TM, RA, and BTS Re-Write

[John 3rd]

This came from Kitakami:

I freely admit that beyond the carrier aircraft, I am less certain as there are some conflicting sources.

These are unit type designations, not squadron names or plane names:

Carrier Fighters (fighters) “kanjō sento-ki” or “kansen” for short.
Carrier Bomber (dive bomber) “kanjō bakugeki-ki” or “kanbaku”
Carrier Attack Bomber (torpedo plane) “kanjō kōgeki-ki” or “kankō”

Observation seaplane = Rei shiki Suijo Kansoku-ki – Reikan (usually F1M Pete)
Reconnaissance seaplane = Rei shiki Suijo Teisatsu-ki Suitei (Dave, Jake, Alf, etc)
Float Fighter= Nishiki Suijo Sento-ki, - Suisen (Usually A6M2-N Rufe)
Large seaplane = Kyū-nana Shiki Hikoh-tei Taitei (Mavis, Emily, etc.)

Attack Bomber Kyuju roku shiki rikujo kogekiki rikko (Betty, Nell)

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: General Patton

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

YES!

Need ship art issues as well.

My biggest issue is that I have never, by myself, been able to load the air art into the folder. Could really use a volunteer to help with that!

[btd64]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: General Patton

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

YES!

Need ship art issues as well.

My biggest issue is that I have never, by myself, been able to load the air art into the folder. Could really use a volunteer to help with that!

I can provide a list, but I have yet to do the air art myself....GP

[Admiral DadMan]

It should look like this:

Carrier Fighters (fighters) kanjō sentō-ki or “Kansen” for short.
Carrier Bomber (dive bomber) kanjō bakugeki-ki or “Kanbaku”
Carrier Attack Bomber (torpedo plane) kanjō kōgeki-ki or “Kankō”

Observation seaplane = Rei shiki Suijō Kansoku-ki or "Reikan" (usually F1M Pete)
Reconnaissance seaplane = Rei shiki Suijō Teisatsu-ki or "Suitei" (Dave, Jake, Alf, etc)
Float Fighter= Nishiki Suijo Sentō-ki, or "Suisen" (Usually A6M2-N Rufe)

--(For flying boats, the preferred abbreviated reference deviates slightly from the original full designation, in that the word "tai" meaning "large" is included for the four-engined examples below, whereas the full formal designation does not include "tai".)
Large seaplane = Kyū-nana Shiki Hikoh-tei or "Taitei" (Mavis, Emily, etc.)

Attack Bomber Kyuju rōku shiki rikujō kōgekiki "Rikkō" (Betty, Nell)

[John 3rd]

I've got Michael working on the economic side of things. He'll detail his work as it gets done.

I just went through and modified the late-war DDs. When FatR and I started this YEARS ago we saw the need for Japan to totally shift over from 1st Class DDs (Yugumo, Akitsuki, and Shimakaze) to 2nd Class DDs (Matsu and Tachibana). In doing this we deleted a few of the 1st Class and replaced with more 2nd. This does not work. Everyone who has played Japan deep into the war knows that those 1st Class DDs are worth their weight in gold and are sorely needed as the final heavy ships build out for Japan in late-43/early-44.

The Mods will now delete the Matsu-Class entirely and, instead, allow for a bit more production of the the three wartime DD Classes. There are now seven more balanced Yugumos, seven more of the AA-Heavy Akitsuki, and four more of the TT-Heavy Shimakaze.

First Class DD production ends now in mid-44 instead of mid-43.

[John 3rd]

Our game plan to to work on the Japanese side and then shift over to the Allies. All you AFB don't worry! We have some fiendish ideas for you as well.

[Kitakami]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

This came from Kitakami:

I freely admit that beyond the carrier aircraft, I am less certain as there are some conflicting sources.

These are unit type designations, not squadron names or plane names:

Carrier Fighters (fighters) “kanjō sento-ki” or “kansen” for short.
Carrier Bomber (dive bomber) “kanjō bakugeki-ki” or “kanbaku”
Carrier Attack Bomber (torpedo plane) “kanjō kōgeki-ki” or “kankō”

Observation seaplane = Rei shiki Suijo Kansoku-ki – Reikan (usually F1M Pete)
Reconnaissance seaplane = Rei shiki Suijo Teisatsu-ki Suitei (Dave, Jake, Alf, etc)
Float Fighter= Nishiki Suijo Sento-ki, - Suisen (Usually A6M2-N Rufe)
Large seaplane = Kyū-nana Shiki Hikoh-tei Taitei (Mavis, Emily, etc.)

Attack Bomber Kyuju roku shiki rikujo kogekiki rikko (Betty, Nell)

I wish it had been me, but it wasn't... at least I think it wasn't. My addled brain is not sure of anything this days...

Great info, though.

[Lecivius]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Our game plan to to work on the Japanese side and then shift over to the Allies. All you AFB don't worry! We have some fiendish ideas for you as well.

I know what the allies will get [:D]

[Kitakami]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I've got Michael working on the economic side of things. He'll detail his work as it gets done.

I just went through and modified the late-war DDs. When FatR and I started this YEARS ago we saw the need for Japan to totally shift over from 1st Class DDs (Yugumo, Akitsuki, and Shimakaze) to 2nd Class DDs (Matsu and Tachibana). In doing this we deleted a few of the 1st Class and replaced with more 2nd. This does not work. Everyone who has played Japan deep into the war knows that those 1st Class DDs are worth their weight in gold and are sorely needed as the final heavy ships build out for Japan in late-43/early-44.

The Mods will now delete the Matsu-Class entirely and, instead, allow for a bit more production of the the three wartime DD Classes. There are now seven more balanced Yugumos, seven more of the AA-Heavy Akitsuki, and four more of the TT-Heavy Shimakaze.

First Class DD production ends now in mid-44 instead of mid-43.

This seems to be a very interesting development. I want to see how it plays out.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Our game plan to to work on the Japanese side and then shift over to the Allies. All you AFB don't worry! We have some fiendish ideas for you as well.

I know what the allies will get [:D]

You cannot put RAIL GUNS on Allied ships!

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Our game plan to to work on the Japanese side and then shift over to the Allies. All you AFB don't worry! We have some fiendish ideas for you as well.

I know what the allies will get [:D]

I wish this exact model of Torpedo Boat was what they got.

Speaking as Japan, one thing I wish for would be having the option to produce the Ki-44 base model in Dec 41/Jan 42.

[InfiniteMonkey]

A couple other things I'd like to see fixed:

1) Pilot experience seems too rich in all the mods. I have a hard time thinking about playing RA because of all the uber high exp pilots the JFB gets (and I'm a JFB). I'm of the opinion that we get adequate resources in game to conduct pilot training programs on map - and we should have to do that if we want better than baseline pilots in our air groups. At the same time, it never made sense to me that a pilot could spend the same 12 months in training in 1944 and come out with lower exp than they did from a program in 1942. I'd rather have pilots of all nationalities come in at 30 or 35 exp and rely upon on map efforts to train them.

2) One of the more senseless issues inherited from Scenario 1 is the Mine Tender situation. Many (but not all) of Japan's larger ports get Port size x 50 mines. Japan's 4 largest ports (Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka) get 500 mines. It would require 4 ACM's at start in each port to maintain those mines. Only Hiroshima gets enough ACM, Osaka gets ONE, and Fukuoka and Tokyo get NONE. In TOTAL, Japan gets 18 ACM to start and can convert another 37 in 15 days. Japan needs most of the at start ACM just to maintain the minefields at it's 4 largest ports. BTS eliminated the conversion of all but the To'su class to ACM's so the problem in worse in BTS than it was in Scen 1.

To fully maintain all the starting minefields requires 55 to 80 ACM's. (4 size 10 ports requiring 3-4 ACM each, 5 size 9 ports requiring 3 ACM each, 3 size 7 ports requiring 2-3 ACM each, 2 size 6 ports requiring 2ACM each, 8 size 5 requiring 1-2 ACM each, and 10 size 4 ports requiring 1-2 ACM each). Even if Japan converts EVERY possible ACM, mines will still decay at my major ports. I've got to believe the IJN was a little more careful than that and didn't leave those minefields untended. Oh, and that says nothing of the minefields Japan will lay as the game progresses. Either starting minefields and min production needs to be trimmed, or some kind of HDML/barge-sized ACM needs to be available to Japan.

[John 3rd]

Those are GREAT notes. The ACM issue is one I've never, ever thought about--let alone even heard about.

On pilots, I always seem to get the comments that XP is too low. I've always felt we were running a little too high with the expansion going on. Training CAN be done without issue. Any specific ideas here?

The Ki-44 in production. Would love to but that is army stuff and these Mods stay away from that area. Never understood how the Japanese had a few but then didn't build any for 8 months...

[InfiniteMonkey]

I'm going to take those one at a time, and may take a few posts to explore a given topic. I'll start with mine warfare. I posted elsewhere that I still do not feel competent to play Japan in a PBEM. As Japan, I know I'm going to lose. In the most optimistic of mods, I'm never going to get the material to do more than make winning painful for the allies. My goal then, is to make the absolute most of every resource I have. In keeping with that, once of the questions I asked myself is how to conduct mine warfare. I have attached my notes from scenario 1 as a PDF rather than try to format them in this response. I haven't updated the notes on that topic much since March, but they outline my thinking about conducting mine warfare as Japan.

As for how to modify mine warfare in BTS:

1) The stockpiles and monthly production in BTS are many times the production in Scenario 1. I'm not sure it is a good idea to drastically increase mines...
2) I know at some point in the past, an effort was made to "tone down" mine warfare because the game was becoming "Minefields in the Pacific"
3) Mine fields may be too effective in game as compared to historical minefields.
4) When you ask for recommendations, I have not done any kind of historical research.

I think the approach I would take is

0) Do some research to get an idea of IJN mine warfare in WW2
1) resize minefields / eliminate minefields. Deploy multiples of 150
2) match ACM resources to the minefields to prevent decay
2) add a new ACM class to the Japanese OOB that can only be used for mine tending - no aa, very limited range, SLOW, etc. to simulate port resources used to maintain fields and limit decay.
4) Possibly make the new ACM class convert to and from MGB/MGT? (not sure if this will cause an issue with other code for small craft pools.)
5) reduce mine production / adjust starting pools to turn minefields into larger stocks in mine pools

[InfiniteMonkey]

A simple ACM that would be be hard to sue for much else aside from minefield tending...

[Kitakami]

I am not sure about lowering IJN air experience. I have been running a 2-day turn game of BtS Lite against the AI, playing the Allies, and am up to August '42. I know the AI is not that good, but I wanted to check things from the Allied side too, not only from the Japanese side.

If experience were to be lowered in the elite Japanese naval air units, which would impact results of both air-to-air and naval attack, I would suggest that then the experience of the 9th Air Fleet and of the second line naval air crews be raised to compensate. We could think about it as diluting the cadres a bit more, so that all units start on a more equal footing. I am not convinced this is needed, though.

All this being said by one who wants to play a PBEM as the Allies when the next version is ready.

[durnedwolf]

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey

A couple other things I'd like to see fixed:

1) Pilot experience seems too rich in all the mods. I have a hard time thinking about playing RA because of all the uber high exp pilots the JFB gets (and I'm a JFB). I'm of the opinion that we get adequate resources in game to conduct pilot training programs on map - and we should have to do that if we want better than baseline pilots in our air groups. At the same time, it never made sense to me that a pilot could spend the same 12 months in training in 1944 and come out with lower exp than they did from a program in 1942. I'd rather have pilots of all nationalities come in at 30 or 35 exp and rely upon on map efforts to train them.

2) One of the more senseless issues inherited from Scenario 1 is the Mine Tender situation. Many (but not all) of Japan's larger ports get Port size x 50 mines. Japan's 4 largest ports (Tokyo, Osaka, Hiroshima, and Fukuoka) get 500 mines. It would require 4 ACM's at start in each port to maintain those mines. Only Hiroshima gets enough ACM, Osaka gets ONE, and Fukuoka and Tokyo get NONE. In TOTAL, Japan gets 18 ACM to start and can convert another 37 in 15 days. Japan needs most of the at start ACM just to maintain the minefields at it's 4 largest ports. BTS eliminated the conversion of all but the To'su class to ACM's so the problem in worse in BTS than it was in Scen 1.

To fully maintain all the starting minefields requires 55 to 80 ACM's. (4 size 10 ports requiring 3-4 ACM each, 5 size 9 ports requiring 3 ACM each, 3 size 7 ports requiring 2-3 ACM each, 2 size 6 ports requiring 2ACM each, 8 size 5 requiring 1-2 ACM each, and 10 size 4 ports requiring 1-2 ACM each). Even if Japan converts EVERY possible ACM, mines will still decay at my major ports. I've got to believe the IJN was a little more careful than that and didn't leave those minefields untended. Oh, and that says nothing of the minefields Japan will lay as the game progresses. Either starting minefields and min production needs to be trimmed, or some kind of HDML/barge-sized ACM needs to be available to Japan.

Regarding pilot EXP levels:
I think prior to the beginning of the war the Navy had invested in a strong training program for their pilots. I don't think that was the same for the Army pilots though. I think you probably want to start the war with a good crop of well-trained Naval fighters. There might be some historical evidence that would justify Army pilots starting out lower and require the in-game training you are proposing.

Towards the end of the war, however, the Japanese Navy is short on time and much less critical in their selection of pilots. I don't think they were actually in training for 12 months in 1944. Probably 3-6 months... The training program had been modified to push out pilots ASAP. My WAG is that it would be the same for Army pilots, and that the lower EXP ratings for Japan's pilots towards the end of the war is modeled on that.

Regarding mines:
I'd suggest just adding a few additional ACM at the start of the game to meet the minimum requirements for the mines currently deployed by Japan. It makes sense, as InfiniteMonkey points out, that Japan would not deploy minefields if there were not enough tenders to service them. And then if you feel there are not enough To-su class hulls to meet the needs of future mine fields, you could maybe add another 20-30 To'su class that can convert to ACMs.

[Admiral DadMan]

Here you go John:



And the files:

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

I am not sure about lowering IJN air experience. I have been running a 2-day turn game of BtS Lite against the AI, playing the Allies, and am up to August '42. I know the AI is not that good, but I wanted to check things from the Allied side too, not only from the Japanese side.

If experience were to be lowered in the elite Japanese naval air units, which would impact results of both air-to-air and naval attack, I would suggest that then the experience of the 9th Air Fleet and of the second line naval air crews be raised to compensate. We could think about it as diluting the cadres a bit more, so that all units start on a more equal footing. I am not convinced this is needed, though.

All this being said by one who wants to play a PBEM as the Allies when the next version is ready.

When it comes to pilot experience, my concerns are on both sides, not just Japan. I just read Never Call Me a Hero which is an autobiography of "Dusty" Kleiss. Kleiss was the last living dive bomber pilot from the Battle of Midway. He scored 3 hits during the Battle of Midway - one each on Kaga, Hiryu, and Mikuma. After that, he was awarded the Navy Cross and sent home to train new pilots. It is a short and interesting read, but his discussions of pilot training during his time as an instructor (1942 through 1945) paint a picture of reduced pilot quality for those pilots trained during the war versus those at war start. It is a perspective similar to the one held by Saburo Sakai in the info I've read about him. Both pilots express a belief that the pilots they trained in the war were not as well trained as those that trained before the war. The other thing that struck me in Kleiss's book was how important the "workups" they did when they reached operational squadrons were to their eventual results. The "on map" training continues the training of "flight school" FNG's represented by the replacement pool.

The effect upon at start squadrons would be to spread out the range of pilots to reflect a progression of skill of pre-war pilot trainees with the elite squadrons containing the most experienced pilots and the training squadrons containing pilots just out of "flight school". You would in fact end up with elite pilots at the tip of the spear: KB and Tainan Kus, but fewer and less experienced reserves. I've attached a screenshot of my first pass of what I might look to do with the IJN fighter corps. Note that the far right column is a simple calculation of exp * num_pilot adjustments by air group and a total across all air groups adjusted at the bottom.



Edit: Been having network hiccups and ended up retyping this... and forget to re-write an important a part of what I wrote the first time: All Japanese groups that enter the war after 12/8/41 would come in with 35 average experience aside from those that named pilots assigned to a group. There would be a similar, but slightly less onerous adjustment to the Allied groups. Events in game and training on map would dictate the quality of pilots available to fly in new air groups.

[InfiniteMonkey]

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf
Regarding pilot EXP levels:
I think prior to the beginning of the war the Navy had invested in a strong training program for their pilots. I don't think that was the same for the Army pilots though. I think you probably want to start the war with a good crop of well-trained Naval fighters. There might be some historical evidence that would justify Army pilots starting out lower and require the in-game training you are proposing.

Towards the end of the war, however, the Japanese Navy is short on time and much less critical in their selection of pilots. I don't think they were actually in training for 12 months in 1944. Probably 3-6 months... The training program had been modified to push out pilots ASAP. My WAG is that it would be the same for Army pilots, and that the lower EXP ratings for Japan's pilots towards the end of the war is modeled on that.

You posted this before I posted my first pass on IJN fighter pilots. I would like to hear your response in light of that. Also, I think one of the big things I'd look to change are the Replacement pool stats - in pool at start, average starting exp, and replacement rate for ALL nations - not just the IJN. The 3-6 months of training pilots will occur for Japan if you reduce the replacement pool to 0 and begin pulling pilots from the 10-12 month flgiht school classes. For this reason, I do not think replacement pool average experience should change from year to year - the reduction is already modeled.

ORIGINAL: durnedwolf
Regarding mines:
I'd suggest just adding a few additional ACM at the start of the game to meet the minimum requirements for the mines currently deployed by Japan. It makes sense, as InfiniteMonkey points out, that Japan would not deploy minefields if there were not enough tenders to service them. And then if you feel there are not enough To-su class hulls to meet the needs of future mine fields, you could maybe add another 20-30 To'su class that can convert to ACMs.

I have a few issues with this.

First, I do not know if the number of mines is appropriate. The solution may be to delete the minefield, not add the ACM's. The fact that ports follow a "minefield size = port size x 50" pattern suggests that either no research was done wrt IJN mine field usage at game start or that no information was available. I know I previously found an online (free) source for the documents from the Naval Technical mission because I read one about IJN torpedoes... I'd like to find the text of "Japanese Mines [O-04]. D820.S2 U527 O-04" listed on https://www.history.navy.mil/research/l ... ml#library From what I remember of the torpedo report, it would likely give estimated production figures that could be used to back track to estimates of deployed minefields at war's start.

Second, the ACM/150 mine limitation in game is the core problem. I'm leery of unintentionally adding more capability to try to band aid another problem. Adding additional To'su class ships that can be used for other purposes (To'su can be used as PB escorts and unintentionally affect the ASW game) has an impact beyond the mine warfare issue. Creating a new, largely useless (outside maintaining minefields) class and a handful of ships isn't as risky imo.