The ships didn't leave port empty handed. You can bet your bottom dollar thet they were loaded to the hilt. And they probably made several stops on the way to unload / reload. A straight trip from SF to an invasion port??? of course not, but to load a division's worth of troops to land at Yap (friendly) and then repackage for a landing on Leyte, you bet. I'm not putting judgement on their removal (the slow speed was always anannoyance). But with them gone, where is the ability to load a unit that suffers reduced readiness loss on an invasion. This was the original purpose of the specialized LCs that the Allies developed and that loss (the 50% readiness instead of 25% for a 'regular' APA) is a big loss. Are any of the "new" AP type craft coded for a reduction to 50% readiness (instead of 25% readiness)?
At least we can "edit" them back in. I don't know how 'replacements' (ship pool changes) were handled though.
About Wake Is. Why were the IJN TFs so arranged to virtually ensure Wake's fall on turn 1??? I recall you mentioning that the USMC garrisons were going to be made stronger on the island bases with level 9 entrenchments, etc because they had made intensive preparations, etc. so, what gives??? I see this as very ahistorical. If it had to be put in somehow because the AI wouldn't go after it, the invasion TF should have been coded as coming out of Siagon or somwhere so that it would take until week 3 or 4 to get there so as to allow the USN a chance to make an issue out of it.
About the tora tora tora start option. Why 5 USN BBs sunk when there was in reality only ONE was sunk beyond repair (the Arizona)??? And the IJN player then gets to use all the carriers on turn 1 anyway? That is too much. In that case the tora tora tora option should have the carriers in a TF in the north pacific bound for Tokyo with like zero PPs left and just enough fuel in the ships to make it to port. There also should be an oiler group bound for port too. Gives something for the SBS on Wake to find and sink
The Oklahoma as anyone can read was repairable, it was just not worth the effort / resources / yard space, etc to do so. A true tota tora tora start option would leave:
1 sunk BB (Arizona),
1 with about 90-98 damage (Oklahoma),
2 with 70-80 damage (California, West Virginia),
3 with 30-50 damage (Nevada, Maryland, Tennessee),
1 with 20-30 damage. (Pennsylvania),
and 2 DDs sunk (can't forget the Cassin and Downes).
and of course the requsite number of destroyed and damaged aircraft.
Otherwise, what's the use of having the optional start. again, I guess the editor can be invoked to "fix things"
The B-17. Why the really short range? If you had to do something about the B-17, it should have been on the bombload side. The B-17s range was really of primary importance to the Allies, at least until the B-24 started arriving in the theatre. Again the editor can be used to correct personal "preferences". My concern is that it takes a long range search weapon away from the Allies early in the war when they really need it. Later on with the longer range B-24, an Allied player hasn't got enough B-17s left to make more than 1 group anyway.
There, I'm not "mad" at anyone (and the humorless sarcasm is not needed), I appreciate the efforts made and would like to thank the entire staff at Matrix for their diligence and dedication, it's just that some of these items "came out of the blue" so to speak (that is they were never mentioned until the version was released).
