Matrix Games Forums

quote:

ORIGINAL: rustysi

quote:

You can fuel a PT boat from barrels


Technically they use supply not fuel.



They are created from supply, but use fuel in their operations like any other ship.

I know that, but in a perfect game they'd be refueled from supply stocks not fuel. Now how difficult that would be to code, I've no idea. My guess is that it would not be too easy or it would have been done.

Can ppl stop posting huge pics in "my" thread, if at least they were on topic.

Also what I noted (I mean in general on this or other forums) if you quote someone you do not need to quote a big picture with your quote [:@]

Also I do not know why people when a specific issue is brought up - then rather post that the other side is way over rated (in their mind) so "all is fine with this issue"??
That has nothing to do with each other. Also it goes both ways the Japanese must be able to do such landing with "X" ships too in simmilar speed I guess (?)

I have not even an issue with X being used for landings as said above I meant more the speed so much AV gets ashore and dissapointing resistance / very low losses for attacker

However it is possible the devs took real life losses of "bigger" landings ships into account, I believe those were quite low in WW2. Mostly the smaller "boats" that approached the beach got hit, the bigger ships not so much. I mean obviously losses at landing direcly not on the way in or out the operations area.
So might be somewhat historical I guess [:)]


@Lowpe:
Seems even the IJ picks this up once in while, indeed there were 2 messages in sigint for Tulagi. You said xAP are slower? I do not see this, xAP seem quite fast. Not the ones converted from Liberty ships but most others.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy



Beer? What beer?!

His favorite. RIP harry. [:(]

Yes, RIP. A sad early loss.

A77, I am not sure if you know this so I will mention that non-coastal/fortress artillery does not fire at ships at all (DP guns are considered coastal artillery) but they do fire at landing boats and troops crossing the beach. This is abstracted into the landing losses, along with losses from lack of prep, weather and random hazards (like hidden reefs/rocks).

Also bear in mind that an island has multiple sides and big guns set up in the wrong place cannot easily be moved to fire on the actual direction of attack. Most amphib landings took into account the location of such defences and used alternate beaches if any were available. Hence the algorithm for big coastal guns firing at ships may have some die rolls for whether they can bear on the target ships. Just conjecture on my part, but it would probably have been thought of by the brilliant people who designed this game. [:)]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

A77, I am not sure if you know this so I will mention that non-coastal/fortress artillery does not fire at ships at all (DP guns are considered coastal artillery) but they do fire at landing boats and troops crossing the beach. This is abstracted into the landing losses, along with losses from lack of prep, weather and random hazards (like hidden reefs/rocks).

Also bear in mind that an island has multiple sides and big guns set up in the wrong place cannot easily be moved to fire on the actual direction of attack. Most amphib landings took into account the location of such defences and used alternate beaches if any were available. Hence the algorithm for big coastal guns firing at ships may have some die rolls for whether they can bear on the target ships. Just conjecture on my part, but it would probably have been thought of by the brilliant people who designed this game. [:)]

I have had 40mm AAA fire at, hit, and even get credited with kill on Japanese invasion TFs. But I think that after the landing boats/barges are coming in, that those guns fire at those more dangerous targets.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

A77, I am not sure if you know this so I will mention that non-coastal/fortress artillery does not fire at ships at all (DP guns are considered coastal artillery) but they do fire at landing boats and troops crossing the beach. This is abstracted into the landing losses, along with losses from lack of prep, weather and random hazards (like hidden reefs/rocks).

Also bear in mind that an island has multiple sides and big guns set up in the wrong place cannot easily be moved to fire on the actual direction of attack. Most amphib landings took into account the location of such defences and used alternate beaches if any were available. Hence the algorithm for big coastal guns firing at ships may have some die rolls for whether they can bear on the target ships. Just conjecture on my part, but it would probably have been thought of by the brilliant people who designed this game. [:)]

I have had 40mm AAA fire at, hit, and even get credited with kill on Japanese invasion TFs. But I think that after the landing boats/barges are coming in, that those guns fire at those more dangerous targets.

I haven't seen that myself RJ, but then I don't watch animations of artillery fire.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

A77, I am not sure if you know this so I will mention that non-coastal/fortress artillery does not fire at ships at all (DP guns are considered coastal artillery) but they do fire at landing boats and troops crossing the beach. This is abstracted into the landing losses, along with losses from lack of prep, weather and random hazards (like hidden reefs/rocks).

Also bear in mind that an island has multiple sides and big guns set up in the wrong place cannot easily be moved to fire on the actual direction of attack. Most amphib landings took into account the location of such defences and used alternate beaches if any were available. Hence the algorithm for big coastal guns firing at ships may have some die rolls for whether they can bear on the target ships. Just conjecture on my part, but it would probably have been thought of by the brilliant people who designed this game. [:)]

I have had 40mm AAA fire at, hit, and even get credited with kill on Japanese invasion TFs. But I think that after the landing boats/barges are coming in, that those guns fire at those more dangerous targets.

I haven't seen that myself RJ, but then I don't watch animations of artillery fire.

I opened up my game and looked, no such ship kills registered in my current game. They must have been killed on the way to the beaches. I wonder why . . . [8|]

On the other hand, can you tell me what ship is credited with sinking the Mutsu from this list?

BC Repulse, BB Warspite or Valiant, or any of the R class British BBs.

On 21-12-41? Most probably the Repulse.

Yep - USN never had 15 " as far as I recall.

ORIGINAL: Ian R

On 21-12-41? Most probably the Repulse.

Yes! [:D]

The POW was credited with a cruiser.* I lost three or four DDs from that battle. The POW and the Repulse had to get a lot of Body and Fender work done from that battle.

Look at those first two CVEs lost. [:D]

This is the "new" Scenario 2 with the new AI. [:'(]

Edited for:
*The cruiser was the Nachi. Nice presents for KGVI and Winnie. [8D]

300kg bombs? Dutch Glen Martin bombers after 3 months intensive low nav training. A revolutionary aircraft (in 1934), it is well capable of putting bombs on target.

If you squint your eyes real hard, the aircraft above transforms into a Ki-115 Tsurugi with a torpedo. I kid you not!

If one is patient those Glenn Martins can be scary good anti-shipping assets after a couple of months of training. And 300 kg bombs hurt.....

One of them sank a Japanese CA with just one bomb hit. The bomb landed in the ships library, most specifically the periodical section where it hit just one of the periodicals which exploded. [:D]

ORIGINAL: Ian R

300kg bombs? Dutch Glen Martin bombers after 3 months intensive low nav training. A revolutionary aircraft (in 1934), it is well capable of putting bombs on target.

Cap Mandrake has the best name for these: Uglofortresses. [:D]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: Ian R

300kg bombs? Dutch Glen Martin bombers after 3 months intensive low nav training. A revolutionary aircraft (in 1934), it is well capable of putting bombs on target.

Cap Mandrake has the best name for these: Uglofortresses. [:D]

One of mine sank the Aoba with one bomb! [:D]

Not very aerodynamic, is it?

Not going to win a beauty contest against pretty much any other airplane. and the Uglofortress comment almost made me give back my bevvy. What did Glenn Martin do next? as it the Baltimore? Marketing guys must have said something along the lines of 'we cannot sell something that unattractive'.....

Isn't that why Boeing lost out to the F35 - looks?

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Not going to win a beauty contest against pretty much any other airplane. and the Uglofortress comment almost made me give back my bevvy. What did Glenn Martin do next? as it the Baltimore? Marketing guys must have said something along the lines of 'we cannot sell something that unattractive'.....

Isn't that why Boeing lost out to the F35 - looks?

Ugly, yes - but the official version (supported by some video evidence in the doc I saw) was that the Boeing version only was too hard to control when taking off vertically. IIRC it had two nozzles along the midline of the aircraft and lacked lateral stability when taking off vertically. Add some wind gusts and ...[X(]

The F-35 has been a peach.....which is why we are ordering more F-15s