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

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



Message

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/9/2021 4:23:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

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.


Nonsense. With all due respect, but I believe your strong pro-Allied bias has left you blind on one eye. Über-Netties, Über-Zeros, overavailability of air-launched torpedoes, too much idle merchant shipping, insane Japanese R&D advancements, ridiculously high airframe production figures, the magic highway, China Blitzkrieg - just to name the most blatant examples - have all been complained about on the forum as being unhistorical or ahistorical - and justly so.

Fact is - both sides get their share of unhistorical capabilities, and both JFBs and AFBs have been complaining bitterly about the other side's advantages in the past - while often ignoring or belitteling the advantages given to their side.



Lowpe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/9/2021 4:53:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget


Fact is - both sides get their share of unhistorical capabilities, and both JFBs and AFBs have been complaining bitterly about the other side's advantages in the past - while often ignoring or belitteling the advantages given to their side.


About the only thing I complain about is some tough game mechanics that can be abused by either side....mass 1 ship task forces designed to eat op points for example.




HansBolter -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/9/2021 8:12:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

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.


Nonsense. With all due respect, but I believe your strong pro-Allied bias has left you blind on one eye. Über-Netties, Über-Zeros, overavailability of air-launched torpedoes, too much idle merchant shipping, insane Japanese R&D advancements, ridiculously high airframe production figures, the magic highway, China Blitzkrieg - just to name the most blatant examples - have all been complained about on the forum as being unhistorical or ahistorical - and justly so.

Fact is - both sides get their share of unhistorical capabilities, and both JFBs and AFBs have been complaining bitterly about the other side's advantages in the past - while often ignoring or belitteling the advantages given to their side.



So now it starts.

It's clear you misunderstood his comment.

Unlike you, I clearly understood it to mean the only complaints that are ever accepted as valid.
Your response proves his point.
Thank you for being gullible enough to take the bait.

Since the Japanese ahistorical abilities were auspiciously added to make the poor, weak, underpowered Japanese side viable to play as a side in a game, any and all complaints by AFBs get disregarded and excused away.
Followed by multiple references by JFBs that the Allies will always be powerful enough to overrun Japan in '44 so all of the early Japanese advantages are moot.
If only every game made it to '44 they might actually have a valid argument. Too bad they, and you don't.

Kindly keep your holier than thou indignation to yourself.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 6:24:04 AM)

I expected that at least one of the resident AFB ultras would come charging in - and as predicted, not a single word of recognition about the advantages given to the Allies, just one-sided hateful JFB bashing.

I'm not a native speaker, but in my English lessons I have learned that "Whenever" means "always, everytime, all the time, under any circumstances" - therefore I do not see any qualifier in Ian's sentence that could be interpreted as a restriction "to mean the only complaints that are ever accepted as valid".

But what do I know, as you made it clear, I'm just a dumb JFB and you have superior knowledge.

Kindly keep your arrogance to yourself.



Ian R -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 8:40:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ian R

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.


Nonsense. With all due respect, but I believe your strong pro-Allied bias has left you blind on one eye. Über-Netties, Über-Zeros, overavailability of air-launched torpedoes, too much idle merchant shipping, insane Japanese R&D advancements, ridiculously high airframe production figures, the magic highway, China Blitzkrieg - just to name the most blatant examples - have all been complained about on the forum as being unhistorical or ahistorical - and justly so.

Fact is - both sides get their share of unhistorical capabilities, and both JFBs and AFBs have been complaining bitterly about the other side's advantages in the past - while often ignoring or belitteling the advantages given to their side.


I'm happy to admit to being pro UN.

What can be annoying, is seeing complaints based on 'truisms' that 15 minutes of research on the internet would debunk.



RangerJoe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 11:26:20 AM)

Please be polite to each side.

Each side had "gifts" otherwise the game would not be as much fun nor as challenging.

Remember, as the IJ player, you get to force the Army and Navy to work together while also making best use of all available assets - even if the Japanese did not.

As the Allied player, you don't have to worry about the political ramifications of your moves. Think that China really had a unified government with one leader able to coordinate everything? [:-] How about more Americans in the SEAC theatre than in actuality?[:)]

Both sides can look at the database and see what the other side has and its capabilities. You get to see the upgrades plus the downgrades to each side and you can even forgo some of them if you want to. You can load the game and look at what the other side gets and when although the IJ player can manipulate the airplane production but at a cost, the same with weapons and vehicles. If the IJ player does not expend the supplies on research, he will still get the aircraft if he is still playing the game. The Allies should know the problems and bottlenecks of the IJ economy plus the problems with things such as the Mark 14 torpedo and play accordingly.



RangerJoe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 11:32:07 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

I expected that at least one of the resident AFB ultras would come charging in - and as predicted, not a single word of recognition about the advantages given to the Allies, just one-sided hateful JFB bashing.

I'm not a native speaker, but in my English lessons I have learned that "Whenever" means "always, everytime, all the time, under any circumstances" - therefore I do not see any qualifier in Ian's sentence that could be interpreted as a restriction "to mean the only complaints that are ever accepted as valid".

But what do I know, as you made it clear, I'm just a dumb JFB and you have superior knowledge.

Kindly keep your arrogance to yourself.


To me, I understand "Whenever" to mean "When/if it does happen" so it is more like a "If Then" in programming. It is not always but only at certain times.

Both of you have superior knowledge based upon your perspectives, so have a good bier and relax - it is only a game for enjoyment and not a simulation as work. [sm=00000436.gif]



Alpha77 -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 4:29:18 PM)

Cool so many posts in my thread... just wanna clarify:

I meant the 1st or 2nd assault/opposed landing at a build up enemy base w/ forts and many guns etc (like in my example Shortland is), not a 3rd or 4th wave bringing in supplies, replacements etc. Possibly by then most of the guns that can reach out, are already cleared by the troops landed in the first assault(s)-

I even would not have posted if it was a small base w/ eg. forts 2 and only 2-3 small inf. units without art and CD etc. Then it can be realistic ex luxury liners being used as not much resistance at the shore..



Yaab -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 4:48:37 PM)

But in the RL , the luxury liners would be great for cover-up. Imagine some Marines being loaded onto one, being told they go to Australia, to be billeted at Roy's Naumur hotel and they end up storming Roi-Namur instead.



Alpha77 -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 5:16:15 PM)

I above case more ex-Liberty cargo ships [;)] Anyone has data how many could and were converted in real war?

(X)

Btw. got a turn and add insult to injury my subs could not even hit the wounded ships that even hit by so many CD gun shells, still were unloading it seems in the night phase.

In daylight everyone was gone, I hope at least 3-4 of the xAPs went down (have only 1 listed as sunk [:(]) not that it would hurt the Allies much...

And 2 subs lost right away 2 more big damage [:@]

(X): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberty_ship

In the Wiki is a section about the converted ships were quite a lot ("about 225"!): "While most of the Liberties converted were intended to carry no more than 550 troops, thirty-three were converted to transport 1,600 on shorter voyages from mainland U.S. ports to Alaska, Hawaii and the Caribbean.[28]"



Sardaukar -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 6:40:58 PM)

How about we all just get along? [:-][8D]



RangerJoe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 9:56:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

How about we all just get along? [:-][8D]


I think that most of us will agree on somethings. [sm=00000436.gif]



[image]local://upfiles/52896/9E7297A8B0EF4E27ABF888A4B27D9F9F.jpg[/image]



BBfanboy -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 10:56:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

How about we all just get along? [:-][8D]


I think that most of us will agree on somethings. [sm=00000436.gif]



[image]local://upfiles/52896/9E7297A8B0EF4E27ABF888A4B27D9F9F.jpg[/image]

Beer? What beer?!

[image]local://upfiles/35791/0170028527DB460CB205F3552460A267.gif[/image]



RangerJoe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 11:18:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

How about we all just get along? [:-][8D]


I think that most of us will agree on somethings. [sm=00000436.gif]



[image]local://upfiles/52896/9E7297A8B0EF4E27ABF888A4B27D9F9F.jpg[/image]

Beer? What beer?!

[image]local://upfiles/35791/0170028527DB460CB205F3552460A267.gif[/image]



[image]local://upfiles/52896/B23D3253123A4AA6810E7324E3E6E64B.jpg[/image]



RangerJoe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/10/2021 11:21:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

How about we all just get along? [:-][8D]


I think that most of us will agree on somethings. [sm=00000436.gif]



[image]local://upfiles/52896/9E7297A8B0EF4E27ABF888A4B27D9F9F.jpg[/image]

Beer? What beer?!

[image]local://upfiles/35791/0170028527DB460CB205F3552460A267.gif[/image]



[image]local://upfiles/52896/B23D3253123A4AA6810E7324E3E6E64B.jpg[/image]


[sm=00000436.gif]

His favorite. RIP harry. [:(]

[image]local://upfiles/52896/96C5821C86D54C4E9C74630FAEF7D1A2.jpg[/image]



fcooke -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 12:30:22 AM)

Agree with the beer swilling young ladies. As to the cranky old guys - grab a beer......



fcooke -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 12:42:40 AM)

Speaking of beer I almost lost my Dad's boat once. We anchored off an island (there were no slips open), Georges Island for those of of you of Massachusetts background. We swim in and muck about for a couple of hours - go back to where we left the boat - no boat. She had pulled the anchor and floated over to the next island. So 18 YO walks up to the kind Coasties and asks for a lift. They say yes even though we must have all smelt like a brewery. They take us to the boat and the damn engine won't turn over. I start to get some questionable stares from the Coasties but the engine finally turned over. I have been lucky in life. I don't think I was technically drunk but I was 18 in a 21 YO drinking age state.



fcooke -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 12:53:41 AM)

Speaking of beer stories....some of you may have seen that I Spent a semester abroad 'a few years ago'. Our flight back to the Northeast could not make it direct so we stopped in Vancouver to fuel up. Only about an hour so we did not deplane. Of course it was Delta so we had to go to Atlanta. On the way to Boston I decide to order my first 'legal' beer. Lovely middle aged woman across the aisle decides to open the overhead above me. Her luggage ends up in my beer and lap. No apologies, no offer to replace my now worn beer, but I will always remember that first sip.



RangerJoe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 1:12:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Speaking of beer stories....some of you may have seen that I Spent a semester abroad 'a few years ago'. Our flight back to the Northeast could not make it direct so we stopped in Vancouver to fuel up. Only about an hour so we did not deplane. Of course it was Delta so we had to go to Atlanta. On the way to Boston I decide to order my first 'legal' beer. Lovely middle aged woman across the aisle decides to open the overhead above me. Her luggage ends up in my beer and lap. No apologies, no offer to replace my now worn beer, but I will always remember that first sip.


So she wet your pants. [;)]



fcooke -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 2:22:28 AM)

indeed - not the way I was hoping for.










HATE autocorrect



rustysi -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 5:23:00 AM)

quote:

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.


I know that, but in a perfect game they'd be refueled from supply stocks not fuel. Now how difficult that would be to code, I've no idea. My guess is that it would not be too easy or it would have been done.



Alpha77 -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 10:30:59 AM)

Can ppl stop posting huge pics in "my" thread, if at least they were on topic.

Also what I noted (I mean in general on this or other forums) if you quote someone you do not need to quote a big picture with your quote [:@]

Also I do not know why people when a specific issue is brought up - then rather post that the other side is way over rated (in their mind) so "all is fine with this issue"??
That has nothing to do with each other. Also it goes both ways the Japanese must be able to do such landing with "X" ships too in simmilar speed I guess (?)

I have not even an issue with X being used for landings as said above I meant more the speed so much AV gets ashore and dissapointing resistance / very low losses for attacker

However it is possible the devs took real life losses of "bigger" landings ships into account, I believe those were quite low in WW2. Mostly the smaller "boats" that approached the beach got hit, the bigger ships not so much. I mean obviously losses at landing direcly not on the way in or out the operations area.
So might be somewhat historical I guess [:)]


@Lowpe:
Seems even the IJ picks this up once in while, indeed there were 2 messages in sigint for Tulagi. You said xAP are slower? I do not see this, xAP seem quite fast. Not the ones converted from Liberty ships but most others.



Ian R -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 12:06:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

How about we all just get along? [:-][8D]


I think that most of us will agree on somethings. [sm=00000436.gif]



[image]local://upfiles/52896/9E7297A8B0EF4E27ABF888A4B27D9F9F.jpg[/image]

Beer? What beer?!

[image]local://upfiles/35791/0170028527DB460CB205F3552460A267.gif[/image]



[image]local://upfiles/52896/B23D3253123A4AA6810E7324E3E6E64B.jpg[/image]


[sm=00000436.gif]

His favorite. RIP harry. [:(]

[image]local://upfiles/52896/96C5821C86D54C4E9C74630FAEF7D1A2.jpg[/image]


Yes, RIP. A sad early loss.



BBfanboy -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 2:50:18 PM)

A77, I am not sure if you know this so I will mention that non-coastal/fortress artillery does not fire at ships at all (DP guns are considered coastal artillery) but they do fire at landing boats and troops crossing the beach. This is abstracted into the landing losses, along with losses from lack of prep, weather and random hazards (like hidden reefs/rocks).

Also bear in mind that an island has multiple sides and big guns set up in the wrong place cannot easily be moved to fire on the actual direction of attack. Most amphib landings took into account the location of such defences and used alternate beaches if any were available. Hence the algorithm for big coastal guns firing at ships may have some die rolls for whether they can bear on the target ships. Just conjecture on my part, but it would probably have been thought of by the brilliant people who designed this game. [:)]



RangerJoe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 3:07:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

A77, I am not sure if you know this so I will mention that non-coastal/fortress artillery does not fire at ships at all (DP guns are considered coastal artillery) but they do fire at landing boats and troops crossing the beach. This is abstracted into the landing losses, along with losses from lack of prep, weather and random hazards (like hidden reefs/rocks).

Also bear in mind that an island has multiple sides and big guns set up in the wrong place cannot easily be moved to fire on the actual direction of attack. Most amphib landings took into account the location of such defences and used alternate beaches if any were available. Hence the algorithm for big coastal guns firing at ships may have some die rolls for whether they can bear on the target ships. Just conjecture on my part, but it would probably have been thought of by the brilliant people who designed this game. [:)]


I have had 40mm AAA fire at, hit, and even get credited with kill on Japanese invasion TFs. But I think that after the landing boats/barges are coming in, that those guns fire at those more dangerous targets.



BBfanboy -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 3:09:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

A77, I am not sure if you know this so I will mention that non-coastal/fortress artillery does not fire at ships at all (DP guns are considered coastal artillery) but they do fire at landing boats and troops crossing the beach. This is abstracted into the landing losses, along with losses from lack of prep, weather and random hazards (like hidden reefs/rocks).

Also bear in mind that an island has multiple sides and big guns set up in the wrong place cannot easily be moved to fire on the actual direction of attack. Most amphib landings took into account the location of such defences and used alternate beaches if any were available. Hence the algorithm for big coastal guns firing at ships may have some die rolls for whether they can bear on the target ships. Just conjecture on my part, but it would probably have been thought of by the brilliant people who designed this game. [:)]


I have had 40mm AAA fire at, hit, and even get credited with kill on Japanese invasion TFs. But I think that after the landing boats/barges are coming in, that those guns fire at those more dangerous targets.

I haven't seen that myself RJ, but then I don't watch animations of artillery fire.



RangerJoe -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 4:28:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy


quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe


quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

A77, I am not sure if you know this so I will mention that non-coastal/fortress artillery does not fire at ships at all (DP guns are considered coastal artillery) but they do fire at landing boats and troops crossing the beach. This is abstracted into the landing losses, along with losses from lack of prep, weather and random hazards (like hidden reefs/rocks).

Also bear in mind that an island has multiple sides and big guns set up in the wrong place cannot easily be moved to fire on the actual direction of attack. Most amphib landings took into account the location of such defences and used alternate beaches if any were available. Hence the algorithm for big coastal guns firing at ships may have some die rolls for whether they can bear on the target ships. Just conjecture on my part, but it would probably have been thought of by the brilliant people who designed this game. [:)]


I have had 40mm AAA fire at, hit, and even get credited with kill on Japanese invasion TFs. But I think that after the landing boats/barges are coming in, that those guns fire at those more dangerous targets.

I haven't seen that myself RJ, but then I don't watch animations of artillery fire.


I opened up my game and looked, no such ship kills registered in my current game. They must have been killed on the way to the beaches. I wonder why . . . [8|]

On the other hand, can you tell me what ship is credited with sinking the Mutsu from this list?



[image]local://upfiles/52896/821DD2DF0E0A44E9AF3939DD7F8B097B.jpg[/image]



BBfanboy -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 4:39:19 PM)

BC Repulse, BB Warspite or Valiant, or any of the R class British BBs.



Ian R -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 4:47:10 PM)

On 21-12-41? Most probably the Repulse.



fcooke -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/11/2021 4:53:07 PM)

Yep - USN never had 15 " as far as I recall.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.265625