View Full Version : [REL] A new set of campaign layers
What, V0.71??
Damn you're quick
CTD fix for picking start dates. little if anythign else changed, I've been working on the '43 files, and I work on non-zigzagged versions to they are ready, then I ZZ them.
Tater--
Been playing your campaign. Chased a task force for 7 hours (game time thank heavens :yep: ). Kept making marks to work out a base course and got ahead of them with my 3 knot advantage. Dove and they came into view. Everything set up great--the carrier was meat on the table. Until the whole formation zigged again and put me out of range. Surfaced to try again but the sun came up and the planes drove me down.
Anyway--your campaign causes me serious issues--I was crying like a wee baby. So it goes without saying that I love it so far! Great Job and Thank You!
:rock:
Peto
PS--even though the Task Force was cooking along (18 knots I think) the escorts maintained station well. If anything they were a little less predictable (which is a good thing). I'm hooked.
CaptainKobuk
07-18-07, 09:09 PM
Two Fubishi (whatever) Destroyers took my sub out in shallow water west of Borneo as i tried to make the switch to the southern Sub Base after Manilla was off limits. I should say 1 Destroyer got me. Shot the first as both were travelling in line back to Tokyo. Second took a hit midship but second torpedo failed. :damn:
Sat on seafloor repairing massive flooding but that second sub kept homing until finally canned my sub.
Using Natural Sinking Mechanics 2.2 works well. Makes it more realistic. It used to be sort of zany how fast ships went down. Now it's great to see the Battleships rolling over like is typical in real naval battles.
I should have went to port after sinking two Battleships and two heavy Cruizers west of Borneo. Lots of warships are over there during the Borneo invasion soon after Dec 7th.
One thing i suggest to MODDERS is making the large capital warships speed on out of any area that's under sub-attack. It was kind of foolish the way they mill around offering themselves up. But it could be that was due to rookie crews onboard. There was only one destroyer escorting those 4 big Caps as well. But if this is a randomization that's fine too. Naval battles resulted in all sorts of surviving fleet configurations.
I'd make all Battleships have elite crews. Carriers too.
This game is great fun even when sunk. Just teaches tactics. Never engage Destroyers in shallow water! I have not played that much yet to pass that learning stage. Been mostly modding the perfect set of MODS together.
The 2 missions representing the japanese southern advance are very little touched so far in my campaign. It will take some work since to properly up the speeds, etc, I need to redo all the waypoints. The stock invasion forces tend to park pretty far offshore and mill aorund at 1 knot. If I do something like that, I want a coordinated DD screen to run around them. Haven't decided how exacty...
CaptainKobuk
07-18-07, 09:42 PM
Hi tater.
A suggestion...
...setting the startpoint of the subs that launch out of Pearl Harbor west of the International Dateline. That puts it west of Midway and cuts in half the trip to Japan. Which on my machine can take 12 minutes since it can only crunch data as fast as 3000x.
If we could have the home return target not be Pearl Harbor but instead the same general area as the launch point -- that too would save a huge amount of travel time.
I'm not interested in that sort of mod, frankly. Any kind of stand-alone to do that should work. You could dump the UPCData folder stuff from mine, and load it over TM or something (assuming ducimous doesn't alter the minesweeper or subchaser).
The idea is to be as vanilla as possible. I added Beery's career start dates because it made testing very much easier (and I'm used to them), as well as the fact that I want to start playing with the patrol objectives.
tater
THE_MASK
07-19-07, 08:15 PM
Well if you just kept this as an ongoing campaign layer mod i would be happy .
Slow couple days. Family stuff, little kids, swimming, etc. I'll get back to to it tonight a little. I'm also trying to make decent alpha chanels on art that is pissing me off (ONI images).
BTW, I didn't mean that reply to sound snotty, sorry captainkobuk. I'm open to any/all suggestions, just for now more directly related to the actual traffic. It's just something else to have to learn how to do. The campaign stuff isn't as "technical" as the other mods, just lots of scut work.
tater
Tater,
just wanted to drop a line to say "great job!":up: I have been using the latest version of your layers in my current 1942 Asiatic Fleet campaign, and the results are astonishing! On my way to Philipines I found a convoy of tankers and transports in the Java Sea, zig-zagging all the way to Balikpapan. Plotting it to get the basis course and lurking around at visibility limit (It's night) has been one of the most gratifying experiences yet in my years of subsimming since SH1 & AOD. This behaviour really adds to the inmersion and now you can easily understand the reasons for the meager succes of real skippers when compared to us gamers! Plotting a zig-zagging convoy and getting into the proper attack position in time before the convoy zigs away is a real challenge and you are left with a stupid face many times. The challenge of doing it before dusk and before the convoy reachesa traffic node where it might very well change course and dissapear just adds to the captain's nightmare. I'm really loving it even if I don't score any success at all. KUDOS:rock:
P.S. I'm on my first mission but so far no CTDs or strange behaviours. The traffic is noticeably reduced when compared to the stock 1.2 game, which is IMO very good news as I felt there was an overabundance of targets before.
Thanks. The credit for the zig-zagging actually being in game largely belongs to mcoca. Without his automated campaign editor it would be impossibly difficult to prepare the literally thousands of waypoints per mission. Thanks also to lurker_hlb3, who has helped me understand how to code this (and has simply provided the base code in many cases).
A big part of the reduced traffic is actually reduced contact reports. The merchant traffic is still pretty thick I think. I suppose i need to calculate the expected number of merchant at sea any given moment and look at scaling it to RL.
I kept the "convoys" early war and reduced them in % for each ship such that you might get a huge convoy (5-10 ships) now and again, but the average might be only a couple ships with a subchaser escort, lol.
If you get a photo mission to someplace like Palau... save often. LOL.
This sounds like a winner! Thanks tater.:up:
Tater--I've been playing your campaign a lot and I think it's excellent! I actually have to hunt and I think that's a huge realism plus. Less contacts on map is a Very Good Thing!!!! And that zig-zagging has tripped me up a couple times too!
Escort and general ship station keeping looks to be working fine. I've actually been looking for "what's wrong" but haven't found anything I'd want to complain about at all (yet ;) ).
Nice Job! Have a Single Malt Scotch on me!!! Send me the bill LOL.
Cheers!
Peto
I was testing infiltrating the Palau anchorage last night (since there are 2 photo missions there). Date was january '43. I spotted a warship near the SW channel (was on surface at night), went to binos and CTD.
Argh. First CTD other than the taihosan I've had since the columns problem was fixed. Now I need to study every group in and out of palau in that period and find it. Anyone else messing about in that area let me know what you see.
tater
FYI Tater--if you have any special testing you'd like help with let me know. I've become a big fan of your campaign in a short time and am willing to help you out however I can. I do have modding experience, just a little out of shape and lazy since you guys are doing such an awesome job! And for that, you and the other modders all have my Thank You!!!!!!
Peto
Next version might come with a few test missions---simply a mission where I put a US sub someplace, and then it still loads the campaign layers normally. Saves transit time, etc. I have one for Palau, and another for Truk so I can poke around quickly.
Tater, these campaign mods are fantastic!!! If you have time (ya, right) you can pop into the UBI forums and read my AAR using your modified campaign files (titled Hat Trick). I really enjoyed that encounter largely due to your modifications, so thank you, once again!!
I just wanted to relay something I found when I was playing the other night. I ran across a KMSSBIYO that was transiting the Tapaan Passage (Northern Celebes) and got hung up on a sub net. I was able to free him from his plight (by blowing him up) but I don't know if maybe he zigged a little too close to the shore or what.
Chuck
Oh, thanks!
I forgot, I need to merge to the minefields (my reefs are in there, though I think I will change that in the final version. I left them in minefields because the less I mess with campaign.cfg, the more compatible it is) to test Tawi Tawi vs traffic!
tater
Campaign is still rocking for me too! had a radio message that caught my attention though:
22:23 Radio Enemy Task Force
Long 113 41' E
Lat 22 42' N
Course ESE
Speed 0 Knots
March 6 1942
The 0 knots is what caught my eye. I've had these types of things happen when writing for SH3 or when I used to script for SH2. It's easy to miss a waypoint speed change or not have a speed set at the origin of a group.
Thought I'd let you know. It was too far for me to go as gas was limited LOL.
Peto
Excalibur Bane
07-21-07, 12:27 AM
Added to the list. Good stuff, tater! :up:
Peto, that looks like Hong Kong to me.
In SH4, Groups start someplace, and end someplace. they disappear at the last waypoint.
In my campaign, some ships enter a harbor and hang around a while, then leave and go someplace else. Sometimes a day or two, sometimes weeks. As you know SH3, you'll understand that they cannot go 0 or they will stop for good. They CAN go 0.001 knot, however. Mwhahahaha. Course that means my harbors need to be more dangerous than stock, hence sub nets for reefs, liberal doses of dense minefields, etc. Real subs didn't go into harbors much. They were right.
HK is one of those places. Truk, Palau, Kwajalein, Singapore, Camrahn Bay...
If you are near, might be a good idea to wait for him to put out to sea---he will at some point.
<G>
tater
Thanks tater and your answer makes perfect sense to me. Reports are rounded to the nearest whole number. As far as going into harbors--I tend to be cautious and don't like "Wewak" situations so I hang out in deeper water.
Hmmm...never been to Hong Kong though. I was too low on fuel to go anywhere but Perth at the time.
Cheers!
Peto
supposedtobeworking
07-22-07, 11:40 AM
been using the campaign mod you did and I notice an immediate improvement (though my patrol area was off the coast of Honshu too...). Thing is...I just spent 12 fish trying to sink a merchant...two detonated early, and the rest missed just stern or aft of the ship. I have never had this much trouble hitting a single merchant before and I was wondering....how often and how much do ships change speed in your modded layers? I believe the speed calculations threw me and possibly because the ship changed speed...
thanks
Are you using manual targeting I assume?
I don't use integers for speeds all the time.
So that ship might not be doing 7 or 8, it might be doing 6.8 ot 7.3, etc :D Just enough to foul up manual targeting speed guesses on onger shots.
I have a feeling that a few of the early layers I did changed the speed more often than I wanted, so there may be certain ships that change every 30-60 minutes (within the small range of random speeds I gave merchants, they average ~7-8 I think)
heheheh
tater
supposedtobeworking
07-22-07, 03:12 PM
Yes i am using manual targeting..and am not throwing out the possibility that my calculations are off somewhere..though I have been using manual since SH3 and am not that bad at it. I posted a new thread in the SH4 main forum asking for help and describing the situation and my procedure. since the ships change speed every 30-60minutes it is probably unlikely that the ship changed on me...though you never know.
Mav87th
07-22-07, 03:41 PM
Hi Tatar
What a whack of a job you have done - i bow in humbleness
I would like to urge you to "talk" to Leovampire to have his DRB_JAP_US_GB_Airbases_VS4 being compatible with your awesome mod.
You both seem to be using the
Campaign_LOC.mis
file in your mods, and they are far from similair. My first attempt of a merge ended up in a ctd....
HEEEELP
nattydread
07-22-07, 04:30 PM
Do we have to wait to install this mod before a new patrol, or can we drop it in whenever.
New version:
http://mpgtext.net/subshare/517Improved%20Campaign%20Layers%20v0.72.rar
There is nnow some better traffic sept 43 to mid 44. Bigger convoys, but not the junky stock ones with all akizuki escorts.
If you want to use leo's mod, just dump his Campaign_LOC.mis file.
He adds some defenses to truk, that's the only real change at a close look. I added many place names, too. His airbases are in the aircover missions which I don't touch.
This MUST be in port to change.
tater
heheheh
LMAO:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:
New version:
Great, Tater, dl-ing now.
Thanks
Late war is killing me. I have to admit, my primary histosrical area of interest has always been the first couple years. I'm fine til 1944, then I really need to dig.
I think by 0.80 I'll have the base layers down, then I can start in on the patrols, scripted missions (RL battles), etc.
BTW, thanks for any and all feedback, it really is a team effort, and without people actually playing it, I'd make the same mistakes over and over. Anyone making a comment on any aspect of this is really making a contribution.
<S>
tater
supposedtobeworkign (lol, like the handle), I need to recheck some layers, what year was that? I think there might be a batch that changed every zig, though the speed range is small, it would be nasty. I was just learnign the automated campaign editor. Luckily I work on unzigzagged versions, then run the code. i can always fix it pretty easily then.
BTW, for sept 43 on, any wierdness observed in convoys would be appreciated, the first version with new layers always has some driving inot land on a zig or zag, thousands to look at.
supposedtobeworking
07-22-07, 06:15 PM
supposedtobeworkign (lol, like the handle), I need to recheck some layers, what year was that? I think there might be a batch that changed every zig, though the speed range is small, it would be nasty. I was just learnign the automated campaign editor. Luckily I work on unzigzagged versions, then run the code. i can always fix it pretty easily then.
BTW, for sept 43 on, any wierdness observed in convoys would be appreciated, the first version with new layers always has some driving inot land on a zig or zag, thousands to look at.
tater it was my first patrol on both occasions in December '41. I was off the coast of Honshu. The ship was a composite freighter of some sort I think....I had it ID'd correctly. but cannot remember which ship it was now. Also, the second first patrol I died the same exact way after trying to sink a ship...airplanes caught me on the surface and bombed me except the second time it happened, both airplanes exploded magnificently crashing into the ocean immediately after dropping their payload on me. was it a midair collision?? who knows...hope it wasnt a bug...but it was damned funny I must say. look forward to your future work.
tater-
One thing that was interesting in the submarine dairy that I read was the anti sub search parties that the japanese sent out looking for a known submarine patroling an area. I dont know much about what variables that you can control but is it possible in your campaign that if you are patroling an area when you have had some success that you can have anti sub party from air and sea actively searching for you.
I am looking forward to the coast hugging patterns of late war merchent traffic, when attacking becomes risky. thanks tater for your work.
That's an interesting idea. Patrol objectives are indeed missions like any other. Most have nothing but an objective.
Some photo missions add traffic in the area you need to take pictures of...
Really, that's a great idea. Put a patrol objective that looks like any other, but it has a nasty ASW group hunting or other special treat. The patrols have an inclusion probability, looks like i need to test that.
:up:
Yeah, I have some traffic pretty close to shore right now (later 43/mid 44). It gets a little tricky since escorts tend to range far, and I'm not sure how they'll react to little islands in the way. By that time period, closer to the coasts should be better hunting.
Any contact reports of speed 0 groups means they are in port, BTW. By the nature of the way the game does things, take that to mean you get intel that suggests they will sail soon, becuase anything stopped (right now, anyway, I just got a new idea...) will start moving again at some point.
tater
One new thing in this version I forgot to put in the readme. I added a single mission, "truk."
It is a test mission, just to get you next to truk if you wish to poke around (beware he scary subnet noise!)
If you want to try and sneak in and out:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Truk-Atoll.jpg/632px-Truk-Atoll.jpg
That's a rough idea of where the channels in are.
tater
Awesome work Tater!!!! And VERY Impressive! Look forward to trying out this version as soon as I can put to sea again!
Salute!!!
Peto
Truk is unchanged since the first time I added it, I just made that part of the world easier to explore. Wait around long enough off truk and you WILL find a TF at some point, it's grand central station :)
I had a frustrating go at one last night. I got a contact report of a staionary TF in the lagoon. So I waited. It came out in rough seas, and I thought I was well set up, but it turned NW. I fired a forward spread, and damaged a CA (2d fish hit but was a dud, I bet one passed under, too). Fired rear tubes at a 2d, also for damage to another Takao. Escorts drove around DCing me ineffectively, but held me down, the TF poured on the coal after clearing truk by a few miles, and disappeared. Later, I got a shot at a liner coming in with a single DD as an escort (pretty rare at truk to see a liner). They were making 19 knots I estimated. I had a poor setup, but I fired a spread anyway. 1 hit forward, but the liner started constant helming and the DD came at me so I went deep.
A lot of work, and 16 fish for 3 damages (%#$$#@!$#@! Hardcore Torpedo Mod). <G>
tater
Yeah, I'm a glutton for crappy mk14s.
Yep. Took on a task force in my trusty Perch and as I dove they zigged. Was figuring on a long Hail Mary when they zagged back toward me. Got within 2000 and fired all 4 bow tubes at a Kongo and went hard right rudder. As I turned I watch the torpedo wakes all go under the battleship (was following orders and set deep for magnetic detonation). By this time I was detected so did a hurried set up on a CA. Fired my 2 stern tubes with trusty mark X torps and hit with one. Didn't appear that I even scratched his paint.
Wound up getting 1 merchant for almost 3000 tons on that patrol.
Your campaign is Heck Incarnate tater!!! No wonder I like it so much :yep:
Cheers!
Peto
theluckyone17
07-23-07, 11:28 AM
A lot of work, and 16 fish for 3 damages (%#$$#@!$#@! Hardcore Torpedo Mod). <G>
OT: What Hardcore Torpedo Mod? I tried searching, but all I found was this (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=113031&highlight=hardcore+torpedo). After reading/hearing about all the torpedo troubles early year, I'm kinda miffed that my fish seem to work perfectly (besides the depth running, at least).
That's the one.
I've been using it with 1.3.
tater
WIP:
I'm still working on the 43a stuff (which really goes into 44).
I found out that the initial fix for the 42b layers was a bit of a problem. As some of you might recall, there were a couple 42b layers that were not there. A solution was posted to paste in the 42a missions. Turns out this creates some problems, and possibly some CTDs as the group names are the same. Oddly, the 42a mission goes all the way to the end of the 42b ending date. I have a feeling the simple generic fix (for those not using my mod) will be to make a new campaign.cfg that points a couple 42b mission starts at the 42a version. (42b_Jap_Subhunters.mis is the one of which I speak). Anyway, I changed all the group names in that to 42b from 42a, so any overlap should be fixed. I have a feeling this might be responsible for some wierdness and maybe CTDs ~September 1942.
I'm also playing with the patrol objectives. Many of the "spy" missions are going to go away in the next version or 2. Or I should say they will move instead. The spy to japan stuff will get dumped in favor of coastwatchers to the Solomons and the PNG north coast (from Brisbane). I have a couple working already. I'm waiting on a solution that I want for the photo missions since I can't think of any plausible reasons to take images of shipping instead of sinking it (or even dumber doing both, lol). I actually have an idea in place, I'll leave it as a surprise in the next version (it'll be pretty obvious).
tater
Sockeye
07-23-07, 05:31 PM
Always looking forward to updates here, Tater, and can't wait to see some of the late war stuff :up:
________________________
Just some brainstorming about the photo recons:
I remember in the movie version of "Run Silent, Run Deep" when Gable was relaying the OPORD to the crew; he was talking about taking coastal intelligence photos where possible. I think in "Clear the Bridge!", TANG checked out Wake Island on her way some place; not penetrating the defenses, but observing activity there. In some simulated war patrols after the war, there's also some similiar activity going on.
Harbor installations and beaches seem like plausible enough reasons to be sneaking around with the old camera to me. Certainly scouting possible amphibious landing areas in the littoral regions are within the submarine's capabilities. Taking photos of ships in harbor kind of give me the image of Cold War activity, but I don't really mind that personally.
I could also handle, say, inserting Force Recon Marines or frogmen to reconnoiter beaches to check for obstacles, nearby enemy installations, whatever. Maybe using a timed event could simulate having to wait for their return? So instead of just dropping the guys off, you also have to wait a certain amount of time to complete the objective; no animation for that as far as I know, so some imagination's in order.
Maybe in place of some of the harbor penetrations/photo recons, a timed event could also be used in some cases along beach heads. The circular radius of zones would exclude adding a rectangular or free-hand zone, but maybe adding a number of different locations within a certain area would compensate; or maybe just a large radius with the centre-point over land reaching out a reasonable distance over water. No photo-taking directly by the player so you'd have to use some more of that imagination.
But just some brainstorming here :D
Cool ideas. Yeah, I had been thinking along the lines of changing the missionorders but keeping the missions. The ships will just be how you take images of the ports. (know in the game you must lock ships, but think about it as shooting the port).
The pick ups have been an issue since the beginning in a private conversation among some of us. Drop off an pick up would be cool, and could add some novelty. It'd be nice to have a random return time so you'd have to try a few nights at midnight or something...
tater
corleonedk
07-23-07, 10:11 PM
Great mod tater and thx for your work.
1 question though.Is this supposed to send you to east china sea on every mission,done 4 missions so far and now it wants me to go there again.And hunt for merchants..I know you get add missions,i wanted to know if East china sea is the starting point every time.
Shouldn't be, perhaps you have that recurring mission bug.
I know I should be working on traffic, but now that I am more comfortable with patrols, I've been playing a little. At some point I'm going to experiment with a large number of alternate patrol areas so it's not always the same exact spots near Japan, and so forth. I also want to force the asiatic boats to be in more horrible patrols (sorry ;) ) as they were in RL. Fleet boats sent to sit off jap harbors with ASW assets all over the place, and the S-boats stuck in particular spots along the coast of the philipines. Maybe longer patrols required in the patrol areas to succeed as well.
I'm thnking of making 2 types of new patrol objectives. One type would be semi-required by the nature of the new campaign. Photo ops need to change when the old anchorage to shoot is now behind real minefields (dense) and "reefs" instead of a joke to enter. Others, like swapping a spy insert to a more realistic place change little gameplay wise. OTOH, some of the ideas I'm having might be more realistic and a little less fun. In that case, I have thought about making those as a separate mod. they'll really be designed for this campaign, but separating them would make them optional for people less skilled in the modding arts. ;)
Any thoughts?
tater
corleonedk
07-24-07, 10:57 AM
Shouldn't be, perhaps you have that recurring mission bug.
Yaa seems like it,ill try a new career and see what happends.Its getting a little boring going to the same place over and over :lol:
panthercules
07-24-07, 11:53 PM
Tried reading through this but too many pages, too little time :cry:
Got tired of waiting for Beery to get out of LOTR and update RFB, so I finally decided to start making my own mod cocktail and get on with playing 1.3. Actually, I thought I'd do the community a favor and start this work, 'cause I know that the sooner I start wasting my time doing that the sooner Beery will come out with his RFB update and make me do it all over again.
So, as I started loading up all the updated mods I'd been collecting since the patch, JSGME reported a conflict in one file between this mod (which looks awesome, BTW) and the airbases mod by leovampire. Can anyone confirm:
1. Does this mod fix it so the ports/bases/cities are in the right colors at the right times during the war, like the airbase mod seems to do?
2. The one conflicting file is "Campaign_LOC.mis" - anybody know if there is a way to merge these files (or a merged version already available somewhere) so these mods could be used together, or is there just too much overlap between the two mods?
No need to merge the files. Delete leo's Campaign_LOC. I checked, and there isn't anything in his that isn't in mine except I renamed "higashi" to iwo jima, but only in the editor (so it won't show up on in game map as Iwo, but the same as default). Fixed in next version, BTW. I have a 43 TF layer almost ready to ZZ, and various other tweaks including some new patrols :D
No other issues with leo's mod :up:
tater
panthercules
07-25-07, 12:30 AM
No need to merge the files. Delete leo's Campaign_LOC. I checked, and there isn't anything in his that isn't in mine except I renamed "higashi" to iwo jima, but only in the editor (so it won't show up on in game map as Iwo, but the same as default). Fixed in next version, BTW. I have a 43 TF layer almost ready to ZZ, and various other tweaks including some new patrols :D
No other issues with leo's mod :up:
tater
Wow - thanks for the quick response. I assume that just installing your mod second (and thereby overwriting leo's file) would accomplish the same effect? Can't wait to try this out - thanks again for all this great work :up:
I guess so, yeah.
My Campaign_LOC is 1.3 compatible---meaning it has the PH wrecks they added. The only reason for his in any other context is that he has a small amount of traffic added to it at truk (he added truk, and threw traffic in there).
tater
Campaign is still running great tater! Had a situation where I met a task force and a small convoy at the same area earlier. Caused a bit of chaos--was fun to watch but I couldn't close to shoot. It looked like the groups reformed well after they had passed the "cross-roads".
Thank You for sharing this Campaign! It's made the game much more enjoyable!!!
Peto
corleonedk
07-25-07, 12:39 PM
Tater a restarted career solved the mission loop,properly had nothing to do whit your mod.Just the usual SH4 mission bug:-?
DarklyX
07-25-07, 01:00 PM
I was just wondering if this mod would conflict with the Reduced Traffic Mod since I am aware it replaces some of the*.mis files from the campaign or if it would affect anything if I apply it after this or the Trigger Maru 1.4 Mod.:hmm:
Thanks.
DarklyX
07-25-07, 02:15 PM
Thanks for the quick answer:up:
So just to be clear, they are very incompatible :)
My traffic is pretty reduced as it is.
BTW, I just did a little traffic check in mid 1942. There were ~220 merchant/troopship groups on the map at any given moment. Each of those has at least 1 target, and a ~25% chance of a 2d. So that's ~270 merchants.
In addition, there were ~30 convoys on the map. My convoys early war can vary down to literally a single merchant ship, but on average I bet they have 3 ships or so. So that's another 100 targets not counting escorts or TFs (TFs are VERY reduced from stock).
So at any moment there are over 350 merchant targets on the map early/mid war. That's about what my estimates of RL traffic were, BTW. In fact it might be a little high, in RL 1 in 8 merchants was out of service waiting on repair (the yards were swamped). By 1943 it was more like 1 in 6.
So, as I started loading up all the updated mods I'd been collecting since the patch, JSGME reported a conflict in one file between this mod (which looks awesome, BTW) and the airbases mod by leovampire. Can anyone confirm:
I'm currently running both of these mods and haven't had any conflict reports or misbehavior from the program. I'm also running hardcore torpedo mod, realistic sinking mod and breathing ocean mod. Everything seems to be working well for me.
But the day ain't over :hmm: .
Peto
Campaign_LOC is all the ports, etc in the game.
If you run leo's over mine, you'll lose any place names I added, and some minor changes as well in what size port you might see.
nimitstexan
07-26-07, 12:22 AM
Out of curiosity, is there anything in this mod that would cause single missions (specifically Balikapan and Tokai-Saipan Convoy) to CTD on loading? I loaded this and the Realistic ship sinking physics simultaneously, and am trying to figure ouy which one is causing the problem.
Yeah, I know what it is, I bet.
Any mission that has a subchaser or minesweeper will CTD for sure with this because I switched them to be type=1.
I now know how to have my cake and eat it too (I think), so in later versions I will make a new subchaser and minesweeper, but just have them point to the old models.
tater
mavmcleod
07-26-07, 06:46 AM
tater, first thing: Your mod is awsome! Thanks for all the work you put in it!
Now my question:
My first two patrols both started with agent mission (Honshu + Dalia) and when I returned to PH from my 2nd patrol I decided to give your mod a try.
Before I ended the 2. patrol I installed your mod with JSGME and was hoping for a nice new mission start with patrol 3.
After recieving all the medals I took a look at my next mission and guess what: 3rd patrol should start with agent insertion to Dalia again!!!
Any idea?
Good Hunting!
Maverick aka Iconoclast
Wierd. what version are you running, I actually thought I had eliminated those missions, lol. Maybe that's just my current internal version.
nimitstexan
07-26-07, 07:45 AM
Yeah, I know what it is, I bet.
Any mission that has a subchaser or minesweeper will CTD for sure with this because I switched them to be type=1.
I now know how to have my cake and eat it too (I think), so in later versions I will make a new subchaser and minesweeper, but just have them point to the old models.
tater
Yep, that was it. Changed the types in the single mission files, and they work fine now.
Hi Tater!
I was thinking (while being stalked by one of your deadly mine sweepers last night) about adding some more ASW power to the poor little guy. Would it be feasible to remove the rear gun and replace it with a Y-Gun? If that would work it could basically add another escort version much like some of the mid-late war escorts that Japan commisioned ie Kaikoban: 1 forward gun, DC rack, 3 K-guns per side, about 500 tons, speed ~16 knots.
Just wondering if you'd tried anything like this in SH4.
And as a subsimmer, I love more depth charges :rock: .
Cheers!
Peto
I've actually been trying to mod ships lately. Not "real" 3d mods, but making a new ship folder, and pointing the new ship at an existing model but changing it with only the eqp/cfg/sns files. I have been trying to make a Matsu DE with a minekaze or mutsuki that way (to marginal avail).
It MIGHT be possible. I have found the eqp files are very very screwy.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114033&highlight=bungo+pete
In lieu of proper modded ships, I might do this.
Does anyone know of any negative impact (fps hit?) of adding ships in this way? They point at the same models, so it seems no different. I rather like the idea of some ships with slightly altered capabilities (within historical limits). I was thinking of what ONI called "ODD"s for example the Wakatake/Momo classes. Dump 1 gun and 1 TT and drop their speed. Not perfect, but it would add some flavor.
tater
Understood. I've run into probelms before messing SH3 ships--trying to make a Treasury Class escort. The main limitation for me was hard points to put anything on. And I always seemed to get "unexpected" results by trying to make a ship with it's own sensor/equipment/unique anything loadout (unexpected usually=CTD). I like your idea of adding the Matsu--pretty close to a mutsuki with less speed and it historically carried a LOT more dc's.
Wish I had the time and energy to try some of this myself but when I get home from working on computers, the last thing I feel like doing is "working" on my computer. It's heck getting old LOL.
Salute!!!!
Peto
Wish some of the ship modding gurus had some interest in this stuff.
tater
PS And for those who don't realize it: Modding is incredibly time-consuming and involves and enormous amount of work. Never take what the modders are doing for this (or any other game) for granted.
Modders create the frosting for what is all to often a very dry and stale piece of cake.
Another Salute!!!
Wish some of the ship modding gurus had some interest in this stuff.
tater
Yes! But from what I understand, it's a HUGE undertaking to actually "create" a ship. I wish more that just a couple of the classes would have been included in the original program. Quite an over-sight IMO.
Oh well. I really like what you've done with the Minesweeper. Nice to see them doing escort duty like they should be!!!
mavmcleod
07-26-07, 03:59 PM
Wierd. what version are you running, I actually thought I had eliminated those missions, lol. Maybe that's just my current internal version.
I'm running v0.72 of your mod. Some other, but none using the campaign.cfg!
Here's the save log:
[CareerTrack 1.CareerStatusLast]
ID=ID
Reason=CSS_LastStatus
NameDisplayable=NULL
CurrentDate=1942-03-21 04:36:43
PlayerRankAchieved=LTCDR
PlayerCurrentLastPromotionDateTime=1941-12-08 14:00:00
CurrentFlotilla=PearlHarborCommand
CurrentFlotillaBase=PearlHarbor
CurrentSDepartureDescription=-1.89576e+007,2.54882e+006,242.189
CurrentUPCFlotillaUserPlayerUnitType=F1Tambor
CurrentDifficulty=Normal
PlayerCurrentRenown=7842.750000
PlayerCurrentRating=6.000000
PlayerHighestRating=0.000000
PlayerPatrolsCompleted=0.000000
PlayerTonnageSunk=147670.000000
PlayerWarshipsTonnageSunk=12404.000000
PlayerMerchantsTonnageSunk=135266.000000
PlayerShipsSunk=0.000000
PlayerCurrentMedals=NULL,CMOH,Navy Cross
CrewMembersCurrentMedalsRepository=NULL
CrewMembersCurrentPromotionsRepository=0
PlayerCurrentObjectiveCode=East China Sea
PlayerDefaultObjectives=ID94
PlayerCurrentObjectives=ID181
PatrolStartDateTime=1942-03-21 04:36:43
http://www.mavmcleod.net/SH4/subsim/Start_Mission_FF3.jpg
Hope this helps - maybe it's just a coincident!
Good Hunting!
Maverick aka Iconoclast7x3
I might have left a few to China, actually. I dumped the japan ones, they were silly. China I could imagine as at least possible (unlike japan) even if it never happened.
tater
THE_MASK
07-26-07, 06:25 PM
Would it be possible to have a couple of fishing boats with these machine gunners on it . Just a couple so as to give a small uncertainty that not every fishing boat is completely harmless . You would only want a small chance and just that tiny bit of uncertainty .
http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/5751/mgme3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
#$%@$#@!$#@%#%@
Ahem.
The damned fishing boats actually list guns in their eqp files, but they don't appear!
The allied armed trawler lists DCs in the eqp, but the W node doesn't work. Very very frustrating. This would already be in there if I could get it to work, I beat my head against a wall for a while and gave up, maybe a 3d modder can help.
tater
THE_MASK
07-26-07, 08:48 PM
Wheres Anvart when you need him ?
Hello Tater.
I finally went to Truk. No screeching sounds on my rig, so that's allright. What I did find was this; A subchaser was patrolling the south entrance. It did just occasionally show on hydrophone, while a outgoing convoy showed behind land. This struck me as odd.
After a while I torpedoed the convoy, they start scattering and this is what's happened:
http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/5871/taterqv7.png
It got stuck and stayed there for at least a day.
Details: August 11 '42, time 2000, pos N007-14,3 E151-47,3
It was a med old split freighter.
That's gonna be a problem, I'm afraid. Now that the AI will scatter. The AI doesn't recognize even friendly nets. That's why the ability to make the reef out of land would be so very much better. OTOH, I've read accounts of ships going on the reef at truk.
tater
ReallyDedPoet
07-27-07, 07:59 AM
Wish some of the ship modding gurus had some interest in this stuff.
tater
Give it time, it will happen ^^^. Keep up the good work on this, now using it with Trigger.
RDP
BTW, I can solve the reef problem, but only by making the nets shallow enough for ships (and therefore submarines) to pass over. I'll take a look and try to make sure that stuff passes away from the atolls as quickly as possible (I do this, actutally, I want them to dash out, then ZZ).
I'd love it if someone figures out how to mode ocean depth.
nimitstexan
07-27-07, 10:13 AM
Dare I say it, but maybe the sub nets as reefs is just not a workable idea at the moment? (I'll admit to being biased against that idea, though; they just look odd in the extrnal views . . .)
What's an external view? ;)
Right now the choice is nets, or nothing. Nothing means you might as well delete truk, IMO.
If you don;t like the way they look in external view, don't get so close, no real sub would have. Sneaking in also didn't happen in RL. To the extent it's even possible I need to add more mines and elite escorts, lol.
tater
I can have a look at the nodes on some ships this weekend if you like..
I successfully managed to add two Y-guns to the stern of the Asashio, but I lost the file..
during the process I discovered that ONE Y-gun does not fire 2 DCs to each side, it actually fires 2 to port, or starboard and you have to add another facing the opposite direction to get a symetrical pattern..
mavmcleod
07-27-07, 11:14 AM
tatar, probably you have thought about it, as long as your working on the reef problem:
In SH3 some clever modders inplemented the Kiel Canal connecting northsea and baltic sea. If I remeber right the depth was determined by the color of the map.
I don't know if this will work in SH4, just an idea....
Good Hunting!
Maverick aka Iconoclast
I messed with that a little, but the image I saw didn't look like the map exatly, so it's very hard to calibrate. Also, the file claimed to be one size, yet when opened in PS, it was a different size altogether.
Tater,
I say the nets for reefs at Truk are fine even if they do look a little wierd (although I disable external view). A ship going on a net is pretty much the same as running aground IMO. But go ahead and add those elites! :rock: I plan on staying out a few miles anyway LOL.
Jace11,
Anything you can do to help augment some smaller escort vessels would earn you a bottle of Boones Farm. If you could actually create a Kaikoban Class you'd get a bottle of Johnnie Walker (Red Label).
Thanks for all your work guys!
Cheers!
Peto
I've been kind of waiting for the new 3d modding tool to come along to retry.
I have messed with trying to make some alternate ships with just the eqp files already (done in the "bungo pete" fashion of making up a new ship, but having the cfg point at the 3d model of a ship that exists).
Of particular concern was trying to get some to have DCs.
The US Armed Trawler is supposed to have DCs. No dice. I tried DC rack, even throwers. I was able to make her have all japanese crew and guns easily, however. You may see her as a gunboat at least.
I can put guns on the minelayer, so that will get posted soon. We have no double open mount 5" guns, gotta see what looks best.
I had a go on a few others, but they are so close using this technique that it doesn't seem worth it. A minekaze minus a gun and a TT mount, that sort of thing. Small payoff for the effort (and possible system drain with more ships?).
A modded SC or MS might do well I guess.
I tried at some length to remove the greek flag from the german AMC. It would be interesting for the japanese. I reskinned it (the flag is in the skin file). No dice. I changed the greek flags in the game to meatballs (both normal and low res) no dice.
Another useful mod would be to add a DC rack to a PT boat, though it'd be nice to delete the torpedo tubes. Haven't messed with that yet, I forgot about it.
tater,
Are there any german ships in your campaign layers? Not sure how many were actually in the pacific. I know there was few u-boats. Just curious.
Not yet. They would be special cases. I was thinking of making some MAGIC missions around them when I get to that.
Canonicus
07-30-07, 10:44 AM
Yeah, I know what it is, I bet.
Any mission that has a subchaser or minesweeper will CTD for sure with this because I switched them to be type=1.
I now know how to have my cake and eat it too (I think), so in later versions I will make a new subchaser and minesweeper, but just have them point to the old models.
tater
Hey tater...
Exactly how do you go about getting the mission to "point to the old models"?
I've had the exact same problem, (CTD's on loading) ,with those two missions (Balikapan and Tokai-Saipan) and would preffer to not unload your mod to get them to play OK.
Thanks for the info.
Cheers!
Grillkorv
07-30-07, 11:40 AM
I'm wondering about what intelligence the allies had on Japanese shipping routes.
When I was using the stock campaign layer I could use the paper map that came with the game to find the shipping routes, and that way increase probability of contacts.
However, tater's campaign layer seems to be using different routes (at least I'm having no luck in the places I used to, and judging from the .mis files, there's quite a few more routes in there), and I'm wondering about what you think about creating new maps displaying the (larger) shipping routes.
intel should manifest itself as higher probability of contact reports..
Grillkorv
07-30-07, 12:00 PM
intel should manifest itself as higher probability of contact reports..
Yeah, I thought about that and started marking all contacts for future reference, trying to figure out where the shipping had gone to.
However, irl, i think that it was someones job somewhere to correlate all contact reports, and what have you, and not something each captain had to do on his own (and start over on each patrol, since the markings dissapear).
Also, in real life, there would have been intel on which ports were connected to oil pipelines, and other resources, and which Japanese harbors were receiving the shipments, and likely routes between those ports.
Yeah, the contact reports should increase over time, but frankly the way they work is kinda goofy. Real intel was frequently very more specific: COnvoy X will sail on this date and meet escorts at this lat/long. That's the difference between ULTRA and a contact report from a sub.
Reports from aircraft were notoriously poor, locations, but no headings, etc.
I have an idea I'm gonna try to make some better contact reports for you guys.
It'll be a surprise.
The new campaign doesn't alter the basic routes all that much. To the west, they tend to tuck in a little closer to shore than the stock map showed. East of the Philipines, they are grossly different because they were so awful before. They drop down to Palau, some straight from the Empire, some closer tot he air cover of the Philipines. Another group goes down the bonin/marianas line to Truk. Some go from Davao/Palau to Truk. From truk there are branched to the Marshalls, Gilberts, and Rabaul/Kavieng.
BTW, I plan on popping out 0.73 tonight.
WIP 0.73:
I added traffic to the aleutians and kurils, more 43 stuff, a random "Cactus Express," and various tweaks.
A couple new test Patrol Objectives.
I'm going to turn the Dutch Harbor base on (berry's) since there is now actually traffic.
I haven't included Jace11's excellent map labels mod, but I'm using it to make my LOC not replicate anything he's done better. It would be a 100% reccomended addition, basically. I'm trying to stay away from the whole "supermod" thing and keep it modular where possible.
tater
Canonicus
07-30-07, 01:52 PM
Was wondering .... Of the various tweeks that you mention being included in the new release, might there be one that fixes the CTD problem with the Balikapan and Tokai-Saipan single missions?
Julius Caesar
07-30-07, 02:11 PM
tater, why didn't you you edit task forces moving at 2-3kts (in EastAsiaCampaign.mis)? :hmm:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=115105
Thanks.
I haven't screwed with those scripted missions yet at the level I wanted. they got kind of gutted when I axed the 60+ Akizuki DDs in there. I droped a few of the 1 knot things, and moved them closer to shore. It's still in need of a major rewrite though.
Doing it right is amazingly time consuming because I'd want to start with all the right ships (by name) etc.
tater
I got the 07 and 08 single missions into the new version so if the campaign is loaded, they will still work for you.
All I did was change the minesweeper and subchasers in the .mis file to "type=1" from what they were.
tater
BTW, good point regarding contact reports. I was thinking I might mod the map---the one you see on the table, that is---with the rough shipping routes.
I will also mess around with contact reports some more. When I figure out the triggers, etc, I will have ultras to send you at specific convoys and TFs, too.
http://mpgtext.net/subshare/590Improved%20Campaign%20Layers%20v0.73.rar
0.73 readme 1st post. I highly reccomend Jace11's map labels. I deleted a few on mine to make room.
The missions might be a problem, be gentle. :D
tater
D/l ing, and testing.
Thanks Tater:up:
Doing it right is amazingly time consuming
Amen to that...
Forgive them for they know not what they say...
The layers are the last thing I have left, I have only half finished the Burma Jawa layer, thing it its been half finished for months now...
Canonicus
07-30-07, 06:23 PM
No problems to report on loading of Quick Missions Balikapan and Tokai-Saipan...
They run fine...no CTD's :up:
LOL. Yeah, rereading Willmott, Dull, and Shores to try and figure out how many ships of what type (and name) on what dates, for how long, lol.
tater
Grillkorv
07-31-07, 09:13 AM
BTW, good point regarding contact reports. I was thinking I might mod the map---the one you see on the table, that is---with the rough shipping routes.
Great, that's exactly what I was thinking, but wasn't sure it was possible.
It's reall not that different from stock, just a little closer to the beach, usually.
<EDIT> I actually moved fewer than I thought. I feel like redoing the entire damn map sometimes.
Maybe after this is finished I'll take all I learned anddo it right.
I'm planning on messing around seriously with some of the mid 43+ stuff, even those already done, particularly the merchants.
Convoyed shipping (2-5 ships) becoming the norm, even if unescorted most of the time. Upped contact reports for a few of the groups.
tater
JochenHeiden
07-31-07, 04:56 PM
Tater, I am using RFB 1.31 and I installed your latest .73 Campaign via JSGME into SH4. I got the message that said it'd conflict with RFB files but installed anyway.
However, everytime I am starting a new campaign on December 1 from Pearl Harbor the first mission it gives me is STILL the Marshall Islands fubar waste of time patrol.
Is this normal (did you not change this?) or did I not install your mod right?
chopped50ford
07-31-07, 06:10 PM
can this be placed midstream (prior to patrol starting) a career?
Im using TM 1.4 and other minor mods...any conflicts?
Need to be in port.
As for TM, it will foul a few things up. One, the AI includes a range of skills including the occasional "elite." The way Ducimus has the AI tweaked, those guys could very well be Bungo Pete's little brother trying to prove they're as good as he is.
Other than that, his career starts, etc are different. You'd also need to uncomment bungo pete fromthe campaign.cfg (I included bungo pete in there as a layer with it commented out, actually). So, if you want to do it, delete the UPCData flder from 0.73. Then go all the way into Campaigns and find Campaign.cfg. Open that, and there is a bit at the very end commented out called "Bungo Pete." The part from ;[Section 91] to ;Exclusive Layer... all has a ; as the first character. Delete that ; from each line in that section (look at the section right above). Save. You can now install it I think. Beware though, the elite AI will be NASTY.
In general, my plan once I got this thing closer to "1.0" was to release a version that was TM compatible, and RFB compatible. Just pre dumping any files, or indeed possibly slight differences if need be to make it easy on the end user to install.
0.74 up, readme 1st post.
http://mpgtext.net/subshare/801Improved%20Campaign%20Layers%20v0.74.rar
corleonedk
08-03-07, 09:15 AM
He he ran into task force on my last trip there using the 0,73,managed to take 1 battleship out before i had to run for my life :lol:
I'm excited to get 0.75 out the door this weekend, too.
More surprises.
CaptainKobuk
08-03-07, 09:15 PM
I'm excited to get 0.75 out the door this weekend, too.
More surprises. Great.:|\\ Using 0.73 resulted in my Gato out of Pearl throughout 1942 being sent only to the Caroline islands for the same exact "deploy to" mission followed by the "sink merchants" 2nd mission. Well 0.74 should be interesting to see if Japan is selected for missions now..
It's been great fun nonetheless. The Caroline's are in the center of jap boat traffic. And i prefer not getting "patrol" missions that require 3 days of staying in one area. I have my favorite attack areas i need to get to:|\\
Well, the repeat mission bug is with the gamer as is, I haven't messed with the patrol structure all that much.
If the same "sink" mission near truk comes up, that might eb the one U was working on, I was trying for somethign but haven't figued it out yet, though ducimus has with his new construction mission, so I have a template to copy from...
tater
CaptainKobuk
08-04-07, 08:33 AM
I could try porting some files over from some other mods to get some new patrols. As it is, my favorite hunting grounds are the deep ocean northwest of the Solomons between there and Truk. Not far from the Carolines. No complaints.
In the current version posted, there is a little traffic there.
The stock game traffic in the Solomons was rediculous. Oil tankers steaming from Honaria (which didn't exist at all during the war, and why would they need oil, they certainly didn't HAVE oil there).
I have been working on this a little. 0.74 has hints of a tokyo express---if this is an area you like, patrolling it and giving me feedback would really help! :up:
There should be almost no traffic before August, 1942 when the US invades. The japanese landed there, dumped off some construction equipment and people, and that was pretty much it. I might need to add a small maru from Rabaul maybe every 3-4 weeks, it really shouldn;t be more than that. After the US lands, they start to resupply. At first, escorted merchants, later, strictly military ships, mostly DDs acting as erzatz APDs.
The testing I need is this, within a few hundred miles of Guadalcanal (Cape Esperance to be exact), I'm hoping these random groups will only appear at night. Their MO was to get just outside air range at dusk, then dash in as fast as possible, unload, then dash out to outside air range by dawn. Didn't always work. In RL they actually tied supplies to rafts and literally threw them off moving decks offshore.
Anyway, I'm curious to see if it works, but again, only after the US takes Lunga Point (August 7th).
CaptainKobuk
08-04-07, 10:59 PM
Late '42 south of Truk - that middle expanse of open ocean - between Truk and the city of Rabaul, on that main shipping route seen on the map mod PULL DOWN PACIFIC MAP 1.4 , i've fought a lot of Warship Convoys. Surface radar makes it all possible.
I also like the idea of setting up on shipping lanes that pass through chokepoints.
In real war i'm guessing any vulnerable chokepoint would have some destroyers and air cover there all the time. Like there was at Gibralter(british)
http://mpgtext.net/subshare/413Improved%20Campaign%20Layers%20v0.75.rar
please beat this up. Want to find any major issues before it gets absorbed (with a few layer changes WIP) to TM1.5.
tater
Late '42 south of Truk - that middle expanse of open ocean - between Truk and the city of Rabaul, on that main shipping route seen on the map mod PULL DOWN PACIFIC MAP 1.4 , i've fought a lot of Warship Convoys. Surface radar makes it all possible.
I also like the idea of setting up on shipping lanes that pass through chokepoints.
In real war i'm guessing any vulnerable chokepoint would have some destroyers and air cover there all the time. Like there was at Gibralter(british)
Think there needs to be more of a standing ASW patrol between Truk and Kavieng? Easy to add, there is one there, actually. I need to check the air stuff there, too.
Fearless
08-05-07, 09:31 PM
http://mpgtext.net/subshare/413Improved%20Campaign%20Layers%20v0.75.rar
please beat this up. Want to find any major issues before it gets absorbed (with a few layer changes WIP) to TM1.5.
tater
That I shall tater :arrgh!:
corleonedk
08-06-07, 09:33 AM
Yes sir im on it :know:
Admiral Lockwood asks that you engage small craft in waters well controlled by the enemy to keep pressure on Tojo.
;)
tater
Got a CTD south of the bungo straight in november of 1943...
Might have been a boat or patrol craft.
tater
Anyone else seen any problems?
tater
THE_MASK
08-06-07, 09:59 PM
Heading towards the Phillipines in an S boat , feb 42 and no problems here with 0.75
I'm also waiting for reports of novelties :D
tater
Fearless
08-06-07, 11:30 PM
So far so good tater, I tried looking under my seat for the novelties but didn't find any :lol: Haven't come across them yet :smug:
Been a tad busy tater but I just dl'd your update and hope to give it a good run tomorrow evening. I'm looking forward to it--your work is excellent! Will report anything unusual I encounter.
:rock:
nautilus42
08-07-07, 07:09 AM
Anyone else seen any problems?
tater
Hi tater,
I like your Improved Campaign Layers MOD, but there some wrong details in Release 0.75. You have changed the .eqp-Files for JPFish01 +02, also the .cfg-Files named Loadout Armed. These Fishboats has no non3d nodes like A1,A2,A3,L1 in the .dat - Files. therefore they cant be armed. The NF_Boat has only two P0_nodes P01,P02 and no P03 that you armed with LinkName=25mm_Single_base_Jp in the SPC1.eqp. The NTRW_ ( XPC.eqp )has no W01 + W02_nodes and only three A0-nodes in the .dat-File, therefore the DCRack_SH4 and the
NodeName=A04
LinkName=25mm_Single_base_Jp will not shown in the game. Maybe the game will crashed.
Sorry for my poor english.
Many greetings
Nautilus42
Anyone else seen any problems?
tater
@tater,
I found something that you might want to take a look at. In the PatrolObjectives.cfg file, "Section 175" has the line:
FileName=data/Campaigns/Campaign/PatrolObjectives/Insertion Commando Formosa Strait 01/Insertion Commando Formosa Strait 01.tsr
It should read:
FileName=data/Campaigns/Campaign/PatrolObjectives/Insertion Commando Formosa Strait 01/Insertion Commando Formosa Strait 01.mis
If they should happen to draw "ID175" as a mission in their campaign, it will fail out with "ERROR: No primary objectives found." and they will be unable to continue.
For the background on this finding, see this thread: http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6921019045/m/8481070955?r=1131027475#1131027475
Just an FYI for you. If you have commented this mission out somewhere else, please disregard my ramblings.
Thanks,
Chuck
Will check that, kikn, thanks for the heads up! I think I commented most of those out anyway (my plan is to replace most of the special ops stuff with SWPA special ops for the Australia based boats). If I didn't, a sure CTD is always nice to remove :up:
Nautilus42: So you've had a crash in the game, or you say it might crash without actually testing it? I have done a LITTLE testing with my own changes, you know, maybe a few hundred times ;) . Some of the stuff you mention is there in the default files, BTW. All the fishing boats in the stock game have guns, etc, they just don't show. It might make sense to delete some of those refs even in the stock files, though I have yet to CTD near any of those craft stock or not, and people blow up fishing boats all the time. The armed trawler has DCs in the stock SH4 eqp, but they don't show (I've discussed this in other threads). I added no node names to the eqp files at all, if a node is mentioned there it was there in the stock game, I changed the guns from a 20mm to a 25mm in the hopes they might start working.
The stock eqp files pretty much have no relationship to the actual nodes in the dats. Well, not NO relationship, but many have eqp stuff set up for nodes that simply do not exist---this is in the stock game.
In the case of the small boat, the STOCK GAME eqp file lists the 3 P nodes. Frankly it was easier to shotgun some of the changes rather than opening the dats---though to be honest when I started I was working with pack3d, and Silent 3ditor is so very much easier I should have used that to check and make my life easier.
Here is the stock (unaltered by me) sampan 01 eqp file:
[Equipment 1]
NodeName=A01
LinkName=20mm_Single_base_US
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231
[Equipment 2]
NodeName=A02
LinkName=20mm_Single_base_US
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231
[Equipment 3]
NodeName=A03
LinkName=20mm_Single_base_US
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231
[Equipment 4]
NodeName=L01
LinkName=Type_92_Reflector_base_JP
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231
[Equipment 5]
NodeName=P01
LinkName=char_JPSampan
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231
[Equipment 6]
NodeName=P02
LinkName=char2_JPSampan
StartDate=19380101
EndDate=19451231
It has 3 AA gun nodes, yet the dat has ZERO.
No "mistakes," the other changes are very much on purpose.
tater
I fixed that tsr issue, I had not commented it out! It'll be in the next version.
tater
Ducimus
08-07-07, 12:14 PM
TSR file was a stock typo. I remember seeing/fixing that one day, and forgot all about it. EDIT: Yah i fixed that in my OLD patrol assigment files but not my new one. DOh!
switch.dota
08-07-07, 01:59 PM
What is the Palau BB Photo Recon issue? Because I've JUST been assigned that mission using TM 1.4 (aka v0.72 of this mod)...
This Mod really sounds great but I can't get it to work! I have the 1.3 patch installed. I installed it as instructed but I get a conflict warning after the mapped start mission sequence. I did the install with the sub in base and the game off as indicated in the instruction script. Is anyone else having a similar problem?
switch.dota
Go to Palau, and patrol and come home. The problem is that the stock game has a port on the west coast. It's a typical SH4 huge port that looks like NYC. I deleted it.
I also dumped all the harbor traffic there. As a result, there is no BB always sitting there waiting to be sunk in its dock.
I don;t remember if 0.72 had any patrol changes yet, currently I moved the target area inside Palau. That of course will make the mission extremely dangerous compared to the stock game.
corleonedk
08-07-07, 03:38 PM
Finished a patrol of Palau Islands March-April 1943 no issues to report,only the japs have issues whit me there :arrgh!:
To bad for them im heading back there on another patrol :88)
CTD report for you. Heading southwest from Johnston Atoll, ~June 20, 1943. All was good, clicked to go up to the bridge and got a CTD.
Hmmm, that's interesting, there isn't much traffic there, possibly none I've touched...
Will check it out!
tater
I have nothing there except US and allied merchants (the latter are stock), and they look fine (all single column, all I did to any of those was to delete groups, or force them to not sail through jap islands.
I have nothing there except US and allied merchants (the latter are stock), and they look fine (all single column, all I did to any of those was to delete groups, or force them to not sail through jap islands.
Hmm, it may be possible it was an unrelated CTD, then. Carry on. :ping:
Hey, it might still be my fault some how :D
Keep yer eyes open!
BTW, seen anything new yet?
tater
Hey, it might still be my fault some how :D
Keep yer eyes open!
BTW, seen anything new yet?
Ah yes, I knew I meant to tell you about a couple of things I saw:
-One of the patrol objectives is missing from the Aleutians campaign. The animation showing your orders being typed out plays, but when it gets to the briefing text it says that no mission objective can be found. 1943, I believe.
-The Asiatic Fleet setup seems a little odd. It's a selectable flotilla up to April 1942, then it comes back again in later in the year? Huh? I thought it ceased to exist in the late spring/early summer of 1942. Is there a Perth/Fremantle flotilla? If not, I think you can create and name new flotillas.
The dutch harbor stuff, and indeed all the start dtaes, etc are straight from RFB (with Beery's permission). I'll look at the patrol stuff, all I did was move the position a little from his, I changed nothing else.
1943? Hmm, need to double check the mission dates, too. I checked the traffic dates vs when the japanese were there, but I forgot the missions themselves. No point in a patrol with zero chance of traffic.
tater
1943? Hmm, need to double check the mission dates, too. I checked the traffic dates vs when the japanese were there, but I forgot the missions themselves. No point in a patrol with zero chance of traffic.
Here it is. All it took was one attempt to generate a career on the given date:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/LukeFF/SH4Img8-8-2007_1839.19_828.jpg
Cool, I can fix that I think (I'm learning the patrol stuff, even if I copied beery's).
tater
Doh! Forgot to put the Paramushiro patrol in!
I bet that fixes it, it's the most common mission, and it's the only mission at the date you picked (since it's after we invaded attu).
tater
I thorw 0.76 out the door tomorrow. It might just be the Paramushiro patrol, but I might add some goodies...
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=119338
tater
I thorw 0.76 out the door tomorrow. It might just be the Paramushiro patrol, but I might add some goodies...
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=119338
If you're talking about removing aircraft from the carriers, that indeed would be a nice goodie. ;)
I might just also offer my total IJNAF mod as an add-on. I have used it internally for a while, but let it languish.
As WIP it:
1. Adds a few new airbase types, and specializes the existing AFs.
2. Changes the bomb loads of all japanese aircraft.
3. shortens the range of the zero, kate, and val hugely. The ranges are set below their actual combat radius, but those planes were NOT used as ASW assets, nor any similar planes. For gameplay reasons, I decided to make the ranges very much shorter therefore (they'd only be at max range in airstrike groups, and the game doesn't spawn those). All these planes become based at the small airfields, with no long range planes. I could therefore add more smaller airfields in historical spots. End result is close to those fields you'll see more, but open ocean you'll see far fewer.
4. I axe the CV airgroups to represent a CAP only. Because the zeros won't strafe (and 20mm does nothing to deck crew) I added in a handful of vals or kates to keep your heads down (more later when some CVs were actually used as escorts). Because I shortend the ranges so much on the CV based planes, clsoe in (150km or so) you'll be very much more likey to see them, fewer aircraft, but a much smaller circle to spread them out in (as it should be).
tater
3. shortens the range of the zero, kate, and val hugely. The ranges are set below their actual combat radius, but those planes were NOT used as ASW assets, nor any similar planes.
Wait...weren't Kates eventually used as ASW aircraft? I recall seeing pictures on the Internet which show a captured Kate with ASW gear installed.
Yeah, they would have been used eventually (or a similar single engine type), but not as regular planes on CVs.
Regardless, if the plane has ASW gear, what could it have had? Either radar or MAD gear. If it was the latter, the combat radius would be tiny because they had to fly at wavetop height, and the gear only "saw" narrow swipes. If it was radar, we'd need to 'Bungo Pete Clone" (for lack of a term) the kate and make a radar equipped version, otherwise all CVs would have swarmed of radar guided Kates flying from the moment the sns said they had radar.
Also, if a CV based plane was flying ASW patrol, it would be scouting for the CV task force. This is a critical distinction. No CV would send out all of its planes (the airstrike stuff seems to divide the area of the range circle by the planes to come up with a probability) at 1000km range to look for subs, they'd fly the plane out a distance where they would sweep the ocean for their own task group. Even 150km is too far, really. 50km might be more realistic.
It's a balance, obviously. By that point, the Q1W1 is probably available anyway.
I have 0.76 up. Go to front page as the readme and link for airbase mod are there as well.
If you see CTDs (I haven't) you might uninstall the airbase mod and let me know. That way the campaign still works.
A few things. One, I dropped the zero to 150km radius. The val and kate are 250 since as bombers they might actually be used for longer ranged patrol (zeros rarely had functioning radios, they make poor ASW platforms with no bombs, and no radios, lol). I might actually want to drop the range even farther. We'll see.
I should say that my ultimate plan is to have a few layers of airstrikes missions. There will be formations of planes flying overhead to be spotted---they will fly waypoints. Since such groups would not attack a sub---they'd fly on their assigned mission---they will be eye candy except that if they spot you, they will still call followup attacks. I can force them not to attack by not arming them (I can also make a few armed, so you never know when one might break away from the formation and attack!). So if you are in the Slot October, 1942, you should see bombers going to Cactus around noon every day, for example.
I also plan to add maritime patrol in some areas done the same way---only armed. This will change the airfields again, and I might then reduce ALL the air groups where I have scriped the air patrols. The range might go back up again at that point. The idea would be that the airbases would be able to launch followup attacks, and the number around for patrol can be tiny.
Note also that with the more specialized air bases, combined with shorter ranges for some planes, there should be fewer planes out in the middle of noplace. Many bases had G3Ms or G4Ms, however, so there will be a fair number of overlapping Betty Sentai. I also put many small airbases in places where IJAAF dromes were. I rated those at much lower skill since if they were over water... they were army, they were worse at ASW than the navy by a long shot.
At some point I think leovampire's excellent airbase mod (map icons that change over time) could be combined with this.
Anyway, that's where I'm heading with the planes, I've had this for a while, I just needed to clean it up a little between various things I had split up before.
tater
this is looking better and better Tater. :up:
I'm glad there is a tendency to combine mods. This is working good.:up:
Thanks a lot :up:
corleonedk
08-11-07, 05:05 AM
Tater your the man :up:
I might need to cut the airfields down, or reduce the planes below 9 plane sentai. This is a gameplay issue. The reality is that martime patrol units were specialized in many cases, and a lot of the units flying G4Ms, for example, would be involved on bombing missions. I might dump the "normal" air bases from Rabaul and Kavieng for that reason---the bombers wouldn't be out patrolling, they'd be bombing Cactus.
An alternate technique would be to drop the number of bombers from 9 to a much smaller number. Playtesting is the only way to figure this out, comments welcomed and encouraged!
ReallyDedPoet
08-11-07, 10:19 AM
Nice work tater:up:, hard to keep up with you on these releases.
RDP
I need to tweak some mission files and make a new one.
Pig boat Brisbane, Aug 1942. Was assigned a mission to patrol the Slot and look out for Cactus Express. Good, except that mission is really too early, so I will make a new one to just patrol in advance of our invasion, then after we land, THEN it can be patrol the Slot for tokyo express. Stayed on patrol a long time looking for targets. Finally at night (! perfect) I get a merchant ship contact moving fast.I dash in making 7 knots submerged. My speed estimate is a little off, and the closest I get is 1700 yards, which is long for mk10 shots (on a quick set up for me, anyway). I fire 1 at the lead merchant, and a spread of 3 at a CL... and miss with all 4 fish. turn south, and as soon as it looks safe I surface and try to end around, but I'm not fast enough to get to them. Was 2 merchants, 2 DDs, and a CL, no escorts (meaning the DDs were in line astern with the rest of them).
Nice to see the Tokyo Express working. Looks like I can add my noontime cactus raids.
FAdmiral
08-11-07, 02:47 PM
Tater, I have just finished a week at Rabaul in my "Sink the Yamato" patrol.
I have no mods running except some tweaks I did to the air traffic and the
closeness of spawning enemy ships/convoys/TFs. About 25% of the traffic
was convoy spawns, another 15% to single ship spawns and the remaining
60% in sound contacts either leaving or coming in. I expended all but 2 torps
and sank 16 merchants with only some minor repaired damage. But here is
what I have been wondering about. I have set the spawns to only occur
with 100km of me. Are they still spawning farther away and I don't get the
reports or is the spawning only occuring within that 100km radius? As I now
understand it with the stock 1.3 game, I only have the local spawns. With
your new campaign layers, I understand the spawning will occur everywhere
using more historical enemy platforms. Correct me if I am wrong on this....
JIM
The contact report range mod just changes the range at which you get contact reports.
All the traffic is still there.
If I get what you are saying, that is.
I have reduced the number of ships in many groups, the amount of groups via a reduction in the number that spawn per unit time, and I have also dropped the rate of contact reports being generated from the stock ~70% every 1440 minutes to 15% to 35% depending on the year.
Not sure, does that answer your question?
tater
lurker_hlb3
08-11-07, 07:19 PM
Tater
Was just looking at your Airbase Replacement mod. I notice something you may want to look into. It appears that in the "stock" .cfg file the number used for each squadron is the number of aircraft in that squadron vice the number of squadrons that was used in SH3. If is is true then your squadrons are under strenght ?
Lurker
Wulfmann
08-11-07, 07:50 PM
T,
I installed your two mods listed on the first page.
I agree with what I read on premise but I have had a major problem.
When an aircraft is reported the crew reports it non-stop, the window appearing every few seconds to ask if you want to engage and the deck gun wants to fire at the plane long range and says it will aim for the hull. This literally is constant without a second break from reports until the plane is fired at.
May I ask which file is causing that because it is unbelievably annoying but I do not want to take out all the mods I just put in as I am sure it must be one or two things causing it from your stuff (no, never happened before I put these in.
Wulfmann
Wulfman, I haven't seen that weirdness with the constant reports at all. I'll look into it. Were you right near someplace with an airbase? I'd first try axing the airbase mod and make sure it's isolated to that, then maybe we can figure it out.
As for the aircraft, japanese "squadrons" were Sentai. They were comprised of 3, sometimes 4 Chutai of 3 aircraft each. 9 is the normal number of planes in a Sentai (though some had 12).
Regardless, I don't really care what the actual number of aircraft is on the RL air base. Here is the rationale.
In RL, a squadron of bombers might be co-located with a squadron of fighters. Cool. Their normal operational routine (say Rabaul) might be to fly the bombers---escorted by the fighters---to Henderson Field at Guadalcanal, and try to bomb the piss out of it. The number of planes flying ASW patrol that day? Zero. The only units almost guaranteed to fly maritime patrol were the flying boats. Some specialize Betty and Nell units as well. That's why I've actually thought of totally splitting off the Betty airbases and only placing a handful of them. Yes, Rabaul might have had 3 Sentai of G4Ms, but NONE were flying maritime patrol unless there was specific reason to (maybe a US TF known to be around). Obviously the G4M is also a stand in for missing planes (Nell, Peggy, etc)/
Basically, from a gameplay standpoint all that matters is how many planes would likely interact with a submarine. That's my rationale with the CVs, and I might make it more that way with the airbases as well. In many games you see relatively constant air ops (even in flight sims). In reality, planes flew in groups, with the exception of patrol planes which should always be seen alone. A pet peeve of mine is EVER being attacked by 2 H6Ks or H8Ks. Why would anyone take a scarce resource like maritime patrol planes, then put 2 50 yards apart instead of flying them in a pattern to maximize coverage? No one in RL ever would have.
If the number is Squadrons and not planes, then all those numbers need to drop, and many need to just go to zero. 1 squadron flying patrol would be about it, with minimum overlap.
I'm very interested in feedback on this.
tater
Wulfmann
08-11-07, 09:16 PM
I looked through all the files I installed from you today and I can not see why any would do what is happening.
The Xo does not stop announcing
Aircraft spotted
manning AA
Manning deck gun, aircraft spotted
targeting hull
firing at will
aircraft spotted,
firing at long range
Interspersed is yes sir and the constant window popping up asking to engage, dive or maintain
It goes on constantly until the guns open fire.
I deleted the career but it did it with a new career with a different class of sub
I have no idea and may have to uninstall and start over as a last resort.
It might be something caused something?????
I will restart the game tomorrow and see if it repeats and reinstall the game if it does
I am used to this from many modded sims, it comes with the territory.
Wulfmann
Yeah, that is odd, I don;t mess with the "internal" stuff. I changed a couple plane loadouts, changed the number of planes in airgroups, etc. There is nothing there that touches the sub or crew at all.
Where were you? What year?
tater
nattydread
08-11-07, 11:16 PM
Out of curiosity, have you added more coastal routes later in the war?
I understand ships began hugging the shores as they transited back and forth from the South Pacific ports to Japan and vice versa. They'd even choose to hug the coast within the yellow sea, excluding the small northern bay north of...uh..Port Alexander I think it is, for mainland China/Manchuria to Japan routes, etc.
I also understand that IJN escort vessels would be spread out intermittently along the coast. They'd patrol small portions of the coast lines to protect whatever merchant vessels would be passing through their chunk of coastline.
Every hundered miles or so you'd find 1-3 escorts patroling back and forth along a 25 mile piece of coastline.
I'm in 44 now (next version), and I'm starting to get stuff in to the coast.
Single ships are easy, but escorted groups... those little islands become tricky.
Wulfmann
08-12-07, 09:53 AM
Yeah, that is odd, I don;t mess with the "internal" stuff. I changed a couple plane loadouts, changed the number of planes in airgroups, etc. There is nothing there that touches the sub or crew at all.Where were you? What year?tater
Beginning of war 1941.
I have started a new career and that also did it so it is likely systematic at this point.
I will restart today and see if it repeats and will do a complete reinstall if it does.
Something for some reason has bugged itself.
Wulfmann
FAdmiral
08-12-07, 01:10 PM
The contact report range mod just changes the range at which you get contact reports.
All the traffic is still there.
If I get what you are saying, that is.
I have reduced the number of ships in many groups, the amount of groups via a reduction in the number that spawn per unit time, and I have also dropped the rate of contact reports being generated from the stock ~70% every 1440 minutes to 15% to 35% depending on the year.
Not sure, does that answer your question?
tater
Yes, it does. After leaving the Rabaul area, I sank 2 more merchants with
remaining deck gun shells. I saw a 6 merchant/4 escort convoy which I had
to avoid. Going southeast towards Tulagi (for refit) I came across Adm.
Halsey's Carrier TF steaming northwest. Needless to say, my crew was
ecstatic seeing all those stars & stripes flying in the breeze. I went to Tulagi
and did the refit and am now almost back to Rabaul. My ships/tonnage to date:
22 merchants/1 DD (accident, was firing at merchant & missed) 112,000+ tons.
JIM
Killer-Carrot
08-12-07, 02:37 PM
My first patrol i was sent to patrol off Hokkaido island and engage enemy merchant shipping. I arrived to the spot marked on a map but my objective wont update, ive circled the island and been there for ages, sunk 5 ships, but it still shows the objective Patrol off Hokkaido island incomplete. Am i doing something wrong ?
The missions are mostly unchanged, and that one I haven't touched. the star should turn grey after you patrol nearby ~55nm for 48 hours.
At some point I will change the missions to have larger patrol areas, and have all the patrols specifically inform you of the radius of the zone. Some might be harbor watch missions where the admirals want you on a spot, others might be 200nm patrol areas.
Right now that hokkaido mission is unchanged by me.
tater
nattydread
08-12-07, 02:52 PM
I'm in 44 now (next version), and I'm starting to get stuff in to the coast.
Single ships are easy, but escorted groups... those little islands become tricky.
Im not sure Ive read of accounts of escorted convoys running the shores, just individual ships and small groups of 2-3 or so. They didnt bring escorts with them, but utilized the few escorts running back and forth along the coastlines designated for their patrol.
Granted these coastal escorts would activly escort merchants along their coastlines of protection, actually setting meeting times and locations to group up and venture out, but i assume that'll be touch to model.
So I figured the escorts in game would just move back and forth along the coast and the merchants would enjoy their protection when they could :) The merchants and escorts could travel the coast in seperate lanes. Merchants landward and escorts seaward. This will hopefully minimize traffic congestion issues and escorts running aground trying to straddle the convoy.
Areas of importance to escorts would be heavily travelled areas, pockets of deep water along the shoreline, inlet/bays, etc.
Good ideas.
I was planning on having some ships tuck into inlets during the day, and travel at night. My first crack at the Tokyo Express (in the current version) works well enough with ships dashing in at night.
From the start I've has a few ships along the chinese coast moving between the islands, going from port to port, sometimes stayin in for a day, then moving on. They actually go all way into Rangoon port. I hope to have a little time to start messing with that sort of stuff this week at some point.
One thing we really need is some smaller shipping. Hopefully one of the skilled 3D guys will get interested in crappy, small, japanese shipping :D
3 types. A Fox Tare Dog, <1000 ton coaster. A Sugar Baker Sugar, <1000 ton coaster (engines aft), and a Sugar Dog (Sea Truck) of ~350 tons (we can have a steel and a wooden hull texture to vary the SD). These became very important, and were steaming around in substantial numbers. Unlike much japanese shipping, they were also somewhat standardized in design.
tater
Wulfmann
08-12-07, 03:09 PM
I did a complete uninstall and reinstalled to 1.3 with all mods I was running including both of yours.
Problem now gone.
I am sure it bugged itself but is perplexing
Now, if I could stop those occasional CTD!!
Wulfmann
Wulfman, if you get any CTDs runnign my campaign, post it with the date and a rough location (no need for lat/long, just "~200 nm SE of Luzon" is fine.
There are some CTDs that are absolutely the result of the campaign, and many are very simple oversights (like having too many columns for the 100% number of ships, etc.
tater
Wulfmann
08-12-07, 05:27 PM
The one I just got was off the east coast of Japan to the north. I had sunk 12 fishing boats and made contact with a "real" ship when it CTD.
This was a Dec 9, 1941 beginning career, first patrol.
I have not touched your 1941 stuff and at that point the 1942 either.
I have redone the 42 convoys after the CTD (I did a lot of RND.mis file modding in my SH3)
This multi file stuff is great as it is the convoys I really like to tweak and can do so one at a time. If I screw up I know what file it is compared to SH3 where a few days work could go down the drain if I could not locate the mistake.
One thing I changed in the 42 convoys was spacing. I have 800 as the closest because lower amounts cause them to bunch up and start meandering after a torpedo attack and that is just not real.
In real life they did travel closer than we can make them because of that bug.
Wulfmann
That's useful (the spacing).
I try to keep it above 500, but any hard rules that make the AI work better are good.
FAdmiral
08-12-07, 09:09 PM
OK, I found the Yamato TF and sank it with good clean torp hits. All my waiting
along its route paid off. Mission has been completed with 182,374 tons sunk.
So I know thats one patrol good to go. I had the TF make about 6 port stops
along its circular path from Japan and back to Japan. Moral of this story is:
Don't Rush, Take Your Time and Wait it Out !!
JIM
FAdmiral
08-12-07, 09:16 PM
I was planning on having some ships tuck into inlets during the day, and travel at night. My first crack at the Tokyo Express (in the current version) works well enough with ships dashing in at night.
From the start I've has a few ships along the chinese coast moving between the islands, going from port to port, sometimes stayin in for a day, then moving on. They actually go all way into Rangoon port. I hope to have a little time to start messing with that sort of stuff this week at some point.
One thing we really need is some smaller shipping. Hopefully one of the skilled 3D guys will get interested in crappy, small, japanese shipping :D
3 types. A Fox Tare Dog, <1000 ton coaster. A Sugar Baker Sugar, <1000 ton coaster (engines aft), and a Sugar Dog (Sea Truck) of ~350 tons (we can have a steel and a wooden hull texture to vary the SD). These became very important, and were steaming around in substantial numbers. Unlike much japanese shipping, they were also somewhat standardized in design.
tater
Actually the day/night merchant travel thing is backwards from what it should be.
The USA made that mistake along the east coast back in early 1942. The U-Boats
were lying on the bottom during the day and patroling in the shallow waters at
night when there were no planes and visibility was poor. Taking a sub into shallow
water during daylight near enemy shores would be a no-no. American subs operating in the Pacific Theatre should follow that same principle, I know I would...
JIM
Yeah, I might have the chinese coast mixed up with the SWPA. In areas where the 5th AF was, they moved at night for fear of a B-25 at mast height ruining their day. Course late in the war the 345BG was in the Philipines...
tater
nattydread
08-13-07, 12:11 AM
That sounds about right, merchants taking cover in port at night and moving out during the day.
I wouldnt mind the occasional bay being filled with fishing sampans. I like the idea of weaving between tons of fishing boats to evade a DD on the surface.
Then again I can see somebody using that as a cheap tonnage builder...2 dozen little fishing sampans ablaze on the horizon :nope: ...if it dont have antennas sticking off it, then it aint a picket...leave that poor little man and his 2 man crew along to feed his family(especially in Korean and South Pacific waters).
Too bad the 20mm doesn't hurt your sub crew. Course it DOES remove hit points, which changes the crush depth...
At some point I need to make the harbors nastier. The stock AI, regardless of skill, is a little weak.
Course all I really need to do is add some mines to areas near harbors. The odd sub net, too (some as reefs or sand bars, etc, others as actual sub nets).
tater
What do you guys think a good patrol duration and radius should be?
I am going to go through the patrols at some point, and when I do I will likely (where appropriate):
1. Increase the patrol radius for many patrols.
2. Mention the patrol radius in the orders for the patrol.
3. Increase the patrol duration from 2 days, to maybe a week or more.
4. Mention the specific time on station from #3 in the orders.
5. Decrease the tonnage required for success.
6. Dump all requirements to only sink merchants, didn't happen. RL US subs sank warships wherever possible.
On number 5, I'm not one who thinks patrols should always be "successful" in that regard. I see meeting the tonnage level as "extra" sucess. So being on station, is basic success, then sinking SOMETHING gets you additional success. I'm open to anyone's take on this, frankly. I ignore renown entirely. I don't even promote my crew at this point (maybe when/if someone makes it so 25-33% of my crew gets randomly transferred I'll bother).
the whole renown thing is a can of worms. Ideally, i want to make even the mk14 fish have a cost. Of course I also want to mod in a mine so we can have mining missions.
Since Ducimus deleted MK10 for all fleetsubs, how accurate is the Mk10 in a Balao for example. Did they sail with these torpedoes at all?
How moddable is this for simulation purposes. Meaning the MK 10 should only be fired without angle, so straight forward from any sub, making this a reliable, but difficult to employ weapon. I tried tweaking this, but apparently it's beyond my abilities.
If this could be done as it should, the Mk 10 could become availible again to the fleet boats.
Just a thought......:hmm:
1. Increase the patrol radius for many patrols.
Yep, good. Maybe bump it out to 150 nautical miles?
2. Mention the patrol radius in the orders for the patrol.
Absolutely!
3. Increase the patrol duration from 2 days, to maybe a week or more.
Depends. What was the historical average for this?
4. Mention the specific time on station from #3 in the orders.
See answer to #2. ;)
5. Decrease the tonnage required for success.
Probably a good idea. Weren't patrols that result in ~5000 tons of shipping sunk considered a successful patrol by ComSubPac? If so, this should be the baseline for completing the mission.
6. Dump all requirements to only sink merchants, didn't happen. RL US subs sank warships wherever possible.
Good idea, again.
On#6 I suppose there is one exception.
"Success" doesn't mean you MUST succeed. The patrol is successful, for example, but the sinking might not be. no big deal. Sometimes they tried for tankers, for example. In that case, a "sink tankers" mission might be in order, and of you don't sink them, it's not like you failed, you just failed to sink any tankers.
The whole renown scheme needs some reevaluation, IMO. I don;t have a problem with it in general, but it'd be nice if it meant more.
tater
Misfit138
08-13-07, 05:06 PM
1. Increase the patrol radius for many patrols.
2. Mention the patrol radius in the orders for the patrol.
3. Increase the patrol duration from 2 days, to maybe a week or more.
4. Mention the specific time on station from #3 in the orders.
5. Decrease the tonnage required for success.
6. Dump all requirements to only sink merchants, didn't happen. RL US subs sank warships wherever possible.
These all would be a major improvents IMO compared to the current situation. Also, one thing I've noticed using your mod. The patrol goals when starting December 1st 1941 needs some tweaking. I've had many times orders to patrol the Philippiness and engeage enemy shipping even thought the war hasn't broke out yet
Oh, and this is when I've started my career in Manilla
Ah, I used Beery's campaign starts and I've honestly never started a patrol before the war. I left it there partly for ear of breaking something, and partly because it might be useful for testing. It will need a generic patrol mission or two to be realistic. That or a version of Ducimus's "sea trials" with a training mission.
tater
Ah, I used Beery's campaign starts and I've honestly never started a patrol before the war. I left it there partly for ear of breaking something, and partly because it might be useful for testing. It will need a generic patrol mission or two to be realistic. That or a version of Ducimus's "sea trials" with a training mission.
tater
Training mission for manual targeting. Big juicy Tanker and BB would be Kool since I'm just learning M.T. Played Sea Trials and thought to be a great addition to game:arrgh!:
The sea trials were all ducimus. Brilliant.
tater
@Tater, I wanted to post an anomoly I witnessed last night. I also posted on WernerSobe's thread so he is aware of it, too.
I'm using TM1.5, RSM 3.0, and your latest campaign (.76 I believe) I ran across a single tanker @ 129Deg E X 27Deg N on Dec. 26, 1942 heading North at around 5 kts. Shortly after I spotted him, he started slowing down and came to a stop. When I got closer and looked at him, he was sitting so low in the water that waves were splashing over the deck.
I know that people are reporting tankers spontaneous combustion with RSM 3.0 but I wanted to let you know so you could make sure one of the ZZs wasn't left out.
I've said it before, I'll say it again. Your mod ROCKS!! I absolutely love the ZZs and the difficulty setting up a shot with them. Fantastic work, Sir. If you're ever in my corner of the world, drinks are on me!!
Chuck
Sometimes ships don't ZZ, actually. I have them make choices every so often to make a straight line dash. Early in the war, I have them do this more than later, too.
In RL, I have read that early in the war many merchants would only ZZ in the daytime, and would run straight at night. I can add that at some point, but it's complicated (I have to "mark" the waypoints so that the mcoca editor can only ZZ between the chosen pairs). Once done like that, I have to make a copy with a scripted ship since the "estimated time to waypoints" button doesn't work with random groups.
switch.dota
08-15-07, 08:59 AM
I usually get the odd half-sunk tanker using TM 1.4a (0.72 of this mod). Particularly in the solmons in aug 42. The bug might not appear with Werener''s modified ships mod (NSM 3.0)
It might be a fundametal flaw in the tanker then. I actually put fuel in them, the stock game NEVER puts fuel in tankers.
Maybe they were broken and that was their fix (instead of really fixing them).
tater
Schultzy
08-15-07, 10:06 AM
Really intrigued by this mod as it sounds like you've done some amazing stuff but will it do bad things to RFB if I install over the top? Or is it GTG? :)
Either way, nice job so far!
Sockeye
08-15-07, 02:26 PM
1. Increase the patrol radius for many patrols.
2. Mention the patrol radius in the orders for the patrol.
3. Increase the patrol duration from 2 days, to maybe a week or more.
4. Mention the specific time on station from #3 in the orders.
This definitely sounds pretty good to me, but I wanted to add something about time requirements.
I see in the mission editor that times can be "Non-Continuous"; I think having this in the objectives might be a decent idea just in case you have to leave the area for whatever reason. Have to chase that convoy that takes you beyond the invisible boundary at hour 47? No problem: sink 'em and come back to finish off the remaining hour instead of starting the clock all over again :D
__________
And an aside:
ComSubPac sent me to patrol west just off Truk this time; not seeing much of marus yet but the seaborne patrols are abundant.
I know you had been working around with minefields and subnets, but a few weeks ago I was penetrating the Sea of Japan through the Tsugaru Strait between Honshu and Hokkaido, and was wondering if they were actually being applied to my campaign or not. I was actually looking for them and waiting to hear that loud screeching sound from SH3 that indicates they're in the vicinity, but wasn't hearing or seeing anything. Checked out the layer in the mission editor, and the little guys were supposed to be all over the place, so I took a look again at the Strait, but still came up dry.
Well today just off the shoals at Truk, that sound I had been looking for almost blew my eardrums out... lol
Looking forward to the '44 and '45 layers being worked over :up:
Ah, I haven't messed with the mines at japan yet.
I found that a LOT of mines was actually an fps hit for me, and if I make the fields realistically dangerous... we're talking overlapping rows with mines on the order of every sub-length or so I'd think.
tater
Tater, thanks for the fix for the Aleutians campaign. It's quite a mind-numbing experience trying to find shipping wayyyyyy up there in the Kuriles, lol:
"Radar contact, sir"
(Moves toward contact)
"Warship, sir. Looks like a minesweeper."
:damn:
There's traffic, just not a lot.
I really have no idea how much should be up there, I gather it should be pretty thin.
Paramushiro should be more interesting at least.
By the way, how much are you modifying Allied shipping? For instance, does the Prince of Wales show up along the Malay coast in December 1941? I know we don't have the Illustrious Class CV, but how much other British shipping is in the game at this point?
There's traffic, just not a lot.
I really have no idea how much should be up there, I gather it should be pretty thin.
Paramushiro should be more interesting at least.
Well, from what I've read, it was pretty thin up there, so it's probably about right where you have it right now.
One other thing I almost forgot - one of the T3 tankers at Dutch Harbor seems to be pushed up on its side a little. Might be worth trading that big bugger out for a smaller ship - it just seems kind of strange to see two large fleet oilers all the way up in an out-of-the way location.
I didn't mess with the harbors much from stock. I'll have a look.
I didn't mess with the harbors much from stock. I'll have a look.
Cool, thanks. Might be worth trading that ship out with the Small Split Freighter.
There's traffic, just not a lot.
I really have no idea how much should be up there, I gather it should be pretty thin.
Paramushiro should be more interesting at least.
How much merchant traffic is up there, anyways? I've done two patrols up in that area now, and both times I've only encoutered the random subchaser or minesweeper.
Frederf
08-16-07, 05:37 AM
Tater, thanks for the fix for the Aleutians campaign. It's quite a mind-numbing experience trying to find shipping wayyyyyy up there in the Kuriles, lol:
"Radar contact, sir"
(Moves toward contact)
"Warship, sir. Looks like a minesweeper."
:damn:
Listening this his screws often saves me a long voyage just to turn tail. Can tell a low-value warship from a high-value warship/ merchant prettyeasily
Not a huge amount, lol. Maybe a small group of ships every week or so on the "convoy" side (small convoys, too), and a similar number of small lone merchants. I'd have to check.
I have multiple alternate paths going, so they can go on both sides of the islands. Paramushiro gets more traffic.
This is from memory, I'd need to open it up. Depends on the month...
When is your patrol? Before the jap invasion in June, there should be nothing treaffic wise, I forgot to check beery's patrol dates.
When is your patrol? Before the jap invasion in June, there should be nothing treaffic wise, I forgot to check beery's patrol dates.
June 1943. Getting pretty tired of seeing all those little escort vessels, so I'm taking my sub on a little voyage to the southwest. :D
Well, the US retook Attu starting in the end of May, that might be the problem. Need to tweak the dates so that all patrols switch to Paramushiro at that point (Kiska was bypassed to start, and secretly evacuated (that would be a cool scripted layer to add to the campaign...).
tater
New one for you, tater. On the eastern side of Hokkaido, there is a port called Nemuro with one of those Chinese river gunboats moored at dockside. I tried to torpedo it, but my torpedoes kept hitting a subnet, lol.
Wow, they have subnets, lol.
tater
Wow, they have subnets, lol.
tater
Well, at least that's what I presumed them to be. I fired three torpedoes from the same spot, and they all blew up at the exact same time and place. Funny, the diving officer told me each time they were duds. :rolleyes:
Looks like the Aleutians campaign objectives need a bit more work, lol. I was sent on a photo recon mission to Massacre Bay ("Photo Attu 01," in the campaign folder), so I carefully plot out a course, dodge a few warships, get inside the harbor and see...absolutely nothing. Lots of pine trees, but even the polar bears decided to not show up. :shifty:
In the meanwhile (aka, until you populate it with a ship or two ;)), is there a way to mod a file so the game thinks I've actually completed the objective so I can get a new assignment?
Yeah, I think I spaced that. I should have thrown a couple in the harbor layer in there. I copied the missions, and I uncommented them out, but haven't messed with the harbors much.
Wait until ships put in, the take pics? I think the patrols go back intot he harbor to despawn...
tater
Wait until ships put in, the take pics? I think the patrols go back intot he harbor to despawn...
Good idea, will try that.
Wulfmann
08-18-07, 09:27 PM
I have tried to torpedo those gunboats in port but I believe it is the dock behind them that is being hit. I do not think there are any nets and am positive the explosions were behind the boats.
Wulfmann
nattydread
08-19-07, 02:36 AM
Have you made it so the Northern Borneo ports are regular origin and destinations for oil tankers.
Oil is one of the key reasons why Japan spread into the South Pacific so aggressivly, Borneo was a significant oil source for Japan, with the northern ports being the busiest.
I'd assume the tankers would be mainly running back and forth from Borneo straight to Japan.
Wulfman, regaring your post in the other thread. I really haven't tweaked the content of many TFs yet.
There is a problem with the way it does stuff that required more work, basically.
Originally, I assumed that grouped ships were a % chance of the GROUP occuring.
Ie: 2xTakao CA @ 30%.
I had assumed that it meant that there was a 30% chance of 2 Takaos, and if it missed the die roll there would be ZERO Takaos. In reality, it is a 30% chance rolled twice. So you can have 0, 1, or 2 Takaos. Take a desire to hyave 3-4 DDs of a type (a typical desdiv). You can make an 80% chance of 4, but you might still see only ONE. I can aim at an expectation value of 3, but I can still get 0-2 DDs spawning. The ONLY way to insure proper groupings is to force them at 100%. The problem is that if that random group spawns more than once, they all look the same. There is no possible way to have the same group be accurate in terms of warship grouping (like types together in desdivs, crudivs, batdivs, etc) AND have variability in the same random group.
So in a few that I did tweak, I need to redo them to get grouped units.
Any time in there you see an 80% generic DD in mulitple rows, that's stock. I need to make groups of 3-4 DDs of a type.
I still might throw some odballs in here and there, too, like a single Minekaze (which is supping for all the TBs, ODDs, etc that might be joining a TF to transit to some other location).
It's kind of a pain for the goal of variability. The only way to have alternate groups of CAs, for example, is to make 2 different groups, say one with Takao, and another with Furitaka. Have them have lower % chance of occuring, but take similar paths. It's in my planned to do list, but it's more stuff to do. I will make a few "additional traffic layers like this, and merge them into multiple years probably to save work. Then I'll make the similar groups they enhance have lower spawn rates, and different contents.
Too bad, it would be nice to have an option to have a % chance of X ships occuring in a group.
tater
Wulfmann
08-19-07, 04:36 PM
I cut down most of the TF to insure correct ships.
All BB's named
When there are Kongos there are no Ise etc.
That is just correcting to insure historical absolutes.
As for cruisers I just have to see, I might go with naming all CAs but just include variable %, One 100% one 75% one 25% or something
I want the variability I just want it to be historically possible.
I have only done 1942 TF and so far they do not cause a CTD although I have only seen a couple close up but have had them show up on the map and they would cause CTD if they had any bug.
I did use yours as a start I just do not want to start offering mods.
You can have it for reference or use it as it works and it is correct sort of.
I also redid the ships to show up correctly.
Maya starts in 44, she is now in the Takao as a 10 gun ship until then. Mogami starts in 43 so can not spawn in 42 with a 7 type.
I edited the roster but this is not required to use the 42TF jst my insisting on history.
Too bad there is no complete Mogami type.
Also, the Akitsu was not an aircraft carrier and was not even IJN.
It was a troop landing ship with a fly off deck a Jap Army ship.
They could not land on it and used it to transport army aircraft which could take off to land at their forward bases.
It also did not enter service until 44.
Seems like that effort could have been used to make the Kaga or Akagi
Not sure why they did not do their final homework.
Not secret info.
Wulfmann
I know Akitsu is not a CV, I deleted her air group, actually.
I have her in some TFs as what she was, a plane ferry. I have no TROM information to know if she (or other IJA ferries) was ever used cooperatively with the IJN, but I added her here and there at low % for variability. It's plausible that the IJA might have tagged long with a group heading to the SWPA, particularly early in the war when they were operating in a more coordinated fashion. Later I actually plan on adding a few IJA groups (I'm playing with some ersatz escorts, but it's hard to find data on what the IJA actually used for this role. I see references to small boats, sounds like DC armed PT boats.
My plan is to limit the ships to batdivs, etc, but when I do so I will then add multiple groups taking similar paths at lower spawn rates to make up for the lack of variability. That means 6 layers times 2-4 variant groups per TF. A fair bit of work.
I actually need to test the "generic" pulls. I ASSUME that if I have 4xGeneric DD at 100%, that it picks one DD type, then draws 4 of them, and not that there is a 100% chance of 4 possibly different DDs.
tater
Wulfmann
08-19-07, 09:15 PM
I doubt they changed that from SH3 so it would be 4 of the same class.
I actually have named the DDs in the TF because they would have used the later ones and did not want the unhistorical older ones running with the CAs.
Likewise I did not want newer types escorting convoys so have named the older ones.
The thing is one must not only be in the same place on the same day but at the same hour to duplicate a TF so changing the number of Takao and Furutaki as well as Asashio vs Fubuki being the more prominent and various numbers will likely not be the same even if one met the day and hour repeat criteria.
IMO, historical relevance trumps other aspects at least to a reasonable point.
Ise and Kongo, nope, would not happen; shouldn't ota do it, wouldn't be prudent!
Plus their was only Taiyo in that class until Unyo finished (5/31/42) and Chuyo (11/25/43) all products of Mitsubishi!!!
So many little things to whine about!!!:rotfl:
Wulfmann
Taiyo is the only CVE, so it should be used for all IJN CVLs and CVEs IMO.
For substitutions I use:
CVL Chitose (post-rebuild) =CVETaiyo
CVL Chiyoda (post-rebuild) =CVETaiyo
CVL Hosho =CVETaiyo
CVL Ryujo =CVETaiyo
CVL Ryuho =CVETaiyo
CVL Shoho =CVETaiyo
CVL Zuiho =CVETaiyo
Escort Carriers
CVE Taiyo
CVE Chuyo =CVETaiyo
CVE Unyo =CVETaiyo
CVE Kaiyo =CVETaiyo
CVE Shinyo =CVETaiyo
Until someone add more ships. Limiting Taiyo to historical dates would eliminate ALL CVEs before her. Obviously Akitsu Maru is an even worse choice.
Even newer DDs got convoy duty from time to time, though it was usually a route from to or from the Empire from a naval anchorage (ie: a modern DD is sent home to refit, she might escort ships on her way home). All might have escorted invasion forces (which aren't really convoys).
Look at Akizuki's TROM, she escorted a troop ship, then an ammo ship as some of her very first duties.
29 June-18 July:
Escorted liner KAMAKURA MARU from Yokosuka to Makassar (6-10 July) and back.
13-21 August:
Escorted ammunition ship NARUTO MARU from Yokosuka via Kavieng to Rabaul.
Actually, you find convoy escorts here and there for all DD classes in the TROMs. A quick look shows not a single class of DD in the IJN without at least occasional convoy duty. Obviously the ODDs (minekaze as SH4 substitute), Minekaze, and Kamikaze and Mutsuki would be the most typical. in terms of general assignments.
Tater, does the game follow the DOC and DOD dates to any extent? I see the two Ise BBs have the proper dates for when they went into drydock for conversion and when they were put back into service, but does the game recognize those dates? It'd be kind of silly to see a standard Ise after their conversion date.
Good question, I assumed they did, which is why I changed Agano and Akizuki's dates.
Might need testing.
Was looking at the TF contents and they do need work, I have been chasing down other issues and really hadn't gotten around to tweaking them past gutting them.
Maybe this week.
Wulfmann
08-20-07, 08:30 AM
I agree with everything you posted.
Except please note Taiyo was used a training carrier and delivery platform not a combat carrier so seeing it in a TF is not accurate, IMO
I do leave some variable type 4 in convoys for exactly that reason.
However, when there are 4 DDs I use an older named version so 4 Fubukis do not show up.
Last night I attacked a small convoy (I expanded a two ship group into a 5 merchant 2 type-1 and a DD) luck that I ran into it. I have made all type 1 crew rated 4 as they are lame at even a 3 much like SH3. The DD (about a 20% chance but was there) did not participate and I am guessing I forgot to change the escort false to escort true.
Note, anything with a 4 crew has laser guided gunfire!!! I like this because subs generally did not pick gunfights with such ships
Many of those older DDs were converted to fast transports and would not escort a TF.
I use Conway's as a basic quick source but I also have a fair sized collection of reference and reading WWII material to draw on. Nothing is perfect but close is good enough compared to it never could have happened.
Wulfmann
Yeah, but what small carrier would you then put in for Hosho, Shoho, Zuiho?
Hiryu (should be Soryu) has a bigger island, Taiyo makes a better stand-in for the various CVLs, IMO.
Remove Taiyo from TFs, and you effectively remove all CVL/CVEs as targets.
To me seeing Akitsu Maru in a TF in place of Taiyo as a Hosho/Shoho/etc stand-in would be far more jarring, but I want them out there.
<shrug>
I have the odd AI=4 merchant, too, just to keep people on their toes who might thing Battle Surface! was a way of life ;)
My substitution list (with help from nematode):
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=575467&postcount=5
tater
Wulfmann
08-20-07, 12:26 PM
I know most will disagree with my history uber alles attitude but if one looks at the war how many Jap BBs where sunk by subs? One, Kongo ob a lucky shot.
I sank a Fuso in the first week of playing SH4 and at 100% from my first patrol.
I have attacked a number of TF and in SH3 never did have a firing position except once I fired a spread at long range at a KGV scoring a hit and once I attacked a fleet carrier all this in two years of nearly daily playing.
I know most want more action I want more history.
I sank a Taiyo in a TF that had 2 of them as well as two Maya. That won't do for me.
There is no right way just the way one feels it is right for him.
I am hoping someone will make a Nachi and mod Furataka for Aoba (although they are close enough to add now but Nachi not to me).
I will likely reduce TF considerably to make them rare as in fact they were with BBs. Except for the Kongo class Japs hardly deployed any BBs because of furl consumption and they were slow.
I wished they had modeled the Kagero instead of the Asashio as that was close to the Yugumo class which would have added 38 units between the two similar ships compared with 10 Asashio
So far, the intensity of the SH4 action is weak compared to SH3-GWX, IMO but I love the new graphics and the feel of a new area but I have serious doubt this will hold my interest like SH3 over time.
However, modding made SH3 good enough for that and maybe SH4 will at some point.
There are too many juicy targets for history's sake right now so I will tone or Chikuma it down a Nachi!:rotfl:
Wulfmann
The BBs were obviously out in force during the southern advance, but yeah, they frequently found themselves at anchor at Truk, Palau, Davao, or tawi Tawi (some at Singapore), particularly as oil became even more of a problem. The spawn rates are pretty rare though, many of the TF groups only make one journey every few months.
As for easy sinkings, a huge amount has to do with the broken stock damage model. All the Cvs die to ONE fish since they have a cloned DM from a medium merchant.
When Werner dials NSM in, that will be fixed, and you'll have to work to kill a BB or CV without them steaming away from you (and they repair one out of render range).
That will make a huge difference.
At least Asashio is virtually identical to Kagero visually (and aside from improvements in reliability mechanically as well).
Tater, just an FYI for you. For the Japanese Armed Trawler, you need to copy over the DDS file of it's silhouette from the stock Armed Trawler's file in order for it show up in the recognition manual. Before I did this the page would just show up blank.
I know most will disagree with my history uber alles attitude but if one looks at the war how many Jap BBs where sunk by subs? One, Kongo ob a lucky shot.
I sank a Fuso in the first week of playing SH4 and at 100% from my first patrol.
I have attacked a number of TF and in SH3 never did have a firing position except once I fired a spread at long range at a KGV scoring a hit and once I attacked a fleet carrier all this in two years of nearly daily playing.
I know most want more action I want more history.
I sank a Taiyo in a TF that had 2 of them as well as two Maya.
Well, consider me one of those that agrees with you. ;) Having multiple ships show up in one engagement where only one ever existed is a pet peeve of mine as well. Hopefully as tater's work progressses this will become less of a problem.
Re: Armed Trawler
I thought I did that.
Doh!
As for the group contents, yeah, they need tons of work.
The one thing to remember regarding 1-off ships, is that there have to be substitutions given the existing ships. Ashashio is used for Asashio Class, Kagero Class, and Yugumo Class, for example. There was one Taiho, but I'm assuming any other appearances might be Hiyo, Junyo, or Shinano until I have something better.
Even if I did have unique ships, the game makes it impossible to never see them again. If you sink the only Yubari (assuming one ever was modded in), then start a new patrol, you might sink her again. There is no possible way around this.
tater
Wulfmann
08-20-07, 06:36 PM
True tater. but we must also consider that when we as an American skipper get killed we come back for another patrol as well!!:yep: :lol: :yep:
It is not about making it perfect just better without getting too carried away.
At least they have Takao one of my all time favorite ships (Not sure why, just like the look)
When the Japs made their big early push the BBs were out a little but when the battle raged only the Kongos showed their faces while the others sat it out. Funny, I have seen Ise and Fuso classes twice each but not the Kongo.
My edits will surely change that as most TF are now Kongo class with only a couple the other two older classes.:hmm:
Wulfmann
Wulfmann
08-20-07, 06:40 PM
I am still plagued by diesel engines receiving minor damage being fixed but then not working at all.
Is there a damage fix for the subs as I also had no rudders another time when they also had minor damage and were fixed all being reported by the crew as ready.
Funny because the dive planes were destroyed and yet the boat dove the same but would not turn. Had to scuttle the boat, crew POWs.:down:
Wulfmann
FAdmiral
08-20-07, 07:43 PM
True tater. but we must also consider that when we as an American skipper get killed we come back for another patrol as well!!:yep: :lol: :yep:
It is not about making it perfect just better without getting too carried away.
At least they have Takao one of my all time favorite ships (Not sure why, just like the look)
When the Japs made their big early push the BBs were out a little but when the battle raged only the Kongos showed their faces while the others sat it out. Funny, I have seen Ise and Fuso classes twice each but not the Kongo.
My edits will surely change that as most TF are now Kongo class with only a couple the other two older classes.:hmm:
Wulfmann
The Kongo was the ONLY Japanese BB that could be in a carrier TF. It had the
speed but all the others (except Yamato) didn't...
JIM
The one thing to remember regarding 1-off ships, is that there have to be substitutions given the existing ships. Ashashio is used for Asashio Class, Kagero Class, and Yugumo Class, for example. There was one Taiho, but I'm assuming any other appearances might be Hiyo, Junyo, or Shinano until I have something better.
Even if I did have unique ships, the game makes it impossible to never see them again. If you sink the only Yubari (assuming one ever was modded in), then start a new patrol, you might sink her again. There is no possible way around this.
Yep, I hear ya.
One thing I was looking at today was the dates and content of the British surface units. Yikes! It's not so much the commissioning dates that are incorrect, but that the game has them in the PTO when they were actually fighting in the Med or the Atlantic. For instance, there should be NO King George V BBs in port or at sea between early December 1941 and November 1944, which was when the BPF came into being. What do we have in the Australian ports, though? Yep, KGVs galore. :rotfl:I know the Allied surface traffic and port configuration isn't your biggest priority right now, tater, but this is something I think needs to be looked at some time in the future.
Agreed. For the most part I haven't touched any allied traffic at all aside from deleting groups.
tater
Wulfmann
08-21-07, 08:59 AM
The Kongo was the ONLY Japanese BB that could be in a carrier TF. It had the
speed but all the others (except Yamato) didn't...JIM
While true that does not have anything to do with the surface actions involving Hiei and Kirishima where no carrier escorting was done just night shoot outs.
It was the speed as well as fuel consumption that allowed their use.
Until late 44 no other class of Jap BB did anything but waste manpower and then they were only token sacrifices.
The sinking of the Bismarck, the retreat of the sisters and the sinking of the PoW and Repulse had made these dinosaurs obsolete.
The Japs would have made better use of them buy installing their guns as coastal defense and scrapped the hulls to make toys and souvenirs for the soon to be occupiers.
Wulfmann
To be fair, the bulk of the IJN BB force was constructed before CVs were capable offensive platforms. The real waste was Yamato and her sisters. They could have built over 100 desperately needed escorts for the same effort in manpower and materials.
tater
Status Report:
Been a busy week or two in RL, all the time I've had to actually work on the campaign I've frankly been too tired to do so. I plan on starting up again.
Things to do (short term):
Check the later war layers to make sure the traffic is in the right places. Correct as needed.
Start tweaking the contents of the groups again (with an eye towrds the goal of making them more historically correct (comments by Wulfmann, LukeFF, et al appreciated)).
Figure out how to clone the sampan03 so I can make it invisible (the invisible part I have done!) and therefore do the beach defense photo recon missions I have sketched out already.
Start work on the scripted layers to make them historical.
tater
sneekyzeke
08-21-07, 11:38 AM
Status Report:
Been a busy week or two in RL, all the time I've had to actually work on the campaign I've frankly been too tired to do so. I plan on starting up again.
tater
(cheering him on) go tater go! go tater go! Tater, Tater, He's our man. If he can't do it nobody can!:yep:
P.S. Hey moderators, we need a wider selection of humorous smileys so we can more accurately convey our message. God knows I can't write.:doh:
Sounds good, tater.
One thing I've started doing is reducing the tonnage requirments for the "Sink" objectives to 5000 tons. From reading a few patrol reports, it seems 5000 tons was about the average benchmark for a patrol to be considered successful, and given the utterly crappy nature of the Mark 14 before 1943, it seems logical that coming back with "just" 5000 tons of merchant shipping sunk would be considered a success. If you want I can send the files to you when I finish them.
Yeah, that is a good idea.
Ditto for warships. My plan was also to remove any merchant requirements as well. Warships (large ones, anyway) were always on the menu.
tater
Wulfmann
08-21-07, 04:00 PM
Sounds good T
I just went through all the TF and edited them based on memory historically.
I am also trying to cut the 104 groups down by 90%. Too annoying There was more of that at the end than the beginning. We were generally not cruising off Tokyo Bay in 42 blasting junks like we can in SH4. It was really when we had total control we did that in earnest.
Now I shall see if they work
Wulfmann
Actually, I think the coastal traffic would not be reduced early war. The game lacks an important group of coastal merchant vessels, some built in large quatities (Sea Trucks, etc). So yeah, maybe the number should increase later in the war. The fact that they are a joke to blast has as much to do with the total lack of crew damage due to AAA guns helps with that.
At least now some will shoot back ;)
Hornet ran into one ~600 miles from Japan in early 1942. I'd expect rather a lot of fishing craft everywhere, frankly. I ignore them, myself, so I don't find them annoying. Seriously, how many such sub-300 ton sailing craft were at sea any given day? A huge multiple of the number of ~2000+ ton merchants, I guarantee.
tater
Yeah, that is a good idea.
Ditto for warships. My plan was also to remove any merchant requirements as well. Warships (large ones, anyway) were always on the menu.
tater
I agree, but the question is, how do we do this?
These are the parameters for a "Sink merchant shipping" requirement:
Tonnage=5000
TonnageType=1
And for a "Engage Japanese Task Force" requirement:
Tonnage=1000
TonnageType=2
Obviously the TonnageType number determines the type of shipping to be sunk in order for the mission to be regarded as complete. Is there a number for "any and all" shipping? 0, perhaps?
If you look at the objectives in the editor there is an "ANy" option.
There are also sub types beyond any merchants. Replenishment, cargo, tankers, troopships, escorts, or capital ships.
tater
If you look at the objectives in the editor there is an "ANy" option.
There are also sub types beyond any merchants. Replenishment, cargo, tankers, troopships, escorts, or capital ships.
tater
Bingo! Got it! TonnageType=0 does the trick.
I'll get to working on updating all the Sink missions and get them sent off to you as soon as I can.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.