Player proposed RHS mods

[el cid again]

Gary Childress has proposed a mod - which originally was to use CHS as its foundation - that might be faster to create by mixing some RHS files.
The base scenario should be RHSBBO - with all the thought through consequences of keeping battleship oriented thinking that dominated planning into 1942 - with the plane set and land unit set of RHSEOS. Air groups would have to be modified slightly - since there are fewer carriers.

To this combination we might add some of the ships that never were from the 1920s - tentatively 4 in pairs from Amagi and Tosa classes - and about 6 US capital ships - and perhaps two RN ones. This would impact carriers - since not only did these ships sometimes become carriers (Lexington, Akagi, etc) but they influenced later carrier design. Further, we might add one of two classes of 1930s ships - in leiu of the Yamato class - possibly using the same names - probably a pair - but completing early. Further, the Hiryu and Soruy might be one of three different designs of semi-carriers. Other carriers would be delayed on both sides.
This mod - if not just a custom mod for Gary - might be called RHSAHO (Alternate History Option) - if RHS players want it generally published.


A different player has asked for a 1942 mod duplicating stock Scenario 13. This is a mod for the war after the initial expansion of Japan - and it begins when the tables are more even. A game developer says it is a very fine idea. This mod would be based on RHSCVO and might be called RHSGCO (GuadalCanal Option) or RHS42O (1942 Option) - again if there was general interest.

Cobra wants to do an experimental option - and has begun working on it - it even has a number (66). It is a Madagascar Option - and it may go away if it works - because it would be then incorporated in the other RHS scenarios. There is a thread on this option and if there is general interest I will make the OB changes. I am thinking of doing away with Aden in this version - since it is controversial. IF Aden should be "off limits" in the minds of many - I say it is "off the map." Karachi would return to its stock status in that case. Comments are sought.

[Bliztk]

Call Aden "Middle East" and you can solve the Offmap thing. Aden is an Island off Arabia, Middle East is more abstract.

Better Suez Canal/ Cape of Good Hope routes, more abstract

[bstarr]

(great idea! I love what if scenarios)

This idea is very similar to Gary's or it can be incorporated with it. "Stronger" scenarios - that is, adding what-if and proposed ships, etc - tend to be popular with just about everybody, including myself. One thing that is normally left out when these ideas are mentioned is the fact that with these bigger ships sailing about, fortifications and garrisons would also have been increased. Not only that, but if the mod is to be a "Washington treaty never existed" mod, the treaty also banned fortifications from several islands, so these islands would probably have extensive fortifications.

overall idea:
Make both sides stronger, but give japan more staying power than she had historically (maybe China has been successful, freeing up several divisions).

Add major fortifcations to many strategic areas - Java, the Phils, Guam, Rabaul, etc.

The end result should be less like the four month japanese blitz followed by a four year allied push, and something more like a one year Jap push with a less clearly defined turning point. The strategic possiblities would be very interesting. Imagine if the allies were able to hold Singapore & the Phils long enough to reinforce Java with several divisions only to turn around and loose a Stalingrad-like catastrophy when they are unable to follow up with enough supplies.

[bstarr]

Italians! We need an Italian mod!

[:D]

[RevRick]

I like all three, but the Guadalcanal mod is great for me. I guess I kind of like it because the Old Man served there.

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: RevRick

I like all three, but the Guadalcanal mod is great for me. I guess I kind of like it because the Old Man served there.

All three? The Italian mod was meant to be a joke. A joke at my expense, since I'm blissfully adding the French to my mod, but a joke nonetheless. [:D]

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: bstarr
All three? The Italian mod was meant to be a joke. A joke at my expense, since I'm blissfully adding the French to my mod, but a joke nonetheless. [:D]

I know a better joke. Why not include a godzilla mod or a Nimitz mod[:D]

[Mifune]

"I know a better joke. Why not include a godzilla mod" Sure beat me to the punch. Godzilla option available after the first a-bomb is dropped.[X(] But which side does he fight for?

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: Mifune

"I know a better joke. Why not include a godzilla mod" Sure beat me to the punch. Godzilla option available after the first a-bomb is dropped.[X(] But which side does he fight for?

Both. He was [>:] , and now he is [:@] because he is waked up.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Call Aden "Middle East" and you can solve the Offmap thing. Aden is an Island off Arabia, Middle East is more abstract.

Better Suez Canal/ Cape of Good Hope routes, more abstract

Aden is a port. I do conceive of it as the entry point for everything behind it - not just the Mideast - but also the Cape Horne route. I don't see how changing its name helps any at all. Aden itself is a choke point for cargo coming down the Suez Canal/Red Sea route - and in a game with South Africa imports coming by a different route (via Madagascar) if Aden were held it WOULD prevent anything entering the map. But I don't think there is a consensus on that point. If there is I would like to keep Aden - which I believe is a wonderful addition. But there is this problem - it is off the map in reality. We don't have enough hexes to put it on the map - period. We are trying to cover more than half the globe if we do!

[el cid again]

BSTARR

I fear you do not understand the economics of the 1920s - or the unfeasibility of the Washington Treaty ever being totally negated. The treaty might have failed - and the naval arms race continued for a while - but Japan in particular was not going to complete her plans. Doing so would take into the depression years - and would probably make it come sooner. The investment in a few gigantic ships would greatly reduce the number of other ships - on the basis of steel and dollars alone. It would also set back carrier development and probably submarine development slightly. There might be some fortification - but it would be hard to afford much. And the great forts at Manila Bay and Tsushima Strait might not have been built at all - or more likely built to a much lower standard.

My conception - given the limited number of ships Gary proposed - and his explicit words - was that this was a slightly different Washington Treaty - and that is actually probable. We only got the one we got because we read Japanese codes - and we would have settled for a different outcome had they been tougher about it. Gary's idea - allow four more newer ships (six total - counting Nagato and Mutsu) for Japan - implies six (nine total - counting Colorado class) for USN. That is actually a very plausable possibility. He was willing to get rid of four other capital ships - and his idea these should be the worst has merit - although the Kongo's might have been sacrificed instead.

[GaryChildress]

My conception - given the limited number of ships Gary proposed - and his explicit words - was that this was a slightly different Washington Treaty - and that is actually probable. We only got the one we got because we read Japanese codes - and we would have settled for a different outcome had they been tougher about it. Gary's idea - allow four more newer ships (six total - counting Nagato and Mutsu) for Japan - implies six (nine total - counting Colorado class) for USN. That is actually a very plausable possibility. He was willing to get rid of four other capital ships - and his idea these should be the worst has merit - although the Kongo's might have been sacrificed instead.

That pretty much sums up the idea I had for the mod, a slightly different Washington Treaty. There would still be a Washington Treaty. However, it would be a modified treaty from the one that historically took place. The modified treaty would simply allow the Japanese and Allies to complete some of the BB programs they had already started while preserving the original 5:5:3 ratio.

As El Cid Again has painfully pointed out to me, the inclusion of more BBs would no doubt spell the end of most of the carrier conversions like Kaga, Akagi, Lexington and Saratoga and that the world economies of the 30's could not have supported such programs of extra BBs thrown in to the mix with as many CVs as were historically constructed or converted. I was hoping there would be some way to plausibly shoe-horn in a few extra BBs without penalizing the historical contingent of CVs. Unfortunately I have to agree with El Cid Again's position. Although I would like to throw in a few extras, most importantly I would like to keep things on a plausible level and I don't see how that could be done adding many more ships to the fragile world economy of the 30's without subtracting some of the popular participants in WW2.

Obviously the scenario will have to involve some sacrifices (eg. KB doesn't exist on Dec 7, 1941) or else I'll have to figure out a way to get those extra BBs some other way. I proposed that a few of the older BBs get scrapped such as Arkansas, New York and Texas. However that would also probably involve the Kongos on the IJN side. While Arkansas, Texas and New York played little role in the war, the Kongos of course were a different story.

If anyone has any ideas on how to re-write history just a little without departing into fantasy, please throw them into this thread. This might be a good place to come up with ideas to re-float the original conception of the mod.

Thanks.

[Nemo121]

On a different note: Would there be any chance of doing a remake of a stock 1944 scenario under RHS, preferably a small one, as I think that would give a lot of people an "entry" into RHS which would showcase the vastly different ( and IMO improved) air model in RHS...
 
 
As to the "Slightly Different Washington Treaty" ( SDWT) scenario. If we are putting in more Bbs at the expense of the CV conversions then I would suggest that the Japanese would have gone for the G3M3 as the need for extremely long range land-based torpedo bombers would have been increased above and beyond the need which resulted in the Nells and Bettys we currently see in-game. I'm not familiar with what the Americans may have found viable in return.

[bstarr]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

BSTARR

I fear you do not understand the economics of the 1920s.

I just suggested adding a few fortifications. I added the 'Washington treaty never existed' phrase simply as an oversimplification of the situation, not as a dissertation on my understanding of world econimics circa 1940. You wanted input on hypothetical ideas; if you wanted an economic thesis, you should have said so.

Besides, if we're dealing with a hypothetical military situation, who's to say we're not dealing with a hypothetical economic situation.

[RETIRED]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

My conception - given the limited number of ships Gary proposed - and his explicit words - was that this was a slightly different Washington Treaty - and that is actually probable. We only got the one we got because we read Japanese codes - and we would have settled for a different outcome had they been tougher about it. Gary's idea - allow four more newer ships (six total - counting Nagato and Mutsu) for Japan - implies six (nine total - counting Colorado class) for USN. That is actually a very plausable possibility. He was willing to get rid of four other capital ships - and his idea these should be the worst has merit - although the Kongo's might have been sacrificed instead.

That pretty much sums up the idea I had for the mod, a slightly different Washington Treaty. There would still be a Washington Treaty. However, it would be a modified treaty from the one that historically took place. The modified treaty would simply allow the Japanese and Allies to complete some of the BB programs they had already started while preserving the original 5:5:3 ratio.

As El Cid Again has painfully pointed out to me, the inclusion of more BBs would no doubt spell the end of most of the carrier conversions like Kaga, Akagi, Lexington and Saratoga and that the world economies of the 30's could not have supported such programs of extra BBs thrown in to the mix with as many CVs as were historically constructed or converted. I was hoping there would be some way to plausibly shoe-horn in a few extra BBs without penalizing the historical contingent of CVs. Unfortunately I have to agree with El Cid Again's position. Although I would like to throw in a few extras, most importantly I would like to keep things on a plausible level and I don't see how that could be done adding many more ships to the fragile world economy of the 30's without subtracting some of the popular participants in WW2.

Obviously the scenario will have to involve some sacrifices (eg. KB doesn't exist on Dec 7, 1941) or else I'll have to figure out a way to get those extra BBs some other way. I proposed that a few of the older BBs get scrapped such as Arkansas, New York and Texas. However that would also probably involve the Kongos on the IJN side. While Arkansas, Texas and New York played little role in the war, the Kongos of course were a different story.

If anyone has any ideas on how to re-write history just a little without departing into fantasy, please throw them into this thread. This might be a good place to come up with ideas to re-float the original conception of the mod.

Thanks.

Here's a thought for the "slightly modified Washington Treaty". The Japanese get what they wanted - a 10:10:7 ratio! Of course, then the Allies wouldn't have had to promise NOT to fortify any positions West of Hawaii or North of Singapore. Japs would get to build 2 of their Kagas, and would have Akagi and Amagi to convert to A/C Carriers. Of course, the 1923 EarthQuake would leave them with just the Akagi and no Kaga to convert in the Amagi's place...., but such is life. And the Allies would have some additional fortifications at Guam, the P.I., Hong Kong, and such (with the Depression keeping them from going to any massive lengths.)

[el cid again]

[quote]ORIGINAL: Nemo121

On a different note: Would there be any chance of doing a remake of a stock 1944 scenario under RHS, preferably a small one, as I think that would give a lot of people an "entry" into RHS which would showcase the vastly different ( and IMO improved) air model in RHS...

The original RHS plan included a scenario for each year of WWII -
and no one has before expressed interest in 1944. Theoretically this is possible - the problem being the total review of positions required in the location file (it would represent a great deal of work). But a number of features in the design permit updating of this sort based on an earlier
scenario - so it is a possibility.

While it is nice to hear someone likes the air model, be aware of three things:

1) We expect some code revisions to the air model to deal with air combat over 50 planes per side will improve ALL mods;

2) We expect some code revisions to the air model to deal with ammunition limits will improve ALL mods (and this might happen any time since the code exists and can just be uncommented or reincerted;

3) We are calibrating the RHS air model values - and these may be tweeked if indicated. In particular, there is a review of the situation with two engine fighters in particular, and with maneuverability in general (which is a related matter). It is likely that the RHS maneuverability formula will be modified if a way to do this is easily found. Further, if a more complicated way is found, it may be incorporated eventually - if the work required (mainly in data collection) is done.

[el cid again]

Bstarr: Thanks for your comments. I was writing in the context of private correspondence with Gary - and using cryptic web type summeries of my conclusions - so of course the context was not entirely clear. In this case I was attempting to act as his staff - because I understand RHS in a technical sense - and he was making the design proposal. There is no reason that one might not make different assumptions. For example, a different Verseilles Treaty - and less foolishness in planning (in UK and France) budgets assuming reparations could be paid on that scale for very long - might have avoided the Great Depression.

[el cid again]

Retired: Or - in 1923 - the Kaga might have converted anyway - just as it did - at somewhat more expense. Nice proposal - it dovetails perfectly with Gary's "modified" treaty concept - and in fact is MORE probable than what really happened! Possibly then they might have taken the unused BB tonnage and done a revised ship - perhaps long delayed by econonic considerations - so we could use one of the (two) designs between that era and the Yamato.

[Terminus]

cid, have you read Bywater's "The Great Pacific War"?

[el cid again]

Yep. Nice bit of work - particularly considering when he wrote. Very interesting guy, Bywater - there is actually a book about him as well as the book he wrote. I think also a Proceedings article - or some other magazine as well. Thanks for making sure I was aware of it.