Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/28/2011 7:20:05 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

Is anyone else getting itchy to play this besides me.


Heck--I AM! Lew and I plan to leave our RA 2.0 Game to play test this beast.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 451
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/28/2011 5:26:43 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyland


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.


Sounds like solid progress! Are you happy with the work at this point?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 452
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/29/2011 1:38:43 AM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

Heck--I AM! Lew and I plan to leave our RA 2.0 Game to play test this beast.

Count me in!

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 453
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/29/2011 5:19:49 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Does that mean at some point we are abandoning our 3.0 in favor the new Scenario?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 454
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/29/2011 7:32:10 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
I am not planning of that.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 455
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/30/2011 5:33:54 AM   
AdmNelson


Posts: 554
Joined: 5/14/2001
From: New Mexico
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Heck--I AM! Lew and I plan to leave our RA 2.0 Game to play test this beast.



Looking forward to testing the beast. I am getting new toys, correct. Like Starship Enterprise. Maybe I can use the old toys, raid on Tokyo sounds good.




_____________________________

Very Proud Marine Dad

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 456
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/30/2011 5:35:50 AM   
AdmNelson


Posts: 554
Joined: 5/14/2001
From: New Mexico
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

Heck--I AM! Lew and I plan to leave our RA 2.0 Game to play test this beast.

Count me in!


Fit another one in?

_____________________________

Very Proud Marine Dad

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 457
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/30/2011 5:43:46 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
No. I think RA 3.0 with Bill and a Perfect War with Lew is PLENTY!



_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to AdmNelson)
Post #: 458
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/30/2011 10:29:14 AM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
Uh-oh. Long post coming:


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've been thinking about what you might do with Australia particularly - there seem to have been a lot of grand plans for shipbuilding put together over various decades, but invariably delays in shipping fiddly bits from the UK meant they didn't work out so well in wartime - HMAS Adelaide took seven years to complete (1915-1922) against HMAS Brisbane (a similar ship, but 1913-1916) To get something more out of Australian domestic production you really need to start early - in reality the money and inclination weren't made available, but Australia is going to be far more alarmed than the UK proper by any expanded Japanese capabilities, and since we've got freedom of hindsight...

- The in-game RAN adds a few major ships through the 1930s and 1940s:

Cruisers, built in the UK:

- HMAS Sydney (1935) [sunk by 7/12/41]
- HMAS Hobart (1938)
- HMAS Perth (1939)

- HM/AS Shropshire (1943, to replace Canberra)

Destroyers, built in Australia:

- HMAS Arunta &
- HMAS Warramunga (1942)
- HMAS Bataan (1945)

Destroyers, built in the UK:

- HMAS Waterhen [sunk by 7/12/41]
- HMAS Vampire &
- HMAS Stuart &
- HMAS Vendetta &
- HMAS Voyager (1930s)

- HMAS Nizam &
- HMAS Nestor &
- HMAS Norman &
- HMAS Napier &
- HMAS Napier (1941-42)

- HMAS Quiberon &
- HMAS Quickmatch (1943)


Further militarisation of Japan at sea is liable to focus minds in Canberra if it doesn't elsewhere - relatively speaking, anyway - particularly if the RAN is included in UK tonnage quotas. The 1933 order for three cruisers can't be grown - LNT #2 is still in force - but on expiration I would expect a supplementary order. This has to be something that won't disrupt shipbuilding in the UK too much; no battleships, or anything with 5.25in guns, or anything demanding much HAA guidance equipment. The Arethusa (5000t, 6x6in, 32kts) type cruisers appear ideal; small enough not to be too awkward to build in Australian shipyards, but still modern, useful ships. Main Australian shipbuilding facilities seem to be:

BHP, Whyalla [10,000t+, but merchant standards; from 1940]
Cockatoo Dock, Sydney [~10,000t]
HM Australian Dockyard, Melbourne [~5000t]
Mort's, Sydney [?, at least ~2000t]
New South Wales State Dockyard, Newcastle [~2500t, from 1943]
Evans Deakin, Brisbane [~2000t]
Walkers, Maryborough [~2000t]

So - practically, any cruisers have to come out of Cockatoo; Melbourne could do a smaller light cruiser along the lines of Tromp, but is just a little too small (in length) for Arethusas. Given the timescale that really only allows one ship by the outbreak of the war; starting a second is liable to end up with it taking years. Alternatively, you could just have the Sydney not get itself sunk, heh.

Destroyers can be built anywhere, but are limited by high-power engine availability; if anything, I would say cancel the third Tribal and build something more practical in its place. Older destroyers can be obtained from the UK pre-war; conveniently, 5 V/W class destroyers were scrapped in 1936-37; I would suspect some interest in taking these on; they'd probably be in the Med at game start, though.

Sloops are useful, but not flashy - not the sort of thing to get attention from modmakers! There is certainly scope for construction of a few ships along the lines of the French Bougainvilles, with the advantage that they can use old guns and effectively do double duty as mini-monitors. 2-4 ships, ~2000t at 18kts, with 5.5in guns?




Minecraft - the RAN has about a dozen Bathurst & similar minesweepers available 7/12/41; the total ends up around 60, I think, if you include the RIN ships built in Australia. There's nothing particularly wrong with them per se, but they're very short-ranged - 1200 miles doesn't get you very far on Pacific scales. Growing the design by 100t or so should accomodate about twice the range for minimal extra cost, even if you do nothing with the armament fit, making them much more useful as mid-range escort ships. A couple of ships should also probably be moved due to the near-universal capture of their 'arrival' bases:

- HMAS Bundaberg [9400]; built at Brisbane, but enters the game at Darwin in 9/42
- HMAS Gympie [9414]; built at Brisbane, but enters the game at Derby in 11/42

Coastal forces - There are a very small number of Fairmile launches etc in-game; in reality there seem to have been a lot more. The Australian flotilla seems be as follows:

- HMAS Koopa [Straits Small AG, Class #2746], Brisbane 9/42

Admiralty HDML, Class #198:

HDML 1074, 10/42
HDML 1125, 1/43
HDML 1129, 11/42
HDML 1161, 1/43
HDML 1321, Hobart 11/43
HDML 1322, Hobart 1/44
HDML 1323, Adelaide 1/44
HDML 1324, Adelaide 6/44
HDML 1325, Launceston 11/43
HDML 1326, Launceston 1/44
HDML 1327, Adelaide 5/44
HDML 1328, Adelaide 1/45
HDML 1329, Adelaide 6/44
HDML 1338, 9/44
HDML 1339, 9/44
HDML 1340, 8/44
HDML 1341, 3/45
HDML 1342, 10/44
HDML 1343, 1/45
HDML 1344, 12/45
HDML 1345, 8/45
HDML 1346, 4/45
HDML 1347, 3/45
HDML 1352, 8/44
HDML 1353, 1/45
HDML 1354, 3/45
HDML 1355, 3/45
HDML 1356, 3/45
HDML 1357, 2/45
HDML 1358, 1/45
HDML 1359, 12/44


Most seem to have been built in the US; arrival dates include 3 months for transit as deck cargo. This stuff is all from http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=1456 , which I have no idea of the reliability of, but it ain't like there's much else out there and they definitely did exist, so it's a reasonable approximation if nothing else.

Fairmile B Motor Launch, Class #187:

No. 424, Sydney 1/43
No. 425, Sydney 2/43
No. 426, Sydney 3/43
No. 427, Sydney 3/43
No. 428, Sydney 3/43
No. 429, Sydney 4/45
No. 430, Sydney 5/43
No. 431, Sydney 5/43
No. 801, Sydney 5/43
No. 802, Sydney 6/43
No. 803, Sydney 7/43
No. 804, Sydney 7/43
No. 805, Sydney 8/43
No. 806, Sydney 9/43
No. 807, Sydney 9/43
No. 808, Sydney 9/43
No. 809, Sydney 10/43
No. 810, Sydney 10/43
No. 811, Brisbane 11/43
No. 812, Brisbane 12/43
No. 813, Sydney 11/43
No. 814, Sydney 1/43
No. 815, Brisbane 1/43
No. 816, Brisbane 6/43
No. 817, Sydney 2/43
No. 818, Sydney 3/43
No. 819, Sydney 5/43
No. 820, Sydney 6/43
No. 821, Sydney 7/43
No. 822, Sydney 8/43
No. 823, Sydney 9/43
No. 824, Sydney 11/43
No. 825, Sydney 2/44
No. 826, Brisbane 1/44
No. 827, Brisbane 4/44


Same source, same disclaimer.

There were also New Zealand Fairmiles:

No. 400 - No. 411 inclusive, Class #188, Auckland 12/43

So - you might top up the RAN with:

- Addition of the non-represented coastal forces;

- Acceleration of the NSW State Dockyard project; bring the shipbuilding facility into service 1940 instead of 1942. Possible - the equipment was available - just not a priority until later. Add a 3000t repair shipyard to Newcastle [Base #944]

- HMAS Brisbane [Class #045 Arethusa CL; arrival Aden 02/42]

- HMAS Valkyrie [Class #124 Admiralty Leader; arrival Aden 02/42 - in reality scrapped 1936]
- HMAS Vectis, Venturous, Violent [Class #122 Admiralty 'V' DD; arrival Aden 02/42 - in reality scrapped 1936-37]

- Remove Tribal DD HMAS Bataan [ship #3684]; replace with Hunt class DEs, on the principle that they require about 40% the engine power and have equipment that's locally built, and so you can probably knock out more in less time:

- HMAS Bataan [Class #120 Hunt Type III DE; arrival Sydney 9/43]
- HMAS Flinders [Class #120; arrival Sydney 9/44]
- HMAS Simpson [Class #120; arrival Sydney 5/45]
- HMAS Selwyn [Class #120; arrival Sydney 12/45]

- 2-4 pre-war 5.5in sloops; 50% in Australian waters, 50% at Aden.

- HMAS Kurnell [Class #178 Bathurst AM; arrival Newcastle 4/42; new, using NSW State Dock]
- HMAS Bundabah [Class #178; arrival Newcastle 3/43; new, using NSW State Dock]

- HMAS Condamine [Class #203 River PF; arrival Newcastle 2/44; NSW State Dock, completed postwar and so not included in base game]
- HMAS Murchison [Class #204; arrival Newcastle 1/45; NSW State Dock, actually built by Evans Deakin and completed postwar]

- Accelerate ships #9229-9236, the remaining RAN River PFs, by ~1 month each; with more pre-war shipbuilding things are likely to go a little more smoothly.

Or you might not. It's something to think about, anyway.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 459
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/30/2011 5:00:36 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Nice thoughts and I greatly appreciate the time to research and write them out.

What do people have to say about this?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 460
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/30/2011 5:30:07 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
Home early on acct of a power cut. I took a look at some old photos and apparently the NSW Dock didn't have a drydock, just slipways - so actually not really a repair shipyard in game terms, I think. There seem to be a few small but potentially useful Australian auxiliary ships not represented - I'll see if I can source them and make a little list.

A slightly stretched Bathurst; this one has 2x4in guns, but making a 1x4 would be trivial:



(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 461
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/30/2011 8:52:19 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
I'm game for some additions. Keep doing your research and then--if you can--Post a comprehensive list as above.

I've asked Misconduct in the RA Thread to compile a list, by Allied country, of all the changes we've apparently agreed upon for the Mod. I need the ships, aircraft, LCU, and base changes we have agreed upon in ONE place. Need it all correlated so when I get the files I can simply click stuff off. Hope he can say YES.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 462
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 9/30/2011 10:40:16 PM   
kfsgo

 

Posts: 446
Joined: 9/16/2010
Status: offline
This is what happens when you give nerds days off:

quote:

I can't figure out what's going on with the Indian ML flotillas. In theory we're missing:

Half of the 49th Motor Launch Flotilla - No. 829, 831, 832, 840

55th Motor Launch Flotilla [12/1942] - No. 438, 439, 440, 441, 474, 475, 476, 477

56th Motor Launch Flotilla [1/1944] - No. 412, 413, 416, 417, 419, 843, 844, 872 (No. 390 is in-game)

I say in theory because the number of Fairmiles that show up currently are about right for the RIN-manned ships - but the ones we have in-game mostly show up earlier and are nominally Brit-manned. I suspect at least some of the above listed should be added, but I'm not sure - there seem to be very few Internet records of much beyond

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar///UN/India/RIN/RIN-13.html
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar//UN/India/RIN/RIN-A16.html

that stuff and heaven knows that although someone's probably written a book on the things I certainly don't have it, so it's all I got to go on.

The HDMLs are easier - there simply aren't any in-game beyond the ones that start out in Malaya and Burma, and there's a complete listing of them including when and where they were built and deployed at:

http://www.hmsmedusa.org.uk/HDML_Archive.html

which I'm assuming is reliable, so they're simple adds. It's a long list, though:

HDML 1057, 4/42 [at Mombasa]
HDML 1061, 5/43
HDML 1073, 5/43
HDML 1079, 5/43
HDML 1080, 4/42
HDML 1082, 4/42 [at Mombasa]
HDML 1084, 4/42
HDML 1086, 4/42
HDML 1087, 4/42
HDML 1088, 4/42 [at Mombasa]
HDML 1109, 5/44
HDML 1110, 5/44
HDML 1111, 6/44
HDML 1112, 12/44 [Calcutta]
HDML 1113, 12/44 [Calcutta]
HDML 1114, 1/44 [Bombay]
HDML 1115, 6/43 [Calcutta]
HDML 1116, 4/44 [Bombay]
HDML 1117, 3/44 [Bombay]
HDML 1118, 11/44 [Calcutta]
HDML 1119, 7/44 [Calcutta]
HDML 1120, 7/43 [Calcutta]
HDML 1125, ?/44
HDML 1148, ?/43
HDML 1151, ?/44
HDML 1248, 10/44
HDML 1261, 11/45 [Bombay]
HDML 1262, 11/45 [Bombay]
HDML 1263, 1/45 [Bombay]
HDML 1265, 9/44
HDML 1266, 11/44
HDML 1267, 3/44
HDML 1268, 1/45 [Bombay]
HDML 1272, 4/45
HDML 1275, 9/44
HDML 1288, 8/45
HDML 1299, 9/44
HDML 1303, 9/44
HDML 1304, 9/44
HDML 1336, 7/45
HDML 1337, 7/45
HDML 1368, 9/44
HDML 1376, 7/45
HDML 1377, 11/44
HDML 1385, 7/45
HDML 1398, 7/45
HDML 1424, 5/45
HDML 1425, 5/45
HDML 1430, 10/45 [Bombay]
HDML 1432, 12/45 [Bombay]
HDML 1456, 5/45
HDML 1462, 5/45
HDML 1463, 5/45

All at Karachi unless otherwise mentioned. Also:

HDML 1167-1170 inclusive [Destroyed under construction at Singapore 15/2/42, ETC unknown]

HDML 1213-1220 inclusive [Destroyed under construction at Singapore 15/2/42, ETC unknown]

HDML 1183-1188 inclusive - RNZN, Auckland no later than 9/43

HDML 1190-1194 inclusive - RNZN, Auckland ~12/43 assuming a couple months for shipping

Ships at Mombasa seem to have been in and out of the Indian theatre from early 42 but mostly ended up there. You could have them arrive in 4/42 at Mombasa (requiring a long trip on-map) or bring them in at Karachi at some unspecified later date.

I would add one caveat - the HDML ship class (#198-201) should probably have its maneuver value bumped up or something - as it is these ships (50t wooden launches!) are ridiculous torpedo magnets - I'm not absolutely sure it'd be physically possible to hit one with a torpedo, except maybe by dropping it on top of the thing like a bomb, but I'm pretty sure it'd be bloody difficult. They are slow - cruise 7kts, max 12 - which I assume accounts for the current low maneuverability, but they're tiny little things designed for extreme maneuverability and shouldn't really be getting blown out of the water the moment they take to it. The HDMLs and Fairmiles also both seem to have somewhat minimised range in-game, though that's not a huge problem given their role.

Ok. Some actual Australian ships we don't have:

SS River Burdekin (12/1943) [Evans Deakin, Brisbane]
SS River Clarence (5/1943) [Cockatoo, Sydney]
SS River Fitzroy (11/1944) [Evans Deakin, Brisbane]
SS River Derwent (9/1944) [BHP, Whyalla]
SS River Glenelg (3/1944) [BHP, Whyalla]
SS River Loddon (12/44) [HM Australian Dock, Melbourne]
SS River Mitta (11/1945) [HM Australian Dock, Melbourne]
SS River Murchison (2/1945) [BHP, Whyalla]
SS River Murray (11/1945) [BHP, Whyalla]
SS River Murrumbidgee (7/1945) [BHP, Whyalla]

These are semi-standardised freighters of about 5000t; they probably fit the Dominion M Cargo (class #2524) more so than anything else.

###

SS Iron Monarch (1942) [BHP, Whyalla]
SS Iron Duke (1943) [BHP, Whyalla]

- BHP Ore Carriers, approx. 6000t; probably best fit as Dominion L Cargo (class #2523).


SS Orungal (approx. Dominion L Cargo, class #2423

SS Mackarra
SS Macumba (approx. Pacific M Cargo, class #2426)

SS Baralaba (approx. Coastal Cargo, class #2428)

SS Buranda
SS Bulimba
SS Babinda (approx. Wilcannia xAKL, class #2766)

- These are pre-war AUSN merchants; some of the fleet has been included in-game already, but these haven't. Maybe there's a reason - if there is, I don't know what it is.

HMAS Terka
HMAS Tolga
HMAS Toorie (approx. Castle AMc, class #195)

- Adelaide Steamship Co ships of about 500t, requisitioned by the RAN on outbreak of war and serving variously as minesweepers, support ships etc.

SS Morialta (approx. Coastal Cargo, class #2428)

SS Kapara
SS Goondi
SS Broadway (approx. Straits/Island xAKL, class #2442)

- Adelaide Steamship Co ships of about 750t, in commercial service. Same disclaimer applies as to the AUSN ships - might be left out for a reason.

SS Muliama
SS Mamutu
SS Matafele
SS Lakatoi (approx. Straits/Island xAKL, class #2442)

SS Tulagi (approx. Pacific M Cargo, class #2426)

- Burns Philip ships on the Australia-New Guinea runs. Same disclaimer...

I have no idea where exactly they'd all by on Dec. 7, so I guess you'd distribute among Sydney, Newcastle, Melbourne etc as felt appropriate.

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 463
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/1/2011 12:37:00 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
I still have not figured out what to do with the ML,s and HDML's. I have put the ML's into SAG's and patrolled out side of harbors hoping they would drop a DC on a sub but no luck.

_____________________________


(in reply to kfsgo)
Post #: 464
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/1/2011 11:25:49 AM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

Fit another one in?

When this mod is ready, I should be able to fit another game in. One PBEM has just ended.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to AdmNelson)
Post #: 465
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/1/2011 11:27:16 AM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

I still have not figured out what to do with the ML,s and HDML's. I have put the ML's into SAG's and patrolled out side of harbors hoping they would drop a DC on a sub but no luck.

They are good targets for Jap subs!

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 466
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/1/2011 7:02:37 PM   
AdmNelson


Posts: 554
Joined: 5/14/2001
From: New Mexico
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

Fit another one in?

When this mod is ready, I should be able to fit another game in. One PBEM has just ended.


Sounds Good-- Who is the Dark Side? I will be willing to see how the other side lives.

_____________________________

Very Proud Marine Dad

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 467
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/1/2011 11:55:45 PM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
Hmm looks like people are already picking opponents.  Well I will throw my name in the hat.  I can fit one more game in.

doc

(in reply to AdmNelson)
Post #: 468
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/2/2011 3:38:41 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Well...I am glad we have players. We NEED the Mod first however. Skyland: How goes the work with finishing the French and Thai Forces?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 469
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/2/2011 3:53:01 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
Misconduct: What I need is a nation-by-nation breakdown of the decisions that have been reached within this thread. I did one about midway through the Thread and would like it recompiled including ships/classes, LCU, base changes, and other pertinent thing we have agreed upon. It will then become my 'to do' list for the Allied side.


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 470
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/2/2011 3:55:28 PM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Misconduct: What I need is a nation-by-nation breakdown of the decisions that have been reached within this thread. I did one about midway through the Thread and would like it recompiled including ships/classes, LCU, base changes, and other pertinent thing we have agreed upon. It will then become my 'to do' list for the Allied side.



I am going to start a new thread this way I can read and write at the same time, I will post the change logs as well depending what needs to be added/deleted

_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 471
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/2/2011 7:25:02 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
Instead of adding more ships to the allies, other than those in misconducts list. Lets look at some of the upgrades the Brits gave their escorts and never bothered to add to the dominion ships. Eg; the British Grimsby class had several changes that are not done to the Australian ships and are left out of the game. It will take a little research but if there is interest I can crack a few books.

_____________________________


(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 472
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/2/2011 7:35:51 PM   
Skyland


Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Well...I am glad we have players. We NEED the Mod first however. Skyland: How goes the work with finishing the French and Thai Forces?



It's done. I am now re-checking the datas and i will send back the files to FatR tomorrow.

_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 473
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/2/2011 9:46:01 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
YEA!

FatR: How do you want to divide the scenario work?

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 474
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/4/2011 1:06:17 AM   
Misconduct


Posts: 1864
Joined: 2/18/2009
From: Cape Canaveral, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Instead of adding more ships to the allies, other than those in misconducts list. Lets look at some of the upgrades the Brits gave their escorts and never bothered to add to the dominion ships. Eg; the British Grimsby class had several changes that are not done to the Australian ships and are left out of the game. It will take a little research but if there is interest I can crack a few books.


I really like the upgrade options for the Omaha Class CL's, I am curious by this - if its not to far out the realm of possibilities, could we have more options for conversion like the bristol class destroyers to become DE's (removal of some of the 4 inch for more ASW options and AAA)?

I would be interested to see an extra few Omaha CL's added, although no historical reason for this, it just gives the Allied player a few extra ideas to decide to make them raiders or CLAA's (which of course I would LOVE to see more CLAA's)

However not entirely sure it will do much, I played a few games beyond 1944 and I haven't seen the big kill numbers I was hoping with AAA upgrades, although I don't believe I had more then 1 CLAA in each TF, with a single BB - would be interesting to see what 4-5 CLAA's can do in a TF.



_____________________________

ASUS Maximus IV Extreme-Z Intel Core I7 2800k Corsair Hydro Heatsink Corsair Vengeance DD3 24GB EVGA GTX 580 Western Digital 1.5TB Raid 0 Windows 7

(in reply to oldman45)
Post #: 475
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/4/2011 1:11:02 AM   
DOCUP


Posts: 3073
Joined: 7/7/2010
Status: offline
I was thinking.  Some of those older DDs were adding could you add them as the clemson class or what ever class that can be converted to DE or APDs.    I like what misconduct stated.  Oh yea I think the West Virginia would be a great ship to have on the WC for repairs for Dec 7th.  No particular reason for this request or thought.

edit: what about a few more treasurey class PCs and of the Erie class PG

< Message edited by DOCUP -- 10/4/2011 2:44:25 AM >

(in reply to Misconduct)
Post #: 476
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/4/2011 4:39:27 AM   
MateDow


Posts: 218
Joined: 8/6/2002
Status: offline
I saw on the summary page that the battleships Nevada and Oklahoma would be placed in the Philippines.

Isn't this just free points for the Japanese?

Historically, I would question this as well. There really wasn't the infrastructure in place to support the battleships. The heavy cruisers were rotated through the Asiatic Fleet due to support problems, this would be worse for large battleships.

I would recommend against having them in the Philippines... as much as I would love to have the extra firepower for disrupting the Japanese landings.

(in reply to DOCUP)
Post #: 477
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/4/2011 5:54:22 AM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
We decided to NOT place the BBs out there. I think it would be fun but you are correct. They would be dead meat.


Skyland: How is your review of the additions going?


_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to MateDow)
Post #: 478
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/4/2011 12:28:36 PM   
Skyland


Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

We decided to NOT place the BBs out there. I think it would be fun but you are correct. They would be dead meat.


Skyland: How is your review of the additions going?



Hi John, i sent back the files to FatR yesterday.
I hope everything is ok, i have checked the entries but not tested in game.
The french aircrafts upgrade path may need some adjustments, but it can be done quickly later.

I will work now on the missing arts (mainly BC Dunkerque and AS Jules Verne and some planes with french markings).




_____________________________


(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 479
RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas - 10/4/2011 3:13:51 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
YES! Well done Sir and thanks for the work. Looking forward to seeing the artwork once you've got it complete.

Stanislav: How about what I suggested earlier? You continue working on the ship files and I'll work on Allied air, LCU, and base stuff. WE can then switch when finished and I can work on Allied ships and you do the other for the Japanese. How does that sound? If good, send my the updated files when you get the chance. THANKS!

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 480
Page:   <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> RE: Tentative Allied Summary of Ideas Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.719