Concentration of effort for Scenario Mod.

[TheElf]

Anyone know which Seafire variant is modelled in the game? Mike?

[Mike Scholl]

Ron. While you fellows are working on fixing things that won't come into play until
1944+, how about incorporating a "bandaid" to fix something that's messed up from
the get-go? I'm referring to CD's (or more specifically, the large, pre-war, Fixed
CD emplacements) As the game stands now, it's perfectly feasible to move in and
bombard TF's anchored in Singapore, shoot up the airfields and port, and only then
endure some counter-fire from the Singapore Defenses. Giving the coding of the
game this seems unlikely to change.

The main reason fleets didn't mess with such places was that their fire was MUCH
more accurate than that of guns afloat. Doesn't seem like upgrading the accuracy
is in the cards either. But what can be done would be to increase the number of
guns (especially the heavier ones), so that more shots would be fired (and theo-
retically, more hits obtained). It would make it more dangerous to do silly things.

I'll use Oahu as an example, as it is one of the most fouled-up selections on the map.
The game gives it 4 16" mounts (correctly), and a bunch of 155's. It actually had...

4 16" Guns
2 14" Guns
4 12" Guns
20 8" Guns
48 6" Guns (or 155"s)
20 12" CD Mortars
12 9.4" CD Howitzers (240's)

What I would suggest for the purpose of implementing the suggestion above would be...

12--16" Guns
6---14" Guns
12--12" Guns
40---8" Guns
48---6" Guns
40--12" CD Mortars
18--9.4" CD Howitzers

Even if it was not allowed to shoot until the damage had been done in many cases, this
array should at least achieve the purpose of making the other side think twice befor
attempting such foolishness. The numbers (as multiples) are a guess on my part as
to what would actually bring Large fixed CD units up to the point of achieving in the
game what they did historically (which was to prevent people from even trying such
foolishness). If anything, based on accuracy, they are low.

I'd appreciate it if you gentlemen would at least consider and kick around such an idea.
The Japanese Home Islands are missing some guns as well, so it's not just a push to
help the Allies. In general, the rest of the CD units (mobile) perform OK without any
adjustments.

[viking42]

this is a great idea, it is indeed time to get a global mod.
If you need any playtester, i'm in,

thanks guys

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

Ron. While you fellows are working on fixing things that won't come into play until
1944+, how about incorporating a "bandaid" to fix something that's messed up from
the get-go? I'm referring to CD's (or more specifically, the large, pre-war, Fixed
CD emplacements) As the game stands now, it's perfectly feasible to move in and
bombard TF's anchored in Singapore, shoot up the airfields and port, and only then
endure some counter-fire from the Singapore Defenses. Giving the coding of the
game this seems unlikely to change.

The main reason fleets didn't mess with such places was that their fire was MUCH
more accurate than that of guns afloat. Doesn't seem like upgrading the accuracy
is in the cards either. But what can be done would be to increase the number of
guns (especially the heavier ones), so that more shots would be fired (and theo-
retically, more hits obtained). It would make it more dangerous to do silly things.

I'll use Oahu as an example, as it is one of the most fouled-up selections on the map.
The game gives it 4 16" mounts (correctly), and a bunch of 155's. It actually had...

4 16" Guns
2 14" Guns
4 12" Guns
20 8" Guns
48 6" Guns (or 155"s)
20 12" CD Mortars
12 9.4" CD Howitzers (240's)

What I would suggest for the purpose of implementing the suggestion above would be...

12--16" Guns
6---14" Guns
12--12" Guns
40---8" Guns
48---6" Guns
40--12" CD Mortars
18--9.4" CD Howitzers

Even if it was not allowed to shoot until the damage had been done in many cases, this
array should at least achieve the purpose of making the other side think twice befor
attempting such foolishness. The numbers (as multiples) are a guess on my part as
to what would actually bring Large fixed CD units up to the point of achieving in the
game what they did historically (which was to prevent people from even trying such
foolishness). If anything, based on accuracy, they are low.

I'd appreciate it if you gentlemen would at least consider and kick around such an idea.
The Japanese Home Islands are missing some guns as well, so it's not just a push to
help the Allies. In general, the rest of the CD units (mobile) perform OK without any
adjustments.

Actually you are not too far off the mark on this...
maybe some encramental increases would be very appropriate, see this website:
http://www.cdsg.org/hawaii.htm
The Island of Oahu was heavily fortified, as were all of the major West Coast ports. An invasion in 1941 would have been dicey, and by 1943 extremely unlikely...

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior
Actually you are not too far off the mark on this...
maybe some encramental increases would be very appropriate, see this website:
http://www.cdsg.org/hawaii.htm
The Island of Oahu was heavily fortified, as were all of the major West Coast ports. An invasion in 1941 would have been dicey, and by 1943 extremely unlikely...

Shouldn't be. That's one of the two sources I used. And the main purpose of the
whole exercise is to discourage players from doing things their historical counter-
parts wouldn't even think about---or making those players who "can't resist" trying
the foolish pay the price for their temerity. Hopefully the rest of the group will think
this is a worthwhile idea as well

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

All you have to do is ask. Takes me about an hour now. Which top do you think needs work?

Not sure if you want to tackle this but the aritwork for the British Singapore seaplane in the original files is wrong. We have a corrected side view (thanks to jcjordan) but not a top. I have one link with a photograph (side) and google might find some more.

http://www.jaapteeuwen.com/ww2aircraft/ ... %20III.htm

[TheElf]

Hey Don,
Yeah, I'll fix it. But I have never seen one of these show up in a combat replay. I'd like to stick with A/C that we will actually see. I can't get to it til tonight though. I'll post the results in our new Scenario Design thread. Nice work by the way[&o]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Hey Don,
Yeah, I'll fix it. But I have never seen one of these show up in a combat replay. I'd like to stick with A/C that we will actually see. I can't get to it til tonight though. I'll post the results in our new Scenario Design thread. Nice work by the way[&o]

Come to think of it, neither have I! Might be a waste of time to even do one! Why don't you skip it for now - no since expending all that effort if it is not going to be used.

[TheElf]

Ok,
I'll probably be focusing on P-40s, Spits and P-47s tonight then

[Tankerace]

I just did a P-47C, D-10, and D-22 graphic...... So you can skip over that one if you want and focus on Spits and P-40s.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Hey Don,
Yeah, I'll fix it. But I have never seen one of these show up in a combat replay. I'd like to stick with A/C that we will actually see. I can't get to it til tonight though. I'll post the results in our new Scenario Design thread. Nice work by the way[&o]

Catalinas and PBYs do all the time during night attacks. Don't scrap these.

Come to think of it, neither have I! Might be a waste of time to even do one! Why don't you skip it for now - no since expending all that effort if it is not going to be used.

[TheElf]

Not scrapping them. Just not in any hurry to fix them if broken. In the interest of [&o]Grogdom[&o] though they will be fixed eventually.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Not scrapping them. Just not in any hurry to fix them if broken. In the interest of [&o]Grogdom[&o] though they will be fixed eventually.

How aboutthe Russian palne tops...they lookweird

[TheElf]

Oh yeah...that is definitely on my list. In my first rather amatuerish attempt in MSPaint I modded the I-16. Turned out fine but that was back when I didn't realize the Alhpa file had to be modded too. Mike Wood brought it to my attention and I have since learned how to do it well. Unfortunately I never got around to redoing my original Allied Planetop mod. This collective effort has been the motivation I needed to get back into it.

Besides, since my French PBEM opponent (Thanks Fdeutsch! Our game is much more interesting now [;)]) has decided to finally put things right in Russia, I have to look at the stock Russkie planetops all day. If that isn't motivation I don't know what else is!

I-16, Pe-2, SB-2, and MiG-3 are first on the list.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior


Shouldn't be. That's one of the two sources I used. And the main purpose of the
whole exercise is to discourage players from doing things their historical counter-
parts wouldn't even think about---or making those players who "can't resist" trying
the foolish pay the price for their temerity. Hopefully the rest of the group will think
this is a worthwhile idea as well

I would suggest a progressive upgrade for all forts. What you ahve listed probably would be only available by 1943. By mid-war the US armed forces were getting man-power hungry. Thus a lot of the coast defense units were disbanded. Not much of a chance of a Japanese invasion by then! I am working on a yearly breakout of the composition of the CD units at Hawaii, thus maybe can figure out an upgrade path for these units, with the West Coast units coming last. As an example, it appears that all of the 12 mortars were disbanded late 43 or early 44. i will post to the forum when as I compile the various CD Zones...

Richard

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: TheElf
We need to be careful here. Before we start adding every iteration of a given A/C we need to make sure the base line A/C are represented. For example lets just get one F8F, one F7F, one Fireball, one of any new aircraft before we go hog wild with 10 different P-47D or Wildcat models and sub-variants.

[SNIP]

Thoughts?

That is my view as well. I would rather have a broader representation of different aircraft before having a great veriety of a single type. Within reason of course.

Andrew

I agree also. I would like to see the 7F7 as carrier capable.

RM

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: TheElf
We need to be careful here. Before we start adding every iteration of a given A/C we need to make sure the base line A/C are represented. For example lets just get one F8F, one F7F, one Fireball, one of any new aircraft before we go hog wild with 10 different P-47D or Wildcat models and sub-variants.

[SNIP]

Thoughts?

That is my view as well. I would rather have a broader representation of different aircraft before having a great veriety of a single type. Within reason of course.

Andrew

I agree also. I would like to see the 7F7 as carrier capable.

RM

Then we'ed need aircraft size limitations for CVs.

[CommC]

This mod will never happen. You guys are going to argue about every little detail until the end of time. [&:]

[TheElf]

Checks and balances my friend. The cornerstone of Democracy. even if we'll neveer see the completion of this project[;)]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: CommC

This mod will never happen. You guys are going to argue about every little detail until the end of time. [&:]

Naw - we have a snarly old progamming manager that knows when to cut off debate and just do it.