Japanese translation needed

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Japanese translation needed

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Japanese translation needed

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Japanese translation needed - 9/13/2019 1:59:00 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

I have come across a map which seems to show minefields in the Home Islands area during the war.

No idea if it deals with defensive mindefields laid by the Japanese or offensive minefields laid by the Allies or both.

Could someone with Japanese language proficiency take a look and tell me what it is about? Thx in advance.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

Post #: 1

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/13/2019 2:30:14 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

5250 mines around Pescadores?

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 2

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/13/2019 3:00:22 PM

Trugrit

Posts: 947
Joined: 7/14/2014
From: North Carolina
Status: offline

Naval mine warfare map of Imperial Japan during World War Two, Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force Museum, Kure, Hiroshima Prefecture, July 2015:

The U.S. laid 10,703 mines (coded yellow) mostly in the Inland Sea and on the Japan Sea coast; while Japan laid 55,347 (coded gray) around its core empire (Japan, Korea, Taiwan).

From Flickr:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/40295335@N00/20635633085/

I don�t know how accurate this is but it is close.

John Keegan�s book Collins/Atlas of World War II says the US laid over 12,000 mines in Japanese ports.

Says there were 2,100 laid in the Shimonoseki Strait alone.
That does not show in yellow on the map.

Correction:
Sorry, it does say Naval Mine Warfare Map.

The Keegan map was air dropped as well.

< Message edited by Trugrit -- 9/13/2019 3:05:18 PM >

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 3

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/13/2019 3:18:28 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

I would guess that Trugrit's interpretations is near the mark. The preponderance of the yellow number is laid in the inland sea with Hiroshima its center. That coincides roughly with the central focus of the Allied aerial mining campaign from March-August 1945 (operation Starvation): https://www.historynet.com/operation-starvation.htm

_____________________________

(in reply to Trugrit)

Post #: 4

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/13/2019 4:04:19 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

Thank you so much, Trugit!

What I have suspected...looks like pools and production rates for naval mines are way below historic figures in AE, even lower than expected.

In stock scen 1, the combined mine pools and production rates from Dec 41 to Sept 45 yield less then 5000 mines for Japan.
Even when adding the mines already in place at major ports at game start, we are far away from 55k mines.
No wonder my minelayers sit idle in port most of the time.

Don't have the numbers for the Allies handy, but they are surely way short of mines in the game as well.

I understand that mines have been nerfed in AE after complaints about original WitP being "Mines in the Pacific", but it looks like a case of overcompensation.

Firing up the editor...

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 9/13/2019 4:05:03 PM >

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/13/2019 6:00:07 PM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

I guess the problem with 55k Jap mines is the game is that the mines, being created from supply, can appear in huge numbers in advanced bases in the Pacific. There is no need to transfer them from Japan (the place of their production) to Japa bases in Pacific - you just need to move supplies and minelayers. I wish there was a map showing how many mines the Japs placed in forward Pacific bases.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 6

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/13/2019 6:23:16 PM

BBfanboy

Posts: 18046
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

5250 mines around Pescadores?

That appears to be a line or two of mines stretching across the strait to try and keep Allied subs out. It didn't work - BB Kongo was sunk in that area by a US sub.

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 7

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/16/2019 7:53:00 AM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

Well if you read your enemy Naval signals, you can quite easily get idea about Minelaying/Minesweeping activities too ... based on that you can avoid known minefield locations. And in late 1944/1945 the US subs got new FM Sonar able to detect mines in front of the sub - thus were able to penetrate even the Anti-sub-minefields. Check "Operation Barney".

_____________________________

(in reply to BBfanboy)

Post #: 8

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/16/2019 11:17:56 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

I understand that mines have been nerfed in AE after complaints about original WitP being "Mines in the Pacific", but it looks like a case of overcompensation.

Firing up the editor...

You may want to hold up on that editor for now. What you say is true, but it looks like there's an in game change to add a bit of compensation. There's a small Japanese xAKL that when converted to a CMc will come with 20 mines loaded upon completion of the conversion. After that you may convert them to say AMc's and immediately back to CMc's for another 20 mines each. The process takes 36 days IIRC. Add to that the trip out to lay the mines and back, so say every 45 days to get the gain. I forget the exact xAKL, but they're fairly numerous. They do however only deploy the type 4(?) mine. Its the weakest one that Japan produces. I have 5-10 groups of 5 scattered about the map. So I can produce another 500-1000 mines roughly every month and a half.

Don't convert them to ACM's as that is a permanent conversion for them.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 9

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/16/2019 11:21:20 PM

RangerJoe

Posts: 13450
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

That xAKL is the one point To'su.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

�Illegitemus non carborundum est (�Don�t let the bastards grind you down�).�
― Julia Child

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 10

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/16/2019 11:54:47 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

Thanks.

_____________________________

(in reply to RangerJoe)

Post #: 11

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/17/2019 8:21:23 AM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

Hi rustysi, I'm not going to refrain from increasing mine production in my mod just because there are people who are exploiting a game engine weakness. If you want to play in such a gamey way, it is your choice. I won't - and I usually convert To'su to ACMs anyway.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 12

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/17/2019 5:07:07 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

just because there are people who are exploiting a game engine weakness.

Whoa, slow your roll LST. If you read my posts you should probably know by now that I'm not one to play in a 'gamey' manner.

This is not an exploit of the 'game engine', it was intentionally added at at later point by one of the Dev's.

I didn't know the exact reason for the change, and just assumed it was a compensation for such a low mine build rate. The assumption is maybe my mistake. We all know what happens when we assume.

At any rate it is definitely not an exploit of the code. Add to that any adjustment to mine production that you may make could now skew the balance. I would think about it if I were you.

Peace.

_____________________________

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 13

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/17/2019 5:28:53 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

just because there are people who are exploiting a game engine weakness.

Whoa, slow your roll LST. If you read my posts you should probably know by now that I'm not one to play in a 'gamey' manner.

This is not an exploit of the 'game engine', it was intentionally added at at later point by one of the Dev's.

I didn't know the exact reason for the change, and just assumed it was a compensation for such a low mine build rate. The assumption is maybe my mistake. We all know what happens when we assume.

At any rate it is definitely not an exploit of the code. Add to that any adjustment to mine production that you may make could now skew the balance. I would think about it if I were you.

Peace.

Indeed.

As IIRC, direct quote was "we want this to be War n Pacific, not Mines in Pacific"

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 14

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/17/2019 5:31:30 PM

Sardaukar

Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline

US air-laid mine warfare was great success, hampering Japan seriously. Especially considering the relative small majority of bombers used for that. USAAF had lot of inter-service friction about using heavy bombers in what it considered "Navy affair".

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von B�lov, 1870-

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 15

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/17/2019 6:02:19 PM

rustysi

Posts: 7472
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

US air-laid mine warfare was great success, hampering Japan seriously. Especially considering the relative small majority of bombers used for that. USAAF had lot of inter-service friction about using heavy bombers in what it considered "Navy affair".

True, but by that time LeMay had about run out of land targets so he agreed when the Navy asked.

_____________________________

(in reply to Sardaukar)

Post #: 16

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/20/2019 7:16:12 AM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

@rustysi You are right, I went over the top - please accept my apologies. It just provokes my ire when I see unrealistic behavior like this "converting back and forth shuffle" stuff just for receiving more mines. If it has been allowed intentionally by a dev, it is a surprisingly cheesy 'solution' to the mine quantities problem. But I doubt it was an intentional "fix".

If you check the editor, you will see that all minelayers show their quantity of mines carried in the "ammo" field. However, ships that are not minelayers but have minelaying capacities - like the Tenryu class CLs and Ansyu-C class PBs - show the mine capacity in the "armor" field. Not logic but that's how it works. The result is that genuine minelayers always arrive on the map with a full mine load - and if ships are converted to minelayers, they recommission with a full load of mines as well. However, ships which are not dedicated minelayers do not arrive with mines, they only load them when put into a minelaying TF. Example - if you convert an Ansyu-C xAK to PB, the PB gains a minelaying capacity, but the ship emerges from the conversion without actually carrying any mines.

Now, it might just be that the To'su is the only class in stock which actually converts to a minelayer - I'm not sure, haven't touched stock scenarios in years. Anyway, their ability to get "free mines" upon conversion is nothing special, it is normal since the mine quantity of the CMc version is shown in the "ammo" field - like for any other minelayer class. This is the reason I believe there is no "intentional fix by a dev" concerning mine quantities, and therefore the "conversion shuffle" is not "intentionally added" but an exploit.

Be it as it may, in my mod I have changed the mine production *and* changed all minelayers to have their mine quantities in the "ammo" field - that way they won't show up with a full mine load when arriving on-map, and ships converted to genuine minelayers won't gain "free mines" from the conversion either. They will only load mines when put into a minelaying TF. So in my mod you can shuffle the To'Sus (and all other classes I have allowed to convert to minelayers) between AMc and CMc as often as you want - no free mines anymore. Problem solved.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 9/20/2019 7:28:32 AM >

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to rustysi)

Post #: 17

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/20/2019 9:45:24 AM

Alfred

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

I've held my tongue but enough is enough.

The devs, in several threads, detailed their reasoning for how they handled mines differently in AE compared to classical WITP. What you see in the official AE scenarios is very deliberate design choices taking into account code limitations. Deviations from the design in private mods will unbalance them but that is a decision for the private scenario designer.

1. In AE, mine production is abstracted. Each AE mine roughly represents 10 real world WWII mines.

2. As the code is written, each AE mine has an "effectivity" ten times greater than the real world mines had. Hence why point 1. Never has this AE enhanced "effectivity" been challenged by the critics

3. All the internet warriors who since AE was released have been busy looking up American mine production to then unleash their agenda against the , in their eyes, those stupid devs for getting it so hopelessly wrong, of course never properly finish their homework. A very large proportion of mines produced in WWII were not deployed. These tens of thousands of unused mines were stored and deployed in the Vietnam war. Just as the OOBs (and aircraft production etc) of the official scenarios deal only with what was historical deployed, the mine production is similarly restricted to what was actually deployed, taking into account points 1 and 2 above.

4. Classical WITP does not have the ACM type which fully maintains minefields. Out in the real world minefields decay if left alone. Out in the real world minefields are maintained by relaying fresh mines. With the ACM type this mine wastage is avoided. If you accept the game's mine decay figures, where offensive minefields decay at 33% daily in deep water and 5% daily in shallow water, without an ACM you are losing a minefield sown in deep water after 10 days. So tell me, all you so superior internet warriors, how many real world mine production should be removed to reflect the non wastage achieved by having ACMs. It would literally be in the thousands, even the tens of thousands depending on how much use a player makes of sowing offensive minefields. Even the saving with defensive minefields of non wastage would be useful.

5. All those auto generated minefields (and they amount to thousands of mines) at the start of each game represents a significant addition to the game's production. Never have I seen a critic adds these auto mines to their game production criticism. Furthermore these initial at start minefields represent many more mines than were already sown on 7 December 1941 or could have been sown historically in the first few weeks of the war.

As always, without exception on any issue, the devs have considered to a far deeper level the relevant factors than do their critics. Again, as always, the devs rationale was publicly explained. It should not be up to me to once again reiterate the devs rationale. Private modders who don't accept a particular design rationale will produce unbalanced mods if they don't take into account that rationale when designing their own mods. Dev rationales are usually the only peeks into the code provided. Ultimately what ever is found on the internet is meaningless if it is not adapted to what the code does.

Alfred

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)

Post #: 18

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/20/2019 11:11:13 AM

Yaab

Posts: 4552
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

I don't get it. So why not leave the historical mine production in WITP AE with reduced effectiveness of the mines. Seems like a win-win scenario.

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 19

RE: Japanese translation needed - 9/20/2019 2:28:32 PM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

Quick comments from work:

- Minelayers are the most underemployed ships in the game due to the sparsity of mines available. I will dutyfully search for the publicly explained rationale, but I wonder why I should not be allowed to tinker with the number of mines in my private mod to see how it works out?

Edit: Found this:

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
Isnt the point of the game to explore "what ifs"? I mean if all the game can do is do what was really done, then what is the point of the game? I have a bookshelf full of history books, I dont need a game to see it. The point is, the Japs had the stuff to use it and the cost of producing the mines was cheap. No reason to take the option out of players hands. IMHO anyways.

I agree completely, YH. But the choices made in developing a base scenario have to be adapted to a far larger player community than that represented here. Making one choice, necessarily means other (equally valid) choices were put aside. No matter which choice is made, there will be advocates of other choices that will be dissatisfied, clearly.

As Terminus mentioned, mine warfare was far, far more effective in WiTP than its physical counterpart. Rewriting the code was deemed to be not cost/time effective. So if (for example) mines had 10 times their effectivity, a rational choice would involve reducing the number of mines by the same factor (believe me, we did not go near that far).

However, threads like this are very important, in helping the forum community understand �why� certain decisions were made. The base scenarios for a commercial product must, simply must, be devised for a general market. But understanding the rationale makes it so much easier to develop mods that satisfy those other proclivities and choices and allow for a deeper exploration of very extensive �what ifs�.

Clearly, a universally acceptable solution cannot be found by committee discussion. But adaptive modifications, by vested interests, once the game releases, might give the designers sufficient data to allow them to adjust the paradigm.

Think of this as a starting point.

- "Each AE mine roughly represents 10 real world WWII mines" - does that mean that when in AE a ships strikes one mine, it would have struck roughly ten mines in real life? So shouldn't any ship hitting even one mine in AE die instantly ?

- If each AE mine represents 10 real-life mines, are the mine-carrying capacities of the minelayers in AE divided by 10 compared to their real-life capacity? Doesn't seem to be the case.

- Since Japan gets less than 5000 mines in AE, even if each mine actually represents 10 real-life mines, that would translate to less than 50.000 mines IRL - when the initial chart shows that Japan deployed over 55.000 mines in the Home Islands area alone. So it looks like there still is a shortage in the game.

- There is nothing wrong with the decay function. However, I don't think any player will use ACMs to maintain *offensive* minefields - it would be a pointer saying "Here is a minefield" and would most likely result in an ACM sunk by an airstrike and a visit by enemy minesweepers.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 9/20/2019 3:39:53 PM >

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Yaab)

Post #: 20