No Yamatos! What would you build?

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by John 3rd »

Why not simply expand the historical DD Yards detailed in Kaigun?

Use those two big slipways for something 'fun.'
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by wdolson »

Big slipways are too important to tie them up with smaller ships that can easily be built in smaller yards.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
User avatar
Rising-Sun
Posts: 2141
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:27 am
Location: Clifton Park, NY
Contact:

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by Rising-Sun »

If it was up to me, i would build 1,000+ aircrafts per yamato instead. Their aircraft carriers production as it is. The only problems is that need to train up those pilots, which its the most important factor.
Image
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by Puhis »

fodder is looking for alternative use of 190.000 tons of steel and big shipyards. You can't use steel or slipways to produce aircrafts.
User avatar
Rising-Sun
Posts: 2141
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:27 am
Location: Clifton Park, NY
Contact:

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by Rising-Sun »

ORIGINAL: Puhis

fodder is looking for alternative use of 190.000 tons of steel and big shipyards. You can't use steel or slipways to produce aircrafts.

True, but the most important issues was buying or paying the workers to do it. Im sure they have the resources to do it, just need to expand the plants that make them.

This movie explain it...
tm.asp?m=3169715

Too bad not everyone have a chance to see it yet. They did mention they rather have 1,000+ aircrafts instead building the yamato. The homeland does have enough plus surplus from other regions that they have from Korea. Making those aircrafts isnt a problem.
Image
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by ny59giants »

I would go with 2 more Shokaku Class CVs, another 4 CAs, and the rest as DDs.
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by John 3rd »

The Sho-Kai's would be good and could deploy by mid-43. You could also go with the cheaper and faster addition of more Agano CLs...
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
Commander Stormwolf
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:11 pm

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by Commander Stormwolf »

True, but the most important issues was buying or paying the workers to do it. Im sure they have the resources to do it, just need to expand the plants that make them.


Ridiculous.

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf
Commander Stormwolf
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:11 pm

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by Commander Stormwolf »


japanese limits were materials

doubt they paid their korean or chinese factory laborers
"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf
Commander Stormwolf
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:11 pm

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by Commander Stormwolf »

You can't use steel or slipways to produce aircrafts.

Exactly.

what i have said since.. a long time

Please make a separate HI points system for AC and Ships/Tanks .. that way ridiculous ideas will be less common

like that japanese officer who suggested "let's melt down the yamato and use the steel to build warplanes" [8|]
"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf
User avatar
fodder
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Daytona Beach

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by fodder »

Again it looks like I have a little more drydock time to use. Hull No. 111 was not cancelled in March of 1942. Like the Shinano cnstruction was halted in march of 42. Hull 111 was not cancelled until Sept 42 when it was decided not to convert it to a carrier. The hull was broken up in 43 is the best info I've found so far. Don't know if that means they finished breaking it up in 43 or started to break it up then. For now the Yamato/hull No 111 drydock is available till the end of 12/42. This will make little differance to my build list. I'll probably just build another batch of sub chasers to fill in the extra time.
Image
User avatar
fodder
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Daytona Beach

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by fodder »

ORIGINAL: Insano

interesting you didn't build any more capital ships. 54 more DD would be VERY nice to have. However, early on I wouldn't put all my eggs in to the front line destroyer basket. Japan is also direly lacking in quality ASW escorts with long legs at wars start.

My .02, I've always liked the Shimushu class corvettes. I think the later Etorofu class escorts are basically the same as the Shimushu's. I just would have built more of these earlier. Also how about some more large and fast tankers?


I thought long about building Shimushu class Es. Their 12 month build time did not fit in well on the build list and the fact that they only start out carrying 12DCs giving them a ASW rating of 1 for the first year of the war were the reasons I didn't build any.

Tankers were not built by the navy, they were commercal ships.
Image
User avatar
fodder
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Daytona Beach

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by fodder »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Why not simply expand the historical DD Yards detailed in Kaigun?

Use those two big slipways for something 'fun.'
ORIGINAL: wdolson

Big slipways are too important to tie them up with smaller ships that can easily be built in smaller yards.

Bill

Using other shipyards was not an option here.
Image
User avatar
fodder
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Daytona Beach

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by fodder »

ORIGINAL: Puhis

fodder is looking for alternative use of 190.000 tons of steel and big shipyards. You can't use steel or slipways to produce aircrafts.

[;)]
Image
User avatar
fodder
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Daytona Beach

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by fodder »

As for all the other suggestions after the fact. Carriers were my first choice to build, but they really didn't go with the original purpose of this mod. I did try to work in CA, CS, CL, AO and SS on my build lists I have a legal pad with four pages front and back with build lists on them. In the end none of them matched up well against going with all DDs.
A pair of CAs equaled 18 DDs. A pair of CLs = 12 DDs. For me the best bang for the buck was the DDs.
Image
User avatar
Rising-Sun
Posts: 2141
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:27 am
Location: Clifton Park, NY
Contact:

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by Rising-Sun »

Well guess some of you dont use your common sense on war situations, like Stormwolf, what doesnt quite understand the details i am saying. Of course you cant build aircrafts out of battleship that made mostly from steels. But instead they should have focus on building aircrafts instead. You dont build what you want, without manpowers who make them as well resources. Believe it or not, Japan had good surplus of alluminums. In the last four years since war with China back in July 1937, Japan pay wages only for workers mostly in homeland. Not mention alluminum ores scatter out in south and north Korea at that time. So the workers is what make em, shipyards, plants, etcs.

So the way the game is laid out is a different story, go ahead and do what you like. Personally, with steels, she need alot of destroyers to protect her convoy of resources that shipped from Palembang and other important sites. Those carriers she had should be enough. Imagine having 200+ Akizuki Class, but that didnt take place sometime in 1942. After seatrial and shankdown cruise, she was pretty effective destroyer. Most older ships, like the Nagara, Tenryu classes can be scrapped to make useful destroyers. Those Yamato class as it is are Yamamoto Flagship as well Headquarter, so two should be enough.

Most islands after war broke out will be unstinkable carriers, all those carriers she was making should be plenty, if they use them right.
Image
Commander Stormwolf
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:11 pm

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by Commander Stormwolf »

In 1941, bauxite was mined in Arkansas, the Caribbean, and South America. Smaller amounts were produced in India. The only source under Japanese control at the start of the Pacific War was in the Palau Islands. However, Japan seized rich deposits in Malaya and the Netherlands East Indies early in the war. When these became inaccessible due to the submarine blockade later in the war, attempts were made to use aluminiferous shale from Manchuria, but this proved to be a poor source of aluminum, and production plummeted.

Japan had imported five to ten thousands tons of aluminum per year prior to 1934, but thereafter made strenuous efforts to increase domestic production. Abundant hydroelectric power aided the development of the aluminum smelting industry. Japanese production of aluminum in 1941 was 71,740 metric tons and peaked at 151,000 tons in 1944, while U.S. production was 309,100 tons in 1941 and peaked at 920,200 tons in 1943. At the time war broke out, Japan had stockpiled 254,740 tons of bauxite.

http://pwencycl.kgbudge.com/A/l/Aluminum.htm

for your information, it takes 4 tons of bauxite to make 1 ton of aluminum

Japanese had to import their bauxite from this island of Bintan (that one below singapore) during the war, and once they lost the philipines,
they were completely done fore (1945 they made a total of.. SEVEN kilotons of aluminum, versus NINE HUNDRED kilotons by the usa)


AE becomes ridiculous when the japanese player starts turning off ships to build ac, when that was impossible


back to the topic:

the Yamato battleships really had to be built, only a fool would stop the development of any particular weapon system in peacetime


but if you want to make a custom scenario, where they are not built

then only ships or tanks can be made from yamato's materials

probably carriers

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf
User avatar
fodder
Posts: 2159
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Daytona Beach

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by fodder »

Political: We must keep on building this weapons system even though all our neighbors concider it a hostel act, have allied against us, have put in place sanctions agaist us and have threated to attack us if we continue to build this weapon system.

Economic: We must keep on building this weapons system even though the cost over runs are unsustainable and will bankrupt the nation.

Technical: we must keep on building this weapons system even though recent advances have made it obsolete.

Need: We must keep on building this weapon system even though the original reason for building it no longer exists and when it is finished we will have absolutlly no use for it.

There are many more reasons why we must continue to build this weapons system, but most importantly we must keep on building this weapons sytem because:
ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf
only a fool would stop the development of any particular weapon system in peacetime


Only a _______ (you can fill in the blank yourself) would make the above statment.
Image
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: Commander Stormwolf

AE becomes ridiculous when the japanese player starts turning off ships to build ac, when that was impossible


I rarely (if ever) agreed with you but you are spot on here. As it's just all about HI in the game when it comes down to production (don't even want to comment on the possibility to stockpile HI) the game doesn't do a good job on simulating production. As it's not a simulation it got a Command & Conquer production system. The initial devs should have either gone with historic production numbers or should have tried to come up with a somewhat more realistic production system.
Commander Stormwolf
Posts: 1623
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:11 pm

RE: No Yamatos! What would you build?

Post by Commander Stormwolf »




if battleships were given the absolute maximum development effort,
they could have been superior to warplanes

if:

1) radar assisted rotary-cannon AA was available

2) reactive armor torpedo bulges

try to fly a torpedo plane today into a CIWS defended task force..


when assessing historical decisions, hindsight is the biggest advantage to the
so-called historian

the supremacy of warplanes was never demonstrated priort to the outbreak of war

all they had were experiments that stacked in favor of one or the other
(mitchell for example)



japanese did exactly what they were supposed to - develop all the technologies
then shift production to that weapon system that proved itself superior and cancel the others

and that's exactly what they did.. convert yamato #3, cancel yamato #4

unfortunately for them, their advantages in some fields (torpedoes, airframe designs,)

were migitated and outweighed by their disadvantages in other fields (industry, politics, AA artillery, tanks)


now if you want to say, the powers sign a treaty that says "no more battleships"
then probably all powers would have built more carriers / cruisers / etc instead of battleships
"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”