Combined Historical Scenario - General

[Don Bowen]

Several Forum members are combining their efforts to produce a new scenario for War In the Pacific. This will be a full war scenario, based on the standard Scenario 15, with a possible extension into 1946. Attention will be paid to historical accuracy and detail. It has previously been referred to as “Ron Saueracker/Tankerace/Don Bowen's Mod“.

The scenario will be based on two “released” modified scenarios (Lemurs, Andrew Brown) and several others that have been completed for earlier WITP versions. It will feature a new map (Andrew Brown), tons of new artwork, many new ship classes and aircraft types, expanded Orders of Battle, and adjusted land unit Table of Organizations.
We hope to merge the best of everyone’s work to produce an accurate and playable scenario.

A number of threads are being opened to group comments in different areas (devices, aircraft, artwork, etc). Please post in the most applicable one.

Please post General Comments in this thread.

[witpqs]

I have a suggesion regarding the respawning option:

I read what Ron wrote about having respawned ships named with an asterisk (*) attached to their name. The player then manually executes the option of using them or not (according to agreement).

In addition, how about creating an otherwise useless base for housing the respawn ships? Put it south of San Diego, no roads of any kind connecting to it, no units in garrison, etc. Just a holding pen where the players can send the unused respawn ships so they are totally out of the way. If it's possible, you can even detail the respawn ships to appear at this base.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I have a suggesion regarding the respawning option:

I read what Ron wrote about having respawned ships named with an asterisk (*) attached to their name. The player then manually executes the option of using them or not (according to agreement).

In addition, how about creating an otherwise useless base for housing the respawn ships? Put it south of San Diego, no roads of any kind connecting to it, no units in garrison, etc. Just a holding pen where the players can send the unused respawn ships so they are totally out of the way. If it's possible, you can even detail the respawn ships to appear at this base.

I was thinking of this very idea!!! LOL In addition, I was thinking of creating an offboard series of bases for extra withdrawls but then thought it would be too much of a pain without the withdrawls coded.

Any word from the devs regarding expanding the withdrawl requirements to include other navies and merchant shipping?[;)] These bases could also be used as exit hexes. Nothing worse than being caught in the fishbowl west of India by KB when historically the ships went to Diego Garcia and further to escape.

[Andrew Brown]

Hi Ron,

I MIGHT be able to add a special base to the map which can act as a 'prison' for unwanted ships (i.e. respawned ships for those who do not want them, or the superfluous original ships for those - like me - who LIKE the respawning feature). When I am done with version 2 of the map mod I will do some experimentation to see whether what I have in mind is possible.

On the topic of the map, I am thiking about the possibility of expanding the scope of the map, and the game as a result, by adding in a "Middle East" base that is used by the British as a base of operations in the Indian Ocean. This is only a tentative idea, and it would have a potentially large effect on the game, but I would like to raise the possibility as a point for discussion.

The idea of adding such a base may be a bad one for a number of reasons, but there are possible benefits as well. It would also be possible, though more difficult, to add in the Panama Canal. Any thoughts on the pros and cons of these possible changes are welcome. Of course this possibility can be considered for some indefinite time in the future, it is an 'extra' to an work on the combined scenario itself.

Regards,
Andrew

[akdreemer]

I would definitely like to see a Panama base. Hmmm, now how to attack it??

[Captain Cruft]

Can you make the map bigger then? If so that opens up endless possibilities.

[TheElf]

What about a "send to the East coast" Button?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

What about a "send to the East coast" Button?

Are you saying we have access to the withdrawl code?

[TheElf]

Dunno the programming aspects of it. May not be easy or possible to do. Just an idea to acheive the desired result and maintain a certain level of believiability.

[Don Bowen]

We do not have the ability to modify game code and can not reasonably expect Matrix to make changes that we suggest. Our Scenario must run using the standard game code and we can not try to implement data changes that are at issue with the basic game. Also, the scenario should be playable by everyone and should not depend on non-program rules or procedures (“house rules”). As Ron wrote (somewhere in the forum) we may make a second version to address ship re-spawning and other issues, but I think the basic scenario must follow Matrix’s procedures.

All in all Matrix has been very responsive and reasonable to player requests - and they certainly have their hands full right now with obstinate little bugs. I must admit that in my secret dreams I hope that Matrix might consider a few small adjustments (and as a retired programmer I understand the limits of “small”) but certainly not until the Leader bug and a few other dragons are slain.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Dunno the programming aspects of it. May not be easy or possible to do. Just an idea to acheive the desired result and maintain a certain level of believiability.

Sorry - it is not possible to enlarge the map or add withdrawal buttons.

My suggestion about a 'prison' for ships was just a response to the thought that it would be nice to have a special base that ships not required in a game (e.g. respawned ships for those who do not want to use them) can be placed.

[Blackhorse]

One of the options we are investigating is extending the OOB's into 1946. I am volunteering myself as the collector/analyzer of information on Allied LCU and aircraft reinforcements in late '45 and into '46.

My first approach to this project will be to consolidate allied ground and air forces arriving from 8/45 through 1946 into large units, (army Divisions, air Groups) to minimize the stress on the database.

A key question: how far into 1946 do we want to project? March, July, September, or the end of the year? This will obviously have an impact on the number and types of LCUs / aircraft that may be added.

[Ron Saueracker]

Was not sure where to put this...

Been testing various ASW tweaks. Simply reducing the effect and accuracy of ASW devices has has a positive and telling effect on the model.

I've since experimented with reducing sub durability and adding an armor rating relative to the original durability/test depth of sub. Interesting.

-non penetrating weapons like DCs WILL penetrate armor!

So...a few questions:

Anyone know exactly how durability "factored" into the model for sub combat? I know it's supposed to reflect depth, but how exactly is this accomplished?

Durability = production cost?

How are VPs determined for subs?

Why/how do non penetrating weapons penetrate armor? I've only used small armor ratings (2-4) and they defeat DCs about 50% of the time. Is there a max armor rating which will defeat DCs? Is it dependent on effect?

[Bradley7735]

My understanding on VPs for ships is that you get VP's equal to a ships durability. some ships get modifiers and additions (plane capacity for CV's, etc)

I believe VP's for subs is equal to 1/2 or 1/3 of it's durability.

given the production model in WITP and the VP model, I don't know why they didn't put the sub durability at 8-11 and give full VP's for subs and then lower the effect on DC's to take into account the lower durability. As it is now, a 500lb bomb hit on a Japanese sub has a very small chance to sink it. I've seen a lot of hit's from PBY's, B-25's, etc etc, but only 3 sunk subs by bombs in my sunk ships list (after 1.5 years). And, they are all RO boats, not the big I boats.

I don't understand the increase in subs durability compared to other ships, given the production model, VP model and devices model.

?????

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

My understanding on VPs for ships is that you get VP's equal to a ships durability. some ships get modifiers and additions (plane capacity for CV's, etc)

I believe VP's for subs is equal to 1/2 or 1/3 of it's durability.

given the production model in WITP and the VP model, I don't know why they didn't put the sub durability at 8-11 and give full VP's for subs and then lower the effect on DC's to take into account the lower durability. As it is now, a 500lb bomb hit on a Japanese sub has a very small chance to sink it. I've seen a lot of hit's from PBY's, B-25's, etc etc, but only 3 sunk subs by bombs in my sunk ships list (after 1.5 years). And, they are all RO boats, not the big I boats.

I don't understand the increase in subs durability compared to other ships, given the production model, VP model and devices model.

?????

Well, I think the combination of tweaking the devices, adding armor and lowering the durability is the charm. I like it enough to think we should do it for this mod.

Being fully tested now.

[Don Bowen]

Based on input from Lemurs! (Thank You), the following corrections have been made (posted here as they affect devices, classes, and ships):


Removed Duplicate Ships:
Chitose Maru - slot 658 (was PG and AM)
Heian Maru - slot 1842 (was AS and AK)
Kunikawa Maru - slot 2579 (was AV and AK)
Nagoya Maru - slot 2145 (was Av and AK)
Saiko Maru - slot 2634 (was PG and AK)
Sanuki Maru - slot 2360 (was Av and AK)
Sanyo Maru - slot 2121 (was Av and AK)
Shonan Maru #7 - slot 796 (was PC and AM)
Takunan Maru #10 - slot 717 (was PC and PG)
Tama Maru #2 - SLot 1598 (was AP and AM)

Also verified Kongo Maru and Kosei Maru as proper duplicates - each two distinct ships with same name.

There are now 33 empty Japanese Ship Slots. I can fill them with additional merchantts or scour the lists of PG/AM conversions and perhaps add some of these as well.


Asashio
Reset Endurance to 5800 (previous lowered but the lowered value was out of step with similar classes).


Kagero, Yugumo, Shimakaze Classes
Changed main armament to 5/40 Type 89 DP (device 48)
Class Slots 65 - 67 and 575 - 582


Keijo Maru
Adjusted Endurance to 3000 miles at 15 knots. Bit of a problem here as Matrix has given these ships higher speeds - 18 knots max and 15 cruising. Best actual endurance I can find is 5500 miles at 12 knots. Tempted to reduce speeds but not sure of effect on game play as all patrol craft are generalized at 15 knots cruising.


Sanyo Maru (AV)
Adjusted capacity to 12. Since these are AV types, I believe they get a default base of 12 so a capacity of 12 = 24 max aircraft


105mm AA Gun (Device 276)
Reduce effect to 28


18.1in Naval Gun (Device 001)
Reduce Accuracy to 16


Added 120mm AA Gun (for Japan) - Device 310
Range: 5
Accuracy: 120
Effect: 35
Ceiling: 39,000
Penetration: 120
Anti-Armor: 120
Anti-Soft: 20
Load Cost: 20
Availability: 12/41 ????

Added 14in CD Gun (for Japan) - Device 311
Range: 35
Accuracy: 15
Effect: 1485
Ceiling: 0
Penetration: 700
Anti-Armor: 0
Anti-Soft: 0
Armor: 305
Load Cost: 9999
Availability: 12/41 ????

[Andrew Brown]

I don't know whether any of my base/airfield modifications from my map mod are going to be included in the combined scenario. My understanding is that they will be used if the combined mod is still to be based on my scenario 115.

If the base values from my map mod are to be used, then please note that I am currently revising my scenarios, and I am going to do some more base revisions. In short, I am:

• Reducing the starting port and airfield sizes of quite a few more bases in the Pacific and the DEI, inclusing a small number of Japanese bases.
• Cutting the stored fuel and supplies at the very small (size 1) and unoccupied bases in the pacific and DEI to zero. Previously I had reduced the amount to 100.
• Changing HQ assignment of the bases in New Caledonia and New Hebrides Islands to Australia Command instead of South Pacific.
• Making a big cut to the huge starting fuel stocks in Soerabaja and Batavia.

Much of this work is based on information supplied by "Pascal". If anyone is interested, an ammended list of my base modifications is on my website, at this temporary address:

Base List

Andrew

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

I don't know whether any of my base/airfield modifications from my map mod are going to be included in the combined scenario. My understanding is that they will be used if the combined mod is still to be based on my scenario 115.

Andrew

Yes - or more accurately YES!!!. We haven't begun work on "Locations" yet but will be starting from a copy of your Scenario 115 Locations file. Once we start I'll let you know and then we will just update with your changes.

Don't forget Christmas Island (IO) going to 0/0. Magwe??

Don

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Based on input from Lemurs! (Thank You), the following corrections have been made (posted here as they affect devices, classes, and ships):


Removed Duplicate Ships:
Chitose Maru - slot 658 (was PG and AM)
Heian Maru - slot 1842 (was AS and AK)
Kunikawa Maru - slot 2579 (was AV and AK)
Nagoya Maru - slot 2145 (was Av and AK)
Saiko Maru - slot 2634 (was PG and AK)
Sanuki Maru - slot 2360 (was Av and AK)
Sanyo Maru - slot 2121 (was Av and AK)
Shonan Maru #7 - slot 796 (was PC and AM)
Takunan Maru #10 - slot 717 (was PC and PG)
Tama Maru #2 - SLot 1598 (was AP and AM)

Also verified Kongo Maru and Kosei Maru as proper duplicates - each two distinct ships with same name.

There are now 33 empty Japanese Ship Slots. I can fill them with additional merchantts or scour the lists of PG/AM conversions and perhaps add some of these as well.


Asashio
Reset Endurance to 5800 (previous lowered but the lowered value was out of step with similar classes).


Kagero, Yugumo, Shimakaze Classes
Changed main armament to 5/40 Type 89 DP (device 48)
Class Slots 65 - 67 and 575 - 582


Keijo Maru
Adjusted Endurance to 3000 miles at 15 knots. Bit of a problem here as Matrix has given these ships higher speeds - 18 knots max and 15 cruising. Best actual endurance I can find is 5500 miles at 12 knots. Tempted to reduce speeds but not sure of effect on game play as all patrol craft are generalized at 15 knots cruising.


Sanyo Maru (AV)
Adjusted capacity to 12. Since these are AV types, I believe they get a default base of 12 so a capacity of 12 = 24 max aircraft


105mm AA Gun (Device 276)
Reduce effect to 28


18.1in Naval Gun (Device 001)
Reduce Accuracy to 16


Added 120mm AA Gun (for Japan) - Device 310
Range: 5
Accuracy: 120
Effect: 35
Ceiling: 39,000
Penetration: 120
Anti-Armor: 120
Anti-Soft: 20
Load Cost: 20
Availability: 12/41 ????

Added 14in CD Gun (for Japan) - Device 311
Range: 35
Accuracy: 15
Effect: 1485
Ceiling: 0
Penetration: 700
Anti-Armor: 0
Anti-Soft: 0
Armor: 305
Load Cost: 9999
Availability: 12/41 ????

Did you guys put in all the missing Japanese Army ships???

[Don Bowen]

Did you guys put in all the missing Japanese Army ships???

Large Landing ships (Shinshu Maru type) - No. Small landing ships (SB Type LST) - Yes. Transport Submarines - No. See various posts for reasons.

Others??