Playtesting RA 6.0

[Kitakami]

Mod guys,

I seem to be able to see the graphics for all the French ships, with the exception of the Dunquerque and Strasbourg. I started a new game just to make sure it was not only for ongoing games.

- - - - -

On another train of thought, I played RA 6.4 as Allies against the AI, 2-day turns (for speed) until June 27 '42 to give it a run. Not a brilliant enemy, but one that caught me by surprise in a couple of places (perhaps because I am an IJN fanboy), and I had tons of fun. All I could do was to delay things until after historical dates, and have Japan pay dearly for every hex. The only critical bases I held at the end of June were Palembang (contested and about to fall), Batavia, Bandoeng, Soerbaja (contested and about to fall), Zambonga (contested), Kolaka and Port Moresby (attacked more than once, and not certain it can be held with IJN BBs in the area). Pegu was held by shipping troops into Burma. The AI took the rest of the DEI, Malaya, Philippines, the rest of Papua, Timor, Admiral/New Britain/Bismark Solomons, New Hebrides, Ellice and Phoenix Islands. Midway was held.

Allied losses were 1x BB (Pearl), 9x CA, 3x CL (most cruisers lost in Java and Port Moresby), 8x DD, 9x PT, 20x MTB, 14x ML, 1x SS, 1x CM, 1x CMc, 3x DMS, 3x AM, 2x AVD, 2x ARD, 1x AG, 2x AO, 2x AP, 12x TK, 3x YO, 1x YMS, 23x HDML, 4x xAP, 4x xAPc, 16x xAK, 10x xAKL.

Japanese losses were 3x CVL (the AI does get these too close to Allied surface forces near Java... and if you can time things right, you can get them. It was an exchange for cruisers, though), 2x BB (Midway), 1x CA, 2x CL, 7x DD, 3x TB, 2x E, 5x PC, 18x PB, 9x SC, 5x SSX, 3x AMC, 6x CM, 6x Ag, 1x AO, 2x APD, 4x AK, 1x TK, 1x LST, 15x xAP, 179x xAK, 19x xAKL (sometimes the AI does not escort invasion fleets properly).

With the addition of the French forces (especially the BCs and their mix of speed and AAA), the USN is in far better shape than I expected. So is the RN, with a totally repaired PoW (sheer luck) and a repairing Repulse (even more luck!). I lost too few BBs in the opening round, which I hope was luck. One instead of the four I expected was a bit too little.

I wonder if 6.x was tilted a bit too much in favor of the Allies by including the Free French, but I will not say anything until I run 6.5 as Japan against the AI for at least 6 months of game time. It will take me some time to do it, but it might be a worthwhile exercise.

So, if anyone wants to try RA 6.x against the AI, I'd say that against the Japanese AI you will have fun, at least for a while. I do recommend 2-day turns though, as they give a slight edge to the AI, and thus help balance things a bit.

Cheers!

[btd64]

The AI is not perfect, but its ok.[;)] In my game I lost 2 BB's and a DMS on turn one. Lots of damage to BB's and others but that was it.
Cheers

[John 3rd]

It certainly appears the AI can handle things. Thanks for the comments and time you two. Greatly appreciate the contribution and play time!

[miv792]

Maya 1130 and 1131 20cm/50 3YT-II Gun 4*4 bag.

[John 3rd]

What?

[miv792]

ORIGINAL: miv79

Maya 1130 and 1131 20cm/50 3YT-II Gun 4*4 bag.

Maya 1130 and 1131 20cm/50 3YT-II Gun 4*4 bag.

num turrets

In RA 6.5 CA Maya 1130 and 1131 20cm/50 3YT-II Gun 4 * 4 bug
but it is necessary. 20cm/50 3YT-II Gun 4 * 2

Sorry for my english

[JuanG]

John, I believe the issue is the same as what I was just about to report after poking at the scenario lately, namely;



This is one of the configurations for CVL Charlotte.

Whats wrong here are the numbers in the 'Turrets' column. Despite what it is called, this is used to indicate the number of weapons per mount but instead here seems to have been used for number of mounts.

Therefore, as it stands, this reads as Charlotte having 3 twin 6in/47 turrets forward, and 3 single 6in/47 turrets amidships. I presume the intent was two triples forward and one triple amidships (or masked forwards, like turret 3 on the Brooklyns), in which case it should read 6 / 3 and 3 / 3.

You will note the AA weapons also have similar errors. This ships mounts a triple 40mm Bofors mount, not to mention the incredible octuple 20mm mount, clearly an attempt to upstage the German Flakvierling.

The Maya CA seems to suffer from a similar problem on two of its class files, namely #1130 and #1131. In these her rear 20cm/50 are in one 4 gun turret instead of two twins. I believe this is what miv79 was pointing out.

---------------------------------------

The second issue I noticed was regarding some of the naval guns - I guess its not surprising I decided to poke at these to see what you guys had done, but it turns out very clearly something is unfortunately amiss.

Taking a look at some of the 6in and up guns for the US and Japan, it looks like the Japanese guns use one system for accuracy, and the US/British ones are using another. This is apparent from comparing the 16in/50 Mk7 (Acc 20) against the 46cm/45 Type 94 (Acc 38). The same trend continues throughout - a likely explanation is that the IJN guns got updated to use a new calculation for the accuracy, and the US/British ones did not.

Regards,
Juan

[John 3rd]

Juan! Good to see you Posting Sir.

FatR had noticed some issues within the gunnery values. I assumed they were just part of an update within DaBabes. Will have to check that out. I know there have been some tweaks put in due to discussion/debate in other Threads.

There has been SO MUCH back-and-forth between people with the files that it gets a little bewildering as we've moved from RA 1.0 to the current 6.5.

As to the guns/turrets comments that is highly distressing. Going by what you said the Charlotte SHOULD have:

1 6--3
2 3--3
3 12--4
4 12--4
5 4--1
6 4--1
7 8--1
8 8--1

Would that be correct?

This is a time-consuming but easy fix. Want to know if I have it RIGHT before I jump into this! The good news is that this should be able to be fixed in as a database fix and be used within existing games.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Juan! Good to see you Posting Sir.

FatR had noticed some issues within the gunnery values. I assumed they were just part of an update within DaBabes. Will have to check that out. I know there have been some tweaks put in due to discussion/debate in other Threads.

There has been SO MUCH back-and-forth between people with the files that it gets a little bewildering as we've moved from RA 1.0 to the current 6.5.

As to the guns/turrets comments that is highly distressing. Going by what you said the Charlotte SHOULD have:

1 6--3
2 3--3
3 12--4
4 12--4
5 4--1
6 4--1
7 8--1
8 8--1

Would that be correct?

This is a time-consuming but easy fix. Want to know if I have it RIGHT before I jump into this! The good news is that this should be able to be fixed in as a database fix and be used within existing games.

Thank you. Still here as always, just so very busy intermittently. This year should be much better since my new job is fairly static location wise.

I presume the rear 40mms are either a single quad or a pair of twins, so it should read;

1 6--3
2 3--3
3 12--4
4 12--4
5 4--4 or 2
6 4--4 or 2
7 8--1
8 8--1

If they truly are intended as singles then yes, yours is correct.

On that note, I'd like to point out both mounts 5 and 6 are Rear facing. Is this intended?

Regarding the gun issue, I will pull open the files and see where they differ from the latest Babes versions and let you know if you'd like.

[John 3rd]

Bet you will find that sort of issue on any of the 'changed/added' vessels within the Mod. The AA might be endemic since we did so much AA change within the Kaigun. Still...an easy fix though.

[John 3rd]

If you find further gun issues, send me a PM/Email so I have it and will then go back through and correct.

Good to hear about life settling down job-wise. The RA Team holds you in highest regard. You were there when we first started this and helped SO MUCH. Will always greatly appreciate that Juan.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Bet you will find that sort of issue on any of the 'changed/added' vessels within the Mod. The AA might be endemic since we did so much AA change within the Kaigun. Still...an easy fix though.

This seems to be true for some, but not others. CB Kawachi look alright, CVL Aso does not (triple 10cm/65 mounts and quad 25mm mounts).

Suggest combing through these at some point - its not exactly a game breaking issue, it will just change the way damage is dealt to the mounts mainly.

The gunnery issue though, is going to have some really nasty implications for surface combat.

EDIT:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

If you find further gun issues, send me a PM/Email so I have it and will then go back through and correct.

Good to hear about life settling down job-wise. The RA Team holds you in highest regard. You were there when we first started this and helped SO MUCH. Will always greatly appreciate that Juan.

Will compile a report on what I find.

Thank you for your kind words. Great to see all the great work you and the team have done.

[JuanG]

John,

Here are the naval guns and other devices where your data differs from DBBs;

1509 5.25in/50 QF Mk I
1513 4.7in/40 HA Mk VIII
1514 4.5in/45 QF Mk V
1515 4.5in/45 QF Mk IV
1516 4.5in/45 QF Mk III
1517 4.5in/45 QF Mk IIId
1518 4in/45 QF HA Mk XVI
1519 4in/45 QF HA Mk XVI
1522 4in/45 QF HA Mk V
1529 12pdr/20cwt HA Mk I
1530 12pdr/12cwt HA Mk V
1531 12pdr/8cwt HA Mk I
1533 6pdr/8cwt QF Mk I
1535 2pdr HA Mk VIII
1571 5in/54 Mk 16 Gun
1577 5in/25 Mk 10 Gun
1579 3in/50 Mk 10 Gun
1580 3in/23 Mk 9 Gun
1583 21in Mk X Torpedo
1584 21in Mk IX Torpedo
1585 21in Mk VIII Torpedo
1586 21in Mk VIIc Torpedo
1587 21in MkII** Torpedo
1588 18in Mk XV Torpedo
1589 18in Mk XII Torpedo
1590 XT 21in Mk 14 Torp
1591 22.4in Mk 13 Torp.
1592 21in Mk 18 Torpedo
1593 21in Mk 15 Torpedo
1594 21in Mk 14 Torpedo
1595 21in Mk 10 Torpedo
1596 21in Mk 8 Torpedo
1598 SC AS Radar
1622 5in/38 Mk12 OP
1623 5in/38 Mk12 OP(S)
1624 5in/38 Mk 12 EBR
1625 5in/38 Mk12 SEBR
1626 5in/38 Mk12 OBR
1637 7.5cm/45 No6 AA
1638 53.3cm W1 Torpedo
1639 45cm H1 Torpedo
1640 8.8cm/45 23M No2
1654 46cm/45 T94 Gun
1655 40cm/45 3YT Gun
1656 36cm/45 41YT Gun
1657 20cm/50 3YT-II Gun
1658 20cm/50 3YT-I Gun
1660 15.5cm/60 3YT Gun
1661 15cm/50 41YT Single
1662 15cm/50 41YT Twin
1668 12.7cm/50 3YT T. A.
1669 12.7cm/50 T03 TB
1670 12.7cm/50 3YT T. C.
1671 12.7cm/50 T03 TD
1672 12.7cm/50 3YT S. A.
1673 12.7cm/50 3YT S. B.
1674 12.7cm/40 T89 DP
1675 12cm/45 T10 DP
1676 12cm/45 3YT Gun
1677 12cm/12 Short Gun
1678 10cm/65 T98 DP
1679 10cm/50 T88 DP
1680 8cm/60 T98 DP
1681 8cm/40 T88 DP
1682 25mm Type 96 AA Gun
1683 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG
1685 53cm Type 92 Torp
1686 61cm Type 93 Torp
1687 53cm Type 95 Torp
1688 45cm T91 Mod 1 Torp
1689 45cm T91 Mod 2 Torp
1690 45cm T91 Mod 3 Torp
1691 45cm T91 Mod 3 Imp.
1692 45cm T91 Mod3 Strng
1693 45cm T91 Mod 4 Torp
1694 45cm Type 97 Torp
1695 45cm Type 98 Torp
1696 45cm Type 4-2 Torp
1697 45cm Type 4-4 Torp
1698 Type 95 Depth Chrg
1699 Type 95 Mod-2 DC
1700 Type 2 Depth Chrg
1704 53cm Type 89 Torp
1707 Kaiten Type 1
1708 Kaiten Type 4
1709 12.7cm/40 T88 DP
1710 Type 4 Mine
1714 40mm Type 91 AA Gun
1721 155mm/50 mle 20
1722 152mm/55 mle 30
1725 100mm/45 Mle 30 DP
1726 90mm/50 Mle 26 DP
1727 550mm 23DT Torpedo
1728 75mm/50 Mle 22 DP
1729 13.2mm mle 29 AAMG
1730 DC Rack/200KG DC
1731 37mm/50 mle 33 AA
1732 DC Thrower/100KG DC
1742 100mm/56 P1940 DP
1743 76.2mm/55 P1935 DP
1744 45mm/46 41-K AA Gun
1748 533mm 53-38 Torpedo

For some of these (the DCs and the like), its simple a matter of different load costs or the like, nothing major.

The torpedoes are differenct as from what I can see RA does not implement the DBB torpedo changes, so I presume these are intended.

The allied (mainly above #1640) AA and smaller caliber guns mainly have differences in ceilings and some differences in AA accuracy. Notable, but not a massive issue.

The issue is the Japanese guns 15cm and up - they are anywhere from 1.5-2x more accurate than in DBB, and this is going to have some nasty effects on surface combat.

EDIT:

Here is a report with the aforementioned devices, comparing DBB values (above) and RA value (below) for each device. It is in html format.

http://www.mediafire.com/?cokn12cocz6ulcp

Differences are highlighted in red text.

[John 3rd]

GREAT! Thanks for the info and help here. Catching this is fantastic.

There is no consistency within the differences on that chart. Some things are changed while others are not. I know we fiddled a few of the guns but nothing too bad. FatR caught a bit of this prior to 6.0 going out and we corrected what he found. THIS CHART provides an excellent, printable worksheet so I can do the corrections. Problem is I don't know which are honest mistakes, which are purposefully done, and which come from JWE's work/help

I know RA is an amalgum of DaBabes and our work. There have been a number of times where John (JWE) has taken the RA work and merged it with Babes or vice versa. Might account for some of the weirdness. We'll get to work on this when I get home from work tonight.

Thanks Again!

[John 3rd]

Juan has the current game files and is updating the database to fit along the Babes standard. Should fix all issues there.

Once he has done that and sent the files back I shall go through the entire Kaigun and new Allied ship additions and fix the number of guns/turret problem.

Everything can be done without interfering with existing games (Thanks Goodness).

[btd64]

Thanks John. And Thank Goodness is right. I'm at feb 2,1942. don't wish to go back.[;)] Oh, bye the way, I have a two sub TF of IJN subs sitting off the coast of OZ and they have been there for about 6 to 7 weeks, in the same spot. Just wondering if this could be an issue. Let me know if you need a save or picture or whatever. I have emptied 4 destroyers and several aussie aircraft on them.
Cheers

[John 3rd]

Your playing the AI: right?

Probably the computer just being stupid...

[John 3rd]

Got the merged files from Juan. THANKS!

Will go through the Ship Classes tonight and should have RA 6.6 ready tomorrow and on the website.

[btd64]

John, It probably is the AI being dumb. Thats ok though. will look for 6.6 when I get home tonight.[8D]
Cheers

[John 3rd]

OK. I've got the merged files from Juan and I am now gonna go through and check out the classes. Will Post when I've done the upload to the RA Site.