The Reluctant Admiral

[ny59giants]

Sir John,

Two quick request before I get more into the game.

VMD-2 arrives on 1 Apr 42 with 12 F2A-2P Buffalo (Recon). Please ensure I have a viable upgrade path that includes the F4F (recon) and I can break down the squadron into 3 parts (4 planes each).

No1 PRU RAAF comes in on 8 Jun 42 with B-339-23 (Recon). Same as above.

I don't have much dedicated Recon early and want to be able to spread them out.

[RedLancer]

John

I'm happy to wait for the main release - you can list me in the credits as John Young aka Red Lancer

Glad to have helped a bit.

John

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR


- I hope that upgrading to A6M3 or A6M3b will open all land-based fighters in the upgrade list when playing with PDU ON. Otherwise, they don't show up. And, while this does not seem to be my fault, if the first upgrade in the default PDU OFF upgrade line does not open a certain category of planes, won't this category be forever blocked when playing with PDU ON, or will the upgrade to it appear eventually? For example, see Tainan Ku S-1, which upgrades to A6M5 then A6M4-J (land fighter) and A6M5d-S (nightfighter). When playing with PDU ON, only carrier capable-fighters show in the upgrade list. Can anyone clarify, whether A6M4-J will appear in its upgrade list after upgrading to A6M5?

One of the main reasons (though i didnt state it) I was pushing for these fighters to be CV capable is to avoid all those issues ....

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Stanislav:

5.  Thought the 9th Air Fleet units wouldn't be deployable if I started them at 50% of strength.  How about I lower that to 25% reflecting them being cadre training units?  Noone in their right mind would deploy them for at least a couple of months until they have filled out.  Course I just did state that a Japanese player would be in their 'right' mind.  Not really sure if that applies! 

I totally see players immediately sending new Claude groups to China, if releasing 2nd Air Division on day 1 could be seen as an exploit (because it sort of is) or directly forbidden by HRs. New Nell units can be used to bomb Allied troops wherever heavy resistance is not expected, and in early months that's alot of places. Finally, crews of new Mavis groups are comparable in experience to average Allied Catalina pilots. I suggest to make pilots, except for 1-3 veterans per group totally green. If you meant this, then I agree. And probably make new Mavis group start with no more than half their normal number of aircraft - a limited pool means that a player cannot immediately fill them out.

Good thoughts.

How about this? I start every Daitai/Chutai at half strength in aircraft and lower their experience down to 50-55%, place morale at the same, and lower the new LCUs to 25% strength. They will not be of much use for a couple of months. I see the 9th deploying in the Spring of 42 and being ready at that point.

If I can figure out the how to assign them TEMPORARILY to the Home Islands and then release them for duty then this would solve everything. Does anyone know how to do this effectively?

I also need to deduct the supply and fuel for the expansion. It is a large number that will really force the Japanese player to move quickly in gaining the DEI. Am splitting it between the Home Islands and Manchuria based on how I expanded and changed things.

Will take a look at the CVs you mentioned. Just remembered that I need to change their heavy AA to 3.9."

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Sir John,

Two quick request before I get more into the game.

VMD-2 arrives on 1 Apr 42 with 12 F2A-2P Buffalo (Recon). Please ensure I have a viable upgrade path that includes the F4F (recon) and I can break down the squadron into 3 parts (4 planes each).

No1 PRU RAAF comes in on 8 Jun 42 with B-339-23 (Recon). Same as above.

I don't have much dedicated Recon early and want to be able to spread them out.

Will take a look at these. Michael can you find the device number for these Squadrons?

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: OSO

Easy way to check the PDU thing would be to add some of those fighters to the pool at start to upgrade an existing on-map unit. Then fire up the game and check it. Just don't forget to remove them once you confirm that it works.

Thanks for the helpful suggestion Sir.

[John 3rd]

Names to Date:
Juan Gomez (JuanG)
Stanislav Bartoshevitch (FatR)
John Young (Red Lancer)
________________ (BK)
Michael Benoit (NY59Giants)
________________ (Alikchi) 
John R. Cochran (John 3rd)

[ny59giants]

Air Group ID # 2552 & 3137

[John 3rd]

BINGO!  It is added to the growing list.
 
 

[John 3rd]

This is the list I have so far:
 
1.  Delete Taiho and Air Group
2.  Check Japanese later CVs for appropriate weapon numbers
3.  Deduct Fuel and Supply from Home Islands and Manchuria
4.  Create several more of the F4F-7 4 Plane Sections for American Recon
5.  Rework the two Recon Squadrons listed by Michael.
 
What did we figure with the upgrading Fighter Air Groups?
 
Regarding 9th Air Fleet:  I'll try to restrict them until a certain date (Feb/Mar 42) or reduce them to total cadre strength.
 
Damian:  After I've made these changes I'd like to send a turn to you for an economic opinion with Tracker.  Is that OK?
 

[John 3rd]

Michael--According to the Editor:

1.  The Marines go from the early plane to the F4F-3P. 
2.  No. 1 PRU RAAF upgrades to P-43A-1 Lancers.

Are these OK?

EDIT: These already split three ways.

[bklooste]

bk = Ben Kloosterman

[John 3rd]

I am going to do some file modification along the lines we have described:
 
1.  Will clean-up the ship questions.
2.  Am going to take down the supply and fuel numbers reflecting industrial costs.
3.  Will fiddle around with trying to make 9th Fleet restricted for a short period time.
4.  Add those F4F Recon Sections for the CVs.
 
Michael--Are those Recon groups OK with what they upgrade to?
 

[John 3rd]

Question for Modders:

[John 3rd]

Updated everything listed above and got it handled. 
 
Am beginning to think that we simply need to add a House Rule regarding all units of the 9th Air Fleet (LCU, Daitai, and Chutai).  Tried the Temporary option and the units didn't even show on the map.  Course there is the option of having EVERYTHING appear on February 1, 1942 and the player can do what he wants at that point.  Hadn't even thought of that until this moment.  Will ponder that for a bit...
 
I ran a test turn for the first time and am glad I did.  Caught a couple issues that will need to back to the Editor for some quick tweaking.  Things LOOK good but want to make sure.
 

[John 3rd]

Sent a copy of a completed Day One file to Damian to have Tracker to a look at the Mod.  I hope and expect the news that Japan is in pretty serious economic shape due to the expansions and changes.  Will see what he has to say.  Looking forward to that!
 
Ran the Turn One of the Mod about 6-7 times today and found little things each time.  Amazes me how much one has to be careful of when working on the AE Editor:  Details, Details, Details... 
 
Am seriously hoping to be ready for a Mark One release by Friday.  Should know within a day or two there.

[Lecivius]

For what it's worth (nothing) I am really looking forward to seeing this. 
 
Awesome job guys, on a well thought out approach.

[John 3rd]

Thank you Sir.  Appreciate the commentary.  I do hope people find it interesting and plausible.  Really wanted it to be based on a slightly alternate reality that doesn't stretch things too much.  With the exception of a few more aircraft (roughly 50-75) and three ships (CVL Shoho, CLs Agano and Noshiro) there is no addition to the Japanese OOB on Dec 7th.  There is some serious unit movement but nothing too dramatic.

UPDATE:  I have been running Turn One's over-and-over the last two days.  Have solved a whole host of issues.  Some have been simple and some have taken a bit of work.  Everything looks pretty good right now.

Sent the revamped Scenario to Michael, Damian, and Stanislav for a (hopefully) final checkout. 

The tentative plan is to have it ready to go by Friday.  Michael and I will start a campaign at that point.

QUESTION:  Where do I put the Scenario?  Is there a procedure or should I just email it as a Zipped Folder for anyone who is interested?

[FatR]

- Erase Jack from the aircraft list, otherwise it will be available on the normal date anyway, and players will be able to switch plants to it.

- As a very belated note about haval weapons, 8cm/60 AA gun used on Agano-class cruisers can use more accuracy. Now it is at 50, below every other comparable AA weapon. This does not reflect its rapid fire and ability to trail attacking airplanes. Also, in the interests of fairness and historical correctness, accuracy of older 127/38 DP guns should be reduced somewhat, because just like all 127/50 guns on Japanese DDs were able to fire on aircraft, all 127/38 guns seems to be modelled after the superior base ring mount models. You can find what really was used where on this page:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
But the short of it is, Mk12 OP and OP(S) guns should be significantly inferior to other Mk12s. If you want, I can do this work and also merge different groups of the same 25mm guns on Japanese carriers, created by elimination of AA rockets.
While we're on the subject of Japanese AA guns, did you include the copy of German 88mm Flak gun, mentioned somewhere above, in the mod. It can be used to arm late-war units, such as 44 JA AA Rgt (#2287 in the list)

- Resources and oil seem to be on the same or nearly same level as in stock: more than 7 millions and more than 3 millions.

Otherwise, everything seems to be in order.

[JuanG]

I've already increased the accuracy values for the 8cm/60, up from 30-something in stock to the 50-something it is now. The issue with these mounts is that none of them were mounted with ammo hoists, and this meant that shells had to be carried by hand after the ready use ammunition was used up. Essentially this limited their sustained ROF to below half of their mechanical maximum, and this was made even worse as if memory serves me correctly, the ships had hoists located some 50+ feet away from the turrets themselves. This is the main reason why I do not believe they merit a higher rating, despite being rather good weapons otherwise.

I agree with your point regarding the older 5in/38, but I did not want to go and change them as I have yet to ensure that the arrangement of 5in/38 mount types of US ships is actually correct. I'd also be more inclined to leave the current rating for the older mounts, and increase the rating of the newer ones by 5-10 points as they may be somewhat underrated at the moment, rather than the older mounts being overrated.