IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room



Message

Hanzberger -> IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/18/2019 11:28:26 AM)

Hey all, so what are your thoughts on BB conversions. It's yet another catch 22 for the IJFB in that they take sooooo long.
The improved AA is incredible. (or is it?)



Trugrit -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/18/2019 1:45:35 PM)


You are asking about taking certain Japanese Battleships and removing the rear 36cm guns
and adding a flight deck on the back to carry more aircraft?

I would say most Japanese players would frown on doing this.
The question is how best to use a battleship.

Remove the rear guns and you reduce the bombardment and surface combat potential of the
ship to get what amounts to more air search capability.

Many players use BB’s in Air Combat TF’s to take damage away from the carriers
so I would think they would stay with the rear gun instead of the flight deck.

They do get improved AA but “Incredible” is a relative term.
They also get improved AA with the regular upgrades.
I stay with the regular upgrades.

I remember years ago that some players took to calling these conversions (Frankenstien’s)
So I did a quick search
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2627475




castor troy -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/18/2019 2:43:39 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

Hey all, so what are your thoughts on BB conversions. It's yet another catch 22 for the IJFB in that they take sooooo long.
The improved AA is incredible. (or is it?)


if you do those conversions then the only reason I'd see is their ability to field nearly 48 float fighters. The Rufe first and then the Rex later on. Having nearly 50 more fighters on Cap over KB might mean another carrier saved from sinking but then I'm not using those slow BBs with KB anyways. Flak from the conversion won't do much.



jdsrae -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/18/2019 2:58:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

Hey all, so what are your thoughts on BB conversions. It's yet another catch 22 for the IJFB in that they take sooooo long.
The improved AA is incredible. (or is it?)


if you do those conversions then the only reason I'd see is their ability to field nearly 48 float fighters. The Rufe first and then the Rex later on. Having nearly 50 more fighters on Cap over KB might mean another carrier saved from sinking but then I'm not using those slow BBs with KB anyways. Flak from the conversion won't do much.


I'm pondering the pros and cons now. It's a surface combat vs air combat capability question.
Whether a ship looks ugly or not isn't a factor for me, but that might just be giving away my opinion of architects.
In about 12 months time I'll share my answer in my AAR so CrackSabbath doesn't see it here!



Chickenboy -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/18/2019 2:58:34 PM)

Hanzberger-I've not converted them, in large part because it happens pretty late in the "CV competitive" game timeframe. Things have usually been decided by then or the BBs have been put to other uses. I've always thought like Trugrit describes, but am reassessing the potential value of having the extra CAP fighters on hand. When combined with CS-CVL conversions or CS float fighter supplementation, it could be a real contribution.

My 'jury' is still out.



GetAssista -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/18/2019 3:01:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy
if you do those conversions then the only reason I'd see is their ability to field nearly 48 float fighters. The Rufe first and then the Rex later on. Having nearly 50 more fighters on Cap over KB might mean another carrier saved from sinking but then I'm not using those slow BBs with KB anyways. Flak from the conversion won't do much.

BBs are also torpedo/bomb magnets pulling planes away from CVs. So if you have them in a TF you might just as well have some additional CAP from them



obvert -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/18/2019 3:21:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Hanzberger-I've not converted them, in large part because it happens pretty late in the "CV competitive" game timeframe. Things have usually been decided by then or the BBs have been put to other uses. I've always thought like Trugrit describes, but am reassessing the potential value of having the extra CAP fighters on hand. When combined with CS-CVL conversions or CS float fighter supplementation, it could be a real contribution.

My 'jury' is still out.


The other part is you lose them for critical periods of 44. The long conversions that start well into the campaign are IMHO not worth it. The CS and the BB conversations take away those ships while the most important battles are being fought, when the IJN is still competitive.

I've "accidentally" converted Ise and I didn't find it of much use either in the late game. I have found bombardments still very useful, and these ships have a lot of guns. Keep the guns.



Trugrit -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/18/2019 5:42:06 PM)

Maybe wishful thinking about float plane cap vs carrier based combat air.

First, the Japanese BB conversions are not available until October and some in December 1943.
Is the Japanese player going to convert them all? They take up space in the repair yards.

Then 180 days to get the ships operational. That is 6 months.
They won’t go operational until around April and May 1944.

By then they are up against Hellcats on Essex carriers in good numbers.

By May 1944 has time passed the Japanese by?




BBfanboy -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/18/2019 5:53:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

Maybe wishful thinking about float plane cap vs carrier based combat air.

First, the Japanese BB conversions are not available until October and some in December 1943.
Is the Japanese player going to convert them all? They take up space in the repair yards.

Then 180 days to get the ships operational. That is 6 months.
They won’t go operational until around April and May 1944.

By then they are up against Hellcats on Essex carriers in good numbers.

By May 1944 has time passed the Japanese by?

In the thread about the Rex FP, someone mentioned using the FPs as very low CAP to thwart TBs. Unless some of the Allied fighters are also going low they are likely to never engage the low FP CAP.



Hanzberger -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/19/2019 10:41:48 AM)

All valued opinions from respected players. I think if the conversion time was halved there would be more experience on "is it worth it?"



Trugrit -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/19/2019 11:08:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit

Maybe wishful thinking about float plane cap vs carrier based combat air.

First, the Japanese BB conversions are not available until October and some in December 1943.
Is the Japanese player going to convert them all? They take up space in the repair yards.

Then 180 days to get the ships operational. That is 6 months.
They won’t go operational until around April and May 1944.

By then they are up against Hellcats on Essex carriers in good numbers.

By May 1944 has time passed the Japanese by?

In the thread about the Rex FP, someone mentioned using the FPs as very low CAP to thwart TBs. Unless some of the Allied fighters are also going low they are likely to never engage the low FP CAP.

That won't work.

Cap will scramble up to the strike altitude.




rustysi -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/19/2019 4:54:31 PM)

If one considers the 'big picture' these conversions could be most useful.

The added AAA, while not incredible, is substantial for Japan. The added fighters on cap, and the fact that by this phase of the war Japan should not be seeking surface combat, or bombardments, add to the impetus for conversion.

A far as the BB's speed, they can be pair up with like carriers. In general it how I set my CVTF, however they operate as a group. As for them occupying yard space, I have them expanded by that time, so...

There're other things a play can do, but I save that for another day.



Trugrit -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/19/2019 8:07:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

If one considers the 'big picture' these conversions could be most useful.

The added AAA, while not incredible, is substantial for Japan. The added fighters on cap, and the fact that by this phase of the war Japan should not be seeking surface combat, or bombardments, add to the impetus for conversion.

A far as the BB's speed, they can be pair up with like carriers. In general it how I set my CVTF, however they operate as a group. As for them occupying yard space, I have them expanded by that time, so...

There're other things a play can do, but I save that for another day.

Good points.

If I'm the Allied player I would be good with it as well.

Anytime I can take multiple Japanese battleships out of the war for 6 months without having to fight them is a good day.




PaxMondo -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/20/2019 12:30:47 AM)

Not a fan. 304mph Rex ain't gonna do much in terms of CAP in late '44 45/46. Most of the allied bombers are faster.

BB's are BB's. even late game they have uses as such. 40 plane CS just isn't anything of consequence and losing them for 6 months? Nope. Not on my watch.

[;)]



rustysi -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/22/2019 12:07:13 AM)

A thousand players, a thousand ways to play.[:D]



Barb -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/22/2019 9:43:01 PM)

Actually Rex is faster than TBF/TBM and SBD/SB2C... but just marginally (cca 304 for Rex, 295 for SB2C, 255 for SBD and 270 for TBF/TBM).
But would be eaten alive by any fighters present with the strike I do believe.

Shortening of the refit could help in game terms, but would differ with reality:
ISE: entered refit on 23 February 1943 - officially ended on 8 October 1943 = 227 days
HIYUGA: entered refit on 1 May 1943 - officially ended on 18 November 1943 = 201 days

In my game I did three available conversions (one of the Yamashiro class was sunk) and using them as scouting/flak force for the slower carriers.



Ian R -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/23/2019 9:55:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


Remove the rear guns and you reduce the bombardment and surface combat potential of the
ship to get what amounts to more air search capability.



Slightly different tangent, but how often do ships use the stern turrets compared to usage of the bow turrets?

I have an impression they tend to use the sharp end mountings more.



Trugrit -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/23/2019 10:51:51 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


Remove the rear guns and you reduce the bombardment and surface combat potential of the
ship to get what amounts to more air search capability.



Slightly different tangent, but how often do ships use the stern turrets compared to usage of the bow turrets?

I have an impression they tend to use the sharp end mountings more.


They use them in almost every situation.

They won’t fight head on if they can avoid it.
Battleships turn broadside to bring the max number of guns to bear on target.

Here is a term you might see on the forum:
https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_T




BBfanboy -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/23/2019 1:47:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R


quote:

ORIGINAL: Trugrit


Remove the rear guns and you reduce the bombardment and surface combat potential of the
ship to get what amounts to more air search capability.



Slightly different tangent, but how often do ships use the stern turrets compared to usage of the bow turrets?

I have an impression they tend to use the sharp end mountings more.


I presume you mean in-game as opposed to IRL? In-game, the magazine usage seems to indicate almost random usage - sometimes the aft mags will be nearly empty and sometimes hardly touched. The Memphis class CLs with the guns in casemates instead of turrets often have little usage on the casemated guns but sort of random usage on their turreted guns. All this is anecdotal, I haven't done testing or kept stats.



Barb -> RE: IJFB's thoughts on BB conversion (10/24/2019 9:58:36 AM)

IRL Ships in AB-MN-XY configuration would probably have slightly lower ammo consumption on the MN turrets than on ABXY turrets - given the arcs of fire and probability of time spent in Approach-Broadside-Departure plus various zig-zags the mathematics simply favors AB-XY guns over MN guns here. The actual consumption would depend on actual tactical situation, missed salvos (jammed guns, etc), salvo pattern used, etc.

Given the actual configuration you can take the Density of the Main Gun fire from the original Ise class and just replace the aftmost "4" with 0, the aft sides to 2 and broadside to 8. Of course any aircraft on deck/catapults during firing of MN guns would probably be damaged or blown over the side.

[image]local://upfiles/24245/87E1A1CD2CD84DD4B843FC1378035690.jpg[/image]



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9528809