FatR, I understand what you are saying, I just think that philosophically, this game has gone the route of stat-ing the planes and letting the outcome happen, rather than trying to force a particular outcome via the stats (does that make sense, I am not sure...) for example, your talk about the corsair and hellcat and change the stats because the hellcat was "more successful", but the corsair, i believe, did outperform the hellcat. so the crux of your argument comes down to how are you evaluating that success. it is impossible to just use total kills, or even ratio of kills because of course they did not fly identical mssions against identical enemies, ie their 'success' is a factor of operational context as well as performance. so for you to change the stats to give 'real life' results is actually misguided, as those results are not the product of only stats, but also operations, which are controlled by the player and will be significantly different from the 'real life' you want to emulate.
I am not sure what your point is with the review of japanese planes, that there should be less choice? or that plane stats should be changed to reflect.... production runs, which bombers you think are 'failures'....? I just don't understand what you want to say here.
Don't take the fanboi comment too seriously! What I mean is, this mod had a specific focus in the beginning, what if yadayadayada.... ok, but now the focus is 'fix Japanese air deficiencies'. that is ok, but unless you think the japanese were not nearly as clever as you in their production analysis, you are starting to make changes that are based on much bigger 'what ifs', what if they had a much more efficient R&D process, access to more powerful fighter size engines sooner, more strategic materials, better avgas, pilot training regime, different design philosophy, etc etc. still, it is totally fine if you want that, it is your mod. but look at your comments above about -61, you seem to just be buffing planes because..... i don't know, you want to.
it would also probably be nice to see the change log. it is hard to know what are the changes, the thoughts, the wishes, over 36 pages of thread. i admit i probably missed some things, like not getting the -49IIb (although if they get the IIa it is fairly much absolutely a non-issue).
look, again i am not trying to be a nattering naybob of negativity, just saying keep it real. of course it would be cool to have an effective interceptor with 4x20mm, or for japanese planes to have great high alt mvr, they didn't. if you want them to, and your alt history rational is 'because they would fight better' you are probably into fanboi realm. but i think i am coming off as more negative than I intend, so I will drop it here. I like the idea of the mod and you guys have put lots of work into it, so drive on! I have one opponent lined up for this when it finally comes out and will kick his butt even with your fanboi uberbuffing! (ok, just kidding [;)] I'M COMING FOR YOU TONGUC!!!!!
Reluctant Admiral Feedback
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
Again, I'm not trying to fix Japanese deficiencies here. I'm mostly striving to bring the mod closer to history, while maintaining interesting options for the player...
Speaking of being closer to history... I finally found the thread about Ki-44 armament I wanted to find. Don't know how I managed to miss it the last week!
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=5995.0
And it looks like the game has the data for Ki-44 absolutely right, except perhaps pushing Ki-44-Ia production to the date where you don't need it because Ki-44-II is already available. So I was in the wrong here, and Ki-44 should be used as it is in the game.
Another relevant thread, this time on protection:
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=9225.0
EDIT: Oh well, a good reminder about overconfidence to me.
2John: Anyway, if there are voices against adding anything to IJAAF side, I can propose only to keep models as they are, except removing cannon-armed Ki-43 and Ki-84r. I can replace the latter with Ki-116, if you want.
2darbycmd: "FatR, I understand what you are saying, I just think that philosophically, this game has gone the route of stat-ing the planes and letting the outcome happen, rather than trying to force a particular outcome via the stats (does that make sense, I am not sure...) for example, your talk about the corsair and hellcat and change the stats because the hellcat was "more successful", but the corsair, i believe, did outperform the hellcat."
The route you are talking about is not possible. First, we don't even have complete sets of performance data on the planes that participated in the war, particularly Japanese. Even famous aircraft, like A6M2 or Ki-84-I still have their performance disputed. Second, the level of abstraction that exists in the game is high and does not include all the various aspects of the combat model, like the differences of high/low speed or vertical/horizontal maneurability; or advantages of things like acceleration/deceleration rate, field of view, ease of handling, and so on. It is all rolled into Speed and MVR. And MVR has no direct RL equivalent, although it appears to be reflecting horizontal maneurability most closely. So AE database is not an attempt to directly translate RL stats into the game and cannot ever be such, because it's not an aviasim. It is an attempt to make things as powerful comparatively to each other as they were IRL, while keeping those of their stats that can be easily checked by customers, like number of weapons, or topspeed, recognizable as historical.
So when you look at the stats and see that effectiveness of some plane is vastly divergent from what it was against the similar opposition in RL, you can conclude that its stats are borked. The combat use is the ultimate test of a combat plane's performance after all. Of course tactics, numbers, pilots, etc, skew the picture there as well, but actual combat outcomes and opinions of people who used these planes IRL are the baseline AE tries to approach. That's why its air combat model evolved greatly since WitP.
Speaking of being closer to history... I finally found the thread about Ki-44 armament I wanted to find. Don't know how I managed to miss it the last week!
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=5995.0
And it looks like the game has the data for Ki-44 absolutely right, except perhaps pushing Ki-44-Ia production to the date where you don't need it because Ki-44-II is already available. So I was in the wrong here, and Ki-44 should be used as it is in the game.
Another relevant thread, this time on protection:
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=9225.0
EDIT: Oh well, a good reminder about overconfidence to me.
2John: Anyway, if there are voices against adding anything to IJAAF side, I can propose only to keep models as they are, except removing cannon-armed Ki-43 and Ki-84r. I can replace the latter with Ki-116, if you want.
2darbycmd: "FatR, I understand what you are saying, I just think that philosophically, this game has gone the route of stat-ing the planes and letting the outcome happen, rather than trying to force a particular outcome via the stats (does that make sense, I am not sure...) for example, your talk about the corsair and hellcat and change the stats because the hellcat was "more successful", but the corsair, i believe, did outperform the hellcat."
The route you are talking about is not possible. First, we don't even have complete sets of performance data on the planes that participated in the war, particularly Japanese. Even famous aircraft, like A6M2 or Ki-84-I still have their performance disputed. Second, the level of abstraction that exists in the game is high and does not include all the various aspects of the combat model, like the differences of high/low speed or vertical/horizontal maneurability; or advantages of things like acceleration/deceleration rate, field of view, ease of handling, and so on. It is all rolled into Speed and MVR. And MVR has no direct RL equivalent, although it appears to be reflecting horizontal maneurability most closely. So AE database is not an attempt to directly translate RL stats into the game and cannot ever be such, because it's not an aviasim. It is an attempt to make things as powerful comparatively to each other as they were IRL, while keeping those of their stats that can be easily checked by customers, like number of weapons, or topspeed, recognizable as historical.
So when you look at the stats and see that effectiveness of some plane is vastly divergent from what it was against the similar opposition in RL, you can conclude that its stats are borked. The combat use is the ultimate test of a combat plane's performance after all. Of course tactics, numbers, pilots, etc, skew the picture there as well, but actual combat outcomes and opinions of people who used these planes IRL are the baseline AE tries to approach. That's why its air combat model evolved greatly since WitP.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
After some thinking I belive darbymcd had a point, I was a bit overenthusiastic. IJAAF will live without changes in models. Tweaked stats and availability dates will improve the game, IMO, though. I have some free time at the moment, so I'm going to test flak and plane performance after the tweaks.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
Hi Guys. Apologize for not being on over the last few days. I've massively been under the weather while working 12+ hours shifts at the hotel. Not very fun whatsoever!
Stanislav: I think you've made the right decision. Been mulling this over while working and was gonna recommend that we dial back the changes in the IJA side because it doesn't fit with the VISION of RA. We have built one heck of an AltNaval Mod that should be a GREAT time to play!
With this decision made FatR what do you have left for work?
I'd like to thank the contributors who care enough to PM and/or contribute their thoughts on the Thread to bring us back to the true purpose of the scenario. WELL DONE!
As a side note, Stanislav, once RA 3.0 is launched then maybe we can look at a new Mod project...
Stanislav: I think you've made the right decision. Been mulling this over while working and was gonna recommend that we dial back the changes in the IJA side because it doesn't fit with the VISION of RA. We have built one heck of an AltNaval Mod that should be a GREAT time to play!
With this decision made FatR what do you have left for work?
I'd like to thank the contributors who care enough to PM and/or contribute their thoughts on the Thread to bring us back to the true purpose of the scenario. WELL DONE!
As a side note, Stanislav, once RA 3.0 is launched then maybe we can look at a new Mod project...
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
I for one would really like to see what you guys could come up with looking at all the Japanese forces, really let the imagination go and bring in more 'what if' planes for instance. In the old RHS he had japanese varients of Bf109s for early war interceptors and G8s for some late war heavy hitting for instance. Sort of sit down and do the planning for the entire Japanese side as you did for IJN.
but i would also say you should look at allied responses. i don't mean other planes, but the ability to redirect production from Europe, or just increase production, to meet increased threats. also, the newer ideas on the japanese economy could be looked at, as far as increased res use and, for instance, no supply from refineries (this would also cut down 'fortress palembang' early war gambit for allies).
So maybe it would be something like RA+scen 2+invasion response forces.
I think the amount of thought and effort you guys have put into this is great and I look forward to 1) playing this one (still looking at you Tonguc!!!) and seeing what else you can come up with.
but i would also say you should look at allied responses. i don't mean other planes, but the ability to redirect production from Europe, or just increase production, to meet increased threats. also, the newer ideas on the japanese economy could be looked at, as far as increased res use and, for instance, no supply from refineries (this would also cut down 'fortress palembang' early war gambit for allies).
So maybe it would be something like RA+scen 2+invasion response forces.
I think the amount of thought and effort you guys have put into this is great and I look forward to 1) playing this one (still looking at you Tonguc!!!) and seeing what else you can come up with.
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
Only testing remains. Unfortunately, it is the most boring part. But thankfully I might look forward to a few free days on this week, which I'll use for it.
As about future modding work - I might propose "Perfect Japanese Foresight (with a good deal of favorable assumptions) + Allied Reaction" Mod, with naval side primarily based on alt_naval Japanese shipbuilding program and Gary Childress' art for it (American program will not require new classes, merely more ships late in the war and different classes distribution, so new ship art won't be needed), assuming Gary will be willing to let us use them. It will likely require someone who can draw a number of new planesides and planetops, though.
As about future modding work - I might propose "Perfect Japanese Foresight (with a good deal of favorable assumptions) + Allied Reaction" Mod, with naval side primarily based on alt_naval Japanese shipbuilding program and Gary Childress' art for it (American program will not require new classes, merely more ships late in the war and different classes distribution, so new ship art won't be needed), assuming Gary will be willing to let us use them. It will likely require someone who can draw a number of new planesides and planetops, though.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
LOVE THAT IDEA FatR!
You handle the testing and I will look at the starting positions for units and TF then I think we can FINALLY get this thing out.
You handle the testing and I will look at the starting positions for units and TF then I think we can FINALLY get this thing out.
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
Well I am "TONGUC" and I am also waiting for you Darby. Also we both wait for Your Mod finger crossed. In the first one Darby proved more then a evil manace for me. I just give him the white flag. This time I am waiting eagerly for your Mod. So to taste sweet cold meal: "revenge". I think you give the correct decision on Air stat changes. But I humble suggestion would be to add some 4 engine bombers for japan. But with such later arrival date and cost to minimise its usefullness. And maybe creating a special recon unit out of H8s to mimic submarine fueled unit would be nice bonus. Ability to recon Pearl from far away would be primary target for reluctant admiral I guess.
What about more Midget Sub carriers.
And thanks for your great effort. I had more real fun and legal fun playing RA: rather the scen 2. which you know is dopping
What about more Midget Sub carriers.
And thanks for your great effort. I had more real fun and legal fun playing RA: rather the scen 2. which you know is dopping
"Unless a nation's life faces peril, war is murder."
"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken."
"After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."
Mustafa Kemal
"Sovereignty is not given, it is taken."
"After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well."
Mustafa Kemal
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
Thanks for the comments.
FatR is doing play-testing with some of the fighters and is working on a 'changelist' that will be Posted with the Mod.
Tomorrow I hope to go through all the starting units and TF to make sure things look good from direction. Will also continue working on a new scenario introduction.
It is hoped that all this can be Posted on an RA website where people can be directed for the Files, Mod Info, Commentary, and other relevant material. Safe to say we are not too far from being ready to Post this and see what players think.
FatR is doing play-testing with some of the fighters and is working on a 'changelist' that will be Posted with the Mod.
Tomorrow I hope to go through all the starting units and TF to make sure things look good from direction. Will also continue working on a new scenario introduction.
It is hoped that all this can be Posted on an RA website where people can be directed for the Files, Mod Info, Commentary, and other relevant material. Safe to say we are not too far from being ready to Post this and see what players think.
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
Am working my way through the starting forces and making little tweaks to the deployment of units and TF. No big changes but it is a page full of them nonetheless.
Really like the decision to pull back the 4 newest BBs and 2 CVEs to Hiroshima at war's start. Makes better sense that some sort of reserve is left behind in the Home Islands. The 3 CVLs are at Babeldoap but don't have the speed bonus so that will limit them to start with.
Placing Lexington down by Pago Pago covering the troop reinforcement of that island as well as Canton makes for an interesting opening for the Allied player.
Just a reminder that the Japanese Naval AF starts with a 10-15% reduction in their net skills to much more accurately reflect the problems of Yamamoto's expansion of units and improvements within the training system for Japan. The KB's pilots are still excellent but most of the other groups are now somewhere in the low 60s. They are good but not THAT good. Should see some impact with that change.
Can anyone tell me where to find the pilot production numbers for Mods? I know you can change the monthly number and their starting experience by year but am suffering some form of delusion in not being able to find it. Thanks!
EDIT: Nevermind--Found it! [8|]
Really like the decision to pull back the 4 newest BBs and 2 CVEs to Hiroshima at war's start. Makes better sense that some sort of reserve is left behind in the Home Islands. The 3 CVLs are at Babeldoap but don't have the speed bonus so that will limit them to start with.
Placing Lexington down by Pago Pago covering the troop reinforcement of that island as well as Canton makes for an interesting opening for the Allied player.
Just a reminder that the Japanese Naval AF starts with a 10-15% reduction in their net skills to much more accurately reflect the problems of Yamamoto's expansion of units and improvements within the training system for Japan. The KB's pilots are still excellent but most of the other groups are now somewhere in the low 60s. They are good but not THAT good. Should see some impact with that change.
Can anyone tell me where to find the pilot production numbers for Mods? I know you can change the monthly number and their starting experience by year but am suffering some form of delusion in not being able to find it. Thanks!
EDIT: Nevermind--Found it! [8|]
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
Take note John, that existing pilot production is (a)greater than demand (I believe I have reached the bottom of graduates' pool for IJAAF in my Scen 70 game and started pulling greener pilots that haven't finished the program by Decemeber of 1942, but that was with about half of available IJAAF units dedicated to on-map training) and (b)imposes HI tax. You absolutely should not change the size of training program, unless you want to make things harder for Japanese! Why you think Scen 2 is often considering "Do or Die" scenario, where you should shoot for auto-victory in 1943, before pilot traning HI tax will destroy your economy?
Now things could have been different, if the training produced pilots at EXP 65-70 or so. Unfortunately, at no point the training program in stock scenarios gives you pilots who are actually fit for combat. They still must be trained on-map for 3-4 months.
Well, you apparently CAN make pilots to graduate with better EXP... But take note that you probably should improve the situation here for Allies too, if you do, particularly for late war, in the interest of fairness. And also this will make air combat, already fiercer and bloodier than IRL, far more so and will allow Japanese to steamroll Allied aviation by sheer numbers for much longer. I prefer the existing model, as it forces the pilot conservation and hard choices about the percentage of your aviation you are willing to leave out of combat. Honestly, that part should better be left alone. Expansion of the naval aviation training program is sufficiently represented by new available units, IMO.
Now things could have been different, if the training produced pilots at EXP 65-70 or so. Unfortunately, at no point the training program in stock scenarios gives you pilots who are actually fit for combat. They still must be trained on-map for 3-4 months.
Well, you apparently CAN make pilots to graduate with better EXP... But take note that you probably should improve the situation here for Allies too, if you do, particularly for late war, in the interest of fairness. And also this will make air combat, already fiercer and bloodier than IRL, far more so and will allow Japanese to steamroll Allied aviation by sheer numbers for much longer. I prefer the existing model, as it forces the pilot conservation and hard choices about the percentage of your aviation you are willing to leave out of combat. Honestly, that part should better be left alone. Expansion of the naval aviation training program is sufficiently represented by new available units, IMO.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
Sorry about not responding earlier. BUSY hotel weekend! [8|]
Decided to leave our pilot number where they were originally placed. The numbers are lower then in Scenario 1 but with slightly higher starting IJN XP in 42 and 43. IT then crashes in 1944. Went back through this massive Thread and found our original comments on it and decided to leave well enough alone.
FatR: Have you had a chance to do some of your A-t-A testing? I think I've got things handled on my side for starting corrections.
Decided to leave our pilot number where they were originally placed. The numbers are lower then in Scenario 1 but with slightly higher starting IJN XP in 42 and 43. IT then crashes in 1944. Went back through this massive Thread and found our original comments on it and decided to leave well enough alone.
FatR: Have you had a chance to do some of your A-t-A testing? I think I've got things handled on my side for starting corrections.
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
What is IT?
IT then crashes in 1944
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
On testing: I've ran a significant number of flak tests. Japanese losses from new and improved US small-calibre AA are noticeably higher, but by less than I expected. If you want, I can post the results later.
About A2A, only a few runs so far. Effect from device changes seem minimal, but it is too early to tell. I'm testing new planes from Scen 70, like A7M3, too.
Night fighters still remain almost entirely ineffective against massed raids, by the way. I guess Japanese players should just make peace with the fact that if Allies get Marianas, their industry will burn whatever they do.
Two more things, regarding the air side:
1)Ohka-carrying planes do not seem to work. At all. Over dozens of tests (with exiting to the desktop each time) they never even sortied, despite test TFs hanging right in front of their airfield. Well, let's hope it's going to be patched eventually. I don't think I can do anything about it.
2)I still think that reducing Service Rating for transport planes was unwarranted. In the Ocean of Blood game bigred's transport aviation currently airlifts brigade-sized forces in mere days (despite old Service Rating values). I can only wonder what Allies will be able to do with their aviation in 1944.
About A2A, only a few runs so far. Effect from device changes seem minimal, but it is too early to tell. I'm testing new planes from Scen 70, like A7M3, too.
Night fighters still remain almost entirely ineffective against massed raids, by the way. I guess Japanese players should just make peace with the fact that if Allies get Marianas, their industry will burn whatever they do.
Two more things, regarding the air side:
1)Ohka-carrying planes do not seem to work. At all. Over dozens of tests (with exiting to the desktop each time) they never even sortied, despite test TFs hanging right in front of their airfield. Well, let's hope it's going to be patched eventually. I don't think I can do anything about it.
2)I still think that reducing Service Rating for transport planes was unwarranted. In the Ocean of Blood game bigred's transport aviation currently airlifts brigade-sized forces in mere days (despite old Service Rating values). I can only wonder what Allies will be able to do with their aviation in 1944.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
ORIGINAL: bigred
What is IT?IT then crashes in 1944
Hey Sir.
IT refers to pilot experience numbers in 1944 and 1945 when the Japanese are simply overwhelmed.
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
FatR: Thinks things are in good shape right now.
1. Good with AA news. American AA should be better but not invincible so that is probably about right.
2. How long do you want to work the A-t-A Testing side?
3. Simple reality: Japanese Night Fighters SUCK!
4. We'll have to see what happens with Ohka. Those things are NASTY when if and when they hit something.
5. The Transport Service Rating is something we could discuss. Do other players have any feelings based on their game experience with using Transports en masse? They should be useful (Lordy knows I have used them a bunch in my game with Lew) but do require serious down time.
SUBJECT CHANGE: We have been working on this 3.0 for so long, I think we should incorporate one of the latest Beta Patches from Michael M so the engine is up-to-speed and lots of items/code is fixed. If I understand correctly the B4 Version that just came out fixes 'the Divine Wind.' Should we look at updating RA to that and leave future updates to the player choice?
1. Good with AA news. American AA should be better but not invincible so that is probably about right.
2. How long do you want to work the A-t-A Testing side?
3. Simple reality: Japanese Night Fighters SUCK!
4. We'll have to see what happens with Ohka. Those things are NASTY when if and when they hit something.
5. The Transport Service Rating is something we could discuss. Do other players have any feelings based on their game experience with using Transports en masse? They should be useful (Lordy knows I have used them a bunch in my game with Lew) but do require serious down time.
SUBJECT CHANGE: We have been working on this 3.0 for so long, I think we should incorporate one of the latest Beta Patches from Michael M so the engine is up-to-speed and lots of items/code is fixed. If I understand correctly the B4 Version that just came out fixes 'the Divine Wind.' Should we look at updating RA to that and leave future updates to the player choice?
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
Deployment?
I'd like to try and pen a date for releasing this new beast. 
FatR do you think June 1st would be a workable option?
FatR do you think June 1st would be a workable option?
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
Your results sound similar to Babes. Have statistical analysis of several hundred test runs and mean/sigma results for pre and post 1943 when working with michaelm on the code in this area. Will not post them, and would appreciate it if no one else does either, but the results are available by pm, if you wish, such that you may compare your results to ours.ORIGINAL: FatR
On testing: I've ran a significant number of flak tests. Japanese losses from new and improved US small-calibre AA are noticeably higher, but by less than I expected. If you want, I can post the results later.
All run on standard, single variable, test bed.
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
Thank You John--Very Kind as always!
Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
RE: Keeping it 'Right'
Okey dokey. I'll send a copy to you and Stan and ya'll can modulate amongst yourselves about it.
"Just give me weeeeed, whites and wine, and I'll be willin".
"Just give me weeeeed, whites and wine, and I'll be willin".