RE: US Battleship Changes

RE: US Battleship Changes (Full Version)

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

Message

Tankerace -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 8:10:51 PM)
Just as some hypothetical thought (stemming from extensive WPO research), how about separating out Oklahoma and Nevada? Yes, they were the same class, but 1 fundamental difference could have affected there upgrades. Like the Pennsylvanias and up, Nevada was fitted with turbines, and was extensively modified. Oklahoma, on the other hand, used the same style vertical triple expansion engines used in the preceeding New York's. While it may not have made a difference, based on that I don't really think Oklahoma would have been modified to the same extent as Nevada. My suggestions would be to base her refit off the Colorado, in that she would probably never receive the 5"/38 twin mounts. She would probably loose the main mast to a tower like Pennsylvania, but have the AA armament of the Colorado's '43 fit, and keep her 10 14" guns. My suggestions, based on the upgrade paths are: (and Ill do new graphics) 12/41 No changes 4/42 No Changes 1/43 32 quad 40mm Bofors , 60 Oerlikons, SC radar added. Fuel reduced to 4080, Endurance reduced to 8500 (VTE's not as efficient), main gun ammo reduced to 7. Graphical changes: Pennsylvania style tower mast in lieu of mainmast. 1/45 4-8 More Bofors added, 4 more Orelikons. Graphical changes: Ship arrives in same blue/grey pattern as other US ships. Thoughts? Granted I know its hypothetical, but if one of the main reasons the Okie wasn't salvaged is because of her engines, I'd think it would also play a part in refits.

Tankerace -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 8:20:21 PM)
Uh-oh, did I just suggest blasphemy or something? [:D] I feel like Ron now...[:D]

Lemurs! -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 9:08:24 PM)
Blasphemer! Heretic! Burn in heck fire! um, sorry, i thought i was talking to someone else... I think it sounds good, plus if we do that we can give the Okie a slightly better fuel efficeincy to represent the triple expansion engines. Mike

Don Bowen -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 9:14:11 PM)
Sounds good to me - I am rather fond of detail. I'll make the changes tonight and use the existing icon until you get the new one. Don

Ron Saueracker -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 9:25:52 PM)
Sounds good! Is there a Midway Class graphic yet? Speaking of Allied naval graphics...what are we needing? Griffin/Pelias AS? Dixie Class AD? Wright Class AV? Tacoma/Asheville FF? Those Gawd awful AGP/Niagra PG profiles. Many Auxiliaries are off by a wide margin. Variations of 4 pipers...lots. ???

Don Bowen -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 9:39:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Just as some hypothetical thought (stemming from extensive WPO research), how about separating out Oklahoma and Nevada? Yes, they were the same class, but 1 fundamental difference could have affected there upgrades. Like the Pennsylvanias and up, Nevada was fitted with turbines, and was extensively modified. Oklahoma, on the other hand, used the same style vertical triple expansion engines used in the preceeding New York's. While it may not have made a difference, based on that I don't really think Oklahoma would have been modified to the same extent as Nevada. My suggestions would be to base her refit off the Colorado, in that she would probably never receive the 5"/38 twin mounts. She would probably loose the main mast to a tower like Pennsylvania, but have the AA armament of the Colorado's '43 fit, and keep her 10 14" guns. My suggestions, based on the upgrade paths are: (and Ill do new graphics) 12/41 No changes 4/42 No Changes 1/43 32 quad 40mm Bofors , 60 Oerlikons, SC radar added. Fuel reduced to 4080, Endurance reduced to 8500 (VTE's not as efficient), main gun ammo reduced to 7. Graphical changes: Pennsylvania style tower mast in lieu of mainmast. 1/45 4-8 More Bofors added, 4 more Orelikons. Graphical changes: Ship arrives in same blue/grey pattern as other US ships. Thoughts? Granted I know its hypothetical, but if one of the main reasons the Okie wasn't salvaged is because of her engines, I'd think it would also play a part in refits. Took a look at this in more detail and it exposed a question about Colorado. Right now we still have all the Colorado class joining into the main upgrade path (class 1219) that includes the rebuilds of Maryland and West Virginia. Colorado was never so rebuilt but is included in the general upgrade line as she might have been. Should we also separate out Colorado??

Tankerace -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 9:43:53 PM)
Actually, if you want to get into detail..... Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia were all rebuilt differently. WeeVee is the current upgrade. Maryland was rebuilt with a wider beam and twin 5"/38s, but never received the tower foremast as used by my graphic and the WeeVee. Colorado made do with most of her original armament. And to further toss a monkey wrench into things [:D], On the New Mexicos, all three were rebuilt differently. Idaho received destroyer type single 5"/38s, Mississippi had most (if not all) of her 5"/51s landed for a huge battery of 5"/25s, and New Mexico finished up retaining all of her 5"/51s and original 5"/25s.

Don Bowen -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 9:54:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Actually, if you want to get into detail..... Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia were all rebuilt differently. WeeVee is the current upgrade. Maryland was rebuilt with a wider beam and twin 5"/38s, but never received the tower foremast as used by my graphic and the WeeVee. Colorado made do with most of her original armament. And to further toss a monkey wrench into things [:D], On the New Mexicos, all three were rebuilt differently. Idaho received destroyer type single 5"/38s, Mississippi had most (if not all) of her 5"/51s landed for a huge battery of 5"/25s, and New Mexico finished up retaining all of her 5"/51s and original 5"/25s. Ah, er ... I think we might want to stop and think on this one. We're talking about specific upgrades for each individual ship. Maybe the generalized way is best. I do have the Idaho separate due to the 5/38s but New Mexico/Mississippi and Maryland/West Virgina are combined. Breaking out Colorada makes some sense (as much or more than Oklahoma) but any beyond those two seems to be flirting with the law of diminishing returns. Alternately we could just leave the whole thing like it is and I could get on the cruisers????

Don Bowen -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 9:55:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Sounds good! Is there a Midway Class graphic yet? Speaking of Allied naval graphics...what are we needing? Griffin/Pelias AS? Dixie Class AD? Wright Class AV? Tacoma/Asheville FF? Those Gawd awful AGP/Niagra PG profiles. Many Auxiliaries are off by a wide margin. Variations of 4 pipers...lots. ??? Could use them. We do have new icons for Dixie and Tacoma but that's it. Question for Tankerace - didn't you find a limit on number of icons?? Something around 440???

Tankerace -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 10:02:23 PM)
500, actually. The game recognizes up to graphic 499, and then it craps out. On the Colorado, I agree, I thought I'd just point that little snippet out. One question though, could we create an extra upgrade for Maryland and West Virginia, so if the player upgrades the first time he gets the armament/look of Maryland, and the next month he can upgrade and get the armament/look of West Virginia? I'll do a graphic putting said upgrade for Maryland in the blue/grey guise.

Don Bowen -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/29/2005 10:09:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace 500, actually. The game recognizes up to graphic 499, and then it craps out. On the Colorado, I agree, I thought I'd just point that little snippet out. One question though, could we create an extra upgrade for Maryland and West Virginia, so if the player upgrades the first time he gets the armament/look of Maryland, and the next month he can upgrade and get the armament/look of West Virginia? I'll do a graphic putting said upgrade for Maryland in the blue/grey guise. Sounds good to me. I'm on my way out for the rest of the day but will look at the details tomorrow. 1. Step upgrades for Maryland/West Virginia 2. Separate path for Colorado 3. New class for Oklahoma When I get all this done we are going to have to carefully check the icon-to-class assignments. I am not perflect and have already caught a couple of mistreeks. So many parameters - so little attention span!

Andrew Brown -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/30/2005 2:03:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Sounds good! Is there a Midway Class graphic yet? Speaking of Allied naval graphics...what are we needing? I don't know if there is any chance of including her, but I am having a go at making a new graphic for HMS Vanguard. I am no artist but I hoope to have it done fairly soon.

Don Bowen -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/30/2005 5:00:17 PM)
I�ve been thinking about the upgrade changes we are discussing for U.S. Battleships and I am having reservations. Matrix did a very good job of generalizing the Battleship upgrades. They did not provide the rebuilds due to Pearl Harbor damage, but instead made reasonable upgrade paths that included mid and late war rebuilds. Colorado Class: West Virginia has been separated out due to 12/41 Radar status but the entire class joins in a path that points to Maryland�s late war rebuild. West Virginia�s rebuild after Pearl Harbor is ignored. Tennessee Class: California�s post-Pearl Harbor rebuild is ignored and the class follows Tennessee�s upgrade path New Mexico: Follows a generalized upgrade path that points to an Idaho-type upgrade in 1945. I had previously broken out Idaho as a separate class but I believe this was a rather foolish mistake � all it does is give her 5in/38s a little earlier. Pennsylvania and Nevada class: Follows historical path for these two ships as their sisters did not survive Pearl Harbor. New York Class and Arkansas: already fully refitted when transferred from Atlantic in 1945. We are discussing breaking Oklahoma away from Nevada and giving her a non-rebuild path due to internal arrangement. That�s OK but the additional detail for the Colorado class does not seem warranted. The �step� rebuild from unmodified to Maryland to West Virginia would probably not have occurred. A single ship would not have two major rebuilds while others remained un-modified. The exception would be repairs from major battle damage but that can not be predicted. Maryland was only rebuilt in response to damage by kamikaze. The upgrade she received had been contemplated for both un-rebuild Colorados but was not considered worth taking the ships out of service. Since the same damage to the same ships would almost certainly not occur in any given WITP game, it does not seem reasonable to craft ship-specific upgrades based on that historical damage. I propose: 1. Remove my Idaho path and adjust the date of the New Mexico 5in/38 upgrade (class 1216) to equal Idaho�s historical upgrade date. 2. Add Oklahoma as an un-rebuild alternative to Nevada, as suggested by Tankerace. 3. Leave the rest alone and get on to Cruisers. Comments??

Ron Saueracker -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/30/2005 5:41:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen I�ve been thinking about the upgrade changes we are discussing for U.S. Battleships and I am having reservations. Matrix did a very good job of generalizing the Battleship upgrades. They did not provide the rebuilds due to Pearl Harbor damage, but instead made reasonable upgrade paths that included mid and late war rebuilds. Colorado Class: West Virginia has been separated out due to 12/41 Radar status but the entire class joins in a path that points to Maryland�s late war rebuild. West Virginia�s rebuild after Pearl Harbor is ignored. Tennessee Class: California�s post-Pearl Harbor rebuild is ignored and the class follows Tennessee�s upgrade path New Mexico: Follows a generalized upgrade path that points to an Idaho-type upgrade in 1945. I had previously broken out Idaho as a separate class but I believe this was a rather foolish mistake � all it does is give her 5in/38s a little earlier. Pennsylvania and Nevada class: Follows historical path for these two ships as their sisters did not survive Pearl Harbor. New York Class and Arkansas: already fully refitted when transferred from Atlantic in 1945. We are discussing breaking Oklahoma away from Nevada and giving her a non-rebuild path due to internal arrangement. That�s OK but the additional detail for the Colorado class does not seem warranted. The �step� rebuild from unmodified to Maryland to West Virginia would probably not have occurred. A single ship would not have two major rebuilds while others remained un-modified. The exception would be repairs from major battle damage but that can not be predicted. Maryland was only rebuilt in response to damage by kamikaze. The upgrade she received had been contemplated for both un-rebuild Colorados but was not considered worth taking the ships out of service. Since the same damage to the same ships would almost certainly not occur in any given WITP game, it does not seem reasonable to craft ship-specific upgrades based on that historical damage. I propose: 1. Remove my Idaho path and adjust the date of the New Mexico 5in/38 upgrade (class 1216) to equal Idaho�s historical upgrade date. 2. Add Oklahoma as an un-rebuild alternative to Nevada, as suggested by Tankerace. 3. Leave the rest alone and get on to Cruisers. Comments?? Thanks for the compliment. Don't get too many lately...[:(][;)]It was quite awhile ago I did the USN database and refit path.

Tankerace -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/30/2005 7:49:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Sounds good! Is there a Midway Class graphic yet? Speaking of Allied naval graphics...what are we needing? I don't know if there is any chance of including her, but I am having a go at making a new graphic for HMS Vanguard. I am no artist but I hoope to have it done fairly soon. I made a graphic for Vanguard for somebody, posted on these forums. Ill see if I can't find it.

Tankerace -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/30/2005 7:54:22 PM)
quote: 1. Remove my Idaho path and adjust the date of the New Mexico 5in/38 upgrade (class 1216) to equal Idaho�s historical upgrade date. If we are doing this, then shouldn't we remove the 5"/38s? I mean since only Idaho received them, and NOT Mississippi or New Mexico? Or do you propse that the fits before the 5"/38 upgrade be more or less equal to New Mexico and Mississippi's final form? God, realism is such a pain when the conditions leading to it never happened. On the Colorado upgrades (just to tie in the graphics) are you proposing that we assume that they are all refitted to the standards of Maryland, not West Virginia? If so, then we will need to replace my current graphic with a new one (gonna do em all up today) to represent a cage foremast and 5"/38s, not a similar rebuild to Tennessee. Man this thing is really taking shape.

Tankerace -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/30/2005 7:56:14 PM)
Found em. [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/Vanguard.bmp[/image] [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/Vanguard2.bmp[/image]

Don Bowen -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/30/2005 8:32:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace quote: 1. Remove my Idaho path and adjust the date of the New Mexico 5in/38 upgrade (class 1216) to equal Idaho�s historical upgrade date. If we are doing this, then shouldn't we remove the 5"/38s? I mean since only Idaho received them, and NOT Mississippi or New Mexico? Or do you propse that the fits before the 5"/38 upgrade be more or less equal to New Mexico and Mississippi's final form? God, realism is such a pain when the conditions leading to it never happened. Generally I was planning on following the way it was done in scenario 15. Lots of possibilities but the Idaho upgrade could reasonably have been spread to the entire class. The other one (can't remember which) of all 5/25 was not planned so much as done in the field due to her Captain's insistance. Besides, inertia is on the side of leaving it as is. quote: On the Colorado upgrades (just to tie in the graphics) are you proposing that we assume that they are all refitted to the standards of Maryland, not West Virginia? If so, then we will need to replace my current graphic with a new one (gonna do em all up today) to represent a cage foremast and 5"/38s, not a similar rebuild to Tennessee. Man this thing is really taking shape. Yes Sir, I am suggesting we use an upgrade path leading to a Maryland upgrade. Not adamant about it, we could also use Wallowing Virgin's rebuild and associated graphic. However, given the status of the fleet in the last year or so of the war there would be little likelihood of intentionally taking a battleship out of service for so major a refit as West Virginia's. Even the 4-5 months for an Idaho type upgrade was considered too long. Maryland only got her big refit due to kamikaze damage. Also, a Maryland-like upgrade had been proposed for both Colorado and Maryland in 1944 but rejected due to length of time required.

Tankerace -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/30/2005 9:01:15 PM)
K, will do. I'll add the new graphic in to the to do list. Should have them by this evening.

Don Bowen -> Radar for Old US Battleships (1/30/2005 11:13:12 PM)
Help! My primary source for U.S. Battleships (Friedman) does not give a very good description of the war-time radar upgrades of the older US Battleships (Arkansas thru Colorados). The modern battleships (North Carolina thru Iowa) was allocated 1 air search and 2 surface radars. Also his companion book on Cruisers states that the standard radar outfit for all US Cruisers was to be 1 air search and 1 surface radar. I am about to ASSUME that the older battleships were also given two surface and 1 air radars. Does anyone have any data on this??

Herrbear -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/30/2005 11:22:59 PM)
Using your Tambor example with 6 tubes F and 4 tubes R, you could split the forward tubes into 2 devices of 3 tubes each instead 1 device of 6 forward tubes. You could also set up the rear tubes to be 2 devices of 2 tubes. Now if you listed the forward tubes as 3 tubes twice, the game will fire either 1 bank of 3 forward, the other bank of 3 forward or the 4 aft bank? By setting it up this way, achieve what you are looking for instead of worrying about what the increased tubes would do? 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.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Submarine torpedo salvo sizes (1/30/2005 11:39:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Herrbear Using your Tambor example with 6 tubes F and 4 tubes R, you could split the forward tubes into 2 devices of 3 tubes each instead 1 device of 6 forward tubes. You could also set up the rear tubes to be 2 devices of 2 tubes. Now if you listed the forward tubes as 3 tubes twice, the game will fire either 1 bank of 3 forward, the other bank of 3 forward or the 4 aft bank? By setting it up this way, achieve what you are looking for instead of worrying about what the increased tubes would do? 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. Sounds good. It will also get the ammo in line. Tambors etc have 30 torps when 24 is right amount.

Andrew Brown -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/30/2005 11:49:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Found em. [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/Vanguard.bmp[/image] [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/Vanguard2.bmp[/image] Very nice - thanks! I will look at adding her into my scenario 115. And a question for Don, I guess - can she be added to the combined mod? From what I have read she was to be sent to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. Presumaby she (with a few escorts?) would appear October-ish 1945.

Don Bowen -> RE: US Battleship Changes (1/30/2005 11:58:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Found em. [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/Vanguard.bmp[/image] [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/Vanguard2.bmp[/image] Very nice - thanks! I will look at adding her into my scenario 115. And a question for Don, I guess - can she be added to the combined mod? From what I have read she was to be sent to the Pacific for the invasion of Japan. Presumaby she (with a few escorts?) would appear October-ish 1945. I think she will be. We need to review all the post-VE day scheduled transfers to the pacific. I have limited data on the British Eastern and Pacific Fleets and would welcome any input.

Herrbear -> RE: Radar for Old US Battleships (1/31/2005 2:00:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen Help! My primary source for U.S. Battleships (Friedman) does not give a very good description of the war-time radar upgrades of the older US Battleships (Arkansas thru Colorados). The modern battleships (North Carolina thru Iowa) was allocated 1 air search and 2 surface radars. Also his companion book on Cruisers states that the standard radar outfit for all US Cruisers was to be 1 air search and 1 surface radar. I am about to ASSUME that the older battleships were also given two surface and 1 air radars. Does anyone have any data on this?? From S. Breyer, "Battleships and Battlecruisers 1905-1970. Arkansas - 1942 Foremast SG and SRa radar, aftermast SC - 1944 Foremast SG, aftermast SK New York/Texas - 1942 2xSRa foremast and superstructure abaft the funnel, Texas 1942 SG foremast, 1943 Texas SK aftermast and 1945 New York SG foremast Nevada - 1942 SRa on foremast and 1943 SK aftermast Pennsylvania - 1942 SRa and SK foremast, SF aftermast - summer 1943 SRa foremast and SC aftermast - 1945 SK-2 and SG foremast, SP aftermast New Mexico/Idaho - 1944 SK foremast, Mississippi aftermast, and all 2xSRa on turret bridge and after superstructure. Tennessee - 1942 Tennessee SRa foremast modernization starting autumn 1942 SK foremast, SC-2 aftermast and 1944 added SG aftermast. California - after modernization SK foremast and SP aftermast. W Virginia - 1941 foremast SC, 1943?(after salvage) SG aftermast and SRa and SK-2 foremast Colorado/Maryland - 1942 SC foremast, 1943/44 SG aftermast and SRa and SK foremast I hope this helps.

Don Bowen -> RE: Radar for Old US Battleships (1/31/2005 2:30:52 AM)
Thanks - it does help. I believe I have what I need now.

Tankerace -> RE: Radar for Old US Battleships (1/31/2005 5:01:59 AM)
Ok, here is the "hypothetical" Oklahoma refit: [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/AnSide0403.bmp[/image] Her formast is cut down a bit like Pennsylvania, and she receives a mainmast like Nevada (the PA one didn't quite look right). Also, AA is added and the catapult on turret III is removed. [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/AnSide0401.bmp[/image] The new final fit for the Colorados, based on the Maryland as she looked in 1944. The standard blue/grey scheme is applied. And, my first attempt at a camo pattern, Maryland as she appeared 26 April 1944: [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/AnSide04012.bmp[/image]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Radar for Old US Battleships (1/31/2005 5:20:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Ok, here is the "hypothetical" Oklahoma refit: [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/AnSide0403.bmp[/image] Her formast is cut down a bit like Pennsylvania, and she receives a mainmast like Nevada (the PA one didn't quite look right). Also, AA is added and the catapult on turret III is removed. [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/AnSide0401.bmp[/image] The new final fit for the Colorados, based on the Maryland as she looked in 1944. The standard blue/grey scheme is applied. And, my first attempt at a camo pattern, Maryland as she appeared 26 April 1944: [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/AnSide04012.bmp[/image] Man I love your art! The best.

Tankerace -> RE: Radar for Old US Battleships (1/31/2005 6:07:22 AM)
Thanks Ron. Just for fun Im doing some camo schemes, some are good, some aren't. Here is the South Dakota in a Measure 12 modified scheme. [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/AnSide0174.bmp[/image] and here is the Missouri in 1944, Measure 32, Design 22D: [image]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v147/Tankerace/AnSide0176.bmp[/image]

Don Bowen -> RE: Radar for Old US Battleships (1/31/2005 6:56:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker quote: ORIGINAL: Tankerace Ok, here is the "hypothetical" Oklahoma refit: Man I love your art! The best. I agree - it is absolutely great!

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.578125