Reluctant Admiral Feedback

[FatR]

I believe crew experience should be reduced. Aren't those boats from Ironman scenario, where the numbers are inflated artificially? In the game I don't remember any ship with more than low 70s, and am pretty sure that EXP doesn't even grow beyond that (at least I don't see a noticeable increase, even if a ships participates in several battles and performs amazingly).

[John 3rd]

Well...isn't one of those U-Boats commanded by Joachim Tiberius Kurk? [:D]

We probably should look at those values. The early U-Boats would be good but not THAT good. What would be more reasonable?

Michael sent you the updated 3.0.1 File FatR. I'm gonna load it and take a look. If either you or me does any work on the Mod File lets be sure to let the other know and then roll the last number (EX: 3.0.2, 3.0.3, etc...). Think that makes good sense. I don't plan to touch anything until we hammer out the experience topic.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: JWE

1) math thing - yes, lots of launchers show a power law result in the chance to hit. The more launchers, the more times the hit routine is called, so the waaaay better chance that one of them will get a hit. In DaBabes, we reduced the # of launchers from 12 to 6 for the late war C and D 'E'-types. Indeed, they had 12 launchers historically, and they were pretty bad juju, but as far as we can determine, they popped those off in salvos of 6 (right half, or left half, or front half-both sides, or back half-both sides). So we cut the launchers in half, but doubled the ammo. So they get exactly what they had in terms of total DCs, but the sequential hit probability is now based on a smaller number - makes it better, lots better, but still doesn't quite get to the brass ring.

I understand the logic and the reasons, but, it is a shame that the ship's weapon configuration has to be reduced (or added to in the case of AA fire situations) to allow for more realistic results. Seems that there should be another way. This just isn't the same as re-configuring the torpedo tubes to allow for salvos.

Obviously, I'm not smart enough to figure it out though.

Buck

[FatR]

I will inform you about any changes.

A few more things about late war air combat that I was able to glean from watching the replays.

1)Well, this is more like a bug report. Japanese fighters have rather extreme inclination to ram twin-engined bombers (and only them, strangely). And this never destroys a bomber. Will report this to the Tech Forum tomorrow, once I'll make a good illustration save.

2)Japanese aircraft cannons above 30mm are not effective at all. I believed that Airacobras are more lethal against bombers when playing Allies, but looks like (assuming that difference in accuracy by 1-3 points has little value) that was a fluke. Ki-45 KAIc, the main 37mm-using day fighter is very ineffectual, on the order of early Oscars even when attacking bombers (Ki-43-IV, which have have 2x20mm; instead of 1x37mm+1x20mm, inflicts more damage against all types of targets - in fact, it actually shoots down Allied bombers semi-regularly, unlike Ki-45 KAIc). I already mentioned that S1A1, the main 37mm-using night fighter is not worth its engines, but this might be a result of night combat model. But in the daylight (lack of) effectiveness of these supposed bomber-killers seems to be much the same. I'm not even sure 30mm cannons are worth it. Type 5 loses alot of accuracy compared to 20mm cannons (8-13 points), but gains only 1 point of penetration, range and effect each, an increase by one-fourth, one-fifth. Now, Shindens do fairly well, but I'm not sure a fighter with 4x20mm won't be just as effective. In fact, N1K5-Js do very well against anything from Liberators and lighter.

[John 3rd]

We've got some emails going between Michael, Stanislav and I. Will hopefully Post so people can watch the discussion/debate/synthesis process. Commentary is ALWAYS allowed because it REALLY strengthens the final process.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Well...isn't one of those U-Boats commanded by Joachim Tiberius Kurk? [:D]

We probably should look at those values. The early U-Boats would be good but not THAT good. What would be more reasonable?

Michael sent you the updated 3.0.1 File FatR. I'm gonna load it and take a look. If either you or me does any work on the Mod File lets be sure to let the other know and then roll the last number (EX: 3.0.2, 3.0.3, etc...). Think that makes good sense. I don't plan to touch anything until we hammer out the experience topic.

Between 65 and 70 day and night.

[bklooste]

Not entirely true ...
I know a couple of aces that returned.
eg Saburô Sakai ( when he was wounded) spent a year ,Tetsuzo Iwamoto spent time as a trainer also. While there was no organized program the amount of heavily wounded aces who were not fit for combat duty made a good pool.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The Japanese pilots, historically, weren't very good at all upon graduation due to the Japanese never starting a rotation system of bringing in experienced veterans to help teach the hard-won lessons. Also the Training Program stayed too elitist through 1941-1942.

RA changes that where Yamamoto pulls out about 15% of ALL veteran IJN pilots and institutes a real, expanded training program. This holds until 1943-1944 when the war breaks through the system and causes it to fall apart.

Changing US Torps is something I would not like to mess with. That scandal cost the United States sooooo much that it is--for me--a key thing to understand in the frustrating first year of the war. HOW could you have TT that were never HONESTLY tested? How could the Sub Command Admirals IGNORE what their own Sub Captains were reporting? Boggles the mind...

[bklooste]

Uboats in the Pacific would not be great due to range ( similar to the maligned RO-50 boats)

How do you model the higher underwater survivability vs depth charges due to extra thick double hull and much higher crush depths , yet Uboats survivability on the surface were no better than Japanese or allied subs ( or worse as they were small) so maybe a lower night rating and some extra armour .

[bklooste]

I wouldnt do this... maybe delay the conversion or upgrade to 4 DC launchers. The reason is im 90% sure subs work like AA and there are yearly modifiers..

Eg
41 Jap detection *Y , Japanese Hit *Y etc if introducing more launchers than historical too early it can really throw such a mechanism out of wack.

Allied flak works the same way IMHO dont mess with it due to the huge ramp up in 43 . At best bump the 5"/38 accuracy 5 points becuase the non bofers were useless.

ORIGINAL: FatR

Okay, about late-war stuff.

1)Japanese ASW. Holy shit. You can't believe it until you see it. The best result I noticed was kaibokan No.205 sinking one sub and near-sinking (damage into 80s) another in one phase. In the deep water She ran out of DCs for the main array too, otherwise it would have been two clear sinkings in one phase. And that with crew EXP less than 50. While American boats are quite accurate with their attacks, they don't seem to have much of advantage in avoiding detection, compared to early war. And if you get spotted by one of these E-class monsters, you are toast.
Now, I'm all for giving JFBs the ability to conduct an effective ASW campaign, if they invest appropriate effort and approach the whole thing meticulously. But "Just send your E-class ships to sea!" strikes me as an unsatisfyingly simplistic solution[:(].

What can we do about it? We don't know how chances for detecting a sub are determined, so I propose reducing the accuracy of Type 2 DCs to 8 overall (other ships that carry them aren't as lethal as kaibokans, but still can sink subs even in deep water more often that I like) and introducing a subset of Type 2 DCs specifically for E-class escorts, that has accuracy further reduced to 7, to reflect that simple increase in the number of devices does not give an arithmetic increase in effectiveness. I mean, air combat suffers from this problem too, for certain planes, but at least there the problem doesn't break the whole equation.

2)Night interception. There doesn't seem to be a meaningful difference between high-end nightfighters, like S1A1, with experienced crews, and trash manned by green pilots. In both cases they shoot down anything only as a fluke. Granted, this is stock, where S1A1 is shafted by carrying horrible 37-mm cannons, and fighting B-29s might skew the picture... Still, I think dedicated nightfighters (on both sides) need a bit more muscle, where it can be added without making them unrecognizable as historical planes.

3)Allied flak seemed a bit anemic, but I haven't seen it in action much, Japanese AI is not good at sneaking planes past CAP. Japanese land-based flak was not effective, but this might be due to lack of proper concentration.

4)Not much conclusions can be drawn about air combat. Different experience levels skew the picture alot, and AI flies its planes at low altitude. I dread to see what Thunderbolts can do, when ordered to fly stratosweeps. Will need a controlled testing.

[bklooste]

I think this also distorts the view of Japanese air superiority - even in Stock Japan can ramp up rapidly and grind the allies down and get a historical advantage till late 43. The cost is the resource leave you with less planes when it is most needed.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

FatR is spot-on with his commentary. As Michael would attest, I did a rapid expansion at the beginning of the war and worked on the premise of a regular scenario. BIG MISTAKE! Darned near ran dry on resources and am struggling to get a stockpile rebuild right now.

Just got my last 1942 CVL and now have to wait for Sho-Kai's. Going to be long spell without a new flattop! I've got the first Sho-Kai coming in at the normal time and have accelerated number 3 to come in with number 2 at the same time. This should work pretty well getting a PAIR of heavy carriers on the same day.

Have also been working to bring the late-Unryu's forward too, however, this has been a little slower since I want to get Musashi completed and open up a bunch of shipyard points.

Has anyone got any commentary regarding the 1942 warships produced:
1. Does the CVs coming in slightly early really help?

2. How about the improved Agano's? They seem pretty good to me! At least they have a bit of a punch now.

3. My DD construction has outpaced my losses to this point and that is nice.

[bklooste]

I have been away but some comments on teh late war Japanese Zeros
 
 
Would also like to comment on the speed of late war zeros.  Im not talking about the A6M5 whose speed should be similar  but the A6M4 and A6M8 as i played a greater role in them. First they cary the same engine as the historical  A6M8 .  The historical A6M8 /54 or /62 never really flew they had 2 prototoypes in mid 45 , their role was mixed maybe as a  Kamikaze with the 2 heavy bombs ,  they had not much decent aviation fuel , couldnt develop improved superchargers  etc. Here all this happens early in the war first with the A6M4 which will give time for some minor air frame improvements , reasonable super charger improvements and better fuel and  the A6M8 as a late war fighter/interceptor ( i proposed a fighter bomber version closer to the A6M8 but i dont think it got off the ground)  . 
 
Then for the A6M8 a  "max speed around 365, reflecting the overall design polish and improvements to the Kinsei engine, otherwise no changes" .  I dont think this is unreasonable nyway we proposed
 
I dont think we proposed many changes for the A6M5  , did tehse end up in the data file ?

[bklooste]

People have commented the A6M3b is a good plane , has anyone tried the A6M4 it is in the same vain and should be better ? How does the A6M8 stack up ?

One thing this mod explores is the impact on some focus on Zeros and we can see it really pays of and IMHO those A6M3b would have been used as a carrier based interceptor and made things even worse for the allies.

[bklooste]

The best thing to be done for allied balance is resources or slow expansion BUT you dont want these to be 44 killers . Suggestions

- Add a restricted dutch Brigade to Palembang
- Add 2 dutch wildebeast squadrons
- Add a Huricane squadorn
- Move 2 brittish subs , and 2 squadrons ( fighter and light bomber ) to Jolo this should make the PI very interesting
- Suggest mini KB is downgraded to claude's.
The above will make the DEI /Malysia a bit more tricky.

Upgrade the Phillipine division troops in dec 7 41 ( need to pay supplies ) to simmulate better rifles

Add an Ausie militia Brigade to PM from Oz.

Increase production of older aircraft this would prevent the common but Gamey tactic of attritioning the US so he no longer has enough for training and fighting since they simply would have made inferior , diverted eastern europe forces or used mothballed planes for training .

Take 6 44 ariving oil tankers and bring them forward to 42 especially if they arive from other theaters [ More emphasis on Theater]

[John 3rd]

BK! How are you? Haven't heard or seen from you in ages. It is great to see you Posting and contributing your thoughts to this. As a co-creator and important founding contributor to RA it is outstanding to have you adding your thoughts.

You Posted a ton of info and I need to read and not skim it. Will hold off commenting until tomorrow with that. Looks like a lot of info and ideas.

[John 3rd]

This is the set of emails that Michael, Stanislav, and I have had going yesterday and today when it comes to starting deployments. This will probably be confusing so I've tried to separate us by regular type, bold, and Italics. The Mod has always been a solid collaborative effort and I think you can see that within the ideas presented below.


From: John Cochran
Date: 1/29/2011 1:58:40 PM
To: Станислав Бартошевич; Michael Benoit

Subject: Changes in Scen 69--Opening Deployment and Germans

Great Thinking! Comments and ideas Posted in between yours.

Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 6:17 AM
To: Michael Benoit
Cc: John Cochran

Subject: On changes in Scen 69.

1)Placing light carriers at Saipain is meaningless, as long as they still are in a warp drive TF. I propose to remove warp drive from Mini-KB, placing it in Babeldaob, and to leave escort carriers at Home Islands, as a minimum (leaving Taiyo's air units on the ground). Maybe Zuiho as well, as three light carriers still are enough to push right to Mersing or Palembang immediately. I propose leaving old battleships in the Home Islands as well. It's extremely likely for the entire battle line to be released from strategic reserve until the PH attack is confirmed as success.

A. How about we remove the Warp Factor with the CVLs and leave them at Saipan? Truk could be another option for protection of the forces there...

I would say at Babeldoab w/o warp drive.

B. CVEs at Home Islands with the 4 Old BBs or they could be at Cam Rahn Bay to cover operations of the western flank.

If they were at Camrahn Bay, then you would have had a British response. Keep them at Hiroshima.

C. On the BBs I’d say leave the two (Nagato/Mutsu I think) in Malaya to protect against Force Z. The other four can be at Hiroshima. Leave the 4 BCs with the KB.’

Good idea here, but I may want one of the BCs with the CVLs. One BC per two heavy CVs.


I think the best compromise will be leaving CVLs at Babelthingy without warp drive. As about old battleships, I referred to Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise and Hyuga. Nagatos might stay to cover Malaya landings. Have no strong feelings about BCs divide among carrier forces.

2)Pre-positioning of too many Japanese subs in Indian Ocean might be rather suboptimal... DEI is the main hunting ground in the first weeks of the war.

A. OK. I’ll move a few out and leave only a couple of early ‘Hunters’ lurking in the IO!

I would say 4 max in IO area

I would place 3 somewhare between Georgetown and Port Blair.


3)German subs and AMCs still have Japanese captains, likely because they were copy/pasted from similar Japanese ships. If you wish, I can research their RL captains. Oh, and I already said that crew EXP at 90 is very excessive (and 75 for AMCs is dubious as well - I think I might check war careers of the ships in question, while I'm at it, to introduce some differentiation, based on how successful their previous careers were).

A. EXP: This sounds like some serious work but I already have agreed on the AAR that this does need changed. I think (perhaps) that the German did only send out veteran crews to the IO so they probably should start fairly strong, however, 90 is INSANE! Check it out and see what works. As to changing the Captains this would be nice and appropriate.

Max crew experience should be less than 70, unless you find daat that would supprot a higher rating.

B. We know the Atlantis would have an excellent Captain and Experience Rating. Didn’t one of the other sink a CL off the NW Coast of Australia. Seem to remember them find the wreckage just recently.

Changing 069---Once the three of us are agreed, I’d like to handle the ship placement. If you want to change the Leaders and Experience on the German ships that is cool.

Does either of you have an issue if I copy this and place it on the AAR?






I don't have any problems with that.




As about names of captains and ship careers, checking this is likely to take several days. I'll report as soon as I'm ready.

[bklooste]

Re Nagatos .. It would be unlikely to break the Ise / Fuso from them before PH that is the point of a battle line... The main ships the alllies will be watching for is the Nagatos if they are in Cameray they will know and allied preparedness in Malaysia will be advanced . It makes the whole point of sending Force Z pointless as they are no match for the 2 Nagatos + cruiser support so force Z would be withdrawn to meet up with reinforcements. Nor would Japan risk such early warning , suggest leaving the non BC battle line where it belongs or make major changes to the british and their strategy

As above mini KB should be split up ( put the training CVL/CVE back at home) , fighters downgraded to claudes for some ships and warp factor removed.

As far as Uboats go what is the durability ? If its diving depth / 10 ( The maximum safe depth for the VIIC was 185 to 250 meters = 19-25 dur , crush was more) than these guys will be "tanks". Suggest low night experience , higher day to compensate for the greater danger of surface attacks. Also how do they resuply torpedos ???
AMC probably should have very good experience they were well drilled and used guile ela the Komarant vs the Sydney , but they are still unarmored merchant with short range guns. Note the Komarant was sunk by the Sydney ( they sunk each other!) and this encounter happened a few weeks before the war started.

Ben

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

This is the set of emails that Michael, Stanislav, and I have had going yesterday and today when it comes to starting deployments. This will probably be confusing so I've tried to separate us by regular type, bold, and Italics. The Mod has always been a solid collaborative effort and I think you can see that within the ideas presented below.


From: John Cochran
Date: 1/29/2011 1:58:40 PM
To: Ñòàíèñëàâ Áàðòîøåâè÷; Michael Benoit

Subject: Changes in Scen 69--Opening Deployment and Germans

Great Thinking! Comments and ideas Posted in between yours.

Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2011 6:17 AM
To: Michael Benoit
Cc: John Cochran

Subject: On changes in Scen 69.

1)Placing light carriers at Saipain is meaningless, as long as they still are in a warp drive TF. I propose to remove warp drive from Mini-KB, placing it in Babeldaob, and to leave escort carriers at Home Islands, as a minimum (leaving Taiyo's air units on the ground). Maybe Zuiho as well, as three light carriers still are enough to push right to Mersing or Palembang immediately. I propose leaving old battleships in the Home Islands as well. It's extremely likely for the entire battle line to be released from strategic reserve until the PH attack is confirmed as success.

A. How about we remove the Warp Factor with the CVLs and leave them at Saipan? Truk could be another option for protection of the forces there...

I would say at Babeldoab w/o warp drive.

B. CVEs at Home Islands with the 4 Old BBs or they could be at Cam Rahn Bay to cover operations of the western flank.

If they were at Camrahn Bay, then you would have had a British response. Keep them at Hiroshima.

C. On the BBs I’d say leave the two (Nagato/Mutsu I think) in Malaya to protect against Force Z. The other four can be at Hiroshima. Leave the 4 BCs with the KB.’

Good idea here, but I may want one of the BCs with the CVLs. One BC per two heavy CVs.


I think the best compromise will be leaving CVLs at Babelthingy without warp drive. As about old battleships, I referred to Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise and Hyuga. Nagatos might stay to cover Malaya landings. Have no strong feelings about BCs divide among carrier forces.

2)Pre-positioning of too many Japanese subs in Indian Ocean might be rather suboptimal... DEI is the main hunting ground in the first weeks of the war.

A. OK. I’ll move a few out and leave only a couple of early ‘Hunters’ lurking in the IO!

I would say 4 max in IO area

I would place 3 somewhare between Georgetown and Port Blair.


3)German subs and AMCs still have Japanese captains, likely because they were copy/pasted from similar Japanese ships. If you wish, I can research their RL captains. Oh, and I already said that crew EXP at 90 is very excessive (and 75 for AMCs is dubious as well - I think I might check war careers of the ships in question, while I'm at it, to introduce some differentiation, based on how successful their previous careers were).

A. EXP: This sounds like some serious work but I already have agreed on the AAR that this does need changed. I think (perhaps) that the German did only send out veteran crews to the IO so they probably should start fairly strong, however, 90 is INSANE! Check it out and see what works. As to changing the Captains this would be nice and appropriate.

Max crew experience should be less than 70, unless you find daat that would supprot a higher rating.

B. We know the Atlantis would have an excellent Captain and Experience Rating. Didn’t one of the other sink a CL off the NW Coast of Australia. Seem to remember them find the wreckage just recently.

Changing 069---Once the three of us are agreed, I’d like to handle the ship placement. If you want to change the Leaders and Experience on the German ships that is cool.

Does either of you have an issue if I copy this and place it on the AAR?






I don't have any problems with that.




As about names of captains and ship careers, checking this is likely to take several days. I'll report as soon as I'm ready.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: bklooste


Uboats in the Pacific would not be great due to range ( similar to the maligned RO-50 boats)

How do you model the higher underwater survivability vs depth charges due to extra thick double hull and much higher crush depths , yet Uboats survivability on the surface were no better than Japanese or allied subs ( or worse as they were small) so maybe a lower night rating and some extra armour .

The U-Boats in the Pacific would presumably be the Type IXD2, which were hardly small.

EDIT: The IXD2 displaced about 1800 tons submerged and had a range of 23700 miles, surpassing all but two or three classes of IJN Junsen boats. I think they'd do quite well.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: bklooste


Uboats in the Pacific would not be great due to range ( similar to the maligned RO-50 boats)

How do you model the higher underwater survivability vs depth charges due to extra thick double hull and much higher crush depths , yet Uboats survivability on the surface were no better than Japanese or allied subs ( or worse as they were small) so maybe a lower night rating and some extra armour .

The U-Boats in the Pacific would presumably be the Type IXD2, which were hardly small.

U-Boats of types IXC, IXC/40, IXD, IXD2 and XB operated in the Indian Ocean/Pacific as part of the Monsoon groups. Hardly small indeed.

[John 3rd]

Thanks for the commentary. Reactions:

1. I think the AMC Crews would have very good experience.

2. Would wager the Monsoon SS would also be quite good crews. No idea on the Day vs. Night experience to start with.

3. If they had that long of range would that put them somewhere near the longer-legged I-Boats.

4. Hull Strength? Don't know but certainly tougher then the Japanese.

5. BK's comments about the Nagato's being deployed and a British response is quite good. Perhaps we should use the oldest sisters (Fuso/Yamashiro) from the Battleline?

[DuckofTindalos]

The Monsun group had no particularly "elite" crews.