Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

Hi Don,

This is a late request. I realised while adding in data for Canadian coastal defences to my map mod that the 6inch CD gun is mobile. Because some of the Canadian batteries I am adding don't have heavier guns, this means that theoretically the forts can be picked up and moved by the Allies, which should not be allowed since they are fixed fortifications.

Is it possible to add in a new 6inch CD gun, which would be a copy of the current one (device 457) but with a load cost of 9999 and some armour (say 200-250)?

Thanks,
Andrew

Done

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Hi all,

Not Japanese fanboy.

OK - just wanted to be sure.

The Japanese in the war never matched allied increases in fire control but at the wars begining they were considered to have the best fire control and damage control technology in the world. Radar was the only field where Japan did not keep up.

This is an area my in-expertise, but I had always heard that Japanese damage control sucked. And I thought early war AA fire control consisted of an officer with a stick saying "get that one - that one over there!"

Accuracy of AA weapons in this game in other words is based largely on rate of fire.

Good point, but I'm going to question sources on the next one.

The 20mm Oerliokon was widely considered a mediocre weapon

Again pointing out my lack of sources - I have always heard that the perceived problem wtih the 20mm came from the British distrust of a weapon that fired so rapidly that the breech was not completely closed when it fired. Friedman states that it was the weapon of choice and competition was fierce for available guns during refits. The only problem mentioned was top-weight of the gun and it's very large ammo supply and, later, lack of stopping power against Kamikazes. Don't mean to start an argument as I am completely unequipped for one on this subject - just searching for the right answer.

The Allied 28mm gun is considered one of the worst AA weapons ever

Based on it's world class jamming performance, I agree.

The squad values were based upon another forum members work which was done comparing numbers of men and effective armament at different points in the war.

Point taken. I'll review the values for the devices I added to see if any of them need adjustment based on your values. Recommendations appreciated.

But we wouldn't want Japan shooting something down.

I agree with you there - I like my airplanes and I don't want them destroyed.

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Hi all,

Not Japanese fanboy.
One of the mistakes some of the board members make is assuming that Matrix made this game pro-Japanese.
This is patently not so. The game provides a hidden mod for allied AA, yet the 20mm Oerlikon has 90 accuracy and the 25mm Hotchkiss has 33. The Japanese in the war never matched allied increases in fire control but at the wars begining they were considered to have the best fire control and damage control technology in the world.
Radar was the only field where Japan did not keep up.

Accuracy of AA weapons in this game in other words is based largely on rate of fire. Think about it. Hard. Even with my changes to some AA weapons the Japanese are still underrated.
The 25mm AA gun was a perfectly fine AA weapon that had a problem with ammo feed. That problem lowered its rate of fire from twice what the 40mm Bofors could do, to the same as the 40mm Bofors gun. The 20mm Oerliokon was widely considered a mediocre weapon yet in this game it is 3 times as effective as the 25mm gun WITHOUT the allied radar bonus.

The Allied 28mm gun is considered one of the worst AA weapons ever yet it has a base accuracy of 75; wow 15 less than the Oerlikon, only 2.3 times as high as the 25mm! So generous Matrix.

I reworked the accuracy values of AA weapons based on real rates of fire with slight adjustements for quality of various weapons.
Then i scaled my results back because I could here the Allied fan boys screaming 'they were just blind monkeys with sticks, they couldn't shoot anything down!' Wah!

The squad values were based upon another forum members work which was done comparing numbers of men and effective armament at different points in the war. Accurate not fan boy.

You may have noticed in heavy ship weapons i increased Allied capability not Jappanese. The American 14in guns should probably
have a slightly higher accuracy and penetration. The late war 14in was the best penetrator of any American naval gun. Yes, even the 16in/50.

I increased the accuracy of the 3.7in British AA gun.
I lowered the type 99 Japanese aircraft 20mm cannons accuracy.

This was based on as accurate of info as i can find.
If i had my choice the 25mm AA gun should have 75 accuracy or so. Not 40. But we wouldn't want Japan shooting something down.

Mike

Well, I'm all for historical accuracy yadayadayada so why not try the 25 mm at Lemurs rating? I'm concerned about the barrage issue...perhaps this was done to compensate for it.

Will you consider something for the .50 cal? The discrepancy between the ship, air and AA versions in the database is truly bizarre.....

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Will you consider something for the .50 cal? The discrepancy between the ship, air and AA versions in the database is truly bizarre.....

I'd like to but I was kinda waiting for some resolution. I've been following the discussion. I'll admit once again that I am not an ordnance guy - kind of embarrassing as I was a U.S. Navy Missile Technician and missiles are … ordnance.

For areas outside of my expertise I tend to stay with Matrix unless an expert steps forward or a consensus for change develops.

I guess there is a bigger question in here wrapped around the 50 cal. Are ranges different depending on what type of combat the weapon was employed? Seems as though range differs for each combat...air, naval, land....if son, then the differences can be explained...if not, then there is an issue with ranges and the entire database needs to be scrubbed. There are currently three separate and distinct devices for a 50 cal in the original database depending on their use. Each has different values!

Hey Lemurs! - your device changes include an increase of the ceiling for the 40mm 2pdr AA Gun from 9900 to 19900. Is this correct??

Here are all the device changes SO FAR. They are expressed as changes from V1.4, Scenario 15. There will almost certainly be more.

Comments, adjustments, and bribes welcome.

(15) 14in/50 Mk 7 Gun: Accuracy increased to 15.
(23) 5in/38 Mk 22 Gun: Accuracy reduced to 170.
(26) 15in/42 Mk I Gun: Accuracy reduced to 20.
(43) 5.1in/50 M1924 Gun: Replaced with 3in/23 AA Gun.
(47) 5.25in/50 QF Gun: Accuracy reduced to 75.
(48) 5in/40 Type 89 Gun: Accuracy increased to 85.
(50) 3.9in/65 Type 98 Gun: Accuracy increased to 160.
(51) 3.9in/50 Type 88 Gun: Accuracy incraesed to 130.
(54) 5in/25 Mk 10 Gun: Accuracy reduced to 85.
(55) 5in/38 Mk 12 Gun: Accuracy reduced to 170.
(64) 3in/50 M1922 Gun: Accuracy reduced to 160.
(65) 5in/54 Mk 16 Gun: New device added.
(69) 25mm Type 96 AA Gun: Accuracy increased to 40.
(71) 40mm 2pdr AA Gun: Accuracy reduced to 80.
(73) 20mm Oerlikon AA Gun:
(74) 1.1in Mk 1 AA Gun: Accuracy reduced to 65
(77) .303 Vickers MG: Name corrected to .303 Vickers MG.
(82) 3pdr AA Gun: New Device Added.
(105) Mk VII Depth Charge: Range reduced to 300
Accuracy reduced to 5
Effect reduced to 145.
(106) Type 91 Depth Charge: Range reduced to 82
Accuracy reduced to 3
Effect reduced to 110.
(107) Type 95 Depth Charge: Range reduced to 155
Accuracy reduced to 4
Effect reduced to 162.
(108) Type 2 Depth Charge: Range reduced to 238
Accuracy reduced to 5
Effect reduced to 180.
(109) 3in A/S Mortar: Range reduced to 500
Accuracy reduced to 15
Effect reduced to 18.
(110) Mk 6 Depth Charge: Range reduced to 150
Accuracy reduced to 4
Effect reduced to 150.
(111) Mk 7 Depth Charge: Range reduced to 150
Accuracy reduced to 5
Effect reduced to 300.
(112) Mk 7/m1 Depth Charge: Range reduced to 300
Accuracy reduced to 6
Effect reduced to 300.
(113) Mk 9 Depth Charge: Range reduced to 300
Accuracy reduced to 10
Effect reduced to 100.
(114) Hedgehog Mk 10: Range reduced to 500
Accuracy reduced to 84
Effect reduced to 18.
(115) Hedgehog Mk 11: Range reduced to 500
Accuracy reduced to 67
Effect reduced to 18.
(116) Mousetrap Mk 20: Range reduced to 500
Accuracy reduced to 20
Effect reduced to 18.
(117) Mousetrap Mk 22: Range reduced to 500
Accuracy reduced to 30
Effect reduced to 18.
(120) Type 88 Mine: Accuracy increased to 5.
(153) 13.2mm FN MG: Replaced with device 7.7mm Type 89N MG.
(154) 7.5mm MAC-M39 MG: Replaced with device 7.7mm Type 97N MG.
(155) 7.7mm SAFAT MG: Replaced with device 13mm Type 2N MG.
(157) 7.9mm MG 17: Replaced with device 12.7mm Type 1N MG.
(158) 7.9mm MG 15: Replaced with device 12.7mm Ho-103N MG.
(160) 12.7mm SAFAT MG: Replace with device .50 Browning Nose MG.
(161) .50 Browning MG: Accuracy reduced to 28.
(167) 20mm Cannon MG FF: Accuracy increased to 27.
(168) 20mm Hispano Cannon: Accuracy reduced to 25.
(184) 7.7mm Type 97 MG: Accuracy increased to 26.
(185) 7.7mm Type 92 MG: Accuracy increased to 19.
(188) 20mm Type 99 Cannon: Accuracy reduced to 21
(189) 20mm Type 99 mod.2: Accuracy increased to 24.
(190) 20mm Cannon Ho-3: Accuracy reduced to 24.
(191) 20mm Cannon Ho-5: Accuracy reduced to 26.
(192) 30mm Cannon Ho-105: Accuracy increased to 16.
(194) 37mm Cannon Type 98: Accuracy increased to 4
(208) 250 kg AP Bomb: Effect increased to 375.
(244) Nissan Engines: Renamed Adv. Mit. Engines.
(246) Toyoda Engines: Renamed Adv. Nak. Engines.
(258) IJA Cavalry Squad: Anti-soft increased to 22.
(259) IJA Cavalry Squad: Anti-soft increased to 23
(264) IJA Infantry Squad: Anti-Armor increased to 10.
Anti-soft increased to 24
(265) IJA Infantry Squad: Anti-Armor increased to 15.
Anti-soft increased to 25.
(266) IJA Infantry Squad: Anti-armor increased to 15
Anti-soft increased to 26.
(273) 25mm AA Gun (3): Accuracy increased to 80.
(275) 75mm AA Gun: Effect increased to 15.
(289) 150mm Howitzer: Range increased to 11
Accuracy reduced to 3.
(290) 150mm Gun: Accuracy increased to 4.
(306) Type 1 Medium Tank: Availability changed to 4201.
(307) Type 3 Medium Tank: Availability changed to 4301.
(315) USA Rifle Squad: Anti-soft changed to 18.
(318) USA Rifle Squad: Anti-soft changed to 33.
(319) USA Airborne Squad: Anti-soft changed to 31.
(325) USMC Rifle Squad: Anti-soft changed to 19
(326) USMC Rifle Squad: Anti-Armor changed to 25
Anti-soft changed to 26.
(327) USMC Rifle Squad: Anti-Armor changed to 35
Anti-soft changed to 28
(328) USMC Raider Squad: Anti-Armor changed to 5
Anti-soft changed to 21.
(329) USMC Raider Squad: Anti-soft changed to 30.
(332) Naval CB Squad: New device added.
(333) ANZAC Cavalry Squad: Build rate reduced to 3.
(334) ANZAC Infantry Squad: Anti-soft reduced to 23.
(335) ANZAC Infantry Squad: Anti-soft reduced to 24.
(336) ANZAC Infantry Squad: Anti-armor increased to 15
Anti-soft reduced to 26
(337) ANZAC Infantry Squad: Anti-armor reduced to 65
Anti-soft reduced to 28
(338) ANZAC Light Squad: Anti-soft reduced to 22.
(339) ANZAC Light Squad: Anti-soft reduced to 23.
(340) ANZAC Light Squad: Anti-soft reduced to 25.
(341) ANZAC Light Squad: Anti-armor reduced to 55
Anti-soft reduced to 27
(345) Aus Independent Sec; New device added.
(346) British Rifle Squad: Anti-soft reduced to 23.
(347) British Rifle Squad: Anti-soft reduced to 27.
(348) British Light Squad: Build rate increased to 4.
(349) British Light Squad: Anti-soft increased to 25
Build rate increased to 4.
(353) Indian Rifle Squad: Anti-soft reduced to 26.
(360) CW Rifle Squad: Build rate reduced to 36.
(362) PC Rifle Squad: New device added.
(366) PA Engineer Squad: New device added.
(404) 20mm Oerlikon AA Gun: Accuracy reduced to 85
(410) 3in AA Gun: Accuracy reduced to 140.
(415) 90mm AA Gun: Accuracy reduced to 100.
(416) 3.7in AA Gun: Accuracy increased to 110.
(420) 2pdr AT Gun: Upgrade changed to (432) 6pdr AT gun
(423) 6pdr AT Gun: Build rate changed to 22.
(424) 57mm AT Gun: Build rate changed to 122.
(425) 76mm AT Gun: Availability changed to 4312
Build rate reduced to 61.
(443) 105mm Howitzer: Build rate changed to 148
(451) 155mm Field Gun: Build rate changed to 64.
(470) M3 Stuart Light Tank: Build rate increased to 17.
(473) M3 Lee Tank: Build rate increased to 6.
(481) Vickers Mark VI Tank: New device added.
(484) Stuart I LightTank: Build rate reduced to 27.
(486) Grant Tank: Build rate reduced to 27.
(487) Sherman V Tank: Build rate reduced to 27.
(488) Matilda II Tank: Build rate increased to 10.
(489) Valentine III Tank: Build rate increased to 10.
(490) Marmon-Hrringtn Tank: New device added.
(511) M3A1 White Scout Car: New device added.
(529) Overvalwagen: New device added.
(530) Bren Carrier: New device added.
(531) Alvis Armored Car: New device added.
(532) M8 Armored Car: New device added.
(533) Stuart I LightTank: Copy of device 484 with upgrade to Grant Medium Tank.
(534) 7in CD Gun: New device added.
(535) 180mm CD Gun: New device added.
(536) 6in CD Gun: Copy of device 457 with load cost set to 9999.

Hi all,

Lots of research today to keep people happy.

First, the 2pdr British AA gun has an effective ceiling of 9900ft and a max ceiling of 19900ft. Lying is an artform for essentially every government and military organization in the world. The British in WW2 were more or less an exception, as they had the most accurate accounting of air to air kills, actual ranges for weapons etc.

As Matrix chose to use max ceiling for every other weapon in the game, I felt the British should not be penalized for honesty.

Oerlikon. Now, you have to realize the Oerlikon 20mm was not a bad gun in any way but it was not uber weapon either. The American ship crews were clamoring for 20mm's in '42 because they were stuck with 28mm pieces of garbage, .50 M2's, and honest to god 7.7mm Lewis guns for AA protection. Wouldn't you clamor too?

Don't get me wrong; if i had to name a favorite light to medium MG i would name the Lewis gun. Just not in a serious AA role in WW2!

The British and Americans did not buy the Oerlikon because it was the best weapon available. In fact America planned to manufacture their own weapon but there were 3 basic techs used for recoil/chambering. Those 3 systems were patented by Hispano-Suiza, Solothurn and Oerlikon, so until the patents ran out no one could make a 20mm cannon without a totally new idea.
We did not have a totally new idea which means we had to buy one of the others.

Hispano-Suiza was not willing to license their 20mm for a resonable price, Solothurn was not selling to Allied countries in '39 or '41 which is when Britain and America wanted these weapons. That left Oerlikon. Oerlikon is a good weapon with two faults. It is a very highly machined item needing many spare parts. We will get to that in further detail later.
The other problem was low shell weight as the Oerlikon 20 was in reality a rebored 19mm gun and the weight of projectile was never really increased to match the new barrel.

As an aside the German 20mm AA guns were licensed Oerlikons and when Germany overran France in '40 the Germans replaced as many of their 20mm with Hotchkiss 25mm guns as possible.

Now we reach Hotchkiss. First, the US army .30cal M1909 Mg was a Hotchkiss gun. The US army .30cal M1919 Mg was a direct development of the previous gun. The M2 Browning Heavy Barrel .50cal Mg (probably the most used heavy Mg ever) was built from a single 11mm Hotchkiss Mg importedby Browning.

The Hotchkiss 25mm was an effective light AA gun. It had no serious flaws other than the feed which limited its rate of fire.
Hotchkiss weapons were very mechanically reliable and the Japanese version was even more reliable with some new features added, such as stainless steel moving parts to stop corrosion.

Now to stats.

Oerlikon 20mm Mk2:
10,000 ft max ceiling
2725ft/sec muzzle velocity
.44lb shell weight
RoF (ideal): 450rpm
RoF (War service): 270rpm
Barrel life: 9000 rounds
Average breakdown time per gun: every 7000 rounds

Hotchkiss 25mm/ Japanese Type 96 AA gun
Max ceiling: 18030ft
Effective ceiling: 16400ft
2953ft/sec Muzzle velocity
.64lb shell weight
RoF(ideal): 250 rounds per minute
RoF(war service): 130 rounds per minute
Barrel life: 20000 rounds
Weapon breakdown average: every 24000 rounds

Bofors 40mm for example (yes, this was the best light-medium AA gun of the war.)
Max Ceiling: 23600 feet
Max rate of fire: 130 Rounds per minute
War service rate of fire: 85 rounds per minute
Barrel life: 18000 Rounds
Weapon Breakdown: in excess of 25000 rounds

Where did the 'Japanese damage control is garbage' come from? I think a few racist books coming out shortly after(and before) WW2
contributed and then these books were sourced for other works and taken verbatim. Many historical mistakes come from this kind of thing.

The Japanese damage control was not perfect but the only huge loss due to bad damage control was the Taiho and that was essentially a new idea to dissipate dangerous vapours that did not work. One ship.
The Shokaku and Zuikaku survived damage. The Shokaku survived horrendous damage actually.
The Mogami after Midway was hit harder than any American cruiser was during the war yet survived. Several Yugumo class destroyers survived very heavy damage.

Much of the Japanese damage control equipment was American or British license products.

Did you know Japan was the first country to use auto pilots for their bombers? It was an American licensed system put ito use in the 30's when the USAAC thought it was too complicated.

The Japanese destroyers Fubuki and newer carried two modern AAA directors. The Shokaku class carriers carried 4 modern directors for their 127mm guns and 6 directors for their 25mm AA guns.

The Japanese purchased a state of the art American AA director in 1935 or 36, tested it, decided it was too primitive and designed and built their own which was more advanced. The British naval attache in 1939 witnesed a wargame test at a towed target plane and reported to the British government that Japan's AA direction was superior to Britains at that time.

Now, i am not trying to say Japan was perfect; Their directors did not advance much between 1937 and 1943. The Americans did.
The Japanese did not develop good working radar controlled directors untill '44.

Japanese damage control's biggest problem was a lack of technically trained recruits. The Average American had some experience with technology; the average Japanese did not. If the Japanese damage control parties were wiped out or trapped by fire then the ship was usually doomed.

From the American intelligence reports at the end of the war.
"Japanese anti aircraft fire was so deadly that it accounted for 70% of the Air Force losses and 88% of the Navy aircraft losses"

Mike

The Japanese infantry used the second best ATR of the war that was 20mm calibre. Yes, it would not penetrate a Sherman or Matilda but it was usefull against light armour and for shooting off tracks and such.

That is why i increased Japanese infantry squad anti-armour capabilities.

Mike

Hi all,

The Japanese also had the most modern, capable coast artillery in the world. Yes, even better than America.

These are not in the game.

Two twin 20cm turrets
Two twin 25cm turrets
Six twin 30cm turrets
Three twin 41cm turrets

These were electric and hydraulic naval turrets. They all had 12in plate. They were air conditioned and exceptionally well concealed. They had their own diesel engines to run power.
They were used to defend the major Japanese ports from invasion.

Mike

Gary Grigsby games are a good example of inertia. People start playing AirForce, Dauntless, Flattop, and the Grigsbys 1980's games and then PacWar & WiR.

These games simplified weapon loadouts for game purposes so now we have a group of otherwise intelligent people having problems accepting change.
Everyone thinks Japan used 250kg bombs for everything.
Well, no. They regullarly used 500kg bombs and 60kg bomblets.

One forum regular sceamed at me for about three pages that Japan never used the 60kg bomb on their Vals and said i should actually read a book before opening my mouth.

I did. It took me 1 day to find both a Japanese and an American source talking about the use of 60kg bombs at Midway and Santa Cruz.

Coral Sea, Eastern Solomons, and Mariannas the range was too long so they were not carried. 5 carrier battles guys. It is hard to make big blanket statements about a weapon system that was only tried out 5 times on carriers.

Someone on the B17 thread said that B29's flew over Japan unescorted so they should be able to in the game because Japan is not Germany.
Um, yeah. There was, what, one B29 raid in '44 against Japan? essentially all of the raids were in '45. Guess what, by '45 Allied bombers could fly unescorted across Germany as well.

Getting past inertia is the hardest thing humans can do. Matrix did a lot of work on this OOB but their numbers were not handed to them by god and some of their numbers may need radical change.

I am sorry to be preachy, but the fear of change bothers me.
Mike

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
I am sorry to be preachy, but the fear of change bothers me.
Mike

I guess I am as guilty as the next guy about “fear of change” – maybe more so as I am older and it’s quite a tradition with us older folks. Long held opinions and previously incontrovertible facts do die hard. But I am impressed with good research and smart enough to use it.

All the changes from “scen 29” are in. Let me know if you have specs for the additional coast defense guns and on the review of “scen 66” (I’ll send you a change list in regular mail).

Don

P.S. A little ahead but I noticed that you have increased the aircraft complement of some Japanese carriers to the maximum figure. Akagi, for instance, is usually given as 91, with 72 operational maximum and the rest spare. Matrix used 72, you’ve upped it to 91. Do you have any information on the spare aircraft handling abilities of Japanese carriers?? Also, how does this relate to U.S. Carriers? Enterprise carried 91 aircraft (everyone forgets CAG’s personal aircraft) plus a number of spares. Her spares were tucked away, with some suspended from the hanger roof – waiting to fall when the ship was hit. Never the less, they were fully assembled spare aircraft in addition to those in service. How should spares be handled in general??

Hi Don,

The Japanese carriers, with Akagi as an example, started with a complement of 72 aircraft with the potential for 18 spares.

When the carrier was rebuilt the capacity was increased to 91 with a maximum of 11 spares. The Japanese never operated that many aircraft not because they could not but through lack of properly trained pilots. We, in the game, have our choice if we want to allow lesser trained pilots on our carriers (accept replacements) or to keep the airgroups elite. (do not accept replacements)

Contrary to popular belief the Japanese were ready and willing to use deck parks as early as '37 but, again, the lack of pilots meant there was never a reason to do so during the war. Even the Soryu was anticapted as being able to carry close to 90 aircraft using deck park.

I did not include the deck park capacity for the Japanese carriers because it was not used in the war. The Japanese spare aircraft were partially disassembled but could be reassembled in 4-6 hours.

Mike

We should probably add the 120mm Japanese radar directed AA gun to the game as well.

It was specifically mentioned by allied intelligence as the greatest threat to allied bombers in the final year of the war.

Mike

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Hi Don,

The Japanese carriers, with Akagi as an example, started with a complement of 72 aircraft with the potential for 18 spares.

When the carrier was rebuilt the capacity was increased to 91 with a maximum of 11 spares.
Mike

Am I reading this correctly: Akagi has 80 Operational and 11 spare for a total of 91. Or 91 operational and 11 spares for a total of 102??

Believe it or not the second is correct. 102 total but the last 11 were disassembled.

They could operate 91, Kaga 90, Shokaku's 84, Hiryu 72 or 71 depending on who you believe, Soryu 70 or 71 depending on who you believe. The Kaga did operate during the war with up to 85 aircraft plus spares, so you see that my numbers are not far off.

Before Pearl if i was running things as Japan i would have graduated a few dozen extra students to make the Pearl strike force bigger. Gee, only 650 flying hours? How will you stay in the air??

As a comparison to show another fallacy here are comparative flight hours for trainees in the respective navys.
USA / Japan
41: 305 700
42: 305 700
43: 500 500
44: 525 275
45: 525 90

As you can see '44 was the first big difference year. Most American carrier pilots in '42 came into Pearl and were immediately thrown on a carrier for operational service never having launched or landed on a carrier and never having flown a real fighter or bomber!

Many of the Japanese losses can, of course, be explained due to lack of armour and tough structures, but one thing we have to remember is that Japan fought almost all of the '43 to '45 battles outnumbered 2-1 or more. Of course they took heavy losses! Lack of radar also allowed America to get in devestating dawn raids catching Japanese aircraft on the ground.

Japanese command incompetence was also a huge factor. And, thank you very much, i can add my own incompetence, i do not need it factored in automatically!

Mike[:D]

Ah, i was thinking though, we may want to lower Japanese carrier capacity 10% or so and then the only way to reach the higher numbers would be through overloading.

Mike

Hi Don,

A couple of things:

- Thanks for adding in the fixed 6inch CD gun. But I believe that it should also have an armour rating if you haven't added one in yet - the other fixed CD guns have an armour rating, presumably to represent the fixed fortifications they were housed in. I would guess a value of 200 or so should be right (based on the values of the other fixed CD guns).

- There needs to be a 12pdr CD gun added as well. Tankerace has the stats for this weapon as he added into WPO. I will send him a PM asking for the weapon stats and I will pass it on.

Andrew

OK

I'll add the 12pdr (have stats) and the assorted Japanese CD weapons (need stats). I've got a few dozen parameter changes from another scenario to be added as well.

There are questions on 50Cal but nothing has been resolved.

With one unusual exception there are no additional devices being discused for use on ship classes. So, on to class definitions!

Don