Battle of Midway- the carriers....

[Gambit21]

Kamikaze was in from the start. I experimented with missions early on (all you needed was a GATTACK waypoint with a selected target and no further waypoints) and used it to good effect when I released a campaign called Facing the Wind: http://www.mission4today.com/index.php?name=Downloads&file=details&id=3110

 

The kamikaze defense missions were intense. You'd have a pretty limited window of opportunity to spot and intercept the kamikaze attackers before they could get to shipping. Sometimes it was easy but other times it was down to the wire with the Destroyer AA kicking up a huge cloud of flak and you trying to pick off sometimes burning but still potentially deadly kamikaze aircraft. I had a lot of fun making the campaign and building it around the Okinawa scenario. I'd love to go back there... I know others aren't so sure about it but I think it's a great place to do battle with the USN, BPF and Japanese. Hopefully the map would encompass the southern part of Kyushu as well.

 

Interesting, that got by me completely and Seahawk who was also designing Pacific missions never had them either.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I still dont feel like Kamikaze is all that interesting. 

 

But thinking of fleets, it made me check actual contents of Soviet Black Fleet and its not that tiny as I was thinking - its one battleship (a modified pre-world war I dreadnought Parizhskaya Kommuna), 5 cruisers, 3 destroyer leaders, 11 destroyers and over 40 submarines. And of course some minor or auxiliary vessels.  On the other hand Axis fleet is somehow very limited, with destroyers, gunboats and submarines mainly. Still, some destroyer and cruiser engagements should already be possible. 

[Dakpilot]

I am no expert on Pacific carriers, but would it be accurate to say that all the main U.S. ones in OOB for Midway were of the same class/design

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midway_order_of_battle

 

How much real difference was there with the individual ships?, and would people be happy with a single version with different "skins" 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Yes, all three were of Yorktown class. They probably had small differences in armament and equipment but technically it should all come up to a single model, making some modifications to the model should not be a big issue after all. And even if difference would come only to "skins" it still wouldnt be noticeable for the most. 

[Feathered_IV]

I still dont feel like Kamikaze is all that interesting.

 

I do wonder how any game which encourages players to make suicide attacks will be received in the US market.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I would only expect one carrier type for the Americans from my previous list. Not sure I would even anticipate any skins for them in the early going. Probably a couple of types for the Japanese even though there were several different carriers at Midway. If the full release includes Pearl, Wake, Coral Sea etc we might get a Lexington class as well for the Americans.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

I do wonder how any game which encourages players to make suicide attacks will be received in the US market.

I do wonder how this could be received in Japan, this topic is still obviously very delicate.

 

 

 

I would only expect one carrier type for the Americans from my previous list. Not sure I would even anticipate any skins for them in the early going. Probably a couple of types for the Japanese even though there were several different carriers at Midway. If the full release includes Pearl, Wake, Coral Sea etc we might get a Lexington class as well for the Americans.

I'd expect that since maps wont take nearly as much resources, most will be shifted to developing ship models and technology to make them work properly. Damage models will be a real deal.  

[Bearfoot]

Japanese carriers 

[Yogiflight]

If the light AA guns are shooting as accurate as the russian do in the game, then kamikaze attacks will be absolutely useless anyway.

The carriers captain will send the AAA crews under deck to play cards or so and get one cal.50 gun manned by the black cook, who will shoot the kamikazes down without any problem

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Bearfoot, you are kinda makin' my point. There is no way all of those types will be in the initial release. Maybe the four principals but I'd be willing to bet only a couple get made out of the gate.

 

And Hiro, I don't know that much about actual coding. Do map and texture guys shift gears easilly and start making models/objects? Seems those would be two different disciplines.

[hames123]

The carriers should be covered with AA. Attacking the fleet should be suicide if you are alone, you might drop your bomb/torpedo, but there would be no chance of getting away if every gun is on you.

[Sokol1]

 

Feathered_IV, on 04 Oct 2016 - 19:31, said:

I do wonder how any game which encourages players to make suicide attacks will be received in the US market.

I do wonder how this could be received in Japan, this topic is still obviously very delicate.

 

 

I'd expect that since maps wont take nearly as much resources, most will be shifted to developing ship models and technology to make them work properly. Damage models will be a real deal.  

 

I don't see reasons for yours concerns.

 

For players, what is the difference from you, for example, take Stuka in BoS and hit some with then one of these river boat?

To not say that players do this all time (involuntary maybe?  ) against all kind of targets.

 

So if "player kamikase" will implemented in Bo:Okw (or whatever) what will be different in the mechanics?

In IL-2:46 only one human plane or bomb hit are not able to sink a war ship, what make sense, unless ships have a sophisticated DM,

with probability for one bomb or one "kamikase" hit some vital part.

 

The only different kamikase in game will mean AI kamikase, like in iL-2:46.

 

BTW - BOS AI is good in "kamikase", just need train their aim. 

Edited October 5, 2016 by Sokol1

[hames123]

At last, the AI can do something efficiently.

[JtD]

... Damage models will be a real deal ...

I hope to see basic damage progress and damage control routines implemented - fire fighting/spreading, anti/progressive flooding, pumps, repair teams... Just having some damage boxes modelled however detailed won't do the trick. I'd like to see hit locations and timing matter.

 

And with regards to the selection of ships, I hope that the developers don't make the mistake of modelling top down - i.e. modelling all sorts of major units before they go down to the smaller ships. Imho, one generic CV & BB for each side would do the trick for starters, if I get to see a dozen cruisers, destroyers and two dozen even smaller units on each side. Generally, the smaller units were way more numerous, more extensively used and make for better game play.

[hames123]

Yes, the destroy and crusier screen should be hard to get through, to make it harder to even reach the carriers. The battleships would be around the carriers and inside the screen, providing more AA.

[Dakpilot]

I hope to see basic damage progress and damage control routines implemented - fire fighting/spreading, anti/progressive flooding, pumps, repair teams... Just having some damage boxes modelled however detailed won't do the trick. I'd like to see hit locations and timing matter.

 

And with regards to the selection of ships, I hope that the developers don't make the mistake of modelling top down - i.e. modelling all sorts of major units before they go down to the smaller ships. Imho, one generic CV & BB for each side would do the trick for starters, if I get to see a dozen cruisers, destroyers and two dozen even smaller units on each side. Generally, the smaller units were way more numerous, more extensively used and make for better game play.

 

While I would welcome multiple Cruisers and Destroyers and many types of support ships...., when you consider the work (and research)  involved in say a Tank or an Aircraft model, and how many ground units exist in BoS/BoM?

 

To set expectations of 12 cruiser/destroyer types and 24 other individual types for each side seems setting yourself up, and priming others for major disappointment .

 

I would love a representative OOB for Midway with respect to the units actually involved in the Battle...but a certain amount of realistic consideration to what is possible has to be considered....

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

It's not a 1944-1945 where AA was supported by radar guidance, ships were filled with 20/25/40 mm fast automatic guns and 4+ inch batteries. In early stage as Midway stands both sides formations were penetrated by aircraft with only few losses caused by AA (Japanese probably can account for 2-4 aircraft shot down by AA and one friendly Zero shot down, Americans about the same or slightly more) and most by CAP. The overall effectiveness of AA on both sides during Midway operation was similar - low. Of course it still will be a rain of shells and explosions in the air, so everyone should be concious of that and try to attack in larger group to split aa fire. 

 

 

 

I hope to see basic damage progress and damage control routines implemented - fire fighting/spreading, anti/progressive flooding, pumps, repair teams... Just having some damage boxes modelled however detailed won't do the trick. I'd like to see hit locations and timing matter.

Yes. And ability of ship ai to react to various forms of damage. For example bomb is dropped which damages engine room and ship is left without power, but damage control crew after some time manages to bring power back and ship can get on the move (for gameplay purposes those repair times could be shortened to be fair). On the  other hand ship with rudder stuck in deflected position should be only able to continue turning.

Detailed damage models will really be a fun if done properly.

 

 

 

And with regards to the selection of ships, I hope that the developers don't make the mistake of modelling top down - i.e. modelling all sorts of major units before they go down to the smaller ships. Imho, one generic CV & BB for each side would do the trick for starters, if I get to see a dozen cruisers, destroyers and two dozen even smaller units on each side. Generally, the smaller units were way more numerous, more extensively used and make for better game play.

But smaller units were of the same type, Kido Butai was screened by:

- Tone and Chikuma (Tone class cruisers)

- Haruna and Kirishima (Kongo-class battlecruisers, later reassigned as battleships)

- Destroyers Yugumo, Kazagumo, Makigumo of Yūgumo-class destroyers

- Nowaki, Arashi, Hagikaze, Maikaze, Tanikaze, Hamakaze, Isokaze and Urakaze of Kagero-class destroyers 

To that one can add generic types of oilers which followed Midway Carrier Force. 

 

Aleutian Force would also consist of ships of similar classes for the most. 

That means for Japanese hardest work would be making those four aircraft carriers, since one light cruiser type, one heavy cruiser type, one battleship type and two types of destroyers would be needed. Not that much in terms of variety to be honest.

[JtD]

While I would welcome multiple Cruisers and Destroyers and many types of support ships...., when you consider the work (and research) involved in say a Tank or an Aircraft model, and how many ground units exist in BoS/BoM?

 

To set expectations of 12 cruiser/destroyer types and 24 other individual types for each side seems setting yourself up, and priming others for major disappointment .

 

I would love a representative OOB for Midway with respect to the units actually involved in the Battle...but a certain amount of realistic consideration to what is possible has to be considered....

A small ship doesn't take more effort than say a tank. I'm not expecting destroyer escorts or such, in fact, that's included in my dozen of cruiser and destroyer types. Smaller can be really small.

 

For instance, nearly all battleships carried boats of various sizes, in the region of 5 to 25m. In particular the larger ones would be nice to have as a separate craft and that takes about zero effort. Transport vessels are fairly easy to do as well, maybe comparable to a lorry or worst case a locomotive, depending on the detail.

 

For the larger vessels you can save a lot of time by using modular modelling, many ships shared common parts and properly done, you could add groups of objects to a quickly made hull and save a lot of time.

 

If, however, you chose to model the Kaga, Akagi, Hiryu, Soryu, Zuiho and Hosho carriers, a Yamato, a Nagato and a Kongo battleship first, you'll certainly have very few resources left to model a good range of supporting cruisers, destroyers and small craft.

 

Additionally, the carriers just like Yamato or Nagato are useful for a Midway scenario and maybe one more, whereas for instance a Kongo class battleship could be used throughout the war, in particular the Solomons, just like cruisers, destroyers and smaller craft could. It would be smart to think about that, too.

Edited October 5, 2016 by JtD

[JtD]

But smaller units were of the same type, Kido Butai was screened by:

- Tone and Chikuma (Tone class cruisers)

- Haruna and Kirishima (Kongo-class battlecruisers, later reassigned as battleships)

- Destroyers Yugumo, Kazagumo, Makigumo of Yūgumo-class destroyers

- Nowaki, Arashi, Hagikaze, Maikaze, Tanikaze, Hamakaze, Isokaze and Urakaze of Kagero-class destroyers 

To that one can add generic types of oilers which followed Midway Carrier Force. 

 

Aleutian Force would also consist of ships of similar classes for the most. 

That means for Japanese hardest work would be making those four aircraft carriers, since one light cruiser type, one heavy cruiser type, one battleship type and two types of destroyers would be needed. Not that much in terms of variety to be honest.

Still, Mogami and Mikuma were attacked by US aircraft, the Japanese admiral transferred his flag to Nagara and basically all types of fleet destroyers participated as part of the force.

 

What would be the point in a Midway scenario if there's no Japanese invasion force? Yay, we won, too bad we left the troops at home?

[Dakpilot]

Were any Japanese Battleships even sighted during Battle of Midway?

 

Although I would love to see one/some included for what if scenarios in the larger picture of the strategic Battle, would they really be important to the historical battle?

 

I agree optimally it would be ideal to have the four principal Japanese carriers involved, but realistically that could be a stretch of resources 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

Were any Japanese Battleships even sighted during Battle of Midway?

Absolutely, the Kongo class actively participated as part of the AAA defence and claimed to have knocked down several US aircraft (Haruna - 5?).

 

But sighted or not - the battleships were a key element in the Japanese invasion plan, just like the troop transports, landing craft and support ships. Without the Japanese intention to actually invade and occupy Midway the whole scenario would be utterly pointless.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

 

 

you'll certainly have very few resources left to model a good range of supporting cruisers, destroyers and small craft.

But the point is that you dont need a great range of supporting vessels. For the most part ships were build in groups where ships of same type operated in one division (and so destroyer division 17 contained four Kagero class destroyers), that means you can model 2-3 types of destroyers and then just make skins for different ones. Same with cruisers, to operation Mi there were assigned four Takao-class heavy cruisers ( Atago and Chokai with Midway invasion force and Maya and Takao with Aleutian force) as well as three Myōkō-class heavy cruisers ( Myōkō and Haguro again supporting invasion force and Nachi with Aleutian Main body force). 

 

 

 

Still, Mogami and Mikuma were attacked by US aircraft, the Japanese admiral transferred his flag to Nagara and basically all types of fleet destroyers participated as part of the force. What would be the point in a Midway scenario if there's no Japanese invasion force? Yay, we won, too bad we left the troops at home?

The point is what difference does it make if invasion force would be protected by different type of destroyers ?

Since when it comes to battleships for both Kido Butai and invasion force you only need Kongo class, for heavy cruisers you need Takao class and if one wants to be picky than Myoko class. Eventually a third class could be added, Mogami, as four of those were present in Close Support Group.

 

 It's still aircraft simulator and focusing on too many types and variants isn't all that necessary. 

[JtD]

The point is what difference does it make if invasion force would be protected by different type of destroyers ?

What difference does it make if you have four different carriers?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

 It's still aircraft simulator and focusing on too many types and variants isn't all that necessary. 

Agree, the main focus must stay on aviation. For the navy I could settle with 1 type per ship class for each side including small troop landing crafts.

 

More may come after release or with further expansions, the more the better, but not at cost of aircraft development time.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

What difference does it make if you have four different carriers?

Well, aircraft carriers are key players here. They are most important ships in the whole expansion and only relevant for us, players, since thats the bit of wood that we take-off from. Not focusing on them would be weird, like Stalingrad would be overlooked in favor of some smaller towns and villages.

I'm not advocating for minimalist plan, just that you dont need dozens of classes to be presented. Carriers, 2 classes of battleships (since Kongo was only actual active class during events and Yamato because its Yamato), 2 classes of heavy cruisers, 1 class of light cruisers, 3 classes of destroyers and some oilers, transport ships, landing crafts, sea-plane tenders if needed. 

With this you can cover both Kido Butai and Landing party and still have room for other missions.

 

I think the amount of work needed for destroyers and cruisers should be visible already with BoK. 

[Dakpilot]

Absolutely, the Kongo class actively participated as part of the AAA defence and claimed to have knocked down several US aircraft (Haruna - 5?).

 

But sighted or not - the battleships were a key element in the Japanese invasion plan, just like the troop transports, landing craft and support ships. Without the Japanese intention to actually invade and occupy Midway the whole scenario would be utterly pointless.

 

Fair enough Kongo class BB Haruna has a legitimate reason for inclusion to be included - attached to main Carrier strike force and saw action, and the class is important for many Pacific clashes.

 

BoS Bom series is really a tactical 'Sim' to expect the entire Strategic battle to be simulated/represented is probably too much

 

Just having detailed Carrier/tactical ship operations (that alone is a mammoth task) and a Pacific island map in the Bos world is far from pointless 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

Well, aircraft carriers are key players here. They are most important ships in the whole expansion and only relevant for us, players, since thats the bit of wood that we take-off from. Not focusing on them would be weird, like Stalingrad would be overlooked in favor of some smaller towns and villages.

Focussing on carriers at the expense of other naval elements is like focussing on airfields at the expense of Stalingrad. You'll have a greatly detailed piece of wood/dirt to take off from, but no reason to do so.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Again if the Pacific venture is handicapped with scaled down fleets etc. it will be a bit of a let down, at least for me. It is like putting a few toy boats in a swimming pool and tell you to imagine there is one of mightiest fleets of PTO. Ehum, not by far. BoS and BoM suffer from being empty without any action outside vicinity of the player. There is no feel of witnessing 2 armies clash. Vast areas with nothing. Even Falcon 4.0 had ways to make the battlefield look live, even it was just effects in the distance. You could see battles "raging" along the frontline, giving a sensation of a war going on, even the units you engaged directly were shown. To my understanding other targets that were moving/present in the campaign did show up to the player if you got in the vicinity. And all this with 2-5% of CPU time given to the dynamic campaign...Read the interview of Falcon 4.0 campaign coder and you get the idea

 

 Anyway hopefully BoK brings new stuff on the table and game evolves furhter

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Focussing on carriers at the expense of other naval elements is like focussing on airfields at the expense of Stalingrad. You'll have a greatly detailed piece of wood/dirt to take off from, but no reason to do so.

But thats not what I said JtD. I dont advocate for exclusive attention given to aircraft carriers but on some focus and selection, to pick those more represented classes and drop some less active during operation. There must be a selection since building a whole fleet is simply a no go. 

[JtD]

Yes, and I never said I want the whole fleet modelled. I just want sufficient focus on smaller units, which were larger in number and more extensively used than the biggest ones.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

What difference does it make if you have four different carriers?

For gameplay it wont. That's why I would only expect one of each surface type initially, with the possible exception of the Japanese carriers. For historical purposes you will need all of those types but they can be added over time.

Well, aircraft carriers are key players here. They are most important ships in the whole expansion and only relevant for us, players, since thats the bit of wood that we take-off from. Not focusing on them would be weird, like Stalingrad would be overlooked in favor of some smaller towns and villages.

I'm not advocating for minimalist plan, just that you dont need dozens of classes to be presented. Carriers, 2 classes of battleships (since Kongo was only actual active class during events and Yamato because its Yamato), 2 classes of heavy cruisers, 1 class of light cruisers, 3 classes of destroyers and some oilers, transport ships, landing crafts, sea-plane tenders if needed. 

With this you can cover both Kido Butai and Landing party and still have room for other missions.

 

I think the amount of work needed for destroyers and cruisers should be visible already with BoK. 

Getting that many classes would be nice but not necessary. Then again, it's not like the Dev's haven't pleasantly surprised us in the past............................

[Gambit21]

Focussing on carriers at the expense of other naval elements is like focussing on airfields at the expense of Stalingrad. You'll have a greatly detailed piece of wood/dirt to take off from, but no reason to do so.

Study the Pacific and you'll learn carriers were mostly deployed against other carriers. Pearl Harbor was an early, singular example of carrier operations being effective against an (unprepared) Allied land base, but that was more or less the end of it. After that it was kill the other carrier, protect your carriers from the other carriers. Late war carrier operations against the home islands notwithstanding.

 

Point is - if you were taking off from a carrier in WWII, you were most likely (I didn't say always) going after the other sides carriers. Thus with regard to shipping and our flight sim - it's mostly about the carriers.

 

That said the PTO air war as a whole is not all about the carriers, the remaining carriers were tucked away during the middle of the war and it was about land bases operations in the Solomons and New Guinea

Edited October 5, 2016 by Gambit21

[Dakpilot]

Yes, and I never said I want the whole fleet modelled. I just want sufficient focus on smaller units, which were larger in number and more extensively used than the biggest ones.

 

No but you did mention 12 Cruiser/ Destroyer types for each side

 

and 24 smaller craft for each side

 

This seems to be a lot, 72 individual models...before Carriers and Battleships, and I think you underestimate the work that would need, and you then go on to say without the actual invasion fleet the whole thing is pointless 

 

I don't want to argue, but you did say these things, I fully agree with the need for smaller units to 'populate' Midway Island area, and the need for support ships. But it is not necessary to be able to recreate strategically, parts of the battle that are 'what if' 

 

There will be more than enough work just to deal with the historic actual engagements,

 

I would love to see as many types of Cruisers, Destroyers, Cargo ships, boats, tenders and suchlike as possible and all the principal Capital ship types, but how much would that cost at BoS level of detail..

 

Sometimes realistic sights have to be set, without condemning it as pointless 

 

anyway have said my 'opinion' and i'm out 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[PatrickAWlson]

IMHO for Carrier you could get away with one US model and two Japanese.  Hiryu and Soryu were sort of sister ships.  Akagi and Kaga were both 1930s converts, although from different underlying ship types.  

[Bearfoot]

IMHO for Carrier you could get away with one US model and two Japanese.  Hiryu and Soryu were sort of sister ships.  Akagi and Kaga were both 1930s converts, although from different underlying ship types.  

This.

 

Same goes for all the other classes.

 

No need for all the hang-wringing anguish about never being able to get all the artwork done at once.

 

One class of each major type from either side to begin with: DD, CL, CA, etc.

 

Then multiple instances of each class realized in game, with numbers of each class as needed.

 

You can have a TF of any size you want on either side.

 

Your battles can span hundreds of ships. 

[JtD]

Study the Pacific and you'll learn carriers were mostly deployed against other carriers. Pearl Harbor was an early, singular example of carrier operations being effective against an (unprepared) Allied land base, but that was more or less the end of it. After that it was kill the other carrier, protect your carriers from the other carriers. Late war carrier operations against the home islands notwithstanding.

 

Point is - if you were taking off from a carrier in WWII, you were most likely (I didn't say always) going after the other sides carriers. Thus with regard to shipping and our flight sim - it's mostly about the carriers.

 

That said the PTO air war as a whole is not all about the carriers, the remaining carriers were tucked away during the middle of the war and it was about land bases operations in the Solomons and New Guinea

I'm well read, thank you, and disagree. There were a few carrier operations where air groups of carriers clashed, and even in these, mostly, the carriers supported operations of other military elements. The IJN carriers did a lot more than attack Pearl Harbour, fight at Coral Sea and then Midway.

For the US it is somewhat different, because one they were on the defence and two their battleship force had been destroyed at Pearl Harbour. But even they used their carriers to oppose Japanese expansion in many places, not just to oppose Japanese carriers at Coral Sea and Midway.

 

No but you did mention 12 Cruiser/ Destroyer types for each side

 

and 24 smaller craft for each side

 

This seems to be a lot, 72 individual models

I said a dozen cruisers/destroyers and two dozen smaller units. Technically, one dozen covers anything from 6 to 17, so if it's a total of 50 instead of 72 I'd still be satisfied. Plus I never said "type" plus I've given an example of how easily the figure of 'even smaller' can be pushed. A Mogami class cruiser carried three different types of boats. Edited October 5, 2016 by JtD

[DD_Arthur]

 Technically, one dozen covers anything from 6 to 17,

 

 

Er...anyway; I seem to remember Jason talking about the release of a SDK for vehicles and ships during his Q & A session.  Perhaps that will produce a diverse fleet.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Well, the most basic landing craft IJN had was Daihatsu which was a large motorized boat. Used everywhere landing was expected to be carried. But the nice one in my opinion is No.101-class landing ship, even though those appeared later than Midway events;

 

Army had its own SS-class landing ships, but those were not suitable for mass production and thus not many were built. 

[Gambit21]

I'm well read, thank you, and disagree. There were a few carrier operations where air groups of carriers clashed, and even in these, mostly, the carriers supported operations of other military elements. The IJN carriers did a lot more than attack Pearl Harbour, fight at Coral Sea and then Midway.

For the US it is somewhat different, because one they were on the defence and two their battleship force had been destroyed at Pearl Harbour. But even they used their carriers to oppose Japanese expansion in many places, not just to oppose Japanese carriers at Coral Sea and Midway.

.

Of the books I've read I think Eric Bergerud (Fire in the Sky) characterized the relationship and functionality of the opposing carrier forces most succinctly - "suicide pact". That's exactly how it played out with a few exceptions until late war. Edited October 5, 2016 by Gambit21

[Dakpilot]

Technically, one dozen covers anything from 6 to 17

 

Thanks for clarifying that 

 

Next time I go to the shop, ask for a dozen eggs and receive 6, I will know technically they are correct, and keep my mouth shut

 

Cheers Dakpilot