RE: US Carrier Changes

RE: US Carrier Changes (Full Version)

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

Message

Don Bowen -> RE: US Carrier Changes (1/28/2005 3:29:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen Also, I am changing upgrade dates for major refits to the beginning date of the refit, instead of the end, to compensate for the resultant sys damage. quote: I was reluctant with this when I did the Matrix refit dates due to the "generous" refit times the auto weapons upgrade nature of the refit model. Bang...instant new weapons AND ability to operate within 24 hrs. Hence my choice of later refit start dates overall. Good point. Perhaps refits should stay at the end date - or close to it. What is the sys damage calculation on upgrade anyway?? quote: Don...do you find my refit loadouts overly inaccurate or are most acceptable? Mostly they are very (very, very) good. The only two that I disagreed with were the dates of the Saratoga and Nevada refits (both posted). If I spend an hour or so with Friedman and get out my magnifying class for the line drawings I can occasionally find a 40mm gun in the wrong quadrant. I sometimes break up the generalized small AA (all guns centerline or above) but after one or two that gets quite tiring and hardly worth the trouble. I very much understand why that was done. Have been paying extra attention to radar, as you suggested, and found a few things. Primarily with carriers where the official policy was a second (redundant) air warning set after Yorktown's famous breakdown at Coral Sea.

Don Bowen -> RE: US Carrier Changes (1/28/2005 4:00:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hipper Hi Don quote: Essex ALL: Added second air warning set and a surface radar (SG). Increased aircraft complement to 92 as carried by Intrepid in the Marshall Islands (the largest complement I can find). The Essex class had a large variety of AA outfits and I think Matrix did an excellent job representing them so I made no other changes. I'm probably telling you how to suck eggs but when it comes to aircraft capacities remember that there is a 10 to 15 percent overstacking capacity on carriers so when you set capacity to 92 it ac tually comes out as 101 to 105 mind you Ive no Idea how many a/c the essex et al could carry cheers All carriers had the ability to temporarily handle some additional aircraft above their normal complement. The additional planes would complicate movement on deck and hanger (like an over-crowded closet) and draw down fuel and weapons supplies overly rapidly. The Matrix 10% rule is a pretty good simulation of this. Essex class air groups varied widely in size - largely dependent on size of aircraft (which is not modeled in WITP). Some late war complements included larger numbers of fighters and reduced bomber and torpedo groups - in some cases over 100 aircraft. I seem to recall 108 as the largest I have seen, with 73 fighters. The Matrix value of 90 was probably based on the standard complement for most of the war: 36 fighters, 36 dive bombers, 18 torpedo planes. However, U.S. carriers also carried one or more additional aircraft: a command (or liason) aircraft for the Air Group Commander (usually), a special long range recon aircraft (for a period during 1942), a night fighter detachment (2-4 planes, late war but by then the fighter groups were being massively upgraded due to Kamikazes). If one ignores the high-fighter or other "oddball" complements, 91 is most frequent (36 fighters, 36 dive bombers, 18 torpedo planes plus a DB or TB for CAG). However, this is the same air group carried by the smaller Yorktown class. In reality the larger Essex class could continue to carry 91 as individual aircraft size increased while the one remaining Yorktown could not (and was converted to a night fighter carrier). Since WITP can not handle variations in complement based on aircraft size I felt that the Essexes should be more capable than the Yorktowns. So I did a quick check on historic complements and found Intrepid with 92. A measly one aircraft increase but it made me feel good. However, I do agree that 91 would be more accurate and would cheerly change it back in response to negative responses on the forum.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: US Carrier Changes (1/28/2005 8:26:18 PM)
Not sure as it varies from ship type to ship type. I'm one of those guys who would like to see longer refits as many were not simply a weeks worth of welding 4 20mm with tubs in place of .50 cals. WITP has basically biased all refits on a fast track which of course adds to the meatgrinder pace of the game. TankerAce has a solution for the major rebuilds done on the USN 2nd generation BBs. He adds weapon and extra system damage to them so they take much longer to do and are not readily available weapons platforms. I'd like to see this for any upgrade which is in anyway extensive, and have any new weapons added disabled initially. Also, we are noticing that ships arriving later in the game arrive with the classes initial configuration, not the one closest to the date of arrival. Should we bother changing these or simply leave them so the ships must spend yard time upgrading to current standards (to simulate workups etc). Thoughts?

Hipper -> RE: US Carrier Changes (1/28/2005 8:38:47 PM)
Ok Don, see your point, looks good to me. cheers

Ron Saueracker -> Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 8:41:21 PM)
I've always wanted to fiddle with the salvo sizes of subs. They always fire full spreads so end up returning home much too soon. I'd like to spread them out a bit. For example, the Tambors on up have 10 tubes (6Forward and 4Aft with ammo set at 2-3). What about approaching it this way... FORWARD 6 at ammo 1 4 at ammo 1 3 at ammo 2 total 16 forward torps AFT 4 at ammo 1 2 at ammo 2 total 8 aft torps 24 torps total. Pros: Curbs hyper torp expenditure. Better simulates variation in attacks. Cons: Gives subs extra tubes in database which both screws with damage model (no biggie) and mine capability (big biggie). Propbably not worth it....[8\|]

Tankerace -> RE: US Carrier Changes (1/28/2005 8:46:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker TankerAce has a solution for the major rebuilds done on the USN 2nd generation BBs. He adds weapon and extra system damage to them so they take much longer to do and are not readily available weapons platforms. I'd like to see this for any upgrade which is in anyway extensive, and have any new weapons added disabled initially. Thoughts? To expound on this, here is how it works (lets assume a 1/43 refit that should take 4 months. 1/43 - All weapons are removed, speed, fuel, endurance set to 1. 3/43 - Weapons added, but other changes as above 4/43 - The true refit, with all weapons added, speed, fuel, and endurance reset to normal values. For longer refits, they should be at 2 month intervals, i.e. 1/43 All removed 3/43 All removed 5/43 All removed 7/43 Weapons added 9/43 Ship in completed guise This forces the player to 1) relocate major rebuilds to Japan or the West Coast, and 2) be more selective about the upgrades. While it does junk up the DB a little bit, it ads more realism and new strategic thought.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: US Carrier Changes (1/28/2005 8:51:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker TankerAce has a solution for the major rebuilds done on the USN 2nd generation BBs. He adds weapon and extra system damage to them so they take much longer to do and are not readily available weapons platforms. I'd like to see this for any upgrade which is in anyway extensive, and have any new weapons added disabled initially. Thoughts? To expound on this, here is how it works (lets assume a 1/43 refit that should take 4 months. 1/43 - All weapons are removed, speed, fuel, endurance set to 1. 3/43 - Weapons added, but other changes as above 4/43 - The true refit, with all weapons added, speed, fuel, and endurance reset to normal values. For longer refits, they should be at 2 month intervals, i.e. 1/43 All removed 3/43 All removed 5/43 All removed 7/43 Weapons added 9/43 Ship in completed guise This forces the player to 1) relocate major rebuilds to Japan or the West Coast, and 2) be more selective about the upgrades. While it does junk up the DB a little bit, it ads more realism and new strategic thought. Mmmmmmmmmm....Realism and strategic thought.....[sm=party-smiley-012.gif] I LIKE IT![:D]

Don Bowen -> RE: US Carrier Changes (1/28/2005 9:02:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Not sure as it varies from ship type to ship type. I'm one of those guys who would like to see longer refits as many were not simply a weeks worth of welding 4 20mm with tubs in place of .50 cals. WITP has basically biased all refits on a fast track which of course adds to the meatgrinder pace of the game. TankerAce has a solution for the major rebuilds done on the USN 2nd generation BBs. He adds weapon and extra system damage to them so they take much longer to do and are not readily available weapons platforms. I'd like to see this for any upgrade which is in anyway extensive, and have any new weapons added disabled initially. This is a good idea! Adding an appropriate amount of damage to the upgrade class would compensate for extensive refits. quote: Also, we are noticing that ships arriving later in the game arrive with the classes initial configuration, not the one closest to the date of arrival. Should we bother changing these or simply leave them so the ships must spend yard time upgrading to current standards (to simulate workups etc). Thoughts? Michael McFarland's wonderful WITPCHK detects this and I have been fixing it. Most allied ships were refitted just before deployment to the Pacific. Don

Bradley7735 -> RE: US Carrier Changes (1/28/2005 9:23:57 PM)
quote: 1/43 - All weapons are removed, speed, fuel, endurance set to 1. 3/43 - Weapons added, but other changes as above 4/43 - The true refit, with all weapons added, speed, fuel, and endurance reset to normal values. Hi Tankerace, If I were trying to game the system, I'd just leave the ship out of port between 1/43 and 4/43. Then, I'd put it in port in 4/43 and (in theory), the upgrades would occur all at once, or fairly fast, assuming the damage is fixed fast. Do you think my theory is correct? (btw, I like the idea of having refits take longer, I'm just trying to point out a potential cheat) bc

Tankerace -> RE: US Carrier Changes (1/28/2005 9:27:53 PM)
I agree it is a cheat, but, making the player do three refits instead of one is still better than only one. Even if you did game the system, you'd still have to leave a BB in dock for 3 weeks to a month, which is better than a few days. Its not perfect, but anything more would junk up the OOB too bad, and there are still ways around it, if you really do want to cheat.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 9:34:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I've always wanted to fiddle with the salvo sizes of subs. They always fire full spreads so end up returning home much too soon. I'd like to spread them out a bit. For example, the Tambors on up have 10 tubes (6Forward and 4Aft with ammo set at 2-3). What about approaching it this way... FORWARD 6 at ammo 1 4 at ammo 1 3 at ammo 2 total 16 forward torps AFT 4 at ammo 1 2 at ammo 2 total 8 aft torps 24 torps total. Pros: Curbs hyper torp expenditure. Better simulates variation in attacks. Cons: Gives subs extra tubes in database which both screws with damage model (no biggie) and mine capability (big biggie). Propbably not worth it....[8\|] No cracks or anything...[X(][;)]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 9:35:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I've always wanted to fiddle with the salvo sizes of subs. They always fire full spreads so end up returning home much too soon. I'd like to spread them out a bit. For example, the Tambors on up have 10 tubes (6Forward and 4Aft with ammo set at 2-3). What about approaching it this way... FORWARD 6 at ammo 1 4 at ammo 1 3 at ammo 2 total 16 forward torps AFT 4 at ammo 1 2 at ammo 2 total 8 aft torps 24 torps total. Pros: Curbs hyper torp expenditure. Better simulates variation in attacks. Cons: Gives subs extra tubes in database which both screws with damage model (no biggie) and mine capability (big biggie). Propbably not worth it....[8\|] No screams of freak or nothin'...[:D]

Bradley7735 -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 9:45:20 PM)
Tankerace, Yes, you're right. I'd still be in the yard longer than the Matrix method. Even if I try to cheat as much as I can. You rock!! Ron, I think if you split up tubes the way you've listed, the sub would fire MORE torpedoes than if the tubes were condensed. (it'd fire ALL forward tubes (13 tubes) or ALL rear tubes (6 tubes)). That would make the sub run out of torps faster AND it'd fire more torpedoes than logically possible in one battle. It'd have to be tested, but I think my theory is a possiblility. bc

Bradley7735 -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 9:47:30 PM)
To Ron: One more thing. IF your theory works (randomness with salvo sizes), I bet you'd hear some screaming when the Wahoo lines up on Akagi and fires........ two torpedoes. WTF!!!!! [:-] Damn skipper!!! He should have fired all 6!!!! [:D]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 9:49:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 Tankerace, Yes, you're right. I'd still be in the yard longer than the Matrix method. Even if I try to cheat as much as I can. You rock!! Ron, I think if you split up tubes the way you've listed, the sub would fire MORE torpedoes than if the tubes were condensed. (it'd fire ALL forward tubes or ALL rear tubes). That would make the sub run out of torps faster AND it'd fire more torpedoes than logically possible in one battle. It'd have to be tested, but I think my theory is a possiblility. bc Actually, I think you are correct. Nix that idea...was a little phoofy anyway.[:)]

Tankerace -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 9:50:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 Ron, I think if you split up tubes the way you've listed, the sub would fire MORE torpedoes than if the tubes were condensed. (it'd fire ALL forward tubes (13 tubes) or ALL rear tubes (6 tubes)). That would make the sub run out of torps faster AND it'd fire more torpedoes than logically possible in one battle. It'd have to be tested, but I think my theory is a possiblility. bc No, it doesn't. I have submarines in War Plan Orange with 2 internal tubes with 2 reloads, and 2 external tubes with no reloads. When the subs attack, it fires only one set, i.e. the internal or the external, but not all four.

Bradley7735 -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 9:52:13 PM)
I wouldn't say it was poofy. I'm one of those "Must be absolutely historical!!!" freaks. I love that all of you are making this mod. Without ideas, nothing great is made. I was thinking to myself that if you set the tubes to be other areas (LS, RS, etc) then you'd get what you're looking for. It would still require testing, but I bet the sub would only fire from one direction at a time. Of course, the sub would look funny and most people probably wouldn't like to see tubes in LS positions.

Don Bowen -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 9:53:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Actually, I think you are correct. Nix that idea...was a little phoofy anyway.[:)] I must have an older dictionary - not able to look up the work phoofy.

Tankerace -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 9:54:22 PM)
Here, you can borrow my copy of Wibstur's dicshuniry. I think it might be in there. [:D]

Bradley7735 -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 9:55:49 PM)
Well, assuming Tankerace is correct (which I'm sure he is), then I'd say that Ron's idea is very much worth implementing. Not only would you see a variation of torpedo spreads and longer time on station with the sub, but.... with smaller salvos, you wouldn't see as many hits, which should reduce the number of sunk/damaged ships over time. I think people have complained that subs are too effective. See Ron. Not a poofy at all.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 10:07:20 PM)
Well spank my ass and call me Honey! [;)] It will work. I forgot it did as I had tested it when I added external tubes to Porpoise class in a later refit. Excellent. It will drastically increase the mine loads though, won't it?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 10:09:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 To Ron: One more thing. IF your theory works (randomness with salvo sizes), I bet you'd hear some screaming when the Wahoo lines up on Akagi and fires........ two torpedoes. WTF!!!!! [:-] Damn skipper!!! He should have fired all 6!!!! [:D] It happened through misidentification etc. Cool.[:)]

Bradley7735 -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 10:25:47 PM)
I don't know what effect it will have on mines. I only play the AI, so I don't use mines (too easy already to beat the AI). However, if it does mess with the mines, then just modify the forward tubes and leave the aft tubes alone. I think that mines only come from the aft tubes. bc

Bradley7735 -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/28/2005 10:27:44 PM)
quote: quote: ORIGINAL: Bradley7735 To Ron: One more thing. IF your theory works (randomness with salvo sizes), I bet you'd hear some screaming when the Wahoo lines up on Akagi and fires........ two torpedoes. WTF!!!!! Damn skipper!!! He should have fired all 6!!!! It happened through misidentification etc. Cool. Oh no!!! Mush would never misidentify the Akagi. He was better than that! [8D][8D]

Herrbear -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/29/2005 4:03:10 AM)
Using your Tambor example with 6 tubes F and 4 tubes R, does the game fire all 10 or fire either 6 or 4? I think you all are saying that it fires the latter, either 6 or 4. Now if you listed the forward tubes as 3 tubes twice, would all the forward tubes fire at once or would the game fire either 1 bank of 3 forward, the other bank of 3 forward or the 4 aft bank? If it works 3, 3 or 4 then wouldn't that also achieve what you are looking for instead of worrying about what the increased tubes would do? You also could show the rear tubes as 2 banks of 2 giving 4 choices for the combat. 3, 3 or 4 would give you 4 attacks with 3 torps and 3 attacks with 4 torps, for 7 attacks all together before returning home instead of 5 as current. 3, 3, 2 or 2 would give you 4 attacks with 3 torps and 6 attacks with 2 torps for 10 attacks. Am I thinking straight on this or totally off base?

Tankerace -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/29/2005 6:24:32 AM)
It runs a check on all sets of tubes, and then fires all in that set. So if you have 6 Bow tubes with 2 ammo, and 4 stern tues with two ammo, then it decides which one to fire, and removes one ammo from that set. So, all six fire, or all four fire, but all 10 do not fire at the same time.

Herrbear -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/29/2005 7:08:50 AM)
But if you set up as 2 devices of 3 tubes forward instead of 1 device of 6, will it fire all 6 that are pointing forward or only three at a time.

Don Bowen -> US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 7:10:38 PM)
Very few changes to US Battleships. Much work on endurance, complicated by the fact the endurance figures are given at various speeds and the "fleet speed" is set to 15 in WITP. The original endurance given for Pennsylvania, for example, was that for 10 knots. Note also radar upgrades for the modern battleships. Wyoming (172) Name changed back to Arkansas. Originally the Wyoming class but more commonly referred to as Arkansas class to avoid confusion once Wyoming was converted to a gunnery training ship. AA Armament re-arranged and adjusted. 9th quad 40mm was on the fantail, not the bow, and the ship carried two of the new quad 20mm (in addition to 28 singles). New York (188) No Changes Nevada Upgrade path is somewhat hypothetical. With Oklahoma sunk and Nevada badly damaged, initial upgrade consisted of emergency repairs followed by a major refit - taking all of 1942. The Matrix upgrade path provides for possible upgrades that were considered pre-war (King Board recommendatons) or might have occurred if one or both ships were not badly damaged at Pearl Harbor. The 4/43 upgrade (1209) reflects the refit actually completed in December, 1942. Effectively the 10/42 upgrade (1208) is eliminated and 1209 moved to 12/42. Note reductions in fuel and ammo as weight compensation. (177) No changes (1207) No Changes (1208) Upgrade deleted (1209) Upgrade date changed to 12/42. Fuel reduced to 4080, Endurance reduced to 9000, main gun ammo reduced to 7. (1210) Fuel reduced to 4080, Endurance reduced to 9000, main gun ammo reduced to 7. Second Radar added. Pennsylvania ALL: Endurance reduced to 10500 and fuel increased to 4400. No other changes. New Mexico ALL: Endurance reduced to 17800, fuel increased to 3795. Idaho split into a separate class (below). No other changes. Idaho New Class added, New Mexico variant with armament modifications. (1328) 11/42 version. (1329) 10/44 upgrade. California ALL: Endurance reduced to 12500. No other changes. Colorado ALL: Endurance reduced to 14200, Fuel increased to 4790. No other changes. West Virginia (205) Endurance reduced to 14200, Fuel increased to 4790. 1.1in AA Guns removed (Maryland was only BB at Pearl Harbor to have them), 50Cal increased to 11. North Carolina (1202) 10/42 upgrade. SC radar added. (1203) 4/43 upgrade. SC radar added. South Dakota (174) SC Radar added. (1204) SC Radar added. (1205) Second SG add, SCR Radar added. Indiana (175) SC Radar added. (1206) Second SG add, SCR Radar added. Iowa (176) Radar upgraded to 2 SG and a SCR. Fixed a Typo!

Tankerace -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 7:47:39 PM)
While I would prefer Arkansas to be Wyoming, I can live on that one. However California should be changed to Tennessee.

Don Bowen -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 7:51:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace While I would prefer Arkansas to be Wyoming, I can live on that one. However California should be changed to Tennessee. Agreed and I'll fix it right away. It was listed as California in Watts.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.234375