RE: RA 6.0 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message


DOCUP -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/14/2013 4:58:30 AM)

Couple of Ideas John

1: US could build up to treaty limits on its ships. I think it was short a few cruisers and DDs.

2: Modernize its BBs.

3: The US dosen't drag its feet with the Alaska construction and starts right off the bat in 38 or early 39. In response the Japanese starts building the B65s earlier (if its possible with the shipyards). With the Alaska's already built then the DDs that took up the Montana's spot can be built in the yards that had the Alaskas and the Montanas can be built. Do you get what I'm trying to say.

I have followed some of this threat but don't remember everything that you guys have done. So I'm sorry if I have repeated anything that has been mentioned from before.

Or for some odd flavor have BB 49 Washington or one of the Lexington BCs built as a BattleCarrier instead of scrapped. It could be like a CS ship for the US. Could also do this for some of the scrapped Japanese BBs or BCs I know BCVs sucked during the war but in 1920s who knew it would suck. Be kinda cool to see one of them for the US. Justs some ideas. Yes I am odd.




John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/14/2013 4:18:48 PM)

A lot of those suggestions are used in Perfect War. The single most interesting ship design I remember is the hybrid CA--CV. Fascinating possibility...




DOCUP -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/14/2013 5:42:02 PM)

Yea, I know couldn't think of anything else.  Was this question towards only the navy or all of it?




derhexer -> Reluctance question about backups (was RE: RA 6.0 (4/14/2013 7:10:26 PM)

I'm reluctant to do this. The Readme sheet says, "In order to do this right, and retain the capability of playing scenarios with the Stock Map, you are going to have to save some game files in a ‘backup’ folder. " How will I know when a scenario is a stock scenario? What will happen if I try to play a stock scenario with the Extended Map? And what files do I move where?

Thanks[&:]




FatR -> RE: RA 5.4 (4/15/2013 11:48:31 AM)

To avoid continued confusion and data errors, associated with several people working on one mod, I decided to write down a detailed changelog this time. Take a look at the part of it that (if no one disagrees with the changes) will equally apply to the Reluctant Admiral and the Perfect War mods:



SECOND-CLASS TORPEDO SHIPS

(1)20 old 2nd-class destroyers of Momi and Wakatake classes are converted to numbered patrol boats, undergoing a major reconstruction (using old AA weapons removed from first-line ships). The PB-51 class of patrol craft is added to the scenario. Armament includes 1x120/45 3 YT, 1x2 40/61 T91, 2x4 13.2 T93, 1x2 53cm torpedoes, 48 DCs. Speed 25 knots, endurance 5000(14).

Wakatake (PB-51), Kuretake (PB-52), Sanae (PB-53), Asagao (PB-54), Fuyo (PB-55), Karukaya (PB-56), Yugao (PB-57), Hasu (PB-58), Kuri (PB-59), Tsuga (PB-60), Nire (PB-61), Take (PB-62), Kaki (PB-63), Ashi (PB-64), Sumire (PB-65), Hishu (PB-66), Kiku (PB-67), Susuki (PB-68), Tsuta (PB-69), Yomogi (PB-70) are included in this class.

Kaya, Nashi - decomissioned 1940 IRL, become PB-71 and PB-72 (slots 416-417).

(1.2)Added upgrade options for those destroyers of Momi and Wakatake classes that start the war converted to APDs.

(2)2 old destroyers of Momo class begin the war as second-rate escorts. Not reconstructed beyond replacing cannons with DCs and AAMGs.

(3)The Tomozuru class is renamed to Chidori class, for historical accuracy. All TBs remain classified as TBs, insread of Es, as they retain their torpedo armament.

(4)120/45 guns on unupgraded Minekaze and Kamikaze classes are changed from the 10YT (DP) to the historically correct 3YT (non-DP), so that these ships have practically no AA potential at the beginning of the war, as they should.

(5)6 old Minekaze-class DDs are convered to APDs in 1941, instead of 2 (Tachikaze to Nadakaze, slots 317-322), to compensate for absence of Momi/Wakatake APDs. These ships undergo a thorough reconstruction.




ESCORT SHIPS

(1)The only historical class of escorts in the scenario is Shimushu. All other escort classes presented in the scenario are derived from Sokuten/Hirashima minelayer class, rather than Shimushu class. Also, all escort hulls differ only in their degree of simplification and adaptation for rapid building techniques, no building of different-sized ships.

(2)The first class of new escorts is Matsuwa class, first ships laid down in the last months of 1941 and entering service in late 1942. Consists of 12 ships (slots 353-364). 725 tons of standard displacement; initial armament of 2x120/45 3YT (non-DP guns), 2x3 25/60 T96, 60 DCs; Speed 20 knots, Radius 4000 (14).

(3)The second class is Miyake class, first ships laid down in second half of 1942 and entering service in second half of 1943. The slightly improved variant of the previous class, the main differences are replacement of old 120/45 3YT guns with 10YT DP guns and 120 DCs. Consists of 10 ships (slots 365 - 374).

(4)The third class is Okinawa class, built through 1943 to 1945, with the first ships entering service at the end of 1943. A simplified and improved design, with slightly inreased fuel storage. 730 tons of standard displacement; initial armament of 2x120/45 10YT, 3x3 25/60 T96, 120 DCs; Speed 20 knots, Radius 4500 (14). 48 ships (slots 375-412).

(5)C and D class escorts are using the same hull and basic armament as Okinawa class, but less powerful and simpler to make engines. Armament is the same as IRL. Speed is slightly higher, while endurance is lower. Consists of 157 ships (slots 416-546, 613-622 and 6981-6999).

(6)Only 10 subchasers of the Ch-28 class are ordered (Ch-28 through Ch-37, those laid down before the adoption of the Circle Perimeter program), and the concept of the large subchaser is abandoned thereafter, to save manpower and resources for construction of large escorts and destroyers.

(7)3-ship historical Ch-251 class is added to the scenario (slots 8337-8339).



AMPHIBIOUS TRANSPORT SHIPS

(1)4-ship historical Kibitsu Maru LSD class is added to the scenario, arriving from December 1943 to 1945 (slots 2991-2994).

(2)16-ship historical SS LSI/LST class is added to the scenario. The number of ships is lower (16, slots 7385-7399), but they are available early in 1942-early 1943.

(3)Type SB (previously T-101) LSI/LST class is available from summer of 1943, and the number of ships in it is increased to 95 (slots 7441-7499 and 8575-8599) as production contunues throughout 1945.

(4)The number of Type 1 LSI/APDs is increased to 50 (slots 7411-7440 and 8550-8596), as the fist ship become available in mid-1943 and production continues until the end of the scenario.




MINE WARFARE SHIPS

(1)3-ship Ajiro minelayer class (slot 2898 and 14407-08) is added to the scenario (IRL this class consisted of 1 ship, not represented in stock), arriving in late 1943-early 1944.

(2)12-ship Kamishima minelayer/minesweeper (convertable both ways) class (slots 14410-21) is added to the scenario for late 1944 and 1945 (IRL this class also consisted of only one ship).

(3)2-ship Eijo minelayer class (historical) is added to scenario (slots 2899-2900).

(4)W-19 destroyer minesweeper class consists of only 4 ships. 13 more ships starting from W-23 are not ordered, with priority being given to escort construction and, later, smaller minelayers on a standardized hull.

(5)W-101 minesweeper class (historical ships made from captured British hulls) is added to the scenario (slots 624-625).

(6)Many small changes to flak upgrades are introduced for practically every class.





AUXILARIES, GUNBOATS, MERCHANTS, ETC

(1)The old former cruiser Asahi (slot 14405), reconstructed as a submarine tender, is included in the scenario.

(2)Three very old Japanese cruisers (Yakumo, Izumo, Iwate, slots 14402-4) are included in the scenario as patrol gunboats. Just don't expect them to participate in naval combat...



GENERAL

(1)In-game fuel loads on various cargo ships, auxilaries, escorts, and mine warfare ships are reduced by 1/3, to compensate for the reduction of their cargo loads compared to stock. These ships effectively take less fuel to travel the same distance. In some cases, where data regarding historical fuel loads is available, it is used instead of the normal reduction, as the game seems to burden Japanese auxilaries and small ships with excessive fuel consumption anyway.

(2)Many upgrades are tweaked. In general, the number of AAMG increased on many classes, but is often lower than in stock before upgrades.




FatR -> RE: RA 5.4 (4/15/2013 2:59:07 PM)

And regarding PT boats for both mods: I propose that Japanese buy this German export design (developed for China IRL),
http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_mb_s30.htm

both a few boats, and a license/documentation for their production. The justification is interest in small and relatively cheap motor boat for outlying base protection, that can execute night torpedo attacks on enemy forces at open sea, and base all of their PT wartime boat construction on it.

The number of PT boat constucted would be much lower than in stock, though - engines on this little walnut-shell were more powerful than on average Japanese escort and four times more powerful than on most of RL Japanese PT boats. However, this design will have an advantage of not being totally useless (in the game Japanese PT boats actually can accomplish stuff sometimes, but that's more of an artifact of game mechanics).




John 3rd -> RE: RA 5.4 (4/15/2013 4:31:37 PM)

Like the first Post. Need to think about the second.




Symon -> RE: RA 5.4 (4/15/2013 8:22:54 PM)

Think you guys are doing things right. But, then again, Irish lamb Stew; utter yumm. You really need the bay leaves and cardomom and that slash of malt. Just remember the rule when you are using 'beverages' to flavor your recipe: A slash for the recipe and a slash for yourself. That keeps ya from using the 'cheap' stuff. Anything that you won't drink has no business going into your food.

Ok, I'll do the art Stan wants. No brainer.

Just talking about lamb because my meat market turned me on to 'fresh' Colorado lamb legs. A bit more marbelized than the NZ guys, but when you factor in the freeze thing, it's pretty darn close. Tasty, tasty; and I am one of those people who like mutton. So, take what you will. I bought a big boneless leg and made a roast, souvlakis, rounds, and the leftovers are going into a stew. Golly, I do like lamb.

JWE




Don Bowen -> RE: RA 5.4 (4/15/2013 8:30:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Think you guys are doing things right. But, then again, Irish lamb Stew; utter yumm. You really need the bay leaves and cardomom and that slash of malt. Just remember the rule when you are using 'beverages' to flavor your recipe: A slash for the recipe and a slash for yourself. That keeps ya from using the 'cheap' stuff. Anything that you won't drink has no business going into your food.

Ok, I'll do the art Stan wants. No brainer.

Just talking about lamb because my meat market turned me on to 'fresh' Colorado lamb legs. A bit more marbelized than the NZ guys, but when you factor in the freeze thing, it's pretty darn close. Tasty, tasty; and I am one of those people who like mutton. So, take what you will. I bought a big boneless leg and made a roast, souvlakis, rounds, and the leftovers are going into a stew. Golly, I do like lamb.

JWE



Try some lamb stew with Berbere and some Ethiopian Lentils on the side. This is what beer was invented for.

Please share any icons you do with good old Don (well, at least old Don).




Symon -> RE: RA 5.4 (4/15/2013 9:08:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Try some lamb stew with Berbere and some Ethiopian Lentils on the side. This is what beer was invented for.

Please share any icons you do with good old Don (well, at least old Don).

Any excuse I can get, Bro. Ethiopian Lentils? Are they tasty different from Indian Lentils? I mean, I make a wicked Dal Makhani. And I kinda like Kingfisher beer. Most of the folks, here, serve that Shiva brand, that tastes like recycled gasoline. Woof !!

You own all the art I do. Anything I do comes the way of 'good old Don'.

Ciao. John




DOCUP -> RE: RA 5.4 (4/15/2013 10:00:45 PM)

John

What CA are you thinking of using for a CA CV hybrid?  Are you thinking of keeping any of the main guns or removing them.  What about AC capacity?




John 3rd -> RE: RA 5.4 (4/15/2013 10:15:23 PM)

Not sure. It sure was a weird looking ship. Need to find my drawings of it in a book somewhere...




John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/15/2013 10:17:02 PM)

Hey RED LANCER! I haven't seen your name pop-up in a long time. How are you Sir?




DOCUP -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/15/2013 10:57:34 PM)

I found it they were called Aircraft Cruisers. Several different types were thought up but none made it.

Link Yes I know its wiki but it will give you and idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_cruiser




John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/15/2013 11:00:08 PM)

I was just LOOKING there! Well done. I've got it in a book that I need to find on the shelves...




DOCUP -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/15/2013 11:08:24 PM)

sorry wront link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_deck_cruiser




John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/15/2013 11:20:18 PM)

Found it. Warships After Washington has the Info.




DOCUP -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/15/2013 11:27:06 PM)

Wish I had the books you guys had.  But not a bad looking ship.  US could really use that in the early war.  If used correctly.




John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/15/2013 11:28:26 PM)

The book has it on page 304 (for anyone who has the book). It is an excellent resource.




John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/15/2013 11:33:56 PM)

Displacement of 12,000 T, 30 Kt, carried 24 planes, 3x3 6" Turrets superimposed on the bow, and 8x1 5"/25 guns.

Tentative plans were for 12 Fighters and 12 DB.

Classified as a CL for Washington Naval Treaty purposes. The US toyed with the idea of building one or two in 1930...




Don Bowen -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/16/2013 1:01:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Displacement of 12,000 T, 30 Kt, carried 24 planes, 3x3 6" Turrets superimposed on the bow, and 8x1 5"/25 guns.

Tentative plans were for 12 Fighters and 12 DB.

Classified as a CL for Washington Naval Treaty purposes. The US toyed with the idea of building one or two in 1930...






[image]local://upfiles/757/802B53F662B943A08034DBAAC3732425.jpg[/image]


OK, now that I've helped with the main subject, I feel justified in posting: http://www.myrecipes.com/recipe/spicy-ethiopian-red-lentil-stew-10000001981726/

I have a better recipe. John (or anyone else) can PM me for it.




John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/16/2013 1:41:26 AM)

THAT is it!




John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/16/2013 1:50:30 AM)

This is what I wrote in the other thread:

We could allow for 1 or 2 built and seen as failures. Could we make them able to carry just fighters in 1941-42? Imagine a plane complement of 18-24. Would they have an organic air group/squadron OR would they be perfect for carrying a Marine Fighter Squadron?

As soon as possible we could allow for a conversion to a CVL possibility. If the player like having it then it can remain the same and have an upgrade path where more AA is added as the war progresses.

Wouldn't this be an interesting addition in the Philippines on Dec 7th. A refugee ship sent to the graveyard of ships: the Asiatic Fleet.

Just a thought...




FatR -> RE: RA 5.4 (4/16/2013 11:31:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Ok, I'll do the art Stan wants. No brainer.


Much thanks in advance! If Jonn 3rd will agree with my idea regarding PT boats, we'll need a piece of art for them too:

http://www.navypedia.org/ships/germany/ger_mb_s30.htm
http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&idtrida=875




FatR -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/16/2013 11:34:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

This is what I wrote in the other thread:

We could allow for 1 or 2 built and seen as failures. Could we make them able to carry just fighters in 1941-42? Imagine a plane complement of 18-24. Would they have an organic air group/squadron OR would they be perfect for carrying a Marine Fighter Squadron?

As soon as possible we could allow for a conversion to a CVL possibility. If the player like having it then it can remain the same and have an upgrade path where more AA is added as the war progresses.

Wouldn't this be an interesting addition in the Philippines on Dec 7th. A refugee ship sent to the graveyard of ships: the Asiatic Fleet.

Just a thought...




I'd say 18 planes, with organic squadrons for them becoming available in late 1942. Before that Allied players will need to use Marine planes on board, or just convert them immediately, if he doesn't have big early plans for his carrier force.




John 3rd -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/16/2013 2:49:50 PM)

OK. ON differing subjects:

1. FatR: Go ahead on all fronts. Let us see what we get.

2. I think we make the aircraft cruiser--just one--as an experimental ship that does not prove out in the 30s. Consider it like a bad Ranger.

3. We need a suitable name for it.

4. How about we IT transporting a Marine Fighter Squadron somewhere when the war begins??? Thought on that?




Red Lancer -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/17/2013 8:37:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hey RED LANCER! I haven't seen your name pop-up in a long time. How are you Sir?



I'm fine - been working on WitE but pop by occasionally to check on how my other friends are doing.




MateDow -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/17/2013 8:23:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


3. We need a suitable name for it.



Charlotte - This was the new name (renamed from North Carolina in 1920) for the cruiser that conducted the first catapult tests for the US Navy. Has an aviation background, but still fits the naming scheme of cities. It also has the advantage of not being a name that was assigned to a later cruiser.






Terminus -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/17/2013 9:21:22 PM)

Did get assigned to a PF in mid-43, but that's probably less of an issue.




ny59giants_MatrixForum -> RE: RA 6.0 (4/17/2013 10:31:58 PM)

Name it Gettysburg or Harper's Ferry since most were name after American battles. I've decided to use some early president's name for the American CVs




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.0625