Japanese Ships Which Should be in SHIV

[AG124]

Since Japanese warships will be the targets in SHIV, I think that a good variety should be included. In SHIII, the lack of warships was not too great a problem to the average campaign player (although it hurt historical scenarios) but in SHIV there needs to be a greater number.

Japanese ships which should be included

Battleships:

- All five classes. If one class needs to be sacrificed, it should be the Ise class.

Carriers:

- Kaga
- Akagi
- Ryujo
- Soryu
- Hiryu
- Shokaku class
- Zuiho class
- Junyo class
- Taiho
- Taiyo class
- Shinano
- Unryu class

It would be nice to have the Hosho but we can live without her. Same goes for the escort carriers Kaiyo and Shinyo. The Ryuho and the Chitose class aren't important enough, IMO.

Heavy Cruisers:

I'd like to see them all included. But if two classes have to be sacrificed, then drop the Aoba and Furataka classes.

Light Cruisers:

The Katori class can be ignored. The rest should be included.

I'm not going to discuss destroyers right now.

Also, there should be a better variety of merchant ships. (and smaller ones, which should be especially true in the PTO.) And there should be a separate class for whale factory ships.

Any thoughts?

[DeepSix]

It may be spitting in the wind, but I vote to include Hosho in that list, since I think there were several boats specifically ordered to attack her based on Ultra intelligence.

Also (and it may have been mentioned elsewhere): tenders and auxiliaries, if possible.

My only other thought at this point is, why would any classes of warships have to be left out?

[Torplexed]

I remember I-Boats were included as possible targets in the original Silent Hunter. I wouldn't mind seeing them again. However, such encounters should be relatively rare. I also hope you don't end up sinking the same warship(s) 3 or 4 times as was also common in Silent Hunter.

[CCIP]

I agree, unlike SHIII, the warships in SHIV should be a high priority.

I hope they'll all get in! :up:

[GlowwormGuy]

They should just make a darn good ship editor available so we can include ALL of them.

Mountbatten

[Sailor Steve]

I agree with all of the above, and would also like to make sure that the escorts include Kaibokans.

[Wulfmann]

OK, we all agree we want everything and why not, theses were great looking ships and hard to choose.

But, what if we had to choose?
Point, saying we want it all and not showing our priorities means we might get the lesser of what we like best (what ever that is)

So, if we were limited to 4 carrier models 3 battleship classes and 3 heavy cruyiser classes, what would you prefer.
So, respond with your desires but listed in order of preference.

For me, it would be
1 Shokaku (These 2 were the Scharnhost and Gneisenau of the Pacific!)
2 Hiryu (Soryu had the island on the other side so would be in this and Unyru's are enlarged Hiryu's)
3 Taiho
4 Zuiho (third ship would be similar Ryuhu)
5 Shinano

1 Kongo
2 Mutsu
3 Yamato

1 Takao
2 Mogami
3 Nachi
4 Tone

The likelyhood we would have the entire fleet is a pipe dream and would make for a 2009 release so what are the more important ones IYO

Then, what ships would be most important in the US Navy and in list of preference.
Besides the most obvious USS Sacramento at Pearl Harbor!

Wulfmann

[AG124]

My only other thought at this point is, why would any classes of warships have to be left out?

Lack of development time/money, lack of space on installation disk...hopefully these potential limitations will not be serious.

As Wulfmann said, some classes of carriers are very similar. This applies to other classes of warships too, although to a lesser degree. Therefore, it is almost definite that someone will kitbash some more after the game is released, even without a SDK.

Anyway, limiting myself to 6 CV's, 3 BB's, 4 CA's, and 4 CL's, and in order of personal preference:

Carriers:

- Shokaku.
- Akagi (Kaga could be kitbashed)
- Hiryu (Soryu and Unryu class could be kitbashed)
- Shinano
- Zuiho (Ryuho could be kitbashed)
- Junyo

Battleships:

- Kongo
- Yamato
- Mutsu

(Both Ise and Fuso classes could be kitbashed, if we had good enough kitbashers).

Heavy Cruisers:
- Takao
- Tone
- Mogami
- Myoko/Nachi

Light Cruisers:
- Agano
- Kuma and either Nagara/Tenryu/Naka
- Yubari

[AG124]

And for US ships:

Carriers (6):

- Yorktown
- Lexington
- Essex
- Independence
- Casablanca
- Wasp

Battleships (3):

- Iowa
- South Dakota
- Pennsylvania

Heavy Cruisers (4):

- New Orleans
- Baltimore
- Northampton
- Portland

Light Cruisers (4):

- Cleveland
- Brooklyn (including subclasses)
- Atlanta
- Omaha

[Torplexed]

Since the models for them already exist thanks to SH3 maybe throw in the odd U-Boat or German armed merchant cruiser. There was one German merchant raider...the Michel I think...which was sunk by the US sub Tarpon off Yokohama in 1943 after refitting in Kobe, Japan. The Germans were rather annoyed that she hadn't been given proper escort.

[AG124]

I think they would need a new Commerce Raider model, as the one in SHIII is too big, and doesn't really look like any of the German raiders of which I have seen pictures (although I haven't seen pictures of all of them). But you are right - even if they don't include the SHIII raider, they should include a new one.

[DeepSix]

I know it's supposed to be about Japanese ships, but to the list of U.S. ships I'd like to add my personal preference for the North Carolina and the Washington (BBs 55 and 56), especially *if* playable Japanese subs are included in the game. North Carolina was torpedoed by an I-boat during... ah, I think, Battle of Santa Cruz Islands (at any rate it was during the early part of the Solomons campaign).

(I know, I admit it, I want to have it all.) :yep:

[Wulfmann]

I agree on the Washington class as number one (sorry Uncle George((Served on the USS Missouri)).
Remember. What starts in 1944 (Iowas) is not in for 2 full years.
So after the W and NC I would want the South Dakota class and more US cruisers and carriers built than BBs.
There is a limit on what they will be able to do.

Important to note. With Rodney's turrets and South Dakotas super structure the Tennessee and California BBs were rebuilt using a similar super structure to SD. If the SD is made the devs would only need to make the hull to have those as later ships (are you taking notes here devs?)

Wulfmann

[JU_88]

Im with Torplexed, I want other subs around on both sides, I hated being the only U-boat in SH3, its like all the worlds submarines crawl ashore and hide in the bushes when I set out for my patrols. :huh:

[Skubber]

:yep: Just on a random check of US submarine sinking records, I counted 5 or 6 Japanese subs sunk. (And one German.)

I think if SHIV is going to include aircraft carriers as targets, it should certainly include Japanese subs as well.

(I'd like to play the Japanese subs, too. But that's probably asking too much.)

[bookworm_020]

Has any thought be given to what aircraft should be included? I know this could cause some debate, but it might need airing :hmm:

[DeepSix]

My personal preference would be for U.S. subs only (including the 'S' boats and the older fleet boats like Argonaut) and not for playable Japanese subs. I say this because I think it's better for a game to do one thing really well than several things half-@ssed. If we assume that there will have to be a limit to what's included, my vote is to limit the playable inclusions to U.S. subs. That may not be a popular opinion, but that's my preference. I'm not trying to discount the significance of British or Dutch subs, just casting my view of where the limits should be.

As for aircraft - some models are already present in SH3 so there shouldn't be much problem there. Other Allied types should maybe include the F6F Hellcat, the F4U Corsair, the SBD Dauntless, the TBF/TBM torpedo bomber, the B-17... maybe some Brewster Buffalos in the SW Pacific. As for Japanese planes - I dunno.... Zeros, B5 Kates, D3 Vals, G4 Bettys or G3 Nells, and some search planes. I know I'm leaving some types out, but I would think the above are the more common types.

Last thought, though - it's anybody's guess. It depends on how much of the "periphery" is included in the game. In other words - how much the player will see of surface/carrier action, how much the player will be involved in observing air to ground attacks (e.g. lifeguard missions), etc.

Just some thoughts.

[DeepSix]

[Double post deleted]

[Torplexed]

All this speculation about Japanese ships, planes and possibly having a grandstand seat on a carrier battle made me load up UbiSoft's Pacific Fighters again just to get a periscope level look at some Japanese 3-D ship models. Imagine this baby coming into view in your periscope on a fine morning in June 1942..... ;)

http://zioxville.homestead.com/files/Akagi.jpg

[DeepSix]

Man battle stations!!! Mr. O'Kane! Give me a solution! ;)

[Torplexed]

Hee..hee. My sentiments exactly DeepSix!

Now if Japanese sub control is included here's your Long Lance ticket to immortality. :ping:

http://zioxville.homestead.com/files/Lexington.jpg

[bookworm_020]

I love to get me hands on a long lance torpedo :up: If there was a mod to add them to my XXI I would be in heaven, as well as a lot of mechant crews! :rock:

[DeepSix]

Hate to burst the bubble, because the "Long Lance" was indeed an excellent torpedo, but I think it was only used in surface ships. The submarine torpedo was the Type 95. Both models were driven by compressed oxygen (hydrogen peroxide) and travelled at 45-50 knots, IIRC.

But, heck yeah, Long Lances could ruin anybody's day. :D

[SilentOtto]

I recall reading the long lance was 23" and used by aircraft mostly... the 21" wich fitted german subs and was used by Monsun boats was inferior quality...

Imagine this baby coming into view in your periscope on a fine morning in June 1942.....

Yea, and sure most of my Marks would be duds!!! Grrrr!!![/quote]

[Wulfmann]

Not one Jap sub had the LL 24inch fish. Every warship built from 1925 on had 24 inch (how did you arrive at 23inch???) except the small Tomozuru (650ton) and Otori (95otons) torpedo boats.

With all the models in this game I do not see making a single Jap boat and one less US sub as anything but a big increase in interest, ergo sales and profits.
I would prefer less but netter sub models and would be happy with an S Boat and then any common later Gato type and one fine I-Boat; the B1 (I-15) class would be my choice because it could start the war and end in it and was a decent boat.

The Jap boats looked good on paper but were poor to maneuver, slow to dive and weak hulled compared with US and German subs.
If done accurately they would sink easily to minor depth charge attacks that US and German subs would survive.
Wulfmann

[AG124]

What about merchant ships? If the US is primarily the primary side, then a good variety of Japanese merchants will be needed. :yep: They should be smaller than in the Atlantic too, as Japanese merchant vessels seemed to have a tendency to be smaller than their Atlantic counterparts. I think we really need at least:

Four classes of tankers. One very small class around 1,000 GRT, one medium class (~5,000 GRT), one large-medium class (~7,000 GRT) and one rare and very large class (10,000+ GRT). If Whale Factories are to be classified as tankers, then a 17-19,000 GRT one will do fine as well.

Four classes of freighter. One under 1,000 GRT, two between 2,000 and 5,000 GRT, and one around 7,500 GRT.

Three types of passenger vessels. One small passenger/cargo combination (~3,000 GRT), one transport (5-6,000 GRT), and one larger passenger liner (~15,000 GRT).

Several types of auxiliaries, including seaplane carriers, sub depots, and destroyer tenders.

At least three or four types of coastal crafts - sampans, regular fishing boats, tugboats, etc.

As someone else said, the SHIV dev team should check out this thread and others, as advice from their consumer base could prove to be at least a little helpful. :yep:

[AG124]

Some pictures of Japanese auxiliaries, similar to regular merchants:

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/auxil/img/ship-mamiya.jpg

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/auxil/img/ship-soya.jpg

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/auxil/img/ship-chogei.jpg

Strange looking tanker :o :

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/auxil/img/ship-ashizuri.jpg

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/auxil/img/ship-hayamoto.jpg

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/auxil/img/ship-tsurumi.jpg

This tanker looks more like a light cruiser :P :

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/auxil/img/ship-sunosaki.jpg

So does this one:

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/auxil/img/ship-tsurugisaki.jpg

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/auxil/img/ship-aikoku.jpg

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/auxil/img/ship-hokoku.jpg

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/auxil/img/ship-kimikawamaru.jpg

http://warships.web4u.cz/japan/amphib/img/rys-shinshumaru.gif

I could post more, including some strange-looking landing craft, but these will be enough. It should be noted that a lot of these auxiliaries are larger than most of their mercantile counterparts, especially the tankers (the ones pictured are mainly over 14,000 GRT).

[DeepSix]

That all sounds good to me. :yep: I think the converted whale factories should go in the tanker category as well.

(Were any of them used for other purposes? I'm thinking they were all used as tankers.)

[AG124]

Some whale factories were indeed converted to tankers. :yep: And some tankers were converted to whale factories. :cool:

I hope SHIII and SHIV ships will be interchangeable. It would help if they could be combined, and would give us a larger roster. :hmm:

[ssn756]

In case anyone is curious :

#1 is the Mamiya, a refrigerated stores ship (17,500 tons).

#2 is the Soya, an ammunition ship (3,800 tons).

#3 is the Chogei, a submarine tender (8,600 tons).

#4 is the Akashi, a repair ship (10,500 tons).

#5 & #6 are Shiretoko class oilers (15,450 tons).

#7 is the Sunosaki, an aviation gasoline tanker (4,700 tons).

#8 is the Tsurigisaki, a submarine tender (13,000 tons). All of you would know her better as the light carrier Shoho. This is what she looked like before conversion.

#9 & #10 are armed merchant cruisers - either Aikoku Maru, Hokoku Maru, or Gokoku Maru (10,438 tons).

#11 is a seaplane tender of the Kamikawa Maru type (6,853 - 8,407 tons)

#12 is labeled Shinshu Maru. The real Shinshu Maru was a landing ship that looks nothing like the ship in the drawing. The closest to an identification that I can make is a hospital ship, except for the obvious gun mounts. The silhouettes are very close though.

Does anybody have any other ship pictures?

If you would like me to try to ID them, please post them.

[AG124]

All of those pictures are from the site listed below. There is some detailed information if anyone would like to check it out. I didn't think anyone would be interested. Maybe a certain PC submarine game Dev team might want to have a look... :hmm: :cool:

http://warships.web4u.cz/tridy.php?language=E&stat=JAP&typ=AUX

There are many more pictures and ships here too. :yep: I think I've posted links to this page before though.

EDIT: SSN756, you might want to check that page. Some of the descriptions there appear to be wrong from what you are saying. Those seaplane carriers were listed as tankers for example, which they really don't look like at all. Maybe you should contact the webmaster to let him know.

[bill clarke]

Hate to burst the bubble, because the "Long Lance" was indeed an excellent torpedo, but I think it was only used in surface ships. The submarine torpedo was the Type 95. Both models were driven by compressed oxygen (hydrogen peroxide) and travelled at 45-50 knots, IIRC.

But, heck yeah, Long Lances could ruin anybody's day. :D

Deepsix, by compressed do you mean liquid ? cause that's what fuelled these babies, in fact many DD's had liquid oxygen facilities on board to fill spares, and the large box like tube mounts were armoured to protect the eels from splinters.
Have a read of this:

Ship and Submarine Torpedoes

Model Diameter Length OA Total Weight Explosive Charge Range Wander (max) Comments

6th Year Type 21" 22' 5" 3157 lbs. 441 lbs. 7,000m @ 36 kts
10,000m @ 32 kts
15,000m @ 26 kts ? An older torpedo still used in some of the older RO-class submarines.

8th Year Type 24" 27' 7" 5207 lbs. 761 lbs. 10,000m @ 38 kts
15,000m @ 32 kts
20,000m @ 28 kts ? A large conventional wet-heater torpedo still used aboard some older cruisers and destroyers, notably Nagara.

Type 92 21" 23' 5" 3792 lbs. 661 lbs. 7000m @ 30 kts 120m / 7,000m An electric torpedo for submarines, used extensively throughout the war.

Type 93 24" 29' 6" 5952 lbs. 1080 lbs. 20,000m @ 48 kts
32,000m @ 40 kts
40,000m @ 36 kts 500m / 20,000m
1000m / 32,000m
1500m / 40,000m The Long Lance. 'Nuff said.

Type 95 21" 23' 5" 3671 lbs. 893 lbs. 9,000m @ 49 kts
12,000m @ 45 kts 170m / 9,000m
250m / 12,000m A smaller version of the Type 93 intended for submarines.

Type 97 17.7" 18' 5" 2161 lbs. 772 lbs. 5,500m @ 44 kts 80m /5,500m A miniaturized Type 93 intended for midget submarines. Very unsuccesful (its oxygen flasks leaked a lot), it was used operationally only once - at Pearl Harbor.

Just for giggles, let's take a look at the statistics on the standard US Navy destroyer torpedo of the war, the Mark 15.


Model Diameter Length OA Total Weight Explosive Charge Range Max Launch Speed Comments
Mark 15 21" 24' 0" 3841 lbs. 825 lbs. 5,500m @ 45 kts
9,150m @ 33 kts
13,700m @ 26 kts ?

BTW, how do I post pics here ?

[bill clarke]

If one class needs to be sacrificed, it should be the Ise class.

the Chitose class aren't important enough, IMO.



Any thoughts?

Yep, the Ise and Hyuga should be included as they were converted post Midway to BCV's, and Chitose and Chiyoda were converted to full length carriers, and should be included, as should the depot and repair ships, why ?, glad you asked, if we have a dynamic campaign generator and engine then sinking the repair and depot ships should mean ships damaged take longer to get back in to the fight, that is if these tenders aren't available to make repairs.

[Wulfmann]

We all would love to see everything. The purpose here is to list in the order you find most important in hopes the Devs will consider our opinions in making choices.

If they were going to only use 2 BB models are you saying you think Ise would be number one?
I am pretty sure most would say Kongo is number one because there are 4 instead of 2 as the other 4 classes are pairs and the Kongos were the only ones deployed on a regular basis. Then you would understand the fact they will make Yamato and Musashi simply because they are Yamato and Musashi and that is reason enough!!

It is a matter pf what priority do we list them. We want them all but being realistic we know that is unlikely so hope for what we think are the more relevant, what ever that is.


Wulfmann

[AG124]

I didn't mean that either the Ise or Chitose classes should be left out, but that if we had to pick and choose those would be two that would have to go. As Wulfmann said, there are just too many class and judging by the roster in SHIII, we are not going to get everything.

BTW - The Ise and Hyuga were indeed converted to half-carriers, but the conversion was a waste and they were never used in that role (they carried no aircraft at Leyte Gulf). And when I was talking about the Chitose and Chiyoda, I was refering to them after they had been converted. It doesn't matter, as most Japanese carriers were converted from some other type of ship. There are many other classes which are more important. (They could probably be kitbashed from the Zuiho class later).

And I don't recall saying that repair/depot ships shouldn't be included - in fact, I said they should be and even posted some pictures which you can see here.

Though I would indeed like to see every single Japanese ship class included if it were possible... :hmm:

[DeepSix]

...
Deepsix, by compressed do you mean liquid ?

Yup, that's what I meant. I probably used the wrong words to describe it, though. Chemistry was not my strong suit. :D

BTW, how do I post pics here ?

You paste a link to the pic into your post; most people use free hosting sites like imageshack or photobucket; are you familiar with those?

[bill clarke]

And I don't recall saying that repair/depot ships shouldn't be included - in fact, I said they should be and even posted some pictures which you can see here.

Though I would indeed like to see every single Japanese ship class included if it were possible... :hmm:

Sorry about that, and Amen.

[bill clarke]

You paste a link to the pic into your post; most people use free hosting sites like imageshack or photobucket; are you familiar with those?

No, not familiar with them mate.

[JU_88]

If they devs need to know which aircraft to include, they need look no further than pacific fighters..... :yep:

[DeepSix]

You paste a link to the pic into your post; most people use free hosting sites like imageshack or photobucket; are you familiar with those?

No, not familiar with them mate.

Ok. You have to create an account (a nuisance, yes, but it's free) at a hosting site, then you can upload images from your machine to the site. They'll provide you with an "IMG" tag after you do. Copy the tag and paste it in your post. Simple as that. Then it'll show up embedded in forums.

[bill clarke]

TYVM, and to go out on a limb here, the reason I'd like to see so many IJN warships is that as opposied to the Atlantic campaign with the KM, the USN took a heavier toll on the IJN fleet (Gents I'm happy to be corrected here) than what the RN suffered.
So even though it's probably just a pipe dream I'd love to see a full compliment of IJN ships to have a go at.

[Wulfmann]

US subs sank 4 fleet carriers and 4 escort carriers and one battleship (Kongo).
The U-Boats sank 3 fleet carriers and 3 escort carriers (but so badly damaged 2 more they were total losses so really 5) and 2 battleships (Royal Oak and Barham)

I do agree subs were more involved on both sides of the Pacific in surface ship battles and remember the German score was over a longer time period.

Note that both German battleship sinkings were when U-Boats were ordered away from shipping attacks with the intent on attacking warships as was the case for 2 of the 3 fleet carriers sunk.

Wulfmann

[AG124]

The U-Boats sank 3 fleet carriers and 3 escort carriers (but so badly damaged 2 more they were total losses so really 5)

I thought four of the five (Taiyo, Unyo, Chuyo, and Shinyo) were actually sunk by US subs (Sailfish, Rasher, Barb, and Spadefish). I also thought that the Kaiyo was wrecked beyond repair by a mine (and later by carrier based aircraft) and not by a sub. Or were you talking about fleet carriers? (the Junyo was torpedoed but never fully repaired).

[DeepSix]

I know I keep quoting Clay Blair, but it's just because I'm still reading Silent Victory and this stuff is sort of on the tip of my brain. ;) Anyway, according to him, U.S. subs sank more than 1,000 Japanese merchant ships and a significant portion of the Japanese navy, including one battleship, eight aircraft carriers, three heavy cruisers, and eight light cruisers.

I take "eight" carriers to include fleet carriers plus some of the smaller ones.

[AG124]

Some older books on US sub operations credit the USS Nautillus for finishing off the Soryu at Midway. It is now knownn that her torpedo actually hit the Kaga, and that it was a dud (common for US torpedoes in the early years of the war). Maybe he made a mistake in his tally? Or maybe I am wrong, which is also quite possible. :D

I read Silent Victory about a year ago, but don't remember much about it now.

[Wulfmann]

US subs sank 4 fleet carriers and 4 escort carriers and one battleship (Kongo).
The U-Boats sank 3 fleet carriers and 3 escort carriers (but so badly damaged 2 more they were total losses so really 5) and 2 battleships (Royal Oak and Barham)

I do agree subs were more involved on both sides of the Pacific in surface ship battles and remember the German score was over a longer time period.

Note that both German battleship sinkings were when U-Boats were ordered away from shipping attacks with the intent on attacking warships as was the case for 2 of the 3 fleet carriers sunk.

Wulfmann

In case some missed this it seems to have answered all the later post. How does it not?

Wulfmann

[DeepSix]

Well, you left out the cruisers, but really I was trying to agree with you by quoting another source that I felt more or less concurs with you. Perhaps I worded it wrong.

@AG124:Brockman's performance on June 4, in terms of courage and persistence, was outstanding, and he received a Navy Cross. Credited with sinking Soryu, Brockman was later to be denied. In a careful postwar analysis, the U.S. Navy determined, after comparing position reports of Nautilus and the Japanese forces, that the carrier Brockman shot at was not Soryu but Kaga.

- p. 244 in the paperback edition if you're interested (or look up Kaga in the index).

[Trout]

THe ships that requre the most modeling resources are the ones that are not commonly seen, or will be seen at distances where the quality of the model is less important.

Warships WILL and should be more imporant in SH4 but I would rather see modeling resources placed more on the commonly seen ships (greater variety of smaller vessels), and also on things like coastal modeling, buildings, and sub interiors.

As someone said though, if they they create an opensource toolkit for ship modeling then the modders could take on this project (and they would of course).

And somewhere in the game code we would need the ability to replace existing (stock) warship types with a greater varierty off modded ones that are perhaps selected by the campaign engine on a random basis.

So basically, the stock game could come with one battleship class and the individual ships would be replaced by a randomly selected modded one.
Trout

[JU_88]

Im not worried about Japanese ships that the devs include as Im sure they will model all the important ones.

AI submarines and aircraft is what i would worry about.

Look at SH3, No AI subs at all - discraceful! Where are all the fantastic british S and T class subs?
They better have AI submarines this time round, I really want the chance to see and I-400 in my scope, lack of Ai subs In SHIV is a bit of a deal breaker for me. (when i say AI subs, I dont mean wolf packs)

And what of aircraft?
Ugly super low detailed models, very basic AI,
lack of variety in ordinance (where are the torpedos, rockets and cannons?)
And some incorrect aircraft types included! In SH3 we have the Hurricane and P38 lightning attacking Uboats :down: , whilst the most common ASW aircraft like the beaufighter, Hudson and mosquito were missing! This shows poor reserch, even SH2 did a better job in this department.

These are the things the devs are more lightly to fudge, so i would make a thread about AI Aircraft and subs to be included not ships.

[Safe-Keeper]

Special aircraft such as transports should be included as well, I think.

And an abundance of fishing boats and the like around harbours.