Page 8 of 13
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:19 am
by Lemurs!
Bradley735,
Don & I are probably going to set the Nisshin & maybe Mizuho to upgrade to CVLs. This is not fantasy but fact. They were both constructed as a shadow program to be easily converted to carriers.
The allies may (this is something Don will have a big say on) have a few extra ships. In my opinion they do not need them because if Japan is 'kicking butt' then the Allies are probably losing more carriers and cruisers.... which means more Baltimores, Clevelands, & Essexs. Forever.
Secret Allied strategy is to attack repeatedly with everything because you will cause some damage and just get the ships back.
Don,
A certain amount of Japanese shipping is supposed to be not in the game to represent civilian needs.
America is supposed to have quite a bit of shipping missing to represent water shipments to Pearl, shipping in the East African regions, etc.
Mike
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 12:46 am
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
PS: Don - what do you think about the claims being made in other threads that the Japanese have far too much merchant shipping in WitP - I think some claim that they have twice as much as they should have?
Haven't seen them. Did a quick search using
Japanese,
too much, and
merchant shipping. Only got hits within our scenario threads.
I can support much of the existing Japanese shipping based on my two sources -
Merchant Fleets 1939 and the ONI Recognition Manual for Japanese Shipping. But not all. I have found a number of different-spelling duplicates (Nitiei Maru and Nichiei Maru, for instance).
I can say that I went through
Merchant Fleet to try and find any additional ships that could be added and found that they appeared to all be present. Matrix probably used it as a source. And I have little reference data for war time construction - other than the Type A standard type (which are in the scenario).
All in all I'd say it is about right. I think Allied shipping may be low but lack of a withdrawal rule makes it difficult to include ships that were in the Pacific for a while, then returned to the Atlantic.
Sorry Don, I should have put this in before. The thread is here:
Japanese sealift capabilities in dec 1941
Andrew
PS: Time for a shameless Allied Fanboy plug: What about adding in HMS Vanguard? Here is an extract of some information I found at the site
www.hms-vanguard.co.uk:
Strenuous efforts were made to complete her fitting out in time for her to take part in the final assault on Japan, but the unexpectedly sudden surrender of the Eastern enemy deprived her of this experience. Some compensation accrued, however, as the final few months of her fitting out was less rushed and some relaxation had been possible in the austerity of war-time finish.
She commissioned for trials on 25th April, 1946 under the command of Captain W. C. Agnew, C.B., C.V.O., D.S.O.*
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:01 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
PS: Don - what do you think about the claims being made in other threads that the Japanese have far too much merchant shipping in WitP - I think some claim that they have twice as much as they should have?
Japanese sealift capabilities in dec 1941
Andrew
I just posted a reply on the linked thread. I'll repeat it here with additional data for our scenario:
Using data from
Ugly Ducklings - Japan's WWII Liberty Type Standard Ships. Japan had, at the beginning of the war:
1,581 steamships of 4.1 million gross tons
756 motor ships of 1.5 million gross tons
17,992 wooden trading and fishing vessels totaling 1.07 million tons
This totals 6.67 million tons, approximately equal to Parillo's figures.
I note that Scenario 15, V1.3 lists 1503 Japanese ships of type AK, AP, and TK, plus another 221 converted types (31 PC, 94 MSW, 76 PG, 20 Naval Auxiliaries). Of these, 1179 are in commission at the start of the war (987 AK/AP/TK, 185 patrol/minesweepers, 10 auxiliary).
Ignoring the wooden fleet:
2337 ships historically, 1179 in scenario 15.
For our scenario:
1648 AP/AK/AK (1036 in commission at the start of the war)
200 PG/PC/MSW (184 in commission at the start of the war)
44 Naval Aux (32 in commission at the start of the war)
2337 ships historically, 1252 in our scenario
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:25 am
by Herrbear
I don't mind that Japan could build some additional ships that were planned or cancelled. They should be named vessels however. How does the AI handle the additional Japanese builds, if done? As some suggested adding the possibility of additional Japanese carriers. Will the AI build them, ignore or what?
By the same token, the Allies should get those ships being finished in late 45 should the war last that long.
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:43 am
by 2ndACR
I will pull names out of my butt if needed. If you only want real life named ships, then we are stuck with basically what is in a stock scenario 15. No fun for me really. I hate the idea of being doomed by history to repeat the exact same mistakes the real guys made.
Well, I would say the AI would try and build everything in the build quay. That might FUBAR it though. As far as I can tell, the AI does not accelerate ships or halt construction on anything either.
But for the cancelled Japanese CV's, I do have hull numbers.
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:24 am
by janushm
don..im at school now.. just did a AR Castor here working on the Arend class
correction...arend class is more or less finished.
correction of correction
i see that arend is already done[:(]
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:05 pm
by Lemurs!
2ndACR, Don't worry Don & I will make two releases. They will only be about a day apart.
The first release will be an optimized scenario 15, absolutely historical.
The second release I will do a day later and it will be the same as my latest mod in extra Japanese ships. 1 Yamato, 2 Taihos, 2 Mogamis(Hirata & Idzumo), 1 Oyodo(Niyodo), 1 Agano(Ayase), 8 Yugumos (Kawagiri, Kiyokaze, Murakaze, Satokaze, Taekaze, Tanigiri, Umigiri, & Yamagiri) from the 1941 program & 4 Akitsukis (Hatsuki, Kiyotsuki, Ootsuki, & Michitsuki) from the 1941 program. Also, 1 Akitsushima (Chihaya).
Mike
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 6:37 pm
by Bradley7735
When do you guys predict you'll release your Mod?
Also, I'm a technical idiot, so will you have a read me file or something that will explain what I need to do to use your mod? (I know you're using Andrew Brown's map, and there are certain things needing to do to use his map)
Thanks, Brad
(ps, can't wait!!!!!)
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:57 pm
by Alikchi2
I think it would be excellent if the Allies got the Midway CV, the Alaskas and Vanguard as well.
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:51 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
2ndACR, Don't worry Don & I will make two releases. They will only be about a day apart.
The first release will be an optimized scenario 15, absolutely historical.
The second release I will do a day later and it will be the same as my latest mod in extra Japanese ships. 1 Yamato, 2 Taihos, 2 Mogamis(Hirata & Idzumo), 1 Oyodo(Niyodo), 1 Agano(Ayase), 8 Yugumos (Kawagiri, Kiyokaze, Murakaze, Satokaze, Taekaze, Tanigiri, Umigiri, & Yamagiri) from the 1941 program & 4 Akitsukis (Hatsuki, Kiyotsuki, Ootsuki, & Michitsuki) from the 1941 program. Also, 1 Akitsushima (Chihaya).
Mike
I'll allocate and reserve "empty" slots at the appropriate place for these ships. I'm also going to add 2 more submarines, I-207 and I-208, which were suspended late war. That's 22 slots so we still have about a dozen.
Don
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:11 pm
by 2ndACR
Okey dokey. I will probably not be here when it is released, but it will give me something to look forward to in a year or 2.
RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats
Posted: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:56 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
We are going to place a"static" Utah, AG-16 at PH, correct? Given it's significance on turn 1 I think it's inclusion of value. I tested it's presence with PH attacks and it performs historically, usually drawing a bit of attention. Tanker made an excellent pic.
Ron
How did you class this old gal?? I don't think we can make her an AG or she will re-build if lost????
Don
RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:10 am
by Tankerace
I think we should make it a PG, itll still attract a bomb, yet will not be rebuilt or misused.
RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 4:11 am
by Ron Saueracker
I classed her a BB with no armament or propulsion...ever. Reduced her durability and tested it repeatedly and it drew about 12 planes per PH attack on average. Seemed perfect to me. She was important enough to draw attention and be sunk so I like her as a static target at PH.
RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:23 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I classed her a BB with no armament or propulsion...ever. Reduced her durability and tested it repeatedly and it drew about 12 planes per PH attack on average. Seemed perfect to me. She was important enough to draw attention and be sunk so I like her as a static target at PH.
Makes sense - BB it is.
RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:34 am
by Tankerace
Pfft, target ship.... gah. Poor thing. Oh well, I live in a world called War Plan Orange where she still has 10 12" guns. So pffffft [:D]
RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:38 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Tankerace
Pfft, target ship.... gah. Poor thing. Oh well, I live in a world called War Plan Orange where she still has 10 12" guns. So pffffft [:D]
LOL. While Utah did have armament as a weapons test bed, she had a priority task of target ship and her weapons were normally masked by heavy tiers of lumber and unmanned.
RE: Ex-Minekaze and Ex-Momi Patrol Boats
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:39 am
by Tankerace
yeah.... she couldn't even put up .50 cal fire that day... poor planked up bastard.
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 5:43 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: 2ndACR
Okey dokey. I will probably not be here when it is released, but it will give me something to look forward to in a year or 2.
Look. Wherever you go, if you can't even set up internet access, why even try setting up a democracy?[:D]
RE: Non-historical units
Posted: Thu Jan 27, 2005 6:40 am
by von Murrin
Because unlike us, they won't be doing electronic voting.[:'(]
On topic (sort of), I'd like to echo the earlier poster and enquire as to estimated completion. A year, roughly? Less? Just curious.[:)]