RE: Ship SUnk Screen (Full Version)

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



Message

JWE -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/10/2008 2:37:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

My brain fails me...yet again! Will the Convert-To function for ship conversions include the massive rebuilds like West Virginia and California/Tennesee and lesser ones? Will they be given the commensurate refit/conversion times as well?

Apologies if I missed an earlier answer.[>:][8|]

Your 'brain' ... ??? sorry, Ron didn't understand the reference. Is there something I'm missing ?? Your ... what ??[:D][:D][:D]

massive rebuilds - yes

lesser ones - yes

commensurate times - yes.

Apology accepted.



m10bob -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/11/2008 2:41:35 PM)

Terminus, after reading some of your comments on another thread, (and if this has not already been suggested), I think it would be a good idea to make an asterisk or other device behind a ships name for CLAA's to help prevent novice players,(or lazy folks like me) from trying to put these paper-thin ships in the role of a "ship of the line" type surface group.
The Juneau was sunk because it was put in such an action and took many of its' crew with her(including the Sullivan brothers).
Of course the individual player can do as he wishes with the ships, but maybe that one extra "warning" can serve to set these ships apart from true "CL's"???



bradfordkay -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/13/2008 8:03:14 AM)

Since the game can go into 1946, will the USS Tarawa be added to the OOB?



Canoerebel -> Get rid of the "react" feature! (2/14/2008 1:08:22 AM)

Please get rid of the entire "react" routine for aircraft carriers!  Is there anything more universally loathed (at least judging from my forum reading for UV and WitP over the past six years)?  People have come up with all kinds of routines to stop CVs from reacting, but none of them are reliable.  Just do away with "react" entirely!  Or, if the designers want a possibility of mayhem in the game, just have a chance (25% or whatever) that CVs will become dispersed or do stupid things.

So much angst and anger will disappear if players can simply issue orders to CV TFs knowing that those CVs will stay grouped with the ships they are supposed to be grouped with.

In all likelihood, this topic has already been addressed.  I tried a search without luck, and who has time to read 36 pages of posts? 




Andy Mac -> RE: Get rid of the "react" feature! (2/14/2008 1:10:30 AM)

I dont think its getting changed but I am not on navy team



Terminus -> RE: Get rid of the "react" feature! (2/14/2008 2:17:33 AM)

Pretty sure it isn't... Maybe people need to be told ONCE AGAIN that this isn't a new game, but a modification of an old one.



JeffroK -> RE: Get rid of the "react" feature! (2/14/2008 7:46:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Please get rid of the entire "react" routine for aircraft carriers!  Is there anything more universally loathed (at least judging from my forum reading for UV and WitP over the past six years)?  People have come up with all kinds of routines to stop CVs from reacting, but none of them are reliable.  Just do away with "react" entirely!  Or, if the designers want a possibility of mayhem in the game, just have a chance (25% or whatever) that CVs will become dispersed or do stupid things.

So much angst and anger will disappear if players can simply issue orders to CV TFs knowing that those CVs will stay grouped with the ships they are supposed to be grouped with.

In all likelihood, this topic has already been addressed.  I tried a search without luck, and who has time to read 36 pages of posts? 




I'm unaware of a problem.

I've set a CVTF to react and had it work OK, never had problems with them reacting without orders.



The Gnome -> RE: Get rid of the "react" feature! (2/14/2008 4:50:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Pretty sure it isn't... Maybe people need to be told ONCE AGAIN that this isn't a new game, but a modification of an old one.


You know, not knowing exactly how this thing is written people have no way of knowing what is a BIG CHANGE or a small change... They just see something that was bugging them and ask if it was changed. That was the point of these threads, right?



Feinder -> RE: Get rid of the "react" feature! (2/14/2008 5:01:13 PM)

quote:

Please get rid of the entire "react" routine for aircraft carriers!


Amen brutha!

-F-



Shark7 -> RE: Get rid of the "react" feature! (2/15/2008 10:45:07 PM)

Question. Is there any chance that in the LCU load screen (for transport TFs) we can have the current objective displayed along with the load values? This would make creating and loading task forces for attacks a lot easier, as it is I have to go through my lists and make sure that the units I have prepped are the ones I actually load. And while writing it down works, would be nice if I could see that from the UI instead.



ctangus -> RE: Get rid of the "react" feature! (2/16/2008 1:29:51 AM)

A new question regarding ship withdrawals occurred to me.

Will transfer out of theater due to battle damage be differentiated from transfer due to operational reasons? For example - the Boise went to Philly to repair battle damage after Cape Esperance. She subsequently covered the Sicily landings before returning to the Pacific.

So in her case I don't think she should be withdrawn in Oct/Nov '42 - the alternate reality of WITP might not have her damaged - but in May/June '43 so she can still support the Sicily landings. She sailed from Philly -> Algiers on 8 June '43. She'll still be out of action in Oct '42 if I or my opponent manage to damage her.

I realize this can be edited; I'm curious what the standard for AE will be, though.



Q-Ball -> Do Not Top Off (2/16/2008 6:04:09 AM)

I apologize if this question is somewhere in these 30-odd pages.....

Will there be a way to prevent a TF from topping-off DD's half-way through an important move? I just thought of this as a fast CV TF of mine just raided a port from 5 hexes out, instead of 4, causing much less damage.

Thanks!



JWE -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/17/2008 9:37:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I apologize if this question is somewhere in these 30-odd pages.....

Will there be a way to prevent a TF from topping-off DD's half-way through an important move? I just thought of this as a fast CV TF of mine just raided a port from 5 hexes out, instead of 4, causing much less damage.

Thanks!


Yes, there is. The Refueling system has been revamped. TFs may refuel in accord with operational requirements. These range from a 'full refuel' (which will fill the bunkers, but will take several days to complete) to a 'minimal refuel' (just enuf to get to the destination) and includes a 'tactical refuel' which can be done quickly, but won't fill all the bunkers.

As in any computer game, there will not be a correspondance with IRL practice. There cannot be. Will this new system avoid your specific issue? Maybe, and again, maybe not. But in the long term refueling will be more historical and 'thought' intensive.



Q-Ball -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/18/2008 6:21:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I apologize if this question is somewhere in these 30-odd pages.....

Will there be a way to prevent a TF from topping-off DD's half-way through an important move? I just thought of this as a fast CV TF of mine just raided a port from 5 hexes out, instead of 4, causing much less damage.

Thanks!




Yes, there is. The Refueling system has been revamped. TFs may refuel in accord with operational requirements. These range from a 'full refuel' (which will fill the bunkers, but will take several days to complete) to a 'minimal refuel' (just enuf to get to the destination) and includes a 'tactical refuel' which can be done quickly, but won't fill all the bunkers.

As in any computer game, there will not be a correspondance with IRL practice. There cannot be. Will this new system avoid your specific issue? Maybe, and again, maybe not. But in the long term refueling will be more historical and 'thought' intensive.


That sounds like it will do the trick, thanks JWE! I know I am not the only one who has experienced that problem, as long as you can PREVENT a mid-ocean refuel that costs speed, that's all you need.



bradfordkay -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/18/2008 7:47:02 PM)

Q-Ball, in the interim (while you are playing this version of WITP) there is a semi-work-around for your problem. While your TFs are transitting the map, keep resetting the "home port" for the TFs to ones that are on the way to your final destination but not very far from the TF.

The reason for this is the further from your destination the TF is, the more likely the short ranged escorts will demand to keep their fuel tanks topped off. By constantly choosing new, nearby home ports you can fool the escorts into believing that they have enough fuel to make the trip.



GaryChildress -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/18/2008 11:23:12 PM)

I apologize if this has been asked before. This is an IJN OOB question: will the IJN have as many PGs and PCs to start the game as they did in stock and even in CHS? There is some dispute as to whether the IJN truly had that many escort craft for their convoys to start the war. I think that may also play a bit into the question of how many invasion TFs can realistically be created to mobilize the IJA. With fewer escorts having too many invasion TFs could be suicide for the unprotected transports.

Thanks.



JeffroK -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/19/2008 12:11:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Terminus, after reading some of your comments on another thread, (and if this has not already been suggested), I think it would be a good idea to make an asterisk or other device behind a ships name for CLAA's to help prevent novice players,(or lazy folks like me) from trying to put these paper-thin ships in the role of a "ship of the line" type surface group.
The Juneau was sunk because it was put in such an action and took many of its' crew with her(including the Sullivan brothers).
Of course the individual player can do as he wishes with the ships, but maybe that one extra "warning" can serve to set these ships apart from true "CL's"???


Can we also put an asterix behind the name of aircraft because they weren't as well armoured or armed as a "real" fighter![:'(]

Surely the appelation of CLAA should be enough to warn the player, I would assume most playing the game would have a good/excellent idea of ship/aircraft abilities.

The Juneau was sunk due to poor tactics, which included misusing an Anti Aircraft Light Cruiser in a battline (PS Wasnt another CLAA used to great effect in one of the Solomons naval battles)



JeffroK -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/19/2008 12:13:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I apologize if this question is somewhere in these 30-odd pages.....

Will there be a way to prevent a TF from topping-off DD's half-way through an important move? I just thought of this as a fast CV TF of mine just raided a port from 5 hexes out, instead of 4, causing much less damage.

Thanks!






Yes, there is. The Refueling system has been revamped. TFs may refuel in accord with operational requirements. These range from a 'full refuel' (which will fill the bunkers, but will take several days to complete) to a 'minimal refuel' (just enuf to get to the destination) and includes a 'tactical refuel' which can be done quickly, but won't fill all the bunkers.

As in any computer game, there will not be a correspondance with IRL practice. There cannot be. Will this new system avoid your specific issue? Maybe, and again, maybe not. But in the long term refueling will be more historical and 'thought' intensive.


That sounds like it will do the trick, thanks JWE! I know I am not the only one who has experienced that problem, as long as you can PREVENT a mid-ocean refuel that costs speed, that's all you need.



Isnt there a "Do not replenish/refuel" setting on the TF screen, near the Escorts bombard setting??



witpqs -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/19/2008 2:11:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

I apologize if this question is somewhere in these 30-odd pages.....

Will there be a way to prevent a TF from topping-off DD's half-way through an important move? I just thought of this as a fast CV TF of mine just raided a port from 5 hexes out, instead of 4, causing much less damage.

Thanks!






Yes, there is. The Refueling system has been revamped. TFs may refuel in accord with operational requirements. These range from a 'full refuel' (which will fill the bunkers, but will take several days to complete) to a 'minimal refuel' (just enuf to get to the destination) and includes a 'tactical refuel' which can be done quickly, but won't fill all the bunkers.

As in any computer game, there will not be a correspondance with IRL practice. There cannot be. Will this new system avoid your specific issue? Maybe, and again, maybe not. But in the long term refueling will be more historical and 'thought' intensive.


That sounds like it will do the trick, thanks JWE! I know I am not the only one who has experienced that problem, as long as you can PREVENT a mid-ocean refuel that costs speed, that's all you need.



Isnt there a "Do not replenish/refuel" setting on the TF screen, near the Escorts bombard setting??


It does not work in those situations. I tried it many times. Either there is a glitch or some override in the code.



jwilkerson -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/19/2008 3:11:08 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

I apologize if this has been asked before. This is an IJN OOB question: will the IJN have as many PGs and PCs to start the game as they did in stock and even in CHS? There is some dispute as to whether the IJN truly had that many escort craft for their convoys to start the war. I think that may also play a bit into the question of how many invasion TFs can realistically be created to mobilize the IJA. With fewer escorts having too many invasion TFs could be suicide for the unprotected transports.

Thanks.


Well as the primary IJN warship OOBer for AE, I'll start by saying that in AE the desginations have all changed. So I'm not sure we have any PC at the start. Further, I at least did not spend one nanosecond looking at the stock OOB. But I have spent years looking at the sources that are available. So our goal is to deliver a Naval OOB that is as accurate as we can make it.

So, at the start of the game there are more than a few small escort vessels. The Japanese did build these during the 30s they really existed whatever we call them, so they are in the game. As to the so called "PG" ... I think there are very few of these maybe 6 or so in AE. But that is because the bulk of the vessels represented by this class in stock are auxilary vessels. John did these, so he will have to speak to them.

But vessel counts on both sides are going up dramatically as for whatever reason we have lowered the threshold (the floor) beneath which vessels are not represented. We probably have at least hundreds more vessels (I don't say ships because most if not all of the added hulls are not ships) on both sides.




treespider -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/19/2008 3:42:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


Isnt there a "Do not replenish/refuel" setting on the TF screen, near the Escorts bombard setting??



That only applies to refueling at ports not to "AT Sea Refeuling" It's purpose is so a large TF doesn't arrive somewhere and suck up all of the available fuel.



JeffroK -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/19/2008 3:53:00 AM)

So it shouldnt be hard to change the code so it doesnt refuel at any time.



wworld7 -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/19/2008 4:24:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

So it shouldnt be hard to change the code so it doesnt refuel at any time.


It probably is harder than you imagine it to be. Few things are ever simple when it comes to programming.



Reg -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/19/2008 12:07:56 PM)


Making the change is simple....

In my experience is that it is dealing with all the unintended consequences that takes the effort!! [:D] [:'(] [:)]



m10bob -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/19/2008 2:34:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Terminus, after reading some of your comments on another thread, (and if this has not already been suggested), I think it would be a good idea to make an asterisk or other device behind a ships name for CLAA's to help prevent novice players,(or lazy folks like me) from trying to put these paper-thin ships in the role of a "ship of the line" type surface group.
The Juneau was sunk because it was put in such an action and took many of its' crew with her(including the Sullivan brothers).
Of course the individual player can do as he wishes with the ships, but maybe that one extra "warning" can serve to set these ships apart from true "CL's"???


Can we also put an asterix behind the name of aircraft because they weren't as well armoured or armed as a "real" fighter![:'(]

Surely the appelation of CLAA should be enough to warn the player, I would assume most playing the game would have a good/excellent idea of ship/aircraft abilities.

The Juneau was sunk due to poor tactics, which included misusing an Anti Aircraft Light Cruiser in a battline (PS Wasnt another CLAA used to great effect in one of the Solomons naval battles)




Now Jeff.......You promised that you would start getting a good breakfast each morning and watch your sugar intake before posting!!![:-][:D]

Seriously, I suggest a good book by Dan Kurzman called LEFT TO DIE:THE USS JUNEAU



Panther Bait -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/19/2008 4:50:01 PM)

Really, no cruisers, heavy or light, were supposed to be considered ships of the line (of battle). Cruisers were generally intended for force projection in areas which did not rate the battle line's attention or raiding.

That role changed as air power gained effectiveness because they were handy AAA platforms. They were also used as CV escorts because the early war BBs just couldn't keep up with cruiser-hull based CVs. And of course, the US was forced to use cruisers in the line in 1941-early 42, because most of the BBs were sitting on the bottom in PH or in dryocks somewhere.



wworld7 -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/19/2008 6:39:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Reg


Making the change is simple....

In my experience is that it is dealing with all the unintended consequences that takes the effort!! [:D] [:'(] [:)]


Reg, thanks as that is a better to say what I meant.

Flipper

P.S. It could be that unintended consequences are "design features" or NOT.



John Lansford -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/19/2008 8:50:25 PM)

Another CLAA, USS Atlanta, was sunk in the same battle that Juneau was lost in.  Those Long Lance torpedoes did tremendous damage to ships only twice as large as fleet destroyers...



JeffroK -> RE: Do Not Top Off (2/20/2008 12:10:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

So it shouldnt be hard to change the code so it doesnt refuel at any time.


It probably is harder than you imagine it to be. Few things are ever simple when it comes to programming.


Vicious rumour started by programmers so they can ask for massive pay!!

More like Reg says, what other effects will the change have.



JeffroK -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 12:14:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Terminus, after reading some of your comments on another thread, (and if this has not already been suggested), I think it would be a good idea to make an asterisk or other device behind a ships name for CLAA's to help prevent novice players,(or lazy folks like me) from trying to put these paper-thin ships in the role of a "ship of the line" type surface group.
The Juneau was sunk because it was put in such an action and took many of its' crew with her(including the Sullivan brothers).
Of course the individual player can do as he wishes with the ships, but maybe that one extra "warning" can serve to set these ships apart from true "CL's"???


Can we also put an asterix behind the name of aircraft because they weren't as well armoured or armed as a "real" fighter![:'(]

Surely the appelation of CLAA should be enough to warn the player, I would assume most playing the game would have a good/excellent idea of ship/aircraft abilities.

The Juneau was sunk due to poor tactics, which included misusing an Anti Aircraft Light Cruiser in a battline (PS Wasnt another CLAA used to great effect in one of the Solomons naval battles)




Now Jeff.......You promised that you would start getting a good breakfast each morning and watch your sugar intake before posting!!![:-][:D]

Seriously, I suggest a good book by Dan Kurzman called LEFT TO DIE:THE USS JUNEAU


Just finished the eggh & bacon sandwich, all better, for a while.


I am a Fan boy for not providing help for people who are too lazy to look.

When constructing a TF, surely you have a look at the available ships, ahh Juneau is a CLAA and only has light armour, maybe I'll keep it for a CVTF. But if you are short of ships, and maybe dont expect to run into too much you will gamble with the CLAA. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.



Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.59375