MadmanRick
Posts: 579
Joined: 4/9/2004
From: New York City, U.S.A.
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Here is a wrench in the machinery. I've played this game about a dozen times into late 42 and countless times to mid 42. I've yet to notice a British CV withdrawl requirement, more importantly, a fleet carrier! Has this even been coded into the game? I don't think so.
Major problem then folks. While checking into this, I clarified a few things. The Illustrious, Formidable and Indomitable arrive between Jan - Apr 42 gametime. They are then available to the Allies for the rest of the game. Well, historically, Formidable and Indomitable were available by April 42, no problem here, but I'm sure Illustrious was undergoing repairs/refitting in Norfolk, Virginia until December 42!! She is not scheduled to arrive in the Indian Ocean until approx Feb, 1944. Further, both Indomitable and Formidable were withdrawn for "Ironside" (the Madagascar operation) in the spring of 42 and did not arrive back until 2nd quarter of 44 (Formidable)and 4th quarter of 44 for Indomitable!
This is a huge issue, especially for the already pressured Japanese player. These CVs should be part of the withdrawl requirement, especially since they were earmarked for the Med and the Malta convoys of mid 42.
I propose that CVs should have a PP cost of 2500, CVLs 2000, CVEs 1500. The probability of withdrawl (CVs worth 2500 PPs) should be high starting in May/42 until July/42.
What if Japan advances on India? The ability to pay PP instead of withdrawl is there but it carries a heavy cost for India if they go and heavy cost for Allied cause if they stay(Malta falls most likely). CV withdrawls are vital to the game.
This brings up another issue which I've been advocating. This CV oversight was made despite the Capiutal nature of their type. If this was overlooked, how many other ships and type of ships are available to combat lowly Japan when historically where not available for large portions of the game? Withdrawls should include smaller warships as the RN is short of DD types. Merchants should be included as well given their nomadic service.
Finally, the USN needs a withdrawl requirement. Too many USN ships are available to combat Japan. Panama needed defences, yet the very ships which defended the canal are being used by the Allied player in the Solomons, DEI, North Pacific etc...for the entire duration of the war!! Omahas, Clemsons, and smaller escorts like SCs would be required to withdraw randomly between Jan 42 and Jan 44.
It's not just the Omaha class CLs, Clemson class DDs and smaller escorts which need be included due to their involvement off map near Panama. Ships which used American ports when damaged in the Pacific did not necessarily go to WestCoast yards. Many went to the EastCoast yards and operated for a time in pother theatres before arriving back in the Pacific (eg. Nevada, Marblehead, Boise). There should be some small chance that a heavily damaged ship entering a WestCoast port triggers a withdrawl requirement for that specific ship).
Finally,the USN built so many ships that crews needed training so older types were withdrawn from combat. Older subs were therefore withdrawn for training, starting in mid 42 for Dolphin and Cachalot class, early 43 for S Boats, late 43 for Porpoise/Permit class, late 44 for Salmon/Sargo class, and early 45 for Tambor/Gar class. Since training needs need not be modelled, the classes that were used should be made withdrawl canditates.
Ron,
I agree with your comments. I particularly like the USN withdrawal requirement, as it would reflect real world concerns into the game, that are not present now.
Rick
_____________________________
 "Our lives begin to end the moment we become silent about things that matter". Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
|
Printable Version
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 
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