Reluctant Admiral Feedback

[FatR]

Big aircraft changes for which I'm currently still reading books/doing tests will be incoming. I'm just waiting for the naval side to sort out before dumping a huge proposal.

But while we're still on naval side of things:

1)So, John, what do you think about my proposals for streamlining late-war production?
2)Any thoughts about subs?
3)Any thoughts about forming an extra CD unit using 6-8 of the 140mm guns removed from CLs converted to trainers, and placing it, say, on Kuriles (Kuriles is one of the places where a suicidal Allied invasion in early 1942 can mess up the Japanese game, and defenses there are almost nonexistent in the beginning)?

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: FatR

Big aircraft changes for which I'm currently still reading books/doing tests will be incoming. I'm just waiting for the naval side to sort out before dumping a huge proposal.

But while we're still on naval side of things:

1)So, John, what do you think about my proposals for streamlining late-war production?
2)Any thoughts about subs?
3)Any thoughts about forming an extra CD unit using 6-8 of the 140mm guns removed from CLs converted to trainers, and placing it, say, on Kuriles (Kuriles is one of the places where a suicidal Allied invasion in early 1942 can mess up the Japanese game, and defenses there are almost nonexistent in the beginning)?

Stanislav,

I had no idea that you were diabolically planning a re-tooling of the aircraft industry. Sneaky! Whenever ready fire off your proposal there.

To your points:
1. I LIKE the streamlining of the escorts and making them more consistent for vision as well as manpower. This makes a lot of sense to me. Yamamoto--to my reading--said nothing along those lines. As Combined Fleet Commander it really wasn't within his perview. This leads us to INFER (making me nervous) what he might do as Navy Minister.

To me, with the 4th Circle construction and manpower needs, simplification/mass production using less trained men would follow a lot of what we have already spoken about within the Mod. Stan: Not to be funny, but could you simplify your proposal and then we make serious decisions based on it? How many of what and when?

Terminus brings up an excellent point about 20-20 hindsight. I'd say the changes should mostly be reflect for AFTER the war has started with a recognition of the US SS threat.

2. I think the Japanese are screwed on SS. They cost so dratted much that I don't really see a useful option here. The thought of going with B/C and KD and cutting everything else holds some serious merit. Not sure after that though...

3. With what we are pulling off the old CLs I think you could create several CD units with the guns we are pulling off of the old CLs. This is a great idea. It makes a lot of sense to place them in the Kuriles Chain (say those Central Islands).

[John 3rd]

As a completely new subject, what do people think about using Andrew's new map for ours?

[darbycmcd]

Andrew's new map? I missed that, could you give me the link?

I can imagine the gnashing of teeth this will create, but you should consider adding Treespiders econ mods. I don't necessarily mean the capacity changes for freighters, but the supply production and resource use changes. I think this creates a much more accurate feeling of the Japanese economic bind. It changes the game in some ways, for the much more realistic, IMO.

[FatR]

Okay, John. The proposal for changes to smaller warships and escorts, condensed in one post. Almost all of the changes below are based on the assumption that with a war of attrition becoming obvious reality by the second half of 1942 and economy strained by the expanded 4th Circle program, Japanese take a coherent and unified effort to simplify and streamline production of said ships. Their analysis of accumulated combat experience follows roughly the same patterns of IRL, so ASW still will be given low priority until well into 1943. The difference is primarily driven by economic expediency.

0)Assuming that changes begin so late, let's leave subchasers as they are. Upgrading facilities that produced auxilary subchasers of CHa-class in the middle of the war likely will be seen as too expensive and disruptive for production (as someone said, two changes of model on the conveyor belt were equivalent to one carpet bombing of the factory in terms of production reduction)

0.5)MTBs/MGBs/MLs should arrive in Hailar too, to avoid the bug.

1)So the only early change will be the better thought-out conversion of Otori TBs, meant to make them both more credible surface combatants and actually capable of doing escorting. I'll remind you the stats:

1x127/40 F
2x127/40 R
6x25mm C (two triple mounts)
3x53cm Type 92 torpedos C (without reloads)
2xType 95 Mod-2 DC R

Late in the war add radar, Type 2 DCs and maybe a couple of single-mount 25mm guns (the ship will not be able to accomodate much more top weight). I can send you or post here a drawing of this speculative project, demonstrating how it will look like, if you are interested.

2)Akizuki class is accepted as the sole first line DD class to be produced in late summer of 1942. It is superior against enemy destroyers, and has the best AAA potential by far... the torpedo battery is relatively weak, and lack of an AP shell for 100/65 gun hurts, but with aircraft being the main threat, correct priorities are obvious. Building of Yugumo class is cancelled, which also allows to phase out of production 127/50 gun.

More specifically, never ordered are (a) 6 Yugumo-class destroyers that were ordered from August 1942 onwards in RL : Okinami, Kishinami, Asashimo, Hayashimo, Akishimo, Kiyoshimo + (b)6 "dream" Yugumo-class destroyers, never built in RL, but appearing in the building queue very late in the game: Kawagiri, Kiyokaze, Murakaze, Satokaze, Taekaze, Tanigiri.

Each of these 6-ship series is replaced with 5 Akizuki-class destroyers (in addition to expansion of the class due to savings on CLs, as discussed above), built in roughly the same timeframe. As Akizukis were much large than Yugumos and required more crew, even with benefits of relatively streamlined production replacing them 1:1 is hardly realistic. However, said benefits might well save manpower and materials for other projects. Part of these savings will be eaten by relatively early and good upgrades Akitsukis get (they get the best radar equipment of all Japanese DDs, and they get it earlier than others). But some economy will be achieved, which is good for overall plausibility of the scenario.

For a quick reference, timeframe of Yugumo-class construction, and possible names for new Akizuki-class destroyers[:)]:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y%C5%ABgum ... _destroyer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akizuki_cl ... %281942%29

3)33 Ukuru-class escorts are replaced with 42 C/D-class escorts (as usual, half Cs, half Ds) built within the same timeframe. This again will save some workforce for other projects. C/D class ships are not as good, true, but the difference is fairly small, particularly once you consider that they are not likely to meet an enemy against which an extra 120mm gun will make a difference.

4)The RL project of Type 1 APD/LSI is replaced by the project based on the hull of Matsu DD class, to unify their production. These ships are signficantly smaller, benefit from being unified with a mass-produced DD class in most details, and so can be built in greater numbers. Expand the program to 35 APDs from 28, to reflect that. Endurance, durability, speed and so on - as Matsu class. Armament:
1x127/40 F
3x25mm RS
3x25mm LS
3x25mm R (in single mounts)
2xType 2 DC R
Type 13 Radar

Capacity: 300 troops/200 cargo.

So, still Dauntless fodder, but at least less eggs in every individual basker.

5)Considering greater number of capital ships Japan gets in Scen 70 we might just stop at this stage. However, if others consider that measures proposed above might result in sufficient shipbuilding efficiency boost to justify giving a bit more naval goodies to Japan, I think the best way to do so is to accelerate Matsu/Tachibana program a bit and to add several ships in it.

[John 3rd]

FatR--Thanks for putting it all onto one Posting to examine and think about. Really helps to 'simplify' things (the theme of your above Posting). [;)] I really LIKE the ideas you have Posted.

I need to digest the contents some. Would enjoy comment regarding this proposal from any readers with an informed opinion. This is a great time to chat about things while we slowly move forward.

RL has been interfering with getting anything done as I have been working 6 days-a-week for 55-65 hours each week. It is REALLY grinding me down. There is serious impact on the Family too...

Still trying to get stuff worked on/done:
1. Just emailed Eddie to see what files he needs for the new pages of artwork he has created. They are a nice contribution to the overall look of the Mod.

2. It is POSSIBLE that I can do the work regarding the cruisers, Akisuki's, and Japanese LCU have discussed and decided upon over the next couple of mornings before work.

When this is done, I can send the files to you for whatever we decide on regarding the escort program and aircraft.

What are you thinking about when it comes to aircraft?

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: darbymcd

Andrew's new map? I missed that, could you give me the link?

I can imagine the gnashing of teeth this will create, but you should consider adding Treespiders econ mods. I don't necessarily mean the capacity changes for freighters, but the supply production and resource use changes. I think this creates a much more accurate feeling of the Japanese economic bind. It changes the game in some ways, for the much more realistic, IMO.

I am terrified to mess with yet another area of the game. Haven't kept up with that Thread (see the above Posting) so I'll read through it to get a feel for the discussion.

Thanks for the comments!

[FatR]

I didn't like initial Treespider's ideas and never looked past the first page of his mod. If there is anywhere a full log of changes he made, I might take a look. And as economics are easy to screw up, I wouldn't want to apply these changes until they are tested by someone in an actual game, at least.

[FatR]

Well, and while we are at it:

6)Subs. The goals here, in out-of-game terms, are to build cheaper, by minimizing the number of concurrently used designs, while still maintaining quality of the sub force, as quantity necessary to challenge Allies is patently impossible to achieve with existing material and human resources. Lack of the latter, additionally consumed by other branches of the navy, compared to RL, will lead to ruthless pruning of second-rate boats from building programs. The submarine force in this scenario is still primarily considered a weapon meant to recon for, engage and attrite Allied battlefleet (for the same reason, clear inability to procure sufficient numbers for serious tonnage warfare), except very late in the war, where midgets still will be built in droves for the the last defense of Home Islands.

6.1)Large subs. Production for 1942 - no change. Instead of 21 large subs of different types that arrive in 1943 and later, build 18-20 C2 class subs. This is undersea equivalents of Akizuki-class DDs - standartizing to the best (for existing circumstance) ship class that is ready for production and can be built in significant numbers. I don't know if it is possible to set crew experience in the editor, but if yes, crews of these should get higher starting experience than of the other Japanese subs.
Number of subs built is slightly reduced despite standartization because there will be no compromizing quality for quantity for this category of subs, they are already too big and expensive, so if they are built at all, they should be built as good as possible. (Historically C2 was replaces with C3 to make production cheaper).
Also, this class should get the radar upgrade in the early-middle 1943, instead of the end of 1944. Considering cost associated with building these ships, giving them vital upgrades after everything else in the fleet makes no sense.

6.2)Medium subs. Build KD7 class as historically. Add a radar upgrade to it by the end of 1943 - beginning of 1944. Add 8 boats of improved KD8 class for 1944-early 1945, with range upgraded to 10 000, radards, so on. These subs will be meant to supplement very limited numbers of C2 subs constructed, using already-available shipyards meant for KD boats, but not sacrificing too much of their offensive capabilities.

For 1945 and later, retain fast ST class boats and maybe expand their numbers.

6.3)Small subs. Retain 8 KS class subs arriving before April of 1943 in the queue. These will be relegated to the role of training subs, though. Historically, older pre-war subs were used like this, but the players just send them to patrol as usual, of course, because there is no penalties for doing so. Of course, most players will turn these failboats off anyway, I recomend to add building them to the list of recommended houserules, alongside with restrictions to what planes can fly from what carriers, and so on.

Eliminate the rest of KS class boats, K6 class boats, and STS class boats from the queue. Mostly, to, you know, save players the hassle of turning them off one by one. Although K6 class can be legitimately useful, yes, but other programs ask for sacrifices. Well STS class boats could have been less than worthless if they were classified as midgets, with accompanying ability to surprise-deploy them at threatened bases... but they aren't. And it wouldn't have been possible to crew them with even semi-decently trained men anyway.

6.4)Midgets - no change. As one-shot suicide boxes they are more cost-effective, than STS class, at least... You might want to improve Type D Koryus' their maneuver speed, to make them slightly more worth building so late in the war.

6.5)Special purpose boats and transports.
Let the Seiran carriers be. Type Yu IJA transport submarines were born of the lack of cooperation that's not going to go away completely (it is even likely to be worse, as with thinking necessary to justify this scenario IJN will be less likely to waste its precious fleet boats on resupply and evacuation misssions) so let them be. Replace others with SH class transport submarines, one SH per two other boats. These are only SSTs with capacity that makes them less than a total waste of Naval points and some degree of survivability.

[SuluSea]

Since the loading in the startgame screen and openload screen are in slightly different locations I made an adjustment this morning I assumed both screens were interchangable.
 
 I used different rice paper as a background and blended the flag in differently as well.
 
 
 

[FatR]

SuluSea, I must say it once again, excellent work!

[FatR]

Meanwhile, I looked at treespider's mod. Thankfully, LocalYokel made all the important calculation already, so I was able to get to the relevant points fast. Two reasons to not like economical changes there:

1)Japan, even with perfect SRA conquest, is doomed to be short of resources no matter what.
2)There is a already "Put Japan's wartime economy in RL-like dire straits" switch in AE. It is called "RL-like near-total destruction of Palembang's refineries". Unlike (1) it is actually dependent on actions of the players. Japan faces enough lose/lose situations as is, no need to make its entire economy into one. Sure, merchant fleet transport capacity, when taken in vacuum, can use a nerf, but the treespider's mod goes way beyond that.

[John 3rd]

Loaded SuluSeas work into the Mod. Eddie--just send each page over one-by-one and I'll place them into the Mod Pages.

Stanislav--I have two hours at home--alone--and hope to get some of the stuff done we have been talking about. Once this is done to my satisfaction I will then send the files to you.

Will Post in a while with thoughts and more commentary.

[John 3rd]

Terminus--Could you send the artwork for this ship class (Kuma Slot 1027) to my email? I've got it incorporated into the Mod but need the pretty ship side, sil, etc...

See Post 764


NEVERMIND! I forgot that you sent it a couple of weeks ago. Found it and have added it into the Mod.

[Terminus]

Good.

[John 3rd]

OK. Converted Kuma, Tama, Kitakami, Oi, and Kiso to Training Cruisers. Have to load the game and see if I got the artwork in the right place but I think we are good.

Stanislav--The changes made free-up a total of 15 14CM/50 (Device 1665) for CD use. Perhaps you could create two new CD units and place them in the Kuriles. Sure wish we could use the TT Tubes too like the Norwegians did (sinking the Blucher)!

Went back to our original RA CL set with the Sendai's and Naka's in allowing a CLAA upgrade much later in the war. I say let the player chose if that is the path they want to take.

Tenryu and Tatsuta are useless. Don't really think they can be converted to a Training Cruiser. Cannot really do anything with them so do you think we should just leave them as is?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

... Sure wish we could use the TT Tubes too like the Norwegians did (sinking the Blucher)! ...

You can. Torpedo tubes in CD units should work.

[John 3rd]

Just loaded the game and Terminus's Kuma-Training Class Artwork is attached and looks good. Thanks Term!

As I was going through the game checking on the changes just made I decided to do a DD count for the 'current' RA DD builds as planned in 2.0. By my count there are 3 Shimakaze, 12 Akizuki, and 22 Kagero's in the building cue (not looking at Matsus and others).

With all the conversation back-and-forth regarding the DDs this is what I might propose:

1. Start with 4 Akizuki's in Fleet Service with KB (pull the 4 older DDs from KB and move elsewhere) and produce a total of 20 more. This would add 12 more AA DDs to the Japanese OOB.

2. Keep the Kagero's and make their run a total of 24 as well (add two).

The 'Fleet Faction' gets their excellent multi-role DDs while the 'Air Faction' gets a superb AA DD for CV protection.

The Shimakaze's are an aberration. Should we can them or leave them? If we pull them then split the 3 between the other two classes.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

... Sure wish we could use the TT Tubes too like the Norwegians did (sinking the Blucher)! ...

You can. Torpedo tubes in CD units should work.

COOL! Though they won't do anything, I say re-use the old Tubes and put them in...

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: FatR

Meanwhile, I looked at treespider's mod. Thankfully, LocalYokel made all the important calculation already, so I was able to get to the relevant points fast. Two reasons to not like economical changes there:

1)Japan, even with perfect SRA conquest, is doomed to be short of resources no matter what.
2)There is a already "Put Japan's wartime economy in RL-like dire straits" switch in AE. It is called "RL-like near-total destruction of Palembang's refineries". Unlike (1) it is actually dependent on actions of the players. Japan faces enough lose/lose situations as is, no need to make its entire economy into one. Sure, merchant fleet transport capacity, when taken in vacuum, can use a nerf, but the treespider's mod goes way beyond that.

The more I think about it the more I really don't want to mess with the economy...