The Maya and Takao cruisers

LukeFF · 05-21-07, 01:02 AM

Why are there two separate models for these ships? From what I've gathered, the Maya was not its own class, but rather it was part of the Takao Class of heavy cruisers. Can anyone shed some light on this?

rodan54 · 05-21-07, 01:20 AM

She was damaged during an air raid on Rabual in 1943, and was eventually repaired and put back into action, in addition to being given an increased AA battery. Hence the need for two different models.

elanaiba · 05-21-07, 03:15 AM

And of course it had a different silhouette because of the mods. Since it was easy to do both versions with just a little extra work, we did it.

As a player, I think its great when a game has sufficiently varied unit types modelled, showing both the main unit types but also the countless variations. This gives much more importance to the actual "target recognition" and makes one look through the scope in awe each time... instead of just "oh, heavy cruiser, I can spot it from a mile since its not a BB and not a CL".

AG124 · 05-21-07, 02:15 PM

@ elanaiba - Yes, SHIV does have an excellent selection of ships overall.

The merchants selection is (IMO) the best of any SubSim ever made (including AoD

), for example. However, I really was disappointed by the aircraft carrier selection for both the Japanese and the US - I guess the dev team ran out of time, but the US really needs the Yorktown and Essex classes, and the Japanese could have used the Akagi, Zuiho class, Junyo class, and maybe the Shinano. And if I were going to choose one carrier to represent the US carrier fleet, it wouldn't be the Wasp.

One thing though - if the dev team included two variants of the Takao class, then why didn't they include the original version of the Mogami class too? Lack of time I guess - can't blame them though, with the time it took to make all the highly detailed models that we did get.

BTW - I wonder what happened to the US Subchaser which is depicted in the list of ship pictures in the 100 page manual.:hmm: Also, if I were going to include improved SHIII models, I would have used the Small Tanker and Small Coastal Vessel models for the Allies, as they were highly detailed. Maybe the Armed Merchant Cruiser (as a transport, like Sergbuto's SHIII clone) and some more UK warships as well.

Seaman_Hornsby · 05-21-07, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elanaiba

As a player, I think its great when a game has sufficiently varied unit types modelled...

Agreed. I'd say ship variety is one of SHIV's strong points too.

Major Johnson · 05-21-07, 02:59 PM

[quote=AG124, I really was disappointed by the aircraft carrier selection for both the Japanese and the US - I guess the dev team ran out of time, but the US really needs the Yorktown and Essex classes, and the Japanese could have used the Akagi, Zuiho class, Junyo class, and maybe the Shinano. And if I were going to choose one carrier to represent the US carrier fleet, it wouldn't be the Wasp.
quote]

I just started my first career patrol out of Pearl, and there were 3 carriers in the harbor, 2 were Saratoga class (you can't mistake that big ass smoke stack), not sure what the other was. I was too busy qualking at the first 2, which were side by side. I did however use the external camera to see if the ships had their names painted across the stern. They didn't. I did however notice a historical error. On the 3rd aircraft carrier, they had 2 types of planes. One was the Helldiver, which is unmistakable by it's huge upswing tail-rudder, and the other resembled the Brewster Buffalo?? This was Dec 9th 1941. The Helldiver didn't come out until later in the war, and I wasn't aware that the Buffalo's could be carrier based! They should have been Wildcats, or a close resemblance there of. I heard there were copyright issues with some of the WW2 planes and metals.

Wulfmann · 05-21-07, 03:15 PM

AG! The Wasp????? It was barely in the Pacific long enough to get sunk and was a one of a kind ship; a reduced in size to use what was left of the tonnage allowed after the 3 Enterprise ships.

Maya lost "C" turret in that raid and had AA built up in its place so was easy to mod, something a modeler might have been disappointed in not getting to do!

One reason they did not included the original Mogami is they were never in their original form when war broke out so their left service would have been 1939-40 so not sure why something never in the war would be desired.

I don't have SH4 yet. I am still waiting for you beta testers to get UBI to fix it before I buy it.

But, are you saying there are no Yorktown as in "E" and Hornet????? That would be the biggest lacking for important ships.

The Takao class is one of my favorite ships for any WWII navy. Just a very cool looker with speed and power.

Wulfmann

AG124 · 05-21-07, 09:32 PM

@ Major Johnson - I am afraid you are mistaken about the Saratoga (actually Lexington) class - although it is common to see multiple US carriers in the campaign, they are still Wasps which have been used in groups as stand-ins for other carriers. If you look at the funnel, you will see that it doesn't really bear any resemblence to the funnel of the Lexington class - it is tall and thin rather than wide. Also, look at the hangars and the bow, among other parts of the profile (such as the Lexington class's split superstructure, which the in-game CV doesn't have - the Saratoga's later modernization also bore no resemblance). I will post screenshots, photos and line drawings to illustrate:

In-Game Carrier (Only Fleet CV for US):

USS Wasp:

Lexington Class:

BTW;

@ Wulfmann - I didn't mean their CL form in the 1930s - I meant the version of the Mogami class that existed before the nameship's post-Midway rebuild with a flight deck aft. It was the flight decked version which was included in SHIV, and that version only.

Unconverted Kumano, and Converted Mogami:

In-Game Shot:

Also, the US does get the two CVE's from SHIII (Casablanca and Bogue classes), but that doesn't really make up for the ommission of more important classes of fleet carriers.

LukeFF · 05-21-07, 10:25 PM

Thanks all for the replies! Now that I look more closely at the silhouette images in the Recognition Manual, I can see the two differences between the two types.

You can always count on people here to have the answers for just about any question.

Major Johnson · 05-21-07, 11:18 PM

[quote=AG124]@ Major Johnson - I am afraid you are mistaken about the Saratoga (actually Lexington) class - although it is common to see multiple US carriers in the campaign, they are still Wasps which have been used in groups as stand-ins for other carriers. If you look at the funnel, you will see that it doesn't really bear any resemblence to the funnel of the Lexington class - it is tall and thin rather than wide. Also, look at the hangars and the bow, among other parts of the profile (such as the Lexington class's split superstructure, which the in-game CV doesn't have - ]

Ahhhh! I stand corrected!!

Good points! I need to brush up on my naval identification!! Time to blow the dust off the books!

elanaiba · 05-22-07, 03:58 AM

The US Subchaser was not a "must have unit" and since we were not happy with the way it turned out - should have been a wooden hull subchaser to beat the heck outta uboats - we left it out. Kind of "quality over quantity".

The wasp is not 100% historically accurate. Its meant to represent early fleet carriers of the US Navy without running into potential legal trouble with the owner of the Yorktown...

The two aircraft modelled are the Buccaneer and the Buffalo. So no Helldiver but it looks close. Why these planes? Well... let's just say we know one or two things about them planes so there was no confusion.

Oh, and you just gotta love the looks of Japanese Heavy Cruisers

RocketDog · 05-22-07, 04:18 AM

Elanaiba, you are involved in SH4 development. Could you shed any light on what has gone wrong and left us with a broken TDC chronometer and a convoy AI that slows down when attacked? Both of these features worked in SH3 and from the customer's perspective (my perspective!) it's perplexing that they don't work in SH4. My guess is that the people who coded these features in SH3 were unavailable for SH4 and the new dev team couldn't figure out what they had done. Would I be correct?

Cheers,

RD.

elanaiba · 05-22-07, 04:41 AM

The convoy stuff is a bug. New things get added - the AI was much improved over SH3, but something obviously went wrong.

As for the chronometer, well, I can't understand why people would want to play "full manual" but have a magic button give them the speed of the target.

Major Johnson · 05-22-07, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elanaiba

The wasp is not 100% historically accurate. Its meant to represent early fleet carriers of the US Navy without running into potential legal trouble with the owner of the Yorktown...

The two aircraft modelled are the Buccaneer and the Buffalo. So no Helldiver but it looks close. Why these planes? Well... let's just say we know one or two things about them planes so there was no confusion.

I gotta tell ya, I thought I knew my WW2 planes. I had never heard of the Buccaneer! Just did a google search and I'll be damn! There it was! You one upped me!! Thanks!!

And all this copyright/ownership stuff is crap!!! I read a thread in another forum about it. Totally rediculous in my opinion!! 60+ years, and none of those planes or ships are even in active service anymore. It would be nice, and even think respectful, to render them as identically as possible!

AG124 · 05-22-07, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elanaiba

The wasp is not 100% historically accurate. Its meant to represent early fleet carriers of the US Navy without running into potential legal trouble with the owner of the Yorktown...

I have never heard of copyright issues with ship designs before, although I had heard of such issues in regards to aircraft. Does this have anything to do with Robert Ballard and his discovery efforts in relation to the Yorktown?

If so, then doesn't the ship (and the class design) still belong to the US Navy? (sunken warships remain the property of the nation which operated them, unlike merchant ships). If not, then I assume he doesn't own the Hornet or Enterprise (I would honestly be quite surprised if anyone was able to piece the Enterprise together again.

). I would just like some clarification on this, as there doesn't seem to be an issue with other US warships in the game.

(If it really was impossible to use the Yorktown class, then you did do the best you could in that situation.

).

BTW - Great work on the merchant selection this time - this is the first SubSim that has really hit the nauil on the head in that area.

And the merchants have customizable variable tonnage as well.

I would have modeled a Juyusen class Coastal Tanker for the Japanese, and converted the SHIII Small Tanker (Patapsco class) for the Allies, but those are minor issues.

05-21-07, 01:02 AM	#1
LukeFF Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Riverside, California Posts: 3,610 Downloads: 41 Uploads: 5	The Maya and Takao cruisers Why are there two separate models for these ships? From what I've gathered, the Maya was not its own class, but rather it was part of the Takao Class of heavy cruisers. Can anyone shed some light on this?

05-21-07, 01:20 AM	#2
rodan54 Navy Dude Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: California, USA Posts: 176 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	She was damaged during an air raid on Rabual in 1943, and was eventually repaired and put back into action, in addition to being given an increased AA battery. Hence the need for two different models. Last edited by rodan54; 05-21-07 at 01:34 AM.

05-21-07, 02:15 PM	#4
AG124 Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,878 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	SHIV Ship Variants @ elanaiba - Yes, SHIV does have an excellent selection of ships overall. The merchants selection is (IMO) the best of any SubSim ever made (including AoD ), for example. However, I really was disappointed by the aircraft carrier selection for both the Japanese and the US - I guess the dev team ran out of time, but the US really needs the Yorktown and Essex classes, and the Japanese could have used the Akagi, Zuiho class, Junyo class, and maybe the Shinano. And if I were going to choose one carrier to represent the US carrier fleet, it wouldn't be the Wasp. One thing though - if the dev team included two variants of the Takao class, then why didn't they include the original version of the Mogami class too? Lack of time I guess - can't blame them though, with the time it took to make all the highly detailed models that we did get. BTW - I wonder what happened to the US Subchaser which is depicted in the list of ship pictures in the 100 page manual.:hmm: Also, if I were going to include improved SHIII models, I would have used the Small Tanker and Small Coastal Vessel models for the Allies, as they were highly detailed. Maybe the Armed Merchant Cruiser (as a transport, like Sergbuto's SHIII clone) and some more UK warships as well. __________________ DOWNLOAD GWX HERE: http://www.thegreywolves.com/index.html

05-21-07, 02:59 PM	#6
Major Johnson Frogman Join Date: May 2007 Location: Jeresey Shore USA Posts: 288 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	[quote=AG124, I really was disappointed by the aircraft carrier selection for both the Japanese and the US - I guess the dev team ran out of time, but the US really needs the Yorktown and Essex classes, and the Japanese could have used the Akagi, Zuiho class, Junyo class, and maybe the Shinano. And if I were going to choose one carrier to represent the US carrier fleet, it wouldn't be the Wasp. quote] I just started my first career patrol out of Pearl, and there were 3 carriers in the harbor, 2 were Saratoga class (you can't mistake that big ass smoke stack), not sure what the other was. I was too busy qualking at the first 2, which were side by side. I did however use the external camera to see if the ships had their names painted across the stern. They didn't. I did however notice a historical error. On the 3rd aircraft carrier, they had 2 types of planes. One was the Helldiver, which is unmistakable by it's huge upswing tail-rudder, and the other resembled the Brewster Buffalo?? This was Dec 9th 1941. The Helldiver didn't come out until later in the war, and I wasn't aware that the Buffalo's could be carrier based! They should have been Wildcats, or a close resemblance there of. I heard there were copyright issues with some of the WW2 planes and metals. __________________ MJ! ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 AMD FX8350 8 Core 4.0 Ghz CPU GeForce GTX 560 Ti PCIx Video Card 8 GB Corsair Vengence RAM Rosewill 850W Power Supply Last edited by Major Johnson; 05-21-07 at 05:06 PM.

05-21-07, 03:15 PM	#7
Wulfmann Ace of the Deep Join Date: May 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 1,010 Downloads: 1 Uploads: 0	AG! The Wasp????? It was barely in the Pacific long enough to get sunk and was a one of a kind ship; a reduced in size to use what was left of the tonnage allowed after the 3 Enterprise ships. Maya lost "C" turret in that raid and had AA built up in its place so was easy to mod, something a modeler might have been disappointed in not getting to do! One reason they did not included the original Mogami is they were never in their original form when war broke out so their left service would have been 1939-40 so not sure why something never in the war would be desired. I don't have SH4 yet. I am still waiting for you beta testers to get UBI to fix it before I buy it. But, are you saying there are no Yorktown as in "E" and Hornet????? That would be the biggest lacking for important ships. The Takao class is one of my favorite ships for any WWII navy. Just a very cool looker with speed and power. Wulfmann __________________ "The right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed upon, if only to prevent tyranny in government" Thomas Jefferson,; Constitutional debates

05-21-07, 03:15 AM	#3
elanaiba Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bucharest, Romania Posts: 1,058 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 3	And of course it had a different silhouette because of the mods. Since it was easy to do both versions with just a little extra work, we did it. As a player, I think its great when a game has sufficiently varied unit types modelled, showing both the main unit types but also the countless variations. This gives much more importance to the actual "target recognition" and makes one look through the scope in awe each time... instead of just "oh, heavy cruiser, I can spot it from a mile since its not a BB and not a CL".

05-21-07, 09:32 PM	#8
AG124 Sea Lord Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Canada Posts: 1,878 Downloads: 4 Uploads: 0	SHIV Ships @ Major Johnson - I am afraid you are mistaken about the Saratoga (actually Lexington) class - although it is common to see multiple US carriers in the campaign, they are still Wasps which have been used in groups as stand-ins for other carriers. If you look at the funnel, you will see that it doesn't really bear any resemblence to the funnel of the Lexington class - it is tall and thin rather than wide. Also, look at the hangars and the bow, among other parts of the profile (such as the Lexington class's split superstructure, which the in-game CV doesn't have - the Saratoga's later modernization also bore no resemblance). I will post screenshots, photos and line drawings to illustrate: In-Game Carrier (Only Fleet CV for US): USS Wasp: Lexington Class: BTW; @ Wulfmann - I didn't mean their CL form in the 1930s - I meant the version of the Mogami class that existed before the nameship's post-Midway rebuild with a flight deck aft. It was the flight decked version which was included in SHIV, and that version only. Unconverted Kumano, and Converted Mogami: In-Game Shot: Also, the US does get the two CVE's from SHIII (Casablanca and Bogue classes), but that doesn't really make up for the ommission of more important classes of fleet carriers. __________________ DOWNLOAD GWX HERE: http://www.thegreywolves.com/index.html

05-21-07, 10:25 PM	#9
LukeFF Silent Hunter Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Riverside, California Posts: 3,610 Downloads: 41 Uploads: 5	Thanks all for the replies! Now that I look more closely at the silhouette images in the Recognition Manual, I can see the two differences between the two types. You can always count on people here to have the answers for just about any question.

05-21-07, 11:18 PM	#10
Major Johnson Frogman Join Date: May 2007 Location: Jeresey Shore USA Posts: 288 Downloads: 25 Uploads: 0	[quote=AG124]@ Major Johnson - I am afraid you are mistaken about the Saratoga (actually Lexington) class - although it is common to see multiple US carriers in the campaign, they are still Wasps which have been used in groups as stand-ins for other carriers. If you look at the funnel, you will see that it doesn't really bear any resemblence to the funnel of the Lexington class - it is tall and thin rather than wide. Also, look at the hangars and the bow, among other parts of the profile (such as the Lexington class's split superstructure, which the in-game CV doesn't have - ] Ahhhh! I stand corrected!! Good points! I need to brush up on my naval identification!! Time to blow the dust off the books! __________________ MJ! ASUS Sabertooth 990FX R2.0 AMD FX8350 8 Core 4.0 Ghz CPU GeForce GTX 560 Ti PCIx Video Card 8 GB Corsair Vengence RAM Rosewill 850W Power Supply

05-22-07, 03:58 AM	#11
elanaiba Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bucharest, Romania Posts: 1,058 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 3	The US Subchaser was not a "must have unit" and since we were not happy with the way it turned out - should have been a wooden hull subchaser to beat the heck outta uboats - we left it out. Kind of "quality over quantity". The wasp is not 100% historically accurate. Its meant to represent early fleet carriers of the US Navy without running into potential legal trouble with the owner of the Yorktown... The two aircraft modelled are the Buccaneer and the Buffalo. So no Helldiver but it looks close. Why these planes? Well... let's just say we know one or two things about them planes so there was no confusion. Oh, and you just gotta love the looks of Japanese Heavy Cruisers

05-22-07, 04:18 AM	#12
RocketDog Mate Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 55 Downloads: 11 Uploads: 0	Elanaiba, you are involved in SH4 development. Could you shed any light on what has gone wrong and left us with a broken TDC chronometer and a convoy AI that slows down when attacked? Both of these features worked in SH3 and from the customer's perspective (my perspective!) it's perplexing that they don't work in SH4. My guess is that the people who coded these features in SH3 were unavailable for SH4 and the new dev team couldn't figure out what they had done. Would I be correct? Cheers, RD. __________________

05-22-07, 04:41 AM	#13
elanaiba Ace of the Deep Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Bucharest, Romania Posts: 1,058 Downloads: 3 Uploads: 3	The convoy stuff is a bug. New things get added - the AI was much improved over SH3, but something obviously went wrong. As for the chronometer, well, I can't understand why people would want to play "full manual" but have a magic button give them the speed of the target.