RE: Change Update (Full Version)

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



Message

bgibs -> RE: Change Update (10/13/2004 12:33:59 AM)

US LST's have a 40mm x 3 mount that does not have any ammo. It seems to be just the tutorial though.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Change Update (10/13/2004 3:46:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bgibs

US LST's have a 40mm x 3 mount that does not have any ammo. It seems to be just the tutorial though.


Pry fixed all but tutorial.



asdicus -> RE: OOB Comments (10/15/2004 5:32:22 PM)

Radar arrives too early on Oi,Kitakami in scenario 15.

I have a keen interest in japanese ww2 naval technology and thought the following info might be useful for historical accuracy.

The earliest introduction of shipbourne radar in the japanese navy was the battleships Ise and Hyuga just before the battle of midway. I have referred to 2 excellent sources for the following info, japanese radar of world war 2 by nakagawa and japanese cruisers of the pacific war by lacroix and wells.

From nakagawa Ise received a prototype airsearch set and Hyuga a prototype surface set in time for midway.The type 13 airsearch radar(also called Type 3 mark1 model3) used by Oi and Kitakami in 1941 in scenario 15 only started development in mid 1943 and was being fitted by early 1944 not 1941 !

From lacroix and wells there is a detailed table of when radar was first fitted to the light cruisers see page 372. The earliest date for the type 21 airsearch radar was december 1942 for the Izuzu. The type 13 radar was a supplement to the type 21 because it was more reliable and the equipment was lighter.

I suspect that the info used by matrix on the type 13 came from the star-games.com japanese radar website - I can find no evidence to support the claim that the type 13 was fitted as a prototype in 1941 and I also note that no references are given on that website.

It is important in game terms that the japanese do not have the earlywar ability to detect airstrikes via radar otherwise the possibility of surprise battles like midway becomes very remote.



juliet7bravo -> RE: OOB Comments (10/15/2004 7:23:39 PM)

20-28 May 1942:
A Type 22 surface search radar is installed (HYUGA). HYUGA tests the set in detecting the ISE in the Inland Sea, but it is deemed unsatisfactory by Captain Matsuda and is removed.

25 May 1942:
The ISE is also fitted with one of the first experimental model Type 21 air surface search radar sets in the IJN. She conducts tests in detecting the HYUGA successfully in the Iyo Nada.

17 June 1942:
The ISE and the HYUGA use their radars to check their respective locations while returning to Yokosuka.

19 January 1943:
(IZUZU) Yokohama. Enters drydock and begins refit, battle-damage repairs and modifications. A Type 21 air-search radar is installed.

1 May 1944:
(IZUZU) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Yokohama. The ISUZU begins conversion to an anti-aircraft cruiser. Type 13 air-search, Type 21 air-search and Type 22 surface-search radars are fitted or modified.

14 August 1944:
(KITAKAMI) Arrives at Sasebo. Begins repairs and modification as a "kaiten" (human-torpedo) carrier with a capacity of eight kaitens. Two Type 13 air-search and a Type 22 surface-search radars are fitted.

Most of the Combined Fleet TROM's show when the ships received radar sets. No record of Oi ever getting radar (other than Star Games) before being sunk, none of the pics or ship models (usually very accurate) show antennas. Unless someone has an actual pic or a ref to beat Lacroix and Wells...he's right.



SpitfireIX -> RE: OOB Comments (10/16/2004 8:07:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Radar arrives too early on Oi,Kitakami in scenario 15.

I have a keen interest in japanese ww2 naval technology and thought the following info might be useful for historical accuracy.

The earliest introduction of shipbourne radar in the japanese navy was the battleships Ise and Hyuga just before the battle of midway. I have referred to 2 excellent sources for the following info, japanese radar of world war 2 by nakagawa and japanese cruisers of the pacific war by lacroix and wells.

From nakagawa Ise received a prototype airsearch set and Hyuga a prototype surface set in time for midway.The type 13 airsearch radar(also called Type 3 mark1 model3) used by Oi and Kitakami in 1941 in scenario 15 only started development in mid 1943 and was being fitted by early 1944 not 1941 !

From lacroix and wells there is a detailed table of when radar was first fitted to the light cruisers see page 372. The earliest date for the type 21 airsearch radar was december 1942 for the Izuzu. The type 13 radar was a supplement to the type 21 because it was more reliable and the equipment was lighter.

I suspect that the info used by matrix on the type 13 came from the star-games.com japanese radar website - I can find no evidence to support the claim that the type 13 was fitted as a prototype in 1941 and I also note that no references are given on that website.

It is important in game terms that the japanese do not have the earlywar ability to detect airstrikes via radar otherwise the possibility of surprise battles like midway becomes very remote.


We had an argument about this a while back on the War Room forum. Nothing seems to have been resolved.



Halsey -> RE: OOB Comments (10/17/2004 9:49:06 AM)

Is there any possibility of including the civilian passenger liners, that were inducted into the war effort, as high speed AP's? Here is a link with detailed oceanic crossings. The HMT Queen Mary made 46 port calls from 1940 to 1943 in India, SE Aisa, and Australia. She wasn't left to entirely Atlantic runs till 1944 to 1945. Many more examples in this thread.

Troopship link- http://troopships.pier90.org/



SpitfireIX -> RE: OOB Comments (10/19/2004 7:47:04 AM)

It appears that she was used to ferry troops to the PTO--not around the PTO. To give the Allies the QM and/or the QE would be grossly unfair and ahistorical.



Tankerace -> RE: OOB Comments (10/19/2004 7:57:14 AM)

Besides, what would you do, drive the Queen Mary into Tokyo and let the troops get out to invade? I am reminded about what Rommel said about the Atlantic Wall defences: "The Ports are fortified well enough, but nothing has been done about the beaches. The enemy isn't coming ashore on the Queen Mary!"



steveh11Matrix -> RE: OOB Comments (10/19/2004 12:06:18 PM)

Ahem.
Queen Elizabeth 2 and - more importantly - Canberra, Falkland Islands, 1982.

Canberra in particular, steamed (actually, she was Turbo-Electric driven) into San Carlos bay and disembarked her troops. AFAIK there was no pier for her to tie up to...

However, in the broader question - no QE and QM shouldn't be in the OOB, they were used to take/deliver troops to the main theatre ports, rather than the front line.

Make an interesting user mod, though. [:)]

Steve



Halsey -> RE: OOB Comments (10/19/2004 3:16:16 PM)

Is there a way to make them non-amphibious capable? I would just like to see them used strickly for transport.
90% of the Allied transport missions are ferrying troops. Not assaults.

Isn't that what WITP encompasses? Main theatre ports are all over the map. I don't need to really list them do I?

If people are concerned about withdrawls. The RN has them why can't the US?

So, list withdraw by name instead? Or, ship class LNR (liners)?



SpitfireIX -> RE: OOB Comments (10/21/2004 7:52:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Is there a way to make them non-amphibious capable? I would just like to see them used strickly for transport.
90% of the Allied transport missions are ferrying troops. Not assaults.

Isn't that what WITP encompasses? Main theatre ports are all over the map. I don't need to really list them do I?

If people are concerned about withdrawls. The RN has them why can't the US?


Implementing US withdrawals just to give people a few new toys would be a major waste of programming hours. Furthermore, there is no way to implement a perfect withdrawal scheme, so some concessions to play balance have to be made by not giving the Allies every ship that ever operated in the PTO, no matter how briefly. Also, the current withdrawal scheme merely specifies that a certain class of ship be withdrawn. What player in his right mind would part with the QM or the QE when he could send a small AP nstead? Also, aren't the Queens British (thus the names?)?



Halsey -> RE: OOB Comments (10/21/2004 8:52:37 AM)

There are more than just the Queens. American, Italian, German, French and other liners of foreign nationality were impressed into action.
West Point (USS America),Wakefield (USS Manhatten),Hermitage (Italian liner Conte Biancamano),HMT Aquitania,John Eriksen (Danish liner),SS Louis Pastuer (French liner)
Cunard, White Star, America Lines, President Lines, all contributed ships to military use.
More than a few were turned over to the Army as troopships.
There are many more. Some of these listed did Atlantic runs also.

As far as the withdraw. Make it a permanent monthly expenditure, listed by name instead of class. Plus make it very expensive.

I only listed the HMT Queen Mary as one example. There are many others available.
http://troopships.pier90.org



Ron Saueracker -> RE: OOB Comments (10/21/2004 8:57:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Is there a way to make them non-amphibious capable? I would just like to see them used strickly for transport.
90% of the Allied transport missions are ferrying troops. Not assaults.

Isn't that what WITP encompasses? Main theatre ports are all over the map. I don't need to really list them do I?

If people are concerned about withdrawls. The RN has them why can't the US?


Implementing US withdrawals just to give people a few new toys would be a major waste of programming hours. Furthermore, there is no way to implement a perfect withdrawal scheme, so some concessions to play balance have to be made by not giving the Allies every ship that ever operated in the PTO, no matter how briefly. Also, the current withdrawal scheme merely specifies that a certain class of ship be withdrawn. What player in his right mind would part with the QM or the QE when he could send a small AP nstead? Also, aren't the Queens British (thus the names?)?


But the USN withdrawl requirement suggestion is a darn good one. Why? Program exists for British, piece of cake to add for USN. Two, because it is a historical reality. Whether for defensive deployments to off map PTO areas or the European theatre, or for training/retirement requirements, USN ships were constantly shuffled in and out of PTO. One could further suggest, because no player would send a new vessel when an older suffices, that ships which require major repairs and enter a West Coast port sometimes have the ship sent along to an East Coast port (Ie Boise, Marblehead, Franklin...).

Considering how such bizarre design decisions as the "add water and stir " or "name duplication avoidance feature" (which required more programming effort and dollars I'd bet) were added to possibly balance the game somewhat, I would think such a simple and historically accurate feature which takes some of the pressure off Japan as a USN withdrawl certainly would was both not originally woven into the mix but remains a no show.

More importantly, the ship withdrawl requirement should have included LCUs and Air Units. I suspect the limitation to only RN ships is a direct decendent of Avalon Hill's board game of the same name I think (the Pacific version of "War at Sea") but was never expanded upon further and therefore remains in this incarnation. Games often become historical reference sources in the gaming industry. Unfortunate but as they say, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. No offence...[:D]



siRkid -> RE: OOB Comments (10/25/2004 6:50:39 PM)

Closed. PRY will start another one after the patch is out. Thanks for all the input.



Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125