Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers required
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: JFB Beware

 
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: JFB Beware Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: JFB Beware - 11/23/2011 11:36:07 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2363
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Nice work guys.

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 601
RE: JFB Beware - 11/24/2011 1:35:52 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11122
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
It is truly forward movement.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 602
RE: JFB Beware - 11/24/2011 3:57:24 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7104
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Add Recon Zeros at start in a Chutai or two (9 planes each that can divide into 3 x 3). Range can depend on if she keeps her guns or gets rid of them similar to the American Wildcats recon that increases range or is the similar.

_____________________________


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 603
RE: JFB Beware - 11/24/2011 3:50:13 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2258
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Fatr, I am not so sure you could ramp up US aircraft production. The US was building them as fast as they could, not to mention they had to build the factory's while they were ramping up.

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 604
RE: JFB Beware - 11/24/2011 5:08:34 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Fatr, I am not so sure you could ramp up US aircraft production. The US was building them as fast as they could, not to mention they had to build the factory's while they were ramping up.


An altered Mediterranean is going to reorient things significantly as regards aircraft (for the US and CW both) even if you don't touch production (which is pushing it a bit, I think):

- You're going to see much less pressure on shorter-range aircraft in the 1941-1942 period; there is not a need to fight convoys through Malta to such an extent, and offensively you're range-limited; even from Malta you're not getting much further than Sicily with Spitfire, P-40 etc. So, there's less demand for these types until the invasion of Italy takes place (after which they'll probably be somewhat higher than historical for a while, since the Italian AF hasn't burnt itself out);

- You're going to see greater demands on longer-ranged aircraft in that period; Italy is going to be a much more viable strategic bombing target - Tunis to Milan and London to Milan are about the same distance, but the former can be done without flying over France and through the Alps (in many cases aircraft ceilings were lower than mountain peaks - brr) - much safer. So, while that's ongoing you still have a drain for the Med. More so, maybe - if Crete is held by the Allies, which seems plausible, you may see a drive to hit Bulgaria, Romania etc from there. Another drain...

- Pressure on the Soviet Union will likely be greater than historical. Germany threw away a fairly limited force in Libya but also a more significant one in Tunisia; some of them will be taken up in France, keeping an eye on the Italians, expanding garrisons in Greece etc but ultimately you will have more goons heading eastwards. So, there's liable to be greater demand for 'stuff' from that quarter; ideally American 'stuff', being built more along 'bash it with a hammer and it'll probably work' lines.

- Maintenance of France in the war maintains the French merchant fleet; that's fairly small relative to the size of the pre-war French economy, but it's still 'big', and a net economic gain - remember that the US particularly was extremely shipping-constrained in the leadup to and early part of its participation in WWII - as is maintenance of the French Empire and its raw material output. It also keeps the MN in the war, of course - that's going to have repercussions in the Atlantic, with the U-Boat crunch being less painful and all of the consequences which follow from that.

- The two critical words - "breathing room". The war is really relatively quiet, except in Russia; that allows decisions to be taken with less of a spectre of immediate need hanging over them.

Taking a step back, your opening for 1941-1942 isn't really the US - which is mobilisation-limited and really constrained by working-up more so than raw production - it's being able to displace UK/Aus/NZ forces that are nominally in the Med or still at home. I wouldn't like to make any concrete proposals until I've run the numbers on aircraft availability at present (and I still need to finish China before I do that - I have Ideas, though...) but that's the direction I'd see things moving.


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 605
RE: JFB Beware - 11/24/2011 6:47:02 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
On the issue of Japanese aircraft speed.

1)Historical part. As a preface, I'm not a big fan of counting precise speed numbers. Max speed squeezed out in optimal conditions and often on a specially fine-tuned airframe does not tell the whole picture at best and can be outright misleading at worst (for a Pacific-neutral example - MiG-1/MiG-3). Unless one does research in depth, evaluation by those who operated planes in the field (with opinions from both sides when possible and taking things like survivor bias into account) and combat results, when there is enough data on outcomes of individual clashes, are preferable. I'm focusing on speed here only because in the game max speed is a vital statistic, possibly the most vital in the air combat calculations.

It is also not news, that commonly accepted performance figures can wildly deviate from reality, because of unaccounted for difference in testing methods and other factors. As another neutral example, max roaspeed of Pz.III is almost always stated as 40 km/h... except that its normal driving speed on an road. When tested for maximum speed in USSR, a captured early Pz.III demonstrated about 68 km/h, outracing every pre-war Soviet tank. In case of aircraft even stuff like painting on the day of trials might impact the results.

Now, returning to the Pacific, there are solid reasons to believe that maximum speeds for Japanese aircraft, as stated by Francillion and copied everywhere else, are systematically underrated. Which is vital, because speed differences that were barely noticeable IRL might mean alot in AE. For example, look at the analysis of A6M2's performance:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm
It might hint at one of the possible causes of this underrating - providing figures for the military power equivalent, rather than for war emergency power equivalent. For other aircraft, other reasons might exist (for example, Ki-84 underwent an engine update without a change in model designation during the war, so data for 1943 prototype tests is not likely to be valid for late war).

Talking about George, if you look at p.64 of "Genda's Blade", you can see that American wartime estimates credited N1K1-J with 407 mph. See also:
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=11204.15

Considering that F6F has noticeably worse power loading and is not that smooth aerodynamically too, this makes sense. This is what I was using as a benchmark.


2)Game part.

In terms of AE mechanics I find Hellcat not the deathmachine it was in reality, but a poor relative in the family of the third-generation Allied fighters. That because its relatively poor speed is not compensated by maneurability or survivability (again, compared to other Allied fighters) and, again, the game values speed perhaps too much. I tried to fix that in the last version of Scen 70, so comments from John, who plays it and should be in the Hellcat age by now and should have some experience about them, are much appreciated.

However, this out of the way, I see validity in your complaint, kfsgo. If Allies totally cannot rely on fighters weaker than Corsair/Lightning (both of which have reliability problems throughout 1943), which might be the case with George's stats like I proposed above, and only have qualitative superiority with Thunderbolt (which probably will be available 2-3 months after Shiden, and in lesser numbers), they will be in quite a difficult situation in 1943. So, after such a long post explaining my motives, I have to admit, that in general you are right, and at least N1K1-J needs toning down by about 15-20 mph, others probably by 10.


_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 606
RE: JFB Beware - 11/24/2011 8:06:52 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

On the issue of Japanese aircraft speed.

1)Historical part. As a preface, I'm not a big fan of counting precise speed numbers. Max speed squeezed out in optimal conditions and often on a specially fine-tuned airframe does not tell the whole picture at best and can be outright misleading at worst (for a Pacific-neutral example - MiG-1/MiG-3). Unless one does research in depth, evaluation by those who operated planes in the field (with opinions from both sides when possible and taking things like survivor bias into account) and combat results, when there is enough data on outcomes of individual clashes, are preferable. I'm focusing on speed here only because in the game max speed is a vital statistic, possibly the most vital in the air combat calculations.

It is also not news, that commonly accepted performance figures can wildly deviate from reality, because of unaccounted for difference in testing methods and other factors. As another neutral example, max roaspeed of Pz.III is almost always stated as 40 km/h... except that its normal driving speed on an road. When tested for maximum speed in USSR, a captured early Pz.III demonstrated about 68 km/h, outracing every pre-war Soviet tank. In case of aircraft even stuff like painting on the day of trials might impact the results.

Now, returning to the Pacific, there are solid reasons to believe that maximum speeds for Japanese aircraft, as stated by Francillion and copied everywhere else, are systematically underrated. Which is vital, because speed differences that were barely noticeable IRL might mean alot in AE. For example, look at the analysis of A6M2's performance:
http://www.j-aircraft.com/research/rdunn/zeroperformance/zero_performance.htm
It might hint at one of the possible causes of this underrating - providing figures for the military power equivalent, rather than for war emergency power equivalent. For other aircraft, other reasons might exist (for example, Ki-84 underwent an engine update without a change in model designation during the war, so data for 1943 prototype tests is not likely to be valid for late war).

Talking about George, if you look at p.64 of "Genda's Blade", you can see that American wartime estimates credited N1K1-J with 407 mph. See also:
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=11204.15

Considering that F6F has noticeably worse power loading and is not that smooth aerodynamically too, this makes sense. This is what I was using as a benchmark.


2)Game part.

In terms of AE mechanics I find Hellcat not the deathmachine it was in reality, but a poor relative in the family of the third-generation Allied fighters. That because its relatively poor speed is not compensated by maneurability or survivability (again, compared to other Allied fighters) and, again, the game values speed perhaps too much. I tried to fix that in the last version of Scen 70, so comments from John, who plays it and should be in the Hellcat age by now and should have some experience about them, are much appreciated.

However, this out of the way, I see validity in your complaint, kfsgo. If Allies totally cannot rely on fighters weaker than Corsair/Lightning (both of which have reliability problems throughout 1943), which might be the case with George's stats like I proposed above, and only have qualitative superiority with Thunderbolt (which probably will be available 2-3 months after Shiden, and in lesser numbers), they will be in quite a difficult situation in 1943. So, after such a long post explaining my motives, I have to admit, that in general you are right, and at least N1K1-J needs toning down by about 15-20 mph, others probably by 10.



Yeah, I just get snickety since I spend too much time messing around in IL-2, really (so the MiG-3 comment resonates...christ, that thing's painful), and so that colours the way I look at the things themselves perhaps more than WITP does. Of course, IL-2 being what it is you're a) at the whim of whatever weirdo modder edited the aircraft this week and b) sort of left thinking "woah, there's a fighter you can get over 350mph? that's a first...". So, it's not proof of anything, just somewhere to start. I mean, ultimately, I'm not a pilot - any argument I make on the precise details of this or that aircraft feature are basically from a fairly ignorant starting point, and I try to remain mindful of that when talking about this stuff.

That said, I would guess that issue, fundamentally, is that although we have variable maneuverability for particular altitudes we don't (as far as I know) have variable maneuverability for particular speeds. To go back to the IL-2 thing - one of the most hilarious things you can do in IL-2 is get a P-40 going fast; whatever faults it may have maneuverability-wise when slow at sea level it's a fantastic aircraft to toss around at high speed, and you can run rings around the contemporary Japanese stable in that situation as their elevator and aileron control go to pieces once you get them going fast - all that emphasis on light weight has consequences, in the end; probably similar principles would apply when considering the "poor" performance of the Wildcat in-game. I would suspect this to be an issue persisting through the N1K (2.5t) vs. F6F (4t+); your forum report suggests aileron dropoff on N1K around 360mph, which I would guess (without any proof) is lower than would be experienced on F6F. So, I guess the question becomes - do you want higher speeds, or higher maneuverability; you can have one or the other, with one eye on the way the game models aircraft, but not really both.


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 607
RE: JFB Beware - 11/24/2011 11:59:58 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2258
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
IL-2 is my favorite flying game. One of my favorite memories was the first time I got stuck in a flat spin while flying the P-39... back to the thread.





_____________________________


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 608
RE: JFB Beware - 11/25/2011 3:10:27 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
If you pay attention, in 1941-42 Japanese fighter aircraft actually are a bit worse in the current proposal. Instead of Tojo JFBs will have high-SR Tony, Zeros will have either inferior speed or inferior range to vanilla A6M2. Only in 1943 and later improvements will be felt, and even then, nothing will be nearly as good as Allied top performers.

Anyway, I'm not going into a detailed study of Allied planes to see which of them could reasonably be accelerated. I think, that increasing production numbers (in addition to the option of expanding on-map production) is warranted, though.


I think that a case could be made for accelerating the B-36A, with bad reliability, in this alternative timeframe. If we look at the fact that the Japanese player will likely be holding large chunks of the central Pacific, the US will be encouraged to find a plane that can hit the Home Islands from Hawaii.

Historically, they were downgraded in priority when it became obvious that there were going to be bases within B-29 range. Without this possibility, and I think that you are going to see this in a majority of games, the US would have dedicated the engineering talent to bring the aircraft out on its original time schedule. This would have the first aircraft leaving factories in mid to late 1945.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 609
RE: JFB Beware - 11/25/2011 3:44:48 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I tried to get into Il-2, but looks like I just don't have patience to get any good at it.

An interesting note on B-36, MateDow.

I think I'm not ready to make a proposal on end-war fighters yet. Will return to them after doing everything else.



_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 610
RE: JFB Beware - 11/25/2011 4:24:19 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

I think that a case could be made for accelerating the B-36A, with bad reliability, in this alternative timeframe. If we look at the fact that the Japanese player will likely be holding large chunks of the central Pacific, the US will be encouraged to find a plane that can hit the Home Islands from Hawaii.

Historically, they were downgraded in priority when it became obvious that there were going to be bases within B-29 range. Without this possibility, and I think that you are going to see this in a majority of games, the US would have dedicated the engineering talent to bring the aircraft out on its original time schedule. This would have the first aircraft leaving factories in mid to late 1945.



Not sure I agree with the theory; while the Pacific might (how big a 'might'?) be a less profitable avenue for their employment, China will almost certainly be a better proposition than it was - not 'good' necessarily, supply being what it is, but better - particularly in the 1941-1943 period, which is when the decisions on 1945-46's aircraft are being made. That said - I could see bringing them in around the end of 1945 as a 'this happened if the war went really, really weirdly' theoretical dodge (along with some other stuff - B-42, Skyraider, Phantom, Sea Fury etc)

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 611
RE: JFB Beware - 11/25/2011 6:23:10 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
On the subject of China...

Here's a first draft of China Mk. II. I took the opportunity to work from a clean slate, so the new-look Chinese Army (bearing no connection to reality except in commanders and scale - this is sort-of-broadly what all the foreign advisors over the years suggested doing, so I guess we can pretend someone waved a wand and got it implemented) is made up of:

- 9 War Areas
- 30 Group Armies

That's less than in stock; the Chinese are going to have some command...issues. Or should, anyway.

containing 178 divisions:

- 12 'modernized' KMT Divs; German-trained or "German-trained". Nominally 318av (3816 total) per division and extremely generous (by Chinese standards) allotments of artillery, engineers etc. Mobile.

- 18 'Chinese' KMT Divs. Nominally 267av per division (4806 total), relatively generous allotments of equipment. These reflect units that are not 'modernized' but are directly loyal to the KMT and therefore get second pick of any equipment going around.

The modernized Divs have relatively low morale but are reasonably competent; they've been put through the grinder against the Japanese and know what they're doing but are rather tired of doing it. The unmodernized divs are less competent, but morale is a little better. In theory they were all "modernized" in 1939; two years of war have undone that to a great extent. IDs 1st Div - 35th Div. Mobile.

- 37 'Warlord' Divs. Nominally 263av per division (9731), less equipment except where the local potentate has access to his own supply. These represent units loyal to the government...via intermediaries. Some of the time. If the bribe's right or there's someone with a gun to their heads. You get the idea. Experience varies, but morale is broadly in the gutter. IDs 36-150. Mobile.

- 53 'Provincial' Divs. Nominally 257av per division (13621), minimal equipment. Very inexperienced, morale is 'ok' by Chinese standards. At this point you start to get mobility issues; they're initially static, and a certain amount of political force has to be exerted on the part of the central govt to get these guys to leave their home areas unless they're attacked. IDs 150-300.

- 40 'Militia' Divs. Nominally 208av per division (8320), maybe a couple of machine guns if they're lucky. Completely incompetent and would rather be at home. Immobile unless attacked. IDs 300-400

- 20 Cavalry Divs. Nominally 110av (2200). Decent equipment, morale and experience are situational. Mobile.IDs 400-500.

- 6 Communist Divs. Nominally 258av (1548). 8th Route Army out of Yenan is expanded to 4 and New Fourth Army along the Yangtze gains two. Inexperienced, but morale is very high. Mobile. IDs 500-600.

- 7 Separate AT Regiments with 10-36 guns each.
- 2 Separate Artillery Brigades with a 122 and a 105/75 Regiment each.
- 1 Separate Heavy Artillery Regiment with 8 122 guns.
- 8 Separate Medium Artillery Regiments with 8-16 75/105 guns.
- 4 Separate Mortar Regiments with 24-48 82mm mortars.
- 1 Separate AA Regiment with 12 guns.

IDs 600-700.

- 11 Heavy AF Base Forces with 4-8 AA guns and 36 Av. Support.
- 19 Light AF Base Forces with 0-2 AA guns and 12 Av. Support.

IDs 700-800.

- Port Fortresses at Changsha, Hankow, Canton, Chungking and Nanchang with 2-5 4/5in and 2-6 6pdr CD guns, along with enough naval support to enable loading of guns of that size.
- 10 other River Fortresses with 0-4 3in and 0-4 6pdr CD guns. Enough to harrass motor launches or unescorted freighters, but shouldn't do much to warships.

- X number of construction labour units. Haven't done these yet. IDs 800-900.

In total the Chinese army can theoretically put about 44000av in the field in that configuration. In stock that number is about 38000, so theoretically it's a larger force. Of course, quite a lot of it is static. Haven't run the numbers on artillery yet, should be similar. Going back to stock, the 'active' Chinese army at start is around 24000av; I'm aiming to have ~28000 active here.

Issues:

- Commanders are mostly not assigned yet.

- Most units are at their full TOE strength. That's going to change, I just haven't gotten around to it yet; as you go down the political food chain you'll see less armed soldiers and more unarmed ones (ie, 'support'). Numbers in the field should be fairly universal - the problem isn't manpower, it's actually arming the troops.

- Haven't sorted out everyone's political restrictions fully yet; conceptually, KMT Divs will be free to change to an unrestricted command (at full price - no more 25% switches) enabling combat in India, Burma etc, while other Chinese troops are locked to China.

- Garrison requirements for China are still not finalised (though higher across the board, and more distributed, with several new bases). Probably need a few runs through a live game to get them 'right', but the reqs for bases controlled by the Chinese particularly will depend on how big the Chinese army ends up being in the end.

- There is still some work to do on the collaborationist Chinese forces, which I intend to expand a little further.

- All Chinese bases have at least a minimal (1t/day) supply allotment; won't fix the issues with supply at bases, but should help. May need tweaking if China ends up oversupplied.

- There is an NKVD detachment around Urumqi and more Russians around the northwestern frontier. With higher tensions between Russia and Japan (and the fact that any Japanese advance that far would be considered menacing by the USSR) they've been "invited" to make themselves at home. Obviously, they're static unless the USSR enters the war. I haven't tested whether them being there will cause issues regarding Soviet activation yet, so they may be removed if it does.

- There are changes to aircraft, ships, devices etc; they're just me fiddling, so ignore'em.

So - comments, thoughts, insults - fire away. Worst-case scenario we can just go back to the stock setup...

Attachment (1)

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 612
New China Reality - 11/28/2011 5:24:50 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11122
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
WOW. Sorry. Have had a busy weekend and just had a chance to read this. Have you been able to put this onto an actual map yet?

Conceptually I love the ideas, thinking, and design. In reality...I have no clue. Thus, this could be FUN!

Keep on going Sir.



_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 613
RE: New China Reality - 11/28/2011 7:11:44 AM   
Treetop64


Posts: 802
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: 519 Redwood City - BASE (Hex 218, 70)
Status: offline
Interesting how you're developing Chinese forces. It would also be interesting to see if any political restrictions could be introduced that limits the player from forming a coordinated, multi-War Area, Chinese "super army".  I say this because, in reality, many Chinese warlords were nearly as occupied in plotting to wipe each other out as they were in ejecting the Japanese from China.  Also, many warlords were content in defending only their own segmented, semi-autonomous part of China.


_____________________________



"Junk is something you've kept for years and throw away three weeks before you need it"

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 614
RE: New China Reality - 11/28/2011 7:34:44 AM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

WOW. Sorry. Have had a busy weekend and just had a chance to read this. Have you been able to put this onto an actual map yet?

Conceptually I love the ideas, thinking, and design. In reality...I have no clue. Thus, this could be FUN!

Keep on going Sir.




That is on the map - it's an example scenario.

quote:

Interesting how you're developing Chinese forces. It would also be interesting to see if any political restrictions could be introduced that limits the player from forming a coordinated, multi-War Area, Chinese "super army". I say this because, in reality, many Chinese warlords were nearly as occupied in plotting to wipe each other out as they were in ejecting the Japanese from China. Also, many warlords were content in defending only their own segmented, semi-autonomous part of China.


Er, yes, that's why so much of it starts (and quite a lot of it will remain, unless attacked) static. Can't go too far with it or else the Japanese can over-flex the Chinese, but that that's what I've tried to do.

< Message edited by kfsgo -- 11/28/2011 7:36:39 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 615
RE: New China Reality - 11/28/2011 4:17:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11122
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Reminds me of Brian's (Big B) Scenarios in WitP. The static troops are outstanding. How much does Japan want to free-up by moving into China? Hmmm...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 616
RE: New China Reality - 11/28/2011 7:03:42 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Reminds me of Brian's (Big B) Scenarios in WitP. The static troops are outstanding. How much does Japan want to free-up by moving into China? Hmmm...



That's the idea. Conceptually - and I don't think it's quite there yet; at the moment the Japanese are probably somewhat over-garrison-requiremented - the situation I want to create is that the Japanese are free to pull troops out of China...but if they do that, they'll be exchanging gains elsewhere for entrenching the Chinese, possibly permanently; at the same time, the Chinese shouldn't be conducting mass offensives because the logistical system isn't there - the armed troops exist, and the supplies exist, but uniting the two at the right place and time is not really practical for WWII China in this situation without external assistance (ie 50,000 or however many 3ton trucks). It's the same reason why removing the Dutch from Java to go die on Sumatra or Timor or wherever is out there; yes, you can move all the stuff, but once it's there there's no actual mechanism for distribution - the depot systems etc are all centered on [Java/X Chinese province] with local personnel.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 617
RE: New China Reality - 11/29/2011 3:31:14 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11122
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I like the analogy. Seems pretty solid work to me.

Are you going to add anything more of the Chinese who sided with Japan?

FatR: How are you coming with things? Haven't seen you chime in for a bit.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 618
RE: New China Reality - 12/3/2011 10:01:16 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
In case you haven't got my email response John - I'll be busy until the next week. I think the general shape of Japanese 1E fighter park is clear (although I'll still welcome any critism), the next stop is 2E fighters.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 619
RE: New China Reality - 12/3/2011 11:15:55 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 445
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
A look at what China looks like at the moment (huge, sorry), since I haven't yet:



Dashed lines are:

Railways to be restored in black;
River navigability in yellow;
Approx. Japanese front 7/12/1941 in red

Still very WIP, so things could change...

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 620
RE: New China Reality - 12/4/2011 4:00:19 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11122
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Wow. I just want to start clicking on the hexes! This is SOOOOOOOOOOO different...

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 621
CV Shinano - 12/4/2011 2:15:48 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7104
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
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??

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 622
RE: CV Shinano - 12/4/2011 2:20:42 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2258
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
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!

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 623
RE: JFB Beware - 12/6/2011 8:37:49 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 624
RE: CV Shinano - 12/6/2011 8:39:10 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

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.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 625
RE: CV Shinano - 12/7/2011 6:12:46 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11122
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 626
RE: CV Shinano - 12/7/2011 2:26:34 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 627
RE: CV Shinano - 12/7/2011 3:09:33 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 628
RE: CV Shinano - 12/7/2011 4:35:00 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 217
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

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.

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 629
RE: CV Shinano - 12/7/2011 5:28:43 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2258
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________


(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 630
Page:   <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: JFB Beware Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   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

0.124