User-made Campaign: Arena of Steel- 1916 to 1919

[fredsanford]

Unzip the campaign files to your /Scenarios/Campaigns folder, and the 5 sdf files into your Custom Files folder.
Arena of Steel- 1916 to 1919.rar (94.04 KB)

__________________

The basis for this campaign is the Germany Stronger 1916 North Sea campaign provided in the stock game. This campaign starts in 1916 and ends in November 1919. The basic OOB for each side is historical, projected out to late 1919. However, at the start of the game, each side will have a large variety of optional reinforcements (for a **small** cost in VPs) that can augment their OOB's considerably. Just about every dreadnought, real or projected, on either side could show up. An expanded assortment of cruisers is also available, including "D", "E", and Hawkins class CA's for the British, and a projected Panzerkreuzer (10 x 8", 31 knots) CA design as well as the Flottenkruezers and more Coln(ii) class light cruisers for the Germans. Further reinforcement options will occur at roughly 6 month intervals until Spring 1918.



Organizationally, campaign changes are centered around reorganizing both fleets to hopefully provide some interesting matchups. In general, the changes for each fleet are as follows:

British Fleet-

* Battle squadrons are reorganized, w/ R class BB's consolidated into 1st BS along with 'unique' BB's. 4th BS has Iron Duke's & 20kt 12" BB's. 2nd BS not changed, but relocated to Scapa along with escorts.

* Older DD flotillas (1-4) are all in Grand Fleet, and are given CL flotilla leaders. All British DD flotillas (except 10th & 11th) have 3 divisions.

* CA squadrons slightly reorganized.

* 5th BS assigned to BC Fleet and relocated to Cromarty along with 3rd BCS and some escorts.

* 11th and 12th DD Flotillas assigned to BC Fleet.

* BC Fleet assigned 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th CL sqns.

* Harwich Force assigned 2d, 3d, & 5th CL sqns.



German Fleet-

* 7. LSD includes Salamis and Baden class.

* BC Hindenburg assigned to V. Afg. in order to provide 2nd BC squadron to player earlier in game if desired.

* CLs Rostock and Regensburg are assigned as torpedo boat flotilla leaders.

* CL squadrons slightly reorganized.

* Some reinforcing DD divisions are assigned to Hipper.



OP's for both sides are increased in 1917 and later, and German unrest is eliminated. Each side had a few additional missions, and the VP threshold for victory is raised for the Germans. Each side's repair capacity is increased- Germans are at 8 and British are at 12. Harwich and Edinburgh have their port capacities increased slightly.

[fredsanford]

Here's the Panzerkreuzer:

[julianbarker]

Presumably you mean "/Scenarios/Campaigns" and "/Custom Files" folders.

[fredsanford]

Dec 17, 2014 14:54:34 GMT -6 julianbarker said:

Presumably you mean "/Scenarios/Campaigns" and "/Custom Files" folders.

Yes! Sorry if that was unclear

[Matto]

Looks nice ... I will try it, thanks !!!

[julianbarker]

Thanks, just making sure. Will try it when my current Baltic campaign ends. Russia doing well, with only one CA lost and a few destroyers against loads of CAs and CLs, plus a couple of ancient Bs but morale and ops points collapsing and well short of 600000 points!

[paul]

Fred - how was your experience with the campaign editor? Any tips and tricks for others seeking to enhance existing campaigns or creating new ones?

I've considered enhancing the Baltic campaign in a similar way, but there's a lot of dots that are tricky to join, like how does the reinforcement system work, how do the random events/decision events work and so forth?

[vonfriedman]

Dec 16, 2014 16:35:50 GMT -6 fredsanford said:

Unzip the campaign files to your /campaigns folder, and the 5 sdf files into your Custom folder.


__________________

The basis for this campaign is the Germany Stronger 1916 North Sea campaign provided in the stock game. This campaign starts in 1916 and ends in November 1919. The basic OOB for each side is historical, projected out to late 1919. However, at the start of the game, each side will have a large variety of optional reinforcements (for a **small** cost in VPs) that can augment their OOB's considerably. Just about every dreadnought, real or projected, on either side could show up. An expanded assortment of cruisers is also available, including "D", "E", and Hawkins class CA's for the British, and a projected Panzerkreuzer (10 x 8", 31 knots) CA design as well as the Flottenkruezers and more Coln(ii) class light cruisers for the Germans. Further reinforcement options will occur at roughly 6 month intervals until Spring 1918.



I have learned that towards the end of 1WW the British battleship used armor piercing shells more effective than those used at Jutland (Marder indicates for them the nickname "green boys"). Also changes were introduced to make the British ships relatively flash proof.
These things are taken into account, in this new scenario?

[dickturpin]

Both effectiveness of AP shells and propensity to transmit flash fire from turret to magazine may be edited in the "Nations" data folder. This is part of the main game file and is not in the Scenario/Campaign file that has been modded.


The USA should also be edited as they are represented in the data as having high AP properties but this was not the case until the mid 1920’s.


Shells appear to be a somewhat more complex subject than would be apparent on first glance.


Nations such as the Russians in the RJW and Germans in WW1 with ship designs optimised for close range fighting tended to emphasise AP shell (German 11” BB and BC carried AP exclusively and the 12” versions carried circa 70% AP with the remainder approximating to SAP). These shells were designed to penetrate armour and had a delay action fuse that should ensure that they burst behind and thereby cause maximum damage to critical equipment, ammunition and personnel. The downside is that they would be unlikely to be detonated when striking un-armoured parts of the ship and would be ineffective against armour that they were unable to penetrate.


Russian capped AP shells in the RJW appear to have struggled to penetrate much over ½ cal thick plate at battle ranges. Some six shells are believed to have penetrated armour at Tsushima and burst behind with reasonable effect but only one of these came close to doing really catastrophic damage. The Germans had introduced significantly improved capped AP shells just before WW1 and these appear to have been reasonably effective against armour up to about 2/3 cal thick under prevailing battle conditions and were much less likely to be broken up when striking armour at oblique angles.


British opinion after Dogger Bank was that the German shells were not especially effective. The British do appear to have been impressed with the rate of fire of German ships and this combined with doctrinal considerations may be responsible for a safety procedures becoming lax and designed flash protection being circumvented as the British looked to increase their rates of fire. This may have contributed to the loss of a number of ships at Jutland as German shells were well able to penetrate turret armour of the more lightly armoured British AC’s. The precise cause of the loss of British ships to magazine explosion is however the subject of debate.


The Japanese used a mix of “AP” and HE during the RJW. Japanese AP shells were uncapped and tended to burst on contact (or frequently within the gun) and had minimal effect against armour. The AP shells were however dangerous as when bursting, they generated fragments which did significant damage and caused fires. The Japanese shells were well able to hole Russian ships around the waterline (unclear if damage occurred to un-armoured or lightly armoured areas) resulting in progressive flooding and in probably two cases caused the loss of the ship.


Similarly in WW1 the British used a mix of AP, SAP and HE. British Dreadnoughts had at least originally been designed with the intention of fighting at long range at which AP shell may not have been expected to reliably penetrate armour and thus the decisions with respect of shells was probably based upon different criterion. British AP was not able to penetrate armour much over ½ cal under prevailing battle conditions, tended to burst on contact and tended to break up when striking armour at oblique angles. Non-the-less, British shell fire was reasonably effective in holing armour at battle range and shell fragments caused numerous fires (including ammunition fires) and waterline damage that caused progressive flooding.

Post Jutland, the British developed AP shells capable of penetrating and bursting behind armour and these were entering service around 1918, being the green boys mentioned in the OP.


The Americans used AP shells of the type prone to burst on contact, which were also prone to be broken when striking armour at oblique angles. The Americans did not use HE in significant quantity as their trials indicated that the fragments from the AP shells did more damage than the bespoke HE shell. The Americans did not introduce shells along the green boy pattern until the mid 1920’s. This was in truth most likely a doctrinal decision as they had access to British technology and trial data.


In conclusion, the type of shells used by the various protagonists should probably be thought of in terms of as compromises emphasising different properties and advantages/disadvantages rather than in terms of “better” or “worse”.

[fredsanford]

bump

[cv10]

bump