| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject: In need of Japanese Custom cards
|
 |
|
The Japanese project is lagging comparing to the others. Italy and Germany are practically finished and U.S. offers a huge range of choices. I am asking for forumers who have good knowledge of the Japanese navy to suggest cards to be considered for review.
The same for the smaller navies (Canada, Australia, Russia, etc.)
Also, we need some more review of the British destroyer classes.
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
 Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:31 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Do you want us to submit actual cards, or suggest ships and/or stats? |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:33 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Blackeagle wrote: | | Do you want us to submit actual cards, or suggest ships and/or stats? |
actual cards is obviously better, but stats can be enough, especially if there is an explanation defending their choice.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:34 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Well, of the cards I've already done, I didn't see any of these in either the approved or proposed threads. By the way, you have a "for your feedback and your review: Japanese Navy (1st part)" but there doesn't seem to be any "2nd part". Missing something?
Tenryu class light cruiser
Tenryu
Yubari class light cruiser
Yubari
Kamikaze class destroyer
Yunagi
Matsu class destroyer
Hatsuzakura
 |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:39 pm |
|
|
Posts: 18
|
|
|
Post subject: Cards Under Review
|
|
|
Maybe I am dense... 
ND could you explain the process at this point? We have all of your previous cards and I assumed you are allowing the forum to research them and ask questions or debate the details. Once they have been universally excepted then they transfer into the "reviewed stage" and are cosidered acceptable for game play. However some of us have your original cards and they seem different then the recent American cards that you have in both format and style.
With this being the assumption, can we get at the very least a list of your "rough draft" ships in each field. I noticed a passed and reviewed thread for the Soviet navy but the only thing reviewed is an item that I have never seen (Mig 1) In the past you have done a few Soviet ships, are they considered under review in the old format?
I love what you are doing, but I want to make sure everyone has equal footing towards passing the final product.
Thanks again for all the hard work, your 1st copy cards have been a big hit, and i look forward to implementing the recent ships and adjusting the old ones.
_________________
 |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:28 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I consider all the previous cards as obsolete or wrong, even if they aren't.
From time to time I post groups of cards that I leave for some time to be reviewed. If people comment on them and there is nothing wrong with them, I look at them one last time, convert them to the new "forumini navies" format (with EvilKobra's logo and new flag symbol) and post them to the stickies as successfully reviewed and ready to use. If there is something wrong with some cards, which is very common, then the card stays for review for much longer and must certainly change.
When each navy is finished (none yet), I suggest you print them in groups of about 9, to make a booklet with all of them. Although I'm sure they'll look nice as individually printed cards, they are designed with the intention to form booklets or big albums of cards.
The soviet navy doesn't have a review thread, because it only has a single aircraft which was reviewed in the aircraft review thread. The aircraft are reviewed separately, so as to directly compare with other aircraft of the same period and ensure balance between them. In the past I had done only two soviet ships. If I make more I'll post them for review. For the time being it's not really worth it.
Some cards, which are nothing but "re-makes" of official cards, or sister ships that have nothing different to official cards, I pass them directly without review, such as the Gallisonniere class of the French.
The part 1 in the Japanese title was because I expected to do more, but I didn't. So, it's the only part. If you have enough to make a new one for the Japanese, you can call it part 2.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today).
Last edited by NeuralDream on Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:44 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:37 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | | If you have enough to make a new one for the Japanese, you can call it part 2. |
I don't know if it's enough for a whole new thread, but feel free to use any of the stuff I've posted here. |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:39 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
One of the reasons I haven't progressed much with the Japanese navy is the "night-fighter" S.A. I don't completely understand how R.B. chose which ships get it.
For example, why didn't you give nightfighter to Yunagi?
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 6:42 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | | One of the reasons I haven't progressed much with the Japanese navy is the "night-fighter" S.A. I don't completely understand how R.B. chose which ships get it. |
Well, I can't read Rich's mind, but we can observe that he gave it to Myoko Jintsu, and Yukikaze, but not Kongo, Yamato, or Tone.
Japan's pre-war naval strategy involved a bunch of night torpedo attacks on the U.S. fleet as it marched across the Pacific, followed by a neo-Jutland naval battle in Japanese home waters. Thus the cruiser-destroyer forces (who were expected to carry out these torpedo attacks) trained extensively for night fighting but the battleships (who were expected to fight during daylight) not so much.
Tone is a cruiser, but during the war she and Chikuma spend most of their time with the Combined Fleet carrier or battleship forces. The Japanese treated them more like a strategic asset than a tactical one. Her association with the battleship force, rather than one of the cruiser divisions or destroyer squadrons that did the night fighting probably led RB to leave off Night Fighter.
| NeuralDream wrote: | | For example, why didn't you give nightfighter to Yunagi? |
I left Night Fighter off Yunagi because she was a second string unit by WWII. The Battle of Savo Island was the only instance when a Kamikaze class destroyer really got into a tactical action (they were present at some of the later battles in the Solomons, but as transports rather than combat units, similar to the American APDs).
For similar reasons, I left Night Figher off Hatsuzakura, since the Matsu class were intended primarily as escorts, with traditional destroyer work a clearly secondary role.
As a rule of thumb, I'd say that all Japanese destroyers from the Fubuki class up to the Yugumo class should get Night Figher. Save for the scratch team pulled together for Savo Island, none of the earlier classes saw service in a primarily combat role in any of the night battles in the Solomons. The later classes were built for more specialized roles (Akizuki for AA and the Matsu and Tachibana classes for ASW) with general destroyer work as a clearly secondary priority (as attested to by the reduced number of torpedoes).
As far as cruisers go, I'd give all of them Night Fighter, except for the Tone class and Oyodo, which were specialist units, and the Katori class, which were intended as training ships rather than as front-line units. |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:06 pm |
|
|
Silver-Rated Trader
Posts: 1888
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
not to say I am in yours or blackeagle's league with my knowledge, but maybe this will save some leg work...
_________________
An appeal to fear never finds an echo in German hearts.
Otto von Bismarck
http://riversidegaming.myfastforum.org/forum3.php |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:21 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
MadGhost, it seems that Oi wasn't always so heavily loaded with torpedoes. Do you have the exact dates for this?
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:50 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Btw, the Japanese ships that Blackeagle posted in here are under review, so please post your opinion on them. If all goes well, I'll add them to the stickies this week.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:56 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Based on what we did with the Mahan class, the Kamikaze class' armor needs to be reduced to 2/6/2. |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:02 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Blackeagle wrote: | | Based on what we did with the Mahan class, the Kamikaze class' armor needs to be reduced to 2/6/2. |
Yes
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 8:06 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
More IJN destroyer cards.
Minekaze class
Kamikaze class
Wakatake class
Mutsuki class
Fubuki class
Akatsuki class
Hatsuharu class
Shiratsuyu class
Asahio class
Kagero class
Shimikaze
Yugumo class
Akizuki class
Matsu class
Tachibana class
And some torpedo boats.
Tomozuru class
Otori class
I revised the Matsu and Kamikaze cards a little bit.
One note of explanation: The Mutsuki class was fitted with 24 inch torpedo tubes, but I can't find any reference to them being fitted to carry the oxygen fueled Type 93 torpedo. I figure that the "Long Lance" special ability actually represents the larger warhead fitted to Japanese 24 inch torpedoes, while the actual characteristics of the oxygen fueled Long Lance (greater range and speed) are represented by the torpedo dice given to Japanese ships. So the Matsu class gets the Long Lance SA because she had 24 inch torpedo tubes but she doesn't get the better torpedo stats because she didn't carry long lances (confusing, 'aint it?)
Last edited by Blackeagle on Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:52 pm |
|
|
Resident U-Head
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Blackeagle wrote: | | One note of explanation: The Mutsuki class was fitted with 24 inch torpedo tubes, but I can't find any reference to them being fitted to carry the oxygen fueled Type 93 torpedo. I figure that the "Long Lance" special ability actually represents the larger warhead fitted to Japanese 24 inch torpedoes, while the actual characteristics of the oxygen fueled Long Lance (greater range and speed) are represented by the torpedo dice given to Japanese ships. So the Matsu class gets the Long Lance SA because she had 24 inch torpedo tubes but she doesn't get the better torpedo stats because she didn't carry long lances (confusing, 'aint it?) |
Very elegant, sir 
_________________
  |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 9:54 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Brilliant work. thanks to this, we'll have the Japanese navy much faster than I expected. Probably by the end of this week.
Now we have to review these cards one by one. Where's my Conway's! Ah there it is 
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:01 pm |
|
|
Posts: 610
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Shimakazi's cost is not proportional to the number of Long Lance torpedoes it is capable of dishing out in a turn. Think that needs to be looked at. Overall things seem balancedish. Did my quick go over of AA ability and nothing broken/out of the ordinary there so GJ.
BTW Neutral dream, I don't have that program in my repitoire of items on my computer so I won't be able to recieve those templates. I might be getting it soon though. What program package does it come in (Microsoft Office or something simmilar), or is it stand alone when you buy it? |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:09 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9282
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Publisher 2007 came with my MS office 2007.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:12 pm |
|
|
Moderator
Posts: 938
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Quote: | | One note of explanation: The Mutsuki class was fitted with 24 inch torpedo tubes, but I can't find any reference to them being fitted to carry the oxygen fueled Type 93 torpedo |
.
The Mutsukis carried unmodified Type 12 Year Triple mounts and never could use Long Lances. All destroyer classes from Hatsuharu on were modified to carry Long Lances or were contructed with Long Lances from the get-go. Of the "Special Type" destroyers, only Usugumo, Uranami, Hibiki, Ushio, Akebono, and Yûgiri were modifed to carry Long Lances, and it wasn't until August 1943 to September 1944. |
|
| Sun Mar 30, 2008 11:19 pm |
|
|
|
