Matrix Games Forums

Well it does, something in the neighborhood of 120k tons of shipping is added which would bring the US in line with the rest of the treaty signers. That would include 4 carriers, ie Yorktowns. There would be more DD's and subs and I guess more cruiser hulls. With this happening prior to 1936/40 we could see ships that arrive in late 42/43 arriving earlier. I am assuming that nothing happens treaty wise until 36 when the treaty expires. So the US has a more modern fleet in 36, perhaps the Washington/South Dakota's and Essex's are further along design wise and we can see them join the fleet sooner.

FWIW, I played RA70 Hard mode for 2 months against the Japanese AI, using reliable torpedos, just testing results.  Now this was AI, so I realize such things have to be taken with a boulder of salt.
 
I think it's gonna put a JFB in a hurt locker [;)]

As much as it pains me, I would not change the torps until it happened historically.

In RA 3.0 we moved more S-Boats into the SE Pacific and around Midway/Wake. Those damned SS are true pains in my Buttkus! Perhaps this could be done in the new Mod by placing AS at a couple of points (Dutch Harbor, Guam, Pago Pago perhaps) each one tending 2-4 S-Boats. That would suck but give the Allied player USEFUL TTs on a few more platforms.

ORIGINAL: oldman45

As much as it pains me, I would not change the torps until it happened historically.

Curious. The mod is giving the Japanese even more a-historically capable ASW..., why not give them something to deal with?

Because the Allies start with so many subs, and if my time line is used they will have even more as they build up to the treaty limits.

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Because the Allies start with so many subs, and if my time line is used they will have even more as they build up to the treaty limits.

So the Japanese should get more and better everything..., but the Allies shouldn't even get what they thought they already had? I thought this was the "Allied thread".

The problem with pushing more S-boats forward is that we're not simulating how unutterably CRAP they were. As far as the game is concerned, a sub is a sub is a sub, but most of the S-boats were barely capable of combat.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Because the Allies start with so many subs, and if my time line is used they will have even more as they build up to the treaty limits.

So the Japanese should get more and better everything..., but the Allies shouldn't even get what they thought they already had? I thought this was the "Allied thread".

It needs to remain an interesting fight, Allied subs might gut the Japanese fleet. It would be a good way of increasing American strength without changing much about high-level politics and budgets.

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Because the Allies start with so many subs, and if my time line is used they will have even more as they build up to the treaty limits.

So the Japanese should get more and better everything..., but the Allies shouldn't even get what they thought they already had? I thought this was the "Allied thread".

SMILE Mike!

We still need to finalize stuff over on the good side before settling on stuff here. Personally, I think there has been some excellent ideas thrown out here that can be used as we make more progress elsewhere. Looks like we've settled on improving several bases, strengthening the Philippine AF, and adding a few units at start. The real key, as people have pointed out, is how much would be gleaned of the changes prior to the war breaking out and what would the Allies be able to reasonably do?

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: oldman45
Because the Allies start with so many subs, and if my time line is used they will have even more as they build up to the treaty limits.

So the Japanese should get more and better everything..., but the Allies shouldn't even get what they thought they already had? I thought this was the "Allied thread".

SMILE Mike!

We still need to finalize stuff over on the good side before settling on stuff here. Personally, I think there has been some excellent ideas thrown out here that can be used as we make more progress elsewhere. Looks like we've settled on improving several bases, strengthening the Philippine AF, and adding a few units at start. The real key, as people have pointed out, is how much would be gleaned of the changes prior to the war breaking out and what would the Allies be able to reasonably do?

So, does Stinson shut down the Black Chamber?

THAT is the $64.00 question. As said earlier I have been re-reading Silent Victory and never knew what had happened to Rochefort. The man leads his unit and enables us to win THE battle of the war. What does he get? BOOTED! Tell me that isn't America...

Do you think you're committed to the Blackhorse plan for China? The reason I ask is that giving the Chinese control of Yangtze 'ports' (as recognized in-game) gives you an opening for adding the respective river-based naval forces - there seem to have been a few, though I assume there's some reason they haven't been included in anything up to now. Not too much military value, I suppose, but it'd at least make direct amphibious landings against the Chinese ports fractionally less trivial.

Mike, the beauty of simply going along with bringing the US up to treaty strength would give the US around 120,000 tons of ships before the war starts. I need to find where I read that to back it up. Its not even about the US reacting to anything the Japanese build or design. The US Navy grows by 120k tons, it has to build IAW the 1930 treaty so we are talking carriers, I think CL's, and of course DD's and SS. In the other thread they are redesigning and rebuilding the IJN. We can't do that as the Allies, but the US has the ability to level the playing field with numbers and later on say 1942 bring in the quality a year early.

I haven't yet read all the recent posts, but I have one thing to say: I don't think it is possible to seriously improve British approach to building their fleet/aviaton, without causing snowballing and unpredictable consequences over almost 2.5 years of war. I think that any large improvements to British forces should be done through concentrating more of historically available forces against Japan.
Alternatively British might be given a bit of limited luck, like Arc Royal surviving and being available for the Pacific. Maybe they win at Gazala, allowing Allies to redirect some extra forces from Mediterranean in second half of 1942.

US is not bound by that, of course. Improvements like more thorough evaluation of torpedoes quality before the war, or better design of some ship classes, can be introduced without impacting anything else. Just remember that US military buildup was restricted by internal politics more than anything else for a long time, and there is little reason to assume it starts earlier (with stronger resistance met, it can easily go faster during the war, though, and reports on increased number of Japanese carriers by 1941 might cause first Essexes to be laid down a few months earlier).

EDIT: I also wouldn't be hasty to decide any definitive changes, until the Japanese side of the mod mostly takes shape. Playability must be considered as well as plausibility.

ORIGINAL: Jo van der Pluym
For the Perfect War mod have I the following suggestion for the NEI as reaction on the Japanese building programms

Thanks for suggestions, but Netherlands will be occupied shortly (6-8 months) after differences in the Japanese building program compared to RL, planned so far (save for increase in battleships, according to the modified Washington Treaty), actually change the strength of Japanese fleet. I specifically want to avoid expanding IJN too early, in fact. And by that moment Dutch will have a more immediate porential threat on their doorstep. After that they will have to be content with whatever weapons and ships Britain and US will be able to supply them. Don't think that any massive buildup, like suddenly having battlecruisers, with their own resources is feasible. A couple more unfinished destroyers migh be saved and completed in Britain without stretching things too much, but that's about it.

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

China gains control of:
The Wuhan area (Hanchow + Wuchang) and the surrounding inland cities (Ichang, Anking, Nanchang)
The northern inland area bounded by Sinyang, Suchow and Chengting

China's military strength ends up about the same as is stock AE. The better-trained army fights longer and harder, but is eventually chewed up as badly as IRL.

China should have more industry in Wuhan and Chungking -- in this scenario Chiang has a lot more time to evacuate factories inland.

. . . and China gets both AVG groups (P-40Bs, and A-20As) deployed in China at start. China should also get earlier reinforcements for its own air force.

A most excellent proposal. Belated thanks! I believe we can accept it as the basis for China theatre, and I see others already agree.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Good observation, and quite likely true. Westerners, those in power at least, were far from convinced about air naval until too late. Take away the Yamato and her sisters, and the IJN is looked upon like the Italian Navy by USN and RN. That would not be a good thing at all, much lower preparation. Very scary for the allies in '42 under this scenario ...

Allied intelligence considered Yamatos relatively normal 45k battleships for the entire war.

If any Japanese ships caused a new spiral of naval arms race, that ended up detrimental for Japanese, these were Mogamis, which provoked building of large cruisers with 6in armament (Special type destroyers were just the next logical step in DD evolution, and Western DDs would have eventually grown in size anyway).

ORIGINAL: FatR
US is not bound by that, of course. Improvements like more thorough evaluation of torpedoes quality before the war, or better design of some ship classes, can be introduced without impacting anything else. Just remember that US military buildup was restricted by internal politics more than anything else for a long time, and there is little reason to assume it starts earlier (with stronger resistance met, it can easily go faster during the war, though, and reports on increased number of Japanese carriers by 1941 might cause first Essexes to be laid down a few months earlier).

This was not the case with the Navy, who's expansion was regarded as a DEFENSIVE measure, and one which put American workers back to work. The Army was the one with the tough row to hoe..., because you can't send our boys "over there" if there are none in uniform to send.

That's why I think the discussion should be what ships could be added to the US Navy if they built up to the treaty limit.