Reluctant Admiral Feedback

[vaned74]

John - I downloaded the link that FatR put earlier and already made the changes to the BBs. Send me a PM with your e-mail and I will send you the ship class file. I changed all front mounts of 6 16 in or larger guns to 2 slots of 3 and then added a rear slot of 3 large guns at the end. Ammo updated to what it was already for the 3 gun turret slots (ie 22, 26, etc)

-Don

[John 3rd]

Don,

Note and Email address sent. Would like to have known someone else was working on this. Just wasted an hour-and-a-half of work. Thank you though for the help.

We need to update the file to RA, Scenario 70 2D so people can separate the versions. I've all sorts of ideas for a Version 3 but will hold off until players get farther into the Mod.

John

[vaned74]

Got your e-mail. Sent back the files. Didn't take long to make the changes, just kinda started looking at it and then I was done before I knew it. I sent back files as Scen 069 - just the c and g files for the classes and groups.

Also made the suggestion via e-mail to:

1) reduce transport plane service ratings by 1 across the board
2) same for patrol planes (emily, cataline, sunderland, mavis, etc)

Both of these seem to pull an inordinately high number of ops losses and/or poor availability even at low %utilization (30% on naval search). I could be using them wrong though and I should maybe test at shorter search ranges. Transport planes really do seem to die at high rates - although that could be the mission and not the plane.

[John 3rd]

Thanks Sir. Just updated my AAR. Will take a quick look at the email and comments.

I concur with your notes. I can't keep my Mavis and Emily flying. I've had other comments regarding that too from other players.

[vaned74]

Files are in your inbox.

The following changes made:

1) turrets separated on BBs; ammo adjusted back up accordingly
2) checked - belt armor on Japanese CAs was fixed
3) late war Japanese CVs that can be accelerated appear with mid-war fighters now (A6M5b) to avoid problem of them arriving in mid-43 with A7 Sams.
4) patrol planes and transports have service rating reduced by 1 to hopefully reduce ops losses and increase serviceability
5) allied patrol plane & transport production up'd by 1/3 to reflect that these planes have high ops losses, Japan can react with production adjustment/Allies cannot
6) small Japanese subs now have reduced production cost - durability 10 - but then upgrade immediately to their regular durability requiring a few days of repairs to be sea ready

[John 3rd]

Thanks for the work and clarification regarding changes.

Got the files and will do some quick polishing.

[FatR]

EDIT: Thanks to vaned74 for fixing the problem before I even looked here. Looks like my immediate assistance wasn't needed. John, we probably should post files provided by vaned in the first post of the thread. I can put them on the same filesharing site.

Sorry again for not answering earlier. Really didn't have the time and energy for doing much AE-related besides current turns. I'll try to add more comments within a few days.

For now I can only say that I have few, if any, problems with searchplane maintenance at 60%/40% rest, altitude of 5-6k and range set to their normal range, so I don't think they need lesser service rating. As about transports I don't know. They do tend to take significant ops losses, but this might be historical.

[John 3rd]

Stanislav--I was worried about you. Glad things are OK. We'll shoot the modified files to you for Posting. I have an email ready to go to all the current players that I know of.

Thanks!

[John 3rd]

Don--Send the finished files to Stanislav.

[FatR]

John, a few questions before posted the updated version of the scenario. Are you sure we need reduced service ratings on patrol and transport planes? This will only encourage players to use them with abandon. It's enough that ops losses outside of combat for all of the other plane types are ahistorically miniscule (assuming the player treats his squadrons responsibly). I don't mind giving Allies more production of that types, but reducing service ratings will make things too easy and reward careless play.

Also, should we remove droptank capabilities from Judy, to bring it in line with the official scenarios, and, apparently, RL.

[John 3rd]

We should make Judy correct. Go ahead and change that FatR.

As to the search planes, I'd like to experiment to see what result this might bring. By reducing Service Rating by 1, I'm curious to see how much of a change this makes. Do you really think it'll have that big of impact? Don floated it as an idea and my experience with the Mod is that roughly 50% of my search planes are down at any one time. I think that is REALLY high and no I don't have them at 100% search! [:'(]

[John 3rd]

FatR--When you have the Update done and Posted could you Post that here? I know you plan to place 2D at the front of this Thread as well as the Mod Site--correct?

[FatR]

Link to the new version, that includes all the fixes, and the key changes from the patch 5 (I decided to go ahead and introduce those that weren't really minor and insignificant. Other than Judies, the main gameplay-affecting change includes greater reinforcement rate for Chinese infantry):

http://www.box.net/shared/gtfpzqv03m

[John 3rd]

Thank You Sir.

[FatR]

Saving a link to this thread, devoted to the discussion of real Judy range for possible use in development of 3.0 version:

tm.asp?m=2631884

[John 3rd]

We've been talking about the Mod over in Yubari's AAR. If anyone has comments to toss in they would be welcome.

[bigred]

Study as she goes. I have had no complaints from Dirty Harry. He is the allies in our game and an ex-fighter pilot. Has not said anything to me about system/mod issues.

[John 3rd]

That is good. Could you encourage him to hop on here at some point and post some thoughts/commentary?

[John 3rd]

Doing some Editor work and have a question. How do you make a Squadron permanent restricted? I ask because I thought I did that with the three Navy Training Squadrons in RA? They are currently assigned to West Coast but that--apparently--doesn't keep them from being bought out. Which command should they be attached to?

[kfsgo]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Doing some Editor work and have a question. How do you make a Squadron permanent restricted? I ask because I thought I did that with the three Navy Training Squadrons in RA? They are currently assigned to West Coast but that--apparently--doesn't keep them from being bought out. Which command should they be attached to?

You'd want to check the 'Static HQ' box in the AirGroups editor (bottom one of the top right checkboxes) to keep them under that command permanently as opposed to being available for buyouts.