Ship Modding

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Ship Modding

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Ship Modding

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Ship Modding - 8/24/2007 4:25:01 AM

ladner

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline

I have been away from both the forum and the game for a while. However, I have felt inspired to try something, I like the premise behind Gary Childress mod, and thought of doing something similar but with a Vanilla WitP map and database. Anyhow I wanted to start a thread on how folks go about modding ships, in particular the armor values.

Further I would like to start a discussion about some what if ships, provided the 1922 Washington Treaty does not go into full effect, and an earthquake does not wreck the Amagi. Anyone have thoughts on how Lexington Class Battlecruisers, Amagi Class Battlecruisers, and Kaga Class Battleships should be handled. Likewise the British G-3 class?

I am not trying to create a serious mod, such as WitM, or the RHS/CHS series. Basically since I have yet to actually finish a game, I wanted to set up something where some never ships take part that I have a great deal of historical interest in, while at the same actually finishing off a campaign, most likely against the AI. I rarely get to post to this forum, let alone game much anymore, so this will be a pretty ambitious project for me, but I have a great deal of interest in the post WWI, pre-Washington Naval Treaty ships, in particular the battlecruisers that were canceled.

Looking forward to what the community has to say.

ladner

Post #: 1

RE: Ship Modding - 8/24/2007 12:23:35 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Well, the Lexingtons, Amagis and G3's have already been done; not sure anybody has done the Kaga.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 2

RE: Ship Modding - 8/24/2007 7:45:56 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

Take a look at this site:

http://www.akdreemer.com/ahs/AHS_WITP.htm

Gary Childress discussed his mod in these two threads, maybe they contain additional information for you:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1297139
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1284717

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 3

RE: Ship Modding - 8/24/2007 7:51:39 PM

mlees

Posts: 2263
Joined: 9/20/2003
From: San Diego
Status: offline

The War Plan Orange game has some of this info... ask TankerAce & company. Try the WPO forum. :)

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 4

RE: Ship Modding - 8/25/2007 1:38:53 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Here's my attempt at a Lexington-class battlecruiser (or Constellation-class, in this case):

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to mlees)

Post #: 5

RE: Ship Modding - 8/25/2007 9:42:31 PM

ladner

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline

Terminus - just out of curiosity is the armor rating simply the thickness in millimeters? The Lexington Class had a 7 in belt, which would be roughly 180 mm.

I feel foolish for not looking at WPO, which is dedicated to the era, and those ships. Thanks for the replies.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 6

RE: Ship Modding - 8/25/2007 11:30:47 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Yup, armor rating is in millimetres.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 7

RE: Ship Modding - 8/26/2007 4:55:44 PM

ladner

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline

Terminus -

any chance you could post a screenshot of your Constellation Class upgrade (1329) in the editor? I am curious about the body of opinion with respect to how this what if ships would have upgraded. What I find most curious is that the Lexington Class BC as redesigned have a displacement of almost the same magnitude as the HMS Hood, yet the armor is grossly inferior. I know the Lexington Class is longer, by about 10 feet if I recall correctly. But it is hard to imagine that there would be that much of armor descrepancy if an all or nothing protection scheme were employed. Of course what scant information that I can find indicates that they were designed with more of a cruiser based philosophy, so perhaps all or nothing would not be the case with regards to the armoring scheme.

regards

-ladner

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 8

RE: Ship Modding - 8/26/2007 5:03:35 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Sure, hang on... Here's 1329:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/27/2007 10:55:06 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 9

RE: Ship Modding - 8/26/2007 5:07:00 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

And 1330:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/27/2007 10:55:17 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 10

RE: Ship Modding - 8/27/2007 12:25:44 AM

ladner

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline

In short my mod could be considered to be the 1920's Battle cruiser mod, for I am going to have Lexington Class BCs for the USN , for the IJN Amagi Class BCs & Tosa/Kaga class BBs, and lastly but certainly not least the G-3 class BCs for the RN. The underlying assumption will be a modified Washington Naval treaty in which the Battle Cruisers are not cut out of the fleets, the IJN refuses to budge on the Kaga/Tosa BBs, and the RN is quite content to have the G-3s which are 1920's Iowas.

A modified Washington Naval treaty goes into effect and the carrier conversion goes forward with Akagi, and one other BC for the IJN, and Lexington & Saratoga for the USN. The RN giving up extra CVs for the overall superiority of the G-3s, afterall in the 1920's aircraft and the CV are unproven. The other big event is that the major earthquake does not occur in 1923, the great Kanto earthquake.

The impact of the G-3s will be to have HMS Hood slated for the Pacific and Force 'Z'.

from www.hazegray.org

we have the following

Amagi class battle cruisers

Displ: 41,217 tons normal; 47,000 tons full load
Dim: 826 x 101 x 31 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 19 boilers, 4 shafts, 131,200 hp, 30 knots
Crew: ???
Arm: 5 dual 16.1/45, 16 single 5.5/50, 4 4.7/45, 8 24 inch TT (aw)
Armor: 10 inch belt, 3.9 inch decks, 9-11 inch barbettes, 14 inch CT
Battle cruiser version of Kaga class, canceled under the
Washington Treaty. They would have been considered fast battleships
in many navies.

So what types of upgrades would be appropriate?

With RN I am going to have the G-3 class which aside from AAA upgrades I think will need little else.

For the USN I think the Lexingtons would under go significant refits for at well over 40,000 tons they would be the premier capital ships of the USN. Considering the refits given to the Kongos and the HMS Renown and HMS Repulse, how significant uparmoring/bulging should occur for these ships?

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 11

RE: Ship Modding - 8/27/2007 12:30:17 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Are you sure you'd call the G3's "1920's Iowas"? They're a bit "battlecruisery"...

Here's my take on the N3 BB's (from my mod):

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/27/2007 12:33:28 AM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 12

RE: Ship Modding - 8/27/2007 3:07:13 AM

ladner

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Are you sure you'd call the G3's "1920's Iowas"? They're a bit "battlecruisery"...

That made me laugh. One website made that claim and it stuck in my mind, it was definitely an advanced design. I am surprised that a website has not claimed that the N-3s are 1920s Yamatos.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 13

RE: Ship Modding - 8/27/2007 3:13:00 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Very advanced designs for their era. Too bad the British didn't have the money to build them.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 14

RE: Ship Modding - 8/27/2007 3:17:30 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladner
Considering the refits given to the Kongos and the HMS Renown and HMS Repulse, how significant uparmoring/bulging should occur for these ships?

Probably not that much. Remember that their designation in the US Navy was "CC", not "BC". They were considered very large cruisers, not "light battleships".

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/27/2007 3:18:14 AM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 15

RE: Ship Modding - 8/27/2007 3:21:00 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

On another topic, here's former forum member Alikchi's take on the Amagi, having undergone a Kongo-type conversion from BC to fast BB:

The only thing "wrong" with it is that Q turret (third from the rear) needs to have a facing of "C" rather than "R", as it can't fire directly astern (X and Y are in the way).

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/27/2007 3:23:30 AM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 16

RE: Ship Modding - 8/27/2007 3:24:46 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladner

In short my mod could be considered to be the 1920's Battle cruiser mod, for I am going to have Lexington Class BCs for the USN , for the IJN Amagi Class BCs & Tosa/Kaga class BBs, and lastly but certainly not least the G-3 class BCs for the RN. The underlying assumption will be a modified Washington Naval treaty in which the Battle Cruisers are not cut out of the fleets, the IJN refuses to budge on the Kaga/Tosa BBs, and the RN is quite content to have the G-3s which are 1920's Iowas.

A modified Washington Naval treaty goes into effect and the carrier conversion goes forward with Akagi, and one other BC for the IJN, and Lexington & Saratoga for the USN. The RN giving up extra CVs for the overall superiority of the G-3s, afterall in the 1920's aircraft and the CV are unproven. The other big event is that the major earthquake does not occur in 1923, the great Kanto earthquake.

The impact of the G-3s will be to have HMS Hood slated for the Pacific and Force 'Z'.

from www.hazegray.org

we have the following

Amagi class battle cruisers

Displ: 41,217 tons normal; 47,000 tons full load
Dim: 826 x 101 x 31 feet
Prop: Steam turbines, 19 boilers, 4 shafts, 131,200 hp, 30 knots
Crew: ???
Arm: 5 dual 16.1/45, 16 single 5.5/50, 4 4.7/45, 8 24 inch TT (aw)
Armor: 10 inch belt, 3.9 inch decks, 9-11 inch barbettes, 14 inch CT
Battle cruiser version of Kaga class, canceled under the
Washington Treaty. They would have been considered fast battleships
in many navies.

So what types of upgrades would be appropriate?

With RN I am going to have the G-3 class which aside from AAA upgrades I think will need little else.

For the USN I think the Lexingtons would under go significant refits for at well over 40,000 tons they would be the premier capital ships of the USN. Considering the refits given to the Kongos and the HMS Renown and HMS Repulse, how significant uparmoring/bulging should occur for these ships?

Does it not bother you that these ships were not affordable? Or that, before they could have all completed, the Great Depression was going to suspend most of those remaining? Nations usually agree to what is in their interests - and the treaty was substantially in everyone's interests. What might have varied is the details. Reading Japanese codes, we got them to agree to more cuts than they had to make - or would have made if we didn't know their bargaining instructions. But not for all 8-8 - we are talking about two ships here - one of which ultimately we allowed (Mutsu) because "schoolchildren paid for it with their pennies"!!!!

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 17

RE: Ship Modding - 8/27/2007 3:52:09 AM

ladner

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Does it not bother you that these ships were not affordable? Or that, before they could have all completed, the Great Depression was going to suspend most of those remaining? Nations usually agree to what is in their interests - and the treaty was substantially in everyone's interests. What might have varied is the details. Reading Japanese codes, we got them to agree to more cuts than they had to make - or would have made if we didn't know their bargaining instructions. But not for all 8-8 - we are talking about two ships here - one of which ultimately we allowed (Mutsu) because "schoolchildren paid for it with their pennies"!!!!

No it does not bother me, and it is rather funny <ironic> that you of all people, pipe in with such a comment, especially with your similar total fantasy EOS mod. Adding a tank regiment to select Japanese divisions? Selective optimizing Japanese production. Cherry picking Japanese leaders, such as Yamshita to be in key areas so that the "correct" decisions are made before the war starts. Heck why you are at it why not just give the Japanese Fritz-X glide bombs to their G-3 Betties.

The ships were all canceled during the era that was called the "Roaring Twenties", and some how I don't think that was just limited to the US, so the Depression is not an issue per say. I am sure this will come off the wrong way, but I think you are being just a tad hypocritical. I have no intention of posting this mod on the internet for use by others or making any claims of historical plausibility. I think I stated quite clearly that I had a keen interest in the battle cruisers of the 1920's and just wanted to have a 'what if' to fool around with. Kaga and Tosa as BBs are things I was just contemplating, and to add some "balance" if there is such a thing.

< Message edited by ladner -- 8/27/2007 4:13:58 AM >

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 18

RE: Ship Modding - 8/27/2007 4:41:27 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

Excuse me - but this is close to insulting. I have no "total fantasy" scenarios - only historical ones.
And you did not read the technical reasoning for "adding a tank regiment to select IJA divisions". It is because they do not load properly if you do not - a function of wierd code loading routines. It takes far fewer ships to load the same two units if they are defined that way. I regard it as less flexable than having two units - a disadvantage to the player - not an advantage. Nor is it ahistorical: there are three tank regiments in Malaya, two in the Philippines, and IJA doctrine NEVER had them operate disconnected from major infantry formations. Tieing them to a specific formation is not wrong except that one then cannot change which formation it is at will - again a disadvantage for the Japanese - and not at all a way to increase their power.

If you read carefully for 18 months of posting, you will find that I am very strict about what could be built with this steel, that labor, or some particular funding. I allow a historical mod to change what is done with resources - but never to fabricate them. Here - trying for all the ships that never were - you are entering the relm of fantasy - because there was not enough money or steel to build them - unless you sacrifice other elements of the fleets - going for a lot less balanced of a force in a gross sense. If that does not bother you - no problem. Fantasy mods are legitimate. It is only my preference not to do them. Go ahead - do whatever you wish. You asked for comments - and I made a legitmate one. That was not grounds to to reply as you did. I love the ships that never were - and paid to have models of all of them built by someone with more skill than I have. I would play a mod that included them - IF it were rationalized in some way that makes sense too. I wanted some theory or other to justify your proposal. I am sorry I didn't get one.

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 19

RE: Ship Modding - 8/27/2007 1:04:03 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

You don't get to call for justification on ANYTHING, Sid. Especially considering that you have always been completely incapable of backing up your statements of "fact" with actual fact.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to el cid again)

Post #: 20

RE: Ship Modding - 8/29/2007 4:22:43 AM

ladner

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladner
Considering the refits given to the Kongos and the HMS Renown and HMS Repulse, how significant uparmoring/bulging should occur for these ships?

Probably not that much. Remember that their designation in the US Navy was "CC", not "BC". They were considered very large cruisers, not "light battleships".

When comparing the displacement of the Lexington Class and the HMS Hood, it is hard for me to fathom how there is such a difference in the overall level of protection. As designed the Lexington Class have a frightful glass jaw, I realize the ship is slightly longer than HMS Hood, but considering by this stage all-or-nothing is common in US BB designs since Nevada, it is a curious question of where is all of weight allocated for such a large ship.

< Message edited by ladner -- 8/29/2007 4:25:55 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 21

RE: Ship Modding - 8/29/2007 12:00:18 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I'd speculate that it is, again, because of doctrine. The Lexingtons were very large cruisers, not battleships, and at that time, it was de rigeur to think that cruisers didn't need a great deal of armour, being able to protect themselves with speed only.

So all that weight is going into the powerplant...

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/29/2007 11:57:17 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 22

RE: Ship Modding - 9/2/2007 3:57:32 AM

ladner

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline

Terminus how do you get the bitmap files to display in the WitP Editor X? I would like to take some screenshots similar to what you have done.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 23

RE: Ship Modding - 9/2/2007 4:04:33 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Easy-Peasy:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Terminus -- 9/2/2007 4:05:03 AM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 24

RE: Ship Modding - 9/2/2007 1:26:09 PM

VSWG

Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline

I had almost forgotten this most excellent utility!!

Added a link to EditorX in the sticky.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 25

RE: Ship Modding - 9/5/2007 3:48:36 AM

ladner

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline

I have downloaded some amazing artwork from Fremen's website. So supposing I want to use these ships, do I have to rename the files to match the naming convention used by WitP? It looks like for the Japanese JnSide007 is an open slot. I like the EditorX, but want to make sure I don't break something while in the process of modding.

(in reply to VSWG)

Post #: 26

RE: Ship Modding - 9/5/2007 11:46:37 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Yes, you do have to rename it exactly. And yes, JnSide0007 is empty.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 9/9/2007 12:57:54 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 27

RE: Ship Modding - 9/9/2007 12:33:39 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

For poops and giggles, here's my take on the Kaga as a battleship:

EDIT: I think I like this version better. More representative of a Kongo-esque pre-war rebuild. Also, the shipside is Dixie's Nagato-class graphic, modified by me. I can't draw worth crap, but I'm real handy with cutting and pasting...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Terminus -- 9/9/2007 4:01:58 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 28

RE: Ship Modding - 9/9/2007 1:11:43 AM

el cid again

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladner

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: ladner
Considering the refits given to the Kongos and the HMS Renown and HMS Repulse, how significant uparmoring/bulging should occur for these ships?

Probably not that much. Remember that their designation in the US Navy was "CC", not "BC". They were considered very large cruisers, not "light battleships".

When comparing the displacement of the Lexington Class and the HMS Hood, it is hard for me to fathom how there is such a difference in the overall level of protection. As designed the Lexington Class have a frightful glass jaw, I realize the ship is slightly longer than HMS Hood, but considering by this stage all-or-nothing is common in US BB designs since Nevada, it is a curious question of where is all of weight allocated for such a large ship.

See Breyer's Battleships and Battlecruisers (Schlachtshiffe und Schalftkreuzer in the original form) - either edition (1 or 2).

Breyer is a naval architect and he mainly gives line drawings which are composits taken from ships plans. He also gives fine data summaries in the section for protection for each class. Since these ships were intended to be Battlecruisers, they are in his book, and since they were completed as carriers, they also are in his book in that form. You can see for yourself how they were designed, how the design was modified, and what was done later.

(in reply to ladner)

Post #: 29

RE: Ship Modding - 9/9/2007 2:25:39 AM

ladner

Posts: 338
Joined: 8/24/2001
From: Virginia USA
Status: offline

After looking at your screenshots Terminus I noticed that you have added a lot of devices. I seem to recall that you had to have a degree of caution when adding devices, is this still true in that certain slots are reserved within the database?

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Ship Modding

Page: [1] 2 next > >>