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: 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 >> The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/12/2011 11:36:21 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		The discussion over the Perfect War Mod creation has been fantastic with a deal deal of players jumping in with exciting and interesting ideas. Since we have been, by necessity, trying to figure out the Japanese side first, many people have outstanding ideas for the Allied side that could be all-new, dependent on Japanese moves, or are simply highly creative and deserve to be read and discussed This Thread now handles this side of the Mod.

Please feel free to throw in your ideas!

If anyone thinks there is something excellent from the other thread, please get it into here so we have everything here.

ENJOY!


_____________________________



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

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/
Post #: 1
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/12/2011 11:57:53 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		A less stupid Omaha class, with turreted guns instead of casemates.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 2
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 12:00:10 AM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline 		More options for CVL conversion for Cleveland Class CL's would be nice

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 3
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 12:01:11 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		What about STARTING some of them/all of them as a CLAA?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 4
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 12:01:57 AM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: vettim89

More options for CVL conversion for Cleveland Class CL's would be nice


We did that with RA and I liked it. Excellent and easy-to fix thought.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 5
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 3:04:19 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		We need to have two trains of thought.

1) what changes to ships and planes should we look at?

2) what would change in the pacific as far as the western powers are concerned as Japan ramps up? This one might be harder as politics and economics are involved.

< Message edited by oldman45 -- 8/13/2011 5:40:20 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 6
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 3:47:22 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		There are a number of questions to be considered.
Question 1.  What are the condition and dates on any existing Naval Treaties?

Is the WNT in effect?  Is the tonnage limitation the same for BB?  for CV?
What is the end date for the WNT, if it is in effect?
What are the restrictions for the WNT in numbers of ships, or max size for each category?
Is there a modification with the London Treaty of 1930?
Did the RN request at 14" Naval Gun limitation on capital ship replacement construction?
Do Treaty limitations on CA, CL, DD expire 1936, or at withdrawal of any participant?

Question 2.  What are the intelligence capacities of the US?
Did Stimson get appointed as SecState, and shut down Yardley's codebreakers?
Did Hoover get elected President and starve the Navy?
Did intelligence reveal the plans of the IJN to withdraw from the WNT limitations?
Did intelligence reveal the scope of the building plans for the IJN?
Did the Depression strike as deeply, and if so, did Roosevelt decided to spend more funds in Naval Construction/Reconstruction?


For Example:

WNT tonnage BB limitations are 600,000 tons for RN and USN, 390,000 for IJN, and 217,500 for France and Italy.
WNT restrictions on size of BB = 40,000 tons.
WNT restriction on size of main battery - 16"
WNT tonnage CV limitations are 170,000 tons for RN and USN, 111,000 for IJN, 75,000 for France and Italy.
WNT max size on CV rebuilds from ship on the ways 33,600 tons.
WNT max size on CV built keel up - 26,000 tons.
Naval BB numbers on a 5-5-3.5-1.75-1.75 ratio.
Max number of BBs - USN & RN 20, IJN 14, France and Italy 7

Just a few ideas...





_____________________________

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 7
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 5:37:11 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Washington and London goes 5:5:3.5 instead of 5:5:3.

Manchuria is taken and more heavily colonized/developed.

The China War occurs but slightly later so the Japanese are not nearly so far advanced into the interior.

We were not messing with any of the particulars of ships size, gun size, etc...

For people wanting to jump in make sure you read the other thread so you know the thoughts going on there. We will settle the Japanese side and then move to the Allied perspective. Big ideas tossed out so far include some form of on-map production ability for the Allies (several proposals there), on-map pilot training, differing possibilities for British, American, and Philippino deployments. There are LOTS more I hope people bring over from the other Thread. It is a bunch of information!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 8
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 5:41:45 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		Lets do ships first and when Japan is settled, then we can work out the politics and economics on the Western powers.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 9
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 5:44:20 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		As far as ships, the simple ones are the conversions in RA and talked about here. The Cleveland conversions, the Omaha AA conversions, the AV to CVE conversion and there is one other that creates 2 CVE's.



_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 10
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 7:27:24 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline 		Theres no treaty in 35 so all bets are off after that.  I don't think that the US would of went hog wild in this time but would of tried to keep the edge on the Japanese. 

I think the US still had some room in the early 30s to build some crusiers and DDs.  So why not build them.  Later they can be converted to DEs, APDs etc.

Another problem to look at is slip space for the American ships.  What could of been built, converted etc.

If the Japanese left the treaty in 35, what would the Allies do?  Also what would the people let the gov do. 

My thoughts
Modernization of the big 5 could have went thru.  Upon seeing some money come into workers hands the people might of wanted more naval and army projects to create more jobs and put money in their pockets.  I don't think the isolationist would of liked the US building alot of ships, planes, and troops.  But modernizing the military and small growth might of been accepted once money and jobs showed up. 

Building the 6 BCs.  When are the laid down and of what desgin type?  Could say that the North Carolina class BB's arrive a little earlier due to Japanese leaving the treaty and building more BBs.  Also this period of time (from what little I have read) is monkey see monkey do.  If Japan started to build more cruisers, destroyers, so would the US. 

I don't think you'd see more US carriers during the early to late 30s unless the US found out that the Japanese were building them.  I like the conversion options for CVLs and CVEs that has been purposed already.  I think the US would of been a little slow on the draw to build up alot of capital ships and carriers and would of refitted older ones and could of built more smaller warships ie CLAAs (esp if Japan started to build them), CLs, DDs, DEs etc.  Something that could assist the US is selling off some of her older ships to smaller countries.  This would help her recoup money and open up treaty tonnage.  This could also go with AC.  Let PI have some more AC or even better ones. 

I do like the thought of adding fortification to bases around the western Pacific.  I think that the PI troops might of received some better weapons ie rifles, arty, etc.  I don't know if they would of recieved more US troops.  But if the US would of started ramping up its industrial might earlier the Grand could of been distrubed to more units earlier.  Allowing the 03s to go to PI forces along with some other weapons.  Maybe a few regiments or smaller units added.  But not many I don't think the isolationist would of liked it.  In 39 or 40 maybe then the US would start to bring in more troops and bring its understrenght units up to strength. 

Training squadrons have already been addressed.  Aircraft arrive earlier by a short pd maybe a higher replacement rate.  I do like the idea of being able to increase the AC numbers by controling or suppling factories.

just my thoughts

doc

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 11
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 11:18:10 AM   
Hotschi


Posts: 548
Joined: 1/18/2010
From: Austria
Status: offline 		Regarding ship building during the war;

.) Don't build all 6 of the Guam-Class large cruisers, just add one, CB Hawaii - IRL the US realized they weren't badly needed and shifted priority elsewhere, so why not stick with it.

.) No Montana-class BB's, since the design was so large it would have to be built in large drydocks - IRL cancelling this class made the building of the Midway-Class CV's possible

.) Maybe only add BB Illinois to the Iowa-class BB's.

.) Carriers - building of the Essex-class carriers, especially of the late war ones, could be accelerated which would result in the possible addition of 5 to 6 more ships (CV-32, 34, 35, 37, 45 and 47)

.) Add CVB-42 of the Midway-class - CVB-41 Midway was commissioned Sep 10 1945, CVB-42 on Oct 27 1945.

Also the numerous cancellations of submarines, destroyers and some cruisers could be reconsidered. In stock AE, the sudden stop of new ships commissioned late war is a bit odd when one plays a campaign well into 1946 - if the war would have lasted that long, I doubt that most or all ships in the pipeline (whether planned or in building) would have been cancelled.

Regarding planes, I don't have much ideas, except upgrading the fighter-groups on the CVE's to F6F-5 once the F8F-1 appears. I would also like a carrier capable version of the F7F on Midway-class carriers.

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 12
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 1:08:53 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline 		A lot depends on what kind of "improvements" are made on the Japanese side. The least "wild hair" would be for the Japs to simplify their design specs to build more ships in general. Say they stopped building the "Special-type DD's" in 1930 and went to a more "Volkswagen" design philosophy. Four main battery guns, 8 tubes without re-loads, better AAA and ASW outfits. But as class succeeds class (like the Volkswagen Beetle) continual improvements are made to the capabilities of the design. Better DP mountings and loading gear and fire direction for the main guns, improved boilers, turbines, and radius of action, K and Y gun DC projectors, etc. Outwardly the same, but much improved internally.

This is exactly the kind of improvements (coupled with continued lying about displacements) that WOULDN'T trigger Western response. Historically the IJN kept trying to "push the envelope" in warship design. This not only worried other naval powers, it resulted in very "out of balance" and "delicate" vessels, most of which had to be re-built. What if instead they had gone with a more balanced CA design from the start (like the British)? Instead of trying to get 35 knots, settle for 32. 8 main battery guns with decent secondary DP's, fewer TT's, an original armour belt of 3" on a 2" wooden backing (which could be swapped out later for a 5" belt once the rest of the world stopped paying close attention. They could minimize the displacement of the original designs (allowing more to be built), but the design would allow for many improvements as the teech became available. And since the ships wouldn't have been designed to "impossible" specs, they would be more reliable and balanced. One of the reasons KB didn't use it's heavy support vessels for close in AAA protection (like the US did) was that they were lousy AAA platforms. A more balanced design to begin with could have solved this problem---and not gotten the West "up in arms" the way the "super ship" designs (which weren't very super to begin with) did.

Before you can discuss "Western response", you need to determine what they are responding to...


(in reply to Hotschi)
Post #: 13
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 2:02:46 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		And also remember that they're not ONLY responding to the Japs.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 14
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 2:04:24 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		If ya want, can get ya'll a much more detailed Dutch OOB and deployment from the DEI scenario we made for ourselves. Has everything (almost) that Jo van der Pluym and Harald Velemans have been mentioning, too.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 15
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 2:21:06 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

ORIGINAL: Terminus

And also remember that they're not ONLY responding to the Japs.



True.., the French were responding primarily to the Italians from 1922 on. And the Brits had to start taking Germany into account by the mid-30's. But the British "Colony Class" CL's and the US Brooklyn's were all in response to Japanese initiatives. What I meant was if the Japanese hadn't drawn so much attention to their program of "super" ships, the West might have ignored it far longer.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 16
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 2:44:51 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Reposting a few interesting Allied-related propositions from the first thread (not all of them are directly applicable to the current visions of the mod, of course):

quote:

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.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Drop the KGV and build Lions instead.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody

Gents,

I'm a little late to this party, but if you're looking for balance ideas for the Allies, here are some:

1. Build up Guam and Wake a bit better, as budgets to build the bases were originally planned to be higher but got cut.
2. Put a few more base forces and slightly improve AF and/or port levels on the path from Hawaii to Australia, representing better anticipation of hostilities.
3. F4U Corsair doesn't have so many problems in the prototype stage. Move up production of all models by X months (say 4).
4. Like the idea of having the option to use PPs to add aircraft factories.
5. Also like the idea of requiring a ramp up in Stateside factories.
6. Add some training squadrons at start, especially USN.

Cheers,
CC



< Message edited by FatR -- 8/13/2011 2:46:25 PM >

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 17
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 3:24:29 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

A lot depends on what kind of "improvements" are made on the Japanese side. The least "wild hair" would be for the Japs to simplify their design specs to build more ships in general. Say they stopped building the "Special-type DD's" in 1930 and went to a more "Volkswagen" design philosophy.

Never. That basically requires Japan dropping the idea of ever actually contesting naval power of either US or GB in 1920s. (If the idea is on the table at all, Japan has to face reality of facinng a numerically superior enemy fleet, because the treaties, which persist as long as they did IRL in this alternative, ensure that, never mind actual difference in the economical power; the only plausible way to beat superior numbers is superior quality; by the time the treaties break down, over half of pre-war modern DD construction is already completed, so why anyone would want to downgrade from a tried and true design at that point?). The same applies to design of bigger Japanese warships, except arguably carriers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1What if instead they had gone with a more balanced CA design from the start (like the British)?

In AE, Japanese heavy cruisers generally mop the floor with equal numbers of British ones. This is not accidental.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1One of the reasons KB didn't use it's heavy support vessels for close in AAA protection (like the US did) was that they were lousy AAA platforms.

Japanese didn't notice that, however. Or at least I don't remember Lacroix/Wells reporting if they did. They stopped doing that in 1942, because there simply weren't enough AA guns available to make capital ships sufficiently threatening, and by time there were enough AA guns in 1944-45, American air superiority became, so overwhelming that any sort of AAA fire was guaranteed to be insufficient.

EDIT: Although, looking at changes in Japanese orders during the war, in 1944 they did place escorts (although primarily DDs, for lack of other ships available for this fuction) much closer, than was usual in 1942 battles.

That said, this belongs in the other thread. I do have some ideas on reduction in DDs' size there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1Before you can discuss "Western response", you need to determine what they are responding to...

Nothing seriously changes until late 1939 in the earliest, when two extra CVs, built in place of shadow fleet ships, enter the service. As by this time the American naval buildup is already aimed at completely outproducing everyone else anyway... don't see how this can "alert" anyone more. Its acceleration, particualrly during the war, is not impossible of course





< Message edited by FatR -- 8/13/2011 5:01:22 PM >

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 18
The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 3:48:37 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Just Posted on the Japanese Side:


You've done a bunch of Postings this morning Stanislav! As I have been perusing the records of the Thread here are the big dates/events we've chosen to incorporate into our timeline:

A. 1904-1906 Russo-Japanese War---The Imperial Fleet realizes how near of a thing the war was. The real lessons taken from the experience is that any war will be longer (1.5-2 years), be attritional, and require different planning.

B. World War One: Several officers who serve with the ASW Detachment in the Med realize that Japan MUST prepare for some sort of commerce war if she goes to war against a major power. This small faction agitates for better ASW Research, resources, and vessels. They also advocate for a Coastal Command HQ to coordinate a national response when needed.

C. Washington Treaty allows for the Japanese to build-up to 3.5 instead of 3.0.

D. London Treaty does the same thing in 1930.

E. Manchuria is invaded but the Japanese Army is reigned in and the occupation is much more peaceful. A concerted Japanese economic investment takes place here and in Korea.

F. The Army Mutiny, spoken of on the previous page, is RUTHLESSLY put down and the middle grade of the Army Officers are forced to sit back instead of assassinate at will. A much stronger Privy Council takes hold that prepares for war as well as forces the Army and Navy to somewhat better cooperate.

G. In 1939 open war breaks out in China as the Chinese Warlords will no longer be cowed. The army deploys into the region and massed fighting takes place. Once again, the progressive elements of the Japanese Army work to make the 'peace' in China much more passive. There is no Nanking...

H. As war breaks out in Europe a large set of 'observers' travel to the region and absorb 'lessons' from what they see. For the Army and Navy this means: AIRPOWER. The ASW faction sees its fears realized with the German SS success against British Commerce. The Army...well...I am not really sure what they would see...

I. In 1940 the Japanese sense opportunity and throw themselves in with Germany and Italy.

The die is cast...

Did I miss anything? Thoughts?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 19
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 5:26:04 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

E. Manchuria is invaded but the Japanese Army is reigned in and the occupation is much more peaceful. A concerted Japanese economic investment takes place here and in Korea.

F. The Army Mutiny, spoken of on the previous page, is RUTHLESSLY put down and the middle grade of the Army Officers are forced to sit back instead of assassinate at will. A much stronger Privy Council takes hold that prepares for war as well as forces the Army and Navy to somewhat better cooperate.

G. In 1939 open war breaks out in China as the Chinese Warlords will no longer be cowed. The army deploys into the region and massed fighting takes place. Once again, the progressive elements of the Japanese Army work to make the 'peace' in China much more passive. There is no Nanking...


I don't follow the logic here. If a more under-control Japanese army limited its conquest to Manchuria, there is no "Marco Polo Bridge" incident to trigger open warfare in China. I infer from your scenario that previously "cowed" Chinese warlords become "uncowed" and decide to initiate war with Japan. Who are these guys? No warlord would start a war against Japan by himself. Historically, Chiang Kai-Shek tried to ignore the Japanese ("a disease of the skin") for as long as possible so he could focus his efforts on driving out the communists ("a disease of the heart") and subduing independent warlords to the authority of the KMT. He only changed to a policy of open warfare when the Japanese conquest of Beijing made it impossible for him to ignore them.

According to your parameters methinks a more plausible (and interesting!) scenario is that the Japanese control Manchuria and Korea, as you describe, but the rest of China is controlled by the Chinese, and Chiang Kai-Shek has 20 high-quality German-trained divisions at the heart of his army. IRL, only 8 of these divisions had been trained before fighting broke out in 1937 -- and they were destroyed in the fighting around Shanghai, but it took the Japanese over three months to crush them.

. . . just a thought.



_____________________________

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 John 3rd)
Post #: 20
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 6:11:53 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Pretty fun idea Sir!

This is the first attempt I have made to create a timeline based on stuff we've been talking about. Can you expound on your thoughts some more?

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 21
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 7:26:55 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
According to your parameters methinks a more plausible (and interesting!) scenario is that the Japanese control Manchuria and Korea, as you describe, but the rest of China is controlled by the Chinese, and Chiang Kai-Shek has 20 high-quality German-trained divisions at the heart of his army. IRL, only 8 of these divisions had been trained before fighting broke out in 1937 -- and they were destroyed in the fighting around Shanghai, but it took the Japanese over three months to crush them.

. . . just a thought.

Not sure that would work in terms of the game parameters, Joel. Having Japan do invasion and amphib ops against China might break the shipping and troop availability model. Think Japan needs a foothold on the coastal areas of China before opening day. This gives them the shipyards and factories they need to keep the Econ model from breaking down, but also forces them to use that China Expeditionary Army for actual ops, rather than a cheap source of reinforcements.

The IJ Army coulda been slapped hard, but never totally suppressed. And Hakku Ichiu was endemic in the culture. And Japan really, really, really thought it had certain rights in China.

Maybe the 'Marco Polo Bridge' thing happened somewhere else or a bit later (put a pressure cooker on med and it will still explode after a longer time). Maybe they didn't whack Zhang Tso-Lin when they did, but poisoned the swine a year or two later, after Chiang Kai-shek got beligerent in Beijing and he did nothing. And then, for lack of anything better to do, they went after Peanut. So there's Beijing, and it's entirely plausible for Japan to go after the industrialized coast, even down to Canton.

Heck, that would be the political sharpie in the butt that would tick off the US China lobby and get things moving. People tend to learn how to live with slowly rising levels of crap. Today ain't that much worse from yesterday, so ... Ok, then rather than the slowly rising ramp of tension, Japan gets a longer time frame in which to develop infrastructure a bit more. Then, when the fewmets finally do hit the windmill, it has the same "prompt" impact on the West's bleeding heart's as Nanking.

Just trying to find a plausible scenario where Japan starts in roughly the same circumstances, but has a hiatus in which to develop industry and discover efficiencies.

Love to hear more from you on this as well. You can always find enough corn for a side dish in a big enough pile of Cavalry horse manure

[ed] redleg devil made me say that. Garry Owen, bro.

< Message edited by JWE -- 8/13/2011 7:29:45 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 22
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 9:05:04 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Of course, Mr. Allison could have been KILLED, rather than just slapped. That'd frost over relations for a bit.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 23
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 9:25:35 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		Something else to think about, if China is too quite it will be harder for Congress to be convinced to build more ships.

_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 24
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 9:28:22 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline 		I know your prob tired of hearing my thoughts and questions.

A quote comes to mind now.  "This is your BBQ, and it sure tastes good"

A thought.  If there wasn't a nasty China would the AVG have been formed?

Questions

If you build the Alaska class CB, how would you justify building it with the tonnage aloud by the treatys.  If you do build it build atleast 2 of them.  One would just become lonely without a sistership.

I know you don't like the idea of modernizing the Big Five.  May I ask why.  I don't have the knowledge of you guys and want to know to expand my knowledge base.

The conversions to the CLAA (Clemson Class I think).  What AA guns are you thinking of putting on it.  I think I heard on this forum that there was a shortage of 5 in DP guns before the war. 

So did the Japanese dropout of the last treaty or did they go thru with it, in this mod, I'm lost on that one.

doc

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 25
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/13/2011 10:30:27 PM   
bigred


Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

C. Washington Treaty allows for the Japanese to build-up to 3.5 instead of 3.0.


The above assumes no US asignet.

My understanding is the US state dept. had the jap delegation wire tapped and knew the IJ bottom line in the negotiations. This 5-5-3 deal pissed off the IJN staff and created a rift between the IJ state department and the Naval general staff when the delegation returned home. Japs were afraid too not cut a deal.

Would it be fun to scrap the whole WNT starting in 1920. Then let us see what would happen. Lets have a real gunfight.

< Message edited by bigred -- 8/13/2011 10:47:41 PM >

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 26
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/14/2011 12:56:18 AM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

I know your prob tired of hearing my thoughts and questions.

A quote comes to mind now.  "This is your BBQ, and it sure tastes good"

A thought.  If there wasn't a nasty China would the AVG have been formed?

Questions

If you build the Alaska class CB, how would you justify building it with the tonnage aloud by the treatys.  If you do build it build atleast 2 of them.  One would just become lonely without a sistership.

I know you don't like the idea of modernizing the Big Five.  May I ask why.  I don't have the knowledge of you guys and want to know to expand my knowledge base.

The conversions to the CLAA (Clemson Class I think).  What AA guns are you thinking of putting on it.  I think I heard on this forum that there was a shortage of 5 in DP guns before the war. 

So did the Japanese dropout of the last treaty or did they go thru with it, in this mod, I'm lost on that one.

doc


DOCUP: Keep it up!

1. Interesting AVG Comment. They certainly would not have had enough time to get set-up as they were IRL if we go by the scenario we're talking about.

2. Gotta build some if not all of the Alaska's (2 built IRL with 4 more planned). Pretty ships and great escorts for the CVs.

3. Modernizing the Big Five is actually a pretty nice idea that is fairly simple and could be done before Dec 7th.

4. It is the Omaha-Class CL for CLAA Upgrade.

We're assuming, other then the improvement in ratio, that the treaties stay in effect for the regular duration prior to the war (1935-36).

As to other thoughts:
A. Really LIKE the China War not starting until 1939. JWE's comment about a pot on medium still boiling over is perfect and makes tons of sense. I say they wait until then and then DROP THE HAMMER! The Japanese must have most of the coast but I say the hinterland stays Chinese and the Japanese must take it. Does anyone have an idea of what the lines looked like year-by-year in China as the Japanese expanded?

B. Bigred: The no WNT was done as a Mod in War Plan Orange. It was quite the brawl!

C. Heavier Fortifications and work done in 1941 would be GREAT! Wasn't it the Hepburn Report that outlined the needs? Can we find that Report and implement it? Wouldn't that rock!


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 27
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/14/2011 2:25:25 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

A lot depends on what kind of "improvements" are made on the Japanese side. The least "wild hair" would be for the Japs to simplify their design specs to build more ships in general. Say they stopped building the "Special-type DD's" in 1930 and went to a more "Volkswagen" design philosophy.


Never. That basically requires Japan dropping the idea of ever actually contesting naval power of either US or GB in 1920s. (If the idea is on the table at all, Japan has to face reality of facinng a numerically superior enemy fleet, because the treaties, which persist as long as they did IRL in this alternative, ensure that, never mind actual difference in the economical power; the only plausible way to beat superior numbers is superior quality; by the time the treaties break down, over half of pre-war modern DD construction is already completed, so why anyone would want to downgrade from a tried and true design at that point?). The same applies to design of bigger Japanese warships, except arguably carriers.

THE POINT WAS HOW COULD JAPAN HAVE PRODUCED MORE USEFUL ARMAMENTS MORE QUICKLY GIVEN HER LIMITED INDUSTRIAL AND RESOURCE BASE. SIMPLER, MORE BALANCED DESIGNS IS THE ONLY FEASIBLE WAY. AS TO "SUPERIOR QUALITY", THAT'S THE PATH JAPAN TRIED TO FOLLOW IRL..., AND THE RESULTS WEREN'T THAT GREAT.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1What if instead they had gone with a more balanced CA design from the start (like the British)?


In AE, Japanese heavy cruisers generally mop the floor with equal numbers of British ones. This is not accidental.

POSSIBLY TRUE, BUT IRRELEVENT. POINT WAS HOW CAN JAPAN GET MORE CA's, NOT NECESSARILY "SPECIALIZED" FOR SURFACE COMBAT BUT MORE BALANCED FOR MULTI-ROLE USAGE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1One of the reasons KB didn't use it's heavy support vessels for close in AAA protection (like the US did) was that they were lousy AAA platforms.


Japanese didn't notice that, however. Or at least I don't remember Lacroix/Wells reporting if they did. They stopped doing that in 1942, because there simply weren't enough AA guns available to make capital ships sufficiently threatening, and by time there were enough AA guns in 1944-45, American air superiority became, so overwhelming that any sort of AAA fire was guaranteed to be insufficient.

BUT HAD THEIR CA"S BEEN BETTER AAA PLATFORMS THEY WOULD HAVE HAD THE OPTION TO DO IT. FAR TOO MUCH JAPANESE DESIGN EFFORT WENT TO SUPPORTING THE IDEA OF "THE DECISIVE (SURFACE) BATTLE". LESS SPECIALIZATION WOULD HAVE LED TO MORE AND MORE USEFUL SHIPS.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1Before you can discuss "Western response", you need to determine what they are responding to...


Nothing seriously changes until late 1939 in the earliest, when two extra CVs, built in place of shadow fleet ships, enter the service. As by this time the American naval buildup is already aimed at completely outproducing everyone else anyway... don't see how this can "alert" anyone more. Its acceleration, particualrly during the war, is not impossible of course

SAYS WHO? THIS MAY BE YOUR "VISION" FOR THE GAME, BUT THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS BEING FLOATED AS WELL. PERSONALLY I'M NOT THAT INVESTED. "SPECULATIVE SCENARIOS" AREN'T REALLY MY "CUP OF TEA". BUT IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE BUILT, THEY MIGHT JUST AS WELL HAVE SOME RATIONAL BASIS OTHER THAN "WISHFULL THINKING".




(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 28
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/14/2011 3:22:43 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

C. Heavier Fortifications and work done in 1941 would be GREAT! Wasn't it the Hepburn Report that outlined the needs? Can we find that Report and implement it? Wouldn't that rock!



This is a start

Chapter V

This shows suggested deployments and bases. Tons of information.

This is the link for the whole set.

Army Air Forces in World War Two





_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 29
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/14/2011 3:31:29 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Well done. This gets the ball rolling!

Anyone got game term ideas based off of this?


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/14/2011 3:53:37 AM >

_____________________________



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

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

(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 >> The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side 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

0.797