• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

cegorach

Colonel
3 Badges
May 5, 2007
1.007
0
  • Arsenal of Democracy
  • Darkest Hour
  • 500k Club
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
 
Many of your suggestions cannot be done with the game engine as it stands - we will not use the "off map" annexation technique to modify individual unit stats, as it is essentially relying on legacy code that is unsupported by Paradox, and may already have been affected by the ARM patch.

Smaller Marine/Parachute units : Well, it isn't impossible... just not sure that it is worth it, since the AI doesn't know that they are "smaller", and so thinks of them as still being a Division - thus, when it tries to calculate odds, it will get it very wrong, and end up getting beaten a lot of the time. it would effectively, therefore, be another bonus for the player.. who really doesn't need any such bonuses. dec152000 (our land forces guru) might have some comments on that item as well.

Tim
 
Hi,

this level of suggestion really needs to be on Terranova rather than here. We do all our development discussions over there so You'll get much better feedback that way. A few general thoughts:

1. Naval: I'm covering for MAtedow who is the POC for Naval stuff while he is on sea duty. Most of what you are suggeting just isn't practical due to model limitations. Hiei probablly will be added by event as this is very doable. Ryujo I'm not sure about. Definitely a borderline case as she is small and does not have a very big air wing. The other small CV will probablly all go CVL in type. Also they do not at all ressemble Intrepid AFAIK. Hiyo/Junyo will have a specific model of CVL IIRC and having some events for the specific ships might happen as well. Hosho will be CVL. Mogami will hopefully have conversion events added eventually. Long Lance: With the ARM function we finally have a chance to direct model torpedo armarment. I will be pushing for JAP to start with a unique capability here. Hopefully we can design this so the JAP DD get a proper advantage as well. Akizuki really should be the 2500 ton DD rather than the Shimakaze. The extra slot being added is for a 3000 ton DD and I'm not sure Shimakaze is actually big enough for that location. DD Range will be worked as well with ARM.

Air Force: The Japanese G3M and G4M are pretty unusual and don't fit well into the model scheme. They are essentially Naval Attack aircraft, whle the current NAV models represent the more mundane Naval Patrol type flying boats. This are has been discussed, but there isn't any consensus just yet on how to proceed.

Army: As Historyman has noted, using smaller than standard units opens up all kinds of issues for the AI. So I highly doubt we will progree down that path.

mm
 
Hi,

I know that Matedow thinks DD tonnage is very much related to actual effectiveness in combat. So while it doesn't need to necessarilly be exactly 3000 tons, it does need to be in the ball park.

mm
 
But wouldn't a 2500-ton destroyer equipped with ASW and AA weapons and other technologies years in advance of the 'basic' 2500-ton model have sufficiently increased fighting power to deserve a new model name? Especially if no existing class that actually weighs 3000 tons fills that slot?
 
Hi,

I order to fit all of that extra armarment on the hull you need the displacement. Also the displacement is critical for ability to absorb damage and damage control capability. So a 3000 ton DD needs to be very near 3000 tons and w/ appropriate tech level as well. AFAIK these sort of ships weren't actually deployed until the 1950's anyways, so the 2500 ton model represents the apex of actual WW2 designs.

mm
 
dec152000 said:
Hi,

this level of suggestion really needs to be on Terranova rather than here. We do all our development discussions over there so You'll get much better feedback that way. A few general thoughts:

That forum is so empty - cleansed of older discussions I have read before.
Besides I thought I will not add anything more anywa so why to bother with another forum...



1. Naval: I'm covering for MAtedow who is the POC for Naval stuff while he is on sea duty. Most of what you are suggeting just isn't practical due to model limitations.

That is why I am asking those questions. ;)

Hiei probablly will be added by event as this is very doable.

It should be there as all older BBs and BCs which were only rearmed, not built during that time - the ships are too important, old and too costly to deal with that in any other way.

Ryujo I'm not sure about. Definitely a borderline case as she is small and does not have a very big air wing. The other small CV will probablly all go CVL in type.

OK. That was what I expected. There are too little models to use unfortunatelly.

Also they do not at all ressemble Intrepid AFAIK.

I noted that they were fleet carrirs as opposed to light escort types and were used in carrier groups by the Japanese after all, but lets leave that...

Hiyo/Junyo will have a specific model of CVL IIRC and having some events for the specific ships might happen as well. Hosho will be CVL. Mogami will hopefully have conversion events added eventually.

Good to know. I hope that this way those old British carriers will be declassified as CVLs too.

Long Lance: With the ARM function we finally have a chance to direct model torpedo armarment. I will be pushing for JAP to start with a unique capability here. Hopefully we can design this so the JAP DD get a proper advantage as well. Akizuki really should be the 2500 ton DD rather than the Shimakaze. The extra slot being added is for a 3000 ton DD and I'm not sure Shimakaze is actually big enough for that location. DD Range will be worked as well with ARM.

Good.

Air Force: The Japanese G3M and G4M are pretty unusual and don't fit well into the model scheme. They are essentially Naval Attack aircraft, whle the current NAV models represent the more mundane Naval Patrol type flying boats. This are has been discussed, but there isn't any consensus just yet on how to proceed.

In my games I even produced more tactical bombers and use them as fleet ground based bombers, but it is not the same. Japanses naval bombers were some special case and are somehow too big thing to be treated as ordinary tactical bombers...

Army: As Historyman has noted, using smaller than standard units opens up all kinds of issues for the AI. So I highly doubt we will progree down that path.


Hmm, but those small sized armoured units do so as well...






A different issue.

I have noticed that all those larger minelayers are present in the game - good that is so, but it reminded me another issue.

The question of CVLs. I guess there will be 9 or 10 models of these, am I right ?
But I thought maybe there will be some slots left to be used for more 'unorthodox' warships - namely all those floatplane tenders and light cruiser-sized ships with a larger number of waterplanes.
 
Hmm, but those small sized armoured units do so as well...
They are still Division sized - all except the very first models (which it is unlikely will actually see combat). The difference is essentially in terms of the structure of the Divisions - do you have a "triangular" (3 regt/brigade = 9 bns) structure, or a "binary" (2 regt/brigade = 6 bns) structure.

The question of CVLs. I guess there will be 9 or 10 models of these, am I right ?
But I thought maybe there will be some slots left to be used for more 'unorthodox' warships - namely all those floatplane tenders and light cruiser-sized ships with a larger number of waterplanes.
The plan certainly is to include seaplane tenders, etc in the CVL lists - not that they will be especially useful, necessarily!

Tim
 
Hi,

Another possibility with ARM is we may add a "Floatplane" attachment that would increase Surface Detection. Probablly not the most useful or highest priority thing, but if we have the slot it is a viable addition.

mm
 
dec152000 said:
Hi,

Another possibility with ARM is we may add a "Floatplane" attachment that would increase Surface Detection. Probablly not the most useful or highest priority thing, but if we have the slot it is a viable addition.

mm


I hope so, I was going to propose it actually, that would deal with all those 'recon' CAs and hopefully CLs if there will be a 'small floatplane brigade' for screening ships too. ;)
 
I had some more thought recently.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

There are 9-10 CVL models to use ? Right ?

So the question is how many WILL be used because I believe there might be one or two (or more) free slots to exploit so perhaps there will be some space for some of those:

Flotplane tenders will be here, but how many types ? Perhaps at least TWO ?

For example auxiliary tenders/merchant conversions

notoro02.jpg


and purpose build tenders

w50o1li5.jpg

401305.jpg


I am not really sure if ANYONE lese build modern tenders as Japan did because if NOT maybe those can get one - often fogotten - advantage i.e. flotplane fighters which had its purpose and scored some success even against B 17s.



Another thing are HYBRIDS. Maybe you could allow (by events) conversion of at least Ise-class BBs to hybrid ships

ise01.jpg


controversial at least... I know, but by adding them to CVL line you might add some more flavour to the mod.
These ships would obviously lose some of its firepower and resilience, but would get the ablity to launch port and airbase strikes (they hed the warplanes capable of that - E16A ( or E16Y ??? don't remember right now) Zuiun and D4Y Suisei) and some additional naval/sub (and anti sub attack) detection too...

Same - though I doubt there will be any space left - with cruiser hybrids -

mogami01.jpg



I volunteer to make the icons for those warships - I almost finished other Japanese naval and airforce icons already.



Of course all those designes could be possible to build too - after all it was still possible for some states to build such warships at that time even if they would prove not too useful to say the least...




Another thing - large ground troops transport ships with airplanes - maybe another class of transports, but this time with increased detection, anti-sub attack and maybe even airdefence ??
 
Planned list of CVL models (all ten slots taken):
Seaplane Tender
Merchant Conversion Carrier
Escort Carrier
Large Escort Carrier
Purpose Built Escort Carrier
Conversion Light Carrier
Cruiser Conversion Light Carrier
Light Fleet Carrier
Improved Light Fleet Carrier
ASW Carrier

FEI (For Everyone's Information ;) ) in MateDow's absence I have taken responsibility for continuing development of Naval tech and Naval doctrine trees from the stuff he has made for 0.3 (which was very good) and it will be released as 0.3.5.
This (version 0.3.5 that is) will also, in greatest likelyhood, be an Armageddon-only release and will thus include the full range of brigades and hopefully other Armageddon features.

I hope to be able to involve the community in the further development of these trees before release, but that will only be done on the terranova.dk forums - so if you want to participate I suggest you find your way over there, if you haven't already. I appreciate any help I can get, since the naval stuff isn't my primary area of knowledge (though its better than land stuff...).