Alternate WNT Scenarios (v11 Released)

[JuanG]

Considering I haven't added any French ships, I have not had that problem. I am planning to add a french BB for the Ultimate BB scenario, so I guess I'll find out when the time comes. Sorry I can't help you further.

[traskott]

The "expanded conversions for Allied ships" will be for the BB variant, or the CV ? 

[JuanG]

Both, though in the CV Variant you will see some of the USN Standards already upgraded with 5in/38's at the beginning of the war.

[traskott]

Ok, thanks....

[CaptBeefheart]

Juan: Looks like you've done some very thoughtful and detailed work here. Many thanks for the effort.

I was wondering what your plans are for a Japan Ironman CV Enhanced scenario? That would be the one I'd like to try next (yes, I know I should play PBEM, but could probably only do 2 turns a week at best, which would take longer than the real war).

Muchas gracias,
CC

[FatR]

A question for you, Juan: a few of the new Allied planes, particularly B-19, seem to miss their art, both sides and planetops. Is this a bug?

[Historiker]

JuanG, the Graf Spee might have stayed in the Indic Ocean, the battle with the three cruisers might have happend at the easter island and the Graf Spee might have stayed at Palau...
This way, you give axis fanboys another big ship, the jap player a nice LR surface raider and some additional firepower for a BB version.

[kfmiller41]

Juan,

I am one of the allied players playing a mod of yours in the 2x2 shipwreck of our hopes. The issue is that as the allies we have over 80+ ground units that are organizing and have not entered the game? Now I have played as the allies alot over the years and dont ever remember that many units being help back due to equipment and/or troops. Could this be a bug. Can send you a save if you need one.

[JuanG]

Hey,

I've never heard of an issue like that, but I'll take a look anyway. Might be worthwhile posting in Tech Support as well, considering that allied LCU's are almost completely unchanged from stock.

Regarding the plane art, I'll check the files I've got uploaded, but that will have to wait until tonight as I'm currently away on the US on business.

[ChickenOfTheSea]

ORIGINAL: miller41

Juan,

I am one of the allied players playing a mod of yours in the 2x2 shipwreck of our hopes. The issue is that as the allies we have over 80+ ground units that are organizing and have not entered the game? Now I have played as the allies alot over the years and dont ever remember that many units being help back due to equipment and/or troops. Could this be a bug. Can send you a save if you need one.

This is a known bug from Patch 3 that is more of a interface display issue (involving units being transported by sea and perhaps some others) than a real game issue (they aren't really organizing) . What you are seeing is seen by all in patch 3 no matter what scenario.

[Nomad]

I am about to embark on a perilous mission of being Japan against miller41 playing scenario 46, the Enhanced CV scenario. Are there any big changes to the IJA or the IJA industry? Are most of the changes in the IJN ships and aircraft( including production)? I could only find the 12b version and there was no readme detailing any changes, was there one for an earlier version? And could someone send it to me?

[TWolf]

Hi Juan,

Just wondering how your MK2 scenarios are comming along.

Thanks,

T

[FatR]

No news about art yet, Juan? Also, looks like B-19 and B-36 have negative max range, although this does not seem to affect their capabilities so far.

[JuanG]

Hey,

Sorry, cant do anything about the art yet as I'm still stranded in the US flowing that delightful little cloud of ash we had over Europe last week...[8|]

The maximum range error sounds interesting, I hadnt noticed it before. Sounds like it might be some kind of overflow issue, but I wonder if its a problem with the database itself (ie they really do have negative range now), or just a display one (they only appear to, but functionally they dont). Ill take a look at it when I get back home.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Still waiting on the final patch, but things look good so far.

I will probably reverse the Radar changes, but I still think the changes I've made to BB/CA weapons makes surface combat more reasonable. I'll have to test it with the final patch version to see.

I may also increase the maneuver ratings on PTs again, though I might also drop the accuracy of the Mk8 Torpedo to account for the bad launch platform.


I am well aware of that site csatahajos, and its been a great inspiration for concepts (like the Omaha CVE) and ideas. I'm also familiar with Warship Projects and it has been a vital source of information particularly on the Royal Navy designs.


While we wait for the patch and the release, is there anything anyone would like to see in particular? Artwork, ship states, upgrade lists? Information about the CV Variant? [;)]

I'd also like to ask if anyone has some ideas for conversions that I might not have thought of at the moment. One idea I'm toying with at the moment is an I-400 Minelayer conversion, though I'm unsure if I will actually keep that class ingame.

And speaking of 'über gunships', this is the überest in the BB Variant - when the USN wants a badass battleship, it gets one;

BB Illinois Class
BB-71 Illinois (February 1945), BB-72 Kentucky (August 1945)
Standard Displacement 73,600tons
Durability 250
Speed 33 Knots
Manuever 25
Range 15200nm (8460tons fuel)
Belt 16in (405mm)
Deck 7.9in (200mm)
Tower 16.6in (420mm)
12 x 16in/50 Mk7 - Turrets 18.8in (480mm)
24 x 5in/54 Mk16 - Turrets 0.5in (12mm)
88 x 40mm Bofors
72 x 20mm Oerlikon

All sounds good, however the armor on the 5" mounts would be more like ~65mm (100lbs STS)as it was with the 5"/38 twin mounts mounted on the BB's and the the 5"/54 on the Montana.

The single and twin 3"/50 auto mounts would have been available sooner if necessary. The would replace one for one quad/twin 40mm Bofors. The 3" was the smallest round that could handle the VT fuses. The USN in 1945 was also experimenting with a quad 20mm, again something that could have been available sooner. I ahve also pondered some cross-fertilization between the US Army and Navy concerning the 90mm M1/M2 AA gun. In particular the 90mm M1A1 using a navalized AMTB mount would have been a useful replacement for the 3"/50 on many vessels.

[JuanG]

Finally back.

Regarding the artwork, I checked the artwork pack on the first page and it should have everything. Try redownloading it, and let me know if the issue persists.

Regarding the negative ranges, I cant see to get them to show up negative in my game. Could you post more details or a screenshot? Thanks.

Regarding the 5in mounts on the USN BBs - what you say is true, however as stock uses similar values for these mounts, and as this was only a splinter shield and not a complete turret and barbette, Ill have to consider what they should be increased to. Thanks for pointing this out however.

Nomad - there is no complete changelist, because simply put it would take as long to make such a list as it would take to make a scenario. The only thing that has not changed much in these Mk1 scenarios is the IJA and IJN land units, and that will change for Mk2. Industry is stronger in all areas, including (in the Enhanced versions), limited Oil production in Japan itself to represent synthetic oil industry. The largest changes are by far to the Naval OOB, and in the CV Variant to the aircraft too.

[Toddr22_slith]

Juan,

Thank you for your wonderful scenario's. Have you been able to finish your AI friendly scenarios yet?

Thanks,

p.s. Which of your Scenario's gives IJ the most extra punch?

[moonraker65]

Try the Enhanced CV Scenario (46). That gives Japan a fair amount of extra firepower early on.

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Finally back.

Regarding the artwork, I checked the artwork pack on the first page and it should have everything. Try redownloading it, and let me know if the issue persists.

No redownoading seems to have fixed it. Maybe I was using wrong tops.

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Regarding the negative ranges, I cant see to get them to show up negative in my game. Could you post more details or a screenshot? Thanks.

Looks like this bug disappeared after one of the patches. Sorry, looks like I bothered you without a good reason[:(].

[Brock007]

This is my first post on this site. I have worn out War Plan Orange and I'm ready to try a new game. Money is tight and I hope to purchase this game. When every one plays the IJN player please be careful because my dad was stationed at Schofield Barracks @ Pearl. We have some great pictures of the fleet and the base as of 1941.

I would like to add the following comments about the scenarios. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1. If I were the IJN commander in chief with knowlege of American culture I would have attacked at 7:00 local time on December 25th.

The reason being that most ships would be in port for the holiday (Carriers) and a lot of the crew would be on leave. The result would be fewer IJN planes destroyed and more destruction of American forces.

2. If I were the IJN commander I would have loaded 7-10 old cargo ships with TNT and sail them into the Panama Canal on a suicide run. I would time it for daybreak on the @25th also. I believe the American High command would at first think "accident" and because of the contempt America had for the Japanese people. They did not have the brains to pull something like this off.

The resulting damage would close the canal for years. Every thing would take months longer to go around South America. Repair times would be huge with the east coast ship yards so far away. It would give the IJN a free hand for a year or two longer. Australia would be in serious jepardy.

3. I would not tweak the American forces much. I believe the actual naval force in 1941 is close to what would have been available had their not been any naval treaties in place. The actual depression lasted until 1941. My parents offer testimony to this fact. Un employment was 17-20 per cent. Roosevelt was a very liberal president and he wasn't going to build up the navy at the risk of his "New Deal" or any of his make work programs. The administration was dealing with what they felt was a much greater risk in Germany and this wouldn't change despite any Pacific senario. Remember their thinking that the Japonese were greatly inferior. Also I believe that the American and British forces combined would still greatly outnumber anything Japan could come up with. Also until 9-11 we thought we were safe from attack (except Gen. Billy Mitchell) because of the 2 huge oceans that surrounded us.

4. Because of #1 and 2 the war would last until 46 or 47. the allies would still have to fight their way close enough to drop the atom bomb.

5. Because of poor intel Japan would be able to and would greatly increase naval construction and we may not have picked up on it. Remember it was the 20-30's. Everone tries to underestimate the Japs.If the ruler said build carriers and battleships the people would to the last piece of steel. I believe that Japans naval constructon would not stop until the flow of raw materials was cut off. If #1 and 2 were in place then it would be 1944 before production was weakened.

6. I would think that a Japan built on empire building would never let a souce of oil slip thru their fingers. While items 1 and 2 play out I would think that the IJN would be pumping the guts out of the oil fields of Indonesia.

Please remember I am just a rookie but would love comments.