Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Please get rid of the entire "react" routine for aircraft carriers!  Is there anything more universally loathed (at least judging from my forum reading for UV and WitP over the past six years)?  People have come up with all kinds of routines to stop CVs from reacting, but none of them are reliable.  Just do away with "react" entirely!  Or, if the designers want a possibility of mayhem in the game, just have a chance (25% or whatever) that CVs will become dispersed or do stupid things.

So much angst and anger will disappear if players can simply issue orders to CV TFs knowing that those CVs will stay grouped with the ships they are supposed to be grouped with.

In all likelihood, this topic has already been addressed.  I tried a search without luck, and who has time to read 36 pages of posts? 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Pretty sure it isn't... Maybe people need to be told ONCE AGAIN that this isn't a new game, but a modification of an old one.

quote:

Please get rid of the entire "react" routine for aircraft carriers!

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I apologize if this question is somewhere in these 30-odd pages.....

Will there be a way to prevent a TF from topping-off DD's half-way through an important move? I just thought of this as a fast CV TF of mine just raided a port from 5 hexes out, instead of 4, causing much less damage.

Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I apologize if this question is somewhere in these 30-odd pages.....

Will there be a way to prevent a TF from topping-off DD's half-way through an important move? I just thought of this as a fast CV TF of mine just raided a port from 5 hexes out, instead of 4, causing much less damage.

Thanks!

Yes, there is. The Refueling system has been revamped. TFs may refuel in accord with operational requirements. These range from a 'full refuel' (which will fill the bunkers, but will take several days to complete) to a 'minimal refuel' (just enuf to get to the destination) and includes a 'tactical refuel' which can be done quickly, but won't fill all the bunkers.

As in any computer game, there will not be a correspondance with IRL practice. There cannot be. Will this new system avoid your specific issue? Maybe, and again, maybe not. But in the long term refueling will be more historical and 'thought' intensive.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Terminus, after reading some of your comments on another thread, (and if this has not already been suggested), I think it would be a good idea to make an asterisk or other device behind a ships name for CLAA's to help prevent novice players,(or lazy folks like me) from trying to put these paper-thin ships in the role of a "ship of the line" type surface group.
The Juneau was sunk because it was put in such an action and took many of its' crew with her(including the Sullivan brothers).
Of course the individual player can do as he wishes with the ships, but maybe that one extra "warning" can serve to set these ships apart from true "CL's"???

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I apologize if this question is somewhere in these 30-odd pages.....

Will there be a way to prevent a TF from topping-off DD's half-way through an important move? I just thought of this as a fast CV TF of mine just raided a port from 5 hexes out, instead of 4, causing much less damage.

Thanks!

Yes, there is. The Refueling system has been revamped. TFs may refuel in accord with operational requirements. These range from a 'full refuel' (which will fill the bunkers, but will take several days to complete) to a 'minimal refuel' (just enuf to get to the destination) and includes a 'tactical refuel' which can be done quickly, but won't fill all the bunkers.

As in any computer game, there will not be a correspondance with IRL practice. There cannot be. Will this new system avoid your specific issue? Maybe, and again, maybe not. But in the long term refueling will be more historical and 'thought' intensive.

That sounds like it will do the trick, thanks JWE! I know I am not the only one who has experienced that problem, as long as you can PREVENT a mid-ocean refuel that costs speed, that's all you need.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I apologize if this question is somewhere in these 30-odd pages.....

Will there be a way to prevent a TF from topping-off DD's half-way through an important move? I just thought of this as a fast CV TF of mine just raided a port from 5 hexes out, instead of 4, causing much less damage.

Thanks!

Yes, there is. The Refueling system has been revamped. TFs may refuel in accord with operational requirements. These range from a 'full refuel' (which will fill the bunkers, but will take several days to complete) to a 'minimal refuel' (just enuf to get to the destination) and includes a 'tactical refuel' which can be done quickly, but won't fill all the bunkers.

As in any computer game, there will not be a correspondance with IRL practice. There cannot be. Will this new system avoid your specific issue? Maybe, and again, maybe not. But in the long term refueling will be more historical and 'thought' intensive.

That sounds like it will do the trick, thanks JWE! I know I am not the only one who has experienced that problem, as long as you can PREVENT a mid-ocean refuel that costs speed, that's all you need.

Isnt there a "Do not replenish/refuel" setting on the TF screen, near the Escorts bombard setting??

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I apologize if this has been asked before. This is an IJN OOB question: will the IJN have as many PGs and PCs to start the game as they did in stock and even in CHS? There is some dispute as to whether the IJN truly had that many escort craft for their convoys to start the war. I think that may also play a bit into the question of how many invasion TFs can realistically be created to mobilize the IJA. With fewer escorts having too many invasion TFs could be suicide for the unprotected transports.

Thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


Isnt there a "Do not replenish/refuel" setting on the TF screen, near the Escorts bombard setting??

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

So it shouldnt be hard to change the code so it doesnt refuel at any time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Terminus, after reading some of your comments on another thread, (and if this has not already been suggested), I think it would be a good idea to make an asterisk or other device behind a ships name for CLAA's to help prevent novice players,(or lazy folks like me) from trying to put these paper-thin ships in the role of a "ship of the line" type surface group.
The Juneau was sunk because it was put in such an action and took many of its' crew with her(including the Sullivan brothers).
Of course the individual player can do as he wishes with the ships, but maybe that one extra "warning" can serve to set these ships apart from true "CL's"???

Can we also put an asterix behind the name of aircraft because they weren't as well armoured or armed as a "real" fighter!

Surely the appelation of CLAA should be enough to warn the player, I would assume most playing the game would have a good/excellent idea of ship/aircraft abilities.

The Juneau was sunk due to poor tactics, which included misusing an Anti Aircraft Light Cruiser in a battline (PS Wasnt another CLAA used to great effect in one of the Solomons naval battles)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg


Making the change is simple....

In my experience is that it is dealing with all the unintended consequences that takes the effort!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

So it shouldnt be hard to change the code so it doesnt refuel at any time.

It probably is harder than you imagine it to be. Few things are ever simple when it comes to programming.

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Terminus, after reading some of your comments on another thread, (and if this has not already been suggested), I think it would be a good idea to make an asterisk or other device behind a ships name for CLAA's to help prevent novice players,(or lazy folks like me) from trying to put these paper-thin ships in the role of a "ship of the line" type surface group.
The Juneau was sunk because it was put in such an action and took many of its' crew with her(including the Sullivan brothers).
Of course the individual player can do as he wishes with the ships, but maybe that one extra "warning" can serve to set these ships apart from true "CL's"???

Can we also put an asterix behind the name of aircraft because they weren't as well armoured or armed as a "real" fighter!

Surely the appelation of CLAA should be enough to warn the player, I would assume most playing the game would have a good/excellent idea of ship/aircraft abilities.

The Juneau was sunk due to poor tactics, which included misusing an Anti Aircraft Light Cruiser in a battline (PS Wasnt another CLAA used to great effect in one of the Solomons naval battles)

Now Jeff.......You promised that you would start getting a good breakfast each morning and watch your sugar intake before posting!!!

Seriously, I suggest a good book by Dan Kurzman called LEFT TO DIE:THE USS JUNEAU