RE: FatR's Thoughts

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: FatR's Thoughts

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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: FatR's Thoughts

Page: << < prev 24 25 [26] 27 28 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/24/2011 6:26:22 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
Obviously, which is what the Japs ended up using in real life. The scheme for the Tenryus I mentioned was pre-war, and shot down in favour of the Akizuki program. There's really no plausible reason for a wartime conversion program like this.

Ouch. Was thumbing through Jentschura and Lacroix and found the plans to initially convert Kitakami and Oii to an AA config - long before the Kitakami conversion to a Kami Carrier. Also found the detailed plans for the Isuzu conversion. Lots of interesting background material, and ship architectural studies, before and after.

Are you interested? Can reply with some jpg's of relevant pages of this & that. But basically, I think Terminus has it wired in pretty well.

Ciao. John

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 751

CL--CLAA Discussion - 2/24/2011 6:44:55 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I am more then willing to throw this open for a good discussion and debate. How about a list of "options" regarding Old CLs, Training Cruisers, Agano's, and a CLAA?

Option 1:
Do what we have proposed: build 6 Improved Agano's and allow conversion of the old CLs into a CLAA configuration as detailed previously.

Option 2:
Scrap the four proposed Training Cruisers AND the Torpedo Cruiser conversions, while leaving the Agano's, to make room for NEW construction.

What might that be?
a. Simply bring forward the Azizuki AA DD earlier where several would already be in service at war's start with more on the slips. Figure adding another 6-8 to the expanded construction program.

b. Replace the Training Cruisers with a true CLAA to run as an escort to the CVs. Figure 4-6 new ships here. Keep the Akizuki's moving at their present building pace.

Figure we could reduce the weapons on Tenryu/Tatsuta to convert them into 'Training Cruisers.' Heck their fairly useless anyway...

There are other possibilities but these strike me as most simple.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/24/2011 7:16:48 PM >

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 752

RE: CL--CLAA Discussion - 2/25/2011 1:11:36 AM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

Okay guys here's act two of the first screen I posted.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 2/25/2011 2:07:48 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 753

New Art - 2/25/2011 3:31:44 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Can I simply say...wow...WELL DONE!

You have his career in a nutshell with the pictures, calligraphy, and medals. Brightening the Flag really helps too...

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 754

RE: CL--CLAA Discussion - 2/25/2011 4:21:43 AM

TOMLABEL

Posts: 5116
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SuluSea

Okay guys here's act two of the first screen I posted.

Holy Cow Sulu!!!!!!!! This is awesome work! You've been holding back on me! After the ship art and screens you sent me, we are going to have to make you a PERMANENT art guy here!!!!!!!!! Get it???? You just were drafted!!!!

Please email me this one (and others if you have them).

YOU NEED TO POST THIS IN THE ART MODS THREAD SO OTHERS CAN GET THESE!!!!

This is very good work!!!!!!

TOMLABEL

< Message edited by TOMLABEL -- 2/25/2011 4:47:08 AM >

_____________________________

Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 755

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/25/2011 2:54:17 PM

Terminus

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

To steal JWE's thunder a bit, here's the drawing of the proposed Tenryu CLAA from LaCroix and Wells. I disremembered it a bit: it was supposed to have been four twin 12.7cm at first, then they considered four twin 8cm, and ended up doing neither.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Terminus -- 2/25/2011 3:04:50 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 756

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/25/2011 2:55:43 PM

Terminus

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

Something a bit more economical was the proposal to convert some of the 5500-tonners into fast minelayers and training vessels. Goodbye, Katoris!

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 757

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/25/2011 3:31:53 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I like tossing the Training Cruisers and going with the above idea pulling several of the oldest CLs out and making them fill the roll.

In pulling them and NOT building the Katori's could one simply accelerate the Akizuki AA DDs and that solve the issue? Could start bringing in this fine class of DD say a year early. Seems to me to be a practical choice that would not require research on a new class, additional slips, etc...

How about starting the war with 2-3 and essentially add a total of 6-8 to the existing building program? They sure would be handy for the KB at start.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 758

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/25/2011 5:53:55 PM

Ken Estes

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline

These mod threads for the JA make for fascinating reading and you guys are to be complimented for the research into the IJN shipbuilding program and technical developments, not to mention the associated industrial, aeronautical, land force upgrades.

My question is this. Why not generalize your work and permit the JA player to build ships to original design or convert to any known options while in the shipbuilding queue ? Likewise, the conversion of older ships [to CVL, CLAA, etc] could be left to the player just as one executes these in the present stock game, just with all the terrific added options you have debated. In addition, there might be a way to permit any combination of new construction [indeed all the ones you have considered to date] to go ahead or be terminated, by using the metering of the shipbuilding points and industrial overhead. Even shipyard expansions could be contemplated, albeit at enormous cost in supply and industrial points. The recognized sensitivity of the JA economy will in fact restrain the player to most RL concerns.

Back to shipbuilding, the IJN Circle programs remained hopelessly ambitious, but provide interesting food for thought. Given the realities of Japanese prewar finances and the black hole that the China War posed through 1940, there was probably little variation possible in prewar plans, but don't let that daunt you in your hypotheticals. But by recognizing the chaos of the IJN shipbuilding plans and parallel difficulties with Japanese aviation [not only limited resources, but constantly changing/cancelling orders, made worse as the war ensued], perhaps the best service of your efforts would be to place all designs in play, but let the industrial and supply penalties dictate just how much a JA player can do. Let the battleship-oriented player build the four Yamatos, B65s, cruisers and so forth, the 'costs' of which which will not allow Taihos, Unryus and onward. It is a typical gamble whether the six prewar CVs can be kept in action through 1943, the year the war is usually decided in any case. The aviation-oriented player can convert or stop all the big ships except multiple Taiho (5?) and Unryu(15?) CVs and try to build replacement task forces to replace the carnage of carrier warfare. ASW strategies can also come into play as well as the notions of better sub and reconnaissance forces. I have little doubt that similar measures can be placed in aircraft/engine construction and issue to the aircraft squadrons.

So, do keep up with what you are doing, but as an intermittent player of AE, I would welcome most the expansion of flexibility in force lists and building programs that WITP/AE seems to offer, vice more tightly scripted scenerios.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 759

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/25/2011 6:48:13 PM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I like tossing the Training Cruisers and going with the above idea pulling several of the oldest CLs out and making them fill the roll.

In pulling them and NOT building the Katori's could one simply accelerate the Akizuki AA DDs and that solve the issue? Could start bringing in this fine class of DD say a year early. Seems to me to be a practical choice that would not require research on a new class, additional slips, etc...

How about starting the war with 2-3 and essentially add a total of 6-8 to the existing building program? They sure would be handy for the KB at start.

That would be appropriate. Besides, building a realistic new class of CLAA would mean a ship with not much more than eight 10cm guns, ten on the outside, and the Akizuki is already there with eight 10cm tubes PLUS Long Lances. Bring forward and expand that program; it's not unrealistic to have one or two ships in commission on 12/7.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 760

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/25/2011 6:49:04 PM

Terminus

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

I'd also scrap the Tenryu and Tatsuta. They're too old and too small, and their crews can be used elsewhere.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 761

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/26/2011 12:37:54 AM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

Yes, accelerating/expanding the Akizuki program and converting Kuma/Tama/Kitakami into training ships, instead of building dedicated ones, seem to be an optimal solution. The minelayer conversion won't work within constraints of the game, though, because even the existing Japanese minelayers, and even with, IIRC, expanded mine production that RA features, tend to spend most of their time collecting rust at the pier (I'm forced to use sub minelayers defensively, simply because there is not enough of Type 93 mines to protect even all of the oil ports and chokepoint straights, and Type 4 need at least two-three hits to kill a sub)...

Tenryu/Tatsuta project, posted above (thanks, Terminus) seems to be exactly the option offered to them in the game.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 762

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/26/2011 4:47:20 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Been working all day so I haven't had a chance to comment. Thanks to everyone who has jumped in:

1. Ken--Appreciate your commentary and well written thoughts. I--too--like having choices and allowing the player to DECIDE what they want. It is a credit to the knowledge base of this group that we can have such a learned discussion as to what the historical choices were and then try variants (like RA) based on the history.

2. Terminus--The Akizuki's are the key. We'll go with that. Scrap the Training Cruisers, convert the oldest of the Japanese CLs into Training Cruisers, and bring on the AA DDs. If possible I'll put together a proposal tomorrow for their construction and also a template (based on the material Posted earlier) for the Training Cruisers.

3. FatR--Agree with your thoughts above. How about we convert Tenryu and Tatsuta along the above and leave the rest of the old CLs to develop along a more normal path? The 'new' Training Cruisers will have speed (25 Kts as described in the picture) and could still serve as a second class ship (like a convoy escort).

First thing I have to do is redo all the work I did yesterday with the old CLs! That will take some time but then I should have a good idea with the AA DDs and Training Cruisers.

According to the Specs above, does anyone have a proposal for what the 'new' Training Cruisers could be? There are some options listed up there since the Minelaying is not reasonable.

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/26/2011 4:54:46 AM >

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 763

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/26/2011 8:55:33 AM

Terminus

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

Training cruiser Kuma (ship side and shil available upon request):

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 764

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/26/2011 1:37:13 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Term: THANKS! I can copy that without issue. Could you please send ship side and shil to my email address? That is a kind offer and I shall gladly accept.

Gonna run a turn right now and then work on the Akizuki names and try a formal proposal.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 765

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/26/2011 2:01:41 PM

Terminus

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

Done.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 766

RE: B17f - 2/28/2011 2:45:37 AM

bigred

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

I was reading the threads and found this interesting tidbit about the B17F.� Talk about an AFB dream. If this load got over a Jap base it probably would shut it down quick.

quote:

Beginning with B-17F-30-BO, B-17F-20-DL, and B-17F-20-VE, external bomb racks were fitted under the inner wings for the carriage of two 4000-pounds bombs. This brought the maximum short-range bombload to 17,600 pounds. Under certain conditions, eight 1600-pound bombs could be carried internally and two 4000-pound bombs externally, raising the total load to 20,800 pounds. However, with such a load the effective range was quite small and all maneuvers were severely restricted. Consequently, external bombs were only rarely carried by the B-17F. Although all subsequent models had lugs and controls for their attachment, the underwing racks were not installed at the factory.

< Message edited by bigred -- 2/28/2011 2:48:33 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 767

RE: B17f - 2/28/2011 3:02:42 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Got all the files Terminus. Appreciate it.

Now BigRed you don't need to be providing ideas to any AFB! That description above gives me the shudders...

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 768

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/28/2011 12:51:57 PM

Terminus

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

One last thing you might wish to consider adding to the training cruisers would be some depth charges. Nothing over the top, but a couple of rails and about 20 DC's is not unrealistic; the IJN stuck depth charges on pretty much everything other than their subs...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 769

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/1/2011 4:25:28 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

How did you KNOW about our SECRET RA plan to install DCs on Japanese SS??!!! STOP revealing state secrets Terminus.

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 770

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/1/2011 2:18:41 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

3. FatR--Agree with your thoughts above. How about we convert Tenryu and Tatsuta along the above and leave the rest of the old CLs to develop along a more normal path?

As Tenryu and Tatsuta are smallest and weakest old CLs, doesn't make much sense to convert them if the focus is on Akizukis. Terminus might be right that they should be scrapped. 2-4 Akizuki-class DD at the start and appropriate acceleration/extension of the rest of the program will compensate the Japanese player for that. Because, let's be honest, old Japanese CLs are better treated as oversized DDs already, yet the naval combat code doesn't allow for that (there is a strong tendency for capital ships to fire at capital ships and DDs at enemy DDs, if both are present). Extra crew requirements compared to RL will be significant in 1942 (more and bigger Aganos, more DDs, 2 new CAs late in the year, and so on). Or leave their conversion as a wartime option. The same option might be added to other non-training CLs, as I proposed several times.

P.S. Sorry for regular absences. Not much free time, and a large part of it is consumed by actually playing AE/updating my AAR.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 771

CLs and DDs - 3/1/2011 3:31:06 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I understand about a lack of time Sir. Ditto here. I usually only get 2-3 mornings of 1-2 hours to work on the Mod. Since you are on how about the following proposal?

1. Leave Tenryu and Tatsuta as they are but reduce their crew experience massively to reflect them being relegated to 2nd Line ships.

2. Make Tama, Kuma, and Kiso into the Training Cruisers as described by Terminus. Reduce experience here also.

3. Kitakami and Oi stay as TT Cruisers.

4. Maintain what we had in store for the other old CLs prior to the AA Conversion Discussion.

5. Bring in the Akizuki's with 4 ready at war's start, add a further 6 to the pre-change total and say 'good enough' for warship changes.

No Katori's get built (shipyard and crew saving used elsewhere) and we run with an existing class of replacement ships. This makes sense to me and is fairly simple as well as streamlined.

Commentary to this proposal?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 772

Artwork - 3/1/2011 4:58:43 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Hey Mister EJ! Have you had a chance to do anymore of your fantastic work? What are your ideas at the moment?

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 773

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/1/2011 5:36:07 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

While we're optimizing Japanese fleet, how about thinking a bit about various minor ans auxilary vessels? I long wanted to gather all my thoughts on them...

0)Well, first about torpedo boats bug... Japanese midgets and barges all arrive in Hailar. MTBs/MGBs/MLs arrive in various ports. Several people have reported that this causes them to be stuck 1 day from completion. They probably should be set to arrive in Hailar.

1)Japanese subchasers... Well, you should know, CHa-1 class is nearly useless in the game, and as far as I can tell it was such in real life. Puny range and low speed does not allow them to escort most convoys and they never get any decent depthcharge or AA upgrades. They are at best mildly useful for patrolling chokepoint straits. Japan builds 108 of them, and despite their high number of depthcharge racks they are so bad, that I would gladly take 60-70 more Kiso-E trawlers over them, as these at least has enough range to run with convoys as patrol boats, and can be converted into useful auxilaries.
Besides, standartization is wartime economy's friend.

So, I propose to postulate, that, taking into consideration increased demand for sailors in this mod, and need to free first-line ships for duties closer to the frontline,
Naval Ministry decided to choose quality over quantity in this area, and to standartize subchaser production to Ch-13 type. As these, no doubt, will demand better engines and higher quality of craftsmanship, it will be impossible to build them in the same numbers, even though with proper foresight building one ship type instead of two will allow to save some resources. I propose to replace 108 CHa-1 SCs with 72 (2/3 of their number) of Ch-13 SCs, though this might be a tad too optimistic.

3)Taking one more step up... Otori-class TBs, are most numerous and longest-range TBs in the fleet, and they are relatively modern ships, meant to serve as convoy escorts. Yet their initial armament is inadequate for the task, and their wartime conversion could have been better, than just slapping more 25mms and depth charges onto them, particularly as they had a bit of unused weight. And as in RA Japanese will have extra unused 127/40 barrels... I propose a different upgrade to them: only 2x3 25mm, and two depth charge throwers in the rear, but three 127/40 guns and torpedo armament remains in place (so they still will be considered TBs). So they will look like mini-Matsus:

1x127/40 F
2x127/40 R
6x25mm C (two triple mounts)
3x53cm Type 92 torpedos C (without reloads)
2xType 95 Mod-2 DC R

Add better DCs and type 22 radar late in the war. So, less small-calibre barrels and DC racks, but one more DP gun, and better DP guns overall, giving these ships a bit better punch in surface combat.

The upgrade option might be open on 12/41 or 1/42, reflecting a pre-war project meant to free more first-line ships to serve, well, on the first line.

Oh, and also: how about putting 140mm guns removed from modified (or scrapped CLs) into CD units and base forces on map?

EDIT: P.S.: I realize that some of these changes involve a ton of drudgework, so if you want, John, I can do them myself closer to the end of this week.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/1/2011 5:39:08 PM >

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 774

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/1/2011 6:55:20 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Wow. Let me do some thinking on this. It has a lot of ideas in it. Don't have a negative reaction to it just want to ponder some first.

Sent EJ (SuluSea) some pictures we had downloaded when the Mod was first being looked at. Hope he can use them if they have any value!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 775

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/1/2011 7:12:56 PM

Terminus

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

What would be the driver for optimizing the IJN auxiliary subchaser fleet? If it's only our hindsight, is that enough?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 776

RE: CLs and DDs - 3/1/2011 7:20:17 PM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I understand about a lack of time Sir. Ditto here. I usually only get 2-3 mornings of 1-2 hours to work on the Mod. Since you are on how about the following proposal?

1. Leave Tenryu and Tatsuta as they are but reduce their crew experience massively to reflect them being relegated to 2nd Line ships.

2. Make Tama, Kuma, and Kiso into the Training Cruisers as described by Terminus. Reduce experience here also.

3. Kitakami and Oi stay as TT Cruisers.

4. Maintain what we had in store for the other old CLs prior to the AA Conversion Discussion.

5. Bring in the Akizuki's with 4 ready at war's start, add a further 6 to the pre-change total and say 'good enough' for warship changes.

No Katori's get built (shipyard and crew saving used elsewhere) and we run with an existing class of replacement ships. This makes sense to me and is fairly simple as well as streamlined.

Commentary to this proposal?

Sounds sound...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 777

RE: CLs and DDs - 3/1/2011 9:16:55 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I understand about a lack of time Sir. Ditto here. I usually only get 2-3 mornings of 1-2 hours to work on the Mod. Since you are on how about the following proposal?

1. Leave Tenryu and Tatsuta as they are but reduce their crew experience massively to reflect them being relegated to 2nd Line ships.

2. Make Tama, Kuma, and Kiso into the Training Cruisers as described by Terminus. Reduce experience here also.

3. Kitakami and Oi stay as TT Cruisers.

4. Maintain what we had in store for the other old CLs prior to the AA Conversion Discussion.

5. Bring in the Akizuki's with 4 ready at war's start, add a further 6 to the pre-change total and say 'good enough' for warship changes.

No Katori's get built (shipyard and crew saving used elsewhere) and we run with an existing class of replacement ships. This makes sense to me and is fairly simple as well as streamlined.

Commentary to this proposal?

I'd say convert Kuma, Kitakami and Oi to training cruisers. No torpedo cruisers, Tama/Kiso remains CL. Man-hours and materials aren't free, and as noted before, if the concept of the Decisive Battle (tm) gets quietly shelved earlier, they won't be invented. Otherwise, fine.

EDIT: You'll note that I'm rather inclined to make some cuts... that's because IJN gets quite a lot of new toys in RA, and money for them need to come from somewhere. But I'm not adamant on the particular point of torpedo cruisers.

By #4 do you mean including a CLAA conversion option, or leaving everything as in stock?

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/1/2011 10:18:04 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 778

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/1/2011 10:06:26 PM

FatR

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What would be the driver for optimizing the IJN auxiliary subchaser fleet? If it's only our hindsight, is that enough?

Freeing TBs/Minesweepers/Larger Es for more important duties by providing cheap merchant escorts, and thus increasing the offensive ability of the Combined Fleet. Looking through Japanese ship histories on combinedfleet.com, Ch-subchasers were sailing with convoys much more often than CHa-subchasers, despite being less numerous. Even rarer are the cases when CHa-subchasers were mixed with escorts other than subchasers/auxilary patrol boats. It is clear, that even with desperate lack of escorts CHa-1 class just wasn't fully fit for its supposed duties. Even if they were basically stuck with this class because facilities that made it were unable to crank out anything better (as I suspect was the case), this still looks like a bad investment that could have been avoided with better foresight and pre-planning.

Also, lowering the demand for trained crewmembers by deploying less auxilary ships of better quality. I imagine in RA it is already considerably higher than in the real life.

EDIT: Although looking at the difference at tonnage, buiding 2 Ch-13 for every three CHa-1 is indeed too optimistic. One for two is closer to reality.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/1/2011 11:28:23 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 779

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/2/2011 12:51:38 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I plan on finishing the FLEET modifications tomorrow. Points:

1. My problem with the Torpedo Cruisers is I LIKE them, however, FatR and Terminus are correct that if Yamamoto did take FULL control of the Fleet as Navy Minister, he probably would not have agreed with the Kitakami/Oi conversion. As much as it pains me we'll convert 3 CLs to Training and leave 3 CLs in their original form.

2. Take out the CLAA conversion for the Old CLs. They get what they got historically and that is that.

3. Work the Akizukis as previously discussed.

As to FatR's proposal regarding the escorts:
A. The idea sounds good, however, I am concerned on justification as Terminus mentions.

B. If we cut the number by 50% is that a better number that would REFLECT a simplification of building and personnel movement? Would it reflect the 'one over many' Japanese fixation?

C. I like the standardization argument because that is what we just did with the whole Old CL to AA conversion/Training Cruiser discussion vs. simply cutting and accelerating the previously designed class od DD.

There is a thread of coherence there I think...

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 780

Page: << < prev 24 25 [26] 27 28 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: FatR's Thoughts

Page: << < prev 24 25 [26] 27 28 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

2.346

Slitherine

RE: FatR's Thoughts