Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

 
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 >> A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/2/2014 9:26:21 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Spoke with Michael about an idea I had earlier this week to create a new Grand Campaign based on a slightly different set of results with the Washington and London Naval Treaties. For those who don't know, this is a favored area of mine as my Master Thesis in History was on the US Fleet during the Treaty Years of 1921-1936.

The idea that I am stewing on is that Charles Evans Hughes blueprint for disarmament gets out and the Japanese stonewall a Conference for a full year. The Conference does take place in 1922 and disarmament is agreed upon, however, there are additions allowed due to the added time to get the meeting going. The whole Mutsu Debate is scrapped due to Mutsu actually being ready and deployed at that point. New arguements:

1. The Japanese then argue to keep either a Tosa or a pair of the Amagi Class BCs. If they win then the Americans and British get their corresponding ships as well.

2. The whole subject of CVs is reworked with all sorts of possibilities:
a. Allow two 'experimental' CVs (two Hosho's and two Langley's)
b. Allow for two BC conversions but add further treaty tonnage to allow for one more CV to be built by both Japan and USA.
c. The original view was that 10,000T and smaller CVs wouldn't count against treaty tonnage. Perhaps that gets a change?
d. Submarines could be another topic examined for changes in the treaty.

Moving on to the London Conference (1930) and the subject of Cruisers could also provide furtile ground for a 'what if' set of changes:
1. Japan--at all costs--sticks to its goal of 70% for CAs (instead of 60%). Would the Naval Powers allow for this to keep the peace for five more years?
2. Great Britain--who nearly scrapped the treaty due to the issue of CAs and CLs--stands firm over its argument and forces a larger tonnage for CLs.
3. Both Japan and the United States were looking at hybrid Cruiser--CVs. Perhaps 1-2 are allowed in the interests of allowing speculation? This is the CLV Charlotte in Reluctant Admiral.


The COOL thing about this Mod is that is would be balanced. If Japan gets Tosa then USA adds1-2 new BBs that were originally scrapped. If Japan gets two of the Amagi BCs then USA gets...

Thoughts?


_____________________________



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

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
Post #: 1
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/2/2014 9:59:49 PM   
bartrat


Posts: 130
Joined: 12/24/2013
From: USA
Status: offline
I like the idea a lot. It is balanced and semi-historical (these are not illogical outcomes IMHO). Please do it.
I think that SS limitations (or size restrictions) should be added, based on feelings that submarines are unhonorable.

_____________________________

WW2 logistics fanboy and
Rat Rancher
Rat ranching for fun and profit, had better be fun, cause there is no profit.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 12:13:59 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3031
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Interesting thoughts John.  I have done something similar with my never ending mod.

1. If the IJN gets the Tosa, what BB would the US and Brits get.  The Washington or would you go for an early South Dakota?  Also with the Tosa and other BBs of the IJN would the USN see the error in its ways and upgrade the BB's speed?  If they get 2 Amagi BC's, I would say 2 Lexington Class BC's.

2.CVs: Option B would be my pick.  With two CLVs would be interesting.  This could give both powers 1-2 CVL's during the beginning stages of the game.  Real nice for the Allied player.

3. Cruiser options.  Not for sure on this one.  But could be very interesting.

The questions.  Would the US build more ships than what was built in RL?  If new cruisers are built what types for each nation?  Would the CBs (both US and IJN) be built earlier?  If Japan builds more cruisers, how would this effect the Kongo conversions?

(in reply to bartrat)
Post #: 3
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 12:38:23 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I am waiting for more commentary.

Am not wedded to anything specific but do have to admit I think it would be FUN to have Akagi and Amagi as BCs with then Lexington and Saratoga as BCs. Since it would be 5-5-3 then the Japanese might only get 1 BC and 2 converted to CVs. Figure the two CV conversions Atago and Takao (#3 and 4 of the BCs) and does anyone know the other names of the American BCs? Were they Constellation and ??? Don't remember...

Adding another CVL might work. Would it be a re-worked Ryujo and Ranger? Hmmmm...



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 4
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 12:51:22 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3031
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Lex BC names:  Constitution, Constellation, Ranger, and the United States.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 12:54:25 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Lexington Class Battlecruisers:

CC1 Lexington (ex-Constitution)
CC2 Constellation
CC3 Saratoga
CC4 Ranger (ex-Lexington)
CC5 Constitution (ex-Ranger)
CC6 United States


Amagi Class Battlecruisers:

Amagi
Akagi
Atago
Takao (ex-Ashitaka)

Source: All the World's Battleships: 1906 to Present by Ian Sturton

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 3/3/2014 1:54:56 AM >


_____________________________



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 #: 6
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 12:55:17 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Lex BC names:  Constitution, Constellation, Ranger, and the United States.


You just beat me to the punch Sir!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 7
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 1:00:10 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3031
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
I want to hear more people talk also.  I get a free education on this subject.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 8
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 1:48:45 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
IRL when the Japanese damned near left the Conference over completing Mutsu (HIGH DRAMA as they claimed that she was under full steam and poor Japanese SCHOOL CHILDREN had helped finish the BB by donating their very PENNIES to help finish her!) the Allies--Keeping the 5-5-3 were allowed to finish 2 US BBs (Colorado Class) and the Brits elected to create the FANTASTIC (NOT!) Rodney/Nelson. We can actually figure the exact tonnages since I have that resource here just want to see what people would prefer as to new BBs or new BCs?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 9
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 2:05:01 AM   
EHansen


Posts: 360
Joined: 12/6/2013
Status: offline
For the USN it would be fun to have the 2 Lexington BCs with many AA upgrades during the war.
If they get Lexington BCs, do they get 2 more Yorktown CVs?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 10
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 3:14:06 AM   
dwg

 

Posts: 319
Joined: 1/22/2008
Status: offline
While there's some suggestion the order for the G3s may just have been a treaty gambit, if you postpone the conference for a year, then there may (or may not), have been significant progress on them. The Conference gave us the tonnage for Nelson and Rodney because IJN and USN would then have 16" ships in service while the RN didn't, if you increase the number of US/Japanese 16" designs, then there's going to be an equivalent quid-pro-quo for the UK, and the delay shifts the likelihood towards that being used for G3s.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 11
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 4:08:06 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EHansen

For the USN it would be fun to have the 2 Lexington BCs with many AA upgrades during the war.
If they get Lexington BCs, do they get 2 more Yorktown CVs?


The Americans would gain two Lexington Class BCs AND then the 3rd and 4th BC would be converted over to CVs.

The Lexington BCs would definitely have a number of upgrades attached to them as the war progressed.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to EHansen)
Post #: 12
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 4:10:00 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwg

While there's some suggestion the order for the G3s may just have been a treaty gambit, if you postpone the conference for a year, then there may (or may not), have been significant progress on them. The Conference gave us the tonnage for Nelson and Rodney because IJN and USN would then have 16" ships in service while the RN didn't, if you increase the number of US/Japanese 16" designs, then there's going to be an equivalent quid-pro-quo for the UK, and the delay shifts the likelihood towards that being used for G3s.



Everything I ever researched leads me to agree with your statement above of the G3 Design being a gambit for the Treaty. Last thing GB wanted was to build more Capital Ships. Wonder if they would have taken additional BCs being built as LESS of a threat then another pair of 16" BBs being added by the Americans? It is an interesting quandry...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to dwg)
Post #: 13
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 11:49:20 AM   
ny59giants_MatrixForum


Posts: 9679
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Moving on to the London Conference (1930) and the subject of Cruisers could also provide fertile ground for a 'what if' set of changes:


This is where I would want to focus on rather than on the big boys. For the BBs, I would look for ships with more speed for all Navy's vs just more slow 21 knot targets.

quote:

1. Japan--at all costs--sticks to its goal of 70% for CAs (instead of 60%). Would the Naval Powers allow for this to keep the peace for five more years?


Would Japan get another 2 to 4 modern CAs before the war starts or get them in '42?? Japanese player are always short of CAs and their losses hurt badly.

quote:

2. Great Britain--who nearly scrapped the treaty due to the issue of CAs and CLs--stands firm over its argument and forces a larger tonnage for CLs.


The area that I would love to see changed. The Mogami Class CAs stay as CLs as a counter to American Helena and Brooklyn Class with 6" main guns and don't end up top heavy. The Americans push forward with more of these two Classes of CLs before the Cleveland Class comes out. How many of each before the war?? What other true Japanese CLs will be developed here?? CLs stay around 10k in tonnage while the CAs are allowed up towards 13 to 14k.

quote:

3. Both Japan and the United States were looking at hybrid Cruiser--CVs. Perhaps 1-2 are allowed in the interests of allowing speculation? This is the CVL Charlotte in Reluctant Admiral.


Japan doesn't do the failed CVL Ryujo design, but do come up with a series of hybrid CL/CVLs similar to the American CVL Charlotte. Japan develops an all purpose CL (maybe a CA) hull that can serve multiple roles (CVL, CL, CLAA). The slower CV Hiyo and Junyo are not built in favor of these faster CVL hybrids. Some 6" guns are taken off the hybrids as the war goes on in favor of a CVLAA type platform that can keep up with their fast CVs. The British get on board with the American CVL Charlotte design in their push to have more CLs to patrol their Empire. Some of their CLs are not built in favor of their own Charlotte's being built.

The big question will be how many of these hybrids does each nation build and what ships don't get built?? Having 2 British "Charlotte" at Ceylon or Cape Town at some point in Dec '41 would be neat.

< Message edited by ny59giants -- 3/3/2014 12:51:37 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 14
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 3:18:21 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
What are your thoughts on the two large bills the US passed in the 30's and 40's to build the two ocean navy. The lead time on the modern battleships was rather long. Changing this would have an impact long term on the ship construction.

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 15
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 3:23:49 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
The Two-Ocean Bills were true monsters. I remember in Kaigun that the Japanese were staggered by the sheer magnitude of the plans. No hope whatsoever of keeping up.

What do you have in mind with the question?



Just re-read my Thesis and forgot that SS were regulated at London and not Washington. Stupid on my part to forget that. I've got the figures on all the agreed upon tonnages and ratios so whatever is decided can be equally implemented.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 16
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 3:31:15 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

quote:

Moving on to the London Conference (1930) and the subject of Cruisers could also provide fertile ground for a 'what if' set of changes:


This is where I would want to focus on rather than on the big boys. For the BBs, I would look for ships with more speed for all Navy's vs just more slow 21 knot targets.

quote:

1. Japan--at all costs--sticks to its goal of 70% for CAs (instead of 60%). Would the Naval Powers allow for this to keep the peace for five more years?


Would Japan get another 2 to 4 modern CAs before the war starts or get them in '42?? Japanese player are always short of CAs and their losses hurt badly.

quote:

2. Great Britain--who nearly scrapped the treaty due to the issue of CAs and CLs--stands firm over its argument and forces a larger tonnage for CLs.


The area that I would love to see changed. The Mogami Class CAs stay as CLs as a counter to American Helena and Brooklyn Class with 6" main guns and don't end up top heavy. The Americans push forward with more of these two Classes of CLs before the Cleveland Class comes out. How many of each before the war?? What other true Japanese CLs will be developed here?? CLs stay around 10k in tonnage while the CAs are allowed up towards 13 to 14k.

quote:

3. Both Japan and the United States were looking at hybrid Cruiser--CVs. Perhaps 1-2 are allowed in the interests of allowing speculation? This is the CVL Charlotte in Reluctant Admiral.


Japan doesn't do the failed CVL Ryujo design, but do come up with a series of hybrid CL/CVLs similar to the American CVL Charlotte. Japan develops an all purpose CL (maybe a CA) hull that can serve multiple roles (CVL, CL, CLAA). The slower CV Hiyo and Junyo are not built in favor of these faster CVL hybrids. Some 6" guns are taken off the hybrids as the war goes on in favor of a CVLAA type platform that can keep up with their fast CVs. The British get on board with the American CVL Charlotte design in their push to have more CLs to patrol their Empire. Some of their CLs are not built in favor of their own Charlotte's being built.

The big question will be how many of these hybrids does each nation build and what ships don't get built?? Having 2 British "Charlotte" at Ceylon or Cape Town at some point in Dec '41 would be neat.


Responses:

1. I think allowing another BC or two for each Fleet would be a lot of fun. You would certainly get speed. Additionally, think of how much a Lexington Class BC could add to your CV TF Screens at the start! YUM!

2. With a few tweaks the Japanese CAs/CLs could be brought into more a 'sane' line. A good chunk of this has already been talked about in the Perfect War Scenario that we were working on last year. Will look those pages up and maybe bring them forward. Keeping the Mogami's as 6" cruisers makes a bunch of sense. Comparative additions/changes tot he Americans would apply as well.

3. Perhaps the better way to look at the CLVs is that BOTH Ranger and Ryujo are FAILED designs so the Fleet's turn to the hybrids and find that they too are a FAILED design. But since you built them you HAVE them at war's start...I would see just 1-2 being built as an experiment. Would be similar to how the Washington Treaty allowed for 2 BB/BC conversions to CV. London allows for 2 CLV Hybrids to be added to each Fleet.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to ny59giants_MatrixForum)
Post #: 17
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 3:34:09 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Just bumped up the Perfect War Mod description.

_____________________________



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 #: 18
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 4:54:02 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

The Two-Ocean Bills were true monsters. I remember in Kaigun that the Japanese were staggered by the sheer magnitude of the plans. No hope whatsoever of keeping up.

What do you have in mind with the question?



Just re-read my Thesis and forgot that SS were regulated at London and not Washington. Stupid on my part to forget that. I've got the figures on all the agreed upon tonnages and ratios so whatever is decided can be equally implemented.




Those bills started producing the ships used in the early and middle part of the war. What trade off is there if we build more BC's and the two BC conversions? Plus you want to add the CL hybrids into the mix. We might start running out of building capacity.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 19
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 5:17:29 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Ahhhh...I get it. The additional building would have been done in 1920s and early-30s.

The Two Ocean Bills would not be impacted with these additions. Course there might be influence on them from what was built between the wars.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 20
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 7:19:18 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3031
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
I know the CLV would of been a failure in RL.  But, if you think about it, it does have its merits.  CLV's could provide some protection from commerce raiders, also provide some air ASW for TFs.  If mixed in with a SAG they can provide NavS.  During the 20's and 30's this would of been big.  Think of them as the same as the Jap CS's.  Most of the IJ players use them as a NavS, and air ASW platform until the conversions come along. CLV's could also be converted to CVL's just like RA.  Heck with the Japanese you could have one of them already being converted to a CVL at the beginning of the game, or both.

I like the idea of the earlier BC's.  Be great with the CV's or as convoy raiders early in the game. 

I would like to hear more on the Two Ocean Navy Act. 

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 21
RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 10:42:41 PM   
derhexer


Posts: 251
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
I'm looking forward to the scenario. Thanks to all of you who work hard to create these great scenarios and gedankenexperiments with history.

_____________________________

Chris
(Did you ever stop to think and forget to start?)

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 22
Pefect War (was A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/3/2014 10:45:37 PM   
derhexer


Posts: 251
Joined: 9/19/2007
Status: offline
Never mind

< Message edited by derhexer -- 3/3/2014 11:48:24 PM >


_____________________________

Chris
(Did you ever stop to think and forget to start?)

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 23
RE: Pefect War (was A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/4/2014 12:22:11 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
DOCUP this is a good place to start.

Two Ocean Navy

Another thing about this article is it lays out what they wanted to do in the Pacific and why they didn't.

< Message edited by oldman45 -- 3/4/2014 1:26:47 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to derhexer)
Post #: 24
RE: Pefect War (was A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign - 3/4/2014 3:38:01 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Nice site. Looks like I have some reading to do.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 25
Possibilities - 3/4/2014 3:50:36 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Tentative Thinking:

Washington Treaty (in 1922-23 instead of 1921-22)

Capital Ship Additions:
1. Japan gets one new Amagi-Class BC
2. USA gains two Lexington-Class BC.

Tonnage doesn't work out to 60%. The BCs were roughly the same displacement so not sure what to do about that. You might fix that by pulling the 3rd Colorado Class BB (delete West Virginia) and build the two BCs? Tonnage would be a lot closer to 5:3.

Carriers:
1. Allow two experimental carriers for testing purposes instead of just one.
2. Add 15,000 tons to the caps originally set:
---USA/GB to 150,000 T (not 135,000)
---Japan 90,000 T (not 81,000)
This would allow for an addition Light/Medium CV to be built by all parties.

This would be the major changes from the first Conference.

Comments?



_____________________________



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 #: 26
RE: Possibilities - 3/4/2014 1:11:19 PM   
btd64


Posts: 5673
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
John, This looks very interesting to me. I would like to beta test when you reach that point.
Cheers

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 27
RE: Possibilities - 3/4/2014 3:29:11 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 16090
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
London Treaty Possibilities:

GB and the USA work to iron out their differences on the 'Yardstick' (that failed the Geneva Conference in 1927) and are mostly successful in accomplishing this. GB wants more CL tonnage while the US wants more CA tonnage. Japan comes in from a position of strength having already built up their CA category. A few tweaks occur through the discussions and a Treaty is passed:

Changes:
1. CA Tonnage raised for GB/USA to 175,000 instead of the historical 155,000. Japan gets 122,500 instead of 108,400. The Fleets are allowed to build, respectively, USA/GB 2 CA and Japan 1.5 CA.
2. CL Tonnage is raised from 147,000 to 160,000 for USA/GB. Japan goes from 100,450 to 112,000. Figure 2-3 cruisers added to the cap of each Fleet.
3. Just as in Washington with the Aircraft Carrier being considered 'experimental' and each Fleet getting to build/convert two BB/BC the Big Three agree that each Navy can build two experimental CLV hybrid Cruiser-Carriers not to exceed 12,000 T each.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 28
RE: Possibilities - 3/4/2014 9:55:03 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2324
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I would hate to lose a West Virginia for a BC, not sure the Admirals would agree to that. Perhaps scrap the both the Utahs and one from whatever the next class was, Arkansas I think


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 29
RE: Possibilities - 3/4/2014 10:17:18 PM   
NormS3


Posts: 503
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: Wild and Wonderful WV, just don't drink the water
Status: offline
Agreed don't delete the Wee Vee. She's one of the few positive's of my state historically.

Get rid of Colorado and rename the class WV.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign Page: [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

0.191