Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Nevada and Pennsylvania rebuilds ok.

Tennessee and California rebuilds started started in July 42, not Jan 43
TENNESSEE: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VII, pp. 88-100
CALIFORNIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. II, pp. 14-15

Maryland 5"/38 rebuild started in May 45 for 90 days, not 270
MARYLAND: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. IV, pp. 257-259

West Virginia 5"/38 rebuild started June 43 until June 44, but that time included hull repair. Currently she morphs into the Maryland tree, and doesn't get upgrade until 1945.
WEST VIRGINIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VIII, pp. 222-227.

I'm of the opinion that Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia should have an option to start rebuilding no later than Oct 42 (much like the Tennessee class) with a maximum of 120-180 days to rebuild

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Q1: In game terms, is this merely a case of moving the upgrade dates or do changes need to be made to the upgrades themselves?

Q2: Does the WV deserve a "class" of it's own in light of it's upgrade?

Q3: Was the WV hull repair due to operational damage or a deliberate decision to modify the design of the ship? If the former, how long should the rebuild take, assuming no damage to be repaired.

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

You might want to consider looking over the Focus Pacific mod.

In that one the emergency reinforcements do not enter automatically as a triggered result.

The Allies have to buy them. They can also buy them at any time, not trigger dependent.

The cost for these units is considerably higher than the cost of buying out ordinary on map restricted units.

You might want to consider a similar high cost for release of the West Coast garrison units.

I'll have a look. Focus Pacific changes too much for my tastes. At the core, I just want to give the Allied player the option of buying out the units that start on the West Coast. The emergency reinforcements are not something I want to change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Re-base the Prince of Wales and Repulse TF to Colombo headed for Singapore. The only reason they were sunk was because they were stupid enough to sail into an enemy AZoC without air support THREE DAYS after the Pearl Harbor attack.

USN pre-war BB upgrades are borked. Their re-builds are about 2 years behind schedule.

PoW and Repulse will stay at Singapore as that's where they were on Dec 7th.

What USN BB upgrades do you speak of, and do you have any documentation to back it up?


Side Note: when I said "can you make a good argument for it [your proposed changes ]to be there?" that was me politely asking for some evidence to back up what you say. I like some hard facts to back things up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

MM, any plans on looking into China besides a small supply bump?

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

China - I increased device production by 50 to 100% for RA, Treaty, and BTS mods. It does help some. I decreased the number of disabled industry to help with organic production of supply. There is plenty of resources for LI and HI. Check out BTS mod changes.

PP - The Allies have 60 PP with these mods. I would go with that or 65 per day.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Nevada and Pennsylvania rebuilds ok.

Tennessee and California rebuilds started started in July 42, not Jan 43
TENNESSEE: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VII, pp. 88-100
CALIFORNIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. II, pp. 14-15

Maryland 5"/38 rebuild started in May 45 for 90 days, not 270
MARYLAND: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. IV, pp. 257-259

West Virginia 5"/38 rebuild started June 43 until June 44, but that time included hull repair. Currently she morphs into the Maryland tree, and doesn't get upgrade until 1945.
WEST VIRGINIA: Toppan, Andrew, with Jewell, Larry W. Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships, Vol. VIII, pp. 222-227.

I'm of the opinion that Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia should have an option to start rebuilding no later than Oct 42 (much like the Tennessee class) with a maximum of 120-180 days to rebuild

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Q1: In game terms, is this merely a case of moving the upgrade dates or do changes need to be made to the upgrades themselves?

Q2: Does the WV deserve a "class" of it's own in light of it's upgrade?

Q3: Was the WV hull repair due to operational damage or a deliberate decision to modify the design of the ship? If the former, how long should the rebuild take, assuming no damage to be repaired.

Q1: Change need to be made to the Maryland's class 346 5"/38. Rebuild should be shortened to a 90 day upgrade.

Q2: West Virginia should have a class path of it's own in light of her upgrade.

Q3: West Virginia's hull repair was the permanent repair of the Pearl Harbor Attack damage. It's hard to put a "what if" on this, because "what if" she was only lightly damaged in the attack, would her rebuild have been done? If so, would it have been later like Maryland, or very little, like Colorado? My thought is that she gets her own path with 1/42 upgrade (radar), 6/43 upgrade of at least 120 days to near similar loadout/specs of Maryland's in 4/45, and then upgrades to Maryland's 4/45.

The fly in all this ointment is that the Allied player doesn't know which BB's will get hurt the worst, if at all. In my PBeM game, my IJN opponent eschewed the Pearl Harbor strike and hit the DEI with Kido Butai instead. All of my 9 BBs would have been available for rotation into the modernization program. If the option were available, as the Allied Player, I would definitely send my old BBs to the yard and spend 120-180 days modernizing them.

In all the reading I've done (hopefully I'll get more books for Christmas), it appears that the thinking after the start of war shifted when the importance of air power was realized. I would further conjecture that had the war begun differently, that the Colorado class would have been taken in hand immediately for rebuild, as they were the "newest" of the pre-war BBs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Got all the available sub data together ...
You will find differences in few things:
- class differences on 4 Gato boats listed in game as Balao (SS-361-364)
- class differences on 2 Balao boats listed in game as Tench (SS-425&426)
- some subs should be at sea, or another base at the start of the game

- actual departure and arrival dates on relevant bases when possible
- in game arrival dates and bases
- in game departure dates from game
- notes of various characters

With some calculating and guess, one can fill up the missing data (like arrival at base X, when departure from base Y is known), etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

It is my view that the problem with China is, at it's core, supply. If the Japanese subject the Chinese to a solid campaign of airbase bombing (and it would be stupid not to), I don't think that the Chinese can gather enough supply to effectively utilize their device pools. It's no good boosting device production if bases don't have enough supply to take replacements.

To that end, I'm thinking of the following:

- Give a bit more supply to the Chungking stockpile on Dec 7th, and perhaps the Sian stockpile as well.
- Boost automatic supply generation all across China.
- Less disabled industry in Chinese held cities.

Hopefully, this should mean that Chinese units remain poorly equipped (as historical) but don't end up being starved to death.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Manchurian artillery in China - Many of the big guns are siege type guns and in reality would take months, not just a few weeks to move. So, my way to slow this down would be add a static device to those units and be able to upgrade to a non-static device say in mid-42 to reflect the amount of time needed to relocate them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Got all the available sub data together ...
You will find differences in few things:
- class differences on 4 Gato boats listed in game as Balao (SS-361-364)
- class differences on 2 Balao boats listed in game as Tench (SS-425&426)
- some subs should be at sea, or another base at the start of the game

- actual departure and arrival dates on relevant bases when possible
- in game arrival dates and bases
- in game departure dates from game
- notes of various characters

With some calculating and guess, one can fill up the missing data (like arrival at base X, when departure from base Y is known), etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

It is my view that the problem with China is, at it's core, supply. If the Japanese subject the Chinese to a solid campaign of airbase bombing (and it would be stupid not to), I don't think that the Chinese can gather enough supply to effectively utilize their device pools. It's no good boosting device production if bases don't have enough supply to take replacements.

To that end, I'm thinking of the following:

- Give a bit more supply to the Chungking stockpile on Dec 7th, and perhaps the Sian stockpile as well.
- Boost automatic supply generation all across China.
- Less disabled industry in Chinese held cities.

Hopefully, this should mean that Chinese units remain poorly equipped (as historical) but don't end up being starved to death.

While I certainly agree supply is one of the main issues in China I think garrison requirements could help with some of the issues too. If increased on both sides it will tie down more forces lessening the amount of combat which in turn would burn less supply.

Personally I would like to see a substantial increase in Japanese garrisons of Chinese held territory. This would stop the Japanese from steamrolling all over China in a couple of months as AV would bleed off the attack to become garrisons for each captured city. At least enough to force the Japanese to commit unrestricted troops in order to knock China out.

As it is now China is almost a "freebie" even with existing troops. I don´t think Japans ability to knock China out should be removed completely but it should require a huge investment in troops to do so (including a good chunk of the unrestricted Japanese IDs).

Another thing that could be looked at is the many Manchurian armor and artillery units that can be bought out. When these are sent to China the engine goes bonanza as Chinese squads simply cannot deal with the firepower. Perhaps make at least some of them perma restricted?

Obviously this is hard to balance right but it can´t get much worse then it already is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

RE: China -

A problem that I don't think anyone has realized with China is that almost all of the Chinese units (maybe it is actually all) start with X number of devices... but half of those are disabled. The Allied player can't stop these squads from repairing to active status, and as they do so the unit will require more supply than it did before repairing. I would look at changing this in some way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Manchurian artillery in China - Many of the big guns are siege type guns and in reality would take months, not just a few weeks to move. So, my way to slow this down would be add a static device to those units and be able to upgrade to a non-static device say in mid-42 to reflect the amount of time needed to relocate them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Got all the available sub data together ...
You will find differences in few things:
- class differences on 4 Gato boats listed in game as Balao (SS-361-364)
- class differences on 2 Balao boats listed in game as Tench (SS-425&426)
- some subs should be at sea, or another base at the start of the game

- actual departure and arrival dates on relevant bases when possible
- in game arrival dates and bases
- in game departure dates from game
- notes of various characters

With some calculating and guess, one can fill up the missing data (like arrival at base X, when departure from base Y is known), etc.

Thanks for this!

quote:

Everything looks great regarding the data, both in quantity and structure. The only thing I could ask would be if you could mark clearly the subs that require changes so that it's as simple as possible for me to change in the editor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BJStone

What do you think about taking off the STATIC setting on the CD units? I think many of those are also white-restricted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
As for DaBabes, I handle that with trepidation. It changes alot, and not many of the changes can be seen on the surface. It's something for future consideration, but would require additional work.

DaBabes, for example, splits the IJA infantry squads into regular infantry squads and "heavy" infantry squads. That means I need to work out where my proposed '45 IJA squad fits within the scenario 1 paradigm, and then do the same for the DaBabes scenario. Considering I still need to find out what the formula for defining a squads anti-soft/anti-armor values are, there's some work to be done.

I'm not saying I won't apply my changes to DaBabes, but not yet (and if the DaBabes folks let me!).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

How is the project doing? No news around....
I am currently working on "Optimal Base and Date of Arrival" for US Destroyers - now in 1943 arrivals... going through whatever source available (yet without official records) to get them as close to reality as possible. Where not possible the best guess is used to calculate the arrival from the available data...

Probably one more data error in Scen 1 - ID1647 Radar Device (Observer/Listening device) should probably upgrade to ID1648 Ta-Chi X radar which upgrades to ID1649 Ta-Chi X radar...
Device is used by IJAAF Battalions - which are therefore stuck with original device ...

Ah and there is also the "Ohka" thing ... I do not know if it is already fixed in this project...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Ola hey!

Here we are with our last update on US Navy combat ships arrivals:
CVs, CVEs, BBs, BCs, CAs and CLs!

Here is the errata:
CVs:
CV-4 Ranger - is not in game (served as training carrier, in the pacific too!)
CV-20 Bennington - should be Short Hull class
CV-21 Boxer - should be Long Hull class
CV-31 Bon Homme Richard - should be Short Hull Class

CVEs:
CVE-9 Bogue - missing
CVE-11 Card - missing
CVE-13 Core - missing
CVE-57 Coral Sea - was renamed Anzio on 15.9.1944 (way after arrival)
CVE-63 Midway - was renamed St.Lo on 10.10.1944 (way after arrival)
CVE-64 Tripoli - missing
CVE-99 Admirality Islands - in game as Admirality Island
CVE-112 Siboney - in game as Sibony
CVE-55 Casablanca - served as crew training ship
CVE-89 Takanis Bay - served as pilot training carrier
CVE-105 Commencement Bay - served as crew training ship

- most CVEs had very short shakedown, followed by a "ferry" trip or two, and then only getting their Air Groups and carrier training...
- I have stuck to the game decision to have them arrive about 1 month after commissioning
- most of the early carriers got their Air groups, most of the later ones served only as aircraft ferrys/replacement carriers

Battleships:
BB-35 Nevada served in Atlantic from July 1943 to 8.11.1944 (should have withdraval and return)
BB-57 South Dakota was repaired in New York, served in Atlantic from may 1943 to 21.8.1943 (should have withdrawal and return)

Cruisers:
CL-7 Raleigh - should depart about 22.6.1945
CL-12 Marblehead - should depart about 15.4.1942 (Departed Simonstown (Cape Town) for New York after being damaged near Java), and never returned to the Pacific
CA-136 Chicago II has its arrival date probably typo-ed a year earlier

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer