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: War Plan Orange Announcement

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> RE: War Plan Orange Announcement Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: War Plan Orange Announcement - 12/15/2004 10:30:25 PM   
Dunedain

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 4/4/2000
Status: offline
tabpub: TF's can spot each other from quite a ways off, it's not like their paths have to literally
cross for them to fight. If either (or both) of the TF's spots the other one on the horizon,
they can turn to engage them if they wish.

(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 61
RE: War Plan Orange Announcement - 12/24/2004 6:10:35 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I did this for two reasons, and it was an early design decision. The main one is the RN will not figure too heavily into WPO. In the later stages of the campaign you will see them, but not a whole lot. The other reason, is when I began War Plan Orange, while I was going to ignore the Washington Treaty, I also wanted to have a firm foot in fact, or possibility. The three Hoods could have been laid down, however plans for the G3 design were never finalized, nor even ordered. This means that the three Hoods stood a better chance at being completed than the unamed G3s. In all probability (using the Nelsons as a guide), the G3s would have been laid down around February of 1923, and completed around early-mid 1928. After working up, they could possibly be slated for use sometime in late 1929 in the Pacific. If the world had not agreed to the Treaty of 1922, as is assumed by the mod, considering that they were almost bankrupt (which is why they hastily agreed to accept parity with the United States), IF they were going to get more ships, it would have been cheaper and quicker to resume construction of the three Hoods, and ignore the G3s. The three Hoods could have been had by 1926, around the time the Tosas, Amagis, South Dakotas, and Lexingtons were completed. The G3s would have to be delayed to around 1928-29. I believe the G3s were estimated to cost around 8.9 million pounds, so from an economic the British could have built 2 and 3/4 more Hoods than the cost of the G3s. I personal am of the opinion the G3s would never have been completed, Washington Treaty or not.



Iīm sorry, Tankerace, but I have to flatly contradict you there. The three additional Hoods (Anson, Howe, and Rodney) were never even laid down and finally cancelled in March, 1917, because the basic design was so unsatisfactory. The Royal Navy was finished forever with this type of ship (you might call them the Fisher school of thought - "speed is the best protection"). The G3īs (Invincible, Inflexible, Indomitable, Indefatigable) were ordered under the 1921 budget and laid down in October, 1921, then suspended about a month later, when the Washington Conference started, and finally cancelled in February, 1922. They had been expected to complete in 1925/26. The British delegation in Washington fought tooth and nail to get the battleship definition parameters to where they could use most of the G3 concepts in their new construction, the Rodney class, which used the main armament of the G3īs as well as their protection level, sacrificing only speed which dropped from 32 kts to 23 kts. You can be darned sure the G3īs would have been finished without the Washington Treaty whatever the sacrifice, because those ships were what wartime experience, analysis of the German ships interned in Scapa Flow and exhaustive postwar tests showed the RN they dearly needed if they wanted to remain a first-rate navy. When national pride is at stake budget considerations tend to go out the window. Anyway, additional Hoods would have had to be started from scratch, and I donīt think they would have been that much cheaper to build than the G3īs. The Brits were able to afford the Rodneys, which came out at 7,5 million pounds apiece.

Everybody was out of money at the time. There is a school of thought in Britain that is convinced that the G3īs were what ultimately made the USA initiate the Washington Conference because they outclassed everybody else so clearly and Congress was unwilling to spend the money needed to compete (the USN apparently was proposing ships too big to pass the Panama canal in answer to the G3īs).

I understand where you want to go with WPO, but even with a limited British presence, and even if you donīt want to have G3īs, more than one Hood would be completely ahistorical. You might as well give the Japanese two additional Iseīs instead of the Kagas.

Sorry I took so long to answer, but I was offline for a while - my mainboard conked out on me. Some condensers for the voltage regulators burst - yecch what a mess!

_____________________________

DONīT PANIC - ITīS ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 62
RE: War Plan Orange Announcement - 12/24/2004 6:21:31 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
I completely understand you taking your time.

I understand your position, but also understand that part of War Plan Orange is "What if". I can give the Brits more Hoods, or G3s. I decided on day one of adding the Brits that I was going to opt for the Hoods. I have decided to go for the Hoods, and since there isn't a huge clamoring for me to add in the G3s, I am going to stick with my original design decision. In fact, as I am in game only giving the Brits 1 more Hood (as opposed to 2), it is in fact MORE feasable. Feel free to make your own addon scenario with the G3 design (rumored to be named Invincible). However, they will not be making an appearance in War Plan Orange. I made that desicion months ago, and since there has not been a huge clamoring to change it, it will remain that way.

I also am doing it for this. If I add in the G3s, then I will have people griping to add in the Kii class. And if I add the Kii class, then I have to add in the South Dakota class 18" design. So, to keep WPO where I want to take it, and keep all sorts of paper battleships out, I did and will opt to give the Brits the Hoods.

I am sorry if this puts you off WPO, as I really do feel that even without the G3s it will be enjoyable, but this is something I decided on long ago.

War Plan Orange is designed as an ahistorical, realistic, what if wargame of naval combat in the 1920s. If I add in ships where the design wasn't even finalized, then it becomes an ahistorical, unrealistic game. By limiting the what-ifs to ships that were LAID DOWN or had finalized esigns (the 3 additional Hoods), then I can keep it more realistic. And, it is also balanced. If you want, pretend that the G3s are there, just not committed to the Far East.

< Message edited by Tankerace -- 12/23/2004 10:25:45 PM >


_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 63
RE: War Plan Orange Announcement - 12/24/2004 7:01:03 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
No, not having the G3īs wonīt put me off WPO. I understand your choice of cut-off point. More Hoods is what bugs me, mostly. Nobody WANTED those warts. BTW, the G3īs WERE laid down, they just were nipped in the bud by Washington and spawned two cousins, Rodney and Nelson, also called the Cherry-Tree Class ("cut down by Washington").

If I understand you correctly, WPO starts off in 1922. Thereby hangs a question. What the USN and IJN planned in the way of battleships is well-documented; development of destroyers would have progressed pretty much like in RL. Cruiser and aircraft carrier development were, however, severely impacted by the Washington Treaty. Now aircraft carriers donīt have much of an impact in this kind of setting (it was long before they were used for more than scouting), but how do you project cruiser development, as the 8-inch CAīs were so clearly children of Washington? Just more of the same CLīs - Omahas for the USN and Jintsus for the IJN?

_____________________________

DONīT PANIC - ITīS ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 64
RE: War Plan Orange Announcement - 12/24/2004 8:52:44 AM   
tabpub


Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunedain

tabpub: TF's can spot each other from quite a ways off, it's not like their paths have to literally
cross for them to fight. If either (or both) of the TF's spots the other one on the horizon,
they can turn to engage them if they wish.


From a 35m topmast the geometrical horizon is around 11.5 nautical miles. With refraction, you can expect a gain to around 15-16 nm, which I believe is the commonly stated figure. So, in the scale of a 60nm hex, I believe that you DO have to literally cross someones path in order to spot someone.

(in reply to Dunedain)
Post #: 65
RE: War Plan Orange Announcement - 12/24/2004 10:36:29 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
For Cruisers, the Japanese construct up to the Sendais (Including the uncompleted Kako, entering service in 1926). The US will receive up to the Omahas, and the British get only the E class Emerald and Enterprise. Probably, what I will do is add in a few extra Sendais and Omahas to a slightly modified design, entering service in 1928-29.

On aircraft carriers, the US receives 2 additional carriers, of the type proposed by converting liners and/or merchant vessels. The Japanese receive 2 additional modified Hoshos. This gives the Japanese 4 Carriers, the USN 3, and the Brits 3, although the Vindictive is converted back into a Hawkins class in 1924. HMS Eagle and HMS Hermes are assumed to remain in the Atlantic, and will not make an appearance.

On Destroyers, the Japanese get the Mutsuki, and the very first of the Fubuki "Special Type" destroyers, while the US and Britain receive no additional destroyers.

Submarine construction is similar to history, with only those subs completed by 1929 will make an appearance.

Cruiser construction is a tough one, as there are no "Treaty cruisers". However, I am assuming that since most of the Armoured cruisers and Pre dreadnoughts are not scrapped, the USN continues on a top heavy navy, with few cruisers beyoond those that are light pre dreadnoughts. The Japanese will focus on large light cruisers, whose main armament are torpedoes. I may, may add in the Furutaka class, but as of right now that will not happen.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 66
RE: War Plan Orange Announcement - 2/4/2005 5:45:07 AM   
Marc gto

 

Posts: 229
Joined: 9/25/2000
From: Batavia,ohio,usa
Status: offline
count me in!!!

(in reply to WiTP_Dude)
Post #: 67
RE: War Plan Orange Announcement - 2/4/2005 5:54:10 PM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dunedain

tabpub: TF's can spot each other from quite a ways off, it's not like their paths have to literally
cross for them to fight. If either (or both) of the TF's spots the other one on the horizon,
they can turn to engage them if they wish.


From a 35m topmast the geometrical horizon is around 11.5 nautical miles. With refraction, you can expect a gain to around 15-16 nm, which I believe is the commonly stated figure. So, in the scale of a 60nm hex, I believe that you DO have to literally cross someones path in order to spot someone.



Well you must also consider the nature of the formation. A spread out formation could cover several miles in several directions giving better all around sighting possibilities. Also the presence of a scouting screen would help. However, you are correct that in a sixty mile hex it is quite plausible that several large task forces could roam aorund without coming to grips with or even sighting each other. At Coral seas in '42 didn't the two carrier groups come within fifty miles of each one night with Japanese aircraft in the landing pattern actually being sighted on American radar sets?

_____________________________

SF3C B. B. New USS North Carolina BB-55 - Permission is granted to go ashore for the last shore leave. (1926-2003)

(in reply to tabpub)
Post #: 68
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War I] >> War Plan Orange: Dreadnoughts in the Pacific 1922 - 1930 >> RE: War Plan Orange Announcement Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3]
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

3.125