RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1

RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (Full Version)

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

Message

Tristanjohn -> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (3/13/2005 11:58:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Hmmmm....something wrong here. Nobody converts the ship on Feb/42 from minelayer to transport that I'm aware of unless by accident. I did it in my games as I tend to play historically but have never loaded it until today. The load total is 24! This can't be right as it is the lowest of all USN subs and marginally more than Dutch and British 18 cap. I believe I gave it a load total of 60. Did I miss something when entering the refit details in the dbase? [image]local://upfiles/5522/Ec884345991.jpg[/image] Looks like it. Should be able to load an elephant.

Don Bowen -> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (3/13/2005 6:25:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Hmmmm....something wrong here. Nobody converts the ship on Feb/42 from minelayer to transport that I'm aware of unless by accident. I did it in my games as I tend to play historically but have never loaded it until today. The load total is 24! This can't be right as it is the lowest of all USN subs and marginally more than Dutch and British 18 cap. I believe I gave it a load total of 60. Did I miss something when entering the refit details in the dbase? OK Ron - you have me totally confused (congratulations!). I'm not aware of any cargo capacity specification for submarines. I assume it is either based somehow on durability. Could you please give me a better idea of what is wrong??

Ron Saueracker -> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (3/13/2005 7:08:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker Hmmmm....something wrong here. Nobody converts the ship on Feb/42 from minelayer to transport that I'm aware of unless by accident. I did it in my games as I tend to play historically but have never loaded it until today. The load total is 24! This can't be right as it is the lowest of all USN subs and marginally more than Dutch and British 18 cap. I believe I gave it a load total of 60. Did I miss something when entering the refit details in the dbase? OK Ron - you have me totally confused (congratulations!). I'm not aware of any cargo capacity specification for submarines. I assume it is either based somehow on durability. Could you please give me a better idea of what is wrong?? Because Argonaut became a transport sub (APS-1) very early in 1942, I decided to add this refit in order to remove her minelaying capability as was historically the case. So I had Rich Dionne remove the mines and add a capacity value of 60 (I think) to represent the berthing spaces added in lieu of mine gear. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to test the refit in a transport situation and when it loaded, it showed a capacity of 24. Should have been 60. Either I'm not understanding the capacity feature for subs or subs are hardwired for transport capacity and any figure placed in the editor field is nullified.

Don Bowen -> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (3/13/2005 7:20:03 PM)
quote: Because Argonaut became a transport sub (APS-1) very early in 1942, I decided to add this refit in order to remove her minelaying capability as was historically the case. So I had Rich Dionne remove the mines and add a capacity value of 60 (I think) to represent the berthing spaces added in lieu of mine gear. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to test the refit in a transport situation and when it loaded, it showed a capacity of 24. Should have been 60. Either I'm not understanding the capacity feature for subs or subs are hardwired for transport capacity and any figure placed in the editor field is nullified. I think the any value specified in "Capacity" for submarines is Aircraft capacity, not cargo. I believe there is some relationship between durabitilty and cargo capacity. I'll experiment a little a be sure...

Ron Saueracker -> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (3/13/2005 7:30:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: Because Argonaut became a transport sub (APS-1) very early in 1942, I decided to add this refit in order to remove her minelaying capability as was historically the case. So I had Rich Dionne remove the mines and add a capacity value of 60 (I think) to represent the berthing spaces added in lieu of mine gear. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to test the refit in a transport situation and when it loaded, it showed a capacity of 24. Should have been 60. Either I'm not understanding the capacity feature for subs or subs are hardwired for transport capacity and any figure placed in the editor field is nullified. I think the any value specified in "Capacity" for submarines is Aircraft capacity, not cargo. I believe there is some relationship between durabitilty and cargo capacity. I'll experiment a little a be sure... I'm pretty sure you are correct about the relationship now that I think about it. Because durability is related to dive depth , capacity is really bonkers. Large subs like Argonaut, Narwhal, and the large IJN boats, because they have prewar dive depths, are penalized. Poppycock.[8\|]

Lemurs! -> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (3/13/2005 7:30:40 PM)
Yea, the Argonaut now carries 60 aircraft. That is all capacity does for a sub. Which means we need to recode the Jap transport subs added to the OOB. Mike

Ron Saueracker -> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (3/13/2005 7:47:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! Yea, the Argonaut now carries 60 aircraft. That is all capacity does for a sub. Which means we need to recode the Jap transport subs added to the OOB. Mike This being the case, do we compromise and increase the durability on transport subs (say 50%) and lower maneuver ratings to compensate? It will affect VP and production cost but somethings needs to be done.

Don Bowen -> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (3/13/2005 7:53:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lemurs! Yea, the Argonaut now carries 60 aircraft. That is all capacity does for a sub. Which means we need to recode the Jap transport subs added to the OOB. Mike Actually we caught this during scenario creation and did not add any pure transport subs. There's a thread about it somewhere, buried in the dustbin of the forum. The only question now is the possibility of making some kind of durability adjustment for those few US subs used as transports? Doesn't seem worthwhile to I, how about to y'all??

33Vyper -> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (3/13/2005 9:50:29 PM)
Submarine cargo capacity is based on the number of tubes and reloads....I do not believe you can enter a specific cargo capacity for a sub. You have to play with the tubes/reloads and mines....I cannot remember where I read it... found it 6.1.9.11 in the manual says " Subs will have 3 cargo for every torpedo and 5 cargo for every AC slot " course the manual also say subs cannot use AC but we know that changed as well.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (3/13/2005 9:56:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 33Vyper Submarine cargo capacity is based on the number of tubes and reloads....I do not believe you can enter a specific cargo capacity for a sub. You have to play with the tubes/reloads and mines....I cannot remember where I read it... found it 6.1.9.11 in the manual says " Subs will have 3 cargo for every torpedo and 5 cargo for every AC slot " course the manual also say subs cannot use AC but we know that changed as well. Hey, that's interesting. We can give Argonaut and the IJN transport subs extra tubes and assign them an ammo rating of 0. That should work if this is the case.

33Vyper -> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 (3/13/2005 10:04:52 PM)
I am not certain if they mean the tubes or the reloads themselves. I think it means actual torpedoes

Page: << < prev 5 6 7 8 [9]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.296875