RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

mikemike -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/17/2004 5:29:18 AM)

In Scen 15: Class 501 (Yamato) has no 5.1in turret on RS, but two on R (must be typo).

Now for some items I found on www.combinedfleet.com:

The DD Akigumo (Ship 146) should be Class Kagero (#65), not Yugumo (#66).
The Yugumo upgrade class #579 should still have six 5in guns, as X turret on the Yugumos was not replaced by two triple 25mm as on the Asashios and Kageros, those additional triple mounts were installed on new bandstands abaft the forward funnel.

Lastly, I think the T1 class APDs should be included, as ships of that class were very active on resupply missions in the Philippines



Mlkavan -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/17/2004 8:50:33 AM)

Would the following information be of use? I have only looked at the Japanese Fortresses from v1.21 and did not see correct information for Japanese Coastal Defense Fortresses in Japan. I don't remember any changes made for them in v1.30.

I have always been interested in Japanese Coastal Defense in Japan. In the last year, I came across a reference to a report prepared by United States Coastal Artillery Command? officers after World War II, titled "Survey of Japanese Seacoast Artillery", 1946. I was able to download this report as a pdf file from an official web site located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania which had alot of old disclassified reports from at the end of World War II.

The report I have cover Army Seacoast Artillery, Naval Seacoast Artillery, and Controlled Submarine Mines. They give specs, installations, fire control and locations of all coastal defense artillery arround the coast of Japan. One point of interest was that the Japanese had only one formal coastal defense gun (a 15cm/50) developed between the early 1920's and World War II. This gun was designed to be controled by a coastal defense fire control computer developed for it. Any other references to coastal defense guns in the Pacific islands were jury rigged to fire over open sights (i.e. no computer, fire table or anything).

Also, present is a description of the 16" turrents mounted in fortresses to cover Tsushima Straits at southern entrance to the Sea of Japan.

Also, information on Japanese Controled mines used in Japan, how they operate, where installed, and how many by the end of the war. Interesting fact, when the mines were destroyed after the war by triggering them through their submarine cables (on command), the American Officers were impressed by the realitbility of the mines. A 100% fire rate resulted.

Mike



Tomo -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/17/2004 9:26:12 AM)

Yes, DD Akigumo (Ship 146) is Class Kagero (#65), not Yugumo (#66).

HOSHO couldn't carry A6 series & B5 series till she is upgraded.
She carried Claude & B4Y1 till battle of Midway because of her tiny body.
(HOSHO's B4Y1 found HIRYU drifts after MIdway battle. Few survivors of HIRYU who are still left in the ship saw B4Y1 from Hiryu's deck)
After she was upgraded, could carry A6, B5 & D3(couldn't B6, B7 & D4) but cannot go far away from Japan anymore.
Limited to shallow water area around Japan and used for training of navy pilots.

In Mariana scenario, SHOKAKU, ZUIKAKU & TAIHO carried 3 VALs each for ASW historically.

BRAZIL-MARU was planned to be CVE historically(KAIYO CLASS). Before she was convereted, was sunk. She should be upgraded to CVE. Also ASAMA-MARU, TAKITA-MARU & CHICHIBU-MARU were sunk before converted to CVE. Maybe not fit to this thread...



ctid98 -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/17/2004 10:52:50 AM)

Don't know if its been covered by anybody else yet but.....

Devastaters, historically there were only 127 (ish) built in total and I believe all of them were built pre December '41. Therefore we shouldn't have any replacements built and unless they're on board a ship should be in the replacement pool.

Thanks

CTID98



alek2004xx -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/17/2004 5:06:29 PM)

I suggest that there should be some changes:

-player should have a free hand if he wants to upgrade one model in factories or not (for example my strategy could lead to using fighters with better range like earlier models of mitsubishi zero)

-any unit with aircrafts from one category (figherts,level bombers etc) could be replaced by any aircraft from the same category.even the earlier type.


this model of replacement and production was used in "war in russia" and was good in my opinion.



Feinder -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/17/2004 7:57:58 PM)

quote:

Devastaters, historically there were only 127 (ish) built in total and I believe all of them were built pre December '41. Therefore we shouldn't have any replacements built and unless they're on board a ship should be in the replacement pool.


You assertion is corroberated here :
quote:

And, although Devastator production totaled only 129 aircraft, it achieved a notoriety completely out of proportion to its numbers (as we shall see).


Aviation-History.Com

Interesting. I had no idea that so few were produced. I'm impressed that so many of those produced, so active service (unfortunately for them). I'd have to agree, that TBD production should be restricted. I'd assume you could carry more SBDs, but that would cause a bit a of nightmare for the SBD sqdns. It's not like USN CVs would be going around with hanger-space for 15 extra planes, and not do anything. But if you did expand the SBD sqdn size after a given date (like they do for fighters), what about the player who doesn't get his TBDs slaughtered (and thus making room for the SBDs). Now you have an over-packed CV.

Interesting delimma (or just leave it alone).

-F-



mikemike -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/17/2004 9:31:35 PM)

One thing I just noticed: PT-109 without Kennedy, J.F., LtJG, USN?
JFK doesnīt even seem to be contained in the Leaders database. I suppose this issue will date me, but if we are to have every single U.S. ace of WWII in the Pilots database, why not also put the only PT boat skipper to make President into the Leaders?

To continue in this vein, I suppose we could also have Bush, George H.W., as a Navy pilot. I think Carter, James Earl, was in the Navy, too. Nixon, Richard M., was a simple sailor, so is not relevant here. Reagan, Ronald, fought his naval battles on the sound stage in Hollywood. Did I forget any President with a WWII in the Pacific past?

To go on a tangent here: when every single republican president of the recent past (with the exception of Nixon) has a spanking new carrier named after him, even if he isnīt safely dead yet, doesnīt it strike you as peculiar they had just a destroyer to be named after Franklin D. Roosevelt, the president who led his country almost all the way through WWII and who made sure the U.S.Navy had the ships it needed when it needed them?

Edited for spelling (mikemike)



Bongo -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/17/2004 10:38:26 PM)

Actually the navy named a Midway class carrier after FDR not just a destroyer. Kind of takes the wind out of your anti-republican rant, doesn't it?



Tankerace -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/17/2004 11:16:56 PM)

That, plus in the navy, the highest honor that can be bestowed is to have a destroyer named after you. Carriers and all are great, but its navy tradition to want a tin can named after you.

BTW, since you are making a rant on flattops named after Republicans, don't forget about the Harry S. Truman (CVN-75).

That, plus Democrats are typically small military, so when the navy does finally get to build a newflattop, who are they gonna name it after, the Democrat that wanted it scrapped, or the Republican that gave it to them. Just a thought.



DrewMatrix -> OOB Comments/Suggestion (11/17/2004 11:20:30 PM)

(Deleted, sorry)



JSBoomer -> RE: OOB Comments/Suggestion (11/18/2004 3:08:32 AM)

[>:]



Williamb -> RE: OOB Comments/Suggestion (11/18/2004 3:40:33 AM)

Can we have the Medal of Honor US winners that I posted in the previous Patch thread ?

Some you have like Bong and boyington but many others you dont like the ship captains and admirals at pearl.

Dunno what happened to the old thread but can go to the medal of honor site to find the leaders.



Pascal_slith -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/18/2004 5:08:40 PM)

An excellent source on the TBD Devastator is the book from Osprey Publishing "TBD Devastator units of WWII".



ctid98 -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/18/2004 7:42:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

An excellent source on the TBD Devastator is the book from Osprey Publishing "TBD Devastator units of WWII".


Thats where I got my info, and they've got great books on all the other major U.S. carrier planes to see service, covering design, development and deployment. Still light though on the IJN, but, they're always adding stuff.

Hope no one minds but.... www.ospreypublishing.co.uk / www.ospreypublishing.com

Great reference sources.

CTID98



pad152 -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/18/2004 9:00:51 PM)

Japanese Para units still can't have their 47mm ATG moved by aircraft. Either change the OOB of Japanese Para units to equipment that can be airlifted or allow 47mm ATG to be airlifted.



Jmsimer -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/19/2004 2:04:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

To continue in this vein, I suppose we could also have Bush, George H.W., as a Navy pilot. I think Carter, James Earl, was in the Navy, too. Nixon, Richard M., was a simple sailor, so is not relevant here. Reagan, Ronald, fought his naval battles on the sound stage in Hollywood. Did I forget any President with a WWII in the Pacific past?
Edited for spelling (mikemike)


Carter was in the Naval Academy class of 1946... although the class of 46's graduation was hurried to 1945, they didn't quite make it into the war (a good family friend is a member of that class).



mikemike -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/19/2004 4:09:25 AM)

I didnīt want to start off a flame war, and this certainly isnīt the right thread for that, but rant? A bit strong, isnīt it?

To answer Bongo, actually no. Iīm not talking about CVB-42, that ship was named shortly after Rooseveltīs death by a Democrat administration. I was talking about DDG-80 "Roosevelt", which FDR shares with his wife. CV67 "John F. Kennedy" was also named shortly after his death by a Democrat administration, J. Boomer.
Tankerace, I acknowledge your point concerning the naming of destroyers, I know they are traditionally named after Navy heroes, so why was George Bush sen. fobbed off with a mere carrier?
I just wish the USN wouldnīt name its mightiest ships in the same spirit that gave the Stinkfoot, Tennessee, General Hospital its Homer Q. Moneybags Memorial Ward.



pry -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/19/2004 2:17:47 PM)

This thread is getting out of hand again.... Please stay to the topic as stated in the Title



Hipper -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/20/2004 10:04:35 AM)

Scenario 15

British 7th armour brigade

Still has Grant tanks should have @ 100 stuart tanks only
also change 18 lbers to 25 lbers

cheers



mc3744 -> ETA button (11/20/2004 2:01:24 PM)

After 3 months of play I still have some difficulties guessing when a TF will arrive at destination.
An ETA info somewhere in the TF window would be great.



Tankerace -> RE: ETA button (11/20/2004 9:21:26 PM)

That's a wish list, not an OOB issue. This thread is only for OOB corrections.



Tanaka -> RE: ETA button (11/20/2004 11:24:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

That's a wish list, not an OOB issue. This thread is only for OOB corrections.



thats the problem there is no wish list anymore so everyone is putting there wishes in here [;)]



Don Bowen -> Extra Ootori Class Torpedo Boat? (11/21/2004 1:31:45 AM)

There is a ninth Ootori Class Torpedo boat in Scenarion 15 (there were only 8!). Ship 550, named Kamo. I am unable to find any information for such a vessel.



Buck Beach -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/21/2004 1:12:53 PM)

Pry, is there anyway you can compare the official OOB with that of Lemur's update OOB for 1.21 and make comments or suggestions as how to tweak either to be able to use his Mod with 1.3 and the correct ART. It is becoming very obvious he no longer has an interest in furthering his project and there are many of us that really would like to continue using his mod.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/21/2004 4:40:44 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Pry, is there anyway you can compare the official OOB with that of Lemur's update OOB for 1.21 and make comments or suggestions as how to tweak either to be able to use his Mod with 1.3 and the correct ART. It is becoming very obvious he no longer has an interest in furthering his project and there are many of us that really would like to continue using his mod.


There will be a scenario much like Lemurs! available soon. TankerAce, Don Bowen and I are tinkering with it now. Subchaser is in on it as well I believe if I've read his emails correctly. It has taken on a life of it's own but it will be available as soon as we can finish it and test it.

Pry is doing a PBEM scenario as well I believe.



Tankerace -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/22/2004 12:33:20 AM)

Ship 3539 Wilkes arrives as a Benson in Jan of 44
Ship 3583 Wilkes arrives as a Bristol in Feb of 44 (Needs to be deleted). Wilkes was a Benson, not a Bristol.



Williamb -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/22/2004 1:42:46 AM)

I guess if you wanted could have Lt Lyndon Johsnon as a member of a bomber crew in the South Pacific where he won a Silver star [8|]



Tanaka -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/22/2004 11:34:48 AM)

pry,

i am trying to work on some of the pilots oob's in my own scenario and have several questions:

i was wondering why a lot of the pilots delay is set to 9999??? what is the reason for this?

when i change a pilots airgroup when he is moved there his experience drops, he is given one mission, and his rank is changed. i am trying to figure out how to do this correctly. what's going on? thanks!



Tanaka -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/22/2004 12:17:31 PM)

On Dec 7, 1941 there were 2 JP BB's being constructed; Shinano which was converted into a CV and Hull #111, which was laid down on Nov 7, 1940. This BB, Yamato cl was not as heavily armoured as the Yamato. Work was suspended in March, 1942.

CV Kurama, identical to CV Kasagi had material assembled and was to be laid down in the Mitsubishi/Nagaski shipyard when the Kasagi was launched.

Japanese Army aircraft Transports Akitsu Maru 11,800t 20 kts 1/42 Nigitsu Maru3/43 2x 75mmAA 10 75mm[field guns} able to carry 20 planes, which could take off but not land on these transports.

Kumano Maru army aircraft transport to be operated by IJN 10,800t 19kt 3/45 8x75mmAA 6x25mmAA 37 aircraft they could take off but not land on transport.


Merchant aircraft carriers Shimane Maru 14,500t 18.5kt 2/45 Otakisan Maru 1/45 2x120mmHA 52x25mmAA 12 aircraft. Aircraft could land on these sm cv's

Yamashiro Maru 15,900t 15kt 1/45 16x25mmAA 8 a/c 1 asw projecter 120 DC's
Aircraft could land on this sm cv..
All these cv's could only operate sm planes f's and db's



michaelm75au -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/22/2004 12:53:45 PM)

A delay of 9999 generally means that the "item" is not available in that particular scenario.

Some of the later scenarios would have this set if the pilot had been killed off at some earlier time (before the start of the scenario).

If there is some other philisohpical reason, pry would neeed to answer.

Michael



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375