Page 5 of 22
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:32 pm
by Historiker
Will the He-100 be a Navy or Army plane? Its weak armement makes it a fine air superiority fighter but no good bomber destroyer - at least if you don't give her a compareable (and never been) upgrade path with the Me-109.
Me-109 and Fw-190 might be also a choice, especially the latter with its heavy armement. It'll be THE 4e killer.
Ju-88 makes a good LB and DB. Will the G5M be in the game to provide Japan with 4e bombers?
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 3:59 pm
by Akos Gergely
"C-74
P-71
P-75
P-81
TB2D Skypirate (Recommend HR allowing use only on Midway class...)
TBY Sea Wolf
AD Skyraider
FH Phantom "
Woohooo good news!!! I'll definitely give a go for your mod an base mine on this. Very good job on your part, Sir!
As for conversions I'd like to see in the CV version later an Iowa and Baltimore conversion to CVs (I can give you drawings and stuff as these were real planned stuff around 4th June 1942...)
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 4:31 pm
by R8J
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:07 pm
by 51st Highland Div
Yeah i would like to see those Batlimore/Alaska/Iowa class conversions to CV also....[:)]
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:21 pm
by Akos Gergely
Yeah I was refering to these SS drawings for the other two as well
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:27 pm
by JuanG
BB Variant has CV/CVL Conversions for Omaha, Cleveland, Baltimore and Lexington CC classes. I'm also considering allowing some of the TKs to convert to CVEs. There is no Alaska class in BB Variant.
CV Variant had the same previously, plus a conversion for the Alaskas. The Iowa conversion is a good idea, as I feel the Allies will need every flattop they can get, especially in the Enhanced CV Variant. [;)]
To backtrack a bit;
ORIGINAL: JuanG
ORIGINAL: csatahajos
Just one small nitpick: why didn't you delete X turret (the one right behind the pagoda mast) from the fast Fuso version? It would have been more logical since originally she had an additional boiler room just in front of that turret...
Both the space from that (under the rear superstructure) and the space from removing Turret #4 is used for the conversion. I suppose I could have extended further rear into Turret #5 instead of forwards, but I thought it would be more logical to do it this way to converve firepower - better a turret with a full arc aft than one of the central ones.
I've just realised I completely misunderstood what you meant here - I thought you meant delete Turret 5, but I see you mean 3 instead. This is what I did with the Ise's, and may actually do the same here after having looked at some drawings. Sorry, I answered late at night and clearly misread your post.
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:16 pm
by Akos Gergely
No worries Juan
. Your version makes sense as well but it would involve more work I guess.
Looking froward to the BB variant and the others.
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:28 pm
by Terminus
ORIGINAL: JuanG
BB Variant has CV/CVL Conversions for Omaha, Cleveland, Baltimore and Lexington CC classes. I'm also considering allowing some of the TKs to convert to CVEs. There is no Alaska class in BB Variant.
CV Variant had the same previously, plus a conversion for the Alaskas. The Iowa conversion is a good idea, as I feel the Allies will need every flattop they can get, especially in the Enhanced CV Variant. [;)]
To backtrack a bit;
ORIGINAL: JuanG
ORIGINAL: csatahajos
Just one small nitpick: why didn't you delete X turret (the one right behind the pagoda mast) from the fast Fuso version? It would have been more logical since originally she had an additional boiler room just in front of that turret...
Both the space from that (under the rear superstructure) and the space from removing Turret #4 is used for the conversion. I suppose I could have extended further rear into Turret #5 instead of forwards, but I thought it would be more logical to do it this way to converve firepower - better a turret with a full arc aft than one of the central ones.
I've just realised I completely misunderstood what you meant here - I thought you meant delete Turret 5, but I see you mean 3 instead. This is what I did with the Ise's, and may actually do the same here after having looked at some drawings. Sorry, I answered late at night and clearly misread your post.
Turret 3 would be "Q" turret.
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:29 pm
by Terminus
Wasn't the Harima BB a more "scrunched-up" design, i.e. with superstructure and turrets clustered closer together, to save on armour?
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:55 pm
by JuanG
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Turret 3 would be "Q" turret.
Most Japanese texts I've seen use numbers, so when referring to their ships I tend to do the same. Both work. [:D]
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Wasn't the Harima BB a more "scrunched-up" design, i.e. with superstructure and turrets clustered closer together, to save on armour?
Which Harima are you referring to? The one in my AU? Its a slightly improved Nagato, and does indeed have slightly shorter armoured length as it is more compact. Its hard to tell from the pictures since theyre so small, but they are closer togeather. Theres only so much you can scrunch it up and still keep the Nagato hullform however.
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:57 pm
by Terminus
I'm looking at your display of battleship shils above. "X" and "Y" turrets seem a bit "off by themselves", so to speak.
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:59 pm
by JuanG
ORIGINAL: Terminus
I'm looking at your display of battleship shils above. "X" and "Y" turrets seem a bit "off by themselves", so to speak.
Yes, I suppose they do - though the gap gets filled by an AA gun later! [;)]
I'll see about moving them a little more, I just dont want to do anything too radical or else it wont look like Nagato anymore.
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:01 pm
by Terminus
I understand what you mean, but to get a fast battleship for the same amount of horsepower, you'll have to save on armour, and the most economic way to do that is probably to close up superstructure and turrets.
Your call, obviously.
RE: Alternate WNT Scenarios
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:10 pm
by JuanG
ORIGINAL: Terminus
I understand what you mean, but to get a fast battleship for the same amount of horsepower, you'll have to save on armour, and the most economic way to do that is probably to close up superstructure and turrets.
Your call, obviously.
True, of course. I moved them 3 pixels further in, and it still looks good.
Nagato was designed for 26.5 knots, and only slowed to 25 upon reconstruction historically (here she retains her speed, because of a more complete reconstruction). Given that Harima is some 2500tons heavier than her, getting a little over 27 knots should be reasonable, especially if armour weight is approximately the same - though in Harima's case the improved deck armour adds a little more than what is saved from the shorter citadel. Hence why more tonnage, both for the armour and the engines.
wnt error p-400
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:15 pm
by ggm
p-400 bombs listed as centerline should be external. gives display over lap in scenario 40 and 41 v4
ggm
RE: wnt error p-400
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:24 pm
by Terminus
NM.
RE: wnt error p-400
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:38 pm
by JuanG
ORIGINAL: ggm
p-400 bombs listed as centerline should be external. gives display over lap in scenario 40 and 41 v4
ggm
Display bug was caused by Normal and Extended range loadouts having a different .30 cal weapon device. This was messing up the display for some reason. The bombs and DTs were fine - bug has been fixed for v5.
Thanks for the heads up ggm! [;)]
Question to anyone who knows;
-How do I link a new aircraft into the universal upgrade paths? It was easy enough for the newer/older models of existing stuff like the A7M1, N1K4-A, ect - but now I want to link the new J100 (He100) so that IJN land based fighters can upgrade to it. I realise for PDU off I have to explicitly define it in the airgroup list, but how do I get it to show up for the other groups with PDU on?
Juan
RE: wnt error p-400
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 4:51 am
by Historiker
-How do I link a new aircraft into the universal upgrade paths? It was easy enough for the newer/older models of existing stuff like the A7M1, N1K4-A, ect - but now I want to link the new J100 (He100) so that IJN land based fighters can upgrade to it. I realise for PDU off I have to explicitly define it in the airgroup list, but how do I get it to show up for the other groups with PDU on?
Give it to a later war airgroup. Then all fighters of that "nation" should be able to upgrade to it.
RE: wnt error audax -1
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 9:05 am
by ggm
audax airgroups 2975 and 2976 are not changed to single engine and 4 x 20 2 x 20 for some reason airgroups must be edited by hand
ggm
RE: wnt error audax -1
Posted: Sun Aug 16, 2009 10:06 am
by JuanG
ORIGINAL: ggm
audax airgroups 2975 and 2976 are not changed to single engine and 4 x 20 2 x 20 for some reason airgroups must be edited by hand
ggm
Thanks, fixed. Just a case of not having run an update on the airgroup files.
I'm still having trouble getting new aircraft to show up properly as an upgrade. Any more advice?
I'm away later next week, I'll probably have BB Variant ready by then.
