NON Critical RHS 7.942 micro update: uploaded

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach


To the Mahan issue. I truly thought this error was data entry sloppiness. This was/is further supported by the Benson issue and who knows what else is hiding in the swamp. You had not previously discussed the issue and, quite honestly, I have always been suspect of your accuracy because of your rush to implement new concepts and just because of the enormous job of trying to handle all of the balls in the air of the different scenarios.
If again I am wrong I apologize.

[/quote]

The real problem is the amount of data involved. Not just in data entry terms - but far worse - in research terms. There are thousands of classes - and a change to all escort classes involves hundreds of them. To research each class in detail - get some sense of typical upgrades - and enter it - could take years. So I go to a major reference that DOES mention ASW (e.g. Conways) - a source that meets Joe Wilkerson's standard of "common to all" so "done to the same standard" - and read it - and hope it is not too far off in any given case. It is always possible to get better data - and that is why we look at things people point out that may not be as good as we would like if we had it the way it ideally should be.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again




While the update is possible after a certain date, not all ships were actually magically converted on the same date. It depends on the ship (and generally on where it served) how it shows up when it appears in the game.

Note that our sub classes are approximations - each ship often had a unique set of changes and always these occurred on specific dates - not the same date for every class member. Part of the modder's art is to come up with a typical configuration and deciding when to apply that? I use the date the first such vessel converts. A Benson could convert to the 42 configureation already designed and used in the ASW oriented ATLANTIC theater - so I permit a player to so convert it if the player wants to - but the vessel shows up in its PTO configuration - and if a player is in a hurry - they don't have to wait for it to upgrade. Upgrades happen too fast and cheap (for the Allies more or less for free) IMHO- if I did this it would take longer - so the decision would be more agonizing.

I see Sid and sorry if i missed the post or other information where you explained you changed this. I tested the back dated conversion by sending the Bensons to New Orleans, after they arrive on 3/12/42, and then allowing them to upgrade ,which they did as you stated.

[el cid again]

As for weapons diversity

no mod has more than RHS - which tries to give you the richest possible set.

The problem is slot limitations.

The art of simulating is to decide what has priority? Joe likes to say "we can do anything, but we cannot do everything"

We had a model that was fundamentally wrong - each separate rack or thrower got a seperate die roll - and the result was grossly overstated ASW. What matters is pattern size. So we went there. If we get more slots - I will give you more variations.

Note that the patterns - now they have depth ratings - do de facto give us more weapon types. It is not exactly that they mean different DC - the same DC could be modified for a deeper setting - but also it could be replaced by a different one in the same general performance range with a deeper setting.

Some of the difference between devices is illusion: where a Japanese DC (or gun or whatever) is really British - all you get is a different name - not a different device. Nevertheless, I love the right name - and if slots permit - I will give it to you.

About 6-12 months after AE comes out I will give you a version with more devices, more locations, more classes, and whatever else we can do with the slots. We might have side specific devices instead of shared ones - then we can use side oriented accuracy and names. We might use different bombs on bombers with Norden bomb sights too - giving them more accuracy. [Or maybe not - the very high altitude concept failed. Winds prevented accuracy - never mind ballistic theory - so you could never hit a target from 30 or 40 thousand feet in fact like you should in theory. But we can at least consider it.]

[el cid again]

It ONLY adds device files.

These ONLY change bomb devices.

The changes are to adopt a uniform accuracy rating for single dumb bombs (cluster bombs are not changed and remain based on the sum of three dumb bombs) with a single exception - the 800 kg AP bomb - used only rarely (and under code control in strictly historical scenarios) - by one side - by units which achieved a known accuracy. The base accuracy used here is 4 and the 800 kg accuracy used is 7 while the cluster accuracy used is 12.

One other change is that the dual purpose 60 kg bomb or DC is re rated as a ASW device. I think this will work as a bomb just as well as ever - I am not sure if any ASW device works from planes? - but IF they do - they surely need to be defined as such and given a depth rating. I assigned depth = 150 because this device is used mainly for subs seen from aircraft (substantially Japanese flying boats and Ansons).

This update should be installed on top of comprehensive update 7.94 and it can be laid over micro update 7.941.

Test series 11 will use these files.

If you are contrarian and LIKE bomb devices with a 22,500 per cent variation in accuracy - simply do not install this microupdate - and you will retain the old system.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

As for weapons diversity

no mod has more than RHS - which tries to give you the richest possible set.

The problem is slot limitations.

The art of simulating is to decide what has priority? Joe likes to say "we can do anything, but we cannot do everything"

We had a model that was fundamentally wrong - each separate rack or thrower got a seperate die roll - and the result was grossly overstated ASW. What matters is pattern size. So we went there. If we get more slots - I will give you more variations.

Note that the patterns - now they have depth ratings - do de facto give us more weapon types. It is not exactly that they mean different DC - the same DC could be modified for a deeper setting - but also it could be replaced by a different one in the same general performance range with a deeper setting.

Some of the difference between devices is illusion: where a Japanese DC (or gun or whatever) is really British - all you get is a different name - not a different device. Nevertheless, I love the right name - and if slots permit - I will give it to you.

About 6-12 months after AE comes out I will give you a version with more devices, more locations, more classes, and whatever else we can do with the slots. We might have side specific devices instead of shared ones - then we can use side oriented accuracy and names. We might use different bombs on bombers with Norden bomb sights too - giving them more accuracy. [Or maybe not - the very high altitude concept failed. Winds prevented accuracy - never mind ballistic theory - so you could never hit a target from 30 or 40 thousand feet in fact like you should in theory. But we can at least consider it.]


I am not digging in my heals here I am trying to understand more (I am somewhat over my head). Let's use the original Wickes class at 12/41. It has Mk 7s 2 x 2 times 3 loads. Is that 12 dice rolls? Now there is the Mk 6 which is 2 x 2 and 5 loads. Is that 20 dice rolls for a total of 32 dice rolls or chances to hit?

Now let's jump to the new pattern weapon for the same ship , we now have Pattern 2 Large DC. Is that 2 x 1 time 5 loads or 10 dice rolls? Please excuse my over simplistic non-educated example.

If this is incorrect so far I will not go forward. Let me know.

[el cid again]

Wickes is not the ideal choice to show the difference - because it has only 2 racks.

The big change here is you are cutting the die rolls per attack in half.

With a more typical early US destroyer - say one modified for ASW in the phony war -
or one designed after that experience - you get a pattern of 8. There we go from 8 die
rolls per attack to only 1.

Now later in the war - the US went over to a pattern of 13 - and again - we are reducing it
to one roll per attack for a DD.

For a DE - there are 2 rolls per attack - one for the DC pattern - and 1 for the Hedgehog.
Further - while 1930s vintage DD only had 5 shots (ten charges total in inventory)
a late war DE has ten shots (130 charges in inventory). And it also gets ten Hedgehog shots (that is,
200 shots because of 20 charges per firing).

Another problem is that many ships had not been reviewed in sufficient detail and the number of throwers
or rounds per thrower might also have been wrong to begin with.

A complicating factor is that pattern size is not always a pure function of throwers: a DD might mount 4 or
6 throwers and have 2 racks - and either way it would throw the same pattern - for that period tactically.
Thus it might drop 1 DC - throw 6 DC - and drop 1 DC to get a pattern of 8 large - or another one might
drop 1 - throw 2 - drop 2 in the center - throw 2 - drop 1 - again for a pattern of 8 - even though it had
fewer throwers. The result is pretty similar - an area of the sea with a nearly uniform chance of damage from
the pattern. In either case there is a chance of a direct hit - also a chance of 2 or even 3 near misses -
which are approximately the same as a direct hit. WITP uses a statistical model with die rolls to simulate
the possiblity of various amounts of damge and that is pretty good.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Wickes is not the ideal choice to show the difference - because it has only 2 racks.

Damn if this is not a good example what is? Why is any ship different than any other? Are the assumtions right? Yes-No

[el cid again]

Go back an re reat the amplified post.

The Wikes is just too small - 2 racks was just 2 die rolls - but our other ships often got huge numbers of them.
Even Wickes upgraded to a ASW armed ship with throwers and Hedgehog (I think - one WWI four piper did and should).

Anyway - I amplified - so you can understand.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Go back an re reat the amplified post.

The Wikes is just too small - 2 racks was just 2 die rolls - but our other ships often got huge numbers of them.
Even Wickes upgraded to a ASW armed ship with throwers and Hedgehog (I think - one WWI four piper did and should).

Anyway - I amplified - so you can understand.

This is hopeless Sid. You have formulas that apply to some but not all because they don't fit the mold. I ask you what is a good ship to use and you dance. Let's just say I don't speak your language and leave it at that. I hope you don't find down the line that you may have missed something (it has happened before).

[el cid again]

Back up ten yards and punt.

Nothing you just said makes sense - or is appropriate to the exchange.

While in general it may be best to have basic formulas applied generally with exceptions that fit - well cases that
are exceptional - that is not germane to this discussion. ALL ASW ships use the SAME formula - if formula it can
be called - there are NO exceptions at all - and you seemed to be complaining repeatedly you didn't like the
lack of diversity. You have somehow managed to confuse yourself about a simple concept - that DC attacks come
in patterns and that the ENTIRE pattern ought to be represented as a single shot with a single roll. It is not really
true that each DC dropped has a seperate chance of hitting a sub - and going that way means - when the number is large -
that there is a very significant chance of many hits from a single pattern. I reformed this - was supported by our resident
operations researcher on theoretical grounds in doing so - and there is no one really arguing that the original system was
a good one as far as I have seen. It is very simple - and perfectly consistent - and getting flustered and blaming me for
being confusing when I have tried to lay it out at elementary school level is not going to accomplish anything.

For all ships at the start of the game - and most ships throughout the game - and even US destroyers throughout the game - the system is ocmpletely consitent - you get one ASW shot per attack - that shot must be one of eight possible patterns using one of two possible DC sizes. As the patterns grow, so does their maximum depth rating.

For the few ships which - from midwar - had ahead throwing weapons - there is the possibility of a second shot. Really it is a first shot - ahead means they attack first - but I doubt code knows that. These weapons are fairly accurate, but generally lacking in effect, and also not rated for very deep targets. Nevertheless, it IS a separate die roll - and two rolls per pass is something of an advantage. The actual ratings are such that there is a great variation in the ahead throwing club. In addition to devices we had before - I was able to add what is probably the best of the lot - Squid - and also the only fairly good Japanese one - the 15 cm DC thrower. This diversity somewhat makes the charge we don't have as much variety off base IMHO. And it matters - for the Allies because they have a really good second die roll on a few ships - for the Japanese because they get at least a few ships with at least a marginal second roll (the 3 inch mortar being almost worthless).

This is a very simple model and it is perfectly consistent - there are no exceptions anywhere.

[Buck Beach]

Since I am unable to do any comparison from a technical approach let me point out a couple of more items that look strange.  My comparison is very simplistic, prior to 7.90 and subsequent to 7.90.

The Dorsey class DMS's now appear better at ASW (with Pattern 4 large DC) than most other U.S. ships at that point in the war. I understand that these were converted Wickes/Clemson class DDs.

Both the Porter and Farragut DD classes no longer have any ASW capabilities prior to the 4/42 refit.

edit: After just a little bit of research (Wikipedia, that is not then end of all authority), I find that the Porters and the Farragut's may not have had ASW weapons at the war's beginning. The Porter's show the DC racks were added in 1942 and the Farragut's may not have had the DCs until 1943.

Edit again: Further research shows that only the first two Farragut's (Farragut and Dewey) were built w/o DCs the others were equipped, in fact the Monaghan was credited with sinking one of the Japanese midget subs with DCs.

This is too much like work

This link seems to be more reliable than Wiki. but I have no idea if it is correct Sure has a lot of info on World War DD's and DE's

http://www.destroyerhistory.org/goldpla ... class.html

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Back up ten yards and punt.

Nothing you just said makes sense - or is appropriate to the exchange.

While in general it may be best to have basic formulas applied generally with exceptions that fit - well cases that
are exceptional - that is not germane to this discussion. ALL ASW ships use the SAME formula - if formula it can
be called - there are NO exceptions at all - and you seemed to be complaining repeatedly you didn't like the
lack of diversity. You have somehow managed to confuse yourself about a simple concept - that DC attacks come
in patterns and that the ENTIRE pattern ought to be represented as a single shot with a single roll. It is not really
true that each DC dropped has a seperate chance of hitting a sub - and going that way means - when the number is large -
that there is a very significant chance of many hits from a single pattern. I reformed this - was supported by our resident
operations researcher on theoretical grounds in doing so - and there is no one really arguing that the original system was
a good one as far as I have seen. It is very simple - and perfectly consistent - and getting flustered and blaming me for
being confusing when I have tried to lay it out at elementary school level is not going to accomplish anything.

For all ships at the start of the game - and most ships throughout the game - and even US destroyers throughout the game - the system is ocmpletely consitent - you get one ASW shot per attack - that shot must be one of eight possible patterns using one of two possible DC sizes. As the patterns grow, so does their maximum depth rating.

For the few ships which - from midwar - had ahead throwing weapons - there is the possibility of a second shot. Really it is a first shot - ahead means they attack first - but I doubt code knows that. These weapons are fairly accurate, but generally lacking in effect, and also not rated for very deep targets. Nevertheless, it IS a separate die roll - and two rolls per pass is something of an advantage. The actual ratings are such that there is a great variation in the ahead throwing club. In addition to devices we had before - I was able to add what is probably the best of the lot - Squid - and also the only fairly good Japanese one - the 15 cm DC thrower. This diversity somewhat makes the charge we don't have as much variety off base IMHO. And it matters - for the Allies because they have a really good second die roll on a few ships - for the Japanese because they get at least a few ships with at least a marginal second roll (the 3 inch mortar being almost worthless).

This is a very simple model and it is perfectly consistent - there are no exceptions anywhere.

It is quite obvious that I have no business in this discussion with you do to your vast knowledge and expertise and my lack there of. This is said without sarcasm, however, call me stupid (even below an elementary school level) and criticize my anal reference to the games weapon diversity, I still think you have screwed with the CVO family OOB when it may and probably not necessary.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Since I am unable to do any comparison from a technical approach let me point out a couple of more items that look strange.  My comparison is very simplistic, prior to 7.90 and subsequent to 7.90.

The Dorsey class DMS's now appear better at ASW (with Pattern 4 large DC) than most other U.S. ships at that point in the war. I understand that these were converted Wickes/Clemson class DDs.

Both the Porter and Farragut DD classes no longer have any ASW capabilities prior to the 4/42 refit.

edit: After just a little bit of research (Wikipedia, that is not then end of all authority), I find that the Porters and the Farragut's may not have had ASW weapons at the war's beginning. The Porter's show the DC racks were added in 1942 and the Farragut's may not have had the DCs until 1943.

Edit again: Further research shows that only the first two Farragut's (Farragut and Dewey) were built w/o DCs the others were equipped, in fact the Monaghan was credited with sinking one of the Japanese midget subs with DCs.

This is too much like work

This link seems to be more reliable than Wiki. but I have no idea if it is correct Sure has a lot of info on World War DD's and DE's

http://www.destroyerhistory.org/goldpla ... class.html

You are on the right track. This is the sort of thing one must do to get the OB down to the ship level - and that is NOT what I do.
I try to get the CLASS right - and correct from there if the ship is known to differ. But one must research EACH ship - and there are thousands of them - to get details of "date it enters PTO" - "location it enters PTO" - and "configuration when it enters PTO" right. Regretfully - we cannot ever withdraw it - nor change when it upgrades. It will be possible to upgrade on a general basis any time after the first unit of the class upgraded (if I set the date of the upgrade). There was a lot of work done on US warships by AKWARRIOR - but it was in a different era - before we had this ASW system - and ASW weapons are very hard to trace - because most references fail to mention them at all - and many that do are contradictory of others that do. The best place to start - for USN - might be The Dictionary of Naval Fighting Ships - but it often does not mention ASW armament or missions - so it is just an authoritative place to go when it does tell us something. I used Conways for this review - to be fast - and to have one standard common to all navies - and because Conways usually tells us the ASW details for the class - which is not the same as for every ship. Jane's is less useful - because it often lacks this data - but sometimes you get it. Fahey's is also less than useful because ASW was regarded as secret when it was compiled. Same for Warships of World War II (which is USN only) - it is very good for almost everything EXCEPT electronics and ASW. The very best place to go is USNI books on classes - e.g. The Essex Class - but most destroyer classes lack such materials. There is also a series on types - e.g. US Cruisers - by USNI - and it is fine - but I don't have the one on destroyers. There is a fabulous British reference - called Destroyers I think - which is international - but I have only got photocopies filed by nation - and I didn't pull the files. It tends to have almost everything - but you can spend months on this sort of thing - years even (testimony).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

.It is quite obvious that I have no business in this discussion with you do to your vast knowledge and expertise and my lack there of. This is said without sarcasm, however, call me stupid (even below an elementary school level) and criticize my anal reference to the games weapon diversity, I still think you have screwed with the CVO family OOB when it may and probably not necessary.

What are you talking about?

Why is it not absolutely necessary to get the gross overkill of submarines under control?

How is the separate die roll per DC mounting not a structural error? If it isn't, how could devices be modified so it worked?
If you roll once per DT thrown/dropped- you must risk multiple hits - when that is not the point of a pattern: a pattern was to insure ONE hit or near miss ANYWHERE in the pattern - and it spread them out to insure ONE hit - by which mechanism it insured you could not get more than one.

Why is CVO any different than BBO or EOS family? The same system is used.

I think you are being fooled by cosmetics: haveing a Mark x Mod y DC sounds very specific. But the Mark y mod z is not much of a change - and may be absolutely identical. [Stock, CHS and RHS had - until 7.9 - IDENTICAL Hedgehog weapons - except for the name. I said - why keep two devices that have identical performance? AK Warrior - showing he is quicker on the uptake than I am by some years - reported he came to the same conclusion - and was able to free a rare ASW slot effectively by combining them. DC are often very similar - and it turns out some of them should have been more similar than they were - poor research failed to identify that Japanese DC WERE RN DC for example. ]
Anyway - a small DC is a small DC - and the chance of a hit by a pattern of them is essentially the same - no matter which one you use. The big difference is what is the maximum depth setting - and we use four different ones here. But according to Naval Weapons of World War Two - this often happened in the SAME DC - it just was "600 feet, later changed to 1000 feet". No name change - but a performance change.
The big difference between DC is their size: USN used a larger charge - and could for that reason have a slightly better chance of serious damage or even a kill when a submarine was somewhere inside the pattern. Also - as the patterns got bigger - USN was able to achieve the same effect with a pattern typically one smaller than the small DC armed ships could (thus you see 14 small DC but only 13 large DC in the large pattern case). The cost was that it was harder to carry those bigger DC - and a risk probably absent from the game is that if they started to blow up on board due to battle damage (explosion or fire) - you probably lost the entire ship as the magazines go up in sympathetic detonation. [In a novel The Bedford Incident - set about 1960 - it is mentioned that a single pistol round can blow up the entire ship - and indeed that is how it ends - an officer does just that.]

What is it you want to see that you do not see?

Why is this not a significant reform?

And why are you expecting me to somehow be able to manufacture slots? We need the slots for patterns - this is a technical judgement but one that seems beyond serious dispute. That means they are not available for model use. And even if we went the old way - note we did NOT have the slots to give you French, Russian, Dutch etc DC. We were ALREADY lumping similar small DC together - and you just didn't know it.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

.It is quite obvious that I have no business in this discussion with you do to your vast knowledge and expertise and my lack there of. This is said without sarcasm, however, call me stupid (even below an elementary school level) and criticize my anal reference to the games weapon diversity, I still think you have screwed with the CVO family OOB when it may and probably not necessary.

What are you talking about?

Why is it not absolutely necessary to get the gross overkill of submarines under control?

How is the separate die roll per DC mounting not a structural error? If it isn't, how could devices be modified so it worked?
If you roll once per DT thrown/dropped- you must risk multiple hits - when that is not the point of a pattern: a pattern was to insure ONE hit or near miss ANYWHERE in the pattern - and it spread them out to insure ONE hit - by which mechanism it insured you could not get more than one.

Why is CVO any different than BBO or EOS family? The same system is used.

I think you are being fooled by cosmetics: haveing a Mark x Mod y DC sounds very specific. But the Mark y mod z is not much of a change - and may be absolutely identical. [Stock, CHS and RHS had - until 7.9 - IDENTICAL Hedgehog weapons - except for the name. I said - why keep two devices that have identical performance? AK Warrior - showing he is quicker on the uptake than I am by some years - reported he came to the same conclusion - and was able to free a rare ASW slot effectively by combining them. DC are often very similar - and it turns out some of them should have been more similar than they were - poor research failed to identify that Japanese DC WERE RN DC for example. ]
Anyway - a small DC is a small DC - and the chance of a hit by a pattern of them is essentially the same - no matter which one you use. The big difference is what is the maximum depth setting - and we use four different ones here. But according to Naval Weapons of World War Two - this often happened in the SAME DC - it just was "600 feet, later changed to 1000 feet". No name change - but a performance change.
The big difference between DC is their size: USN used a larger charge - and could for that reason have a slightly better chance of serious damage or even a kill when a submarine was somewhere inside the pattern. Also - as the patterns got bigger - USN was able to achieve the same effect with a pattern typically one smaller than the small DC armed ships could (thus you see 14 small DC but only 13 large DC in the large pattern case). The cost was that it was harder to carry those bigger DC - and a risk probably absent from the game is that if they started to blow up on board due to battle damage (explosion or fire) - you probably lost the entire ship as the magazines go up in sympathetic detonation. [In a novel The Bedford Incident - set about 1960 - it is mentioned that a single pistol round can blow up the entire ship - and indeed that is how it ends - an officer does just that.]

What is it you want to see that you do not see?

Why is this not a significant reform?

And why are you expecting me to somehow be able to manufacture slots? We need the slots for patterns - this is a technical judgement but one that seems beyond serious dispute. That means they are not available for model use. And even if we went the old way - note we did NOT have the slots to give you French, Russian, Dutch etc DC. We were ALREADY lumping similar small DC together - and you just didn't know it.

Like I said I am not qualified to argue the issue. I will continue to point out items that are inconsistent or curious.

[mikemike]

I've looked into my Terzibaschitsch - "Zerstörer der U.S.Navy" (Destroyers of the U.S.Navy) which contains quite a number of good pictures of all DD classes. The Mahan class definitely had two DCRs before the war, but no DCTs. They received up to six DCTs after exchanging the "Q" 5 inch for 20mm AA guns. When an additional two 40mm twins were mounted, they still had two DCR and four DCT. Shaw (DD-373), which was the only one of the class to receive the anti-Kamikaze mod (remove all TT and the third 5in gun, mount two 40mm twins and two 40mm quads) still carried four DCTs and two DCRs after that mod. I've appended a photo of Flusser (DD-368), made off Mare Island in 3/42.

[mikemike]

Here is a photo of Shaw (DD-373), alongside in Mare Island in August, 1945. Note the DCT's. Armament is 3x5in, 12x40mm, no TT.

[el cid again]

When first mentioned, I thought Mahan was very early. But the first classes were (in order) Farragut, Porter and Somers). These were the classes built only with decks strengthened for DC. Mahan (except apparently for the first two units were built the same way) were late enough - and large enough - that concerns about submarines cut in before the program completed. Having reviewed the data, we changed the initial form to include DC - and this is in the already released file sets 7.941 and 7.942: see partial descriptor for 7.941

.Ship class and ship files update USS Dorsey - a WWI era four piper that starts the game - to her
1941 configuration - and revises all Mahan upgrades - mainly to include DC racks - but also so they lose a five inch in the 1945 update.


It is not normal for all ships of a sub class to be actually identical. Nor was this the case in 1945. Only one unit was converted into the final form - although the rest would have been if (a) they were in PTO; (b) the war had continued. It is hard to know exactly what was the typical ASW suite - since most reference material failes to mention it - and it is also difficult to find the information to the standards we like - which is in a standard reference which is available to all with access to a reasonable library - and which specifies information for all classes. If we have to do a photo analysis it means we can never ever complete the work - we can never get data on ships for which similar photographs are not available - and we doom any effort to use verifiable data with a reasonable effort. Which is not to say we cannot use such information: it is to say it cannot be the standard we set. Not if you want completed data while I still live.

In this case I conclude that at some point at least some of the classes were converted to 4 DCT plus 2 DCR - which means they were large enough to do that. Therefore it is at least possible to do that - and so the upgrades will be set to have a pattern of 8 (normal with 4 DCT and 2 racks - the racks drop twice each). This is not grounds for a new update - but will be there whenever there is a new update. I did find one reference listing 4 DCT - which I regarded as possibly confused - since it did not list DCR - and since all others listed 2 DCR (exept one listing 2 DCT which may be generic for both) - or no mention of ASW at all.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

In this case I conclude that at some point at least some of the classes were converted to 4 DCT plus 2 DCR - which means they were large enough to do that. Therefore it is at least possible to do that - and so the upgrades will be set to have a pattern of 8 (normal with 4 DCT and 2 racks - the racks drop twice each). This is not grounds for a new update - but will be there whenever there is a new update. I did find one reference listing 4 DCT - which I regarded as possibly confused - since it did not list DCR - and since all others listed 2 DCR (exept one listing 2 DCT which may be generic for both) - or no mention of ASW at all.

Would you card to share which ships are effected (and how and when if you will) should I care to make the changes before the next update. I wish to start a new CAIO game and would like to include the changes. I fully realize that the ASW is still experimental. and stc (subject to change).

As a side note, I have also decided to open up Calcutta to shipping after reading a couple of sites on the Internet indicating in was in fact a major port. My movement flow of oil and resources from Diamond Harbour seemed sluggish and besides if Calcutta was used I want to account for it. While I was at it I opened the up river system from that point and reinstated the river ports and associated shipping. I'll take my chances as to the AI using it and causing game breaking problems, but, that can't be any worse that ongoing comprehensive updates every couple of weeks.

I do have a question relating to these changes. Do you have any information ( and sources) as to the size/tonnage of ships that could actually use Calcutta. I expect to play my own house rules as to what ships will be allow there and which will need to be stopped at Diamond Harbour.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach



Would you card to share which ships are effected (and how and when if you will) should I care to make the changes before the next update. I wish to start a new CAIO game and would like to include the changes. I fully realize that the ASW is still experimental. and stc (subject to change).

I've looked through my book, and generally I'd say that before PH, all DD classes including the Farraguts carried two DCR's; the earlier classes received at least four DCT early in the war (the earliest picture of a Mahan with DCT I've found dates from March, 1942). I say at least because El Cid is right in that there were many variations, some Farraguts for instance carried six to eight (DD-350 Hull) DCT. Especially early in the war, ships got what was available when they were modified. I think we'll need AE to do justice to all the variants; if we wanted to track accurately all modifications involving weapons and sensors, it might be necessary to define several separate upgrade paths for ships of the same basic class (just as an example: late in 1942, the Mahans received two 40mm twins, but some ships mounted 28mm quads before that, some didn't). Early ships modified to AAW 1945 standard generally kept four DCT, but some lost one DCR. From the Fletchers onwards, all DDs had two DCR and six DCT (except some of the Sumner DMs which only had four DCT mounted on top of the deckhouse aft).