RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (Full Version)

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



Message


witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 10:08:56 AM)

Two things.

1) LSIL is listed twice, once each for large and small. Maybe one should be LSIS?

2) [X(] Holy Cow! [&o]




JamesM -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 12:47:55 PM)

Just started a new game and I would like to see an auto disband option added to sub missions. This is particularly useful when you are directing subs to bases with naval bases for a scheduled refit.




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 1:11:00 PM)

It's in.




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 1:11:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Two things.

1) LSIL is listed twice, once each for large and small. Maybe one should be LSIS?

2) [X(] Holy Cow! [&o]


It's Landing Ship, Infantry Little and Large...[:D]




Akos Gergely -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 2:12:47 PM)

Sorry if this has been asked before (these threads are getting way to large to follow them all.. :D), so would there be any changes to surface ship main gun accuracy?

It's really annoying when BBs shoot at each other with 20mm guns for half an hour...




Dutch_slith -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 2:15:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


And the end. A total of 78 types.

Also, the AI will use some ship types depending on class attributes.



[image]local://upfiles/757/C1D748E6884B4396B78D7CC1E0574F9B.jpg[/image]



Cool![&o]




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 2:32:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

Sorry if this has been asked before (these threads are getting way to large to follow them all.. :D), so would there be any changes to surface ship main gun accuracy?

It's really annoying when BBs shoot at each other with 20mm guns for half an hour...



Nothing to do with main gun accuracy...




Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 4:08:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Is sub vs. sub finally there ?


Yup





Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 4:09:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Two things.

1) LSIL is listed twice, once each for large and small. Maybe one should be LSIS?

2) [X(] Holy Cow! [&o]


Yup






Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 4:09:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jamesm

Just started a new game and I would like to see an auto disband option added to sub missions. This is particularly useful when you are directing subs to bases with naval bases for a scheduled refit.



Yup




Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 5:54:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: csatahajos
It's really annoying when BBs shoot at each other with 20mm guns for half an hour...



Nothing to do with main gun accuracy...



But still silly and annoying.....




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 5:56:11 PM)

Didn't say it wasn't...




Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 5:59:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Yeah, like I said...

Anyway, the earliest I can find (same book as above, page 208) was the joint USN/RN operation against Sabang in Sumatra on 19 April '44, HMS Illustrious flying off Corsairs of 1830 and 1833 Squadrons, FAA.


That's the same info in the Fleet Air Arm Handbook 1939-1945 (p.53).




Grotius -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 6:33:12 PM)

Don, great stuff! Love the new classes.

I don't know if your charts will go in the new manual, but if so, one typo to mention: in AKE, it should read "when both ships...", not "when in both ships...".

Looks great! Sheesh, I can't wait.




Chad Harrison -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 8:23:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


OK. Following six displays are the AE ship types. You will notice considerable expansion.

Also:
1. A number of additional types are primarily variations of pre-existing types, included for historical accuracy. CVB as a variant of CV, for instance.
2. As much as possible, we adjusted ship type designations to the US Navy standard. It is generally understood and very detailed.
3. Where necessary, we used designations from other navies - generally for types that did not fit well into the standard US designations.
4. Several existing types have been reclassified! AG is just the beginning.

Here is number one. Not too much new here. We added CVB, CB, and TB (especially for the 12 Japanese large TB).



Wow! [X(] Great work and thanks for the answer.

I know this might be a very obvious and redundant question, but just to make sure, all these new ship classes will be listed under these new designations and you can sort by them? So I can sort my list (SAIEW) by ship class and I will see AP, APA, AK, AKA, CV, CVB, SS, SST and so on all grouped together and listed as such (you wont have to right click on a SS to see if it is a SS, a SST, or a SSX like you do right now to see if a AP is a vanilla AP or an APA)?

Thanks again. The more I read about this expansion the better it gets [:D]





Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 8:34:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


OK. Following six displays are the AE ship types. You will notice considerable expansion.

Also:
1. A number of additional types are primarily variations of pre-existing types, included for historical accuracy. CVB as a variant of CV, for instance.
2. As much as possible, we adjusted ship type designations to the US Navy standard. It is generally understood and very detailed.
3. Where necessary, we used designations from other navies - generally for types that did not fit well into the standard US designations.
4. Several existing types have been reclassified! AG is just the beginning.

Here is number one. Not too much new here. We added CVB, CB, and TB (especially for the 12 Japanese large TB).



Wow! [X(] Great work and thanks for the answer.

I know this might be a very obvious and redundant question, but just to make sure, all these new ship classes will be listed under these new designations and you can sort by them? So I can sort my list (SAIEW) by ship class and I will see AP, APA, AK, AKA, CV, CVB, SS, SST and so on all grouped together and listed as such (you wont have to right click on a SS to see if it is a SS, a SST, or a SSX like you do right now to see if a AP is a vanilla AP or an APA)?

Thanks again. The more I read about this expansion the better it gets [:D]




Yes, of course.

What is SAIEW?

HSWNFI






Chad Harrison -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 8:36:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Yes, of course.

What is SAIEW?

HSWNFI



Thanks Don. That alone would get me to buy the expansion. [:D]

SAIEW - Same As It Ever Was




Skyland -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 8:52:35 PM)

You can find here a complete (?) list of IJN vessels :

http://homepage2.nifty.com/nishidah/e/index.htm

May be some of them, missing in Witp, to be added in AE ? [:)]




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 8:56:34 PM)

Of course. We have all of that already.




Akos Gergely -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 10:26:31 PM)

Well I mean IMHO it was Nik who tinkered with this and with a higher accuracy for main guns this thing was kind of sorted...

So to put in an other way possible solutions for this issue?




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/13/2007 10:44:15 PM)

Possibly... No further comment.




Captain Cruft -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 2:21:34 AM)

Excellent stuff about all the new classes.

Does this mean that only certain types of ships e.g. AO and AE can enable a "Replenish TF at Sea" in game? Or will the ubiquitous facility remain? If it really is restricted that would do much to reduce various unrealities and gameyisms ...




Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 2:38:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

Excellent stuff about all the new classes.

Does this mean that only certain types of ships e.g. AO and AE can enable a "Replenish TF at Sea" in game? Or will the ubiquitous facility remain? If it really is restricted that would do much to reduce various unrealities and gameyisms ...



Underway refueling from carried fuel can only be done by AO and by CVE with fuel cargo capacity (the Sangamon Class rule).
Underway rearming can only by done by AE, and then only late in the war (same dates as WITP).

Additional refueling and rearming can be done at sheltered base anchorages. That is, TFs stopped at a base (the Ulithi rule).
Sheltered base anchorage refueling can be done by TK and YO, and AG with fuel cargo capacity (remember AG is now base ship). TK/YO can also transfer fuel directly to AO.
Sheltered base anchorage rearming can be done by AKE. AKE can also transfer cargo directly to AE.
Plus all underway refueling/rearming ships.

NOTE: Tankers can not refuel ships underway in any circumstances. The famous "never disband TF2" cheat is gone. The ships that were in TF2 are properly classifed as AO to reflect their underway refueling ability.






Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 3:23:25 AM)

Given that Japanese Tankers built during the mid to late 30's were required by law to be equiped to act as AO for the fleat in time of war, how is this handled in AE?




Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 3:31:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Given that Japanese Tankers built during the mid to late 30's were required by law to be equiped to act as AO for the fleat in time of war, how is this handled in AE?


If they are defined in the OOB as AOs, they refuel underway. If the ain't, they don't.

I believe there are quite a number of Japanese ships that were classed as TK in old Scenario 15 and are classed as AO in Admiral's Edition (as AO in AE just didn't look right!).






spence -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 4:24:52 AM)

Were Japanese AO's capable of alongside underway refuelling of multiple ships at speed(15 kts)? It is my understanding that the principle manner of refuelling in the IJN was to trail a hose over the stern to the receiving ship - a method which was much slower, both for the transfer of fuel and for the speed of advance of the ships involved in the transfer as well as more suseptible to interruption by poor weather conditions. Not even all oilers in the USN were so capable at the beginning of the war but the practice was being worked out and more modern oilers were.

The procedure as practiced by the USN conferred a level of strategic mobility on the USN that was not duplicated by any of the Axis powers during WW2. I am not saying that the Japanese couldn't refuel at sea - only that they when they did it it took longer (as a game mechanism, used more ops points perhaps); and were much more likely to be prevented by prevailing weather from doing it at all at times they might find operationally convenient.




Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 5:10:03 AM)

I can scan some details of Side,trailing and lead refueling tomarow for Japanese AO's if nessary.




Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 5:33:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

I can scan some details of Side,trailing and lead refueling tomarow for Japanese AO's if nessary.


Not necessary I guess. That is a level of detail greater than we go. A ship can perform underway refueling or it can't. We're not going down to method, especially on a ship by ship basis.







rockmedic109 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 5:43:13 AM)

The way it is now, fuel can be traded between ships of the same {or different task forces} when the refuel at sea button is hit.  Will this still occur or does it need to be at a base or dot hex?




Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 5:49:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

The way it is now, fuel can be traded between ships of the same {or different task forces} when the refuel at sea button is hit.  Will this still occur or does it need to be at a base or dot hex?


Yes, it is still there and can be done at sea (accumulated ops will reduce movement that turn).

Larger ships frequently did refuel smaller ones in TFs. It is easier probably easier to do in WIPT and AE in real life.

We did look at this, but decided no changes should be made.





Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125