RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (Full Version)

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



Message

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/11/2007 11:00:20 AM)

Thank you all. I think we can draw a line under that discussion, in this thread at least.



spence -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/11/2007 1:43:22 PM)

Somewhere in here I think I saw mention of sectors for AA fire in so far as TF defense is concerned. Has this been manipulated in some fashion to account for the different tactical formations used by the Japanese and Allies (particularly in the 1942 time frame): to whit, the tremendous dispersion of a Japanese TF under air attack (up to 30 km) which essentially put screening ships out of effective AAA range of the CVs (but allowed the CVs to manuever radically when under attack) versus the close in (1500-2000 yard) ring formation of the Allies which constrained manuever by the CV somewhat but allowed the screen to concentrate its AAA against aircraft attacking the CV?



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/11/2007 2:13:13 PM)

All the flak stuff is really Air Team business.



jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/11/2007 7:46:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

All the flak stuff is really Air Team business.


Actually the "old" flak team (circa 6 months back) was Treespider, Nik and Joe. The "new" flak team, is Joe, Nik and MichaelM. But these flak teams are/were only addressing flak fired from land. We can take it off line, but we should prolly figure out who owns flak fired by ships.



herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/11/2007 9:32:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

All the flak stuff is really Air Team business.


Actually the "old" flak team (circa 6 months back) was Treespider, Nik and Joe. The "new" flak team, is Joe, Nik and MichaelM. But these flak teams are/were only addressing flak fired from land. We can take it off line, but we should prolly figure out who owns flak fired by ships.


Naval flak is point defense--integrate the phit from maximum range to bomb or torpedo release to determine whether the attack aborts, and then integrate again for the flight out, too. Some weapon systems were revenge-only, like 20mm AA.

Land AA is both point defense as above and area defense, with each aircraft taking its chances while in range--I don't care about the bullet with my name on it; what worries me is the bullet addressed "To Whom It May Concern."



Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/11/2007 10:35:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Some weapon systems were revenge-only, like 20mm AA.



Not just "revenge". Intimidation is also important. Nothing like seeing a few hundred "golden BB's" headed in your direction to shake up your confidence..., and your aim.



Brausepaul -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 1:27:20 PM)

This might have been answered before, but the search didn't gave any hits on this: will AE feature sub vs. sub action?



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 2:10:54 PM)

That's still being worked on.



Rainerle -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 3:43:07 PM)

Hi,
can I give speed for night movement and different speed for day movement? Will I be able to give any hex as return to hex after the assigned mission (i.e. like sprinting from a bombardement)



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 4:01:36 PM)

Speed settings are fixed for the whole turn, i.e. both night and day passes. I'm not sure what you mean with your second question.



Panther Bait -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 4:32:51 PM)

I think what Rainerle was asking is can a Bombardment TF be given a non-base hex to move to after the bombardment, rather than moving towards it's home base (which might move it in an undesirable direction). Another way to ask might be: can a Bombardment TF be given a waypoint after the bombardment hex or does the bombardment hex have to be the "last" waypoint?



Brausepaul -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 4:51:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's still being worked on.


Just to clarify: do you mean that it is currently being evaluated or that it is actually worked upon?



Rainerle -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 5:50:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

I think what Rainerle was asking is can a Bombardment TF be given a non-base hex to move to after the bombardment, rather than moving towards it's home base (which might move it in an undesirable direction). Another way to ask might be: can a Bombardment TF be given a waypoint after the bombardment hex or does the bombardment hex have to be the "last" waypoint?

Yes exactly that, thanks Panther. In addition can I make a TF join/follow a TF after it has done its mission (bombardement/fast Transport/minelaying etc.)? Like making the 'home Port' a TF to follow (might be convenient for SCTF to run from th CV TF at night a few hexes and return at dawn).



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 5:51:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brausepaul

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

That's still being worked on.


Just to clarify: do you mean that it is currently being evaluated or that it is actually worked upon?



It's being worked on.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 5:52:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

I think what Rainerle was asking is can a Bombardment TF be given a non-base hex to move to after the bombardment, rather than moving towards it's home base (which might move it in an undesirable direction). Another way to ask might be: can a Bombardment TF be given a waypoint after the bombardment hex or does the bombardment hex have to be the "last" waypoint?

Yes exactly that, thanks Panther. In addition can I make a TF join/follow a TF after it has done its mission (bombardement/fast Transport/minelaying etc.)? Like making the 'home Port' a TF to follow (might be convenient for SCTF to run from th CV TF at night a few hexes and return at dawn).


The waypoints are always in between the TF's homeport and it's destination hex. No setting waypoints after that.



Mike Solli -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 6:08:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

I think what Rainerle was asking is can a Bombardment TF be given a non-base hex to move to after the bombardment, rather than moving towards it's home base (which might move it in an undesirable direction). Another way to ask might be: can a Bombardment TF be given a waypoint after the bombardment hex or does the bombardment hex have to be the "last" waypoint?

Yes exactly that, thanks Panther. In addition can I make a TF join/follow a TF after it has done its mission (bombardement/fast Transport/minelaying etc.)? Like making the 'home Port' a TF to follow (might be convenient for SCTF to run from th CV TF at night a few hexes and return at dawn).


The waypoints are always in between the TF's homeport and it's destination hex. No setting waypoints after that.


Didn't you (or someone else) say that the TF can follow the waypoints back to the homeport?



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 6:24:13 PM)

Will ships spoted by Aircraft or other means triger,or help to, a mid ocean intercept, for surface action forces? If their set to react of course...



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 6:35:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

I think what Rainerle was asking is can a Bombardment TF be given a non-base hex to move to after the bombardment, rather than moving towards it's home base (which might move it in an undesirable direction). Another way to ask might be: can a Bombardment TF be given a waypoint after the bombardment hex or does the bombardment hex have to be the "last" waypoint?

Yes exactly that, thanks Panther. In addition can I make a TF join/follow a TF after it has done its mission (bombardement/fast Transport/minelaying etc.)? Like making the 'home Port' a TF to follow (might be convenient for SCTF to run from th CV TF at night a few hexes and return at dawn).


The waypoints are always in between the TF's homeport and it's destination hex. No setting waypoints after that.


Didn't you (or someone else) say that the TF can follow the waypoints back to the homeport?


I doubt it.



Mike Solli -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 7:01:54 PM)

I found it in the announcement.  Here's what I read:

Waypoints can also be used for automated convoys along with a “return same route” option, making setting up your supply routes easier than ever.

Guess it's just for automated convoys.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 7:13:11 PM)

It applies to CS-convoys, seeing as how ships assigned to the Auto-Convoy System set up their own routes.



VSWG -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/12/2007 7:17:35 PM)

What about the surface combat routine? Is the "Tom Hunter effect" (many ships remaining passive until being fired upon) still in the game? Do ships still dread to pair up with smaller ships? Any changes?



Bobthehatchit -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 12:10:49 AM)

This looks ace![X(][X(][:D]

Creditcard is ready and waiting.

One Question though....

RN carrier airgroups..... are these going to be fized?

Will they resize like the USN groups?

Prity please![:'(][&o]



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 1:30:16 AM)

Picket's?

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




jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 1:34:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Picket's?

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




Yup.



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 1:39:55 AM)


Scaned these from one of the books I got from Japan recently:

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

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


Prety much every Aux. is depected in this volume, including the Army types in great detail:

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



spence -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 2:30:19 AM)

Beginning to get a little hazy what I've read and where but I think I recall something about assault landing craft being modelled in AE. The Landing Boat, Tank pictured above doesn't seem like a specialized assault craft in the same vein of an LCT/LST. Unloading tanks over the side with a derrick seems more like the kind of thing one does at dock rather than on an assault beach.






Fishbed -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 2:49:46 AM)

Terminus, sorry to disturb you with another japanese shipping issue, but Im told by my fellow French WITPers on some other forum that we can't load troops aboard the Japanese CS (Chitose, Chiyoda, Nisshin, or even the short-lived Mizuho). Myself I usually play the US (and I don't have WitP on my computer right here) so I can't say if it is true or not. But well they ask, as so I am, if indeed these CS can't carry troops nor supplies right now, if anything is planned to allow them to do so in AE? We all know how important they could be for successful high-speed slot rides, something they were somewhat good at (as long as they didn't meet some plane on the way like the ill-fated Nisshin...).

Thanks in advance :)



Fishbed -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 2:51:31 AM)

quote:

Beginning to get a little hazy what I've read and where but I think I recall something about assault landing craft being modelled in AE. The Landing Boat, Tank pictured above doesn't seem like a specialized assault craft in the same vein of an LCT/LST. Unloading tanks over the side with a derrick seems more like the kind of thing one does at dock rather than on an assault beach.


Well as far as I can see on the drawing, there seem to be a bow door to allow quick landing of vehicules, but I could be mistaken...

At least in Chinese (thanks to the Kanjis [:D]) the first two characters in the description would read like "forward door" [;)]



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 3:00:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Terminus, sorry to disturb you with another japanese shipping issue, but Im told by my fellow French WITPers on some other forum that we can't load troops aboard the Japanese CS (Chitose, Chiyoda, Nisshin, or even the short-lived Mizuho). Myself I usually play the US (and I don't have WitP on my computer right here) so I can't say if it is true or not. But well they ask, as so I am, if indeed these CS can't carry troops nor supplies right now, if anything is planned to allow them to do so in AE? We all know how important they could be for successful high-speed slot rides, something they were somewhat good at (as long as they didn't meet some plane on the way like the ill-fated Nisshin...).

Thanks in advance :)



Not sure. I'll go look it up.



ctangus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 3:09:36 AM)

I think these questions belong here. I can move the first two to the air thread if appropriate. Maybe they can't all be answered yet, either, but they're pet peeves of mine...

1. The availability date of the F6F in stock seems to be a rough compromise between the F6F-3 & F6F-5. (In game terms the F6F-3 should probably arrive in Mar '43.) Are these two models now separate? Does Essex arrive equipped with F6F-3s?

2. On the other hand the Royal Navy seems to get Corsairs much earlier than they should. I've seen contradictory references on when the FAA equipped with them. (Jun - Nov '43). Looking through the squadron histories here: http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Squadrons/Index.html, I didn't notice any squadrons equipped with Corsairs in the IO or Pacific prior to October '44.

I guess my question is: is this being looked at? And are the Corsair I/II and III/IV modeled separately?

3. Any AFB knows that early-war the most effective US subs are the S-boats. Yet IRL the S-boats had a ton of mechanical problems, particularly those of the Asiatic fleet. And they didn't have a spectacular record. Is anything being done to model this? As a quick fix I personally think it would be worthwhile to give all the Asiatic Fleet S-boats 11 sys damage at the start of the war.

These are all probably trivial, but like I said they're pet peeves of mine so I decided to speak up when I had a chance.



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.96875