Matrix Games Forums

Not sure if this belongs quite here, I hope so;

As a result of the Circle 4 thread and a few others, I felt it might be worth it to formalize and release an 'expanded' construction options scenario I had created myself about half a year back - While at the same time fixing a few gripes I had with some of data...

The "Naval Reconstruction Project" is what I call it as it is now - and a reconstruction it is. The question is how does it play out against an intelligent opponent (not the AI).

I originally intended to save all these changes and then put forth a mod for AE whenever that is out, but since I have no idea when that is, I thought to throw this togeather just to experiment.

I based this off the CHS157 2.08c scenario, as its one Im very familiar with.

Some notes on the changes;
Ships - Durabilities saw a lot of changes. Most heavier ships went up, with a few smaller ones seeing decreases. I particularly felt the game undervalued the Yamato, South Dakota, North Carolina and King George V classes. These have seen large shifts. Most ships have also seen some changes in armour values, with most DDs gaining a few mm to stop them from being turned into blazing infernos by the .50cal MG on that PT boat. Speed and Maneuverability values were tweaked slightly.

Guns - The most serious change is the removal of the 5in/40 on most japanese destroyers. They now mount the 5in/50 - This is NOT a DP weapon (It was intended to be, but wasnt up to the task). Thus Japanese AA is much reduced. The addition of the 5in/50 Type D mount on Yugumo and Shimakaze partly rectifies things, but really makes those Akizuki class DDs very important as escorts. Otherwise, there were some changes in ranges, effect and penetration values, but nothing spectacular.

Building - The addition of several proposed ship classes really throws a wrench into the japanese economy. No, you cant build them all. You cant even build half of them unless you capture the whole map. The point is, you can choose WHAT to build. Loose all 4 Kongos in 42 and need fast BBs? Then choose the B65 Class BCs, they do a great job as escorts. Get KB slaughtered in the first few weeks because of a mistake? Fair enough, but atleast your not stuck with only Unryus for the rest of the war. Hurting for light surface combatants? The Upgraded versions of the Agano and Shimakaze are available. Note that if you DO want to try build everything, youll practically have to atleast double your shipyard capacity - a nigh impossible task.
On the flip side, I felt the Allies needed some more options also if the war didnt go as smoothly as in reality - Chances are if the war looked to stretch on, the 5th and 6th Iowas would have come into commission, ect. So we see some more ships on this side too, most notedly the Montana class. Finally, both Japanese Naval and Heavy Industry have increased by a few hundred points to accomodate the higher durabilites of current (historic) constructions.

Refits - I saw no reason why Akagi/Kaga, had they not been sunk at Midway, would not have been amongst the first to receive radar refits in late 42. The same goes for a lot of ships that were sunk, ect. To this end a lot of late war refits see radar being added to japanese ships. The same applies to some USN ships, namely the Baltimores gaining a better radar suite in early 45.

Pilots - I felt the Japanese pilot replacements were a little too low, but not much. So minor increases to the rate, plus a large intial pool. The USAAF and USMC pilot experience were likewise way too low - I would have bumped them up even more, but I fear upsetting the early game. The RAF pilots were likewise lacking and saw similar changes, but to make the first months difficult I reduced the pool and increased the replacement rates.

Bombs/Guns - All bombs got a 10% increased penetration value. I think the original values were too low, especially for the larger AP bombs. Maybe now cruisers wont be impervious to 1000lbs anymore. Regarding aircraft cannons, I thought that the differences in .50cal and 20mm or 30mm were much too small. Most cannons saw an increase in effect, making them more lethal at ground attack and against tougher targets. Of particular note are the 37mm guns like on the P39, which is now quite deadly in the right role.

Aircraft - Lots of minor tweaks, but the main changes are on the ranges of the Nell and Betty. They see a slight reduction in range, while the Kate sees a smaller increase - however, operating CV airgroups at this range might not be the best of ideas. Most planes see tweaked speed and maneuver values, these have yet to be finalized. Lastly, the addition of the Type H-6 Air Intercept radar to two Japanese night fighters gives them some use in stopping night bombing runs - though the radar is far from adequate.

Changes are summarized below;
-Overhaul of all Durability values for BB, BC, CA, CL, DD, CV, CVL, CVE, CS and some APD and AVD (Scaled to displacement and age)
-Also modified Armour, Speed and Maneuver ratings

-Slight changes to Effect, Penetration and Accuracy of most naval guns
-Replacement of 5in/40 on most japanese destroyers with correct 5in/50
-Addition of 5in/50 Type D for Shimakaze and Yugumo class

-Addition of more radar to late war Japanese vessels, mainly CVs

-Addition of following classes/ships;
#Japan
BB Kii (Late Yamato) - Kii, Omi
BB Settsu (Super Yamato) - Settsu, Sagami
BC Fuji (B65 Project) - Fuji, Chichibu
CA Ibuki (Improved Mogami) - Ibuki, Iwaki
CL Oyodo - Niyodo
CL Sakai (Improved Agano) - Sakai, Narita, Mikuni, Azuma
CV Osumi (Improved Taiho) - Osumi, Owari, Iwami, Awaji
DD Akisame (Improved Akizuki) - Akisame, Yamasame, Natsusame, Hayasame, Takashio, Akishio, Harushio, Wakashio, Yamagiri, Kawagiri, Umigiri, Tanigiri
DD Shimakaze - Arakaze
DD Hayakaze (Improved Shimakaze) - Hayakaze, Natsukaze, Hikaze, Hakakaze, Shirokaze, Taekaze, Murakaze, Kiyokaze, Satokaze, Kitakaze, Tsukikaze, Fuyukaze

#USN
BB Montana - Montana, Ohio, Maine
BB Iowa - Illinois
CV Midway - Midway, Coral Sea

-Increased penetration value of all bombs ~10%

-Decreased Range of Nell, Betty
-Increased Range of Kate, Jill

-Minor changes to speed and maneuver values for AC
-Increased Effect of 20mm, 30mm and 40mm cannons for AC

-Increased IJN Pilot Replacements from 15 to 25
-Increased IJN Pilot Pool
-Increased IJA Pilot Replacements from 30 to 40
-Increased IJA Pilot Pool

-Increased USAAF Pilot Experience from 50 to 55
-Increased USMC Pilot Experience from 55 to 60

-Decreased RAF Pilot Pool from 200 to 120
-Increased RAF Pilot Replacements from 30 to 40
-Increased RAF Pilot Experience from 55 to 60

-Increased Soft Attack values of late war IJN Squads slightly

-Added Type H-6 AI Radar for J1N1-S and Ki-45 KAIc

-Slight increase in initial Japanese Heavy Industry and Naval Shipyards

Ultimately - Though Ill put up a thread for this in opponents wanted, Im looking for someone(s) to playtest this scenario so as to see what needs further changes. The scenario has its own art files, along with the scenario files. Drop a message here or in the other thread if you want them sent to you.

With all those extra high-value ships, shouldn't you emphasize more AA escorts? What are you doing about the existing cruisers?

Regarding IJN or USN?

For the IJN there are around 4 more Akizuki class DDs, 12 Improved Akizuki class DDs, 1 more Shimakaze, and 12 Improved Shimakaze DDs to build, in addition to Niyodo and 4 Improved Agano class CLs. I did not include the Type 815 CLAAs mentioned in the Circle 4 thread as we seemed to have come to the conclusion they were based off the Katoris and not very useful. I sacrificed a bunch of AKs from '44/'45 to make slots for this.

For the Allies I did not add any more escorts, though doing so definately isnt a problem - theres plenty of slots. I just thought that the Allies should be good for escorts with those 200ish Fletchers in the pipe. Its definately not a problem to throw another 50 or so Fletchers and 25 Sumners or something into the database for '45.

Most cruisers have seen mild durability increases, especially the Clevelands and Wichita/Baltimores. The Ibukis are no slouches either, but not up to par with the late USN cruisers. Some early cruisers like Furutaka and Pensacola class suffer a little, but nothing drastic.

Lastly, the even weaker IJN AA due to the loss of the DP ability of most of their early DDs means you really have to be careful with the BBs. CAs and late DDs are your best bet escorting AA. I debated on adding the Type D 5in/50 to early war destroyers as a refit, but decided against it - I feel Im exaggerating Japans rescources anyway with the extra radar refits.

What are you doing with the older IJN light cruisers? Not still building Katoris, I hope?

No, the 4th Katori didnt make the cut. The rest of the modifications to the IJN Cruisers are as per CHS stock, except radar is a little more abundant late war. I believe a few convert to CLAA, but thats it. Once AE allows us to define conversions, Im intending to allow the option of converting to a format similar to the ones you showed in some thread - Lots of 5in/40, maybe some 3in/60, in exchange for the TTs.

Note that I did not retroactively modify how the IJN outfitted their ships - The starting setup on 7/12/41 is the same as in stock CHS (minus the incorrect 5in/40s), and I presume is reasonably accurate. Its entirely up to the player to use the new stuff if he wants - you can play it without building any, but with these new values for durability/guns/ect for the rest of your ships.

I refer to this setup as the "Semi-Realistic" variant, because it is still a reasonable approximation to the historic intentions and capabilities of both sides, with minor enhancements. Im working on a parallel "Enhanced" which assumes the IJN was smarter and more influential prewar, and fixed, amongst other things, the 5in/50, introduced the 3.9in/65 earlier, built 37mm AA, ect. But thats a seperate topic Ill save till after AE is out.

If you want to stick with something "semi-realistic", I'd make the extra four carriers Shokakus instead of Taihos. Bit more plausible.

Why? Not only are the Taihos only 5,000t larger, the Japanese had no intention of building Shokakus late in the war. 4 Improved Taiho class hulls however, WERE proposed and ordered as Hull Numbers 5021-5025.

Of course, they couldnt be built because of the situation Japan was in, but if the war had gone better, and say, Musashi and Shinano had not been built - then we might have seen more Taihos. The whole point is to allow this sort of choice. Realise also that without acceleration, these Taihos arrive only in late 44/ early 45. To get them early enough to cause a major impact, requires serious expenditure by the japanese player. A single one of them accelerated requires close to 400 naval points.

The point however, is the option of doing this. I dont know how many people are likely myself, and cancel the Yamato and Musashi just to accelerate the Unryus, but I would definately take a 2nd Taiho if I could.

I do understand that by setting it up this way I "stretch" reality slightly - but thats necessary to acheive what I want here. Thus why its labelled "Semi-Realistic"

Because the Japs needed to cut what ever corners they could, considering how poor they were, and Shokakus were cheaper to build, even if not by much.

Don't get me wrong, it's obviously your mod and your call, we're just debating it.

Additionally, the Taiho carried considerably fewer aircraft.

Fair enough. But the Japanese naval industry as it begins the game, isnt enough to build any of these extras. Its not even enough to build the stuff on the standard list, becuase of the durability increases - hence why I kicked up HI and naval to make it a little easier.

If you want any of these, you have to sacrifice, or expand further than historically. Both have ups and downs. You might not want the Yamatos at all, in which case you can probably get either another Taiho in the water by 43, or three by 44/45. You might overexpand to get those rescources, but the allies WILL come and take it all back, thats a given.

The aim is to give the Japanese player more control over his inevitable loss.

And yes, slightly fewer aircraft, but much tougher design - which is what was arguably needed by them in the late war.

As the Japanese did not consider building more Shokakus late war, I did not include that option since I want to use their proposed plans - For this same reason I did not include my own take on a dedicated CLAA. The option of more Shokakus in the initial batch is an interesting one, and one I might explore in a "CV Style" variant that never sees any Yamatos built.


Lastly, I have no problem with you questioning my choices here. It might be my mod, but the whole point of trying to put it out there was to get comments and ideas for the eventual AE version.

I would argue that the IJN made the same mistake with the Taiho that the RN made with its armoured-box carriers, by equipping them with too few aircraft in exchange for armour.

Obviously, the Japanese went to far in the other direction with the Hiryu/Soryu/Unryu types, which had too few aircraft and too little armour, but an aircraft carrier should carry as many aircraft as possible. Consider the inability of some of the late-war RN carriers to carry the big American fighters, because their hangar decks weren't tall enough.

I agree with you that they made the same mistake. Definately a more intresting and potentially useful option would be a further development of the Shokaku, possibly in the 35,000t range. This might well make it into a variant scenario, but initially atleast I want to stick to the historic designs.

I dont think Taiho had any problems with Japanese fighters, and I think I recall reading that the design included allowances for the A7M and other heavier fighters in development. Taiho is after all quite a bit larger than her RN counterparts.

What improvements are you making to the Akizukis and Shimakazes to produce their improved versions?

DD Hayakaze (Improved Shimakaze) - Based on V6 Design
3 x II x 5in/50 Type D (1 Fore / 2 Aft)
3 x II x 3.9in/65 (1 Fore / 2 Center)
3 x IV x 24in T93 TT (Center / 1 Reload)
2 x T2 Depth Charge (Aft)
2 x II x 25mm AA (Sides)

Speed - 38kts
Range - 5480nm (720 Fuel)
Durability - 15


DD Akisame (Improved Akizuki) - Based on V7 Design
4 x II x 3.9in/50 Type D (2 Fore / 2 Aft)
1 x IV x 24in T93 TT (Center / 1 Reload)
4 x T2 Depth Charge (Aft)
4 x III x 25mm AA (Sides)

Speed - 37kts
Range - 8500nm (1154 Fuel)
Durability - 12

Mixed battery on a destroyer-sized ship is a bad idea. The IJN actually planned this?

As far I understood, yes. Cant say the source is very clear on it. But I thought the same thing. I may well end up adjusting it to 4 x II x 5in/50 Type D and loose the 3.9in/65s - even in the current variant. This would make far more sense. Possibly the IJN saw this as a sort of "Mini CL" with weaponry to match - still a bad idea.

Infact, I will adjust it to the following:
DD Hayakaze (Improved Shimakaze) - Based on V6 Design
4 x II x 5in/50 Type D (2 Fore / 2 Aft)
3 x V x 24in T93 TT (Center / 1 Reload)
2 x T2 Depth Charge (Aft)
6 x II x 25mm AA (2 Sides / 1 Center)

Speed - 38kts
Range - 5480nm (720 Fuel)
Durability - 15

Further to the Shimakaze, the IJN had huge problems with her power plant. Her high speed came from an experimental high-pressure steam plant, and the Japanese inability to produce this in more than one example was a large part of the reason why only a single ship was ever built.

Yes, that is true.

However as both these new destroyer models employ the same kind of high pressure system, I made the assumption that the IJN could eventually have figured it out - hence why these arrive only in very late 44 to mid 45.

If the game allowed us to set a 'reliability' rating for ships to determine how quickly they gather system/engine damage while in use, it might be possible to represent the problems in maintaining such a system - but as thats only a dream, we just have to make do. [8D]

I just spotted this thread!
 
I like the ideas stemming from our conversation with the 4th Circle Program.  The biggest change I would make is to add a pair of Shokaku's already in the building pipeline for an early-to-mid-43 deployment as per what Yamamoto originallly wanted.  Scratch the CV Shinano conversion and leave her as a BB.  No fourth Yamato BB or improved Yamatos.  If this is to be semi-plausable then that would be more realistic.  I'd leave everything else in your building que for additional options to the Japanese player...