Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: JWE
Takes 12-14 6000 capacity ton xAKs (let’s say an ordinary EC2 Liberty) to transport an Army or Marine Division: 66,000 capacity tons for cross loaded troops (11,000 troops at 6x) and 11,400 capacity tons for weaps, vehs, and supply. Regardless of how they are “actually” distributed across individual ships, you could “rationalize” in terms of fitting 11,000 troops in 14 ships = 800 “men” per ship.

ORIGINAL: JWE
In the great, grand, scheme of things, using the right ships for the right jobs will put you in the 2 or 3 sigma ball park as to historical practice, and make the game play out in a very realistic fashion. [8D]

No one in his right mind would use xAK and xAP types for amphibious operations.

But I was aiming for the "point-to-point" transfer of troops and stuff from one port in friendly hands to another. Up to recently I have been using AK-only-TFs to transfer units (sometimes whole divisions) to Australia, when no APs were available at the West Coast. Then I started wondering whether this would have been feasible IRL. A convoy of AKs pulls into port after a supply run, next turn 800 men walk aboard each ship and off it goes again? Does not feel right! And no wonder operations in WitP / AE are rather fast-paced compared to history...

So I still have doubts that ordinary xAKs should have a cross-loading ability to carry troops without some sort preparation. I would prefer that troop capacity 0 actually means 0 and that a minimum of preparations (even if it takes just a few days) must be made before any sizable body of troops can be accommodated aboard a cargo ship. The "temporary xAP" thing would be the perfect tools for this.

But well, I don't want to push it further. The game is already great as it is, and I understand the "playability" argument. For my part, I will use self-imposed house rules - heavy stuff like Arty and tanks must use AKs, but any significant number of crunchies and REMFs must use AP types.

As usual, fascinating stuff. I am slowly turning into a " all-things-naval " obsessive.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
I think a lot of readers in the main forum would like to see this pic. I'd never heard of a Wellin.

Help yourself Moose. No worries.

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Thanks for the additional info - didn't know that AK/AP and AKA/APA were so close IRL.

Oh yeah. Many APs just became APAs under the new classification system. This is Leonard Wood (as AP-25) in Sept ’42, reclassified as APA-12 in Feb ’43. Dickman in the background. Same with the Bell, Liggett, Legion, Zeilin, that whole bunch.

Even in Sept, they already had their Welins, and radar, and full boogie gun suite, oh my! Each had 4 Welin triples per side, so 24x LCPL/LCPR/LCVP could put an assault Bn of 850 troops in the water in 37 minutes. Looks like Dickman is doing load exercises. Her boats are at the rail ready for filling. Also kept the deck space clear for 6 LCMs (sometimes including 6 more LCVPs nested in the LCMs). And this was while they were still called APs.

The bottom pic is a plan view of APA-44. 28x LCPL/LCPR/LCVP, and up to 6x LCMs. The plan shows 3 LCPL/LCPR/LCVP mounted fore-and-aft over hold #2, but these were often replaced by 2 LCMs mounted athwart ships. The LCMs all have LCPL/LCPR/LCVP nestled inside. So not much different at all from the Leonard Wood. LCMs were good for Arty batteries and lt tank platoons, so ships got what they needed, depending on what they were loaded with.

AK and AKA was the same deal, except they would have more heavy-lift LCM at the expense of LCP.

Great stuff. Did you get the diagram from Friedman's book on amphibious ships?

ORIGINAL: Pascal
Great stuff. Did you get the diagram from Friedman's book on amphibious ships?

Sort of. Friedman shows APA-44 in the 1953 aux-AGC configuration, after a pair of Welins were removed to accommodate increased command space. It was convenient to just grab it and fling things together. Here's the Leedstown, APA-56 with same load of boats just arranged differently.

Bit of a newb question but could someone briefly either point me in the right direction to read myself or give me a quick answer to what the various engineer types do? So far ive seen Construction engineers, construction labour, shipping engineers and engineers.
 
I'm enjoying the game i'm playing but need a better in depth understanding of the changes and building bases is kinda important!!
 
thanks

Another nit-pick:

In DBB, I US Amphib Corps is at San Diego on Dec. 7 1941, MGen Upshur commanding.

IRL, this unit was created on October 1st, 1942 with MGen Vogel commanding.

Furthermore, it was called I Marine Amphibious Corps, not US. [:-][;)]

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn
Bit of a newb question but could someone briefly either point me in the right direction to read myself or give me a quick answer to what the various engineer types do? So far ive seen Construction engineers, construction labour, shipping engineers and engineers.

I'm enjoying the game i'm playing but need a better in depth understanding of the changes and building bases is kinda important!!

thanks

Engineers:
The “name” of a device does not matter, only the device data matters. Any Eng unit can always build, but if it has Anti-Armor <1, it cannot reduce forts. If it has Anti-Soft <9, it cannot AV. If it is “named” Construction or Labor Eng, but is a Type = 23 (squad), it will not build. If it also has a-a <1, and a-s <9, it won’t do anything but eat (i.e., nothing but ‘bodies’). So there is a matrix of different Eng squads that represent a mix of abilities; build stuff, reduce forts, able to AV, some of the above, none of the above. DaBigBabes uses this matrix (according to our appreciation as to how it falls out) to help limit in-game tempo, by limiting in-game infrastructure.

Shore Party:
Shore Party is a sub-set of Nav Sup. Shore Party devices assist in loading/unloading but do not assist in repairing or rearming. Repair/rearm bases were very far and few between, for both sides, and thus with BigBabes, but both sides recognized an imperative for stevedoring and non-integral lift capability. Thus Shore Partys and a skoosh of code that lets them give an unload bonus to TFs. A Shore Party switch may be set for a Vehicle, such as an LVT-2 Amph Trac; It may be set for a Type = 24 Eng squad, like USA Port Srvc Sq, in which case it may also help build; It may be set for a Type = 23 Squad, like USA Amph Sup Sq.

Check the editor often, and become familiar with all the different kinds of units available. For example:
USMC Pioneer Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Constr Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, Yes AV, No Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Spec Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Base Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Port Svc Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Amph Sup Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Another nit-pick:

In DBB, I US Amphib Corps is at San Diego on Dec. 7 1941, MGen Upshur commanding.

IRL, this unit was created on October 1st, 1942 with MGen Vogel commanding.

Furthermore, it was called I Marine Amphibious Corps, not US. [:-][;)]

Yep. You're right. They're taking away my USMC t-shirt for a week.

John,

When you write "AV" in the above post, are you meaning 'Assault Value'? I just want to make sure because mouse-overs on the map use AV for aviation support and AS for assault value.

Yes. AV is Assault Value in my wierd shorthand.

ORIGINAL: JWE
... They're taking away my USMC t-shirt for a week.

This would be a good week to take that IQ test.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: PresterJohn
Bit of a newb question but could someone briefly either point me in the right direction to read myself or give me a quick answer to what the various engineer types do? So far ive seen Construction engineers, construction labour, shipping engineers and engineers.

I'm enjoying the game i'm playing but need a better in depth understanding of the changes and building bases is kinda important!!

thanks

Engineers:
The “name” of a device does not matter, only the device data matters. Any Eng unit can always build, but if it has Anti-Armor <1, it cannot reduce forts. If it has Anti-Soft <9, it cannot AV. If it is “named” Construction or Labor Eng, but is a Type = 23 (squad), it will not build. If it also has a-a <1, and a-s <9, it won’t do anything but eat (i.e., nothing but ‘bodies’). So there is a matrix of different Eng squads that represent a mix of abilities; build stuff, reduce forts, able to AV, some of the above, none of the above. DaBigBabes uses this matrix (according to our appreciation as to how it falls out) to help limit in-game tempo, by limiting in-game infrastructure.

Shore Party:
Shore Party is a sub-set of Nav Sup. Shore Party devices assist in loading/unloading but do not assist in repairing or rearming. Repair/rearm bases were very far and few between, for both sides, and thus with BigBabes, but both sides recognized an imperative for stevedoring and non-integral lift capability. Thus Shore Partys and a skoosh of code that lets them give an unload bonus to TFs. A Shore Party switch may be set for a Vehicle, such as an LVT-2 Amph Trac; It may be set for a Type = 24 Eng squad, like USA Port Srvc Sq, in which case it may also help build; It may be set for a Type = 23 Squad, like USA Amph Sup Sq.

Check the editor often, and become familiar with all the different kinds of units available. For example:
USMC Pioneer Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Constr Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, Yes AV, No Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Spec Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USN Base Eng Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Port Svc Sq – Eng type – Yes Build, No AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts
USA Amph Sup Sq – Squad type – No Build, Yes AV, Yes Shore Party, No Reduce Forts

JWE -

This (and the whole thread) is most helpful. Have been using the editor to follow your unit matrix above - and (after mobilizing all three megs of RAM) it is beginning to make sense.


An Enlightened Mac

I am curious about the assignment of New Zealand's available naval support squads to the Nadi, Palmerston, and Gisborne base forces. I can imagine why a scenario designer might limit the amount of naval support available to New Zealand, but it seems odd that they are limited to base forces assigned to less than important possible ports. It's not a big deal, I just walk them to where I need them.

I am a big fan of the choices made in the realignment of Allied restrictions in the last update. The arrival of Americal assets in Melbourne is just brilliant. Kudos to the Babes team for taking the suggestion from Buck Beach or the Old Man. I can't remember which of them made it.

I don't know if it was intended, but combining some of the broken down base forces in India result in some TOE's larger than standard. 1st Central, and 4th Northwest are two examples that come to mind. They are two units handy to have given the shortage of support and engineering in India at the start of the war, and for months thereafter.

I have installed the last release and I have a (well, a bit&nbsp;[:o][:o] question ) : The LCUs called 54th Base Group, 22th Base Group, and so... are intented to be administrative linked to the same number'groups: I.E. The 22th Base Group with the 22th Bomber Group, and such...

ORIGINAL: traskott
I have installed the last release and I have a (well, a bit [:o][:o] question ) : The LCUs called 54th Base Group, 22th Base Group, and so... are intented to be administrative linked to the same number'groups: I.E. The 22th Base Group with the 22th Bomber Group, and such...

They are not really linked. We had to call them something and there's no real record of the numeric designations of all the base groups, base squadrons, material squadrons ... and we had to make sure that the amount of base groups/squadrons were rationally related to the amount of groups/squadrons, so what the hey, give the Base Groups/Sqdns the same numbers as the Bomber/Fighter Groups/Sqdns. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

It's a good idea !!!

I'll use on this way.

&nbsp;Thank you !!!

ORIGINAL: Central Blue
I am curious about the assignment of New Zealand's available naval support squads to the Nadi, Palmerston, and Gisborne base forces. I can imagine why a scenario designer might limit the amount of naval support available to New Zealand, but it seems odd that they are limited to base forces assigned to less than important possible ports. It's not a big deal, I just walk them to where I need them.

I don’t know why it was done that way. We leave the Land Team stuff pretty much alone for the non-US Allies, unless there’s good data to support a change. We just don’t know enough about those guys and must depend on folks like Andy, Kereguelen, Blackhorse, and you all, for input.

I am a big fan of the choices made in the realignment of Allied restrictions in the last update. The arrival of Americal assets in Melbourne is just brilliant. Kudos to the Babes team for taking the suggestion from Buck Beach or the Old Man. I can't remember which of them made it.

Thanks. Glad it’s working for you. We really do pay attention to ya’lls inputs.

I don't know if it was intended, but combining some of the broken down base forces in India result in some TOE's larger than standard. 1st Central, and 4th Northwest are two examples that come to mind. They are two units handy to have given the shortage of support and engineering in India at the start of the war, and for months thereafter.

Unintended, and frankly we weren’t paying the same attention to those “other” guys. All the India BF breakdowns were a bit strange. Fixed them up, and they should be a lot smoother in the next update. Matched up the capabilities of the RIAF BFs with the RAF BFs better. Called them RIAF BFs because in my simple mind there’s only one IAF – that’s the one that lets girls be fighter pilots.

What are your thoughts on timing for that update?

ORIGINAL: JWE

Sure gives a new meaning to the phrase fighter pilot [;)]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

ORIGINAL: JWE

Sure gives a new meaning to the phrase fighter pilot [;)]

Hmm, probably the first time watching some Air Force folks walking away was actually fun [:)]