OLD WPO FAQ (No longer updated)

[Jorm]

Hey Tanker

I understand you're an uber busy boy, but if you have a spare minute can you ( or some one else) perhaps start a WPO FAQ , or a developers Journal etc
Id love to see a list of your scenario design decisions , just dont let such a thing slow down your develping the WPO MOD


ie some quesrtions i have to start the ball rolling

1. Will Australia be in it
2. Will the French fleet be there ( ie French indochina)
3. Can subs actually 'spot' in the same way planes do
4. How will coaling stations work
5. The seaplane was a major wepaon system of the time, ie the USA envisaged many squadrons of them in the attack role, will you have them
6. Will USA industry start small then getm ie in one WPO book ive read they said after H+360 days aircraft production was expected to increase 10 fold. Will your scenario do this
7. People ask about airships alott, will WPO have them
8. Will you be adding objectives etc using the SCENIO editior ( ie not just the detabase editor
etc etc etc

ta
Paul

[Tankerace]

1. Will Australia be in it

Yes. The Royal Australian Navy will be present, along with a small Australian army. The Australians also receive HMAS Australia, an Indefatigeable class battlecruiser.

2. Will the French fleet be there ( ie French indochina)
No. The French fleet will not be in the mod. However, French Rediments d' Coloniale will be in the game, stationed in French Indo China.

3. Can subs actually 'spot' in the same way planes do
This works as in normal War in the Pacific. Submarines can detect enemy TFs, which can be attacked. These TFs will then appear on the map.

4. How will coaling stations work
Coaling Stations work basically the same way as regular bases in War in the Pacific. However, tankers will carry less fuel, and ships require more of it thus necessitating that you keep supply lines open to the bases that you choose to use as your "gas stations". To enforce the use of this, AOs will carry a smaller amount of fuel, making refueling anything larger than a destroyer virtually impossbile.
In addition, Ships of the era are short legged. So, (in the Spirit of War Plan Orange -2), the Allied player needs to make sure he has enough bases, spread out at good intervals, so that his fleet can make it from San Diego to Manila.

The Japanese strategy is to take these bases. If Japan can take Wake, then the US cannot make it to the next stop (Guam) without first taking Wake. In this way, the Japanese can delay the American's use of a more numerous fleet, until Manila, the DEI, or Malay is captured. The chain of US coaling stations enroute are this: San Diego ->Pearl Harbor ->Wake ->Guam->Manila. Once at Manila, the US fleet, taking its supplies directly from the PI, can begin the blockade of Japan as called for in War Plan Orange-2, created in 1920.

5. The seaplane was a major wepaon system of the time, ie the USA envisaged many squadrons of them in the attack role, will you have them

There are several different seaplanes available to the US, and a select few to the British and Japanese. The early ones are unarmed and fairly limited in number. However, as more squadrons are created, and larger seaplanes capable of carrying bombs become available, then the USN has a very effective floatscout/dive bomber. Also understand, each floatplane in the game (with the exception of the FU-1 Battleship Fighter) has a variant that can be used from bases, or aircraft carriers. The best example of this is the Vought O2U Corsair.

6. Will USA industry start small then getm ie in one WPO book ive read they said after H+360 days aircraft production was expected to increase 10 fold. Will your scenario do this

Early model US plane's replacement rates will be fairly low. However, once newer planes become available, their rates will increase. Since this project assumes the Washington Naval Treaty was not successful, battleship admirals were not forced to turn to aircraft. The aircraft will still be regarded as an "expensive experiement", along with aircraft carriers. However, as the war progresses, more planes will become available.

7. People ask about airships alott, will WPO have them

Not at this time. I do not believe that War in the Pacific can accurately model airships. However, that is not to say that in future scenarios after release they will not be added. The Airship carriers, Akron and Macon, will not be added to the game. They were completed in the 1930s, wheras the last scenario in War Plan Orange ends in 1929.

8. Will you be adding objectives etc using the SCENIO editior ( ie not just the detabase editor
etc etc etc

For the 2 campaigns (1922-1926, and 1926-1929) no. However, in a planned scenario detailing a war in the Philippinnes, I may add in objectives for the AI to use. However, my current goal is to give the player free reign.

In the two PBEM "Jutland" scenarios, however, I will herd the player where he needs to go. 2 Bases will be used, about 5-7 hexes appart. Each side gets an enormous amount of ships. In an unspecified amount of time (around a week) they will have to slug out a naval battle. Score damaged ships is on, and at the end of the week the player who has the least damaged fleet is the victor. This is in response to all the requests to make a Jutland scenario. One side will pit the British vs the Japanese, the other the US vs the Japanese.

Hope those answer your questions. If anyone else has any, fire them off in this thread, and I'll gladly answer them.

[Tankerace]

After thinking, I'll post some common questions I think people will have:

I thought The Lexingtons, South Dakotas, Tosas, Amagis, and final Hoods were scrapped?
In real life, they were. However, this project assumes the Washington Naval Treaty was rejected by the Japanese. As such, a bankrupt Britain abandoned all "never-weres", except the final four Hoods. Japan, also strapped for cash, abandoned the super designs, but will complete the Tosas and the Amagis. The US will complete its South Dakotas and Lexingtons. In addition, the US and Japan will retain their newer predreadnoughts.

I thought you said there would be Carrier conversions?
I originally planned to have them. However, this unbalanced the scenario. Japan gets to build a select few new cruisers, but the US does not. There fore, loosing two or three cruisers would hurt an already badly top heavy American navy. To solve this, the Japanese will get 2 additional Hosho type carriers in 1927-28, and the US will get 1 or 2 converted Liners. Britain will receive the Furious, Argus, and Vindictive, although in 1924 Vindictive is recoverted to a Hawkins class cruiser.

What was the real "War Plan Orange"
War Plan Orange was a set of three plans covering a potential war with Japan. At the time, there were several "Color" plans, the main one Black, Red, Orange, and Red-Orange. Plan Black, a war against the Germans, was no longer needed after the scuttling at Scapa Flow. Plan Red envisaged a war over trade between Britain and the United States (who had only recently been Allies. Each contry still distrusted the other). Red-Orange was a combined war against Britain and Japan.

There were three Plan Oranges. War Plan Orange -1, -2, and -3. -3 was used as the basis for the Island hoping campaign during WW2. -2, used in this expansion is a more "traditional" naval war. Japan has enough resources to feed itself in peacetime. However, in wartime, supplies and fuel run out quickly. Therefore, to succeed in a war, it would have to gain the DEI, Malay, or the PI. War Plan Orange stipulated the US Pacific Fleet, either by itself or bolstered by the Atlantic Fleet, would sail to the Philippines, and force Japan into a battle. If Japan did not run the blockade, or did not force a battle, it would starve and surrender. If it did, it was assumed the much larger American Fleet would destroy the Japanese fleet, and force the Japanese to surrender.

How will Q ships be used?
Like regular AKs. In game, their description is AK, but they can be differentiated by the fact that their cargo capacity is 2000, versus a small AKs 3500 or Large AKs 7000. British purpose built Q ships are designated MLs, because they can lay mines. They two will have a capacity of 2000, so they can be recognized.

Q ships can be used singly, or in a convoy. Their main use is if a sub tries to take them on the surface, they can sink the sub with gunfire and then depth charge it. Also, during a convoy battle, they may shoot it out with other ships, to let the real transports escape. By looking like MLs or AKs, they can draw in the AI (and players), and then give them a beating.

How will land combat be treated?
Land combat, currently what I am working on now, will be handled the same way as regular WitP. However, Air Force Base forces are going to be DRAMATICALLY reduced, and those that are there can support only 1 squadron. No Amphibious units will be present, and only a very few tanks will be there. The reason being is land combat would have been an integratl thing, but neither side in the 1920's would have the capability to be able to take the whole Pacific. The main combat units you will see are Divisions, Brigades, and Regiments. A very few US and British Tank Battalions will be present (Japan did not begin building tanks until 1929, and these were copies of British made tanks).

No Amphibious units? How can we wage war in the Pacific?
This is exactly the problem 1920's planners faced. That's why, the premis was. Destroy the other guys navy, and he can't land. If he can't land, you dont have to take it back.

Some ship specific questions:

why are the Invincibles midship turrets listed as RS and LS. Shouldn't they be center?

While they were designed so that they could be fired on the centerline, their arcs were so limited that it is more realistic to limit them to Left and Right Side firing.

Why are ships decks so thin? The same ship in reg. WitP has like five inches!
In the 1930s, more armour was applied to decks, to give you the 1941 rating in WitP. Ships designed in the 1920's and earlier were notorious for weak decks.

Why is the Kongo a different class than her sisters?
Because the Kongo was a British built ship, Hiei, Haruna, and Krishima were Japanese. So, until their 1929 refits, they differed in appearance.

Why does this No. 19 destroyer have the same armament as a Mutsuki?
Because it is a Mutsuki. From the Kamikazi class on, Japanese destroyers were numbered, not names. In 1928, they received names.

Why is Courageous listed as a CL? Shouldn't she be a BC?
No. According to Jane's Fighting Ships of WWI (which would be the "bible" of naval planners at this time) she is listed as a large light cruiser. I have thus listed her this way.

Ok, there are a few more possible questions. Send in more questions, I'll be happy to answer them.

[Bodhi]

OK, here's a few questions that come to mind.

How do you think the drastic reduction of the role of the air arm and the absence of amphibious units will affect game play?

Given that a major premis of WitP is the interaction between the three services, do you feel that the WitP engine will be able to handle what appears to be a mod with naval as the most important factor?

Will the mod just become maneuvering prior to the decisive battle?

If one sides looses that battle is the game over, or do they have a chance to recover?

What are the victory criteria for the mod?

How long do you envisage games lasting?

Given the amount of discussion already on the board on naval engagements, do you think that the WitP naval combat routines are sufficiently sophisticated to accurately model a Jutland/Tsushima type battle?

How does the AI, both Allied and Japanese, handle the changes in the mod?

[Tankerace]

How do you think the drastic reduction of the role of the air arm and the absence of amphibious units will affect game play?

Gameplay will be much slower, and more naval centralized. These are factors that had to be dealt with in the 1920's. Amphibious invasions can still be successful, but they can also be suicidal. This will transfer more of the gameplay to the player. As opposed to seeing where the enemy is, you will have to guess, and plan. The game will be more difficult than regular War in the Pacific, but will provide a more rewarding victory.

Given that a major premis of WitP is the interaction between the three services, do you feel that the WitP engine will be able to handle what appears to be a mod with naval as the most important factor?

Well, before I began this project I asked myself the same questions. And the answer I came up with was if it can truly simulate a War in the Pacific, then it will handle it just fine. If it cannot, then War Plan Orange will be the catalyst needed to bring about changes to allow it to simulate a naval war. In the tests I have done, it has handled it pretty well. Not 100% what I would have liked, but these tests were before they elongated Surface Combat and made it, to quote Mr. Frag, more "bloody".

Will the mod just become maneuvering prior to the decisive battle?
Playing as the AI, no, it shouldn't. Playing in PBEM, it is player specific. If both go on the defensive, it could boil down into a phoney war, until one side commits. This too was a scenario sketched out by planners. If the Japanese wait to maneuver, then they are inviting defeat. The US doesn't have a timetable, only a mission. Japan has both.

If one sides looses that battle is the game over, or do they have a chance to recover?

If the United States is the winner of the grand show down, then the naval war for Japan turns into a series of blockade runs, in which it tries to get around the US fleet, to at least take one or two bases to get supplies. In addition, for the US to have a tight blockade, that would bring it in range of air attack.

Japans best bet to win is to take Wake and Guam, and then fight a delaying action there while they occupy the Philippines. If Japan can conserve her battleships (roughly the same number as the Americans at the start), she can win. Or, if she can force a Jutland early, destroy the US navy, then fall back and repair, it will stand a better chance.

The US needs to either Force a battle early in hopes of destroying the IJN, or at least stop the Japanese from getting the SRA while it awaits reinforcements. The Japanese need to force the battle early, so that in the later stages of the campaign the combined weight of the US and British fleets won't crush the IJN.

If the US Losses the battle, then the Japanese will have free reign, until significant British and American reinforcements arrive. Then, it can try to force another Jutland, and start retaking lost bases.

What are the victory criteria for the mod?

The Same as in regular WitP, take as much territory as you can. For the US, this means holding the PI, DEI, and Malay. For the Japanese, this means taking them. The PI will be worth more VPs, because with no Pearl Harbor, the US commander really has no excuse for letting them go without a fight. Being worth more, if the Japanese player can gain all these areas (Which will take longer due to no accelorated movement, and little amphibious stuff) and destroy the US Pacific Fleet, he then has to hold them. Later in the Game, the balance of the US Atlantic Fleet, plus the British Grand Fleet come in to play. I have this spaced out enough, to give the Japanese two options.

Force a Jutland, gather as much resources as you can, and then pick at the second blockade of US and British ships,

Do nothing, which will result in a defeat,

or Tackle the US Fleet, fortify any gains, and then force a second Jutland when the British and US Atlantic Fleet arrive.

How long do you envisage games lasting?
I have given the Larger campaigns approx. 4 years, though I don't really expect most to last past three. If both players are competent, and cautious, they can easily prolong the war. Also, if Japan wins the grand Jutland Style battle, in a year or two the Allies are going to get another crack at it.

The PBEM only "Jutland" scenarios will last 1 week. These are basically 2 bases and a crapload of ships. Each player makes them up into different TFs, and then tries to find and destroy the enemy. Score damaged ships is on, so the player who inflicted the most damaged wins.

Given the amount of discussion already on the board on naval engagements, do you think that the WitP naval combat routines are sufficiently sophisticated to accurately model a Jutland/Tsushima type battle?

When I started this project, I asked the same question. The answer I came up with was that War in the Pacific can not handle it 100% as well as what was predicted in history. However, considering the real Jutland saw only 5 capital ships sunk, I do believe it can do a reasonable job. And, if it can't, I am sure if WPO is a success then I can push the devs for tweaks to allow it to better simulate a Jutland.

In the surface combat tests I ran (Pre 1.3's modified combat routines), I found the results for the most part too my liking. I have not begun running extensive tests with 1.3 yet, but I am sure they too will be satisfactory.

How does the AI, both Allied and Japanese, handle the changes in the mod?
The Japanese AI, for the most part, will play the same way. Its objectives (although for different reasons) are basically the same. I am sure the PBEM play will more accurately reflect what I mean War Plan Orange to be, but the AI will still do a competent job.

The US AI, I am trying to decide what to do with it. I can answer that question better once I finish the scenarios, and can begin playtesting. Since the Japanese will no longer have dominant airpower, I think the Allied AI will do satisfactorily. However, if I find it too "timid", then I will code objectives to give it a more aggressive stance.

I hope this answers some people questions. I can expound on the AI points better in the future, once I begin heavy playtesting.

[Ron Saueracker]

My major concern here is how the naval combat model will perform. Given the fact that all it does is pit whatever ships are in opposing TFs at uniform ranges, and cycles through more than one enemy TF using one friendly TF at a time, the results will be completely bizarre. Maybe this mod, being more heavily dependent on naval combat, will finally convince 2by3/Matrix that a more dynamic naval combat model is needed for WITP and has been so since UV.

[mucky]

Here's one!


When you finally finish WPO and begin to playtest can you provide us with an AAR for the duration of the testing?

[Tankerace]

When you finally finish WPO and begin to playtest can you provide us with an AAR for the duration of the testing?

That's an affirmative! I'll even throw in screenies!

[Tankerace]

I had a question in a PM (thx Dunedain) that I'll repost here, as I am sure some people will wonder about it too.

was wondering, when did the Jap navy develop the mighty Long Lance torpedo, and will it come online
in the later scenarios for the Japs (as a scheduled upgrade to their existing torpedo mounts)?

The first prototype was teveloped in 1933 (24" Type 93 Model 1), but went into actual use in 1936 (Model 1 Mod 1). This is three years after War Plan Orange ends (December 1929, possibly early 1930). The Japanese will use a generic 18inch torpedo on older ACRs and predreadnoughts. This is basically a copy of the British 18" MkVIII*. The more modern ships will use the 21" 6 and 8 Nendo shiki torpedo.

A note here. In accordance with Japanese references the weapon should probably be 17.7in, not 18. However, since in WitP Japanese weapons are listed in Standard measurements, and not metric (as was used), I have followed the same convention. In fact, western planners citing the Japanese 17.7" torpedo as an 18in. Doing this allows me to use it as both an airborne and shipborne torpedo.

[mucky]

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

When you finally finish WPO and begin to playtest can you provide us with an AAR for the duration of the testing?

That's an affirmative! I'll even throw in screenies!

Thats great to hear!!

[mucky]

another one...

Once you finish WPO will you be doing anymore projects/Mods for WITP?

[Tankerace]

Once you finish WPO will you be doing anymore projects/Mods for WITP?

That is TBD at the moment. My current intentions is after WPO is released, take a breather (Ive been doing it since August), then begin creating more scenarios, larger, battle specific scenarios, and possibly addons for the addon.

As to any large projects, that for the moment is up in the air.

[Dunedain]

Interesting info. about the Jap torpedoes. What sort of torpedoes do U.S. surface ships use?

[Tankerace]

What sort of torpedoes do U.S. surface ships use?

The US has five different torpedo types.

The 18inch Mark 6, deployed only in H class Submarines.

The 18inch Mark 7, deployed on K, O, and R class submarines, as well as Maine (Ohio) class predreadnoughts and Paulding (Flivver) class destroyers.

The 21inch Mark 8 Torpedo, used on all US destroyers other than the Paulding.

The 21inch Mark 9 Torpedo, used on all US battleships (dreadnoughts and predreadnoughts) that carry torpdoes, other than the Maine class.

The 21inch Mark 10 Torpedo, used on all S and V class submarines.

Before you ask I'll go ahead and explain the British torpedoes.

The British use the following torpedoes:

The 18inch Mark VIII torpedo. In game, this also stands in for the nearly identical Mk VII. This torpdo is mostly used on submarines, but is also used as an air dropped torpedo from the Sopwith Cuckoo, and on some destroyers.

The 21inch Mark II. This torpedo is used on destroyers, and some submraines.

The 21inch Mark II***. This torpedo, an impoved version of the Mark II, is used on all capital ships.

The 21inch Mark IV. This torpedo is used on destroyers, moreso than the Mark II.

[Dunedain]

Thanks of the info. Wow, that's quite a few. I guess all these various types will have
different speeds, ranges, reliability and damage ratings based on their real-life specs in WPO?

[Tankerace]

Correct. The only ahistorical thing I have done is upped their damage, to reflect the lack of anti-torpedo bulges on ships during the time.

You'll also find the torpedoes can often go out to 8,000 yards, but won't hit. At this time, in naval battles commanders would fire their torpedoes at long range (say 6-8,000 yards). It wasn't until WW2 that commanders started firign at 1,500-3,000. In addition, all torpedoes have higher dud rates. This makes them unrealiable, but if, IF the torpedo hits AND explodes, it will be rewarding.

[Tankerace]

Bump, incase there are more questions.

[Don Bowen]

Q ships can be used singly, or in a convoy. Their main use is if a sub tries to take them on the surface, they can sink the sub with gunfire and then depth charge it.

AKs can drop Depth Charges? Is this something that is in base WITP?? Added by WPO?? Can any ship drop DC?? Why did I just spill coffee on my lap??

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Q ships can be used singly, or in a convoy. Their main use is if a sub tries to take them on the surface, they can sink the sub with gunfire and then depth charge it.

AKs can drop Depth Charges? Is this something that is in base WITP?? Added by WPO?? Can any ship drop DC?? Why did I just spill coffee on my lap??

I originally hadDCs on a PT Boat variant in the OOB. They removed it because they said PTs can't support use of DCs. I'm assuming that they won't allow this either or they made a booboo.

[Tankerace]

They may or may not allow it, I am not sure. If nothing else, they are there for show as Q ships did have DCs. When I get to in depth testing, I can expound further. It seems to me anything that has a DC should be able to drop it, just not hit anything.