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: Dailing in on London

 
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: Dailing in on London Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Dailing in on London - 9/7/2017 9:13:24 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That looks very useful. One could go back and look to see if you did this or did that. Like the looks of it.


I see it's value two fold:

1. Provides a thorough change log of the scenario between versions.
2. Allows modders that use another mod(s) as the base of their mod to incorporate changes to the base mod without exhaustive work.

So let's say you really like a mod's ground and naval OOB, but really hate the air OOB. You decide to build your own mod that overhauls the air OOB. A few months later, the base mod makes changes that are really interesting and you want to incorporate SOME of them. You can us the scenario comparison to identify changes and then selectively apply those changes to your scenario.

Unless you're like me and you totally gutted the naval OoB

_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 511
RE: Dailing in on London - 9/7/2017 9:44:32 PM   
decourcy2

 

Posts: 516
Joined: 1/29/2015
Status: offline 		You were commenting on the Japanese breaking the treaty but remember into the 1970's the USA insisted the North Carolina/Washington classes were 35,000 tons.

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 512
RE: Dailing in on London - 9/8/2017 1:13:08 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		That is a GOOD point!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to decourcy2)
Post #: 513
RE: Dailing in on London - 9/8/2017 2:20:42 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: decourcy2

You were commenting on the Japanese breaking the treaty but remember into the 1970's the USA insisted the North Carolina class were 35,000 tons.

Maybe so, but no one builds a battleship on 15,000 tons (or puts Baby in a corner).

_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to decourcy2)
Post #: 514
RE: Dailing in on London - 9/8/2017 2:26:04 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		NO ONE puts BABY in the corner.

(CANNOT believe you made me quote that movie...)

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 515
RE: Dailing in on London - 9/8/2017 3:48:05 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

NO ONE puts BABY in the corner.

(CANNOT believe you made me quote that movie...)

It's good for you.

_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 516
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/9/2017 1:09:24 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Let's go through the Real Life Numbers and ships from Washington vs. the revamped Ships and Numbers for the Mod:

USA
Utah 21,825
Florida 21,825
Wyoming 26,000
Arkansas 26,000
Texas 27,000
New York 27,000
Nevada 27,500
Oklahoma 27,500
Pennsylvania 31,400
Arizona 31,400
Mississippi 32,000
New Mexico 32,000
Idaho 32,000
Tennessee 32,300
California 32,300
Maryland 32,600
West Virginia 32,600
Colorado 32,600

TOTAL: 525,850

Japan
Settsu TARGET SHIP
Kongo 27,500
Hiei 27,500
Haruna 27,500
Kirishima 27,500
Fuso 30,600
Yamashiro 30,600
Ise 31,260
Hyuga 31,260
Nagato 33,800
Mutsu 33,800

TOTAL: 301,230

525,280 x .6 = 315,510 Japan has 14,280 T available but nothing can be built to that tonnage.


NEW NUMBERS

USA
Wyoming TARGET SHIP
Arkansas 26,000
Texas 27,000
New York 27,000
Nevada 27,500
Oklahoma 27,500
Pennsylvania 31,400
Arizona 31,400
Mississippi 32,000
New Mexico 32,000
Idaho 32,000
Tennessee 32,300
California 32,300
Maryland 32,600
West Virginia 32,600
Colorado 32,600
Washington 32,600
Constellation 43,500
+1 New Capital Ship to be built 30,000 T

TOTAL: 597,300

Japan
Settsu TARGET SHIP
Kongo 27,500
Hiei 27,500
Haruna 27,500
Kirishima 27,500
Fuso 30,600
Yamashiro 30,600
Ise 31,260
Hyuga 31,260
Nagato 33,800
Mutsu 33,800
Tosa 39,900
Ishitaka 41,220

TOTAL: 382,440

567,300 x .7 = 397,110 Japan has nearly the same available tonnage (14,670 T) but nothing can be built to that tonnage.

That is the Treaty by specific math and ships.




Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?


_____________________________



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 #: 517
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/9/2017 1:13:33 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		The files have been sent back over to Michael for some stuff he wants to do. Figure we'll release this sometime this coming week. We'll then shift over to BTSL.


_____________________________



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 #: 518
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/9/2017 3:25:58 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?


Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 519
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/9/2017 5:08:25 PM   
1EyedJacks


Posts: 2244
Joined: 3/12/2006
From: The Eastern Sierras
Status: offline 		Or a stronger experimental push with those light Kitikuma cruisers that sport a pair of twenty-torpedo broadsides? Wouldn't it be kind of fun to have 12 of those available early in the war?

_____________________________

TTFN,

Mike

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 520
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/9/2017 5:47:50 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?


Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not.


This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much).

< Message edited by Kitakami -- 9/9/2017 5:50:47 PM >

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 521
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/9/2017 5:55:04 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?


Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not.


This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much).

It would be an excellent impetus pre-war for the US 12-inch "Cruiser-Killer" class:


_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 522
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/9/2017 9:54:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		You know...I have to admit...against better judgement...this is an interesting idea.

Timeline:
Japan gets stuck with this 'extra' tonnage that serves no real purpose. No one expects Japan to do anything useful with it. As could be expected, the Japanese begin experimenting with various possibilities.

Germany's Deutchland-Class 'pocket battleship's' plans are revealed in 1928. 10-12,000 T with 6 11" guns...hmmm...THAT is interesting.

Japan's allotment can be almost TWICE that. If the Germans can do it...perhaps Japan can...

France and the USA begins looking at the German design as well. The new American Capital Ship authorized at Washington is created. It carries 3x2 14" guns and has a speed of 28 Knots.

Hmmmm...

France responds with the Strasbourg-Class.

Germany responds to those BCs by the Schranhorst-Class of BC.

CERTAINLY Looks like a plausible timeline to me.

WHAT SAY YOU??

Give me a wessel that is a Light Battlecruiser or a super-heavy Command Cruiser. Put on your thinking caps and look at Japanese designs and possible directions they might--reasonably move. Given Japan's proclivities...we have 15,000 available...can we make a ship that is 18-20,000?





_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 523
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/9/2017 9:55:54 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?


Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not.


This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much).

It would be an excellent impetus pre-war for the US 12-inch "Cruiser-Killer" class:



Dadman: Can you give me a SOURCE for your five turret BC? I have not found something in mine to run that way. I've found 4x3 12" or the 3x2 14".


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 524
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/9/2017 9:56:59 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?


Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not.


This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much).


Probably need to be TWIN Turrets since the Japanese don't move to triples until the Mogami's and Yamato. Course THIS could be the experiment FOR Triple turrets...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 525
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/9/2017 10:58:48 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?


Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not.


This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much).


Probably need to be TWIN Turrets since the Japanese don't move to triples until the Mogami's and Yamato. Course THIS could be the experiment FOR Triple turrets...




Hmm...

6x 36cm/45 in three twin turrets, A, B, and Y.
4x-6x 12cm (or 12.7cm) AA single mounts (to be replaced by 10cm double mounts later on).
12x-18x 25mm AA in triple mounts.
Torpedoes (no less than 8 tubes, perhaps more).
Speed of some 27-odd knots.

I am no historian like you guys, but the above feels somewhat right... and you did ask for opinions :)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 526
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/9/2017 11:03:59 PM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Check at furashita fleet site, chichibu and goryo.....

I REALLY like the idea of those alaskas!!

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 527
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 12:20:55 AM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?


Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not.


This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much).

It would be an excellent impetus pre-war for the US 12-inch "Cruiser-Killer" class:



Dadman: Can you give me a SOURCE for your five turret BC? I have not found something in mine to run that way. I've found 4x3 12" or the 3x2 14".


Friedman's U.S. Battleships on page 224 refers to a 35,000 ton design being made to carry fifteen 12in/50cal. In the sketch at the top of the page, it schemes out a 30,000 ton ship with a 31.5 knot speed, a 12 inch belt and 5 inch deck. As a battle cruiser she could sacrifice some armor to make 33kts.

_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 528
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 1:21:33 AM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: traskott

Check at furashita fleet site, chichibu and goryo.....

I REALLY like the idea of those alaskas!!


Chichibu looks pretty good at 19,000T.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 529
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 1:22:24 AM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?


Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not.


This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much).

It would be an excellent impetus pre-war for the US 12-inch "Cruiser-Killer" class:



Dadman: Can you give me a SOURCE for your five turret BC? I have not found something in mine to run that way. I've found 4x3 12" or the 3x2 14".


Friedman's U.S. Battleships on page 224 refers to a 35,000 ton design being made to carry fifteen 12in/50cal. In the sketch at the top of the page, it schemes out a 30,000 ton ship with a 31.5 knot speed, a 12 inch belt and 5 inch deck. As a battle cruiser she could sacrifice some armor to make 33kts.



Will gladly look into that!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 530
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 1:23:05 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Dadman: Can you take the art you have for 5x3 and make it into 4x3 with super-firing turrets on bow and stern?


_____________________________



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 #: 531
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 1:54:05 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline 		I have been stalking this thread all day and couldn't post. I have been screaming IJN Chichibu. I'm glad someone mentioned it. I found this artwork for it, hope it helps John. Its all I got.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 532
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 1:57:27 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		From Furushita's Fleet:

Displacement 19,000 tons
Armament (BCL) 2 x 2 16"/45 , 1 x 3 6"
4 x 4 TT + Medium and Light AA
Speed 33 knots

Mentioned in Allied literature of WW II dealing with Japan's naval builds, a ship called the Chichibu was thought to be a Japanese improvement on the German pocket-battleship idea, that is, a few battleship guns on a cruiser hull. The US Navy was so sold on the existence of this fictitious enemy ship that it actually built the Alaska-class 'large cruisers' to match it!

In "Grand Fleet" the Chichibu is designed to fight cruisers or heavily-damaged capital ships with large-calibre guns and torpedoes. Built in secret when Japan was considering withdrawing from adherence to the Washington and London Treaties, this stretched heavy cruiser could outrun all except a few of the world's fastest battleships. Two 16" turrets from the converted Tosa and a single triple 6" turret from the converted CL Mogami formed the main armament.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 533
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 1:58:13 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Good to see you DOCUP!


_____________________________



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 #: 534
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 2:11:24 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline 		I kinda like this version better. Looks more like a raider with the extra 3 6 in guns

https://dilandu.deviantart.com/art/Tsukuba-class-heavy-armored-cruisers-AU-447481540

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 535
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 10:31:33 AM   
traskott


Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline 		Its looks better yes...

Problem with Chichibu et alii is how to employ them. I have use them and are very dificult to employ... not enough ROF i think, so a good secondary battery and plenty of TT are a must.

The Alaska killer concept is better. I ran some test with a 12x8", 16x6" or 16x5" and ooooooh boy. They are truly beasts..

< Message edited by traskott -- 9/10/2017 10:32:54 AM >

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 536
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 3:16:04 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I like Chichibu as a choice. It actually fits with the Tonnage (from a Japanese perspective) and carries serious punch from two of Kaga's unused four turrets...

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 537
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 3:19:31 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Dadman: Can you take the art you have for 5x3 and make it into 4x3 with super-firing turrets on bow and stern?


Yes, depending on my schedule, it may not be ready until next weekend.

_____________________________

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

CVB Langley:

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 538
RE: Dailing in on Washington - 9/10/2017 8:11:50 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		That would be fine. Please create it!

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 539
LBC Chichibu - 9/11/2017 2:40:50 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Taking a complete shot-in-the-dark, here is the Light Battlecruiser Chichibu. Her turrets come from the incomplete Kaga. I imagined a 'typical' Japanese CA and raised her by about 30-40%. Figured that the initial displacement was around 19,000 but has gone up with reconstruction.

Have no idea regarding armor or durability. Think I need to raise Endurance and Fuel. Took a slight lowering of BC Amagi and the Kongos.

Am not wedded to this presently so provide some good thoughts and constructive commentary!





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/11/2017 2:43:07 AM >

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 540
Page:   <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Dailing in on London Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   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

0.906