RE: RA 6.0

RE: RA 6.0 (Full Version)

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

Message

FatR -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/8/2013 5:36:17 PM)
Putting all the proposals together: 1)Take The Scen 28C as a basis. 2)Apply revised 4th Circle: the first pair of Sho-Kais, two BCs, two Tone-Kai, four Improved Oyodo CLs. Yamato and Musashi are still built. No Taiho or Shinano. No Aganos or training cruisers. 3)Another two Sho-Kais are laid down during the final preparations for the war, and 4 more during the war. No Unryus. Tone-Kai cruisers are completed as cruisers. 4)No Kaiyo or extra RA CVEs, but 5 largest APs are provided with an option for CVE conversion, starting late 1942. 5)Cruisers and first-class destroyers remain as they are (after earlier RA changes), except when outlined above. 6)My proposal at the beginning of this thread is applied to escort and auxilary forces. 7)The sub fleet remains as it is in RA. How about this plan?

John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/8/2013 5:49:56 PM)
Ahhhhh....I didn't see the forward 100MM on the ship rendering.

FatR -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/8/2013 6:08:44 PM)
Also, I'm afraid that I have very little time to read AARs now, John, so what is the farthest date you've reached in RA. I played my old Ocean of Blood game to late June of 1944, but that game is now stalled, thanks to an engine production bug (hopefully michaelm will spot my post in the tech support thread, and do something, once he's back). We can compare notes and impressions, if you wish... Everyone else also are welcome to post their impressions.

John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/8/2013 6:17:44 PM)
I got into late-43 with Lew in 3.0. Am in July 42 with Dan (5.0) and Sept 42 with Lew (4.0).

ny59giants -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/8/2013 6:34:36 PM)
I would like to have the Japanese CV divisions be 2 heavy CVs with a CVL that carries nothing but 30 to 33 fighters on board. From reading Kaigun and Shattered Sword, I think that what was proposed by the IJN. At least after Midway and in keeping with the Japanese offensive mindset. Is this going to be possible with the changes?? When playing Japan, I would like to start the game with 4 heavy CVs and 2 CVLs to hit Pearl and another CV div of 2 CVs and CVLs to use in the SRA.

John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/8/2013 6:43:36 PM)
The thought is one Michael and I were just talking about. Do we want to allow the player CHOICE in keeping Kates on the CVLs and go 18Z--12K, remove the Kates and still use them in the game but re-size the Zeros to 30, or just bring in the CVLs with 30 plane Zero daitai?

Kitakami -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/8/2013 6:53:56 PM)
I would suggest to give the players the choice. Is there any way to limit the size of the Kate units so that, if they operate from land, they can't become huge?

FatR -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/8/2013 8:01:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants I would like to have the Japanese CV divisions be 2 heavy CVs with a CVL that carries nothing but 30 to 33 fighters on board. From reading Kaigun and Shattered Sword, I think that what was proposed by the IJN. At least after Midway and in keeping with the Japanese offensive mindset. Is this going to be possible with the changes?? When playing Japan, I would like to start the game with 4 heavy CVs and 2 CVLs to hit Pearl and another CV div of 2 CVs and CVLs to use in the SRA. This is a nice idea. John, what do you think about that? I will look at Kaigun tomorrow to see what is said there about this train of thought.

FatR -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/8/2013 8:07:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd The thought is one Michael and I were just talking about. Do we want to allow the player CHOICE in keeping Kates on the CVLs and go 18Z--12K, remove the Kates and still use them in the game but re-size the Zeros to 30, or just bring in the CVLs with 30 plane Zero daitai? Choice is always preferable. I personally keep torpedo bombers on CVLs. In my experience with carrier battles, strikes from both sides will get through, so putting as much weight as your possible into your strike is more important that adding more fighters, most of which might fail to participate in air combat.

FatR -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/8/2013 8:20:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd I got into late-43 with Lew in 3.0. Am in July 42 with Dan (5.0) and Sept 42 with Lew (4.0). And how RA features worked out for you? To list my experiences: -Kawachi-class CBs proved themselves excellently. Totally worth the build points. Unfortunately, they still are as suspectible to massed air attacks as any battleships((. -Shokaku-kai carriers performed adequately, I guess. CVs are CVs, never can have too many of them. -Tone-kai cruisers are supporting KB, they had no real exposure to combat so far. -CLs with 155mm artillery and torpedoes are reasonably effective. Give them good AA armament, and they will be great. -Air changes have little individual impact so far, but a number of small advantages can create a cumulative effect. In Scen 2 I prefer to field Georges and Franks, in Scen 70 I prefer to field Georges and Franks. New Zero models take the niche of Tojo for IJNAF during 1943, which is nice, and A7M2 in the spring of 1944 is much welcome on the carriers. Soon we'll see what A7M3 can do, unless a bug strangles my engine production. -Ground Japanese flak seems reasonably strong after mid-war TOE upgrades. Then again, maybe I'm just good at massing it. Japanese naval flak remains ****. I'm interested to see if changes in recent versions improved it. -Most of all I lack supply, destroyers, and expendable shipping to get stuff to the front lines. My game is pre-ASW nerf, or escorts would be on that list too. Fuel and Navy pilots are not exactly plentiful too.

MateDow -> RE: RA 5.4 (4/8/2013 8:24:29 PM)
Referring back to an earlier question... quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Essentially I propose we go with either 8 of Proposal 1 OR 4 of Proposal 3. I think that the 8 Agano-type cruisers would be better. The numbers of the smaller cruisers will give them a boost in surface actions so they can be available to support destroyer groups. Later in the war (based on AARs) I see the Japanese player using smaller groups, and this will require more cruisers to support those groups. With the attrition of the fleet, the heavy cruisers can be your opposition to the US cruisers and allow these smaller cruiser to fulfill the role of destroyer squadron leaders. As a Japanese player, I think that I'd rather have a cruiser with six 15cm guns instead of one with eight 13cm. Just my opinion.

John 3rd -> RE: RA 5.4 (4/8/2013 8:28:05 PM)
GOOD thought Matedow. What do others see with this train of thought?

John 3rd -> 6.0 (4/8/2013 8:40:02 PM)
Just had an idea. What about going with the best of BOTH worlds? We could scrap the Tone-Kai Class and, instead build the four Oyodo's AND the DL Agano-Class. Don't we have four FP flying off of the current CLs? Metal and resources would be semi-close with the CAs moving down to a strong CL and the Agano's then fill the need for a real Destroyer Leader in the OOB. Not sure about this but it is an IDEA...

John 3rd -> RE: 6.0 (4/8/2013 10:08:50 PM)
Sorry Stanislav but I just saw your Post: 1. I LOVE the BCs! Think they are fast, effective vessels with a good punch. Could we build TWELVE PLEASE??!! 2. The Tone-Kai are good additions to the KB. Like the extra FP. Never have enough of them... 3. The CLs work well but I almost always keep them attached to my CVs until everyone has their initial radar sets.

FatR -> RE: 6.0 (4/8/2013 10:22:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Just had an idea. What about going with the best of BOTH worlds? We could scrap the Tone-Kai Class and, instead build the four Oyodo's AND the DL Agano-Class. Don't we have four FP flying off of the current CLs? Metal and resources would be semi-close with the CAs moving down to a strong CL and the Agano's then fill the need for a real Destroyer Leader in the OOB. Not sure about this but it is an IDEA... 4 floatplanes even on a larger CL is unrealistically extreme (I assume that the Improved Oyodo project will have about 2) and I just don't think that Japanese CLs are worth sacrificing, well, anything else for them. An interesting note: according to Lacroix/Wells (p. 599), Japs planned to increase the AA armament of RL Aganos (particularly Noshiro) to as much as 4x2 100/65 guns, but lack of time (and maybe guns?) prevented this extensive modification. Considering that even after all of the RL wartime upgrades the stability of these cruisers remained good, this doesn't seem unrealistic might just make the option of sticking with the destroyer leader Agano project more attractive.

DOCUP -> RE: 6.0 (4/8/2013 10:53:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd 1. I LOVE the BCs! Think they are fast, effective vessels with a good punch. Could we build TWELVE PLEASE??!! No offense to either John or FatR. But it looks like John is the kid in the candy store and FatR is the dad saying son you have enough don't push your luck. I just find this funny. Sorry if I offended anyone.

John 3rd -> RE: 6.0 (4/9/2013 12:29:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DOCUP quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd 1. I LOVE the BCs! Think they are fast, effective vessels with a good punch. Could we build TWELVE PLEASE??!! No offense to either John or FatR. But it looks like John is the kid in the candy store and FatR is the dad saying son you have enough don't push your luck. I just find this funny. Sorry if I offended anyone. "Can I some more PLEASE//!!" [sm=00000117.gif] That was funny DOCUP.

John 3rd -> RE: 6.0 (4/9/2013 12:31:12 AM)
I was actually the kid in Oliver speaking to the Headmaster... [8D] Seriously though. The Kawachi-Class BC are excellent ships. We included them originally as the realistic 'bone' Yamamoto would throw out to the Big Gun Faction of the Kaigun. It would be a fun fight to pit them against the Alaska's!

John 3rd -> RE: 6.0 (4/9/2013 12:33:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Just had an idea. What about going with the best of BOTH worlds? We could scrap the Tone-Kai Class and, instead build the four Oyodo's AND the DL Agano-Class. Don't we have four FP flying off of the current CLs? Metal and resources would be semi-close with the CAs moving down to a strong CL and the Agano's then fill the need for a real Destroyer Leader in the OOB. Not sure about this but it is an IDEA... 4 floatplanes even on a larger CL is unrealistically extreme (I assume that the Improved Oyodo project will have about 2) and I just don't think that Japanese CLs are worth sacrificing, well, anything else for them. An interesting note: according to Lacroix/Wells (p. 599), Japs planned to increase the AA armament of RL Aganos (particularly Noshiro) to as much as 4x2 100/65 guns, but lack of time (and maybe guns?) prevented this extensive modification. Considering that even after all of the RL wartime upgrades the stability of these cruisers remained good, this doesn't seem unrealistic might just make the option of sticking with the destroyer leader Agano project more attractive. So where does that put you Sir?

FatR -> RE: 6.0 (4/10/2013 6:59:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd So where does that put you Sir? Now I'm more inclined to say that building 8 original Aganos is a better option. Not sure if they should start with as many DP guns, but carrying 2x2 100/65 from the beginning should be fine (the difference between 100/65 and 80/60 open twin mounts is 8 tons according to navweaps, 6 tons according to Lacroix/Wells - sizeable, but nothing critical for an exceedingly stable ship, as far as I can tell after the Tomozuru Incident and the Fourth Fleet Incident Japanese built their ships with exceptional reserves of stability). The Mitshubishi's shipyard at Yokohama should be able to construct them in parallel with the Sasebo arsenal, and this will require

FatR -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/10/2013 6:35:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants I would like to have the Japanese CV divisions be 2 heavy CVs with a CVL that carries nothing but 30 to 33 fighters on board. From reading Kaigun and Shattered Sword, I think that what was proposed by the IJN. At least after Midway and in keeping with the Japanese offensive mindset. Is this going to be possible with the changes?? When playing Japan, I would like to start the game with 4 heavy CVs and 2 CVLs to hit Pearl and another CV div of 2 CVs and CVLs to use in the SRA. Regarding this, I can't find any evidence of such arrangements going beyond theoretical schemes. Take a look at the Japanese order of battle at Marianas: http://www.navweaps.com/index_oob/OOB_WWII_Pacific/OOB_WWII_Phillipine_Sea.htm It seems, that the switch to three-carrier divisions at that period was intended to keep said divisions homogenous. That said, Japan still has 3 fast CVLs (Ryujo, Shoho, Zuiho) that can be potentially added to the original carrier divisions and slower Ryuho, that can be attached to Junyo/Hiyo. Divisions, newly formed from Shokaku-kai carriers will have no such support, even potentially unless Tone-kai hulls are converted to carriers (this can be provided as an option, by making these cruisers initially available as hulls in late 1942, that can undergo either a brief "conversion" into the cruiser shape, or a real conversion into CVLs).

Kitakami -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/11/2013 12:01:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR <snip> That said, Japan still has 3 fast CVLs (Ryujo, Shoho, Zuiho) that can be potentially added to the original carrier divisions and slower Ryuho, that can be attached to Junyo/Hiyo. Divisions, newly formed from Shokaku-kai carriers will have no such support, even potentially unless Tone-kai hulls are converted to carriers (this can be provided as an option, by making these cruisers initially available as hulls in late 1942, that can undergo either a brief "conversion" into the cruiser shape, or a real conversion into CVLs). You could also use the conversions of the Chitose, Chiyoda and Nisshin, no? They are rated at 29 kts.

John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/11/2013 4:13:49 AM)
Kitakami got in before me with that thought. Remember in RA we have Mizuho come in as an exact sister to Chitose and Chiyoda. Good, fast ship for conversion. Additionally, FatR forgot to mention Nisshin comes in AS a CVL within the first couple of months of the war starting. These four ships make FINE CVLs by Japanese standards...

John 3rd -> RE: 6.0 (4/11/2013 4:18:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FatR quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd So where does that put you Sir? Now I'm more inclined to say that building 8 original Aganos is a better option. Not sure if they should start with as many DP guns, but carrying 2x2 100/65 from the beginning should be fine (the difference between 100/65 and 80/60 open twin mounts is 8 tons according to navweaps, 6 tons according to Lacroix/Wells - sizeable, but nothing critical for an exceedingly stable ship, as far as I can tell after the Tomozuru Incident and the Fourth Fleet Incident Japanese built their ships with exceptional reserves of stability). The Mitshubishi's shipyard at Yokohama should be able to construct them in parallel with the Sasebo arsenal, and this will require Going with 8 Agano's is fine by me. Faster, cheaper and slightly better AA. They make a fine DL. Not much for CV Escort though... Do we stick to the 2 Tone-Kai or look to something that recycles those triple 6.1" turrets taken off of the Mogami Class?

bigred -> RE: 6.0 (4/11/2013 4:37:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd I was actually the kid in Oliver speaking to the Headmaster... [8D] Seriously though. The Kawachi-Class BC are excellent ships. We included them originally as the realistic 'bone' Yamamoto would throw out to the Big Gun Faction of the Kaigun. It would be a fun fight to pit them against the Alaska's! Well, a smart allied player will "seek and destroy" those Kawachi's ASAP. I wonder if the 34 knot speed is a bit too much.

FatR -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/11/2013 11:27:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Kitakami got in before me with that thought. Remember in RA we have Mizuho come in as an exact sister to Chitose and Chiyoda. Good, fast ship for conversion. Additionally, FatR forgot to mention Nisshin comes in AS a CVL within the first couple of months of the war starting. These four ships make FINE CVLs by Japanese standards... Ehhh... my bad. They got sunk early in one of my games and are stuck forever in conversion in another, so their existence slipped out of my mind somehow. quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Going with 8 Agano's is fine by me. Faster, cheaper and slightly better AA. They make a fine DL. Not much for CV Escort though... Do we stick to the 2 Tone-Kai or look to something that recycles those triple 6.1" turrets taken off of the Mogami Class? Tone-Kai, with an option to conver them to CVLs on the slipways, as described above, if you wish. Why bother with outdated Mogami turrets for a two-ship class, when building normal CAs let's you create another homogenous 4-ship division?

John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/11/2013 10:24:31 PM)
OK. Looks like things are settled then for RA 6.0. I have written that we do the following: ALL wartime CV Building of Unryu's is scrapped in favor of 3 sets of Sho-Kais. Keep the Kawachi's and Tone-Kai's Replace old CLs with 8 lean and mean Aganos. Two at sea when the war starts and other six phasing in with time. Take out the late-war pair of CVLs. Allow conversion of 5 more 'Shadow Program' Ships. Did I miss anything?

FatR -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/12/2013 8:06:52 AM)
You forgot your opinion on my light forces proposal and upgrade to Babes from the beginning of this thread, John. I'm willing to do the tedious work on classes and ship lists (in fact, much of it is done already, as proposal for ships below destroyers are heavily based on what I did for the Perfect War files). Also, Kayo and 2 extra CVEs will be removed from the queue, replaced with on-map conversions you mentioned.

John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/13/2013 3:13:43 AM)
Why not? Makes sense to me to do so. I slight dialing back but still allowing lots of options. I do so LOVE options! Is there anything here that an AFB would realistically like to see changed, tweaked, added?

FatR -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/13/2013 7:57:17 AM)
In that case, we need a few more pieces of art: W 101 Minesweeper http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_ms_ex_brit.htm Kamishima Minelayer http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_ml_kamishima.htm SS Type LST http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_aux_ss.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IJA_SS-19.jpg Sokuten/Ajiro Minelayer (the art in AE doesn't really resemble its real looks). The same art except with a bigger gun fore and a gun instead of AAMG tower mount aft should be used for new escorts. http://www.navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_ml_sokuten.htm

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.8916016