Matrix Games Forums

Hi, I've never seen a submarine stop a landing. I've seen more then a few BB do it.

"Chill out"? "Who gives a Crap"? OK, let me repeat the basic question of the
thread one more time. How can Cam Rahn Bay be shown as a larger and more
capable PORT than either Singapore or Manilla at the start of the War?

Because the French built a barricks and started a wharf? Because the Japanese
moved in some tenders and stores ships, and parked vessels here to wait for
the balloon to go up? There are NO rational grounds for it to be rated 50% better
than "full service" naval bases.

And I brought it up because IF THE SIMPLE THINGS THAT CAN BE COPIED FROM
SOURCES ARE WRONG, THEN HOW CAN YOU TRUST ANYTHING ELSE? If you had
just hired an Accounting Firm to handle all your company's taxes, payrolls and the
like, and the Accountants took you out to lunch to celebrate; wouldn't you start
wondering if afterwards they couldn't agree on the total of the bill between them-
selves, and decided that 15% of $100 was $12? I, for one, would have some ser-
ious second thoughts.

THAT was the point! No matter how good a Decorator's reputation may be, if they
start by telling me that my green house is red, I'm going to think there is something
wrong. And if a "simulation" starts by telling me a basically empty bay is a bigger
Port than two of the Pacific's largest and busiest; I'm going to wonder what else is
wrong....

Mogami made some valid points, that the dichotomy arose because the coding is
a screwed-up mess and that Cam Ranh HAD to be given a decent PORT value so
it could be used as the Japanese historically used it. Even he couldn't explain why
it had expanded to New York City and the Brooklyn Navy Yard. He and I agreed
to simply stop chewing on it and go on to other things. But I'm not going to sit by
and listen to cheap fan-boy shots from the Peanut Gallery. If you have a rational
explanation as to why NO docks, NO piers, NO warehousing, NO drydock, and NO
infastructure makes something a bigger and better port than one having all those
things..., please illuminate the subject. Otherwise, please be silent...

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Personally, who gives a crap.

I doubt very seriously if Cam rahn Bay or even saigon are going to be the difference between victory or defeat.

Fix the bugs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Have I ever mentioned that I agree with 95% of your posts? There is so much pointless Sturm und Drang here!

Not going to use my GT1 port attack at Manila though. Gotta get them BBs[;)]

Your choice. I will go after the subs in a New York second. I hate the dang things. I like to think about the drool on my opponents mouth everytime he looks at all them big old ships just sitting there. Makes some of them just have to come out and play early.

The BS 1st turn bonus should be more than enough. If anything it should be a 2 day bonus, not three! Extensive play has shown this 3 day move bonus to be rather generous(biased?). The attack on PH should be mandatory as this was planned well in advance of player input and is a cornerstone ofthe opening of hostilities. I'd allow a Manila strike by LBA if the (again,overly generous) torp rule was abolished.

ORIGINAL: byron13

.... They have made some generalizations, which I understand create some inaccuracies, but additional detail only adds more things to argue over.

Which should keep some of their customers happy....

I can answer one thing on deep draft vessels and rivers... The deeper the draft the more silt one stirs up.

I would be willing to guess that Mekong was dredged at least once between 1945 and 1965 because we have very different answers based on two time periods.

Mike

Mike:

What size would you make Cam Ranh Bay?

ORIGINAL: WiTP_Dude

Aren't the Allied subs ineffective in the early going? Seems like the battleships are more important due to their bombardment power. By the time the US subs work correctly, there are too many of them being produced to worry about the few in Manila at the start.

I wish that were true. Ask Ron. His subs have a field day early war shooting up my transports. Escorts just keep his subs from surfacing. But think about having 6 months to a year with the ability to run unescorted convoys in your rear area with little fear. You may get the odd sinking, but make up for it on the back side.

If it floats, I can kill it with little problem. Underwater and I have problems, especially if using Ron's ASW fix.

BB's attract torpedos like magnets.[:D]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Mike:

What size would you make Cam Ranh Bay?

In reality in 1941, it might be a 1 (9). I would never argue that it isn't a magnificent
Harbor and Anchorage, but it's actuall Port facilities in 1941 were almost nil. What
it did serve as was a terrific sheltered anchorage for various "service and supply"
ships (AO's, AS, AR, AD, and the like) to support Japanese offensive efforts in the
area. And it was a wonderful place to "stage" missions through. (Sheltered bay,
easily patroled and protected, and the French had conveniently even installed some
coast defense guns.). What it severly lacked was any kind of permanent Port Infra-
structure like piers and wharves and cranes and warehousing and a large city to sup-
port the workforce needed to man that infrastructure. Things which Manilla Bay and
Singapore had in abundance. That's why it seemed extremely wrong for it to be given
a bigger PORT SIZE rating than either of them.

Now Singapore and Manilla should be 9's, but have been artificially reduced in the game
to prevent them from being able to supply a level of servicing and re-arming that they
didn't have the material on hand to do at war's start. And I don't want to see every
Allied sub in the area given access to an unlimited supply of mines in December 1941
either. Given the game's mechanics, I support the choice to reduce their capabilities.
And as the game doesn't really support the use of mobile "Base Force" and "Fleet Train"
Naval units very well, I can understand why Cam Ranh Bay might be over-rated to
allow the Japanese to "stage" a number of their invasion forces through. Maybe it has
to be a 4 to accomplish these goals. But the rating given makes it equivelent to the
largest ports in the Pacific for all practical purposes..., and that just seems wrong.

A lot of it comes back to poor coding choices made in the beginning which place odd
restrictions and give odd benefits to installations based on SIZE. To enable a map
location to do things it historically did within the artificial perameters of the programing
causes a lot of strange things to pop up on the map. Like the level 6 airbase on Midway.
On one hand, there were some 4-engined bombers that operated from Midway during
the war---and the game code says that that requires a lvl 6 airbace for them to be ef-
fecient. The game also says that a level 6 airbase can handle up to 300 A/C---which
anyone who's ever seen a picture of the place knows is patently absurd. As Mogomi
pointed out, a choice had to be made (because of the design choices). He thinks a 6
on Midway is the best of a bad lot, I'd say a 2 would be more approiate. Two reason-
able people having a reasonable dissagreement. Over a few beers we'd probably both
blame it on the coding that we had to argue about it at all. BUT WE ARE STUCK WITH
THE CODING! 2by3 isn't going to re-write the game at this stage. So how big a PORT
SIZE should Cam Ranh Bay get to reflect historical usage. That depends on how big
it has to be to allow "support ships" to function, and keep subs out, and allow some
soading and unloading. Is a 3 enough? Does it have to be a 4? I don't know for sure.
But it sure shouldn't be as big as it is. The only reason I could see for making it a 9 was
so the Japanese could a-historically mine everything in sight in December 1941---which
is just as wrong as the Allies doing it. Which is why I asked the question that started
the thread.

Hi, It still comes down to people seeing a number and then interpeting that number as just 1 very specific meaning.
Rather then have a lot of different numbers 1 was used and the value was assigned to reflect capabilty. Capabilty was only measured by "what did it do" and "what value is needed to accomplish that"
In the game there are numbers used that reflect more then what the value is labeled.
A pilots morale is not just how happy the pilot is. It also takes into account the condition of his aircraft. It might be servicable (listed as ready) but not in the best of condition when comparing a pilot with 50 morale to another with 99 morale. The code could have tracked aircraft condition in more areas then simply "ready, damaged, reserve" but if one number could be used that produced the results desired it was.
The problem begins when people then look at morale and question it strictly as the moral well being and fighting spirit of the pilot.
I don't want to go back to saying that values have to be considered within the context of operations and not tactically. Operations are the combined results of air,sea and land combat, movement and supply, weather and terrian effects over a period of time.
We are allowed to go down into the guts in many areas where our choices result in changes to operational outcome but we must not decive ourselves into thinking we are in micro mangament control of events. We are tweekers. We can alter outcomes to a certain degree. But when we change 1 value we are effecting everything that value reflects and every value that is formed as a result of appling inside the game routine.

In the end the thegame is not about geographic accuracy. (It is hoped to be as close to reality as can be maintained and still run) On a flat map distance are going to be distorted some where no matter who draws the map. In a game where some one has to assign values based on historical results of events that never took place but might have taken place the values will always be in dispute.

Cam rah Bay's size 6 is not the same as Manila's size 6.
When in the end the USA did build Cam Rah Bay to size 9 they did not do it by doing what a player does to expand Saigon to size 9.

The OB is not all inclusive of units that existed in all armies in the area. Japanese transport units do not exist. They exist in the fact that there are RR on map that were not really RR. They exist in fact that supply moves in amounts between bases.
There are ships that do not exist in game that existed. Every Japanese port is missing a number of important vessels and these ships (as well as Allied ports) are accounted for by base functions.

Do we really need to go down to tracking ocean and harbor tugs. refueling barges and garbage scows?

I wonder why this strong talks happen now ? I mean if you look at the entire map, you will find strange port/airfiled sizes. ( another example : Timor ), the game is 5 months old and this is NO news to us all here....they tried to make this game playable and this needed to adjust some settings here and there...bugs need to be solved and things like this are only of minor interest imho.

u guys should talk to andrew brown to get this right on his modded map....