Matrix Games Forums

Come and see us during the Spieltagen in Essen!New Screenshots for Pike & ShotDeal of the Week Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTYCommand: Modern Air/Naval Operations WOTY is now available!Frontline : The Longest Day Announced and in Beta!Command gets Wargame of the Year EditionDeal of the Week: Pandora SeriesPandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

4th Circle Plan

 
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 >> 4th Circle Plan Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
4th Circle Plan - 8/3/2011 3:56:51 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Going along the RA thinking, Yamamoto assumes the Navy Minister role where he effectively takes over the planning for the now--to him--obvious course towards war.

No Shinano and 4th Yamato-BB.

Possible building combinations:

1. 2 Kawachi-CB (cost 260 instead of 266--Shinano)
2. No Taiho (105 Points) with either 2 more Shokaku-Kai or 4 Hiryu/Unryu CVs
3. Building off the CLAA prototype the Japanese order 6 more for CV Screening and Air Search (replace the Agano's)
4. No 3rd Katori (save 24 points)
5. 10 Moon-Class DD are accelerated and a final order for 15 Yugumo DDs is placed--no Shimakaze. The cancelled Katori and Shimakaze pay for the additional Moons.

The 26 Class A-B-C-KD I-Boats are replaced with something much more useful. These orders total 778 Points. One could build 4 more Glen Boats and 26 Cruisers. Net gain would be a few boats but they would be built faster and an established design for the war is ready-to-go.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 61
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 11:27:29 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
A note on pre-London warship building, John: the key limitation for building carriers and light forces was money, given to IJN, not tonnage.

So, on the second thought, I'm against adding new capital ships in that period, except for the two extra battleships. Instead:

1)Rearm Aoba and Furutaka with 9x155mm cannons, instead of 6x203mm (Aoba class already underwent a reconstruction with turret changes IRL, so not that much extra expense) in early 30s. I admit, there is no small element of hindsight about the later prevalence of close range night combat here, but the supposed rationalization is the purpose of these ships either as scouts or elements of the newly-forming night fighting force.
Under the London treaty this, combined with extra allowed tonnage, will allow to build Mogamis as normal CAs, without any big rebuilds later (correct me if I'm counting wrong), in fact, it will allow to avoid excessive experimentation with the CA projects, sticking to the development of Takao class.
Take most 5500 tons CLs out of the fleet post-London, rebuild the oldest ones as auxliaries, trainders and fast minelayers, conserve some for later war emergency rebuild as cruisers with heavy torpedo or AA armament (I'll post the details I have in mind later). Meanwhile, use remaining CL tonnage post improved London to build a pair Oyodo-like CL, starting with 1933, with increased seaplane capabilities that initially will be supposed to serve as the new generation of scout cruisers, and eventually will be used for running with the carrier fleet. No need to sacrifice combat potential of CAs for that role. Alt_nav had the right idea here, by using a single design with small deviations for all heavy cruisers build in 30s, and extra tonnage limits will even allow to build all four post-London cruisers with 203mm armament from the beginning.
But I'm getting way ahead of myself...

2)Build one bigger Ryujo. In reality Japanese did not use up all the allowed carrier tonnage at that time. Just make project more rational. Official 12.5k of displacement you propose for it will be sufficient. With no rebuild it will not cost more money in the end.

I again propose to go through the fleet class by class, top-down. It is really hard to track all the proposals here.
So returning to post-treaties battleships. I take it, you still want to build two Yamatos and two B-65 cruisers for 6 25-27 knots BBs and 6 BCs, as in RA? That probably will be more expensive than reality, considering the need to develop armament for two new warship classes and with all expansions to shipyards and factories needed to build Yamatos, a mere two-ship series is hard to justify economically. I propose building 4 30-knots BBs with new 9x410/50 guns instead, as replacements for Fuso/Ise classes (which won't be sent to the scrapyards due to imminent war), as a compromise between the gun club and the carrier faction, slightly stronger than IRL, hepled by concerns about rearming and servicing Yamato-class ships on forward island bases during a projected extended campaign.


< Message edited by FatR -- 8/3/2011 4:02:04 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 62
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 3:43:17 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
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.

Accounts according to which He 100 was a combat-worthy plane can be traced to biased sources. FW 187 was so tightly designed around its original engines than using anything else required massive rebuild.

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 63
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 4:43:26 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
- 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.

Alot of hindsight here, better spend it on more valuable ships :). Besides attempts to cram too much into too little dispacement and Tomozuru Incident played a big role at convicing British/Americans that Japanese aren't lying blatantly about specs of their new cruisers, and that new ships are just overloaded to the point of critical instability, so I don't think these events should be exclused.
Instead, modernise Hatsuharus in second half of thirties by removing one torpedo launcher and all 127/50 guns. Install 6x127/40 Type 89 guns (in twin turrets, as usual) instead. This will save about 5-10 tons of topweight for small-calibre AAA. So the carrier escort division will be created.
It is possible to do the same with Shiratsuyu clas DDs as well, although I've seen opinions that it was possible to just replace a 127/50 single with 127/50 twin on that class, at the expense of some drop in speed, but without critical loss of stability. Their greater torpedo armament makes them more valuable as surface combatants as well.
BTW, there is a constroversy in sources I've read about the effective range of this class (6000 or 4150 nm). Can anyone enlighten us on this issue?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
- 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).

Can you explain more about this idea? I'm not sure how exactly your proposal should look like.



< Message edited by FatR -- 8/3/2011 5:04:19 PM >

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 64
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 8:46:02 PM   
mikemike

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Accounts according to which He 100 was a combat-worthy plane can be traced to biased sources.


I agree that Heinkel wasn't always successful in living up to promises, but He 100 comments would probably be biased in both directions, as an alternative to the Bf 109 was really the last thing the Luftwaffe (=Udet/Milch) wanted. I agree that the original engine cooling system was useless; it would have had to be replaced by a more orthodox arrangement. Perhaps that was the reason Japan didn't produce the plane, because they just didn't have the engineering resources to do that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

FW 187 was so tightly designed around its original engines than using anything else required massive rebuild.


I can't really see why. The engines were in underwing nacelles that would have had to be redesigned, true, but I think the Jumo 210 as original engine and the Kawasaki Ha-9 were not that different in size, weight, or power that this couldn't have been done. The airframe would probably have needed some modification to cater for a shift in center-of-gravity position. The only significant problem I see would have been the shift in thrust line, as the Jumo was inverted-vee and the Kawa (a license-produced BMW VI) upright vee.

_____________________________

DONīT PANIC - ITīS ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 65
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 9:02:59 PM   
mikemike

 

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

ORIGINAL: FatR

Alot of hindsight here, better spend it on more valuable ships :).


Well, this comes from posting off the top of my head. I checked, and apparently the stability issues with Hatsuharu and Nenohi were so obvious that four more ships from the 1931 program were completed to the modified design the first two ships ended up with, and six more were completely redesigned as the Shiratsuyu class. Your proposed modification sounds good provided the IJN regards the air threat as significant enough to convert six of their modern destroyers (which were in short supply anyway) to such a specialized variant,

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

Can you explain more about this idea? I'm not sure how exactly your proposal should look like.



I've made a little picture:




This is, of course, a pure flight of fancy. I substituted one additional pair of Type 89 127/40mm mounts for the aircraft cranes and the second pair on an extended superstructure just behind the rear torpedo tubes. Leaving off the Torpedos might make room for another pair of 127mm mounts, but I'm doubtful about that. Finally I put two additional HA directors on a new deckhouse.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by mikemike -- 8/3/2011 9:10:44 PM >


_____________________________

DONīT PANIC - ITīS ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 66
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 9:47:35 PM   
mikemike

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

1)Rearm Aoba and Furutaka with 9x155mm cannons, instead of 6x203mm (Aoba class already underwent a reconstruction with turret changes IRL, so not that much extra expense) in early 30s. I admit, there is no small element of hindsight about the later prevalence of close range night combat here, but the supposed rationalization is the purpose of these ships either as scouts or elements of the newly-forming night fighting force.
Under the London treaty this, combined with extra allowed tonnage, will allow to build Mogamis as normal CAs, without any big rebuilds later (correct me if I'm counting wrong), in fact, it will allow to avoid excessive experimentation with the CA projects, sticking to the development of Takao class.


I'm doubtful about those 155mm guns. Traditionally, the IJN obviously had similar reservations about the use of triple turrets as the German navy (leading to ships festooned with twin turrets). The 155mm triple turrets were sized to allow them to be exchanged for 203mm twins as soon as feasible, otherwise I doubt that they would have existed. If you can build more CAs from the start, what purpose would the 155mm serve, especially as their shells were really too heavy to be handled by Japanese crews? You could just as well swap the 203mm single turrets on the Aobas for 140mm twins, like on Yubari.

BTW, if you build the Mogamis as CAs from the outset, they would have different names. Rivers for CLs, mountains(volcanoes) for CAs, please. Names can be found in the Ironman scenario (ship 14702-14707 and 15199-15207)



_____________________________

DONīT PANIC - ITīS ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 67
RE: 3rd Circle Plan - 8/3/2011 10:07:36 PM   
mikemike

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


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)



If we are talking about real life and not about game conditions, I'd say go for the Shokakus. They are more robust, more seaworthy, carry more aircraft, and can handle bigger aircraft, which will become significant later with aircraft like the B7A or A7M. Two Shokakus operate about 160 planes, three Hiryus about 180 - not that big a difference. True, you have just two platforms instead of three, but on the other hand you also have two sets of machinery instead of three, and I think a Hiryu-size plant would have cost about the same as a Shokaku-size plant (152000 HP against 160000 HP isn't that much of a difference). Engine building was definitely a bottleneck.

_____________________________

DONīT PANIC - ITīS ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 68
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 10:15:11 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
Well, this comes from posting off the top of my head. I checked, and apparently the stability issues with Hatsuharu and Nenohi were so obvious that four more ships from the 1931 program were completed to the modified design the first two ships ended up with, and six more were completely redesigned as the Shiratsuyu class. Your proposed modification sounds good provided the IJN regards the air threat as significant enough to convert six of their modern destroyers (which were in short supply anyway) to such a specialized variant,

By that time they were buiding new large carriers already, so, I think, yes. And frankly I don't know why with their emphazis on night fighting it took Japanese until 1944 to mount these rapid-firing guns on destroyers. Yes, effective range was relatively poor, but 5in/38 had the same flaw and performed adequately. I'm not sure if fire control on Japanese destroyers allowed for effective gunfire at night beyond said effective range, about 7km, particularly in early parts of the war (by late war hopefully a better gun should be available for new ships, either 100/65 or 127/50 that was ready too late IRL - need to read more on the latter). Potential difference in penetration didn't matter, because both guns used only GP shells. And unless I'm mistaken, in long-range daylight engagements of the Pacific War destroyers didn't hit anything anyway.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
I've made a little picture:


An appealing idea, but I'm afraid only wartime experience can justify such boost to AA armament. That said, it can be considered if we add any CAs to the queue for 1943-44.


(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 69
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 10:27:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

A note on pre-London warship building, John: the key limitation for building carriers and light forces was money, given to IJN, not tonnage.

So, on the second thought, I'm against adding new capital ships in that period, except for the two extra battleships. Instead:

1)Rearm Aoba and Furutaka with 9x155mm cannons, instead of 6x203mm (Aoba class already underwent a reconstruction with turret changes IRL, so not that much extra expense) in early 30s. I admit, there is no small element of hindsight about the later prevalence of close range night combat here, but the supposed rationalization is the purpose of these ships either as scouts or elements of the newly-forming night fighting force.
Under the London treaty this, combined with extra allowed tonnage, will allow to build Mogamis as normal CAs, without any big rebuilds later (correct me if I'm counting wrong), in fact, it will allow to avoid excessive experimentation with the CA projects, sticking to the development of Takao class.
Take most 5500 tons CLs out of the fleet post-London, rebuild the oldest ones as auxliaries, trainders and fast minelayers, conserve some for later war emergency rebuild as cruisers with heavy torpedo or AA armament (I'll post the details I have in mind later). Meanwhile, use remaining CL tonnage post improved London to build a pair Oyodo-like CL, starting with 1933, with increased seaplane capabilities that initially will be supposed to serve as the new generation of scout cruisers, and eventually will be used for running with the carrier fleet. No need to sacrifice combat potential of CAs for that role. Alt_nav had the right idea here, by using a single design with small deviations for all heavy cruisers build in 30s, and extra tonnage limits will even allow to build all four post-London cruisers with 203mm armament from the beginning.
But I'm getting way ahead of myself...

2)Build one bigger Ryujo. In reality Japanese did not use up all the allowed carrier tonnage at that time. Just make project more rational. Official 12.5k of displacement you propose for it will be sufficient. With no rebuild it will not cost more money in the end.

I again propose to go through the fleet class by class, top-down. It is really hard to track all the proposals here.
So returning to post-treaties battleships. I take it, you still want to build two Yamatos and two B-65 cruisers for 6 25-27 knots BBs and 6 BCs, as in RA? That probably will be more expensive than reality, considering the need to develop armament for two new warship classes and with all expansions to shipyards and factories needed to build Yamatos, a mere two-ship series is hard to justify economically. I propose building 4 30-knots BBs with new 9x410/50 guns instead, as replacements for Fuso/Ise classes (which won't be sent to the scrapyards due to imminent war), as a compromise between the gun club and the carrier faction, slightly stronger than IRL, hepled by concerns about rearming and servicing Yamato-class ships on forward island bases during a projected extended campaign.



I will try to breakdown your comments and my responses:

1a. Rearm Aoba, Kako, Kinugasa, and Furutaka with 3 triple 6" guns instead of 3x2 8" guns. Little-to-no cost and I like building DECENT CL so this is good.

1b. With savings above as well as the 70% London Treaty we build all of the Mogami's (Mogami, Mikuma, Suyuza, and Kumano) as more developed/improved Takao's. No new hulls, more powerful ships, no reconstruction later (saving money): EXCELLENT!

1c. Convert old CLs to other purposes and begin construction of a new class of CL--Scout to escort the CVs and provide AA protection. Think I already proposed this somewhat. Build 2 in 1932, 2 more in 3rd Circle, and 6 in 4th Circle (replacing the Aagno's). No Yubari, no 3 Training Cruisers, and no Tone's.

On the CA front the Japanese could, based on what we are NOT building, add a set of final CAs with one pair in 3rd Circle and another pair in 4th Circle.

2. Build a bigger Ryujo instead of 2 CVL proposed in my earlier Post. GOOD. We could build Soryu and THEN use the 2 CVs budgeting in 2nd Circle for a pair of Hiryu Class. How about that?

3. Battleships: You misread my comments Posted above. NO YAMATOs! Instead we should build a pair of 3x3 16" BBs (3rd Circle) as designed to replace Fuso and build the two fast CB in 4th Circle OR a matching pair of BBs to go with the 3rd Circle design. Japanese could have either 2 BB and 2 BC OR 4 BB. I can go either way on this for it doesn't really matter.


How about that? Don't think we are too far apart and I really like your CA--CL ideas!


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 70
RE: 3rd Circle Plan - 8/3/2011 10:34:10 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


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)



If we are talking about real life and not about game conditions, I'd say go for the Shokakus. They are more robust, more seaworthy, carry more aircraft, and can handle bigger aircraft, which will become significant later with aircraft like the B7A or A7M. Two Shokakus operate about 160 planes, three Hiryus about 180 - not that big a difference. True, you have just two platforms instead of three, but on the other hand you also have two sets of machinery instead of three, and I think a Hiryu-size plant would have cost about the same as a Shokaku-size plant (152000 HP against 160000 HP isn't that much of a difference). Engine building was definitely a bottleneck.


Like your thinking here. Two excellent CVs vs. 3 OK CVs. Flip the coin! Which is better?

_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 71
RE: 3rd Circle Plan - 8/3/2011 10:53:47 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

If we are talking about real life and not about game conditions, I'd say go for the Shokakus. They are more robust, more seaworthy, carry more aircraft, and can handle bigger aircraft, which will become significant later with aircraft like the B7A or A7M. Two Shokakus operate about 160 planes, three Hiryus about 180 - not that big a difference. True, you have just two platforms instead of three, but on the other hand you also have two sets of machinery instead of three, and I think a Hiryu-size plant would have cost about the same as a Shokaku-size plant (152000 HP against 160000 HP isn't that much of a difference). Engine building was definitely a bottleneck.

Speaking from RL standpoint, not their durability in the game, I don't find arguments for their supposed fragility convincing. (Only in Unryu's case survival of a bigger carrier in the same situation can be convincingly argued.) Straight increase in survivability bestowed by greater size still can be easily undone by one ill-timed hit, if we talk about a carrier. By the number of planes/tonnage ratio they were the best Japanese carriers. The powerplant argument sounds convincing, though. With that in mind, I think, I'm going to vote for more Shokakus.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/3/2011 10:55:42 PM >

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 72
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 11:20:01 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

3. Battleships: You misread my comments Posted above. NO YAMATOs! Instead we should build a pair of 3x3 16" BBs (3rd Circle) as designed to replace Fuso and build the two fast CB in 4th Circle OR a matching pair of BBs to go with the 3rd Circle design. Japanese could have either 2 BB and 2 BC OR 4 BB. I can go either way on this for it doesn't really matter.

I'd prefer 2 more BBs (arriving in second half 1942 - early 1943). That way IJN will have another neat battleship division). And will start with 10 high-speed BBs as in the stock, but of considerably higher quality, and with 4 old hulks in the second line as a bonus. And expenditure on battleships won't be glaringly beyond the RL expenditure (thanks to the more lenient treaty and not scrapping partially ready hulls of course).

Art needed here:
- For the extra pair of pre-treaty BBs.
- For the post-treaty BBs (let's name them Satsuma-class I think). But I think I've seen art for various
- For fast Fuso/Ise conversions
- For non-rebuilt Fuso/Ise BBs.

And somehow pictures that fit all but the last entry fairly well already were in my Art folder. I honestly don't know how so many alt Japanese shipsides ended up there. Take a look at the attachment.

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

The last point: Allied response. There were some good suggestions for RN before, we should take a look at them later. As about USN, just actually build Illinois and Kentucky, and all six of the planned Alaska-class BCs, with availability in 1944-45. It's easy to make plans when you can just throw more resources into your shipbuilding program.

The next stop - carriers, I'll try to take a thorough look at our options tomorrow.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 73
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 11:25:04 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2261
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Didn't the IJN have a 6" cruiser similar to the brooklyns that they rearmed with 8"? Why not keep the 6" guns and give them a modern CL?

_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 74
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 11:43:38 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

3. Battleships: You misread my comments Posted above. NO YAMATOs! Instead we should build a pair of 3x3 16" BBs (3rd Circle) as designed to replace Fuso and build the two fast CB in 4th Circle OR a matching pair of BBs to go with the 3rd Circle design. Japanese could have either 2 BB and 2 BC OR 4 BB. I can go either way on this for it doesn't really matter.

I'd prefer 2 more BBs (arriving in second half 1942 - early 1943). That way IJN will have another neat battleship division). And will start with 10 high-speed BBs as in the stock, but of considerably higher quality, and with 4 old hulks in the second line as a bonus. And expenditure on battleships won't be glaringly beyond the RL expenditure (thanks to the more lenient treaty and not scrapping partially ready hulls of course).

Art needed here:
- For the extra pair of pre-treaty BBs.
- For the post-treaty BBs (let's name them Satsuma-class I think). But I think I've seen art for various
- For fast Fuso/Ise conversions
- For non-rebuilt Fuso/Ise BBs.

And somehow pictures that fit all but the last entry fairly well already were in my Art folder. I honestly don't know how so many alt Japanese shipsides ended up there. Take a look at the attachment.

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

The last point: Allied response. There were some good suggestions for RN before, we should take a look at them later. As about USN, just actually build Illinois and Kentucky, and all six of the planned Alaska-class BCs, with availability in 1944-45. It's easy to make plans when you can just throw more resources into your shipbuilding program.

The next stop - carriers, I'll try to take a thorough look at our options tomorrow.


This is settled I think. I like the thinking, basic compatibility with the Air vs. Gun segments of the Kaigun.

Only issue is no Illinois or Kentucky because the Americans don't get the boost in BBs. We're assuming 5:5:3.5 with just the Japanese getting a slight gain. I like the idea of all six Alaska's being built!



_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 75
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/3/2011 11:44:31 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Didn't the IJN have a 6" cruiser similar to the brooklyns that they rearmed with 8"? Why not keep the 6" guns and give them a modern CL?


Correct. Those were the original Mogami's that then got upgunned in a refit/reconstruction.


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 76
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 12:42:12 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2261
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Instead of designing a new CL, why not go with the Mogami's?

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 77
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 12:48:24 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 7159
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Along these lines, use the Mogami hulls for any newer CLs and for the CLAAs.

_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 78
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 12:56:16 AM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2516
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Only issue is no Illinois or Kentucky because the Americans don't get the boost in BBs. We're assuming 5:5:3.5 with just the Japanese getting a slight gain. I like the idea of all six Alaska's being built!

I meant Iowa-class battleships laid down in 1942, but constructed rather slowly until stopped in 1945 IRL.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 79
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 1:10:57 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Ahhhh...got it...



_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 80
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 1:11:32 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

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


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


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 81
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 2:40:42 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2261
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Thats what I am saying. When I see most of the IJN CL's they are out dated and really they are destroyer leaders. If the Mogami's kept there 6" guns it would put them on par with the western CL's.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 82
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 10:02:19 AM   
Commander Cody


Posts: 872
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline
Gents,

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

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

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 83
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 11:22:03 AM   
Dixie


Posts: 10202
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

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



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

Fuso, from the WPO era.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 84
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 1:59:01 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2377
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Some more of my thoughts on this.  I could be wrong, so if I am let me know.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my thoughts

doc

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 85
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 2:05:00 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Gents,

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

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

Cheers,
CC


Cody:

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

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


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to Commander Cody)
Post #: 86
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 2:08:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just my thoughts

doc


Good ideas as well.

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

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

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


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 87
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 2:30:55 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2377
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Interesting haveing a BB division in the Philippines. If you have them here what are you going to have a PH?

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

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

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

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

doc

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 88
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 8/4/2011 2:59:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The 'normal' 8 BBs would start at PH.

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

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

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

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


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/5/2011 3:34:00 PM >


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 89
Built or Building Japanese BBs - 8/4/2011 3:13:30 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11206
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Want to try and summarize what we have--seemingly--decided regarding ship construction. Starting with BBs:

The Japanese build their normal BBs/BCs:

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

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

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

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

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

Final Japanese Order-of-Battle with BBs:

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

Does this sound OK and look right?


_____________________________



Member: Reluctant Admiral and Perfect War Mod Team.

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


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 90
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 >> 4th Circle Plan 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

0.125