RE: Nemo???

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Nemo???

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Nemo??? - 9/7/2008 12:07:46 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

However, an alternative I'm going to pursue for my own AE mod is to make an improved 12.7cm gun device. It'll represent no change in the weapon itself, but instead an improved mount (faster traverse and elevation) and an improved gun director layout (the latter being a huge problem for the IJN in real life). The classes will then receive this new device as an upgrade.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 9/7/2008 12:08:37 AM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 61

3.9" - 9/7/2008 4:35:25 AM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

I've been reading and found that the Oyodo's carried the 3.9" as well as Taiho and the Moon's.

Some of you date back far enough to remember the monster boardgame War in the Pacific. I was just looking at the rulebook and remembered that as the Japanese YOU could pick what you wanted constructed beginning in November of 1941. Every ship chosen had to have enough points available and spent a set amount of time being built.

Wish we could do something like that here. You would start the game Dec 7th and have immediate control over construction. If you wanted to start 3 Taiho-Class CV then GREAT--do it. Just make sure it can be done...

Any of you still have that game? It was a monster but a lot of fun!

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 62

RE: 3.9" - 9/7/2008 5:55:54 AM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

If the Japanese had cancelled the Shinano, they might have had the material for two Shokakus but would they have had the slips to build them concurrently?

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 63

RE: 3.9" - 9/7/2008 4:28:04 PM

John 3rd

Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

Interesting question. I work under the idea that we--as Japanese players--work to immediately improve things. I always expand my shipyards as well as massively expand my repair yards. In this scenario the Japanese would start with a bottleneck of shipping to produce and only way to fix that would be for the player to prioritize what he wants AND expand where he feels appropriate.

I think--for me--it comes down to choice. As a Japanese player I would like more choice as to what to build. Will all get sunk in 1944/1945? YES! But they would be real pretty until then...

_____________________________

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Splinterhead)

Post #: 64

RE: 3.9" - 9/7/2008 7:03:12 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

If you cancel both Shinano and Build No 111 (laid down in 5/40 and 11/40), you've got the slips at the Kure and Yokosuka Navy Yards available, both of which could easily accommodate a Batch 2 Shokaku.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 65

RE: 3.9" - 9/7/2008 11:23:23 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I've been reading and found that the Oyodo's carried the 3.9" as well as Taiho and�the Moon's.

And some were used in shore mounts

quote:

Some of you date back far enough to remember the monster boardgame War in the Pacific.� I was just looking at the rulebook and remembered that�as the Japanese�YOU could pick what you wanted constructed beginning in November of 1941.� Every ship chosen had to have enough points available and spent a set amount of time being built.�

Wish we could do something like that here.� You would start the game Dec 7th and have immediate control over construction.� If you wanted to start 3 Taiho-Class CV then GREAT--do it.� Just make sure it can be�done...

Any of you still have that game?� It was a monster but a lot of fun!
��

Sure .. but WITP_0 (as I call it) had a full production system, not only for the Japanese but also for the Allies. In contrast WITP_1 (the current computer game we play in conjunction with this forum) has mostly a reinforcement track system, even for the Japanese.

01 - LCU - pure reinforcement track.

02 - Ships - reinforment track with ability to accelerate and decellerate - but no ability to production new ships.

03 - AirGroup - pure reinforcement track.

04 - Devices - pre determined rates for the Allies, ability to increase quantities for the Japanese note all devices must be assigned to LCU to be used and LCU cannot be increased.

05 - Aircraft - pre determined rates for the Allies, ability to increase quantities for the Japanese. Note all aircraft must be assigned to an airgroup to be used and airgroups cannot be increased.

So there is little resemblence between the produciton systems of WITP_0 and WITP_1. For better or worse, AE does not change this. Adding in a real production system a la WITP_0 will have to wait for WITP_2.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 66

RE: 3.9" - 9/7/2008 11:36:02 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Well, there's a reason that WitP_0 wasn't actually finished by a great many people...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 67

RE: 3.9" - 9/7/2008 11:47:00 PM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

No different from WITP_1

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 68

RE: 3.9" - 9/7/2008 11:50:39 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

True...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 69

RE: 3.9" - 9/8/2008 12:38:01 AM

BrucePowers

Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

I still have WITP_0. I never got past the first turn, but I have spent many an enjoyable evening reading the rules and then trying to decide what to lay down those first few turns.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 70

RE: 3.9" - 9/8/2008 12:40:52 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

You think you could do it today, after experience with WitP_1?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to BrucePowers)

Post #: 71

RE: 3.9" - 9/8/2008 12:50:43 AM

BrucePowers

Posts: 12094
Joined: 7/3/2004
Status: offline

No. I do not have room to set those 7 maps up.

Also, I don't want to. WITP_1 is a better game.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 72

RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/8/2008 1:06:14 AM

Elouda

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

re: 5 inch DPs ad 3.9 inch... Umm, I didn't talk about swapping 5 inch DPs for 3.9inchs. I talke about swapping single-use 5 inchers or dual purpose 5 inchers.

As to the 40mm being swapped for 3.9 inch. Well, you can't do it on a 1:1 ratio UNLESS you save topweight elsewhere but you can get around this two ways:
1. Swap a few 40mm Bofors for a smaller number of 3.9 inch mounts and/or
2. Swap them 1 for 1 but save a lot of weight elsewhere ( e.g. Move to 21 inch torpedoes and do away with the at-sea reloading gear --- That saves more than enough weight, and is, mostly, the option I went with ).

As always it is about the trade-offs. You can't get everything you want but if you prioritise better AAA then you can upgrade stuff easily enough E.g. You COULD if you wanted to be pretty radical swap 5 inch and 40mm for 3.9 inch DPs trading off the weight savings by downgrading the 5 inchers to upgrade some of the Bofors. Shae a couple of knots off to account for the additional weight since I doubt the 5inchers removed will balance all the weight added and "hey presto" you've got something which just might hae been possible if the will had been there.

Short backtrack here....

This isnt such a good idea as the weight for one twin 3.9in/65 is around 41t.

However - What about using the twin 3in/60 that was used on the agano? That only weighs around 13t for a turret - possible to replace 25mm triples on a 2:1 or 3:1 basis?

The USN I believe did something similar in the late 1940s with their 3in/50 RF guns.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

While defining what we can build would be nice, it wont be so hard to replicate it once AE comes out with more slots. Just put some extras on the list anyway - then agree certain limits via HR (or none if you like a hard game) - theres already a reasonable limit due to industry constraints.

As I understand it AE will allow us to rename certain allied ships in the que to avoid repeats - Does this apply to the IJN too? So we could just specify "Hull Number XXXX", and let the player rename it as he wishes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Finally, regarding 3.9in/65 production....

I really think you overstate the "difficulties" they had producing them. I think it was more of a choice as there was no immediate need for them, and they were still fixed on using the 5in/40 for most of their DP AA.

Around 170 3.9in/65 were produced during the war. Of these, 70 were used in land emplacements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lastly, I need some opinions.....what in the current IJN build list is "expendable" - as in, if I remove it to allow for more Akizuki, Shimakaze or Aganos, will not be missed.

Im pretty sure the I-400s are in this category......

< Message edited by Elouda -- 9/8/2008 1:17:49 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Nemo121)

Post #: 73

RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/8/2008 1:53:41 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

You can't rename Allied ships inside the game, AE or otherwise. In the editor, all bets are obviously off.

As for the 10cm gun, I've heard several theories as to why the Japanese didn't build more of them. I tend to tilt in the direction that says they saw the weapons as somewhat wasteful of scarce resources, given their comparatively short barrel life, due to high muzzle velocity.

With regards to expendable IJN builds, the I-400's most definitely qualify, alongside the Shinano and the Oyodo. Kill the AM as well; it's a waste, like all the other aircraft-carrying subs.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 9/8/2008 1:57:12 AM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Elouda)

Post #: 74

RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/8/2008 2:02:59 AM

Elouda

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You can't rename Allied ships inside the game, AE or otherwise. In the editor, all bets are obviously off.

Oh? But here Don Bowen clearly states its doable for certain ships in the build que. I assumed this could be expanded to the japanese side too, through the editor - or am I wrong and its more hardcoded stuff?

< Message edited by Elouda -- 9/8/2008 2:04:10 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 75

RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/8/2008 2:09:50 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I was not aware of this (big project, you know). I assume it was done so people wouldn't have to look at a warship called such-n-such-II. It's not available for other ships.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Elouda)

Post #: 76

RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/8/2008 6:30:59 AM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

If respawn if OFF, any ship in the reinforcement queue whose name ends in " II", " III", or " IV" can be renamed while still in the reinforcement queue. That is space Roman Numeral Two, space Roman Numeral Three, and space Roman Numeral Four.

There is no nationality limit.

The intent is to allow scenarios to contain historical ship names: Yorktown II for instance, and give the player some option if the original Yorktown is not sunk.

More rename capability was considered but rejected due to possible exploits. That is, a player renaming all his ships Good Ship Lollipop to confuse the opponent.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 77

RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/8/2008 7:54:47 AM

Elouda

Posts: 183
Joined: 2/16/2008
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline

Thanks for clarifying that, it sounds pretty useful....

So if I were to add the historic "Hull Number 111" and "Hull Number 797" as Yamato III and Yamato IV, I could then choose to rename them as I wish?

Up to what numeral does this extend?

Sorry if this is a little off the current topic, but I didnt think it warranted a new one in the AE section...

< Message edited by Elouda -- 9/8/2008 8:07:07 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 78

RE: Circle Four Building Program - 9/8/2008 10:30:49 AM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Well, apparently up to "IV"...

I should probably keep my mouth shut about this, though...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Elouda)

Post #: 79