CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN...

[Blackhorse]

ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, Midway Naval Air station was built pre-war. Midway did operate loaded B-17's at normal range (so it has to be a size 6)
During the Battle of Midway it was not limited by it's size but by the fact it is outside the transfer range of most aircraft.

Hi Mog,

I would offer a slight correction to your statement -- Midway did operate B-17s at normal range, but the one atoll with an airfield (Eastern Island) was limited by its size and probably could not have handled more than the roughly 100 land-based aircraft (plus 32 Catalinas) that were based there during the Battle of Midway. The following image shows how the island looked during WWII and how the twin-runway airfield basically filled the entire island:



It's hard to imagine 300 airplanes (airbase 6 maximum) being based on that island!

A game of this scope has to require compromises. The game formula for airfields (capacity = airfield size x 50) works well for land bases, less well for small islands. In the case of Midway the designer/player has a choice . . . an airbase size of 6 will accurately represent the ability of B-17s to use the island, but will allow an ahistorically large number of aircraft (300) to operate from the island . . . an airbase size of 3 will accurately limit the total number of aircraft on the island, but will ahistorically restrict B-17 and medium bomber operations. Choose your poison.

[mogami]

Hi, Cam Ranh Bay might be the best protected port in the world. It is certainly the largest in Asia. It had a history of military use before WWII. It was control of this bay that provided control of Siagon. The French had begun building defense there after they got it back from the Japanese (The Japanese had occupied it in 1932) The Japanese went right back after the fall of France in 1940 and resumed building. By the time the war began they had been improving it for over 6 months (at a feverish rate) On Dec 7 it had 5 and 6inch CD installed and port facitlites. more then a shack. (The French had built a refueling station there on one of the islands in the bay)

Look we have lots of things to worry about. Every base should be rated for the length of it's runways and it's aircraft parking space but we have 1 number. You need a size 6 to operate B-17. By the time the USA has 300 B-17 they won't be needing to operate them from Midway and the Japanese will not be coming in B-17 range. We just have to decide what is the most important thing. Give a base too little or too much? We have to make them able to do what they actually did.

In the period the Japanese can invade Midway the Allied player will not have 300 aircraft he can park there. If he parks 300 aircraft there then the Japanese should just invade elsewhere because there will be lots of vital areas with no air cover.


I'm waiting for the game that has a round 3D earth to scale too.

[bradfordkay]

" A game of this scope has to require compromises. The game formula for airfields (capacity = airfield size x 50) works well for land bases, less well for small islands. In the case of Midway the designer/player has a choice . . . an airbase size of 6 will accurately represent the ability of B-17s to use the island, but will allow an ahistorically large number of aircraft (300) to operate from the island . . . an airbase size of 3 will accurately limit the total number of aircraft on the island, but will ahistorically restrict B-17 and medium bomber operations. Choose your poison.
"


I say to do it the way 2by3 chose: make it a size 6 airbase and then give only a small amount of air support units. This limits the number of a/c that can effectively work from the base, without limiting the types of a/c beyond those that should be limited.




" I'm waiting for the game that has a round 3D earth to scale too."

Same here.

[Mike Scholl]

So the real problem is that you need a size 6 airbase to operate B-17's? I think
that's more of a coding decision. Had a sensible choice been made to start with
(like "sizing", with one single engined or fighter A/C being a ONE, Twin-engined
bombers/ Transports being a TWO, and 4-engined Bombers being a THREE; the
situation wouldn't arise. A base could operate 48 ONE's, 24 TWO's, or 16 THREE's.
(And any combination as long as the total wasn't exceeded). Exceed the total, and
the operational losses go up while the availability goes down. Simple! Larger bases
could handle more---and base size limits could reflect the actual space available
for building. Not perfect.., but far more accurate than the situation we have.

I think the point was that the JAPANESE could park a lot of A/C on a "captured"
Midway (one with a great deal more operational value than reality would suggest).
You should re-read Blackhorse's posting.

And even if the Japanese had "improved" the Cam Ranh Anchorage (which is a beauty,
no doubt of that), it sure the he11 wasn't 50% more capable than Manilla or Singapore
in December of 1941!! Which, as you will remember, was the point of the thread. It's
still a mistake...

[mogami]

Hi, Well just edit down to the size you think it should be. What is the point of debating numbers? They are all judgement calls. One port gets a size 6 because while it might not be large it is built up. Another port gets the same 6 because while it is not built up it is large and has natural "facilties" It's a complete waste to argue design. I'm playing a lot of games as Japan and I wonder where I would get 300 aircraft to park on Midway and if I had them why I would do so. Midway is not in normal range of my bombers and it is not in escorted range. 300 AC there are as much out of the war as if the Allied player had destroyed the groups. When the time came to withdraw most of them could not. And when the Allied player did come 300 AC would last the AM air phase.
I do worry about things that alter the result of play. I don't worry about things that appear strange but have no impact. You can place 300 aircraft on a size 4 airfield if you want. Depending on mission they can still be effective. B-29 can fly from a sze 2 airfield and there are many good reasons to use them thus if the situation warrents it.

[Mike Scholl]

OK Mog..., I'll give it up. Your a heck of a player, a dilligent moderator, and a
pretty decent guy all around from what I can tell on the forums. No use keep-
ing you from other pursuits.

The basis of my thoughts was that if such a glaringly wrong error could be made
on the map, how are we to trust anything else it includes? You, being you, jumped
to the game's defense. And you will go on finding justifications for the error just as
long as I keep pointing it out. Why, I don't know..., but that's just you I guess.

WITP is the best (and only) thing going out there..., so I will play and enjoy it. I
just wish people would stop trying to declare it "perfect". There are still errors in
it, and the original programming choices have trapped everyone into living with
a lot of them. Saying "just change it if you don't agree" is pretty much a cop out.
It's nice that it can be done, but it would be better if it didn't have to be. And if a
player "personalizes" a scenario he still has to find someone to play it with...

Just get back to "chasin' Brady" in your game. I got liquor riding on that outcome.
Hopefully Brady will deliver. He spent so much time complaining about how the Allies
were unstopable I'm hoping he can actually figure out how to play them and stop you.

[mogami]

Hi, Don't worry I don't get offended and I'm only pointing out that what is a "glaring error" to you is (was) justified by the designer and then the scenario creator as what was required for the base to be used as it was. Remember bases load and unload ships according to size. Supply and fuel are treated according to the size of their base.
That base was the major base for Japan in preparing for war in SRA. Saigon is in bomber range of Malaya. The Japanese knew this and made it their "Home Port" prior to the war.

[Halsey]

I appreciate all the hard work that everyone involved has put into this game.[8D]

Hopefully people will read these posts in the forum and understand that "some things were overlooked" Gamers who say "well the game mechanics allow you to do this", so these are legitimate moves. You people need to wake up. If you want an enjoyable game that's going to last for a long time, compromise! If you just want to win, then play against the AI. That way you won't waste anyones time.[;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I appreciate all the hard work that everyone involved has put into this game.[8D]

Hopefully people will read these posts in the forum and understand that "some things were overlooked" Gamers who say "well the game mechanics allow you to do this", so these are legitimate moves. You people need to wake up. If you want an enjoyable game that's going to last for a long time, compromise! If you just want to win, then play against the AI. That way you won't waste anyones time.[;)]

Sing it brother. Of course things were overlooked!

[Lemurs!]

Hi all,

I agree with Mike Scholl on this.

I recomended a fix for airfield capacity back in the UV days but no one listened. x50 per point for mainland fields. x25 per point for any atoll including Truk. Or Midway. That would have a size 6 operating 150 aircraft max, and in my scenario it would only operate 125 max as the size of Midway is capped at 5.

And yes, B17s still work because in my mod they fly from 5's as i lowered standard bomb load to a more realistic amount.

Just to add a little to the fire... Saigon should not be a port in the game at all as it is just a commercial harbour up a river. A shallow river. Light cruisers, destroyers, up to 9000 ton merchant vessels thats about it folks.
That is why the Japanese operated from Cam Ranh, plus the secrecy.

Mike

[byron13]

Jeez, Mike, chill out. I don't think anyone would argue that some of the assumptions are more simplistic than we'd like, and it can lead to some unrealistic results. Like Mog says,

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Every base should be rated for the length of it's runways and it's aircraft parking space but we have 1 number.

He's admitted there are simplifications, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. If you provide two separate numbers for length of runway and a/c parking space, then there's an argument that the real issue is the number of runways required to launch a strike of a certain size, and the island of Guli-Guli had one long-as-sh1t runway, but only one, and therefore the game is wrong because it permits too many planes to be launched at once. Or that fuel for a/c should be treated differently than supplies. Ports would have to have five different ratings for depth of harbor, capacity of harbor, fuel-moving capacity, solids-moving capacity, and storage area. And who do you want to research the fine points of the harbor or airfield at Andaman? It would get ridiculous.

Be happy that the game provides as much detail as it does. Better what we have now, with its imperfections, than something even more generalized as in so many other games. And be glad that you were provided an editor that allows you to change much of what you don't like.

[Wallymanowar]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
Just to add a little to the fire... Saigon should not be a port in the game at all as it is just a commercial harbour up a river. A shallow river. Light cruisers, destroyers, up to 9000 ton merchant vessels thats about it folks.
That is why the Japanese operated from Cam Ranh, plus the secrecy.

Mike

Cough! Cough! Not a port!!!

The reason Saigon was as commercially important as it was (and is) is because it is the farthest upriver that deap sea vessels can travel on the Mekong. 30,000 ton vessels regularly make this transit.

The city is bathed by many rivers, arroyos and canals, the biggest river being the Saigon River. The Port of Saigon, established in 1862, is accessible to ships weighing up to 30,000 tons, a rare advantage for an inland river port.

http://www.vietnamtourism.com/Tourists/ ... 848&uid=72

And if you think that this was a result of the US buildup for the Vietnam war, think again - this is from the US Military History:

Before 1965 essentially all cargo entering Vietnam in deep-draft vessels came through the port of Saigon, the only port with deep draft berths, for distribution to the rest of the country by either rail or coastal steamer.

http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/Vietna ... apter4.htm

Although this last quote seems to support Mike Scholl's interpretation that Camranh Bay is too big, I think Mogami's explanation covers that.

[Lemurs!]

Thats not what the French said in their colonial docs.
What i have read was that Haiphong was the main commercial port and
Cam Ranh was being built up for a naval base.

Saigon has no harbour just a big river and the French complained that silt was constantly damaging engines of anything bigger than a light cruiser.

Mike

[Wallymanowar]

ORIGINAL: Lemurs!

Thats not what the French said in their colonial docs.
What i have read was that Haiphong was the main commercial port and
Cam Ranh was being built up for a naval base.

Saigon has no harbour just a big river and the French complained that silt was constantly damaging engines of anything bigger than a light cruiser.

Mike

Being on a river does not make any difference about being a port or not - Antwerp, London, Portland, Rotterdam, Montreal - are all on rivers, as is New Orleans with it's silt problem. Wharfage is what makes the difference and Saigon had lots. Just because the French complained that it damaged their engines doesn't make it proof that it wasn't used - as a matter of fact it sort of proves that they tried it - although I don't understand why silt damage would limit the size of the ship, silt is a constant problem when sailing up any river regardless of the size of the boat.

[2ndACR]

Personally, who gives a crap.

I doubt very seriously if Cam rahn Bay or even saigon are going to be the difference between victory or defeat.

Fix the bugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Sonny]

ORIGINAL: kaleun

To add insult to injury, if you disband your ships in Saigon the tend to get creamed by LB from Singapore, Cam Rahn is farther away, and it is safe to disband there.

Not really. I just had a CVL at CamRahn bombed while docked by B-17s from Burma.

[byron13]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Personally, who gives a crap.

I doubt very seriously if Cam rahn Bay or even saigon are going to be the difference between victory or defeat.

Fix the bugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And it's these kinds of arguments (uh, not 2nd ACR's - but the other ones) that militate against 2by3 attempting to include even more detail in the way they've treated some things. They have made some generalizations, which I understand create some inaccuracies, but additional detail only adds more things to argue over.

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Personally, who gives a crap.

I doubt very seriously if Cam rahn Bay or even saigon are going to be the difference between victory or defeat.

Fix the bugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have I ever mentioned that I agree with 95% of your posts? There is so much pointless Sturm und Drang here!

Not going to use my GT1 port attack at Manila though. Gotta get them BBs[;)]

[2ndACR]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Personally, who gives a crap.

I doubt very seriously if Cam rahn Bay or even saigon are going to be the difference between victory or defeat.

Fix the bugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have I ever mentioned that I agree with 95% of your posts? There is so much pointless Sturm und Drang here!

Not going to use my GT1 port attack at Manila though. Gotta get them BBs[;)]

Your choice. I will go after the subs in a New York second. I hate the dang things. I like to think about the drool on my opponents mouth everytime he looks at all them big old ships just sitting there. Makes some of them just have to come out and play early.

[WiTP_Dude]

Aren't the Allied subs ineffective in the early going? Seems like the battleships are more important due to their bombardment power. By the time the US subs work correctly, there are too many of them being produced to worry about the few in Manila at the start.