RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships

RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

witpqs -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/7/2021 12:47:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SuluSea quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers. Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them. Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves. Very good post! I self limit that way not out of a quest for realism but rather as a further counter on the games optimistic performance in that area.

mind_messing -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/7/2021 1:15:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers. Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them. Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves. Liquid transport is a completely different kettle of fish entirely. See comment #13 from Symon - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3742111

HansBolter -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/7/2021 1:19:47 PM)
Read that thread long ago and simply have never agreed with Symon. Players placing self limits to reduce the incredibly non-historical pace of the game is a completely different ball of wax than imposing House Rules that potential opponents are forced to agree to in order to get a competitive game. I don't play competition games so its no skin off my ass either way, just standing up for what I believe is right.

mind_messing -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/7/2021 1:30:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Read that thread long ago and simply have never agreed with Symon. Players placing self limits to reduce the incredibly non-historical pace of the game is a completely different ball of wax than imposing House Rules that potential opponents are forced to agree to in order to get a competitive game. I don't play competition games so its no skin off my ass either way, just standing up for what I believe is right. I was referring to the section on what supply represents in game, versus what fuel represents. You could no doubt refuel a battleship from 200 gallon drums, but it would take a lot of people a very long time.

HansBolter -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/7/2021 2:31:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Read that thread long ago and simply have never agreed with Symon. Players placing self limits to reduce the incredibly non-historical pace of the game is a completely different ball of wax than imposing House Rules that potential opponents are forced to agree to in order to get a competitive game. I don't play competition games so its no skin off my ass either way, just standing up for what I believe is right. I was referring to the section on what supply represents in game, versus what fuel represents. You could no doubt refuel a battleship from 200 gallon drums, but it would take a lot of people a very long time. Sorry, thought you were referring to his advocacy for limiting fuel transport to tankers. Yes, it would take a considerable time. Just like it would to unload thousands upon thousands of barrels at a minimal port facility.

mind_messing -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/7/2021 3:15:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Read that thread long ago and simply have never agreed with Symon. Players placing self limits to reduce the incredibly non-historical pace of the game is a completely different ball of wax than imposing House Rules that potential opponents are forced to agree to in order to get a competitive game. I don't play competition games so its no skin off my ass either way, just standing up for what I believe is right. I was referring to the section on what supply represents in game, versus what fuel represents. You could no doubt refuel a battleship from 200 gallon drums, but it would take a lot of people a very long time. Sorry, thought you were referring to his advocacy for limiting fuel transport to tankers. Yes, it would take a considerable time. Just like it would to unload thousands upon thousands of barrels at a minimal port facility. I take his point. The game is quite clear about what fuel does - it's for ships and industry. Everything else is abstracted in supplies, including fuel for tanks, trucks and aircraft. Some design decisions need to be balanced against other considerations.

castor troy -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/7/2021 6:47:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers. Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them. Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves. Sorry Hans, but then you don't get the difference between fuel, oil and supply in the game and I think you actually do though. Fuel is used to fuel BB Yamato and not a Zero. The "fuel" for a Zero is coming from a barrel (supply in the game), the fuel for Yamato is surely not coming from a barrel and no nation ever fueled real ships from barrels. You can fuel a PT boat from barrels but you can't fuel a tanker, freighter, transport, cruiser or battleships from barrels, no matter how much your nation has produced of this or that. I'm not advocating for this hr in the game because I think it just won't work but it's the same with the xAP/xAK, they weren't used for amphib operations because they DIDN'T work for that kind of operation. And I'm not thinking about D-day +5, when people are talking about amphib operations they always think about the first wave in the game.

castor troy -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/7/2021 6:53:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Read that thread long ago and simply have never agreed with Symon. Players placing self limits to reduce the incredibly non-historical pace of the game is a completely different ball of wax than imposing House Rules that potential opponents are forced to agree to in order to get a competitive game. I don't play competition games so its no skin off my ass either way, just standing up for what I believe is right. So if you don't agree with Symon you say you believe it's right to refuel an Iowa class BB from barrels? That's not an Iowa and I took the first pic on the net but why didn't they just lob a couple of dozen barrels from xAKs over to the BB? You really think it would just take a considerable time to refuel a BB from barrels?[&:] [image]local://upfiles/13774/E941506959DC4515B93E5A7FF622FB5A.jpg[/image]

rustysi -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 12:40:49 AM)
quote: You can fuel a PT boat from barrels Technically they use supply not fuel.

rustysi -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 12:43:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mind_messing quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers. Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them. Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves. Liquid transport is a completely different kettle of fish entirely. See comment #13 from Symon - https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3742111 I too read that thread back in the day, and I do agree with Symon.

HansBolter -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 11:00:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers. Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them. Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves. Sorry Hans, but then you don't get the difference between fuel, oil and supply in the game and I think you actually do though. Fuel is used to fuel BB Yamato and not a Zero. The "fuel" for a Zero is coming from a barrel (supply in the game), the fuel for Yamato is surely not coming from a barrel and no nation ever fueled real ships from barrels. You can fuel a PT boat from barrels but you can't fuel a tanker, freighter, transport, cruiser or battleships from barrels, no matter how much your nation has produced of this or that. I'm not advocating for this hr in the game because I think it just won't work but it's the same with the xAP/xAK, they weren't used for amphib operations because they DIDN'T work for that kind of operation. And I'm not thinking about D-day +5, when people are talking about amphib operations they always think about the first wave in the game. So are you really trying to tell me that every last size 1 port is equipped with massive fuel storage facilities wherein fuel can be pumped directly from tankers into them? How was the fuel used for shipping stored at minimal port facilities? Even if it arrived in a tanker it had to be transferred and stored somewhere. You may be the people who see amphibious operations as "only the first wave", buy I have been a wargamer long enough to know that any 'rules lawyer' out there is gonna immediately see the impact of an HR that limits 'amphibious landings' to military transports as affecting the second and third waves as well. Some of us people see amphibious operations in a more holistic manner. I can see that it was foolish of me to expect a mature discourse. The petty and childish references to me being stupid enough to think that a BB can be refueled from barrels is uncalled for. Try growing up. The fuel being carried in the barrels in the holds of non-tankers is delivered to port facilities, not transferred to other ships. It was a childish and petulant attempt to make me look stupid that only accomplished the reverse.

mind_messing -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 11:45:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rustysi quote: You can fuel a PT boat from barrels Technically they use supply not fuel. They are created from supply, but use fuel in their operations like any other ship. quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: HansBolter Limiting amphib operations to dedicated military shipping is about as dumb as limiting all fuel transport to tankers. Time and time again I hear these so called rational arguments for limiting fuel shipping to tankers because no nation could have built enough fuel barrels to make it possible. They could and did. A nation capable of manufacturing hundreds of ships, thousands of airplanes, thousands of tanks and hundreds of thousands of trucks is just as capable of manufacturing millions of fuel barrels. They did. Try googling WWII Fuel Barrels and see how many pictures you can find of stacks of thousands upon thousands of them. Non-military ships were used in amphib operations. Why should the game seek to not model history? No side, even the Americans, will ever have enough military transports to be able to accommodate the the second and third waves bringing support units. The game provides sufficient incentives to players to prioritize the use of military transports for first wave landings. There will always be a need to use non-military transports for follow up waves. Sorry Hans, but then you don't get the difference between fuel, oil and supply in the game and I think you actually do though. Fuel is used to fuel BB Yamato and not a Zero. The "fuel" for a Zero is coming from a barrel (supply in the game), the fuel for Yamato is surely not coming from a barrel and no nation ever fueled real ships from barrels. You can fuel a PT boat from barrels but you can't fuel a tanker, freighter, transport, cruiser or battleships from barrels, no matter how much your nation has produced of this or that. I'm not advocating for this hr in the game because I think it just won't work but it's the same with the xAP/xAK, they weren't used for amphib operations because they DIDN'T work for that kind of operation. And I'm not thinking about D-day +5, when people are talking about amphib operations they always think about the first wave in the game. So are you really trying to tell me that every last size 1 port is equipped with massive fuel storage facilities wherein fuel can be pumped directly from tankers into them? How was the fuel used for shipping stored at minimal port facilities? Even if it arrived in a tanker it had to be transferred and stored somewhere. Worth pointing out that the storage limits for fuel at small bases is exceptionally low, and until the base is sufficiently developed fuel spoilage will be a massive issue. quote: You may be the people who see amphibious operations as "only the first wave", buy I have been a wargamer long enough to know that any 'rules lawyer' out there is gonna immediately see the impact of an HR that limits 'amphibious landings' to military transports as affecting the second and third waves as well. Some of us people see amphibious operations in a more holistic manner. There's a bit of scope for nuance there - I've interpreted Symon's comments to be in terms of "opposed" amphibious landings, in other words where the enemy still control the hex. Letter of the law vs spirit of the law. quote: I can see that it was foolish of me to expect a mature discourse. The petty and childish references to me being stupid enough to think that a BB can be refueled from barrels is uncalled for. Try growing up. The fuel being carried in the barrels in the holds of non-tankers is delivered to port facilities, not transferred to other ships. It was a childish and petulant attempt to make me look stupid that only accomplished the reverse. The point still stands, however. There's a massive inefficiency in liquid transport if you cant make direct transfers. Transferring the contents of oil drums into port storage facilities would be as lengthy and challenging a process as refuelling a BB from them (though with less waves, one could say...)

BBfanboy -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 12:41:52 PM)
I always considered the presence of YO (yard oilers) in the later game to be be mobile tank farms to be used at small bases. Larger tankers could fill up the YO or the YO could go to a nearby larger port to top up. Disbanding a tanker in a small port is the most likely way to provide bunker type fuel to ships. And I suppose some of them could have carried 'petrol' and diesel for smaller vessels that use engines that use those fuels. I had to refuel a truck using the man-operated pump installed in the bung of a fuel drum. My arm was pretty tired after that small amount! [:D]

Moltrey -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 5:22:43 PM)
I am going to side with Hans on this one. Looking at a few pertinent facts: 1) The USN was chronically short of support ships, tankers and oilers especially for much of the Pacific War. 2) The USN still had to load, transport and stockpile all said liquids (in reality, AvGas, Diesel, Gasoline, Lubricants, Solvents, etc. in addition to the main ones) 3) USN tankers and oilers had some split liquid compartments to accommodate a couple of high-use fuels, Bunker C (ship fuel) and AvGas I believe was the standard. I am going to consult Beans, Bullets and Black Oil to confirm this and other aspects. 4) The Devs of WITP:AE built in the capability for cargo ships to transport liquids at a reduced rate of efficiency to portray the use of ubiquitous 55 gallon drums. If one thinks about the above at face value, personally I find it very hard to believe the Dev team intended anything other than a full use of this game mechanic to simulate movement of strategic liquids in the war theatre. Yes, players can argue about how the decision to divide these into fuel for ships and "supply" for lessor or smaller volume liquids like Diesel, etc. throw things into a mess, but you must end up at a solution such that the game engine can handle the overall supply mechanic w/o bogging down game turn resolution to a crawl. As mentioned, I am going to go back through BB&BO to find some quotes that have come to mind while reading this thread. Update to follow.

Lowpe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 5:39:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 Well in the end I am to blame for it: I thought I would have more time to react before a lot of AV gets shore. knowing the Allies in this game lost "some" APs (I mean the navy ones not civilian ones) and do not get the APA/AKA ships in masses mid 43 already. It looks to me a solid Allied fleet composition...which of course you only see a very small part of. It definitely is a science to figure out how to unload in one turn. Kudos to your opponent. There are Japanese counters to this type of invasion... I am curious if you noticed any sigintel hits at sea prior to the invasion. Normally such a large concentration of shipping and troops rings a bell every day. A big drawback to not having fast AP style ships, is that x series ships normally travel much slower. Big difference in 8 hexes a day versus 6 and you generally avoid flank speed...so no surprise refueling.

BBfanboy -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 6:25:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lowpe quote: ORIGINAL: Alpha77 Well in the end I am to blame for it: I thought I would have more time to react before a lot of AV gets shore. knowing the Allies in this game lost "some" APs (I mean the navy ones not civilian ones) and do not get the APA/AKA ships in masses mid 43 already. It looks to me a solid Allied fleet composition...which of course you only see a very small part of. It definitely is a science to figure out how to unload in one turn. Kudos to your opponent. There are Japanese counters to this type of invasion... I am curious if you noticed any sigintel hits at sea prior to the invasion. Normally such a large concentration of shipping and troops rings a bell every day. A big drawback to not having fast AP style ships, is that x series ships normally travel much slower. Big difference in 8 hexes a day versus 6 and you generally avoid flank speed...so no surprise refueling. There are quite a few APs that convert to APAs within the month of March 1943, and while they are converting others appear at various shipyards including EC USA. I figure there must be about 30 APAs by April, and a couple of LSI(M)s as well. The LST were also building up in numbers by then, so figure 30-40 LSTs, and about 15 LCIs. It all adds up pretty fast. June 1943 is another month for conversions of the earlier APs to APAs, and for the early AKs to AKAs. In April I also got my first LSD (the ship, not the poison). Loss of half a dozen amphib specialty ships is not going to hurt the Allies that much.

mind_messing -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 7:40:31 PM)
quote: Yes, players can argue about how the decision to divide these into fuel for ships and "supply" for lessor or smaller volume liquids like Diesel, etc. throw things into a mess, but you must end up at a solution such that the game engine can handle the overall supply mechanic w/o bogging down game turn resolution to a crawl. There's no argument to be had. There is oil, which is used to make fuel (and a little supply). There's fuel, which is used to make heavy industry points (and a little supply) and is used for the movement of ships. For everything else, there's supply. quote: As mentioned, I am going to go back through BB&BO to find some quotes that have come to mind while reading this thread. Update to follow. Of particular interest to this discussion is hauling bunker fuel in said oil drums. I'll warrant this didn't happen often (if at all).

fcooke -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 7:55:33 PM)
It would be nice if people could calm down a bit....I will go off on a tangent. I wasn't sure if the assault ships were real APAs or not (seems they were) but then noticed their numbering was not always in line with when they came into service, as in APA xx was in service well before APA xx-2 or whatever. Then many were renumbered later. Anyone know the background to this? Also the APAs had much larger crews than I would have expected - circa 650 sailors - anyone know why? Was this just be able to handle troops/cargo quickly in an assault? It certainly wouldn't take that many to run a 10,000 ton vessel day to day. Curious, Frank

RangerJoe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 8:02:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fcooke It would be nice if people could calm down a bit....I will go off on a tangent. I wasn't sure if the assault ships were real APAs or not (seems they were) but then noticed their numbering was not always in line with when they came into service, as in APA xx was in service well before APA xx-2 or whatever. Then many were renumbered later. Anyone know the background to this? Also the APAs had much larger crews than I would have expected - circa 650 sailors - anyone know why? Was this just be able to handle troops/cargo quickly in an assault? It certainly wouldn't take that many to run a 10,000 ton vessel day to day. Curious, Frank Naval crews could/would not do anything unless they were ordered to and then they had to be supervised. Merchant marine sailors knew their job, did not necessarily have to be told what to do plus they probably already knew how to do it and they did not need the supervision. As far as them coming into the game, some were redeployments from other theatres, others were built in the theatre but already had a hull number. The ships were not necessarily finished in sequencial order - that is, accepted into service.

fcooke -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 8:28:25 PM)
Thanks RJ - I meant to say the ships I was looking at were the Guadalcanal ships. None came from other theaters, some were new builds, others were conversions. President Jackson was APA 18. For giggles I looked up APA 1, which was APA Doyen - commissioned May of 43! And only launched Jul 42, and 'acquired' Apr 43. So I feel there is some odd 'story' here that one of our members can shed light on. Crew - must have been dedicated coffee to the captain guy and all kinds of other specialists. Heck the Edmund Fitzgerald 13500+ tons had a crew of 29....

BBfanboy -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 8:57:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fcooke It would be nice if people could calm down a bit....I will go off on a tangent. I wasn't sure if the assault ships were real APAs or not (seems they were) but then noticed their numbering was not always in line with when they came into service, as in APA xx was in service well before APA xx-2 or whatever. Then many were renumbered later. Anyone know the background to this? Also the APAs had much larger crews than I would have expected - circa 650 sailors - anyone know why? Was this just be able to handle troops/cargo quickly in an assault? It certainly wouldn't take that many to run a 10,000 ton vessel day to day. Curious, Frank APAs had both sides of the ship lined with landing craft on davits, perhaps even stacked three high. For the assault those landing craft would be craned onto the water and the crew of two or three would get aboard and wait for scrambling nets to be deployed so the troops could climb down. That would account for some of the extra crew. Others would be cooks, medical staff, perhaps a canteen staff - whatever is needed to look after a large number of troops on a long voyage.

RangerJoe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 10:05:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fcooke Thanks RJ - I meant to say the ships I was looking at were the Guadalcanal ships. None came from other theaters, some were new builds, others were conversions. President Jackson was APA 18. For giggles I looked up APA 1, which was APA Doyen - commissioned May of 43! And only launched Jul 42, and 'acquired' Apr 43. So I feel there is some odd 'story' here that one of our members can shed light on. Crew - must have been dedicated coffee to the captain guy and all kinds of other specialists. Heck the Edmund Fitzgerald 13500+ tons had a crew of 29.... The Edmund Fitz was a specialty built cargo vessel for loading just a few specific types of cargo such as taconite pellets which were 66-67% iron, it probably could have also hauled coal and other such bulk cargoes. The APA crew, especially for an invasion would have to have enough crew to support the invasion marines plus the other navy personnel attached to those Naval infantry or the soldiers. This would not only include the kitchen staff but also the medical personnel. Just think, for a cruise ship, there may be 1 crew member for 3 cruise passengers!

SuluSea -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/8/2021 11:26:55 PM)
No skin in the game at all, it isn't like the AI is going to complain about my style but I find it strange with all the ahistoric military candy (and that's what makes the game great) Japan has ability to manufacture or create there's issue with moving fuel or allied amphib landings?

fcooke -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/9/2021 12:00:42 AM)
Cruise ship - I like that analogy. But happy I never had to take that cruise, and thankful others were willing to[&o] I did a semester abroad in my junior year of college. Basically a floating campus that sailed around the world. Our ship was a converted transport from the Korean War days. She ALWAYS listed 2-3% to port, I asked the captain about it and he said they were never able to figure it out! And the crew ratio was close to 1 to 1 crew to passenger. But we were pampered students, not amphibious assault troops, but makes sense, I had thought about getting the troops 'over the rail' but not about taking care of them in transit. Now we just need someone to solve the riddle of the numbering convention. The college program still exists today, albeit with a nicer ex-cruise ship - Semester at Sea. If anyone has college age family or friends I would encourage you to have them take a look. Really opens ones eyes when you see all the different cultures and poverty levels around the world. On our trip we started in the Bahamas, then hit Spain, the former Yugoslavia as it was close to breaking up, Turkey, USSR, Egypt, India, Malaysia, Taiwan, mainland China, Japan, and HK. The ship was due for overhaul (every 5 years), so we flew back to the US (Cathay Pacific was awesome). The night before the flight we got trashed at a bar called Ned Kellys (Oz folk should get that). We all realized how good we had it in the US and sang our lungs out the entire night. Many many stories from that trip but I am already fairly off topic. Edited for I hate auto correct

Sardaukar -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/9/2021 5:06:17 AM)
I am fine with shipping fuel with xAKs. It is horrendously ineffective especially in DaBabes but may do in a pinch. USN and allies are very short on tankers and oilers until 1943. As opposed landings with xAP/xAK...good luck. They unload slowly and may suffer badly. Japan is bit different case with xAK-t ships.

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/9/2021 8:19:50 AM)
AFAIK the common ship fuel is heavy fuel oil, stuff that is highly viscous at room temperature and which needs to be preheated to above 150� F before it becomes liquid enough to be pumped. I imagine shipping this stuff in drums would require an awful lot of specialised equipement, manpower and time in order to be able to empty drummed heavy oil into portside storage tanks. For this reason I have been advocating against the shipping fuel in xAKs for a long time. However, "fuel" in the game can be heavy fuel oil - but also diesel, gasoline and coal. Subs and certain DE/E/PC/landing ships & crafts used diesel egines, other landing craft and PTs used gasoline, a few Allied and half the Japanese merchant fleet still used coal at the time, and heavy industries also used heavy fuel, diesel, gasoline and coal. So I'm more lenient now about shipping fuel in xAKs, esp. for the Japanese side with their huge number of coal-burning merchies. Depending on your POV, it is (un)fortunate that the games does not use more granularity - just having to handle resources/supplies and oil/fuel keeps the game managable, or oversimplifies things too much. Maybe one day we will see a game like AE but with oil, fuel, coal, iron ore, bauxit, copper, phosphate, food, munitions etc. to handle...

Ian R -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/9/2021 12:30:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Maybe one day we will see a game like AE but with oil, fuel, coal, iron ore, bauxit, copper, phosphate, food, munitions etc. to handle... You left out specific supply sites for tungsten, cobalt, nickel, molybdenum, and other alloy materials that the IJ lacked (almost completely in most cases), and, the absence of which, contributed significantly to the unreliability of their aircraft engines. Francillon makes the observation that if the Japanese aircraft industry had managed to fulfill the 1943/44 orders, they would have run out of aluminum sheeting in about September 1944. Hence the designers were trying to produce all steel (!), or wooden designs ... to fly against Bearcats, Skyraiders and Sea Furies in 1946. Whenever there is a complaint that something or some capability is "unhistorical" or "ahistorical" around here, it only ever seems to be about the United Nations side. Edit: Jet engines also need those alloys - hence the low lifespan of the Jumo's on the Me-262 - although you can run them on kero-lamp fuel, which would at least alleviate a different, and insoluable problem the IJ had - low octane avgas.

fcooke -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/9/2021 12:45:01 PM)
About 20 years ago when I first heard about Moly, I should have invested.....[:'(]

Ian R -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/9/2021 1:11:36 PM)
Well, there's Moly, and then there is Moly [;)] Edit: hasn't the really profitable version got a double 'l'?

fcooke -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/9/2021 2:17:49 PM)
I had a dog named Molly once - great investment. Miss her.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.296875