RE: The Big THREE?

RE: The Big THREE? (Full Version)

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

Message

Terminus -> RE: The Big THREE? (10/18/2011 10:55:40 PM)
Er, you just switch the aircraft's nationality... It's a drop-down menu, like the rest...

oldman45 -> RE: The Big THREE? (10/19/2011 4:58:47 AM)
I get that part, maybe I am making this harder than it is.

Skyland -> RE: The Big THREE? (10/19/2011 5:29:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: US87891 Perhaps a small off topic diversion but Skyland seems to understand things French thus my question. In the time just before the First War, the colonial service was regarded by the Staff College types as "le tourisme", notwithstanding it's production of men like Lyautey and Gallieni. Was this still a prevelent view at the time of the Second War? Thank you. Matt I think that the tourism argument has been used for recruitment campaign. "Join the Coloniale and you will discover the World". Something like that. But of course it was never so peaceful. [image]local://upfiles/23975/3733F94192B5430AAFA057C1CCAE2C5A.jpg[/image]

John 3rd -> The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/21/2011 8:36:50 PM)
I went through and updated the Colorado-Class BB as we have discussed. This is what I did (following PLan D (as in DOG): Raised Tonnage by about 4,000 to 37,590 Raised Durability by 16 Added 50MM of Deck Armor to a total of 158MM Axed all single 5" guns and replaced them with 4x2 5" Mk 12 EBR turrets Added 1.1" Mountings as described These BBs are now joined together as a single class that will upgrade in 11/43 and 1/45. Above changes carried through those two upgrades. On December 7th the BBs are: 1. Colorado and Washington in Seattle 2. Maryland and West Virginia in San Francisco They start Dec 7th with a combination of roughly 40 Sys and Engine Damage. Each are different in numbers but the total is around 40 in total damage. Should take 2-3 months for repairs... ISSUE: We now have a Washington soooooo I propose renaming the real USS Washington as the USS Montana. SEE all you AFB finally get a Montana BB! [:'(]

ny59giants -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/21/2011 10:24:20 PM)
quote: Maryland and West Virginia in San Francisco Moved them to Alameda. If they are going to take up space in the repair shipyard long term, I would have sent them there. That is where they keep the nuclear wessels, Admiral. [;)]

John 3rd -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/21/2011 10:57:01 PM)
w..e..s..s..e..l..s Will move them SIR!

DOCUP -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/21/2011 10:58:02 PM)
ISSUE: We now have a Washington soooooo I propose renaming the real USS Washington as the USS Montana. SEE all you AFB finally get a Montana BB! [:'(] How about John 3rd, for its name.[&o]

John 3rd -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/22/2011 12:39:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DOCUP ISSUE: We now have a Washington soooooo I propose renaming the real USS Washington as the USS Montana. SEE all you AFB finally get a Montana BB! [:'(] How about John 3rd, for its name.[&o] TERRIBLE! [sm=party-smiley-012.gif]

John 3rd -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/22/2011 1:03:17 AM)
Was just experimenting and have those BBs with 40 damage gets them out in less then 30 days. Will have to raise that so they are in longer. Does anyone else have an idea for making them have to be 'repaired' longer. Target is from 60-100 days after Dec 7th.

kfsgo -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/22/2011 1:13:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Was just experimenting and have those BBs with 40 damage gets them out in less then 30 days. Will have to raise that so they are in longer. Does anyone else have an idea for making them have to be 'repaired' longer. Target is from 60-100 days after Dec 7th. That's easy - remove the guns from the base class and add them in with a (60-100) day upgrade available 12/41. Don't think you'll see many people skip that. Or just bring'em in 60-100 days from scenario start. Potato, potahto...

RevRick -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/22/2011 1:33:24 AM)
A good old name which wasn't used also could be the USS Michigan... She was the first BB designed with a single caliber main battery, but she was not completed until after Dreadnought.. When one old US senator was told what Dreadnought meant,he proposed that we rename the USS Michigan the USS "Skeered o nothin":

RevRick -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/22/2011 1:37:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Was just experimenting and have those BBs with 40 damage gets them out in less then 30 days. Will have to raise that so they are in longer. Does anyone else have an idea for making them have to be 'repaired' longer. Target is from 60-100 days after Dec 7th. Well, since they would have to rip into the superstructure forward to redo that for the Mounts, handling rooms, and loading rooms for the 5"/38 twins, they would and work on the deck armor... they would probably do a lot of whatever work would be needed in the engine and boiler rooms as well (retubing, rebricking, relaggging etc., which is always done a lot easier with the top open than crawling through hatches, so you might add 30-40 engine and a modicum of floatation damage since they probably haven't resealed the main screw packing either. Oh, heck... I almost forgot, they would probably also work on the steering protection... that would be a couple of points of critical damage at least.

oldman45 -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/22/2011 3:48:47 AM)
I would go with USS Michigan only because of Rev's story, otherwise I would insist on USS Florida. (I am a little bias.)

John 3rd -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/22/2011 1:43:12 PM)
...and I thought players would be all excited to have the USS Montana (but without 12 16" Guns) at sea. OK. It appears that the USS Michigan is now in the game! RevRick: I like your description of their condition. I'll raise their damage level and see what that does.

xwraith -> ASW/Escort Operations (10/22/2011 9:01:25 PM)
I was reading through the other thread and it looks like the Japanese are going to have a greater number of submarines, with a more aggressive targeting doctrine. I'm wondering how this would impact allied ASW and escort allocations to the Pacific. Some thoughts: I wouldn't be surprised if this would be a significant advantage at the start. The battle of the Atlantic is raging, and resources are spread thin... Starting in the summer of '43, as the u-boats have been effectively suppressed, escort groups could start showing up from the Atlantic (assuming that the i boats will still be a significant threat at this point) Anyway, just some thoughts....

RevRick -> RE: ASW/Escort Operations (10/23/2011 1:58:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: xwraith I was reading through the other thread and it looks like the Japanese are going to have a greater number of submarines, with a more aggressive targeting doctrine. I'm wondering how this would impact allied ASW and escort allocations to the Pacific. Some thoughts: I wouldn't be surprised if this would be a significant advantage at the start. The battle of the Atlantic is raging, and resources are spread thin... Starting in the summer of '43, as the u-boats have been effectively suppressed, escort groups could start showing up from the Atlantic (assuming that the i boats will still be a significant threat at this point) Anyway, just some thoughts.... So, as soon as that becomes a problem, the USN should do what the RN did with the old Clemson and Wickes class DD's.. Convert them into long range escort vessels. Take out a boiler, replace it with a fuel tank, and put lots of ASW on the hull. It won't be pretty, but it will be effective. You should even be able to install a primitive Sonar in the hull down there somewhere since you're working probably on the forward boiler room.

MateDow -> RE: ASW/Escort Operations (10/23/2011 3:54:18 PM)
OK, here are some responses to a variety of points made earlier... quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd I went through and updated the Colorado-Class BB as we have discussed. This is what I did (following PLan D (as in DOG): Raised Tonnage by about 4,000 to 37,590 Raised Durability by 16 Added 50MM of Deck Armor to a total of 158MM Axed all single 5" guns and replaced them with 4x2 5" Mk 12 EBR turrets Added 1.1" Mountings as described Is this supposed to be 8 twin 5" mounts (like upgraded West Virginia or California) or really the same battery that the later Brooklyn-class light cruisers carried? quote: On December 7th the BBs are: 1. Colorado and Washington in Seattle 2. Maryland and West Virginia in San Francisco They start Dec 7th with a combination of roughly 40 Sys and Engine Damage. Each are different in numbers but the total is around 40 in total damage. Should take 2-3 months for repairs... I say that it would probably be one at Puget Sound NSY (Seattle), one at Mare Island NSY and the third and fourth at Brooklyn and Philadelphia NSY(Eastern US). This would have fit congressional goals of spreading out the work on the ships. It also provides an additional element of randomness as they transit to the war zones. quote: SSUE: We now have a Washington soooooo I propose renaming the real USS Washington as the USS Montana. SEE all you AFB finally get a Montana BB! Montana is the only South Dakota-class battleship name that wasn't reused during WW2. IF we reinsert the Montana-class battleships, then I agree with Michigan for the 2nd North Carolina-class battleship. Of course, I love Oregon, but since she still exists, and in this alternative timeline is not foolishly scrapped, that isn't possible. quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Was just experimenting and have those BBs with 40 damage gets them out in less then 30 days. Will have to raise that so they are in longer. Does anyone else have an idea for making them have to be 'repaired' longer. Target is from 60-100 days after Dec 7th. I agree that there should be significant flotation and engineering damage, with most of it being critical. That would slow down the process. I would aim for 60 days with a critical focus. Anything less, and it takes longer. quote: ORIGINAL: xwraith I was reading through the other thread and it looks like the Japanese are going to have a greater number of submarines, with a more aggressive targeting doctrine. I'm wondering how this would impact allied ASW and escort allocations to the Pacific. Some thoughts: I wouldn't be surprised if this would be a significant advantage at the start. The battle of the Atlantic is raging, and resources are spread thin... Starting in the summer of '43, as the u-boats have been effectively suppressed, escort groups could start showing up from the Atlantic (assuming that the i boats will still be a significant threat at this point) Anyway, just some thoughts.... With the US learning war lessons better, they might start construction of the DEs earlier in the war. Maybe at the expense of some of the fleet escort destroyers? Maybe move up their arrival 6 months? With Britain being better prepared, they aren't desperate for the US destroyers, so the US can use the Clemsons as DE, but still have the additional unconverted ones for combat use or more specialized conversions.

inqistor -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/23/2011 10:59:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd Was just experimenting and have those BBs with 40 damage gets them out in less then 30 days. Will have to raise that so they are in longer. Does anyone else have an idea for making them have to be 'repaired' longer. Target is from 60-100 days after Dec 7th. Oooh, oooh, I recently experimented with that! Neither system damage, or weapons destroyed adds much for repair duration. You should try to increase Major Engine Damage, that seems to add time, and is impossible to accelerate.

DOCUP -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/24/2011 12:46:41 PM)
Just a thought. Some of us AFB guys have been annoying you with questions about allied AC and ground units. So a thought came into my mind just now. Yea scary. Since North Africa is smaller than it was IRL. Why don't we keep or transfer to the Pacific some of the AC squadrons and replacement planes. This would go for ground units also. I haven't had a chance to do much research for this. I figured I would write it down before I went to sleep.

oldman45 -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/25/2011 12:34:19 AM)
On the other side of the coin DOCUP, with an early collapse of resistance in North Africa, those troops could be used for an earlier invasion of Sicily. Its still Europe first. If we go with that kind of time line, perhaps we will see troops coming from Europe in early 45 instead of late 45 or early 46.

John 3rd -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/25/2011 2:41:17 AM)
DOCUP had me thinking but Oldman is correct. No matter what happens here it is Germany FIRST. This being said, however, I still imagine Curtain raising all sorts of HELL with Churchill. If things are calmer in North Africa/Sicily then perhaps those two Aussie ID might be available earlier OR (new idea) perhaps one of them never deployed to start with. The NZ ID and and 1 Aussie ID would be the Corps and the other Aussie ID is HOME when the war starts...hmmmm...thoughts?

mike scholl 1 -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/25/2011 4:12:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd This being said, however, I still imagine Curtain raising all sorts of HELL with Churchill. If things are calmer in North Africa/Sicily then perhaps those two Aussie ID might be available earlier OR (new idea) perhaps one of them never deployed to start with. The NZ ID and and 1 Aussie ID would be the Corps and the other Aussie ID is HOME when the war starts...hmmmm...thoughts? Most likely would be for that second Australian Division would have been deployed in Malaya instead of the partly trained and equipped 18th. Might have made Yamashita's task much more difficult if the 9th Division had been defending Singapore instead of Trobruk.

John 3rd -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/25/2011 4:31:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1 quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd This being said, however, I still imagine Curtain raising all sorts of HELL with Churchill. If things are calmer in North Africa/Sicily then perhaps those two Aussie ID might be available earlier OR (new idea) perhaps one of them never deployed to start with. The NZ ID and and 1 Aussie ID would be the Corps and the other Aussie ID is HOME when the war starts...hmmmm...thoughts? Most likely would be for that second Australian Division would have been deployed in Malaya instead of the partly trained and equipped 18th. Might have made Yamashita's task much more difficult if the 9th Division had been defending Singapore instead of Trobruk. This would be quite the thought. What do you guys think about placing the 9th Aussie ID into Malaya? With the aerial additions I've made, the 3rd Brigades to the Indian Divisions, 18th ID only about 10 days away, and a reinforced Force Z, Malaya might actually be the Fortress envisioned. Am open to ideas here...

MateDow -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/25/2011 4:33:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DOCUP Just a thought.� Some of us AFB guys have been annoying you with questions about allied AC and ground units.� So a thought came into my mind just now.��Yea scary. Since North Africa is smaller than it was IRL.� Why don't we keep or transfer�to the�Pacific�some of the AC squadrons and replacement planes.� This would�go for ground units also.� I haven't had a chance to do much research for this.� I figured I would write it down before I went to sleep.� I like the idea of bumping up the replacement rate for the Commonwealth fighters a little bit. It always seems as if there is a shortage. Even if it something like the Buffalo that comes from the US would be useful. I don't think that additional units early would be likely. I wouldn't mind some additional Commonwealth fighter units in 1943 when the drive into SE Asia is supposed to be starting.

John 3rd -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/25/2011 4:39:28 PM)
Good thoughts. I concur with that thinking.

mike scholl 1 -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/25/2011 5:14:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John 3rd This would be quite the thought. What do you guys think about placing the 9th Aussie ID into Malaya? With the aerial additions I've made, the 3rd Brigades to the Indian Divisions, 18th ID only about 10 days away, and a reinforced Force Z, Malaya might actually be the Fortress envisioned. Am open to ideas here... I don't think the Aussies would agree to ship two divisions to Singers pre-war. They only had two Brigades of the 18th there in real life. But using the entire 18th in the manner of the "bird detachments" could prove interesting. Maybe two brigades available to reinforce the Dutch, and one deployed to beef up the garrison of Rabaul.

John 3rd -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/25/2011 5:40:57 PM)
Another fine thought. Don't have an issue with that either. Could we get more opinions?

oldman45 -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/25/2011 9:01:49 PM)
I guess if we stepped into the shoes of the British Cabinet, how much priority is Rabaul vs Singers, or is the need to protect the Dutch out weigh Rabaul. I don't know how important this line of thinking is, but if we make too much available early on, the IJA might be hard pressed to take some of the early locations. Do we really want to have this?

mike scholl 1 -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/26/2011 5:49:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 I guess if we stepped into the shoes of the British Cabinet, how much priority is Rabaul vs Singers, or is the need to protect the Dutch out weigh Rabaul. I'd say this is more a matter for the Australian Cabinet. As postulated, Churchill's gotten 2 ANZAK Divisions in N. Africa, and another in Singapore. My feeling is the Aussies would want to keep the 18th to deal with their own fears and problems.

John 3rd -> RE: The Revamped BIG FOUR (10/26/2011 6:07:07 AM)
Here is a proposal as I think on this: What about taking the 18th British ID out of the initial que and have the Aussie 9th ID rounding the southern tip of India under the protection of Indomitable and Company? The 18th could then be slated to arrive later as a reinforcement... This move would allow for a battle-tested unit to be on the map and able to deploy within 10-14 days while at the same time allowing the Japanese to make their initial moves without having to deal with it immediately.

Page: << < prev 18 19 [20] 21 22 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875