Matrix Games Forums

New Fronts are opening up for Commander: The Great WarCharacters of World War 1Sign of for the Pike and Shot Beta!More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the Family
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: The PERFECT WAR 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: The PERFECT WAR Mod Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 7/31/2011 10:43:59 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
And on the fleet plans: Ryujo was too small to serve as an effective carrier and extra carrier tonnage allocation by the more accomodating treaty will only allow for another ship of her size. Just build a bigger carrier, closer in dimensions to Soryu, instead. Treaties or not, funds are not endless anyway - this option will actually end up saving money on the rebuild, giving a much beter ship for approximately the same price.

Those new CLs you're talking about will be built past the London Treaty in early 30s, right? They most likely will be a development of Yubari. Will try to find some Japanese design alternatives. Well, if you mean CLs, not "CLs" they were building IRL at that time.

It is interesting who's going to cough up the money for all the extra construction, of course. The carrier side is covered if you accept my proposal above... the surface combatant side is more problematic. Maybe no modernization of Fuso/Yamashiro in 1930 (justified by the presence of newer battleships), with money going into new cruisers and so on? Unfortunately, this means lack of the uniform 25-knot battleline that was created by the 30s rebuilds of Japanese battleships in reality... But I don't think that so many extra ships can just come from nowhere.

To all those who made proposals about the Allied changes - I'm not missing them, hopefully we'll discuss them later.

< Message edited by FatR -- 7/31/2011 11:07:19 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 31
A Differing Lesson - 7/31/2011 11:15:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10884
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Gave the idea some thinking and like the thought. Pretty fascinating to turn the strategy of the 'Decisive Battle' on its head. If we were to look at this from what you proposed here would be some interesting angles potentially:

1. The need for a viable ASW Command to protect shipping during a long war.
2. A redefinition of the Sub Arm with then a redesign of the actual SS themselves.
3. A longer war would necessitate a Fleet Train (AR, AKE, AS, etc...) and more AOs

What else might be needed along these lines? I am sure Kaigun has some pages on what might have been regarding the ASW issue. Will check that out.

Could we combine the two ideas of new views on the Decisive Battle and differing Treaty outcomes?

Concur regarding aircraft and CVs could not really be impacted until Circle Three in 1936.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 32
RE: A Differing Lesson - 7/31/2011 11:17:47 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Could we combine the two ideas of new views on the Decisive Battle and differing Treaty outcomes?

Of course, why not.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 33
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 7/31/2011 11:24:13 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10884
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

And on the fleet plans: Ryujo was too small to serve as an effective carrier and extra carrier tonnage allocation by the more accomodating treaty will only allow for another ship of her size. Just build a bigger carrier, closer in dimensions to Soryu, instead. Treaties or not, funds are not endless anyway - this option will actually end up saving money on the rebuild, giving a much beter ship for approximately the same price.

Those new CLs you're talking about will be built past the London Treaty in early 30s, right? They most likely will be a development of Yubari. Will try to find some Japanese design alternatives. Well, if you mean CLs, not "CLs" they were building IRL at that time.

It is interesting who's going to cough up the money for all the extra construction, of course. The carrier side is covered if you accept my proposal above... the surface combatant side is more problematic. Maybe no modernization of Fuso/Yamashiro in 1930 (justified by the presence of newer battleships), with money going into new cruisers and so on? Unfortunately, this means lack of the uniform 25-knot battleline that was created by the 30s rebuilds of Japanese battleships in reality... But I don't think that so many extra ships can just come from nowhere.

To all those who made proposals about the Allied changes - I'm not missing them, hopefully we'll discuss them later.



1. I think you have to have Ryujo in the mix because both the US and Japanese screwed up by building the small Ranger and Ryujo; however, one could get away with adding a proto-Soryu (not Hiryu) to the Fleet as the final 'experimental' Flattop. The Japanese would be, in effect cheating the tonnage by about 20% as they did with the CAs.

2. The Yubari-type Design certainly would be the preferential design direction away from the Naka's and Sendai's.

3. As to the modernization question wouldn't that be dependent on whether you add a pair of BC or a par of BB with the Washington changes? If new BC then perhaps Kongo's don't get their extensive modernization. If a new pair of Kaga BBs then don't rework a pair of older BBs. Certainly a trade-off. Remember though that these ships were well over 60-75% paid for when the Treaty kicks in so the monetary drain wouldn't be horrific. The real cost would come in the fitting out of the warships.



< Message edited by John 3rd -- 7/31/2011 11:33:24 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 34
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 12:01:52 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
1. I think you have to have Ryujo in the mix because both the US and Japanese screwed up by building the small Ranger and Ryujo; however, one could get away with adding a proto-Soryu (not Hiryu) to the Fleet as the final 'experimental' Flattop. The Japanese would be, in effect cheating the tonnage by about 20% as they did with the CAs.

A carrier as big as Ranger in place of Ryujo (14.5k of standard displacement - a proto-Soryu, as you said, instead of shooting for 8k and ending with 10.6 after the expensive rebuild) will be much more useful and probably won't require the rebuild. With the looser treaty limitations there's no reason for Ryujo to end up as she did. The available tonnage theoretically allows to build a pair of not-super-cramped up 11k (or a bit more, including cheating) light carriers instead, but, again, the problem here is (a)money (b)we shouldn't breed carriers that will be hard to provide with pilots, particularly when these carriers can't be very good. A proto-Soryu won't be great too, of course, once forced to carry modern planes (small airgroup, fragile), but at least it will be able to maintai a decent tempo of flight operations.


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
3. As to the modernization question wouldn't that be dependent on whether you add a pair of BC or a par of BB with the Washington changes? If new BC then perhaps Kongo's don't get their extensive modernization. If a new pair of Kaga BBs then don't rework a pair of older BBs. Certainly a trade-off. Remember though that these ships were well over 60-75% paid for when the Treaty kicks in so the monetary drain wouldn't be horrific. The real cost would come in the fitting out of the warships.

I remember that. That's why I'm more concerned with extra ships in 30s. I think a pair of BBs will be considered far more useful in early 20s, considering that they were the main force of the fleet, and that IJN already had 4 good BCs. 2 Kaga BBs, if I remember correctly what they should have been like, will allow to form 3 squadrons of 4 ships with similar characteristics each, which will undoubtely look appealing from administrative and tactical viewpoint.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/1/2011 12:03:17 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 35
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 1:03:45 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10884
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Two Kaga's it is then. One could have the BatDivs along these lines:

BatDiv1: Nagato, Mutsu, Kii, and Owari
BatDiv2: Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, and Hyuga
BatDiv3: Kongo, Hiei, Haruna, and Kirishima

CVs
Akagi and Kaga (figuring there is nothing to avoid the Earthquake!)

Two CVLs with an air group of...say...36 planes?




_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 36
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 1:27:29 PM   
guctony


Posts: 407
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline
Hello everybody.

I would like to suggest a different approach For japan strategy. The base of this strategy would be Japan realizing that they will fight a war of attrition not a war of decisive Battle. When This decision is made The conservation of forces are more important then aggrasive big ships. I think the question should be that What could Japan hold in hand after 5 years of fight to survive the war.In the end allied have to make a calculation after they finish the war in Europe. It would be very difficult to fight with japan 2 years after the war is over in Europe. So mainly we should discuss what could make Japan fight till 1947. I thing in descending order. 1) An able air force 2) A CV force never smaller then the allies.3) ability to interdict allies merchant lines all the time. ( blowing the canal doors is a must) 4)Layers of defence perimeter.

Force conservation means no China invasion. Which means 7 years of stockpiling. Also great emhasis in 4 Engine planes and escorts. Which could penetrate deep in to china mainland.

Force conservation would look for force multipliers. Like more advanced fighters, bombers, Conversion CVEs and CVLs.

Better landing craft and escort. Mines, Above all more advanced torps. Could Japan have homing torps in 1943-44 in their 61cm.

Again very long range planes. To secure zone defence.

What is not needed is Big BBs, Infantry divisions. Small subs etc. If japan predicts all those these She can fight a war not for winning but but not for loosing. In the end id no Aboms used. It might succeed.

A fighting force that could identify coming treat from far away and react accordinglly.

Regards

_____________________________

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate

.....even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 37
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 5:11:16 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Two Kaga's it is then. One could have the BatDivs along these lines:

BatDiv1: Nagato, Mutsu, Kii, and Owari
BatDiv2: Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, and Hyuga
BatDiv3: Kongo, Hiei, Haruna, and Kirishima

CVs
Akagi and Kaga (figuring there is nothing to avoid the Earthquake!)

Two CVLs with an air group of...say...36 planes?

I still urge you to reconsider building two mini-CVLs. Sure, in the game I'll take two such ships instead of a decent-sized Ryujo that honestly can carry 48 planes (it can already in the game, but I don't think she ever actually operated more than 38, at least during WW II) any day of the week, but that's because for the game code a carrier is a carrier, and the only thing that really impacts air operations is airplane capacity. But IRL Ryujo suffered from, IIRC, being only able to move modern aircraft by its fore lift and too small deck area. I think she wouldn't have been able to carry late-war planes too. They tried to save money by building a small carrier, but thanks to the reconctruction it ended up expensive. And there was little reason to squeeze everything possible of the avialable carrier tonnage right now, with USN not rushing to fill its carrier quota, and combat role of a carrier still remaining vague.

From the game viewpoint, I think post-treaty carrier construction has enough potential for improvement, no need to frontload the mod too much.

On battleships: unfortunately, the two extra battleships of BatDiv 1 will need a reconstruction as well. Considering extra cruiser construction, I don't think there will be money to rebuild any of the older battleships of BatDiv 2 in pre-treaty period. Which might be a hidden blessing, as their early-to-mid-30s rebuilds prepared them for a different war than the one which outline started to form by late 30s (25 knots of speed was enough to maintain a favorable distance of engagement in a daylight artillery duel with the old American battleline, but not enough to run with the carriers and never BBs/BCs).

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony
Force conservation means no China invasion.

Japan capable of not invading China won't be drawn into the world war at all. That said, as you can see, I'm already proposing a delayed beginning of the big war in China, and expectations of a longer war

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony
Like more advanced fighters, bombers, Conversion CVEs and CVLs.

You can bet on better aircraft. I'm not a big fan of conversions, though. Converted passenger liners arguably were worth the effort (but most of them were escort carriers, not intended for use against the enemy battlefleet to begin with) but building and reconstruction of special-project shadow carriers saved little money (20-25%, saying optimistically) compared with just buidling a Hiryu-class carrier, occupied shipyards for longer and produced ships that were vastly inferior.

And besides, one of the biggest problems with alt_naval is expanding the Japanese carrier fleet far beyond Japan's ability to provide with planes and, most of all, pilots. True, in AE there is no such thing as too many carriers, as long as they come with airgroups, even if their pilots are untrained initially. IRL, not really. To avoid this trap and excessive front-loading of the scenario, I think it is preferable to give Japan at the start better carriers, than more carriers, compared to the stock. I think this will be discussed in detail once we go to the post-treaties period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony
Better landing craft and escort. Mines, Above all more advanced torps. Could Japan have homing torps in 1943-44 in their 61cm.

No.

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony
Again very long range planes. To secure zone defence.

Japan was ahead of everyone else in plane range already.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/1/2011 5:47:27 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 38
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 5:23:14 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6969
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
For the Circle 3 CV production cycle, would the Hiryu Class be produced only as the heavy CV (how many will be determined by those more into the 'nuts and bolts' than me)??

For the Circle 4 CV production cycle, would the Unryo Class CV be the only one produced??

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 39
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 8:13:03 PM   
House Stark

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 4/30/2011
Status: offline
This discussion on how many new CVs Japan should build, and the potential pilot and game balance problems of that, got me thinking a little. I think that for sure, if the Japanese decide to plan for a longer war with no Decisive Battle, their real-life doctrine of skilled pilots flying effective but fragile planes off of effective but not particularly sturdy carriers would simply no longer fly. In the mid 1930s Japan would look at the situation-a war against at least one of, if not both of the US and Great Britain, which are both more populous with stronger industrial potential-and decide to go down the route of quantity to try and better match their enemies, or quality to overmatch them with skill and technology.

Quantity Approach:
-Japan starts with more CVs than historical, maybe 8 or so.
-Japan adopts a pilot training program that can churn out more pilots due to being less focused on creating such purely elite pilots. After all, in a long war even the best of pilots might eventually die.
-Possibly the naval land based air arm is weakened at the expense of increased carrier-based air.
-To avoid “frontloading” the scenario, the Americans adopt one of the following responses:
1) As they see more Japanese carriers being laid down, they order more Yorktowns or accelerate the Essexes in response.
2) As a two-front war against Germany and Japan seems more likely, US admirals note the lack of large carriers and carrier actions in the European front, and either order rapid construction of several small carriers or rapid conversions of other ships into small carriers for possible use in Europe. This allows all the major US fleet carriers (including Ranger!) to be available in the Pacific, and faster.

Quality Approach:
-Japan puts the emphasis not on numbers, but on survivability.
-Taiho-type carriers become the core of the fleet; in fact, all carriers might have decent armor, even at the expense of some air capacity. These carriers should be able to shrug off most bombs and maybe even some torpedoes, to ensure that even if they are damaged they can sail home to repair and fight again. Perhaps Japan would build at least one massive repair yard to ensure rapid repair of these ships is possible.
-With fewer carriers, and those having smaller capacities, the Japanese pilots must be elite to excel against greater odds. To this end, not just the carriers, but also the aircraft must be geared towards survivability. No paper-thin Zeroes, Vals, and Kates, but instead have armored aircraft, and bombers with effective defense.
-Is it possible to make “Allied Damage Control” apply to the Japanese?

Personally, I almost like the quality approach better as it would make for a greater difference between the two sides, with the Allies having numbers and the Japanese having quality.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 40
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 9:49:28 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10884
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Lots of great ideas and proposals! I love this part of Mod creation.

Michael and I have talked several times today as I have driven over to see my Dad in Loveland. We've bounced all sorts of hair-brained ideas around.

Thoughts:

1. FatR: Concur on the small CVLs. How about we simply build two CVL with a standard complement of about 30 planes? Consider them the prototype for a later CVL-Class.

2. Leave upgrades for BatDiv2 until the war approaches. Kaigun goes into some detail as to the details of these upgrades and how--seemingly--cheap they were. We start the war with BatDiv1 and BatDiv3 modernized and allow the player options for changes in the Fuso's and Ise's. How about that? Could provide some serious fun with conversion options...

3. The Japanese would add two new CAs from an established class (Nice!) and 4 Yubari-type CLs. These would be build in the late-20s and early-30s.

4. Circle Plans: My initial thoughts are to change Circle Three and Four along the lines of differing ships but equaling the same rough cost in building. EXAMPLE: No Yamato (233 Points) could mean two new Kawachi (240 Points I think), If one doesn't build the Sho's you could darned near do 3 if not 4 Hiryu's.

OK: I already hear the shipyard comment about number of slipways. We dodge that by following RA's premise to two new CA/CV-sized slipways being built one in the Home Islands and one in Shanghai. Instead of these opening in 1939, they open in 1936/1937.

Stark makes excellent points in his email. Which direction to go regarding quality vs. quantity?

If we go quantity the Japanese should build Hiryu's/Unryu's and lower the starting experience of Japanese pilots to reflect this expansion and change. We've already done that in RA.

OR

If it is quality then build 2 Sho's, 2 Sho-Kai, and then 2-3 Taiho CVs...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to House Stark)
Post #: 41
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 10:02:00 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10884
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
When we get to the ground side, I am was thinking perhaps the creation of a new unit similar to the American Marine Defense Battalion. A reasonably small unit of about 2,000 men that has some CD as well as Infantry that could be ideal for defending the far flung atolls that the Japanese would need to blood and slow down (attritional warfare) the inevitable American counterattacks.

Michael also wants to throw in his vote for some form of USEFUL Japanese tank.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 42
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 10:11:17 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 1441
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
One of the base reasons of the naval treaties was to keep navies within the economies of the retrospective countries.  Building carriers is sexy, but with the entire world coming out of a long global depression no matter what the military wanted, economics just gets in the way.  I can see some of these ideas as a militaristic Japan changes course & attitude.  I don't see the US paying for a lot of capitol ships due to cost as percieved by a pacifistic populace,  or smaller ships because at the time the thinking was build capital ships due to time constraints, and smaller vessels quickly once war breaks out (if ever).

I do like the idea of allied weapon platforms being slightly advanced.  We've all played this game.  Picture the carnage of reliable American torpedos from the get-go.  P-40E's at the start of the game replacing many of the open cockpit fighters.  Nothing dramatic, nothing flashy, nothing John Q. Isolationist would see and get all worked up over, but something a worried military leadership would be testing...upgrading...planning, and with with limited budgets.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 43
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 10:29:11 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1940
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
I have two thoughts. First, base the mod on TheBigBabes mod by JWE et al. They have put a lot or work into that mod to fine tune the original and the games I have played on it are nice for both sides. The second request is to make the torpedo dud rate for US less duddly (new word). I am not an expert but 80% dud rate seems too high.

Good luck.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 44
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 11:05:46 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark

This discussion on how many new CVs Japan should build, and the potential pilot and game balance problems of that, got me thinking a little. I think that for sure, if the Japanese decide to plan for a longer war with no Decisive Battle, their real-life doctrine of skilled pilots flying effective but fragile planes off of effective but not particularly sturdy carriers would simply no longer fly.

How do you propose making their planes less fragile without having vital characteristics go down the drain? Improved protection and ruggedness of construction was put into specifications as soon as development of engines enabled that (Ki-60/61/62 projects - February of 1940; J2M - even earlier). You'll note later that my air changes masterplan is very much based around engines (although don't expect miracles).

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark

-Japan adopts a pilot training program that can churn out more pilots due to being less focused on creating such purely elite pilots. After all, in a long war even the best of pilots might eventually die.

That's a myth. Actually CarDiv5 pilots already were mediocrely trained at the beginning of the war. Japan was simply too small in the pants to match USA in pilot training, and even then, pre-war training program expansion allowed them to last for two years before the effects of pilot losses began to tell. Extensive application of hindsight gives some room for improvement in this area, such as a slightly bigger pilot training program over 1930s and expanding it more gradually over 1940-42 rather than slowly in 1940-41 and massively in 1942. I'm not sure how to model that in the game, considering that the real training is done on-map anyway...

As about your overall point - it is a good one. IMO, quality approach was the only valid one for Japanese - as long as it didn't undermine itself. By that I mean critical inability to supply top-quality units, either ships or airframes, resulting in use of obsolete weapons well past their expiration date.

(in reply to House Stark)
Post #: 45
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 11:07:10 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I see much popular demand for better working USN torpedoes. I think it can be met.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 46
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 11:10:53 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 6969
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: online
Can one of the 'at war' American sub classes have the torpedoes of the S-boats used to decrease the dud rate??

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 47
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/1/2011 11:55:54 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
It seems that resticting planning by time periods doesn't work that well between us, John. I find it hard to follow. Let's try to take separate look at classes, starting from the top.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. Leave upgrades for BatDiv2 until the war approaches. Kaigun goes into some detail as to the details of these upgrades and how--seemingly--cheap they were. We start the war with BatDiv1 and BatDiv3 modernized and allow the player options for changes in the Fuso's and Ise's. How about that? Could provide some serious fun with conversion options...

I agree about that. We can provide options for either the pseudo-carrier upgrade as IRL, or the ever popular fast BB upgrade with turret removal, making both sufficiently long to make players think twice.

Anyway, let's tackle the key point right at once: post-treaty battleships. As by 1937 the idea of naval airpower domination can start taking root, there can be more solid arguments for building merely adequate fast BBs (27-30 knots, 40-55k displacement, 8-10x410 armament), instead of Yamatos, as a replacement for the four obsolete battlewagons of BatDiv2. To be honest, from IRL position, and even with hindsight, I'd still say that bigger is better when applied to battleships. Unfortunately, I don't think it is really possible to correctly model Yamato-class durability in AE without breaking some aspect of the game. So I'd vote for building four smaller battleships. Which accidentally will make finishing all of the relatively plausible using the same resources that were spent on Yamato/Musashi/Shinano, perhaps even considerably less resources, considering all the extra costs associated with super-battleships and Shinano rebuild (most will be completed during the war of course, but will enter it in sufficiently high state of completion to make carrier rebuilds or scrapping unlikely). These saving can be assumed to go into above-mentioned old BBs conversions. Do you have any alternative ideas, or, if you like this one, favored alternative designs, John?

EDIT: Assumption of a more radical shift towards a carrier-centric fleet, in combination with greater investment into other programs and fleet modernization, can be used to justify not laying down the second pair of BBs, but as their most expensive components can't be directly utilized on other ships, and the cost of continuing a ship series is less than the cost of starting it, savings won't be as big as they might seem.

You might note, that I've grown to dislike alternatives that involve axing the post-treaty battleships construction or building some weak ones. I think that realistically Japan can be better served by having a pool of capital ships for night action and escorting carriers (including serving as flak batteries), than more carriers which will be hard to provide with either planes, or pilots, ot both at all stages of the war. Sure, Japan can be even better served by cranking out more destroyers and heavy cruisers, but I'm not comfortable applying so much hindsight to the situation.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/2/2011 1:09:41 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 48
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/2/2011 7:00:12 AM   
guctony


Posts: 407
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Two Kaga's it is then. One could have the BatDivs along these lines:

BatDiv1: Nagato, Mutsu, Kii, and Owari
BatDiv2: Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise, and Hyuga
BatDiv3: Kongo, Hiei, Haruna, and Kirishima

CVs
Akagi and Kaga (figuring there is nothing to avoid the Earthquake!)

Two CVLs with an air group of...say...36 planes?

I still urge you to reconsider building two mini-CVLs. Sure, in the game I'll take two such ships instead of a decent-sized Ryujo that honestly can carry 48 planes (it can already in the game, but I don't think she ever actually operated more than 38, at least during WW II) any day of the week, but that's because for the game code a carrier is a carrier, and the only thing that really impacts air operations is airplane capacity. But IRL Ryujo suffered from, IIRC, being only able to move modern aircraft by its fore lift and too small deck area. I think she wouldn't have been able to carry late-war planes too. They tried to save money by building a small carrier, but thanks to the reconctruction it ended up expensive. And there was little reason to squeeze everything possible of the avialable carrier tonnage right now, with USN not rushing to fill its carrier quota, and combat role of a carrier still remaining vague.

From the game viewpoint, I think post-treaty carrier construction has enough potential for improvement, no need to frontload the mod too much.

On battleships: unfortunately, the two extra battleships of BatDiv 1 will need a reconstruction as well. Considering extra cruiser construction, I don't think there will be money to rebuild any of the older battleships of BatDiv 2 in pre-treaty period. Which might be a hidden blessing, as their early-to-mid-30s rebuilds prepared them for a different war than the one which outline started to form by late 30s (25 knots of speed was enough to maintain a favorable distance of engagement in a daylight artillery duel with the old American battleline, but not enough to run with the carriers and never BBs/BCs).

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony
Force conservation means no China invasion.

Japan capable of not invading China won't be drawn into the world war at all. That said, as you can see, I'm already proposing a delayed beginning of the big war in China, and expectations of a longer war

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony
Like more advanced fighters, bombers, Conversion CVEs and CVLs.

You can bet on better aircraft. I'm not a big fan of conversions, though. Converted passenger liners arguably were worth the effort (but most of them were escort carriers, not intended for use against the enemy battlefleet to begin with) but building and reconstruction of special-project shadow carriers saved little money (20-25%, saying optimistically) compared with just buidling a Hiryu-class carrier, occupied shipyards for longer and produced ships that were vastly inferior.

And besides, one of the biggest problems with alt_naval is expanding the Japanese carrier fleet far beyond Japan's ability to provide with planes and, most of all, pilots. True, in AE there is no such thing as too many carriers, as long as they come with airgroups, even if their pilots are untrained initially. IRL, not really. To avoid this trap and excessive front-loading of the scenario, I think it is preferable to give Japan at the start better carriers, than more carriers, compared to the stock. I think this will be discussed in detail once we go to the post-treaties period.

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony
Better landing craft and escort. Mines, Above all more advanced torps. Could Japan have homing torps in 1943-44 in their 61cm.

No.
Well I agree no to torps. But landing craft is way too important then DE's etc

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony
Again very long range planes. To secure zone defence.

Japan was ahead of everyone else in plane range already.

In terms of range they were but. It was only possible if the fly naked. I mean something like G8 bomber avaible with 32 range with all defence and gunnery at disposal. I feel 200 self sufficient heavy bomber group. Is more powerfull then 6 army division. And ıf I could bomb Sian why the hell I would try to invade by land.

_____________________________

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate

.....even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 49
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/2/2011 7:26:08 AM   
guctony


Posts: 407
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

It seems that resticting planning by time periods doesn't work that well between us, John. I find it hard to follow. Let's try to take separate look at classes, starting from the top.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. Leave upgrades for BatDiv2 until the war approaches. Kaigun goes into some detail as to the details of these upgrades and how--seemingly--cheap they were. We start the war with BatDiv1 and BatDiv3 modernized and allow the player options for changes in the Fuso's and Ise's. How about that? Could provide some serious fun with conversion options...

I agree about that. We can provide options for either the pseudo-carrier upgrade as IRL, or the ever popular fast BB upgrade with turret removal, making both sufficiently long to make players think twice.

Anyway, let's tackle the key point right at once: post-treaty battleships. As by 1937 the idea of naval airpower domination can start taking root, there can be more solid arguments for building merely adequate fast BBs (27-29 knots, 40-50k displacement, 9-10x410 armament), instead of Yamatos, as a replacement for the four obsolete battlewagons of BatDiv2. To be honest, from IRL position, and even with hindsight, I'd still say that bigger is better when applied to battleships. Unfortunately, I don't think it is really possible to correctly model Yamato-class durability in AE without breaking some aspect of the game. So I'd vote for building four smaller battleships. Which accidentally will make finishing all of the relatively plausible using the same resources that were spent on Yamato/Musashi/Shinano, perhaps even considerably less resources, considering all the extra costs associated with super-battleships and Shinano rebuild (most will be completed during the war of course, but will enter it in sufficiently high state of completion to make carrier rebuilds or scrapping unlikely). These saving can be assumed to go into above-mentioned old BBs conversions. Do you have any alternative ideas, or, if you like this one, favored alternative designs, John?

EDIT: Assumption of a more radical shift towards a carrier-centric fleet, in combination with greater investment into other programs and fleet modernization, can be used to justify not laying down the second pair of BBs, but as their most expensive components can't be directly utilized on other ships, and the cost of continuing a ship series is less than the cost of starting it, savings won't be as big as they might seem.

You might note, that I've grown to dislike alternatives that involve axing the post-treaty battleships construction or building some weak ones. I think that realistically Japan can be better served by having a pool of capital ships for night action and escorting carriers (including serving as flak batteries), than more carriers which will be hard to provide with either planes, or pilots, ot both at all stages of the war. Sure, Japan can be even better served by cranking out more destroyers and heavy cruisers, but I'm not comfortable applying so much hindsight to the situation.



I would still argue that in a perfect war staying power is more important then neat ships and CVs. In AE after numerical balance is reaches in terms of CVs and BBs it would be a rare occasion to get one sided carrier wars. most of the time both sides get punishes because it is always large groups going to each other.

So it really doesnt matter how much you have in AE. If japan can't force allied to respect its respond force and timing. No surface force could stop allies.

For Japan to win a war Either she has to capture all staging areas of allies that could stop it from taking offensive action.

Or to have such a effective network of defence that could defend DEI area without need of japan KB force. If any of the allied major attaction is a magnet for KB sooner or later KB will fall in yo a trap.

Force preservation calls for the second method. In the second method Japan needs Long ranged better figters and bomber. H8 Naval bombers. Above all cheap expandable CVEs. I prefer three 15 plane single deck CVEs to one 30 plane CVL. Instead of having 200 merchant shipping with 18 knot. 30 CVEs could turn the tides.

_____________________________

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate

.....even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 50
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/2/2011 12:39:55 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony
In terms of range they were but. It was only possible if the fly naked. I mean something like G8 bomber avaible with 32 range with all defence and gunnery at disposal. I feel 200 self sufficient heavy bomber group. Is more powerfull then 6 army division. And ıf I could bomb Sian why the hell I would try to invade by land.

If you mean G8N, it won't be technically avaiable before late 1944 at the earliest. IRL production of the existing 4E long-range, well-protected plane (H8K) was not sufficient to cover even long-range search and recon needs, so it is safe to say that production of 4E bombers in any noticeable numbers is not viable until the industry expands by 1944. In the game, cost of a 4E plane increases linearly (double that of a 2E plane), and combat value (for stock models, at least) exponentially, not so IRL.

(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 51
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/2/2011 12:44:36 PM   
guctony


Posts: 407
Joined: 6/27/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony
In terms of range they were but. It was only possible if the fly naked. I mean something like G8 bomber avaible with 32 range with all defence and gunnery at disposal. I feel 200 self sufficient heavy bomber group. Is more powerfull then 6 army division. And ıf I could bomb Sian why the hell I would try to invade by land.

If you mean G8N, it won't be technically avaiable before late 1944 at the earliest. IRL production of the existing 4E long-range, well-protected plane (H8K) was not sufficient to cover even long-range search and recon needs, so it is safe to say that production of 4E bombers in any noticeable numbers is not viable until the industry expands by 1944. In the game, cost of a 4E plane increases linearly (double that of a 2E plane), and combat value (for stock models, at least) exponentially, not so IRL.


600 G8N is I guess equal in terms of 2 Yamato class BB.

_____________________________

It turns out that capitalism requires scarcity to operate

.....even if I have more chances to hit her. What I hit, I wanna hit as hard as possible.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 52
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/2/2011 1:20:12 PM   
Red Lancer


Posts: 1522
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

Red Lancer did fine work with RA and I have emailed him without getting a response to this point.


John - send PM - I've changed my e-mail address. John.

_____________________________

John
WitW Test Co-ordinator
WitE & WitW Scenario Designer

(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 53
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 12:23:17 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2511
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: guctony
600 G8N is I guess equal in terms of 2 Yamato class BB.

I'd take 2 Yamatos in 1942 in exchange for 600 4E bomber in second half of 1944 and later any time. Probably even one Yamato. And production doesn't work like this in any case. Priorities will be formulated years before the beginning of hostilities.

Anyway, the fact is, while all major participants of WWII had some 4-engine bombers at least in form of flying prototypes, only USA had industrical capability to build heavies with significant edge against enemy fighters and to build them in significant numbers. I only don't mind giving G8N to Japan because it arrives so late in the war, that if the Japanese player manages to create a fleet of them, said fleet will be a just reward for tenacity and skill.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/3/2011 10:32:21 AM >

(in reply to guctony)
Post #: 54
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 2:35:01 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10884
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I want to share the sources I am working and basing my propositions from: Kaigun and Jentschura's Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Let us handle the Treaty Period First:

At the Washington Conference the Japanese choose to speak with a unified voice as the American read their coded messages back-and-forth to Tokyo. The Japanese will walk out if they do not gain a 70% ratio with the United States and Great Britain. Rather then risk a horrific arms race, Sec of State Charles Evans Hughes uses his ability of compromise and agrees to the modification (just as he did in allowing the Japanese to keep Mutsu in real life). Net effect:

1. The Japanese gain two capital ships which they elect to be the 10 16-Inch Gun BBs Kaga and Tosa.
2. Japanese CV alloted tonnage is increased from 75,000 to 91,000

The Kaga and Tosa are completed entering service in 1923/1924.

BC's Akagi and Amagi are selected to become large CVs, however, the earthquake destroys Amagi so BC Atago is selected to take her place. The 1923 earthquake destroys Amagi's hull as it did in real life and Atago's hull which wasn't scrapped until 1924 is then converted.

With 25,000T in available CV tonnage the Japanese elect to build a pair of CV officially displacing 12,500T (actually 14,000T) named Ryujo and ???. These ships are marginally successful and serve as a prototype for the Soryu. They carry 39 planes (21 Zero and 18 Kate) in 1941.

London Naval Conference (1930) follows the earlier Treaty and allows the Japanese to build her CAs and CLs at a 70% ratio. Result:

1. Japanese add 2 CAs. These CAs match the Takao-Class (Takao, Atago--name changed to Amagi, Maya, and Chokai) built during 1929-1932. The CAs are named Iwaki and Hikari.

2. Four more CLs are added to the fleet. The prototype of Yubari (1922) is continued with a Yubari-Kai class being built. The design of Yubari is dated from the 1917-1918 by Admiral Hiraga. We can assume the Japanese examine Yubari as it is built and improve on it somewhat. These ships have not been designed yet. Names: Ayase, Katori, Kashima, and Kashii.

This gets us to the 3rd Circle Plan of 1934 and Japanese leaving the Treaty System...


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 55
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 2:39:01 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

I see I've been seriously inattentive. Well, maybe I can derail this mod even coming late to the table

Anyway, here are some unstructured thoughts:

Putting the point of divergence back to the early 1920s is a good idea; it lets you make more extensive deviations from the Official Timeline (=OT) without getting too far into the realm of fantasy. I'd better not tell you details about my favourite flight of fancy where the divergence starts about 1908 (just this much: Kuomintang was eradicated in the bud; Tsingtao has been leased to Britain as a base in 1918; Manchuria seceded from China in 1922 and is now an official part of the Japanese Empire). OK. Now to the beef:

- The 1923 earthquake still happens, but it hits the north of Honshu, where the damage to the economy is limited. This should be worth some additional industrial capacity and more money for the defence budget.

- Amagi is unscathed, so the new-build lineup would be:
BB Kaga, Tosa
BC Akagi, Amagi
CV Atago, Takao (less advanced construction gives scope for more fundamental redesign)

- No or limited modernization for the turret farms is okay; these were awkward designs anyway. When the BBs were modernized in OT, one of the measures was to increase the max elevation of the guns to 43 degrees by lowering the gun platform into the hull. For the Ise class, this could be done only for the forward and amidships turrets, there was not enough space in the hull to do that for the aft turrets. When they took them out during the conversion to carrier hybrids, at least all main guns now had the same range. Conversion to oil firing, certainly; maybe torpedo bulges.

- Concerning the CLs, as Yubari and the Furutaka class were practically concurrent, the new CL class might be more of a combination of these classes, say 5000-5500 tons and armed with 140 mm guns all in twin turrets, similar in layout to the Agano class.

- Concerning the CAs, the Aoba class was laid down in 1924. With two more CAs possible, why not let Aoba, Kinugasa and two additional ships be built to the Nachi design, the Nachi class to a modified Maya design, and the Mayas to a further evolutionary step?

- It is not inconceivable that some senior designer might have taken his slide rule, calculated the stability margin of the new designs, and taken a serious fright, thus nipping some of the major excesses in the bud before the designs made it to the slips. So the Hatsuharu DD are either reduced to 2x2-127mm or the ships are bigger from the outset; in that case they might as well be a continuation of the Fubuki(III) type. If treaty limits mandate smaller DDs, go with a reduced Hatsuharu type.

- Using cruiser main guns in the AA role might have been just too extreme for the powers-that-be, so the Maya class (Takao is now a CV!) would have to have a different heavy AA suite from the start.

- One of the reasons why the Tone CAs had their heavy armament concentrated forwards was the inconveniently large dispersion occurring with earlier designs. One of the perceived reasons for that was misalignment between the forward and aft turret groups due to flex in the hull. Put the turrets close together and that effect is eliminated. That also gave a lot of free deck space for an extended aviation component. One might instead use that deck space for a significantly more numerous AA suite (this is one of my pet projects).

And now for something completely different: As the IJN bought the He100 program deemed surplus to requirements by the Luftwaffe lock, stock, and barrel, the Army might also purchase a German orphan, the FW187 in its original single-seater form; it could be powered by the Kawasaki inline engines used on the Ki-32, thus providing the Army with a fairly high-performance interceptor several years before the Ki-61 could be ready.


_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 56
3rd Circle Plan - 8/3/2011 2:53:10 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10884
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The Japanese leave the Treaty Years at the London Naval Conference in 1935.

A charismatic, younger Admiral Yamamoto Isoroku calls for the Japanese to either avoid war at all costs or follow Adm Togo's example of preparing for an attritional war against the United States. As ne moves into the Bureau of Aeronautics, he converts enough officers to see the need to expand shipyards for additional construction and see the error of the Battleship way. Plans for the mammoth Yamato-Class are thrown out and a more reasonable BB-Class takes its place. The 'Fuso-Replacement' BB is chosen and these ships (mounting 9 16" guns, displacing 35,000 T, and speed 29 Knots) then get built: Could be named Yamato and Musashi or follow what would have come out of Washington with Owari and Kii. This decision nets HUGE savings compared to the Yamato's.

2nd Circle Plan (1936-7)
BB's Owari and Kii costing 180 instead of Yamato's 233 (saving 106 points)

I am REALLY torn as to CVs so we go one of two directions:
A. Build the Shokaku-Class as designed (costing 180 Points)

OR

B. Build 3 Hiryu-Kai CVs costing the same (183 points)

No USELESS Katori Training Cruisers (Save 48 Points) and convert 3 Kuma-CL to Training purposes.

The saved points on the BBs could then be spent on another pair of conventional CAs OR be added to the DD and SS allotment for building:

1. The 15 Kagero's built could be expanded to 24 without issue.
2. The SS begin their divergence here in seeing a few Glen Boats and the choice of a medium cruiser submarine along the KD line instead of 2 Cruiser-Type A (I-9/I-10--66 Points), 6 Type B (_15, -17, -19, -21, -23, and -25--198 Points), and 5 Type-C (-16, -18, -20, -22, and -24--165 Points). These 13 SS cost a total of 429 Points. If we could stick would existing classes, one could shift over to 4 Glens (33x4=132) and 12 KD6A without issue.




< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/3/2011 3:37:22 AM >


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 57
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 3:01:27 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10884
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike


I see I've been seriously inattentive. Well, maybe I can derail this mod even coming late to the table

Anyway, here are some unstructured thoughts:

Putting the point of divergence back to the early 1920s is a good idea; it lets you make more extensive deviations from the Official Timeline (=OT) without getting too far into the realm of fantasy. I'd better not tell you details about my favourite flight of fancy where the divergence starts about 1908 (just this much: Kuomintang was eradicated in the bud; Tsingtao has been leased to Britain as a base in 1918; Manchuria seceded from China in 1922 and is now an official part of the Japanese Empire). OK. Now to the beef:

- The 1923 earthquake still happens, but it hits the north of Honshu, where the damage to the economy is limited. This should be worth some additional industrial capacity and more money for the defence budget.

- Amagi is unscathed, so the new-build lineup would be:
BB Kaga, Tosa
BC Akagi, Amagi
CV Atago, Takao (less advanced construction gives scope for more fundamental redesign)

- No or limited modernization for the turret farms is okay; these were awkward designs anyway. When the BBs were modernized in OT, one of the measures was to increase the max elevation of the guns to 43 degrees by lowering the gun platform into the hull. For the Ise class, this could be done only for the forward and amidships turrets, there was not enough space in the hull to do that for the aft turrets. When they took them out during the conversion to carrier hybrids, at least all main guns now had the same range. Conversion to oil firing, certainly; maybe torpedo bulges.

- Concerning the CLs, as Yubari and the Furutaka class were practically concurrent, the new CL class might be more of a combination of these classes, say 5000-5500 tons and armed with 140 mm guns all in twin turrets, similar in layout to the Agano class.

- Concerning the CAs, the Aoba class was laid down in 1924. With two more CAs possible, why not let Aoba, Kinugasa and two additional ships be built to the Nachi design, the Nachi class to a modified Maya design, and the Mayas to a further evolutionary step?

- It is not inconceivable that some senior designer might have taken his slide rule, calculated the stability margin of the new designs, and taken a serious fright, thus nipping some of the major excesses in the bud before the designs made it to the slips. So the Hatsuharu DD are either reduced to 2x2-127mm or the ships are bigger from the outset; in that case they might as well be a continuation of the Fubuki(III) type. If treaty limits mandate smaller DDs, go with a reduced Hatsuharu type.

- Using cruiser main guns in the AA role might have been just too extreme for the powers-that-be, so the Maya class (Takao is now a CV!) would have to have a different heavy AA suite from the start.

- One of the reasons why the Tone CAs had their heavy armament concentrated forwards was the inconveniently large dispersion occurring with earlier designs. One of the perceived reasons for that was misalignment between the forward and aft turret groups due to flex in the hull. Put the turrets close together and that effect is eliminated. That also gave a lot of free deck space for an extended aviation component. One might instead use that deck space for a significantly more numerous AA suite (this is one of my pet projects).

And now for something completely different: As the IJN bought the He100 program deemed surplus to requirements by the Luftwaffe lock, stock, and barrel, the Army might also purchase a German orphan, the FW187 in its original single-seater form; it could be powered by the Kawasaki inline engines used on the Ki-32, thus providing the Army with a fairly high-performance interceptor several years before the Ki-61 could be ready.



I think you and I were exchanging notes within our passing emails! GREAT thinking Sir!

Already touched on your BB/BC/CV thought a bit.

Same page with the older BBs.

My mind was thinking along the same lines with combining the early CAs and Yubari to get a set of 4 CLs with either 3x2 6" turrets or 3x3 6" turrets and either 3x2 or 4x2 Long Lance TT Turrets.

Haven't got the to Tone's yet but a prototype CLAA would be built as part of 4th Circle Plan. They would also have decent Floatplane capability (4-6) for air search help.


Have no clue regarding the FW187. This area is of other people's interest and skill!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 58
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 3:03:56 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 489
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I want to share the sources I am working and basing my propositions from: Kaigun and Jentschura's Warships of the Imperial Japanese Navy.

Let us handle the Treaty Period First:

At the Washington Conference the Japanese choose to speak with a unified voice as the American read their coded messages back-and-forth to Tokyo. The Japanese will walk out if they do not gain a 70% ratio with the United States and Great Britain. Rather then risk a horrific arms race, Sec of State Charles Evans Hughes uses his ability of compromise and agrees to the modification (just as he did in allowing the Japanese to keep Mutsu in real life). Net effect:

1. The Japanese gain two capital ships which they elect to be the 10 16-Inch Gun BBs Kaga and Tosa.
2. Japanese CV alloted tonnage is increased from 75,000 to 91,000

The Kaga and Tosa are completed entering service in 1923/1924.

BC's Akagi and Amagi are selected to become large CVs, however, the earthquake destroys Amagi so BC Atago is selected to take her place. The 1923 earthquake destroys Amagi's hull as it did in real life and Atago's hull which wasn't scrapped until 1924 is then converted.

With 25,000T in available CV tonnage the Japanese elect to build a pair of CV officially displacing 12,500T (actually 14,000T) named Ryujo and ???. These ships are marginally successful and serve as a prototype for the Soryu. They carry 39 planes (21 Zero and 18 Kate) in 1941.

London Naval Conference (1930) follows the earlier Treaty and allows the Japanese to build her CAs and CLs at a 70% ratio. Result:

1. Japanese add 2 CAs. These CAs match the Takao-Class (Takao, Atago--name changed to Amagi, Maya, and Chokai) built during 1929-1932. The CAs are named Iwaki and Hikari.

2. Four more CLs are added to the fleet. The prototype of Yubari (1922) is continued with a Yubari-Kai class being built. The design of Yubari is dated from the 1917-1918 by Admiral Hiraga. We can assume the Japanese examine Yubari as it is built and improve on it somewhat. These ships have not been designed yet. Names: Ayase, Katori, Kashima, and Kashii.

This gets us to the 3rd Circle Plan of 1934 and Japanese leaving the Treaty System...



John 3rd, I took too long writing my post and didn't see yours before submitting. Accepting your premises, that looks good. I'd just like different names for those CLs; let the Katori class names go to some other kind of training ships. Here are some river names I dug out some time ago (they sound better IMHO): Yodo, Echi, Nishiki, Nabori. Alternatives for CAs: Aso, Bandai, Hakone, Unzen. (All respectable volcanoes)


_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 59
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 3:40:21 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 10884
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
MikeMike: Keep thought ideas coming. You have some great thinking coming along. Keep up tossing those ideas out.

I want to Post my 4th Circle ideas and then sit back and see what people creatively think.

I like the river names!

We certainly were thinking a few similar thoughts.

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/


(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

0.133