RE: Barrel wear and relining (Full Version)

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



Message


Mike Scholl -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (12/30/2007 1:26:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
We both agree that the game as packaged should be limited to things that are historically accurate. However, there are things not in the base game already that are historically accurate, for instance the loading of 16.1-inch Type 3 "Sanshikidan" incendiary shells that carried submunitions to be used in the anti-aircraft role. These shells were loaded on board Mutsu the day she blew up in port. The game itself certainly doesn't allow the use of these shells, as the big guns are not given DP capability. And I'm fine with that because sometimes we sacrifice strict historical accuracy in favor of balanced gameplay.




Actually, I'd call this totally historically accurate...., at these shells proved completely worthless when used. Though I didn't know they might have proved a factor in Mutsu's self-destruction. But no, I'm not going to suggest that one Jap BB blow up during the game just because Mutsu did. I prefer to let the player's get themselves sunk.




Shark7 -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (12/30/2007 3:57:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
We both agree that the game as packaged should be limited to things that are historically accurate. However, there are things not in the base game already that are historically accurate, for instance the loading of 16.1-inch Type 3 "Sanshikidan" incendiary shells that carried submunitions to be used in the anti-aircraft role. These shells were loaded on board Mutsu the day she blew up in port. The game itself certainly doesn't allow the use of these shells, as the big guns are not given DP capability. And I'm fine with that because sometimes we sacrifice strict historical accuracy in favor of balanced gameplay.




Actually, I'd call this totally historically accurate...., at these shells proved completely worthless when used. Though I didn't know they might have proved a factor in Mutsu's self-destruction. But no, I'm not going to suggest that one Jap BB blow up during the game just because Mutsu did. I prefer to let the player's get themselves sunk.



Hehe, well that was just me showing an instance of where we do sacrifice the strictest of historical accuracy for gameplay. We both know those shells were worthless in their intended use, and if modeled would have given an unrealistic capability to Nagato and Mutsu. So it was the right decision not to include the ability.

As far as the reason Mutsu blew, know one knows for sure...but they did test to see particular shells might have been a factor. Apparently the Mutsu incident did prompt the removal of those particular shells (at least for a time) though.

More info can be found here: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Mutsu.html as this is the TROM for Mutsu as seen posted at the Imperial Japanese Navy Page.

This has been a little off-topic, but it is an interesting read.




witpqs -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (12/30/2007 4:29:20 AM)

The investigation concluded that it was an industrial accident...



[image]local://upfiles/14248/CE9E4DD436354A3AAEC66A4DDF771486.jpg[/image]




witpqs -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (12/30/2007 4:30:07 AM)

But many think it was an Allied secret weapon ...



[image]local://upfiles/14248/923CA2F5D368439AA0C2784BA66CB1DD.jpg[/image]




witpqs -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (12/30/2007 4:30:57 AM)

Yes, civilized discussion is good!



[image]local://upfiles/14248/AE4A424F82584645A604BAD5A05A55A7.jpg[/image]




John 3rd -> Early Fighter Shortage (12/30/2007 8:55:21 AM)

I haven't had time to read all the pages of content here so if I am repeating something--sorry!

I've just gotten fairly far into The First Team by Lundstrom and have been amazed to read about the acute fighter shortage that was a bane to American CVs for the first two months of the war.  Didn't know how bad those Brewsters were when it came to landing and damaging their struts either.  The book is a storehouse of information!

Anyway...will AE reflect this fighter shortage for the American CV Fleet at start? 




bradfordkay -> RE: Early Fighter Shortage (12/30/2007 9:32:24 AM)

CHS certainly has, so I expect that AE will as well. (just my impression...)




JWE -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (12/30/2007 11:22:34 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
[image]local://upfiles/14248/AE4A424F82584645A604BAD5A05A55A7.jpg[/image]



Hey !! Where did you get that picture of me, BigB and TomLabel ??




witpqs -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (12/31/2007 12:57:39 AM)

Game trail camera. Luckily it was strapped to a tree just above where you three made a kill. [:D]




JeffroK -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (12/31/2007 3:28:00 AM)

Sorry if its been mentioned in the previous 26 pages.

Aircraft need AV support to operate, you can go without but they quickly become damaged.

At Sea, you can operate ships from ports, as long as they are at a certain level.

I would like the Map value to represent the size of the harbour/anchorage, the represent how many ships could safely anchor in the area. The ability to resupply/service/load ships should be represented by units with "SV" support points which would represent the Civilian/Naval/Army units who performed wharf labour work and repairs.

Poor Management/Planning would see your shipping stranded in port, just as the Air Forces suffer from.




TOMLABEL -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (12/31/2007 8:16:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
[image]local://upfiles/14248/AE4A424F82584645A604BAD5A05A55A7.jpg[/image]



Hey !! Where did you get that picture of me, BigB and TomLabel ??


[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

Which one is my ugly mug? [X(]

TOMLABEL




TOMLABEL -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (12/31/2007 8:22:06 AM)

Here's a guess!
[:D]

TOMLABEL

[image]local://upfiles/19527/D17D6FF030EA456187730F9CE91734B3.jpg[/image]




NormS3 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/31/2007 5:09:31 PM)

Will there be the division of Essex class and Ticonderoga classes? I know that there is little need the way that the game is set up now, but adds to the flavor.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/31/2007 5:32:51 PM)

I'm positive they are.




Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/31/2007 7:08:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm positive they are.


Why??




Ron Saueracker -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/31/2007 7:16:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm positive they are.


Why??



Gee, well maybe because of the bazillion new ship slots and new art work flying about? [:D]




JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/31/2007 9:40:26 PM)

Well, seein' as how the Ti is a few pixels bigger than the Essex, why the heck not? Instead of 3 sailors pukin off the stern of the Essex, we've got 4 sailors (and one overage reserve chief) pukin off the hanger deck of the Ti's. The overage chief is the fat redhead that's heavin' over the forward, port hangar deck opening.




Cap Mandrake -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (1/1/2008 1:53:06 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

Here's a guess!
[:D]

TOMLABEL

[image]local://upfiles/19527/D17D6FF030EA456187730F9CE91734B3.jpg[/image]


That is cool but please tell Big B to be a bit more careful with those up-angle shots when wearing his official AE loincloth. There are kids on this forum and that is more information than I wanted to know either.




wwengr -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (1/1/2008 6:54:11 PM)

Suggestion: Modify the capabilties of the support Landing Craft to allow them into a Bombardment TF or create a special Amhpibious Bombardment Mission for them.  Also give them an Amphib Value.  This will allow them to perform their intended function for players that build higly coordinated Amphibious landings.




Don Bowen -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (1/1/2008 8:14:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr

Suggestion: Modify the capabilties of the support Landing Craft to allow them into a Bombardment TF or create a special Amhpibious Bombardment Mission for them.  Also give them an Amphib Value.  This will allow them to perform their intended function for players that build higly coordinated Amphibious landings.


Has been addressed. Not exactly this way, but you'll be happy.




Kull -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (1/2/2008 7:34:08 AM)

1) I'm VERY far from expert in these matters, but it does seem like respawning (at least in the case of CVs, CAs, and CLs) was a "hold-your-nose" programming solution to the duplicate name problem. But it truly smacks of "gamey", especially as implemented with the Essex Class carriers. Even a "one-day" upgrade for the existing Allied CVs (so you could move them to San Diego and turn them into their Essex-named counterparts on the historical date of arrival-in-theatre) would be vastly better than the current options. Anyway, I'm glad the team has decided to revisit the issue.

2) From everything I've read, it seems that the historical presence of German ships and subs in the Pacific is going to be omittted, because of the fact they did not operate under Japanese control. While this is undoubtedly true, it's also a fact that the WitP engine grants the Allied player a far from historical degree of centralized control over the Chinese (to include the laughable probability of joint Communist and Nationalist operations), the Dutch, and later, the Soviets.

Given the huge increase in OOB slots, surely some could be found for a very limited number of historical German units? And if the Japanese player chooses to use them in a non-historical fashion, well that seems to be a lesser crime than that of omitting the units altogether. Especially given the utterly ahistorical cooperation that is already "built-in" for the various Allied entities.

Edit: Lest the above seem overly critical, I should add that I've read every post in the AE Naval and Air threads, and what you guys have done and will do is simply amazing. I'm commenting on issues the size of nits that reside on nits.




rockmedic109 -> RE: Barrel wear and relining (1/2/2008 11:22:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

1) I'm VERY far from expert in these matters, but it does seem like respawning (at least in the case of CVs, CAs, and CLs) was a "hold-your-nose" programming solution to the duplicate name problem. But it truly smacks of "gamey", especially as implemented with the Essex Class carriers. Even a "one-day" upgrade for the existing Allied CVs (so you could move them to San Diego and turn them into their Essex-named counterparts on the historical date of arrival-in-theatre) would be vastly better than the current options. Anyway, I'm glad the team has decided to revisit the issue.

2) From everything I've read, it seems that the historical presence of German ships and subs in the Pacific is going to be omittted, because of the fact they did not operate under Japanese control. While this is undoubtedly true, it's also a fact that the WitP engine grants the Allied player a far from historical degree of centralized control over the Chinese (to include the laughable probability of joint Communist and Nationalist operations), the Dutch, and later, the Soviets.

Given the huge increase in OOB slots, surely some could be found for a very limited number of historical German units? And if the Japanese player chooses to use them in a non-historical fashion, well that seems to be a lesser crime than that of omitting the units altogether. Especially given the utterly ahistorical cooperation that is already "built-in" for the various Allied entities.

Edit: Lest the above seem overly critical, I should add that I've read every post in the AE Naval and Air threads, and what you guys have done and will do is simply amazing. I'm commenting on issues the size of nits that reside on nits.


It seems like we are going to get both respawn and non-respawn scenarios, so the issue is not a major one. The only question will be what form the non-respawn scenarios take. Yes, I too am glad they looked at this. Even more happy for both {respawn and non-respawn} versions.

The allied player is not the only one that benefits from more control than historical fact. The Japanese get far more cooperation from IJN and IJA than was ever the case. Personally, I tend to keep Dutch fighting in DEI, the British in Burma/India; and limit mixing units from different nationalities. I even move U.S. AKs in India to the west coast. But then, I play against the AI.

I am sure that new, user created scenarios will be making appearances very shortly after AE hits the market.




Rainerle -> New ships and manpower (1/2/2008 4:50:15 PM)

Hi,
sorry if that has been posted before but are there plans to tie the availability of new ships to a decrease in the manpower pool or maybe even a special navy personal pool from which to draw manpower for the ships?




Terminus -> RE: New ships and manpower (1/2/2008 5:08:36 PM)

No.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: New ships and manpower (1/2/2008 7:18:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
sorry if that has been posted before but are there plans to tie the availability of new ships to a decrease in the manpower pool or maybe even a special navy personal pool from which to draw manpower for the ships?

[;)]
That would mean modelling crew factors (an excellent and simple to add idea IMO)!




Don Bowen -> RE: New ships and manpower (1/2/2008 9:00:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
sorry if that has been posted before but are there plans to tie the availability of new ships to a decrease in the manpower pool or maybe even a special navy personal pool from which to draw manpower for the ships?

[;)]
That would mean modelling crew factors (an excellent and simple to add idea IMO)!



First rule of Programming: Everything is easy for someone that doesn't have to do it himself.






Sonny II -> RE: New ships and manpower (1/3/2008 12:05:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
sorry if that has been posted before but are there plans to tie the availability of new ships to a decrease in the manpower pool or maybe even a special navy personal pool from which to draw manpower for the ships?

[;)]
That would mean modelling crew factors (an excellent and simple to add idea IMO)!



First rule of Programming: Everything is easy for someone that doesn't have to do it himself.






The second rule is: No matter what you give them, they want more.
[:D]




rockmedic109 -> RE: New ships and manpower (1/3/2008 12:35:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny II


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
sorry if that has been posted before but are there plans to tie the availability of new ships to a decrease in the manpower pool or maybe even a special navy personal pool from which to draw manpower for the ships?

[;)]
That would mean modelling crew factors (an excellent and simple to add idea IMO)!



First rule of Programming: Everything is easy for someone that doesn't have to do it himself.






The second rule is: No matter what you give them, they want more.
[:D]


The second rule is certainly true with WITP. We have been lucky in that we keep getting more!




JWE -> RE: New ships and manpower (1/3/2008 12:58:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

That would mean modelling crew factors (an excellent and simple to add idea IMO)!



First rule of Programming: Everything is easy for someone that doesn't have to do it himself.



Third rule is - so long as you give them something new to whine about, they will be happy.

Sauracker, you old fart, you - long time no talk, buddy. How do you like goat ? learned the Greek alphabet yet ? you been to the temple ruins ? ever get over to the Turkish Ionian coast ? PM me - we gotta chat. Ciao.




freeboy -> RE: New ships and manpower (1/3/2008 1:35:46 AM)

two ?'s from an old time witp player
A. can the japs build a flight school, givingthem better and more late war pilots as an option?
B. Does the surface combat still use the same "we do not really have surface action" rutines?
my old bitch about needing to be able to run down slow tf's etc and other surface action upgrades? 




Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.921875