What "house rules" do you have?

[XPav]

From http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-166.html

Still designated as a mine-layer upon her return to Pearl Harbor, the decision was made to convert <i>Argonaut</i> into a transport submarine. Her mine handling gear was removed and her mine tubes were cut out and blanked off at the after bulkhead, with the remaining sections outside the pressure hull pierced to allow them to be free-flooding. The space formerly allocated for mines was now filled with bunks, heads, mess facilities, and washroom. About 120 Marines could be accommodated. She was redesignated APS-1 after this conversion.

The mines have passed on! These mines are no more!
They have ceased to be! They've expired and gone to meet their maker! They're stiff! Bereft of life, they're resting in peace!

THESE ARE EX-MINES!!

[denisonh]

...the decision was made to convert <i>Argonaut</i> into a transport submarine...

Who made that decision(Certainly not me)? Passive voice is frowned upon in military writing......

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by XPav
If Argonaut is available before July, thats another thing wrong.

The entire UV OOB and ship data is supposed to be 100% historical. No "what-ifs", no "this would be cool", no "maybe this would have happened."

The main reason I think that people want to keep Argonaut as is is because its fun. Not because its realistic, but because its The Hunt For Red Argonaut.

Heck, I think it would be cool if USS Ranger was in the game too, but its NOT. I live with it. You people can go without 1 uberminelaying sub.

No what ifs? What about all those scenerios that assume Midway didnt happen? Having the Kaga, Akagi, Hiryu and Soryu in UV in the OOb is exactly 100% historical is it? If you can have no Midway or no IJN sub doctorine, I dont think its much a stretch assume no Makin raid.

I suppose if the majority feels this is a big deal, then you could have the option of the Argo having its minelaying grear ripped handled much like AA upgrades are handled now. Personally I dont think its worth the effort. The Argo hasnt caused me much concern as the IJN player. It will be even less so now with the new mine routine in 2.11.

[Yamamoto]

Originally posted by XPav

The main reason I think that people want to keep Argonaut as is is because its fun. Not because its realistic, but because its The Hunt For Red Argonaut.

Well, since fun is what a game is supposed to be all about, I'd say you make a pretty good argument to keep it in the game. One thing I'd like to see is those Japanese aircraft-carrying submarines get their airplanes. Besides, mines are not very useful anymore with the changes to minesweepers.

Yamamoto

[TIMJOT]

Ditto on wanting IJN sub airplanes Yamamoto. It should be a must in WitP.

[mdiehl]

Yeah! Yeah! And lot's not forget to leave those OS2U catapults on the hangar deck of Lexington! Woof woof.

[SoulBlazer]

Not to mention that since the Japs LOVE to lay mines all over the place, it feels nice to have at least ONE sub I can use to return the favor. As long as the OOB's are POSSIBLE for the time frame in which the secnario starts, I'm happy with that. Nothing stopping someone from loading the editor and changing it.

[XPav]

NO.

UV does NOT model TECHNICAL what-ifs. There isn't a "What if Lex & Sara had been built as battlecruisers" what if, there isn't a "What if the B-18 Bolo had been deployed in large numbers what-if", there's none of that.

I am NOT arguing about this from a balance standpoint, I'm pointing out that historically, Argonaut DID NOT HAVE MINES.

Not to mention that in the game, Argonaut can carry mines and troops at the same time. Where do these troops go? Are they lashed to the outside of the hull?

Argonaut should

1) Have its mines removed
OR
2) Have its troop carrying capacity removed

Since it never went to SOPAC with mines, option #1 should be followed. It was a troop carrying sub. The designation says so, the fact that it has no mines says so.

[SoulBlazer]

Okay, so why complain to us? Go complain to Matrix or make the changes yourself. I'm happy with how it currently is, thank you very much.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by mdiehl
Yeah! Yeah! And lot's not forget to leave those OS2U catapults on the hangar deck of Lexington! Woof woof.

I assume you are being sarcastic. Is there any reason why you think I boat seaplanes shouldnt be included?

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by XPav
NO.

UV does NOT model TECHNICAL what-ifs. There isn't a "What if Lex & Sara had been built as battlecruisers" what if, there isn't a "What if the B-18 Bolo had been deployed in large numbers what-if", there's none of that.

I am NOT arguing about this from a balance standpoint, I'm pointing out that historically, Argonaut DID NOT HAVE MINES.

Not to mention that in the game, Argonaut can carry mines and troops at the same time. Where do these troops go? Are they lashed to the outside of the hull?

Argonaut should

1) Have its mines removed
OR
2) Have its troop carrying capacity removed

Since it never went to SOPAC with mines, option #1 should be followed. It was a troop carrying sub. The designation says so, the fact that it has no mines says so.

Xpav

I agree that Argo shouldnt be able to do both, but since it could carry mines up till Aug 42. Any scenerio starting before that time should allow it to. I dont think the two IJN fast minelayers ever layed mines in SOPAC either. They were pretty much used as fast transports, but that doesnt mean that they couldnt.

Look at it this way, if Nimitz had wanted to use the Argo to lay mines in May 42. could he? Of course he could, but again I agree that Argo should not be able to do both. As I said earlier. Perhaps the Allied player should have the option to refit the Argo as a transport sub or keep it as a minelayer. The same way ships can refit there AA now. At the very least any scenerio starting after Aug 42 should not allow the Argo to lay mines. How's that for a compromise.

[XPav]

Originally posted by TIMJOT


Look at it this way, if Nimitz had wanted to use the Argo to lay mines in May 42. could he?

NO. Argonaut was being refitted at Mare Island from February to July. It then went to Pearl Harbor, had the mine gear ripped out in a week, and went on the Makin raid.

[Feinder]

Good grief fellas. I didn't mean for this to get into a p1ssing match (enough of those aready going on a my office at the moment).

I appreciate the suggestions. This is exactly the debate I was looking for, because that way, my brother and I can decide about which constraints we wish to abide by.

From what I've seen...

1. Marine aircraft historically couldn't/didn't fly from US carrriers. They -can- in UV, so we should decide whether ot allow this or not. As a further question on this point, were there Japanese sqaudrons that were basically equivilant to US Marines? I know that there ARE Japanese squadrons of carrier type aircraft that are NOT assigned to a carrier. Are these squadron trained in carrier landings, or are they like their Marine counterparts?

2. Fighter-loading CVs is generally frowned upon. Once again the argument that must be decided between the two players of "It let's me do this, but should I?"

3. Argonaut's mine capability is historically inaccurate, so a trueist would NOT use the Argonaut in that capacity. ("Tempt me not beyone my ability to resist!"... Too late! *grin*).

So aside from the cat-fights, anything else?

-F-

[XPav]

Originally posted by Feinder
Good grief fellas. I didn't mean for this to get into a p1ssing match (enough of those aready going on a my office at the moment).

This ain't a pissing match, this is me with reference source telling everyone why they're wrong.

1. Marine aircraft historically couldn't/didn't fly from US carrriers. They -can- in UV, so we should decide whether ot allow this or not. As a further question on this point, were there Japanese sqaudrons that were basically equivilant to US Marines? I know that there ARE Japanese squadrons of carrier type aircraft that are NOT assigned to a carrier. Are these squadron trained in carrier landings, or are they like their Marine counterparts?

I don't know actually. Its the same problem -- namely, that carrier-capable is based off of the plane type, rather than the organization + plane type.

[mogami]

Hi, I think the USN built 3 boats of the minelaying class USS Argonalt (SS-166), USS Narwhale (SS-167)and USS Naultius (SS-168) SS-168 also was part of the Makin Raid so I suppose she also had her minelaying gear removed. I have always thought it strange (and not very smart) to have modified this class of sub to troop transports and then send Argonalt out on a regular war patrol.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by XPav


NO. Argonaut was being refitted at Mare Island from February to July. It then went to Pearl Harbor, had the mine gear ripped out in a week, and went on the Makin raid.

My bad, I stand corrected. I didnt know the Argo was refitting until July. Do you know if it was specifically sent to the pacific to be used as a transport? I am guessing it wasnt or else the minelaying equipment would have been ripped out at Mare Island. So if it wasnt originally deployed to be a transport then it should be up to CinCPAC's descretion on how to use it. If it was specifically sent to the pacific to be used as a transport than you have a case. Either way Argo should not be allowed to perform both missions. What do you think, Argo's fate should be in WitP?

[Yamamoto]

Argonaught carries 60 mines, right? Big deal. Minesweepers can clear that out in like 2 or 3 days in version 2.11. The only time I use mines now is when I can keep another sub in the hex waiting to try and bag the minesweeper when it shows up. For me, actually hitting ships with mines seems to be a thing of the past.

Yamamoto

[XPav]

Originally posted by TIMJOT


My bad, I stand corrected. I didnt know the Argo was refitting until July. Do you know if it was specifically sent to the pacific to be used as a transport?

From http://www.fleetsubmarine.com/ss-166.html
"Argonaut's conversion to a troop carrier was a concession to reality. It had already been recognized that giant submarines like Argonaut, and the similar "cruiser" submarines Nautilusand Narwhal, were impractical for normal operations. Their heavy gun armament, intended for commerce raiding, lacked the centralized fire control system it would have needed to be of any practical value against a warship. Transporting raiding parties and other special missions appeared to be the most practical use for these oversized boats. Also, in Argonaut's case, the development of mines that could be laid from ordinary torpedo tubes essentially ended the need for specialist mine-layer submarines."

Argo's fate should be in WitP?

That's a toughie. Argonaut was a unique sub. She never did any minelaying in WW2, did one commando raid, and was lost on her third patrol. I'd make her a transport sub, as this was its planned historical role, and indeed, the roles that Nautilus and Narwhal operated in.