Inclusion of ships for CHS

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: The Dude

The fact of the matter remains that in addition to the respawns ( A concept i favor) there were other ships that were not connected in anyways with previously sunken ships.

In the list i made at the head of this thread i did not included any of the respawns ( ie Canberra, Vincennes etc). I only included ships that were eventually completed under the name that they were completed with.

Did they serve in the Pacific during the war?

[The Dude]

Some may have. Completion dates range from SEP 44 to APR 46. I realize some would not have served historically but if the scenario is played to AUG 31 46 then I think that some of these ships should be included

[The Dude]

Even allowing a year for work up after thier completion dates at least a third of the ships would have been able to serve in a war scenario up to AUG 46

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: The Dude

Even allowing a year for work up after thier completion dates at least a third of the ships would have been able to serve in a war scenario up to AUG 46

Year is way too long, actually 5 months would be about right for cruisers. Carriers take longer due to the need to work up an air group, but even then probably around 9 months. As and example the following Baltimore Class CA's that were known to have been in the Pacific by mid 1946:

CA Baltimore - Comm. 4/15/43 - In Pacific 11/20/43 = 7 months
CA Boston - Comm. 6/30/43 - In Pacific Jan 1944 = 6 months
CA Canberra - Comm. 10/14/1943 - 2/1/1944 Peral Harbor = 3.5 months
CA Pittsburg - Comm. 10/10/1944 - Pacific Feb 1945 - 5 months
CA St paul - Comm. 2/17/1945 - Hawaii 6/6/1945 - 3.5 months
CA Columbus - Comm. 6/8/1945 - Tsingtao China 1/13/46 (she was in the Pacific before this)
CA Helena - Comm 9/4/1945 - No Pacific date, but left Boston for World cruise 2/12/1946
CA Bremerton - Comm 4/29/1945 - 11/1945 transferred to pacific
CA Fall River - Comm. 7/1/1945 - 2/6/1946 HQ for Bikini Bomb tests
CA Los Angeles - Comm 7/22/1945 - 10/15/45 Departed for Western Pacific

Again, a year workup is way too long a time from commissioning to deployment.

Source:
Cruisers of the US Navy 1922-1962, Stefan Terzibauschitsch

[The Dude]

Year is way too long, actually 5 months would be about right for cruisers.

I realize a year is too long but it serves to illustrate my point. And going by your points underscore my point even more so

[Lemurs!]

Also, some ships were not included because the Americans have no withdraw function.
Several navy ships and lots of merchant ships served time in both theaters. We can not represent this.


Mike

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Also, some ships were not included because the Americans have no withdraw function.
Several navy ships and lots of merchant ships served time in both theaters. We can not represent this.


Mike

I think not including a universal withdrawl requirement for Allied units (naval/air/land) was a major booboo in the games design, something I suspect has its origins in earlier games which only included Royal Navy units (ie Avalon Hill's VITP). The use of old game designs as influences is great but I think some more thought could have gone into this...it's not like AH is the source of sources on this. Lot's of dead wood and dead ideas remain from these earlier attempts.

[Lemurs!]

It is really a sad state of affairs when you realize that Vitory in the Pacific was the source for this game.

Mike

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

It is really a sad state of affairs when you realize that Vitory in the Pacific was the source for this game.

Mike

I think you might be razzing me here but this is where the concept of a RN withdrawl (RN only by the way) came from.[8D]

How hard can it be to add a universal withdrawl requirement to the game at this stage? After all, the mechanism is already there with the RN units. Not like they would need to do the research...I'm sure the forum members would provide that.[&o]