Allied Transport Poverty

Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific covers the campaigns for New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland and the Solomon chain.

Moderators: Joel Billings, Tankerace, siRkid

User avatar
Admiral DadMan
Posts: 3405
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2002 10:00 am
Location: A Lion uses all its might to catch a Rabbit

Post by Admiral DadMan »

Yes, it would be nice when you know you're not going to make any advances for a month, you could send some ships back for refit and get direct replacements if warrented.

Conversely, if you wanted to make a major thrust and needed more support, you should be able to make requests for the forces necessary to do the job.
Scenario 127: "Scraps of Paper"
(\../)
(O.o)
(> <)

CVB Langley:
Image
worr
Posts: 910
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am

Post by worr »

Originally posted by mjk428


Based on what I could glean from the manual, if I set ship commitment to 100% and use a "fixed" replacement schedule, I would get the historical order of battle. That not the case?
I was speaking from that same context--100% and "fixed".

I'd say I almost can double my transports by starting with a scenario that begins mid 43 rather than take one that starts early and bring the war successfuly to that point.

Worr, out
doomonyou
Posts: 144
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2002 5:56 pm
Contact:

It is pretty strange....

Post by doomonyou »

I agree with this thread....later in the main scenario you can have lost actually very very few ships numerically and end up on the short end of the stick. I can't imagine that once liberty ships started rolling off the lines (I believe that those were every three days or so?) that A desperate request by a successful commander that went like "Well I am pushing the Japs out of the southern pacific, but I can't supply my bases without twenty more supply ships...so I guess there gonna roll me back and threaten austrailia again..." would be so instransigently ignored by HQ
Blitzer
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Chicago

Post by Blitzer »

Good point about the Libertys, but consider the demands of the ETO during late 42 and 43: Torch/Sicily, not to mention the swarms of ships plying the Atlantic to Britain. This is a good example of how Allied grand strategy affects (and should affect) UV. I completely agree that granting players more comprehensive control over naval deployments would introduce an intriguing new facet to the game, but wouldn't this also imply a level of management beyond its current scope?
juliet7bravo
Posts: 893
Joined: Wed May 30, 2001 8:00 am

Post by juliet7bravo »

Perhaps an option to request specific types of ships from the ones present at Pearl and historically available? Your "request" being weighted by what is available, what committment points you have ect.
HARD_SARGE
Posts: 168
Joined: Mon May 27, 2002 9:58 am
Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Post by HARD_SARGE »

Originally posted by Blitzer
Good point about the Libertys, but consider the demands of the ETO during late 42 and 43: Torch/Sicily, not to mention the swarms of ships plying the Atlantic to Britain. This is a good example of how Allied grand strategy affects (and should affect) UV. I completely agree that granting players more comprehensive control over naval deployments would introduce an intriguing new facet to the game, but wouldn't this also imply a level of management beyond its current scope?

Hi Blizter
but I think you are missing the point, the ships in question are not in the ETO, or going to the ETO, they are sitting in PH

was justing reading about the attack on Tarawa/Makin, 17 Carriers (10 CV and 7 CVE) 12 BB, 8 CA, 4 CL, and 66 DD, to protect 36 Transports

HARD_Sarge
Blitzer
Posts: 99
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 2:55 am
Location: Chicago

Post by Blitzer »

Hey Sarge,

I didn't forget where the Libertys are. Taking into account the reinforcement probability (for whatever respective scenario), it can happen that those ships will never become available, even if significant tonnage exits the SOPAC theater. Of course this only shores up the argument for more discretionary control by players, which I'm not averse to in the least. I suppose what I'm really after is a clarification of where command resides in this magnificent game. When we sit riveted to our screens is our chair meant to be located in Washington, Pearl, or Noumea? I fear tinkering with ship availability might produce a different answer than what the design team intended. Any thoughts?
mjk428
Posts: 872
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2002 3:29 am
Location: Western USA

Post by mjk428 »

I suppose what I'm really after is a clarification of where command resides in this magnificent game. When we sit riveted to our screens is our chair meant to be located in Washington, Pearl, or Noumea? I fear tinkering with ship availability might produce a different answer than what the design team intended. Any thoughts?


Hi Blitzer,

The general (no pun intended) consensus seems to be that we are sitting in the seats of both MacArthur and Ghormley.


The back of the game box says the following:

"Famous commanders like Nimitz and Yamamoto held the fate of nations in their hands.

CAN YOU DO BETTER?"


I would like system that allowed me to request a type of ship in some abstract way. MacArthur didn't have control of release but he could influence it to a degree. He certainly made requests. I think a system like this would actually strengthen the immersion level and make it feel like you were in command of a theater. Some abstract idea of how the rest of the war is going would add to immersion as well.

I realize that all this speculation will likely never be implimented in UV but it's fun. Also, it may influence WitP although it's not as applicable. However, should a Med game be made using this engine, it would be quite applicable.

I hope Matrix/2by3 milk this system for all it's worth and release several games using this engine. Continuing to improve and expand a gaming system is a proven way to go. It may not make anyone rich but it at least helps amortize the costs.
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

Transports

Post by Ron Saueracker »

1942 was a year of husbanding forces for allies. Most of the merchant bottoms were in Europe until 1943. Still, I've got tons of spare allied TRs. Only lost maybe half a dozen by Dec 42.
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
eMonticello
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:35 am

Post by eMonticello »

Could it be that those transports that appear to be "sitting" in PH are actually in convoys destined for Auckland/Noumea or other parts of the Pacific Theater? It seems that the routine rear-area convoys need to be modeled in the game, especially since the UV game engine will be used for WiP. Chock this game up as a lesson in logistics.

Personally, I feel the game pace is too fast since operations required several weeks if not a month or more to plan and implement. I have other issues with the game that can be addressed using house rules (organizational separation of SWPAC and SOPAC) and others that would require changes in design (a TF hobbled together overnight should have severe combat/movement penalties since it requires training to work together as an effective fighting unit).

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson
Post Reply

Return to “Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific”