Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Commonwealth LCU's

 
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 >> RE: Commonwealth LCU's Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 1/21/2006 3:11:08 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

WITPQS - CW squads upgrade to Indian Light squads. There is a slight gain in combat ratings, forget when it happens but you should be able to see it in db as I'm not with my laptop.

Thanks - somebody else pointed that out in the other thread I had posted that on. I guess the question is: is the changeover intentional? Andrew is looking into it.

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 31
RE: CHS OOB errata - 1/21/2006 6:09:25 PM   
asdicus

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline 		I would like to suggest that CHS increase the monthly replacement rate of 14 for the 3in mortar for the commonwealth forces. The is the same rate as the original scenario 15 and the result is the commonwealth units are understrength in mortars for the entire war. I am not aware of any historical shortages of such a simple and easy to manufacture weapon - also note that the us equivalent 81mm mortar has a much higher monthly replacement rate of 189.

I seem to remember at one stage that the CHS included some infantry troops with the permanently fixed port base forces in india - to represent garrison troops. These troops have now been replaced by 'fortications' - can anyone explain why the garrison troops were removed ? I found them useful because they added a small level of assualt value to the indian ports to prevent japanese commando attacks.

I am mostly a lurker on these forums but I have been following and using the chs since its inception - it is an excellent piece of work - my thanks go out to all those who have contributed to the CHS. Well done to you all.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 32
RE: CHS OOB errata - 1/22/2006 12:17:41 AM   
lucascuccia

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 5/26/2001
Status: offline 		Sorry if this has been mentioned already.

What is the deal with all of the LB-30 Liberators.
Two seperate sources I have seen mentioned that the AAF comandeered 75 back from the brits right after Pearl Harbor. 29 Eventually went back to the Brits or never saw any form of US service. Of the 46 that stayed American, 15 went with the 11 BS of the 7 BG to Java. About a dozen went to the panama canal to join the 6th BG (3, 25,29, and 74 BS) and a few fought in Mid 1942 flying out of Oahu. General Tinker, commander of the 7th AF was killed in one.

Anyway, only enough planes exist for 3 squadrons. Having the 392 BS of the 30 BG show covers the Oahu forces. The 11 BS should start with them (remove the b-17 upgrade to the LB-30 on the 9th BS) and let on of the 4 groups in panama have a squadron of them.

By having 3 squadrons be fully equiped with them, production can be reduced to 1 (not sure what level it is set at) and leave it be. The remainder of the LB 30 squadrons (I count about 8 so far) should be b-24ds.

Lucas

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 33
RE: CHS OOB errata - 1/22/2006 3:03:59 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lucascuccia

Sorry if this has been mentioned already.

What is the deal with all of the LB-30 Liberators.
Two seperate sources I have seen mentioned that the AAF comandeered 75 back from the brits right after Pearl Harbor. 29 Eventually went back to the Brits or never saw any form of US service. Of the 46 that stayed American, 15 went with the 11 BS of the 7 BG to Java. About a dozen went to the panama canal to join the 6th BG (3, 25,29, and 74 BS) and a few fought in Mid 1942 flying out of Oahu. General Tinker, commander of the 7th AF was killed in one.

Anyway, only enough planes exist for 3 squadrons. Having the 392 BS of the 30 BG show covers the Oahu forces. The 11 BS should start with them (remove the b-17 upgrade to the LB-30 on the 9th BS) and let on of the 4 groups in panama have a squadron of them.

By having 3 squadrons be fully equiped with them, production can be reduced to 1 (not sure what level it is set at) and leave it be. The remainder of the LB 30 squadrons (I count about 8 so far) should be b-24ds.

Lucas


This seems to be a very valid point. Even accounting for the handfull of -A and -C models the LB-30 production seems high.

The upgrade path of the 9th BS should be retained, however, as this is the trigger that allows player-defined-upgrades from B-17 to LB-30 if desired.

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 1/22/2006 3:12:21 AM >

(in reply to lucascuccia)
Post #: 34
RE: CHS OOB errata - 1/24/2006 5:54:11 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Don, why do you think I got that American Baltimore class "CA" Perth with Walrus aircraft ?
For that matter, why do the American ships either not get the newer floatplanes,(instead of those pre-war biplanes), or not at all, (as would be historically correct on a lot of the American ships once it was realized they were just extra junk to burn in a gunfight?)
I personally like the floatplanes, but would like to see more of the Kingfishers than those ancient bipes.

_____________________________




(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 35
RE: CHS OOB errata - 1/24/2006 6:15:35 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Don, why do you think I got that American Baltimore class "CA" Perth with Walrus aircraft ?
For that matter, why do the American ships either not get the newer floatplanes,(instead of those pre-war biplanes), or not at all, (as would be historically correct on a lot of the American ships once it was realized they were just extra junk to burn in a gunfight?)
I personally like the floatplanes, but would like to see more of the Kingfishers than those ancient bipes.


I assume the "Baltimore" Perth just retained it's original Walrus airgroup.

As to the floatplanes - the Walrus, SOC and OS2U are all on separate upgrade paths - in fact none of them upgrade and you just have what you have.

TheOS2U Kingfisher was a larger aircraft without folding wings and could not be handled by some ships. The planned replacement for the SOC Seagull failed (Seamew I believe, don't recall much about it). There was another aircraft called the SC Seahawk that came in late in the war and was used as replacements for both U.S. floatplane types.

Don



(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 36
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 1/24/2006 11:46:57 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Air Unit #1171, an Army Air Force bomber unit, has no name.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 37
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 1/25/2006 1:10:19 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Air Unit #1171, an Army Air Force bomber unit, has no name.


It does in my copy Laddie - 46th Bombardment. Perhaps you plucked the name from your copy??

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 38
LB-30's - 1/25/2006 1:47:34 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		I read not long ago (I believe in Osprey's Production to Frontline series) that there were a number of LB-30's in Oahu on Dec. 7, 1941, too. I'll try to find the specific reference, but these aircraft are not present in CHS.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 39
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 1/25/2006 2:08:52 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Air Unit #1171, an Army Air Force bomber unit, has no name.


It does in my copy Laddie - 46th Bombardment. Perhaps you plucked the name from your copy??



This is the latest version of CHS on Spooky's site. Funny I did not notice it before...I'm wondering if something "weird" is going on. Not beyond possibility with this game.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 40
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 1/25/2006 2:18:15 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Not sure if an OOB issue or not, but VMF 215 (?) will do nothing except "train"..Cannot be assigned to do anything else, and their experience is 80 at present..
**Note: Earlier I had stated the errant unit was the VMF 213th..It is actually VMF 215 and it will only "train"..
It is in supply and in Australia.(It is ear-marked for Central Pacific but being away from intended HQ has never prevented units from going to other orders before !!)
Using CHS..

< Message edited by m10bob -- 1/27/2006 5:31:45 AM >

_____________________________




(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 41
RE: Air Unit Missing Name - 1/25/2006 5:01:56 AM   
joliverlay

 

Posts: 635
Joined: 1/28/2003
Status: offline 		In reply to Ron.


I also am running the latest version of CHS I recently downlaode and see a bomber unit with no name in a game against the AI. I have not checked its ID number.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 42
Air Unit #1171 - 1/25/2006 6:06:54 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Air Unit #1171, an Army Air Force bomber unit, has no name.


True. I am in current CHS in Jan of '45 having downloaded the current CHS when it was released. That unit is missing a name. I reported this earlier thinking it was a program bug - name got corrupted. Obviously the error is in the scenario.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 1/25/2006 7:34:00 AM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 43
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 1/25/2006 6:23:54 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Not sure if an OOB issue or not, but VMF 213 (?) will do nothing except "train"..Cannot be assigned to do anything else, and their experience is 80 at present..


I'll look to see if this is a problem in my game. Two problems I have noticed: VMF 111 has an upgrade path from F2A3 Buffaloes straight to F4U Corsair (is this correct?...I'd assume there would be an F4F variant in there) and VMF 221 has no upgrade path, it is doomed to fly F2A3 Buffaloes the duration of the war. Looks like the entire OOB has to be rechecked.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 44
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 1/26/2006 1:07:42 AM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		If an airgroup has no listed upgrade than it will 'default' upgrade to the next aircraft in it's upgrade chain.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 45
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 1/26/2006 1:11:50 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

If an airgroup has no listed upgrade than it will 'default' upgrade to the next aircraft in it's upgrade chain.

Mike


I'll check this out...thanks Mike.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 46
RE: LB-30's - 1/27/2006 3:21:00 AM   
lucascuccia

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 5/26/2001
Status: offline 		Actually, it appears that a few unarmed b-24A models where at Pearl Harbor. From what I read, they where supposed to fly a long range recon mission over the Marshall's either Kwajelien or Entiwetok. They where to stage through either Midway or Wake. They were destroyed on the ground on Dec 7.

It seems the few LB-30 that stayed in Oahu after units where re-equipped with B-24 D where used as long range personel transports.


Lucas

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 47
RE: LB-30's - 1/27/2006 6:32:25 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		DE William C Cole is slated to arrive 2 years early in May 42 as opposed to May 44.
DD Ringgold slated to arrive 1 year early instead of July 27/43.
SS Bass should be available with Barracuda and Bonita from Dec 7/41 rather than arriving Aug/42 (she made 4 patrols in Pacific by Aug/42)

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/27/2006 6:45:07 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to lucascuccia)
Post #: 48
RE: LB-30's - 1/28/2006 3:52:03 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		In 11/43, (CHS), I air-lifted MY old unit, (503rd PIR) to the islands just north of Rabaul, where I developed a base for small 2 engine bombers to blockade Rabaul.
Once the paratroops were in place, the entire unit vanished !
(With this runway, it was a perfect staging point for future airborne ops.)
Hello ?

_____________________________




(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 49
RE: LB-30's - 1/28/2006 4:40:31 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		That is the disappearing LCU bug which they are still working on (as of Beta 1.795). Not squashed yet.

If you can, follow this procedure.

- Back up to a save game just before the unit disappears.
- You will notice that the part at the destination is a child-fragment while the part at the source is the parent-fragment. Yes, I am psychic.
- Stop the transfer.
- Run the turn (along with all your other orders of course).
- You will notice that the fragments have switched roles: the part at the destination is now the parent-fragment while the part at the source is now the child-fragment.
- Resume the transfer.
- Run the turn.
- The transfer will complete without the unit disappearing.

This procedure works every time. It also works if you do it proactively (stop a transfer so the parent/child switch places).

Note: Sometimes when you have stopped a transfer so the parent/child can reverse, you resume but the transfer takes more than one additional turn to complete (just because it requires a lot of airlift). Under these conditions, sometimes the parent/child reverse back to the original. Just stop the transfer again until they reverse the way you need them (you want parent at destination and child at source).

Hope this helps.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 50
RE: LB-30's - 1/28/2006 4:59:08 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		This procedure is NOT 100% fool proof. PzB and I had to back track two days becasue it did not work right. I stopped an air borne transport as indicated with most of the unit at the destination being a child. It changed to the parent and when I transported the Parent-changed-to child unit, the whole unit disappeared. When we redid the turns, I stopped for two days instead of one and it transported correctly.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 51
RE: LB-30's - 1/28/2006 8:00:16 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Since the 503rd went thru the Philadelphia experiment 5 days ago, I do not have the save left to try the technique..
Sounds dangerous..Are there any hints, since obviously it does not always happen?

_____________________________




(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 52
RE: LB-30's - 1/28/2006 9:00:45 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Nomad,

First I heard of that. Bummer.

m10bob,

Only hint to avoid it is to always check when you are getting near the end of a transfer - be sure the destination is the parent. If the destination is a child, use the procedure. However, sometimes the transfer works just fine with the destination being a child (as of Beta 1.795). No way to know until it happens.

They have stated this is their top bug to erradicate.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 53
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 1/31/2006 11:04:54 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


" Two problems I have noticed: VMF 111 has an upgrade path from F2A3 Buffaloes straight to F4U Corsair (is this correct?...I'd assume there would be an F4F variant in there) and VMF 221 has no upgrade path, it is doomed to fly F2A3 Buffaloes the duration of the war. Looks like the entire OOB has to be rechecked."



Just confirming Ron's statement on the VMF 221 Brewster aircraft problem..
The only upgrade path is for other Brewsters, and as late as 11/43, they are still flying them...(CHS, beta patch in force as well.)


_____________________________




(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 54
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 1/31/2006 2:37:39 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		I think that pilot pool for Brits is too low compared to air units they have. I'm constantly running with 0 pilots in pool even when not having very intensive ops...and it gets worse later the game i get. Now in Sept 1944 with CHS1.06.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 55
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 2/2/2006 3:17:53 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Abdiel MLs (ship class 490): possible wrong facing of 40mm guns. (2xF,2xLS,2xLS) ; also wrong number of mines (now 2x156 ; ship in real had capability of 160 mines)

< Message edited by Monter_Trismegistos -- 2/2/2006 3:18:07 PM >

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to jcjordan)
Post #: 56
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 2/2/2006 4:28:35 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Abdiel MLs (ship class 490): possible wrong facing of 40mm guns. (2xF,2xLS,2xLS) ; also wrong number of mines (now 2x156 ; ship in real had capability of 160 mines)


Correct on both items. Two of the 40mm twins are listed as LS - one should be RS. The total mine load is given as 156 mines in my source but specifiying two mine chutes incorrectly doubles it. It would probably be best to reduce ammo to 78.



(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 57
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 2/3/2006 11:12:55 PM   
akdreemer


Posts: 1028
Joined: 10/3/2004
From: Anchorage, Alaska
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Abdiel MLs (ship class 490): possible wrong facing of 40mm guns. (2xF,2xLS,2xLS) ; also wrong number of mines (now 2x156 ; ship in real had capability of 160 mines)


Several sources I have give the Abdiel class minelayers in two subclasses. The first group had three twin 4", one quad 2pdr, and 12x20mm. Group two had two twin 4", two twin 40mm bofors, and 12x20mm. Both had 2 racks of 80 mines each. The Abiel and Manxman was on the first group and the Ariadne of the second group.

_____________________________


(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 58
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 2/4/2006 1:36:24 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Several sources I have give the Abdiel class minelayers in two subclasses. The first group had three twin 4", one quad 2pdr, and 12x20mm. Group two had two twin 4", two twin 40mm bofors, and 12x20mm. Both had 2 racks of 80 mines each. The Abiel and Manxman was on the first group and the Ariadne of the second group.


Agreed as originally built but the first group were refitted with 4" AA after the loss of Latona (which was in mid-1941). There were still differences in armament between the two groups after the refit but I decided against using a second class slot.

I do not recall exactly where I got the definition that I used for the Abdiel class - it was a highly detailed definition of a specific ship as opposed to class standards.



(in reply to akdreemer)
Post #: 59
RE: Commonwealth LCU's - 2/5/2006 3:09:02 AM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Dutch auxillary patrol ship Beneb (ship 3880) should be Deneb.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: Commonwealth LCU's Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
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

1.453