RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (Full Version)

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



Message


Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 2:50:17 AM)


or maybe "Shipname II" plus the ability to rename ships while in the reinforcement queue....




GaryChildress -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 3:40:44 AM)

Instead of messing with more code to be able to name ships ourselves in the reinforcement queue (as great as that sounds), maybe the simplest approach (time and resource wise) would be to name all the Essex carriers their original names before being renamed after sunk carriers and then in place of CVL Cabot, rename the CVL to a fictional name. One fictional name wouldn't hurt too much I wouldn't think. I think in my no-respawn mod for WITP I named Cabot something like San Juan Hill to keep close with naval naming tradition.

Just a thought.




bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 4:08:49 AM)

I forgot about the CVL Cabot (strangely the name seemed to resonate in my mind, but I was thinking that it was one of the later Essex's). I believe that Akula's idea would be best, use one of the names from a CV that was not completed during the war. However, since this has already been incorporated into the game, I guess that HFP has already worked out their own answer...




Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 4:47:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

One fictional name wouldn't hurt too much I wouldn't think.



heresy!







Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 9:18:47 AM)

I'll break out the pitchforks and flaming torches...[:D]




herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 11:00:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

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...


Use the original names and allow players to edit the text field. I suspect some players might use the capability to play with the minds of their opponents!




m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 2:21:17 PM)

What is wrong with giving them their historical name preceded by Number:CV18 Wasp ?




witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 2:38:47 PM)

That's a good idea. It also helps to coordinate with their air groups if the planes happen to go ashore for any reason.




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 4:38:12 PM)

The problem with that is where do you stop? It would look stupid to just have CV's numbered and named and all other classes not.





witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 6:35:31 PM)

Slave to fashion?




GaryChildress -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 7:24:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I'll break out the pitchforks and flaming torches...[:D]


I'll break out the marshmellows! [:D]




m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 8:55:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The problem with that is where do you stop? It would look stupid to just have CV's numbered and named and all other classes not.




Who sez it would look stupid ?

It is functional.
It is simple.
It is historical,(for the CV's anyway.)




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/3/2008 9:09:11 PM)

Well, the majority of the people on the naval team sez it would. Or sed, anyway...




m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/4/2008 1:07:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the majority of the people on the naval team sez it would. Or sed, anyway...



Well I guess that means it is carved in stone and needs no further input.




jcjordan -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/4/2008 2:04:04 AM)

Not sure if it's been asked but on VP value of ships will ships like the big passenger liners be more than a normal AP type ship? Can there be some way added in the db settings if not? It seems strange in WITP that a ship like the Aquitania (in CHS) or Queen Mary have such a low VP value whereas they should have something akin to a CV or BB if sunk because of the way ship VP are figured.




Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/4/2008 5:01:48 AM)

Well there were no cancelled CVLs, so it would either have to be fictional, or just for that one ship just give the Penant number, CVL-28.




Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/4/2008 11:34:19 AM)

Well, since name Cabot WAS used as a CVL name - it's name become historical and is tied to Pacific battles. I would suggest to find a new name for one of the Essex (name ex Cabot)..




sven6345789 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/6/2008 10:24:48 PM)

several possibilities
a) the game differs CV from CVL, so i could live with two ships named cabot
b) Cabot was originally planned as the CL Wilmington, why not just leave that name.

another question. If the game lasts until March 1946, what about the Essex Class Carriers which historically only got commissioned after the japanese surrender. Are they in? (This also includes the Midway class btw)




rjopel -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/8/2008 3:30:25 AM)

If we're looking at the war extending to 46, don't forget to adjust the date of commisioning for the ships that were slowed or cancelled as the war came near the end.  Do you think the Oriskinay would have waited until 1950 if the war would have continued or they carrier losses would have been heavier?




olorin42 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/8/2008 9:34:12 AM)

I asked this a while back and never got an answer ...

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????

Someone commented that agreed that Hawaii did need a lot of imports and discussed SPAM at some length ... how will this be modeled in AE? (if at all)




Skyland -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/8/2008 1:45:48 PM)

Will Free French Navy elements be included in AE ?

3 units were on theater from Dec'41/Jan'42 (Noumea area) until 1945 :
Auxiliary Cruiser Cap des Palmes (later refitted in SF in Jan '43)
Destroyer Le Triomphant (Le Fantasque class)
Aviso Chevreuil (Chamois class)

They were actively used as escort ships in the Australia-New Caledonia-Guadalcanal triangle under US command.






Andrew Brown -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/8/2008 2:20:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: olorin42

I asked this a while back and never got an answer ...

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????

Someone commented that agreed that Hawaii did need a lot of imports and discussed SPAM at some length ... how will this be modeled in AE? (if at all)


Hawaii does have a requirement for some resources to be shipped to it, to generate its maximum level of supply points (which is not large in any case).

Andrew




Akos Gergely -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/8/2008 2:53:52 PM)

I think regarding the naming question it would be nice to use all the original names as it was closest to historical. In the case of cruisers it is relatively simple.

In the carriers' case the only big difficulty will be the Cabot, which can be substituted for as USS Crown Point that would have been the original name for the CVL Langley.

Also the later, cancelled Essex class names could be used as well since they were in the loop anyway.

A good source for original names:

CVs

CVLs

CAs and CLs

I've heard that in case of USS Lexington CV-16 (ex-Cabot) many parts of the ship can still be seen with original Cabot markings (with indents and other original manufacturer's markings that it was intended for CV-16 Cabot)




msieving1 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/9/2008 12:38:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: olorin42

I asked this a while back and never got an answer ...

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.


I was just reading in Shattered Sword that the Japanese estimated it would require at least 60 transport loads per month to feed the civilian population of Hawaii if Japan could capture the islands. I would assume that the US would require at least as much shipping to supply Hawaii. While other Pacific islands may not have had as large a requirement as Hawaii, none of them were completely self-sufficient.

If all shipping is to be included in the game (a worthy goal I'm sure), then civilian needs for shipping have to be included as well as military requirements. Otherwise, players will have far more shipping available for operations than they should. Japan figured that about half the merchant fleet available at the start of the war would be needed for civilian requirements. I don't know what Allied requirements would be, but I'd guess at least a couple million tons of shipping would be needed for civilian use.





Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/9/2008 1:13:51 AM)

All shipping won't be included... That's an impossibility.




acepedro45 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/9/2008 4:07:27 AM)

I've only made it about halfway through this thread from the beginning, so let me apologize in advance if this question has already been asked.

One aspect of WITP that always bothered me was the perfect identification in the AARs about enemy ships after a battle. IIRC months after Midway the Japanese believed they had sunk or badly damaged two "Enterprise Class" carriers. I remember the notation "Enemy CA blows up and sinks" from the battle of Samar...when the ship in question was still afloat and it was merely a destroyer.

That is a big contrast to the game...here's an example from a night battle. In RL the Japanese commander would only know he engaged an allied surface group and came off pretty well. In the game, we know the exact classes and even the names of the ships engaged, that the battle netted an obsolete CL and probably four stackers Maury and Aylwin as well. Is that a fair approximation of the chaos of night combat? A lot of effort has gone into the FOW when tracking an enemy group by air...as many players chasing CA CA CA CA CA learn when they sink a bunch of destroyers in their place.


Japanese Ships
BB Mutsu, Shell hits 10
CL Kiso, Shell hits 2
CL Tenryu
DD Kamikaze, Shell hits 1, and is sunk
DD Okikaze, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Nokaze, Shell hits 2, on fire
DD Numakaze, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage
DD Sagi

Allied Ships
CL Phoenix, Shell hits 12, and is sunk
DD Gridley, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Maury, Shell hits 21, on fire, heavy damage
DD Dunlap, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage
DD Lamson, Shell hits 3
DD Case, Shell hits 5, on fire
DD Conyngham, Shell hits 1, on fire
DD Aylwin, Shell hits 13, on fire, heavy damage
DD Kennison



I would think that a game that aspires to track every man, aircraft and bullet in the theater could eliminate a huge hole in the fog of war with some changes to this area....are there plans to curtail the valuable intel a player gains from the aar?




JeffroK -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/9/2008 7:00:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1


quote:

ORIGINAL: olorin42

I asked this a while back and never got an answer ...

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.


I was just reading in Shattered Sword that the Japanese estimated it would require at least 60 transport loads per month to feed the civilian population of Hawaii if Japan could capture the islands. I would assume that the US would require at least as much shipping to supply Hawaii. While other Pacific islands may not have had as large a requirement as Hawaii, none of them were completely self-sufficient.

If all shipping is to be included in the game (a worthy goal I'm sure), then civilian needs for shipping have to be included as well as military requirements. Otherwise, players will have far more shipping available for operations than they should. Japan figured that about half the merchant fleet available at the start of the war would be needed for civilian requirements. I don't know what Allied requirements would be, but I'd guess at least a couple million tons of shipping would be needed for civilian use.




I sincerely believe that the japanese would not have wasted 1 ship to feed to civilians of Hawaii. They probably used far of their fleet for military purposes than the Allies did.

The problem in the game is if the ships are available, they will be used ahistorically, I'd rather have the ships "hidden" rather than be available for "other uses"




herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/9/2008 11:12:19 AM)

Most Hawaiian civilians were Japanese nationals.




Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/9/2008 11:16:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Most Hawaiian civilians were Japanese nationals.


And most of them weren't there long after the war started either.




herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (3/9/2008 11:38:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Most Hawaiian civilians were Japanese nationals.


And most of them weren't there long after the war started either.



Wrong. Japanese nationals were not evacuated from Hawaii.




Page: <<   < prev  37 38 [39] 40 41   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.046875