Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Andrew Brown just confirmed that no new factories appear. [X(][X(][X(][X(]

That means that factory expansion will have to be calculated for in supply usage projections. Frankly, I foresee a lot of groups getting stuck in Organizing (I assume they still do?) before arriving.

Oh boy. That's going to complicate things. [:(]

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

well of course - booby trap may be a little strong.

But which of the choices do you prefer:

A German Dachshund having a go at your ancles

Or a German Shepard aiming for your butts.

And of course, you never know if both go for more "vital" parts of your male anatonomy eventually -

without testing there is no way of knowing.


[:D]

Don't forget to look at the service ratings. Doesn't do much good to swap a Dachshund for a German Shepard if the German Shepard is too sick to bite.

Chez

It's a bit of an old chestnut that has been addressed before, but the Model 32 Zero (A6M3) was carrier capable. An example can be seen departing the pointy end of Zuikaku in film footage said to have been shot at Santa Cruz. Hope this gets picked up and corrected in the scenario one data.

It shouldn't get changed. No A6M3 Model 32s were ever assigned to carrier units. All carrier units that operated the A6M3 used the model 22 (A6M3a). Doesn't mean that Model 32s couldn't take off and land from carriers, just that they weren't assigned to any CV airgroup.

Be interested to see the unit markings on that A6M3 on the Zuikaku.

Chez

Hi Gents !

Here we go again - some more data mining.

Looks like the dachshund/shephard thing has caught on [:D]
However I think I found reason to believe both may have a very distinct inclination to go after your vitals - reproduction related or not ... [:D]

Btw. Local Yokel: Mind if I use your file in a general compilation ?

Before we advance to the engine issue have a look at this:

Just in case you wonder:
There is no road/rail/ferry connection between Honshu and Kyushu (grapically) and even though there is one between Honshu and Shikoku, the base of Matsujama is connected pretty poorly, while the base at Kochi is not connected at all.

guess what ? Matsujama is producing engines ... and the poor connection shows, even though it may get you pretty much unawares (Aichi Ha-60, x 80 used for Judys)
If nothing else, this example suggests - to my lights - that all pruduction figures - any kind - provided by AE or "staff" should be taken by a grain of salt as far as factories on Kyushu and Shikoku go.

And of course there is Hokkaido.

From what the graphics say: I may have stumbled upon an issue relevant for more than ac/engine production ...

oops,

almost forgot here is the engine production file.
Not very relevant, since the in-game numbers apply, but anyway

Engines

Looks like, it is time to get some input by the powers that be, before any conclusions or even hypothesis can be outlined.
Going on a tangent ..

Just updated some information on engine production (engines.xls) ... data might still not be 100% but am working on it ...

--Damian--

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Hi Gents !

Here we go again - some more data mining.

Looks like the dachshund/shephard thing has caught on [:D]
However I think I found reason to believe both may have a very distinct inclination to go after your vitals - reproduction related or not ... [:D]

Btw. Local Yokel: Mind if I use your file in a general compilation ?

Before we advance to the engine issue have a look at this:

By all means - happy for you to do so!

On the subject of the map, it's also worth looking at the rail network for Japan. The absence of a road or rail connection across the Tsugaru Strait between Honshu and Hokkaido is correct, although a railway tunnel connecting these islands was built post-war.

The absence of any railway link across the Kanmon Strait between Honshu and Kyushu is more controversial. Whilst it's true that the first bore of the Kanmon Tunnel wasn't completed until June 1942, there had already been a train ferry service across the Strait since about 1911. So even if you discount the tunnel there's a basis for saying that some sort of railway link between Honshu and Kyushu should be shown. That's not to say that the Japanese were able to rely exclusively on rail transport to move freight between these islands, as I suspect that there remained a substantial need for coastwise shipping. Nevertheless the Kanmon Tunnel was an important Japanese transport link, and post-war interrogations of Japanese officers indicates they were acutely sensitive about it being a choke point in the rail network that was vulnerable to air attack.

Yikes. That is going to change my choices for resource/fuel dump port significantly. I don't have the manual handy but will stuff still cross water between two level 3 or better ports or has that been eliminated?

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

It's a bit of an old chestnut that has been addressed before, but the Model 32 Zero (A6M3) was carrier capable. An example can be seen departing the pointy end of Zuikaku in film footage said to have been shot at Santa Cruz. Hope this gets picked up and corrected in the scenario one data.

It shouldn't get changed. No A6M3 Model 32s were ever assigned to carrier units. All carrier units that operated the A6M3 used the model 22 (A6M3a). Doesn't mean that Model 32s couldn't take off and land from carriers, just that they weren't assigned to any CV airgroup.

Be interested to see the unit markings on that A6M3 on the Zuikaku.

Chez

Chez, I respectfully disagree. I have seen two photographs said to show A6M3's engaged in flying off Shokaku class carriers, and I have no reason to think that they were taken otherwise than during the course of combat as distinct from ferry operations. There is an interesting thread on the subject on the j-aircraft board here which points to this marque being used as replacement equipment for Shokaku's kansen-tai. If you can point to sources which put it beyond doubt that Model 32's were never assigned to carrier units, I should be very interested to see it. We know from the mix of Type 97's embarked in Ryujo that the Japanese weren't averse to operating different marques in the same unit, so I can't see why it should be any different with the fighters.

In any case, regardless of whether the Model 32 was actually assigned to a carrier's fighter unit, surely the fact that they were equipped to do so is what should determine whether they were carrier capable. Certainly I would take a Model 22 over a Model 32 as the equipment of choice for my carriers, given its superior range. But if you don't have that choice due to losses, as may well have been the case at the time it was introduced, I see no reason to deny the option of sending the Model 32 to sea aboard your carriers.

I guess I learned years ago that dumping resources/oil in Sasebo usually didn't see it move anywhere. I got in the habit of dropping it in Honshu ports. It would take an extra day or two, but I was confident that the HI was getting what it needed.

Never had any trouble with Sasebo. In fact, my stuff dumped at Sasebo tends to congregate on Hokkaido, which is annoying because it makes it look like Japan is low on resource when in actuality it is all piled up in Sapporo.

Wish there were bigger ports on the back side of Japan. Now it looks like our resource TFs are going to have to brave the sub gauntlet in front of Japan where it is much more difficult to get ASW assets on subs quickly.

The waypoint system with ASW TFs may help with that problem, Mynok.

I'm in the process of attempting to figure out the airframe factory delimma trying to create some of all of the needed airframes to get as many of the air units into the game as possible. Not sure how that will work though. Then I'll try to figure out the engine production program to fit the airframe program.

Phase I is to create a wire diagram for upgrades of all aircraft.

Actually I'm hoping Patrol will help, but I've not yet studied how it works yet for ASW assets. The problem is that most of the ASW assets are short-ranged, thus have to return to base often. This means they have to full speed rush out to jump on sub detections, which uses more fuel...a now precious commodity.

Waypoints may very well help with the cargo tf's avoiding subs though.

Will you publish your work in a joint wiki? Many of us hate forum search and even while "Must read threads" was usefull, I always fund it uncomfortable to have all the useless coments in between - as well as sometime there were different answers to a single question...

I assume that question was to me, Historiker. If it is, of course I will. I'm just trying to figure out an easy way to make the diagram right now.

Would you mind to say which part of the wiki you'll write?
Terminus said it quite right, there were already dead wiki projects. I don't want to work on a wiki that will end with the 4 articles I've written, so I'd like to already have an author for all needed part.

Thank you! [:)]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Yikes. That is going to change my choices for resource/fuel dump port significantly. I don't have the manual handy but will stuff still cross water between two level 3 or better ports or has that been eliminated?

I haven't tested this but 9.3.3.3 of the manual addresses this. The answer is "yes, but in limited quantities" For resources, the "ooze" is 500x port size (smallest of the two involved)

As written, it may only apply if the directly adjacent port needs the item but I'm hoping it's more general than that.

However, it's not going to be a lot in any case.

Anecdotal data point.

It's mid January against the AI and I have a shortage of Nates. Playing with PDU off most of these groups can't upgrade for ages either, the path being to Oscar II or Nick.

Something is preventing me from expanding the factory though. Blind prejudice probably ... [;)]

---
P.S. There are some half-decent ports on the "back" of Japan.

Fukuoka is size 10 (and has size 10 refinery)
Shimonoseki is 7(6) so can go to size 9 (and has size 160 refinery)
Maizuru is 5(6) so can go to size 9
Niigata is 5(4) so can go to size 7 (and has size 50 refinery)