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  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/8/2011 2:30:04 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		SuluSea, I must say it once again, excellent work!



(in reply to SuluSea)
Post #: 811
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/8/2011 2:55:05 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Meanwhile, I looked at treespider's mod. Thankfully, LocalYokel made all the important calculation already, so I was able to get to the relevant points fast. Two reasons to not like economical changes there:

1)Japan, even with perfect SRA conquest, is doomed to be short of resources no matter what.
2)There is a already "Put Japan's wartime economy in RL-like dire straits" switch in AE. It is called "RL-like near-total destruction of Palembang's refineries". Unlike (1) it is actually dependent on actions of the players. Japan faces enough lose/lose situations as is, no need to make its entire economy into one. Sure, merchant fleet transport capacity, when taken in vacuum, can use a nerf, but the treespider's mod goes way beyond that.




< Message edited by FatR -- 3/8/2011 3:04:38 PM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 812
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/8/2011 3:24:59 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Loaded SuluSeas work into the Mod. Eddie--just send each page over one-by-one and I'll place them into the Mod Pages.

Stanislav--I have two hours at home--alone--and hope to get some of the stuff done we have been talking about. Once this is done to my satisfaction I will then send the files to you.

Will Post in a while with thoughts and more commentary.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 813
Kuma-Class Training Cruiser - 3/8/2011 4:03:38 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Terminus--Could you send the artwork for this ship class (Kuma Slot 1027) to my email? I've got it incorporated into the Mod but need the pretty ship side, sil, etc...

See Post 764


NEVERMIND! I forgot that you sent it a couple of weeks ago. Found it and have added it into the Mod.


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/8/2011 4:15:31 PM >

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 814
RE: Kuma-Class Training Cruiser - 3/8/2011 4:24:06 PM   
Terminus


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

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 815
RE: Kuma-Class Training Cruiser - 3/8/2011 4:46:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		OK. Converted Kuma, Tama, Kitakami, Oi, and Kiso to Training Cruisers. Have to load the game and see if I got the artwork in the right place but I think we are good.

Stanislav--The changes made free-up a total of 15 14CM/50 (Device 1665) for CD use. Perhaps you could create two new CD units and place them in the Kuriles. Sure wish we could use the TT Tubes too like the Norwegians did (sinking the Blucher)!

Went back to our original RA CL set with the Sendai's and Naka's in allowing a CLAA upgrade much later in the war. I say let the player chose if that is the path they want to take.

Tenryu and Tatsuta are useless. Don't really think they can be converted to a Training Cruiser. Cannot really do anything with them so do you think we should just leave them as is?



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/8/2011 4:48:18 PM >

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 816
RE: Kuma-Class Training Cruiser - 3/8/2011 5:08:17 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

... Sure wish we could use the TT Tubes too like the Norwegians did (sinking the Blucher)! ...



You can. Torpedo tubes in CD units should work.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 817
DD Numbers - 3/8/2011 5:08:27 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Just loaded the game and Terminus's Kuma-Training Class Artwork is attached and looks good. Thanks Term!

As I was going through the game checking on the changes just made I decided to do a DD count for the 'current' RA DD builds as planned in 2.0. By my count there are 3 Shimakaze, 12 Akizuki, and 22 Kagero's in the building cue (not looking at Matsus and others).

With all the conversation back-and-forth regarding the DDs this is what I might propose:

1. Start with 4 Akizuki's in Fleet Service with KB (pull the 4 older DDs from KB and move elsewhere) and produce a total of 20 more. This would add 12 more AA DDs to the Japanese OOB.

2. Keep the Kagero's and make their run a total of 24 as well (add two).

The 'Fleet Faction' gets their excellent multi-role DDs while the 'Air Faction' gets a superb AA DD for CV protection.

The Shimakaze's are an aberration. Should we can them or leave them? If we pull them then split the 3 between the other two classes.


_____________________________



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 #: 818
RE: Kuma-Class Training Cruiser - 3/8/2011 5:09:39 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

... Sure wish we could use the TT Tubes too like the Norwegians did (sinking the Blucher)! ...



You can. Torpedo tubes in CD units should work.


COOL! Though they won't do anything, I say re-use the old Tubes and put them in...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 819
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/8/2011 5:10:42 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: FatR

Meanwhile, I looked at treespider's mod. Thankfully, LocalYokel made all the important calculation already, so I was able to get to the relevant points fast. Two reasons to not like economical changes there:

1)Japan, even with perfect SRA conquest, is doomed to be short of resources no matter what.
2)There is a already "Put Japan's wartime economy in RL-like dire straits" switch in AE. It is called "RL-like near-total destruction of Palembang's refineries". Unlike (1) it is actually dependent on actions of the players. Japan faces enough lose/lose situations as is, no need to make its entire economy into one. Sure, merchant fleet transport capacity, when taken in vacuum, can use a nerf, but the treespider's mod goes way beyond that.





The more I think about it the more I really don't want to mess with the economy...

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 820
Little Ships - 3/8/2011 5:25:24 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		This was Stanislav's Post from the previous page. My responses are in italics:

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)

This works for me.


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

OK.


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.

I agree with this proposal. It allows for 'war experience' to occur and changes to be made. They have a little bit of everything and could actually ESCORT convoys. How many to build?

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

I placed my initial thoughts in the earlier DD Post, however, let me react directly to these concrete proposals. We could effectively 'finish' the Yugumo's with 10 on the cue, pull the remaining 12 as you describe and replace them with 10 more Akizuki. The Class A DD production run would turn into 10 Yugumo and 30 Akizuki for the entire war. Do we kill Shimakaze and her two sisters? If yes then pull them out and convert them to Akizuki's following the line-of-reasoning you've laid out.


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.

Simplification and streamlining makes sense with a slightly more efficient escort. Agreed.


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.

We can run on this. I really like the mass production/simplification angle. Considering how much Adm Yamamoto had seen in America it could easily be stated that he would encourage/force this to happen once the war begins.


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.

Good

Taken as a whole these changes would create a VERY different Japanese OOB in late-43 going into 44. The entire Mod would have a differing feel and might be a real enticement to play.



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/8/2011 5:26:07 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 #: 821
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/8/2011 5:31:55 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The more I think about it the more I really don't want to mess with the economy...

I think that is a wise thing.

Messing with the economy is something Spidey always wanted to do, so his solutions are pretty well grounded. However, they do require lots of additional changes to indistrial devices in bases, modified cargo caps, etc.. All these combine to skew the mod fairly drastically away from the standard model. The skew may well be an appropriate one, but it makes it difficult to analyze any blivets and makes Tracker all that much harder to integrate.

The only thing I was contemplating for DBB (sometime in the future) was removing Supply production from Refineries, and offering the reduced Cargo caps as an alternative Class file for use by the seriously masochistically emotionally deranged.

I believe one can remove SupProd from Refineries, all by itself, without screwing anything else up, but don't know this for a fact. We're playing with it and it does have a small beneficial result, but we want to make sure it doesn't eventually have to puke, before making a firm recommendation. Ciao

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 822
...and Subs - 3/8/2011 5:35:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Should have made this one large Posting but here are my continued thoughts regarding FatR's proposals.

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.

I say think out and streamline the whole SS production side. Yamamoto reaches down into the areas of escorts and SS and say "PICK one or two and we mass produce them!"


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.

Totally agree with this entire paragraph and thinking.


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.

Like the KD8--run with that idea.


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

No real reaction as things will be desperate at that point anyway.


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.

OK. Logical but a HR will probably be highly needed.


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.

I'm finding myself shutting down many of these boats right now in Lew and I's game. Few players even try to build them they might as well be pulled and make things easier to manage for both the Sub Arm, the economy, and the player.


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.

OK


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.

Logic here is sound. Yamamoto couldn't control the Army so these thing HAVE to stay. The Army was its own little, insular world as we know...


_____________________________



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 #: 823
RE: Little Ships - 3/8/2011 6:52:36 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: John 3rdStanislav--The changes made free-up a total of 15 14CM/50 (Device 1665) for CD use. Perhaps you could create two new CD units and place them in the Kuriles.

As you wish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rdTenryu and Tatsuta are useless. Don't really think they can be converted to a Training Cruiser. Cannot really do anything with them so do you think we should just leave them as is?

I think we already agreed to leave them as is and to reduce their crew experience, to reflect relegation to second-line ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I agree with this proposal. It allows for 'war experience' to occur and changes to be made. They have a little bit of everything and could actually ESCORT convoys. How many to build?

Well, I thought of converting the existing ones... I don't think any more will fit into the fleet model we're trying to vizualize here. Before the war they will want more fleet escorts, i.e., Akizukis, not convoy escorts. When the need for more and cheaper dedicated convoy escorts will become obvious, limitations of Otori class size will lead to the need of a bigger escort DD, i.e., Matsu, which used a number of the mechanisms used on Otoris anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rdI placed my initial thoughts in the earlier DD Post, however, let me react directly to these concrete proposals. We could effectively 'finish' the Yugumo's with 10 on the cue, pull the remaining 12 as you describe and replace them with 10 more Akizuki. The Class A DD production run would turn into 10 Yugumo and 30 Akizuki for the entire war. Do we kill Shimakaze and her two sisters? If yes then pull them out and convert them to Akizuki's following the line-of-reasoning you've laid out.

I don't see any sisterships to Shimakaze in the queue. Anyway, no, if the starting point of the new streamlined program is second half of 1942, Shimakaze will be half-completed already. She was laid down in August of 1941. Easier and cheaper to finish the work.
Overall, yes, 10 Yugumos and 30 Akizukis is what I have in mind. Considering that destroyers completed in second half of 1943 and later executed, IIRC, the grand total of one torpedo attack in the war, and even that by a Matsu-class DD, that, I feel, would have been close to the best choice in RL, assuming such late date of divergence (the best choice would have been pushing Matsu to production much earlier, but this decision requires too massive shifts in thinking).

We seem to agree on other points


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 824
RE: Little Ships - 3/8/2011 8:55:18 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		Guys I don't know if you had plans to replace this screen but......




I stitched this together today.





_____________________________

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 825
RE: Little Ships - 3/8/2011 9:08:26 PM   
Terminus


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

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rdStanislav--The changes made free-up a total of 15 14CM/50 (Device 1665) for CD use. Perhaps you could create two new CD units and place them in the Kuriles.

As you wish.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rdTenryu and Tatsuta are useless. Don't really think they can be converted to a Training Cruiser. Cannot really do anything with them so do you think we should just leave them as is?

I think we already agreed to leave them as is and to reduce their crew experience, to reflect relegation to second-line ships.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
I agree with this proposal. It allows for 'war experience' to occur and changes to be made. They have a little bit of everything and could actually ESCORT convoys. How many to build?

Well, I thought of converting the existing ones... I don't think any more will fit into the fleet model we're trying to vizualize here. Before the war they will want more fleet escorts, i.e., Akizukis, not convoy escorts. When the need for more and cheaper dedicated convoy escorts will become obvious, limitations of Otori class size will lead to the need of a bigger escort DD, i.e., Matsu, which used a number of the mechanisms used on Otoris anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rdI placed my initial thoughts in the earlier DD Post, however, let me react directly to these concrete proposals. We could effectively 'finish' the Yugumo's with 10 on the cue, pull the remaining 12 as you describe and replace them with 10 more Akizuki. The Class A DD production run would turn into 10 Yugumo and 30 Akizuki for the entire war. Do we kill Shimakaze and her two sisters? If yes then pull them out and convert them to Akizuki's following the line-of-reasoning you've laid out.

I don't see any sisterships to Shimakaze in the queue. Anyway, no, if the starting point of the new streamlined program is second half of 1942, Shimakaze will be half-completed already. She was laid down in August of 1941. Easier and cheaper to finish the work.
Overall, yes, 10 Yugumos and 30 Akizukis is what I have in mind. Considering that destroyers completed in second half of 1943 and later executed, IIRC, the grand total of one torpedo attack in the war, and even that by a Matsu-class DD, that, I feel, would have been close to the best choice in RL, assuming such late date of divergence (the best choice would have been pushing Matsu to production much earlier, but this decision requires too massive shifts in thinking).

We seem to agree on other points




If you're streamlining the number of different destroyer classes, what's the point of even ONE Shimakaze? Scrap it.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 826
RE: Little Ships - 3/8/2011 10:16:10 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		No point, just production inertia. By the proposed point of adopting the simplified building plan, she is likely to be already launched, so scrapping her will be a waste.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 827
Sulu Sea ROCKS! - 3/9/2011 12:36:08 AM   
John 3rd


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

I WANT THAT MAGNIFICENT PIECE OF WORK!

Email it Sir.



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 828
RE: Little Ships - 3/9/2011 12:36:28 AM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: FatR

No point, just production inertia. By the proposed point of adopting the simplified building plan, she is likely to be already launched, so scrapping her will be a waste.


Concur...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 829
RE: FatR's Thoughts - 3/9/2011 1:51:53 AM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Meanwhile, I looked at treespider's mod. Thankfully, LocalYokel made all the important calculation already, so I was able to get to the relevant points fast. Two reasons to not like economical changes there:

1)Japan, even with perfect SRA conquest, is doomed to be short of resources no matter what.
2)There is a already "Put Japan's wartime economy in RL-like dire straits" switch in AE. It is called "RL-like near-total destruction of Palembang's refineries". Unlike (1) it is actually dependent on actions of the players. Japan faces enough lose/lose situations as is, no need to make its entire economy into one. Sure, merchant fleet transport capacity, when taken in vacuum, can use a nerf, but the treespider's mod goes way beyond that.



The more I think about it the more I really don't want to mess with the economy...


Since my analysis of the economy changes in Treespider’s mod. has been cited here, I should point out that the calculations I made and set out in that thread were wrong because they took no account of the total of 59,125 additional resource points generated as a ‘Daily Resource’ addition at seven bases in Honshu and Kyushu.

When those additional points are taken into account, they still leave the ‘at start’ Japanese Empire 1,050 resource points short of the total required to keep Empire light and heavy industry running at full capacity. However, that shortfall can be made good from Japan’s stockpiled resource reserves and these could be eked out for 6,973 days, assuming efficient resource importation and no damage to ‘inner zone’ resource centres.

When resources that can be captured in the SRA and Burma are brought into account then, assuming there were to be no damage to captured resource centres, daily resource point output in the enlarged Empire would exceed demand by 6,790 points. Potentially this could be eked out for longer than the 6,973 day cushion provided by pre-war stockpiles, dependent upon what additional resource stockpiles happen to be captured in the SRA.

I’m not clear why the assumption seems to be being made that near total destruction of Palembang’s facilities is bound to occur in the game. Personal experience and other player’s reports indicate that there will be occasions when both the refineries and the oil centres will be captured intact. In reality, I think the Pladjoe refinery was taken with minimal damage but the Dutch managed to set the oil storage alight.

I do regard it as a major concern for the Japanese player that so much can turn on the damage dice roll when Palembang falls, but perhaps this counterbalances the game’s inability to simulate the loss of all those oil specialists who went down with Taiyo Maru in May 1942. I also deprecate the ease with which the Allied player can create ‘Festung Sumatra’ to frustrate the Japanese. In this respect the Treespider mod. actually aids the Japanese player by denying the Allied player the refineries’ supply generation capability that so assists such a strategy.

In short, it’s inaccurate to characterise Treespider’s mod. as leaving the Japanese with an inevitable resource shortfall, though I understand your reluctance to go down his route with Reluctant Admiral.

_____________________________




(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 830
Treespider - 3/9/2011 2:58:00 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		LY--Thanks for the clarification on the difficult work being done with Treespider. Those of us working to create these Mods FULLY understand the difficulty of that work. It is a labor of love and, perhaps, passion.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 831
RE: Treespider - 3/9/2011 9:35:37 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Okay, then my apologies to Treespider for hasty generalisation.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 832
SuluSea's Work - 3/9/2011 3:37:17 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I have gotten all of SuluSea's work loaded onto the Mod. VERY NICE! That great shot of the Yamato coming right at the viewer just leaps off the screen.

Don't think that I'll be able to get more done today but will Post any developments.

Stanislav: As soon as I've got my end done I'll send the Mod to you. What is your schedule like these days? Do you have the time to make all those changes detailed above?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 833
RE: SuluSea's Work - 3/9/2011 8:16:25 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Oh well. If you're asking me to do the entire bulk of small ship changes, they won't be ready until the next week at least.

Meanwhile, I found that one can test late-war impact of DaBabes' AAA changes by just plugging the devices file into Downfall (curiously, an attempt to do the same with ship classes had no effect). Well, at least new devices and stats appear in the scenario and flak seems to be much more intense on the first look. Haven't yet had time to do it seriously, though.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 834
Changes and Errata - 3/10/2011 7:27:00 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Cannot sleep so getting some work done:

1. Tenryu/Tatsuta Crews reduced to about 50 in the Day and 40 at Night to demonstrate their status as 2nd Line Cruisers. I imagine the new Agano and Noshiro gain their best officers!

2. Advanced the original 12 Akizuki's so 4 begin the war escorting KB and the remaining 8 are produced in 1942. Figure Stanislav can put the new 30 vessels into high gear starting late-42 through early-44. I have them being produced in Maizura.

3. The Yugumo's (to be reduced to just 12 ships) are produced at Port Arthur.

4. Found some ship class errors (mainly in CV/CVL) and fixed them. Checked the new aircraft combination on them and made sure everything fit. EX: CVL Shoho now starts with 18 Zero and 12 Kate (instead of 21 and 9) with a Torpedo Load of 24.


In re-reading JWE's LCU work to lesson the engineers, I got to thinking do we take this new base level of engineers, laborers, and vehicles and now ADD the RA changes to this? Remember Yamamoto correctly foresaw the need of more vehicles and we added industry in the Home Islands to reflect that...

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 835
New CD Units - 3/10/2011 8:15:38 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I created and placed new CD Units in the Kuriles (Etorofu and Shimushiri-Jima). They are patterned on other IJN CD Units with a real mix of capability. They've got the old CL Guns and some of their replaced Long Lance Torp Tubes. NASTY combination!

_____________________________



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 #: 836
RE: New CD Units - 3/10/2011 11:09:37 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I'd advise removing Long Lances, they were expensive and in limited supply in the beginning. Due to their limitations, they won't be a good universal CD weapon from real-life standpoint (too limited fire coverage, compared to a big-calibre gun and must be installed right on the beach). Maybe a couple of them can be assigned late in the war to units that defend major strainghts.

The final queue will have 24 Akizukis beyond 12 built in RL: 4 dream ships from the stock queue, 10 derived from the expanded pre-war program (at the cost of cut to cruisers, as described below) and 10 replacing Yugumo-class destroyers.

Will shipyard space be a limiting factor for their building? I suppose yes, and then it's better to make Yugumo-replacements to arrive in Porth Arthur.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 837
RE: Changes and Errata - 3/10/2011 1:16:07 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
In re-reading JWE's LCU work to lesson the engineers, I got to thinking do we take this new base level of engineers, laborers, and vehicles and now ADD the RA changes to this? Remember Yamamoto correctly foresaw the need of more vehicles and we added industry in the Home Islands to reflect that...

A quick word (well, two quick words).

The load costs of artillery and such has already been calculated with their prime movers factored in. That's everything 105mm and above. Some of the 75s (long barrel versions with hi-speed tires) have one half the prime mover scale (size factor). Some others (mtn guns and the like) don't because they were man/horse schleppable. Andy added in Matadors and other prime movers like that, but that's double counting and quadrupled load cost. They should be removed if you get around to it.

I would be very careful about adding in Engineering Vehicles. They are a huge multiplier. It's one thing for Yamamoto to wish for more motor vehicles, but that was primarily for transport. Earth moving, rock crushing, road grading, cement mixing, bridge building equipment was a horse of a very different flavor.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 838
Top Gun-1945 - 3/10/2011 5:00:09 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		And just so you don't think I've forgotted the air side, here are the results of Japanese late-war planes gunnery testing. To simplify things, I've used only one plane with 4x20mm armament, as A7M2 and Ki-84b havel fairly similar stats anyway. I've added J2M5 to the test because there were rumors on the forum that having guns of different Accuracy on a fighter impairs overall to-hit chances (in the light of test resuls, either BS or misinformation).

The test was daylight air defense of Tokyo againt around 800 Superfortesses flying from Marianas on September 2nd of 1945 (test setup based on the Downfall scenario, my thanks to Andy Mac for it). One unit of each tested type participated, with 45 planes and pilots of 65 experience (closest you can set in the editor to typical training program graduates with 50 EXP/70 Air). Altitude for both raids and CAP was 20k, 50% CAP. Commanders had 35-55 Air skill, with most closer to 35, but I believe the influence of commander's Air skill on performance is marginal, unless it is very high or very low. I've ran the same day 10 times in a row. Look at the results for now, I need to think about some of them myself.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/10/2011 5:02:11 PM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 839
RE: Top Gun-1945 - 3/10/2011 6:42:00 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Sam's and Shinden's with the lead going strikingly (pardon the pun) to MISTER Sam.

What does this mean for you FatR? You and BK have been our airmen from Square One with the Mod. Curious as to your thoughts having done this experiment.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 840
Page:   <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: FatR's Thoughts Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   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

2.610