(Full Version)

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



Message

bradfordkay -> (6/25/2002 12:34:49 PM)

You seem to have three possible scenarios coming here:

1. Washinton Treaty of 1922 existed, but not London Treaty of 1930(?). WW2 era ships are built at an earlier date.

2. Neither treaty existed. You get the results of the full WW1 build programs. WW2 programs appear early.

3. Both treaties exist as in history (after all, the treaties were aimed heavily at battleships). You get the real life ships at the times they were available.


I believe that Kaga was actually laid down as a battleship. Akagi's sister was the Amagi, which was going to be the other carrier conversion allowed by the treaty. However, her hull was so seriously damaged by the Tokyo quake of '23 that they appropriated Kaga's hull to replace her. Apparently they were taking their time at scrapping her....



Rob Roberson -> (6/25/2002 2:18:01 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bradfordkay
[B]You seem to have three possible scenarios coming here:

1. Washinton Treaty of 1922 existed, but not London Treaty of 1930(?). WW2 era ships are built at an earlier date.

2. Neither treaty existed. You get the results of the full WW1 build programs. WW2 programs appear early.

3. Both treaties exist as in history (after all, the treaties were aimed heavily at battleships). You get the real life ships at the times they were available.
[/B][/QUOTE]

I thinking im going for number 2. Based on some of the research I have been doing (thanks to everyone who has suggested websites and articles) it would make the most sense.

The idea I am kicking around is that at each point in history where naval air could of shown it's abilties it failed.

The first carrier landing (on a British flattop if I remember correctly)

The first American attempt.

Billy Mitchell fails miserably (about the time of the Washington Treaty)

No British, Japanese, or American fleet carriers are laid down.

I'm considering escort carriers...they have a role in spotting for the big guns.

Submarine forces are bigger, as are oilers, tankers. Lots more steel out there, but to what end...which is what I am working on. Land base air isnt very effective, (editing their bomb loads has been a bitch), but where I am stumped is what to make the goals. The grab an island build a runway is no longer the emphasis of the campaign...what should be...fueling stations (big ports). Both PM and Rabaul were dumpy little anchorages when the war broke out. They became important. Either way I have a ton of info to sift through and its been fun, heck as much as I have I may have to write a book...;). I love the suggestions though, this is going to see light of day...now if only I can come up with a quicker way to edit the units involved.

It would be plan orange. I do wish that I could edit in some British ships. With land based air not being as effective they would have a role (secondary) in the southwest pacific defending the Aussies..

Rob



von Murrin -> (6/25/2002 3:19:25 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Rob Roberson
[B]...but where I am stumped is what to make the goals. The grab an island build a runway is no longer the emphasis of the campaign...what should be...fueling stations (big ports). Both PM and Rabaul were dumpy little anchorages when the war broke out. They became important...[/B][/QUOTE]

Well, the SPS of the potential bases does reflect their suitability for ports and airfields rather well. I would say that aside from the hubs (Brisbane, Truk, Noumea) and the advance harbors (Rabaul, Luganville, Townsville/Cairns), It will all be fought over large natural anchorages like Tulagi, Gili, and Shortland to accomodate search aircraft.

I think a possible idea would be to do something along the lines of cutting down the SPS of both airfields and ports in general for purposes of perspective, and severly pruning or eliminating the smaller locations altogether at the start. For example, Lunga and Tulagi shouldn't exist, and Shortland I. would be something like a size 2/0 port/field. All those little fields in PNG wouldn't be there either, and Lae might be okay if it were really small.

Just tossing some pennies your way. :p

Oh, and let me know if you want any help with anything. :)



bradfordkay -> (6/26/2002 12:17:11 PM)

"The idea I am kicking around is that at each point in history where naval air could of shown it's abilties it failed."

I like option #2 as well, just because i believe that some of those cancelled ships would have proven to be beautiful examples of the art.

But I have to contend that the naval treaties did not exist to limit carriers, but rather to limit battleships and battlecruisers first and foremost.
Having naval air fail its tests would have no effect on the treaties, just on the development of naval air forces (and the capabilities of LBA versus naval units).


Thus I think that the other scenarios would be cool as well.... Why stop at one scenario?

I forgot a fourth (but less likely, since right after WW1 was when anti-military sentiment was at its strongest):

1922 Washington Treaty not in existence, 1930 Treaty does occur. Receive total WW1 build program, but WW2 arrives at normal time.



bradfordkay -> (6/26/2002 12:25:32 PM)

"All those little fields in PNG wouldn't be there either, and Lae might be okay if it were really small."

I may be wrong, but I think that some of those little strips were already there as a result of a minor gold rush in PNG during the thirties.

I do agree with your idea of de-emphasizing the airbases and their effect on VP costs.

Another way to de-emphasize the air bases would be to change the rate of construction (is this possible?). Since there would be fewer bombers, there wouldn't have been the need to develope the specialized airbase contruction units.



von Murrin -> (6/26/2002 1:47:26 PM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bradfordkay
[B]"All those little fields in PNG wouldn't be there either, and Lae might be okay if it were really small."

I may be wrong, but I think that some of those little strips were already there as a result of a minor gold rush in PNG during the thirties.

I do agree with your idea of de-emphasizing the airbases and their effect on VP costs.

Another way to de-emphasize the air bases would be to change the rate of construction (is this possible?). Since there would be fewer bombers, there wouldn't have been the need to develope the specialized airbase contruction units. [/B][/QUOTE]

That's essentially what I had in mind. All the EAB and most of the Nav Const. Bns would have to be edited out. The "little strips" could be adaquately simulated from a naval standpoint as a level 1 field at Lae. :)



panda124c -> (6/27/2002 12:49:25 AM)

You would also have to consider the increase in the number of Light and Heavy Crusiers, which were used for scouting duties (this is the original thought for carriers usage.

Supply of forward bases used for refueling of task forces (battleships will need more forward refueling points because of their fuel usage), protection of supply ships, protection from subs for supply convoys and task forces. Raiding of supply bases and shipping lanes by crusier/destroyer task forces.

The whole war would not change that much just the method by which you maintained your supply lines for invasions of major ports to support your major fleet units which are needed to control large areas (projection of power by battleships as opposed to airpower). So that you can invade the next port and keep the enemy from controling areas that contain your ports.



TIMJOT -> (6/28/2002 10:41:46 AM)

Hi

I just recently finished "War Plan Orange" Miller; Naval Institute Press. A major emphasis of the plan other than the destruction of the IJN was to secure large safe anchorages as forward bases for the Fleet. If the scenerio is to take place in the 30s then this would be even more essential since refueling at sea was still very expiremental at that time. So I would think you would have to severly limit or remove completely the ability to refuel at sea, thus making the capture of large ports essentail for victory and adequately replacing the importance of airbases. If endurances can be edited then I would think they should be revised downward to give anchorages added signifacance. Believe or not another major problem for pre-wwII fleets was bottom fouling of ships hulls which could severly degrade performance within only a few months at sea. Which was another reason for adequate forward anchorages and docking facilities. The development of anti-fouling paints by WWII greatly reduced this problem.



Drex -> (6/28/2002 7:09:37 PM)

I f forward anchorages are a prime objective then perhaps there would still be a "Midway" confrontation just in a different area.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875