RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's

RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (Full Version)

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

Message

Nomad -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/26/2020 8:51:59 PM)
I just did the Allied Dec 8 turn. I didn't find anything out of reason. The Pearl Harbor attack is pretty brutal, there are a lot more aircraft available than in stock.

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/27/2020 2:05:22 AM)
Your Post made me think about the actual RL starting numbers vs what we have in BTS. Here are the numbers of aircraft: Real Life--108 Zero, 135 Val, and 144 Kate BTS--212 Zero, 144 Val, and 180 Kate Total of 387 Planes versus 536. Thought it was interesting to see the preponderance of weight is in Zeros with near the same number of Vals and 36 more Kate. Very interesting...

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/27/2020 2:10:42 AM)
These are comments that Michael has been sending me. Anyone got thoughts to these points? 1. Not to nitpick, but I think the admirals are wrong on KB – 1, 2, and 3. Should have Nagumo in KB-1, Yamaguchi in 2, and new guy in 3. 2. What follow up forces would be starting to prep for any of these four objectives? With Combined Fleet at Saipan, would they draw down the BFs there for any of those bases? Thinking there needs to be a BF and maybe a construction for each to repair bases after capture. Need an Air HQ to be able to go to Rabaul or elsewhere. Right now they are at Truk and Roi-Numur. Should there be a third at Saipan? Move an Air Div from Home Islands down? 3. I’m taking my time with turn 2. I hit the “J” button to look at Airframes and R&D. The following airframes should be changed to something else. Osaka = Zeros (x2) at 10; Jake 8; Frances (x2) at 5 Yokohama = Kate at 15 Tsu = Jill at 8; Betty G4M2 at 3; Rita at 2 Nagoya = Val at 27; Judy (x2) at 7 & 9 Gifu = Val at 15; Topsy at 6 Nagasaki – Jake at 15 Sendai = Oscar Ic at 12 Harbin = Oscar Ic at 25 Utsonomiya = Tojo IIa at 20 Kobe = Nick d at 5; Rex at 10 Tokyo = Helen at 20

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/27/2020 2:13:23 AM)
Will check the Omaha-CL---CLAA Conversion. Make sure that is OK.

btd64 -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/27/2020 2:18:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Will check the Omaha-CL---CLAA Conversion. Make sure that is OK. Thank you John....GP

guctony -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/27/2020 5:26:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd That shouldn't happen...rather strange... The I-400s? Hmmm... I did not know they were Yamamoto's idea. Where did you read that? Hii I read on wiki if that counts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine

guctony -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/27/2020 5:27:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: guctony quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd That shouldn't happen...rather strange... The I-400s? Hmmm... I did not know they were Yamamoto's idea. Where did you read that? Hii I read on wiki if that counts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-400-class_submarine quote: The I-400 class was the brainchild of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Japanese Combined Fleet. Shortly after the attack on Pearl Harbor, he conceived the idea of taking the war to the United States mainland by making aerial attacks against cities along the U.S. western and eastern seaboards using submarine-launched naval aircraft. He commissioned Captain Kameto Kuroshima to make a feasibility study.[3] Yamamoto submitted the resulting proposal to Fleet Headquarters on 13 January 1942. It called for 18 large submarines capable of making three round-trips to the west coast of the United States without refueling or one round-trip to any point on the globe. They also had to be able to store and launch at least two attack aircraft armed with one torpedo or 800 kg (1,800 lb) bomb. By 17 March, general design plans for the submarines were finalized. Construction of I-400 commenced at Kure Dock Yards on 18 January 1943, and four more boats followed: I-401 (April 1943) and I-402 (Oct 1943) at Sasebo; I-403 (Sept 1943) at Kobe and I-404 (February 1944) at Kure. Only three were completed.[4] Following Yamamoto's death in April 1943, the number of aircraft-carrying submarines to be built was reduced from eighteen to nine, then five and finally three. Only I-400 and I-401 actually entered service; I-402 was completed on 24 July 1945, five weeks before the end of the war, but never made it to sea.

larryfulkerson -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/27/2020 5:42:04 PM)
I noticed that my game started off the Jap side with no VEH points, and I'm wondering if it was supposed to be that way. [image]local://upfiles/16287/06A5356C40604139994E8A161B17787F.jpg[/image]

Kitakami -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/27/2020 8:34:40 PM)
Scen 77: Bind 501 - Convert to class-> 326 New Mexico; Convert from class NONE.

btd64 -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/28/2020 1:34:59 PM)
Me and Larry are at Jan 5 now. Nothing to report from here....GP

larryfulkerson -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/28/2020 1:49:16 PM)
Is there an estimate for the ETA for the fixed version of the scenario(s)?

btd64 -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/28/2020 2:29:28 PM)
For the British, The Avenger I and II models are available on the same date, 44/03. Is this WAD?....GP

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/28/2020 7:06:56 PM)
Am over halfway done at this point. Have the day off due to a minor medical procedure tomorrow, so I will be getting this done tonight!

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/29/2020 12:32:00 AM)
Files sent to everyone. Both BTSL and BTSH. Everything ABOVE this Posting should be fixed!

larryfulkerson -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/29/2020 12:35:10 AM)
Thank you very much John dude. I've sent an inquiry to Brian to see if he wants to forgo the rest of the playtest and launch into a 'real' game with him as the Japs. I haven't heard back yet but I have my fingers crossed.

btd64 -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/29/2020 12:38:27 AM)
I'm diving into the deep end John....GP

Nomad -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/29/2020 1:30:58 AM)
Bases #1559, 1563, 1577, 1579 still have their HQ as Chungking, which is an unknown HQ in tracker.

Nomad -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/29/2020 1:31:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: btd64 For the British, The Avenger I and II models are available on the same date, 44/03. Is this WAD?....GP I looked and both stock and DBB have the same thing. I don't know why.

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/29/2020 8:27:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nomad quote: ORIGINAL: btd64 For the British, The Avenger I and II models are available on the same date, 44/03. Is this WAD?....GP I looked and both stock and DBB have the same thing. I don't know why. Can easily change those dates if you want. Could spread them 3-4 months so it isn't a real big deal. Will check the base numbers. Did not see that earlier. My fault.

Nomad -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/29/2020 9:02:13 PM)
Base # 1562, does not have nationality code, so does not show up on the map. It also does not have an HQ assignment.

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/29/2020 10:07:13 PM)
Think these are the bases that Michael are adding to the China side of the Mod. Michael? Is that correct??

Nomad -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/29/2020 10:11:58 PM)
Yes, I do think they are a part of Big B's China setup.

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing I-400 series SS's (4/29/2020 10:16:17 PM)
This is my list of changes or checks: Checked Dutch DDs and they SEEM to be OK. Please check this. Fixed the Ki-43, Ki-27b, and A5M4 doubling the 1990-1991 device effect. Corrected Ki-43 IIc variant to 2 20MM cannon and NOT 2 20MM Cannon AND 4 7.7MM Followed up on the advise from our new reader and improved/added to the CLAA upgrade of the Aoba-Furutaka Classes. They lose their aft 8" Gun and secondaries but then pick-up six 100 turrets (2 aft, 2 Port, and 2 Starboard). They are out of service during the conversion for a quite a while. Bearn-Class CVL STAYS a CVL. Kido Butai Organization is more historical for leadership: KB-1 Nagumo, KB-2 Yamaguchi, and KB-3 is a new guy (Nomato I think). Air Flotilla HQ at Saipan Checked Omaha-Class CL to CLAA Conversions and they are good. The base questions brought up by Nomad are China additions be Michael.

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing (4/29/2020 10:25:07 PM)
Michael and I chatted a couple of days ago and he posed an interesting query. Right now the Japanese Carrier TFs are arranged: Etorofu KB-1 Akagi, Amagi, and CVL KB-2 Hiryu, Soryu, and 2 CAV KB-3 Shokaku, Zuikaku, and CVL Cam Rahn Bay KB-4 2 CVL KB-1 to 4 all have the 1st Turn Speed Bonus Babeldoap CVE TF 3 CVE He proposed a reorganization of the carriers to the following: Etorofu KB-1 Akagi, Amagi, 2 CVL KB-3 Shokaku, Zuikaku, and 2 CAV Saipan KB-2 Hiryu and Soryu Cam Rahn Bay KB-4 2 CVL Babeldoap CVE TF 3 CVE His thinking is that placing KB-1 to -3 is overkill on Pearl Harbor. Freeing up CarDiv2 to effectively free lance by placing them at Saipan with the Speed Bonus makes for interesting possibilities: You still use them to crush PH OR use them elsewhere (say Manila). What does everyone think about this?

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing (4/29/2020 10:49:13 PM)
Other arrangements are OPEN for discussion!

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing (4/29/2020 10:53:32 PM)
Have always based the RA and BTS carrier deployment on Fuchida and Genda's desire to create a 2 CV and 1 CVL CarDiv Organization.

Nomad -> RE: BTS Play-Testing (4/30/2020 12:56:30 AM)
All I can say is that I was overwhelmed at PH against Michael. I feel he could have stayed for days and pounded PH if he wanted. Any ship too damaged to set sail would be sunk.

ny59giants -> RE: BTS Play-Testing (4/30/2020 3:53:14 AM)
quote: All I can say is that I was overwhelmed at PH against Michael. I feel he could have stayed for days and pounded PH if he wanted. Any ship too damaged to set sail would be sunk. Dec 7th saw 44 TT hits resulting in Mississippi being sunk. Dec 8th saw just Kates hit the AF while two Zeros groups swept the skies before they arrived. Dec 9th saw Kates hit the port again. Arizona and Oklahoma were sunk. Dec 10th saw KB leave, but I would have stayed longer if this was a full length PBEM. Ken had a CV TF and SC TF approaching the Gilberts and Marshalls, but Ms Nell was waiting. [:)]

Kitakami -> RE: BTS Play-Testing (4/30/2020 4:07:48 PM)
I did not fare terribly in Pearl's port (1 sunk, all damaged heavily), but I fared terribly in the airfields. Had John pressed his attack on the port, I would have lost most of the BBs. Having said that, I am a total Allied n00b. So if anyone could send a primer or some advice on how to play the Allied side, I'd be much obliged.

John 3rd -> RE: BTS Play-Testing (5/2/2020 9:15:16 PM)
OK. Time to shift to the economy. Jorge and I are at Dec 19, 1941. I have purposefully not touched ANYTHING until this last turn. In watching, the economy was adding nearly 2,000 HI a day to the beginning total. This is good. I started on shipyards last turn. We were running at about 300-350 point deficit. To end that, I stopped construction on an Owari-Class BB and the 2nd B-65. Doing that brought me within a few dozen shipyard points. To start a slow shipyard expansion I raised five of the small shipyards from their little 4-6 starting number to ten. Net gain was 28 points. Japan starts with 2 CVL (Nisshin and Ryujo) less then two months away. Nisshin comes in on Christmas. After that we have Junyo and Hiyo coming in during the late-Spring. Conceivably we could wait until those are complete and then re-start the B-65 without issue. Think to make things easier, the Shipyards could be bumped a further 50-75 to make a total increase of about 100. Doing that would not be TOO expensive and by May 1, 1942 we'd have a clear idea as to whether that is enough. Merchant Yards are very different. I am having a devil of a time on January 1944, with Sean, keeping any points at all. Have shut down nearly everything except Tanker construction. This experience makes me think that Merchie Yards might need some additional help. Not sure if it is worth it or not...I have more then enough ships in 1944 to move everything so the concern might be moot. Thoughts???

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734375