RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread

RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (Full Version)

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

Message

Yamato hugger -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/5/2008 6:17:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Grotius Also, has there been any change in the way Sigint files are handled? Can we read each other's sigint fils in PBEM in AE? As it stands now, yes. I would like to see them encrypted, but that maybe something for a patch.

JeffroK -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/5/2008 10:57:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay " Example: from the ops file: OS2U-3L Kingfisher sighting report: 5 Japanese ships at 228,77 near San Diego, speed 18, Moving Northwest This is a false report. There is no Jap 5 ship TFs near San Diego on Dec 9 1941" Does this mean that there was a sub sighting there, or that the FOW is now giving us completely bogus sightings where there was nothing at all? I'm okay with a search plane claiming that one of my own TFs is an eenmy TF, but I'm not so cool with hallucinitory sightings... You should look at the accuracy of sub sightings... Pod of Whales, Dolphins, Odd wave patterns etc etc etc kept ASW squadrons sending out reaction groups in all Theatres. What does a periscope look like in rough seas, cloudy skies and from 5-1000ft? Damned if they did, damned if they didnt.

Dili -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/6/2008 12:30:12 AM)
quote: Does this mean that there was a sub sighting there, or that the FOW is now giving us completely bogus sightings where there was nothing at all? I'm okay with a search plane claiming that one of my own TFs is an eenmy TF, but I'm not so cool with hallucinitory sightings... "hallucinitory" sightings exist in war , also there is navigation/position errors, decryptation errors that when info reaches Commanders confuses things a lot.

Grotius -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/6/2008 6:05:44 AM)
quote: As it stands now, yes. I would like to see them encrypted, but that maybe something for a patch. Ah, OK. No worries; it hasn't ever been an issue for me in my PBEMs. But then I have always been blessed with honorable opponents. :)

Alikchi2 -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/8/2008 5:08:40 PM)
What sort of changes can we expect to see in the 1942 scenarios? Has the OOB been looked at?

Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/8/2008 5:12:17 PM)
Sorry, Alikchi, but there are no 1942 starts for the grand campaign. We're looking at two variants on the 12/7 full campaign game and three smaller scenarios for initial release, and one more partial-map scenario for the first patch.

aphrochine -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/8/2008 5:50:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Sorry, Alikchi, but there are no 1942 starts for the grand campaign. We're looking at two variants on the 12/7 full campaign game and three smaller scenarios for initial release, and one more partial-map scenario for the first patch. [&:] I really dont like playing the game in '41 and early '42. It's all Japan marching across the pacific, or allies trying to evac/sir robin until Japan starts to over extend itself. Really boring in terms of combat if you ask me. Perhaps the mod community will have a good apr/may/jun '42 campaign or something.

Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/8/2008 5:53:04 PM)
Most likely. The problem with a '42 campaign start is that it's actually quite difficult to do proper OOB research for it (as we see in the stock scenarios) and we didn't want to just re-release the old mish-mash.

Alikchi2 -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/8/2008 6:39:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Sorry, Alikchi, but there are no 1942 starts for the grand campaign. We're looking at two variants on the 12/7 full campaign game and three smaller scenarios for initial release, and one more partial-map scenario for the first patch. Fair enough. You guys have enough on your hands as it is, anyhow, and I'm only really interested in the 41 scenarios... [8D] You've piqued my interest in re: the smaller scenarios, though, I must say.

Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/8/2008 6:42:52 PM)
The four smaller scens are Coral Sea, Aleutians, Guadalcanal and Downfall.

JWE -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/8/2008 7:44:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alikchi You've piqued my interest in re: the smaller scenarios, though, I must say. I too like smaller scenarios. I'm working on a couple; Terminus suggested a Philippine recapture scen, and Joe Wilkerson suggested a Solomons recapture scen. Both look sweet. Might show up in a patch. Ciao. John

JWE -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/8/2008 8:09:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: Alikchi You've piqued my interest in re: the smaller scenarios, though, I must say. I too like smaller scenarios. I'm working on a couple; Terminus suggested a Philippine recapture scen, and Joe Wilkerson suggested a Solomons recapture scen. Both look sweet. Might show up in a patch. Ciao. John Would like your input on these, actually. Joe's Toenails campaign folds in with the Gilberts campaign. Some interesting ship tradeoffs for the US, and some very interesting reinforcement options for Japan. Wouldn't take much to expand the map and wouldn't take a whole lot to up the ante an the various OOB. Could restrict the US LCUs to where they went, but open up the Japanese options to an either-or state. You got any thoughts ? Love to hear them. John

Alikchi2 -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/14/2008 9:34:30 PM)
Thinking of Fog of War here.. will it still be possible to see exact enemy losses in the daily screen? I remember a bit from PzB's AAR where he said "two Fulmars reported lost today, now I know that the Brit CVs are about" or something to that affect. In re: the smaller scenarios, the more flexibility the better.. people play them because they want a quick matchup but it still needs to have some replayability. So the more options and choices you give the player, the more likely your scenario will be played.

doc smith -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/17/2008 1:34:13 AM)
About SigInt. The WitP reports don't really help. Didn't the USN have better knowledge of where IJN heavies were located? Currently, WitP has NO useful ship sigint. Just wondering if it might get better in AE.

L�tzow -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/17/2008 3:35:11 PM)
I dunno if this got asked already, but will AE provide a higher screen resolution as 1024x768 ?

jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/17/2008 4:39:04 PM)
No, but I routinely run both AE and WITP in 1920x1200 resolution with no problems.

Alikchi2 -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/17/2008 5:56:06 PM)
A quick bump for Doc Smith and I's questions. [:)] jwilkerson: are you talking about an ingame resolution, or your monitor's native res?

Chad Harrison -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/17/2008 9:00:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Downfall Wait, thats the first I have heard of having Operation Downfall as a scenario. I thought it was going to be the Russian offensive again? Dont get me wrong, I would love to see Downfall as a scenario. Just a total beer and pretzel type of 'what if' scenario. So if it is Downfall, any tidbits as to the date range of the scenario? Will it have the Allies main bases located at Okinawa? Will the Allies have the Mariana bases and B-29's available? Thanks in advance. Chad

spence -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/17/2008 9:48:10 PM)
quote: About SigInt. The WitP reports don't really help. Didn't the USN have better knowledge of where IJN heavies were located? Currently, WitP has NO useful ship sigint. Just wondering if it might get better in AE. I second the opinion that the current WitP has NO USEFUL INFORMATION regarding IJN ships and negligible information about the movement of any Japanese ships. I hope it gets better but I kind of doubt it will. I would think that a Rising Sun Scenario akin to WitP #2 (first 100 days in the Philippines, Malaya, DEI and Burma) would be reasonably easy to get an initial OOB for. A few extra reinforcements for the Allied Player would be need to be added: HMS Exeter, Blackforce, the Texas NG Arty unit and one of the A-24 sqdrns come to mind.

Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/17/2008 10:22:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus Downfall Wait, thats the first I have heard of having Operation Downfall as a scenario. I thought it was going to be the Russian offensive again? Dont get me wrong, I would love to see Downfall as a scenario. Just a total beer and pretzel type of 'what if' scenario. So if it is Downfall, any tidbits as to the date range of the scenario? Will it have the Allies main bases located at Okinawa? Will the Allies have the Mariana bases and B-29's available? Thanks in advance. Chad I can't tell you that much, since I'm still in the earliest stages of entering OOB data (there's just so MUCH stuff in such a small area), so much of it is still liable to change. At the moment, it starts in mid-October 45 and runs until the spring of 46. It won't be in the initial release, but in a subsequent patch.

Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/17/2008 10:25:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alikchi A quick bump for Doc Smith and I's questions. [:)] jwilkerson: are you talking about an ingame resolution, or your monitor's native res? Not ingame. I'm thinking Joe runs it in a window, which is the only way to go.

Andy Mac -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/17/2008 10:32:47 PM)
Although some old stick in the muds like me only run if full screen - I hate windowed mode !!! [:D][:D][:D]

Yamato hugger -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/19/2008 6:36:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac Although some old stick in the muds like me only run if full screen - I hate windowed mode !!! [:D][:D][:D] /agree

jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/19/2008 7:16:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alikchi A quick bump for Doc Smith and I's questions. [:)] jwilkerson: are you talking about an ingame resolution, or your monitor's native res? Monitor res. Also, I run in both windowed mode and non-windowed mode depending on circumstances.

Jmsimer -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/23/2008 8:25:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aphrochine [&:] I really dont like playing the game in '41 and early '42. It's all Japan marching across the pacific, or allies trying to evac/sir robin until Japan starts to over extend itself. Really boring in terms of combat if you ask me. Perhaps the mod community will have a good apr/may/jun '42 campaign or something. Wow, I could not disagree more. I like trying to manage the "hopeless fights" in the Phillipines and especially in the Java-Sumatra area, trying to escape with as much as possible while still trying to slow the Japanese down and make them pay for every success. And maybe I'm biased because I'm currently in 1-194 Armor (successor to the 194th Tank battalion which fought in Bataan), but still....

bradfordkay -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/24/2008 7:57:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay " Example: from the ops file: OS2U-3L Kingfisher sighting report: 5 Japanese ships at 228,77 near San Diego, speed 18, Moving Northwest This is a false report. There is no Jap 5 ship TFs near San Diego on Dec 9 1941" Does this mean that there was a sub sighting there, or that the FOW is now giving us completely bogus sightings where there was nothing at all? I'm okay with a search plane claiming that one of my own TFs is an eenmy TF, but I'm not so cool with hallucinitory sightings... You should look at the accuracy of sub sightings... Pod of Whales, Dolphins, Odd wave patterns etc etc etc kept ASW squadrons sending out reaction groups in all Theatres. What does a periscope look like in rough seas, cloudy skies and from 5-1000ft? Damned if they did, damned if they didnt. I missed these comments earlier. I guess that I took the "OS2U-3L Kingfisher sighting report: 5 Japanese ships at 228,77 near San Diego, speed 18, Moving Northwest" to mean that 5 surface ships were sighted, and thuse my comment about "hallucinatory" sightings. I have no problem with hallucinatory sub sightings, or friendlies being mistaken for enemies, or grain ships being mistaken for aircraft carriers, and whatnot...

IndyShark -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/24/2008 3:14:27 PM)
I definately prefer a 1942 start. I hope the modders come out with one soon after AE comes out.

Don Bowen -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/24/2008 3:44:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK quote: ORIGINAL: bradfordkay " Example: from the ops file: OS2U-3L Kingfisher sighting report: 5 Japanese ships at 228,77 near San Diego, speed 18, Moving Northwest This is a false report. There is no Jap 5 ship TFs near San Diego on Dec 9 1941" Does this mean that there was a sub sighting there, or that the FOW is now giving us completely bogus sightings where there was nothing at all? I'm okay with a search plane claiming that one of my own TFs is an eenmy TF, but I'm not so cool with hallucinitory sightings... You should look at the accuracy of sub sightings... Pod of Whales, Dolphins, Odd wave patterns etc etc etc kept ASW squadrons sending out reaction groups in all Theatres. What does a periscope look like in rough seas, cloudy skies and from 5-1000ft? Damned if they did, damned if they didnt. I missed these comments earlier. I guess that I took the "OS2U-3L Kingfisher sighting report: 5 Japanese ships at 228,77 near San Diego, speed 18, Moving Northwest" to mean that 5 surface ships were sighted, and thuse my comment about "hallucinatory" sightings. I have no problem with hallucinatory sub sightings, or friendlies being mistaken for enemies, or grain ships being mistaken for aircraft carriers, and whatnot... If you play with fog of war on - you get fog. Inaccurate reports, false reports, no reports when something is there. Enjoy the game.

Splinterhead -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/24/2008 4:47:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen ... Enjoy the game. [sm=sad-1361.gif] ...sigh.....[sm=sad-1361.gif]

scout1 -> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread (12/27/2008 10:16:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger quote: ORIGINAL: Grotius Also, has there been any change in the way Sigint files are handled? Can we read each other's sigint fils in PBEM in AE? As it stands now, yes. I would like to see them encrypted, but that maybe something for a patch. OK, let's take this to the next step ....... (presumably for a futire patch I'd guess) ....... How about making the SigInt somewhat variable in terms of it's accuracy (similar to a variable reinforcement schedule). This way the Yankees don't get to read ALL the mail .... Or if they do, it's mis-interpreted ..... Speaking of which, does the SigInt files contain false/inaccurate info as well ?

Page: << < prev 28 29 [30] 31 32 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.25