|
Post by fredsanford on Mar 1, 2014 9:13:02 GMT -6
Thanks!
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Mar 1, 2014 8:55:51 GMT -6
Fredsanford wrote: Wow, I had never thought to even try to do that! Appreciate the heads up and hopefully Fredrik will be able to slam this exploit shut with the next update. Thanks. Perhaps instead of allowing a division to patrol within ANY port's patrol radius, the division has to be manually relocated to that port. i.e., it can only patrol in the zone of the port at which it is stationed.
edit: Another possible exploit is the use of the 'preempt' button: On the rare occasions that the Russians get wind of an upcoming Japanese operation, reassign the divisions of the 1st PS to the Vlad Squadron, activate them, and hit the preempt button. The scenario will start with those divisions at Vlad's 'preempt' location, in the Sea of Japan. I haven't tested this, but I'm pretty sure it would work. I think it would be better if 'preempt' locations were set on a port-by-port basis, instead of on a Force basis, since there's other 'teleportation' effects with the current structure that give weird effects. For instance, in one game as the Japanese, I relocated 2nd Fleet to Elliot Islands since most of my B's were in repair and I was short on heavy ships. I preempted a Russian operation, and when the scenario started, 2nd Fleet was horribly out of position, off the coast of Japan where it's preempt location is set. That's how I learned the hard way that preempt is on a Force basis, not a port basis.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 28, 2014 16:43:56 GMT -6
Also interface problem: after "set patrol" function select game shows patrol circles after every scenario before save/exit/load game, and doesn't show approximate time to reach the point for active divisions. I think that's because patrolling divisions start the operational turn on station, so in effect, they're already there.
That said, there's an exploit of the patrol function that allows the Russian player virtually risk-free relocation of the 1st Pacific Squadron to Vladivostok, two divisions at a time:
Activate two 1st PS divisions, and give them 'patrol' orders (you can only give 2 divisions patrol orders per force). Set the patrol location to inside Vladivostok's circle. Start scenario, and those 2 divisions will start off the coast of Vladivostok. Sail a few miles and enter the port of Vladivostok and (shazzaam), they're now based in Vladivostok. Actually, you could do up to 4 divisions per turn by reassigning 2 divs from 1st PS to the Vladivostok squadron, and 2 from 1st PS as described above.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 24, 2014 21:14:17 GMT -6
I would add that the orientation of DD/TB's relative to the prospective target matters as well. I'm not sure what the speeds of RJW-era torpedoes were, but they weren't that fast, so a target ship can move a significant distance while the torpedoes are in the water. An RJW-era DD 2,000 yards away ahead of the prospective target, even though nominally 'out of range', is a potential danger as it could fire a torpedo and the target could sail into the path. A DD that's only 1,000 yards away, but astern of prospective target, probably won't get a workable firing solution for anything but the slowest ships, even though its nominally 'in range'. This is even more pronounced in WW1 SAI, where a DD 10,000 yards away, but ahead of the target is most definitely a danger. In fact, you better turn now, the torpedoes may already be on the way.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 22, 2014 16:16:19 GMT -6
Just saw strange situation: Active-class CL was hit by torpedo-but not mine! Here is scheme: I can't understand, why DD (Leonidas in after battle report) launch her torpedo and killed her crippled force flagship - maybe, captain didn't like his commander? I saw many situations with friendly torpedoes before, but they happen only in darkness, or after "wrong" manoeuvres (DD's too close to enemy sometimes go berserk), but they never were as simply and clear as this. I've seen 'friendly' torpedo hits several times. Usually from an under-trained ship. Part of the game, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 18, 2014 13:07:26 GMT -6
I was wondering how hard it would be to mod a few variations to the historical RJW situation for the fun of it. Say a 'maximum' Russian setup, and a 'maximum' Japanese setup?
Maximum Russian mod features assume the Russians are prepared for war, and are not surprised by beginning of hostilities. So the campaign begins on Feb 7, and the Varyag & Korietz can sortie, as well as the rest of the Russian fleet. The Russians have notification of an impending sortie by the Japanese, who have a mandatory transport mission to Chemulpo Bay. The Russians also have the Red Sea reinforcements in place, as well as the repair ship Kamchatka has deployed prior to the war and raises the Russian repair ability somewhat- materials are also assumed to be stockpiled so more OPs and repair points each turn.
Maximum Japanese mod features: Since the Japanese are pretty much 'all in' already, this has the British intervene on the Japanese side. The Baltic Fleet never arrives, and the China station units intervene directly. Also, could something like this be an option in the land campaign events if it looks like the Russians are running away with it? Also, could Japanese behavior be modded to shift to a convoy system if they lose > than some threshold of points in TR loses?
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 16, 2014 17:28:37 GMT -6
Giving it a "support" role, subordinated to a division located in the general direction you want it to go usually works to bring it back. Make sure you're not on Flotilla Attack.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 15, 2014 16:57:27 GMT -6
How do you edit it? Must be easy enough, though I can't find an entry in the cam file that looks like a likely suspect..... search for "Length=3200". It's in the top section.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 15, 2014 14:38:52 GMT -6
I don't have any issues. Usually I'm back in port before the time limit. I don't like to force combat unless I have some BB's activated so I don't hang around at sea too long. I have never played a North Sea campaign so I can't comment on that. If the time limit was raised it wouldn't make a big difference. Wait for a 'destroy TR' mission to the south Baltic, and you have trouble finding victims right off. You are severely limited on time on station, and not due to fuel. North Sea campaign turns are 4400 minutes, and RJW are 4800. It doesn't need to be nearly that high, but going to 3800 minutes (its 3200 now) gives the player another 10 hours on station. As it is, there's barely enough time to go back and forth, about 40 hours in straight-run transit time. That's 2/3rds of the scenario length.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 15, 2014 12:02:55 GMT -6
Do you guys feel like the allotted 3200 minutes is too short? I feel like I constantly have to rush back to port before my ships turn into pumpkins.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 15, 2014 11:57:44 GMT -6
Imagine a linked campaign where you played 1, 2, or 4 week turns (like now) in theater-sized chunks. Say a Baltic, a North Sea/Atlantic, Med, etc. SAI style campaign for each theater, linked by an overarching framework that allows the player to transfer ships/divisions between theaters, procure/construct new vessels, technology, doctrines, facilities and supplies (i.e. allocate OP's to priority theaters). It could cover peace and war for multiple countries for the years of say 1890-1925. Peacetime turns could maybe be annual or semiannual turns.
And with a campaign/country editor, so the Royal Fijian Navy can assume it's rightful place in naval history.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 15, 2014 11:17:47 GMT -6
Is this due to the VP charge for the 2nd Pacific Squadron being charged to the wrong side? Same turn as the decision for the Russian player, right? Yes, you are right! The AI is cheating and charging the player for its reinforcements! Pretty shrewd of it I must say!
Good catch! Thanks!
HEY! That's not fair! 460k VP by June-I'm kicking mucho butt in that campaign, too. I tried to 'mod' the crf file by copying the format from original SAI North Sea campaign, and erased the ";1" at the end, but that caused problems, so I reverted to the original. Would it work if I made the VP values negative? On a sort-of related note, a campaign editor sure would be nice (hint, hint). Or at least an explanation of the cam and crf files for modders. I can follow most of it, at least enough to be really dangerous. I have a neat fictional Med campaign idea...
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 14, 2014 20:18:21 GMT -6
VP bug is still evident. Note that turn 19 save shows 271,560 Japanese VPs brought forward from last turn per the turn info tab. But the display on shows 152,060 VP. Previous turn also saved and attached-quit turn with just a ML run. Is this due to the VP charge for the 2nd Pacific Squadron being charged to the wrong side? Same turn as the decision for the Russian player, right?
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 14, 2014 8:38:45 GMT -6
I have another question, of I can use this thread ... I'm playing JRW like Russian and have problem with operation planing. I want to send a cruiser from Port Arthur to hunt Japs transport and make new minefield. So I have activated one cruiser and one minelayer, both from different divisions. Cruiser is Independent, minelayer is Independent. But when scenario starts, minelayer is following my cruiser and it always switch back to AI ... What I'm doing wrong, how to send minelayer to separated and independent action? Thanks for suggestions If you are playing in Admiral's mode, only the "lead" division of each Force is controllable by the player, so you can't operate the two (single ship) divisions separately. A work-around is to reassign the minelayer to the 2nd Pacific Squadron, which is another Force.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Feb 12, 2014 4:02:53 GMT -6
Quality can increase after action as well
|
|