Add the 27th BG(L) and have it come into the game after 1 Jan 42 at Darwin equipped with A-24s, but with low morale & experience.
Drop the Lysander and Lockheed 212 from the a/c database and add the B-32 and F8F to any scenerios that go past the official end of the war.
Oooh yeah... I second that. Another example of why it's fun for this game to be semi-historical: getting to play with all of these "toys" that didn't quite make it into the war. P-80s, anyone?
Bigger bombs for allies, please. If japanese Kate's can use 800 kg bombs why can't allies use 2000lbs
bombs. If only for very short range and/or percentage. I don't mind bigger than 2000lbs bombs
either, LOL.[:D]
Can we get some sort of operations limitations added to ports/bases? For example, could there be a fixed number of actions (rearming, refueling) a given sized port can perform in one turn...at the moment a size one port can unload one ship or one hundred with no difference. This speeds up the game too much.
Can we also limit ammo replenishment for ships like is done with torpedoes, mines etc? Maybe a size 6 port without an AE...give them some useful role. I find it exasperating when a player runs massive BB TFs in and out of size one ports like belt fed ammo for a GPMG.
What Ron said!
Dave
x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"
HMAS Hobart (Ship number 3236) Is incorrectly listed as a Leander class cruiser (Class # 216). Should be listed as a Perth class cruiser (Class #228).
Class Arkansas (#172) incorrectly uses device #016 (12in/50 Mk 8 Gun). In real life, the Arkansas used a 12in/50 Mk 7 Gun (not in database).
Ship # 3217 London should be class # 203 London Rebuild. Instead it arrives as class # 1413 London, which is the standard London class CA, not the rebuilt version (of which only HMS London was a member.)
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
Single ship TF leaders on scenarios 15 and 16 should reflect the ship captain rather than staying without a TF leader, as it will get a random one from the pool:
Tought I'd put this here as there are some possible errors with ver 1.3 scen 15 OOB. There maybe are several air units with the wrong group class size:
G1&2/Takao Daitai Hikotai 27 max a/c
F1&2/3rd D "
G1/Chitose D "
F1/6th D "
T1&2/1021st D Hikotai 36 max a/c
N3/332nd Chutai Daitai 9 max a/c
N3/352nd Ch "
A1/903rd D Hikotai 27 max a/c
A1/931st D "
All the Soviet TAP, RAP, BAP & IAP are listed as group but have 21 max a/c
3rd FS Section 12 max a/c
21st FS Group 24 max a/c
16th, 17th, 18th, 317th, 318th, 319th TCS are section with 16 max a/c
S4&5/9 RAAF are SOC3 Seagull should be Walrus?
I would like to see the inclusion of "Tiger Force" Lancaster bombers (British and Canadian) that were to have been sent to the Pacific to bomb Japan. As well, since the game can go into 1946, the inclusion of the 6th Canadian Infantry Division which was being formed in 1945 for the invasion of Japan. Said Division was to have been equiped with American equipment for supply reasons. Such an arrangement was made for the 1st Bn The Rocky Mountain Rangers which participated in operations on the Aluetian (Sp?)islands.
These subs were on overhaul on Dec 7, 1941 or entered overhaul just after. Recommend adding enough damage as the historical overhauling time (or change their availability date):
S-28 until Jan 22, 1942
S-27 until Jan 23, 1942
S-35 until Mar, 1942
S-34 until Mar, 1942
S-23 until late Dec, 1941
Gar until Jan 15, 1942
Do something about air strike packaging. As mentioned previously, squadron morale, unknown presence of enemy CAP etc should not determine what and how many aircraft attack, or if so, the player should have some sort of control over it at the base level. Perhaps a sliding scale for commitment (low/average/high). Nothing more frustrating than seeing a small % of your air assets attack an invasion force (if this is not vital I don't know what would be) while the rest sip tea.
Latest eg. Just pulled off a perfect undetected approach on an invasion hex with 2 amphib TFs in it with my RN CVs in mid June 42. Range 3 hexes, no foul weather. Only 1 squadron of Albacores out of 4 launch, with escort. WTF?[:@][&:] There can be no reason for this. How can one simulate what should have been a full 3 CV load attack when the design is geared not according to the base/TF of origin but the individual whims of pilots and squadrons COs? What was the point of placing ships in harm's way if the reason for them doing so, the planned attack by the CV air groups, is not controlled by the player to some effective and useful degree?
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
Mentioned this before as well. Since Twin engined bombers can torpedo ships in ports, how hard would it be to add a few development options for bases to counter this rather generous ability by Med Bombers, aside from port/airfield/fortification? I'd like to see ports be able to both develop anti torpedo nets defences AND barrage balloons (ala BoB and BTR).
Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
I'd like to see the the Swordfish and later the Catalina equipped with ASV radar. The Swordfish were operated mainly at night according to some references - they took rather high casualties when they didn't, i.e. entire squadrons getting shot down. Yes, I know they operated against Bismarck during the day and (sort of) got away with it, but this was the German AA batteries didn't have settings slow enough for them - then. Even so, they lost 25% of their aircraft when they crash-landed on the carriers in this strike.
As I have mentioned elsewhere, the typical British tactic with the Swordfish was to locate with radar, drop flares, and then attack visually. This is what they did at Taranto, and used this tactic widely in the Med in attacking Italian/German convoys. Don't know (yet- still researching) how the Cats operated - but I don't think they were much of a threat before they got ASV radar.
Aircraft without radar should have their NIGHT accuracy/attack rate SERIOUSLY degraded if they don't have radar. The Japanese developed some naval night attack tactics latter in the war, but they may have had radar in at least their lead planes by then - I'm still trying to research this point.
More on radar OOB: Radar units were available to Japanese base forces as early as April 1942, when the first Model 1 Type 1 fixed unit showed up at Rabaul. I think this radar is the same as the Combined Fleets website Type 11. That website says was not operational until 1943, but the book Radar History of World War II states rather categorically that this was not the case. Two of these units were captured at Guadalcanal when the Marines landed in August 1942 (see also posts in Something Strange #7).
At the risk of regretting this later (I have only played the Allies so far) - Model 1 Type 1 radar should be added to OOB of IJN Base Units. Since these units were fixed, I don't know how to model this - perhaps a separate unit with "self-planting" ability - i.e., once in place, they are fixed (like the Dutch Naval Base units that suddenly become fixed once they upgrade.)
There are two VF-17 squadons in the game: slot # 1675 VF-17 is equiped with the F4U-1 Corsair and is a land based squadron which is correct. Slot # 1729 VF-17 is embarked on the (slot # 3009) Bunker Hill and should be renamed VF-18.
Sources:
Aircraft Carriers of the USN by Stefan Terzibaschitsch ISBN 0-87021-011-7
Corsair: The F4U in WWII and Korea by Barrett Tillman ISBN 0-87021-131-5
Hellcat: The F6F in WWII by Barrett Tillman ISBN 0-87021-265-6
Gunner's Mate: A Boatswain's Mate with a hunting license.
The following is from a list I compiled from 1.21 which were not corrected in 1.30. I didn't get a chance to submit them for 1.30 but they are eligible for the 1.4 update - they are for Scenario 15, the Japanese OOB only.
Locations:
-(0983)Maizuru Fort should be moved from Kyoto(0231) to Maizuru(0354) - Kyoto isn't a port so why does it have Maizuru's Fort with fixed CD Guns?
-(0998)Amani Ohsima Fort is mispelled - should be Amami Oshima Fort
-(1011)64th Const Bn should be moved from Sasebo(0345) to Nagasaki(0339) - to compensate for moving the Hensui Const Bn to Sasebo - (see 1052)
-(1045)Kure Base Force has a location of None(000) - should be changed to Hiroshima/Kure(1045)
-(1048)Maizuru Base Force should be moved from Kyoto(0231) to Maizuru(0354) - Same reason as for Maizuru Fort.
-(1051)Sasebo Base Force should be moved from Nagasaki(0339) to Sasebo(0345) - Why is a named static base force not in it's named city? Besides, in the Database editor it is sub-headed under units in Sasebo
-(1052)Hensui Const Bn should be moved from Nagasaki(0339) to Sasebo(0345) - It is under the Database editor sub-heading for Sasebo.
-(1672)2nd Tank Div should have it's Delay changed from 9999 to 440715 - that is the reinforcement date for the sub-heading it is under in the Database Editor
-(1764)114th IJN Base Force in Hakodate has it's HQ as the 5th Fleet - should be changed to the Northern Area Force
Air Group:
-(0536)Gi-2 Daitai should be GI-2 Daitai - spelling
-(0411)D1/523st Daitai should be D1/523rd Daitai - spelling
-(0412)D2/523st Daitai should be D2/523rd Daitai - spelling
-(0413)D3/523st Daitai should be D3/523rd Daitai - spelling
-(0445)F2/210th Hikoitai should be F2/210th Hikotai - spelling
-(0474)FF6/Yokohama chutai should be FF6/Yokohama Chutai - spelling
-(0475)FF7/Yokohama chutai should be FF7/Yokohama Chutai - spelling
-(0476)FF1/452nd chutai should be FF1/452nd Chutai - spelling
-(0477)FF2/452nd chutai should be FF2/452nd Chutai - spelling
-(0478)FF1/802nd chutai should be FF1/802nd Chutai - spelling
Ships:
-(035)Mizuho should be changed from Nisshin Class(054) to Mizuho Class(053) - The Mizuho Class CS currently has no ships assigned to it and logically the Mizuho should belong to that class.
Classes:
-(0117)(0593)Tomodzuru should be Tomozuru - spelling
-(0113)(0594)Ootori should be Otori - spelling
I have a seperate issue with certain units -
In addition to the 51st Heavy AA Bn, which has already been corrected, the Japanese have repeat names for the following units:
- 12th AA Regiment (in Maizuru and Peking)
- 21st AA Regiment (in Tatung and Nagasaki)
- 23rd Engineer Regiment (in Inch'on and Taan)
- 5th Engineer Regiment (@62,33 and in Taan)
According to Dr. Niehorster's OOB, all of these units (including the 51st Heavy AA Bn) are all duplicated and in the correct locations - I don't know whether he made a mistake naming them or not but I recommend that we rename the duplicates to something that isn't used in the game (as has already been done with the 51st).
Thanks[:)]
I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?
Yogi Berra
There are some engine factories in Japan that are producing engines that don't belong to any plane. They should be changed to produce useful engines. Of course a player could change them once the scenario starts, but then the factories will become damaged and you'll lose weeks of production. Better to change them in the database to have them producing something useful right from the start.
Coming second is nothing more than being the first loser...
Since LCUs can fall back (retreat) when a base hex is captured, is there anyway to change what happens to aircraft units that are in the same hex? Serviceable a/c should be able to fly to the nearest available friendly base and only unserviceable and reserve a/c should be lost.
Holy crap. I just noticed this. In the Scenario 15 OOB:,
Lexington CV (Class 237) is listed as having 2 TRIPLE 5"/25 Mk 10 mounts on each side. Instead of 6 guns in triple turrets, they need to be in single mounts.
Shouldn't the TEV or Rudderow class DEs be added to the game, or are they considered part of the Butler (WGT) class DE?
I suggest that Destroyer Escorts Class names be Official nomenclature, so
Class 300 Evarts should be GMT Class
Class 301 Butler Should be WGT Class, or at Least to the more accepted J. C. Butler
Class 302 Cannon Should be DET Class
Class 303 Buckley Should Be TE Class
Class 303 Buckley's rear facing 40mm Bofors mount needs to be a quad mount, not a twin.
Class 340 Balao is listed as having a 20mm Oerlikon Gun firing in the "A" arc. This should be changed to forward arc.
Class 177 Nevada both sets of 3"/50 Mk 10 Guns are listed as being on the right side arc. One set needs to be changed to the left side arc.
That's all I can see for now.
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med
Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
