Battleship Sailor

Battleship Sailor (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific

Message

Rob Roberson -> Battleship Sailor (6/19/2002 8:25:02 AM)
I have begun to fool around a bit with the editor and would like to create a what-if scenario and I am looking for some suggestions. The basic story behind the campaign is what if the airplane proved to not be such a decisive weapon as many big ship proponents believed prior to the war. What if Mitchell failed to sink those old ships, what if the Italian navy easily beat off those old British biplanes, what if no one ever thought to put a flat deck on a ship. Which would result in aircraft being used strictly as gunnery spotters and lookout patrols. First I want to make the landbased air less effective against ships. Remove torpedo bombers and torpedos all together as an available weapon for aircraft. The only sea going plane carrying ships should be seaplane tenders. Now this of course opens up many things, first of all, if all that allied and japanese production had not gone into aircraft carriers...just what would the order of battle be like at the start of our Uncommon Valor campaign. Remember, Pearl Harbor didnt happen. So Im asking for a little help, some suggestions of what ships (types/numbers) I should add. I think it will take a bit of time to come up with deployment times to keep the campaign more balanced, but I think it would be a fun what-if the airplane wasnt so devastating game. any thoughts? Rob

Drex -> (6/19/2002 9:02:54 AM)
Without a Pearl harbor would there be a war with the US?

mogami -> Pearl Harbor (6/19/2002 9:20:32 AM)
Hi, There was a PH. In Dec 1941 A Japanese TF launched a suprise strike against the USN with 8 BB's opening fire in the predawn darkness at the tied up ships from 25000 yds. Japanese float planes dropped illumantion flares and spotted for the gunfire. A TF of CA's and DD's laid in wait and ambushed the US ships as they sortee'd from port. (Japan also opened the 1904 war with Russia with a suprise Torpedo attack on the Russian base at Port Arthur)

Yamamoto -> (6/19/2002 9:42:19 AM)
Well, the Kaga, Akagi, and Lexington classes would have been completed as Battlecruisers as they were originally intended to be. You can also replace the 250kg bombs on the dive bombers with the 60kg ones if you want to simulate a world where aircraft weren't as effective. It sounds like you have a cool scenario there. Good luck with it. Yamamoto

Drex -> (6/19/2002 9:55:25 AM)
There's so many ifs here. Since there are no carriers, what does the US have in their place? Do the Iowa class BBs show up earlier? are there more BBs in PH? Did PH have shore batteries to answer bombardments? Its definitely alternative history.

Rob Roberson -> nice one (6/19/2002 10:17:35 AM)
Good call Mogami and true...

Rob Roberson -> (6/19/2002 10:18:31 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Yamamoto [B]Well, the Kaga, Akagi, and Lexington classes would have been completed as Battlecruisers as they were originally intended to be. You can also replace the 250kg bombs on the dive bombers with the 60kg ones if you want to simulate a world where aircraft weren't as effective. It sounds like you have a cool scenario there. Good luck with it. Yamamoto [/B][/QUOTE] Good idea, consider it done... Battlecruisers eh...any idea where I can find the data on the guns they would of carried?

Rob Roberson -> (6/19/2002 10:20:53 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drex [B]There's so many ifs here. Since there are no carriers, what does the US have in their place? Do the Iowa class BBs show up earlier? are there more BBs in PH? Did PH have shore batteries to answer bombardments? Its definitely alternative history. [/B][/QUOTE] No carriers means the battleship is the queen of the seas. I would expect to several types and groups. Maybe the "fast" battleships dont see light of day because there is no reason for them to have to keep up with carrier groups? I think there would be more in Pearl and on the west coast...dispostiions would be interesting. And guns facing out towards the sea would be in order (ie Singapore). Great questions and good things to consider.

Avenger -> (6/19/2002 10:22:19 AM)
The Bismarck was never sunk. She wreacked havoc on the shipping lanes. The Graf Spee wasn't afraid to leave port. She joined the Bismarck. The epic Battleship confrontation took place in the english channel. The Germans won the mini battle and insured that Normandie would never happen. Spurred on by victory the Germans focused even more heavily on the eastern front... Without airpower the war changed dramatically. --Avenger

Drex -> (6/19/2002 10:25:43 AM)
i think we have the makings of a fantasy campaign here with some kind of Pacific Jutland. battle of the Java Sea might still have ocurred though.

Drex -> (6/19/2002 10:27:37 AM)
O course Taranto never happened so Italy had additional capital ships to challenge Britain. Subs would assume a more important role: maybe fleets of subs.

Huskalator -> (6/19/2002 10:36:21 AM)
Edit:nevermind :o

Admiral DadMan -> (6/19/2002 10:44:46 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rob Roberson [B] Good idea, consider it done... Battlecruisers eh...any idea where I can find the data on the guns they would of carried? [/B][/QUOTE] Rob, Try this site: [URL=http://www.warships1.com]Warships1[/URL] Specifically, these pages: [URL=http://www.warships1.com/UScc1_Lexington.htm]Lexington Class[/URL] [URL=http://www.warships1.com/JAPbb07_Kaga.htm]Kaga Class[/URL] [URL=http://www.warships1.com/JAPbc04_Amagi.htm]Akagi (Amagi Class)[/URL] And of course there's [URL=http://www.combinedfleet.com/]Combined Fleet .com (Nihon Kaigun)[/URL]

von Murrin -> A few points in no particular order. (6/19/2002 10:49:54 AM)
There are large warships galore after the expiration of the naval treaty. BB's show up in greater numbers and sooner. Non-treaty, next generation vessels go into production as soon as possible. Without treaty limits, Japan adopts a more standard naval doctrine as they can compete in numbers. They're not as proficient at night combat. Without airpower, the Brits go down for the count because they have to defend everything. Cruisers and Battlecruisers rule the Pacific. Vast distance makes a necessity of speed. [I]Independence[/I] class CV's are cruisers still. Daytime naval combat is bible doctrine, and big guns reign supreme. Radar is primitive or nonexistent. Mines are more important.

Rob Roberson -> thats what im talking about let em flow... (6/19/2002 11:17:44 AM)
drool..

Supervisor -> (6/19/2002 12:23:02 PM)
There's a lot of useful information in the attached file. Ships stats are at the end of the file. I got this from The Underdogs site awhile back to supplement my hardcopy version.

Avenger -> (6/19/2002 1:36:05 PM)
I couldn't recall the name of the sister ship of the Bismarck in my first fanciful posting, so I substituted the Graf Spee. It bothered me that I couldn't remember so I went looking. (The memory is a leaky bucket). http://www.naval-history.net/WW2CampaignsGermanWarships.htm --Avenger

Mark Hemns -> (6/19/2002 3:50:46 PM)
With all that heavy metal sailing about, you are going to need to massively increase the number of Tankers and Oilers.

TIMJOT -> (6/19/2002 5:51:27 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan [B] Rob, Try this site: [URL=http://www.warships1.com]Warships1[/URL] Specifically, these pages: [URL=http://www.warships1.com/UScc1_Lexington.htm]Lexington Class[/URL] [URL=http://www.warships1.com/JAPbb07_Kaga.htm]Kaga Class[/URL] [URL=http://www.warships1.com/JAPbc04_Amagi.htm]Akagi (Amagi Class)[/URL] And of course there's [URL=http://www.combinedfleet.com/]Combined Fleet .com (Nihon Kaigun)[/URL] [/B][/QUOTE] Also, I believe the "Haze of Grey & Uderway" website has specs on the predessor of the NC class BB that was scraped by the Washington Naval Treaty. ( Sorry I dont have the exact URL )

Admiral DadMan -> (6/19/2002 8:21:48 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT [B] Also, I believe the "Haze of Grey & Uderway" website has specs on the predessor of the NC class BB that was scraped by the Washington Naval Treaty. ( Sorry I dont have the exact URL ) [/B][/QUOTE][URL=http://www.hazegray.org/]Haze Gray & Underway[/URL]. Among other things, it has DANFS ([I]The Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships[/I]) online. Its strength is in the history of a ship, whereas Warships1 and Combined Fleet.com will also get into the weaponry. Combined Fleet.com also has a [URL=http://64.124.221.191/baddest.htm]"World's Best Battleship"[/URL] section, comparing and contrasting 7 Classes of BB

MarkS -> re (6/19/2002 8:42:52 PM)
This is a wonderful 'what if' senario... However, aren't we just turning the clock back to WWI. (No effective planes, torpedoes or radar?) This would just be modernizing the gun platforms so to speak. The naval doctrine for the first world war must exist somewhere though. I like the idea in any case and would certainly give it a go. The options for battle tactics would require a huge upgrade, otherwise we would have little control over our desired tactics. You can't just send your fleet into an occupied hex and roll the dice, we would need some tactical control over the battle. Tactical control would change the entire game and bring it down to a snail's pace. p.s. I'm not trying to be negative, these thoughts just spring in randomly as I type. R/ Mark

Rob Roberson -> Re: re (6/20/2002 2:41:03 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MarkS [B]This is a wonderful 'what if' senario... However, aren't we just turning the clock back to WWI. (No effective planes, torpedoes or radar?) This would just be modernizing the gun platforms so to speak. The naval doctrine for the first world war must exist somewhere though. I like the idea in any case and would certainly give it a go. The options for battle tactics would require a huge upgrade, otherwise we would have little control over our desired tactics. You can't just send your fleet into an occupied hex and roll the dice, we would need some tactical control over the battle. Tactical control would change the entire game and bring it down to a snail's pace. p.s. I'm not trying to be negative, these thoughts just spring in randomly as I type. R/ Mark [/B][/QUOTE] Yes and no. Basically we are removing the airplane as an offensive platform as some American navy admirals believed (Japanese for that matter) prior to the war. THe game itself will still be operational level...so you would still be a spectator to the battles, the difference is...warships like Yamato and Musashi would be very useful if they arent constantly fleeing from airpower. Please be critical...this is my first attempt at a project like this and I want all input ideas and even the occasional flame. If this works it could be a fun little campaign... ROb

von Murrin -> Rob, (6/20/2002 3:07:29 AM)
I've given this some thought, and it seems to me that the hardest aspect would be strategic concerns. For example, Lunga and PM would be nearly worthless, as their port SPS and locations aren't great. Instead, you'd likely see the entire campaign revolve around the "PNG-Solomons Triangle" of Shortland, Tulagi, and Gili, as the measure of the usefulness of a base would be directly tied to it's port size. I'm not quite sure just how important this is, but it's definitely worth looking at. Also, this would probably have to be a PBEM only scenario, as I doubt that the AI would "get it". :)

Rob Roberson -> Re: Rob, (6/20/2002 4:25:25 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by von Murrin [B] Instead, you'd likely see the entire campaign revolve around the "PNG-Solomons Triangle" of Shortland, Tulagi, and Gili, as the measure of the usefulness of a base would be directly tied to it's port size. I'm not quite sure just how important this is, but it's definitely worth looking at. Also, this would probably have to be a PBEM only scenario, as I doubt that the AI would "get it". :) [/B][/QUOTE] I'm sure it would have to be PBEM only, I seem to recall reading that the AI is somewhat hard wired to go after Lunga ...

Point Luck -> A thought (6/20/2002 9:28:25 AM)
The heavies may be the queen of the seas. I would think that without the air capability that my my war dollars would be better spent on R&D of new Subs. I could build a pretty large sub force for the dollars spent on heavies and pretty much rape any task force that crosses my wake

Rob Roberson -> True True (6/20/2002 10:01:37 AM)
But then again, the big guys never leave home with out the small boys as escorts. Subs fleets will be larger, but so will their counter..the destroyer.

TIMJOT -> Re: Re: re (6/21/2002 9:01:31 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rob Roberson [B] Yes and no. Basically we are removing the airplane as an offensive platform as some American navy admirals believed (Japanese for that matter) prior to the war. THe game itself will still be operational level...so you would still be a spectator to the battles, the difference is...warships like Yamato and Musashi would be very useful if they arent constantly fleeing from airpower. Please be critical...this is my first attempt at a project like this and I want all input ideas and even the occasional flame. If this works it could be a fun little campaign... ROb [/B][/QUOTE] I dont even want to even look at the editor yet, but I was just wondering does it allow you to make up fantasy oobs. If you can create ships that never existed then I think a good set up for what you want would be to have a what if of no naval treaty and war in 1931 rather than 41. Thats way before a/c were effective and both fleets had planed huge battle fleets before the treaty. Without the treaty there is no Lex, Sara, Kaga or Akagi. You might have small Langly or Hosho type CVs with biplane a/c used manly for scouting, but essentially you would have a slightly updated version of Jutland in the pacific. Sounds fun:D

Admiral DadMan -> Re: Re: Re: re (6/21/2002 9:10:59 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT [B] I dont even want to even look at the editor yet, but I was just wondering does it allow you to make up fantasy oobs. If you can create ships that never existed then I think a good set up for what you want would be to have a what if of no naval treaty and war in 1931 rather than 41. Thats way before a/c were effective and both fleets had planed huge battle fleets before the treaty. Without the treaty there is no Lex, Sara, Kaga or Akagi. You might have small Langly or Hosho type CVs with biplane a/c used manly for scouting, but essentially you would have a slightly updated version of Jutland in the pacific. Sounds fun:D [/B][/QUOTE]You're right, you don't get Lex, Sara, Kaga andAkagi as CVs, you get them as ships-of-the-line.

TIMJOT -> Re: Re: Re: Re: re (6/24/2002 9:46:48 PM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Admiral DadMan [B]You're right, you don't get Lex, Sara, Kaga andAkagi as CVs, you get them as ships-of-the-line. [/B][/QUOTE] Yeah, and from what Ive read they would have made the HMS Hood look like a pocket BB. Although ultimately the BC concept was a failed one and if there was a clash of Battle fleets in the 30s these ships probably wouldnt have lasted long. If Jutland and 1st and 2nd Guadacanal are any indication.

kverdon -> War Plan Orange???? (6/25/2002 11:40:48 AM)
Sounds like you are plotting a scenario almost loosely based upon the Plan Orange of the USN which had the USN sailing forth to fight the IJN battle line in a Jutland-like scenario in the Central Pacific in the '30 or even 40's. FWIW, the WNT of 1921 should still stand as is was intended to limit the big gun ratio's of the signing nations. The reason the BC's Lex, Akagi, et all were converted to carriers is that they were pretty much an exept exclusion and nobody cared that you converted the tonnage into CV's. Carriers should primarilly be limitted to spotting/scouting. The North Carolinas South Dakotas and Iowas would still have been built as they were inovative plans to fit the best BB into 35000 tons. You would be able to include the Montana's in there (DROOL!!!) They would be great Yamato killers. This would be a fun fantasy scenario. Kevin

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.84375