RE: CV Shinano (Full Version)

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



Message

FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (4/5/2012 2:11:58 PM)

Continuing, before I forgot my ideas - IJAAF 1E attack planes.

Not many ideas here, just Ki-119 earlier and Kikka's version for Army available in late 1945. Reduce the number of bomber units further late in the war, giving upgrades to fighters and fighter-bombers.


End-War Fighters

I never picked anything definitely before. Shinden is definitely the choice for IJNAF. For IJAAF I thinking about putting Ki-64, Ki-87 and Ki-94-I (see descriptions and links upthread) all in the game and allowing the player to choose, what he wishes to research. Ki-201, Ki-202 and J8M will be absent. No one is going to build the latter two anyway.

So, any comments?



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: CV Shinano (4/5/2012 3:42:06 PM)

quote:

Torpedo Bombers
Speaking of them, B6N will enter production with Mitsubishi Kasei engine as was intended originally, making it available a bit earlier, and, if my proposal about armor above seems agreeable, will enter production with lesser range and Armor 1. B6N2 will be a radar-equipped and better-armed version for 1944.

And if C6N is goint to exist at all, introducing C6N1-B (a project that existed IRL but abandoned due to loss of Japanese carrier fleet) is also possible


In my mod as well.

The Ha-32-21 was ready by 1/43, so the Tenzan could be made ready by then. Also could add hardpoint for 2 small 100L drop tanks
on the wings so range 8 with armor 1.


The main problem with AE naval combat model is that planes will launch to range 8 as japan and 7 as USN.
It means that Kate and Myrt have the same combat radius? Ridiculous.

Suggested change: carrier planes will not fly at extended range



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: CV Shinano (4/5/2012 3:48:07 PM)


Couple other ideas: Ki-64 Rob

(uses 2xHa-60 inline engines, service rating 5 [X(])

[image]local://upfiles/28382/821FF0B1EF1E435A907289A153BEDC33.jpg[/image]



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: CV Shinano (4/5/2012 3:56:22 PM)


Definitely a Reisen with the Ha-33-62 Kinsei engine

A6M8c with all the armor, guns, and fuel was a slow 358 mph

if you take most of that off, it would fly in the 380-390 mph range
giving the IJN a good carrier fighter in 1943/1944



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: CV Shinano (4/5/2012 4:00:01 PM)


Some other useful variants:

E13A Jake with drop tank instead of ordnance

Ki-46 Dinah bmr variant

H8K Emily with float level bmr designation so it can be put into bmr units



John 3rd -> RE: CV Shinano (4/5/2012 4:48:13 PM)

I HATE China Infantry. How do they change? WHY do they change? Anyway I have it fixed now for RA...

Good to see this moving again.



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (4/5/2012 9:56:44 PM)

Any comments on aircraft, John.

And while we're at it:

Recon Planes

I just noticed that C6N, like just about all late-war IJNAF 1E planes, was scheduled to be reengined to Mitsubishi Ha-43 by the end of the war. This largely solves the problem. Although availability will probably be delayed to 44/11 or so. With nightfighter and torpedo bomber versions available around 45/6 or 7. D4Y1-C will have to serve until then. Small dedicated search units probably ought to be added to at least some carriers in 1943.

I believe I noted before, that Dinah should serve as the main recon plane for both Army and Navy.



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (5/28/2012 1:34:57 PM)

I'm still getting back on my feet after the job-related crysis... but I hope I'll be able to gradually resume work on the mod.

So, regarding aircraft: one idea that I gradually starting liking is not picking late-war models for players, but instead putting anything that reached at least prototype stages in the game for 1945-46 and letting players pick what they want to develop (while providing sufficient mechanical pros/cons).

This means:

IJNAF: J7M, S1A, Kikka (this plane might be used by both services). Maybe R2Y2 if we're willing to stretch the definition of "prototype". A7M too should be available, of course, but building it is not really an option, unless Japan is finished already by the time of its availability, and it is available sooner than others on this list.

IJAAF: Ki-64, Ki-83 (maybe adding an upgraded model for 1946, this plane might be used by both services), Ki-87, Ki-93, Ki-94-II

Ki-201 existed only on paper, and J8N/Ki-202 are so bad, that there is no reason for them to be in the game, because no one in their right mind will build them.



John 3rd -> RE: CV Shinano (5/28/2012 1:37:38 PM)

I'll jump back in with commentary after we get back from a short family vacation on Thursday. Glad to see this being revived so we can move forward with it.



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (5/29/2012 7:53:09 PM)

Will wait for the comments. To elaborate about why I consider just adding a bunch of variants acceptable for 1945-46 - they probably need hardcore research to matter, so without a truly gigantic supply investment (which, as I'm finding now in RA, can have significant detrimental results) a player won't produce all of them. Even when they are available without acceleration building all of them probably can be unwise.

One more thought - while above I described various tinkering intended to provide Japanese carrier strike aircraft with armor in mid-game, I'm not really sure this is a good direction to take. Realism-wide, it is messing with successful designs (D4Y certainly was successful and, debatably, did more damage than any other late-war Japanese attack plane, merits of B6N are more dubious, but it is hard to tell, considering odds stacked against it - even much sturdier planes like A-20, facing relatively weak naval flak, when used as torpedo bombers by Russians, proved to be highly vulnerable). Gameplay-wise, I'm increasingly convinced that Armor 1 does not really matter, at least not by the time these planes are available. I only noticed an impact from it against rifle-calibre MGs early in the war, and even then this might be confirmation bias on my part. Maybe it can soften blows (and any feedback on this will be much appreciated), but I don't really see much effect... Certainly not on the scale to justify losing 2-3 hexes of range, which greatly reduces a plane's operational value. Maybe just keep existing models as they were and add better-protected upgrades for the final defense of the homeland?



pharmy -> RE: CV Shinano (5/31/2012 9:35:22 PM)

quote:

IJNAF: J7M, S1A, Kikka (this plane might be used by both services). Maybe R2Y2 if we're willing to stretch the definition of "prototype". A7M too should be available, of course, but building it is not really an option, unless Japan is finished already by the time of its availability, and it is available sooner than others on this list.


Would the G8N make a reappearance, as in RA, or maybe even the Liz G5N, if not the Bomber then the transport G5N2-L version? http://japaneseaircraft.devhub.com/blog/category/bomber/page-3/ - 6 of them did exist, and they could probably carry around 8000 pounds.



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (6/2/2012 11:36:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: icepharmy

quote:

IJNAF: J7M, S1A, Kikka (this plane might be used by both services). Maybe R2Y2 if we're willing to stretch the definition of "prototype". A7M too should be available, of course, but building it is not really an option, unless Japan is finished already by the time of its availability, and it is available sooner than others on this list.


Would the G8N make a reappearance, as in RA, or maybe even the Liz G5N, if not the Bomber then the transport G5N2-L version? http://japaneseaircraft.devhub.com/blog/category/bomber/page-3/ - 6 of them did exist, and they could probably carry around 8000 pounds.

G8N - yes. G5N2-L is actually an interesting idea, thanks, will think about it.



bigred -> RE: CV Shinano (6/2/2012 3:50:16 PM)

quote:

FatR: Maybe it can soften blows (and any feedback on this will be much appreciated), but I don't really see much effect... Certainly not on the scale to justify losing 2-3 hexes of range, which greatly reduces a plane's operational value.


I have noted a shift in allied carrier based plane combined range have a combined strike about 8 hexes in 1942 then by 1944 max range is about 10 hexes. The opposite has occurred to the Jap planes in RA70 w/ a max combined strike range of 7 w/ the judy where earlier in game the jap CV combined strike range was 9.

So If lucky the allies in RA70 have a standoff advantage into 44 of about 3 hexes in a combined ftr/DB/Torp attack. I am into my 1st game(RA70) going into 1944 and in unfamiliar knowledge of plane range of stock scenarios.

Seems the japs wanted the 500kg bomb on the judy but sacrificed range to carry the load.



John 3rd -> RE: CV Shinano (6/2/2012 5:16:30 PM)

Those are good points BigRed.

The Judy brought the big pain but did sacrifice range to carry it.



PaxMondo -> RE: CV Shinano (6/2/2012 8:11:28 PM)

I thought there was a post somewhere by the devs that the max CV attack range is 9 and that it is hard coded. ... Is this correct or am I having an oldtimers moment again? [&:]



Commander Stormwolf -> RE: CV Shinano (6/2/2012 10:23:41 PM)


Used to be

max japanese CV range = 8
max allied CV range = 7

unless it has changed



bigred -> RE: CV Shinano (6/2/2012 10:53:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I thought there was a post somewhere by the devs that the max CV attack range is 9 and that it is hard coded. ... Is this correct or am I having an oldtimers moment again? [&:]

humm, well i guess the allied planes will not fly the 10/11 hex attack.. dont know for sure.



bigred -> RE: CV Shinano (6/3/2012 3:10:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred


quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I thought there was a post somewhere by the devs that the max CV attack range is 9 and that it is hard coded. ... Is this correct or am I having an oldtimers moment again? [&:]

humm, well i guess the allied planes will not fly the 10/11 hex attack.. dont know for sure.

Thought about all this. i wonder if reason for a nine hex limit when the planes can fly 10hexes may be because they have to find the carrier on the return trip and sometimes the ship moves to a new location, so the planes allow for this by not flying max range. I know I have seen SBDs make 11hex land based attacks.
Now what would be really cool is to do the "one way" no return attack that Adm. McCain ordered at the Leyte battle. Double the max range w/ 100% plane ops loss and about 50% pilot loss.



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (6/20/2012 12:54:52 PM)

Just read interesting post-war reports on Japanese wartime aircraft engine engineering here:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/

Apparently American post-war analysis rated Mitshubishi & Nakajima engine construction techniques and achievements similarly (reasonably proficient, but several years behind US companies), but noted that the latter had no interest in service support & modification of engines and left remedying of flaws and service design changes to inferior Army/Navy engineers, unlike the former. Adding this to extremely tight and high-strung Nakajima designs, meant to extract maximum possible power from minimum possible volume (at the cost of low tolerances to flaws in production and maintenance), and it is clear why every single plane using Nakajima Homare was plagued by exceptional engine problems in mass production. Of course, Mitshubishi's way resulted in engines that initially were relatively underpowered and only achieved their full potential much later (Ha-33, Ha-32, and Ha-42 was still on the way there by the war's end), but in the realities of wartime it seems to be preferable.

Meanwhile, I'm almost done with the draft of warplanes, but I'm still concerned about not getting much in the way of comments and criticism on my ideas. Will try to present overall picture when I have the time over the next few days.



ny59giants -> RE: CV Shinano (6/20/2012 3:39:13 PM)

I would look at adding some of the additional base, mainly dot bases, that DDB uses. In my game as Allies, there are extra dot bases between Port Morseby and Buna that should be added here and maybe even RA.



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (6/20/2012 4:34:37 PM)

So, after much tweaking, preliminary draft of stats IJN fighters. Carrier-capable types are marked with *. G9M2-S is a Ki-67 nightfigter development (which design was underway but not finished IRL). I forgot to add C6N1-S to this screenshot, but it is practically unchanged from stock. J6N1/2 is Ki83 and its second model (only projected IRL). Kikka is uses as a fighter bomber. N1K2 was abandoned IRL in blueprints stage - but in case there are players who like float fighters' unconventional capabilities, I added it here.

[image]local://upfiles/33131/478ABC9B024B4C5A9323A6FFDE387299.jpg[/image]



Kitakami -> RE: CV Shinano (6/20/2012 4:42:31 PM)

Interesting fighter selection.
Question: is A7M3 carrier-capable or not (it does not have an asterisk)? I ask because there is a -J version.
Looking forward to the rest of the planes that make the cut!



John 3rd -> RE: CV Shinano (6/20/2012 6:10:36 PM)

NICE work. Will review this a bit.



JWE -> RE: CV Shinano (6/20/2012 7:23:36 PM)

Agree, very nice work. Have some nits and grits about some the bombloads. Have some alternatives in mind that use the "Alt" fields. Kinda techie, so if you/Stan are interested, can modulate with ya'll.

Ciao. John



John 3rd -> RE: CV Shinano (6/20/2012 7:36:04 PM)

FatR? Thanks for the offer John!



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (6/20/2012 8:00:55 PM)

2Kitakami: on A7M3 folding wings were eliminated, so with wingspan of exactly 14m it was unlikely to fit in 14-meter or smaller aircraft lifts on Japanese medium in light carriers, i.e., most of them in RA, so in RA it is not carrier-capable. Actually, if in this mod exclusively Shokaku-class derivatives are going to be built during the war (as it seems wee agreed), it is going to fit on most Japanese carriers, so we can make it carrier-capable.


2JWE: thanks for the offer, I'll PM you tomorrow, have to work right now.



dwg -> RE: CV Shinano (6/23/2012 9:02:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

2Kitakami: on A7M3 folding wings were eliminated, so with wingspan of exactly 14m it was unlikely to fit in 14-meter or smaller aircraft lifts


OTOH the Zero was only a touch over 9m in length, that gives quite a bit of potential to align it on the lift on the diagonal, rather than fore and aft, and have the effective width significantly less than 14m.



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (7/2/2012 8:19:44 PM)

Meanwhile - slightly updated stats for Navy fighters (mostly reduces bombloads) and Army fighters. Necessary notes about what is going on with these statblocks - the last model of Ki-81 is fitted with Mitsubishi Ha-43 engine, giving it stats close to that of late production Ki-84s, and it is presumed that the competition for the high-altitude fighter is fair in this alternative, so Tachikawa begins with its second design, but it is rushed to production, before its intended turbosupercharger is perfected, therefore two versions. The engine is Ha-214, the late (experimental IRL) version of Mitsubishi Ha-42.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/RNbvM.jpg[/img]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/ny1F6.jpg[/img]

As another note, I wonder, what caused praise for Ki-100? Looking at its characteristics, its very underwhelming game stats (basically fit for 1943, but in 1945) apparently reflect reality quite well, except maybe in performance at high altitudes. I can understand giving it a credit for reliability, but I've seen several quotes from its testers that rated it far higher than Ki-84 in performance (combat data for Ki-100 is very limited, IIRC only one engagement with Hellcats that ended 2:2). Strange. Maybe quality of Ki-84 degraded that far by second half of 1945, or maybe there were some nuances of their flight characteristics that aren't reflected by numbers.



FatR -> RE: CV Shinano (9/14/2012 4:28:09 PM)

This mod isn't dead yet (just looks like that). I hope. I still don't have enough time for AE, but I'm doing a little every day. At the moment I've just about completely finished Japanese aircraft, modified aircraft factories appropriately. Currently I'm working on airgroups. A few notes on that:

-I've added no new Japanese airgroups so far. But some units have their withdrawal dates removed. So in the beginning the Japanese airforce will not be larger, but benefits will become noticeable in 1943-44.

-I'm also not using the dumb late-1942 unit-numeration convention for IJNAF. Instead, units get their 1944-style new numbers, and those named after airbases keep their old name added to their number, so that the players will keep recognizing their old veteran units, and their pixelpilots will retain appropriate esprit de corps.




John 3rd -> RE: CV Shinano (9/14/2012 4:52:21 PM)

Appreciate the work FatR. As far as I know the Allied changes and modifications are complete with what you currently are operating with.



Page: <<   < prev  22 23 [24] 25 26   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875