Modified Pac.exe available

[Istfemer]

What subject says.

I looked into the code and did some hex-editing. My goal was to fix Arctic and Monsoon weather zones.
This is a kind of a bare-bones release. More features may be added in future versions.
The file's too big to upload here. So anyone who wants to try it — PM me.

List of differences from official Matrix v3.2 EXE:

-- AWZ now starts at 52,14 inclusive and extends north and east (in v3.2 EXE it started at 45,16 inclusive). Weather severity was changed to v1.1x22 EXE levels.
-- MWZ area was left the same as it was in v3.2 EXE (starts at 25,13 inclusive and extends north and west). Monsoon months are now Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep. (were March, April, May)
-- Japanese kill multiplier effective 1944. (done via Gedit editor)

Big thanks goes to BradK for his tips & support.

[bradk]

Ummm... my "tips" mostly consisted of saying "I've wanted for almost forever to find someone who could do this because it's well beyond my skill level".

MAJOR advantage is that Seattle is no longer in the Artic Weather Zone. So there will be some land based air opposition when Zeke shows up there! (Just had to say that Zeke... I know you go after Seattle because you're trying to stop Microsoft before it starts.)

Hopefully the adjustments in the Monsoon season wil delay IJ a bit in Burma. Bill T has observed here in the past this is a problem. I tried to address the issue in my last pair of scenarios with stronger Indian LCUs but it hasn't been tested in a complete human/human game.

Anyway, Istfemer has done great work here, a help to all of us, and is the first person who has edited the exe in I believe over a decade. I greatly appreciate it and hope people here will try his new exe.

[zeke99]

Thanks Brad, I like my Linux but I'm not that fanatic [;)]

Going after West coast in 1942 is the only way for the Japs to win the game.

As this is sooooooo unrealistic I now prefer a more historic approach.

Cheers

[bradk]

Agreed that using the Matrix exe and scenarios its impossible for IJ to win without taking most of the map. Note there's some help for IJ in Itsfemer's exe because he retained the edit I made returning the kill multiplier to 1944 as it was in SSI.

It is my view that IJ should be able to win if it can take significantly moer than the historical areas (but certainly not the US west coast) if it can also inflict huge losses on the RN and USN while limiting its own naval losses. This was possible in SSI.

My early attempts to provide that possibility over shot the target for reduciing production (necessary to restore the value of kill points) resuting in shortages of aricraft not liked by many players. Hopefully the versions I'm working on now will still provide IJ with a possibility of winning without taking the entire map, while reducing the complaints of critical aircraft shortages.

Anyway, with Istfemer's mods, I'm going to adjust the scenarios to work better with the monsoon season he's devised.

[Capt. Harlock]

It is my view that IJ should be able to win if it can take significantly moer than the historical areas (but certainly not the US west coast) if it can also inflict huge losses on the RN and USN while limiting its own naval losses. This was possible in SSI.

Another reason why it was possible with the SSI version was that, when Calcutta was taken, the Allies lost a good deal of aircraft production. What's your opinion of the production points currently in India? (Which is now meat on the table for the Japanese, since they have extra months before the monsoon penalty.)

[bradk]

Memory is SSI had one aircraft factory in India and (one in Australia) so I don't consider a lot of production points are available there.

Matrix moved the factories of British associates to the UK when they created that hex, didn't they?

Please recall that when I play I offer to play either side and actually don't have any preference. So this means I want a scenario and house rules that make it equally enjoyable playing either side.

I firmly believe IJ ought to be able to win in the score in 1944 but that doing so should require some good luck for IJ and some extra good play by the IJ players, and some bad luck for the Allies. I think a good Allied player should be able to loose in 1944 with some bad luck and a strong opponent.

I also believe that IJ should, if it misses a victory, be able to, absent bad decision and luck, have a reasonable chance for a draw at the end of 1945.

Now, with that stated... I think Allied factories outside the US and UK put a valuable target "out there" that can result in gamey play where a few bases are tageted by IJ rather than what I think is proper, which is an overall advance within a strategic plan of conquest.

In one of my early scenarios I had three factories in Australia, the idea being that it would discourage Allied players who like to strip Aus of LCUs from doing so. Later I decided that IJ could still concentrate enough force to have a reasonable chance of taking those factories, and that a better solution was house rules to prevent stripping Aus of its defense.

This may not be commonly known, but if the Allies lose a base with a factory, its prodcution points are lost forever. Recapturing the base does not give the Allies credit for the production points.

Peculiarly, the factory continues producing whatever its set to produce, and the Allied player gets the equipment. OTOH, there's no control of the factory. It continues to produce whatever it was making when it was captured.

Bottom line is, if the game is to be designed so IJ can win by doing things that are within a stretch of the imagination as possible - taking the US west coast isn't one of those - then its necessary to put production points back to being close to SSI values.

Not having an abundance of aircraft is kind of a shock for people who never played SSI. Having concerns about not having enough equipment is not only necessary for the above goal, but its realistic.

OTOH, I read on anther board - and I agree with it - that the reason many wargames aren't realistic from the standpoint of equipment restrictions is that many players dont' want realistic war games!

[bradk]

After reading the above I think I didn't directly answer your question. I intend to increase the capabilities of LCUs in Burma and India so that IJ has to make a substantial commitment - one that results in it having to choose between conquest of India/Burma and other areas - to be able to take it.

One of my opponents suggested a no landings in India house rule. Some would object and say that isn't realistic. Yet for a couple of decades players have accepted house rules for no landings at Singapore and Bataan on the flimsy reasoning that five 15 inch guns and Singapore and a few dozen 5 inchers at Bataan, manned by people without adequate supplies, made landings there unrealistic. Fact is, those rules were made for game play issues, and no other reason. Those rules can't be justified on realism.

[Capt. Harlock]

Concerning LCU experience ratings:

It was discovered some years ago that the values quoted in the manual (p. 34) for the LCU experience checks are incorrect. To pass the first check, the square of experience must be greater than 3000 times a random number, and to pass the second check, it must be greater than 5000 times a random number. This means that a unit with an experience of 29 (such as a Chinese unit) has less than a 5% chance of passing both checks.

I would imagine that the experience rating of many units has been adjusted over the years to make them perform better, so changing the values to those specified in the manual (900 and 2500 respectively) would cause some major differences in ground combat. It might be worth it, however, because as it stands a unit with an experience of 20 or below generally takes so many casualties in combat that replacements lower the experience even further than whatever gain might have happened.

What is the prevailing opinion?

[bradk]

I don't know the formula for lowing exp with replacements.

We can see from the Matrix documentation that DEI LCUs were weakened because IJ AI needed some help in the area. This isn't a concern for me because my scenarios are all intended for human/human.

Anyway, I'm going to get back to working on scenarios to adjust for the exe changes but can't do so for about a month. My current project is to fix some of the data files for Old Time Baseball for my cousin. She's visiting me in a about a week.

[Fishbreath]

Istfemer, bradk, once you have the .exe and scenario edits finalized, please feel free to drop me a PM or an email (I don't check in here all that often), and I'll mirror the files for you at my website.

Edit: with Istfemer's permission, I've mirrored the modified Pac.exe at http://many-words.com/pacific-war.

[bradk]

Thank you, as always, Fishbreath.

I need to give this some thought to the modifications. Its been suggested to me that some additional Allied LCUs in India/Burma would be good but we have the problem of additional LCUs limiting the number of divided LCUs. I've run into problems with the current number of LCUs of there not being database space to divide LCUs as needed.

For those who might not be aware, when an LCU is loaded on multiple ship units, the program divides it for the ship units involved. If there aren't blank spots in the database to do this, part of the LCU is lost. At this point I think even one additional LCU might be a problem for gameplay.

India/Burma is more defensible in my scenarios in a human/human game than in Matrix because I've provided USAAF aircraft for the British and associates. In a Matrix Allied human/IJ AI game, the Allied player gets these through the "do you want to upgrade" routine but this is not present in a human/human game, meaning the British and associates only get RAF and USN aircraft until the P47 comes out.

Still, I believe the Allies should be able to hold India in most circumstances unless IJ deploys more than historical forces to the area.

[Capt. Harlock]

Still, I believe the Allies should be able to hold India in most circumstances unless IJ deploys more than historical forces to the area.

With all due respect, that doesn't mean much in a human-vs-human game. It is not difficult for the Japanese to commit additional forces to the Burma/India theater, and a rich harvest of VP's can be had there in the early game.

[bradk]

Depends on the house rules. I usually play with garrison requirements for IJ for the Philippines, Malaysia, and DEI, in addition to the long stanard garrison requirement for Indo China. Under such circumstances, an IJ play may have to give up some other theater to prevail in India/Burma. Note "may". <G>

[Istfemer]

It would be nice to write some kind of .exe patch utility, so players can choose the options and values they want in their games.
I have no experience in this and I don't know if this would be a difficult task.

[Fishbreath]

Probably not all that difficult. I assume that none of the changes people have made overlap in the executable. It's probably best to bake an unmodified copy of Pac.exe into the patcher utility, so that you always know what point you're starting from. With that in mind, I'd do it like this:

1. For each variation, note the offset in Pac.exe, the length of the changed region, and the final contents of the changed region.
2. The user selects a set of changes.
3. The utility matches each user-selected change to the patch for that change derived in step 1.
4. The utility reads its copy of Pac.exe into a byte array.
5. For each patch found in step 3, the utility copies the patch over the corresponding bytes in the Pac.exe array.
6. The utility writes the modified Pac.exe to disk.

I can't really volunteer to take this on—I'm already extremely over-committed—but it would be cool if someone did.

[bradk]

Well, an exe edit is beyond my capability. I've just gotten to the point I can hex edit just the data files for Old Time Baseball.

[Rich Dionne]

Quite impressive that you were able to locate this info in the EXE! I can put together an EXE editor like this without too much difficulty. All I need is a list of the EXE edits indicating each memory address, number of bytes, and a brief description of what it does, and recommended changes.

Regards,

Rich

[Istfemer]

2Rich:

Great! Then I'll supply you with the info you need. [;)]