Matrix Games Forums

Recruiting Privates for Germany at War: Barbarossa 1941!Ageod takes you back to the Civil War Battle Academy iPad and PC 50 per cent off!Close Combat Last Stand Arnhem v5.60.53 update Allied Corps Walkthrough playlist and AARConflict of Heroes: Ghost Divisions Released!Pandora Beta Playthrough VideosGermany at War: Barbarossa 1941 Announced!Great Battles Medieval coming to your tablet with a 50 per cent off launch sale!Matrix Games / Slitherine / AGEOD are recruiting AGAIN!		 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Air Groups

 
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: Air Groups Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Air Groups - 3/31/2010 2:32:13 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2489
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Air groups for the Navy are done. In fact, I'm ready to send my work as soon as we solve the weapon question and any other possible questions about the changes.

By the way: the preliminary list of changes for Navy planes:

- No Jack.
- Changes to Zero line, as discussed above. There is a separate line of land-based Zero fighters which get armor, heavier armament and Kinsei engines earlier, at the expense of range and maneurability. Land-based and carrier lines do not convergeAlso, high-altitude performance of Ha-35-powered Zeros is reduced, as in the vanilla Zeros past A6M2 actually performs quite well at higher bands. Also note, that this imposes production difficulties, as the land-based line switches to Mitshubish Ha-33 on 43/1 and the carrier line on 43/8, but engine factories do not upgrade. A6M2's upgrade path goes to A6M5 and so on, Sen Baku -> A6M7 line has its own small plant (with PDU On smart players will probably repurpose it, but with PDU Off a number of late-war airgroups are forced onto these planes).
- D4Y, B6N, G4M lines receive some acceleration, mostly by 1-2 months. G4M2 is accelerated the most, by half a year.
- A7M2 is accelerated to 44/11. A7M3-J appears on 45/4 and 6x20mm-carrying carrier capable A7M3 on 45/9. A7M2 upgrades to A7M3. A7M3-J is not as prominent in the role of the end upgrade of land-based Navy airgroups with PDU off. A7M3 and J6M1 replace it for some units.
- Armored B7A3 is introduced on 45/7.
- Armored D4Y5 is introduced on 45/5. D4Y3 upgrades to D4Y5 and D4Y4 (a purely kamikaze plane in RL) has its own small factory.
- Recon planes and Pete get camera devices.
- G3M4-Q is introduced on 43/4. It eventually gets the H-6 radar and MAD.
- G8N1 Rita is introduced on 45/4. Two units can accept it with PDU Off.
- J6M1 (Ki-83) appears on 45/9. IIRC, three groups have these planes as their end upgrade with PDU Off.
- N1K4-A is introduced on 45/5. It has 2 HMGs+4 20mms and loses to Sam in speed, but wins in maneurability. Two airgroups on carriers conmpleted in summer of 45 come with them.
- Yasukuni (Ki-67-Ib) is available from 44/11. Three aigroups can upgrade to them with PDU Off.
- Minor changes and tweaks (like changing bomb placement on D4Y to "Internal"), as described in the Army planes part, but more numerous.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 181
RE: Air Groups - 3/31/2010 3:25:20 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Stanislav--Where are you at in the project?  Sounds like you're making solid progress. 

Juan--How about you?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 182
RE: Air Groups - 3/31/2010 4:55:14 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Didn't know about the rimless cartridge. Can you propose any alternative solution? Right now I can think only of adopting some of the Army's twin rifle-caliber MG design as universal.


I found a remark in a book by I.V.Hogg about the development of the Machine Gun. He says that the IJA introduced the 7.7mm cartridge in 1932 in three different versions: rimmed, semi-rimmed, and unrimmed. Now I don't know if all these versions were actually produced in parallel, this would have been another home-made logistical nightmare, considering that the IJA never managed to phase out the 6.5mm weapons. Infantry MGs seem to have used rimmed cartridges, at any rate.

So I see two ways of determining the rifle-calibre MG problem: either assume that there was already a rimless 7.7 cartridge in production and go with a rechambered MG15 copy (disregarding the propensity of Japanese arms engineers to botch such conversions - when they tried to improve on their pre-war Hotchkiss infantry MG they wound up with the Taisho 11 that needed oiled cartridges) or avoid that kind of headache, go with a straight copy of the MG15 and start manufacturing the 7.92X57 cartridge for the Air arm only.

Here are the rifle-caliber MGs actually used by Japan:




Notice that the Army and the Navy used different 7.7mm cartridges; if I interpret the table correctly, the Army had semi-rimmed ammo, and the Navy rimmed cartridges.

quote:


The problem is, Type 3 is, supposedly, a rechambered Browning design as well. So, I'm not sure if your table is correct.

Note, though, that at least most HMG-armed Zeros envisioned so far carry all armament in the wings.

Ho-103 instead of Ho-5 needed to be synchronized too and had the same problem.



You're correct, the Ho-103, Ho-5, and the Navy Type 3 were all Browning derivatives, and lost about a third of their ROF by synchronization.

Personally I think the best bet for HMG would have been to push the Navy Type 2, the MG131 copy, as it offered slightly better performance than the Ho-103 and didn't suffer nearly as much as the Brownings from synchronization, an important consideration for the Ki-43, at least. There was a reason why the Ki-43 wasn't switched to a twin Ho-103 armament. Otherwise, don't let anything fire through the propeller.

That also goes for the Oerlikon-derived cannon of the Navy. I think it would have been impossible to synchronize them at all, due to their working principle. When the Fw 190 was armed with the MG FF/M, the cannon were mounted in the outer wing positions exclusively for just that reason.






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by mikemike -- 3/31/2010 5:10:59 PM >

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 183
RE: Air Groups - 3/31/2010 5:14:32 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		FatR--Our Postings crossed in the ether. 

Looks like solid, good work.  What was the final decisions/choices regarding the George line?  I see mention above but not too much.  Like the 'clean-up' on device omissions and missed stuff (internal, cameras, etc...).

Are there anymore aircraft that you need Red Lancer to work on?

MikeMike---Thanks for the research contributions and help on the MG questions...



_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 184
RE: Air Groups - 3/31/2010 5:28:14 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

I know, but in this mod Kinsei is produced in much greater numbers, so that the decision to install it on Ki-61 airframe might be cooked up much earlier.


You mean scrapping the Ki-61-II and going straight to the Ki-100? Technically that would certainly have been possible. I just don't think that it would have occurred to anyone. They already had the Ki-84 in production for medium-altitude operations. The Ki-61-II was intended as the high-altitude fighter in the equipment mix. It was just the failure of the Ha-140 that forced the Army to look for an alternate engine to avoid having several hundred half-finished fighters sitting around. The performance of the Kinsei conversion (pleasantly) surprised everybody, it was, to use the Russian term, a typical frontal fighter. But they still didn't have a high-altitude fighter, because all the effort to build turbosupercharged versions of the Kinsei or other engines didn't result in series production.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 185
RE: Air Groups - 3/31/2010 7:13:19 PM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline 		Sorry, just noticed: MG 15 clones are of course only for flexible installations, for fixed installation you would have to copy the MG 17 which is related but not identical; it fires faster (about 1000 rpm in a synchronized installation) and can handle belted ammo which the MG 15 couldn't, it used 75-round magazines.

Of course, there is also the MG 81 which was available from 1940, firing 1400-1600 rpm, belted ammo. This was derived from the infantry MG 34 which was notoriously difficult to manufacture, so maybe Japanese factories couldn't have handled the MG 81 satisfactorily.

BTW, found a quote by Tony Williams. He said that the Browning M2, with a normal ROF of 750-850 rpm, was slowed down by synchronization to 400-450 rpm, so my estimate of reduction by a third may well be optimistic. The MG 131 (electrically fired in German service, even in flexible mounts) went down from 900 to 800 rpm.

< Message edited by mikemike -- 3/31/2010 7:28:59 PM >

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 186
RE: Air Groups - 4/1/2010 9:14:16 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2489
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Japanese tried to copy MG 17 too, but, apparently, were unable to manufacture springs that could sustain long bursts, so complete switch to 7.92 was hardly possible. (Sigh.) As this mod is limited in scope, I now think that the most plausibe decision that still can benefit IJN in this are is to adopt Army's 7.7x58 catridge and type 98 MG, then attempt to move to HMGs as soon as possible. Type 98/Type 1 offered considerable improvements, but Japanese industry was clearly unable to make enough of them in time. Also, it added one more circle of logistical hell and I want to simplify things whenever possible, so we can have some justification for improvements. Also, twin 7.7 Army's flexible MGs can be used on some planes, particularly two-engine bombers, to boost defences, until a 12.7mm flexible is ready.

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 187
RE: Air Groups - 4/1/2010 9:26:29 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2489
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

FatR--Our Postings crossed in the ether. 

Looks like solid, good work.  What was the final decisions/choices regarding the George line?  I see mention above but not too much. 

N1K1-J (43/7) and N1K2-J (44/8) are as in vanilla. N1K5-J (45/6) uses Mitsubishi Ha-43. Max speed 384, maneuver 27, climb 3110, good high-altitude performance. N1K4-A (45/4) still uses Nakajima Ha-45. Max speed 372, MVR 29, Climb 2730. Both planes carry 2x12.7+4x20mm armament. Earlier models upgrade to N1K5-J.

Also about devices - Nakajima Ha-45 and Mitsubishi Ha-43 are accelerated to 43/7 and 44/11 respectively. Forgot to mention this.




(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 188
Perspective - 4/1/2010 3:02:33 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		That answers the George questions!  Thanks.  I think your 'keep it simple stupid' approach with the MG makes solid sense.  Going with the twin mounts while the industry spins up to create a reliable HMG is a good idea.

How do things look from an overall perspective?  Are you reasonably happy with the design/upgrade paths and do you think they match what we talked about in the original Thread?  Certainly SEEMS to but you have the material right in front of you. 

This whole thing, in many ways, is going to create a highly different Japanese Naval Force structure in late-42 and 43.  It will be a fresh and unique Mod for people to play along the reasonable 'what if' line of thinking.  The industry will be be retooled, we're adding a few new ships, while taking out a couple, changing the Naval AF, and then some slight modifications to the Naval LCUs should create a different feel that isn't TOO FAR out there (unlike the Juan Mod Michael and I are playing). 

I hope we actually get some interest in playing it.  Michael and I are ready to go once this is finished.  Do we have anyone else interested in trying it out when done?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 189
Juan? - 4/1/2010 3:04:21 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Mister Juan?  Are you out there Sir?  Haven't heard from you in a few days.  How are things going?

Are you trapped under a large pile of paper?  Data?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 190
RE: Juan? - 4/1/2010 3:10:51 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 748
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Mister Juan?  Are you out there Sir?  Haven't heard from you in a few days.  How are things going?

Are you trapped under a large pile of paper?  Data?



Hey,

Sorry for the belated update - I've had a busy week to put it mildly. However, I do have most of the ammo changes done - everything above DE/DD except the Dutch ships and the Japanese DDs. The latter is just a case of not enough time to get them finished, along with slightly conflicting records on their ammo loadouts - the former is a problem as I do not have any ammo data for Dutch ships, so will probably just extrapolate from RN values.

I have made no changes to devices yet as it seems there are others who wish to do so too and dont want to cause duplication - so I will send you the ship class data ASAP (tommorow evening most likely), and then wait for the device changes to be finalised before I make my changes to them.

_____________________________


Alternate WNT Scenarios AE
AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 191
RE: Juan? - 4/1/2010 3:25:32 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		By devise changes, I assume you mean what Stansilav is taking about?  Do you guys need to exchange files?  Don't want one's worek cancelled by the other!  That would be sad and depressing.

FatR---Have you made devise changes by the sounds of it?  Can you contact Juan directly?

Juan--Don't worry about those Dutch Stats.  I'll have the ships sunk within days of the war starting! 


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 192
RE: Juan? - 4/1/2010 3:32:39 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 748
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

By devise changes, I assume you mean what Stansilav is taking about?  Do you guys need to exchange files?  Don't want one's worek cancelled by the other!  That would be sad and depressing.

FatR---Have you made devise changes by the sounds of it?  Can you contact Juan directly?

Juan--Don't worry about those Dutch Stats.  I'll have the ships sunk within days of the war starting! 



Well, from what I've read on here there are some plans to consolidate some of the aircraft devices and possibly change the caliber of an MG or two? I may be wrong as I've only skim read the last few pages.

My own device changes concern correcting the accuracy values for some of the DP weapons (especially 10cm/65), along with some changes to the Penetration values of larger guns - the values will be roughly what they are in my mod. If you want specifics, just ask.

As said I've not touched the device file yet, and wont have to for now. So I'll just add my bit there when the others have finished with it.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 4/1/2010 3:33:27 PM >

_____________________________


Alternate WNT Scenarios AE
AltWNT Mk2 Concept Thread

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 193
RE: Juan? - 4/1/2010 3:43:05 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6099
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I'll have the ships sunk within days of the war starting!


Disregard this statement. He was off his medications while at Las Vegas over the weekend.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 194
RE: Juan? - 4/1/2010 4:07:51 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Medications?  Didn't need any!  I was WELL lubricated....



_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 195
Forward Thinking - 4/1/2010 5:36:06 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Was sitting here looking at Scenario One and starting to put together a 'to do' list for the Mod once everything is finished by FatR and Juan.  This is what I've got so far:

1.  Industry Additions---I know that FatR has gotten engines and aircraft handled so that is taken care of so I'll handle the base size changes, new shipyards, HI, and LI add-ons.  This should be simple and pretty quick.

2.  LCUs---Will go through all the Naval LCUs and add engineers and vehicles as decided in the earlier Thread.  This will be tedious but simple.  Will then add two large new Base Forces, 2 new Air Flotillas, and a new Air Fleet (13th? or 12th?).  These units reflect the increased Japanese training program and preparedness for the war.  They start in the Home Isles and are deployable.

Will also move a few of the deployed units from their traditional starting locations to new areas.

3.  Air Groups---Once Stan is finished, I'll create the new units described in the earlier Thread, change all starting Daitai to appropriate plane model with old planes moved to pools, and see to the CVs starting at full strength in all aircraft.

Will also slightly increased the Naval Air Training Program.

4.  Fleet---Will work on an alternate deployment of the Fleet, move some TF, and place the few new ships that are ready to go due to the Mod. 

Anything I miss???


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/1/2010 5:45:29 PM >

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 196
Shokaku's details - 4/1/2010 6:29:23 PM   
Jan Masterson


Posts: 907
Joined: 3/8/2006
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		Hello John and gang,

reading this thread with a strong interest, I noticed that the Shokaku's cruise speed and endurance differed from what I'm used to read, though I'm not sure that it does really matter or isn't simply a concession to the game's mechanics.

Anyway, I took a look at my books and one of my favorite source about Japanese carriers, "Samouraï sur porte-avions" by Michel Ledet (because it's based on actual Japanese archives), quote, for the Shokaku, 9700 nm at 18 knots, then (not sure when is "then" though) 12251 nm.

The Zuikaku is quoted at the same base endurance and "then" at 11789 nm.

About the Fuel load, Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946 quote 4100t of Oil (not sure if it's exactly equal to Fuel).

The same reference also quote, about the Armor, a maximum thickness on the deck of 129.54 millimeters (5.1 inch) for the magazines, the machinery being protected by 99.06 millimeters (3.9 inch) of armor.

Now, the deck itself wasn't armored so I'm not sure how to handle it.

Cheers and keep up the good work!

< Message edited by Jan Masterson -- 4/1/2010 7:12:38 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 197
RE: Shokaku's details - 4/1/2010 8:36:10 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Hello Jan!  I wrote you back through email.  Did you not get the note?

We chose to slow the CV's speed due to increased tonnage with no boost in engine power.  Will check the endurance thought.  I THINK the armor is correct with the initial Sho/Zui.  Will have to check that and make sure.

Greatly appreciate the thoughts and contribution. 

Got any more?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Jan Masterson)
Post #: 198
RE: Shokaku's details - 4/1/2010 9:21:08 PM   
Jan Masterson


Posts: 907
Joined: 3/8/2006
From: Belgium
Status: offline 		Hello John,

the email was probably flushed out along the metric ton of spams I receive daily, sorry.

The speed I was referring to is the Cruise speed which is 15 knots in the official DB. However, since it seems to be an across the board standard cruise speed, it may be a founded variation from the references.

The reduced Max speed of your Shokaku-kai looks judicious to me too.

I don't have any more remarks for now but I could check the Fuel loads or similar details if it can help.



Edit: about the Naval Air Training Program, in the book "Zero" Masatake Okumiya explain that when he became instructor at the Kasumigaura Aviation Corps in January 1940, the Tai-i Takekastu Tanaka suggested a plan for the training of 15 000 pilots. This plan was rejected by their hierarchy because it was such disproportionate with the usual planning.

However, in August 1941 the IJN planned the training of 15 000 pilots per year, a plan that won't produce result until two or four year later as Okumiya estimated.


Also, though I'm not sure it could be relevant in WITP, he does also write that during the training for the invasion of SRA, the best IJN's strategist and pilots were gathered at Formosa, where they worked hard to improve their plan and focused on the endurance of their Zero. Eventually they were able to fly it for 12 hours, lowering their fuel consumption to 80 liters per hour, Saburo Sakai reaching figure as low as 68 liters per hour.



< Message edited by Jan Masterson -- 4/1/2010 9:51:59 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 199
RE: Shokaku's details - 4/1/2010 9:43:00 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		We're probably good since the only really NEW ships are the two BC.  Everything else is simply follow-on ships of an established class.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Jan Masterson)
Post #: 200
Questions on LCUs - 4/1/2010 11:26:07 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Plinked around the Editor some this afternoon and have some questions.  I expect these to be easy-to-answer but want to ask:

1.  If I want to add a device into a Class of LCU (Say ALL Air Flotilla) is there any way to do that?  Do I have to make the change one Air Flot at a time?  Hope this is easy because--to me--it is just like ship classes and then ships OF the class.

2.  I want to add (say) a Bulldozer to an Con Btn.  Is that simply a vehicle?  What does it go under?  How does one add it on? 

3.  To the above question:  if I simply add HI to refect the creation of several small vehicle plants does that work for steamshovels, rollers, and bulldozers? 

4.  Adding Engineers to a unit is interesting:
a.  A Jpn Con Btn has 'x' number of Engineers (usually in groups of 12).  Are these squads of 12?
b.  For the view of base/AF/Fort construction I assume that I use standard engineers and not combat engineers.  Are there other choices?

This are probably STUPID questions but it is a learning threadso I thought I'd publicly ask.

Thanks! 

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 201
Pilot Pools - 4/1/2010 11:29:22 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Along the LCU line of questions, I have a few regarding Pilot Pools:

1.  WHERE do I find this in the Editor?

2.  When I do find it, I want to slightly increase number of 'students' and their final percentage upon graduation.  Is there any secrets here for doing this?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 202
Ship Deployment - 4/1/2010 11:46:16 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		The start of the game features an addition of 3 warships to the Imperial Fleet:  CVL Shoho and CLs Agano and Yahagi.  I've got several thoughts for where I will start these ships at:

1.  CV Ryujo (48 planes), CVL Zuiho (30 Planes), and CVL Shoho (30 Planes) form CarDiv3 (in this case Mini-KB) in Babeldaup (sp?).  They have Yahagi with them as part of the Screen.

2.  CL Agano starts with KB instead of the old CL assigned there as normal.  That CL moves down to the Marshalls.

3.  Will go through the DDs in the KB and with Mini-KB to make sure they are all the latest design for their DP 5" guns.

4.  Will re-arrange the TFs so convoys can be formed with movement bonus at Tokyo, Osaka, and Nagasaki.  Allows for a lift of troops, supply, and/or fuel to be taking place when the game begins.  HR should stipulate that these CANNOT be Amphib TF.

5.  The Battle Fleet will begin deployed with Nagato/Mutsu at CRB, Ise/Hyuga at Babeldaup, and Fuso/Yamashiro in Hiroshima.

6.  May move starting dispositions of SS a little too...

Comments?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 203
RE: Pilot Pools - 4/1/2010 11:49:59 PM   
Jan Masterson


Posts: 907
Joined: 3/8/2006
From: Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Along the LCU line of questions, I have a few regarding Pilot Pools:

1.  WHERE do I find this in the Editor?

2.  When I do find it, I want to slightly increase number of 'students' and their final percentage upon graduation.  Is there any secrets here for doing this?



1. click on the Scenario button in the Toolbar, then click on the Pilots button on the lower left area of the editor window.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 204
RE: Pilot Pools - 4/2/2010 12:09:59 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jan Masterson


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Along the LCU line of questions, I have a few regarding Pilot Pools:

1.  WHERE do I find this in the Editor?

2.  When I do find it, I want to slightly increase number of 'students' and their final percentage upon graduation.  Is there any secrets here for doing this?



1. click on the Scenario button in the Toolbar, then click on the Pilots button on the lower left area of the editor window.


Figured it was somewhere in that window but didn't look thoroughly enough. THANKS!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Jan Masterson)
Post #: 205
RE: Questions on LCUs - 4/2/2010 12:17:37 AM   
Jan Masterson


Posts: 907
Joined: 3/8/2006
From: Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Plinked around the Editor some this afternoon and have some questions.  I expect these to be easy-to-answer but want to ask:

1.  If I want to add a device into a Class of LCU (Say ALL Air Flotilla) is there any way to do that?  Do I have to make the change one Air Flot at a time?  Hope this is easy because--to me--it is just like ship classes and then ships OF the class.

2.  I want to add (say) a Bulldozer to an Con Btn.  Is that simply a vehicle?  What does it go under?  How does one add it on? 

3.  To the above question:  if I simply add HI to refect the creation of several small vehicle plants does that work for steamshovels, rollers, and bulldozers? 

4.  Adding Engineers to a unit is interesting:
a.  A Jpn Con Btn has 'x' number of Engineers (usually in groups of 12).  Are these squads of 12?
b.  For the view of base/AF/Fort construction I assume that I use standard engineers and not combat engineers.  Are there other choices?

This are probably STUPID questions but it is a learning threadso I thought I'd publicly ask.

Thanks! 


1. What about editing the TOE (check the TOE ID field) and then Update the relevant type of unit using TOE info? (Tools menu)

2. A bulldozer is an "Engineer Vehicle" device (id. 250), so simply add a new "weapon" to the concerned LCU

3. I'm not sure to understand correctly the question but AFAIK any vehicle type device, engineer vehicle included, require a Vehicle factory to be created.

4. a) Not sure but the manual state that "Due to the higher number of devices represented in Admiral’s Edition, each support squad now represents 15 rear
echelon troops."
b) Construction Engineer built things that Combat Engineers will live to destroy, simply put. So, yes, engineer and engineer vehicle devices are the tools you need to build these structures. Combat Engineers may also have the ability to build things but, given their additional offensive ability and their ability to reduce eny fortification, they usually are more useful on the frontline.


PS: it's Babeldaob (id. 466)


EDIT: forgot that one:

Along the LCU line of questions, I have a few regarding Pilot Pools:

2. When I do find it, I want to slightly increase number of 'students' and their final percentage upon graduation. Is there any secrets here for doing this?

From the manual, In Pool is the starting number of replacement pilots, Replacement Rate is the monthly rate at which the In Pool figure regenerates pilots, Starting Experience is the base experience if the pilots in the replacement pool.

So I would increase the Replacement Rate and the Starting Experience figures. However I'm new to AE so I may have misunderstood some things regarding the swimming population.

< Message edited by Jan Masterson -- 4/2/2010 12:28:10 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 206
Continuing... - 4/2/2010 7:15:51 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		FatR Questions:
1.  Can you send the devices file over to Juan when you are finished?
2.  In your aircraft work, I assume that you have changed the air groups that come in to their correct plane (ie. the Jack Groups changing to our Interceptor)

Jan Q:
1.  When I am playing with the LCU's T.O. & E. are there prototype LCUs for each the numbered LCU?  Example:  When working with a Special Base Force's T.O.E. is their a master of it and then I simply refresh the specific Sp Base Forces?  Not sure if that makes any sense...

Other Things:
I mentioned my 'to do' list yesterday but then I got to re-reading the entire 1st Thread and realized that I'll have to change all the vessel upgrades.  While not taking a bunch of time, it will take some time to get that also. 



_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Jan Masterson)
Post #: 207
Costs - 4/2/2010 7:32:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Juan and FatR:  I want to make sure we keep track of the costs for major changes.  Have you expanded anything beyond the normal amount?  I mean by that if there were 400 Research and 300 Engines at the beginning of the the normal Dec 7th Scenario 1, are there 400 Research and 300 Engines STILL in this Mod?  If there is, in fact, more then we need to keep a rough track of that for supply cost purposes at the beginning of the Scenario.

I've already been keeping track of the Shipyard expansion numbers, added Vehicles, armaments as well as HI so I'll know what to take from the starting numbers.  This number will be added to whatever you guys give to me so we have an accurate beginning.




_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 208
RE: Continuing... - 4/2/2010 11:34:38 PM   
Jan Masterson


Posts: 907
Joined: 3/8/2006
From: Belgium
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
1.  When I am playing with the LCU's T.O. & E. are there prototype LCUs for each the numbered LCU?  Example:  When working with a Special Base Force's T.O.E. is their a master of it and then I simply refresh the specific Sp Base Forces?  Not sure if that makes any sense...


If the LCU you are plying with doesn't actually have a TOE specified in its "TOE ID" field, you may create one so it can be used as a template for similar LCU.

As per the manual, Japanese TO&E’s must be located in slots 2000-2349 and Allied TO&E’s must be located in slots 2350-2899 so simply find a free slot and create your own, as you did with the new ship classes.

About the Japanese Special Base Force, several have the Locations id. 2145 as their TOE.

Once your LCUs have a designated TOE, you can either update one by one by using the "Use YOE" button right above the Wpn fields or use the Tools functions to update a batch of LCU.

Is that what you were asking for?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 209
9th Air Fleet - 4/2/2010 11:56:02 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 9226
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		That is EXACTLY what I was asking for.  Thank you Sir.  OK.  Will do some work in that area.

I've decided to allow extended movement to some of the Japanese SS at start:  10 SS in the PH area, 4 SS in the Malay area, and 4 Ro- in south Marshalls.  This will allow some flexibility for the opening SS deployment but not too much. 

Created Cargo TF at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Tokyo with only 1 ship in each.  They have extended movement with two moving to Truk and 1 for Kwaj.  Player can make these TF into whatever they want and, once again allows for some limited movement.

New Force Structure:
As per what has been talked about, there will be a major new command in Kyushu:  9th Air Fleet with the 1st (Kanoya), 2nd (Kagoshima), and 3rd Air Flotilla (Nagasaki) assigned to it.  A Large BF will also be present in each hex.  These are the only units added to the Japanese LCU OOB.  The new plane Daitai and Chutai will start at these bases training.  Planes:  3 Claude Daitai (1/Base), 2 Nell Daitai (Kanoya and Kagoshima), 3 Mavis Chutai (1/Base), 1 Val Daitai (Nagasaki), and 1 Kate Daitai (Nagasaki).  All these planes will start with experience in the low-50s.  They'll be useful but take a while to train up.  All will have older aircraft that will need to be upgraded for deployment.

These aircraft and LCUs are deployable.  Am debating on if they should have to be bought out or just be ready to move.  I sort of fancy them as Yamamoto's vision of a Training Command destined to deploy into the Mandates around May 42.

Thoughts regarding any of this?
   

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Jan Masterson)
Post #: 210
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Air Groups Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   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

0.297