RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

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 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 3:47:06 AM

bigjoe96912

Posts: 67
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline

In reference to captured ships, would it be possible to capture ships that are in port under repair when you overrun the base, i.e the capture of the USS Stewart. I have overran Java and have seen auto scuttle of various transports Dutch CL's DD's and Pt Boats. Would it be possible for a die role of a capture instead of an automatic scuttle, and wouldn't that solve the duel oob of assuming capture. Also Ships assigned to repairs in a dockyard actually be tied to that base in the event of capture, or is this getting way out of the scope of the game engine.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 481

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 2:18:23 PM

Terminus

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

Capturing ships isn't going to be in the AE.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to bigjoe96912)

Post #: 482

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 7:05:55 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

Spence: about the refueling at sea from AO.

US: practised refueling side-by-side = at least two ships can refuel at same time, and the number of fuel supply hoses can be more than one (2-4 and maybe 5) on each side of the ship each powered by its own fuel pump.
this resulted in more fuel and more vessels being refueled at shorter time

British practise was ship-after-ship (in fact they learned the US type refueling in 1944-1945 when they cooperated with TF38/58). There was only one fuel supply hose leading aft from tanker to the fore of the ship behind.

As japanese navy was in fact created on the British example, they should also use the ship-after-ship refueling( but I have not any direct informations, so it is only a hypothesis).
Also japanese limited numbers of AOs and fuel on hand can mean that IJN simply had worse AO/ships-to-refuel ratio than the USN.

_____________________________

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 483

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 7:29:48 PM

Cavalry Corp

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

Any news on Jap refits like Ise and also the CA upgrades will they be included

Some additional ships like Jap CL also carried mines will that be allowed

Will AA refits only be on certian dates or will players be able to purchase the refits as it were ??

Michael

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 484

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 7:30:00 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

May have missed this earlier but: Will CS convoys be able to pick up/deliver resources & oil instead of just supply & Fuel? Will you be able to have a CS convoy deliver resources and pick up supply for the return journy?

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 485

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 7:39:22 PM

Cavalry Corp

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

OK I am going to ask this - Yamoto class ships

Will shinano be reworked so it can be completed ?

A BB
B SUPPORT CV
C Fleet Carrrier

Will the points make it realistic to complete for certain in RL the Japs thought it was worth completing ?

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 486

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 7:46:46 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

If someone is interested i can put up together some informations about British carriers operating in Indian ocean and their airgroups compositions and number of planes (mainly fighter squadrons) from some sources in time 9/1939-9/1943. I have an interesting books named "Palubn� st�hači jeho veličenstva 1 , 2." (His majesty carrier fighter pilots vol 1. and vol 2.) written by Miroslav �najdr. Unfortunately i have not vol 3. (covering period 9/1943-9/1945).

It is known that in this time many british carriers used varying types and numbers of fighters (Martlets, Fulmars, Seahurricanes, Seafires).

Also will be the different deck-practise in RN and USN modelled? (I mean from the start of war British carriers carried such number of planes which can be carried in hangars. USN used also their flight deck for parking their aircrafts (some long landings resulted in planes crashing into the planes parked on fore fly-deck) such the US carriers carried more numerous groups. But RN begin to have few planes with tails over the water, and from 1944/1945 they also used the US deck-practise. Their capacity was still lower than of the US (Illustrious class with 45 planes, Indomitable with some 55, and Implacable class could have up to 70 planes) at the end of war.

I know that the actual numbers were different with each type of fighters carried as Martlets/Hellcats/Corsairs take less place than Seafires and SeaHurricanes.

_____________________________

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 487

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 8:00:25 PM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

If someone is interested i can put up together some informations about British carriers operating in Indian ocean and their airgroups compositions and number of planes (mainly fighter squadrons) from some sources in time 9/1939-9/1943. I have an interesting books named "Palubn� st�hači jeho veličenstva 1 , 2." (His majesty carrier fighter pilots vol 1. and vol 2.) written by Miroslav �najdr. Unfortunately i have not vol 3. (covering period 9/1943-9/1945).

It is known that in this time many british carriers used varying types and numbers of fighters (Martlets, Fulmars, Seahurricanes, Seafires).

Also will be the different deck-practise in RN and USN modelled? (I mean from the start of war British carriers carried such number of planes which can be carried in hangars. USN used also their flight deck for parking their aircrafts (some long landings resulted in planes crashing into the planes parked on fore fly-deck) such the US carriers carried more numerous groups. But RN begin to have few planes with tails over the water, and from 1944/1945 they also used the US deck-practise. Their capacity was still lower than of the US (Illustrious class with 45 planes, Indomitable with some 55, and Implacable class could have up to 70 planes) at the end of war.

I know that the actual numbers were different with each type of fighters carried as Martlets/Hellcats/Corsairs take less place than Seafires and SeaHurricanes.

We have all this already, but thanks anyway. Oh, and the American aircraft took up considerably MORE room than the British fighter types.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 488

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 8:01:20 PM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

OK I am going to ask this - Yamoto class ships

Will shinano be reworked so it can be completed ?

A BB
B SUPPORT CV
C Fleet Carrrier

Will the points make it realistic to complete for certain in RL the Japs thought it was worth completing ?

It's been discussed, but shot down again. It's technically possible to do it with the new system, but the AI won't be able to.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)

Post #: 489

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 8:01:50 PM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Any news on Jap refits like Ise and also the CA upgrades will they be included

Some additional ships like Jap CL also carried mines will that be allowed

Will AA refits only be on certian dates or will players be able to purchase the refits as it were ??

Michael

Yes, yes, and no.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)

Post #: 490

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 8:03:13 PM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

May have missed this earlier but: Will CS convoys be able to pick up/deliver resources & oil instead of just supply & Fuel? Will you be able to have a CS convoy deliver resources and pick up supply for the return journy?

We're working on it.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 491

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/15/2007 8:37:55 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98
May have missed this earlier but: Will CS convoys be able to pick up/deliver resources & oil instead of just supply & Fuel? Will you be able to have a CS convoy deliver resources and pick up supply for the return journy?

We're working on it.

Being able to select what is carried on each leg (out and back) would be better than having to select from a preprogrammed pair. For example, maybe you want one set of AK's to carry supplies out and resources back, and other to carry fuel out and resources back (short on tankers).

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 492

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 12:18:14 AM

Mike Scholl

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
We have all this already, but thanks anyway. Oh, and the American aircraft took up considerably MORE room than the British fighter types.

You sure on this, Terminus? I thought the "folding capabilities" of the wings on British planes was quite limited compared to that of US models......

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 493

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 12:21:33 AM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
We have all this already, but thanks anyway. Oh, and the American aircraft took up considerably MORE room than the British fighter types.

You sure on this, Terminus? I thought the "folding capabilities" of the wings on British planes was quite limited compared to that of US models......

True, but overall, the American fighters were much larger. The reason the Implacables couldn't carry Corsairs was because they were too tall.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 494

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 12:40:53 AM

spence

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

Not sure whether you have this or not. USS Yorktown was undergoing refit in Norfolk when the war began. Her LAA was changed over to 20mm at that time (pretty much the 4/42 refit). source: CV-5.org

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 495

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 12:46:40 AM

Dixie

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
We have all this already, but thanks anyway. Oh, and the American aircraft took up considerably MORE room than the British fighter types.

You sure on this, Terminus? I thought the "folding capabilities" of the wings on British planes was quite limited compared to that of US models......

US Fighters were generally larger in height, and as the armoured flight deck/hangers of the RN carriers resulted in a lower ceilinged space....

EDIT: The hanger deck of HMS Illustrious:

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Dixie -- 12/16/2007 12:50:25 AM >

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 496

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 9:51:02 AM

herwin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
We have all this already, but thanks anyway. Oh, and the American aircraft took up considerably MORE room than the British fighter types.

You sure on this, Terminus? I thought the "folding capabilities" of the wings on British planes was quite limited compared to that of US models......

The spot size for the Grummans was very small--they took up about 60% of the space of an Avenger, SBD, Sea Hurricane, or Seafire, and about 75% of the space of an A6M.

_____________________________

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 Mike Scholl)

Post #: 497

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 2:25:16 PM

Dixie

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: cavalry

OK I am going to ask this - Yamoto class ships

Will shinano be reworked so it can be completed ?

A BB
B SUPPORT CV
C Fleet Carrrier

Will the points make it realistic to complete for certain in RL the Japs thought it was worth completing ?

It's been discussed, but shot down again. It's technically possible to do it with the new system, but the AI won't be able to.

Am I correct in assuming that this could be managed by a modder in a similar way to the Flush Deck DDs?

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 498

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 3:30:46 PM

Terminus

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

Yup, with the greatest of ease.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 499

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 3:36:05 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

Terminus:
Seafires and Seahurricanes had only their wingtips able to be tilt. This resulted in only Furious, Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable to operate Seafires in their hangars due to the size of the lift. Other carriers used Seafires only parked on deck with cantilevers until Seafire Mk.III (with wings folding between fuselage and cannons) came into service in may 1943.
Ilustrious class had only one hangar deck.
Indomitable had one and half hangar deck.
Implacables had two hangar decks with limited ceiling.
I once read somewhere that Corsairs could be operated from Implacables as well, but only with blown-out tyres (so it was little bit impractical)

_____________________________

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 500

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 3:40:04 PM

Dixie

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yup, with the greatest of ease.

Which would also mean that the Mizuho could perhaps be modded in a similar way?

I also have a couple of late war RN questions:

How are some of the more 'advanced' repair and maintenance vessels of the RFA Fleet Train going to moddelled (if at all)? I'm refering to those which aren't really AR ships such as HMNZS Arbutus and the air maintenance and air store ships such as HMS Deer Sound and Fort Langley.
Also how is HMCS Prince Robert going to modelled?

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 501

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 3:51:30 PM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Terminus:
Seafires and Seahurricanes had only their wingtips able to be tilt. This resulted in only Furious, Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable to operate Seafires in their hangars due to the size of the lift. Other carriers used Seafires only parked on deck with cantilevers until Seafire Mk.III (with wings folding between fuselage and cannons) came into service in may 1943.
Ilustrious class had only one hangar deck.
Indomitable had one and half hangar deck.
Implacables had two hangar decks with limited ceiling.
I once read somewhere that Corsairs could be operated from Implacables as well, but only with blown-out tyres (so it was little bit impractical)

Then why wasn't it done? Hmmm? The Implacables used Seafires until the end of the war, because they couldn't use Corsairs.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 502

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 3:53:30 PM

Terminus

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yup, with the greatest of ease.

Which would also mean that the Mizuho could perhaps be modded in a similar way?

Yep.

quote:

I also have a couple of late war RN questions:

How are some of the more 'advanced' repair and maintenance vessels of the RFA Fleet Train going to moddelled (if at all)? I'm refering to those which aren't really AR ships such as HMNZS Arbutus and the air maintenance and air store ships such as HMS Deer Sound and Fort Langley.
Also how is HMCS Prince Robert going to modelled?

That's still in progress, but don't expect anything immensely advanced for those ships.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 503

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 4:27:19 PM

Dixie

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Terminus:
Seafires and Seahurricanes had only their wingtips able to be tilt. This resulted in only Furious, Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable to operate Seafires in their hangars due to the size of the lift. Other carriers used Seafires only parked on deck with cantilevers until Seafire Mk.III (with wings folding between fuselage and cannons) came into service in may 1943.
Ilustrious class had only one hangar deck.
Indomitable had one and half hangar deck.
Implacables had two hangar decks with limited ceiling.
I once read somewhere that Corsairs could be operated from Implacables as well, but only with blown-out tyres (so it was little bit impractical)

Then why wasn't it done? Hmmm? The Implacables used Seafires until the end of the war, because they couldn't use Corsairs.

T is right, the Implacables had an even lower ceiling than the Illustrious Class (14 feet). A Corsair was 16 feet high so would not have fitted (even with flat tyres).

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 504

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 10:11:13 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

I am not saying that I want to have Corsairs on Implacable class operationaly, but only they should get them into hangars if they realy wish it. But imagine how they could handle blow-out and blow-in of tyres operationaly?

F4U-4 was only 14 ft 9 in (4.50 m) high.

_____________________________

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 505

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/16/2007 10:20:11 PM

Dixie

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

I am not saying that I want to have Corsairs on Implacable class operationaly, but only they should get them into hangars if they realy wish it. But imagine how they could handle blow-out and blow-in of tyres operationaly?
F4U-4 was only 14 ft 9 in (4.50 m) high.

That's not nearly complicated enough for a truely British solution

The wartime Royal Navy would probably have taken the wheels off altogether to save inflating and delfating the tyres

According to the Fleet Air Arm handbook we're both wrong about the Corsair's height, it's listed there as 15' 1"

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 506

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/17/2007 1:44:49 AM

GI Jive

Posts: 171
Joined: 10/30/2005
Status: offline

Playing against the AI, I've noticed Japanese barges trekking hundreds of miles across open ocean to carry supplies to isolated garrisons. I admire their courage but this does not seem realistic. Is there any plan to restrict barges to coastal areas or to a certain distance from their home port?

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 507

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/17/2007 1:57:30 AM

Terminus

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

We're doing our level best to beat some sense into the AI, including teaching it to route ships sensibly, but there's only so much that can be done.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to GI Jive)

Post #: 508

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/17/2007 9:45:26 PM

NormS3

Posts: 521
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: Wild and Wonderful WV, just don't drink the water
Status: offline

Will ships that were historically captured appear in the Japanese OOB?

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 509

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 12/17/2007 9:51:21 PM

Dixie

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

A fairly easy question for you

How are the various ships that start the game in refit going to be modelled? Are they simply going to have 'x' amount of 'damage'? Or will the new damage syatem be used to give them something more representative? For example HMS Mauritius was (IIRC) capable of making full speed but she had no weapons at the time she left Singapore.

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to NormS3)

Post #: 510