Combined Historical Scenario - Ship Data

[Ron Saueracker]

Well spank my ass and call me Honey! [;)] It will work. I forgot it did as I had tested it when I added external tubes to Porpoise class in a later refit. Excellent. It will drastically increase the mine loads though, won't it?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

To Ron:

One more thing. IF your theory works (randomness with salvo sizes), I bet you'd hear some screaming when the Wahoo lines up on Akagi and fires........ two torpedoes. WTF!!!!! [:-] Damn skipper!!! He should have fired all 6!!!!

[:D]

It happened through misidentification etc. Cool.[:)]

[Bradley7735]

I don't know what effect it will have on mines. I only play the AI, so I don't use mines (too easy already to beat the AI).

However, if it does mess with the mines, then just modify the forward tubes and leave the aft tubes alone. I think that mines only come from the aft tubes.

bc

[Bradley7735]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

To Ron:

One more thing. IF your theory works (randomness with salvo sizes), I bet you'd hear some screaming when the Wahoo lines up on Akagi and fires........ two torpedoes. WTF!!!!! Damn skipper!!! He should have fired all 6!!!!




It happened through misidentification etc. Cool.

Oh no!!! Mush would never misidentify the Akagi. He was better than that! [8D][8D]

[Herrbear]

Using your Tambor example with 6 tubes F and 4 tubes R, does the game fire all 10 or fire either 6 or 4? I think you all are saying that it fires the latter, either 6 or 4.

Now if you listed the forward tubes as 3 tubes twice, would all the forward tubes fire at once or would the game fire either 1 bank of 3 forward, the other bank of 3 forward or the 4 aft bank? If it works 3, 3 or 4 then wouldn't that also achieve what you are looking for instead of worrying about what the increased tubes would do? You also could show the rear tubes as 2 banks of 2 giving 4 choices for the combat.

3, 3 or 4 would give you 4 attacks with 3 torps and 3 attacks with 4 torps, for 7 attacks all together before returning home instead of 5 as current.

3, 3, 2 or 2 would give you 4 attacks with 3 torps and 6 attacks with 2 torps for 10 attacks.

Am I thinking straight on this or totally off base?

[Tankerace]

It runs a check on all sets of tubes, and then fires all in that set. So if you have 6 Bow tubes with 2 ammo, and 4 stern tues with two ammo, then it decides which one to fire, and removes one ammo from that set. So, all six fire, or all four fire, but all 10 do not fire at the same time.

[Herrbear]

But if you set up as 2 devices of 3 tubes forward instead of 1 device of 6, will it fire all 6 that are pointing forward or only three at a time.

[Don Bowen]

Very few changes to US Battleships. Much work on endurance, complicated by the fact the endurance figures are given at various speeds and the "fleet speed" is set to 15 in WITP. The original endurance given for Pennsylvania, for example, was that for 10 knots. Note also radar upgrades for the modern battleships.

Wyoming
(172) Name changed back to Arkansas. Originally the Wyoming class but more commonly referred to as Arkansas class to avoid confusion once Wyoming was converted to a gunnery training ship. AA Armament re-arranged and adjusted. 9th quad 40mm was on the fantail, not the bow, and the ship carried two of the new quad 20mm (in addition to 28 singles).

New York
(188) No Changes

Nevada
Upgrade path is somewhat hypothetical. With Oklahoma sunk and Nevada badly damaged, initial upgrade consisted of emergency repairs followed by a major refit - taking all of 1942. The Matrix upgrade path provides for possible upgrades that were considered pre-war (King Board recommendatons) or might have occurred if one or both ships were not badly damaged at Pearl Harbor. The 4/43 upgrade (1209) reflects the refit actually completed in December, 1942. Effectively the 10/42 upgrade (1208) is eliminated and 1209 moved to 12/42. Note reductions in fuel and ammo as weight compensation.
(177) No changes
(1207) No Changes
(1208) Upgrade deleted
(1209) Upgrade date changed to 12/42. Fuel reduced to 4080, Endurance reduced to 9000, main gun ammo reduced to 7.
(1210) Fuel reduced to 4080, Endurance reduced to 9000, main gun ammo reduced to 7. Second Radar added.

Pennsylvania
ALL: Endurance reduced to 10500 and fuel increased to 4400. No other changes.

New Mexico
ALL: Endurance reduced to 17800, fuel increased to 3795. Idaho split into a separate class (below). No other changes.

Idaho
New Class added, New Mexico variant with armament modifications.
(1328) 11/42 version.
(1329) 10/44 upgrade.

California
ALL: Endurance reduced to 12500. No other changes.

Colorado
ALL: Endurance reduced to 14200, Fuel increased to 4790. No other changes.

West Virginia
(205) Endurance reduced to 14200, Fuel increased to 4790. 1.1in AA Guns removed (Maryland was only BB at Pearl Harbor to have them), 50Cal increased to 11.

North Carolina
(1202) 10/42 upgrade. SC radar added.
(1203) 4/43 upgrade. SC radar added.

South Dakota
(174) SC Radar added.
(1204) SC Radar added.
(1205) Second SG add, SCR Radar added.

Indiana
(175) SC Radar added.
(1206) Second SG add, SCR Radar added.

Iowa
(176) Radar upgraded to 2 SG and a SCR. Fixed a Typo!

[Tankerace]

While I would prefer Arkansas to be Wyoming, I can live on that one. However California should be changed to Tennessee.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

While I would prefer Arkansas to be Wyoming, I can live on that one. However California should be changed to Tennessee.

Agreed and I'll fix it right away. It was listed as California in Watts.

[Tankerace]

Just as some hypothetical thought (stemming from extensive WPO research), how about separating out Oklahoma and Nevada? Yes, they were the same class, but 1 fundamental difference could have affected there upgrades. Like the Pennsylvanias and up, Nevada was fitted with turbines, and was extensively modified. Oklahoma, on the other hand, used the same style vertical triple expansion engines used in the preceeding New York's. While it may not have made a difference, based on that I don't really think Oklahoma would have been modified to the same extent as Nevada.

My suggestions would be to base her refit off the Colorado, in that she would probably never receive the 5"/38 twin mounts. She would probably loose the main mast to a tower like Pennsylvania, but have the AA armament of the Colorado's '43 fit, and keep her 10 14" guns.

My suggestions, based on the upgrade paths are: (and Ill do new graphics)

12/41 No changes
4/42 No Changes
1/43 32 quad 40mm Bofors , 60 Oerlikons, SC radar added. Fuel reduced to 4080, Endurance reduced to 8500 (VTE's not as efficient), main gun ammo reduced to 7. Graphical changes: Pennsylvania style tower mast in lieu of mainmast.
1/45 4-8 More Bofors added, 4 more Orelikons. Graphical changes: Ship arrives in same blue/grey pattern as other US ships.

Thoughts? Granted I know its hypothetical, but if one of the main reasons the Okie wasn't salvaged is because of her engines, I'd think it would also play a part in refits.

[Tankerace]

Uh-oh, did I just suggest blasphemy or something? [:D]

I feel like Ron now...[:D]

[Lemurs!]

Blasphemer! Heretic! Burn in heck fire!

um, sorry, i thought i was talking to someone else...

I think it sounds good, plus if we do that we can give the Okie a slightly better fuel efficeincy to represent the triple expansion engines.

Mike

[Don Bowen]

Sounds good to me - I am rather fond of detail. I'll make the changes tonight and use the existing icon until you get the new one.

Don

[Ron Saueracker]

Sounds good! Is there a Midway Class graphic yet? Speaking of Allied naval graphics...what are we needing?

Griffin/Pelias AS?
Dixie Class AD?
Wright Class AV?
Tacoma/Asheville FF?
Those Gawd awful AGP/Niagra PG profiles.
Many Auxiliaries are off by a wide margin.
Variations of 4 pipers...lots.

???

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Just as some hypothetical thought (stemming from extensive WPO research), how about separating out Oklahoma and Nevada? Yes, they were the same class, but 1 fundamental difference could have affected there upgrades. Like the Pennsylvanias and up, Nevada was fitted with turbines, and was extensively modified. Oklahoma, on the other hand, used the same style vertical triple expansion engines used in the preceeding New York's. While it may not have made a difference, based on that I don't really think Oklahoma would have been modified to the same extent as Nevada.

My suggestions would be to base her refit off the Colorado, in that she would probably never receive the 5"/38 twin mounts. She would probably loose the main mast to a tower like Pennsylvania, but have the AA armament of the Colorado's '43 fit, and keep her 10 14" guns.

My suggestions, based on the upgrade paths are: (and Ill do new graphics)

12/41 No changes
4/42 No Changes
1/43 32 quad 40mm Bofors , 60 Oerlikons, SC radar added. Fuel reduced to 4080, Endurance reduced to 8500 (VTE's not as efficient), main gun ammo reduced to 7. Graphical changes: Pennsylvania style tower mast in lieu of mainmast.
1/45 4-8 More Bofors added, 4 more Orelikons. Graphical changes: Ship arrives in same blue/grey pattern as other US ships.

Thoughts? Granted I know its hypothetical, but if one of the main reasons the Okie wasn't salvaged is because of her engines, I'd think it would also play a part in refits.

Took a look at this in more detail and it exposed a question about Colorado. Right now we still have all the Colorado class joining into the main upgrade path (class 1219) that includes the rebuilds of Maryland and West Virginia. Colorado was never so rebuilt but is included in the general upgrade line as she might have been. Should we also separate out Colorado??

[Tankerace]

Actually, if you want to get into detail.....

Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia were all rebuilt differently.

WeeVee is the current upgrade. Maryland was rebuilt with a wider beam and twin 5"/38s, but never received the tower foremast as used by my graphic and the WeeVee. Colorado made do with most of her original armament.

And to further toss a monkey wrench into things [:D],

On the New Mexicos, all three were rebuilt differently. Idaho received destroyer type single 5"/38s, Mississippi had most (if not all) of her 5"/51s landed for a huge battery of 5"/25s, and New Mexico finished up retaining all of her 5"/51s and original 5"/25s.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

Actually, if you want to get into detail.....

Colorado, Maryland, and West Virginia were all rebuilt differently.

WeeVee is the current upgrade. Maryland was rebuilt with a wider beam and twin 5"/38s, but never received the tower foremast as used by my graphic and the WeeVee. Colorado made do with most of her original armament.

And to further toss a monkey wrench into things [:D],

On the New Mexicos, all three were rebuilt differently. Idaho received destroyer type single 5"/38s, Mississippi had most (if not all) of her 5"/51s landed for a huge battery of 5"/25s, and New Mexico finished up retaining all of her 5"/51s and original 5"/25s.

Ah, er ... I think we might want to stop and think on this one. We're talking about specific upgrades for each individual ship. Maybe the generalized way is best. I do have the Idaho separate due to the 5/38s but New Mexico/Mississippi and Maryland/West Virgina are combined. Breaking out Colorada makes some sense (as much or more than Oklahoma) but any beyond those two seems to be flirting with the law of diminishing returns. Alternately we could just leave the whole thing like it is and I could get on the cruisers????

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Sounds good! Is there a Midway Class graphic yet? Speaking of Allied naval graphics...what are we needing?

Griffin/Pelias AS?
Dixie Class AD?
Wright Class AV?
Tacoma/Asheville FF?
Those Gawd awful AGP/Niagra PG profiles.
Many Auxiliaries are off by a wide margin.
Variations of 4 pipers...lots.

???

Could use them. We do have new icons for Dixie and Tacoma but that's it. Question for Tankerace - didn't you find a limit on number of icons?? Something around 440???

[Tankerace]

500, actually. The game recognizes up to graphic 499, and then it craps out.

On the Colorado, I agree, I thought I'd just point that little snippet out.

One question though, could we create an extra upgrade for Maryland and West Virginia, so if the player upgrades the first time he gets the armament/look of Maryland, and the next month he can upgrade and get the armament/look of West Virginia? I'll do a graphic putting said upgrade for Maryland in the blue/grey guise.