Tinkering with Treaties...Again

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I don't know him but I've known of his web site for a couple of years now. That would make a cool mod wouldn't it?

Just need to come up with a few curves for the US and UK to throw back at Japanese fanboys.

Not to discourage you (the more modding the better), but isn't this Alikchi's Iron Storm mod?

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Thanks Cid! [:)]

If worse comes to worse I can print out a data table of the old mod from Excel and use it to type in the same data into the new database--data entry style. However, I'm definitely not going to try to create another fully functional mod before AE comes out. I'll probably need the extra slots AE is promising.

There's a very large number of extra data fields in the AE database. If you're thinking of using Excel for this, better be careful.

I plan to redo my mod from the start once AE's ready, but then it's not that extensive.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I don't know him but I've known of his web site for a couple of years now. That would make a cool mod wouldn't it?

Just need to come up with a few curves for the US and UK to throw back at Japanese fanboys.

Not to discourage you (the more modding the better), but isn't this Alikchi's Iron Storm mod?

I don't think so. I seem to remember Iron Storm hinging on the war in Europe not having been fought the same or else not fought at all because I think he had stuff like Ark Royal and a lot more BBs involved. I think he also had some of Furashita's fleet as well as things like a modernized Settsu, etc. He may have used this site as a base for his Japanese fleet but I think he did a lot of other stuff with it on top of it. I could be wrong. I'll have to check.

[DuckofTindalos]

No, Alikchi's IJN was completely based on Alt_Naval's stuff, aside from the subs. His premise was that the British had won the war in the Med and forced the Italians to surrender so they could send a lot of reinforcements eastwards.

I used more than a few of Furashita's ships and a modernised Settsu, but Alikchi didn't.

[GaryChildress]

Yeah, it's got almost the same Japanese fleet in it, however, without Settsu and Amagi class which he has. Also his lineup for the Allies is a LOT different than anything I had in mind.

Basically this will be Iron Storm 2 1/2. "Iron Stormlet" [:D]

[GaryChildress]

In any case I'll need to make reference to Iron Storm in the readme.txt and literature.

I honestly didn't realize I was that close to it. I mostly remember the part about the war in Europe ending up differently and that he had a LOT of "what if" BBs and BCs fighting for the Allies. But I'll reference it just the same.

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Yeah, it's got almost the same Japanese fleet in it, however, without Settsu and Amagi class which he has. Also his lineup for the Allies is a LOT different than anything I had in mind.

Basically this will be Iron Storm 2 1/2. "Iron Stormlet" [:D]

Iron Stiff Breeze, perhaps.[:D]

I brought it up thinking about Iron Storm I, not IS II. The first one didn't have Settsu, Amagi, etc. Still, mod away!

[DuckofTindalos]

What are your thoughts on IJN submarines in your mod, Gary?

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

What are your thoughts on IJN submarines in your mod, Gary?

I haven't really looked into the subs yet. I know Alt_Naval considers the fleet sub to have been a "failure" and yet with the current game engine they seem almost indispensible. I don't know if it would be a good idea to build a lot of "Ro" type subs instead of the "I" types considering the game mechanics.

I'll need to look into it more.

[DuckofTindalos]

You'll probably have to turn off Sub Doctrine anyway. That's what I do in my mod, and the medium subs work just fine. I've completely scrubbed the IJN sub orbat to focus on medium submarines. I started out implementing Alt_Naval's submarine-building programme entirely, but have modified it heavily since then.

[GaryChildress]

Does the IJN get more subs as a result in your mod or do they keep the same number? The thing with the subs is that I'd like to utilize the midget sub capabilities of AE and I don't think any of the medium subs were designed to carry midgets. Maybe I'm wrong.

For the Allies, right now I'm batting around the idea of scratching both Lexington class CVs and having a total of 7 Yorktowns. I can build 3 Yorktowns for the same tonnage as two Lexingtons PLUS have enough tonnage left over to upgrade Wasp to a Yorktown.

Also the US will get Sumner class DDs in place of the Fletchers. Plus Pre-war US BBs will receive DP 5"/38 single mounts instead of their 5"/25s.

[DuckofTindalos]

My mod has 187 IJN submarines vs. 168 in stock. The big change is a reduction in the number of classes (9 Japanese + 1 German vs. 27 in stock). I have a few of the older IJN fleet boats, considered to have been built before a given cut-off point in the mid-30's, after which the Japanese switch solely to medium boats. Up to mid 1943, the main medium class is the Type K6, afterwards production switches to the Type ST.

[GaryChildress]

I haven't really looked at subs yet so I'm not sure what I will end up doing with them. I will probably keep the large subs since I'm a big fan of 30,000 nm endurance subs as well as midget subs going piggy back.

[DuckofTindalos]

The IJN subscribed to a flawed submarine doctrine, but at least they built the boats to implement it...

If we look at it rationally, the only reason for those ranges would be warfare off the West Coast of the US (possibly even the East Coast). It's mainly based on the Japanese offensive mindset. If we switch that to a more realistic strategy, and remember that the IJN intended to base their subs at advanced island bases anyway, then the long ranges become irrelevant, and mass produced medium boats make more sense.

As for the midgets, they're not effective enough to merit much attention, either in real life or the AE. The guys on the AE naval team did a good job at making them realistic; I was team lead for the implementation and initial testing, and I know they don't do much.

[GaryChildress]

Making midgets of little or no use makes sense. I take it AE will, as it should, reduce the effectiveness of sub operated float planes as well?

I'll have to look into the submarine issue more but I may cave in and follow Alt_Naval's regimen. It probably does make a lot more sense. The only trouble in the Pacific is that there aren't a great many forward bases capable of harboring subs unless that has changed in AE. IIRC Kwajalein is about the only size 3 or better port for close to a thousand miles.

[DuckofTindalos]

That's what ze Subtenders are for...

[GaryChildress]

But can subtenders operate from a size 2 or less port in AE? Will ships be able to dock at a port under size 3? If not then that leaves Kwajalein as the forward most port for the Japanese to operate subs. If Kwajalein falls early, then the US won't have to worry much about subs anywhere in the area of the Marshalls or Gilberts.

[DuckofTindalos]

Saipan, Truk, Yap and Eniwetok are all likely candidates.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The IJN subscribed to a flawed submarine doctrine, but at least they built the boats to implement it...

If we look at it rationally, the only reason for those ranges would be warfare off the West Coast of the US (possibly even the East Coast). It's mainly based on the Japanese offensive mindset. If we switch that to a more realistic strategy, and remember that the IJN intended to base their subs at advanced island bases anyway, then the long ranges become irrelevant, and mass produced medium boats make more sense.

As for the midgets, they're not effective enough to merit much attention, either in real life or the AE. The guys on the AE naval team did a good job at making them realistic; I was team lead for the implementation and initial testing, and I know they don't do much.

The Japanese midgets represent the best of the species in that generation - and that is considerable because the Italians really had done a lot of significance. Much of this is not well understood outside special operations forces - and at least one success was not credited to the Japanese midgets until about the turn of the century (when the curator of the US Aviation Museum in Hawaii - Burl Burlingame - published photographic evidence - since studied several times by USN forinsic analysts - reported in the Proceedings). Up to four other successes are still not credited except in some submarine books - because we assumed (wrongly) these attacks were by medium submarines (which were not there to make them). There are severe problems with this sort of weapon - most related to the requirement for an expert crew - the rest relating to how they are employed. For a good technical discussion of all such craft in all eras, see the new book Midget Submarines.

Midgets were possible in WITP as issues - and I have them working in RHS - but they would not work in ports (which was not their original designed purpose, but a second mission for which a number were modified just before PTO erupted into war - and which they were able to do successfully in at least three widely different places - more significantly every place they were used in that way). Later use was in the Philippines for challenging pasage of narrow straits - and that would / does work in WITP. The main problem with their "doing much" is they only have an 18 inch torpedo warhead - and for technical reasons you never get more than one hit on the same target. But they cannot do whatever they hit any good - and they should be effective if the launching submarine crew experience level is high.

Note that many nations - large and small - use midgets today - including us.

As for a "flawed submarine doctrine" - well - yes - there were flaws. Formost among these was a failure to use the submarine force as it was intended to be used. This mainly occurred because - with a single exception (6th Submarine Fleet) - no staff had a senior - or even medium - grade submarine officer: the expertise to know how to use them was not even on the staffs commanding them. Another problem was lack of consistent application of any policy: Polmar counts five different policy periods - and the Indian Ocean area sort of had a separate policy for most of them. But the indications are that in many respects these units were mission appropriate - and there were times they scored significant successes. One of the changes MUST have happened during the war - in that the concept did not occur until after the war began - this being "strike from the sea" (meaning air strike) - and a book (of that title) thinks this continues today in the form of missile submarines. The USN did design its own I-400 class - for jet bombers (see US Submarines Since 1945) - and it is anything but clear that, had Yamamoto lived, this project would not have been pushed all the way to operational use during the war.

[DuckofTindalos]

Well, the AE midgets work just fine in ports. They're chrome, of course, but nothing wrong with that...