RE: Dailing in on London

RE: Dailing in on London (Full Version)

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

Message

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Dailing in on London (9/7/2017 9:13:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd That looks very useful. One could go back and look to see if you did this or did that. Like the looks of it. I see it's value two fold: 1. Provides a thorough change log of the scenario between versions. 2. Allows modders that use another mod(s) as the base of their mod to incorporate changes to the base mod without exhaustive work. So let's say you really like a mod's ground and naval OOB, but really hate the air OOB. You decide to build your own mod that overhauls the air OOB. A few months later, the base mod makes changes that are really interesting and you want to incorporate SOME of them. You can us the scenario comparison to identify changes and then selectively apply those changes to your scenario. Unless you're like me and you totally gutted the naval OoB [:D]

decourcy2 -> RE: Dailing in on London (9/7/2017 9:44:32 PM)
You were commenting on the Japanese breaking the treaty but remember into the 1970's the USA insisted the North Carolina/Washington classes were 35,000 tons.

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on London (9/8/2017 1:13:08 AM)
That is a GOOD point!

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Dailing in on London (9/8/2017 2:20:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: decourcy2 You were commenting on the Japanese breaking the treaty but remember into the 1970's the USA insisted the North Carolina class were 35,000 tons. Maybe so, but no one builds a battleship on 15,000 tons (or puts Baby in a corner).

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on London (9/8/2017 2:26:04 AM)
NO ONE puts BABY in the corner. (CANNOT believe you made me quote that movie...)[:'(]

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Dailing in on London (9/8/2017 3:48:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd NO ONE puts BABY in the corner. (CANNOT believe you made me quote that movie...)[:'(] It's good for you.

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/9/2017 1:09:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Let's go through the Real Life Numbers and ships from Washington vs. the revamped Ships and Numbers for the Mod: USA Utah 21,825 Florida 21,825 Wyoming 26,000 Arkansas 26,000 Texas 27,000 New York 27,000 Nevada 27,500 Oklahoma 27,500 Pennsylvania 31,400 Arizona 31,400 Mississippi 32,000 New Mexico 32,000 Idaho 32,000 Tennessee 32,300 California 32,300 Maryland 32,600 West Virginia 32,600 Colorado 32,600 TOTAL: 525,850 Japan Settsu TARGET SHIP Kongo 27,500 Hiei 27,500 Haruna 27,500 Kirishima 27,500 Fuso 30,600 Yamashiro 30,600 Ise 31,260 Hyuga 31,260 Nagato 33,800 Mutsu 33,800 TOTAL: 301,230 525,280 x .6 = 315,510 Japan has 14,280 T available but nothing can be built to that tonnage. NEW NUMBERS USA Wyoming TARGET SHIP Arkansas 26,000 Texas 27,000 New York 27,000 Nevada 27,500 Oklahoma 27,500 Pennsylvania 31,400 Arizona 31,400 Mississippi 32,000 New Mexico 32,000 Idaho 32,000 Tennessee 32,300 California 32,300 Maryland 32,600 West Virginia 32,600 Colorado 32,600 Washington 32,600 Constellation 43,500 +1 New Capital Ship to be built 30,000 T TOTAL: 597,300 Japan Settsu TARGET SHIP Kongo 27,500 Hiei 27,500 Haruna 27,500 Kirishima 27,500 Fuso 30,600 Yamashiro 30,600 Ise 31,260 Hyuga 31,260 Nagato 33,800 Mutsu 33,800 Tosa 39,900 Ishitaka 41,220 TOTAL: 382,440 567,300 x .7 = 397,110 Japan has nearly the same available tonnage (14,670 T) but nothing can be built to that tonnage. That is the Treaty by specific math and ships. Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage?

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/9/2017 1:13:33 PM)
The files have been sent back over to Michael for some stuff he wants to do. Figure we'll release this sometime this coming week. We'll then shift over to BTSL.

ny59giants -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/9/2017 3:25:58 PM)
quote: Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage? Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not.

1EyedJacks -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/9/2017 5:08:25 PM)
Or a stronger experimental push with those light Kitikuma cruisers that sport a pair of twenty-torpedo broadsides? Wouldn't it be kind of fun to have 12 of those available early in the war? [:D]

Kitakami -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/9/2017 5:47:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants quote: Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage? Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not. This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much).

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/9/2017 5:55:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kitakami quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants quote: Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage? Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not. This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much). It would be an excellent impetus pre-war for the US 12-inch "Cruiser-Killer" class: [image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/5778/3A5C44DC7B7549B08537C3533DC12706.jpg[/image]

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/9/2017 9:54:39 PM)
You know...I have to admit...against better judgement...this is an interesting idea. Timeline: Japan gets stuck with this 'extra' tonnage that serves no real purpose. No one expects Japan to do anything useful with it. As could be expected, the Japanese begin experimenting with various possibilities. Germany's Deutchland-Class 'pocket battleship's' plans are revealed in 1928. 10-12,000 T with 6 11" guns...hmmm...THAT is interesting. Japan's allotment can be almost TWICE that. If the Germans can do it...perhaps Japan can... France and the USA begins looking at the German design as well. The new American Capital Ship authorized at Washington is created. It carries 3x2 14" guns and has a speed of 28 Knots. Hmmmm... France responds with the Strasbourg-Class. Germany responds to those BCs by the Schranhorst-Class of BC. CERTAINLY Looks like a plausible timeline to me. WHAT SAY YOU?? Give me a wessel that is a Light Battlecruiser or a super-heavy Command Cruiser. Put on your thinking caps and look at Japanese designs and possible directions they might--reasonably move. Given Japan's proclivities...we have 15,000 available...can we make a ship that is 18-20,000?

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/9/2017 9:55:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan quote: ORIGINAL: Kitakami quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants quote: Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage? Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not. This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much). It would be an excellent impetus pre-war for the US 12-inch "Cruiser-Killer" class: [image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/5778/3A5C44DC7B7549B08537C3533DC12706.jpg[/image] Dadman: Can you give me a SOURCE for your five turret BC? I have not found something in mine to run that way. I've found 4x3 12" or the 3x2 14".

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/9/2017 9:56:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kitakami quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants quote: Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage? Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not. This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much). Probably need to be TWIN Turrets since the Japanese don't move to triples until the Mogami's and Yamato. Course THIS could be the experiment FOR Triple turrets...

Kitakami -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/9/2017 10:58:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd quote: ORIGINAL: Kitakami quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants quote: Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage? Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not. This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much). Probably need to be TWIN Turrets since the Japanese don't move to triples until the Mogami's and Yamato. Course THIS could be the experiment FOR Triple turrets... Hmm... 6x 36cm/45 in three twin turrets, A, B, and Y. 4x-6x 12cm (or 12.7cm) AA single mounts (to be replaced by 10cm double mounts later on). 12x-18x 25mm AA in triple mounts. Torpedoes (no less than 8 tubes, perhaps more). Speed of some 27-odd knots. I am no historian like you guys, but the above feels somewhat right... and you did ask for opinions :)

traskott -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/9/2017 11:03:59 PM)
Check at furashita fleet site, chichibu and goryo..... I REALLY like the idea of those alaskas!!

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 12:20:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan quote: ORIGINAL: Kitakami quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants quote: Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage? Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not. This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much). It would be an excellent impetus pre-war for the US 12-inch "Cruiser-Killer" class: [image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/5778/3A5C44DC7B7549B08537C3533DC12706.jpg[/image] Dadman: Can you give me a SOURCE for your five turret BC? I have not found something in mine to run that way. I've found 4x3 12" or the 3x2 14". Friedman's U.S. Battleships on page 224 refers to a 35,000 ton design being made to carry fifteen 12in/50cal. In the sketch at the top of the page, it schemes out a 30,000 ton ship with a 31.5 knot speed, a 12 inch belt and 5 inch deck. As a battle cruiser she could sacrifice some armor to make 33kts.

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 1:21:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: traskott Check at furashita fleet site, chichibu and goryo..... I REALLY like the idea of those alaskas!! Chichibu looks pretty good at 19,000T.

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 1:22:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd quote: ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan quote: ORIGINAL: Kitakami quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants quote: Just for kicks and giggles, Japan does have 15,000T available. Figuring how they under-reported tonnage (and were allowed to get away with it) perhaps that number could go to 18-20,000T. Could you do anything with that available tonnage? Single experimental 'pocket' BB/BC with single turrets forward and aft with either a pair of 18" or 20" guns. Or having three guns in a that large a turret of that size. Helps Japan test the feasibility of a super-BB or not. This would be my thinking too... the Japanese version of the Deutschland class, with 6-8 rifles larger than 11" (although 18-20" feels like a bit too much). It would be an excellent impetus pre-war for the US 12-inch "Cruiser-Killer" class: [image]http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/upfiles/5778/3A5C44DC7B7549B08537C3533DC12706.jpg[/image] Dadman: Can you give me a SOURCE for your five turret BC? I have not found something in mine to run that way. I've found 4x3 12" or the 3x2 14". Friedman's U.S. Battleships on page 224 refers to a 35,000 ton design being made to carry fifteen 12in/50cal. In the sketch at the top of the page, it schemes out a 30,000 ton ship with a 31.5 knot speed, a 12 inch belt and 5 inch deck. As a battle cruiser she could sacrifice some armor to make 33kts. Will gladly look into that!

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 1:23:05 AM)
Dadman: Can you take the art you have for 5x3 and make it into 4x3 with super-firing turrets on bow and stern?

DOCUP -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 1:54:05 AM)
I have been stalking this thread all day and couldn't post. I have been screaming IJN Chichibu. I'm glad someone mentioned it. I found this artwork for it, hope it helps John. Its all I got. [image]local://upfiles/35564/DC418170738B4E34BB00995791245535.jpg[/image]

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 1:57:27 AM)
From Furushita's Fleet: Displacement 19,000 tons Armament (BCL) 2 x 2 16"/45 , 1 x 3 6" 4 x 4 TT + Medium and Light AA Speed 33 knots Mentioned in Allied literature of WW II dealing with Japan's naval builds, a ship called the Chichibu was thought to be a Japanese improvement on the German pocket-battleship idea, that is, a few battleship guns on a cruiser hull. The US Navy was so sold on the existence of this fictitious enemy ship that it actually built the Alaska-class 'large cruisers' to match it! In "Grand Fleet" the Chichibu is designed to fight cruisers or heavily-damaged capital ships with large-calibre guns and torpedoes. Built in secret when Japan was considering withdrawing from adherence to the Washington and London Treaties, this stretched heavy cruiser could outrun all except a few of the world's fastest battleships. Two 16" turrets from the converted Tosa and a single triple 6" turret from the converted CL Mogami formed the main armament.

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 1:58:13 AM)
Good to see you DOCUP!

DOCUP -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 2:11:24 AM)
I kinda like this version better. Looks more like a raider with the extra 3 6 in guns https://dilandu.deviantart.com/art/Tsukuba-class-heavy-armored-cruisers-AU-447481540

traskott -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 10:31:33 AM)
Its looks better yes... Problem with Chichibu et alii is how to employ them. I have use them and are very dificult to employ... not enough ROF i think, so a good secondary battery and plenty of TT are a must. The Alaska killer concept is better. I ran some test with a 12x8", 16x6" or 16x5" and ooooooh boy. They are truly beasts..

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 3:16:04 PM)
I like Chichibu as a choice. It actually fits with the Tonnage (from a Japanese perspective) and carries serious punch from two of Kaga's unused four turrets...

Admiral DadMan -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 3:19:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Dadman: Can you take the art you have for 5x3 and make it into 4x3 with super-firing turrets on bow and stern? Yes, depending on my schedule, it may not be ready until next weekend.

John 3rd -> RE: Dailing in on Washington (9/10/2017 8:11:50 PM)
That would be fine. Please create it!

John 3rd -> LBC Chichibu (9/11/2017 2:40:50 AM)
Taking a complete shot-in-the-dark, here is the Light Battlecruiser Chichibu. Her turrets come from the incomplete Kaga. I imagined a 'typical' Japanese CA and raised her by about 30-40%. Figured that the initial displacement was around 19,000 but has gone up with reconstruction. Have no idea regarding armor or durability. Think I need to raise Endurance and Fuel. Took a slight lowering of BC Amagi and the Kongos. Am not wedded to this presently so provide some good thoughts and constructive commentary! [image]local://upfiles/18041/7583AFD6FFEA473D8218A87F676C2695.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 16 17 [18] 19 20 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.796875