I am a great IJN fan and since there is nowhere I can find anything about new naval classes for CORE 0.35 and above I will post my ideas and questions here - to keep them all together in one place, easy to read and/or to ignore. 
Navy
I realise the navy will be changed much - I have read about it, I know it will happen so if some of the ideas I have are/will be used anyway forgive me, but I cannot find those anyway...
BC Hiei was only rearmed in time between 1936 and 1940 and as a large, important and famous warship it should have its recommission event I believe.
In my games I decided to build it (appears with a different name) and rename it accordingly.
CV Ryujo
I believe it should not be classified as a CVL so hopefully it won't happen - after all it was one of those small size pre-war carriers other fleets had to and was used extensively as a fleet carrier during the war.
Overall I hope it will be left the way it is now.
Japanese small CVs
Namely Zuiho class, Chitose class and never finished Ibuki + possibly never done conversion of Nissin ( Ryuho was used for escort duties because of some faults it had). The Japanese used those small carriers as full fleet carriers, though with limited airpower.
They were roughly similar to US Interpid class so my question is - basically how those carriers will be treated in the game - CVs or CVLs ?
Perhaps CVs, but with non existed naval and air defence without a CAG - large CVs could have their initial stats higher accordingly to their power.
Hiyo and Junyo CVs
Basically the question is will liner/merchant medium and large sized CVs be represented somehow ? Other countries used such idea too and such warshps could be DIRECTLY linked to mobilisation events either by unlocking the technology or by either giving them to a player for some cost by an event or putting them in a queue.
I mean that perhaps simple technology unlock will mess with the AI too much - those ships should be a little cheaper and faster to build Though easier to sink and slower).
Hosho
This very old CV could actually be re-classified as a CVL - either from the beginning or by an event. So CVL or CV ?
Mogami class CLs
Those ships were rearmed as CAs later and didn't really seen to much action before the outbreak of the war. Currently they are CLs with similar stats to CAs which let's say is acceptable, though I see little reason why those warships won't be reclassified as CAs - with an event or simply by commisioning them later.
Overall - it is not bad, but could be better.
Japanese long lance torpedoes
Yes, I have noticed that Japanese naval doctrine adds additional attack values, especially for night battles - the question is if there is anything planned to deal with that subject further ?
Matsu DEs and Akizuki class large AA DDs
I only ask if those classes will get some changes later, namely if Matsu DEs will be converted to convoy escorts ( yes, I know they were used during the whole mess at Leyte by Ozawa's 'baits') - these were roughly similar to British Hunts so what will happen to them - after all convoy escort was their primary task.
Akizuki-s are not even present, unless I have missed something... These large destroyers surely deserve their place in the game, especially after those small torpedo boats ( E-Boots) will be removed.
I hope they will be added.
The range of DDs
I have read some discussion about them at terranova quite recently and it seems those will get attachements to increase their range to usable distances - to allow Pearl Harbour and such.
Is that certain or something else to deal with the question of range ? I don't mind that actually even if this will remove options of ASW and AA attachements - Japanese DDs suffered from lack of those anyway (either too old or too weak equipment).
That is all for now when it comes to the navy. I have more ideas, but first I need to make sure they are not already there present even if harder to notice.
AIRFORCE
Range
Japanese airplanes often had much greater range than that used in Europe.
I know that the present engine adds much 'free' range to all those airplanes anyway, but still there could be something to represent superior range of Japanese fighters (and not only Japanese of course) - perhaps some doctrine sacrificing some speed and fighting capabilities for larger range - even if slightly larger so useful only in certain situations - nothing spectacular, but still useful from time to time.
Naval bombers
I generally like the present system, but I think that Japanese naval bombers should be different. Why ? Simply they were used so often to bombard land positions that a modest soft, hard and strategic attack values could be added. Let's say 2 soft, 1 hard and 1 strategic - this might be all the same for all naval bomber types because these were nor carrying too many bombs anyway was it G3M or G4M.
I think it could be dealt with by either a special doctrine or by adding more stats to the starting Japanese naval doctrine.
I think it is quite reasonable - Japan will have huge problems to produce enough tactical bombers to provide some support without such modification and of course such ability should not be for free - larger IC cost of naval bombers for Japan should be enough.
Finally - this would mean that Naval bomber classes for Japan should be changd a bit, but it is very easy just add something like /G3M or /G4M1 and /G4M3 for 1938, 1940 and 1943 - I have no idea if there should be something for 1935, but it is a minor issue.
Naval bombing for fighter planes
Japanese fighter were notorious for using bombs and/or cannons in naval attacks. The excellent sample is Ki 45 Toryu entirely re-classified for such dities in New Guinea and elewhere not to mention other fighters (not interceptors).
Perhaps +1 to their naval bombing to allow roughly successful naval attacks and convoy bombing ?
It is a minor issue, but might give some additional use for such airplanes. That could be dealt with by a doctrine just like with the question above.
Floatplanes
I wonder if wide use of floetplanes by Japanese cruisers will be represented somehow differently than it is with their usand uk opponents. Ships such as Tone or Chikuma were after all almost always with Japanese carriers so perhaps there is some idea to represent it ?
Another question is the use of floatplane fighters. Perhaps better airdefence (+ additional, minimal naval defence) for Japanese floatplane tenders which I am quite sure will be there as low level CVLs or CVEs...
ARMY
I want to ask again. Is there any plan for small size para and marine infantry units to appear in the game ? Just like those 2 regiment infantry divisions, security units (garrisons) have their part maybe there is an option for smaller specialised infantry units too ?
Correct me if I am wrong, but there should be space for such units - all entries are not taken already or are they ???
In general
I realise some sggestions are difficult to add by a simple doctrine or something - I don't know if it is used already , but maybe off map annexation as used in TRP is the answer. Annexation does update all the stats addons given by doctrines without a need for updating airplanses or naval attachemnts - perhaps it is the easiest option to implement many ideas proposed here and elsewhere ?
Might also spare much space and give new uses to some naval attachments for other use than right now or later...
If this off-map annnexation is already in place forgive me, but I guess it is not visable anyway.
Hope to see some answers soon.
Regards Cegorach
Navy
I realise the navy will be changed much - I have read about it, I know it will happen so if some of the ideas I have are/will be used anyway forgive me, but I cannot find those anyway...
BC Hiei was only rearmed in time between 1936 and 1940 and as a large, important and famous warship it should have its recommission event I believe.
In my games I decided to build it (appears with a different name) and rename it accordingly.
CV Ryujo
I believe it should not be classified as a CVL so hopefully it won't happen - after all it was one of those small size pre-war carriers other fleets had to and was used extensively as a fleet carrier during the war.
Overall I hope it will be left the way it is now.
Japanese small CVs
Namely Zuiho class, Chitose class and never finished Ibuki + possibly never done conversion of Nissin ( Ryuho was used for escort duties because of some faults it had). The Japanese used those small carriers as full fleet carriers, though with limited airpower.
They were roughly similar to US Interpid class so my question is - basically how those carriers will be treated in the game - CVs or CVLs ?
Perhaps CVs, but with non existed naval and air defence without a CAG - large CVs could have their initial stats higher accordingly to their power.
Hiyo and Junyo CVs
Basically the question is will liner/merchant medium and large sized CVs be represented somehow ? Other countries used such idea too and such warshps could be DIRECTLY linked to mobilisation events either by unlocking the technology or by either giving them to a player for some cost by an event or putting them in a queue.
I mean that perhaps simple technology unlock will mess with the AI too much - those ships should be a little cheaper and faster to build Though easier to sink and slower).
Hosho
This very old CV could actually be re-classified as a CVL - either from the beginning or by an event. So CVL or CV ?
Mogami class CLs
Those ships were rearmed as CAs later and didn't really seen to much action before the outbreak of the war. Currently they are CLs with similar stats to CAs which let's say is acceptable, though I see little reason why those warships won't be reclassified as CAs - with an event or simply by commisioning them later.
Overall - it is not bad, but could be better.
Japanese long lance torpedoes
Yes, I have noticed that Japanese naval doctrine adds additional attack values, especially for night battles - the question is if there is anything planned to deal with that subject further ?
Matsu DEs and Akizuki class large AA DDs
I only ask if those classes will get some changes later, namely if Matsu DEs will be converted to convoy escorts ( yes, I know they were used during the whole mess at Leyte by Ozawa's 'baits') - these were roughly similar to British Hunts so what will happen to them - after all convoy escort was their primary task.
Akizuki-s are not even present, unless I have missed something... These large destroyers surely deserve their place in the game, especially after those small torpedo boats ( E-Boots) will be removed.
I hope they will be added.
The range of DDs
I have read some discussion about them at terranova quite recently and it seems those will get attachements to increase their range to usable distances - to allow Pearl Harbour and such.
Is that certain or something else to deal with the question of range ? I don't mind that actually even if this will remove options of ASW and AA attachements - Japanese DDs suffered from lack of those anyway (either too old or too weak equipment).
That is all for now when it comes to the navy. I have more ideas, but first I need to make sure they are not already there present even if harder to notice.
AIRFORCE
Range
Japanese airplanes often had much greater range than that used in Europe.
I know that the present engine adds much 'free' range to all those airplanes anyway, but still there could be something to represent superior range of Japanese fighters (and not only Japanese of course) - perhaps some doctrine sacrificing some speed and fighting capabilities for larger range - even if slightly larger so useful only in certain situations - nothing spectacular, but still useful from time to time.
Naval bombers
I generally like the present system, but I think that Japanese naval bombers should be different. Why ? Simply they were used so often to bombard land positions that a modest soft, hard and strategic attack values could be added. Let's say 2 soft, 1 hard and 1 strategic - this might be all the same for all naval bomber types because these were nor carrying too many bombs anyway was it G3M or G4M.
I think it could be dealt with by either a special doctrine or by adding more stats to the starting Japanese naval doctrine.
I think it is quite reasonable - Japan will have huge problems to produce enough tactical bombers to provide some support without such modification and of course such ability should not be for free - larger IC cost of naval bombers for Japan should be enough.
Finally - this would mean that Naval bomber classes for Japan should be changd a bit, but it is very easy just add something like /G3M or /G4M1 and /G4M3 for 1938, 1940 and 1943 - I have no idea if there should be something for 1935, but it is a minor issue.
Naval bombing for fighter planes
Japanese fighter were notorious for using bombs and/or cannons in naval attacks. The excellent sample is Ki 45 Toryu entirely re-classified for such dities in New Guinea and elewhere not to mention other fighters (not interceptors).
Perhaps +1 to their naval bombing to allow roughly successful naval attacks and convoy bombing ?
It is a minor issue, but might give some additional use for such airplanes. That could be dealt with by a doctrine just like with the question above.
Floatplanes
I wonder if wide use of floetplanes by Japanese cruisers will be represented somehow differently than it is with their usand uk opponents. Ships such as Tone or Chikuma were after all almost always with Japanese carriers so perhaps there is some idea to represent it ?
Another question is the use of floatplane fighters. Perhaps better airdefence (+ additional, minimal naval defence) for Japanese floatplane tenders which I am quite sure will be there as low level CVLs or CVEs...
ARMY
I want to ask again. Is there any plan for small size para and marine infantry units to appear in the game ? Just like those 2 regiment infantry divisions, security units (garrisons) have their part maybe there is an option for smaller specialised infantry units too ?
Correct me if I am wrong, but there should be space for such units - all entries are not taken already or are they ???
In general
I realise some sggestions are difficult to add by a simple doctrine or something - I don't know if it is used already , but maybe off map annexation as used in TRP is the answer. Annexation does update all the stats addons given by doctrines without a need for updating airplanses or naval attachemnts - perhaps it is the easiest option to implement many ideas proposed here and elsewhere ?
Might also spare much space and give new uses to some naval attachments for other use than right now or later...
If this off-map annnexation is already in place forgive me, but I guess it is not visable anyway.
Hope to see some answers soon.
Regards Cegorach
