Reluctant Admiral 4.1

[Lecivius]

Gonna start a new game, & give this a whirl.  Do I need to copy the game, since the artwork is updated?  I can't remember.

[John 3rd]

Hey Sir.

Glad you are going to play. You SHOULD be able to pull everything down off of JWE's Babes site. Make sure you do the expended map with stacking limits. It is EXCELLENT! I sent to Stanislav RA 4.2 last week and he got it Posted.

Have FUN!
John

[moore4807]

Stupid question - I just D/L'd 4.2... when I go to scenario it still says 4.1 DeBabes mod, how do I tell if its the new one?

[John 3rd]

To be safe, shoot me your email and I shall send you the current files. They SHOULD be current, however, to be safe I can send them directly.

FatR: Did you upload the 4.2 files?

[moore4807]

date for scenario #70 is 5/9/2012 - so I'm pretty sure it is 4.2, thought about checking that AFTER I sent the post....[:o]

Thanks for the help though

[ny59giants]

John,

The small BF Co have slot 5 empty (shows up as Device 717) with 2 of them. You need to change the Device to 721 (7.7mm AAMG) for the 9 small BF Co. assigned to Combined Fleet. They are near slot 4400 under Locations.

[ny59giants]

Saipan - Since RA starts with two of the SNLF Assault Divisions here, then the 6 Lima Class xAKs and/or the 7 Aden Class xAKs should already be converted over to the '-t" type with the additional troop capacity at start.

At Truk, the port is large enough to allow this, so I can take the 5 to 6 days to do so with the ships that start there, but it would be nice if some were converted to xAK -t

[Xargun]

I don't suppose you have an early 42 scenario for RA ?

Xargun

[John 3rd]

I have sent RA 4.3 to FatR for Posting on the site. Mostly changes detailed by Michael above. Some tweaks to Allied aircraft production but that is about it.

An early-42 RA Scenario? Hmmm...

THAT is interesting. Beyond Xargun would there be interest in it?

[khyberbill]

Can we upgrade mid-game?

[Kitakami]

I would definitely be interested in an early 1942 scenario. As a JFB, starting a campaign on turn 1 is always an excercise in patience that needs a large amount of time...

[John 3rd]

Bill: These are database changes so you should be able to upgrade with no issue.

My brain chewed on the 'after the DEI' starting idea and I like it a lot. Time is a serious concern since summer is starting and the boys are home. That being said it could be a lot of fun to put together and we could brainstorm a whole bunch of 'what happened' ideas. Tentative idea would be to work with an March 1st or April 1st start point figuring the DEI has just fallen...

[khyberbill]

'after the DEI'

I for one, as an Allied player, enjoy the sparring that goes on in the DEI and I am continually looking for ways to change my tactics in this area. I played two PBEMs with the late start in WITP and found them wanting.

[John 3rd]

Tend to agree with you Bill but a lot of people see the opening as pure tedium. I tend--as you know--to take less casualties when I run the offensive from Day One and things always seem so contrived when you begin with units already set for a May 1st start. Perhaps we could make this a bit more 'reasonable.'

[khyberbill]

Perhaps we could make this a bit more 'reasonable.'

Leave Froce Z in the game and that might make it more reasonable. The allied opening turn is even more tedious than Japan's with xAK's etc all over the place and none where you want them. It normally takes me over an half hour to do the SS orders from Manila alone (I counted 11 mouse clicks per order or more). But in two turns, all is right!

[John 3rd]

I've started a new RA: Early march Thread. Any ideas, please Post them there. We'll keep this one focused on RA 4.3.

[CRations]

Hi John,

Can I ask why you split KB in two TFs at the start of the scenario? Are there hex limits of some kind in this game?

CR

[John 3rd]

They are split so you have the opportunity for more then one Port Strike on Dec 7th. Both are 'warp speed' TF. Provides some opening flexibility if wanted.

[FatR]

I'm noticing that the scenario description for 4.3 still says "4.1 Modded for Babes". This does not warrant a new version by itself, but should be fixed if there's going to be 4.4.

[John 3rd]

Good point FatR. WE'll fix with the next tweak.

QUERY: Does anyone have art issues with the Kitakami and/or our redesigned training cruisers showing up in the combat display when surface combat is occurring? Just really noticed I have that issue within my install. Figure it is just me but wanted to throw out the question.