RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (Full Version)

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



Message

Panther Bait -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 2:25:40 PM)


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.







That sounds good. That being the case, are the semi-mobile concrete barge fuel bunkers the US used at places like Ulithi included in AE?

Mike



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 4:02:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Panther Bait

That sounds good. That being the case, are the semi-mobile concrete barge fuel bunkers the US used at places like Ulithi included in AE?

Mike


Define them as YO (which they were) and it works. We don't actually implement non self propelled, but it's reasonably close.







Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 4:03:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

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.


Maybe.... both unloading and transfering fuel to another ship consume ops.





Mike Solli -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 8:51:34 PM)

Can ships off load their fuel (from their tanks) to port?



RevRick -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 9:31:17 PM)

I really can't imagine a ship outside of a major repair facility offloading go juice. But that concept does open up a world of possibilities.

We know that they are now tracking such things as torpedoes. Could this also extend to such things as heavy ammunition, or even smaller? (Now we are really talking micromanagement, but what the hey?) Probably not, but the mind wonders, or maybe wanders. Imagine, the USS Washington steaming back to Pearl also offloads a bunch of 16" rounds and 5" rounds to the local Ammo Ship/Dump. They aren't going to need all of those rounds because if they run into that big a fleet heading back to Pearl, the jig is up anyway. And the other heavy units would gladly welcome a relatively larger stock of large caliber rounds handy - following the USN packrat principle. (If we ain't got it, we probably need a few, just in case.) That could also mean an increase in the planning for the location of AEs. Imagine that!



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 10:58:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Can ships off load their fuel (from their tanks) to port?


Nope. Not in WITP and not added in AE



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 10:59:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

I really can't imagine a ship outside of a major repair facility offloading go juice. But that concept does open up a world of possibilities.

We know that they are now tracking such things as torpedoes. Could this also extend to such things as heavy ammunition, or even smaller? (Now we are really talking micromanagement, but what the hey?) Probably not, but the mind wonders, or maybe wanders. Imagine, the USS Washington steaming back to Pearl also offloads a bunch of 16" rounds and 5" rounds to the local Ammo Ship/Dump. They aren't going to need all of those rounds because if they run into that big a fleet heading back to Pearl, the jig is up anyway. And the other heavy units would gladly welcome a relatively larger stock of large caliber rounds handy - following the USN packrat principle. (If we ain't got it, we probably need a few, just in case.) That could also mean an increase in the planning for the location of AEs. Imagine that!


Nope. Just too much trouble.







Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/10/2008 11:33:53 PM)

Had to draw the micromanaging line somewhere.[:)]



Mike Solli -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/11/2008 3:06:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Had to draw the micromanaging line somewhere.[:)]


I understand. Just curious. Thanks guys. [:)]



RevRick -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/14/2008 7:20:09 PM)

Just to keep this thread alive...

What is the air speed velocity of an unladen sparrow?

[image]local://upfiles/1228/CCC95B478DFB42FAB6AD144E54490B55.jpg[/image]



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/14/2008 7:21:02 PM)

An African or a European one?



RevRick -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/14/2008 7:51:12 PM)

I want to drop coconuts... which one is that??? AUGHHHNNNNNNNN???



alanschu -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/15/2008 8:48:49 PM)

Is there information that precedes the first Naval Thread?  Terminus is talking about the "repair types" but I have no idea what he is talking about...        



doc smith -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/17/2008 1:14:13 AM)

I think this isa naval thread question.  How the heck do you deploy "barges" (Jap barges, LCVP, other small, troop-carrying craft) from home to "the front"?  In WitP, it takes many days to move small boys to the front, then they often don't even have the range to do much without a "milk cow" to refuel them in transit.  I'm thinking especially of any attempt to move supplies or troops to Guadalcanal or even Buna from Rabaul.  They don't have the range and I'd really rather not send along an AK, much less a warship or AO to refuel them.  I suspect that when a barge convoy left Rabaul, they included one or more barges loaded just with fuel.  At dawn on each day of movement, the barges would lie low against some island and refuel from the cow for the next night's move.

So I guess it's 2 parts:
1. Any EASY way to deploy small craft from home to the front?
2. Any way to have fuel small craft tag along with a small craft convoy to resupply itself and other ships in the convoy?

Thanks.



Capt Henry_MatrixForum -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/17/2008 2:56:27 AM)

Doc, I just don't deploy LCVPs at "home". Send a task force with AKs loaded with supply to where you want the LCVPs and when the TF reaches its destination, hit the "create barges" button in the task force screen. Some of the supply is converted to LCVPs. I've always assumed this simulates shipping the smaller craft as cargo.



doc smith -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/18/2008 1:19:29 AM)

Thanks. Doesn't really make them useful, though. And you wind up with too many small boys at home, consuming supplies and doing nothing.



John Lansford -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/18/2008 12:39:52 PM)

It's a shame that the small amphibious craft (LCVP, etc) can't be treated as cargo and loaded on board an AK for transport over to another destination.  Even if  you've got a tanker with them they only move 1 hex/turn because they're constantly refueling!



bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/18/2008 6:02:52 PM)

John's idea is a great suggestion for any future patch, if at all possible with the current engine.

This would also serve to increase the strain on shipping that an invasion would entail. The extra ships needed to cart the landing craft would be unavailable for carrying supplies, making it harder for the allied player to punch you left and right with multiple invasions in the mid-to-late war.



JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/18/2008 6:46:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
It's a shame that the small amphibious craft (LCVP, etc) can't be treated as cargo and loaded on board an AK for transport over to another destination.  Even if  you've got a tanker with them they only move 1 hex/turn because they're constantly refueling!

In a sense, that is how it works presently, and how it works in AE. Much of the confusion is the result of editor OOB blivets. These little guys are supposed to have NO arrival base, in order for the system to work properly, but occasionally, some few of them end up being assigned to a base, so “poof”, there they be. Working hard to eliminate this in AE.

LCVP and Jap barges are cargo. There is a supply cost at a base to create them. Supply is delivered as cargo, supply is converted into landing craft, and bingo – landing craft = cargo.

LCVPs and Daihatsus weren’t moved about, from place to place, anyway. You didn’t pick up LCVPs from Munda, say, and schlep them to the Gilberts; you just made more. You didn’t have many ships that could haul them in any case, and those that could already had them as part of their basic capability .. so they couldn’t load any more.

Prior planning prevents p*** poor performance, so you gotta determine where landing craft/barges are useful (archipelagos are nice) and create them there; someplace where LC/barge movement is a couple hexes at a time. Because once you make ‘em, there they stay. Gee, do I hear an irl echo somewhere?

Anyhoo. That’s how it works. Ciao. John



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/18/2008 7:41:46 PM)

Here I am after a long time. For some reason I cannot login to my old Zuikaku account, so I made this one to replace it.
Here is one question, but I think I know answe already. Does AE support wolfpack or hunter-killer groups. I suppose that it don't. But would be grat if subs inside wolfpack coul'd search the hex more efficiently, and possibility of multiple subs attacking multiple tagets inside the convoy during one phase...



witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/18/2008 8:02:36 PM)

That sounds like just putting more than one sub in a TF???



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/18/2008 8:07:01 PM)

But now, you can put as many subs as you want in TF, and there are no multiple attacks



witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/18/2008 8:38:13 PM)

I have seen the same (single-sub TF) make multiple attacks plenty of times. Why would multi-sub TF's be limited to only one attack?



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/18/2008 8:52:38 PM)

You've seen a single sub attacking escorts and then transport in single combat phase?! Not in the same day, but in the same combat resolution phase. I've never seen any sub first attacking one ship and then switching to another...



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/18/2008 9:19:28 PM)


Code in WITP was set up to allow only one sub to attack - the Task Force flagship.

AE still allows only one sub to attack at a time but selects the sub based on armmo, ops, fuel, and some random.

A "Wolf Pack" TF will not make the Atlantic-style coordinated attacks, but it is possible for different subs in the TF to attack during the same combat phase.




CV Zuikaku -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 7:03:15 AM)

So, no change here. Thought that there will be wolfpacks available for the USN.
Thanks for the reply!



Dili -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 2:02:38 PM)

quote:

John's idea is a great suggestion for any future patch, if at all possible with the current engine.

This would also serve to increase the strain on shipping that an invasion would entail. The extra ships needed to cart the landing craft would be unavailable for carrying supplies, making it harder for the allied player to punch you left and right with multiple invasions in the mid-to-late war.


What about using that ability to make possible to have more than one kaiten per ship?



Charbroiled -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 3:10:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Code in WITP was set up to allow only one sub to attack - the Task Force flagship.

AE still allows only one sub to attack at a time but selects the sub based on armmo, ops, fuel, and some random.

A "Wolf Pack" TF will not make the Atlantic-style coordinated attacks, but it is possible for different subs in the TF to attack during the same combat phase.




Historically, the American Sub Force used a "Wolf Pack", but not in the same method as the Germans. The Americans would send out 3-4 subs together, headed by a TF commander. Sometimes the TF Commander would be one of the sub's Captain, sometimes it would be a separate commander (they decided that did not work well). The subs would all go to the same patrol area, but would patrol separately.

This new improvement to AE will better simulate this.[&o]



Panther Bait -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 3:42:11 PM)

Charbroiled is correct.  The US submarine packs were not really an attempt to coordinate attacks on a single convoy like the Germans.  Probably partially because the Japanese did not really operate in large convoys, especially in the late war when the US was operating in packs. 

I think it was more an organizational advantage that they operated in packs.  There were so many US subs operating in relatively small chokepoint areas that they probably needed to have some sort of coordination just to keep friendly fire incidents down.  I suppose there was also the possibility of mutual support in case of a sub took damage (not sure if that ever happened), or having a few subs that could act together on pilot rescue duty for big raids, etc.



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 3:43:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

John's idea is a great suggestion for any future patch, if at all possible with the current engine.

This would also serve to increase the strain on shipping that an invasion would entail. The extra ships needed to cart the landing craft would be unavailable for carrying supplies, making it harder for the allied player to punch you left and right with multiple invasions in the mid-to-late war.


What about using that ability to make possible to have more than one kaiten per ship?


I think the biggest Kaiten carriers in AE carry 8 or 10. They're only torpedoes, after all.

If you meant midget subs, then we (i.e. the coding team) tried to make it happen, but couldn't.



Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.546875