(Almost ) Historical MOD

[inqistor]

Again, it is impossible to delete old file, so...

HERE IS MODIFIED SCENARIO 2, AS 32.

Main additions:
Ships capacity, except all tenders, and ammo ships, are reduced. Either by half (if sum of all cargo was greater, than ship tonnage), or to 65%, if sum was less, than tonnage, but greater, than half of ship tonnage. Otherwise capacity is unchanged.
Only bulk capacity is reduced. Neither passenger, or liquid have changed.
Magical formula is long:
=IF(AND(S2+T2+U2>V2/2,C2<>58,C2<>45,C2<>35,C2<>36,C2<>43),IF(S2+T2+U2>V2,IF(AND(P2=2,OR(C2=82,C2=56),T2>2999,T2/2<3000),3000,T2/2),IF(AND(P2=2,OR(C2=82,C2=56),T2>2999,T2*0.65<3000),3000,T2*0.65)),T2)

All pilots, arriving after 1941, starts game in pool. Commanders are still in units, because they are set in air units, not pilots pool, but they begin game, when unit arrives, not after, anyway. I have forgotten, that indeed main skill is around pilot starting experience, but DEFENCE seems to be much lower than that, and I can not think of mission type, when defence would not be needed sooner, or later.
This magical formula is really simple:
=IF(F3<420101,E3,0)
It is actually possible, to let pilots which ARRIVES with unit, to stay there, but formula will be somewhere complicated, as there is need to use airgroups file for verification.

Some cavalry squads have its load cost increased (mainly Japanese), because it seems, it did not included weight of horses.
Support squads now weights 20, so they are WORSE, than Mechanized Support.
Engineers weights 12
Aviation Support weights 10

All this, to increase needed ships capacity, for transport, so in turn forcing greater usage of available shipping. Changes caused two problem with beginning invasion fleets, which had not enough capacity to load all forces, but fix was easy.

I have also doubled Hard Attack, for HEAT equipped guns (all 2 types), because I am not sure penetration is used during land combat. Common 75mm Japanese Infantry Gun is now pretty good, after modification (as for Japanese standards).

Few ships beginning game in different ports. According to TROMs.

[inqistor]

It seems sometimes pilots arrive in groups, before that group shows up on map. Maybe this incorporates possible accelerating of group arrival with variable reinforcements/accelerating build of Japanese CVs?

Anyway, this is getting little complicated. You need to open pilot .csv file, then add there second Sheet, and copy there airgroups .csv. Now, magical line, which checks pilot arrival date, and compares it to his group arrival date. If this is no later, that group is on the map, keep pilot within group:

=IF(OR(F3<420101,OFFSET(Sheet2.$T$1,E3,0,1,1)>=F3),E3,0)

Voila! Airgroups begin with historical pilots, but any additional arriving later, will show up in general pool.


File for Scenario 1 is attached (my Scenario 31, with two extra pilots).

[inqistor]

Interesting fact about Unyo, is that it actually was during conversion in December 1941. In game-terms conversion is not using construction points, so a little experiment:
I have put this ship on-map, but into shipyard, and have added lots of damages, to get right number of repair days, so it will show up at historical date. Lots of armament, and sys damage, but the main factor seems to be engine. Normal repair time is estimated at 175 days, and critical at 174. So not only close enough, but even hard to accelerate.


Also, it seems yet another AAR have ended in early 1945. It seems Japan needs another boost before that date, to keep it competitive in war. Still thinking about Island Warfare Battalion, and I think I have another simple explanation:
Every PLATOON was issued ONE extra LMG. That would allow platoon to be divided into 4 smaller squads, and grenade discharger squad. Simple, and increases firepower, without need for extra training, or lots of extra equipment.

[inqistor]

Gee, I only wanted to add passenger capacity for CVEs, and it is getting quite comlicated, because it seems half of them was war-time conversions, and they had different airgroups/statistics, than in game.

Some cite about capacity:

Because the total aboard is unknown, Taiyo's casualties are uncertain, but in all likelihood she carried about 350-400 passengers or more as was common practice before and after with the CVEs

Also, there is some talk about NICK, and interesting in-game fact:
aircraft armament statistics seems to gradually increase, with the exception of 37mm cannons:
7.7mm/.303cal have 2 effect
12.7/0.5 have 3 effect
20mm have 4 effect
Soviet 23mm, and Japanese 30mm have 5 effect
and suddenly all 37mm have 4 effect, but they have 6 penetration. Could it be typo, and those values should be switched? Or maybe penetration is more important during damage calculation, that effect?
Anyway 57 mm, have both values at 8, and 75 mm have 8 effect, and 12 penetration.

Neither ROF, not shell weight difference should put 37 mm at the same level as 20 mm.

[Erkki]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Gee, I only wanted to add passenger capacity for CVEs, and it is getting quite comlicated, because it seems half of them was war-time conversions, and they had different airgroups/statistics, than in game.

Some cite about capacity:

Because the total aboard is unknown, Taiyo's casualties are uncertain, but in all likelihood she carried about 350-400 passengers or more as was common practice before and after with the CVEs

Also, there is some talk about NICK, and interesting in-game fact:
aircraft armament statistics seems to gradually increase, with the exception of 37mm cannons:
7.7mm/.303cal have 2 effect
12.7/0.5 have 3 effect
20mm have 4 effect
Soviet 23mm, and Japanese 30mm have 5 effect
and suddenly all 37mm have 4 effect, but they have 6 penetration. Could it be typo, and those values should be switched? Or maybe penetration is more important during damage calculation, that effect?
Anyway 57 mm, have both values at 8, and 75 mm have 8 effect, and 12 penetration.

Neither ROF, not shell weight difference should put 37 mm at the same level as 20 mm.

Possibly belting or what it is presumed to have been. In 20mm cannons, RAF/FAA and USAAF typically used 50% AP/APIT(which was, relatively, pretty crap against aircraft) and 50% HE/HEIT, early in the war they didn't have explosive ammo at all while Luftwaffe used lots of HE and incendiary, and starting from Bf 109 E-4 with its MG-FF/M, the Minengeschoss, at times nothing but, especially in west front. I dont know what kind of ammunition or belting the Japanese used in their 37mm cannons but possibly a lot of AP like USAAF in the P-39's M4 cannon, very unlike the Soviets. Japs might not have had proper HE rounds for anti-aircraft work, it was an infantry/tank gun originally after all, right?

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: Erkki

Possibly belting or what it is presumed to have been. In 20mm cannons, RAF/FAA and USAAF typically used 50% AP/APIT(which was, relatively, pretty crap against aircraft) and 50% HE/HEIT, early in the war they didn't have explosive ammo at all while Luftwaffe used lots of HE and incendiary, and starting from Bf 109 E-4 with its MG-FF/M, the Minengeschoss, at times nothing but, especially in west front. I dont know what kind of ammunition or belting the Japanese used in their 37mm cannons but possibly a lot of AP like USAAF in the P-39's M4 cannon, very unlike the Soviets.

Actually all 37 mm guns have the same statistics (Russian, US, and Japanese). 4 effect, 6 penetration. Only Japanese have 3 accuracy, instead of 5 of the others.

But, looking at this table, it gets pretty complicated. Ho-203 projectile have only around 2/3 weight of Type 94 AP, but still it is SIX times heavier, than 20mm. US version is almost as heavy, than Type 94, and Soviet version is even heavier.

Japs might not have had proper HE rounds for anti-aircraft work, it was an infantry/tank gun originally after all, right?

The one used in NICK b model yes(37 x 165R), but this in c was completely new design(37 x 112R). Anyway I would say it was the other way, because Japan have no technology to produce proper AP projectile, so they went all into weird HE.

[inqistor]

There is some inconsistency with Soft Attack values of Japanese tanks. I tried to keep changes as few as possible, probably total recalculation would be better, but anyway. Those are values:
MG seems to be valued at 9 Soft Attack. 37mm gun have 4, 47mm 6. By comparison 57mm should be stronger than 47mm.

Tank armament taken from TAKIs site:

776 Type 97 Tankette have 24 Soft Attck, its armament was 1 7.7 MG, but 777 Type 94 Tankette also had 1 7.7 MG, and its SA is 12. Obviously both tanks should have the same value. Maybe 12 because MG is mounted in turret? Or maybe it was wrongly clasiffied as belt feeded 12mm?

778 Type 95 Light Tank have 13 SA, armament was 37mm+2 7.7 MG: 9+9+4=22, assuming, that there is no bonus for MG in turret.

779 Type 98 Light Tank have 14 SA. Armament was 37mm+1 7.7 MG, so 9+4=13. Again, it seems there is bonus for coaxial MG.

780 Type 2 Light Tank have 4 SA. Armament was 37mm+1 7.7 MG. Value is probably error of mistaken identification of "Type 97 Te-Ke Tankette", which was supposed to be armed with only gun. SA should be 9+4=13, as MG was in hull.

781 Type 89A Medium Tank have 24 SA. Armament was 57mm+2 6.5 MG. 9+9+7=25. Maybe subtracting something, because those are 6.5mm, not 7.7mm.

782 Type 97 Medium Tank have 24 SA. Armament was 57mm+2 7.7 MG. Same as 781, but without subtracting.

783 Type 1 Medium Tank have 16 SA. Armament was 47mm+2 7.7 MG. 9+9+6=24, plus coaxial mounting.