RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (Full Version)

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

Message

Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 12:47:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen There have been changes to target selection. Now, to change the subject, this is from a recent test AAR with AE: SS KXVII launches 2 torpedoes at xAK Sakura Maru KXVII bottoming out .... DD Ayanami attacking submerged sub .... DD Shikinami fails to find sub, continues to search... PC Ch 9 attacking submerged sub .... PC Ch 7 fails to find sub and abandons search DD Ayanami attacking submerged sub .... SS KXVII forced to surface! DD Shikinami firing on surfaced sub .... DD Ayanami firing on surfaced sub .... Interesting... Now what forced it to surface? Or is it just not showing each individual DC hit anymore?

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 1:44:31 AM)
Hi Joe, How about with animations off?

jjax -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 1:48:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford With all these expanded and more detailed combat reports, does anyone have an idea how long a typical turn resolution takes now? I'm in mid '44 in my game vs the AI and one turn resolution takes about 10 minutes (I've got all the combat report screens turned on and I click on the "continue" button for combat such as air-to-air and air vs airfield/ground unit attacks). Turn times vary a lot. And heavily depend on things like settings and level of activity, not to mention what box you run it on. I've had a "turn01" take 66 minutes with all "out of the box" settings (high message lengths, animations and reports on). But times as low as three minutes are also experienced. You mean the turn resolution takes 66 minutes?..[X(] Whats a typical resolution time?

TMFoss -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 2:46:35 AM)
I want to thank all who are involved for thier efforts. I am a long time player against the AI and a reader of this forum for over a year. I am really anxious to see the new game. But, to follow up on the previous thread: each platform is different, but in rough relative terms, how long does each turn take in comparison to WITP using the same box, etc.?

TMFoss -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 2:48:40 AM)
Correction: their efforts. My fingers do the ie thing even though I know better.

Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 3:03:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen There have been changes to target selection. Now, to change the subject, this is from a recent test AAR with AE: SS KXVII launches 2 torpedoes at xAK Sakura Maru KXVII bottoming out .... DD Ayanami attacking submerged sub .... DD Shikinami fails to find sub, continues to search... PC Ch 9 attacking submerged sub .... PC Ch 7 fails to find sub and abandons search DD Ayanami attacking submerged sub .... SS KXVII forced to surface! DD Shikinami firing on surfaced sub .... DD Ayanami firing on surfaced sub .... Interesting... Now what forced it to surface? Or is it just not showing each individual DC hit anymore? Hits are shown on the combat animation but not listed individually in the combat report. Forced to surface means damage has reached a point where the sub would sink if it did not, but not a point where it could not surface and would just sink.

jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 4:40:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TMFoss I want to thank all who are involved for thier efforts. I am a long time player against the AI and a reader of this forum for over a year. I am really anxious to see the new game. But, to follow up on the previous thread: each platform is different, but in rough relative terms, how long does each turn take in comparison to WITP using the same box, etc.? AE compared to WITP resolution times? I'd say for me anyway (same box) that the times are about the same. AE is processing a lot more data - but we have made offsetting performance improvements in the code.

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 5:14:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson AE compared to WITP resolution times? I'd say for me anyway (same box) that the times are about the same. AE is processing a lot more data - but we have made offsetting performance improvements in the code. [:)] [&o]

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 5:18:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jjax quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford With all these expanded and more detailed combat reports, does anyone have an idea how long a typical turn resolution takes now? I'm in mid '44 in my game vs the AI and one turn resolution takes about 10 minutes (I've got all the combat report screens turned on and I click on the "continue" button for combat such as air-to-air and air vs airfield/ground unit attacks). Turn times vary a lot. And heavily depend on things like settings and level of activity, not to mention what box you run it on. I've had a "turn01" take 66 minutes with all "out of the box" settings (high message lengths, animations and reports on). But times as low as three minutes are also experienced. You mean the turn resolution takes 66 minutes?..[X(] Whats a typical resolution time? About five minutes for a 2-day cycle.

matt.buttsworth -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 8:29:10 AM)
Given the huge amount of added detail about how much time does it take to make a normal or a busy turn in AE? Percentage wise is it the same as WITP or a lot more? Matthew Buttsworth

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 9:37:04 AM)
When you say "make", do you mean entering orders? That does take a bit longer, assuming equal operational tempo, since there's more of everything.

matt.buttsworth -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 10:59:02 AM)
How much is a bit longer? 20% longer? 50% longer? Thanks for the great effort. MB

m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 11:59:23 AM)
Can subs forced to the surface fire back?

Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 12:01:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Can subs forced to the surface fire back? Of course.

m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 12:24:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Can subs forced to the surface fire back? Of course. You guys are mean!...Too many nice things....right before Christmas...and don't say I'll shoot my eye out! [image]local://upfiles/7909/EAE51CB2A55B43E2AA1799B7F35D54BF.jpg[/image]

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 12:30:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth How much is a bit longer? 20% longer? 50% longer? Thanks for the great effort. MB Depends on what you're doing, obviously, and which scenario we're talking about, but 20-33% longer probably isn't far off the mark.

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 1:30:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Can subs forced to the surface fire back? Of course. You guys are mean!...Too many nice things....right before Christmas...and don't say I'll shoot my eye out! No Bobby, you'll shoot your eye out! Instead, here's a nice bunny suit from your auntie. [:D] [image]local://upfiles/14248/90F1958E54A146C7BE9481D8112E3592.jpg[/image]

Yamato hugger -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 1:52:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: matt.buttsworth How much is a bit longer? 20% longer? 50% longer? Thanks for the great effort. MB Well by my experience, until you learn the system it will take about 300% longer. Once you get the hang of it, it takes the same amount of time per unit as WitP. But as Termmy said, there are a lot more units.

Mike Solli -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 3:16:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Can subs forced to the surface fire back? Of course. Oh man................... [:)]

RevRick -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 3:19:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Can subs forced to the surface fire back? Of course. You guys are mean!...Too many nice things....right before Christmas...and don't say I'll shoot my eye out! No Bobby, you'll shoot your eye out! Instead, here's a nice bunny suit from your auntie. [:D] [image]local://upfiles/14248/90F1958E54A146C7BE9481D8112E3592.jpg[/image] Fa ra ra ra ra, ra ra ra ra.

m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 6:34:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RevRick quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Can subs forced to the surface fire back? Of course. You guys are mean!...Too many nice things....right before Christmas...and don't say I'll shoot my eye out! No Bobby, you'll shoot your eye out! Instead, here's a nice bunny suit from your auntie. [:D] [image]local://upfiles/14248/90F1958E54A146C7BE9481D8112E3592.jpg[/image] Fa ra ra ra ra, ra ra ra ra. [image]local://upfiles/7909/76A571AA1DEB49A2AD0028E1417234C8.jpg[/image]

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 6:59:02 PM)
Oh - you don't like the head because it's looking at you? No problem...WHACK! [:D]

m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 7:09:31 PM)
We humbly apologize to those who may have never seen the great Jean Shepherd film, THE CHRISTMAS STORY.....We also apologize if you have not seen some of his other great films...like....My SUMMER STORY/aka IT RUNS IN THE FAMILY...and OLLIE HOPNOODLES HAVEN OF BLISS................... Those folks likely did not understand the recent (harumph)...hijackings in the recent postings......sorry......(now bow and move off idiot)......... "We shall all be undone by fools....knaves...idiots" -Jean Shepherd(apologies to W.Shakespeare).

witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 10:00:34 PM)
I haven't seen the others, but the Christmas one is a 'must see' it's so good. So if you have yet to see it, go ahead and catch it on a movie channel, or even rent it. Do it. Go on. I triple-dog-dare you!

RevRick -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/9/2008 11:26:45 PM)
Well, since I contributed to that unseemly bit of fatuous hilarity (to some), I perhaps ought to ask a question of at least a hint of substance, since it has happened to me YET ONCE AGAIN!!!! Oops. Forgive me. When replenishing one's ships at sea (UNREP), it is possible in the new AE to designate from which ship the fuel oil is offloaded. In a mixed groups of TF's, two UNREP, one CVTF, and one SATF, I stopped to top off the folks who had been running for a while. I grouped the CV's into one group, and refueled them, which chewed up a pretty good bunch of the fuel oil from one UNREP group. I had refueled the cans the day before, knowing that would happen. From the other UNREP group, I refueled the Cruisers (again, after grouping them together into a separate TF.) Then, since the smaller UNREP TF had some cans low on go juice with it, and the UNREP TF has some fuel and op points available, I tried to top those poor little boys off. Guess who refueled them. The Carriers, thus basically negating the whole operation in as far as getting off to a quick run in on the next target. So, did someone else come up with this for an improvement to AE UNREP, or do we have to find some other way of avoiding CVs becoming fast, aircraft carrying, tin can gas stations?

Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 1:18:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RevRick ... When replenishing one's ships at sea (UNREP), it is possible in the new AE to designate from which ship the fuel oil is offloaded. .... No, not really. But the code has been changed. If available, ships with fuel cargo (oilers, a few CVE) will be tapped first. Other than that it's pure communism: from each according to his fuel level, to each according to his fuel need.

RevRick -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 1:47:39 AM)
Sounds somewhat better.. That is also why the Sangamon's are so good to have around. That rather capacious hull has a looootttt of fuel in it. Or at least it did in the last game I played that lasted until they showed up. Just patiently (Yeah - RIGHT!) waiting, Don, Old bean...

Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 2:59:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RevRick Sounds somewhat better.. That is also why the Sangamon's are so good to have around. That rather capacious hull has a looootttt of fuel in it. Or at least it did in the last game I played that lasted until they showed up. Just patiently (Yeah - RIGHT!) waiting, Don, Old bean... OH, and ships can refuel directly from tankers (TK or YO) if they are not at sea. Put a tanker TF in a small port and you can run TFs in and refuel from the tanker. Also, the tanker can transfer fuel directly to AOs in the same circumstance.

Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 5:23:41 AM)
Which comes in really handy with the new port capacity rules.

m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 11:55:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: RevRick Sounds somewhat better.. That is also why the Sangamon's are so good to have around. That rather capacious hull has a looootttt of fuel in it. Or at least it did in the last game I played that lasted until they showed up. Just patiently (Yeah - RIGHT!) waiting, Don, Old bean... OH, and ships can refuel directly from tankers (TK or YO) if they are not at sea. Put a tanker TF in a small port and you can run TFs in and refuel from the tanker. Also, the tanker can transfer fuel directly to AOs in the same circumstance. So...if a tanker is unloading at a port...and a friendly fleet has dropped by, the fleet can help unload the tanker in replenishment?..Major good thing, if I understand this correctly, and will allow the tanker to be on its' way sooner.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.09375