RE: Ship SUnk Screen (Full Version)

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



Message

freeboy -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/15/2008 3:14:25 PM)

ok, is there a new ship v ship intercept or attack? this was a game killer for me before



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/15/2008 3:24:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Will damage control capability be more service specific? Ie..right now Allied damage control applies to every ship type in every service, including civilian merchants. Should really just apply to warships I'd say. Same goes for Japan, perhaps a different capability for warships and merchants.


You can probably handle this adequately by taking into account crew and captain ratings.


You may be right at that! Thanks Herwin.[;)]



Apollo11 -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/15/2008 3:50:27 PM)

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, is there a new ship v ship intercept or attack? this was a game killer for me before


We were informed that open ocean ship vs. ship interceptions will be in upcoming WitP AE!


Leo "Apollo11"



herwin -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/15/2008 3:50:29 PM)

I'm thinking it might be intelligent to turn over all responsibility for tactical operations to the AI.

Currently, a SAG on patrol will react away from a CVTF and will react into a base hex being attacked. CVTFs react towards enemy TFs. What I am suggesting is that CVTFs on patrol react automatically to maintain a distance of about 180 nm from enemy TFs during flying weather and 240 nm when socked in or at night. It might be possible to model turning into the wind as well. All this would be handled by the AI. SAGs on patrol would maintain a distance of 180 nm from enemy CVTFs during the day and night and would also have a chance of reacting into an enemy TF's hex (and back, so this would be at half reaction range) in non-flying conditions. Again this would be handled by the AI.

Alternatively, set the reaction distance as currently and use it to control the AI. CVTFs on patrol would react automatically to maintain that distance from spotted enemy TFs during flying weather and at least one greater when socked in or at night. SAGs on patrol would maintain that distance from spotted enemy CVTFs during the day and night and would also have a chance based on commander aggressiveness of reacting into an enemy TF's hex at that distance in non-flying conditions. Fuel usage should reflect this stuff, with CVTFs speeding up to full speed (without changing their hex) during air strike operations.

So a CVTF with a reaction distance of 6 would react to stay 6 hexes from enemy TFs during the day and 7 hexes during the night. A SAG with a reaction distance of 6 would maintain that distance and have a chance of reacting to an enemy TF at that distance. Typically, TFs would be given a reaction distance of 3 or 4. Setting the reaction distance to 0 would mean 'no AI, follow my orders'. Perhaps reaction distance could also be used to control the AI for other kinds of TFs.



The Gnome -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/15/2008 4:41:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome
Hey I read and digested as much of this as I could, so sorry if a few or all of these questions were answered.
1) Will a ship have a kill list? I'd love to see who sunk what/when (assuming intelligence knows).
2) Any changes to TF management?
3) Is there a change list hanging around anyplace without having to pour through the small book of posts you guys have made? :) :)

1) No. Come'on, who ya kiddin, and does it matter ??


What does it matter? It matters for FUN of course - you know.... the reason to play!



String -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/16/2008 7:47:34 AM)

Is there a chance for a TF to have a "fuel expenditure" field or something like that to indicate how much fuel on average would its current orders spend. Would make planning of large operations so much easier.



JWE -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/17/2008 3:43:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: String

Is there a chance for a TF to have a "fuel expenditure" field or something like that to indicate how much fuel on average would its current orders spend. Would make planning of large operations so much easier.

I think it already does; suggest you look at your present TF screens. See those fields that say 'endurance required', and those fields that say 'endurance' ? And those little endurance fields that only show up in red when you task a TF to go where it doesn't have the endurnce to go to ?



witpqs -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/17/2008 5:04:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: String

Is there a chance for a TF to have a "fuel expenditure" field or something like that to indicate how much fuel on average would its current orders spend. Would make planning of large operations so much easier.

I think it already does; suggest you look at your present TF screens. See those fields that say 'endurance required', and those fields that say 'endurance' ? And those little endurance fields that only show up in red when you task a TF to go where it doesn't have the endurnce to go to ?


Minor stuff in the 'would be nice' category:

A couple of shortcomings with those present displays -

1) The endurance required (on the TF screen) always includes the trip to 'home port'. This makes it hard to figure out how much to just get to where you told it to, which is useful if you have at sea refueling planned for sometime that the display (obviously) doesn't know about.

2) The endurance is always given for Mission Speed. Would be nice if it displayed for whatever the current setting is (Mission, Cruise, or Full).

3) On the ship display (click on a ship that's on the TF screen) only shows fuel on hand and range at mission speed. There should be a slash "/", after which is shown what the 100% totals would be. Currently the only way to know the full range of a ship is to get the ship refueled in port to see it actually full.



GaryChildress -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/17/2008 6:26:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

3) On the ship display (click on a ship that's on the TF screen) only shows fuel on hand and range at mission speed. There should be a slash "/", after which is shown what the 100% totals would be. Currently the only way to know the full range of a ship is to get the ship refueled in port to see it actually full.


I second this one. It would be nice to see what a ship's range "topped off" would be, even when the ship is in a TF in the middle of the map with half its fuel expended.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/17/2008 2:29:38 PM)

Question. Is there anyway for a player to select a hex for his TFs to retire too after completion of a mission...the home port default is a killer to multiple TF cohesiveness. Better still, would it be possible to pre-order a TF to follow another TF upon completion of its mission (instead of the default home port destination)? Be really cool if a player had even more lattitude here, ie, be able to order a TF to remain 1 hex SE of main TF (the one it is ordered to follow)?



witpqs -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/17/2008 3:00:53 PM)

They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/17/2008 4:43:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.


Cool. Anything should help here.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/17/2008 5:43:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.


Cool. Anything should help here.




Currently you can set up to three intermediate "waypoints" in AE. And you can also define a TF "patrol zone" of up to three "waypoints". Both are still being de-bugged a bit..., but seem to be working fairly well in my experiance. Warning: they do tempt you to do even more "clicking", so if your carpal tunnel is already acting up....



treespider -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/17/2008 5:55:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Question. ... Be really cool if a player had even more lattitude here, ie, be able to order a TF to remain 1 hex SE of main TF (the one it is ordered to follow)?



IIRC there is also a provision to 'follow' a TF by X number of hexes...not necessarily the same as telling it to remain SE ...but similar.



herwin -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/17/2008 6:20:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.


Cool. Anything should help here.




Currently you can set up to three intermediate "waypoints" in AE. And you can also define a TF "patrol zone" of up to three "waypoints". Both are still being de-bugged a bit..., but seem to be working fairly well in my experiance. Warning: they do tempt you to do even more "clicking", so if your carpal tunnel is already acting up....



Would giving even more of the tactical role to the AI make this work better?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/17/2008 7:00:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
IIRC there is also a provision to 'follow' a TF by X number of hexes...not necessarily the same as telling it to remain SE ...but similar.



Haven't seen one in AE so far....



Mike Scholl -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (1/17/2008 7:06:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Would giving even more of the tactical role to the AI make this work better?



Not sure how..., the AI really doesn't seem equipped to handle it---and I think the major reason for including "waypoints" and the like was player requests for more controllability. My "personal desire" would be for the AI to "back off" and let MY units follow MY orders... Might get clobbered..., but at least it will be my fault.



siRkid -> Ship Sunk Screen Numbers (1/18/2008 3:54:57 PM)

Can you list the number of ships sunk for each class of ships on the Ship Sunk Screen? It would only show the numbers for the ships displayed. For example, if you turned off Allie it would only count the Jap ships sunk. It would really help with Battle Damage Assessment.

[image]local://upfiles/5534/8DF7F3B56C474A2FBF436C49304F23E0.jpg[/image]



Tankerace -> RE: Submarine Bombardments (1/19/2008 6:15:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Is there any place where we can view allies' naval OOB?


No, but since I'm doing the Allied OOB (well except Merchies, that's John's bit) I could answer any question you had. So ask away.

Sorry I haven't posted in the AE forum before. Been a little busy with AE and Carrier Force. Don't lurk the forums much anymore.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

I did ask this before but I think it got missed, or i missed the reply.

Has the resizing of the RN carrier airgroups been altered, could the airgoups just be set as default to the increased fighter compliment when they arrive, as they tend to resize within a month anyway. This allow would modding of the airgroups by people wanting to represent the increase in size on RN carrier compliments during the war.

Or will the airgroups re-size like the USN groups?

Regards

Neil.




Hi Neil. Not sure exactly, the coding works a bit over my head on this. But I can confirm in their late war refits British carriers are allowed to carry more planes, to represent the adoption of American style deck parks in late 1944. I believe my original idea way back when was to add in effect one more squadron for each carrier to arrive "Carrier Capable" with the intent that X amount of time spent on the carrier would make them Carrier Capable. Of course I was Naval Team Lead way back then, not sure if that ever panned out.



resconq -> ASW Missions (1/20/2008 3:18:17 PM)

Will 25 still be the cap for TF size on ASW missions?  It always seemed gamey in that 25 destroyers making contact with a sub will usually result in the demise of said sub.



herwin -> RE: ASW Missions (1/20/2008 3:35:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: resconq

Will 25 still be the cap for TF size on ASW missions?  It always seemed gamey in that 25 destroyers making contact with a sub will usually result in the demise of said sub.


In reality, the primary constraint on ASW was search rate. 25 destroyers in a hex was doubly inefficient. It was so detectable that the subs would avoid it, and it meant that the search segments for each DD overlapped.



spence -> RE: ASW Missions (1/20/2008 8:50:37 PM)

Practically the whole idea of ASW TFs is bogus. Having a bunch of DDs charging around the ocean (with or without a CV/CVE) had been tried and found to be ineffective long before there even was a war in the Pacific. The ocean is just too dang big and the surface ships are almost certainly going to be detected by the submarine before they detect it (and at such a range that it has plenty of time to manuever out of the surface ships' way).

With SIGINT support the USN had some success late in the war with ASW TFs that operated independently of convoys but the success of ASW TFs mostly came from rendering aid to convoys which had come under attack from a wolf pack. Players can actually employ this latter tactic effectively in WitP.

The same can be said of the aircraft ASW mission. General search of wide swaths of the ocean were for the most part about as effective as we see in WitP. Aircraft (particularly long range aircraft) which however, flew in direct support of a convoy were quite effective in both preventing attacks on the convoy and damaging or sinking submarines which were trying to intercept the convoy. An ASW mission which operated like the LRCAP mission (in WitP) would reflect what turned out to be the most effective employment of ASW aircraft. The only exception to the above IRL was the Bay of Biscay operations where ASW aircraft were able to search transit lanes (essentially very limited areas) to/from established and well known submarine bases or (once again) where SIGINT provided timely knowledge of a submarine's position.



herwin -> RE: ASW Missions (1/20/2008 9:25:46 PM)

Accurate and to the point. Gibraltar was also a choke point.



witpqs -> RE: ASW Missions (1/20/2008 9:52:22 PM)

I thought that a productive technique was when radar equipped ASW aircraft spotted a submarine ASW TF's could be vectored in.

In WITP sending ASW TF's around yields only chance encounters, but rushing toward an aerial search contact yields more ASW attacks. Seems to mirror what I've read. Note that I am not talking about any other aspects on ASW in game.



Barb -> RE: ASW Missions (1/20/2008 11:10:22 PM)

Convoy system in fact was not only defensive weapon, but also an offensive one. With enough escort  forces (naval and air) it poses enough strike force to kill enemy submarines forced to attack convoys because of lack of solo-targets.
Adm. King realized this too (but late :o)



Don Bowen -> RE: ASW Missions (1/20/2008 11:27:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: resconq

Will 25 still be the cap for TF size on ASW missions?  It always seemed gamey in that 25 destroyers making contact with a sub will usually result in the demise of said sub.


Nope



witpqs -> RE: ASW Missions (1/21/2008 3:06:52 PM)

IIRC there is a limit of maybe 99 aircraft on a carrier. In AE will the code be able to handle the 130 aircraft for the CV Midway?



spence -> RE: ASW Missions (1/21/2008 3:35:05 PM)

quote:

I thought that a productive technique was when radar equipped ASW aircraft spotted a submarine ASW TF's could be vectored in.

In WITP sending ASW TF's around yields only chance encounters, but rushing toward an aerial search contact yields more ASW attacks. Seems to mirror what I've read. Note that I am not talking about any other aspects on ASW in game.



The ocean is big. Really, really big. Getting the a/c somewhere near the submarine in the first place was the problem (hence the importance of SIGINT and chokepoints). When you're using convoys most of the ocean is empty nothingness and the submarines are forced to come to you . You know where the convoys are.

Tactically the submarines were also forced to transmit on the radio to tell other submarines that they'd found something. Once HFDF receivers were put onto the convoy escorts and a/c that meant they could follow the transmission's line of bearing and attack the sub before it was in position to attack the convoy. When the number of escorts was large or a support group was handy the escorts could literally sit on the contact until it had to come up for air.

The use of HFDF by the escorts was an important contribution to defeating the U-boats in the Atlantic. Were Japanese escort vessels equipped with a tactical HFDF (I know they had the same sort of shore stations as the Allies but those did not give tactically useful information to an escort's captain; only general information such as knowledge that the subs were in the area)?



Mike Scholl -> RE: ASW Missions (1/21/2008 3:51:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
The ocean is big. Really, really big. Getting the a/c somewhere near the submarine in the first place was the problem (hence the importance of SIGINT and chokepoints). When you're using convoys most of the ocean is empty nothingness and the submarines are forced to come to you . You know where the convoys are.



Actually, thanks to code-breaking, we knew where most of them were most of the time. The Japs had their shipping (naval and civilian) reporting their "noontime positions" back to Tokyo every day. Only problems arose when the ship couldn't calculate it's own position accurately to report it.



herwin -> RE: ASW Missions (1/21/2008 4:39:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
The ocean is big. Really, really big. Getting the a/c somewhere near the submarine in the first place was the problem (hence the importance of SIGINT and chokepoints). When you're using convoys most of the ocean is empty nothingness and the submarines are forced to come to you . You know where the convoys are.



Actually, thanks to code-breaking, we knew where most of them were most of the time. The Japs had their shipping (naval and civilian) reporting their "noontime positions" back to Tokyo every day. Only problems arose when the ship couldn't calculate it's own position accurately to report it.



Or when they changed the code, but just for a few days.



Page: <<   < prev  29 30 [31] 32 33   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.15625