TM, RA, and BTS Re-Write

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Kitakami
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 11:08 pm
Location: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami

RE: Updated Mods

Post by Kitakami »

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
I wonder what all is being done on the upgrade.

BC Dunkerque class:

Upgrade dmg 5, upgrade delay 15, upgrade shipyard size 0 (Aug '42)

10x 37 mm AA -> 36x 40mm AA
32x 13.2 mm AA -> 32x 20mm AA
1x DEM AS radar -> 1x SA AS radar
1x DEM SS radar -> 1x SF SS radar


BC Constitution class:

Upgrade dmg 0, upgrade delay 30, upgrade shipyard size 40 (Feb '42)

8x 5in/25 Mk 10 + 4x 3in/50 Mk 10 -> 10x 5in/25 Mk 10
16x 1.1in Mk 1 AA -> 24 1.1in Mk 1 AA
12x 0.5in Mk III AA -> 16x 20mm AA
CXAM AS radar remains the same
CXAM SS radar -> SC SS radar

It may be me, but I do not see that much of a difference between the upgrades. Perhaps there is something I am not seeing? I am not an expert in this.
Tenno Heika Banzai!
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Updated Mods

Post by Lecivius »

From an idjits point of view...

"8x 5in/25 Mk 10 + 4x 3in/50 Mk 10 -> 10x 5in/25 Mk 10 "

That is some serious work. The work on the Dunkerque is pop & swap. The Constitution is getting hydraulics, fire control, ready ammo storage...a lot of work...done.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17638
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Updated Mods

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

In my BtS game, I had BC Repulse at Sydney( repair shipyard of 30 ) and it would not upgrade even though it says it needs a size 15 or larger shipyard.
I have her moving to PH now to see if that is big enough.

Let me know how that turns out.

Have you converted any of the CLV/CAV yet?
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17638
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Updated Mods

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: Kitakami
ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan
I wonder what all is being done on the upgrade.

BC Dunkerque class:

Upgrade dmg 5, upgrade delay 15, upgrade shipyard size 0 (Aug '42)

10x 37 mm AA -> 36x 40mm AA
32x 13.2 mm AA -> 32x 20mm AA
1x DEM AS radar -> 1x SA AS radar
1x DEM SS radar -> 1x SF SS radar


BC Constitution class:

Upgrade dmg 0, upgrade delay 30, upgrade shipyard size 40 (Feb '42)

8x 5in/25 Mk 10 + 4x 3in/50 Mk 10 -> 10x 5in/25 Mk 10
16x 1.1in Mk 1 AA -> 24 1.1in Mk 1 AA
12x 0.5in Mk III AA -> 16x 20mm AA
CXAM AS radar remains the same
CXAM SS radar -> SC SS radar

It may be me, but I do not see that much of a difference between the upgrades. Perhaps there is something I am not seeing? I am not an expert in this.

Will work on the consistency of the two. Have you found any others?
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17638
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Updated Mods

Post by John 3rd »

Michael and I had a great today, as I was driving around the various stores, and I think we have the potential of some very interesting plans based on the stronger reaction by USA to the Hepburn Report.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Admiral DadMan
Posts: 3405
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit

RE: Updated Mods

Post by Admiral DadMan »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Michael and I had a great today, as I was driving around the various stores, and I think we have the potential of some very interesting plans based on the stronger reaction by USA to the Hepburn Report.
Well I don't think you mean this: Tropospheric Ducting Forecast for VHF & UHF Radio & TV

or this: The Hepburn Act of 1906

or this: Audrey Hepburn - Theater Actress, Film Actor/Film Actress, Actress - Bio

So it must be what is referred to in this: THE DECLINE AND RENAISSANCE OF THE NAVY, 1922-1944
Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Image
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17638
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Updated Mods

Post by John 3rd »

Nope!

We're talking about the report regarding upgrading Fortifications/Bases in the American Central Pacific.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9891
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Updated Mods

Post by ny59giants »

While John is away with family for weekend, I'm trying to do my part with Japan's OOB. I've got some of the IJN BFs, Spec BFs, and Port Units set to upgrade in mid-43. However, when I open a head-to-head game to check things out, they can upgrade immediately (various Air HQs have same issue). John wants to go back to refineries NOT producing supplies, so I need someone to see if I've created enough LI and Resources for this to occur. I need a better modder than me to PM me so I can send them the files and tell me after fixing them what I've done wrong.

Thanks in advance!! [&o]
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
BillBrown
Posts: 2335
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:55 am

RE: Updated Mods

Post by BillBrown »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: BillBrown

In my BtS game, I had BC Repulse at Sydney( repair shipyard of 30 ) and it would not upgrade even though it says it needs a size 15 or larger shipyard.
I have her moving to PH now to see if that is big enough.

Let me know how that turns out.

Have you converted any of the CLV/CAV yet?

Repulse is still moving.

Yes, the two that I have left anyway.
User avatar
Kitakami
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 11:08 pm
Location: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami

RE: Updated Mods

Post by Kitakami »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Will work on the consistency of the two. Have you found any others?

Hmm...

CA Algerie, 2 '42 upgrade (853) Upgrade Shipyard Size of zero? Equivalent USN upgrades require at least 5.

8x 37mm -> 16x 40mm
20x 13.2mm -> 32x 20mm
1x DEM AS Radar -> SA AS Radar
1x DEM SS Radar -> SF SS Radar

DD Le Hardi, 12 '41 upgrade (859) Upgrade Shipyard Size of zero?

2x 37mm -> 2x 40mm
8x 13.2mm & 5x 8mm -> 10x 20mm

DD La Galissonniere, 10 '42 upgrade (776) Upgrade Shipyard Size of zero?

2x 37mm & 2x 25mm -> 24x 40mm
8x 13.2mm -> 16x 20mm

In general, all the French upgrades seem to have an Upgrade Shipyard Size of zero. Perhaps there should be a non zero value?
Tenno Heika Banzai!
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17638
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Updated Mods

Post by John 3rd »

Home from the weekend. Had a marvelous ride on the Royal Gorge Railroad and had a magnificent meal while riding. Highly recommend this experience to anyone coming to southern Colorado.

Will fix the French upgrades Kitakami. You are totally correct about that!
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17638
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Updated Mods

Post by John 3rd »

Double Post



Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17638
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Updated Mods

Post by John 3rd »

Been percolating on a slightly more 'interesting' Allied deployment favored by Adm Kimmel and pushed by the Hepburn Report. The premise is that the United States, acting a greater concern regarding Japan, works to deploy and enhance base construction and garrisoning at a slightly faster rate then IRL. Anything NEW is listed with the base. You'll see some troops, shipping, base modifications, and supply/fuel additions. Nothing HUGE but enough to really provide the Allied player a few more options as well as a few rude surprises for the Japanese player.

The Hepburn Board. -- On June 7, 1938, acting Secretary of the Navy Charles Edison appointed a board consisting of Rear Admiral Arthur J. Hepburn, Commandant of the Twelfth Naval District, as senior member, and Rear Admiral Edward J. Marquart, Captain James S. Woods, Captain Arthur L. Bristol, Jr., Captain Ralph Whitman, C.E.C., as members, with Lieutenant Commander William E. Hilbert as recorder.

The board, which became known as the Hepburn Board, made an exhaustive survey of the strategic needs in connection with the naval defense of the United States and of existing facilities for meeting those needs. In an outstanding report submitted to Congress on December 27, 1938, the board recommended the establishment of new air bases and the expansion of existing bases to provide three major air bases on each coast, one in the Canal Zone, and one in Hawaii; with outlying operating bases in the West Indies, Alaska, and our Pacific island possessions. The board also recommended that the naval air training station at Pensacola be greatly enlarged and that possibly an additional air training station be established at Corpus Christi, Texas; new submarine bases be established in Alaska and the mid-Pacific area, and several existing stations be improved or retained. Some additional facilities were suggested for the existing destroyer bases at Philadelphia and San Diego. No new mine bases were considered necessary, but certain deficiencies were noted in existing bases. A general priority schedule was set up, based on the necessity for providing facilities when the ships and aircraft authorized by the Vinson bill would be completed. In addition, there was a list of projects, considered to be of immediate strategic importance, which should be undertaken at the earliest practicable date. These items were: (1) improvement of air facilities at Kaneohe Bay. Hawaii; (2) submarine and air bases at Wake Island, Midway Island, and Guam; (3) air facilities at Johnston Island and Palmyra Island; (4) air and submarine bases at Kodiak and Sitka; (5) and submarine facilities at San Juan, Puerto Rico.

In making its studies and formulating its report, the Hepburn Board drew upon the great mass of plans and projects that had been developed by the various bureaus of the Navy as being desirable. As Admiral Hepburn testified at the Congressional hearings on his report, "I would say that every item that the board has suggested has been considered in the past some time by one department or another or by the Joint Board involved, and they have been put down as projects to be attained when they can get the money."4 The board performed an invaluable service in taking all these proposals and, within the framework of definite strategic necessities and available facilities, formulating a comprehensive and coordinated plan for development, especially in the field of aircraft.

Although the estimated cost of the programs set up by the Hepburn Board report was $326,216,000, the first request for authorization from Congress to initiate the program was for $65,000,000 to cover a three-year program. However, events were mounting rapidly, and by the time this program was well under way it had been overshadowed by the need for even greater and more expensive developments. In the general defense program that was to begin a year later, practically all the board's recommendations, except those relating to Guam, were carried out and contributed materially to our position when war actually developed.


December 7, 1941
Changes in Deployment and Bases


NoPac

Umnak
Convoy: APs: Henry Allen, Examiner, Santa Inez, Santa Barbara, and 3 AK
Escort: CL Concord and DDs Harwood, Decatur, Hart, and Smith
47th Construction Regiment, and 1/153 Inf Bn
Supply: 2,500 Fuel: 250

Dutch Harbor
VP-24 (6 PBYs)

Cold Bay
808th Aviation Eng Bn and 3/153 Inf Bn (from Annette Isle)
Fort-1
Supply: 1,500 Fuel: 150

Imagine this pair of Task Forces first arriving at Cold Bay then unloading, moving on to Dutch Harbor and unloading supplies/fuel, and finally Umnak having just finished unloading on Dec 7th.

CenPac

Pearl Harbor
2nd USMC Para Bn, 2nd Pioneer Bn, 34th Inf Reg, and 198th Field Artillery

Midway
Task Force 419: 6 PT boats
VP-21 (11 PBYs)
1/298 Inf Bn
P-1 AF-3 Fort-2
Supply: 3,500 Fuel: 1,000

Wake
VP-14 (12 PBYs)
P-1 AF-2 Fort-2
Supply: 2,000 Fuel: 1,000

Canton
2/298 Inf Bn
P-2 AF-1 Fort-2
Supply: 1,800 Fuel: 8,000

Christmas Isle
3/298 Inf Bn
P-1 AF-0 Fort-1
Supply: 1,500 Fuel: 800

SoPac

Pago Pago
TF 421 (6 PT Boats)
VMSB-231 (18 Vindicators) and 51st/16th PS (18 P-40)
2nd and 7th Marine Def Bn, 104th USN Base Force, and 30th Base Group
P-2 AF-2 Fort-2
Disbanded in Port:
Convoy: APs: Pres Polk—Madison—Monroe, AKs Alcoa Pathfinder, Shooting Star, and Ruth Alexander, 4 SS (S-Boats), AS Fulton, and an AM
Escorts: CLs Detroit and Raleigh with DDs Oreleck, SP Lee, Woodbury, and Delphy


The SCOUTING FORCE Near Jarvis Isle
CLV Jacksonville (12 Buffalo and 6 SBD)
BCs Ranger and Constellation
CAs Indianapolis and Salt Lake City
DD: 6

CV Enterprise and Lexington's TFs begin in their historical locations.



Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Admiral DadMan
Posts: 3405
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit

RE: Updated Mods

Post by Admiral DadMan »

I found references in to the Hepburn Report here as well:

THE DECLINE AND RENAISSANCE OF THE NAVY, 1922-1944
Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Image
InfiniteMonkey
Posts: 355
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:40 am

RE: Updated Mods

Post by InfiniteMonkey »

Hey John,

One thing I really like about BTS is the 20mm armed Oscar. Have you considered what if's centered around fighter designs built around 12.7 mm and 20mm instead of 7.7mm and 12.7mm guns? Maybe turn the 7.7mm's into HMG squads in SNLF's?


User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17638
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Updated Mods

Post by John 3rd »

Michael has sent me the files with his work done in them. I now have them for final work before being ready to release Between the Storms.

My 'To Do' list:
1. Check LCU Upgrades for Japan
2. Re-work the A6 development line to simplify production and useless clutter.
3. Check DB/TB upgrade paths.
4. Work all the IJN CV Air Group names to a more Japanese feel.
5. Change starting Allied Bases and LCU locations as detailed earlier.
6. Work French units.
7. IJN Pilot Pools
8. Slight reduction in IJN Pilot XP at start.

Is there something there not listed that needs to be done?

Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Updated Mods

Post by Lecivius »

Give the AFB's a few toys? [:D][:D][:D]


Image
Attachments
morning.jpg
morning.jpg (15.19 KiB) Viewed 193 times
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
durnedwolf
Posts: 896
Joined: Mon May 23, 2005 5:05 am
Location: Nevada, US of A

RE: Updated Mods

Post by durnedwolf »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Michael has sent me the files with his work done in them. I now have them for final work before being ready to release Between the Storms.

My 'To Do' list:
1. Check LCU Upgrades for Japan
2. Re-work the A6 development line to simplify production and useless clutter.
3. Check DB/TB upgrade paths.
4. Work all the IJN CV Air Group names to a more Japanese feel.
5. Change starting Allied Bases and LCU locations as detailed earlier.

Is there something there not listed that needs to be done?


Hi John,

In looking at the game I downloaded, it looks like several Divisions are scattered a bit. And a few have Chain-of-Command issues. Unless there's a need in your scenario, maybe you could just make all of those divisions start "whole" and let the player break them down if needed?

Are there any ship types that can be converted to mine sweepers? It looks like Japan is a little light in those.

DW

I try to live by two words - tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go and gratitude ensures I'm not angry along the way. - Henry Winkler.

The great aim of education is not knowledge but action. - Herbert Spencer
User avatar
Kitakami
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 11:08 pm
Location: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami

RE: Updated Mods

Post by Kitakami »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Michael has sent me the files with his work done in them. I now have them for final work before being ready to release Between the Storms.

My 'To Do' list:
1. Check LCU Upgrades for Japan
2. Re-work the A6 development line to simplify production and useless clutter.
3. Check DB/TB upgrade paths.
4. Work all the IJN CV Air Group names to a more Japanese feel.
5. Change starting Allied Bases and LCU locations as detailed earlier.

Is there something there not listed that needs to be done?

French upgrade shipyard sizes.
Tenno Heika Banzai!
User avatar
Kitakami
Posts: 1316
Joined: Thu May 02, 2002 11:08 pm
Location: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami

RE: Updated Mods

Post by Kitakami »

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

Give the AFB's a few toys? [:D][:D][:D]


Image

After going through 8 months of BtS Lite Allied play, doing 2-day turns against the AI. I think I will be seduced by the Dark Side (TM), and play as the Allies when the new iteration comes out.

Being totally honest, I do not see the need for more toys on the Allied side. With the additions to the USN and the British Navy, plus the appearance of the French Navy, I think there is enough toys to play with already. True, initial Japanese power is high, but there is more than enough to counter it if the Allied player is patient and cautious.
Tenno Heika Banzai!
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”