RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 5:38:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Sloop, behind the DUKW:

[img]http://www.oniva.com/upload/2131/313.jpg[/img]



That's not a sloop, Brady, it's a schooner. CHS has them included. I'm not part of the AE crew, so I have no idea aas to whether they'll be in it...



Mike Solli -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 5:43:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

We discussed that a lot, and the short and the long of it is, don't expect any big "never-weres", like lots of Taiho's and what-not. We're going to stay within realistic Japanese (and Allied) planning. With that said, we've got a huge new OOB, and some new tricks planned, courtesy of the very cool Convert-To routines.


T, what about all the Japanese ships that were planned but never constructed?



Mobeer -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 5:48:27 AM)

1) Will the Japanese player be able to convert Nisshin or Mizunho to light carriers?
1a) Will the AI be able to do this?
2) Will historically sunk ships have further upgrades available in later years?
3) Will the re-incarnation of Allied cruisers continue? Will there be a limit to how many cruisers can be recreated?
4) If US carriers are not sunk, will the replacements enter service under alternative names?
5) Will replacement US carriers have airgroups?
6) Will the AI understand the difference between normal and replacement carrier air groups on US escort carriers?



Bulldog61 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 7:53:06 AM)

actually MRE stands for Meals refusing to exit!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'm not sure you can build Meals Ready to Eat today?[:'(]




Nomad -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 8:02:40 AM)

And I thought MRE stood for Meals Rushing to Exit. [:D]



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 8:25:50 AM)

Sloop=one mast?



bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 10:58:07 AM)

Yep.



Sardaukar -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 11:35:54 AM)

Another pet peeve of mine:

Will CS Convoys be able to load Oil automatically ? In WitP one has to use manual convoys. Waypoints and CS Convoy able to auto-load Oil would lessen especially Japanese micromanagement. Ditto when I want to ship oil from USA to Oz.



rockmedic109 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 11:50:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MikeKraemer

actually MRE stands for Meals refusing to exit!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'm not sure you can build Meals Ready to Eat today?[:'(]




I thought "Meal, Ready to Eat" was three lies for the price of one.



Sardaukar -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 11:53:04 AM)

Yep...and "Meals Rejected by Ethiopians"

Also, AFAIK, pack of 4 frankfurter sausages in one MRE variation are called "Four Fingers of Death" [:D][:D]

I have, out of curiosity, sampled few MREs, and can say that while some of it is edible, some is quite dire ****e... I prefer my Finnish army rations.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 12:14:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

We discussed that a lot, and the short and the long of it is, don't expect any big "never-weres", like lots of Taiho's and what-not. We're going to stay within realistic Japanese (and Allied) planning. With that said, we've got a huge new OOB, and some new tricks planned, courtesy of the very cool Convert-To routines.


T, what about all the Japanese ships that were planned but never constructed?


Well, I can tell you that we're looking into it, obviously... The general guideline is that if steel was cut for a ship, it's most likely in the game. That's the way I've handled the ships I've done for the OOB anyway.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 12:15:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Another pet peeve of mine:

Will CS Convoys be able to load Oil automatically ? In WitP one has to use manual convoys. Waypoints and CS Convoy able to auto-load Oil would lessen especially Japanese micromanagement. Ditto when I want to ship oil from USA to Oz.



That's being worked on.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 12:17:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

1) Will the Japanese player be able to convert Nisshin or Mizunho to light carriers?
1a) Will the AI be able to do this?
2) Will historically sunk ships have further upgrades available in later years?
3) Will the re-incarnation of Allied cruisers continue? Will there be a limit to how many cruisers can be recreated?
4) If US carriers are not sunk, will the replacements enter service under alternative names?
5) Will replacement US carriers have airgroups?
6) Will the AI understand the difference between normal and replacement carrier air groups on US escort carriers?


1+1a): No. The Japs didn't look seriously at this.
2): Yes.
3): Respawn is still in the current master scenario.
4): No.
5+6): Not sure what you mean by these questions?



Sardaukar -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 12:19:44 PM)

How about auto-disband for Sub TFs ? [8D]



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 12:20:56 PM)

That's been in for a while now, as far as I know...



el cid again -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 12:21:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

1) Will the Japanese player be able to convert Nisshin or Mizunho to light carriers?
1a) Will the AI be able to do this?
2) Will historically sunk ships have further upgrades available in later years?
3) Will the re-incarnation of Allied cruisers continue? Will there be a limit to how many cruisers can be recreated?
4) If US carriers are not sunk, will the replacements enter service under alternative names?
5) Will replacement US carriers have airgroups?
6) Will the AI understand the difference between normal and replacement carrier air groups on US escort carriers?


I promise - any of these features not included will be part of RHS Level 8 - which Mifune and I redesignated today. Originally intended for a different map concept - almost all of that concept is in AE - so RHSAE will be called Level 8.
We may not need to modify the map/pwhexL files at all. But OB stuff we can and will do.

I don't know what Terminus means by "the Japs didn't look seriously at this." Any ship planned so it could be built in alternate forms was "seriously looked at." In addition, just about every major hull in the Empire was subject to full scale carrier modifications post Midway - sometimes as many as three different kinds of carriers. AFTER ALL these designs (which must be considered "seriously looking at what we can do") were done, it was decided which to implement, which were more valuable to keep in their present form. Thus Kongos were not converted - because of their value as high speed escorts - the same for most CAs - but a badly damaged CA was converted to a seaplane semi-carrier, the two least valuable battleships similiarly converted to semi-carriers - although originally not seaplane semicarriers - and eventually dual carrier/seaplane semicarriers - the uncompleted CA Ibuki was converted to a CVL and the uncompleted Shinano to a CV. For extensive information on these matters, see Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War and Kaigun.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 12:27:08 PM)

Sid, don't advertise your mod in this thread.



el cid again -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 12:28:42 PM)

I was not. On the other hand, do you expect us not to update it to the AE code base? Or to comment on how we might do that?

You are not the boss of us. You have no agreement with us. As long as our comments are germane and civil, you should regard them as advertising the value of AE - and Matrix WITP concepts in general - and be glad for the support.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 12:29:41 PM)

You WERE advertising your mod. I certainly expect you to update your mod, but talk about it in its own thread. Thank you.



el cid again -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 12:34:22 PM)

Well - at least you are consistent in your hostility toward me and my concepts. There is no person in the Forum or related to Matrix whose requests bear less weight in my mind than you. Since you are only rarely reasonable - I don't expect reason to prevail with you. I was addressing a Forum member's concern - there was no way to do that in a different thread - and I will do that any time it is appropriate. Note I have had - and will continue to have - almost no comments on these threads.



Mobeer -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 2:49:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer
5) Will replacement US carriers have airgroups?
6) Will the AI understand the difference between normal and replacement carrier air groups on US escort carriers?

5+6): Not sure what you mean by these questions?


5) When the replacement carriers appear they arrive with no airgroup. They are then incredibly easy to sink because they have only AAA to protect themselves. A human player could load land-based squadrons but the AI does not do this.

6) Some of the US escort carriers carry squadrons with R in their name that may only be used for replenishing other aircraft carriers, whilst other escort carriers carry normal squadrons. The current AI will send the carriers with replenishment squadrons into front line action. These carriers then act as in the point above, where they can launch no aircraft. It would help if either they had normal squadrons, or if operated behind normal carrier task forces.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 3:18:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobeer
5) Will replacement US carriers have airgroups?
6) Will the AI understand the difference between normal and replacement carrier air groups on US escort carriers?

5+6): Not sure what you mean by these questions?


5) When the replacement carriers appear they arrive with no airgroup. They are then incredibly easy to sink because they have only AAA to protect themselves. A human player could load land-based squadrons but the AI does not do this.

6) Some of the US escort carriers carry squadrons with R in their name that may only be used for replenishing other aircraft carriers, whilst other escort carriers carry normal squadrons. The current AI will send the carriers with replenishment squadrons into front line action. These carriers then act as in the point above, where they can launch no aircraft. It would help if either they had normal squadrons, or if operated behind normal carrier task forces.


Okay, that's AI-related then. We're working on it.

But replacement carriers (I suspect you mean respawned carriers) DO arrive with their air groups.



Hortlund -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 3:26:05 PM)

Can you include a fatigue-variable for ship crews?

Right now a ship can remain at sea month after month with only a one-day resupply in port now and then. Can we add crew fatigue, and have that only diminish when the ship is disbanded in a port?



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 3:29:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panzerjaeger Hortlund

Can you include a fatigue-variable for ship crews?

Right now a ship can remain at sea month after month with only a one-day resupply in port now and then. Can we add crew fatigue, and have that only diminish when the ship is disbanded in a port?


Problem would be that we'd have to include a whole series of routines for what causes fatigue and how much, and how long it takes to lose it again. It's not a bad idea, we've certainly considered it, and it's not off the table for a patch, but don't expect it for the initial release.



spence -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 3:57:37 PM)

I've forgotten what designation they have now but has some ability to carry something/do something been given to the USS Langley and the other "regular" American seaplane tenders?



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 4:24:10 PM)

That's OOB work, and still in progress...



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 4:30:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

I've forgotten what designation they have now but has some ability to carry something/do something been given to the USS Langley and the other "regular" American seaplane tenders?


Not quite sure what you mean, can you be more specific in your question??





JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 4:36:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
I've forgotten what designation they have now but has some ability to carry something/do something been given to the USS Langley and the other "regular" American seaplane tenders?

What we can say is that auxiliary vessels, like AVs, aren’t limited to their primary roles. The kinds of “stuff” a ship can carry has been expanded, so that troops, ammunition, supply, fuel, planes, etc .. are no longer mutually exclusive. Realistic AV relief/resupply missions are now quite feasible. The actual scope of what a Langley might carry/accommodate is, of course, an OOB question. But she, and the other AVs will be able to do much more than just gas up a PatRon.



spence -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 4:38:50 PM)

OK

USS LANGLEY was sunk while carrying some ready to fly P-40s (uncrated and assembled) to Java. She had half a flightdeck but could neither launch nor recover a/c. However once those P-40s had made it to a port and been unloaded they would have been just waiting for a pilot to take off and head into combat.

USS TANGIER was carrying troops and supplies during the abortive relief attempt for Wake Island.

As far as I recall both these ships have a capacity of 0 in WitP. They can not carry anything. You can't even set up one in some lonely lagoon servicing a flight of seaplanes because they can't carry any supplies for the seaplanes to use. While they were not as operationally useful as the IJN CSs they were more useful IRL than they are in the game.

Question answered. Thank you JWE



Grotius -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/9/2007 5:09:01 PM)

Hey Terminus, thanks again for your replies. I think you might have missed a few of my questions -- or maybe I missed the responses -- or maybe I should stop asking so many questions! At some point I know we should let you guys get back to work! But in case you missed it:

quote:

1. Is there any change to cold-weather limits on operations? I ask because I often felt it was too easy to operate in the Alaska area, notwithstanding the penalties in stock.

2. Has Patrol/Do Not Retire changed at all?

3. Has CV "one-hex" reaction changed at all?

4. Still have diminishing returns on AA for TFs of more than 15 ships?

5. Can you tell us more about the directional flak? I assume it's primarily a function of ship/plane heading; is ship/plane speed also a factor?

6. I too wanted to ask about tracking tonnage sunk by subs, or for that matter total distance traveled, fuel consumed, ammo used, etc. but it sounds like AE won't do that. Not a big deal; just would be nice -- those sort of stats that would enrich an AAR like Cuttlefish's. Is it fair to say that modders will have a way to track that sort of data?



Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125