Page 5 of 6
RE: CHS Status March 10th
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:45 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Tankerace
Don, just a heads up, tonight or tomorrow I should have a huge set of graphics for you, to add in for US submarines, various schemes and conningtowers throughout the war. Roughly 3 fits per boat, with 2 for the S and Tench.
Thanks - will it match up to the classes already defined or will I need to make some new ones??
RE: CHS Status March 10th
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 4:48 am
by Tankerace
It will match up to the classes. The Starting class will match up to the Early graphic, the 1942 classes the Mid graphic, and the 1943 and on classes the late graphic.
RE: CHS Status March 10th
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 10:18 am
by Andrew Brown
Here is my input:
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Fort level set to 50 for Hong Kong
This seems like a radical 'fix', but I guess testing will tell what effect it has.
Controversial, can be undone:
Barracuda class SS (two classes and three ships) added
I know nothing about these, but if they didn't see a lot of active service then you could add one less, perhaps.
Possible inclusion of US Naval District inshore patrol squadrons
What do you have in mind for these, and how likely is it that they will not be 'abused' by the Allied players?
Up for debate:
Possible inclusion of some part of the Soviet Pacific fleet (in 1945).
I am cautiously in favour of this - as long as the addition is a modest one.
Inclusion of just-after-the-war ships: Midway class, Vanguard, others??
Being a shameless Allied fanboy I would very much like to see these added, as long as we don't get too carried away, and limit any additions to ships that would definitely have gone into service in time and were earmarked for the theatre (such as Vanguard).
Also, what about the concerns raised in the Land units thread about Allied squad numbers in LCUs, and the concerns about Japanese forces being too active in the first turn?
RE: CHS Status March 10th
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 11:04 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Tankerace
Don, just a heads up, tonight or tomorrow I should have a huge set of graphics for you, to add in for US submarines, various schemes and conningtowers throughout the war. Roughly 3 fits per boat, with 2 for the S and Tench.
Thanks - will it match up to the classes already defined or will I need to make some new ones??
We will need a second refit for Cachalot class.
RE: CHS Status March 10th
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 2:28 pm
by Bradley7735
quote:
Inclusion of just-after-the-war ships: Midway class, Vanguard, others??
Being a shameless Allied fanboy I would very much like to see these added, as long as we don't get too carried away, and limit any additions to ships that would definitely have gone into service in time and were earmarked for the theatre (such as Vanguard).
I am also in favor of adding ships in that appear after Aug 45. After all, the game lasts until March 46. However, you should add some hypothetical Japanese ships as well. They would have kept producing ships if they didn't surrender. This is something that I just didn't understand with Matrix. Why have the game last until 3/46 and not include actual ships that were operational in that time period? If you don't want the ships/airgroups/LCU's, then end the game on 9/2/45. [&:]
Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 6:53 pm
by Bradley7735
Ron, I saw your post about the DEI being rubble in the game vs Mogami.
I have a suggestion. How about putting the SPS airfield build size on all northern australia bases at 1. (or 0). You can't do well with B-17's from a size 4 airfield. At least this will hamper these kind of ops.
I'm not saying you should do this for sure, but it is a suggestion. It's not correct as far as the real size of an airfield you could build, but neither is the fact that you can currently fly B-17's from Darwin at little effort to the allied player.
bc
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:05 pm
by AmiralLaurent
ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
Ron, I saw your post about the DEI being rubble in the game vs Mogami.
I have a suggestion. How about putting the SPS airfield build size on all northern australia bases at 1. (or 0). You can't do well with B-17's from a size 4 airfield. At least this will hamper these kind of ops.
I'm not saying you should do this for sure, but it is a suggestion. It's not correct as far as the real size of an airfield you could build, but neither is the fact that you can currently fly B-17's from Darwin at little effort to the allied player.
bc
Because historically there were really big bases here. The problem was to bring supplies to them. And the problem in WITP is that there is no supply problem in NW Australia...
I hope the CHS will :
1) remove railway to these bases
2) remove at least part of the ressources in Derby
3) reduce the numbers of B-17 available (no more 39th BG)
4) reduce the replacement rate of B-17
On another subject can someone post a screenshot of the Soviet border. I am playing a test game of Russia invasion against moses and have some ideas for this area.
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:36 pm
by Lemurs!
I did cut the B17E/F from 75 replacements per month to 25.
This shows about 300 B17s in 41-42 which is accurate.
Of course, they will still produce in '43 but i can't do anything about that.
Mike
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:47 pm
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
I did cut the B17E/F from 75 replacements per month to 25.
This shows about 300 B17s in 41-42 which is accurate.
Of course, they will still produce in '43 but i can't do anything about that.
Mike
What about having most of 1942s B17 E/Fs in the pool and set production at some ridiculously low amount like 1 or something?
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:17 pm
by Lemurs!
Thats bad because then the allies have limitless B17s in dec 41
Mike
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:44 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
I did cut the B17E/F from 75 replacements per month to 25.
This shows about 300 B17s in 41-42 which is accurate.
Of course, they will still produce in '43 but i can't do anything about that.
Mike
Actually it's 10 for the B-17E in our scenario. Is something amiss?
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:51 pm
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
Thats bad because then the allies have limitless B17s in dec 41
Mike
They still need to change HQs and be moved to the front. Not a lot of PPs to work with. If player squanders them, there is no bottomless pit as is presently the case. Which is worse?
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:53 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
I hope the CHS will :
1) remove railway to these bases
2) remove at least part of the ressources in Derby
3) reduce the numbers of B-17 available (no more 39th BG)
4) reduce the replacement rate of B-17
The 39th Bomb Group was an Operational Training Unit on the US West Coast. As an OTU it flew combat patrols and was available as part of the defenses of the West Coast in case of an attack. It's status has been discussed already and it remains in the OOB.
My apologies to you and to Dutchgy2000 (with his concerns on 2-VLG-II) but no change will be made unless new information is brought forward that specifically warrants it.
Don
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 8:55 pm
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Lemurs!
I did cut the B17E/F from 75 replacements per month to 25.
This shows about 300 B17s in 41-42 which is accurate.
Of course, they will still produce in '43 but i can't do anything about that.
Mike
Actually it's 10 for the B-17E in our scenario. Is something amiss?
In my stock game (set at 10 I suspect) I have loads of B 17s. 25 concerns me if 10 is overkill. We keep quoting historical production rates and include them in a game which fails to function in an historical manner. Like Mike said, we can't turn off the production so we had better fiddle with this or we end up with way too many.
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:03 pm
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
I hope the CHS will :
1) remove railway to these bases
2) remove at least part of the ressources in Derby
I take it from these requests that you haven't seen my map mod?
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:28 pm
by Bradley7735
In my stock game (set at 10 I suspect) I have loads of B 17s. 25 concerns me if 10 is overkill. We keep quoting historical production rates and include them in a game which fails to function in an historical manner. Like Mike said, we can't turn off the production so we had better fiddle with this or we end up with way too many.
If you make the B-17 show up with ON MAP production (ie, a factory), then it will stop producing when it upgrades to whatever the B-17e upgrades to.
This is how you stop obsolete planes from continuing to produce. Make them a factory. If the new plane has a higher production rate than the old plane, then you need to make an R&D factory of the upgraded plane for the difference.
example: TBD's upgrade to TBF's. If you determine that we should get 10 TBD's per month and eventually get 40 TBF's per month then make a TBD factory of 10 and a TBF factory of 30. The TBD will upgrade to TBF's when it's time. If there were 50 TBM's per month, then make another factory of TBM's of 10. In 1945, you will have only 50 TBM's per month and no TBD's or TBF's. (rinse and repeat for the B-17 line of planes)
Does this make sense? Just make sure you put planes not produced on the west coast far enough inland that Japanese CV's can't disrupt production.
(don't forget to set the off map production to zero)
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:34 pm
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
In my stock game (set at 10 I suspect) I have loads of B 17s. 25 concerns me if 10 is overkill. We keep quoting historical production rates and include them in a game which fails to function in an historical manner. Like Mike said, we can't turn off the production so we had better fiddle with this or we end up with way too many.
If you make the B-17 show up with ON MAP production (ie, a factory), then it will stop producing when it upgrades to whatever the B-17e upgrades to.
This is how you stop obsolete planes from continuing to produce. Make them a factory. If the new plane has a higher production rate than the old plane, then you need to make an R&D factory of the upgraded plane for the difference.
example: TBD's upgrade to TBF's. If you determine that we should get 10 TBD's per month and eventually get 40 TBF's per month then make a TBD factory of 10 and a TBF factory of 30. The TBD will upgrade to TBF's when it's time. If there were 50 TBM's per month, then make another factory of TBM's of 10. In 1945, you will have only 50 TBM's per month and no TBD's or TBF's. (rinse and repeat for the B-17 line of planes)
Does this make sense? Just make sure you put planes not produced on the west coast far enough inland that Japanese CV's can't disrupt production.
(don't forget to set the off map production to zero)
And this will eat supply too. Should put some factories on west coast as they were all over the place.
RE: Suggestion on North Australia
Posted: Fri Mar 11, 2005 9:39 pm
by Bradley7735
You can put all the east coast factories in the USA base. Or maybe add a couple more bases, if you can't fit all the factories needed.
I don't know why Matrix included the off map production stuff. You can just put all the factories in the USA base and it's less coding to develop.
Remember that allies can't change factories so my suggestion is probably not going to break the game. It just stops production of obsolete planes.
If you add this feature, make sure the allies have enough HI to operate their factories. I assume there is, but I don't know for sure.
Tidbits of Information on Australian Ports
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 12:56 am
by eMonticello
I found these tidbits of information in the US Army in WW2 Series,
The Technical Service, The Transportation Corps: Operations Overseas.
Port Operations
* Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville, and Cairns did not have a regularly assigned USA port organization, all port operations were conducted locally.
Ports
* Sydney - April 1942
- There were 177 ship berths of which 44 were connected to railways and included cranes. The port could accomodate 81 ocean going vessels at one time and 10-15 at anchor.
* Brisbane - 1942
- There were 50 marginal wharves with 28 berths, of which 14 were connected to railways. In March 1943, several cranes were added. Storage space was widely scattered and there was a constant danger of congestion at the port.
* Townsville
- This port was smaller than Brisbane and poorly equipped. No new piers were built during the war. There was an anchorage for 75 vessels from 2-6 miles off-shore. There were two piers for large ships and 6 berths connected to the railways. Cargo discharge was conducted by local longshoremen and was considered to be slow and inefficient. Townsville was considered a stop-over point and in Sept 43 had as many as 36 ships waiting to head to New Guinea.
* Cairns
- This port was used when Townsville exceeded its capacity. It had anchorage for 7 ocean-going vessels at one time.
Ship-related tidbits
- 61 American, British, and Dutch ships took refuge in Australia in late 1941-early 1942.
- When War Shipping Adminstration (WSA) ships moved into theater, they were often hijacked by theater commanders and used for theater operations.
- China Navigation Company (British) and Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij (KPM - Royal Packet Navigation Co)(Dutch) were two companies that operated in this region.
http://www.timetableimages.com/maritime/index.htm
- Supplies to India were shared by ships whose origination ports were located in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean.
RE: Tidbits of Information on Australian Ports
Posted: Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:43 am
by Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: eMonticello
I found these tidbits of information in the US Army in WW2 Series,
The Technical Service, The Transportation Corps: Operations Overseas.
Port Operations
* Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville, and Cairns did not have a regularly assigned USA port organization, all port operations were conducted locally.
Ports
* Sydney - April 1942
- There were 177 ship berths of which 44 were connected to railways and included cranes. The port could accomodate 81 ocean going vessels at one time and 10-15 at anchor.
* Brisbane - 1942
- There were 50 marginal wharves with 28 berths, of which 14 were connected to railways. In March 1943, several cranes were added. Storage space was widely scattered and there was a constant danger of congestion at the port.
* Townsville
- This port was smaller than Brisbane and poorly equipped. No new piers were built during the war. There was an anchorage for 75 vessels from 2-6 miles off-shore. There were two piers for large ships and 6 berths connected to the railways. Cargo discharge was conducted by local longshoremen and was considered to be slow and inefficient. Townsville was considered a stop-over point and in Sept 43 had as many as 36 ships waiting to head to New Guinea.
* Cairns
- This port was used when Townsville exceeded its capacity. It had anchorage for 7 ocean-going vessels at one time.
Ship-related tidbits
- 61 American, British, and Dutch ships took refuge in Australia in late 1941-early 1942.
- When War Shipping Adminstration (WSA) ships moved into theater, they were often hijacked by theater commanders and used for theater operations.
- China Navigation Company (British) and Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij (KPM - Royal Packet Navigation Co)(Dutch) were two companies that operated in this region.
http://www.timetableimages.com/maritime/index.htm
- Supplies to India were shared by ships whose origination ports were located in the Gulf of Mexico, Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean.
Makes one wonder where the port size figures in the game came from.