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: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision?

 
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: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/24/2011 10:03:13 AM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

John I think there are some hard limits that you would be up against. I am not sure that Japan could add industry, they just weren't able to do that.

I see this strange argument again. Of course they were able to add industry assuming more beneficial historical premises. Their existing one wasn't delivered to them by aliens, they developed it like all industrial countries, by reinvesting results of their labor. Could it equal or approach US? No. Could it be better? Yes.

Adding a synthetic fuel factory in Anshun is a good idea. Maybe 1-2 more small aircraft facilities at Mukden. A bit of heavy and light industry here and there, but nothing drastic. More heavy industy is just a token change anyway, the existing amount cannot be fed by on-map oil. More vehicle production but not armaments (as armaments production surpasses demand already). Mild expansion of both shipyards in Port Arthur (warship construction program is not big enough to demand a new shipyard, capable of building cruisers and above, so only destroyers and smaller ships will be built there).

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 361
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/24/2011 11:52:13 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
My understanding is that Japans industry was hard pressed to provide materials for the military expansion, to add in factory production would not be possible.

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 362
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/24/2011 2:32:06 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Japan was forced to rely on local resources only by pre-war embargoes, and x20 increase in armaments production with the start of big war is delayed by two years in this mod.


Anyway, subs.

I think we should choose some variation of kaidai sub as the core of the fleet. It is quite expensive unfortunately (15+ mlns of yen in pre-war prices compared to 20-21+ of a cruiser sub and 9+ of a K6 sub), but as personnel availability is quite limited anyway, that's not the biggest problem.

Aircraft carrier subs will not exist, except for the experimental I-5. Due to the new doctrine, emphasizing individual free hunt over scouting in the interests of the surface fleet, they are not needed.

Midget subs, and large midget carriers, however, still will be built, as a part of researching ways to deliver a surprise strike to the enemy fleet in its bases. Midget subs will be a bit different, meant to be a purely sneak attack weapon, not meant to operate in open sea at all, with lesser speed. There will be a lot less of them.

As about coastal subs, after building RO-33/34 the idea is abandoned in favor of KD, due to unsuitability for the envisioned type of operations (limited endurance means increased dependency on direction from the coast and inability to maintain long patrols beyond the immediate frontline).

As about KD class, approach and relatively short-range attack in submerged position is established as the main tactics (as the typical situation is seen as a lone sub or a loosely coordinated wolfpack meeting a task force or an escorted convoy), as extended tests of submarines' performance, revealing subs' vulnerability during attempts to approach or shadow well-protected fleet elements on surface, and difficulty of reaching a decent attack position with existing characteristics when sumberged, are conducted earlier, and actually impact the submarine design. Insufficient survivability of the existing designs is also noticed, which, in the light of overall changes in the fleet doctrine and expectations of an extended war, is seen as unacceptable. All this will cause attempts to increase underwater speed, diving characteristics and maximum diving depth of KD subs. To allow that, requirements for surface speed will be loosened. Relatively high endurance and radius of action still will be seen as necessary. Range requirements for torpedoes might be loosened somewhat, allowing to keep more on board.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 363
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/24/2011 5:22:56 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I concur that the additions cannot be massive but anything will help in Manchuria and Korea. The delay of the war in China would certainly have beneficial effects for the creating more infrastructure and industry.

If there is time today I will go through the map and make recommendations for this region.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 364
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/24/2011 5:33:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Want to download DaBabes so I can see how their map differs from what I am used to. I assume we are using 'C' 029 for the starting point? Is this correct?


_____________________________



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 #: 365
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/24/2011 6:39:20 PM   
JWE

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Want to download DaBabes so I can see how their map differs from what I am used to. I assume we are using 'C' 029 for the starting point? Is this correct?

John, there's only two little things I did to two panels; WPEN and WPEH 09 in Luzon, and WPEN and WPEH 15 in Malaya. You can ignore WPEN and WPEH 16.

Luzon:
Pooched out the art to move Subic bay graphics into hex 78:76.
That allows for a Subic Bay port base in that hex.
Lets Clark Field change from coastal to inland.
No access from Subic to Bataan except by sea (barge transport enthusiasts, take note).
Nasty road from Subic to Clark.
Still, only way into Bataan is from Clark.

Malaya:
Pooched out the art to move Batu Pahat graphics into hex 49:82.
That allows for a Batu Pahat port base in that hex.
Changes hex 50:82 from coastal to inland and adds Kluong to the hex.
And adds trails and such to make it all work.

Borneo: (Hidden, i.e. no art)
Trail from Samarinda to the "secret" base of Samarinda-2, at Melak, at hex 63:95.

That's about it. Pretty sure there's a complete changelog (for the map editor) in the art file package. Ciao. J

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 366
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/24/2011 6:54:51 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Yes, Scen 28 version C.

Do you agree with my thoughts on subs above? If you agree, I'll write a detailed types proposal, if you agree.

On that note, submarine tenders. Fleet will have the following:

1)Old depot ship Komahashi (not in the game, as far, as I'm aware).
2)Jingei and Chogei. 140mm turrets removed to be fit on destroyer leaders CL, initially replaced with old 76mm AA guns, during the war with standard 120mm twins - with development of airsearch the threat of surface raiders is minimized, and they are no longer supposed to act begind enemy lines.
3)Oi and Kiso reconstructed in place of building Taigei.
4)Still not enough, considering the much increased focus on operating subs from forward bases. I propose taking some money saved by eliminating production of coastal subs in the three years before the war and building 4-6 less ambitious sub tenders (displacement of 10-11 000 tons, engine of 10 000 hps or less, simplified outlines, resembling a merchant hull, pure-AA armament) and maybe a pair of repair ships on the same hull, to support this doctrine. Alt_naval had the right idea using the same hull for various large auxilaries and landing craft docks as well, but it picked the hull so expensive, that the only really sensible use for it was "conversion into light carrier". But IJN needs auxilaries (and landing ships) too.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 367
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/24/2011 7:16:11 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Done. All good with what you describe. Really concur with point #4.

Thanks JWE for the details regarding your work.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 368
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/24/2011 11:50:19 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Some strange things I've noticed while tinkering with destroyers: American DDs in the game have their standard displacement as commonly found on the net, 5mm armor on guns mounted in enclosed turrets and speed that they probably only ever had in initial designs. Japanese DDs have dispacements around numbers of full displacement stated by Jentschura (with some deviations), open mounts and turrets equally have zero armor and speed is closer to actual top speed in combat conditions. Did not check in depth if that covers other ship classes.

I'm not sure what to do with that when deriving ships from existing projects in the mod (displacement and turret armor don't really impact gameplay much and are easy to fix, but speed seems to be extremely important in combat). These stats are not using the same standard, but, on the other hand, Japanese surface combatants have the large experience advantage built in the game balance, and I'm not sure if it disappears later in the war (I haven't got far enough as Allies to see if late-war ships arrive with EXP over 50-55, will be grateful if anyone can tell me if they are).

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 369
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/25/2011 12:15:11 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Also, what art we needs so far (thanks in advance to anyone who would be kind enough to contribute).

Battleships:

Owari class - available thanks to Terminus.
Kaga class - available thanks to Juan.
Fuso/Ise classes - we need an art after the first reconstruction. Superstructure is similar to how it appears in the game, but two funnels - for reference on the older funnel shape see:
http://navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_bb_ise.htm
http://navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_bb_fuso.htm

Cruisers:

Niitaka class - see again for reference:


Modernized Sendai class - simply replace two forward guns with an enclosed turret, same shape as on Jingei AS (because these are in fact same turrets).

5500-tons rebuilds as training cruisers - available since RA, thanks to Terminus.


That was the easy part. I'm afraid I'll need to master drawing programs at least well enough to make discernible representations of what should be where for many of the less glamorous but important ship classes.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/25/2011 12:16:04 AM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 370
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/25/2011 2:58:54 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
How many of the new turrets on that modernized Sendai? What's the layout again?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 371
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/25/2011 3:34:13 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Also, what art we needs so far (thanks in advance to anyone who would be kind enough to contribute).

Battleships:

Owari class - available thanks to Terminus.
Kaga class - available thanks to Juan.
Fuso/Ise classes - we need an art after the first reconstruction. Superstructure is similar to how it appears in the game, but two funnels - for reference on the older funnel shape see:
http://navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_bb_ise.htm
http://navypedia.org/ships/japan/jap_bb_fuso.htm

Cruisers:

Niitaka class - see again for reference:


Modernized Sendai class - simply replace two forward guns with an enclosed turret, same shape as on Jingei AS (because these are in fact same turrets).

5500-tons rebuilds as training cruisers - available since RA, thanks to Terminus.


That was the easy part. I'm afraid I'll need to master drawing programs at least well enough to make discernible representations of what should be where for many of the less glamorous but important ship classes.



The Niitaka is close enough to my Tsurugi class from AltWNT CV Variant to use that as a base. Just add larger aircraft facilities aft and you should be pretty good.




Ill see what I can come up with over the weekend.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 8/25/2011 3:37:13 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 372
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/25/2011 4:26:51 PM   
John 3rd


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


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 373
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/25/2011 6:43:41 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: Terminus

How many of the new turrets on that modernized Sendai? What's the layout again?

As Sendai, but with a turret instead of two single guns on the bow. There will be a couple more extras, but nothing big enough to show on the picture.

As a side note, the last upgrade of Sendai in Scen 28 has two groups of 25mm singles facing front (16 and 17). This might be a "typo".

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 374
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/26/2011 11:47:43 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Find attached modernised Sendai art.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 375
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/26/2011 6:22:17 PM   
John 3rd


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


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 376
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/27/2011 11:04:56 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Sorry for my absence from the thread, I'm busy, and too tired to think... I did all the drudgework for battleships, though. If you want, John, I can send the file to you, so you can look at it.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 377
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/28/2011 2:43:55 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Keep the file for the moment so we have no confusion with things.

We've got all sorts of ideas flowing along in the other Thread right now. Pretty interesting stuff.

It looks to me like we're pretty well settled for the Fleet. I assume you'll be thinking of changes along the line of what we discussed in the RA Thread for Army-Navy aircraft as well as changing of the planes themselves?

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 378
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/28/2011 7:56:41 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Argh, Allies are stealing our mod.

Seriously, though, I didn't have time to follow both threads closely. I hope on the next week I'll be free enough to read it through and start shooting down the outlandish ideas.

As about aviation, I have in mind two variants: the modest version is the engine alternative, which doesn't really introduce much past what we've already established in RA, and the best-case version is based on far closer Army-Navy cooperation in aircraft production. I'll post them once I write up the rest of the proposals for the fleet.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 379
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/28/2011 8:39:48 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I will concede some of the idea's might be over the top

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 380
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/29/2011 3:18:35 PM   
FatR

 

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

First, I think if we accept "Terminus doctrine", torpedo armament will evolve in a different direction. Historically the doctrine called for a large-distance surface attacks against the enemy fleet, therefore new oxygen torpedoes had excessively long range (during the war it was reduced to increase the warhead). Now, as our subs still are primarily aiming at enemy warships, big and heavy torpedoes that can deal massive damage by any succesful hit are still in order, but range requirements will be lesser, allowing to either install a larger warhead from the beginning, or to take more of them onboard. With the doctrine stressing the importance of attacking anything that floats, I think the latter is a more logical choice (albeit less effective in game).

On building program: until 1933-34 it goes as IRL, including an experiment with aircraft-carrying boat (I-5) and home waters defense boats (RO-33 and 34). However, IJN doesn't enter its prolonged stage of doubts about the optimal sub type in thirties. Three Junsen 2/3 subs aren't built because the first one proves disappointing from the viewpoint of the new doctrine. Instead KD6A type is expanded by one boat, and KD6B by two. KD6A/B is the first significantly changed type, as more powerful electric motors and stronger hull to increase underwater speed diving depth slightly further than IRL are used, while hps of diesels and top surface speed do not increase as much. The cruise speed these subs can maintain is increased though, as IRL (actually, IRL these subs had a range of 14000 nm, when maintaining the same 10 knot cruise speed as their precedessors, but they were able to cruise at 14 knots, at the expense of decrease in range).

So, overall, 11 KD6A/B subs are built.

Then comes 1937 and the beginning of the Japanese post-treaties sub-building rush. Two types of subs are laid down are constructed during it. Both include changes in construction similar to KD6 above. I.e., advances in engine design are used to improve underwater speed and maneurability or save space for other improvements, rather than supercharging surface speed (which is kept around 20 knots).

First is C1 type (A1 type in this alternative) attack boats, meant to serve as midget carriers. 6 are laid down and completed before the war. As A/B/C boats were developed from Kaidai, rather than Junsen, no problems with designing them here...

Second is KD7 type. IRL that type seems to be a failure, to be honest... I wonder why it carries less fuel and less torpedoes than KD6, without real increases in anything else, and no books on Japanese subs I've read explain this. Speed is, however, higher than that of KD6, despite bigger size and less powerful engines. Can it be a case of someone misreading its stats and the mistake then propagating across various books? Anyway, in the mod, this series should basically repeat modified KD6B, except with all-forward torpedo tubes and diving depth standartized to that of A1.
This class will replace 22 A/B subs and 8 RL KD7 subs laid down before the war. However, this budget also must provide for 2 ARs and 4 new ASs, which will cost about as much as 8 attack subs. The remaining money will be sufficient to fund construction of approximately 32 KD subs (exchanging big subs for medium ones at 2:3 proportion). Hopefully, smaller size and faster construction will enable to complete 2/3rds of this number before the opening of hostilities.

The number of available subs on 7/12/1941 therefore will be:

11 large submarines (5 old patrol subs of J1/J1M class and 6 midget-carrying A1 subs)
47 fleet submarines (of KD3 and latter types)
4 sub minelayers
2 coastal submarines

One thing I'm pondering here is exchanging 2 fleet subs for 2 sub minelayers of a more decent design in mid-30s... Mine warfare definitely should get greater attention if a protracted war is expected.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 381
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/29/2011 5:34:04 PM   
JWE

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
One thing I'm pondering here is exchanging 2 fleet subs for 2 sub minelayers of a more decent design in mid-30s... Mine warfare definitely should get greater attention if a protracted war is expected.

Can do that if you want, but recall the "special minelayer" rules from the editor 6.6.1.3.2 Things going on that you might not be specifically thinking of.

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 382
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/29/2011 7:13:06 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
What is that rule?



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 383
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/29/2011 7:19:47 PM   
John 3rd


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I will concede some of the idea's might be over the top




There is some serious creativity going on over on the Dark Side!


As to aircraft, my .02 is to develop the Naval Air along the RA line. No need to reinvent the horse AGAIN there! I like the work done there.

Definitely think some things can be done to the IJA aircraft side. You've mentioned streamlining the production models and trying to create something a bit more useful. FatR--look back into the RA Thread for a ON of ideas you were thinking about. I didn't think they fit in the RA vision but they sure do here. Take a look and bring them back out for conversation!

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 384
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/29/2011 8:13:52 PM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

What is that rule?

Looking at the manual, that's the rule about all subs being able to load mines instead of torpedoes. I'm aware of that, but dedicated minelayer subs are more efficient in this role. Normal Jap subs can drop 12-16 mines per sortie, at the expense of torpedoes, while KRS class minelayers haul 20. IRL the difference was even bigger, as far as I know.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 385
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/29/2011 8:59:38 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I would LOVE more of the I-121 Class of boats! They drop 40 at a shot. Could we PLEASE build some...

Course we'll have to increase mine production some if we chose to do this.



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/29/2011 9:01:35 PM >


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 386
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 8/30/2011 9:27:28 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
OK, lets replace two of KD6 fleet boats with extra minelayers.

Again busy today, so I'll just finish the sub proposal.

I'm against introducing cheaper war emergency boats. I may be repeating myself, but IRL Japanese boat production outpaced their ability to provide trained crews. Which probably contributed to RO-boats being unsuccessful. Also, this should expand the production run of KD7 class somewhat, as I forgot, that two K6 and 8 KS boats were laid down before the war. Add 5 more boats (completion during the war) to 32 KD7 proposed above.

That will leave 6 aircraft carrier boats, 16 attack boats, 2 remaining KDs, 12 K6 and 10 KS boats laid down during the war. I propose replacing them with 48 more fleet boats, with production of roughly 2 per month during 43-early 45 (15 more KD7 boats laid down before the war will be completed in 1942-early 1943). The first 8 of these 48 will be KD8 class, laid down soon after the successful opening phase of the war, from which greater range will be requested, in anticipation of operating against the now reachable Allied trade routes. The rest will be KD9 class, incorporating adjustments born wartime experience (noise reduction, attepts to increase underwater speed and maneurability further).

As thanks to JWE we can now adjust diving depth of Japanese boats without bankrupting the economy, and use this to emulate increased survivability of the ST type, I propose building it this time. Of course, due to its limited endurance it is not going to be adopted until war approaches the Home Islands and the odds of survival for the older subs drop catastrophically. Therefore, these subs, as IRL, will only be availabe in 1945. This should be the only type of boats built late in the war - mass production of the cheaper STS type is considered and rejected - once again, there aren't enough seamen and, particularly, captains, for a large number of cheap boats; also, with only 2 torpedo tubes they can't fire real spreads, which should cause real drop in accuracy, and they apparently were too small for installing a radar as well. Instead of 40 STS subs, lay down 10 more ST, to the total number of 18.

Also, production of midgets during the war is much smaller than IRL. Initially only a few are completed as a weapon for the opening surprise strike againt USN, and use of them in open sea is not contemplated. Late in the war a bit more produced for the coast defence, once the possibilty of a midget with high submerged speed (as RL C and D types) becomes clear.
I also think of giving midgets, at least the late-war ones, very low durability, to make their production viable. It is not like they don't usually die whenever counterattacked even with the current durability of 12 (which, however, makes them quite expensive).

Speaking of transport subs, I think we can just take what was done to them in RA and apply here. No Army subs, better stats, and more economical durability for short-legged transport subs...

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 387
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 9/2/2011 4:39:37 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
No comments on sub construction?

Anyway, to finish the fleet proposal...


Amphibious Ships

0)Navy retains the overall control over construction and and maintenance of amphibious ships. They are staffed by IJN personnel and carry Navy's weapon models. Their operational use is regulated by a special Army-Navy agreement.

1)LSDs Shinshu Maru, Akitsu Maru and Nigitsu Maru. IRL Shinshu Maru was supposed to have floatplane tender capabilities, but never carries floatplanes IRL (this ship was owned by the Army, so it is not clear what it was even supposed to operate). Akitsu Maru and Nigitsu Maru had flight decks, but could serve only as aircraft ferries, until upgrades in 1943, which allowed them to operate Ki-76s and autogyros. In the game Shinshu Maru has no aircraft capacity, and the latter two operate floatplanes. Unfortunately, it is not possible to restrict a carrier to using certain types of aircraft. The last two ships confound me somewhat. On the first look fitting them with flight decks seems almost pointless, but Japanese seemingly saw them as valuable.
Anyway, I propose building Shinshu Maru as IRL, and Akitsu/Nigitsu Maru as its direct successors, with actual capability to use floatplanes (as IJN actually owns these). Maybe development of float fighters is given somewhat higher priority to hopefully give this amphibious force some teeth. Kumano Maru is reconstructed along the same lines later in thw war.

2)Historical ships Mayasan, Tamatsu, Kibitsu, Hyuga, Settsu and Tokitsu Marus are added to construction queue as LSDs (we already added some of them in RA). Another RL landing ship apparently missing from stock, Takatsu Maru is added as an AP or APA.

3)Let's build a series of dedicated Type 0 APDs, capable of deploying landing barges, both to serve as a vanguard of ambitious operations, and to supply island garrizons if control of seas around them is temporarily ceded during a protracted campaign. Build 10-12 of them, using a simplified Shiratsuyu-class destroyer hull and an engine half as powerful. Half should be available before the opening of hostilities. The experience gained should also allow to start production of Type 1 APDs much sooner (mid-1943).

4)I thought about adding a pair of special-project 11 000-ton LSDs as a part of pre-war auxilary construction program, mentioned in the submarine proposal above. But I'm going considerably past the RL budget here. In fact, we do that with #3 above. And #3 is more important. So, while there are provisions for greater Japanese economical capabilities in this alternative, I'm reluctant about this.


Mine Warfare Ships

1)Okinoshima and Tsugaru are replaced by converted Tenryu and Tatsuta as fast minelayers.

2)I noticed that four-ship Hatsushima class of cable/net/minelayers is absent from the base DaBabes scenario. They weren't that useful for mine warfare, but let's include them.

3)W-classes minesweepers are not completely repurposed as escorts. Instead remove both their aft and amidships 120/45 guns, around 1943, replacing them with Y-guns, but keep sweeps.
EDIT: IRL these ships were repurposed as escorts, because the Allies did not put much effort into the mine warfare until the aerial mining campaign against Home Islands in 1945. In the game Allied players usually are much more active with offensive or defensive mining, or both. I personally forbit mid-war upgrades to W-clases DMSs, which turn them to Es.
As a side note, I don't know if it is possible to simulate ineffectiveness of traditional minesweeping methods against late-war US mines. Does a mine's Accuracy stat impacts its ability to hit a sweeping ship first?

4)No late mid-1943 give a serious thought to simplifying and streamlining mine warfare vessel production, bringing it in line with measures already taken to make destroyers and so on more affordable. Start laying down the equivalent of maximally simplified Kamishima-class CMs in autumn of 1943 (available in late spring of 1944) and use the same basic hull to construct AMs as well. Stop construction of W-19 class DMS past W-30, and instead build these cheap AMs in numbers.
EDIT: As Type 4 and Type 93 mines are not interchangeable, we need two versions of the same type, carrying one or another.

5)I also really think that a small production run of fast DMs, similar in dimensions and propulsion to the above-described Type 0 APDs would be really nice, but again, this is just adding ships from nowhere, particularly if done before the war. And I don't think IJN can afford to cut the destroyer production for this. Maybe we instead can take a half-dozen of old Momi/Wakatake destroyers, and instead of conversion into P.51 escorts, as described in the destroyer proposal, expand their mine load (they could carry mines in the initial design), but I'm not sure their speed will be enough to operate on the frontline, instead of escorting ships on inner communications.


Torpedo Boats

Built in greater numbers, instead of midgets, as in RA. One thing we overlooked there was Shinyo boats - as the naval combat model does not include ramming, I propose modelling them as low-accuracy CD guns, rather than ships. And their units as CD units, accordingly.


Cargo Ships

The first program of standard-type merchants construction is started in autumn of 1940 by Transport Ministry, and first it honestly doubles as the state-sponsored program of ensuring independence of Japan from foreign shipping, in case of breakdown of relations with the westen powers. Second War Standard Program is adopted in November of 1941, immediately after the decision to fight the war is made, thanks to the general assumption of a prolonged war. As the result, there are more cargo ships in the queue.
Also, AA armament of the most valuable large cargo ships and tankers is increased in 1943-44, with ineffective 13.2 MGs gradually replaced by 25/60 singles.

< Message edited by FatR -- 9/2/2011 10:27:46 PM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 388
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 9/2/2011 8:13:14 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
A few more notes on the fleet:

- Among initially available escorts and submarines, the best types should have experience increased to high-fifties/low-sixties, to reflect the improvements in doctrine and training. Due to losses and inability of naval schools to keep up with shipyards, this advantage will not persist during the war.

- I thought long and hard about possibilities of improving Japanese small-calibre AA beyond straight addition of more barrels, but this is sort of hopeless. Japanese fire direction methods for automatic AA guns were completely stuck in 1941 for the entire war, with nothing but simplified versions of the same old stuff in production or in development. As I proposed before, Japanese in this alternative might start developing a high-ballistics 37-40mm gun in 1940, after evaluating the qualities of modern dive bombers, but it won't hold a candle to Bofors (and won't be available in sufficient numbers even late in the war). Similarly 25/60 Type 96 will remain very inferior to Allied guns, even though the gun itself was decent.
Well, about that 37-40mm gun, I'm actually not sure if it s the best plausible calibre. Japanese never created a fully satisfying 37-40mm gun (well, their Bofors copy was noted for flaws in manufacturing and they weren't able to make them in numbers worth talking about) for any purpose. However, they managed to produce the excellent 30mm Type 5 aircraft gun by 1945, which specifically outdid the version of Type 96 modified for aircraft use, and made quite a few of them before the end of the war. I wonder if a version of this gun can be pushed into production earlier for ship and land mounting, assuming, again, early recognition of the need for a bigger-calibre flak gun. However, what bothers me is that such recognition might led to rejecting 30mm calibre anyway, particularly as 30mm Type 5 had lower muzzle speed than Type 96. Will be glad to hear any comments on this.

- Continuing the gun theme, should Japanese buy 88mm Flak 37 from Germany for both Army and Navy use, after all, instead of resorting to ripping off trophies? Well, alternatively, advances that historically led to 76/60 guns installed on Aganos, can be used to create a general-purpose modern 76mm AA gun for use on land and on smaller ships. However, I wonder if mass production of this gun will be hampered by relatively short barrel life.

- Japanese had better radars (primarily fire control radars) already developed by the end of the war, but were unable to actually produce them. We can add some as late-war upgrades for the most valuable ships. Same goes for depth charges.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 389
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 9/2/2011 11:09:37 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
- Japanese had better radars (primarily fire control radars) already developed by the end of the war, but were unable to actually produce them. We can add some as late-war upgrades for the most valuable ships. Same goes for depth charges.



The same thing was true for guns and most other precision manufacturing. It wasn't that the Japanese couldn't design more high tech weaponry; they simply couldn't produce it in any significant amounts. The 100mm DP gun was a fine weapon..., but when you compare it's production to that of the US 5"/38 the results are pathetic. And getting worse as the war continued (witness the rejection rate for new A/C engines, which was exceeding 40% by 1945.). By 1944 Japan had more than a million tons of badly needed merchant shipping sidelined for repairs (primarily to propulsion systems). Japan in 1940-45 was a far cry from the industrial power she would become in the late 60's..., and she suffered for it.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   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

0.859