A Modest Proposal (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message

corbulo -> A Modest Proposal (11/12/2002 10:45:43 PM)

To increase playability for the Japanese in scenario #17 I suggest the following:
1- substitute a6m5s for a6m2s(on carriers)
2- substitute n1k1s for a6m2s(land based airgroups)
3-jills for vals
4-judys for kates
5- g4m2s for g4m1s
6-ki-67s for g3s
7-ki-84s for ki-43s
Install bofors 40mm AA guns on all carriers
increase 14" guns to 16" guns on Kongo/Fuso class battleships

This should make the game more playable.



CapAndGown -> (11/13/2002 12:46:18 AM)

And for Shokoku class CVs substitute Essex class.
:p



zed -> (11/13/2002 1:12:45 AM)

Yes, I think that would be best:
4 X 5/38
2 X 40 mm Bofors AA
2 X 20 mm Oerlikon

also, give the armament to AKAGI, KAGA, HIRYU, SORYU

Just trying to even things up a bit.



tanjman -> Scenario 17 mods (11/13/2002 1:26:14 AM)

corbulo,

[B]1- substitute a6m5s for a6m2s(on carriers) [/B]
Can be done now with the editor.

[B]2- substitute n1k1s for a6m2s(land based airgroups) [/B]
Can't be done with the editor because there are no replacement aircraft for the N1K1.

[B]3-jills for vals [/B]
Can't be done with the editor because the arrival date of replacement Jills would need to be changed.

[B]4-judys for kates [/B]
Can't be done with the editor because the arrival date of replacement Judys would need to be changed.

[B]5- g4m2s for g4m1s [/B]
Can't be done with the editor because the arrival date of replacement G4M2s would need to be changed.

[B]6-ki-67s for g3s [/B]
What is the G3? Can't be done with the editor because the arrival date of replacement Ki-67 Helens would need to be changed.

[B]7-ki-84s for ki-43s [/B]
Can't be done with the editor because there are no replacement aircraft for the Ki-84.

[B]Install bofors 40mm AA guns on all carriers[/B]
[B]increase 14" guns to 16" guns on Kongo/Fuso class battleships[/B]
Both can be done with the editor.

Maybe I'll modify what I can with the editor and see what happens.



Admiral DadMan -> (11/13/2002 5:21:02 AM)

How about trade [I]Yamato[/I] and [I]Musashi[/I] for 4 or 5 more [I]Shokaku[/I] class carriers? You'd have to make up names for the ships (borrow from the future?), and you'd have to add 3 Air Groups for each carrier.

Or release [I]Akagi, Kaga, Soryu,[/I] and [I]Hiryu[/I] (with escorts) earlier, like 1 May 42?



zed -> (11/13/2002 6:17:48 PM)

Tanjman,

Thanks for the wonderful exposition about the possibilities. G3 is the NELL. Is there any way to get replacements to N1K1,KI-84, JILLS and KATES?



tanjman -> Replacement Aircraft (11/13/2002 8:00:24 PM)

zed,

The editor is limited in what it can do. You can't add new aircraft or ship classes, and you can't modify the aircraft replacement rates. Both would have to be done by Matrix/2by3.

I'm thinking about doing the following for a modified scenario 17:

1)A6M3 carrier based only.
2)A6M2 shore based only. Since the upgrade path for the A6M2 is now to the A6M5 instead of the A6M3 I feel that the range of the A6M2 is need to escort the G3M & G4M Daitai.
3)Add some D3A Val shore based Daitai.
4)Remove Yamato and Musashi and replace them with 4 more Shokaku class carriers (thanks for the suggestion Admiral DadMan). I do need suggestions on what to name them.
5)Improve the IJAAF. Open to suggestions on this.
6)Increase Base Forces by creating a mirror IJN base force for every IJA base force. i.e. change 14th Base for to 14th Army Base Force and create the 14th Naval Base Force.

I know the above is not historical, but would like to do it anyway as a form of alternate history. I'm open to suggestions on what further changes to make to both sides.



Finnegan -> Re: Replacement Aircraft (11/13/2002 8:27:48 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tanjman
[B]I do need suggestions on what to name them.[/B][/QUOTE]

Ryukaku for one of the Shokaku class. I had made a scenario that used several of the Unryu class since they were essentially repeats of the Hiryu class, and the Hiryu is represented here. The names for the Unryu class both built and proposed are:

Unryu
Amagi
Katsuragi
Kasagi
Aso
Ikoma

Hope I spelled those right!! :D



Yamamoto -> (11/13/2002 10:05:44 PM)

I made a scenario when I added four more Shokaku class carriers and four more Yorktown carriers. I named the Shokaku ones Ryukaku, Zenkaku, Kikaku, and Dankaku. I named the Yorktown ones after four more revolutionary war battles.

If it were possible to change the rates of replacements for airplanes, what would you change them to? Scenario 19 has different replacement rates for the planes than scenario 17 does.

I believe Unryu was not just like the Hiryu class. It has an armored flight deck and it had tons more AA guns.


Yamamoto



zed -> (11/13/2002 11:05:34 PM)

The Katsuragi sank at Kure Naval Yard, along with the Aoba and several others in 15 October 1944. There are pictures posted on this Forum showing those pictures. I myself saw them in a book "History of Naval Operations in WW2" in the library. Very impressive. All the ships look so small. One wonders how planes took off from the Deck. The Aoba was the flagship of Goto at Cape Esperance, Oct 1942.
The largest Aircraft Carrier the IJN built "Shinano" , was torpedoed by a submarine and sank in 29 nov 1944.

http://www.ww2pacific.com/japcv.html



Admiral DadMan -> (11/13/2002 11:52:19 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]...I believe Unryu was not just like the Hiryu class.

Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]According to [URL=http://www.warships1.com/JAPcv05_Urnyu.htm]Warships1[/URL] and [URL=http://64.124.221.191/unryu_c.htm]Combined Fleet[/URL] sites, [I]Unryu[/I] class [B]were[/B] much like [I]Hiryu[/I] class, but not exact, namely fewer planes

[QUOTE]...([I]Unryu[/I] class had) an armored flight deck and it had tons more AA guns.[/QUOTE]You're thinking of [I]Taiho[/I] [URL=http://64.124.221.191/taiho_c.htm]Combined Fleet[/URL], [URL=http://64.124.221.191/taiho_c.htm]Warships1[/URL]

[QUOTE]I made a scenario when I added four more Shokaku class carriers and four more Yorktown carriers. I named the Shokaku ones Ryukaku, Zenkaku, Kikaku, and Dankaku. I named the Yorktown ones after four more revolutionary war battles.[/QUOTE]I'm thinking of one with just along those lines, with the extra four [I]Shokaku[/I] class showing up late 1942 and into 1943. No more [I]Yorktowns[/I], but speeding up some of the [I]Essexes[/I] and adding 2 that were available in PH in 43 as well like [I]Bon Homme Richard[/I] (CV-10 renamed [I]Yorktown[/I]) and [I]Cabot[/I] (CV-16 renamed [I]Lexington[/I], which I renamed [I]Concord[/I]).



Finnegan -> (11/14/2002 12:54:17 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]I made a scenario when I added four more Shokaku class carriers and four more Yorktown carriers. I named the Shokaku ones Ryukaku, Zenkaku, Kikaku, and Dankaku. I named the Yorktown ones after four more revolutionary war battles.

If it were possible to change the rates of replacements for airplanes, what would you change them to? Scenario 19 has different replacement rates for the planes than scenario 17 does.

I believe Unryu was not just like the Hiryu class. It has an armored flight deck and it had tons more AA guns.


Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]


Nice names for the Shokakus. Prolly steal 'em. :D

I usually end up backing up scenario 19 and re-naming a new scenario to 19 to use the increased A/c production rates for the Japanese. Sure hope the WITP editor can be retrofitted to UV.



Admiral DadMan -> (11/14/2002 1:24:09 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
[B]I made a scenario when I added four more Shokaku class carriers and four more Yorktown carriers. I named the Shokaku ones Ryukaku, Zenkaku, Kikaku, and Dankaku. I named the Yorktown ones after four more revolutionary war battles.
...[/B][/QUOTE]I like the IJN names you came up with. The "Crane" class.

Some suggested US CV names:[list]
  • Shiloh
  • Cold Harbor
  • Gettysburg
  • Concord
  • Manassas
  • Bull Run
  • Shenandoah
    [/list]



    • zed -> (11/14/2002 2:54:47 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
    [B]I like the IJN names you came up with. The "Crane" class.

    Some suggested US CV names:[list]
  • Shiloh
  • Cold Harbor
  • Gettysburg
  • Concord
  • Manassas
  • Bull Run
  • Shenandoah
    [/list] [/B][/QUOTE]

    FOr some reason, probably regional sensitivities, Civil War Battles were not used. ALso, I am hoping someone will add the
    ME-262 to the list of available Japanese Army Fighters in mid-1943.



    • angus -> (11/14/2002 3:42:40 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by zed
    [B]For some reason, probably regional sensitivities, Civil War Battles were not used. ALso, I am hoping someone will add the
    ME-262 to the list of available Japanese Army Fighters in mid-1943. [/B][/QUOTE]

    CV-36 [I]Antietam[/I]. My cousin George really screwed the pooch there. I think there was a [I]Vicksburg[/I] but I'd guess that was after the town and not the siege.

    As for the Kikkas, I don't think UV can cope with aircraft that needed new engines every ten running hours :-)

    BTW, if it's of any interest I came across some interesting articles on the US Naval War College Review website :-

    A good article by S.E. Morison on WWII naval strategy :-
    http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/1998/winter/art6-w98.htm

    And two very interesting articles on Midway :-
    http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2000/summer/art3-Su0.htm
    http://www.nwc.navy.mil/press/Review/2001/Summer/sd1-su1.htm

    Cheers,

    Angus



    mogami -> Civil War (11/14/2002 4:06:02 AM)

    Hi, I am staying out of this. Except to point out Bull Run and Manassas are the same battle.



    Admiral DadMan -> Re: Civil War (11/14/2002 4:18:41 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
    [B]Hi, I am staying out of this. Except to point out Bull Run and Manassas are the same battle. [/B][/QUOTE]Depends on you geography, my friend.

    There were actually 2 battles on the same ground, labelled "First" and "Second". The place Name (Bull Run or Manassas) depended upon your colors...



    mdiehl -> (11/14/2002 4:19:43 AM)

    Mighty kind of the USN to name their ships after battles fought by the US (or Continental) army. Other ideas: USS Mobile Bay, Manila Bay (would we have to use them for CVEs?), USS Lake Erie (after the 1812 engagement), USS Hampton Roads (after the Monitor vs. Virginia[ex. Merrimack] incident), USS Hartford (after the other ship of 1812-14 fame).



    Admiral DadMan -> (11/14/2002 4:42:31 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
    [B]I made a scenario when I added four more Shokaku class carriers and four more Yorktown carriers... I named the Yorktown ones after four more revolutionary war battles.

    Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]Here's another thought for you:

    Suppose that in 1923 the US did [B]not[/B] cancel the four remaining [I]Lexington[/I] Class battle cruisers, and instead converted them to CV's as well, so that they would not have to bear the cost of scrapping. The first 4 [I]Lexingtons[/I] would have come up to about 130,000 tons. The Washington Naval Treaty allowed for 135,000 tons of carriers. The remaining were: [I]Constellation, Ranger, Constitution, [/I] and [I]United States[/I].

    Suppose that because the Treaty expires in 1936, the US decides to continue to build on the last two hulls slowly, so that they are completed after the Treaty's expiration.

    This pushes the three [I]Yorktowns[/I] back and they don't get commissioned until 1942 (May, July, September). [I]Ranger[/I](CV-4) of course never gets built as a ground-up CV. [I]Wasp[/I] too never gets built, as she was a stopgap.

    What do you think?



    tanjman -> Aircraft replacement rates (11/14/2002 4:51:31 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
    [B]If it were possible to change the rates of replacements for airplanes, what would you change them to? Scenario 19 has different replacement rates for the planes than scenario 17 does.[/B][/QUOTE]

    Yamamoto,

    If I were able to set the aircraft replacement rate I would use around 5 per month per 24 plane squadron and adjust it from there according to squadron size. I feel any higher would unbalance playability.

    Guys, thanks for the suggestions and the links.

    As far as scenario 19 goes I've had strange things happen when I edited it and saved it back to slot 19 to save the Japanese aircraft repacement rates. i.e. I had remnant air units start being listed as reinforcements but never arriving. So I restored the orginal and stopped messing with scenario slots 1 - 20.



    Yamamoto -> (11/14/2002 4:55:16 AM)

    Do aircraft replacement rates change during the war? I know some planes that are not available become available but I'm not talking about that. I haven't really noticed but I'm assuming that they do not change from month to month.

    Yamamoto



    tanjman -> Lexington Class CVs (11/14/2002 4:58:52 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
    [B]Here's another thought for you:

    Suppose that in 1923 the US did [B]not[/B] cancel the four remaining [I]Lexington[/I] Class battle cruisers, and instead converted them to CV's as well, so that they would not have to bear the cost of scrapping. They were: [I]Constellation, Ranger, Constitution, [/I] and [I]United States[/I]. This pushes the three [I]Yorktowns[/I] back and they don't get commissioned until 1942 (May, July, September). As [I]Wasp[/I] was a stopgap, she never gets built.

    What do you think? [/B][/QUOTE]

    D@mn! I'd forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me. Its defenitely something to consider doing.

    BTW guys I've created a .txt file and have been copy all of these suggestions to it so that I can use them. Once I've got some ideal of the changes I'm going to make I'll post them. Either way I'll be making this scenario and post it. Wether or not anyone but me plays it is another matter ;)



    tanjman -> Aircraft repalcemant rates (11/14/2002 5:03:14 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
    [B]Do aircraft replacement rates change during the war? I know some planes that are not available become available but I'm not talking about that. I haven't really noticed but I'm assuming that they do not change from month to month.

    Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]

    Not that I've seen, heck if IIRC you still get obsolete aircraft (i.e. TBD Devestator) after production accually stopped. Not that I'm complaining about that. Maybe the player is getting recycled aircraft from other fronts? ;)



    Admiral DadMan -> (11/14/2002 5:05:09 AM)

    Wow, it took me so long to do the edit, that I'm gonna re-post:

    ***********************************************

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto
    [B]I made a scenario when I added four more Shokaku class carriers and four more Yorktown carriers... I named the Yorktown ones after four more revolutionary war battles.

    Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE]Here's another thought for you:

    Suppose that in 1923 the US did [B]not[/B] cancel the four remaining [I]Lexington[/I] Class battle cruisers, and instead converted them to CV's as well, so that they would not have to bear the cost of scrapping. The first 4 [I]Lexingtons[/I] would have come up to about 130,000 tons. The Washington Naval Treaty allowed for 135,000 tons of carriers. The remaining were: [I]Constellation, Ranger, Constitution, [/I] and [I]United States[/I].

    Suppose that because the Treaty expires in 1936, the US decides to continue to build on the last two hulls slowly, so that they are completed after the Treaty's expiration.

    This pushes the three [I]Yorktowns[/I] back and they don't get commissioned until 1942 (May, July, September). [I]Ranger[/I](CV-4) of course never gets built as a ground-up CV. [I]Wasp[/I] too never gets built, as she was a stopgap.

    What do you think?



    tanjman -> Lexington Class (11/14/2002 5:23:59 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
    [B]Wow, it took me so long to do the edit, that I'm gonna re-post:

    ***********************************************

    Here's another thought for you:

    Suppose that in 1923 the US did [B]not[/B] cancel the four remaining [I]Lexington[/I] Class battle cruisers, and instead converted them to CV's as well, so that they would not have to bear the cost of scrapping. The first 4 [I]Lexingtons[/I] would have come up to about 130,000 tons. The Washington Naval Treaty allowed for 135,000 tons of carriers. The remaining were: [I]Constellation, Ranger, Constitution, [/I] and [I]United States[/I].

    Suppose that because the Treaty expires in 1936, the US decides to continue to build on the last two hulls slowly, so that they are completed after the Treaty's expiration.

    This pushes the three [I]Yorktowns[/I] back and they don't get commissioned until 1942 (May, July, September). [I]Ranger[/I](CV-4) of course never gets built as a ground-up CV. [I]Wasp[/I] too never gets built, as she was a stopgap.

    What do you think? [/B][/QUOTE]

    Admiral DadMan,

    I Like it.
    Lexington class:
    Name Hull # Commissioned
    USS Lexington CV-2 14 Dec 27
    USS Saratoga CV-3 16 Dec 27
    USS Constellation CV-4 1929
    USS Ranger CV-5 1930
    USS Constitution CV-6 1936
    USS United States CV-7 1936

    Yorktown class:
    Name Hull # Commissioned
    USS Yorktown CV-8 May 42
    USS Enterprise CV-9 June 42
    USS Hornet CV-10 Sep 42
    USS Wasp CV-11 Oct 42

    With a 4 - 6 month workup the Yorktowns would be in Pearl Harbor Sep 42 to April 43.

    I've added the Wasp as a forth Yorktown so that there are five CarDivs to play with.

    When do you think the first Essex (CV-12) should arrive? The war in Europe was on and the was with Japan was already looming when the first three were athourized in fisical year 1940. With 10 CVs would the USN converted Cleaveland class CLs to Independence class CVLs? Or should they be commissioned as Cleavelands?



    Finnegan -> Re: Lexington Class (11/14/2002 6:11:23 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by tanjman
    [B] With 10 CVs would the USN converted Cleaveland class CLs to Independence class CVLs? Or should they be commissioned as Cleavelands? [/B][/QUOTE]

    Keep the Independence class CVL's. The way some of us wear carriers out (sys damage), we're gonna need them. :D



    XPav -> (11/14/2002 6:30:30 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
    [B]
    Suppose that because the Treaty expires in 1936, the US decides to continue to build on the last two hulls slowly, so that they are completed after the Treaty's expiration.

    This pushes the three [I]Yorktowns[/I] back and they don't get commissioned until 1942 (May, July, September). [I]Ranger[/I](CV-4) of course never gets built as a ground-up CV. [I]Wasp[/I] too never gets built, as she was a stopgap.

    What do you think? [/B][/QUOTE]

    From a game standpoint, sounds ok, but....

    From a historical standpoint, there are problems. Just in time for this thread :D, I recieved Friedman's Design and History of US Carriers. From reading about the early carriers, the thing that's evident is that they had no idea what would actually turn out to be a good idea.

    In the 20s, they thought Lexington and Saratoga were far, far too big. That's the whole "a few big carriers" vs "lots of small carriers" argument that pops up a lot (and is always won by the big carriers).

    Of course, as it turned out, they were the right size for WW2, while Ranger, the smaller alternative, was barely adequate. Wasp, the other smaller carrier was shortchanged in protection, and we all know how that turned out for her.

    The problem is trying to come up with a good historical rational for the US to throw caution to the winds and spend lots of money on large carriers when they didn't have any real knowledge that they would work out.



    Admiral DadMan -> (11/14/2002 6:32:17 AM)

    Hmmmm,

    tanjman:

    Now that I think about it, [B]neither[/B] [I]Wasp[/I] nor [I]Hornet[/I] should get built.

    [I]Wasp[/I] was built to fit in the remaining 15,000 of Treaty tonnage in the mid-thirties.

    [I]Hornet[/I] was built off of the [I]Yorktown[/I] design because the [I]Essex[/I] class had not yet been approved, so I would remove her.

    As far as the [I]Cleveland[/I] CL's to [I]Independence[/I] CVL's, I'd go forward with them, as they were a war-time decision based on losses.

    [I]Essex[/I] class should continue as scheduled, as nothing would have changed their delivery times. As a matter of fact, two more could be added as I mentioned earlier for delivery to PH mid 1943
    Name one [I]Hornet[/I] and the other [I]Wasp[/I]



    Admiral DadMan -> (11/14/2002 6:39:02 AM)

    [QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
    [B]

    From a game standpoint, sounds ok, but....

    [/B][/QUOTE]Killjoy:D. We're supposing that the big carrier side of the isle won.

    You're exactly right with the points you make. I remember reading about the appropriations fights

    The argument here would be a cost-saving one to build on existing hulls as opposed to scrapping and then building from scratch.



    SoulBlazer -> (11/14/2002 7:47:37 AM)

    The name USS Constiution would not have been used....and never WILL be used. The name is so special in the annals of American naval history that only 'Old Ironsides' herself in Boston will bear that name.

    One of my favorite Pacific War games is Koei's PTO II, either SNES or PC version. I often would name new carriers in the game for civil war battles, but sometimes others....

    USS Camden
    USS Kings Mountain
    USS Bennington
    USS Gettysburg
    USS Bellau Wood
    USS Battan
    USS Monitor

    Essentily, any battle that was a American victory or is named for a famous ship is what a WWII CV would have been named. Now, of course, we use people, but those are some rough guidelines for WWII ships.

    I also would always name a battleship USS New Hampshire for my home state. :D



    Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

    Valid CSS!




    Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
    1.064453