|
castor troy -> RE: "Blitzkrieg landings" with not commissioned ships (6/12/2021 10:03:00 AM)
|
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.
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.
Lol, then just keep thinking that SHIPS were refulled by stuff that came in barrels. Perhaps I'm reading it wrong but in your world fuel for ships came in barrels on xAKs, was then transferred to the docks from where the ships were then refuelled?
Your quote literally made me laugh, especially the childish and grown up stuff. Guess the AI will come along very well with your rules, to each his own but saying Symon's proposal would be off is a good laugh.
I said I think it doesn't work well in the game but it would be most likely one of the most realistic hrs for the game. To each is own, for all others there is the none complaining AI after all. And as the majority is playing the AI anyways all is fine as it never complains about any rules.
|
|
|
|
