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  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 3:14:42 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
This is all really OOB stuff when it comes down to it, and that's still being finalized. The aircraft are going to be shaken out into their different submodels and assigned more realistic arrival dates (TimTom is working VERY hard on this).

As for the S-boats, we're still discussing this. As you say, they were dreadful clunkers and many were going into combat at the end of their useful service lives.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 391
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 3:16:22 AM   
Mangotree

 

Posts: 28
Joined: 11/20/2007
Status: offline
Any Chance for Sampans ? Supposedly from sub books (allies) they had up to 700 at one time , mostly for pickets and used a lot late in war for supplying nearby bases.
They usally had a crew of 5+ some with Mg's firing at surfaced subs

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 392
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 3:22:51 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

This is all really OOB stuff when it comes down to it, and that's still being finalized. The aircraft are going to be shaken out into their different submodels and assigned more realistic arrival dates (TimTom is working VERY hard on this).

As for the S-boats, we're still discussing this. As you say, they were dreadful clunkers and many were going into combat at the end of their useful service lives.


Thanks T. Glad to hear those points are being looked at.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 393
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 3:23:27 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Er, probably not. There were too many different types of really small craft of limited use. We can't have all of them.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mangotree)
Post #: 394
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 3:27:10 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Terminus, sorry to disturb you with another japanese shipping issue, but Im told by my fellow French WITPers on some other forum that we can't load troops aboard the Japanese CS (Chitose, Chiyoda, Nisshin, or even the short-lived Mizuho). Myself I usually play the US (and I don't have WitP on my computer right here) so I can't say if it is true or not. But well they ask, as so I am, if indeed these CS can't carry troops nor supplies right now, if anything is planned to allow them to do so in AE? We all know how important they could be for successful high-speed slot rides, something they were somewhat good at (as long as they didn't meet some plane on the way like the ill-fated Nisshin...).

Thanks in advance :)



Not sure. I'll go look it up.


Thanks Boss!

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 395
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:05:59 AM   
asdicus

 

Posts: 260
Joined: 5/16/2002
From: Surrey,UK
Status: offline
I am very much looking forward to this new addition to witp - have a question about surface ships asw ( anti submarine warfare) capability.

At the moment the game cannot differentiate on the capabilty of hunting subs between say a japanese early war merchantman gunboat( basically just a small merchant ship with a gun, few depth charges and perhaps passive hydrophones) and a late war us or british purpose built frigate or destroyer escort( with advanced active depth finding sonar auto linked to asw weapons like squid or hedgehog). Sure the weapons fit is different bwtween ships but the crucial submarine detection equipment ( hydrophones,asdic or sonar ) is ignored. The result is that the japanese armada of early war PG are just as effective vs subs as proper usa or british escorts. Could the game introduce some kind of sonar capability data field to naval ships eg basic passive, basic active, advanced active etc. Jap PG would rate as basic passive while a late war allied escort would mount advanced active and so forth. Sonar type would determine submarine detection %.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 396
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:07:44 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
LBT-Yes those are forward door's, for a "roro" capabality.



_____________________________





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 Fishbed)
Post #: 397
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:26:11 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus

I am very much looking forward to this new addition to witp - have a question about surface ships asw ( anti submarine warfare) capability.

At the moment the game cannot differentiate on the capabilty of hunting subs between say a japanese early war merchantman gunboat( basically just a small merchant ship with a gun, few depth charges and perhaps passive hydrophones) and a late war us or british purpose built frigate or destroyer escort( with advanced active depth finding sonar auto linked to asw weapons like squid or hedgehog). Sure the weapons fit is different bwtween ships but the crucial submarine detection equipment ( hydrophones,asdic or sonar ) is ignored. The result is that the japanese armada of early war PG are just as effective vs subs as proper usa or british escorts. Could the game introduce some kind of sonar capability data field to naval ships eg basic passive, basic active, advanced active etc. Jap PG would rate as basic passive while a late war allied escort would mount advanced active and so forth. Sonar type would determine submarine detection %.


Isn't it what the ASW value for each ship is here for already?
If I am not mistaken they are rated after these factors already aren't they?

< Message edited by Fishbed -- 12/13/2007 4:33:10 AM >

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 398
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:34:09 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

Isn't it what the ASW factor for each ship is here for already?
If I am not mistaken they are rated after these factors already aren't they?


I'm pretty sure that the ASW factor is almost entirely a function of #of AS weapons.

Speaking of AS weapons...will FIDO the ASW homing torpedo make it into the AE? A significant number of sub kills resulted from its use though I don't know how many in the Pacific.

(in reply to Fishbed)
Post #: 399
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:36:29 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
ctangus- Your aware that the RN cleared the Coursare for Carrier use much sooner than the USN Navy did right?


_____________________________





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 Fishbed)
Post #: 400
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:39:02 AM   
Terminus


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Isn't it what the ASW factor for each ship is here for already?
If I am not mistaken they are rated after these factors already aren't they?


I'm pretty sure that the ASW factor is almost entirely a function of #of AS weapons.

Speaking of AS weapons...will FIDO the ASW homing torpedo make it into the AE? A significant number of sub kills resulted from its use though I don't know how many in the Pacific.


It's not accurate to say "significant" number of kills, but it was used to kill at least one IJN submarine. It's probably not going to make it, seeing that it didn't see that much service in our theatre.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 401
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:40:27 AM   
Terminus


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: asdicus

I am very much looking forward to this new addition to witp - have a question about surface ships asw ( anti submarine warfare) capability.

At the moment the game cannot differentiate on the capabilty of hunting subs between say a japanese early war merchantman gunboat( basically just a small merchant ship with a gun, few depth charges and perhaps passive hydrophones) and a late war us or british purpose built frigate or destroyer escort( with advanced active depth finding sonar auto linked to asw weapons like squid or hedgehog). Sure the weapons fit is different bwtween ships but the crucial submarine detection equipment ( hydrophones,asdic or sonar ) is ignored. The result is that the japanese armada of early war PG are just as effective vs subs as proper usa or british escorts. Could the game introduce some kind of sonar capability data field to naval ships eg basic passive, basic active, advanced active etc. Jap PG would rate as basic passive while a late war allied escort would mount advanced active and so forth. Sonar type would determine submarine detection %.


That's beyond the scope of this rewrite. We discussed something about sonar devices at one point, but it would have meant a BIG effort, code-wise. It was one of the 337 items that were cut from the final "to-do" list.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 402
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:40:39 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Isn't it what the ASW factor for each ship is here for already?
If I am not mistaken they are rated after these factors already aren't they?


I'm pretty sure that the ASW factor is almost entirely a function of #of AS weapons.

Speaking of AS weapons...will FIDO the ASW homing torpedo make it into the AE? A significant number of sub kills resulted from its use though I don't know how many in the Pacific.

From what I can read on uboat.net, approx. 5 Japanese subs fell to the Fido, including one cruising in the Atlantic at the time of its destruction (probably on its way to or from Germany)

quote:

The MK24 FIDO Record in Combat
The first confirmed FIDO sinking is believed, at this time, to have occurred 14 May 1943 when a PBY Catalina flying boat from US Navy VP-84 attacked and sank U-640 with a MK24 torpedo [more probable is that the first victim was the U-657 on May 17 - Editor]. Most US Navy composite squadrons flying from the ASW escort carriers operating in the Atlantic from mid 1943 on were equipped with FIDO as were the land based patrol squadrons. The torpedo was also supplied to the British and Canadian forces.

US Navy OEG Study No. 289, 12 August 1946 provides the following estimates of MK24 usage and results achieved:

Number of attacks in which Mk24s were launched 264
Total Number of Mk24 torpedoes launched - all targets 340
Number of MK24s launched against submarines 204
Number of Mk24 attacks on submarines by US aircraft 142
Number of submarines sunk by FIDO 31
Number of submarines damaged by FIDO 15
Number of MK24 attacks on subs by Allies (primarily British) 62
Number of submarines sunk by FIDO 6
Number of submarines damaged by FIDO 3
Total number of submarines sunk by FIDO (German & Japanese) 37*
Total number of submarines damaged 18
*Note: Includes five Japanese submarines sunk;
1 in the Atlantic
4 in the Pacific

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 403
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:47:05 AM   
ctangus


Posts: 2153
Joined: 10/13/2005
From: Boston, Mass.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

ctangus- Your aware that the RN cleared the Coursare for Carrier use much sooner than the USN Navy did right?



Of course. Despite conflicting sources I think it's safe to say the RN started using Corsairs off carriers sometime in the latter half of '43. It was @ Jan '45 for the USN/USMC.

However I haven't (at least yet) seen a source showing their use by the RN in the Indian Ocean or Pacific prior to Oct '44.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 404
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 5:00:14 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Shores (Air War for Burma, pp. 250-51) shows the FAA using Corsairs in a raid on Sumatra on 25 July '44, flying off the Illustrious and Victorious. This operation saw the first A2A claims by any Corsairs operating from carriers.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to ctangus)
Post #: 405
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 5:02:59 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline

ctangus-Without going and looking it up, I think your right, I looked it up a few times before and drew on a few sources to be shure, but my memory indicates:

F4U-Shore based Pacific mid to late 43 debute (Navy/Marines/then RNZAF)

RN-Mid 43, Atlantic (first operational use over Norway,Tripetiz)

RN-Pacific theater 44'ish over I belave an Oil field in SRA, at least this is what I recal, to lazy to look it up tonight.

_____________________________





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 ctangus)
Post #: 406
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 5:08:52 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Yeah, like I said...

Anyway, the earliest I can find (same book as above, page 208) was the joint USN/RN operation against Sabang in Sumatra on 19 April '44, HMS Illustrious flying off Corsairs of 1830 and 1833 Squadrons, FAA.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 407
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 5:57:54 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline
Bow Doar Detal for LBT:




O-and a Favorate of mine that I have never sean a detail of:





_____________________________





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 Terminus)
Post #: 408
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 7:08:50 AM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
A thought just came to me today and I have yet to see it mentioned:

Can we get a separate class for APA and AKA?

As it is now, they show up as normal AP's and AK's. It gets annoying always looking for your AKA's and APA's among hundreds (and in endgame), thousands of other ships. Would be nice if they were listed as their actual class, not generic AP's or AK's. Similar to how you can *see* the difference between CLAA and CL.

Just a thought.

Thanks :)

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 409
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 7:24:05 AM   
Don Bowen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

A thought just came to me today and I have yet to see it mentioned:

Can we get a separate class for APA and AKA?

As it is now, they show up as normal AP's and AK's. It gets annoying always looking for your AKA's and APA's among hundreds (and in endgame), thousands of other ships. Would be nice if they were listed as their actual class, not generic AP's or AK's. Similar to how you can *see* the difference between CLAA and CL.

Just a thought.

Thanks :)



Lots of work in ship classes, including adding APA and AKA



(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 410
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 7:28:01 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Don,

If you like, go ahead and upload the new class table. Of course we reserve the right to change this table, but I think it would be an example of the amount of expansion we are looking at. But give us the version that explains the classes, otherwise the list might not be comprehensible.

Joe


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 411
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 7:58:03 AM   
Don Bowen


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

OK. Following six displays are the AE ship types. You will notice considerable expansion.

Also:
1. A number of additional types are primarily variations of pre-existing types, included for historical accuracy. CVB as a variant of CV, for instance.
2. As much as possible, we adjusted ship type designations to the US Navy standard. It is generally understood and very detailed.
3. Where necessary, we used designations from other navies - generally for types that did not fit well into the standard US designations.
4. Several existing types have been reclassified! AG is just the beginning.

Here is number one. Not too much new here. We added CVB, CB, and TB (especially for the 12 Japanese large TB).






Attachment (1)

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 412
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 8:00:53 AM   
Don Bowen


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


Now it gets a little more interesting. We have several Japanese and British designations, plus some significant changes.

Notice ML - the British Fairmile B Motor Launch. Virtually the same size as US Sub Chasers.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 413
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 8:03:50 AM   
Don Bowen


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

Page 3.

ARD represents all of the variations of floating drydock. YFD, Advanced Base, and section Floating Docks.

AG is now it's proper miscellaneous auxiliary. We have implemented it as a mixture of base ship and light cargo ship.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 414
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 8:06:11 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
You will find you always wish you had more AKE. We had hoped to do a little more with AKV but it did not turn out to be possible.

(edit) Typo on this one - second type is LSIS. Landing Ship Infantry, Small.




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 12/13/2007 4:26:22 PM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 415
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 8:09:01 AM   
Don Bowen


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

We added a number of the smaller types, largely for modders. Many of these little guys were useful in specific circumstances.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 416
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 8:10:39 AM   
Don Bowen


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

And the end. A total of 78 types.

Also, the AI will use some ship types depending on class attributes.






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 417
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 8:25:48 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Thanks Don!

Some thoughts from an IJN OOBer perspective.

Initially, our class list had a decidedly USN perspective. But as the OOBers made progress on their work, it became clear that Navies such as RN and IJN had different concepts on ship classifications. PF is a much larger ship than many small DD or DE. Bottom line a single real world, single Navy classification system just did not seem to work. In an ideal world, an ideal classification system might underlie an individual navy classification system. But for AE, we needed a single system, so there is some overlap. But we believe we have acheived a decent compromise in terms of allowing some historical classification for the majority of ships for each major navy and yet not requiring total system replacement in terms of ship classification.

Note that the new classification system, inconjunction with the robust upgrade and conversion system offer an significant upgrage in terms of ability to define ships reclassifying themselves over to other types. A modders paradise that we ourselves are only beginnging to understand.

Thanks Don for making this whole system possible!!

Joe

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 418
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 9:11:09 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
I can tell you that it will take this cat awhile to get used to the new ML, CM, and AM designations. I'm not asking you to discard them, but I can recognize that I've been trained for so long now to think of MLs and MSWs as mine warfare ships...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 419
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 9:51:54 AM   
Rainerle

 

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline
Is sub vs. sub finally there ?

_____________________________


Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 420
Page:   <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   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

5.844