Use of ships w/ latest CS-Matrix update ....

[Spud]

Guys,

Having just created my first historical scenario - June 1945 Battle for Tarakan - and used quite a few ships to show navel units, I found that the 2D icons are all incorrect. The US ships showed the icon for mobile artillery and the Commonwealth vessesls all had an anti-tank gun icon.

But most annoying was the fact that transport ships cannot enter shallow water to drop-off their cargo - which in my case was a mixed bunch of Aussie engineers and equipment.

Is it possible to allow transport ships to enter shallow water like landing craft vessels by changing a wee bit of code, or is it really difficult to make such a change?

Thanks

Spud

[Jason Petho]

I'll look into the coding, Spud. It should be able to be corrected relatively easy, but will require new platoon files.

Jason Petho

[Spud]

Jason, many thanks for prompt reply.

Another issue w/ my Tarakan scenario is the seeming inability to kill Japanese snipers in caves.

I had one surrounded by nearly two companies of infantry w/ some regular engineers added and the sniper team would not be moved, overrun or destroyed.

Spud .....

[Panzer VI]

Make it easier to go against caves period.Trying to take a Japanese held hill is almost impossible.Even 16in naval guns can't nudge these emplacements

[Panzer VI]

oops.........

[K K Rossokolski]

Guys,

Having just created my first historical scenario - June 1945 Battle for Tarakan - and used quite a few ships to show navel units, I found that the 2D icons are all incorrect. The US ships showed the icon for mobile artillery and the Commonwealth vessesls all had an anti-tank gun icon.

But most annoying was the fact that transport ships cannot enter shallow water to drop-off their cargo - which in my case was a mixed bunch of Aussie engineers and equipment.

Is it possible to allow transport ships to enter shallow water like landing craft vessels by changing a wee bit of code, or is it really difficult to make such a change?

Thanks

Spud

Whether or not some code change can make this happen, it must not be possible to allow transport ships to enter shallow water...that is why shallow draught landing craft were used to land the assault force. Typically a landing ship such as HMAS Kanimbla..a large ocean going vessel, which carried troops, equipment landing craft etc from home base to the operating area... drew 7-8 meters. Depending on the gradient of the bottom, the ship would go aground, perhaps miles out. A key design element of the landing craft was draught as shallow as possible, to allow close approach to the beach. Empty landing craft would if possible return to the mother ship for further cargo

I am on record as being opposed to the addition of naval elements, and have stated that little or no understanding of naval operations has been applied, and I am afraid that this thread bears me out. If I came out with a request to change the code so my Panther tanks could cross an unbridged deep river, or to allow my armoured train to go off the tracks to get a better shot I would rightly come under heavy criticism or ridicule. The idea of having an ocean going ship magically disobeying the laws of physics ....well to me it turns CS from a serious pursuit into a joke....the non-flying bombers, the ship that has wheels so she can run across the sea bed when the water gets too shallow to float. What next?

There are any number of amphibious scenarios which adequately simulate the landing phase with existing landing craft.

[Spud]

K K,

I understand your point about the realism of moving ships into shallow water, and agree that CS is not geared towards sea warfare and never should be.

I was, however, a wee bit peeved after playing my Tarakan scenario first runthrough only to find that I could not land my troops.

I added the naval vessels simply to use them for the purpose of naval landing support firepower, as I think they look better than those stupid b/w big gun graphics floating in the sea.

Spud

[Herr Straße Laufer]

Rod,

Spot on! And, with a great examples.
I think sceanario designers should use the units that actually can do the job, rather than get a unit to do what it could not?

Spud,

As a designer you can revisit your design and put in landing craft?
And, yes having battle wagon units may be better than off board (in ocean) field guns or "turrets", but, in the game naval was always an abstract?

I was going to design a scenario where the Brits used two small freighters to attack an enemy port area. They actually drove the ships into the harbor in their attack, reaching the pier and offloading some assault teams. But, there was no way to re-enact that within the game, so I abandoned the design.
I noticed that in one of the "boot camp" scenarios you could do little but move the ships about and never land their loads.
Maybe an offload capablity into an adjacent land hex from deep water, as long as their is a harbor/pier to do so? But, that may only create even more problems down the road?



RR

[Copper]

Ditto on the transport ships. I've recently altered the OOB of an existing scenario and included a few of the new units to get a feel for their capabilities. The new "transports" are non-functioning. The new Marine Landing Barges have no problem. And a question. From what I've gathered from the manual and the forums, I understood that the new "Brandenburg" and "Sniper" units had stealth capability...ala small ATs. But in a week of toying around with this scenario, they certainly do not. Did I misunderstand this?

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

What about being able to have empty landing craft return and be able to transfer cargo load from mother ship to landing craft and then landing craft having to return to the beach like what really happened? Is that possible?