Treespider's CHS - China Revisited - 1st look

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Andrew Brown
Posts: 4083
Joined: Tue Sep 05, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Hex 82,170
Contact:

RE: Treespider's CHS - Rota - Tinian

Post by Andrew Brown »

ORIGINAL: treespider

Back to Tinnian....since Tinnian and Saipan are only separated by a narrow straight I think I might alter the bases such that Saipan now represents Saipan-Tinnian and the current Tinnian represents the island of Rota. The Japanese built a single strip on Rota prior to the Marianas campaign. This change enables me to make Saipna-Tinnian a 'super' base with an SPS of 6.

That's right. They are next to each other. I have always respected the intent of the original map and scenario designers who presumably deliberately separated them into separate hexes and bases. My assumption is that they did this for "historical flavour", since the names are so well known. However technically they belong in the same hex.

Regarding the general ideas Treespider is pursuing in this thread. CHS has always implemented base size reductions. However it has been a job never completed, especially in the DEI which is a critical area (initially the concentration was on the Pacific islands). Also, my preference has always been for small steps, rather than radical shifts, in case the game itself is "broken" in some unintended way. These ideas are definitely worth pursuing, and even merging into CHS itself if they turn out to work well.

Andrew
Information about my WitP map, and CHS, can be found on my WitP website

Image
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Drop tanks and knots

Post by treespider »

Currently in CHS the A6M2 has the following ratings:
 
Top Speed: 332 mph
Cruise Speed: 207
Endurance: 530
Extended Range; 10 hexes
Normal Range: 7 hexes
 
I compared this to Command At Sea values which give the A6M2 the following ratings:
 
Top Speed; 288 Knots
Top Cruise Speed: 180 knots
 
Unfortunately when I plugged the knot ratings in the range in hexes dropped to:
 
Extended Range: 8
Normal range: 6
 
Now the nice little happy finding when I plugged in a 330 litre drop dank the values in WitpEditorX did not change from 8 and 6. However when I opened the game miraculously the 330 litre drop tank added its 87 effect to the 530 endurance value. Providing hex ranges of 10 and 7 just like the current CHS values.
 
To derive range in nm from the current values you take (Endurance*Cruise Speed/60)/1.15. So in looking at the CHS Zero we have 530*207=109710/60=1828 miles/1.15=1589nm. When you look at Command at Sea's values they rate the A6M2 with a range of 1010nm however the 330 litre drop tank adds 465nm to the range for a total of 1475nm. Fairly comparable to the CHS value without the drop tank.
 
With this in mind as part of the mod I plan on re-rating all of the aircraft in knots and nautical mile ranges, but will require the use of drop tanks. Why would I want to do this?
 
As you divide all of the aircrafts ranges and speeds by 1.15 you are effectively reducing speeds and ranges across the board by 14%. However the code doesn't see mph or knots it just sees a number so the slower aircraft will lose less real numbers than the faster aircraft. As an example a plane rated with a max speed of 400 when converted to knots will have a rating of 348 a loss of 52 "points". A plane with speed 200 will have a rating of 174 a loss of 36 "points". The differential between the two planes has dropped from 200 "points" to 174 "points". Perhaps it will have a difference in the bloodiness of air combat and make the Oscars and Nates a little more potent.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Drop tanks and knots

Post by treespider »

Coincidentally when I standardized Endurance as 1/2 the range in nm wonderful things happened...
 
The A6M3a now has an endurance of 555. Without a drop tank this equates to 9 hexes extended and 7 hexes normal range. However when we add the 330L drop tank that it carried the range increases to 11 extended and 7 normal. The 11 extended range allows the A6M3a to carry out the historical missions from Rabaul to Guadacanal on AB's map.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 12742
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Treespider's CHS - Drop tanks and knots

Post by Sardaukar »

Sounds good !
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Drop tanks and knots

Post by treespider »

AFB's will be happy as well... the change to knots has had a dramatic affect on the venerable Wildcat.

The F4F-3 now sports a range of 7 extended 5 normal.

and

the F4F-4 once we add a 50gal tank now has a range of 7 extended and 5 normal.

IIRC CHS had them with ranges of 4 extended 3 normal.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Drop tanks and knots

Post by treespider »

More good news for AFB's - the TBD-1 Devastator with its previous lackluster range of 3 extended 2 normal...has been increased to 4 extended 3 normal by rating values in terms of knots....Curious what will happen to the Vals and Kates... we shall soon see...
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Drop tanks and knots

Post by treespider »

Vals and Kates---

No change in the Vals ranges...

the Kate on the other hand...

The data I have from CaS places the B5N2 range in nm as 528...this equates to an endurance of 264 using my formula of 1/2 range in nm....and results in a drop in range of from 5 extended 4 normal to 3 extended 2 normal.

As i said the 528 is data from Command at Sea... when crossed referenced with Mondey I found a max range of 1237 miles= 1075 nautical miles for the B5N2. That's a big difference.

Various online sources place the Kates max range around 1237mi as well. Using 1075nm ...the endurance becomes 532...equating to ranges of 6 extended and 5 normal.

Wonder where CaS got the 528nm figure from[&:]...Actually figured it out the Warbirds site ( http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/w ... kab5n.html )
lists the typical range of the B5N2 as 608 miles = 528 nm....
and the max range = 1237 mi = 1075 nm...

so which do we use????
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Treespider's CHS - Bomb loads

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: treespider

In redoing the base sizes for my mod I am also looking at bomb loads for aircraft with loads listed as 6500lbs or greater.

Why? Because 6500 lbs is the magic number that trigger penalties for Level bombers operating from a Level 4 base. If they have a bomb load of greater than 6500lbs then they cannot fly at extended range from a level 4 base.

This got me thinking about operational bomb loads vs Maximum bomb loads. In doing some reasearch I found that even though the B-29 had a capacity of 20,000 lbs it only carried 4-6,000 lbs in the early high altitude runs over japan from the Marianas... this is info from the USSBS.

I checked baughers site and found similar information in his B-29 specs...
Maximum internal short-range, low-altitude bomb load was 20,000 pounds. A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at high altitude. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at medium altitude.

Likewise for the B-17E CHS rates the max load as 6800 lbs requiring it to operate from a level 5 base to reach extended ranges. However Baugher lists the B-17E's normal range as 2000 miles with 4000 pounds of bombs. So did the B-17E's normally operate with 4000 lbs which is less than than maximum capacity???

In comparing the two sets of numbers - 12,000/20,000 = .6 and 4000/6800 = .58%. Coincidence I think not.

Therefore I will spot check a number of other aircraft and if my findings are the same I plan on reducing Level Bomber Max Bomb loads to 60% of current CHS values.

Bear in mind that the WITP design concept separates bomb loads from the definition of maximum bomb load. In the loadout you define the "normal" bomb load - used at normal range - and if you go to extended range you reduce that load by some function - apparently 1/2 to 2/3 depending on how you specified the load (it seems to try for 2/3 but may not get there if you didn't give it a multiple of 3 to divide into). The max load is used to define the required base - and has nothing whatever to do with the loadout - except the loadout should never exceed that figure.

USAAF bombers were defined in a number of ways - one of them being range with 5,000 pounds of bombs was done to give you a sense of how to compare the planes. Actual typical loadouts varied with the aircraft - and as you have pointed out - the mission altitude and range were also factors. But code assumes a normal altitude that is medium - and so we should honor that - for players may wish to let code control one side of their games.

Bomb load is tied to range - and I found when I began looking at CHS 155 and stock that Allied heavy bombers were greatly underrated in both. I was told that was very deliberate - so they would not "dominate" the game with "uber bombing missions." Because I redefined bombs using a square root function for soft effect (more like reality) we were able to allow historical loads without this issue arising. But I never attempted to rate the bombers for maximum load - with the exception of planes with very small loads - like fighter bombers and Japanese torpedo bombers - where maximum load and normal load are equal. Ultimately we went for still greater ranges - because code defined all planes as if they were playing fighter - something bombers do not do. So we adjusted transfer range so that extended range (33% of the transfer range) = 42% of the original transfer range - that is an increase of 9%. That made normal range = 34% of the original transfer range (25% of the revised figure). In spite of this double increase - first to historical transfer ranges - then beyond that so operational ranges were right - there is nary a complaint that ranges (with the increased loads - typically hundreds of %) are too great or bombers too powerful. I believe you have a great deal of latitude - particularly if you do not use the original bomb specs re soft effect - without the fears of heavy bombers being "too powerful" cutting in.
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Treespider's CHS - Drop tanks and knots

Post by el cid again »

ORIGINAL: treespider

Vals and Kates---

No change in the Vals ranges...

the Kate on the other hand...

The data I have from CaS places the B5N2 range in nm as 528...this equates to an endurance of 264 using my formula of 1/2 range in nm....and results in a drop in range of from 5 extended 4 normal to 3 extended 2 normal.

As i said the 528 is data from Command at Sea... when crossed referenced with Mondey I found a max range of 1237 miles= 1075 nautical miles for the B5N2. That's a big difference.

Various online sources place the Kates max range around 1237 as well. Using 1075nm ...the endurance becomes 532...equating to ranges of 6 extended and 5 normal.

Wonder where CaS got the 528nm figure from[&:]...Actually figured it out the Warbirds site ( http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/w ... kab5n.html )
lists the typical range of the B5N2 as 608 miles = 528 nm....
and the max range = 1237 mi = 1075 nm...

so which do we use????

Why not use solid sources - e.g. Francillon? This is not a controversial aircraft. Further - when one picks a source of that sort - one has all Japanese planes defined to a common standard - something Joe and I felt was a very good idea when we looked at aircraft data. The transfer range of an aircraft is a good deal more than twice its operational radius. The operational radius must include some fuel for wind losses, nav errors and battle damage - and then the amount of fuel carried usually is less because a full weapons load may not permit a full fuel load (depending on the aircraft). The WITP system of using a % is very simple - and you are honoring the spirit of that by also using a % - but that % should be significantly less than 50. For large transports and bombers the extended operational radius is typically about 42%. For planes designed very tightly - as Japanese torpedo bombers were - it actually may vary somewhat - but it is possible to actually get the data for the famous ones. You could elect to fill in endurance using actual operating ranges divided by cruising speed. And note this: in a few cases you only get the right value if you let "extended load" = "normal load" - something tricky to do with our code (but possible if you are tricky enough). These planes didn't really have a maximum load in the Western sense - and they didn't reduce their normal load to get more range like we did either. If you wish for detail material for certain cases - I can provide it.
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Drop tanks and knots

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: treespider

Vals and Kates---

No change in the Vals ranges...

the Kate on the other hand...

The data I have from CaS places the B5N2 range in nm as 528...this equates to an endurance of 264 using my formula of 1/2 range in nm....and results in a drop in range of from 5 extended 4 normal to 3 extended 2 normal.

As i said the 528 is data from Command at Sea... when crossed referenced with Mondey I found a max range of 1237 miles= 1075 nautical miles for the B5N2. That's a big difference.

Various online sources place the Kates max range around 1237 as well. Using 1075nm ...the endurance becomes 532...equating to ranges of 6 extended and 5 normal.

Wonder where CaS got the 528nm figure from[&:]...Actually figured it out the Warbirds site ( http://www.xs4all.nl/~fbonne/warbirds/w ... kab5n.html )
lists the typical range of the B5N2 as 608 miles = 528 nm....
and the max range = 1237 mi = 1075 nm...

so which do we use????

Why not use solid sources - e.g. Francillon? This is not a controversial aircraft. Further - when one picks a source of that sort - one has all Japanese planes defined to a common standard - something Joe and I felt was a very good idea when we looked at aircraft data. The transfer range of an aircraft is a good deal more than twice its operational radius. The operational radius must include some fuel for wind losses, nav errors and battle damage - and then the amount of fuel carried usually is less because a full weapons load may not permit a full fuel load (depending on the aircraft). The WITP system of using a % is very simple - and you are honoring the spirit of that by also using a % - but that % should be significantly less than 50. For large transports and bombers the extended operational radius is typically about 42%. For planes designed very tightly - as Japanese torpedo bombers were - it actually may vary somewhat - but it is possible to actually get the data for the famous ones. You could elect to fill in endurance using actual operating ranges divided by cruising speed. And note this: in a few cases you only get the right value if you let "extended load" = "normal load" - something tricky to do with our code (but possible if you are tricky enough). These planes didn't really have a maximum load in the Western sense - and they didn't reduce their normal load to get more range like we did either. If you wish for detail material for certain cases - I can provide it.


Actual Francillon list both values for the B5N2 - Normal - 528 nm and Maximum 1075 nm...

I had it on my shelf but was too lazy to get up and actually check it....
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
el cid again
Posts: 16983
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Treespider's CHS - Drop tanks and knots

Post by el cid again »

But remember that "maximum range" in a reference book is not with weapons - it is "transfer range" in WITP terms.
Further - "normal range" in a reference book depends on lots of things - not always obvious to us as readers. In this case the normal range would be with a torpedo (or 800 kg bomb - same same weight wise). But for many bombers, the ranges given in references may drive you slightly nuts. The best case is when they say "range with 5,500 pounds of bombs at 15,000 feet at 230 mph" or something like that.
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: Treespider's CHS - Drop tanks and knots

Post by Ron Saueracker »

I'm all for your approach on reducing airfield and port size maximums to manipulate the game engine treespider. The stock game was extremely generous to begin with. This should help immensely regarding the add water and stir availability of torpedoes which strategically upsets the entire air/naval model. Moreover, reducing port sizes drastically so that major commercial ports like San Francisco are no longer all over the place is crucial, a line must be drawn between what is a port and what is merely an anchorage. Seriously, major Atolls like Ulithi and Truk and places like Camrahn Bay, while large natural anchorages, were not on a par with real ports like San Fancisco, Tokyo, Bombay etc. Size 3 allows a TF to disband...this should be enough. Support ships were key in these large natural anchorages.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Drop tanks and knots

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm all for your approach on reducing airfield and port size maximums to manipulate the game engine treespider. The stock game was extremely generous to begin with. This should help immensely regarding the add water and stir availability of torpedoes which strategically upsets the entire air/naval model. Moreover, reducing port sizes drastically so that major commercial ports like San Francisco are no longer all over the place is crucial, a line must be drawn between what is a port and what is merely an anchorage. Seriously, major Atolls like Ulithi and Truk and places like Camrahn Bay, while large natural anchorages, were not on a par with real ports like San Fancisco, Tokyo, Bombay etc. Size 3 allows a TF to disband...this should be enough. Support ships were key in these large natural anchorages.

I generally agree. The problem is the functionality that the the port size entails. With that in mind I was thinking of Truk in terms of a Size 8 (SPS 5) at statrt depending on when the torpedo facilities there had been completed. In any event because the Japanese had topredo assembly facilities at Truk merits it receiving an SPS of at least 5 to allow it to be expanded to 8 which is the magic number allowing ships to rearm with torpedos.

Ulithi - from what you'll read below seems way over rated in the game...and perhaps should rate as an SPS 1 or possible 2. If it is a 2 it can be expanded to a 5 which would allow for ship systems to repair.?

" Ulithi, in the Western Carolines
The naval base at Ulithi was established to pro-
vide a fleet anchorage and an air base to support
half of a night fighter squadron, a light inshore
patrol squadron, pool for a maximum of 150 car-
rier replacement aircraft, a utility squadron, and
staging facilities for transport aircraft. The basic
plan also called for maintaining shore facilities to
support the garrison and the fleet. ~
This atoll, 93 miles northeast of Yap, 370 miles
southwest of Guam, and 370 miles northeast of
Peleliu, consists of four elements: the main atoll,
in the west; the island of Falalop off the northeast
point; a small detached reef with several islets,
lying east of the main atoll; and Zohhoiiyonu
Bank, an incomplete atoll, in the extreme east.
All the islets of the group are of typical atoll
structure, with low level land, wooded in spots,
and swamp areas, generally covered with thick
vegetation. The rainfall is heavy and the climate
tropical. Mogmog Island, in the north, is the prin-
cipal islet; others which were most used by our
forces are Falalop, Asor, Potangeras, and Sorlen.
Ulithi Atoll was occupied on September 20,
1944, with no ground opposition by Japanese
forces. There were numerous aid raids in the early
days of the operation, but no damage to Seabees
or equipment resulted. j~
The 18th Special Battalion arrived on October
1, 1944. This unit, consisting of 17 officers and 514
men, was quartered on a barracks barge. The bat-
talion was to stevedore for the fleet rather than to
handle straight ship-to-shore stevedoring opera-
tions: This type of work was then highly essential
at illithi, where all supplies, fuel, ammunition,
and spare parts were stored afloat. The 18th Spe-
cial worked at this task until May 25, 1945, when
it was detached and ordered to Leyte Gulf. During
that period, the battalion handled an average of
20,000 tons of cargo month}y.
On October 10, 1944, a detachment of the 6th
Special Battalion arrived at Ulithi to operate as a
ship-to-shore stevedoring unit. During its service
there, the 6th handled a monthly average of 12,000
tons of cargo. This battalion was detached in June
1945 and returned to Pearl Harbor, where it was
inactivated.
The 51st Battalion disembarked on October 8,
1944, with 797 enlisted men and 28 officers, and
was assigned the task of widening, lengthening,
and improving the Japanese airfield on Falalop
the same time, a 500-seat chapel was built. A simi.
lar theatre, seating 1600, was constructed on Sorlen
Island in 19 days.
The construction of faciJities for a standard land-
ing-craft unit on Sorlen Island was another major
project. This development involved grading the
entire island and covering it with quonset huts for
storage, shops, mess halls, offices, and living quar.
ters, and building roads, supply dumps, and neces-
sary facilities to supply water and electricity to all
parts of the island.
Eleven distillation units, draw.
ing water from the sea, and nine 5,000-gallon stor.
age tanks were set up to provide drinking water.
The Sorlen Island hospital, constructed between
November 24,1944, and January 17, 1945, included
quonset huts and supplementary facilities to house
and operate a 100-bed unit.
Other construction included the erection of 42
quonset huts for use as a receiving station, and a
1600-man mess hall, complete with galley, ware.
houses, and refrigeration units. Three strips for
light plane operations between islands of the atoll
were built between December 12, 1944, and Januarv
27, 1945. Additional facilities included the atoll
commander's headquarters, a dispensary, an ad-
ministration building, a shop, and Marine aviation
camp.
All construction was performed by the 88th Bat-
talion between October 10, 1944, and February 7,
1945, at which time the battalion left for Samar.
On November 8, 1944, CBMU 603 arrived, and in
addition to general maintenance of the airstrip and
taxiways, constructed a sewage-disposal system for
the Marines and for the Seabees galleys. Construc-
tion of a 3,000-man galley, a refrigeration storage
building; a butcher shop, an issue room, a bakery,
an officers' mess, and shops for a landing craft,
unit was another important task. Other construc-
tion included enlarging and improving a finger
pier and the removal of 10,000 cubic yards of
coral to improve beaching facilities for landing
craft. With the departure of the other battalions,
CBMU 603 took over all duties of construction,
maintenance, and stevedoring.
On V-J Day, this base was still operating at
capacity, with CBMU 603 still attached."
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Port Review

Post by treespider »

Other than Ulithi and Truk are there any other ports in CHS 2.08 that appear "out of sorts" I just did a very quick and dirty review of some of the port sizes in CHS and they by and large appear ok. Most ports were downgraded in earlier versions of CHS.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
KDonovan
Posts: 1157
Joined: Sun Sep 25, 2005 12:52 am
Location: New Jersey

RE: Treespider's CHS - Port Review

Post by KDonovan »

i think Lunga port needs to be downgraded, currently stands at a 0(2). Looking at the picture from google the "harbor" can only accomadate a few piers with most ships anchored off shore. Based on that 0(1) or possibly 1(0) may be better options for port sizes

Image
Attachments
untitled.jpg
untitled.jpg (24.39 KiB) Viewed 148 times
Image
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Port Review

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

i think Lunga port needs to be downgraded, currently stands at a 0(2). Looking at the picture from google the "harbor" can only accomadate a few piers with most ships anchored off shore. Based on that 0(1) or possibly 1(0) may be better options for port sizes

Image


Thanks...
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Port Review

Post by treespider »

Here what the Seabee's had to say about Lunga....

"During 1943, Harbor facilities were considerably extended (from three timber piers previously constructed by the Seabees). The Seabees assembled pontoon barges to aid in unloading, and built finger piers at various locations around the island. Two T-shaped piers having 40-foot water depth at their out board ends were constructed at KuKum. A pier to accommodate Liberty ships was also built at Point Cruz."

We'll go with 0(1)...
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
veji1
Posts: 1019
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 5:28 pm

RE: Treespider's CHS - Port Review

Post by veji1 »

regarding the problem of the functionnalities entailed in the port size that would "force" the game to be overly generous with many ports ( ie "they could reload torpedoes here so it should be an 8" ), maybe you could consider multiplying the number of support vessels at anchor there game start with supplies and all (AD, AE, etc...) so you could make Truk a 6 (sps 4) port for example ?

I guess this will imply lots of testing, but I am starting to salivate about a potential mix between your mod, CHS and BigB's (China and all)... Could make for a great new feeling...

Thing is as usual testing will be the hard part, specially late war testing.. It isn't that hard to see how a mod works in 1942.. But to get to test it in 1944 or later is hard, while it is so very important...
Adieu Ô Dieu odieux... signé Adam
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Port Review

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: treespider

Here what the Seabee's had to say about Lunga....

"During 1943, Harbor facilities were considerably extended (from three timber piers previously constructed by the Seabees). The Seabees assembled pontoon barges to aid in unloading, and built finger piers at various locations around the island. Two T-shaped piers having 40-foot water depth at their out board ends were constructed at KuKum. A pier to accommodate Liberty ships was also built at Point Cruz."

We'll go with 0(1)...


Guess what Lunga already is a 0(1) in CHS 2.08....by and large the port changes already implemented in 2.08 seem ok to me...
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Treespider's CHS - Port Review

Post by treespider »

ORIGINAL: veji1

regarding the problem of the functionnalities entailed in the port size that would "force" the game to be overly generous with many ports ( ie "they could reload torpedoes here so it should be an 8" ), maybe you could consider multiplying the number of support vessels at anchor there game start with supplies and all (AD, AE, etc...) so you could make Truk a 6 (sps 4) port for example ?

I guess this will imply lots of testing, but I am starting to salivate about a potential mix between your mod, CHS and BigB's (China and all)... Could make for a great new feeling...

Thing is as usual testing will be the hard part, specially late war testing.. It isn't that hard to see how a mod works in 1942.. But to get to test it in 1944 or later is hard, while it is so very important...

Problem with more support vessels is did they exist historically? Truk in fact did have Torpedo assembly facilities on site and could anchor the entire Combined Fleet within it lagoon. Now maybe it should be rated as a 7(5) at start. So you would still need to base an MLE there to service mine warfare ships....which require a size 9 port.
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”