The Reluctant Admiral

[Dili]

2. You have Japanese Pilots reporting in memoirs there zeros can keep up in level flight with planes which we show as 35mph faster.

That would depend of altitude. Now that implies a design decision, tweaks in maneuverality or speed? Instead of max speed should be defined a median max speed?

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

One thing that still bugs me is the speed of Japanese Aircraft in general . Im beginning to be convinced they had different ways of measuring max speed ( which we use in all our games) .

Unfortunately, the air combat model is balanced around their current speed value. While I agree, that at the very least Zeros, Oscars and Franks are underrated, giving them their speculated actual speed while leaving MVR the same, will allow them to rape the game. And, as I don't have the formulas of speed/MVR interactions during the combat, I don't feel qualified to tinker with it.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Why not for the 88??!!

Stanislav--This is adding to the request I just made of you. Could you do what BK describes in the plane Zero upgrade lines?

Please send, aren't we talked about that yesterday? I'll change A6M3 and A6M3b to carrier capable, write a new 88mm gun (by comparing its RL characteristics with those of flak guns already in the game) and do gun and carrier fixes. As for Mk12, because I'm not sure how its in-game models correspond to real-life ones, beyond the distiction between pedestal and base ring mounts, I propose just reducing accuracy for the latter. AFAIK, Allies get blanket flak bonuses modelling proximity fuses from 1943, so I'm not sure if Mk12 EBR (late-war) model with accuracy around 67 is worth trouble and will be accurate (5in/54 still has only 62).

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: bklooste

One thing that still bugs me is the speed of Japanese Aircraft in general . Im beginning to be convinced they had different ways of measuring max speed ( which we use in all our games) .

Unfortunately, the air combat model is balanced around their current speed value. While I agree, that at the very least Zeros, Oscars and Franks are underrated, giving them their speculated actual speed while leaving MVR the same, will allow them to rape the game. And, as I don't have the formulas of speed/MVR interactions during the combat, I don't feel qualified to tinker with it.

Im not saying we can tinker with it without a lot of testing , its more curiosity and how the internet and books are plastered with different speeds that cant be right yet get fed into game engines. Maybe the Japanese used max speed at 1000 feet and US used max speed at any altitude with 100/150 Synth fuel ( ie more powerfull than combat) .. Does anyone know ?

[John 3rd]

This Household is up-and-running for the morning.

Stanislav--I am sending the pre-release scenario with the most recent files. Take care of what you've detailed above. I will make my effort today in writing the short scenario description and seeing if I can figure out art for the Mod.

I've never heard of this speed argument that you guys are having. Certainly have noticed that everyone had a different speed listed for each aircraft. One would have thought there would be a standard but each nation probably did it differently and who knows how accurate the instruments were...

[bklooste]

While i find the figure fine for the pedestal it does seem low for the late war ring mounts ..note its not just AA but the secondary battery for surface.

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Why not for the 88??!!

Stanislav--This is adding to the request I just made of you. Could you do what BK describes in the plane Zero upgrade lines?

Please send, aren't we talked about that yesterday? I'll change A6M3 and A6M3b to carrier capable, write a new 88mm gun (by comparing its RL characteristics with those of flak guns already in the game) and do gun and carrier fixes. As for Mk12, because I'm not sure how its in-game models correspond to real-life ones, beyond the distiction between pedestal and base ring mounts, I propose just reducing accuracy for the latter. AFAIK, Allies get blanket flak bonuses modelling proximity fuses from 1943, so I'm not sure if Mk12 EBR (late-war) model with accuracy around 67 is worth trouble and will be accurate (5in/54 still has only 62).

[John 3rd]

Stanislav the Files have been sent.
 

[John 3rd]

Working on final touches:

[JuanG]

John, further to my email and your last post;

You need BOTH a JDetail and JHistory with the last 3 numbers corresponding to your scenario ID, which is 70 I take it?

In addition to this, you will also need an ADetail and AHistory with the same ID code, and unless I
m mistaken (do not have AE here), there may also be an NDetail and NHistory. Even though your mod only alters the Japanese, all of these need to be done as it is a new scenario ID.

So you will need to name them;

JDetail070
JHistory070
ADetail070
AHistory070
ADetail070
NHistory070

Not sure about the last two - see if you can find corresponding files for the regular scenarios in the folder. If yes, then you will need them. If not, then I'm remembering incorrectly.

[FatR]

One last question. The descriptions of 88mm Type 99 state, that it was mostly used for defense of Home Islands. If I've rearmed several restricted AA regiments there, without changing anything in the template of IJA AA regiment, will these modified units continue to receive Type 99 as reinforcements, instead of 75mm guns?

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

One last question. The descriptions of 88mm Type 99 state, that it was mostly used for defense of Home Islands. If I've rearmed several restricted AA regiments there, without changing anything in the template of IJA AA regiment, will these modified units continue to receive Type 99 as reinforcements, instead of 75mm guns?

What about the ones that were used outside of the home islands , there could be 200 or so ? The main reason few were used overseas was Japans capcity to move them ( or anything over 3 tons) and limited production but they were used...

[John 3rd]

Just got the revamped files from Stanislav.  We will launch this tomorrow.

I have to get the artwork finished and sent to Juan so he can route them correctly then it will be added.  The files shall be ready before that.

Plan to open an AAR tomorrow!

Michael--HR coming if I get a chance.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: bklooste
Im not saying we can tinker with it without a lot of testing , its more curiosity and how the internet and books are plastered with different speeds that cant be right yet get fed into game engines. Maybe the Japanese used max speed at 1000 feet and US used max speed at any altitude with 100/150 Synth fuel ( ie more powerfull than combat) .. Does anyone know ?

There can be many reasons. Widespread acceptance of figures derived from testing of captured Japanese fighters, that might have suffered from previous damage and improper maintenance by mechanics who had no experience with them. Using the results of factory tests, performed on planes in ideal condition, on Allied side. Testing on nominal engine power vs. testing on war emergency power. Lesser differences in in speed in the conditions of actual combat, where, unlike the tests, pilots did not have time for complex engine management and ideal trim (P-40, at least its early models, for example, had the reputation of trim hogs, demanding different and precise calibrations of control surfaces for optimal performance at different speeds). And so on.

[John 3rd]

That makes sense to me FatR. We know what Allied pilots had to say about these models when encountered in combat conditions during the war.

FatR--The files all look good to me. Just need to add everyone's names to the credits and they are ready to be used. That'll take about 3 minutes.

[John 3rd]

I've sent Michael the final set of files to load for the Scenario.

Just sent Juan a set of 3 pictures of Yamamoto that I would like added into the art for the scenario as well as the Scenario Description. Had to keep it small so here is what I wrote:

The Reluctant Admiral is a Japanese 'what if' scenario based upon a greater contribution by Adm. Yamamoto Isoroku. The premise of the Mod is that Yamamoto exerted a much greater influence first on the Japan Naval Aircraft Industry, then as Deputy Navy Minister, and finally as Navy Minister itself. Yamamoto chooses, at great risk to his life, to forego command of the Combined Fleet and dedicate himself to preparing Japan for a war he didn't want.

In choosing to do this Yamamoto changes the 4th Circle Building plan replacing the 3rd and 4th Yamato-Class Battleships with improved Shokaku-Class CVs and a pair of fast Battlecruisers. Other warships are added as planned within 4th Circle. The Japan Naval Air Arm is changed so that everything is staked to the Zero Airframe with a specialization of the Zero into a Land-Based Interceptor as well as CV-Based Fighters. Additional engineers and engineering vehicles are added to Naval Units better reflecting Yamamoto's foresight into base building and expansion needs. New and expanded Naval Yards, Heavy Industry, and Armaments are added at tremendous cost for the Japanese economy.

Very little is changed in the opening of the Scenario (based on Scenario 1) except for a few more aircraft and 3 warships. The foresight of the Admiral will payoff during 1942 and early-1943 as new ships and aircraft enter into the Japanese Order-of-Battle.

How well can YOU do to use these new tools OR how well can you stop the Japanese Navy in its tracks as the Allies.

(Designer's note: Production is 'on' for this scenario)

Scenario Designers: Stanislav Bartoshevitch (FatR), Michael Benoit (NY59Giants), John R. Cochran, III (John 3rd), Juan Gomez (JuanG), Ben Kloosterman (BK), and John Young (Red Lancer)

Any thoughts? Did I get anything/anyone wrong? Add? Delete?

[JuanG]

John here's a little on the changes that I've made, as you requested a while ago;

Changes were made to the following areas; submarine torpedo tubes, ship ammo loadouts, naval gun accuracy and penetration, certain weapon classifications, and mine production.

The changes in each area are as follows;
Submarine Torpedo Tubes
By using the torpedo tube arrangements courtesy of JWE from the DB mod, submarines are able to take advantage of the changes to the submarine torpedo firing routines introduced in Patch 3. These allow a submarine to fire variable numbers of torpedo devices at a target, meaning that submarines will fire more torpedoes at high value targets, and less at DDs and other small vessels.

Ship Ammo Loadouts
Regular AE scenarios use roughly 10% of the RPG (Rounds Per Gun) value for naval guns to determine the ammo loadout, with adjustments made for DP weapons. This however, especially in light of the naval gun accuracy changes made in Patch 2, meant that large caliber weapons would commonly expend all their ammo during a single engagement, whereas this was almost unheard of in the war. The changes made involve a recalculation of the database ammo values based on both RPG and rate of fire, again adjusting for DP weapons. The net effect has been an increase in available ammo, though certain ships - mostly British and Japanese DDs, do suffer from this slightly. Light AA ammo has also been adjusted upwards in most cases.

Naval Gun Accuracy and Penetration
Some adjustments to the accuracy of certain guns has been made, the most notable being the increases made to the 10cm/65 and the 8cm/60 Japanese DP weapons, and the slight decrease to the early (Model A and B) 12.7cm/50 Japanese guns. Minor changes were also made to penetration values for naval guns 8in and greater.

Naval Gun Classifications
The IJN DDs have been assigned their correct Model of 12.7cm/50 mounts, rendering over half of them incapable of using their primary battery as a DP weapons. The USN 5in/54 Mk 16 mount has also been reclassified as a DP weapon, to reflect the high angle nature of this weapon.

Mine Production
The rate of production for all mines from all navies has been increased to twice that of regular AE.

If you want more detail on anything, I can do so, but I thought that the above was a good start.

Juan

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

This Household is up-and-running for the morning.

Stanislav--I am sending the pre-release scenario with the most recent files. Take care of what you've detailed above. I will make my effort today in writing the short scenario description and seeing if I can figure out art for the Mod.

I've never heard of this speed argument that you guys are having. Certainly have noticed that everyone had a different speed listed for each aircraft. One would have thought there would be a standard but each nation probably did it differently and who knows how accurate the instruments were...

Your a historian John , major things get mis interpreted and the Japanese speed , reports and post allied testing dont add up.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: bklooste
Im not saying we can tinker with it without a lot of testing , its more curiosity and how the internet and books are plastered with different speeds that cant be right yet get fed into game engines. Maybe the Japanese used max speed at 1000 feet and US used max speed at any altitude with 100/150 Synth fuel ( ie more powerfull than combat) .. Does anyone know ?

There can be many reasons. Widespread acceptance of figures derived from testing of captured Japanese fighters, that might have suffered from previous damage and improper maintenance by mechanics who had no experience with them. Using the results of factory tests, performed on planes in ideal condition, on Allied side. Testing on nominal engine power vs. testing on war emergency power. Lesser differences in in speed in the conditions of actual combat, where, unlike the tests, pilots did not have time for complex engine management and ideal trim (P-40, at least its early models, for example, had the reputation of trim hogs, demanding different and precise calibrations of control surfaces for optimal performance at different speeds). And so on.

Agree..

" Testing on nominal engine power vs. testing on war emergency power" its quite possible this is the reason Japanese report it at max , US use war emergency and mabe fancy non combat fuel.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

This Household is up-and-running for the morning.

Stanislav--I am sending the pre-release scenario with the most recent files. Take care of what you've detailed above. I will make my effort today in writing the short scenario description and seeing if I can figure out art for the Mod.

I've never heard of this speed argument that you guys are having. Certainly have noticed that everyone had a different speed listed for each aircraft. One would have thought there would be a standard but each nation probably did it differently and who knows how accurate the instruments were...

Your a historian John , major things get mis interpreted and the Japanese speed , reports and post allied testing dont add up.

A truly excellent piece of commentary BK. Many times have I learned to ALWAYS take history with more then a grain of salt. Cross-check and--most importantly--know where the author is coming from! You strike to the heart of my beliefs within my field. Have told students for nearly 20 years that the most important part of any book is the PREFACE. This is where the author provides his/her perspective and lays out their agenda and biases Iif they have any).

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

A truly excellent piece of commentary BK. Many times have I learned to ALWAYS take history with more then a grain of salt. Cross-check and--most importantly--know where the author is coming from! You strike to the heart of my beliefs within my field. Have told students for nearly 20 years that the most important part of any book is the PREFACE. This is where the author provides his/her perspective and lays out their agenda and biases Iif they have any).

Hehe i did a few years of Ancient history at unie and loved it , whole chapters of books have been based on a single small piece of evidence which can be argued multiple ways which i loved to do ( too many sources for modern) [:D][:D]

I really havent studied 1940 -45 as the polotics is so complex and so many sources , but I do know a bit before hand in 37 -39 sources for the IJN about the south plan or moving South reffered not to the DEI but south China eg canton and Hainan .. Note sure when the South plan became an IJN goal to refer to the DEI but there is bound to be confusions and issues.