Difference between docking and anchoring

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

Post Reply
Henri
Posts: 144
Joined: Fri Apr 26, 2002 7:32 pm

Difference between docking and anchoring

Post by Henri »

Although I have read the manual, I don't understand the differenced between docking and being at anchor. And I think the manual contradicts itself on whether or not ships can be attacke in one situation or the other (unfortunately I don't have the manual here).

I guess the difference resides in how much fuel is used, whether or not repairs are made and on whether the naval units can be bombed or torpedoed, but it looks very fuzzy to me...

Also there are ships that are difficult to understand, some are not one the list (AK, I think from memory). It would be nice if the database would have not only the pictures and numbers for each ship type, but also a short text a la East Front giving some information on each ship, for example

"The Whaledoodoo was fast, but it couldn't hold more than a pinch o' coons**t worth of cargo, and would sink of its own accord at the mere sight of any Japanese ship. It was phased out of the US Navy in 1942 after the Navy ran out of plywood".

Well, you get the idea...

Henri
Reiryc
Posts: 1085
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2001 10:00 am

Re: Difference between docking and anchoring

Post by Reiryc »

Originally posted by Henri
Although I have read the manual, I don't understand the differenced between docking and being at anchor. And I think the manual contradicts itself on whether or not ships can be attacke in one situation or the other (unfortunately I don't have the manual here).

I guess the difference resides in how much fuel is used, whether or not repairs are made and on whether the naval units can be bombed or torpedoed, but it looks very fuzzy to me...

Also there are ships that are difficult to understand, some are not one the list (AK, I think from memory). It would be nice if the database would have not only the pictures and numbers for each ship type, but also a short text a la East Front giving some information on each ship, for example

"The Whaledoodoo was fast, but it couldn't hold more than a pinch o' coons**t worth of cargo, and would sink of its own accord at the mere sight of any Japanese ship. It was phased out of the US Navy in 1942 after the Navy ran out of plywood".

Well, you get the idea...

Henri

Isn't the big picture difference that those that are in a TF at dock while those in the port are at anchor?

Thus TF's can manuever a bit more when attacked than those ships in a port.

Ships in port don't refuel but those docked in a TF will refuel. etc..

Reiryc
Image
A_Master
Posts: 28
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 8:00 am
Location: thornhill,ontario,canada

Post by A_Master »

Also a ship in port is better protected from weather.

User avatar
Slaughtermeyer
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri May 10, 2002 11:40 am
Location: Pennsylvania

Cloaking in port

Post by Slaughtermeyer »

And don't forget that all ships in port are cloaked from all air recon missions, although they can still get hit by bombs when the port is bombed.
We must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war,for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war.It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy. R.Jackson,1945
User avatar
von Murrin
Posts: 1611
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2001 10:00 am
Location: That from which there is no escape.

Post by von Murrin »

Slaughter hit the main difference. A TF can only be attacked by naval attack air missions, while ships in port can only be attacked by port attack air missions. SCTF's can hit both.
I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”