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: Change Update

 
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 >> RE: Change Update Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Change Update - 10/13/2004 12:33:59 AM   
bgibs

 

Posts: 107
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline 		US LST's have a 40mm x 3 mount that does not have any ammo. It seems to be just the tutorial though.

(in reply to bgibs)
Post #: 301
RE: Change Update - 10/13/2004 3:46:31 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: bgibs

US LST's have a 40mm x 3 mount that does not have any ammo. It seems to be just the tutorial though.


Pry fixed all but tutorial.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to bgibs)
Post #: 302
RE: OOB Comments - 10/15/2004 5:32:22 PM   
asdicus

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline 		Radar arrives too early on Oi,Kitakami in scenario 15.

I have a keen interest in japanese ww2 naval technology and thought the following info might be useful for historical accuracy.

The earliest introduction of shipbourne radar in the japanese navy was the battleships Ise and Hyuga just before the battle of midway. I have referred to 2 excellent sources for the following info, japanese radar of world war 2 by nakagawa and japanese cruisers of the pacific war by lacroix and wells.

From nakagawa Ise received a prototype airsearch set and Hyuga a prototype surface set in time for midway.The type 13 airsearch radar(also called Type 3 mark1 model3) used by Oi and Kitakami in 1941 in scenario 15 only started development in mid 1943 and was being fitted by early 1944 not 1941 !

From lacroix and wells there is a detailed table of when radar was first fitted to the light cruisers see page 372. The earliest date for the type 21 airsearch radar was december 1942 for the Izuzu. The type 13 radar was a supplement to the type 21 because it was more reliable and the equipment was lighter.

I suspect that the info used by matrix on the type 13 came from the star-games.com japanese radar website - I can find no evidence to support the claim that the type 13 was fitted as a prototype in 1941 and I also note that no references are given on that website.

It is important in game terms that the japanese do not have the earlywar ability to detect airstrikes via radar otherwise the possibility of surprise battles like midway becomes very remote.

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 303
RE: OOB Comments - 10/15/2004 7:23:39 PM   
juliet7bravo

 

Posts: 894
Joined: 5/30/2001
Status: offline 		20-28 May 1942:
A Type 22 surface search radar is installed (HYUGA). HYUGA tests the set in detecting the ISE in the Inland Sea, but it is deemed unsatisfactory by Captain Matsuda and is removed.

25 May 1942:
The ISE is also fitted with one of the first experimental model Type 21 air surface search radar sets in the IJN. She conducts tests in detecting the HYUGA successfully in the Iyo Nada.

17 June 1942:
The ISE and the HYUGA use their radars to check their respective locations while returning to Yokosuka.

19 January 1943:
(IZUZU) Yokohama. Enters drydock and begins refit, battle-damage repairs and modifications. A Type 21 air-search radar is installed.

1 May 1944:
(IZUZU) Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Yokohama. The ISUZU begins conversion to an anti-aircraft cruiser. Type 13 air-search, Type 21 air-search and Type 22 surface-search radars are fitted or modified.

14 August 1944:
(KITAKAMI) Arrives at Sasebo. Begins repairs and modification as a "kaiten" (human-torpedo) carrier with a capacity of eight kaitens. Two Type 13 air-search and a Type 22 surface-search radars are fitted.

Most of the Combined Fleet TROM's show when the ships received radar sets. No record of Oi ever getting radar (other than Star Games) before being sunk, none of the pics or ship models (usually very accurate) show antennas. Unless someone has an actual pic or a ref to beat Lacroix and Wells...he's right.

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 304
RE: OOB Comments - 10/16/2004 8:07:48 AM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus

Radar arrives too early on Oi,Kitakami in scenario 15.

I have a keen interest in japanese ww2 naval technology and thought the following info might be useful for historical accuracy.

The earliest introduction of shipbourne radar in the japanese navy was the battleships Ise and Hyuga just before the battle of midway. I have referred to 2 excellent sources for the following info, japanese radar of world war 2 by nakagawa and japanese cruisers of the pacific war by lacroix and wells.

From nakagawa Ise received a prototype airsearch set and Hyuga a prototype surface set in time for midway.The type 13 airsearch radar(also called Type 3 mark1 model3) used by Oi and Kitakami in 1941 in scenario 15 only started development in mid 1943 and was being fitted by early 1944 not 1941 !

From lacroix and wells there is a detailed table of when radar was first fitted to the light cruisers see page 372. The earliest date for the type 21 airsearch radar was december 1942 for the Izuzu. The type 13 radar was a supplement to the type 21 because it was more reliable and the equipment was lighter.

I suspect that the info used by matrix on the type 13 came from the star-games.com japanese radar website - I can find no evidence to support the claim that the type 13 was fitted as a prototype in 1941 and I also note that no references are given on that website.

It is important in game terms that the japanese do not have the earlywar ability to detect airstrikes via radar otherwise the possibility of surprise battles like midway becomes very remote.


We had an argument about this a while back on the War Room forum. Nothing seems to have been resolved.

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 305
RE: OOB Comments - 10/17/2004 9:49:06 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Is there any possibility of including the civilian passenger liners, that were inducted into the war effort, as high speed AP's? Here is a link with detailed oceanic crossings. The HMT Queen Mary made 46 port calls from 1940 to 1943 in India, SE Aisa, and Australia. She wasn't left to entirely Atlantic runs till 1944 to 1945. Many more examples in this thread.

Troopship link- http://troopships.pier90.org/

< Message edited by Halsey -- 10/18/2004 8:06:20 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to pry)
Post #: 306
RE: OOB Comments - 10/19/2004 7:47:04 AM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline 		It appears that she was used to ferry troops to the PTO--not around the PTO. To give the Allies the QM and/or the QE would be grossly unfair and ahistorical.

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 307
RE: OOB Comments - 10/19/2004 7:57:14 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline 		Besides, what would you do, drive the Queen Mary into Tokyo and let the troops get out to invade? I am reminded about what Rommel said about the Atlantic Wall defences: "The Ports are fortified well enough, but nothing has been done about the beaches. The enemy isn't coming ashore on the Queen Mary!"

< Message edited by Tankerace -- 10/18/2004 11:58:07 PM >

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 308
RE: OOB Comments - 10/19/2004 12:06:18 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 944
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline 		Ahem.
Queen Elizabeth 2 and - more importantly - Canberra, Falkland Islands, 1982.

Canberra in particular, steamed (actually, she was Turbo-Electric driven) into San Carlos bay and disembarked her troops. AFAIK there was no pier for her to tie up to...

However, in the broader question - no QE and QM shouldn't be in the OOB, they were used to take/deliver troops to the main theatre ports, rather than the front line.

Make an interesting user mod, though.

Steve

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 309
RE: OOB Comments - 10/19/2004 3:16:16 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Is there a way to make them non-amphibious capable? I would just like to see them used strickly for transport.
90% of the Allied transport missions are ferrying troops. Not assaults.

Isn't that what WITP encompasses? Main theatre ports are all over the map. I don't need to really list them do I?

If people are concerned about withdrawls. The RN has them why can't the US?

So, list withdraw by name instead? Or, ship class LNR (liners)?

< Message edited by Halsey -- 10/21/2004 1:12:41 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 310
RE: OOB Comments - 10/21/2004 7:52:06 AM   
SpitfireIX


Posts: 264
Joined: 1/9/2003
From: Fort Wayne IN USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Is there a way to make them non-amphibious capable? I would just like to see them used strickly for transport.
90% of the Allied transport missions are ferrying troops. Not assaults.

Isn't that what WITP encompasses? Main theatre ports are all over the map. I don't need to really list them do I?

If people are concerned about withdrawls. The RN has them why can't the US?


Implementing US withdrawals just to give people a few new toys would be a major waste of programming hours. Furthermore, there is no way to implement a perfect withdrawal scheme, so some concessions to play balance have to be made by not giving the Allies every ship that ever operated in the PTO, no matter how briefly. Also, the current withdrawal scheme merely specifies that a certain class of ship be withdrawn. What player in his right mind would part with the QM or the QE when he could send a small AP nstead? Also, aren't the Queens British (thus the names?)?

_____________________________

"I know Japanese. He is very bad. And tricky. But we Americans too smart. We catch him and give him hell."

--Benny Sablan, crewman, USS Enterprise 12/7/41

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 311
RE: OOB Comments - 10/21/2004 8:52:37 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		There are more than just the Queens. American, Italian, German, French and other liners of foreign nationality were impressed into action.
West Point (USS America),Wakefield (USS Manhatten),Hermitage (Italian liner Conte Biancamano),HMT Aquitania,John Eriksen (Danish liner),SS Louis Pastuer (French liner)
Cunard, White Star, America Lines, President Lines, all contributed ships to military use.
More than a few were turned over to the Army as troopships.
There are many more. Some of these listed did Atlantic runs also.

As far as the withdraw. Make it a permanent monthly expenditure, listed by name instead of class. Plus make it very expensive.

I only listed the HMT Queen Mary as one example. There are many others available.
http://troopships.pier90.org

< Message edited by Halsey -- 10/21/2004 2:14:34 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 312
RE: OOB Comments - 10/21/2004 8:57:40 AM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: SpitfireIX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Is there a way to make them non-amphibious capable? I would just like to see them used strickly for transport.
90% of the Allied transport missions are ferrying troops. Not assaults.

Isn't that what WITP encompasses? Main theatre ports are all over the map. I don't need to really list them do I?

If people are concerned about withdrawls. The RN has them why can't the US?


Implementing US withdrawals just to give people a few new toys would be a major waste of programming hours. Furthermore, there is no way to implement a perfect withdrawal scheme, so some concessions to play balance have to be made by not giving the Allies every ship that ever operated in the PTO, no matter how briefly. Also, the current withdrawal scheme merely specifies that a certain class of ship be withdrawn. What player in his right mind would part with the QM or the QE when he could send a small AP nstead? Also, aren't the Queens British (thus the names?)?


But the USN withdrawl requirement suggestion is a darn good one. Why? Program exists for British, piece of cake to add for USN. Two, because it is a historical reality. Whether for defensive deployments to off map PTO areas or the European theatre, or for training/retirement requirements, USN ships were constantly shuffled in and out of PTO. One could further suggest, because no player would send a new vessel when an older suffices, that ships which require major repairs and enter a West Coast port sometimes have the ship sent along to an East Coast port (Ie Boise, Marblehead, Franklin...).

Considering how such bizarre design decisions as the "add water and stir " or "name duplication avoidance feature" (which required more programming effort and dollars I'd bet) were added to possibly balance the game somewhat, I would think such a simple and historically accurate feature which takes some of the pressure off Japan as a USN withdrawl certainly would was both not originally woven into the mix but remains a no show.

More importantly, the ship withdrawl requirement should have included LCUs and Air Units. I suspect the limitation to only RN ships is a direct decendent of Avalon Hill's board game of the same name I think (the Pacific version of "War at Sea") but was never expanded upon further and therefore remains in this incarnation. Games often become historical reference sources in the gaming industry. Unfortunate but as they say, it's hard to teach an old dog new tricks. No offence...

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 10/21/2004 2:07:24 AM >

_____________________________





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

(in reply to SpitfireIX)
Post #: 313
RE: OOB Comments - 10/25/2004 6:50:39 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		Closed. PRY will start another one after the patch is out. Thanks for all the input.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 314
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: Change Update Page: <<   < prev  7 8 9 10 [11]
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

0.719