quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

JWE,

You could provide it publicly. You just choose not to. In terms of fearing attack publicly you've far more commonly originated the attacks than been the recipient recently. Some of your recent posts have clearly breached forum rules yet nothing has happened to you. So, you have no reason to fear attack or even consequences for your behaviour. On the other hand this sort of partitioning of information as a means of showing that there's an "in crowd" and if people displease you they won't be part of it is, unfortunately, rather a common feature of human group dynamics when those in authority are unwilling to countenance disagreement... and of subtly informing others in weaker positions in the group of the dynamic and preferred behaviour of those in power ( namely mirroring the withholding, abusive behaviour of those in power in order to:
a) clearly demarcate them from those who are displeasing,
b) promote their identification as being in the group which is in favour,
c) currying favour with those in power. )

So, you COULD provide it publicly but you CHOOSE not to. Sometimes using the correct word is pretty important in clarifying the dynamics of what is actually happening. Of course, you have an absolute right to refuse to provide any information you may have. That much I can support. I cannot, however, support the disingenuous misrepresentation of the reason behind your not posting it publicly - even if it is de rigeur for the commencement of such efforts at demonisation/ostracisation throughout history to be painted as being in response to provocations by others. It makes all that follows so much more seemly... and provides a psychological salve for those who follow.

Bottom line though, there's a difference between could and choose. You could but you choose not to. The only question that remains to me is how aware you are of the group dynamics involved in and inflamed by this sort of behaviour. It is possible that you may not even see the historical precedents.

With all that said... I'm aware that you've had to, in the past, put up with a lot of unwarranted criticism and abuse from some forum posters. That, clearly, was unwarranted. On the other hand just because some treated you badly doesn't mean you should behave abominably towards others. Two wrongs do not a right make. The more information that is put out publicly the better for the development of the game. Since that is what you proclaim to be motivated by why hold back on something which will serve that purpose?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

JWE,

You could provide it publicly. You just choose not to. In terms of fearing attack publicly you've far more commonly originated the attacks than been the recipient recently. Some of your recent posts have clearly breached forum rules yet nothing has happened to you. So, you have no reason to fear attack or even consequences for your behaviour. On the other hand this sort of partitioning of information as a means of showing that there's an "in crowd" and if people displease you they won't be part of it is, unfortunately, rather a common feature of human group dynamics when those in authority are unwilling to countenance disagreement... and of subtly informing others in weaker positions in the group of the dynamic and preferred behaviour of those in power ( namely mirroring the withholding, abusive behaviour of those in power in order to:
a) clearly demarcate them from those who are displeasing,
b) promote their identification as being in the group which is in favour,
c) currying favour with those in power. )

So, you COULD provide it publicly but you CHOOSE not to. Sometimes using the correct word is pretty important in clarifying the dynamics of what is actually happening. Of course, you have an absolute right to refuse to provide any information you may have. That much I can support. I cannot, however, support the disingenuous misrepresentation of the reason behind your not posting it publicly - even if it is de rigeur for the commencement of such efforts at demonisation/ostracisation throughout history to be painted as being in response to provocations by others. It makes all that follows so much more seemly... and provides a psychological salve for those who follow.

Bottom line though, there's a difference between could and choose. You could but you choose not to. The only question that remains to me is how aware you are of the group dynamics involved in and inflamed by this sort of behaviour. It is possible that you may not even see the historical precedents.

With all that said... I'm aware that you've had to, in the past, put up with a lot of unwarranted criticism and abuse from some forum posters. That, clearly, was unwarranted. On the other hand just because some treated you badly doesn't mean you should behave abominably towards others. Two wrongs do not a right make. The more information that is put out publicly the better for the development of the game. Since that is what you proclaim to be motivated by why hold back on something which will serve that purpose?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Some background on what I am attempting to achieve may not be amiss. This is a personal mod that makes a number of minor changes, many purely cosmetic, to Treespider's mod, itself based on Da Babes. Primarily, it features a few extra ships so that I can indulge my penchant for naval artwork – thus you get new versions of Teia Maru (ex Aramis) and repair ship Asahi, and a few ships you don't get in other mods: Kotobuki Maru (ex Conte Verde), and armoured cruisers Iwate and Izumo. Most of these were to be found in WitP CHS, so I'm a bit surprised some didn’t make it into AE.

My alterations to the Yamato class ships reflect the longstanding niggle I have had about the dates on which these ships complete their construction. For example, if not accelerated Yamato appears in the game on 20 May 1942, five months after her historical date of completion and acceptance into the Imperial Navy on 16 Dec 1941. That's an extra five months' artificial expenditure of naval construction points in the building of a ship that actually finished building within 10 days of the outbreak of hostilities.

Yes, I know about the problems with Yamato's gunnery that are said to be the pretext for this delay in her completion in the game. Rather than charge an economic penalty for making good these shortcomings I have adopted a different approach. I have introduced a new device, the 46cm/45 Type 94-Kai to form the initial main armament for both Yamato and Musashi. This has the same data as the original Type 94, save that its accuracy has been halved from 18 to 9. I assume that this change would go far to simulate the historical shortcomings in the gunnery department, but the Japanese player's remedy is simple: upon completion of either battleship, authorise an immediate upgrade of its main armament from Type 94-Kai to Type 94, thus restoring the original accuracy rating of 18. This upgrade involves a delay of 60 days, which I consider a reasonable reflection of the time required to iron out the gunnery snags and work up each of these ships. The ships themselves now appear on their actual dates of acceptance into the Navy (16 Dec 41 and 5 Aug 42), but the Japanese player is well advised to proceed immediately with the upgrade that restores the full capability of their main battery. Thereafter the upgrade path for these ships follows the usual course.

If anyone can suggest a better way of simulating these factors, I would be pleased to hear it.

In the case of Shinano a different approach was needed to reflect the fact that her completion as a carrier was prompted by the Japanese reverse at Midway: a disaster that seldom seems to take place in the game but which has nevertheless always been assumed in its data.

What I have done is to assume that Shinano's construction proceeded in battleship form, and that it would have been completed within the timescale suggested by JWE's posts on building slip usage, as mentioned by oldman45. Thus, in my mod Shinano is completed as a battleship and if not accelerated arrives on 1 Apr 1944, armed with the 'defective' Type 94-Kai in her main battery. She also comes with the modified AA fit of 10 cm/65 Type 98 weapons in the place of the Type 89s.

Upon Shinano's arrival, the Japanese player has a choice: he can retain her as a battleship and upgrade the main battery to Type 94, or he can convert her to a carrier. The carrier conversion will cost him an additional delay of 244 days, in order to postpone Shinano's effective service introduction until the historical date in November 1944 when this took place. This conversion is only available whilst Shinano carries her 'defective' armament, so the Japanese player really needs to decide upon her final configuration as soon as the vessel completes.

I have made no change to Shinano's capacity of 47 aircraft, which my researches suggest is an accurate count for her intended integral airgroup. Unfortunately I see no likelihood of the game ever simulating the Japanese 'fortress carrier' concept (which was probably a very bad idea anyway), so I think she has to be accepted as a heavily protected vessel but one carrying only a weak punch.

Again, if anyone can suggest a better way of simulating the choices that were open to the Navy's constructors as regards Shinano, I'd be pleased to hear it. I hope, however, that the reduction in the construction cost for Yamato and Musashi may provide some incentive for the Japanese player to accept the challenge of producing a third super-battleship rather than following what seems to have become the conventional wisdom for the game's first turn: stop the Shinano!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

People always deserve the benefit of the doubt. If JWE was willing to give others the benefit of the doubt he wouldn't explode and be abusive to them. Neither would Osterhaut.

I think that you may be making the same mistake as them Buck Beach... in terms of viewing someone as "the opposition" and viewing them as someone who cannot be reasoned with. Once you do that you stop TRYING to reason with them and all positions on both sides harden and become more extreme.

I haven't, personally, been able to engage JWE reasonably recently as he has chosen to either ignore me or be abusive towards me. That doesn't mean I am going to make the mistake of thinking that is all he is capable of. I think you do him a disservice by suggesting otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

If anyone can suggest a better way of simulating these factors, I would be pleased to hear it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Local Yokel

I just had another thought reguarding IJN building, you may have considered this already...

CVL Ibuki...was originally planned/laid down as a heavy cruiser that would have been similar to the Mogami. Perhaps this ship is also worthy of the Shinano treatment, as I find I usually need CA type ships far worse than another light carrier.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think a few months ago, JWE posted a time line of all major construction and the yards that were used.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
I have long thought it a significant failure of WitP's design that it fails to afford the same degree of control over naval crew training/experience gain as the player enjoys over aircrew training. Going further than that, I would have liked to see the game include mechanisms for rewarding players who train groups of ships to work cooperatively, as I regard this as a significant factor in determining the effectiveness of a naval force. Unfortunately the game is what it is, so we're not going to see that. Rant over.