The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

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

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

RE: The Big THREE?

Post by John 3rd »

I echo the last comment within kfsgo's note. My concern is that we have made the Allies WAY TOO powerful.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
kfsgo
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:06 pm

RE: The Big THREE?

Post by kfsgo »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I echo the last comment within kfsgo's note. My concern is that we have made the Allies WAY TOO powerful.

Speaking as someone who has basically never touched Japan and probably never will in any serious way - it's hard to say without actually playing through the scenario, but yes, possibly. The thing is that our story is at odds with our ends, I guess - so there is a need to create some resource drains to accommodate that. MTO operations are one, Russia is another, and of course you can twist other things. Thinking about those two alone for a few seconds, you can probably say:

- Cutting out Libya is going to have some interesting knock-on effects for the RAF/RAAF/RNZAF - you're not getting that education in coordinating air and ground forces that was put together there, so you're not going to have the usual thing of squadrons showing up full of experienced pilots - they're going to need training just like the Americans. There'll be more of them, and on pure numbers they'll have more aircraft, but losses will be higher.

- Russia is just...unknowable, really. I suspect the extra German commitment doesn't amount to much in practice initially - the North Africa lot were never all that numerous until later, Germany is pretty logistically stretched as it is, and remember that they have to garrison France from the beginning now - but as you move into the later war Germany is less brittle; it's not that they'll win, but they'll lose slower - and the Russian Far East forces will be drawn on further, antagonism with Japan or not. Could be a tempting target...and of course they'll be screaming for every bit of kit they can get through Iran etc, triply so if the F.E is invaded. Hope you're ok with Hurricanes instead of P-39s for a while.

Ultimately it probably won't be a shorter war in practice in the PTO, if only because the actual ending of it is kinda contingent on the arrival of ground forces, the Americans aren't going to get going any quicker on that front, and most players seem to lose the will to live by late 1944 anyway, but I can imagine the war in Europe ending sooner and those end-war redeployments taking place earlier.
User avatar
MateDow
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:00 am

RE: The Big THREE?

Post by MateDow »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I echo the last comment within kfsgo's note. My concern is that we have made the Allies WAY TOO powerful.

I know my goal was to add most of the British battleships in 1945 where they will contribute to a general Allied tsunami. [:D]

There were some random appearances in 1942, but those can be removed if they are too unbalancing.
User avatar
MateDow
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:00 am

RE: The Big THREE?

Post by MateDow »

The discussion over on the regular Perfect War side about the US liner conversions, should probably be moved over here.

I found more information in Friedman's book US Aircraft Carriers
ORIGINAL: Friedman
The XCV program did survive, but only on paper. As of 1941, conversions were to provide space for seventy-two aircraft (four squadrons of fighters and bombers), although complements were sized for sixty. The last revision of WPL-10 (September 1941) noted that since conversion would require about a year, it was unlikely to be ordered. However, plans had been distributed for four classes: the two Manhattans, the two Presidents, the three Mariposas, and the three Uruguays (ex-Californias), which together would have provided a total of ten ships.

I recognize some of these ships (Mariposas and Manhattans) but don't know if the others are in the game. The one-year conversion would require a long term commitment, but would be similar to that required by the Japanese for their liner and seaplane tender conversions.

The question is, would most players just convert them ahistorically to gain extra carriers in January 1943, which based on AARs that I have read, tends to be a "carrier sparse" time for Allied players in PBEM games? Or would they wait until they have suffered losses.

There is a large part of me that wants to have them there for choice and flavor sake, but I also don't want them to be unbalancing.
kfsgo
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:06 pm

RE: The Big THREE?

Post by kfsgo »

ORIGINAL: MateDow

I recognize some of these ships (Mariposas and Manhattans) but don't know if the others are in the game. The one-year conversion would require a long term commitment, but would be similar to that required by the Japanese for their liner and seaplane tender conversions.

One of the Presidents is presumably President Coolidge (ship #10754); the other I don't know, but there are at least two other ships of the "same" class in-game (Hermitage, ship #10755 and Monticello, ship #10756). Uruguays are SS Uruguay/Argentina/Brazil which aren't in-game as themselves, I think.
The question is, would most players just convert them ahistorically to gain extra carriers in January 1943, which based on AARs that I have read, tends to be a "carrier sparse" time for Allied players in PBEM games? Or would they wait until they have suffered losses.

Well, why wouldn't they? It costs nothing but time; the fast liners are useful, but they're not critical, war-winning things like carriers. I like the idea too, but I'm not sure it's really justified - if we really need more carriers, the RN can probably kick an extra one over for a while...chances are Ark Royal is still afloat, after all.

hbrsvl
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 3:29 am

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

Post by hbrsvl »

John 3rd- I've just become aware of this mod. Is there a link that shows me what is involved in this mod, without my going thru 600+ posts? I.e Are there scenarios as in WITP? Is it only PBEM?

I'd love to play an AE game starting 5/1/42 or other dates. Looking at some of the posts, does this have a 1936 or 1938 or 1939 start? Is there Allied production?

I guess what I'm asking, is this an AE version of the Hearts of Iron series? Which would be great as far as I'm concerned.

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

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

Post by John 3rd »

Hi Sir. This CAN be run against the AI but I don't recommend it. We are nowhere near finished with it right now though.

Biasedly, I would happily recommend Reluctant Admiral as a plausible 'what if.' Go to that thread. It has a good description and the download available right there.

Keep up with this one as we make progress!
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: Allied Side

Post by oldman45 »

I don't believe it would imbalance anything if you don't assign air-groups to them. Pickup the Marine squadrons that are on the west coast.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

Post by John 3rd »

The Marines are quite usable...
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
MateDow
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:00 am

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

Post by MateDow »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I don't believe it would imbalance anything if you don't assign air-groups to them. Pickup the Marine squadrons that are on the west coast.

Could you assign air groups to them? I wasn't sure that you could assign an airgroup to something that comes about through conversion.
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

Post by oldman45 »

Once the conversion is ready to go, just load the planes on-board. Modify the squadrons to fit like other CVL's and you are good to go. Unless I misunderstood your question.
User avatar
JuanG
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Dec 28, 2008 8:12 pm

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

Post by JuanG »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Once the conversion is ready to go, just load the planes on-board. Modify the squadrons to fit like other CVL's and you are good to go. Unless I misunderstood your question.

I think the question was could you link an organic airgroup to arrive for them when converted, to which the answer is no as far as I know.

The only airgroups that take part in conversions are pre-existing ones on the ship, which can be linked like on the Japanese CS->CVL conversions, to convert to different squadrons if theyre onboard when the conversion is ordered.
User avatar
MateDow
Posts: 224
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2002 12:00 am

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

Post by MateDow »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Once the conversion is ready to go, just load the planes on-board. Modify the squadrons to fit like other CVL's and you are good to go. Unless I misunderstood your question.

JuanG was correct. I was thinking of an organic airgroup that would appear when the conversion was complete.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17442
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side

Post by John 3rd »

That is how I thought it was. Thanks for the comments guys.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
kfsgo
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:06 pm

RE: War in the Skies

Post by kfsgo »

Ok, so with China done I started looking at merging UK/Can/Aus/NZ aircraft production. That was the initial intention, about 11am yesterday morning...things have gotten a little unhinged since then. I'm not sure that's a good thing or a bad thing. Anyway:

I have pretty much consolidated aircraft types; there are some duplicates to allow production rate changes over time, but by and large things were fairly orderly and linear and aircraft numbers pretty much what they originally were...before I started messing with things. Here's how things have worked out so far:

* Conceptual background: With a relatively open Mediterranean, UK production is less stressed; there is less of a need to hold masses of aircraft in reserve, and more of an ability to plan ahead & tool new aircraft lines up. Meanwhile, Russia is under even more pressure than historical and pretty much needs anything that can fly - but preference here is for US equip as maintenance & ancilliaries are far more suitable given cicumstances. So, PTO gets scraps, then actually sees some modernish UK aircraft - to a certain extent this is a case of "wouldn't it be funny if...", but I figure there's no harm in that, and it keeps things interesting.

Land Fighters

- Beaufighter models partially merge
- Blenheim IVF introduced as early-42 long-range "fighter"; this is a bomber with a gunpod strapped to the belly as per Blenheim IF. Strictly night-fighter/long-range shipping protection, being terrifyingly slow, but it's a capability missing that can be filled.
- Buffalo models merge
- Hurricane IIb / XIIb merge
- Hurricane IId deleted (short war in Libya = likely not built)
- Hurricane III (technically existed as Packard Merlin aircraft; I've reappropriated the designation) replaces IIc / FR.II / IV as "refreshed" fighter-bomber from mid-43 with ability to lift bombs and a single drop tank at the same time - ie, it's actually of some use slinging bombs.
- A trickle of Spitfire V start to arrive mid-42 onwards; just a few per month, more as a morale booster than anything else, before ramping up towards the end of the year
- Spitfire VIII models merge
- Kittyhawk models merge
- UK Thunderbolt removed (! - yes, really); historically these were apparently meant to be fighter-bombers rather than air superiority fighters; that seems very odd in context of how WITP games tend to go, and the US has a notorious P-47 Gap which could probably use filling, so I got rid of'em. Replacing them is interesting...read on.
- CAC Boomerang removed. We have a fair number of spare Hurricanes kicking about - the Russians don't seem to have been fans - which makes this a basically unnecessary project. More sensible to concentrate on Beaufort>Beaufighter>Mosquito production in Australia, I think - best one efficient production focus than two 'ok' ones.
- Mosquito fighter models partially merge
- Mustang models partially merge

I think that's it. So, filling the new CW P-47 gap: The interesting thing about easing up in 1941 is that it puts Hawker Tornado back on the table for UK; historically this was cancelled mid-1941 as engines were being a pain and it wasn't thought a good use of resources at the time - effectively in doing that you're moving the timetable on the new Hawker fighter airframe up about 6-8 months - you end up with Tornado rather than Typhoon, I guess.

Engines for it - three appropriate 2000ish HP UK aero engines in the pipeline - RR Vulture, Napier Sabre and Bristol Centaurus. Vulture is available early, but was famously catastrophic in bombers; "allegedly" worked ok in Tornado, so given an ability to say "ok, keep it in production for fighters" we might assume that worked out in ETO, but given problems were basically with cooling I suspect tropical heat would have killed it stone dead. Sabre has been around since before the war, but was subject to excessive tinkering by Napiers and not really useful overseas until 1943; Centaurus is a bit of a techy design, but seems to have worked out ok, and is available 1942 - given less war stress, production can probably 'go' earlier. So, focus should drift towards C - with derated-Centaurus (still hot out east, remember, so reliability won't be so hot even though it's a radial) - Tornado starting to trickle in to PTO late 1943, as Hurricane supplies start to dry up, before uprating and accelerating in 1944. Very much a low-altitude short-range aircraft in comparison to Thunderbolt - but something a bit different. A few Mustangs will also show up mid-44 for LR escort duties.

Accelerating Centaurus deployment also has a few beneficial consequences in:

Land Bombers

- Beaufort models partially merge
- Bolingbroke IV and Blenheim IV merge; some extra Blenheim made available from mideast. Of course, they're still Blenheims in the end...
- Hudson models merge
- Ventura models merge
- UK Liberators mostly removed. Some GR.III retained for VLR naval search/mining, but otherwise these are wanted by MTO. CW will receive the aircraft, but not until mid-44.
- Wellington GR / B production increases to cover for Liberator on night-bombing/naval search
- Warwick GR / B comes in mid-44 as Wellington replacement; with Centaurus available this is a much more viable aircraft.
- Martin Baltimore arrives as MTO-flow daylight bomber to cover lack of Liberator and eventually displace Blenheim; basically a cross between A-20 and B-25, with none of the really good things about either, but it's available and a dead rat nailed to a tree stump is preferable to Blenheim, so...
- A very small number of bomber-variant (ie the "holy crap that's fast" ones) Mosquito are introduced from 1943 for irritation purposes, ramping up end 1944.
- Vengeance models merge
- Lancaster FE accelerates to whenever the war in Europe is now supposed to end - likely a bit sooner - replacing Liberator. I have it down for 4/45, but who knows.

Recon, transport & patrol aircraft merge; not much to change there.

Naval Aircraft

This is an interesting one. There is a question in my mind as to what goes on with Martlet/Wildcat; the FAA seems to have ended up with the aircraft as a consequence of diverted French orders - the French will now be able to take them on to a certain extent. The way I've chosen to set things up is:

- Fulmar is available in greater numbers
- Sea Hurricane likewise, with Sea Hurricane III coming in late 42 on the same basis as land version (ie, better load capability = drop tanks off carrier deck = useful range)
- Firefly availability moves up to late 43; there seems no particular reason why the aircraft can't be made available as it's in production and needs elsewhere are less critical by this point.
- Martlet is available as replacements, but 42-arriving carriers carry SH/Fulmar mix on arrival, so total # available decreases. Wildcat unchanged.
- A few navalised Mosquito available late 1944 - naval conversions were apparently actually made around this time, but the aircraft never made it into service for some reason. Can't think of a reason not to...

e: yes I can - seems these were a one-off for bouncing bombs, which I don't think we can really represent. So no Mosquitos off carriers - the main navalised variant didn't show up until post-war.

- Corsair, Hellcat unchanged. Given availability of Centaurus-Tornado I suspect Hawkers would have gone ahead with P.1009 equivalent (ie Sea Typhoon), which I could see replacing one of these lines in theory, but I don't really think production would be up to it until after the war's pretty much over, which makes it a bit pointless.
- Walrus/Seagull V models merge
- Sea Otter is introduced late 43 as Walrus successor with a little more range

Taken as a whole, I guess that makes CW air forces more 'tactical' and less 'strategic', and although available aircraft numbers will be higher it's something of a downgrade in effective capability in game terms (loss of Thunderbolt and most Liberator is a big kick), but it's one way you might weight things given a different overall war situation.

Now, this stuff is all a bit back-of-the-envelope, and everything's still in .csv format from my moving slots around - so comments & corrections are downright demanded.
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: War in the Skies

Post by DOCUP »

Kfsgo  Nice work.  First of all I'm not as experieced as you are in this area.  So my questions are not ment to offend you or your work.
 
You stopped the Hurri IId so does the previous model contiue longer or stop at the usual time?
 
The Tornados are they going to be upgraded or just a one off type?
kfsgo
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:06 pm

RE: War in the Skies

Post by kfsgo »

I'm pretty sure the probability of offending me with questions is a negative number so, uh, don't worry about that.

Hurricane IId is a dedicated ground-attack aircraft with a pair of 40mm cannons. Its origins are essentially the war in Libya - with lots of open ground exposing things to shoot at it's a natural progression; however, as we don't have a war in Libya in the appropriate time period I can't see that any would be produced. The fact that it's essentially useless in game terms is, of course, a handy aside...

The total Hawker chain looks like this at the moment (bear in mind this is still all a bit...conceptual):

Hurricane I - 12/41 to 1/42, 12 aircraft/month. Performance as stock except speed increased by 10mph to 292; as I understand it this is meant to represent 'tired' airframes rushed in from the Middle East; in our world they'll be less so, instead "just" being saddled with tropical filters etc.

Hurricane IIa - as stock, arrivals only with new groups. Technically this is the better aircraft out of IIa and IIb, being faster with less guns; the extra guns of IIb could be removed for a performance boost, of course, but we don't get to manually switch between models.

Hurricane IIb - 1/42 to 8/42, 25 aircraft/month. An amalgamation of stock IIb and Canadian XIIb production.

Hurricane IIc - 5/42 to 7/43, 50 aircraft/month. Production rate increases over stock (remember that we're supplying Australia and Canada as well - conceptually it could be much higher, but there is the fact that it's a game to keep in mind...) but ends earlier. This is really the point at which the aircraft starts to become a ground attack aircraft first and an air superiority fighter second, though people don't often realise it as range with bombs is only 4 hexes.

Hurricane FR.IIb - 1/43 to 5/43, 10 aircraft/month. Converted fighter-bombers with a camera.

Hurricane FR.III - 6/43 to 4/45, 30 aircraft/month. Dedicated, "refreshed" fighter-bomber, with camera, extra armour and a centerline drop tank enabling carriage of tank and two 500lb bombs at the same time. Can carry bombs out to max range (6 hexes), though that max is lower than fighter models. All the bits do have a performance cost, with speed dropping down to 312mph and service ceiling to 31000ft, so it's not really a competitive fighter by this point.

Sea Hurricane Ib - 12/41 to 2/43, 14 aircraft/month. Otherwise as stock.

Sea Hurricane F.3 - 1/43 to 12/43, 10 aircraft/month. Navalised Mk. III without the extra armour - will do 340mph, which is not exactly Corsair territory but is an improvement. Will lift two 250lb bombs and a drop tank off a carrier deck and fly them out to 5 hexes.

Tornado III - 6/43 to 4/44, 6 aircraft/month. Initial version with Centaurus; almost certain there would be cooling and reliability issues, so service rating of 3 - probably generous at that. Derating engine to solve some of those problems leaves speed around 385mph. No drop tanks fitted, range is 7hex/5hex - internal fuel much improved over Hurricane.

Tornado F.4 - 3/44 to 5/45, 40 aircraft/month. Range on internal fuel as above, drop tanks will stretch this out to 10hex/8hex. Less engine explosions bring reliability and power back up, speeding the aircraft up to 415mph. SR is 2; yes, it's a radial, but still a rather odd one. Maneuverability increases slightly as a consequence; good at low altitudes, poor at high altitudes.

Tempest F.2 - 6/45 to the end of time, 40 aircraft/month. As stock, just accelerated by 4 months.
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: War in the Skies

Post by oldman45 »

I love what ya wrote except for the Liberators. There was a greater need in the Pacific because of the range these planes had over other bombers of the period. I think the case could be made for the Martin bombers to start coming over to the pacific with the French and British. Besides I always liked the Baltimore's, thought they were a good looking airplane.
kfsgo
Posts: 446
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2010 11:06 pm

RE: War in the Skies

Post by kfsgo »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I love what ya wrote except for the Liberators. There was a greater need in the Pacific because of the range these planes had over other bombers of the period. I think the case could be made for the Martin bombers to start coming over to the pacific with the French and British. Besides I always liked the Baltimore's, thought they were a good looking airplane.

The French already have a few Marylands courtesy of Skyland; some could similarly make it over to India or Australia, I guess, though as I understand it the RAF mostly used them as recon aircraft. I always thought the Baltimore was pretty hideous, to be honest, but it's available in numbers due to the whole 'not being shot up over Libya' thing.

There are two regular Liberator strands for the CW in the stock game; British aircraft start arriving late 1942, but numbers are pretty small until you get into B.III / B.VI towards 1944. Australian aircraft start arriving mid-44 in similar numbers. So - the naval search models aren't going anywhere, since they're a range capability that can't really be had anywhere else, but there are better things for the regular bombers to be doing than messing around in Burma - better Romania than Rangoon, or so goes the theory - which sounds like a terrible hardship but, really, there are a lot of aircraft available for the sort of jobs the Liberators are meant to be doing - have a look at the 1943 records of the first UK Liberator squadron to arrive in-game, for example - very little further away than Rangoon, and bombing conducted more or less entirely at night - nothing that can't be done with Wellington, in other words.

e: although on looking at later models I'm not so sure - they lose some range. Will have to have a think...

From an Australian perspective there's no loss in capability, since they wouldn't be receiving Liberator until mid-44 and...that's when 'CW' Liberator shows up anyway.

User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3088
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: War in the Skies

Post by DOCUP »

Could you all increase the mine production some.  I think this area is lacking some.  I don't want a huge increase, I can see where it could go way wrong.
 
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”