| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject: Blackeagle's Custom Cards: Japanese Navy
|
 |
|
Here's some custom cards I've been working on for a historical scenario.
Furutaka class heavy cruisers
Furutaka
Kako
Aoba class heavy cruisers
Aoba
Kinugasa
Takao class heavy cruiser
Chokai
Tenryu class light cruiser
Tenryu
Yubari class light cruiser
Yubari
Kamikaze class destroyer
Yunagi
Last edited by Blackeagle on Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
 Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:25 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9159
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
_________________
 
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Feb 17, 2008 10:36 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| I've updated Chokai. She was meant to have the same armor as Myoko. |
|
| Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:06 am |
|
|
Posts: 9159
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
As you know I'm in the process of revisiting all cards and making new ones for all navies. My question is about the night-fighter ability. I believe it will be completely scrapped when we get the night-fighter rules of Set II, which is why I don't use it. What do you think?
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:04 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Well, the Darkness rules Richard posted in the old forums (which have been reposted here) completely change the effect of the night fighting SA, but it still has an effect. I've kept the old text for compatibility purposes, but in all my night games I use the Darkness rules (and in all the day games I ignore it). I think it's important to keep track of which ships have night-fighting abilities and which don't, and until we get official night fighting rules I think we should keep the old night fighter text for backwards compatibility. |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:23 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9159
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Thanks for reminding me. If you don't mind I'll post your Japanese cards in my template for the review process, and then post them with EK's forumini navies logo, if that's alright with you.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:36 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Sure thing, you're welcome to use any of my cards for this. |
|
| Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:48 pm |
|
|
Posts: 3096
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Just curious - why is it that Japanese ships are always so expensive? Other nations' cruisers range from 12 - 18, 21 if you count the pocket battleships. Japanese cruisers are seem way more expensive for similar armor / firepower. Do long lance torps count for so much?
_________________
TimK
IJN FUSO
www.modelwarshipcombat.com |
|
| Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:47 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9159
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| IJN Fuso wrote: | | Just curious - why is it that Japanese ships are always so expensive? Other nations' cruisers range from 12 - 18, 21 if you count the pocket battleships. Japanese cruisers are seem way more expensive for similar armor / firepower. Do long lance torps count for so much? |
Torpedoes are the only reason. Now that they are fired at the same time as gunnery attacks, it actually makes some sense. Before it didn't.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:26 pm |
|
|
Posts: 9159
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Blackeagle, what is the Unlucky Flag Plot? Why is it special for the Chokai? In other words, I'm re-visiting the Japanese Cruisers atm 
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| NeuralDream wrote: | | Blackeagle, what is the Unlucky Flag Plot? Why is it special for the Chokai? In other words, I'm re-visiting the Japanese Cruisers atm |
Chokai was Admiral Mikawa's flagship at the Battle of Savo island. The only significant damage to any Japanese vessel during that encounter was a shell from Quincy that landed right in her flag plot. This probably played a role in Mikawa's decision to withdraw, rather than go after the transports. |
|
| Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:15 am |
|
|
Posts: 9159
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| Blackeagle wrote: | | Chokai was Admiral Mikawa's flagship at the Battle of Savo island. The only significant damage to any Japanese vessel during that encounter was a shell from Quincy that landed right in her flag plot. This probably played a role in Mikawa's decision to withdraw, rather than go after the transports. |
Neat. I'll use it.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:24 am |
|
|
Posts: 3096
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I'd like to lobby for some cheaper crusiers for Japan. Long Lance or not, The high cost puts japan at a huge disadvantage when other navies can field almost 3 for 2
While we're at it - how about adding Akizuki with the Anti Air Specialist SA?
And Matsu Class DD - almost like a Japanese version of the DE with ASW specialist SA.
You can find stats at www.combinedfleet.com/dd.htm
And some interesting variations on the Kuma class CL: Oi and Kitakami were modified as torpedo cruisers. Each one mounted 40(!) long lance tubes. The broadside could have been as many as 20 long lance torpedos in the water at any one time! If a "normal" armament of 8 tubes reults in 3 3 2 1, then these should get 5X - something like 15 15 10 5!
check out http://www.world-war.co.uk/ for more info on these. Find the Kuma class from the menus...
_________________
TimK
IJN FUSO
www.modelwarshipcombat.com |
|
| Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:30 am |
|
|
Posts: 3096
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
One more suggestion:
Nagara abd Kuma class CLs were designed to be destroyer squadron flagships. Jintsu (of the Sendai Class) represents this with a flag bonus of 1. It would be interesting to have an SA that allowed these cruisers to improve Japanese DDs. Something like
Destroyer Sentai Leader - like Wolfpack. As long as you control 2 Destroyers, the DDs roll 1 additional torpedo die.
I have no idea if that's a good idea, but would make for an interesting test game...
_________________
TimK
IJN FUSO
www.modelwarshipcombat.com |
|
| Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:45 am |
|
|
Posts: 904
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
| IJN Fuso wrote: | | I'd like to lobby for some cheaper crusiers for Japan. Long Lance or not, The high cost puts japan at a huge disadvantage when other navies can field almost 3 for 2 |
The problem is, you've got to go back a heck of a long ways until you find a Japanese cruiser without long lances. Their most modern cruisers without long lances were the Tenryu class, which were downright ancient (see above). However, the Jintsu and the other similar light cruisers have too high a torpedo rating. They've only got half the long lances in their torpedo broadsides as the other classes, so their torpedo rating and cost should come down when we do the custom cards for them.
| IJN Fuso wrote: | | While we're at it - how about adding Akizuki with the Anti Air Specialist SA? |
I don't know if I'd give Akizuki the anti-air specialist ability or just a really good AA rating.
| IJN Fuso wrote: | | And Matsu Class DD - almost like a Japanese version of the DE with ASW specialist SA. |
I already did one for someone else. I just never got around to updating this thread. Here ya go.
| IJN Fuso wrote: | | And some interesting variations on the Kuma class CL: Oi and Kitakami were modified as torpedo cruisers. Each one mounted 40(!) long lance tubes. The broadside could have been as many as 20 long lance torpedos in the water at any one time! If a "normal" armament of 8 tubes reults in 3 3 2 1, then these should get 5X - something like 15 15 10 5! |
Actually, the "normal" broadside is 8 tubes, so a 20 tube broadside would be 2.5 times that. Something like 8/8/5/2. |
|
| Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:57 am |
|
|
Posts: 3096
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Nice on the cards! Now we're cooking with gas.
I'd lobby for the AA specialist SA for Akizuki, nas they were specifically designed for AA - like Atlanta. Not that they should have 8. Maybe 6.
| Blackeagle wrote: | | However, the Jintsu and the other similar light cruisers have too high a torpedo rating. They've only got half the long lances in their torpedo broadsides as the other classes, so their torpedo rating and cost should come down when we do the custom cards for them. |
If the torp rating goes down to 2 2 1 1 or somthing similar, that should probably make Jinstu and her sisters cost something like 15 or 16.
Not sure what the effect will be, I'd propose test playing these with different costs to get a good idea of what they should be.
_________________
TimK
IJN FUSO
www.modelwarshipcombat.com |
|
| Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:16 am |
|
|
Love this Picture
Posts: 112
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
I would like to see more of the IJN myself..... There are USN ships everywhere.....  |
|
| Mon Apr 21, 2008 12:16 am |
|
|
Posts: 9159
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
All the ships in this thread have passed review. They are in the stickies.
_________________
My new blog, specialised in the military equipment of Greece (1821-today). |
|
| Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:10 am |
|
|
USS OKLAHOMA BB-37
Posts: 6569
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Good!!! We needed more IJN crusiers!!!
_________________
 |
|
| Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:24 am |
|
|
Posts: 610
|
|
|
Post subject:
|
|
|
Looks good. Glad you kept with the standard forumini card format  |
|
| Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:07 pm |
|
|
|
