RE: Escort by sub

RE: Escort by sub (Full Version)

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

Message

jwilkerson -> RE: Escort by sub (4/26/2009 6:53:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie youngsters at my worplace Hum, what the heque is a "worplace"??? Could be a: War Place Work Place Wor3 Place Or, probably all of the above! (all my guess are probably wrong! [:D])

Dixie -> RE: Escort by sub (4/26/2009 6:59:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie youngsters at my worplace Hum, what the heque is a "worplace"??? Could be a: War Place Work Place Wor3 Place Or, probably all of the above! (all my guess are probably wrong! [:D]) How did T' miss that one? [X(] It could be a combination of the forst two, but war type stuff is the domain of the fast jet boys [;)]

Terminus -> RE: Escort by sub (4/26/2009 6:59:57 PM)
"forst"?

Dixie -> RE: Escort by sub (4/26/2009 7:00:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus "forst"? Oh, bugger... [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Unlucky-Alf.JPG[/image]

Terminus -> RE: Escort by sub (4/26/2009 7:03:41 PM)
And then the stop sign falls on your head... I always felt a little sorry for that particular Winehouse character...

witpqs -> RE: Escort by sub (4/26/2009 7:09:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie Oh, bugger... [image]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ab/Unlucky-Alf.JPG[/image] Don't lick that pole!

Czert -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (4/29/2009 6:24:18 PM)
We will hwve improved damage report of ships ? Like if flooding/fire/sys damage is increasing/decreasing at small/medium/big speed (shown by colored arrow or something similiar) and with recomendations (like decrese speed down to cruise speed to geartly reduce flooding level or increse to max speed in attemp to save ship in port) ? And showinh minimal port size in which ship can se saved from sunking will be nice too.

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (4/29/2009 6:58:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Czert We will hwve improved damage report of ships ? Like if flooding/fire/sys damage is increasing/decreasing at small/medium/big speed (shown by colored arrow or something similiar) and with recomendations (like decrese speed down to cruise speed to geartly reduce flooding level or increse to max speed in attemp to save ship in port) ? And showinh minimal port size in which ship can se saved from sunking will be nice too. Aw, c’mon. No. Damage report is same as you always get. If you can’t figure it out from that, well … Recommendations are easy – don’t operate too far from a decent support base. If you get big time combat damage and limp up to the cocoanut pier at the copra trading port at lac’a lot’a nuki, you .. will .. sink.

John 3rd -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (4/29/2009 10:54:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: Czert We will hwve improved damage report of ships ? Like if flooding/fire/sys damage is increasing/decreasing at small/medium/big speed (shown by colored arrow or something similiar) and with recomendations (like decrese speed down to cruise speed to geartly reduce flooding level or increse to max speed in attemp to save ship in port) ? And showinh minimal port size in which ship can se saved from sunking will be nice too. Aw, c’mon. No. Damage report is same as you always get. If you can’t figure it out from that, well … Recommendations are easy – don’t operate too far from a decent support base. If you get big time combat damage and limp up to the cocoanut pier at the copra trading port at lac’a lot’a nuki, you .. will .. sink. THAT was funny!

Czert -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (4/30/2009 2:26:40 PM)
JWE - I not so hardcore player of WITP, just causal. I love WITP for it complexicity and detail, but hate for it "hard to interpret data" (very nice example is how many exteriors programs are made for easy tracking/computing - hey, it will be great and ideal to have some of them included in AE relase). And if AE is planed to attract players untouched with UV/WITP they will surely find AE hard to learn and itrepret data. (and grousing on it as me [:)] ). It is 5 flooding gained per turn good (easy to handle) or very bad ? Question easy solved with enough experience, but without...

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (4/30/2009 3:27:14 PM)
I’m afraid that experience is the only way Czert. Each turn, all ships attempt to repair damage and fight fires (damage control on the open sea), but it’s much easier to repair damage in a port. Normal damage can get fixed almost anywhere (large differences in repair time, though), major damage needs a suitably sized port (bigger the ship, bigger the port), a repair yard, or repair ship, or a tender, or Naval Support, or any combination. Both the amount of repairs made, as well as likelihood of additional damage accruing depends on the amount of current damage, crew experience, whether the ship is in port, size of the port, presence of a shipyard, presence of an appropriate tender, presence of Naval Support squads and how many. AE considers more factors and gives you more toys to mess with, but it functions basically the same as WiTP-1. If ya know stock, the knowledge ports over. If ya don’t know stock, you’ll have to learn the same basics anyway. Simple rules of thumb: going full speed when damaged is bad, operating too far from a decent port (with tenders and/or NavSup) is bad.

CV Zuikaku -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/4/2009 9:30:44 PM)
Can you name some ships that were never buildt but we can build them in the AE? Can we build more of the Shimakaze class (32 were planned and 16 laid down). Option to build more of the Shokaku class (cancellation of shinano). ? Since the work on OOB is over, can we see which laid but never buildt ships can we have? On both sides [&o]

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 4:06:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku Can you name some ships that were never buildt but we can build them in the AE? Can we build more of the Shimakaze class (32 were planned and 16 laid down). Option to build more of the Shokaku class (cancellation of shinano). ? Since the work on OOB is over, can we see which laid but never buildt ships can we have? On both sides [&o] The Naval Team actually had some issues in this area - in part because we had probably 4 different Naval Team leads over the past 3.5 years on the project. Three of the four felt that we should be true to the original WITP concept that only historically built and involved ships should be in the OOB. So for the first 2.5 years of the project this was the guideline. And as regards upgrades and conversions, we were likewise very conservative. However, about a year ago, it came to light that the land and air teams wished to push the end of the "historical" scenario out even farther than WITP into April 1946 IIRC and land and air team wished to include hypothetical units and types. A debate raged on this for a while and the "extenders" won. Hence the naval team were forced to slightly modify their OOB to conform and a few smaller Japanese ships that were laid down but not actually completed have been added to support the extension of the war past the historical end date. Also, I believe the Midways are in - but not the Montanas on the Allied side. I do not believe any warship larger than DD was added on the Japanese side. Of course there is a wonderful new editor - with plenty of new slots to enabler modders to add more ships as desired. Even with our a-historical extension of the game and OOB we are still trying to be mostly historical in our presentation.

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 5:32:59 PM)
Even the ‘extenders’ didn’t get it all their own way. Joe uses an excellent term, ‘hypothetical’, and there are no hypothetical ships in the base scenario, only those that you could actually touch and feel. There were quite a few on the stocks in mid ’45, and those were deemed to have been completed on a realistic schedule. Most of these were Matsu/Tachibaba types, escorts, sub chasers, etc .. It had to actually exist, somewhere, to become a late ‘45/early ’46 addition to the base scenario.

CV Zuikaku -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 5:53:05 PM)
So, no more heavies for either side? [:(] Even in "stock scenario which helps Japan a bit"?

herwin -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 6:28:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eggmansdaddy Does US 5" DP "to hit" chance go up to reflect deployment of proximity shells? It should triple based on the statistics I've seen.

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 7:09:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku So, no more heavies for either side? [:(] Even in "stock scenario which helps Japan a bit"? Not even there. The “enhanced” scenario is only that, enhanced, not hypothetical. It’s there to help out the AI and make it a bit more robust. It’s non-historical to the extent it allows Japan to build 20 of something rather than 16 or 18. But all you get is a few more DDs, a few more DEs, three more (iirc) CLs, and some more cargo, and passenger ships to provide extra lift, and some more tankers to keep the Allied submariners happy. That’s it. No new BBs, no new CVs, no new CAs, no new nothing - just think ordinary, normal, regular, Japanese fleet that went to the gym one more day a week. No “what if”, just a little bit more of “what was”.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 7:31:02 PM)
The point is "where do you stop", not "where do you begin"?

Chad Harrison -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 7:33:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson . . . push the end of the "historical" scenario out even farther than WITP into April 1946 . . . So what is the end date for Scenario One now? Not that very many games get to that point, but I have always been a fan of letting it go a little longer allowing Downfall to occur properly. That and getting to play with all the fun end war stuff [:D] Just curious. Thanks in advance! Chad

Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 7:56:40 PM)
The premise behind the enhanced Japan scenario is 'reasonable' extensions So more Tankers and AK's a few more CL's and DD's and more DE's modders can do out and out fantasy scenarios Some on the team would argue this is a fantasy scenario !!!- oh and Shinano is converted to a Taiho class to make it less of a strain to build

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 7:57:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson . . . push the end of the "historical" scenario out even farther than WITP into April 1946 . . . So what is the end date for Scenario One now? Not that very many games get to that point, but I have always been a fan of letting it go a little longer allowing Downfall to occur properly. That and getting to play with all the fun end war stuff [:D] Just curious. Thanks in advance! Chad I really don't know. I know there is a Downfall scenario in the works, but don't know start/stop dates. That would be up to the strange fellow with eyeballs in the back of his head.

Terminus -> RE: Escort by sub (5/6/2009 8:06:21 PM)
The grand campaign has its final turn on May 29, 1946. 1634 days.

dwesolick -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 8:07:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Not even there. The “enhanced” scenario is only that, enhanced, not hypothetical. It’s there to help out the AI and make it a bit more robust. It’s non-historical to the extent it allows Japan to build 20 of something rather than 16 or 18. But all you get is a few more DDs, a few more DEs, three more (iirc) CLs, and some more cargo, and passenger ships to provide extra lift, and some more tankers to keep the Allied submariners happy. That’s it. No new BBs, no new CVs, no new CAs, no new nothing - just think ordinary, normal, regular, Japanese fleet that went to the gym one more day a week. No “what if”, just a little bit more of “what was”. That is great and very historically plausible. I'm re-reading Spector's "Eagle Against the Sun" (you know, to kill time till AE is released[;)]) and he discusses how Admiral Inoue (member of the Japanese Naval Ministry), prior to the war, wanted Japan to build just those sorts of ships. He foresaw a protracted war involving air power, amphibious ops, and lots of logistical problems. Very far-sighted man, but of course he was totally ignored by the rest of the IJN..."Hey, we can build one more battleship, instead of all those lowly DDs and DEs!"[8\|]

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 8:10:08 PM)
Note that timewise, the Grand Campaign isn't that much longer than stock. The BIG difference is that the reinforcement schedule is extended well into 1946.

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 8:14:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dwesolick "Hey, we can build one more battleship, instead of all those lowly DDs and DEs!"[8\|] The release 'enhanced' scenario will only have a little bit more of “what was”. It will not have 'what if'. All that stuff is rightfully the province of the modders. The editor lets ya'll do whatever your little heart desires. Whoops, re-read your post, picked up on the different slant (sorry). Yeah, that’s pretty much where we are coming from. Just a tweak, here, and a bit, there.

Chad Harrison -> RE: Escort by sub (5/6/2009 8:35:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus The grand campaign has its final turn on May 29, 1946. 1634 days. Great news! Not sure who on the AE team pushed for a longer game, but it is most appreciated! All the fun toys at the end will now have time to play in the Grand Campaign [:D] Thanks for the responses John and Termy.

anarchyintheuk -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/6/2009 10:41:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dwesolick That is great and very historically plausible. Admiral Inoue (member of the Japanese Naval Ministry), prior to the war, wanted Japan to build just those sorts of ships. He foresaw a protracted war involving air power, amphibious ops, and lots of logistical problems. Very far-sighted man, but of course he was totally ignored by the rest of the IJN..."Hey, we can build one more battleship, instead of all those lowly DDs and DEs!"[8\|] It may have been physically possible to have that building program but the fact that Inoue was a lone wolf howling in the wind would lead me to believe that there was no chance for the adoption of such a program by the IJN. Just my killjoy $.02.

jwilkerson -> RE: Escort by sub (5/6/2009 11:58:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison Not sure who on the AE team pushed for a longer game The way I remember it - it was everyone but me - and I have scars to prove it! [:D]

RevRick -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/7/2009 12:36:43 AM)
"[sm=00000028.gif]" That short!

ny59giants -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/13/2009 6:41:10 PM)
Two quick questions that probably have already been answered, but I'll ask again. Why do I have to tell my transport TF that is is unloaded at an enemy base to unload again on each successive turn until I take the base and can have it dock at the port? Will this issue be gone?? I often add a few 2,500 capacity AKs to my invasion transport TF, but they don't seem to unload supplies with the APs when they unload troops. Is this fixed?? Thanks!!

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

5.40625