The Reluctant Admiral

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Thank you. I'll need all the help I can get when it comes to the aircraft stuff.

OK. Can you send me the scenario file to work on directly or should I just write a list of plane stats for you? In either case, I need an outline of your final choices for fighter development.

Stanislav--Send me a PM with your email and I will send the Scenario with a note or two. THANKS!

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer



Happy to do air or ship art - just let me know what sort of thing you want. Some of my work is shown here...

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2404596

That is NICE work! FatR and BK--Which planes do we have that will need artwork? If you guys could post here then maybe chat about it on the Thread it would be informative.

None really ... A6M4 with A6M3 fixed wings and A6M8 62 larger Kinsei engine could deserve something .

OK. For artwork we will need these and what other planes? FatR you and Juan said that we needed a couple of crossover planes between Army and Navy. Which ones specifically for artwork? Should there be differing Naval and Army coloration?


EDIT: Current list of planes: A6M4, A6M8, Ki-67, Ki-83, and Q2M.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Are you going to add a 3 or 4 plane Chutai of recon Judy's to your heavy CVs (based on when they become available)??

That certainly could be done. It would overload the CVs slightly but a small group of 3 dedicated Judys per CV could be feasible. Anyone got an idea about this?

[John 3rd]

Here is the corrected and more heavily armed Sho after what was mentioned last page. I increased (above and beyond the original changes) the 25MM by 18 to a side reflecting no useless rocket launchers. The radar can now see 'all around!' See if there are any issues NOW:


Got to go out and have massive snowball fight with my sons. Wish me luck!

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

If you do work out a repaint for these I would be interested in them too as I am adding these to the IJN for my scenario's too.

I have pretty much no drawing skills, but I've found at least one picture of IJN-controlled Ki-67s' camouflage colors on the net, if you're interested in that.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: FatR

ORIGINAL: JuanG

If you do work out a repaint for these I would be interested in them too as I am adding these to the IJN for my scenario's too.

I have pretty much no drawing skills, but I've found at least one picture of IJN-controlled Ki-67s' camouflage colors on the net, if you're interested in that.

Send it to Red Lancer so he can make the art from the picture. If we find anything else let us send it to him.

[John 3rd]

Consider the fact that this Mod is being worked on by an idiot to begin with...
 
I am trying to attach the new scenario to send to FatR so he can work on the aircraft and air groups.  How do I do that?  I have the editor open but cannot find the files.  Went in to attach from the AE Main Directory but no joy there either.  Issues...
 
Help please...
 

[RedLancer]

Voila - a Ki-83 (actually one I did for RHS). Now I've got the request list I'll work on the others plus the topside art. Do you want to specify the slots to use on the master bmps or for me to do it. I'll add to Juan's WNT art so no need to swap files. I do think the modding community (i.e. this forum's community) ought to agree a standard against slots.

[John 3rd]

Red Lancer---please run with it however you would like.
 

[John 3rd]

Sent the files to Stan so he has them to work on.
 
Stan, BK, and Juan---Please post anything you think needs to have new artwork done here so Red Lancer knows what you would like.
 
Stan---I forgot to mention that you might as well change the deployment dates for the aircraft and make sure the upgrade paths are how we decided in the earlier Thread.  Good Luck and many thianks for helping with this.  If you have issues, questions and/or comments please post them here for everyone to see and read.
 
I'm going to finish the Battlecruisers and additional DDs this afternoon as well as shift to map changes for factories, yards, etc...
 

[RedLancer]

The A6M8 is already in the Editor / Stock Artwork - Slot 619 / BMP 20

[FatR]

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

OK. For artwork we will need these and what other planes? FatR you and Juan said that we needed a couple of crossover planes between Army and Navy. Which ones specifically for artwork? Should there be differing Naval and Army coloration?


EDIT: Current list of planes: A6M4, A6M8, Ki-67, Ki-83, and Q2M.

Q2M never got past the blueprints stage, and honestly I don't think it was a great concept. Why derive a patrol plane from your highest-performance bomber, when you already have increasingly obsolete Betty, which satisfies the requirements for range, patrol time and payload? Just outfit them with appropriate equipment. Army relegated early versions of Helen to this role... If you want an extra ASW aircraft for late war, why not base it on Betty? And yes, there's already art for A6M8.

[RedLancer]

I've found this photo of the A6M4. As you can see as the prototype the turbocharger was just bodged onto the side. I would think that a production version would have some form of cowling. I intend to use a A6M3 and create a cowling on the side. As a land based interceptor should I use a green colour scheme? Obviously the wings shouldn't fold - should they have square wingtips? I have to admit that japanese aircraft is not my forte - ask for anything but please either give me a picture or a simple set of instructions.

[RedLancer]

The Ki-83 is also already in Slot 824 / BMP 224 - I can see I'm rapidly writing myself out of a job.

[John 3rd]

FatR wrote me the following:





Just to confirm, as the previous thread got a bit confusing by the end - you prefer the early A7M-MK9 scenario with the land-based interceptor Zero line upgrading to A6M8i, instead of merging with the main line at A6M8, and a bit of acceleration to George.

This is the last Post settling things (as far as I could see):

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

But just because I can:

The carrier fighter line (conservative, emphazis on mass production)
A6M2
->A6M5 (42/10, no changes)
->A6M5b (43/3, no changes)
->A6M8 (43/8, +1 hex to all ranges, max speed around 365, reflecting the overall design polish and improvements to the Kinsei engine, otherwise no changes)

Then there is a major point of divergence, depending on whether Navy basically just listens to Horikoshi in early 1943 and accepts his line of thought that a heavier fighter is absolutely necessary; decides that Zero cannot be effectively replaced in production by A7M and sticks with this decision until the deteriorating situation forces them to grasp at straws; or forces Mitshubishi to build a new fighter around another engine early on. The third scenario, assuming it can work, is covered by bklooste. In the second scenario A7M is available as in vanilla. A6M9 appears on 44/6. It features further small improvements across the board, except in range and gun armament. In the first scenario, assuming it can work, there are no further improvements to Zero, but A7M is advanced to about 45/1. (But you're still stuck with a very small A7M factory and need to spend a ton of everything to mass produce it.) Also, other planes that use MK9 can arrive earlier.


No disagreements..

Thus the question is to John and others what is the most likely
1. Accelerate A7M (I dont think this is viable due to the engine issues and the engine relationship mentioned the most attractive is the Kinsei and then the Mk9A not N. )
2. As historical ( but we need to find a job for the Zero div maybe bombers)
3. Build a new fighter ( prob just use the Frank with the Kinsei)

quote:



The land-based fighter line (faster adoption of designs conceptually different from A6M2):
A6M3 (42/2; has type 99-2 cannons, otherwise as in vanilla). All Jack kokutais use models from it, appropriate for their time of arrival. Land-based units can convert to them.
-> A6M3b (42/5, as described by bklooste in the post #218)
-> A6M4 (43/1; as described by bklooste in the post #218, except not carrier-capable and with 13.2 Navy MGs)))
-> A6M4i (43/7; 20mm cannons are replaced with 30mm)

Then there is the point of divergence based on the decision above. In the second scenario, there is probably a strong drive to develop heavy-armed Zeros, so A6M8i and A6M9i with 30mm armament and better high-altitude performance, but worse overall performance, smaller range and no ability to fly from carriers become available in time. In the first scenario, the factory just upgrades to A6M8, if the player allows.

George can be slightly accelerated in either scenario. In the first scenario N1K5-J becomes available at least half a year later


No real disagreements either you can make them carrier based if not carrier based i would bump performance a smidgen due to fixed wings , faster roll and lighter under carriage. I also pasted updated stats on this page.





Also, should some other planes be accelerated? Judy, Jill, and G4M2 all were suggested earlier (in particular, G4M2 was even deployed in combat before its availability date in vanilla, just in very small numbers due to technical difficulties).

As to these Lines we can probably discuss this. I see, through the Yamamoto patronage, an advancement of 2-6 months for each model based on what was most practical. Thoughts on this topic?

[John 3rd]

BK and FatR check and make sure but I am pretty certain this was our final agreed upon development path.  FatR look to Page 9 and 10 of the brainstorming Thread for the final stats on the design changes to existing models.
 

[FatR]

Just to note, I intend to take into account bklooste's proposals in the posts from #259 to #267 in the old thread. Except those that aren't technically possible (factories, AFAIK, always upgrade when the next plane in the tree is available, unles the upgrade is set to OFF).

P.S. John, I'll need to work on the locations file too, factories are there.

[John 3rd]

I am skimming Pages 9 and 10 right now and will post the pertinent quotes:

1: (Post 258) Go with the times for FatR
All George models come in 2 months earlier , 6 months for N1K5.
Go for the more reliable A7M2 with the Ha-43 and lets say 44/11.

2: Interceptor Path
A6M3 42/2 All Jack sentai become A6M3 ( as historical)

A6M3a 42/6

A6M3b 42/5;
Altitude 37000
Max speed 341
Cruise 240
Endurance 270 ( compare to 450 for a A6m3A)
Climb 2870
Armour 1 , Dur 25.
2 Nose 7.7mm , 2* 20mm ( dropped the extra 12.7 in favour of protection and balance)
Max load 441
Maneuver as A6M3A
34/34/34/28/22
1 * 150L Drop tank for redeployment.
1 * 30kg bomb
A6M3A internal fuel tank was 570 L , we reduce this by 230L to 370L 40%.
We Increase armour by 110kg
Overall weight is reduced by 150kg drop tank , 230kg fuel = 380kg (more if it takes of with bombs) and we spend 110kg
= 270kg or ~10%-15% lighter.
I have conservatively increased speed by 1.5% , climb by 6% and max altitude by 0.5% to reflect this.


A6M4 43/1(Compared to A6M8 with same engine)
Carrier capable
Altitude 38075 (+1000)
Max Speed :358 (+2)
Climb 2970 (+3%)
Cruise 230
Endurance 270 ( -15)
Armour 1 , Dur 27.
2 * 12.7mm , 2* 20mm
Max Load 441 (-600)
Maneuver: 30/30/30/18/11 ( No super charger)


A6M4i 43/8
Maneuver: 30/30/30/23/17
Upgrade 20mm to Type 2 30mm Cannon.

A6M4i upgrades to A6M8 and the A6M8i ( to cover A6M3 path)

A6M8i 43/12
+ 2 Dur.
Maneuver: 31/31/31/25/19
A6M8i upgrades to the J7

J7 Shinden avilable 5/45 this plane would greatly benefit from work

Factories.
All J2 factories become Zero and upgrade automatically when available A6M3 -> A6M3 -> A6m3i -> A6m4 ->a6m8i .

The Factories producing some Mitsubishi Ha-32 for the Jack are converted to Nakajima Ha-34 Just move some numbers over.
43/1 Nakajima Ha-33 factory for Dinah ( and A6M4) is increased by 20.

Note im deliberately creating a shortage of this engine to encourage more M5 for efficiency reasons

3. (Post 262) All George models come in 1-3 months earlier , 6 months for N1K5.

N1K1 9/43 -> 8/43 (-1)
N1K2 11/44 -> 6/44 (-3) actually N1K1 was produced in 2/44 but in quantities of 1-2 till the 11th.
N1K5 10/45 -> 4/45 (-6)


A7M1 cancelled
Go for the more reliable A7M2 with the Ha-43 and lets say 44/11.

G3M4 Nell , Nell using the Ha-33 which is a slot in replacement for the G3M3.
Available 43/6 Max speed 285 , Endurance 800 , Armour 1. Uses high demand engine.

4. (Post 266) The carrier fighter line (conservative, emphazis on mass production)
A6M2
-> A6M3a (42/6) [Option] no auto upgrades of facilties
->A6M5 (42/10, no changes)
->A6M5b (43/3, no changes)
->A6M8 (was 43/8) suggest available 43/6 with factories auto upgrading 43/10 , max speed 358. + 1 hex to all ranges.
->A6M9 44/4 auto upgrade refinement of the A6M8 Additional +1 hex to all ranges , +1 manuever at top 2 altitudes , max speed around 365, reflecting the overall design polish and improvements to the Kinsei engine, otherwise no changes) .Max load 1400.

Note engine factories dont upgrade eg no Sakei to Kinsei freebies.


Some of the above is a bit confusing but I think it works when you see it as a continium. FatR--Read through and see what works and what you have issues with. Post thoughts here and we'll see what happens.

[John 3rd]

ORIGINAL: FatR

Just to note, I intend to take into account bklooste's proposals in the posts from #259 to #267 in the old thread. Except those that aren't technically possible (factories, AFAIK, always upgrade when the next plane in the tree is available, unles the upgrade is set to OFF).

P.S. John, I'll need to work on the locations file too, factories are there.

OK. I will hold off on the Shipyard and other Economic changes until you get finished. I'll finish with the Fleet and then we can talk about how you are progressing through stuff.

[FatR]

As I said before, if Mitsubishi focuses on A7M2 early, there should be no A6M9. I'd slightly adjust some numbers. Is G3M4 supposed to be created to utilize the now-widely-produced engine? If so, we might have another answer to the problem of ASW plane (G3M3, accidentally, already is the best patrol aicraft IJN has in AE) but IRL G3M lacked speed, ceiling and defensive armament, compared to G4M, so, if the idea above catches on, it isn't inconceivable that Navy planners will decide to create a dedicated patrol plane on the basis of an outdated airframe, instead of pushing this airframe out of production.