sent to supply bases that technically do not need it, resulting in a waste of fuel beyond that of historical losses (particularly bad for the Japanese AI).

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 8
- 4/15/2001 8:58:00 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
I knew about Lex's F2A-F4F transition. My only beef with it is that the transition penalty between these two a/c types is too high. IMO to all below, as usual.. I'm not certain that USN CV TFs should not have at start ratings of 90 but have not looked at their IJN counterparts for a while. IIRC prior to 7 December only two IJN CVs had been in actual combat (China, 1938). Otherwise their CV operational histories are roughly equivalent of the US CVs. Apart from the two China-service IJN CVs, the at-start IJN CV aircrews and USN CV aircrews should have the same ratings.

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 9
- 4/16/2001 8:31:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
I think that the level of pre-war training was vastly different though. The IJNAF might have been just as inexperienced in warfare as the USN, but, their training programme was much more intensive, at least before the war. The US was still mobilising, and was not in as high a state of preparedness as the Japanese. The IJNAF trained for months on just attacking Pearl Harbour, as well as planning and coordinating for future operations with their LBA. The US did not have this luxury, and training, as well as readiness was set to a peacetime level, even thouth they were on alert. Instead of increasing allied CV experience, possibly lowering IJN experience to realistic levels (high 80's instead of low 90's) would result when there are finally carrier battles the USN will have time to increase their experience, and the IJN will have lost some of their edge. Most games that I have playtested have both the IJN and USN losing an equal number of carriers until 1943, then the IJN starts losing them like mad. Remember, the Midway debacle was pure luck on the USN part (catching 3 IJN carriers in the middle of refuling with virtually no CAP), and the battles of the South Pacific are probably more realistic in determining Carrier casualties. If we make the Allies too strong, or the Japanese too weak they will not be able to achieve their actual accomplishments in the first 6 months of the war. Adding strength to later war US forces is more applicable than adding it to early war Allied formations.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 10
- 4/16/2001 9:38:00 AM   
Mark

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 3/28/2001
From: USA, Miami
Status: offline
Please add the Leyte scenario. The ones on Rich's page have old values for aircraft ratings, and are generally outdated. My junior brother is not yet experienced in the game - he plays it.

_____________________________

Best Regards, Mark.

(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 11
- 4/18/2001 8:07:00 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4401
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Major Tom, Here is a list of my OBC changes. It is actually a version of the 'Tora, Tora, Tora'-scenario. The attack on PH has just taken place, all others (PI, Wake etc.) not yet. This avoids the entire 'torpedoes too strong in PH attack'-issue. Some of the changes are purely cosmetic, i.e. just changes in designations and names, some are more profound. Many changes are based on the book 'Victory at Sea' by Dunnigan/Nofi (originally written for the computer game) - especially figures and statistics on ranges, payloads etc. Others are based on accumulated 'knowledge' from my studies and private readings into history and geography, or were stolen ... eh, inspired by other OBCs available on the Net. Some changes were even invented by me. Hope I understood the game mechanics well enough. Play testing so far shows no major malfunctions. This OBC is of course just a suggestion and can't claim accuracy (although it might be termed an educated guess), and some stuff is a matter of taste. Comments and corrections are welcome. Regards, LargeSlowTarge Aircraft: - changed names of Japanese a/c types from Allied code names to Japanese names - changed names of some Allied a/c types (Dakota=Skytrain, Boston=Havoc) - changed names of some air groups (FG 23=F[lying]-Tigers, VMF 214=Black Sheep - I like those nicknames) - deleted Bearcat and Nomad (former comes too late, latter is of no use anyway) - created two versions of Hurricane and Spitfire each - changed ranges of some a/c (e.g. Wildcat had shorter range than F6F or F4U, Hudson had longer range than B-25) - other changes to a/c statistics, especially payloads and cannon ratings (according to stats in Dunnigan/Nofi) - changed Wellington into a heavy bomber (to avoid cheating by switching Tac bombers to B-24 via Wellington) - lowered costs for B-17, B-24 and B-29 - altered stats for B-24, was equal or superior to B-17 in all regards except durability (just suffered from 'bad press') - changed Chinese B-29 groups into US nationality - all heavy bomber groups start with full complement (40 a/c) - number of other allied a/c in new groups pushed up a bit (24 in most cases) - created (or stole from another OBC) Mexican P-47 group (well, there was an empty slot available) Ships: - lots of changes in the Ships section, arrangement altered to create slots were needed for new groups - hope this doesn't collide with hard coded stuff too much (so far I only discovered a Benham DD which persisted in being British [slot 434], remedied only by leaving the slot blank) - Ships in PH sunk/damaged, same for a/c (still need to clarify some stuff, e.g. ship names - had no time to dig out references) - renamed many ship classes, esp. AO, MCS and APs - changed speed and cargo capacities of many ship classes - lowered durability of freighter and tanker types - no Liberty or Victory ships any more, Liberty ships included in Freighters, Victory ships included in AKA Attack Freighters - created Daihatsu barges (or more correct, copied them from another OBC) - created German Type IX 'U-boats' - created German Armed Merchant Raiders 'Thor' and 'Michel' (which were active in the Pacific and Indian Ocean in 1942/43, until destroyed by internal explosion in a Japanese port / sunk by US sub respectively) - renamed the Japanese escort ships and altered their weaponry (not historical, but to create distinct ship classes) - created several LSI groups for the USN in late 1944 (changed capacity of APs as some compensation) LCUs: - changed 8th & 9th USMC DefBn into detachments from 1st DefBn - Ind 15th Bn on Brunei now detachment from 15th Bde in Malaya - Aussie Bns now detachments of Aussie 8th Div in Malaya Note: must be something wrong, those detachments NEVER recombine - created Indian Engineers to become active in 1942 - created 369th CA in SF (to be shipped to PH as garrison, as it happened historically - my tribute to black troops of WWII) - renamed Canadian units from CA to CND (confused with Coast Arty) - South Pacific HQ subordinate to Central Pacific HQ (as it historically was) Weapons: - increased all torpedo warheads 33%, decreased accuracy 33% (just from the guts, doubling the warhead seems to much) - created German Type G7a torpedo Bases - deleted Hughes, Hobart and Dimapur (little or no strategic value anyway) - created Ellice Is., Padang and Moulmein (Funafuti became important US air base, Padang covers Palembang from easy recapture by British landing in Madang (one of my favourite strategies to cut off oil supply), Moulmein makes Burma Theater more interesting - moved Samoa Is. further west to correct location - moved Kendari on Celebes to correct location - numerous changes to names, paths and locations of cities in China - numerous changes in names of bases (e.g. renamed Seattle into 'Seattle / UK-CW' (United Kingdom-Commonwealth) - moved factories from India to Seattle / UK-CW - changed terrain in some bases (e.g. Broome, Darwin, Port Blair) to limit/enhance base building potentials to what I believe more accurate or consistent levels - deleted land paths on many bigger islands, esp. New Guinea (no way you can march a bunch of divisions from Port Moresby to Sorong in 11 weeks), so recapture requires a lot more amphib assaults (hence the enlarged Allied AP fleet) - added minor amounts of resources to some bases and altered distribution and yield of oil fields (makes strategic bombing less effective, before you just had to bomb Palembang and Balikpapan into destruction to reduce the flow of oil to a trickle, and the AI never defends his oil fields adequately) Prep Points / HQs: - SoPac and NoPac HQs should enter the war later, they were created in mid-42 (I'm still trying to figure out the correct data to enter in editor, TTA doesn't work as specified) Other stuff I would change: - get rid off CVEs w/o air groups, increase number of CVEs per group instead - IJN conversions from CS to CVL have no air groups, change that - create Typhoon or Tempest a/c for Brits (in Nomad slot) - create Kaiten torpedoes - create Chinese Eng unit (coolies constructed B-29 bases in China 1943-44) - either verify or delete cruiser TF near PH on first turn ('inherited' from another OBC) - perhaps increase durability of DDs - create a Japanese Midway Bombardment Force of 2 DDs on first turn

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 12
- 4/19/2001 2:10:00 AM   
a300mech

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 4/18/2001
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Status: offline
I would definitely reduce the experience penalty experienced when switching an air group to another variant of the same plane. For instance it makes no sense to penalize a group more than a point or two when switching from the TBF, to the TBM. It requires no great extra pilot skill to fly the new type to it's full combat potential. Of course it's a different story if you're changing from say, the P-40 to the P-38. But for less extreme changes there should be much less penalty than I'm seeing currently. :)

_____________________________

Darryl

War Plan Orange, US R-class fanboi
Insert fancy artwork of R-class boat here:

(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 13
- 4/19/2001 5:51:00 AM   
Warpup

 

Posts: 120
Joined: 1/18/2001
From: Roseburg, Oregon, USA
Status: offline
Reply to LST: I like most of what you are doing with your OB. But I wonder why you are deleting Dimapur??? It seems to me that the India-Burma front needs more bases, not less. Adding Moulmein is a start, but maybe Arakan and Myitkina would be useful too, or at least a couple more land paths, such as Dimapur to Lashio (putting another terrain level 9 jungle base in between would reduce the usefulness). We may not need Hughes and Hobart, but Mukdin and Harbin are just as useless. The CVEs without airgroups seem to be more historical according to writers on the old PacWar List. There was some interesting stuff written on that point. I'm finding that the empty CVEs force me to do use them to transport air groups and do replentish TFs more than I would be inclined to, and I'm minding the empty CVEs less than I thought I would... :rolleyes:

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 14
- 4/20/2001 2:58:00 AM   
Marc gto

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 9/25/2000
From: Batavia,ohio,usa
Status: offline
I would like to see the f7f tiger cat for a late war carrier fighter/attack.this twin engine plane was very impressive as both a fighter and attack aircraft

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 15
- 4/20/2001 3:00:00 AM   
Marc gto

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 9/25/2000
From: Batavia,ohio,usa
Status: offline
an order of battle for anzac troops would be helpful,im playing as the allies in the 41 campaign and still havent had any aussie land units switch over

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 16
- 4/20/2001 5:23:00 PM   
Jon Kan

 

Posts: 8
Joined: 3/16/2001
From: Hong Kong
Status: offline
You should make a special rule regarding the Japanese troop in China. If they left an occupied Chinese city undefended, they will suffer from VPs penalty. The Chinese LCU should be easily to repleace. Lanchow and Peking should NOT be link (there's whole Gobi Desert lay between two cities)! These new rules will made the ahistorical conquer of China much more diffcult.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 17
- 4/20/2001 9:39:00 PM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
Regards to some questions and suggestions. Sorry if I don't answer them all. 1. I think that it is impossible to tamper with the experience loss for transferring air group types. I think the game has only one generic level of experience loss, and cannot determine different experience losses for different types of aircraft. 2. The Gearing destroyer was one of the first things I fixed, a few months ago. 3. The Sumnder destroyer glitch was also fixed. 4. I have tried adding +50% to the damage of torpedo's, but, they sink too many ships outright. I am going to try LargeSlowTarget's +33%. 5. Destroyers had no armour, and typically did not survive many hits by large caliubur weapons, or, they did survive typically because of their poor durability/armour (the shell would go clear through the ship without exploding). 6. Made all Allied air groups (except British Malaya and KNILAF) at experience levels of at least 60. USN Air groups start off at experience levels of 75, and all future CV groups start at full levels of aircraft and at 70-75 experience. 7. There will be an OBC_E scenario included, covering Leyte. 8. There will be an OBC_A scenario included, covering post Pearl Harbour. 9. Actually, in at least v2.2 the auto upgrade from the Wellington to the B-24 was removed, just to stop this 'cheat' from occurring. The Wellington was a Tactical Bomber, and many people find them useful for anti-ship work, however, not as heavy bombers. 10. A few base changes. - Removed Hobart, created Moulemien - Removed an Aleutian Island (one just East of Kiska and Attu), created Pagan, in the Marianas Chain. I am thinking about moving around some other bases, however, the Kwantung bases must remain in Manchuria, as, the Japanese AI, if they capture the base, will automatically make it a Kwantung base. 11. CVE's. There were many extra air group spaces left after 'clearing out' some unhistorical/redundant groups. Many IJNAF LBA groups were actually recorded twice (for expample, Genzan Kok was renumbered 721 Kok in 1942, so having them both in the game would give the IJN too many LBA groups). What I did was for every USN and RN CVE group ALREADY with an air group, and had 4+ ships per 'group' (ie. 4x Casablanca), I made a copy of the group, and halved them (ie. 2x Casablanca and another 2x Casablanca). What this does, is makes the USN CVE TG's not quite as powerful as the game made them. They were powerful because the CVE group was treated as a single ship, with a single air group of 50+ fighters and 30+ bombers, better than most single CV's. Now these CVE Groups can only get up to around 25 fighters and 15 bombers, which makes their carrier to carrier potential historically accurate. 12. I never found that the Mizuho, Nisshin, Chitose or Chiyoda lacked air groups during their conversion to CVL's. 13. I don't know if there is room for the F7F, especially since it did not see service, and was not as close to entering service as the F8F in as large numbers.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 18
- 4/21/2001 5:56:00 AM   
a300mech

 

Posts: 25
Joined: 4/18/2001
From: Tulsa, OK, USA
Status: offline
Well in any event I'd just like to express my appreciation for the work done already on this game and for providing it free and all. It's a delight to play! Good luck in the future! :)

_____________________________

Darryl

War Plan Orange, US R-class fanboi
Insert fancy artwork of R-class boat here:

(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 19
- 4/21/2001 7:08:00 AM   
Mike Wood


Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline
Hello Folks... Moving bases around should be done very carefully. It could confuse the AI. Each command in the game has a hard coded set of bases that it is responsible for attacking and defending. These are identified by number. So, if you take, say one of the bases from Alaska, and move it to China, the North Pacific command will try to garrison that base and if it is captured by the Japanese, the North Pacific command will try to retake it. SEAC and the Chinese Government will ignore it completely, as it is not on thier lists. Could be a problem. Hope this Helps... Michael Wood [ April 20, 2001: Message edited by: Mike Wood ]

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 20
- 4/21/2001 8:44:00 PM   
andrewmv

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Major Tom: I am working on the OBC's for the next Patch, and I would be interested to see what changes anyone else has done to the OBC files.
Change #1 Wing (the first Spitfire unit) from Spitfire VIII to Seafire III. This unit was equiped with Spitfire V and the Seafire III is just a navalised Mk V. Also, the Seafire III comes on stream at about the right time, allowing the unit to build up to strength and replace losses. You'd also need a house rule preventing other CW LBA from being changed to Seafires.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 21
- 4/21/2001 8:46:00 PM   
andrewmv

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Major Tom: I am working on the OBC's for the next Patch, and I would be interested to see what changes anyone else has done to the OBC files.
Increase the starting experience (80 to 85 is not unreasonable) for the RN carrier airgroups. These units all came from extensive experience in the med against heavy axis opposition.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 22
- 4/21/2001 8:51:00 PM   
andrewmv

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Major Tom: I am working on the OBC's for the next Patch, and I would be interested to see what changes anyone else has done to the OBC files.
Increase the armour of the King George V battleships (130 to 136 is about right). These ships were better armoured than the USN South Dakotas and are terribly short changed. Also, if there's room add in Vanguard (a KGV with 8 * 15"). This ship could easily have been ready by late 44 and was built specifically for Far Eastern deployment.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 23
- 4/22/2001 10:38:00 PM   
Greg Wilmoth

 

Posts: 50
Joined: 2/18/2001
From: Scottsdale, Arizona, USA
Status: offline
LargeSlowTarget mentioned he added the German merchant cruisers Thor and Michel. I didn’t realize you could already do this with the PacWar editor. I don’t know if they would work better as “subs” or surface ships. For the next patch, if you want to include the less successful Japanese merchant cruisers, here is some information on them: [Source: Japanese Warships of World War II, A. J. Watts, London: Ian Allen, 1966. Page 318.] “Armed Merchant Cruisers” “Merchant conversions: 14” “At the start of the Second World War 14 merchant ships were taken over by the Navy, armed and sent out as armed merchant raiders.” “Armament varied considerably from ship to ship. The guns fitted were of 5.9, 5.5, or 4.7 in. calibre, and some ships carried one or two seaplanes. Three ships—Bankok Maru, Kinjosan Maru and Saigon Mru—carried mines (Kinjosan – 400, Bankok and Saigon –500) in addition to 4-4.7 in. and 1-7.7 mm guns.” “The German armed merchant cruisers were extremely successful but the Japanese vessels did not distinguish themselves and the raiding campaign soon petered out. At the end of 1943, 5 vessels had been los and 7 had been converted to other roles. The remaining 2 units were lost in 1944.” “The 14 vessels are listed below. The names of all ships have the suffix Maru.” [The tonnage is in British Registered Tons and R/R means rerated (reconverted to a merchant ship). Dimensions, year built, and builder are omitted.] Aikoku, 10,437, R/R transport 10/43. Akagi, 7,398, Lost 17/2/44. Asaka, 7,398, R/R transport 11/43. Awata, 7,397, R/R transport 11/43. Bankok, 5,350, Lost 20/5/43. Gokoku, 10,438, R/R transport 10/43. Hokoku, 10,439, Lost 11/11/42. Kinjosan, 3,260, Lost ?/?/43. Kinryu, 9,310, R/R transport 7/42. Kiyosumi, 6,984, R/R transport 10/43. Kongo, 7,043, Lost 10/3/42. Norshiro, 7,184, R/R transport 8/42. Saigon, 5,350, Lost 18/9/44. Ukishima, 4,730, Lost 26/1/43? Good luck! [ April 22, 2001: Message edited by: Greg Wilmoth ]

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 24
- 4/23/2001 12:14:00 AM   
Major Tom

 

Posts: 525
Joined: 4/8/2000
From: Canada
Status: offline
Michael is right about moving bases and problems with the AI. However, sometimes you can 'get around it'. Not all of the time, but, some times. I moved HOBART from ANZAC to MOULEMIEN to SEAC. The IJA 15th Army took Moulemien, because it was directly on the route to Rangoon. Even though they never had their HQ targetting MOULEMIEN, but always RANGOON, they went through it and took it, even with LCU's there. I assume that SEAC will do the same thing, except having Bangkok as their desired target. ANZAC did target MOULEMIEN after the IJA took it over, however, since ANZAC is a limted HQ (ie Units cannot leave it) they did absolutely nothing about it regarding LCU's, Ships, or Air Groups even as late as 1945. The base remained as SEAC controlled after it was liberated by the British as well. Also, when I moved that Aleutian Island, I tested wether or not the US North Pacific HQ would target it. Other bases, even under US control in the North Pacific were targetted, and this base was completely ignored. You cannot move EVERY base around, especailly the IJA Kwantung and Chinese Expeditionary army, to other HQ's, but, some you can. Some bases auto change to other HQ's (ie many ANZAC bases switch to SW Pacific, as well as many IJN bases switch to their respective 'armies' HQ regarding the region that they took, for example, every base in the Philippines changed to 14th Army, no matter what HQ the unit that took them was, and in 1944, specific bases in the South of the Philippines change to 35th Army). The best thing for you to do to test if the game works, is to set both players as COMPUTER, and run the game for a few turns, periodically stopping to see what HQ's are targetting what base, so you can get a sense of what the AI is doing in regards to your base changes. Also, notice where LCU's are being garrisoned. You would not want to have all of your 15th Army IJA divisions going off to the North Pacific! Regarding the Seafire, I changed it to the Spitfire V, as, most Seafires used since 1943 were Spitfire V's. The #1 Wing was changed to Spitfire V's. I was going to add the Vanguard, however, it was not completed until 1946. With the game ending in late 1945, it would be unfair to give the Allies ships that would never have seen service at this time.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 25
- 4/23/2001 6:47:00 PM   
andrewmv

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Major Tom: Regarding the Seafire, I changed it to the Spitfire V, as, most Seafires used since 1943 were Spitfire V's. The #1 Wing was changed to Spitfire V's.
I think it would be better to leave it as Seafire. The only converted model of Seafire were the Mk I (converted from Spitfire II). These were followed by the Seafire II (built in limited numbers, used mainly for training) which was very similar to the Spitfire V, but with a slightly more powerful engine. The main production model was the Seafire III (a Mk II with folding wings). Very similar (functionally identical in game terms) to the Spitfire V, but a different aircraft. However, more importantly, the only unit to operate Spitfire Vs in the Far East was #1 Wing (3 RAF and 1 RAAF squadrons), whereas the Seafire III did see extensive service in the Far East on RN carriers.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 26
- 4/23/2001 6:54:00 PM   
andrewmv

 

Posts: 63
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Christchurch, New Zealand
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Major Tom: I was going to add the Vanguard, however, it was not completed until 1946. With the game ending in late 1945, it would be unfair to give the Allies ships that would never have seen service at this time.
Vanguard's contruction was slowed in early 43 when it became clear that the situation in the Far East had stablised. If it had not, she would have been ready in late 44 (her intended completion date). Maybe a ship for some later "what if" senarios.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 27
- 4/24/2001 3:59:00 AM   
Joe Kemper

 

Posts: 54
Joined: 11/1/2000
Status: offline
I don't know if these have already been mentioned but they pertain to OBC 42: 1. Musashi BB doesn't show up 2. Japanese 66th, 50th Divisions and 68th Brigade arrive at Bikini regardless of control of base. 3. There are 3 B-29 groups that are identified as Chinese(sorry, I forgot to write down the numbers). I have tried to do some research on the Japanese army regiments and had good luck on all but two. Could you please identify their parent organization and where they were used historically: 64th Regiment and 188th Regiment Thank you for all of the work you have done on this great game.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 28
- 4/25/2001 12:33:00 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4401
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

Originally posted by Mike Wood: Each command in the game has a hard coded set of bases that it is responsible for attacking and defending. These are identified by number. [ April 20, 2001: Message edited by: Mike Wood ]
Any chance we can get a list of the hard coded base numbers for each command? Would make tinkering around with the obc a bit easier. Same goes for ships, if I'm not mistaken there is some hard coded stuff for the ship pool, too.

_____________________________


(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 29
- 7/23/2001 2:37:00 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline
1. Factories and aircraft pools. I don't know if the matrix 2.2 revisions were for play balance or what, but Hurricanes (model IIB), Wildcats and Dauntlesses & Mitchells should all exist in the pools with about at least 40 each and all their factories, except maybe the Hurricane factories, should be in production at the beginning. The US planes mentioned were all in production for a year or more before attack on PH. 2. Ditch the Kittyhawk, make it P40E (same plane) 3. Lower the cost of the HBs (I think this is already being planned). 4. Make Capacity 5 on P51, P38F, 10 on P47 and make the P38F a FB not just an F. 5. Range of 4 on 2nd Gen USN carrier aircraft, F6F, F4U, SB2C, TBF, TBM and perhaps make an optional SBD-7 with Range 4. The Dauntless had a range of over 1000 miles, but in the game it is 3??? Play balance might be a factor here, so making a new SBD model, using the eliminated kittyhawk type, available Jan-Feb 1943, with range 4 might be better than putting the 1941 plane at range 4.

_____________________________

Still playing PacWar (but no so much anymore)...

(in reply to Major Tom)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Classic (Free) Games] >> Pacific War: The Matrix Edition >> Request to Pacific War modders 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

0.537