quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It might be interesting generally though: not very different, TO&E would be 14 men - and theoretically some LTJG or so would be in charge but almost never present (as he has six other jobs). There would not have to be a chief - but if not a PO1 would be in charge - and there would be at least three PO2 - one for each team - of which there could be 3. Naval organization is task oriented - so it might act as one, two or three teams - and in my day the leader was not in any of the teams - but there would be a radioman with him - also not in any of the teams - because the radios were quite heavy - Korean era tube type radios with extra batteries - each of which weighed more than an entire radio today. If more men were required, they would be attached, either grunts from the boat division (on an APA this is about 80 strong, the biggest division on the ship) - or specialists from whatever division (say a signalman, a hospital corpsman, a gunners mate if you had to be armed and worry about supporting weapons - which ordinary sailors didn't do - the gunner's mate took care of weapons - or any other specialist of interest to the particular day's work).

Thank you. That's very informative.

quote:

Something thats missing from this, not that I disagree mind you, is that your not taking into acount just how much time was lost arguing over how do it by all those who knew just what was neaded to be done...., something not unique to our culture either

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again
It might be interesting generally though: not very different, TO&E would be 14 men - and theoretically some LTJG or so would be in charge but almost never present (as he has six other jobs). There would not have to be a chief - but if not a PO1 would be in charge - and there would be at least three PO2 - one for each team - of which there could be 3. Naval organization is task oriented - so it might act as one, two or three teams - and in my day the leader was not in any of the teams - but there would be a radioman with him - also not in any of the teams - because the radios were quite heavy - Korean era tube type radios with extra batteries - each of which weighed more than an entire radio today. If more men were required, they would be attached, either grunts from the boat division (on an APA this is about 80 strong, the biggest division on the ship) - or specialists from whatever division (say a signalman, a hospital corpsman, a gunners mate if you had to be armed and worry about supporting weapons - which ordinary sailors didn't do - the gunner's mate took care of weapons - or any other specialist of interest to the particular day's work).

Thank you. That's very informative.

Is it? Where?

quote:

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

Do not know of this has been asked....
Will the Japanese Torpedoes be modified in any way?. The Long Lance was upgraded with a heavier Warhead later in the war at the expense of range (removed an Oxygen Tank)
Thanks....

quote:

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

Thanks T....you might also want to look at the Type 95 Submarine Torps....they were also modified from Model 1 (893 lb. warhead) to Model 2 (1210 lb. warhead)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

Thanks T....you might also want to look at the Type 95 Submarine Torps....they were also modified from Model 1 (893 lb. warhead) to Model 2 (1210 lb. warhead)

Yup... That's more my area of expertise, what with me being responsible for the IJN submarine OOB...

quote:

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

Thanks for the reply....here is some info on the subject....
The model 3 had a 1715 lb. warhead vs. 1080 that's in the model 1...

http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/gvt_reports/USNAVY/USNTMJ%20Reports/USNTMJ-200D-0022-0469%20Report%200-01-1.pdf

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Not sure why such information would be needed in a game of this scale but Cid's description of a Ship's Landing Party/Prize Crew meshes very well with my recollections of the Watch Quarter and Station Bills on the CGC Bibb (a DD sized ship). I still have a pretty good memory of those things since I was charged as Operations Officer to amend it to account for the decrease in crew size (308 officers/men in WW2 to 125 in 1977) when that cutter began regular boardings to enforce the Fisheries Zone and interdict drugs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Has any consideration been given to limiting somehow the number of AKs that can unload supply over a beach (as for an invasion)? As it is, an infinite number of AKs can all unload simultaneously.

Actually - this seems confused. OVER A BEACH the number SHOULD BE unlimited! It is in a port - at the much more efficient port loading rates - that restrictions are needed - both for number of ships - and also for size of ship. [My first ship - AKA-249 USS Francis Marion - was the last APA the US ever built. She carried 22 landing craft - and could land almost anywhere cargo as large as an M-60 tank - beach or not. So long as "anywhere" means "some suitable site near the objective" and not literally every meter of coast. If you have more ships, you do two things: spread out over more "beach" - wether or not it is actual beach; phase the landing craft: no reason you cannot have wave upon wave of them coming ashore from ships anchored out.]

Now theoretically a beach might be too small to permit an infinite number of ships to land. Normally - you just pick additional beaches. But some places there are no beaches at all - and what there are are very limited. Since we have no way to rate beaches - or even say "no landings here" (the entire west coast of Kerguelin Island - well actually most of the island except in the east - has NO suitable landing points - and we are talking over a thousand square mile island here - a wierd one I happen to know in detail). As a general rule, our hexes are so large there is a landing point. The only reason to limit landings might be for very tiny atols/islets.

• even if you have no intention to complete a particular ship, that ship will always cost you for at least one day's construction before you can turn it off
  
• you must either visit the ship availability track every day or else keep a detailed list of when ships start burning points in order to minimize wastage of shipbuilding points
  

quote:

Would it be possible to see an increase in the chance of lightly armoured weapons/devices to be disabled by strafing attacks? (Basically having the decks swept clean - see the picture below). This probably already happens but with only one or two points of damage inflicted by small caliber weapons, it doesn't seem to occur often enough to have any real effect (as far as I can see).

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norm3

Any chance you want to elaborate on that? A horrific image of exploding fleet carriers, that have just made port with some damage after a major clash with the other side, has ruined my meal and beer.

Well - Mutsu did blow up sitting in port - and it was a relatively regular feature of captial ships of all nations in all eras. It was a minority issue - but it does happen. I like it.

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again


quote:

ORIGINAL: Norm3

Any chance you want to elaborate on that? A horrific image of exploding fleet carriers, that have just made port with some damage after a major clash with the other side, has ruined my meal and beer.


Well - Mutsu did blow up sitting in port - and it was a relatively regular feature of captial ships of all nations in all eras. It was a minority issue - but it does happen. I like it.


In 1942, the German replenishment oiler "Uckermark" (formerly known as "Altmark" - of the "Cossack" incident) blew up in Yokohama Harbor, also destroying the raider/AMC "Michel".

I'd love to have those ships in AE, especially the "Uckermark" - an AO capable of 21-22 kts would be a fine thing to have. Also, there was a German submarine base in Soerabaya that had some auxiliaries IIRC, as well as a handful of Arado 196 floatplanes.

quote:

I’m curious how the two AK fleets stack up against one another in AE. How many AK’s does each side have and what are their total lift capacities in tons?

I think the larger capacity allied AK’s should be respawnable with a 4-6 month respawn rate if possible. In CHS the allies have 2,009 AK’s according to VSWG’s count with a total lift capacity of 8,000,000+ tons.

Given that the allies will probably lose close to half of that in an average game that sees lots of KB raids going on, that’s not a very large lift capacity for the end of the war, were transit times can see AK’s at sea for 2-3 months one way.

The US could have easily made up for heavy losses if needed, just because it wasn’t needed historically, doesn’t mean it won’t be needed in some games. I’m not saying all allied AK’s should be respawnable, just enough to assure that the allies can maintain a decent lift capacity for 1944 onwards so the game doesn’t grind to a halt if Japan sank too many AK’s in a successful first two years.

Jim

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

I’m curious how the two AK fleets stack up against one another in AE. How many AK’s does each side have and what are their total lift capacities in tons?

I think the larger capacity allied AK’s should be respawnable with a 4-6 month respawn rate if possible. In CHS the allies have 2,009 AK’s according to VSWG’s count with a total lift capacity of 8,000,000+ tons.

Given that the allies will probably lose close to half of that in an average game that sees lots of KB raids going on, that’s not a very large lift capacity for the end of the war, were transit times can see AK’s at sea for 2-3 months one way.

The US could have easily made up for heavy losses if needed, just because it wasn’t needed historically, doesn’t mean it won’t be needed in some games. I’m not saying all allied AK’s should be respawnable, just enough to assure that the allies can maintain a decent lift capacity for 1944 onwards so the game doesn’t grind to a halt if Japan sank too many AK’s in a successful first two years.

Jim

Something seems a little bit upside-down and inside-out with respect to history when the Japanese Player from the get-go has the lift for amphibious invasions of Karachi and/or Hawaii in addition to the PI?DEI while still meeting all his resource/oil requirements for full production but the Allies have a potential shortfall (especially after the U-boats were well and truly beaten in 1944-45 the Atlantic). The perponderance of historical evidence indicates the Japanese were short on total lift (for their historical plan of conquests) from day 1 and it got worse from there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

I’m curious how the two AK fleets stack up against one another in AE. How many AK’s does each side have and what are their total lift capacities in tons?

I think the larger capacity allied AK’s should be respawnable with a 4-6 month respawn rate if possible. In CHS the allies have 2,009 AK’s according to VSWG’s count with a total lift capacity of 8,000,000+ tons.

Given that the allies will probably lose close to half of that in an average game that sees lots of KB raids going on, that’s not a very large lift capacity for the end of the war, were transit times can see AK’s at sea for 2-3 months one way.

The US could have easily made up for heavy losses if needed, just because it wasn’t needed historically, doesn’t mean it won’t be needed in some games. I’m not saying all allied AK’s should be respawnable, just enough to assure that the allies can maintain a decent lift capacity for 1944 onwards so the game doesn’t grind to a halt if Japan sank too many AK’s in a successful first two years.

Jim

Something seems a little bit upside-down and inside-out with respect to history when the Japanese Player from the get-go has the lift for amphibious invasions of Karachi and/or Hawaii in addition to the PI?DEI while still meeting all his resource/oil requirements for full production but the Allies have a potential shortfall (especially after the U-boats were well and truly beaten in 1944-45 the Atlantic). The perponderance of historical evidence indicates the Japanese were short on total lift (for their historical plan of conquests) from day 1 and it got worse from there.

Spence, I'm very curious to see how the changes being incorporated into AE will actually address the concerns you have mentioned. These have been huge issues since Alpha.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I appreciate your efforts to make the game more historical.

I think that the problems you find relating to loading the Japanese battalion, are in part a result of loading data derived from US Army/Marine Corps/Navy records that may have come to you. There seems to have been an initial assumption that the Japanese way of doing things was in all respects similar enough to the US way that there was only a need to write a single program which would deal with both sides (not being a programmer at all I don't have a real good idea how difficult it would be to program the differences but I guess it would be complicated in any case). With regards to loading and landing though; the Japanese were not loading to make an assault landing on a hostile defended beach and thus the requirements to have certain items available in a certain order which contributed to US loading tables were not applicable (along with a generally higher level of equipment/supply for the Allies).

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I appreciate your efforts to make the game more historical.

I think that the problems you find relating to loading the Japanese battalion, are in part a result of loading data derived from US Army/Marine Corps/Navy records that may have come to you. There seems to have been an initial assumption that the Japanese way of doing things was in all respects similar enough to the US way that there was only a need to write a single program which would deal with both sides (not being a programmer at all I don't have a real good idea how difficult it would be to program the differences but I guess it would be complicated in any case). With regards to loading and landing though; the Japanese were not loading to make an assault landing on a hostile defended beach and thus the requirements to have certain items available in a certain order which contributed to US loading tables were not applicable (along with a generally higher level of equipment/supply for the Allies).

While we do have the shipping data in TM-E 30-480 (1 Oct 44) ... that wasn't what I was thinking of when I posted. I was actually thinking of specific data, one case in point being the activities of the 2nd Bn, 143rd IR, 55 ID. This unit was loaded aboard the Johoro Maru and landed at Prachuap Khiri Khan on 8 Dec 1941 (also known as 7 Dec 1941 for those who date the start of the war in conjunction with events to the east of the IDL).

Trying making a Bn landing force (1/3 of a regiment) and loading it aboard this ship in stock. I did and it took an extra four ships, before I could load the whole battalion. That's what I was thinking of when I made my post.

In stock there is only one type of troop loading. In AE there are two ... call them "combat" and "long haul" if you like ... in AE we call them "amphibious" and "transport". One is more efficient in terms of space utilization, the other is more efficient at retarding troop disruption due to landing on a hostile shore. Don and JWE can comment further, but there are also differences in efficiency for Japanese troop loading vis-a-vis Allied.