Choice of transports for invasion

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Choice of transports for invasion

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 >> Choice of transports for invasion

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Choice of transports for invasion - 3/11/2005 6:44:20 PM

AmiralLaurent

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

Just curious to see how people are playing.

Mogami and I are in the same Japanese team in a PBEm and have widly different opinions on the subject. Mog uses only 1500-ton AP. I never use it. I use 4500-ton first and then 3000-ton AP. They are faster (TF may sail 2 hex per phase even if some ships took 1 pt SYS) and harder to sink. On the other side of the coin they are giving more points if sunk and will take longer to unload. And if they are sunk at sea you lose more troops for each ship.

What is your opinion ? Just curious, as I won't change mine and Mogami won't either.

Post #: 1

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/11/2005 6:50:29 PM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

If I have the ships, I will use more of the larger, faster APs for an invasion. THis way they will get in and out of there quickly, and by using - say - three 3000 capacity APs instead of two 1500 capacity APs, they will unload about as quickly. Of course, I am usually limited by what is available at the time...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 2

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/11/2005 6:54:17 PM

Bradley7735

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

LST's are obviously the best. But, Japan doesn't have any, so you have to use the next best thing. AP's. or APD's.

It doesn't really matter what size AP you use. Just don't load them for more than 1 turn. Fill them up with troops with only the immediate amount that is loaded. Then stop loading troops and fill up the remainder with supplies. Pick more AP's if the initial ones didn't fully load the unit. Small AP's will usually fill up about 50% of their capacity on the immediate load phase. Larger ones will fill up about 20 to 25%. When you land, they will generally unload all their troops in one day. It will take several days to fully unload all the supplies, though. But, you should have some AK's in there with only supplies.

So, I would agree with you, Admiral Laurent. Use the faster, larger ships. Faster, so you aren't in the air zone as long, and larger, so if you do take damage, you might not sink. Slow ships are just allowing your opponent to react with a few more days notice. I prefer the allied 4k AP's for invasions. They're a little faster than the 6k ones.

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)

Post #: 3

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/11/2005 8:33:15 PM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

LST's are obviously the best. But, Japan doesn't have any, so you have to use the next best thing. AP's. or APD's.

It doesn't really matter what size AP you use. Just don't load them for more than 1 turn. Fill them up with troops with only the immediate amount that is loaded. Then stop loading troops and fill up the remainder with supplies. Pick more AP's if the initial ones didn't fully load the unit. Small AP's will usually fill up about 50% of their capacity on the immediate load phase. Larger ones will fill up about 20 to 25%. When you land, they will generally unload all their troops in one day. It will take several days to fully unload all the supplies, though. But, you should have some AK's in there with only supplies.

So, I would agree with you, Admiral Laurent. Use the faster, larger ships. Faster, so you aren't in the air zone as long, and larger, so if you do take damage, you might not sink. Slow ships are just allowing your opponent to react with a few more days notice. I prefer the allied 4k AP's for invasions. They're a little faster than the 6k ones.

That all makes good sense--assuming the larger APs will unload in one day at the (presumably) slower load/unload rate of the invasion hex. WIll they, though, or will you be saitting there an extra day (or two) trying to get those troops off?

I know recently I loaded up a bunch of APs with troops at Pearl destined for Baker Island. I had enough APs in the TF to completely load all the troops immediately, just like you advise. When they reached Baker, however, it required two turns to disembark everyone from that TF. I did the same thing with an engineer unit at Pearl, same shipment. This went onto a TF of AKs (didn't have enough APs), and again, the entire unit loaded immediately. So far so good. But when this TF got to Baker it required four days to unload, with the engineer vehicles last to come ashore. I don't know if in this case the delay has to do with AKs just not handling troops as efficiently as APs with re to unloading, though running against that possibility is the fact that AKs seem to load just as fast, so why would they unload slower?

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 4

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/11/2005 8:44:37 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

That all makes good sense--assuming the larger APs will unload in one day at the (presumably) slower load/unload rate of the invasion hex. WIll they, though, or will you be saitting there an extra day (or two) trying to get those troops off?

I know recently I loaded up a bunch of APs with troops at Pearl destined for Baker Island. I had enough APs in the TF to completely load all the troops immediately, just like you advise. When they reached Baker, however, it required two turns to disembark everyone from that TF. I did the same thing with an engineer unit at Pearl, same shipment. This went onto a TF of AKs (didn't have enough APs), and again, the entire unit loaded immediately. So far so good. But when this TF got to Baker it required four days to unload, with the engineer vehicles last to come ashore. I don't know if in this case the delay has to do with AKs just not handling troops as efficiently as APs with re to unloading, though running against that possibility is the fact that AKs seem to load just as fast, so why would they unload slower?

The speed at which you can load and unload is determined by whether you are doing it over a beach or in a port, and if you are in a port, the size of the port determines unloading speed. You should think about your destination, how many points you will be able to unload per phase. If you will only be able to unload 400 LPs per ship per day, and you want to complete unloading in one day, and your LCU is 20,000 LPs, you need to have at least 50 transports. That is how you need to plan your loading when the speed of unloading is crucial.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 5

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/11/2005 9:03:40 PM

Feinder

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

I'm with Mog.

More, smaller ships, is better IMO.

One unit on 3 ships, is far better than one unit on 1 ship. Exactly for the reasons you said.

Yes, it makes for bigger TFs. But it unloads faster, makes for a wider target selection for your enemy, and more defense for you.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 3/11/2005 2:05:37 PM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 6

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/11/2005 10:35:56 PM

BraveHome

Posts: 523
Joined: 11/9/2004
From: Tulsa, OK
Status: offline

I have 2 recommendations:

On day 1 when Japan gets the 'full load' capability, the 1500 is the ship of choice (for the good reasons mentioned above -- unload speed and dispersion of target are paramount when allied air is at its strongest in the SRA).

On other days, when load speed is governed by port size, then the speed of the 3/4.5K APs is a tactical consideration for moving troops rapidly to required points (especially when the 1.5K suffers damage and cannot proceed at 2/2 speed).

Also, on Day 1 I use AKs for transporting troops only to backwater locations.

Subsequent to that I will use AKs as supplemental troop transports for massive movements of troops from safe locations (such as from Manila after conquering the PI).

One caveat to Bradley7735's comment on loading APs with supplies, this is OK only if you are not counting on those supplies for immediate invasion support needs. Supplies are unloaded from APs only after all troops are unloaded. AKs are better, and remember that many AKs with fewer supplies are more efficient than fewer AKs with much supply due to faster unloading to support combat.

(in reply to Feinder)

Post #: 7

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/11/2005 11:36:13 PM

Bradley7735

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

quote:

I know recently I loaded up a bunch of APs with troops at Pearl destined for Baker Island. I had enough APs in the TF to completely load all the troops immediately, just like you advise. When they reached Baker, however, it required two turns to disembark everyone from that TF. I did the same thing with an engineer unit at Pearl, same shipment. This went onto a TF of AKs (didn't have enough APs), and again, the entire unit loaded immediately. So far so good. But when this TF got to Baker it required four days to unload, with the engineer vehicles last to come ashore. I don't know if in this case the delay has to do with AKs just not handling troops as efficiently as APs with re to unloading, though running against that possibility is the fact that AKs seem to load just as fast, so why would they unload slower?

AP's unload over the beach much faster than AK's. AK's however, load troops almost immediately. Don't use AK's in my example because they'll load to almost 100% in the immediate load phase, but take several days to unload (even in larger ports). Also, combat units tend to unload faster than engineer units. Those bulldozers take FOREVER to unload. My example is only useful for combat troops invading an opposed base.

quote:

One unit on 3 ships, is far better than one unit on 1 ship. Exactly for the reasons you said.

Yes, it makes for bigger TFs. But it unloads faster, makes for a wider target selection for your enemy, and more defense for you.

I was trying to say that you should put one unit on 3 larger ships. Not one unit on one large ship. You get the same benefits of the dispersal, but also more durable ships and usually faster ships.

quote:

One caveat to Bradley7735's comment on loading APs with supplies, this is OK only if you are not counting on those supplies for immediate invasion support needs. Supplies are unloaded from APs only after all troops are unloaded. AKs are better, and remember that many AKs with fewer supplies are more efficient than fewer AKs with much supply due to faster unloading to support combat.

That's why I said to include AK's loaded with supply only in your invasion force. If they have no troops, they'll unload supply to your guys on the beach. Eventually, when your AP's are troop free, they'll add more supply as well.

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 8

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/11/2005 11:59:43 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

I never load supplies on APs. There's no reason to. There are scads of AKs, which carry supplies more efficiently and which have to be there anyway, unloading supply for the first wave. But the most important reason I don't put supplies on my APs is that I want the APs to be able to turn right around and go back to pick up more LCUs.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Bradley7735)

Post #: 9

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 2:18:30 AM

byron13

Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

I never load supplies on APs. There's no reason to. There are scads of AKs, which carry supplies more efficiently and which have to be there anyway, unloading supply for the first wave. But the most important reason I don't put supplies on my APs is that I want the APs to be able to turn right around and go back to pick up more LCUs.

I'm with irrelevant. APs are too valuable to have sitting offshore unloading beans and franks. I try and use smaller APs for invasions for fast offloading while the larger ones transit important units over long distances at high speed. If I have enough support (or if the situation is too hot) I'll unload the APs and get them out of harm's way and let the abundant AKs take the risk of unloading supplies over multiple turns. I can lose several AKs, but losing several APs is hard to swallow. The first turn or two are the important ones, and APs loaded with troops and supply will unload little if any supply during the important those first turns.

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 10

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 4:42:06 AM

pompack

Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline

If I am hitting a defended atoll, I use the smallest AP available and allocate 210% of the required AP load. This generally dumps all of the combat formations on the beach the first landing turn. Combat troops still on the transports at the end of the day do nothing for the automatic Shock Attack. If it is not an atoll, I still use the smallest AP and allocate 150% of required lift. The objective is still to get the troops off the transports in the shortest possible time but the forces are generally larger for non-atolls and I run out of shipping.

(in reply to byron13)

Post #: 11

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 5:29:23 AM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

I would never, ever waste my big, fast AP's on invasions. Those are desparately needed to get fresh troops to the front and weary ones back. Plus, those AP's might actually be useful later in the war when subs have ravaged my AK's.

Use the 1.5k's for invasions and don't cry when you lose them. Who cares if they are slow? The Allies have little to react with early on as it is, so reaction time is a non-issue. Plus, those 1.5's have little other useful purpose. Once the air is controlled by the Allies, they are useless, so use them now while you can.

(in reply to pompack)

Post #: 12

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 6:05:43 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

HI, All AP unload at the same rate. That rate depends on the hex not the size of the AP.
AP load and unload troops faster then supply. AK load and unload supply faster then troops.
Troops landing on an atoll require combat supply by the time the first combat phase arrives so if you load them onto 4.5k AP you need AK in the TF as well. If you load them onto 1.5k AP they will unload with the supply (1 or 2 phases for troops then 3rd and later phases for the supply.
Since all AP unload at the same rate 3x1.5kAP unload 3x the amount as 1x4.5k AP

My 4.5k AP are never idle. They actually spend far more time at sea compared to the 1.5k AP that only go to sea to transport invasion troops. The 4.5k AP are busy moving baseforces and defense units to the far flung outposts. Here their speed is protection against enemy submarines and their size allows transport of supply as well.

AK are for moving resources and supply.

A 4.5k AP is a Ocean liner. Would you really send the Queen Mary to D-Day?

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 13

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 7:17:42 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

They did send similar ships to Gallipoli, didn't they?

Good point, Mog. My thought was to use as many APs as possbile to get the whole unit unloaded immediately. I haven't hit the right amount yet, but my theory is that if you choose enough APs to immediately load the whole unit upon giving the order (not having to wait the rest of the turn to load, but to be completely loaded right after you click "load"), then you should have enough APs to unload the unit on the first day. I haven't performed enough Amphib landings yet to have perfected the mix. What are other's experiences?

< Message edited by bradfordkay -- 3/11/2005 9:17:50 PM >

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 14

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 7:38:22 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Well it takes different amounts to load in one swoop. At a size 9 port more loads then at a size 4 port but in both cases the exact same amount will unload at the target because that rate depends on the hex over the beach rate. So you require fewer transports at a size 9 then you do at a size 4 to load a unit "all at once"
So when planning your operation move the units to a large port if you want to use fewer transports and load all at once or give the smaller port more time or more transports.

< Message edited by Mogami -- 3/12/2005 12:38:31 AM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 15

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 8:04:45 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Getting to the invasion site quickly means nothing, the speed at which you unload is critical. The more ships you use the better.

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 16

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 8:12:58 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Okay, so that first "swoop" loads how big a percentage of the day's loading capacity? If it is all, it's no wonder that I haven't been using enough ships. It is obvious that you need to use more ships to unload in one day, I was just hoping to find a way to ascertain that I had chosen the right amount. Need to keep experimenting, I guess (except that I just play one game, and don't try h-t-h tests - I don't want to see the Japanese side at all as of yet, so my experimenting is taking a looonnngg time).

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 17

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 9:04:53 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

HI, All AP unload at the same rate. That rate depends on the hex not the size of the AP.
AP load and unload troops faster then supply. AK load and unload supply faster then troops.

It was unfortunate that the suggestion that a distinction be made regarding APAs and AKAs regarding load/unload rates was not folowed through. After all, they were specially designed for amphib ops and had more landing craft and enhanced handling facilities. (but the coordination bonus for Japan CV launched strikes did!

hmmmmm...)

quote:

Getting to the invasion site quickly means nothing, the speed at which you unload is critical. The more ships you use the better.

All the more reason why a distinction should have been made for APA/AKAs, giving them an enhanced load/unload rate.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 3/12/2005 2:06:23 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to bradfordkay)

Post #: 18

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 9:18:45 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

HI, All AP unload at the same rate. That rate depends on the hex not the size of the AP.
AP load and unload troops faster then supply. AK load and unload supply faster then troops.

It was unfortunate that the suggestion that a distinction be made regarding APAs and AKAs regarding load/unload rates was not folowed through. After all, they were specially designed for amphib ops and had more landing craft and enhanced handling facilities. (but the coordination bonus for Japan CV launched strikes did! hmmmmm...)

Well, as long as we're bashing poor old Gary again . . .

. . . because . . . in all of Gary's Pacific games the Japanese always are given bogus advantages in order demonstrate certain superiorities which Gary apparently read somewhere sometime in wonderful books I've yet to tumble across.

quote:

Getting to the invasion site quickly means nothing, the speed at which you unload is critical. The more ships you use the better.

quote:

All the more reason why a distinction should have been made for APA/AKAs, giving them an enhanced load/unload rate.

That, too, would have been chrome. But useful chrome.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 19

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 9:32:44 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

I'm with Mog.

More, smaller ships, is better IMO.

One unit on 3 ships, is far better than one unit on 1 ship. Exactly for the reasons you said.

Yes, it makes for bigger TFs. But it unloads faster, makes for a wider target selection for your enemy, and more defense for you.

-F-

Hey, large, medium or small, I could care less...they all sink the same way.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 20

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 9:33:43 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, If Ron has paused to reflect a moment he would know that allied ships do unload faster then Japanese. (They have that floating HQ ship that speeds them up)
So in fact allied AP/AK used for invasions get the APA/AKA benifit when they are employed as such. In 1942 they don't have that ability but I'm not sure it existed at that time. The only 1942 landings in the Pacific operated pretty much like they do now.

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 21

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 9:36:57 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

I'm with Mog.

More, smaller ships, is better IMO.

One unit on 3 ships, is far better than one unit on 1 ship. Exactly for the reasons you said.

Yes, it makes for bigger TFs. But it unloads faster, makes for a wider target selection for your enemy, and more defense for you.

-F-

Hey, large, medium or small, I could care less...they all sink the same way.

That's the second time tonight you've "replied" to me yet quoted someone else. How are you doing that?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 22

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 9:40:00 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, If Ron has paused to reflect a moment he would know that allied ships do unload faster then Japanese. (They have that floating HQ ship that speeds them up)
So in fact allied AP/AK used for invasions get the APA/AKA benifit when they are employed as such. In 1942 they don't have that ability but I'm not sure it existed at that time. The only 1942 landings in the Pacific operated pretty much like they do now.

That sort of handles it in a round about way I suppose. I was hoping after I split the AP/AKs into seperate APA/AKA classes to take advantage of the increased speed, durability (naval manned after all) and armament these specialized ships posessed, a slight code change could have been added as well to address the enhanced amphib capabilities.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 23

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 9:40:11 AM

Tristanjohn

Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, If Ron has paused to reflect a moment he would know that allied ships do unload faster then Japanese. (They have that floating HQ ship that speeds them up)
So in fact allied AP/AK used for invasions get the APA/AKA benifit when they are employed as such. In 1942 they don't have that ability but I'm not sure it existed at that time. The only 1942 landings in the Pacific operated pretty much like they do now.

I apparently need to read more (or re-read what I've already read not so well) because I thought all that Amphib HQ did was to reduce casualties going ashore, and presumably help units fight better while they are ahsore. Does it actually say that ships unload faster when within its radius?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 24

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 10:07:24 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, AMPH HQ (only the Allies have such a HQ and only the ALlied HQ ship can use one)
Do lower disruption and fatigue and breakage. However they also add a bonus to each ships Amph value that decides the rate they unload. (The table below where the HQ is mentioned) Japan has a +200 early in war)

< Message edited by Mogami -- 3/12/2005 3:06:45 AM >

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Tristanjohn)

Post #: 25

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/12/2005 2:15:38 PM

tsimmonds

Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline

quote:

Do lower disruption and fatigue and breakage. However they also add a bonus to each ships Amph value that decides the rate they unload. (The table below where the HQ is mentioned) Japan has a +200 early in war)

I thought the 200 was some modifier to the disruption roll; you are saying that it increases unload speed by this amount? Is that per phase or per turn?

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 26

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/13/2005 12:33:06 AM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

quote:

All the more reason why a distinction should have been made for APA/AKAs, giving them an enhanced load/unload rate.

APs should unload troops faster than AKs. AKs should unload supplies faster than APs. A simple solution seems to me to divide unload rates by the transport modifier.

ie APs unload supplies at 1/4th the speed they unload troops. Just a not so well thought out thought.

(in reply to tsimmonds)

Post #: 27

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/13/2005 1:14:36 AM

freeboy

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

no one answer.. what do you want to move where.. I like all those little barges the allies use for troops, gets them off quick.. and in the early war as the advancing Japs I stack a few units in a lot of AP's .. few supplies.. and they really unload and attack and reload qquick.. before a stuffed to the gills ak/ap group would unload, I've unloaded capturd the base and moved on

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 28

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/13/2005 5:38:31 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

" That's the second time tonight you've "replied" to me yet quoted someone else. How are you doing that?"

If you hit "fast reply" at the bottom of the screen (my favorite method), then the "in reply to" note on your message will be the last person who posted.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to freeboy)

Post #: 29

RE: Choice of transports for invasion - 3/13/2005 5:48:59 AM

scout1

Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline

quote:

AKs should unload supplies faster than APs

Actually, this should be true, only in a friendly harbour with the equipment to permit this. The rate that these beauties unload should frankly suck for amphib ops. And they should be a a flat rate, no modifiers for port size, etc ... (don't know if this is the case or not).

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 30

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Choice of transports for invasion

Page: [1] 2 next > >>