"Historical" Production vs. Historical Choices (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Sapphire -> "Historical" Production vs. Historical Choices (11/25/2000 12:26:00 AM)

Consider the following: In mid '42 the Japanese decided to emphasize carrier production over battleships. As a result the Musashi became their last battleship, and the Shinano became a carrier. That's historical fact. But that decision was the result of two battles. Pearl Harbor gave them superiority in the battleship category, and Midway made carrier strength pretty much even. What if these two battles hadn't happened? Suppose instead that the U.S. battle line had been intact (even if hid out on the West Coast as a "fleet in being") and more Coral Sea type attrition battles had whittled the U.S. carrier force down to nothing? That's historical fiction, but it's a definite possibility in a game like WitP. In this situation it seems very likely that the Shinano would have stayed a battleship, and there may have been more Yamato's or even the 20" behemoths the IJN had on the drawing board. Given this kind of opposition the USN might have produced Montana's too...This is historical fiction, but it's the fiction that goes with the fictional battle results described above. My point is that in a game where the battle results and strategic decisions aren't "historical" it makes no sense for production and reinforcement to be restricted to what is "historical." In a game of the scale of WitP (and PacWar) the wartime economy should be under the control of the player. Historical production is the result of one set of economic choices, just as the historical timeline of battles results from one set of strategic choices. And the two were made simultaneously with each depending on the other. To fix one and allow the player to control the other doesn't make sense. Let me say at this point that it should always be an option to keep the historical production. I know for some people it won't feel like WWII if it is changed. What should be under player control? Certainly basic production: how many planes, ships, tanks, etc. and what types. Manpower as well, and how it is used. If I want more engineers, that should be possible. Ideally there should be a tradeoff between production and the number of men inducted into the military. A system where historical units must be "bought" is one possibility, though limited. Much harder to model is the development of technology, and I wouldn't object too strenuously if this stayed fixed. One option would just be to allow choices which change the time at which new designs become available. If so there must be some ahistorical or postwar designs available, so if you speed up research you could build Midway's or Montana's before the end of the war. Another factor to look into would be gadgets, such as radar and (tactical) rockets, which could increase the capabilities of existing units. And I don't mean just "developing radar" once and for all, since there were great advances in radar in the course of the war which made it much more effective. The ultimate of course would be to allow the player to design their own units. I'd love to have the U.S. develop a longer range tactical bomber to match the Betty. The problem is that the more flexibility you give the easier it is to end up with a broken system that is susceptible to abuse. That and few game designers seem to have a clue how to model an economy (if anyone here plays 4X games you know what I mean). I'm a graduate student in economics and if there's some interest I'll post some ideas (I may inflict them on you interest or not), but I first want to see what people think of the general idea.



Major Tom -> (11/25/2000 6:00:00 AM)

The way that the game will work, is, that you are the GHQ of the American or Japanese armed forces. You leave up design to your aircraft and ship designers, BUT, you get to choose what to build. I would like some more options avalible, such as possible production planes that were historically scrapped (Ki-60, P-43, etc.) to be allowed to be chosen as production models, for whatever reason. The same with ships. You should decide what ship types you wish to construct. HOWEVER, allowing the player to design the ship/plane from the keel up will not represent the power of the GHQ Commander. This aspect was purely the aircraft manufacturer's perogative. The military would set the guidelines of a class or type, and they would see what the industries came up with. So, In WitP you could build that third Yamato, or make it a CV. You could build a bunch of Amigi class Carriers, or, you might want to revise the Shokaku design. Maybe the IJN player wants a lot of CVL's instead of a few CV's constructed? This is the amount of control. Remember, this is a wargame, not an Empire building game.



RevRick -> (11/25/2000 6:01:00 AM)

I, too, like the idea of having some input into the production reproduced in the game. What we need to keep in mind, however, is that a great lot of this production was already on the ways (most notably with capital ships) before Pearl Harbor. The great choices remaining would seem to be centered on aircraft, land combat units, merchant shipping and escorts, and submarines. Almost any capital ship which started production after 07 Dec 41 would only enter the game in mid '44 or after - which would already be overshadowed by what has been produced before. To produce Montana's or the IJN upgraded Yamato 20's, or the Kreigsmarine H16 or H20 class battleships for example, would require decisions already in place well before the game started - like an early abbrogation of the Washington and London Treaty limitations. If Japan had announced in 1934 that it would no longer follow the treaty, there might well have been a more rapid buildup of the US Fleet (the two ocean Navy bill being passed in 1938-39 for example, or even the North Carolina's and South Dakota's being built earlier as "remedies" to the unemployment problem. Who know, we may even have another CV or two to deal with on both sides.) ONe of the things I have played with as well is the lack of proper aircrew training in the IJN. The skill of the initial aircrew was wasted. In PW terms, a reduction of the initial skill levels to about 80 or so, if then re-factored as an addition to the skill levels of aircrew on the later CV's would go a long way to making the middle game much more competitive. Basically, if the USN can make it into late 42 with a number of it's CV's intact (4 or so) then the game is really dicey for the IJN player. If they can make in into spring of 43, then the game outcome is all but certain. Again, production would seem to be a key. \ Maybe we could have a number of production points based on what was actually expended, and then go back and schedule in what we would have done for the two years or so prior to the beginning of a campaign. That could reflavor the entire game. Or, what would have happened if the War Production Board had told GM (I think) that the the Allison would be great for PT boats, but that they were to retool and build Merlins, or (heaven help us)- Gryphon engines. Can you say P-38's with Merlins in the nacelles? Tell Curtiss to start making P-51B/C as soon as they come on line. Or, for that matter, letting Bell make the Airacobra with a supercharger, which is what the design team wanted. Those kinds of speculative adventures could make for a really complex, and very interesting game. ------------------ God Bless; Rev. Rick, the tincanman [This message has been edited by RevRick (edited November 24, 2000).]



RevRick -> (11/25/2000 6:18:00 AM)

Major Tom: A thought. You wrote: "The same with ships. You should decide what ship types you wish to construct. HOWEVER, allowing the player to design the ship/plane from the keel up will not represent the power of the GHQ Commander. This aspect was purely the aircraft manufacturer's perogative. The military would set the guidelines of a class or type, and they would see what the industries came up with." I've been reading Friedman's work for USNI on USN cruiser design. You would be amazed at the amount of input the general boards had on the qualities and capabilities of individual classes. There was even some mid 1930's flirtations with a combination of aircraft carrier/cruiser which received enough serious thought to design schemes being presented and initial drawings and specs drawn up. All of this is to say that GHQ (CNO, CincLant, and CincPac) had a lot of input into what was built, within the constraints of the amount authorized by Congress. They didn't even make up their minds about the main battery of the North Carolina's until after production of key components was started, and might even have been decided after the keel was laid. They designed two separate turret/barbette systems to match the same ship space specs - one a quadruple 14" battery and one the triple 16" 45 cal. battery as built. That one was called by Roosevelt, I think. Don't have the reference book at hand right now.) The original Baltimore's were to have been a short run, and then an improved design brought on line, but that was stopped by the CINC because of the needs of the war. Two CLAA's were built to a weapon designed entirely because of the direction of the BuShips (6"47 DP gun). There was a huge amount of intraservice discussion about the design of the Essex class, and even whether to make CV 9 an additional Hornet, so it would have been on line a year or so earlier. All of these decisions were made with the input, and sometimes, if politically adept, the power of Fleet CINC's. But, one has to admit, getting anything past Ernie King was going to be some kind of feat. ------------------ God Bless; Rev. Rick, the tincanman



sulup -> (11/25/2000 9:04:00 AM)

LCU's and HQ's should also be left up to the player to create. Example..if you were Japan and IF by some miracle you were keeping the US at bay, it wouldn't make sense for the 32nd & 35th HQ's to arrive defending Okinawa and Phillipines. Airgroups should also be left to the player to create. Otherwise you tend to be left with a lot of airgroups and not enough planes to fill the squadrons.



moore4807 -> (11/27/2000 2:18:00 AM)

Hmmm, At the risk of going south here, Major Tom's post speaks of having some controls over production as the game progresses... several suggestions sound good, but my question would be- are controls going to be decided by points or is there going to be some kind of high level decision about the amounts available monthly depending on the European Theatre needs (as was in real life...) or can the needs be claimed by Commands in a descending (needs=prep points)order (VBG!)creating a battle for supplies as well as a battle against the Japanese! Sort of a BuPers/BuAir variable meddling with perfectly laid plans if you dont be careful! (also remember it was a HUGE problem when shipping was sent to the Pacific, most never came back besides sinkings because Halsey and MacArthur kept the merchant shipping, not sending it back to resupply but using it as portable storage as the Army/Navy/Marines went from battle to battle) This could be a variant that could derail many an armchair Admiral! Just an Idea...



Desert Fox -> (11/28/2000 12:20:00 AM)

This kind of stuff is exactly why I liked the PTO games for the Super Nintendo. Those games gave you total control over production. You got to choose what class of warship you wanted to build, you got to choose what type of plane you wanted to build, and yes, you even got to 'design' your own ships by putting in the desired specs for the ships. In the original PTO, you could even convert BBs to CVs, and vice versa. You could also convert cruisers to CVLs and back. Unfortunately this had to be done after the ship was put into service, which meant that you had to wait another 3 months for your Iowa to be turned into a Carrier. Something else I should mention is that converting ships would not usually give you a ship that was better than a pure design. For example, converting your BBs into CVs, they would have smaller aircraft capacities, though better armor. Also in those games, once you developed radar, it had to be equipped on your ships, otherwise they would not have radar. So you had to make a decision to reduce your forces in some part of the pacific in order to bring them back to be equipped with radar. The first PTO had historical production for the campaigns, giving you the ships when they would have arrived, though you could always put a fifth Iowa or yet another Essex into production if you wanted. The second PTO had only a few months of historical production, and the rest was left up to you. For example, starting in Nov. 1941, you would only have a few cruisers and destroyers on your production list, the latest to come out sometime in early 1942, and if you wanted any Iowas or Essex carriers, you had to build them yourself. However, in both games, you were eventually given the option to build Midways and Montanas. Anyways, I really want to be able to control production. I wonder what kind of production point/raw materials system will be implemented. The real production choices are about raw materials. Do you make a battleship or half a dozen destroyer escorts? At the same time, I don't know that this game should be turned into a resource management game, even though this was certainly a good part of the war for the Japanese. This is something that I think will have to be figured out by Matrix.



RevRick -> (11/28/2000 9:10:00 AM)

In addition to production resources - to properly game the fully strategic exigencies, we also need to take into account the number and size of construction slips. There weren't that many slips which could build CV's, BB's BC's and CA's. That is why they are really spread all over the landscape. And, when you have to factor in repair capability (what if the Lexington had managed to creep into Pearl in May of 42 - that is one major drydock occupied for a long time, and what would happen if someone had depth charged and sank the I boat that finished off Yorktown.) Remember that a lot of East Coast ports had a number of Brit ships in for repair as well as our own. That might actually get too complicated, but there could be some limitation to the number of capital ships of each type under construction, or at least on the ways, at the same time. I did a lot of gaming of the production problems with the board version of War in the Pacific - before personal computers were capable of doing more than playing pong - and found some of my old notes. EGAD it gets complicated - but it is very fascinating - and entirely professional. ------------------ God Bless; Rev. Rick, the tincanman



Paul Dyer -> (11/28/2000 11:38:00 AM)

Two thoughts on this topic. 1/. Whatever we do, at least have the option of historical production available (agree with Sapphire). There will always be some players who want to play the game from a slightly lower level of command, "I'm just the poor b***er at the front making do with whatever is avaliable" types. Others will just want historical accuracy. Of course historical production was influenced by wartime losses and experience, which will vary with each game, so we will never get things exactly as they happened. 2/. I've no problem with controlling ship or whatever production, providing adequate lead times are included. Don't have references to hand, but production schedules varied from days for Liberty ships to years for capital ships. In effect the player would need to be asked what vessels to START building at the appropriate time, together with indications of how long this will take. So you can't whip up a few extra carriers at short notice to replace losses. Production already underway as at Dec 41 would be a given. Ideally there could be economies of scale, so that shipyards became more efficient as they gained practice at building a certain type of ship. All this could be handled by a screen showing available ship/plane/tank etc building resources, what each one was currently devoted to, and how far along each ship was. Could be run automatically (historical production) or on manual over-ride if the player chooses. This would also incorporate for the types of limitations RevRick mentions, which seem to me a good idea. P.S. Sapphire - I'm also an economics graduate (no economist jokes please - we've heard them all). I think Pacwar succeeds because it operates on many levels. A good war game and also a good resource management game. Agree few games ever model economies properly - Capitalism is one that comes to mind. We don't want to go overboard, but I note that games in areas like managing football teams often benefit by having to also manage the finances and face resource constraints. A bit of this could enhance Pacwar, especially if you could always turn it off. ------------------ It is hard enough to remember my opinions, without also remembering my reasons for them! - Frederich Nietzsche [This message has been edited by Paul Dyer (edited November 27, 2000).]



moore4807 -> (11/28/2000 1:34:00 PM)

To Desert Fox,Rev. Rick,and Paul Dyer; Desert Fox- thanks for reminding me where I had the idea from. I keep on forgetting that game I played for oh so many hours oh so many years ago!, KOEI shoulda coulda woulda updated the game but alas, I am subconsciously trying to insert it here. Sorry for the plagarism... Paul Dyer- I couldn't agree more with your assesment along with Rev. Rick's about the complexity of variable production and shipbuilding programs. It could quickly turn into nightmare proportions if not governed properly. Perhaps a quarterly "heads of state" conference where it could be randomly decided -who (Theatres-who gets how much of what) what (points) when (as you stated- production schedule) where (existing shipbuilding or Kaiser Liberty Ship type rapid expansion) why (war priorities) Your right I'm almost describing PTO type game again. VBG Hope something happens Jim



mogami -> (11/30/2000 1:18:00 AM)

Howdy. The US built ships faster then you might think. I have in my hands a book published by the Navy Department "Ships Data U.S. Naval Vessels April 1945." No US battleships laid down during the war were completed (Illinois BB65 laid down Jan 15,1945 contract completion date May 1, 1946 never launched). Time to build 18 months The Iowa was 2.5 years from keel laid to commissioning(New Jersey Sept 18,1940-May 1, 1943) Its contract called for completion May of 44 it was commissioned a full year ahead CA's seem to have taken less then 2 years from keel to commissioning Bremerton CA130 Feb1,43toApr 29, 45 Chicago CA136(the one that replace the one lost at Salvo)Jul28,43-Jan 10, 45 CV's is interesting Antietam CV36 Mar43-Jan45 Bennington CV20 Dec42-Aug44 Bon Homme Richard CV31 Feb43-Nov44 It seems the more a class a shipyard built the faster they could build them. ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction! [This message has been edited by Mogami (edited November 29, 2000).] [This message has been edited by Mogami (edited November 29, 2000).]



RevRick -> (12/1/2000 11:20:00 AM)

And then, after the ship is commissioned - you have months (literally) of working up getting RFS (ready for sea.) The average work up time for a CV approached four months on an accelerated program. BB's were approximately the same. It took a lot of time to work out the kinks in a crew and a new ship (just learning how NOT to get lost in one would take a goodly amount of time.) I think I read that Alabama was 40 months from the laying of the keel to deployment - and that was a quick time. The average for a BB before the war was closer to 60 months for the same evolution. One way to replicate this might be with crew quality - with concomitant effects on combat capability - as in accuracy of weapons, ASW effectiveness, airgroup accuracy, not to mention the capacity to launch airgroups, and the ability of subs to effectively interdict the sea lanes. A period of training could increase the capability of a crew, and combat would certainly provide a crucial effectiveness jump - provided you did not get sunk. Ah, well, we will see how this works out. ------------------ God Bless; Rev. Rick, the tincanman



mogami -> (12/2/2000 6:15:00 AM)

Hi, ships are not commissioned till after they have a full crew and have done a shakedown cruise and then went for a refit (to fix everything found wrong on shakedown cruise). Then the ship goes out and quilifys in gunnery/damage control/ship handling depending on CO/XO and Petty Officers this can take 2-6 months. The South DaKota BB57 Commissioned in March of 42 was in combat in South Pacific that same year. (her skipper remains one of the black sheep of navy history. He did not require the crew to 1. wear uniforms 2. get haircuts 3. paint anything) the crew of SD was banned from going ashore by all the base commanders where ever she went. SD did practice daily with the guns and excell at damage control. She was not painted because CO believed (rightly) coats of paint caught fire. The SD with the Washington were the only 2 US BB's to engage in a surface battle with IJN ------------------ I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a differant direction!



Paul Dyer -> (12/2/2000 9:54:00 AM)

Plus laying the keel isn't the start of the process. Presumably the materials, labour, designs etc have to be assembled at the shipyard first. Don't know how long this takes , but it can't be overnight. So the total elapsed time should be decision to build until fully worked up, rather longer than keel laid to completed.



mdiehl -> (12/5/2000 12:49:00 AM)

The South Dakota and Washington were the only US BBs to engage in surface combat *during the Solomons campaign.* There was of course one other US BB surface engagement at the Battle ot Surigao Strait. That was the last great BB vs BB engagement though with the US "crossing the T" with a superior force it was about as lopsided as an engagement could be.



Ed Cogburn -> (12/5/2000 7:09:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mogami: (her skipper remains one of the black sheep of navy history. He did not require the crew to 1. wear uniforms 2. get haircuts 3. paint anything) the crew of SD was banned from going ashore by all the base commanders where ever she went. SD did practice daily with the guns and excell at damage control. She was not painted because CO believed (rightly) coats of paint caught fire.
Now that is fascinating! Why didn't the Navy just sack him at the very beginning, instead of putting up with his behavior?



nittany -> (12/5/2000 7:55:00 AM)

Ed, You must the Captain of a ship is in total control of the enchilada. He must screw up royally to lose his command (i.e., like running aground) otherwise anything goes.



Dunedain -> (12/5/2000 10:36:00 AM)

Interesting discussion. I'm very much looking forward to having a play option in WitP where no Washington treaty was signed and both the U.S. and Jap navies built up massive fleets of capital ships to rule the seas. No carriers when the war starts, that would be fascinating. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Ed Cogburn -> (12/5/2000 4:54:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by nittany: Ed, You must the Captain of a ship is in total control of the enchilada. He must screw up royally to lose his command (i.e., like running aground) otherwise anything goes.
I don't know, I was in the USN for awhile, and I got the distinct impression that our Captain (DDG) was *very* interested in what his superiors thought of his leadership style. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



gdpsnake -> (12/5/2000 11:24:00 PM)

I like the idea of production producing a pool of "command points" that the GHQ person could assign to production. This would represent the military and political leadership emphasis on what needed to be built. Naturally, the GHQ would have to consider the amount of time before his desires became reality. Many board games have production spirals and the resources captured/owned/shared etc. can be spent to buy units in a "pool" after a certain time delay. The pool could consist of whatever units the designers wished including the historical units. The pool could also include "technology" improvements like improved torpedo fusing, radars, pilot training, engineering, CV conversion, ASW, etc. You can allow for an editor for people to create what units/improvements they desire for their war to include in the pools. For those of you familiar with what I am trying to describe, would you agree this approach would work in this game? You could select an "historical" option so the order of build would be fixed. AI choices could affect how the AI builds from the pool (agressive air vrs sea based on the commander). What do you think?



Paul Goodman -> (12/6/2000 1:19:00 AM)

This is a good thread. Hey, Mogami. South Dakota may have been loosely run, but she also performed loosely in combat. In comparison with Washington, who's Captain believed deeply in radar fire control and actually trained his crew in this, this low level of discipline doesn't look too good. Washington, using night radar fire control, blasted Kirishima out of line and in a sinking condition while South Dakota diddled around trying to get the generators going. After finally getting the main battery going, SD fired, missed, and was raked by cruiser fire for her trouble. Maybe a shave and a hair cut is not a bad idea. Maybe maintaining equipment is not a bad idea, either. I think the idea of big gun war may be fun, but is not realistic. Long before Pearl Harbor, both Lexington and Saratoga were converted into CV's from battlecruisers. Before their prewar modernization, they even carried part of the battlecruiser main battery. I also believe that CV41, 42, and 43 (Midway class) were built on battlecruiser hulls (Alaska class hulls?) I think the first of these was launched in 46. Certainly, planning for these had to have begun no later than 1944, even with the hulls fairly far along. These ships, with their heavy hull armor (45,000 tons compared to 32,000 for Essex class) and armored flight decks would have been able to withstand the kamikaze attacks much more readily than the wood flight decks of the Essex class. My point here is that we might as well design Essex class CV's with armored flight decks if we are going to play this production game. Paul



RevRick -> (12/8/2000 9:42:00 AM)

Mogami; to clarify: A ship is commissioned after builders and acceptance trials - which "shakes down" the ship to find out what has to be fixed. For example, the Washington had a real problem with the screws and a vibration which limited the ship to speeds which were only marginally in excess of the old BB's - until the found the right screw combination. When that part is finished, then the ship "works up" to get the crew to function as a team. Getting everyone to find their stations according to the "Watch, Quarter & Station Bill", learning their tasks during endlessly repetitive drills from everything from GQ to Unrep, Man overboard, casualty & collision drills, etc, takes a long time. This is usually the four month or so period you will find in the ship's histories between commissioning and deployment and reporting for duty in the assigned theater. Regarding the South Dakota - I believe the Captain you're talking about was Gatch. And he was a wild man. During the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, (15 Nov 42) The engineer had wired the breakers open in the ship, and the first time the guns fired it tripped power virtually throughout the ship - which caused them to drop the load to everything including the fire control central - which meant they were a blind charging elephant. She also made a course correction to clear a sinking and burning destroyer which silhouetted her for two CA's and the Kirishima - which pounded her with about 42 major caliber rounds (had one 14 in round unexploded lodged against the after barbette). Washington had cleared the destroyer to port, I belive, and was not silhouetted, and China Lee was onboard. I think she had closed to 8000 yards before she opened fire on Kirishima (which is kinda like shooting across the room at the wall with a 30.06 rifle). Washington even checked fire for a bit when the command staff was not entirely sure where South Dakota was, or she might have sunk Kirishima outright and one or both of the CA's. Regarding CV 41 class. I do not think they used Alaska hulls. The Alaska's were 808' OA length, and the Midways were 968' OA, and had a lot more horsepower to boot. They were layed down in late '43 to early '44 so planning was probably started in 42 and material acquisition in early 43. One report actually said that in practice they were not materially better than the Essex's because it took longer to get the airgroup launched and formed up, and they were not markedly superior to the Essex class in flight deck handling of a/c. I don't know, I wouldn't mind having a birdfarm which could handle almost 140 aircraft around handy. Just some random thoughts. ------------------ God Bless; Rev. Rick, the tincanman



Major Tom -> (12/8/2000 1:11:00 PM)

What I think probably will happen, is, that you will be given a certain number of hull types and aircraft frames on certain dates. There were many projects that were rejected for no real reason (the Ki-60 project was given precidence over that of the Ki-61, but, didn't lead up to the designers specifications and shelved for the 61, even though its original armament was much higher than that of the 61 and was only a few miles per hour slower. If the Ki-60 project kept going, then the IJAAF would have a plane capable of easily besting the P-40's, P-39's and giving the P-38's a hard run in mid-early 1942, vs the Ki-61's arrival in 1943. What I would like to see is the commanders on the field (not you, your commanders) put back their experience on what they encounter into the design requests. So, if they (you) use carriers, or they see the enemy using carriers then there will be more designs of carriers than battleships. Or, if one weapon is not behaving particularly well (like the 1.1" AA guns) then a replacement is developed (40mm AA guns). You submit a request for a ship/aircraft design, like lets say a CLAA, and you are given a number of possible designs and you choose the best. They can be completely random, or from a series of hardcoded ones (but not every design will appear in every game). So, you couldn't say EXACTLY how many 5/38 guns this CLAA will have. Possibly if an aircraft design does not reach your specifications, you can order the team to work on it for another few months, and possibly by the end of that time the design could be improved, possibly not. This is what really happend (using the example of the Ki-60, time was spend on a plane that was no good, whereas if time was spent on the Ki-61 instead it could have got out much earlier). If we allow players to design their own ships and planes then we will end up with only a few 'gamey' designs ever used. Giving a player a 'shell' design, and allowing them to create a plane/ship from scratch up to their own specifications will ignore the very real problems encountered in developing a ship/plane design. Specifications aren't always met, if design is to be incorporated, there must be some sort of randomness to it.



andrewmv -> (12/8/2000 5:11:00 PM)

>>I think the idea of big gun war may be fun, but is not realistic. Long before Pearl Harbor, both Lexington and Saratoga were converted into CV's from battlecruisers. Before their prewar modernization, they even carried part of the battlecruiser main battery.<< This was soley due to the Washington Treaty. Washington required the entire class of 6 CCs to be cancelled (along with 1 of the Colorado and all 6 of the South Dakota), but allowed for two of those hulls to be converted to carriers. Lexington and Saratoga were converted to recoup some of the money already spent. Actually, if you look at the ships cancelled as a result of Washington, a whole lot of them were battlecruisers (14 of the 31 captial ships were cancelled as a result of Washington were battlecruisers). Since all these were planned after Jutland, it sort of gives lie to the oft repeated concept that battlecruisers were obsolete. >>I also believe that CV41, 42, and 43 (Midway class) were built on battlecruiser hulls (Alaska class hulls?) I think the first of these was launched in 46.<< Nope, entirely seperate design. However, they did use the same machinery as the aborted Montana class batleships. >>Certainly, planning for these had to have begun no later than 1944, even with the hulls fairly far along. These ships, with their heavy hull armor (45,000 tons compared to 32,000 for Essex class) and armored flight decks would have been able to withstand the kamikaze attacks much more readily than the wood flight decks of the Essex class. My point here is that we might as well design Essex class CV's with armored flight decks if we are going to play this production game.<< In a very real sense the Midays *were* just armoured deck Essexes. All the increase in size and capacity was as a result in the increase in armour. The extra armour required more power, which required more bunkerage, which required a bigger hull to maintain stability; which then required more armour etc. The extra capacity was entirely a byproduct (and regarded as a bad thing, since it was felt the airgroup was too large to be managed effectively). Also Kamakazes played no role in their design. The Midways were designed in 41-42, well before the Kamakazes. It was the success of the British armoured deck carriers in the Med that lead to the adoption of the armoured flight deck for the Midways. Though, without the British "armoured box" concept (which was simply armouring the carriers main battery ie the entire hanger), they would have still been quite vunerable to Kamakazes



Nimits -> (12/10/2000 7:22:00 AM)

I was under impression that the first Midway was in service bylate 1945 (just a few months after WW2 ended).



andrewmv -> (12/10/2000 2:32:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Nimits: I was under impression that the first Midway was in service bylate 1945 (just a few months after WW2 ended).
Miday was commissioned on 10th September 1945, FDR on 27th October 1945 and Coral Sea on 1st October 1947. But all the ships operated with only token airgroups for some time.



brisd -> (12/10/2000 3:00:00 PM)

USS Midway was commissioned 10 Sep 45. As far as turning this game into SimPacWar, allowing wholescale redesigns and reordering of the OOB, that is best left to a Game Editor. Lets get the historical game out first. Battleships are wonderful ships, but after six months to a year it would be apparent that CV's were the new queens of the seas (as long as we are talking about historical progression of aircraft and CV design and the war starts in late 41.) So you guys can build your Montana's and Super Yamatos, give me a few more CV's anytime. And this is coming from a Surface sailor (20 years) who never sailed a CV - combat results just don't lie and neither do the poor souls on the POW and Arizona.



Dunedain -> (2/11/2001 2:18:00 AM)

Obviously WitP is going to come with historical scenarios and campaigns when it's released. But that doesn't preclude having an alternate history option for a campaign based on the Washington Treaty having never been signed. This would be huge fun for those of us who are surface combat fans and would provide a good plausible alternative to the common types of Pacific theater campaigns we are already familiar with. It would add some extra spice to an already great wargame. [img]http://www.matrixgames.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img]



Teppo Saarinen -> (2/13/2001 2:41:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by RevRick: Regarding the South Dakota - I believe the Captain you're talking about was Gatch. And he was a wild man. During the Second Naval Battle of Guadalcanal, (15 Nov 42) The engineer had wired the breakers open in the ship, and the first time the guns fired it tripped power virtually throughout the ship - which caused them to drop the load to everything including the fire control central - which meant they were a blind charging elephant. She also made a course
(I don't normally follow this thread and was just flicking through to get an idea on the game...) But this point was very, very interesting. The last I heard of South Dakota was that the main power cables were hit by an extremely unprobable shell, and that it took some time to get the reserve net going. The idea I'm getting from your description is that someone had manually jacked the off-load gennies circuit breakers open (open breaker=will not conduct) and when the main guns fired the on-load gennies could not cope with the sudden surge in load and tripped, causing a major power failure incl all essential services? Sounds like an extremely strange thing to do (jacking breakers open) in a combat situation. I'd be extremely grateful if you could elaborate on this a little, if you're still following the thread. Cheers, Teppo



Blackhorse -> (2/13/2001 4:35:00 AM)

When talking about production options we should keep the game's time scale in mind. If 1 turn = 1 day how realistic is it for the player to be scheduling capital ship construction that can not arrive for another 1,000+ turns? How many scenarios will have 1,000 turns? How many players have the time to play them?



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375