Ex Battleships (Full Version)

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



Message

el cid again -> Ex Battleships (3/27/2006 9:52:33 AM)

I have included some ex-battleship in the listings. I noted that a sort of USS Utah was in the CHS listings - except it is a dummy ship - sort of a pure target. I included her in her modified auxiliary form. For BBO only, I executed a proposal to rearm USS Wyoming as a battleship (or as a
fire support ship - variations on the same theme). For RN I included HMS Centurion in her dummy form: she is a duplicate of KGV class battleship (lightly armed with AA guns) which spent the early part of the Pacific War in Bombay. [She carries fuel in the former gun magazines and is not a bad convoy tanker as ships can refuel from her.] Of course, a number of ex battleships and battlecruisers are present as carriers, as well, but that is not a change.



akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/27/2006 10:45:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have included some ex-battleship in the listings. I noted that a sort of USS Utah was in the CHS listings - except it is a dummy ship - sort of a pure target. I included her in her modified auxiliary form.


Good, many have complained of her "target" status. However, for historical sake she was basically unarmed at Pearl Harbor, having her guns covered by heavy timbers, etc. and moored to a normal carrier berth to boot...



el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/27/2006 12:06:51 PM)

quote:

However, for historical sake she was basically unarmed at Pearl Harbor, having her guns covered by heavy timbers, etc. and moored to a normal carrier berth to boot...


Her only armament is AA guns, and on the opening day of the war these are pretty ineffective. If she survives that day (she didn't historically) they might be worth something. We also could disable her guns - which would guarantee they cannot be used on the opening day.



el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/27/2006 12:12:07 PM)

Japan also has an ex battleship in service in December 1941 (sunk 24-July-45 at Kure by TF 38). She is barely armed with light AA - but she is able to steam at 18 knots and can sail with or without gun crews for her AA (being radio controlled). If she is put in a task group, odds are fair she will be mistaken for a major target AS IS - but it would be easy to make this likely. [This is part of normal naval training and practice]. I am considering adding her along the lines of Centurion - with a mock up flight deck in CVO and mock up gun turrets in BBO (ie as a dummy carrier in CVO and a dummy battleship in BBO). This at least balances the existence of Centurion on the Allied side - and the possibility that Utah could be mistaken for a major target - something very likely given the classification I have used - and something that may have happened at Pearl Harbor. Comments?



Terminus -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/27/2006 12:35:54 PM)

Are you thinking of the Settsu?



m10bob -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/27/2006 5:59:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Are you thinking of the Settsu?


I'm thinking of Hostess chocolate cupcakes and pizza.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/27/2006 6:29:17 PM)

If you start getting into this kind of detail there will be no end to it. "Hey, where is the crane ship Kearsarge?" I like the inclusion of Utah for historical sake, given she was attacked and sunk at PH.



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/27/2006 7:05:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
I'm thinking of [...] chocolate cupcakes and pizza.


You pervert! :P



m10bob -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/27/2006 9:10:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
I'm thinking of [...] chocolate cupcakes and pizza.


You pervert! :P
[sm=00000613.gif]



akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/27/2006 10:20:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

However, for historical sake she was basically unarmed at Pearl Harbor, having her guns covered by heavy timbers, etc. and moored to a normal carrier berth to boot...


Her only armament is AA guns, and on the opening day of the war these are pretty ineffective. If she survives that day (she didn't historically) they might be worth something. We also could disable her guns - which would guarantee they cannot be used on the opening day.

I ended up having no armament but all other attributes intact. I then made a 4112 upgrade for her with armament. If she does not get damaged she can now "upgrade" immediately. A ship with disabled weapons can take a while to get them all back, as disabled is the same as destroyed for naval vessels I think. I made her a BB for her original confiuration and then a PG for her upgrades. As a BB she will take less sys damage when she does the first upgrade.



el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/28/2006 3:14:41 AM)

quote:

If you start getting into this kind of detail there will be no end to it. "Hey, where is the crane ship Kearsarge?" I like the inclusion of Utah for historical sake, given she was attacked and sunk at PH.


I agree. Joe likes to say "we can do anything - but we cannot do everything." In this case, I like Centurion because she really sailed - and Utah because she was really engaged. Seems only fair to give IJN ONE similar ship - for play balance and to have similar fun. But this thread is to see what OTHERS think - I am asking for opinions

And yes - it IS Settsu I am thinking of.




VladViscious -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/28/2006 9:39:55 PM)

Are you looking at making them big AA support vessels? What kind and number of AA weapons are you putting on them if they upgrade? I know that there was a proposal in the 80's to take the Iowa Class BB's and convert them into Air Defense ships. Interesting idea, and I think it would make life very difficult early in the war for Betties depending on how many guns she is carrying. Also I woudl imagine with that much bunkerage she woudl take a long time to run out of AA ammo.

TANSTAAFL!



el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/28/2006 11:41:05 PM)

quote:

Are you looking at making them big AA support vessels? What kind and number of AA weapons are you putting on them if they upgrade?


I see you read Heinlein!

The Utah and another US battleship (Wyoming) were armed as AA training ships. Utah had 5 inch 38s on one side and 5 inch 25s on the other side! And also a strange set of 40mm mountings - apparently two quads, a twin and a single (to train gun crews). They could have mounted many more guns. Wyoming had 3 inch mounts and 20 mm mounts as well. But in RHSBBO I bring Wyoming back as a battleship/fire support ship - while in RHSCVO I don't bring her in - for she did her work of the Virginia Capes as a training ship.

TANSTAFFL indeed.



VladViscious -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/29/2006 12:05:36 AM)

Yeah I am a Heinlien fan, I have read over 40 of his books, most more than once. So in neither Scenario you bring Utah back if she isn't sunk? I was wonderign what you woudl do with her if she survives PH attack.

TANSTAAFL!



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/29/2006 12:31:44 AM)

Can I ask: Where gone Wyoming turrets? Maybe you must grab some CD facility to rearm her?



m10bob -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/29/2006 3:27:11 AM)

Another Japanese "target ship" which was never used as a target, but as an escort, was the Ohama,(only ship of its' class to be completed,Joined the Japanese Navy 1/45..
Displacement:2560 tons
Dimensions:367x38x37
Speed: 32 kts.
Arms:2x4.7 in,32x25mm AA,36 DC's
Launched in Yokahama

There were also a couple of old pre-Dreadnought armoured cruisers used for training, one of which (the Kasuga) was never dis-armed.
Displacement:7080 tons
Dimensions:357x62x25
Speed: 20 kts.
Armour:4.5-6" main belt, 1.5 deck,5.5 turret,6in battery,4.5 bulkhead,4.5 bridge
Arms: 1x10in,2x8in,4x6in,4x3in,1x3in AA



el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/29/2006 3:36:05 AM)

quote:

Yeah I am a Heinlien fan, I have read over 40 of his books, most more than once. So in neither Scenario you bring Utah back if she isn't sunk? I was wonderign what you woudl do with her if she survives PH attack.


I don't think Utah will be sunk most of the time. If she is not, she will "repair" back to her gunnery training form. This is a useful ship as a sort of "convoy tanker" - she can feed minor escorts fuel for long distance movements - or even blimps for that matter! And she can provide some AA cover. The Wyoming does not appear in RHSCVO, but the proposal to restore her to service is adopted for RHSBBO.

I actually corresponded with RAH - which is impossible because it was his policy NOT to correspond! He would write to say "you are the only one who gives me lots of data and does not ask for anything in return but I just had to say how useful it is" - stuff like that. Once he also had his wife send a note about a game I sent him. I used to read all his stuff.



el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/29/2006 3:39:59 AM)

quote:

Can I ask: Where gone Wyoming turrets? Maybe you must grab some CD facility to rearm her?


I do not know, but I suppose they were in storage. There were two different proposals to remount them. She had been disarmed under terms of the London Naval Treaty, but that didn't require more than mere dismounting of turrets and removal of boilers. Presumably this was some sort of contingency planning. It is not that strange: when USS New Jersey was activated in 1968 (after the first edition of Battleships and Battlecruisers had said there NEVER would be another active battleship),
a set of extra guns was sent to Subic. In the event they were not used - when she shot out her tubes she was taken out of service again. Of course, it may be they planned to give her NEW turrets - as in those on the Alaska class. I wonder if I have this somewhere?

Edit: She retained 6 of her original 12 main guns until 1944. The amphibious fire support ship proposal was probably just to send her out with these, and a modern AAA suite. The other proposal, to return her to full BB status, must have contemplated remounting the missing 3 turrets - so it is likely they were in storage for that contingency.



el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/29/2006 3:45:48 AM)

quote:

There were also a couple of old pre-Dreadnought armoured cruisers used for training, one of which (the Kasuga) was never dis-armed.


Actually these are in CHS. They were no longer training ships - they were full CAs in IJN during WWII! They were used in the China squadron as fire support ships! Their best use would be for scrap steel - if only we had a provision for that.



m10bob -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/29/2006 6:06:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

There were also a couple of old pre-Dreadnought armoured cruisers used for training, one of which (the Kasuga) was never dis-armed.


Actually these are in CHS. They were no longer training ships - they were full CAs in IJN during WWII! They were used in the China squadron as fire support ships! Their best use would be for scrap steel - if only we had a provision for that.


Game called "Spaceward Ho!" would allow you to junk old ships and salvage the steel.........



akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/30/2006 5:06:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

[The Utah and another US battleship (Wyoming) were armed as AA training ships. Utah had 5 inch 38s on one side and 5 inch 25s on the other side! And also a strange set of 40mm mountings - apparently two quads, a twin and a single (to train gun crews).


Okay, where did the Utah get 40mm's when the first shipboard mounting was not unitl mid-42? I think she had at least one quad 1.1's, being the test ship for this gun and mount, and some .50cals, along eith 4 5"/38's and 4 5"/25's.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/30/2006 5:37:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Yeah I am a Heinlien fan, I have read over 40 of his books, most more than once. So in neither Scenario you bring Utah back if she isn't sunk? I was wonderign what you woudl do with her if she survives PH attack.


I don't think Utah will be sunk most of the time. If she is not, she will "repair" back to her gunnery training form. This is a useful ship as a sort of "convoy tanker" - she can feed minor escorts fuel for long distance movements - or even blimps for that matter! And she can provide some AA cover. The Wyoming does not appear in RHSCVO, but the proposal to restore her to service is adopted for RHSBBO.

I actually corresponded with RAH - which is impossible because it was his policy NOT to correspond! He would write to say "you are the only one who gives me lots of data and does not ask for anything in return but I just had to say how useful it is" - stuff like that. Once he also had his wife send a note about a game I sent him. I used to read all his stuff.


This is exactly why Utah remains unarmed and with no propulsion in CHS...so that players don't use the ship ahistorically. It was a gunnery training ship and unmanned target vessel. It assists in crew training so that they show up with some level of expertise. It was not "free" to go on these blimp jaunts etc.[:-][8|][8D]



akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/30/2006 7:38:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Yeah I am a Heinlien fan, I have read over 40 of his books, most more than once. So in neither Scenario you bring Utah back if she isn't sunk? I was wonderign what you woudl do with her if she survives PH attack.


I don't think Utah will be sunk most of the time. If she is not, she will "repair" back to her gunnery training form. This is a useful ship as a sort of "convoy tanker" - she can feed minor escorts fuel for long distance movements - or even blimps for that matter! And she can provide some AA cover. The Wyoming does not appear in RHSCVO, but the proposal to restore her to service is adopted for RHSBBO.

I actually corresponded with RAH - which is impossible because it was his policy NOT to correspond! He would write to say "you are the only one who gives me lots of data and does not ask for anything in return but I just had to say how useful it is" - stuff like that. Once he also had his wife send a note about a game I sent him. I used to read all his stuff.


This is exactly why Utah remains unarmed and with no propulsion in CHS...so that players don't use the ship ahistorically. It was a gunnery training ship and unmanned target vessel. It assists in crew training so that they show up with some level of expertise. It was not "free" to go on these blimp jaunts etc.[:-][8|][8D]



Oh come on Ron, this is about giving the players the ability to choose, none of this historical perogative crap. If players really feely this way then they can easily edit out the ship before the game begins by ginving it an arrival date of 9999. Otherwise lets go on a few excursions.



el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/30/2006 12:42:17 PM)

quote:

This is exactly why Utah remains unarmed and with no propulsion in CHS...so that players don't use the ship ahistorically. It was a gunnery training ship and unmanned target vessel. It assists in crew training so that they show up with some level of expertise. It was not "free" to go on these blimp jaunts etc


Presumably the ship reference records the most standard armament during the war. It does elaborate a bit:

1) Utah had PREVIOUSLY been an unmanned, radio controlled target vessel BEFORE being turned into a manned gunnery training ship - and it was no longer able to function in the former role by the time the war began;

2) Utah "apparently" rotated smaller gun mountings "as required". Presumably as the associated training facility required. And so, if we had unlimted interest and slots, we could have her go through several upgrades of these.

I am not sure why you bother to play a war game at all? If EVERY decision MUST be made EXACTLY the same by players as it was historically, why not just read history books and watch films about those decisions - which are set in concrete? Maybe historical commanders didn't make the best choices? Maybe a different strategy by a player justifies a different choice? Maybe different game events justify a different choice? Players are ALWAYS free to ignore and not use a ship - and if they think Utah should stay in the gunnery training role - just put it in port and ignore it - and no harm done - its only role is that of an extra target if the port is attacked (something it really was in the real attacks on Pearl too). [Plural because there was more than one attack: two air raids by Kiddo Butai and one by Emilies - she could have been hit in any of them and actually was in one of them.] Using all the resources really available is the real preogrative of an operational commander - and taking resources away from them is not my idea of being historical. Anyway - someone else put Utah in - I just outfitted her with guns - which I then disabled. Players may not use them on Dec 6 Tokyo time - and if they elect to use them later it is their choice, not mine. I note some Japanese ships worth more in scrap value than operational terms are also included in CHS - so fair is fair.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/30/2006 11:06:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

This is exactly why Utah remains unarmed and with no propulsion in CHS...so that players don't use the ship ahistorically. It was a gunnery training ship and unmanned target vessel. It assists in crew training so that they show up with some level of expertise. It was not "free" to go on these blimp jaunts etc


Presumably the ship reference records the most standard armament during the war. It does elaborate a bit:

1) Utah had PREVIOUSLY been an unmanned, radio controlled target vessel BEFORE being turned into a manned gunnery training ship - and it was no longer able to function in the former role by the time the war began;

2) Utah "apparently" rotated smaller gun mountings "as required". Presumably as the associated training facility required. And so, if we had unlimted interest and slots, we could have her go through several upgrades of these.

I am not sure why you bother to play a war game at all? If EVERY decision MUST be made EXACTLY the same by players as it was historically, why not just read history books and watch films about those decisions - which are set in concrete? Maybe historical commanders didn't make the best choices? Maybe a different strategy by a player justifies a different choice? Maybe different game events justify a different choice? Players are ALWAYS free to ignore and not use a ship - and if they think Utah should stay in the gunnery training role - just put it in port and ignore it - and no harm done - its only role is that of an extra target if the port is attacked (something it really was in the real attacks on Pearl too). [Plural because there was more than one attack: two air raids by Kiddo Butai and one by Emilies - she could have been hit in any of them and actually was in one of them.] Using all the resources really available is the real preogrative of an operational commander - and taking resources away from them is not my idea of being historical. Anyway - someone else put Utah in - I just outfitted her with guns - which I then disabled. Players may not use them on Dec 6 Tokyo time - and if they elect to use them later it is their choice, not mine. I note some Japanese ships worth more in scrap value than operational terms are also included in CHS - so fair is fair.


Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for?[:D] I realise Centurion was used in this manner during Halberd or some such Malta convoy but this is one extreme and rare example which occured in another theatre of war. Not something which should really instigate widespread use of baroque technology.

As for Utah, that was my doing as she had a definite role in the Pearl Harbor attack.

I play wargames for the historical immersion and competitiveness, the longer the game the better. But I stop when a historical game becomes a series of ahistorical meanderings utilizing assets for all sorts of BS tactics. Utah, or Wyoming, or Settsu etc were exactly that...resources, but training resources. They were not shoved into the breach because they were not combat worthy and to sacrifice everything like players are wont to do (ie using merchants as early warning decoys![8|]) makes their inclusion (Utah excepted as explained already) a bad idea. Hey, it's just my opinion but unless their actual role has an impact on the game (ie, if Wyoming actually was important to any crew training model in the game I doubt it would be viewed as just more cannon fodder) the unit will be abused.



Nikademus -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/30/2006 11:16:04 PM)

quote:

Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for?


Wyoming was used as a gunnery training ship throughout the war. Eventually her remaining heavy batteries were landed in favor of more light guns to further complement her role as a trainer (BB gun training wasn't needed at this point....AA gunnery was)



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/30/2006 11:21:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for?


Wyoming was used as a gunnery training ship throughout the war. Eventually her remaining heavy batteries were landed in favor of more light guns to further complement her role as a trainer (BB gun training wasn't needed at this point....AA gunnery was)

Exactly my point Steve. Without an actual role in the game for which she was designed for and is a vital part of the Wyoming or any other non combatant will end up leading some wild charge on the front lines.



Nikademus -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/30/2006 11:29:02 PM)

since no human element is involved, players naturally will throw in ships that in RL would never be risked in a combat zone. Personally i wouldn't bother adding her anymore than i would Utah or Settsu



el cid again -> Wyoming and Centurion (one) (3/31/2006 12:58:35 AM)

quote:

Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for? I realise Centurion was used in this manner during Halberd or some such Malta convoy but this is one extreme and rare example which occured in another theatre of war. Not something which should really instigate widespread use of baroque technology.


First of all, Centurian spent a good deal of time in the Eastern Fleet, and the critical early months of the war with Japan actually stationed at Bombay. While she did a number of calls at Aden before the Pacific War began, and afterwards, she was part of the theater itself - not just on the periphery - in a critical period. Our scenario says "once a ship enters the PTO proper - not just a peripheral port - she is in and stays in as long as the player wants." IF I could force her to withdraw, I would, but I can't, so I must wait for another day to do that. Eventually, she serves in two other roles: first an AA vessel in Egypt, and then she is expended at Normandy. Quite a remarkable ship. But her FIRST role was DECEPTION - and that is not really a fighting role - although it can be. It is to cause a misunderstanding of where the namesake ship (in this case Anson) or some sister (if misidentified) really is? And I have programmed this ship - which really operated in theater - to report AS Anson - not as some dummy ship. The OWNING player will know otherwise, but the enemy will not - except she won't shoot very much if cornered! I bet many players never even notice this strange dummy ship.
And I bet many others pretty much ignore her. Those who like her and use her - successfully or not - are the ones I created her for. This is a ship for the BBO scenario - presumably some battleship oriented players will like having an old battleship with ANY role. And it is perfectly legitimate to send her to Aden - or even off the map if you want - to satisfy British withdrawall requirements at some point.



el cid again -> Wyoming (second) (3/31/2006 1:03:01 AM)

quote:

Question for Alaskan and Cid. Got any examples of say, Wyoming, operating during WW2 as a bomb soaker, decoy, mobile flak battery escort for convoys etc as players will surely use her for? I realise Centurion was used in this manner during Halberd or some such Malta convoy but this is one extreme and rare example which occured in another theatre of war. Not something which should really instigate widespread use of baroque technology.


Wyoming was not used in PTO at all during WWII. But in 1942 it was PROPOSED to send her there, two ways:

1) As a "gunfire support ship" - presumably still armed with six 12 inch

2) As a completely reborn battleship - presumably with all 12 heavy guns.

Both proposals did not survive the changes made in naval planning after Coral Sea and Midway - with their carrier focus. But in RHSBBO we assume those decisions were NOT made in time. You get Wyoming instead of some Essex - probably - and it is not an ideal trade - but had we not had early enough experience we might well have been stuck with her. This is not something I made up and it properly belongs in BBO - you DO get SOMETHING when you keep the old plans in exchange for the carriers not laid down or converted. The two Iowas are much more significant, I admit - but she is another example of the same, writ small.



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.625