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

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/2/2008 10:02:20 AM)
You can lay as many MINES as you want, but the number of MINEFIELDS is capped at 4K.

treespider -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/2/2008 1:52:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE. That will be great, then we can set up how many mines there were at war start, should be for torpedoes too but i suppose that is asking to much. And i hope that there will not be hardcode date limit to airplane mines but that be made set into availability device capabilities. Aerial Torpedoes are dealt with in a different manner that limit their availability.

Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/2/2008 7:53:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus You can lay as many MINES as you want, but the number of MINEFIELDS is capped at 4K. You make it sound as if I'd be better served by using all my minelayers in one huge taskforce. The way its described, using smaller ones simply causes multiple minefields in 1 hex. Am I understanding this correctly?

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/2/2008 11:11:17 PM)
Depends on your priority. It has been alledged that the number of minefields in the hex is correlated with the overall hit probability of mines in a hex hitting enemy ships in a hex. If true, then more minefields in a hex might be a good thing. However, if you want lots of mines in a hex with a minimal expendiature of minefields, then larger numbers of minelayers operating in one TF is better.

bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/3/2008 8:10:45 AM)
Joe, I am one who believes that having more minefields is better, based upon my experience in my present game against Chez. In just about every invasion, he has had at least one ship (usually two) hit a mine. In his invasion of Balikpapan, he had thirteen ships hit mines (including the Haruna and three destroyers). I remember that he asked about the total number of mines at that base and was surprised at the answer of "closer to 500 than 1000". I recall that due to their short range, I had been running the small Dutch MLs into Balikpapan from Soerbaja and using the larger MLs for the bases further away. Thus, Balikpapan had a LOT of small minefields. They didn't take long to clear, but his ships kept finding undiscovered minefields (apparently by feel). The downside of having a lot of small minefields is that each decays at the full rate, so ten 50 mine fields will decay ten times faster than one 500 mine field.

herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/3/2008 9:29:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay Joe, I am one who believes that having more minefields is better, based upon my experience in my present game against Chez. In just about every invasion, he has had at least one ship (usually two) hit a mine. In his invasion of Balikpapan, he had thirteen ships hit mines (including the Haruna and three destroyers). I remember that he asked about the total number of mines at that base and was surprised at the answer of "closer to 500 than 1000". I recall that due to their short range, I had been running the small Dutch MLs into Balikpapan from Soerbaja and using the larger MLs for the bases further away. Thus, Balikpapan had a LOT of small minefields. They didn't take long to clear, but his ships kept finding undiscovered minefields (apparently by feel). The downside of having a lot of small minefields is that each decays at the full rate, so ten 50 mine fields will decay ten times faster than one 500 mine field. If the decay is percentage (exponential), they should both decay at the same rate.

Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/3/2008 11:49:45 AM)
Will there be any sonar device?

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/3/2008 5:12:55 PM)
No unfortunately - it was certainly discussed - but did not make the cut.

Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/3/2008 11:47:52 PM)
Thanks. It could have been just a on/off that would improve the odds of present ASW devices, but if the Devices Slots are opened with many more slots a modder can duplicate AS devices and make with or without sonar.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/3/2008 11:49:54 PM)
Lots of elbow room in the database...

pauk -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 2:28:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite Don't be like that. I am not convinced that convoy actions present a realistic range of outcomes. However the examples you chose to raise are not two of them. Either present views (or better facts) that support your case, or find another example that does. ok, i know that i've said it is enough. But, i really hate when guys keep talking "i'm not convinced", "oh i have a good escort", "oh, it is realistical, remeber the xy battle..:" etc... you want the better facts, ok - here it is[:D] Night Time Surface Combat, near Tinian at 62,65 Japanese Ships BB Hiei BB Mutsu CA Haguro CL Yahagi, Shell hits 1 DD Suzunami DD Asagumo DD Hibiki DD Yugiri DD Ume DD Sugi DD Hatakaze Allied Ships DE Reynolds, Shell hits 17, on fire, heavy damage AK Algol AK Thuban, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AK Centarus AK Aquarius, on fire AK Arneb, Shell hits 1, on fire AK Chara, on fire, heavy damage AK Capricornus AK Durham Victory AK Iran Victory AK Bedford Victory AK Bluefield Victory AK Boulder Victory AK Australian Victory AK Elmira Victory AK Las Vegas Victory, on fire AK Manderson Victory AK Provo Victory AK Diphda LCI(G) LCI(G)-373 LCI(G) LCI(G)-396 LCI(G) LCI(G)-398 LCI(G) LCI(G)-401 LCI(R) LCI(R)-74 AK Liloa AK Sage Brush AK Sea Thrush AK Wind Rush, on fire, heavy damage AK Alcoa Pioneer AK Cape Cumberland AK Cape Friendship AK Cape Georgia AK Cape Isabel AK Cape John AK Cape Martin, on fire, heavy damage AK Jean Lafite AK Robin Wentley AK Sea Runner, on fire AK Sea Sturgeon AK Unicoi AK Abigail S. Duniway AK Ada Rehan AK Alan Seeger AK Alexander Majors AK Alexander Woolcott AK Allen Johnson AK Ambrose Bierce AK Amerigo Vespucci AK Antonin Dvorak, on fire, heavy damage AK Empire Record, Shell hits 16, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage Yeah, i know the convoy scattered and results are historical, reasonable, etc....[:D][:D][:D]... "there are many examples in the history when escort protected escorts blah blah".. Andy, do you still think that naval combat is not broken?[:)]

Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 3:49:03 AM)
quote: Lots of elbow room in the database... Maybe someone needs to make a diet :D. If there will be ever a chance just put Sonar and an open field where, if a modder puts the number 100(as 100%) means doubling the AS weapon hit chances(note: not doubling the effects just the hit chances if it is not possible to make it in detection chances).

wworld7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 4:11:52 AM)
A diet? Ok, now I'm lost.

Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 4:14:23 AM)
Pauk, I've noticed the same thing. Had an enemy task force of 3 BBs and several cruiser engage and sink a single PT boat. Fired on that same boat for about 100 hits and completely ignored the others. I've also had the same thing happen when engaging groups of barges. You'll have 1 of the 12 get attacked and the rest get away, even though they are slower than the cruisers and practically defenseless. Both of these cases should have been a complete turkey shoot with most if not all of the PTs and AGs being sunk.

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 6:47:53 AM)
"Naval Combat is broken" is a interesting statement. Both general "Naval Combat" and specific "is broken" ... I wonder if such a statement could be either proven or disproven ... ??? I would take neither side of the debate myself.

pauk -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 8:25:27 AM)
Joe, i'm getting tired of this. I've posted just one example. Then i was told everthing is working fine (just go back and see my recent posts and answers). Ok, then i posted another example - just one example of the numerous wierd results in many games. Now, i don't get any reasonable answer, just demagogic answer. I could live with such naval combat model, but since you guys doing a more accurate game, i've tried to point that some things are not working well in WiTP. But unfortunatly, it seems that none is interested for improving the game in this particular area which is pitty . I perfectly understand that AE team will do what they thing is needed to be inproved - and that is ok. We, as customers have two choices and that is fine. I really really appreciate what is AE team trying to achive. But, i can not accept that someone keeps telling me "hey, it is working fine" when i know no it is not working fine. And i really don't want to go into further debate. I recall how Tom Hunter tried to explain and prove some "glitchs" in naval combat, do you recall that too, Joe? So, it is obvious that nothing is going to be changed/improved in naval combat and it is fine. But, i'm not naive, and i can not buy "the naval combat model is fine" fairy tale.

Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 11:25:52 AM)
Thats a better example of the point you were making earlier - there is less ambiguity in thats one. I am having my own problems in another game... I still maintain the previous example was not a good example of the point you were making this one is better [:D][:D] (my escort seems a little light I wonder what happened to the rest of em...) Actually if thats the convo at Tinian they were supposed to withdraw last night so its user error as well.... quote: ORIGINAL: pauk quote: ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite Don't be like that. I am not convinced that convoy actions present a realistic range of outcomes. However the examples you chose to raise are not two of them. Either present views (or better facts) that support your case, or find another example that does. ok, i know that i've said it is enough. But, i really hate when guys keep talking "i'm not convinced", "oh i have a good escort", "oh, it is realistical, remeber the xy battle..:" etc... you want the better facts, ok - here it is[:D] Night Time Surface Combat, near Tinian at 62,65 Japanese Ships BB Hiei BB Mutsu CA Haguro CL Yahagi, Shell hits 1 DD Suzunami DD Asagumo DD Hibiki DD Yugiri DD Ume DD Sugi DD Hatakaze Allied Ships DE Reynolds, Shell hits 17, on fire, heavy damage AK Algol AK Thuban, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AK Centarus AK Aquarius, on fire AK Arneb, Shell hits 1, on fire AK Chara, on fire, heavy damage AK Capricornus AK Durham Victory AK Iran Victory AK Bedford Victory AK Bluefield Victory AK Boulder Victory AK Australian Victory AK Elmira Victory AK Las Vegas Victory, on fire AK Manderson Victory AK Provo Victory AK Diphda LCI(G) LCI(G)-373 LCI(G) LCI(G)-396 LCI(G) LCI(G)-398 LCI(G) LCI(G)-401 LCI(R) LCI(R)-74 AK Liloa AK Sage Brush AK Sea Thrush AK Wind Rush, on fire, heavy damage AK Alcoa Pioneer AK Cape Cumberland AK Cape Friendship AK Cape Georgia AK Cape Isabel AK Cape John AK Cape Martin, on fire, heavy damage AK Jean Lafite AK Robin Wentley AK Sea Runner, on fire AK Sea Sturgeon AK Unicoi AK Abigail S. Duniway AK Ada Rehan AK Alan Seeger AK Alexander Majors AK Alexander Woolcott AK Allen Johnson AK Ambrose Bierce AK Amerigo Vespucci AK Antonin Dvorak, on fire, heavy damage AK Empire Record, Shell hits 16, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage Yeah, i know the convoy scattered and results are historical, reasonable, etc....[:D][:D][:D]... "there are many examples in the history when escort protected escorts blah blah".. Andy, do you still think that naval combat is not broken?[:)]

pauk -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 1:57:45 PM)
of course it is better[;)][:)]. You know that i still think what ive posted in recent post(s). So, short question: Is this being looked?

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 1:58:51 PM)
Because one aspect of naval combat doesn't function according to your standards, it doesn't mean the whole thing is "broken". That's false logic.

treespider -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 3:48:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk of course it is better[;)][:)]. You know that i still think what ive posted in recent post(s). So, short question: Is this being looked? There have been some tweaks to Naval Combat...now whether those changes will completely prevent results like above remains to be seen....but perhaps the results will not be as extreme. The changes involved comparing speeds between combat TF and non-combat TF such that a faster combat TF will likely have a greater opportunity to fire more shots before the sides break off...

Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 4:38:21 PM)
I dont think that naval combat is necessarely broken. Depends on weather, sea state and dispersal of convoy and other things like Radar, commander moral and judgement. And at night everyone is prudent. This reminds me of one episode in Crete Invasion: Commander Cigala Fulgosi with Torpedo Boat Sagittario(not even a destroyer) escorting a motley invasion force of 30 diverse costal civilian vessels w/ 4000 German soldiers Vs Force C - Rear Admiral E. L. S. King CL Naiad (F) CL Perth CL Calcutta CL Carlisle DD Kandahar DD Kingston DD Nubian This was in day time. 2 of the coastal vessesls were sunk the others were able to retire. Churchill was furious. The other one at night the Lupo convoy was a bit better for British but even then they failed to destroy the convoy.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 5:05:59 PM)
Naval combat is not "broken" in any way, shape or form.

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 5:47:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk Joe, i'm getting tired of this. I've posted just one example. Then i was told everthing is working fine (just go back and see my recent posts and answers). Ok, then i posted another example - just one example of the numerous wierd results in many games. Now, i don't get any reasonable answer, just demagogic answer. I could live with such naval combat model, but since you guys doing a more accurate game, i've tried to point that some things are not working well in WiTP. But unfortunatly, it seems that none is interested for improving the game in this particular area which is pitty . I perfectly understand that AE team will do what they thing is needed to be inproved - and that is ok. We, as customers have two choices and that is fine. I really really appreciate what is AE team trying to achive. But, i can not accept that someone keeps telling me "hey, it is working fine" when i know no it is not working fine. And i really don't want to go into further debate. I recall how Tom Hunter tried to explain and prove some "glitchs" in naval combat, do you recall that too, Joe? So, it is obvious that nothing is going to be changed/improved in naval combat and it is fine. But, i'm not naive, and i can not buy "the naval combat model is fine" fairy tale. Pauk, I hope my words are not construed to be saying "the naval combat model is fine". My words were that I would not take either side of the debate "broken" or "fine" ... especially if broken means "usually produces invalid results" and fine means "usually produces valid results". Here is a snippet from my last convoy battle from my game with Moses ... one IJN TF sneaks in to an invasion and dings a couple of convoys. I'd consider this result to be "valid" feeling. AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 06/16/43 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Munda at 64,95 Japanese Ships Now the surface forces sneaks in to hit the transports! CA Aoba CA Kinugasa CL Nagara DD Hatsukari DD Tomozuru DD Otori DD Hiyodori DD Hayabusa Allied Ships AK Henry Dearborn AK James B. McPherson, Shell hits 15, Torpedo hits 1, and is sunk AK Juan Cabrillo, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage AK Lew Wallace AK Starr King, Shell hits 14, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Night Time Surface Combat, near Munda at 64,95 Japanese Ships Hit 'em again !!! CA Aoba CA Kinugasa, Shell hits 1 CL Nagara DD Hatsukari DD Tomozuru DD Otori DD Hiyodori, Shell hits 1 DD Hayabusa Allied Ships AP George F. Elliot, Shell hits 2, on fire AP McCawley AP Heywood, Shell hits 9, on fire, heavy damage AP U.S. Grant, Shell hits 15, Torpedo hits 3, and is sunk AP Henry T. Allen But to answer your question "is this being worked on" ... I will actually answer a broader question. Regarding the three major combat systems, Land, Sea and Air ... Land - We are changing some things that will impact land combat, but the basic model is not being changed. Naval - Again, we are changing something that will impact naval combat, but we are not changing the basic model. Air - In the case of air - when we started this project, the eight or so people on board at that time, felt "uber air battles" was one of the top (actually IIRC it was THE top) issue(s) that needed to be addressed. So we have been more "intrusive" in this area. The basic sequence is unchanged - but there have been modifications to the guts of the air to air system. Mitigating Uber air combats requires at least two components: Breaking up the larger air battles and making it more difficult to operate large groups of aircraft out of a small area. We have attempted to make progress on both of these axes. So far the test results seem positive but more is needed. So why did we not address the fundamentals of Naval and Land? Short answer is we felt like addessing the issues would result in a complete re-write and we were loathe to do this for an upgrade. We withhold the total re-write option for a future day when we will tackle a new game from the ground up. Trying to do essentially a new game, within the existing framework did not seem to fit the project parameters. I certainly "take the blame" for making this call. So be sure to sight in on the proper target! [:)]

treespider -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 6:00:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Naval combat is not "broken" in any way, shape or form. T is absolutely correct...it is working exactly the way it is coded.[:)] And as has been pointed out, the original WitP code has been tweaked....

HMSWarspite -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 7:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk quote: ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite Don't be like that. I am not convinced that convoy actions present a realistic range of outcomes. However the examples you chose to raise are not two of them. Either present views (or better facts) that support your case, or find another example that does. ok, i know that i've said it is enough. But, i really hate when guys keep talking "i'm not convinced", "oh i have a good escort", "oh, it is realistical, remeber the xy battle..:" etc... you want the better facts, ok - here it is[:D] Night Time Surface Combat, near Tinian at 62,65 Japanese Ships BB Hiei BB Mutsu CA Haguro CL Yahagi, Shell hits 1 DD Suzunami DD Asagumo DD Hibiki DD Yugiri DD Ume DD Sugi DD Hatakaze Allied Ships DE Reynolds, Shell hits 17, on fire, heavy damage AK Algol AK Thuban, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage AK Centarus AK Aquarius, on fire AK Arneb, Shell hits 1, on fire AK Chara, on fire, heavy damage AK Capricornus AK Durham Victory AK Iran Victory AK Bedford Victory AK Bluefield Victory AK Boulder Victory AK Australian Victory AK Elmira Victory AK Las Vegas Victory, on fire AK Manderson Victory AK Provo Victory AK Diphda LCI(G) LCI(G)-373 LCI(G) LCI(G)-396 LCI(G) LCI(G)-398 LCI(G) LCI(G)-401 LCI(R) LCI(R)-74 AK Liloa AK Sage Brush AK Sea Thrush AK Wind Rush, on fire, heavy damage AK Alcoa Pioneer AK Cape Cumberland AK Cape Friendship AK Cape Georgia AK Cape Isabel AK Cape John AK Cape Martin, on fire, heavy damage AK Jean Lafite AK Robin Wentley AK Sea Runner, on fire AK Sea Sturgeon AK Unicoi AK Abigail S. Duniway AK Ada Rehan AK Alan Seeger AK Alexander Majors AK Alexander Woolcott AK Allen Johnson AK Ambrose Bierce AK Amerigo Vespucci AK Antonin Dvorak, on fire, heavy damage AK Empire Record, Shell hits 16, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage Yeah, i know the convoy scattered and results are historical, reasonable, etc....[:D][:D][:D]... "there are many examples in the history when escort protected escorts blah blah".. Andy, do you still think that naval combat is not broken?[:)] Yes - I will give you this one. Whilst possible (with a little imagination) to conceive a scenario where this could happen, I think the realistic options are either the attackers fail to find the convoy, or they do a lot more damage. I don't think that this necessarily means the whole system is broken, but I would like to know if this action is within scope of 'model working as designed'. The attackers found it, how did they not engage more ships, even if they were commanded by a paranoid wimp who pulled out after the first round (or something)...

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 7:36:26 PM)
Maybe one way to help address this is to put more information in the combat report. There have already been calls to have any info available in the animations also be in the report. That is good, because it puts people on an even footing (animations versus no animations). Likewise there have been requests to put some additional info into the combat report. How about we add to those requests that the combat report include a terse summary of any relevant information (within the limits of FOW)? Such information would include weather, sea state, lighting, surprise, initial range of sighting/firing, etc.

pad152 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/4/2008 8:30:29 PM)
4000 Minefield Limit Is this limit per side? If no, could one side use this up to limit other players use of mine fields? How does a player know the number left/available to them? We get info on the number of mines at a base, how about the number of fields? It would be nice to know the size & number of fields layed on any target hex, for air layed mines the player gets no feed back/info on the number of mines layed or the size of the mine field! Will we see the AI in AE make better use of mines, laying both defenes and mining enemy ports?

pauk -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/5/2008 12:15:56 AM)
Ok.. as I've expected, only Joe gave reasonable and good answer. Andy, you know that i'm right buy you can't just admit that[;)]. Thanks Joe, i see the point.[:)] It is pitty that person who started this thread didn't have anything to say about this "glitch", but somehow i'm not suprised by that. He is well known.... (censored).

sven6345789 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/5/2008 12:42:50 AM)
I am not really convinced that you are right. It is as has been said. The system is ok, since it produces understandable or acceptable results most of the time. Sometimes it just doesn't work out the way you expect it. for example, the german submarine campaign was very successful during 1940. At this time, about 10-15 subs were all that were on station. If that would happen in a game, everyone would say "broken". In June 1941, the western Army Group of the Red Army had more tanks than the german army Groups North, South and Center combined. Still they were gone after about two weeks. There is more to war than numbers or force. Leadership and using your assets to the maximum counts (Jacksons Shenandoah-Campaign, for example), and than there is the factor of luck, and bad luck Napoleon was once asked if given the choice between a good general or a lucky general who would he take? he replied L'on fortuné, chaques temps! the lucky one, every time. your combat is the perfect example of a SNAFU!

treespider -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/5/2008 1:59:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk Ok.. as I've expected, only Joe gave reasonable and good answer. Andy, you know that i'm right buy you can't just admit that[;)]. Thanks Joe, i see the point.[:)] It is pitty that person who started this thread didn't have anything to say about this "glitch", but somehow i'm not suprised by that. He is well known.... (censored). quote: quote: quote: ORIGINAL: pauk of course it is better. You know that i still think what ive posted in recent post(s). So, short question: Is this being looked? There have been some tweaks to Naval Combat...now whether those changes will completely prevent results like above remains to be seen....but perhaps the results will not be as extreme. The changes involved comparing speeds between combat TF and non-combat TF such that a faster combat TF will likely have a greater opportunity to fire more shots before the sides break off... What wasn't reasonable about that response?

Page: << < prev 41 42 [43] 44 45 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.029297