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

Jim D Burns -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 3:07:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson Yes but we have offset this by making it easier as well. Don or Kristian can elaborate. I always thought mid-ocean intercepts were already far too easy, in fact they were pure fantasy. I can’t count the number of times Japan placed a couple of DD’s somewhere in the Philippine Sea and intercepted dozens of task forces moving through their hex all on the same night. It should be very hard to even find one task force at night in a 40 mile hex and impossible to find 8, 10 or 20 different task forces. Given how Japan always found every single task force that moved through their hex, I can’t see how it could even be made easier, unless mid-ocean reaction moves have been increased. Is there some kind of limit to the number of engagements a task force can fight in one phase other than their on board ammo stocks? Jim

Mifune -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 3:09:34 PM)
From the manual "no TF can move more than 6 hexes per turn". Surely with a 40nm hex you must mean they can move at least 9 hexes per turn?

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 3:13:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mifune From the manual "no TF can move more than 6 hexes per turn". Surely with a 40nm hex you must mean they can move at least 9 hexes per turn? Oh yes, of course... I read your question as whether or not the cap had been removed, which it hasn't. But obviously we've set it higher to account for the new map scale.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 3:15:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson Yes but we have offset this by making it easier as well. Don or Kristian can elaborate. I always thought mid-ocean intercepts were already far too easy, in fact they were pure fantasy. I can’t count the number of times Japan placed a couple of DD’s somewhere in the Philippine Sea and intercepted dozens of task forces moving through their hex all on the same night. It should be very hard to even find one task force at night in a 40 mile hex and impossible to find 8, 10 or 20 different task forces. Given how Japan always found every single task force that moved through their hex, I can’t see how it could even be made easier, unless mid-ocean reaction moves have been increased. Is there some kind of limit to the number of engagements a task force can fight in one phase other than their on board ammo stocks? Jim Mid-ocean intercepts are defined (in our book) as two moving TF's meeting, not one moving and one static.

Captain Cruft -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 4:12:08 PM)
Sub patrol, gotta love that! :) I was wondering, can other TF types also be set to patrol in a like manner? Thinking particularly of ASW for example.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 4:13:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft Sub patrol, gotta love that! :) I was wondering, can other TF types also be set to patrol in a like manner? Thinking particularly of ASW for example. Yes, patrol zones and routing options are open to all TF's.

Captain Cruft -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 4:16:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft Sub patrol, gotta love that! :) I was wondering, can other TF types also be set to patrol in a like manner? Thinking particularly of ASW for example. Yes, patrol zones and routing options are open to all TF's. Yeehaw! Seriously, that is a MASSIVE improvement. Is the React/No React thing still the same?

Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 4:18:34 PM)
Do we get more of the Royal Navy's late war stuff? At least give me Bay Class AA Frigates [:D] [image]local://upfiles/20142/8BF0DF8C11EF4B62807257C5218D7D73.jpg[/image]

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 4:19:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft Sub patrol, gotta love that! :) I was wondering, can other TF types also be set to patrol in a like manner? Thinking particularly of ASW for example. Yes, patrol zones and routing options are open to all TF's. Yeehaw! Seriously, that is a MASSIVE improvement. Is the React/No React thing still the same? That's currently being worked on.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 4:20:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Do we get more of the Royal Navy's late war stuff? At least give me Bay Class AA Frigates [:D] [image]local://upfiles/20142/8BF0DF8C11EF4B62807257C5218D7D73.jpg[/image] That's an OOB question, and I've only worked on some of the Jap stuff, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get some of the stuff you're hoping for, Dixie...[;)]

Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 4:24:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Do we get more of the Royal Navy's late war stuff? At least give me Bay Class AA Frigates [:D] [image]local://upfiles/20142/8BF0DF8C11EF4B62807257C5218D7D73.jpg[/image] That's an OOB question, and I've only worked on some of the Jap stuff, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get some of the stuff you're hoping for, Dixie...[;)] I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from [:D][;)]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 4:27:04 PM)
Woohoo! This is sounding very heartwarming! One question for now. Are naval ship crew factors now in the game?[;)]

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 4:57:06 PM)
Eh, what do you mean, Ron?[&:]

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 4:58:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from [:D][;)] As you say, there's a large pool of stuff. The number of available slots have been vastly expanded, however. Many interesting things will show up as a result of the increased availability of slots to put 'em in. It’s historically appropriate, and therefore quite likely, that Bay and Loch class frigates will share an inter-conversion set.

Grotius -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 5:21:24 PM)
Thanks for your further responses, Terminus. More questions for you (the first one referred to you by Andrew in the map thread): 1. Is there any change to cold-weather limits on operations? I ask because I often felt it was too easy to operate in the Alaska area, notwithstanding the penalties in stock. At the very least, the cold season should last longer, but I also think it should just generally be tougher to operate up there. I suppose the same might apply at the far southern edge of the map, depending on how far south the map goes. 2. Has Patrol/Do Not Retire changed at all? 3. Has CV "one-hex" reaction changed at all? 4. Still have diminishing returns on AA for TFs of more than 15 ships? 5. Can you tell us more about the directional flak? I assume it's primarily a function of ship/plane heading; is ship/plane speed also a factor? 6. I too wanted to ask about tracking tonnage sunk by subs, or for that matter total distance traveled, fuel consumed, ammo used, etc. but it sounds like AE won't do that. Not a big deal; just would be nice -- those sort of stats that would enrich an AAR like Cuttlefish's. Is it fair to say that modders will have a way to track that sort of data?

Mike Scholl -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 5:25:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grotius 4. Still have diminishing returns on AA for TFs of more than 15 ships? With "Directional Flak" in place, keeping this would be redundant, wouldn't it? 5. Can you tell us more about the directional flak? I assume it's primarily a function of ship/plane heading; is ship/plane speed also a factor? I'd like to hear more about this as well...

Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 5:35:08 PM)
quote: Oh yes, of course... I read your question as whether or not the cap had been removed, which it hasn't. But obviously we've set it higher to account for the new map scale. Is there any reason for that cap? that prevents in practice a change of scale for modders. ---------- The artificial year aerial mine cap still exist?

Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 5:41:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from [:D][;)] As you say, there's a large pool of stuff. The number of available slots have been vastly expanded, however. Many interesting things will show up as a result of the increased availability of slots to put 'em in. It’s historically appropriate, and therefore quite likely, that Bay and Loch class frigates will share an inter-conversion set. [sm=happy0065.gif] One quick question, forgive the possible obviousness of the answer but: What is an inter-conversion set?

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 5:44:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from [:D][;)] As you say, there's a large pool of stuff. The number of available slots have been vastly expanded, however. Many interesting things will show up as a result of the increased availability of slots to put 'em in. It’s historically appropriate, and therefore quite likely, that Bay and Loch class frigates will share an inter-conversion set. [sm=happy0065.gif] One quick question, forgive the possible obviousness of the answer but: What is an inter-conversion set? We basically create a series of classes where the first class can be converted into any one of the other classes in the set. Thus the example with the US 4-piper DD's being converted into their specialty uses. We can also do an enclosed conversion set (for the Japs, primarily), MSW -> Escort -> MSW -> you get the idea.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 5:46:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: Oh yes, of course... I read your question as whether or not the cap had been removed, which it hasn't. But obviously we've set it higher to account for the new map scale. Is there any reason for that cap? that prevents in practice a change of scale for modders. ---------- The artificial year aerial mine cap still exist? Think that's more of a coding question, so I can't answer that one... Now where'd I put my coder...?

Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 5:49:41 PM)
Sorry that is the answer to both questions? It is unclear.

Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 5:50:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus We basically create a series of classes where the first class can be converted into any one of the other classes in the set. Thus the example with the US 4-piper DD's being converted into their specialty uses. We can also do an enclosed conversion set (for the Japs, primarily), MSW -> Escort -> MSW -> you get the idea. Fan-dabby-dozy [:D] How many of these classes are there?

Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 5:53:50 PM)
Sloop's?

MineSweeper -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 6:01:24 PM)
Will the RMS Queen Mary and RMS Queen Elizabeth be in the game.....they were used as troopships in the war..... [image]local://upfiles/22347/2D7DE8E55FDB49AD9172344637D566D1.jpg[/image]

Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 6:02:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brady Sloop's? Frigates [:)] The Bay Class were AA conversions of the Loch Class ASW Frigates which were in turn an evolution of the River Class.

Brady -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 6:15:08 PM)
Sloop, behind the DUKW: [img]http://www.oniva.com/upload/2131/313.jpg[/img]

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 6:23:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Fan-dabby-dozy [:D] How many of these classes are there? The best answer to your question is … as many as appropriate. It’s based, of course, on what actually transpired. There are no ‘never weres’ or implausabilities.

Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 6:33:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Brady Sloop, behind the DUKW: [img]http://www.oniva.com/upload/2131/313.jpg[/img] I guess I misunderstood your question then [:D]

Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 7:03:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: Dili quote: Oh yes, of course... I read your question as whether or not the cap had been removed, which it hasn't. But obviously we've set it higher to account for the new map scale. Is there any reason for that cap? that prevents in practice a change of scale for modders. ---------- The artificial year aerial mine cap still exist? Think that's more of a coding question, so I can't answer that one... Now where'd I put my coder...? If this is an aerial mining question, somewhere on the Air Team.

herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread (12/8/2007 7:22:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: herwin In WWII, CVs stayed out of gunship range (200 miles) at night. (See Hughes, Naval Tactics). This was a _major_ consideration in WWII naval operations. Will it be possible for a TF commander to release his screen in the evening to go hunting carriers? Alternatively, will it be possible for a fueled-up surface TF to react at night out to five hexes and then return in the early morning, low on fuel but satisfied from having sunk a carrier or some cruisers? No. Pity. See the discussion on pages 91-92 of Wayne P. Hughes (1986) Fleet Tactics: theory and practice, Naval Institute Press. "Carriers dominated the daylight hours but were sitting ducks for gunfire at night. Detaching before darkness, a battleship or heavy cruiser formation could travel two hundred nautical miles at night, a distance engraved in every tactical commander's mind.... But the Japanese, who were aggressors in 1942, three times sent their surface ships carrier hunting...."

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.03125