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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 5/15/2002 3:05:07 PM   
Adnan Meshuggi

 

Posts: 2220
Joined: 8/2/2001
Status: offline 		Well, that was my idea... a paniced disorientiated crew in a harbour and a supirior fllet in front of it.... so from the 10 merchants in harbor, with explosions, smoke, they have a chance to forget their mission to sunk the ship or only made it unsuccsessfully... also for equippment, if your ship got a deadly hit and is sinking very quick, you are not interested in destroying the technical equippment but to save your life.... so the other side has a (small) chance to gain informations or the whole ship.

Sure this should be a rare thing... the surprise attack option could be for many (mostly other) things, but it could be the only chance that such a event can happen...

_____________________________

Don't tickle yourself with some moralist crap thinking we have some sort of obligation to help these people. We're there for our self-interest, and anything we do to be 'nice' should be considered a courtesy dweebespit

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 31
- 5/15/2002 10:28:32 PM   
Ranger-75


Posts: 610
Joined: 6/29/2001
From: Giant sand box
Status: offline 		first, it was the hornet, not the Lexington that the Japanese came upon after Santa Cruz. They couldn't board it for the same reason they couldn't try to save any of their Midway carriers, the fires were too intense.

The 2 German U-boats captured were in the Atlantic, both were in the middle of being scuttled, but fast action by the USN and RN sailors kept the ships afloat. However, this was NOT standard practice, Gallery was the only Hunter-Killer group commander that trained his tasf force to actually attempt capture. The preferred method of dealing with the U-boats was to sink them. That would be the same in the Pacific.

I do think it would be permissable for a limited number of merchant ships, say between 1 and 10% should be subject to capture, but only if a port is attacked AND falls in the first turn of any land battle, AND the defenders are eliminated or forced to retreat from the base in that same first turn. Generic "captured" tanker and MCS ship types can be included in the game for each side with reduced performance charasterics.

Warships should not be part of this.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 32
- 5/16/2002 11:05:20 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		Right. Hornet it was. I was thinking of Gallery when I said that it ought to be costly and require much preparation. But over the course of 4 or 5 years I don't see why it ought to be categorically written out.

Maybe there could be categories of special ops based on historic events that are available to both sides. There could be several options. A player could put all his effort into one of them, increasing the likelihood of success should circumstances permit, or keep the standard settings. Just a thought.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 33
intel - 5/23/2002 1:40:42 AM   
brisd


Posts: 614
Joined: 5/20/2000
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline 		I have been playing UV for two days and now can see how WITP might be implemented. I am not sure if Intel successes will be modeled into the game but I would suggest that capturing an enemy base with ships docked in it should result in captured vessels, equipment, supplies and possible intel bonuses. If damaged aircraft are at the airfield a small chance of their capture should happen as well. Perhaps if the IJN capture an Allied base with radar or radar equipped ships/aircraft they can have an accelerated intro of such equipment. Same with Allies, they recover intel concerning IJN codes or order of battle, resulting in better detection levels maybe for the next 3 months or so. Just some ideas.
Yes, you could go crazy with this stuff and I want it to remain a STRATEGIC game, not a overblown Operational game like UV. Some neat ideas will have to be sacrificed for playability's sake.
;)

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 34
- 5/29/2002 12:56:23 AM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline 		I do not think merely capturing a port should allow the ships in port to be captured. If they've steam up, there's really no option for a ground assault force to get to the ships. It'd require special ops. Parties trained specifically for boarding a ship and running the ship after they've captured it, and proper equipment for scaling the hull &c. Your garden variety infantry man or SNLF is not going to be up to snuff for this job and won't have the material anyhow.

I also do not think that capturing radar equipment shold be likely when a radar-equipped port is overrun. The technology is in the displays and the knowledge on how to read them. You can bet that such equipment would *probably* be demolished by the operators in the event that the Japanese came close. I'd have a very small probability of capture, a small probability that some Japanese soldier does *not* smash it for the sake of wreaking havoc, and another very small probability that Japanese equivalent of G2 would have a clue what to do with it.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 35
- 5/31/2002 10:16:20 PM   
Howling H R Bryars

 

Posts: 68
Joined: 5/24/2000
From: Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Status: offline 		I like the idea of the occasional damaged ship trapped in port being captured. I think the likelihood of capture at sea is remote, although in the case of small combatants, not impossible.

_____________________________

HRB3

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 36
- 6/7/2002 6:25:11 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		Much as I like the level of detail that us in the game, I think I agree with the thought that this could get out of hand. Capturing ships was pretty rare, and cannot be said to have influenced the war much if at all. If you want ship capture, why not code book capture, or special surprise air raids (e.g. Bodenplatz (SP?), the German pre-emptive raids in Belgium, 1/1/45), or special rules for the naval battles of Narvick, or any number of infrequent funnies?:). I really would rather the time was spent on code that might make a difference, information handling, staff automation features, AI etc.

BTW It is a real pain to operate captured gear: no manuals, no spares, sublties like your grade of fuel or oil is different and gums up the jets, metric nuts, and all your spanners are US etctetcetc. When captures were made use of, it would either be local improvisation, limited usefulness, or a major rework. You would probably have to re-arm it as well (unless you want a new ammo type for your supply chain). :eek:

Now, on to serious requests: how are the rules for fighter intereption of specific enemy leaders coming on?:) I want to have a 1/250 or 1/500 chance of a decapitation strike working. Oh, and you had better include the 0.0002% chance of Yamamoto getting cancer in 1944!;)

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 37
Captured ships... for scrap? - 6/7/2002 7:16:27 AM   
Kitakami


Posts: 1302
Joined: 5/3/2002
From: The bridge of the DNTK Kitakami
Status: offline 		If I were the Japanese production minister, I'd melt all the enemy ships the navy could not operate... and use the metal obtained therein to feed the shipyards.

Very ahistorical, but hey, we can dream :)

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 38
- 6/30/2002 7:04:57 AM   
showboat1


Posts: 1885
Joined: 7/28/2000
From: Atoka, TN
Status: offline 		USS Stewart was captured by the IJA in Surabaya. She was supposed to have been too badly damaged in drydock to b recovered and was then supposed to be blown up by explosive charges. However the ship was repaired and incorporated into the IJN. The US also recovered a IJN DD off of Tulagi. I think capturing ships sunk in shallow water harbors should be incorporated, but not capturing vessels on the high seas. Intel of some sort should be included though.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 39
- 2/6/2003 9:35:47 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		Shall we revive the debate?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 40
- 2/7/2003 2:43:21 AM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline 		Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to recall the Japanese seizing something like 850.000 tons of merchant shipping. If this is so, it seems obvious that this figure is too large to ignore...I would be quite happy with a system that only allowed the captured of APs, AK's, TK's, AO's, SC's, PC's, PG's, PT or so, in order to avoid bizarre situations. Not least in view of the fact that the AI will probably f**k up.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 41
- 2/7/2003 3:15:26 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		Personally, I'm against capturing vessals. I can't attribute any statistics, and if what the previous poster about 850k tonnes of shipping is true, that is indeed alot.

While captured vessals did present a "concern" for the powers that be (most evidenced by the French fleet), the fact is, no captured vessal in WW2 actually really did much worth writing into the history books.

I don't really think that captured vessals (however many there were) actually contributed significantly to the war effort of either side, much less affected the outcome of the war. It would be the same as capturing aircraft at an airfield. Yes, it happened. We all seen photos of those "strange" Zeros in US markings or Hurricanes with meatballs painted on the side. But the simple fact is, these situations were more oddity, and were normally just used for experiementation anyways. Captured aircraft/ships/equipment is problematic, because your ammo is never the same size as their ammo, your engines use a different viscosity oil that thier engines, and so the list goes on.

Captured equipment is good for trophies, but it has little real value beyond that.

If you capture a port with enemy ships, good for you. It should kill the vessals and award you the VPs. Gamey tactic : What happens if it actually -did- let you take posession of the ships. Now you're "liable" for what is likely a bunch of damaged ships and might actually lose VPs for them. I just think "KISS" (keep it simple stupid!), is the way to go. Allowing players to capture ships, opens the door for exploitation and a myrrid of situations we can't even concieve of.

No capturing ships.
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 42
Ships captured by Japanese - 2/7/2003 3:32:07 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, When Japan captured Hong Kong they also captured
11 freighters, 7 tugs, 2 passanger ships, 1 dredge, and 1 yacht
(belonging to USA, Have not checked ships captured from other countries yet)

PI many ships scuttled, almost all scuttled ships raised and used by Japan.

At least 11 ships (some of them included in WITP as USN)


(Edit)
12/07/41 Islas Visayas Freighter (Panama)Captured by Japanese
12/08/41 President Harrison Passenger Deliberately grounded Captured by Japanese
12/08/41 Meifoo No. 5 Tug Captured by Japanese
12/08/41 Mei Kang Tug Captured by Japanese
12/08/41 Mei Ling [Ying] Tug Captured by Japanese
12/08/41 Mei Nan Tug Captured by Japanese
12/08/41 Mei Yun Tug Captured by Japanese
12/08/41 Folozu Freighter (Panama) Captured by Japanese
12/08/41 Ramona Freighter (Panama) Captured by Japanese
12/08/41 Morazan Freighter (Honduras or Panama) Captured by Japanese
12/09/41 Gran Freighter (Panama) Captured
12/11/41 Wawa Unknown (Panama) Scuttled to avoid capture Sunk
12/12/41 Marion Freighter (Panama) Scuttled to avoid capture Sunk
12/13/41 Essi Freighter (Panama) Captured by Vichy French Turned over to Japanese
12/20/41 Lindinha Freighter (Panama) Captured
12/20/41 Florinha Freighter (Panama) Captured
12/23/41 Pioneer Tug Captured
12/23/41 Columbia Dredge Captured
12/23/41 Justine Foss Tug Captured by Japanese
12/25/41 Churruca Freighter (Philippines)Scuttled Sunk
12/25/41 Admiral Y. S. Williams Freighter Captured
12/25/41 Argus Steamship (Philippines) Captured
12/25/41 Daylight Freighter (Panama) Captured
12/25/41 Eldorado Freighter (Panama) Scuttled Sunk Raised by Japanese
12/25/41 Hirondelle Yacht Captured by Japanese

I've included a few that were scuttled and stayed that way to show it could happen, later list will include many ships that were scuttled but later raised and employed by Japanese.

(Edit: more ships I've found that were captured and used by Japan)

Philippines (11 ships)
01/02/42 Anakan Unknown (Philippines)Scuttled Taken over by Japanese
01/02/42 Bisayas Unknown (Philippines)Bombed Sunk taken over by Japanese
01/02/42 Latouche Unknown (Philippines)Captured Taken over by Japanese
01/02/42 Luzon Unknown (Philippines)Scuttled Taken over by Japanese
01/02/42 Paz Freighter (Philippines)Captured by Japanese
02/10/42 Mindanao Unknown (Philippines)Captured Taken over by Japanese
02/28/42 Compagnia de Filipinas Unknown (Philippines) Captured Taken over by Japanese
03/01/42 Lepus Unknown (Philippines U.S. Army charter) Captured Taken over by Japanese
03/01/42 Regulus Unknown (Philippines U.S. Army charter) Captured Taken over by Japanese
03/16/42 Princess of Negros Unknown (Philippines) Captured Taken over by Japanese
05/06/42 Sarangami Unknown (Philippines) Captured Taken over by Japanese

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 43
- 2/7/2003 6:42:14 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		I think that since Japanese production in WITP is going to be based upon getting the raw materials to Japan, it is important that the ability to capture ships in port be included in the game. Just the number of ships mentioned in Mogami's post alone would be significant to the Japanese strategic effort.

Obviously there will be a greater percentage of merchant vessels captured than naval vessels, since the former are less likely to have established scuttling procedures. They should also be much easier to assimilate into the fleet, since you won't be dealing with much in the way of munitions compatibility.

The very fear of having friendly vessels taken over by the enemy was enough to cause the RN to destroy the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir in 1940. Since the actual protagonists of the war felt it to be such an important issue, then the disposition of ships that are in port at time of the capture of that port should modelled in the game. Some will escape, some might be destroyed in trying to escape, some will be scuttled and some will be captured. The use of captured merchant vessels will be very important to the Japanese player, and I can see occaisions where they might come in handy to the allied player (local shortages of transport being a consistent problem).

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 44
- 2/7/2003 7:00:08 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		"Captures" themselves would be extremely unlikely, the more so as the value of the unit goes up. For example, with the Hornet, the Americans did try, and try hard to scuttle the ship but between the old lady's stubbornness and defective torpedoes she stayed definately afloat and the DD's had to amscray in the face of the approaching Japanese. They did pump the hull full of 5" HE though which turned her into a burning pyre. Such that the Japanese took one look and said "Scuttle" it. Even had they managed to rig a tow, the ship would have been a virtual total loss i'm sure in terms of feasable repair.


That said i like the idea of it being included in the game if for no other reason than it would give additional incentive for players to scuttle badly crippled ships vs keeping them afloat in the attempt to deny VP's to the other player. Coupled with the less points rule for scuttle vs sunk and the saving of valuable captain/Admirals from said ships, it would make for a more realistic decision making process.

Speaking of captures, IIRC, was'nt one abandoned IJN DD or DE ground off Lunga and put into service by the US? Thats pretty much going to be the greatest chance for captures realistically....abandoned ships that the crew either felt would sink, the scuttling attempt went awry or they simply didn't have time before abandoning.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 45
This is important - 2/7/2003 7:41:52 AM   
herbieh

 

Posts: 804
Joined: 8/30/2002
From: Sydney Australia
Status: offline 		The ability to capture enemy ships is very important to the japanese, I recall reading somewhere that over 800000 tons of Merchant shipping was captured by Japan in the initial sweep southwards. Thats a lot. Thats a years worth of sub losses.
I NEED THOSE SHIPS!!!
So please, if I capture a port, and its got merchantmen in it, GIMMEE GIMMEE!


Ps beer is good.

This game is going to be so good:D

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 46
- 2/7/2003 8:59:44 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		All right. I am anti-capture, but I'd buy into TimTom's idea of limiting capture to merchant/transport vessels. If you add capital ships to the mix, there is too much opportunity for (i) gaming the system ("how can I plan the attack on Singapore to capture the HMS XX" - which is not the proper basis for planning an attack) and (ii) the occasional weird result that ruins the whole game ("No way they could have captured the Yorktown like that!!"). I really believe that those players that like to game the system would go out of their way to capture capital ships in the most unrealistic fashion.

Capturing combat vessels of a destroyer or larger happened so rarely that it would not influence the game; therefore, there is not much reason to allow for it. On the other hand, a capture of a player's major combat ship under unrealistic conditions would immediately raise a howl of protest on the forum, e.g., the system's broke. Why suffer the inevitable downside for something that has so little bearing on the game?

But merchants are another story . . . .

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 47
- 2/7/2003 12:00:22 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Yes for merchant vessels. No for combat vessels

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 48
More on captured ships - 2/7/2003 12:12:20 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, At present these ships in WITP have these class and sizes.

01/02/42 Anakan Unknown (Philippines)Scuttled Taken over by Japanese (WITP 4500 AK)
01/02/42 Bisayas Unknown (Philippines)Bombed Sunk taken over by Japanese (WITP 4500 AK)
01/02/42 Latouche Unknown (Philippines)Captured Taken over by Japanese (WITP 4500 AK)
01/02/42 Luzon Unknown (Philippines)Scuttled Taken over by Japanese (WITP 4500 AK)
01/02/42 Paz Freighter (Philippines)Captured by Japanese (WITP 7000 AK)
02/10/42 Mindanao Unknown (Philippines)Captured Taken over by Japanese (WITP 18000 Tk)
02/28/42 Compagnia de Filipinas Unknown (Philippines) Captured Taken over by Japanese (WITP 4500 AK)
03/01/42 Lepus Unknown (Philippines U.S. Army charter) Captured Taken over by Japanese (WITP 4500 AK)
03/01/42 Regulus Unknown (Philippines U.S. Army charter) Captured Taken over by Japanese (WITP 4500 AK)
03/16/42 Princess of Negros Unknown (Philippines) Captured Taken over by Japanese (WITP 4500 AK)
05/06/42 Sarangami Unknown (Philippines) Captured Taken over by Japanese

Total load Cap WITP rating 60500. (subject to change as game develops and data becomes more solid)
Like PACWAR AK class ships can carry both fuel/supply oil/resource
(Still Alpha version)

I doubt any one of these ships gets captured. They will all no doubt run on Dec 8th (They are scattered all over ) And none of the ports they are located at can be captured within 10 days.
The only way I ever see a ship being captured in WITP is by raising a scuttled ship. As a result they will need considerable repair/refit
(assuming that raising sunk ships becomes part of program. I have no idea if it will. (But I did ask for it)(As well as being able to block a port by scuttling a ship in the channel)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 49
- 2/7/2003 8:36:22 PM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		Hey, Admiral Mogami: What is the "unknown" in the above list mean? Is it like -maru for the Japanese so that if you see a ship with "unknown" in the name you know it is a Philippine freighter?

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 50
unknown - 2/7/2003 8:40:20 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, It means the list I was using did not have a ship type(class) listed. However the WITP game has them listed as AK or TK in most cases.

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 51
How a combat ship might be captured. - 2/7/2003 10:04:28 PM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, I doubt any combat vessel ever gets captured.
One possible way would be for a ship that is part of a fast combat mission (FT, bombardment) moves into a hex with shallow
water (currently all coastal hexes)
In the course of the mission and movement through hex the ship runs aground (currently not part of possible events)
The hex the ship grounds on has enemy land combat units.
The crew of ship scuttles vessel and the hulk is captured (in whatever state of damage.)
Now the problem would be getting the wreck back afloat, moved to where repair can be done, and outfitting it for use. As such I can't see any combat ship being used by the new owner for purpose it was designed for. (CA runs aground, scuttled, captured, repaired,- it would no longer be a CA. but some kind of Aux vessel. DD's most often reappeared as patrol boats.

Gun mounts from ships sunk in port hexes might be used as shore batteries after salvage (not part of program at present)
(and the ship fitted with newer mounts during repair)

All things considered. I don't think any ship will ever be captured intact in WITP. (I would have all ships in port, scuttle the moment enemy captures base.) But only the AI will have non damaged ships in a port when captured. (and this might be solved to prevent)

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 52
- 2/8/2003 1:56:31 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline 		Add me to the yes transport / no combat list.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 53
- 2/8/2003 2:03:12 AM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline 		I've a source that sets the total tonnage avaible to the Japanese as of January 1., 1942 to 5,996,657, and the total tonnage build 1942-45 to 4,123,777. This totals to 10,120,434 tons. If the figure I gave earlier - 850,000 - is roughly correct, then this represents an 8,5% addition to avaible shipping, but a full 20,5% addition to the tonnage build. To put it differently, every sixth merchant ship procured after the outbreak of war was through capture. In my view, given the paramount importance of shipping to the combatants in general and the Japanese in particular, any serious wargame would endevour to model this, whether through a "capture" feature or simple by deleting the vessels in question from the Allied OOB and adding them to the Japanese. I'm very much against the capture of combat vessel for the reasons set out by Byron13 in an earlier post.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 54
- 2/8/2003 2:26:53 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6589
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline 		I still think that even giving a player a possability of capturing even a freighter is counter-productive. All that means is the defending player is just going to be that much more likely to scuttle all ships in a besieged harbor (in which case, the attacking player has NO chance of capturing any ships).

(* shrug *)

WitP is about history "with a slant". Frankly, at best case, I think it will serve a player better for Matrix to include those ships that were historically captured, as reinforcements for the OB of the nation that they served the most, with whatever delay it took to bring them into service.

But in our example. Lets say the Dutch had 15 AKs at Java that were captured historically. Wonderful, good for the Japanese. If I'm the Allied player, I can guarend*mntee that those freighters will NEVER be captured. Why? Because due to the constraints of the UV engine (which is the same as the WitP engine), you CANNOT capture a port or base on the turn in which you land. You must land one turn, and attack the next. During that turn, I'll put those ships to sea (and there's no reason that I can't), no captures for you. Any ships that are damaged or out of fuel? Fine, I can scuttle them, still no captures for you. So IJN now has 15 -less- AKs than they did historically.

Again, I think it's best just to plunk them onto the OBs of the side that historically got the most use out of them, at least that way whomever will get a chance at using them.

"But there should be something that says you can't enter or leave a port while enemy ground forces are present." Bah. The engine doesn't (and can't) work that way. If that were the case, neither player could (re)supply a landing force. You MUST allow naval units to transit hexes with enemy ground, and that being the case, any ship will have the chance to get away or be scuttled.

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 55
- 2/8/2003 5:57:42 AM   
HawaiiFive-O

 

Posts: 295
Joined: 12/21/2002
From: USA
Status: offline 		Many of the captured transports were first scuttled. Then raised and refitted, so scuttling shouldn't preclude capture.

You are right, though, that instead of scuttling we'll just head our transports out to sea and force the enemy to sink them rather than letting them fall into the enemy's hands.

The problem is while we are fine with allowing our electronic ship crews to commit suicide, in real life this would not have happened.

We could just add a certain amount of shipping to the IJN OOB after each port is captured. But this creates a problem. If ship x is in Allied hands at the start of the war and the Allied player forces the IJN to sink it on the high seas (or it escapes to India/West Coast/Australia), we'd then have two instances of ship x in both the Allied + IJN fleets.

Maybe we could fudge a little, and allow the IJN to resurrect a certain percentage of all Allied merchant ships sunk. Then it wouldn't matter where they were sunk. But I don't like this, because it ruins the reality of the game, we shouldn't have transports resurrected if it was sank in deep water.

Or, perhaps implement a morale check for unescorted or lightly escorted transport TFs sailing within a certain range of enemy warships. If they fail the check, they will not leave/will head for closest port. This would allow sinkings/scuttlings in ports and the inevitable "captures". Then, if the Allied player was bound and determined to keep merchantmen out of the hands of the IJN, they would have to sacrifice the scant warships they have available to them at the start of the war.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 56
Not really a big deal. - 2/8/2003 6:42:21 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		Hi, First we have to decide why these ships were left to be captured. The Allies kept them where they were to use in the defense of the area. They did not realize the scope of the disaster
looming. All of us are aware of what is going to happen, where, and when. All ships will be ordered out of danger areas the first turn. Therefore most of the ships taken by Japan will
a: get away
b: be sunk at sea trying (most will escape as Japan does not have air range/control on Dec 8th to prevent them

Alas for the Japanese they will not gain the 800k they did historically. This will be the first improvement allowed the allies over history. If we are going to force capture of certain ships we might as well throw the whole system out the window.
Where is changing this different then changing where we permit air groups to deploy? Or forcing the surrender of bases on a predetermined date? We just have to recognize the game will not be a reenactment. But a whole new event using the historical units. What if the base the ship was captured at remains in allied hands on the date the ship was captured?

I would have raising sunk ships in place (it will be needed for the PH BB anyway) Opening the sea valves to scuttle a merchant will deny the enemy the ship for a time. (and suffer less VP loss then having it sunk by enemy action) Then later when the enemy has the ship sunk (giving up the full VP value) You actually gain a few points. For Warships, I would just suggest they lose their main batteries, suffer a 1/3 speed reduction (permanently) and gain system damage at an increased rate. The crew would have the ratings assigned to new construction. (all this after spending a lot of time and supply to repair)

I would not worry about CV/BB/CA being captured. (since you cannot capture a ship at sea.)

Why bother then with adding a feature that will likely not see much use? Because these things are possible. Anything that can be included to enhance realism without producing more headaches then pleasure should be attempted.

The game is not being designed for the faint hearted. It is meant
(as I understand it) to be played by hard-core dedicated wargamers. Don't worry about playing 50 games of WITP. Just think of that one game. Played against someone who loves the subject as much as you do. Just as the actual combatants did not know how long the war would last, don't concern yourself with the time needed. Instead consider the depth and scope.

Don't cheat yourself of the experience by playing someone who wants to finish the war in 3 months real time. The game will become a routine part of your life while it lasts.
We know very few games will go the entire length so why shorten the experience and add to the frustration by using multi day turns (They will I assure you be included in the program)
One player will decide his position is hopeless (often mistakenly)
and surrender long before the game would end naturally

Oh my, I almost went into a rant, sorry.......

_____________________________






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

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 57
- 2/9/2003 3:35:58 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline 		IRL, at any one time numerous merchant ships are "laid up" in every major port, for routine maintenance or necessary repairs. Ships spend a lot more time in ports, and a lot less time at sea, IRL compared to wargames.

To avoid 'gaming' ship scuttlings / sailings / captures, I support the idea of giving the Japanese a chance to gain merchantmen each time they capture a port. (The bigger the port, the more likely they are to capture (more) ships).

If, in a game, the Japanese capture the ports they did historically, then they should normally receive about 800,000 tons worth of ships. If they capture more large ports, they can expect to capture additional tons.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 58
- 2/11/2003 11:29:40 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		I was thinking of a "morale check" that merchant vessels must pass in order to leave port unescorted. There could be modifiers to that check along the lines of:
Captain's ratings
Crew's ratings
number of enemy vessels spotted w/in X miles
number of enemy a/c spotted w/in X miles
number of enemy airbases within range of enemy's attack a/c
number of enemy subs spotted w/in X miles
number of friendly ships lost w/in X miles
Admiral's inspiration rating
ship mechanical condition

If the ship fails the morale check, it doesn't leave port. Many allied ships were caught in Hong Kong and Singapore because the crews preferred internment to being sunk at sea by Japanese a/c. Remember, at the start of the wart noone knew about how the Japanese treated prisoners. Thus many units surrendered rather than fight to the death.

In board wargames it was very difficult to prevent the gamer's forces from ahistorically fighting to the last man, but with computers gaining processing power as they have we now have the ability to hard code morale into the gameplay, preventing troops from obeying suicidal orders (Japanese tendencies notwithstanding, we are discussing mainly the capture of non-Japanese merchant vessels). If the Saigon airfields are crawling with Betties, Nells and Zeros how many merchant ships in Singapore harbor are going to be willing to run that gauntlet in an attempt to escape? To my knowledge a few did, but many more remained in port.

Of course, this will just add complexity to the system, and so i am in favor of any simpler method that assures the IJN player of getting those important additions to his merchant fleet.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 59
- 2/11/2003 11:47:21 AM   
Zakhal


Posts: 2494
Joined: 1/4/2001
From: Jyväskylä, Finland
Status: offline 		Should lightly armed merchant ships in a port surrender to a flotilla of japanese imperial capital ships outside the port? Especially if theire moral is real low and they are mostly civillians.

Maybe make it harder or unable to scuttle unprotected merchant ships that are in a port or open sea near powerful enemy task forces. They could try to flee but the hostile TF would autocatch them cos they can move faster. Few of the shipscrew would chicken and not scuttle themselves fearing the possible japanese reaction.

How about not giving the allied a total control of all merchant vessels all over east indies at the start of the war? They couldnt move at all or very limitedly until a set date or event. (event as in certain city/base is lost to japanese and a full evacuation from the island is ordered.)

I mean you cant just use all the trans for military ops only. Civillians i.e need them too incase they need to escape the island due japanese invasion.

(in reply to Wasp)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4   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

2.734