Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

I like all three, but the Guadalcanal mod is great for me. I guess I kind of like it because the Old Man served there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bstarr
All three? The Italian mod was meant to be a joke. A joke at my expense, since I'm blissfully adding the French to my mod, but a joke nonetheless.

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mifune

"I know a better joke. Why not include a godzilla mod" Sure beat me to the punch. Godzilla option available after the first a-bomb is dropped. But which side does he fight for?

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Call Aden "Middle East" and you can solve the Offmap thing. Aden is an Island off Arabia, Middle East is more abstract.

Better Suez Canal/ Cape of Good Hope routes, more abstract

quote:


My conception - given the limited number of ships Gary proposed - and his explicit words - was that this was a slightly different Washington Treaty - and that is actually probable. We only got the one we got because we read Japanese codes - and we would have settled for a different outcome had they been tougher about it. Gary's idea - allow four more newer ships (six total - counting Nagato and Mutsu) for Japan - implies six (nine total - counting Colorado class) for USN. That is actually a very plausable possibility. He was willing to get rid of four other capital ships - and his idea these should be the worst has merit - although the Kongo's might have been sacrificed instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

BSTARR

I fear you do not understand the economics of the 1920s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:


My conception - given the limited number of ships Gary proposed - and his explicit words - was that this was a slightly different Washington Treaty - and that is actually probable. We only got the one we got because we read Japanese codes - and we would have settled for a different outcome had they been tougher about it. Gary's idea - allow four more newer ships (six total - counting Nagato and Mutsu) for Japan - implies six (nine total - counting Colorado class) for USN. That is actually a very plausable possibility. He was willing to get rid of four other capital ships - and his idea these should be the worst has merit - although the Kongo's might have been sacrificed instead.

That pretty much sums up the idea I had for the mod, a slightly different Washington Treaty. There would still be a Washington Treaty. However, it would be a modified treaty from the one that historically took place. The modified treaty would simply allow the Japanese and Allies to complete some of the BB programs they had already started while preserving the original 5:5:3 ratio.

As El Cid Again has painfully pointed out to me, the inclusion of more BBs would no doubt spell the end of most of the carrier conversions like Kaga, Akagi, Lexington and Saratoga and that the world economies of the 30's could not have supported such programs of extra BBs thrown in to the mix with as many CVs as were historically constructed or converted. I was hoping there would be some way to plausibly shoe-horn in a few extra BBs without penalizing the historical contingent of CVs. Unfortunately I have to agree with El Cid Again's position. Although I would like to throw in a few extras, most importantly I would like to keep things on a plausible level and I don't see how that could be done adding many more ships to the fragile world economy of the 30's without subtracting some of the popular participants in WW2.

Obviously the scenario will have to involve some sacrifices (eg. KB doesn't exist on Dec 7, 1941) or else I'll have to figure out a way to get those extra BBs some other way. I proposed that a few of the older BBs get scrapped such as Arkansas, New York and Texas. However that would also probably involve the Kongos on the IJN side. While Arkansas, Texas and New York played little role in the war, the Kongos of course were a different story.

If anyone has any ideas on how to re-write history just a little without departing into fantasy, please throw them into this thread. This might be a good place to come up with ideas to re-float the original conception of the mod.

Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

On a different note: Would there be any chance of doing a remake of a stock 1944 scenario under RHS, preferably a small one, as I think that would give a lot of people an "entry" into RHS which would showcase the vastly different ( and IMO improved) air model in RHS...

The original RHS plan included a scenario for each year of WWII -
and no one has before expressed interest in 1944. Theoretically this is possible - the problem being the total review of positions required in the location file (it would represent a great deal of work). But a number of features in the design permit updating of this sort based on an earlier
scenario - so it is a possibility.

While it is nice to hear someone likes the air model, be aware of three things:

1) We expect some code revisions to the air model to deal with air combat over 50 planes per side will improve ALL mods;

2) We expect some code revisions to the air model to deal with ammunition limits will improve ALL mods (and this might happen any time since the code exists and can just be uncommented or reincerted;

3) We are calibrating the RHS air model values - and these may be tweeked if indicated. In particular, there is a review of the situation with two engine fighters in particular, and with maneuverability in general (which is a related matter). It is likely that the RHS maneuverability formula will be modified if a way to do this is easily found. Further, if a more complicated way is found, it may be incorporated eventually - if the work required (mainly in data collection) is done.

(in reply to Nemo121)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The most important thing is to make 1000% sure that ALL LCU's you want to load is at the base where you're forming the TF. Otherwise they won't load, and you can be tearing your hair out trying to figure out why the hell the LCU looks like it's perfectly loaded but when you start the scenario, the TF is loading nothing but supplies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
I have a 1945 test bed for use with drop tanks which I used to run Japanese attacks on a US fleet based at Kure - which they assurredly do even under AI control.