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

TheElf -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/8/2008 12:03:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants quote: Well if you run out of torpedoes none will be carried... Cv's only carried so many torps. For land based HQ's make sure you have an adequate supply on hand to arm your torpedo planes over the course of two days. I don't think you understood what I was asking. If you are playing a 2 day turn PBEM and your CVs getting into a battle with other CVs on day 1, will they automatically reload with torpedoes, if available, on the CVs and use them again on day 2?? Or will they use just bombs the second day since the player is not able to manually reload them?? A test of this would be good for you developers using a 2 day turn of PBEM to see how the AI reacts to this possible situation. Most Fleet Carriers carried enough torps in their magazines for two sorties of their full strength Torpedo Squadron. Roughly 36. Considering the potential for casualties in CV combat that means you'll probably be able to fly 3 before runningout. At which time you'll be left with bombs. But hey, that's reality. Might want to have a back up plan in case you get stuck wondering if you should load bombs or torpedoes...

TheElf -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/8/2008 12:05:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs What are the restrictions on CV's resupplying with torps? I believe for unreps they are the same as resupplying BBs. For port calls I'll have to get back to you. We are still refining this. however the intent is not to require CVs to pull in to ports with Air HQs. Any appropriate size port with good supply should suffice.

TheElf -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/8/2008 12:21:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ny59giants Since it seems that spending supply points to use torpedoes is a manual function, how does it work for games with 2 day turns?? I'm playing a PBEM with 2 day turns. Thus, would TB carry torpedoes only for the first day, if selected, and not reload for the second day?? This would not be good for a CV vs. CV battle. [:(] Torpedoes work differently for CV-based and Land based units. CVs have a finite supply. 36 for Fleet Carriers, less for escort and Light CVs. When they are used up that's it, so better make'em count. Have to unrep with and appropriate tender or pull into an appropriate port. Land-based units are dependent on parent HQ's to supply the torps and a host of other factors previously mentioned. But they are supplied as they were in stock, just with more restrictions and hoops In BOTH cases the player control is the same. You click a yellow phrase in the individual air unit that says "Use Torpedoes". If it is green after you click it you are in the supply chain. If it is red, then the chain is broken somewhere.... The OTHER player control is determining how many torpedoes are in the reserve of the HQ. You can select (increment /decrement) the number of torpedoes you want the HQ to have on hand for all the air units in supply range. For each torpedo you "Assemble" you pay 10 supply points. That HQ will automatically maintain that level of Torpedoes in it's reserve until you tell it to reduce it, or supply becomes and issue.

treespider -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/8/2008 12:41:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf But hey, that's reality. Might want to have a back up plan in case you get stuck wondering if you should load bombs of torpedoes... Didn't something similar happen historically...can't quite place my finger on it ....[;)]

Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/8/2008 1:59:14 PM)
quote: I don't know that many landbased airfields that can travel into the wind at 30 knots, though, so that 250m long mobile flight deck has a slight advantage over a level 1-2 airbase... That is why i said 3 or 2 size.

Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/8/2008 7:42:05 PM)
Just noticed I had a double post here. No need in saying the same thing twice.

Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/8/2008 7:42:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf But hey, that's reality. Might want to have a back up plan in case you get stuck wondering if you should load bombs of torpedoes... Didn't something similar happen historically...can't quite place my finger on it ....[;)] Having the advantage of knowing what happened historically, I'll just stick with Bombs instead of reloading with torpedos. They may not be as devastating, but it sure is better than getting caught with your with a bunch of half loaded planes on the deck . [;)]

Apollo11 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/9/2008 10:16:49 AM)
Hi all, quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf Torpedoes work differently for CV-based and Land based units. CVs have a finite supply. 36 for Fleet Carriers, less for escort and Light CVs. When they are used up that's it, so better make'em count. Have to unrep with and appropriate tender or pull into an appropriate port. Land-based units are dependent on parent HQ's to supply the torps and a host of other factors previously mentioned. But they are supplied as they were in stock, just with more restrictions and hoops In BOTH cases the player control is the same. You click a yellow phrase in the individual air unit that says "Use Torpedoes". If it is green after you click it you are in the supply chain. If it is red, then the chain is broken somewhere.... The OTHER player control is determining how many torpedoes are in the reserve of the HQ. You can select (increment /decrement) the number of torpedoes you want the HQ to have on hand for all the air units in supply range. For each torpedo you "Assemble" you pay 10 supply points. That HQ will automatically maintain that level of Torpedoes in it's reserve until you tell it to reduce it, or supply becomes and issue. Again very nice stuff - thanks guys!!! [&o][&o][&o] Leo "Apollo11"

LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/9/2008 10:30:06 AM)
Search came up empty for this question: Most Japanese CLs and USN Omaha class CLs were fitted for minelaying - is this modelled in AE?

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/9/2008 5:22:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget Search came up empty for this question: Most Japanese CLs and USN Omaha class CLs were fitted for minelaying - is this modelled in AE? I can answer the Japanese ... I've generally followed the data given in Lacroix and Wells. This will see some of the IJN CLs still capable of carrying mines by the start of the war - and some carrying depth charges later. Justin will have to speak for the American side of the house.

Kull -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/10/2008 6:20:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TheElf CVs have a finite supply (of torpedos). 36 for Fleet Carriers, less for escort and Light CVs. When they are used up that's it, so better make'em count. Have to unrep with and appropriate tender or pull into an appropriate port. Land-based units are dependent on parent HQ's to supply the torps and a host of other factors previously mentioned. But they are supplied as they were in stock, just with more restrictions and hoops In BOTH cases the player control is the same. You click a yellow phrase in the individual air unit that says "Use Torpedoes". If it is green after you click it you are in the supply chain. If it is red, then the chain is broken somewhere.... The OTHER player control is determining how many torpedoes are in the reserve of the HQ. You can select (increment /decrement) the number of torpedoes you want the HQ to have on hand for all the air units in supply range. For each torpedo you "Assemble" you pay 10 supply points. That HQ will automatically maintain that level of Torpedoes in it's reserve until you tell it to reduce it, or supply becomes and issue. I like the complexity as imposed upon the human player, but is the AI capable of handling this? Will AI-KB keep patroling long after it's used up it's torpedos? And if/when it does need replenishment, does the AI know it must select an "appropriate port"? (i.e. one with torpedos in supply)

bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/10/2008 7:50:49 AM)
Kull, I believe that is one of the things they are working on right now. I know that it has been a problem already - the KB sailing around without enough sorties left to launch any serious attacks. It is possible that my experience with this has been because of the modified map changing the size of the ports where the KB expects to resupply, but it is a reasonable concern you are expressing. It is my understanding that the majority of the work that is being done right now on AE has to deal with the AI.

pad152 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/12/2008 3:17:29 AM)
I hope the AI in AE will allow it to handle more than one Carrier TF at a time!

pauk -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/18/2008 9:10:47 AM)
Will 20mm canon guns be more effective against transports? Usually, they can't even start fire on enemy transports....

pauk -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/18/2008 11:24:02 PM)
Many thanks for answers guys[:)] i guess nothing will be changed. Oh why i'm not suprised at all....

Sardaukar -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/18/2008 11:39:53 PM)
They said in other thread that lack of responses is because they are very busy right now. "Sorry for the lack of responses lately guys, no disrespect intended - it's just that we've got our heads down for some serious grafting ATM."

treespider -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/18/2008 11:57:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk Many thanks for answers guys[:)] i guess nothing will be changed. Oh why i'm not suprised at all.... You're probably right nothing at all has changed....except for maybe those 150 other things that were changed.

herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/18/2008 11:59:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay Kull, I believe that is one of the things they are working on right now. I know that it has been a problem already - the KB sailing around without enough sorties left to launch any serious attacks. It is possible that my experience with this has been because of the modified map changing the size of the ports where the KB expects to resupply, but it is a reasonable concern you are expressing. It is my understanding that the majority of the work that is being done right now on AE has to deal with the AI. For the KB at any point, you'll have a set of actions available--where you go and what you do during the next turn. The actions implement operations--some reflexive, some basically habitual, and some involving planning. Each operation will have a value (discounted reward) and a variance. The value of an action is a weighted total of all the operations values that it supports, with the weighting based on the variance of each (like in a Kalman filter). You quickly calculate the values of all the actions and do the most rewarding. Refueling, rearming, and refitting raise the long-term value of available operations. Habitual operations values are cached using the rewards of the operation in the past. (See actor-critic.) Hence the AI learns how to play its opponent tactically. Planned operations need a forward model (and an inverse model so that actions can be abandoned when they no longer lead to a pay off). You can probably get by with a collection of generic plans plus some special cases for special situations. (See model-based reinforcement learning.) These would be like an opening or end-game library in a chess program or you might want to allow the program to look ahead. Reflexive operations are like the TF approaching or avoiding an enemy TF or an AirTF releasing its screen to go carrier-hunting at night. These can probably be handled by the player defining SOPs for specific situations.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/19/2008 12:24:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: pauk Many thanks for answers guys[:)] i guess nothing will be changed. Oh why i'm not suprised at all.... You're probably right nothing at all has changed....except for maybe those 150 other things that were changed. Get lost, Pauk, you spoiled brat...[:-][:-][:-]

pauk -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/19/2008 8:37:03 AM)
Sard, perhaps they really are busy, but they do have time for insults and arrogant answers. As it was expected, of course. I've questioned one normal question and what i've got was ingorance. Well, i'm not suprised ... how they say: "give someone authority and you will see what kind of person he is"... I have been reading for months about "historical playibility", etc... several hundreds minor things that will be changed (especially like importance of transporting fuel with transport aircrafts[:D]). I really dont see what is wrong with my question. Isn't little bit wierd that 20 mm AA gun can sink DD, but at the other hand, transports are invulnerable when ac with 20 mm canon guns attack AKs APs? It is not such a minor issue when comparing with transporting fuel with ac, for example[:D]) I hope that examples are not requiered.[:)] I have seen plenty of them. Perhaps even terminus saw few of them since he didn't played game more than a month... So, ignoring my question gives me a right to make my own opinion that we have a AE religious sect here. "Hear, hear, im telling you what is good and what is wrong, so it will be as I said". ....... has spoken. That is ok, if Matrix allows such behaviour i have nothing more than [:)]... I'm just dissapointed that master of religious sect converted some members of the team - treespider, you have been very informative and well balanced. But thanks, if you going to answer to questions like that, please dont[:D] I didn't ask about 149 things changed (I see that this is drunken AFB party for a months). I've asked about one specific issue. Please, don't be demagogue[:)] Back to the original issue. Of course that this issue is not gamebreaker, but fixing/changing that requires 10 minutes. We all know why that is not going to be fixed - "I AM here to decide what is wrong and what is right - Get lost, Pauk, you spoiled brat..."....[:D] I'm simply astonished that member of the team can act like that - so guess whose behavior is childish (oh no, you touched MY toy, get lost you spoiled brat. I know the best).[:)] Such reaction was expected since they can not offer any counter arguments regarding this issue. And when you are proved wrong, all you can do is offer: - sarcasam (except for maybe those 150 other things that were changed.) - insults [:D] I would suggest Matrix officials changing the rules on this board, it's obivious that some people can't follow these rules (i will not say why[:D]): http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1649590 So, in perfect scenario, terminus will get a warning (pehaps! not likely!), and he will keep going with arrogance and insults - just because others don't think like him.[:'(] Thanks God, he doesnt live in WW II era....brrrrr[:D] [image]local://upfiles/4569/949560DF07CB4F1D9D42E0CE2CC13540.jpg[/image]

bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/19/2008 9:03:34 AM)
Please. Everybody. Take a breather. We certainly do not want these very important threads on AE to be locked. Thank you. [8D]

treespider -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/19/2008 1:15:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk Will 20mm canon guns be more effective against transports? Usually, they can't even start fire on enemy transports.... To answerr your original question - probably not, there were 150 other things that were deemed to be more important. Perhaps this was one of them or perhaps in a future patch this issue can be addressed.

pauk -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/19/2008 2:11:06 PM)
Thanks.

castor troy -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/19/2008 2:34:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: treespider quote: ORIGINAL: pauk Many thanks for answers guys[:)] i guess nothing will be changed. Oh why i'm not suprised at all.... You're probably right nothing at all has changed....except for maybe those 150 other things that were changed. Get lost, Pauk, you spoiled brat...[:-][:-][:-] [sm=crazy.gif][sm=Crazy-1271.gif] You just stink... wonder why you still can do on the forum what you want. You�re like a furuncle, something noone needs. Isn�t there a mod around who PMs this stupid guy for such a post? [8\|]

castor troy -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/19/2008 2:39:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pauk Sard, perhaps they really are busy, but they do have time for insults and arrogant answers. As it was expected, of course. I've questioned one normal question and what i've got was ingorance. Well, i'm not suprised ... how they say: "give someone authority and you will see what kind of person he is"... I have been reading for months about "historical playibility", etc... several hundreds minor things that will be changed (especially like importance of transporting fuel with transport aircrafts[:D]). I really dont see what is wrong with my question. Isn't little bit wierd that 20 mm AA gun can sink DD, but at the other hand, transports are invulnerable when ac with 20 mm canon guns attack AKs APs? It is not such a minor issue when comparing with transporting fuel with ac, for example[:D]) I hope that examples are not requiered.[:)] I have seen plenty of them. Perhaps even terminus saw few of them since he didn't played game more than a month... So, ignoring my question gives me a right to make my own opinion that we have a AE religious sect here. "Hear, hear, im telling you what is good and what is wrong, so it will be as I said". ....... has spoken. That is ok, if Matrix allows such behaviour i have nothing more than [:)]... I'm just dissapointed that master of religious sect converted some members of the team - treespider, you have been very informative and well balanced. But thanks, if you going to answer to questions like that, please dont[:D] I didn't ask about 149 things changed (I see that this is drunken AFB party for a months). I've asked about one specific issue. Please, don't be demagogue[:)] Back to the original issue. Of course that this issue is not gamebreaker, but fixing/changing that requires 10 minutes. We all know why that is not going to be fixed - "I AM here to decide what is wrong and what is right - Get lost, Pauk, you spoiled brat..."....[:D] I'm simply astonished that member of the team can act like that - so guess whose behavior is childish (oh no, you touched MY toy, get lost you spoiled brat. I know the best).[:)] Such reaction was expected since they can not offer any counter arguments regarding this issue. And when you are proved wrong, all you can do is offer: - sarcasam (except for maybe those 150 other things that were changed.) - insults [:D] I would suggest Matrix officials changing the rules on this board, it's obivious that some people can't follow these rules (i will not say why[:D]): http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1649590 So, in perfect scenario, terminus will get a warning (pehaps! not likely!), and he will keep going with arrogance and insults - just because others don't think like him.[:'(] Thanks God, he doesnt live in WW II era....brrrrr[:D] [image]local://upfiles/4569/949560DF07CB4F1D9D42E0CE2CC13540.jpg[/image] the only thing that is not correct here is this rat that somehow managed to get a friend at Matrix. In other forums (that are far worse than the WITP forum) you get banned for spamming it, in the best forum I know, the only real annoying spammer (who has no sense of politeness at all) is able to find a friend due to his spamming... There was nothing wrong with your question, the only thing that is wrong is that the modelling of this issue isn�t realistic. While I do agree that there are other things more important, still, you are right with your question and this strange guy who thinks he can do whatever he wants is wrong. If there�s a mod that will pm me for my last two posts, then I can already give my answer: No I won�t edit my last two posts as I have done that often enough, while your dumb friend from Denmark was never forced to do that even though I was affirmed (by the mod) that I wasn�t the one who started the flaming. You at Matrix should perhaps think about giving this guy the chance to flame around pissing off people like Pauk (who has done a lot of promotion with his AAR for this game). So for sure Pauk is one of the more important people here (for Matrix) than the one who has been annyoing more than two or three people here for the last three years. I�m sure new players in the last couple of years profitated more from Pauk�s AAR than from the irritating, never helpful 25000+ post of this rude spammer. Not to talk about how many people bought this game, just because they were reading AAR�s like those from Pauk, PzB, Raver, Honda and many more long term and and valuable forum members.

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (4/19/2008 5:59:25 PM)
I have enough - I think I will lock this one - and probably one other. Maybe someone else will unlock one day. === Yes we are pretty busy these days - sometimes we have to make a choice between monitoring these threads and hitting deadlines. Most of us choose the later option.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.6386719