Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

The PERFECT WAR Mod

 
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 >> The PERFECT WAR Mod Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The PERFECT WAR Mod - 7/30/2011 7:22:55 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		With all the experience that the Reluctant Admiral crew put in to create that Mod we had many ideas that were forced to be shelved due to a lack of compatability with Yamamoto's views, writings and plans.

The idea is not to continue fine-tuning RA but move onto a new project that FatR just dubbed tentatively "The Perfect War." I shall copy and move several of the Posts in the RA 3.0 Thread to bring people up to speed.

We've, so far, got FatR, myself, NY Giants, and Sulu Sea involved. A call for reliable volunteers would make a bunch of sense to me. In particular we are looking for an air art individual. Red Lancer did fine work with RA and I have emailed him without getting a response to this point.

This Mod will bring major changes to the Japanese air, ground, and fleet. The Allies would get a thorough retooling as well.

The key will be to find a 'vision' that would work well with whatever ideas we get put together.

I'll paste in some of the thoughts so far. PLEASE jump in and contribute! We want fresh and solid ideas for a Mod that is only just beginning...


_____________________________



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

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
Post #: 1
The PERFECT WAR Mod: Vision - 7/30/2011 7:24:13 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		From FatR:


As someone probably have mentioned, we thought about making an alt_naval mod before. Unfortunately, since them my issues with the alt_naval's concept had increased significantly. I can explain them in detail, but for now briefly:

1)The changes do not plausibly follow from the premise.
2)Assumed Japanese foresight extends to knowing the year when the war will begin.
3)Proposed surface forces not only suffer from (1), but have crippling weaknesses, which might have been not very relevant IRL, but which will be in AE.
4)The fleet develops in revolutionary jumps, skipping parts of the gradual evolution of designs, that took place IRL.
5)The issue of producing planes and pilots for the oversized carrier fleet which was noticed by the author himself.

I don't think the idea is completely unsalvageable, but it needs very large modifications.

I have a rather big conceptual proposal for the air side (which I'll outline as soon as I have the time), but I have a hard time coming up with a plausible concept of my own for the navy. Partially because I don't know this side of things as well. It is really hard to imagine the way to achieve a major improvement here without giving Japanese some economical breaks or greater foresight (I love Scen 70 as much as you, John, but I have to admit that it does both), particularly if changes aren't introduced from early thirties. The more I look at development of IJN, the more I see that their key fleet-building decisions were generally good or at least passable (at the time they were made). And without economical breaks they need not as much greater foresight, as outright seeing the future. If we want to not break away from reality too much, just to create a mod based on really good Japanese foresight (well, and Allied response), I think that we should go right to late 20s-early 30s and consctuction of their first generation of modern warships and what could have been done better then. I have a few ideas, but I want to read through Kaigun carefully to give them a reality check, and there are some other books I want to read before throwing ideas around. So, if you, by chance, have any big concepts you want to see in a mod, I'd love to hear about them.

Also, I think we should determine if we have anyone capable of helping with art (particularly air art, there are many existing shipsides for various Japanese ship designs already), before starting forming the concept.


_____________________________



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 #: 2
The PERFECT WAR Mod: Vision - 7/30/2011 7:28:14 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		The last couple of Posts:


(FatR) Stanislav:
"Perfect War" mod ? Allies should get a lot more love there as well, of course, if not if terms of reworking naval building programs and aircraft types, then production (aircraft numbers and ship dates of arrival + ships that were cancelled after the war's end, and most likely expansions for certain types). And initial preparation I think, if you are not opposed to the idea of a mod where Allies are practically expected to make a serious attempt of stopping the initial SRA offensive entirely, something that, IMO, is only viable in the stock and practically all of the mods so far if the Japanese player makes severe mistakes.


NY Giants (Michael):
You could use Port Stanley as a possible production base for Allied airframes. Put enough static devices there that it requires significant use of AKs to bring supplies there to keep some factories producing.

Most of the USA HI and LI should be damaged in the beginning and require most of the initial supply to be used to repair it. Their production should ramp up and not start with all that supply.


SuluSea (EJ):
Good idea Micheal, there is just too much supply in the U.S. at the wars start and early months and plenty of tonnage to move it, the allied player will never have to worry about an operation shoestring when it comes to supply. Damaged industry could reflect production converting from peace time to wartime industry.


_____________________________



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 #: 3
The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 7:37:05 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		We need to establish some parameters as to the conditions of the Mod:

1. Is it to be REALISTIC? Do we make decisions based on what the Japanese could have done regarding their economy and building ability?

2. How far back to we go? The RA Mod was based on the changes beginning in the late-30s and in 4th Circle. Do we back up to 3rd Circle (mid-30s) or 2nd Circle (early-30s)?

3. What about China and Manchuria? Are they in the same position or better or worse?


I have some ideas regarding the Kaigun that we could start with, however, the changes must reflect the vision of the Mod. What is the Alterative History?

YES: I am a teacher and we need overview before we start playing around with specifics. If we can all agree upon the framework then it will be a BLAST to do the details!


_____________________________



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 #: 4
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 7:40:15 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		Depends what you're after for aircraft.  I might be able to help out, but not sure I can provide enough time for everything you might need.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 5
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 7:46:36 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Thank You Sir. We do not know what we'll need but it is great to know we've got at least one volunteer!

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 6
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 8:23:51 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Michael and I are talking right now and here is an idea:

How about we start the deviation from history by failing the 1st London Naval Treaty conference? The Fleet Faction wins and the Treaty Faction loses. Japan withdraws from Naval Disarmament and prompts a new naval race between USA and Japan. This would be 1930-1931. The USA could not begin until Roosevelt takes control in 1933 with possibly different USA Program starting in 1934. The Japanese would effectively have a 3 year head start before an American response.


The Japanese would be freed up to starting the changes as of 2nd Circle...


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 7/30/2011 8:26:02 PM >

_____________________________



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 #: 7
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 8:35:58 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		1) I think JuanG's mods already cover "Pacific War on steroids" area fairly well. I think at least the appearance of adherence to reality () should be maintained. Improbable amounts of foresight are OK, massive increases in Japanese production capability or naval building plans implicitly assuming knowing when the war will begin are not.

2)2nd Circle.

3)China is a tricky question. After the occupation of Manchuria an all-out Sino-Japanese war was eventually inevitable. In the real life it happened despite the political leaders on the both sides not wanting it. However, with IJA being at least somewhat more controllable by the Emperor and, through him, the government, which is sort of necessary for any mod that assumes more rational Japanese resource management, it might begin later, giving Japan a bit more time to develop its industry before going on the war footing. As a general idea, reducing initial Japanese holding in China and slightly improving conditions of the Chinese forces might be considered.


Anyway, let's write down our general premises, before picking the point of divergence:

1)This is a "What if Japanese had the best plausibly possible foresight when building their Army and Navy?" mod. (The answer is: "But the outcome refused to be changed", and the Allies side will react appropriately to the increase of the observed Japanese threat.) Key policial decisions remains mostly untouched, so the naval treaties will last as long as they did, and the war will happen as it did.

2)Japanese industrial capabilities should not massively deviate from reality.

3)Continuing the tradition of RA, this scenario shouldn't be extremely front-loaded for Japanese. (This is a major reason why alt_naval's shipbuilding program will not make a good mod.) On the contrary, I want to try a scenario where the Allied nations are considerably less complacent and better prepared for a fight at the beginning.

4)Greater freedom and options for both sides should be desirable.

Any additions?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 8
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 8:41:30 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		I thought we're trying to give Japan better chances, not worse, John. In reality, it would have been beneficial for Japan to stick to the treaties for as long as possible. The outcome of unlimited naval arms race with US is predetermined. Worse still, early failure of treaties will make RN less crippled by them than it was. And early hypermilitarisation will cripple Japan's economy in the long term. We might postulate slightly better terms for Japan... but I'm completely unqualified to say how plausible that might be.

< Message edited by FatR -- 7/30/2011 8:46:22 PM >

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 9
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 8:51:03 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		The USA is still slow to respond to the Japanese withdrawl from the London Naval Treaty as John stated above and it isn't until an incident like the sinking of the Lusitania in late 39 or early 40 in the Atlantic Ocean spurs the Americans into action to rebuild their navy. The Cleveland Class hulls are used for CL and CVLs as stop gaps until the Essex Class CVs can get in production.

Allied production will need to be somewhat model to give some flexibility (the potential for more P-40E in 42 would be nice).

Have a Class of American subs with the S-Boat torpedoes. Just having a few fleet subs with good torpedoes would be nice.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 10
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 8:51:42 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Just throwing ideas out...

You actually hit the nail on the head with that rejoinder. I LIKE the idea of the Treaties holding until 1935 and then do a new 3rd and 4th Circle Plan. If we work where the Japanese get what they WANTED, ie 70% and not 60% then THAT might be an interesting departure.

Think if they got 70% (5:5:3.5) at Washington in 1921-1922 and then 70% for their CAs and CLs in 1930! We could add some ships and bring in some historical designs for little change in the actual history. We could then look to a 'perfect' 3rd and 4th Circle. How does that sound?


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 7/30/2011 8:56:29 PM >

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 11
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 9:58:05 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Allied production will need to be somewhat model to give some flexibility (the potential for more P-40E in 42 would be nice).



An idea might be to distinguish Allied production that was available but not sent to the Pacific (f.e the thousands of aircraft delivered to the USSR) and production that 'might have been' (?). You could handle the first by deactivated factories that can be activated for a certain PP cost per month (an appropriate size LCU at the factory base serving as a trigger) and the second by the ship-supplies-to-the-Falklands method. That way, if you're in a siege-of-Karachi situation and need 100 P-39s yesterday, you can have them...it'll just cost you an infantry division for a month.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 12
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 10:01:53 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Is it technically possible to assign PP costs to activating factories through the editor?

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 13
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 10:07:43 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline 		Don't think so; it'd have to be an HR situation with appropriately-sized LCUs sitting at the factory base, which isn't perfect although people seem to manage some impenetrable things - if you wanted a layer of redundancy you could create visible sub-models, like say a "P-40E*".

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 14
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 10:44:02 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline 		Interesting stuff as usual guys.  I am no expert in this area just throwing something out from memory and it could be wrong, so take it with a grain of salt.  US could update it's BB fleet earlier than it did due to the changes in the IJN fleet.  I don't know what the updates that were planned in the 30's were but that could be an option.  Maybe some of the ships that never made it in due to money issues and congress could make it in or start being produced. 

Yes a few more planes for the allies side would be nice either as replacements or something.  Training squadrons would also be nice for the allies. 

Maybe the US finds out earlier that it's torp's don't work. 

Just my two cents guys  good luck

doc

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 15
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 11:02:34 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		The possibility of allowing some player input into increasing Allied air production is interesting, but I'm not sure of any of the proposed ways is supposed to work from technical standpoint. For another example, I think aircraft factories do not need supply in the base to produce stuff. Or the idea is to make a base such a supply blackhole, that the extra aircraft factories won't repair, unless a lot of supply is constantly hauled in?

As about treaties, John, as I said, I don't know if it was actually possible for Japanese to get what they wanted by better diplomacy, but if yes, using this as the point of divergence has merit. Close Army/Navy cooperation in producing aircraft and weapon systems, which I want to postulate as the way to solve the problem of overloaded design teams is, in all likelyhood, far more improbable, I afraid...

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 16
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/30/2011 11:43:20 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Zero, or very few Cv's for both sides.

More like a WPO with their hulls reallocated to BC & CL etc production.




_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 17
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/31/2011 12:47:05 AM   
House Stark

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/30/2011
Status: offline 		First of all, I have to say that as a fan of Alt Naval mods I'll definitely be watching this thread. If I had any relevant skills, I'd offer to contribute more than ideas.

FatR, you mentioned that Japan probably should not receive much of an increase in industry. Is this due to personal/gameplay reasons or because it seems logically impossible? If Japan is preparing for a possible war in the early 1930s that would give plenty of time for a more organized and competent Japan to develop more industry in the Home Islands, Manchuria, or Korea. Maybe Japanese leaders realize during the invasion of China that alienating the Chinese people would be counterproductive, and Japanese holdings in China are more developed. It seems that if wanted, there are a number of ways to squeeze more heavy industry out of Japan. After all, this is a game, and an alternate history, so if you have an Air or Naval OOB that would be fun and interesting but requires a little more industry...assume the best. Maybe even say that after the Russo-Japanese War Japan adopted a "wooden wall" type mentality focusing on the navy at the expense of the army. If you assume less wanton brutality in China then maybe more Chinese divisions could be fighting for Japan to make up the balance. Just my wall of text-sized two cents.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 18
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/31/2011 1:16:23 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Good thinking and commentary as always.

House Stark--Did you read the Fire and Ice books prior to the series coming out on TV? I've been a twisted fan of Martin's from the first book on. Reading Dance with Dragons right now and having a GREAT time!

Would anyone have issues if I go through Washington and London Treaties for a proposal on Japanese ships build with slight additions? My Thesis for my Masters in History was on the Treaty Period. Would love to put that $25,000 investment back into use. These would not be huge additions--probably just a few ships--but it is interesting to ponder.

FatR: Concur that the Kaigun's true divergence begins with Circle Two.

As to other thoughts/ideas:
A. We've laid the ground work in RA for greater Army-Navy cooperation. Would like to work that and expand on it.
B. Stark's opinion above about a more tolerant and less brutal army in China makes for an interesting idea perhaps.
C. Adding industry in Manchuria is another RA idea we've done. Could that be expanded even more?
D. Docup and Michael's ideas on the US counter and some industrial flexibility make sense to me. I think the Allied side must be allowed to have fun as well.


_____________________________



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 #: 19
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/31/2011 1:29:59 AM   
House Stark

 

Posts: 184
Joined: 4/30/2011
Status: offline 		@John 3rd-Yeah, I've been a fan of ASOIAF for five years or so. Definitely some of the best fiction I've ever read.

On the Washington Naval Treaty, sounds pretty good. Also I guess if you wanted you could maybe play around with the tonnages a bit as well as the ratios depending on what you're trying to achieve. I guess the only historical thing to consider would be that the Japanese would be less antagonistic towards the Americans if they got treated better in the naval treaties, and the Americans less antagonistic towards the Japanese if China was treated better. Maybe increased British/Dutch expansion in the DEI/Southeast Asia/Hong Kong area, or a more major and threatening US disposition in the Philippines would be required to justify the diplomatic side of the ramp up to war.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 20
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/31/2011 4:01:50 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		It is quite good and always remember to NEVER get bonded to any character in his books...

Have some research to do with Kaigun, my old Thesis notes, as well as dusting off the Thesis itself.



_____________________________



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 #: 21
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/31/2011 6:56:30 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Been doing some reading and here are a couple of initial thoughts. Please forgive the history lesson within the proposals.

1. If the Japanese had fought for and won the argument at the Washington Conference for a 5:5:3.5 instead of the 5:5:3, the Japanese would gain three new capital ships (some combination of Nagato BB and Amagi BC) and a net gain of 13,500T in CV building. The British and Americans were allotted 135,000T (two major conversions impacted the Americans with Lexington/Saratoga while the Japanese gain Amagi/Akagi) and the Japanese historically ended up with 81,000 in CV building. If we got along the 70% then that number jumps to 94,500T. Short answer would be another CV similar to the Ryujo or Soryu.

2. Following the same rationale, after the failed Geneva Naval Conference of 1928, finds us at the London Conference in 1930. Here the argument broke against Japan by a united front of Great Britain and the USA. The definitions of CA (8" and 10,000T) and CL (6" and 6,000T) were settled upon by the US and GB in the late-20s. Japan comes up short at the Conference and, due to this, the Treaty faction of the Fleet gets canned. The Fleet faction then proceeds with the full intention of leaving the Washington Conference System in 1935 when they purposefully scuttle the 2nd London Conference. If they had gotten what they wanted, the Japanese would have gained roughly 2 CA and 4 CL in allowed building.

Summary:
If we buy into this thinking then there is no change to the US and GB Fleets PRIOR to 1936 planning while the Japanese would gain 3 Capital Ships, a CV, 2 CA, and 4 CL. There would also be more DDs but I do not yet have specific numbers there yet.

The logical starting point for major changes would then be the 3rd Circle Plan (Yamato/Musashi and Shokaku/Zuikaku) leading into the 4th Circle we've done so much with in RA.

I hope the above makes sense...






_____________________________



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 #: 22
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: What is the Vision? - 7/31/2011 9:18:55 AM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		A few possibilities for the Brits, I'm not too aware of the IJN possibilities, some more likely than others but none require a huge stretch of the imagination:

The Short Stirling does not go into production, instead Short's build more Sunderlands for coastal command allowing more to go overseas as well.

The Admiralty recognises that they will need more convoy escorts, as a result:
The early Black Swans are built in two batches of four in 1937 and five 1939. Realising that the Black Swans are too expensive for mass production and the Admiralty orders several Flower Class corvettes. It's realised that these are too slow and uncomfortable at sea after the first few are built. The Admiralty orders the first River Class frigates in 1940.
Would mean the RAN get their Rivers slightly earlier. The RN has more escorts available in the Indian Ocean.

The cancelled two County Class cruisers are still cancelled, instead their place is taken by two more York/Exeter cruisers (HMS Ely/Lincoln/Canterbury/Durham/Salisbury). HMS London does not have her big refit/rebuild as the money isn't there now.

The Royal Navy regains control of the Fleet Air Arm several years earlier, potentially making slightly less crappy planes available earlier

The breakdown/non-occurance of the naval treaties means that the KGV class are redesigned to mount 16" guns.

The RN learns the lessons that Norway and Dunkirk taught them about airpower far quicker, and production of the 40mm bofors gun is increased making more available to ships. Most will be fitted to escort ships operating along the East Coast convoys of the UK and any ships based in the Med.

< Message edited by Dixie -- 7/31/2011 9:25:48 AM >

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 23
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 7/31/2011 2:41:13 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Drop the KGV and build Lions instead.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 24
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 7/31/2011 3:22:15 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		The wavelength I am on--not sure about Stanislav--is that the Treaties don't breakdown but Japan gets a slightly better deal within the Treaties. Have started pouring over Kaigun again for the plans, debates, and options during this period of time.

I've been crunching the numbers when it comes to Capital Ships and the more realistic addition of two BB or BC seems to fit the number better. The Japanese delegation wangled the completion of Mutsu in exchange for two American Colorados and what would later become the Nelson's for Britain.

Does anyone know the building state of the Japanese BB and BC at the time of Washington? My impression is, beyond Mutsu, the 8-8 Ships still had a ways to go. Akagi and Amagi appear to be next up for completion. Kaga's hull was complete but I'm not sure past that.

The New 'Treaty' Fleet Ideas:
1. New Capital Ships: add Kaga and Tosa as BB or BCs Akagi/Amagi
2. Bring in CarDiv1 with the BC hulls Takao and Atago
3. Add a pair of Heavy Cruisers
4. Build a set of 4 CL that are either a further improvement of the Sendai/Naka-Class or something new.




_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 25
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 7/31/2011 4:42:14 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline 		From the research I have done, you also have the Kii Class and No 13 class that were planned but cancelled due to the Washington Treaty.

Also there would possibly have been a 2nd Improved Hosho (Ryujo) and possibly a second. These were simply listed as 10,000 aviation ships.

Part of the 8-8 plan was to retire the Kongo class with the newer BC types. Also, Fuso, Yamashiro, Ise and Hyuga might have been retired as well.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 26
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 7/31/2011 4:51:33 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Oookay, this thread is groving fast. I'll try to give my thoughts as I have the time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark
FatR, you mentioned that Japan probably should not receive much of an increase in industry. Is this due to personal/gameplay reasons or because it seems logically impossible? If Japan is preparing for a possible war in the early 1930s that would give plenty of time for a more organized and competent Japan to develop more industry in the Home Islands, Manchuria, or Korea.

Logically improbable. The perspective of entering a world war can't be predicted more than 1-1,5 years in advance, and that's in the best case (IRL Japanese began immediate preparations for the Pacific War in secod half of 1940). Constant overmilitarization will ruin the economy in the long term. And jumping over one's head economically in mere 10 years, while not strictly impossible, requires way too many assumptions in areas about which none of us are knowledgeable. I'd prefer not to assume increases in production capabilities, unless they directly result from relatively plausible changes in military production planning or events, like the invasion of China happening later than IRL.

quote:

ORIGINAL: House Stark
Maybe Japanese leaders realize during the invasion of China that alienating the Chinese people would be counterproductive, and Japanese holdings in China are more developed.

More consistent and less brutal occupation policies are a viable proposal, as IRL they were more dependent on good or ill will of local Japanese commanders and political abilities of local collaborationists, than on any overarching vision. But this won't change the situation in China radically. Japanese didn't have resources to invest in the rest of China as they did in Manchukuo, and the combination of anti-Japanese sentiments in China with Japanese greed provided too much fuel for the conflict. Scen 2 has pro-Japanese local militias appearing in Malaya and DEI, plus, IIRC, more puppet Chinese troops, I don't think that anything more could have been achieved reasonably.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd C. Adding industry in Manchuria is another RA idea we've done. Could that be expanded even more?

Most of the default industry in Manchuria already was built or reconstructed during the Japanese occupation... No, I don't think there is much potential. Maybe some small improvements (incuding local armament production for Manchukuo and later puppet Chinese troops, giving them slightly better armament) due to the all-out war in China starting, say, one year later and the region getting more developed.

About the political circustances of the war's beginning, the immediate cause of the escalation that led to war was Japanese encroachment on French and Dutch colonial territories, that were left seemingly defenseless after their homelands were overran by Germany. I don't think this should or would change. I do think that we can posit more vigorous response by Britain and US once it becomes clear that Japan is not likely to back down. In reality, IIRC, the Allies achieved theoretical superiority in the number of warships by as early as March of 1942 (but of course their fleets were divided between two oceans and two commands). The possiblity of greater buildup before the war clearly was there. Lack of united planning and command before the war still should impair the Allied disposition.

John, I'll post thoughts about your naval ideas a bit later, if you don't mind.


< Message edited by FatR -- 7/31/2011 4:52:06 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 27
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 7/31/2011 8:56:35 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Thanks Stanislav.

I've thought about better reflected preparation for the DEI and got to thinking about wouldn't it be interesting to move an American BatDiv over there to cooperate with the British? What moving the R-Class Brit BBs to Singapore? Certainly could add some spice to the mix.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 28
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 7/31/2011 9:21:07 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		So, on fleet, only a few thougts, at the moment...

Just in case: vision of carriers as the fleet's main strike force cannot arise before 1937. Even then it requires a huge leap of faith, assuming that the new generation of carrier planes existing only in specifications and on drawing boards at that moment, will be able to achieve the characteristics desired from it AND that these characteristics will overcome improvements in AA defence.

I think we need an overarching and different vision to guide changes to the fleet, and to achieve that the concept of the Decisive Battle (tm) as it existed in Japanese admirals' mind need to be exorcised somehow. I propose somewhat different evaluation of the Russo-Japanese war's lessons. The task faced by Japanese then was not dissimilar from the strategic conundrum of the Pacific War, but their post-war thinking concentrated overtly concentrated on the flashy success at Tsushima, while not paying enough attention to the fact that Tsushima was only the endspiel of the long and narowly won game, by which Japan had an advantage of such magnitude, that not only victory was almost predetermined, a tactical draw was a strategic victory for the Japanese as well, as the only remaining Russian port in the theatre had insufficient repair facilities to handle seriously damaged battleships.

So, how about postulating that after WW I and the first naval limitations, when it became obvious that any possible naval war will be a war against an opponent with both numerically superior (but not entirely concentrated in the Pacfic) fleet at the beginning AND greater ability to reinforce it, lessons of the Russo-Japanese war were reevaluated more carefully? For example (that's just an couple of ideas):

1)The war is explicitly not expected to be over after the first major defeat of the enemy fleet (while the fleet's leadership didn't honestly believed in a brief war by 1941, this idea negatively impacted Japanese operational thinking). It is assumed that the enemy will try a rematch using a combination of parts of its fleet that initially weren't assigned to the Pacific, old ships, and newly built ships, and will not seek peace until IJN's superiority is proven repeatedly. Therefore the war is expected to last no less than 1.5-2 years. This should impact approach to many areas, from sealanes protection to personnel preservation.
2)Expanding on (1), it is expected than in the opening phase of the war Japan will seize the territories that must be held or used as bargaining chips for peace, and after that an extended phase of active defense, including defense against enemy attempts to interdict Japanese communications, will follow. Attrition of the enemy fleet is expected to take place over months, not days immediately before the main engagement (so sub operations aren't tied to the operations of the surface forces as closely, for example).
3)The idea of delivering a crippling opening blow to the enemy fleet in the base is mulled over even more than it was. So when carrier aircraft, potentially capable of this, appear (see above, not before 1937), the idea of a dedicated carrier striking force is formulated faster than IRL.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 29
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod - 7/31/2011 10:14:10 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		That is some solid thinking. Let me mull it over some before responding.

Anybody else got thoughts or reactions to what we've been chatting about?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
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 >> The PERFECT WAR Mod 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

2.797