Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Hey Terminus, thanks again for your replies. I think you might have missed a few of my questions -- or maybe I missed the responses -- or maybe I should stop asking so many questions! At some point I know we should let you guys get back to work! But in case you missed it:

quote:

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.

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?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

On "one-hex reaction," I just mean the situation in which an Air Combat TF automatically reacts one hex toward an enemy Air Combat TF, even if the AC TF's "Reaction" range is set to zero. Er, maybe they no longer do that? I haven't seen it in the AI game I'm playing now, but then I haven't had a CV battle yet. But I did find some 2007 posts discussing it.

quote:


Sorry I wasn't clear about my other question. I was wondering whether there was any change to the basic mechanic that asks you to choose between "Patrol/Do Not Retire" and "Retirement Allowed." I don't have any problem with how it works -- just wondering if the patrol zones and waypoints have had any ripple effects on this mechanic. (For example, many of us use the "Retirement Allowed" setting as a substitute for a waypoint for a Transport TF: form up a Transport TF in Brisbane, give it destination of Pago Pago, give it home base of San Francisco, set it to "Retirement Allowed.")

quote:



ORIGINAL: DerJimbo

Will you be able to organize your combat vessels in subunits such as "1st Cruiser Sqn" or "3rd Destroyer Flotilla"?


Yes, and No.

You can set lower level commands, although more likely something like Naval Districts within regional fleets, etc. This is just a display convenience however, there is no function for attach a complete DD squadron to a TF or any such thing. It is handy for "where's my ships"?

P.S. I looked into doing it already, don't bother to ask for it...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

And I thought MRE stood for Meals Rushing to Exit.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brausepaul

Will there be something to simulate permanent (not repairable) damage to ship units? I was thinking of subs getting battle weary after a few depth charge attacks, for example. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

MTB's PT's, barges, and Respawns

I hope Japan get's more than 5 PT/MTB in AD, Japan should always be able to build MTB's, Barges, Midgets as long as it has production. These are the types of ships that should respawn, or removed for the database and treated like the pilot pool where there is a pool of these ships and if it drops below a value more get produced.

Movement
I think these should be handled like mines where you can load a group of them up on a transport/tender ship and drop them off where you need them.

Now that mining is being reduced MTB's become even more important for forward based defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

Dixie,

Stupid question time, but were XEs used in the Pacific?
What's a REAL liney?

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Splinterhead)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I noticed (like several other people ) that midget subs are in AE, but how about the Royal Navy's XE class midget subs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A few questions:

1. Will the Japanese Protected Cruisers (IE Iwate, Asama, Izumo, etc) that were stationed in the Inland sea as training ships be in the game? I realize these were of little naval value, but they could have been pressed into service if the need arose.
2. Asama was damaged and the Japanese opted not to repair her, however, her sister ship Tokiwa was converted into a Minelayer before the war. Would the player be given this option with Asama if it is present?
3. Will units that were interned be present in the game in their early Manchuko service? IE Ning Hai and Ping Hai (later as Ioshima and Yasoshima in IJN service.)

If these have been addressed earlier and I simply did not see it, my apologies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A few questions:

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A few questions:

That’s mostly an OOB, or scenario design question but, as you mention, several of the Japanese War-I relics were converted to an operational use: minelayers, coastal defense gunships, and the like. Our OOBeings are very aware of these vessels, and are scourging the artists daily to make them up.

The whole idea of the ‘convert-to’ routines is to allow just these sorts of things to happen. The general answer to your question(s) is yes, but their specific form, configuration and mission will be at the (limited) option of IJNGHQ.

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Request for New ship Type Sub-AV, a sub with AV support for float planes

A few times in 1942 Japan used subs to refuel the larger Float Planes (Mavis/Emilys) at the French Frigate shoals to bomb Pearl Harbor at night! You really can't do this with an AV ship it would be spotted before pulling off the attack.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Eh, what do you mean, Ron?

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Eh, what do you mean, Ron?

Heyho! Ever play Wooden Ships and Iron Men, an Avalon Hill Napoleonic Era naval game? Crew factors are modelled and can suffer attrition due to combat for example. We have squads and squad pools for land units and pilots and pilot pools for air units, but WITP does not account for ships crews outside of a generic ship experience level. If we were to have crew factors, we would be able to assign VP to the crew factors (squads) which would add immensely to a ship's VP total, would allow for fatigue morale issues (such as they may be), and would allow for a more realistic approach to crew experience. Perhaps the player might be allowed to manage these crew factors from a naval crew factor pool so experienced/elite crew factors could be bled into new construction ships as was the case historically. See what I'm getting at?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Eh, what do you mean, Ron?

Heyho! Ever play Wooden Ships and Iron Men, an Avalon Hill Napoleonic Era naval game? Crew factors are modelled and can suffer attrition due to combat for example. We have squads and squad pools for land units and pilots and pilot pools for air units, but WITP does not account for ships crews outside of a generic ship experience level. If we were to have crew factors, we would be able to assign VP to the crew factors (squads) which would add immensely to a ship's VP total, would allow for fatigue morale issues (such as they may be), and would allow for a more realistic approach to crew experience. Perhaps the player might be allowed to manage these crew factors from a naval crew factor pool so experienced/elite crew factors could be bled into new construction ships as was the case historically. See what I'm getting at?

Yeah, I got you now; you're basically looking for every ship to have a crew, like an air unit has pilots and a brigade has squads. It's a good idea, but it's not feasible for this product. It would be a BIG THING to code and a BIG THING in the database. Sorry, Ron; that's for the product after AE.

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Eh, what do you mean, Ron?

Heyho! Ever play Wooden Ships and Iron Men, an Avalon Hill Napoleonic Era naval game? Crew factors are modelled and can suffer attrition due to combat for example. We have squads and squad pools for land units and pilots and pilot pools for air units, but WITP does not account for ships crews outside of a generic ship experience level. If we were to have crew factors, we would be able to assign VP to the crew factors (squads) which would add immensely to a ship's VP total, would allow for fatigue morale issues (such as they may be), and would allow for a more realistic approach to crew experience. Perhaps the player might be allowed to manage these crew factors from a naval crew factor pool so experienced/elite crew factors could be bled into new construction ships as was the case historically. See what I'm getting at?

Yeah, I got you now; you're basically looking for every ship to have a crew, like an air unit has pilots and a brigade has squads. It's a good idea, but it's not feasible for this product. It would be a BIG THING to code and a BIG THING in the database. Sorry, Ron; that's for the product after AE.

Thanks Terminus, for both the answer and the confirmation of WITP2!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Damn, forgot to put in the disclaimer... Oh dear, what shall we do now?

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

There is a refueling bug or 'short-coming' in the current released code that you might want to look for in testing AE. It works like this.

Suppose you want to put together a fast TF to move some planes or LCU's a long distance. So, you pick a fast AK or AP, and pair it with a DD that has a long range. You load them up and send them on their way.

What then happens is that the DD refuels from the AK/AP each and every day. In other words, the DD 'tops up its tanks' daily, which has the effect of greatly reducing the TF's speed because refueling uses up so many ops points (as it should). This happens every day until the remaining range of the AK/AP has been greatly reduced. Setting the TF to 'Do Not Refuel' does not have any effect.

The AK/AP starts out having a much greater range than the DD. It seems like the refueling algorithm compares the range remaining in each ship and tries to equal them out if they are vastly different. BTW, I gave an example with two ships but the problem happens for any size group. I think the key is the great difference in range for the AK/AP and the DD.

Suggest that the escorts should not try to 'top up' unless they are below 75% to 80% of their own fuel capacity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Damn, forgot to put in the disclaimer... Oh dear, what shall we do now?

Dare I say, we resurrect the ROASTING "BBQ Terminus over an open pit" idea?

Let's see...we need beer, soda, chips, spices, and one (1) Terminus Deputy Dog

And about 24 hours and much more beer.