CHS v1.07 Submissions

[rockmedic109]

Is there any difference in the next few days? Does it put the Enterprise or Lexington at greater risk of interception by KB on their return from Pearl? Wouldn't make much difference PBEM but I wonder if it will against the AI.

[bradfordkay]

Those Marine squadrons are already "carrier capable" units. In game terms, doesn't this mean that they are pilots who have received carrier training, but are not regularly based on one and so are not as proficient (carrier capable squadrons can be based on a carrier for operations, but will receive higher operational damage/losses).


Back to the Wake invasion forces: what happened when you put those TFs further away from Wake on startup (say, three- four days travel from there) with it as their destination? Does the AI decide to ship them elsewhere? I have seen it become indecisive and shuttle a TF back and forth for a bit in the past...

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

Is there any difference in the next few days? Does it put the Enterprise or Lexington at greater risk of interception by KB on their return from Pearl? Wouldn't make much difference PBEM but I wonder if it will against the AI.

Have not tested it but since the KB is further away it stands to reason that there is less of a threat to the US carriers. The one time I played for more than the opening turn the KB reacted to the Indianpolis TF returning from Johnston Atoll. I think that the Indy TF should have Johnston as their destination, not Pearl Harbor. This should keep the AI from sending the KB after it, thus hopefully insuring its withdrawl.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Those Marine squadrons are already "carrier capable" units. In game terms, doesn't this mean that they are pilots who have received carrier training, but are not regularly based on one and so are not as proficient (carrier capable squadrons can be based on a carrier for operations, but will receive higher operational damage/losses).


Back to the Wake invasion forces: what happened when you put those TFs further away from Wake on startup (say, three- four days travel from there) with it as their destination? Does the AI decide to ship them elsewhere? I have seen it become indecisive and shuttle a TF back and forth for a bit in the past...

I thought it meant that the unit was equipped with carrier capable planes.

[bradfordkay]

Any fighter, fighter bomber, dive bomber or torpedo bomber type plane can take off from an aircraft carrier, but not necessarily land back on the carrier. ( 7.2.2.15 )

Only carrier capable or trained units may perform missions from a carrier, others can only transfer off a carrier (and may only be placed on a carrier in the same hex - they are loaded by crane).

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
We went back and forth on all of the "first week but not first day" invasions. If they are not scripted (for the AI) they may or may not occur and some will occur very late. I was the editor at that time and left them in under the "inertia" rule.

I had some thoughts. What if the Invasion Taskforce has a delay for arriving on 7 or 8 december? Does the AI then disband the Tasforce or sent them to Wake?

I have test it, the AI does not send the TF to Wake. I have another solution for this. I have set the Maizuru 2nd SNLF on 80% disabled. With this Wake does invaded on the first Turn, but it takes now more days before the Japanese take the Base.

[Blackhorse]

The US III Corps starts the game on the West Coast. IRL, it served as a training command. When it was finally activated as a combat corps, it was sent to Europe in 1944. After Germany surrendered, it was was one of four Corps HQ en route to the Pacific to participate in the second (March, 1946) invasion of Japan.

Since the III Corps was never available as a "deployable" corps in the Pacific, and since it is not needed for home defense (if the Japanese invade, all US reinforcements - including HQs - are accelerated) I think it should be deleted from the 'at start' forces, and either added as a 9/45 reinforcement, or removed altogether.

The same points apply to the III Corps commander. In the game, the starting commander is GEN Van Fleet, J.A. IRL, in December 1941 Van Fleet was a Colonel commanding a regiment that went to Europe. He eventually became a MG and took command of III Corps in March, 1945 in Europe (at Remagen). He was scheduled to command III Corps when it was sent to the Pacific in the fall of 1945.

Van Fleet was a superb officer (Patton once called him his best combat commander) but he should not arrive in WitP until 9/45.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: witpqs

True, but the squadron in question is dive bombers. Making them carrier trained renders them ready for USS Long Island when she arrives.

And this is a bad thing??? By the time Long Island arives there is already the potential for her to be home to several "displaced" carrier sqdns from sunk ships. One more "carrier" trained squadron would not make a difference. Indeed, some would argue that by mid 43 most US Marine air units should be "carrier trained".

The way you worded that I'm not sure which way you prefer the squadron. I am in favor of it being 'carrier trained' (i.e. start the game on a carrier). As far as there being squadrons from sunk carriers ready for the Long Island, that depends upon circumstances. And with the re-spawn rule, those squadrons disappear prior to the arrival of their re-spawned carrier (at least mine did).

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


You Got it!

I have the follwing as the stats for this gun:
5"/54 mk16

Elevation With 70 lbs. (31.75 kg) HE Shell
Range @ 10 degrees 13,000 yards (11,887 m)
Range @ 15 degrees 16,300 yards (14,905 m)
Range @ 20 degrees 19,000 yards (17,374 m)
Range @ 30 degrees 22,500 yards (20,574 m)
Range @ 35 degrees 24,100 yards (22,860 m)
Range @ 45 degrees 25,909 yards (23,691 m)
AA Ceiling @ 85 degrees 51,600 feet (15,728 m)

Sources :
Naval Weapons of World War Two, John Campbell
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-54_mk42.htm

[Don Bowen]

These stats came from Lemurs, as ordance just ain't my thing. He's not around just now so an intelligent answer will have to wait. Sorry.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


These stats came from Lemurs, as ordance just ain't my thing. He's not around just now so an intelligent answer will have to wait. Sorry.

Actually the explaination is quite simple, it appears that he only reserved space in the database, but never got around to completing the data as can be seen from the 5/38 Mk12 entry:

[akdreemer]

The 5"/54 (12.7 cm) Mark 16 was originally planned for the never-built Montana Class battleships, but they made their first service debut on the Midway Class Large Aircraft Carriers. Essentially, this weapon was simply a longer version of the previous 5"/38 (12.7 cm) Mark 12 and should not be confused with later 5"/54 (12.7 cm) weapons which included automatic ammunition feeding provisions. This gun was not as popular as the 5"/38 Mark 12, possibly because the larger projectile and cartridge cases resulted in faster crew fatigue.

These guns were gradually removed from the Midway class carriers as weight compensation for growth in other areas. Some of these mountings were then reused on new-construction Japanese destroyers.

At least two mountings still exist, one at the Military Museum of Southern New England in Danbury, Connecticut and the other at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico.

Nomenclature Note: This was the last USN 5" (12.7 cm) gun that was known by the gun barrel Mark number designation. All subsequent 5" (12.7 cm) guns are known by the mounting Mark number designation.

Designation 5"/54 (12.7 cm) Mark 16
Ship Class Used On
(see Note) Planned for Montana BB-67 Class
Midway CVB-41 Class

Japanese Akizuki (DD-161 ex-USS DD-961) and Murasme (DD-107) classes
Date Of Design 1939
Date In Service 1945
Gun Weight 5,361 lbs. (2,432 kg) (without breech)
Gun Length oa N/A
Barrel and Bore Length 270.0 in (6.858 m)
Rifling Length 229.07 in (5.820 m)
Grooves N/A
Lands N/A
Twist Uniform RH 1 in 25
Length Of Rifling 229.07 in (5.820 m)
Chamber Volume 825.38 in3 (13.525 dm3)
Rate Of Fire 15 - 18 rounds per minute

Elevation With 70 lbs. (31.75 kg) HCC Shell
Range @ 10 degrees 13,000 yards (11,887 m)
Range @ 15 degrees 16,300 yards (14,905 m)
Range @ 20 degrees 19,000 yards (17,374 m)
Range @ 30 degrees 22,500 yards (20,574 m)
Range @ 35 degrees 24,100 yards (22,860 m)
Range @ 45 degrees 25,909 yards (23,691 m)
AA Ceiling @ 85 degrees 51,600 feet (15,728 m)

Designation Single Mount
Midway (18), Akizuki (3) and Murasme (3): Mark 39

Twin Mount
Montana (10): Mark 41
Weight Mark 39: 33 tons (33.5 mt)
Mark 41: N/A
Elevation -10 / +85 degrees
Rate of Elevation 15 degrees per second
Train about -150 / +150 degrees
Rate of Train 30 degrees per second
Gun Recoil 19 in (48.3 cm)
Notes:

1) USS Coral Sea (CVB-43) had only 14 single mounts when commissioned. The Midway class carriers had the number of guns reduced over the years as compensation for weight growth in other areas, with all guns removed from Midway and Coral Sea by 1980 (the third member of the class, USS Franklin D. Roosevelt CV-42, was retired in 1977).
2) Both the single and the twin mountings were base ring types and had projectile and powder hoists on the axis of the mount.
3) A minimum crew of sixteen men were required for the single mounting, with ten in the gun room and six in the handling room.
4) These mountings used amplidyne all-electric power drives.

Here is a proposed 5/54 Mk16 data, max vertical range is reduced simply because fusing would have exploded the shell way before it reached its zenith:

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Back to the Wake invasion forces: what happened when you put those TFs further away from Wake on startup (say, three- four days travel from there) with it as their destination? Does the AI decide to ship them elsewhere? I have seen it become indecisive and shuttle a TF back and forth for a bit in the past...

On another threat Japanese 1st Turn move have I read that if there is sys damage the ships go slower.What If some ships in the Wake Invasion TF has a sysdamage of about 10 to 20 does the TF aarive some days later?

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Back to the Wake invasion forces: what happened when you put those TFs further away from Wake on startup (say, three- four days travel from there) with it as their destination? Does the AI decide to ship them elsewhere? I have seen it become indecisive and shuttle a TF back and forth for a bit in the past...

I think that I have find a solution. Make from the Transport TF a Fast Transport TF. A Fast Transport has according the manual no bonus movement on turn 1

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Back to the Wake invasion forces: what happened when you put those TFs further away from Wake on startup (say, three- four days travel from there) with it as their destination? Does the AI decide to ship them elsewhere? I have seen it become indecisive and shuttle a TF back and forth for a bit in the past...

I think that I have find a solution. Make from the Transport TF a Fast Transport TF. A Fast Transport has according the manual no bonus movement on turn 1

We tried this during early CHS modifications.

Unfortunately a fast transport does a quick run in, dumps the troops, and then immediately leaves. The troops are effectively abandoned on the beach and have no chance against enemy defenses.

It appears that the game designers used Guadalcanal type "Tokyo Express" fast transport missions as their model - reinforcement of existing forces and not invasions.

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
We tried this during early CHS modifications.

Unfortunately a fast transport does a quick run in, dumps the troops, and then immediately leaves. The troops are effectively abandoned on the beach and have no chance against enemy defenses.

It appears that the game designers used Guadalcanal type "Tokyo Express" fast transport missions as their model - reinforcement of existing forces and not invasions.

I have look on Leo Niehorster's orbat site and see that there are 2 TFs going to Wake
1. Bombardement TF
2. Invasion TF (With some PG's)

Mayby if the TF is split in these 2. Is't then possible that the invasion is on a later turn, because the PG's are slower?

[Bradley7735]

Well, this is a VERY minor detail, but...

All the US SC's that come in as reinforcements have 540 fuel loaded instead of the 1,500 full load. I only mention this because it's not consistent with all the other ships that come in as reinforcements.

So, the only issue is that they will have 1,000 ops used when you refuel them. No big deal. San Fran has all the fuel you need anyway. But, it would be nice to see them come in with their full load of 1,500 fuel. I think this is a carryforward issue from the stock scenarios.

bc

[rockmedic109]

It's been that way since UV. Been that way for over a year and I never even tought of it as a bug or problem. Just something that was.

[Captain Cruft]

There are other ship types with the same issue, MSWs, PTs and ADs for example. I'm not sure but I think it's just some weird kind of a bug related to fuel and low endurance values. Less than 1500 endurance seems to be the magic number.

[ragtopcars_slith]

howdy guys!

this is sort of OT, but i am wondering how to upgrade from WITP 1.6 to the beta 1.602 since CHS 1.06 is already installed.
Can i just patch the game normally with the 1.602 beta, or will that corrupt the CHS mod? hence, i would need to start with a complete new install of WITP patching to 1.602, then adding all the CHS components.

TIA for all the advice

derek (who loves the mod[:'(])