TM, RA, and BTS Re-Write

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

I've been considering re-classifying my CAVs and CLVs in game from CVLs to CAs and CLs so that they can operate in surface TFs. I think they would be more useful there, where their air wing can act as integrated CAP and scouting arm for the surface TF.

I’ve tested them as CA, CL, CS, and AV. Under no conditions would they operate carrier aircraft to scout, attack, or defend regardless of TF type they are placed in.

[paradigmblue]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

I've been considering re-classifying my CAVs and CLVs in game from CVLs to CAs and CLs so that they can operate in surface TFs. I think they would be more useful there, where their air wing can act as integrated CAP and scouting arm for the surface TF.

I’ve tested them as CA, CL, CS, and AV. Under no conditions would they operate carrier aircraft to scout, attack, or defend regardless of TF type they are placed in.

Ah, damn. That makes sense.

The work around that I've been able to use now is to use the scenario editor to start them in surface combat TFs, which you can't assign them to manually. Of course, if you ever disband that TF, you're out of luck.

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

I've been considering re-classifying my CAVs and CLVs in game from CVLs to CAs and CLs so that they can operate in surface TFs. I think they would be more useful there, where their air wing can act as integrated CAP and scouting arm for the surface TF.

I’ve tested them as CA, CL, CS, and AV. Under no conditions would they operate carrier aircraft to scout, attack, or defend regardless of TF type they are placed in.

Ah, damn. That makes sense.

The work around that I've been able to use now is to use the scenario editor to start them in surface combat TFs, which you can't assign them to manually. Of course, if you ever disband that TF, you're out of luck.

Interesting. I'll have to test to see if CVLs are still subject to the reaction "step-in" while in a SurCom TF. Also, I think that if you start moving ships in/out of the TF, it may default back to an AirCom TF. I haven't tested that.

If you want them to fly from a CA/CL/CS, an alternate work around is to create a float plane version of the aircraft (i.e. F2A-2 "Water Buffalo") that is not carrier capable but is float capable. That type of aircraft WILL scout/strike/CAP while in a SurCom TF.

[btd64]

Para, Or the F4F Wildcat Fish from my mod....GP

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

ORIGINAL: paradigmblue

The work around that I've been able to use now is to use the scenario editor to start them in surface combat TFs, which you can't assign them to manually. Of course, if you ever disband that TF, you're out of luck.

Interesting. I'll have to test to see if CVLs are still subject to the reaction "step-in" while in a SurCom TF.

In my testing so far, a CVL in a SurCom TF, does not trigger the reaction "step-in" .

[John 3rd]

I was just reading the late-20s/early-30s discussion about an American CLV and the very problems were talking about in the game are the topics being discussed back then. Is it a CV or a Surface Ship? How do you work with it? What sort of doctrine do we follow/develop?

[anarchyintheuk]

Not just the CLVs . . . the USN and IJN had the same issue with their first fleet carrier designs (Lexingtons/Akagis with 8' guns before remodels). Looks like the British managed to avoid it.

[John 3rd]

Well said and observed.

[John 3rd]

Michael has a whole bunch of time off coming and I am going to limit myself to a turn a day with Dan so we can get the Mods buffed up and worked on.

I would like everyone who has been throwing out ideas for improvements, changes, and issues to take a look at their comments, put them together, and Post them again below. Try to be concise. Michael and I will do the same thing and constantly Post our work as things move forward.

[John 3rd]

Those that need the least amount of work are Between the Storms and Between the Storms Lite. We'll then handle Reluctant Admiral and Treaty.

[Kitakami]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Michael has a whole bunch of time off coming and I am going to limit myself to a turn a day with Dan so we can get the Mods buffed up and worked on.

I would like everyone who has been throwing out ideas for improvements, changes, and issues to take a look at their comments, put them together, and Post them again below. Try to be concise. Michael and I will do the same thing and constantly Post our work as things move forward.

Interestingly, I was re-reading my list for BtS Lite earlier today. Here it is:

Notes for BtS Lite:

1. Shokaku and Zuikaku are overloaded by 3 planes. Perhaps you should decrease the fighter squadron size by 3, just as it was done with the other 4 fleet carriers?
2. Kiso, Kitakami & Oi are in torpedo cruiser configuration (20 Long Lances per side). Is that as intended?
3. Conversion bind 404 (1033 CL Nagara -> 1037 CLAA Nagara): class 1033’s date is 12/42, while class 1037’s date is 10/42. Is that as intended?
4. Conversion bind 104 (1696 BB Fuso -> 1700 BB Fuso (Hybrid)): class 1696’s date is 12/42, while class 1037’s date is 12/43. Perhaps the bind should be (1697 BB Fuso -> 1700 BB Fuso (Hybrid)), as class 1697’s date is 7/43, or at least add it as a possibility?
5. Kiyokawa Maru-2 and Sanyo Maru-2 are the only 2 (out of 10) at-start AV FP units that can’t upgrade to the Rufe. Unless there is a doctrine reason for making those differences, perhaps it would be better if all or none are allowed to upgrade?
6. Ishitaka-1 is the only one (out of 6) at-start BC FP unit that can be upgraded to the Rufe. Unless there is a doctrine reason for making those differences, perhaps it would be better if all or none are allowed to upgrade?
7. CA Chishima, Yoshino, and Seiki’s FP units are reversed in comparison to the other CA FP units; Number 1 can upgrade to the Rufe, and number 2 can’t. For neatness’ sake, perhaps it would be better to have them the other way around?
8. CA Miyako has both Miyako-1 and Miyako-2 being able to upgrade to the Rufe. Perhaps only Miyako-2 should be able to?
9. Aoba-1 is the only unit that can be upgraded to the Rufe in the Aoba and Furutaka classes. Perhaps it should be the same in all four ships (perhaps removing Aoba-1’s ability)?
10. All IJN 2E at-start bomber units can upgrade to the Liz and Rita. Is that as intended?
11. 19th KuT-1 is the only at-start land FP unit equipped with the Pete not able to upgrade to the Rufe. Perhaps it should be able to?
12. Chinhae KuT-1 is the only at-start land FP unit equipped with the Alf that can upgrade to the Rufe. Perhaps it shouldn’t be able to?
13. The Hiryu air group is 21-24-24, and the Soryu air group is 21-21-21. Is that as intended?
14. The Junyo, Hiyo, Kaimon, and Taikaku air groups exceed capacity by 3. Is this as intended?
15. Nisshin's air group exceeds capacity by 2, and two of its 25 mm banks start with 0 ammo. It this as intended?
16. AV Sanyo Maru has a plane capacity of 9, but her air units start with sizes of 9 + 5. Perhaps they should be as other AV air units, 6 + 3?
17. The squadrons on board CVL Wellington are Australian. Is that as intended, or should they be Kiwis?
18. When they arrive, CA Algerie and CL LaMotte-Piquet have no search plane unit on board. Is that by design?
19. The NZ 3rd Div HQ arrives in July '42, but there is only one Inf Bde that is not restricted to NZ, and it arrives very, very late in the war. Is that as designed?
20. The Wilcannia-class AG Viti is the only Wilcannia-class AG that cant be converted into a PC. Is that as designed?
21. xAK Fusto Arosemena should be Justo Arosemena, with a J. He was the Panamenian/Colombian lawyer/politician responsible for negotiating the terms of building the Panama Canal.
22. French BC's need 0 shipyard size for their Aug '42 upgrade... which takes them from 291 AA to 1686 AA and gives them radars. Is that as designed?
23. The Dutch Empire-class xAK's can't be converted to AKV's. Perhaps they should be able to, since the CM Krakatau is allowed to convert to an AGP?


Cheers!

[John 3rd]

If you find more commentary make sure to add another Post. You've been very active and I am grateful for that.

[Kitakami]

It might be better if I append to the same post, at least for a bit. Otherwise I will add 1-2 by post, or delay tons in posting whatever I find. # 19+ were added after initial post.

[John 3rd]

Michael: What areas do you want to work on first???

[ny59giants]

Michael: What areas do you want to work on first???

1) IJN 1st gen vs 2nd gen DDs - None of the 25 Matsu Class are build. Rather more of the Akitsuki (Moon) Class AA are built to support the CV/CVL (need that 8300 Endurance [;)]). More of the general purpose Yugumo Class. And double from 6 to 12 the very fast Shimakaze Class TT heavy (4 of these with 1 of 3 CL Kitakami CL in SC TF ).

2) IJN CLs that can become CLAAs (some done b4 war starts or able to be done)

3) A6 Zero line is just 'carrier capable' (M2 & M5) and eliminate the land based (M3 & M4) since the George 1st gen can easily be R&D to come in late '42.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Michael: What areas do you want to work on first???

1) IJN 1st gen vs 2nd gen DDs - None of the 25 Matsu Class are build. Rather more of the Akitsuki (Moon) Class AA are built to support the CV/CVL (need that 8300 Endurance [;)]). More of the general purpose Yugumo Class. And double from 6 to 12 the very fast Shimakaze Class TT heavy (4 of these with 1 of 3 CL Kitakami CL in SC TF ).

Can I see a picture of a Moon class DD? I searched and can't find anything.

Also, can an argument be made to take the 40mm AA T91 gun, of which about 500 were made, and then replaced by the 25mm...why not assign a contingent of 2 40mm T91 guns to each SNLF unit that lacks AA?

In addition, Japanese leadership sees the under-performance of the 25mm AA gun in naval actions and rushes forward a replacement in the 40mm T05 AA Gun (2). So that this gun becomes active in say 9/44 instead of the normal 9/45. Perhaps some of the dedicated CLAA can upgrade to it too.

[ny59giants]

Can I see a picture of a Moon class DD? I searched and can't find anything.

Just for you, Jeff. [;)]

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Can I see a picture of a Moon class DD? I searched and can't find anything.

Just for you, Jeff. [;)]

Drool.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Michael: What areas do you want to work on first???

1) IJN 1st gen vs 2nd gen DDs - None of the 25 Matsu Class are build. Rather more of the Akitsuki (Moon) Class AA are built to support the CV/CVL (need that 8300 Endurance [;)]). More of the general purpose Yugumo Class. And double from 6 to 12 the very fast Shimakaze Class TT heavy (4 of these with 1 of 3 CL Kitakami CL in SC TF ).

Can I see a picture of a Moon class DD? I searched and can't find anything.

Also, can an argument be made to take the 40mm AA T91 gun, of which about 500 were made, and then replaced by the 25mm...why not assign a contingent of 2 40mm T91 guns to each SNLF unit that lacks AA?

In addition, Japanese leadership sees the under-performance of the 25mm AA gun in naval actions and rushes forward a replacement in the 40mm T05 AA Gun (2). So that this gun becomes active in say 9/44 instead of the normal 9/45. Perhaps some of the dedicated CLAA can upgrade to it too.

Interesting ideas...

[btd64]

John, are you going to do air art? If so, I'll build a list for you....GP