RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding



Message

oldman45 -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/19/2011 6:33:00 PM)

Richelieu and other French ships could come in sooner, since there is no Vichey they are not interned at allied bases and don't have to wait till 43 to enter the US shipyards. If you do the conversion of the Jean Bart and assume the hull is towed over to the US I would have it come out in 43. The Richelieu and any other ship could come to the US in 1940 to start upgrades or complete any work that is required.



kfsgo -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/19/2011 8:33:38 PM)

There is, conveniently, one hex between Srinagar and Kashgar that has a supply cost of 100 from both.

I have no idea what the top needs are, specifically. Right now I have things set up as:

US Factory - 30,000 supplies:

quote:



15* P-43-A2 (6/42) > P-40N (4/43) [these are "Chinese" - representing diversions to the CAF]

+

15* P-39D (6/42) > P-39K (12/42) > P-39Q (3/43) > P-63 (9/44)

15* P-40F (6/42) > P-40M (11/42) > P-40P (7/43)

15* A-20C (6/42) > A-20H (6/44)

15* B-25D (6/42) > B-25J (10/44)

+

15* F4F-4 (6/42) > F6F-3 (4/43) > F6F-5 (7/44)

15* TBF-1 (6/42) > TBM-3 (10/44)

15* SBD-4 (6/42) > SBD-5 (5/43)

+

5* PBY-5 (6/42)

5* R4D (3/42)

5* C-47 (5/42)


Some of these are slightly different from 'stock':

- The F4F-4 is really an F-3, with four guns v six and slightly better performance;

- The P-40F adds the Merlin engine for better high-altitude performance (basically, a Kittyhawk II); the P-40M is (as it was) the Kittyhawk III, so slightly slower than the K; the P-40P is basically an 'intermediate N' - slightly higher performance than the bomb-truck versions, but not quite up to the standard of the fighter versions.

- The P-39Q swaps out four wing 30cal guns for two 50cal guns.

- The P-63 is as stock, but there's no US skin for it - only a VVS one. I can probably do a US one if it's wanted.

CW Factory - 15,000 supplies:

quote:



15* Hurricane IIa (6/42) > Spitfire Vb (2/43) > Spitfire IX (11/43)

15* Kittyhawk IA (6/42) > Kittyhawk III (11/42) > Kittyhawk IV (7/43)

15* DB-7B (6/42) > A-20C (9/43) > Mitchell III (6/44)

15* Wellington Ic (6/42) > Wellington X (2/43) > Mosquito B.23 (1/45)

5* Sunderland I (6/42) > Sunderland III (2/44) > Sunderland V (2/45)

5* Dakota II (6/42)


All copies of existing aircraft except the Mosquito B.23, which is a slowed-down B.35 with 8*500lb bombs instead of 1*4000lb. Couldn't resist...

So, that's what they look like at the moment. While you're thinking about that I'll do a separate base with 'stock' aircraft altered to have appropriate upgrade paths, in case that's thought preferable.

e: there could also be something to keep the Dutch going beyond the couple of dozen P-40s they get...and what are the French doing for aircraft?



Skyland -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/19/2011 8:36:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I have side and shill for the Jean Bart AAA version. Its a killer over 4k AAA value [X(]



I am interested by your art, thanks. I found a drawing of this version today and after considering it i think that an AA version in mid 1943 is more useful than a 40-planes CV in 1944.



oldman45 -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/19/2011 11:12:02 PM)

I can't figure out how to post it here, I sent ya a PM Skyland. Dixie is the artist who came up with it.



John 3rd -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/20/2011 5:54:32 AM)

I like the development paths presented. Seems to me to be somewhat balanced and a decent cross-section of needed airframes. Thoughts:

1. Concur regarding the Dutch. What is appropriate there?
2. Skyland: The French? Is there any aircraft for those boys or are they strictly land and sea?

Does anyone have issues and/or comments regarding the plane development lines listed above?



kfsgo -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/20/2011 6:38:02 AM)

Ok; hopefully some people can deliver an opinion on it over the next few days. It might be worth adding something onto the end of the two P-40-based lines; at the moment they both stop in mid-44, while the others don't. Not like aircraft shortages are de rigeur in mid-44, but still...there's the XP-40Q art available, of course, which should fit right in alongside the P-63, heh. I'll see about doing a USAAF skin for that, come to think of it.

e: I should also check to see whether upgrading aircraft types damages factories, as that'd require time-standardised model changes and appropriate supply injections. One for later...

The issue with the NEI forces is that once routing into the NEI is impossible, they're gone - but the timeframe for that is unknown. This is mirrored in the game to an extent - their aircraft reinforcements dry up in March, but land devices keep coming (albeit slowly, where they come at all) until June! A 'fudge' solution might be to locate aircraft production for them in Batavia; I'm not sure if Japan can then use the factories, though - I'd guess they can, but don't know. Another would simply be to alter ML-KNIL units' upgrade paths to take in appropriate US/CW aircraft stocks - I think that's a better solution, since the groups themselves can't really evacuate without enormous effort and expense and presumably part of US/CW stocks were originally some of the rather aspirationally-sized Dutch orders.



oldman45 -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/20/2011 4:48:25 PM)

John, a solution that I used in my mod was give the French navy F4F's, SBD's and towards the end TBF's. The US makes a ton of them and its not much of a stretch to give a few a month to them. Land based air could be P-40's and do like we did with Mexico, in 44 they were flying P-47's so why not give some to the French. For bombers give them B-25's.



JWE -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/20/2011 5:07:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. Skyland: The French? Is there any aircraft for those boys or are they strictly land and sea?

I would love to see some Morane-Saulnier 406s. Maybe a squadron or two could get some Dewoitine 520s sometime? The Bloch 170s and Amiot 350 series weren't bad 2E light bombers either.

Didn't the French have a nice naval dive bomber? A Loire-Nieuport?



John 3rd -> French Aircraft (9/20/2011 5:33:05 PM)

Does anyone have any of these plane's info converted to AE? If so, I would be game to allow a couple trickling in every month...

Going to Post this question as a separate Thread.



DOCUP -> RE: French Aircraft (9/21/2011 4:21:02 AM)

Nice ideas guys. I got excited when I read this page today. My thoughts: Could we bring the AC on earlier or would it take that long to get the factorys repaired. I was thinking of having the P 39d earlier. Just my thought. Also are any of the AC going to change stats. Ie earlier it was mentioned by someone to give the P 39s a supercharger. I know you guys are still hashing out the other side. I am just reminding and planting seeds.

doc



John 3rd -> RE: French Aircraft (9/21/2011 6:44:45 AM)

Thanks. I'm rather excited as well. Think we've come up with some fun and exciting ideas. Don't know how they will play out but it will be fun to find out. RIGHT?

[sm=00000436.gif]



Skyland -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/22/2011 8:43:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I like the development paths presented. Seems to me to be somewhat balanced and a decent cross-section of needed airframes. Thoughts:

2. Skyland: The French? Is there any aircraft for those boys or are they strictly land and sea?



My proposal would be to have french planes from the navy (land-based and seaplanes) in the Noumea/Polynesia area. Then the upgrade will be with planes bought to the US.
- 1 fighter group MS406/410 to be upgraded to Wildcat
- 1 fighter group Potez 631 (twin engines) to be upgraded to P38
- 1 bomber group Maryland to be upgraded to B24 (or B26 ?)
- 2 patrol groups Br521 (seaplane) to be upgraded to Catalina
- 1 torpedo group Late 298 (seaplane) to be upgraded to Dauntless (?)
Total is around 50-60 planes

Eventually some groups escaped from Indochina in the Singapore area (around 20-30 planes). No upgrade for them.
Plus historical reinforcement to arrive in end 1945 (some fighter, patrol and transport groups).

One question :
The french and thai additions will increase the total number of pilots in the game.
Could it be a problem regarding max pilot slots ?



oldman45 -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/22/2011 11:20:41 PM)

I would have the Late 298's upgrade to TBF's or maybe PBY's. Withdrawal the squadron at some point and return with TBF's. I think the Marylands would upgrade to A-20's or B25's. The squadrons that escape to Singers you could have them withdrawal around the historical fall of Singers and return with allied aircraft.



John 3rd -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/23/2011 6:51:24 AM)

A little nervous with that many planes being added to the OOB in Noumea but it sure does allow for the Allies to have a few options down in the South Pacific.

Just noted in the other Thread that Stanislav and I have had very busy weeks IRL and so we're sorry for the slowdown in things.

SKYLAND: Go ahead and add the aircraft. Please let us now when your work is done and sent to FatR. Do you need artwork for the planes? We have a couple of art volunteers so don't be shy.



Skyland -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/24/2011 9:19:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

SKYLAND: Go ahead and add the aircraft. Please let us now when your work is done and sent to FatR. Do you need artwork for the planes? We have a couple of art volunteers so don't be shy.


I will try to send the database to FatR next week. I'm late, sorry.

I may need A-20 with french marking and a Dunkerque/Strasbourg art.
Thanks.



xwraith -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/24/2011 8:41:04 PM)

I'll de-lurk to pitch in an idea or two on the commonwealth side:
  • Accelerate the construction and increase the number of Tribal class destroyers for Australia and Canada
  • Could Canada have built a couple of the Fiji/Ceylon class cruisers at Halifax in the thirties in a scenario where Canada decided she needed a navy?
  • Add the appropriate tenders, and AOs to allow Canada to better support things in the pacific
  • Add Black Swan sloops for the RAN, RCN, RNZN
  • Have a RCAF fighter wing become available in January of '42 for deployment to the pacific
Some potential (a)historical justifications:

Canada and Australia want to maintain the navies even with the Washington treaty in affect. If Japan gets her better ratio, maybe the commonwealth has Britain negotiate that Australia and Canada can have some tonnage as long as they are built at their own yards. Knowing that their capacity is probably still restricted to the destroyer/light cruiser sized vessels, and very small numbers, Japan agrees as long as she gets her better ratio.

Anyway, just some thoughts.



oldman45 -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/24/2011 10:19:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xwraith

I'll de-lurk to pitch in an idea or two on the commonwealth side:
  • Accelerate the construction and increase the number of Tribal class destroyers for Australia and Canada
  • Could Canada have built a couple of the Fiji/Ceylon class cruisers at Halifax in the thirties in a scenario where Canada decided she needed a navy?
  • Add the appropriate tenders, and AOs to allow Canada to better support things in the pacific
  • Add Black Swan sloops for the RAN, RCN, RNZN
  • Have a RCAF fighter wing become available in January of '42 for deployment to the pacific
Some potential (a)historical justifications:

Canada and Australia want to maintain the navies even with the Washington treaty in affect. If Japan gets her better ratio, maybe the commonwealth has Britain negotiate that Australia and Canada can have some tonnage as long as they are built at their own yards. Knowing that their capacity is probably still restricted to the destroyer/light cruiser sized vessels, and very small numbers, Japan agrees as long as she gets her better ratio.

Anyway, just some thoughts.



Not bad, don't forget New Zealand ;)



John 3rd -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/25/2011 6:37:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: xwraith

I'll de-lurk to pitch in an idea or two on the commonwealth side:
  • Accelerate the construction and increase the number of Tribal class destroyers for Australia and Canada
  • Could Canada have built a couple of the Fiji/Ceylon class cruisers at Halifax in the thirties in a scenario where Canada decided she needed a navy?
  • Add the appropriate tenders, and AOs to allow Canada to better support things in the pacific
  • Add Black Swan sloops for the RAN, RCN, RNZN
  • Have a RCAF fighter wing become available in January of '42 for deployment to the pacific
Some potential (a)historical justifications:

Canada and Australia want to maintain the navies even with the Washington treaty in affect. If Japan gets her better ratio, maybe the commonwealth has Britain negotiate that Australia and Canada can have some tonnage as long as they are built at their own yards. Knowing that their capacity is probably still restricted to the destroyer/light cruiser sized vessels, and very small numbers, Japan agrees as long as she gets her better ratio.

Anyway, just some thoughts.



I HATE it when the Romulans or Klingons de-cloak! (or is that de-lurk??!!)

Thanks for the suggestions. Some seriously good ideas present within your Post.



John 3rd -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/26/2011 3:05:51 PM)

Skyland: How are things coming along?



MateDow -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/26/2011 6:32:29 PM)

I just noticed that the Japanese side will have the Tosa and Kaga as battleships as the result of the WNT. I won't ask what would make the US accept that, but if we operate on the assumption that they would, what would the US and UK have asked for as compensation? These ships were clearly superior to a majority of the battleships that were retained.

My thought is that the US would have sacrificed the Florida and Utah and retained at least the Washington (Colorado-class). I might guess that they might have retained either South Dakota or Lexington class ships as well. This would have countered the concept of the treaty which was aiming to save money by canceling ships under construction; both by the Japanese and US governments.

This would result in the UK wanting either additional Nelson-class battleships, or ones that were bigger (G3?).

This would also bump up the upper limit of "acceptable" ships to 40,000 tons. The 35,000 ton limit was based on the tonnage of the Nagato and Colorado classes.

It might make sense to have a conversation about the Tosa and Kaga being included based on this "ripple effect" on the treaty structure.



oldman45 -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/26/2011 9:06:59 PM)

They might have retained another Colorado class. The Colorado's appear to be a better ship than the Tosa.



Pascal_slith -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/27/2011 12:26:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd
2. Skyland: The French? Is there any aircraft for those boys or are they strictly land and sea?

I would love to see some Morane-Saulnier 406s. Maybe a squadron or two could get some Dewoitine 520s sometime? The Bloch 170s and Amiot 350 series weren't bad 2E light bombers either.

Didn't the French have a nice naval dive bomber? A Loire-Nieuport?


Loire-Nieuport LN 401



[image]local://upfiles/9843/024F8286E51E45C29CA1C611117C53A3.gif[/image]



John 3rd -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/27/2011 3:15:28 PM)

That is a very nice side view!



oldman45 -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/27/2011 3:32:48 PM)

I think we have the same book in our library's. [8D]



John 3rd -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/27/2011 5:11:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

I just noticed that the Japanese side will have the Tosa and Kaga as battleships as the result of the WNT. I won't ask what would make the US accept that, but if we operate on the assumption that they would, what would the US and UK have asked for as compensation? These ships were clearly superior to a majority of the battleships that were retained.

My thought is that the US would have sacrificed the Florida and Utah and retained at least the Washington (Colorado-class). I might guess that they might have retained either South Dakota or Lexington class ships as well. This would have countered the concept of the treaty which was aiming to save money by canceling ships under construction; both by the Japanese and US governments.

This would result in the UK wanting either additional Nelson-class battleships, or ones that were bigger (G3?).

This would also bump up the upper limit of "acceptable" ships to 40,000 tons. The 35,000 ton limit was based on the tonnage of the Nagato and Colorado classes.

It might make sense to have a conversation about the Tosa and Kaga being included based on this "ripple effect" on the treaty structure.


This is correct. The Japanese argue successfully at Washington for a ratio of 5:5:3.5 as they hoped for. Essentially figure a failed codebreaking situation OR Secretary Hughes showing flexibility (as he did IRL) to get the Treaty completed.



MateDow -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/27/2011 6:47:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd


quote:

ORIGINAL: MateDow

I just noticed that the Japanese side will have the Tosa and Kaga as battleships as the result of the WNT. I won't ask what would make the US accept that, but if we operate on the assumption that they would, what would the US and UK have asked for as compensation? These ships were clearly superior to a majority of the battleships that were retained.

My thought is that the US would have sacrificed the Florida and Utah and retained at least the Washington (Colorado-class). I might guess that they might have retained either South Dakota or Lexington class ships as well. This would have countered the concept of the treaty which was aiming to save money by canceling ships under construction; both by the Japanese and US governments.

This would result in the UK wanting either additional Nelson-class battleships, or ones that were bigger (G3?).

This would also bump up the upper limit of "acceptable" ships to 40,000 tons. The 35,000 ton limit was based on the tonnage of the Nagato and Colorado classes.

It might make sense to have a conversation about the Tosa and Kaga being included based on this "ripple effect" on the treaty structure.


This is correct. The Japanese argue successfully at Washington for a ratio of 5:5:3.5 as they hoped for. Essentially figure a failed codebreaking situation OR Secretary Hughes showing flexibility (as he did IRL) to get the Treaty completed.



I guess I would have said that they keep the Kawachi-class battleships as their additional two, or even Satsuma-class. That is a more likely outcome from the US and UK point of view. It still maintains the numerical ratio that the Japanese were looking for, achieves the financial savings that the Japanese government needed, and doesn't put two ships out there that (on paper) are stronger than their foreign counterparts.



Skyland -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/27/2011 7:59:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Skyland: How are things coming along?



I have sent a pm to FatR : navy things are done. I have yet to add the air stuff.
It may be ok for this week end.



Pascal_slith -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/27/2011 9:06:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I think we have the same book in our library's. [8D]


Actually, though I could have scanned it from one of my mags or books, this came from the Virtual Aircraft Museum.

See: http://www.aviastar.org/index2.html




DOCUP -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/28/2011 3:10:32 AM)

Is anyone else getting itchy to play this besides me.



oldman45 -> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas (9/28/2011 5:15:28 AM)

Great link, thanks!



Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.796875