Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >>

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 4/13/2002 9:05:39 AM

Joel Billings

Posts: 32265
Joined: 9/20/2000
From: Santa Rosa, CA
Status: offline

Before you jump to any conclusions, please realize that the ships change over time as they return to Pearl Harbor/West Coast and get extra AA added to them. The refits happen during the course of the game. The pictures you are seeing are snapshots in time, and can vary greatly depending on whether they are showing you a shot from a scenario or from the database. I'm sure there are plenty of errors in the database, but an attempt has been made to model the changing configurations of the ships during the game's timeframe. You should be able to see this for yourself very soon.

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 61

- 4/13/2002 9:20:04 AM

ratster

Posts: 166
Joined: 1/21/2002
From: PA
Status: offline

What about the speed thing?

_____________________________

" If it be now, tis not to come: if it be not to come, it will be now; if it be not now, yet it will come: the readiness is all"

Clan [GOAT]

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 62

- 4/13/2002 2:45:35 PM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Elvis1965
[B]Erik, many THANKS !!! Those US CLAA will be nasty with all those 40mm Bofors.

I was surprised by the lack or armor on the Ryujo?? What was it converted from? Surely not a CA hull? Or maybe it was purpose built and armor wasn't considered important for its role? [/B][/QUOTE]

Despite the name on the link, the screenshot appears to be of the Ryuho, an entirely different ship - not only the ship's name(!) in the screenshot but also the data listed for her bear this out. Ryuho was converted from a sub tender from Dec 41 to Nov 42. Ryujo was purpose-built, commissioning in 1933. Ryujo probably wasn't a great deal better armored, though, if at all - that ship was designed in an attempt by the IJN to circumvent the Washington Treaty by building a full-service CV on under 10k tons (as ships under that size were not limited by the Treaty), and she proved not entirely satisfactory.

It's mildly surprising too see Ryuho in a South Pacific game as she never seems to have ventured farther than Truk in her entire career, and her one stay at Truk was less than a month (21 June - 19 July 1943). Indeed, apart from her participation in A-GO in June 1944, she seems to have spent her entire career as a training carrier and aircraft ferry. Considering how desperate the IJN was for carriers, I think this speaks volumes as to what the IJN thought of her.

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 63

Re: Per Ron's Request... - 4/13/2002 8:11:06 PM

11Bravo

Posts: 2082
Joined: 4/5/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Erik Rutins
[B]On a slightly different note,

The SS Silversides... [/B][/QUOTE]

Thanks, Erik for the image you posted of the stats for the SS Silversides.

The Silversides survived the war, and is now on display in Muskegon, MI, on Lake Michigan. I have been honored to be aboard her, and several other subs from WW2.

Here is a cool virtual tour of the Silversides. http://www.silversides.org/tour_silver.html

Muskegon also has an LST being restored, and the surrounding area hosts a great Coast Guard Festival in Grand Haven and a large airshow with lots of military stuff. This year we get a B-29, a Marine Harrier, a stealth fighter. In the past, they have had the entire Grumman "cat" family.

Here is some information for those interested:
http://www.sos.state.mi.us/history/preserve/phissite/silversi.html

http://www.silversides.org/

http://www.muskegonairfair.com/index.html

http://www.ghcgfest.org/

_____________________________

Squatting in the bush and marking it on a map.

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 64

- 4/14/2002 1:10:46 AM

daniel123

Posts: 296
Joined: 8/30/2000
From: Orlando
Status: offline

The site wargame has a review of a new book listing all the ships in the World War 2 era.
Fleets of World War 2 by Richard Worth
The review was favorable

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 65

- 4/14/2002 1:47:12 AM

daniel123

Posts: 296
Joined: 8/30/2000
From: Orlando
Status: offline

I miss spelled the game sitehttp://www.wargamer.com/default.asp here it is again

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 66

Muskegon airshow question - 4/14/2002 10:52:47 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

They're going to have a flying B29 at the Muskegon airshow? I am surprised, as I didn't think that any of those were still flying (due to their very temperamental engines). I have seen a B17 and B24 in airshows here in Olympia (those planes aren't based here but we do have a P51 and a Bearcat flying locally), but was unaware that there were any B29s still in the air. Pretty cool (also pretty brave of the fellows going up in them!).

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 67

Re: Muskegon airshow question - 4/14/2002 9:34:46 PM

11Bravo

Posts: 2082
Joined: 4/5/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by bradfordkay
[B]They're going to have a flying B29 at the Muskegon airshow? I am surprised, as I didn't think that any of those were still flying (due to their very temperamental engines). I have seen a B17 and B24 in airshows here in Olympia (those planes aren't based here but we do have a P51 and a Bearcat flying locally), but was unaware that there were any B29s still in the air. Pretty cool (also pretty brave of the fellows going up in them!). [/B][/QUOTE]

Looks like the B29 is still a go according to my sources. It will be "Fifi".

Here is some info on her. http://www.warbirdsalive.com/wblist/american/b29/b29_fifi.htm

And a picture. http://community.webshots.com/rz/r1/7/36/55/14773655cuCWDVRGxv_ph.jpg

_____________________________

Squatting in the bush and marking it on a map.

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 68

- 4/15/2002 9:11:51 AM

bradfordkay

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline

Thanks man, if anyone has one flying it would be the Confederate Air Force. One day I'd like to get down there to scope out their operation.

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 69

- 4/15/2002 10:20:01 AM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CynicAl
[B]

Despite the name on the link, the screenshot appears to be of the Ryuho, an entirely different ship - not only the ship's name(!) in the screenshot but also the data listed for her bear this out. Ryuho was converted from a sub tender from Dec 41 to Nov 42. Ryujo was purpose-built, commissioning in 1933. Ryujo probably wasn't a great deal better armored, though, if at all - that ship was designed in an attempt by the IJN to circumvent the Washington Treaty by building a full-service CV on under 10k tons (as ships under that size were not limited by the Treaty), and she proved not entirely satisfactory.

It's mildly surprising too see Ryuho in a South Pacific game as she never seems to have ventured farther than Truk in her entire career, and her one stay at Truk was less than a month (21 June - 19 July 1943). Indeed, apart from her participation in A-GO in June 1944, she seems to have spent her entire career as a training carrier and aircraft ferry. Considering how desperate the IJN was for carriers, I think this speaks volumes as to what the IJN thought of her. [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually the Ryujo played a crucial roll in the IJN advance into the DIE. Covering the landings at Davou in Mindano; Menado and Kendari in the Celebes; and Borneo operations. Dont forget the Attu and Kiska invasions.

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 70

Ryuho not Ryujo - 4/15/2002 10:36:26 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, He said Ryuho not Ryujo. My data concerning Ryuho commished Kure Nov 42 13,400 tons Air Cap 31

damaged by TF 58 20 June 44 during A-go
damaged TF 58 18 Mar 45 (at Kure)
damaged TF 38 24 Jul 45 (at Kure)

Training carrier most of career
she survived the war. It appears after first being damaged every time her repairs neared completion she was redamaged.

The Ryujo was in the South Pacific she was sunk on 25 Aug 42 during the battle of the Eastern Solomons by divebombers from Saratoga

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 71

Re: Ryuho not Ryujo - 4/15/2002 12:05:25 PM

TIMJOT

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, He said Ryuho not Ryujo. My data concerning Ryuho commished Kure Nov 42 13,400 tons Air Cap 31

damaged by TF 58 20 June 44 during A-go
damaged TF 58 18 Mar 45 (at Kure)
damaged TF 38 24 Jul 45 (at Kure)

Training carrier most of career
she survived the war. It appears after first being damaged every time her repairs neared completion she was redamaged.

The Ryujo was in the South Pacific she was sunk on 25 Aug 42 during the battle of the Eastern Solomons by divebombers from Saratoga [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry, my bad. I guess its that dyslexia kicking in. :D

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 72

- 4/16/2002 2:01:46 AM

CynicAl

Posts: 327
Joined: 7/27/2001
From: Brave New World
Status: offline

S'OK. I should probably add that I don't have a real objection to Ryuho being in the game, I'm just - as I said - a bit surprised.

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 73

- 4/16/2002 3:07:14 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

"They're going to have a flying B29 at the Muskegon airshow? I am surprised, as I didn't think that any of those were still flying (due to their very temperamental engines). I have seen a B17 and B24 in airshows here in Olympia (those planes aren't based here but we do have a P51 and a Bearcat flying locally), but was unaware that there were any B29s still in the air. Pretty cool (also pretty brave of the fellows going up in them!)."

There's a "flyable" one at the Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson. The engines are complete and intact and were overhauled and operational right before she was mothballed. Been in an indoor hangar for a long time now, so no birds nesting in an unfortunate places. They've inspected all the controls, surfaces, wiring harness etc. and found everything there and in good shape. No telling what would be found in engine run-ups of course.

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 74

Refits and overall naval unit accuracy. - 4/16/2002 7:38:34 AM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

Hi, Eric and all other revered Matrix/2by3 nobles. Once I get my copy of UV (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) and check out all the details, I'll get to work on putting together a list of refits for each class of ship in UV and potentially WITP and annotate it. There is obviously going to be a discernable pattern of modifications for each nationality and ship class which you may (please) implement into an automatic "repair and refit" function whenever these units return to a "major" port facility such as Pearl Harbor, Mare Island, Kure, Sasebo, The Cockatoo shipyard in Australia, etc. and remain in port for the required amount of time. (I'll research mean times for refits as well). Perhaps, this may also be an ideal time to relieve/promote/transfer commanders.

As many have stated in other threads, the level of support and sincere interest shown by everybody in design, development, and management regarding UV and your other products is refreshing to say the least. I believe that all of us here in your forum community appriciate this sincerity and the resultantant ability to contribute somewhat to the furtherance of "quality" gaming.

My credit card is ready! (manufacture more coffee mugs, will ya! Maybe some beer steins, mouse pads, muumuus etc. ;) ) Cheers!

_____________________________

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 75

- 4/16/2002 11:20:02 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

I second the motion for some beer steins!

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 76

You say Ryuho, I say Ryujo... - 4/17/2002 5:49:49 AM

Erik Rutins

Posts: 37503
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

Yep, it was late when I posted the Ryuho and I misread her as the Ryujo. I happen to be also working on a scenario for Battleline including the Ryujo, so there's plenty of room for confusion. :)

As for upgrade questions, equipment questions and so on...

We'll certainly be glad to field and address any questions regarding the database once you all have the game in your hands. Until then, we're certainly watching, listening and keeping all of these things in mind.

I would guess that the difference in equipment for the Australian unit is likely just an issue of the equipment name. At this scale, the likely difference in their game effects is non-existent, but that the alternate naming conventions were not included by the scenario designer. If there's enough call for that differentiation, it may be something that we can address after release.

Among the things we did do to try to address the same equipment in different armies is include non-US markings for the P-40, P-39, A-20, etc. along with their alternate names (i.e. Kittyhawk, Boston). It's likely that even in cases where a separate version wasn't included there's an exact game equivalent. You'll have to judge for yourselves when you see the full database - I'm expecting you'll be pleased.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
CEO, Matrix Games LLC

For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 77

- 4/18/2002 3:54:51 AM

ERG

Posts: 1
Joined: 4/18/2002
From: W YORKSHIRE UK
Status: offline

I've just looked at the data for HMS VICTORIOUS. According to Conways all the worlds fighting ships her AA armament was
16 (8x2) 4.5in/45 QF Mk III HA not 16 4in. Similar AA guns were mounted in BD mountings in Queen Elizabeth, Valiant and Renown.
The RN armoured carriers were designed to survive heavy air attack from land based aircraft in the North sea and Mediterranean without too much help from their own aircraft. See
Nelson to Vanguard- Warship design and development 1923-1945
D K Brown Chatham Publishing London 2000

(in reply to ftwarrior)

Post #: 78