Matrix Games Forums

Any reason why the Fletcher class have a Belt Armor rating of 18 and a Deck Armor rating of 12 while the Sumners and Gearings have 5 for each? (This was from the stock scenario data) Majority of DDs (modern) should have between 3-5mm I'd guess. Fletchers seem rather anomalous.

Forum member David James has sent me a link to a wonderful site: http://www.warbirds.jp/kiyochan/gallery/kansen01.html

From it, I extracted a line drawing of a Japanese Army Landing ship and made a new class. The line drawing is actually the Akitsu Maru but I made a generic class for all the large Army Landing Ships and called it the Shinshu Maru class.

Several folks have asked for this class in the past. Unfortunately these is no way to implement the ability of these ships to both carry invasion forces and then fly off aircraft to newly-captured airfields. Even as a standard transports they are a nice bit of "chrome".

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Forum member David James has sent me a link to a wonderful site: http://www.warbirds.jp/kiyochan/gallery/kansen01.html

From it, I extracted a line drawing of a Japanese Army Landing ship and made a new class. The line drawing is actually the Akitsu Maru but I made a generic class for all the large Army Landing Ships and called it the Shinshu Maru class.

Several folks have asked for this class in the past. Unfortunately these is no way to implement the ability of these ships to both carry invasion forces and then fly off aircraft to newly-captured airfields. Even as a standard transports they are a nice bit of "chrome".

Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously

Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?

I've never tried, but I don't think that you can load planes and troops on the same ship. I thought you could only load one LCU on a ship (planes are LCU's when loaded) and fill out the capacity with supplies.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'll have to try this when I get home.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously

Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?

Well, it would depend on her historical usage and loads. Not too up on my Japanese auxilliaries.

called it the Shinshu Maru class

whats the class number

Cobra Aus

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously

Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?

Wont work guys... Either troops or planes game is not designed and will not allow you to haul both at the same time...

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Why not? Instead of an AP, call it an AK and it can carry planes as well as troops simultaneously

Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?

Wont work guys... Either troops or planes game is not designed and will not allow you to haul both at the same time...

Thanks Paul. I think I will re-class them as AK though, so they can carry aircraft if desired. But Ron still has not answered about recommended capacity.....

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen



Not a bad idea actually ... What capacity would you recommend?

Wont work guys... Either troops or planes game is not designed and will not allow you to haul both at the same time...

Thanks Paul. I think I will re-class them as AK though, so they can carry aircraft if desired. But Ron still has not answered about recommended capacity.....

I already replied earlier. I'm not up on Japanese merchants and assault ships, but my guess is they should have a higher capacity because Japanese troops are so short and diminutive and are used to living like sardines in a can.[:D]

Objective but still Allied Fanboy out.[:D]

No really have no idea outside of asking what was it used for historically (what did it normally carry on average) and rate from this.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: pry



Wont work guys... Either troops or planes game is not designed and will not allow you to haul both at the same time...

Thanks Paul. I think I will re-class them as AK though, so they can carry aircraft if desired. But Ron still has not answered about recommended capacity.....

I already replied earlier. I'm not up on Japanese merchants and assault ships, but my guess is they should have a higher capacity because Japanese troops are so short and diminutive and are used to living like sardines in a can.[:D]

Objective but still Allied Fanboy out.[:D]

No really have no idea outside of asking what was it used for historically (what did it normally carry on average) and rate from this.

One just can not get Ron to go out on a limb! I pick AK at 4990, just a little under the size that would allow it to be converted.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen



Thanks Paul. I think I will re-class them as AK though, so they can carry aircraft if desired. But Ron still has not answered about recommended capacity.....

I already replied earlier. I'm not up on Japanese merchants and assault ships, but my guess is they should have a higher capacity because Japanese troops are so short and diminutive and are used to living like sardines in a can.[:D]

Objective but still Allied Fanboy out.[:D]

No really have no idea outside of asking what was it used for historically (what did it normally carry on average) and rate from this.

One just can not get Ron to go out on a limb! I pick AK at 4990, just a little under the size that would allow it to be converted.

Does anyone know what she carried in specific operations historically? 4990 sounds OK with me though![:)]

I don't know if this is needed, but here are the ports where the CVs, CLs and DDs were completed during the war. As it stands, they all originate at Tokyo.

note - I didn't list the ships completed at Tokyo since they already arrive there.

CVs
Unyo – Kure
Hiyo – Kure
Amagi – Nagasaki
Ibuki – Sasebo
Chuyo – Kure
Taiyo – Sasebo
Shinyo – Kure
Taiho – Kobe
Ikome – Kobe
Kasagi - Nagasaki
Junyo – Nagasaki

CLs
Oyodo – Kure
Agano – Sasebo
Yahagi – Sasebo
Sakawa – Sasebo

DD Matsu class
Matsu – Miazuru
Momo – Miazuru
Ume – Osaka
Kuwa – Osaka
Maki – Maizuru
Sugi – Osaka
Kashi – Osaka
Kaya – Maizuru
Nara – Osaka
Tsubaki – Miazuru
Yanagi – Osaka
Nire – Maizuru
Shii – Maizuru
Nashi – Kobe
Enoki – Maizuru
Odake – Maizuru
Kaba – Osaka
Hatsuume – Maizuru

DD Akizuki Class
Akizuki – Maizuru
Teruzuki – Nagasaki
Suzutsuki – Nagasaki
Hatsuzuki – Maizuru
Niizuki – Nagasaki
Wakatsuki – Nagasaki
Shimotsuki – Nagasaki
Fuyuzuki – Maizuru
Hanazuki – Maizuru
Haruzuki – Sasebo
Natsuzuki - Sasebo

DD Yugumo Class
Yugumo – Maizuru
Makigumo – Maizuru
Makinami – Maizuru
Naganami – Osaka
Tamanami – Osaka
Onami – Osaka
Fujinami – Osaka
Hayanami – Maizuru
Hayanami – Maizuru
Okinami – Maizuru
Hamanami – Maizuru
Asashimo – Osaka
Hayashimo – Maizuru
Akishimo - Osaka

bstarr, the ships would need their shaking out cruise before being able to conduct operations. Do you know if completed ships arrive as soon as their final construction date or is there a delay for their actual commission date?

I don't think it would be fair to have any ships arrive on their constructed date. It should be thier commission date (or whatever the date is called when a ship is ready for operations)

If the ship arrives on its commission date, then I think Tokyo is appropriate. After all, a cruiser created at Kure might end up at Tokyo after it's trials.

bc

This is from Sakawa's operational history (italics are mine)-

"30 November 1944:
Sasebo. The SAKAWA is completed and commissioned in the IJN. She is assigned directly to the Combined Fleet and registered at the Yokosuka Naval Station. Captain Ohara becomes the Commanding Officer.

7 December 1944:
Departs Sasebo. Arrives at Kure later that day."

Maybe the confusion comes from the fact that many ships are "Registered" at Yokosuka while being physically located somewhere else. In the game she's available on her registered date of 11/30/44, but it seems to me she's not historically in Tokyo; she's in Sasebo.

I checked a couple other CLs and came up with this -
Oyodo - this one is in Tokyo for trials, my bad
Agano - change my suggestion to Kure; she departs from this harbor
Yahagi - probably stays Sasebo. She was at Sasebo on her WITP date; departs Kure 2/4/44 a month and a half after she is available to the player.


This info is from
http://www.combinedfleet.com/kaigun.htm
I normally prefer written sources, but until we start on a Trafalgar mod my little library isn't going to be much help. [:D]

Okay, I thought the info would useful. Guess not.

Most ships are not assigned arrival points - just defaulted to the location for their HQ. I didn't see a strong response to exact-location arrivals - so I did nothing. Comments?

Hi Don,

I wish all ship, LCU and airgroup reinforcements arrive in the main base for that country. I get airgroups arriving all over India (Madras, Lucknow, Columbo, etc etc). I don't think those airgroups are created and trained in those bases, historically. Just because some Spitfire squadron operated out of Columbo in WWII doesn't mean that's where I want it deployed in my game. Have it arrive in Karachi/Aden and let me decide on it's tactical deployment. Same thing with all those Australian MSW's. Why do they show up in Darwin, Cooktown and Hobart???? I think they should all start at Sydney. Let me deploy them to Darwin if I want.

I think there should be very few exceptions to this rule. Ships undergoing refits at the start of the war should arrive in the base where the refit is happening. LCU's with restricted commands should arrive in the region where they would be deployed (so you don't pay PP's to be able to move them).

I've seen some Japanese LCU's arriving in Georgetown and other Maylay peninsula bases. What if the Japanese player doesn't capture Georgetown? That LCU will then arrive in Tokyo. It should arrive in Saigon and have the player move it to where it should go.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Hi Don,

I wish all ship, LCU and airgroup reinforcements arrive in the main base for that country. I get airgroups arriving all over India (Madras, Lucknow, Columbo, etc etc). I don't think those airgroups are created and trained in those bases, historically. Just because some Spitfire squadron operated out of Columbo in WWII doesn't mean that's where I want it deployed in my game. Have it arrive in Karachi/Aden and let me decide on it's tactical deployment. Same thing with all those Australian MSW's. Why do they show up in Darwin, Cooktown and Hobart???? I think they should all start at Sydney. Let me deploy them to Darwin if I want.

I think there should be very few exceptions to this rule. Ships undergoing refits at the start of the war should arrive in the base where the refit is happening. LCU's with restricted commands should arrive in the region where they would be deployed (so you don't pay PP's to be able to move them).

I've seen some Japanese LCU's arriving in Georgetown and other Maylay peninsula bases. What if the Japanese player doesn't capture Georgetown? That LCU will then arrive in Tokyo. It should arrive in Saigon and have the player move it to where it should go.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

This is a pretty good point. A quick check shows a large number of Japanese land units "formed" in conquered territories - Malaya, the Philippines, NEI. Should these have their arrival "cleared" to they arrive at their HQ designated locations??
What say you all?

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Most ships are not assigned arrival points - just defaulted to the location for their HQ. I didn't see a strong response to exact-location arrivals - so I did nothing. Comments?

In my opinion it's not that big of an issue, but, with all the realism we've gone into on other details, it wouldn't hurt to have the ship's arrive at the actual port. It's added realism that doesn't negatively affect anything.

edit - added:
it's different than allied LCUs and airgroups in that the Jap ships were actually located at locations other than Tokyo when they "became availible". If the goal is maximum possible realism, then these units should come into play where they historically started their careers.