RE: JFB Beware

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: JFB Beware

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: JFB Beware

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: JFB Beware - 11/17/2011 3:47:35 PM

mike scholl 1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Stanislav: Looks great. Have got thoughts but I've been waiting for others to comment to your proposals...

I'll offer one. The scenario supposes a shorter war in China beefore it begins. Will the pilot skills of the IJN/IJA be adjusted down accordingly? Doesn't "Less war to practice during = less overall skill"?

< Message edited by mike scholl 1 -- 11/17/2011 3:48:34 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 571

RE: JFB Beware - 11/17/2011 4:24:25 PM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Stanislav: Looks great. Have got thoughts but I've been waiting for others to comment to your proposals...

I'll offer one. The scenario supposes a shorter war in China beefore it begins. Will the pilot skills of the IJN/IJA be adjusted down accordingly? Doesn't "Less war to practice during = less overall skill"?

Up to a point, but narratively you probably need a significant bump up against the USSR in 1937-38 or so; and, given that (and so probably a fair degree of enthusiasm on the part of the Russians for supplying stuff like aircraft in the 1939-June 1941 period) and two extra years for the Chinese to accumulate a larger starting force, I can imagine it being a more intensive war in the air in the 39-41 period. So, it's probably a bit of a wash, really - hard to quantify, though...

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 572

RE: JFB Beware - 11/17/2011 5:22:22 PM

mike scholl 1

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Stanislav: Looks great. Have got thoughts but I've been waiting for others to comment to your proposals...

I'll offer one. The scenario supposes a shorter war in China beefore it begins. Will the pilot skills of the IJN/IJA be adjusted down accordingly? Doesn't "Less war to practice during = less overall skill"?

Up to a point, but narratively you probably need a significant bump up against the USSR in 1937-38 or so; and, given that (and so probably a fair degree of enthusiasm on the part of the Russians for supplying stuff like aircraft in the 1939-June 1941 period) and two extra years for the Chinese to accumulate a larger starting force, I can imagine it being a more intensive war in the air in the 39-41 period. So, it's probably a bit of a wash, really - hard to quantify, though...

Just to play "Devil's Advocate", wouldn't a more intense war against a better trained and equipped Chinese opponant mean much larger casualties for the Japanese? A big drain on an already feable pilot training program? As you say, hard to quantify...

(in reply to kfsgo)

Post #: 573

RE: JFB Beware - 11/17/2011 5:56:41 PM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Just to play "Devil's Advocate", wouldn't a more intense war against a better trained and equipped Chinese opponant mean much larger casualties for the Japanese? A big drain on an already feable pilot training program? As you say, hard to quantify...

Probably not, since equipment and training themselves aren't likely to be significantly different in the 39-41 period versus the RL 37-39 period. There doesn't seem to have been a concerted training effort by the Soviet staff; rather, they did the flying themselves until withdrawn, occasionally in mixed Chinese/Soviet groups, after which the Chinese took over and seem to have been...well, unenthusiastic is probably the nice way of putting it. The USSR sent a whole lot of aircraft to China - I can't remember what the number was offhand but several hundred, primarily I-153/I-16/SB2 with small numbers of DB3 and TB3, and that's a mix that's pretty reflective of Soviet front-line equipment either in 1938 or 1941.

So, everything is pretty much as it was, except you probably have more aircraft coming in given greater Japanese pressure on the USSR and the absence of the need to worry about Spain simultaneously. Realistically, given the Chinese attitude to the whole business, that's a recipe for getting more fighters shot down; they seem to have been considered a deterrent more than anything and of course as the years go by you run into the fact that the Japanese aren't flying A5Ms any more. Any extra bombers are probably more useful - but then the Japanese are several hundred miles short of where they usually are, so you could say they've been taken into account...

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 574

RE: JFB Beware - 11/18/2011 7:59:53 PM

FatR

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

No comment about the planes. For what it's worth, I like my second idea (no interceptors) more and more. Mostly for less severe violation of historical mindset. I can sketch entire model lines if there is no radical comments.

Also, a question (probably to kfsgo): how one can attach several pictures to one post on these forums?

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to kfsgo)

Post #: 575

RE: JFB Beware - 11/18/2011 8:20:32 PM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

No comment about the planes. For what it's worth, I like my second idea (no interceptors) more and more. Mostly for less severe violation of historical mindset. I can sketch entire model lines if there is no radical comments.

Also, a question (probably to kfsgo): how one can attach several pictures to one post on these forums?

Upload them somewhere else - I use imgur but there are a more or less infinite number of other free image hosts - then link to them. So:

which you then link to as

[img]http://i.imgur.com/9DxsF.png[/img]

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 576

RE: JFB Beware - 11/18/2011 8:38:37 PM

FatR

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

In the name of avoiding mishaps like ones that plagued Scen 70, I propose for everyone to write at least a general changelog

Base scenario: DaBigBabes 28C (by the way, this means the mod is automatically PBEM only - my concerns about splitting base forces were based on my forgetfulness only).

What I did so far:

Ship classes
1)Removed Musash class of super BBs. Art: yes (technically no, but will add right after finishing with this list).
2)Added Owari class of fast BBs (4 upgrades, the first one updates DP artillery, others add radars/AAMGs as usual).
3)Added Kaga class of pre-treaty BBs (3 upgrades). Art: yes.
4)Modified Nagato BB class to use new DP guns, also earlier and more numerous 25mm AAMGs additions during upgrades.
5)Downgraded initial state of Fuso and Ise BB classes. There was no second modernization. Speed is lower. Maneuver is lower. DP armament is far weaker. Art: no.
6)Added immediately available upgrades for Fuso and Ise BB classes. Two upgrades are available for each - fast BB (with removal of one main turret) and carrier hybrid. Art: yes.
7)Changed upgrades for Kongo BB class. DP armament is strengthened on 43/10. 30mm AAMGs added on 45/1.
8)Niitaka cruiser class is added (not sure if it should be CA or CB). 5 upgrades. Art: probably no (the existing shipside uses a different concept).
9)Modified Mogami cruiser class. No reconstruction to CA, and bigger from the beginning (so, more durability).
10)Displacements and speeds of Japanese battleships and cruisers is brought into accordance with Jentschura's numbers where possible.
EDIT: 11)Changed the facing of extra AAMGs on Maya CA class after 9/43 upgrade and removal of turret #3. Not sure if facing matters that much for them, but some of the extra mounts before bridge should be facing sides.

Ships

1)Added BBs Satsuma, Owari, Kaga and Tosa to Hiroshima/Kure.
2)Added BBs Musashi and Shinano to the construction queue.
3)(Not what I did, but some really weird stuff is going on with cruisers, and I don't mean addition of Thai ones or junk from Russo-Japanese war age... this needs investigating).

Airgroups

1)Added and modified seaplane airgroups for the new battleships as necessary.

Devices
1)Added five naval devices in slots 1771-1776: 30mm Type AAMG, 12cm/45 Type 90 DP Gun, 12cm/55 Type 98 DP Gun, 41cm/50 T96 gun (for Owari class), Type 32 surface search radar.

EDIT: PS: Thanks for your answer, kfsgo.

EDIT2: Those are changes done before other people started working on the files.

< Message edited by FatR -- 11/19/2011 8:33:48 AM >

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 577

RE: JFB Beware - 11/19/2011 1:02:16 PM

FatR

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

So, long-overdue images (images and concepts are by Vladimir Sidorenko and Eugen Pinak):

Tama class AS conversion:

Tenryu class CM conversion:

Mutsuki class modernization:

Minekaze class modernization:

Kamikaze class modernization:

Reimagined P.51 escort class (oldest DDs conversion):

Just to have all the current art requests in one thread...

Niitaka:

Fuso without their main modernization should look approximately like this:

((c) Dixie), but a beefier superstructure (assuming a limited modernization, similar to earlier reconstructions of Ise/Hyuga) and seaplane crane on the fantail, same as on their shipside in the game. For comparison, the best picture of Ise&Hyuga (two battleships farther from the camera) after their first modernization (that involved superstructure rebuilding), but before machinery replacement, I've found:

A floatplane platform on top of their turrets #5 here should be replaced with the same seaplane crane that is present on their shipside in the game, otherwise it is probably closest to how Ise&Hyuga should look.

< Message edited by FatR -- 11/19/2011 1:12:07 PM >

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 578

RE: JFB Beware - 11/19/2011 9:19:54 PM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Tama class AS conversion:

Getting there...will edit this post as I finish it & do others. If there are things you don't like about any of them - tell me - modifying existing art is 50 times easier than creating new art & I can pretty much change whatever.

quote:

Tenryu class CM conversion:

quote:

Mutsuki class modernization:

quote:

Minekaze class modernization:

quote:

Kamikaze class modernization:

quote:

Niitaka (WIP)

< Message edited by kfsgo -- 11/21/2011 6:01:29 PM >

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 579

RE: JFB Beware - 11/19/2011 10:47:27 PM

John 3rd

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

Looks great!

Sorry that I haven't Posted in a while but I had to set-up and get a funeral done. Thankfully this is now complete so I intend to sleep for a couple of days! I have every morning of the week open since I no longer have to dedicate a couple days a week to visitation so I should be able to work on comments here as well as begin some serious design work on a website where we can Post all of our RA and Perfect War material. Hope to catch-up on my AAR as well.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to kfsgo)

Post #: 580

RE: JFB Beware - 11/21/2011 1:14:39 PM

FatR

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

Great work, kfsgo, thanks.

Meanwhile, returning to our fighters, proposal #2 (no pre-war interceptors).

First, to get it out of the way, on aircraft armament unification:

As in RA, let's use the Army's standard for rifle-calibre machineguns, and skip copying obsolete German models. Ho-103 MG is developed as IRL, but once Browning M2 is successfully copied in 1943 (rechambered for the 13.2 Hotchkiss cartridge) as Navy Type 3, the Army eventually adopts is as well late in the war, where it is possible, for standardization purposes (both IJN and IJA used 13.2 calibre, 12.7 cartridge adopted for Ho-103 was yet another for-one-weapon-only deviation). Navy's Oerlikon FFL copies (Type 99-2) are used in limited number on Army's planes early in the war, instead of Ho-1 and Ho-3, because the latter are infer. Late in the war Ho-5 20mm and Type 5 30mm cannons become standard for both services.

Returning to planes, proposes IJAAF lineup:

Nakajima keeps improving Ki-43 while its susessor is not yet ready, then stops, but the plane might remain in production, maybe by other company, like Tachikawa, as IRL, for a while after that, until its engine is removed from production.
Ki-43-Ic - at the start
Ki-43-IIa - 7/42
Ki-43-IIb - 12/42

Stats as per the last version of Scen 70. The plane is kept

Frank Lite, succeeding it, will use Mitsubishi Ha-33 engine. Let's name it, say, Ki-81. Rough outline:

Ki-81-Ia - 2/43. The initial production version, still not very reliable. Topspeed 357 mph, MVR slightly lower than final Oscars, ceiling slightly higher, Durability 28, Armor 1, Normal range 7/10, 4x12.7 Ho-103 HMGs, Service Rating 2.
Ki-81-Ib - 9/43. After overcoming teething troubles with the engine, adding some extra protection/armament, improved drop tanks. Topspeed 360 mph, MVR 1-2 points lower than the previous version, Durability 30, Armor 1, Normal range 7/11, 2x12.7 Ho-103 + 2x20 Type 99-2, Service Rating 1.
Ki-81-Ic - 3/44. As Ib, but with even more polish to engine and airframe, and Ho-5 20mm cannons instead of Type 99-2. Topspeed 370 mph.
Ki-81-II KAIa - 10/44. Uses Ha-33 engine with a turbosupercharger and water-methanol injection, similar to those planned for Ki-100-IIs. Topspeed 378 mph, high (over 40k) ceiling, MVR slightly reduced again, otherwise as Ic. Maybe Service Rating 2?
Ki-81-II KAIb - 4/45. As KAIa, but slightly better in all aspects. Maybe unneeded if KAIa has SR1 from the beginning.

Looks pretty much as Frank, with minor differences.

After this plane Nakajima will go straight for a heavy, high-speed, high-altitude interceptor, hopefully rolling it out sometime in 1945, due to being less loaded with distinct projects. I think Ki-87, RL plane designed to these specs, should have been in the game instead of Ki-94-II, as the former reached the stage of (somewhat) flyable prototype, unlike the latter. Ki-87 can't exist in this alternative, though, as engine design is handled to Mitsubishi. I need to think how its equivalent might look like.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 581

RE: JFB Beware - 11/21/2011 4:07:41 PM

John 3rd

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

FatR: LIKE the thinking and rationale with your development line for the Army. Seems to fairly reasonable and begins a decent progression in upgrades for the planes.

I additionally like the ships detailed above and the ship art. Do you have a final set of specific art needs?

What are you thinking along the Naval Air side for fighter development? Are we keeping the Zero development line from RA or doing something different?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 582

RE: JFB Beware - 11/21/2011 5:40:07 PM

FatR

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

As about naval side... A6M doesn't use Sakae ever, so changes from RA are unevitable.

Another note on armament: after re-reading things, I'm back to thinking, that despite the black sheep calibre, what we did in RA, making Ho-103 the standard air HMG for both services, instead of ever using Type 3 13.2, was correct. So, assuming even better interservice cooperation in this alternative, we probably should continue to do so.

What I see:

A6M1a - available at the start at ground units. Speed around 312 mph (Allies will get a bit of a break at the beginning), otherwise as RL A6M2. Uses Ha-31 engine.

A6M2a - available at the start on carriers and is in production. Speed around 335 mph, normal range 6/9. Both of these planes are basically equivalent to A6M2 with Ha-31 engines, with M2a carrying its 1941 version.

A6M2b - 5/42, wings and fuel tanks configuration of RL A6M3a (I don't feel very comfortable using that superior configuration on the model produced at the start), normal range 7/10, slight improvement over A6M2a overall.

A6M3 - 1/43, the first model using Ha-33. Speed 358 mph. Greater fuel consumption by a more powerful engine leads to normal range 5/8. Added protection (bulletproof glass + armored seat) and strengthened wings lead to Durability 27. Higher ceiling. All-wing armament, including 2x12.7 Ho-103 (no place in fuselage anymore). Service rating 2. Can carry a 250-kg bomb.

A note here - IRL, necessity of increasing speed without changing the engine led to shortening of the wings on A6M5/Model 52 and successive models, which detrimentally affected maneurability and range, compared to A6M3a/Model 22. This doesn't happen here. Indeed, I think this was something that needed not happen in Scen 70 (but I missed this then). So MVR stays high. Range likely not, as a more powerful engine eats more fuel.

A6M3b - 7/43, the improved model, with more polished aerodynamics and increased engine reliability. As A6M3, but topspeed 362 mph. MVR slightly increases. Under-wing drop tanks are added, raising normal range to 5/9. SR1.

Another note - even assuming a better work of attaching Kinsei engine to Zero's airframe than on A6M8, due to having more time to do it, I'm reluctant to assign speeds comparable to what I propose for Ki-81 to the relatively obsolete Zero airframe.

A6M3c - 1/44. Fuel tank protection is added, so Armor 1. Can carry a 500-kg bomb. Speed drops to 355 mph, MVR back to A6M3 level.

A6M6 (I want models to have different designations than major historical models, whenever possible) - 12/44. A deep modernization of Zero for the final defensive battles. Uses Ha-33 engine with a turbosupercharger for high-altitude interception. Armament of 4 Ho-5 cannons in the wings. Topspeed 360 mph, high ceiling. Not carrier-capable.

Horikoshi's team starts their work on A7M earlier and has more time to concentrate on it, like in Scen 70, so, like Scen 70, A7M is available around 10/44. Which, to be honest, is still way too late to change anything (although serious acceleration effort can probably push it forward to mid-1944, where it still can make a difference).

I'll probably post the ideas related to lesser fighter types (Ki-61 and N1K-J tomorrow). Any objections so far? I'm rather afraid of straying too far into fantasyland if left unchecked.

< Message edited by FatR -- 11/21/2011 5:42:38 PM >

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 583

RE: JFB Beware - 11/21/2011 5:45:38 PM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I additionally like the ships detailed above and the ship art. Do you have a final set of specific art needs?

We'll need a bit more art for escorts and auxilaries. I just need to find something close enough to their supposed looks...

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 584

RE: JFB Beware - 11/21/2011 6:19:43 PM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

I put up a first draft Niitaka CB, based on JuanG's #539 (I think - can't remember, but it was one of his); let me know what you think. Will continue fiddling with it in any case...drawing onto a ship background is always a lot more awkward than drawing onto the transparency as you get contrast issues as seen around the DP turrets at present.

I have a more or less 'done' Chinese OOB at Div. scale; at this point I really need to look at the accounting side of it, so it probably looks nothing like the final product, but I'll try and put up a draft scenario that people can have a look at and comment on tonight or tomorrow.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 585

RE: JFB Beware - 11/22/2011 7:21:46 PM

FatR

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

So, secondary early-mid-war fighter types.

Ki-61

Well, Ki-61 is a red-headed stepchild among IJAAF fighters in stock. I'm building a bit of them in my games just because (well, and Scen 70 makes the final model somewhat useful), but they really have very little to no, depending on how the opponent plays, redeeming features next to Tojo. And in this mod, if my proposal above is accepted, Ki-61 has to compete with Ki-81, which is available slightly later, has comparable protection and armament right out of the gate, while enjoying good range and better reliability. So, something must be done about it. A few ideas:

1)If we go with the assumption that Kawasaki and Aichi pool their brainpower in the task of copying DB-601, AND succeed in improving reliability of the resulting engine (which is a very favorable assumption, considering that the main problem was in mass production and ground service), we can bring Ki-61 earlier (IRL deliveries of production planes started in August of 1942, although service trials took the rest of 1942) and with SR 2.
2)If we assume that they did not succeed in that, we still can assume that the engine at least was available slightly earlier, and make Ki-61-Ia available around 6/42, with appropriate acceleration to the following models; early enough to make it worth considering.
3)Finally, we can just eliminate the plane altogether, as a trap option. I don't like that, though, as options are player's friends.

N1K-J

This plane is available too early in the game, IMO. Production of N1K1-J did technically start in July 1943, but deliveries were so slow, that it only saw combat on Philippines at the first time, by which time only about 300 planes were made. This does not apply to N1K2-J - this plane entered production in July 1944 (replaicing its precedessor with similar slowness), and is available on 44/11. It is also another Jap plane which speed is consistently underrated in AE and in modern sources in general (wartime American estimates credited N1K1-J with 407-408 mph, which fits well with pilots' evaluations, which placed George as equal or better of Hellcat, but below Mustang/Thunderbolt). On the negative side, I was surprised to learn, that, even though AE gives George Armor 1, it actually did not have an armored pilot seat - explains huge pilot losses in battles of 343 Kokutai and elsewhere, and is simply mind-blowing, considering that on the IJAAF side even Oscars had this much protection by second half of 1943.

Now, Kasei MK4-R engine, used on Jacks IRL, and one that will be used on Georges here, developed 190-170 hps less than Homare 21, but was 50 kg lighter and in general Kasei was more reliable. So Shiden's specs are bound to be somewhat lower in this alternative, but not much lower -10-15 mph of speed, -20 maybe, if we decide that whomever was responsible for denying the universally accepted level of protection to a new plane stops being retarded. Higher for Shiden Kai, as development of Kasei continued up until the end of the war. Ceiling will be lower, but only because ceiling attributed to N1K1-J by AE doesn't exactly reflect its RL high-altitude abilities. I see two interesting possibilities here:

1)Make Shiden available around 7/43. No sooner, because normally this date is too early. Then go forward with the model lineup closely approximating RL one. It will have SR 2 and stats as described above.
2)Navy, seeing that they already have a more satisfying form of Zero in this alternative, sends Kawanishi to rework their plane into a form more suitable for frontline conditions after seeing the prototype. Works goes faster thanks to less problems with the engine and no hassle with transferring N1K1-J (which was supposed to be only a stopgap model, but ended up produced in greater numbers than Shiden Kai) into production. The lineup starts with Shiden Kai equivalent, available 4-5/44.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to mike scholl 1)

Post #: 586

RE: JFB Beware - 11/22/2011 7:22:56 PM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

I put up a first draft Niitaka CB, based on JuanG's #539 (I think - can't remember, but it was one of his); let me know what you think.

I like it.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to kfsgo)

Post #: 587

RE: JFB Beware - 11/22/2011 11:51:59 PM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

So, secondary early-mid-war fighter types.

Ki-61

Well, Ki-61 is a red-headed stepchild among IJAAF fighters in stock. I'm building a bit of them in my games just because (well, and Scen 70 makes the final model somewhat useful), but they really have very little to no, depending on how the opponent plays, redeeming features next to Tojo. And in this mod, if my proposal above is accepted, Ki-61 has to compete with Ki-81, which is available slightly later, has comparable protection and armament right out of the gate, while enjoying good range and better reliability. So, something must be done about it. A few ideas:

1)If we go with the assumption that Kawasaki and Aichi pool their brainpower in the task of copying DB-601, AND succeed in improving reliability of the resulting engine (which is a very favorable assumption, considering that the main problem was in mass production and ground service), we can bring Ki-61 earlier (IRL deliveries of production planes started in August of 1942, although service trials took the rest of 1942) and with SR 2.
2)If we assume that they did not succeed in that, we still can assume that the engine at least was available slightly earlier, and make Ki-61-Ia available around 6/42, with appropriate acceleration to the following models; early enough to make it worth considering.
3)Finally, we can just eliminate the plane altogether, as a trap option. I don't like that, though, as options are player's friends.

N1K-J

This plane is available too early in the game, IMO. Production of N1K1-J did technically start in July 1943, but deliveries were so slow, that it only saw combat on Philippines at the first time, by which time only about 300 planes were made. This does not apply to N1K2-J - this plane entered production in July 1944 (replaicing its precedessor with similar slowness), and is available on 44/11. It is also another Jap plane which speed is consistently underrated in AE and in modern sources in general (wartime American estimates credited N1K1-J with 407-408 mph, which fits well with pilots' evaluations, which placed George as equal or better of Hellcat, but below Mustang/Thunderbolt). On the negative side, I was surprised to learn, that, even though AE gives George Armor 1, it actually did not have an armored pilot seat - explains huge pilot losses in battles of 343 Kokutai and elsewhere, and is simply mind-blowing, considering that on the IJAAF side even Oscars had this much protection by second half of 1943.

Now, Kasei MK4-R engine, used on Jacks IRL, and one that will be used on Georges here, developed 190-170 hps less than Homare 21, but was 50 kg lighter and in general Kasei was more reliable. So Shiden's specs are bound to be somewhat lower in this alternative, but not much lower -10-15 mph of speed, -20 maybe, if we decide that whomever was responsible for denying the universally accepted level of protection to a new plane stops being retarded. Higher for Shiden Kai, as development of Kasei continued up until the end of the war. Ceiling will be lower, but only because ceiling attributed to N1K1-J by AE doesn't exactly reflect its RL high-altitude abilities. I see two interesting possibilities here:

1)Make Shiden available around 7/43. No sooner, because normally this date is too early. Then go forward with the model lineup closely approximating RL one. It will have SR 2 and stats as described above.
2)Navy, seeing that they already have a more satisfying form of Zero in this alternative, sends Kawanishi to rework their plane into a form more suitable for frontline conditions after seeing the prototype. Works goes faster thanks to less problems with the engine and no hassle with transferring N1K1-J (which was supposed to be only a stopgap model, but ended up produced in greater numbers than Shiden Kai) into production. The lineup starts with Shiden Kai equivalent, available 4-5/44.

My Votes:
1. Ki-61--Option Two. Allows for choice by the player.
2. NIK-J--Option One. Seems more appropriate to me.

What do we do for CV-Based Fighters?

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 588

RE: JFB Beware - 11/23/2011 2:10:42 AM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

I might be reading more into this than there is, but if the A/C are improving earlier, the Allies are going to bring out their toys (read that plane upgrades) faster as the urgency increases. With the better pilots that the Japanese player can make added to the better planes, the Allies will need to combat that some how.

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 589

RE: JFB Beware - 11/23/2011 7:53:57 AM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I might be reading more into this than there is, but if the A/C are improving earlier, the Allies are going to bring out their toys (read that plane upgrades) faster as the urgency increases. With the better pilots that the Japanese player can make added to the better planes, the Allies will need to combat that some how.

If you pay attention, in 1941-42 Japanese fighter aircraft actually are a bit worse in the current proposal. Instead of Tojo JFBs will have high-SR Tony, Zeros will have either inferior speed or inferior range to vanilla A6M2. Only in 1943 and later improvements will be felt, and even then, nothing will be nearly as good as Allied top performers.

Anyway, I'm not going into a detailed study of Allied planes to see which of them could reasonably be accelerated. I think, that increasing production numbers (in addition to the option of expanding on-map production) is warranted, though.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 590

RE: JFB Beware - 11/23/2011 7:59:16 AM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
My Votes:
1. Ki-61--Option Two. Allows for choice by the player.
2. NIK-J--Option One. Seems more appropriate to me.

What do we do for CV-Based Fighters?

OK, and as about CV-based fighters - all Zeros, except the last model, A7M2, and, I think, we can include a carrier-capable George model again.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 591

RE: JFB Beware - 11/23/2011 9:37:29 AM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
Anyway, I'm not going into a detailed study of Allied planes to see which of them could reasonably be accelerated. I think, that increasing production numbers (in addition to the option of expanding on-map production) is warranted, though.

I'd be happy to, after you've finalised what the plan is for the Japanese - the reorientation of the war in the Mediterranean and the need to supply the French is going to throw some spanners into the works for everyone, at the very least.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 592

RE: JFB Beware - 11/23/2011 11:52:07 AM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo

I'd be happy to, after you've finalised what the plan is for the Japanese - the reorientation of the war in the Mediterranean and the need to supply the French is going to throw some spanners into the works for everyone, at the very least.

OK, thanks.

Fighter updates for today.

You can note from above that I only started sticking Mitsubishi Kinsei everywhere past the historical date of availability of Kinsei 62 engine, which produced 1500 hps and more. Actually, looking through Kinsei's lineup, earlier versions could have been used to power A6M2.

Kinsei 44 (1070 hps on takeoff) powered Vals and was available for production around 1940
Kinsei 51 (1280 hps) was installed on G3M3 and H6K5, therefore available from mid-1942

By comparison, Sakae 12 (A6M2) produced 925 hps and Sakae 21 (almost every Zero produced thereafter) only 1130 hps. No version of Zuisei produced more than 1080 hps. The main disadvantage of Kinsei (besides slightly greater weight) is bigger radius, which increased drag and apparently precluded installation of nose weapons on Zero. Jiro Horikoshi apparently repeatedly asked to be allowed to use it on A6M, but as we know this was only greenlighted very late in the war.

So, in this light, proposal for early Zeros should look like this:

A6M2a (Kinsei 44) - the initial model, normal range 6/9, all-wing armament.

A6M2b (Kinsei 51) - 6/42, range 7/10 due to more fuel tanks, speed 344 mph.

Allies will benefit from reduction in Japanese player long-range attack capabilities early in the war, though. IIRC, Manila now will not be reachable by fighters from Takao.

Returning to secondary types, and expanding the variants you liked, John:

Ki-61-Ia - 6/42
Ki-61-Ib - 1/43
Ki-61-Ic - 6/43 (as Id, but with 4x12.7 armament, installed as a stopgap measure, instead of German cannons - we have less long-ranged subs in this alternative, so less trips to Germany)
Ki-61-Id - 10/43
Ki-61-II KAIa - 4/44 (as in Scen 70 with 4x20 armament)

After that we can go to Ki-61-II KAIb, with the same Ha-140 engine, except probably a bit more polished, or, as IRL, to Ki-100s. On one hand there is less incentive to build latter (without the Kawasaki engine plant being bombed, at least), because Ki-81 is already using Kinsei engines, on another, great success of Kinsei might motivate an attempt to convert Ki-61 line to it, after Ha-140 proves extremely unreliable. Not sure what to pick.

Also, I believe all Ki-61 models have too low range in the game, will try to look into that.

As about N1K-J:

N1K1-J - 7/43, topspeed 387 mph, SR 2, ceiling about 37.5k.
N1K2-J - 9/44, topspeed 396 mph, SR 1, ceiling about 38k.
N1K3-J - 1/45, a high-altitude interceptor with the latest Kasei engine packing a three-stage supercharger, ceiling above 40k.
N1K4-A - 4/45, a carrier-capable version, stats like N1K2, maybe slightly lower. Really only relevant if you seriously accelerate it...
N1K5-J - 12/45. A Ha-43-powered high-altitude model. Speed increase is not very big.

We'll need new art for them, with nose parts like those on N1K Rex.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to kfsgo)

Post #: 593

RE: JFB Beware - 11/23/2011 1:51:32 PM

FatR

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

And some thoughts on late-war wunderwafles:

Kawasaki Ki-64: first flight in December 1943, tests abandoned after an engine fire IRL. Plusses - available relatively early. Minuses - unreliable engines, combined with new and complex features. Probably unsuitable for production.

Nakajima Ki-87: first flight in April 1945, tests abandoned due to both the engine and the undercarriage being practically unusable and impossible to fix in the existing war situation IRL. Possible equivalent in this alternative can be powered by Mitsubishi Ha-42, 18-cylinder derivative of Mitshubishi Kasei engine, achieving comparable projected performance. The main minus - production before late 1945 is hardly plausible, even if Nakajima starts to work on it earlier.

Tachikawa Ki-94-II: a prototype completed, but no test flights. Developers might be right, considering it a more probable candidate for production than Ki-87, but with no tests, this can't be confirmed.

Tachikawa Ki-94-I:
http://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/tachikawa_ki-94.php
Yeah, that's an interesting idea (danger to the bailing pilot nonwithstanding). Powered by 2xMitsubishi Ha-43. The problem is, it might well have been axed for a good reason, even though Tachikawa seems to have faced unfair competition (i.e., performance requirements relaxed for the Nakajima's Ki-87 project, but not for them). Its performance is speculative as well.

Jets.

Nakajima Kikka and Nakajima Ki-201
The former is far more suited for the condition of late-war Japanese industry, and actually reached the flyable prototype stage. The latter had better specs. What about developing a fighter version of of the former, which was actually done?

J8M
Yeah, this plane is useless IRL and in AE, and should be quietly forgotten. I wonder why Army and Navy joined in approving this failure. I understand that it was super simple and easy to build compared to conventional airplanes, but they chose a very wrong thing to abandon the usual approach of "quality first" for. I guess desperation leads to grasping at straws. But how about working together on Kikka, instead (early turbojets also were simpler and more primitive than late-WWII radial engines)? Not that it would have made any difference IRL, but it might in the game.

< Message edited by FatR -- 11/23/2011 1:56:34 PM >

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 594

Technical Developments - 11/23/2011 4:37:35 PM

John 3rd

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

This sort of technical discussion is beyond my pay grade but I am enjoying it. It appears to be quite well thought out.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 595

RE: Technical Developments - 11/23/2011 5:03:20 PM

FatR

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

I really cannot say that I'm bringing some arcane knowledge to the table. Well, unless you count information from j.aircraft.org as such

. I do hope to buy
"Japanese Secret Projects Experimental Aircraft of the IJA and IJN 1939-1945" by E.M Dyer before returning to late-war Japanese planes, but at the moment I'm not sure when I'll be able to afford ordering new books...

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 596

RE: Technical Developments - 11/23/2011 5:05:23 PM

John 3rd

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

I don't have that book and might look for it.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 597

RE: Technical Developments - 11/23/2011 5:21:39 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

Thanks for the reply Fatr, that makes sense and it does appear I was reading more into things.

_____________________________

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 598

RE: Technical Developments - 11/23/2011 5:44:29 PM

John 3rd

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

ALWAYS chime in Oldman. You are much valued within the RA and Perfect War Mod discussions!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 599

RE: JFB Beware - 11/23/2011 6:15:02 PM

kfsgo

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

As about N1K-J:

N1K1-J - 7/43, topspeed 387 mph, SR 2, ceiling about 37.5k.
N1K2-J - 9/44, topspeed 396 mph, SR 1, ceiling about 38k.
N1K3-J - 1/45, a high-altitude interceptor with the latest Kasei engine packing a three-stage supercharger, ceiling above 40k.
N1K4-A - 4/45, a carrier-capable version, stats like N1K2, maybe slightly lower. Really only relevant if you seriously accelerate it...
N1K5-J - 12/45. A Ha-43-powered high-altitude model. Speed increase is not very big.

We'll need new art for them, with nose parts like those on N1K Rex.

Hmm. I wonder at that, the early ones particularly; gaining 25mph on 10% less power than normal seems very optimistic. My understanding is that the transition from floatplane to a regular fighter left the K1 particularly with a lot of 'baggage' - an awkward mid-fuselage wing and oversized landing gear structure, lots of heavy strengthening in unnecessary places, draggy bolt-ons like podded guns (two of the 20mms) and an external oil cooler...thing ain't Cinderella, that's for sure. What it has going for it is excellent maneuverability relative to the competition, particularly at medium to high speeds.

To be honest, I'd actually rate the (stock) N1K1 as a slightly better aircraft than the (stock) F6F-3; looking at the aircraft's in-game performance in a vacuum, what I've tended to find given a level playing field (equal numbers, equal altitudes, equal pilots, equal radar, equal missions etc) is that you tend to come out of that sort of thing with about 1.1-1.4 Hellcats lost for every George lost, with worse performances from the Hellcats as altitudes decrease (which makes sense, considering the increasing maneuverability disparity as you go down in altitude - 27 v 17 at 20k versus 17 v 14 at 35k); that the Japanese are often not operating on a level playing field by the time these sorts of matchups come about is worth noting, but doesn't really take away from the fact that the aircraft itself is 'equal or better' when matched up to the Hellcat.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 600