quote:

Dili: I checked Shinshu Maru. It is appearing at game start. It has the proper outfit of 5 x 75mm AA guns.
It is classified as an LSD. I see no sense in which it is "screwed up." Can you be more specific?

quote:

Your data for Kitakami is not exactly wrong either - but it IS wrong for 1941. That is 1944 data - after hp was reduced to 75,000 and (probably) bunkerage as well. Anyway - it is in that configuration the range was 4000 nm - not earlier.  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

Actually - there is only a single 4th Fleet unit at Truk - 4th Fleet HQ - and it is not static. Since Truk really is SE Fleet area - it may be best to revert to calling it that. THEN you will see the base and static units all of the same command - and they may do better AI wise. But that means AI will NOT "know" that Truck is the logistic root of 4th Fleet area - and who knows where it will draw from?
And no - it isn't enough to have the HQ to get units there. We have a 4th Fleet HQ at Truk

Okay seems that i am not being understood so will revert to a simple question: Why IJN Truk Base Fortress ; IJN Truk SGNF; IJN Truk NGF and IJN Truk AA Rgt arent 4th Fleet units since Truk is a 4th Fleet base? 

quote:



It is posted above: "Truk is the HEART of the SE Fleet area" (emphasis added)

These units are meant to defend Truk - and Truk itself is now classified as SE Fleet as well

Leaving 4th Fleet with no home. Poor 4th Fleet. It is like Northern Command in all mods but RHS - it has
very little resources to play with! And no obvious home until Rabaul is taken. Then - if it falls to SE Fleet command units - it won't even be 4th Fleet I suspect - unless a HUMAN changes it. But AI won't do that - so AI is really messed over - one of the major command areas with NO home at all! Some day I will figure this out. But meanwhile the base and static units are the same command. Happy?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

On a DD having 1.5 reloads is well modeled by 2 for one mount and 1 for another. But on a CA with side tubes, having 1.5 reloads is BETTER modeled by 2 for each mount. In any given action - a ship is lucky to be able to engage twice - and if it does it is probably on the same side (the enemy being that-a-way and not on the opposite side).
Having a full set of reloads for a SIDE is the same as "you can fire twice if the battle lasts long enough and the mounts are not damaged". Since you don't know WHICH side needs reloads - you cannot give 2 to one side and 1 to the "refused" side. Actually - the ship can fire THREE times - it just takes a longer time to get the third set into action - since either you must turn 180 or you must unload and reload the tubes on the engaged side - and it will be very unusual you could do that - and STILL have no damage to mounts. But making - say - forward tubes reload and after ones not is slot inefficient (which matters to data entry time and to processing time) - and does not model the normal case - which is that you reload BOTH mounts on the ENGAGED side - since you have enough to do that.

I can see your point but to make a judgement i need to know the game routines concerning side firing. If it changes sides when torpedoes are depleted that would be unfair for allies. Also if the Japanese gamer uses all it's torpedoes  it is an increase of 25% from what existed in reality!

quote:



Well - we don't see the code directly. But it is a rare ship that can be in a battle big enough to expend more than THREE sets of torpedoes - STILL be undamaged - and STILL have fuel enough to go hunting another battle. I think - statistically - that will happen so rarely we need not have great concern about it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

On Kageros - only the first "flight" (in RN usage) had the SP guns. Although technically you are right because you said "75 degrees" - the DP mounting only elevated to 70 degrees - even when DP mounts were shipped NEVER did they reach 75 degrees - if memory serves (I didn't take the time to look it up). If we had unlimited time - and unlimited slots - we might separate the ships by "flight". This sort of thing happens a great deal in RHS - you will find some ships taylored in great detail - particularly on IJN side - because I know them well and I like working them

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNJAP_5-50_3ns.htm  also Combined Fleet and Profile Morskie state that Kageros didnt have High Angle mounts.
What the Takhishi Hara "solution" had to do with High Angle mounts? You can shot against skip bombing with every naval gun a ship had.
Putting a real DP gun in them changes the whole thing.

quote:



IF a gun won't elevate I won't classify it as DP. And - indeed - in WITP you CANNOT shoot at a skip bomber with "everything on board" - ONLY with the AA and DP guns. What Hara's solution had to do with high angle mounts was that it was DOCTRINE to shoot at planes - they had sights and fire control solutions in place NOT PRESENT on SP guns - and they could rapidly IMPLEMENT the AA doctrine - regardless of elevation - when ordered to do so. IF we classify those guns as SP they will NEVER shoot at any plane. I regard that as more ahistorical than permitting them to shoot with a routine that gives AA guns in general too low a probability of hitting. It is probably more right in RHS than for true AA guns - the problem isn't with these guns - it is with many others! And there is a high price for this classification: the guns lose their superior range performance vs surface targets. [So do the 100 mm guns of the Akitzuki. They fire to a greater range still - but I don't allow it in RHS - because I don't want AA at such great ranges]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

It is hard to know - and I have been collecting statistics - but tentatively I think ALL AAA is GROSSLY undervalued in WITP. USAAF recorded AAA was the primary cause of damage and loss due to enemy action.

That depends on war period. From every mission/attack i remember i never saw outrageous casualities except the Devastators at Midway and they were mainly prey of Zeros and not of AA. Yamato attack didnt showed many kills from Japanese AA same for many others like Bismark Sea. 

quote:



Lots of things determine if you are effective or not. Anti-air warfare is hard - only ASW is worse - and if you are not on your toes you won't even get off a round. [I saw an F-5 sneak in on my DDG in the Taiwan Strait - and had it not been a recon mission - we would have taken a hit even if it only had iron bombs. I "saw" it ONLY outbound - after it knocked me off my feet. Modern radar notwithstanding - we never had a chance. American lookouts are notorious for not doing well - and not often spotting things they have not been told are there. JF Dunnigan says we STILL cound not prevent WWII era kamakazes from delivering on our ships - with modern weapons - and after analysis - I agree]
What matters is the potential - and the die rolls decide if it applies this time?

At Midway EVERY attack prior to the fatal one was ineffective - and in general the AAA did very well indeed - Japanese or no. It didn't get worse as the war went on - it got better. But Japan had devised the ONLY proper AAA simulators IN THE WORLD in the 1930s. These used planetarium technology - duplicated all light conditions - flew scale model aircraft - used real gun directors - and analog computers to decide if the aimers had solved the fire control problem vs the real target - or not? We now know that simulators greatly increase operator proficiency - and would not dream of not using them today. Nevertheless - wether a ship is good at AAA or not is not entirely a function of its weapons.
It is how they get used. We can ONLY program its potential - the CODE has to decide if it actually even detected a target to shoot at? If it responded in time or effectively or not? If we don't do that - we deny the code the chance to say "you rolled" whatever the "good" value is. We need to be careful about saying you can NEVER get a shot.

Theory and practice are quite different. IRL you fire lots of rounds per hit. Even my gunners - who hit 5 times out of 6 - probably would do well to score 50% in combat - firing full streams and not just one round per tube. Game designers like GG put lots of things in to tone down what happens. But if you by pass the AA routine altogether - because the guns cannot shoot - you guarantee absolute zero hits - and if that isn't right - then don't do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

What makes a ship a Shimikaze is indeed its fine guns. And the 100 mm guns of Shimakaze are fabulous

Mixup. You are talking about Akitzukis not the Shimakaze.

REPLY: Right.

quote:

Two scenarios have ship eratta not covered by 5.51 or 5.52 - CVO and RAO.

Does that means that is the reason i am not seeing Shinshu Maru yet?

quote:



REPLY: Nope. It was just your CL range data I referred to. Shinshu Maru is in ALL scnarios at ALL levels and working fine. You have not said what the problem is you are having. Get specific - Scenario - version - what is wrong?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

Dili: I checked Shinshu Maru. It is appearing at game start. It has the proper outfit of 5 x 75mm AA guns.
It is classified as an LSD. I see no sense in which it is "screwed up." Can you be more specific?

Sure. I still dont have it in the game. I check the list icon: (list all active ships) S key  and it isnt there. I am reminding some player said it was because it had strange sinking date it is 47797 when i open with editor.

REPLY: Except that was old - he said it had been fixed - and it had. It does not have that date now - has not for many sub versions - and it is working. You have some sort of bad file copy.

quote:

Your data for Kitakami is not exactly wrong either - but it IS wrong for 1941. That is 1944 data - after hp was reduced to 75,000 and (probably) bunkerage as well. Anyway - it is in that configuration the range was 4000 nm - not earlier.  

Page 215 of Cruiser Bible
"b) The powerplant was not modified and the maximum speed of Kitakami during trial runs in 26-27 December 1941 off Sasebo was 31,67 Kt. The endurance amounted to 4000nm at 14kt"


Kitakami had 1260t fuel where the Sendais; Nagaras and Kumas had about 1580t giving them 6000nm at 14kt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

I already saw the 5.53. After playing first turn there is an issue in Saigon that has 1073 airfield damage also Takao and Taihoku in Formosa; Osaka, Nagoya  too ( i didnt check them all because i dont have time right now), Opened with editor the scenario files and there is no damage so it only happens after first turn. Also there is a sort of graphic issue in Bien Hoa(the location just east Saigon) and Truk when the location screen is opened that seems to appear a slash in supplies number but in overall  bases list that slash doesnt appear  anymore in supplies value. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Would not be speedier to restart from 5.52 or 5.51 ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

El Cid Again, false alarm, I suspect.

I clicked on San Francisco base, and er... what have I seen? [8D]

Airfield Runway Damage = 2,971 [:D]

I suspect this can't be intended. But what have you done?? At least this explains these huge-mega-wild operational losses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

You can't? Well, Dili is seeing the same thing with the 5.53 scenario (I am using CVO 6.53). I am going to re-install and see what happens. Just in case.

EDIT 10 OR 15 MINUTES LATER: confirmed, sorry [:(] Re-downloaded the file again (from the Send Space site). Unzipped (Winace), pasted, etc. There is damage in Japanese, Allied airfields (as mentioned, NOT on the 1st turn, but on the 2nd). Maybe you should be calling Houston [:)]

quote:

Okay seems that i am not being understood so will revert to a simple question: Why IJN Truk Base Fortress ; IJN Truk SGNF; IJN Truk NGF and IJN Truk AA Rgt arent 4th Fleet units since Truk is a 4th Fleet base? 

Leaving 4th Fleet with no home. Poor 4th Fleet. It is like Northern Command in all mods but RHS - it has
very little resources to play with! And no obvious home until Rabaul is taken. Then - if it falls to SE Fleet command units - it won't even be 4th Fleet I suspect - unless a HUMAN changes it. But AI won't do that - so AI is really messed over - one of the major command areas with NO home at all! Some day I will figure this out. But meanwhile the base and static units are the same command. Happy?

For God sake listen to what i am telling i dont F***** care if Truk is 4th Fleet since it is probably the best solution. What i wanted is that the units that belong to Truk garrison would be 4th Fleet too. They werent!

quote:

Someone is confused. There are two sets of fuel/range data for all these vessels - one as built (using oil sprayed coal) and one as operated a generation later (without coal). It is impossible for anyone to get all this data right - even the guys who spent almost 40 years doing the Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War - which I love. They have quoted original data - and maybe properly too at that spot - but I am not dealing with that data in 1941. You should not be either.

After that i dont have anything more to say. I will follow my own path.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DrewBlack

El Cid

I have found an error sorry, on the Allied Industrial Units/Fortress they all have as there objective Magadan/Siberia, I hope this is just an error and nothing to sinister to keep us on our toes:-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

6.55 (CVO) did not fix the problem, sorry [&:] The same damage in the same Japanese and Allied airfields.