Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

AK troop capacity question

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> AK troop capacity question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
AK troop capacity question - 9/25/2010 8:54:12 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3964
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Stop me if I say something silly, but could somebody please explain to me why it is possible to load troops on Allied (x)AKs - although they have a troop capacity of 0?

I have seen the references in the manual about cross-loading of troops into cargo space, but still - whole infantry regiments can be loaded on half a dozen (x)AKs which are not equipped as troops carriers.

I'm no sailor, but unless I am mistaken, ordinary merchantships designed for cargo are provided with berthing, cooking and sanitary facilities for their own crew and a few passengers at most, but not for additional troops by the hundreds. Thus ordinary (x)AKs should be able to carry weapons and equipment, but not sizable amounts of 'people'.

The Japanese xAKs have a small troop capacity, which is probably historical since the Japanese soldiers were used to rigors of all sorts and could make do with cargo holds. Furthermore, the Japanese xAKs can convert part of their cargo space into more capacity and act as "ersatz-APs".

Allied (x)AKs have no troop capacity and cannot convert cargo space to troop capacity - but they can carry troops nonetheless. Granted, the capacity is reduced compared to real APs, but there are so many AKs that I for my part have never seen the need or incentive to convert AKs to xAPs.

IMO a troop capacity of 0 should be just that - no troops, just stuff - and carrying troops in AKs should require a conversion to "temporary AP" (or of course conversion to a real AP). This ability should be given to Allied AKs as well.

It took a long time to realize this, but now that the lightning has struck, I find this "troops cross-loading without troop capacity"-feature quite odd. Or is there an explanation? If not, is there a way to eliminate the cross-loading capacity for troops in the editor?

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 9/25/2010 8:57:36 PM >


_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/25/2010 10:47:00 PM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 705
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
I just figured they were rigging temporary latrine and cooking facilities. I mean all you'd need would be some lumber and you could build outhouses hanging over the side of the ship. Not ideal certainly, you'd probably have soldiers using unused corners and hallways as latrines, and the sides of the ship would be covered lol.

And the support people who cook for the soldiers normally, I'm sure they could manage some temporary cooking facilities on a ship. I mean they have to set up cooking facilities from scratch wherever the soldiers go in the field, I don't imagine setting cooking facilities up on a ship would be beyond them.

I'd hate to be the captain of an xAK that was used to haul troops for a week. That ship would be a dirty, filthy, stinking mess by the end. But I don't imagine they were given a choice any more then the troops were heh.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 2
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/25/2010 11:07:15 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24067
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Like he said - if you have enough space you can eventually hold all the people plus rig temporary stuff (abstracted). They didn't name it the poop deck for nothing.

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 3
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/25/2010 11:52:12 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Like he said - if you have enough space you can eventually hold all the people plus rig temporary stuff (abstracted). They didn't name it the poop deck for nothing.


I'm sure you know that's NOT where the name came from.

I picture hammocks and the men hanging out on the weather decks during the day. Food either C- or K-rations, or beans. No showers. Biggest need would be potable water. They could bring some in tanks, or institute severe water hours. Most water shipboard goes to engineering needs, cooking, washing clothes, and hygiene. The only one of those you have to have is engineering. Drinking water isn't that much per day. A few gallons per man in the tropics.

As for heads, the origin of the word is the facility in the "head" of the ship in sailing ships. A straddle hole aimed down at the ocean located in the bow. Even soldiers could be taught which is the leeward side. (Marines, maybe not.)

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 4
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 12:00:58 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 24067
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I'm sure you know that's NOT where the name came from.


I know, I read about it. But some coincidences are just too good!

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 5
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 12:02:11 AM   
stuman


Posts: 3903
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Stop me if I say something silly, but could somebody please explain to me why it is possible to load troops on Allied (x)AKs - although they have a troop capacity of 0?

I have seen the references in the manual about cross-loading of troops into cargo space, but still - whole infantry regiments can be loaded on half a dozen (x)AKs which are not equipped as troops carriers.

I'm no sailor, but unless I am mistaken, ordinary merchantships designed for cargo are provided with berthing, cooking and sanitary facilities for their own crew and a few passengers at most, but not for additional troops by the hundreds. Thus ordinary (x)AKs should be able to carry weapons and equipment, but not sizable amounts of 'people'.

The Japanese xAKs have a small troop capacity, which is probably historical since the Japanese soldiers were used to rigors of all sorts and could make do with cargo holds. Furthermore, the Japanese xAKs can convert part of their cargo space into more capacity and act as "ersatz-APs".

Allied (x)AKs have no troop capacity and cannot convert cargo space to troop capacity - but they can carry troops nonetheless. Granted, the capacity is reduced compared to real APs, but there are so many AKs that I for my part have never seen the need or incentive to convert AKs to xAPs.

IMO a troop capacity of 0 should be just that - no troops, just stuff - and carrying troops in AKs should require a conversion to "temporary AP" (or of course conversion to a real AP). This ability should be given to Allied AKs as well.

It took a long time to realize this, but now that the lightning has struck, I find this "troops cross-loading without troop capacity"-feature quite odd. Or is there an explanation? If not, is there a way to eliminate the cross-loading capacity for troops in the editor?



As always it is nice to see the fours girls LST.

And of course I like your posts also

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 6
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 2:36:44 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2277
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Stop me if I say something silly, but could somebody please explain to me why it is possible to load troops on Allied (x)AKs - although they have a troop capacity of 0?

I have seen the references in the manual about cross-loading of troops into cargo space, but still - whole infantry regiments can be loaded on half a dozen (x)AKs which are not equipped as troops carriers.

I'm no sailor, but unless I am mistaken, ordinary merchantships designed for cargo are provided with berthing, cooking and sanitary facilities for their own crew and a few passengers at most, but not for additional troops by the hundreds. Thus ordinary (x)AKs should be able to carry weapons and equipment, but not sizable amounts of 'people'.

The Japanese xAKs have a small troop capacity, which is probably historical since the Japanese soldiers were used to rigors of all sorts and could make do with cargo holds. Furthermore, the Japanese xAKs can convert part of their cargo space into more capacity and act as "ersatz-APs".

Allied (x)AKs have no troop capacity and cannot convert cargo space to troop capacity - but they can carry troops nonetheless. Granted, the capacity is reduced compared to real APs, but there are so many AKs that I for my part have never seen the need or incentive to convert AKs to xAPs.

IMO a troop capacity of 0 should be just that - no troops, just stuff - and carrying troops in AKs should require a conversion to "temporary AP" (or of course conversion to a real AP). This ability should be given to Allied AKs as well.

It took a long time to realize this, but now that the lightning has struck, I find this "troops cross-loading without troop capacity"-feature quite odd. Or is there an explanation? If not, is there a way to eliminate the cross-loading capacity for troops in the editor?



As always it is nice to see the fours girls LST.

And of course I like your posts also

I've never seen his posts......

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 7
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 3:37:37 AM   
Mac Linehan

 

Posts: 1480
Joined: 12/19/2004
From: Denver Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Like he said - if you have enough space you can eventually hold all the people plus rig temporary stuff (abstracted). They didn't name it the poop deck for nothing.


I'm sure you know that's NOT where the name came from.

I picture hammocks and the men hanging out on the weather decks during the day. Food either C- or K-rations, or beans. No showers. Biggest need would be potable water. They could bring some in tanks, or institute severe water hours. Most water shipboard goes to engineering needs, cooking, washing clothes, and hygiene. The only one of those you have to have is engineering. Drinking water isn't that much per day. A few gallons per man in the tropics.

As for heads, the origin of the word is the facility in the "head" of the ship in sailing ships. A straddle hole aimed down at the ocean located in the bow. Even soldiers could be taught which is the leeward side. (Marines, maybe not.)


My Good Sir,

I feel that I must take exception to your remark.

Semper Fi.

Mac


< Message edited by Mac Linehan -- 9/26/2010 3:39:19 AM >


_____________________________

LAV-25 2147

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 8
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 9:12:58 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Like he said - if you have enough space you can eventually hold all the people plus rig temporary stuff (abstracted). They didn't name it the poop deck for nothing.


I'm sure you know that's NOT where the name came from.

I picture hammocks and the men hanging out on the weather decks during the day. Food either C- or K-rations, or beans. No showers. Biggest need would be potable water. They could bring some in tanks, or institute severe water hours. Most water shipboard goes to engineering needs, cooking, washing clothes, and hygiene. The only one of those you have to have is engineering. Drinking water isn't that much per day. A few gallons per man in the tropics.

As for heads, the origin of the word is the facility in the "head" of the ship in sailing ships. A straddle hole aimed down at the ocean located in the bow. Even soldiers could be taught which is the leeward side. (Marines, maybe not.)


Marines, unlike the rest of us, are taught to be humble about their brains. It's useful to be thought dumber than you actually are.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 9
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 4:40:39 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1960
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
LST and I were kicking this around. Check out this pdf: http://www.jajones.com/pdf/Liberty_Ships_of_WWII.pdf

On page 12, "Like the BICKETT, the HOUSTON was later converted to carry troops. 550 bunks, stacked several tiers high were installed in two of the ship’s forward cargo holds. A galley, a mess hall and suitable, albeit sparse, sanitation facilities were also provided in adjacent spaces. Additional ventilation, plus escape ladders and hatches, completed the crude conversions. These barely livable spaces were often filled to over capacity."

Turnaround time/delay ?, but certainly not an overnight project and implies a degree of permanency. AND, doesn't address the armament polices applied to troop carriers (not just APs) of the period.

In the standard game the EC2 Cargo have a bulk capacity of 6250, divided by the game capacity for troops is 2,083 and even with no issue for conversion or delay is a far, far cry from 550 plus for over capacity.

Without putting words in LST mouth the game's approach to this ability of the cargo carriers is flawed is and maybe the issue should be addressed.

If there was someway to identify or get an idea of the number/percent of these types of conversions, the modding community could do something to bring this in-line.

I would like to hear from JWE and Don on the subject as to how some of us might adjust for this.
Buck

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 10
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 5:37:40 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Like he said - if you have enough space you can eventually hold all the people plus rig temporary stuff (abstracted). They didn't name it the poop deck for nothing.


I'm sure you know that's NOT where the name came from.

I picture hammocks and the men hanging out on the weather decks during the day. Food either C- or K-rations, or beans. No showers. Biggest need would be potable water. They could bring some in tanks, or institute severe water hours. Most water shipboard goes to engineering needs, cooking, washing clothes, and hygiene. The only one of those you have to have is engineering. Drinking water isn't that much per day. A few gallons per man in the tropics.

As for heads, the origin of the word is the facility in the "head" of the ship in sailing ships. A straddle hole aimed down at the ocean located in the bow. Even soldiers could be taught which is the leeward side. (Marines, maybe not.)


My Good Sir,

I feel that I must take exception to your remark.

Semper Fi.

Mac



I would expect nothing less.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Mac Linehan)
Post #: 11
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 5:39:31 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


Marines, unlike the rest of us, are taught to be humble about their brains. It's useful to be thought dumber than you actually are.


In my time in the service, by far the best all-around thinkers, clearest view of how the world works, and the most devotion to their men and women, was found in Marine offficers.

I just like to give them grief. It's a Navy thing. After all, they ARE part of the Navy.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 9/26/2010 5:41:13 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 12
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 7:26:36 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Without putting words in LST mouth the game's approach to this ability of the cargo carriers is flawed is and maybe the issue should be addressed.

If there was someway to identify or get an idea of the number/percent of these types of conversions, the modding community could do something to bring this in-line.

I would like to hear from JWE and Don on the subject as to how some of us might adjust for this.
Buck

Ok, works like this. There is no code difference between xAP and xAK. Tags are there to help the general gamer determine what’s what. But one may define an xAK, in the database, with troop and cargo caps identical to an xAP. Converse is also true, Queen Mary could be defined, in data, to carry only cargo. In this case, “name” doesn’t matter, only the capacity data.

Cross loading of troops in cargo space is different for Japan from Allies. Allies load at 6x, so a 6000 cargo cap ship can load 1000 troops (with NO cargo), while Japan loads at 3x, so a 6000 cargo cap ship can load 2000 troops (with NO cargo). This is because of the perceived difference in habitability requirements of the combatants. It is an abstraction.

Japanese xAKs get to “game convert” to “xAK carry troops”. This changes 1/3 of cargo capacity to troop capacity, and takes a few days to do. This allows a 6000 ton cargo cap ship to “convert” to a 2000 troop AND 4000 cargo vessel. Big difference.

The game code, frankly, allows for certain capacities far in excess of reality. But to set it otherwise would make the game unplayable by the general gaming public. Bad juju.

To adjust for this, don’t push the bootawns. Make corresponding USAT classes, or Japanese Transport classes, each with their own troop/cargo capacities and their own ‘conversion’ time and yard schedules.

Otherwise, I think the cross load abstraction works pretty well given that most “Units” load with "Devices" that have to go into cargo. It’s an abstraction that has to subsume all kinds of “Units” with all kinds of “Devices”, across all the different “Years”.


_____________________________


(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 13
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 10:06:35 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1960
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Without putting words in LST mouth the game's approach to this ability of the cargo carriers is flawed is and maybe the issue should be addressed.

If there was someway to identify or get an idea of the number/percent of these types of conversions, the modding community could do something to bring this in-line.

I would like to hear from JWE and Don on the subject as to how some of us might adjust for this.
Buck

Ok, works like this. There is no code difference between xAP and xAK. Tags are there to help the general gamer determine what’s what. But one may define an xAK, in the database, with troop and cargo caps identical to an xAP. Converse is also true, Queen Mary could be defined, in data, to carry only cargo. In this case, “name” doesn’t matter, only the capacity data.

Cross loading of troops in cargo space is different for Japan from Allies. Allies load at 6x, so a 6000 cargo cap ship can load 1000 troops (with NO cargo), while Japan loads at 3x, so a 6000 cargo cap ship can load 2000 troops (with NO cargo). This is because of the perceived difference in habitability requirements of the combatants. It is an abstraction.

Japanese xAKs get to “game convert” to “xAK carry troops”. This changes 1/3 of cargo capacity to troop capacity, and takes a few days to do. This allows a 6000 ton cargo cap ship to “convert” to a 2000 troop AND 4000 cargo vessel. Big difference.

The game code, frankly, allows for certain capacities far in excess of reality. But to set it otherwise would make the game unplayable by the general gaming public. Bad juju.

To adjust for this, don’t push the bootawns. Make corresponding USAT classes, or Japanese Transport classes, each with their own troop/cargo capacities and their own ‘conversion’ time and yard schedules.

Otherwise, I think the cross load abstraction works pretty well given that most “Units” load with "Devices" that have to go into cargo. It’s an abstraction that has to subsume all kinds of “Units” with all kinds of “Devices”, across all the different “Years”.



Thanks JWE. Aside from the two mentioned in the pdf I linked, do you know of any others or better yet a place to search for those converted. I hate to just arbitrarily pick out some and much rather go somewhat follow history.

Buck

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 14
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 10:22:01 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24067
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: online
Buck,

Not sure if this speaks to the same type of 'conversion' that you are looking at, but you can convert many Liberty ships to xAP's early on.

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 15
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/26/2010 11:33:26 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1960
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
Not exactly, but thanks for the comeback. I would like to create a separate class category for ships historically converted (like the BICKETT and the HOUSTON) and have them have an upgrade to a troop carrying xAK. Then I would exclude the other xAKs from carrying any troops. I only play against the AI and wouldn't need any house rules to deal with.

Buck

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 16
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/27/2010 7:06:25 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3964
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Without putting words in LST mouth the game's approach to this ability of the cargo carriers is flawed is and maybe the issue should be addressed.


The game code, frankly, allows for certain capacities far in excess of reality. But to set it otherwise would make the game unplayable by the general gaming public. Bad juju.


Thank you for the backup, Buck .

And thanks for the explanation, JWE.

However, I am - tongue-in-cheek - surprised by the sales argument. I always thought that "old school" hex-field and turn-based games with complex gameplay and (compared to 'action' and RTS titles) rather unimpressive graphics, animations etc. ARE unplayable by the general gaming public by definition .

Games like this are for "aficionados" and "grognards". Heck, I work for a games distributor where every co-worker consider himself a "gamer" - and my gaming habits are sneered at because during lunch break I am playing WitP (a PBEM game that is dragging on since 2006 - it has reached May 1944. I have an ex-colleague who has left the company 2 years ago and who dropped in for a smooze - he couldn't believe his eyes that I am still playing the same game...)

Anyway - am I right to assume that there is no way to disable the cross-load troop capacity for un-modified AKs in the editor?

Any chance to get a "certainly-not-general-gaming-public-but-rather-harcore-realism-fanatic" version - maybe in connection with DaBigBabes?

_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 17
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/27/2010 7:38:17 AM   
jomni


Posts: 2827
Joined: 11/19/2007
Status: offline
AE is already 'unplayable' for me.  I'd rather stick with WITP level of detail at most. Too bad the much needed fixes for WITP are implemented in AE.

< Message edited by jomni -- 9/27/2010 8:16:18 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 18
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/27/2010 2:28:22 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Anyway - am I right to assume that there is no way to disable the cross-load troop capacity for un-modified AKs in the editor?

Any chance to get a "certainly-not-general-gaming-public-but-rather-harcore-realism-fanatic" version - maybe in connection with DaBigBabes?


You are correct - there is no way to disable cross loading. It is an inherent part of the whole series (UV - WITP - AE). In the first two there was only one capacity value defined - it was air, troop, cargo, or liquid depending on the class type (cargo in AK, liquid in TK, etc).

In AE, we broke the capacity down into the four components. At that time there was discussion about terminating cross loading. But those that wanted to eliminate cross loading did not prevail. As I recall, there were three main arguments against removing it:

1. It was an existing feature in WITP and removing it would be a reduction in functionality. Removing existing fuctionality was on the no-no list.

2. It would also also make it more difficult for players to load and transport troops. They would have to spent more time acquiring and utilizing the proper type of ships and would sometimes (frequently) be hampered by unavailability of troop carriers. Now many thought that would be a good thing, as it is what happened historically. Others thought it would over complicate the game and reduce playability for many players. This basic argument - historical accuracy vs playability - happened more than once.

3. Cross loading was essential for some types of ships - those that specified their capacity with "or" instead of "and". Mostly landing ships and craft and others fitted for short duration troop movement.


We did put in a number of features that should reduce cross loading. One is the "Temporary AP" conversion of Japanese Freighters. Another, far less obvious, is a preference for "normal" loading in the automatic load routines (including the AI and Human auto TF build and auto add-a-ship function).




(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 19
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/27/2010 2:49:21 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 6604
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
Sorta OT, but my Gramps shipped overseas with a temporary bunk in the swimming pool of the SS Monterey, a Madson-lines xAP that's in the game. (obviously the pool was drained!).

And he was an officer, which goes to show they were shoving troops into almost anything. (Or that officers didn't get much of an "upgrade")

He said it wasn't all bad, because the swimming pool had exterior windows, unlike other parts of the ship, and had ready access to the deck.

Not sure if he was using "Cargo" or "Troop" capacity.....

His route was San Francisco direct to Milne Bay, then he was transited up the coast to Finschaven in a small Dutch freighter

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 20
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/27/2010 4:10:20 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Thanks JWE. Aside from the two mentioned in the pdf I linked, do you know of any others or better yet a place to search for those converted. I hate to just arbitrarily pick out some and much rather go somewhat follow history.

Buck

This will be a real witch to find, but ..

Roland W. Charles, “Troopships of World War II”, Army Transport Assn., 1947

Troopship is a ship that, for an appreciable period of time, transported Army personnel on Army schedules. Book does not include Navy passenger transports carrying Navy or Marine personnel (APs), or attack transports (APAs). Does include all USAT troopships, Navy troopships (including many that eventually became APs), WSA troopships (US and foreign registry), Brit controlled troopships.
Specs and trom for each ship including actual troop capacity and residual bale cargo capacity.
Statement of Work Incident to Troopship Conversion.
Appendix D lists all EC2 Liberties converted to full troop capacity (ca 1500 troops, 115,000 bale cu)
Appendix E lists all VC2 Victories converted to full troop capacity (ca 1600 troops, 140,000 bale cu)
Appendix F lists all EC2 Liberties converted to limited troop capacity (ca 310 - 550 troops, 350,000 bale cu)



_____________________________


(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 21
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/27/2010 4:51:15 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
Any chance to get a "certainly-not-general-gaming-public-but-rather-harcore-realism-fanatic" version - maybe in connection with DaBigBabes?

Yep. Full answer in the Scen Design forum on the Babes Errata thread.

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 22
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/28/2010 12:46:08 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2561
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Dontblinkyoullmissit, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Stop me if I say something silly, but could somebody please explain to me why it is possible to load troops on Allied (x)AKs - although they have a troop capacity of 0?

I have seen the references in the manual about cross-loading of troops into cargo space, but still - whole infantry regiments can be loaded on half a dozen (x)AKs which are not equipped as troops carriers.

I'm no sailor, but unless I am mistaken, ordinary merchantships designed for cargo are provided with berthing, cooking and sanitary facilities for their own crew and a few passengers at most, but not for additional troops by the hundreds. Thus ordinary (x)AKs should be able to carry weapons and equipment, but not sizable amounts of 'people'.

The Japanese xAKs have a small troop capacity, which is probably historical since the Japanese soldiers were used to rigors of all sorts and could make do with cargo holds. Furthermore, the Japanese xAKs can convert part of their cargo space into more capacity and act as "ersatz-APs".

Allied (x)AKs have no troop capacity and cannot convert cargo space to troop capacity - but they can carry troops nonetheless. Granted, the capacity is reduced compared to real APs, but there are so many AKs that I for my part have never seen the need or incentive to convert AKs to xAPs.

IMO a troop capacity of 0 should be just that - no troops, just stuff - and carrying troops in AKs should require a conversion to "temporary AP" (or of course conversion to a real AP). This ability should be given to Allied AKs as well.

It took a long time to realize this, but now that the lightning has struck, I find this "troops cross-loading without troop capacity"-feature quite odd. Or is there an explanation? If not, is there a way to eliminate the cross-loading capacity for troops in the editor?



As always it is nice to see the fours girls LST.

And of course I like your posts also

I've never seen his posts......



He POSTS things!!!!! Wow!!!!

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 23
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/28/2010 2:13:48 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1960
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Thanks JWE. Aside from the two mentioned in the pdf I linked, do you know of any others or better yet a place to search for those converted. I hate to just arbitrarily pick out some and much rather go somewhat follow history.

Buck

This will be a real witch to find, but ..

Roland W. Charles, “Troopships of World War II”, Army Transport Assn., 1947

Troopship is a ship that, for an appreciable period of time, transported Army personnel on Army schedules. Book does not include Navy passenger transports carrying Navy or Marine personnel (APs), or attack transports (APAs). Does include all USAT troopships, Navy troopships (including many that eventually became APs), WSA troopships (US and foreign registry), Brit controlled troopships.
Specs and trom for each ship including actual troop capacity and residual bale cargo capacity.
Statement of Work Incident to Troopship Conversion.
Appendix D lists all EC2 Liberties converted to full troop capacity (ca 1500 troops, 115,000 bale cu)
Appendix E lists all VC2 Victories converted to full troop capacity (ca 1600 troops, 140,000 bale cu)
Appendix F lists all EC2 Liberties converted to limited troop capacity (ca 310 - 550 troops, 350,000 bale cu)




I had found this book a couple of days ago on the Internet with a very hefty price in the neighborhood of $75 to $100 used. Then last night I found this:

http://www.merriam-press.com/troopshipsofworldwarii.aspx as a pdf burned on a CD.

Looks to be the same and when I checked today (to see if it compares) it is only $2 plus $3.99 shipping. Hmmm, yesterday when I ordered it was $5 plus shipping. Anyway, got an email today saying it was shipped so we will see if I got ripped off.

BTW, if site legit they got a pretty good selection of the pdfs.

Buck



(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 24
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/28/2010 3:42:42 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8162
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I had found this book a couple of days ago on the Internet with a very hefty price in the neighborhood of $75 to $100 used. Then last night I found this:

http://www.merriam-press.com/troopshipsofworldwarii.aspx as a pdf burned on a CD.

Looks to be the same and when I checked today (to see if it compares) it is only $2 plus $3.99 shipping. Hmmm, yesterday when I ordered it was $5 plus shipping. Anyway, got an email today saying it was shipped so we will see if I got ripped off.

BTW, if site legit they got a pretty good selection of the pdfs.

Buck





I've been dealing with Merriam Press for years. No problems whatsoever.

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 25
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/28/2010 4:26:55 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1960
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I had found this book a couple of days ago on the Internet with a very hefty price in the neighborhood of $75 to $100 used. Then last night I found this:

http://www.merriam-press.com/troopshipsofworldwarii.aspx as a pdf burned on a CD.

Looks to be the same and when I checked today (to see if it compares) it is only $2 plus $3.99 shipping. Hmmm, yesterday when I ordered it was $5 plus shipping. Anyway, got an email today saying it was shipped so we will see if I got ripped off.

BTW, if site legit they got a pretty good selection of the pdfs.

Buck





I've been dealing with Merriam Press for years. No problems whatsoever.


Assuring, thank you Don.

Buck

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 26
RE: AK troop capacity question - 9/28/2010 4:48:41 AM   
Feltan


Posts: 1150
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Greetings,

As far as I know they still do this. In the 80's I shipped to/from South Korea for an exercise in the hold of a cargo ship. Apparently, the navy has some program that they train on from time-to-time to turn cargo space into berthing areas. I seem to recall a whole naval reserve unit worked on this ship and had it "habitable" within a matter of days.

So, OK it pretty much sucked. Drafty, cold, damp and the ride was none too pleasent. However, on the return trip it "seemed" much better. Spend a couple of weeks in the field in the winter in Korea, and the cargo hold of a vessel will seem like the Holiday Inn -- hot chow, sheets on a mattress and a real toilet beats cold c-rats, a muddy hole and taking a dump in woods when the temperature is well below freezing!

So, LST, I assume those AK's in the game get some rudimentary facilities. But trust me on this, it doesn't take much. If they had slung hammocks instead of installing bunks, and done away with some of the interior walls I bet they could have had it done in day or two.

Regards,
Feltan

_____________________________


(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 27
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> AK troop capacity question 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

0.205