The PERFECT WAR Mod

[John 3rd]

Wow. I just want to start clicking on the hexes! This is SOOOOOOOOOOO different...

[ny59giants]

Why is the very expensive CV Shinano being built (157 Naval points) that can only hold 47 planes vs another CV Taiho and a CVL or two more CV Unryu??

[oldman45]

One thing that would be great to have is the ability to upgrade roads. Since this game lasts 5 years it would be nice to be able to have engineers upgrade a road and increase supply potential. Pipe dream but think of how that would effect the game!

[FatR]

I entered into the scenario all the things on fighters presented as definitive proposals above. Three more notes on the work I've done:

- A 500-kg bomb is probably too cool for standard Zeros, considering their likely kamikaze use late in the war. After some thought, I decided to make them exclusive for fighter-bomber versions, to make the latter worth using too.

- While the game, IMO, severely understates Ki-61 range, it perhaps overstates protection of early models, on which fuel tank protection was just about useless. I think Ia model should have Armor 0, by analogy with Oscar IIa.

- If people don't mind, I'm going to use Japanese names for planes which had them.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Why is the very expensive CV Shinano being built (157 Naval points) that can only hold 47 planes vs another CV Taiho and a CVL or two more CV Unryu??

It shouldn't be. Just no one got to doing the carriers yet.

[John 3rd]

I told Michael that when we spoke on the phone.

Some of the ship stuff is complete but not all of it.

Got a question through email if we were going to leave the immediate CLAA Omaha upgrade and CVE Conversions we added into RA? What do you think of that?

[FatR]

No problem with these upgrades/conversions...

Meanwhile, on Japanese 2E fighters:

Historical models

Historically this plane began development early, but suffered for many delays in development and production. Of importance for our alternative is failure of its original engines, after which the project languished in the delay hell until April of 1940, when it was fitted with a version of Nakajima Ha-35. This is well past the date of the postulated engine unification program, so it is logical that Mitsubishi Ha-33 engine will be adopted instead, like it was on RL Ki-45 successors.

However, the problem is, as far as Francillon tells us (and other sources mostly just repeat his information), Ki-45 initially suffered from too large engine nacelles, the problem that went away only because Ha-35 was so small. Ki-45-II, meant to use Ha-33 engines ended up with minimal resemblance to the original plane. So, it seems, Ki-45 is going (like IRL) to be powered by the relatively weak Mitsubishi Ha-31 engine, leaving it not very satisfying.

Said successors also suffered from indecisiveness about producing a single-seat or a two-seat fighter, which led to more major delays until Ki-102 finally entered production. Take note, while a single-seat fighter is unquestionably more capable during the day, nightfigters at the time pretty much needed a second crew member, to serve as a radar operator.

Finally, Ki-83 and Ki-93 late war planes were developed independently, latter primarily as a ground attack plane, and seemingly were successful, but arrived too late.

Meanwhile, Navy's J1N1 was just a total failure as a fighter. Sure, it was used as a recon plane and later reconstructed as a night fighter, for lack of better airframes, but in the day it was hopeless, and it seems it only remained in production because Nakajima was good at promoting its planes. Similarly, J5N was an utter failure. Late-war S1A1 was (traditionally) hampered by its Homare engines and its prototypes were lost to Allied bombing, so its potential is not clear.


The question is - how rationalize this mess to get Japs something useable when anyone still cares?

For the Army things are relatively simple:

1)Equip Ki-45 with Mitsubishi Ha-31 Zuisei from the beginning. Also, thanks to cooperation with the Navy in aircraft armaments, replace the heavy and slow-firing Ho-3 cannon with 2 Oerlicon Type 99-2 clones, and keep them until you have a semi-useable 37-mm cannon (at least one that doesn't need to be loaded by hand). Gradually switch Ki-45 to the night fighter role, as it becomes too vulnerable in the day, and hope that increasing industrial potential will allow to actually equip late-war nightfighter modifications with radar (maybe go as far as to ask the Navy for their airborne radar designs...).

2)After Ki-45 concentrate on single-seater 2E fighters, that can actually survive during the day. Instead of Ki-102, Ki-96, and its high-altitude version, Ki-108, should enter service.

3)Order Ki-83 and maybe Ki-93 as IRL, although the latter really needs some tweaking in the game for anyone to consider building it, thanks to near-uselessness of strafing either ground or sea targets.


Navy, well, that's more difficult:

1)I don't know why anyone even considered sticking a 3-men crew into J1N1 (most likely, they believed a long-range escort fighter needed a navigator, but I don't know), so I'm not sure how to rationalize reducing it to 2. Also, remote-operated turrets were a bad idea. Anyway, remove all that, raise the forward armament to the level of Zero, and the Navy will have a somewhat capable very long-range escort fighter in mid-1942. Later models should switch to the role of pure night fighters, due to their insufficient power. Oh, and use Ki-46 as the new recon.

2)Wait until Ki-83 is available, hope that with the focus on Mitsubishi engines and the recognized need to replace J1N1 in its role Ki-83 production can be launched earlier...

3)Equip S1A1 with Mitsubishi Ha-42 engines, hopefully making it available a bit earlier, and hopefully giving it enough power to be useful.

[MateDow]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Got a question through email if we were going to leave the immediate CLAA Omaha upgrade and CVE Conversions we added into RA? What do you think of that?

I can help with some of the naval stuff if people need help, just let me know what needs to be done.

As for an Omaha-class CLAA conversion, I don't know how useful that would be, and I am not familiar with the conversion in RA.

I know that there were discussions within the US Navy for a reconstruction which would have kept four 6" guns (fore & aft turret), installed 7 5"/25 in single mounts, and 5 quad 1.1". The 1.1" would have been replaced with the 40mm during the war if the conversion was completed.

In actuality, the reconstruction would have diverted significant manpower from existing projects. Would the US make the choice to have these improvised AA cruisers when they could build new Atlanta-class with the same effort?

If this is an option, it would probably be at least a 180 day conversion. This would account for the removal of the after superstructure, trunking the funnels (1&2 and 3&4), installing the new weapons, and reconfiguring the ammunition handling arrangements (maybe even installing amidships magazine). 180 days might be a little low, but would put it into the same ballpark as the major reconstruction of the WW1 era battleships during wartime conditions.

A quicker Omaha conversion would have been similar to the DE conversion for the four stack DDs (Clemson/Wickes). This would have the main battery replaced by a pair of twin 5"/38 mounts, and then part of the boilers removed for additional range (at the cost of reduced speed). I think the vision would be for a convoy flagship where their aircraft and dual-purpose guns would help the defense of a convoy or invasion force. This might be more of a 90-day conversion, but would be less intensive than the reconstruction.

As for US CVE conversions, I like the idea of having them. Of course, I think that the US found it easier to convert vessels under construction than post-construction. This is the reason that you don't see the liner conversions (CVx) that were discussed inter-war. It was easier to have multiple smaller carriers than one larger conversion. It would give the Allied player some flexibility if carrier losses were heavy.

[MateDow]

ORIGINAL: MateDow
As for an Omaha-class CLAA conversion, I don't know how useful that would be, and I am not familiar with the conversion in RA.

I know that there were discussions within the US Navy for a reconstruction which would have kept four 6" guns (fore & aft turret), installed 7 5"/25 in single mounts, and 5 quad 1.1". The 1.1" would have been replaced with the 40mm during the war if the conversion was completed.

I found the thread by Don Bowen where this was discussed, and it looks like the same conversion.

[oldman45]

The thing about the liner conversions, the link that Don sent me would be ships that the allied player would not want to give up. One of them that comes to mind was the Wakefield. I would rather convert more AO's to CVE's or more Cleveland's to Independence.

For the record, in RA the Omaha conversion is 120 days. Its a nice addition to the Allied OB for convoy escort and amphib close support.

[MateDow]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

The thing about the liner conversions, the link that Don sent me would be ships that the allied player would not want to give up. One of them that comes to mind was the Wakefield. I would rather convert more AO's to CVE's or more Cleveland's to Independence.

For the record, in RA the Omaha conversion is 120 days. Its a nice addition to the Allied OB for convoy escort and amphib close support.

I think that was the case originally when it came to the liner conversions. It would be nice to have the option I guess. Heck, I always want the option to convert some to AMCs, but I am old fashioned that way.

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: MateDow

ORIGINAL: oldman45

The thing about the liner conversions, the link that Don sent me would be ships that the allied player would not want to give up. One of them that comes to mind was the Wakefield. I would rather convert more AO's to CVE's or more Cleveland's to Independence.

For the record, in RA the Omaha conversion is 120 days. Its a nice addition to the Allied OB for convoy escort and amphib close support.

I think that was the case originally when it came to the liner conversions. It would be nice to have the option I guess. Heck, I always want the option to convert some to AMCs, but I am old fashioned that way.

I am actually with ya on this in so far as I like to have many conversion options.

[John 3rd]

Concur on the liners. We had set a few AOs and the Kittyhawk/Hammondsport to be able to convert to CVEs in RA. Seemed to work reasonably well there.

[FatR]

No more comments on air side? By the way, we'll need some new art, although most of it could consist of existing planes in new color schemes. I'll post a list once the final list is determined.

EDIT: To kfsgo - can you, please send me your shipsides' art, so I'll add it to the scenario?

[DOCUP]

Is it the Big Babes C scen you guys are using for the basis of this mod?  If so I want to take a peak at the OOB and changes before you guys roll out this game.

[MateDow]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Concur on the liners. We had set a few AOs and the Kittyhawk/Hammondsport to be able to convert to CVEs in RA. Seemed to work reasonably well there.

There should probably be some liners available for xCVL conversions as well. I'll see what I can find in my references for possibilities. It would be a tough choice for many players since those large liners are very useful for moving troops around.

[oldman45]

This is the link that Don had sent me.

CVE Conversions

[MateDow]

Here is another link, unfortunately, it doesn't have any details about the conversions, only that they were planned.

US Liner Conversions

[kfsgo]

ORIGINAL: FatR

No more comments on air side? By the way, we'll need some new art, although most of it could consist of existing planes in new color schemes. I'll post a list once the final list is determined.

EDIT: To kfsgo - can you, please send me your shipsides' art, so I'll add it to the scenario?

I think this is everything I've done so far that currently has an in-game entity.

[MateDow]

I moved the discussion about US liner conversions to the Allied side of these threads.