Matrix Games Forums

Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets huge update and a Steam release!Battle Academy 2 opens up a new front!Flashpoint Campaigns Featured on weekly Streaming SessionFrontline: The Longest Day - New Screenshots!Deal of the Week: Hannibal Rome and CarthageFlashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm gets Players Edition!To End All Wars gets its first major patch! Hell is now available!War in the West Wacht am Rhein AAR Deal of the Week Panzer Corps: Allied Corps
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/18/2011 2:25:10 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I'm tring to figure a way of incorporated the German and Italians into the mod.


An alternative approach would be to knock the Russians out of the war -- Germany invades, Russia collapses and fragments into warlord statelets, perhaps with a Japanese-dominated Far Eastern Republic, allowing the Germans access to Pacific Russia along the Trans-Siberian railway. It allows the deployment of a Panzer Armee Afrika equivalent, but at the end of a very tenuous supply line -- I'd restrict German units to German HQs and keep those very limited in number, while making European Russia a supply source but forcing the Axis to garrison the Trans-Siberia line. This idea is more problematic for extensive naval deployments, but would allow the Monsun Gruppe U-Boats and Raiders to be put on a firmer footing.

Simultaneously the collapse of Russia allows you to restrict the rate at which Allied commitment to the Pacific grows as the threat in Europe will be greater. It also creates the potential of a thrust at India from the West through the Caucusus and Persia (I'm not sure even Hitler was stupid enough to try coming south through Afghanistan).


I'd rather bring them in via the Red Sea and Mogadishu. One of the main reasons I have Germany in game is to introduce some neat new naval toys, Bismarck, H-Class BBs, Graf Zeppelin, etc. I don't think I could do that very well coming from Siberia.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to dwg)
Post #: 31
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/18/2011 2:51:37 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
One thing I'm working on is alternative ship designs. Without any treaties in effect I assume there would be a little more diversity in ship size. So instead of all cruisers hovering around 10,000 tons, I will throw in a few 15,000+ designs. Here are some samples for the USN:

Above are the original cruisers and below each cruiser is the new treatiless design. At there very bottom are Alaska and Iowa to compare.




Unhindered by Treaty limitations the US invests in 12 x 8" designs.


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 5/18/2011 3:19:15 AM >


_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 32
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/18/2011 7:46:03 AM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


I'd rather bring them in via the Red Sea and Mogadishu. One of the main reasons I have Germany in game is to introduce some neat new naval toys, Bismarck, H-Class BBs, Graf Zeppelin, etc. I don't think I could do that very well coming from Siberia.


You could conceptually always bring them round the north of Siberia - have them arrive at Anadyr, I guess? - which was technically possible. Not really all that credible, but not really any less so than the alternatives, and there seems to have been at least one German raider that actually did make the trip that way.

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 33
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/18/2011 1:51:52 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: kfsgo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


I'd rather bring them in via the Red Sea and Mogadishu. One of the main reasons I have Germany in game is to introduce some neat new naval toys, Bismarck, H-Class BBs, Graf Zeppelin, etc. I don't think I could do that very well coming from Siberia.


You could conceptually always bring them round the north of Siberia - have them arrive at Anadyr, I guess? - which was technically possible. Not really all that credible, but not really any less so than the alternatives, and there seems to have been at least one German raider that actually did make the trip that way.


I think it would probably be best if I just have them arrive in Mogadishu as planned. From there they can attack india.

So this is what I have so far:

1. Simplicity: Disable the ability to switch leaders and HQs by zeroing out Political Points. This will also help in keeping German commanders with German units and Japanese commanders with Japanese units.

2. Simplicity: I'm taking all the existing aircraft in the game for the Japanese and reorganizing them into bigger units. The only AGs which will be less than 18 planes will be ship board float plane units and recon units.

3. Balance: For the Allies I am actually going to add some aircraft at the start as they are currently weaker in the air on day one than the Axis.

Any additional suggestions are welcome. Just keep in mind the three essential aspects to the mod will be simplicity, balance and it doesn't need to adhere strictly with reality--although I will try to preserve a sense of "semi-plausibility" where I can. In other words will there be 20/20 hindsight so that both sides build more carriers, yes. Will the carriers be Nimitz class with F-14 Tomcats, no.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 34
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/18/2011 2:04:38 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
I'll need to run some tests to see if I can split IJN and IJA nationalities between Japan and the European Axis so that the Germans and Italians aren't pulling from the same pilot pool as Japan.

Not sure this is possible.
Good luck

Not practicably possible. If you do that, army and navy pilots become fungible. All army and navy leaders become fungible. Majors commanding warships? Admirals commanding Divisions? Yamashita or Homma commanding Combined Fleet?

Hopefully your Nazi extras will just be ships and a few pilots. Obviously this won't be AI friendly, but even running one computer turn in a PBEM or H2H game will screw things up royally.

Suggest you do as Cid proposes and identify your Nazi stuff in data. People who play your mod can look for the KM designator and pick leaders appropriately. Why screw up 99% of the game just to have some pilots and ship commanders with German surnames?


Thanks for the feedback.

Hadn't thought of that. That's why I was asking for feedback on how practical it would be to split IJA & IJN between Japanese and Germans. I was wondering if there would be any negative ramifications to it. Looks like there would be.

One workaround I can think of to the problem of getting the right leader names in the right units is to zero out political points so that leaders cannot be changed by the player and basically assign leaders permanently to units from the get go. Of course this also means that HQs cannot be changed for units. One way I could get around problems with that is to simply do away for the most part with static HQs and make all my game HQs movable to wherever the player wants to send them. That would also serve to simplify the game a bit, take away the need to change around leaders and HQs.

Can anyone think of any drawbacks to zeroing out political points?

Thanks.


Hmmm. Just realized, when TFs are formed or LCUs split there will be no control over what sort of leader they choose. How to remedy that? If I do Germans as IJN and Japanese as IJA I will get correct surnames but could still get admirals commanding LCUs and generals commanding TFs. OTOH if I don't split IJN and IJA to be nationality specific, then I could get the right ranks commanding units but I could end up with Japanese commanders commanding German units and German commanders commanding Japanese units. Can anyone think of a workaround for this? I'm stubbed at the moment.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 35
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/18/2011 2:58:56 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1446
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline
My idea of a 111... He 111 H-4 of 4/KG.26. I used a too large top view pic in the 2 previous ones: they're 60 x 60 not 80 x 80, oops...




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 36
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/18/2011 9:39:23 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1338
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
You're overlooking other possibilities. Lack of an Eastern front would mean more German assets to make England's life miserable. That in itself would guarantee that Britain would have to focus primarily on home defense, locking up most of their units there. With the Soviets fighting the Germans the UK can hope to be ignored a bit and can still try to protect her far flung empire, occasionally attacking the Germans here and there. Otherwise the Germans would be able to concentrate their power on Britain alone. That wouldn't be a good thing either.

Well, Germany would do better, if they focused on Mediterranean (Malta, Gibraltar, Egypt), not UK, if they had no transport capacity to make/defend invasion. They had no planes, nor pilots to really challenge GB in 1940, so they would have to focus on expansion of those arms in winter 1940. With no need for expansion for ground arm (no USSR attack), Graf Zeppelin could probably be launched, and with safe exchange of technology with Japan (by sea, or by neutral USSR) she could actually work.

Also, Commonwealth troops have safer, and in most cases (India/Australia) shorter trip to Africa, not UK.

Now, considering defeat in Africa, German troops should actually enter India by map edge, not make some weird amphibious invasions from Africa.


And in most cases I do not even watch on commanders, so who cares about their rank, or name?

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 37
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/19/2011 2:47:37 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Now, considering defeat in Africa, German troops should actually enter India by map edge, not make some weird amphibious invasions from Africa.


The only problem with that is that Karachi IS the map edge. So I'd need to give the Axis Karachi. I suppose that wouldn't be all that much of a problem. I could have a kind of "Deutsche India Korps" stationed in Karachi. However, either way you cut it the Germans and Italians are probably going to need to enter the far east via sea transport. If you look at a world map of the area, the terrain West of Pakistan looks pretty uninviting for taking the land route.

NOTE: Thanks for the reply. It always worries me when I come back to a thread about my mod and find that no one has posted any responses. Makes me think no one really cares one way or the other about this mod. Of course that may well be true. Maybe I'm just wasting my time working on this. Probably everyone would rather play something historically based instead of a bunch of fantasy nonsense.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 38
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/19/2011 2:50:56 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

My idea of a 111... He 111 H-4 of 4/KG.26. I used a too large top view pic in the 2 previous ones: they're 60 x 60 not 80 x 80, oops...





Looking good Erkki. Basically I'll be looking for both German and Italian aircraft to span the whole time period between 1/1/1942 to 1945, so anything you can make will probably go in the mod.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Erkki)
Post #: 39
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/19/2011 11:19:33 AM   
che200


Posts: 906
Joined: 1/14/2007
From: Malta
Status: offline
Why dont you give germany back Tsingtao and base them there.

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 40
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/19/2011 4:58:05 PM   
Erkki


Posts: 1446
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress


quote:

ORIGINAL: Erkki

My idea of a 111... He 111 H-4 of 4/KG.26. I used a too large top view pic in the 2 previous ones: they're 60 x 60 not 80 x 80, oops...





Looking good Erkki. Basically I'll be looking for both German and Italian aircraft to span the whole time period between 1/1/1942 to 1945, so anything you can make will probably go in the mod.


OK boss.

How about... Ju 87 B-2?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 41
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/19/2011 7:32:18 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1338
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Now, thinking of it...
It is possible to TURN OFF possibility of splitting unit. Just set them to SMALLER size (it probably have no other purpose). So if you set even CORPS as battalion size, it should not be possible to split.

Also, have you tried setting leaders, and ships to belonging to unused Nation? Pilots needs in-game pool, but other things can use virtual Nation, if they are working in-game. There are 3 free slots in editor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Makes me think no one really cares one way or the other about this mod. Of course that may well be true. Maybe I'm just wasting my time working on this. Probably everyone would rather play something historically based instead of a bunch of fantasy nonsense.

I would think of it as a tool for teaching GC. If you seriously reduce timespan, and reinforcements, it will be quick learning tool for whole map composition, and available forces.

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 42
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/20/2011 2:38:58 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

Now, thinking of it...
It is possible to TURN OFF possibility of splitting unit. Just set them to SMALLER size (it probably have no other purpose). So if you set even CORPS as battalion size, it should not be possible to split.

Also, have you tried setting leaders, and ships to belonging to unused Nation? Pilots needs in-game pool, but other things can use virtual Nation, if they are working in-game. There are 3 free slots in editor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Makes me think no one really cares one way or the other about this mod. Of course that may well be true. Maybe I'm just wasting my time working on this. Probably everyone would rather play something historically based instead of a bunch of fantasy nonsense.

I would think of it as a tool for teaching GC. If you seriously reduce timespan, and reinforcements, it will be quick learning tool for whole map composition, and available forces.


Hmmm. How does 1 year sound then? Too long? Maybe 6 months? I was hoping to have a long enough scenrio to do some ship conversion binds, maybe convert some merchies to AMCs or CVEs. You're probably right, though. People are going to lose interest if it's too long, especially if it isn't something historically based.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 43
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/20/2011 3:03:33 AM   
RyanCrierie


Posts: 1077
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline
Gary, you have my permission to use the art I did a while back:

http://www.alternatewars.com/Mods/WITP_AE/German/German_Art.htm

_____________________________

My Website with cool bits and pieces!

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 44
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/20/2011 11:18:00 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Question for the experts:

I want to give the Japanese some CVs in place of the Yamatos. What would be a plausible substitute carrier-wise for the Yamatos, to be launched before January 1941. Also, I'd like to use a carrier design which would allow me to create 2 carriers per each Yamato. In other words, in the span it took to produce a Yamato, I'd like to pump out two CVs.

Any ideas, suggestions on what would be the likely candidate, another Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku, Junyo, or Unryu? What carrier design should I use? I'd like to keep it to an existing design used in the game, instead of a "never-was".

Thanks.



Additional Shokaku's are the obvious choice..., but don't forget the most expensive part---filling and maintaining the Air Groups. Historically the IJN went to war without enough trained pilots to man the A/C it possessed, and without enough A/C to fill it's carrier air groups. And do to it's fetish for over-training replacements, there was a severe shortage of them as well...., so just building additional CV's doesn't begin to cover the actual costs to Japan in money, time, and resources.

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 45
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/21/2011 8:00:12 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Question for the experts:

I want to give the Japanese some CVs in place of the Yamatos. What would be a plausible substitute carrier-wise for the Yamatos, to be launched before January 1941. Also, I'd like to use a carrier design which would allow me to create 2 carriers per each Yamato. In other words, in the span it took to produce a Yamato, I'd like to pump out two CVs.

Any ideas, suggestions on what would be the likely candidate, another Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku, Junyo, or Unryu? What carrier design should I use? I'd like to keep it to an existing design used in the game, instead of a "never-was".

Thanks.



Additional Shokaku's are the obvious choice..., but don't forget the most expensive part---filling and maintaining the Air Groups. Historically the IJN went to war without enough trained pilots to man the A/C it possessed, and without enough A/C to fill it's carrier air groups. And do to it's fetish for over-training replacements, there was a severe shortage of them as well...., so just building additional CV's doesn't begin to cover the actual costs to Japan in money, time, and resources.



Basically I'll probably dull the experience of the Japanese pilots a bit to make up for having more of them to begin with. As far as airframes I did some counting of all the aircraft available on turn 1 for the Japanese and came up with the following:

The chart shows the following: Aircraft type, monthly production rate on turn 1, total # of airframes, # of airgroups of what size can be made from them. The # in parenthesis is how many extra planes there are after dividing the rest into groups of either 18 or 54.

Basically the chart shows that there are enough navy airgroups to fill quite a few extra carriers, albeit at the expense of having less land based navy airgroups.

A red box in the production collumn means I would turn off production for the aircraft. Green means keep production going.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 5/21/2011 8:02:54 PM >


_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 46
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/21/2011 8:37:27 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

Gary, you have my permission to use the art I did a while back:

http://www.alternatewars.com/Mods/WITP_AE/German/German_Art.htm


Thanks RyanCrierie! I'll see what I can use.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to RyanCrierie)
Post #: 47
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/22/2011 9:51:30 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1338
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
To keep it simple, you can probably change all OSCARs I, into 1 model. Same with TBs, and probably BABEs.

As for the time:
2 years seems to be too long. CA can repair in around 3 months, BB can take over year, so, to allow some damages to heavy ships, Scenario should probably be longer, than 1 year.

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 48
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/22/2011 1:23:24 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
Suscribed !!! That's an interesting mod !!!

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 49
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/22/2011 1:46:14 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

To keep it simple, you can probably change all OSCARs I, into 1 model. Same with TBs, and probably BABEs.

As for the time:
2 years seems to be too long. CA can repair in around 3 months, BB can take over year, so, to allow some damages to heavy ships, Scenario should probably be longer, than 1 year.


I'm thinking 1 year max for the scenario. I'm convinced I'll need to keep it as short as possible to hold people's interest. Also it will eliminate the need to extend reinforcements for very long and keep the number and types of aircraft to a smaller number. Basically there won't be a Pearl Harbor sneak attack in this scenario so repairing BBs will only be necessary if they are committed to battle.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 50
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/22/2011 3:30:46 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
A dmg BB or CV can take easily 400 days, so people should be very conservative...

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 51
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/22/2011 7:20:14 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
A brief little fictional history of aircraft carriers:

Basically Hosho, Langley, and Argus lead the way in aircraft carrier development as historically was the case. Since there are no arms limitation treaties in effect capital ships are completed as such and there are no battleship to carrier conversions. This leads to a "bottom up" evolution of the carrier. In other words carriers start small and gain size over time as opposed to go from tiny to huge and then back to medium.

Take the US as a case in point. The US starts with Langley. Using lessons learned from Langley, a slightly larger carrier named Wasp is built in the mid 1920s implementing a carrier/cruiser design with a single twin 8" turret in the bow. From lessons learned with Wasp, Ranger is built in the late 20s-early 30s dedicated to air operations only. Next comes the Yorktown group, 6 carriers a bit larger than the historic Wasp begun in 1932 incorporating the lessons learned from the Ranger. Finally the Enterprise program (6 more ships) is conceived in 1935 using all the lessons learned up to then resulting in what is effectively the Yorktown class. Ultimately the concept of the super carrier is discarded because most large scale ship building resources are reserved for BBs.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 5/22/2011 7:30:50 PM >


_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 52
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/22/2011 8:48:32 PM   
AlaskanWarrior


Posts: 1002
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Question for the experts:

I want to give the Japanese some CVs in place of the Yamatos. What would be a plausible substitute carrier-wise for the Yamatos, to be launched before January 1941. Also, I'd like to use a carrier design which would allow me to create 2 carriers per each Yamato. In other words, in the span it took to produce a Yamato, I'd like to pump out two CVs.

Any ideas, suggestions on what would be the likely candidate, another Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku, Junyo, or Unryu? What carrier design should I use? I'd like to keep it to an existing design used in the game, instead of a "never-was".

Thanks.

Gary, my friend, I think you are worrying too much. If this is a balanced scenario, who cares what's plausible. Just go for it. If I was doing one of those, I would have alternating 'Kakus and Unryus arriving on the same dates as an Essex. The whole idea is balance, yeah? And sure, do the Yamato, Musashi, Shinano BBs to counter the NCs, SoDaks, and Iowas. Nobody is gonna scar you for doing that, so long as you say just what it is you are doing.

Frankly, that might be a fun thing. I strongly believe in limited, historically based, CPX-type scenarios that offer relative balance of forces. Have no idea how this would play out in a campaign game, but can imagine something like the old Tactics-II. Making a historically plausible what-if scenario is one thing. Making a 'balanced' scenario is something else entirely.

So throw historicity out the window. It's not Allies v Japan, it's green/brown v red. In that context, you can do what you darn please without worrying about what someone will say.

I agree whole heartedly. I like the concept of alternating Sho's and Unryu's. I would look at something faster than the Yamato's though. Since Japan is embarking on more concentrated air warfare model, then the B-64 battle cruisers make more since. Faster and armed with the excellent 100mm AA guns. Able to actually keep up with the fast carriers.

_____________________________



(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 53
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/22/2011 9:15:43 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress
Question for the experts:

I want to give the Japanese some CVs in place of the Yamatos. What would be a plausible substitute carrier-wise for the Yamatos, to be launched before January 1941. Also, I'd like to use a carrier design which would allow me to create 2 carriers per each Yamato. In other words, in the span it took to produce a Yamato, I'd like to pump out two CVs.

Any ideas, suggestions on what would be the likely candidate, another Soryu, Hiryu, Shokaku, Junyo, or Unryu? What carrier design should I use? I'd like to keep it to an existing design used in the game, instead of a "never-was".

Thanks.

Gary, my friend, I think you are worrying too much. If this is a balanced scenario, who cares what's plausible. Just go for it. If I was doing one of those, I would have alternating 'Kakus and Unryus arriving on the same dates as an Essex. The whole idea is balance, yeah? And sure, do the Yamato, Musashi, Shinano BBs to counter the NCs, SoDaks, and Iowas. Nobody is gonna scar you for doing that, so long as you say just what it is you are doing.

Frankly, that might be a fun thing. I strongly believe in limited, historically based, CPX-type scenarios that offer relative balance of forces. Have no idea how this would play out in a campaign game, but can imagine something like the old Tactics-II. Making a historically plausible what-if scenario is one thing. Making a 'balanced' scenario is something else entirely.

So throw historicity out the window. It's not Allies v Japan, it's green/brown v red. In that context, you can do what you darn please without worrying about what someone will say.

I agree whole heartedly. I like the concept of alternating Sho's and Unryu's. I would look at something faster than the Yamato's though. Since Japan is embarking on more concentrated air warfare model, then the B-64 battle cruisers make more since. Faster and armed with the excellent 100mm AA guns. Able to actually keep up with the fast carriers.


Well, for what it's worth, I have taken the route of no treaties and no depression. Basically there's an arms race in the inter-war years which dulls the Great Depression so all the various constituents basically get to have their cake and eat it too. Granted this is pure unbridled fantasy but I'm trying to sugar coat it a little for those who like to have at least a little bit of historic plausibility at work. As I stated in a post above regarding the issue of plausibility, on the fantasy side there will be a lot more carriers out there to fight with for all sides, however, on the plausibility side, they won't be Nimitz Class flying F-14 Tomcats. So yes there's a lot of fantasy involved but it will only go so far.

As far as Battleships for the Japanese, I'm sticking mostly with the 8-8-8 plan. They will form the battle line. The fast striking carriers will employ mostly cruisers as escorts. At this stage in the game, the powers that be are still envisioning a Pacific Jutland and haven't really grasped the concept of the BB as AA platform for the carrier groups yet.

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to AlaskanWarrior)
Post #: 54
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/22/2011 9:34:47 PM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
I think I will close the bow in on my hypothetical "Enterprise" class in interest of giving it better sea keeping and reduce the number of ships for the "Yorktown" class to 4 instead of 6.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 55
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/23/2011 3:57:02 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
I've made a mod using all (or almost all) planes of the Ryan Art's Page, plus some one morei, if u want I can send you the files. 

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 56
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 5/24/2011 3:06:11 AM   
Gary Childress


Posts: 5793
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: United States
Status: offline
I don't know. So far I'm really liking what Erkki has been making. I may just stick with his art.

Back to the topic of carriers, someone on the Warship Projects boards suggested that without treaty limitations carriers would have gotten big fast regardless and that things like open hangars and unarmored flight decks were basically due to builders trying to stay within treaty tonnage limits.

So I'm thinking I may try a different design for my main carrier design, one with an enclosed bow and hangar and armored flight deck. It's a bit of a cross between Lexington and Yorktown, a little bigger than Yorktown and just a little smaller than Lexington.








Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Favorite/Awesome games from Matrix

War in the Pacific/AE
Panzer Corps
Commander Europe at War
John Tiller's Campaign Series
The Close Combat Series (all versions)

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 57
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 6/4/2011 4:34:02 PM   
traskott

 

Posts: 1156
Joined: 6/23/2008
From: Valladolid, Spain
Status: offline
How it goes ? 

(in reply to Gary Childress)
Post #: 58
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 6/4/2011 9:42:44 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7173
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Gary, I noticed earlier in the thread you were discussing ways to bring German/Italaian units onto the map. If you look at the very top left corner, you will not a little triangle of land....that is Italian Somaliland...though by 1941 in the real war, the Brits had conquered it. Something to consider.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to traskott)
Post #: 59
RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod - 6/5/2011 12:01:28 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2269
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
With out the treaties (sp?) the Lexington class BC's would be around

< Message edited by oldman45 -- 6/5/2011 12:02:25 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Simple Balancer Fantasy (SBF) Mod Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.043