Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 3:07:53 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Yes but we have offset this by making it easier as well. Don or Kristian can elaborate.


I always thought mid-ocean intercepts were already far too easy, in fact they were pure fantasy. I can’t count the number of times Japan placed a couple of DD’s somewhere in the Philippine Sea and intercepted dozens of task forces moving through their hex all on the same night.

It should be very hard to even find one task force at night in a 40 mile hex and impossible to find 8, 10 or 20 different task forces. Given how Japan always found every single task force that moved through their hex, I can’t see how it could even be made easier, unless mid-ocean reaction moves have been increased.

Is there some kind of limit to the number of engagements a task force can fight in one phase other than their on board ammo stocks?

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 211
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 3:09:34 PM   
Mifune


Posts: 787
Joined: 4/28/2005
From: Florida
Status: offline 		From the manual "no TF can move more than 6 hexes per turn". Surely with a 40nm hex you must mean they can move at least 9 hexes per turn?

_____________________________

Perennial Remedial Student of the Mike Solli School of Economics. One day I might graduate.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 212
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 3:13:53 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mifune

From the manual "no TF can move more than 6 hexes per turn". Surely with a 40nm hex you must mean they can move at least 9 hexes per turn?


Oh yes, of course... I read your question as whether or not the cap had been removed, which it hasn't. But obviously we've set it higher to account for the new map scale.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 12/8/2007 3:14:08 PM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mifune)
Post #: 213
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 3:15:04 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Yes but we have offset this by making it easier as well. Don or Kristian can elaborate.


I always thought mid-ocean intercepts were already far too easy, in fact they were pure fantasy. I can’t count the number of times Japan placed a couple of DD’s somewhere in the Philippine Sea and intercepted dozens of task forces moving through their hex all on the same night.

It should be very hard to even find one task force at night in a 40 mile hex and impossible to find 8, 10 or 20 different task forces. Given how Japan always found every single task force that moved through their hex, I can’t see how it could even be made easier, unless mid-ocean reaction moves have been increased.

Is there some kind of limit to the number of engagements a task force can fight in one phase other than their on board ammo stocks?

Jim



Mid-ocean intercepts are defined (in our book) as two moving TF's meeting, not one moving and one static.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 214
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 4:12:08 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		Sub patrol, gotta love that! :)

I was wondering, can other TF types also be set to patrol in a like manner? Thinking particularly of ASW for example.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 215
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 4:13:10 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Sub patrol, gotta love that! :)

I was wondering, can other TF types also be set to patrol in a like manner? Thinking particularly of ASW for example.



Yes, patrol zones and routing options are open to all TF's.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 216
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 4:16:40 PM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Sub patrol, gotta love that! :)

I was wondering, can other TF types also be set to patrol in a like manner? Thinking particularly of ASW for example.



Yes, patrol zones and routing options are open to all TF's.


Yeehaw! Seriously, that is a MASSIVE improvement.

Is the React/No React thing still the same?

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 217
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 4:18:34 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		Do we get more of the Royal Navy's late war stuff? At least give me Bay Class AA Frigates




Attachment (1)

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 218
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 4:19:20 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Sub patrol, gotta love that! :)

I was wondering, can other TF types also be set to patrol in a like manner? Thinking particularly of ASW for example.



Yes, patrol zones and routing options are open to all TF's.


Yeehaw! Seriously, that is a MASSIVE improvement.

Is the React/No React thing still the same?


That's currently being worked on.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 219
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 4:20:20 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Do we get more of the Royal Navy's late war stuff? At least give me Bay Class AA Frigates





That's an OOB question, and I've only worked on some of the Jap stuff, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get some of the stuff you're hoping for, Dixie...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 220
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 4:24:33 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Do we get more of the Royal Navy's late war stuff? At least give me Bay Class AA Frigates





That's an OOB question, and I've only worked on some of the Jap stuff, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get some of the stuff you're hoping for, Dixie...


I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 221
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 4:27:04 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Woohoo! This is sounding very heartwarming! One question for now. Are naval ship crew factors now in the game?

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 222
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 4:57:06 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Eh, what do you mean, Ron?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 223
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 4:58:26 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie
I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from

As you say, there's a large pool of stuff. The number of available slots have been vastly expanded, however. Many interesting things will show up as a result of the increased availability of slots to put 'em in.

It’s historically appropriate, and therefore quite likely, that Bay and Loch class frigates will share an inter-conversion set.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 224
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 5:21:24 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		Thanks for your further responses, Terminus. More questions for you (the first one referred to you by Andrew in the map thread):

1. Is there any change to cold-weather limits on operations? I ask because I often felt it was too easy to operate in the Alaska area, notwithstanding the penalties in stock. At the very least, the cold season should last longer, but I also think it should just generally be tougher to operate up there. I suppose the same might apply at the far southern edge of the map, depending on how far south the map goes.

2. Has Patrol/Do Not Retire changed at all?

3. Has CV "one-hex" reaction changed at all?

4. Still have diminishing returns on AA for TFs of more than 15 ships?

5. Can you tell us more about the directional flak? I assume it's primarily a function of ship/plane heading; is ship/plane speed also a factor?

6. I too wanted to ask about tracking tonnage sunk by subs, or for that matter total distance traveled, fuel consumed, ammo used, etc. but it sounds like AE won't do that. Not a big deal; just would be nice -- those sort of stats that would enrich an AAR like Cuttlefish's. Is it fair to say that modders will have a way to track that sort of data?

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 225
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 5:25:32 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius
4. Still have diminishing returns on AA for TFs of more than 15 ships? With "Directional Flak" in place, keeping this would be redundant, wouldn't it?

5. Can you tell us more about the directional flak? I assume it's primarily a function of ship/plane heading; is ship/plane speed also a factor? I'd like to hear more about this as well...


(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 226
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 5:35:08 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Oh yes, of course... I read your question as whether or not the cap had been removed, which it hasn't. But obviously we've set it higher to account for the new map scale.


Is there any reason for that cap? that prevents in practice a change of scale for modders.

----------

The artificial year aerial mine cap still exist?

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 227
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 5:41:37 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie
I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from

As you say, there's a large pool of stuff. The number of available slots have been vastly expanded, however. Many interesting things will show up as a result of the increased availability of slots to put 'em in.

It’s historically appropriate, and therefore quite likely, that Bay and Loch class frigates will share an inter-conversion set.




One quick question, forgive the possible obviousness of the answer but: What is an inter-conversion set?

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 228
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 5:44:50 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie
I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from

As you say, there's a large pool of stuff. The number of available slots have been vastly expanded, however. Many interesting things will show up as a result of the increased availability of slots to put 'em in.

It’s historically appropriate, and therefore quite likely, that Bay and Loch class frigates will share an inter-conversion set.




One quick question, forgive the possible obviousness of the answer but: What is an inter-conversion set?


We basically create a series of classes where the first class can be converted into any one of the other classes in the set. Thus the example with the US 4-piper DD's being converted into their specialty uses. We can also do an enclosed conversion set (for the Japs, primarily), MSW -> Escort -> MSW -> you get the idea.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 229
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 5:46:09 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

Oh yes, of course... I read your question as whether or not the cap had been removed, which it hasn't. But obviously we've set it higher to account for the new map scale.


Is there any reason for that cap? that prevents in practice a change of scale for modders.

----------

The artificial year aerial mine cap still exist?



Think that's more of a coding question, so I can't answer that one... Now where'd I put my coder...?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 230
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 5:49:41 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Sorry that is the answer to both questions? It is unclear.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 231
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 5:50:31 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

We basically create a series of classes where the first class can be converted into any one of the other classes in the set. Thus the example with the US 4-piper DD's being converted into their specialty uses. We can also do an enclosed conversion set (for the Japs, primarily), MSW -> Escort -> MSW -> you get the idea.


Fan-dabby-dozy

How many of these classes are there?

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 232
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 5:53:50 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Sloop's?

_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 233
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 6:01:24 PM   
MineSweeper


Posts: 653
Joined: 9/19/2006
From: Nags Head, NC
Status: offline 		Will the RMS Queen Mary and RMS Queen Elizabeth be in the game.....they were used as troopships in the war.....





Attachment (1)

< Message edited by MineSweeper -- 12/8/2007 6:23:00 PM >

_____________________________





(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 234
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 6:02:44 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Sloop's?


Frigates The Bay Class were AA conversions of the Loch Class ASW Frigates which were in turn an evolution of the River Class.

< Message edited by Dixie -- 12/8/2007 6:05:15 PM >

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 235
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 6:15:08 PM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Sloop, behind the DUKW:



_____________________________





Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 236
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 6:23:23 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie
Fan-dabby-dozy

How many of these classes are there?

The best answer to your question is … as many as appropriate. It’s based, of course, on what actually transpired. There are no ‘never weres’ or implausabilities.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 237
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 6:33:38 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Sloop, behind the DUKW:




I guess I misunderstood your question then

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 238
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 7:03:13 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

Oh yes, of course... I read your question as whether or not the cap had been removed, which it hasn't. But obviously we've set it higher to account for the new map scale.


Is there any reason for that cap? that prevents in practice a change of scale for modders.

----------

The artificial year aerial mine cap still exist?



Think that's more of a coding question, so I can't answer that one... Now where'd I put my coder...?


If this is an aerial mining question, somewhere on the Air Team.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 239
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/8/2007 7:22:37 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

In WWII, CVs stayed out of gunship range (200 miles) at night. (See Hughes, Naval Tactics). This was a _major_ consideration in WWII naval operations. Will it be possible for a TF commander to release his screen in the evening to go hunting carriers? Alternatively, will it be possible for a fueled-up surface TF to react at night out to five hexes and then return in the early morning, low on fuel but satisfied from having sunk a carrier or some cruisers?


No.


Pity. See the discussion on pages 91-92 of Wayne P. Hughes (1986) Fleet Tactics: theory and practice, Naval Institute Press. "Carriers dominated the daylight hours but were sitting ducks for gunfire at night. Detaching before darkness, a battleship or heavy cruiser formation could travel two hundred nautical miles at night, a distance engraved in every tactical commander's mind.... But the Japanese, who were aggressors in 1942, three times sent their surface ships carrier hunting...."

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 240
Page:   <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.643