RE: Ex Battleships

RE: 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 -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/31/2006 1:15:18 AM)
quote: 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 I note you didn't add Centurion to the list - since she WAS "shoveled into the breach" - no less than three different ways in more than half a dozen operations extending over years of time. Utah may not have been intentionally an enemy target, but she died as one nonetheless - so saying she was not in the war zone is hardly correct - and saying a ship really there could not (had it survived Pearl Harbor Day) been used seems incorrect as well. Wyoming is NOT for CVO - that is for you Ron - and all those who think the fairly radical changes in thinking which occurred are appropriate for simulation all scenarios. I personally think those changes might well have occurred later in time - and that a failed Pearl Harbor attack (preserving the battlefleet and Kimmel as boss) would likely have given us a very different war. If you don't want Wyoming - and want all those Essex's - play CVO - not BBO. That is why there is a choice. BUT IF we give the Allies Centurion in her real role - and Wyoming as proposed in the non-carrier oriented scenario - and Utah (in both - because she was really at Pearl) - is it not appropriate to add the one Japanese captial ship that was still sailing and might have had other roles? Note this is a genuine question and I have NOT done any work on that option. I am collecting opinion. In fairness, I was first exposed to naval operations during a strange fleet training exercise. One Lt Col Breckenridge (USMC), son of a WWII era general, led two companies of "token opposition" marines to capture more than two regiments of 2nd Marine Division = there were vast "POW camps" on Vieagus. This was AFTER a similarly imaginative Rear Admiral had taken a de facto merchant ship (the converted Prarie Mariner in her APA form) and sunk virtually the ENTIRE division AT SEA - by trickery and getting the USN to do it for him! [Now that APA - USS Francis Marion - was itself sunk in the effort. But there were so few "surviving" marines the naval exercise had to be reversed in order for the Marines to play the invasion. Both commanders had a detachment of Beachjumpers - naval deception specialists - helping - and there were also two swift boat teams. I learned deception that year (1965) and never forgot to use it whenever possible ever after. YOU may consider such things "gamey" but I consider them professional.

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/31/2006 1:20:01 AM)
quote: 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 Utah is already added - and properly so since she was sunk at Pearl. NOT having her present HELPS the Japanese by causing them to have no chance to waste bombs and torpedoes. Centurion SHOULD be added since she really was in theater - and may have decieved the enemy - all you get is a chance anyway - no certainties. Wyoming is NOT going to be added in the CVO version - since the historical decision NOT to honer the proposals to convert her are implemented in that version. It properly should be added for BBO - since that assumes the carrier oriented decisions were not taken in time. But Settsu - that is really questionable. She is a training ship, as such, and generally we aren't doing training assets that had no operational role. I only propose it due to play balance and for fun. I will try once again to point out that no one forces anyone to use anything - and most players have some kinds of ships they NEVER use.

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/31/2006 1:24:50 AM)
quote: (ie using merchants as early warning decoys! ) Please help me with this. Small fishing vessels - each had a single naval petty officer aboard as a recognition expert and radio operator - really detected the Hornet task force and forced premature launch of the Doolittle Raiders (and a 100% loss of planes due to insufficient range to reach base). They were important in other operations, large and small. Exactly why are you citing it as an example of player "misuse" of assets? I regard players who do NOT use small merchants for early warning as poor players not doing a good job of simulating what professionals really did. Why do you regard them as "gamey" and working the technicalities of the system? I will NEVER take advantage of what I regard as "gamey" tactics - but what in the world is wrong with using something as it could have been - and even was - used?

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/31/2006 1:28:06 AM)
quote: 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. I fail to follow this: IF Wyoming were refitted as a modern battleship, or alternatively, if she were sent in almost as is as a fire support ship for landing operations, would she not really have been used as a battleship (or as a fire support ship)? And why would players send her on a "wild charge"? She is too slow to be very effective as a raider. Almost the same armament as an Alaska, but only 20 knots or so? Anyway, clearly if this bothers you so will Shinano as a battleship, two more Iowas, Lions and such: don't do BBO.

akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/31/2006 4:39:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker 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. Well at first I decided not to answer, but what the heck. Got any examples of the Japanese KB patrolling the Hawaiian Islands after Dec 7th 1941? In many games being played the Japanese player does indeed do this, although it is ahistorical. The point is it should be up to the players to decide. Who is to say what the Utah might, or might not, have been used for if she had survived? It is possible that with most of the BB's out of commission and other major units stretched thin that she could have been used in roles not envisioned before the war. Indeed, before the war the battleship was not seen cheifly as a shore bombardment ship, but instead as the chief arbitrator of naval battles and the aircraft carrier was yet unproven. As far as the Wyoming goes if she never entered the Pacific during WWII then she will never be in my historical mod, but including her would be an interesting "what if", which BTW, is precisely why I play historical simulations.

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/31/2006 11:55:48 AM)
quote: Well at first I decided not to answer, but what the heck. Got any examples of the Japanese KB patrolling the Hawaiian Islands after Dec 7th 1941? In many games being played the Japanese player does indeed do this, although it is ahistorical. The point is it should be up to the players to decide. On Dec 8, 1941 (US time) IJN Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto decided the historical hit and run raid was a MISTAKE. That the Kiddo Butai should have STAYED in Hawaiian waters, hunting carriers and damaged ships fleeing to the US West Coast - and cutting the line of supply for Hawaii. Once the carriers had been neutralized, and certain land facilities as well (air bases, and open to air observation major coast guns at Fort Ruger - which could prevent landing on any coast), a follow up force should have landed three divisions on Oahu. The Battle of Midway was an attempt to correct this "mistake" - just being phase one. In this sense - that the Japanese fleet commander THOUGHT they SHOULD have stayed - and also that MANY US naval officers AT THE TIME thought they SHOULD have done - it IS a reasonable option that players do so.

akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (3/31/2006 12:27:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: Well at first I decided not to answer, but what the heck. Got any examples of the Japanese KB patrolling the Hawaiian Islands after Dec 7th 1941? In many games being played the Japanese player does indeed do this, although it is ahistorical. The point is it should be up to the players to decide. On Dec 8, 1941 (US time) IJN Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto decided the historical hit and run raid was a MISTAKE. That the Kiddo Butai should have STAYED in Hawaiian waters, hunting carriers and damaged ships fleeing to the US West Coast - and cutting the line of supply for Hawaii. Once the carriers had been neutralized, and certain land facilities as well (air bases, and open to air observation major coast guns at Fort Ruger - which could prevent landing on any coast), a follow up force should have landed three divisions on Oahu. The Battle of Midway was an attempt to correct this "mistake" - just being phase one. In this sense - that the Japanese fleet commander THOUGHT they SHOULD have stayed - and also that MANY US naval officers AT THE TIME thought they SHOULD have done - it IS a reasonable option that players do so. I guess anything/everything is an option. Could of, should of, is hindsight which everyone has. This is the reason we game. However, the raid on Hawaii did not, and that is history. Strange, I rememeber you discussing how there was not enough fuel to do this recently. Just where is the fuel coming from again?? The only reason the players can do this is because the tankers and the KB have full fuel tanks and the endurance of the various vessels are absurd, whereas historically they did not have enough fuel to stay there for any length of time and their endurance was much less.

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/1/2006 12:53:37 AM)
quote: I guess anything/everything is an option. Could of, should of, is hindsight which everyone has. This is the reason we game. However, the raid on Hawaii did not, and that is history. Strange, I rememeber you discussing how there was not enough fuel to do this recently. Just where is the fuel coming from again?? The only reason the players can do this is because the tankers and the KB have full fuel tanks and the endurance of the various vessels are absurd, whereas historically they did not have enough fuel to stay there for any length of time and their endurance was much less. Correct you are. Adm Yamamoto's plan envisaged a great many more ships being involved - including tankers! And of course, he hoped to capture some oil on Oahu itself - Ohau had HALF as much oil as all of Japan did! But no, the original force needed more oil to hang out. I am unable to reduce oil in the tankers - they start the game FULL AFTER refueling Kiddo Butai. There is one missing too - should be eight. I am experimenting with forcing 4 to "disappear" until after the tanker force historically returns to Japan - thus using half the oil in the tanker force automatically. It means those tankers are not at risk - but that is a compromise. Opinion?

witpqs -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/1/2006 3:49:21 AM)
More realistic than currently.

akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/1/2006 8:47:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again I am unable to reduce oil in the tankers - they start the game FULL AFTER refueling Kiddo Butai. There is one missing too - should be eight. I am experimenting with forcing 4 to "disappear" until after the tanker force historically returns to Japan - thus using half the oil in the tanker force automatically. It means those tankers are not at risk - but that is a compromise. Opinion? Half tanker would do fine. The other half could enter as reinforcements at the time and place where historically the tankers returned to. You can, I think, reduce the fuel aboard the warships. You mentioned previously about modifying the endurance/cruise speeds. Generally, what form will/did this take? As you are well aware I argue an 18kt cruise for the Japanese and a 20kt cruise for the Allied and base the endurance accordingly. As one of many examples, the primary reason for lengthening the Gearing class by 14 feet, according to Friedman, was to install additional fuel bunkerage to enable her to steam at least 4500nm@20kts. This need for 20kt crusing speed was due primarily to the higher crusing speeds of the new capital ships (CV, BB, CB). Likewise for the Japanese, where Lacroix and Welles state that one requirement of the late prewar cruiser designs was endurance at 18kts. Yoshimura, in his book "Battleship Musashi" indicates in at least once on the endurance of the Yamato and Musahi being "8600nm at 19kts".

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/1/2006 12:03:52 PM)
quote: Half tanker would do fine. The other half could enter as reinforcements at the time and place where historically the tankers returned to. You can, I think, reduce the fuel aboard the warships. You mentioned previously about modifying the endurance/cruise speeds. Generally, what form will/did this take? I do not think you can modify the fuel on board a warship. If you can - tell me how? You understand what I am proposing - the tankers enter as reinforcements on the date they returned to port. That way they are in effect gone during the op. THe problem is the scenario begins with the Kiddo Butai far at sea. [I like to begin in port - and sailing all that way USES fuel!] I simply assign a ship its real fuel capacity (if fuel oil), and its real range, and its real cruising speed. I ignore the preference of the AI for 15 knots - it is 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, or whatever the ship actually used. Turns out this works just fine for manual games - my design intent. If you play AI - it will just make the crusing speed be 8 or 15 anyway. Not too horrible.

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/1/2006 12:07:20 PM)
quote: As you are well aware I argue an 18kt cruise for the Japanese and a 20kt cruise for the Allied and base the endurance accordingly. Why do that? Different ships are different. Many US ships are much slower than that - and we don't have good data for most at 20 knots. Many range figures for US ships are for TEN knots! In general, Japan NEVER did that - they deliberately went for faster cruising speed - and accepted less range as a consequence. A WWI era CL had a cruising speed of 14 for example - but our WWII era CA and CL had economical cruising speeds of 10 knots. They could cruise at 16 - but you cannot give them their "10,000 mile range" if they do. I give each ship the most logical rating available - often there is only one - and there is no uniformity of telling us all ships at 18 or 20 knots.

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/1/2006 12:09:44 PM)
quote: Yoshimura, in his book "Battleship Musashi" indicates in at least once on the endurance of the Yamato and Musahi being "8600nm at 19kts". What page? It is possible - Yamato was designed to go about 5600 miles at 24 knots - if you slowed to 19 knots you might get something over 8000 nm. But I don't remember that datum point - and I have the book - so what page?

Nikademus -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/1/2006 9:40:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again Utah is already added - and properly so since she was sunk at Pearl. NOT having her present HELPS the Japanese by causing them to have no chance to waste bombs and torpedoes. Centurion SHOULD be added since she really was in theater - and may have decieved the enemy - all you get is a chance anyway - no certainties. The Japanese player sometimes need that help because on average, even with Utah not present they are lucky to get two battleships permanently "sunk" in the game because a level 10 port with a shipyard makes it extremely hard to "sink" (i.e. remove from the game) any warship present, especially battleships. Utah's presence is therefore superfluous and can in fact be detrimental, absorbing far more weapons then she did. Just my opinion in the end. All are free to add whatever ships they want in their mods.

akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/2/2006 12:22:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: Yoshimura, in his book "Battleship Musashi" indicates in at least once on the endurance of the Yamato and Musahi being "8600nm at 19kts". What page? It is possible - Yamato was designed to go about 5600 miles at 24 knots - if you slowed to 19 knots you might get something over 8000 nm. But I don't remember that datum point - and I have the book - so what page? Page 136

akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/2/2006 12:44:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: As you are well aware I argue an 18kt cruise for the Japanese and a 20kt cruise for the Allied and base the endurance accordingly. Why do that? Different ships are different. Many US ships are much slower than that - and we don't have good data for most at 20 knots. Many range figures for US ships are for TEN knots! In general, Japan NEVER did that - they deliberately went for faster cruising speed - and accepted less range as a consequence. Friedman is a good source for 20kts for the US, use his ships data section in the annex. As an example, he lists the Salt Lake City as having a service endurance of 7020nm@15kts and 5000nm@20kts. The "design" was 10,000nm@15kts, not 10kts. Indeed according to Friedman ths was the "design" for all the US treatly CA's. In the US Battleship volumn Friedman even gives endurance values for the older BB with clean bottoms and with fouled bottoms. Japanese I use Jenschura, Jung, and Mickel for 18kts, as well as cross reference with Lacroix and Welles for the Japanese cruisers and other sources when I can find them. I can usually spot "designed" versus "in servcie" in the data. When the data is not available then use an average. I kind of got tired of "not enough data" so I looked at it statistically by calculating at the average between what data is avaiable at different speeds. I did not get the sigmas, but it would be realtively easy to get as there are sufficient data. However, you should know this and it is a perfectly viable way to get at the data that is not avaiable. Is it not abosolutly precise? No, but it gets the data into the infield at least and beeter than what we have now.

akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/2/2006 1:05:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: As you are well aware I argue an 18kt cruise for the Japanese and a 20kt cruise for the Allied and base the endurance accordingly. Why do that? Different ships are different. Many US ships are much slower than that - and we don't have good data for most at 20 knots. Many range figures for US ships are for TEN knots! In general, Japan NEVER did that - they deliberately went for faster cruising speed - and accepted less range as a consequence. A WWI era CL had a cruising speed of 14 for example - but our WWII era CA and CL had economical cruising speeds of 10 knots. They could cruise at 16 - but you cannot give them their "10,000 mile range" if they do. I give each ship the most logical rating available - often there is only one - and there is no uniformity of telling us all ships at 18 or 20 knots. This is not about "economical" ranges regardless what the game may state, but instead it is an attempt to bring realistic combat task force cruisng speeds into the game. A task force in the game will only move as fast as the slowest vessel. For convoys this is perfectly fine. For fast carrier task forces you move as fast as the Carrier, which WILL not be steaming at 10 kts. This is the standard that needs to be met in my opinion. As a example the USS Indiana took 14 days sailing time to reach Tongatabu from the Panama Canal, a distance of roughly 5900nm, thus she averaged 17kts. The difference between 20 and 17kts is due her having to to refuel her escorting DD's a couple of times. This can be accounted for in the game by loss of op points. Theorectically if she had cruised at an economical speed for her destroyers then they would probably not have had to have been refuled under their current in game 6000nm+ endurance. But this illustrates that the BB set the spped, not the DD's. It also illustrates that the endurance for DD's are lower in reality than in what the game gives us.

akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/2/2006 1:08:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: Half tanker would do fine. The other half could enter as reinforcements at the time and place where historically the tankers returned to. You can, I think, reduce the fuel aboard the warships. You mentioned previously about modifying the endurance/cruise speeds. Generally, what form will/did this take? I do not think you can modify the fuel on board a warship. If you can - tell me how? You understand what I am proposing - the tankers enter as reinforcements on the date they returned to port. That way they are in effect gone during the op. THe problem is the scenario begins with the Kiddo Butai far at sea. [I like to begin in port - and sailing all that way USES fuel!] I simply assign a ship its real fuel capacity (if fuel oil), and its real range, and its real cruising speed. I ignore the preference of the AI for 15 knots - it is 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, or whatever the ship actually used. Turns out this works just fine for manual games - my design intent. If you play AI - it will just make the crusing speed be 8 or 15 anyway. Not too horrible. The fuel field in the ship section. Try givng a ship less fuel than her class template.

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/2/2006 10:47:59 PM)
quote: When the data is not available then use an average. I kind of got tired of "not enough data" so I looked at it statistically by calculating at the average between what data is avaiable at different speeds. I did not get the sigmas, but it would be realtively easy to get as there are sufficient data. However, you should know this and it is a perfectly viable way to get at the data that is not avaiable. Is it not abosolutly precise? No, but it gets the data into the infield at least and beeter than what we have now. In general, the data IS available, although it is not always consistent! Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War is fantastic - and based on archives once held by the USA (sadly most US archival documents are being destroyed, those that are not are farmed out to contractors like Bectel - on the rationale there is no funding - which may be true sometimes - but in other cases it is a way to avoid embarassing ourselves or our allies - and in yet other cases analysts suspect other motives but cannot be certain which). It does appear the cruising speeds changed over time - that is Japan used 14 knots for WWI and 18 knots for WWII era vessels. Further, merchant ships generally cruise about 3 knots below top speed - which varies vastly (and usually is much higher than given in WITP - Japan had the fastest merchant fleet in the world - and the most modern - but you cannot tell by looking at our data!). I took the quick and easy way out - using the data as presented - not attempting to estimate it for some ohter case.

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/2/2006 10:50:58 PM)
quote: I do not think you can modify the fuel on board a warship. If you can - tell me how? You understand what I am proposing - the tankers enter as reinforcements on the date they returned to port. That way they are in effect gone during the op. THe problem is the scenario begins with the Kiddo Butai far at sea. [I like to begin in port - and sailing all that way USES fuel!] I simply assign a ship its real fuel capacity (if fuel oil), and its real range, and its real cruising speed. I ignore the preference of the AI for 15 knots - it is 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, or whatever the ship actually used. Turns out this works just fine for manual games - my design intent. If you play AI - it will just make the crusing speed be 8 or 15 anyway. Not too horrible. The fuel field in the ship section. Try givng a ship less fuel than her class template. OK - that kind of sort of works - at a huge penalty (you determine the penalty): THAT SHIP will FOREVER consume TOO LITTLE FUEL when it refuels! The way it works is that the code uses the individual ship field - not the class field - and you are deliberately allowed to make them different. The code acts as if you feel that particular ship needs less fuel - for the same range! [You installed diesels - or maype a nuclear engine?] I don't do that.

akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/3/2006 1:09:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again quote: I do not think you can modify the fuel on board a warship. If you can - tell me how? You understand what I am proposing - the tankers enter as reinforcements on the date they returned to port. That way they are in effect gone during the op. THe problem is the scenario begins with the Kiddo Butai far at sea. [I like to begin in port - and sailing all that way USES fuel!] I simply assign a ship its real fuel capacity (if fuel oil), and its real range, and its real cruising speed. I ignore the preference of the AI for 15 knots - it is 10, 12, 16, 18, 20, or whatever the ship actually used. Turns out this works just fine for manual games - my design intent. If you play AI - it will just make the crusing speed be 8 or 15 anyway. Not too horrible. The fuel field in the ship section. Try givng a ship less fuel than her class template. OK - that kind of sort of works - at a huge penalty (you determine the penalty): THAT SHIP will FOREVER consume TOO LITTLE FUEL when it refuels! The way it works is that the code uses the individual ship field - not the class field - and you are deliberately allowed to make them different. The code acts as if you feel that particular ship needs less fuel - for the same range! [You installed diesels - or maype a nuclear engine?] I don't do that. Hmm , right after I wrote this I tested it, which I should have done first. Interesting in that some very small foresight in the design and playtesting should have caught the fact that beginning at-sea tasks forces started with full fuel loads. It probably could have been a realtively easy fix since there has to be two fields involved currently. One field to store the total capacity and one to store the current capacity.

rtrapasso -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/3/2006 2:53:47 AM)
quote: Hmm , right after I wrote this I tested it, which I should have done first. Interesting in that some very small foresight in the design and playtesting should have caught the fact that beginning at-sea tasks forces started with full fuel loads. It probably could have been a realtively easy fix since there has to be two fields involved currently. One field to store the total capacity and one to store the current capacity. There should be some way to do this - after all, most of the subchasers that start in SF in the regular, non-modified game start with less than full fuel (usually the have 540 mile range rather than 1500 miles they get after refueling.) One of you mod mavens should be able to look at the numbers and find out how this is done - unless the game does something really strange with the code to get this result.

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/3/2006 8:12:51 AM)
quote: There should be some way to do this - after all, most of the subchasers that start in SF in the regular, non-modified game start with less than full fuel (usually the have 540 mile range rather than 1500 miles they get after refueling.) One of you mod mavens should be able to look at the numbers and find out how this is done - unless the game does something really strange with the code to get this result. I hope someone posts a way. Failing that, I have done two things: I rated tankers for deadweight rather than gross tons. Gross tons are useless for oil! Deadweight is the actual weight. A Japanese Large tanker is 15,000 deadweight (vice 17,000 as defined in WITP). I also assume that the tanker uses 20% of its fuel capacity for itself - that is there are 3000 more tons of fuel on board to give that same tanker its range - which is now much less than the 25,000 miles of WITP. It CAN go that far - around the world - but to do so it would have to eat some of its cargo! Since this is hardly normal in the theater, I give it the fuel it needs to go about half that far. The Japanese tanker force for Pearl Harbor was divided in fact into two units - logically numbered 1 and 2. I left unit 1 alone (it has a destroyer escort) - except I added a missing ship. I put unit 2 as a reinforcement appearing 14 days after the war begins (21 Dec 41). It took 12 days to go from Etorofu to the point North of Oahu - so I allow 14 days to return to Tokyo (Yokosuka actually). By not appearing at all these ships (there are four - one was missing in WITP) are in effect used to refuel the outbound trip of the Kiddo Butai. In general, I will try to base other TFs on ports, so fuel is not an issue. Looking for a better way - so ideas are welcome. I picked a small tanker with only 5000 tons deadweight (although some named ships in WITP defined as "small tanker" had three times that I have not tampered with that assignment) - and it also has a much reduced range. But the "whale ship tanker" I have renamed "super" - because it is representative of a group of classes with 31,000 tons deadweight. I will check this entire group to omit any ship with lower capacity (redefining it as "large" instead). The large and super classes have a max speed of 19 knots and a cruise speed of 16 knots - both historical. There should be a class of motor tankers - but I have not added it. It would suck names out of the other classes, not add new ships. By greatly reducing the capacity of small tankers and slightly reducing the capacity of large tankers - and cutting the ranges of all tankers - I hope to have helped solve the fuel problem being too efficient. I also often increased the fuel requreirements for ships - where this is known. The super tanker range was also reduced (from 37,500 or some such to 24,000 nautical miles).

Kereguelen -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/3/2006 2:57:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again The Japanese tanker force for Pearl Harbor was divided in fact into two units - logically numbered 1 and 2. I left unit 1 alone (it has a destroyer escort) - except I added a missing ship. I put unit 2 as a reinforcement appearing 14 days after the war begins (21 Dec 41). It took 12 days to go from Etorofu to the point North of Oahu - so I allow 14 days to return to Tokyo (Yokosuka actually). By not appearing at all these ships (there are four - one was missing in WITP) are in effect used to refuel the outbound trip of the Kiddo Butai. Hi, adding Japanese ships as reinforcements results in making them part of the ship building program - Japan will have to spend merchant yard points to "finish" them (not many points for 14 days delay, but still...). K

el cid again -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/3/2006 6:03:03 PM)
quote: Hi, adding Japanese ships as reinforcements results in making them part of the ship building program - Japan will have to spend merchant yard points to "finish" them (not many points for 14 days delay, but still...). K This is true. It also means they cannot be caught at sea and sunk by Adm Halsey (if he is clever). I don't like that either. But putting tankers at sea with full loads - and carriers at sea with full loads - half way across the ocean - seems completely bad logistically speaking. Combine that with grossly exaggerated ranges and reduced fuel loads and KB becomes able to cruise for a month - I went to San Francicso, and back to Hawaii - and then to Japan - and STILL had a third of my fuel ! Silly. FYI early in the war as a US player I hunt enemy tankers and merchants. They don't do well against even the worst carrier planes no matter how few I have. The pilots get experience and the enemy loses whatever was in cargo on the ships. It is not glamorous or fair - but fighting the Kiddo Butai with one or two carriers - each with 1/3 of a deckload - is not my idea of sane either. I am open to a better idea. What can we do to suck fuel out of these ships? Sid

Kereguelen -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/3/2006 6:26:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again I am open to a better idea. What can we do to suck fuel out of these ships? Sid Hi, simply reduce the cargo capacity of the tankers of the Kido Butai Replenishment TF at start and give them an upgrade with higher (historical) capacity (upgrade 12/41 or 01/42, whatever you want). Thus this replenishment TF will only supply limited fuel to KB, but the ships will have their true max capacity later after the upgrade. You'll only have to create one new class, and there should be enough class slots left to do this. K

akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/3/2006 10:15:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kereguelen quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again I am open to a better idea. What can we do to suck fuel out of these ships? Sid Hi, simply reduce the cargo capacity of the tankers of the Kido Butai Replenishment TF at start and give them an upgrade with higher (historical) capacity (upgrade 12/41 or 01/42, whatever you want). Thus this replenishment TF will only supply limited fuel to KB, but the ships will have their true max capacity later after the upgrade. You'll only have to create one new class, and there should be enough class slots left to do this. K I was going to mention that whatever the idea, it need to be universally applied. There is more at stake here than just the KB, as there are other taskforces at sea in the first turn.

akdreemer -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/4/2006 1:51:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: Hmm , right after I wrote this I tested it, which I should have done first. Interesting in that some very small foresight in the design and playtesting should have caught the fact that beginning at-sea tasks forces started with full fuel loads. It probably could have been a realtively easy fix since there has to be two fields involved currently. One field to store the total capacity and one to store the current capacity. There should be some way to do this - after all, most of the subchasers that start in SF in the regular, non-modified game start with less than full fuel (usually the have 540 mile range rather than 1500 miles they get after refueling.) One of you mod mavens should be able to look at the numbers and find out how this is done - unless the game does something really strange with the code to get this result. Looking at the database I cannot discern a difference in class and ship entries in respect to fuel capacity. Probably yet another one of those undocumented code things. I have noticed that PT boats also arrive with less than full fuel loads.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/4/2006 6:21:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: el cid again On Dec 8, 1941 (US time) IJN Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto decided the historical hit and run raid was a MISTAKE. That the Kiddo Butai should have STAYED in Hawaiian waters, hunting carriers and damaged ships fleeing to the US West Coast - and cutting the line of supply for Hawaii. Once the carriers had been neutralized, and certain land facilities as well (air bases, and open to air observation major coast guns at Fort Ruger - which could prevent landing on any coast), a follow up force should have landed three divisions on Oahu. The Battle of Midway was an attempt to correct this "mistake" - just being phase one. In this sense - that the Japanese fleet commander THOUGHT they SHOULD have stayed - and also that MANY US naval officers AT THE TIME thought they SHOULD have done - it IS a reasonable option that players do so. CID. Can you supply a source document for this statement? It seems rather odd that after months of planning and gaming Yamamoto would have suddenly had this "brainstorm" the day after the attack. And as the IJA wasn't offering 3 divisions for any Hawaiian advanture (look at what they were willing to make available for Midway with six months of victories behind them..., basically a regiment), the "landing" is just a pipedream. Reality was that while Kido Butai could have hung around a few days and beat up some additional targets, lack of fuel would have forced them home at that point. And with even fewer veteran pilots and planes. The second strike at PH had had much higher losses than the first as US AAA got up and running. Also remember that the Japanese had expected great things from their submarine forces around Oahu, and that Yamamoto and Nagumo both knew the Pearl was the base for a lot of US subs. Sticking around would give those subs a chance to even the score. Not even the US knew on December 7th how lousy their torpedoes were going to be. Players can make use of "hindsight" to do a lot of things the original participants never seriously considered. Would be more realistic if there were some unknown variables involved. How bold would the Japanese player be if there was a chance that US subs MIGHT come out and be as effective as German U-Boats from day one? It's always easier to look back and say should of, would have, could have than to peer into the unknown.

witpqs -> RE: Ex Battleships (4/4/2006 8:39:01 AM)
Mike, even the dismal performance of the US torpedoes was no guarantee - some of them did explode. If KB hangs around US subs just might score in spite of bad torps.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.091797