Production options

[pasternakski]

Originally posted by Chiteng
I did. In another thread you disparaged BOTH JFD and the game.
The exact phrase you used was:

'one of Dunnigan's greatest Turkeys' (or somesuch)

Hard not to interpet that in a negative light.

Whatever. And your comment adds to the discussion of the Matrix/2by3 computer game how?

I have no interest in your petty sniping about comments I have made in other threads that were devoted to other subjects. This thread is here so that commentary can be offered (and in tones that are not disparaging to the participants, I might add) regarding the degree to which production control should be accorded the players in THIS product.

If you have something intelligent (or even intelligible) to say on this subject, I suggest that you do so.

[Chiteng]

I have and I will continue to do so. I just wanted the other people
reading the thread to know you had a bias to start with.

I think that does add to the understanding of your comments.

[pasternakski]

Well, I guess that takes care of the request for intelligent, pertinent comments. I'm outta here.

[Chiteng]

I think it is far more intelligent than any comment you have made.
BTW this is the 4th time you promised to leave. You havent.

You reap what you sow.

[RevRick]

Jeremy: There were 71 16"50cal Mk 2 in storage from the original South Dakota class which was cancelled in 1922, at which point, an additional 44 were in various stages of construction. These were the guns which were originally to have been on the Iowas. There would have been no problem with heavy guns for the Montana's.

Most of the history I have seen indicates that the ships were cancelled for lack of a mission (fleet surface action), lack of speed, and to free up ways and material for other ships.

Edited: Just for fun - how about a game with Montana's mounting 9 18"47cal Mk A. - 3850 # shells, etc.

[Jeremy Pritchard]

Well there you go. You learn something new every day! Thanks!

[mdiehl]

I second that "Thanks." Would it not be 8x18" for the proposed 18"-Montana or would you write off a turret?

[RevRick]

Bu C & R and BuOrd had toyed with the idea of mounting the 18" guns on the Iowa's, but they could have only carried six of them - and the rate of fire would have been abysmally slow. The standard arrangement of heavy weapons in the USN following the North Carolina had been three triple turrents, so if they were to start afresh with a purpose of building a ship using the 18"47 it would seem to me that it would be a triple turret ship.

However - all of the old BB's were four turret ships, so they might have reverted to that format, but Chantry seemed to favor the heaviest firepower forward.

[Frank W.]

Originally posted by Jeremy Pritchard

There is only so much you can listen to from a pre-production forum. The problem arises when you listen too much, and try to incorporate too much additional options in a game. Ever hear of Master of Orion 3? That game had to have a virtual rewrite because a lot of the options desired in the game by the forum (including the Points system) made it very buggy and virtually unplayable. There can be an infinite number of extra's that Matrix can add, with support of a significant part of the population, but they simply cannot add it all.

I

why?

as a game system without production "UV" is already very good (agreed?), okay so they just have to build this to the greater scale and had perhaps a building system like this in "war in russia / second front" . do you would say war in russia is a simple ahistoric game with the production system?? you can completly leave the production alone handled by the computer if you don´t want it.

both games are made by almost the same persons (read gary g.) so they have experience with a production system already taken over from "war in russia". the only new component would be the ship-building. but as i say before i agree in to leave the big ships like BB´s or CV´s alone and integrate only a building system f. smaller vessels. but it would be a pity not see how the war would go without the good subs from the US in their great numbers. so the player can decide to build more CA or CL instaed of subs, so perhaps without the very succesful sub-campaign the war would be quite more difficult for the US. or why not build greater numbers and better quality (i mean in case of anti sub warfare) of DE´s and escorts for the japanese to counter the subs??