RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (Full Version)

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



Message

Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/14/2008 10:55:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

No Bismark ...... ?

[;)]


Well, there is the Bismark Barrier...






scout1 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/14/2008 10:57:48 PM)

At this point in my CHS game against Goodboyladdie, I'd settle for some E-boats and a license to assemble FW-190's on the Home Islands ......



romanovich -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 12:24:53 AM)

Re: Historical First Turn

In adherence to the below rules, I'll repost here from my own post to get my question answered (thanks for providing some answers already, Yamato hugger (YH)).

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

1. Keep all posts relative to AE, and NAVAL comments/queries.... [check]
3. Post as if your comment/question were addressed to a member of the AE team, (not just a long-time forum poster.) [check]
4. Please allow the comment/question be answered/responded to by a AE team member. [I wish that'd be so, check]

Theories...history lessons...etc, can be posted in the general forum, not here in the AE area. [hope so, check!]



A lot of effort is going into making the OOB in AE historically accurate. That's wonderful. In a "Historical First Turn" and "Surprise On", it was nevertheless almost impossible (in WITP) to replicate the actual outcome of the attack on Pearl Harbor. If - as YH says - the outcome of the attack in AE is also only 2 BBs sunk (on average), all that historical accuracy in the initial OOB is kind of turned on its head. The attack cost the U.S. Fleet five BBs SUNK, along with others damaged, essentially their whole battle fleet train. This resulted - obviously - in the U.S. becoming masters of the new fast CV TF paradigm. They had to, given that their old heavies were at the bottom of the sea.

Given that you guys invested so much in getting the OOB right, I would sincerely hope that there is some option in AE that would allow for a relatively close replication of the actual Pearl Harbor results in game play. Does the main scenario (the one with great historical accuracy) have a Dec. 08, 41 start date option maybe? Or does the selection of "Historical First Turn" mean that the Pearl Harbor attack is hardcoded and not subject to the role of a dice?

The OOB right AFTER Pearl Harbor should be the OOB that counts. I personally don't care if that means all the other action in the first turn is also predetermined. In the end, what would be most fascinating to play (in a historical scenario) is the hand that was dealt both sides after the initial "bang". After all, doubtful it'd had been called the "day that'll live in infamy" if the Japs had succeeded in sinking nothing more than one lousy BB...




Splinterhead -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 12:37:02 AM)

The US didn't have five Battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor as defined in WITP. Three were refloated and repaired. In WITP sunk means GONE.

You realise that if you refight Coral Sea or Midway using historic forces, you probably won't get historic results either. [8|]

It would be pointless to play the 1st turn if it's hard coded, just play the Dec 8 scenario.
One or two old BB's extra in the US OOB won't make that much difference.



romanovich -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 12:41:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

The US didn't have five Battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor as defined in WITP. Three were refloated and repaired. In WITP sunk means GONE.

You realise that if you refight Coral Sea or Midway using historic forces, you probably won't get historic results either. [8|]

It would be pointless to play the 1st turn if it's hard coded, just play the Dec 8 scenario.
One or two old BB's extra in the US OOB won't make that much difference.



My other post was hijacked that way, too. I call foul. You can say what you want, the OOB is certainly NOT accurate if the U.S. Fleet train remains operational at the outbreak of hostilities. If you are concerned about the U.S. not getting their BBs back, just set the replacement rate higher and you get tons of nice ships to play with as U.S. You could pretend they are those BBs that were refloated and made combat ready late in the war.

If you can tell me that there IS a Dec 8 scenario, thanks. I was hoping for such an answer. If you're just guessing however, why post?



Splinterhead -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 12:57:42 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: romanovich


quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

The US didn't have five Battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor as defined in WITP. Three were refloated and repaired. In WITP sunk means GONE.

You realise that if you refight Coral Sea or Midway using historic forces, you probably won't get historic results either. [8|]

It would be pointless to play the 1st turn if it's hard coded, just play the Dec 8 scenario.
One or two old BB's extra in the US OOB won't make that much difference.



My other post was hijacked that way, too. I call foul. You can say what you want, the OOB is certainly NOT accurate if the U.S. Fleet train remains operational at the outbreak of hostilities. If you are concerned about the U.S. not getting their BBs back, just set the replacement rate higher and you get tons of nice ships to play with as U.S. You could pretend they are those BBs that were refloated and made combat ready late in the war.

If you can tell me that there IS a Dec 8 scenario, thanks. I was hoping for such an answer. If you're just guessing however, why post?


I suppose it's easier to argue your point if nobody else posts their disagreement. If you don't like the scenarios offered why don't you write your own. It's not that hard to make a Dec 8 scenario if that's what you want.

The idea that the US would have reacted differently if Oklahoma had counterflooded and been salvageable or if the bomb that hit the Arizona had been dropped just a few feet away avoiding the magazine explosion is, IMO, a pretty silly argument.

BTW, you are demanding the unhistoric removal of 3 BBs from the US OOB. It seems to me that you are not so much motivated by a desire for historical accuracy as a JFB bias. If I'm wrong about that I'm sorry.

Edit: Oops, I forgot this was the naval thread. Sorry.
Romanovich, since your idea is controversial, why not drop it in this thread and continue the battle in the thread you started to discuss it.






romanovich -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 1:16:42 AM)

Argue my point? I posted this to NOT argue with anyone. I thought that was the whole point of this thread?

1. Keep all posts relative to AE, and NAVAL comments/queries.... [check]
3. Post as if your comment/question were addressed to a member of the AE team, (not just a long-time forum poster.) [check]
4. Please allow the comment/question be answered/responded to by a AE team member. [I wish that'd be so, check]

Theories...history lessons...etc, can be posted in the general forum, not here in the AE area. [hope so, check!]

If you are part of the AE team, sorry, Splinterhead, you just didn't make that very clear. And you didn't answer my question.

I had a simple question: given that there are apparently limited # of scenarios that the AE team is preparing, is there one that reflects the OOB taking the historical outcome of Pearl Harbor into account? Or, if no dedicated 12/8 scenario, is there some other option that would allow for the Pearl Harbor combat resolution to approximate the actual results of the attack?

Thanks.



romanovich -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 1:30:05 AM)

Cue the crickets...

.
.
.
.



Yamato hugger -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 1:38:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

The US didn't have five Battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor as defined in WITP. Three were refloated and repaired. In WITP sunk means GONE.



This is correct. A ship that is sunk is out of the game. One that is "sunk" but refloated and repaired (in game terms) is not sunk. It likely could be considered to have 99 sys and whatever flood damage. Now you can argue until the cows come home if you want but thats the way it works, thats the way it has always worked going back to GGs first game (that I know of) Guadalcanal Campaign on the old Apple II with SSI.

Edit: As for a Dec 8 scenario: there isnt one. Yet. That doesnt mean there will be. That doesnt mean there wont be. That means there isnt one. Yet. We are still tracking bugs at this point and trying to get the AI to be a challenge. Scenario stuff is way down on the list.



drw61 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 2:14:24 PM)

Romanovich,  Even if there is not an 8 Dec scenario for AE in the release, it will be easy to make one with the editor. 

If the opening PH attack does not have historical results it is because of randomized die rolls, not an error in the OOB.   In fact, I think that the initial PH results would be very unlikely to be the same as in real life.  

I actually prefer it this way, I don’t want to see an exact replay of the war, I want some surprises along the way.   



RevRick -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 2:21:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

quote:

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie


quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

No Bismark ...... ?

[;)]


This sort of thing will get you a very short answer from Terminus. I will have to try to get up to date on turns to keep you out of mischief...[:'(]


how short?




short



RevRick -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 2:26:03 PM)

My After my smart#&& response above.   Does AE still have the three basic speeds, full, mission, and cruising, or do they have naval speeds - flank, full, standard, 1/3, etc.   Or like Bogie said in Action in the North Atlantic c""All ahead creeping speed!" 



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 2:31:12 PM)


AE still has the same TF speeds.







m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 7:23:18 PM)

I sincerely do not know enough about the game engine nor algorithms to have the answer, so I will ask, from a sheer point of ignorance.:

Does the AE (or vanilla) give a better chance to hit on a stationary target, (ala, BATTLESHIP ROW)?

I suspect if the answer (for vanilla) were "no", it might be the reason the in game losses might not be as bad as some folks think they should be?
(I have personally seen 5-6 BB's lost in stock games.)



scout1 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/15/2008 7:28:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

I sincerely do not know enough about the game engine nor algorithms to have the answer, so I will ask, from a sheer point of ignorance.:

Does the AE (or vanilla) give a better chance to hit on a stationary target, (ala, BATTLESHIP ROW)?

I suspect if the answer (for vanilla) were "no", it might be the reason the in game losses might not be as bad as some folks think they should be?
(I have personally seen 5-6 BB's lost in stock games.)


5-6 BB losses with a SINGLE day strike ? Damn, now I know who's shifting the grading curve in the class [;)]



John Lansford -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/16/2008 12:45:10 AM)

RE: ship speeds.  Other than the distance covered, is there any other differences between the three speeds?  Increased SYS damage, fuel use, detection % increase, etc?



Yamato hugger -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/16/2008 12:58:17 AM)

Fuel use is considerably increased for certain. Considerably. System damage has always been increased by fast speed, nothing new there. Detection level I cant answer.



Brisco -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/16/2008 4:22:05 PM)

I was wondering if any consideration was given to hospital ships. They could be configured like AR ships only having an impact on morale, fatigue & unit/manpower recovery for units within a 1-3 hex radius.



Yamato hugger -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/16/2008 11:46:59 PM)

Well as Termie said, cant have everything. 400 "would be nice if" had to get boiled down to 70 or so. Was probably considered, but...



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/17/2008 7:31:56 PM)

In WITP we don't have enough air and naval phases in my opinion to do justice to reality. EG.. With 60 mile hexes we end up seeing naval units benefittiing from this shortcoming by completely avoiding air assets during the approach and withdrawl to and from enemy bases. 40 mile hexes do not change thid issue. Any thought given to adding a mid day set of phases in AE to address this issue?



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/17/2008 8:33:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

In WITP we don't have enough air and naval phases in my opinion to do justice to reality. EG.. With 60 mile hexes we end up seeing naval units benefittiing from this shortcoming by completely avoiding air assets during the approach and withdrawl to and from enemy bases. 40 mile hexes do not change thid issue. Any thought given to adding a mid day set of phases in AE to address this issue?


Thought yes. Implementation no. Tain't a small thing.






jmscho -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/18/2008 12:30:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Does the AE (or vanilla) give a better chance to hit on a stationary target, (ala, BATTLESHIP ROW)?


Based on previous readings (cannot quote) hitting an anchored/beached ship with a torpedo is actually harder than hitting a ship that is "dead in the water" because the torpedo is affected by currents and the ship is not.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/18/2008 1:55:51 PM)

Finally caught up on all the AE posts. Wow...loads of changes or what?[X(]



HansBolter -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/18/2008 2:10:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: drw61

Romanovich,  Even if there is not an 8 Dec scenario for AE in the release, it will be easy to make one with the editor. 

If the opening PH attack does not have historical results it is because of randomized die rolls, not an error in the OOB.   In fact, I think that the initial PH results would be very unlikely to be the same as in real life.  

I actually prefer it this way, I don’t want to see an exact replay of the war, I want some surprises along the way.   



Nobody who ever plays wargames wants to exactly recreate history. Why do people who feel the need to insult the opinions and arguments of others so often resort to this backhanded method of leveling insults.

The historical outcome HAS to be a baseline for any study of alternatives to have ANY validity.

If the randomized results fail to cover variations with results both lighter AND heavier than the historical outcome, then they have failed to correctly model the event in the first place.

The lack of historically accurate outcomes on the Pearl raid have as much to do with the lack of accurate physical structure modeling (ie...some targets inboard of other targets and thus immune to torpedo attack resulting in the torpedoes being concentrated on a few targets) as it does with mere randomization. If mere randomization was the express culprit then just as many games would have far more severe than historical outcomes as end up having far lighter than historical outcomes.



mlees -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/18/2008 3:39:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Nobody who ever plays wargames wants to exactly recreate history. Why do people who feel the need to insult the opinions and arguments of others so often resort to this backhanded method of leveling insults.

The historical outcome HAS to be a baseline for any study of alternatives to have ANY validity.

If the randomized results fail to cover variations with results both lighter AND heavier than the historical outcome, then they have failed to correctly model the event in the first place.

The lack of historically accurate outcomes on the Pearl raid have as much to do with the lack of accurate physical structure modeling (ie...some targets inboard of other targets and thus immune to torpedo attack resulting in the torpedoes being concentrated on a few targets) as it does with mere randomization. If mere randomization was the express culprit then just as many games would have far more severe than historical outcomes as end up having far lighter than historical outcomes.


Heh. Your also assuming that the real life Pearl Harbor results to be an average mean to measure your models against.

What if the actual real life results were at the "top" end of the curve? (As in, the best results that the Japanese could have gotten.) [;)]



HansBolter -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/18/2008 3:55:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Nobody who ever plays wargames wants to exactly recreate history. Why do people who feel the need to insult the opinions and arguments of others so often resort to this backhanded method of leveling insults.

The historical outcome HAS to be a baseline for any study of alternatives to have ANY validity.

If the randomized results fail to cover variations with results both lighter AND heavier than the historical outcome, then they have failed to correctly model the event in the first place.

The lack of historically accurate outcomes on the Pearl raid have as much to do with the lack of accurate physical structure modeling (ie...some targets inboard of other targets and thus immune to torpedo attack resulting in the torpedoes being concentrated on a few targets) as it does with mere randomization. If mere randomization was the express culprit then just as many games would have far more severe than historical outcomes as end up having far lighter than historical outcomes.


Heh. Your also assuming that the real life Pearl Harbor results to be an average mean to measure your models against.

What if the actual real life results were at the "top" end of the curve? (As in, the best results that the Japanese could have gotten.) [;)]



Nice try at a devil's advocate argument, but regardless of whether, or not, the historical outcomes of any event were the extremes of possibity in either direction, that they are the historical outcomes establishes them as the baseline for the study of alternative outcomes.

Besides, if the historical outcome is supposed to represent the upper extreme of possible outcomes, then the fuel storage yards would not have been left untouched!



Capt Henry_MatrixForum -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/18/2008 4:07:40 PM)

mlees beat me to it.

If we accept the premise that history is to be the baseline for alternative outcomes, I would say both sides are hurt by the programming. I havn't kept close track, but from my reading on the forum, many posters have observed that Allied carriers stand little or no chance against Japanese carriers in 1942. Using historical outcomes from 1942, the allies should do significantly better than they seem to be doing.

I'm not making this observation to try to invalidate your complaints on Pearl Harbor, but merely indicating that if your position is valid it cuts both ways and should be examined in a larger context than one battle. Regardless of our individual positions, this is an issue that is likely impossible for Matrix or 2by3 to address to everyone's satisfaction. After all, we gamers aren't all on the same baseline either[:)]




Nikademus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/18/2008 4:09:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Besides, if the historical outcome is supposed to represent the upper extreme of possible outcomes, then the fuel storage yards would not have been left untouched!



A plane can only attack one target at a time.





HansBolter -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/18/2008 4:19:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Besides, if the historical outcome is supposed to represent the upper extreme of possible outcomes, then the fuel storage yards would not have been left untouched!



A plane can only attack one target at a time.






Which would be a valid qualification if the attack was carried out by a single plane!



Nikademus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (11/18/2008 4:29:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Which would be a valid qualification if the attack was carried out by a single plane!


The point being, that a plane or group of planes cannot target both the oil storage tanks and bombard the warships at anchor. If you parse off some of the planes from the two historical strike waves to attack the land targets, then the potential damage to the warships goes down. So Miles' comments have some validity.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.28125