Reluctant Admiral Feedback

[John 3rd]

Stanislav--I am a little confused on the last Posting. Did you make the changes down to 12 for the modern BBs or am I doing that?

[FatR]

I did the changes.

However, these were changes to the latest version of the mod, one that was posted on this thread directly before, I believe. Those who still use earlier versions in ongoing games (like myself) might want to update their files themselves, to avoid bugs, associated with major data changes.

[guctony]

I have another problem somehow I have ghost planes in my Cvs whic are preventing my air groups from flying any mission. I am at the middle of enemy territory. any sugggestion

[John 3rd]

You have 130 PLANES on the CV? They do appear to be phantoms. Did you re-size or mess with the air group in any way?

[guctony]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

You have 130 PLANES on the CV? They do appear to be phantoms. Did you re-size or mess with the air group in any way?

Nope it started suddenly and now it is all over my CV task force 4 Cv is effected by it.

they are phantoms

[John 3rd]

I have no idea what this could be. Makes no sense for the game to do that. The fact it is on four CVs is quite concerning. My thoughts are to Post it over on the Tech Support area and see if one of the Mods can take a look and make a suggestion.

Please let us know what happens...

[FatR]

I certainly haven't seen anything like that. That's probably Tech Support matter.

[yubari]

The A6M3b, shown on the Kaga is not carrier capable, could that be the cause?

[John 3rd]

That is a good thought. I only think wouldn't fly, however, there might be something to the idea.


NEW TOPIC: I spent a couple of hours last night and Thursday drawing up a set ideas/proposals for RA, Mk 3. Some are fairly big but most is simply housekeeping and fixing issues we already know about. If I get time later today I will Post the list and start the commentary phase of this.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: yubari

The A6M3b, shown on the Kaga is not carrier capable, could that be the cause?

I wondered whether this might be relevant, too. If all Guctony's CV's are affected by this, it would be interesting to know whether they all have this version of the Zero embarked. If any carriers equipped with, say, the A6M2 are not affected by phantom aircraft, this would add to suspicion that this may be part of the explanation.

I assume that the A6M3b designation is intended to represent the Model 32 Zero which preceded the Model 22, aka A6M3a. I've never understood why the Model 32 is not treated as 'carrier capable'. Show me evidence that Model 32's were built without arrester gear and/or lacked the requisite structural strength to absorb arresting wire forces acting on the tailhook and I might be convinced otherwise. I know there's controversy as to whether Model 32's were ever on the operational strength of any Japanese carrier whilst at sea, but whether they were capable of being so used and whether they actually did so are entirely distinct questions.

Sorry. Longstanding bugbear of mine.

[John 3rd]

I concur. It seems like the logical explanation for the bug that he is experiencing. Let us know if this is the problem!

[John 3rd]

I alluded earlier about wanting to begin working on the 3.0 Version of the Mod. I think enough people are far enough into the Mod to be able to provide for substantial feedback and ideas.

Lets start with the easy stuff:
1. FIX Japanese CA NO Armor issue for 4 of the Heavy Cruisers
2. FIX Modern BB Ammo loadout issue

LCU Changes
1. I am thinking about starting the 9th Air Fleet (HQ, Air Flotilla, BF, and planes) active in Japan at the start but make the units at a cadre strength of 25%. The Daitai would also start as available but at a skill of 40-50%.

2. Instead of keeping starting Naval Air at normal or higher skill levels, we should reduce them somewhat. I got to thinking that in starting a rotation training program at the beginning of 1940 as well as expanding (somewhat) the OOB, these Daitai and Chutai should start at a lower experience percent. The CVs would be at the best but the land-based units would be lower.

3. Conversely, the quality of Naval Air Trainees would improve in 1942, peak in 1943, and crash in 1944.

4. The improved LCUs entering in with more engineers and engineer vehicles would all enter service at 75% instead of 100% strength.

Starting ENGINES needs to be checked to reflect the changed aircraft production.

Naval Construction
1. Thanks to the Thread work on large Japanese slipways and when the capital ships were on them, I intend to revamp the times for new construction as well as factor in the addition of the two new slips already created (at Shanghai and Port Arthur) when the Mod starts. It is my intention to actually draw out what ships are where to achieve a 'realistic' production schedule.

2. Intend to add some of the 1941 additional ship orders to the OOB. This will mean putting Taiho back into the que as well as a couple of cruisers and some more DDs. Whether the player can actually build them is another story.

Left my list at home and since I am at work and don't have my list in front of me I will stop with this much so people can begin thinking and contributing.

What say you?

[John 3rd]

I forgot to mention that it might be a cool idea to move Lexington's TF down into the South Pacific covering the reinforcement convoy that starts at Suva...

[FatR]

I'll post extended comments later, but I must say even if Japan can technically squeeze more carriers into shipyard queues (and their RL fleet building program was already overambitious), I'm against this for gameplay reasons. Carriers are so important that unless they totally suck (like Shinano), there is no question whether to build them or not, the only question is what you can axe to build them.

[John 3rd]

Exactly what I said with 'whether the player can actually build them!' Makes sense for the possibility, however, the player must actually make the choices. I LIKE forcing the player to make the decisions!

[FatR]

When one of the options is clearly superior, that hardly is a decision. Unless there are as many carriers in the queue as in CV Enhanced, the player will build them all. Assuming smooth conquest of SRA, it is easily possible to just squeeze a Taiho-class in the building program without sacrificing anything. The economy will still run at modest HI surplus, assuming the player does not go overboard in other areas. Assuming the oil production was wrecked to the point of inhibiting industry, the player will just halt some of the more expensive surface combatants.

EDIT: If you want to give players a choice, place Kawachi-class CBs in ports at the beginning of the scenario in damaged state, ensuring that they are not repaired until their normal availability timeline and with an option of CV conversion (to supbar CVs, with about 40-45 planes each, although well-protected), that will delay their availability to second half of 1944. This will actually provide an interesting conundrum.

EDIT2: And to be honest, I'm not too keen on major changes in general. No one even reached the end of 1942 yet, my game vs. Yubari is the longest-running, AFAIK and it suffers from all of the bugs (so in addition to the oversized Chinese army I've just found that my surface force is crippled until the end of 1942).

[Lecivius]

I would tend to agree.  There is more than enough in this as it stands.
 
Just my 2 cents worth.

[bigred]

EDIT2: And to be honest, I'm not too keen on major changes in general.

+1, I agree. I am in may.

[John 3rd]

The bug issues that need fixed or have been fixed are:

1. Modern BB Loadouts for Ammo.
2. The Zero Speed issue. Somehow they got some super high octane and are flying anywhere from 10-15 MPH faster.
3. The 4 CA that have serious armor issues.

FatR has handled the short-term fix of the BB Ammo problem as well as the Zeros. I can deal with the CAs. How about we put it all together so everything is fixed and Post that for active players to download? It is only database changes and so it SHOULD (cross your fingers) not cause any issues with current games.

Did I miss anything here?

[John 3rd]

Perhaps I should also ask if there are other problems out there that we have missed?