Battleship Sailor

[MarkS]

This is a wonderful 'what if' senario... However, aren't we just turning the clock back to WWI. (No effective planes, torpedoes or radar?) This would just be modernizing the gun platforms so to speak. The naval doctrine for the first world war must exist somewhere though.
I like the idea in any case and would certainly give it a go.
The options for battle tactics would require a huge upgrade, otherwise we would have little control over our desired tactics. You can't just send your fleet into an occupied hex and roll the dice, we would need some tactical control over the battle. Tactical control would change the entire game and bring it down to a snail's pace.

p.s. I'm not trying to be negative, these thoughts just spring in randomly as I type.

R/
Mark

[Rob Roberson]

Originally posted by MarkS
This is a wonderful 'what if' senario... However, aren't we just turning the clock back to WWI. (No effective planes, torpedoes or radar?) This would just be modernizing the gun platforms so to speak. The naval doctrine for the first world war must exist somewhere though.
I like the idea in any case and would certainly give it a go.
The options for battle tactics would require a huge upgrade, otherwise we would have little control over our desired tactics. You can't just send your fleet into an occupied hex and roll the dice, we would need some tactical control over the battle. Tactical control would change the entire game and bring it down to a snail's pace.

p.s. I'm not trying to be negative, these thoughts just spring in randomly as I type.

R/
Mark

Yes and no. Basically we are removing the airplane as an offensive platform as some American navy admirals believed (Japanese for that matter) prior to the war. THe game itself will still be operational level...so you would still be a spectator to the battles, the difference is...warships like Yamato and Musashi would be very useful if they arent constantly fleeing from airpower. Please be critical...this is my first attempt at a project like this and I want all input ideas and even the occasional flame. If this works it could be a fun little campaign...

ROb

[von Murrin]

I've given this some thought, and it seems to me that the hardest aspect would be strategic concerns. For example, Lunga and PM would be nearly worthless, as their port SPS and locations aren't great.

Instead, you'd likely see the entire campaign revolve around the "PNG-Solomons Triangle" of Shortland, Tulagi, and Gili, as the measure of the usefulness of a base would be directly tied to it's port size. I'm not quite sure just how important this is, but it's definitely worth looking at. Also, this would probably have to be a PBEM only scenario, as I doubt that the AI would "get it".

[Rob Roberson]

Originally posted by von Murrin


Instead, you'd likely see the entire campaign revolve around the "PNG-Solomons Triangle" of Shortland, Tulagi, and Gili, as the measure of the usefulness of a base would be directly tied to it's port size. I'm not quite sure just how important this is, but it's definitely worth looking at. Also, this would probably have to be a PBEM only scenario, as I doubt that the AI would "get it".

I'm sure it would have to be PBEM only, I seem to recall reading that the AI is somewhat hard wired to go after Lunga ...

[Point Luck]

The heavies may be the queen of the seas. I would think that without the air capability that my my war dollars would be better spent on R&D of new Subs. I could build a pretty large sub force for the dollars spent on heavies and pretty much rape any task force that crosses my wake

[Rob Roberson]

But then again, the big guys never leave home with out the small boys as escorts. Subs fleets will be larger, but so will their counter..the destroyer.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Rob Roberson


Yes and no. Basically we are removing the airplane as an offensive platform as some American navy admirals believed (Japanese for that matter) prior to the war. THe game itself will still be operational level...so you would still be a spectator to the battles, the difference is...warships like Yamato and Musashi would be very useful if they arent constantly fleeing from airpower. Please be critical...this is my first attempt at a project like this and I want all input ideas and even the occasional flame. If this works it could be a fun little campaign...

ROb

I dont even want to even look at the editor yet, but I was just wondering does it allow you to make up fantasy oobs. If you can create ships that never existed then I think a good set up for what you want would be to have a what if of no naval treaty and war in 1931 rather than 41. Thats way before a/c were effective and both fleets had planed huge battle fleets before the treaty. Without the treaty there is no Lex, Sara, Kaga or Akagi. You might have small Langly or Hosho type CVs with biplane a/c used manly for scouting, but essentially you would have a slightly updated version of Jutland in the pacific. Sounds fun:D

[Admiral DadMan]

Originally posted by TIMJOT


I dont even want to even look at the editor yet, but I was just wondering does it allow you to make up fantasy oobs. If you can create ships that never existed then I think a good set up for what you want would be to have a what if of no naval treaty and war in 1931 rather than 41. Thats way before a/c were effective and both fleets had planed huge battle fleets before the treaty. Without the treaty there is no Lex, Sara, Kaga or Akagi. You might have small Langly or Hosho type CVs with biplane a/c used manly for scouting, but essentially you would have a slightly updated version of Jutland in the pacific. Sounds fun:D

You're right, you don't get Lex, Sara, Kaga andAkagi as CVs, you get them as ships-of-the-line.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Admiral DadMan
You're right, you don't get Lex, Sara, Kaga andAkagi as CVs, you get them as ships-of-the-line.

Yeah, and from what Ive read they would have made the HMS Hood look like a pocket BB. Although ultimately the BC concept was a failed one and if there was a clash of Battle fleets in the 30s these ships probably wouldnt have lasted long. If Jutland and 1st and 2nd Guadacanal are any indication.

[kverdon]

Sounds like you are plotting a scenario almost loosely based upon the Plan Orange of the USN which had the USN sailing forth to fight the IJN battle line in a Jutland-like scenario in the Central Pacific in the '30 or even 40's.

FWIW, the WNT of 1921 should still stand as is was intended to limit the big gun ratio's of the signing nations. The reason the BC's Lex, Akagi, et all were converted to carriers is that they were pretty much an exept exclusion and nobody cared that you converted the tonnage into CV's. Carriers should primarilly be limitted to spotting/scouting. The North Carolinas South Dakotas and Iowas would still have been built as they were inovative plans to fit the best BB into 35000 tons. You would be able to include the Montana's in there (DROOL!!!) They would be great Yamato killers. This would be a fun fantasy scenario.

Kevin

[bradfordkay]

You seem to have three possible scenarios coming here:

1. Washinton Treaty of 1922 existed, but not London Treaty of 1930(?). WW2 era ships are built at an earlier date.

2. Neither treaty existed. You get the results of the full WW1 build programs. WW2 programs appear early.

3. Both treaties exist as in history (after all, the treaties were aimed heavily at battleships). You get the real life ships at the times they were available.


I believe that Kaga was actually laid down as a battleship. Akagi's sister was the Amagi, which was going to be the other carrier conversion allowed by the treaty. However, her hull was so seriously damaged by the Tokyo quake of '23 that they appropriated Kaga's hull to replace her. Apparently they were taking their time at scrapping her....

[Rob Roberson]

Originally posted by bradfordkay
You seem to have three possible scenarios coming here:

1. Washinton Treaty of 1922 existed, but not London Treaty of 1930(?). WW2 era ships are built at an earlier date.

2. Neither treaty existed. You get the results of the full WW1 build programs. WW2 programs appear early.

3. Both treaties exist as in history (after all, the treaties were aimed heavily at battleships). You get the real life ships at the times they were available.

I thinking im going for number 2. Based on some of the research I have been doing (thanks to everyone who has suggested websites and articles) it would make the most sense.

The idea I am kicking around is that at each point in history where naval air could of shown it's abilties it failed.

The first carrier landing (on a British flattop if I remember correctly)

The first American attempt.

Billy Mitchell fails miserably (about the time of the Washington Treaty)

No British, Japanese, or American fleet carriers are laid down.

I'm considering escort carriers...they have a role in spotting for the big guns.

Submarine forces are bigger, as are oilers, tankers. Lots more steel out there, but to what end...which is what I am working on. Land base air isnt very effective, (editing their bomb loads has been a bitch), but where I am stumped is what to make the goals. The grab an island build a runway is no longer the emphasis of the campaign...what should be...fueling stations (big ports). Both PM and Rabaul were dumpy little anchorages when the war broke out. They became important. Either way I have a ton of info to sift through and its been fun, heck as much as I have I may have to write a book.... I love the suggestions though, this is going to see light of day...now if only I can come up with a quicker way to edit the units involved.

It would be plan orange. I do wish that I could edit in some British ships. With land based air not being as effective they would have a role (secondary) in the southwest pacific defending the Aussies..

Rob

[von Murrin]

Originally posted by Rob Roberson
...but where I am stumped is what to make the goals. The grab an island build a runway is no longer the emphasis of the campaign...what should be...fueling stations (big ports). Both PM and Rabaul were dumpy little anchorages when the war broke out. They became important...

Well, the SPS of the potential bases does reflect their suitability for ports and airfields rather well. I would say that aside from the hubs (Brisbane, Truk, Noumea) and the advance harbors (Rabaul, Luganville, Townsville/Cairns), It will all be fought over large natural anchorages like Tulagi, Gili, and Shortland to accomodate search aircraft.

I think a possible idea would be to do something along the lines of cutting down the SPS of both airfields and ports in general for purposes of perspective, and severly pruning or eliminating the smaller locations altogether at the start. For example, Lunga and Tulagi shouldn't exist, and Shortland I. would be something like a size 2/0 port/field. All those little fields in PNG wouldn't be there either, and Lae might be okay if it were really small.

Just tossing some pennies your way. :p

Oh, and let me know if you want any help with anything.

[bradfordkay]

"The idea I am kicking around is that at each point in history where naval air could of shown it's abilties it failed."

I like option #2 as well, just because i believe that some of those cancelled ships would have proven to be beautiful examples of the art.

But I have to contend that the naval treaties did not exist to limit carriers, but rather to limit battleships and battlecruisers first and foremost.
Having naval air fail its tests would have no effect on the treaties, just on the development of naval air forces (and the capabilities of LBA versus naval units).


Thus I think that the other scenarios would be cool as well.... Why stop at one scenario?

I forgot a fourth (but less likely, since right after WW1 was when anti-military sentiment was at its strongest):

1922 Washington Treaty not in existence, 1930 Treaty does occur. Receive total WW1 build program, but WW2 arrives at normal time.

[bradfordkay]

"All those little fields in PNG wouldn't be there either, and Lae might be okay if it were really small."

I may be wrong, but I think that some of those little strips were already there as a result of a minor gold rush in PNG during the thirties.

I do agree with your idea of de-emphasizing the airbases and their effect on VP costs.

Another way to de-emphasize the air bases would be to change the rate of construction (is this possible?). Since there would be fewer bombers, there wouldn't have been the need to develope the specialized airbase contruction units.

[von Murrin]

Originally posted by bradfordkay
"All those little fields in PNG wouldn't be there either, and Lae might be okay if it were really small."

I may be wrong, but I think that some of those little strips were already there as a result of a minor gold rush in PNG during the thirties.

I do agree with your idea of de-emphasizing the airbases and their effect on VP costs.

Another way to de-emphasize the air bases would be to change the rate of construction (is this possible?). Since there would be fewer bombers, there wouldn't have been the need to develope the specialized airbase contruction units.

That's essentially what I had in mind. All the EAB and most of the Nav Const. Bns would have to be edited out. The "little strips" could be adaquately simulated from a naval standpoint as a level 1 field at Lae.

[panda124c]

You would also have to consider the increase in the number of Light and Heavy Crusiers, which were used for scouting duties (this is the original thought for carriers usage.

Supply of forward bases used for refueling of task forces (battleships will need more forward refueling points because of their fuel usage), protection of supply ships, protection from subs for supply convoys and task forces. Raiding of supply bases and shipping lanes by crusier/destroyer task forces.

The whole war would not change that much just the method by which you maintained your supply lines for invasions of major ports to support your major fleet units which are needed to control large areas (projection of power by battleships as opposed to airpower). So that you can invade the next port and keep the enemy from controling areas that contain your ports.

[TIMJOT]

Hi

I just recently finished "War Plan Orange" Miller; Naval Institute Press. A major emphasis of the plan other than the destruction of the IJN was to secure large safe anchorages as forward bases for the Fleet. If the scenerio is to take place in the 30s then this would be even more essential since refueling at sea was still very expiremental at that time. So I would think you would have to severly limit or remove completely the ability to refuel at sea, thus making the capture of large ports essentail for victory and adequately replacing the importance of airbases. If endurances can be edited then I would think they should be revised downward to give anchorages added signifacance. Believe or not another major problem for pre-wwII fleets was bottom fouling of ships hulls which could severly degrade performance within only a few months at sea. Which was another reason for adequate forward anchorages and docking facilities. The development of anti-fouling paints by WWII greatly reduced this problem.

[Drex]

I f forward anchorages are a prime objective then perhaps there would still be a "Midway" confrontation just in a different area.