RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (Full Version)

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



Message

JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/13/2009 7:27:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
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??

Whoops, don't understand the question.
quote:

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!!

AE has different ship classes: APs, AKs, (APAs, AKAs) and xAPs , xAKs. Amphib capable ships will unload quickly. Non-amphib capable ships (xAK/xAP) will unload very sloooooooooowly. As it was in the beginning; is now and ever shall be; world without end; Amen, Amen.



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/13/2009 7:56:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
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??


Whoops, don't understand the question.



I think I might. An Amphib TF will unload using Amphib unload rules and processes until the base is captured. Once captured, it will switch to friendly base unload processes. Depending on the size of the TF and the condition of the port (port size, damage) it might or might not dock. If it can not dock, it will continue to unload using "undocked" processes. This is slower that amphibious, but still unloads even if the TF can not dock. Note that "dock" is temporary in this case.

AE has docking limits for ports of a given size (adjusted for damage). If the entire TF can not dock, the undocked unloading process considers available dock space and other resources to determine unload rates. Other resources are naval support at the port and certain amphib capable ships in the TF (true stand-off unload ships like APA and LSD plus barges/LCVP/LSM, etc). Both provide small landing craft or lighters that can help with unload for undocked ships.

The rate is slower than amphibious, but also causes less damage and destruction to the units/supplies being unloaded. This has expanded the vocabulary of many and AE tester.

All of this emulates:
1. Amphib TF unloads as fast as possible during assault - get the stuff ashore!
2. Once target is captured, unloading slows down for both safety and to represent congestion as cargos are landed and sorted out.
3. If dock space is available at the captured port, the TF will use it - subject to docking limits. Ships will unload as if they individually move to the docks, unload, and move back out.

From a game perspective, the TF is never split into docked and undocked portions. Calculations of unload rates consider unused dock space. TF will not dock (unless player orders it).

Remember for AE: amphibious operations are tough. Be prepared. Use true amphibious ships if you can (APA, etc). If you haven't got any, Naval transports (AP/AK) are better than merchant ships (xAK/xAP). Also - get naval support in as soon as possible. Naval support has many uses - in this case it represents shore parties and small lighters/amphib vehicles (like DUKWs). It really helps.

We made this as realistic as possible, which means its a bitch.








Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/13/2009 8:11:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
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??


Whoops, don't understand the question.



I think I might. An Amphib TF will unload using Amphib unload rules and processes until the base is captured. Once captured, it will switch to friendly base unload processes. Depending on the size of the TF and the condition of the port (port size, damage) it might or might not dock. If it can not dock, it will continue to unload using "undocked" processes. This is slower that amphibious, but still unloads even if the TF can not dock. Note that "dock" is temporary in this case.

AE has docking limits for ports of a given size (adjusted for damage). If the entire TF can not dock, the undocked unloading process considers available dock space and other resources to determine unload rates. Other resources are naval support at the port and certain amphib capable ships in the TF (true stand-off unload ships like APA and LSD plus barges/LCVP/LSM, etc). Both provide small landing craft or lighters that can help with unload for undocked ships.

The rate is slower than amphibious, but also causes less damage and destruction to the units/supplies being unloaded. This has expanded the vocabulary of many and AE tester.

All of this emulates:
1. Amphib TF unloads as fast as possible during assault - get the stuff ashore!
2. Once target is captured, unloading slows down for both safety and to represent congestion as cargos are landed and sorted out.
3. If dock space is available at the captured port, the TF will use it - subject to docking limits. Ships will unload as if they individually move to the docks, unload, and move back out.

From a game perspective, the TF is never split into docked and undocked portions. Calculations of unload rates consider unused dock space. TF will not dock (unless player orders it).

Remember for AE: amphibious operations are tough. Be prepared. Use true amphibious ships if you can (APA, etc). If you haven't got any, Naval transports (AP/AK) are better than merchant ships (xAK/xAP). Also - get naval support in as soon as possible. Naval support has many uses - in this case it represents shore parties and small lighters/amphib vehicles (like DUKWs). It really helps.

We made this as realistic as possible, which means its a bitch.



Don, thanks for the excellent explanation. I wonder at ny59giants question however. In stock, I only have to reorder my TFs to unload at an enemy base hex if they have been attacked by surface forces during the previous turn. I always assumed that the TF commander made the smart decision to withdraw in the face of enemy surface forces and loitered until directed to return to the beachhead.



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/13/2009 9:03:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

Don, thanks for the excellent explanation. I wonder at ny59giants question however. In stock, I only have to reorder my TFs to unload at an enemy base hex if they have been attacked by surface forces during the previous turn. I always assumed that the TF commander made the smart decision to withdraw in the face of enemy surface forces and loitered until directed to return to the beachhead.



It's been so long since I looked at stock that I can't remember. At least I do not recall if I can.

Anyway, in AE the decision to run away or return to unloading depends on the status of the TF (damage, ammo), presence of enemy, and Leader's aggression. A well-escorted Amphib TF can beat off an attack by a small surface force and go back to unloading. If it get's badly shot up it will almost always withdraw. If it fights an engagement and ends up in decent shape and any enemy left in the area are weak, it will probably go back to unloading.

Enemy strength is evaluated using Fog of War and detection levels. Leader's aggression is key.



ny59giants -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (5/14/2009 3:54:12 AM)

I will post a screenshot from one of my two PBEM games tomorrow as I have various invasions about to take place to help clarify.



m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 10:37:28 AM)

Just too lazy to go thru both of the Naval threads.........

When the Brit player is required to withdraw destroyers, can he send back Commonwealth ships instead?........(Thank you for an answer and your tolerance.)



Kereguelen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 11:45:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Just too lazy to go thru both of the Naval threads.........

When the Brit player is required to withdraw destroyers, can he send back Commonwealth ships instead?........(Thank you for an answer and your tolerance.)


No, in the AE you're required to send back specific ships (e.g. if you're required to withdraw DD Nizam you have to send DD Nizam and not another destroyer). Btw., if the ship that is required has been sunk you don't have to send it back (that is, it does not cost PP's).



m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 12:15:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Just too lazy to go thru both of the Naval threads.........

When the Brit player is required to withdraw destroyers, can he send back Commonwealth ships instead?........(Thank you for an answer and your tolerance.)


No, in the AE you're required to send back specific ships (e.g. if you're required to withdraw DD Nizam you have to send DD Nizam and not another destroyer). Btw., if the ship that is required has been sunk you don't have to send it back (that is, it does not cost PP's).



Thank you!! That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost...



John Lansford -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 12:19:42 PM)

Well at least the crew will have a nice place to relax if the ship sinks at one of those size 1 ports in AE (as long as it isn't on New Guinea or one of those other SW Pacific islands, that is).



Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 12:20:36 PM)

quote:

That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost


Au contraire! It is worse. A player can risk more those ships and doesn't simulate well the requests of other theatres since it is not the specific ship per se that counts.



EUBanana -> RE: Criticall hits (6/18/2009 12:44:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
No plans for Atlantic-style Hunter-Killer groups.


From what I read it may work anyway - have an ASW TF set to react, have a CVE TF with some aircraft on ASW search. Have the ASW TF follow the CVE with an aggressive commander.

If the aircraft spot a nearby sub, the ASW TF will react and run off to depth charge it.

Assuming ASW TFs react the same as SCTFs do. Yamato Hugger's AAR involves a lot of discussion on this subject.



Kereguelen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 12:52:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost


Au contraire! It is worse. A player can risk more those ships and doesn't simulate well the requests of other theatres since it is not the specific ship per se that counts.


Many ships return to the PTO after some time - and sunk ships still cost PP's (for being sunk). Would be quite silly to deliberately risk a specific ship only because one knows that it has to be withdrawn.



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 12:56:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost


Au contraire! It is worse. A player can risk more those ships and doesn't simulate well the requests of other theatres since it is not the specific ship per se that counts.


The problem, of course, is that the decision to request transfer of ships from one ocean to another is based on losses and operations. If Atlantic lost a lot of DDs they would request some from the Pacific and probably not transfer any to the Pacific. History goes out the window with the first random statement in the code, so it is absolutely impossible to figure out the force balance between the two theatres. We were faced with one reasonable option: to use historical arrivals and withdrawals.

We considered, and even tested, some code to use substitutes - type for type or reasonable alternative, in the withdrawals. But it was illogical from the beginning. If the ship that was historically withdrawn had been lost, would another have been ordered out instead? Or would force levels be considered and maybe even another ship transferred to the Pacific? How the hell could we ever figure all that out? Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years).

So we went historical. You get transfers from the Atlantic when they historically arrived and you send ships back when they historically left. No consideration for possible losses in either theatre.

If anyone has a better idea, send Joe Wilkerson an email and volunteer to give up your free time for a couple of years working on the next version of the game.



Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 2:04:51 PM)

We have to agree to disagree. I think PP's would have been a less worse compromise, it gives a latitude to manage what to give away simulating the balance of what kind of losses hapened.



Gunner98 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 5:15:38 PM)

Well, I have neither the time or the knowledge to work on it, just a thought. I understand the point on specifically withdrawing ships based on the historic context, and its not that big of a deal in the overall scheme of things, but the sunken ship = no withdrawal is pretty generous. My thought, and I wouldn't have the first clue on how to implement it:

The ETO was the priority (supposedly) so perhaps if a minimum number of ships of the various classes were set for the Atlantic/Med (e.g.: 150 DDs, 20 CL's etc - no idea if this is in the ball park) and adjusted monthly. Then a random value with a historical modifier can be applied to accumulate ETO losses (e.g. April 42 was a bad month so slightly heavier losses) than:

-IF historical withdraw called for:
- ship exists - no problem it gets withdrawn
- ship sunk - problem
-IF- ETO is at or above minimum for class - no problem no withdrawal
-IF- ETO is below minimum, perhaps with a risk tolerance applied - either:
- random ship of same class called for as a replacement withdrawal OR
- next reinforcement of that class doesn’t happen or is delayed until ETO minimum is satisfied

I know that this will not happen for release, or it might not be feasible at all. No big issue, just a thought. You guys have probably worked this one through and may well have tried a similar solution already. Just my 2 cents worth.



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 5:47:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Well, I have neither the time or the knowledge to work on it, just a thought. I understand the point on specifically withdrawing ships based on the historic context, and its not that big of a deal in the overall scheme of things, but the sunken ship = no withdrawal is pretty generous. My thought, and I wouldn't have the first clue on how to implement it:

The ETO was the priority (supposedly) so perhaps if a minimum number of ships of the various classes were set for the Atlantic/Med (e.g.: 150 DDs, 20 CL's etc - no idea if this is in the ball park) and adjusted monthly. Then a random value with a historical modifier can be applied to accumulate ETO losses (e.g. April 42 was a bad month so slightly heavier losses) than:

-IF historical withdraw called for:
- ship exists - no problem it gets withdrawn
- ship sunk - problem
-IF- ETO is at or above minimum for class - no problem no withdrawal
-IF- ETO is below minimum, perhaps with a risk tolerance applied - either:
- random ship of same class called for as a replacement withdrawal OR
- next reinforcement of that class doesn’t happen or is delayed until ETO minimum is satisfied

I know that this will not happen for release, or it might not be feasible at all. No big issue, just a thought. You guys have probably worked this one through and may well have tried a similar solution already. Just my 2 cents worth.



No offense, but this sounds like a Pandora's box full of worms. We looked at various things but never, ever considered changing the historical ship levels outside the Pacific.



Gunner98 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 5:50:40 PM)

I see your point. Wasn't suggesting changing the levels outside the pacific, just using those levels as a basis for adjusting withdrawals. Like I said, not a biggie.

B



Long Lance -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 7:05:17 PM)

Another question, different, but belongs here: Will the Autoconvoyroutine be improved?

I'm so tired of seeing unescorted TKs been sunk by subs when tons of escorts sit at Osaka.

Or Autoconcoys to DEI going around Neu Guinea after Port Moresby is taken[X(].
Thus travelling nearly double the way - only to be sunk off Port Darwin[:@].




HMS Resolution -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 7:17:29 PM)

Have Vice-Admiral Algernon Usborne Willis' stats changed? From what I recall in stock, he wasn't very good.



Andy Mac -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 8:08:12 PM)

ok

[image]local://upfiles/11987/C14DF7AC2D2E471083FBD703F6D36CC9.jpg[/image]



HMS Resolution -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (6/18/2009 8:17:24 PM)

Gol-dang! Algernon, I hardly recognize you!

Why is his middle initial N, though? Willis' middle name is Usborne.



m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (7/2/2009 12:02:31 PM)

Bump..Open Naval Thread.



HMS Resolution -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (7/2/2009 2:21:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

Gol-dang! Algernon, I hardly recognize you!

Why is his middle initial N, though? Willis' middle name is Usborne.



Is there any chance of getting this corrected, or is it game-delaying minutia? If it's just minutia, but not game delaying, I'd be absurdly excited if it were corrected.



stuman -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (7/2/2009 3:34:45 PM)

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (7/2/2009 3:41:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?



January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM



stuman -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (7/2/2009 3:50:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?



Now that's what I am talking about! Question asked and answered. I can now plan around the release of WiTWWW. Of course the odds are that I will have been dead for several years before then, but I see that as only a minor annoyance.



treespider -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (7/2/2009 3:52:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?



January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM


Now is that January 28 Pearl Harbor time which is actually January 29 Singapore time or is it January 28 Singapore time which is actually January 27 Pearl Harbor time....[&:]





HMS Resolution -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (7/2/2009 3:54:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM


I'll almost be sixty then! I won't know how computers work anymore! Sons of bitches!



stuman -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (7/3/2009 2:26:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "
















































Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?



January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM


Now is that January 28 Pearl Harbor time which is actually January 29 Singapore time or is it January 28 Singapore time which is actually January 27 Pearl Harbor time....[&:]





You are just trying to confuse me now. And it worked.



Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (7/14/2009 8:44:50 AM)

A ship or a submarine can transport a midget if edited that way but a midget sub can transport a midget sub too?



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1