Shinano starting out as CV?

[STUCKER868]

Anyone know why IJN Shinano is already earmarked to be a CV at the start of the game when historically this was not decided untill after Midway? I know, I know, WHY would anyone NOT want to build it as a CV and keep it has a Yamato class BB? Well, maybe there are reasons... It actaully was a big, bloated, underplaned CV anyway.

It would be nice to have the option. It would also be nice to start production on CA's, BB's or just about anything else if Japan wanted to devote the resources.... unless there is already an way to do this and I did not catch it... [:D] Im' still trying to figure out production anyway and why my bases are all losing supply... even the ones in Japan.

Why we are at it... anyone know how to send supply overland? Have not figured that out either.

May almighty God forgive me if there is already a thread on this stuff. [:D]

thanks!

[Iridium]

While it would be nice to have a conversion button on certain historical ships under construction like Shinano and Ibuki, any major differences in the ship construction lineup would require a modification to the scenario. Unless I'm mistaken...

No, we cannot request construction of ships "on the fly" in game. You could get a custom scenario to have a bunch of ships under construction but have limited Naval points so that one has to pick and choose what to build.

[STUCKER868]

Thanks! It would be nice to have the ability to request the construction of certain ships. For example in the case of a serious bit of bad luck (say a month where huge numbers of transports get sunk, or perhaps several CA's or DD's etc... It would be nice to be able to put into order some replacements rather than be forced into using the linear/historical production schedual.

Maybe in the next version.

[STUCKER868]

What about supply overland? I can't seem to find the "how to" in the manual.

[STUCKER868]

The other issue is would not the Montana's that were under production during WW2, impact the US production system... this should be modeled somehow because the did cause some strain the resources even for the US!

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: STUCKER868

The other issue is would not the Montana's that were under production during WW2, impact the US production system... this should be modeled somehow because the did cause some strain the resources even for the US!

This is modeled. Allies have fixed production at historical levels. You can't change anything regarding Allied production. So, an AFB would say "I don't want Montana's, let's put in 4 more Essexes." but, they're stuck with history.

There is an option to play Japan with ahistorical production. You can change/increase/stop any of the many types of ships/planes/factories. (well, you can't change ship production, but you can speed it up, or stop it)

Regarding overland movement of supplies.... This is automated. You can "order" more supplies at a base by clicking on the arrows when viewing a base. But, I find that tends to stop supplies from moving to other bases. But, it's useful when trying to accumulate 10k supplies to repair industry, or 25k supplies to build forts over 6.

[xj900uk]

An option at the start for the IJN player would be nice. In reality, completing the Shinano as its originally envisaged BB rather than as an aviation support ship would probably have been of more benefit to teh Japanese...

[STUCKER868]

I agree to that! The low Japanese pilot quality was the big problem... they had tons of planes. The Shinano as completed was a total waste of resources even if she did not sink.

[Cavalry Corp]

I agree Shinano should start the game as a BB under construction if it was decided after Midway to complete as CV.

Then you could convert to CV or support CV for the cost of points if you lose a lot of CV .

As it si so expensive I do not know of anyone who has built it - they did so it must have been cheaper as a support carrier than a fleet carrier.

Start a petition - for Shinano as BB at start !!

Cav

[STUCKER868]

Good points... Does anyone know if Shinano can actually carry 120 extra AC for support purposes? If not, it's just an expensive, underplaned tub that takes a few more torps to sink. I would consider cancelling her production but I am not sure what would be given back in exchange!

[TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum]

Most people halt the Shinano in favor of accelerating other carriers to get them at an earlier date.

[xj900uk]

I may be wrong, but I think the Shinano could only carry/operate 45-50 planes when it was finally completed, which is ridiculous given its size. That is why it was intended to be used as a support/refurbishment carrier rather than a fast strike/tactical one.
IMO it is almost toally useless in that configuration as well, a real white elephant. About the best thing you can do with it as the IJN player is to halt its construciton on day 1 and use the shipyard resources for something more important. However in its original design as a BB I wouldn't mind seeing it taking to the water...

[Cavalry Corp]

As its a support carrier does it have extra missions/torps/bombs etc ??

[Feinder]

Wait long enough, and somebody will pull up the airgroup size for you.

It had quite a bit of hanger space.

The intent for CV converted Shinano was to actually operate aircraft as a launching platform, but without the need actually land the AC.

Given the poor pilot quality in 1944, Japan was going to put several squadrons of non-carrier-trained pilots on Shinano. Then have her operate near the Philipines. She could launch her aircraft and, if any survived, the pilots head back for the airfields in the Philipines.

I don't know what her launch/recovery rates were (I think Herwin knows all those numbers off the top of his head), but that sort of thing may be where the 45 - 55 AC number comes from.

But I'm pretty sure her hangers were fairly large. But it's not just about hanger space. Just because you can put 100 planes in the hanger, doesn't mean you've got the elevators or deck-handling to get them all up into a full 100-plane strike. (I'm just throwing out 100-planes for hanger-space: but I really have no idea what it was).

-F-

[STUCKER868]

I think it was 120 A/C. Either way, I still don't like the almost 100% linear ship production... it's based on the historical flow of the real war and should be based on the events of in game world.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: STUCKER868

Anyone know why IJN Shinano is already earmarked to be a CV at the start of the game when historically this was not decided untill after Midway? I know, I know, WHY would anyone NOT want to build it as a CV and keep it has a Yamato class BB? Well, maybe there are reasons... It actaully was a big, bloated, underplaned CV anyway.

It would be nice to have the option. It would also be nice to start production on CA's, BB's or just about anything else if Japan wanted to devote the resources.... unless there is already an way to do this and I did not catch it... [:D] Im' still trying to figure out production anyway and why my bases are all losing supply... even the ones in Japan.
[:D]

thanks!

That is why there are mods. My personal mod has this enabled. Even as a BB, I usually halt it anyway. Just TOO much expense and there are so many other things to do with that HI.

As for in game, my experience is that the answer to all questions like this is AI. It is very hard to teach the AI these types of decisions (conversions) which is why the AI does none. So to get a historical result, the path for the Shinano has to be as a CV.

[Cavalry Corp]

But it could come in with 120 carrier trained planes ( as was intended) - then it may get built. It should not be assumed that all the Jap planes and CV are trasghed by the time it arrives , its biased in the allied favour. I want to see a Shinano that is the Mother of all Carriers .
Cav

[Feinder]

I want to see a Shinano that is the Mother of all Carriers .

Nah...

[Cavalry Corp]

speed 48 kts?

[Feinder]

It's officially listed at "32+".

Do you really think it's 32 kts, or even 38...

I'm no hydrodynamics person, but I'm just going to apply some of my limited brain cells.

As a nuke powered vessel, the you can put pretty much an unlimited power available.
So the "power" isn't what affects the top speed (my guess).

But you WOULD be limited limited by the shafts and the screws.

It seems that it's more the limits of the shafts and screws, and the hydro-dynamics acting upon them.

The shafts can only handle so much torque.
The screws can only spin so fast before they spin and just make bubbles.

However, 32 kts I'm sure is conservative. If we could push a CV under conventional power at 32 kts in 1941. I'm just going to make a wild guess, and figure that there's been some improvements in power, hull design, screw design, shaft design, gearing, and all that good stuff.

So yes, that's why I put 48 kts. Maybe high? Maybe. But I'm guess it's at least over 40.

And of course, there's plenty of Navy guys on these boards (at least one of which who I know was a throttleman on CVN-71), who can tell me that I've way over-estimated things.

-F-