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: Confirmed Additions

 
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: Confirmed Additions Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 8:23:32 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

ORIGINAL: vettim89

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.



But aren't the folks in the other thread coming up with all kinds of ways to make the Japanese stronger? Compared to some of the stuff going on there, the "improvements" suggested in this one are pretty pale...

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 301
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 8/31/2011 10:38:24 PM   
FatR

 

Posts: 2522
Joined: 10/23/2009
From: St.Petersburg, Russia
Status: offline 		Sorry for being late again

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

USA
7. Have large enough BFs at Midway, Wake, and Guam to support three extra PBYs squadrons to be able to conduct search as America continues to 'monitor' Japanese build up and movement prior to outbreak of war.

This makes sense. I think I approve.



(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 302
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 8/31/2011 10:39:37 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
3. I would have to agree that the AAA enhancements to the BB supposes a level of precognition that is a bit of a leap. Perhaps allow them instead as upgrades in early '42 (of course we are talking about a lot of yard time for that)

How about have the Upgrades ready on Dec 7th. The BBs go through the PH Attack and have the immediate option?

This is reasonable too.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 303
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/31/2011 10:49:07 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: oldman45
It doesn't have to. There are no treaties in the West that effect the Pacific. If Japan at the end of 1940 goes to the governor and tells him he needs their assistance in controlling the natives (pick a reason) what is he going to do to stop them?

Considering severity of British/American reaction to Japanese move into Indochina IRL, even though Indochina was controlled by a government technically now hostile to Britain, yes it does. Moreover, North African campaign in this scenario will quickly end with eviction of Italians, and, depending on the direction of thought in Berlin, Germany will either attacks USSR with the fifth Panzer Group, likely winning the war in the east in 1941-42; or will decide not to proceed with Barbarossa and try to secure Soviet friendship in the long term. In short, the consequences of the French government deciding to fight in exile will be tremendous.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 304
RE: Confirmed Additions - 8/31/2011 11:00:46 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
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...

Deficit of forces. There aren't that many Allied squadrons on the map at the beginning, why commit one to an island you don't seriously expect to fight a defensive battles for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
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.


Other suggestions I might not exactly agree, but don't have big problems with.

Also, I propose reducing the dud rate of the Mark 14 torpedo to 60%, equal that of surface ship torpedoes. While general causes that led to the torpedo screwup are not removed, the submarine arm decides to more thoroughly test the new detonators and blocks their adoption, out of conservatism, if nothing else.

More on British and others later...





(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 305
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/31/2011 11:10:54 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Germany will either attacks USSR with the fifth Panzer Group, likely winning the war in the east in 1941-42;



Dream On!

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 306
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/31/2011 11:12:56 PM   
oldman45


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

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Germany will either attacks USSR with the fifth Panzer Group, likely winning the war in the east in 1941-42;



Dream On!


Mike where did you find that quote, I never wrote that.

_____________________________


(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 307
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 8/31/2011 11:24:26 PM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		Just some bad quoting, FarR said it in response to a post of you and Mike just made some mistakes with the quoting. Notice how his own response is attributed to FatR in return.

_____________________________

The AE-Wiki, help fill it out

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 308
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 9/1/2011 12:14:00 AM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
Germany will either attacks USSR with the fifth Panzer Group, likely winning the war in the east in 1941-42;

Dream On!

IRL USSR hanged on only by a thinnest of threads, facing the technologically superior enemy with access to greater resources, and almost losing even its edge in manpower by autumn of 1942. Evacuation of Soviet industry and its reconstruction in the rear areas was one of the greatest and most miraculous achievements of XXth century. Even with that, the armament production figures took a nosedive for half a year, and weapon quality/development were affected extremely negatively (T-34s of late-1942 production were basically inferior to T-34s produced before the war, for example; production of semiautomatic rifles slowed down to a trickle, and only Marine units were normally armed with them later in the war, SMGs were mass-produced instead; 57-mm AT gun was taken out of production for more than a year, even though the simpler 45-mm one was clearly insufficient; the same fate befell a couple of promising planes; etc, etc). I'm practically certain USSR couldn't have survived more major losses in 1941, without the industry collapse. Loss of Moscow particularly would have been utterly catastrophic, cutting the transport system apart, and it was only closely averted IRL. The thought of the possible impact of another couple of motorized German division in 1941 makes me shudder.


< Message edited by FatR -- 9/1/2011 1:06:25 PM >

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 309
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 9/1/2011 4:11:47 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

ORIGINAL: oldman45


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Germany will either attacks USSR with the fifth Panzer Group, likely winning the war in the east in 1941-42;



Dream On!


Mike where did you find that quote, I never wrote that.



You're right..., it was a FatR quote that the editor somehow put under your name. My appologies.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 310
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 9/1/2011 4:14:43 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR
Germany will either attacks USSR with the fifth Panzer Group, likely winning the war in the east in 1941-42;

Dream On!

IRL USSR hanged on only by a thinnest of threads, facing the technologically superior enemy with access to greater resources, and almost losing even its edge in manpower by autumn of 1942. Evacuation of Soviet industry and its reconstruction in the rear areas was one of the greatest and most miraculous achievements of XXth century. Even with that, the armament production figures took a nosedive for half a year, and weapon quality/development were affected extremely negatively (T-34s of late-1942 production were basically inferior to T-34s produced before the war, for example; production of semiautomatic rifles slowed down to a trickle, and only Marine units were normally armed with them later in the war, SMGs were mass-produced instead; 57-mm AT gun was taken out of production for more than a year, even though the simpler 45-mm one was clearly insufficient; the same fate befell a couple of promising planes; etc, etc). I'm practically certain USSR could have survived more major losses in 1941, without the industry collapse. Loss of Moscow particularly would have been utterly catastrophic, cutting the transport system apart, and it was only closely averted IRL. The thought of the possible impact of another couple of motorized German division in 1941 makes me shudder.



This I can agree with...

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 311
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/1/2011 1:05:02 PM   
FatR

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Britain
Terminus Force Z Recommendation:
I think we should start by allowing Indomitable to come to the party. No Caribbean grounding.

After that, Renown, Belfast (she gets rebuilt more quickly), and four K-class destroyers. After that, we assume that all the DD's in refit at Singers are available. PoW and Repulse deployed with almost no destroyer support, so it's not unrealistic to prioritize that.

This gives a Force Z like this:

BB Prince of Wales
BC's Repulse & Renown
CV Indomitable
CA Belfast
DDs
Jupiter, Electra, Encounter, Express, Stronghold, Kelvin, Kimberley, Kingston, Kipling

OK, I agree with this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. Improve Singapore's Aircraft composition to something more envisioned with the 335+ Front-Line Planes desired:
--How about a couple of Hurricane or, dare I say, Spitfire Squadrons?

All Spitfires are needed in Europe and Africa. This is late 1941, and British airforce is not in a good position - it might have and edge in numbers, but it is outclassed by Luftwaffe. Most likely scenario is adding 1-2 more squadrons of Hurricans/Bufalloes. Or maybe early Warhawks, if those are given to British.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
--Completely fillout the Vilderbeest and Swordfish units.
--More Recon/Air Search assets

OK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Air Comment: Replace Buffalo with Hurri IIA/B, Vildebeeste with Beaufort I, Blenheim IF with Beaufighter IF, Blenheim I with Blenheim IV.

See the comment on Spitfires above. Even if British evaluate the enemy more realistically, all modern planes are needed in the war that's already goes on. Heck, some squadrons in Britain itself still were flying Swordfishes in summer of 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
3. A somewhat built defense line north of Singapore.

North where? It makes sense along the northern border of Malaya.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
4. How about the 18th ID STARTING in Singapore or at sea in the IO and ready for the player to send it wherever?

Better in the sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
5. Better Commonwealth dispositions in Malaya/Burma:
Add an extra Brigade to 9th & 11th Indian Divisions.

If you do, I advise make them understrength and partially disabled and set very low experience, reflecting freshly raised troops. By that moment the pool of trained Indian troops was really drained.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Move 23 Australian Bde, 2/4 Pioneer and 2/4 MG Bn to Singapore.
7 Armoured Bde is at start in Burma

7th Armored was planned to be sent to Singapore, IIRC.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Dutch
1. We had some ships thrown out for additional consideration earlier. What about them?

Add perhaps a couple DDs, fortuitiously saved from Germans, and that's that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. A few more modern planes for them?

From where? Dutch don't even have aircraft production anymore.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
French
Available Free French Ships

Why they are in the Pacific? It is not like New Caledonia is that important for the Free French. Moving more British/American ships to combat Japanese makes more sense, because of simplified logistics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Australia
Would it be feasible to increase repair yards in Australia ?

During the war yes, but unfortunately we can't do it. Well, as a compromise between mechanics and realilty I can see the above-proposed expansion of the Sydney shipyard to 35.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Aussie Air/Land Ideas:
Wirraway replaced by P43 and P66, not required by the USAAF but better than the Wirra!

As it said, it was an attack aircraft... And again, Australians filled the squadrons with that they had. Give them some hand-me-downs from US, like Vindicators and B-24s in early 1942 maybe. Then open upgrade for B-20s.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Bring the Aussie versions of the Beaufort, Beaufighter & Mustang forwards, these were the first modern aircraft produced and there were many delays in getting them going.

Why Australian ones?

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
Australian Army
(The rump of 8th Div has gone to Malaya)
A Militia Bde moves from Melbourne to Darwin.
A Militia Bde goes from Sydney to Pt Moresby
A Militia Bde goes from Brisbane to Rabaul.
A Militia Bn to Tulagi
A Militia Bn to Lae, move the NGVR to Milne Bay

Except the move from Melbourne to Darwin, sending the militia units outside of Australia is politically problematic, AFAIK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
ECONOMY
Add Allied Economic Bases on the map for some flexibility.

OK. We'll need to discuss this in detail later.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 312
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 9/1/2011 1:06:12 PM   
FatR

 

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

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
This I can agree with...

I shouldn't write posts deep in the night... It should be "couldn't" of course.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 313
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/1/2011 2:49:55 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
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.


Sounds like you don't understand what the rationale for the mod is, heh.

(A joke...well, maybe.)


quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

All Spitfires are needed in Europe and Africa. This is late 1941, and British airforce is not in a good position - it might have and edge in numbers, but it is outclassed by Luftwaffe. Most likely scenario is adding 1-2 more squadrons of Hurricans/Bufalloes. Or maybe early Warhawks, if those are given to British.


As regards Spitty: this is "true" for the Mk. V and later (I wonder somewhat about the Mk. II - they were allegedly being removed from active service around this time, though I have no idea how many were left and how many of those were converted to later Mks - or how tired the aircraft themselves were, which I suspect would have been a major factor) but at the same time there is an oddity in that the Australian edition of the aircraft shows up over a year before the Brit version - as with the majority of the Brit stuff, a reflection on real-war priorities that has the potential to be significantly divorced from individual games' realities, particularly with New And Improved Japan. I would again point out that you can now define 'Commonwealth' aircraft that can be used interchangeably by [UK, CAN, IND, AUS, NZ], which should probably be used for any CW on-map production even if you won't adapt existing aircraft to that scheme.

I mean, ultimately real-world force deployments are unfortunately the game paradigm (I hate that word), but they do create some very jarring situations with invasions of Australia, India, Hawaii etc seeing no reaction whatsoever, which is beyond absurd.

If you want to increase CW air T.O.E a better option is to just make some number of the squadrons that disband in June 42 stick around - there's enough of them and their departure again seems like a reflection of a Japanese move over to the defensive that is unlikely to take place in-game.


quote:


Air Comment: Replace Buffalo with Hurri IIA/B, Vildebeeste with Beaufort I, Blenheim IF with Beaufighter IF, Blenheim I with Blenheim IV.

See the comment on Spitfires above. Even if British evaluate the enemy more realistically, all modern planes are needed in the war that's already goes on. Heck, some squadrons in Britain itself still were flying Swordfishes in summer of 1942.

Well, that's more a reflection on the Swordfish than anything else - not like you need a Beaufighter to loiter over a U-boat for a few hours...


quote:


2. A few more modern planes for them?
From where? Dutch don't even have aircraft production anymore.


From US or UK stocks, presumably - seems like a perfect situation for on-map production. Do you dedicate PPs to equipping a force with decent skills (generally) but limited manpower? Make a couple of the squadrons temp-R rather than perm-R, then let the player decide whether to go to the effort of supporting them when there's so much else to be done.


quote:


Australia
Would it be feasible to increase repair yards in Australia ?
During the war yes, but unfortunately we can't do it. Well, as a compromise between mechanics and realilty I can see the above-proposed expansion of the Sydney shipyard to 35.


Again, you can do it - either through HR-limited disabled shipyard capacity or (to an extent) through static AR+ARDs to simulate expanded capacity. Neither are ideal, but certainly the possibility is there - if you're considering HR-limited on-map aircraft production there's no reason you can't explore facility expansion the same way. I would say that 35kt is probably a bit of a waste - the treaty BBs still won't fit, and they're what the target would have been, I'd have thought. I'd say make it 40k or don't bother, though maybe that's just me.

quote:


Aussie Air/Land Ideas:
Wirraway replaced by P43 and P66, not required by the USAAF but better than the Wirra!
As it said, it was an attack aircraft... And again, Australians filled the squadrons with that they had. Give them some hand-me-downs from US, like Vindicators and B-24s in early 1942 maybe. Then open upgrade for B-20s.


Well, it was really a trainer - in game-combat terms it might be more sensibly represented as a light recon aircraft, like the Ki-51 or Ki-36 (ie stick a camera on it); an 'extra' fighter for Australia might well result in the effort put into the Boomerang going towards making more Beauforts. Of course, there's always the comedy option of the Woomera...

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 314
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 9/1/2011 2:53:53 PM   
oldman45


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

ORIGINAL: FatR

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
It doesn't have to. There are no treaties in the West that effect the Pacific. If Japan at the end of 1940 goes to the governor and tells him he needs their assistance in controlling the natives (pick a reason) what is he going to do to stop them?

Considering severity of British/American reaction to Japanese move into Indochina IRL, even though Indochina was controlled by a government technically now hostile to Britain, yes it does. Moreover, North African campaign in this scenario will quickly end with eviction of Italians, and, depending on the direction of thought in Berlin, Germany will either attacks USSR with the fifth Panzer Group, likely winning the war in the east in 1941-42; or will decide not to proceed with Barbarossa and try to secure Soviet friendship in the long term. In short, the consequences of the French government deciding to fight in exile will be tremendous.


The racial hatred that Hitler had for the Russians would not change. If there is no Vichy, you're right the Italians would be kicked out of North Africa some time in 41 or 42. The 5th Panzer Group would be in Italy shoring them up. There will be a Barbarossa or worse case, Stalin decides it's time to spread Soviet love through out eastern Europe because of the set backs in Africa.


_____________________________


(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 315
RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/1/2011 3:01:59 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyland

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).


I stand corrected, but wasn't the Surcouf sunk in a collision?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 316
RE: The PERFECT WAR Mod: Allied Side - 9/1/2011 3:05:55 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		There are a lot of French and Dutch planes bought in the US that never made it to Europe. If the US starts ramping up a/c production in 36 instead of 39/40 I don't think it would be too much of a stretch that these planes could go into the Pacific and turned over to the Dutch for the DEI and French in Indochina. If we start the game with the Japanese in control of Indochina then some of those planes could escape into Singapore.

I know that the logistics should be accounted for more than they are. My contention is that with proper planning, the US could have made what ever ammo was required. Look at all the various calibers we made for the Soviets. Converting ships to be used as tenders is not that time consuming or labor intensive. The hard part would be getting milling machines and other equipment for the repair shops in the ship.

_____________________________


(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 317
RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/1/2011 3:07:43 PM   
oldman45


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

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyland

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).


I stand corrected, but wasn't the Surcouf sunk in a collision?


I think that's the consensus that it was hit by a freighter while transiting to Panama.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 318
RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/1/2011 4:34:41 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Haven't jumped on go a couple of days due to being under the weather. Had some sort of bug the last 24 hours that was not pleasant.

Going to go through the Postings and do a re-write of starting changes.

Additionally I would comment to the WHINING about changes going on with the Japanese, most of that occurs DURING the war. We haven't even really got to that with this thread. All we've been talking about is Dec 7th modifications plus a but more (economy stuff).

This will not be a JFB Mod. Yes--this is where my heart lie--but to make it fun there must be goodies for BOTH sides. Think we have managed to create the template for a very different looking Allied start on Dec 7th and once that is settled then we can move forward onto other areas for Post Dec 7th work.

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 319
Allied OOB Changes - 9/1/2011 5:04:00 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Allied OOB Changes
Dec 7, 1941
Perfect War Mod

MARK II Version: I went through to last two pages of Posting and think I've got everything to this point.

USA
1. The USS Wasp is Yorktown-Class

2. There are 10 newer DDs (2 Porter, 4 Mahan, and 4 Sims--4 of these in Philippines)

3. The Big Five US BB (Maryland, California, West Virginia, Colorado, and Tennessee will start the war with a partial upgrade to their propulsion while still waiting for an AA Upgrade that will be available as of 12-41.

4.Strengthen the Air Pipeline/Base Prep along the following lines:
a. Wake, Midway, and Guam: add small BF, fill out Defense Btn, put something in Guam for an Inf Unit and raise Forts by 1.
b. Base the Marine Fighters AND Vindicators at Midway to serve as western outpost of Hawaii.
b. Con Bn at Christmas, Pago-Pago, Suva, and Noumea to begin base construction.
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

5. We may change the DUD Torp rate to 60% matching US ship launched Torps.

PHIL
1. Add an Inf unit to Legaspi taken from Northern Luzon

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. New FORCE Z: Prince of Wales, Repulse, Renown, and DDs Kelvin, Kimberley, Kingston, Kipling

2. Add one Hurricane Squadron to Singapore as well as add 12-18 more Buffalos.

3. Fill out Vildebreest and Swordfish units.

4. Add 3rd Regiments to the two Indian Divisions in Malaya: they will be at about 50% strength and low experience.

5. Just south of Ceylon sits two TF---CV TF: Indomitable, Belfast, and DDs Jupiter, Electra, Encounter, Express, and Stronghold. This TF is escorting the 18th Brit ID...

AUST
1. Sydney Repair Yard starts at normal number but is damaged to expand out to 50.

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 or Tahiti.

2. AS Jules Verne and a US Lead-Lease AKE serve as Depot Ships.

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.

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!''

The story is that Indomitable was damaged due to a grounding but it turned out to be fairly minor and only cost her a week or so of time. This is why she is protecting the 18th ID and not with Force Z.

The French were headed to Saigon with their contingent when the Japanese moved into and took over Indochina. With no real home to go to, the TFs elected to move on to their only other bases in the Pacific: New Caledonia and Tahiti.


< Message edited by John 3rd -- 9/1/2011 5:06:24 PM >

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 320
RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/1/2011 6:16:09 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		You are a fine diplomat sir. I think this should work out just fine. 50 might be a bit of overkill on the yard in Sydney, perhaps 35 is better.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 321
RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/1/2011 6:27:54 PM   
Skyland


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

ORIGINAL: oldman45


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus



I stand corrected, but wasn't the Surcouf sunk in a collision?


I think that's the consensus that it was hit by a freighter while transiting to Panama.


Later studies tend to conclude that it was sunk by US A-17 and B-18 based in Panama.

To John 3rd : could we have the SS Surcouf in your mod ? Please


_____________________________

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 322
RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/1/2011 6:44:35 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline 		Do you think a pair of 6" guns will tip the balance?

_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 323
RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/1/2011 6:45:45 PM   
John 3rd


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

ORIGINAL: oldman45

You are a fine diplomat sir. I think this should work out just fine. 50 might be a bit of overkill on the yard in Sydney, perhaps 35 is better.


Doubt if my ex-wife would agree with that statement!

We certainly could go with 35. At least it will provide a real yard that can do some work on Allied ships--not to mention--help with upgrades.



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 324
RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/1/2011 6:52:14 PM   
oldman45


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

ORIGINAL: Skyland


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus



I stand corrected, but wasn't the Surcouf sunk in a collision?


I think that's the consensus that it was hit by a freighter while transiting to Panama.


Later studies tend to conclude that it was sunk by US A-17 and B-18 based in Panama.

To John 3rd : could we have the SS Surcouf in your mod ? Please



Interesting, I had recently read it was a collision. You would almost think that when the planes showed up they would have thought maybe that is not a German sub. The Surcouf was huge.

_____________________________


(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 325
RE: Allied OOB Changes - 9/1/2011 7:03:29 PM   
kfsgo

 

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

ORIGINAL: oldman45

You are a fine diplomat sir. I think this should work out just fine. 50 might be a bit of overkill on the yard in Sydney, perhaps 35 is better.


Well - all the treaty battleships are around 37500t, so they won't fit, and they're The Future Of The Navy, after all - when are we supposing the upgrade takes place? 35 does give you the option of working on the slower ships; does being able to do that justify the effort involved if it's post-1936?

The Captain Cook drydock was the one built during the war; it's about 1100ft*150ft; Wikipedia claims the Iowas are 887*108, so it should presumably end up as a 50kt dock by late-war...just a question of what's gone on in the meantime.

e: if it's upgraded pre-war there wouldn't appear to be a need to build the CCD, however, and if you do build the CCD then it's probably a little odd to have any pre-41 upgrades - so probably an either/or situation.

< Message edited by kfsgo -- 9/1/2011 7:11:15 PM >

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 326
RE: Confirmed Additions - 9/1/2011 7:04:19 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline 		John I like Mark II.  I think you hit the Allied starting point on the head there.

As to your 6 in remark.  My personal exp, it dosen't matter how big or small the gun is pointed at you, it always looks huge.

doc

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 327
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/1/2011 7:08:34 PM   
RevRick


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

ORIGINAL: FatR


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
3. I would have to agree that the AAA enhancements to the BB supposes a level of precognition that is a bit of a leap. Perhaps allow them instead as upgrades in early '42 (of course we are talking about a lot of yard time for that)

How about have the Upgrades ready on Dec 7th. The BBs go through the PH Attack and have the immediate option?

This is reasonable too.


Actually, gentlemen, the entire upgrade was planned for around 1937. Remember the planning for the North Carolina and it's successors already included those weapons. But CNO did not want to take any of the B5 off line because of the global tensions. So, if you are going to presume a reboiler and blister overhaul, it makes little to no sense not to go ahead with the AAA, particularly the 5/38 tw mount portion. They should have something like 8 - 5/38 tw, and 16 1.1's (if you don't posit that someone in the BuWeps got their head out of their tookus and found out how much the 40mm Bofors actually cost.)
They are going to be opened up, and drydocked anyway. Not to complete the project when it's design origin was already in production doesn't make a lot of sense, even with the Navy's hidebound hesitance to change.

IF you really want to look into things: in the deep recesses of memory, I recall reading about the engines for the 1920 South Dakota Class were laying around somewhere. I do not know where I read that, but if you are going to rip the guts out with the reboilering - sticking the engine sets for the 1920 SoDaks (rated 60K hp, I believe) would make this group a lot closer to the new BB's coming on line in speed than puttering around at 20 kt on a good day. I played with that on SpringSharp and came up with a projected speed of 25.5 kt.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to FatR)
Post #: 328
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/1/2011 7:51:49 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Mk 2 - Feedback

The repair shipyard issue at Sydney could be worked around by the use of ARDs. The Allies get 5 of them in USA (Scenario 2) that can each hold up to 55k. Have one arrive or a slightly smaller sized one at Sydney or Melbourne sometime in the second half of 42. Thus, keep the original size until the ARD arrives to help out.

I like Rev Rick's speed of 25 being the one for the 5 BBs having their boilers replaced.

I play both sides and I don't want to see the sub launched torpedoes get too powerful too soon. If that were to happen, then Japan could be in trouble soon after the SRA is captured.

BBB (Big Bad Boise) plus 4 newer DDs in Philippine Archepelago would be nice. Make sure they are the Porter Class DDs with 8 x 5" guns. Better crew experience here only would be nice.

_____________________________


(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 329
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/1/2011 8:53:17 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		They were going to build 6 of the South Dakota's, is it reasonable to think they built all of the engines and if so, we could have all of the big 5 reboilered to give them a 25kn speed. I feel a snoopy dance coming on


Edit: One of my sources says that 5 sets of engines were complete with no record of what happened to them. How convenient, here we have 5 wonderful turbines and boilers just laying around waiting to be used.

Edit II: My source called back to remind me that the South Dakota engines probably would not fit in any of the Big 5. delete the happy dance

< Message edited by oldman45 -- 9/1/2011 9:11:05 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 330
Page:   <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Confirmed Additions Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   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

0.672