ORIGINAL: witpqs
Right. And with a Central Pacific offensive (depending upon who owns what) you could easily have all the AEs/AKEs needing to trudge back to Pearl Harbor as the closest safe passage.
I would like to add that if ammo were modeled in some historical way I would be fine with that. But, that's a major change that obviously isn't in the cards. Just as well, because it would require quite a code infrastructure to help the players manage it or else the game would be unplayable.
What we have now does have limitations, but it's pretty good.
Agree, within the limitations is as close as I have ever seen it in a game, and it is quite sufficient. Image tracking only the larger ordnance (>6") for rearming would be a bulkload of information. Maybe for some people that are more into the logistic side of things this could be fun, but I would consider it just more unnecessary micromanagement. If you wanted to go to that level if detail, you could as well ask for modeling bore lifetimes of these guns (or the land tubes, for that matter), which would much more limit players ability to use the battlewagons and cruisers so extensively than the AKE issue. Even if there was enough man time for coding this, I would be worried about AI getting just another disadvantage that it will struggle with.