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 (12/14/2007 6:03:09 AM)

I'm a little confused about this given the info on AO's et al that you outlined a couple of posts back. In my little mind these answers seem like they conflict with other (but I realize they must not) - could you straighten me out? Thanks! [:)]



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 6:55:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I'm a little confused about this given the info on AO's et al that you outlined a couple of posts back. In my little mind these answers seem like they conflict with other (but I realize they must not) - could you straighten me out? Thanks! [:)]


Sorry, I don't understand the question.



rockmedic109 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 7:41:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


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.




So the benefit of an AO is they can refuel a task force without slowing it down?



witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 8:27:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
I'm a little confused about this given the info on AO's et al that you outlined a couple of posts back. In my little mind these answers seem like they conflict with other (but I realize they must not) - could you straighten me out? Thanks! [:)]


Sorry, I don't understand the question.



Earlier you went over how only AO's can refuel other ships under way, etc.

quote:


quote:


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.


But then you say that larger ships can refuel smaller ones.

quote:


quote:


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.


I know larger ships did refuel smaller ones, so now argument about authenticity. I'm wondering what are those rules - what larger ships can refuel what smaller ships? CV -> DD; BB -> DD; AP -> DD; AK -> DD; etc. And, is it underway refueling? (I've read that BB's refueled DD's quite a bit, for example.)



bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 9:05:12 AM)

Only AOs can refuel other ships from their cargo, but any larger ships can refuel smaller compatriots from their own fuel storage bunkers. Doing so reduces the range of the larger vessel, whereas refueling from an AO does not affect that vessel's own range since the fuel comes from the cargo holds and not the ship's own fuel bunkers.

Does it make sense now?



witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 9:29:54 AM)

Ahhhhhhhhh! [8D]



UniformYankee -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 9:35:36 AM)

I learned the "milch cow" tactic from Gen. Hoepner.[&o] It is really cool! You drive an AK out into nowhere ... and then gas up your subs off this ship ... really useful in WPO but not useless in WITP with the shorter ranged boats.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 1:45:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: UniformYankee

I learned the "milch cow" tactic from Gen. Hoepner.[&o] It is really cool! You drive an AK out into nowhere ... and then gas up your subs off this ship ... really useful in WPO but not useless in WITP with the shorter ranged boats.



But isn't it also historically rediculous? The US established a "forward base" at Midway to "top off" subs going to and from PH..., and the Japanese made similar use of Kwajalein---but I certainly don't remember any "Submarine Support Freighters" wandering about the ocean during the war.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 1:50:56 PM)

The Germans did it, but not the USN or IJN.



hueglin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 2:22:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Germans did it, but not the USN or IJN.


Which brings about the age old debate of historical games - do I only play what was done using the mindset of the nation that I am playing, or do I play what was technically possible. To me its all a matter of gamer preference - do I want to try and recreate history, or do I want to experiment with how things could have gone differently - given different ideas and ways of approaching the problems at hand.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 2:29:50 PM)

And beyond that, it brings up the "how-much-time-do-we-have-to-develop-this?" debate.



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 3:33:05 PM)


We're getting off on a bit of a tangent here.

There are, and always have been, two underway refueling methods in WITP. These are both retained in AE, with some adjustments:

1. Refueling by AO. An AO carrying fuel cargo uses that cargo to refuel other ships. Both ships acquire ops usage, which has the affect of slowing them down that turn.

2. Refueling from bunkers of other ships. Individual ships, usually those with larger fuel capacity, fuel other ships from their own fuel. Again, both ships acquire ops usage and so slow down that turn. This type of fueling was historically used primarily by larger warships refueling their escorting DDs, but is available universally in both WITH and AE.

AE makes some minor changes in the ships that can refuel from cargo while underway and adds the "sheltered anchorage" rule for other ships refueling from cargo while stopped.

Hope that is clear - there is some complexity.




Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 4:33:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hueglin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Germans did it, but not the USN or IJN.


Which brings about the age old debate of historical games - do I only play what was done using the mindset of the nation that I am playing, or do I play what was technically possible. To me its all a matter of gamer preference - do I want to try and recreate history, or do I want to experiment with how things could have gone differently - given different ideas and ways of approaching the problems at hand.



Wouldn't have a problem if the ship involved was a Sub Tender..., then you would be puting something valuable at risk in doing this. But AK's are a dime-a-dozen, so it's basically a throw-away...



Micke II -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 4:37:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen



AE makes some minor changes in the ships that can refuel from cargo while underway and adds the "sheltered anchorage" rule for other ships refueling from cargo while stopped.

Hope that is clear - there is some complexity.





Does it mean that small ships escorting big AK or AP will refuel at sea less frequently or at the option of the players ?
In WIP the speed of the convoys is greatly reduced due to the constant refueling of the escort ships even if they have left the harbour the day before.




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


quote:

ORIGINAL: Micke II

Does it mean that small ships escorting big AK or AP will refuel at sea less frequently or at the option of the players ?
In WIP the speed of the convoys is greatly reduced due to the constant refueling of the escort ships even if they have left the harbour the day before.



The auto-refueling has been tempered a bit. Any TF underway that does not have sufficient total endurance to complete it's mission will CONSIDER refueling each turn (same as WITP). A check for percentage of total fuel has been put in to prevent every-day topping off. This means that the TF will refuel the short ranged ships every few days instead of every day.





wworld7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 6:00:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But AK's are a dime-a-dozen, so it's basically a throw-away...



Ok, you get to tell the family of the crew if she is sunk.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 6:47:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But AK's are a dime-a-dozen, so it's basically a throw-away...



Ok, you get to tell the family of the crew if she is sunk.



I'll break the news to the little pixels if the need arises.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 6:50:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But AK's are a dime-a-dozen, so it's basically a throw-away...



Ok, you get to tell the family of the crew if she is sunk.



Oh.., and you are making my point. Both sides have AK's our the wazoo in the game, so losing several in such a silly ahistorical manner isn't going to bother the player or the score much. Sub Tender's are harder to come by, so less likely to be tossed away without thinking.



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 6:56:07 PM)

So-Whear do I get torp's for:

Float planes?
a)Tender's?
b) Basses of size 4, and suficient suoply?

PT's:
a)Tender's
b)  Baseses of suficient size(4) and suply?

Sub's-
Same as above?

DD's/CA' Same as above?

Auxilary's?





darken92 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 6:56:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Possibly... No further comment.


Sorry, just have to ask. There is a known issue with the naval attack routines and you will not comment?

Is it being looked into at all?



Skyland -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 7:06:33 PM)

Any chance to have Kabaya Ka-1 as a carrier capable aircraft (used for ASW duty on Akitsu Maru and Nigitsu Maru) ?


http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/kayaba_ka-1.php Thanks



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 7:24:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: darken92

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Possibly... No further comment.


Sorry, just have to ask. There is a known issue with the naval attack routines and you will not comment?

Is it being looked into at all?


The "no further comment" came after I posted an "it's being worked on" and was asked for clarification. My very first post on this thread said that we wouldn't be telling you everything and why.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 7:25:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyland

Any chance to have Kabaya Ka-1 as a carrier capable aircraft (used for ASW duty on Akitsu Maru and Nigitsu Maru) ?


http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/kayaba_ka-1.php Thanks


It was on the list last time I looked, along with a bit of a discussion on what to type it as...



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 8:59:16 PM)

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

[img]http://www.oniva.com/upload/2131/lph2.jpg[/img]



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 9:37:02 PM)

Brady, it's safe to stop posting all those graphics and assume that we already have this info. Thank you.



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 9:50:18 PM)

Was not just intended for your benifit, what I thought was interesting was the Depth chage referance and the Aircraft type,Ki-76.



Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 9:53:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Brady, it's safe to stop posting all those graphics and assume that we already have this info. Thank you.


Maybe he just like pretty pictures, like I do [:D]



hueglin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/14/2007 11:42:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But AK's are a dime-a-dozen, so it's basically a throw-away...



Ok, you get to tell the family of the crew if she is sunk.



Oh.., and you are making my point. Both sides have AK's our the wazoo in the game, so losing several in such a silly ahistorical manner isn't going to bother the player or the score much. Sub Tender's are harder to come by, so less likely to be tossed away without thinking.



Back to my point though. If, as Terminus says, the Germans refueled sub using AKs, then the Japanese and the US could have done it. Let's suppose some Japanese sub officer with an understanding of the German expience, or with his own insight, got into a position of authority where he could affect a change in doctrine. You might argue that it is ahistorical, but it would be much harder to argue that it is unrealistic - ie. that it could never have happened.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/15/2007 12:38:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: hueglin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But AK's are a dime-a-dozen, so it's basically a throw-away...



Ok, you get to tell the family of the crew if she is sunk.



Oh.., and you are making my point. Both sides have AK's our the wazoo in the game, so losing several in such a silly ahistorical manner isn't going to bother the player or the score much. Sub Tender's are harder to come by, so less likely to be tossed away without thinking.



Back to my point though. If, as Terminus says, the Germans refueled sub using AKs, then the Japanese and the US could have done it. Let's suppose some Japanese sub officer with an understanding of the German expience, or with his own insight, got into a position of authority where he could affect a change in doctrine. You might argue that it is ahistorical, but it would be much harder to argue that it is unrealistic - ie. that it could never have happened.



I'm not claiming it couldn't be done, but the ships the Germans used for "at sea replenishment" (like the Altmarck) were fitted out as support ships for their Merchant Raiders as well as subs. They did use some merchant ships that were interned in places like Spain to re-fuel subs that slipped in, but not at sea. I'm mostly interested in keeping a practice that didn't occur at all in the Pacific from getting "out of hand".



spence -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/15/2007 1:35:09 AM)

quote:

Departs Saiki. Seven oilers are assigned to the Hawaii Operation, but the IJN’s practical experience in refueling at sea is almost nil.

Nihon Kaigun TROMs for IJN Oilers

The powers that be have already determined that they are not going to recode things to account for method of refuelling at sea. The USN conducted at sea alongside refuelling of DDs escorting convoys to England during WW1. It had continued to develop techniques and technology, admittedly intermittently, in between the wars. The Japanese decided it might be a useful thing to develop in late Oct 1941. They were able to do it to some extent but they were the newbies and their efforts clearly showed it.
For example the Akagi had to come alongside and refuel every other day on the trip from Japan to Hawaii. Clearly they were not transferring full bunkers. Nagumo complains in his Midway Report that he was forced to enter the battle with some of his ships carrying only a partial load of fuel. For the same reason Takagi broke off the action at Coral Sea even though he believed he had sunk both Lexington and Yorktown.
Though hardly perfect, the USN had a big lead in carrying out this type of operation in 1941. The USN could, at least with some of its oilers, make good a 15 kt speed of advance and fill the bunkers of a whole task force in a day. For the Japanese the speed of advance and quantities of oil transferred were still far below US capabilities.



Page: <<   < prev  14 15 [16] 17 18   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.90625