RE: FatR's Thoughts

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: FatR's Thoughts

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: FatR's Thoughts

Page: << < prev 25 26 [27] 28 29 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/2/2011 5:25:34 AM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What would be the driver for optimizing the IJN auxiliary subchaser fleet? If it's only our hindsight, is that enough?

Freeing TBs/Minesweepers/Larger Es for more important duties by providing cheap merchant escorts, and thus increasing the offensive ability of the Combined Fleet. Looking through Japanese ship histories on combinedfleet.com, Ch-subchasers were sailing with convoys much more often than CHa-subchasers, despite being less numerous. Even rarer are the cases when CHa-subchasers were mixed with escorts other than subchasers/auxilary patrol boats. It is clear, that even with desperate lack of escorts CHa-1 class just wasn't fully fit for its supposed duties. Even if they were basically stuck with this class because facilities that made it were unable to crank out anything better (as I suspect was the case), this still looks like a bad investment that could have been avoided with better foresight and pre-planning.

Also, lowering the demand for trained crewmembers by deploying less auxilary ships of better quality. I imagine in RA it is already considerably higher than in the real life.

EDIT: Although looking at the difference at tonnage, buiding 2 Ch-13 for every three CHa-1 is indeed too optimistic. One for two is closer to reality.

I get that, but where is the inducement to do this planning in the first place? No navy in the whole wide world had a well thought-out convoy escort plan and the ships for it in place before WW2 kicked off. Not one.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 781

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/2/2011 11:30:39 AM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
I get that, but where is the inducement to do this planning in the first place? No navy in the whole wide world had a well thought-out convoy escort plan and the ships for it in place before WW2 kicked off. Not one.

Well, I'm not arguing for adequate measures, like putting escort ships into mass production in parallel with standard-projects cargo ships. Standartizing subchasers to one type can be justified as a measure to streamline production (switching to said standard projects cargo ships shows that sometimes Japanese thought of this in advance), and obviously it is better to choose the type that actually has sufficient cruise speed to keep up with most of the available merchants.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/2/2011 11:31:08 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 782

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/2/2011 11:47:54 AM

FatR

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

Speaking of standartization...

Late-war building queue (those ships that were never built IRL), includes 6 Yugumo-class DDs. How about replacing them with extra Akizukis, namely hulls ## 5061-5065? As far as I can tell, plans of building these Yugumos were abandoned as early as August of 1943, while production of Akizukis was dropped only in late 1944, when Japanese economy completely fell apart. Sticking to one type of 1st-class destroyers and one type of 2-nd class destroyers certainly makes more sense. Akizukis were bigger and heavier than Yugumos, of course, so maybe replacing them one-for-one might be unjustified.

Also, it appears that one Akizuki-class DD, Hanazuki, ( http://www.combinedfleet.com/hanazu_t.htm ) that was completed but never saw combat missions, is not in the game.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/2/2011 11:55:05 AM >

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 783

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/2/2011 1:27:48 PM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
I get that, but where is the inducement to do this planning in the first place? No navy in the whole wide world had a well thought-out convoy escort plan and the ships for it in place before WW2 kicked off. Not one.

Well, I'm not arguing for adequate measures, like putting escort ships into mass production in parallel with standard-projects cargo ships. Standartizing subchasers to one type can be justified as a measure to streamline production (switching to said standard projects cargo ships shows that sometimes Japanese thought of this in advance), and obviously it is better to choose the type that actually has sufficient cruise speed to keep up with most of the available merchants.

We don't disagree fundamentally; I've just found in my own modding that it's far more satisfying to have a plausible chain of thought behind it instead of just "because I feel like it".

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 784

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/2/2011 2:36:13 PM

John 3rd

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

Let me toss out a thought here.

We've been predicating a chunk of our thinking on the strains of Japanese manpower with additional warships being produced and the issues that causes with creating experienced crews. We've already established Yamamoto's control over the Fleet in changing its course as of 1939.

Could we take those two threads and bring a streamlining of mid-war production into play? Examples might range from tossing out some of the useless I-Boats and Ro-Class in favor of a standard--already proven design--sub to limited retooling of the smaller vessels needed for escort duty. The effect of this might be fewer ship--less manpower--but more consistent design and vision.

Just a thought...

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 785

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/2/2011 3:27:17 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Sent EJ (SuluSea) some pictures we had downloaded when the Mod was first being looked at. Hope he can use them if they have any value!

Later this afternoon.

I'll post a pic of the painting for scenario details and a picture for the scenario selection screen and see if we can proceed forward with one more screen.

I deal with health issues on a daily basis and things have been alittle worse of late, I'm having problems that seem to be radiating from the thoracic spine and wondering if my many lumbar spine issues have dominoed in that direction. Hopefully things get better soon, feeling better today than yesterday atleast right now. Needless to say I haven't felt too creative the past few days or spent much time gaming.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 786

Artwork - 3/2/2011 4:34:35 PM

John 3rd

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

The work you have done is excellent. Take care of self and Post here whenever you have something. Good Thoughts!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 787

RE: Artwork - 3/2/2011 5:09:37 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

Thanks John, I'm doing the best I can.

I added pics to historical detail and scenario detail here they are, if this is what you guys are looking for we'll move forward. I was thinking about a japanese shipyard pic instead of the parade but didn't see any, it's up to you guys. You may notice I�brightened the Yamamoto pic some.� I'll think about things the rest of the afternoon and add two pics to the allied side tommorrow and see if they are acceptable. If anything needs to change with these two�I can do that tommorrow as well.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 3/2/2011 5:12:03 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 788

RE: Artwork - 3/2/2011 5:11:09 PM

John 3rd

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

NICE! The painting is definitely brighter. Go with that Sir.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 789

RE: Artwork - 3/2/2011 5:23:10 PM

JWE

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

Hi EJ,
Your art work has just blown me away. Could write paragraphs about your sense of visual presentation, but just one of your screens is worth thousands of my words. Be well, my friend. And thank you.
John

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 790

RE: Artwork - 3/2/2011 5:26:49 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Hi EJ,
Your art work has just blown me away. Could write paragraphs about your sense of visual presentation, but just one of your screens is worth thousands of my words. Be well, my friend. And thank you.
John

Thanks JWE very much appreaciated.

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 3/2/2011 5:27:51 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 791

RE: Artwork - 3/2/2011 7:33:17 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

Allied screens for the Reluctant Admiral , I found these liked 'em if you guys like what you see we'll keep 'em if anything needs to change , we'll substitute another picture. If you all change your mind on something down the line we can always make a change, no problem.

Scenario

Historical

< Message edited by SuluSea -- 3/2/2011 7:34:47 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to SuluSea)

Post #: 792

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/2/2011 9:23:14 PM

FatR

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Let me toss out a thought here.

We've been predicating a chunk of our thinking on the strains of Japanese manpower with additional warships being produced and the issues that causes with creating experienced crews. We've already established Yamamoto's control over the Fleet in changing its course as of 1939.

Could we take those two threads and bring a streamlining of mid-war production into play? Examples might range from tossing out some of the useless I-Boats and Ro-Class in favor of a standard--already proven design--sub to limited retooling of the smaller vessels needed for escort duty. The effect of this might be fewer ship--less manpower--but more consistent design and vision.

Just a thought...

You want more streamlining?

1)As about surface ships, strive to build one type of 1-st class destroyer, one type of 2-nd class destroyer/destroyer escort and, later, one type of large escort. So:
- Cancel Yugumos ordered in early 1943 (Asashimo, Hayashimo, Akishimo, Kiyoshimo). Add 4 more Akizukis instead.
- Cancel Ukuru-class escorts. These were constructed concurrently with C/D class escorts, demanded almost twice as much man-hours, slightly bigger crew, and weren't particularly superior. Instead of 33 these ships, concentrate on C/D escorts and Matsu-class destroyers. Thankfully we can now play with these ships without crushing Allied sub fleet even harder... I don't if extra destroyers can be squeezed out of available shipyards, though. If replaced purely with escorts, about 40-42 C/D class ships can be made of the same materials, and this will leave workforce to spare.
- Also, can it be possible to replace Type 1 LSI/APDs that arrive in 1944-45 with APDs based on the design of Matsu/Tachibana class? I can try to extrapolate their possible stats, if you wish, but they obviously will be smaller, possibly too small to haul midgets/amphibious tanks/barges, like Type 1 ships did. On the other hand, this unification of design might allow to either build more of them, or to save on materials/workforce.

2)Subs... weeeeell, it's very hard to think of anything plausible there. In RL Japanese sub fleet was fairly effective in the realities of the war's beginning, but failed to rise to the challenge as the war progressed, and it's hard to imagine how it could have managed to do so, taking into account overall technologic inferiority and economic constraints. Sure, command mistakes, primarily misuse of modern submarines as transports, contributed, but above all they were simply outclassed and unable to pull the same tricks American subs did. It's hard to imagine any changes that logically flow from pre-war concepts solutions and can seriously improve situation. Concentrating on building about two types of subs (+ one type of SSTs and midgets each) is an obvious recipe, but what types to pick? B/C types boats have good stats (in-game, but in RL they performed decently as well) but way too big and expensive for mass production. KD boats are closest to the optimal size for a mass-production oceanic boat, but have surprisingly limited range and armament for their size. Larger RO boats theoretically decent characteristics, but abysmal war records, although lack of experienced crews for newly launched boats might have contributed to that (there seems to be a distinct pattern of Japanese subs either being easily destroyed on the first contact with the enemy, without doing anything, or surviving several missions and being taken down only with considerable effort, and/or after launching attacks on heavily protected task forces).

In the game subs are additionally penaltized by being too expensive. They cost 2-4 times as much as DDs. Too much for a weapon that's likely going to be one-shot. On the other hand, their state as ships you cancel to save Naval build points makes me want to see some ideas for improvement here. But I'm at loss for ideas of my own, to be honest. John, can you try to outline how and when the sub doctrine can be changed with Yamamoto in control? So far I can only tell than in game stats terms it's best to build only C2 and KD7 types (hopefully developing KD8 with increased range later in the war) + SH type transports (best cargo to build cost ratio by far) and midgets... I'm not sure if "fast" type ST subs are worthwhile successors to KD boats, as they have only 4 torpedo tubes instead of six. I suppose sub's maneuver speed influences its ability to avoid depthcharge attacks?

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 793

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/3/2011 4:43:21 PM

Ken Estes

Posts: 125
Joined: 9/14/2006
From: Seattle
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I plan on finishing the FLEET modifications tomorrow. Points:

1. My problem with the Torpedo Cruisers is I LIKE them, however, FatR and Terminus are correct that if Yamamoto did take FULL control of the Fleet as Navy Minister, he probably would not have agreed with the Kitakami/Oi conversion. As much as it pains me we'll convert 3 CLs to Training and leave 3 CLs in their original form.

2. Take out the CLAA conversion for the Old CLs. They get what they got historically and that is that.

3. Work the Akizukis as previously discussed.

As to FatR's proposal regarding the escorts:
A. The idea sounds good, however, I am concerned on justification as Terminus mentions.

B. If we cut the number by 50% is that a better number that would REFLECT a simplification of building and personnel movement? Would it reflect the 'one over many' Japanese fixation?

C. I like the standardization argument because that is what we just did with the whole Old CL to AA conversion/Training Cruiser discussion vs. simply cutting and accelerating the previously designed class od DD.

There is a thread of coherence there I think...

Too bad, that chaos and uncertainty has to be eliminated. So much for choice and flexibility.

The IJN [nor any other navy I have studied] was never under the full control of any one man. See in this case Sadeo Asada, From Mahan to Pearl Harbor (Navl Inst Press, 2006).

Bad ship designs and conversions ought to be handled via the shipbuilding quieu, and the conversion switch for each ship; the player adds to or reduces the costs by exercising his options.

Standardization is the last thing that a prewar navy, of any nation, could afford or technically execute. Does this mod allow return of some shipbuilding points by scrapping older/useless ships [=materiel and crew economies]? Might be a nice touch!

Cheers, Ken

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 794

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/3/2011 6:05:46 PM

John 3rd

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

Hey Ken.

I just bought Mahan to From PH and it is sitting on the 'to read' pile by my bed. Looking forward to reading it. Am just about finished with Neptune's Fury. It isn't too bad and has a slightly different perspective to Frank's superior work on the subject.

Please don't misunderstand regarding what Stanislav has suggested. The entire prism of the Mod is through Yamamoto's writings. I've been re-reading Agawa's The Reluctant Admiral to see if there is anything written by him in this area. Doubt if anything will show.

If nothing is present then it becomes guesswork and I am not too big of fan of that. We've made these Mod choices through inference of the 'what if' and it should not be carried TOO far. It would be great to bolster Japanese ASW but, like what Terminus stated, how much of that is fanciful hindsight?

Additionally, I agree that is is far preferable to leave MORE choices in the hands of the player. Give the player 3-4 choices then just 1 or 2. Provides a far better feel for buy-in and tie-in within the game.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to Ken Estes)

Post #: 795

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/3/2011 7:34:55 PM

Terminus

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

Why build APD's in 44-45 anyway? If the war is still going on at that point, Japan is losing.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 796

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/3/2011 10:31:36 PM

FatR

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

Well, assuming surrender is not on the table until all means of resistance are exhausted, for the same reason as IRL - hauling troops to and from areas threatened by Allied air.

One more thing about possible changes to subs - while American authors practically always criticise Japanese for not concentrating on the tonnage sub war against Allies, that would have been pursuing a pipe dream. If Germans failed despite building 6 times the number of boats (and technologically superior ones), having their main sub bases right next to vitally important Allied sealanes (compared to distances Japanese needed to cross for most of the war), and expending more U-boats in 1942 alone than the total number of subs Japanese had in this year; then I fail to see how it was possible for IJN sub force to make a significant impact (at least one comparable in importance with the damage they did to USN carrier fleet in 1942) by following the German route.

Also, as per Submarines of Imperial Japanese Navy by Polmar and Carpenter, IJN had a severe crew shortage for new submarines already, and no resources to establish a training program, capable of feeding enough meat into the grinder (as subs were usually lost with their entire crews, this problem was more severe for them than for surface ships) making the approach of concentrating on spamming more cheaper submarines self-defeating (see: how USS England became the most successful ASW ship of all time). IJN sort of fell into it by the end anyway, with their hordes of midgets for Home Islands defence, but by that point they were obviously grasping at straws...

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/3/2011 10:33:00 PM >

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 797

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/4/2011 12:32:39 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

Hey there John, it looks like I am going to have a restart on my RA game and was wondering what the status is right now... I got a little lost in the pages of comments. How much of DBB is incorporated now? I don't suppose there is anywhere a master change log that people can look at to know what has been changed and so on....

Any idea about the timing of the new release?

Thanks for the work, I have enjoyed it quite a bit! I think the only thing I am going to change is a mod mash-up with Treespiders econ changes.... mods giveth to the IJN, the mods taketh from the IJN....

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 798

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/4/2011 6:45:16 PM

John 3rd

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

Hi Sir.

I think we have finally settled on all the changes.

1. Thanks to JWE we have DBB changes to engineers and LCUs.
2. The pesky discussion on cruisers and what to build or not to build I think is settled.
3. We lowered starting Japanese Naval Air experience significantly to account for the pilot training program.
4. Redeployed the Fleet so it is somewhat less forward-deployed.
5. Have redeployed some of the forward LCUs
6. Modified Japanese CV Air Groups so they have a slightly different set of numbers and cannot auto resize.

Think that sums up the accepted and/or finished changes. This is a major re-tooling of the Mod.

We've got some discussion going on ASW and that is about it I believe.

Is there anything I missed?

I think it would be plausible to be ready for a release within a couple of weeks. Would like to finish the above changes and allow time for people to thoroughly examine it before a massed release.

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 799

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/4/2011 7:16:11 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

Ok, that sounds great!!! Thanks for the effort.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 800

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/4/2011 7:20:23 PM

FatR

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

Big aircraft changes for which I'm currently still reading books/doing tests will be incoming. I'm just waiting for the naval side to sort out before dumping a huge proposal.

But while we're still on naval side of things:

1)So, John, what do you think about my proposals for streamlining late-war production?
2)Any thoughts about subs?
3)Any thoughts about forming an extra CD unit using 6-8 of the 140mm guns removed from CLs converted to trainers, and placing it, say, on Kuriles (Kuriles is one of the places where a suicidal Allied invasion in early 1942 can mess up the Japanese game, and defenses there are almost nonexistent in the beginning)?

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 801

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/5/2011 12:36:03 AM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Big aircraft changes for which I'm currently still reading books/doing tests will be incoming. I'm just waiting for the naval side to sort out before dumping a huge proposal.

But while we're still on naval side of things:

1)So, John, what do you think about my proposals for streamlining late-war production?
2)Any thoughts about subs?
3)Any thoughts about forming an extra CD unit using 6-8 of the 140mm guns removed from CLs converted to trainers, and placing it, say, on Kuriles (Kuriles is one of the places where a suicidal Allied invasion in early 1942 can mess up the Japanese game, and defenses there are almost nonexistent in the beginning)?

Stanislav,

I had no idea that you were diabolically planning a re-tooling of the aircraft industry. Sneaky! Whenever ready fire off your proposal there.

To your points:
1. I LIKE the streamlining of the escorts and making them more consistent for vision as well as manpower. This makes a lot of sense to me. Yamamoto--to my reading--said nothing along those lines. As Combined Fleet Commander it really wasn't within his perview. This leads us to INFER (making me nervous) what he might do as Navy Minister.

To me, with the 4th Circle construction and manpower needs, simplification/mass production using less trained men would follow a lot of what we have already spoken about within the Mod. Stan: Not to be funny, but could you simplify your proposal and then we make serious decisions based on it? How many of what and when?

Terminus brings up an excellent point about 20-20 hindsight. I'd say the changes should mostly be reflect for AFTER the war has started with a recognition of the US SS threat.

2. I think the Japanese are screwed on SS. They cost so dratted much that I don't really see a useful option here. The thought of going with B/C and KD and cutting everything else holds some serious merit. Not sure after that though...

3. With what we are pulling off the old CLs I think you could create several CD units with the guns we are pulling off of the old CLs. This is a great idea. It makes a lot of sense to place them in the Kuriles Chain (say those Central Islands).

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 802

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/5/2011 6:15:59 AM

John 3rd

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

As a completely new subject, what do people think about using Andrew's new map for ours?

_____________________________

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 #: 803

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/7/2011 12:53:33 PM

darbycmcd

Posts: 394
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

Andrew's new map? I missed that, could you give me the link?

I can imagine the gnashing of teeth this will create, but you should consider adding Treespiders econ mods. I don't necessarily mean the capacity changes for freighters, but the supply production and resource use changes. I think this creates a much more accurate feeling of the Japanese economic bind. It changes the game in some ways, for the much more realistic, IMO.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 804

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/7/2011 9:03:07 PM

FatR

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

Okay, John. The proposal for changes to smaller warships and escorts, condensed in one post. Almost all of the changes below are based on the assumption that with a war of attrition becoming obvious reality by the second half of 1942 and economy strained by the expanded 4th Circle program, Japanese take a coherent and unified effort to simplify and streamline production of said ships. Their analysis of accumulated combat experience follows roughly the same patterns of IRL, so ASW still will be given low priority until well into 1943. The difference is primarily driven by economic expediency.

0)Assuming that changes begin so late, let's leave subchasers as they are. Upgrading facilities that produced auxilary subchasers of CHa-class in the middle of the war likely will be seen as too expensive and disruptive for production (as someone said, two changes of model on the conveyor belt were equivalent to one carpet bombing of the factory in terms of production reduction)

0.5)MTBs/MGBs/MLs should arrive in Hailar too, to avoid the bug.

1)So the only early change will be the better thought-out conversion of Otori TBs, meant to make them both more credible surface combatants and actually capable of doing escorting. I'll remind you the stats:

1x127/40 F
2x127/40 R
6x25mm C (two triple mounts)
3x53cm Type 92 torpedos C (without reloads)
2xType 95 Mod-2 DC R

Late in the war add radar, Type 2 DCs and maybe a couple of single-mount 25mm guns (the ship will not be able to accomodate much more top weight). I can send you or post here a drawing of this speculative project, demonstrating how it will look like, if you are interested.

2)Akizuki class is accepted as the sole first line DD class to be produced in late summer of 1942. It is superior against enemy destroyers, and has the best AAA potential by far... the torpedo battery is relatively weak, and lack of an AP shell for 100/65 gun hurts, but with aircraft being the main threat, correct priorities are obvious. Building of Yugumo class is cancelled, which also allows to phase out of production 127/50 gun.

More specifically, never ordered are (a) 6 Yugumo-class destroyers that were ordered from August 1942 onwards in RL : Okinami, Kishinami, Asashimo, Hayashimo, Akishimo, Kiyoshimo + (b)6 "dream" Yugumo-class destroyers, never built in RL, but appearing in the building queue very late in the game: Kawagiri, Kiyokaze, Murakaze, Satokaze, Taekaze, Tanigiri.

Each of these 6-ship series is replaced with 5 Akizuki-class destroyers (in addition to expansion of the class due to savings on CLs, as discussed above), built in roughly the same timeframe. As Akizukis were much large than Yugumos and required more crew, even with benefits of relatively streamlined production replacing them 1:1 is hardly realistic. However, said benefits might well save manpower and materials for other projects. Part of these savings will be eaten by relatively early and good upgrades Akitsukis get (they get the best radar equipment of all Japanese DDs, and they get it earlier than others). But some economy will be achieved, which is good for overall plausibility of the scenario.

For a quick reference, timeframe of Yugumo-class construction, and possible names for new Akizuki-class destroyers

:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C5%ABgumo_class_destroyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akizuki_class_destroyer_%281942%29

3)33 Ukuru-class escorts are replaced with 42 C/D-class escorts (as usual, half Cs, half Ds) built within the same timeframe. This again will save some workforce for other projects. C/D class ships are not as good, true, but the difference is fairly small, particularly once you consider that they are not likely to meet an enemy against which an extra 120mm gun will make a difference.

4)The RL project of Type 1 APD/LSI is replaced by the project based on the hull of Matsu DD class, to unify their production. These ships are signficantly smaller, benefit from being unified with a mass-produced DD class in most details, and so can be built in greater numbers. Expand the program to 35 APDs from 28, to reflect that. Endurance, durability, speed and so on - as Matsu class. Armament:
1x127/40 F
3x25mm RS
3x25mm LS
3x25mm R (in single mounts)
2xType 2 DC R
Type 13 Radar

Capacity: 300 troops/200 cargo.

So, still Dauntless fodder, but at least less eggs in every individual basker.

5)Considering greater number of capital ships Japan gets in Scen 70 we might just stop at this stage. However, if others consider that measures proposed above might result in sufficient shipbuilding efficiency boost to justify giving a bit more naval goodies to Japan, I think the best way to do so is to accelerate Matsu/Tachibana program a bit and to add several ships in it.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 805

The Discussion - 3/8/2011 1:26:02 AM

John 3rd

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

FatR--Thanks for putting it all onto one Posting to examine and think about. Really helps to 'simplify' things (the theme of your above Posting).

I really LIKE the ideas you have Posted.

I need to digest the contents some. Would enjoy comment regarding this proposal from any readers with an informed opinion. This is a great time to chat about things while we slowly move forward.

RL has been interfering with getting anything done as I have been working 6 days-a-week for 55-65 hours each week. It is REALLY grinding me down. There is serious impact on the Family too...

Still trying to get stuff worked on/done:
1. Just emailed Eddie to see what files he needs for the new pages of artwork he has created. They are a nice contribution to the overall look of the Mod.

2. It is POSSIBLE that I can do the work regarding the cruisers, Akisuki's, and Japanese LCU have discussed and decided upon over the next couple of mornings before work.

When this is done, I can send the files to you for whatever we decide on regarding the escort program and aircraft.

What are you thinking about when it comes to aircraft?

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/8/2011 1:27:00 AM >

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 806

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/8/2011 1:29:01 AM

John 3rd

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

Andrew's new map? I missed that, could you give me the link?

I can imagine the gnashing of teeth this will create, but you should consider adding Treespiders econ mods. I don't necessarily mean the capacity changes for freighters, but the supply production and resource use changes. I think this creates a much more accurate feeling of the Japanese economic bind. It changes the game in some ways, for the much more realistic, IMO.

I am terrified to mess with yet another area of the game. Haven't kept up with that Thread (see the above Posting) so I'll read through it to get a feel for the discussion.

Thanks for the comments!

_____________________________

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

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

(in reply to darbycmcd)

Post #: 807

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/8/2011 8:09:20 AM

FatR

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

I didn't like initial Treespider's ideas and never looked past the first page of his mod. If there is anywhere a full log of changes he made, I might take a look. And as economics are easy to screw up, I wouldn't want to apply these changes until they are tested by someone in an actual game, at least.

(in reply to John 3rd)

Post #: 808

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/8/2011 1:40:48 PM

FatR

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

Well, and while we are at it:

6)Subs. The goals here, in out-of-game terms, are to build cheaper, by minimizing the number of concurrently used designs, while still maintaining quality of the sub force, as quantity necessary to challenge Allies is patently impossible to achieve with existing material and human resources. Lack of the latter, additionally consumed by other branches of the navy, compared to RL, will lead to ruthless pruning of second-rate boats from building programs. The submarine force in this scenario is still primarily considered a weapon meant to recon for, engage and attrite Allied battlefleet (for the same reason, clear inability to procure sufficient numbers for serious tonnage warfare), except very late in the war, where midgets still will be built in droves for the the last defense of Home Islands.

6.1)Large subs. Production for 1942 - no change. Instead of 21 large subs of different types that arrive in 1943 and later, build 18-20 C2 class subs. This is undersea equivalents of Akizuki-class DDs - standartizing to the best (for existing circumstance) ship class that is ready for production and can be built in significant numbers. I don't know if it is possible to set crew experience in the editor, but if yes, crews of these should get higher starting experience than of the other Japanese subs.
Number of subs built is slightly reduced despite standartization because there will be no compromizing quality for quantity for this category of subs, they are already too big and expensive, so if they are built at all, they should be built as good as possible. (Historically C2 was replaces with C3 to make production cheaper).
Also, this class should get the radar upgrade in the early-middle 1943, instead of the end of 1944. Considering cost associated with building these ships, giving them vital upgrades after everything else in the fleet makes no sense.

6.2)Medium subs. Build KD7 class as historically. Add a radar upgrade to it by the end of 1943 - beginning of 1944. Add 8 boats of improved KD8 class for 1944-early 1945, with range upgraded to 10 000, radards, so on. These subs will be meant to supplement very limited numbers of C2 subs constructed, using already-available shipyards meant for KD boats, but not sacrificing too much of their offensive capabilities.

For 1945 and later, retain fast ST class boats and maybe expand their numbers.

6.3)Small subs. Retain 8 KS class subs arriving before April of 1943 in the queue. These will be relegated to the role of training subs, though. Historically, older pre-war subs were used like this, but the players just send them to patrol as usual, of course, because there is no penalties for doing so. Of course, most players will turn these failboats off anyway, I recomend to add building them to the list of recommended houserules, alongside with restrictions to what planes can fly from what carriers, and so on.

Eliminate the rest of KS class boats, K6 class boats, and STS class boats from the queue. Mostly, to, you know, save players the hassle of turning them off one by one. Although K6 class can be legitimately useful, yes, but other programs ask for sacrifices. Well STS class boats could have been less than worthless if they were classified as midgets, with accompanying ability to surprise-deploy them at threatened bases... but they aren't. And it wouldn't have been possible to crew them with even semi-decently trained men anyway.

6.4)Midgets - no change. As one-shot suicide boxes they are more cost-effective, than STS class, at least... You might want to improve Type D Koryus' their maneuver speed, to make them slightly more worth building so late in the war.

6.5)Special purpose boats and transports.
Let the Seiran carriers be. Type Yu IJA transport submarines were born of the lack of cooperation that's not going to go away completely (it is even likely to be worse, as with thinking necessary to justify this scenario IJN will be less likely to waste its precious fleet boats on resupply and evacuation misssions) so let them be. Replace others with SH class transport submarines, one SH per two other boats. These are only SSTs with capacity that makes them less than a total waste of Naval points and some degree of survivability.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/8/2011 1:42:51 PM >

(in reply to FatR)

Post #: 809

RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/8/2011 2:25:35 PM

SuluSea

Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline

Since the loading in the startgame screen and openload screen are in slightly different locations I made an adjustment this morning I assumed both screens were interchangable.

I used different rice paper as a background and blended the flag in differently as well.