Shinano loadout?

[Wasp]

Do you get to choose if Shinano is going to be converted as a full carrier or the "Base" type of carrier that she was in WWII(She was supposed to be a moving Base for Japanese aircraft so her complement of aircraft was small, but she was heavily armored and had alot of munitions to reload other planes with). I think it would add more option because then a player could choose if he wants a fleet carrier with huge numbers of planes or if he wants the "Base" type of carrier. Just another idea for everyone.

[Bulldog61]

I don't know what the Shinano's air complement was. In UV you can send all of a carrier's A/C to shore and send carrier capable A/C to the Carrier. I had one instance where the Long Island (A CVE that comes with no air comlement) came under air attack and the fighters (a VMF unit of F4F's ) flew CAP and intercepted the incoming strike. I suspect this means that later in the war when the 3rd or 5th fleets are pounding down the pacific island bases, should an air group suffer heavy casualties you could swap them out for another air group.


Mike

[Wasp]

Ok, Shinano had 36 bombers and 18 fighters. However, it had a huge storage to rearm and refuel other fighters and bombers. In effect the Shinano and the Taiho was a moving forward base for Japanese planes operating at max range. I saw in a post where you get an option to complete the Shinano as a CV or a Battleship. Well, the Japanese had a plan; to develop Shinano as a full fledged fleet carrier with a huge a/c or as a "forward base". Historically they chose the "forward base". My question is do you get to choose to complete the Shinano as a fleet carrier with massive a/c or as a "forward base". (Taiho was also considered as an fleet carrier, but the Japanese decided on a "forward base" carrier, therefore it would be nice if the option to make the Taiho as an fleet carrier or a "forward base" was available:)) I would think it would give the player more freedom and more posibilities if one could make that choice. So could you possibly consider including this option?

Thank you
You guys have a great game going on here, and good luck with the production of the game.

[U2]

Hi Guys

Wasnt the Shinano supposed to have been the third Battleship of the Yamato class? I am sure of it actaully. So my question would be if I will be able to choose to have it built as a battleship or a carrier. The Japanese decided on a carrier after their losses in 1942. Perhaps this question is better than Wasp's.

Dan

[Wasp]

Ok, maybe I should have made things more clear. Yes, I do know that the Shinano was supposed to be the third Yamato class battleship. Once the decision was made to convert it to a carrier, the Japanese had two options: 1. To have a fleet carrier with huge a/c (probably would have had around 100+planes) or 2. To have a "forward base" carrier to support friendly aircraft (refuel and rearm.) Although, historically the Japanese took the 2nd option, but it would be nice if the game would include the 1st option as well. So what I am trying to say is: 1. Have the option of battleship or carrier. 2. If a player chooses to convert it as a carrier, the player gets the option of choosing what type of carrier it should be completed as: fleet or "forward base". I know my previous post was kind of confusing. Sorry if I confused anyone.

[U2]

Hi!

Its a very good question but I suspect that this game, though quite detailed, will leave such decisions out. The game would just become TOO BIG. I dont even think that we will be able to choose between a battleship or a carrier Shinano. We will more or less get what the Japanese and Americans had but a few surprises in this game would be welcome. By this I mean that I as a player would like to have more control over production of pilots, ships and such things. The more detailed the better.

Sayonara

[Wasp]

Hey, Matrix staff you guys out there? Could you PLEASE include this option? It would be so good to have alot of options. Makes the game so much better. By the way, I am very pleased with the way we get so much imput into the game and the way Matrix cares about us. Thanks Matrix.

Adios Amigos

[U2]

Wasp!

Are you talking about the option to choose between Battleship or Carrier? If so I am all for it. Should not be that difficult to include. Please inform the allmighty GG:)

If this is included Wasp I will be darn proud.

Sayonara

[Mike Wood]

Hello...

Thanks for your input. We will certainly consider your suggestion. As far as our solicitation of input from the public, we aim to please. We do care about our customer base, as you are the reason Matrix Games exists.

Thanks Again...

Michael Wood
Lead Programmer,
Matrix Games
________________________________________________

Originally posted by Wasp
Hey, Matrix staff you guys out there? Could you PLEASE include this option? It would be so good to have alot of options. Makes the game so much better. By the way, I am very pleased with the way we get so much imput into the game and the way Matrix cares about us. Thanks Matrix.

Adios Amigos

[U2]

Hi

Sure is nice when a company listens. Just taking it under consideration is good enough for me.

Sayonara

[Ranger-75]

The problem with the Shinano was that it was incapable of OPERATING as many aircraft as it could carry. This was true of all the Japanese aircraft carriers, but the Shinano was by far the most inneficient carrier in this regard. She could only operate about 50% of her aircraft. The IJN carriers actually had to carry anywhere from 12 to 15 of their aircraft dissassembled because they could not store or service them.

Why? not known, hanger design and layout had a lot to do with this. Not using deck stowage was another (The RN didn't use deck stowage initially either, but I see the old PACWAR game changes the RN CV air capacity mid game to accomodate the RN's adoption of deck stowage, while the IJN never adopted this practice). The enclosed (and not full length) hangers of IJN carriers probably added to the problem.

What's my point? Leave the air capacity ratings of the Shinano alone, it belongs in the low 50's and that's being generous.

Allow it to built as a carrier or battleship? sure, but who in their right mind would have it completed as a battleship?

[CynicAl]

The enclosed hangars were indeed part of the problem, as they required Japanese carrier aircraft to warm up their engines on the flight deck rather than on the hangar deck as in US practice. This added considerably to the time required to range and launch strikes - note that the second wave of attackers arrived over Pearl Harbor just over an hour after the first wave; that was literally as fast as humanly possible.

By the way, this also partially exonerates Nagumo for Midway: even if he hadn't ordered his bombers rearmed, he never had enough time between US attacks to bring a strike up onto the flight deck and send them on their way. On the other hand, all that HE lying around on the hangar decks as a result of the hurried double-switch burned quite nicely.

[Ranger-75]

One mote item contributing the the lower capacity of the IJN carriers, the planes themselves. The Japanese planes that had folding wings folded up over the top of the fuselage, while the USN planes had wings that folded back along the sides.

So what? The USN could and store planes in the hanger literally on top of one another, they hung them up on the ceiling literally doubling the hanger space while the IJN carrlers could not do this.

cynical, I read in a recent WWI periodical a story on the warming up on the flight desk requirement of the IJN carriers, interesting.

[gunnergoz]

Asking to see the Shinano as a 100+ a/c vessel begs the issue of where the pilots would come from in the first place.

If we're talking about mod'ding a game to that degree, perhaps we should be able to make the historical decisions about pilot traning strategies, ship construction design and admiralty dogma etc etc...

It quickly gets beyond the scale of the game, I would think. Though it would be nice to do some what if's (like if the Iowa follow-ons were built and fielded...what were they called? Montana's, I think. Or if the full gamut of Alaska's had been built...whatta battle line that would have been!)

I sympathize with both sides here, I guess. It would be nice to have some ability to customize ships and introduction dates, not to mention aircraft, tanks, artillery, subs, ad nausem...you get the idea. But you have to draw the line somewhere as developers.

I vote for some degree of customization at the scenario level, for those bold few that want to try messing with an editor...but for the most part I'd like to see the design team devote their energy to getting the most from the historical data/units/timeline.

Sure, it'd be cool to see if the 5 in/54 had been fielded what it could have done...as well as a seeing host of Oregon City class CA's spewing out 8 inch shells like spandaus! But then again, at what cost to the underlying game that I really want to see so much?

Speaking for myself, I want to re-fight WW2, not play FantasyWar 1939-1946. (at least not with this game!) 'Nuff said.

[Sabre21]

Well..IMO..playing out an exact history of events leads to the same already known conclusion. I don't mind a game being based on historical facts...you have to start somewheres..but I never buy a game like this any more without an editor...after a few plays...it's all over. I would much rather have the ability to play as the Japanese and see if altering production to carriers and asw escorts earlier would help...or increase the pilot training...at least then I know I would have a chance.

Andy

[Wasp]

I agree with you completely. An editor makes an game different in a sense that you can "remake" the game and enjoy it time and time again. Being able to "remake" a game is something I thought that's what was missing from UV. With an editor that allows you to edit the stats of weapons, bombs, ships, etc would be great. That would allow some of us stat crazed maniacs to create a very huge, accurate, and a very interesting data base. But then, I am not Matrix, so I cannot make that decision to include an editor. Just my opinion that options and editors can make the game very enjoyable.

[IndyShark]

I woud vote for the higher load out of planes as long as the ship had a restricted launch rate. This was a massive ship and compares favorably with the Akagi or Kaga.

[ReDDoN45]

this pilot training idea is quite good. Moreover there really should be some effects on production. As example I´ve got a PBEM game in Pacwar and as the Japanese I´ve captured all of India and Burma (+the hist. conquests) and I am allready invading the Hawaiian islands, moreover my MCS and TK losses are quite low due to good ASW tactics (many planes!), BUT I don´t profit a bit in concerns of production. With the Japanese having so many resources available + relatively quite sea lanes they should be able to raise there production far more (ore allocatement to aircraft and ship building...etc) I should get a Kii and a Tsushima (next Yamaots) and be able to build far more Akitsukis, Yugumos and Matsus.
To conclude: Some strategic production/resource allocatement/training options should be implemented, of course this has limits, but given a game of THAT dimension, they are nescessairy. Also the Japanese player should profit or get punished in regards of economy for military results in the Pacific, i.e. if he is able to REALLY build up a inner and outter defensive perimeter and can ship his resources to Japan in great masses---->more factories ------> more Taihos, Unryus, Yamatos, DDs and most important CRUISERS!.
ANother idea: there should be an option (I think this is really possible) in the squadron screen for a certain kind of mission called: Recruit training! Squadrons/Groups with more than a certain average experience (75/80) should be able to select this option. THis makes withdraws the group from the theatre (again available after certain period/or after request?????) and the effect should of this should be a + in the general pilot training programm (either more or better pilots....????? or a bit of both). The ammount of good pilots in the withdrawn air groupd affects the "+". Since the main problem in pilot training are the ammount of teachers and flying schools, a high ammount of able pilots (not fighting on the front, maybe not really needed...quiet front) teaching recruits back in the states/Japan + a good ammount of pilot training aircraft (perhaps a Generic pilot trainer aircraft should be implementes for production selection - not to eqiup squadrons, only for recruit pilot training purposes and proper calculations) would result in more and better pilots filling the squadrons. So the Japanese player (as example) would have a chance to increase their programm with such measures (as to send Tainan AG home for recruit training + more ATrainers build ----------> more flying schools---------> more or better pilots.

[pasternakski]

Ranger and Gunner, yer right on it. Any IJN player who has to rely on Shinano configurations to save the bacon is - well - short on eggs, hash browns, toast, and V8 juice.

Hmmm. I have a sudden urge to go cook breakfast (maybe including a stack of them A-Bomb Pancakes)... seeya.

--------------------

I will now proceed to entangle the entire area