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: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1

 
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 >> Scenario Design >> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 8 [9]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 - 3/13/2005 11:58:20 AM   
Tristanjohn


Posts: 3027
Joined: 5/1/2002
From: Daly City CA USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hmmmm....something wrong here. Nobody converts the ship on Feb/42 from minelayer to transport that I'm aware of unless by accident. I did it in my games as I tend to play historically but have never loaded it until today. The load total is 24! This can't be right as it is the lowest of all USN subs and marginally more than Dutch and British 18 cap. I believe I gave it a load total of 60. Did I miss something when entering the refit details in the dbase?





Looks like it. Should be able to load an elephant.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 241
RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 - 3/13/2005 6:25:36 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hmmmm....something wrong here. Nobody converts the ship on Feb/42 from minelayer to transport that I'm aware of unless by accident. I did it in my games as I tend to play historically but have never loaded it until today. The load total is 24! This can't be right as it is the lowest of all USN subs and marginally more than Dutch and British 18 cap. I believe I gave it a load total of 60. Did I miss something when entering the refit details in the dbase?


OK Ron - you have me totally confused (congratulations!).

I'm not aware of any cargo capacity specification for submarines. I assume it is either based somehow on durability. Could you please give me a better idea of what is wrong??

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 242
RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 - 3/13/2005 7:08:05 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Hmmmm....something wrong here. Nobody converts the ship on Feb/42 from minelayer to transport that I'm aware of unless by accident. I did it in my games as I tend to play historically but have never loaded it until today. The load total is 24! This can't be right as it is the lowest of all USN subs and marginally more than Dutch and British 18 cap. I believe I gave it a load total of 60. Did I miss something when entering the refit details in the dbase?


OK Ron - you have me totally confused (congratulations!).

I'm not aware of any cargo capacity specification for submarines. I assume it is either based somehow on durability. Could you please give me a better idea of what is wrong??


Because Argonaut became a transport sub (APS-1) very early in 1942, I decided to add this refit in order to remove her minelaying capability as was historically the case. So I had Rich Dionne remove the mines and add a capacity value of 60 (I think) to represent the berthing spaces added in lieu of mine gear. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to test the refit in a transport situation and when it loaded, it showed a capacity of 24. Should have been 60. Either I'm not understanding the capacity feature for subs or subs are hardwired for transport capacity and any figure placed in the editor field is nullified.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 243
RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 - 3/13/2005 7:20:03 PM   
Don Bowen


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

Because Argonaut became a transport sub (APS-1) very early in 1942, I decided to add this refit in order to remove her minelaying capability as was historically the case. So I had Rich Dionne remove the mines and add a capacity value of 60 (I think) to represent the berthing spaces added in lieu of mine gear. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to test the refit in a transport situation and when it loaded, it showed a capacity of 24. Should have been 60. Either I'm not understanding the capacity feature for subs or subs are hardwired for transport capacity and any figure placed in the editor field is nullified.


I think the any value specified in "Capacity" for submarines is Aircraft capacity, not cargo. I believe there is some relationship between durabitilty and cargo capacity. I'll experiment a little a be sure...

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 244
RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 - 3/13/2005 7:30:14 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

Because Argonaut became a transport sub (APS-1) very early in 1942, I decided to add this refit in order to remove her minelaying capability as was historically the case. So I had Rich Dionne remove the mines and add a capacity value of 60 (I think) to represent the berthing spaces added in lieu of mine gear. This is the first time I've had an opportunity to test the refit in a transport situation and when it loaded, it showed a capacity of 24. Should have been 60. Either I'm not understanding the capacity feature for subs or subs are hardwired for transport capacity and any figure placed in the editor field is nullified.


I think the any value specified in "Capacity" for submarines is Aircraft capacity, not cargo. I believe there is some relationship between durabitilty and cargo capacity. I'll experiment a little a be sure...


I'm pretty sure you are correct about the relationship now that I think about it. Because durability is related to dive depth , capacity is really bonkers. Large subs like Argonaut, Narwhal, and the large IJN boats, because they have prewar dive depths, are penalized. Poppycock.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 3/13/2005 2:53:32 PM >

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 245
RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 - 3/13/2005 7:30:40 PM   
Lemurs!


Posts: 788
Joined: 6/1/2004
Status: offline 		Yea, the Argonaut now carries 60 aircraft. That is all capacity does for a sub.

Which means we need to recode the Jap transport subs added to the OOB.

Mike

_____________________________



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 246
RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 - 3/13/2005 7:47:10 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Yea, the Argonaut now carries 60 aircraft. That is all capacity does for a sub.

Which means we need to recode the Jap transport subs added to the OOB.

Mike


This being the case, do we compromise and increase the durability on transport subs (say 50%) and lower maneuver ratings to compensate? It will affect VP and production cost but somethings needs to be done.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 247
RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 - 3/13/2005 7:53:31 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Yea, the Argonaut now carries 60 aircraft. That is all capacity does for a sub.

Which means we need to recode the Jap transport subs added to the OOB.

Mike


Actually we caught this during scenario creation and did not add any pure transport subs. There's a thread about it somewhere, buried in the dustbin of the forum.

The only question now is the possibility of making some kind of durability adjustment for those few US subs used as transports? Doesn't seem worthwhile to I, how about to y'all??

(in reply to Lemurs!)
Post #: 248
RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 - 3/13/2005 9:50:29 PM   
33Vyper


Posts: 542
Joined: 10/20/2004
From: New Westminster BC
Status: offline 		Submarine cargo capacity is based on the number of tubes and reloads....I do not believe you can enter a specific cargo capacity for a sub. You have to play with the tubes/reloads and mines....I cannot remember where I read it...


found it 6.1.9.11 in the manual says

" Subs will have 3 cargo for every torpedo and 5 cargo for every AC slot " course the manual also say subs cannot use AC but we know that changed as well.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 249
RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 - 3/13/2005 9:56:27 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

Submarine cargo capacity is based on the number of tubes and reloads....I do not believe you can enter a specific cargo capacity for a sub. You have to play with the tubes/reloads and mines....I cannot remember where I read it...


found it 6.1.9.11 in the manual says

" Subs will have 3 cargo for every torpedo and 5 cargo for every AC slot " course the manual also say subs cannot use AC but we know that changed as well.


Hey, that's interesting. We can give Argonaut and the IJN transport subs extra tubes and assign them an ammo rating of 0. That should work if this is the case.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to 33Vyper)
Post #: 250
RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 - 3/13/2005 10:04:52 PM   
33Vyper


Posts: 542
Joined: 10/20/2004
From: New Westminster BC
Status: offline 		I am not certain if they mean the tubes or the reloads themselves. I think it means actual torpedoes

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 251
Page:   <<   < prev  5 6 7 8 [9]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: USS Argonaut conversion to APS-1 Page: <<   < prev  5 6 7 8 [9]
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

1.094