Which ships to add?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Which ships would you guys add if you would have another 600 slots for them? PTs? AKs? APs? SCs? (other than blimps and ships with names of those sunk)

[DuckofTindalos]

As many what-if's and never-were's as I could fit, for both sides. Those be phun...

[Ron Saueracker]

The ones that historically were there![:D] Like, ahhhh, you know where I'm going![;)]

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Well, I expected more precise answers... So, from historic ships you would add... (name them)?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Which ships would you guys add if you would have another 600 slots for them? PTs? AKs? APs? SCs? (other than blimps and ships with names of those sunk)

Need to know how long the game could run. If the respawn function was eliminated I think that for the Allies there are more than suffucuent slots. The Japanese are a different matter though, they could use more slots. What I would prefer is a dynamic system for both sides that would allow the player to choose which ships were to be built at any given time. As a new ship would be launched its building way would be available for a new ship, one we choose to build there.

[el cid again]

Need to know how long the game could run

Also what countries. If you know the Soviets are active - for example - you want more Soviet ships - but if not - you could even get rid of their ships!

Also your scale? I am lifting the scale - below a certain size auxiliaries don't count - and I won't have em unless a special case applies. There were more ships in the emergency service of USAFFE than we have slots! US Army had 12,000 plus ships, alone! Clearly we don't do every powered barge. What is your scale of significance?

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

The ones that historically were there![:D] Like, ahhhh, you know where I'm going![;)]

Uh oh!
Here comes the respawn thread again.[:D]

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Ok, some specifications.

600 ships:
Western Allied (for Soviet ships place is already reserved)
Warships (not auxilliary ships, note that ML and MSW are warships - also very small ships are possibble like additional SCs, PCs, PCSs)
Time of arrival: the sooner the better. Generally not beyound lets say April 1945.

[John 3rd]

I would like to see the Japanese have the ability to build out more of the Hiryu 2nd Generation Class CV as well as maybe the option for a couple more Taiho Class, and more of the 'Moon' Class DD. Just a few would be nice to work with...

[John 3rd]

I would also add the ability to clear ships off of the construction schedule. If I don't want Shinano AT ALL, then it should be perminently deleted. Shinano should be allowed to come in as a BB too.

Should also be able to convert ALL of the Japanese CS (Chitose, Chiyoda, Nisshin, etc...) into CVL ANYTIME.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

We aren't talking about Japanese ships and definetely not about what-ifs...

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Ok, some specifications.

600 ships:
Western Allied (for Soviet ships place is already reserved)
Warships (not auxilliary ships, note that ML and MSW are warships - also very small ships are possibble like additional SCs, PCs, PCSs)
Time of arrival: the sooner the better. Generally not beyound lets say April 1945.

Making it no later than 1945.12.31 would work wonders for the allies. Then most of the British and US Atlantic and Med Fleets could redeploy. Would like even see some additional French ships such as:

CA Duquesne
CA Tourville
CL Goerge Leygues
CL Gloire
CL Montcalm
CL Emile Bertin
CL Duquay-Trouin

[el cid again]

There are many warships and submarines which are absent from stock and CHS. These are mainly ships that did not complete for some reason or other - but there are even some just wholly omitted. A careful review, class by class, would use up hundreds of slots. I believe PLAYERS should decide what ships to cancel (at least Japanese players - who have the option) - not scenario designers. If players are dumb, and do not cancel ships they don't need, it will slow down the ships they do need. And who are we to dictate the player strategy in every game? For the Allies, who don't have the option to cancel ships, make the choice according to utility. If the ship is generically useful, and absent, put it in.

But I wonder how you can have 600 slots? What was your base scenario? What did you kill?

[DuckofTindalos]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

Making it no later than 1945.12.31 would work wonders for the allies. Then most of the British and US Atlantic and Med Fleets could redeploy. Would like even see some additional French ships such as:

Did I see somewhere that setting reinforcements for later than 12/31/45 might cause problems with the program?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

My base scenario is stock. And I rewrited 99% of CHS ships into this new scenario. Well before you ask why I did it, I will answer that I didnt know that I can copy only certain files to new scenario. I thought that I was working on one single file. (I dont like CHS land changes, now I would simply copy device, ship, clas, aircraft and airgroup to new scenario - but it was too late, after most of the work was done manually).

I omitted spacers (A LOT OF THEM), auxillaries (AD,AR,AS,etc) arriving after 1 Jan 1945, merchants (AK,AP,TK) arriving after 2 Nov 1945...

I added CVs CAs CLs with names after sunken ships, also some British ships that my sources shows operating in the area, also more ships (more than in CHS) arriving in August-September 1945.

I have really no idea how I freed so many slots. Now I am affraid that I am unable to do non-respawn version since I have no idea how to fill the rest of database.

I have a question. How many PTs, SCs and LSTs operating in PTO are not represented in CHS?

[el cid again]

I have really no idea how I freed so many slots. Now I am affraid that I am unable to do non-respawn version since I have no idea how to fill the rest of database.

I have a question. How many PTs, SCs and LSTs operating in PTO are not represented in CHS?

OK - I get it. What happened is that CHS added so many merchant ships they filled most slots. You don't have these - so you are missing many of them.

As for PTs, SC, and other minor craft - there are more than we have total slots. A lot more. Which is why the respawn for them. US Army had 12,000 ships and only God knows how many landing craft! This was more than the USN did! The WITP system is actually pretty clever at getting forward units represented and regenerated. We would need years to type in all the data if we had to do it for everything. But I have it if you want it for IJN in Excel form - every last barge, powered barge, tugboat, towed container for submarines, ships boat, you name it. For US I have only just begun - and will die before I finish!

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Thats why I am asking about warships (PT,SC) and large amphibious ships...

[el cid again]

Thats why I am asking about warships (PT,SC) and large amphibious ships...

First, PT boats and subchasers are not warships. They are combattant small craft. [The formal naval definition of a boat is something that can be carried by a ship. If it ain't to big to carry on an LSD it ain't a ship.]

Second, the number of craft of this size in US service alone exceeds the game slots.

Third, amphibious ships are somewhat hard to define functionally. Japan designed almost its ENTIRE merchant fleet to be amphibious transports at need - cranes for self loading - decks specified to carry stacks of landing craft - a Japanese AK often carried more landing craft than a US APA did.
All navies of the period classified all ships for their potential military value, and wether or not they were used in amphibious operations, most vessels could be if required. [It also works the other way around. My first ship, USS Francis Marion, APA-249, was born as Prarie Mariner - an AK in game terms. It became the lead ship of the last class of APAs ever built - there was one sister - USS Paul Revere. Yet on some occasions this ship acted as a hospital ship, as a blockade patrol ship (boarding Soviet ships in the Cuban Missile Crisis), and as a simulated ocean liner (for deception purposes in an exercise). Certainly amphibious ships can lift things in the normal merchant fashion, port to port.] IF you want to include all potential amphibious ships (not landing craft - things that carry landing craft or beach directly or both) there are not enough slots for that either.

There are other classes of similar vessels: there are numbers of motor gunboats (used to fight PT boats among other things), minesweepers,
and patrol gunboats of great utility. Almost any vessel can spot the enemy, and the USS Hornet group was so spotted by mere fishing boats, forcing it to launch its B-25s at too great a range! Small vessels matter, operationally, almost as much as big ones do - in terms of "go out there and report what you do or do not see."

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Still I see to many philosphy and to few ship classes and ship names from you

As we seem to be on the different sides of language barrier... In Polish there is actually no such word as 'ship'. Instead we have two words: "okret" which means '[war]ship' and "statek" which means '[civilian or non-combatant]ship'

Ok. Lets take a every floating vessel. And now all those vessels we will divide into two groups:
- those designed for combat (and lets call them 'warships*')
- ships not designed for combat (and whatever we call them)
So PTs and SCs are 'warships*'. So now can you give me how many approximately SCs or PTs was left out from database? Also maybe some bigger warships* ?

Ok, about subchasers - my sources gives me:
PC: 461-469, 542-627, 776-825, 1077-1091, 1119-1149, 1167-1247, 1251-1265, 1546-1559, 1563-1569 (many of this class were transferred to other allies, or converted to other classes - but I have not any idea if these were included or excluded here), 1586-1603 (ex-minesweepers)
SC: 497-508, 511-522, 524-541, 628-775, 977-1076, 1226-1287, 1289-1375, 1474-1493, 1496-1499, 1502-1508, 1510-1512, 1517 (133 vessels transferred to allies, 8 converted to PGM - these are included)
PCS: 1376-1392, 1396-1397, 1399-1405, 1413-1414, 1417-1426, 1429-1431, 1441-1442, 1444-1446, 1448-1452, 1455, 1457-1461

Is there any chance of confirmation that these vessels really served on Pacific?

[el cid again]

Ok. Lets take a every floating vessel. And now all those vessels we will divide into two groups:
- those designed for combat (and lets call them 'warships*')
- ships not designed for combat (and whatever we call them)
So PTs and SCs are 'warships*'. So now can you give me how many approximately SCs or PTs was left out from database? Also maybe some bigger warships* ?

Ok, about subchasers - my sources gives me:
PC: 461-469, 542-627, 776-825, 1077-1091, 1119-1149, 1167-1247, 1251-1265, 1546-1559, 1563-1569 (many of this class were transferred to other allies, or converted to other classes - but I have not any idea if these were included or excluded here), 1586-1603 (ex-minesweepers)
SC: 497-508, 511-522, 524-541, 628-775, 977-1076, 1226-1287, 1289-1375, 1474-1493, 1496-1499, 1502-1508, 1510-1512, 1517 (133 vessels transferred to allies, 8 converted to PGM - these are included)
PCS: 1376-1392, 1396-1397, 1399-1405, 1413-1414, 1417-1426, 1429-1431, 1441-1442, 1444-1446, 1448-1452, 1455, 1457-1461

Is there any chance of confirmation that these vessels really served on Pacific?

For Japan I can send you spreadsheets for all vessels if you wish. For the Allies I cannot - because it will take another 50 or so years to complete them (I don't expect to have that long either). This data is in references - and I do have them - and could scan them. A small and inexpensive reference is US Warships of World War 2 (Paul H Silverstone). Another way to go is Fehey's listings - paperbound and cryptic but inexpensive (The Ships and Aircraft of the US Fleet, Victory Edition). But it does NOT cover allies - or even US Army - which has MORE ships than USN!!! [That whole "army navy" disappeared in a year!] For that you need US Army Ships and Watercraft of World War II. The original Warships is a companion to US Warships of World War 2 - only it covers RN and most of the Commonwealth.

The problem is that there are simply not enough slots to cover things as small as PT boats, sub chasers, patrol gunboats, coastal minesweepers and minelayers (called mine planters by the army), etc. Similarly, no matter the definition, there is no way to include all amphibious vessels.
Army pontoons can be fitted with outboard motors and used as landing craft! Some of these things need to be abstracted. Others need to be represented in small numbers and allowed to respawn.

I suggest you adopt a standard of DE size and above - if it is a significant ship. Sometimes NON warships matter too - in our system this includes tenders. And you seem to be wholly uninterested in the vital subject of cargo shipping - the foundation of any naval campaign.