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: Allied ASW

 
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 >> RE: Allied ASW Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Allied ASW - 11/21/2004 2:15:32 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

I really loved that Uncommon Valor had ships accumulating SYS damage at sea, though people who had gotten used to computer games treating unrealistically ships as perfect robots whined incessantly about it...but actually ships don't get ENOUGH sys damage at sea.


Being a Navy vet who spent more time haze gray and underway than I'd like to think about I'd beg to differ that ships take TOO much system damage at sea. US Naval ships practice preventive maintenance on EVERYTHING so that, barring a major mishap they can remain at sea until their next planned overhaul which could be 18 months or longer.

Having a DD go from 0 system damage to 3 system damage just from San Francisco to Pearl Harbor is ridiculous.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to JohnK)
Post #: 31
RE: Allied ASW - 11/21/2004 2:21:52 AM   
Twotribes


Posts: 6929
Joined: 2/15/2002
From: Jacksonville NC
Status: offline 		Well, they need to do something to slow down ops, I think it is a tad bit fast ). Though I must admit, it pisses me off no end when I haul my carrier into port for an upgrade and have to wait weeks to repair a couple points of damage to get to the magic 4 before it will upgrade.

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 32
RE: Allied ASW - 11/21/2004 2:39:50 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline 		Another thing I don't think is realistic but I need to dig out the facts is the fact that during World War II American aircraft carriers routinely spent nearly 12 or more months AT SEA without hitting a port. They conducted flight ops, resupplied and conducted routine repairs at sea. Other navies had to stop when they resupplied at sea but the US navy was, at that time, the only navy in the world who underway replenished.

Unless a ship had reached it's routine schedule for overhaul there literally was no reason for it to be in a port other than to give the crew a break. Ships were meant to be at sea and not sitting in port. Of course as was posted in another thread you never had ALL your ships at sea at once. You always had a portion at sea and a portion in port (for routine repairs, crew rest, reserves, etc). In my case I may be using, in total, maybe 100-120 AK ships in supply convoys yet I have over 100 AKs in port in Pearl Harbor and over 200 AKs in San Francisco I use to rotate with the ships in my routine convoys and for troop transports or other unforseen needs. Doing that I'm keeping my supply depots well stocked yet I have reserves of ships so that even if an entire AK convoy gets wiped out I'm not disasterously hurt but only greatly annoyed.

I do the same thing with my DDs since they take SYS damage so much. The only time I sortie ALL my DDs is when I locate a Jap sub and then I pull a Bismark and go after it with everything I have until I sink it.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Twotribes)
Post #: 33
RE: Allied ASW - 11/21/2004 3:38:20 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		System damage is too high for sailing etc. It should if anything max out at 5%. There should be a chance for breakdowns requiring repairs and there should be a "days at sea" max which would neccesitate an "overhaul" of a few months duration. Having crews would have helped slow down the pace as well.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 34
RE: Allied ASW - 11/21/2004 4:00:17 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

System damage is too high for sailing etc. It should if anything max out at 5%. There should be a chance for breakdowns requiring repairs and there should be a "days at sea" max which would neccesitate an "overhaul" of a few months duration. Having crews would have helped slow down the pace as well.


The system damage at 5% makes sense. Though I don't think there should be a max "days at sea" per se - some ships may be required to spend more time at sea than others due to operational requirements, etc. Maybe after the "max" let the SYS damage increase. Also I don't know if a few months overhaul would be required all the time. The carrier I was on spent quite a lot of time at sea (forward deployed to Japan during the cold war) and in the three years I was stationed on her there was only one scheduled dry-dock period and if I can remember (it was early 80s) I don't think it was more than 2 months.

Every normal in-port period the ship was constantly swarming with dock workers who did a lot of work. I don't know if they did a lot more than normal because they were Japanese workers or not so if someone served on a stateside-based carrier disagrees with my dry-dock period time for their ship then that could be the difference.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 35
RE: Allied ASW - 11/21/2004 5:12:15 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Actaully... Brain fart...

Why not tie fuel consumption to sys damage. More sys damage, higher fuel consumption. So somebody with 0 sys dmg burns fuel at a rate +0% per day. 5 sys damage, will burn 5% more fuel. 25 sys damage burns +25% more fuel.

Before you jump at me, this isn't meant to be reflected in the LITTERAL sense. Not that you're actually buring MORE gas. It's just what it accomplishes...

It means that as sys damage accumlates (thru the normal engine), it means you make shorter cruises. It forces you back into port more frequently. And your choice is to SIT in port to actually work down the sys damage (to give you the extended cruising range), or go back out with 15% less fuel efficiency (w/ 15 sys dmg), and a shorter cruise...

Whaddya think?

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 36
RE: Allied ASW - 11/21/2004 5:22:34 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		I think we are approaching a more reasonable method. I like the decrease in efficiency of fuel consumption and the higher system damage if too much time is spent on constant duty. I just don't think anything is going to be done about much at this point except fix a few major screw ups and bugs.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 37
RE: Allied ASW - 11/21/2004 9:42:58 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline 		IMHO, the increased fuel consumption option is not a good idea. There are too many ships with ranges that already too short in the first place.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 38
RE: Allied ASW - 11/21/2004 5:27:46 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

It means that as sys damage accumlates (thru the normal engine), it means you make shorter cruises. It forces you back into port more frequently. And your choice is to SIT in port to actually work down the sys damage (to give you the extended cruising range), or go back out with 15% less fuel efficiency (w/ 15 sys dmg), and a shorter cruise...


Every ship, from a small tin can to a large flat top has engineers and mechanics dedicated to keeping the ships engines in top working order. Normal wear and tear like you are suggesting simply doesn't happen. If it did the ships's Chief Engineer would be charged with dereliction of duty.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 39
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 4:04:24 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		I completely agree with you Dereck.

However, I belive what folks are trying to do (fundamentally) is contrain player from ahistorical keeping their ships at sea 100% the time. For the very reason you stated, I don't belive that the sys dmg model should be messed with. I think it's fine, because yes, ships don't actually accumalte DAMAGe, because there is a whole crew of guys whose orders (and best interest) to keep their ship in top condition.

If you want to know what the real problem is that, it's too easy to deploy large TFs, and from teh smallest base. You can rearm/refuel an eitire carrier battle-group at a island with single palm tree (and a gazillion supplies), in one day. We both know, that doesn't happen.

I actually think they should have "port points", which are genreated each turn by a port. The larger the port, the more port points per turn (up to a max number, depending on the size, where smaller ports have smaller max than large ones). As you form a TF at the port, you expend port-points as you add ships to your TF. Smaller ships are cheap, bigger ships are more.

Something like this...

1 = 5 port points per turn, max 15.
2 = 10 port points per turn, max 30.
3 = 15 port points per turn, max 45.
4 = 20 port points per turn, max 80.
5 = 25 port points per turn, max 100.
6 = 30 port points per turn, max 120.
7 = 35 port points per turn, max 140.
8 = 40 port points per turn, max 200.
9 = 45 port points per turn, max 225.
10 = 50 port points per turn, max 250.

Cost to add ship to TF
PT/PG/PC/SC = 1
DD = 10
CL = 40
CA = 50
BB/BC = 110
CV = 135

It's simuates the ability to "make ready to get underway". It might take a week, to get that CV group ready to sail (much more reasonable). It also compells you to keep your capital ships at the bases which could actually handle them.

My 2 pfennigs.
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 40
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 4:09:53 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

It's simuates the ability to "make ready to get underway". It might take a week, to get that CV group ready to sail (much more reasonable). It also compells you to keep your capital ships at the bases which could actually handle them.


Our ship could get underway in less than a day. You have to remember even in port a ship is ALWAYS ready to leave almost immediately unless in drydock. During peacetime in port your have 4 duty sections ... two are free to leave the ship on liberty, one is on call and the other is the current duty section so you always have at least 50% of the crew aboard ship which is all you'd have to have to get underway.

Like I said in another thread (or was it this one?) leave the game alone as it is and just fix the bugs that exist before trying to get any enhancements. This game is GREAT the way it is except for the bugs and some of these so called enhancements really don't have a basis in reality. Besides, this ISN'T reality ... it's a GAME.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 41
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 4:24:23 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		The question dereck is, how often did your CV taskforce pull into a 'port' consisting of a warf, a couple of buildings and a sloop? Not many times I would guess, and how long would it have taken to replenish your TF from that? In WitP, any number of TFs could pull into a size 1 port with some supplies and fuel, refuel and rearm overnight and be ready the next day to go back into battle.

I like Feinder's idea, makes larger ports worth a lot more and smaller ones not so imiportant.

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 42
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 4:33:14 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: dereck

quote:

It's simuates the ability to "make ready to get underway". It might take a week, to get that CV group ready to sail (much more reasonable). It also compells you to keep your capital ships at the bases which could actually handle them.


Our ship could get underway in less than a day. You have to remember even in port a ship is ALWAYS ready to leave almost immediately unless in drydock. During peacetime in port your have 4 duty sections ... two are free to leave the ship on liberty, one is on call and the other is the current duty section so you always have at least 50% of the crew aboard ship which is all you'd have to have to get underway.

Like I said in another thread (or was it this one?) leave the game alone as it is and just fix the bugs that exist before trying to get any enhancements. This game is GREAT the way it is except for the bugs and some of these so called enhancements really don't have a basis in reality. Besides, this ISN'T reality ... it's a GAME.


Of course it's a game, but it is trying to simulate the war. Can you actually believe if you were on a destroyer in the USN during WW2 that you would be at sea 99% of the war's duration? Being a navy man, ever bleed ammo, stores, fuel etc from a fishing wharf?

Ports need ops point per turn maximums for fueling/storing/rearming ships (replenishing at sea does, why not ports?). Naval base units should be required to rearm/refuel/store naval ships (otherwise, what is the difference between a naval base force and an air base force?). Ports need a ship capacity per turn maximum as well depending on their size. Nothing more incredibly poor in design than allowing 500 ships to disband in a wee little harbor like Midway!! Or a CV TF to fully refuel/rearm from a tiny size one atoll with a dugout canoe as a stores/fuel/ammo lighter which is capable of servicing the entire TF or TFs in a single 12hr pulse! What is the definition of reality in your world?This game, despite being predominantly naval or at the very least an equally combined arms affair, is so heavily designed as an air game it could be called "Air War In The Pacific". Land combat is so abstract it hurts. Naval combat not much better.

C'mon. get real. We are trying to think of ways to make the game better, assuming the devs have not already abandoned it and moved on to more profitable projects. This game is not finished, or should not be labeled as such. It's basically still in the process of being tested. It's just too big to say "Well, that's that. What's on the agenda for tomorrow."

OK I'm getting cranky but with a name like mine it can't be helped.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 43
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 4:53:15 AM   
moses

 

Posts: 2252
Joined: 7/7/2002
Status: offline 		They could do patches for the next ten years and the game would still be an abstraction and people could still find thousands of examples where it fails to match reality. The fact alone that there is one type of supply instead of a couple 100,000 different supply items ensures this all by itself.

It is a game and as is it succeeds better than any previous effort to abstract the war in the Pacific. I agree with Dereck that first they fix the bugs. Then they should look mainly at issues that effect the feel and flow of the game and the extent to which different strategies effect the outcome of the war.

Attempts to make the game ever more "accurate" will rarely satisfy anyone as every time a new level of accuracy is introduced it will be easy to come up with new reasons and examples where the new rule is non-historical.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 44
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 5:49:35 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: moses

They could do patches for the next ten years and the game would still be an abstraction and people could still find thousands of examples where it fails to match reality. The fact alone that there is one type of supply instead of a couple 100,000 different supply items ensures this all by itself.

It is a game and as is it succeeds better than any previous effort to abstract the war in the Pacific. I agree with Dereck that first they fix the bugs. Then they should look mainly at issues that effect the feel and flow of the game and the extent to which different strategies effect the outcome of the war.

Attempts to make the game ever more "accurate" will rarely satisfy anyone as every time a new level of accuracy is introduced it will be easy to come up with new reasons and examples where the new rule is non-historical.


Fix the bugs! No arguements there. But nothing wrong with adding a few badly needed tweaks and enhancements. I've had it up to here with house rules but they seem to be the only way someone serious enough to invest the amount of time needed to play this can get a serious match. And house rules only go so far....

_____________________________





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

(in reply to moses)
Post #: 45
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 6:28:17 AM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline 		Ron, the problem with this enhancement is that to add it would most likely require a rebuilding of MAJOR sections of the code. It would have had to be designed in to the game from the beginning. Since it wasn't, IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

I'm sorry to yell, but I'm just tired of reading these same arguments. *sigh* Please, Ron, just drop it.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 46
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 9:16:58 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Ron, the problem with this enhancement is that to add it would most likely require a rebuilding of MAJOR sections of the code. It would have had to be designed in to the game from the beginning. Since it wasn't, IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

I'm sorry to yell, but I'm just tired of reading these same arguments. *sigh* Please, Ron, just drop it.


Whatever. Enjoy War in the South Pacific, I mean PacWar, ooops I mean WITP. Same game with more detail and glitz but no real change from earlier incarnations. If people don't want to improve upon something from a design approach, fine.

Just skip over my posts from now on. Wouldn't want to bore anyone.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 47
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 9:30:42 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Ron, the problem with this enhancement is that to add it would most likely require a rebuilding of MAJOR sections of the code. It would have had to be designed in to the game from the beginning. Since it wasn't, IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

I'm sorry to yell, but I'm just tired of reading these same arguments. *sigh* Please, Ron, just drop it.



i dont think that a limit on ship numbers in an ASW taskforce is too hard to program. similiar to what they did for AA/surface combat in fleets. over 15 ships and you see a decline. they should do the same for ASW. you cant have a hundred ships searching for one sub. they would be running all over each other.

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 11/22/2004 2:34:29 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to dtravel)
Post #: 48
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 9:54:46 AM   
racndoc


Posts: 2519
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline 		Feb. 15th in my PBEM game and the tally is 12 IJN subs sunk to 5 US subs. Im using 4-5 ships in my Allied ASW TFs and my opponent is building ASW TFs as big as 15 ships. 2 hits on an IJN sub and its sunk. 2 hits on a US sub and its time to go back to port. I must have 20 damaged subs in port or on their way. The IJN subs have sunk or damaged many more ships than Allied counterparts(lots of duds and misses) but they usually pay for it.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 49
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 6:52:50 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

Can you actually believe if you were on a destroyer in the USN during WW2 that you would be at sea 99% of the war's duration?


Actually near the end of the war that WAS the norm. The only people who got to see a port were the staffs of the 5th and 3rd Fleets who alternated command of the US Navy.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 50
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 6:56:20 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

But nothing wrong with adding a few badly needed tweaks and enhancements.


If you try to mix bug fixes with enhancements you just run the rist of creating more bugs and possibly not fixing existing bugs. Easiest thing to do is to put a patch out to fix the known and prioritized bugs first and create a stable platform for subsequent patches.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 51
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 7:54:06 PM   
dtravel


Posts: 4533
Joined: 7/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Ron, the problem with this enhancement is that to add it would most likely require a rebuilding of MAJOR sections of the code. It would have had to be designed in to the game from the beginning. Since it wasn't, IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

I'm sorry to yell, but I'm just tired of reading these same arguments. *sigh* Please, Ron, just drop it.



i dont think that a limit on ship numbers in an ASW taskforce is too hard to program. similiar to what they did for AA/surface combat in fleets. over 15 ships and you see a decline. they should do the same for ASW. you cant have a hundred ships searching for one sub. they would be running all over each other.


I was referring to Ron's demands for limits on how many ships could load/unload in a port at one time.

_____________________________

This game does not have a learning curve. It has a learning cliff.

"Bomb early, bomb often, bomb everything." - Niceguy

Any bugs I report are always straight stock games.


(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 52
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 9:43:13 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline
quote:

The question dereck is, how often did your CV taskforce pull into a 'port' consisting of a warf, a couple of buildings and a sloop? Not many times I would guess, and how long would it have taken to replenish your TF from that?


I can name a number of ports we pulled into where we couldn't dock at all which would surprise you. 1) Hong Kong, 2) Singapore 3) Pattaya Beach Thailand, 4) Perth, Australia. Just because we didn't dock didn't mean we didn't TOP OFF on fuel and supplies. Our MAIN port was Yokosuka, Japan and we carried supplies from there except for what we replenished during underway replenishment and picked up at ports of call.

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 53
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 10:29:35 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		Two things here. I don't consider those to be very small out of the way ports. And you were not in a combat situation. the complaint is that any tiny speck can automatically supply munition or fuel for a SC or AC taskforce overnight. We are just trying to discuss ways to make the game more realistic. I realize that you do not have to dock to refuel or rearm, just how many canoe loads does an Essex class CV take to replenish?

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 54
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 10:54:19 PM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline 		Nonetheless we couldn't dock. So by all of your thinking ports of the sizes of Singapore, Hong Kong and Perth shouldn't be able to dock carriers.

The game already handles this by the amount of fuel/cargo you can load/unload per day. Besides, ships would top off their supplies/fuels at every opportunity which would mean ships would not need to be COMPLETELY restocked all the time.

Why don't we just fix the BUGS that are already out there?

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 55
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 11:08:12 PM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline 		But you have identified the problem, the program does NOT restrict the loading of fuel or stores on ships. It does limit how fast you can load/unload supplies and fuel from cargo and tankers. Understand that the term 'docking' does not mean that a ship actually pulls up to a dock and ties up. Sometimes it just means they anchor in the immediate area. If you anchored within the harbor, they you 'docked.' You sure were not underway.

Lets look at an example. Baker Island is one mile by about 3/4 of a mile with no anchorage at all, not even a wharf. It starts as a size 1 port and a size 1 airfield( I don't know why it starts as a size 1 port). You can put some supplies and fuel there and refuel and rearm a TF with say 3 CVs, 1 BB, 2 CLAA, and 8 DDs in the same time you could do it at Pearl Harbor or San Francisco. Does this sound realistic? This is an island that in the late 19th century they moved guano from the island to ships anchored off shore using rowboats.

I do want the bugs fixed in this game first, but I would also like some tweaks done to improve the game. If we wait until they get all, or most all, of the bugs out before we start discussing these kinds of issues, there will never be a chance that they will get fixed or changed.

< Message edited by Nomad -- 11/22/2004 2:12:30 PM >

(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 56
RE: Allied ASW - 11/22/2004 11:15:22 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: testarossa

51 sunk. And majority of them in Jan-march 1942. And around Townswille. Now it's July and I haven't met a single sub in 2 months. Did I sink them all?


That was the type of results I got before V1.3. I'm playing Japan now it's 4/1/42, I've lost 7 subs and I've sunk 6. I think ASW is working better with V1.3, enemy subs now move around alot and don't bunch up a one area as much as before. I still think there should be a limit on how many ships in a TF can attack a single sub.

< Message edited by pad152 -- 11/22/2004 9:17:20 PM >

(in reply to testarossa)
Post #: 57
RE: Allied ASW - 11/23/2004 12:40:58 AM   
BlackVoid


Posts: 639
Joined: 10/17/2003
Status: offline 		ASW is too effective for both sides. But so are subs, they hit too often I think.

Even as Japan, I am killing allied subs left and right with dedicated ASW TFs.

Subs can only be used in deep water far from any strong enemy base that has ASW assets. Otherwise your subs are toast (against a human).

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 58
RE: Allied ASW - 11/23/2004 1:06:55 AM   
testarossa


Posts: 952
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Vancouver, Canada
Status: offline 		No, everything is fine with the patch. I'm getting much less ASW attacks and hits on subs. ASW TF sometimes can be for 3 days at the same hex with sub before conducting attack. And getting 1-3 hits. I usually use 8DDs TF or 10-12 MSW/PG TFs. I have to say i had 3 ASW TF's at Townsville and conducted very agressive ASW search. I lost some DDs and MSW/PGs. Although I was sinking 6 subs per day sometimes. Problem here that AI was stupid enough to keep sending his subs in to my grinding machine. If it were human opponent he would've shifted patrol zones to Fiji zone to intercept my unescorted 25 ships AK/TK TFs right? O well, it is still greatest wargame ever for the time being.

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 59
RE: Allied ASW - 11/23/2004 2:33:30 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: Nomad

But you have identified the problem, the program does NOT restrict the loading of fuel or stores on ships. It does limit how fast you can load/unload supplies and fuel from cargo and tankers. Understand that the term 'docking' does not mean that a ship actually pulls up to a dock and ties up. Sometimes it just means they anchor in the immediate area. If you anchored within the harbor, they you 'docked.' You sure were not underway.

Lets look at an example. Baker Island is one mile by about 3/4 of a mile with no anchorage at all, not even a wharf. It starts as a size 1 port and a size 1 airfield( I don't know why it starts as a size 1 port). You can put some supplies and fuel there and refuel and rearm a TF with say 3 CVs, 1 BB, 2 CLAA, and 8 DDs in the same time you could do it at Pearl Harbor or San Francisco. Does this sound realistic? This is an island that in the late 19th century they moved guano from the island to ships anchored off shore using rowboats.

I do want the bugs fixed in this game first, but I would also like some tweaks done to improve the game. If we wait until they get all, or most all, of the bugs out before we start discussing these kinds of issues, there will never be a chance that they will get fixed or changed.


Well said, thank you Nomad. Dereck has his opinions but he is talking about something completely different in his assumed role as devil's advocate. Keeping topped up he says. That assumes the presence of a fleet train, which is really somewhat redundant in this game given this lack of port limitations.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Allied ASW Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   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

1.984