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 (12/7/2007 11:49:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

Will there be any sharks in the game?


Naw, they'll stay in the forum.





Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/7/2007 11:50:54 PM)

JWE, TY thats just great[:)]



JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 12:03:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jamesm
What changes are there going t be made to the automatic convoy system?  

Because it sometimes did some very dumb moves by sending convoys through enemy territory.  Also it only sends minimal quantities of supplies to each base and would choose ships with highish levels of damaged (18+).

Many player's issues with the auto-convoy system are recognized and being addressed

Auto-convoys won't be commanded by Kent Hewitt, however, and will remain almost as dumb as me. We have tried to insure, however, that a SFO to Singapore convoy won't be routed through the Shimonoseki Straight, for example.



Skyros -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 12:18:34 AM)

Not sure if this is an ard but this comes from a trom on combined fleet.com.

http://www.combinedfleet.com/PB-108_t.htm


IJN Patrol Boat No. 108:
Tabular Record of Movement
© 2007 Bob Hackett, Sander Kingsepp and Peter Cundall


Late November to 3 December 1944:
Drydocked at No. 1 Floating Dock in Surabaya.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 12:23:29 AM)

It's not a mobile one, which is one an ARD is.



Captain Cruft -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 12:25:33 AM)

So it would just be considered as part of the repair shipyard at Soerabaja.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 12:28:18 AM)

I suppose it could be...



MineSweeper -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 12:31:59 AM)

Any chance that there will be more info on the sunk ship list @ date sunk or maybe what ship sunk it ?



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 12:34:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MineSweeper

Any chance that there will be more info on the sunk ship list @ date sunk or maybe what ship sunk it ?



No. The problem is space on the list. We can't squeeze more text into those boxes.

(I seem to have seen this before today. Sorry I missed it, Minesweeper; been a little busy...)



Akos Gergely -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 12:50:05 AM)

1. Do you include some never-were ships by default into the OOB? Or at least please leave some space in the device list group to later add in somem ore naval guns etc...

2. Are CV attack numbers toned down a bit (sortie points or what it's called at the moment - so it really is ahistorical when a CV group can pound a base for days and also when a CV can launch it's VT squad for uncounted torp attacks, when in reality most CVs did not have in stock more than 36 fishes.)

3. Do you separate between warship and merchant/aux ship durability/strength? Now sometimes mercahnts are surprisingly difficult to sink, though in reality they have no real damage control etc...

4. Would surface combat reaction work a bit better to further enhance mid ocean surface combat? ALso what about air combat TF reaction?



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 12:52:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

1. Do you include some never-were ships by default into the OOB? Or at least please leave some space in the device list group to later add in somem ore naval guns etc...

2. Are CV attack numbers toned down a bit (sortie points or what it's called at the moment - so it really is ahistorical when a CV group can pound a base for days and also when a CV can launch it's VT squad for uncounted torp attacks, when in reality most CVs did not have in stock more than 36 fishes.)

3. Do you separate between warship and merchant/aux ship durability/strength? Now sometimes mercahnts are surprisingly difficult to sink, though in reality they have no real damage control etc...

4. Would surface combat reaction work a bit better to further enhance mid ocean surface combat? ALso what about air combat TF reaction?



1. There's plenty of room in the device table for new stuff, and no more hard-coded slots, so you can basically put anything anywhere. We don't have never-weres in the basic Grand Campaign OOB.

2. That's Air Team territory.

3. No.

4. That's being looked at. Might not make it for first release, but there's always patches.



Mike Solli -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 12:57:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Ya I have never read anything about a Japanese mobile floating dry dock, thats not to say their was non. but, I would be suprised to find they had such a thing, the Allies did not have axcess to ship yards the way the way Japan did, she was comparatively closer to port on the whole.


Ye of little faith. [:-] If they had 'em, I'll find 'em. [:D]



Bliztk -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:10:06 AM)

Are the proliferation of minefields modelled more correctly ?





Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:14:21 AM)

Do DP guns have 2 ranges now? one against aircrafts another against ships?  and a separate damage?




Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:33:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Are the proliferation of minefields modelled more correctly ?





We're cutting back on what Joe W. has called MitP (Mines in the Pacific). It should be more realistic.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:33:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Do DP guns have 2 ranges now? one against aircrafts another against ships? and a separate damage?




No.



JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:40:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk
Are the proliferation of minefields modelled more correctly ?

Don’t know exactly what you mean by modeling ‘proliferation of minefields’. Mine capable craft will continue to lay, minesweepers will continue to sweep, and laid minefields, as in the present game, will continue to degrade over time.

Significant changes have been made, however, as to where and under what circumstances, a mine capable craft may rearm with mines.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:42:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whipple


quote:

2. Pretty simply. Every port has a maximum tonnage capacity, and anything beyond that can only anchor there.




SWEETNESS!

Whipple


Does the maximum tonnage capacity increase as the port size is increased?


Capacity is dependent on port size, so yeah...


YESYESYEESSYYEESSSSYYYEEEESSSSSYIIIHHAAAA!!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Was the variable load capacity for units worked out?

IE troops in different modes will occupy differing amounts of cargo space thus requiring greater or less transport capacity depending on mode?


It's being worked on.


That means - combat loading?!?



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:44:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

That means - combat loading?!?


Yup...[:)]



Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:46:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brady

Ya I have never read anything about a Japanese mobile floating dry dock, thats not to say their was non. but, I would be suprised to find they had such a thing, the Allies did not have axcess to ship yards the way the way Japan did, she was comparatively closer to port on the whole.


Ye of little faith. [:-] If they had 'em, I'll find 'em. [:D]


I'm certain that the only ARDs were in the service of the RN and USN [;)]



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:46:40 AM)

He said to the JFB...[:D]



JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:52:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget
That means - combat loading?!?

Vessel loadout will be very much mission dependent. I cannot get specific, but I think you will be satisfied.



Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:52:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

He said to the ever optimistic but totally unlikely to find what he is looking for JFB...[:D]


You're right there T [;)]



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:52:54 AM)

[:D]



Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:54:00 AM)

I noticed that there is going to be distinction between transport and amphibious TFs, does this mean there will be a difference between troopships (AP) and assault transports (APA)?



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:54:39 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I noticed that there is going to be distinction between transport and amphibious TFs, does this mean there will be a difference between troopships (AP) and assault transports (APA)?


Hmmm, I forget...[&:] APA's and AKA's are certainly in as ship types, rather than just class names for AP's and AK's...



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:56:53 AM)

Can we still build MRE, and other Auxilry's?

Which raises the question: Can we build anything else?



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 1:58:02 AM)

I'm not sure you can build Meals Ready to Eat today?[:'(]



Captain Cruft -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 2:01:12 AM)

So ... I take it one of the main ideas with the new loading (and unloading?) routines is to prevent the gamey abuse of using a bunch of AKs for invasions and other heinous but common activities?

On the same note, are the Japanese "landing craft" or barges still abstracted via the AP unloading rates as they vaguely are in the original?



Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 2:05:22 AM)

Woop's typo...MLE



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8105469