Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: FatR


4)The RL project of Type 1 APD/LSI is replaced by the project based on the hull of Matsu DD class, to unify their production. These ships are signficantly smaller, benefit from being unified with a mass-produced DD class in most details, and so can be built in greater numbers. Expand the program to 35 APDs from 28, to reflect that. Endurance, durability, speed and so on - as Matsu class. Armament:
1x127/40 F
3x25mm RS
3x25mm LS
3x25mm R (in single mounts)
2xType 2 DC R
Type 13 Radar

Capacity: 300 troops/200 cargo.

So, still Dauntless fodder, but at least less eggs in every individual basker.

Actually, the T1 class was close to the Matsu class in size, anyway, a few metres shorter and about 0,85 m wider. Its hull construction was closer to the Tachibanas (avoid curved hull plating at any cost) and Kure built them in sections (building time 3-6 months). Also, the type had half the machinery of the Matsu/Tachibana class, being single-shaft, so the type you propose would certainly have much less load capacity and be rather more expensive than the RL design, two additional boilers and one additional turbine eating vital interior space. The major bottleneck in IJN shipbuilding must have been engines at that time (two Unryu CVs were equipped with DD engines because of that, possibly the sets that were earmarked for the cancelled Akizuki DDs), so I think your modification, needing 70 turbine sets instead of 28, would be rather counter-productive. Better stay with the RL design.

Thanks for the feedback, mikemike. John, if so, let's leave Type 1 APDs as they are.

Also, did you take note that the current construction force is half of stock, not half of previous Scen 70?

Sorry. Work has been--KINDLY--exciting.

I've already began work to make the slight changes we originally described for the IJN LCUs providing a few more engineers and vehicles. Am not doing near as much as we did in the original RA but it will be some. The IJA stays the same as we originally intended.

Mikemike's comment holds a lot of water. Makes solid sense to me and I concur with your thoughts Stanislav.

In the same boat with the work here...

Meanwhile, two more bugs:

1)B7A3 and D4Y5 have no max loads stated. I wonder if this will make them unable to carry ordnance, or if stated weapon stats will take precedent.
2)The first upgrade to Tone-Kai cruisers seem to do literally nothing, except forcing time in shipyards.

Have to take a look at the Tone-Kai. Will check in the morning.

Don't know regarding the two aircraft. Does anyone know about Stanilav's question?

FatR - that is a good point about the bombers being somewhat overrated as well, I think it may be part of the impact of pilot skill we see with some other missions. You are probably right that the night bombing model is probably a better representation. But I have only played Japan into that period one time with AE and a couple times in the old version but I don't remember feeling that the allied bombing campaign was overpowered. What has been your practical experience with late war japanese been like, overpowered?
But my point was really not a matter of how many fighters they shoot down, in fact my economy as Japan was cranking out planes by the bucket load way into 45 (a product of having so many HI stored up, I can't imagine going into late 44 with less than 1 million) that losses are nearly irrelevant (pilots however....). It is more the losses of the bombers. Because you are using historic replacement rates but introducing potentially very ahistoric loss rates, a.... frustrating... imbalance may occur. I am not saying it definately will be, but I think it is something to think about.

Almost forgot - another upgrade that doesn't add any new devices is 5/42 upgrade to Shimushu-class escorts. This one is from the stock though, so I don't know what, if anything, they are supposed to get on this date.

A bit late, but one thing i dont follow is the Aganos..In RL these were a war time compromise using existing substandard guns. Bringing there forward in the light of scraping the Katories don't make sense.

Would they instead not cancel the third and 4th Tone or bring forward the Ibukis ? At least they would have worked more on the Tones and given them a proper air complement ( with an air focused command) . Consider those Agano hulls are not that different from the Mogami, ok the Mogamis are 23% longer and 50% bigger they still need the same shipyward , Suzuya ( by then standard design) spend 12 months on the slips Agano 15 months . A lot of the cost of those heavy cruisers is armament but you have the superior 6.1" guns from the Mogami conversions especially if you dont build the Musashi ( who does ?)

Also go easy on the Akizuki early but ramp them up later , they were an AA design and their usefullnes vs ships was not fully appreciated . Also the 100mm/65 were a bottleneck to their delivery.

Ben

Hey Ben! Good to see you still with us.

I have a morning off and no turns in my box so I'm gonna work on the DDs, check the Tone-Kai first upgrade, 5/42 Shim Escort upgrade, and think on your comments regarding the Agano's/Tone's. Reactions:

1. Do you have any info as to what the Tone's might have had for aircraft?

2. Agree with the Akizuki's. Will keep them to one shipyard until the last Yugumo arrives THEN ramp them up with both yards producing them.

3. We ramped up some armament plants at the outset with RA to reflect a greater investment and expansion of the 100/65.

Don't forget that pre-war extras Akizukis reflect earlier and faster adoption of the program, these should not directly interfere with Yugumos. Cuts here are done at the expense of light cruisers, not other DDs, as we discussed. Of course, those that do replace Yugumo-class destroyers in the queue should not be available before the latter are in stock.

About cruisers, don't forget, that Mogamis were severely undersized for their armament, which resulted in performance-impacting reconstructions after Tomozuru accident. And their Tone successors were about 55% larger than projects for Agano-kai cruisers which most closely mirror the current state of Aganos (looking at the armament). Significant difference here.

Bklooste, what do you mean about "proper air complement" for Tones?

That was my question too...

I think he's asking what type of floatplane it comes with.

There was NO UPGRADE for the first 'upgrade' of Tone Kai! I changed that to reflect the addition of a few more 25MM and vastly reduced the upgrade time.

John - You might want to zip the new scenario files and post them here to allow others to take a look for possible errors before you get to putting out the newest version after your current corrections are made.

Hi Michael. I plan to send the newest version--once we think we can go through it--to whomever would like to look. Certainly Stanislav, you, and BK for starters! Who else might like to peruse, comment, and check the files for RA?

Checking the Tone-Kai led me down through checking aircraft numbers and type for the newer vessels. I have the Agano's at 3, Tone's at 6, Tone-Kai at 8, and Kawachi's at 6. Split the Tone-Kai and Kawachi FP into two sections so players have the utility of chossing differing types of FP if they want.

Shim--E Class 5/42 Upgrade fixed.

Yugumo's are now settled. The Japanese start with two deployed and 12 building. The last one will be complete at Port Arthur at the end of 42.

The yard then shifts over to Akizuki's at that point.

Japanese 1st Class DD construction will look like this. Two Yards (and expanded Pt. Arthur and Maizuru) producing destroyers in a faster, more efficient manner:

1942:
Pt Arthur builds 12 Yugumo-Class
Maizuru builds 8 Akizuki-Class

20 1st Class DD constructed for the year.

1943
Pt Arthur builds 10 Akizuki-Class
Maizuru builds 12 Akizuki-Class
Shimakaze built as an experiment

23 1st Class DD constructed for the year.

1944-1945
Shipyards shift to constructing ONLY escort vessels. No 1st Class DDs. It will be all Matsu, E, PC, etc...

Thoughts?

I need space for 22 DDs. Is it OK to place anywhere in the ships slots? I find enough space in the 10735+ area. Just want to make sure ANY ship can go ANYWHERE...

Complete cut of everything in favor of escorts and Matsu-class DDs looks plausible for 1945, but not for 1944. Don't forget about the planning and construction inertia. If you want to cut something from the queue, cut dream ships that arrive in 1945 (they are easily recognized by being appended separately from the normal queue at the bottom of the list) but were never built IRL, but leave ships that were historically bulit or their replacements.