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: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas

 
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: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 8/30/2011 6:23:11 AM   
CaptBeefheart


Posts: 2301
Joined: 7/4/2003
From: Seoul, Korea
Status: offline 		A lot of good ideas. Here are some additional things to consider:

1. Would it make sense to have the Big 5 BBs be partially upgraded? Say the reboilering and other non-AA work done as of Dec. 7, with an AA upgrade offered from Dec. 8?

2. If JFBs get the Tojo early, then AFBs get the F4U's development accelerated. Deal?

3. The French naval OOB above seems to powerful, and an Allied Indochina would have to be balanced by significant additions of IJA (and maybe IJN) assets. How about New Caledonia and Tahiti get a couple of DDs and a CL or CA, and Legoinairre regt and a couple of squadrons of Dewoitine 520s or lesser fighters, Farman 222s (HB) and Bloch 174s (recon) or others and with the other naval units and a few ground units and squadrons to come as reinforcements? Mombasa gets a drydock and some nominal forces to represent Madagascar (or else mod the map to add Madagascar).

Cheers,
CC

_____________________________

Beer, because barley makes lousy bread.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 271
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 8/30/2011 7:17:49 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		. To further the above point, the Wirraway's were light attack aircraft not fighters. I would think something like A-24's upgrading to A-26 would be more reasonable.

HATE A-24s! Concur that perhaps we could pull a couple of the Wirraway's and change them for A-24 and, perhaps, some early P-40s?

BUT The RAAF having no fighters used the Wirraway as a frontline fighter until the Zeke taught them better, having a pool of 100 SE Fighters of the P43/P66/P400 type would be a 200% inmprovement. Still some space for something else (I think the RAAF was looking at the Brewster Buccaneer for a while)

Put a Regiment into Legaspi.

I hate seeing free landings, as the tail of Luzon is undefended I would like to see a set up where they have to fight for the beaches.

Re Defence Bns/Bases forces at Guam/Midway/Wake
Why? As I mentioned before, Guam is too isolated to serve any useful purpose, until the supposed Pacific offensive relieves it, and Wake/Midway aren't seen as immediately threatened.
Sometimes you do silly things for political reasons. I'm not looking at sitting a Regiment on the island. Guam, being a US Territory, could be seen as sticking one in the eye of the Emperor! Wake was building its defences/airbase IRL, why not have it done a bit earlier. I'm only looking at a Base force to service a dozen aircraft and maybe a Def Bn (-) with 4 x 3" CD and some AAA.

I'm wary of adding a CV to Force Z, I dont see it lasting out the opening day. It might look flash but given the japanese occupation of French Indo China, Singapore is stuck out on a limb and with the IJAAF ruling the skies is a death trap for Allied shipping. IFF you set up Force Z somewhere else might make it better.

Is there any thought of better Allied aircraft development, the USAAF version of Tigercat, maybe some of the bugs solved earlier on Corsair, B29 etc

< Message edited by JeffK -- 8/30/2011 7:30:59 AM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 272
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 8/30/2011 1:31:07 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline 		1.  I like your idea of adding the 10 DDs to various places.
2.  I second Commander Cody's part on the BBs have them go thru most of there refitsbefor PH attack and then get AAA after.
3.  French OOB depends on what way Indo-China goes.  But adding some French subs could be a middle ground for US subs.  Use the French subs instead of making US torps work or adding a different class.  If you understand what I mean.
4.  I like adding some troops and Const Bns to Guam, Wake, PP etc.
5.  Agree with Jeff on Force Z don't add a carrier to it.  Just more points for Japan.  I really like Terminus's Force Z. 
6.  Having I think you said the 18th Div in a TF would be nice.
7.  Having a bigger repair yard at Sydeny is nice, even with having to fix it. 

doc

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 273
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 8/30/2011 2:34:04 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

ORIGINAL: Commander Cody
3. The French naval OOB above seems to powerful, and an Allied Indochina would have to be balanced by significant additions of IJA (and maybe IJN) assets. How about New Caledonia and Tahiti get a couple of DDs and a CL or CA, and Legoinairre regt and a couple of squadrons of Dewoitine 520s or lesser fighters, Farman 222s (HB) and Bloch 174s (recon) or others and with the other naval units and a few ground units and squadrons to come as reinforcements? Mombasa gets a drydock and some nominal forces to represent Madagascar (or else mod the map to add Madagascar).


If I remember correctly, New Caledonia was the only French holding in the Pacific to have declared for DeGaulle"s Free French rather than Vichy. Would make sense that French Forces who still wanted to fight to rally there...

(in reply to CaptBeefheart)
Post #: 274
Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 4:13:45 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		OK. Lets start a list of confirmed additions that are reasonable and add a bit of fun for the Allied player:

USA
1. Wasp as Yorktown-Class (with adjusted Air Groups).
2. Addition of 10 newer DDs (2 Porter, 4 Mahan, and 4 Sims--4 of these in Philippines)
3. Partial refit of the Big 5 makes some sense. Everything done but the AA...
4. Strengthen the Air Pipeline along lines already detailed earlier:
a. Wake, Midway, and Guam: add small, dedicated BF, fill out Defense Btn, and raise Forts by 1. Perhaps pull PBY from PH (or add one or two new units) and base at these locations.
IDEA: Why not base the Marine Fighters AND Vindicators at Wake? REALLY would provide something for the Japanese to think about...
b. Con Bn at Christmas, Pago-Pago, Suva, and Noumea
c. Dutch Harbor gains a Con Bn
d. AS with several S-Boats (like in RA) based at Pago Pago as well as Dutch Harbor

PHIL
1. Add an Inf unit to Legaspi. Could simply pull one from a location on Luzon and place it there.
2. Fill out Fighters a bit more (adding 12-18), add a B-25 Squadron and an A-20 squadron
3. Add 4 newer DDs to the Houston or Boise TF or in Manila.
4. Raise Forts in Bataan by 1 and add 20,000 supply at this base.

BRIT
1. Add BC Renown and 4 DD to Force Z
2. Add one Hurricane Squadron to Singapore as well as add 12-18 more Buffalos. Look to see about filling out Vildebreest and/or Swordfish
3. Add 3rd Reg to the two Indian Divisions in Malaya
4. HOW ABOUT the rest of the ships detailed in Term's Force Z: Indomitable, Belfast and a couple of DDs are at sea along the west coast of India? This TF could be escorting the 18th Brit ID...

AUST:
1. A REAL repair yard at Sydney that is slotted to massively expand. Takes supply to do so.
2. Switch out 2 Wirraway for A-24
3. Add some older Fighters to the Pool as mentioned (P-36, Buffalo, P-400, etc...)

FRENCH
1. Add a STF of 1 CA, 1 CL, 4 DD, 4 SS to New Caledonia and Tahiti.
2. Would need Tenders (AKE/AS) and a few AK/AP
3. Legionairre Rgt at NC or Tahiti, and a BF at each location
4. Move the French DD already in the game to join these units.
5. Am not sure about French Aircraft...
6. Could add repair facilities at Mombasa to reflect Madegascar

ECONOMY
Add on-site facilities as described earlier.

How about this? Certainly would provide some new additions to the Allies and make it much more exciting for the Japanese to 'deal' with!''

Think we must let Indochina go as Japanese. Just creates TOO many issues to think about. Of course we can use the story that Indochina was just taken as the Free French were arriving and this forced the TF, Legionairre Rgt and BF to divert all the way to New Caledonia or Tahiti.

Other ideas?

< Message edited by John 3rd -- 8/30/2011 6:37:46 PM >

_____________________________



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 #: 275
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 4:57:12 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		I wouldn't add the French planes only because there is a real life precedent where planes flew to the UK and a squadron was created. Before the end of 1940 all the planes were gone due to lack of spares. In my mod the few French planes I have are sea planes that convert to US types in 42.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 276
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 4:59:33 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		I like the idea of adding a squadron for French subs to balance out the US torp issue. I would not change the US torps only because they (BUORD) wasn't going to believe there was a problem till the shooting started and even then it took the depot in PH to get their attention.

_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 277
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 5:13:04 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The MN had no dedicated submarine tenders.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 278
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 6:15:52 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Ok, John, putting on my nasty hat:

There is no way, no how, that a Naval Power would deploy any significant elements of thier Fleet, especially half way round the world into a "third world" region, without having a major Naval Base or a significant Fleet Train element, in-area.

The Brits couldn't do squat till '44-'45 when they brought their Train thru the Canal (and that's even with Colombo in-hand). The French eventually deployed 1/5 of their Naval assets in SE Asia, but that was only because a portion of the Brit Fleet Train was politically ordered to support them.

French Fleet was a Mediterranean counter to the Italians. As such, they had doo-doo for out-of-area support. For additions to the opening day festivities, I can see maybe a DesDiv, and stretching it a bit, a DesDiv and a CL, or maybe even a DesRon (but doubt it). But that's about it. Anything else is utter fantasy and completely unsuportable, by any rational metric.

Ciao. Mr Nasty John.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 279
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 6:34:16 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: JWE

Ok, John, putting on my nasty hat:

There is no way, no how, that a Naval Power would deploy any significant elements of thier Fleet, especially half way round the world into a "third world" region, without having a major Naval Base or a significant Fleet Train element, in-area.

The Brits couldn't do squat till '44-'45 when they brought their Train thru the Canal (and that's even with Colombo in-hand). The French eventually deployed 1/5 of their Naval assets in SE Asia, but that was only because a portion of the Brit Fleet Train was politically ordered to support them.

French Fleet was a Mediterranean counter to the Italians. As such, they had doo-doo for out-of-area support. For additions to the opening day festivities, I can see maybe a DesDiv, and stretching it a bit, a DesDiv and a CL, or maybe even a DesRon (but doubt it). But that's about it. Anything else is utter fantasy and completely unsuportable, by any rational metric.

Ciao. Mr Nasty John.



Mister NASTY John.

If the Frenchies are not up to the task, with no Support Shipping, is their an alternative? I like adding the French as a contingent but if it is impossible from a deep water Port thought then what else might there be?

Perhaps go with a DesDiv of 4 DDs and a few SS? What is the Port size needed to replennish Torps?

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 280
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 6:47:22 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		It is too easy to build a tender that the French could not have the US build one for them or convert one from their existing merchants.

If the Japanese can find it in their hearts to cooperate between the military branches, some how between 1936 and 1940 the French can build something in the Pacific to support a Cruiser/Destroyer squadron.

ok that's my story and I am sticking with it.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 281
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 7:17:26 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		I LEAN in that direction myself Sir, however, one must be wary of NASTY John!

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 282
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 7:34:28 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		I know that John is right, but we have to think a little out of the box


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 283
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 7:50:16 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		"What is a box?"


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 284
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 9:09:26 PM   
oldman45


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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

"What is a box?"



I do hope your poking fun.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 285
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 9:38:36 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline 		Like your ideas John.  For the French Land-Lease them some support ships.  Early conversions of some of the US ships?  I understand what JWE is saying and I agree but thinking outside of that box.

What about some early DE or SCs for the US?  Also what are your thoughts with AC replacements and or earlier introduction of some AC?

doc

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 286
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 10:19:35 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		Is there any serious thought to mod the map to include madagascar. There were minor facilities there. If it could be added, even an off map hex, that could be where the "main" French base can be. Perhaps it could be slowly built up to show the allies helping France build a base.

_____________________________


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 287
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/30/2011 10:20:34 PM   
oldman45


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

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Like your ideas John.  For the French Land-Lease them some support ships.  Early conversions of some of the US ships?  I understand what JWE is saying and I agree but thinking outside of that box.

What about some early DE or SCs for the US?  Also what are your thoughts with AC replacements and or earlier introduction of some AC?

doc


Unless we can come up with a work around for the europe first policy, not sure we could justify adding more escorts early in the war.


_____________________________


(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 288
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 5:57:37 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Ok, John, putting on my nasty hat:

There is no way, no how, that a Naval Power would deploy any significant elements of thier Fleet, especially half way round the world into a "third world" region, without having a major Naval Base or a significant Fleet Train element, in-area.

The Brits couldn't do squat till '44-'45 when they brought their Train thru the Canal (and that's even with Colombo in-hand). The French eventually deployed 1/5 of their Naval assets in SE Asia, but that was only because a portion of the Brit Fleet Train was politically ordered to support them.

French Fleet was a Mediterranean counter to the Italians. As such, they had doo-doo for out-of-area support. For additions to the opening day festivities, I can see maybe a DesDiv, and stretching it a bit, a DesDiv and a CL, or maybe even a DesRon (but doubt it). But that's about it. Anything else is utter fantasy and completely unsuportable, by any rational metric.

Ciao. Mr Nasty John.



Mister NASTY John.

If the Frenchies are not up to the task, with no Support Shipping, is their an alternative? I like adding the French as a contingent but if it is impossible from a deep water Port thought then what else might there be?

Perhaps go with a DesDiv of 4 DDs and a few SS? What is the Port size needed to replennish Torps?



Cut a deal with the French ships in Egypt - instead of sitting out most of the war - and then use them as IRL - as elements of the Commenwealth - supported by "British" bases and suppot ships. The main deal is get the warships into theater faster - and possibly in greater numbers.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 289
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 5:59:59 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Is there any serious thought to mod the map to include madagascar. There were minor facilities there. If it could be added, even an off map hex, that could be where the "main" French base can be. Perhaps it could be slowly built up to show the allies helping France build a base.


Rename Mombasa Madagascar. Adjust assets appropriately. I like it a lot.

The problem with a more sophisticated change is that a table needs to be understood - or you cannot move ships to-from the map. When it is understood - it can then be located "correctly" in terms of transit times. But Mombasa is close enough. Really good idea.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 290
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 7:33:21 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		My only comment is that in some arguements we are talking about hypothetical what ifs from far alt history land and then quibble over the availability of an AV or AS.

It cant be a dream PLUS be firmly anchored in real life.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 291
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 7:54:09 AM   
Skyland


Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The MN had no dedicated submarine tenders.


That is not correct.
Jules Verne was launch as an AS in 1931. Able to support 6 submarines.
Later converted to an AR in 1945. Scrapped in 1961.

As for sub support :
Cam-Ranh in Indochina was a permanent base for 2 subs (one lost in 1939 by accident, one disarmed in 1944). Saigon was able to support 4 subs.
Diego Suarez was a permanent base for at least 2 subs.

Note also that the initial destination of the SS Surcouf was Papeete (but was sunk as you know by US planes by mistake).

< Message edited by Skyland -- 8/31/2011 10:21:29 AM >

_____________________________

War Options 1941 mod : https://sites.google.com/site/waroptionswitpaemod/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 292
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 8:10:34 AM   
Skyland


Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Ok, John, putting on my nasty hat:

There is no way, no how, that a Naval Power would deploy any significant elements of thier Fleet, especially half way round the world into a "third world" region, without having a major Naval Base or a significant Fleet Train element, in-area.

The Brits couldn't do squat till '44-'45 when they brought their Train thru the Canal (and that's even with Colombo in-hand). The French eventually deployed 1/5 of their Naval assets in SE Asia, but that was only because a portion of the Brit Fleet Train was politically ordered to support them.

French Fleet was a Mediterranean counter to the Italians. As such, they had doo-doo for out-of-area support. For additions to the opening day festivities, I can see maybe a DesDiv, and stretching it a bit, a DesDiv and a CL, or maybe even a DesRon (but doubt it). But that's about it. Anything else is utter fantasy and completely unsuportable, by any rational metric.

Ciao. Mr Nasty John.



Mister NASTY John.

If the Frenchies are not up to the task, with no Support Shipping, is their an alternative? I like adding the French as a contingent but if it is impossible from a deep water Port thought then what else might there be?

Perhaps go with a DesDiv of 4 DDs and a few SS? What is the Port size needed to replennish Torps?



Both Saigon and Diego-Suarez were able to support the french fleet proposed by John 3rd. Such deployement was done IRL before the pacific war.
The name of the permanent fleet in this area was FNEO.


_____________________________

War Options 1941 mod : https://sites.google.com/site/waroptionswitpaemod/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 293
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 10:56:19 AM   
RedLancer


Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline 		I understand what the rationale for this mod is and I'm a bit confused why the Japan seems to be getting a complete design scrub over whereas the Allies are confined to the odd extra 'stock' ship here and there. I concede that a fully revamped allied side is not going to make things more balanced but surely adding a few more modifications to allied designs or new toys entirely might be in order.

I only feel confident commenting on the Brit side. Considering the pressures facing the UK at the time I think that the proposed changes to Force Z are about the only changes worthwhile early on. However can't we be a bit more imaginative than just adding Renown and Indomitable?

How about:

PoW with 9 x 15" and 4.5" secondaries.
Renown instead of Repulse
Add an F3 (Trafalgar?)
Add a Carrier - Ark Royal or an Implacable or an Admiral class - but with a better air wing based on the proviso that the Fleet Air Arm had some useful input - Sea Hurricanes, Skuas as DBs and Swordfish.

Later on introduce new aircraft quicker based upon the Centaurus engine - Sea Fury, Firebrand and Firecrest. Not forgetting the Merlin powered Sturgeon, Sea Hornet and Sea Mosquito



_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 294
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 1:55:23 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

PoW with 9 x 15" and 4.5" secondaries.




Would have had 9x16" to match the US and Japan and over-match the Germans and Italians. 4.5" weren't designed yet when POW was building..., and the minimum size for secondary guns was considered to be 5". What the 5.25 needed was a better turret design and better ammunition handling facilities.

(in reply to RedLancer)
Post #: 295
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 1:58:51 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: Skyland
Both Saigon and Diego-Suarez were able to support the french fleet proposed by John 3rd. Such deployement was done IRL before the pacific war.
The name of the permanent fleet in this area was FNEO.

Saigon would likely get whacked in the first few days, if it doesn't already begin as part of John's Japanese Empire. Not much help to a French contingent. Subs could work in several places. And maybe John or Stan could accelerate the arrival of some Brit fleet support units. Just want the Allies thinking in terms of basing and having enough ice-cream trucks to support the new toys.

The French 23DT has a load cost of 1025, so any Port 3 plus base support with about 200 NavSup can rearm torps. Maybe get John and Stan to add a couple ASs and a couple ADs.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 296
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 2:37:20 PM   
RedLancer


Posts: 4314
Joined: 11/16/2005
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Would have had 9x16" to match the US and Japan and over-match the Germans and Italians. 4.5" weren't designed yet when POW was building..., and the minimum size for secondary guns was considered to be 5". What the 5.25 needed was a better turret design and better ammunition handling facilities.


Great some debate!

Which 4.5" are you talking about ? I'm suggesting the 4.5"/45 QF I / III twin turrets as fitted to Ark Royal, Renown and QE which would have been available and used on capital ships. Although the 5.25" was better in some respects its AA performance was not as good as it was heavier / slower.

I agree with your 16" sentiment despite the London Treaty 14" clause which would scupper both of us. A Triple 15" Design for the KGV (Design 15C) was mooted (and treaty scuppered) Had the F3s with their triple 15" turrets existed could well have been adopted.


_____________________________

John
WitE2 Asst Producer
WitE & WitW Dev

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 297
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 5:43:07 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I agree with your 16" sentiment despite the London Treaty 14" clause which would scupper both of us. A Triple 15" Design for the KGV (Design 15C) was mooted (and treaty scuppered) Had the F3s with their triple 15" turrets existed could well have been adopted.



The "escalator clause" in the London Treaty allowed an increase to 16" (which the US exercised when Japan failed to comply by 1936). And as to a possible triple 15" turret, why not improve the already existing triple 16" turrets of the Nelson's?

(in reply to RedLancer)
Post #: 298
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 6:21:59 PM   
Skyland


Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Saigon would likely get whacked in the first few days,


Yes, as Manilla, Singapour, PH, and so on but who knows that before dec 41 ?

_____________________________

War Options 1941 mod : https://sites.google.com/site/waroptionswitpaemod/

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 299
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 8:18:10 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Red Lancer

I understand what the rationale for this mod is and I'm a bit confused why the Japan seems to be getting a complete design scrub over whereas the Allies are confined to the odd extra 'stock' ship here and there. I concede that a fully revamped allied side is not going to make things more balanced but surely adding a few more modifications to allied designs or new toys entirely might be in order.

I only feel confident commenting on the Brit side. Considering the pressures facing the UK at the time I think that the proposed changes to Force Z are about the only changes worthwhile early on. However can't we be a bit more imaginative than just adding Renown and Indomitable?

How about:

PoW with 9 x 15" and 4.5" secondaries.
Renown instead of Repulse
Add an F3 (Trafalgar?)
Add a Carrier - Ark Royal or an Implacable or an Admiral class - but with a better air wing based on the proviso that the Fleet Air Arm had some useful input - Sea Hurricanes, Skuas as DBs and Swordfish.

Later on introduce new aircraft quicker based upon the Centaurus engine - Sea Fury, Firebrand and Firecrest. Not forgetting the Merlin powered Sturgeon, Sea Hornet and Sea Mosquito


I think you are discounting how fragile the Japanese position was at the start of the war. The Centrifugal Offensive had success based more on the lightening speed and ill preparedness of the Allies than the overwhelming strength of the Japanese. Just increasing the strength of the PA alone would pose a serious problem for the Japanese. Luzon would no longer be a push over for the IJA. They would have to deploy at least two or three more divisions to take it with any speed at all. Yes, they could blow up Indochina fairly quickly but that would take time and time is against the Japan player as it is in stock. Even if you didn't add a single Allied ship, those changes alone would make life hard for a Japan player.



_____________________________

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

(in reply to RedLancer)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   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

0.719