Pearl Harbor's Red Hill

Pearl Harbor's Red Hill (Full Version)

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

Message

norsemanjs -> Pearl Harbor's Red Hill (7/8/2003 9:46:51 AM)
Red Hill was a top secret fuel depot built into a hill near Pearl Harbor. It was under construction at the beginning of the war. It quickly became a top priority project and over 3300 men worked around the clock to finish the project. The first tank was finished about 9 months after the attack on Pearl Harbor. There are 20 tanks of 12 million gallons each. These tanks are still in use today, being used for fuel for the Pacific Fleet. Some tanks are currently (4) used to handle Jet fuel. I thought this might be of interest. The facility was listed as a historical engineering landmark (or something like that) a few years ago.

madflava13 -> (7/8/2003 10:41:40 AM)
Someone's been watching the travel channel... hehe. I saw that too and thought it was pretty cool. You beat me to the forums though... ;-)

Chiteng -> (7/8/2003 11:21:14 AM)
So it took 9 months to build..... Considering that it WONT take anything like 9 months to build a port from scratch and duplicate Pearl Harbor in the game...... What then does that say about the games realism? Just curious. OR does Pearl Harbor get some enhanced utility that no other port gets?

madflava13 -> (7/9/2003 12:28:28 AM)
I think the port size is more of a reflection of docks, cranes, etc. Those items don't take nearly as long to complete as the Red Hill tanks. They were bored out of solid rock, often by hand. So for me, I don't have a problem with port build times - I think of it more as adding docks, dredging, etc. Red Hill was an extreme engineering project that isn't normally found in even a huge harbor. Just my $.02 though...

byron13 -> (7/9/2003 12:31:50 AM)
What is your point, Chiteng? I know nothing about Red Hill (don't watch the Travel Channel), but I'm guessing it's not modeled in the game. Due to its apparently unique nature (historic engineering feat having been dug inside a mountain, etc.), I don't see where anything else modeled in the game is comparable. Given favorable natural conditions and sufficient commitment of resources, I think nine months is a reasonable time to build sufficient facilities to enable a port to have Pearl Harbor-scaled capabilities - other than Red Hill, which isn't modeled anyway. I'm just waiting for someone to request that, after January 1, 1943, x amount of fuel points at Pearl should be impervious to reduction by bombing.

Chiteng -> (7/9/2003 2:38:22 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13 [B]What is your point, Chiteng? I know nothing about Red Hill (don't watch the Travel Channel), but I'm guessing it's not modeled in the game. Due to its apparently unique nature (historic engineering feat having been dug inside a mountain, etc.), I don't see where anything else modeled in the game is comparable. Given favorable natural conditions and sufficient commitment of resources, I think nine months is a reasonable time to build sufficient facilities to enable a port to have Pearl Harbor-scaled capabilities - other than Red Hill, which isn't modeled anyway. I'm just waiting for someone to request that, after January 1, 1943, x amount of fuel points at Pearl should be impervious to reduction by bombing. [/B][/QUOTE] The point obviously is I question some aspects of the games realism

TIMJOT -> (7/9/2003 3:39:01 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]So it took 9 months to build..... Considering that it WONT take anything like 9 months to build a port from scratch and duplicate Pearl Harbor in the game...... What then does that say about the games realism? Just curious. OR does Pearl Harbor get some enhanced utility that no other port gets? [/B][/QUOTE] Chiteng Now, how do you know this? Pearl Harbor is only represented abstractly in UV. If you are talking about a level 9 port doesnt take 9 months, then ok, but for all we know Pearl is a level 50 port. Aren't you an alpha tester? What size is PH in WitP? How long does it take in the current alpha to build a port from nothing to max. IMO, Japan, US, and PH should have enhanced utility, like quicker repair, load and unload times than any other ports regardless of size.

madflava13 -> (7/9/2003 4:01:06 AM)
TIMJOT- I'd possibly add Takao to that list. I know that at least at some points during the war there were several dry docks there so repair work would obviously be more effective... I couldn't tell you if those facilities were there from the get-go however.

Snigbert -> (7/9/2003 5:23:23 AM)
[B]Aren't you an alpha tester? What size is PH in WitP? How long does it take in the current alpha to build a port from nothing to max.[/B] The building time depends on a number of factors such as engineers, supply, etc. I haven't tested how long it would take to build a port from scratch to full size, it would be difficult because I'm not sure there are any undeveloped natural harbors that have the potential to be raised to that high of a level. Also, keep in mind PH has things like merchant and naval shipyards, manpower, etc which aren't represented in a base rating of 1-10 and cannot be built in game. Therefore Chiteng's comparison isn't accurate, and he also isn't a tester. If he were a tester he wouldn't be posting criticisms of that nature knowing that the game is still in Alpha phase and so many things are eligible to be changed.

TIMJOT -> (7/9/2003 6:50:54 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13 [B]TIMJOT- I'd possibly add Takao to that list. I know that at least at some points during the war there were several dry docks there so repair work would obviously be more effective... I couldn't tell you if those facilities were there from the get-go however. [/B][/QUOTE] Madflava, Yes, I agree Takao should also be considered. I am sure there are a few others as well. Singapore comes to mind. If the Brits could have supplied and maned it properly it would have made a first rate base.

TIMJOT -> (7/9/2003 6:59:10 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert [B][B]Aren't you an alpha tester? What size is PH in WitP? How long does it take in the current alpha to build a port from nothing to max.[/B] The building time depends on a number of factors such as engineers, supply, etc. I haven't tested how long it would take to build a port from scratch to full size, it would be difficult because I'm not sure there are any undeveloped natural harbors that have the potential to be raised to that high of a level. Also, keep in mind PH has things like merchant and naval shipyards, manpower, etc which aren't represented in a base rating of 1-10 and cannot be built in game. Therefore Chiteng's comparison isn't accurate, and he also isn't a tester. If he were a tester he wouldn't be posting criticisms of that nature knowing that the game is still in Alpha phase and so many things are eligible to be changed. [/B][/QUOTE] Snigbert Sorry my bad, I guess I got Chiteng confused with someone else. Thanks for setting me straight. Its sounds like the baseing issues are being addressed. Thanks for the insite. Regards

Chiteng -> (7/9/2003 7:39:18 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert [B][B]Aren't you an alpha tester? What size is PH in WitP? How long does it take in the current alpha to build a port from nothing to max.[/B] The building time depends on a number of factors such as engineers, supply, etc. I haven't tested how long it would take to build a port from scratch to full size, it would be difficult because I'm not sure there are any undeveloped natural harbors that have the potential to be raised to that high of a level. Also, keep in mind PH has things like merchant and naval shipyards, manpower, etc which aren't represented in a base rating of 1-10 and cannot be built in game. Therefore Chiteng's comparison isn't accurate, and he also isn't a tester. If he were a tester he wouldn't be posting criticisms of that nature knowing that the game is still in Alpha phase and so many things are eligible to be changed. [/B][/QUOTE] Yes I would. To me the MOST important aspect is its realism.

madflava13 -> (7/9/2003 8:17:20 AM)
I say let's save our freak-outs until it's Beta time and we're nearer to the release date. If we're close and a PT boat sinks the Yamato after repairing in a port that was just built to level 9 in 6 hours while millions of B-29s fly clear across the Pacific to bomb Tokyo from San Francisco, then let's scream bloody murder. Until then, I say wait and see before critcizing... The testers shouldn't have to keep reminding everyone what stage we're in, ok? And there's also that ultimate power we have as consumers to not buy the game if we're not satisfied...

pasternakski -> (7/9/2003 8:20:11 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]Yes I would. To me the MOST important aspect is its realism. [/B][/QUOTE] The most important aspect to me is employee loyalty and understanding of your role. I doubt that a self-important horse's @$$ like you would last long in my organization.

Heeward -> 12 Million Gallons vs Port Size (7/9/2003 9:05:27 AM)
I don't see what one has to do with the other. Currently there is no limit / waste mechanism for warehousing / POL storage in the game. Port size only effects repair and loading / unloading rates. Not storage of material or the number of ships that may load / unload or refuel at a time.

Chiteng -> (7/9/2003 9:13:01 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski [B]The most important aspect to me is employee loyalty and understanding of your role. I doubt that a self-important horse's @$$ like you would last long in my organization. [/B][/QUOTE] And why would I want to belong to any organization controlled by you? What possible purpose would be served?

Chiteng -> (7/9/2003 9:14:38 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13 [B]I say let's save our freak-outs until it's Beta time and we're nearer to the release date. If we're close and a PT boat sinks the Yamato after repairing in a port that was just built to level 9 in 6 hours while millions of B-29s fly clear across the Pacific to bomb Tokyo from San Francisco, then let's scream bloody murder. Until then, I say wait and see before critcizing... The testers shouldn't have to keep reminding everyone what stage we're in, ok? And there's also that ultimate power we have as consumers to not buy the game if we're not satisfied... [/B][/QUOTE] I will just offer the experience of UV to highlight why I dont wait. Do you see any chance that Matrix will modify the UV engine in the future? And that is a finished product.

madflava13 -> (7/9/2003 10:21:31 AM)
It's been said repeatedly that WiTP is the main focus right now. Once it's out, another patch for UV will be forthcoming. I would suggest to anyone such as yourself with nothing but negative comments that instead of complaining all the time about how unworkable these titles are, why not either wait and see what the final project is or else just stop being a customer. I for one am very tired of reading your bitching months before you have a clue what the game will be like...

Chiteng -> (7/9/2003 10:24:51 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13 [B]It's been said repeatedly that WiTP is the main focus right now. Once it's out, another patch for UV will be forthcoming. I would suggest to anyone such as yourself with nothing but negative comments that instead of complaining all the time about how unworkable these titles are, why not either wait and see what the final project is or else just stop being a customer. I for one am very tired of reading your bitching months before you have a clue what the game will be like... [/B][/QUOTE] How unfortunate for you =) Ignore exists, I suggest you use it then. I dont allow other people to define my actions.

Chiteng -> (7/9/2003 10:26:36 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13 [B]It's been said repeatedly that WiTP is the main focus right now. Once it's out, another patch for UV will be forthcoming. I would suggest to anyone such as yourself with nothing but negative comments that instead of complaining all the time about how unworkable these titles are, why not either wait and see what the final project is or else just stop being a customer. I for one am very tired of reading your bitching months before you have a clue what the game will be like... [/B][/QUOTE] I dont care in WITP is the main focus. If it is merely a port of UV then ALL the things I dont like in UV, are just as germane in WitP. So far I have heard NOTHING to indicate that it is anything other than a simple port.

madflava13 -> (7/9/2003 11:48:20 AM)
Don't buy it then and the rest of us who love UV can... If your one purchase is so important to Matrix then I'll buy two to make up for it and give it to a friend...

Chiteng -> (7/9/2003 11:53:55 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13 [B]Don't buy it then and the rest of us who love UV can... If your one purchase is so important to Matrix then I'll buy two to make up for it and give it to a friend... [/B][/QUOTE] Like I said, ignore exists. The forum exists to allow people to express opinions about Matrix products. I intend to do just that. You will not dissuade me.

Mike Scholl -> ANTOHER, BUT RELATED TOPIC. (7/9/2003 10:47:42 PM)
Red Hill is a pretty unique structure, qand probably outside the basic nuts and bolts of the game design. But it does bring up the subject of "protecting supplies/fuel" at bases from the other sides efforts. With 60 mile hexes, there are around 3000 Sq miles in each. A lot of area, even if in many cases it's mostly ocean. A lot of room to disperse, camoflage, dig-in, and other- wise protect supply, fuel, ammo, and the like. I've always thought two things were far too easy in UV. One was search/reccon, which for the number of aircraft "invested" gives extrordinary "returns". The other is destruction of supply by various types of bombardment. While it's true that if it's all stacked up on the beach being loaded/unloaded it's a pretty tempting target. But once landed and "put away" it seems to me it should be much less vulnerable. The Japanese lost a lot of islands in the Pacific to assault---but aside from locations like Guadalcanal where they had to build up under attack, I can't remember them running out of supply or ammunition before they ran out of soldiers to expend it. In UV it seems as if a heavy and continuous bombardment is able to blow away the supply before the Allies land. Has anyone else noticed this? It seems to me to be a problem 2by3 needs to look at. What about in WITP? Playtesters?

Snigbert -> (7/10/2003 12:24:15 AM)
[B]So far I have heard NOTHING to indicate that it is anything other than a simple port.[/B] If you admit that your insights into WitP engine are not based on any information you have received, perhaps it would be more tactful to ask questions to seek clarification rather than to accuse the game of shortcomings you don't know exist. [B]In UV it seems as if a heavy and continuous bombardment is able to blow away the supply before the Allies land. Has anyone else noticed this? It seems to me to be a problem 2by3 needs to look at. What about in WITP? Playtesters?[/B] I think the issue is being addressed, I seem to recall seeing a post in the development forum regarding base size vs damage inflicted by bombardment. If it isn't there I will bring it up.

Chiteng -> (7/10/2003 12:33:32 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert [B][B]So far I have heard NOTHING to indicate that it is anything other than a simple port.[/B] If you admit that your insights into WitP engine are not based on any information you have received, perhaps it would be more tactful to ask questions to seek clarification rather than to accuse the game of shortcomings you don't know exist. [B]In UV it seems as if a heavy and continuous bombardment is able to blow away the supply before the Allies land. Has anyone else noticed this? It seems to me to be a problem 2by3 needs to look at. What about in WITP? Playtesters?[/B] I think the issue is being addressed, I seem to recall seeing a post in the development forum regarding base size vs damage inflicted by bombardment. If it isn't there I will bring it up. [/B][/QUOTE] My original post was phrased as a question. The question itself was ignored in the eagerness to attack me =) It still has not been answered. By all means Sniggy go back and read it. I was tactfull , but when attacked w/o provocation I do respond. That is my nature =)

Nikademus -> (7/10/2003 12:43:57 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snigbert [ I think the issue is being addressed, I seem to recall seeing a post in the development forum regarding base size vs damage inflicted by bombardment. If it isn't there I will bring it up. [/B][/QUOTE] Guilty ;) Right now Ground casualties are being looked at Mike, even though again, (always again :) ) as we are in Alpha stage the primary goal at the moment is to get a working game with all the components, existing and added, running. As such i believe when the time comes we may also see a reexamination of the effects of air and shore bombardment in relation to fort level and base size. As always, no gurantees on any changes/mods but essentially its "on the list" for discussion.

Mr.Frag -> (7/10/2003 1:45:59 AM)
I would like to see the survivability of AA guns looked into since you are checking this stuff. AA guns go to 100% disabled in 6 days of attacks...seems a little silly.

TIMJOT -> (7/10/2003 1:47:45 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chiteng [B]So it took 9 months to build..... 1) "Considering that it WONT take anything like 9 months to build a port from scratch and duplicate Pearl Harbor in the game......" 2) "What then does that say about the games realism?" Just curious. 3) "OR does Pearl Harbor get some enhanced utility that" no other port gets? [/B][/QUOTE] Actually Chiteng, as you can see in your original post above, That the first part is written as a (negative) statement of fact. Even though it is just your opinion and is not based on any insite of WitP. The second part is a question, but it assumes that the first part is a statement of fact, which it is not. The third part is a legitimate question if it was not preceded by the previous "provocative" statement and if you did not imply as fact that no other port would have said utility. Something we do not know at this point. I do not think anyone denies there is room for improvement in UV, but it has been stated many times that WitP would incorporate improvements on UV that then would be backfitted to UV after WitP is released. So why all the negativity, for all we know WitP will make it possible to have many "Tassfronga's", have B-17s that cant hit anything on water and bases that take forever to build. PS Please do not take this as a personal attack, as it is not meant to be. I agree with some of your positions, just not all the negativity that you tend to couch them with. Regards

Snigbert -> (7/10/2003 2:06:29 AM)
[B]The question itself was ignored in the eagerness to attack me =) It still has not been answered. By all means Sniggy go back and read it.[/B] You're right, they were fair enough questions although in a somewhat negative bias. My responses below. If it seemed like I was eager to attack you I apologize, my only interest was in preventing the engine of WitP from being falsely besmirched and I may have over reacted. Which doesn't mean I have a problem with legitimate criticisms, I just want to make sure they are legitimate before I post anything on the development forum. [B]1) "Considering that it WONT take anything like 9 months to build a port from scratch and duplicate Pearl Harbor in the game......"[/B] It will not be possible to build a port like Pearl Harbor from scratch during the duration of the game. [B]2) "What then does that say about the games realism?"[/B] I think it is realistic, it would take quite some time to build up the kind of naval/air/manufacturing etc present at Pearl Harbor. I'm not sure...maybe if the US had committed a huge amount of resources to building a base similar to Pearl Harbor somewhere else in the Pacific which had the untapped potential to be such a large deep water port, friendly population availability, and all of the other benefits PH has, it could have been done within a few years. However, it will not be possible in game terms. [B]3) "OR does Pearl Harbor get some enhanced utility that no other port gets?"[/B] Pearl Harbor does have enhanced utilities, however they are not unique to Pearl Harbor (except for the specified levels present at Pearl Harbor.) As mentioned above, these are things like Merchant and Naval Shipyards, Heavy Industry Manufacturing, Manpower, etc. Other locations will have these types of facilities, mostly in Japan, US West Coast, Australia, Pacific Rim, and such. These types of facilities can be bombed and repaired, but I dont think they can be built from scratch at new locations. Therefore, a location like Lunga can be turned into a large airfield and port, but would never be equivalent to Pearl Harbor.

Raverdave -> Re: ANTOHER, BUT RELATED TOPIC. (7/10/2003 7:20:20 AM)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl [B]The Japanese lost a lot of islands in the Pacific to assault---but aside from locations like Guadalcanal where they had to build up under attack, I can't remember them running out of supply or ammunition before they ran out of soldiers to expend it. [/B][/QUOTE] Rabal is one case where the Japanese were almost starved to death, this was due to a combination of lack of shipping to supply them ( mainly due to US subs successes in unrestricted warfare), and if and when ships did arrive they were caught in one of the air raids. Ammunition was also as a result another thing that was short in supply and for the same reasons as food. Rabal stands out as a large example, simply because I have read a lot of info about it, but the same was also true for much smaller Islands/bases. Starving men can't fight. Also the in the Aleutians the Japanses were hampered by the lack of supply, once again to the point where it is questionable whether they even [I]could[/I] fight.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.125