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: Admiral's 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: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread Page: <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread - 1/30/2008 6:29:12 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
"The entire process is changed. Ship withdrawal applies to all allied ships and both withdrawal and return can be set in the editor."

Understood, but this is slightly evading the question. Is the end result of the complete revamping of the withdrawal process going to end up with a lot more ships being required to be withdrawn, a few more, a few less or a lot less? I don't think that we need exact numbers or anything, just a general impression... thanks.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1021
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread - 1/30/2008 6:53:18 AM   
Don Bowen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"The entire process is changed. Ship withdrawal applies to all allied ships and both withdrawal and return can be set in the editor."

Understood, but this is slightly evading the question. Is the end result of the complete revamping of the withdrawal process going to end up with a lot more ships being required to be withdrawn, a few more, a few less or a lot less? I don't think that we need exact numbers or anything, just a general impression... thanks.


Don't know - I'm just a programmer. It's an OOB issue, the functionality is exposed in the editor. We'll have to wait for the Scenario to be finished.



(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 1022
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread - 1/30/2008 2:16:01 PM   
Sonny II

 

Posts: 2878
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

"The entire process is changed. Ship withdrawal applies to all allied ships and both withdrawal and return can be set in the editor."

Understood, but this is slightly evading the question. Is the end result of the complete revamping of the withdrawal process going to end up with a lot more ships being required to be withdrawn, a few more, a few less or a lot less? I don't think that we need exact numbers or anything, just a general impression... thanks.


Don't know - I'm just a programmer. It's an OOB issue, the functionality is exposed in the editor. We'll have to wait for the Scenario to be finished.





OOh - functionality is exposed ! Good programmer talk! You really are a programmer!

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1023
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread - 1/30/2008 3:50:39 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Hi
The AE threads are getting pretty big, and I have not really followed them too much -I already am going to get it! -a quick question on Political points
I understand that not returning a ship will be expensive.
But what is to stop a person just going into the political points red -and then deciding -well -Ill never get back into the green -Ill just never return anything now.
Tabpub against me nhas never returned a single ship as far as I can tell -and in game terms it has'nt hurt too much.

Would it make more sense to say -well, you are in the red -no reinforcements for you until you are back into the green!

Probably been covered all this - so sorry in advance



If you run out of Political Points in AE, you will be screwed. The politicians will not let you do anything! They won't let go of land or air units, won't allow you to change commanders, and other things that don't pop to mind right now.

That's what political points are for.



Is there a difference in the use of PPs in AE vs WitP?

Edit: I'll ask this in the general thread.

< Message edited by Mike Solli -- 1/30/2008 3:53:18 PM >


_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1024
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread - 1/30/2008 9:29:08 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Hi
The AE threads are getting pretty big, and I have not really followed them too much -I already am going to get it! -a quick question on Political points
I understand that not returning a ship will be expensive.
But what is to stop a person just going into the political points red -and then deciding -well -Ill never get back into the green -Ill just never return anything now.
Tabpub against me nhas never returned a single ship as far as I can tell -and in game terms it has'nt hurt too much.

Would it make more sense to say -well, you are in the red -no reinforcements for you until you are back into the green!

Probably been covered all this - so sorry in advance



If you run out of Political Points in AE, you will be screwed. The politicians will not let you do anything! They won't let go of land or air units, won't allow you to change commanders, and other things that don't pop to mind right now.

That's what political points are for.



Is there a difference in the use of PPs in AE vs WitP?

Edit: I'll ask this in the general thread.


By the look of you banner, I now dub thee Mike So Solli.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1025
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread - 1/30/2008 9:56:22 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: 1275psi

Hi
The AE threads are getting pretty big, and I have not really followed them too much -I already am going to get it! -a quick question on Political points
I understand that not returning a ship will be expensive.
But what is to stop a person just going into the political points red -and then deciding -well -Ill never get back into the green -Ill just never return anything now.
Tabpub against me nhas never returned a single ship as far as I can tell -and in game terms it has'nt hurt too much.

Would it make more sense to say -well, you are in the red -no reinforcements for you until you are back into the green!

Probably been covered all this - so sorry in advance



If you run out of Political Points in AE, you will be screwed. The politicians will not let you do anything! They won't let go of land or air units, won't allow you to change commanders, and other things that don't pop to mind right now.

That's what political points are for.



Is there a difference in the use of PPs in AE vs WitP?

Edit: I'll ask this in the general thread.


Not really but most of the US/Allied stuff iirc enters as part of restricted commands...so to go anywhere or do anything with them will require PP.


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1026
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread - 1/30/2008 10:14:03 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
Ahh, thanks Treespider.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 1027
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread - 1/31/2008 4:14:30 AM   
1275psi

 

Posts: 7979
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline
Thankyou for the reply!

I like very much


I must find out how to get an avatar! -me likes a lot too!

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1028
Midget Subs - 2/7/2008 4:32:10 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
I noticed the screenshots that Midget Subs are being included. I have mixed feelings about this; although they are kind of cool, IRL the actual results from them was just about nil (I can't think of any sinkings, if you know of any, let me know). Seems like they are going to be a pain to micromanage, to produce either historical results (waste of time for IJN then), or ahistorical results (resulting in angry posts from Allied players: Midgets).

How is it looking with the testing on Midget Subs? Am I off base in feeling that way?

_____________________________


(in reply to 1275psi)
Post #: 1029
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread - 2/7/2008 6:29:50 AM   
CaptDave

 

Posts: 659
Joined: 6/21/2002
From: Federal Way, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Son of Jorg

This may have been asked already as well, but search did not turn up anything.

I was just wondering if there would be combat statistics for ship captains and ships themselves? I'm kind of a stat freak, and I'd like to follow the history of ships as they progess through the war. For instance, how many ships a particular sub sank, how many torpedoes fired in combat over its career, how many hits, etc etc. Same with surface units: number of surface engagments, number and type of shells fired, number of hits, hits taken, etc. etc.

I'm not sure if this is even doable, but I think it would add to the depth of the game. I know that in WWII there were running tallys of tonnage sunk by submarine captains and ships.

A minor thing I know, but it looks like most important questions have already been asked.


No, there is no place to store the data. Trying to add such a data structure would have a significant and adverse affect on save game size and turn resolution speed.





I'd settle for the torpedo information (number fired, number of hits, number of misses, number of duds) being included in the combat report, rather than only in the combat simulation. Submarine warfare is my special area of interest, and in this regard I'm a bit of a stat freak, as well.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1030
RE: Midget Subs - 2/7/2008 6:42:23 AM   
witpqs


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I noticed the screenshots that Midget Subs are being included. I have mixed feelings about this; although they are kind of cool, IRL the actual results from them was just about nil (I can't think of any sinkings, if you know of any, let me know). Seems like they are going to be a pain to micromanage, to produce either historical results (waste of time for IJN then), or ahistorical results (resulting in angry posts from Allied players: Midgets).

How is it looking with the testing on Midget Subs? Am I off base in feeling that way?


There is a credible assertion out there that one put two torpedoes into one of the battleships at Pearl Harbor. At this point it probably cannot be proved, but the evidence presented (in at least one TV show) makes it seem a legitimate possibility.

Other than that, the only one I know of is a group of midgets blowing the crap out of Tirpitz' bottom, but of course that was a different theater.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 1031
RE: Midget Subs - 2/7/2008 9:28:15 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I noticed the screenshots that Midget Subs are being included. I have mixed feelings about this; although they are kind of cool, IRL the actual results from them was just about nil (I can't think of any sinkings, if you know of any, let me know). Seems like they are going to be a pain to micromanage, to produce either historical results (waste of time for IJN then), or ahistorical results (resulting in angry posts from Allied players: Midgets).

How is it looking with the testing on Midget Subs? Am I off base in feeling that way?


There is a credible assertion out there that one put two torpedoes into one of the battleships at Pearl Harbor. At this point it probably cannot be proved, but the evidence presented (in at least one TV show) makes it seem a legitimate possibility.

Other than that, the only one I know of is a group of midgets blowing the crap out of Tirpitz' bottom, but of course that was a different theater.



I guess we will use midgets in a far more efficient way in WITP! And we will soon start crying about it... therefor I´m really surprised they were included.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1032
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread - 2/7/2008 7:57:20 PM   
mdiehl

 

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline
Will AE include enhanced Allied effectiveness at aerial ASW missions after March 1943 ("FIDO" acoustic ASW torpedo) and enhanced Allied submarine effectiveness at sinking Japanese escorts after August 1944 ("Cutie" acoustic anti-escort torpedo)?

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 1033
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread - 2/7/2008 8:10:42 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Japanese midget subs also blewup a barracks ship in Sydney. Think all of the subs were lost in that attack.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 1034
RE: Midget Subs - 2/8/2008 1:01:39 AM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

I guess we will use midgets in a far more efficient way in WITP! And we will soon start crying about it... therefor I´m really surprised they were included.



That's what I am worried about. Why not take 20 midgets and park them between San Fran and Pearl? So what if they don't have the fuel, neither do PT's, and they can paddle all over the Pacific no problem.



_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 1035
RE: Midget Subs - 2/8/2008 1:04:21 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
You should probably wait to see exactly how the midget mission is implemented before you speculate on how to use them in the game.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 1036
RE: Midget Subs - 2/8/2008 5:40:42 AM   
Don Bowen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

... So what if they don't have the fuel, neither do PT's, and they can paddle all over the Pacific no problem.



Not anymore....

Ships out of fuel can still move at a minimum speed (to simulate towing) but they accumulate damage at an increased rate and are subject to loss by marine hazard - flounder, run aground, etc. Run a fleet of midgets (or PTs) over open ocean without fuel and few if any will survive.

Before everyone jumps on this. We did look at eliminating out-of-fuel movement and requiring towing. But it got very complex very fast. Fleet tugs are neat, but what other ship can tow what size ship? How about fuel, damage levels, and other issues that have leaked out of my head by now. It quickly became a big design problem, and was one of the first cross-offs on the list. Put in extended damage to encourage players to manage fuel more realistically.



(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 1037
RE: Midget Subs - 2/8/2008 6:50:05 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Oh Boy!!

Towing in the Pacific (TITP) would be a great game! Maybe we can work on that one next!

Certainly Ocean conditions, relative size of the ships, types of towing lines, experience of crews, condition of ship being towed ... many factors are involved. It will be a great game! (TITP that is)



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1038
RE: Midget Subs - 2/8/2008 7:06:52 AM   
Don Bowen


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

Midget subs in AE are pretty much limited to two missions:

1. Midget Sub carrier TFs using a big I-boat to carry them, as in Pearl, Sydney, and Madagascar.

2. Local defense.





(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 1039
RE: Midget Subs - 2/8/2008 7:47:44 AM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Oh Boy!!

Towing in the Pacific (TITP) would be a great game! Maybe we can work on that one next!

Certainly Ocean conditions, relative size of the ships, types of towing lines, experience of crews, condition of ship being towed ... many factors are involved. It will be a great game! (TITP that is)




To play it safe I am going to wait for TITP2. By then you should have the nuts and bolts down and be working on some extra special goodies...


_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 1040
RE: Midget Subs - 2/8/2008 8:58:18 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
I have a quick question regarding political points: how expensive will it be to switch ships from one 'command' to another?

Personally, I see a feature like this as a great way to keep ships organized into specific fleets for specific duties. However, if the cost to change ships is extreme, you will not be able to use it very well.

Also, obviously the amount of political points you gain each day is going to increase. As we going to see about the same costs in WitP:AE for changing aircraft, infantry and such as we currently do in WitP?

Thanks.

(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 1041
RE: Midget Subs - 2/8/2008 11:48:21 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen



Not anymore....

Ships out of fuel can still move at a minimum speed (to simulate towing) but they accumulate damage at an increased rate and are subject to loss by marine hazard - flounder, run aground, etc. Run a fleet of midgets (or PTs) over open ocean without fuel and few if any will survive.




That is a good solution IMO. It also still allows for "towing" ships that have fuel, but are severely damaged; they won't founder under that system, well, any more than they might anyway.

That will also change the use of barges. I run them all the time out of fuel, not anymore.


_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1042
RE: Midget Subs - 2/9/2008 1:25:30 AM   
JamesM

 

Posts: 1017
Joined: 8/28/2000
From: QLD, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen



Not anymore....

Ships out of fuel can still move at a minimum speed (to simulate towing) but they accumulate damage at an increased rate and are subject to loss by marine hazard - flounder, run aground, etc. Run a fleet of midgets (or PTs) over open ocean without fuel and few if any will survive.




That is a good solution IMO. It also still allows for "towing" ships that have fuel, but are severely damaged; they won't founder under that system, well, any more than they might anyway.

That will also change the use of barges. I run them all the time out of fuel, not anymore.



I agree, but you will have to fix the problem that tankers carrying fuel can not fuel them selves or other ships in transport and/or cargo missions.

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 1043
RE: Midget Subs - 2/9/2008 1:46:33 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
I think from what they covered a few weeks ago the deal is that TK's lack the equipment to do at sea refueling from their cargo. Ones that do have the equipment should be classified as AO's.

(in reply to JamesM)
Post #: 1044
RE: Midget Subs - 2/9/2008 9:06:23 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I noticed the screenshots that Midget Subs are being included. I have mixed feelings about this; although they are kind of cool, IRL the actual results from them was just about nil (I can't think of any sinkings, if you know of any, let me know). Seems like they are going to be a pain to micromanage, to produce either historical results (waste of time for IJN then), or ahistorical results (resulting in angry posts from Allied players: Midgets).

How is it looking with the testing on Midget Subs? Am I off base in feeling that way?


The IJN can have its midgets, dont forget the Allies (RN,RAN) used folboats & "sleeping beauties" to raid Singapore harbour so the AFB should have a balancing weapon.
I would also see Ports having a "Harbour Defense" rating ie nets & mines as a defense against them.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 1045
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 2/9/2008 5:33:53 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Snowman999


ORIGINAL: Brady

quote:

But as you say the Ecenomy of Japan in WiTP and the Neads of the Empire have been artificaly created based losely on Historical fact, to better facilitate good game play. So much of this is then mute. Howeaver this still playes directly into the Allied sides hands, in that WiTP has Cut the Empires playable felat by 50% (the Steal Hulled fleat), while the Number of Allied Subs Is I belave still at 100%, and still at 100% or near to it I suspect are all those things that would also hunt them like Planes, Mines ect. Further compounding this problem is the larger than average number of Big ships present to acheave the ttoal tonage figures, which is also aidding the Allied cause. If you want to creat Historical proportions then you nead to adjust the number of predators, and better represent their prey.


It's not this simple. Yes, the allies have a lot of subs. (I haven't counted totals and compared to reality; seems as if they have too many by 1945, but whatever.) The S-boats remain in service and there's no advantage to tying them up, as there are no sub crew pools. In RL it would have been stupid to man S-boats with experienced crews while new construction was at best composed of 1/3 men with a war patrol under their belts.

In the game there are too many subs on station due to one-day cycle times and a lack of fatigue variables. Sub commander ratings severely understate the effect of a great skipper over an average one. This was unique to subs as a vessel type as they operated at long-range independently, with months-long station-keeping, their captains personnaly fought the ship, and they could rove and hunt without needing to stay in a tf or ask permission. The difference between an O'Kane or a Ramage and the average skipper was 1000%. Maybe 2000%. No other ship class has these features combined with the striking power of a heavy cruiser. In the game subs are long-range PT boats. They're treated as an afterthought, not as the core fleet units they were. With 3% of the USN the subs sank about 4/5 of Japanese merchant shipping.

The biggest reason your point above doesn't work in game terms is that, yes, the Japanese merchant marine is too small by A LOT. But game mechanics, even with low cycle-times, hamstring sub attacks by preventing, ever, multiple ship attacks in convoys. Sometime, with op point surpluses, you might get two attacks on the same ship, but never a slaughter as sometimes happened. Read up on the tanker action "Red" Ramage executed in the course of winning the MOH. The USS Parche couldn't happen in WITP. Or Mush Morton. Or Sam Dealey.

If subs could act historically, the currrent merchant marine would be toast in 12 months. If you doubled its size to historical levels, but left the subs crippled, the allies would be severely hampered. As it is now there might be a rough balancing act, albiet with incorrect force totals and behaviors.

Somewhere I remember reading Joel Billings (?) explain that WITP represents the rock-paper-scissors of the war. Naval air covering land ops, land ops to provide bases for LBA, LBA covering naval air and merchant backfilling, and supporting land ops. Which is fine as far as it goes and leads to the hyper-modeling of the air aspects of the war at the expense of some others.

But submarines were critical to the USN's success. Far more than carrier air in the sum total of the war. Allied offense pushed at the outside of the balloon. The subs went into the balloon, starting on 12/8/41, not in 1943, and ate the guts out of the Japanese economy. Without the subs the war wouldn't have ended in 1945, probably not 1946, the USSR would own part of Japan now, etc.

And WITP treats them as an after-thought to be toggled into auto-control rather than "fiddle." I hope a patch, or WITP2, can contain changes to bring them up to their proper place in the big picture. Just adding fatigue, and a multi-attack dice roll to convoy actions would be huge.

Then you can worry about merchant marine historical correctness.


Brilliant Snowman. Makes a great arguement for naval crew factor pools...at least for subs anyway.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Snowman999)
Post #: 1046
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 2/9/2008 5:38:08 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
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 %.


I suppose the easiest way to get around this is to create less accurate versions of the ASW devices these less capable ships carried. IE...a late war sonar equipped dedicated ASW vessel gets weapons at historical capability and the vessel with no or inferior sonar gets less capable "versions" of the same devices.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to asdicus)
Post #: 1047
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread - 2/9/2008 6:09:13 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Let the AE Team do an internal huddle on this question - we will get back to you!


If you’re going to leave the CV respawn rule in, then please shorten the time to respawn to just six months or something. My biggest gripe about the rule is it takes almost as long as it took to build a new carrier to respawn one, as if one was ordered and laid down the day you lost the CV instead of one on the ways simply being renamed.

With a six month respawn at least the allies would get some new CV’s in 43 then. As it is now the rule simply gives Japan about a year and a half or more of no new allied CV’s arriving on map if he gets lucky and sinks most of the allied CV’s in 42.

I think most people would be willing to play with the rule if it wasn’t so all or nothing for allied CV power on map in games where disaster strikes the allies.

Personally I would prefer to simply axe any respawn rule and give the historical ships to the players with mark II names (can't use original names as they were given to later hulls). But if the team leaves in respawning then please shorten the time to respawn in the interest of keeping the game interesting in 1943.

Jim



Just provide two main scenarios, a respawn on and a respawn off version to go along with the respawn/non respawn toggle. This is needed as there are some major OOB tweeks necessary. Justin Prince (Tanker Ace), Don Bowen and myself did the research for this for the first CHS release. I'm sure the ships and airgroups are still in Justin's database...if not I have them.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 1048
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 2/9/2008 6:26:29 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

Can we please get a date sunk column on the Ship Sunk screen?


This would be useful and fun. I'd rather see the name of the sub/ship/squadron than the weapon used which caused the ship's loss.


_____________________________





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

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 1049
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 2/9/2008 6:43:59 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
My brain fails me...yet again! Will the Convert-To function for ship conversions include the massive rebuilds like West Virginia and California/Tennesee and lesser ones? Will they be given the commensurate refit/conversion times as well?

Apologies if I missed an earlier answer.

_____________________________





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

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 1050
Page:   <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread Page: <<   < prev  33 34 [35] 36 37   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

3.719