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: Cha and T23

 
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: Cha and T23 Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/19/2009 4:02:01 PM   
tanksone


Posts: 390
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: St Paul, Mn.
Status: offline 		Hi, question for the dev's. I don't believe the naval units that are withdrawn in WitP changed any when they can back. Will there be a die roll to see if there experiance goes up when they come back?















(in reply to Zeta16)
Post #: 361
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/19/2009 4:20:30 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

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

ORIGINAL: tanksone

Hi, question for the dev's. I don't believe the naval units that are withdrawn in WitP changed any when they can back. Will there be a die roll to see if there experiance goes up when they come back?



I dont know for sure on all of them of course but some come back with new pilots and "new unit" experience. Why you cry? Because the units themselves were reformed.

_____________________________


(in reply to tanksone)
Post #: 362
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/19/2009 5:11:41 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Ummm.... YH, he said Naval Units, as in ships... they can be withdrawn for operations in the Med or Atlantic but don't gain any experience in doing so... 

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 363
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/20/2009 6:34:07 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		Sorry I read that as naval air units. As for ships, I doubt they would come back with more experience either but I cant say for sure.

_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 364
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/21/2009 9:40:33 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		Just reading a report about Shokaku class and come across of their ammo storage facility.

Aircraft ordnance: forty-five torpedoes, ninety 800-kilo bombs, three hundred and six
250-kilo bombs, five hundred and forty 60-kilo bombs plus a fuel stowage of 496 tons
avgas.

That`s only two full strikes of B5N2 with torpedoes, 4 strikes of D3A1 with 800kg bombs, far less than we see in WITP

Are the ordnance handled different in AE or we have the same "air sorties"


_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 365
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/21/2009 10:21:42 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Just reading a report about Shokaku class and come across of their ammo storage facility.

Aircraft ordnance: forty-five torpedoes, ninety 800-kilo bombs, three hundred and six
250-kilo bombs, five hundred and forty 60-kilo bombs plus a fuel stowage of 496 tons
avgas.

That`s only two full strikes of B5N2 with torpedoes, 4 strikes of D3A1 with 800kg bombs, far less than we see in WITP

Are the ordnance handled different in AE or we have the same "air sorties"



You just read'n that? We went through this months ago.




(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 366
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/21/2009 11:31:31 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		Not enough time to read the 68 pages of the two Naval threads 

If this has been discussed already, then there is no problem


_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 367
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 3:35:26 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Yeah we should be used to answering things more than once. As to carrier torpedo capacity, yes that is modeled separately. So most carriers now only have enough torpedoes for 2 or less strikes. But you have a toggle "bombs or torpedoes" so if you think you will be bombing transports, then you can order up bombs and save your torpedoes for the enemy warships you expect to show up next turn!



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 368
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 3:35:59 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Just reading a report about Shokaku class and come across of their ammo storage facility.

Aircraft ordnance: forty-five torpedoes, ninety 800-kilo bombs, three hundred and six
250-kilo bombs, five hundred and forty 60-kilo bombs plus a fuel stowage of 496 tons
avgas.

That`s only two full strikes of B5N2 with torpedoes, 4 strikes of D3A1 with 800kg bombs, far less than we see in WITP

Are the ordnance handled different in AE or we have the same "air sorties"


I don't think the Val carried the 800kg bomb. That was for the Kate and I thought it was only for the Pearl Harbor raid. Did they use them any other time?

(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 369
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 5:16:53 AM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

I don't think the Val carried the 800kg bomb. That was for the Kate and I thought it was only for the Pearl Harbor raid. Did they use them any other time?


To the best of my knowledge, no. That said, what else would have the Kates fielded asides from torpedos? If they were to be armed with bombs would they be bringing 250kgs or 800kgs? They had the payload for either...hell if there was a kit for it Kates could have carried three 250kg bombs(there wasn't).

EDIT: or was there... according to Wiki (right, well at least it's a start) they did posses the ability to carry three 250kg bombs at once.

huh...

< Message edited by Iridium -- 1/22/2009 5:19:18 AM >

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 370
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 5:51:41 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Kate with 3x250kg






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 371
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 5:52:32 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Kate with 800kg






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 372
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 5:53:02 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		Kate with racks for 60kg



Attachment (1)

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 373
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 6:03:12 AM   
Alikchi2

 

Posts: 1785
Joined: 5/14/2004
Status: offline 		That 800kg is a BEAST.

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 374
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 12:34:38 PM   
jmscho


Posts: 126
Joined: 9/21/2004
From: York, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alikchi

That 800kg is a BEAST.


But not as much a beast as the Tall Boy 5,443 kg (12,000 lb)
or Grand Slam 9,979 kg (22,000 lb)


(in reply to Alikchi2)
Post #: 375
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 3:31:18 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		And yet neither of them was carried by a single engine aircraft launched from a carrier at sea either.

_____________________________


(in reply to jmscho)
Post #: 376
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 5:38:04 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		I would like to see D3A Vals carrying 250kg GP bombs. I think this was their standard ordonance, not the AP ones.

Target:
Land - Why the hell will you have APs? GPs and HEs are worth more...
Sea - priority:
Carriers - Unles you are going after RN, you will more likely have GPs then APs and HEs. The same for non-combatant ships, up to destroyer size.
Major ships - Well use Vals as flak distraction while the torpedobombers do the job.

It is somewhat funny (in WITP) to see Vals and Hellen/Sonias droping 250kg AP bombs on AKs... Well the other thing is to see Nells/Bettys droping 800kg AP bombs on AKs. 

(According to Midway by Fuchida: Only Kates torpedos were rearmed for bombs and then back to torpedos. Vals were not mentioned to be rearmed. They were just taken below the flight deck to free it up to land 1st wave returning. Can someone confirm this?)



_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 377
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 6:01:09 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		The D3A bomb was a SAP type that could be fused for HE. (GP) The majority in a strike would be SAP with a small# fused for HE.



_____________________________


(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 378
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 6:01:47 PM   
vettim89


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

ORIGINAL: Barb

I would like to see D3A Vals carrying 250kg GP bombs. I think this was their standard ordonance, not the AP ones.

Target:
Land - Why the hell will you have APs? GPs and HEs are worth more...
Sea - priority:
Carriers - Unles you are going after RN, you will more likely have GPs then APs and HEs. The same for non-combatant ships, up to destroyer size.
Major ships - Well use Vals as flak distraction while the torpedobombers do the job.

It is somewhat funny (in WITP) to see Vals and Hellen/Sonias droping 250kg AP bombs on AKs... Well the other thing is to see Nells/Bettys droping 800kg AP bombs on AKs. 

(According to Midway by Fuchida: Only Kates torpedos were rearmed for bombs and then back to torpedos. Vals were not mentioned to be rearmed. They were just taken below the flight deck to free it up to land 1st wave returning. Can someone confirm this?)




Unfortunately, from what I have been able to gather from reading various AE threads, we are stuck with standard load outs AND EXP playing a factor on what certain planes will carry. The standard SBD loadout was a 1000lb SAP bomb which had enough penetration to go through a IJN CV's flight deck and the deck armor of some of the CA's. It didn't matter if a "Nugget" was flying the bird or a sesoned cobat veteran. The armorers did not consider whether it was ENS. Noobie's plance vice LCMDR. Grizzledvet's plane. The bomb's were loaded for the mission. This is a very frustrating aspect of the game.


_____________________________

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

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 379
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/22/2009 6:34:59 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		But there are certainly some bomb types selection like 2000lb GP bombs when unit pass some rolls (Exp i think). Could be nice to see them adapted to say 800kg APs too.

_____________________________


(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 380
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/23/2009 2:21:22 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

I would like to see D3A Vals carrying 250kg GP bombs. I think this was their standard ordonance, not the AP ones.

Target:
Land - Why the hell will you have APs? GPs and HEs are worth more...
Sea - priority:
Carriers - Unles you are going after RN, you will more likely have GPs then APs and HEs. The same for non-combatant ships, up to destroyer size.
Major ships - Well use Vals as flak distraction while the torpedobombers do the job.

It is somewhat funny (in WITP) to see Vals and Hellen/Sonias droping 250kg AP bombs on AKs... Well the other thing is to see Nells/Bettys droping 800kg AP bombs on AKs. 

(According to Midway by Fuchida: Only Kates torpedos were rearmed for bombs and then back to torpedos. Vals were not mentioned to be rearmed. They were just taken below the flight deck to free it up to land 1st wave returning. Can someone confirm this?)




Unfortunately, from what I have been able to gather from reading various AE threads, we are stuck with standard load outs AND EXP playing a factor on what certain planes will carry. The standard SBD loadout was a 1000lb SAP bomb which had enough penetration to go through a IJN CV's flight deck and the deck armor of some of the CA's. It didn't matter if a "Nugget" was flying the bird or a sesoned cobat veteran. The armorers did not consider whether it was ENS. Noobie's plance vice LCMDR. Grizzledvet's plane. The bomb's were loaded for the mission. This is a very frustrating aspect of the game.


I think the EXP check was done in an effort to reduce the numbers of these rear bombs being used. I don't think the 2000LB bombs were ever a standard loadout. Much easier than tracking the numbers of these devices and transporting them to all over.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 381
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/23/2009 3:26:12 PM   
foliveti


Posts: 371
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Buffalo, NY
Status: offline 		yes, but I did not think the 800kg was standard either.

_____________________________

Frank

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 382
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/23/2009 6:12:49 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
This is the Naval thread....


(in reply to foliveti)
Post #: 383
RE: Cha and T23 - 1/23/2009 6:32:46 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		Oooooooops!


_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 384
Further on ASW assets in AE... - 1/28/2009 4:52:28 PM   
helldiver


Posts: 86
Joined: 5/21/2008
From: SRA
Status: offline 		Greetings.
   Awaiting AE, I am in the midst of a stock WitP game playing as Japan against the Allied AI. I managed a decisive victory (43K-10K) at the start of 1943 and elected to continue. My general ASW strategy was to keep about two dozen ASW TFs patrolling in Home Waters areas adjacent to ports receiving resources/oil from the south. These consisted of MSW, PG, APD, and PC groups with ASW values ranging from 4-20. In addition, I had MSW, PC, PG escorts within the resource TFs whenever possible (especially protecting TKs). I had been profligate with DDs while expanding the Empire and really couldn't spare any for ASW work. 
    This worked generally fine until 1943. It seems as if a "switch" was thrown at the start of '43. USN fleet SS have bagged 35-40 ASW ships in Home Waters in the first three months of the year. The SS often get the first shot and the shot sinks a patrol craft. Leads me to my AE question:
    Can any of the AE dev. team members summarize/repeat some general advice or impressions (from playtesting) about the most favorable methods of deploying ASW assets (especially as Japan) in AE? So far I understand that the numbers of Es, etc. will mushroom and that close-in port patrol appears to pay dividends. Also, I got that ASW TFs will be limited in # of ships. I also read with interest the posts in the early 300s of this thread. Any other advice about composition/tactics or do I have to find out the hard way?

Regards,
Helldiver

p.s. Yes, I know Japan is not supposed to win...

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 385
Renaming Ships - 1/28/2009 6:18:09 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 21100
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline 		In my WitP game against John III I am receiving new CVEs with names that don't make any sense in our game since there hasn't been any action at Savo Island, Makin, the Bismark Sea, etc.  It would be "cool" to be able to rename these to reflect places where we have clashed.  Please consider permitting players to rename later-in-the-war CVEs that carry real life battle names.


(in reply to helldiver)
Post #: 386
RE: Renaming Ships - 1/28/2009 7:05:48 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		AE has the option to rename ships in the build queue. We did this because of the historical Essex renames, and the old respawn thingy, and because who knows who will get sunk in the game.

But once a ship shows up, that's it. You either rename in the queue, or forever hold your piece.

Ciao. John

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 387
RE: Further on ASW assets in AE... - 1/28/2009 7:14:23 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Helldiver

Greetings.
   Awaiting AE, I am in the midst of a stock WitP game playing as Japan against the Allied AI. I managed a decisive victory (43K-10K) at the start of 1943 and elected to continue. My general ASW strategy was to keep about two dozen ASW TFs patrolling in Home Waters areas adjacent to ports receiving resources/oil from the south. These consisted of MSW, PG, APD, and PC groups with ASW values ranging from 4-20. In addition, I had MSW, PC, PG escorts within the resource TFs whenever possible (especially protecting TKs). I had been profligate with DDs while expanding the Empire and really couldn't spare any for ASW work. 
    This worked generally fine until 1943. It seems as if a "switch" was thrown at the start of '43. USN fleet SS have bagged 35-40 ASW ships in Home Waters in the first three months of the year. The SS often get the first shot and the shot sinks a patrol craft. Leads me to my AE question:
    Can any of the AE dev. team members summarize/repeat some general advice or impressions (from playtesting) about the most favorable methods of deploying ASW assets (especially as Japan) in AE? So far I understand that the numbers of Es, etc. will mushroom and that close-in port patrol appears to pay dividends. Also, I got that ASW TFs will be limited in # of ships. I also read with interest the posts in the early 300s of this thread. Any other advice about composition/tactics or do I have to find out the hard way?

Regards,
Helldiver

p.s. Yes, I know Japan is not supposed to win...


First, this sub-forum is for the AE product that they are still working on (not released yet), so this question probably belongs in either the War Room sub-forum or in the main WITP forum.

The direct answer to your question is that USN sub torpedoes have possibly improved by that date. Also, most or all of the USN subs should have refitted to add radar. Both of those things should move the scale toward their favor. They also get a ton of subs, so maybe sometimes your escorts are just overwhelmed. Hope this helps.

(in reply to helldiver)
Post #: 388
RE: Renaming Ships - 1/28/2009 9:13:33 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: JWE

AE has the option to rename ships in the build queue. We did this because of the historical Essex renames, and the old respawn thingy, and because who knows who will get sunk in the game.

But once a ship shows up, that's it. You either rename in the queue, or forever hold your piece.

Ciao. John


Yes, but. This ability is currently limited to ships in the reinforcement queue whose names end in " II". Yorktown II, Lexington II, etc.

We originally implemented a full rename capability, but it became obvious very quickly that it was an opening for a cheat. Rename all your carriers "Enterprise" and confuse the hell out of the enemy...



(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 389
RE: Renaming Ships - 1/28/2009 9:17:46 PM   
NormS3


Posts: 521
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: Wild and Wonderful WV, just don't drink the water
Status: offline 		Thanks for all info.

New question- As a modder then all I have to do to get replacements for those DDs that came back as Fletchers is to add II at end, then rename. Or is this just limited to carriers?

Thanks in advance

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Cha and T23 Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   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

1.656