CHS 1.8?

[Halsey]

After a short hiatus we're going to give the new WITP 1.8 a go when the CHS 1.8 arrives.
Hat's off to the determined fellows who have fixed a majority of the vanishing issues.

Is there a listing of the current changes to CHS listed anywhere?
I hope those fixed Chinese LCU's have been dealt with properly.[;)]

With a scheduled date any time soon?[8D]

[jwilkerson]

Hi There !

Glad to see you back ... we haven't fixed ANY of your first 9 issues yet .. but we have them in our "list" generation zone !!! As to CHS ... I think it is due out "any day now" but Andrew will need to give you a date (if he has one in mind yet) ...

"Halsey's List - circa Nov 05"

Here's why.
1. Airfield limitations should be the level times 50 plus 10%.
Anything over closes the airfield.
Atolls should have -50% in operating and staging aircraft.
2. BB's should only be able to rearm at ports level 8 and up.
CA's at ports 6 and up.
The next can be ignored, if the above is implemented. (For Ron)
Get rid of the escort not bombard toggle. This keeps players from abusing
bombardment attacks.
3. No stacking limitations for LCU's. It should be a fixed constant according to terrain type.
4. Supplies/resources rome around the map at the AI's whim. Make it manual with toggles.
5. Need a more disrupted influence for units not prepped for base attack/defense.
This one is very important. Such as, 30 prep points equal 30% of the units AV.
6. Need a reduction of available Japanese shipping. The majority of shipping in the game
was used for the economy, not massive invasion TF's.
7. RN withdrawl penalty. The Japanese should have the same expenditure to keep
merchant shipping available for military use.
8. Submarines should get an attack bonus when the targets are AK's and TK's.
9. CAP capacity should be set at 50% max on all F/FB missions.

There's more. This was just a start.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

2. BB's should only be able to rearm at ports level 8 and up.
CA's at ports 6 and up.

You need to look at this one real hard and be careful with it. I know it irritates people, but BB's did load main gun ammo at ports smaller than this in the war. I recall reading BB Washington reloading at one of the smaller ports near Noumea, for example. They didn't have to pull up to a dock, the loaded the big ammo from lieghters (did I spell that right?), just like they did the AA ammo.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

2. BB's should only be able to rearm at ports level 8 and up.
CA's at ports 6 and up.

You need to look at this one real hard and be careful with it. I know it irritates people, but BB's did load main gun ammo at ports smaller than this in the war. I recall reading BB Washington reloading at one of the smaller ports near Noumea, for example. They didn't have to pull up to a dock, the loaded the big ammo from lieghters (did I spell that right?), just like they did the AA ammo.

I guess point was I was glad to see Halsey - and that his proposals are among the "hundreds" on the list. And there are probably at least 12 variations(level 8, level 6, level 6 with AE, etc. etc.) of the "restrict BB ammo" proposal amongst the hundreds. And finally anything like this we do add, will be toggle-able so that naysayers can flip it off (or on) with a mere click of a switch !

And you're right - here is a pic of BB Indiana loading main gun ammo (charge bags for same anyway) off specially constructed LST off Okinawa ... definitely a port smaller than level-8 !!! This class of AE was specifically created for the invasion of Okinawa after a meeting with King, Spruance, Nimitz at which King asked Spruance what he needed to be successful for this invasion and he said a way to do forward replenishment of heavy gun ammo ... King turned to Nimitz and said words to the effect of "Make it Happen" .. what we see in the pic are the results ! I haven't been able to nail down how the projectiles were transferred ... but I infer that they were ... and at the very least, after Kerama Retto was captured, the replenishment could've easily happened there ... and K.R. would have to be rated a level-0 port, in the game. So either way, not what is represented currently in the game.

[jwilkerson]

Those powder bags in the pic apparently weigh about 90 pounds each per this link ...

I think there are some ex-BB guys on this forum, maybe they can chime in a tell us circumstances they experienced regarding transfer of main gun rounds at other than large ports.

http://www.battleshipnc.com/history/bb55/layout/armament/16inch.php

But anyway, looks like 7 bags in the pic ... full charge was apparently 6 bags ... so 7x90 is 630 pounds on the high line ... not sure I'd wanna try lifting a 2700 lb AP or even a 1900 lb HE round via high line ... but sending over the charges without the projectiles doesn't seem too useful either. I just haven't had time to completely nail this one down - but if anyone has - please jump in !!!

[witpqs]

Thanks, Joe. Wasn't try to rain on your Halsey greeting (BTW - Howdy Halsey! [:D]).

[Halsey]

Good to see you so involved in WITP's restructuring.[8D]

I have a very positive attitude toward your goals, and I appreciate some of my list still being alive and considered.[;)]

I've upped my airbase restrictions to a +15%, to match the CV ratings in my own home games.

Nice work on what you guys have already accomplished.

Glad your still alive and kicking witpqs.[:D]

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Those powder bags in the pic apparently weigh about 90 pounds each per this link ...

I think there are some ex-BB guys on this forum, maybe they can chime in a tell us circumstances they experienced regarding transfer of main gun rounds at other than large ports.

http://www.battleshipnc.com/history/bb55/layout/armament/16inch.php

But anyway, looks like 7 bags in the pic ... full charge was apparently 6 bags ... so 7x90 is 630 pounds on the high line ... not sure I'd wanna try lifting a 2700 lb AP or even a 1900 lb HE round via high line ... but sending over the charges without the projectiles doesn't seem too useful either. I just haven't had time to completely nail this one down - but if anyone has - please jump in !!!

I would recommend reading a copy of "Beans, bullets, and Black Oil". If you have any questions afterwards then ask them. All that is needed is a protected anchorage and of course ammo ships. LSt's would often used as ammo lighters.

[akdreemer]

From Page 111, "Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil". Just one example in the book.

[m10bob]

Ammo re-supply at sea, (no port!)

http://www.ssanpete.k12.ut.us/GVMS/WWII ... lsenV.html

[Ron Saueracker]

You want no port restrictions, then you had better model individual shell types and include them in production. The supply model is too simple to disregard this and port restrictions. The only way to do this is with port size restrictions.

[treespider]

Perhaps the AE's could be utilized to satisfy both camps...

-BB resupply at any size port with AE present.

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Perhaps the AE's could be utilized to satisfy both camps...

-BB resupply at any size port with AE present.

I like this idea, since both sides have AE's..(Though, even in CHS I found several Japanese AE's which are not in the game.My source is the Ian Allen series books.)
Maybe port size "X" and above with an AE ??
After a certain date though, I believe re-arming at sea should be possible, as in real-life.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Perhaps the AE's could be utilized to satisfy both camps...

-BB resupply at any size port with AE present.

Well I would certainly hope so seeing how that was their funtion historically. Unfortunately that is not how they work in the game. The manual states that they would only supply ammo for devices less cause less that 60 damage points. Whomever designed this aspect of the AE in the game must have been clueless.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You want no port restrictions, then you had better model individual shell types and include them in production. The supply model is too simple to disregard this and port restrictions. The only way to do this is with port size restrictions.

Okay Ron, what is the size of the port on Guam. In CHS it is 2, making it a max of size 5. Based on the above exerpt from Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil I posted what would be the minimum size needed? At least a 5?

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I like this idea, since both sides have AE's..(Though, even in CHS I found several Japanese AE's which are not in the game.My source is the Ian Allen series books.)

Which is why the game gives both side the ability to convert merchant ships to various Auxilliaries (AR, AD, AS, AV, AE, AGP).

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You want no port restrictions, then you had better model individual shell types and include them in production. The supply model is too simple to disregard this and port restrictions. The only way to do this is with port size restrictions.

Okay Ron, what is the size of the port on Guam. In CHS it is 2, making it a max of size 5. Based on the above exerpt from Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil I posted what would be the minimum size needed? At least a 5?

Port size restrictions are only included in lieu of specific naval ordnance models. If they are large enough one can assume that they can satisfy greater varieties of weapons. Not ideal but the best given the current model. Oh, and making AEs perform as they did historically would help too as you guys have mentioned. To answer your question I'm partial more to having a naval base unit present than a size restriction. Size should impact the number of vessels serviced more than anything if the need for a naval base unit were adopted.

[el cid again]

I'm partial more to having a naval base unit present than a size restriction. Size should impact the number of vessels serviced more than anything if the need for a naval base unit were adopted.

Count me in on that one Ron - the facilities and experts you move into the port are what matters. We did it on uninhabited atols - and even floating concrete islands.

[witpqs]

Adopting a port size restriction would be moving in the wrong direction and would simply be another thing to be undone when these other things got implemented.

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

You want no port restrictions, then you had better model individual shell types and include them in production. The supply model is too simple to disregard this and port restrictions. The only way to do this is with port size restrictions.

Okay Ron, what is the size of the port on Guam. In CHS it is 2, making it a max of size 5. Based on the above exerpt from Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil I posted what would be the minimum size needed? At least a 5?

Port size restrictions are only included in lieu of specific naval ordnance models. If they are large enough one can assume that they can satisfy greater varieties of weapons. Not ideal but the best given the current model. Oh, and making AEs perform as they did historically would help too as you guys have mentioned. To answer your question I'm partial more to having a naval base unit present than a size restriction. Size should impact the number of vessels serviced more than anything if the need for a naval base unit were adopted.

Except the size aspect of a port is based on max cargo transfer ability for the most part, with imporvements in repair, etc. This assumes a certain level of infractructure developement. In the case of the game base units should enhnace this. Early in WWII the US Navy experimented with three different size base units as pre defined packages based upon need. Shortly afterwards they hit on the concept of flexible bases based upon discrete components were a commander could literally thumb through a catalog and order only the components needed. Examples, water de-slaination plants came in xxx-gals per day. Knowing how many men the base needed to serve the there would be a need for n- plants. Likeways for the rest of base components such as warehouses, tank farms, SeaBee longshoreman units, etc.

This COULD HAVE been easily represented in the game through the introduction of the various bulding blocks. Need an anchorage that can act like a level 9 port, then add the correct amount of building blocks be it base units or waterborn units, incluing net tenders, AE's, Floating Dry Docks, water tenders, arifields, base maintenance, and the like. Instead we get acouple of different base unit sizes that have little to do with logistics. We have close one hundred Seabee units which by mid-war have very little to do, where in reality they could perform a multitude of missions.

Back to what we can do. Other than house rules we can only manipulate port sizes. Certain unit/ship types must be present for certain types of supplies to be used above what the game itself requires.