RE: Ship SUnk Screen (Full Version)

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



Message

m10bob -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 1:11:23 AM)

I keep mine with my CV's, but not all of the new players know a battleship from "bullship"(if ya get my drift).[:D]



JeffroK -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 5:18:04 AM)

But how many of those that buy WITP & AE will be new to the subject.

maybe there is another way of doing it, but I dont see adding ** or ## etc after the name is the way to go



rockmedic109 -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 6:39:08 AM)

Are they not designated CLAA in AE?



bradfordkay -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 7:03:35 AM)

yes, they are designated as CLAA. The request was that an asterisk be placed next to their CLAA designation to warn the innocent that these are not "line of battle" ships but rather something else. To me, that is unnecessary.



JeffroK -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 7:42:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

yes, they are designated as CLAA. The request was that an asterisk be placed next to their CLAA designation to warn the innocent that these are not "line of battle" ships but rather something else. To me, that is unnecessary.


thats what I mean, but took 200 words to say it.[8|]



bradfordkay -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 8:26:52 AM)

Well... I could try to look heroic and claim to be a man of few words, but with 4000+ posts you will all see through that pretty quickly! [;)]



treespider -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 1:41:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

But how many of those that buy WITP & AE will be new to the subject.




You mean like the American commanders who stuck them into the line in the first place???[;)]

Wonder if the builders included a Must Read page in the owner's manual...

"Do not utilize this vessel in the Line of Battle, as its armour and armament are not suitable for such employment. Such utilization will render warranty invalid."



John Lansford -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 2:22:19 PM)

Well in defense of Callaghan, Atlanta was his flagship (I think), and the CLAA's had an awesome amount of 5" firepower available, plus torpedoes.  They should have been considered destroyer leaders or something like that rather than CLAA's, though.  Plus he didn't have but two CA's (San Francisco and Portland) that night, and if he expected to find BB's that night then he needed every hull he could get his hands on.

A question to the AE OOB developers; the Japanese had some huge whaling ships that they used as tankers/transports during the war.  IIRC they were 20,000+ tons and a couple were sunk by subs.  Will they be included in the OOB for Japan?



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 2:41:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Well in defense of Callaghan, Atlanta was his flagship (I think), and the CLAA's had an awesome amount of 5" firepower available, plus torpedoes.  They should have been considered destroyer leaders or something like that rather than CLAA's, though.  Plus he didn't have but two CA's (San Francisco and Portland) that night, and if he expected to find BB's that night then he needed every hull he could get his hands on.

A question to the AE OOB developers; the Japanese had some huge whaling ships that they used as tankers/transports during the war. IIRC they were 20,000+ tons and a couple were sunk by subs. Will they be included in the OOB for Japan?


They are in all the CHS variants so I am confident the Tonan Maru and friends will be in AE, along with every other merchant ever to ply the Pacific.



rockmedic109 -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 7:50:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

yes, they are designated as CLAA. The request was that an asterisk be placed next to their CLAA designation to warn the innocent that these are not "line of battle" ships but rather something else. To me, that is unnecessary.


Have to agree with you. I am not sure how many people would play this game without at least some knowledge of the subject. Or at least some study.



Shark7 -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 8:14:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

yes, they are designated as CLAA. The request was that an asterisk be placed next to their CLAA designation to warn the innocent that these are not "line of battle" ships but rather something else. To me, that is unnecessary.


Have to agree with you. I am not sure how many people would play this game without at least some knowledge of the subject. Or at least some study.


Perhaps it would be good to have a master list of the designation meanings in the manual or in game etc...

The designation Cruiser Light Anti-Aircraft basically tells you it wasn't designed to fight other ships, but to provide air defence. Cruiser Armored tells you it is a ship of the line etc. So perhaps listing that would be a start, for example:

DD- Destroyer, designed for fleet escort and anti-submarine operations
CA- Heavy (armored) cruiser, designed for scouting and surface combat operations
CLAA- Anti-Aircraft cruiser, designed to escort high value ships and provide defence against air attack.

and so forth.

Once you can read the intended mission of the different ship designations, then even people new ot the game should have the knowledge they need to properly utilize them.



jwilkerson -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 8:52:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Perhaps it would be good to have a master list of the designation meanings




We posted the master list already (earlier in this thread) ... it will be in manual.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1645620



herwin -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 9:35:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

But how many of those that buy WITP & AE will be new to the subject.




You mean like the American commanders who stuck them into the line in the first place???[;)]

Wonder if the builders included a Must Read page in the owner's manual...

"Do not utilize this vessel in the Line of Battle, as its armour and armament are not suitable for such employment. Such utilization will render warranty invalid."


What does Friedman say?



GaryChildress -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 10:10:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Perhaps it would be good to have a master list of the designation meanings




We posted the master list already (earlier in this thread) ... it will be in manual.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1645620


Hi Joe, I notice that BC is shaded on the list to indicate a new ship designation coming with AE. I think you probably mean't to shade the entry under it CB. CB is not in WITP but BC already is. [:)]



GaryChildress -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 10:17:16 PM)

One more typo I think:

LSIL is stated to be the designation for both Landing Ship Infantry Small AND Landing Ship Infantry Large. Shouldn't it be LSIS for the Landing Ship Infantry Small? [&:]



GaryChildress -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 10:23:33 PM)

Oh yes! And BTW the list of ship types looks awesome!! It looks like AE has everything included but the kitchen sink (KS?)!! [:D]



JWE -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/20/2008 11:47:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Oh yes! And BTW the list of ship types looks awesome!! It looks like AE has everything included but the kitchen sink (KS?)!! [:D]


It's also a bit old. There have been several additions since.

The old AK and AP designations have radically changed. AK (AKA) and AP (APA) are now limited and restricted to those classes that were commissioned Naval vessels. These, and ONLY these, will have load/unload bonuses based upon their integral lighterage. The VAST majority of other ships are now designated as xAKs, xAKLs, xAPs, indicating ordinary general cargo/passenger ships, with absolutely no amphibious assault value whatsoever.

BTW, even though there's over 70 types of ships, many of the types are in there for fun, historical reasons. There is no functional difference between a US AP(A) and a Brit LSI(L), but it's fun to name them correctly. Similarly, there's no difference between a patrol boat (PB) and a patrol craft (PC), except that Japan called it one thing, and maybe the Dutch called it another. The difference between a US DE and an Japanese escort (E), is a matter of national nomenclature. All that matters is function.

Function is as function does. You need to pay attention to the function, not the name.



Shark7 -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/21/2008 12:31:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Perhaps it would be good to have a master list of the designation meanings




We posted the master list already (earlier in this thread) ... it will be in manual.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1645620


Hmm, must have forgotten about that list. That should be comprehensive enough that anyone should be able to print it out, look at the designations and descriptions, and be able to utilize the ships correctly.



jwilkerson -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/21/2008 2:12:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


Perhaps it would be good to have a master list of the designation meanings




We posted the master list already (earlier in this thread) ... it will be in manual.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=1645620


Hmm, must have forgotten about that list. That should be comprehensive enough that anyone should be able to print it out, look at the designations and descriptions, and be able to utilize the ships correctly.



Yeah, well it's a loooong thread, eh?
:)





NormS3 -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/21/2008 6:44:25 PM)

I agree with your assessment, but also a reminder that Callaghan was new to his command and was limited to what he could scrape together on short notice. I'm also pretty sure that it was Callaghan in San Francisco and Scott was in Atlanta.

Again I get to learn more about history. Didn't know about whaling conversions and honestly never thought about them. I am constantly pleased with all new info provided.

Thanks again to the AE team for all their hard work and patience in dealing with a bunch of historical nuts.[:)]



John Lansford -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/21/2008 8:04:49 PM)

Didn't Callaghan issue his order to just "follow me" into that fight, or was that Doorman at Java Sea?  Neither he nor Scott survived that battle, though; San Francisco had her superstructure nearly removed courtesy of 14" shells, and Atlanta blown out of the water via Long Lance.



NormS3 -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/21/2008 9:16:59 PM)

I think that was Doorman. Callaghan kept Carlton Wright's battle plan if I recall, but it's been a while since I have studied Guadalcanal. I am currently studying for Gettysburg Tour Guide Test. So I guess my history has regressed.



Shark7 -> RE: Ship SUnk Screen (2/22/2008 2:58:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Norm3

I think that was Doorman. Callaghan kept Carlton Wright's battle plan if I recall, but it's been a while since I have studied Guadalcanal. I am currently studying for Gettysburg Tour Guide Test. So I guess my history has regressed.


What is obvious is that the Allies had a steep learning curve for the first 12 months of the war. And they did all of that learning the hard way.



olorin42 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/26/2008 6:44:00 AM)

One question on logistics in the Pacific. Since the intent with AE seems to try to represent every ship (bravo!), would not the Allies have to ship a potload of supplies to Hawaii to feed the civilians??? India has sifficient internal production to feed the population. Same for Australia and NZ. Most other Pacific islands had small enough populations that there was probably not a great need for importing food. Hawaii on the other hand does not have much in the way of domestic food production (excepting sugar and pineapples). Most food and domestic products (simple stuff like soap and toilet paper) had to come from CONUS.

Where SF has a supply income each turn, maybe Pearl Harbor should have a negative daily supply income????



mussey -> Bigger icons for enemy sighted TF's? (2/26/2008 3:15:02 PM)

I don't know where to begin - all this looks very good, and it's most enjoyable reading the various comments. Maybe this has already been asked/suggested: do you plan on making sighted enemy TF's any different? I'm in a scenerio now where there are numerous TF's sighted (mostly AK's, etc), but it would make it easier if an enemy TF with CV's or BB's would have a bigger icon (x2). Maybe a flat top icon for CV's? As a matter of fact, my own CV TF's could be bigger too!

These ships are the most dangerous of all, with the most consequences - need to spot them more easily on the map[X(]



Sneer -> RE: Bigger icons for enemy sighted TF's? (2/26/2008 4:06:28 PM)

question : multi tubed ship torpedo attack
in game it is always solved against 1 single target
but
torpedo attack were often made against formation of ship or convoy  / spread /
so there should be at least some possibility of another ship hit
i don't even mention about ships like oi or kitakami
in battle they are useless alwways - even if they shoot torps check is made only against 1 ship - not many




pad152 -> RE: Get rid of the "react" feature! (2/28/2008 8:03:49 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


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.



I've seen it, I would almost like a "React to enemy ship Order" & "Retreat from enemy ship Order". Sometimes you want to fight and sometime you need to run!




m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 11:06:10 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: olorin42

One question on logistics in the Pacific. Since the intent with AE seems to try to represent every ship (bravo!), would not the Allies have to ship a potload of supplies to Hawaii to feed the civilians??? India has sifficient internal production to feed the population. Same for Australia and NZ. Most other Pacific islands had small enough populations that there was probably not a great need for importing food. Hawaii on the other hand does not have much in the way of domestic food production (excepting sugar and pineapples). Most food and domestic products (simple stuff like soap and toilet paper) had to come from CONUS.

Where SF has a supply income each turn, maybe Pearl Harbor should have a negative daily supply income????


You are correct about the need to supply the civilians in Hawaii. In fact, during the war tons of "SPAM" was shipped there for them, and believe it or not, to this day, it can be ordered at local restaurants.



Akizuki -> RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 12:49:17 PM)

Sorry if the question has been asked.
But will "plane capacity" get their own location and effect on the ship data list ?So that it will be possible to correctly simulating the plane carryring tanker or grain ship



witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 5:39:47 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

You are correct about the need to supply the civilians in Hawaii. In fact, during the war tons of "SPAM" was shipped there for them, and believe it or not, to this day, it can be ordered at local restaurants.


I'm told it's well liked in Korea. Even given as a gift.



Page: <<   < prev  35 36 [37] 38 39   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375