Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930

[Poll]

Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers


Keep the focus primarily on battleships, no new carriers.
  16% (18)
Add the historical carriers in to the Super Dreadnoughts Scenario.
  34% (38)
Add the carriers in, but in a spinoff scenario.
  49% (54)


Total Votes : 110
(last vote on : 7/19/2012 5:52:09 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


Tankerace -> Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (5/24/2006 6:54:24 PM)

Since there are a ton of new aircraft coming in the next patch, I am giving serious consideration to modeling the carriers converted in the 1920s, though not removing their classes. It would probably be in the Super Dreadnoughts scenario, or a spinoff of that scenario. So, for instance, Lexington and Saratoga would be aircraft carriers, but the other 4 ships would still be Lexington class battlecruisers.

If this is done, it wil raise the carrier list to:

Japan
Hosho
Shokaku
Soryu
Hiryu
Amagi (or Akagi)
Kaga

United States
Langley
Enterprise
Yorktown
Lexington
Saratoga

Britain
Argus
Furious
Vindictive (Until 1924)
Courageous
Glorious
Eagle
Hermes

French
Bearn

This is not a complete reversal of WPO's focus, as the Tosa, rest of the Amagis, the other 4 Lexingtons, and the other Normandies will still be in their battleship glory. Note that if they are added in Super Dreadnoughts (for example), the Lexington will be a CC in the Standard 1922 scenarios and 1926 scenario, but a CV in the 1926 Super Dreadnought Scenario (and with an adjusted arrival date).

So, vote now. There is plenty of time, as there is a lot of other work to do before this, and this will not take that long to implement.




ecwgcx -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (5/24/2006 8:43:05 PM)

Since I was the only vote I guess I get my way!!![:D][:D]




Terminus -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (5/24/2006 8:45:13 PM)

My way too...




Tankerace -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (5/25/2006 2:14:55 AM)

Awsome awsome.

Oh and BTW Term, the reason that you haven't had a turn yet is I haven't been able to be on a PC for more than 10 minutes at a time. Been making daily trips to the hospital to visit relatives. Not pleasant at all.




Helpless -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (5/25/2006 8:48:11 AM)

#3.. more is better [:)]





Pkunzipper -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (5/25/2006 12:06:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Helpless

#3.. more is better [:)]


Agreed! [;)]




William Amos -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (5/25/2006 11:53:32 PM)

I play WITP for carrier action and this for Battleship action.

But to each his own




Rysyonok -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (5/26/2006 12:49:55 AM)

Something to consider though... in campaign PBEMs we keep seeing fleets depleted of ships within a year or two. Thus while USN may have any toys it pleases, I'd limit late-game arrivals of IJN's capital ships, trading them for additional destroyers and such.




Comander Rodney RAN -> any new 15,000ton 8 or 9.20 INC Guns CAs for the RN /RAN ? (5/26/2006 9:17:50 AM)

I like to see some new class of CAs for RN/RAN in 9.20inc or 8 in the later game tankrace maybe 32 kts 15,000 stand tons in 8 9.20inc or 8inc guns as the WT never happend i see the RN & RAN repacing there old ACs with new fast CAs by the mid 1920s .




Helpless -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (5/26/2006 10:50:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL:

I play WITP for carrier action and this for Battleship action.



But then WPO can give you unique chance to kick CV's butt with BB's main gun [sm=Evil-210.gif]




Tankerace -> RE: any new 15,000ton 8 or 9.20 INC Guns CAs for the RN /RAN ? (5/26/2006 7:53:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Comander Rodney RAN

I like to see some new class of CAs for RN/RAN in 9.20inc or 8 in the later game tankrace maybe 32 kts 15,000 stand tons in 8 9.20inc or 8inc guns as the WT never happend i see the RN & RAN repacing there old ACs with new fast CAs by the mid 1920s .


A good portion of new ships are coming, no definate list as of yet. I've got some books coming to evaluate designs for new "hypothetical" cruisers for all sides. But if/when I add conjectural ships, I want to keep it within reality, while not leaning to much on the 1922 treaty.

Still, a British 9.2in cruiser based on enlarged Hawkins Design isn't unfeasable.




Rysyonok -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (5/27/2006 5:03:09 AM)

quote:

But then WPO can give you unique chance to kick CV's butt with BB's main gun


A brownie point to the first person to post a screenshot of a 12+" gun hitting a carrier!!! ;)




FDRLincoln -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (5/27/2006 8:22:54 AM)

Tanker, if you're looking for an expanded Hawkins design, please check my "Drake" Class conjectural British CA in the Orange Dawn threads.





goodboyladdie -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (8/2/2006 3:02:25 PM)

I have just voted for the seperate scenario. This game was already very good value. It was effectively two games in one. With the addition of a standalone campaign featuring these larger carriers it would become three games in one. This is yet another example of the excellent support and thoughtful continuing of development from the development team. I can't wait! If someone wants to just play with battleships, they can ignore the new scenario, but I think it wil convince even more WitP fans to take the plunge and invest in this wonderful game.

The more people who buy it, the more chance that we'll get a chance to play War Plan Crimson!

Thanks once again Tanker





tocaff -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (1/1/2007 1:22:11 PM)

The spin off scenario is a good idea that I, too, voted for.  If I find that I don't like it, I won't play it.  WPO and WITP are 2 different animals and this won't change that fact.




Marc gto -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (10/11/2007 12:33:24 AM)

well put todd




Desertmole -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (9/12/2009 12:21:45 PM)

I'd love to see a spinoff with just Lex, Sara, Akagi and Kaga (or Amagi - No Great Kanto Earthquake). 




Rysyonok -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (9/12/2009 9:52:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Desertmole

I'd love to see a spinoff with just Lex, Sara, Akagi and Kaga (or Amagi - No Great Kanto Earthquake). 


Have you checked scenario 4? :)




Connfire -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (9/15/2009 1:56:00 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Desertmole

I'd love to see a spinoff with just Lex, Sara, Akagi and Kaga (or Amagi - No Great Kanto Earthquake). 


If you mean them appearing in their historical aircraft carrier configuration (or Amagi completed as a CV with Kaga a BB), I'll second that. You could say that the Washington Naval Treaty was signed, but quickly broken or suspended, resulting in the USN and IJN converting 2 BCs, with the rest of the ships in their classes completed as originally designed. Just one or two what-if scenerios, though. And to keep the flavor of WPO intact I wouldn't even mind dropping the 4 "never built" carriers from those particular scenerios.

There would be a certain cool factor to seeing 8" gun armed Lex and Sara in action, along with Amagi and Akagi with 3 superimposed flight decks!




Desertmole -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (9/15/2009 6:16:56 PM)

Connfire wrote:

quote:

If you mean them appearing in their historical aircraft carrier configuration (or Amagi completed as a CV with Kaga a BB), I'll second that. You could say that the Washington Naval Treaty was signed, but quickly broken or suspended, resulting in the USN and IJN converting 2 BCs, with the rest of the ships in their classes completed as originally designed. Just one or two what-if scenerios, though. And to keep the flavor of WPO intact I wouldn't even mind dropping the 4 "never built" carriers from those particular scenerios.

There would be a certain cool factor to seeing 8" gun armed Lex and Sara in action, along with Amagi and Akagi with 3 superimposed flight decks!


Yes, I meant I'd love to see them as carriers in a SuperDreadnoughts scenario.  Do you know if the Yorktowns represented an actual design or just were notional?




Connfire -> RE: Lexington, Amagi (Akagi), Kaga, Courageous carriers (9/15/2009 11:29:27 PM)

quote:

Do you know if the Yorktowns represented an actual design or just were notional?


It took me awhile to find this, I remember reading it awhile back. Tankrace said this in 2005, back when they had a thread where people could volunteer their own names as Commanders for WPO ships (which, sadly, you and I both missed by 4 years):

quote:

In the 1920s, War Plan Orange designers decided that should war break out, cargo ships, liners, or even colliers would be converted to aircraft carriers. A class of two US carriers arrive in the waay late 1920's to represent this. However, I kept the names the same as in the lineage, i.e. Since Langley is already built, and the names Lexington, Saratoga, and Ranger are assigned to battle cruisers, the next names in the series are Yorktown and Enterprise.

They are capable of operating with the battle line (unlike the 15 knot Langley), but only carry 22 planes (as opposed to Langley's 34).

To represent Japan's plans along the same lines, they receive 2 additional Hosho's in the late '20s as well.

This class of carrier is the only purely hypothetical class in War Plan Orange, although based on design studies undertook at the time.


Here's the thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=801676, check page 2.




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.636719E-02