RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (Full Version)

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



Message

mlees -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 4:07:22 PM)

It seemed to me that the US formed submarine "wolfpacks" in order to "cast a wider net", with an eye towards increasing the chances of finding enemy ships.

Up until late '44, each US sub acted as a lone wolf, and did it's searching on it's own. SubPac might send (ULTRA/MAGIC/Mil Int) info, but the sub had to rely only on what it itself sighted. A sub might get another sub's sighting reports, but usually through SubPac, and not directly.

With the packs, each sub would benefit from sighting reports sent directly from pack mates. Occasionally, a sub might tell a pack mate that it intended to make an intercept at "x" time, but other than that, there was often no attempt at coordinating attacks. (Coordination did occur rarely, but not as a matter of pack policy.)



Shark7 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 4:24:31 PM)

Part of the problem in this game is that there is complete cooridnation between subs from day 1 of the war.  Since the player has complete control over where the subs operate and can change their orders daily.  I don't think it was quite that easy during the real war.



m10bob -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 6:23:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Part of the problem in this game is that there is complete cooridnation between subs from day 1 of the war.  Since the player has complete control over where the subs operate and can change their orders daily.  I don't think it was quite that easy during the real war.


Wondering out loud....What if a future patch gave the ability to give orders to subs a "%" to get the order accomplished?



bradfordkay -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 6:25:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


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



John, the problem is that it doesn't work like that. When you arrive at your destination you can't just create the LCIs, etc and then move the troops aboard them for the landings. It seems to me that you have to load the troops aboard them from a port. DO you have any suggestions on how to transfer the troops from the troopships directly to the LCIs?



Yamato hugger -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 6:32:33 PM)

Wrong thread



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 6:47:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

John, the problem is that it doesn't work like that. When you arrive at your destination you can't just create the LCIs, etc and then move the troops aboard them for the landings. It seems to me that you have to load the troops aboard them from a port. DO you have any suggestions on how to transfer the troops from the troopships directly to the LCIs?



It doesn't work like that - and didn't it WITP. Troop ships are assumed to have a complement of landing craft and can move troops ashore without any assistance from "defined" landing craft (of any size).

The smaller landing craft and barges are meant to emulate shore-to-shore short ranged amphibious assaults. Troops loaded directly into landing craft, which ran a short distance up the coast or to a nearby island, and unloaded.

Larger landing craft, like LCI, are not buy-for-supply types and are just ships.

If you want to use your small landing craft (LCVP, for instance) in short ranged shore-to-shore landings the best thing is to buy them on-the-spot using supply cargo from a TF or supply stores at a base. You can then load troops/supplies/donuts into them and move them forward. If you need them somewhere else, shuttle them there in a series of short hops (carrying supplies).

Historically they were loaded onto larger ships for transport, but we do not have a capability for a ship being on a ship. The basic structure of ship attachment does not allow it and extending the struture is one point six hells of a lot of work. You may notice that ships exist only at a port or in a TF. Just no linkage to put a ship on a ship.

We did experiment with special classifications for the Midget Sub Carrier TFs. The I-boat actually carried the midget but, no structure. So we put the two into the TF together and put in special code to treat them as "carried". Turned out to be a lot of special code and took a long time to get workig right. So any thought of ships-carrying-ships in quantity and in other types of TFs will have to wait for a complete rework of the basic structures. This will be the famous WITP II or perhaps the onset of porcine aviation.






JWE -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 7:40:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
John, the problem is that it doesn't work like that. When you arrive at your destination you can't just create the LCIs, etc and then move the troops aboard them for the landings. It seems to me that you have to load the troops aboard them from a port. DO you have any suggestions on how to transfer the troops from the troopships directly to the LCIs?

No, I don’t. I understand your question, however. The game mechanics don’t allow for an Amphib TF to hit a target and offload assaulting LCUs to Landing Craft.

Game type Landing Craft are point-to-point assault vehicles, flowing from the usages established in the UV engine. Out of scope for us.

Treespider, and others, had some very interesting thoughts on handling LCs, and lighters, and boats, and stuff, but the code work was … grim.

We’re stuck with boats are boats, and LCUs are LCUs. You can assault with what you got, but you can’t subdivide the assault vehicles.

Sorry. John



witpqs -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/19/2008 8:09:39 PM)

Porcine aviation - after a week of storms and freezing weather these Javelina would love to fly south:



[image]local://upfiles/14248/15CD2ED4A88C49E5B70A08EC51FB52DE.jpg[/image]

Edited to change "procine" to "porcine". Those who recognize the word procine will know, as one astute reader pointed out (probably after spitting coffee all over his monitor), that:

"Procine, is a pharmaceutical for female uninary tract infections."

On second thought, maybe I should leave it as "procine"? [:D]



thegreatwent -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/20/2008 2:16:11 PM)

Are there any plans to include the German Auxiliary cruisers into AE?



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/20/2008 2:29:53 PM)

No. No German-type units are going to be included in the finished product.



thegreatwent -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/20/2008 2:37:48 PM)

Rats, oh well. Thanks for the quick response. I guess if I really want them I'll have mod them myself or convince some other modder to do it for me. I've been reading "The Sea Devils Foc'sl" by Von Luckner, it may be about WWI raiding but the See Adler and it's crew are great fun to read about.



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/20/2008 3:11:08 PM)

Many people want german raiders and monsoon boats in AE, but they (AE team) just refuse to include them.
Another question, is the Tirpitz included in AE? There was a possibility for that ship to break through into Pacific! [:D]



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/20/2008 3:26:25 PM)

No. But we'll be including an H-44 battleship, probably in the third patch...[8|]

[image]local://upfiles/16369/EFE619170BB84C469D9009DF5531A093.jpg[/image]



thegreatwent -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/20/2008 3:28:38 PM)

In reality the Auxiliary cruisers were not that critical in the war. Their inclusion would just create another target to sink in most cases so I understand that they not be included. Still, wouldn't it be fun if you got a cool kill with one[:)]



Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/20/2008 3:30:50 PM)

Yep. They're chrome, but chrome's good. We'd just like to get the non-chrome done, and done well.



thegreatwent -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/20/2008 3:33:13 PM)

quote:

No. But we'll be including an H-44 battleship, probably in the third patch...


I heard that 3rd patch also has the Graf Zeppelin as a follow on force[;)]



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/20/2008 4:02:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

In reality the Auxiliary cruisers were not that critical in the war. Their inclusion would just create another target to sink in most cases so I understand that they not be included. Still, wouldn't it be fun if you got a cool kill with one[:)]


Well, if you look at it that way- most of the ships in WITP are just another target to sink [:-]
Auxiliary ships woul'd have to be some sort of hybrid between ship and the sub. Very difficult to detect, even by multiple TF's in the hex.
And avoiding battle with anything but merchies and tankers [:'(]



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/20/2008 4:33:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Many people want german raiders and monsoon boats in AE, but they (AE team) just refuse to include them.



This is a correct statement.





drw61 -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/21/2008 2:14:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

No. But we'll be including an H-44 battleship, probably in the third patch...[8|]

[image]local://upfiles/16369/EFE619170BB84C469D9009DF5531A093.jpg[/image]



This is what I love about this forum!

I had never heard of the H-44 and Terminus got my gray matter moving. I learn something new almost every time I log on here.

http://www.german-navy.de/kriegsmarine/zplan/battleships/schlachtschiffh/h44.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H_class_battleship_(1944)




jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/21/2008 2:21:18 AM)

Of course the included H-44 will probably not be commissioned until 1948, but that is another story!
[:D]



timtom -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/21/2008 2:33:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

John, the problem is that it doesn't work like that. When you arrive at your destination you can't just create the LCIs, etc and then move the troops aboard them for the landings. It seems to me that you have to load the troops aboard them from a port. DO you have any suggestions on how to transfer the troops from the troopships directly to the LCIs?


It doesn't work like that - and didn't it WITP. Troop ships are assumed to have a complement of landing craft and can move troops ashore without any assistance from "defined" landing craft (of any size).

The smaller landing craft and barges are meant to emulate shore-to-shore short ranged amphibious assaults. Troops loaded directly into landing craft, which ran a short distance up the coast or to a nearby island, and unloaded.

Larger landing craft, like LCI, are not buy-for-supply types and are just ships.

If you want to use your small landing craft (LCVP, for instance) in short ranged shore-to-shore landings the best thing is to buy them on-the-spot using supply cargo from a TF or supply stores at a base. You can then load troops/supplies/donuts into them and move them forward. If you need them somewhere else, shuttle them there in a series of short hops (carrying supplies).

Historically they were loaded onto larger ships for transport, but we do not have a capability for a ship being on a ship. The basic structure of ship attachment does not allow it and extending the struture is one point six hells of a lot of work. You may notice that ships exist only at a port or in a TF. Just no linkage to put a ship on a ship.

We did experiment with special classifications for the Midget Sub Carrier TFs. The I-boat actually carried the midget but, no structure. So we put the two into the TF together and put in special code to treat them as "carried". Turned out to be a lot of special code and took a long time to get workig right. So any thought of ships-carrying-ships in quantity and in other types of TFs will have to wait for a complete rework of the basic structures. This will be the famous WITP II or perhaps the onset of porcine aviation.



Air Team will fix that as soon as we get the attendant art organised. Meanwhile I'll file it under "Don's Babies" (tm).



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/21/2008 3:33:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

Air Team will fix that as soon as we get the attendant art organised. Meanwhile I'll file it under "Don's Babies" (tm).



If you need a picture of a flying pig, I could give my ex-wife a broom....





Terminus -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/21/2008 12:31:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Of course the included H-44 will probably not be commissioned until 1948, but that is another story!
[:D]


Details, details...[;)]



CV Zuikaku -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/21/2008 3:20:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Of course the included H-44 will probably not be commissioned until 1948, but that is another story!
[:D]


Details, details...[;)]


But including H-44 will ruin your (AE team) dogma about not including German units into the game [:'(] [:-]
Will there be any naval AAR? Short AAR [8|]
Where we coul'd see how waypoint system and mid-ocean intercepts works.
That woul'd be our gift for Christmass. But including German ships wol'd be better gift [:D]



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/21/2008 4:48:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Of course the included H-44 will probably not be commissioned until 1948, but that is another story!
[:D]


Details, details...[;)]


But including H-44 will ruin your (AE team) dogma about not including German units into the game [:'(] [:-]
Will there be any naval AAR? Short AAR [8|]
Where we coul'd see how waypoint system and mid-ocean intercepts works.
That woul'd be our gift for Christmass. But including German ships wol'd be better gift [:D]



AE team no longer has dogma. It was run over by our karma.






jwilkerson -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/21/2008 6:30:37 PM)

One reason (my reason) to keep marginal European units out of WITP is "scope". We are not working on a "game editor product" like TOAW, which I have spent plenty of time with, but admit that was far more time building games than playing them. WITP/AE is a "game" not a "game editor product". Also, WITP/AE is about the WITP, not the WITW (War In The World). Also, a reason to avoid expanding both the date range of the game and the nations is that Matrix may wish to reserve these other periods and nations for future games. So the "Thirties" is out of scope, as are European nations whose units did not have a discernable presence in the Theater(s) we are representing.

I know some of you want to (and some already have) used WITP to build ETO scenarios. But as those who have tried have found out, there are issues with such. If we solve all these issues (in lieu of finishing the AE scope we took on), we are building a "game editor product" (not the AE game) which, as stated above is "out of scope". I think most of you had already figured this out, but just thought it might help those who hadn't if we spell it out!




khyberbill -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/21/2008 9:27:24 PM)

quote:



ORIGINAL: timtom

Air Team will fix that as soon as we get the attendant art organised. Meanwhile I'll file it under "Don's Babies" (tm).



If you need a picture of a flying pig, I could give my ex-wife a broom....




My ex would probably fly into her.



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/22/2008 3:52:04 PM)


I have a full cup of coffee left and the heater needs to run the temp up a couple of degrees before I take my shower and go out. Someone ask a question...



Dixie -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/22/2008 3:53:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


I have a full cup of coffee left and the heater needs to run the temp up a couple of degrees before I take my shower and go out. Someone ask a question...


Why do you never see baby pigeons?



Don Bowen -> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II (12/22/2008 3:55:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


I have a full cup of coffee left and the heater needs to run the temp up a couple of degrees before I take my shower and go out. Someone ask a question...


Why do you never see baby pigeons?


42




Page: <<   < prev  5 6 [7] 8 9   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.609375