War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition: Pricing announced.

[grumbler]

The way I understand it is this.
xAP/xAK - the civilian ship-types are just that, "normal" passenger ships or cargo ships. And while they have "space" they  have very poor "amphibious operations"-equipment on board. And (and this is very important) they have limited cranes (up to 15 tons or something like that, cant remember the exact details.. 

Yes, these are called AKs or APs when taken into US service.  The game has referred to them as this for many iterations.

AP/AK -the military ship passenger or cargo ships. They have better equipment to handle "unload in a non-port"-situations. The APs have some form of "assault vessels" on board, they have better cranes that can unload almost any type of equipment in a non-port area.

These were called "attack transports" and "Attack cargo ships" and given the designations APA and AKA.  There were no USN-operated transports which were neither taken from the civilian trade nor built as/converted to APAs.  A military-manned AP might have a higher crew training, but that would be it (and most of those crews would be Coast Guardsmen).

APA/AKA - the allied specialized assault ships. This is the "bow opens and assault-vessels swim out"-type ships. They are designed and constructed to handle "unload in a non-port"-situations. They carry a large number of specialized assault vessels to do beach invasions etc.

Here you are confusing the Landing-type ships ("bow opens and assault vessels swarm out") with the assault auxiliaries.  APAs and AKAs were like regular APs and AKs except that they carried landing craft and lighters (and the crews of these small craft) so that they could unload across the beach.  This is exactly what is described above.  LSTs, LCIs, LCVs, etc all already exist in the game and don't need the APA designation.

Now, the difference between these three is that you practically can not unload heavy equipment (such as a radar or a tank) from an xAK unless you are in a port size 3 or larger. You can unload infantry and guns, but it takes a long time, and you will not be landing very much in each turn-impulse. The AKs and APs can unload faster, they unload larger detachments in each go, and you can unload heavy equipment such as radars or tanks in a port size less than 3. Still it will take a while to unload in a small port.

I understand that the game has created some kind of bogus distinction between xAKs and AKs, but my question is not what they did, but why they did it.  There is no difference between USCG-manned AKs and civilian-manned AKs, other than the level of danger you could reasonably expect them to endure.  The ships are physically identical (and, in fact, often cycled through both kinds of manning).  The USS Arthur Middleton, for instance, was the MV African Comet with a civilian crew from the outbreak of the war to January 1942.  At that time she was acquired by the USN and, without any modifications, was run by a USCG crew as USS Arthur Middleton (AP-55) until the summer of 1942, when she was militarized by the addition of weapons and boats and the deletion of flammibles, and re-designated APA-25 (though the latter not until 1 Jan 1942, some 4 months after her refit).

Ditto USS President Monroe (AP-104) except that she operated as a civilian-manned ship (SS President Monroe) until the middle of 1943, when she was taken over by the Navy and, without substantial modification, served as a normal AP until the end of the year.  Then she received landing craft (but never got the APA designation, for reasons never made clear).

The AKAs and APAs can practically unload their entire load in one go.

The existence of APAs and AKAs makes perfect sense, as they existed in the war.  What makes no sense is the existence of "xAKs" and "xAPs," as these designators were never used, and the distinctions drawn between military-manned AP/AKs and civilian-manned passenger and cargo ships didn't exist (except maybe in the opposite direction, since the civilian crews would have been more experienced at handling cargoes).  They should all just be AKs and APs just as they were in previous games.

[grumbler]

This debate is quite

Yes, but the detail of the game invites such debate.  The designers include historical details that are wholly unnecessary in the name of "getting it right", and then use completely bogus ship designations for the vast majority of ships that appear in the game!

[Bluebook]

The way I understand it is this.
xAP/xAK - the civilian ship-types are just that, "normal" passenger ships or cargo ships. And while they have "space" they  have very poor "amphibious operations"-equipment on board. And (and this is very important) they have limited cranes (up to 15 tons or something like that, cant remember the exact details.. 

Yes, these are called AKs or APs when taken into US service.  The game has referred to them as this for many iterations.

AP/AK -the military ship passenger or cargo ships. They have better equipment to handle "unload in a non-port"-situations. The APs have some form of "assault vessels" on board, they have better cranes that can unload almost any type of equipment in a non-port area.

These were called "attack transports" and "Attack cargo ships" and given the designations APA and AKA.  There were no USN-operated transports which were neither taken from the civilian trade nor built as/converted to APAs.  A military-manned AP might have a higher crew training, but that would be it (and most of those crews would be Coast Guardsmen).

APA/AKA - the allied specialized assault ships. This is the "bow opens and assault-vessels swim out"-type ships. They are designed and constructed to handle "unload in a non-port"-situations. They carry a large number of specialized assault vessels to do beach invasions etc.

Here you are confusing the Landing-type ships ("bow opens and assault vessels swarm out") with the assault auxiliaries.  APAs and AKAs were like regular APs and AKs except that they carried landing craft and lighters (and the crews of these small craft) so that they could unload across the beach.  This is exactly what is described above.  LSTs, LCIs, LCVs, etc all already exist in the game and don't need the APA designation.

Now, the difference between these three is that you practically can not unload heavy equipment (such as a radar or a tank) from an xAK unless you are in a port size 3 or larger. You can unload infantry and guns, but it takes a long time, and you will not be landing very much in each turn-impulse. The AKs and APs can unload faster, they unload larger detachments in each go, and you can unload heavy equipment such as radars or tanks in a port size less than 3. Still it will take a while to unload in a small port.

I understand that the game has created some kind of bogus distinction between xAKs and AKs, but my question is not what they did, but why they did it.  There is no difference between USCG-manned AKs and civilian-manned AKs, other than the level of danger you could reasonably expect them to endure.  The ships are physically identical (and, in fact, often cycled through both kinds of manning).  The USS Arthur Middleton, for instance, was the MV African Comet with a civilian crew from the outbreak of the war to January 1942.  At that time she was acquired by the USN and, without any modifications, was run by a USCG crew as USS Arthur Middleton (AP-55) until the summer of 1942, when she was militarized by the addition of weapons and boats and the deletion of flammibles, and re-designated APA-25 (though the latter not until 1 Jan 1942, some 4 months after her refit).

Ditto USS President Monroe (AP-104) except that she operated as a civilian-manned ship (SS President Monroe) until the middle of 1943, when she was taken over by the Navy and, without substantial modification, served as a normal AP until the end of the year.  Then she received landing craft (but never got the APA designation, for reasons never made clear).

The AKAs and APAs can practically unload their entire load in one go.

The existence of APAs and AKAs makes perfect sense, as they existed in the war.  What makes no sense is the existence of "xAKs" and "xAPs," as these designators were never used, and the distinctions drawn between military-manned AP/AKs and civilian-manned passenger and cargo ships didn't exist (except maybe in the opposite direction, since the civilian crews would have been more experienced at handling cargoes).  They should all just be AKs and APs just as they were in previous games.

It is apparent that you have more knowledge than me in these matters when it comes to "how things were in real life". I am just trying to explain the difference in game terms between the various ships as I have understood them after reading the discussions on their forum and the instruction book.

Alot of the old designations are changed now. Apart from what I outlined above, xAK and xAP means civilian ship, manned by civilians and pressed into military service. AK and AP means military crew, and the addition of some guns as well as equipment to handle amphibious operations, while the AKA and APA are special military ships with very special equipment such as small assault boats etc.

[The Minsky Moment]

This debate is quite

Yes, but the detail of the game invites such debate.  The designers include historical details that are wholly unnecessary in the name of "getting it right", and then use completely bogus ship designations for the vast majority of ships that appear in the game!

Wasn't this a fan-driven project?  Maybe you should write up your issues and submit them.  Worst that happens they blow you off; best is that some of the ideas get put into the next patch.

[The Minsky Moment]

It isn't necessary to assign a search sector, but that means that the squadron will do a full 360 degree search, which is useless when you have only 4 patrol planes in the squadron. A good rule of thumb is 10 degrees for each plane.

Right.  And I am playing Nimitz,

That's always been an issue with that game.  Nimitz didn't assign individual sub patrols or set aircraft altitudes or assign routine PT boat missions or the details of torpedo replenishments and so on and so forth.  And that's without getting into things like commanding chinese infantry.

[grumbler]

That's always been an issue with that game.  Nimitz didn't assign individual sub patrols or set aircraft altitudes or assign routine PT boat missions or the details of torpedo replenishments and so on and so forth.  And that's without getting into things like commanding chinese infantry.

True, but in previous iterations of the game I didn't need to do any of those things, either.  I did have to set plane upgrades, assign individual squadrons to missions, etc, but this was because the game's AI could not do those things.  Adding search sectors (and making 360 degree searches ineffective) forces me to do things the AI could do perfectly well.

[Berkut]

Is any of the Languish crew actively playing this?

[The Brain]

Does the game say "you are Nimitz"? Or is the being Nimitz part just something someone made up?

[grumbler]

Is any of the Languish crew actively playing this?

I am.  I haven't drawn any firm conclusions, though.  I very much like some of the changes, and very much unlike others.

[Habbaku]

Is any of the Languish crew actively playing this?

Not I, but I have a barely-used copy of the original for sale if anyone wants!

[Drakken]

Is any of the Languish crew actively playing this?

Absolutely. But my PBEM game aborted because only masochists play a PBEM at 1 turn cycle, which spells years of game.

I'd settle for 2 or 3 turns cycle, though.

[Drakken]

And the official patch is up since last week, for those who didn't know.

[grumbler]

Absolutely. But my PBEM game aborted because only masochists play a PBEM at 1 turn cycle, which spells years of game.

I'd settle for 2 or 3 turns cycle, though.

After doing both, I reverted to 1-day cycles, with multiple cycles played per day.  There simply are times when you need to intervene on a daily basis (during carrier battles, for instance) and running a couple game cycles per real day isn't all that hard.

[Syt]

Absolutely. But my PBEM game aborted because only masochists play a PBEM at 1 turn cycle, which spells years of game.

I'd settle for 2 or 3 turns cycle, though.

After doing both, I reverted to 1-day cycles, with multiple cycles played per day.  There simply are times when you need to intervene on a daily basis (during carrier battles, for instance) and running a couple game cycles per real day isn't all that hard.

That presumes you and your opponent are more or less in the same time zone, though, and have similar game time available during your non-work time.

[Bluebook]

Is any of the Languish crew actively playing this?

I am. I have an AAR up at the matrix forum in case anyone is interested...

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2207450