Matrix Games Forums

To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!To End All Wars: Artillery Battle Academy 2: Eastern Front - End of Early Access Space Program Manager unveils its multiplayer modes Another update for Commander: The Great War!Distant Worlds: Universe gets a new updateDeal of the Week: Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich Advanced Tactics Gold is coming to SteamMatrix Games now speaks German!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: CV Shinano

 
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: CV Shinano Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: CV Shinano - 1/13/2012 5:00:05 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2252
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

A few more notes:

- I believe we need to reduce accuracy for 4E defensive armament, after all (not for other bombers, these are undergunned, for both sides).


I think this is a bad idea. You only see an issue when the numbers of bombers becomes outrageous. When there are small numbers of bombers hit by small numbers of fighter the results seem right. If we are changing for play-ability I will still argue against it because it will end up effecting the combat when there are "historical" numbers of planes in combat.

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 661
4EB Armament - 1/13/2012 5:54:46 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I think Nemo did some work in this area with 4EB armament don't remember how it worked out for him...

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 662
RE: 4EB Armament - 1/14/2012 12:53:22 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2252
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I am not sure it was ever finalized.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 663
RE: 4EB Armament - 1/20/2012 6:28:36 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Well, as the correct way to use 4E is to mass them, I'm concerned about outrageous numbers. Also, night massacres. I believe both of my opponents now should have 4E aces, thanks to brokennes of night bombing. If we decide for significantly up Allied production or provide means to do that, 4Es need to be toned down, IMO, particularly as the number of engineers is already cut and damaged airfields now are much harder to repair.


Anyway, back to Perfect War.

One thing that long provided a mental block to me was the direction to take with Japanese level bombers. I thought that the ever-favorite Ki-49 will not be available due to losing its engine and for a long time was at loss about possible replacements. Then I reread Ki-49s history and realised that I was stupid all along. The first prototype of Ki-49 (model I) was using the old Nakajima Ha-5 engine, just like Ki-21-I. If Ki-21 was successfully re-engined to Mitsubishi Kasei, there's no reason this cannot happen with Ki-49 in this alternative. For that matter, there was no clear reason to not equip it with Kasei IRL, except Nakajima's inistence to use its own engines Sure, Kasei (Ha-32) is bigger than Nakajima Ha-34, so the first model of Ki-49 will probably have worse characteristics, such as speed and range, at least compared to Ki-49-II. However, Kasei had much more reserves for improvements, and therefore by 1943 Ki-49 will probably will be able to overcome its main problem, lack of power, honestly being able to carry 1000 kg of bombs normally, and having weight to spare for heavier protective armament. It is considerably smaller than Ki-21, and even with heavier engines should be about 2.5 tons lighter loaded (after already packing superior armament), so its performance should be markedly better even with essentially the same engines, much better with late versions of Ha-32.

Late in the war Ki-67 is the way to go for IJAAF (and IJNAF too). Do not tarry with its mass production and you have the best 2E bomber you can possibly have for the second half of the war. Projected late-war developments of Ki-67 should include Ki-67-Ic (1250kg bomb load, planned for production IRL in summer of 1945, I wonder what they sacrificed for a 66% increase in bombload, though) and Ki-67-II (with Ha-214 engine, a development of Ha-42 18-cyliner familiy, if I understand correctly, also planned to be installed on Ki-93 fighter-bomber, first prototypes of this engine were ready by 1943, but the project was so plagued by problems, eventually including strategic bombing, that mass production never started, assuming a better state of industry Ki-67-II might be deployed by the end of 1945).

Well, IJNAF should use Ki-67 (under G11M designation, probably) as well. P1Y has no new engine to power it. Also, Ki-67 is plainly a superior aicraft, due to being just a bit slower, but carrying far better defensive armament and protection (not all fuel tanks on P1Y were protected IRL).

Until a version of Ki-67 is available for Navy service, old G4Ms will have to serve. Improvement of armament and protection to the standard of G4M3 should be done earlier, at least by early 1944. In fact, as the development of G4M3 supposedly began in November 1942, and the engine differed little from that of G4M2, it is not cleat why it too more than a year to build a prototype and almost a year to start production, unless Navy just wasn't too interested in a bomber with reduced range and prioritized G4M2, which still was too late and ended up a half-measure. I can guess the logic here, as G4M needed the ability to fly long-range searches, but still, it is not hard to see (well, at least with our knowledge) where this logic is wrong. G4M with proper crew and fuel tank protection could potentially be one of the toughest 2E bombers of the war (it already had very heavy armament by 1944), but less than 100 G4M3s were built IRL.

_____________________________

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 oldman45)
Post #: 664
RE: 4EB Armament - 1/20/2012 6:34:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
FatR:P Good to see your Post. Glad you got past the mental roadblock of the IJA Bombers.

Appears to be pretty well thought out line of reasoning regarding them and the direction of development. Looks pretty fair to me.

kfsgo is progressing well on the other side so it looks like real progress occurring. Good to know!

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 665
RE: CV Shinano - 1/21/2012 4:31:13 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Okay, Helen lineup so far (all variants use Mitsubishi Ha-32, those appearing after 1942 assumed to use more powerful versions available then):

Ki-49-Ia: available at the start (primarily to avoid extra-cheap acceleration into later models), as Ia in stock, but 3x250kg bombs normal load, 11 hexes of normal range.
Ki-49-Ib: 10/42, as Ia, but Armor 1, anf the tail MG is replaced with a 12.7mm one.
Ki-49-IIa: 4/43, as IIa in stock, but Speed 311 and only 9 hexes of normal range (more powerful engine...)
Ki-49-IIb: 1/44, all rifle-calibre MGs are replaced with HMGs, single HMG in the tail is replaced with a twin.


Another note on 2E Army bombers: while Ki-48 will be completed with Nakajima Ha-35 engines, its successor Kawasaki Ki-66
http://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/kawasaki_ki-66.php
(fist prototype completed in November of 1942, but not produced due to having essentially the same engines and similar performance to Ki-48 IRL) will be built with Ha-33 engine in mind from the beginning, due to lack of alternatives, making it more capable. Probable availability date might be 8-10/1943. The only problem, that plane was supposed to be a divebomber, and divebombers are inherently gimped in AE compared to level bombers. Either allowing it to lift a 500-kg bomb (500 kg was its maximum load IRL, Ha-33-powered version is likely to be able to carry more), or swiftly introducing an assault bomber version can be a remedy. A 500-kg bomb is probably a better option.


_____________________________

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 oldman45)
Post #: 666
RE: CV Shinano - 1/22/2012 4:38:19 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2877
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

A few more notes:

- On expanding Allied production. While in 1942-43 greater numbers of planes at the Pacific can primarily appear at the cost of other theatres, in 1944 US already started reducing their military program IRL because the perspective of victory was obvious. Some players notice a drop-off in fighter reinforcements in second half of 1944 and complain about it. In case of stronger Japan, 1944's US air reinforcements can be increased by several times. Any tweaks in this area so far, John (I don't have time to read the entire Allied side thread)?

- I believe we need to reduce accuracy for 4E defensive armament, after all (not for other bombers, these are undergunned, for both sides).

Reading up to current. FYI, somewhere in the forum read a recomendation that the allies fly b17/24 at 50% rest to preserve air frames from stress of overuse. So about 2 months ago in real life I modified my air war to this effect in Burma to great success. In addition to an accumulation of 4e frames I started to get aces for the units. Only because I was resting 50% at all times. Before I did this I was not ability to fill all my bomber sqns w/ planes because of overuse and frame/pilot fatigue.

In general I am not happy w/ the current power of the jap ftr units VS allied ftr units up to late 43 and call for a return to stock speeds for IJ fighters. I suspect a gaming issue exist(w/ frame production manipulation I am facing a6m8 in sept 43) in the ability of IJAAF to produce large amounts of pilots and frames in game and I sense the 4e is one counter balance solution to this inequity and strongly disagree to any thought of watering down the 4e effect.

It is a correct assessment to figure the allies have a shortage of planes. The reason I fly p40s/39s(escort role) in late 43 is because I dont have enough p38/47s(which must be used to sweep a target). To me any upgrade of IJN/IJAAF ftr ability should not be allowed as game balance becomes more extreme of an issue.

In all fairness, my lack of advanced plane types may be caused by my tactical misuse of said planes. Not sure but this does open the door for discussion.

< Message edited by bigred -- 1/22/2012 5:31:49 PM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 667
RE: CV Shinano - 1/22/2012 5:24:37 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2877
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
What are the plans for the flak 88.  Will be used in the perfect war?  The effect in RA70 of the flak 88 is "in a flak pit like Magwe the flak 88 causes the allied bombers to fly above 15000ft or take flak loses below 15000ft."  Is this what is wanted? 

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 668
RE: CV Shinano - 1/22/2012 10:55:42 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

What are the plans for the flak 88.  Will be used in the perfect war?  The effect in RA70 of the flak 88 is "in a flak pit like Magwe the flak 88 causes the allied bombers to fly above 15000ft or take flak loses below 15000ft."  Is this what is wanted? 



It's highly unlikely that Japanese production/engineering was up to the task of building the German 88mm Flak Gun..., let alone in the numbers needed for this effect. Like many other German weapons it was quite effective, but very much over-engineered and complicated to produce.

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 669
RE: CV Shinano - 1/22/2012 11:28:54 PM   
kfsgo

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

A few more notes:

- On expanding Allied production. While in 1942-43 greater numbers of planes at the Pacific can primarily appear at the cost of other theatres, in 1944 US already started reducing their military program IRL because the perspective of victory was obvious. Some players notice a drop-off in fighter reinforcements in second half of 1944 and complain about it. In case of stronger Japan, 1944's US air reinforcements can be increased by several times. Any tweaks in this area so far, John (I don't have time to read the entire Allied side thread)?

- I believe we need to reduce accuracy for 4E defensive armament, after all (not for other bombers, these are undergunned, for both sides).

Reading up to current. FYI, somewhere in the forum read a recomendation that the allies fly b17/24 at 50% rest to preserve air frames from stress of overuse. So about 2 months ago in real life I modified my air war to this effect in Burma to great success. In addition to an accumulation of 4e frames I started to get aces for the units. Only because I was resting 50% at all times. Before I did this I was not ability to fill all my bomber sqns w/ planes because of overuse and frame/pilot fatigue.

In general I am not happy w/ the current power of the jap ftr units VS allied ftr units up to late 43 and call for a return to stock speeds for IJ fighters. I suspect a gaming issue exist(w/ frame production manipulation I am facing a6m8 in sept 43) in the ability of IJAAF to produce large amounts of pilots and frames in game and I sense the 4e is one counter balance solution to this inequity and strongly disagree to any thought of watering down the 4e effect.



It's difficult. I suspect the efficiency of bomber defensive fire is on some level based on stuff like this:

quote:

Wakde, Sarmi, and Biak had been attacked prior to the RECKLESS landings, but the first large daylight strikes on the three areas began on 28 April. Forty-seven B-24's from the 43d and 90th Groups flew from Nadzab to bomb Mokmer drome on Biak. The 90th Group, arriving first, encountered twelve fighters, shot three of them down, and destroyed an additional ten planes on the ground. The 43d Group, meeting only one interceptor, was credited with three grounded aircraft.


quote:

Twenty-four Liberators had taken off at Munda on the preceding day and staged to Piva strip on Bougainville. Twenty of them, topping off with additional fuel at Nissan, bombed the airstrip on Eten Island, Truk Atoll, at 1300 hours on 29 March. During the bomb runs, the planes met AA fire variously described as heavy, moderate, and generally inaccurate, and immediately after the "bombs away" some seventy-five Japanese fighters, evidently having held off until the AA had fired, pressed aggressive attacks for three-quarters of an hour. In this furious engagement, 307th gunners claimed thirty-one definite victories, but two B-24's were lost, fifteen damaged, twenty men were killed or missing, and eleven others were wounded. One of the Liberators, trailing gasoline from a damaged engine, was set on fire by a phosphorous burst bomb, a new aerial weapon which the Japanese fighters lobbed in among the bombers to break their defensive formations. The other planes landed safely at Nissan Island, whence they returned to Munda.


quote:

On the following day, eleven B-24's of the 5th Bombardment Group hit the runways and revetments on Moen Island, releasing their 100- and 500-pound bombs through a partial overcast. They were intercepted by about forty Japanese fighters, and in a running fight lasting more than an hour some eleven of the enemy planes were shot down at a loss of three B-24's. The 5th and 307th Groups teamed up on 2 April to execute a highly successful raid against Dublon town and the Nanko district of Truk Atoll, despite murderous AA fire and interceptions by some fifty fighters. B-24 gunners were credited with thirty-nine fighters destroyed, but once again the Liberators were badly damaged and four of them did not return from the mission. After such heavy losses in day raids, XIII Bomber Command next sent out a night attack, in which four 868th Bombardment Squadron "snoopers" led twenty-seven B-24's of the 307th Group to Dublon town on the night of 6/7 April. One B-24 was lost, either to flak or to a hostile night fighter.


These are from here; if you go backwards and forwards through the chapters and search for "B-24" or "Liberator" there are a lot more similar. Obvious points to note:

- This was written in 1950 in the US, so kill claims are obviously not reliable. At the same time, a fighter that turns around and smokes for home after you shoot at it might as well be a kill...
- 60 B-24s is still an unusually large raid in early 1944, and to lose four on one mission is considered terrible

Personally, I find, in 1942, that my bombers (usually putting about 40 B-17s up against 25-50 Japanese fighters) get very few outright kills - I have three B-17 pilots with confirmed kills, one each - but usually write off about 5-10 fighters as operational losses at a cost of 2-4 bombers. Which, uh, seems pretty in line with the 1950s stuff, at least...so I'm not sure there really is a problem there. There was obviously a problem with night bombing, in that the bombers were able to fight as a formation, but it's now been changed so they come in separately, so I'm not sure how big a problem it remains.

B-29 stuff is interesting too:

quote:

En route to Tokyo seventeen B-29's aborted. Six Superforts were unable to bomb because of mechanical failures, and the weather over Tokyo made bombing difficult for the others. Formations flying at altitudes of from 27,000 to 33,000 feet were swept into a 120-knot wind which gave the bombers a ground speed of about 445 miles per hour; below, an undercast almost completely obscured the target. Only twenty-four planes bombed the Musashino plant; sixty-four unloaded on dock and urban areas. Thirty-five of the aircraft that bombed had to do so by radar. The Japanese fighter defense was less fierce than had been feared and much less effective than that which had been met by AAF formations over Germany. Intelligence officers, consolidating crew reports, figured that about 125 Jap fighters had been up--a mixture of Tojos, Zekes, Tonys, Nicks, Irvings, and some unidentified planes--of which the B-29 gunners claimed 7 destroyed, 18 probables, and 9 damaged. As usual in Japanese interceptions, there seemed to be no coordinated plan of attack, and pilots varied in skill, aggressiveness, and tactics used. The one U.S. combat loss occurred when an enemy pilot drove his damaged Tony into the tail of a B-29 in what looked like a deliberate ramming; with elevator and right horizontal stabilizer shorn off, the Superfort crashed into the sea twenty miles off the Honshu coast with the loss of all aboard. Flak was meager to moderate, and generally inaccurate.


quote:

Against Akashi, Hansell sent seventy-seven B-29's, plus three others in a diversionary strike. With good weather, 62 bulled it through to the Kawasaki factory, dumped 155 tons of GP's, and then returned with no losses. Interpreting strike photos, intelligence officers estimated that 38 per cent of the roofed area showed major damage.102 This was an understatement. Every important building in both the engine and airframe branches had been hit and production was cut by 90 per cent. Indeed, the Kawasaki Company liquidated the combined plant and dispersed the machine tools, which had suffered only slightly, to other sites. The Akashi shops were given temporary repairs at the cost of 226 tons of critical materials and over 9,000,000 yen, but the installation was used thereafter only for limited assembly jobs.


Those are late 1944; they went over to firebombing shortly afterwards:

quote:

On the basis of favorable weather forecasts, LeMay decided on 3 February to run the mission next day. Not satisfied with the concentration achieved with the M69 bombs used in the Nagoya test, he loaded his planes with E28 500-pound incendiary clusters topped off with frag clusters. Including 38 from the 313th Wing, 129 planes were airborne, but only 69 got through to the target where they dropped 159.2 tons of incendiaries and 13.6 tons of frags from altitudes ranging between 24,500 and 27,000 feet. About 200 enemy fighters attacked, proving that Kobe was not a soft touch. They shot down one B-29 and damaged thirty-five; another burned upon landing at Saipan. The results, however, were far more encouraging than at Nagoya, for post-strike photos showed damage to 2,651,000 square feet of built-up area.122 Postwar information, agreeing roughly with this estimate, added details: in the area bombed--the industrial southwestern district of Kobe--1,039 buildings were destroyed or seriously damaged, and although casualties were only moderate, 4,350 persons were rendered homeless. Local war production was hit hard. Of a dozen factories accounting for 90 per cent of Kobe's essential war industry, five received damage of varying degrees of severity. One of the two major shipyards had to reduce operations by half. Production of fabric and synthetic rubber was completely wiped out and other industries suffered greatly.123


quote:

The indirect results--and indeed some of the direct results--of the B-29 campaign were not thoroughly appreciated by XXI Bomber Command at the time, and a balancing of visible damage against the effort expended was discouraging. In 22 missions involving 2,148 sorties the command had dropped on Japan 5,398 tons of bombs. Only about half of the planes had bombed primary targets. Losses had been high, rising in January to 5.7 per cent of bombers airborne. Bombing from altitudes in the neighborhood of 30,000 feet, the Superforts suffered relatively little from flak. Fighter interception, however, was often aggressive and effective, the more so because the restricted pattern of B-29 attacks allowed the enemy to concentrate his fighters in the Tokyo-Nagoya area. The long overwater trip to target and back, without a friendly base en route for refueling or repair, took its toll of wounded or malfunctioning planes. These difficulties were reflected in the statistics of losses incurred through February: twenty-nine B-29's were lost to enemy fighters, one to flak, nine to a combination of fighters and flak, twenty-one to operational difficulties, and fifteen to unknown causes.


So, flying from the Marianas, without escort, they're down 75 aircraft per month. In-game I'd expect 75 a week to be more likely under similar circumstances...if not more.

If anything, the problem is really the ability of fighters to intercept heavy bombers effectively at high altitudes - I mean, noone flies bombers at 30,000ft in-game, right? This is typical of what happens if you put 35 B-29s up against 100 Ki-61-II at 33,000ft:



Note the Japanese had 17 aircraft damaged, but no writeoffs in this case as the aircraft were all factory-fresh.

This is what happens to 46 B-29s at 7000ft:



So, losses pretty much identical - and you can imagine how much more damage the survivors did on the ground flying lower.

I'm not sure that's something that can be fixed, to be honest, short of just setting the B-29's ceiling 1000ft higher than the next highest Japanese aircraft. Altitude really doesn't seem to be a performance factor (or, at least, not a significant one) when intercepting bombers - interestingly 305mph Oscars will happily intercept and down in droves 415mph Mosquito - the former can fly higher, so they get to dive and catch.

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 670
RE: CV Shinano - 1/23/2012 5:00:24 PM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred
In general I am not happy w/ the current power of the jap ftr units VS allied ftr units up to late 43 and call for a return to stock speeds for IJ fighters.

Done many versions ago. Unfortunately, OOB changes during development of RA prevented the possibility of switching versions during the play even before you took over our game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred
I suspect a gaming issue exist(w/ frame production manipulation I am facing a6m8 in sept 43)

Actually that's when you're supposed to get it in RA. A6M8 isn't great, anyway. Its debut was disappointing. George and Frank is the hot stuff from my viewpoint (now, Frank I indeed accelerated by over half a year). Unfortunately, even disregarding airfield issues, I cannot concentrate solely on them. I won't disclose the exact situation, but I can say that economic limitations in RA already severely curbed my operations in some areas for many months.

Anyway, no offense, but yes, I still see two persistent factors in your air operations that greatly improve my life. In my other game (Scen 2) the air balance of power is force for me in December of 1942, and when I played Allies it was worse for my opponent in November of 1942, even though we played a JuanG mod, where ALL Japanese planese are faster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred
What are the plans for the flak 88. Will be used in the perfect war? The effect in RA70 of the flak 88 is "in a flak pit like Magwe the flak 88 causes the allied bombers to fly above 15000ft or take flak loses below 15000ft." Is this what is wanted?

If you're talking about Type 99 88mm AA gun, it is stock, so it is in either way. RA has more of them, though. Anyway, I wouldn't expect to be able to successfully bomb one of the biggest concentrations of Japanese flak on map without accepting some losses.


_____________________________

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 bigred)
Post #: 671
RE: CV Shinano - 1/23/2012 7:29:00 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
But seeing the prevalent opinion, okay, let's 4E armament remain as it is, hope that night air combat will be fixed, and hope that JuanG's experiments in this area will give us some useful imput on the results of this in the future.

_____________________________

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 oldman45)
Post #: 672
RE: CV Shinano - 1/23/2012 8:19:29 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Good to see all the action here. FatR: Do you feel your 2EB development gets things through pretty well?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 673
RE: CV Shinano - 1/23/2012 8:46:30 PM   
kfsgo

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

But seeing the prevalent opinion, okay, let's 4E armament remain as it is, hope that night air combat will be fixed, and hope that JuanG's experiments in this area will give us some useful imput on the results of this in the future.


Night air combat has already been 'fixed' - one of the betas a couple of months ago set it up so that aircraft bombing at night now arrive in streams, to a great extent, rather than as large waves, so the 'mass defensive fire' thing happens rarely if at all. From a late-war perspective, given increasing prevalance of H2X/etc radar, bomber dispersal may well be exaggerated, but for 1942-1943 it seems pretty good.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 674
RE: CV Shinano - 1/23/2012 8:50:10 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
And clarifying note to kfsgo: I find 4E firepower by day normal, maybe even somewhat underrated. Where it breaks the air combat is night. Good to see it is patched... will need to make my opponents agree to this update, though

< Message edited by FatR -- 1/23/2012 8:51:16 PM >


_____________________________

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 #: 675
RE: CV Shinano - 1/26/2012 8:19:35 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2351
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
FatR, whats it going to take for you to come over to the Allied side?

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 676
RE: CV Shinano - 1/26/2012 3:31:55 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2877
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
FatR is a real JFB!!!
quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

FatR, whats it going to take for you to come over to the Allied side?



< Message edited by bigred -- 1/26/2012 3:33:07 PM >

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 677
RE: CV Shinano - 1/26/2012 4:54:31 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
My partner is certainly that but I am of the opinion that the Allies don't need much more here. I think we have SOOOOOOOO tinkered with additions, changes, and new toys that Japan will be thoroughly SCREWED in this game from Square One. To be honest, I have no real conception as to how this is going to look when all is said and done. Think it will need some serious playtesting before being 'official.'

My .02...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 678
RE: CV Shinano - 1/26/2012 7:46:23 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2351
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
It was worth a shot. 

John, I agree with you.  I also think the good guys are a little to strong.  Like I said before I'll help play test, and in anyother way.  I do have some extra time now dont know for how long.  I've only tried small mods on my own, but I do know where the editor is lol.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 679
RE: CV Shinano - 1/26/2012 9:53:56 PM   
kfsgo

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

My partner is certainly that but I am of the opinion that the Allies don't need much more here. I think we have SOOOOOOOO tinkered with additions, changes, and new toys that Japan will be thoroughly SCREWED in this game from Square One. To be honest, I have no real conception as to how this is going to look when all is said and done. Think it will need some serious playtesting before being 'official.'

My .02...



I dunno. The French stuff is a fairly big add, so there's that. (but then, you ain't pinning that on me, heh). The extra UK fleet units likewise (and probably aren't necessary - I still don't think Indomitable should be within 500 miles of the IO while there's still a war going on in the Med); China is a big "up to the player", with a geographically worse but economically better starting position for the Japanese, along with much further to fall for China, and the CW and Australian stuff I'm working on at the moment is more of a sidegrade in most respects - trading presence for stand-up capability (more on Oz in a week or so). And, of course, haven't even started to do anything to the USAAF/USN air components yet...



(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 680
RE: CV Shinano - 2/9/2012 6:35:41 PM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

FatR, whats it going to take for you to come over to the Allied side?

Extra 2-3 hours added to the natural day.

I must note one thing about this scenario, just so people will have the proper perspective: It uses Babes "C" variant where the merchant loads are reduced by about 1/3. This should considerably impact Japan's ability to haul oil/fuel to Home Islands. Small size of key loading ports will have much more of an impact. Also, lots more fuel will be burned by merchants. Also, it has all the Babes ASW nerfs, which will make sub warfare much more of a threat. So, keep this in mind if you think that proposed Jap aircrafts are too good.


Anyway, a rough plan for level bombers, finally. Sorry, after the accident with RA's last version I felt burned out for a time.

IJAAF: Ki-21 as in stock.

Ki-49 as described above.

Ki-48 is introduced as a level bomber, but gets no upgrades. Ki-66 is introduced instead in late spring of 1943. Maybe an assault bomber and a night fighter versions of Ki-66 can appear in this scenario?

Ki-67 is introduced maybe around 43/10 and gets extra upgrades as described above. Maybe a Ki-109 version with a more traditional armament of a couple 37mm cannons forward?

Ki-74 as in stock. Maybe a bit earlier, maybe gets one upgrade in 1946


IJNAF: I don't think it is possible to remove G4M2 entirely from G4M evolution... Considering all things, probably G4M2 appears in 43/6 here, and is succeeded by G4M3 around 44/3.

No P1Y. Instead a naval version of Ki-67 is introduced around 44/5 as G9M. I thought about this project:
http://forum.valka.cz/viewtopic.php/title/Micubisi-G7M1/t/66000
but comparing it to Ki-67, performance predictions seem entirely too optimistic, and it will probably not be available until way too late. Plus, using the same bomber type for both IJNAF and IJAAF should simplify production

G8N. Basic construction and availability dates should be the same as in RA, but it should use Mitsubishi Ha-42 or Ha-43 engines, probably Ha-42, as those were available earlier, and I imagine Ha-43 will be in high demand for fighters.


Next stop (and the last major one): 1E bombers and fighter-bombers. Any comments on the ideas above?

_____________________________

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 #: 681
RE: CV Shinano - 2/9/2012 8:23:18 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Good to see you Posting FatR. Thoroughly understand your frustration from earlier with RA 4.0. We moved too fast trying to get everything done quickly and out.

Your G9M looks interesting. Am going to read the page again before deeper thoughts.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 682
RE: CV Shinano - 2/9/2012 8:25:27 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Man...it does pack on the firepower! Do you think it could have really been built. The plane looks great and carries a decent load with solid defenses. Could I please order 1,000?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 683
RE: CV Shinano - 2/9/2012 8:25:35 PM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Good to see you Posting FatR. Thoroughly understand your frustration from earlier with RA 4.0. We moved too fast trying to get everything done quickly and out.

Your G9M looks interesting. Am going to read the page again before deeper thoughts.

We have the naval version of Ki-67 in RA already, I just propose to make it more standard...

_____________________________

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 #: 684
RE: CV Shinano - 2/10/2012 5:43:33 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I THOUGHT we did but didn't look. Heck of a decent looking plane.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 685
RE: CV Shinano - 3/24/2012 6:31:24 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Sorry for everyone for dropping off the modding radar and dragging down the work of other contributors by this. My attempts to find more work succeeded a bit too well. And in the moments when I'm not catastrophically busy, I found, that I already need to refresh my memory on the naval changes, by re-reading much of this thread, before continuing. Air changes thankfully mostly were applied to the working file soon after being posted here. Will try to post more news the next week.

_____________________________

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 #: 686
RE: CV Shinano - 4/3/2012 4:19:43 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2351
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Bump

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 687
RE: CV Shinano - 4/3/2012 4:28:39 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11037
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I don't know DOCUP.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 688
RE: CV Shinano - 4/4/2012 3:17:33 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Sorry, got delayed again. Hopefully will post the long-promised continuation of ideas on planes and then a list of artwork needed in a few days.

Any comments relevant to the new mod from accumulating RA experience, by the way (except "we need to triple-check OOB, particularly for the Chinese, before releasing")? I'm playing the very old version of RA rather slowly and a Scen 2 game far more rapidly (2-day turns at the moment), so much of my experience is not directly relevant to the current state of our modding. I'd particularly like to hear any information on:

1)How flak for both sides work in late RA versions?

2)Same for ASW.

3)Same for night air combat model.

4)Any economic problems or lack thereof (I personally managed to supercharge surface naval units production in RA, but was forced to reduce naval operations for most of 1943 due to fuel shortages, and by late 1943 I found that the Empire runs short on supply despite near-total conquest of China, forcing me to drastically reduce base construction beyond immediately threatening areas, and hampering air and ground operations).



_____________________________

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 #: 689
RE: CV Shinano - 4/4/2012 8:22:45 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
So, 1E attack planes, to get it out of my head. Only IJNAF today.

Dive Bombers
D3A is OK as it is. D4Y switches to Mitsubishi Ha-33 engine in second half of 1943, and a Mitsubishi Ha-43-powered is added for 1945. B7N introduced in early 1945, using Mitsubishi Ha-43 engine and B7A3 configuration (armor).
I'm thinking adding protection to Japanese naval attack planes. Japanene unwillingness to install it until very late in the war seems incomprehensible, but generally when some actions in the past start to seem incomprehensible this just mean that we reached the limitation of our knowledge. On the other hand, incompetence or corruption do happen. Severe reduction in range is generally stated as the main reason for late acceptance of fuel tank protection. But I wonder if Navy just did not pay enough attention to aircraft protection research, as IJAAF has fuel tank and pilot protection on almost every combat plane in mass production by mid-1943 (quality of protection was inferior, of course, due to overall technological weakness) and didn't seem to have too much problems. I also wonder, if in 1944 planes were seen as having better chances with no protection, because overwhelming Allied air superiority and flak power made speed the only real salvation.
Anyway, it is estimated that protected non-integral fuel tanks caused about 30% reduction in range, resulting in 7/10 hexes of range for D4Y3 and 7/9 for B6N2. In game terms I'm OK with that (while this will screw with JFB dream 8-hex KB airstrike, I don't think that making a somewhat gamey tactics a harder choice is necessarily). In terms of realism this probably will make a dedicated carrier-based recon planes a higher priority. Probably will need to think about what, if anything, can be done with them later (considering that C6N doesn't have an engine in this mod...).


Torpedo Bombers
Speaking of them, B6N will enter production with Mitsubishi Kasei engine as was intended originally, making it available a bit earlier, and, if my proposal about armor above seems agreeable, will enter production with lesser range and Armor 1. B6N2 will be a radar-equipped and better-armed version for 1944.

And if C6N is goint to exist at all, introducing C6N1-B (a project that existed IRL but abandoned due to loss of Japanese carrier fleet) is also possible.

And while we talk about torpedo bombers, torpedo squadrons on late-war carriers should only have an option for upgrade to B7A, not arrive with these planes, because if they do, pilots will be divebomber pilots, with no NavT skill to speak of.


Fighter-Bombers
Mostly covered in fighter section. The only big thing on my mind is related to my overall thoughts about Japanese jets. I believe Kikka was the only one that could both see mass production and be actually useful, and, IIRC, the production version likely would have been a fighter-bomber with 2x30mm cannons. So, I think about replacing Kikka-as-level-bomber with this. And introducing this plane for IJAAF too. I'm aware that anyone in their right mind will take Ki-201 over it, but even though the game (and the Downfall scenario) takes pity on JFB in regards of end-war experimental planes availability, I'm pretty sure that the chance of Ki-201 reaching combat units in late-war conditions actually was 0%, while Kikka already had flyable prototypes by August of 1945, and was much simpler to begin with. And for that matter, with less ocean-going subs in existence, Japanese jet program should be even more limited than IRL, if it is going to exist at all.


_____________________________

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 FatR)
Post #: 690
Page:   <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: CV Shinano Page: <<   < prev  21 22 [23] 24 25   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

0.125