A New 'Treaty' Grand Campaign

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Post Reply
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Possibilities

Post by ny59giants »

Bangor, ME
Asheville, NC
Gulfport, MS
San Antonia, TX
Spokane, WA
Eureka, CA ( I like the name and the TV show that was on SCiFi) [;)]
Las Vegas, NV
Little Rock, AR
Miami, FL
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Possibilities

Post by Lecivius »

Greely
Longmont
 
 
[:D]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9902
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Possibilities

Post by ny59giants »

Greely
Longmont

[:D]

Cities, not RR crossing!! [:D]
[center]Image[/center]
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17785
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Possibilities

Post by John 3rd »

G--R--E--E--L--E--Y
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17785
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Possibilities

Post by John 3rd »

I like Bangor and Eureka.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
Lecivius
Posts: 4845
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 12:53 am
Location: Denver

RE: Possibilities

Post by Lecivius »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

G--R--E--E--L--E--Y


Meh, tomato tomahto [:'(]
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17785
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Possibilities

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: Lecivius

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

G--R--E--E--L--E--Y


Meh, tomato tomahto [:'(]

Damned urbanites! [:'(]
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7690
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Possibilities

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: Lecivius
If they had bumped carrier procurment, they would have accelerated the Corsair, Avenger, and Helldiver developement AND production accordingly.

This may turn into a can of worms.

The Avenger was the only one of the three that didn't run into problems and it started delivery in May of 1942. If the Corsair and Helldiver didn't run into serious problems, they would have been arriving with the fleet around the Battle of Midway too.

You can't accelerate a program that has serious technical problems which those two did. The Avenger was pretty much right on time. Enough were available to fill out all carrier air groups by the time the US was ready to go on the offensive after Midway. At Midway half of VT-8 had been left on the East Coast to work up with the Avenger and be the unit that introduces it to the fleet. They arrived in Pearl Harbor a day after the Hornet had sailed for Midway and so the detachment just sat there while VT-8 went to war with TBDs. A 6 plane detachment of Avengers was dispatched to Midway, but the remaining planes sat in Pearl Harbor awaiting the return of the Hornet.

VT-8 was able to rebuild the fastest after Midway because they did have close to a full complement of Avengers, however the commander Swede Larson was a horrible commander. He was very bold and did some feats as a pilot that were amazing like flying a Frankenstein's monster of an Avenger at Guadalcanal that was assembled from wrecks by mechanics who had never seen an Avenger and going in alone against a large surface group to drop on a cruiser. He was such a bad commander that on at least two occasions his subordinates almost shot him.

Bill
WIS Development Team
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7690
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Possibilities

Post by wdolson »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

CV Lexington
CV Saratoga

CVL King's Mountain

CLV-1 Charlotte
CLV-2 Jacksonville

CC-1 Constitution
CC-2 Constellation

CA Burlington
CA Rome

CL ____________
CL ____________

Need good city names. Any more suggestions?

Will add 4 more Somer's-Class DDs as well as an equal number of Benham-Class.

I guess in this world the old USS Constitution was not restored and put back in commission as it was in this world? A fairly symbolic commission true, but it is the reason there is no other USS Constitution in the USN.

For cruisers, how about the USS Anchorage? I don't believe there was a USS Dallas until they started naming SSNs after cities. I'm too lazy yo look it up though...

Bill
WIS Development Team
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17785
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Possibilities

Post by John 3rd »

Japanese Cruisers

CAs

OK. We are gonna play the 'tonnage' game for Japanese CAs. In this Mod the following happens to the 'traditional' Japanese CAs and the year they were completed:

1. EARLY: Furutaka (26), Kako (26), Aoba (27), and Kinugasa (27) are converted to CLs during the London Conference with 3x3 6" guns. They were officially 7,100 T: Total 28,400 T.
2. MYOKO: Myoko (29), Nachi (28), Haguro (29), and Ashigara (29). They are 10,000 T: 40,000 T
3. TAKAO: Takao (32), Atago (32), Maya (32), and Chokai (32). They are 9,850 T: 39,400 T
4. MOGAMI: Mogami (35), Mikuma (35), Suzuyu (37), and Kumano (37). These stay in the realm of CLs with their 5x3 6" Turrets.

Taking Myoko and Nachi equals 79,400 T leaving (with a Treaty Tonnage of 122,500) 43,100 T.

Here is my proposal. The Japanese build a set of 4 CA between the Myoko and Takao Classes. These CA will be near carbon copies of the Myoko's.

As to Third and Fourth Circle Plans I would have two CAs authorized per plan. These would not be Tone's but, reflecting Japan's shift towards the triple turret, a large CA mounting 4x3 8" guns. Displacement would surge to about 13,000 T. There are designs for this class over in Ship Bucket and we planned to use them in Perfect War. The first pair would be Tone and Chikuma (available at war's start) followed by two more pairs from the plans (due in 1942 and 1944)...

CLs

Tenryu and Tatsuta become fast ML.
Kuma and Tama do the same.
Kitakami, Oi, and Kiso become Training Cruisers and, thus, no need to build the Katori Class.
NAGARA: Nagara, Isuzu, Yura, Natori, Kinu, and Abukuma remain classified as CLs rated at 5,170 T: 31,020 T.
SENDAI: Naka, Sendai, Jintsu, and Minase rated at 5,195 T: 20,780 T
FURUTAKA: Furutaka, Kako, Aoba, and Kinugasa 7,500 T: 30,000 T.
MOGAMI: Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, and Kumano 8,500 T: 34,000 T.

Total tonnage is 115,800. Authorized Tonnage is 112,000. So Japan is slightly over, however, she is slightly under for CAs so we'll call this good.

In production, starting with 3rd and 4th Circle is a CL Class of 3x3 6", good Torps, and about 8,000 T.

The Total Cruiser tonnage is 235,200 allowed by Treaty with 234,500 ACTUAL when Treaty is abandoned.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: Possibilities

Post by oldman45 »

I am not sure you could use Anchorage since Alaska was not a state yet.
User avatar
Skyros
Posts: 1589
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Columbia SC

RE: Possibilities

Post by Skyros »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I am not sure you could use Anchorage since Alaska was not a state yet.


Honolulu was used for a CL.
User avatar
wdolson
Posts: 7690
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Possibilities

Post by wdolson »

So was Juneau.

Bill
WIS Development Team
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17785
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Possibilities

Post by John 3rd »

We'll use Anchorage to help 'bolster' morale for that poor lonely territory!

Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17785
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

Kaigun Notes

Post by John 3rd »

Kaigun Additions/Changes

CVs
Akagi (Sister Ships)
Amagi

CVL
Ryukaku (Single deck hangar CVL with Air Complement of 27 planes) the design is successful and becomes the proto-Hiryu Class.

CVE (Experimental)
Hosho (Sister Ships)
Ibuki

BC
Ishitaka

Japanese Cruisers
CAs
OK. We are gonna play the 'tonnage' game for Japanese CAs. In this Mod the following happens to the 'traditional' Japanese CAs and the year they were completed:

1. EARLY: Furutaka (26), Kako (26), Aoba (27), and Kinugasa (27) are converted to CLs during the London Conference with 3x3 6" guns. They were officially 7,100 T: Total 28,400 T.
2. MYOKO: Myoko (29), Nachi (28), Haguro (29), Ashigara (29), Seiki (29), Chishima(30), Miyako (30), and Yoshino (30) . They are 10,000 T: 80,000 T
3. TAKAO: Takao (32), Atago (32), Maya (32), and Chokai (32). They are 9,850 T: 39,400 T
4. MOGAMI: Mogami (35), Mikuma (35), Suzuyu (37), and Kumano (37). These stay in the realm of CLs with their 5x3 6" Turrets.

Taking Myoko and Nachi equals 119,400 T leaving (with a Treaty Tonnage of 122,500). The Japanese expand the Myoko's into a class of eight ships. Names are above in Italics/Bolded.

As to Third and Fourth Circle Plans I would have two CAs authorized per plan. These would not be Tone's but, reflecting Japan's shift towards the triple turret. The Niitaka-Class CA mounts 4x3 8" guns. Displacement would surge to about 13,000 T. They are a perfect example of 'using a few to conquer many.' There are designs for this class over in Ship Bucket and we planned to use them in Perfect War. The first pair would be Tone and Chikuma (available at war's start) followed by two more pairs from the plans (due in 1942 and 1944)...

CLs
Tenryu and Tatsuta become fast ML.
Kuma and Tama do the same.
Kitakami, Oi, and Kiso become Training Cruisers and, thus, no need to build the Katori Class.
NAGARA: Nagara, Isuzu, Yura, Natori, Kinu, and Abukuma remain classified as CLs rated at 5,170 T: 31,020 T.
SENDAI: Naka, Sendai, Jintsu, and Minase rated at 5,195 T: 20,780 T
FURUTAKA: Furutaka, Kako, Aoba, and Kinugasa 7,500 T: 30,000 T.
MOGAMI: Mogami, Mikuma, Suzuya, and Kumano 8,500 T: 34,000 T.

Total tonnage is 115,800. Authorized Tonnage is 112,000. So Japan is slightly over, however, she is slightly under for CAs so we'll call this good.

In production, starting with 3rd and 4th Circle is a CL Class of 3x3 6", good Torps, and about 8,000 T.

The Total Cruiser tonnage is 235,200 allowed by Treaty with 234,500 ACTUAL when Treaty is abandoned.
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17785
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Kaigun Notes

Post by John 3rd »

Am looking at using DaBigBabes--C for the template of the Mod. How does that sound?
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
DOCUP
Posts: 3126
Joined: Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm

RE: Kaigun Notes

Post by DOCUP »

How about Intercourse PA or PEE PEE OH?[:D]
User avatar
John 3rd
Posts: 17785
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:03 pm
Location: La Salle, Colorado

RE: Kaigun Notes

Post by John 3rd »

ORIGINAL: DOCUP

How about Intercourse PA or PEE PEE OH?[:D]

I SEE how YOU are Mister!
Image

Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: Kaigun Notes

Post by oldman45 »

Oops, I forgot about those two cruisers....
User avatar
RevRick
Posts: 2615
Joined: Sat Sep 16, 2000 4:00 pm
Location: Thomasville, GA

RE: Kaigun Notes

Post by RevRick »

Well, you really cannot forget Blue Balls, MD if you wish to have a good name for a hospital ship...

Now. In a similarly constructed scenario, I have someone in the BuShips actually get his head out of his @$$ and realize that BCs are about as useful as another udder on a boar. Slow battleships are another problem - they are about as useful as a castrated boar, since everything afloat other then the older USN battleships cold show them their heels if necessary - including the new CVs. (Like I said, someone in BuShips woke up!)

That being said, the BuShips threw out both designs and cobbled up a design which came out at about 43,600 tons, had the main battery of the BC, but with close to the hull protection of the slow BB, but with 30 Kt speed. Length was approaching 770'and beam 108 with torpedo bulges. This rendered a much more useful vessel than either of the other two classes planned.

I have them building 4 of them in my scenario - South Dakota. Indiana, Georgia, and Louisianna.

The OTL time line SoDak comes into the game as the Alabama class, at 40K tons, with longer hulls and more HP, the 16"/50 Mk 7, and 30 kts. Two additional ships are build as Fleet Flags (Massachusetts and New York - the Old New York retired) with slightly different configs.

Basically, the whole Washington Naval Treaty falls apart in 1930 when the USN discovers the IJN is cheating, and calls them on it (the US Cipher Bureau cypto center was not shut down by Stimson... he had his change of heart much earlier when he read the information from Yardley!)- and the Japanese walk out - again, and congress gets proof that the IJN is working much harder to build larger more powerful ships than they were supposed to be allowed. This does not amuse them - nor the gentlemen in Whitehall. Thus the eruption of ship building in the Atlantic and Pacific basins..
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”