Page 7 of 19
RE: RA 6.0
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 8:24 pm
by John 3rd
The Southerner in me likes Fredericksburg. Charlotte is interesting as a tip of the hat to the past.
Gettysburg? Hmmm...
How about it starts somewhere in the DEI (perhaps covering the Pensacola Convoy that starts in Darwin?) carrying 12 Buffalo and 6 Helldivers?
RE: RA 6.0
Posted: Wed Apr 17, 2013 11:53 pm
by oldman45
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The Southerner in me likes Fredericksburg. Charlotte is interesting as a tip of the hat to the past.
Gettysburg? Hmmm...
How about it starts somewhere in the DEI (perhaps covering the Pensacola Convoy that starts in Darwin?) carrying 12 Buffalo and 6 Helldivers?
I didn't see that it had a catapult, not sure if the buffalo can use that deck. Might need the biplane version of the wildcat. The name escapes me right now.
I like Fredericksburg too, not a bad idea using it as a covering force.
RE: RA 6.0
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:50 am
by Don Bowen
Two other US flight deck cruiser designs were prepared in 1940.
CF-1 had a triple 8-inch turret forward and three twin 5-inch (one superfiring the 8-inch turret and the others fore and aft of the island). 420 foot flight deck and two short catapults (one forward and one aft). The catapults did not extend to the ends of the flight deck and (I surmise) gave only a rolling start instead of actually launching the aircraft.
In CF-2 the twin 5-inch and triple 8-inch forward were replaced with triple 6-inch fore and aft. Flight deck length was reduced to 390 feet. Four quad 28mm were to be included.
SB2U and OS2U were specified for both designs but the small flight deck restricted the take off of the SB2U to the extent that "significant pilot skill would be required" for a successful take-off.
RE: RA 6.0
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 5:17 am
by Terrion
ORIGINAL: oldman45
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
The Southerner in me likes Fredericksburg. Charlotte is interesting as a tip of the hat to the past.
Gettysburg? Hmmm...
How about it starts somewhere in the DEI (perhaps covering the Pensacola Convoy that starts in Darwin?) carrying 12 Buffalo and 6 Helldivers?
I didn't see that it had a catapult, not sure if the buffalo can use that deck. Might need the biplane version of the wildcat. The name escapes me right now.
I like Fredericksburg too, not a bad idea using it as a covering force.
The F3F Gulfhawk, or so sayeth the google. Apparently there were about 100 used as trainers IRL.
Fredricksburg sounds good. It seems insufficiently awesome to be named
Gettysburg.
As far as usefulness goes, it seems like it would be a nice convoy escort for exposed bases. Enough gunpower to chase off an AMC or similar raider and some patrol planes for subhunting. And even Buffs/biplanes can shoot down unescorted Betties for bases that have to deal with those. With budget concerns being what they were though, I'm not sure the USN would have gone for this over something more conventional. My 2c worth.
RE: RA 6.0
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 10:45 am
by ny59giants
I'm also using the names of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Abraham Lincoln for my CVs.
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 12:53 pm
by viberpol
John,
Is there any reason why the Japanese light tanks are made to be airlifted?
The heavy equipment (id est devices of a load cost >9) cannot be transported between bases by air. That's why almost all tanks has LC of 10 or more.
By the way.. I always wondered why the T90 75 mm Japanese gun has been classified as "heavy"? It has LC of 10. But in my games the "motorized support" and T90s has always been the source of frustration... when all other squads of a division has been transferred by air and the guns must have been left behind... [:D]
Sooo If I can suggest something, I'd upped the LC of tanks and lowered those of T90 75 mm guns...

RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Thu Apr 18, 2013 7:28 pm
by John 3rd
Hey Viperol. How are you doing Sir?
Your comment is more along FatR's lines of strength. Stanislav?
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 9:12 am
by rev rico
I sadly found out the hard way that the Japanese Ohka device isn't available in the stock game. Is it available in RA?
Thanks
Bob
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 2:32 pm
by John 3rd
RA is based off of Da Babes. I do believe that these are available. JWE do you have a definitive on that?
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 3:45 pm
by Symon
ORIGINAL: John 3rd
RA is based off of Da Babes. I do believe that these are available. JWE do you have a definitive on that?
Yes they are, but one must do the AndyMac tweak.
Ohkas (PGMs) are treated more like planes/engines than simple bomb devices. The Ohkas in the device file are listed correctly; build=yes, etc.., but there needs to be a factory producing them, so the location file needs to conform. Andy stuck his Ohka factory in Osaka. But it could be in any location that has industry stuff and an extra slot. Osaka looks like this, so just stick the Ohka build wherever and fill it out accordingly.
Ciao. JWE

RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 6:31 pm
by FatR
Good to know that about Ohkas.
I'm about finished with PT boats. Will start writing down capital ships for RA tomorrow, probably.
Also, if you want an idea about making the Allies stronger - production of various US ship types, like PT boats or LSTs, that stops by early to mid 1945 now can continue until the end of the scenario, if we actually assume a stronger Japan, that can survive this far. I'm not adding all that myself, though - sorry, that's going to be a lot of drudgework.
A simpler idea, is adding an upgrade for some xAK types for late 1945, that converts them to flak barges with minimal load. AFAIK, ships like these were contemplated as a part of RL plans to invade Home Islands, to be used as bait for kamikazes.
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2013 7:49 pm
by ny59giants
Take a look at the Australian recon unit - ID 3137 is "No1 PRU RAAF" with B-339-23 airframes. Its nice that you can divide the air unit up, but when you look at the screenshot there are very few recon aircraft available and by the end of '42 you run out of them. In my DDB 30 PBEM, I have this unit sitting at a base without any aircraft. I will not get any until sometime in '44. So, I have about 18 months or close to it without it being usable. I already got John to increase the American recon airframe production, but I've run across this one now.

RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:17 am
by John 3rd
Not a bad thought Michael.
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 1:51 am
by Cpt Sherwood
Another note. The F7F-3P, recon version of the TigerCat is not CV capable. I would guess that since the FB version is, the recon version should be.
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:07 pm
by viberpol
ORIGINAL: FatR
Good to know that about Ohkas.
Maybe the Ohkas will appear maybe not...
There's some nasty typo I had informed John about quite a long ago.
But is seems that in RA 5.5 it is still present.
Take a look at the screen attached.
Ohka 11 will be available since 44.10 till 45.03
Ohka 22 will start to be produced since 45.12
What happens in between 9 months? No production.
Shouldn't the Ohka 11 be produced simultaneously id est till 46.03?

RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 12:53 pm
by FatR
Thanks for the tip, viberpol. Your point regarding tanks is worth considering too. I think we should indeed change loads as you propose.
Meanwhile, I've finally done all the common work for both works, and currently in the process of copying things from RA to the Babes-based file. Cruisers are now almost done.
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Fri Apr 26, 2013 6:56 pm
by Symon
ORIGINAL: viberpol
Maybe the Ohkas will appear maybe not...
There's some nasty typo I had informed John about quite a long ago.
But is seems that in RA 5.5 it is still present.
Take a look at the screen attached.
Ohka 11 will be available since 44.10 till 45.03
Ohka 22 will start to be produced since 45.12
What happens in between 9 months? No production.
Shouldn't the Ohka 11 be produced simultaneously id est till 46.03?
Viberpol is quite right. The Ohka 11 doesn't upgrade to the Okha 22. And there is a disconnect with regard to timing. We never cared about Ohkas and so didn't give a darn about them, but understand that some people do. Oh well. So we'll give them a look. Ciao. John
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Sat Apr 27, 2013 7:02 am
by viberpol
ORIGINAL: Symon
Viberpol is quite right. The Ohka 11 doesn't upgrade to the Okha 22. And there is a disconnect with regard to timing. We never cared about Ohkas and so didn't give a darn about them, but understand that some people do. Oh well. So we'll give them a look. Ciao. John
Well, I never cared too... till I reached the '45 in my 4 years old scenario... [:D]
Looking for any help to stop the Allies. [:D]
There is some confusion of how they actually work. It's because not many games reach this late stage of war.
Is the factory needed for Ohkas to be produced or not.
In my old game I've got
no factory, but the production goes on and icreasing number in pool. But funny thing is I am in 3.45 in my PBEM against Ross (crsutton) and never got the Betties with Ohkas to fly a combat mission.
They fly of themselves (in naval searching part) but have never seen the actual strike.
Maybe that's because of old database corruption, but... you never know.
Ohkas are not the same as the airframes: they'll no upgrade nor autoupgrade.
Those are "bombs"/missiles. Only a "load" of
different plane frames (Betties "e" and Frances model 3). it's not that Frances appearing in '46 make the Betties unnecessary. So, again, they should be available simultaneously.
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Sun Apr 28, 2013 1:39 am
by John 3rd
On the BRIGHT side one hit usually equals ONE KILL!
RE: RA 6.0 Load costs
Posted: Mon Apr 29, 2013 12:14 pm
by John 3rd
FatR: Have you made any progress?
I want to work on adding that aircraft cruiser and attach it to the Pensacola TF. Think it will provide some interesting options for the Allied player. It isn't much but it is SOMETHING. Think it would start with 12 Buffalo and 6 Helldivers...