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  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/10/2008 2:25:40 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

Sounds somewhat better.. That is also why the Sangamon's are so good to have around. That rather capacious hull has a looootttt of fuel in it. Or at least it did in the last game I played that lasted until they showed up.

Just patiently (Yeah - RIGHT!) waiting, Don, Old bean...


OH, and ships can refuel directly from tankers (TK or YO) if they are not at sea. Put a tanker TF in a small port and you can run TFs in and refuel from the tanker. Also, the tanker can transfer fuel directly to AOs in the same circumstance.







That sounds good. That being the case, are the semi-mobile concrete barge fuel bunkers the US used at places like Ulithi included in AE?

Mike

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 151
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/10/2008 4:02:27 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

That sounds good. That being the case, are the semi-mobile concrete barge fuel bunkers the US used at places like Ulithi included in AE?

Mike


Define them as YO (which they were) and it works. We don't actually implement non self propelled, but it's reasonably close.





(in reply to Panther Bait)
Post #: 152
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/10/2008 4:03:47 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: m10bob

So...if a tanker is unloading at a port...and a friendly fleet has dropped by, the fleet can help unload the tanker in replenishment?..Major good thing, if I understand this correctly, and will allow the tanker to be on its' way sooner.


Maybe.... both unloading and transfering fuel to another ship consume ops.



(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 153
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/10/2008 8:51:34 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Can ships off load their fuel (from their tanks) to port?

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 154
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/10/2008 9:31:17 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		I really can't imagine a ship outside of a major repair facility offloading go juice. But that concept does open up a world of possibilities.

We know that they are now tracking such things as torpedoes. Could this also extend to such things as heavy ammunition, or even smaller? (Now we are really talking micromanagement, but what the hey?) Probably not, but the mind wonders, or maybe wanders. Imagine, the USS Washington steaming back to Pearl also offloads a bunch of 16" rounds and 5" rounds to the local Ammo Ship/Dump. They aren't going to need all of those rounds because if they run into that big a fleet heading back to Pearl, the jig is up anyway. And the other heavy units would gladly welcome a relatively larger stock of large caliber rounds handy - following the USN packrat principle. (If we ain't got it, we probably need a few, just in case.) That could also mean an increase in the planning for the location of AEs. Imagine that!

< Message edited by RevRick -- 12/10/2008 9:32:26 PM >

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 155
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/10/2008 10:58:36 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Can ships off load their fuel (from their tanks) to port?


Nope. Not in WITP and not added in AE

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 156
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/10/2008 10:59:23 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: RevRick

I really can't imagine a ship outside of a major repair facility offloading go juice. But that concept does open up a world of possibilities.

We know that they are now tracking such things as torpedoes. Could this also extend to such things as heavy ammunition, or even smaller? (Now we are really talking micromanagement, but what the hey?) Probably not, but the mind wonders, or maybe wanders. Imagine, the USS Washington steaming back to Pearl also offloads a bunch of 16" rounds and 5" rounds to the local Ammo Ship/Dump. They aren't going to need all of those rounds because if they run into that big a fleet heading back to Pearl, the jig is up anyway. And the other heavy units would gladly welcome a relatively larger stock of large caliber rounds handy - following the USN packrat principle. (If we ain't got it, we probably need a few, just in case.) That could also mean an increase in the planning for the location of AEs. Imagine that!


Nope. Just too much trouble.





(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 157
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/10/2008 11:33:53 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Had to draw the micromanaging line somewhere.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 158
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/11/2008 3:06:27 PM   
Mike Solli


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

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Had to draw the micromanaging line somewhere.


I understand. Just curious. Thanks guys.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 159
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/14/2008 7:20:09 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		Just to keep this thread alive...

What is the air speed velocity of an unladen sparrow?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 160
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/14/2008 7:21:02 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		An African or a European one?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 161
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/14/2008 7:51:12 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		I want to drop coconuts... which one is that??? AUGHHHNNNNNNNN???

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 162
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/15/2008 8:48:49 PM   
alanschu

 

Posts: 405
Joined: 12/21/2006
Status: offline 		Is there information that precedes the first Naval Thread?  Terminus is talking about the "repair types" but I have no idea what he is talking about...        

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 163
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/17/2008 1:14:13 AM   
doc smith

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		I think this isa naval thread question.  How the heck do you deploy "barges" (Jap barges, LCVP, other small, troop-carrying craft) from home to "the front"?  In WitP, it takes many days to move small boys to the front, then they often don't even have the range to do much without a "milk cow" to refuel them in transit.  I'm thinking especially of any attempt to move supplies or troops to Guadalcanal or even Buna from Rabaul.  They don't have the range and I'd really rather not send along an AK, much less a warship or AO to refuel them.  I suspect that when a barge convoy left Rabaul, they included one or more barges loaded just with fuel.  At dawn on each day of movement, the barges would lie low against some island and refuel from the cow for the next night's move.

So I guess it's 2 parts:
1. Any EASY way to deploy small craft from home to the front?
2. Any way to have fuel small craft tag along with a small craft convoy to resupply itself and other ships in the convoy?

Thanks.

(in reply to alanschu)
Post #: 164
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/17/2008 2:56:27 AM   
Capt Henry_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 103
Joined: 4/1/2005
Status: offline 		Doc, I just don't deploy LCVPs at "home". Send a task force with AKs loaded with supply to where you want the LCVPs and when the TF reaches its destination, hit the "create barges" button in the task force screen. Some of the supply is converted to LCVPs. I've always assumed this simulates shipping the smaller craft as cargo.

(in reply to doc smith)
Post #: 165
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/18/2008 1:19:29 AM   
doc smith

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks. Doesn't really make them useful, though. And you wind up with too many small boys at home, consuming supplies and doing nothing.

(in reply to Capt Henry_MatrixForum)
Post #: 166
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/18/2008 12:39:52 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		It's a shame that the small amphibious craft (LCVP, etc) can't be treated as cargo and loaded on board an AK for transport over to another destination.  Even if  you've got a tanker with them they only move 1 hex/turn because they're constantly refueling!

(in reply to doc smith)
Post #: 167
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/18/2008 6:02:52 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		John's idea is a great suggestion for any future patch, if at all possible with the current engine.

This would also serve to increase the strain on shipping that an invasion would entail. The extra ships needed to cart the landing craft would be unavailable for carrying supplies, making it harder for the allied player to punch you left and right with multiple invasions in the mid-to-late war.


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 168
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/18/2008 6:46:00 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
It's a shame that the small amphibious craft (LCVP, etc) can't be treated as cargo and loaded on board an AK for transport over to another destination.  Even if  you've got a tanker with them they only move 1 hex/turn because they're constantly refueling!

In a sense, that is how it works presently, and how it works in AE. Much of the confusion is the result of editor OOB blivets. These little guys are supposed to have NO arrival base, in order for the system to work properly, but occasionally, some few of them end up being assigned to a base, so “poof”, there they be. Working hard to eliminate this in AE.

LCVP and Jap barges are cargo. There is a supply cost at a base to create them. Supply is delivered as cargo, supply is converted into landing craft, and bingo – landing craft = cargo.

LCVPs and Daihatsus weren’t moved about, from place to place, anyway. You didn’t pick up LCVPs from Munda, say, and schlep them to the Gilberts; you just made more. You didn’t have many ships that could haul them in any case, and those that could already had them as part of their basic capability .. so they couldn’t load any more.

Prior planning prevents p*** poor performance, so you gotta determine where landing craft/barges are useful (archipelagos are nice) and create them there; someplace where LC/barge movement is a couple hexes at a time. Because once you make ‘em, there they stay. Gee, do I hear an irl echo somewhere?

Anyhoo. That’s how it works. Ciao. John

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 169
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/18/2008 7:41:46 PM   
CV Zuikaku

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline 		Here I am after a long time. For some reason I cannot login to my old Zuikaku account, so I made this one to replace it.
Here is one question, but I think I know answe already. Does AE support wolfpack or hunter-killer groups. I suppose that it don't. But would be grat if subs inside wolfpack coul'd search the hex more efficiently, and possibility of multiple subs attacking multiple tagets inside the convoy during one phase...

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 170
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/18/2008 8:02:36 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		That sounds like just putting more than one sub in a TF???

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)
Post #: 171
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/18/2008 8:07:01 PM   
CV Zuikaku

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline 		But now, you can put as many subs as you want in TF, and there are no multiple attacks

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 172
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/18/2008 8:38:13 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I have seen the same (single-sub TF) make multiple attacks plenty of times. Why would multi-sub TF's be limited to only one attack?

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)
Post #: 173
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/18/2008 8:52:38 PM   
CV Zuikaku

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline 		You've seen a single sub attacking escorts and then transport in single combat phase?! Not in the same day, but in the same combat resolution phase. I've never seen any sub first attacking one ship and then switching to another...

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 174
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/18/2008 9:19:28 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Code in WITP was set up to allow only one sub to attack - the Task Force flagship.

AE still allows only one sub to attack at a time but selects the sub based on armmo, ops, fuel, and some random.

A "Wolf Pack" TF will not make the Atlantic-style coordinated attacks, but it is possible for different subs in the TF to attack during the same combat phase.


(in reply to CV Zuikaku)
Post #: 175
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/19/2008 7:03:15 AM   
CV Zuikaku

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline 		So, no change here. Thought that there will be wolfpacks available for the USN.
Thanks for the reply!

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 176
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/19/2008 2:02:38 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

John's idea is a great suggestion for any future patch, if at all possible with the current engine.

This would also serve to increase the strain on shipping that an invasion would entail. The extra ships needed to cart the landing craft would be unavailable for carrying supplies, making it harder for the allied player to punch you left and right with multiple invasions in the mid-to-late war.


What about using that ability to make possible to have more than one kaiten per ship?

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)
Post #: 177
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/19/2008 3:10:13 PM   
Charbroiled


Posts: 1181
Joined: 10/15/2004
From: Oregon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Code in WITP was set up to allow only one sub to attack - the Task Force flagship.

AE still allows only one sub to attack at a time but selects the sub based on armmo, ops, fuel, and some random.

A "Wolf Pack" TF will not make the Atlantic-style coordinated attacks, but it is possible for different subs in the TF to attack during the same combat phase.




Historically, the American Sub Force used a "Wolf Pack", but not in the same method as the Germans. The Americans would send out 3-4 subs together, headed by a TF commander. Sometimes the TF Commander would be one of the sub's Captain, sometimes it would be a separate commander (they decided that did not work well). The subs would all go to the same patrol area, but would patrol separately.

This new improvement to AE will better simulate this.


_____________________________

"When I said I would run, I meant 'away' ". - Orange

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 178
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/19/2008 3:42:11 PM   
Panther Bait


Posts: 654
Joined: 8/30/2006
Status: offline 		Charbroiled is correct.  The US submarine packs were not really an attempt to coordinate attacks on a single convoy like the Germans.  Probably partially because the Japanese did not really operate in large convoys, especially in the late war when the US was operating in packs. 

I think it was more an organizational advantage that they operated in packs.  There were so many US subs operating in relatively small chokepoint areas that they probably needed to have some sort of coordination just to keep friendly fire incidents down.  I suppose there was also the possibility of mutual support in case of a sub took damage (not sure if that ever happened), or having a few subs that could act together on pilot rescue duty for big raids, etc.

_____________________________

When you shoot at a destroyer and miss, it's like hit'in a wildcat in the ass with a banjo.

Nathan Dogan, USS Gurnard

(in reply to Charbroiled)
Post #: 179
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 12/19/2008 3:43:05 PM   
Terminus


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

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

John's idea is a great suggestion for any future patch, if at all possible with the current engine.

This would also serve to increase the strain on shipping that an invasion would entail. The extra ships needed to cart the landing craft would be unavailable for carrying supplies, making it harder for the allied player to punch you left and right with multiple invasions in the mid-to-late war.


What about using that ability to make possible to have more than one kaiten per ship?


I think the biggest Kaiten carriers in AE carry 8 or 10. They're only torpedoes, after all.

If you meant midget subs, then we (i.e. the coding team) tried to make it happen, but couldn't.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   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

3.031