RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (Full Version)

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

Message

goodboyladdie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 5:48:47 PM)
I have been using the "marvellous" search engine to try to find out the result of the internal huddle about the missing CVs if you choose no respawn at start. I have been unable to dig out the answer. Did the team ever come up with one?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 7:03:09 PM)
I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)]

bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 7:13:26 PM)
"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. " See, Termie? Hawaii is a paradise! I expect to hear of your relocation in the near future...[:'(]

goodboyladdie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 7:33:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)] There is a no respawn included I think, BUT without the missing CVs, which is pretty pointless...

herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 8:44:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)] There is a no respawn included I think, BUT without the missing CVs, which is pretty pointless... Come again? You mean there will be a no-respawn scenario, but it's missing the carriers that were on the stocks by 1/1/42? That suggests one of the first mods will be...

Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 9:18:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay "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. " See, Termie? Hawaii is a paradise! I expect to hear of your relocation in the near future...[:'(] And if you look on the tin, it probably says packaged 12-12-41. When people no longer roam this earth, no doubt the cockroaches and SPAM will still survive. [:D]

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 10:03:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)] There is a no respawn included I think, BUT without the missing CVs, which is pretty pointless... I would like to put this particular issue to bed. In AE, scenarios can be developed to either Spawn, or Not-Spawn, by setting a switch in the editor. The release scenarios will Not-Spawn. There will be “replacement” of things like barges, and other ‘dinky’ things, but Spawning pertains to Carriers/Cruisers, as it was in WiTP-1. In the release scenarios, every carrier or cruiser that was built will be in the game and will arrive at about its nominal arrival date.

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 10:04:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)] There is a no respawn included I think, BUT without the missing CVs, which is pretty pointless... I have stated numerous times, that ALL historical carriers and ONLY the HISTORICAL carriers are included in the game. People may disagree with this. But that is what the editor is for.

goodboyladdie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 10:47:07 PM)
Thanks Joe and JWE. Much obliged.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 10:54:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)] There is a no respawn included I think, BUT without the missing CVs, which is pretty pointless... I would like to put this particular issue to bed. You're probably not that lucky, John... It's only been said about 11 million times and apparently it hasn't registered yet...

Nikademus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 10:56:54 PM)
will there be a respawn scenario in AE? [:'(]

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 10:58:11 PM)
Go have your brain lipo'ed...[:'(]

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 11:57:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nikademus will there be a respawn scenario in AE? [:'(] Ain't gonna put you to bed, Nik. You're probably too hairy. Really like your dog, though. I've got a springer spaniel - Abby the Hamster. She has the same facial expressions. I'll shoot you some pix. Ciao.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/28/2008 11:59:35 PM)
I doubt your dog's as dumb as Nik's, John... At least I hope not...[:D]

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/29/2008 9:15:31 AM)
Something just occurred to me that you folks might want to watch out for in testing. You have made overhauls in the loading routines so that only so many ships (or tons of ships or something) can load at one time. You have also overhauled various resource sites. Having seen in current WITP how long it takes to load at smaller ports presents the possibility for mismatches in places that produce a lot of resources or oil. For example, a base just might produce oil at a rate faster than it is possible to load up the oil to carry it away!

goodboyladdie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/29/2008 10:46:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie quote: ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)] There is a no respawn included I think, BUT without the missing CVs, which is pretty pointless... I would like to put this particular issue to bed. You're probably not that lucky, John... It's only been said about 11 million times and apparently it hasn't registered yet... Be fair T, I did say that I had not been able to find the result of the team huddle on the subject. I was wondering whether there should be a summary posted or maybe an FAQ sticky to stop people like me bothering the busy team with stuff they have already answered...

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/29/2008 1:03:45 PM)
Not aiming at you in particular, GBL... Just putting it out there...

Andrew Brown -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/29/2008 1:29:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Something just occurred to me that you folks might want to watch out for in testing. You have made overhauls in the loading routines so that only so many ships (or tons of ships or something) can load at one time. You have also overhauled various resource sites. Having seen in current WITP how long it takes to load at smaller ports presents the possibility for mismatches in places that produce a lot of resources or oil. For example, a base just might produce oil at a rate faster than it is possible to load up the oil to carry it away! Good point. That is definitely something to watch for. Andrew

spence -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/29/2008 1:37:16 PM)
It's probably in here somewhere but has Allied SIGINT been changed in any way. Practically none of the present SIGINT is information pertaining to the movement of Japanese ships. IRL that type of information was obtainable early on and "easily" obtainable from 1943 on. Many many Japanese ships, merchant and naval, were sunk as a direct result of operations initiated in response to SIGINT.

Nikademus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/29/2008 5:14:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Ain't gonna put you to bed, Nik. You're probably too hairy. Really like your dog, though. I've got a springer spaniel - Abby the Hamster. She has the same facial expressions. I'll shoot you some pix. Ciao. [image]local://upfiles/452/0A1FB03429BC45DDAFB7497ACFC8D699.jpg[/image]

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (2/29/2008 5:15:49 PM)
Dumb as a Yugo full of anvils, but strangely lovable...

pad152 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/1/2008 2:33:18 AM)
quote: I would like to put this particular issue to bed. In AE, scenarios can be developed to either Spawn, or Not-Spawn, by setting a switch in the editor. The release scenarios will Not-Spawn. There will be “replacement” of things like barges, and other ‘dinky’ things, but Spawning pertains to Carriers/Cruisers, as it was in WiTP-1. In the release scenarios, every carrier or cruiser that was built will be in the game and will arrive at about its nominal arrival date. [\quote] Will you be able to select which ships either re-spawn or get replacement with the editor?

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/1/2008 2:40:52 AM)
No.

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/1/2008 3:39:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 Will you be able to select which ships either re-spawn or get replacement with the editor? Terminus is being a little bit "brief" (reminds me of Leonard "Pith" Carnell). Is true, No is the answer, but .. Spawn/Not-Spawn is a "scenario" switch. If you set Spawn, it happens just like WiTP-1 .. no changes, no options, no nothin ... Nothing Different, i.e., Nothing Different. So if you set Spawn "on" for a scenario, you can expect the game to respond just like WiTP-1; Nothing Different. Same as it ever was, i.e., Nothing Different. Upon mature thought, and reconsideration, I don't know why I just didn't let Termie's "No", sit still. Pretty much says it all. Sorry, T. Ciao.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/1/2008 1:07:49 PM)
Don't apologize. You're Naval Team boss, you can do what you want...

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/2/2008 7:58:28 PM)
quote: In the release scenarios, every carrier or cruiser that was built will be in the game and will arrive at about its nominal arrival date. This sounds like a non respawn approach to me. Thanks.[;)]

mark24 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/2/2008 9:12:01 PM)
Hi all, Excuse me for being dim, but in a non-respawn scenario, what would the Lexington (for example) be called if the original wasn't sunk? Mark

bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/2/2008 9:21:33 PM)
Well, she was laid down as the USS Cabot, so my guess is that this would be her name. Now, does anyone know why the Hancock and Ticonderoga hulls exchanged names?

sven6345789 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 2:10:55 AM)
Essex Carriers (originally planned name) CV-9:Essex CV-10:Yorktown (Bon Homme Richard) CV-11:Intrepid CV-12:Hornet (Kearsarge) CV-13:Franklin CV-14:Ticonderoga CV-15:Randolph CV-16:Lexington (Cabot) CV-17:Bunker Hill CV-18:Wasp (Oriskany) CV-19:Hancock CV-20:Bennington CV-31: Bon Homme Richard (so actually, this name would exist twice) CV-38: Shangri La further ships which did not see action in WW2 (but could if the war lasts until march 1946): CV-21 (Boxer), CV-36 (Antietam), CV 39 (Lake Champlain) completed in 1945 and 1946: CV-32 (Leyte), CV-33 (Kearsarge), CV-37 (Princeton), CV-40 (Tarawa), CV-45 (Valley Forge), CV-47 (Philippine Sea) final ship: CV-34 (Oriskany), completed in 1950 I could not find information why the hulls of Ticonderoga and Hancock exchanged names.

Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 2:41:54 AM)
Well on that note I guess you could use the names of the planned but never completed ones in the case of Bon Homme Richard etc so as to not repeat names. Originally Cabot was an Essex, then when it was renamed a CVL became Cabot. So the CVL that became Cabot would also need a different name. One problem leads right into another...

Page: << < prev 36 37 [38] 39 40 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.875