Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

... so tell me (other than a cut/paste and name change) what extra work would be required?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Of the 72 missing Haskells (all of which were not fleetingly in the Pacific as you allude to), many had combat stars of Iwo Jima and Okinawa - BTW it took me 3 hours of research to realise there was a huge discrepancy, most of which was taken up by checking the APA's in the game against the source I quoted. I would say if it had a battle star, then it has every right to be in the game. BTW (again) the Haskell class did not enter and leave as you say (thereby needing tracking) - of the 105 missing APA's most were placed in service in late 44 onwards, meaning they would never have been needed back in the ETO as the last assault was the Scheldt in October/November 44. Also, if you look very carefully, amphibs arrive 15th of the month - I know, I plan my assaults around those dates (good job I don't do PBEM - I'd be far too predicable), so tell me (other than a cut/paste and name change) what extra work would be required?

APA's are the single most useful assault ship and due to the limitation of the game engine (it cannot model the use of LCVP's DUKW, AMTRAC's etc launched outside the range of CD guns) making casualties amongst said APA's far higher than they should be, then I would argue that there are not enough.

Given as well that the stock game allows for a game into May 46, making assaults on the Home Islands possible (in time frame), why then make it less possible by limiting the number of APA's.

This strikes me very much an illustration of how the naval OB on the Allied side peters out around early/mid 45 because historically 'the war was all but over'. But if you allow us to play into 46, then give us something to play with. Many of the ISD's for units reflects the slowing pace of production when the war was one. To repeat this in the game is just like saying to us all 'well by early 45 the allies will have all but won come what may' - I am sure there are a lot of JFB's out there who will either verbally or physically (against the AI or a PBEM opponent) dispute that line - but at least the Japanese can keep production in full swing if he can hang on to his conquests and his merchant fleet.

Bottom line is that I would rather have the APA's that were used rather than a few extra xAK's - because I don't see what else extra the allies have been given.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Of the 72 missing Haskells (all of which were not fleetingly in the Pacific as you allude to), many had combat stars of Iwo Jima and Okinawa - BTW it took me 3 hours of research to realise there was a huge discrepancy, most of which was taken up by checking the APA's in the game against the source I quoted. I would say if it had a battle star, then it has every right to be in the game. BTW (again) the Haskell class did not enter and leave as you say (thereby needing tracking) - of the 105 missing APA's most were placed in service in late 44 onwards, meaning they would never have been needed back in the ETO as the last assault was the Scheldt in October/November 44. Also, if you look very carefully, amphibs arrive 15th of the month - I know, I plan my assaults around those dates (good job I don't do PBEM - I'd be far too predicable), so tell me (other than a cut/paste and name change) what extra work would be required?

APA's are the single most useful assault ship and due to the limitation of the game engine (it cannot model the use of LCVP's DUKW, AMTRAC's etc launched outside the range of CD guns) making casualties amongst said APA's far higher than they should be, then I would argue that there are not enough.

Given as well that the stock game allows for a game into May 46, making assaults on the Home Islands possible (in time frame), why then make it less possible by limiting the number of APA's.

This strikes me very much an illustration of how the naval OB on the Allied side peters out around early/mid 45 because historically 'the war was all but over'. But if you allow us to play into 46, then give us something to play with. Many of the ISD's for units reflects the slowing pace of production when the war was one. To repeat this in the game is just like saying to us all 'well by early 45 the allies will have all but won come what may' - I am sure there are a lot of JFB's out there who will either verbally or physically (against the AI or a PBEM opponent) dispute that line - but at least the Japanese can keep production in full swing if he can hang on to his conquests and his merchant fleet.

Bottom line is that I would rather have the APA's that were used rather than a few extra xAK's - because I don't see what else extra the allies have been given.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, so I try to help out by relaying information that you might not have seen due to recently arriving on the forum and you expect me to argue with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Instead of spending 3 hours "researching" the editor, why didn't you just add those ships you claim are "missing"?
That way, everybody wins - you get the ships, and the devs don't have to waste their time explaining -AGAIN- why such and such a ship isn't in the game.
As for how - since you seem to have so much time for "research", try spending a little on READING THE EDITOR MANUAL!
Or is the point of your "research" simply to complain?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

There seems to be a never ending line of you people that think the game should be tailored especially for you. They give us the tools to "have it our way" (ala Burger King) and your to damn lazy or arrogant to use them. Some people's kids!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Well, we are always happy for research and to find new information. We did have to make some approximations - keeping some ships that should have left for a while and excluding some that came later in payment. And maybe sometimes enough is just enough.

But you all keep pointing out things - we can always improve.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I definitely understand why it is better to not have some ships withdraw, and to balance, not have another ship come in. That makes sense on many levels. (development and player ease to name two.)

But, it might be a good idea to have the majority of these non-combat ships enter the game in late 44/early 45. I think the need for naval ships was pretty much done by late 44 in the European theatre. They would come to the Pacific theatre eventually. Since the game goes to 46, these ships would have at least a year of game time, in theory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
But, it might be a good idea to have the majority of these non-combat ships enter the game in late 44/early 45. I think the need for naval ships was pretty much done by late 44 in the European theatre. They would come to the Pacific theatre eventually. Since the game goes to 46, these ships would have at least a year of game time, in theory.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
But, it might be a good idea to have the majority of these non-combat ships enter the game in late 44/early 45. I think the need for naval ships was pretty much done by late 44 in the European theatre. They would come to the Pacific theatre eventually. Since the game goes to 46, these ships would have at least a year of game time, in theory.

If the ships participated in the European Operation Magic Carpet, I would shift the date to early 1946 at the earliest. Given the large number of troops in Europe, the political priority would be to get them back home as soon as possible.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

There are several reasons why certain classes have fewer ships than appear on the construction lists. Some are, perhaps, less important now than they were then, but on the whole, remain valid.

If this is a concern, you might wish to check out Da Babes scenarios in which both Allied and Japanese naval OOBs were extensively expanded. They can be found at:
http://witp.tylerroguedesigns.com/

No need to spend hours researching the DB and paging through NavSource. Gunter Krebs has already organized all that into a nice set of nested lists.
http://usnavy.skyrocket.de/

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

There are several reasons why certain classes have fewer ships than appear on the construction lists. Some are, perhaps, less important now than they were then, but on the whole, remain valid.

If this is a concern, you might wish to check out Da Babes scenarios in which both Allied and Japanese naval OOBs were extensively expanded. They can be found at:
http://witp.tylerroguedesigns.com/

No need to spend hours researching the DB and paging through NavSource. Gunter Krebs has already organized all that into a nice set of nested lists.
http://usnavy.skyrocket.de/

It's a concern due to the vulnerability of the APA's during ops (which can't be mitigated in the game as it was mostly IRL and as explained to me by Don).

If you don't know that piece of game mechanics as an Allied player then your whole island hopping strategy can unravel to the point that no Downfall type invasions can be attempted (I for one have never ended the war with a 'bang' nor do I intend to). My first run through I have had to can because of a data corruption, but in any case it was becoming obvious that I was about to run out of assault ships and could not conduct either of the downfall invasions with the ships remaining.

Thanks for the 2 steers. The Gunter Kreb one will save me time and the one that Don has posted on the the other site has just been updated (today) to reflect AE, so I will definitely be looking at that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
This is a scenario issue - unsure if it belongs here or elsewhere.

In the Ironman scenario, the Musashi begins with 0 fuel even though it is in a TF. Likewise, Yamato begins with very little fuel, even though it is in a TF. It seems like at least the Musashi's fuel status might mess up the first move.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
In the editor, several US BBs and CAs have their Tower Armor reduced to 0 in their final upgrades; is this WAD?

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
In the editor, several US BBs and CAs have their Tower Armor reduced to 0 in their final upgrades; is this WAD?

Yes.

quote:

quote: