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 General 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 General Thread Page: <<   < prev  29 30 [31] 32 33   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/30/2008 11:30:20 PM   
BB57

 

Posts: 89
Joined: 1/20/2003
From: Beresford, SD
Status: offline 		Woos are you at a position to hopefully maybe give us some hints or better yet screenies of the new decoder?

I want AE yesterday but if that means it will need two patches before we can get it out of the box take your time.

Thanks everyone involved for your hard work.

































(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 901
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/31/2008 12:02:27 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Well, they DID read all the mail.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 902
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/3/2009 8:50:27 PM   
Alikchi2

 

Posts: 1785
Joined: 5/14/2004
Status: offline 		British Withdrawal - inspired by the thread on the main board.. any changes here?

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 903
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/3/2009 9:18:19 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		IIRC they said that the cost of not sending the required ships back will be overwhelming. In other words, you will withdraw the required ships!

(in reply to Alikchi2)
Post #: 904
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/3/2009 9:26:03 PM   
Dixie


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IIRC they said that the cost of not sending the required ships back will be overwhelming. In other words, you will withdraw the required ships!


IIRC every ship has a withdrawl date, if they left the Pacific. Ships that were sunk before they could be withdrawn (PoW, Repulse etc) don't have withdrawl dates. Ships can be kept past their date, but like witpqs said the cost is expensive. Or as I understand it, it starts at expensive for destroyers etc and climbs to crippling for carriers. Every day extra that the ship is kept costs PPs.

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 905
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/3/2009 9:34:20 PM   
Terminus


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

ORIGINAL: Alikchi

British Withdrawal - inspired by the thread on the main board.. any changes here?


It's "Allied Withdrawal" now, not "British". Dixie summarizes it well in his post.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Alikchi2)
Post #: 906
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/4/2009 12:31:03 AM   
Alikchi2

 

Posts: 1785
Joined: 5/14/2004
Status: offline 		Oh, I like this system much better. It's much less arbitrary. Thanks!

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 907
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/4/2009 1:07:53 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

IIRC they said that the cost of not sending the required ships back will be overwhelming. In other words, you will withdraw the required ships!


It costs 150pps to relieve those worthless starting commanders in AE.

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 908
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/4/2009 1:53:37 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Aye selected HQ level leaders cost a lot more especially ones in the early war or of historical significance

Replacing all the leaders of III Corps (Heath - 125), Malaya Army (Percival - 150) and the two Indian Div commanders (50 each) is expensive.

Later on these costs reduce a typical Allied HQ level Lt General costs 50 PP's to replace


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 909
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/4/2009 2:46:07 AM   
Heeward


Posts: 343
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline
quote:

IIRC every ship has a withdrawal date, if they left the Pacific. Ships that were sunk before they could be withdrawn (PoW, Repulse etc) don't have withdrawal dates. Ships can be kept past their date, but like witpqs said the cost is expensive. Or as I understand it, it starts at expensive for destroyers etc and climbs to crippling for carriers. Every day extra that the ship is kept costs PPs.


Is this major change correct? PP points are charged on a daily basis for not withdrawing ships?

_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 910
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/4/2009 4:32:22 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		One can only hope that the per day PP cost will be substantially lower than the WITP one time cost. Otherwise, this could become an expensive PP tax on senility... 

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Heeward)
Post #: 911
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/4/2009 5:34:37 AM   
JeffroK


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

Has there been a reappraisal of some of the Leader stats for AE.

Just picking 1/10,000, "Piggy" Heath in Malaya suffers in CHS for poor setup by the highers and the overwhelming inexperience of his troops.

Given his experiences in Abbysynia & Western Desert I beleve he rates as average rather than poor.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 912
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/4/2009 11:06:12 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		As has been said several times, the leader database (and especially Commonwealth leaders) has been thoroughly scrubbed. Don't worry about it.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 913
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/4/2009 11:21:50 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Heath ratings are difficult he was experienced and capable but he severely under rated the Japanese and his Corps was not trained.

He wasnt able to overcome his dislike of Percival and that severely compromised the defence.

His Land Rating is given as 45 and Admin at 45 as well.

I would have made them higher given his experience but he he gets a big reduction for not being able to get over the fact that he worked for Percival.


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 914
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/4/2009 10:39:36 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Can we now withdraw heavily damaged ships? Now I need to repair ship to sysdmg < 50 (?).

Do we need in AE to keep out of harm ships which are just about to be withdrawn? To avoid penalty of not withdrawing damaged ship which we couldn't withdraw.

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 915
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/5/2009 2:59:10 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Andy.

Has there been a reappraisal of some of the Leader stats for AE.

Just picking 1/10,000, "Piggy" Heath in Malaya suffers in CHS for poor setup by the highers and the overwhelming inexperience of his troops.

Given his experiences in Abbysynia & Western Desert I beleve he rates as average rather than poor.



As Terminus said, the leader database has been thoroughly scrubbed.

For land leaders, virtually every two-star General and above will be a genuine historical leader (vs stock, where 3/4s of the US Generals were fictional, and the Australian LCU commanders all had identical ratings, depending on their rank).

As part of the US reappraisal, most US Army Generals have low aggressiveness ratings. Throughout the war this was a constant sore point between the Army and the Marines/Navy. MacArthur, whose overall ratings are not impressive, has value to the Allies as one of the only HQ-level land commanders with good aggressiveness.

There will always be controversies about leader rankings, especially for the allied ground leaders that were overwhelmed in the opening months -- then relieved -- but might have been average or better if they had happened to appear later in the war.





< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 1/5/2009 3:05:26 AM >

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 916
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/5/2009 5:41:49 AM   
JeffroK


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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Heath ratings are difficult he was experienced and capable but he severely under rated the Japanese and his Corps was not trained.

He wasnt able to overcome his dislike of Percival and that severely compromised the defence.

His Land Rating is given as 45 and Admin at 45 as well.

I would have made them higher given his experience but he he gets a big reduction for not being able to get over the fact that he worked for Percival.




Thanks Andy, this puts him in the middle somewhere at least, but shouldnt the effect of your last comment be taken away from Heath, what if someone replaced Percival and Heath got along famously with him (Any Indian Army General??)

< Message edited by JeffK -- 1/5/2009 5:43:58 AM >

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 917
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/5/2009 11:35:44 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Possibly but thats out of scope for us you also need to factor in that pretty much no general in theatre was really senior to Heath so the only way would be if Heath were given Malaya Command at which point he would probably interfere with his battlefield commander.

I can only rate leaders on the basis of the tools we have and there proven abilities.

We know Heath/Percival was dysfunctional therefore they both get a reduction for the inability to act professionally

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 1/5/2009 11:36:46 AM >

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 918
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/14/2009 9:18:22 PM   
trojan58


Posts: 266
Joined: 8/8/2004
From: bendigo, Victoria, Australia
Status: offline 		I know this is possibly a very late suggestion, but would it be possible to make all nations in the game either active or inactive. This would be similar to what is currently available with the Soviets in WITP. The rational would be that doing so would open many more possibilities for mod writers.


ie: Japan attacks the Soviets ( a Northern startegy rather than South), Japan attacks only Britain and France (etc) no USA attack.


what do you think

_____________________________

There are two types of ships in the world

Submarines and Targets

D.B.F

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 919
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/14/2009 9:51:27 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: trojan

I know this is possibly a very late suggestion, but would it be possible to make all nations in the game either active or inactive. This would be similar to what is currently available with the Soviets in WITP. The rational would be that doing so would open many more possibilities for mod writers.


ie: Japan attacks the Soviets ( a Northern startegy rather than South), Japan attacks only Britain and France (etc) no USA attack.


what do you think


Just my opinion but a very emphatic NO! The Soviet active/inactive complicates things beyond believe and multiplying that times more nations would be a Mark 1, Left Handed, Bitch.




(in reply to trojan58)
Post #: 920
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/14/2009 9:52:12 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Agreed, this is most definitely WitP II territory.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 921
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/15/2009 11:15:01 AM   
herwin

 

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

ORIGINAL: trojan

I know this is possibly a very late suggestion, but would it be possible to make all nations in the game either active or inactive. This would be similar to what is currently available with the Soviets in WITP. The rational would be that doing so would open many more possibilities for mod writers.


ie: Japan attacks the Soviets ( a Northern startegy rather than South), Japan attacks only Britain and France (etc) no USA attack.


what do you think


If Japan went north, Churchill would have declared, and Roosevelt would have ordered the USN to co-operate closely (sail in company) with the RN until the Japanese gave him a casus belli. So no.

_____________________________

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 trojan58)
Post #: 922
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/15/2009 1:28:12 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: trojan

I know this is possibly a very late suggestion, but would it be possible to make all nations in the game either active or inactive. This would be similar to what is currently available with the Soviets in WITP. The rational would be that doing so would open many more possibilities for mod writers.


ie: Japan attacks the Soviets ( a Northern startegy rather than South), Japan attacks only Britain and France (etc) no USA attack.


what do you think


If Japan went north, Churchill would have declared, and Roosevelt would have ordered the USN to co-operate closely (sail in company) with the RN until the Japanese gave him a casus belli. So no.


Just to be Devil's Advocate here. The USS Reuben James was sunk on 23 October 1941 by U-532. While there was considerable outcry over it, the US did not go to war. Isolationist feelings were still running very high in late 1941. Roosevelt desire to get the US into the war was obvious but the fact that he hadn't even asked Congress for a declaration tells me he knew he couldn't get it. Pearl Harbor changed all that.

I have seen many posts about mods/scenarios where the Japanese wartime economy and ship building programs are completely turned on their heads are far as the true reality. Yet, those of us who would like to see the "Go North" strategy explored are told that is pure fantasy and the its unrealistic that the US would stay out of the war. WHe England was on the ropes in the summer of 1940, the US did not enter the war. When all of Europe fell under Nazi domination, the US did not go to war. WHen Hitler invaded the USSR, the US did not go to war. So what makes people think that the US would have automatically gone to war if the Japanese attacked Malaya and the NEI or the USSR?



_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 923
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/15/2009 5:25:04 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89



I have seen many posts about mods/scenarios where the Japanese wartime economy and ship building programs are completely turned on their heads are far as the true reality. Yet, those of us who would like to see the "Go North" strategy explored are told that is pure fantasy and the its unrealistic that the US would stay out of the war. WHe England was on the ropes in the summer of 1940, the US did not enter the war. When all of Europe fell under Nazi domination, the US did not go to war. WHen Hitler invaded the USSR, the US did not go to war. So what makes people think that the US would have automatically gone to war if the Japanese attacked Malaya and the NEI or the USSR?



While I suspect many people agree that it might have been possible for the Japanese to get away with a limited war against the English and Dutch without bringing the U.S. in; however, I am not sure it would make a very fun war game. Would victory be determined by whether India falls by May 42 or holds out till June?

The Japanese were so totally incapable of fighting the Russians effectively on the ground, the Go North scenario would also seem a poor game. At the small unit scale it would humorous to try and stop a platoon of KV1s with an IJA division. Might make a fun Squad Leader scenario for Russian Armor Fanboys.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 924
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2009 6:03:31 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline 		I was just browsing through a some of the other AE threads and some of the posts reminded me of a question regarding the date format used in AE as I cannot remember seeing an answer posted to date:

Will the AE date format be made configurable to international standards as I am always confused by a date such as 1/10/43 (January or October??).  This is particularly problematic when it is quoted out of context!!

I am sure this question is of interest to everyone who drives on the 'correct' (as opposed to the 'right') side of the road.... 


_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 925
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2009 6:48:49 AM   
JeffroK


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

Its always possible to work out the date, but when they start talking Fall, Summer, Winter they forget that half the world doesnt share their weather patterns!!!!!


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 926
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2009 6:57:06 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		As you were upside down (and hanging on for dear life by your toes) when you wrote that you obviously had 'right' and 'left' confused. No wonder you drive on the wrong side of the road!

I'm sure it's too late for AE, but I suppose somehow making the date unambiguous would be a good thing. With all that blood already rushing to your head you shouldn't be under any additional disadvantage!

What would be the best solution?

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 927
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2009 7:00:39 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Decimal Time!!

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 928
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2009 10:08:04 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Reg,

Its always possible to work out the date, but when they start talking Fall, Summer, Winter they forget that half the world doesn't share their weather patterns!!!!!


Touche...

What's this 'Fall' thing anyway.... Around here when the leaves fall off the trees, we call that a drought!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

As you were upside down (and hanging on for dear life by your toes) when you wrote that you obviously had 'right' and 'left' confused. No wonder you drive on the wrong side of the road!




quote:


I'm sure it's too late for AE, but I suppose somehow making the date unambiguous would be a good thing. With all that blood already rushing to your head you shouldn't be under any additional disadvantage!

What would be the best solution?


Check out the regional settings on your computer. dd-MMM-yy (19-Jan-09) date format is pretty unambiguous and it is used by the military for this reason.

However, I suspect the ripple effect on date dependent functions throughout the code if this were to be implemented would be horrendous but we can only hope.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 929
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 1/17/2009 4:39:26 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I was thinking about something like that when I wrote my reply, but I wasn't sure what is more common. Other considerations too: something like 2009-01-17 allows for easy sorting by date. Obviously in WITP that might apply most to saved reports or whatever.

Damn, it just occurred to me that all that blood rushing to your brain might be making you smarter. Remind me not to PBEM with anybody in the southern hemisphere.

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 930
Page:   <<   < prev  29 30 [31] 32 33   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread Page: <<   < prev  29 30 [31] 32 33   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

1.250