Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: pad152

Will we see river movement?

There are a few "navigable" rivers that can accommodate ships up to 15,000 tons. Navigation along smaller rivers is not possible (as currently).

Andrew

Hmm Littoral Warfare...

I assume we're going to have River patrol boats?

No river patrol boats. Remember it is only the biggest of rivers that are navigable, and the navigable stretches are only short. The longest of them is the Yangtse, which is navigable all the way to Hankow.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: pad152

In CHS 2.08 I can send barges from Shanghai to Nanking but, not to Ichang or ChungKing!

That is as designed - the Yangtse is only navigable as far as Nanking on my current WitP map.

Andrew

Does this mean that the Columbia river to Portland, Oregon is closed and that is not a port city?

Edit, I may have misinterpreted your post as the Yangtze was the only navigable river.

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Does this mean that the Columbia river to Portland, Oregon is closed and that is not a port city?

No, Portland is still a port.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Does this mean that the Columbia river to Portland, Oregon is closed and that is not a port city?

No, Portland is still a port.

Andrew

Afterall it is named PORT-land...[;)]

Is Nadzab included as a seperate base from Lae? Lae itself was never very suitable for airstrips - Nadzab on the other hand is perfect. Both should be included seperately. In 1944 a highway was built connecting Lae to Nadzab, previously only a track - not sure how you work that in game terms.
 
Is Gove included (east of Darwin)? One of the best protected (and biggest) deep water harbours in Australia, but never developed because even today there is no all weather road to it! Was a smallish fighter strip (but could have been much bigger if needed) and large PBY base.
 
Is Goroka included (highlands of PNG). a track (at best!) should connect it to Nadzab. No port (obviously!!) and only size 1 airfield (no heavy bombers). BUT... it should be NON malarial - too high for mosquitoes. It was not a significant base at any point in the war (too difficult to supply), but japs were there until at least 1943, and it could add some interesting options.
 
Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!
 
 

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown




There are a few "navigable" rivers that can accommodate ships up to 15,000 tons. Navigation along smaller rivers is not possible (as currently).

Andrew

Hmm Littoral Warfare...

I assume we're going to have River patrol boats?

No river patrol boats. Remember it is only the biggest of rivers that are navigable, and the navigable stretches are only short. The longest of them is the Yangtse, which is navigable all the way to Hankow.

Andrew

Please note although the Yangtse is very long and wide its quite shallow and very shallow at times of the year - I know I have been on it all the way to Wuhan then on to Chonqing- barges yes - most others no
M

ORIGINAL: cavalry

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Shark7




Hmm Littoral Warfare...

I assume we're going to have River patrol boats?

No river patrol boats. Remember it is only the biggest of rivers that are navigable, and the navigable stretches are only short. The longest of them is the Yangtse, which is navigable all the way to Hankow.

Andrew

Please note although the Yangtse is very long and wide its quite shallow and very shallow at times of the year - I know I have been on it all the way to Wuhan then on to Chonqing- barges yes - most others no
M

So basically you're saying that anything with a deeper drought than a flat bottom river boat (IE Panay) would likely bottom out on the Yangtse?

Yes from Wuhan up river only shallow drafts allowed - its still a very long way

M

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

...

Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!

IIRC bases are malaria free if combined air and port = 10.

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

...

Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!

IIRC bases are malaria free if combined air and port = 10.

That rule never worked unfortunately[:-]

ORIGINAL: Gen.Hoepner

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

...

Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!

IIRC bases are malaria free if combined air and port = 10.

That rule never worked unfortunately[:-]

I've noticed this, too.

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

Is Nadzab included as a seperate base from Lae? Lae itself was never very suitable for airstrips - Nadzab on the other hand is perfect. Both should be included seperately. In 1944 a highway was built connecting Lae to Nadzab, previously only a track - not sure how you work that in game terms.

Nadzab is not currently included, but I might change that.

Is Gove included (east of Darwin)? One of the best protected (and biggest) deep water harbours in Australia, but never developed because even today there is no all weather road to it! Was a smallish fighter strip (but could have been much bigger if needed) and large PBY base.

Gove is included.

Is Goroka included (highlands of PNG). a track (at best!) should connect it to Nadzab. No port (obviously!!) and only size 1 airfield (no heavy bombers). BUT... it should be NON malarial - too high for mosquitoes. It was not a significant base at any point in the war (too difficult to supply), but japs were there until at least 1943, and it could add some interesting options.

No plans to include Goroka, but Wau is included.

Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!

I don't look after the code, just the map graphics and the base list. This would be best posted in the land thread. I basically agree with the reasoning, by the way.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: cavalry
Please note although the Yangtse is very long and wide its quite shallow and very shallow at times of the year - I know I have been on it all the way to Wuhan then on to Chonqing- barges yes - most others no
M

This is how the Yangtse is represented on the AE map:

- A series of coastal hexsides links Nanking to the Pacific, so ships of any size can reach Nanking (just as they can on my current WitP map).

- Series of navigable river hexsides between Nanking and Hankow. Only ships of 15,000 tons or less can cross navigable river hexsides.

- Normal river hexsides, uncrossable by ships, upstream from Hankow. So TFs cannot move past Hankow.

Andrew

Andrew, will your map art make clear the differences of the various parts of the Yangtse?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear



[blockquote]quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

...

Also, not sure if this is the correct forum, but could you PLEASE address the malaria issue. Definetly units IN COMBAT shuold suffer serious degradation from malaria zones (as they do) but secure areas far in the rear which are reasonably developed (at least to Port 3, AF 3) should not. I do not want the tedium of rotating base forces in and out of rea areas just beacause they are in a malaria zone. For the sake of the game lets just pretend (!) that some of the personnel in that unit are being sent off for R&R so the unit itself can stay where it is without slowly falling to a 0 support, 0 air support situation!!!!


[/blockquote]


IIRC bases are malaria free if combined air and port = 10.

That rule never worked unfortunately[:-]

 
 
2 problems:
1. the rule does not work!!
2. The rule does not make sense!! Yes, if a unit is IN COMBAT (ie. guys are spending their time crawling through swamps with leeches in their ears and snakes in their boots, getting bitten by a million mosquitoes, etc, etc, etc...) then there needs to be a morale penalty. BUT if the unit is happily living out the war in some small remote base (maybe a port 0, AF 0 - so max of 3 and 3) they should not be penalised - they are sleeping in huts under mosquito nets, spending their days catching waves (and the odd fish), and DDT has killed all the local bugs. Sounds like a holiday to me!! So i think the combined port+AF total of 10 is wrong - 6 should be fine - for NON combat units NOT in combat.
 
any arguments? (and yes, i know i was exaggerating the conditions slightly, but you get the picture...)

So what do you suggest when one side is in a 3 - 3 base and the other guy is in the same hex...but no fighting occurs today ...but it does on Wednesday...but not on thursday and maybe resumes on Saturday?

ORIGINAL: mlees

Andrew, will your map art make clear the differences of the various parts of the Yangtse?

The different types of river are drawn differently, so hopefully it won't be too confusing.

Andrew

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: mlees

Andrew, will your map art make clear the differences of the various parts of the Yangtse?

The different types of river are drawn differently, so hopefully it won't be too confusing.

Andrew

Thank you, sir.

So what do you suggest when one side is in a 3 - 3 base and the other guy is in the same hex...but no fighting occurs today ...but it does on Wednesday...but not on thursday and maybe resumes on Saturday?

 
Try to picture the reality of the situation.... if opposing units are occupying the same lump of coral then they can be considered 'in combat' even if they are not actively shooting at each other - the guys are forced to spend their days and nights sitting in foxholes or on patrol and a a result getting bitten by mozzies, eaten by scorpions, and generally feeling irritated - thus a morale penalty. If on the other hand the particular lump of coral is secure then the majority of personnel can be assumed to NOT be 'suffering' in this way - thus no penalty. Make sense??