1st Class DDs (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message

John 3rd -> 1st Class DDs (3/10/2011 6:58:34 PM)

FatR--I'll get the new DDs added to the list and get everything changed as we've decided regarding the 1st Class DDs. When this is finished (probably tomorrow) you'll get the Mod and be able to get to work.



John 3rd -> BB, BC, and CA Guns (3/10/2011 10:36:00 PM)

I was working my through the BB, BC, and CA Upgrades and had the thought hit me that what would the Japanese do with all these secondary guns we are switching out in favor of the 3.9" new AA guns.

Could we use them somewhere?



anarchyintheuk -> RE: BB, BC, and CA Guns (3/10/2011 10:46:00 PM)

Most likely the IJN would have split them amongst cd installations. The older admirals would have remembered the effect that Port Arthur's installations had during that campaign.



John 3rd -> RE: BB, BC, and CA Guns (3/11/2011 3:58:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Most likely the IJN would have split them amongst cd installations. The older admirals would have remembered the effect that Port Arthur's installations had during that campaign.


You read my mind. Wonder if we could make some minor CD units that come into being in late-43 and early-44? Would make sense that the Japanese would use the older weapons...



FatR -> RE: BB, BC, and CA Guns (3/11/2011 9:09:01 AM)

Matsu-class destroyers still use those guns, so don't go too wild with assigning them to coast defense. I wouldn't mind to see some static CD units armed with them, arriving at key bases, like Rabaul, Singapore and Palembang, in 1943.



FatR -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/11/2011 10:48:53 AM)

Well, about the results of the air test, there are a few obvious conslusions:

1)Shusei was designed by Allied sympathizers.
2)All fighters who rely on a single big gun fail. Logical, considering, that such guns mostly offer less than 100% increase in damage, at the cost of having their accuracy reduced by several times, but wanted to confirm it empirically. Some fail less hard than others and Ki-102b might be worth building, because fighter-bomber units won't accept better planes, but still, they are generally inferior to single-engined counterparts even before you consider that they are more expensive.
3)Late-war 30mm guns seem to offer fairly marginal improvement over 20mm guns, even against heavy bombers. The difference in number of frags between Shinden, that packs 4x30mm guns on the centerline and Jack, with 4x20mm in front, just isn't very big.
4)Speed and armament seem to figure significantly in ability to avoid losses from bombers' defensive fire. Compared again Jack to much faster and better armed Shinden, the latter actually had more edge in survivability, than it had in killing power, resulting in kill/loss ratio twice as good. Now durability, even when changed by small number, also seems to give large returns, but only with all things being equal. Ki-94-II and Ki-201 both have durability of 34, they both are survivability champions, but much faster Ki-201 has kill-to-loss ratio double that of Ki-94-II. Meanwhile, tough but slow Ki-102s suffered much worse pounding than any of them, Ki-93s, even tougher than Ki-102s, also took heavier per day losses, so it is obvious that durability alone does not determine losses against bombers.

A7M3-J great survival rate is still a bit of a mistery in the light of that. It's a bit tougher than most single engined-contestants (32 vs 30 on Frank, Jack, Shinden) but is not armed better than Shinden (scored less kills than it, too) and much slower. It is very possible that having cannons firing up allows an attacking fighter to use different calculations, that reduce its chance of getting hit by defensive fire.


I need more data, to form definite conclusions, beyond obvious points. Will need to tinker with the setup again, using different planes. A6M5c and N1K5-J might be worth placing into competition, as well as some fighters added or modified in RA.



John 3rd -> RE: BB, BC, and CA Guns (3/11/2011 4:19:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Matsu-class destroyers still use those guns, so don't go too wild with assigning them to coast defense. I wouldn't mind to see some static CD units armed with them, arriving at key bases, like Rabaul, Singapore and Palembang, in 1943.


I had thought about the Matsu's and their use of the guns as well. Perhaps you hit the nail on the head...

Why not look at the addition of several small CD units at the following locations: Rabaul (43), Singapore (43), Palembang (43), and Saipan(early-44)? Would the Marianas (Tinian and Guam) be a logical site for anything additonal? These would not be overly large units since they would pack the 5" Guns but a welcome addition they would be.

Could put together some unit possibilities and Post them here for commentary.



John 3rd -> Top Gun (3/11/2011 4:20:40 PM)

FatR--I like the testing, analysis, and thinking so far. Keep us up on your progress there.



darbycmcd -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/12/2011 2:50:18 PM)

I am surprised (not too much really) that no one commented on FatR's air test.

well taking stats from here
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm

XXI BC lost 52 planes to enemy fighters..... in all combat operations (26,401 effective sorties about .2% loss rate to enemy fighters)
it shot down 756 enemy fighters

for a bomber to fighter exchange ratio of .069

this test shows for an average aggregate
116 lost bombers from 800 sorties (14.5% loss rate)
31.2 lost fighters
and exchange ratio of 3.72

does anyone else think this is a problem? the WORST fighter in the test is the closest to reality.
Are these the stock fighters or are they souped-up ones?



treespider -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/12/2011 4:12:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I am surprised (not too much really) that no one commented on FatR's air test.

well taking stats from here
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm

XXI BC lost 52 planes to enemy fighters..... in all combat operations (26,401 effective sorties about .2% loss rate to enemy fighters)
it shot down 756 enemy fighters

for a bomber to fighter exchange ratio of .069

this test shows for an average aggregate
116 lost bombers from 800 sorties (14.5% loss rate)
31.2 lost fighters
and exchange ratio of 3.72

does anyone else think this is a problem? the WORST fighter in the test is the closest to reality.
Are these the stock fighters or are they souped-up ones?



Beware of bomber gunner claims...much better to use the claimed losses reported by the engaging fighters and compare to the losses reported by the bombing forces.

You may find that the bombers claimed 756 fighters when in fact they only got 200.



darbycmcd -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/12/2011 4:27:24 PM)

ah, ok. pick a fraction you like and i think the point is the same.



FatR -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/12/2011 5:50:46 PM)

200 is an very optimistic estimate. Heavy bomber gunners often overclaimed by a huge factor, in Europe an average was 10 claims per actual kill.

Anyway, darbymcd, what's your point supposed to be? That an ahistorical number of planes (including a whole bunch of advanced planes never mass-produced IRL), crewed by pilots of mostly ahistorical quality, meeting the type of raid that was generally considered too risky and costly IRL, at least until collapse of Japanese airforce by summer of 1945, can beat it back? Well... so? The game would have been broken if even almost 500 first-class fighters wouldn't have been able to incur unsustainable casualties on a daylight B-29 attack at medium altitude. Even within the limits of the test, where Japanese given a ton of cool toys through the editor, so I can see how they work, both the problem (unescorted 4Es are taking too many loses) and the solution (bomb at night, night interception hardly ever does anything to B-29, even with the most advanced fightes available, I didn't even bother to record the results, because they were practically nonexistent for all types) are exactly as in history.


To John: it is hard to predict where the Allies are going to attack in the game, as it was IRL (at least to predict in time for large scale preparations), so the best places to add extra CDs (which, with 127/40 DP guns will double as AAA units) are strategically important ports, like those already mentioned. And Saipan already has an infamously strong (in the game) CD unit. Better add one at Guam. And maybe at Bataan (early-1944).



John 3rd -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/12/2011 11:53:04 PM)

The doubling as heavy AA is an added bonus that I thought about earlier. Cannot complain regarding that.

Concur with your thinking regarding Saipan. We'll do Guam (late-43) and perhaps Bataan. Need to actually get a grasp of home many weapons we are looking at.



Terminus -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/13/2011 12:21:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

I am surprised (not too much really) that no one commented on FatR's air test.

well taking stats from here
http://www.usaaf.net/digest/operations.htm

XXI BC lost 52 planes to enemy fighters..... in all combat operations (26,401 effective sorties about .2% loss rate to enemy fighters)
it shot down 756 enemy fighters

for a bomber to fighter exchange ratio of .069

this test shows for an average aggregate
116 lost bombers from 800 sorties (14.5% loss rate)
31.2 lost fighters
and exchange ratio of 3.72

does anyone else think this is a problem? the WORST fighter in the test is the closest to reality.
Are these the stock fighters or are they souped-up ones?



Beware of bomber gunner claims...much better to use the claimed losses reported by the engaging fighters and compare to the losses reported by the bombing forces.

You may find that the bombers claimed 756 fighters when in fact they only got 200.


And just in case it wasn't clear: The A2A combat report is also covered by the FoW.



John 3rd -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/13/2011 3:15:18 PM)

Stanislav--regarding your A-t-A Experiment:

1. Do you intend to make changes within the RA Mod air production?
2. If so, what are your primary ideas?
3. Do we have any work for our resident aircraft art specialist--Red Lancer?

If possible (I'm at work [8|]) I'll get the DD taken care of today and put together a proposal for those small CD units we've spoken on...



darbycmcd -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/13/2011 4:27:59 PM)

I think I made an unfair assumption that the test that FatR was doing was for the purpose of creating better interceptors for this mod. I think he was saying that was not the case, that this test was with data that would not likely appear in the game, so it may not matter. I didn't state my thinking very well about what I thought was happening. Basically, if you make interceptors that are (as these are) 50x better at shooting down allied heavy bombers than RL, and don't change at very least the production sched for the allies, I think it is a problem. I should have made that more explicit, sorry. I just wanted to show how much better these results were, to provide some data for game balance. If you have over 10% loss rate for the allies, it changes the complexion of the late war enormously. but i guess that was not the intent of the test anyway so i am sorry to FatR.

As far as the data, yeah we all know that kills are overreported. but these were the stats from the official afterwar report, so it is difficult to a priori dismiss them in the absence of specific information that they are spurious. so lets say 'use with caution'. and since really that is not the important stat anyway, it isn't worth too much thought.

FoW, this was a sandbox test as far as i know, and FatR is i believe not the kind of guy that would forget to look at both sides in a test....

so, i didn't mean to kick anyones favorite puppy, i was just pointing out that it is often easy to get a bit into the weeds with these things and forget to come up and see the big picture. if i was an allied player and spent 2 years playing and then found out that the japanese could basically attit down my B29s (remember i only get a total of 80 replacements / month through most of 45) i would be sort of .... unhappy with the historical basis of that design decision. that is all i am saying.



John 3rd -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/13/2011 6:48:44 PM)

While I'm thinking about I wanted to Post a comment that perhaps we should look at engines within the Mod as well. Specifically:

1. Do we have enough in production at start?
2. Are there enough research plants running to facilitate later war production?

Air Minister Benoit raised these concerns to me a couple of days ago and thought I should put them out for consumption.



FatR -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/13/2011 6:57:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Stanislav--regarding your A-t-A Experiment:

1. Do you intend to make changes within the RA Mod air production?

Regarding Japanese production, I feel that the current picture is mostly fine but could use a few fixes and improvements to both production trees and planes, to make some of the currently gimped options more attractive to players. Regarding Allied side, I think Allies should get significantly more aircraft replacements in 1944-1946, reflecting realization of the greater challenge in Allied HQs, but these aircraf should primarily be second-class fighers (including older models remaining in production for longer times) and single/twin-engined bombers. Just to, you know, incentivise greater tactical variance than applying P-47/4E hammer.

I want to run a lot more tests (including flak tests) before formulating proposals, and with my job catching up to me, this might take a week or two more, because they are time-consuming and tedious.


EDIT: I also plan to read on every major Japanese plane type for which I can get a good book. So far I've found interesting game-relevent stuff on D3A (in Peter C. Smith's excellent book from Crowood aviation series) and Ki-84 (in one of those Polish/English publications) this way. Unfortunately, the time is still a problem, but more importantly, detailed books on Japanese planes are problematic to obtain (if they even exist for some types). Well, that's why knowing languages of both sides is so important to seriously study a history of a military conflict... thankfully we're just trying to improve an althistorical mod here, not write a book.




FatR -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/13/2011 11:40:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

While I'm thinking about I wanted to Post a comment that perhaps we should look at engines within the Mod as well. Specifically:

1. Do we have enough in production at start?
2. Are there enough research plants running to facilitate later war production?

Air Minister Benoit raised these concerns to me a couple of days ago and thought I should put them out for consumption.


Were there any changes to engine production yet? If no, of course Japan is short. Then again, stock is short on engines as well (Ha-32 - 60 production, 96 demand), just less so. I recommend improving the production to the level where there is still 20-30% shortage of Ha-32 at the start start (not counting any possible aircraft production expansions), and Ha-35 production only covers current needs.

Whether you mean engine research plants, or aircraft research plants, I don't see any real shortage. Currently I'm seriously accelerating 11 plane types in my Scen 70 game. A couple more have 1-2 facilities devoted to them. This cost a mountain of supply, of course (not as much as my far more ambitious research program in my Scen 2 game, though), but well, good things in life aren't free.



FatR -> RE: Top Gun-1945 (3/14/2011 4:41:21 PM)

And to darbymcd: daylight B-29 bombing campaign against Home Islands - before serious effort to destroy Japanese aviation by carrier raids and land-bases fighter sweeps, and grounding of Japanese aviation, including the training program, by fuel shortages - had limited effect in real life (regardless of lolclaims). By my rough estimation, in AE it will be more costly (if Japanese aviation collapses earlier, the game will not last into 1945...), but more destructive. I'll try to take note of the damage B-29s can deal even against extreme concentration of interceptors in the next series of test. However, considering practical unstoppability of the night bombing option at the moment, I don't see how Allied players can have any ground to complain about efficiency of B-29s either way.

Also: all of the tested planes in the table I posted are from the stock.



mikemike -> RE: FatR's Thoughts (3/15/2011 5:57:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


4)The RL project of Type 1 APD/LSI is replaced by the project based on the hull of Matsu DD class, to unify their production. These ships are signficantly smaller, benefit from being unified with a mass-produced DD class in most details, and so can be built in greater numbers. Expand the program to 35 APDs from 28, to reflect that. Endurance, durability, speed and so on - as Matsu class. Armament:
1x127/40 F
3x25mm RS
3x25mm LS
3x25mm R (in single mounts)
2xType 2 DC R
Type 13 Radar

Capacity: 300 troops/200 cargo.

So, still Dauntless fodder, but at least less eggs in every individual basker.



Actually, the T1 class was close to the Matsu class in size, anyway, a few metres shorter and about 0,85 m wider. Its hull construction was closer to the Tachibanas (avoid curved hull plating at any cost) and Kure built them in sections (building time 3-6 months). Also, the type had half the machinery of the Matsu/Tachibana class, being single-shaft, so the type you propose would certainly have much less load capacity and be rather more expensive than the RL design, two additional boilers and one additional turbine eating vital interior space. The major bottleneck in IJN shipbuilding must have been engines at that time (two Unryu CVs were equipped with DD engines because of that, possibly the sets that were earmarked for the cancelled Akizuki DDs), so I think your modification, needing 70 turbine sets instead of 28, would be rather counter-productive. Better stay with the RL design.



FatR -> RE: FatR's Thoughts (3/15/2011 10:55:34 AM)

Thanks for the feedback, mikemike. John, if so, let's leave Type 1 APDs as they are.

Also, did you take note that the current construction force is half of stock, not half of previous Scen 70?



John 3rd -> RE: FatR's Thoughts (3/16/2011 7:10:25 PM)

Sorry. Work has been--KINDLY--exciting.

I've already began work to make the slight changes we originally described for the IJN LCUs providing a few more engineers and vehicles. Am not doing near as much as we did in the original RA but it will be some. The IJA stays the same as we originally intended.

Mikemike's comment holds a lot of water. Makes solid sense to me and I concur with your thoughts Stanislav.



FatR -> RE: FatR's Thoughts (3/16/2011 8:53:57 PM)

In the same boat with the work here...

Meanwhile, two more bugs:

1)B7A3 and D4Y5 have no max loads stated. I wonder if this will make them unable to carry ordnance, or if stated weapon stats will take precedent.
2)The first upgrade to Tone-Kai cruisers seem to do literally nothing, except forcing time in shipyards.



John 3rd -> RE: FatR's Thoughts (3/17/2011 1:36:33 AM)

Have to take a look at the Tone-Kai. Will check in the morning.

Don't know regarding the two aircraft. Does anyone know about Stanilav's question?



darbycmcd -> RE: FatR's Thoughts (3/17/2011 2:37:55 PM)

FatR - that is a good point about the bombers being somewhat overrated as well, I think it may be part of the impact of pilot skill we see with some other missions. You are probably right that the night bombing model is probably a better representation. But I have only played Japan into that period one time with AE and a couple times in the old version but I don't remember feeling that the allied bombing campaign was overpowered. What has been your practical experience with late war japanese been like, overpowered?
But my point was really not a matter of how many fighters they shoot down, in fact my economy as Japan was cranking out planes by the bucket load way into 45 (a product of having so many HI stored up, I can't imagine going into late 44 with less than 1 million) that losses are nearly irrelevant (pilots however....). It is more the losses of the bombers. Because you are using historic replacement rates but introducing potentially very ahistoric loss rates, a.... frustrating... imbalance may occur. I am not saying it definately will be, but I think it is something to think about.



FatR -> RE: 1st Class DDs (3/17/2011 6:07:38 PM)

Almost forgot - another upgrade that doesn't add any new devices is 5/42 upgrade to Shimushu-class escorts. This one is from the stock though, so I don't know what, if anything, they are supposed to get on this date.



bklooste -> RE: 1st Class DDs (3/18/2011 8:22:03 AM)

A bit late, but one thing i dont follow is the Aganos..In RL these were a war time compromise using existing substandard guns. Bringing there forward in the light of scraping the Katories don't make sense.

Would they instead not cancel the third and 4th Tone or bring forward the Ibukis ? At least they would have worked more on the Tones and given them a proper air complement ( with an air focused command) . Consider those Agano hulls are not that different from the Mogami, ok the Mogamis are 23% longer and 50% bigger they still need the same shipyward , Suzuya ( by then standard design) spend 12 months on the slips Agano 15 months . A lot of the cost of those heavy cruisers is armament but you have the superior 6.1" guns from the Mogami conversions especially if you dont build the Musashi ( who does ?)

Also go easy on the Akizuki early but ramp them up later , they were an AA design and their usefullnes vs ships was not fully appreciated . Also the 100mm/65 were a bottleneck to their delivery.

Ben



John 3rd -> RE: 1st Class DDs (3/18/2011 2:10:02 PM)

Hey Ben! Good to see you still with us.

I have a morning off and no turns in my box so I'm gonna work on the DDs, check the Tone-Kai first upgrade, 5/42 Shim Escort upgrade, and think on your comments regarding the Agano's/Tone's. Reactions:

1. Do you have any info as to what the Tone's might have had for aircraft?

2. Agree with the Akizuki's. Will keep them to one shipyard until the last Yugumo arrives THEN ramp them up with both yards producing them.

3. We ramped up some armament plants at the outset with RA to reflect a greater investment and expansion of the 100/65.



FatR -> RE: 1st Class DDs (3/18/2011 3:25:37 PM)

Don't forget that pre-war extras Akizukis reflect earlier and faster adoption of the program, these should not directly interfere with Yugumos. Cuts here are done at the expense of light cruisers, not other DDs, as we discussed. Of course, those that do replace Yugumo-class destroyers in the queue should not be available before the latter are in stock.

About cruisers, don't forget, that Mogamis were severely undersized for their armament, which resulted in performance-impacting reconstructions after Tomozuru accident. And their Tone successors were about 55% larger than projects for Agano-kai cruisers which most closely mirror the current state of Aganos (looking at the armament). Significant difference here.

Bklooste, what do you mean about "proper air complement" for Tones?



Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.0625