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: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

 
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 >> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/24/2007 8:05:58 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I appreciate your efforts to make the game more historical.

I think that the problems you find relating to loading the Japanese battalion, are in part a result of loading data derived from US Army/Marine Corps/Navy records that may have come to you. There seems to have been an initial assumption that the Japanese way of doing things was in all respects similar enough to the US way that there was only a need to write a single program which would deal with both sides (not being a programmer at all I don't have a real good idea how difficult it would be to program the differences but I guess it would be complicated in any case). With regards to loading and landing though; the Japanese were not loading to make an assault landing on a hostile defended beach and thus the requirements to have certain items available in a certain order which contributed to US loading tables were not applicable (along with a generally higher level of equipment/supply for the Allies).


While we do have the shipping data in TM-E 30-480 (1 Oct 44) ... that wasn't what I was thinking of when I posted. I was actually thinking of specific data, one case in point being the activities of the 2nd Bn, 143rd IR, 55 ID. This unit was loaded aboard the Johoro Maru and landed at Prachuap Khiri Khan on 8 Dec 1941 (also known as 7 Dec 1941 for those who date the start of the war in conjunction with events to the east of the IDL).

Trying making a Bn landing force (1/3 of a regiment) and loading it aboard this ship in stock. I did and it took an extra four ships, before I could load the whole battalion. That's what I was thinking of when I made my post.

In stock there is only one type of troop loading. In AE there are two ... call them "combat" and "long haul" if you like ... in AE we call them "amphibious" and "transport". One is more efficient in terms of space utilization, the other is more efficient at retarding troop disruption due to landing on a hostile shore. Don and JWE can comment further, but there are also differences in efficiency for Japanese troop loading vis-a-vis Allied.





Joe, historically did the whole battalion load or just a portion of it. The Japanese were notorious for sending bits and pieces of units to various places throughout the war.


According to one source (Kawamoto) The Johore Maru had onboard the full 2nd Bn/143 IR/55ID of 1090 men as well as an additional support unit of 1510 men, 50 trucks and 100 horses.




_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 631
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/24/2007 8:45:49 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
According to one source (Kawamoto) The Johore Maru had onboard the full 2nd Bn/143 IR/55ID of 1090 men as well as an additional support unit of 1510 men, 50 trucks and 100 horses.


I think the problem is the game way underestimates what a single ship could carry. Here’s a snip from the US Merchant Marine website stating what a single liberty ship could haul:

“Her 5 holds could carry over 9,000 tons of cargo, plus airplanes, tanks, and locomotives lashed to its deck. A Liberty could carry 2,840 jeeps, 440 tanks, or 230 million rounds of rifle ammunition.”

http://www.usmm.org/libertyships.html

440 tanks on one ship is a lot of lift capacity. The game doesn’t even come close to getting it right.

I found these pages linking from the ship lists page here:

http://www.usmm.org/ships.html

The game currently limits the lift capacities of ships far too severely. Part of the reason so many auxiliaries get sunk in game is because players are forced to use hundreds of ships to haul supplies around when just a few should be able to do the same job.

If anything should be limited, the game should limit the amount of supply and oil available at any time to be shipped, not the capacity of the ships. The allies available supplies and oil should increase dramatically as the war progresses until it is almost limitless. Japan should be severely hamstrung from the start (after all that’s why they went to war) and decline slowly from there.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 632
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/24/2007 9:54:27 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Jim,

Thanks for helping make my point.

Essentially, Spence and Ron were saying shipping capacity is over represented, you are saying it is under-represented.

I am saying all of you are correct! And we will try to address both, at least to some extent, in AE!!!


Joe



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 633
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/24/2007 11:18:04 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
".....In stock there is only one type of troop loading. In AE there are two ... call them "combat" and "long haul" if you like ... in AE we call them "amphibious" and "transport". One is more efficient in terms of space utilization, the other is more efficient at retarding troop disruption due to landing on a hostile shore. Don and JWE can comment further, but there are also differences in efficiency for Japanese troop loading vis-a-vis Allied............. "

Combat loading and non-combat loading of troops?  This keeps getting better and better. 

< Message edited by rockmedic109 -- 12/24/2007 11:19:13 PM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 634
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/24/2007 11:24:58 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Jim,

Thanks for helping make my point.

Essentially, Spence and Ron were saying shipping capacity is over represented, you are saying it is under-represented.

I am saying all of you are correct! And we will try to address both, at least to some extent, in AE!!!


Joe




My main point was that the lack of such things as 1)a plausable civilian economy, 2) use of merchant ships in a offboard pool to "import" cargo to the major supply/resource/oil centres instead of having the points just majically appear and 3) the availability of supply production at every little "base" across the map due to the hardcoding of the earlier WITP meant that players could utilize sealift for other things like invading the moon. The ship capacities therefore were being tweaked down to somehow alleviate this short of a major overhaul. Thankfully we get a major overhaul because it was impossible to try to correct one issue without screwing up another.


< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 12/24/2007 11:26:21 PM >


_____________________________





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

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 635
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 12:26:43 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
According to one source (Kawamoto) The Johore Maru had onboard the full 2nd Bn/143 IR/55ID of 1090 men as well as an additional support unit of 1510 men, 50 trucks and 100 horses.


I think the problem is the game way underestimates what a single ship could carry. Here’s a snip from the US Merchant Marine website stating what a single liberty ship could haul:

“Her 5 holds could carry over 9,000 tons of cargo, plus airplanes, tanks, and locomotives lashed to its deck. A Liberty could carry 2,840 jeeps, 440 tanks, or 230 million rounds of rifle ammunition.”

http://www.usmm.org/libertyships.html

440 tanks on one ship is a lot of lift capacity. The game doesn’t even come close to getting it right.

I found these pages linking from the ship lists page here:

http://www.usmm.org/ships.html

The game currently limits the lift capacities of ships far too severely. Part of the reason so many auxiliaries get sunk in game is because players are forced to use hundreds of ships to haul supplies around when just a few should be able to do the same job.

If anything should be limited, the game should limit the amount of supply and oil available at any time to be shipped, not the capacity of the ships. The allies available supplies and oil should increase dramatically as the war progresses until it is almost limitless. Japan should be severely hamstrung from the start (after all that’s why they went to war) and decline slowly from there.

Jim


If I may question your source Jim, I seriousely doubt you could expect to put 440 Shermans on a single Liberty, both because of the space and the weight of such a number of vehicules... (well maybe they are talking about 440 Stuarts or 440 M8, but well...)

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 12/25/2007 12:49:03 AM >

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 636
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 1:14:25 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
I'm also suspicious of the Sherman figure - maybe they are talking about weight equivalent - 9,000 / 440 = about 20.5 tons each. Even if they could haul that weight, I don't see how they could fit 440 tanks on board. They didn't have a method stack 'em, did they?

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 637
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 1:16:26 AM   
witpqs


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

As it was mentioned I would like to get a 'vote' in - I hate re-spawning of carriers and cruisers, and I would hate doing it with AK's.

I understand it as a model when dealing with very small vessels like barges or small minesweepers.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 638
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 3:10:03 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm also suspicious of the Sherman figure - maybe they are talking about weight equivalent - 9,000 / 440 = about 20.5 tons each. Even if they could haul that weight, I don't see how they could fit 440 tanks on board. They didn't have a method stack 'em, did they?



Actual claim in the article is "440 Light Tanks" or "260 Medium Tanks"

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 639
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 5:06:15 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Okay, so assuming a light tank is/was considered to be 20 tons, they used a weight calculation. But could you actually pack 440 light tanks (or even 260 mediums) in a Liberty ship?

[This is a serious question, I don't know what mechanism they had to do that at the time.]

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 640
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 6:11:44 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Okay, so assuming a light tank is/was considered to be 20 tons, they used a weight calculation. But could you actually pack 440 light tanks (or even 260 mediums) in a Liberty ship?

[This is a serious question, I don't know what mechanism they had to do that at the time.]



Why assume? Just look it up. An M-3 Stuart Light Tank weighted 14.9 tons. 440 of them would be 6556 tons..., so the limiting factor for loading them on a Liberty Ship was space rather than weight.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 641
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 12:44:08 PM   
KahunaPete

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 7/17/2004
Status: offline
I haven't played an entire game yet of WITP but will there be German subs in the game that operated out of Malay peninsula during the latter part of the war?

I think they operated out of Palembang and did some havoc on Allied shipping in the Indian ocean.

Not sure about the remaining German raider surface fleet by Dec 1941 in that area.


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 642
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 1:07:06 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KahunaPete

I haven't played an entire game yet of WITP but will there be German subs in the game that operated out of Malay peninsula during the latter part of the war?

I think they operated out of Palembang and did some havoc on Allied shipping in the Indian ocean.

Not sure about the remaining German raider surface fleet by Dec 1941 in that area.



From what's been said it looks like German vessels aren't going to be involved in AE. But don't worry too much..., if it comes out in June some modder will have a version including them by July.

(in reply to KahunaPete)
Post #: 643
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 1:27:39 PM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: KahunaPete

I haven't played an entire game yet of WITP but will there be German subs in the game that operated out of Malay peninsula during the latter part of the war?

I think they operated out of Palembang and did some havoc on Allied shipping in the Indian ocean.

Not sure about the remaining German raider surface fleet by Dec 1941 in that area.


Well German units, belonging to some other command, except for a couple submarines as said earlier, would be tough to simulate.
And unfortunately, WitP game systems doesn't leave much room for the raiders. Once you know the ID of every single ship on the map, including Merchies, it is a little bit hard to simulate...

(in reply to KahunaPete)
Post #: 644
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 7:16:09 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed
If I may question your source Jim, I seriousely doubt you could expect to put 440 Shermans on a single Liberty, both because of the space and the weight of such a number of vehicules... (well maybe they are talking about 440 Stuarts or 440 M8, but well...)


Well I doubt they simply dropped the tanks into the cargo holds on top of each other. More than likely they were contained within cargo containers designed to carry their great weight.

I found this snippet of info which suggests they were in train sized cargo containers:

“The standard Liberty Ship, categorized by the Maritime Commission as an EC2 (“Emergency Cargo”) vessel measured between 400 and 450 feet in length, nearly 60 feet in breadth, drew close to 40 feet of water. Liberty ships had five cargo holds, three forward of the engine room and two aft (in the rear portion of the ship). The standard Liberty ship had a gross tonnage about 7,176 and displacement tonnage 14,300. Each could carry 10,800 deadweight tons (the weight of cargo a ship can carry) or 4,380 net tons (the amount of space available for cargo and passengers). The cargo gear included 5-ton booms for each hold and a 50-ton boom at No. 2 hold and a 15 or 30-ton boom at No. 4. A Liberty ship could carry an amount of cargo equal to four trains of 75 cars each. There are 121,000 board feet of lumber in a Liberty ship and 72,000 square feet of plywood.”

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/liberty-ships-design.htm

75 cars times four trains would mean a max of 300 rail cars per ship inside the cargo holds (not sure how may tanks per car, I’ve seen pictures of 2 or 3 tanks on a rail car before), plus whatever could be lashed to the deck.

I doubt they shipped tanks on open rail cars though, more than likely they designed some kind of steel frame to bracket the tanks that allowed them to stack one above the other. Or perhaps they did have specialized rail cars that could be stacked, I don’t know, but I'm sure they had a solution to ship hundreds of tanks on a single ship when needed.

I know about 25 ships of task force PQ-17 were sunk, and the net loss was:

142,500 tons of shipping had been sunk and 150 merchant men had perished, material losses included thousands of vehicles including 430 tanks, 210 bombers and around 100,000 tons of other cargo.

http://www.websters-online-dictionary.org/definition/PQ-17

I’m not sure if all the ships were liberty ships in this task force. Given that it occurred in June-July 42, I doubt they were all liberties.

Jim


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 12/25/2007 7:18:57 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 645
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 8:20:53 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

Some Liberty ships were converted to 'Liberty Army Tank Transports' designated Z-EC2-S-C2 sometimes refered to as Zipper Ships. They had an additional platform deck constructed below the tween deck so as to reduce the dead space above the cargo.

I think only 8 were built -- delivered between Nov 43 and Feb 44



_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 646
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 8:23:23 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
I found a great PDF file (164 pages) that gave a better idea of a liberty’s lift abilities. It should be noted that it states there was a specifically designed tank and aircraft version of the ship designed to carry the larger individual cargo items. The main difference was the tonnage each boom could lift and the ships went from 5 cargo hatches to 4 so larger individual items could get below decks. It’s on page 29 and lists all 44 of these modified ships by name.

Here’s a link to the full PDF:

http://ww2ships.com/acrobat/us-os-001-f-r00.pdf

Here’s the specs breakdown which mentions the difference between ‘grain’ volume and ‘bale’ volume. The term ‘stiffeners’ seems to imply there was a scaffolding style framing structure that was used to allow large cargo items to be stacked.


Liberty specs

Dimensions
Displacement (Max.) 14,245 tonnes
Length (OA) 441 ft 6 in (129.81 m)
Length (pp) 417 ft 8.75 in (122.82 m)
Length (WL) 427 ft (125.52 m)
Beam 57 ft (16.76 m)
Draft [Note 1] 27 ft 8 7/8 in (8.16 m)
Block Coefficient 0.745
Propulsion 2500 hp
Speed 11 kts

Cargo Capacity
Deadweight [Note 2] 10,856 tonnes
Gross tonnes 7,176 tonnes
Cargo volume [Note 3] 562,608 ft3 grain (14,297 m3)
499,573 ft3 bale (12,695 m3)

Miscellaneous
Armament [Note 4] Varies
Compliment 81

Note 1: Draft quoted is maximum normal seagoing draft in peace conditions, and corresponds to the maximum
displacement. This draft may be exceeded in coastal or inland waterways, or by overloading during wartime.
Unladen ships will have a significantly lower draft.

Note 2: As well as cargo weight, deadweight also includes the weight of stores, fuel and other consumables,
although on a cargo ship the 'deadweight' is dominated by cargo weight.

Note 3: Cargo volume is quoted in various measures depending on the type of vessel. The 'grain' measurement is for
general dry cargo vessels, and indicates the total volume of the holds, excluding any structural items or fittings (grain
fills in all corners and around structural members). The 'bale' measurement is again for general dry cargo vessels,
however it measures volume up to the stiffeners on the inside of the hull, with space between stiffeners being lost
(bales of cargo don't flow around beams). The 'barrel' is quoted for oil carriers, although in the modern world oil is
now normally measured by the ton.

Note 4: The armament provided varied considerably, and could include four inch and three inch guns, 20mm and
37mm cannon, as well as 0.3 and 0.5 inch machineguns. The largest gun (generally a four inch) would typically be
fitted at the stern, and would be flanked by two smaller guns (such as two single 20 mm cannon). There would
usually be four gun positions on the superstructure, and these could be 20mm cannons, machineguns, or a mixture of
both. The forward mast would be provided with two guns, usually 20mm cannon or 0.5 inch machineguns. On the
bow would often be a single three inch gun. Many variants on this typical arrangement existed, with additional guns
being fitted in other areas (such as two or four guns added adjacent to the second mast), or the arrangements changed
from those described above (such as replacing the single bow gun with two 37mm cannon).


Jim

< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 12/25/2007 8:29:37 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 647
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 8:52:19 PM   
JWE

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed
If I may question your source Jim, I seriousely doubt you could expect to put 440 Shermans on a single Liberty, both because of the space and the weight of such a number of vehicules... (well maybe they are talking about 440 Stuarts or 440 M8, but well...)

If you look at Jim’s source, you will see that everything mentioned is broken down and “crated”.

The source is a “victory” pamphlet from the time when War Bond purchases and subscriptions were crucial to fulfilling the shipbuilding program. The source is technically quite correct, but it casts capacity in terms that would support a layman’s understanding and enthusiasm, rather than a cargo master’s load schedules.

The EC2-S-C1 Liberty ship has a "bale cubic" hold capacity of 426,800 cubic feet. This is 10,670 measurement tons (agrees very well with the website definition of 10,500 measurement tons). 9,000 measurement tons of crated jeeps or tanks would occupy 360,000 cubic feet of hold space, with the remaining 60,000 cubic feet made up of headspace, loading aisles, and the unavoidable open areas caused by crates not being of the exactly necessary aspect ratio to fit into a rectilinear volume enclosure precisely.

A “measurement ton” is not a “ton”. It is an arbitrary 40 cubic feet of space. So can a Liberty ship hold 440 Lt. Tanks, or 260 Med. Tanks ? well .. technically (spatially) yes. The volumetric hold capacity is sufficient, and makes for wonderful press copy. But, as the bottom of the web page indicates, that was not the nominal loadout.

Many factors combine to define loadouts for cargo vessels.

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 648
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 10:42:18 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Re: PQ-17

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
I’m not sure if all the ships were liberty ships in this task force. Given that it occurred in June-July 42, I doubt they were all liberties.

Jim


They weren't, although I forget the mix, IIRC at least one was, maybe more. For a good read see The Destruction of Convoy PQ-17 by David Irving. Those guys had one tough journey!

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 649
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/25/2007 10:43:53 PM   
witpqs


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

That's what I was suspecting. Thanks.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 650
BBs in invasion TFs - 12/26/2007 3:03:18 AM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline
Will AE allow and changes to the ships "allowed" in certain TFs?

Such as being able to include BBs in invasion TFs?

Or is this an issue for the hoped for WITP2?

Happy Holidays!

< Message edited by flipperwasirish -- 12/26/2007 3:06:03 AM >


_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 651
RE: BBs in invasion TFs - 12/26/2007 3:19:00 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

Will AE allow and changes to the ships "allowed" in certain TFs?

Such as being able to include BBs in invasion TFs?

Or is this an issue for the hoped for WITP2?

Happy Holidays!


?? Well BBs are "allowed" in invasion TFs now (via the workaround of first creating an invasion TF as an escort TF and then performing a "mission change" to transport). But things have been tightened up in AE and such workaround will be eliminated.

Don, could you publish for us the tentative match up between ship types and TF types?



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 652
RE: BBs in invasion TFs - 12/26/2007 4:52:01 AM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

Will AE allow and changes to the ships "allowed" in certain TFs?

Such as being able to include BBs in invasion TFs?

Or is this an issue for the hoped for WITP2?

Happy Holidays!


?? Well BBs are "allowed" in invasion TFs now (via the workaround of first creating an invasion TF as an escort TF and then performing a "mission change" to transport). But things have been tightened up in AE and such workaround will be eliminated.

Don, could you publish for us the tentative match up between ship types and TF types?


Thanks for the answer. I'm a stickler sometimes and the "work around" seemed to me to be trying to cheat the system, so I chose not to use it. It popped into my head tonight as my CAs just don't have the pounding power NEEDED, and at the moment I'm short escorts for another TF. So my BBs are sitting in harbor and the crews are having drinking contests...

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 653
RE: BBs in invasion TFs - 12/26/2007 7:44:09 AM   
Don Bowen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Don, could you publish for us the tentative match up between ship types and TF types?



Sure can, and emphasize tentative.

First, Air TF Types







Attachment (1)

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 654
RE: BBs in invasion TFs - 12/26/2007 7:45:01 AM   
Don Bowen


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

Now Surface (tentative)






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 655
RE: BBs in invasion TFs - 12/26/2007 7:46:15 AM   
Don Bowen


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

Transport (tentative)





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 656
RE: BBs in invasion TFs - 12/26/2007 7:46:57 AM   
Don Bowen


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

Subs (tentative)






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 657
RE: BBs in invasion TFs - 12/26/2007 7:47:28 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Mine warfare (tentative)






In addition, all secondary minelayers in minelaying TFs.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 12/26/2007 7:48:51 AM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 658
RE: BBs in invasion TFs - 12/26/2007 7:49:09 AM   
Don Bowen


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

And, lastly, cargo/special (also tentative)






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 659
AE Naval Thread - 12/26/2007 1:43:18 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
So actually, it looks like tenatively, BB are allowed in both transport and amphibious TF types - we will have to wait and see whether this remains so by the time of release!



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 660
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   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

4.094