Matrix Games Forums

Hi, If Ron has paused to reflect a moment he would know that allied ships do unload faster then Japanese. (They have that floating HQ ship that speeds them up)
So in fact allied AP/AK used for invasions get the APA/AKA benifit when they are employed as such. In 1942 they don't have that ability but I'm not sure it existed at that time. The only 1942 landings in the Pacific operated pretty much like they do now.

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm with Mog.

More, smaller ships, is better IMO.

One unit on 3 ships, is far better than one unit on 1 ship. Exactly for the reasons you said.

Yes, it makes for bigger TFs. But it unloads faster, makes for a wider target selection for your enemy, and more defense for you.

-F-

Hey, large, medium or small, I could care less...they all sink the same way.[8D]

That's the second time tonight you've "replied" to me yet quoted someone else. How are you doing that?

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, If Ron has paused to reflect a moment he would know that allied ships do unload faster then Japanese. (They have that floating HQ ship that speeds them up)
So in fact allied AP/AK used for invasions get the APA/AKA benifit when they are employed as such. In 1942 they don't have that ability but I'm not sure it existed at that time. The only 1942 landings in the Pacific operated pretty much like they do now.

That sort of handles it in a round about way I suppose. I was hoping after I split the AP/AKs into seperate APA/AKA classes to take advantage of the increased speed, durability (naval manned after all) and armament these specialized ships posessed, a slight code change could have been added as well to address the enhanced amphib capabilities.

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, If Ron has paused to reflect a moment he would know that allied ships do unload faster then Japanese. (They have that floating HQ ship that speeds them up)
So in fact allied AP/AK used for invasions get the APA/AKA benifit when they are employed as such. In 1942 they don't have that ability but I'm not sure it existed at that time. The only 1942 landings in the Pacific operated pretty much like they do now.

I apparently need to read more (or re-read what I've already read not so well) because I thought all that Amphib HQ did was to reduce casualties going ashore, and presumably help units fight better while they are ahsore. Does it actually say that ships unload faster when within its radius?

Hi, AMPH HQ (only the Allies have such a HQ and only the ALlied HQ ship can use one)
Do lower disruption and fatigue and breakage. However they also add a bonus to each ships Amph value that decides the rate they unload. (The table below where the HQ is mentioned) Japan has a +200 early in war)

Do lower disruption and fatigue and breakage. However they also add a bonus to each ships Amph value that decides the rate they unload. (The table below where the HQ is mentioned) Japan has a +200 early in war)

I thought the 200 was some modifier to the disruption roll; you are saying that it increases unload speed by this amount? Is that per phase or per turn?

All the more reason why a distinction should have been made for APA/AKAs, giving them an enhanced load/unload rate.

APs should unload troops faster than AKs. AKs should unload supplies faster than APs. A simple solution seems to me to divide unload rates by the transport modifier.

ie APs unload supplies at 1/4th the speed they unload troops. Just a not so well thought out thought.

no one answer.. what do you want to move where.. I like all those little barges the allies use for troops, gets them off quick.. and in the early war as the advancing Japs I stack a few units in a lot of AP's .. few supplies.. and they really unload and attack and reload qquick.. before a stuffed to the gills ak/ap group would unload, I've unloaded capturd the base and moved on [X(]

" That's the second time tonight you've "replied" to me yet quoted someone else. How are you doing that?"


If you hit "fast reply" at the bottom of the screen (my favorite method), then the "in reply to" note on your message will be the last person who posted.

AKs should unload supplies faster than APs

Actually, this should be true, only in a friendly harbour with the equipment to permit this. The rate that these beauties unload should frankly suck for amphib ops. And they should be a a flat rate, no modifiers for port size, etc ... (don't know if this is the case or not).

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm with Mog.

More, smaller ships, is better IMO.

One unit on 3 ships, is far better than one unit on 1 ship. Exactly for the reasons you said.

Yes, it makes for bigger TFs. But it unloads faster, makes for a wider target selection for your enemy, and more defense for you.

-F-

Hey, large, medium or small, I could care less...they all sink the same way.[8D]

Well, that's the third time you've quoted someone else when replaying to "me." [8|]

And yes, I wish I had your secret in the SRA. (Of course it might have helped my defense some had I not immediately pulled out 95% of everything on two legs.)

And yes, I wish I had your secret in the SRA. (Of course it might have helped my defense some had I not immediately pulled out 95% of everything on two legs.)

No secret here. It is up to Japan pretty much how it will pan out.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" That's the second time tonight you've "replied" to me yet quoted someone else. How are you doing that?"


If you hit "fast reply" at the bottom of the screen (my favorite method), then the "in reply to" note on your message will be the last person who posted.

You can also manually construct the quote using the special characters displayed during a quote, change text/original through copy/paste (if the Fast Reply option doesn't suit).

I like the use more smaller equation. What about Cruisers for CounterBattery fire? How many AP's to Capital ships do you use in the TF when attacking a base with CD? I never use DD's as they always tend to get shootup pretty badly. Thoughts?

I also like to spread troops out across many APs, but playing as Japan, there's a downside: escorts. I've got too few escorts as it is. Heck, I don't like sending out ANY TF without ASW escorts -- AKs, AVs, APs, you name it, I want them to have at least one escort.

How many ASW escorts do you typically give a transport TF that contains troops? I'm sure not comfortable with just one.

Several folks commented on the speed difference. The 3000 and 1500 are actually pretty close in speed. IIRC, the 3000 maxes at 11 and the 1500 at 10 knots, only a 10% difference. They both cruise at 9.

I'm thinking some people might be thinking "Hey, at max this TF moves 2 hexes/phase and this other one moves 1 hex/phase, therefore there is a 2:1 speed difference" but that would be not correct, since the game uses the actual speed, not just the hexes/phase.

For me, the main difference between the 1500 and 3000 AP is that the 3000 can move 2 hexes per phase at full speed with several damage points, while the 1500 can move 2 hexes per phase at full speed only if it is undamaged. So if you are in enough of a hurry to want to move at full speed, leave the 1500s at home.

I'm thinking some people might be thinking "Hey, at max this TF moves 2 hexes/phase and this other one moves 1 hex/phase, therefore there is a 2:1 speed difference" but that would be not correct, since the game uses the actual speed, not just the hexes/phase.

This is the case only if you can set a DH and leave that DH set for several days. Typically when I am running an invasion Op, there are so many TFs to coordinate, and I want the various TFs to be in certain hexes on certain days. The only way to do this is to set the DH for each leading TF day by day. If you are doing this, the actual speed does not matter, only the number of hexes you can move per phase. In this case it is indeed the difference between being able to move 1 hex/phase vs 2 hexes/phase. It is huge difference.

I seem to hit few "cluster f*cks" every time I try big invasion as Allies. Darn TFs either mess up their loading process somehow..then I forget to switch off "Do not unload" etc.

My last invasion was delayed over a week, since TF refused to load 3rd Marine Division and Amphibious Force HQ into same TF. After Amph. Force HQ got into AGC, Marines refused to continue loading even when the task force had plenty of room in APs, LSTs, LCIs and so on. Oh well, I guess it really is bad to try to load more than one unit per TF. Then I created 2 TFs, after some unloading...got Marines into one and Amhibious Force HQ into another and recombined. It did seem to work fine...but when it sailed, I realized it had unloaded Amph. Force HQ back on the beach..so AGC sailed empty. I kinda got fed up and invaded just fine without the HQ...[:'(]

I think whole handling of the Amphibious TFs should be lot easier. Now it's pain in butt to assemble multi-unit TF. Not to mention game sometimes loads some ships really awkwardly..like APs full of supply and AKs full of troops.

Cheers,

M.S.

Hi, While I concur it is hard to move large invasion forces it is easy not to load supply onto AP or troops onto AK.
I load 1 unit at a time I never form a TF for invasion and load more then 1 unit.
(I do load multiple units when moving from one of my bases to another)