Empires Ablaze V1.5 - Ideas sought

[ny59giants]

Was a newer versions ever done and made available??

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Well EA's last public version was back at V1.3 or so and since then a few changes/hopefully improvements have happened. Here's a listing of them and why they were made.

1. Japanese AAA. The Japanese AAA didn't really upgrade reasonably throughout the war. Units which had 13mm MGs as low-level AAA in 1939 ended the war with those same 13mm MGs as their low-level defence in 1945. Basically I just felt that for infantry units it was reasonable to maintain the Type 92 HMG as their low-level defence as that was a unit which adds considerably to that unit's ground combat firepower.

REPLY: Actually there is a 20 mm AA/AT gun - and it is in the device list - which was widely used by the Army. It looks awful - like some ancient but tiny cannon - but it works fairly well. Also IJA adopted and used the 25mm - mainly a wheeled triple - although they would have been wiser to simply use a single - which a man can move fast enough to be useful. Then there is the Bofors. Captured at Singapore - it was actually improved - not enough to matter - and put into production in 1945. It could have been in mass production late in 1942 - and that would have mattered. Otherwise - the Vickers 40 mm was actually produced in Japan - and could have been more widely used before the Bofors is available. All these are game devices - and you will find them in some AE units I think as well - as they were part of EOS.

In non-ED infantry/mechanied units I allowed incremental upgrading to occur. So, for engineer units, Base Forces etc the 13mm MGs might be swapped out for 25mm cannon and the 25mm cannon might be replaced by Bofors. Again, it doesn't turn them into FlAK hotbeds but it does tend to just force Allied bombers a little higher as the war progresses.

2. The IJN has a great 4.7inch DP gun available from the beginning of the war BUT very few units are so equipped at the start of the war. So, what I've done is change the target TO&E for IJN base forces, engineer units and coastal defence units so that they swap out 75mm AAA units or 4.7 inch anti-shipping guns for the 4.7 inch DP gun. This keeps the anti-shipping capability of the CD units but also gives them some ability to reach up and touch the B-17s. In addition heavy AAA units now get a boost in their FlAK performance such that they can reach enemy bombers above 25,000 feet or so.

REPLY: This weapon was widely produced IRL and is not "great" - merely adequate. The 3 inch and 4 inch designs from 1938 are far better - and they also are widely used in EOS - so probably also in AE. Both Type 98 weapons use the same fire control system - the best Japan had - with different cams for the trajectories. They were better than Allied guns - until the post war era - but these were PRE war designs. The 3 inch was almost not used at all - but the for inch was - on one class of AA destroyers - and 114 mountings ashore. Japanese AAA was the main source of attrition by enemy action for US aircraft.

3. The IJA doesn't start the war with anything comparable to the 4.7inch DP gun BUT during the course of the war it did build a great 120mm gun. So, in response to the B-17 threat this gun comes in about mid-43 ( instead of early 44 ) and begins to replace the 75mm and 105mm guns in the IJA FlAK and base units.

4. I've standardised IJA and IJN CD and AAA units so that, except in rare circumstances with specific reasons, each of those units will use just IJA or IJN weaponry and upgrade appropriately.

5. I've one a run-through of radars and found a number of crucial IJA and IJN units missing radars. So, now, all Base Forces, Port Defence forces and Medium to Heavy AAA units have air search radars. .

6. The Ki-43 II Oscar comes in a little earlier and as the sort of plane the Japanese player is going to have to pit against B-17s it swap out its 2 MGs for a single 20mm cannon. There was actually a model which did this in real life so I've included it here. As the Ki-43 is armoured I expect it to be quite capable now of taking on B-17s without suffering excessive casualties.

REPLY: The Ki-44 is a better choice. The Ki-43 is more of a fighter bomber - and it was not designed for lots of gun power. It gets range from wing tanks - and so cannot carry bombs to more than normal range. Also - the Me-109 was available to produce - and it does have 20 mm guns. Three evalation copies were in Japan - and a German production team - and tooling. They decided on the Ki-44 instead - but the Me is a fine interim choice until the 44 is ready.

[Nemo121]

Mike,
 
Yes, it is up to 1.6 now and I am planning to upload all of this ( including map files ) to an FTP server over this weekend. Post-grad exams ( which occurred 3 days ago ) really took all my attention prior to this during the month.
 
As to El Cid's contribution...
1. Well, since I was looking for a gun which was DP and was to be used as an integral part of anti-amphibious forces the 4.7inch gun is a better gun than the 3 or 4 inch DP ones. Maybe it isn't the best AAA gun ( although it has the highest ceiling of them all at war's start which is worth a hell of a lot to Japan ) but over the two roles it is, IMO, better.
 
2. Re: Type 92 HMGs... Well El Cid missed the point. Yes upgrades to 25mm triple barrels and Bofors etc did all occur but at the 2,000 foot level the Type 92 HMG was left in because of its utility in the anti-infantry role also.
 
3. Ki-44 III is NOT a better choice as it doesn't have the ceiling necessary to hit those bombers. The Ki-44 III is an amazing fighter but for the role mentioned the Ki-43 II is the better choice as the Ki-44 IIII can't even reach those bombers. The up-armed Ki-43 II will prove sufficient to handle high-level bomber raids, particularly when combined with the FlAK upgrades.
 
El Cid - I know you're trying to be helpful but, really, basing assessments on completely outmoded and incorrect data ( and possibly even from other mods ) doesn't really help with this mod.

[el cid again]

error in posting

[el cid again]

Nemo is correct: IF a B-29 or other bomber flies at maximum altitude - a Ki-44 cannot engage it at all. But a Ki-43 II can. Although we developed and use an "effective altitude" system - it is related to service ceiling - and that is defined as the altitude at which climb rate = 100 feet per minute (or 30 meters per minute - the same thing exactly). This is not sufficient for fighter maneuvering - so we use a value halfway between optimum operating altitude and service celing - and that cuts the 44s off at about 30,000 feet - while the 43 II is about 35 000 feet - and the B-29 just over 31 000 feet is in between them (and so are several other bombers). This is pretty much moot - in WITP as IRL bombers at 30 000 feet are not effective except for recon - no one knew that winds would render even the best bombsights and radar useless - and the nor that Japan was covered with clouds almost all the time - so the entire high altitude bombing idea is more or less useless. Only when B-29s changed doctrine and went in around default WITP altitudes - 5 or 6 thousand feet - were they effective - and then they also had been stripped of all but the tail gun. Planning a fighter because it can engage above 30 000 feet is pretty much meaningless - if the bombers are driven up that high by dangers of lower altitude raids - the fighters did their job - and tergets will mostly not be hit. But on the data - Nemo is right - if you want to engage a very high altitude bomber - you need to use a fighter that can get there.

The idea of arming a Ki-43 II with a single 20 mm is valid - I didn't remember it was tried - but I did this with the A5M4 in the EOS scenarios - which was indeed used with 20 mm to proove that the cannon worked - 2 of them in fact. If a 2 MMG A5M4 could carry 20 cannon - I bet so could a Ki-43.
Maybe that would be helpful?

[Nemo121]

Cid,
 
Yeah, there were a couple of Ki-43  IIs fitted with a single 20mm cannon. It won't knock hordes of bombers down but it will increase losses for high level raids above that which can be sustained given their ineffectiveness.
 
This is the model of Ki-43 II which becomes available at the end of 1942 in Empires Ablaze.

[Bliztk]

Weekend was three days ago. Have you thought uploading EA 1.6 to a server like megaupload or rapidshare ?

[n01487477]

I haven't heard from Nemo for a few days either ... and I've got a PBEM going ...

Megaupload only gives 50 MB free, the files are slightly larger when including the map files.

Rapidshare looks better...

I told him to use google, it's free, 100 MB and unlimited downloads and google doesn't go down. Still I don;t want to start a flame war about google and the pros and cons.

But maybe he has gone on a bender after exams [:D]

[2ndACR]

I have not heard from him either........but I could not blame him for taking some time.

[Nemo121]

LOL! I wish.... No, mynet went down over the weekend so my ability to upload files and send files was depleted.
 
It appears to be back now but I'm just heading out to work.My first priority is to get the PBEM files out and then I'll be using one of those upload sites Damian has kindly given me info on.

FWIW we're now on Ver 1.7 and the next big change is going to be to shipping channels --- which will bring us to 1.8. That won't happen till January though.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

SNIP---------------------

So, if any players or readers of the AARs have any ideas please pipe up. For all I know 2nd ACR and Damian may have listed laundry lists of changes in their AARs which I'm not privy to.

SNIP--------------------------

Can Japan have a few AD to start? Do any of the AK convert to AD type ships?

Destroyer Depots/Tenders (AD)

Non-PT boat surface ships may only reload torpedoes when in the hex with a size 8, 9, or 10 port
with sufficient supplies or in a hex with an AD ship and a base with sufficient supplies. Destroyers are also repaired faster when in a hex with an AD ship and a base. ADs must have no fire or float damage and less then 50% system damage, and have ops points remaining for the function to be allowed.

Certain ships may upgrade by clicking on a button on the Ship Information Screen that brings up a list of possible conversions. The ship must be in Osaka (for the Japanese) or San Francisco (for the Americans) to have this button available. The upgrade will take 180 days (plus some for damage) added to the delay for the ship being converted. The ship types that can convert are:
�� Large AK to AE, AR, AS, AV or MLE
�� Allied only – Large AK to AD
�� Allied only – PG or LST to AGP

Right now it looks like if I need to replace Torpedoes for Japanese DD in the Kwajalein area I need to run the DD back to Truk... Is that correct?

[1EyedJacks]

Hi Nemo,

Can you share what your plans are for the next version? Are you going to modify the map as well as clear up some of the unit TO&E you were talking about earlier? I've got another game that I'm looking to start up but we are not sure if we should wait until Jan/Feb when v2.0 comes out...

Thanks in advance <grin>

[Nemo121]

Well, I'm going to look at the pwhex files in order to create a couple of new shipping lanes from India to Oz/Ceylon which more realistically model the real distances.
&nbsp;
Also I'll do another pass for errors of detail e.g. Lancasters appearing a little earlier than they should, a couple of Mozzie squadrons showing up 1 year too early and the P-38 only being available in October 42 when in reality it was deployed at the end of April 42 over the Aleutians.
&nbsp;
To be honest I'm not making any really major changes. At this stage only a few small errors of timing really appear to be left in Empires Ablaze ( apart from the big game bug which afflicts airstrikes into Soviet territory&nbsp; and which I can't do much about ).

So, my advice would be to go ahead. Sure a few minor tweaks will be made but there's nothing game-breaking in there now from what I can tell ( and what the feedback tells me ).

[n01487477]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

To be honest I'm not making any really major changes. At this stage only a few small errors of timing really appear to be left in Empires Ablaze ( apart from the big game bug which afflicts airstrikes into Soviet territory  and which I can't do much about ).

Well you could set the scenario to off and then have a pact whereby forces go into the Russian hex (can't remember off hand) and then withdraw to allow them to activate ... this works, I've tested it.

Otherwise the mod is pretty solid, 'cept I'm getting my ass handed to me on a silver plate with gold trim.[:D] Phex - There is one ferry in the Sth Pac which doesn't work properly ... will get back when I remember the names NW of fiji. Savaii??

Still would like to see a variant (and I'm drunk right now) where the Japanese can build a prototype ship (at large cost) and then upgrade to either a CA/CV/BB depending on what they determine they want ... Just an idea, but my wish for ship building makes me desire such... but ultimately I do like the ship roster as it is. This is just a pipe dream request and seeing as I'm drunk and not at a bar, I'm full of bravado.

[Nemo121]

You know Damian, that's not a bad idea. You build a ship for 130 naval points and it comes off the line with NO weapons etc. Then 1 month later it can upgrade to a BB, the month after that to a CV and a month after to a CVA ( this would simulate the increased fitting out times for those types of ships ). It could actually work. One could even define separate upgrade paths once the initial "conversion" to either BB, CV or CVA was done.
&nbsp;
Damian - aye, if you tell me the ferry which doesn't work I can fix it with pwhex and upload the new version in the next day or so --- oh the JOYS of having one's own site

[ChickenOfTheSea]

I agree with Damian on setting active Russia to off and then having the Japanese moving to activate them by house rule. You could still have active but non-belligerent Russia by having the Japanese withdraw back to Manchukuo.

[ny59giants]

Damian - aye, if you tell me the ferry which doesn't work I can fix it with pwhex and upload the new version in the next day or so --- oh the JOYS of having one's own site

It think it was between Upolu and Savaii as Damain waited some time to take that base as he had to get more shipping.

I don't know what needs to happen, but when you use "R" to show trails, roads, and rails in many places it is very confusing. Look at China when you do this.

[n01487477]

While I think of it ... I thought at Osaka you could disband an airgroup without having another airgroup of the same nationality/type? If so, why doesn't this work in EA ? If not, then I'm mistaken.

[1EyedJacks]

Oh - yeah - can Japan have some more mine sweepers please? I don't suppose DE could have an upgrade option to turn them into mine sweepers?

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Oh - yeah - can Japan have some more mine sweepers please? I don't suppose DE could have an upgrade option to turn them into mine sweepers?

Now why would you need those, Mike? [:'(]