CS and CA Extra conversions

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 8259
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by jwilkerson »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The question as to Mizuho and Nisshin wasn't really answered.  Some may know that I have pushed for these ships to be convertable since I started playing the game.  Nisshin WOULD have been converted (it was planned along the Chiyoda/Chitose line) but she was sunk before it could happen. 

I know that ONE CVL with 30 planes doesn't sound like much but it sure would be NICE!  Of course, if Mizuho could convert ALSO then that would make two...

[:D]

Kristian did the IJN Carriers and Subs ... and I think John did the Seaplane-Kaiten carriers ... and they coordinated on the relevant conversions ... but IIRC as regards actual carriers for the IJN, we decided to go with the historical OOB.

Of course Modders will have plenty of power to change this!


WITP Admiral's Edition - Project Lead
War In Spain - Project Lead
User avatar
Mike Solli
Posts: 16368
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2000 8:00 am
Location: the flight deck of the Zuikaku

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by Mike Solli »

I've got Roger Chesneau's Aircraft Carriers in front of me right now.

The Mizuho was virtually identical to the Chitose except that she was more heavily armed and diesel powered.  There were plans to convert her to a CVL but (obviously) that never happened. 

The Nisshin was a further development of the Chitose class.  She was fitted for minelaying, with a capacity of 700 mines, replacing all aircraft.  Sometime in 1942, ramps were fitted in the stern allowing her to operate midget subs.  It doesn't say anything about conversion to a CVL.

Other ships of note here:

Kamoi - ex oiler Converted to a seaplane carrier (12 capacity).  Still able to carry 10k tons of oil and 2.5k tons of coal. No mention of the ability to convert to a CVL.

Akitsu Maru and Nigitsu Maru - IJA carriers (20 capacity) with the ability to carry and fly off IJAAF planes (but not land them).

Kamakura Maru - Former liner Chichiba Maru acquired by the IJN in 1941 as a hospital ship and transport.  Conversion to a CVL planned in 1942 (38 capacity) but never carried out.

Yamashiro Maru and Chigusa Maru - IJA planned conversion of these tankers to CVEs (8 capacity).  Intended to carry Ki-44s! [X(]  First was converted and second never completed.  ASW projector on forecastle - carried 120 depth charges.

Shimane Maru and Otakisan Maru - tankers (type 1TL) acquired by the IJN for conversion to CVEs (12 capacity).  First completed but never deployed operationally.  Second never completed. Two additional tankers planned but never converted.

Kumano Maru - Similar to the Akitsu Maru class.  Converted (37 capacity) but most likely not used operationally.
Image
Created by the amazing Dixie
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 8259
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by jwilkerson »

As I said as regards carriers, since they are pretty important ships, we went with the historical OOB (for all Navies).

In a few other cases, we allowed some "planned" conversions. But not for anyones carriers.

And again, Modders will certainly be able to draw the line elsewhere, we had to draw it somewhere, we went with the historical OOB for carriers.

WITP Admiral's Edition - Project Lead
War In Spain - Project Lead
User avatar
TOMLABEL
Posts: 4473
Joined: Fri Jan 27, 2006 7:50 pm
Location: Alabama - ROLL TIDE!!!!!

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by TOMLABEL »

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Yeah, maybe 1 year or 1.5 years ago. At least I thought it was you....[&:]

TOMLABEL

I might have done that. Was a long time ago, but I remember doing a pink sub belching exhaust, and I think there was a pair of white ladies undies flying from the periscope. Also remember doing an oil slick as a Japanese sub graphic. Don't remember where they are ... I'm old and my memory just isn't what it used to be.


Sorry JWE! [X(]

It was you! I definitely remember the oil slick now that you mention it.

It was too funny, that one!!![:D][:D][:D]

TOMLABEL
Image
Art by the Rogue-USMC

WITP Admiral's Edition: Ship & Sub Art/Base Unit Art/Map Icon Art

"If destruction be our lot - it will come from within"...Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by Shark7 »

The real question with Mizuho is if she had not sunk in 1942, would she have actually been converted.  I guess I tend to answer 'yes' to this question, as the Chitose and Chiyoda conversion were successfull, and as was mentioned Mizuho was practically identical to those ships.
 
But as JWE points out, this is easily modde and I know I will be making that mod for my own use for sure. The only thing it really changes is giving you the OPTION of converting them in game.  Options are good. [8D]
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by DuckofTindalos »

Mizuho would almost certainly not have been converted, given her very slow speed. Nisshin might have been...
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Mizuho would almost certainly not have been converted, given her very slow speed. Nisshin might have been...

Perhaps, but there were plans on the drawing board to convert her. Now would she actually have been usefull as a CVL...doubtfull. Maybe as an CVE, but Japan didn't really need those, they needed fleet carriers. I guess it would really depend on how desperate they were IF she had even survived to make it to the conversion shipyard.

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by DuckofTindalos »

A fleet carrier with a top speed of 22 knots? No thanks!
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
jwilkerson
Posts: 8259
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2002 4:02 am
Location: Kansas
Contact:

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by jwilkerson »

ORIGINAL: Shark7

The real question with Mizuho is if she had not sunk in 1942, would she have actually been converted.  I guess I tend to answer 'yes' to this question, as the Chitose and Chiyoda conversion were successfull, and as was mentioned Mizuho was practically identical to those ships.

But as JWE points out, this is easily modde and I know I will be making that mod for my own use for sure. The only thing it really changes is giving you the OPTION of converting them in game.  Options are good. [8D]

Regardless, history is a "contingency" science. That is, anything that happens is dependent upon things that happened before. It is inherently not repeatable. But for the most part, WITP is built around reinforcement lists.

For LCU we have a fixed reinforcement list. The only variables are if certain bases are held by the enemy. But nothing can be accelerated or traded for anything else. Both sides have a fixed reinforcement track for LCU, no "production system" at play here.

And for Airgroups, the groups, not the complements, but the groups themselves. Again, these are fixed. You can't have more groups than there are in the reinforcement track. The number of slots in the groups you have on the map places a fixed upper bound on the number of aircraft you can have in play. And this is regardless of production. You can have 10,000 or 100,000 aircraft sitting in your pools but you canot increase the number of aircraft on the map by even one more than the total number of slots in your on map groups. So airgroups also represent a fixed reinforcement for both sides.

The only two areas where there are variables or tradeoffs are in the areas of Ships and Aircraft. And this only for the Japanese side. This being said, both sides have a ship arrival reinforcement track. To be "historical" for the Allies, we need to put the historical ships on the track to arrive on the historical date (sounds easier than it is) and then do the same for the Japanese (again sounds easier than it is - what does the ARRIVAL DATE mean?). But the Japanese then have the ability to spend their Heavy Industry points either to increase their aircraft production and/or to bring in some of their ships early. We've argued (though this argument is not accepted by many) that increasing your aircraft production too much is non-value added because having your pools really full isn't any better than having them sufficiently full. On the other hand bringing in as many ships as soon as possible is very value added and I suspect most Japanese players go for this option. Trying to spend any excess H.I. on acceleration of ships.

So long winded way of saying that the philosophy of the game the AE team inherited is that of a reinforcement track driven system. Other systems allow total flexability on building more divisions or less divisions and more BBs or less BBs and more Airplanes, etc. WITP does not do this. WITP really doesn't have a full blown production system. WITP has a priority system that allows the Japanese to trade off ship acceleration with aircraft production. That is the only choice.

So given that philosophy which we decided to remain aligned with - and the importance of CV/CVL/CVE we decided to only represent the historical OOB for both sides. I'm sure some will disagree with this decision. But we can't please all of the players all of the time. Hence, there is a wonderul new editor which allows almost any kind of ship to convert to almost any kind of ship. And to set up a ship to convert to another ship, once you understand the new editor fields takes just a few key strokes. So there is almost literally nothing that cannot be done now, in the editor.

WITP Admiral's Edition - Project Lead
War In Spain - Project Lead
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17760
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by John 3rd »

That--then--in shorthand is no.  Thanks Sir for being clear about it.
 
We must leave it to the Modders for this fix.
 
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That--then--in shorthand is no. Thanks Sir for being clear about it.

We must leave it to the Modders for this fix.

Fix implies something is broken...
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17760
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by John 3rd »

You are correct in interpreting my word choice. 
 
I think that this should be fixed but J says no.  OK--It is as simple as that.  I'm an unabashed JFB and would like to see some changes but if it is a pain then why push it?  I (and others) have voiced our opinion on this subject but it isn't going to happen. 
 
We'll leave it to the Modders...
 
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by Shark7 »

Hmm, I think people are not understanding what is the problem here. As I have stated, I know the OOB will present just as the war progressed. No problem for me, I have an editor to give myself the option of converting ships if need be.

The problem is this: None of us can know for sure the outcome when we throw in 'What if?'

What if Japan hadn't lost 4 carriers at Midway?
What if Japan hadn't been starving for resources by mid-'43?
What if the Allies subs had been less effective?
What if KB had located and sunk the 3 American carriers in Dec 41?
What if KB had been sunk at PH?

Lots of possibilities, and every one of them changes the timeline. Just the first what if for example: If Japan had won midway, or at least not lost the entire carrier division they sent there, then very likely none of the historical conversions would have ever been planned or completed.

The AE team can really only present us the war as it actually unfolded. For those of us that want to explore the what if's, well we do have an editor. The what if's can be modded and presented by the community.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
bradfordkay
Posts: 8686
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2002 8:39 am
Location: Olympia, WA

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by bradfordkay »

Well said. The AE crew's decision is the right one, IMO. The official campaign scenario should be as close to historical in OOB as is possible within the game system.

While many (most?) of the veteran modders are involved in Henderson Field Productions, and are thus likely to be busy for some time to come, there are still a lot of guys itching to delve into the new editor. I am sure that will result in a good number of great "what if" scenarios being released by the end of the year.
fair winds,
Brad
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Well said. The AE crew's decision is the right one, IMO. The official campaign scenario should be as close to historical in OOB as is possible within the game system.

While many (most?) of the veteran modders are involved in Henderson Field Productions, and are thus likely to be busy for some time to come, there are still a lot of guys itching to delve into the new editor. I am sure that will result in a good number of great "what if" scenarios being released by the end of the year.

I really do agree with the Team decision to keep things as close to historical in the OOB as is possible within the game system.

Having said that, I also understand that there were certain planned conversions that didn't happen because of circumstances beyond the control of the IJN General Staff (ships being sunk, maybe).

The thing about conversions/upgrades is that any departure from historicity, opens the proverbial can of worms. As soon as we make one, then every “fanboy” will be rightfully be howling for their pet project (why yours and not mine??). The other thing for Nisshin/Mizuho is definition of airgroups; since they weren’t converted, there weren’t any assigned airgroups.

It is possible to put an optional conversion in place for Nisshin/Mizuho. It will not happen till later ’42. It will take a year (or more) to effect – just like Chitose/Chiyoda. They will not have any integral airgroups. You will have to have to use vestigal carrier capable airgroups from earlier sunk carriers. They will be technically CVLs, but they will have a way lower effectivity than the others. Sucks, I know.

Think on this very carefully. Don’t just hop on the “more CVL” bandwagon, because they will not give you the same performance. After you thunk, and other forum members have thunk, let me know, and I’ll consider entering the conversions in the OOB.

No promises, but I really will think about y’alls comments. I will post the decision, either way, along with the reasons therefore.

Ciao
User avatar
Kull
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: El Paso, TX

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by Kull »

ORIGINAL: JWE

It is possible to put an optional conversion in place for Nisshin/Mizuho.

Think on this very carefully. Don’t just hop on the “more CVL” bandwagon, because they will not give you the same performance. After you thunk, and other forum members have thunk, let me know, and I’ll consider entering the conversions in the OOB.

No promises, but I really will think about y’alls comments. I will post the decision, either way, along with the reasons therefore.

I'm pretty much a "foaming at the mouth for more CVLs" kind of guy, but I completely agree with the team's decision to keep fantasy off the table. But that said, do we actually have no idea what was planned for Mizuho and Nisshin? Based on Mike Solli's post, the answer would seem to be "we do":
ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I've got Roger Chesneau's Aircraft Carriers in front of me right now.

The Mizuho was virtually identical to the Chitose except that she was more heavily armed and diesel powered. There were plans to convert her to a CVL but (obviously) that never happened.

The Nisshin was a further development of the Chitose class. She was fitted for minelaying, with a capacity of 700 mines, replacing all aircraft. Sometime in 1942, ramps were fitted in the stern allowing her to operate midget subs. It doesn't say anything about conversion to a CVL.

I'd certainly like to see more detail on the "plans to convert" Mizuho to a CVL, but if they did exist, it would be hard to argue against including that option in AE. Conversely, the Nisshin conversion seems to be "out". If she was first converted to a minelayer and then later a kaiten carrier, that's a pretty clear indication the IJN had no intention of turning her into a CVL. If those were post-Midway conversions, then it's conclusive.

Worth noting that the inclusion of the Kaiten in AE means the team might consider adding that conversion option for the Nisshin.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17760
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by John 3rd »

JWE--Thanks for your thoughts and openness on this subject.  I Second Kull's position and thoughts!  We REALLY do appreciate the effort being made to do this 'right.' 
 
Thanks again.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
sven6345789
Posts: 1072
Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 12:45 am
Location: Sandviken, Sweden

ex respawning

Post by sven6345789 »

question about the us carriers; does the fact that there is no more respawning mean that you get Hornet (CV-12) as Kearsarge as it was named originally?
Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by JWE »

Hi John 3d and Kull,

Thanks John for the thought.

I do tend to agree on the Mizuho. I too think it likely that she would have been converted, if she had survived.

As to the Nisshin, the things that Kull expresses kinda points out our dilemma. What, in fact, do we do with ships that were sunk. What the Japanese did was in response to op imperatives; if there was no Midway, would they have done what they did?

The simplest thing to do would be to say here’s the “historical OOB”; so deal with it. But we have already introduced “reasonable” operational alternatives into the Japanese OOB, through the “Conversion” function. We are walking a very fine line between ‘realism’, on one hand, and ‘Space battleship Yamato’ on the other.

Anything you guys wish to contribute will be considered (edit) and highly appreciated.

JWE
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: CS and CA Extra conversions

Post by Shark7 »

JWE I'm gonna vote for including a conversion option for Mizuho, but not for Nisshin. The Mizuho was planned, despite its slow speed, but was sunk before the conversion could be carried out.

Next question is, do you give it a carrier trained flight group, or just a 'you get what you get' by adding land based/groups from sunken carriers? Since it was planned, but sunk before they got a chance to carry through with it, that becomes the real dilemma.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”