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: Updated Mods

 
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: Updated Mods Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Updated Mods - 8/19/2017 2:09:32 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lecivius


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Our game plan to to work on the Japanese side and then shift over to the Allies. All you AFB don't worry! We have some fiendish ideas for you as well.


I know what the allies will get





I wish this exact model of Torpedo Boat was what they got. :)

Speaking as Japan, one thing I wish for would be having the option to produce the Ki-44 base model in Dec 41/Jan 42.

(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 331
RE: Updated Mods - 8/19/2017 4:11:08 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
A couple other things I'd like to see fixed:

1) Pilot experience seems too rich in all the mods. I have a hard time thinking about playing RA because of all the uber high exp pilots the JFB gets (and I'm a JFB). I'm of the opinion that we get adequate resources in game to conduct pilot training programs on map - and we should have to do that if we want better than baseline pilots in our air groups. At the same time, it never made sense to me that a pilot could spend the same 12 months in training in 1944 and come out with lower exp than they did from a program in 1942. I'd rather have pilots of all nationalities come in at 30 or 35 exp and rely upon on map efforts to train them.

2) One of the more senseless issues inherited from Scenario 1 is the Mine Tender situation. Many (but not all) of Japan's larger ports get Port size x 50 mines. Japan's 4 largest ports (Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka) get 500 mines. It would require 4 ACM's at start in each port to maintain those mines. Only Hiroshima gets enough ACM, Osaka gets ONE, and Fukuoka and Tokyo get NONE. In TOTAL, Japan gets 18 ACM to start and can convert another 37 in 15 days. Japan needs most of the at start ACM just to maintain the minefields at it's 4 largest ports. BTS eliminated the conversion of all but the To'su class to ACM's so the problem in worse in BTS than it was in Scen 1.

To fully maintain all the starting minefields requires 55 to 80 ACM's. (4 size 10 ports requiring 3-4 ACM each, 5 size 9 ports requiring 3 ACM each, 3 size 7 ports requiring 2-3 ACM each, 2 size 6 ports requiring 2ACM each, 8 size 5 requiring 1-2 ACM each, and 10 size 4 ports requiring 1-2 ACM each). Even if Japan converts EVERY possible ACM, mines will still decay at my major ports. I've got to believe the IJN was a little more careful than that and didn't leave those minefields untended. Oh, and that says nothing of the minefields Japan will lay as the game progresses. Either starting minefields and min production needs to be trimmed, or some kind of HDML/barge-sized ACM needs to be available to Japan.

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 332
RE: Updated Mods - 8/19/2017 5:04:11 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Those are GREAT notes. The ACM issue is one I've never, ever thought about--let alone even heard about.

On pilots, I always seem to get the comments that XP is too low. I've always felt we were running a little too high with the expansion going on. Training CAN be done without issue. Any specific ideas here?

The Ki-44 in production. Would love to but that is army stuff and these Mods stay away from that area. Never understood how the Japanese had a few but then didn't build any for 8 months...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 333
RE: Updated Mods - 8/19/2017 7:17:11 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
I'm going to take those one at a time, and may take a few posts to explore a given topic. I'll start with mine warfare. I posted elsewhere that I still do not feel competent to play Japan in a PBEM. As Japan, I know I'm going to lose. In the most optimistic of mods, I'm never going to get the material to do more than make winning painful for the allies. My goal then, is to make the absolute most of every resource I have. In keeping with that, once of the questions I asked myself is how to conduct mine warfare. I have attached my notes from scenario 1 as a PDF rather than try to format them in this response. I haven't updated the notes on that topic much since March, but they outline my thinking about conducting mine warfare as Japan.

As for how to modify mine warfare in BTS:

1) The stockpiles and monthly production in BTS are many times the production in Scenario 1. I'm not sure it is a good idea to drastically increase mines...
2) I know at some point in the past, an effort was made to "tone down" mine warfare because the game was becoming "Minefields in the Pacific"
3) Mine fields may be too effective in game as compared to historical minefields.
4) When you ask for recommendations, I have not done any kind of historical research.

I think the approach I would take is

0) Do some research to get an idea of IJN mine warfare in WW2
1) resize minefields / eliminate minefields. Deploy multiples of 150
2) match ACM resources to the minefields to prevent decay
2) add a new ACM class to the Japanese OOB that can only be used for mine tending - no aa, very limited range, SLOW, etc. to simulate port resources used to maintain fields and limit decay.
4) Possibly make the new ACM class convert to and from MGB/MGT? (not sure if this will cause an issue with other code for small craft pools.)
5) reduce mine production / adjust starting pools to turn minefields into larger stocks in mine pools

Attachment (1)

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 334
RE: Updated Mods - 8/19/2017 7:19:24 AM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
A simple ACM that would be be hard to sue for much else aside from minefield tending...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 335
RE: Updated Mods - 8/19/2017 1:52:10 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
I am not sure about lowering IJN air experience. I have been running a 2-day turn game of BtS Lite against the AI, playing the Allies, and am up to August '42. I know the AI is not that good, but I wanted to check things from the Allied side too, not only from the Japanese side.

If experience were to be lowered in the elite Japanese naval air units, which would impact results of both air-to-air and naval attack, I would suggest that then the experience of the 9th Air Fleet and of the second line naval air crews be raised to compensate. We could think about it as diluting the cadres a bit more, so that all units start on a more equal footing. I am not convinced this is needed, though.

All this being said by one who wants to play a PBEM as the Allies when the next version is ready.

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 336
RE: Updated Mods - 8/19/2017 7:55:08 PM   
durnedwolf


Posts: 885
Joined: 5/23/2005
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

A couple other things I'd like to see fixed:

1) Pilot experience seems too rich in all the mods. I have a hard time thinking about playing RA because of all the uber high exp pilots the JFB gets (and I'm a JFB). I'm of the opinion that we get adequate resources in game to conduct pilot training programs on map - and we should have to do that if we want better than baseline pilots in our air groups. At the same time, it never made sense to me that a pilot could spend the same 12 months in training in 1944 and come out with lower exp than they did from a program in 1942. I'd rather have pilots of all nationalities come in at 30 or 35 exp and rely upon on map efforts to train them.

2) One of the more senseless issues inherited from Scenario 1 is the Mine Tender situation. Many (but not all) of Japan's larger ports get Port size x 50 mines. Japan's 4 largest ports (Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka) get 500 mines. It would require 4 ACM's at start in each port to maintain those mines. Only Hiroshima gets enough ACM, Osaka gets ONE, and Fukuoka and Tokyo get NONE. In TOTAL, Japan gets 18 ACM to start and can convert another 37 in 15 days. Japan needs most of the at start ACM just to maintain the minefields at it's 4 largest ports. BTS eliminated the conversion of all but the To'su class to ACM's so the problem in worse in BTS than it was in Scen 1.

To fully maintain all the starting minefields requires 55 to 80 ACM's. (4 size 10 ports requiring 3-4 ACM each, 5 size 9 ports requiring 3 ACM each, 3 size 7 ports requiring 2-3 ACM each, 2 size 6 ports requiring 2ACM each, 8 size 5 requiring 1-2 ACM each, and 10 size 4 ports requiring 1-2 ACM each). Even if Japan converts EVERY possible ACM, mines will still decay at my major ports. I've got to believe the IJN was a little more careful than that and didn't leave those minefields untended. Oh, and that says nothing of the minefields Japan will lay as the game progresses. Either starting minefields and min production needs to be trimmed, or some kind of HDML/barge-sized ACM needs to be available to Japan.


Regarding pilot EXP levels:
I think prior to the beginning of the war the Navy had invested in a strong training program for their pilots. I don't think that was the same for the Army pilots though. I think you probably want to start the war with a good crop of well-trained Naval fighters. There might be some historical evidence that would justify Army pilots starting out lower and require the in-game training you are proposing.

Towards the end of the war, however, the Japanese Navy is short on time and much less critical in their selection of pilots. I don't think they were actually in training for 12 months in 1944. Probably 3-6 months... The training program had been modified to push out pilots ASAP. My WAG is that it would be the same for Army pilots, and that the lower EXP ratings for Japan's pilots towards the end of the war is modeled on that.

Regarding mines:
I'd suggest just adding a few additional ACM at the start of the game to meet the minimum requirements for the mines currently deployed by Japan. It makes sense, as InfiniteMonkey points out, that Japan would not deploy minefields if there were not enough tenders to service them. And then if you feel there are not enough To-su class hulls to meet the needs of future mine fields, you could maybe add another 20-30 To'su class that can convert to ACMs.

_____________________________


DW

I try to live by two words - tenacity and gratitude. Tenacity gets me where I want to go and gratitude ensures I'm not angry along the way. - Henry Winkler.

The great aim of education is not knowledge but action. - Herbert Spencer

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 337
RE: Updated Mods - 8/19/2017 8:13:58 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
Here you go John:



And the files:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Admiral DadMan -- 8/19/2017 8:16:11 PM >


_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 338
RE: Updated Mods - 8/19/2017 8:37:10 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

I am not sure about lowering IJN air experience. I have been running a 2-day turn game of BtS Lite against the AI, playing the Allies, and am up to August '42. I know the AI is not that good, but I wanted to check things from the Allied side too, not only from the Japanese side.

If experience were to be lowered in the elite Japanese naval air units, which would impact results of both air-to-air and naval attack, I would suggest that then the experience of the 9th Air Fleet and of the second line naval air crews be raised to compensate. We could think about it as diluting the cadres a bit more, so that all units start on a more equal footing. I am not convinced this is needed, though.

All this being said by one who wants to play a PBEM as the Allies when the next version is ready.

When it comes to pilot experience, my concerns are on both sides, not just Japan. I just read Never Call Me a Hero which is an autobiography of "Dusty" Kleiss. Kleiss was the last living dive bomber pilot from the Battle of Midway. He scored 3 hits during the Battle of Midway - one each on Kaga, Hiryu, and Mikuma. After that, he was awarded the Navy Cross and sent home to train new pilots. It is a short and interesting read, but his discussions of pilot training during his time as an instructor (1942 through 1945) paint a picture of reduced pilot quality for those pilots trained during the war versus those at war start. It is a perspective similar to the one held by Saburo Sakai in the info I've read about him. Both pilots express a belief that the pilots they trained in the war were not as well trained as those that trained before the war. The other thing that struck me in Kleiss's book was how important the "workups" they did when they reached operational squadrons were to their eventual results. The "on map" training continues the training of "flight school" FNG's represented by the replacement pool.

The effect upon at start squadrons would be to spread out the range of pilots to reflect a progression of skill of pre-war pilot trainees with the elite squadrons containing the most experienced pilots and the training squadrons containing pilots just out of "flight school". You would in fact end up with elite pilots at the tip of the spear: KB and Tainan Kus, but fewer and less experienced reserves. I've attached a screenshot of my first pass of what I might look to do with the IJN fighter corps. Note that the far right column is a simple calculation of exp * num_pilot adjustments by air group and a total across all air groups adjusted at the bottom.




Edit: Been having network hiccups and ended up retyping this... and forget to re-write an important a part of what I wrote the first time: All Japanese groups that enter the war after 12/8/41 would come in with 35 average experience aside from those that named pilots assigned to a group. There would be a similar, but slightly less onerous adjustment to the Allied groups. Events in game and training on map would dictate the quality of pilots available to fly in new air groups.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by InfiniteMonkey -- 8/19/2017 9:10:59 PM >

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 339
RE: Updated Mods - 8/19/2017 10:01:33 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 355
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf
Regarding pilot EXP levels:
I think prior to the beginning of the war the Navy had invested in a strong training program for their pilots. I don't think that was the same for the Army pilots though. I think you probably want to start the war with a good crop of well-trained Naval fighters. There might be some historical evidence that would justify Army pilots starting out lower and require the in-game training you are proposing.

Towards the end of the war, however, the Japanese Navy is short on time and much less critical in their selection of pilots. I don't think they were actually in training for 12 months in 1944. Probably 3-6 months... The training program had been modified to push out pilots ASAP. My WAG is that it would be the same for Army pilots, and that the lower EXP ratings for Japan's pilots towards the end of the war is modeled on that.

You posted this before I posted my first pass on IJN fighter pilots. I would like to hear your response in light of that. Also, I think one of the big things I'd look to change are the Replacement pool stats - in pool at start, average starting exp, and replacement rate for ALL nations - not just the IJN. The 3-6 months of training pilots will occur for Japan if you reduce the replacement pool to 0 and begin pulling pilots from the 10-12 month flgiht school classes. For this reason, I do not think replacement pool average experience should change from year to year - the reduction is already modeled.

quote:

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf
Regarding mines:
I'd suggest just adding a few additional ACM at the start of the game to meet the minimum requirements for the mines currently deployed by Japan. It makes sense, as InfiniteMonkey points out, that Japan would not deploy minefields if there were not enough tenders to service them. And then if you feel there are not enough To-su class hulls to meet the needs of future mine fields, you could maybe add another 20-30 To'su class that can convert to ACMs.

I have a few issues with this.

First, I do not know if the number of mines is appropriate. The solution may be to delete the minefield, not add the ACM's. The fact that ports follow a "minefield size = port size x 50" pattern suggests that either no research was done wrt IJN mine field usage at game start or that no information was available. I know I previously found an online (free) source for the documents from the Naval Technical mission because I read one about IJN torpedoes... I'd like to find the text of "Japanese Mines [O-04]. D820.S2 U527 O-04" listed on https://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/research-guides/us-naval-technical-mission-to-japan-reports-in-the-navy-department-library.html#library From what I remember of the torpedo report, it would likely give estimated production figures that could be used to back track to estimates of deployed minefields at war's start.

Second, the ACM/150 mine limitation in game is the core problem. I'm leery of unintentionally adding more capability to try to band aid another problem. Adding additional To'su class ships that can be used for other purposes (To'su can be used as PB escorts and unintentionally affect the ASW game) has an impact beyond the mine warfare issue. Creating a new, largely useless (outside maintaining minefields) class and a handful of ships isn't as risky imo.

< Message edited by InfiniteMonkey -- 8/19/2017 10:02:17 PM >

(in reply to durnedwolf)
Post #: 340
RE: Updated Mods - 8/19/2017 11:58:22 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
Pilot experience.
IMVHO, there should be prewar and well trained regular pilots for both sides, aircraft performance then differentiates between A6M2 & F4F-3.
Exceptions to this are newly raised squadrons, such as the RAF/RAAF in Malaya where the fighter sqns where mostly pilots out of pilot training schools, I'm sure there are japanese and USAAF sqn in similar situations.

New sqns do not arrive with better than the current national training experience numbers (you can have a wider variance in other skills though). RAF sqn could be an exception, most arrived with experience in Europe or Africa although there was a habit of sending the best pilots on home leave and filling them out with green pilots, a bit of research involved. (Can they arrive without pilots and you have to allocate them?)

Arriving "Ace" pilots have credit for their experience, the game gives some 10+ Victory pilots some average numbers.

I want the game to force the player to invest in pilot training OR creating "Squadrons of Aces". Either a small number of "Experten" or forcing skilled pilots back into the Training cycle and allocating experienced pilots into newly arrived squadrons (as Sqn & Flt leaders etc) This was a major difference between the Allied and Axis approach to their pilots.

Maybe a different game, but I thought pilots lost experience points when changing aircraft types, maybe UV or WITP vanilla.

Plus, I would like to see a lot more randomness in skill ratings, most are allocated on what was achieved during the war, who would KNOW FOR SURE that Wingate or Slim or Vandegrift or HM Smith would succeed or fail, added to this is, IMHO, a very slow improvement of skill for major LCU commanders.
Enough dreamimg, suns up, get outside for some gardening.

< Message edited by JeffK -- 8/20/2017 12:30:00 AM >


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 341
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 4:03:13 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
LIKE all of that Jeff.

Can you throw out more specifics?

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 342
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 4:04:42 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
This is cut directly from the website on the re-tooled cruisers of Japan in BTS--BTSL.

Heavy Cruisers
Changes and Additions


With the London Treaty coming in slightly different then what happened historically the Japanese do a complete retooling of their cruiser fleet. The marginal Aoba's/Furutaka's are shifted to 6" guns, thus, making them capable light cruisers. The impressive Mogami's keep their 15 6" guns and are not up-gunned. These changes effectively move and/or keep Japan with 8 capable, more modern CLs.

Heavy Cruisers (years built)
1. EIGHT Myoko-Class built: Myoko(29), Nachi(28), Haguro(29), Ashigara(29), Seiki(29), Chishima(30), Miyako(30), and Yoshino(30).

2. FOUR Takao-Class: Takao(32), Atago(32), Maya(32), and Chokai(32)
3. TWO Niitaka-Class: Tone (39) and Chikuma (40)

Japan starts with 14 CAs instead of 16.

Instead of the Tone-Class, the Japanese decide to create a stronger 'command cruiser.' The Niitaka-Class is designed with 4x3 8" guns and heavy Long Lance armament. Displacement surges to 15,000T and are a perfect example of the 'using a few to conquer many' strategy. The first pair are the Tone and Chikuma with two pairs due to arrive in the Fleet in late-42/43 and 44/45. The design for this class of ships was found over in ship bucket.



Light Cruisers
Changes and Additions


Already written on there being changes with CAs. The changes are pretty big for Light Cruisers.

Classes:
Tenryu, Tatsuta, Kuma, and Tama are converted to Fast Minelayers.
Kitakami, Kiso, and Oi become Training Cruisers with no need to build the Katori-Class.
Nagara-Class: Nagara, Isuzu, Yura, Natori, Kinu, and Abukuma
Sendai-Class: Naka, Sendai, Jintsu, Minase, Ayase, and Otonase
Yubari-Class: Yubari
Furutaka-Class: Furutaka, Kako, Aoba, and Kinugasa 3x3 6"
Mogami-Class: Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, and Kumano 5x3 6"

The Tokoro-Class is authorized to replace the old Nagara/Sendai-Classes. Initially a run of 10-12 is planned but that is changed once war begins. These CLs have 3x3 6", good Torps, and 8,000T.

Total pre-war CLs is 20 (4 as ML—3 as Training Cruisers) with 8 building.




IDEAS/CHANGES

1. Up-gun the Mogami’s as was done prior to the war.
2. Allow for Tenryu, Tatsuta, Kuma, Tama to have multiple upgrade paths: back to CLs, TT Cruisers, or CLAA.
3. Ditto Kitakami, Oi, and Kiso.

I am always a great believer in allowing for choices. Perhaps the multiple options is what a player would like.


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/20/2017 1:50:28 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 #: 343
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 5:28:14 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf

I'd suggest just adding a few additional ACM at the start of the game to meet the minimum requirements for the mines currently deployed by Japan. It makes sense, as InfiniteMonkey points out, that Japan would not deploy minefields if there were not enough tenders to service them. And then if you feel there are not enough To-su class hulls to meet the needs of future mine fields, you could maybe add another 20-30 To'su class that can convert to ACMs.


I am not sure that is correct. Japan wanted to meet the Americans as they advanced on Luzon and drop mines as part of the decisive battle...and having ACM tending the fields on an active battle didn't factor into their thinking. Perhaps once the direction of the war changed from offensive to defensive.

Mines are severely nerfed on the the Allied side, it was so successful I believe they kept the data top secret into the 1980's because it was such a great tactic.



(in reply to durnedwolf)
Post #: 344
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 5:50:46 AM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


Light Cruisers
Changes and Additions


Already written on there being changes with CAs. The changes are pretty big for Light Cruisers.

Classes:
Tenryu, Tatsuta, Kuma, and Tama are converted to Fast Minelayers.
Kitakami, Kiso, and Oi become Training Cruisers with no need to build the Katori-Class.
Nagara-Class: Nagara, Isuzu, Yura, Natori, Kinu, and Abukuma
Sendai-Class: Naka, Sendai, Jintsu, Minase, Ayase, and Otonase
Yubari-Class: Yubari
Furutaka-Class: Furutaka, Kako, Aoba, and Kinugasa 3x3 6"
Mogami-Class: Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, and Kumano 5x3 6"

The Tokoro-Class is authorized to replace the old Nagara/Sendai-Classes. Initially a run of 10-12 is planned but that is changed once war begins. These CLs have 3x3 6", good Torps, and 8,000T.

Total pre-war CLs is 20 (4 as ML—3 as Training Cruisers) with 8 building.




IDEAS/CHANGES

1. Up-gun the Mogami’s as was done prior to the war.
2. Allow for Tenryu, Tatsuta, Kuma, Tama to have multiple upgrade paths: back to CLs, TT Cruisers, or CLAA.
3. Ditto Kitakami, Oi, and Kiso.

I am always a great believer in allowing for choices. Perhaps the multiple options is what a player would like.



It seems a shame to yank out the Katori training cruisers, because they are neat and unique. Perhaps put them in the ship build...and let players decided to pull them back out of mothballs to use. With their 44 upgrade to super escorts they are great with tanker convoys and early on they make great amphib escorts. However, you have added so many ships I doubt anyone (but me) would make them.

I would like to see an upgrade path developed a little more for cruiser/float planes like Mogami to be used as a deep merchant raider or scout. And a few more squadrons capable of switching into Float Fighters, Float Dive Bombers and Float Torpedo Bombers.

I doubt the game engine can handle it, but how about an AO and a AS version of a SST?

It seems to me that if Japan is strengthening her Navy...she should also be weakening her ground forces or air force. Perhaps less first and second class divisions, instead they become more like the militia divisions and ground reinforcements have delayed arrival. Perhaps delay some of the new ground force devices...to reflect that resources were prioritized to the Navy.

This, of course, would put Japan in a pickle, but really that is where she should be.



< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/20/2017 5:51:08 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 345
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 1:46:24 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thought I would bring up the ALTHIST that we have based the changes upon:

The Treaty Mod (Scenario 45)
ALTNAV 1922-1937


The Treaty Mod for AE has been created to reflect a slightly different outcome of the historic Washington and London Naval Conferences to cover the time of 1922-1937. With little changes and tweaks to the Treaty System, a slightly a-historic outcome is produced. It should be noted that no changes are made to any major power from 1937-1941.

The Washington Conference

Secretary of State Charles Evans Hughes blueprint for naval disarmament gets out and the Japanese stonewall a Naval Conference for a full year. After considerable bickering and pressure being brought to bear, the Conference does take place in 1922 and disarmament is agreed upon, however, there are additions allowed due to the added time to get the meeting going. The whole Mutsu debate is scrapped due to Mutsu actually being ready and deployed at that point. While maintaining the 5-5-3 ratio between Great Britain, the United States, and Japan, there are several new outcomes:

1. The Japanese then argue to keep either a Tosa or one of the Amagi Class battlecruisers. The Americans carry the day in arguing for the Lexington-Class battlecruisers being completed. They gain the Ranger and Constellation (while scrapping BB Mississippi to maintain balance), Great Britain gets the option to build a pair of Super-Hoods (while additionally scrapping Royal Sovereign), and Japan completes Amagi-Class Ishitaka.

2. The whole subject of CVs is reworked:

a. Two 'experimental' CVs (two Hosho's and two Langley's) are allowed to be built for further carrier experimentation. The Americans still convert USS Langley and USS Ely to seaplane carriers and they are both then transferred to the Asiatic Fleet.

b. Two BC to CV conversions are still allowed but further treaty tonnage is added for one more CVL to be built by both Japan and USA. The Americans build the USS King’s Mountain (proto-Independence Class) and the Japanese back off the failed Ryujo design to build IJN Ryukaku (a proto-CVL as well).

3. The Big 3 allow for more research into 'Cruiser' Submarines. The Americans build an additional Argonaut and Narwhal, the Japanese add three Mine Layers, and the French add another Surcouf.


The London Conference
Moving on to the London Conference (1930), the subject of Cruisers is re-worked:

1. Japan--at all costs--sticks to its goal of 70% for CAs (instead of 60%). This allows for GB and USA to build two more CAs (USA: Burlington and Rome) while Japan gains one.

2. Great Britain--who nearly scrapped the treaty due to the issue of CAs and CLs--stands firm over its argument and forces a larger tonnage for CLs. USA adds USS Anchorage and Dallas and Japan begins building their scaled-back Mogami-Cruisers.

3. Both Japan and the United States were looking at hybrid Cruiser—CVs and they force Great Britain, following the example set with the Washington BC—CV Conversions, to allow for two hybrids each to be built in the early-30s. USA builds CLV Charlotte and Jacksonville, GB builds CAV Melbourne and Wellington (sold/given to those respective navies), and Japan finishes up with CAV Kushiro and Tokachi. These hybrids are not true, useful CVLs not are they true, useful cruisers but they have a unique niche in 1941 and ALL of them can be converted into carriers later in 1942.

***It should be noted that to take maximum advantage of the revised Treaty tonnages, Japan converts several of the oldest CLs into fast ML, builds additional Myoko-Class CAs and keeps the Mogami Class as 6” CLs.


Reluctant Admiral 8.0 (Scenario 50)
1937-1945


The Reluctant Admiral is a Japanese 'what if' scenario based upon a greater contribution by Adm. Yamamoto Isoroku to the development of the Kaigun in 1936-1941. The premise of the Mod is that Yamamoto exerted a much greater influence first on the Japan Naval Aircraft Industry, then as Deputy Navy Minister, and finally as Navy Minister itself. Yamamoto chooses, at great risk to his life, to forego command of the Combined Fleet and dedicate himself to preparing Japan for a war he didn't want.

He adds two new slipways for Fleet construction to facilitate a different, final pre-war expansion of the Kaigun. New and expanded Naval Yards, Heavy Industry, and Armaments are added at tremendous cost for the Japanese economy as the Admiral attempts to prepare Japan for a possibly long war. In so choosing to do this Yamamoto then changes the 4th Circle Building Plan replacing the 3rd and 4th Yamato-Class Battleships with improved Shokaku-Class CVs and a pair of Kawachi-Class fast Battlecruisers, two Tone-Class CAs, an accelerated Light Cruiser deployment, and additional destroyers. Quick, reasonably cheap carrier conversions are moved forward seeing all of the pre-war CVs/CVLs deploy by December 7th or at slightly earlier dates in 1942. Though only a few of these new ships are ready on December 7th, these additions shall make the Kaigun a force to be reckoned with well into 1944.

The Japan Naval Air Arm is changed so that everything is staked to the Zero Airframe with a specialization of the Zero into a Land-Based Interceptor as well as CV-Based Fighters. Research and production expansion is achieved by streamlining the air industry (cutting several models) while bringing forward second generation aircraft: Judy, Jill, etc… By great effort the IJNAF deploys nearly all new aircraft on December 7th.

On the ground Yamamoto reorganizes the SNLF units into a Brigade-Sized offensive force and—knowing it will be a war of attrition—converts many Naval Guard into enhanced units with Coastal Defense artillery (using guns taken from refitted warships) for a stronger defensive unit. Additional small units are added to the IJN’s Troops and support units better reflecting Yamamoto's foresight into base building, defense, and expansion needs. While all these units are small and not in great number they promise to help the Japanese war effort.

The foresight of the Admiral pays off during late-1942 and 1943 as new ships, aircraft, and ground units enter into the Japanese Order-of-Battle, however, the cost is steep. Though expanded and using modern aircraft many Japanese Naval Air units start with their experience lowered to reflect the dilution of the experienced pilots into new units that start in Japan or arrive during 1942-1943.

Supply and fuel reserves start at a much reduced state. The Japanese MUST take the DEI as fast as possible!

Once war begins RA postulates Yamamoto’s influence upon the wartime Kaigun.

Several more Shokaku CVs are ordered as well as another pair of CAs, and the conversion of several CLs into CVLs. First class destroyers are accelerated and emphasis is shifted to the AA Akizuki-Class at the expense of the more balanced Yugumo’s. Manpower is at a premium within the Fleet so Submarines, Escorts, and ASW forces all see a major retooling reflecting the Japanese quality over quantity belief. Yamamoto chooses the immediately useful projects, large APs converting to CVEs, better 2nd-class destroyers, fast transports and coastal defense fleet.

It should be noted that not all the changes are for the Japanese. RA 6.4+ brings major additions and more choice for the Allied Player. The Allies see continued major changes in their starting locations, new air units, the addition of Training Squadrons on mainland USA to allow for an American pilot training program, enhanced aircraft production numbers, additional Allied FP groups, several ground units, a French Squadron at Noumea, the use of CLV Charlotte (a Flightdeck Cruiser), a CLAA conversion for the Omaha-CL, an additional pair of CVLs, and optional conversion of the Kittyhawk Class AKV, Tangier Class AV, and Cimarron Class AOs into CVEs. The added warships reflect a ‘stopgap’ counter to the increased Japanese strength found at war’s start.


Between the Storms and BTS: Lite
Scenario 50 and 52


Warship Construction AFTER the Treaty Years (Between the Storms: LITE version with Owaris and later construction versus Between the Storms with Yamato and Musashi)

Battleship Question and Decision
After abandoning the Treaty System, great discussion goes into the first new battleships to be built by Japan since the Nagato Class. The choices ends up centering on building two modern, fast conventional battlewagons as opposed to the mighty Yamato-Class. The prohibitive factors of cost and time finally swing the decision to creating the Owari-Class (3x3 16.1" Rifles). While not sounding too exciting this change brings about a very interesting situation. Both Yamato and Musashi required their slipways to be expanded in length. The expansions were hugely expensive and took MONTHS to finish. By building the Owari-Class BBs the Japanese clear these slipways 12-18 months faster. The net result is two modern BBs (28 Knots) join the Kaigun BEFORE Pearl Harbor and their successors (two B-65 Class BCs) are either finished or near complete at war's start.

Two additional Owari-Class Battleships are ordered under the 4th Circle Plan as well.

Command Cruisers
While debate rages on about the new battleship design, a new class of heavy cruiser is initiated. The proposed Tone-Class floatplane CA is discarded for a balanced, more capable cruiser. These large cruisers are better called command cruisers. The Niitaka-Class grows to over 15,000 tonnes and carries 4x3 8" guns, heavy torpedo armament, impressive secondaries, and strong floatplane complements. These fast, rugged cruisers are planned to be a six ship class. The initial two are complete at war's start, a second pair coming in late-1942, and a final pair in 1944.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 346
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 1:56:03 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
<snip>
IDEAS/CHANGES
1. Up-gun the Mogami’s as was done prior to the war.
2. Allow for Tenryu, Tatsuta, Kuma, Tama to have multiple upgrade paths: back to CLs, TT Cruisers, or CLAA.
3. Ditto Kitakami, Oi, and Kiso.

I am always a great believer in allowing for choices. Perhaps the multiple options is what a player would like.


I actually like the Mogamis as CL's. I would leave them as they are. Points 2 and 3 are quite interesting, though. I am also a fan of choices for the IJN :)


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 347
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 2:00:12 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Biggest problem with Point 2 is that those four CLs are so old, one couldn't do too much with them.

As TT CLs you could probably refit them to hold 3-4 Triple TT launchers on each side (like the RL Kitakamis) and, while still nice to have, that you be about it.

Probably more limited in the AA CL version due to size and hull strength due to their small size and age.

A more interesting idea might be as a 'convoy' leader. They could be modernized and improved to be used as Flagships for important convoys with Amphibs or Tankers/AOs. Could be a germ of an idea there...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 348
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 2:29:04 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Biggest problem with Point 2 is that those four CLs are so old, one couldn't do too much with them.

As TT CLs you could probably refit them to hold 3-4 Triple TT launchers on each side (like the RL Kitakamis) and, while still nice to have, that you be about it.

Probably more limited in the AA CL version due to size and hull strength due to their small size and age.

A more interesting idea might be as a 'convoy' leader. They could be modernized and improved to be used as Flagships for important convoys with Amphibs or Tankers/AOs. Could be a germ of an idea there...


Concur with the last point made. Make them AA/ASW CLs designed to offer protection for the fast AOs (I converted most of the fast TKs to AOs to give me operational flexibility at war's beginning). If possible, add a small FP group to each.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 349
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 2:34:41 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Biggest problem with Point 2 is that those four CLs are so old, one couldn't do too much with them.

As TT CLs you could probably refit them to hold 3-4 Triple TT launchers on each side (like the RL Kitakamis) and, while still nice to have, that you be about it.

Probably more limited in the AA CL version due to size and hull strength due to their small size and age.

A more interesting idea might be as a 'convoy' leader. They could be modernized and improved to be used as Flagships for important convoys with Amphibs or Tankers/AOs. Could be a germ of an idea there...


Good ASW platforms are scarce in the DNTK, so yes, that would be a good idea. If, as ny59giants writes, they could also have good AA capability, even better.


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 350
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 2:34:55 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
If you coupled these CLs and the small CSs we created last go round you might have a fairly decent core for four ASW Escort Groups...

A refurbished Light Cruiser with another ship carrying 12 FP plus normal escorts would not be too bad a thing.



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 351
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 4:48:51 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

1. Japan--at all costs--sticks to its goal of 70% for CAs (instead of 60%). This allows for GB and USA to build two more CAs (USA: Burlington and Rome) while Japan gains one.

The Reluctant Admiral is a Japanese 'what if' scenario based upon a greater contribution by Adm. Yamamoto Isoroku to the development of the Kaigun in 1936-1941. The premise of the Mod is that Yamamoto exerted a much greater influence first on the Japan Naval Aircraft Industry, then as Deputy Navy Minister, and finally as Navy Minister itself. Yamamoto chooses, at great risk to his life, to forego command of the Combined Fleet and dedicate himself to preparing Japan for a war he didn't want.

On the ground Yamamoto reorganizes the SNLF units into a Brigade-Sized offensive force and—knowing it will be a war of attrition—converts many Naval Guard into enhanced units with Coastal Defense artillery (using guns taken from refitted warships) for a stronger defensive unit. Additional small units are added to the IJN’s Troops and support units better reflecting Yamamoto's foresight into base building, defense, and expansion needs. While all these units are small and not in great number they promise to help the Japanese war effort.



There is the justification and rationale for downsizing the Japanese Army. Limited resources are piled into the Navy, but at a cost...a weaker and less prepared Army consisting of more Militia style Divisions and fewer grade A and B divisions.

For everything there is a cost.




< Message edited by Lowpe -- 8/20/2017 4:51:09 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 352
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 8:14:42 PM   
Admiral DadMan


Posts: 3627
Joined: 2/22/2002
From: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

If you coupled these CLs and the small CSs we created last go round you might have a fairly decent core for four ASW Escort Groups...

A refurbished Light Cruiser with another ship carrying 12 FP plus normal escorts would not be too bad a thing.

Has anyone ever SEEN anything above a DD conduct an ASW attack in-game? I haven't.

< Message edited by Admiral DadMan -- 8/20/2017 8:15:03 PM >


_____________________________

Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 353
RE: Updated Mods - 8/20/2017 8:42:35 PM   
Lowpe


Posts: 22133
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

If you coupled these CLs and the small CSs we created last go round you might have a fairly decent core for four ASW Escort Groups...

A refurbished Light Cruiser with another ship carrying 12 FP plus normal escorts would not be too bad a thing.

Has anyone ever SEEN anything above a DD conduct an ASW attack in-game? I haven't.


My IJN Cruisers do.

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 354
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 1:24:59 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
I like the ideas of converting the older IJN CLs into AA/ASW ships. Could the Tenryu's be turned into a TT cruiser similar to the load out of the Kitakami?

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 355
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 6:26:41 AM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
There is the justification and rationale for downsizing the Japanese Army. Limited resources are piled into the Navy, but at a cost...a weaker and less prepared Army consisting of more Militia style Divisions and fewer grade A and B divisions.

For everything there is a cost.


Perhaps less armored units? Perhaps same number, but under strength or arriving later?

Just my 2 cents.


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 356
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 3:11:15 PM   
John 3rd


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

I like the ideas of converting the older IJN CLs into AA/ASW ships. Could the Tenryu's be turned into a TT cruiser similar to the load out of the Kitakami?


Too small, however, since Kitakami does not start in her TT CL build in the Mod how about we allow all three of that group to do so?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 357
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 4:43:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Have got tomorrow off so we'll do another batch of modifications and/or changes to things.

Michael--Your status?


_____________________________



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 #: 358
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 5:54:24 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

I like the ideas of converting the older IJN CLs into AA/ASW ships. Could the Tenryu's be turned into a TT cruiser similar to the load out of the Kitakami?


Too small, however, since Kitakami does not start in her TT CL build in the Mod how about we allow all three of that group to do so?



IIRC there are 2x Tenryu class and 5x Kuma-class light cruisers, correct?

What if you allow those two classes to have 2-3 1-day (or 0-day if possible, don't know if it is) conversions available on turn one. It could be AA, ASW and/or TT conversions. It would follow the principle of giving the player options, without giving the player more stuff, but without tying those ships down for a considerable period.

Just another crazy idea from your friendly neighborhood JFB.

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 359
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 9:45:57 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
That is an INTERESTING idea.

What do people think about that?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Kitakami)
Post #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Updated Mods Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.656