Shinano Options

[Local Yokel]

I have been playing around with some tweaks to the building programme for Yamato class vessels, and have bumped into quite a lot of conflicting information about Shinano.

So far as I can tell, construction of Shinano/Hull 110 commenced at Yokosuka in May 1940, or thereabouts, but after that I start coming up against contradictory information. The concensus seems to be that building of this ship had already been halted before 7 December 1941 - if this is correct, then so much for the accusations of gamey JFB behaviour by halting the ship's construction in game! However, I have seen conflicting suggestions as to when such construction was halted - 12 December 1940 is one date I have encountered, and June 1941 another.

The information available to me on these ships' construction is very limited, and I have doubts about the reliability of much of it. Can anyone please provide information about the starts and stops in Shinano's construction that are backed up by an authoritative source?

[Shark7]

Also, IIRC, Shinano and Hull #111 were to be built to a slightly different design than Yamato and Musashi, mainly in exchanging the 12.7cm/40 guns with the 10cm/65 gun.

Shinano was halted in mid 1941, after the decision to go to war was made. The halt was to be temporary, in order to allow more urgent projects to complete in time.

[oldman45]

I think a few months ago, JWE posted a time line of all major construction and the yards that were used.

[inqistor]

Yeah, try to find its planned air wing composition. I have found at least THREE possibilities, from pure fighters, onto all-around plus specialized recon unit.

Actually I have made rough calculation, when the ship should be actually available, considering in-game mechanics:
Yamato was ordered in March 1937, laid down 4 November 1937, launched 8 August 1940, and commissioned 16 December 1941

That gives 49 months, and 12 days

Musashi was ordered in March 1937, laid down 29 March 1938, launched 1 November 1940, and commissioned 5 August 1942.

That gives 52 months, and 7 days

Shinano
Laid down: 4 May 1940
Launched: 5 October 1944
Commissioned: 19 November 1944

Getting Yamato into consideration, Shinano as BB should be available at 16 June 1944, considering NO haltings.

For CV:
conversion began in June 1942, she was originally scheduled for commissioning in early 1945, the construction of the ship was accelerated after the Battle of the Philippine Sea.

So around June 20 1944, she was accelerated, and shown up at November 19 1944. That gives 6 month of acceleration, so in-game commissioning should be actually 6 month AFTER 19 November 1944.

[JWE]

Mr Palmer, I understand what you are asking and why. Will respod by pm. Have some good yard data from private communications. Can make these available. Wish I could do this publically, but there's too many children infesting these threads these days.

[Nemo121]

JWE,

You could provide it publicly. You just choose not to. In terms of fearing attack publicly you've far more commonly originated the attacks than been the recipient recently. Some of your recent posts have clearly breached forum rules yet nothing has happened to you. So, you have no reason to fear attack or even consequences for your behaviour. On the other hand this sort of partitioning of information as a means of showing that there's an "in crowd" and if people displease you they won't be part of it is, unfortunately, rather a common feature of human group dynamics when those in authority are unwilling to countenance disagreement... and of subtly informing others in weaker positions in the group of the dynamic and preferred behaviour of those in power ( namely mirroring the withholding, abusive behaviour of those in power in order to:
a) clearly demarcate them from those who are displeasing,
b) promote their identification as being in the group which is in favour,
c) currying favour with those in power. )

So, you COULD provide it publicly but you CHOOSE not to. Sometimes using the correct word is pretty important in clarifying the dynamics of what is actually happening. Of course, you have an absolute right to refuse to provide any information you may have. That much I can support. I cannot, however, support the disingenuous misrepresentation of the reason behind your not posting it publicly - even if it is de rigeur for the commencement of such efforts at demonisation/ostracisation throughout history to be painted as being in response to provocations by others. It makes all that follows so much more seemly... and provides a psychological salve for those who follow.

Bottom line though, there's a difference between could and choose. You could but you choose not to. The only question that remains to me is how aware you are of the group dynamics involved in and inflamed by this sort of behaviour. It is possible that you may not even see the historical precedents.

With all that said... I'm aware that you've had to, in the past, put up with a lot of unwarranted criticism and abuse from some forum posters. That, clearly, was unwarranted. On the other hand just because some treated you badly doesn't mean you should behave abominably towards others. Two wrongs do not a right make. The more information that is put out publicly the better for the development of the game. Since that is what you proclaim to be motivated by why hold back on something which will serve that purpose?

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

JWE,

You could provide it publicly. You just choose not to. In terms of fearing attack publicly you've far more commonly originated the attacks than been the recipient recently. Some of your recent posts have clearly breached forum rules yet nothing has happened to you. So, you have no reason to fear attack or even consequences for your behaviour. On the other hand this sort of partitioning of information as a means of showing that there's an "in crowd" and if people displease you they won't be part of it is, unfortunately, rather a common feature of human group dynamics when those in authority are unwilling to countenance disagreement... and of subtly informing others in weaker positions in the group of the dynamic and preferred behaviour of those in power ( namely mirroring the withholding, abusive behaviour of those in power in order to:
a) clearly demarcate them from those who are displeasing,
b) promote their identification as being in the group which is in favour,
c) currying favour with those in power. )

So, you COULD provide it publicly but you CHOOSE not to. Sometimes using the correct word is pretty important in clarifying the dynamics of what is actually happening. Of course, you have an absolute right to refuse to provide any information you may have. That much I can support. I cannot, however, support the disingenuous misrepresentation of the reason behind your not posting it publicly - even if it is de rigeur for the commencement of such efforts at demonisation/ostracisation throughout history to be painted as being in response to provocations by others. It makes all that follows so much more seemly... and provides a psychological salve for those who follow.

Bottom line though, there's a difference between could and choose. You could but you choose not to. The only question that remains to me is how aware you are of the group dynamics involved in and inflamed by this sort of behaviour. It is possible that you may not even see the historical precedents.

With all that said... I'm aware that you've had to, in the past, put up with a lot of unwarranted criticism and abuse from some forum posters. That, clearly, was unwarranted. On the other hand just because some treated you badly doesn't mean you should behave abominably towards others. Two wrongs do not a right make. The more information that is put out publicly the better for the development of the game. Since that is what you proclaim to be motivated by why hold back on something which will serve that purpose?

With the utmost respect towards you and what you have and do bring to the game JWE, I have to line up with Nemo121 here. Come back in to the fold and continue sharing your insight with everyone, even those that piss you off for whatever the reason.

Buck

[jeffk3510]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

JWE,

You could provide it publicly. You just choose not to. In terms of fearing attack publicly you've far more commonly originated the attacks than been the recipient recently. Some of your recent posts have clearly breached forum rules yet nothing has happened to you. So, you have no reason to fear attack or even consequences for your behaviour. On the other hand this sort of partitioning of information as a means of showing that there's an "in crowd" and if people displease you they won't be part of it is, unfortunately, rather a common feature of human group dynamics when those in authority are unwilling to countenance disagreement... and of subtly informing others in weaker positions in the group of the dynamic and preferred behaviour of those in power ( namely mirroring the withholding, abusive behaviour of those in power in order to:
a) clearly demarcate them from those who are displeasing,
b) promote their identification as being in the group which is in favour,
c) currying favour with those in power. )

So, you COULD provide it publicly but you CHOOSE not to. Sometimes using the correct word is pretty important in clarifying the dynamics of what is actually happening. Of course, you have an absolute right to refuse to provide any information you may have. That much I can support. I cannot, however, support the disingenuous misrepresentation of the reason behind your not posting it publicly - even if it is de rigeur for the commencement of such efforts at demonisation/ostracisation throughout history to be painted as being in response to provocations by others. It makes all that follows so much more seemly... and provides a psychological salve for those who follow.

Bottom line though, there's a difference between could and choose. You could but you choose not to. The only question that remains to me is how aware you are of the group dynamics involved in and inflamed by this sort of behaviour. It is possible that you may not even see the historical precedents.

With all that said... I'm aware that you've had to, in the past, put up with a lot of unwarranted criticism and abuse from some forum posters. That, clearly, was unwarranted. On the other hand just because some treated you badly doesn't mean you should behave abominably towards others. Two wrongs do not a right make. The more information that is put out publicly the better for the development of the game. Since that is what you proclaim to be motivated by why hold back on something which will serve that purpose?

Very well put.

[Nemo121]

Buck,

Truly I think he is just acting out his annoyance at things which others have said at other times. It is understandable to some extent, albeit still not something which should be accepted and left unchallenged. After all we don't just say, "That man's had a rough year." if we find out someone is beating their wife or children. We understand what may underlie their actions but still take action. Obviously launching verbal broadsides on an internet forum isn't in the same league as spousal abuse but the general point is true.

[Buck Beach]

We need not put he or his issues under the microscope further. He doesn't deserve that.[:(]

[Nemo121]

People always deserve the benefit of the doubt. If JWE was willing to give others the benefit of the doubt he wouldn't explode and be abusive to them. Neither would Osterhaut.

I think that you may be making the same mistake as them Buck Beach... in terms of viewing someone as "the opposition" and viewing them as someone who cannot be reasoned with. Once you do that you stop TRYING to reason with them and all positions on both sides harden and become more extreme.

I haven't, personally, been able to engage JWE reasonably recently as he has chosen to either ignore me or be abusive towards me. That doesn't mean I am going to make the mistake of thinking that is all he is capable of. I think you do him a disservice by suggesting otherwise.

[JWE]

Mr Palmer is free to post any information he may get from me. As is anyone who receives information from me, unless I ask them to keep it private. Whether or not I choose to post it publically on this board is nobody's business but mine.

[ed] btw, I haven't beaten my wife/gf in at least 16 hours, and the last time I shot one of my kids was when she voted for Jerry Brown because she liked his fake zen mu-mu. [;)]

[Local Yokel]

Since it is clear from JWE’s post #12 that he has no objection to my doing so, I will reveal that the information I now hold indicates that an order for suspension of Shinano’s construction was issued in late July 1941, with work on her being resumed on an intermittent basis from November 1941 onwards until the decision to proceed with her conversion to a carrier in June 1942. I understand that this information was provided by Anthony Preston and Allyn Nevitt. They are both well-known and reputable historians, and I am told that when supplying this information they made reference to Senshi Sosho, the official Japanese war history, and a 1969 work titled Kaigun Gunsembi, which translates to 'Naval Preparations'. The authenticity and accuracy of all reference sources need to be assessed critically, and whilst I know nothing of Kaigun Gunsembi, I have always treated Senshi Sosho as a source having impressive credentials.

I regret that this thread seems to be fast assuming the role of next round in the spat that led to locking of the Green Button thread. I did not start this thread with the intention of it serving that purpose, and I would prefer it not to end up being locked in the same way as the Green Button thread was.

As a rule I prefer to avoid becoming embroiled in altercations with other posters, and in the present case it's a rule I'm going to follow by not commenting upon the opinions expressed by others in this thread. If you want to do so then you are entirely free to start another thread for the purpose, but please, not in this thread of mine!

[Local Yokel]

Some background on what I am attempting to achieve may not be amiss. This is a personal mod that makes a number of minor changes, many purely cosmetic, to Treespider's mod, itself based on Da Babes. Primarily, it features a few extra ships so that I can indulge my penchant for naval artwork – thus you get new versions of Teia Maru (ex Aramis) and repair ship Asahi, and a few ships you don't get in other mods: Kotobuki Maru (ex Conte Verde), and armoured cruisers Iwate and Izumo. Most of these were to be found in WitP CHS, so I'm a bit surprised some didn’t make it into AE.

My alterations to the Yamato class ships reflect the longstanding niggle I have had about the dates on which these ships complete their construction. For example, if not accelerated Yamato appears in the game on 20 May 1942, five months after her historical date of completion and acceptance into the Imperial Navy on 16 Dec 1941. That's an extra five months' artificial expenditure of naval construction points in the building of a ship that actually finished building within 10 days of the outbreak of hostilities.

Yes, I know about the problems with Yamato's gunnery that are said to be the pretext for this delay in her completion in the game. Rather than charge an economic penalty for making good these shortcomings I have adopted a different approach. I have introduced a new device, the 46cm/45 Type 94-Kai to form the initial main armament for both Yamato and Musashi. This has the same data as the original Type 94, save that its accuracy has been halved from 18 to 9. I assume that this change would go far to simulate the historical shortcomings in the gunnery department, but the Japanese player's remedy is simple: upon completion of either battleship, authorise an immediate upgrade of its main armament from Type 94-Kai to Type 94, thus restoring the original accuracy rating of 18. This upgrade involves a delay of 60 days, which I consider a reasonable reflection of the time required to iron out the gunnery snags and work up each of these ships. The ships themselves now appear on their actual dates of acceptance into the Navy (16 Dec 41 and 5 Aug 42), but the Japanese player is well advised to proceed immediately with the upgrade that restores the full capability of their main battery. Thereafter the upgrade path for these ships follows the usual course.

If anyone can suggest a better way of simulating these factors, I would be pleased to hear it.

In the case of Shinano a different approach was needed to reflect the fact that her completion as a carrier was prompted by the Japanese reverse at Midway: a disaster that seldom seems to take place in the game but which has nevertheless always been assumed in its data.

What I have done is to assume that Shinano's construction proceeded in battleship form, and that it would have been completed within the timescale suggested by JWE's posts on building slip usage, as mentioned by oldman45. Thus, in my mod Shinano is completed as a battleship and if not accelerated arrives on 1 Apr 1944, armed with the 'defective' Type 94-Kai in her main battery. She also comes with the modified AA fit of 10 cm/65 Type 98 weapons in the place of the Type 89s.

Upon Shinano's arrival, the Japanese player has a choice: he can retain her as a battleship and upgrade the main battery to Type 94, or he can convert her to a carrier. The carrier conversion will cost him an additional delay of 244 days, in order to postpone Shinano's effective service introduction until the historical date in November 1944 when this took place. This conversion is only available whilst Shinano carries her 'defective' armament, so the Japanese player really needs to decide upon her final configuration as soon as the vessel completes.

I have made no change to Shinano's capacity of 47 aircraft, which my researches suggest is an accurate count for her intended integral airgroup. Unfortunately I see no likelihood of the game ever simulating the Japanese 'fortress carrier' concept (which was probably a very bad idea anyway), so I think she has to be accepted as a heavily protected vessel but one carrying only a weak punch.

Again, if anyone can suggest a better way of simulating the choices that were open to the Navy's constructors as regards Shinano, I'd be pleased to hear it. I hope, however, that the reduction in the construction cost for Yamato and Musashi may provide some incentive for the Japanese player to accept the challenge of producing a third super-battleship rather than following what seems to have become the conventional wisdom for the game's first turn: stop the Shinano!

[inqistor]

Yeah, biggest problem with Shinano is to make it actually worthwhile wasting thousands of thousand production points, so actual arrival date in 1944 seems faaaaar too late.
One of the option is to make it arrive with less Durability, so it will cost less during production, and than upgrade Durability during conversion.

Also, I was thinking about actually changing its airgroups into replacement squadrons, as Japan have no such units in-game.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Some background on what I am attempting to achieve may not be amiss. This is a personal mod that makes a number of minor changes, many purely cosmetic, to Treespider's mod, itself based on Da Babes. Primarily, it features a few extra ships so that I can indulge my penchant for naval artwork – thus you get new versions of Teia Maru (ex Aramis) and repair ship Asahi, and a few ships you don't get in other mods: Kotobuki Maru (ex Conte Verde), and armoured cruisers Iwate and Izumo. Most of these were to be found in WitP CHS, so I'm a bit surprised some didn’t make it into AE.

My alterations to the Yamato class ships reflect the longstanding niggle I have had about the dates on which these ships complete their construction. For example, if not accelerated Yamato appears in the game on 20 May 1942, five months after her historical date of completion and acceptance into the Imperial Navy on 16 Dec 1941. That's an extra five months' artificial expenditure of naval construction points in the building of a ship that actually finished building within 10 days of the outbreak of hostilities.

Yes, I know about the problems with Yamato's gunnery that are said to be the pretext for this delay in her completion in the game. Rather than charge an economic penalty for making good these shortcomings I have adopted a different approach. I have introduced a new device, the 46cm/45 Type 94-Kai to form the initial main armament for both Yamato and Musashi. This has the same data as the original Type 94, save that its accuracy has been halved from 18 to 9. I assume that this change would go far to simulate the historical shortcomings in the gunnery department, but the Japanese player's remedy is simple: upon completion of either battleship, authorise an immediate upgrade of its main armament from Type 94-Kai to Type 94, thus restoring the original accuracy rating of 18. This upgrade involves a delay of 60 days, which I consider a reasonable reflection of the time required to iron out the gunnery snags and work up each of these ships. The ships themselves now appear on their actual dates of acceptance into the Navy (16 Dec 41 and 5 Aug 42), but the Japanese player is well advised to proceed immediately with the upgrade that restores the full capability of their main battery. Thereafter the upgrade path for these ships follows the usual course.

If anyone can suggest a better way of simulating these factors, I would be pleased to hear it.

In the case of Shinano a different approach was needed to reflect the fact that her completion as a carrier was prompted by the Japanese reverse at Midway: a disaster that seldom seems to take place in the game but which has nevertheless always been assumed in its data.

What I have done is to assume that Shinano's construction proceeded in battleship form, and that it would have been completed within the timescale suggested by JWE's posts on building slip usage, as mentioned by oldman45. Thus, in my mod Shinano is completed as a battleship and if not accelerated arrives on 1 Apr 1944, armed with the 'defective' Type 94-Kai in her main battery. She also comes with the modified AA fit of 10 cm/65 Type 98 weapons in the place of the Type 89s.

Upon Shinano's arrival, the Japanese player has a choice: he can retain her as a battleship and upgrade the main battery to Type 94, or he can convert her to a carrier. The carrier conversion will cost him an additional delay of 244 days, in order to postpone Shinano's effective service introduction until the historical date in November 1944 when this took place. This conversion is only available whilst Shinano carries her 'defective' armament, so the Japanese player really needs to decide upon her final configuration as soon as the vessel completes.

I have made no change to Shinano's capacity of 47 aircraft, which my researches suggest is an accurate count for her intended integral airgroup. Unfortunately I see no likelihood of the game ever simulating the Japanese 'fortress carrier' concept (which was probably a very bad idea anyway), so I think she has to be accepted as a heavily protected vessel but one carrying only a weak punch.

Again, if anyone can suggest a better way of simulating the choices that were open to the Navy's constructors as regards Shinano, I'd be pleased to hear it. I hope, however, that the reduction in the construction cost for Yamato and Musashi may provide some incentive for the Japanese player to accept the challenge of producing a third super-battleship rather than following what seems to have become the conventional wisdom for the game's first turn: stop the Shinano!

I agree with your solutions, both of them. Yamato and Musashi do not end up costing build points that are far better spent elsewhere, and they have their defects which limits their usefulness until you do the upgrade that simulates the extended trials.

As to the Shinano, I have always been frustrated with having only the carrier option available when in truth I have never once experienced a 'Midway' in any game I've played. I always end up halting Shinano to build more useful Unryu class carriers. At least with the BB option, I could use her to intercept invasion fleets or to carry out bombardments. In truth, I will probably end up cancelling Shinano in the end anyway, but at least your system leaves the option of build as BB, Build as carrier, or don't build at all completely up to the player.

[John 3rd]

Excellent Thread.

In RA we moved up the Yamato and her sister by a couple of months. I knew had read the whole debate regarding when they came available and the useless waste of yard points so decided to compromise by bringing them each forward about 3 months. Seemed to work fairly well and avoids the immediate upgrade issue.

Shinano never exists in RA but the thoughtline expressed above makes a lot of sense to me.

[Shark7]

Local Yokel

I just had another thought reguarding IJN building, you may have considered this already...

CVL Ibuki...was originally planned/laid down as a heavy cruiser that would have been similar to the Mogami. Perhaps this ship is also worthy of the Shinano treatment, as I find I usually need CA type ships far worse than another light carrier.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

People always deserve the benefit of the doubt. If JWE was willing to give others the benefit of the doubt he wouldn't explode and be abusive to them. Neither would Osterhaut.

I think that you may be making the same mistake as them Buck Beach... in terms of viewing someone as "the opposition" and viewing them as someone who cannot be reasoned with. Once you do that you stop TRYING to reason with them and all positions on both sides harden and become more extreme.

I haven't, personally, been able to engage JWE reasonably recently as he has chosen to either ignore me or be abusive towards me. That doesn't mean I am going to make the mistake of thinking that is all he is capable of. I think you do him a disservice by suggesting otherwise.

Sorry you feel that way.

I'm not sure what you mean by disservice to him, but there is no need to elaborate.

While I may agree with an observation here and there, I'm not comfortable speaking about a person from an outside examining viewpoint. Not to mention I have no qualifications to do so.

I'm am not a follower nor care to be.

Last post on this subject.

[Bradley7735]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

If anyone can suggest a better way of simulating these factors, I would be pleased to hear it.

You could hard code the experience of the new ships at something like 40/40 or even 30/30. Players can use them right away with low exp. Or they can do what the Allied player should do and give them training cruises so they can be more useful.

Changing their experience will give them a small chance of having a good encounter and a large chance of having poor encounters. Your method will tend to always give them bad encounters (I'm not trying to be critical.)

Also, training cruises are at risk of SS attacks and requires fuel usage, so I think my suggestion is a little better than your idea, where the ship is relatively safe in port (not safe from air attack, though.)