Empire V3.0g and Age of steel V1.0b Masters edition - update 30/4/25

[Cavalry Corp]

- Ranger Joe - One way to lower the ridiculous cost of the IJ submarines is to lower their durability for the construction and then give them a 0 day refit to increase their durability once the construction is complete. There should be no reason why a submarine should be three times the cost of a destroyer.

OK you like torture... its taken ages to put this in but it was a cracking good idea have added you to the credits. Now Japan should look at building all the basic subs(and in the mod the radar appears on subs a bit earlier so its even more worth it). I left anything over 3000mt still with high build values. Its taken ages to check they work ok but I am happy everything seems ok. One good thing is its easy to make sure the on map subs at the start are there with the correct dive depth/ durability. Nice idea Ranger!!! Build rate I set was 11 over 2000mt , 9 for under but over 1000mt and some 5 if well under 1000mt and simple designs. Players note they immediately change to the correct durability on arrival.

sscreenshot 2024-05-30 141345.jpg (94.31 KiB) Viewed 816 times

[Cavalry Corp]

One more option for US submarines would be to have "upgrades" to the torpedoes. Not just the accuracy but also the explosive power as the explosive components in the warheads were changed. I am not sure how to handle the mix of the Mark 14s and the Mark 18 electric torpedoes.

As far as the other American torpedoes are concerned, it was found that the Mark 13 aerial torpedo actually performed better when it was dropped from a higher altitude, about 800 feet, since the torpedo nosed in instead of doing a "belly flop" type of entry which could damage or even destroy the torpedo. Maybe a better accuracy upgrade as well if that can be done to the aircraft.

I did look over all this and actually when it works the 21 inch MK14 is the better choice long term ( the MK13 is 22.4 - can we assume a sub could not use it as designed for ariel use and its not as good in the long term) . The game has it at 80% dud for the MK14 at the start from what I read it should probably be higher than that ( but we wont go there) - My mod is hypothetical and I have added a few TT for both sides and more importantly used the Japanese ones in full that are in the Stock DB but never used - no idea why. Japanese TT has no real thought where allied ones have massive detail. Using that DB which seems accurate actually degrades Japanese TT early war. So I felt we could add a modded US TT (say added the MK18 in say 1944) but on balance both sides are a bit weaker at the start so left as is. And there are more subs in this game on both sides - though many are old even at the start of the game.

Really appreciate your comments once you can look things over - should be tomorrow now as I just need to make sure everything is correct on the starting maps.

Cav

[Cavalry Corp]

Sorry, PC crashing problems to do with Office and power, very weird, I am back online now; in the meantime, Dean has found a couple of very small glitches and a suggestion, which I have added. As he has a game in Aug44 now with me I need his input.

then will be uploading very soon

Cav

[btd64]

Have you fixed the MK10 mine? It goes out of production and leaves US subs nothing to lay....GP

[Cavalry Corp]

Yes MK10 has no end date and a bigger production and starting pool.
Most US subs switch to MK 12 in 1943.

Cav

[btd64]

Yes MK10 has no end date and a bigger production and starting pool.
Most US subs switch to MK 12 in 1943.

Cav

Excellent....GP

[Cavalry Corp]

I just checked—I made the S boats, as they are smaller, carry on using the MK10, and all others to the MK 12 from 1943 refits. Some of the refits are quite long as they are also changing from the HOR engine system in the early 43 refits.

M

[btd64]

I just checked—I made the S boats, as they are smaller, carry on using the MK10, and all others to the MK 12 from 1943 refits. Some of the refits are quite long as they are also changing from the HOR engine system in the early 43 refits.

M

How long are the refits?....GP

[Cavalry Corp]

Well, no one really knew, so I put an estimate on it, and similar to another mod which does include it, at the same time they get better radar and the mine upgrade. Most refits in my mod are longer than stock, and the J refits are generally longer again as the war progresses, representing more difficulty waiting on parts, labour, etc.

It will be out very soon and you can scan over it all.

gar Screenshot 2024-06-03 234434.jpg (154.66 KiB) Viewed 721 times

[LargeSlowTarget]

Lol, I think I know that other mod . I have based my guesstimates of the HOR engine refit times on the short "ship biographies" in DANFS containing rough "record of movements" dates.
For example Seadragon "...got underway for Pearl Harbor, arriving on 25 May. Re-engined at Mare Island during the summer, Seadragon returned to Pearl Harbor on 7 September..." which indicates about three months or 90 days for that upgrade, but then there are transit times, post- refit shakedown and refresher training so take away three weeks or so.

[Cavalry Corp]

Yes LST its yours ( excellent mod) but also in another - I think my times look quite generous. Its right to be included, will not change things much, I also have S boats with longer refits generally as their engines were generally bad and they did not use them much anyway as the war progressed so wanted to make them a bit user-unfriendly. But remember I am hypothetical in my mod just want to include all this stuff as chrome really.

Doing some more research - Do we think the late-war more modern subs should maybe have the MK 18 TT?

Cav

[Cavalry Corp]

As we have higher tech in 1944 + I have added a Mk16 TT upgrade for late war SS and upgrades. The MK 18 was not all that good, but it did run without wake which is very difficult to mod other than increase the accuracy. This Mk 16 will fit the bill better.


http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WTUS_WWII.php

[btd64]

This scenario is sounding better and better. I can't wait for the finished product. Excellent work Michael....GP

[Cavalry Corp]

I'm trying to get it done today. I need to check again that everything looks good in the actual game. But yes, all SS late-war TT upgrades are done. It was a lot of work, but it does fit the feel and objective of the mod.

I'm travelling for Work and holidays soon - so I want to get it uploaded this week as several folks are chasing... and I need to go back to Dean to re-start our game...

Cav

[Cavalry Corp]

Link for download here and on page 1.

Read file here - the last changes are what has happened since the last version 2. They were so extensive it had to be a version 3:)

Empire - Read v 3.0.pdf

(861.31 KiB) Downloaded 46 times

https://gingerdragonltd-my.sharepoint.c ... ElBecC8cZg

Password Empire1941

All feedback welcome - suggest one week to see what if any issues come up.... before anyone dives in...

[viberpol]

Great job Cav!
I think it's amazing that we have a fresh & engaging scenario for both sides with lots of fun.
This is the game of my life, best spent bucks of my life, with thousands hours spent on it.

[JanSako]

All feedback welcome - suggest one week to see what if any issues come up.... before anyone dives in...

Thank you for all the work you put into this! I am wondering how many Japan players are up to playing with no R&D, seems these days it is a race as to who deploys the Sam & Frank the fastest, or taking over the map by June '42 .
Q: Will having 500 engines in the pool still provide an R&D bonus or does that require an assigned R&D factory? I would think the latter.

I am looking at having a go, cot a couple of questions about the (CV) or (CVL) plane designations.

The IJN B-line has:
The Kate (without designation) - can go on any carrier
The B6 Jill - all variants carry the CVL designation - does that mean they cannot be stationed on a CV or CVE?
The B7 Grace - carry the (CV) designation - so they can only go on fleet CV's?
Is the expectation that Kido fleet carriers will run with B5N2 Kate until B7A1 Grace shows up in 4/44?

Similar for DB's:
The D3 Val has no CV designation, so I presume it is OK to use anywhere.
The D4 line are all (CVL)
D5Y2 Myojo is 'free' again in 12/44

It would make sense if the (CVL) designation were to denote the smallest ship class that can carry this plane, but that is not how I read the PDF instructions:
"Some Aircraft are clearly designated as the end of their name say, (CV). These aircraft may only be stationed on CVL, CV, and CVB as defined."

Is the Manchukuo garrison smaller than 'usual' and what happened to the extra AV? I did see that SNLF has 5 full brigades, not sure if this is where they come from (IJA would have a fit IRL!).

[RangerJoe]

I thought that the engine bonus started with 501 engines . . .

[JanSako]

I thought that the engine bonus started with 501 engines . . .

The question is if it only applies to airframes that have an 'active' R&D factory. If yes, then the number does not matter, in this context

[Cavalry Corp]

Dear All,

Sorry, I have been working in Indonesia and just got back - I will deliver a reply on this soon.

Cav.