Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Combat loading vs transport loading

 
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 >> Combat loading vs transport loading Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Combat loading vs transport loading - 9/27/2002 6:18:49 PM   
angus

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 9/8/2002
From: Brussels
Status: offline 		One thing which UV doesn't do that I'd like to see in WitP (I'd like to see it in UV too, but ...) is distinguish between combat loading transports for an invasion and just loading them for transport between bases. The cargo capacities given in UV look like the are right for the transport case but far too high for combat loading.

The easiest way to fix this, I think, would be for the "load only troops" routine to split the selected troops among all the transports in the TF as evenly as possible, rather than filling up a few of them as it would do now.

For example, I have a TF with 8 small AKAs and their escorts. I select load only troops and pick the 5th Marines. They get loaded onto 4 of the transports and the oher 4 are ignored. As a result, it will take a few days to unload when we get to the invasion target. Not what I wanted at all. They should be split among all 8 transports so they will be unloaded in half the time.

I suppose that the same should apply if I pick load troops as well. Split the troops evenly among all the transports then load the supplies.

The only thing I'm not sure about is whether evenly should mean "an equal number of load points on each ship" or "an equal proportion of each ship's load capacity used". Maybe someone can tell me how it would have been done in practice ?

Good idea ? Bad idea ? Too stupid for words ?

Cheers,

Angus
Post #: 1
No Go - 9/27/2002 9:28:49 PM   
EricLarsen

 

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline 		Angus,
I don't think I'd want that myself. This sounds fine if all you want to do is load one unit on a bunch of ships, but it would totally screw up loading multiple units. I understand your desire to be able to unload troops quicker, but unloading troops wasn't a speed job back in WW2. I also think it would have presented more command and control problems because a unit was too spread out for it to have been worth it in real life. I say the current system works fine.
Eric Larsen

(in reply to angus)
Post #: 2
- 9/29/2002 11:02:47 PM   
Capt Cliff


Posts: 1791
Joined: 5/22/2002
From: Northwest, USA
Status: offline 		Augus you got a good point! The current system is flawed and not historical. The combat loading for an attack transport would be different than a regular AK. An AK can be loaded any ole way, it gets sorted out at the wharehouse, while an APA has to have it's loading in a certain order because it goes right to front! The transport system in UV needs to be changed for WitP to both attack TF's and cargo TF's.

_____________________________

Capt. Cliff

(in reply to angus)
Post #: 3
Are LCIs included in 'load troops'? - 10/2/2002 10:29:28 AM   
Piiska

 

Posts: 132
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: Helsinki, Finland
Status: offline 		I have more of a question rather than a suggestion.

I have been wondering about the LCI use in UV, and I believe that some other people have brought this up earlier as well.

I have always thought that the LCIs were loaded to the transport ships and lowered to water near the intended landing beach. Then the troops climbed aboard them from the decks of the troop ships. In UV you load the LCIs already at the port, which seems a bit odd.

My question is how did the allied troops get to beaches, for example in Guadalcanal, from the troop ships before introduction of LCIs?

I do understand that before the Allied got LCIs and LSTs, the landings they made were mainly conducted on empty beaches, so they were not similar onslaughts as Truk, Okinawa and D-day, but what did they use to get ashore? Did they use rubber boats, lifeboats and such?

This brings me to another question. If an invasion fleet doesn’t have LCIs with it, how can a landing be conducted against heavily fortified islands, such as Truk and Okinawa? When playing UV I didn’t use LCIs in my landings at all, as they just slowed the fleet down and were not able to carry enough troops to justify the speed penalty and the hassle of loading them. (LSTs are a different chapter of course).

Is it so, that when you load troops in UV the game automatically includes the necessary LCIs in the load to speed up things? If this is the case then why have separate LCIs lying around unused in harbors? Or did the Allied actually use LCIs to carry island to island supply operations? I suppose it could be possible…

Then again, if the LCIs are not included in troop loading, I believe there should be a significant bonus to unloading troops at hostile beach, if you have actual landing crafts. Or other way around: If you don’t have them in your invasion fleet, you can forget assaulting Okinawa and Truk due to significant penalties.

Perhaps when loading an invasion fleet using load troops only, the game would load available LCIs from the port. The LCIs would take space, but depending on the amount of them, unloading at the destination would be significantly faster.

How about Japanese? Did they have dedicated landing crafts from the beginning?

(in reply to angus)
Post #: 4
- 10/7/2002 8:32:37 AM   
Fred98


Posts: 4430
Joined: 1/5/2001
From: Wollondilly, Sydney
Status: offline 		As to the original post, I believe this is already modelled in the game.

It is modelled in the sense that it takes longoer to unload over a beach hex than it does at a port. Thereby representing an invasion.

And it takes longer to unload at a small port than it does at a large one.

(in reply to angus)
Post #: 5
- 10/9/2002 8:27:12 AM   
lucascuccia

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 5/26/2001
Status: offline 		I would love to see amtracks modeled into the game. From Tarawa (Nov 1943) on all invasions had landed there assault waves in amtracks. In fact the shortage of them at Tarawa lead to the excessive casualties of the 2nd Marine Division. They should be modeled accordingly. Carrying troops and supplies. The more you have. the fewew casualties.

Another important aspect to include might be a amphibious dialogue box (isn't that was a window is called?). Anyway this would allow you more direct control over over what troops are landing.

Back to the main post, I agree with the lead thread. Maybe if the create an "Amphibious Transport " task force. Supply loading and rapid troop unloading could be factored more accurately.

(in reply to angus)
Post #: 6
LCVP, LCM, LCI etc. - 10/11/2002 6:30:28 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		The small transport boats used at Guadalcanal were almost all Higgins boats - which had no bow ramp and the marines had to jump over the side to run up the beach.

The LCVP was the small boat which could carry approx. 25 troops,had a bow ramp, and ran up onto the beach to drop off troops. It was loaded onto APA, and some AKA, and shipped over the side at the landing area.

LCM are about 50 feet long, heavier, can carry some vehicles, and are used for the same purpose as an LCVP.

LCI are larger (158' or so) can cross significant bodies of water, entire oceans when in company with others, and can carry substantial cargo. The larger ships, LSM, LST, etc, of course, added a lot to the amphip cargo capacity, but were VERY slow.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to angus)
Post #: 7
- 10/17/2002 11:21:04 AM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		I remember reading about a Marine who upon finding out that the Higgns boats were named after their designer (a Mr. Higgins of course) remarked: "That Higgins aint got nothin' to be proud of, inventing this dammned boat" :D He was in a Higggins boat at the time, either at Guadalcanal or Tarawa.

(in reply to angus)
Post #: 8
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Combat loading vs transport loading 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

1.703