Soviet Fleet

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Soviet Fleet

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 >> Scenario Design >> Soviet Fleet

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Soviet Fleet - 2/3/2005 5:57:13 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

Are/should we add the Soviet Pacific Fleet? Not sure how it would affect game vs AI.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 181

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/3/2005 6:09:01 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Are/should we add the Soviet Pacific Fleet? Not sure how it would affect game vs AI.

I've seen some pretty strong comments against the Soviet Pacific Fleet by forum moderators. It would surely unbalance the game and put the Japanese in a difficult position.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 182

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/3/2005 6:12:03 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Are/should we add the Soviet Pacific Fleet? Not sure how it would affect game vs AI.

I've seen some pretty strong comments against the Soviet Pacific Fleet by forum moderators. It would surely unbalance the game and put the Japanese in a difficult position.

But for those who only play PBEM it should be in. I'm just wondering why they were so against adding it in the first place. Perhaps game won't recognize the ships as neutral.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 183

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/5/2005 6:26:09 PM

Tanaka

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Are/should we add the Soviet Pacific Fleet? Not sure how it would affect game vs AI.

I've seen some pretty strong comments against the Soviet Pacific Fleet by forum moderators. It would surely unbalance the game and put the Japanese in a difficult position.

How would it unbalance the game? It would be historical. One of several reasons that so many invade the soviet union in the game is because there is no soviet navy to worry about. In real life the japanese WERE in a difficult position deciding what to do about the soviets. If anything I think it will bring more balance to the game IMHO.....

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 184

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/5/2005 6:29:05 PM

Tanaka

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

Have you guys seen this new link at Nihon Kaigun: Operational histories of Japanese Auxiliaries in WW II.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/Tokusetsu%20Kansen!.htm

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 2/6/2005 10:49:37 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 185

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/6/2005 12:07:55 AM

Tanaka

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

Any thoughts comments about adding some of the missing japanese army ships to yalls mod???

the missing Japanese Army AV/CVE (merchant carriers) type aircraft transports:

Kumano Maru
Shimane Maru
Daikyu Maru
Otakisan Maru
Shimane Maru
Taisha Maru
Yamashiro Maru
Chigusa Maru
Yamashio Maru

Japanese Army aircraft Transports Akitsu Maru 11,800t 20 kts 1/42 Nigitsu Maru3/43 2x 75mmAA 10 75mm[field guns} able to carry 20 planes, which could take off but not land on these transports.

Kumano Maru army aircraft transport to be operated by IJN 10,800t 19kt 3/45 8x75mmAA 6x25mmAA 37 aircraft they could take off but not land on transport.

Merchant aircraft carriers Shimane Maru 14,500t 18.5kt 2/45 Otakisan Maru 1/45 2x120mmHA 52x25mmAA 12 aircraft. Aircraft could land on these sm cv's

Yamashiro Maru 15,900t 15kt 1/45 16x25mmAA 8 a/c 1 asw projecter 120 DC's
Aircraft could land on this sm cv..

All these cv's could only operate sm planes f's and db's

Converting Supply Ships to Aircraft Carriers and Amphibious Assault Ships:

Contrary to popular misinformation from the USMC ego PR machine, the first amphibious assault aircraft carriers were Japanese not American. The U.S. amphibious ships in use today are also the fruits of the U.S. Navy, not the marines. The concept of converting a RO-RO Ship to a Commando Aircraft Carrier is sound and proven. Even having it operated by someone other than the Navy is also sound. The Japanese ARMY, that's right--the ARMY operated combination aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships converted from merchant ships in WWII. This idea that we can only have an aircraft carrier if its a huge multi-billion-dollar Nimitz class with 6,000 men is another lie foisted upon us by the current U.S. Navy brass.

Escort Aircraft Carriers

Units of the Class Characteristic

History

(a) Akitsu Maru
(b) Nigitsu Maru

Displacement: 11,800 tons
(a) Length 480 feet
(b) Length 498 ft 8 in

Beam 64 ft
Draught 25 ft 9 in
Machinery Turbines: 4 Boilers and 1 shaft
Performance: 8,600 SHP; 20 knots
Flight Deck: 404 feet x 74 feet, 1 Lift
Aircraft: 20
Guns 10 x 75mm; 2 x 77mm primarily for Anti-Aircraft

Imperial Japanese Navy was not the only service to operate with carriers. In early 1941, the Imperial Army projected to convert some merchant ships into assault ships under their command. These vessels could be used both as troop transports and aircraft's transports

Reconstruction was limited to redirecting boiler uptakes to the starboard side to emerge in a single funnel. A small flight deck was fitted over the superstructure. JAAF aircrafts could not only be transported, but also flown off to assist landing forces in the rapid establishment of a land-based air defense unit. Twenty standard landing crafts could be carried.

Details of wartime operations not known. Both ships, Akitsu Maru and Nigitsu Maru, were sunk by submarines during 1944.

Chigusa Maru
Yamashiro Maru

Displacement: 11,800 tons
Length: 151 meters
Length 157 meters

Beam 20 meters
Draught 9 meters
Machinery Turbines: 2 boilers and 1 shaft
Performance: 4,500 SHP; 15 knots
Range: 9,000 NM; 13 knots
Flight Deck: 152m x 23m; no lift
Aircraft: 8
Artillery 16 x 25mm Anti-Aircraft guns

Yamashiro Maru commissioned: 27 January 1945

Imperial Japanese Army acquired two tankers in 1944 to convert into escort carriers for army convoys. These carriers operated with Japanese Army's fighters Ki-44 in a limited air and ASW defense role over troop convoys. Only Yamashiro Maru was commissioned.

Yamashiro Maru was the only ship of this class which was commissioned. She was sunk by U.S. aircraft in February 1945.

Kumano Maru

Displacement: 8,000 tons
Length 480 ft or 501 ft
Beam 64 ft 3 in
Draught 23 feet
Flight Deck: 361 ft x 60 ft 6 in; no lifts
Machinery Turbines: 4 boilers and 2 shaft
Performance: 10,000 SHP; 15 kts
Range: 6,000 NM a 17 knots
Aircraft: 37
Artillery: 8 x 75mm, 6 x 25mm
Commissioned: 30 March 1945

According to concept of amphibious assault ship, Imperial Japanese Army acquired a small transport ship for conversion with a similar scheme to Akitsu Maru class.

The army aircrafts could be deployed to assist landing forces in the rapid establishment of a land-based air defense unit but not could be recovered. 13 standard or 40 smaller landing crafts could be carried.

Kumanu Maru was not employed in operational services. After the war, she was used as transport.

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 2/6/2005 10:50:03 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 186

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/7/2005 5:45:52 PM

Don Bowen

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

Here is my long-delayed response to the second part of Ron's AG posting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I mentioned earlier that many AGs (such as Argonne AG-31) and ASs, ADs, AVs, be included in game if not and given a cargo/troop capacity.

At present AGs not in OOB at first glance are:

AG 11 Procyon (ex Hog Islander)
AG 12 Gold Star
AG 27 Robert L Barnes (ex AO 14) *Don Bowen has this in OOB I believe
AG 31 Argonne (ex Hog Islander)
AG 32 Sumner (ex Holland Class AS)
AG 33 Kaula
AG 34 Alcor (became AD 34 and arrives San Diego Jan 45)
AG 37 Manomet (became AK 51 Aries and is available Feb 44 at San Diego)
AG 38 Mantinicus (became AP 75 Gimini and is available Nov 43 at San Diego)
AG 41 Panay (ex Midway avail April 42 at Seattle)
AG 42 Camanga (became AK Oliver Olson April 42 on West Coast)

Covered in previous post.

quote:

AG 43 Majaba (available May 42)

Cargo ship approximately equal to a West Coaster - to be added.

quote:

AG 44 Malanao (available June 42)

Cargo ship approximately equal to a Lake Type - to be added.

quote:

AG 45 Taganak (available May 42)

Approximately equal to a Hog Islander Type A. Used as a mine carrier in WWI and an Ammo Ship in WWII. Will be added as a small MLE (new class)

quote:

AG 46 Tuluran (available Dec 42)

Cargo Ship approximately equal to a Hog Islander A, will be added.

quote:

AG 49 Anacapa (available Sept 42) Q-ship for a time

Interesting little ship. Q-ship on West Coast with 4in (and smaller) guns and some depth charges. Will be added as new class.

quote:

AG 50 Kopara (available Sept 42)

Name duplication to an Australian freighter that was more active - skip this one.

quote:

AG 66 Besboro (available Sept 42)

Approximate Lake Type AK used Seattle to Alaska - will be added.

quote:

AG 68 Basilan (AR actually, avail Nov 44)
AG 69 Burias (AR, avail Feb 45)
AG 70 Zaniah (AR, avail Sept 44)

First two are ARG, which are not applicable to WITP. Third was an electronics repair ship, also not applicable.

quote:

AG 71 Baham (AR, avail Aug 44)

Liberty ship converted to an AR - will be added.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 187

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/7/2005 7:55:06 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

While I am thinking about it, do we want to include the old armored cruiser Rochester (CA-2)? She was Laid up at Olongapo, in the Philippinnes in 1933, and was scuttled on Dec. 24, 1941 to prevent capture. Ater all, if we are including the Utah we should include her, and thanks to War Plan Orange I have data and a graphic already.

I would reccommend giving her a starting damage of 50, to force her not to be used in a combat role, possibly enable scuttling on day 1, and, should the player try, he can evacuate her to Australia (at a VERY slow speed, to represent towing).

Assuming she survived the initial onslought, she wouldn't be good for first line duties, but would make a good bombardment ship.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 188

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/7/2005 8:21:47 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

While I am thinking about it, do we want to include the old armored cruiser Rochester (CA-2)? She was Laid up at Olongapo, in the Philippinnes in 1933, and was scuttled on Dec. 24, 1941 to prevent capture. Ater all, if we are including the Utah we should include her, and thanks to War Plan Orange I have data and a graphic already.

I would reccommend giving her a starting damage of 50, to force her not to be used in a combat role, possibly enable scuttling on day 1, and, should the player try, he can evacuate her to Australia (at a VERY slow speed, to represent towing).

Assuming she survived the initial onslought, she wouldn't be good for first line duties, but would make a good bombardment ship.

I disagree. I wanted Utah due to her undeniable role at PH. Rochester on the other hand has no historical significance and, as you said, players would abuse it and use it as a naval unit, something that never would have been done IRL.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 189

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/7/2005 11:38:33 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

I can see with that argument, but I am a little confused. Why is it a Japanese sailboat has criteria to get in, but a broken down US Spanish American war era cruiser doesn't? Im not being an ass, I am just trying to figure out what the exact criteriea for ships getting in is.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 190

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/8/2005 12:00:17 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

I think that the unit should have some military significance. The Utah sucked up some torps in the PH attack. Japanese sailboats can transport supplies (I think).

I don't know the history of the Rochester, but I'm guessing it was a pile of steel that couldn't ever be useful (like the Utah, except the PH notes).

I suppose, if I were the Japanese player, I'd say "Hey, I could get some points for Rochester. Put her in!!"

If you could put her in and not allow either player to game the system, then do it. But, if by putting her in, the allies get another BB or the Japanese player gets 50 points for sinking her, then leave her out.

my 2 cents.

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 191

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/8/2005 12:08:39 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Im not necessarily saying put her in, nad her be useful. First off, she is an old, beat up armored cruiser with 4 8" guns, and a max speed of 18 knots. If we give her say 60 or so damage, that's about 1 hex a day. What I was fully suggesting is put her in for the fact she was the last armored cruiser, and when she was scuttled and ended an era. Its not like she'll be of great combat value, I mean honestly, Rochester vs Nachi, 4 OLD 8"/45 guns vs 10 8"/50s. The Nachis can do what, about 30 knots, Rochester 18 fully repaired. And should the Allies be gamey and repair her, it would take until about June, assuming she doesn't get hit again or make it to San Fran.

Plus, odds are if she were to have been towed out of the PI, she would have either been scrapped like Oregon, or made into a submarine or DD depot ship.

Hey, Oregon! What about adding her in? In 1942 there were plans to refit her to a convoy escort ship, as she was faster than a liberty (In this case retain the 13"/35s), or we can go historical, and in 1943 convert her to an ammunition barge (AE). This would be historical, as players could use her at a forward base to replenish ammunition.

While I would be in favor of allowing the option to use her as a convoy escort (Its not like she is gonna be in the front line with a 16 knot speed and short barreled, short range 13" guns), I feel that adding her in as an ammunition barge at least would round out the historical ability we are going for.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 192

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/8/2005 12:13:57 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

LOL, I just did some reading on Oregon. Turns out what happened is after Pearl Harbor, the ignorant Gov. of Oregon, in a political move, offered her back to the navy as a replacement for the BBs lost at Pearl. Apparently, he thought that she would be used in the frontline as an escort ship or something, then after the war returned as a memorial.

_____________________________

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 193

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/8/2005 3:26:44 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

Any thoughts comments about adding some of the missing japanese army ships to yalls mod???

the missing Japanese Army AV/CVE (merchant carriers) type aircraft transports:

Kumano Maru
Shimane Maru
Daikyu Maru
Otakisan Maru
Shimane Maru
Taisha Maru
Yamashiro Maru
Chigusa Maru
Yamashio Maru

Japanese Army aircraft Transports Akitsu Maru 11,800t 20 kts 1/42 Nigitsu Maru3/43 2x 75mmAA 10 75mm[field guns} able to carry 20 planes, which could take off but not land on these transports.

Kumano Maru army aircraft transport to be operated by IJN 10,800t 19kt 3/45 8x75mmAA 6x25mmAA 37 aircraft they could take off but not land on transport.

Several people have looked at these Japanese Army landing ships. A few of them had the ability to launch aircraft, with the intent of flying them off to newly captured airbases. However, WITP can not handle the combination of Transport and Aircraft carrier and the only way they can go into the game is as Transports. I personally would rather leave them out then include them in a gelding format.

quote:

Merchant aircraft carriers Shimane Maru 14,500t 18.5kt 2/45 Otakisan Maru 1/45 2x120mmHA 52x25mmAA 12 aircraft. Aircraft could land on these sm cv's

Yamashiro Maru 15,900t 15kt 1/45 16x25mmAA 8 a/c 1 asw projecter 120 DC's
Aircraft could land on this sm cv..

All these cv's could only operate sm planes f's and db's

These were in the standard Matrix Scenario 15 and are retained in our scenario. They have no airgroups.

quote:

Converting Supply Ships to Aircraft Carriers and Amphibious Assault Ships:

Contrary to popular misinformation from the USMC ego PR machine, the first amphibious assault aircraft carriers were Japanese not American. The U.S. amphibious ships in use today are also the fruits of the U.S. Navy, not the marines. The concept of converting a RO-RO Ship to a Commando Aircraft Carrier is sound and proven. Even having it operated by someone other than the Navy is also sound. The Japanese ARMY, that's right--the ARMY operated combination aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships converted from merchant ships in WWII. This idea that we can only have an aircraft carrier if its a huge multi-billion-dollar Nimitz class with 6,000 men is another lie foisted upon us by the current U.S. Navy brass.

The Japanese - both army and navy - were leaders in equipment for amphibious operations. The Daihatsu series were the first mass-produced landing craft with ramps and the Type A landing ships carried landing craft on deck with rails to a rear door at waterline level for launching.

The British came up with the LSD and some other smaller landing craft types. They ordered them from the U.S. which is how we got them.

The one innovation in landing craft that is purely American is the Amtrac (and perhaps the DUKW).

And - to start my rant:
No one would argue that the U.S. Marines have large egos. Belief in yourself and your unit is the only thing that gets actual human beings to run uphill into machine gun fire. The modern U.S. Amphibious Task Force is the product of years of experience by both the Navy and the Marines - it is a Navy force honed to the needs of the Marines. That sentence is improper as the Marines are part of the Navy. And there are, of course, aircraft carrying ships in the U.S. Navy that are not aircraft carriers. In fact, they carry Marine VTOL aircraft and helicopters.

There is great debate on the size and number of carriers and has been since the 1920s. A large ship has the benefit of large airgroup, ability to survive moderate battle damage, and lower cost-per-aircraft. A number of smaller ships have the ability to launch aircraft more quickly (from more decks) and the if-one-is-lost-I-still-got-one factor. Smaller ships are also more efficient for subsidiary roles - like the ASW carriers of the cold war days. This debate raged in the U.S. Navy during the 1930s, when the Midways were built, and today.

And lastly, the U.S. Army operated more ships that the U.S. Navy during World War II. True, most of them were landing craft and such but the U.S. Army operated hundreds of ocean-going vessels. The U.S. Army Transport Cynthia Olson was lost on December 7th while at sea, enroute Hawaii.

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 194

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/8/2005 5:30:08 AM

Tanaka

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Several people have looked at these Japanese Army landing ships. A few of them had the ability to launch aircraft, with the intent of flying them off to newly captured airbases. However, WITP can not handle the combination of Transport and Aircraft carrier and the only way they can go into the game is as Transports. I personally would rather leave them out then include them in a gelding format.

Don, thanks for your response. I did not think about WITP not being able to handle these in the way they were used historically. I guess I would rather them just be transports and geld them from their aircraft role than geld the Japanese overall by taking valuable transports away from them completely. At least they could still crate aircraft and transport troops. JMHO....

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 2/7/2005 10:30:07 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 195

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/8/2005 5:48:47 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I can see with that argument, but I am a little confused. Why is it a Japanese sailboat has criteria to get in, but a broken down US Spanish American war era cruiser doesn't? Im not being an ass, I am just trying to figure out what the exact criteriea for ships getting in is.

JAPANESE SAILBOAT? Are you talking about the schooners Don had in his original mod?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 196

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/8/2005 6:03:15 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I can see with that argument, but I am a little confused. Why is it a Japanese sailboat has criteria to get in, but a broken down US Spanish American war era cruiser doesn't? Im not being an ass, I am just trying to figure out what the exact criteriea for ships getting in is.

JAPANESE SAILBOAT? Are you talking about the schooners Don had in his original mod?

Maybe, I just saw a sailboat graphic and thought ooh, a sailboat. Well I suggest the Rochester. LOL, its been a long day for me

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 197

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/8/2005 6:34:07 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I can see with that argument, but I am a little confused. Why is it a Japanese sailboat has criteria to get in, but a broken down US Spanish American war era cruiser doesn't? Im not being an ass, I am just trying to figure out what the exact criteriea for ships getting in is.

JAPANESE SAILBOAT? Are you talking about the schooners Don had in his original mod?

Maybe, I just saw a sailboat graphic and thought ooh, a sailboat. Well I suggest the Rochester. LOL, its been a long day for me

Don inserted a couple which moved Aussie assets in Solomons in early 42. I think he was getting "hard core" on us.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 198

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/8/2005 6:35:55 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Well, If he gets his schooners then I get.....McHale's Navy

actually its cool. Still, what about my Oregon idea, as at least an ammo barge.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 199

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/8/2005 7:05:41 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Don inserted a couple which moved Aussie assets in Solomons in early 42. I think he was getting "hard core" on us.

That's me - hard core! The schooners that I put it were either historically significant or the vessels used by the scattered Australian Garrisons north of Papua in December, 1941/January, 1942 and in the Solomons. They and a few coasters moved, evacuated or attempted to evacuate small garrisons � most notably the 2/1 Independent Company that was spread from Vila to New Ireland with detachments at Tulagi, Buka, and Manus Island.

Besides � they are neat!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 200

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/8/2005 9:54:56 AM

2ndACR

Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline

Putting the Utah in? Well, that is another reason for me to go after Manila. The PH raid already sucks as it is, much less with another "BB" there soaking up ammo.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 201

RE: AGs and other auxilliaries cargo/troop capable - 2/8/2005 12:26:13 PM

CobraAus

Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline

quote:

Maybe, I just saw a sailboat graphic and thought ooh, a sailboat. Well I suggest the Rochester. LOL, its been a long day for me

icon already made

Cobra Aus

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 202

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/8/2005 12:32:54 PM

CobraAus

Posts: 2322
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Geelong Australia
Status: offline

quote:

Are/should we add the Soviet Pacific Fleet? Not sure how it would affect game vs AI.

this seems to have lost in the ruck can we have more discussion on this subject, I for One would love to see a Russian Navy and if poss some of the Chinese ships that Ive seen when reseaching other ships all the map icons are there for them.

Cobra Aus

< Message edited by CobraAus -- 2/8/2005 10:33:43 AM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 203

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/8/2005 1:06:19 PM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

quote:

Are/should we add the Soviet Pacific Fleet? Not sure how it would affect game vs AI.

this seems to have lost in the ruck can we have more discussion on this subject, I for One would love to see a Russian Navy and if poss some of the Chinese ships that Ive seen when reseaching other ships all the map icons are there for them.

Cobra Aus

I don't think the game can handle it unfortunately. I believe this to be the reason why we were told not to bother during Alpha. No way for game to recognize neutrality of shipping.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to CobraAus)

Post #: 204

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/8/2005 5:42:58 PM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

I believe we are putting in US gunboats/chinese gunboats, at least I did the graphics and sent them to Don..... not sure how long they'd last, but ya never know.

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 205

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/8/2005 5:53:33 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I believe we are putting in US gunboats/chinese gunboats, at least I did the graphics and sent them to Don..... not sure how long they'd last, but ya never know.

Yes we are - the five U.S. Panay/Wake/Luzon class river gunboats from the China Squadron. Three were historically sent to the Philippines (and lost there) and a couple stayed in China (one captured, one turned over to China).

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 2/8/2005 9:53:44 AM >

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 206

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/8/2005 11:58:07 PM

Tanaka

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: CobraAus

quote:

Are/should we add the Soviet Pacific Fleet? Not sure how it would affect game vs AI.

this seems to have lost in the ruck can we have more discussion on this subject, I for One would love to see a Russian Navy and if poss some of the Chinese ships that Ive seen when reseaching other ships all the map icons are there for them.

Cobra Aus

I don't think the game can handle it unfortunately. I believe this to be the reason why we were told not to bother during Alpha. No way for game to recognize neutrality of shipping.

The Soviet shipping cannot be frozen in port until Soviets enter the war??? Like the land units???

_____________________________

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 207

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/9/2005 12:26:29 AM

Bradley7735

Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

Why not have them come in as reinforcements to the various ports in 8/45? Isn't that the date that the Soviets become active, regardless of the Kwantung army?

It's not a perfect solution, but I think it's better than leaving them out completely.

bc

(in reply to Tanaka)

Post #: 208

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/9/2005 12:54:54 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

Or we could start them out at 99 damage, at least delay their entry for a year or two....

_____________________________

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 209

RE: Soviet Fleet - 2/9/2005 1:09:24 AM

Lemurs!

Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline

I don't want to be insulting but....Wah!
The Soviet navy? Are you freaking kidding me?

The Soviets had 4 years of war in the West and never used their navy; what makes you think they would have used what little they had in the East? Plus, with Soviet ships in the east having at best skeleton crews they were not going to effective at all and they probably should all start with 25 sys damage and not be able to get better than that.

Seriously, what real country uses a drafted short term navy?

Mike

_____________________________

(in reply to Tankerace)

Post #: 210

Page: << < prev 5 6 [7] 8 9 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> Soviet Fleet