Ron Saueracker
Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: el cid again
quote:
This is exactly why Utah remains unarmed and with no propulsion in CHS...so that players don't use the ship ahistorically. It was a gunnery training ship and unmanned target vessel. It assists in crew training so that they show up with some level of expertise. It was not "free" to go on these blimp jaunts etc
Presumably the ship reference records the most standard armament during the war. It does elaborate a bit:
1) Utah had PREVIOUSLY been an unmanned, radio controlled target vessel BEFORE being turned into a manned gunnery training ship - and it was no longer able to function in the former role by the time the war began;
2) Utah "apparently" rotated smaller gun mountings "as required". Presumably as the associated training facility required. And so, if we had unlimted interest and slots, we could have her go through several upgrades of these.
I am not sure why you bother to play a war game at all? If EVERY decision MUST be made EXACTLY the same by players as it was historically, why not just read history books and watch films about those decisions - which are set in concrete? Maybe historical commanders didn't make the best choices? Maybe a different strategy by a player justifies a different choice? Maybe different game events justify a different choice? Players are ALWAYS free to ignore and not use a ship - and if they think Utah should stay in the gunnery training role - just put it in port and ignore it - and no harm done - its only role is that of an extra target if the port is attacked (something it really was in the real attacks on Pearl too). [Plural because there was more than one attack: two air raids by Kiddo Butai and one by Emilies - she could have been hit in any of them and actually was in one of them.] Using all the resources really available is the real preogrative of an operational commander - and taking resources away from them is not my idea of being historical. Anyway - someone else put Utah in - I just outfitted her with guns - which I then disabled. Players may not use them on Dec 6 Tokyo time - and if they elect to use them later it is their choice, not mine. I note some Japanese ships worth more in scrap value than operational terms are also included in CHS - so fair is fair.
Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for? I realise Centurion was used in this manner during Halberd or some such Malta convoy but this is one extreme and rare example which occured in another theatre of war. Not something which should really instigate widespread use of baroque technology.
As for Utah, that was my doing as she had a definite role in the Pearl Harbor attack.
I play wargames for the historical immersion and competitiveness, the longer the game the better. But I stop when a historical game becomes a series of ahistorical meanderings utilizing assets for all sorts of BS tactics. Utah, or Wyoming, or Settsu etc were exactly that...resources, but training resources. They were not shoved into the breach because they were not combat worthy and to sacrifice everything like players are wont to do (ie using merchants as early warning decoys! ) makes their inclusion (Utah excepted as explained already) a bad idea. Hey, it's just my opinion but unless their actual role has an impact on the game (ie, if Wyoming actually was important to any crew training model in the game I doubt it would be viewed as just more cannon fodder) the unit will be abused.
< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 3/30/2006 11:19:22 PM >
_____________________________
  Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
|
Printable Version
Ex Battleships - 
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