Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

FWIW, Guadalcanal Americans did not have ground radar till October '42, (and the Japanese supposedly knew about it as soon as it showed up.) I have not checked the game to see if it shows up there at that time or not..(This was from Walter Lord's book "LONELY VIGIL"..)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mifune

"And IRL a JAPANESE radar was CAPTURED on Guadalcanal" I thought that the Japanese also captured a Brit radar set in Singapore?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mifune

That is not the same set that I am thinking of. I seem to remember them capturing a land based air search set. Which they "copied" which is there first production air search set. Later on in the war when the Allies captured one of those Japanese sets. They investigated its inner works, they had realized that was just a crude copy of by then an older Allied set. I will see if I can remember the source once I get back home from work.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TulliusDetritus

No, you don't need to check your sources. My memory failed this time The Normandie was not captured in Singapore, I think. Although that radar was the first one the Japanese saw. But you are indeed correct: the British radar captured after the fall of Singapore was decisive. The radar on the Normandie + German vague information about electromagnetic detection (after Matapan) alone were not enough.

P.S.:
no, wait. the Normandie was NOT captured. But somehow, the Japanese knew, studied her radar.

http://members.tripod.com/~lch4/normandie.html

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I am finging massive and gross changes to Allied naval units. Investigating radar, I found ships appearing months - or a year - too late in time. I found ships running at 20 knots that should cruise at 14 - and doing so with a lot less fuel than they really needed to run at 14. I found ships without radar that had nice suites (e.g. Hawkins class), and ships that were given radars which never got any (including 2 US battleships). I found no instance of any submarine (and cross checking in any mod) which as both AS and SS radar - but now many do. Ships often were given their late war AA suites too early - and too much radar and/or the wrong kinds of radar - but not often did ships have backup radars later in the war when IRL they did.

The revisions are big enough to justify bumping the version number. This is a different game. It is not wholly clear what it means? But in general the Allies are not going to intercept at such great distances from naval units. The numbers of air search radars at sea are greatly reduced - while the numbers of surface search radars greatly increased - and both somewhat more delayed in time. This may make surface battles more deadly - making targets easier to find. It may mean players need to pay attention to their ships with AS radar - many cruisers and battleships lack any at all - and those that have it may be valuable assets in task groups subject to air attack. Regardless of the impacts - we try to get the data right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Uploaded.

This should not be very dirty.

However, you may need to adjust your playing style to a new system.

ASW may be a lot more effective (because more surface search radar). Air defense may be harder for the Allies (because fewer radars with less range on ships - but ashore range has increased a bit). Certainly newer ships - or old ships with upgraded radars - will be more valuable - and many will "degrade gracefully" due to the presence of backup radars.

I forgot to say: I added radar picket destroyers and submarines - for USN.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

 

Bad Points: Continue IJN static northern units that should be Home Defense in Amami and Sakashima;

REPLY: Only the forts are supposed to be static - which they are; the naval station units are technically movable - and appear static because they (incorrectly) retain "static facility squads" AFTER I have withdrawn these from almost every unit (the exceptions being major command HQ in some cases - representing massive immobile infrastructures not associated with large numbers of squads in a field organization sense). Look for them to become mobile. AI will move them when it should not - but the forts will remain - so I can live with that.


Truk continues to be a mess a 4th Fleet base with Southeast Fleet static units;

REPLY: You have forgotten that this is what you recommended. Truk is actually Southeast Fleet - as is all of Nanyo (the Carolines). 4th Fleet is SOUTH of Truk - and NOTHING YET exists for 4th fleet to use as a base! Now I have reassigned some parts of the Eastern Carolines to 4th Fleet in EOS - but these scenarios are more historical - and you can't see that yet. Whatever it is assigned to - Truk MUST BE mixed - since 4th fleet units must be there at start -
and so must SE fleet units - it being the very heart of SE fleet area.


Shinshu Maru continues in limbo;

REPLY: In what way? I am not having any problem with it - except of course that it cannot do all the things Shinshu Maru could do - however it is cast it only has some capabilities.

Wasnt supposed to be corrected but i must stress that Japanese CA´s have many things wrong; from 32 torp in Nachis to 24 in Chokai/Maya,

REPLY: Suggest you look it up again. This is prefectly correct - in both cases - and the reason I regard these as the world's premier surface warships. Not only do they carry Long Lance- they carry reloads. Fabulous concept - and one I love to exploit in tactical games. [I grew up "pushing lead" aka Fletcher Pratt - and I also do computer simulations.
I am a torpedo master, and I once "won" the Battle of the Java Sea with ALLIED torpedoes - in a convention situation with no time to think. That is a lot harder to do than win a battle with Long Lance.]


to side torpedos in Agano instead centerline not even going to AA;

REPLY: Presumably you don't mean that Agano is a CA. I will look at the torpedoes. I do not understand how a torpedo can "go to AA" however?

DP guns instead of Naval Guns in Yugumos and Kageros. Some of this errors were not in stock.

REPLY: This is a difficult one to do right. There are different kinds of 5 inch 50s, and we have limited slots.
Technically most of these ships had "DP" guns - because they could elevate above 45 degrees. But the 50 was not an ideal AA gun - too slow a rate of traverse to be completely effective. Thus Takishi Hara had to NOT maneuver vs an attacking bomber in order to shoot it down. Using skip bombing - something that almost always worked - he instead not only got the bomber - but the bomb missed - because the American's aimed ASSUMING he would turn (losing way).
It is a rare success for the "long 5" - but UNLESS you rate it as DP it can NEVER do that.

Type 2 depth charges in Tomodzuru when they only started to be operational in 1942.

REPLY: This may be an error of a classical sort for WITP: fields slip one - apparently the way the editor works. Until reported, no software will detect it - and no one looks at all 133,000 fields - nor knows how to spot this sort of error. Type 2 indeed means 1942 - not because Japan used the Western calendar - but because the Japanese calendar also ends in the same final digit! Few people know how to read "Type" = year - but you do - and you are right.

Good Points: Kwajalein; Ponape; Palau; Saipan corrected; Whole mess that apparently came since stock in Northern area corrected (still some Home def units there and i am not sure if northern Honsho should be Northern Area but these are minor points.)

REPLY: The Northern Area apparently was virtually NOTHING - and in order to work the AI needs some assets to play with. Having the Tsugaru Straits NOT under a unified command is probably a bad idea - but I changed it for economic rather than military reasons - to help the AI.

Many duplicates and update paths were corrected.