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  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 10:08:56 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Two things.

1) LSIL is listed twice, once each for large and small. Maybe one should be LSIS?

2) Holy Cow!

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 421
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 12:47:55 PM   
JamesM

 

Posts: 1017
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: QLD, Australia
Status: offline 		Just started a new game and I would like to see an auto disband option added to sub missions. This is particularly useful when you are directing subs to bases with naval bases for a scheduled refit.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 422
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 1:11:00 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		It's in.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JamesM)
Post #: 423
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 1:11:28 PM   
Terminus


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Two things.

1) LSIL is listed twice, once each for large and small. Maybe one should be LSIS?

2) Holy Cow!


It's Landing Ship, Infantry Little and Large...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 424
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 2:12:47 PM   
Akos Gergely

 

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline 		Sorry if this has been asked before (these threads are getting way to large to follow them all.. :D), so would there be any changes to surface ship main gun accuracy?

It's really annoying when BBs shoot at each other with 20mm guns for half an hour...


_____________________________



My blog: https://warshipprojects.com/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 425
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 2:15:25 PM   
Dutch_slith


Posts: 330
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


And the end. A total of 78 types.

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








Cool!

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 426
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 2:32:58 PM   
Terminus


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

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

Sorry if this has been asked before (these threads are getting way to large to follow them all.. :D), so would there be any changes to surface ship main gun accuracy?

It's really annoying when BBs shoot at each other with 20mm guns for half an hour...



Nothing to do with main gun accuracy...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Akos Gergely)
Post #: 427
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:08:55 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Is sub vs. sub finally there ?


Yup


(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 428
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:09:16 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Two things.

1) LSIL is listed twice, once each for large and small. Maybe one should be LSIS?

2) Holy Cow!


Yup



(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 429
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 4:09:35 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: jamesm

Just started a new game and I would like to see an auto disband option added to sub missions. This is particularly useful when you are directing subs to bases with naval bases for a scheduled refit.



Yup

(in reply to JamesM)
Post #: 430
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 5:54:28 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: csatahajos
It's really annoying when BBs shoot at each other with 20mm guns for half an hour...



Nothing to do with main gun accuracy...



But still silly and annoying.....

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 431
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 5:56:11 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Didn't say it wasn't...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 432
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 5:59:11 PM   
Dixie


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

ORIGINAL: Terminus

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.


That's the same info in the Fleet Air Arm Handbook 1939-1945 (p.53).

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 433
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 6:33:12 PM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		Don, great stuff! Love the new classes.

I don't know if your charts will go in the new manual, but if so, one typo to mention: in AKE, it should read "when both ships...", not "when in both ships...".

Looks great! Sheesh, I can't wait.

(in reply to Rainerle)
Post #: 434
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 8:23:30 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


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).



Wow! Great work and thanks for the answer.

I know this might be a very obvious and redundant question, but just to make sure, all these new ship classes will be listed under these new designations and you can sort by them? So I can sort my list (SAIEW) by ship class and I will see AP, APA, AK, AKA, CV, CVB, SS, SST and so on all grouped together and listed as such (you wont have to right click on a SS to see if it is a SS, a SST, or a SSX like you do right now to see if a AP is a vanilla AP or an APA)?

Thanks again. The more I read about this expansion the better it gets


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 435
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 8:34:09 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


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).



Wow! Great work and thanks for the answer.

I know this might be a very obvious and redundant question, but just to make sure, all these new ship classes will be listed under these new designations and you can sort by them? So I can sort my list (SAIEW) by ship class and I will see AP, APA, AK, AKA, CV, CVB, SS, SST and so on all grouped together and listed as such (you wont have to right click on a SS to see if it is a SS, a SST, or a SSX like you do right now to see if a AP is a vanilla AP or an APA)?

Thanks again. The more I read about this expansion the better it gets




Yes, of course.

What is SAIEW?

HSWNFI



(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 436
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 8:36:49 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Yes, of course.

What is SAIEW?

HSWNFI



Thanks Don. That alone would get me to buy the expansion.

SAIEW - Same As It Ever Was

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 437
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 8:52:35 PM   
Skyland


Posts: 280
Joined: 2/8/2007
From: France
Status: offline 		You can find here a complete (?) list of IJN vessels :

http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/index.htm

May be some of them, missing in Witp, to be added in AE ?

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 438
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 8:56:34 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Of course. We have all of that already.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Skyland)
Post #: 439
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 10:26:31 PM   
Akos Gergely

 

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline 		Well I mean IMHO it was Nik who tinkered with this and with a higher accuracy for main guns this thing was kind of sorted...

So to put in an other way possible solutions for this issue?

_____________________________



My blog: https://warshipprojects.com/

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 440
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/13/2007 10:44:15 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Possibly... No further comment.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Akos Gergely)
Post #: 441
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/14/2007 2:21:34 AM   
Captain Cruft


Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline 		Excellent stuff about all the new classes.

Does this mean that only certain types of ships e.g. AO and AE can enable a "Replenish TF at Sea" in game? Or will the ubiquitous facility remain? If it really is restricted that would do much to reduce various unrealities and gameyisms ...

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 442
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/14/2007 2:38:04 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Excellent stuff about all the new classes.

Does this mean that only certain types of ships e.g. AO and AE can enable a "Replenish TF at Sea" in game? Or will the ubiquitous facility remain? If it really is restricted that would do much to reduce various unrealities and gameyisms ...



Underway refueling from carried fuel can only be done by AO and by CVE with fuel cargo capacity (the Sangamon Class rule).
Underway rearming can only by done by AE, and then only late in the war (same dates as WITP).

Additional refueling and rearming can be done at sheltered base anchorages. That is, TFs stopped at a base (the Ulithi rule).
Sheltered base anchorage refueling can be done by TK and YO, and AG with fuel cargo capacity (remember AG is now base ship). TK/YO can also transfer fuel directly to AO.
Sheltered base anchorage rearming can be done by AKE. AKE can also transfer cargo directly to AE.
Plus all underway refueling/rearming ships.

NOTE: Tankers can not refuel ships underway in any circumstances. The famous "never disband TF2" cheat is gone. The ships that were in TF2 are properly classifed as AO to reflect their underway refueling ability.



(in reply to Captain Cruft)
Post #: 443
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/14/2007 3:23:25 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		Given that Japanese Tankers built during the mid to late 30's were required by law to be equiped to act as AO for the fleat in time of war, how is this handled in AE?

_____________________________





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 Don Bowen)
Post #: 444
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/14/2007 3:31:22 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Brady

Given that Japanese Tankers built during the mid to late 30's were required by law to be equiped to act as AO for the fleat in time of war, how is this handled in AE?


If they are defined in the OOB as AOs, they refuel underway. If the ain't, they don't.

I believe there are quite a number of Japanese ships that were classed as TK in old Scenario 15 and are classed as AO in Admiral's Edition (as AO in AE just didn't look right!).



(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 445
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/14/2007 4:24:52 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Were Japanese AO's capable of alongside underway refuelling of multiple ships at speed(15 kts)? It is my understanding that the principle manner of refuelling in the IJN was to trail a hose over the stern to the receiving ship - a method which was much slower, both for the transfer of fuel and for the speed of advance of the ships involved in the transfer as well as more suseptible to interruption by poor weather conditions. Not even all oilers in the USN were so capable at the beginning of the war but the practice was being worked out and more modern oilers were.

The procedure as practiced by the USN conferred a level of strategic mobility on the USN that was not duplicated by any of the Axis powers during WW2. I am not saying that the Japanese couldn't refuel at sea - only that they when they did it it took longer (as a game mechanism, used more ops points perhaps); and were much more likely to be prevented by prevailing weather from doing it at all at times they might find operationally convenient.

< Message edited by spence -- 12/14/2007 5:14:24 AM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 446
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/14/2007 5:10:03 AM   
Brady


Posts: 10701
Joined: 10/25/2002
From: Oregon,USA
Status: offline 		I can scan some details of Side,trailing and lead refueling tomarow for Japanese AO's if nessary.

_____________________________





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 spence)
Post #: 447
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/14/2007 5:33:24 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Brady

I can scan some details of Side,trailing and lead refueling tomarow for Japanese AO's if nessary.


Not necessary I guess. That is a level of detail greater than we go. A ship can perform underway refueling or it can't. We're not going down to method, especially on a ship by ship basis.




(in reply to Brady)
Post #: 448
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/14/2007 5:43:13 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline 		The way it is now, fuel can be traded between ships of the same {or different task forces} when the refuel at sea button is hit.  Will this still occur or does it need to be at a base or dot hex?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 449
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/14/2007 5:49:02 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

The way it is now, fuel can be traded between ships of the same {or different task forces} when the refuel at sea button is hit.  Will this still occur or does it need to be at a base or dot hex?


Yes, it is still there and can be done at sea (accumulated ops will reduce movement that turn).

Larger ships frequently did refuel smaller ones in TFs. It is easier probably easier to do in WIPT and AE in real life.

We did look at this, but decided no changes should be made.


(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   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

2.047