Alternate WNT Scenarios (v11 Released)

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
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Just to clearify: I don't want to disencourage you. You are actually makeing a kind of mod I had in mind myself, so my ideas are now trying to find their way into your mod [;)]
It's most likely I will play your mod unchanged or just with small further changes!

Dont worry, if anything I appreciate having someone to trade ideas back and forth with, so no need to worry about disencouraging me. [:D]

I think your ideas would probably fit best into the 'balanced' version.

Here we could see more than just the 4 BBs built in the CV Variant, perhaps 6 (2 of them due to be completed during wartime), 2 BC's in the early 30s, and 4 30knots 9x16 fast BBs. These would be more suitable for the sorts of roles you envision than the traditional BBs we see in this BB Variant.

Still looking for artists if anyones wants to do some of these designs in the AE Art style.

Here is BB Tosa/Kaga, though I still want to work on the superstructure...

Early War
Image

Late War
Image

I modified the Nagato hull then worked in peices from the other BBs as necessary. I think it looks something like I intended it to... [:'(]
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by Historiker »

In this forum are a couple of people who are fast in saying "Total bullshit" instead of helping out by showing their understanding of the facts. I hope I'm opposite [;)]
The Kaga looks good! Unfortunately, Graphics is my real weakness at computers. All I can do is cut and paste in MS paint...

If you want a stronger Japan, you may take my idea of a best possible start: Japan seized all of Germany's colonies and sent the Kongos to support the Home Fleet. Consequently, England supported Japans claim for the colonies and Japan starts with Rabaul in its hands! In this case, more US CVs wil have less impact, as Japan is already with strong forces in one of the areas that have to be conquered.

One more thing - drastically leaving the timeline to make Japan stronger - is that Japan stayed in Siberia in 1920. Sakhalin, Kamtschatka and the southern part of the continental Russia are in Japan's hands with all its ressources, industry, oil etc. Of course, this would've led to US reactions, but that's an option. To keep it somehow reasonable, one might at least give Japan all of Sakhalin, which isn't that impossible. The oil there will help Japan a lot, especially as the oil plants may well be bigger. Japan would've put all effort in finding oil there if in Japan's hands. (This is what I'll do in my "BPS - Best "possible" [;)] start" scenario).
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: Historiker

In this forum are a couple of people who are fast in saying "Total bullshit" than in helping one to find the right way. I hope I'm opposite [;)]
The Kaga looks good! Unfortunately, Graphics is my real weakness at computers. All I can do is cut and paste in MS paint...

If you want a stronger Japan, you may take my idea of a best possible start: Japan seized all of Germany's colonies and sent the Kongos to support the Home Fleet. Consequently, England supported Japans claim for the colonies and Japan starts with Rabaul in its hands! In this case, more US CVs wil have less impact, as Japan is already with strong forces in one of the areas that have to be conquered.

One more thing - drastically leaving the timeline to make Japan stronger - is that Japan stayed in Siberia in 1920. Sakhalin, Kamtschatka and the southern part of the continental Russia are in Japan's hands with all its ressources, industry, oil etc. Of course, this would've led to US reactions, but that's an option. To keep it somehow reasonable, one might at least give Japan all of Sakhalin, which isn't that impossible. The oil there will help Japan a lot, especially as the oil plants may well be bigger. Japan would've put all effort in finding oil there if in Japan's hands. (This is what I'll do in my "BPS - Best "possible" [;)] start" scenario).

I dont want to alter something as far back as the Great War, but the move regarding Sakhalin is an interesting thought.

I'm not really too concerned in making Japan much stronger than it already is, as the Japanese industry is already stronger than historically due to no severe damage from the 1923 earthquake, and a slightly stronger shipbuilding industry due to constant, if slow, buildup throughout the period from WNT to failed 2nd LNT. Though this second point also means the allies will be in a better position aswell.

I will look into your point regarding Sakhalin, and see if I can work it into the scenario. More oil in the 30s = even stronger Japanese industry when the war starts.
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by Historiker »

Ernst Reinhard writes in "Die imperialistische Politik im Fernen Osten" (the imperialistic policiy in the far east) Bern 1926 about a treaty between Japan and the Soviets I've never heard about. According to this treaty, made at the end of the Siberian Adventure, Japan had the right to explore oil in ALL of Sakhalin!

Neither do I know whether this is already integrated in the game nore do I know whether this treaty has ended before WW2 or was continued until AUgust 1945, but at least it might continue. In this case, all Soviet oil plants from Northern Sakhalin may move to the Japanese part of the island to simulate Japans right on Soviet oil.

Are you taking scenario 1 or 2 as basis for your scenarios?
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: Historiker

Ernst Reinhard writes in "Die imperialistische Politik im Fernen Osten" (the imperialistic policiy in the far east) Bern 1926 about a treaty between Japan and the Soviets I've never heard about. According to this treaty, made at the end of the Siberian Adventure, Japan had the right to explore oil in ALL of Sakhalin!

Neither do I know whether this is already integrated in the game nore do I know whether this treaty has ended before WW2 or was continued until AUgust 1945, but at least it might continue. In this case, all Soviet oil plants from Northern Sakhalin may move to the Japanese part of the island to simulate Japans right on Soviet oil.

Are you taking scenario 1 or 2 as basis for your scenarios?

Scenario 1. Though I'm reworking some of the industry ect to fit the modified scenario.

For the Enhanced variants I will also borrow some ideas from Scen 2 in the form of more LCUs, better equipment, earlier radar, ect.


Sakhalin is listed as having 80 oil production in the base scenario - this is nice, but really can compare to the DEI. Supposing Japan did retain control of it, what would be reasonable growth assuming they really needed they oil? 120 or so?

I know Sakhalins economy has recently boomed because of said oil reserves (~14 billon barrels), but how accessible was this for 1930s technology? Need to do more reading! [:D]
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by Historiker »

There are two options:

1. You give all of Sakhalin to Japan. The oil plants can stay where they are.
2. You assume the treaty is still in affect and remove the soviet oil and give it to the northern Japanese base.

Reinhard writes about 30.000t. As the book was published in 1926, I'd think this number is from about 1925. I don't know which timetable these 30.000t are, but per year is most likely. So:
a) find out how much one point oil plat represents per year
b) find out how deep the actual and past oilfields in Sakhalin are

All the new big ships will need a lot of additional fuel so it's just fair to balance this by an increased production. I'd propose that until knowing proper numbers the oil production of the soviet part (under Japanese control oder moved south) is increased by 50% with anohter 50% damaged to reflect ongoing work on exploring new oil.
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
RevRick
Posts: 2615
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Thomasville, GA

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by RevRick »

ORIGINAL: JuanG
ORIGINAL: Historiker

So in the BB variant, Japan will have fewer CVs than the USN from the start?

Personally I'm very torn on the issue of the last two USN BBs. I like the idea of 18in Montanas, but cant help but wonder if they would be more plausible as 12 x 16in/50 fast super BBs at 33 knots. Japanese beware. Would kick their displacement up to 70,000+ tons though.

I would think that the faster Montana with 16"/50 Mk 7 and a speed of 33 kts would be a much more flexible design. Besides that, the size of the shell on the 18"/47 is so huge that the reloading cycle and the limitation on the number of shells which could be carried would be a detriment to actually using the thing.

Also, in the IJN realm, in one scenario I was modding, I replaced the two Yamato's with three Yamato Jrs., similar design but with 9 16.1" guns and a speed of 33 kts just to run with the CVs. I also worked with the idea Alikchi had about re-engining and down gunning Ise, Hyuga, Yamashiro, and old whatshername whose name escapes me this morning. (We call such events as those Senior Moments amongst the Antique Flatulent Ones. Watch, I'll think of it on my way to preach this AM.) They wound up with a speed of 30kts and 8 14" guns as in Iron Storm. Give them a decent AA suite and they make good CV TF escorts as well.
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: RevRick
ORIGINAL: JuanG
ORIGINAL: Historiker

So in the BB variant, Japan will have fewer CVs than the USN from the start?

Personally I'm very torn on the issue of the last two USN BBs. I like the idea of 18in Montanas, but cant help but wonder if they would be more plausible as 12 x 16in/50 fast super BBs at 33 knots. Japanese beware. Would kick their displacement up to 70,000+ tons though.

I would think that the faster Montana with 16"/50 Mk 7 and a speed of 33 kts would be a much more flexible design. Besides that, the size of the shell on the 18"/47 is so huge that the reloading cycle and the limitation on the number of shells which could be carried would be a detriment to actually using the thing.

Also, in the IJN realm, in one scenario I was modding, I replaced the two Yamato's with three Yamato Jrs., similar design but with 9 16.1" guns and a speed of 33 kts just to run with the CVs. I also worked with the idea Alikchi had about re-engining and down gunning Ise, Hyuga, Yamashiro, and old whatshername whose name escapes me this morning. (We call such events as those Senior Moments amongst the Antique Flatulent Ones. Watch, I'll think of it on my way to preach this AM.) They wound up with a speed of 30kts and 8 14" guns as in Iron Storm. Give them a decent AA suite and they make good CV TF escorts as well.

The "Fast BB" conversions for the Fuso and Ise classes were inspired by those infact. However, because we cant actually charge shipbuilding points for conversions, I felt converting them to 30kts and 8x14 was really pushing it during wartime, as such a reconstruction also requires lengthening the hull and other serious reworking. And doing such work before the war is out of the question with the build schedule I have lined up.

The 26knots 10x14 conversion I have included however, only puts them 1 knot above their design speed, which should be doable without any major structural reworking. It is also not quite as extensive, and thus if we can pass off the BB/CV Hybrid conversions as not needing naval points, then these should be fine too.

If we can ever charge naval points (and with that get the option accelerate/stop) conversions, then I will definately include both types, in addition to the historical hybrids.

The Yamato Jr. class sounds like the Izumo class fast BBs in the CV Variant scenario, 32knots and 9x16in/50 and good DP AA.


Thanks for your thoughts on the Illinois class, I agree. I will be changing them to a design like that.
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by Historiker »

If we can ever charge naval points (and with that get the option accelerate/stop) conversions, then I will definately include both types, in addition to the historical hybrids.
Is it sure this doesn't work? I once heard this will be possible in AE but still have no clarification as the active AE members only occasionally answer my questions...

What I've forgotten:
If you choose the "Soviet-Jap Treaty is still in affect" option, the additional oil mustn't be added by oil wells, the produced oil by the soviet wells must arrive in the most northern Japanese Base as reinforcement "off map". The wells are in soviet territory and its most unlikely that the allies bomb them while sending lend lease goods to vladivostok...

Consequently, this oil has to be immune to bombing!
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: Historiker
The reasoning regarding the RN is that, yes, they do have a faster battleline, but the IJN expects the RN to deploy mainly the older QE and R classes to the far east, along with one or two of the old battlecruisers.
I doubt that the IJN would do such a gamble and consider one of their potential main enemys will just send its old ships. IMO, Japan would never accept a smaller battleline that doesn't even have the initiative!

How long will it delay the 6 ships if they are faster? half a year each? Is that realistic? You already expect the Echizens and the Yamatos to be built parallel, right? So the Sagamis mid 1940 and the Yamatos early 1942?

You might use a trick with the Echizens: Since Hiraga shortly after WW1, the belt armour of the Ships was used as hull itself and "just welded" onto the basic structure. In theory, one may design the belt very weak to save weight and prepare ths ship from the beginning to recieve additional armour as soon as the Treatys allow it. For stability, it might recieve huge concrete pieces under the keel and the "real" armour may already lay ready in the navy yards. This was never done but must be theoretically possible and would consequently allow a much bigger ship to be built without violating the treaty as the fitting with the intended armour would just take as much time as it takes to replace the armour.

I doubt there won't show up someone who says this is stupid, but understand it as animation. I came to that idea reading Wilhelm Treue's "Die Deutsche Marinerüstung" where he described that Germany built subs despite the Versailles treaty. They were dismantled in the navy facitlitys and prepared for a fast assembly in case of war.

If Japan is willed to do such a thing, it can find a way to do it for sure. Whether this is too far away from reality or not is your choice! [:)] I'm no naval engineer, but from my understanding, with additional weight under the ship, this should be really possible to do!

Doh, I just realized I missed this entire post. I'm so sorry!

One pair of building slips;
Echizen - Laid down late 1936 - Launched early 1939 - Comissioned early 1940 (~28 months to launch)
Hiryu - Laid down mid 1939 - Launched mid 1941 - Comissioned mid 1942 (~23 months to launch)

The other two big slips;
Soryu - Laid down late 1936 - Launched early 1939 - Comissioned early 1941 (~24 months to launch)
Yamato - Laid down early 1939 - Launched early 1941 - Comissioned late 1941 (~26 months to launch)

In comparison, some historic ships;
Yamato ~ 33 months to launch
Musashi ~ 32 months to launch
Shokaku ~ 26 months to launch
Zuikaku ~ 18 months to launch (!!!)
Iowa ~ 26 months to launch

So I think these are pretty reasonable. What I mean with "switch Yamato and Hiryu" is that Hiryu would be build immediately after Soryu on the same slips, thus meaning they'd probably be in comission late 1941. It also sort of makes sense for the yard that just did two of them to get orders for the repeat builds....hmm.

I reckon that increasing their speed to 30 knots would probably mean a displacement around 64,000tons, some 8,000tons heavier than right now. This means they would probably add, around 4-6 months of build time. And a lot of machinery.


Regarding the RN, I really dont know...On one hand though, the RN battleline is only using 15in guns, while most of the IJN is 16in gunned. This could lead to a sense of superiority over their 'lightly armed' battleships, enough to let them have their 3 knot advantage.

The idea of 'add it later' armour is an interesting concept, and one the IJN sort of did with Hiei during her conversion to a training ship, where her armour and guns were reduced and added back on later. In this AU both Kongo and Hiei have this done, Hiei as a training ship and Kongo as a target.


The current Echizen design looks roughly like this;

860ft x 120ft x 34ft
56,500t standard
63,700t full load

4 x 3 x 16in/50 - two fore, two aft, superfiring
2 x 3 x 5.5in/60 - two on ends, superfiring as in Yamato
4 x 2 x 5.5in/60 - two per side
8 x 2 x 5in/40 - four per side, elevated as in Yamato

Belt - 14in (355mm)
Deck - 7.5in (190mm)
Turrets - 20.5in (520mm)
Tower - 18.1in (460mm)

Speed - 27.3 knots @ 120,000hp
Range - 11,500nm @ 15 knots using 7,150tons of fuel



A 30 knot design would look like this;

980ft x 115ft x 35ft
63,100t standard
71,000t full load

4 x 3 x 16in/50 - two fore, two aft, superfiring
2 x 3 x 5.5in/60 - two on ends, superfiring as in Yamato
4 x 2 x 5.5in/60 - two per side
8 x 2 x 5in/40 - four per side, elevated as in Yamato

Belt - 14in (355mm)
Deck - 7.5in (190mm)
Turrets - 20.5in (520mm)
Tower - 18.1in (460mm)

Speed - 30.3 knots @ 175,000hp
Range - 11,500nm @ 15 knots using 7,150tons of fuel

So yes, my estimate of it being comparable in size to the historical Yamato is correct.
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: Historiker
If we can ever charge naval points (and with that get the option accelerate/stop) conversions, then I will definately include both types, in addition to the historical hybrids.
Is it sure this doesn't work? I once heard this will be possible in AE but still have no clarification as the active AE members only occasionally answer my questions...

What I've forgotten:
If you choose the "Soviet-Jap Treaty is still in affect" option, the additional oil mustn't be added by oil wells, the produced oil by the soviet wells must arrive in the most northern Japanese Base as reinforcement "off map". The wells are in soviet territory and its most unlikely that the allies bomb them while sending lend lease goods to vladivostok...

Consequently, this oil has to be immune to bombing!


Im pretty sure it dosent work, since I tried messing with the conversions because I had some other bright (or not so bright) ideas that just did work because of it.

I'd be more inclined on giving the Japanese the whole of Sakhalin, and leave the oil there. Maybe increase refineries in Japan proper slightly. This makes it a nice target for a north pacific approach, as we saw in some AARs of old WitP.
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by Historiker »

The idea of 'add it later' armour is an interesting concept, and one the IJN sort of did with Hiei during her conversion to a training ship, where her armour and guns were reduced and added back on later. In this AU both Kongo and Hiei have this done, Hiei as a training ship and Kongo as a target.
So you can use this trick for treaty ships to increase their power after the abandoning of the treatys. The Mogamis and the whole shaddow ships program were constructed with a philosophy that might well include such ideas.

In Germany, a byword is "Where is a will, there is a way". If Japan really wants to cheat, it can cheat. On a long rear of a BB, an empty barbette my be fittet and just planks put over it. This saves weight and looks like an ordinary ship with just 4 turretes, in case of war the planks are removed and an already combat ready turret is added. THings like this were never done, but is this really a reason to declare it impossible? By doing so, you can weight and still have much stronger ships after a short time in the shipyards.



To the "naval point conversions": The required shipyard is several times above 10, especially when ships are converted to a totally differend kind of ship like the CHitoses. In this case, it is often 25. I hope and haven't tested so far that this means the ship is added to the building list and the conversion costs 25. This has to be tested though.
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: Historiker
The idea of 'add it later' armour is an interesting concept, and one the IJN sort of did with Hiei during her conversion to a training ship, where her armour and guns were reduced and added back on later. In this AU both Kongo and Hiei have this done, Hiei as a training ship and Kongo as a target.
So you can use this trick for treaty ships to increase their power after the abandoning of the treatys. The Mogamis and the whole shaddow ships program were constructed with a philosophy that might well include such ideas.

In Germany, a byword is "Where is a will, there is a way". If Japan really wants to cheat, it can cheat. On a long rear of a BB, an empty barbette my be fittet and just planks put over it. This saves weight and looks like an ordinary ship with just 4 turretes, in case of war the planks are removed and an already combat ready turret is added. THings like this were never done, but is this really a reason to declare it impossible? By doing so, you can weight and still have much stronger ships after a short time in the shipyards.



To the "naval point conversions": The required shipyard is several times above 10, especially when ships are converted to a totally differend kind of ship like the CHitoses. In this case, it is often 25. I hope and haven't tested so far that this means the ship is added to the building list and the conversion costs 25. This has to be tested though.

Ill run a test immediatly. I'm not too optimistic though.

No dice. Its a shame really. Or maybe I'm just too stupid to figure it out. [8|]
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by Historiker »

The question remains whether they have to be paid for while the ship stays on the map. Does the chitose conversion disappear from map or does it stay? Have you tested whether it costs something?
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: Historiker

The question remains whether they have to be paid for while the ship stays on the map. Does the chitose conversion disappear from map or does it stay? Have you tested whether it costs something?

If it works like the conversions, then it stays on the map, in 'Pierside' repair mode for whatever the delay is for the conversion. In the case of Chitose its 300days. And it has to happen in a repair yard greater than 50 points size. It does not show up on the build que, so no naval cost. Its a shame the ship isnt atleast moved into the shipyard to take up repair space...

I havent actually gotten a ship to upgrade yet, but I figure its the same as for conversions. I dont see why it wouldnt be.
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by Historiker »

Ok, thank you. But have you compared the naval point pool whether it takes points out of it? I doubt the AE team made the Chitose conversion for free, or did it?
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
ChickenOfTheSea
Posts: 579
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:38 pm
Location: Virginia

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by ChickenOfTheSea »

JuanG.,
It's good to see that Historiker is chiming in here. He provided some really good ideas for RHS that made it a much better game.

AE looks like it may be more suited to a battlefleet oriented scenario than WITP. The leaky CAP makes carriers more vulnerable and the topedo limitations mean battlefleets have opportunities to operate in more areas.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is. - Manfred Eigen
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by Historiker »

Thank you, chiken. I'm still a little bit proud of my invention concerning the production [;)]

@Juan
tm.asp?m=2178241&mpage=28&key=&#
[:(][:(][:(]
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
ChickenOfTheSea
Posts: 579
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2008 7:38 pm
Location: Virginia

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by ChickenOfTheSea »

JuanG,
Tested a first turn on the modified scenario 1 you uploaded. I believe someone told you that the lower slots were unused and it looks like you have cleared them out for something else. Unfortunately, slots 89-102 (torpedoes for torpedo bombers) are used by the aircraft files, so these either need to be restored or moved somewhere else.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice, there is. - Manfred Eigen
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios

Post by JuanG »

Oh man, I cant believe I missed those! I checked that range for any shipclasses using those devices, same for LCUs, but didnt bother to check aircraft. Doh.

I was going to upload v2 soon anyway, so I'll fix that asap.

Thanks for spotting it. I thought the torpedoes were mixed in with the aircraft guns, which I did leave alone. [:)]


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


Version 2 up.

This also has some more fixes to stuff others have spotted, like the Tonan Whaler conversion bug.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2009/8/1/2529503/Scen40v2.rar


Its a shame we cant charge points for conversions, but I do understand the AE team couldnt do everything. Guess we have to look forward to WitP II for that...[;)]

One idea I did have was make the extensive (Ise/Fuso fast BB conversions, ect) require, say, 150 repair yard size. This way, if the player wants to do this, he would have to invest supplies in increasing the capacity of his repair yards before he can do that (Largest Japanese is ~100 right now).


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

Harima (Nagato-Kai) class art done;
Image

Lexington class CC art done;
Image

I've also realised the Illinois in its new 33knot 12x16 BB form will not actually fit onto a art panel at the same scale as the others! [:D]
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”