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  15 16 [17] 18 19   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/5/2011 4:48:04 AM   
xwraith

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 4/17/2008
Status: offline
This started as a short post, but then got longer, anyway here is a bit of a sketch I've come up with for a Canadian navy...

I'll float some more thoughts on what could be a Canadian navy build, and I've done a little research and it seems the biggest obstacles are:
  • The national will to have a navy
  • inexperience in the construction of warships
  • the capacity to manufacture steel in the proper admiralty grades
All of these were overcome during the war, but it cost much time and money for Canada to deliver her Tribal DDs, a design first laid down in 1936.

So perhaps if Canada starts building warships earlier, say post WWI, perhaps there will be more warships, and even though Canada is heavily engaged in the North Atlantic she might be able to divert some forces to the Pacific. Anyway, here is sketch of what I came up with over a long drive through very flat terrain this weekend

1919-1925: Laying the foundation
I'll start my point of divergence in 1919 as the British Modified W class destroyers start to be cancelled. The RCN steps in and picks up some contracts at a discount for things such as machinery and fittings, while planning to build equivalent hulls at the Vickers shipyards in Montreal, gaining valuable experience. Canada plans on a four ship class to be the foundation of the Navy, with the first two having their machinery sourced in Britain , while the second two will use Canada's industry as its source. These ships will be laid down over a four year period starting in 1920. With the Japanese getting their better ratio at the Washington treaty, Canada does not feel as secure and feels that there is still potential for conflict in the Pacific. However, the budget is still very constrained and Canada still ends up scrapping all her cruisers and the destroyers Patrician and Patriot as new construction becomes available.

1925-1927: The drought
In 1925, the political climate continues to chill against further expenditure on the RCN and a way is sought to maintain the construction capabilities that had been developed since 1920. While the last of the Modified Ws are still fitting out, the RCN puts in some orders for an AO class that can be leased out to commercial interests to offset the costs of construction and maintenance. In a tight budget environment, this class of three AOs to be built over five years is all that can be approved until a destroyer tender is ordered in 1928. The destroyer tender is built to better allow the RCN to operate farther from the ports of Halifax and Esquimalt in case of a crisis.

1928-1935: Slow and steady
The failure of the Geneva Naval Conference in 1927, the arrival of the new British "A" class destroyers in 1928, and the increasing leathality of submarines, destroyers, and cruisers spurred the Canadian government to once again build some destroyers to replace the aging W class. Naturally the RCN picked a British design and set about building a four ship River (I) class based on the British A/B/C/D designs of this period. The four destroyers built were Saguenay, Skeena, Assinboine, and Restigouche, with the first laid down in 1929 with one other laid down every subsequent year until 1932.

When the great depression hits, the destroyers being built are seen as aiding the economy and continue on untouched. However, as the River Is come into service the oldest W class is mothballed (special clause in the treaty for Commonwealth ships?) so that the overall size of the fleet stays the same. Also, with the advent of the London treaty destroyer and cruiser tonnage begins to be regulated. I'm not sure how much tonnage the British used of their allocation, but I'm hoping to fit in...

A four ship River (II) class based on the British E/F/G designs is ordered in 1933 and one is laid down every year until 1937. These ships are: Ottawa, St. Laurent, Fraser, and Kootenay

1935-1939: War on the horizon

When the Japanese leave the treaty, and with the increasing threat from Germany, Britain and the Commonwealth begins to rearm. Canada has several shipyards that are candidates for construction of small warships like destroyers. Vickers Canada, Yarrow at Esquimalt, BC, St. Johns shipbuilding in New Brunswick, and Halifax Shipyards. In the period coming up to the beginning of war in 1939 I would guess that the RCN would want to begin ordering some ships from these yards to prepare them for any War Emergency shipbuilding program that might come along. Sloops would seem to be ideal vessels, and since it would be strategically advantageous to have a shipbuilder in the Pacific, Yarrow should see some contracts come there way along with the technical assistance to start building larger destroyers. Anyway here is what I've put down:

Tribal (I) class: 8 ships
     1 Laid down in 1936 (Iroquois)
     2 Laid down in 1937 (Athabaskan, Huron)
     2 Laid down in 1938 (Haida, Micmac)
     3 Laid down in 1939 (Nootka, Cayuga, Siksika)

Bittern class sloop
     1 Laid down in 1935
     3 Laid down in 1936
     3 Laid down in 1937

Black Swan class sloop
     4 Laid down in 1938
     4 Laid down in 1939

With war very close in 1938, Canada decides she needs some light cruisers to augment her convoying ability:

Fiji class light cruiser
    2 Laid down in late 1938

Active ships as of 1939:

4 River I DD
4 River II DD
3 Tribal DD
6 Bittern Sloops
4 Black Swan Sloops

3 AO
1 AD

Under construction
2 Fiji Light Cruisers
5 Tribal DD
4 Black Swan Sloops

Mothballed

4 Modified Ws (To be converted to long range escorts once the war commences)

Anyway this is about as far as I've sketched things out, thoughts?



(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 481
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/5/2011 3:29:12 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I think that is a brilliant piece of work, but I have a feeling most of those would end up in the Atlantic.

_____________________________


(in reply to xwraith)
Post #: 482
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/5/2011 3:51:22 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Correct. However a little bit of MIGHT end up in the 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 #: 483
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/6/2011 3:50:14 AM   
xwraith

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 4/17/2008
Status: offline
I was thinking that maybe there could be a small surface group assigned to the Pacific. Especially at the beginning, since there were two battalions of Canadian infantry at Hong Kong. Say 1 light cruiser and 4 destroyers? Maybe it could start with Force Z?

Anyway if we grant that the RCN built their own ships it also frees up a few more destroyers that could end up in RAN and RNZN hands:
Two A class destroyers (pre-war)
All 5 of the C class destroyers (pre-war)
1 D in 1940
1 Tribal in 1942
3 Tribal in 1943
1 D in 1943
1 E in 1943
1 F in 1943
1 G in 1943
1 H in 1943
1 F in 1944
2 V in 1944
Crescent in 1945

If we grant that the RCN builds her own CLs as well you free up:
Uganda (1944)
Minotaur (1944)

Of course you could also allocate these to the RCN to replace the inevitable losses, especially among the early Tribals if things go somewhat historically...

Anyway I'm thinking that it would not be to far fetched to have the RCN commission 4 destroyers, and one light cruiser a year starting in 1941. Perhaps with the destroyers split between Tribals and whatever British 'standard' type was available. I'm sure the RCN would select the Battle class as the follow on once the design is available, but with the delays for equipment they could also just evolve the Tribal class as they did historically (all guns on HA/LA mounts).

Anyway, just some thoughts

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 484
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/6/2011 4:49:55 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
It sure makes sense.

_____________________________


(in reply to xwraith)
Post #: 485
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/6/2011 4:05:36 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Skyland: Could you email me the files for the Mod?

I think a small Canadian presence could be arranged, however, I want to make sure FatR's ship work is good so we don't stack the deck by adding TOO many new Allied ships.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 486
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/6/2011 7:46:06 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

so we don't stack the deck by adding TOO many new Allied ships.

According to the scriptures (mine at least) there can NEVER be too many new Allied ships!

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 487
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/6/2011 7:48:05 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

Sounds Good-- Who is the Dark Side? I will be willing to see how the other side lives.

I made a promise to my wife (a lovely lady from Manila) that I would only play Allies side.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to AdmNelson)
Post #: 488
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/7/2011 2:43:49 AM   
xwraith

 

Posts: 76
Joined: 4/17/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think a small Canadian presence could be arranged, however, I want to make sure FatR's ship work is good so we don't stack the deck by adding TOO many new Allied ships.



No problem. You could put in a withdraw date of 3/1/42 for them as Operation Drumbeat would probably have them all drawn back to Atlantic waters.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 489
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/7/2011 3:18:07 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I've got the scenario files from Skyland. Will start work and Post as I go. Think the easiest thing to start with will be changing base sizes, Forts, and supply starts. Will create a detailed change log as I go and Post each section here as it is complete.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to xwraith)
Post #: 490
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/7/2011 4:27:04 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Wow. I just went through both sides with Skyland's additions and all I have to say is--WOW! The French are PRESENT folks! The Thai are ready! Looks great.

Skyland: What is the status on your Art? I saw some of the planes and ships don't have art. If you need someone to jump in and help just Post here what is needed.


_____________________________



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 #: 491
Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 5:02:05 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
MARK III Version: I went through to last few 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--6 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. PBY at Midway, Wake, and Guam.
b. Base the Marine Fighters AND Vindicators at Midway to serve as western outpost of Hawaii.
b. Con Bn at Christmas, Pago-Pago, and Suva 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

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

2. Fill out Fighters (P-40s) a bit more (adding 12-18), add a B-25 Squadron and an A-20 squadron

3. Add 2 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.

5. Bring in Pensacola TF with troops, supplies, and 4 newer DDs

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 35 and add a pair of ARDs as reinforcements in 1942.

2. Switch out 2 Wirraway for A-24

3. Add some older Fighters to the Pool as mentioned (P-36, Buffalo, P-400, etc...)

4. Add several new warships and smaller support ships as described by kfsgo.

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.

5. Add some shipping to New Caledonia and Tahiti.

6. Add about 70 French aircraft to bases and set them to upgrade into US Lend Lease Models.

CANADA
1. Add several smaller ships to the Canadian Fleet as well as a few additional reinforcement as described by xwraith.


_____________________________



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 #: 492
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 5:41:32 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
Just a thought for something that wouldn't add more hulls for the British, but maybe make them more effective.

Real History: In the 1930s, the British used the escalator clause in the 1930 London Naval Treaty to keep the C and D class light cruisers. It was planned to upgrade these cruisers to 4.5" DP guns. Unfortunately, the war intervened, along with lack of money pre-war, to prevent these upgrades from happening.End Real History

Do we want to make a change that allows those upgrades to have happened? It would eliminate some decent surface combat platforms with ones that are better for AA protection, but that might be more useful in the onslaught of Japanese aircraft early in the game.

On a related note, the Dido-class CLAAs were proposed as early as 1936, but the 5.25" DP mount development was not completed by that point. If we assume that the mount design was completed when the ship design was, it would allow for all of the Dido's to be completed with their designed battery (10x5.25"). We can leave the arrival times the same, but give the ships their true battery rather than the 4.5" open mounts that many were completed with.

Refits late in the war would still have to remove the third mount (X?) forward as weight compensation, but I think that would make the ships more balanced light cruisers than they were in reality.

While discussing possible British refits, we could also give the Kent and London classes of heavy cruisers(Counties) the same refit that the London received. This would give them a more effective AA battery and additional deck armor, but would mostly be an change to arrangement since the more protected aircraft handling equipment and fire control improvements aren't dealt with in game.

These seem to be changes that a British government more concerned about a Japanese threat in the 1930s could have accomplished "on the cheap." Certainly more economically that the construction of additional cruisers. As much as I would like to see the British (or colonies) building more Arethusa or Leander class cruisers, that would be a large investment for either.

Of course, if money is no option, there were always Jellicoe's ideas for a Pacific Fleet composed of colonial squadrons based around the battlecruisers Australia and New Zealand. That would have required a change to the WNT to allow their retention, but hey... they are such insignificant ships.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 493
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 5:46:52 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

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

USA
2. There are 10 newer DDs (2 Porter, 4 Mahan, and 4 Sims--6 of these in Philippines)


I thought that the "new" destroyers in the Philippines were going to be Clemson-class destroyers to maintain spares and equipment with the existing destroyers.


quote:

5. Bring in Pensacola TF with troops, supplies, and 4 newer DDs


There weren't destroyers with this convoy historically. If we move the Pensacola into Manila, she should use the Clemsons that are there for escorts when she sails. She "gets caught" in the Philippines and has to use what is in place.


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 494
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 6:36:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
That is the EXACT scenario I have created with what I just got done! There sits the Pensacola Convoy all fat, loaded, and pretty the DAY the war starts. Fun conundrum for the Allied player. I concur on the Clemson-Class. I'll go with that and add several newer designs to the West Coast as new DDs.

NEED Destroyer Names for the following:

Two new Porter-Class
Four new Mahan-Class
Four new Farragut-Class

Perhaps there were planned hulls that were named, however, my source material is nearly all Japanese. Can anyone help with this OR come up with appropriate names?


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 495
Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 6:48:54 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
This is what I've done in specifics. The italics are the details:

USA
1. The USS Wasp is Yorktown-Class

DONE

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

Will add four Clemson's from the West Coast to Pensacola Convoy.

The ten new DDs need named (as mentioned above) and will start on the West Coast.

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.

Will move two BBs to West Coast and already have them in the process of their refit. The remaining 3 are eligible Day One of the war. WHICH two should be saved from PH? Will move Idaho, New Mexico, and 3rd BB of that class to PH.

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. PBY at Midway, Wake, and Guam.

Wake: Raised supply 2,000, Fort 2, filled out BF and Marine Unit, kept F4F present and added a PBY Squadron.
Midway: Raised supply 2,000, Fort 2, filled out BF, and added Vindicator Squadron (from Lexington)
Guam: Raised supply 2,000, Fort 2, AF 2, filled out BF, added PBY Squadron, and created a Marine Detachment similar to what started on Wake.


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

Moved 1st/45th PS inf Bat to Legaspi from Clark.

2. Fill out Fighters (P-40s) a bit more (adding 12-18), add a B-25 Squadron and an A-20 squadron

Added a total of 16 more P-40B to three Squadrons, created the 60th BS of 12 A-20 and 62nd BS of 12 B-25B at Manila. They may expand to 16 planes each.

3. Add 2 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.

Forts raised to 3, and 20,000 Supply added (total nearly 30,000 to start).

5. Bring in Pensacola TF with troops, supplies, and 4 newer DDs

Present, fully loaded, at Manila. Will add 4 Clemson DDs to TF.

THOUGHTS?

_____________________________



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 #: 496
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 6:51:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Lexington no longer has an Opening Day job. What should her and her TF be doing? Ideas?


_____________________________



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 #: 497
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 7:38:08 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Here are the names of DD's commissioned after the war;

Harwood, Cone, Stirbling, John R Craig, Oreleck, Ernest G Small. I am still looking for my book that lists the ships that were canceled.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 498
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 7:40:53 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

That is the EXACT scenario I have created with what I just got done! There sits the Pensacola Convoy all fat, loaded, and pretty the DAY the war starts. Fun conundrum for the Allied player. I concur on the Clemson-Class. I'll go with that and add several newer designs to the West Coast as new DDs.

NEED Destroyer Names for the following:

Two new Porter-Class
Four new Mahan-Class
Four new Farragut-Class

Perhaps there were planned hulls that were named, however, my source material is nearly all Japanese. Can anyone help with this OR come up with appropriate names?



Here are some possibilities...

Stiletto (after 1st US Torpedo Boat)
Barney (ex-TB 25)
McKee (ex-DD 87 Sold in 1936)
Stribling (ex DD 96 and DM 1 Expended as Target in 1937)
Hart (ex DD 110 and DM 8 Scrapped 1932)
Rizal (ex DD 174 and DM 14 Scrapped 1932) (interesting story that it was donated by the Philippine Legislature)
Smith Thompson (ex DD 212 Sunk in 1936 after being rammed by Whipple)
Paulding (ex DD 22 Scrapped 1934)
Delphy (ex DD 261 Ran aground at Honda Point 1923)
Woodbury (ex DD 309 Ran aground at Honda Point 1923)
S.P. Lee (ex DD 310 Ran aground at Honda Point 1923)
Yarborough (ex DD 314 Scrapped 1931)
Shirk (ex DD 318 Scrapped 1931)

These are all names of previous ships that weren't reused during the war. That should give some choices.



< Message edited by MateDow -- 10/7/2011 7:41:37 PM >

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 499
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 7:44:10 PM   
kfsgo

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


5. Bring in Pensacola TF with troops, supplies, and 4 newer DDs

Present, fully loaded, at Manila. Will add 4 Clemson DDs to TF.

THOUGHTS?


Remember that TFs which start loaded at a particular location will take supplies from the base to fill themselves up - make sure you're not putting half the Phillipine supplies to sea to be sunk (which I can't imagine many of the ships involved escaping, if you start them at Manila).

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 500
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 7:47:43 PM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Lexington no longer has an Opening Day job. What should her and her TF be doing? Ideas?



Here are some ideas...

Moving fighters from the West Coast to Hawaii (ETA 10 December-ish?)

Sitting in port with aircraft onshore standing CAP

Returning from delivering aircraft to Wake or Guam to account for the aircraft there

Sitting north of Hawaii waiting for the Japanese in concert with Enterprise... OK not serious, but it would be a fun surprise the first time people played

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 501
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 8:31:48 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Thanks guys. Plenty of name choices. If anyone comes up with more just yell.


As I see it, Lexington has three options:

1. Ferrying Aircraft from WC to Hawaii. Thanks--Matedow.

2. Escorting another Convoy (like in RA) down in the South Pacific--like Pago Pago.

3. SE of Midway in its normal spot having just delivered the Vindicators.



_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 502
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 10:35:37 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Nice work John, Great work actually

I vote for Wee Vee on WC for refits, the Colorado is already there. If not bring the Maryland over have all 3 sister ships refitting.

Leave the Lex where she is less work for you and it fits the scenario.

doc


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 503
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/7/2011 11:44:57 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Thanks guys. Plenty of name choices. If anyone comes up with more just yell.


As I see it, Lexington has three options:

1. Ferrying Aircraft from WC to Hawaii. Thanks--Matedow.

2. Escorting another Convoy (like in RA) down in the South Pacific--like Pago Pago.

3. SE of Midway in its normal spot having just delivered the Vindicators.




Something I have been pondering, can we improve the upgrade path to certain aircrafts? for example the Wapiti IIa, Audax I and Lysander II are classified as Level Bombers, however none have an upgrade path to 2 or 4 Engine bombers as allied AC have.

_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 504
RE: Mark III Allied Summary - 10/8/2011 5:00:34 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Interesting idea. What do readers think of that?

I think we should put West Virginia with Colorado on the West Coast. They will just be finishing the Upgrade. Probably put them at Sys 14-19 or so and let them repair normally starting the 7th.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 505
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/8/2011 12:28:17 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think that is a brilliant piece of work, but I have a feeling most of those would end up in the Atlantic.



quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Correct. However a little bit of MIGHT end up in the Pacific...




Or, maybe they'd replace Australian and Kiwi ships in the Med before joining the BPF later in the war.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 506
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/8/2011 1:06:47 PM   
oldman45


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think that is a brilliant piece of work, but I have a feeling most of those would end up in the Atlantic.


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Correct. However a little bit of MIGHT end up in the Pacific...



Or, maybe they'd replace Australian and Kiwi ships in the Med before joining the BPF later in the war.


Now there is a great idea. How many Australian and Kiwi ships were in the med?


_____________________________


(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 507
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/8/2011 2:36:55 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think that is a brilliant piece of work, but I have a feeling most of those would end up in the Atlantic.


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Correct. However a little bit of MIGHT end up in the Pacific...



Or, maybe they'd replace Australian and Kiwi ships in the Med before joining the BPF later in the war.


Now there is a great idea. How many Australian and Kiwi ships were in the med?



Iirc, most of them are already on the map at the start of WitP.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 508
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/8/2011 10:35:04 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
That makes good sense I guess. If anyone can put together a concrete proposal reflecting the thinking above we can then entertain it.

Doubt if I will get much Mod work done today or tomorrow so we'll hit it hard on Monday.


_____________________________



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

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

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 509
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/9/2011 4:44:40 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
You wrote you will put a PBY squadron in wake, I think a detachment might be more appropriate. Wakes not that big There are two detachments already in the game. Don't remember which squadron is broken up but just take 2 more from that one and that should be good.

< Message edited by oldman45 -- 10/9/2011 4:45:25 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 510
Page:   <<   < prev  15 16 [17] 18 19   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  15 16 [17] 18 19   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

0.703