 |
| |
|
|
Patine
|
 |
Edmonton, Canada
Mar 2002
time: 22:16
|
|
Thanks for the suggestions (and the cavalry, typhoon)! I think I'll put the cavalry in place of the Bansai Troops and keep the Shinhoto (I already have a dedicated offensive infantry unit). As well, I'll keep the Val; you've convinced me, but I'll can the redundant merchant ship for a mine, and thus have one generic landing craft, as currently presented (I was planning to have separate US and Japanese landers and cannibalize the merchant freighter for that). I'll probably also take Leonidas' advice and use a white Zero (probably the one by jimmy). The extra Chinese infantry and the Dutch Marines may also be chopped, for such things as Japanese paratroopers and something else (any suggestions?). I'll also keep both the P-51 and the B-24, getting rid of the redundant British infantry, as before. So, what I need now is a Japanese paratrooper, a sea mine, and a good B-24. If anyone can help me, I'd be much obliged. Thanks!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patine
I've got the Japanese paratrooper on the WW2 units thread, and most of my others are from that set as well, I think. I do still need a B-24 and sea mine, and it seems apparent jimmy's only extant Zero (unless I'm mistaken and have missed one) is green, so I'm also looking for a white Zero (maybe just a tweak of jimmy's). I'm still open to suggestions as to what would be the best thing to replace that redundant Chinese infantry with. |
Your original units.gif (on page 10 of this thread) had some white/grey Zeros:
http://apolyton.net/forums/attachme...&postid=3616808
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
Speaking of defence:
If there are any free unit slots available, I'm wondering if there should be 2 slots for AA defensive units (an early unit and a more powerful one available later on)?
Japan may need a cheap AA unit for cities.
For example:
Historically, The Japanese defended Wake Island (captured in 1941 after an intense 16-day campaign, and renamed Eneen-Kio) with four 200mm and four 150mm coast defense guns, eight 127mm twin-mount dual purpose (coast and AA) guns, one 80mm dual purpose gun, nine 75mm anti-aircraft guns, twelve 37mm anti-tank guns, twenty-four 25mm twin-mount anti-aircraft guns, and other assorted smaller guns.
The Japanese also had several dual purpose guns (for use against both land and air units):
For example, on the following islands, the Japanese had:
Jaluit: three 150mm coast defense guns, six 127mm twin-mount dual purpose guns, four 80mm dual purpose guns, twenty-four 75mm anti-tank guns, three 25mm twin-mount anti-aircraft guns, and other assorted smaller guns.
Wotje: four 160mm howitzers, six 150mm coast defense guns, five 150mm field guns, six 127mm twin-mount dual purpose guns, two 120mm guns, two 100mm mortars, six 37mm anti-tank guns, three 25mm twin-mount anti-aircraft guns, two 20mm anti-aircraft guns, and other assorted smaller guns.
Mile: seven 150mm and three 140mm coast defense guns, four 127mm twin-mount dual purpose guns, four 80mm dual purpose guns, nine 75mm anti-aircraft guns, two 37mm anti-tank guns, six 25mm twin-mount anti-aircraft guns, twenty-six 20mm anti-aircraft guns, and other assorted smaller guns.
Last edited by Leonidas on 23-02-2005 at 18:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
curtsibling
|
 |
of the Kill!
May 2002
time: 05:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AGRICOLA
As I understand it, this scen will only be playable as Japan. Also, there is still some fluidity in the selection of units. What is important to a player is that Japan can build all the units that historically it had in '44 and '45.
An obsolescent cavalry unit or another run-of-the-mill infantry unit are irrelevant in the final defence of the home islands in '45, whereas a coastal force of mines, suicidal motor boats and manned torpedoes might do some good. Don't forget that Kamikazes sank or damaged over 400 US ships during the invasion of Okinawa, the first time that the Japanese got really serious about suicide tactics.
The problem with balancing the scen is not in making the Allies strong enough. Events can generate any size Allied force, including A-bombs, wherever and whenever needed. This an easy way to make the scen play and come out whatever way Patine considers best.
The problem is in providing players with a reason for playing if the outcome is certain defeat. If good play cannot force a stalemate and a negotiated peace (Allied war weariness, casualties etc), IMHO the scen is a dead duck as far as anyone actually playing it.
Don't shortchange the Japanese on useful units that they actually had available in favor of another Allied unit or a next to useless Japanese one.
 |
This is sound advice!
The game should always have the promise of a glorious win!
What I try to do in my WW2 efforts is guide the gameplay
towards pivotal battles and if the outcome of these goes in
the favour of the historic loser, then it is anyone's game!
For the Japanese, taking Port Moresby or Dehli may drastically change the war.
Also the events on the Eastern front could be crucially useful given ToT's extended events...
What about some German units sent to assist?
A fighter ace or killer U-Boat?
(just ideas)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
Curt:
Your ideas are sound and do suggest other events/options for the Japanese player.
For example:
1) The Japanese player could try to invade Australia and Hawaii. This would extend the time the USA would need to take back land from Japan. Also, what would the repercussions of taking Australia be for the Allies? for Japan?
2) The Japanese player could try to hold out from having the Japanese mainland from being invaded by a certain date. This might constitute a "victory".
3) There could be, for example, a 30% chance of the USSR declaring war on Japan after May, 1945. This would probably help seal Japan's fate.
4) Historical: However, according to Camille Gorge, a Swiss minister in Tokyo, in March 1945: he stated that "Japan has always . . . predicted that a quarrel in the near future between the Soviets and (the U.S. and Britain) . . . might rescue Japan," and thus Soviet Union intervention in a war with the USA would help Japan avoid an unconditional surrender.
This raises an interesting event (and possibly a slim hope) for Japan. Let's say there is a 5% chance that the USSR and the USA go to war in Europe after May, 1945. If this event happens, and if Japan is still in the game (ie its mainland still hasn't been invaded), then the USA will seek peace with Japan.
5) Historical: In the last days of the Third Reich (April 15, 1945) U-234 (a type XB submarine) the largest class of German U-boat ever constructed left a German port bound for Japan. It's cargo?
U-234 carried: armor piercing antiaircraft shells, two Me-262 jet fighters, and 10 containers marked "Japanese Army" which contained 560 kg of uranium oxide!
Had this uranium reached its probable destinations, Osaka and the Riken Laboratory in Tokyo, enrichment via thermal diffusion would have been attempted. Successfully enriched, the product would have been, by activity, mostly U-234.
This would have given the Japanese a "dirty bomb" capability.
Fortunately this sub was discovered and boarded by the US navy.
Perhaps there could be an event that might take this historic action into consideration?
There could be an 80% chance that U-234 is discovered and stopped. However, there could be a 20% chance that U-234 gets through to Japan.
If it gets through, then Japan would be able to build the ME-262 and it would have the uranium for several dirty bombs with which to help stop US invasion forces.
So, from the above there could be lots of opportunities for the Japanese player.
Last edited by Leonidas on 23-02-2005 at 20:40
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Patine
|
|
Edmonton, Canada
Mar 2002
time: 22:16
|
|
Good points, everyone! I'd actually planned a game where Japan wins if it holds out till Dec '47, when the scen ends. But the options of capturing Delhi, Port Moresby, Australia, Hawaii, or even Alaska and parts of Siberia would certainly improve the victory quotient. I can also see merit in Soviet interference, not just against Japan, but possibly also against the US. Plus, U-234 making it to Japan may turn events in their favor, allowing them a formidable weapon against the US. I think the objective system built into the cheat menu may have to be invoked for sure to cover 'tiers' of victory, but also I'll have to consider more hypothetical ideas than just units that didn't make it into service.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Patine
Good points, everyone! I'd actually planned a game where Japan wins if it holds out till Dec '47, when the scen ends. But the options of capturing Delhi, Port Moresby, Australia, Hawaii, or even Alaska and parts of Siberia would certainly improve the victory quotient. I can also see merit in Soviet interference, not just against Japan, but possibly also against the US. Plus, U-234 making it to Japan may turn events in their favor, allowing them a formidable weapon against the US. I think the objective system built into the cheat menu may have to be invoked for sure to cover 'tiers' of victory, but also I'll have to consider more hypothetical ideas than just units that didn't make it into service. |
Excellent points.
There is no doubt that the Japanese player will be up to his/her neck in fighting the USA. It should be a real test of strategc/tactical ability ala Red Front.
The more options/events and twists there are (and most are historical) only increases the scenario's replayability, since a player who is defeated initially, may opt to play again hoping for a different outcome.
Plus, every new twist and option at least gives the Japanese player a level of hope even in late 1945.
Cheers! 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Broken_Erika
Not only that but i read somewhere that near the end of the war the japanese were experimenting with jet aircraft, but the only prototypes would have been no match for conventional propellar designs and far more expensive, |
Right on Erika
I took the liberty of doing some checking.
Here are the results:
Nakajima Kikka
Japanese WW2 Jet Fighter
The Nakajima Kikka (Orange Blossom) was a twin-jet fighter based on the German Messerschmitt Me 262. The Kikka was the only Japanese jet-powered aircraft produced during the Pacific War that was capable of taking off on its own power, although it did so only twice.
The reports on the progress of the Me 262 received from the Japanese air attache in Berlin led the Naval Staff in September 1944 to instruct the Nakajima Hikoki K.K. to design a single-seat twin-jet attack fighter based on the Me 262. Requirements included a maximum speed of 431 mph, a range of 127 miles with a 1100-pound bomb load or 173 miles with a 551 lb bombload. The takeoff run was to be no longer than 1150 feet when using two 992 lb.s.t. RATOG bottles. Provisions were to be made for the aircraft to have folding wings in order that it be able to be hidden in caves and tunnels. An emphasis was to be made on the ease of production of the aircraft by unskilled labor.
The overall configuration of the Kikka was quite similar to that of the Me 262, but the Kikka was somewhat smaller than its German counterpart.
In the meantime, photographs of the German BMW 003 axial-flow turbojet had been obtained, and the Japanese were able to use these photos to assist them in designing a similar turbojet (designated Ne-20) rated at 1047 lb.s.t. It was decided to switch the Kikka to the Ne-20, and since it now appeared that the performance requirements could be met after all, the project moved forward with greater rapidity.
The first Kikka was completed in August 1945, and made its first flight on August 7 at Kisarazu Naval Air Base with LtCdr Susumu Takaoka at the controls. The second flight, which took place four days later, had to be aborted during takeoff because the two RATOG bottles were mounted at an incorrect angle. However, the Japanese surrender brought an immediate termination to the project on August 15, 1945. At the time of termination, a second prototype was almost ready for flight trials and 18 additional prototypes and pre-production aircraft were in various stages of assembly.
Fighter, trainer, reconnaissance, and attack versions of the Kikka were planned. The bomber version was to be unarmed, but the fighter version was to carry a pair of 30-mm cannon. The fighter version would have had either two 1984 lb.s.t Ne-130 or two 1951 lb.s.t. Ne-330 axial-flow turbojets.
Specification of the Nakajima Kikka:
Two Ne-20 axial-flow turbojets, 1047 lb.s.t. each.
Performance (estimated); Maximum speed 387 mph at sea level and 433 mph at 32,810 feet. Service ceiling was 39,370 feet. Climb to 32,180 feet in 26 minutes. Range 586 miles.
Dimensions: wing span 32 feet 9 11/16 inches, length 26 feet 7 7/8 inches, height 9 feet 8 5/32 inches, wing area 141.1 square feet. Weights: 5071 pounds empty, 7716 pounds loaded, 8995 pounds maximum takeoff.
Armament: Neither prototype carried any armament.
Source:
* Japanese Aircraft of the Pacific War, Rene J. Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1979
Comment:
The above raises the possibilty of Japan being able to acquire such aircraft through in-game research.
Also, there could be a random event with a 30% possibility that Germany will provide Japan with the necessary technology to build such a jet aircraft.
This, as well as a host of other ideas, would always give the Japanese player a fighting chance to succeed...
Last edited by Leonidas on 24-02-2005 at 05:50
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Leonidas
|
|
JET AIRCRAFT and ROCKET DEVELOPMENT
During World War Two
Here is a website that details all the jet aircraft that were developed in WW2:
http://www.ww2pacific.com/jethist.html
Jets and Rockets For Japan:
Yokosuka Ohka-22 Buka 1945 1P Suicide bomb
Nakajima Kikka 7Aug 45 2P Twin jet bomber on Me-262 model.
Yokosuka Ohka-11 Buka Nov 44 755 Suicide bomb
Mitsubishi J8M Shusui July 45 1P From Me-163
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-02-2005 16:52
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
|