Page 10 of 16

AA Upgrade Dates

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 2:56 pm
by John 3rd
Went through looking at the AA Upgrades of when we have the Classes changing over to the 100/65MM and have tried to establish some reason to the Upgrades times. I'll list Class, original upgrade, and new upgrade:

CVs
CarDiv5 6/42---6/42
CarDiv1 7/42---8/42
CarDiv2 7/42---8/42

CVLs 1/43---10/42

BBs/BCs
Kongo 1/43---6/43
Fuso 10/43---2/44
Ise 12/43---6/44
Nagato 6/43---10/43

CAs
Furutaka/Aoba 7/43---No Upgrade
Myoko 11/42---10/42
Takao 03/42---12/42
Maya 01/43---02/43
Mogami 04/43---04/43
Tone 11/42---10/42

CVs are the priority in 1942 with movement into their CA escorts, 1943 sees the completion of the CAs and some of the Battle Fleet (BCs First), 1944 has the final vessels of the Battle Fleet completed.




Nightfighters

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:09 pm
by John 3rd
Regarding Nightfighters I concur that their is an earlier, pressing need for them. It is logical that the earlier models (though mostly useless) could come out earlier due to earlier demand/need. Proposals:

Nick (Army) 1st Model in 05/42---No Acceleration
2nd Model in 12/42---Bring up 09/42

Irving (Navy) 1st Model in 09/43---Bring Up 03/43 (Naval Mod After All)
2nd Model in 04/44---Has Radar so that slows things but still advance it to 01/44

Additionally we could add:

1. Nicks (Army) several small Chutai of Nicks in 1942 and, perhaps, a Sentai or two in 1943. Goal could be about 108 additional planes.
2. Irving (Navy) add a similar amount with 3 Chutai in early-to-mid-43, a Daitai in late-43, and 2 Daitai in 1944.

The earlier arrival dates could allow for training and preparation as well as deployment. These changes would help but not by much since the night SOOOOO favors the bomber.

RE: RA 3.0 Errata

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:21 pm
by FatR
ORIGINAL: JWE

Specifically, there's some (I imagine typos) confusion between and among the Brit 4.5in/45 QF MkV, 4in/45 QF HA MkV, 4in/40 QF MkIV. I really don't think ya'll want War-I relics armed with a gun that wasn't developed till '45-'46, yeah? [;)]
That would be... undesirable)). Thanks for your effort.


RE: AA Upgrade Dates

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 3:27 pm
by FatR
I concur on upgrades. As about nightfighters, most of Ki-45 model lineup is meant for ground attack, I think of introducing another model classified as a nightfighter, but without radar, in mid-43.

That said, now I'm still using any Ki-45s for night CAP only because they aren't of much use during the day. 4Es still wipe the floor with them in night combat, and they are twice as expensive to lose as 1E fighters. It remains to be seen if designated nightfighters or planes with upwards gun placement will have improved odds of survival.

RE: AA Upgrade Dates

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:08 pm
by ny59giants
How about adding radar for your Air HQs and maybe with your larger BFs. Some degree of heavy AA with these units might help. Your standard Japanese BFs (24 aviation support) might get something if you don't go the Air HQ and larger BF route. Move up the arrival of the newer medium AA guns.

Maybe I'm asking too much here, but some form of AA defense added to Command HQs and Army HQs (command radius of 5). If not for RA, then for Perfect War??

RE: AA Upgrade Dates

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:31 pm
by John 3rd
ORIGINAL: FatR

I concur on upgrades. As about nightfighters, most of Ki-45 model lineup is meant for ground attack, I think of introducing another model classified as a nightfighter, but without radar, in mid-43.

That said, now I'm still using any Ki-45s for night CAP only because they aren't of much use during the day. 4Es still wipe the floor with them in night combat, and they are twice as expensive to lose as 1E fighters. It remains to be seen if designated nightfighters or planes with upwards gun placement will have improved odds of survival.

Not bad...I have no issue with...were there any prototypes built that might be used? Remember this is RA not Perfect War so there needs to be historical justification for it.

RE: AA Upgrade Dates

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:32 pm
by John 3rd
ORIGINAL: ny59giants

How about adding radar for your Air HQs and maybe with your larger BFs. Some degree of heavy AA with these units might help. Your standard Japanese BFs (24 aviation support) might get something if you don't go the Air HQ and larger BF route. Move up the arrival of the newer medium AA guns.

Maybe I'm asking too much here, but some form of AA defense added to Command HQs and Army HQs (command radius of 5). If not for RA, then for Perfect War??

Might look at this with Naval HQ and Air Flotilla/Air Fleets...


Command HQs

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 4:39 pm
by John 3rd
Would like to add the ability for unit upgrades from Command HQ. Would it be possible to make the Area Fleet HQ into Command HQ like Combined Fleet?

Change List

Posted: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:08 pm
by John 3rd
OK. List so far:

1. Japanese Naval Infantry reorganization.
2. Changes to ships as FatR described from Perfect War
3. Change Secondary AA Upgrade as done above
4. Check artwork issue (USS Oklahoma).
5. Nightfighter changes if historically based.
6. Adding a few Command HQ for LCU Upgrade ability
7. Practical Radar and AA additions to (perhaps) Navy HQ, Air Fleets, Air Flotillas, and maybe larger BF.
8. Change Central Pacific Bases to be more accurate for Dec 7th.

This list pretty much impacts only Japanese changes. Let me throw out some ideas for Allied Side:

1. Bringing the Pensacola Convoy to the Philippines.
2. Adding a FEW (not like Perfect War) aircraft to the Allied OOB:
---Place the A-24 Banshees at Manila as well as another P-40 Squadron (from point 1)
---Allow ONE Squadron of Hurricanes at Singapore
---Bump some of the starting aircraft pools for older planes

Are there any REASONABLE requests that would have some basis in history?


RE: Change List

Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:13 am
by John 3rd
JWE: How is it coming? Appreciate the help BUNCHES!


RE: Change List

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:30 pm
by bigred
ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hey Sir. Not to hijack your AAR but since you are a ways into the Mod, could note in the RA Thread any art issues on the Allied side? Additionally if you have any insights as to improvement I would really appreciate it.


Hi John. I am happy w/ the art. I am not much of a naval ship design expert but I do greatly enjoy the new and different ships and art. Concerning the RA70 Mod this is my second RA70 game. My only suggestion concerning the mod is not to tinker w/ the allied planes, specifically the hurricane. I noted there was talk of toning down the hurricane on the RA thread which I am against. Suspect the allies need all the help they can get. Also w/ FatR playing Japan in this senario he is THE MAN. FatR designed this senario so he knows the ins and outs. If you take him on be prepared to recieve a combination of good training and an ass whipping.

Concerning this game I am sure the reason for the point differential is mostly do to with:
1. some mistakes I have made operationally:
a. Loss of BBs at Pearl in sept42 in effort to resupply (caused by my lack of experience concerning early IJNAAF naval torpedo power) and
b. Continued drain of surface assets at Andamans in effort to resupply ground units on the islands. ( am not sure but if i replayed the senario I might evac or abandon the units).

2. Playing a "no rules" game when I excepted the game.
a. The biggest problem I created for my self was to allow the manchuko garrison to help destroy china. Originally I thought this would not be a problem and i could control the situation. I underestimated the power of the additional units from manchuria. I wanted to give FatR a counter balance to the at start problem w/ the chinese at full strenght. I should have played the original game house rules...shame on me.

Bottom line, the only problem in my game is my learning curve.
RA70 is a kick ass senario. Japan has a weakness caused by the Senario which the allies have to figure out how to exploit.

I do wonder what FatR thinks about folding RA70 into DaBabes.

RE: Change List

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:22 pm
by John 3rd
Thanks for Posting this here BigRed.

I concur regarding Hurricane. I believe it is the best early war fighter for the Allies and should reflect that. When we changed to 3.0 I really think that served to help the air disparity. Lowering the Japanese pilot experience REALLY had an impact. Think it is good that we have toned down some the Japanese starting stuff. Really helps make it a bit less NASTY to start with.

Any other comments or ideas will be appreciated.

RE: Change List

Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2011 7:01 pm
by bigred
ORIGINAL: bigred
ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Hey Sir. Not to hijack your AAR but since you are a ways into the Mod, could note in the RA Thread any art issues on the Allied side? Additionally if you have any insights as to improvement I would really appreciate it.


Hi John. I am happy w/ the art. I am not much of a naval ship design expert but I do greatly enjoy the new and different ships and art. Concerning the RA70 Mod this is my second RA70 game. My only suggestion concerning the mod is not to tinker w/ the allied planes, specifically the hurricane. I noted there was talk of toning down the hurricane on the RA thread which I am against. Suspect the allies need all the help they can get. Also w/ FatR playing Japan in this senario he is THE MAN. FatR designed this senario so he knows the ins and outs. If you take him on be prepared to recieve a combination of good training and an ass whipping.

Concerning this game I am sure the reason for the point differential is mostly do to with:
1. some mistakes I have made operationally:
a. Loss of BBs at Pearl in sept42 in effort to resupply (caused by my lack of experience concerning early IJNAAF naval torpedo power) and
b. Continued drain of surface assets at Andamans in effort to resupply ground units on the islands. ( am not sure but if i replayed the senario I might evac or abandon the units).

2. Playing a "no rules" game when I excepted the game.
a. The biggest problem I created for my self was to allow the manchuko garrison to help destroy china. Originally I thought this would not be a problem and i could control the situation. I underestimated the power of the additional units from manchuria. I wanted to give FatR a counter balance to the at start problem w/ the chinese at full strenght. I should have played the original game house rules...shame on me.

Bottom line, the only problem in my game is my learning curve.
RA70 is a kick ass senario. Japan has a weakness caused by the Senario which the allies have to figure out how to exploit.

I do wonder what FatR thinks about folding RA70 into DaBabes.
Concerning the jap weakness, the japanese player in this senario should be the more experienced of the two players. There are problems w/ the economy that require expert handle. This also creates an opening for the allied player to exploit. My opinion is based on first hand experience playing the japs against Dirty Harry.

New IJN Troop Composition

Posted: Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:42 pm
by John 3rd
Am sitting at home with no turns this morning so I decided to avail myself with concrete work on the creation of SNLF Brigades and Naval Guard/CD units. Premise here is to take the Yamamoto foresight of knowing this would be an attritional war and apply it to the Infantry side of the Fleet. The vision, as with all RA, is make the eventual Allied counter-offensive so costly that the Americans will tire of the casualties and sue for peace (YAAAA...RIGHT!). To make this effective, the specialization's of SNLF and Naval Guard become even more focused. SNLF become an Offensive tool for heavy assault while the Naval Guard become the garrison units protecting and defending the newly won bases.

The SNLF units all come from their traditional locations so the thought here is to simply add a level above the basic SNLF unit and create a Brigade. A fully formed Brigade would gain some (not much) equipment to make it a unit capable of making serious assault landings during the war. The Brigades can be broken down into 3 equal component pieces or united to form on massed assault unit. Composition of 1st Sasebo SNLF Brigade-A:

48 SNLF Squad
12 SNLF HMG Section
08 81MM Mortar
06 75MM Infantry Gun
08 7.7MM T99 AAMG
08 13.2MM T93 AAMG
65 Support

Added from HQ:
06 70MM T92 Howitzer
04 Type 2 Amphib Tank
02 Engineers
06 Support

1st Sasebo Brigade-A has an assault strength of just over 70. When combined the Assault Strength of the entire Brigade would be 204. The only additions to the 'normal' SNLF Assault Unit are the 81MM Mortars, Amphib Tanks, Engineers, and slightly more 7.7/13/2MM AAMG.

Since we know the IJN did move into the Paratroop realm, we cannot forget them:

1st Yokosuka SNLF Brigade (P)-A
34 SNLF Para Squads
12 SNLF HMG Sections
12 81MM Mortars
12 7.7MM T99 AAMG
30 Support

Added from HQ:
02 SNLF HMG Sections
02 81MM Mortars
02 Engineers
02 Support

For this to work along the model of the reorganization a 3rd SNLF unit is converted to Paratrooper status. The unit is designed to be totally transportable by air: no artillery, lots of MG, and Mortars.

So much for the OFFENSIVE side of the IJN. Let's shift to the DEFENSE. To slow down the Allied counterattack, the decision is made (while they are being organized) to create a Naval Guard--CD Mix called an Atoll Defense Force. A normal naval Guard unit is enhanced by the addition of a strong CD component. I took the Wake Island CD unit as an example and roughly HALVED it then added this to the Infantry component. Results look like this:

48 SNLF Squads
12 SNLF HMG
04 81MM Mortars
04 37MM Type 01 AT Guns
04 13.2MM T93 AAMG
04 20CM 41YT CD Gun
04 15CM 41YT CD Gun
08 12 CM/45 10YT DP Gun
04 Engineer Squads
74 Support

These units take the place of the seven Nvl Guard (41st-48th) that arrive 3/15/42 and the five (85th-89th) that arrive a few months later.

Am thinking about breaking down a further 4-5 Nvl Guard reinforcements and creating them into the equivalent of smaller Battalion-Sized Atoll Defense Units.

Obviously these changes would require a BUNCH of CD Guns as well as other items. RA has already expanded the armaments and vehicles side of the economy so, beyond perhaps some more expansion there, this need is already addressed.

As a trade-off to these changes I would propose the daily Political Points addition be lowered from its current number down to what Stock does. The Navy has its troops and vision and doesn't need to press the Army immediately for help.

Any ideas/Comments?

Check

Posted: Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:49 pm
by John 3rd
Hey JWE! How are things coming along? I've got time off the week after Christmas and would love to work on this then. Do you think it will be realistic?

RE: Check

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:54 am
by JWE
Hi John,

Been on a major road trip for a new project I’m working on. Old laptop crashed, and I neglected to put the remote access program on the new one. So couldn’t access files or get old emails from the main. Brain fart !

Got things under control now, so will finish your stuff and get it back to you later today or early tomorrow. Sorry ‘bout that.

J

RE: Check

Posted: Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:36 pm
by John 3rd
Hee-Hee: I have the files and cannot wait to play around some. Will get to work tomorrow on RA 4.0 and will post the Change List and addendums at that point.

RE: Check

Posted: Thu Dec 15, 2011 7:17 pm
by Elladan
John,
As you are now updating RA to version 4.0 I have a minor request. Would it be possible to have G8M1 Rita use 8x500kg SAP ordnance instead of current 16x250kg GP? Or even better, have 2 separate versions of the plane? That way the monster would be actually useful in anti-naval role. Might not be worth building anyway given the cost but would be a nice option nevertheless. How do you think?

RE: Check

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 4:30 am
by John 3rd
Interesting thought Sir. FatR is the aircraft specialist within the development side so I'll refer this to him for comment.

My wife's parents are having their 50th Wedding Anniversary on Saturday (HECK: I'm happy to be coming up on 10!) so things have been pretty busy. I've got the new files from JWE where RA is now, as he describes, is about 93% aligned with Da Bases. The new version shall be on an Extended Map and have all the changes one would expect with their fine work. Once I begin work, it will go quickly and I will Post a full change list as well as JWE's comments on what he did specifically. Am looking forward to jumping on it. Certainly think it will be available by the end of next week. CHRISTMAS!

RE: Check

Posted: Fri Dec 16, 2011 7:01 am
by Elladan
Another concern of me with regard to late war phase - in light of that discussion:
tm.asp?m=2979196&mpage=2
could you comment on the IJNAF/IJAAF pilot replacement rates in RA? Aren't they a bit low to sustain any kind of larger scale kamikaze campaigns?