Matrix Games Forums

Command gets huge update!Order of Battle: Pacific Featured on Weekly Streaming SessionA new fight for Battle Academy!Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is out for Mac!The definitive wargame of the Western Front is out now! War in the West gets teaser trailer and Twitch Stream!New Preview AAR for War in the West!War in the West Manual previewThe fight for Armageddon begins! The Matrix Holiday sales are starting today!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

CHS important question about new ships

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> CHS important question about new ships Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
CHS important question about new ships - 6/13/2005 9:34:33 PM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
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?

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41
Post #: 1
RE: CHS important question about new ships - 6/13/2005 9:37:32 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline
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

_____________________________



(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 2
RE: CHS important question about new ships - 6/13/2005 10:11:35 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8153
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

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.





(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 3
RE: CHS important question about new ships - 6/13/2005 10:46:02 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8153
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

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.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 4
RE: CHS important question about new ships - 6/13/2005 11:05:34 PM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 5
RE: CHS important question about new ships - 6/13/2005 11:12:52 PM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline

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.







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.



_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 6
RE: CHS important question about new ships - 6/13/2005 11:28:22 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8153
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
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


< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 6/13/2005 11:33:45 PM >

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 7
RE: CHS important question about new ships - 6/14/2005 12:09:25 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 8
RE: CHS important question about new ships - 6/14/2005 12:36:57 AM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline

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.

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 9
RE: CHS important question about new ships - 6/20/2005 12:38:34 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 7193
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

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..

_____________________________




(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 10
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> CHS important question about new ships Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.078