CHS important question about new ships (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design



Message


SpitfireIX -> CHS important question about new ships (6/13/2005 9:34:33 PM)

I finally looked at CHS, and noticed that a lot of new APs and AKs have been added. Surely those of you who have been working on this realize that the great majority of these ships spent most of the war in the Atlantic, and that allowing the Allies to have them for the entire campaign scenario gives them a huge and unfair advantage. My question is, is the scenario intended to be played using some sort of "gentlemen's agreement" that the ships in question will be moved to the Middle East or Panama and kept there at the appropriate times, or is that not a consideration?




Lemurs! -> RE: CHS important question about new ships (6/13/2005 9:37:32 PM)

Don will have to provide a better answer, but as far as i remember the number of merchant ships for both Japan and the Allies is actually much lower than was comitted at certain times. We realize a fair amount of these ships were used in the Atlantic, but the idea was to take two ships that served part time in the Pacific and not put one in the game while the other is here full time.

Mike




Don Bowen -> RE: CHS important question about new ships (6/13/2005 10:11:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Don will have to provide a better answer, but as far as i remember the number of merchant ships for both Japan and the Allies is actually much lower than was comitted at certain times. We realize a fair amount of these ships were used in the Atlantic, but the idea was to take two ships that served part time in the Pacific and not put one in the game while the other is here full time.

Mike


Yes, what Mike said - as best we could. I will freely admit that we have limited data on the actual service of most merchant ships. If not lost or attacked they sailed without ever gracing the pages of history books.








Don Bowen -> RE: CHS important question about new ships (6/13/2005 10:46:02 PM)


The subject of "too many ships" or "too much capacity" comes up from time to time. So here are the capacity totals of Scenario 15 and CHS.



[image]local://upfiles/757/77ED62A3534444028DC69800FF031FC0.jpg[/image]




SpitfireIX -> RE: CHS important question about new ships (6/13/2005 11:05:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Don will have to provide a better answer, but as far as i remember the number of merchant ships for both Japan and the Allies is actually much lower than was comitted at certain times. We realize a fair amount of these ships were used in the Atlantic, but the idea was to take two ships that served part time in the Pacific and not put one in the game while the other is here full time.

Mike


Yes, what Mike said - as best we could. I will freely admit that we have limited data on the actual service of most merchant ships. If not lost or attacked they sailed without ever gracing the pages of history books.



Actually, I was mainly concerned about troopships (I haven't had a chance to study the cargo ships that much yet)--the British, Australians, and Duch have far too many to begin with, and now you have added a lot more. The fact is, from early 1942 to early 1945, neither the British nor the Australians had the capability of sealifting much more than one brigade at a time. In the original scenario 15, it's no trick at all for the Brits to mount a corps-size amphibious invasion of Malaya in the fall of 1942 if they feel like doing so.

I agree that there is a lack of data about merchantmen (in particular, the logs of WSA-operated ships were destroyed because no one wanted to pay to store them); but there is a lot more data available about troopships, for a variety of reasons. Your point about counting every merchantman you can find on the assumption that this will make up for all the ones that have been missed might or might not be valid; I'll have to check into it. I know that it does not hold for troopships, however--in particular for the Commonwealth. You have included a large number of British (and the Big Three US) troopships that brought reinforcements to Singapore in late 1941 and early 1942; these ships were almost all withdrawn to the Atlantic within a couple of months, and seldom if ever returned to the US.

Having said that, I am impressed with the research you have done so far; inevitably, there are errors, but you have made a fair start. I've been working on a scenario of my own, and I've been doing a lot of research on OOB issues. I'm preparing several comprehensive posts on various issues; the first will be about Allied troopships. I have attempted to cite the most authoritative sources I can for the information I've discovered; I hope that others will find my work of value, and that eventually most of the errors in the "Official" scenarios will be corrected.




SpitfireIX -> RE: CHS important question about new ships (6/13/2005 11:12:52 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


The subject of "too many ships" or "too much capacity" comes up from time to time. So here are the capacity totals of Scenario 15 and CHS.



[image]local://upfiles/757/77ED62A3534444028DC69800FF031FC0.jpg[/image]


Interesting--how are these figures calculated? Are they weighted-average, or just the total capacity of every ship in the database?

Notice, though, that the only category you increase is Allied AP capacity, which is far too high to begin with.





Don Bowen -> RE: CHS important question about new ships (6/13/2005 11:28:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

Interesting--how are these figures calculated? Are they weighted-average, or just the total capacity of every ship in the database?

Notice, though, that the only category you increase is Allied AP capacity, which is far too high to begin with.



The totals were created using the SQL "Count" and "Sum" functions so they represent the total number and total capacity. They are the result of literally months of work that was done over the end of last year and the start of this one. Further work by me is highly unlikely.

Don Bowen




Bradley7735 -> RE: CHS important question about new ships (6/14/2005 12:09:25 AM)

As an FYI, I've found that all the large AP's in the Indian ocean theatre are used exclusively to move troops from Middle East/Aden to either Mainland India, Ceylon or Australia (some LCU's come to Aden that are SW pacific aussies)

If reinforcments stop coming to Middle East or Aden, then those big AP's can do other things. But, they are far too valuable to move troops anywhere near a combat zone. They dont' even go to Diamond Harbor. Just Karachi, Bombay, Columbo or Perth (or Adelaide).

Anyway, that's how I use them. I'm sure other's will have them unloading troops on Tarawa. Not me. They get used for moving large units that need to go long, long, safe distances.




SpitfireIX -> RE: CHS important question about new ships (6/14/2005 12:36:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

As an FYI, I've found that all the large AP's in the Indian ocean theatre are used exclusively to move troops from Middle East/Aden to either Mainland India, Ceylon or Australia (some LCU's come to Aden that are SW pacific aussies)

If reinforcments stop coming to Middle East or Aden, then those big AP's can do other things. But, they are far too valuable to move troops anywhere near a combat zone. They dont' even go to Diamond Harbor. Just Karachi, Bombay, Columbo or Perth (or Adelaide).

Anyway, that's how I use them. I'm sure other's will have them unloading troops on Tarawa. Not me. They get used for moving large units that need to go long, long, safe distances.


That's definitely how they should be used. I suppose if one has reasonable opponents this would be less of a problem. It would have been great if the designers had somehow modeled that certain-ship sizes could only unload at certain-size ports, and only APA/AKA-types could conduct amphibious assaults; sadly, they did not do so.




m10bob -> RE: CHS important question about new ships (6/20/2005 12:38:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Don will have to provide a better answer, but as far as i remember the number of merchant ships for both Japan and the Allies is actually much lower than was comitted at certain times. We realize a fair amount of these ships were used in the Atlantic, but the idea was to take two ships that served part time in the Pacific and not put one in the game while the other is here full time.

Mike


Yes, what Mike said - as best we could. I will freely admit that we have limited data on the actual service of most merchant ships. If not lost or attacked they sailed without ever gracing the pages of history books.



Actually, I was mainly concerned about troopships (I haven't had a chance to study the cargo ships that much yet)--the British, Australians, and Duch have far too many to begin with, and now you have added a lot more. The fact is, from early 1942 to early 1945, neither the British nor the Australians had the capability of sealifting much more than one brigade at a time. In the original scenario 15, it's no trick at all for the Brits to mount a corps-size amphibious invasion of Malaya in the fall of 1942 if they feel like doing so.

Hi Spitfire.....
I disagree with some of these comments.I do not feel the Brits/Commonwealth would have an easy go at launching a corps size invasion in the fall of 1942,because I suspect the Japanese carriers and land-based planes might not feel too cooperative..
Anybody who would jeopordize AP's loaded with troops in an area controlled by enemy planes will get what he deserves..
Later in this thread,you commented that the CHS team had made a "fair start"..
I find that patently offensive in light of ALL the work done by that team,and since you have admitted to also working on a mod of your own, I feel your comments were personally biased,(intentional or otherwise..)
I can only hope Don's comment that he is finished with certain contributions is not due to seemingly ungrateful forum followers,due to their acquiesence, or thoughtless comments..[&:]




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.734375E-02