Seems the code does not honor the upgrade path for replacement aircraft production. [The Japanese never get replacement aircraft - so this is an Allied issue only] When an aircraft is listed as upgrading to another type, on the date the other type starts production - the old plane stays in production - forever! So we may want to create a special "on map - but out of play" box for off map aircraft production for the Allies - and put those planes that matter in it (not all planes are a problem).
Meanwhile, we have learned two Soviet aircraft plants should be on the map - but are not. So they will be added - at Komsomolsk and Irkutsk.
A few enhancements and eratta discovered working on EEO can be folded in.
The object here is to prevent build up of gigantic quantities of Allied planes of obsolete types - sometimes useful planes that would not have been made one assumes. And also to get those Soviet factories in range of Japanese attacks - if they really were.
Then there is the matter of Australia: seems even more types of planes were made there than we have already added - and we should get them in - either by scheduling them to upgrade or by new plant. And that means we need to create a new plane type too - the P-51D will be made in one of the two recon slots used by P-51 variants. Aside from creating the potential for proper Aussie art for the D model, we can prevent them from upgrading long before they got them if we commit a slot, and sunset production of by then almost useless Boomerangs.
RHS 5, 6 & 7.7862 uploaded
Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami
RE: x.7852 planning
One of my favourite sites for Australian planes of the war:
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air ... t-raaf.htm
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-air ... t-raaf.htm
-
Kereguelen
- Posts: 1474
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:08 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
ORIGINAL: el cid again
Seems the code does not honor the upgrade path for replacement aircraft production. [The Japanese never get replacement aircraft - so this is an Allied issue only] When an aircraft is listed as upgrading to another type, on the date the other type starts production - the old plane stays in production - forever! So we may want to create a special "on map - but out of play" box for off map aircraft production for the Allies - and put those planes that matter in it (not all planes are a problem).
A few enhancements and eratta discovered working on EEO can be folded in.
The object here is to prevent build up of gigantic quantities of Allied planes of obsolete types - sometimes useful planes that would not have been made one assumes.
This is not entirely correct. Read 13.0 of the manual: "If a pool is over 6 months of the pool's replacement/build rate, the rate is reduced to 0 (this is for the monthly rate only, not actual production by factories on board) until the pool value drops below the 6 months level."
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
Well - that does not sound so bad. Maybe we don't have to do this after all? But adding Soviet factories - and the Aussie types not yet produced - seems a good idea.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
Japanese DDs in their early forms are messed up re DCs. Some astonishing values are in the set - inherited values of course. Like you get 2 shots of 2 DC??? Wonder if that was a deliberate attempt to limit Japanese ASW? Naturally this needs to be reworked. Typical Japanese Destroyers at the start of the war had 14, 16, 18 or 36 DC.
RHS uses "patterns" for "mount size" - and it assumes that a DC rack drops two times per pattern (for small patterns - one at the beginning and one at the end) - or for massive patterns - a rack drops three times (also one time in the center of the pattern). It assumes every K gun fires one DC per pattern, and every Y gun fires two DC per pattern. An early Japanese DD typically has two K guns and one rack (for a pattern of 4) - thus a ship with 16 DC has four WITP "shots" of 4 DC. The other most common pattern is six shots of 3 DC. The best case here - 36 total DC - is nine shots of four DC. The only problem case is 14 - there is no good solution here except seven shots of 2 DC - which is too small a pattern - so we use five shots of 3 DC. Later Japanese ASW ships fire patterns as large as 10 - and such patterns are common among later Allied ships as well. When you see a ship with 120-140 DC, it probably is getting something like ten shots of 10 DC. Also, later ships may have ahead throwing weapons - which get one shot per pass per weapon. The multi-barroled weapons are given much greater hit probability, but it is asumed that all the rounds never hit (instead, the square root of the number of rounds, rounded down to the greatest intiger in that square root, is assumed to hit). Another difference with ahead throwing weapons is they have range - while DC have "zero" range - meaning the ship must close to the position of the target to attack it. The chance of a hit by ahead throwing weapons is greater than for DC. Similarly, the chance of a hit is greater for a larger DC pattern. All DC patterns should be set as R direction - and all DC that fire per pass should be combined into a single "mount" value. ASW specialist units should have two vessels in them - and they get the attack values of ONE ship - but twice the shots of one ship (they alternate, one attacking while the other tracks the target and steers so as to be able to make the next attack). Thus two PC with rounds for six DC attacks are - when a single unit - given 12 shots.
RHS uses "patterns" for "mount size" - and it assumes that a DC rack drops two times per pattern (for small patterns - one at the beginning and one at the end) - or for massive patterns - a rack drops three times (also one time in the center of the pattern). It assumes every K gun fires one DC per pattern, and every Y gun fires two DC per pattern. An early Japanese DD typically has two K guns and one rack (for a pattern of 4) - thus a ship with 16 DC has four WITP "shots" of 4 DC. The other most common pattern is six shots of 3 DC. The best case here - 36 total DC - is nine shots of four DC. The only problem case is 14 - there is no good solution here except seven shots of 2 DC - which is too small a pattern - so we use five shots of 3 DC. Later Japanese ASW ships fire patterns as large as 10 - and such patterns are common among later Allied ships as well. When you see a ship with 120-140 DC, it probably is getting something like ten shots of 10 DC. Also, later ships may have ahead throwing weapons - which get one shot per pass per weapon. The multi-barroled weapons are given much greater hit probability, but it is asumed that all the rounds never hit (instead, the square root of the number of rounds, rounded down to the greatest intiger in that square root, is assumed to hit). Another difference with ahead throwing weapons is they have range - while DC have "zero" range - meaning the ship must close to the position of the target to attack it. The chance of a hit by ahead throwing weapons is greater than for DC. Similarly, the chance of a hit is greater for a larger DC pattern. All DC patterns should be set as R direction - and all DC that fire per pass should be combined into a single "mount" value. ASW specialist units should have two vessels in them - and they get the attack values of ONE ship - but twice the shots of one ship (they alternate, one attacking while the other tracks the target and steers so as to be able to make the next attack). Thus two PC with rounds for six DC attacks are - when a single unit - given 12 shots.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
Another problem is that the Mutsuki class - the last destroyers before the "super destroyers" with five or six five inch guns - converted to APDs - and then to Kaiten carriers - but this is not the case in the game. Some units also more or less converted to DEs or PCs - and it is not entirely clear this happens either. So we need to make these options formal. In the strictly historical scenarios, we will upgrade the original DD to APD and then back to DD as kaiten carrier. In the EOS family we will upgrade the original DD to DE status. For simplicity we will keep all ships in one class instead of splitting it up. Players do not have to upgrade, of course. The original DD have torpedoes - but the APD do not - and the later DE do not. The later DD with Kaiten treats the Kaiten as if they were torpedoes - which they are - just manned. And the Kaiten device was reformed to comply with the new torpedo range rule - which has worked superbly well for regular torpedoes.
-
Historiker
- Posts: 4742
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
- Location: Deutschland
RE: x.7852 planning
As long as an obsolete plane still gets used, it get's replacements, right?ORIGINAL: el cid again
Well - that does not sound so bad. Maybe we don't have to do this after all? But adding Soviet factories - and the Aussie types not yet produced - seems a good idea.
To avoid the still 40 or more P-40E to come while P-40N is already here, the P-40E needs to be produced on map, no?
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
Japanese 5 inch 50 Gun Devices (plural)
Reworking Japanese DDs, I decided to tackel the problem of the 5 inch 50 destroyer gun. The problem is that there are two of these weapons - or actually four divided into two performance groups: an SP and a DP. I decided to designate the SP as the A and C models (which elevate 45 and 55 degrees respectively) and the DP as the B and D models (which elevate to 75 degrees - not quite the ideal 90 degrees of an AA gun - but definitely in the DP range. The problems is - what to use for a slot? To get there I followed John Campbell, combining the 4.7 inch Type 3 and Type 11 - he only lists one set of data for them both in fact in Naval Weapons of World War Two. Both are 45 caliber SP guns. I had also combined in the Elswick gun - of only 40 calibers - but if we ever identify it on a vessel - we can use it in its British form (there being no production of ship devices anyway) - and I don't know of a single case where we actually need it. Presumably it has a shorter range.
Working through this, I found that we should increase the range of the SP to 20 (up from 18) because, while its range is indeed 18,000 meters - that is 20,100 yards, and the game thinks in yards, even if I think metric. At the same time, I found the 4.7 inch should be 17 (down from 18) - because its range is only 17,500 yards - and because probably it includes an even shorter range 3 YT gun - which has a lower mv. Now there is a problem with the DP gun - insofar as it cannot really be an AA gun and an SP gun at the same time data wise. RHS practice is to give the gun an "effective ceiling" out to a range = to that ceiling - and no more. In this case, I compared it to the 5 inch 40 DP - with a ceiling of just over 30,000 feet so range = 10 (10,000 yards) - and assigned a value of 32,000 feet - so range will be 11 (11,000 yards) - giving token recognition to the greater range of the 50 - and also that the same shell out of a longer tube should have a higher mv. This is a bit of a compromise - for one thing these guns don't really elevate fully - and for another ALL AA and DP guns have too much altitude performance at longer ranges - but it prevents planes from overflying with impunits not to rate altitude for a great range - and it prevents surface action from being at horribly short ranges not to restrict range too much.
EDIT: I regretfully have concluded that we should change the rating system for guns. First, an SP gun should use the anti-soft value of its HE shells rather than its fragmentation shells (that is, square root of 1.5 times the effect, which is 2/3 of its shell weight). Exception: in a strictly historical scenario (CVO and BBO families) keep it as is: the British did not have HE shells for the Singapore 15 inch CD guns. But in the EOS family, the shells arrive - because they really were en route - and just a little more concern a little sooner would have given them time to arrive. Second, since DP guns are given the effect value of their AP shells, they also should get this boost. This applies to many (most) naval and CD guns - a lot of work - but better simulation.
Working through this, I found that we should increase the range of the SP to 20 (up from 18) because, while its range is indeed 18,000 meters - that is 20,100 yards, and the game thinks in yards, even if I think metric. At the same time, I found the 4.7 inch should be 17 (down from 18) - because its range is only 17,500 yards - and because probably it includes an even shorter range 3 YT gun - which has a lower mv. Now there is a problem with the DP gun - insofar as it cannot really be an AA gun and an SP gun at the same time data wise. RHS practice is to give the gun an "effective ceiling" out to a range = to that ceiling - and no more. In this case, I compared it to the 5 inch 40 DP - with a ceiling of just over 30,000 feet so range = 10 (10,000 yards) - and assigned a value of 32,000 feet - so range will be 11 (11,000 yards) - giving token recognition to the greater range of the 50 - and also that the same shell out of a longer tube should have a higher mv. This is a bit of a compromise - for one thing these guns don't really elevate fully - and for another ALL AA and DP guns have too much altitude performance at longer ranges - but it prevents planes from overflying with impunits not to rate altitude for a great range - and it prevents surface action from being at horribly short ranges not to restrict range too much.
EDIT: I regretfully have concluded that we should change the rating system for guns. First, an SP gun should use the anti-soft value of its HE shells rather than its fragmentation shells (that is, square root of 1.5 times the effect, which is 2/3 of its shell weight). Exception: in a strictly historical scenario (CVO and BBO families) keep it as is: the British did not have HE shells for the Singapore 15 inch CD guns. But in the EOS family, the shells arrive - because they really were en route - and just a little more concern a little sooner would have given them time to arrive. Second, since DP guns are given the effect value of their AP shells, they also should get this boost. This applies to many (most) naval and CD guns - a lot of work - but better simulation.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
ORIGINAL: Historiker
As long as an obsolete plane still gets used, it get's replacements, right?ORIGINAL: el cid again
Well - that does not sound so bad. Maybe we don't have to do this after all? But adding Soviet factories - and the Aussie types not yet produced - seems a good idea.
To avoid the still 40 or more P-40E to come while P-40N is already here, the P-40E needs to be produced on map, no?
Well - unless we want to rationalize it somehow - yes. I suppose that with a nominal 25% sent to PTO there should be plenty of no longer needed planes in the rest of the world to transfer. Its not like the Allied economy is running on a shoestring and wholly devoted to PTO after all.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
Since we are doing gun devices, we will work in Very Heavy DP guns (6 inch guns designed for DP use) and Ultra Heavy DP guns (SP weapons with AA shells).
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
A new concept has dawned: some lighter DP guns have NO AP or semi-armor piercing rounds. THESE guns - entirely outfitted with HE, AA fragmentation, illumination or (in the case of IJN) ASW rounds - do NOT get the penetration of firing AP shells - but they DO get to use the full shell weight as effect.
In statistical terms, using the effect for full shell weight for AP guns when listing soft effect is a nice technical concept: you only use soft effect on soft targets, so the crew is "smart enough" to pick the shell for the target - ashore. This increases the soft effect about 20% for lighter shells, and the increase declines to about 10% for bigger shells (because we use square root of effect - or what would be effect in the case of AP - which is reduced because of the greater weight of the shell casing). These values may impact bombardments, and should, but they are not doing so in a dramatic way - no nuclear bombardments. The basic square root function is still working as intended.
Along the way some ship eratta showed up: Aquitania had unusual 4.7 inch guns (besides her 6 inch) - guns originally designed by UK for Japan!!! Some old ships (e.g. Soerabaja) had no turret armor - and other armor errors.
Testing of the revised Very Heavy AA and Ultra Heavy AA does not show much impact. There are not enough guns to matter much: either they get one plane - or none. About right.
In statistical terms, using the effect for full shell weight for AP guns when listing soft effect is a nice technical concept: you only use soft effect on soft targets, so the crew is "smart enough" to pick the shell for the target - ashore. This increases the soft effect about 20% for lighter shells, and the increase declines to about 10% for bigger shells (because we use square root of effect - or what would be effect in the case of AP - which is reduced because of the greater weight of the shell casing). These values may impact bombardments, and should, but they are not doing so in a dramatic way - no nuclear bombardments. The basic square root function is still working as intended.
Along the way some ship eratta showed up: Aquitania had unusual 4.7 inch guns (besides her 6 inch) - guns originally designed by UK for Japan!!! Some old ships (e.g. Soerabaja) had no turret armor - and other armor errors.
Testing of the revised Very Heavy AA and Ultra Heavy AA does not show much impact. There are not enough guns to matter much: either they get one plane - or none. About right.
-
Historiker
- Posts: 4742
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
- Location: Deutschland
RE: x.7852 planning
So you will not change the production to total on-map-production?ORIGINAL: el cid again
ORIGINAL: Historiker
As long as an obsolete plane still gets used, it get's replacements, right?ORIGINAL: el cid again
Well - that does not sound so bad. Maybe we don't have to do this after all? But adding Soviet factories - and the Aussie types not yet produced - seems a good idea.
To avoid the still 40 or more P-40E to come while P-40N is already here, the P-40E needs to be produced on map, no?
Well - unless we want to rationalize it somehow - yes. I suppose that with a nominal 25% sent to PTO there should be plenty of no longer needed planes in the rest of the world to transfer. Its not like the Allied economy is running on a shoestring and wholly devoted to PTO after all.
Does it take so much time to add this? I would really love to have this change in my next PBEM...
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
-
Historiker
- Posts: 4742
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
- Location: Deutschland
RE: x.7852 planning
Moreover, I think you've written somewhere, that the range of the G8N is reduced because of game mechanics. Why isn't is possible to give the G8N it's real range?
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
ORIGINAL: Historiker
So you will not change the production to total on-map-production?ORIGINAL: el cid again
ORIGINAL: Historiker
As long as an obsolete plane still gets used, it get's replacements, right?
To avoid the still 40 or more P-40E to come while P-40N is already here, the P-40E needs to be produced on map, no?
Well - unless we want to rationalize it somehow - yes. I suppose that with a nominal 25% sent to PTO there should be plenty of no longer needed planes in the rest of the world to transfer. Its not like the Allied economy is running on a shoestring and wholly devoted to PTO after all.
Does it take so much time to add this? I would really love to have this change in my next PBEM...
1) We don't need to change all production to total on map production. Many cases are not a problem. They are already produced on map, or they produce forever once introduced, or they are never produced at all (just a few start).
2) In order to do more than add production to Soviet (and Aussie) cities - I need slots - and I have none. What do we give up?
3) It takes time to implement this - worse a lot more time for me than anyone else - as I have 22 scenarios under management. I keep trying to drop 12 of them - but people keep finding things that should be made right in all.
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
ORIGINAL: Historiker
Moreover, I think you've written somewhere, that the range of the G8N is reduced because of game mechanics. Why isn't is possible to give the G8N it's real range?
Actually - there are a number of aircraft with this problem - most of them Allied. The original comment was probably about the Me-264 - which is no longer in the game anyway.
The basic problem is that no aircraft can fly longer than 1440 minutes (= 24 hours) - period. Design limit. But some planes fly for 2 or 3 days! [PBB - just added for EEO - theoretically could fly for 72 hours).
Now I HAVE given almost every plane its full range anyway! I "cheated" - by increasing cruising speed until it gets its full range in 24 hours time. [Even PBB will have its full range. The worst case is the B-29 - probably - and it has even more range than the PBB in terms of hexes.] But a few remain that are not quite there. I don't think they matter much - most of the map is in range as it is!
RE: x.7852 planning
el cid again,
2) In order to do more than add production to Soviet (and Aussie) cities - I need slots - and I have none. What do we give up?
I think you are talking about base slots. If you are, you could get rid of some beaches in the Society Islands area such as slots 848 Mangareva, 845 Nuku Hiva, 327 Rarotonga or 814 Penhryn. If the war ever gets to them the game is over anyway.
(I'm looking at the ver7 map for these)
2) In order to do more than add production to Soviet (and Aussie) cities - I need slots - and I have none. What do we give up?
I think you are talking about base slots. If you are, you could get rid of some beaches in the Society Islands area such as slots 848 Mangareva, 845 Nuku Hiva, 327 Rarotonga or 814 Penhryn. If the war ever gets to them the game is over anyway.
(I'm looking at the ver7 map for these)
-
Historiker
- Posts: 4742
- Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
- Location: Deutschland
RE: x.7852 planning
Thanks sid.
What does happen, when a plane starts from Tokyo to SF with 200 Cruise speed?
And yes, there are enough bases to give up, no? Moreover, I can just repeat myself: I wouldn't see any disadvantege to the Japanese Player, if the extra Supply and fuel added by the HI for the new factories would be at the coast to be shipped away.
I've never faced the situation as allied player, that my supplies or fuel storage at the West Coast ran short. It doesn't matter if the supply reaches 9999999 in mid January or at the end of February, no? [;)]
So why not just add the HI and the factories to "United States"?
But despite all the things I lembaste - thx for your work!
What does happen, when a plane starts from Tokyo to SF with 200 Cruise speed?
And yes, there are enough bases to give up, no? Moreover, I can just repeat myself: I wouldn't see any disadvantege to the Japanese Player, if the extra Supply and fuel added by the HI for the new factories would be at the coast to be shipped away.
I've never faced the situation as allied player, that my supplies or fuel storage at the West Coast ran short. It doesn't matter if the supply reaches 9999999 in mid January or at the end of February, no? [;)]
So why not just add the HI and the factories to "United States"?
But despite all the things I lembaste - thx for your work!
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
ORIGINAL: Historiker
Thanks sid.
What does happen, when a plane starts from Tokyo to SF with 200 Cruise speed?
And yes, there are enough bases to give up, no? Moreover, I can just repeat myself: I wouldn't see any disadvantege to the Japanese Player, if the extra Supply and fuel added by the HI for the new factories would be at the coast to be shipped away.
I've never faced the situation as allied player, that my supplies or fuel storage at the West Coast ran short. It doesn't matter if the supply reaches 9999999 in mid January or at the end of February, no? [;)]
So why not just add the HI and the factories to "United States"?
But despite all the things I lembaste - thx for your work!
Range = cruising speed times endurance divided by 60 (drop all fractions) - if cruising speed is less - range goes down to match. But endurance may not exceed 1440 - and it won't even if you set it to a greater value.
I have a list of bases to add - none to give up - so the question remains unanswered. What dots exist do so for a reason - or more than one reason.
Supply on the US West Coast in RHS can become a problem - IF you are shipping it out as you ought to be. UNLESS you learn to turn off construction, you should run short in many ports - assuming you are loading ships there every day. Until things repair up and you get greater amounts of supply made. If that is not happening - I will REDUCE supplies UNTIL it does happen - supply cannot be unlimited in a logistically oriented mod. It means players don't have to make trade off decisions as they should be doing. So far I have had to INCREASE supply because this problem was widely reported - no ability to do things in many ports. Where are you seeing 999999 (filled field) readings?
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
This has turned into a major device review - but a far more sophisticated system for rating artillery of all types is now in place. We also can give special characteristics to special weapons. AA guns that don't have AP shot don't have the same effects as virtually (or actually) the same gun used in a CD or AT role - but issued AP or SAP shot. Mortars have less armor penetration than howitzers, which is less than guns firing HE or AA fragmentation shot, which is less than guns firing AP or SAP shot. And some special cases were worked in: the 30 cm Type 7 Short Howitzer is rated as a mortar, while its cousin the 30 cm Type 7 Long Howitzer is rated as a howitzer - and neither is rated as a field gun, AT gun or CD gun.
Device review completed (it is necessary to do other things) I am almost done with Japanese destroyers. They had as few as 1 pattern of 1 DC - with 2 patterns of 2 being quite common - and utter nonsense. When I began - over a year ago - I did not understand WITP ASW weapons theory - and I could not be sure what a "shot" meant. It is clear someone rated these ships without regard for anything IRL. A Akizuki with 72 DC was rated as far worse than ships with 14 DC was. Now we will have patterns of 3, 4 or 6 DC, and there will be 4, 5 or 6 shots per ship when the war begins. Paradoxically, the light AA was too great for early war ships. There is even a case where a modern destroyer has only 2 .30 cals (designed for .50s, they substituted 7.7 mm AAMG) - and the normal case is only 2 .50 cals! Only the newest ships get 4 or in one case 6 25mm - in twins. The pre war appreciation of AA was as bad in Japan as it was everywhere else - if not worse. So the new ships will begin with much better ASW - but generally less light AA - than previously - particularly in the CVO and BBO families. Since there is no basis to change ASW before the war begins, they don't get any better in EOS family ASW wise - and indeed since Japanese destroyers seem never to have carried more than 36 DC (other than Akizuki with 72 or those wierd so called destroyers late in the war - Tachibana with 60) - I never let it get any better. But the light AA is slightly better is EOS - because a standard was defined for all sorts of ships - too weak a standard to be sure - and a DD generally rates a triple 25mm on the centerline - and the bigger ones also get a twin .50 mount forward (which reflects offensive thinking rather than realistic defense of the rear sector of the ship - this is to challenge minor craft when you don't want to fire the big guns - not stop a serious air attack). Even so, such a standard is better than the entire fleet had when the war began - except for the latest DDs - with three twin 25 mm - one on each side - and one forward (note nothing at all aft - which is why I preserved that thinking for all start of war DDs). [Not that light AA really defends a ship: in USN we call 20mm and below "revenge weapons" - because they cannot prevent a target aircraft from delivering ordnance onto the ship: even if they score the ship will still be hit by the bomb/rocket/torpedo if ballistics were going to let it hit anyway. But the mere existence of AA fire cuts the chance of a hit by a close order of magnitude - probably by psychological effects on the pilot - even if you cannot kill the plane before release - which light guns cannot.]
Device review completed (it is necessary to do other things) I am almost done with Japanese destroyers. They had as few as 1 pattern of 1 DC - with 2 patterns of 2 being quite common - and utter nonsense. When I began - over a year ago - I did not understand WITP ASW weapons theory - and I could not be sure what a "shot" meant. It is clear someone rated these ships without regard for anything IRL. A Akizuki with 72 DC was rated as far worse than ships with 14 DC was. Now we will have patterns of 3, 4 or 6 DC, and there will be 4, 5 or 6 shots per ship when the war begins. Paradoxically, the light AA was too great for early war ships. There is even a case where a modern destroyer has only 2 .30 cals (designed for .50s, they substituted 7.7 mm AAMG) - and the normal case is only 2 .50 cals! Only the newest ships get 4 or in one case 6 25mm - in twins. The pre war appreciation of AA was as bad in Japan as it was everywhere else - if not worse. So the new ships will begin with much better ASW - but generally less light AA - than previously - particularly in the CVO and BBO families. Since there is no basis to change ASW before the war begins, they don't get any better in EOS family ASW wise - and indeed since Japanese destroyers seem never to have carried more than 36 DC (other than Akizuki with 72 or those wierd so called destroyers late in the war - Tachibana with 60) - I never let it get any better. But the light AA is slightly better is EOS - because a standard was defined for all sorts of ships - too weak a standard to be sure - and a DD generally rates a triple 25mm on the centerline - and the bigger ones also get a twin .50 mount forward (which reflects offensive thinking rather than realistic defense of the rear sector of the ship - this is to challenge minor craft when you don't want to fire the big guns - not stop a serious air attack). Even so, such a standard is better than the entire fleet had when the war began - except for the latest DDs - with three twin 25 mm - one on each side - and one forward (note nothing at all aft - which is why I preserved that thinking for all start of war DDs). [Not that light AA really defends a ship: in USN we call 20mm and below "revenge weapons" - because they cannot prevent a target aircraft from delivering ordnance onto the ship: even if they score the ship will still be hit by the bomb/rocket/torpedo if ballistics were going to let it hit anyway. But the mere existence of AA fire cuts the chance of a hit by a close order of magnitude - probably by psychological effects on the pilot - even if you cannot kill the plane before release - which light guns cannot.]
-
el cid again
- Posts: 16983
- Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm
RE: x.7852 planning
Destroyers completed.
Moving on to creating Allied aircraft factories. Doing this at Irkutsk, I realized I can ramp up production - just as I do for Japan. Not quite properly - but better than start at full production anyway. And also that we will sunset the older IL-2 production by having it upgrade to IL-2M - at Komsomolsk. This makes the whole thing worth doing: we can solve some significant problems with planes the produce too few per month if you must produce them all the way until the end of the war (F4U night fighters for example) - or you must produce too many if you do so at a rate that can build the squadrons in a reasonable time. Now we can sunset that into F6F night fighter production - reduce the number of months - and increase the rate per month. Lots of things like that - and we can have planes not start at hundreds per month - they will need time to ramp up. Which we can compensate for by having a higher total as the goal. This is a good concept.
The more I think about it - the more I think we can avoid using a lot of slots to do it. Putting factories at United States, Canada, Krasnyorsk will probably work acceptable well - and all these places are so far from potential enemy bomber bases they should pretty much be immune to attack. If that changes in a game, it gives players an incentive to actually defend their rear areas - albiet in a semi-abstract form. The whole point of both German and Japanese bomber raid planning for the USA was to divert resources to defend against them worth more than the bombers cost. This permits that sort of simulation in a very crude and semi-abstract form - but one that works remarkably well. Players may ignore the raids - or defend with AAA and fighters - albiet far too efficiently (because there are not many locations to defend).
Extra supply points at these distant points should not be a problem either - as they don't move very efficiently over great distances - and there was essentially unlimited supply in the rear areas. Finally - the concept of ramping production (using damaged aircraft plants) means that repair of these (and supporting HI plants) will be a kind of supply sink - early war supply will be drained by them to some degree (and players get some control over it - by selecting repair or not to repair various facilities).
Moving on to creating Allied aircraft factories. Doing this at Irkutsk, I realized I can ramp up production - just as I do for Japan. Not quite properly - but better than start at full production anyway. And also that we will sunset the older IL-2 production by having it upgrade to IL-2M - at Komsomolsk. This makes the whole thing worth doing: we can solve some significant problems with planes the produce too few per month if you must produce them all the way until the end of the war (F4U night fighters for example) - or you must produce too many if you do so at a rate that can build the squadrons in a reasonable time. Now we can sunset that into F6F night fighter production - reduce the number of months - and increase the rate per month. Lots of things like that - and we can have planes not start at hundreds per month - they will need time to ramp up. Which we can compensate for by having a higher total as the goal. This is a good concept.
The more I think about it - the more I think we can avoid using a lot of slots to do it. Putting factories at United States, Canada, Krasnyorsk will probably work acceptable well - and all these places are so far from potential enemy bomber bases they should pretty much be immune to attack. If that changes in a game, it gives players an incentive to actually defend their rear areas - albiet in a semi-abstract form. The whole point of both German and Japanese bomber raid planning for the USA was to divert resources to defend against them worth more than the bombers cost. This permits that sort of simulation in a very crude and semi-abstract form - but one that works remarkably well. Players may ignore the raids - or defend with AAA and fighters - albiet far too efficiently (because there are not many locations to defend).
Extra supply points at these distant points should not be a problem either - as they don't move very efficiently over great distances - and there was essentially unlimited supply in the rear areas. Finally - the concept of ramping production (using damaged aircraft plants) means that repair of these (and supporting HI plants) will be a kind of supply sink - early war supply will be drained by them to some degree (and players get some control over it - by selecting repair or not to repair various facilities).