Matrix Games Forums

Does anyone have any side art available for the French Battlecruisers?

I don't mind not have a side view in the ship interface, but ghosts that don't show up in the combat replay is a bit strange.

also,

Anyone have any art for the A6M3b? Another ghost in combat replays.

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Does anyone have any side art available for the French Battlecruisers?

I don't mind not have a side view in the ship interface, but ghosts that don't show up in the combat replay is a bit strange.

also,

Anyone have any art for the A6M3b? Another ghost in combat replays.

Hans, I do have most of it. See attachment....GP

ORIGINAL: General Patton

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Does anyone have any side art available for the French Battlecruisers?

I don't mind not have a side view in the ship interface, but ghosts that don't show up in the combat replay is a bit strange.

also,

Anyone have any art for the A6M3b? Another ghost in combat replays.

Hans, I do have most of it. See attachment....GP

I have one other file for the french. For some reason the file will not upload. To large. I can email to you....GP

ORIGINAL: General Patton

ORIGINAL: General Patton

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Does anyone have any side art available for the French Battlecruisers?

I don't mind not have a side view in the ship interface, but ghosts that don't show up in the combat replay is a bit strange.

also,

Anyone have any art for the A6M3b? Another ghost in combat replays.

Hans, I do have most of it. See attachment....GP

I have one other file for the french. For some reason the file will not upload. To large. I can email to you....GP

Thanks,

I found the artwork I was missing. All is good.

John this thread is right up your ally. No it can't go in RA.[:'(]

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =13&t=1130

I'm currently playing a 2v2 game using RA 7.1 and I've noticed a couple of units missing or changed that are not on the change logs and I would like to know why they were left off the log or production schedule.

First items are all the US reinforcement convoys.

In base game the US gets a number of reinforcement convoys in Panama and Eastern US during the war. These mainly carry supplies but two of them arrive with troops:

15 Supply only convoys
US 1942 A Pool with 1760 devices split between various AA and Motorized Support
ETO Reinfocements with 4500 various devices arriving on 2 Jun 45

2nd Item
The RA Change Log 6.4 Dec 4 2013 states:

Several Essex and Independence-Class CVs/CVLs have thier arrival time advanced slightly.

Comparing base game to RA 7.1 I see the following differences between the two games.

Ship Name Base Game RA 7.1
Varennes New Ship 16 Mar 43
Independence 26 Jun 43 26 Mar 43
Chateau Thierry New Ship 28 May 43
Lexington II 25 Jul 43 16 Dec 43
Kearsarge 10 Aug 45 3 Mar 46
Plus 3 1946 additions not in base game.

By this the only ship advanced is the Independence. In contrast two Essex class have been delayed by 5 months.

There is no mention in the change logs of the massive damage imposed on the US economy. In 7.1 it takes 3.5 years to repair the refinery facilities at LA. In RA7.6 it will take almost 4 full years. No mention of this in the change logs and this is an important item to consider for someone considering playing this as the allies. I repost my request to spread out the refineries across the LA basin, Bakersfield, and the Bay area, all which had operating refineries pre-war. Additionally if some of this refinery capacity represents capacity elsewhere in the US (i.e. TX) it should be moved to the Eastern US.

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

John this thread is right up your ally. No it can't go in RA.[:'(]

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =13&t=1130

500,000 tons? How would it be built and where could it dock? The entire yearly steel output of Japan around 1930 was a little over 6 million tons. So this single ship would consume 1/12 of the entire steel output for a year.

The engineers probably drew up that plan after a late night of heavy drinking. Along with possibly some other substance.

Bill

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

John this thread is right up your ally. No it can't go in RA.[:'(]

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =13&t=1130

500,000 tons? How would it be built and where could it dock? The entire yearly steel output of Japan around 1930 was a little over 6 million tons. So this single ship would consume 1/12 of the entire steel output for a year.

The engineers probably drew up that plan after a late night of heavy drinking. Along with possibly some other substance.

Bill

Lots and Lots of Saki....GP

John, Were the issues earlier raised fixed as I will soon be approaching withdrawl date for the French cl...

ORIGINAL: cavalry

John, Were the issues earlier raised fixed as I will soon be approaching withdrawl date for the French cl...

They get another one very shortly after the first one withdraws.

In fact they get a CA and 2 BCs as well and a few more DDs.

The French get more than enough to set up a viable surface combat TF.

I just accepted its withdrawal and played on.

John said it was a mistake and will be fixed - with what Japan has I need all the help I can get.

Hey Guys!

Got a PM that there were some questions regarding USS Charlotte in BTS. If anyone has one or needs some help there, please jump in and we can discuss the topic of this unique class...

No issues here. But look at post 515 above....GP

john,

did you patch the withdrawl date of the French cl?

awaiting patch as getting near the time.

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

I was playing with the editor and found 2 units at Hong Kong in the editor that aren't in the game.  2nd Royal Scots and a Kumaon Bn.  This got me looking the Scots where actually at Hong Kong the Kumaon was not.  While looking I found that some Chinese soldiers are not represented in the game.  So my question is whats with the Sots and HKCR units?

Is this the message you meant?

JWE did the re-order of the LCUs so I am not sure. Will shoot him a message.

John: It was meant for who ever. I got to looking and found the same units in a stock scn also. So I don't think it is a BTS or RA thing. Just a left over from the original game.

Now post 525 is for you. I saw it and thought of you when I saw it.

ORIGINAL: wdolson

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

John this thread is right up your ally. No it can't go in RA.[:'(]

http://www.shipbucket.com/forums/viewto ... =13&t=1130

500,000 tons? How would it be built and where could it dock? The entire yearly steel output of Japan around 1930 was a little over 6 million tons. So this single ship would consume 1/12 of the entire steel output for a year.

The engineers probably drew up that plan after a late night of heavy drinking. Along with possibly some other substance.

Bill

What a CRAZY design! The designer said he spent six days making it. NUTS!

Do yaaaaa think we should????

OK. No we won't!
[:'(]

I just got done re-reading this entire page and feel like I haven't read half of these Posts. Might be that I've been busy but I always try to check this important thread 2-3 times a week.

Cavalry: I will fix this the CL issue right now. Give me the ship and, I assume, it is in BTS. Will change both RA and BTS anyway but get me the name again. I'll look right now regardless. Never mind, found the name.

rjopel: Will take another look at the ship dates. Don't remember changing anything with any recent RA/BTS work but will look.



The crippling of the US Economy isn't in the Change Log and needs to be. Will fix that. Michael handled all that pure evilness! Think it works pretty well to slow down the 'immediate' flood of US supply and fuel.

OK. Fixed:

1. Jean de Vienne exit date no longer exists.
2. Essex-Class CVs:
----Changed out all of the II ship names (Yorktown II) for new ones.
----Changed several entry dates for the carriers
3. CVL dates checked and some moved about.

Will upload and Post when complete.

Uploaded and completed. We are now at RA 7.7 and BTS 1.9.

Go get 'em!