Matrix Games Forums

I'm afraid that Mk12 already is too close to breaking surface combat model. Well, to doing it again, before the patches Allied destroyers had the degree of advantage fit for late 1944 (if that), right from the start. Maybe OP versions should be downgraded and the rest very slightly upgraded.

ORIGINAL: FatR

I'm afraid that Mk12 already is too close to breaking surface combat model. Well, to doing it again, before the patches Allied destroyers had the degree of advantage fit for late 1944 (if that), right from the start. Maybe OP versions should be downgraded and the rest very slightly upgraded.

I agree, and I have seen this on a fair number of eapon systems. Browning M2 is a good example to me. Effecgtiveness is clearly '45 by which time it had gone through numerous tweaks to attain this performance. in '41 it was still very susceptible to jamming, mis-fires, etc. In m y personal mod, I have created annual upgrades for the M2 respresenting the continous improvement of the weapon.

Damian and I have had a running email going this morning and I asked if he would mind me Posting it here. All comments are welcome to the discussion he and I have running regarding the economy. A special thanks to Damian from contributing his time to do this! I've re-ordered them so you don't have to read from the bottom-up.


From: Damian Heywood
Sent: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 11:48 PM
To: John Cochran
Subject: Some analysis

John,
the mod economically looks fairly sound, although I prefer more difficulties I think this will not tax players too much.

Let's look at max production potential: (using an approx of what are potential captured bases at the height of Japanese expansion)

Oil C & Oil Ref max @ 3305
Res C @ 15355
LI @ 10014
HI @ 7655

This leaves the Japanese player in surplus
Res + 3790 / day
Fuel + 14435
Supply +28629
HI + 4080 (given start build - so I expect much less than this after retooling)

Expansion:
HI expansion beyond this level is limited by Fuel - given that you new shipbuild list includes some real gas guzzlers. And this is the minor concern that I have here, but given the large surplus in the beginning - I don't see it as a mod breaker.

Armament needs no expansion, maybe you could make it a bit tougher here ... Also like in the mod you're playing right now by late '42 you can turn off most of this production

Vehicles will need to be expanded a little but not really a big concern for players.

ShipYards - I don't see any need to expand production - is this intended ? If so then quite a boon for for player to be already up and running ... yep I realise the beginning is a little tight (-200pts) but after that it's plain sailing

Engines - difficult to start, but not impossible.
11 days of ha-32's (no chance of getting this equalised quickly) - 130 000 supplies needed initially
60 days of ha-33's - 65 000 supplies needed initially
160 days of ha-35's - 60 K neeeded

Aircraft - I see that you haven't changed too much here regarding upgrades, I'd recommend allowing all naval fighters to upgrade to any other naval fighter (just cause there has been some dissent about this on forum) -- but hell it's your mod

I guess the lack of advanced models with production will bite a bit of supplies, but I think this is a good thing.

Analysis:
The major concern I have is your use of the pilot training numbers for the later years (43~), you're looking at 1500 plts/mth * 12 months = 18,000 * 5 = 90000 HI / month needed = 3000 HI per day.... This is pretty huge & totally unnecessary as there is no way you'll lose 1000 pilots / month in AE and even if you do you can always draw more.

What I'd do (but not necessarily necessary)
I'd rather have a reduction in initial HI surplus to counter if you reduce this pilot tax - the player then can decide if they want to build more HI, with an additional reduction in other raw materials ...

Reduce Arm production, so the player has to build these or conversely make some units which require hefty Arm pts. (more of a Nemo mod thing)
Reduce Veh production as well, making the player scramble to retool for a larger war.

Make more of these raw materials in the SRA, and reduce more closer to home. But this would take a little bit of testing.

All-in-all the mod is sound economically as far as I can see - I just hate external limits which are placed ala pilot training, rather than a players disgression & ability to forge their own game.

Let slip the dogs of war ...
Damian



From: Damian Heywood
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 8:19 AM
To: John Cochran
Subject: RE: Some analysis



John,
comments in blue ...


THANKS for the look. Comments and Questions:

1. What about simple reducing the number of pilots entering the training program. That is a fairly simple thing.

Yeah, I think that is a simple solution, but then you'll have the player not having to really expand any HI & maybe having a good HI surplus by wars end - which if you intend this, it will be fine, but seeing as a player can turn off Arm(or reduce) by late '42 and save on shipbuilding later ('43) - it could really be a case of giving a little too much HI production to start. However given the other large needs interms of engine and aircraft production & THE ASSOCIATED SUPPLY -- maybe you've got it right. [sidebar] & I'm still wondering about the Strategic Bombing campaign and what will occur with half the HI giving twice the benefit (compared to witp) & how this will destroy the economy quickly.

2. The Naval Shipyards and HI are meant to be in good shape since all that Supply/Fuel was spent prior to the Scenario. I reduced these by 550,000 each. Should I reduce these even more? I used these numbers by keeping track of what was added and/or expanded in the entire industry.

No, that seems like a reasonable proposition - just I'm used to playing a fairly tight economic affair - I think that vanilla was made with giving the player a pretty safe surplus in fuel/supplies and HI.

Perhaps this does reflect the Japanese being better prepared for the war. Without really thinking about this earlier, it is the entire point of the scenario. The Imperial Navy starts the war having prepared the economy a bit more for war.

Yep ... so be it --- looks like some nice naval assets

3. The biggest cost (as I see it) will be the decisions on expanding the aircraft industry with all those new choices for Naval Fighters. Do you concur with that?

Yeah, coupled with the need to really rearrange the engine production paradigm from Day1, this will be a challenge economically. I was just alluding to a thread some time back which was looking for Naval fighters being able to upgrade across the board. Still not necessarily required.
Let me re-read this a couple of times and ponder it.

Cheers - I hope some of my dichotomy in this discussion won't confuse you too much ... I just like giving options rather than directives

Damian

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jrc_3@msn.com
To: n01487477@hotmail.com
Subject: Re: Some analysis
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2010 08:30:50 -0600


There is no dichotomy whatsoever and I fully understand what you are saying and doing. You have no idea how appreciative I am to your help and suggestions.

Responses:
1. I think I will do a slight reduction (15-20%) in pilot program for 43-44-45. This should help while at the same time still leave a good number of pilots available.
2. We'll see if a better prepared economy helps lessen the Japanese headaches.
3. Heck--I'M not sure what I'll do with the new fighters in Naval Production so this should be one heck of a good challenge. Ditto for engines...

Do you mind if I place this onto the Thread for others to comment on?


John,
sure post this with my other email ... I'm sure other ppl who have designed mods will weigh in and give some pretty good idea's too ... most of my thinking is from a Macro perspective & what is capturable, but if you wanted to make it even tougher there are some options at the micro build level that could satisfy that. I think for now though, it's going to be fairly tough anyway.

Cheers
Damian

ORIGINAL: FatR

- Erase Jack from the aircraft list, otherwise it will be available on the normal date anyway, and players will be able to switch plants to it.

- As a very belated note about haval weapons, 8cm/60 AA gun used on Agano-class cruisers can use more accuracy. Now it is at 50, below every other comparable AA weapon. This does not reflect its rapid fire and ability to trail attacking airplanes. Also, in the interests of fairness and historical correctness, accuracy of older 127/38 DP guns should be reduced somewhat, because just like all 127/50 guns on Japanese DDs were able to fire on aircraft, all 127/38 guns seems to be modelled after the superior base ring mount models. You can find what really was used where on this page:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
But the short of it is, Mk12 OP and OP(S) guns should be significantly inferior to other Mk12s. If you want, I can do this work and also merge different groups of the same 25mm guns on Japanese carriers, created by elimination of AA rockets.
While we're on the subject of Japanese AA guns, did you include the copy of German 88mm Flak gun, mentioned somewhere above, in the mod. It can be used to arm late-war units, such as 44 JA AA Rgt (#2287 in the list)

- Resources and oil seem to be on the same or nearly same level as in stock: more than 7 millions and more than 3 millions.

Otherwise, everything seems to be in order.

Stanislav,

I would like to see that happen. Lets wait a bit for any other commentary then make the FINAL changes. I've no issue with what you describe at all and we MUST get rid of Jack. I saw that last night when I was looking around but didn't think anything about it since no Groups start with it now. Didn't know it could still be developed and deployed. NOT what we want!

How about tomorrow morning I send the final version of the files I have got for you to make those changes, send back to me, and then we begin?

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Stanislav,

I would like to see that happen. Lets wait a bit for any other commentary then make the FINAL changes. I've no issue with what you describe at all and we MUST get rid of Jack. I saw that last night when I was looking around but didn't think anything about it since no Groups start with it now. Didn't know it could still be developed and deployed. NOT what we want!

How about tomorrow morning I send the final version of the files I have got for you to make those changes, send back to me, and then we begin?

OK. I take it, 88mm is not in the mod so far?

On the subject of Naval fighters. It is not possible to make everything carrier-capable, because we still have Shidens, and naval Ki-83s, and late-war weirdplanes. However, as about Zeros... Reading around in my free time, I found this thread:
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=3539.0
And it proves fairly conclusively, that A6M3s were carrier-capable. So, I guess bklooste was in the right after all. Considering this, I propose to make A6M3 and its successors carrier-capable, with some adjustments in stats, reflecting less drastic sacrifice of fuel load.

Also, I agree, that HI tax for training 1500 pilots per month is crippling. Having more pilots in training actually shafts Japan, because you don't really need this musch, they still come out of schools completely unfit for combat so on-map training is mandatory anyway, and on-map training is way cheaper economically. Hardly realistic, but that's how the game works. I suggest only a mild expansion compared to stock.

BK and/or others have any comment for the Zero comment made by Stanislav?
 
I don't think the 88mm is in the game...have to check and see.
 

I am going to reduce the pilots production numbers some starting in 1943.  Does anyone have a suggestion for the IJN and IJA?
 

ORIGINAL: FatR

- Erase Jack from the aircraft list, otherwise it will be available on the normal date anyway, and players will be able to switch plants to it.

- As a very belated note about haval weapons, 8cm/60 AA gun used on Agano-class cruisers can use more accuracy. Now it is at 50, below every other comparable AA weapon. This does not reflect its rapid fire and ability to trail attacking airplanes. Also, in the interests of fairness and historical correctness, accuracy of older 127/38 DP guns should be reduced somewhat, because just like all 127/50 guns on Japanese DDs were able to fire on aircraft, all 127/38 guns seems to be modelled after the superior base ring mount models. You can find what really was used where on this page:
http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_5-38_mk12.htm
But the short of it is, Mk12 OP and OP(S) guns should be significantly inferior to other Mk12s. If you want, I can do this work and also merge different groups of the same 25mm guns on Japanese carriers, created by elimination of AA rockets.
While we're on the subject of Japanese AA guns, did you include the copy of German 88mm Flak gun, mentioned somewhere above, in the mod. It can be used to arm late-war units, such as 44 JA AA Rgt (#2287 in the list)

- Resources and oil seem to be on the same or nearly same level as in stock: more than 7 millions and more than 3 millions.

Otherwise, everything seems to be in order.

Working:
1. Jacks deleted
2. There is no 88mm in the database
3. Checked the 8cm on the Aganos--dealt with.
4. Reduced Army pilots from 615 a month down to 500 and took the Navy from 480 to 350. Net reduction of 245 pilots per month. How about that?

To my shame, I found that I don't know the size of pilot training program from 1943 onwards in stock, so I cannot comment.

So, should I add the Type 99 88mm gun (as described by mikemike in post #236) after getting the pre-release version of the files, or will you do it yourself?

If I had the stats, I could do it.  If you've got them how about I just send the files over? 

Holy COW! I just bought a 22" Flat Screen monitor and...it..is...HUGE!

My wife asked why we needed such a big one? I told her it was a male thing!

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

4. Reduced Army pilots from 615 a month down to 500 and took the Navy from 480 to 350. Net reduction of 245 pilots per month. How about that?

Which gives a reduction from 65700 to 51000 HI /mth ... considering the low experience rate that these pilots enter service this HI expenditure is over-the-top and agree with FatR statement

... Having more pilots in training actually shafts Japan, because you don't really need this much, they still come out of schools completely unfit for combat so on-map training is mandatory anyway, and on-map training is way cheaper economically...

... I regard the reduction as being almost optimal (maybe Army pilots to 400) even if that is tempered with a slight reduction in initial HI capability.
Has anyone run out of trained pilots in their games ? I doubt it ... there just isn't the carnage ala WITP ... and I miss that sometimes [;)]

As a note: There is no way that Japan can run out of pilots anyway, with the pools and monthly training pilots at zero, you can still draw at the experience rate ...

FatR wrote:
On the subject of Naval fighters. It is not possible to make everything carrier-capable, because we still have Shidens, and naval Ki-83s, and late-war weirdplanes. However, as about Zeros... Reading around in my free time, I found this thread:
http://www.j-aircraft.org/smf/index.php?topic=3539.0
And it proves fairly conclusively, that A6M3s were carrier-capable. So, I guess bklooste was in the right after all. Considering this, I propose to make A6M3 and its successors carrier-capable, with some adjustments in stats, reflecting less drastic sacrifice of fuel load.

Ok, this was more of a suggestion than a request anyway, but taken you want a fairly historical mod regarding a/c, I never suggested making everything CV capable (I never intended that) ... but why don't you want any group to upgrade to any plane you're producing ? Take a bit of work, but is possible - but I can see why you don't see it as desirable.

ORIGINAL: JuanG

I've already increased the accuracy values for the 8cm/60, up from 30-something in stock to the 50-something it is now. The issue with these mounts is that none of them were mounted with ammo hoists, and this meant that shells had to be carried by hand after the ready use ammunition was used up. Essentially this limited their sustained ROF to below half of their mechanical maximum, and this was made even worse as if memory serves me correctly, the ships had hoists located some 50+ feet away from the turrets themselves. This is the main reason why I do not believe they merit a higher rating, despite being rather good weapons otherwise.

I agree with your point regarding the older 5in/38, but I did not want to go and change them as I have yet to ensure that the arrangement of 5in/38 mount types of US ships is actually correct. I'd also be more inclined to leave the current rating for the older mounts, and increase the rating of the newer ones by 5-10 points as they may be somewhat underrated at the moment, rather than the older mounts being overrated.

It is incorrect in stock , eg all the Pedastal ( non ring) mounts on CVs had about 1/2 the ROF of the other mounts with the exact same issue as mentioned for the 8cm/60 , this gives a US CV double the sustained AAA it actually had. I have brought it up but none of the designers have commented. Also the 5"/38 includes a director bonus which is prob not justified on destroyers ( it should have some but not as good as the directors on the new capital ships). The 200 acc ( based on rof * 10 + control bonus) is prob reasonable for mid war ships eg Iowa class , prob 180 or so for destroyers and 70-80 or so on the CVs.

re pilots in training , more pilots = more HI and lower experience . If less pilots were produced they would have higher exp and visa versa .

OK. Thanks guys.

I think we shall take a middle ground approach here. How about 450 IJA (down 165) and 300 IJN?(down 180) for a net reduction of 345 Pilots. This is a serious savings in points and is probably much more realistic anyway. I concur that you can just train them up through on-map programs so what is really the use for getting crappy pilots?!!

As to the aircraft upgrade question, I get REALLY nervous for players that might abuse the possibility of making all IJN fighters into something that shouldn't be. This is the point of what we created with two IJN Fighter lines of development. Those interceptors will be highly useful flying CAP, whereas, the CV-Based branch has range and far more flexibility. This change of pace within the IJN fascinates me as a player. Add the George line and you have three major Fighter choices. FUN!

Comments to this?

Stansilav--I will send you the current scenario files (my time) tomorrow morning. Do you think you can add Mr. 88 and move it into those later AA units pretty quickly? Am itching to start this up and see what happens!

BANZAI!!!

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

BK and/or others have any comment for the Zero comment made by Stanislav?

I don't think the 88mm is in the game...have to check and see.

I would make all the A63Ms CV capable but not the A6M4 ( though its certainly possible) though note the A6M3 required more space than the A6M3a ( but not as much as a Kate) .
This also allows you to down grade back to A6M3 as its is a common base and change, solving all the is it a CV capable/non capable squadron issues. Prob include in the HR about operating from CVEs .

I would put the 88mm in the game , the Japanese have enough issues without having less than historic heavy AA.

Great solution to the upgrade question! Well done.

Concur that we should add a HR regarding no A6M3 allowed on CVE and no M4 on carriers of any sort.

Why not for the 88??!!

Stanislav--This is adding to the request I just made of you. Could you do what BK describes in the plane Zero upgrade lines?

I wouldnt be too concerned , these "interceptors" are not as good as the Jack and the Japanese certainly could use them for Cap. They would have used the A6M3 on Cvs but the pilots complained too much about the range etc.
 

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: JuanG

I've already increased the accuracy values for the 8cm/60, up from 30-something in stock to the 50-something it is now. The issue with these mounts is that none of them were mounted with ammo hoists, and this meant that shells had to be carried by hand after the ready use ammunition was used up. Essentially this limited their sustained ROF to below half of their mechanical maximum, and this was made even worse as if memory serves me correctly, the ships had hoists located some 50+ feet away from the turrets themselves. This is the main reason why I do not believe they merit a higher rating, despite being rather good weapons otherwise.

I agree with your point regarding the older 5in/38, but I did not want to go and change them as I have yet to ensure that the arrangement of 5in/38 mount types of US ships is actually correct. I'd also be more inclined to leave the current rating for the older mounts, and increase the rating of the newer ones by 5-10 points as they may be somewhat underrated at the moment, rather than the older mounts being overrated.

It is incorrect in stock , eg all the Pedastal ( non ring) mounts on CVs had about 1/2 the ROF of the other mounts with the exact same issue as mentioned for the 8cm/60 , this gives a US CV double the sustained AAA it actually had. I have brought it up but none of the designers have commented. Also the 5"/38 includes a director bonus which is prob not justified on destroyers ( it should have some but not as good as the directors on the new capital ships). The 200 acc ( based on rof * 10 + control bonus) is prob reasonable for mid war ships eg Iowa class , prob 180 or so for destroyers and 70-80 or so on the CVs.

The numbers youre using there are out of date. In the newer DB's the 5in/38 is rated at 62, which is only 3 points above the IJNs 12.7cm/50. In this context I feel that while you may have a point about the pedestal mounts, the mounts may infact be undervalued when used as latewar BB/CV AA.

While I have not yet worked out the formula used for the new numbers, they are definately not linear with regards to ROF, so most likely the pedestal mounts would merit numbers around 50, with the others staying at 62 and maybe a latewar variant with an accuracy closer to 70.

One thing that still bugs me is the speed of Japanese Aircraft in general . Im beginning to be convinced they had different ways of measuring max speed ( which we use in all our games) .
 
1.Power to weight is unmistakable and in many cases we have Japanese planes with 50% higher P/W being slower , ok they have bigger wings but it should not be that different. 
2. You have Japanese Pilots reporting in memoirs there zeros can keep up in level flight with planes which we show as 35mph faster.
3. US post war testing on later aircraft shows them much faster , but with different fuel. However the fuel power is prob only 8-15% more and that is on engines not designed to take advantage of the higher Octane rating , yet to get the speed increases you would need more than 30% higher power and how come the aerodynamics doesnt effect the US test ?