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: 9999 days upgrade

 
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: 9999 days upgrade Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 3/29/2013 12:05:49 AM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 611
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italy
Status: offline
FatR thank you much for analyzing this issue!
I'd like to not loose those assets, radar and AA are very valuable for Japan to fill a huge gap vs Allies. RA is well balanced, has better playability and gives a chance to Japan, that's why I like it.
I believe that Air HQ can upgrade, I've got some that could upgrade without problems!
The issue begun when I upgraded to RA5.3 from a former version only for the HQ not yet upgraded.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 31
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 3/29/2013 2:31:27 AM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 12511
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

In 5.4 the TOE of Japanese air flotillas upgrades on 430615. Or at least is supposed to. Hopefully John can clarify that, not exactly my area.


EDIT: Actually, upon reading a manual it seems that there might be a mistake in assigning TOE upgrades for IJN air fleets and flotillas. Tomorrow I will test it and post a 5.5 version with this bug and this bug only fixed, if I'm correct in my reading of the editor's manual.

IIRC, there were similar errors in the stock scenarios originally.
In old WITP, TOEs had a delay date of 9999.
In AE, the 'delay' date in a TOE is the date that the next TOE upgrade can start from.

< Message edited by michaelm -- 3/29/2013 2:32:14 AM >


_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 32
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 3/29/2013 7:16:01 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

IIRC, there were similar errors in the stock scenarios originally.
In old WITP, TOEs had a delay date of 9999.
In AE, the 'delay' date in a TOE is the date that the next TOE upgrade can start from.


Yes, this pretty much seems to be the error in question, thanks.


After I set the delay for the original TOE to the date of upgrade, and the delay for the upgrade TOE to 9999, upgrades seem to be working as intended.

I've uploaded the fixes version as RA 5.5 to the site.

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/29/2013 8:06:53 AM >


_____________________________

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 michaelm75au)
Post #: 33
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 3/29/2013 8:06:01 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Aaand, to put it all in one place, here's my proposal for RA 6.0.

1)Take DaBabes Scen 28C ships/classes list, and apply to it RA's additions. Thankfully, I already did much work regarding Japanese cargo ships, various auxilaries, etc, for the Perfect War ship list, which can be applied to RA pretty much as is, so only major combatants and escorts need to be redone.

1.1)Scen 28C reduces cargo loads for all transports and tankers by about 1/3. To avoid a premature bankrupcy of Japanese economy in RA, where Japan has less fuel reserves, and to keep the overall spirit of the mod, I propose reducing fuel stats for Japanese cargo ships and small auxilaties by about 40%, if proposal (1) is accepted, which will make them go the same range on less fuel.

2)Let's stick to the original RA complement of extra major combatants: 3 Shokaku-kai carriers, 2 Kawachi battlecruisers (with the second one renamed to Kasuga) 2 new Tone-kai CAs, 4 Oyodo-sised CLs (using the proposal from the previous page, named Yahagi class, to separate them from the stock Aganos). The Yahagi class is pushed into construction a bit earlier, because of a clearer vision regarding its specifications, but not too much earlier, because the shipyard intended to build them probably needs reconstruction... In addition, 5 large APs are provided with an option to convert to Kayo-class CVEs, the fist two on 42/12, the rest on 43/6. Conversion takes 270 days. Removed are Shinano, Taiho, all of the original light and training cruisers, Kayo, Army CVEs. Let's look at the resulting shipyard load in the mod:




You might see, that several ships should most likely arrive later than they do, including Renkaku (3/44, this all of the following dates are approximate, of course), Kasuga (12/43), Yahagi (6/42), Oyodo (8/43), Noshiro (10/43) and Sakawa (12/44)

On the other hand, Ryukaku (10/42), Kawachi (11/42) and the second batch of Unryu-class carriers (late 1944) can be made available earlier.

I do think that this makes the Japanese program less loaded specifically for 1943. But on the other hand, much fewer valuable ships will arrive hopelessly late.


2.1)This program is actually already a fair bit above "realistic" Japanese construction capabilities. You might see, that shipyards in my table work almost without pauses, laying down new ships immediately or almost immediately after the previous ones leave their slipways (except for Mitsubishi's shipyard in Nagasaki - that's because we need a shipyard set aside for all the conversions). IRL, it was not so. This is one reason I'm against adding new major combatants beyond the original RA vision.

The other reason is that, IMO, Japan, unless defeated badly and early, needs extra destroyers and small amphibious ships much more than it needs extra cruisers. In my oldest RA game I'm now forced to avoid engagements because I cannot build balanced taskforces anymore. Thankfully, the current versions of RA already provide for this, to an extent.


3)I also think, that, even despite the HI tax, the side of IJNAF pilot training program should be increased somewhat. 300 pilots/month in 1944 is not enough.

4)My proposals regarding the light forces still stand.


Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 #: 34
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 3/29/2013 10:13:35 AM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 611
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italy
Status: offline
+
Destroyers are a real bottleneck for japan Navy from the beginning, I've got some cuisers stuck in port o some TF with 3 cruisers and only 3 DD because of the scarcity of DD.
Japan begins with no Escorts and has to relay on PB and few DMS to escort all the merchant fleet. At least for the main TK and the most valuable assets I use older DD, that are not suitable for surface TF engagement.
replacement of navy pilots seems also to be scarce, I'm only in'42 but the pool has already decreased , I wonder what will happen in '44

Thanks for all this wonderful job. I'm sure you're having much fun too, creating and keeping alive a Mod from this Masterpiece sounds very involving.
I wonder if it's more fun for you creating the mod or playing it?

< Message edited by MrBlizzard -- 3/29/2013 7:15:38 PM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 35
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 3/29/2013 3:27:42 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1190
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
One question... does that change need a restart?

Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

IIRC, there were similar errors in the stock scenarios originally.
In old WITP, TOEs had a delay date of 9999.
In AE, the 'delay' date in a TOE is the date that the next TOE upgrade can start from.


Yes, this pretty much seems to be the error in question, thanks.


After I set the delay for the original TOE to the date of upgrade, and the delay for the upgrade TOE to 9999, upgrades seem to be working as intended.

I've uploaded the fixes version as RA 5.5 to the site.



_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 36
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 3/29/2013 8:22:14 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

One question... does that change need a restart?

Thanks!


To my knowledge, no. But I advise to keep a reserve save from before updating, just in case.

_____________________________

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 Kitakami)
Post #: 37
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 3/29/2013 9:47:48 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1190
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

One question... does that change need a restart?

Thanks!


To my knowledge, no. But I advise to keep a reserve save from before updating, just in case.


Ok... it worked! I just did not want to redo about 25% of turn one (of course, it would have been even worse if it had been a game that had been going for a long time).

Thanks! :)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 38
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/30/2013 2:04:02 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16440
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

By comparison - the same table with carriers and battlecruisers from RA mapped to it (I'm assuming roughly 1.5 years on the slipways for a Shokaku-class carrier and 2 years for a battlecruiser). Looking at this, Ryukaku should be probably available earlier, 1-2/1943, and Renkaku later, 2-3/1944.





P.S. Also, it strikes me now that we have two Ikomas in our fleet - a carrier and a battlecruiser! This needs fixing...


Remember FatR that we ADD two cruiser/cv-sized slipways to Japan with RA. Did you factor that? We have one at Shanghai and added the other somewhere in the Home Islands. WE had one heck of a discussion as to whether there was room in any of the HI Ports and came up with only the one. Cannot remember WHERE for the life of me!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 39
RE: 9999 days upgrade - 3/30/2013 2:07:46 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16440
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard

+
Destroyers are a real bottleneck for japan Navy from the beginning, I've got some cuisers stuck in port o some TF with 3 cruisers and only 3 DD because of the scarcity of DD.
Japan begins with no Escorts and has to relay on PB and few DMS to escort all the merchant fleet. At least for the main TK and the most valuable assets I use older DD, that are not suitable for surface TF engagement.
replacement of navy pilots seems also to be scarce, I'm only in'42 but the pool has already decreased , I wonder what will happen in '44

Thanks for all this wonderful job. I'm sure you're having much fun too, creating and keeping alive a Mod from this Masterpiece sounds very involving.
I wonder if it's more fun for you creating the mod or playing it?


WE specialized Japanese DD construction to just two Ports following Kaigun's suggestions in its shipbuilding chapter. Maizuru and Port rthur construct nearly every single one of the Japanese DDs. This facilitates a Japanese version of quicker American Production. WE shaved DD construction timetables by (I think) about 3 months on average and added a few smaller slipways by expanding these Ports capacity..


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to MrBlizzard)
Post #: 40
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/30/2013 7:14:42 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Remember FatR that we ADD two cruiser/cv-sized slipways to Japan with RA. Did you factor that? We have one at Shanghai and added the other somewhere in the Home Islands. WE had one heck of a discussion as to whether there was room in any of the HI Ports and came up with only the one. Cannot remember WHERE for the life of me!


Well, that's why I asked the list of additions so far... I do think that two extra slipways may be excessive, though, seeing as everything can be built by concentrating on existing ones and intensifying construction works there, see the latest table above. Resources aren't infinite, and if extras are there, they are needed for more urgent things assumed by the mod, such as mass production of 100/65 mounts and AAMGs. One extra slipway, however, in combination with probably expanding the slipway at Sasebo, will allow to build new CLs in timely manner, and further unload the Mitshubihi shipyard in Nagasaki for conversions, allowing to convert all suitable APs before 1944. With two extra large slipways, we'll need to add extra ships or have them underloaded, and I think we already added enough extra ships. What do you think of that?


EDIT: Alternatively, both the smaller shipyards at Sasebo and Yokohama can be expanded to handle normal cruisers (or carriers).

< Message edited by FatR -- 3/30/2013 4:06:17 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 #: 41
RE: RA 5.4 - 3/31/2013 9:43:04 PM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 611
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italy
Status: offline
Hi folks, after upgrading to RA 5.5 i still have the problem of 9999 days upgrade.
The game asked for adding database changes, of course i answered yes, and than showed something like "database updated succesfully" but my Air HQ are in the same situation as before
I feel like I'm missing something?

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 42
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/1/2013 6:53:26 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Everything shows correctly when I launch 5.5. Maybe a bug due to imperfect update? Does anyone else still see this problem?

_____________________________

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 MrBlizzard)
Post #: 43
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/1/2013 9:13:48 PM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 611
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italy
Status: offline
It's surely my fault cause if I start a new game I see the problem solved: the Air HQ upgrades in 555 days instead of 9999!
but in my current game I've an unsuccesfull update (I've tried it three times and it always says apdate succesfull)
In the preferences screen the scenario, after updating, still shows RA 4.1 instead of RA 5.5 but in the same time it shows also "database updated this turn". It's something like I'm missing a file or I'm putting it in wrong location?


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 44
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/3/2013 10:36:44 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

It's surely my fault cause if I start a new game I see the problem solved: the Air HQ upgrades in 555 days instead of 9999!
but in my current game I've an unsuccesfull update (I've tried it three times and it always says apdate succesfull)
In the preferences screen the scenario, after updating, still shows RA 4.1 instead of RA 5.5 but in the same time it shows also "database updated this turn". It's something like I'm missing a file or I'm putting it in wrong location?


Files should be in the scenario folder. As far as I can see, all 11 scenario subfiles are included in the download. The most likely reason lies in the database changes between 4.1 and 5.5, which can cause all sorts of unpredictable bugs. Don't think there is a cure - I'm personally still stuck with the 1.something version of Scen 70 in my longest-running PBEM game, because attempts to upgrade caused fatal bugs since long ago.

That said, addition of some radars and flak to air flotillas is not something Japan can't live without. The above-mentioned game got stuck with full-strength Chinese units and a couple of less significant problems...

_____________________________

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 MrBlizzard)
Post #: 45
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/4/2013 9:35:53 PM   
MrBlizzard


Posts: 611
Joined: 4/16/2012
From: Italy
Status: offline

quote:


The most likely reason lies in the database changes between 4.1 and 5.5, which can cause all sorts of unpredictable bugs.


I did't imagine this kind of collateral effects we should have kept rel 4.1...

quote:

That said, addition of some radars and flak to air flotillas is not something Japan can't live without. ..

I'll manage to survive
Thanks for help!!!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 46
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/7/2013 8:11:19 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
A slightly modified shipyard load program, assuming upgrade of two smaller shipyards to shipyards capable of handling full-sized cruisers/carriers. Reduction of load on Mitshubishi's shipyard at Nagasaki might allow to convert all potential CVEs before 1944.

Note that there's a theoretical possibility of laying two more cruisers or Unryu-class carriers for late 1944, but considering material shortages and needs of late-war games, I'd prefer to stick with expanded destroyer construction.

Speaking of destroyer construction, before the war IRL it was primarily handled at the Maizuru arsenal which built only destroyers, the Fujinagata shipyard at Osaka and the Uraga shipyard at Tokyo, with Yokosuka and Sasebo arsenals, and the Kawasaki shipyard from the table above also participating to a lesser extent. During the war, both Mitshubishi shipyards also started to help with destroyer construction. I just don't see how this can be centralised to just two shipyards, or how such centralisation can benefit Japan, particularly late in the war, when almost all shipyards built some destroyers. Expanding the Maizuru arsenal and making it reponsible for training teams of engineers to help other shipyards with streamlining construction of standardized destroyer designs (in RA Japan builds only Akizukis and Matsus - improved Matsus, if you accept my earlier proposal, John - during the war, instead of also Yugumos and Shimakaze).






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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 MrBlizzard)
Post #: 47
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/8/2013 7:12:53 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16440
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Nagasaki 4 certainly appears to be open for two ships. Available 5-1939...

Sasebo KK (10/42) and Yokohama #1 (3/43) could each take one ship each.

Possibilities:
CL Agano is not listed so she goes into Nagasaki #4 'C' Slot 6/39 - 11/41
Two CVLs (Ibuki and Kurama). Place Ibuki at Nagasaki #4 with dates being 12/41 - 6/43 and Kurama in the 'D' Slot of Kobe #2 with dates being 6/39 - 1/42
Two CVE conversions we added (Saiyen and Kuzuryu). These were two Shadow Program ships never converted. Each could go into the 'D' Slots for Sasebo and Yokohama with dates being Saiyen 11/42 - 11/43 and Kuzuryu 4/43 - 4/44.

Don't know if that works but it is a proposal. That chart is like playing tetras!


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/8/2013 7:13:24 AM >


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 48
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/8/2013 11:25:37 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
Purely theoretically expanded shipyards can handle all this, but where materials will come from? Also, why build dedicated CVLs before the war even begins?

I still stand with the idea of returning to the old RA construction lineup (only 4 new-project CLs, no extra CVLs), but add CVE conversion options to all 5 suitable xAPs, listed upthread (useful, and takes no build points, but is not too useful, because these ships won't have organic airgroups), and shift dates as the table suggest, so Unryu-class carriers will be available earlier and some of the new ships later. Late in the war Japan needs destroyers and small, fast transports above all (besides aircraft, of course), in my experience from 1944... If you really want to add 2 more CVLs, Japanese can start to construct 2 additional light cruisers before 1943 in Sasebo and Nagasaki, and then convert them to CVLs on the slipways, with availability in 1945. I see no point in adding surface combatants with availability in late 1944 or 1945.

Also, I thought of another idea, related to my light forces proposal: although Japan doesn't produce 127/40 Type 89 twins during the war anymore, quite a few mounts of this type will be available after being removed from newer carriers and cruisers, as well as battleships. As Matsu-class destroyers are supposed to be bigger in my proposal, and carry 2x2 HA guns mounts, it makes sense to arm the first series entirely with these now-available older guns. The later Tachibana class will switch to twin 100/65 mounts, after their production will allow for that, and the stores of old guns will be exhausted. This will reduce Matsus' capabilities, but beggars can't be choosers.

_____________________________

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 #: 49
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/8/2013 3:25:12 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16440
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I have held off truly jumping into this discussion due to life being incredibly busy, however, have some time today so I will revisit some of what was written earlier as well as where we are right now.

Thoughts on Ship Construction:
1. Your comments on building dedicated CVLs just when the war starts are totally on target. Why would the Japanese build them? They would not. These would have been conversions like what you describe from the enlarged Agano-Class. It would then make sense as to why there are fewer CLs within the Building Plan. Since the CVLs would be of marginal use then it makes sense to me in NOT building them.

2. So what would be built when war begins? Throw out two CVLs and add a 4th Shokaku-Kai would be my response. The Japanese nearly always built pairs anyway. They lay down a pair of Sho's (Shokaku--Zuikaku) in 1937, then a 2nd pair in 1939 (Taikaku--Ryukaku), and a final pair in 1941 (Renkaku--???). Through acceleration the Japanese could get a pair of CVs in early-43 and another pair in early-44. They would then be DONE with heavy warship construction from the pre-war. Remember no Taiho and no Shinano. There would certainly be steel enough available by not building these RL ships as well as others...

3. With no Training Cruisers built there is TIME to build an expanded class of CL. The argument is whether they are BIG CLs or DL? The Improved CLs seem to be what you really want to go after so either:

a. Build the bigger CL that is much more akin to the original Mogami-Class and make them BAD-ASSED ships. Build just a small number of them but they would ROCK!

b. Scale back to a true Destroyer Leader that would be cheap and easy to build. They replace the old WWI CLs as originally intended but are modern ships. Heck: Go with 4 twin mounts and a full DD's TT complement and build 8-10 of them. They would be larger then the Moon-Class DDs and be a fast DL. There would be several already in commission when the war starts and then allow for 4-6 reflecting completion of the Class before realizations ets in as to just how out-matched the Japanese are.


OK. My .02. Comments from the Peanut Gallery?


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 4/8/2013 3:31:37 PM >


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 50
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/8/2013 3:29:57 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16440
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Essentially I propose we go with either 8 of Proposal 1 OR 4 of Proposal 3.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

As about cruisers, my thoughts continue to go in endless circles, John. I cannot choose among the following:

(1)The RL Agano

Pros: Can be built cheaply and rapidly, using second-rate shipyards, therefore can be built in relatively large numbers. I find myself using old 5500-ton CLs very actively in my games, because they are numerous and expendable, RL Agano can be same but better, and with pre-planning probably at least 8 can be constructed.

Cons: IRL it was too vulnerable and likely to sink or completely lose power from one torpedo hit against machinery spaces, which is not desirable for a fairly large ship. And not that cheap in the end - almost half the cost of an Unryu-class carrier. In the game qualitative inferiority within your class is punished harshly.


(2)A Super-Agano

An example, is, again:



Pros: Actually can take on Allied cruisers, at least in the night, while possibly still being relatively cheap and suited for mass construction.

Cons: Cheapness and suitability for mass construction on second-rate shipyards are not guaranteed. Is almost as vulnerable as RL Agano, but even bigger and more painful to lose.


(3)An Oyodo-sized cruiser

By the current point "Aganos" in RA actually approach this. I prefer this project, already posted in the previous thread, however:


Pros: More reasonable protection, can hold its own against American CLs at least in night combat, a better TF escort, due to powerful AA armament. The best balance of qualities required from a cruiser.

Cons: It's unclear if shipyards that built Aganos and training CLs can handle this. The first four can be armed with turrets taken from Mogamis, cutting down on the expenses, but after that they won't be cheap. Still weaker than Washington cruisers.

(4)The standard Japanese Washington CA

Note, that Ibuki and Hull #301 were based on Suzuya, not Tone, IRL.

Pros: More powerful and useful than any other cruiser, maybe not IRL, but certainly in the game. Good survivability and relatively little chance of being taken out with a single lucky shot. A pure artillery cruiser, a Tone-type scout and a Tone-based cruisers with increased medium AA armament all are very useful

Cons: Very big expensive, due to being an erzatz battleship, like all Washington heavy cruisers, but particularly Japanese ones. Why not just build battleships, after you are no longer bound by treaties? Japanese IRL certainly thought so, and laid down new CAs as a part of the Circle Urgent RL program only because they needed ships right now and hoped to complete those hulls quickly.


I think that the initial RA plan of building four of #3 and two of #4 is pretty nice and not particularly outlandish (considering, again, availability of turrets from Mogamis, absence of training cruisers, etc, etc), but I don't the idea of just adding more cruisers very much. Unless they arrive in 1945, making them more like "build at your own risk" projects, rathet than something Japan is expected to have.


Note that for Perfect War I now want to pick one of these options and build only that, to maximize production efficiency, but just cannot make a choice...



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 51
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/8/2013 3:52:04 PM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
Any more additions to the Allied side in 44 - 45? They could use some extra 2nd/3rd generation aircraft production.

_____________________________

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 52
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/8/2013 4:05:27 PM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1190
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: the bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
OK. My .02. Comments from the Peanut Gallery?


John,

The fourth Shokaku-kai, and the Oyodo-sized cruisers would get my vote. Some additional standardization, plus a lot of usefulness. Not sure how much of a difference they will make, but I like the idea :)

_____________________________

Tenno Heika Banzai!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 53
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/8/2013 4:30:58 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I'm not sure we should be remodding all over again things that already have been changed. Crazier ideas should wait until we return to the Perfect War. But the cat is out of the bag with 5.0, as it seems, and Babesfying RA is at least a good pretext for the new changes... By the way, John, do you agree with that idea?


Regarding your ideas:

(1)The fourth Shokaku-kai carrier. Avoiding breaking the traditional Jap patter of carrier pairs makes sense, but just spawning a fourth carrier doesn't. Replacing 6 Unryus with 4 Shokaku-kais could potentially produce sizeable savings in materials (and shipyard space), particularly considering the standardization bonus, but is currently problematic in game terms: construction 2 100 Durability ships is much more expensive than 2 63 durability ships. In the light of that I note, that there's no need to raise Shokaku-kai's Durability. It can remain at 90, with an airgroup of 75 planes (the maximul practical complement of the Shokaku class with late-war planes IRL). This will keep the construction cost a bit more reasonable. The first pair of Shokaku-kais, as you said, arrives early 43, the second early 44, the last two late 44 to very early 45. 8 modified Sho-kai = 600 aicraft. 6 Unryus + Taiho + Shinano + Ibuki = 524 aircraft. The result = more aicraft than IRL, and their platforms arrive fairly through 43-44, instead of mostly being concentrated in late 44-45. Currently RA 5.5 provides 3 Shokaku-kai + 6 Unryus + 2 greatly enlarged Ibukis = 717 aircraft, albeit most of them on weaker and more fragile platforms. A bit too many, I think! We wanted to avoid miracles.

The build point comparison, if you want to know, is 648 000 NSY points to fully build up an all-Shokaku-kai program, and 576 860 for the current program. The former will become cheaper if Shokaku-kai durability is reduced below 85. However, I'm not counting here 3 CVEs (Kaio, Sayien, Kuzuryu) that I propose to remove from the queue and replace with on-map conversions of 5 large APs. These CVLs cost 30 990 NSY points. So 8 neo-Shokaku-kais will break about even with the current state at durability 87.


Note, that the game and IRL are, IMO, in contradiction here, smaller ships are far too cheap to build. In practice Taiho's cost was only 30% higher than that of Unryu and Japs chose the latter for wartime production because they needed to restart carrier construction real quick after Midway, with no hulls on slipways at that moment, except Taiho, and smaller hulls, powered by standard cruiser engines, were faster to construct with little preparation. Note, however, that they failed to build enough proper engines for all 6 Unryus.


(2)On cruisers. Remember, that we picked to build 4 CLs with 3x3 155mm turrets to utilize guns taken from Mogamis. This was the whole reason beyond the current CL project. I just propose to place these turrets on Oyodo hulls in Proposal 3. And I do think that I personally prefer building 4 of Proposal 3.

< Message edited by FatR -- 4/8/2013 5:20:17 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 #: 54
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/8/2013 4:34:11 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

Any more additions to the Allied side in 44 - 45? They could use some extra 2nd/3rd generation aircraft production.


IIRC, a few aircraft that stopped production in 1945 continue until the end of the scenario, and Hellcats are tougher. Ask John if anything was added to their fleets...

_____________________________

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 Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 55
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/8/2013 4:48:06 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16440
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Like the sound and logical thinking Posted in the above comments FatR. Does anyone have thoughts regarding this?

Allied additions in RA (currently) include:
1. UP to 10 additional CVE conversions that are available starting January 1, 1942.
2. A pair of additional CVLs coming in early-43.
3. Immediate conversion of the old WWI Omaha-Class to CLAA.

Are there any serious and realistic ideas for changes to the Allied OOB? Might as well voice them since we're looking at an RA 6.0...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 56
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/8/2013 4:52:56 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16440
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Have to admit that I didn't ever consider going with 6 Shokaku-Kais instead of any Unryu's.


_____________________________



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 #: 57
RA 6.0 - 4/8/2013 5:18:09 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16440
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Changes/Additions as I see it:

1. We completely scrap the Japanese Emergency CV Program and go with all Sho-Kais as described. Expensive compared to the Unryu's but FAAR better ships.

2. Go with a Revised 4th Circle of: the first pair of Sho-Kais, two BCs, two Tone-Kai, four Oyodo-Style CLs: 3x3 Main Armament, 5x2 100MM AA, 4x2 TT, and then its seaplane complement.

3. Wartime Construction:
a. 4 Sho-Kai's built in pairs
b. 5 Additional Conversions WITHOUT organic air groups

Did I screw any of this up?


_____________________________



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 #: 58
RE: RA 5.4 - 4/8/2013 5:22:16 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have to admit that I didn't ever consider going with 6 Shokaku-Kais instead of any Unryu's.



Well, technically it is 8 Shokaku-kai carriers instead of 6 Unryus, Taiho and part of Shinano, and with no significant pause in carrier construction after leaving the treaties.

_____________________________

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 #: 59
RE: RA 6.0 - 4/8/2013 5:28:49 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Changes/Additions as I see it:

1. We completely scrap the Japanese Emergency CV Program and go with all Sho-Kais as described. Expensive compared to the Unryu's but FAAR better ships.

2. Go with a Revised 4th Circle of: the first pair of Sho-Kais, two BCs, two Tone-Kai, four Oyodo-Style CLs: 3x3 Main Armament, 5x2 100MM AA, 4x2 TT, and then its seaplane complement.

3. Wartime Construction:
a. 4 Sho-Kai's built in pairs
b. 5 Additional Conversions WITHOUT organic air groups

Did I screw any of this up?



Oyodo-replacements are supposed to carry 6x2 100/65 (with less AAMGs, though, as the place used for them on RL Oyodo will be taken). And 4 Shokaku-kai carriers must be laid down before the war, the second pair probably as a part of Circle Urgent - 3 ships that are already present in RA + another one. But the general idea is as you described.



_____________________________

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 #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: 9999 days upgrade Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.191