RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

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 II

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 II

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 3:27:11 PM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Ah, this forum will run a debate on anything...

Including a "debate which will live in infamy"?

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 91

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 4:37:38 PM

witpqs

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Ah, this forum will run a debate on anything...

Did I mention:

Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 92

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 7:04:35 PM

Don Bowen

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

Alright - let's get this thread back on track.

One of the new messages in AE is:
Previous report of sinking of (ship) incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service

Y'all chew on that for a while

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 93

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 7:17:03 PM

Ol_Dog

Posts: 317
Joined: 2/23/2003
From: Southern Illinois
Status: offline

Is the new intel really better than the old intel?

_____________________________

Common Sense is an uncommon virtue.
If you think you have everything under control, you don't fully understand the situation.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 94

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 7:24:55 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog

Is the new intel really better than the old intel?

Beats the fog of war out of me.

(in reply to Ol_Dog)

Post #: 95

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 8:56:39 PM

Iron Duke

Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Alright - let's get this thread back on track.

One of the new messages in AE is:
Previous report of sinking of (ship) incorrect.� Intelligence reports ship is still in service
�
Y'all chew on that for a while

Does this message appear before the ship appears on the sunk ship list or can it appear after?
Ive always taken the ship sunk list to be set in stone - has this changed?

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 96

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 9:19:17 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Alright - let's get this thread back on track.

One of the new messages in AE is:
Previous report of sinking of (ship) incorrect.� Intelligence reports ship is still in service
�
Y'all chew on that for a while

Does this message appear before the ship appears on the sunk ship list or can it appear after?
Ive always taken the ship sunk list to be set in stone - has this changed?

Yes, changed. Fog of war extends to the sunk ship list.

(in reply to Iron Duke)

Post #: 97

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/23/2008 12:55:25 AM

Ron Saueracker

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

Any changes to the Japanese and American sub doctrines?

What about the Japanese naval AA? Used to be a good arguement put forward by Spence and a few others regarding the need to more accurately reflect Japanese practice of spreading ship formations out to facilitate individual ship maneuvers (diluting the flak severely) while Allied practice called for tight formations and formation maneuvers (concentrating the flak).

What about CAP differences, specifically naval? I seem to remember an AE AAR test which mentioned fighter direction.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 11/23/2008 1:00:55 AM >

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 98

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/23/2008 11:33:14 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Alright - let's get this thread back on track.

One of the new messages in AE is:
Previous report of sinking of (ship) incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service

Y'all chew on that for a while

Okay, does it indicate WHICH of the sinking reports was inaccurate, and is the bad report from this same date, or a prior date??
(Excellent enhancement, and not one which was expected!)

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 99

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/23/2008 11:45:39 AM

Splinterhead

Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Alright - let's get this thread back on track.

One of the new messages in AE is:
Previous report of sinking of (ship) incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service

Y'all chew on that for a while

Okay, does it indicate WHICH of the sinking reports was inaccurate, and is the bad report from this same date, or a prior date??
(Excellent enhancement, and not one which was expected!)

I'm pretty sure he meant "(ship)" would actually be replaced by the ship's name, ex.
Previous report of sinking of Lexington incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 100

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/23/2008 2:12:48 PM

eloso

Posts: 335
Joined: 5/28/2006
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Alright - let's get this thread back on track.

One of the new messages in AE is:
Previous report of sinking of (ship) incorrect.� Intelligence reports ship is still in service
�
Y'all chew on that for a while

Does this message appear before the ship appears on the sunk ship list or can it appear after?
Ive always taken the ship sunk list to be set in stone - has this changed?

Yes, changed. Fog of war extends to the sunk ship list.

How does this work with victory points displayed? My concern is if the score is close to an autovictory at the end of 42. How are the players to know if something can be done to gain/avoid auto victory?

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 101

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/23/2008 2:35:49 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

I wouldnt think FoW has any effect on the points in the least.

_____________________________

(in reply to eloso)

Post #: 102

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/23/2008 5:52:08 PM

Coach Z

Posts: 576
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: New York
Status: offline

I�fear this is going to start trouble again, so I apologize in advance...but there was what I felt was a valid question asked and it was never answered. Plus I feel that it is something of some importance that needs to be fixed.

Will something be done to reduce the effectiveness of 20mm and 50 caliber MG fire from PT Boats against Japanese warships; especially IJN destroyers?
Can anyone recall PT Boats scoring tremndous successes versus large naval assets during the wa? (even at�the Battle of Surigao Strait all their torpedoes missed).
Destroyers got their name from the term torpedo boat destroyers (that was to be their main function-then they became the torpedo carrying assets of the fleet), but that does not hold true in WitP. It seems that the AE is trying to make many things more relastic i.e limiting # of torpedoes on a carrier, etc, but what about this one? It seems that this topic is just as valid and can also sway the game way out of proportion. As many people have said we must weigh what might have happened; the potential of this weapons systems versus what actually happened. When my PC's, MSW's, and transports (AKs & APs) get decimated by PT Boats I take it in stride...they should get blasted, but when a Light Cruiser and several destroyers get out gunned by a squadron of PT Boats....well then something's wrong.
Please consider this something to�ammend/fix as well.

< Message edited by Coach Z -- 11/23/2008 5:53:34 PM >

_____________________________

ZUCK

(in reply to Yamato hugger)

Post #: 103

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/23/2008 6:18:08 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coach Z

I�fear this is going to start trouble again, so I apologize in advance...but there was what I felt was a valid question asked and it was never answered. Plus I feel that it is something of some importance that needs to be fixed.

Will something be done to reduce the effectiveness of 20mm and 50 caliber MG fire from PT Boats against Japanese warships; especially IJN destroyers?
Can anyone recall PT Boats scoring tremndous successes versus large naval assets during the wa? (even at�the Battle of Surigao Strait all their torpedoes missed).
Destroyers got their name from the term torpedo boat destroyers (that was to be their main function-then they became the torpedo carrying assets of the fleet), but that does not hold true in WitP. It seems that the AE is trying to make many things more relastic i.e limiting # of torpedoes on a carrier, etc, but what about this one? It seems that this topic is just as valid and can also sway the game way out of proportion. As many people have said we must weigh what might have happened; the potential of this weapons systems versus what actually happened. When my PC's, MSW's, and transports (AKs & APs) get decimated by PT Boats I take it in stride...they should get blasted, but when a Light Cruiser and several destroyers get out gunned by a squadron of PT Boats....well then something's wrong.
Please consider this something to�ammend/fix as well.

There is no outstanding AE issue on this subject. All the naval action has been reviewed and many changes were made. It is not possible to directly answer this question without spending a lot of time, which I ain't got.

(in reply to Coach Z)

Post #: 104

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/23/2008 7:11:20 PM

Coach Z

Posts: 576
Joined: 7/31/2007
From: New York
Status: offline

So that means no?

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 105

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/23/2008 7:34:52 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Coach Z

So that means no?

Not at all. It means that all the code was reviewed some time ago but I have no specific reference to the specific question that you ask.

As to me abandoning all my other work to go look it, that one is the no.

(in reply to Coach Z)

Post #: 106

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/23/2008 8:08:17 PM

jwilkerson

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

Giving precise answers to questions does sometimes require hours of looking at the code, running tests, etc. It might seem like we should be able to answer all questions in seconds, but this is not the case with WITP.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 107

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 4:03:09 AM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

Hi Don,

I have not had time to follow development over the last year or so. Did you guys re-write the surface gunnery system?

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 108

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 5:36:51 AM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

Hi Don,

I have not had time to follow development over the last year or so.� Did you guys re-write the surface gunnery system?

No, just tweaked it.

Very little was fully rewritten. Old stuff either was reviewed and updated, or maybe replaced. I can tell you that the long standing issues and complaints with WITP were reviewed (early in) AE development and as many as possible were addressed. Sometimes an issue with the basic structure or data representation made it overly difficult to change some things. And, like all projects, some issues that seemed easy were impossible. And some wonderful new features were added, others we hoped to do fell by the wayside.

I bet you like it.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 109

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 3:18:54 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

ISTR that in some surface battles one of your ships would get "stuck" and repeatedly hit a target for some unbelievable number of strikes, while the other ships in the TF never fired or fired ineffectively. I had a battle where USS Boise hit her target (think it was an Aoba CA) 50 or more times with 6" shells, while the other ships did nothing. Was whatever was causing this identified and adjusted?

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 110

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 3:23:29 PM

Yamato hugger

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline

Actually Im not so sure this was a bug. If a ship gets severely dinged, it is left behind while the rest of the force escapes. This is likely the cause of what you are describing. Most likely the Boise did some serious initial damage.

_____________________________

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 111

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 5:15:43 PM

Tom Hunter

Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline

John,

That is not an unreasonable result, it happened in a number of sea battles during WWII, in fact it may have happened more often than not. Battles where all the ships fire in similar amounts are very unusual.

Back in 06 I did a thread called an analysis of surface combat (or something similar) that discussed some other issues concerning the surface combat system. That is really what I was asking Don about, had an effort been made to address those issues. I don't know if the system needed a re-write or just tweaking, but it is good to hear that it got some attention.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 112

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 6:21:29 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

John,

That is not an unreasonable result, it happened in a number of sea battles during WWII, in fact it may have happened more often than not. Battles where all the ships fire in similar amounts are very unusual.

Back in 06 I did a thread called an analysis of surface combat (or something similar) that discussed some other issues concerning the surface combat system. That is really what I was asking Don about, had an effort been made to address those issues. I don't know if the system needed a re-write or just tweaking, but it is good to hear that it got some attention.

IIRC a pristine ship remains a hard target, but once damaged becomes a damage magnet..

_____________________________

(in reply to Tom Hunter)

Post #: 113

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 6:55:16 PM

Don Bowen

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

There have been changes to target selection.

Now, to change the subject, this is from a recent test AAR with AE:

SS KXVII launches 2 torpedoes at xAK Sakura Maru
KXVII bottoming out ....
DD Ayanami attacking submerged sub ....
DD Shikinami fails to find sub, continues to search...
PC Ch 9 attacking submerged sub ....
PC Ch 7 fails to find sub and abandons search
DD Ayanami attacking submerged sub ....
SS KXVII forced to surface!
DD Shikinami firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Ayanami firing on surfaced sub ....

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 114

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 7:05:58 PM

Mike Solli

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

Very cool, Don.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 115

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 7:14:38 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Very cool, Don.

Just the beginning...

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 116

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 7:47:51 PM

Mike Solli

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

Can't wait. Keep it up. Many thanks.

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 117

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 8:34:10 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

With all these expanded and more detailed combat reports, does anyone have an idea how long a typical turn resolution takes now? I'm in mid '44 in my game vs the AI and one turn resolution takes about 10 minutes (I've got all the combat report screens turned on and I click on the "continue" button for combat such as air-to-air and air vs airfield/ground unit attacks).

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 118

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/8/2008 9:42:54 PM

Chad Harrison

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Very cool, Don.

Just the beginning...

You tease!

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 119

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/9/2008 12:19:18 AM

jwilkerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

With all these expanded and more detailed combat reports, does anyone have an idea how long a typical turn resolution takes now?� I'm in mid '44 in my game vs the AI and one turn resolution takes about 10 minutes (I've got all the combat report screens turned on and I click on the "continue" button for combat such as air-to-air and air vs airfield/ground unit attacks).�

Turn times vary a lot. And heavily depend on things like settings and level of activity, not to mention what box you run it on. I've had a "turn01" take 66 minutes with all "out of the box" settings (high message lengths, animations and reports on). But times as low as three minutes are also experienced.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 120