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: Yamato

 
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: Yamato Page: <<   < prev  31 32 [33] 34 35   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Yamato - 3/25/2011 5:13:25 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Same reasoning the Brits could never standardize their bb/ca secondary or dd main armament. No one in charge, too many people in charge, gun board member has a relative who owns one of the manufacturers, an admiral has fond memories for a type because he commanded a section of them after graduating Etajima, too many reasons really or none at all depending on your pov. Perils of bureaucracy.

The IJN may also have had a bottleneck in production like the Brits did w/ the Dido class. Your guess is as good as mine.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 961
RE: Yamato - 3/25/2011 6:08:48 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Traskott, I believe we should give Allies greater number of reinforcements late in the war, but no conrete plans so far. The Allied side is unlikely to get more in-depth reworking than that.


Meanwhile: does anyone know why Japanese bothered with producing 120mm/45 10YT gun during the war, apparently even going as far as restarting its production? As far as I can tell, single-mount manually operated variant of 127/40 existed and had almost the same weight as 120/45 10 YT and 3YT mounts installed on many smaller ships, but wasn't mass-produced, even though 127/40 had slightly better overall characteristics (standard double mounts for 127/40 were better than anything made for 120/45, but this is a separate issue...). Why produce two guns that take practically the same tactical niche?



Purely guesswork here..., but the Japanese suffered from a sever shortage of machine tools and the ability to produce them. May be as simple as re-starting the old factory because the old tools and jigs were there, but couldn't be upgraded or replaced.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 962
RE: Yamato - 3/25/2011 11:43:13 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
The problem with torpedo boats seems to be hard to escape. While other ships with location of "0" are automatically set to arrive in the default port (Tokyo for smaller combatants, like kaibokans; Hailar for barges and midgets), setting location of arrival to "0" for MGBs/MTBs cause them to disappear from the scenario... I'll try setting them to arrive in Hailar, but there is no guarantee at all that this will fix the bug.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 963
RE: Yamato - 3/26/2011 1:09:10 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

The problem with torpedo boats seems to be hard to escape. While other ships with location of "0" are automatically set to arrive in the default port (Tokyo for smaller combatants, like kaibokans; Hailar for barges and midgets), setting location of arrival to "0" for MGBs/MTBs cause them to disappear from the scenario... I'll try setting them to arrive in Hailar, but there is no guarantee at all that this will fix the bug.


MTB/MGB (and a few others) with no arrival base (i.e. zero) go into the pool, from which they can be bought using supply.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 964
RE: Yamato - 3/26/2011 10:44:00 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Thanks, Don Bowen. I see that midgets aren't showing up in the "Ship Availability" lists as well. Hopefully setting the location to "0" for motor boats will cause them to become available as they should be.

Speaking of motor boats, I'm thinking about adding a hundred or two to the queue for 1945-46, as well as some barges. Unlike midget subs, these torpedo delivery systems are cheap enough, that players might actually want them. Japanese obsession with midgets (and kaitens, and other underwater attack craft) at the end of the war was rather irrational anyway, just random grasping at straws, fueled by desperation. Assuming Yamamoto does not manage to kill himself in this alternative and IJN will be less driven by wishful thinking in its late-war development, we can easily postulate less enthusiasm towards them and concentration on more reliable designs.

Also, I just got "Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1869-1945" by H. Jentschura and others, the book which John was talking about above in this thread, and quite a few late-war ships that might be worth adding to the scenario can be found there, but

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 965
RE: Yamato - 3/26/2011 11:23:51 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Howdy Stan,

Not sure you need to add more MTBs to the queue. Can if ya want, but it might choke the chicken. As Don says, them guys buy from supply, and Intro-base=0 mean queue. But also, they respawn; sink 30, get 30 more. It was probably silly trying to add in every single US PT that ever was, given that they all return from the dead, but .. hoop-la, woof.

What I might suggest is look at the increase over the years and for each subsequent year, divide the actual number by (sqrt)2 - and factored all the way through. That allows for the walking dead to resurect and boggie and give a reasonable number of boats in the pools. Otherwise, you'll end up with a gazillion PT TFs in every port with enuf supply to buy them. "PTs in The Pacific!".

Once again, suggest Rule of Reason. Ciao. John

< Message edited by JWE -- 3/26/2011 11:25:43 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 966
RE: Yamato - 3/27/2011 3:04:37 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Got a few notes from Stanislav and am on a 6-day vacation seeing my Mom and Best Friend so don't have much time to participate in conversation. No real comments regarding last few Postings other then to congrat Stanislav on buying the Jentschura book...


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/27/2011 3:06:18 AM >


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 967
RE: Yamato - 3/27/2011 12:36:06 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: JWE

Howdy Stan,

Not sure you need to add more MTBs to the queue. Can if ya want, but it might choke the chicken. As Don says, them guys buy from supply, and Intro-base=0 mean queue. But also, they respawn; sink 30, get 30 more. It was probably silly trying to add in every single US PT that ever was, given that they all return from the dead, but .. hoop-la, woof.

What I might suggest is look at the increase over the years and for each subsequent year, divide the actual number by (sqrt)2 - and factored all the way through. That allows for the walking dead to resurect and boggie and give a reasonable number of boats in the pools. Otherwise, you'll end up with a gazillion PT TFs in every port with enuf supply to buy them. "PTs in The Pacific!".

Once again, suggest Rule of Reason. Ciao. John

Are you really sure that MTBs/PTs respawn? Barges definitely do, they do not appear on the list of lost ships and barges with the same numbers as the destroyed ones can be seen in the queue again. But MTBs, once destroyed, are recorded by the game as lost and I don't see a few MTBs I've expended being available again. The option to create PT boats do not reappear.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 968
RE: Yamato - 3/27/2011 1:43:28 PM   
JWE

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
Are you really sure that MTBs/PTs respawn? Barges definitely do, they do not appear on the list of lost ships and barges with the same numbers as the destroyed ones can be seen in the queue again. But MTBs, once destroyed, are recorded by the game as lost and I don't see a few MTBs I've expended being available again. The option to create PT boats do not reappear.

Right you are. Should probably have reread page 2 of Don's memo, from way back.
Buy from supply types are:
LB, LCVP, LCM, LCT, PT, MTB, MGB, SSX

Auto replacement for:
LB, LCVP, LCM, LCT

Heigh ho.

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 969
RE: Yamato - 3/29/2011 4:38:29 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
What are you going to do with this Stanislav?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 970
RE: Yamato - 3/29/2011 12:09:41 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Well, I'll proceed with adding more MTBs... as soon as I'll have enough time again. Did you receive my last email, one with the mod in its current state?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 971
RE: Yamato - 3/29/2011 4:19:03 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I'm on the final day of my short trip. Will be home tonight and try to take a look.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 972
The End of the Beginning - 3/30/2011 8:03:58 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Am home now and will take a look at what you sent Stanislav.

Queries for RA Designers and Readers:
1. Stanislav: How long do you think you'll need for a realistic time completing your work?

2. Do we have any clue as to when the newest Patch is due out? Since I have been gone this might be a stupid question...

3. The Mod is going to need a thorough going through BEFORE we release it. Is there anyone out there who would like to see the Mod so comments could be made here and we go through any bugs/issues that might be found?

Post here if interested...

EDIT: Just checked out the new Babes site. Strikes me as a good idea to create an off-forum site for downloads, changes, comments, etc...

What would it take to create a site and is it a worthwhile activity?



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/30/2011 8:05:31 PM >


_____________________________



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 #: 973
RE: The End of the Beginning - 3/30/2011 8:39:01 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Extra ships of the mosquito fleet probably can be added on this weekend. Subs, probably next week, as I want to check the dates where construction of historical hulls. Aviation, save for fixing the known bugs, and Allied late-war reinforcements proposal - some time after that.

John, you should take note of the new and improved kaibokan shipsides by Local Yokel (great work and thanks, LY!) and, if he agrees, add them to the art pack of the mod.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/30/2011 8:40:51 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 974
RE: The End of the Beginning - 3/30/2011 9:31:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Your 'to do' plan sounds good and reasonable.

I have already seen the work done by LY and I like it. If he is willing, I think they'd make a fine addition to the Mod Art.

What do you think of SuluSea's work with the Mod?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 975
RE: The End of the Beginning - 3/31/2011 6:52:32 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
And one more thing. I believe more and more, we should implement DaBabes' flak upgrades after all, at least in general. I think early-war flak - to where I managed to progress in the game - is somewhat anemic compared to RL, and some results it produces are just strange, like US AAA units being complete trash (as evidenced by demolition of Oahu in my ongoing RA game). Late-war flak I still don't find underpowered compared to RL even after testing with quitting to desktop after every time, but I find it underpowered compared to the realities of the game.

I would be very thankful, though, if JWE or someone else from the devs can answer three questions related to that:

1)Is weapons' effectiveness against surface targets primarily governed by anti-soft/anti-armor ratings? Because I would hate to see Japanese destroyers being cut in two by Boforses and Pom-Poms.
(1.5)Speaking of that, statistics for 2pdr HA MK VIII in Scen 26 are really bad-ass. In stock it is quite good as well, but after DaBabes flak upgrade it is slightly better than Bofors. Considering that this gun was commonly considered inadequate in RL and meager achievements of shipboard British AAA in 1942, are you sure these stats are supposed to reflect a single barrel, rather than a mount of 8?)
2)Can you provide us the list of the guns that have been modified? I would have preferred to add changes to the existing devices file, as to avoid overwriting any previous modifications.
3)Can you provide us the a list of Japanese AAA units armed with 8cm/88mm T99 AA gun, assuming it is historically accurate? When we were adding 88mm Type 99 to Scen 70, before patches added this gun to stock, I just assigned to some units in Home Islands arbitrarily.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 976
RE: The End of the Beginning - 4/1/2011 12:10:24 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I have been watching AA pretty closely in my game with Lew (nearly Nov-1942) and it is getting stronger but only when it appears to be concentrated.

Stanislav and I have been emailing back-and-forth as he wades his way through changes and modifications. Figure there will be a Posting here pertaining to some of that. Pretty good for discussion and/or thinking...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 977
RE: The End of the Beginning - 4/1/2011 12:49:07 AM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I have already seen the work done by LY and I like it. If he is willing, I think they'd make a fine addition to the Mod Art.



My apologies for being unable to respond sooner. Have been unable to access the web for some time after some clot in Slough apparently severed a fibre link connecting me to my ISP. So much for this internet thingy being resilient enough to withstand nuclear attack...

I should be only too happy for my kaibokan artwork to be incorporated into the RA art pack!

Inveterate fiddler that I am, I have changed just two pixels in the D-gata kaibokan and think they improve the appearance of the stack compared to my original version. Hope you don't mind my uploading to this thread a zip file containing the two altered images, background and transparency.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________




(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 978
RE: The End of the Beginning - 4/1/2011 1:00:03 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Very NICE! Thank You Sir.

Stanislav: Can you add it to the Mod since you have the files right now?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 979
RE: The End of the Beginning - 4/1/2011 3:18:38 AM   
AdmNelson


Posts: 554
Joined: 5/14/2001
From: New Mexico
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I have been watching AA pretty closely in my game with Lew (nearly Nov-1942) and it is getting stronger but only when it appears to be concentrated.



It is very concentrated in some areas if that makes a difference.


_____________________________

Very Proud Marine Dad

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 980
RE: The End of the Beginning - 4/1/2011 1:48:38 PM   
JWE

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
1)Is weapons' effectiveness against surface targets primarily governed by anti-soft/anti-armor ratings? Because I would hate to see Japanese destroyers being cut in two by Boforses and Pom-Poms.

a-soft, a-arm is only used when firing at land targets. You won’t.
quote:

(1.5)Speaking of that, statistics for 2pdr HA MK VIII in Scen 26 are really bad-ass. In stock it is quite good as well, but after DaBabes flak upgrade it is slightly better than Bofors. Considering that this gun was commonly considered inadequate in RL and meager achievements of shipboard British AAA in 1942, are you sure these stats are supposed to reflect a single barrel, rather than a mount of 8?)

Typo, the Eff should be 60, not 68. All specs are for a single barrel.
quote:

2)Can you provide us the list of the guns that have been modified? I would have preferred to add changes to the existing devices file, as to avoid overwriting any previous modifications.

Not really, the list is rather large. Changes, of one form or another, were done to all Type = 12 - AA Gun devices and Type = 17 - DP Gun devices.
quote:

3)Can you provide us the a list of Japanese AAA units armed with 8cm/88mm T99 AA gun, assuming it is historically accurate? When we were adding 88mm Type 99 to Scen 70, before patches added this gun to stock, I just assigned to some units in Home Islands arbitrarily.

Kereguelen did those and they are in the stock data update, too. I don’t know exactly which ones they are off the top of my head, but if you open witploadae and look for units with LCUFormationID = 2197, that should do the trick. There’s maybe 10 to 12 total.


_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 981
RE: The End of the Beginning - 4/1/2011 2:26:58 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: JWE
a-soft, a-arm is only used when firing at land targets. You won’t.
quote:



I'm afraid I can't recommend the flak upgrade as-is, then. Effect 67 on Boforses will at least double surface firepower of late-war Allied DDs at ranges of 6k and less (where most of gunnery rounds happen in night combat). Low penetration won't matter, DP destroyer gun hardly ever penetrate any capital ship armor as well. In my experience, flak guns fire on enemy ships quite intensely when range allows...

Thanks for the answer, anyway.

John, I can add the files. As about flak, well, I find about 60 medium barrels in a base to be the minimum, necessary to start actually shooting down Allied bombers, as opposed to just throwing off their aim. Don't know what my opponents have in their major bases. This means that there can be only 1-2 bases per the entire Japanese Empire in 1942 where flak is a credible threat to the attackers, unless the player is willing to strip every other base bare.

On the other hand, I'm somewhat afraid that with significant strengthening of land-based flak, AAA fortresses that don't even really need CAP will become possible, particularly for Allies, if players still continue to mass flak batteries in their most important bases.


< Message edited by FatR -- 4/1/2011 2:27:16 PM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 982
RE: The End of the Beginning - 4/4/2011 10:02:27 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Okay, as promised, I've finished late-war changes to the mosquito fleet, as well as a bunch of other modifications. Here's the changelist so far. I'll post more comments a bit later.

Ship Classes:
1)Stats of USN subs are brought in line with DaBabes. (Checked Type 2 DC, range was already at 375).
2)Stats for Mikura-class and C/D-class esorts tweaked. The number of DC racks is decreased, small-calibre AAA armament is changed towards more historical.
3)Changed the upgrade tree for Otori-class TBs to a weapon loadout more optimized against air and surface targets, and made the key upgrade available from 42/1. Three ships of the class (those in the invasion TFs) will start the game already upgraded.
4)Added a 6/45 kaiten carrier upgrade for Matsu-class DDs (but not Tachibanas). Allegedly it was done IRL. It reduces their ASW and flak capabilities, though.
5)Made in-game ship classification a bit less confusing. Torpedo boats that retain their torpedo armament will stay torpedo boats. Only those stripped of it will be reclassified as escorts.
6)Slightly increased gun ammo loads to escorts, some auxilaries and so on.
7)Added late-war flak upgrades for certain high-value transports and auxilaries, including Tonan Whalers, Type-N TL oilers, Akitsu Maru and Tokiwa. As far as I know the two latter got them IRL.
8)Added historical late-war flak/ASW/radar upgrades for Type 1 APDs. Fuel consumption reduced (fuel point/mile rate was worse than for most DDs).
9)Type HA LSI/LST class is renamed to type 101 LSI/LST class. 127/40 DP gun replaced with 76/40 and initial small-calibre AAA armament is reduced, as IRL. Added a late-war flak/radar upgrade. Fuel consumption reduced (the same reason).
10)Added an upgrade to Tachibana class available from 45/11. The main difference is its quadruple Long Lance torpedo launcher being replaced with a sextuple one, which was developed in RL for Matsus/Tachibanas, but never reached production.
11)Ch-51 class renamed CHa-251, to avoid dublication for late-war Ch-13 series SCs (same reason as their IRL renaming by the way).
12)Range of large Ch-4 and Ch-13 classes SCs increased to more historical 2000.
13)K-class motorboats are enlarged and their range and armament improved (76/60 guns are removed from the patrol version, though). Hey, as far as I can tell they are fictitious ships for Enhanced Japan scenarios anyway. They remain considerably worse than USN PTs anyway, with weaker armament and no radar.
14)Added Wa-2 AMc class for 1945. Same as Wa-1, except classified as AMc* and armament slightly improved.
15)As agreed with John 3rd, replaced 4x2 76/60 wuth 2x2 100/65 on Agano cruisers, to remove 76/60 from production entirely.



Ships, Japanese
1)Removed 33 Ukuru-class escorts from the queue.
2)Added 41 C/D-class escorts to the queue, and rearranged the production queue. Production of C/D class escorts will reach the peak in the autumn of 1944, gradually decrease in the next five months, and drop radically from May of 1945 onwards, with the last ship arriving in September of 1945 (only about 6 ships from the stock queue arrive after this date anyway). I doubt that long-range escorts will be a priority need at this point...
3)Removed 10 end-war Yugumo and Akizuki DDs from the queue. Added 3 Matsu-class DDs for late 1944-early 1945. Added 12 Tachibana-class DDs for late 1945-1946. Rearranged arrival dates of end-war DDs a bit.
4)Added 12 more Type 1 APDs to the queue. 1-2 per month are delivered until April of 1946.
5)Added two historical (T-160 and T-161) and 27 extra Type 101 LSIs to the queue. Production lasts until August of 1945.
6)Returned Kuma and Tama to their stock state. Kiso, Kitakami and Oi remain as training cruisers.
7)Set arrival locations for all motor boats to "0", so that they will not be stuck in the production, but will go to the pool.
8)Removed extra small DDs of the previous builds that were historically lost in accidents, broken up before 1939 or cancelled.
9)Added two more Otori-class TBs at the beginning of the war.
10)Three historical CHa-251 SCs are added to the map at the start. This means that they will no longer displace three Ch-13 SCs in the queue.
11)Over 100 T1 motorboats and about 30 T51 motorboats are added to the queue for 1944-46. T51s are produced slowly and phased out in spring of 1945. T1s are produces at their normal early-1945 rate until the end of the scenario. Aprroximately 150 K motorboats are added to the queue from March of 1945 to the end of the scenario. They are IJN's final defensive weapons, instead of hordes of midgets in this scenario. It should be noted that almost all of these boats are set to arrive without fuel.
12)Added 9 Wa-2 class AMcs for 1945.

Ships, Allied
1)For whatever reason, most Allied carriers in Scen 70 were arriving considerably earlier than in the current version of stock (since the build I'm still playing), and some a bit later. Their dates of arrival are synchronised with Scen 1.


Production
1)Changed A6M5b factory in Maebashi to A6M8-S and increased its size to 20, to reduce dissimilarity with the stock (originally A6M5b-S factory of size 20).


Aircraft
1)Fixed the max load issue for B7M3 and D4Y5.


Devices
1)Ship-based light AA guns tinkered with, generally to move them towards DaBabes flak mod direction**. Slightly less accuracy, more effect. Some of the older guns, like Japanese 13.2 MG, British and Japanese versions of 40mm Vickers are nerfed (Accuracy of all of these was way too good). Bofors and Oerlikon shipboard AA guns have their effect value considerably buffed (to 30 and 20 respectively). Only Japanese guns that have received unquestionable boost are 100/65 and 76/60. Will test how the modified Allied flak works before passing the build back to John.

*Wa-1 AM class is not actually used in the game, purpose-built Wa-ships are classified as To'su Wa-1 AMc.
**As a side note, AA ratings of ships seem to be calculated entirely or largely based on Effect. If Accuracy is taken into account at all, it has much lesser bearing on the final number. This seems to be one of the reasons why Japanese AA rating of, say, 1000 is not at all equal in real effectiveness to Allied AA rating of 1000.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 983
RE: The End of the Beginning - 4/4/2011 10:47:37 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
As I said, a few more notes:

1)Historically Japanese build or almost completed several large minelayers in the end of the world - two repurposed from StD merchants and two smaller DMS-like ships. They are not in the game, and I couldn't add them, because there is no art for them. I'm also not sure if they are really needed, or needed in this shape. K-class motorboats mentioned in the changes above can be converted to lay Type 93 mines. Alternatively, I can add some minelayers bases on type D escort ship hull (changes shouldn't be that big, I imagine), which won't require new art.

2)Three Akitsu Maru LSDs that had flight decks are in the game, but four more Japanese LSDs (three completed, one not completed before the end of the war) aren't. I can add them, if someone generously volunteers to draw art for them. They looked like this:



3)I think bklooste might be right that the current form of Aganos aren't very economical. With 12 152x3 turrets lying around after their removal from Mogamis, isn't it better to try using 3x3 armament on them, than 4x2? I don't know, though, how this will impact the weight. Not insisting, just an idea.



Attachment (1)

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 984
The End of the Beginning: Ship Art - 4/4/2011 3:30:13 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Excellent work Stanislav!

Thank you for the detailed change list. It really helps to have a clear idea regarding work done. Good.


As alluded to in earlier Posts, the two of us have had a running set of emails going back-and-forth to make sure we are on the same page. I really like the reworking of mid-to-late war production. Everything was/is predicated on Yamamoto streamlining ship production and attempting to maximize personnel within the Fleet.

Comments:
1. Do we have someone who might be interested in adding the ship art for the ML mentioned above? Think that they might as well be put into the que.

2. Same comment goes for the Akitsu Marus.

3. Regarding the Agano's (since there has been so much discussion here) I think the most practical, economical move would be a 3x3 arrangement using the turrets from the Mogami conversions. If memory serves some of those guns were used as secondaries on the Yamatos and since we're only building Yamato/Musashi there should be enough to equip the CLs.

This change would mean that we need a triple turreted Agano for ship art.

Looks like we're in need of someone who has something similar to the above three types of ships and we need some fresh work. Are there any volunteers?



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 985
The End of the Beginning: A New Site - 4/4/2011 3:38:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I really LIKE what Da Babes has done with creating their own site for people to go to. Have sought to bribe my wife to find us a place to base RA where people can visit, comment, and download the finished files. SHE is the technical one in THIS family!

Any suggestions as to where we can do this economically?




_____________________________



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 #: 986
The End of the Beginning: A New Site - 4/4/2011 3:47:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Stanislav: I just sent the Allied and Japanese ship art to you. Please let me know if they got through. Do you also want the aircraft art files?


_____________________________



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 #: 987
RE: The End of the Beginning: A New Site - 4/4/2011 5:55:46 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Got ship files, all right. Let's wait a bit for comments and answers... I'll work on the subs for now. As about art for Aganos, we can probably reuse old stock shipsides, if there will be no other choice.

< Message edited by FatR -- 4/4/2011 5:57:13 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 988
RE: The End of the Beginning: Ship Art - 4/4/2011 7:21:50 PM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
Here is what I've knocked up for the Settsu Maru class LSD's and the Mino Maru minelayers. I can't recall having seen a photograph of either, but the LSD rescaled nicely from FatR's drawing. The drawing in Jentschura of Mino Maru seems consistent with the sketch in Fukui, so I've adapted the stock art Standard 'D' to create the minelayer based on these two sources. I was quite surprised by the extent of the adaptation required.

The image is, in fact, a bitmap to which I have simply added a .jpg suffix.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________




(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 989
RE: The End of the Beginning: Ship Art - 4/4/2011 7:26:10 PM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
And here is a zipfile containing the individual bitmaps.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________




(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 990
Page:   <<   < prev  31 32 [33] 34 35   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Yamato Page: <<   < prev  31 32 [33] 34 35   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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.094