Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land Page: <<   < prev  48 49 [50] 51 52   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 10/30/2009 11:30:42 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
Karyu: I think it makes perfect sense - this is a late-war ship/conversion and it matches the use of the same word for the simltaneous planned conversion of the Me 262 jet fighter.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1471
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 10/31/2009 12:11:49 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Okay here is my revised Yamato-class battleship counter (I assume there is a cost differential for building the ahistorical Shinano/Karyu as compared to the historical Shinano)?

[4364 Karyu - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 150,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 27 knots
.B Main armament: 9 x 18.1-inch (460mm), 12 x 6.1-inch (155mm) guns
.B Displacement (full load): 69,990 tons
.B Thickest armour: 16.1-inch (belt)
.P The two completed ships of the Yamato-class, Yamato and Musashi, were the
biggest battleships ever built. In total, five such ships were planned for the
Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN); Shinano was completed as an aircraft carrier, ship
No.111 was cancelled in 1942 when about 30% complete, and ship No. 797 was
cancelled in the same year; before she had even been ordered.
.P The ships were so large that special lifting gear had to be built in order to
lift the armour plates and gun barrels, and indeed the dockyards themselves
needed work to allow them to accomodate such vessels. All of this work had to be
carried out in secret to deny information to foreign powers; and the Japanese
were successful in this regard.
.P As designed, these leviathans mounted nine 18.1-inch guns in three triple
turrets and a secondary armament of twelve 6.1-inch guns. The anti-aircraft (AA)
armament consisted of twelve 5-inch guns in addition to the numerous close-range
AA weapons. In 1943 Yamato had six secondary guns removed and these were replaced
with the same number of 5-inch weapons, while both Yamato and her sister had their
close-range AA weaponry augmented from time to time from 1943 onwards.
.P Despite their size, the ships were still capable of 27 knots thanks to the
150,000 hp provided by their four geared turbines and twelve boilers, and they
also boasted an 8,000 mile cruising range.
.P No less than seven aircraft could be stored in the hangar deck located at the
the stern of these ships, although it was usual for a lesser number to be
carried. Two catapults were fitted on deck to assist the launching of the
aircraft.
.P Armour protection was equally impressive with around a third of their total
weight taken up by armour plate. They were designed to withstand 18-inch shells
and bombs of up to 2,200lbs by virtue of having belt armour 16.1-inch thick and
deck armour up to 9-inches thick. Despite this, as with every ship, there was
always a compromise to be made and the Yamatos armour was not invulnerable.
Firstly, their torpedo protection was not as comprehensive as contemporary
battleships, with a thinner anti-torpedo bulge fitted. The Second problem centred
around the armour distribution. In order to cut down on the armour plate
required, the ships were designed with a very broad beam - just under 128ft -
which meant that the designers could fit the ships guns, magazines, machinery etc
into a shorter space than on a more conventional, longer layout. This area was
then protected by an "armoured box", created by attaching two 11.8-inch bulkheads
to the side armour. This meant that the bow and stern were unarmoured and in the
event of damage to either area, the idea was that watertight compartments would
protect the ships from sinking. The problem for the Yamatos was that these
compartments were too big and the pumps were unable to cope with the volume of
water.
.P The plans for the second two vessels allowed for thinner armour protection
than was available to the first two ships and they would have used a new 4-inch
AA gun, replacing the disappointing 5-inch gun.
.P Despite their problems, the Yamatos were still highly impressive battleships, and it is
intriguing to guess what effect they would have had on the course of the Pacific
war had Yamato and Musashi been used more aggressively, before the US Navy air
power became overwhelming.
.P The fourth Yamato was never offically named. The Japanese word Karyu is
translated as Fire Dragon, and it is likely that ADG used this name as the ship
would almost certainly have been completed as an aircraft carrier had her
construction not been cancelled. IJN naming convention meant aircraft carriers
were mostly named after dragons.
.P World In Flames allows the Japanese player to build all five planned Yamatos,
including this fourth ship, Karyu. As an alternative to completion as a
battleship, she is also available for conversion to an aircraft carrier. To this
end she can be built in one of two ways; either as her sister Shinano appeared
historically (see Counter 5108), or, at higher cost, as a more powerful carrier
type (see Counter 4333).

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 10/31/2009 12:21:29 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1472
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/1/2009 1:28:01 AM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
Warspite:

Suggest adding after - 'unable to cope with the volume of water.' "Of course this was equally a problem with other battleships designed on the 'all or nothing' principle, such as the American Iowa class, but these benefitted from having more efficient fixed electric as well as many portable diesel pumps". 

Also suggest a new wording for the last section of the following paragraph "and they would have replaced their 5" anti-aircraft mounts with the very effective and fast firing twin 3.9" guns, weapons already in use on the Akizuki class destroyers."

Cannot remember - does the Karyu show different armour and AA rating compared with the Yamato? 

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1473
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/1/2009 8:00:43 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mariandavid

Warspite:

Suggest adding after - 'unable to cope with the volume of water.' "Of course this was equally a problem with other battleships designed on the 'all or nothing' principle, such as the American Iowa class, but these benefitted from having more efficient fixed electric as well as many portable diesel pumps". 

Also suggest a new wording for the last section of the following paragraph "and they would have replaced their 5" anti-aircraft mounts with the very effective and fast firing twin 3.9" guns, weapons already in use on the Akizuki class destroyers."

Cannot remember - does the Karyu show different armour and AA rating compared with the Yamato? 

Warspite1

Thank-you for the feed-back.

1. I will not add this - the intro for these ships is already quite long and the lack of pump ability is stated. For reasons of brevity I generally do not compare ship to ship.
2. Will definitely add this - thanks . This is the sort of detail I am lacking for the Japanese generally.
3. I do not know either - but the accuracy of some of the unit values (see previous posts on this thread (hdosbe post 1117 onwards for example)) are debatable at best! For this reason I have generally avoided reference to the counter values.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/1/2009 11:48:47 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to mariandavid)
Post #: 1474
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/1/2009 12:06:51 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
One extreme to another! From the largest battleship class ever built to an early carrier:

[4349 Hosho - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 30,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25 knots
.B Main armament: 4 x 5.5-inch (140mm), 2 x 3-inch (76mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 21
.B Displacement (full load): 10,000 tons
.B Thickest armour: n/a
.P Hosho was the first Japanese aircraft carrier. She was built with
technical assistance provided by the British, and was completed in the same year
- 1922 - that the Americans completed their first carrier, Langley.
.P Hosho began life as a naval oiler named Hiryu, but her conversion to a carrier
was ordered in 1920. As Japan`s first such vessel, she featured a very basic
design that provided the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) with much experience that
was to be incorporated into later designs. The technical details above are as at
her completion.
.P Hosho featured a full length flight deck supported by pillars at each
extremity. She had one lift that serviced a single, long and narrow hangar. This
hangar layout restricted the number of aircraft she could carry to just twenty-
one. As aircraft became bigger during the inter-war years, so the limited
carrying capacity of Hosho fell further. At the time of Pearl Harbor, she could
only carry eleven aircraft.
.P Although built with a small, starboard-mounted island, this was removed in the
twenties as pilots found it too much of an obstacle when landing on her narrow
flight deck.
.P Beginning the naming convention for most future Japanese aircraft carriers,
the English translation of her name was Swooping Dragon.
.P By the start of the Second World War, Hosho was no longer a front-line carrier
and she was relegated to training duties to provide deck-landing experience. Her
armament was altered during the war and she ended the war with just six 25mm anti
-aircraft guns.
.P Hosho took part in just one operation during the war; Midway. She carried
eight Nakajima B5N torpedo bombers and sailed with Admiral Yamamoto`s main body.
This force played no part in the Midway battle which saw all four Japanese fleet
carriers employed in the operation, sunk (see Kaga).
.P Hosho survived the war and was scrapped in 1947.

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1475
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/7/2009 8:10:44 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Here is my take on what ADG have tried to do with with Fuji and Shikishima. I think Meiji and Showa are completely fictional ships as they are just too powerful to be "improved" Taihos - and so will write something accordingly on these, (and the Shinano and Karyu) and post later.

4338 Shikishima - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 180,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 33 knots
.B Main armament: 16 x 3.9-inch (100mm), 51 x 25mm guns
.B Aircraft: 84 (Operational maximum 53)
.B Displacement (full load): 39,000 tons
.B Thickest armour: 6-inch (belt)
.P After the losses suffered at Midway, the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN)
drew up ambitious plans to replace, and then expand, their fleet aircraft carrier
force. These plans included building five improved Taiho-class armoured carriers
under their 1942 Supplementary Programme. This was in addition to two improved
Taihos - nos 801 and 802 - that had already been announced under their original
1942 programme. The plans were never anything more than a dream; the limitations
of Japanese industry and the lack of raw materials to hand, ensured that these
ships never left the drawing board. Even had the IJN found the materials to
complete them, there were insufficient naval pilots capable of manning their
aircraft late in the war.
.P Nevertheless, World In Flames allows the Japanese player to explore some "what
if" situations, and this includes the option to build one or more of these
proposed carriers; including carrier nos 801 and 802.
.P Taiho was the first and only Japanese carrier that copied the Royal Navy`s
(RN) armoured flight deck concept. The Japanese version was not quite as
comprehensive as that employed by the RN in that only the flight deck (and not
the hangars themselves) was armoured, with a maximum depth of 3.14-inches. The
upper hangar deck was unarmoured and the lower, fitted with 1.25-inch of armour
plate.
.P Visually, Taiho looked different from most Japanese carriers, having a funnel
built on the island structure and featuring an enclosed bow, so improving
seaworthiness. The ship was fast, with over 33 knots achieved in trials, thanks
to the 180,000 hp her boilers generated.
.P Taiho could operate over eighty aircraft, although this was reduced to fifty-
three for operational efficiency. Two hangars were fitted and these were served
by two lifts. As usual, no catapult was fitted to assist take-off, but a total of
fourteen arrester wires were provided to help bring aircraft down safely.
.P For defence the Japanese replaced the disappointing 5-inch anti-aircraft (AA)
gun, which had been the mainstay of the fleet, with a more impressive 3.9-inch
weapon. There was no alteration to the close-range weaponry however, and the
limited, 25mm gun was chosen for this role.
.P The improved Taihos would have had a longer flight-deck, increased AA weaponry
and improved anti-torpedo defence. These improvements are included in the
technical specification above. They would not have carried an increased number of
aircraft.
.P These ships were never officially named, but ADG have provided them with
suitable names from Japanese naval history; Fuji is named after Mount Fuji, the
highest mountain in Japan, and one of their three holy mountains. Shikishima is
named after an ancient poetical name for Japan. These names were given previously
to two battleships, both of which took part in Japan`s most famous naval victory,
the Battle of Tsushima in 1905.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/7/2009 8:19:11 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1476
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/8/2009 2:24:30 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Question re a statement I have made below - am I correct in saying a player has a choice to convert Ise or Hyuga? - or do they have to if the ships are still in play at the date the conversion actually took place?

[4328 Hyuga - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 80,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25.3 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 14-inch (356mm), 16 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 22
.B Displacement (full load): 38,065 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (belt)
.P Hyuga and her sister Ise unusually have their write-ups spread over two
counters each. The two battleships were converted into battleship-carriers in
1943, and World In Flames allows the Japanese player to convert one or both of
these battleships in this way. Alternatively, the Japanese player may choose for
one or both of them to remain as battleships.
.P This counter provides the technical specification for Hyuga post her 1943
refit, and provides a summary of her war career from then until her sinking. The
battleship counter, 4362, provides her technical specification at the start of
World War II and outlines her service record up until her conversion.
.P The Imperial Japanese Navy`s (IJN) crushing defeat at Midway left them short
of air power at sea. In order to bridge this shortage, pending new carriers
becoming available, the IJN decided to convert Ise and Hyuga into battleship-
carriers. Work began on Ise in February 1943 and her sister, three months later.
Ise was completed in August, and Hyuga in November.
.P In order to achieve this transformation, the ships had their two aft, main
turrets removed and in their place, was constructed a two hundred and thirty feet
long flight deck. Below this was constructed a hangar, which was served by a
single lift. By using both the hangar and the flight deck, twenty-two aircraft
could be accomodated. Two catapults were fitted to assist take-off, but there was
no means of landing aircraft on the short flight deck. Aircraft had either to be
landed on a carrier, recovered from the sea (if using floatplanes) or landed at a
friendly airbase.
.P The ships were designed to carry a mix of D4Y2 "Judy" dive-bombers and E16A1
"Paul" reconnaissance/dive-bomber aircraft, although as the war progressed it
became ever more difficult to find sufficient pilots and aircraft.
.P In addition to the changes made above, as part of their conversion, the Ise-
class ships had their 5.5-inch secondary armament removed and replaced with 5-
inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns. Their 25mm close-range AA weaponry was also
increased significantly at this time, and more so as the war progressed.

.P UNDER CONSTRUCTION

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1477
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/8/2009 3:48:09 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re a statement I have made below - am I correct in saying a player has a choice to convert Ise or Hyuga? - or do they have to if the ships are still in play at the date the conversion actually took place?

[4328 Hyuga - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 80,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25.3 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 14-inch (356mm), 16 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 22
.B Displacement (full load): 38,065 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (belt)
.P Hyuga and her sister Ise unusually have their write-ups spread over two
counters each. The two battleships were converted into battleship-carriers in
1943, and World In Flames allows the Japanese player to convert one or both of
these battleships in this way. Alternatively, the Japanese player may choose for
one or both of them to remain as battleships.
.P This counter provides the technical specification for Hyuga post her 1943
refit, and provides a summary of her war career from then until her sinking. The
battleship counter, 4362, provides her technical specification at the start of
World War II and outlines her service record up until her conversion.
.P The Imperial Japanese Navy`s (IJN) crushing defeat at Midway left them short
of air power at sea. In order to bridge this shortage, pending new carriers
becoming available, the IJN decided to convert Ise and Hyuga into battleship-
carriers. Work began on Ise in February 1943 and her sister, three months later.
Ise was completed in August, and Hyuga in November.
.P In order to achieve this transformation, the ships had their two aft, main
turrets removed and in their place, was constructed a two hundred and thirty feet
long flight deck. Below this was constructed a hangar, which was served by a
single lift. By using both the hangar and the flight deck, twenty-two aircraft
could be accomodated. Two catapults were fitted to assist take-off, but there was
no means of landing aircraft on the short flight deck. Aircraft had either to be
landed on a carrier, recovered from the sea (if using floatplanes) or landed at a
friendly airbase.
.P The ships were designed to carry a mix of D4Y2 "Judy" dive-bombers and E16A1
"Paul" reconnaissance/dive-bomber aircraft, although as the war progressed it
became ever more difficult to find sufficient pilots and aircraft.
.P In addition to the changes made above, as part of their conversion, the Ise-
class ships had their 5.5-inch secondary armament removed and replaced with 5-
inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns. Their 25mm close-range AA weaponry was also
increased significantly at this time, and more so as the war progressed.

.P UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Obviously, the player has the option if the scenario starts before the conversion.

My guess is that they should be converted 'automatically' if the scenario starts after the conversion. There is no code to support that at the present. FOr example, the Hyuga arrives as a reinforcement in Nov/Dec 1943. I assume that should be the replacement. Similarly, the Hyuga that sets up in Decline and Fall should also be the replacement. Yes?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1478
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/8/2009 4:28:26 AM   
michaelbaldur


Posts: 4774
Joined: 4/6/2007
From: denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re a statement I have made below - am I correct in saying a player has a choice to convert Ise or Hyuga? - or do they have to if the ships are still in play at the date the conversion actually took place?

[4328 Hyuga - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 80,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25.3 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 14-inch (356mm), 16 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 22
.B Displacement (full load): 38,065 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (belt)
.P Hyuga and her sister Ise unusually have their write-ups spread over two
counters each. The two battleships were converted into battleship-carriers in
1943, and World In Flames allows the Japanese player to convert one or both of
these battleships in this way. Alternatively, the Japanese player may choose for
one or both of them to remain as battleships.
.P This counter provides the technical specification for Hyuga post her 1943
refit, and provides a summary of her war career from then until her sinking. The
battleship counter, 4362, provides her technical specification at the start of
World War II and outlines her service record up until her conversion.
.P The Imperial Japanese Navy`s (IJN) crushing defeat at Midway left them short
of air power at sea. In order to bridge this shortage, pending new carriers
becoming available, the IJN decided to convert Ise and Hyuga into battleship-
carriers. Work began on Ise in February 1943 and her sister, three months later.
Ise was completed in August, and Hyuga in November.
.P In order to achieve this transformation, the ships had their two aft, main
turrets removed and in their place, was constructed a two hundred and thirty feet
long flight deck. Below this was constructed a hangar, which was served by a
single lift. By using both the hangar and the flight deck, twenty-two aircraft
could be accomodated. Two catapults were fitted to assist take-off, but there was
no means of landing aircraft on the short flight deck. Aircraft had either to be
landed on a carrier, recovered from the sea (if using floatplanes) or landed at a
friendly airbase.
.P The ships were designed to carry a mix of D4Y2 "Judy" dive-bombers and E16A1
"Paul" reconnaissance/dive-bomber aircraft, although as the war progressed it
became ever more difficult to find sufficient pilots and aircraft.
.P In addition to the changes made above, as part of their conversion, the Ise-
class ships had their 5.5-inch secondary armament removed and replaced with 5-
inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns. Their 25mm close-range AA weaponry was also
increased significantly at this time, and more so as the war progressed.

.P UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Obviously, the player has the option if the scenario starts before the conversion.

My guess is that they should be converted 'automatically' if the scenario starts after the conversion. There is no code to support that at the present. FOr example, the Hyuga arrives as a reinforcement in Nov/Dec 1943. I assume that should be the replacement. Similarly, the Hyuga that sets up in Decline and Fall should also be the replacement. Yes?


is it hard to make it a simple choice for the player doing setup.

_____________________________

the wif rulebook is my bible

I work hard, not smart.

beta tester and Mwif expert

if you have questions or issues with the game, just contact me on Michaelbaldur1@gmail.com

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1479
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/8/2009 5:14:23 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re a statement I have made below - am I correct in saying a player has a choice to convert Ise or Hyuga? - or do they have to if the ships are still in play at the date the conversion actually took place?

[4328 Hyuga - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 80,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25.3 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 14-inch (356mm), 16 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 22
.B Displacement (full load): 38,065 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (belt)
.P Hyuga and her sister Ise unusually have their write-ups spread over two
counters each. The two battleships were converted into battleship-carriers in
1943, and World In Flames allows the Japanese player to convert one or both of
these battleships in this way. Alternatively, the Japanese player may choose for
one or both of them to remain as battleships.
.P This counter provides the technical specification for Hyuga post her 1943
refit, and provides a summary of her war career from then until her sinking. The
battleship counter, 4362, provides her technical specification at the start of
World War II and outlines her service record up until her conversion.
.P The Imperial Japanese Navy`s (IJN) crushing defeat at Midway left them short
of air power at sea. In order to bridge this shortage, pending new carriers
becoming available, the IJN decided to convert Ise and Hyuga into battleship-
carriers. Work began on Ise in February 1943 and her sister, three months later.
Ise was completed in August, and Hyuga in November.
.P In order to achieve this transformation, the ships had their two aft, main
turrets removed and in their place, was constructed a two hundred and thirty feet
long flight deck. Below this was constructed a hangar, which was served by a
single lift. By using both the hangar and the flight deck, twenty-two aircraft
could be accomodated. Two catapults were fitted to assist take-off, but there was
no means of landing aircraft on the short flight deck. Aircraft had either to be
landed on a carrier, recovered from the sea (if using floatplanes) or landed at a
friendly airbase.
.P The ships were designed to carry a mix of D4Y2 "Judy" dive-bombers and E16A1
"Paul" reconnaissance/dive-bomber aircraft, although as the war progressed it
became ever more difficult to find sufficient pilots and aircraft.
.P In addition to the changes made above, as part of their conversion, the Ise-
class ships had their 5.5-inch secondary armament removed and replaced with 5-
inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns. Their 25mm close-range AA weaponry was also
increased significantly at this time, and more so as the war progressed.

.P UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Obviously, the player has the option if the scenario starts before the conversion.

My guess is that they should be converted 'automatically' if the scenario starts after the conversion. There is no code to support that at the present. FOr example, the Hyuga arrives as a reinforcement in Nov/Dec 1943. I assume that should be the replacement. Similarly, the Hyuga that sets up in Decline and Fall should also be the replacement. Yes?


is it hard to make it a simple choice for the player doing setup.

I just looked at the code for selecting units for placement on the map during setup.

The program already checks to see if there is a replacement unit and either moves it into the reserve pool (so the player has it available as a replacement at the start of the scenario's second turn) or into the future force pool (which is checked at the start of each Jan/Feb turn for moving replacement units into the reserve pool).

The change that is needed in the code is fairly simple.

The program needs to decide, based on the replacement unit's availability year, whether to use the original ship or the replacement ship when setting up units: on the map, in the production pool, or in the construction pool.

How should the replacement unit's availability year and the scenario's start date be used to make that decision? I am open to recommendations.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to michaelbaldur)
Post #: 1480
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/8/2009 8:43:57 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re a statement I have made below - am I correct in saying a player has a choice to convert Ise or Hyuga? - or do they have to if the ships are still in play at the date the conversion actually took place?

[4328 Hyuga - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 80,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25.3 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 14-inch (356mm), 16 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 22
.B Displacement (full load): 38,065 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (belt)
.P Hyuga and her sister Ise unusually have their write-ups spread over two
counters each. The two battleships were converted into battleship-carriers in
1943, and World In Flames allows the Japanese player to convert one or both of
these battleships in this way. Alternatively, the Japanese player may choose for
one or both of them to remain as battleships.
.P This counter provides the technical specification for Hyuga post her 1943
refit, and provides a summary of her war career from then until her sinking. The
battleship counter, 4362, provides her technical specification at the start of
World War II and outlines her service record up until her conversion.
.P The Imperial Japanese Navy`s (IJN) crushing defeat at Midway left them short
of air power at sea. In order to bridge this shortage, pending new carriers
becoming available, the IJN decided to convert Ise and Hyuga into battleship-
carriers. Work began on Ise in February 1943 and her sister, three months later.
Ise was completed in August, and Hyuga in November.
.P In order to achieve this transformation, the ships had their two aft, main
turrets removed and in their place, was constructed a two hundred and thirty feet
long flight deck. Below this was constructed a hangar, which was served by a
single lift. By using both the hangar and the flight deck, twenty-two aircraft
could be accomodated. Two catapults were fitted to assist take-off, but there was
no means of landing aircraft on the short flight deck. Aircraft had either to be
landed on a carrier, recovered from the sea (if using floatplanes) or landed at a
friendly airbase.
.P The ships were designed to carry a mix of D4Y2 "Judy" dive-bombers and E16A1
"Paul" reconnaissance/dive-bomber aircraft, although as the war progressed it
became ever more difficult to find sufficient pilots and aircraft.
.P In addition to the changes made above, as part of their conversion, the Ise-
class ships had their 5.5-inch secondary armament removed and replaced with 5-
inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns. Their 25mm close-range AA weaponry was also
increased significantly at this time, and more so as the war progressed.

.P UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Obviously, the player has the option if the scenario starts before the conversion.

My guess is that they should be converted 'automatically' if the scenario starts after the conversion. There is no code to support that at the present. FOr example, the Hyuga arrives as a reinforcement in Nov/Dec 1943. I assume that should be the replacement. Similarly, the Hyuga that sets up in Decline and Fall should also be the replacement. Yes?


is it hard to make it a simple choice for the player doing setup.

I just looked at the code for selecting units for placement on the map during setup.

The program already checks to see if there is a replacement unit and either moves it into the reserve pool (so the player has it available as a replacement at the start of the scenario's second turn) or into the future force pool (which is checked at the start of each Jan/Feb turn for moving replacement units into the reserve pool).

The change that is needed in the code is fairly simple.

The program needs to decide, based on the replacement unit's availability year, whether to use the original ship or the replacement ship when setting up units: on the map, in the production pool, or in the construction pool.

How should the replacement unit's availability year and the scenario's start date be used to make that decision? I am open to recommendations.

Warspite1

So:

- if the scenario starts after the change, then it should be the historic option i.e. the player does not get the choice (which sounds right if you are playing a historic scenario).
- but for any scenario that starts before the change, the player may choose to make the change at anytime after the change date
- As for how the AI would choose, presumably this could be kept simple and would be based upon the real life choice the IJN faced. This was based on:

- How many carriers have I lost?
- How many battleships have I lost?

For game play purposes, I am not sure the numbers to be chosen, but for a suggestion:

if 4 or more fleet carriers (from Akagi, Kaga, Soryu. Hiryu, Zuikaku or Shokaku) have been lost and the IJN have lost 3 battleships or less, then the change for both is made. If 3 or 4 fleet carriers have been lost and the IJN have lost 4 or 5 battleships, then the change for one is made. Otherwise, neither conversion happens.

The Japanese needed the carriers (or the aircraft they gave) but could not afford to have too few battleships. It is thought that many in the IJN - even perhaps Yamamoto himself until his death in 1943 - still believed the big gun naval battle would decide the Pacific War - and kept their battleships out of harms way for too much of the war, ready for the decisive battle. I do not believe they would have proceeded with the conversion if they had altready lost too many battleships, regardless of the carrier situation.

I think provided the right nos can be agreed, this keeps the solution simple and keeps a historical flavour.






< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/8/2009 2:25:32 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1481
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/8/2009 1:23:58 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Further to post 1476, this is my first draft for the Shinano, Karyu, Showa and Meiji "What If" counters:

[4333 Karyu - by Robert Jenkins]
.P World In Flames (WIF) allows the Japanese player to build all five planned
Yamato-class battleships and one "Super" Yamato-class, although in reality, only
two Yamatos were completed as such; Yamato and Musashi.
.P A third ship, Shinano, was completed as an aircraft carrier, and WIF allows
the Japanese player to build both Shinano and "the fourth Yamato", Karyu, as an
aircraft carrier.
.P Unusually, two carrier options are available. Firstly, Shinano and Karyu may
be completed with combat factors that reflect Shinano`s historic actual
specification. Counter nos. 5107 and 5108 are respectively available for this
purpose.
.P However, WIF also allows the Japanese player the option of completing Shinano
and Karyu to a "What If" specification. The rationale for this is presumably
based on the fact that Shinano was the largest aircraft carrier to be built
outside of the United States, and her size was such that she would have been
capable, in theory at least, of being completed to a much grander scale.
.P In exploring "What If" scenarios it is tempting to see what would happen if
the Japanese had had the resources available to build these ships to a standard
that would put them somewhere between the United States Navy`s Essex and Midway-
classes. Of course, just as big a problem for the Japanese in completing the
ships themselves, would have been finding the aircraft and the pilots to man
the large air groups they could have operated, but.......
.P In addition to the ahistorical Shinano and Karyu, WIF also allows the Japanese
player to build two other carriers of similar specification; Meiji and Showa. The
rationale could be that the hulls of "the fifth Yamato" and the "first Super
Yamato" could have been used as the basis for these carriers.
.P No technical specifications are available for these hypothetical carriers, but
given the combat factors the WIF designers have allocated them, they would have
been somewhere between the United States Navy`s Essex and Midway-class in size...
have fun!



< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/8/2009 9:47:51 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1482
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/8/2009 6:29:32 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re a statement I have made below - am I correct in saying a player has a choice to convert Ise or Hyuga? - or do they have to if the ships are still in play at the date the conversion actually took place?

[4328 Hyuga - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 80,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25.3 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 14-inch (356mm), 16 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 22
.B Displacement (full load): 38,065 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (belt)
.P Hyuga and her sister Ise unusually have their write-ups spread over two
counters each. The two battleships were converted into battleship-carriers in
1943, and World In Flames allows the Japanese player to convert one or both of
these battleships in this way. Alternatively, the Japanese player may choose for
one or both of them to remain as battleships.
.P This counter provides the technical specification for Hyuga post her 1943
refit, and provides a summary of her war career from then until her sinking. The
battleship counter, 4362, provides her technical specification at the start of
World War II and outlines her service record up until her conversion.
.P The Imperial Japanese Navy`s (IJN) crushing defeat at Midway left them short
of air power at sea. In order to bridge this shortage, pending new carriers
becoming available, the IJN decided to convert Ise and Hyuga into battleship-
carriers. Work began on Ise in February 1943 and her sister, three months later.
Ise was completed in August, and Hyuga in November.
.P In order to achieve this transformation, the ships had their two aft, main
turrets removed and in their place, was constructed a two hundred and thirty feet
long flight deck. Below this was constructed a hangar, which was served by a
single lift. By using both the hangar and the flight deck, twenty-two aircraft
could be accomodated. Two catapults were fitted to assist take-off, but there was
no means of landing aircraft on the short flight deck. Aircraft had either to be
landed on a carrier, recovered from the sea (if using floatplanes) or landed at a
friendly airbase.
.P The ships were designed to carry a mix of D4Y2 "Judy" dive-bombers and E16A1
"Paul" reconnaissance/dive-bomber aircraft, although as the war progressed it
became ever more difficult to find sufficient pilots and aircraft.
.P In addition to the changes made above, as part of their conversion, the Ise-
class ships had their 5.5-inch secondary armament removed and replaced with 5-
inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns. Their 25mm close-range AA weaponry was also
increased significantly at this time, and more so as the war progressed.

.P UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Obviously, the player has the option if the scenario starts before the conversion.

My guess is that they should be converted 'automatically' if the scenario starts after the conversion. There is no code to support that at the present. FOr example, the Hyuga arrives as a reinforcement in Nov/Dec 1943. I assume that should be the replacement. Similarly, the Hyuga that sets up in Decline and Fall should also be the replacement. Yes?


is it hard to make it a simple choice for the player doing setup.

I just looked at the code for selecting units for placement on the map during setup.

The program already checks to see if there is a replacement unit and either moves it into the reserve pool (so the player has it available as a replacement at the start of the scenario's second turn) or into the future force pool (which is checked at the start of each Jan/Feb turn for moving replacement units into the reserve pool).

The change that is needed in the code is fairly simple.

The program needs to decide, based on the replacement unit's availability year, whether to use the original ship or the replacement ship when setting up units: on the map, in the production pool, or in the construction pool.

How should the replacement unit's availability year and the scenario's start date be used to make that decision? I am open to recommendations.

Warspite1

So:

- if the scenario starts after the change, then it should be the historic option i.e. the player does not get the choice (which sounds right if you are playing a historic scenario).
- but for any scenario that starts before the change, the player may choose to make the change at anytime after the change date
- As for how the AI would choose, presumably this could be kept simple and would be based upon the real life choice the IJN faced. This was based on:

- How many carriers have I lost?
- How many battleships have I lost?

For game play purposes, I am not sure the numbers to be chosen, but for a suggestion:

if 4 or more fleet carriers (from Akagi, Kaga, Soryu. Hiryu, Zuikaku or Shokaku) have been lost and the IJN have lost 3 battleships or less, then the change for both is made. If 3 or 4 fleet carriers have been lost and the IJN have lost 4 or 5 battleships, then the change for one is made. Otherwise, neither conversion happens.

The Japanese needed the carriers (or the aircraft they gave) but could not afford to have too few battleships. It is thought that many in the IJN - even perhaps Yamamoto himself until his death in 1943 - still believed the big gun naval battle would decide the Pacific War - and kept their battleships out of harms way for too much of the war, ready for the decisive battle. I do not believe they would have proceeded with the conversion if they had altready lost too many battleships, regardless of the carrier situation.

I think provided the right nos can be agreed, this keeps the solution simple and keeps a historical flavour.






My question did not concern the AI Opponent. That will be handled like any other build decision.

What I am unsure about is how to interpret the available date on the counter (a year) versus the scenario start date. Ships take 2 years to build, so if a naval unit's available date is 1943 and the scenario starts in 1944, the naval unit is placed in the construction pool as if it has completed its first year. The player gets a half-built ship at no cost in build points.

How should the replacement units be handled in this regard? Take the same example given above. Has the replacement unit been 'started' and in the construction pool? Or has it been completed? Or is the original unit still on the map? Note that some of these units are listed in the setup instructions as starting in the construction pool or arriving as reinforcements.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1483
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/8/2009 7:03:36 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelbaldur

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Question re a statement I have made below - am I correct in saying a player has a choice to convert Ise or Hyuga? - or do they have to if the ships are still in play at the date the conversion actually took place?

[4328 Hyuga - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 80,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 25.3 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 14-inch (356mm), 16 x 5-inch (127mm) guns
.B Aircraft: 22
.B Displacement (full load): 38,065 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (belt)
.P Hyuga and her sister Ise unusually have their write-ups spread over two
counters each. The two battleships were converted into battleship-carriers in
1943, and World In Flames allows the Japanese player to convert one or both of
these battleships in this way. Alternatively, the Japanese player may choose for
one or both of them to remain as battleships.
.P This counter provides the technical specification for Hyuga post her 1943
refit, and provides a summary of her war career from then until her sinking. The
battleship counter, 4362, provides her technical specification at the start of
World War II and outlines her service record up until her conversion.
.P The Imperial Japanese Navy`s (IJN) crushing defeat at Midway left them short
of air power at sea. In order to bridge this shortage, pending new carriers
becoming available, the IJN decided to convert Ise and Hyuga into battleship-
carriers. Work began on Ise in February 1943 and her sister, three months later.
Ise was completed in August, and Hyuga in November.
.P In order to achieve this transformation, the ships had their two aft, main
turrets removed and in their place, was constructed a two hundred and thirty feet
long flight deck. Below this was constructed a hangar, which was served by a
single lift. By using both the hangar and the flight deck, twenty-two aircraft
could be accomodated. Two catapults were fitted to assist take-off, but there was
no means of landing aircraft on the short flight deck. Aircraft had either to be
landed on a carrier, recovered from the sea (if using floatplanes) or landed at a
friendly airbase.
.P The ships were designed to carry a mix of D4Y2 "Judy" dive-bombers and E16A1
"Paul" reconnaissance/dive-bomber aircraft, although as the war progressed it
became ever more difficult to find sufficient pilots and aircraft.
.P In addition to the changes made above, as part of their conversion, the Ise-
class ships had their 5.5-inch secondary armament removed and replaced with 5-
inch anti-aircraft (AA) guns. Their 25mm close-range AA weaponry was also
increased significantly at this time, and more so as the war progressed.

.P UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Obviously, the player has the option if the scenario starts before the conversion.

My guess is that they should be converted 'automatically' if the scenario starts after the conversion. There is no code to support that at the present. FOr example, the Hyuga arrives as a reinforcement in Nov/Dec 1943. I assume that should be the replacement. Similarly, the Hyuga that sets up in Decline and Fall should also be the replacement. Yes?


is it hard to make it a simple choice for the player doing setup.

I just looked at the code for selecting units for placement on the map during setup.

The program already checks to see if there is a replacement unit and either moves it into the reserve pool (so the player has it available as a replacement at the start of the scenario's second turn) or into the future force pool (which is checked at the start of each Jan/Feb turn for moving replacement units into the reserve pool).

The change that is needed in the code is fairly simple.

The program needs to decide, based on the replacement unit's availability year, whether to use the original ship or the replacement ship when setting up units: on the map, in the production pool, or in the construction pool.

How should the replacement unit's availability year and the scenario's start date be used to make that decision? I am open to recommendations.

Warspite1

So:

- if the scenario starts after the change, then it should be the historic option i.e. the player does not get the choice (which sounds right if you are playing a historic scenario).
- but for any scenario that starts before the change, the player may choose to make the change at anytime after the change date
- As for how the AI would choose, presumably this could be kept simple and would be based upon the real life choice the IJN faced. This was based on:

- How many carriers have I lost?
- How many battleships have I lost?

For game play purposes, I am not sure the numbers to be chosen, but for a suggestion:

if 4 or more fleet carriers (from Akagi, Kaga, Soryu. Hiryu, Zuikaku or Shokaku) have been lost and the IJN have lost 3 battleships or less, then the change for both is made. If 3 or 4 fleet carriers have been lost and the IJN have lost 4 or 5 battleships, then the change for one is made. Otherwise, neither conversion happens.

The Japanese needed the carriers (or the aircraft they gave) but could not afford to have too few battleships. It is thought that many in the IJN - even perhaps Yamamoto himself until his death in 1943 - still believed the big gun naval battle would decide the Pacific War - and kept their battleships out of harms way for too much of the war, ready for the decisive battle. I do not believe they would have proceeded with the conversion if they had altready lost too many battleships, regardless of the carrier situation.

I think provided the right nos can be agreed, this keeps the solution simple and keeps a historical flavour.






My question did not concern the AI Opponent. That will be handled like any other build decision.

What I am unsure about is how to interpret the available date on the counter (a year) versus the scenario start date. Ships take 2 years to build, so if a naval unit's available date is 1943 and the scenario starts in 1944, the naval unit is placed in the construction pool as if it has completed its first year. The player gets a half-built ship at no cost in build points.

How should the replacement units be handled in this regard? Take the same example given above. Has the replacement unit been 'started' and in the construction pool? Or has it been completed? Or is the original unit still on the map? Note that some of these units are listed in the setup instructions as starting in the construction pool or arriving as reinforcements.

Warspite1

Okay - I will have a look at this this evening.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1484
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/8/2009 9:44:03 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Steve, this is my take on the rule (hope I`ve answered the right question this time).

I think if we take the case of Hyuga and Ise specifically, then there are
two scenarios where they are indirectly or directly affected; Brute Force and
Darkness Before Dawn:

[Before the scenario begins] - Jan/Feb 1942

Hyuga and Ise replacement units arrive and as "both BB`s are on the map", the
replacement units go in the construction pool.


Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942

- Hyuga and Ise are still BB`s ready for placing on the Pacific/Asia map by the
Japanese player at the start of the scenario (although presumably he can
choose to replace on the very first turn instead of placing on the map (see below)).
- The replacement units remain in the construction pool ready for when the
Japanese player or the AI chooses to convert to a carrier/battleship.

- If the Japanese player that turn or subsequently chooses to convert, then the
cost of doing so is the 2nd cycle cost i.e. because the replacement counter is
being placed from the construction pool it takes its 2nd cycle cost (3pts) and
no. of turns indicated (6 turns).
- The BB counters are removed from the game immediately

- At the end of the 6th turn, the replacement units appear as a reinforcement


Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943

- Hyuga and Ise replacement units are face-up on the production cycle and will
appear on the map in Sep/Oct (Ise) and Nov/Dec (Hyuga) at no extra cost (this
mirrors their historical conversion).
- the BB counters have been removed from the game and never appear.

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/8/2009 9:50:59 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1485
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/8/2009 10:52:10 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve, this is my take on the rule (hope I`ve answered the right question this time).

I think if we take the case of Hyuga and Ise specifically, then there are
two scenarios where they are indirectly or directly affected; Brute Force and
Darkness Before Dawn:

[Before the scenario begins] - Jan/Feb 1942

Hyuga and Ise replacement units arrive and as "both BB`s are on the map", the
replacement units go in the construction pool.


Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942

- Hyuga and Ise are still BB`s ready for placing on the Pacific/Asia map by the
Japanese player at the start of the scenario (although presumably he can
choose to replace on the very first turn instead of placing on the map (see below)).
- The replacement units remain in the construction pool ready for when the
Japanese player or the AI chooses to convert to a carrier/battleship.

- If the Japanese player that turn or subsequently chooses to convert, then the
cost of doing so is the 2nd cycle cost i.e. because the replacement counter is
being placed from the construction pool it takes its 2nd cycle cost (3pts) and
no. of turns indicated (6 turns).
- The BB counters are removed from the game immediately

- At the end of the 6th turn, the replacement units appear as a reinforcement


Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943

- Hyuga and Ise replacement units are face-up on the production cycle and will
appear on the map in Sep/Oct (Ise) and Nov/Dec (Hyuga) at no extra cost (this
mirrors their historical conversion).
- the BB counters have been removed from the game and never appear.

I think I agree.

Replacement arrival year is 1942. Scenarios that start before then clearly have the BB versions on the map and the CV versions are in the Future Force Pool (not the construction pool).

Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the BBs since the earliest the CVs could arrive would be Jan/Feb 1943. The CVs are in the Reserve Pool.

Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943
Scenario says they start in production to arrive face up in Nov/Dec 1943, so that must be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.

Decline and Fall begins in May/Jun 1944
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.

===
So, the general rule is that:

1 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is prior to the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the original unit is placed on the map and the replacement unit is placed in the reserve pool.

2 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is on or after the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed on the map and the original unit is removed from the game.

3 - if the scenario has the unit in the production/construction pool on or after the replacement arrival date (replacement arrival date = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed in the production/construction pool and the original unit is removed from the game.

My only lingering doubt is whether the game contains replacement units that were never historically built.

EDIT: tweaked #3.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 11/8/2009 10:54:40 PM >


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1486
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/9/2009 6:54:49 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve, this is my take on the rule (hope I`ve answered the right question this time).

I think if we take the case of Hyuga and Ise specifically, then there are
two scenarios where they are indirectly or directly affected; Brute Force and
Darkness Before Dawn:

[Before the scenario begins] - Jan/Feb 1942

Hyuga and Ise replacement units arrive and as "both BB`s are on the map", the
replacement units go in the construction pool.


Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942

- Hyuga and Ise are still BB`s ready for placing on the Pacific/Asia map by the
Japanese player at the start of the scenario (although presumably he can
choose to replace on the very first turn instead of placing on the map (see below)).
- The replacement units remain in the construction pool ready for when the
Japanese player or the AI chooses to convert to a carrier/battleship.

- If the Japanese player that turn or subsequently chooses to convert, then the
cost of doing so is the 2nd cycle cost i.e. because the replacement counter is
being placed from the construction pool it takes its 2nd cycle cost (3pts) and
no. of turns indicated (6 turns).
- The BB counters are removed from the game immediately

- At the end of the 6th turn, the replacement units appear as a reinforcement


Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943

- Hyuga and Ise replacement units are face-up on the production cycle and will
appear on the map in Sep/Oct (Ise) and Nov/Dec (Hyuga) at no extra cost (this
mirrors their historical conversion).
- the BB counters have been removed from the game and never appear.

I think I agree.

Replacement arrival year is 1942. Scenarios that start before then clearly have the BB versions on the map and the CV versions are in the Future Force Pool (not the construction pool).

Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the BBs since the earliest the CVs could arrive would be Jan/Feb 1943. The CVs are in the Reserve Pool.

Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943
Scenario says they start in production to arrive face up in Nov/Dec 1943, so that must be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.

Decline and Fall begins in May/Jun 1944
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.

===
So, the general rule is that:

1 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is prior to the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the original unit is placed on the map and the replacement unit is placed in the reserve pool.

2 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is on or after the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed on the map and the original unit is removed from the game.

3 - if the scenario has the unit in the production/construction pool on or after the replacement arrival date (replacement arrival date = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed in the production/construction pool and the original unit is removed from the game.

My only lingering doubt is whether the game contains replacement units that were never historically built.

EDIT: tweaked #3.

Warspite1

1. That should be Construction Pool not Reserve Pool.

I will look for other Replacement Units to see if there is any other treatment.


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1487
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/9/2009 7:19:46 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve, this is my take on the rule (hope I`ve answered the right question this time).

I think if we take the case of Hyuga and Ise specifically, then there are
two scenarios where they are indirectly or directly affected; Brute Force and
Darkness Before Dawn:

[Before the scenario begins] - Jan/Feb 1942

Hyuga and Ise replacement units arrive and as "both BB`s are on the map", the
replacement units go in the construction pool.


Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942

- Hyuga and Ise are still BB`s ready for placing on the Pacific/Asia map by the
Japanese player at the start of the scenario (although presumably he can
choose to replace on the very first turn instead of placing on the map (see below)).
- The replacement units remain in the construction pool ready for when the
Japanese player or the AI chooses to convert to a carrier/battleship.

- If the Japanese player that turn or subsequently chooses to convert, then the
cost of doing so is the 2nd cycle cost i.e. because the replacement counter is
being placed from the construction pool it takes its 2nd cycle cost (3pts) and
no. of turns indicated (6 turns).
- The BB counters are removed from the game immediately

- At the end of the 6th turn, the replacement units appear as a reinforcement


Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943

- Hyuga and Ise replacement units are face-up on the production cycle and will
appear on the map in Sep/Oct (Ise) and Nov/Dec (Hyuga) at no extra cost (this
mirrors their historical conversion).
- the BB counters have been removed from the game and never appear.

I think I agree.

Replacement arrival year is 1942. Scenarios that start before then clearly have the BB versions on the map and the CV versions are in the Future Force Pool (not the construction pool).

Brute Force Scenario begins in May/Jun 1942
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the BBs since the earliest the CVs could arrive would be Jan/Feb 1943. The CVs are in the Reserve Pool.

Darkness Before the Dawn begins in Jul/Aug 1943
Scenario says they start in production to arrive face up in Nov/Dec 1943, so that must be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.

Decline and Fall begins in May/Jun 1944
Scenario says they start on the map, so that has to be the CVs. The BBs have been removed from the game.

===
So, the general rule is that:

1 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is prior to the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the original unit is placed on the map and the replacement unit is placed in the reserve pool.

2 - if the scenario has the unit on the map and the scenario start date is on or after the earliest possible arrival date (replacement arrival date + 1 year = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed on the map and the original unit is removed from the game.

3 - if the scenario has the unit in the production/construction pool on or after the replacement arrival date (replacement arrival date = a Jan/Feb turn), then the replacement unit is placed in the production/construction pool and the original unit is removed from the game.

My only lingering doubt is whether the game contains replacement units that were never historically built.

EDIT: tweaked #3.

Warspite1

1. That should be Construction Pool not Reserve Pool.

I will look for other Replacement Units to see if there is any other treatment.

Warspite1

Shinano is an interesting one - with her three counters!!

- In Brute Force, she must be in the Force Pool i.e. she joined that pool as a BB in 1940.
- The Japanese player has not laid her down and so she remains there at the start of the scenario.
- The Japanese player can now "replace" her with one of two CV`s at any point in the future. Because her original unit is in the Force Pool, both replacement units start in the Force Pool too and the normal two cycles of cost and time are required for her to be built.
(Note: need to code the ability of a player to change their mind - i.e. start of 1942 the Japanese player lays down Shinano BB. At a point in the future (end of a cycle?) he decides to change to one of the two CV`s).

- In Darkness Before Dawn CV Shinano is face down in the production cycle. THIS MUST BE THE HISTORICAL SHINANO I ASSUME - counter 5107. The BB is removed from the game. She will enter the construction pool at the end of her cycle and the player will pay her 2nd cycle cost (and no. of turns) to get her on the map. Again, the Japanese player must be able to switch from the historical to the ahistorical CV at a point in the future (at the end of a cycle only?) by paying the extra cost.






< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/9/2009 7:28:09 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1488
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/9/2009 8:50:08 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Steve, further to my post above, I think this is the total list of replacement ships to worry about coding. Do you need me to do anything with these research wise?

Japanese
Ise
Hyuga
Karyu x 2
Shinano x 2

German
Gneisenau
Scharnhorst
Seydlitz

French
Guichen
De Grasse



< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/9/2009 8:58:37 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1489
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/9/2009 10:35:03 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve, further to my post above, I think this is the total list of replacement ships to worry about coding. Do you need me to do anything with these research wise?

Japanese
Ise
Hyuga
Karyu x 2
Shinano x 2

German
Gneisenau
Scharnhorst
Seydlitz

French
Guichen
De Grasse



I need to know which of these units were actually built and if so, when.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1490
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/10/2009 6:04:36 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve, further to my post above, I think this is the total list of replacement ships to worry about coding. Do you need me to do anything with these research wise?

Japanese
Ise
Hyuga
Karyu x 2
Shinano x 2

German
Gneisenau
Scharnhorst
Seydlitz

French
Guichen
De Grasse



I need to know which of these units were actually built and if so, when.

Warspite1

Neither French ship was built - either the cruiser OR the replacement light
carrier. In reality, De Grasse was laid down as a cruiser, but in the WIF Global
war scenario she is in the Force Pool - NOT face down on the production
track. Both the cruiser and replacement unit for both ships ALWAYS start in the
Force Pool (Replacement units arrive - Guichen in 1941 and De Grasse in 1940)*.

Neither Scharnhorst or Gneisenau were converted to their up-gunned replacement
units. Both Replacement units start in Construction Pool (Gneisenau from 1940 and
Scharnhorst 1941) except the decline and fall scenario (Scharnhorst was sunk by
then) and so both BB and replacement unit is removed from the game.

Seydlitz was never built as either a cruiser or carrier. She starts the Global
war scenario as a CA in the Construction Pool. The replacement CV comes into the
Construction Pool in 1942. All scenarios that start in 1942 onwards have Seydlitz
in the Construction Pool as a CV - the CA is removed from the game from 1942.

Japanese units - see previous posts for Ise, Hyuga and Shinano. Karyu was never
built as either a BB or either of her two CV replacements. Both replacement
options join the game in 1943 and join the BB counter in the Force Pool,
regardless of scenario.

Note: May want to check with Patrice which Shinano CV counter is used in scenarios
where she appears on the production chart - assume its the historical version.

* Apologies for stating the obvious but this whole post just refers to scenarios. In an
actual game, where a replacement unit appears depends on what has gone before
e.g. Ship sunk = remove replacement unit - ship still in force pool = replacement
goes to force pool - ship on map = replacement to construction pool etc etc - see
rule 4.1.4.


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/10/2009 6:54:54 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1491
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/10/2009 8:12:11 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve, further to my post above, I think this is the total list of replacement ships to worry about coding. Do you need me to do anything with these research wise?

Japanese
Ise
Hyuga
Karyu x 2
Shinano x 2

German
Gneisenau
Scharnhorst
Seydlitz

French
Guichen
De Grasse



I need to know which of these units were actually built and if so, when.

Warspite1

Neither French ship was built - either the cruiser OR the replacement light
carrier. In reality, De Grasse was laid down as a cruiser, but in the WIF Global
war scenario she is in the Force Pool - NOT face down on the production
track. Both the cruiser and replacement unit for both ships ALWAYS start in the
Force Pool (Replacement units arrive - Guichen in 1941 and De Grasse in 1940)*.

Neither Scharnhorst or Gneisenau were converted to their up-gunned replacement
units. Both Replacement units start in Construction Pool (Gneisenau from 1940 and
Scharnhorst 1941) except the decline and fall scenario (Scharnhorst was sunk by
then) and so both BB and replacement unit is removed from the game.

Seydlitz was never built as either a cruiser or carrier. She starts the Global
war scenario as a CA in the Construction Pool. The replacement CV comes into the
Construction Pool in 1942. All scenarios that start in 1942 onwards have Seydlitz
in the Construction Pool as a CV - the CA is removed from the game from 1942.

Japanese units - see previous posts for Ise, Hyuga and Shinano. Karyu was never
built as either a BB or either of her two CV replacements. Both replacement
options join the game in 1943 and join the BB counter in the Force Pool,
regardless of scenario.

Note: May want to check with Patrice which Shinano CV counter is used in scenarios
where she appears on the production chart - assume its the historical version.

* Apologies for stating the obvious but this whole post just refers to scenarios. In an
actual game, where a replacement unit appears depends on what has gone before
e.g. Ship sunk = remove replacement unit - ship still in force pool = replacement
goes to force pool - ship on map = replacement to construction pool etc etc - see
rule 4.1.4.


Thanks. Let me see if I got this right, ... only the Japanese ungrades actually happened. I can code that easily enough.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1492
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/10/2009 8:31:07 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve, further to my post above, I think this is the total list of replacement ships to worry about coding. Do you need me to do anything with these research wise?

Japanese
Ise
Hyuga
Karyu x 2
Shinano x 2

German
Gneisenau
Scharnhorst
Seydlitz

French
Guichen
De Grasse



I need to know which of these units were actually built and if so, when.

Warspite1

Neither French ship was built - either the cruiser OR the replacement light
carrier. In reality, De Grasse was laid down as a cruiser, but in the WIF Global
war scenario she is in the Force Pool - NOT face down on the production
track. Both the cruiser and replacement unit for both ships ALWAYS start in the
Force Pool (Replacement units arrive - Guichen in 1941 and De Grasse in 1940)*.

Neither Scharnhorst or Gneisenau were converted to their up-gunned replacement
units. Both Replacement units start in Construction Pool (Gneisenau from 1940 and
Scharnhorst 1941) except the decline and fall scenario (Scharnhorst was sunk by
then) and so both BB and replacement unit is removed from the game.

Seydlitz was never built as either a cruiser or carrier. She starts the Global
war scenario as a CA in the Construction Pool. The replacement CV comes into the
Construction Pool in 1942. All scenarios that start in 1942 onwards have Seydlitz
in the Construction Pool as a CV - the CA is removed from the game from 1942.

Japanese units - see previous posts for Ise, Hyuga and Shinano. Karyu was never
built as either a BB or either of her two CV replacements. Both replacement
options join the game in 1943 and join the BB counter in the Force Pool,
regardless of scenario.

Note: May want to check with Patrice which Shinano CV counter is used in scenarios
where she appears on the production chart - assume its the historical version.

* Apologies for stating the obvious but this whole post just refers to scenarios. In an
actual game, where a replacement unit appears depends on what has gone before
e.g. Ship sunk = remove replacement unit - ship still in force pool = replacement
goes to force pool - ship on map = replacement to construction pool etc etc - see
rule 4.1.4.


Thanks. Let me see if I got this right, ... only the Japanese ungrades actually happened. I can code that easily enough.

Warspite1

Only three of the four Japanese happened (Ise, Hyuga and Shinano - of these only Ise and Hyuga were actually "replaced" Shinano was converted while in production) and of the remaining six, four were not built at all (Guichen, DeGrasse, Seydlitz and Karyu) - actual or replacement. The remaining two were built but their replacement unit was not used (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau).


< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/10/2009 9:13:54 PM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1493
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/10/2009 10:55:58 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Steve, further to my post above, I think this is the total list of replacement ships to worry about coding. Do you need me to do anything with these research wise?

Japanese
Ise
Hyuga
Karyu x 2
Shinano x 2

German
Gneisenau
Scharnhorst
Seydlitz

French
Guichen
De Grasse



I need to know which of these units were actually built and if so, when.

Warspite1

Neither French ship was built - either the cruiser OR the replacement light
carrier. In reality, De Grasse was laid down as a cruiser, but in the WIF Global
war scenario she is in the Force Pool - NOT face down on the production
track. Both the cruiser and replacement unit for both ships ALWAYS start in the
Force Pool (Replacement units arrive - Guichen in 1941 and De Grasse in 1940)*.

Neither Scharnhorst or Gneisenau were converted to their up-gunned replacement
units. Both Replacement units start in Construction Pool (Gneisenau from 1940 and
Scharnhorst 1941) except the decline and fall scenario (Scharnhorst was sunk by
then) and so both BB and replacement unit is removed from the game.

Seydlitz was never built as either a cruiser or carrier. She starts the Global
war scenario as a CA in the Construction Pool. The replacement CV comes into the
Construction Pool in 1942. All scenarios that start in 1942 onwards have Seydlitz
in the Construction Pool as a CV - the CA is removed from the game from 1942.

Japanese units - see previous posts for Ise, Hyuga and Shinano. Karyu was never
built as either a BB or either of her two CV replacements. Both replacement
options join the game in 1943 and join the BB counter in the Force Pool,
regardless of scenario.

Note: May want to check with Patrice which Shinano CV counter is used in scenarios
where she appears on the production chart - assume its the historical version.

* Apologies for stating the obvious but this whole post just refers to scenarios. In an
actual game, where a replacement unit appears depends on what has gone before
e.g. Ship sunk = remove replacement unit - ship still in force pool = replacement
goes to force pool - ship on map = replacement to construction pool etc etc - see
rule 4.1.4.


Thanks. Let me see if I got this right, ... only the Japanese ungrades actually happened. I can code that easily enough.

Warspite1

Only three of the four Japanese happened (Ise, Hyuga and Shinano - of these only Ise and Hyuga were actually "replaced" Shinano was converted while in production) and of the remaining six, four were not built at all (Guichen, DeGrasse, Seydlitz and Karyu) - actual or replacement. The remaining two were built but their replacement unit was not used (Scharnhorst and Gneisenau).


The code for replacements works fine as is. I am only concerned about setting up the correct units in the scenarios that start later. I'll define those changes later today.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1494
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/12/2009 7:06:34 AM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Caquineur / Mariandavid

Could I ask that you post some more land write ups please?

Thank-you

_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1495
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/12/2009 8:28:00 PM   
warspite1


Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline
Having just come back from a humbling visit to Westminster Abbey and a trip to see the Garden of Remembrance (shrouded in Poppies and crosses, stars of St David etc) and The Tomb of the Unknown Warrior, I feel the need to post a Royal Navy write-up and to say thank you .


[4583 Hood - by Robert Jenkins]
.B Engine(s) output: 144,000 hp
.B Top Speed: 31 knots
.B Main armament: 8 x 15-inch (381mm), 14 x 4-inch (102mm) AA guns
.B Displacement (full load): 46,200 tons
.B Thickest armour: 12-inch (Belt)
.P HMS Hood or the "Mighty Hood" was the last battlecruiser built for the
Royal Navy (RN). The RN wanted a class of four, fast, lightly armoured but
powerfully armed ships and the original design was completed before the fleet
encounter at Jutland in 1916. At Jutland the deficiencies in the battlecruiser
concept were exposed when the RN had three such ships blow up with huge loss of
life. As a result, the design for this class was altered to allow for additional
armour.
.P Despite this re-design, Hood`s three planned sister ships were cancelled at
the end of World War I and infact Hood was only completed to enable the RN to
gain experience of a number of new features she would test.
.P Her increased armour and other modifications received between the wars meant
that she sat considerably lower in the water than originally intended. This gave
her a reputation as a wet ship, although in fact, she proved a stable gun
platform for her excellent 15-inch main armament, of which she was fitted with
eight, in four twin turrets.
.P Hood combined elegant design with impressive size and between the wars, she
was a great success in "showing the flag" around the world. It could be argued
that her reputation was allowed to cloud peoples mind to the reality of her
design shortcomings; and not just in the Admiralty. It is interesting to hear the
views from survivors of the Bismarck as to how Hood was truly feared by the
Kriegsmarine.
.P Although she had numerous upgrades during her life, Hood only had one major
refit and that was at the end of the twenties. During the thirties it was
realised that she needed a major overhaul. This would have included replacement
of her machinery and a significant strengthening of her horizontal armour, which
was spread too thin and so did not provide protection where it was most needed.
Finally, in an effort to improve her anti-aircraft (AA) weaponry, she would have
had all secondary guns removed in favour of eight, twin, dual-purpose 5.25-inch
turrets and six, 8-barrel pompoms.
.P She was earmarked to follow the battleship Queen Elizabeth and to be the next
in line for a major modernisation. Unfortunately, the outbreak of World War II
meant that this never happened and as a result the Hood that was sent in May 1941
to intercept and stop the Bismarck - Germany`s newest operational battleship -
was little changed from the battlecruiser, designed during World War I.
.P The four ships of the class were all to have been named after famous Admirals
of the RN: Hood, Rodney, Howe and Anson, with Hood named after Samuel Hood,
famous for his exploits in the French Revolutionary Wars and the American War of
Independence.
.P HMS Hood was completed in May 1920. At the outbreak of World War II she was
part of the 1st Battlecruiser Squadron, Home Fleet, along with the Renown and the
Repulse. Initially she was deployed on convoy defence and patrol and
interception duties in the North Western Approaches. She came under air attack
for the first time on the 26th September, while escorting the damaged submarine
Spearfish back to the UK (see Submarine Counter 4734). She received slight
damage from a 500lb bomb during this action. In October, she took part in an
unsuccessful search for the German battlecruiser Gneisenau and the cruiser Köln
off the Norwegian coast (see HMS Repulse) and the following month she was part
of the Home Fleet that screened the return of an Iron Ore Convoy from Narvik,
escorted by the cruiser Aurora and four destroyers. Hood then took part in the
unsuccessful search for Gneisenau and her sister Scharnhorst, after the sinking
of the armed merchant cruiser Rawalpindi (see ASW Counter 4698 and HMS
Newcastle). At the end of the year and into 1940, Hood was one of the ships
tasked with escorting the Canadian troop convoys into home waters, and she mixed
this duty with continued patrol and interception work.
.P At the end of March 1940 Hood underwent a refit, during which she had her
remaining 5.5-inch secondary armament removed, and upon completion, she was
selected to join the newly formed Force H, as Flagship of Admiral Somerville (see
HMS Enterprise). Force H was based in Gibraltar, and Hood escorted military
convoy US.3 on her way there (see Transport Counter 4717). At the beginning of
July, Hood had the unenviable duty to lead Force H in the attack on the Vichy-
French Fleet at Mers-El-Kebir (see HMS Enterprise). At the end of that month, she
took part in Hurry; an operation to deliver fighter aircraft to Malta (see HMS
Argus). This was her last operation as part of Force H, and she returned to the
UK at the start of August, being replaced in Force H by Renown.
.P Hood was returned to the Home Fleet to undertake both anti-invasion patrol
and also interception duties. In November she was sent to try and intercept the
Admiral Scheer after the sinking of the Jervis Bay (see ASW Counter 4698) but no
engagement ensued. January 1941 saw her receive a refit for the purpose of
fitting her with radar, and her first role upon her return was to deploy south
of Iceland to guard against the possibility of Scharnhorst and Gneisenau escaping
back to Germany, following their break-out (see HMS Nelson).
.P Then in May, Hood was to take part in her final operation. The German
battleship Bismarck and her heavy cruiser escort Prinz Eugen, attempted to break-
out into the Atlantic, where they would seek to inflict as much damage and
disruption against the Atlantic convoy routes as possible. The German ships used
the Denmark Strait as their gateway. However, the heavy cruisers Norfolk and
Suffolk were patrolling in that area and managed to pick the German ships up on
radar. The cruisers were able to keep track of the enemy and this enabled Hood
and the new battleship, Prince of Wales, to sail to intercept. The British ships
were under the command of Vice-Admiral Holland in Hood.
.P On the 24th May, the RN ships were sailing at 29 knots, with Prince of Wales
roughly 800 yards to the right and rear of Hood. When contact was made, the
German ships had "crossed the T" and so were able to bring all their main
armament to bear against the RN ships, which had the use of just their forward
guns. Holland decided to close the range as quickly as possible before turning at
short range to bring his rear guns into the battle. He knew that at closer range
the Hood would be less susceptible to plunging shells; her big weakness given the
lack of horizontal armour over her vital areas. Hood opened the firing at 0552hrs
that morning at a range of just over 25,000 yards.
.P When the order to engage was given, Prinz Eugen was mistakenly made the target
by both British ships. Captain Leach, aboard the Prince of Wales, realised the
error but for reasons unknown, Hood apparently failed to change target. However
this is subject to debate as survivors from Bismarck insist Hood had engaged them
that morning. Whatever the truth, Hood failed to hit either ship. Curiously, the
commander of the German fleet, Admiral Lütjens, aboard the Bismarck, was slow in
ordering fire to be returned and Bismarck`s captain, Ernst Lindemann was the one
that gave the order, allegedly declaring, "I will not let my ship get shot out
from under my arse!". Both German ships then concentrated their fire on the Hood.
.P It is believed that the first hit on the battlecruiser came from the 8-inch
shells of Prinz Eugen rather than from Bismarck, whose first three salvoes
missed. A hit on Hood started a fire that spread across the boat-deck and reached
the ready-use ammunition lockers. The boat-deck soon became an inferno as 4-inch
shells and 7-inch UP rocket mines began detonating. Holland ordered that the
fire be left until the ammunition had all detonated in order to ensure the safety
of the damage control parties. A shell then passed through Hood`s spotting top
and this further reduced her ability to accurately fire back.
.P Bismarck used her secondary armament against the Prince of Wales, but kept
her main guns ranged against Hood. Prinz Eugen switched fire to Prince of Wales
after her 6th salvo. Prince of Wales meanwhile continued to fire at Bismarck.
As mentioned previously, it cannot be certain which ship Hood was firing at, but
her shells were still missing both enemy vessels and the RN ships were now in
serious trouble. The enemy had found their range and so as soon as he believed it
safe to do so, Holland gave the order to turn his ships to port and allow the
rear guns into action. The moment the turn began, disaster struck. According to
Captain Leach, Bismarck’s 5th salvo had hit around the base of Hood`s mainmast.
Within a second or two, there was a huge explosion, with a thin, funnel shaped
flame shooting out from the boat-deck. This was followed by her being covered in
smoke. Hood rolled to port and began to sink very quickly, breaking in two as she
did so. It was less than nine minutes since the battle had commenced.
.P Meanwhile, the Prince of Wales had completed her turn to port and now found
herself sailing directly for what remained of the Hood. She took immediate
evasive action to avoid the wreckage, ceasing firing momentarily as she did so.
Because the two RN ships were sailing so close, the Bismarck was easily able to
switch fire accurately to Prince of Wales, and the battleship was lucky to
survive a 15-inch hit underneath her armour belt, when the shell failed to
explode. She also took a direct hit against her bridge that killed all men there
with the exception of two, one of whom was Captain Leach.
.P However, Bismarck was not having it all her own way and the Prince of Wales
scored three hits, one of which was against a forward oil tank and this was to
force Lütjens to cancel his mission and head for France. Prince of Wales laid a
smoke screen and broke off the engagement as she was having problems with her
main armament. Lütjens refused to allow his ships to pursue her, and at 0609hrs,
the Germans ceased firing.
.P The exact cause of the loss of the Hood will probably never be known. The
most likely explanation is that a 15-inch shell from the Bismarck penetrated her
4-inch magazine which then blew the ship apart. Regardless of the exact cause,
the fact remains that out of a crew of 1,418 men, only three survived. A tragic
end to a famous ship.
.P Although the Hood was gone and the Prince of Wales out of action, the hunt for
the Bismarck was only just starting (see HMS Rodney).

< Message edited by warspite1 -- 11/13/2009 6:59:52 AM >


_____________________________

England expects that every man will do his duty. Horatio Nelson October 1805



(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1496
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/13/2009 7:45:45 AM   
Caquineur


Posts: 96
Joined: 4/21/2009
From: Aix en Provence, France, Europe
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: warspite1
Caquineur / Mariandavid

Could I ask that you post some more land write ups please?

Thank-you

I don't have a personal computer yet - I can use the one at my job to work on text/data/rtf/word/excel/etc... files, but I don't want to use it to run a game (even MWiF). So I can't post formatted land write ups for the time being

On the other hand, I should be able to add some new writeups by David and Eric (Grisouille) in the master file, and send it to Steve, by the end of next week, so maybe Steve will post some of them. I haven't had as much time as I would had liked to work for MWiF last week(due to real-life work) but next week should be OK.

Here is David's comment when he sent me the first draft 10 days ago : "I suspect that the Palestine entry will need careful attention - maybe even post on the forum first for input?".

Alain

Edited : typo

< Message edited by Caquineur -- 11/13/2009 7:47:30 AM >

(in reply to warspite1)
Post #: 1497
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/13/2009 8:02:21 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Caquineur
Here is David's comment when he sent me the first draft 10 days ago : "I suspect that the Palestine entry will need careful attention - maybe even post on the forum first for input?".

Wasn't it already posted here in February 2008 ? I have copies of 2 versions that were posted on the 11 and the 12.

(in reply to Caquineur)
Post #: 1498
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/13/2009 8:18:55 AM   
Caquineur


Posts: 96
Joined: 4/21/2009
From: Aix en Provence, France, Europe
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Caquineur
Here is David's comment when he sent me the first draft 10 days ago : "I suspect that the Palestine entry will need careful attention - maybe even post on the forum first for input?".

Wasn't it already posted here in February 2008 ? I have copies of 2 versions that were posted on the 11 and the 12.

If you have copies of 2 versions that were posted on the 11 and 12, well then I guess it was already posted
- or else there is something fishy going on on this forum

On a more serious note (one can't spend his days joking about the relativity theory, can they ?), David and I were referring to David's version - he's "rewriting" some of the Commonwealth write-ups (with Steve's approval, of course)

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1499
RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land - 11/15/2009 3:53:06 AM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 297
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
Froonp: What I am doing is adding some information on the specific military units to the general information already in the earlier versions. For example on Palestine I add details on the joint Jew/Arab pioneer and commando units and the Jewish Palestine Regiment to that already in on the Jewish Brigade Group.

Most of the stuff is on the really obscure entries such as the militia and territorials

(in reply to Caquineur)
Post #: 1500
Page:   <<   < prev  48 49 [50] 51 52   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land Page: <<   < prev  48 49 [50] 51 52   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.438