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: Cha and T23

 
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] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Cha and T23 Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/12/2009 11:59:16 PM   
1275psi

 

Posts: 7979
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline 		Good
Thanks for the reply -can't wait for this.

personally the answer is i won't play against people who do this anyway.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 331
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 12:12:27 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Can't find pictures, but this site seems to have detail on Commission dates and losses for the class:

http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=1106

Who knows where that came from, but hopefully it gives with what you have.

Interesting addition!


Very interesting. Did not previously have commissioning dates - just vague period references.



(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 332
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 1:56:27 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Very interesting. Did not previously have commissioning dates - just vague period references.


Why am I just slightly uneasy right now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

quote:

"ships side penetrated"

And forgive me for picking a nit, but it should be "ship's", not "ships."


Oh Oh, another several month delay....



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 333
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 2:01:08 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Can't find pictures, but this site seems to have detail on Commission dates and losses for the class:

http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=1106

Who knows where that came from, but hopefully it gives with what you have.

Interesting addition!


Very interesting. Did not previously have commissioning dates - just vague period references.






I don't know who that Czech guy is, but he has a great reference site; lots of good line drawings and pictures. I wish I could read Czech! Maybe someone should e-mail him, somewhere in the Czech Republic is an extreme naval history buff!

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 334
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 2:17:01 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I don't know who that Czech guy is, but he has a great reference site; lots of good line drawings and pictures. I wish I could read Czech! Maybe someone should e-mail him, somewhere in the Czech Republic is an extreme naval history buff!


That is a very cool site - thanks for posting the link. Somewhat of a segue, but it was interesting to note that the Japanese pre-dreadnought Asahi, a veteran of the Battle of Tsushima was still in service in WW2 and was sunk by the sub USS Salmon in 1942. Grand old girl that she was, despite two torpedos she hung on long enough for 584 of 599 crewmen to escape (and only lost 8 during Tsushima despite taking 9 hits!). A lucky ship.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 335
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 4:11:24 AM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: brisd
Great to see the progress on this update to a great game.  Thanks for sharing the 'chrome' esp. and for you all your long hard work on this project. 

It's not 'chrome', my friend. Don is very careful about giving operational hints along with the descriptive stuff. Read his post vewy, vewy cafuwy.


I was referring to all the detail about the ships, the historical background. I was going to rant about design choices but that is outside this thread's intentions. Still a fine history lesson, thanks designers. Back to the Naval Q&A.

_____________________________

"I propose to fight it out on this line if it takes all summer."-Note sent with Congressman Washburne from Spotsylvania, May 11, 1864, to General Halleck. - General Ulysses S. Grant

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 336
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 4:33:18 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Very interesting. Did not previously have commissioning dates - just vague period references.


Why am I just slightly uneasy right now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

quote:

"ships side penetrated"

And forgive me for picking a nit, but it should be "ship's", not "ships."


Not to worry, we are not going to make any changes. We do have the Cha-1 class arriving too early, but there were lots of other small requisitioned sub chasers in service in the interim. With 100+ boats, we have a very good sampling - at least as generous a sampling as for the allies.

Perhaps, some day in the future, someone will spend hours researching all the available data on converted Japanese fishing boats and putting dozens or hundreds more little ships into the database. Not for the AE scenario though.



Oh Oh, another several month delay....





(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 337
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 4:50:25 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Im very worried about these small patrol craft



As I've said before - even in AE we are leaving OUT far more vessels than we are including - and actually except for a few actual attested conversions, the 8,000 motor fishing vessels are NOT included. Sorry if my statement made you think they were.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to 1275psi)
Post #: 338
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 5:17:52 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		Suggestion: ASW TFs couldnt be that hot to engage bombard or SCTF TF. Make them to take evasive actions?

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 339
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 6:16:12 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Suggestion: ASW TFs couldnt be that hot to engage bombard or SCTF TF. Make them to take evasive actions?


There is a "want to fight" calculation based on mission, TF strength, and leader aggression. However, not wanting to fight also requires a speed advantange to get out of the way.



(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 340
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 7:27:54 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		My head is swimming with the thought of managing all these YPC's and Trawlers and MTB's and whatnot. Not that I am advocating taking them out, but man.....it's alot to manage.

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 341
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 7:36:00 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

My head is swimming with the thought of managing all these YPC's and Trawlers and MTB's and whatnot. Not that I am advocating taking them out, but man.....it's alot to manage.



Shouldn't be. Step through your bases and set up ASW TFs using the small craft. Destination = home base, react = 0. If necessary, form a TF with a larger escort ship and move them where you want them. Now and again (maybe monthly), give them a quick check. Or just leave them in port.




(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 342
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 8:03:32 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		Will all those Harbor Patrol Craft end the practice of "Port Squatting" by subs? In WITP you can stop that with ASW TF's, but they can't cover everything. (Or ASW aircraft, but that's another can of worms).

If so, that's a good thing, and realistic.

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 343
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 8:19:08 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Will all those Harbor Patrol Craft end the practice of "Port Squatting" by subs? In WITP you can stop that with ASW TF's, but they can't cover everything. (Or ASW aircraft, but that's another can of worms).

If so, that's a good thing, and realistic.



In AE, a player that squats his subs at defended enemy bases will soon have squat for subs.



(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 344
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/13/2009 8:37:43 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		Cute

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 345
Buy for Supply Types - 1/13/2009 10:16:20 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

A “buy-for-supply” type is a small craft that arrives on map due to the expenditure of supply points.

In WITP, these are US Navy PTs, Japanese Barges (AG in WITP), and small US Navy landing Craft (LCT, LCM, LCVP). A human player may “purchase” these for supply points at any base at which he has sufficient supply or from a TF that has sufficient supply as cargo. This emulates building the craft at the base or transporting them there from somewhere else. In addition, the AI player can move its buy-for-supply types by returning them to the pool (i.e. selling them for supply) and then buying them back after a delay. This emulates loading them onto a ship for transport somewhere else.


A number of changes have been made in AE.

PTs are now available for all nations (Japan and allied). Each nation’s units are kept separate and “bought” at a base or TF of that particular nation. Buy PTs at an Indian port and you get Indian PTs, etc. Actually Indian MTB, as British designation is used for British and Commonwealth units.

Other allied nations may also have landing craft under the same rules. And, of course, barges are now LB instead of AG

New buy-for-supply type Motor Gunboat (MGB) is available to all nations.

New buy-for-supply type Midget Submarine (SSX) is available for Japan only.

All buy-for-supply types may be ordered to arrive at a specific base. This overrides the player’s ability to buy them but still requires that enough supply be available to pay for them. If there is not enough supply, the arrival is delayed. If the arrival port has been captured and the unit is a barge/landing craft it is returned to the normal buy-for-supply pool. If the arrival port has been captured and the unit is a PT/MTB Boat, MGB, or Midget Sub, the unit is destroyed while building. This emulates building specific units at specific locations and is primarily designed for specific location arrivals early in a scenario.

Human players may now return buy-for-supply types to the pool for later re-purchase (and the AI still can), as in WITP. This can be done in any friendly port over which the human player has air superiority. The unit will be returned to the queue for repurchase after a delay. The delay varies by nation and is adjusted for repair time for damage to the ship (i.e. ship return is delayed for repairs and ship will return fully repaired). The player does not receive any supply, so this is return and not “sell”. This is specifically to solve the problem of moving these low-endurance ships long distances and in lieu of providing the ability to actually load them on ships as cargo (which turned out to be overly difficult).

In both WITP and AE, barges/landing craft automatically replace. This is not respawn – the same ship slot and name are used. The lost ship does not go into the sunk ship list, it is simply recreated as a “new” craft with a 60 day delay. Note that this is only for barge/landing craft types. Not for PTs, nor MGB/SSX.




(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 346
RE: Buy for Supply Types - 1/14/2009 1:25:21 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		Oh, wondermous...fantabulifical... etc., etc., I used to fry my self when I accidentally hit the "Activate PT Boats" arrow instead of the "Exit" arrow and arrange to have 12 PT boats stationed in the dangerous and distant port of San Diego... That usually meant I had to have some poor freighter or tanker herd that cantankerous lot across the Pacific to some port they might be useful - about like herding cats - they seem to default to "Retire to Port" no matter where they are. After reminding them 2 or 3 times a day to "Follow the Task Force" I might get to refuel the little boogers and watch them scamper all over the ocean burning go juice. Now, I can, in effect, put there little tookuses on board a ship and make them behave, for a while... GREAT!!!!

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 347
RE: Buy for Supply Types - 1/14/2009 4:17:41 AM   
Hornblower


Posts: 1361
Joined: 9/10/2003
From: New York'er relocated to Chicago
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Oh, wondermous...fantabulifical... etc., etc., I used to fry my self when I accidentally hit the "Activate PT Boats" arrow instead of the "Exit" arrow and arrange to have 12 PT boats stationed in the dangerous and distant port of San Diego... That usually meant I had to have some poor freighter or tanker herd that cantankerous lot across the Pacific to some port they might be useful - about like herding cats - they seem to default to "Retire to Port" no matter where they are. After reminding them 2 or 3 times a day to "Follow the Task Force" I might get to refuel the little boogers and watch them scamper all over the ocean burning go juice. Now, I can, in effect, put there little tookuses on board a ship and make them behave, for a while... GREAT!!!!

been there, done that ... ick..

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 348
RE: Buy for Supply Types - 1/14/2009 2:56:11 PM   
helldiver


Posts: 86
Joined: 5/21/2008
From: SRA
Status: offline 		Greetings.

These wonderful previews of the smaller craft types has me chomping at the bit to have a crack at the patrol/ASW aspects of AE. I have two questions, related, I guess, to both WitP and to AE:

1. From previous discussion, I have understood that a ship's ASW rating was a direct expression of # of ASW weapons carried. Is this so? Is it still so in AE?

2. If #1 is true, should judgments about the composition of ASW TFs be based solely on brute #'s? Is more always better in terms of ASW effectiveness? Is there a point of diminishing returns? (I get the impression that PBEMers have built house rules to restrict the # of ships in ASW TFs). Are there other factors in ASW effect?

Dev. Team: pls. hurry. I'm 62, and it's beginning to look as if I'll need at least 10 years to master the learning curve on AE.

Regards,
Helldiver

(in reply to Hornblower)
Post #: 349
RE: Buy for Supply Types - 1/14/2009 3:18:45 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Helldiver

Greetings.

These wonderful previews of the smaller craft types has me chomping at the bit to have a crack at the patrol/ASW aspects of AE. I have two questions, related, I guess, to both WitP and to AE:

1. From previous discussion, I have understood that a ship's ASW rating was a direct expression of # of ASW weapons carried. Is this so? Is it still so in AE?



Yes.


quote:



2. If #1 is true, should judgments about the composition of ASW TFs be based solely on brute #'s? Is more always better in terms of ASW effectiveness? Is there a point of diminishing returns? (I get the impression that PBEMers have built house rules to restrict the # of ships in ASW TFs). Are there other factors in ASW effect?



ASW TFs are limited to four ships in AE, so brute force is not an issue. For any TF, ASW or otherwise, the routines tend to select the best ASW ship(s) present to engage a submerged submarine. Always a little random to spice things up...



quote:



Dev. Team: pls. hurry. I'm 62, and it's beginning to look as if I'll need at least 10 years to master the learning curve on AE.

Regards,
Helldiver


I'm older than you, and been doing this for quite a while. I too am looking forward to release.





(in reply to helldiver)
Post #: 350
RE: Buy for Supply Types - 1/14/2009 3:28:27 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

I used to fry my self when I accidentally hit the "Activate PT Boats" arrow instead of the "Exit" arrow and arrange to have 12 PT boats stationed in the dangerous and distant port of San Diego...


Use the escape key, Rev!

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 351
RE: Buy for Supply Types - 1/14/2009 4:31:54 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		Do you mean to tell me that there is a way to remedy that after four years!?!?!? Lord, have mercy!!! Tell me how that works, ooohhhhh Please, tell me. E-bloody-GAD!

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 352
RE: Buy for Supply Types - 1/14/2009 7:18:44 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ASW TFs are limited to four ships in AE, so brute force is not an issue.


Very, very, VERY nice!

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 353
Japanese submarines - 1/16/2009 10:51:55 AM   
Fletcher


Posts: 3386
Joined: 10/26/2006
From: Jerez, Spain, EU
Status: offline 		In the book "Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy 1904-1945" we can read the following:
"Situation would force the Japanese submarine force to change its tactical concepts six times in the four years of conflict with the United States. And it was the Japanese Navy´s repeated use of submarines for purposes for which they were not designed that was a major reason for the failure of the submarine force to achieve a creditable combat record.
The tactical concepts employed by Japanese by Japanese submarines in World War II can be considererd in the following phases:
-Phase I: 1931-April 1942: Submarines operated with the surface fleet; their major role was reconnaissance and attacts against warships.
-Phase II: April 1942-November 1944: Submarines concentrated their efforts on attacking merchant shipping.
-Phase III: mid November 1942 to mid-August 1945: Submarines were employed primarily to supply bypassed island outposts.
-Phase IV: November 1944-April 1945: Submarines were converted to carry kaiten one-man torpedoes and operated in groups against warships in anchor.
-Phase V: April 1945 to August 1945: Submarines carrying kaiten operated in groups in the open sea, primarily against tankers and troop ships.
-Phase VI: July to August 1945: in a concept initiated but no completed. STo-class and AM-class submarines were to carry aircraft to strike US Base.
-Phase VII: considered but no initiated: the use of the new hight speed ST-class submarines.

In other pages of the same book (pages 32-33) we can read:
"The record of Japanese submarines in 1942 had not been impressive,especially their failure to provide effective reconnaissance of US carrier forces at Coral Sea and Midway, or to inflict more damage on American forces. Their major triumphs -which were significant in the course of 1942-were the sinking of the carriers Yorktown and Wasp, and the twice torpedoing of the Saratoga as well as the torpedo damage to the British battleship Ramillies. In 1942 Japanese submarines also sank a damaged US antiaircraft cruiser, two US destroyers, one US naval oiler, and approximately 125 Allied merchant ships (most in the Indian Ocean), plus the soviet submarine L-16.

At last my question... Will be reconsidered the japanese submarine doctrine in AE? 6 warships vs 125 merchant ships is a big difference, IMHO, of course.

_____________________________



WITP-AE, WITE

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 354
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/16/2009 2:36:28 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Will all those Harbor Patrol Craft end the practice of "Port Squatting" by subs? In WITP you can stop that with ASW TF's, but they can't cover everything. (Or ASW aircraft, but that's another can of worms).

If so, that's a good thing, and realistic.



In AE, a player that squats his subs at defended enemy bases will soon have squat for subs.





Try that as Japan and by the end of January you have the same result without the port patrols. Still you gotta push the allies somehow, and forcing them to defend their own ports was a good tactic to slow down the juggernaut.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 355
RE: Japanese submarines - 1/16/2009 5:39:02 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:



At last my question... Will be reconsidered the japanese submarine doctrine in AE? 6 warships vs 125 merchant ships is a big difference, IMHO, of course.



Japanese sub doctrine has been tweaked.




< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 1/16/2009 6:38:37 PM >

(in reply to Fletcher)
Post #: 356
RE: Japanese submarines - 1/16/2009 6:18:03 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:



At last my question... Will be reconsidered the japanese submarine doctrine in AE? 6 warships vs 125 merchant ships is a big difference, IMHO, of course.



Japanese sub doctrine has been tweaked.


Unexpected and interesting!..One wonders what other surprises await.


< Message edited by m10bob -- 1/16/2009 8:10:19 PM >

_____________________________




(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 357
RE: Japanese submarines - 1/16/2009 6:40:41 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:



At last my question... Will be reconsidered the japanese submarine doctrine in AE? 6 warships vs 125 merchant ships is a big difference, IMHO, of course.



Japanese sub doctrine has been tweaked and an allied sub doctrine option added.





Unexpected and interesting!..One wonders what other surprises await.



Whoops, error on my part. Brain is breaking wind again. There always was an Allied sub doctrine. AE just adjusts it.



(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 358
RE: Japanese submarines - 1/16/2009 7:04:54 PM   
W T Door

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 1/15/2009
Status: offline 		I'm kind of excited that the various LCS will actually do something. It has long been a source of irritation that, as the allies, I had all those hulls that didn't do anything.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 359
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/17/2009 5:29:28 AM   
Zeta16


Posts: 1199
Joined: 11/20/2002
From: Columbus. Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

Will all those Harbor Patrol Craft end the practice of "Port Squatting" by subs? In WITP you can stop that with ASW TF's, but they can't cover everything. (Or ASW aircraft, but that's another can of worms).

If so, that's a good thing, and realistic.



In AE, a player that squats his subs at defended enemy bases will soon have squat for subs.





Was just reading a bok about US sub operations in WWII and when the US subs meet escorts they did a lot worse than normal. In WWII it was never a good idea to encounter the escourts. Are the very bad US torpedeo in the game until mid to late 43? The book I am reading talks about hiw the US sub commanders put the subs off the Manlia and Saigon and other ports when the should have been at choke points because escorts were to much around bases and the subs had no luck. When the US subs meet escored shipe there hit % went way down.


< Message edited by Zeta16 -- 1/17/2009 5:33:37 AM >

_____________________________

"Ours was the first revolution in the history of mankind that truly reversed the course of government, and with three little words: 'We the people.' 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." -Ronald Reagan

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Cha and T23 Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   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

0.797