Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/17/2011 3:16:07 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Have been reading Silent Victory and forgot how good of a book it is. Just went through the TT Chapter where he talks about the Americans figuring out that the TTs run WAAAAY deep. Wonder if we could raise the TT dud percentage from its normal to...say...50% in Sept 1942. TTs still have issues (such as the exploder) but would be more efficient and sometimes work.

How is the Torp Dud rate set in the Editor? Can it be changed from (what is it? 80%) the normal through January 1, 1943 to normal, 50% 8-42 to 1-43, and then OK after that?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 91
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/17/2011 4:50:31 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
You can always change the dud rate. The reduction in dud rate only checks to see how high it is and changes it if its higher than what it's looking for.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 92
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/17/2011 6:04:13 PM   
starsis1

 

Posts: 45
Joined: 8/1/2004
Status: offline
What about UK choosing to continue building Ark Royal-class carriers instead of Illustrious-class? Quick check on Wikipedia indicates that Ark Royal was cheaper at over 3M pound sterling vs 3.8M for the first Illustrious. Lower cost could lead to having more units in service by 1941 and/or more carriers being built. With the money saved, there could be additional destroyers or escorts built, or a couple more squadrons of planes thrown in for RAF as well.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 93
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/17/2011 9:09:46 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have been reading Silent Victory and forgot how good of a book it is. Just went through the TT Chapter where he talks about the Americans figuring out that the TTs run WAAAAY deep. Wonder if we could raise the TT dud percentage from its normal to...say...50% in Sept 1942. TTs still have issues (such as the exploder) but would be more efficient and sometimes work.

How is the Torp Dud rate set in the Editor? Can it be changed from (what is it? 80%) the normal through January 1, 1943 to normal, 50% 8-42 to 1-43, and then OK after that?




What about the reverse John? In the Japanese partner to this thread, they are spending hundreds of millions on construction and upgrades. How about the US Navy gets an extra few million for testing and improving existing weapons, and discovering and fixing the problems with their new torpedoes?

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 94
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/17/2011 9:38:33 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
What I was thinking about this mod and I might be wrong.  Is that this mod is suppose to be something inbetween Scen 1 and 2.  Give the Japanese a lil before the war and more during the war.  As to give the game a longer play time.  The allies get a little more at the begining and a little more during the war.  This would give both parties more flexibility and enjoyment throughout the game. Instead of Scen 2 where a few allied players are nervous to play due to all the toys the Japs get at the begining.

doc

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 95
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/17/2011 10:56:49 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I have an idea for shifting US production back a year or two. I will lay it out when I get home. It makes sense in my head, we will have to see when I put it on paper. To a lesser degree some small changes to aircraft production that will make a small difference to at start units.

_____________________________


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 96
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 1:10:09 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
This is going to be a bit long. Whats in italics is taken from this site: THE DECLINE AND RENAISSANCE OF THE NAVY

Following the Washington Treaty (1922), while other nations were rapidly building up naval ships in categories that were not forbidden and increasing the number of airplanes, the United States practically abandoned all naval construction. On July 21, 1930, in the debate referred to, it was pointed out to the Senate by Senator Walsh of Massachusetts that the United States was below its ratio in aircraft carriers allowed by the London Treaty; that we had submarines and destroyers built during the World War which were rapidly becoming overage; that all the destroyers the Navy possessed, except 16, and all the submarines, except 17, would be overage before the end of the 6-year period of the London Treaty, namely, December 31, 1936-the date fixed for the termination of the limitation period. The same Senator pointed out that during the 8-year period from 1922 to 1930, while the United States was relying upon the cooperation of other nations to make some real effort toward naval disarmament, the other four great powers, Great Britain, France, Japan, and Italy, who signed the Washington Treaty, had built or authorized 400 naval vessels to our 11.

The following is quoted from the Congressional Record of July 19, 1930:

"Following that conference [Washington] and up to January 1, 1929, the great Powers of the world laid down and appropriated for naval expansion as follows: Japan, 125 naval vessels: Great Britain, 74 naval vessels: France, 119: Italy, 82: and, to the everlasting credit of our own country, the United States, exclusive of small river gunboats, 11."


Following that speech this happened;

"Resolved, That the Senate of the United States, in the event this treaty is ratified, favors the substantial completion by December 31, 1936 (this was the date when the limitation treaty would terminate and did actually terminate although efforts were made to continue it), of all cruisers mounting guns in excess of 6 1/10 inches, all aircraft carriers, all destroyers, and all submarines permitted under the treaty for the limitation and reduction of naval armament, signed at London on April 22, 1930."
This amendment was defeated, but not until after the Senators proposing the ratification of the treaty promised publicly on the floor of the Senate that they would assist and cooperate in helping to build the Navy up to its entitled treaty strength.


The reality is it took till 1933 for the Navy to get its money. Then this happened;

In 1933 President Roosevelt set aside for naval-defense purposes, from the large general relief fund granted him by Congress to provide employment during the depression, $238,000,000 From this sum of money in the years following, 32 naval vessels (mostly replacement) were built. In 1934, Congress passed the Vinson-Trammell Act, which authorized further new naval construction up to the full limit provided by the naval-limitation treaties. (Authorization by the Congress means approval, but does not necessarily mean the appropriation of the money to proceed at once with the construction.)

The Vinson-Trammell Act, and the moneys appropriated by that act, resulted largely in the very necessary replacement of overage vessels and did not contribute any material expansion in the strength of the Navy. It did result in modernizing the Navy by replacements of obsolete vessels. This act established a new naval policy, as it authorized the permanent maintenance of the Navy at treaty strength by providing that vessels could be replaced when they became overage. It authorized the President to procure the necessary naval aircraft commensurate with a treaty navy, and specified that all profits made by shipbuilding companies in excess of 10 percent of the contract price should be returned to the Treasury.

When the Washington and London Treaty of 1930 for the limitation of naval armaments expired on December 31,1936, the naval building race started in full speed throughout the world. All the other great powers had a decided advantage over the United States at that time, because our Navy was greatly weakened as almost no effort had been made to hold our Navy to the treaty strength to which our Government was legally entitled under the treaties and which the other powers maintained.



What I propose is, instead of waiting till 1933, Congress gets off its butt and authorizes spending to build the fleet up to the treaty allowances as stated in 1930. (That's where we get to have a concensus building party )

As a start, this is what was proposed in 1932 and later defeated in the House.

On May 3,1932, the then chairman of the Naval Affairs Committee of the Senate, Mr. Hale, made a motion to have the Senate consider bill S. 51, to authorize the building up of the United States Navy to the strength permitted by the Washington and London Naval Treaties. This was largely to replace old destroyers and submarines, and to build four new aircraft carriers. At this time we had only two aircraft carriers.

The motion to take up the bill was carried by a vote of 46 to 25, and the final vote in favor of its enactment was 44 to 21. No action was taken on this bill in the House and the effort to strengthen the Navy thereby failed.


And some final food for thought;

THE NEW NAVAL POLICY OF 1937
The Navy Department and the Naval Committees of the House and Senate undertook early in 1937 to establish a new naval policy.
An expenditure of $50,000,000 was authorized by an act approved July 30, 1937, to build six auxiliary vessels. These vessels were urgently needed for the proper maintenance and operation of a treaty navy.

An act approved May 17, 1938, was the first step taken to increase the United States Navy above the strength permitted by the Washington and London Naval Treaties. This act increased the number and tonnage allowances of combatant vessels in the Navy by approximately 23 percent; increased the number of useful airplanes from 2,050 to a total of not less than 3,000; authorized the construction of 26 auxiliary vessels; and authorized an appropriation of $15,000,000 to be expended at the discretion of the President for the purpose of experimenting with light surface craft.


Further in this paper is the sections of the Admiral Hepburn report on why Guam should be fortified and why it was canceled. Its a important read to further this debate.

Sorry it's so long but I think we can use this approach to start our conversation on how to modify the US naval forces in the game.





_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 97
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 1:56:48 AM   
John 3rd


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Have been reading Silent Victory and forgot how good of a book it is. Just went through the TT Chapter where he talks about the Americans figuring out that the TTs run WAAAAY deep. Wonder if we could raise the TT dud percentage from its normal to...say...50% in Sept 1942. TTs still have issues (such as the exploder) but would be more efficient and sometimes work.

How is the Torp Dud rate set in the Editor? Can it be changed from (what is it? 80%) the normal through January 1, 1943 to normal, 50% 8-42 to 1-43, and then OK after that?




What about the reverse John? In the Japanese partner to this thread, they are spending hundreds of millions on construction and upgrades. How about the US Navy gets an extra few million for testing and improving existing weapons, and discovering and fixing the problems with their new torpedoes?



Just caught up reading the Thread.

Mike--Excellent thinking.

Starsis: Interesting idea. I would love to place Ark Royal into the Pacific on Dec 7th! Good, solid ship...

I just re-read the alternate history Posted on the other side where the China War doesn't starting until 1939. Had an interesting idea in reading it. The Imperial High Command keeps the Army checked until war breaks out there in 1939 and when it does their is an ORGY of violence based on a stronger Chinese defense of an urban location. The Japanese take it but are heavily bloodied and they wreak havoc upon the city. Imagine a Nanking event that gets widespread attention just as Hitler has thrown away Munich and is making noises about Poland. War is immanent in Europe and then Japan does this.

Vinson already has Congress building the Two Ocean Navy so sentiment might swing for a wee bit more $$$ for the Pacific. Would that be enough for Congress to pry open its wallet some?

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 98
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 2:21:29 AM   
oldman45


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd



Vinson already has Congress building the Two Ocean Navy so sentiment might swing for a wee bit more $$$ for the Pacific. Would that be enough for Congress to pry open its wallet some?


Yes and no, if we do accelerate the time line, see above, then there would be 4 large carriers in the Pacific with the Ranger still in the Atlantic. And if we pass the act that brings the US up to world treaty standards we could see more DD's and Subs in the pacific. But over all it would not be a big increase I don't think. By 1940 a large part of the DD's would be in the Atlantic. I guess really it would have to be decided just how many and what type of ships could the US build to get into conformance with the 1930 treaty.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 99
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 7:10:52 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I was thinking it might provide the excuse for accelerated building the Central Pacific...

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 100
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 1:19:32 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Well it does, something in the neighborhood of 120k tons of shipping is added which would bring the US in line with the rest of the treaty signers. That would include 4 carriers, ie Yorktowns. There would be more DD's and subs and I guess more cruiser hulls. With this happening prior to 1936/40 we could see ships that arrive in late 42/43 arriving earlier. I am assuming that nothing happens treaty wise until 36 when the treaty expires. So the US has a more modern fleet in 36, perhaps the Washington/South Dakota's and Essex's are further along design wise and we can see them join the fleet sooner.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 101
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 7:32:20 PM   
Lecivius


Posts: 4845
Joined: 8/5/2007
From: Denver
Status: offline
FWIW, I played RA70 Hard mode for 2 months against the Japanese AI, using reliable torpedos, just testing results.  Now this was AI, so I realize such things have to be taken with a boulder of salt.

I think it's gonna put a JFB in a hurt locker

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 102
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 7:33:53 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
As much as it pains me, I would not change the torps until it happened historically.

_____________________________


(in reply to Lecivius)
Post #: 103
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 7:38:02 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
In RA 3.0 we moved more S-Boats into the SE Pacific and around Midway/Wake. Those damned SS are true pains in my Buttkus! Perhaps this could be done in the new Mod by placing AS at a couple of points (Dutch Harbor, Guam, Pago Pago perhaps) each one tending 2-4 S-Boats. That would suck but give the Allied player USEFUL TTs on a few more platforms.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 104
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 9:05:56 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

As much as it pains me, I would not change the torps until it happened historically.


Curious. The mod is giving the Japanese even more a-historically capable ASW..., why not give them something to deal with?

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 105
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 10:06:38 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Because the Allies start with so many subs, and if my time line is used they will have even more as they build up to the treaty limits.

_____________________________


(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 106
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 11:17:15 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Because the Allies start with so many subs, and if my time line is used they will have even more as they build up to the treaty limits.


So the Japanese should get more and better everything..., but the Allies shouldn't even get what they thought they already had? I thought this was the "Allied thread".


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 107
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 11:22:28 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
The problem with pushing more S-boats forward is that we're not simulating how unutterably CRAP they were. As far as the game is concerned, a sub is a sub is a sub, but most of the S-boats were barely capable of combat.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 108
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/18/2011 11:34:39 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Because the Allies start with so many subs, and if my time line is used they will have even more as they build up to the treaty limits.


So the Japanese should get more and better everything..., but the Allies shouldn't even get what they thought they already had? I thought this was the "Allied thread".



It needs to remain an interesting fight, Allied subs might gut the Japanese fleet. It would be a good way of increasing American strength without changing much about high-level politics and budgets.

_____________________________

The AE-Wiki, help fill it out

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 109
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/19/2011 1:50:54 AM   
John 3rd


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Because the Allies start with so many subs, and if my time line is used they will have even more as they build up to the treaty limits.


So the Japanese should get more and better everything..., but the Allies shouldn't even get what they thought they already had? I thought this was the "Allied thread".



SMILE Mike!

We still need to finalize stuff over on the good side before settling on stuff here. Personally, I think there has been some excellent ideas thrown out here that can be used as we make more progress elsewhere. Looks like we've settled on improving several bases, strengthening the Philippine AF, and adding a few units at start. The real key, as people have pointed out, is how much would be gleaned of the changes prior to the war breaking out and what would the Allies be able to reasonably do?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 110
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/19/2011 2:43:05 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Because the Allies start with so many subs, and if my time line is used they will have even more as they build up to the treaty limits.


So the Japanese should get more and better everything..., but the Allies shouldn't even get what they thought they already had? I thought this was the "Allied thread".



SMILE Mike!

We still need to finalize stuff over on the good side before settling on stuff here. Personally, I think there has been some excellent ideas thrown out here that can be used as we make more progress elsewhere. Looks like we've settled on improving several bases, strengthening the Philippine AF, and adding a few units at start. The real key, as people have pointed out, is how much would be gleaned of the changes prior to the war breaking out and what would the Allies be able to reasonably do?



So, does Stinson shut down the Black Chamber?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 111
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/19/2011 3:08:19 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
THAT is the $64.00 question. As said earlier I have been re-reading Silent Victory and never knew what had happened to Rochefort. The man leads his unit and enables us to win THE battle of the war. What does he get? BOOTED! Tell me that isn't America...


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 112
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/19/2011 3:24:17 AM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
Do you think you're committed to the Blackhorse plan for China? The reason I ask is that giving the Chinese control of Yangtze 'ports' (as recognized in-game) gives you an opening for adding the respective river-based naval forces - there seem to have been a few, though I assume there's some reason they haven't been included in anything up to now. Not too much military value, I suppose, but it'd at least make direct amphibious landings against the Chinese ports fractionally less trivial.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 113
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/19/2011 4:20:29 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Mike, the beauty of simply going along with bringing the US up to treaty strength would give the US around 120,000 tons of ships before the war starts. I need to find where I read that to back it up. Its not even about the US reacting to anything the Japanese build or design. The US Navy grows by 120k tons, it has to build IAW the 1930 treaty so we are talking carriers, I think CL's, and of course DD's and SS. In the other thread they are redesigning and rebuilding the IJN. We can't do that as the Allies, but the US has the ability to level the playing field with numbers and later on say 1942 bring in the quality a year early.

_____________________________


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 114
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/19/2011 12:51:32 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline
I haven't yet read all the recent posts, but I have one thing to say: I don't think it is possible to seriously improve British approach to building their fleet/aviaton, without causing snowballing and unpredictable consequences over almost 2.5 years of war. I think that any large improvements to British forces should be done through concentrating more of historically available forces against Japan.
Alternatively British might be given a bit of limited luck, like Arc Royal surviving and being available for the Pacific. Maybe they win at Gazala, allowing Allies to redirect some extra forces from Mediterranean in second half of 1942.

US is not bound by that, of course. Improvements like more thorough evaluation of torpedoes quality before the war, or better design of some ship classes, can be introduced without impacting anything else. Just remember that US military buildup was restricted by internal politics more than anything else for a long time, and there is little reason to assume it starts earlier (with stronger resistance met, it can easily go faster during the war, though, and reports on increased number of Japanese carriers by 1941 might cause first Essexes to be laid down a few months earlier).

EDIT: I also wouldn't be hasty to decide any definitive changes, until the Japanese side of the mod mostly takes shape. Playability must be considered as well as plausibility.

< Message edited by FatR -- 8/19/2011 1:26:28 PM >

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 115
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/19/2011 1:12:24 PM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
For the Perfect War mod have I the following suggestion for the NEI as reaction on the Japanese building programms

Thanks for suggestions, but Netherlands will be occupied shortly (6-8 months) after differences in the Japanese building program compared to RL, planned so far (save for increase in battleships, according to the modified Washington Treaty), actually change the strength of Japanese fleet. I specifically want to avoid expanding IJN too early, in fact. And by that moment Dutch will have a more immediate porential threat on their doorstep. After that they will have to be content with whatever weapons and ships Britain and US will be able to supply them. Don't think that any massive buildup, like suddenly having battlecruisers, with their own resources is feasible. A couple more unfinished destroyers migh be saved and completed in Britain without stretching things too much, but that's about it.


(in reply to Jo van der Pluym)
Post #: 116
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/19/2011 1:17:59 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

China gains control of:
The Wuhan area (Hanchow + Wuchang) and the surrounding inland cities (Ichang, Anking, Nanchang)
The northern inland area bounded by Sinyang, Suchow and Chengting

China's military strength ends up about the same as is stock AE. The better-trained army fights longer and harder, but is eventually chewed up as badly as IRL.

China should have more industry in Wuhan and Chungking -- in this scenario Chiang has a lot more time to evacuate factories inland.

. . . and China gets both AVG groups (P-40Bs, and A-20As) deployed in China at start. China should also get earlier reinforcements for its own air force.

A most excellent proposal. Belated thanks! I believe we can accept it as the basis for China theatre, and I see others already agree.






< Message edited by FatR -- 8/19/2011 1:23:11 PM >

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 117
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/19/2011 1:22:42 PM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Good observation, and quite likely true. Westerners, those in power at least, were far from convinced about air naval until too late. Take away the Yamato and her sisters, and the IJN is looked upon like the Italian Navy by USN and RN. That would not be a good thing at all, much lower preparation. Very scary for the allies in '42 under this scenario ...

Allied intelligence considered Yamatos relatively normal 45k battleships for the entire war.

If any Japanese ships caused a new spiral of naval arms race, that ended up detrimental for Japanese, these were Mogamis, which provoked building of large cruisers with 6in armament (Special type destroyers were just the next logical step in DD evolution, and Western DDs would have eventually grown in size anyway).

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 118
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/19/2011 1:43:05 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
US is not bound by that, of course. Improvements like more thorough evaluation of torpedoes quality before the war, or better design of some ship classes, can be introduced without impacting anything else. Just remember that US military buildup was restricted by internal politics more than anything else for a long time, and there is little reason to assume it starts earlier (with stronger resistance met, it can easily go faster during the war, though, and reports on increased number of Japanese carriers by 1941 might cause first Essexes to be laid down a few months earlier).



This was not the case with the Navy, who's expansion was regarded as a DEFENSIVE measure, and one which put American workers back to work. The Army was the one with the tough row to hoe..., because you can't send our boys "over there" if there are none in uniform to send.

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 119
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/19/2011 4:01:25 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
That's why I think the discussion should be what ships could be added to the US Navy if they built up to the treaty limit.

_____________________________


(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   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

2.266