The PERFECT WAR Mod

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Instead of designing a new CL, why not go with the Mogami's?

They appeared to be pretty formidable as CLs with 15 6" guns!
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by oldman45 »

Thats what I am saying. When I see most of the IJN CL's they are out dated and really they are destroyer leaders. If the Mogami's kept there 6" guns it would put them on par with the western CL's.
User avatar
CaptBeefheart
Posts: 2511
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 2:42 am
Location: Seoul, Korea

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by CaptBeefheart »

Gents,

I'm a little late to this party, but if you're looking for balance ideas for the Allies, here are some:

1. Build up Guam and Wake a bit better, as budgets to build the bases were originally planned to be higher but got cut.
2. Put a few more base forces and slightly improve AF and/or port levels on the path from Hawaii to Australia, representing better anticipation of hostilities.
3. F4U Corsair doesn't have so many problems in the prototype stage. Move up production of all models by X months (say 4).
4. Like the idea of having the option to use PPs to add aircraft factories.
5. Also like the idea of requiring a ramp up in Stateside factories.
6. Add some training squadrons at start, especially USN.

Cheers,
CC
Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by Dixie »

ORIGINAL: FatR

We still need art for Fusos/Ises as they originally looked (I'll try to find pictures later).

It's an old artwork, that I did back when I first got into playing around with pictures, but if nothing else it can be used as a placeholder until you get something better made up.

Fuso, from the WPO era.

Image
Attachments
Untitled.jpg
Untitled.jpg (11.76 KiB) Viewed 220 times
[center]Image

Bigger boys stole my sig
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by DOCUP »

Some more of my thoughts on this.  I could be wrong, so if I am let me know.
 
In the early 30s, I believe the US was below the actual treaty tonnage.  I don't know in which class though.  I do know it wasn't the BB's or carriers.  So that gives some room for a few more cruisers, destroyers and subs.
 
Some of the older destroyers could of been replaced by the newer ones built in the 30s.  This could give the US a chance to convert older destroyers into DE, APD etc. earlier. 
 
The Big Five could have been mondernized during the 30s.  Yea I know about the money issues, but if the japaneese were out of the treaty and building ships the US could of stayed within the treaty and updated some of there BBs.   Heres a curve ball what if the US sold an old BB or two to the Philippines or some other country as a costal BB?  That would free up some treaty tonnage.  And it would change the early moves. 
 
With the esculation in Japaneese ship building the US would of held more war games.  Adding to the chance that the faulty torp's would of been discovered earlier.  I believe that the US would of still lagged behind the Japaneese some but would of been a bit better prepared.
 
I don't know but would say that the US army, USAAF and Marines would of been updated and dispersed in a better defensive positions. 
 
With the esculation the M1 garand could of been supplied to the grunts a little earlier.  Improving there firepower.
 
Just my thoughts
 
doc
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Gents,

I'm a little late to this party, but if you're looking for balance ideas for the Allies, here are some:

1. Build up Guam and Wake a bit better, as budgets to build the bases were originally planned to be higher but got cut.
2. Put a few more base forces and slightly improve AF and/or port levels on the path from Hawaii to Australia, representing better anticipation of hostilities.
3. F4U Corsair doesn't have so many problems in the prototype stage. Move up production of all models by X months (say 4).
4. Like the idea of having the option to use PPs to add aircraft factories.
5. Also like the idea of requiring a ramp up in Stateside factories.
6. Add some training squadrons at start, especially USN.

Cheers,
CC

Cody:

1. Like it.
2. If we follow work done in RA this is already underway when the war starts.
3. As a JFB--I HATE that plane!
4. Agreed
5. LOVE THIS! I'd say this is a MUST if possible. The US started with next to nothing in supply and it should be better modeled in the game.
6. Already done this in RA. It is a good addition so the US can run a limited pilot training program like Japan.

Thanks for the thoughts. Give us more when you can.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Some more of my thoughts on this.  I could be wrong, so if I am let me know.

In the early 30s, I believe the US was below the actual treaty tonnage.  I don't know in which class though.  I do know it wasn't the BB's or carriers.  So that gives some room for a few more cruisers, destroyers and subs.

Some of the older destroyers could of been replaced by the newer ones built in the 30s.  This could give the US a chance to convert older destroyers into DE, APD etc. earlier. 

The Big Five could have been mondernized during the 30s.  Yea I know about the money issues, but if the japaneese were out of the treaty and building ships the US could of stayed within the treaty and updated some of there BBs.   Heres a curve ball what if the US sold an old BB or two to the Philippines or some other country as a costal BB?  That would free up some treaty tonnage.  And it would change the early moves. 

With the esculation in Japaneese ship building the US would of held more war games.  Adding to the chance that the faulty torp's would of been discovered earlier.  I believe that the US would of still lagged behind the Japaneese some but would of been a bit better prepared.

I don't know but would say that the US army, USAAF and Marines would of been updated and dispersed in a better defensive positions. 

With the esculation the M1 garand could of been supplied to the grunts a little earlier.  Improving there firepower.

Just my thoughts

doc

Good ideas as well.

I think we should start a BB Division in the Philippines. Perhaps the 3 Idaho's with a couple of CLs and DDs.

Everyone wants their Torps fixed! I like Michael's suggestion to have one class of US SS between the S-Boat and Gato's that use the older Torp so it works! Sure would be nice for some of the US SS to have teeth...

The M1 idea is simple and nice, outside of the box, proposal.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by DOCUP »

Interesting haveing a BB division in the Philippines. If you have them here what are you going to have a PH?

I do like the idea of haveing a different class of subs with the older torps.

I have been reading some of the treaties. You guys got me really interested in this. Didn't one of the treaty's say that the US could not fortify anything west of the Hawaiian Islands?

Also how are you purposeing to build all 6 of the US BCs to make it probable? I have to be missing something here.

A few post back mentioned something about better Jap tanks. Type 1 Chi-He medium tank could of been produced somewhat in 42 or 43.

doc
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by John 3rd »

The 'normal' 8 BBs would start at PH.

Yes: that was the Nine Power Pact signed as part of the Washington Conference. When that was signed Japan agreed to the 5:5:3 ratio.

THAT provokes the idea! What if the Nine Power Pact wasn't signed? Japan won't join the Treaty due to this unless she gets the 3.5. In not signing, the USA is allowed the option to build-up her bases in the Pacific. As mentioned in the book War Plan Orange, Guam was always thought of as a potential major base in which the Fleet and troops could be based. This might be a highly interesting idea...

The BCs that FatR mentions are the CBs where Guam and Alaska were all that were built. There were six on the board but only two built.

Other News: Red Lancer has agreed to help with art work starting in September when time allows.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

Built or Building Japanese BBs

Post by John 3rd »

Want to try and summarize what we have--seemingly--decided regarding ship construction. Starting with BBs:

The Japanese build their normal BBs/BCs:

Nagato/Mutsu
Ise/Hyuga
Fuso/Yamashiro
Hiei/Kongo/Kirishima/Haruna

Washington Conference. Due to the failure of the Nine-Power Pact the Japanese gain a 70% Ratio in Capital Ships so they are allowed to build BBs Kaga and Tosa.

During the 30s, as Japan concentrates on adding CAs, CLs, and CVs, the older 4 BB (Ise/Hyuga/Fuso/Yamashiro) do not get modernized.

3rd Circle Plan is initiated where two modern BB are authorized: BBs Owari and Kii. They cost 2/3 the amount the Yamato's would have cost, mount 3x3 16" guns, and can move at 28-30 Knots. These two join the Fleet just as the war begins. I'd argument Owari joins prior to the war and Kii joins about Jan/Feb of 1942. Essentially they come in six months earlier reflecting smaller size for quicker builds.

4th Circle Plan sees two more sisters ordered to match pair in 3rd Circle. Perhaps they could be named Musashi and Shinano? These would enter the war in mid-43.

Final Japanese Order-of-Battle with BBs:

BatDiv1--Nagato, Mutsu, Kaga, Tosa
BatDiv2--Ise, Hyuga, Fuso, Yamashiro
BatDiv3--Kongo, Hiei, Haruna, Kirishima
BatDiv4--Owari, Kii, Musashi, Shinano

Does this sound OK and look right?
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

Built or Building Japanese Cruisers

Post by John 3rd »

Moving to the next category: CAs and CLs

CAs
1st Div: (Myoko-Class) Myoko, Nachi, Haguro, Ashigara
2nd Div: (Takao-Class) Takao, Atago, Maya, Chokai
3rd Div: (Improved Takao) Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, Kumano----These are built as CAs from square one and they don't need refitting/reconstruction saving money.
4th Div: (Improved Takao) Iwaki, Hikaru in 3rd Circle and ???/??? in 4th Circle

Total of 16 CA for the war. IRL they had 18 (4 Aoba and 2 Tone)

CLs
1st Div: Tenryu, Tatsuta

These old ships get converted to fast, large ML.

2nd Div: Kuma, Tama, Kitakami, Oi

These ships become Training Cruisers.

3rd Div: Nagara, Isuzu, Yura, Natori, Kinu, Abukuma
4th Div: Naka, Sendai, Jintsu
5th Div: (Converted to 3x3 6" gun CL) Aoba, Kako, Kinugasa, Furutaka
6th Div: (Allowed with higher tonnage of London Treaty) Oyodo-Class: Oyodo, Niyodo with two more (Oyodo-Kai) in 3rd Circle Plan: Ishikari, Gokaze
7th Div: (4th Circle Plan with further refined Oyodo-Kai) Agano, Yahagi, Noshiro, Sakawa, Tokoro, Shokatsu

At war's start the Japanese have the 9 elderly CL Destroyer Leaders, the 4 strong Aoba's (transition CL Class), 4 Scout/CLAA CLs, and 6 more being built when the war begins. They also have the 4 Training Cruisers who would be of marginal value. TOTAL: 23+4. IRL the Japanese had 22+3 so not much gain here in terms of numbers.

Proposals:
Aoba-Class CL: 3x3 6", 4x2 Secondary, 12 24" TT, 7,500T, and 2 Floatplanes
Oyodo-Class: 3x3 6", 4x2 Secondary, 8 24" TT, 7,000T, and 4 Floatplanes
Oyodo-Kai Class: 3x2 6", 6x2 Secondary, 8 24" TT, 8,000T and 6 Floatplanes
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by FatR »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The 'normal' 8 BBs would start at PH.

Yes: that was the Nine Power Pact signed as part of the Washington Conference. When that was signed Japan agreed to the 5:5:3 ratio.

THAT provokes the idea! What if the Nine Power Pact wasn't signed? Japan won't join the Treaty due to this unless she gets the 3.5. In not signing, the USA is allowed the option to build-up her bases in the Pacific.
There is enough time for buildup after treaties. Which were rather unfavorable for Japan in this area anyway, allowing Western powers to fortify their major ports in the theatre, but restricting Japanese from building up defenses of Formosa.

ORIGINAL: John 3rdDoes this sound OK and look right?
Yes.

On cruisers - I think suggestions in the thread above to only build heavy cruisers, whether with 203mm or 155mm armament are correct. If we started talking about cruisers... OK, let's finish with artillery ships first. I'll post my considerations as soon as I have time.

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by FatR »

So, on cruisers.

Pre-London, no changes.

Past London, light cruisers:
1)Convert Tenryu and Tatsuta into fast minelayers, as you've proposed. They will replace Okinoshima and Tsugaru.
2)Convert Kuma and Tama into fast submarine leaders/replenishment ships with scout aircrafts. They will replace Taigei in this role.
3)Convert Oi, Kiso and Kitakami into training ships.
4)Mildly modify four Sendai-class cruisers so that they can continue serving as destroyer leaders. Remove four 140mm turrets installed on submarine depot ships of Jingei-class and install them instead of two forward 140mm guns on Sendais, make necessary modifications for using oxygen torpedoes, so on.
5)Disarm and mothball six remaining 5500-ton cruisers and draw plans beforehand, to modify them as as ships with heavy torpedo or heavy anti-air armament in case of imminent war or treaties' breakdown.

To continue with the proposal, can you confirm, John, if the London treaty actually allowed dowgrading CAs to CLs, moving tonnage from one category to another? If so, what tonnage exactly Japanese will have in both categories, assuming that the training cruisers will still count as CLs?
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by FatR »

ORIGINAL: Dixie


It's an old artwork, that I did back when I first got into playing around with pictures, but if nothing else it can be used as a placeholder until you get something better made up.

Fuso, from the WPO era.
Thanks! Just what we needed.

The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by John 3rd »

Let me check the books regarding the CA to CL question!
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: FatR

So, on cruisers.

Pre-London, no changes.

Past London, light cruisers:
1)Convert Tenryu and Tatsuta into fast minelayers, as you've proposed. They will replace Okinoshima and Tsugaru.
2)Convert Kuma and Tama into fast submarine leaders/replenishment ships with scout aircrafts. They will replace Taigei in this role.
3)Convert Oi, Kiso and Kitakami into training ships.
4)Mildly modify four Sendai-class cruisers so that they can continue serving as destroyer leaders. Remove four 140mm turrets installed on submarine depot ships of Jingei-class and install them instead of two forward 140mm guns on Sendais, make necessary modifications for using oxygen torpedoes, so on.
5)Disarm and mothball six remaining 5500-ton cruisers and draw plans beforehand, to modify them as as ships with heavy torpedo or heavy anti-air armament in case of imminent war or treaties' breakdown.

To continue with the proposal, can you confirm, John, if the London treaty actually allowed dowgrading CAs to CLs, moving tonnage from one category to another? If so, what tonnage exactly Japanese will have in both categories, assuming that the training cruisers will still count as CLs?

I am good with 1-4 of your thoughts here:
1. Can you provide some sort of Spec idea for 1 (ML) and 2 Sub Leader/Repennishment?

2. Three we already have done with RA so that is simple.

3. What additional changes would you make to the Sendai's beyond the gun change?

4. The six remaining ships could be set to upgrade/convert as of 12/41 OR we begin the conversion process at some point in 1941. What do you think? Are you thinking they either get built as the Torpedo Cruisers (4 Kitakami essentially) or a CLAA build like what we created for the Omaha's in RA?

As to the CL to CA and CA to CL question this is my read from the Treaties and simple common sense. We are pulling 4 8,000T and replacing them with--essentially--4 10,000T. We all know the fudging involved but that is how they were listed. This change could be done and still leave tonnage for the pair of proto-Oyodo's PRIOR to 3rd Circle. There is probably MORE then that but we can simply call it good.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod

Post by John 3rd »

To be certain of things I am going to re-read the pertinent sections of the London Treaty.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
FatR
Posts: 2522
Joined: Fri Oct 23, 2009 10:04 am
Location: St.Petersburg, Russia

RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers

Post by FatR »

While I'm waiting, one more fundamental thing: fleet armament.

1)Instead of bothering with reverse-engineering captured flak guns, and rushing them into production when it is already too late, Army and Fleet will pool their money around 38-39 and buy license to Flak 37 88mm gun (and its fire control system as well) in Germany. The production will be limited and this gun will be useless against high-flying B-29s, but leagues better that either old 75mm guns or their improvised replacements.
Unfortunaly this gun and any its derivatives probably will be too heavy for use on small ships, so they will serve on land only.

2)Do not research either 76/60 or 100/65. Japanese research abilities are limited, and they should not be wasted by wavering between calibres or designing guns with narrow practical application. Concentrate on 127/50 DP gun. Here I'm making an assumption that this project will be successful... but without losing several years due to temporarily deciding in favor of 100/65 it might have been. Still, the first guns suited for use on ships probably will not be ready before 1943, and the production will remain limited, with few of the older ships upgraded to it.
Use remaining free resources to develop enhancements for 127/40 mounts and the second generation of high-angle turrets for 127/50 Type 3 gun earlier.

3)Also, phase out 120/45 guns wherever possible, replacing them with 127/40, mostly to streamline ammunition production (127/40 and 127/50 Type 2 already used very similar shells, exept for the former they came attached to unitary rounds - not interchangeable in the field, but uniform for production purposes). Do not build any new 120/45 guns.

4)Around 1940, after seeing what the new generation of divebombers can do, the carrier admirals should raise an alarm, warning, that while the AA system based on 127/40 + 25/60 and their fire directors is currently the best in the world, it is of limited usefulness against divebombing attacks by modern planes. As a stopgap measure, install a handful of 25/60 singles on all major warships before the war, to give them some weapons capable of aiming rapidly. Accounts about real combat qualities and flaws of 25/60 guns are directly contradictory, so I won't pretend like I know more about them than RL Japanese designers and won't propose any other inprovements (except for "more and earlier", pay close attention to events in Europe, particularly the role of aviation in the battle for Norway). IJN needs a bigger automatic gun anyway, for the reason described above, so upscaling Hotchkiss design to 37mm (as Russians did with 25mm Bofors at that time). It is very important to start the project and advance it far enough to see the possible results before the war, otherwise it is unlikely to see completion. Mass production to the point of ever starting to replace 25/60 is still very unlikely. A few powered twin mounts will make it on the most valuable (and biggest) warships during upgrades of 1944 and later. Single-hand operated mounts probably can serve to replace 76mm guns on small ships constructed late in the war.
Development of a lead-calculating fire director should begin at the same time, but I'm not sure if Japanese have technical capabilities to create and produce anything useful in this area.

5)Do not expand 13.2 MGs production so much during the war. Using the postulated greater Army-Navy cooperation, take the Army's Ho-1 automatic cannon design (meant for aircraft IRL), based on their existing anti-tank rifle, which has about the same weight, and use it to equip various small ships and boats, which are too small or too insignificant for the more powerful 25/60 singles. The main effect will be boosting crews' confidence anyway, but hopefully with a few more Allied aircraft shot down in the process, particularly during strafing attacks.
The Reluctant Admiral mod team.

Take a look at the latest released version of the Reluctant Admiral mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

Built or Building Japanese Cruisers

Post by John 3rd »

Sorry about the delay but this stuff takes a bit of time to get through. I had managed to blank that out in the 15+ years since I wrote Masters Thesis! [:'(]

OK. Let us start with little things:

1. CL Yubari must be built. IT is the experimental transition ship from the old 5,500T CLs and the creation of the Type A--Heavy Cruiser. Hiraga's transitional design must be done for moving to newer ships.
2. Whitley states that there were two improved-Takao's not built due the London Treaty. WE need to build them. They would eat up the remaining tonnage added in going to 70%.

Statistics at the time of London:
A. Japan got 108,400T in CAs at a 60.23% ratio to USA/GB
B. 70.00% at 100,450 in CLs
C. I've got the DD and SS figures as well, however, we'll save them for a bit.

The classes are set by type with then the tonnage maximum. Any ship converted to a differing purpose or mothballed/scrapped could be replaced with new construction. Shifting from CA--CL or vice-versa was allowed as long as the tonnage numbers held firm.

CA Development Ideas:
1. If we convert the 4 Aoba's (7,500T) into 3x3 6" CLs this frees up 30,000T for CAs.
2. Take the extra tonnage allowed to CAs by the Treaty (roughly 20,000T) and apply it to CA construction.

WE now could add--realistically--5 CAs of the Improved Takao-Class. These would be the Mogami's plus one more. They start as CAs and are not converted saving $$$.

By this, the Japanese gain one CA.

CL Development:
1. The Kaigun gets the 4 Aoba's as CLs.
2. Roughly 10,000T left over for additional construction by comparing Aoba's to Mogami's.
3. If we changeover the 7 CLs as noted above to ML, Trainers, and Tenders then this frees up another 37,500T for building.

Total available in 1930 is then 47,500T.

Building Options: The Japanese elect to go with the twin 8" turret for their CAs and the triple 6" turret for their CLs. It would appear reasonable to me to stick with the 3x3 6" arrangement because it allows for considerable deck space to be devoted for 24" TT, Planes, and a small secondary.

Circle 1: Build 4 Agano-Class (7,000T) CLs.
Circle 2: Build 2 Agano-Kai (8,500T) with a larger plane handling ability (say 5 instead of 3 FP).

The Japanese see a net gain of 3 CLs (4 Aoba, 4 Agano, 2 Agano-Kai for 7 old CLs).

When the Japanese leave the Treaty System in 1935 they are then set to continue building along their twin established lines for the cruisers. Anything built for 3rd and then 4th Circle simple follows as refinements to the Takao-Kai and Agano-Kai. Fairly simple, logical, and backed by research...

Thoughts?
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
House Stark
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2011 6:30 pm

RE: Built or Building Japanese Cruisers

Post by House Stark »

So, if I'm reading this correctly, the Japanese would get -1 CA and +2-3 CL compared to the real war, but they would be better ships overall (no old, weak CAs and fewer old CLs) so the cruiser fleet would still be superior to the real life IJN cruiser fleet during the war?

Battleship fleet looks good though-a few more good battleships compared to the real war, at the cost of super battleships. Seems a good war to improve Japan battleship OOB while staying reasonable.

Looking forward to when you summarize the carrier ideas into one of these posts (unless I missed it further up the thread?).
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”