CHS v1.07 Submissions

[Sardaukar]

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

Yes, the OOB is correct in so much as the TBM was equipped with the APS-6, problem is I don't think that air intercept radar in WITP detects ships.

True, but seems that TBM-3d radar was never used in that role either. It was pure air intercept radar as far as I've researched. It was used as radar picket against night air raids and was only torpedo bomber as secondary role. Pity that "AWACS" doesn't function in game, tho..[8D]

[bradfordkay]

Okay, I just opened up CHS v1.06 for the first time and have a couple of observations:

VMSB-231 was aboard the USS Lexington on the morning of Dec 7, '41 (was prepairing to fly to Midway that morning). Was that squadron left on Oahu because having it start the game aboard a carrier would possibly change it from carrier capable to carrier trained?


I am amused by the 6" CD guns at the USA base in Salt Lake City. Are we worried about the mormon navy? Other base forces have fortifications added to make them static.

I will add more comments as I explore this mod further...

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
I am amused by the 6" CD guns at the USA base in Salt Lake City. Are we worried about the mormon navy? Other base forces have fortifications added to make them static.

That should be easy to fix.

[bradfordkay]

Another couple of comments, this time on the starting locations of some naval units.

We have three Japanese subs at Lanai. If someone were to suggest that the US cannot give any orders to naval or air assets on Dec 7, I would point to these already spotted subs as reason enough to allow US orders to be issued. Yes, there was a sub spotted off Diamond Head in the lead up to the PH attack, but if I'm in command this sighting would not have been discounted out of hand - it would have been reason to increase the readiness level of my forces (turn off "Dec 7 surprise"?).

The Repulse starts so far southeast of Singapore that without issuing her orders to increase to flank speed, she will not make port in time to create Force Z so it can attack the Japanese invasion fleets. I'm not sure that this is correct - did someone get confused about the date of her arrival in Singapore?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Another couple of comments, this time on the starting locations of some naval units.

...

The Repulse starts so far southeast of Singapore that without issuing her orders to increase to flank speed, she will not make port in time to create Force Z so it can attack the Japanese invasion fleets. I'm not sure that this is correct - did someone get confused about the date of her arrival in Singapore?

That is intentional, although there is a little bit of "guess" in the exact position. Repulse (and 2 DDs) had just left Singapore for a visit to Australia and was recalled when war broke out. The net effect is to delay the possible formation of Force Z by one day. It also runs Repulse and escort over the position of a Japanese submarine...

[witpqs]

Some of the Wickes/Clemson class (a.k.a. Flush Deck) destroyers have endurance 4400 instead of 4000. This sounds fine, but I have noticed a problem with those ships. When they are in a convoy as escorts, they refuel at sea literally every turn. Put together a nice fast convoy and it becomes a slow convoy.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Another couple of comments, this time on the starting locations of some naval units.

We have three Japanese subs at Lanai. If someone were to suggest that the US cannot give any orders to naval or air assets on Dec 7, I would point to these already spotted subs as reason enough to allow US orders to be issued. Yes, there was a sub spotted off Diamond Head in the lead up to the PH attack, but if I'm in command this sighting would not have been discounted out of hand - it would have been reason to increase the readiness level of my forces (turn off "Dec 7 surprise"?).

Hell why not launch the entire Pacific Fleet and get the Japs before they get you...[;)]

The Repulse starts so far southeast of Singapore that without issuing her orders to increase to flank speed, she will not make port in time to create Force Z so it can attack the Japanese invasion fleets. I'm not sure that this is correct - did someone get confused about the date of her arrival in Singapore?

If war is imminent shouldn't speed be increased to flank to return to port asap...[;)] That is if you actually intend to interdict the invasion site. [;)]

[bradfordkay]

" That is intentional, although there is a little bit of "guess" in the exact position. Repulse (and 2 DDs) had just left Singapore for a visit to Australia and was recalled when war broke out. The net effect is to delay the possible formation of Force Z by one day. It also runs Repulse and escort over the position of a Japanese submarine..."

Okay, I can accept that. I knew that Force Z left port on Dec 8, and so I wanted that possibility. In all honesty, it doesn't really matter as they will arrive too late to stop the invasion anyway - though the earlier Force Z arrives at Khota Bharu, the sooner the Malayan air forces can start causing serious damage to the transports.

The funny thing is that when I ran the turn with the Repulse TF returning to Singapore at mission speed she should have reached port anyway (she is certainly close enough in her starting position off Muntok, not Toboali as I said earlier). I wonder if the air strike on Singapore causes the TF to delay its arrival? Or maybe it was due to the sub encounter?

[bradfordkay]

Another query, why did we stick with the Japanese Wake Island invasion force being in position to arrive on Dec 7? The was a major reason for me preferring to play scenario 116 over scenario 115 (the other being that it felt better to lose the Arizona than the Tennessee..).

The first Japanese invasion did not occur until Dec 11, and yet both 2by3's scenario 15/115 and the CHS has the Japanese invading on Dec 7. I've had some fun in scenario 116 versus the AI by turning Wake into a focus of the war - I like to send the Lexington and Enterprise TFs to Wake to intercept the invasion fleets. Once it created a nice carrier battle (Lex took a couple of torpedoes but survived, Soryu was sent to the bottom).

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Another query, why did we stick with the Japanese Wake Island invasion force being in position to arrive on Dec 7? The was a major reason for me preferring to play scenario 116 over scenario 115 (the other being that it felt better to lose the Arizona than the Tennessee..).

The first Japanese invasion did not occur until Dec 11, and yet both 2by3's scenario 15/115 and the CHS has the Japanese invading on Dec 7. I've had some fun in scenario 116 versus the AI by turning Wake into a focus of the war - I like to send the Lexington and Enterprise TFs to Wake to intercept the invasion fleets. Once it created a nice carrier battle (Lex took a couple of torpedoes but survived, Soryu was sent to the bottom).

We went back and forth on all of the "first week but not first day" invasions. If they are not scripted (for the AI) they may or may not occur and some will occur very late. I was the editor at that time and left them in under the "inertia" rule.

[bradfordkay]

Thanks for the response, Don. It helps to understand the rationale behind the decisions. While it is irksome to lose Wake immediately, I can understand why you left the ahistorical invasion in the CHS.


I've got to say that I get a real kick out of having to deal with all the little tramp steamers that are in the game now. It certainly makes the Japanese offensive seem to be more of a surprise when you've got all these ships that are running for safer waters. Japanese gunboats in the south pacific! Oh my!!!

[akdreemer]

Again I have to ask why the Pearl Harbor attack force is located adjacent to Lihue, when it should be about 250 mile to the north of Pearl Harbor??

[akdreemer]

Should not HMS Victorious show up at the Panama Canal in 1943? Her escort was USS Pringle.

Refitted at Norfolk Navy Yard USA, winter 1942-43, after which she was loaned to the US Pacific Fleet until being replaced by USS Essex. Despite its massive industrial muscle, the United States still found itself short of carriers in the Pacific, the only American carrier available in the South Pacific was USS Saratoga. HMS Victorious sailed to Pearl Harbor to join USS Saratoga's Battle Group, Task Force 14. She arrived and took up duties under Task Force 14 in the the Southwest Pacific on 17th May 1943. Renamed the USS Robin, she embarked US aircraft and aircrew, and with the Saratoga swept the Soloman Islands, whilst Saratoga embarked all the strike squadrons including the Fleet Air Arm 832 Squadron Avengers.

In May-June 1943, at Noumea, New Caledonia, the light cruiser USS San Diego joined USS Saratoga, and carrier HMS Victorious in support of the invasion of Munda, New Georgia, and of Bougainville. During this period Victorious operated 60 British and American Wildcat fighters for air cover. The two carriers sailed on 27th June, the carriers took up position and in the next few days put up 600 sorties against little opposition. The aircraft were reassigned to their parent carriers on 24 July, and the force reached Noumea the next day.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Again I have to ask why the Pearl Harbor attack force is located adjacent to Lihue, when it should be about 250 mile to the north of Pearl Harbor??

The location of KB is a straight conversion from the official scenario, which has it in the same relative position. If tests show that the attack works from the historical location (which I think you have tried already?), then I would be happy for the TF destination to be changed to that location.

[michaelm75au]

The situation back in version 1.4 was:
If air group starts on a ship, it was classed as "carrier trained".
That is on ANY ship. An air group loaded on a AK at start of scenario will be classed as "carrier trained".
Had cute situation where a group was loaded on AK at start. Group would have eventually upgraded to B-29s. I wondered if I played long enough if I could fly them of a CV.[:D][:D]

I have not tried recently, but I would guess this has not changed.

Michael

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Okay, I just opened up CHS v1.06 for the first time and have a couple of observations:

VMSB-231 was aboard the USS Lexington on the morning of Dec 7, '41 (was prepairing to fly to Midway that morning). Was that squadron left on Oahu because having it start the game aboard a carrier would possibly change it from carrier capable to carrier trained?

[bradfordkay]

I thought that might be the reason. Somewhere in the recesses of my mind was a small memory of part of that discussion...

[Jo van der Pluym]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
We went back and forth on all of the "first week but not first day" invasions. If they are not scripted (for the AI) they may or may not occur and some will occur very late. I was the editor at that time and left them in under the "inertia" rule.

I had some thoughts. What if the Invasion Taskforce has a delay for arriving on 7 or 8 december? Does the AI then disband the Tasforce or sent them to Wake?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The situation back in version 1.4 was:
If air group starts on a ship, it was classed as "carrier trained".
That is on ANY ship. An air group loaded on a AK at start of scenario will be classed as "carrier trained".
Had cute situation where a group was loaded on AK at start. Group would have eventually upgraded to B-29s. I wondered if I played long enough if I could fly them of a CV.[:D][:D]

I have not tried recently, but I would guess this has not changed.

Michael

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Okay, I just opened up CHS v1.06 for the first time and have a couple of observations:

VMSB-231 was aboard the USS Lexington on the morning of Dec 7, '41 (was prepairing to fly to Midway that morning). Was that squadron left on Oahu because having it start the game aboard a carrier would possibly change it from carrier capable to carrier trained?

True, but the squadron in question is dive bombers. Making them carrier trained renders them ready for USS Long Island when she arrives.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Again I have to ask why the Pearl Harbor attack force is located adjacent to Lihue, when it should be about 250 mile to the north of Pearl Harbor??

The location of KB is a straight conversion from the official scenario, which has it in the same relative position. If tests show that the attack works from the historical location (which I think you have tried already?), then I would be happy for the TF destination to be changed to that location.

Andrew, I have tested it and after 10 test runs from both I found no significant differences. I can post the data later, since I am at work right now. This is to be expected since in both cases PH is still within normal range.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: michaelm

The situation back in version 1.4 was:
If air group starts on a ship, it was classed as "carrier trained".
That is on ANY ship. An air group loaded on a AK at start of scenario will be classed as "carrier trained".
Had cute situation where a group was loaded on AK at start. Group would have eventually upgraded to B-29s. I wondered if I played long enough if I could fly them of a CV.[:D][:D]

I have not tried recently, but I would guess this has not changed.

Michael

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Okay, I just opened up CHS v1.06 for the first time and have a couple of observations:

VMSB-231 was aboard the USS Lexington on the morning of Dec 7, '41 (was prepairing to fly to Midway that morning). Was that squadron left on Oahu because having it start the game aboard a carrier would possibly change it from carrier capable to carrier trained?

True, but the squadron in question is dive bombers. Making them carrier trained renders them ready for USS Long Island when she arrives.

And this is a bad thing??? By the time Long Island arives there is already the potential for her to be home to several "displaced" carrier sqdns from sunk ships. One more "carrier" trained squadron would not make a difference. Indeed, some would argue that by mid 43 most US Marine air units should be "carrier trained".