Page 26 of 60
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:09 am
by John 3rd
They didn't act on it in RL so I am going to pass with it this time.
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:41 pm
by John 3rd
The real answer to your question is that each ship left was left BY NAME and that became the near tonnage number for the respective fleet.
I like building the 3x2 14" BC to accompany the Constellation. Think of it as a precursor to the Alaska-Class.
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 7:57 pm
by traskott
That sounds good....the more BCs, the merrier
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 9:14 pm
by John 3rd
I like fast, nasty wessels! Sort of like my...wife??!!
Crap. I am sure she is going to see this!
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:43 pm
by InfiniteMonkey
Okay, alpha version of scenario comparison tool is done. Here is a complete list of the changes between BTS 2.6 and BTSL working posted on John's site, in case you were wondering.
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:45 pm
by Admiral DadMan
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I like fast, nasty wessels! Sort of like my...wife??!!
Crap. I am sure she is going to see this!
ohHH I LIKE that.
ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
Okay, alpha version of scenario comparison tool is done. Here is a complete list of the changes between BTS 2.6 and BTSL working posted on John's site, in case you were wondering.
I will play with this tomorrow.
NOT something a wife wants to hear I think...
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Wed Sep 06, 2017 10:49 pm
by InfiniteMonkey
The prettier version. Note that those "Fix?" check boxes and the "Merge Checked" button will allow you to selectively merge any change to the target scenario.
EDIT: OH, and the report attached in the above post was saved using the "Save As" button pictured here.
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:00 am
by John 3rd
That looks very useful. One could go back and look to see if you did this or did that. Like the looks of it.
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:53 pm
by InfiniteMonkey
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
That looks very useful. One could go back and look to see if you did this or did that. Like the looks of it.
I see it's value two fold:
1. Provides a thorough change log of the scenario between versions.
2. Allows modders that use another mod(s) as the base of their mod to incorporate changes to the base mod without exhaustive work.
So let's say you really like a mod's ground and naval OOB, but really hate the air OOB. You decide to build your own mod that overhauls the air OOB. A few months later, the base mod makes changes that are really interesting and you want to incorporate SOME of them. You can us the scenario comparison to identify changes and then selectively apply those changes to your scenario.
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 2:40 pm
by traskott
Thats an AMAZING feature!!
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:13 pm
by Admiral DadMan
ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
That looks very useful. One could go back and look to see if you did this or did that. Like the looks of it.
I see it's value two fold:
1. Provides a thorough change log of the scenario between versions.
2. Allows modders that use another mod(s) as the base of their mod to incorporate changes to the base mod without exhaustive work.
So let's say you really like a mod's ground and naval OOB, but really hate the air OOB. You decide to build your own mod that overhauls the air OOB. A few months later, the base mod makes changes that are really interesting and you want to incorporate SOME of them. You can us the scenario comparison to identify changes and then selectively apply those changes to your scenario.
Unless you're like me and you totally gutted the naval OoB [:D]
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 6:44 pm
by decourcy2
You were commenting on the Japanese breaking the treaty but remember into the 1970's the USA insisted the North Carolina/Washington classes were 35,000 tons.
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 10:13 pm
by John 3rd
That is a GOOD point!
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:20 pm
by Admiral DadMan
ORIGINAL: decourcy2
You were commenting on the Japanese breaking the treaty but remember into the 1970's the USA insisted the North Carolina class were 35,000 tons.
Maybe so, but no one builds a battleship on 15,000 tons (or puts Baby in a corner).
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Thu Sep 07, 2017 11:26 pm
by John 3rd
NO ONE puts BABY in the corner.
(CANNOT believe you made me quote that movie...)[:'(]
RE: Dailing in on London
Posted: Fri Sep 08, 2017 12:48 pm
by Admiral DadMan
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
NO ONE puts BABY in the corner.
(CANNOT believe you made me quote that movie...)[:'(]
It's good for you.
RE: Dailing in on Washington
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:09 am
by John 3rd
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Let's go through the Real Life Numbers and ships from Washington vs. the revamped Ships and Numbers for the Mod:
USA
Utah 21,825
Florida 21,825
Wyoming 26,000
Arkansas 26,000
Texas 27,000
New York 27,000
Nevada 27,500
Oklahoma 27,500
Pennsylvania 31,400
Arizona 31,400
Mississippi 32,000
New Mexico 32,000
Idaho 32,000
Tennessee 32,300
California 32,300
Maryland 32,600
West Virginia 32,600
Colorado 32,600
TOTAL: 525,850
Japan
Settsu TARGET SHIP
Kongo 27,500
Hiei 27,500
Haruna 27,500
Kirishima 27,500
Fuso 30,600
Yamashiro 30,600
Ise 31,260
Hyuga 31,260
Nagato 33,800
Mutsu 33,800
TOTAL: 301,230
525,280 x .6 = 315,510 Japan has 14,280 T available but nothing can be built to that tonnage.
NEW NUMBERS
USA
Wyoming TARGET SHIP
Arkansas 26,000
Texas 27,000
New York 27,000
Nevada 27,500
Oklahoma 27,500
Pennsylvania 31,400
Arizona 31,400
Mississippi 32,000
New Mexico 32,000
Idaho 32,000
Tennessee 32,300
California 32,300
Maryland 32,600
West Virginia 32,600
Colorado 32,600
Washington 32,600
Constellation 43,500
+1 New Capital Ship to be built 30,000 T
TOTAL: 597,300
Japan
Settsu TARGET SHIP
Kongo 27,500
Hiei 27,500
Haruna 27,500
Kirishima 27,500
Fuso 30,600
Yamashiro 30,600
Ise 31,260
Hyuga 31,260
Nagato 33,800
Mutsu 33,800
Tosa 39,900
Ishitaka 41,220
TOTAL: 382,440
567,300 x .7 = 397,110 Japan has nearly the same available tonnage (14,670 T) but nothing can be built to that tonnage.
That is the Treaty by specific math and ships.
Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?
RE: Dailing in on Washington
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 10:13 am
by John 3rd
The files have been sent back over to Michael for some stuff he wants to do. Figure we'll release this sometime this coming week. We'll then shift over to BTSL.
RE: Dailing in on Washington
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 12:25 pm
by ny59giants
Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?
Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not.
RE: Dailing in on Washington
Posted: Sat Sep 09, 2017 2:08 pm
by 1EyedJacks
Or a stronger experimental push with those light Kitikuma cruisers that sport a pair of twenty-torpedo broadsides? Wouldn't it be kind of fun to have 12 of those available early in the war? [:D]