![]() |
SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
![]() |
#526 |
Watch
![]() Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 26
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
SH5 should let us fight for the IJN.
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#527 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
|
![]()
No question the uphill (impossible) battle makes for better gameplay. To some extent this is true in the PTO, but not nearly to the etreme of the Atlantic (japs DO get radar, even on planes, and they get DC throwers (even if not in the stock game). They also start actually having convoys. Man, we need Matsu DEs and Kaiboukans...
On topic, I have tweaked layer contents (TFs) quite a bit. I left a few groups with slightly more variability possible than was likely in RL, but there are less "Task Forces" and more "warships that started in the same place, that are going to the same place." So I might have a group lead by a DD, with 3 more of that same DD type as likely escorts (say 80%x3), then the larger ships (all as 1 type pick) might be CL 50%, 2xCA@15%, 1xTaiyo@5%, 1xIse@5% and so on. I think I stuck to monotypes on the larger ships, but frankly I might have 2 types here and there later at such low %s becase actually seeing 2 at once would be quite unlikely, and in return we'd get variability. It's a tough call. I do plan more TROM based additions though, and as I add them for the BBs, for example, I can then delete that same BB anyplace else in the layer since we know where it is, lol. That's the ultimate goal. The wierd Ise group in 1943 I have is a real group (with a Fuso) straight from Ise's TROM. If I did for Hyuga during the same time interval, I could then use no other generic or Ise selections. I think I will do that for Yamato and Musashi next. Totally TROM based. tater |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#528 | |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 3,610
Downloads: 41
Uploads: 5
|
![]() Quote:
![]() Good to hear about the emphasis being placed on TROMs. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#529 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
|
![]()
This campaign started as a tweak to the stock campaign to reduce the tonnage, and make it a little more realistic.
My goal was always to replicate the TROMs, it's just not possible given limitations (ships splitting off TFs, etc). I think a current work around will be to follow a few large warships TROM style, and leave the others to a vaguely historical format in the name of replay value. Unless anyone has a better idea. tater |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#530 | |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 3,610
Downloads: 41
Uploads: 5
|
![]() Quote:
![]() Having cruisers fit in would be great as well, but if it means sacrificing the exact ships in order to maintain a proper task force size, then I say leave the CAs and CLs as generic entries with a high percentage of spawning, depending on class. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#531 |
Ace of the deep .
|
![]()
Would it be possible to merge SH3 NYGM random and scripted campaign files to say one of the campaign layers in SH4 once all of the SH3 boats NYGM uses are converted by JMJOHNSON36 . This would add the atlantic and you could have the subs as british operating in this area . Just an idea .
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#532 | |
Silent Hunter
![]() Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Riverside, California
Posts: 3,610
Downloads: 41
Uploads: 5
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#533 |
Captain
![]() Join Date: May 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 492
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]()
Aight, bug report comign up: there's something in the feb 42 layer that spawns aircraft in the middle of the pacific, about halfway from Tokyo to Midway. Whatever it is, it's not moving very fast, if at all.
Tater, could I ask you to check it out? I've got all the details if you need anything else to norrow the search down. EDIT: This was encoutnered in both TM 1.5 and TM 1.6. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#534 | ||
Electrician's Mate
![]() Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: The Sweet State, Georgia
Posts: 134
Downloads: 44
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
|
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#535 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
|
![]()
Well, I had nothing to do with the airfields in TM, that is leo's mod. I will look though. Sure it's not Wake?
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#536 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
|
![]()
As for the Atlantic traffic, I don't have SH3, and I don't know how the map looks. I'm assuming it's identical by your post.
The reason the devs broke the game into time period chunks was presumably to ease campaign construction, and reduce load on player computer systems. I can;t speak to the latter, but it's certainly a good paradigm for writing a campaign. Combining the traffic would actually be quite easy assuming that the sh3 mission files are compatible---and you had every single ship, plane, whatever explicitly mentioned in their campaign. A single rowboat called to appear once that was not in SH4 would CTD the game. All you'd need do is add the mission files to Campaign.cfg. I'll leave that as an excercise for the Atlantic enthusiast. ![]() tater |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#537 | |
Canadian Wolf
|
![]() Quote:
RDP |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#538 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
|
![]()
Not a lot of German traffic to sink, however.
BTW, did anyone see my post about possibly using Evarts (the US DE) as a stand-in for the kaibokan? Similar size (evarts is too big), somewhat similar look, and Evarts has loads of W nodes for DC throwers. Evarts is slightly slower. I could "bungo pete clone" her, easily replacing the US weapons with japanese ones---I know this because I already did it ![]() I think I'd not have her appear at all until there were a few kaibokans around. While there were a few in August 1943, it wasn't really until the beginning of 1944 that there might have been enough to see them as often as you would pulled randomly. Course the same could be said of minsweepers or the ships she stands in for, lol. I could make her a "corvette" in which case she's simply randomly appear in current layers with MS and SC escorts. Alternately I could make her a frigate (none used in the IJN so far) and have more contol of kaibokans vs the other minor escorts. I'm interested in feedback on this Evarts idea. I've never actually seen one in game, so it makes sense to me, course I'm also not used to being attacked by them in SH3 since I don't own SH3 ![]() Last edited by tater; 08-28-07 at 08:58 AM. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#539 | |
Captain
![]() Join Date: May 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 492
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
![]() Quote:
Besides, Wake is to my SSE when I start gettign reports. Aircraft approact from the opposite direction. I don't think they are long range patrols on return to wake because I NEVER get contacts when I'm closer to Wake Island. I've mentioned this issue before. Back then it was TM 1.5 and I tried trackign down the aircraft to the point where they would be showing up all over the place. Felt as if a TF was running laps around me - yet no sonar contact in crystal clear weather. Reminded me a lot of the Solmons during august 42 (43!?) and the Guadacanal air battles there (aircraft everywhere, some friendly soem japanese). |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#540 |
Navy Seal
![]() Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Mexico, USA
Posts: 9,023
Downloads: 8
Uploads: 2
|
![]()
Rgr, I'll look!
Was it a CV based plane like a val or kate, or something else? tater |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|