Matrix Games Forums

War in the West gets its first update!Flashpoint Campaigns: Red Storm version 2.08 is now available!Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual preview
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: Allied Side

 
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: Allied Side Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 1:21:45 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Solid point...

How about them being sent west to meet up with Force Z? Could create a TRUE Combined Striking Force.



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 61
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 1:26:45 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2409
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Nice John

Edit: Have some BBs on patrol between PP and PH.

From what I have found on the modernisation of the Big Five.

1931 Plans
Bolster Deck Armor with STS
Thicker armor on the turrets
Improve FC (fire control)
4 1.1 cannons

1934
Above with Anti torpedo bulges

1937
Reboiler
Mk 33 FC
Increase the beam, deck armor
add 5/38s (don't know how many)

If what I know is correct about some of the navy nautical port starboard poop deck stuff is correct. 

Then Reboilering means a new engine or something along that line.  Increaseing the beam I don't know what that does.  Looked it up it increases the stablity and decreases chance of roll over.  So would that also increase the accuracy of the guns.   I know adding armor and stuff will increase the weight but how much and would it slow down the ship? 

This is a land lubbers idea.

Reboiler them increase the beam but also add internal anti torpedo bulges (as to not reduce speed).  Maybe add some armor to them.  Since the Japanese are now building new faster 16in BBs. Add the FCs for the main guns and AA guns.  Take away the 2 torpedo tubes on the Colorado's.

My Questions.
What would be her speed?  Armor rating with STS is what?  How will that change the armor ratings of the ship in the game?  How would increaseing the beam and adding internal anti torpedo bulges add to the numbers also?

I think the islands are good.  So I guess its time for the US Navy ships and AC.  I don't think much would of happened with the army as I have stated before.

doc

< Message edited by DOCUP -- 8/15/2011 1:28:17 AM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 62
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 1:30:05 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41361
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Solid point...

How about them being sent west to meet up with Force Z? Could create a TRUE Combined Striking Force.




Actually, that's not a good idea either. Remember that the USN expected to conduct War Plan Orange/Rainbow on the outbreak of war, marching the entire battleline across the Pacific.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 63
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 2:21:49 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

How about them being sent west to meet up with Force Z? Could create a TRUE Combined Striking Force.



They would be far to slow to serve with Force Z...., not to mention lacking in AAA. They are far better suited for the "bombardment" role.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 64
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 4:17:11 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2409
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Is the Bathurst Class corvettes in the game for the RAN?

I have spent to much time on this.  Maybe I need to work more.  No I need another PBEM game

doc

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 65
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 4:42:55 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
As far as the French Navy, just don't have the creation of the Vichy French. Have the government flee to England and the fleet goes to Africa. Then you can figure out what stays in the Med, what goes to the Atlantic and what ever is left can come to the Pacific.

On the issue of the bases, there are many works talking about how the Army and Navy wanted to improve the islands between the US and Oz to use as a flight path. Little on flying across the central Pacific. We also can't use hindsight here when talking about what bases might fall, because they wanted to fortify the bases but the treaty and then the lack of money caused the slow down.

I concur that sending a division of BB's to the PI would never be entertained by the Navy.

_____________________________


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 66
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 11:43:29 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1927
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
JWE, Terminus, DOCUP & John3 -- thank you.

Re: South Pacific Air Bridge. Good idea. I'd suggest using CPNAB units (civilian contractors) as per the actual plan. In AE, these units withdraw 7/42, which provides time to replace them with Seabees.

Re: BB's in the PI. Bad idea. If the US was concerned about a greater Japanese build-up, Manila is about the last place they would put a Battleship Division. Alternative: IRL, Churchill pushed the US to send a portion of the fleet to Singapore before the war started. In this alternate world, what if the Illustrious (correct ship?) doesn't run aground, and a US CV TF is sent to pair up with her? Base them out of Trincomalee if the Japanese air threat to Singapore is perceived to be too high.


< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 8/15/2011 11:45:44 AM >


_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 67
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 12:00:50 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41361
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
It was the Indomitable, IIRC.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 68
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 1:52:44 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Been playing with the paint program...

Whomped up a couple of Omaha mods...







RevRick: Wanted to say that both of these are nice. Got wrapped up in the discussion and forgot to comment about your work.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 69
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 5:05:14 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2540
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Dontblinkyoullmissit, GA
Status: offline
Thanks, John...
I've just begun playing with the art, but I have been working on an altHist mod of my own..

Mainly, there are lots more BB's, roughly 33%, for all sides, and about 15% more CVs.
here also were some minor alterations in the WNT and the LNT which allowed somewhat higher tonnage, and some early 1930's replacements for very old ships. This did not really apply to Japan because most of her ships were as new as the RN and USN main battle lines.

This would allow for a modified South Dakota class (8 16/50 vice 12, 30 Kt as opposed to 23) for the USN in the early 30's at the cost of all the old BB's up to the Nevada/Oklahoma.


The RN also gets, by retiring a larger number of the old ships, a 4 ship Rodney class with a more conventional layout and 28 kt speed. The RN does not build the 'R' class as in OTL, (a lesser version of the Queen Elizabeth's) but instead build them somewhat larger, with early 16" guns and 27 kt speed. They also take the Queen Elizabeth's in hand for a rebuild in the early 30's (basically all that is left the same is the Main Battery and the hull abaft the first turret - new engines, new bow, new AA suite beginning, new bridge works.) The RN does not build the Hood, Renown, and Repulse as BC.. They build Renown and Repulse as 40K ton 8-15" BB's shortly after WWI, the Hood becomes one of the Rodney's.

Japan withdraws from the WNT in 1935 because they resent deeply the 5:5:3 ratio and announce that they will begin building new battleships in accordance with the notification of intent to build clause in the WNT. Some more perspicacious observers note that they did not mention anything about tonnage or gun size in their notice...

The USA begins to respond two years earlier with the North Carolina (1935) (40K tons, 30 kt speed) and the Massachusetts (OT SoDak)(1937)(also 40K tons, 30 kt speed, 16/50 main battery) classes, and builds another Yorktown (Constellation) as a bridge to the Essex class.

The RN builds a KGV class but slightly heavier (40K with 16" guns) vice the OTL version.

But, the word is out in the inner circles in WASHDC that the Japanese have been planning some super battleships with 16" & 18" guns for some time. [one class of 4 with 9 16's in triple turrets at 45-48 Ktons and 33 kt speed, another class of 2 with 12-16" guns in triple turrets, 56-58 K ton, 30 Kt speed, and the OTL Yamato's - total of 8 ships - the first three will be in the water 07DEC41, next three within the next year, the Yamato's begin arriving in early-mid 1943!) That word gets to the intelligence guys because the Black Chamber was not shut down by Stinson (for any number of reasons, including the possibility of no Hoover Administration [details, details]). But, a revelation of that information has to be arranged that does not point the the US reading Japanese mail. This info is not even shared with the RN or the Prime Minister (Can you imagine Chamberlain with that info??????) This happens through the efforts of some very carefully recruited and strenuously trained Japanese Americans (through the offices of the Black Chamber) employed at the US embassy in Tokyo who carefully ferret out enough information to create enough hard proof to sustain enough of a suspicion of Japanese intentions by late 1937 to start the ball rolling.


The Two-Ocean Navy bill is signed in late 1938 because of European tensions and the various incidents in Japanese occupied China being a bit more egregious than was reported (IJN got snooty about the Panay incident, and the Allison incident became more problematic than they supposed.) With the North Carolina Class built and the Massachusetts class completing.. 4 Iowa's are ordered, 4 Montana's, and a class of expanded Montana's with 8" 18"47 naval files and almost 75,000 tons (ironically named the Rhode Island and Delaware!).

Carriers also receive a treatment...
Akagi and Amagi are built by the IJN, a class of Hiryu's, and four of the Shokaku's (two commissioned 07DEC41, two to complete in 1942), and two of the smaller Soryu (named Kairyu) for a total of 8 fleet carriers in the water at beginning of war. Junyo and Hiyo are under construction also as slighly smaller Shokaku class, with two Taihos, and a class of slighly larger and improved Unryu's on the drawing boards and waiting for ways.

Obviously, both sides have built up the shipbuilding infrastructure during the days of the treaty.

There is a lot more but I haven't put it all down on paper yet... Which means that it is all in my head (a dangerous proposition).


_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 70
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 6:10:39 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10231
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
Can I has these?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 71
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 8:38:24 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Can I has these?





Nice! Names please...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 72
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 8:58:53 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41361
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Cold War RN ships? For shame!

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 73
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/15/2011 9:24:17 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I wanted the NIMITZ too...my hope was this was a Final Countdown or Weapons of Choice Mod...


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 74
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 11:08:54 AM   
Dixie


Posts: 10231
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Cold War RN ships? For shame!


You've conversed with me before. You know I have no shame!

Fair enough, the bottom two are firmly Cold War era. The top two are both ships that were laid down in the war years. Maybe this is a bit more plausible then?




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 75
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 11:51:09 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41361
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Nice!

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 76
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 2:19:35 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Good Compromise. Glad we have that settled. Put into the Allied OOB!

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 77
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 6:36:46 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Looks like we have a new opponent for Allied BBs settled on in the OTHER Side of this Thread!


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 78
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 7:30:40 PM   
House Stark

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/30/2011
Status: offline
For US carriers, is the plan just to go relatively historical with several pre-war carriers transitioning into mass Essex production with a Midway or few later on? I was thinking that it might be interesting if the US had a little more carrier size/type diversity (instead of Wasp being the only CV until Midway with a capacity that wasn't a nice round 90 planes). What if the US experimented with either smaller flattops (argument could be that they're cheaper) or going the other way, armored carriers (like the Brit carriers, or Taiho). This could be construed as something like competing designs in the late 1930s with one or two of each laid down before the war. Later of course, the US would probably switch to all Essex for wartime ease of construction, but something like this might be interesting, if a little less on the practical side. Could it be adequately justified according to the mod's vision, and would it be worth it in terms of gameplay/fun?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 79
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 7:44:28 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 11378
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
They made Ranger which was a terrible failure (NOT deployed to the Pacific even when the Fleet was desperate). She has similar issues as Ryujo for the Japanese. They tried to cram too many planes onto a small hull.

The Independence CVLs were excellent ships and we'll probably allow for more of them and/or conversions to them from appropriate CLs.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

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

(in reply to House Stark)
Post #: 80
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 8:46:08 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2409
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Nice AC.  Dixie what is it?

So since the Japanese naval board are moving along, lets get the Allied one moving. 

US could of built some more DDs in the early 30s I think around 15 or so.  What class or classes.

They can also build some more SSs.  What about making them an intermediate range with the working mk 18 torp?

How about building a few more CAs and CLs in response to the evil empire of Zerg oh I mean Japan.

I'd like to see and 18 in Montana never heard of the Iowas being 18in.

With all the naval AC thats going to be produced why not bring the F4s in earlier with a higher production rate.  This should also go along with P40s, since there will be a few more of them on Dec 7th.  What about a full squadron of P38s? 

So what is the decision on the Guam forces?

What about putting in the Bathhurst corvettes?

doc


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 81
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 8:55:37 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10231
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Nice AC.  Dixie what is it?

So since the Japanese naval board are moving along, lets get the Allied one moving. 

US could of built some more DDs in the early 30s I think around 15 or so.  What class or classes.

They can also build some more SSs.  What about making them an intermediate range with the working mk 18 torp?

How about building a few more CAs and CLs in response to the evil empire of Zerg oh I mean Japan.

I'd like to see and 18 in Montana never heard of the Iowas being 18in.

With all the naval AC thats going to be produced why not bring the F4s in earlier with a higher production rate.  This should also go along with P40s, since there will be a few more of them on Dec 7th.  What about a full squadron of P38s? 

So what is the decision on the Guam forces?

What about putting in the Bathhurst corvettes?

doc




Hawker Sea Fury.

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 82
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 9:05:30 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1878
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline
I think we need to remember that the goal isn't to simply give the Allies and Japanese more toys to play with. There should always be a good rationale why the extra ships/planes were built. I find it very interesting how the plans for the Japanese shipbuilding programs are made in the other thread, with ships getting cut or redesigned to free up funds for other stuff. The Allies might have slightly more room for pure extra expenses (especially later in the war), but I'd like to see more than just additions to the OOB. I really like Mike's posts (in the other thread I think) about different strategies employed in the PI and Malaya, little to no extra expenses that will strengthen the Allies.

It seems like the Japanese BB design is being finished up; could this have influenced Allied BB designs or lead to another sort of reaction ?




_____________________________

The AE-Wiki, help fill it out

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 83
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 9:32:04 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 2409
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Going along the lines of what Smeulders said above.

The US watches its transports get sunk on the west coast by u-boats.  They start building DEs and outfitting other ships with better ASW gear earlier.  Also while watching the German tanks run all over Europe, the US starts to build better tanks. 

The US don't lolly gag around and start getting on a war footing earlier than they did.  Say there is less of an isolantionist view in America. 

Operation Catapult instead of the British attacking the French fleet, the French decide to sail out of port and join the Free French.  They could of then been transfered to the Pacific AO.

Question.
Ships are built in slips but they are also repaired in these same slips if they have major damage right.  If that is true wouldn't there be few slips off and on thru out the war.  Or would this be to hard to put into the game now that I think about it. 

doc

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 84
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 9:32:55 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10231
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
The UK was cash strapped in reality, so massive building projects are unlikely really. If they could afford to build two Class A (County) cruisers then they couldn't afford to build half a dozen extra battleships. For the Brits it's going to be mostly a case of substituting designs rather than adding them to the existing forces, perhaps a couple of extra ships here and there if you're feeling generous.

The most likely reason for Japan building the ships proposed is that the naval treaties did not occur. In that case unrestricted submarine warfare is not banned, thus the Admiralty realises how vulnerable the UK is to U-boat warfare. This causes an investment in ASW that did not happen historically. This could result in more escort ships being sent East for the start of the game.

Sure, it's not as much fun as running around with extra big ships but hey-ho. The increased emphasis on convoy protection would mean more RAF maritime aircraft as well; Sunderlands, Halifax, Beauforts, TorBeaus, Warwicks perhaps even Shackletons and Brigands later.


Perhaps later in the war there could be more CVs available. The RN decides not to focus on the smaller Colossus carriers and somehow manages to get some of the Audacious class finished. The RN carriers could finish up with Sea Furies, Wyverns, Sea Hornets.

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 85
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 9:40:55 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

I think we need to remember that the goal isn't to simply give the Allies and Japanese more toys to play with. There should always be a good rationale why the extra ships/planes were built. I find it very interesting how the plans for the Japanese shipbuilding programs are made in the other thread, with ships getting cut or redesigned to free up funds for other stuff. The Allies might have slightly more room for pure extra expenses (especially later in the war), but I'd like to see more than just additions to the OOB. I really like Mike's posts (in the other thread I think) about different strategies employed in the PI and Malaya, little to no extra expenses that will strengthen the Allies.

It seems like the Japanese BB design is being finished up; could this have influenced Allied BB designs or lead to another sort of reaction ?





You brought up something that I have been thinking about the last couple of days. How would the Allies react to Japans changes. So far I don't see anything that would shake them up enough to cause any major changes. Speaking for the US, unless we are willing to change the will of Congress, nothing much can be added to the OB. That also means no money for base expansion. There are a couple of things that would be easy to justify, conversions for several classes to CVE and CVL. Lets face it, there is information out there that shows the US military was way undermanned and we didn't even meet the minimum tonnage of the treaties and Congress still refused to fund ad expansion.

I think the main question should be, how far are the designers willing to go when it comes to changes in core politics of the US and UK.

_____________________________


(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 86
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 9:56:53 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8155
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


.....

Hawker Sea Fury.



Post a bmp, willya?

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 87
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 10:19:10 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1878
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

The US watches its transports get sunk on the west coast by u-boats.  They start building DEs and outfitting other ships with better ASW gear earlier.  Also while watching the German tanks run all over Europe, the US starts to build better tanks. 

The US don't lolly gag around and start getting on a war footing earlier than they did.  Say there is less of an isolantionist view in America.



There might be less isolationism in the US, but that's up to the scenario designers. Even with isolationism something could be done for ASW if there is a decision to start making SC earlier. This can't really be criticised as an offensive move so might be a bit more feasible. This would free up destroyers for other duties.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP
Operation Catapult instead of the British attacking the French fleet, the French decide to sail out of port and join the Free French.  They could of then been transfered to the Pacific AO.


That's a big decision, one that should again be made by the scenario designers. I do confess I'd like to see some french ships appearing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie
The most likely reason for Japan building the ships proposed is that the naval treaties did not occur. In that case unrestricted submarine warfare is not banned, thus the Admiralty realises how vulnerable the UK is to U-boat warfare. This causes an investment in ASW that did not happen historically. This could result in more escort ships being sent East for the start of the game.


As I understand it the naval treaties only break down as historical. You could still argue that the British learn a lot of lessons from WWI submarine warfare and prepare a bit better to this. Might be interesting to wait until we have a bit more information on the Japanese submarine program, though the Germans were probably a primary concern here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Oldman45
You brought up something that I have been thinking about the last couple of days. How would the Allies react to Japans changes. So far I don't see anything that would shake them up enough to cause any major changes. Speaking for the US, unless we are willing to change the will of Congress, nothing much can be added to the OB. That also means no money for base expansion. There are a couple of things that would be easy to justify, conversions for several classes to CVE and CVL. Lets face it, there is information out there that shows the US military was way undermanned and we didn't even meet the minimum tonnage of the treaties and Congress still refused to fund ad expansion.

I think the main question should be, how far are the designers willing to go when it comes to changes in core politics of the US and UK.


If many extra large ships aren't likely for the US, how about different designs ?

_____________________________

The AE-Wiki, help fill it out

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 88
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 10:42:34 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41361
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

I think we need to remember that the goal isn't to simply give the Allies and Japanese more toys to play with. There should always be a good rationale why the extra ships/planes were built. I find it very interesting how the plans for the Japanese shipbuilding programs are made in the other thread, with ships getting cut or redesigned to free up funds for other stuff. The Allies might have slightly more room for pure extra expenses (especially later in the war), but I'd like to see more than just additions to the OOB. I really like Mike's posts (in the other thread I think) about different strategies employed in the PI and Malaya, little to no extra expenses that will strengthen the Allies.

It seems like the Japanese BB design is being finished up; could this have influenced Allied BB designs or lead to another sort of reaction ?





You brought up something that I have been thinking about the last couple of days. How would the Allies react to Japans changes. So far I don't see anything that would shake them up enough to cause any major changes. Speaking for the US, unless we are willing to change the will of Congress, nothing much can be added to the OB. That also means no money for base expansion. There are a couple of things that would be easy to justify, conversions for several classes to CVE and CVL. Lets face it, there is information out there that shows the US military was way undermanned and we didn't even meet the minimum tonnage of the treaties and Congress still refused to fund ad expansion.

I think the main question should be, how far are the designers willing to go when it comes to changes in core politics of the US and UK.


You definitely need to be careful about making drastic prewar changes to US strength. There was no political will to spend a lot of money there.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 89
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/16/2011 11:01:16 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2275
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
That's the point Terminus, with out major changes to the political will of the US, there are not a lot of changes the US can do. The biggest and easiest change would be an influx of French navy into the Theater. To a lesser extent, we could find tweeks in the UK aircraft production and perhaps some changes in ship construction. Was reading Munson last night and gave me a couple of idea's for some air craft changes.


_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
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 >> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side 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

0.180