Playtesting RA 6.0

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Are you going to increment the scenario version numbers for that change?

Yes. v 12a. Sending the changes to John and Mike now.

[John 3rd]

OK. Got the info from John. Michael I am resending you the files. You should have more time today then I will with 12 people due here at any point. Might just PREFER working on the Mod1 Ooops I did not SAY that! [:D]

Do the readers want me to renumber the Scenario? I've already updated to 6.4 with these changes but could upload the game files as Scenario 55. For new players you would have to change the other pertinent art files to the new Scenario number.

Opinions?

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

FatR! Nice to see your Post.

Thanks. Now that I've finally returned all the turns I owed, here are the thoughts:

(1)A7M line as it stands is a trap in RA. Compare A7M2/3 to N1K4-A. The latter is actually slightly better now (wins in MVR), but comes out of an established line of mid-war fighters and with no research HRs can be obtained up to a year earlier. Shidens already have no alternatives in Scen 2 (J2M is pretty terrible without JWE changes, not sure why, it is doesn't seem that much inferior stat-wise, but gets shot down in droves by anything post-Warhawk whenever I try to use them). In early versions of RA I'd say they too must be the core of IJNAF through 1943 and most of 1944, if you want tolerable exchange rates.

That might be due to the fact, that A7Ms still use the standard Francillon data on speed, while other late-war Japanese fighters, if I undestand correctly, are using TAIC data. Addin 20-25 of mphs to its in-game speed might be warranted (the same logic applies to A6M8 as well, but as it is available very early in RA, it can have an in-game role as is...).

On the other hand, it should be noted that early availability of some IJN aircraft, like A6M8 and, to an extent, A7M was at least partially meant to compensate their (underwelming for their normal availaibility date, to say the least) statblocks. If those are not as much of an issue, due to being brought in line with the new set of data, their availability can be pushed back several months. The simplest and most consistent with the previous releases solution still is to leave A6M8, etc, as they are, and improve A7M2's stats. If you don't want to touch speed, for lack of real reference, then its MVR values (Reppu had slightly lower wing loading than Shiden IRL, but worse MVR in-game) and particularly durability can be corrected (A7M was by far the biggest and heaviest single-engine Japanese Navy fighter, but it still has the standard Japanese durability 30 in the game). How about, for example, and assuming no shifts in availability dates, giving A7Ms +3 MVR at top MVR altitude bands, +2 at higher bands, and Durability 32, with the same speed values?


(2)As I noted before, J2M is back to the scenario, even though it shouldn't be there

(3)S1A1 is a pile of it again, it seems. Note that with the engines they hoped to fit on production aircraft it was supposed to get to 422 mph even by Francillon standard numbers. Now, of course, they were not likely to succeed to actually make them work, but the same logic can be applied to every Japanese aircraft model that wasn't a modification of stuff already in mass production starting from the spring of 1945. It is highly unlikely that J7M, Ki-94 could have been mass-produced in case of Japan keeping up resistance for several more months, given the condition of Japanese aircraft industry IRL and its likely condition in any sane alternative. Jets were perhaps the only one new designs that had a chance of seeing a production run, as rocket engines/easy turbojets were rather simple compared to top-end endwar piston engines.

(4)As, I believe, is noted by JWE upthread, I was incorred assigning Mitsubishi Ha-43 engine to D4Y5 in this mod. Should be Nakajima Ha-45.

If you send the files for the next release version to me for half a day before posting them, I can apply those changes myself and return files to you. Don't worry, I'm free tomorrow and therefore not likely to disappear from the net without some sort of disaster striking my area...

EDIT: ny59giants is going to send me the files anyway, so if you approve, I can go forth and apply the above-outlined changes, then return the aircraft file to you.

[ny59giants]

John - I just PM Stanislav so I can forward the latest changes.

[John 3rd]

I just saw this and need to think on it some. Been a long day here with lots of people at the house.

Anyone else have thoughts to the proposal above?

[John 3rd]

FatR: Michael sent you the files and I have not done anything with them so go ahead and make the changes.

If anyone has comments make sure to Post them today/tomorrow. Once Stanislav is done with his tweaking and sends me the files, I will be ready to upload them to the site pretty quickly.

Should I re-number the scenario since it has all these changes now? OR Do I leave it as 50 and replace the files already on the RA site?

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: FatR
Thanks. Now that I've finally returned all the turns I owed, here are the thoughts:

Strasv'i Stan, just some quick thoughts in return.

The Francillon data on the very late war prototypes were of the planned, calculated, performance of the airframe and engine, unlike the operational planes which data he reported from the acceptance trial tear sheets. Operationally, the engines never seemed to have quite the power output that they were planned, calculated to have. Since many of the protos never got off the ground, there were no actual trial data. I did verify Francillon’s numbers with my own curves and thought they were “close enough”. Just fyi.

p.s., the A6M8 was “dialed in”. I have great specs on the actual performance of the Kinsei 62 ( Ha-33, MK8, Ha-112, Ha-112-II, Ha-112 Ru) when assembled correctly and well maintained. And the airframe characteristics are well characterized.

I like what ya’ll did with the A7. It’s carrier capable, and the N1K isn’t. That should be a reason to keep it.

For mvr, while wing loading is a factor, but don’t forget power loading; especially power loading at various altitudes. I have a sanity check on ‘operational’ weight that I’ll send you if you want.

For the J2M, I just stuck them in there for John to use if he wanted. I knew he didn’t use them, but didn’t realize, at the time, that people could grab them anyway with PDU=on. Ya b’yl glyun, izvenitye.

Anyhow, ciao. JWE

[FatR]

FatR: Michael sent you the files and I have not done anything with them so go ahead and make the changes.

OK, I will send you the files in a few hours.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Symon

Strasv'i Stan, just some quick thoughts in return.

Thanks for your comments.


p.s., the A6M8 was “dialed in”. I have great specs on the actual performance of the Kinsei 62 ( Ha-33, MK8, Ha-112, Ha-112-II, Ha-112 Ru) when assembled correctly and well maintained. And the airframe characteristics are well characterized.

Ki-100 which also was a result of hastily installing Ki-62 on a preexisting airframe is supposed to demonstrated better speed than A6M8 despite being 600kg heavier (in empty weight). And actually now that I look at your numbers, Ki-100-I is now 36 mph faster in the game! I find that hard to believe, even though having an older airframe with relatively obsolete aerodynamic decisions can play a significant role (just like with P-40 having lower performance than Mustangs with the same Allison engines). Too big of a gap. Even Francillon states 356 mph for A6M8, not 350 it has in the game. This leads me to believing that the same peculiarities of Japanese airframe testing conditions that apparently caused them to systematically produce lower numbers than their combat performance later revealed, as seen with J2M, N1K-J, Ki-84, Ki-61-II KAI and Ki-100, should be taken into account for A6M8 and A7M, i.e., those aircraft that were fully tested before the war's end, and so are not using theoretical calculated speed values.

In some cases there's also gamist reasoning, like with S1A1 - for a 1946 plane it is so bad with its current stats, that probably no player among those few who survived long enough had ever produced it in the grand campaign. With the projected production model speed figures (or 10-15 mph lower, to reasonably cover failings in production quality), avoiding it might no longer be a no-brainer.

ORIGINAL: SymonI like what ya’ll did with the A7. It’s carrier capable, and the N1K isn’t. That should be a reason to keep it.

There is carrier-capable version of George (that never got anywhere IRL for obvious reasons) in RA since the first version of the mod. I'd say it was pretty close to A7M2 even when N1K-J wasn't a rocket, compared to the rest of IJN roster.

ORIGINAL: SymonFor mvr, while wing loading is a factor, but don’t forget power loading; especially power loading at various altitudes. I have a sanity check on ‘operational’ weight that I’ll send you if you want.

Yes, please, I'll be glad to see them.

[Symon]

ORIGINAL: FatR
Yes, please, I'll be glad to see them

Stan, for you, I will open my overcoat. Lets chat. We got lots to talk about. You got my pm, but I prefer to go direct.

Ciao. John

[John 3rd]

Nice exchange guys. As normal I leave the airframe performances up to you two.

I don't want Jack in the game. It is the trade-off for all the acceleration of the Zero airframe. Since I've got the files, I'll delete the plane. Wish we could leave it there but a player will find a way to build it if they can. Not gonna happen...

Want to get this release done within a day or two!

[John 3rd]

Nevermind. Got your note FatR. Thanks!

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: Symon
Stan, for you, I will open my overcoat. Lets chat. We got lots to talk about. You got my pm, but I prefer to go direct.

Ciao. John

Glad to hear this Do you mean by going direct continuing discussion in the thread or connecting through ICQ/Skype/whatever?

[Symon]

pm sent. JWE

[John 3rd]

Glad you guys are putting your heads together.

Hope to have 6.4 done tomorrow. Am having issues with Ise's conversion but that is about it.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hope to have 6.4 done tomorrow. Am having issues with Ise's conversion but that is about it.

I'm glad to be of some help.

I'll need to do some necromancy on my old AAR, not to describe operations (too much had happened, pity that I was unable to keep posting, as the game became an example of Allies most likely winning the war on schedule despite not one, but three crushing defeats in carrier battles), but to write down certain strategic-level observations for RA and AE in general.

[John 3rd]

Would love those impressions.

Did all sorts of yard/Christmas work today here. We've got a massed arctic front coming in so we'll go from low-60s to low-20s tomorrow. Brrrr...

Should be done tomorrow.

[John 3rd]

OK. It LOOKS like I have done everything right but am having issues with the Ise/Fuso Hybrid Conversions.

This is what I have done. Both BBs get an upgrade in late-42 and then have another in mid-43. It is at the mid-43 point that they get their conversion option (Bind 104--Fuso & Bind 105--Ise. I have them--at that upgrade slot--going from class **** to class ****. I refresh the binds, save the campaign, and then launch the game. The game shows the upgrades but no conversion available at the mid-43 upgrade. Any idea what I am screwing up?

Posting a series of screenshots:

[John 3rd]

Here we have the second half of it:

[John 3rd]

Game Screen 1 on Dec 7th: