Combined Historical Scenario - Devices

[Lemurs!]

We need to add the 500kg bomb as a naval weapon for Japan.

It was used by all of their naval aircraft throughout the war.
This includes both Vals and Judys.
But, what it should definately be on is a dive bomber version of the Grace.

Mike

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

We need to add the 500kg bomb as a naval weapon for Japan.

It was used by all of their naval aircraft throughout the war.
This includes both Vals and Judys.
But, what it should definately be on is a dive bomber version of the Grace.

Mike

OK - should I just take the 250kg bomb and double everything??

[Lemurs!]

I would double the effect but penetration... probably split the difference between the 800 and 250 kg weapons, towards the low side.

Very scientific, eh?

Mike

[Andy Mac]

Any chance of Commandoes being added for the British for when the 3 commandoes arrive in 44.

Also and Indian State Militia/ Constabulary type squad

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

I would double the effect but penetration... probably split the difference between the 800 and 250 kg weapons, towards the low side.

Very scientific, eh?

Mike

Here it is. Did you not also want some CD and AA guns??

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Any chance of Commandoes being added for the British for when the 3 commandoes arrive in 44.

Also and Indian State Militia/ Constabulary type squad

Would commandos have a significantly different squad structure or could it be taken care of by increased moral in 3 Commando?? Also, what would be the use of the Militia/Constabulary??

[Lemurs!]

Don,

you probably do not want the 500kg weapon upgrading to the 800kg bomb.

[:D]

Mike

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Don,

you probably do not want the 500kg weapon upgrading to the 800kg bomb.

[:D]

Mike

Yeah, I caught that but not until I had captured the screen shot for the forum. I was hoping you-all were sleepy and would not notice. Other than that, is OK? How about the CD guns you talked about? Can do them, but I have no specs.

[Ron Saueracker]

I'm getting uncomfortable with all these AP bombs available to the Japanese but the Allied player does not have any in game but historically they were available in limited quantity. Why?

A) 800kg were limited quantity ordnance but they are prevalent in WITP Port attacks. Allied AP ordinance was available in limited quantity but are NOT EVEN IN THE GAME.

B) Ship damage model is screwing the raison d'etre of using 1000 GPs historically. The GP bombs just bounce off armour when historically they caused severe damage to armoured ships in their unarmoured areas and to crews. Because of this need to penetrate belt or deck armour to do any damage to these ships in game, it immasculates the GP bomb vs armoured ships and in game, would most likely have caused the Allied brass to ship more AP bombs on the CVs.

I think we had better look into either a) convincing Mike to add a high probability unarmoured hit location(superstructure/hull) which takes a few % points of sys, flood, fire damage when hit by GPs or neglible % when hit by APs, or b) limit any additional AP ordnance for Japan unless Allied AP ordnance is incorporated to make up for the inadequacies of the ship damage model.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm getting uncomfortable with all these AP bombs available to the Japanese but the Allied player does not have any in game but historically they were available in limited quantity. Why?

A) 800kg were limited quantity ordnance but they are prevalent in WITP Port attacks. Allied AP ordinance was available in limited quantity but are NOT EVEN IN THE GAME.

B) Ship damage model is screwing the raison d'etre of using 1000 GPs historically. The GP bombs just bounce off armour when historically they caused severe damage to armoured ships in their unarmoured areas and to crews. Because of this need to penetrate belt or deck armour to do any damage to these ships in game, it immasculates the GP bomb vs armoured ships and in game, would most likely have caused the Allied brass to ship more AP bombs on the CVs.

I think we had better look into either a) convincing Mike to add a high probability unarmoured hit location(superstructure/hull) which takes a few % points of sys, flood, fire damage when hit by GPs or neglible % when hit by APs, or b) limit any additional AP ordnance for Japan unless Allied AP ordnance is incorporated to make up for the inadequacies of the ship damage model.

Given that "b" is probably more likely - how would we do that??

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm getting uncomfortable with all these AP bombs available to the Japanese but the Allied player does not have any in game but historically they were available in limited quantity. Why?

A) 800kg were limited quantity ordnance but they are prevalent in WITP Port attacks. Allied AP ordinance was available in limited quantity but are NOT EVEN IN THE GAME.

B) Ship damage model is screwing the raison d'etre of using 1000 GPs historically. The GP bombs just bounce off armour when historically they caused severe damage to armoured ships in their unarmoured areas and to crews. Because of this need to penetrate belt or deck armour to do any damage to these ships in game, it immasculates the GP bomb vs armoured ships and in game, would most likely have caused the Allied brass to ship more AP bombs on the CVs.

I think we had better look into either a) convincing Mike to add a high probability unarmoured hit location(superstructure/hull) which takes a few % points of sys, flood, fire damage when hit by GPs or neglible % when hit by APs, or b) limit any additional AP ordnance for Japan unless Allied AP ordnance is incorporated to make up for the inadequacies of the ship damage model.

Given that "b" is probably more likely - how would we do that??

I'm thinking Mike Wood's expertise is required here as well to make it work adequately. Along the lines of IJN torpedo planes carrying 800kg sometimes, allow USN 1000lb AP instead of GP on naval/port attack.

Can we edit default loads for squadrons or just plane types?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Can we edit default loads for squadrons or just plane types?

I have no idea but, since the weapons load is copied to the squadron based on the assigned aircraft, we might be able to do it for the originally assigned aircraft. We'd loose any tweaks on aircraft upgrade.

Me, I'm an OOB guy and we are getting a little too deep into ordnance details and game mechanics for me to follow.

Don

[Tankerace]

The way bombs work, as I under stand it is this (and this is what I have learned doing WPO).

The assigned weapon is carried for the normal range of the aircraft. So, for the Martin T4M in War Plan Orange, this is the 18" Mk 6 torpedo.

At extended range, the max load is halved that the plane can carry. As this rules out the torpedo, it looks for a bomb that is half or so what the plane normally carries, i.e the 230lb GP bomb.

Port attacks, as I understand it, are an exception. Torpedo planes either carry a bomb or a torpedo. If it is within the normal range, it carries either a Torpedo, or the heaviest bomb equivelant to it, i.e the 800kg bomb for the B5N2. If its in its extended range, as it could only carry 250kg bombs anyway, then the check is not done.

Ron, what you are talking about is having a chance for the 1,000lb US GP bomb to be switched out for an AP bomb of the same weight. This would require code changes on Mike's part. It cannot be done with the OOB.

For US torp planes, At Normal Range it uses either the 2,000lb bomb or the torpedo at ports, or at extended range the 1,000lb bomb. The only way I can see to do it is if we overwrite the 2,000lb with out AP bomb. B-17s and 29s wil suffer, but that is the price.

The next thing we could do is in the Aircaft Group pages, manually edit it so that 1 out of every 2 SBD units carries our AP bomb (wich does not overwrite the 2,000lb). Take VS and VB-2. VS-2, when we click the aircraft in the editor displays the SBD and its armament (1 1,000'b bomb IIRC). Now, VB-2 does the same. So, for VB-2, we click on the bomb ordnance, and select the 1,000lb AP bomb. In game, both are SBDs, both act the same way. The only difference is at Normal range, VS-2 planes attack with a 1,000lb GP bomb, and the VB-2 planes the AP bomb. At extended both should (theoretically) use the 500lb GP bomb.

The downside is that when you upgrade to Helldivers, they will only carry 1,000lb GP bombs. We can offset this, however, by editing some of the incoming HellDivers that arrive on map to use the AP bomb in the same way.

Thoughts?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

The way bombs work, as I under stand it is this (and this is what I have learned doing WPO).

The assigned weapon is carried for the normal range of the aircraft. So, for the Martin T4M in War Plan Orange, this is the 18" Mk 6 torpedo.

At extended range, the max load is halved that the plane can carry. As this rules out the torpedo, it looks for a bomb that is half or so what the plane normally carries, i.e the 230lb GP bomb.

Port attacks, as I understand it, are an exception. Torpedo planes either carry a bomb or a torpedo. If it is within the normal range, it carries either a Torpedo, or the heaviest bomb equivelant to it, i.e the 800kg bomb for the B5N2. If its in its extended range, as it could only carry 250kg bombs anyway, then the check is not done.

Ron, what you are talking about is having a chance for the 1,000lb US GP bomb to be switched out for an AP bomb of the same weight. This would require code changes on Mike's part. It cannot be done with the OOB.

For US torp planes, At Normal Range it uses either the 2,000lb bomb or the torpedo at ports, or at extended range the 1,000lb bomb. The only way I can see to do it is if we overwrite the 2,000lb with out AP bomb. B-17s and 29s wil suffer, but that is the price.

The next thing we could do is in the Aircaft Group pages, manually edit it so that 1 out of every 2 SBD units carries our AP bomb (wich does not overwrite the 2,000lb). Take VS and VB-2. VS-2, when we click the aircraft in the editor displays the SBD and its armament (1 1,000'b bomb IIRC). Now, VB-2 does the same. So, for VB-2, we click on the bomb ordnance, and select the 1,000lb AP bomb. In game, both are SBDs, both act the same way. The only difference is at Normal range, VS-2 planes attack with a 1,000lb GP bomb, and the VB-2 planes the AP bomb. At extended both should (theoretically) use the 500lb GP bomb.

The downside is that when you upgrade to Helldivers, they will only carry 1,000lb GP bombs. We can offset this, however, by editing some of the incoming HellDivers that arrive on map to use the AP bomb in the same way.

Thoughts?

I like editing the individual groups (except for the upgrade but what can one do??). I think there are enough slots to add a new AP bomb or two (not sure how position sensitive these are). If we do that, could we go back and adjust the aircraft themselves??

[Tankerace]

You could adjust the aircraft themselves to carry the 1,000lb AP bomb in lieu of the GP bomb, but over using in our mod is just as bad as under using in the game now.

We can adjust the planes in the aircraft slot to be universal, and in the group slot to be more precise and unit specific.

[Hipper]

Don Re commandos

Would commandos have a significantly different squad structure or could it be taken care of by increased moral in 3 Commando??

Each commando should have about 5 troops of about 6 squads each plus 3 3 " mortars and 3 Vickers HMG's or Vickers K guns (or any othe machine guns they could scrounge no need to add a device) plus minimal support troups

a squad was 6 men (rifles and smgs) with one gun group (bren) plus 2" mortar and sniper team. per two squads ie 3 squads in WITP terms

460 men in a full strength commando

NB their strength was in morale/experience not in equipment

[bstarr]

I just had a thought concerning the modification to allied ASW equipment. What if the problem didn't have as much to do with the overeffectiveness of the ASW equipment, but in the player's (and the AIs) use of the subs? It seems to me that Jap subs were used mostly as scouts, but the "computer control" sends them constantly out on missions hunting merchant ships; and inevitably sends them to the heavily escorted area East of Oz. If the player were to turn off the compcontrol and use only a few subs to interdict merchants and use most as scouts and reserves the kills would be brought to a more realistic number.

The way I see it, the way the compcontrol uses subs there should be more subs killed on a month to month basis, just not quite as much as are currently sunk in games. In other words, it seems to me that it should be a question of fine tuning rather than overhauling.
bs

ps. keep in mind, I'm still for working on changing the ASW aspect of the game. I'm just addressing how much should be changed. I'm kinda playing the devil's advocate here.

[Don Bowen]

I have made a small adjustment to devices to conform to the devices added in Andrew Brown's Scenario 115. We will be using his Map mod and will initialize to the location file provided with Scenario 115 in order to pick up the new bases and garrisons.

Changes consist of moving the new 12pdr and 6pdr CD guns into slots 529 and 530 and moving the remaining devices down to make room. These two CD guns were already in both scenarios, all that has been done is align their positions.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Just to interject here about your devices, a 13 pdr AA GUn is the same as a 3" gun. A 3pdr AA gun (Also used in War Plan Orange) is a little larger than 40mm, which is the size of a 2pdr gun.

Thanks. I had a reference somewhere that had said "about 3 inch" but I looked it up and I was wrong. Its 47mm (1.85 in). You wouldn't happen to have its device values handy, would you??

Don .....Your reference has got to be wrong.....a 6-lb'er is 57mm, so a 13-lb-er would
have to be "about 3" or 75mm......You should check again.

[Lemurs!]

47mm is 3lb not 13lb

mike