A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by John 3rd »

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?
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
bartrat
Posts: 132
Joined: Tue Dec 24, 2013 5:43 pm
Location: USA

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by bartrat »

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.
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by DOCUP »

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?
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by John 3rd »

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...

Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by DOCUP »

Lex BC names:  Constitution, Constellation, Ranger, and the United States.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by John 3rd »

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
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

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

You just beat me to the punch Sir!
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3091
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by DOCUP »

I want to hear more people talk also.  I get a free education on this subject.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by John 3rd »

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?
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
EHansen
Posts: 360
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2013 1:31 am

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by 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?
dwg
Posts: 319
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 1:35 am

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by 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.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by John 3rd »

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.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by John 3rd »

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...
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by ny59giants »

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.
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.
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. [:D] [&o] 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.
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. [:)]
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by oldman45 »

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.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by 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.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
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.
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.
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. [:D] [&o] 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.
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.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by John 3rd »

Just bumped up the Perfect War Mod description.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by oldman45 »

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.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17458
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Post by John 3rd »

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.
Image

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

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”