Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Updated Mods

 
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: Updated Mods Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 12 [13]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 10:02:35 PM   
InfiniteMonkey

 

Posts: 188
Joined: 9/16/2016
Status: offline
I think you want to be careful to have the destination classes be convert to only so they can't switch them out on demand, but I like it.

One of my major beefs with playing Japan is that historical 12/7 locations of ships/LCU/iar groups make day 1 moves by the JFB more difficult. I have to contend with historical deployments even if they do not make sense for the plan I intend to follow. The First turn movement bonus mitigates that somewhat, but not enough.

I'm not a fan of more than 1 port attack/Meirsing gambit/deep invasions. However, I'd love to have more flexibility with opening plans. One thing I know a lot of JFB's spend time fighting is prewar AK/AP positioning. We can spend two weeks of largely pointless effort collecting ships of certain classes together. Would be nice to just dump all uncommitted AK/AP in one of Osaka/Hiroshima/tokyo/etc. Having all LCU not in their co0mmand area (Southern Army troops in Home Islands for example) set to Strat Mode so I could at least move them in the direction I want them to go on Turn 1.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 361
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 10:29:03 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14567
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I have done a lot of merchant shipping around from pre-war starts. Most of the Tanker Fleet is in places that MAKE SENSE. Can continue along the lines of basing AKs in more appropriate places. Even if another 100-200 get moved to places making sense it would certainly help.

Am going to work on some CL possibilities now...

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 362
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 10:32:08 PM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 622
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
I think you want to be careful to have the destination classes be convert to only so they can't switch them out on demand, but I like it.
<snip>


Agreed.


_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 363
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 10:42:49 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14567
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
OK. Let us show the current classes. Here is the Tenryu-Class Minelayer:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to InfiniteMonkey)
Post #: 364
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 10:45:32 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14567
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
In 12/42 they are allowed to convert to a CLAA. Stats:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 365
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 10:48:17 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14567
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Kuma and Tama begin as Minelayers:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 366
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 10:49:48 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14567
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
In August 42 they are allowed to convert to a CLAA:





Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 367
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 10:52:22 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14567
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
As Darnerys Stormborn looks on, here are the Kitakami TT Leaders (Kitakami, Oi, and Kiso):




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 368
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 10:54:37 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14567
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
So....by BTSL, we have seven older cruisers with four of the starting as ML with the opportunity to become CLAA in Fall/Late-42. The other three begin life as TT Launchers.

The Tenryu/Kuma-Class seem to be too small to be effective AA cruisers. Have always felt the CLAA UPgrade is too much for their small hulls.

Do we look to mold the four oldest ML/CL into those Convoy/ASW Escort Leaders? They are mighty useful as Minelayers and Troop haulers...


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/21/2017 10:55:47 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 369
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 11:04:21 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14567
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Have sometimes wondered about the Japanese simply making those four old CLs into the ML and leave them there but then look to build more of the experimental Yubari-Class. They serve as a nice Destroyer Leader. If they did a run of 3-4 more of these ships, would they make for what we're talking about?

Yubari Stats:






Got to watch out for Drogon's FIRE!


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/21/2017 11:06:07 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 370
RE: Updated Mods - 8/21/2017 11:06:49 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 14567
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I'm done for a bit. What do people think?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 371
RE: Updated Mods - 8/22/2017 4:51:15 AM   
Kitakami

 

Posts: 622
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: online
Ok, took a good look at displacement, gun weights, etc. Here are a few thoughts:

1. CL Yubari was an experimental ship and a test bed of several new technologies. As such, I do not know if other ships of the class would be built. It was also the smallest of the lot. That being said,

- If others were to be built, I'd suggest 3x additional ships in the class, for a total of 4.
- It would make a decent destroyer leader, if enough DC's are fitted.
- At some point the B and Y turrets could be replaced by double AA turrets (12.7 cm DP from larger ships, maybe?).

2. CL/CM Tenryu look good in CM configuration. Perhaps an upgrade with increased AA as some point. It is true these hulls are small for AA, but lets face it, Japanese naval AA is not a strength, but a weakness.

- Weightwise 4x double 12.7 cm or 10 cm turrets seem to be doable. Length of barrels is shorter, so that should not be a problem either.
- Another option would be to let them keep their cargo capacity and give them more torpedo tubes... if the triple tubes could be found somewhere, or if something would be deducted from the force pools (tanks? small ships?).

3. CL/CM Kuma are the largest of the three classes. I happen to like them, in either torpedo or AA configurations. I am not as keen on their CM configuration.

- If enough torpedo turrets could be made, having all five configured as torpedo cruisers would be fearsome. There would have to be a cost for this to be paid somehow, though.
- Weight would allow their 14 cm guns to be replaced for double AA turrets at some point.
- Whatever armament is decided on, keeping the cargo capacity makes for an interesting little ship with (possibly) big teeth.

Just a few random thoughts. I am no naval engineer, so I don't know how much weight the different calibers add or subtract in ammo and other weight (and hull space).

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 372
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 11 12 [13]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Updated Mods Page: <<   < prev  9 10 11 12 [13]
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