Allied ASW

[Dereck]

It's simuates the ability to "make ready to get underway". It might take a week, to get that CV group ready to sail (much more reasonable). It also compells you to keep your capital ships at the bases which could actually handle them.

Our ship could get underway in less than a day. You have to remember even in port a ship is ALWAYS ready to leave almost immediately unless in drydock. During peacetime in port your have 4 duty sections ... two are free to leave the ship on liberty, one is on call and the other is the current duty section so you always have at least 50% of the crew aboard ship which is all you'd have to have to get underway.

Like I said in another thread (or was it this one?) leave the game alone as it is and just fix the bugs that exist before trying to get any enhancements. This game is GREAT the way it is except for the bugs and some of these so called enhancements really don't have a basis in reality. Besides, this ISN'T reality ... it's a GAME.

[Nomad]

The question dereck is, how often did your CV taskforce pull into a 'port' consisting of a warf, a couple of buildings and a sloop? Not many times I would guess, and how long would it have taken to replenish your TF from that? In WitP, any number of TFs could pull into a size 1 port with some supplies and fuel, refuel and rearm overnight and be ready the next day to go back into battle.

I like Feinder's idea, makes larger ports worth a lot more and smaller ones not so imiportant.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: dereck

It's simuates the ability to "make ready to get underway". It might take a week, to get that CV group ready to sail (much more reasonable). It also compells you to keep your capital ships at the bases which could actually handle them.

Our ship could get underway in less than a day. You have to remember even in port a ship is ALWAYS ready to leave almost immediately unless in drydock. During peacetime in port your have 4 duty sections ... two are free to leave the ship on liberty, one is on call and the other is the current duty section so you always have at least 50% of the crew aboard ship which is all you'd have to have to get underway.

Like I said in another thread (or was it this one?) leave the game alone as it is and just fix the bugs that exist before trying to get any enhancements. This game is GREAT the way it is except for the bugs and some of these so called enhancements really don't have a basis in reality. Besides, this ISN'T reality ... it's a GAME.

Of course it's a game, but it is trying to simulate the war. Can you actually believe if you were on a destroyer in the USN during WW2 that you would be at sea 99% of the war's duration? Being a navy man, ever bleed ammo, stores, fuel etc from a fishing wharf?

Ports need ops point per turn maximums for fueling/storing/rearming ships (replenishing at sea does, why not ports?). Naval base units should be required to rearm/refuel/store naval ships (otherwise, what is the difference between a naval base force and an air base force?). Ports need a ship capacity per turn maximum as well depending on their size. Nothing more incredibly poor in design than allowing 500 ships to disband in a wee little harbor like Midway!! Or a CV TF to fully refuel/rearm from a tiny size one atoll with a dugout canoe as a stores/fuel/ammo lighter which is capable of servicing the entire TF or TFs in a single 12hr pulse! What is the definition of reality in your world?[:)]This game, despite being predominantly naval or at the very least an equally combined arms affair, is so heavily designed as an air game it could be called "Air War In The Pacific". Land combat is so abstract it hurts. Naval combat not much better.

C'mon. get real. [;)] We are trying to think of ways to make the game better, assuming the devs have not already abandoned it and moved on to more profitable projects. This game is not finished, or should not be labeled as such. It's basically still in the process of being tested. It's just too big to say "Well, that's that. What's on the agenda for tomorrow."

OK I'm getting cranky but with a name like mine it can't be helped.[8D]

[moses]

They could do patches for the next ten years and the game would still be an abstraction and people could still find thousands of examples where it fails to match reality. The fact alone that there is one type of supply instead of a couple 100,000 different supply items ensures this all by itself.

It is a game and as is it succeeds better than any previous effort to abstract the war in the Pacific. I agree with Dereck that first they fix the bugs. Then they should look mainly at issues that effect the feel and flow of the game and the extent to which different strategies effect the outcome of the war.

Attempts to make the game ever more "accurate" will rarely satisfy anyone as every time a new level of accuracy is introduced it will be easy to come up with new reasons and examples where the new rule is non-historical.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: moses

They could do patches for the next ten years and the game would still be an abstraction and people could still find thousands of examples where it fails to match reality. The fact alone that there is one type of supply instead of a couple 100,000 different supply items ensures this all by itself.

It is a game and as is it succeeds better than any previous effort to abstract the war in the Pacific. I agree with Dereck that first they fix the bugs. Then they should look mainly at issues that effect the feel and flow of the game and the extent to which different strategies effect the outcome of the war.

Attempts to make the game ever more "accurate" will rarely satisfy anyone as every time a new level of accuracy is introduced it will be easy to come up with new reasons and examples where the new rule is non-historical.

Fix the bugs! No arguements there. But nothing wrong with adding a few badly needed tweaks and enhancements. I've had it up to here with house rules but they seem to be the only way someone serious enough to invest the amount of time needed to play this can get a serious match. And house rules only go so far....

[dtravel]

Ron, the problem with this enhancement is that to add it would most likely require a rebuilding of MAJOR sections of the code. It would have had to be designed in to the game from the beginning. Since it wasn't, IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

I'm sorry to yell, but I'm just tired of reading these same arguments. *sigh* Please, Ron, just drop it. [8|]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Ron, the problem with this enhancement is that to add it would most likely require a rebuilding of MAJOR sections of the code. It would have had to be designed in to the game from the beginning. Since it wasn't, IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

I'm sorry to yell, but I'm just tired of reading these same arguments. *sigh* Please, Ron, just drop it. [8|]

Whatever. Enjoy War in the South Pacific, I mean PacWar, ooops I mean WITP. Same game with more detail and glitz but no real change from earlier incarnations. If people don't want to improve upon something from a design approach, fine.

Just skip over my posts from now on. Wouldn't want to bore anyone.[8|]

[Tanaka]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Ron, the problem with this enhancement is that to add it would most likely require a rebuilding of MAJOR sections of the code. It would have had to be designed in to the game from the beginning. Since it wasn't, IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

I'm sorry to yell, but I'm just tired of reading these same arguments. *sigh* Please, Ron, just drop it. [8|]

i dont think that a limit on ship numbers in an ASW taskforce is too hard to program. similiar to what they did for AA/surface combat in fleets. over 15 ships and you see a decline. they should do the same for ASW. you cant have a hundred ships searching for one sub. they would be running all over each other.

[racndoc]

Feb. 15th in my PBEM game and the tally is 12 IJN subs sunk to 5 US subs. Im using 4-5 ships in my Allied ASW TFs and my opponent is building ASW TFs as big as 15 ships. 2 hits on an IJN sub and its sunk. 2 hits on a US sub and its time to go back to port. I must have 20 damaged subs in port or on their way. The IJN subs have sunk or damaged many more ships than Allied counterparts(lots of duds and misses) but they usually pay for it.

[Dereck]

Can you actually believe if you were on a destroyer in the USN during WW2 that you would be at sea 99% of the war's duration?

Actually near the end of the war that WAS the norm. The only people who got to see a port were the staffs of the 5th and 3rd Fleets who alternated command of the US Navy.

[Dereck]

But nothing wrong with adding a few badly needed tweaks and enhancements.

If you try to mix bug fixes with enhancements you just run the rist of creating more bugs and possibly not fixing existing bugs. Easiest thing to do is to put a patch out to fix the known and prioritized bugs first and create a stable platform for subsequent patches.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Ron, the problem with this enhancement is that to add it would most likely require a rebuilding of MAJOR sections of the code. It would have had to be designed in to the game from the beginning. Since it wasn't, IT ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN!

I'm sorry to yell, but I'm just tired of reading these same arguments. *sigh* Please, Ron, just drop it. [8|]

i dont think that a limit on ship numbers in an ASW taskforce is too hard to program. similiar to what they did for AA/surface combat in fleets. over 15 ships and you see a decline. they should do the same for ASW. you cant have a hundred ships searching for one sub. they would be running all over each other.

I was referring to Ron's demands for limits on how many ships could load/unload in a port at one time.

[Dereck]

The question dereck is, how often did your CV taskforce pull into a 'port' consisting of a warf, a couple of buildings and a sloop? Not many times I would guess, and how long would it have taken to replenish your TF from that?

I can name a number of ports we pulled into where we couldn't dock at all which would surprise you. 1) Hong Kong, 2) Singapore 3) Pattaya Beach Thailand, 4) Perth, Australia. Just because we didn't dock didn't mean we didn't TOP OFF on fuel and supplies. Our MAIN port was Yokosuka, Japan and we carried supplies from there except for what we replenished during underway replenishment and picked up at ports of call.

[Nomad]

Two things here. I don't consider those to be very small out of the way ports. And you were not in a combat situation. the complaint is that any tiny speck can automatically supply munition or fuel for a SC or AC taskforce overnight. We are just trying to discuss ways to make the game more realistic. I realize that you do not have to dock to refuel or rearm, just how many canoe loads does an Essex class CV take to replenish?

[Dereck]

Nonetheless we couldn't dock. So by all of your thinking ports of the sizes of Singapore, Hong Kong and Perth shouldn't be able to dock carriers.

The game already handles this by the amount of fuel/cargo you can load/unload per day. Besides, ships would top off their supplies/fuels at every opportunity which would mean ships would not need to be COMPLETELY restocked all the time.

Why don't we just fix the BUGS that are already out there?

[Nomad]

But you have identified the problem, the program does NOT restrict the loading of fuel or stores on ships. It does limit how fast you can load/unload supplies and fuel from cargo and tankers. Understand that the term 'docking' does not mean that a ship actually pulls up to a dock and ties up. Sometimes it just means they anchor in the immediate area. If you anchored within the harbor, they you 'docked.' You sure were not underway.

Lets look at an example. Baker Island is one mile by about 3/4 of a mile with no anchorage at all, not even a wharf. It starts as a size 1 port and a size 1 airfield( I don't know why it starts as a size 1 port). You can put some supplies and fuel there and refuel and rearm a TF with say 3 CVs, 1 BB, 2 CLAA, and 8 DDs in the same time you could do it at Pearl Harbor or San Francisco. Does this sound realistic? This is an island that in the late 19th century they moved guano from the island to ships anchored off shore using rowboats.

I do want the bugs fixed in this game first, but I would also like some tweaks done to improve the game. If we wait until they get all, or most all, of the bugs out before we start discussing these kinds of issues, there will never be a chance that they will get fixed or changed.

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: testarossa

51 sunk. And majority of them in Jan-march 1942. And around Townswille. Now it's July and I haven't met a single sub in 2 months. Did I sink them all?

That was the type of results I got before V1.3. I'm playing Japan now it's 4/1/42, I've lost 7 subs and I've sunk 6. I think ASW is working better with V1.3, enemy subs now move around alot and don't bunch up a one area as much as before. I still think there should be a limit on how many ships in a TF can attack a single sub.

[BlackVoid]

ASW is too effective for both sides. But so are subs, they hit too often I think.

Even as Japan, I am killing allied subs left and right with dedicated ASW TFs.

Subs can only be used in deep water far from any strong enemy base that has ASW assets. Otherwise your subs are toast (against a human).

[testarossa]

No, everything is fine with the patch. I'm getting much less ASW attacks and hits on subs. ASW TF sometimes can be for 3 days at the same hex with sub before conducting attack. And getting 1-3 hits. I usually use 8DDs TF or 10-12 MSW/PG TFs. I have to say i had 3 ASW TF's at Townsville and conducted very agressive ASW search. I lost some DDs and MSW/PGs. Although I was sinking 6 subs per day sometimes. Problem here that AI was stupid enough to keep sending his subs in to my grinding machine. If it were human opponent he would've shifted patrol zones to Fiji zone to intercept my unescorted 25 ships AK/TK TFs right?[8|] O well, it is still greatest wargame ever for the time being.[&o]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

But you have identified the problem, the program does NOT restrict the loading of fuel or stores on ships. It does limit how fast you can load/unload supplies and fuel from cargo and tankers. Understand that the term 'docking' does not mean that a ship actually pulls up to a dock and ties up. Sometimes it just means they anchor in the immediate area. If you anchored within the harbor, they you 'docked.' You sure were not underway.

Lets look at an example. Baker Island is one mile by about 3/4 of a mile with no anchorage at all, not even a wharf. It starts as a size 1 port and a size 1 airfield( I don't know why it starts as a size 1 port). You can put some supplies and fuel there and refuel and rearm a TF with say 3 CVs, 1 BB, 2 CLAA, and 8 DDs in the same time you could do it at Pearl Harbor or San Francisco. Does this sound realistic? This is an island that in the late 19th century they moved guano from the island to ships anchored off shore using rowboats.

I do want the bugs fixed in this game first, but I would also like some tweaks done to improve the game. If we wait until they get all, or most all, of the bugs out before we start discussing these kinds of issues, there will never be a chance that they will get fixed or changed.

Well said, thank you Nomad. Dereck has his opinions but he is talking about something completely different in his assumed role as devil's advocate. Keeping topped up he says. That assumes the presence of a fleet train, which is really somewhat redundant in this game given this lack of port limitations.