RE: Cha and T23 (Full Version)

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



Message

tanksone -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/19/2009 4:02:01 PM)

Hi, question for the dev's. I don't believe the naval units that are withdrawn in WitP changed any when they can back. Will there be a die roll to see if there experiance goes up when they come back?




[sm=00000436.gif]












Yamato hugger -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/19/2009 4:20:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tanksone

Hi, question for the dev's. I don't believe the naval units that are withdrawn in WitP changed any when they can back. Will there be a die roll to see if there experiance goes up when they come back?



I dont know for sure on all of them of course but some come back with new pilots and "new unit" experience. Why you cry? Because the units themselves were reformed.



bradfordkay -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/19/2009 5:11:41 PM)

Ummm.... YH, he said Naval Units, as in ships... they can be withdrawn for operations in the Med or Atlantic but don't gain any experience in doing so... 



Yamato hugger -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/20/2009 6:34:07 AM)

Sorry I read that as naval air units. As for ships, I doubt they would come back with more experience either but I cant say for sure.



Bliztk -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/21/2009 9:40:33 PM)

Just reading a report about Shokaku class and come across of their ammo storage facility.

Aircraft ordnance: forty-five torpedoes, ninety 800-kilo bombs, three hundred and six
250-kilo bombs, five hundred and forty 60-kilo bombs plus a fuel stowage of 496 tons
avgas.

That`s only two full strikes of B5N2 with torpedoes, 4 strikes of D3A1 with 800kg bombs, far less than we see in WITP

Are the ordnance handled different in AE or we have the same "air sorties"



Don Bowen -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/21/2009 10:21:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Just reading a report about Shokaku class and come across of their ammo storage facility.

Aircraft ordnance: forty-five torpedoes, ninety 800-kilo bombs, three hundred and six
250-kilo bombs, five hundred and forty 60-kilo bombs plus a fuel stowage of 496 tons
avgas.

That`s only two full strikes of B5N2 with torpedoes, 4 strikes of D3A1 with 800kg bombs, far less than we see in WITP

Are the ordnance handled different in AE or we have the same "air sorties"



You just read'n that? We went through this months ago.






Bliztk -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/21/2009 11:31:31 PM)

Not enough time to read the 68 pages of the two Naval threads [;)]

If this has been discussed already, then there is no problem



jwilkerson -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 3:35:26 AM)

Yeah we should be used to answering things more than once. As to carrier torpedo capacity, yes that is modeled separately. So most carriers now only have enough torpedoes for 2 or less strikes. But you have a toggle "bombs or torpedoes" so if you think you will be bombing transports, then you can order up bombs and save your torpedoes for the enemy warships you expect to show up next turn!




rockmedic109 -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 3:35:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Just reading a report about Shokaku class and come across of their ammo storage facility.

Aircraft ordnance: forty-five torpedoes, ninety 800-kilo bombs, three hundred and six
250-kilo bombs, five hundred and forty 60-kilo bombs plus a fuel stowage of 496 tons
avgas.

That`s only two full strikes of B5N2 with torpedoes, 4 strikes of D3A1 with 800kg bombs, far less than we see in WITP

Are the ordnance handled different in AE or we have the same "air sorties"


I don't think the Val carried the 800kg bomb. That was for the Kate and I thought it was only for the Pearl Harbor raid. Did they use them any other time?



Iridium -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 5:16:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

I don't think the Val carried the 800kg bomb. That was for the Kate and I thought it was only for the Pearl Harbor raid. Did they use them any other time?


To the best of my knowledge, no. That said, what else would have the Kates fielded asides from torpedos? If they were to be armed with bombs would they be bringing 250kgs or 800kgs? They had the payload for either...hell if there was a kit for it Kates could have carried three 250kg bombs(there wasn't).

EDIT: or was there... according to Wiki (right, well at least it's a start) they did posses the ability to carry three 250kg bombs at once.

huh...



jwilkerson -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 5:51:41 AM)

Kate with 3x250kg



[image]local://upfiles/7611/B1330650AA614F2BA9C5C706BA2B291A.jpg[/image]



jwilkerson -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 5:52:32 AM)

Kate with 800kg



[image]local://upfiles/7611/15E5AFFF7E694A05B61236430F12F7DB.jpg[/image]



jwilkerson -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 5:53:02 AM)

Kate with racks for 60kg




Alikchi2 -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 6:03:12 AM)

That 800kg is a BEAST.



jmscho -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 12:34:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alikchi

That 800kg is a BEAST.


But not as much a beast as the Tall Boy 5,443 kg (12,000 lb)
or Grand Slam 9,979 kg (22,000 lb)

[:D][:D][:D]



Yamato hugger -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 3:31:18 PM)

And yet neither of them was carried by a single engine aircraft launched from a carrier at sea either.



Barb -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 5:38:04 PM)

I would like to see D3A Vals carrying 250kg GP bombs. I think this was their standard ordonance, not the AP ones.

Target:
Land - Why the hell will you have APs? GPs and HEs are worth more...
Sea - priority:
Carriers - Unles you are going after RN, you will more likely have GPs then APs and HEs. The same for non-combatant ships, up to destroyer size.
Major ships - Well use Vals as flak distraction while the torpedobombers do the job.

It is somewhat funny (in WITP) to see Vals and Hellen/Sonias droping 250kg AP bombs on AKs... Well the other thing is to see Nells/Bettys droping 800kg AP bombs on AKs. [:D]

(According to Midway by Fuchida: Only Kates torpedos were rearmed for bombs and then back to torpedos. Vals were not mentioned to be rearmed. They were just taken below the flight deck to free it up to land 1st wave returning. Can someone confirm this?)




Nikademus -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 6:01:09 PM)

The D3A bomb was a SAP type that could be fused for HE. (GP) The majority in a strike would be SAP with a small# fused for HE.




vettim89 -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 6:01:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

I would like to see D3A Vals carrying 250kg GP bombs. I think this was their standard ordonance, not the AP ones.

Target:
Land - Why the hell will you have APs? GPs and HEs are worth more...
Sea - priority:
Carriers - Unles you are going after RN, you will more likely have GPs then APs and HEs. The same for non-combatant ships, up to destroyer size.
Major ships - Well use Vals as flak distraction while the torpedobombers do the job.

It is somewhat funny (in WITP) to see Vals and Hellen/Sonias droping 250kg AP bombs on AKs... Well the other thing is to see Nells/Bettys droping 800kg AP bombs on AKs. [:D]

(According to Midway by Fuchida: Only Kates torpedos were rearmed for bombs and then back to torpedos. Vals were not mentioned to be rearmed. They were just taken below the flight deck to free it up to land 1st wave returning. Can someone confirm this?)




Unfortunately, from what I have been able to gather from reading various AE threads, we are stuck with standard load outs AND EXP playing a factor on what certain planes will carry. The standard SBD loadout was a 1000lb SAP bomb which had enough penetration to go through a IJN CV's flight deck and the deck armor of some of the CA's. It didn't matter if a "Nugget" was flying the bird or a sesoned cobat veteran. The armorers did not consider whether it was ENS. Noobie's plance vice LCMDR. Grizzledvet's plane. The bomb's were loaded for the mission. This is a very frustrating aspect of the game.



Barb -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/22/2009 6:34:59 PM)

But there are certainly some bomb types selection like 2000lb GP bombs when unit pass some rolls (Exp i think). Could be nice to see them adapted to say 800kg APs too.



rockmedic109 -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/23/2009 2:21:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

I would like to see D3A Vals carrying 250kg GP bombs. I think this was their standard ordonance, not the AP ones.

Target:
Land - Why the hell will you have APs? GPs and HEs are worth more...
Sea - priority:
Carriers - Unles you are going after RN, you will more likely have GPs then APs and HEs. The same for non-combatant ships, up to destroyer size.
Major ships - Well use Vals as flak distraction while the torpedobombers do the job.

It is somewhat funny (in WITP) to see Vals and Hellen/Sonias droping 250kg AP bombs on AKs... Well the other thing is to see Nells/Bettys droping 800kg AP bombs on AKs. [:D]

(According to Midway by Fuchida: Only Kates torpedos were rearmed for bombs and then back to torpedos. Vals were not mentioned to be rearmed. They were just taken below the flight deck to free it up to land 1st wave returning. Can someone confirm this?)




Unfortunately, from what I have been able to gather from reading various AE threads, we are stuck with standard load outs AND EXP playing a factor on what certain planes will carry. The standard SBD loadout was a 1000lb SAP bomb which had enough penetration to go through a IJN CV's flight deck and the deck armor of some of the CA's. It didn't matter if a "Nugget" was flying the bird or a sesoned cobat veteran. The armorers did not consider whether it was ENS. Noobie's plance vice LCMDR. Grizzledvet's plane. The bomb's were loaded for the mission. This is a very frustrating aspect of the game.


I think the EXP check was done in an effort to reduce the numbers of these rear bombs being used. I don't think the 2000LB bombs were ever a standard loadout. Much easier than tracking the numbers of these devices and transporting them to all over.



foliveti -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/23/2009 3:26:12 PM)

yes, but I did not think the 800kg was standard either.



Don Bowen -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/23/2009 6:12:49 PM)


This is the Naval thread....




Barb -> RE: Cha and T23 (1/23/2009 6:32:46 PM)

Oooooooops! [sm=fighting0056.gif]



helldiver -> Further on ASW assets in AE... (1/28/2009 4:52:28 PM)

Greetings.
   Awaiting AE, I am in the midst of a stock WitP game playing as Japan against the Allied AI. I managed a decisive victory (43K-10K) at the start of 1943 and elected to continue. My general ASW strategy was to keep about two dozen ASW TFs patrolling in Home Waters areas adjacent to ports receiving resources/oil from the south. These consisted of MSW, PG, APD, and PC groups with ASW values ranging from 4-20. In addition, I had MSW, PC, PG escorts within the resource TFs whenever possible (especially protecting TKs). I had been profligate with DDs while expanding the Empire and really couldn't spare any for ASW work. 
    This worked generally fine until 1943. It seems as if a "switch" was thrown at the start of '43. USN fleet SS have bagged 35-40 ASW ships in Home Waters in the first three months of the year. The SS often get the first shot and the shot sinks a patrol craft. Leads me to my AE question:
    Can any of the AE dev. team members summarize/repeat some general advice or impressions (from playtesting) about the most favorable methods of deploying ASW assets (especially as Japan) in AE? So far I understand that the numbers of Es, etc. will mushroom and that close-in port patrol appears to pay dividends. Also, I got that ASW TFs will be limited in # of ships. I also read with interest the posts in the early 300s of this thread. Any other advice about composition/tactics or do I have to find out the hard way? [:'(]

Regards,
Helldiver

p.s. Yes, I know Japan is not supposed to win...



Canoerebel -> Renaming Ships (1/28/2009 6:18:09 PM)

In my WitP game against John III I am receiving new CVEs with names that don't make any sense in our game since there hasn't been any action at Savo Island, Makin, the Bismark Sea, etc.  It would be "cool" to be able to rename these to reflect places where we have clashed.  Please consider permitting players to rename later-in-the-war CVEs that carry real life battle names.




JWE -> RE: Renaming Ships (1/28/2009 7:05:48 PM)

AE has the option to rename ships in the build queue. We did this because of the historical Essex renames, and the old respawn thingy, and because who knows who will get sunk in the game.

But once a ship shows up, that's it. You either rename in the queue, or forever hold your piece.

Ciao. John



witpqs -> RE: Further on ASW assets in AE... (1/28/2009 7:14:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Helldiver

Greetings.
   Awaiting AE, I am in the midst of a stock WitP game playing as Japan against the Allied AI. I managed a decisive victory (43K-10K) at the start of 1943 and elected to continue. My general ASW strategy was to keep about two dozen ASW TFs patrolling in Home Waters areas adjacent to ports receiving resources/oil from the south. These consisted of MSW, PG, APD, and PC groups with ASW values ranging from 4-20. In addition, I had MSW, PC, PG escorts within the resource TFs whenever possible (especially protecting TKs). I had been profligate with DDs while expanding the Empire and really couldn't spare any for ASW work. 
    This worked generally fine until 1943. It seems as if a "switch" was thrown at the start of '43. USN fleet SS have bagged 35-40 ASW ships in Home Waters in the first three months of the year. The SS often get the first shot and the shot sinks a patrol craft. Leads me to my AE question:
    Can any of the AE dev. team members summarize/repeat some general advice or impressions (from playtesting) about the most favorable methods of deploying ASW assets (especially as Japan) in AE? So far I understand that the numbers of Es, etc. will mushroom and that close-in port patrol appears to pay dividends. Also, I got that ASW TFs will be limited in # of ships. I also read with interest the posts in the early 300s of this thread. Any other advice about composition/tactics or do I have to find out the hard way? [:'(]

Regards,
Helldiver

p.s. Yes, I know Japan is not supposed to win...


First, this sub-forum is for the AE product that they are still working on (not released yet), so this question probably belongs in either the War Room sub-forum or in the main WITP forum.

The direct answer to your question is that USN sub torpedoes have possibly improved by that date. Also, most or all of the USN subs should have refitted to add radar. Both of those things should move the scale toward their favor. They also get a ton of subs, so maybe sometimes your escorts are just overwhelmed. Hope this helps.



Don Bowen -> RE: Renaming Ships (1/28/2009 9:13:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

AE has the option to rename ships in the build queue. We did this because of the historical Essex renames, and the old respawn thingy, and because who knows who will get sunk in the game.

But once a ship shows up, that's it. You either rename in the queue, or forever hold your piece.

Ciao. John


Yes, but. This ability is currently limited to ships in the reinforcement queue whose names end in " II". Yorktown II, Lexington II, etc.

We originally implemented a full rename capability, but it became obvious very quickly that it was an opening for a cheat. Rename all your carriers "Enterprise" and confuse the hell out of the enemy...





NormS3 -> RE: Renaming Ships (1/28/2009 9:17:46 PM)

Thanks for all info.

New question- As a modder then all I have to do to get replacements for those DDs that came back as Fletchers is to add II at end, then rename. Or is this just limited to carriers?

Thanks in advance



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.640625