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: Stepping Stones

 
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: Stepping Stones Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Stepping Stones - 2/22/2011 3:50:58 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Created the new RA--AE Folder so it is now separate from the previous work. Loaded JWE's ASW changes and have that part of things now. Looks pretty good to me at the moment.

Wrote John and asked how the LCU changes were coming so expect an update on that today or tomorrow.

Gonna start working on ships as we have discussed on previous pages of the Thread. Will list the work as it is done.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 721
Task List - 2/22/2011 6:20:07 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Done for the morning's work. Got the following changed/added:

1. Went through DDs and made they are correct and in right location.
2. Deleted the new Oyodo-CL Class. AA Cruisers will be old CL conversions.
3. CVL Ibuki and sister Air Group changed to more fighter heavy unit.
4. Tweaked Agano-CLs and arrival dates
5. Moved Nagato/Mutsu and Ise/Hyuga to Hiroshima along with CVEs.
6. Fuso/Yamashiro replaces Mutsu/Nagato as the heavy guns protecting Malay Invasions
7. Reduced IO SS from 8 to 5 and placed into DEI. Added 4 more SS into DEI.
8. Checked Sho-Kai aircraft to make sure M5, Judy, Jill are deployed in mid-43


Things Noticed:
1. Got to get rid of Monsoon Group U-Boats. Michael's work here goes for nought as I have to but them out.

2. The Mini-KB (3 CVL) was moved from Babledoap to Saipan. Would a better location be Cam Rahn Bay? With no speed bonus they could start wherever and not be a huge impact for the first couple of days.

3. With pulling BBs from Babeldoap that base will need some warships to begin operations in Eastern DEI/Southern Phil.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 722
Sulu Sea - 2/22/2011 6:23:56 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Artwork/Pictures needed that I noticed:

a. The 'setting sail' page as the game loads has two pictures.
b. Scenario Selection
c. Scenario Details (Would like the Yamamoto painting that is in Scen 70 there and I will write a new description of the scenario.
d. 'Preparing for Battle' page has three pictures.

Anything anywhere else would be great. I really like the idea of changing the combat animation page to something like what is being discussed in the general discussion area. Big B started a good Thread there.

EDIT: Whatever you find for possibilities Post here so people can comment. Looking forward to it and thanks for the help!



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/22/2011 6:24:06 PM >

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 723
RE: Sulu Sea - 2/23/2011 3:02:27 AM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		Hi guys , I'm not a pro just having fun, I'll try and come up with something appeasing to the eye, with any luck I'll be able to give you all a few options to chose from.

Here's one I played with today with pictures and rice paper as a background. Comments good or constructive is appreaciated and if anyone has any ideas we'd like to hear them.

The calligraphy is Admiral Yamamoto's and if I read the website correctly it means "Pure Emotion and Clear Intelligence".



_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 724
RE: Sulu Sea - 2/23/2011 3:56:01 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Damn...I may be heavily biased but I really LIKE that! The calligraphy, written by the man himself, is a great touch.

The pictures could serve as a theme. His Flagship was Yamato (pictured). If you go with this, you should use a picture of Akagi since he was Captain of it. He may have also Captained a BC...not sure on that but am sure about Akagi.

Will check my notes and Reluctant Admiral for his service record.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 725
Service Record - 2/23/2011 4:13:16 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Agawa's book lists the following:

Serves as an Ensign on warship Nisshin in 1905 and loses two fingers in the Battle of the Japan Sea (1905 Battle of Tsushima)

Captain of CL Isuzu in 1928

Captain of CV Akagi also 1928

Commander 1st Carrier Division (Akagi--Kaga) 1933

Perhaps this provides some direction/ideas...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 726
RE: Stepping Stones - 2/23/2011 3:58:32 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Wrote John and asked how the LCU changes were coming so expect an update on that today or tomorrow.

Finished and sent. If you ain't got them, please give me a shout. Ciao. J

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 727
RE: Stepping Stones - 2/23/2011 4:16:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Got it and loading...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 728
Working and Files - 2/23/2011 5:32:23 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Continuing to work on the Mod.

Done:
1. CV Air Group size
2. Worked on actual Air Groups and actual composition

Was going through my notes and cannot find the note on how to fix the auto-resize so it does not!

Have held off doing the install from JWE until I find out the exact files he worked on. Don't want to over-ride any of the work done earlier. I've limited my work to Air Groups, Task Forces, and individual ships. His is in the devices and LCUs so we shouldn't have a major issue. Does anyone know which files are which?

EDIT: Answered my own query. There are only two files updated (wpl069 and wpd069). Will load them now.



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 2/23/2011 5:45:25 PM >

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 729
JWE Changes - 2/23/2011 5:50:16 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Changelog for RA 3.0-J Eng Tweaks
Devices
0703 IJA Eng Labor – Add type 23-squad device; no Eng function
0717 IJN Eng Labor – Add type 23-squad device; no Eng function

Locations Japan OOBs
2130 IJN Const Bn – Wpn 1, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 7, add 18x 717-Eng Labor
2131 IJA Const Bn – Wpn 1, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 4, add 18x 703-Eng Labor
2145 IJN Special BF – Wpn 8, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 13, add 18x 717-Eng Labor
2146 IJA Air Sector BF – Wpn 4, reduce 251-Eng from 12 to 6: Wpn 9, add 6x 703-Eng Labor
2148 IJN BF – Wpn 9, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 16, add 18x 717-Eng Labor
2220 IJA Const Co – Wpn 1, reduce 251-Eng from 16 to 8: Wpn 4, add 8x 703-Eng Labor
2222 JAAF Airfield Bn – Wpn 5, reduce 251-Eng from 12 to 6: Wpn 10, add 6x 703-Eng Labor
2223 JAAF Airfield Coy – Wpn 2, reduce 251-Eng from 4 to 2: Wpn 4, add 2x 703-Eng Labor
2224 JAAF Airfield 43 Bn – Wpn 5, reduce 251-Eng from 12 to 6: Wpn 10, add 6x 703-Eng Labor
2225 IJA Rd Const Co – Wpn 1, reduce 251-Eng from 16 to 8: Wpn 5, add 8x 703-Eng Labor
2226 IJA Ind Eng Rgt – Wpn 1, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 6, add 18x 703-Eng Labor
2227 Field AF Const Bn – Wpn 1, reduce 251-Eng from 24 to 12: Wpn 6, add 12x 703-Eng Labor
2230 JNAF Airfield Bn – Wpn 4, reduce 251-Eng from 24 to 12: Wpn 10, add 12x 717-Eng Labor
2231 JNAF Airfield 43 Bn – Wpn 4, reduce 251-Eng from 24 to 12: Wpn 10, add 12x 717-Eng Labor
2232 IJN 43 BF – Wpn 9, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 16, add 18x 717-Eng Labor
2269 IJA Air Sector 44 BF – Wpn 4, reduce 251-Eng from 24 to 12: Wpn 9, add 12x 703-Eng Labor
2273 JAAF Sp Airfield Bn – Wpn 4, reduce 251-Eng from 12 to 6: Wpn 9, add 6x 703-Eng Labor
2274 JAAF Sp AF 43 Bn – Wpn 4, reduce 251-Eng from 12 to 6: Wpn 9, add 6x 703-Eng Labor
2275 JNAF Special AF BF – Wpn 7, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 12, add 18x 717-Eng Labor
2276 IJN BF – Wpn 9, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 16, add 18x 717-Eng Labor
2277 IJN 31st Spec BF – Wpn 11, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 16, add 18x 717-Eng Labor
2278 IJN 31st Spec BF – Wpn 11, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 16, add 18x 717-Eng Labor
2290 Field AF 44 Const Bn – Wpn 1, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 6, add 18x 703-Eng Labor
2294 IJN AF A/B BF – Wpn 7, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 12, add 18x 717-Eng Labor
2295 IJN AF A/C BF – Wpn 7, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 12, add 18x 717-Eng Labor
2278 IJN 31st Spec BF – Wpn 11, reduce 251-Eng from 36 to 18: Wpn 16, add 18x 717-Eng Labor
2298 IJA Shpng Eng Rgt – Wpn 2, reduce 251-Eng from 24 to 12: Wpn 6, add 12x 703-Eng Labor

Locations Allied OOBs
2381 USN Const Rrt – Wpn 2, reduce 251-Eng from 81 to 54
2367 USAAF 3Bn EAB – Wpn 2, reduce 251-Eng from 81 to 63
2421 USAAF Av Eng Bde – Wpn 2, reduce 251-Eng from 108 to 81
2422 USA Const Eng Bde – Wpn 3, reduce 251-Eng from 144 to 81

Locations Japan LCUs
4468-4488 – Update IJN Const Bns to 2130
3934, 4447-4464 – Update Eng Const Bns to 2131.
4640-4659, 4934 – Update IJN Special BFs to 2145
4665-4686 – Update JAAF Base Force units to 2146.
93-95, 4635-4647 – Update IJN BFs to 2148
3374-3375, 3602-3606, 3666-3668, 3711-3712, 3743, 3784, 3795-3797, 3927-3932, 4000-4008, 4100-4103, 4140, 4141 – update IJA Const Co to 2220 and IJA Rd Const Co to 2225.

4690-4759 – Update JNAF AF Bns to 2230 and 2231
4770-4907, 4956-4960 – Update JAAF AF Bns to 2222 and 2273.
4910-4931, 4986 – Update JAAF AF Coys to 2223.
3203, 3365-3366, 3655, 3728-3730, 3824-3825, 3916-3917, 3976-3978, 4099, 4548-4557 – update Ind Eng Rgts to 2226.

3921-3926, 3999 – Update Field AF Const Bns to 2227.
4761, 4765-4767 – Update JNAF Spec AF BF to 2275.
4645-4646 – Update IJN BF to 2276.
4658 – Update 31st Spec BF to 2277
4559-4568 – Update Field AF Const Bns to 2290.
4962-4967 – Update JNAF A/B AF BF to 2294
4543-4546 – Update JNAF A/C AF BF to 2295
3125, 3147, 3155, 3259, 3922, 3933, 4001, 4104 – Update Shpng Eng Rgts to 2298.

117 Additional individual IJA/IJN units, with no TOE, updated in various spots, everywhere.

2078 is unused so deleted to avoid confusion
2114 is unused so deleted to avoid confusion
2141 is unused so deleted to avoid confusion
2142 is unused so deleted to avoid confusion
2143 is unused so deleted to avoid confusion
2144 is unused so deleted to avoid confusion
2147 is unused so deleted to avoid confusion
2260 is unused so deleted to avoid confusion
2261 is unused so deleted to avoid confusion




_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 730
Not Bad - 2/23/2011 7:03:51 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		The files only wiped out my TF changes yesterday and I fixed that within 10 minutes. Got sort of lucky there. Wish I'd thought of that before when I started working yesterday.

Pulled up the game and am excited to see the changes made by JWE. Thanks John for all your work helping out with the ASW and LCU modifications.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 731
RE: Not Bad - 2/23/2011 7:40:09 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		I like the suggestions John, I'll have an updated photo of that tommorrow at the latest, I worked on this here today.




< Message edited by SuluSea -- 2/23/2011 7:41:23 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 732
RE: Not Bad - 2/23/2011 7:55:22 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		I know its slightly off topic for this mod, but I would like to see a series of aerial shots of various bases similar to the custom one for Pearl. Mostly, they would focus on major bases and/or historical ones like Lunga. They would be substituted for the common one uses for most bases during AF or port attacks.

(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 733
RE: Not Bad - 2/23/2011 9:09:27 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I know its slightly off topic for this mod, but I would like to see a series of aerial shots of various bases similar to the custom one for Pearl. Mostly, they would focus on major bases and/or historical ones like Lunga. They would be substituted for the common one uses for most bases during AF or port attacks.


Michael mentioned this when we were talking on the phone yesterday. I like the idea.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 734
CLAAs - 2/24/2011 2:22:47 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Have been thinking on the upgrade for old Japanese CLs to CLAAs and had an interesting thought. The Torpedo Cruisers were designed with a long platform running down their starboard and port decks. On these platforms they mounted 5x4 Long Lance Torpedo Mounts. These had to be able to take a bunch of weight and be structurally secure.

Could we use the Torp-Cruiser as a model for the CLAAs except replace the Long Lance Mounts with 3.9" AA Mounts instead. One would have to think about magazine space for these guns. Perhaps one could pull all the Torps and any Aircraft and replace with four 3.9" guns mounts on either side?

Armament:
4 5.5" Single Guns
8x2 3.9" AA Guns

Would that be a realistic possibility? What do you think?

The Torpedo Cruisers had their conversion done in about 6-8 months of time. Might be semi-realistic to look at the same thing here...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 735
CLAAs - 2/24/2011 4:03:18 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Was reading the Thread (YES--25 Pages of it) and saw that we had already had this discussion regarding CLAAs and had already factored this possibility in for the older CLs, however, it does not go as far as what I proposed above along the TT Cruiser model. Any commentary would be great.

Additionally was thinking of the following time frame for allowing these conversions to occur:

Tenryu/Tatsuta
June 42

Kuma/Tama/Kiso
August 42

Nagara Class (6 Ships)
October 42

Naka Class (3 Ships)
Dec 42

Thanks!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 736
RE: CLAAs - 2/24/2011 5:19:25 AM   
Terminus


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have been thinking on the upgrade for old Japanese CLs to CLAAs and had an interesting thought. The Torpedo Cruisers were designed with a long platform running down their starboard and port decks. On these platforms they mounted 5x4 Long Lance Torpedo Mounts. These had to be able to take a bunch of weight and be structurally secure.

Could we use the Torp-Cruiser as a model for the CLAAs except replace the Long Lance Mounts with 3.9" AA Mounts instead. One would have to think about magazine space for these guns. Perhaps one could pull all the Torps and any Aircraft and replace with four 3.9" guns mounts on either side?

Armament:
4 5.5" Single Guns
8x2 3.9" AA Guns

Would that be a realistic possibility? What do you think?

The Torpedo Cruisers had their conversion done in about 6-8 months of time. Might be semi-realistic to look at the same thing here...



Think you're over-gunning here. The 10cm dual mount weighed nearly 35 tons, and adding recoil forces to that, it would outweigh the quad torpedo tube installation it would be replacing by a considerable margin.

Also, the more holes you cut in a ship, the less durable it becomes. The torpedo cruisers were less potentially vulnerable, because their flawed operational concept had them firing their torpedoes from maximum range. In a CLAA configuration, they'd be up close, personal, and terribly vulnerable.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 2/24/2011 9:56:05 AM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 737
RE: Stepping Stones - 2/24/2011 12:52:50 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have decided to copy the old RA Folder of AE and created a new one so the newest version cannot be confused with previous RA copies/variants.

Am excited about adding a new book to my research library. Bought Jentschura's Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945. It cost a pretty penny but the tome lists EVERY warship built, designs and specs, a small service history, and names of ships planned but not constructed. Very COOL!


I looked this book up, and it made me drool. Did you order in on the net somewhere?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 738
RE: Task List - 2/24/2011 12:58:48 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
8. Checked Sho-Kai aircraft to make sure M5, Judy, Jill are deployed in mid-43

I still think it's better to stock new carriers with A6M2s/Vals/Kates, in case of acceleration.

Also, do we plan to do anything about Japanese PT boats bug? It was repeatedly reported, that they are stuck one day from completion. I don't know if it will ever be changed in the patches. And anyway, the solution seem to be changing their port of arrival to Hailar - where barges and midget subs arrive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. The Mini-KB (3 CVL) was moved from Babledoap to Saipan. Would a better location be Cam Rahn Bay? With no speed bonus they could start wherever and not be a huge impact for the first couple of days.

Without the speed bonus we can even leave them at Palaus, I think. That's where some Japanese carriers start in the stock, anyway. The problem was with Mini-KB being too powerful and capable of protecting a Mersing or Palemang landing on turn 1-2, due to warpspeed.



< Message edited by FatR -- 2/24/2011 12:59:31 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 739
RE: Task List - 2/24/2011 12:59:26 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Great screens, SuluSea!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 740
RE: CLAAs - 2/24/2011 1:45:02 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have been thinking on the upgrade for old Japanese CLs to CLAAs and had an interesting thought. The Torpedo Cruisers were designed with a long platform running down their starboard and port decks. On these platforms they mounted 5x4 Long Lance Torpedo Mounts. These had to be able to take a bunch of weight and be structurally secure.

Could we use the Torp-Cruiser as a model for the CLAAs except replace the Long Lance Mounts with 3.9" AA Mounts instead. One would have to think about magazine space for these guns. Perhaps one could pull all the Torps and any Aircraft and replace with four 3.9" guns mounts on either side?

Armament:
4 5.5" Single Guns
8x2 3.9" AA Guns

Would that be a realistic possibility? What do you think?

The Torpedo Cruisers had their conversion done in about 6-8 months of time. Might be semi-realistic to look at the same thing here...


16x100mm in all, plus some 140mm? I agree with Terminus, this is way too badass for their weight. I'd say no more than half of that number of 100mm guns for Kitakami/Oi, converted pre-war. Even then, just four twin 100/65 turrets will weight about as much as all 7 140mm guns installed before the conversion, making the top weight even bigger problem. Also, why keep any 140mm armament, as the ship will be too undergunned to go against anything bigger than a destroyer in surface combat anyway? Just place two more twin 100/65 mounts, one on the bow and one on the stern (a stern twin DP mount was supposed to be installed there in the initial projects of the torpedo version, so there should be enough place for it). This will a bit of stretch, but not too big one, as removal of torpedo tubes will save some weight as well.

CLs convesions during the war won't have the time for any serious work on the hull, and probably will be required to be done on cheap, so, as I said before, total armament around 6x127/40 + 4x76/60 + 45-60 25mm (fewer immediately after conversion, full complement in 1944) (+ depth charge rails) will be closer to the truth, again judging by what was done to Isuzu in RL. If I remember cor, that any DP gun mounts were far heavier than 140mm gun mounts originally carried by these cruisers.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 741
RE: Stepping Stones - 2/24/2011 3:21:53 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have decided to copy the old RA Folder of AE and created a new one so the newest version cannot be confused with previous RA copies/variants.

Am excited about adding a new book to my research library. Bought Jentschura's Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1869-1945. It cost a pretty penny but the tome lists EVERY warship built, designs and specs, a small service history, and names of ships planned but not constructed. Very COOL!


I looked this book up, and it made me drool. Did you order in on the net somewhere?


I would really recommend the book. It is an excellent resource. Got it off amazon for $65.00.

One of the biggest advantages I got out of it were the names for all cancelled ships. We'll be more correct with our deployment in late-42/early-43.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 742
FatR's Thoughts - 2/24/2011 3:33:23 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Where have you been Stanislav? Felt like I was fumbling around without the Design Team. Hope things are OK.

Responses:

1. Will change Sho-Kai Air Groups to older planes.

2. Will leave Mini-KB--no speed bonus--at Palau.

3. PTs I have no clue about.

4. I felt that the CLAAs were TOO much but had no clue as to what to do with them. How about a 100MM Turret on the bow, one where the Seaplane Catapult was, and one on the stern? Add two sets of the 76MM/60 plus 25MM and we have something a bit more useful for Carrier Combat. Pull off all TTs and Search Planes to save some weight and we're there.

Better?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 743
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/24/2011 3:35:56 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Just to put things into perspective, 8 twin 10cm mounts where what the IJN envisioned for the B-65 "Super A" cruiser, a ship about 7 times heavier.

If you're going to do include the old 3000-tonners in the mix, they'll need an seperate design scheme. The original plan for them called for three twin 10cm mounts, or six guns. For the 5000-tonners, you can probably squeeze in another turret. 25mm to taste.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 744
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/24/2011 3:44:15 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Like that idea. How about:

Tenryu, Tatsuta, Kuma, Tama, Kiso: 3x2 100/65 and a pair of 76/60 with then 25MM?

Nagara's and Naka's (9 Ships): 4x2 100/65, two pairs of 76/60 and 20MM?

As said no Torps and no Search Planes.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 745
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/24/2011 3:44:45 PM   
Shark7


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

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Just to put things into perspective, 8 twin 10cm mounts where what the IJN envisioned for the B-65 "Super A" cruiser, a ship about 7 times heavier.

If you're going to do include the old 3000-tonners in the mix, they'll need an seperate design scheme. The original plan for them called for three twin 10cm mounts, or six guns. For the 5000-tonners, you can probably squeeze in another turret. 25mm to taste.


Wouldn't the 5in/40 be a more suitable choice for the older cruisers? Weighs less and more numerous.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 746
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/24/2011 3:46:59 PM   
Terminus


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

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Just to put things into perspective, 8 twin 10cm mounts where what the IJN envisioned for the B-65 "Super A" cruiser, a ship about 7 times heavier.

If you're going to do include the old 3000-tonners in the mix, they'll need an seperate design scheme. The original plan for them called for three twin 10cm mounts, or six guns. For the 5000-tonners, you can probably squeeze in another turret. 25mm to taste.


Wouldn't the 5in/40 be a more suitable choice for the older cruisers? Weighs less and more numerous.


Obviously, which is what the Japs ended up using in real life. The scheme for the Tenryus I mentioned was pre-war, and shot down in favour of the Akizuki program. There's really no plausible reason for a wartime conversion program like this.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 747
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/24/2011 4:43:55 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Went through and made the changes as described above.

Not sure as to time so as a ballpark starting point I listed for the main conversion (100MM Guns) the following:

Conversion Delay--30
Upgrade Damage--15
Upgrade Delay--30

Minimum pullout of the fight is 2 1/2 months. This seems pretty fast.

Would it be better to change the Conversion Delay up to 60 or even 90?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 748
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/24/2011 4:58:04 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I fear that Terminus is correct. There is no realistic reason to try and cram top-of-the line modern weapons into these old hulls (that were mostly used as fast transports in the real war, anyway). The logistically correct answer to weakness of fleet AAA is "Build more farm... eh, Akizukis". Alternatively, scrap the idea of training cruisers, leave Kitakami/Oi as they were (i.e., no torpedo cruiser conversion) and use the saved money and workforce to try putting a couple of brand-new CLAAs in the service before the war, or early in the war, if the shipyard capability at all allows. I respect IJN's dedication to crew quality, but these same old CLs should serve as training ships just fine (heck, downgrade armament a bit on a pair of them you don't like, to reflect increased crew space for training duties).

I'd like the option of wartime conversion only because it gives a player options to play with, not because it was a winning solution in RL. And options are a good thing, even if they are not very great by themselves. The scheme I propose at least has the justification of primarily using older gun mounts removed from first-line ships (or from hypothetical cancelled continuation of Agano series) and so on. The results won't be that great too, making these ships basically oversized and armored escorts, so the player will have to weight, if having more flak justifies that.

< Message edited by FatR -- 2/24/2011 4:59:45 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 749
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 2/24/2011 5:08:49 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		Thanks Stanislav, you guys are going to make a JFB out of me yet, if anyone ever writes JFB for Dummies I'll be first in line to buy it.

Thanks for the encouragement, I came up with a few additional ideas this morning for the Admirals screen , I'll spend the afternoon cutting objects out and post the update some time tonight. Which should be two screens if you guys are satisfied, I can always add another later if that's what you guys want. After I get done with John 3rds requests I have some ideas going on for a surface combat screen that would hopefully appeal to the japanese players of this mod still working through everything but have some objects cut out already, we'll see how things go.



_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 750
Page:   <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Stepping Stones Page: <<   < prev  23 24 [25] 26 27   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.830