RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness

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: Japanese Tasty Goodness

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness

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

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/9/2009 9:18:22 PM

Terminus

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

Each.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 181

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/9/2009 11:11:33 PM

Terminus

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

Either way, here's another one. The Fw-200 would not have been a good aircraft for the IJNAF, but they did show some interest in it before the war, and it's a type that's always been near and dear to me, so here it is:

And I know that this plane would probably not have been powered by the Ha-32, but it had to have a type of engine, and the Ha-32 was as good as any.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Terminus -- 10/9/2009 11:49:24 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 182

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 12:47:02 AM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

H7K1 Connie? Reconnie

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 183

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 2:13:25 AM

Terminus

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

Condor...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 184

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 3:08:18 AM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

erately overage in 1941.

The Agano was delayed for a long time by internal bickering over the design, and when she finally joined the fleet, she was too small and too lightly armed for her job.

Not sure if a 9000 standard ton Cruiser makes sense . Obviously you want to reuse the Mogami class turrets as that will cut the cost by 25%. However you should be able to do 3*3*6" on 6500-7000 tons as the brits did 8 on it , this is the IJN after all and your not going to be that worried for a war time design just don't run the stores empty.

For 9000 tons your better of going to 10K or even 12K and making an Ibuki/Improved Mogami the torpedo bulges which push these ships from 8500-9000 to 11-12000 tons don't really increase costs much and their would cost savings by using a similar and proven design.

Begin production instead of the Katori's ?

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 185

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 5:11:21 AM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Absolutely .. They had all those Armored Cruisers they could have used or even the refloated Chinese prices.

In terms of money instead of the 4 Yamatos they could have got 34 Takaos or in terms of steel 16 Soryus (and had armour plate to spare) ( assuming 30% spent on the #4) mmm good choice boys ...And that doesn't include the special 18" turret carrier , 18" ammunition development and manufacture etc.

quote:

You have a point there. But in truth all those relics were used as training craft and they still built the Katori's. So perhaps they needed even more training capacity than the relics could provide?

They were used in the war and even sunk a US patrol boat at the opening. I don't see how the Katoris offering any training advantage over these much large ships and probably matched most Japanese capital ships also from 1905-1920 (except for the powerplant). You could refit the 2 chinese CLs as trainings ships also they needed new boilers but were otherwise ok.

Note the Katoris were a product off the London Naval treaty. Japan was allowed to keep all the armoured cruisers until they replaced the first 3 Nagas with new light cruisers at which time they could keep the 3 Nagas as training cruisers ( and would need to scrap the armoured cruisers) in excess of her cruiser limitation. Japan left the treaty before it could take affect - if the Katoris were finished 2 years earlier all the armoured cruisers would have been scrapped and the Nagas would have been converted to training not sure what this entailed but i bet 20 knot engines.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 186

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 5:16:45 AM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

That is the question. With Katoris they could train many without wasting lots of fuel. It made their training much more economical and much more efficient. I don't know how much they cost but i suspect it wasn't more than twice a destroyer.

A coal based ship like the armoured cruisers which were also used for training can use similar boilers pull 20 knots ( like the Katoris) and waste zero oil.

I suspect the cost would have been about 2 fleet destroyers also she used a lot of steel and that was Japans main problem. However for the cost of 3 destroyers you could have got useful cruisers

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 187

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 11:29:43 AM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

quote:

erately overage in 1941.

The Agano was delayed for a long time by internal bickering over the design, and when she finally joined the fleet, she was too small and too lightly armed for her job.

Not sure if a 9000 standard ton Cruiser makes sense . Obviously you want to reuse the Mogami class turrets as that will cut the cost by 25%. However you should be able to do 3*3*6" on 6500-7000 tons as the brits did 8 on it , this is the IJN after all and your not going to be that worried for a war time design just don't run the stores empty.

For 9000 tons your better of going to 10K or even 12K and making an Ibuki/Improved Mogami the torpedo bulges which push these ships from 8500-9000 to 11-12000 tons don't really increase costs much and their would cost savings by using a similar and proven design.

Begin production instead of the Katori's ?

Remember that the tonnage figures in the editor are for "normal" displacement. The Brooklyns were 9800 tons normal and about 12000 tons full. I figure my Agano class adds another 2K.

There will be no Katori class training cruisers. I will build these and probably another class of cruiser that I haven't figured out yet. The Aganos were just a good place to start.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 188

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 1:20:20 PM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

quote:

Remember that the tonnage figures in the editor are for "normal" displacement. The Brooklyns were 9800 tons normal and about 12000 tons full. I figure my Agano class adds another 2K.

I still think you can build 3 *3 on 7000 standard (7700 normal)..the historical Aganos were not comparable with ships from other countries . Remember the Mogamis were 9000 standard than they added the bulges ( which don't add much to the cost) so if your getting to that range a CA is more useful and doesn't cost much more.
This is from Springsharp using Ibuki style DP guns for secondary armament.

Displacement:
5,906 t light; 6,149 t standard; 6,685 t normal; 7,114 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(533.53 ft / 518.37 ft) x 49.87 ft x (18.37 / 19.22 ft)
(162.62 m / 158.00 m) x 15.20 m x (5.60 / 5.86 m)

Armament:
9 - 6.10" / 155 mm 60.0 cal guns - 123.00lbs / 55.79kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1940 Model
3 x Triple mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
4 - 3.15" / 80.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 13.20lbs / 5.99kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1941 Model
2 x Twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
12 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1940 Model
4 x Triple mounts on sides, evenly spread
Weight of broadside 1,166 lbs / 529 kg
Main Torpedoes
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 23.79 ft / 7.25 m torpedoes - 2.040 t each, 16.319 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
2nd Torpedoes
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 23.79 ft / 7.25 m torpedoes - 2.040 t each, 16.319 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted reloads
Main DC/AS Mortars
4 - 55.12 lbs / 25.00 kg Depth Charges + 12 reloads - 0.394 t total
in Stern depth charge racks

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.97" / 50 mm 336.94 ft / 102.70 m 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
Ends: 0.98" / 25 mm 181.40 ft / 55.29 m 8.46 ft / 2.58 m
Main Belt covers 100% of normal length
Main belt does not fully cover magazines and engineering spaces

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
1.97" / 50 mm 336.94 ft / 102.70 m 16.04 ft / 4.89 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 49.87 ft / 15.20 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 3.94" / 100 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.59" / 15 mm
3rd: 0.98" / 25 mm - -
- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 2.36" / 60 mm
Forecastle: 0.39" / 10 mm Quarter deck: 0.39" / 10 mm

Adequate machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Ship has slow, easy roll, a good, steady gun platform
35 knots.

Here is the Ibuki CA

Displacement:
10,901 t light; 11,405 t standard; 12,501 t normal; 13,378 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(669.06 ft / 639.76 ft) x 55.77 ft (Bulges 62.34 ft) x (21.56 / 22.79 ft)
(203.93 m / 195.00 m) x 17.00 m (Bulges 19.00 m) x (6.57 / 6.95 m)

Armament:
10 - 8.00" / 203 mm 50.0 cal guns - 276.90lbs / 125.60kg shells, 120 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1940 Model
5 x 2-gun mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
2 raised mounts - superfiring
20 - 3.94" / 100.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 28.66lbs / 13.00kg shells, 200 per gun
Dual purpose guns in deck mounts, 1941 Model
10 x 2-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
6 raised mounts
18 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 1,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1937 Model
6 x 3-gun mounts on sides, evenly spread
2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 3,352 lbs / 1,520 kg
Main Torpedoes
16 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 23.79 ft / 7.25 m torpedoes - 2.040 t each, 32.638 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 5.79" / 147 mm 351.05 ft / 107.00 m 8.86 ft / 2.70 m
Ends: 0.98" / 25 mm 287.86 ft / 87.74 m 6.56 ft / 2.00 m
0.85 ft / 0.26 m Unarmoured ends
Upper: 1.97" / 50 mm 492.13 ft / 150.00 m 3.28 ft / 1.00 m
Main Belt covers 84% of normal length
Main Belt inclined 20.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Torpedo Bulkhead - Strengthened structural bulkheads:
2.76" / 70 mm 557.74 ft / 170.00 m 13.12 ft / 4.00 m
Beam between torpedo bulkheads 55.77 ft / 17.00 m

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 5.91" / 150 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 4.33" / 110 mm
2nd: 0.04" / 1 mm 0.02" / 1 mm -
3rd: 0.02" / 1 mm - -

- Armoured deck - single deck:
For and Aft decks: 3.74" / 95 mm
Forecastle: 0.98" / 25 mm Quarter deck: 0.98" / 25 mm

quote:

There will be no Katori class training cruisers. I will build these and probably another class of cruiser that I haven't figured out yet. The Aganos were just a good place to start.

Here is what i used obviously before war refits.

Upsized Yubari reuse 6.1" guns but with new 85 degree dual turrets ( layout and tonnage like Tromp). Actually good for 35 knots as i used actual machinery tonnage from a Japanese ship , and shp was quite a bit higher (Spring sharp doesn't have support for higher pressure boilers yet)

Suzuka, Japan Light Cruiser laid down 1940

Displacement:
3,188 t light; 3,338 t standard; 3,641 t normal; 3,883 t full load

Dimensions: Length (overall / waterline) x beam x draught (normal/deep)
(454.79 ft / 439.63 ft) x 40.68 ft x (14.11 / 14.79 ft)
(138.62 m / 134.00 m) x 12.40 m x (4.30 / 4.51 m)

Armament:
6 - 6.10" / 155 mm 60.0 cal guns - 123.00lbs / 55.79kg shells, 150 per gun
Breech loading guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1940 Model
3 x Twin mounts on centreline ends, majority forward
4 - 3.15" / 80.0 mm 60.0 cal guns - 13.21lbs / 5.99kg shells, 300 per gun
Dual purpose guns in turret on barbette mounts, 1940 Model
2 x Twin mounts on sides, aft deck forward
12 - 0.98" / 25.0 mm 65.0 cal guns - 0.55lbs / 0.25kg shells, 2,000 per gun
Anti-air guns in deck mounts, 1937 Model
4 x Triple mounts on sides, evenly spread
2 raised mounts
Weight of broadside 797 lbs / 362 kg
Main Torpedoes
8 - 24.0" / 610 mm, 23.79 ft / 7.25 m torpedoes - 2.040 t each, 16.319 t total
In 4 sets of deck mounted carriage/fixed tubes
Main DC/AS Mortars
2 - 220.46 lbs / 100.00 kg Depth Charges + 12 reloads - 1.378 t total
in Stern depth charge racks

Armour:
- Belts: Width (max) Length (avg) Height (avg)
Main: 1.38" / 35 mm 285.76 ft / 87.10 m 7.64 ft / 2.33 m
Ends: 0.98" / 25 mm 153.84 ft / 46.89 m 7.64 ft / 2.33 m
Main Belt covers 100% of normal length
Main Belt inclined 20.00 degrees (positive = in)

- Gun armour: Face (max) Other gunhouse (avg) Barbette/hoist (max)
Main: 0.98" / 25 mm 0.98" / 25 mm 0.59" / 15 mm
2nd: 0.98" / 25 mm - 0.20" / 5 mm

- Armoured deck - multiple decks:
For and Aft decks: 1.97" / 50 mm
Forecastle: 0.59" / 15 mm Quarter deck: 0.59" / 15 mm

Machinery:
Oil fired boilers, steam turbines,
Geared drive, 2 shafts, 56,312 shp / 42,009 Kw = 33.99 kts
Range 5,000nm at 14.00 kts
Bunker at max displacement = 545 tons

Complement:
233 - 304

Cost:
�2.478 million / $9.913 million

Distribution of weights at normal displacement:
Armament: 274 tons, 7.5%
- Guns: 252 tons, 6.9%
- Weapons: 22 tons, 0.6%
Armour: 607 tons, 16.7%
- Belts: 166 tons, 4.6%
- Armament: 44 tons, 1.2%
- Armour Deck: 398 tons, 10.9%
Machinery: 1,411 tons, 38.8%
Hull, fittings & equipment: 880 tons, 24.2%
Fuel, ammunition & stores: 453 tons, 12.4%
Miscellaneous weights: 16 tons, 0.4%
- Hull below water: 16 tons

Overall survivability and seakeeping ability:
Survivability (Non-critical penetrating hits needed to sink ship):
1,228 lbs / 557 Kg = 10.8 x 6.1 " / 155 mm shells or 0.3 torpedoes
Stability (Unstable if below 1.00): 1.10
Metacentric height 1.5 ft / 0.5 m
Roll period: 13.7 seconds
Steadiness - As gun platform (Average = 50 %): 50 %
- Recoil effect (Restricted arc if above 1.00): 0.62
Seaboat quality (Average = 1.00): 0.73

Hull form characteristics:
Hull has raised forecastle, rise forward of midbreak, low quarterdeck ,
a straight bulbous bow and large transom stern
Block coefficient (normal/deep): 0.505 / 0.514
Length to Beam Ratio: 10.81 : 1
'Natural speed' for length: 23.77 kts
Power going to wave formation at top speed: 65 %
Trim (Max stability = 0, Max steadiness = 100): 68
Bow angle (Positive = bow angles forward): 30.00 degrees
Stern overhang: 0.00 ft / 0.00 m
Freeboard (% = length of deck as a percentage of waterline length):
Fore end, Aft end
- Forecastle: 20.00%, 26.25 ft / 8.00 m, 20.34 ft / 6.20 m
- Forward deck: 30.00%, 18.86 ft / 5.75 m, 18.86 ft / 5.75 m
- Aft deck: 35.00%, 9.84 ft / 3.00 m, 9.84 ft / 3.00 m
- Quarter deck: 15.00%, 9.45 ft / 2.88 m, 9.45 ft / 2.88 m
- Average freeboard: 15.06 ft / 4.59 m

Ship space, strength and comments:
Space - Hull below water (magazines/engines, low = better): 151.7%
- Above water (accommodation/working, high = better): 138.2%
Waterplane Area: 12,450 Square feet or 1,157 Square metres
Displacement factor (Displacement / loading): 79%
Structure weight / hull surface area: 48 lbs/sq ft or 236 Kg/sq metre
Hull strength (Relative):
- Cross-sectional: 0.60
- Longitudinal: 0.99
- Overall: 0.63
Cramped machinery, storage, compartmentation space
Excellent accommodation and workspace room
Poor seaboat, wet and uncomfortable, reduced performance in heavy weather

Good for 35 Knots

< Message edited by bklooste -- 10/10/2009 1:37:29 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 189

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 1:55:04 PM

Terminus

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

I'm making the Aganos CL's, since that's what the IJN needs. They have a relatively large force of over-age, underarmed light cruisers, which will be converted to CLAAs anyway, so the need for DD flotilla leaders is paramount.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 190

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 2:55:51 PM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

Absolutely , that's what the Suzuka i listed is for a cheap and effective leader. .

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 191

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 2:57:14 PM

Terminus

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

With a 6-gun main battery, it's quite underarmed. That's one of the reason I designed this Agano with a 9-gun setup.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 192

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 4:51:05 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

quote:

erately overage in 1941.

The Agano was delayed for a long time by internal bickering over the design, and when she finally joined the fleet, she was too small and too lightly armed for her job.

Not sure if a 9000 standard ton Cruiser makes sense . Obviously you want to reuse the Mogami class turrets as that will cut the cost by 25%. However you should be able to do 3*3*6" on 6500-7000 tons as the brits did 8 on it , this is the IJN after all and your not going to be that worried for a war time design just don't run the stores empty.

For 9000 tons your better of going to 10K or even 12K and making an Ibuki/Improved Mogami the torpedo bulges which push these ships from 8500-9000 to 11-12000 tons don't really increase costs much and their would cost savings by using a similar and proven design.

Begin production instead of the Katori's ?

But IIRC, the turrets that came off the Mogamis ended up on the Yamatos. The ones that didn't end up there were recycled as CD emplacements in the Home Islands.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 193

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 6:15:23 PM

Terminus

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

No Yamatos in my mod.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 194

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 7:27:21 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
The developmental ship you're thinking of was the Yubari, commissioned in 1923. The Katoris were constructed and commissioned from 1938 to 1941.

Absolutely right. Had a bottle of St. Estephe and did a major brain fart. Please forgive.

St. Estephe, very nice. I have a Ch�teauneuf-du-Pape waiting for me in a few more hours

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 195

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 11:02:42 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

No Yamatos in my mod.

Then you should have about 20 3x6.1" turrets available for other ships.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 196

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 10/10/2009 11:07:04 PM

Terminus

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

Along with quite a few 20cm guns taken off the Akagi and the Amagi.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 197

Another French Treat... - 10/17/2009 10:09:34 PM

Terminus

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

No, I haven't given up on my mod. Here's another tidbit:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 198

RE: Another French Treat... - 10/18/2009 11:00:21 PM

mariandavid

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline

Terminus: Going back to your question on the terminology of French land combat units. Just finished researching this for a book I am doing (on the Free French). So using only english terms to make it easier. The French had three armies - the one in France (Metropolitan), the one in North Africa and the one in the colonies. The last, called 'La Coloniale' and the North Africa, were considered the 'elite' or at least the most active and attracted the most ambitious regular officers. The Colonial contained two types of units - the 'white' which fought mainly in France, and 'native'. The last were grouped into regiments identified by region - eg from Senegal, Madagascar and of course from Indo-China. The most reliable of the latter came from the south around Saigon (no comments on politics!). The 'Colonial' also operated its own artillery and engineer units. It did not belong to the army, as previously suggested, rather each of the three armies took precedence and control depending on where the fighting was taking place. However, because it obviously relied on the navy for transport and support there were connections. In most circumstances their senior officer reported to the governor of the province they were stationed in.

The only 'marines' in the sense used by the British and Americans were the infantry detachments carried on ships and converged to form ad-hoc battalions - those already mentioned as serving in North Africa. The were commanded by the navy.

Finally there was the Foreign Legion (one regiment in Indo-China). In terms of administration this comes close to the American Marine Corps - the 'subject' of a larger organisation (but army not navy) - but with its own recruitment, training and command structure. Note however that all of its officers were on long-term transfer from the three armies, mainly from the Metropolitan (not surprising since the latter had a most sedentary life!). Incidentally (and irrelevent!) they seem to have been stuck there, almost as if the regular armies did not want them back to pollute them with strange ideas!

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 199

RE: Another French Treat... - 10/19/2009 8:51:27 AM

Terminus

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

Thanks.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to mariandavid)

Post #: 200

RE: Another French Treat... - 1/15/2010 6:00:38 PM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

Nice work. Suscribed!

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 201

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 1/15/2010 10:04:03 PM

Terminus

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

I'll have to disappoint you. Having lost all interest whatsoever in AE, whether to play it or mod it, I've discontinued work on this or any other mod.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 202

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 1/15/2010 10:35:38 PM

Athius

Posts: 73
Joined: 9/12/2009
Status: offline

Sorry to hear that as it looked realy good. Any chance of you releasing the ships that you've already completed?

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 203

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 1/16/2010 1:07:33 AM

traskott

Posts: 1546
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline

Sorry hear that. I can hardly believe it !!!

I use the screenshots u show to include french army/navy/air in my own mod. Amazing job, even unfinished.

(in reply to Athius)

Post #: 204

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 1/16/2010 8:50:30 PM

Mac Linehan

Posts: 1484
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'll have to disappoint you. Having lost all interest whatsoever in AE, whether to play it or mod it, I've discontinued work on this or any other mod.

T -

I can fully understand the need to take a break after a very prolonged and sustained effort to get AE out the door and give outstanding support. Enjoy your time off, but please know that you are very much a part of AE and what AE stands for. I will trust (and hope) that after a period of time you will recondider continuing work on your MOD - it really looks interesting.

Thank You for all that you have done,

Mac

_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 205

RE: Looking for some data on the French Army - 3/24/2010 8:08:15 AM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

How is this mod going ?

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 206

RE: Looking for some data on the French Army - 3/24/2010 1:05:22 PM

Dili

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline

Didn't Terminus said above it is canceled?

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 207

RE: Looking for some data on the French Army - 3/24/2010 3:09:43 PM

bklooste

Posts: 1104
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

That he did but if he has lost interest why is he writing in teh forums again ?

_____________________________

Underdog Fanboy

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 208

RE: Looking for some data on the French Army - 3/24/2010 4:13:47 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bklooste

That he did but if he has lost interest why is he writing in teh forums again ?

He came for the game, but he stays for the intellectual stimulation

T is a regular poster on the forums still, but he's taking a break from most things AE related which includes scenarios etc.

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to bklooste)

Post #: 209

RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness - 3/24/2010 4:50:54 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Either way, here's another one. The Fw-200 would not have been a good aircraft for the IJNAF, but they did show some interest in it before the war, and it's a type that's always been near and dear to me, so here it is:

And I know that this plane would probably not have been powered by the Ha-32, but it had to have a type of engine, and the Ha-32 was as good as any.

The FW-200 would have been usefull in the Maritime patrol role if the Germans had provided the search radars for them. Without the Radars they would have simply been redundant to the H8K, and even more fragile.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 210

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

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Japanese Tasty Goodness