Matrix Games Forums

I think you want to be careful to have the destination classes be convert to only so they can't switch them out on demand, but I like it.

One of my major beefs with playing Japan is that historical 12/7 locations of ships/LCU/iar groups make day 1 moves by the JFB more difficult. I have to contend with historical deployments even if they do not make sense for the plan I intend to follow. The First turn movement bonus mitigates that somewhat, but not enough.

I'm not a fan of more than 1 port attack/Meirsing gambit/deep invasions. However, I'd love to have more flexibility with opening plans. One thing I know a lot of JFB's spend time fighting is prewar AK/AP positioning. We can spend two weeks of largely pointless effort collecting ships of certain classes together. Would be nice to just dump all uncommitted AK/AP in one of Osaka/Hiroshima/tokyo/etc. Having all LCU not in their co0mmand area (Southern Army troops in Home Islands for example) set to Strat Mode so I could at least move them in the direction I want them to go on Turn 1.

I have done a lot of merchant shipping around from pre-war starts. Most of the Tanker Fleet is in places that MAKE SENSE. Can continue along the lines of basing AKs in more appropriate places. Even if another 100-200 get moved to places making sense it would certainly help.

Am going to work on some CL possibilities now...

ORIGINAL: InfiniteMonkey
I think you want to be careful to have the destination classes be convert to only so they can't switch them out on demand, but I like it.
<snip>

Agreed.

OK. Let us show the current classes. Here is the Tenryu-Class Minelayer:

In 12/42 they are allowed to convert to a CLAA. Stats:

Kuma and Tama begin as Minelayers:

In August 42 they are allowed to convert to a CLAA:

As Darnerys Stormborn looks on, here are the Kitakami TT Leaders (Kitakami, Oi, and Kiso):

So....by BTSL, we have seven older cruisers with four of the starting as ML with the opportunity to become CLAA in Fall/Late-42. The other three begin life as TT Launchers.

The Tenryu/Kuma-Class seem to be too small to be effective AA cruisers. Have always felt the CLAA UPgrade is too much for their small hulls.

Do we look to mold the four oldest ML/CL into those Convoy/ASW Escort Leaders? They are mighty useful as Minelayers and Troop haulers...

Have sometimes wondered about the Japanese simply making those four old CLs into the ML and leave them there but then look to build more of the experimental Yubari-Class. They serve as a nice Destroyer Leader. If they did a run of 3-4 more of these ships, would they make for what we're talking about?

Yubari Stats:





Got to watch out for Drogon's FIRE!

I'm done for a bit. What do people think?

Ok, took a good look at displacement, gun weights, etc. Here are a few thoughts:

1. CL Yubari was an experimental ship and a test bed of several new technologies. As such, I do not know if other ships of the class would be built. It was also the smallest of the lot. That being said,

- If others were to be built, I'd suggest 3x additional ships in the class, for a total of 4.
- It would make a decent destroyer leader, if enough DC's are fitted.
- At some point the B and Y turrets could be replaced by double AA turrets (12.7 cm DP from larger ships, maybe?).

2. CL/CM Tenryu look good in CM configuration. Perhaps an upgrade with increased AA as some point. It is true these hulls are small for AA, but lets face it, Japanese naval AA is not a strength, but a weakness.

- Weightwise 4x double 12.7 cm or 10 cm turrets seem to be doable. Length of barrels is shorter, so that should not be a problem either.
- Another option would be to let them keep their cargo capacity and give them more torpedo tubes... if the triple tubes could be found somewhere, or if something would be deducted from the force pools (tanks? small ships?).

3. CL/CM Kuma are the largest of the three classes. I happen to like them, in either torpedo or AA configurations. I am not as keen on their CM configuration.

- If enough torpedo turrets could be made, having all five configured as torpedo cruisers would be fearsome. There would have to be a cost for this to be paid somehow, though.
- Weight would allow their 14 cm guns to be replaced for double AA turrets at some point.
- Whatever armament is decided on, keeping the cargo capacity makes for an interesting little ship with (possibly) big teeth.

Just a few random thoughts. I am no naval engineer, so I don't know how much weight the different calibers add or subtract in ammo and other weight (and hull space).

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I'm done for a bit. What do people think?

I think you have very interesting wallpaper.

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I'm done for a bit. What do people think?

I think you have very interesting wallpaper.

Damn straight! I'll Post today's next!

Ship Type question. Why, for the same-sized ship, do the Type-C and Type-D escorts have such a difference in range?

This is today's wallpaper. I rotate about 15 different ones...

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Ship Type question. Why, for the same-sized ship, do the Type-C and Type-D escorts have such a difference in range?

I think it has to do with C-Type having two shafts geared at 1900 hp, while the D-Type had one shaft geared at 2500 hp. The D-Type was also slightly faster, which usually means burning more fuel.

I could be totally wrong, though.

Who knows which of the various scenario files applies to the ship classes and specific ships?

ORIGINAL: Kitakami

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Ship Type question. Why, for the same-sized ship, do the Type-C and Type-D escorts have such a difference in range?

I think it has to do with C-Type having two shafts geared at 1900 hp, while the D-Type had one shaft geared at 2500 hp. The D-Type was also slightly faster, which usually means burning more fuel.

I could be totally wrong, though.

Makes some sense. Thanks.

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Who knows which of the various scenario files applies to the ship classes and specific ships?

I believe wpc is ship CLASSSES and wps is individual SHIPS