RE: British research

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: British research

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: British research

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: British research - 1/22/2005 12:42:54 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Philbass

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

A little confused, as AD and AS are in both the include and exclude lists (we do want them). Plus all the ships Woolwich thru Prome in your list.

Don
Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that there are a bunch of base, depot, accommodation and maintenance ships that are on station in the East Indies. I assume that these are factored into the port ratings of Colombo and Trincomalee (otherwise they are probably way too high - at least for the early years. Don't forget that once Singapore falls, there is no British dock capable of taking a battleship or fleet carrier closer than Durban in South Africa, until one is completed in Sydney in 1945). These ships tended to be static. Therefore I assumed we could disregard these in order to save ship slots. These ships are rather a rag-bag of ex-WW1, merchantile conversion and new build. Of course, I think that India as a base is overrated, but that's another story.

The named ships from the list are ones that moved around (at least as far as I can identify), and therefore are additional capacity. I was trying to simplify, but I'll include everything if wanted.

Regards

Philip Bass

Good point and I don't know. I am pristinely ignorant on port facilities in the Indian Ocean. I had assumed that all tenders should be included in addition to port facilties. Given my 'druthers I'd take correct port ratings and all support ships. Value your opinion on this.

Don

I'll pitch in with my view here. As someone mentioned elsewhere, in another context: just because the Allies/Japanese DIDN'T do something doesn't mean that they should be prevented from doing it. I would say that if these support ships were mobile and in reasonable operational shape, then they should be added in, and if necessary the port values of the Indian ports reduced to compensate. On the other hand if the ships were hulks that were not very seaworthy, then leave them out.

Andrew

_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 121

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units - 1/22/2005 1:23:19 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: janushm

soerabaja isnt a problem...then just list her as a PG..i think im able to get a couple of sideshots of it.. otherwise. i think you could use the old jacob van heemskerck class...[the ingame one is just atromp class but was armed differntly when the uncompleted ship sailed to england in may 1940].

anyway the soerabaja was just an upgunned and up armoured Jacob van Heemskerck class coastal defence ship. so i think you could use its side view.

Sound good - if you can get me the icon I'll put her in as a PG.

(in reply to janushm)

Post #: 122

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units - 1/22/2005 4:09:42 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: janushm

soerabaja isnt a problem...then just list her as a PG..i think im able to get a couple of sideshots of it.. otherwise. i think you could use the old jacob van heemskerck class...[the ingame one is just atromp class but was armed differntly when the uncompleted ship sailed to england in may 1940].

anyway the soerabaja was just an upgunned and up armoured Jacob van Heemskerck class coastal defence ship. so i think you could use its side view.

Sound good - if you can get me the icon I'll put her in as a PG.

Now that was fast! Here is the icon for Soerabaja, as provided by janushm. We'll have Soerabaja as a PG or maybe a cruiser (over 6000 tons!).

Thanks Jan

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 123

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units - 1/22/2005 9:20:15 PM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Hi all,

I just mailed to Don a bunch of info and such, but here is another question.

In my mod i added a few ships Japan had planned, and started assembling materials for such as 2 additional Mogamis, 1 more Agano, 1 more Oyodo, 2 or 3 more Akitsushimas, 1 more Yamato, 2 more Taihos, 8 more Akitsukis, 8 more Yugumos, etc.

Are we going to add these? Don seems to have removed them from te mod thus far.
Remember, these are not free; Japan will never get all of them and quite possibly will get none of them. Just options for the players.

Some people will say 'Japanese players will now only build the good ships and skip the garbage! Unfair!'.

My comment to that is i would never build the 4th Yamato as i consider them garbage... but you know some people will!

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 124

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units - 1/22/2005 10:23:13 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Hi all,

I just mailed to Don a bunch of info and such, but here is another question.

In my mod i added a few ships Japan had planned, and started assembling materials for such as 2 additional Mogamis, 1 more Agano, 1 more Oyodo, 2 or 3 more Akitsushimas, 1 more Yamato, 2 more Taihos, 8 more Akitsukis, 8 more Yugumos, etc.

Are we going to add these? Don seems to have removed them from te mod thus far.
Remember, these are not free; Japan will never get all of them and quite possibly will get none of them. Just options for the players.

Some people will say 'Japanese players will now only build the good ships and skip the garbage! Unfair!'.

My comment to that is i would never build the 4th Yamato as i consider them garbage... but you know some people will!

Mike

As a general rule I only included ships that were laid down and named. I must also confess that I never play as Japanese and do not understand the Japanese ship building program.

We can add planned or contemplated ships to both sides if desired - I'll go with the majority on this one. But I've studied World War II history for too long not to wince at a non-existant battleship with a fictious name.

Don

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 125

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units - 1/23/2005 6:47:30 PM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

I don't mind having some of cancelled ships available as a choice for a player, especially if the name is known. It gives the player a choice to make more of X instead of Y.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 126

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units - 1/23/2005 6:57:13 PM

ZonkerHarris

Posts: 83
Joined: 11/10/2004
From: Walden Puddle
Status: offline

My vote, for what it's worth, would be to include some additional possibilities for shipbuilding. As Mike says, just having them in the queue doesn't mean they'll actually get built (are there any Japan players who don't cancel Shinano on turn 1?). The game is going to diverge from history starting on turn 1 in any event; it would be nice to have the ability to tailor your ship construction to events and strategy.

_____________________________

"All right you primitive screwheads, listen up. See this? This is my boomstick!"

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 127

RE: Combined Historical Scenario - Naval Units - 1/23/2005 7:06:02 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

That is the big bugaboo. We are already forced to live with Japans existing ships they really built or laid down.

I know I heard the clamor about the Midway's and Alaska's somewhere earlier. Build the 3rd Yamato and give the Allied player the Alaska. Give me my 2 extra Taiho's that would have been laid down in early 42 (except they decided "we are really doing great do we really need 2 extra CV's) then Midway happened and DOH!!!!!!!!! You cna give the Allies the Midway CV.

My .02 cents.

(in reply to ZonkerHarris)

Post #: 128

Non-historical units - 1/24/2005 9:25:54 PM

Don Bowen

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

In my mind, there are two ways that the game of WITP can be structured:

1. Fully historical, with those units that were actually built (including those started but not completed by war's end)
2. With a full production model - where each player has those ships completed or ordered by 12/41 plus a set of historically accurate additional classes and a certain amount of "building points".

Anything in between these two is a half-acceptable compromise. Including ships from cancelled programs damages the integrity of the OOB. After all - any ship added that was not really built would use up resources used for some other asset that was built.

WITP itself will not support the latter option.

However, this is a game and we want to make this scenario as playable and enjoyable as possible. So, if the majority want to increase the available Japanese ships, I'll go along with it. I would defer to those more expert in Japanese shipbuilding programs and, of course, add in some interesting allied ships as well.

Here's the first Vote: Pure Historical

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 129

RE: Non-historical units - 1/24/2005 9:37:32 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Second vote: Pure historical, leaning to giving the player all hulls actually laid down by 12/41, or laid down later. However, I am against adding in completely hypothetical ships.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 130

RE: Non-historical units - 1/24/2005 9:48:09 PM

Hipper

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

Second vote: Pure historical, leaning to giving the player all hulls actually laid down by 12/41, or laid down later. However, I am against adding in completely hypothetical ships

Yes I agree give the japanese the ships they laid down completing them is up to the player...

Also give the Allies those ships that would have entered combat by mid 46

cheers

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 131

RE: Non-historical units - 1/24/2005 9:55:10 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

Compromise. That is my vote. I would rather have the option as the japanese player of trying to build the extra 2 Taihos. I would probably have to halt construction or delay construction of something else to get them at all anyway. I figure a lay down of Apr/May 42 with completion late 44 early 45.

Think of it as the Japanese version of the re-spawn rule. Seeing as the Allies get re-spawned CA's, CV's and I think CL's.

They would have built the Taihos, except for the above and then Midway happened and they needed CV's on the rush. Hence the cheaper, faster to build Unryu's.

The Japanese actually planned to lay down and build 11 Taihos. The 2 from above were cancelled in favor of the larger order and then the above BS happened.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 132

RE: Non-historical units - 1/24/2005 9:57:56 PM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Don, Would you be adverse to having two releases?

One could be exact historical. The second could be essentially the extra ships that i added to my mod for Japan.

Again Don, the ships are not 'free' because the Japanese player has a finite amount of ship building points. Any increases in shipbuilding will take away from supply and aircraft engines.

Everyone also needs to remember that the extra ships we are adding would be around their historical build time if they had been built. And, as you cannot accelerate ships that are too far forward on the build list, you as the player will not be able to build, say, PCs in abundance in '42.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Hipper)

Post #: 133

RE: Non-historical units - 1/24/2005 10:32:26 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Don, Would you be adverse to having two releases?

One could be exact historical. The second could be essentially the extra ships that i added to my mod for Japan.

Again Don, the ships are not 'free' because the Japanese player has a finite amount of ship building points. Any increases in shipbuilding will take away from supply and aircraft engines.

Everyone also needs to remember that the extra ships we are adding would be around their historical build time if they had been built. And, as you cannot accelerate ships that are too far forward on the build list, you as the player will not be able to build, say, PCs in abundance in '42.

Mike

Not adverse at all - but I have some concerns about the mechanics. There are currently 33 (or so) empty Japanese slots and I could pick up a half-dozen more by getting rid of the Captured WA101 minesweepers. Whatever the majority wants.

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 134

RE: Non-historical units - 1/24/2005 11:07:29 PM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

If you guys do 2 versions, then I will be happy as can be. 33 slots sounds like a lot to me.

I just want my 2 Taihos and maybe 10-15 more of the really good DD's. The Shinano can be made back into a BB for all I care.

Or better yet, Shinano is cancelled before the war start and smelted back down. Dec 41 Japan lays down 2 more Shokaku's with the 2 additional Taihos being laid down in June/July 42. Shokaku's arrive in say mid 1943 and the Taiho's in mid/late 44.

I would have no problem with the Allied player using re-spawned CV's with the better option. I could even give him a serious fight.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 135

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 12:08:28 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

My vote would be for a compromise position, with a VERY LIMITED number of additional Japanese ships that were planned/cancelled, but not very many, otherwise the game could stray too far into fantasyland. Given that the game will often stray quite a bit from the historical path, providing the Japanese player with a SMALL amount of flexibility is not a bad thing in my view.

If time permits two versions is the way to go I guess, but it is a bit of extra work.

And I would very much like to see some extra Allied ships that would have been available late 45 early 46.

Andrew

PS: Don - what do you think about the claims being made in other threads that the Japanese have far too much merchant shipping in WitP - I think some claim that they have twice as much as they should have?

_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 136

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 1:19:09 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

My vote would be for a compromise position, with a VERY LIMITED number of additional Japanese ships that were planned/cancelled, but not very many, otherwise the game could stray too far into fantasyland. Given that the game will often stray quite a bit from the historical path, providing the Japanese player with a SMALL amount of flexibility is not a bad thing in my view.

If time permits two versions is the way to go I guess, but it is a bit of extra work.

And I would very much like to see some extra Allied ships that would have been available late 45 early 46.

Andrew

PS: Don - what do you think about the claims being made in other threads that the Japanese have far too much merchant shipping in WitP - I think some claim that they have twice as much as they should have?

Haven't seen them. Did a quick search using Japanese, too much, and merchant shipping. Only got hits within our scenario threads.

I can support much of the existing Japanese shipping based on my two sources - Merchant Fleets 1939 and the ONI Recognition Manual for Japanese Shipping. But not all. I have found a number of different-spelling duplicates (Nitiei Maru and Nichiei Maru, for instance).

I can say that I went through Merchant Fleet to try and find any additional ships that could be added and found that they appeared to all be present. Matrix probably used it as a source. And I have little reference data for war time construction - other than the Type A standard type (which are in the scenario).

All in all I'd say it is about right. I think Allied shipping may be low but lack of a withdrawal rule makes it difficult to include ships that were in the Pacific for a while, then returned to the Atlantic.

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 137

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 1:19:59 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

My 2 cents.

I'm an avid allied player. I'm also desire to have a very historical game. But, that said...

the actual war ended in Aug/sept 45. The game goes to March 46. If Japan is kicking butt, then why would she stop building ships on Aug 45?

I say add in at least some ships that arrive mid 45 to early 46. I don't think you get a historical representation if we assume the game ends on 8/45. (I also want to see all the allied ships that come in during that time as well)

Also, if you decide to add in more Japanese ships, you should probably give them an arrival date in the late 44 to early 45 range. We should also assume that Japan starts to lose her industry in 44, thereby delaying any ships that are under construction. So, if their arrival date was late 44, the japanese player might not get them until early to late 45.

I want to emphasize that I'm an avid Allied and Historical player. I REALLY think you should add hypothetical ships for Japan in the later part of the game.

btw, I'm really looking forward to your scenario mod. I can't wait to play it.

bc

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 138

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 1:27:36 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

One other thing that I think is reasonable is having the other two CS ships (can't remember their names) being able to conver to CVL's like the Chitose and Chiyoda. I think Japan would have converted the other two if the Chitose or Chiyoda had been sunk prior to 1943.

(I don't know if you can do this in the database or if it's development issue)

bc

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 139

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 2:06:56 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

That is 2-3(depending on how Lemurs would vote) for a compromise and 3 definate for a 2nd scenario.

At least until Ron reads this and goes nuts about it.

I think the compromise is the best way to go for a first go around. You can always take the basic mod after it has been played awhile and add in the extra Japanese ships.

Keep Shinano, give the Japanese 2 Taihos with mid/late 44 arrival dates, about 14 extra top line DD's and the 3rd Yamato. I like the CS conversion idea too.

Give the Allies their respawned CV's (in other words no house rule), the Alaska BC, and the Midway CV.

For the second mod, it would be the same except extra ships for Japan like in my above post. That would be like Scen 19 in UV (Japanese advantage). It is you guys' call though.
I will just whine if I do not get a 2nd version though.

ALOT!!!!!!!

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 140

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 2:19:03 AM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

Bradley735,
Don & I are probably going to set the Nisshin & maybe Mizuho to upgrade to CVLs. This is not fantasy but fact. They were both constructed as a shadow program to be easily converted to carriers.

The allies may (this is something Don will have a big say on) have a few extra ships. In my opinion they do not need them because if Japan is 'kicking butt' then the Allies are probably losing more carriers and cruisers.... which means more Baltimores, Clevelands, & Essexs. Forever.

Secret Allied strategy is to attack repeatedly with everything because you will cause some damage and just get the ships back.

Don,

A certain amount of Japanese shipping is supposed to be not in the game to represent civilian needs.
America is supposed to have quite a bit of shipping missing to represent water shipments to Pearl, shipping in the East African regions, etc.

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 141

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 2:46:28 AM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
PS: Don - what do you think about the claims being made in other threads that the Japanese have far too much merchant shipping in WitP - I think some claim that they have twice as much as they should have?

Haven't seen them. Did a quick search using Japanese, too much, and merchant shipping. Only got hits within our scenario threads.

I can support much of the existing Japanese shipping based on my two sources - Merchant Fleets 1939 and the ONI Recognition Manual for Japanese Shipping. But not all. I have found a number of different-spelling duplicates (Nitiei Maru and Nichiei Maru, for instance).

I can say that I went through Merchant Fleet to try and find any additional ships that could be added and found that they appeared to all be present. Matrix probably used it as a source. And I have little reference data for war time construction - other than the Type A standard type (which are in the scenario).

All in all I'd say it is about right. I think Allied shipping may be low but lack of a withdrawal rule makes it difficult to include ships that were in the Pacific for a while, then returned to the Atlantic.

Sorry Don, I should have put this in before. The thread is here:

Japanese sealift capabilities in dec 1941

Andrew

PS: Time for a shameless Allied Fanboy plug: What about adding in HMS Vanguard? Here is an extract of some information I found at the site www.hms-vanguard.co.uk:

Strenuous efforts were made to complete her fitting out in time for her to take part in the final assault on Japan, but the unexpectedly sudden surrender of the Eastern enemy deprived her of this experience. Some compensation accrued, however, as the final few months of her fitting out was less rushed and some relaxation had been possible in the austerity of war-time finish.

She commissioned for trials on 25th April, 1946 under the command of Captain W. C. Agnew, C.B., C.V.O., D.S.O.*

_____________________________

Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 142

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 4:01:31 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
PS: Don - what do you think about the claims being made in other threads that the Japanese have far too much merchant shipping in WitP - I think some claim that they have twice as much as they should have?
Japanese sealift capabilities in dec 1941
Andrew

I just posted a reply on the linked thread. I'll repeat it here with additional data for our scenario:

Using data from Ugly Ducklings - Japan's WWII Liberty Type Standard Ships. Japan had, at the beginning of the war:
1,581 steamships of 4.1 million gross tons
756 motor ships of 1.5 million gross tons
17,992 wooden trading and fishing vessels totaling 1.07 million tons
This totals 6.67 million tons, approximately equal to Parillo's figures.

I note that Scenario 15, V1.3 lists 1503 Japanese ships of type AK, AP, and TK, plus another 221 converted types (31 PC, 94 MSW, 76 PG, 20 Naval Auxiliaries). Of these, 1179 are in commission at the start of the war (987 AK/AP/TK, 185 patrol/minesweepers, 10 auxiliary).

Ignoring the wooden fleet:
2337 ships historically, 1179 in scenario 15.

For our scenario:
1648 AP/AK/AK (1036 in commission at the start of the war)
200 PG/PC/MSW (184 in commission at the start of the war)
44 Naval Aux (32 in commission at the start of the war)

2337 ships historically, 1252 in our scenario

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 143

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 6:25:51 AM

Herrbear

Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline

I don't mind that Japan could build some additional ships that were planned or cancelled. They should be named vessels however. How does the AI handle the additional Japanese builds, if done? As some suggested adding the possibility of additional Japanese carriers. Will the AI build them, ignore or what?

By the same token, the Allies should get those ships being finished in late 45 should the war last that long.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 144

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 7:43:35 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

I will pull names out of my butt if needed. If you only want real life named ships, then we are stuck with basically what is in a stock scenario 15. No fun for me really. I hate the idea of being doomed by history to repeat the exact same mistakes the real guys made.

Well, I would say the AI would try and build everything in the build quay. That might FUBAR it though. As far as I can tell, the AI does not accelerate ships or halt construction on anything either.

But for the cancelled Japanese CV's, I do have hull numbers.

(in reply to Herrbear)

Post #: 145

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 12:24:55 PM

janushm

Posts: 218
Joined: 10/18/2004
From: 's-Hertogenbosch, netherlands
Status: offline

don..im at school now.. just did a AR Castor here working on the Arend class

correction...arend class is more or less finished.

correction of correction
i see that arend is already done

< Message edited by janushm -- 1/25/2005 10:59:26 AM >

_____________________________

the escalated quickly...

(in reply to 2ndACR)

Post #: 146

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 8:05:38 PM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

2ndACR, Don't worry Don & I will make two releases. They will only be about a day apart.

The first release will be an optimized scenario 15, absolutely historical.

The second release I will do a day later and it will be the same as my latest mod in extra Japanese ships. 1 Yamato, 2 Taihos, 2 Mogamis(Hirata & Idzumo), 1 Oyodo(Niyodo), 1 Agano(Ayase), 8 Yugumos (Kawagiri, Kiyokaze, Murakaze, Satokaze, Taekaze, Tanigiri, Umigiri, & Yamagiri) from the 1941 program & 4 Akitsukis (Hatsuki, Kiyotsuki, Ootsuki, & Michitsuki) from the 1941 program. Also, 1 Akitsushima (Chihaya).

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to janushm)

Post #: 147

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 8:37:23 PM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

When do you guys predict you'll release your Mod?

Also, I'm a technical idiot, so will you have a read me file or something that will explain what I need to do to use your mod? (I know you're using Andrew Brown's map, and there are certain things needing to do to use his map)

Thanks, Brad

(ps, can't wait!!!!!)

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 148

RE: Non-historical units - 1/25/2005 11:57:35 PM

Alikchi2

Posts: 1785
Joined: 5/14/2004
Status: offline

I think it would be excellent if the Allies got the Midway CV, the Alaskas and Vanguard as well.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 149

RE: Non-historical units - 1/26/2005 12:51:24 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

2ndACR, Don't worry Don & I will make two releases. They will only be about a day apart.

The first release will be an optimized scenario 15, absolutely historical.

The second release I will do a day later and it will be the same as my latest mod in extra Japanese ships. 1 Yamato, 2 Taihos, 2 Mogamis(Hirata & Idzumo), 1 Oyodo(Niyodo), 1 Agano(Ayase), 8 Yugumos (Kawagiri, Kiyokaze, Murakaze, Satokaze, Taekaze, Tanigiri, Umigiri, & Yamagiri) from the 1941 program & 4 Akitsukis (Hatsuki, Kiyotsuki, Ootsuki, & Michitsuki) from the 1941 program. Also, 1 Akitsushima (Chihaya).

Mike

I'll allocate and reserve "empty" slots at the appropriate place for these ships. I'm also going to add 2 more submarines, I-207 and I-208, which were suspended late war. That's 22 slots so we still have about a dozen.

Don

(in reply to Lemurs!)

Post #: 150

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: British research