Which ships to add?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Well I think that Allies have to many supply already. But I must said it clearly: I havent touched AKs and APs arriving before Aug 1945. All CHS merchant additions before that date will be in my database.

I deleted AKs arriving after June 1945 - well actually how many cruises would they make before end of war? Warships* can jump into combat almost immediately. AK need some time to become useful. The same is with ADs ARs, especially AVs. I dont use them as much. I hope you understand my way of thinking.

Actually I would like to addopt displacement based standard. 250t for purpose built warships*, 1000t for auxillaries and warships* converted from civil vessels. Maybe some exceptions for ships beginning in 1941.

BTW just found in DANFS over 30 PC-class subchasers which served in Pacific

[el cid again]

Actually I would like to addopt displacement based standard. 250t for purpose built warships*, 1000t for auxillaries and warships* converted from civil vessels. Maybe some exceptions for ships beginning in 1941.

If you wish to do this by displacement, my suggestion of DE sized would imply 1500 tons or so for warships, minimum. And for auxiliaries, it probably would be 3000 tons.

Note that your idea about merchants is a problem for Japan. It DEPENDS on new ships appearing to replace losses. And it DEPENDS on SMALL vessels for forward supply- big ships are too valuable to risk out there.
I am going the other way: I insure that if Japan's economy is working, it still gets destroyers, submarines and transports, right up to the end of September 1945. That is because I really think the war ends on Nov 1 - following USSBS (and in harmony with Joe's view). But I allow the game to run on two more months - so autovictory gets a report - and players have the power to decide "this is too interesting - lets keep playing."

[Sneer]

Japan cancelled CA ibuki type ship in 7/42 ( second was converted to cvl and is already in game) maybe it should be left in DB
it should be in game and decision about building this ship should be up to player

[Monter_Trismegistos]

First, we are talking about Allies. All Japanese ships from CHS are here (without SD-class AGs since I was unable to find anything about these, I added over 40 LSTs of T101 and T103 type instead). Note that even CHS has A LOT of spacers which make some room for new additions. I have still 3 slots left + 30 spacers. I will use them for Thai navy if ever their art will be done, the rest will be possibly SB-type LSTs (army version of T103)

1500 tons limit would cancel all escorts, frigates and minesweepers. This would be unacceptable for me, their role is very important: free destroyers from convoy escort duty.

I think that victory is not properly modelled in this game. So actual victory points I have "deeply in my a**". I want to play as long as I wish.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Added many of LST which were serving on Pacific - this increased their numbers to over 530 (stock: 299). I Still have 189 slots to fill.

[el cid again]

Ships that were cancelled - particularly if building - that could have completed. Let players cancel them if they like (we can do that for the Allies by a tricky way I just figured out).

[Monter_Trismegistos]

How?

[el cid again]

Added many of LST which were serving on Pacific - this increased their numbers to over 530 (stock: 299). I Still have 189 slots to fill.

Fully a dozen of that 299 should not have been there. They were cancelled - or transferred to RN or Greece!

Probably we should not put in all the amphibs - I think they respawn.
Anyway, there is no chance. I have a listing in an Army book - there were something like 80,000 named vessels in USN and 90,000 in US Army - not counting allies - or Japan! I am having problems adding major warships and subs for the Russians - I think you must be leaving something out.

Question Monter: what if we convert the M class subs to a device - and "mount" it on ports? We can do that with Kaiten, Koriyu, etc as well.
Then we need no slots for those 40 odd subs - no ship slots - they just become part of coast defense units.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

About LSTs (*) - yep at least 40 LSTs shouldn't been there, because they were cancelled or served only ETO (example, first vessels in database: LST-16, LST-17). But more than 40 other LST should be added there, because they served only at PTO and are missing from database - so total naumbers are quite correct, unless we are not talking about vessels with numbers higher than LST-980 (or something - highest number in WitP database) and those which after Normandy and Southern France were tranferred to PTO to assist in Okinawa invasion. These two cases add another 200 ships. Also monthly number of arriving vessels are also quite correct - the problem is that they were not arriving in order of their number, as it is shown in WitP. For example LST-18 is arriving at the end of may 1943, the first one arriving should be LST-334 (comm. 421129).

I chcecked every unit for her commisioning date, when possible also was searching at DANFS for Panama transit date or arrival in PTO. Many were deleted, but also many were added.

I don't think that LSTs are respawning.

Note that many many MANY of those 80000 USN and 90000 vessels are modelled by increased abilities of bases.

About adding coastal submarines as devices. Hmm maybe it could be done in RHS. But personally I dont like it. As I said some time before in some thread - I am against tries of simulating something which cant be properly simulated in current model. Thats only my opinion.

(*) - according to Czech site which gives a lot of information (in this case: comm dates and names or places of all amphib operations in which LST played its role) so I am believing it is reliable.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

About LSTs (*) - yep at least 40 LSTs shouldn't been there, because they were cancelled or served only ETO (example, first vessels in database: LST-16, LST-17). But more than 40 other LST should be added there, because they served only at PTO and are missing from database - so total naumbers are quite correct, unless we are not talking about vessels with numbers higher than LST-980 (or something - highest number in WitP database) and those which after Normandy and Southern France were tranferred to PTO to assist in Okinawa invasion. These two cases add another 200 ships. Also monthly number of arriving vessels are also quite correct - the problem is that they were not arriving in order of their number, as it is shown in WitP. For example LST-18 is arriving at the end of may 1943, the first one arriving should be LST-334 (comm. 421129).

I chcecked every unit for her commisioning date, when possible also was searching at DANFS for Panama transit date or arrival in PTO. Many were deleted, but also many were added.

I don't think that LSTs are respawning.

Note that many many MANY of those 80000 USN and 90000 vessels are modelled by increased abilities of bases.

About adding coastal submarines as devices. Hmm maybe it could be done in RHS. But personally I dont like it. As I said some time before in some thread - I am against tries of simulating something which cant be properly simulated in current model. Thats only my opinion.

(*) - according to Czech site which gives a lot of information (in this case: comm dates and names or places of all amphib operations in which LST played its role) so I am believing it is reliable.

Also many LST's were converted to other uses such as specilized repair ships, Battle damage (ARB), Landing Craft (ARL), and the like. Some of these converted ships show up as LST's in the curent CHS listing. I am slowly going each and every of of the DANFS entries. Quite a few of the PC's, if they survived till the 50's, were given names. Also there are many smaller Sub rescue ships, around 1400 tons (ASR) that also were utilized as sub tenders.