RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (Full Version)

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



Message

GaryChildress -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/20/2009 5:36:41 PM)

Terminus, how about a screenie of the "Pilots" screen under the scenario tab.

Thanks! [:)]

[image]local://upfiles/17421/79E18BA254AD473BBD3F73768C68D91A.jpg[/image]



timtom -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/20/2009 5:53:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Terminus, how about a screenie of the "Pilots" screen under the scenario tab.

Thanks! [:)]

[image]local://upfiles/17421/79E18BA254AD473BBD3F73768C68D91A.jpg[/image]


CLASSIFIED [:D]



BigJ62 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/20/2009 6:23:35 PM)

1. Yes but if rear guard is selected the assault units will attack the first enemy occupied or owned base in the list.

2. Assault Bases, Assault Units, Air Group Bases, Air Group Units and Defense Units.

3. You can have defensive or offensive triggers. In the case of an offensive trigger when that base is owned by the assaulting side the script dies thus allowing a chained or other script to become active and assigning those units to the new script. Defensive triggers are the opposite.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

This all looks amazing, T. Thanks for all the shots. A couple questions about the AI screen:

1. Does this screen specify a particular order in which the AI will do things? E.g., for ID #001, which you've highlighted, will the AI assault Vigan, San Fernando, Bayombong, etc. in that order?

2. The middle field is entitled "1. Assault Bases." If one clicked on the arrow to the right of "Assault Bases," what other options would one see? Air attack? Naval bombardment? Recon?

3. I don't understand the fields on the right side. What does the trigger base (Bataan) trigger? An assault on Lingayen?

Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

[image]local://upfiles/16369/B45EBDCA64864CD88B743B14A41061DC.jpg[/image]






GaryChildress -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/20/2009 6:51:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Terminus, how about a screenie of the "Pilots" screen under the scenario tab.

Thanks! [:)]

[image]local://upfiles/17421/79E18BA254AD473BBD3F73768C68D91A.jpg[/image]


CLASSIFIED [:D]


darn. [:)]



Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/20/2009 8:16:18 PM)

Well, there's like five or six screenshots in that one, so it's not really classified, just can't be bothered...[:'(][;)]

Seriously, it shows what you think it would: pool, exp and replenishment rate for all nationalities for all six years.



R8J -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/20/2009 11:17:06 PM)

Good day.

Two questions.

If you have an AK that converts to a CVE. What happens to the troops and/or cargo? Will it have to unload first.

In my current mod I thought I would help the AI by allowing it to upgrade some AKs to CVEs. A mistake. A few of the AKs have cargo that can not unload. Plus it does not know what to do with the extra flat tops, they've been in port for 6 months now.

For the stock ships (AE) with upgrade options will the AI know what it needs or use the first option?



Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/20/2009 11:46:34 PM)

You can't disband a ship into port with cargo or troops on it, and there's no conversion of ships in a TF, so no problem. As for your other question, the old stock "convert-AK-to-auxiliary" thing was taken out of AE a LONG time ago, so that's no problem either.



steveh11Matrix -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/21/2009 11:30:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, there's like five or six screenshots in that one, so it's not really classified, just can't be bothered...[:'(][;)]

Seriously, it shows what you think it would: pool, exp and replenishment rate for all nationalities for all six years.


A thought: Does this mean that we can set experience levels for each nationality for all the years, unlike 'old' WitP?



Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/21/2009 12:15:38 PM)

Correct.



Dili -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/21/2009 12:59:01 PM)

Excellent!



Long Lance -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 8:35:54 AM)

The new Editor looks great!

Will I be able to select ship-classes as to respawn as  class XX after yyy days?



Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 11:56:24 AM)

Not sure what you mean?[&:]



Long Lance -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 2:18:05 PM)

Standard setting for WitP is US CV sunk before 1/44 respawn as Essex after some hundred days, US CA as Baltimore/Cleveland etc.
May I mod the game that way that i.e. Brooklyn-Class CL will respawn as Cleveland after let's say 180 days? 
And if I want even PT as Iowa BB just for fun?




Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 2:28:04 PM)

No idea how that might work. We have a universal "respawn on/off" switch, but I'm not sure how the rest works; sorry...



jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 7:54:59 PM)

I thought I'd give a bit of a "users view" of the editor. Among the scraps of things I've done for the AE project, the IJN surface combatants was perhaps the most "fun". Trying to map the real world ships and their changes into the game format being the challenge. Here is an example of the use of the "ugrade" to drive significant, but still not perhaps "major" changes to a ship "class". This "class" being the Kitakamo/Oii subclass fo IJN light cruisers. Here we see the "torpedo cruiser" configuration in which they began the war. This configuration fit into the Japanese plan for a long range "torpedo bombardment" during the night prior to the main engagement of the dreadnoughts as a component of their tactical plan for the "decisive battle" developed between the wars.



[image]local://upfiles/7611/7B06B0312D834710A4B9184017AA7034.jpg[/image]



jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 7:58:09 PM)

I've been asked the question "Why did the Japanese not use Kitakami/Oii in the night fighting around Guadalcanal in 1942? The answer is that during this period, these two ships were being modified as "transport cruisers". The first such change removed 40% of the torpedo armanent and replaced this with additional carrying capacity. This change was driven by the results of the Battle of Midway and the Japanese thinking that they would need high speed transports to move troops under American air superiority.





[image]local://upfiles/7611/D247AAFFB0084747A2369368F2653923.jpg[/image]



jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 7:59:51 PM)

The 3rd upgrade to Kitakami/Oii sees "more of the same" as another pair of torpedo banks are removed and carrying capacity is again increased. These ships were involved in large scale troop movements to New Guinea in 1943 including the movement of the 20th Division to Wewak, as an example.



[image]local://upfiles/7611/371BF491E3654E069CB3AB02C43DFEA7.jpg[/image]



jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 8:05:16 PM)

The final upgrade applied only to Kitakami as Oii had been sunk in the SRA. Further this modification to Kitakami was driven by stern damage she had received. Many of the modifications to ships were so driven, but we have no mechanism for "contingent upgrades" in the game at this point - so we decided to show this upgrade anyway (it is allowed for both ships of the subclass if they both survive). Kitakami finished the war in this "Kaiten carrier" configuration and after being used on repatriation duty she was broken up in 1947.

In this configuration she had a lot of AA weapons and also finally had the T13 radars installed that we see her (erroneously) starting the game with in stock. Note she has T22 radar and more AA on the second page of devices - not shown.



[image]local://upfiles/7611/191A4B242FE84C28A25F40ADC70BF11D.jpg[/image]



Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 8:27:05 PM)

A good opportunity to point out that the new editor shows the art of ships and planes, and that the Kitakami has progressively different ship sides and shils as her upgrades continue.



GaryChildress -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 8:55:09 PM)

Many thanks for the extra screens Joe! [&o]

With the new field called "Troop capacity" will we still be able to use just about ANY surface combatant in "Fast transport" role or will we be required to give ships a "troop capacity" in order to use them in that role? So for instance let's say that Tenryu has no troop capacity filled in in the editor. Would that mean that it would not be usable as a "Tokyo Express" troop transport ship?



Dili -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 8:57:56 PM)

Kaiten Type I 8/4 , i guess that is a torpedo like device and not a midget?


One lateral question, there were old ships and AMC's in WW2 that had 2 guns side by side at bow and or stern, what would be the correct or least worse disposition in editor: left and right side or 2 front?



Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 9:05:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Many thanks for the extra screens Joe! [&o]

With the new field called "Troop capacity" will we still be able to use just about ANY surface combatant in "Fast transport" role or will we be required to give ships a "troop capacity" in order to use them in that role? So for instance let's say that Tenryu has no troop capacity filled in in the editor. Would that mean that it would not be usable as a "Tokyo Express" troop transport ship?


They have to have troop capacity, and all IJN light cruisers have troop and cargo capacities. The Kitakamis start without, due to their many torpedo tubes.



Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 9:06:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

Kaiten Type I 8/4 , i guess that is a torpedo like device and not a midget?


Correct. Kaiten was, after all, a torpedo and not a midget.

quote:


One lateral question, there were old ships and AMC's in WW2 that had 2 guns side by side at bow and or stern, what would be the correct or least worse disposition in editor: left and right side or 2 front?


Up to you, I suppose. That aspect isn't different from stock WitP.



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 9:26:44 PM)

Anybody noticed that Kitakami in her first transport version has 9 reloads for its 12 TT's? I know it's a typo - one level lower are DC's with 9 reloads too... And from where you got her speed data after her conversions?



Don Bowen -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/22/2009 9:51:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Many thanks for the extra screens Joe! [&o]

With the new field called "Troop capacity" will we still be able to use just about ANY surface combatant in "Fast transport" role or will we be required to give ships a "troop capacity" in order to use them in that role? So for instance let's say that Tenryu has no troop capacity filled in in the editor. Would that mean that it would not be usable as a "Tokyo Express" troop transport ship?


Troop (and cargo) capacity for "fast transport" type ships (most small to medium combat ships) is used ONLY when they are in fast transport TFs. And it is used and must be specified. If you give Tenryu zero troop capacity it will not be able to carry troops.

Stock WITP gave a default amount of capacity to ships in Fast Transport TFs. A destroyer got 250 (if I recall) no matter what size it was. In AE we externalized this so different DD classes can have more appropriate amounts. But they gotta have them specified in the editor.

(edit) Damn it "T", quit posting while I'm a-typing!








jwilkerson -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/23/2009 12:39:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Anybody noticed that Kitakami in her first transport version has 9 reloads for its 12 TT's? I know it's a typo - one level lower are DC's with 9 reloads too... And from where you got her speed data after her conversions?


Hey thanks! We'll change that 09 to an 01 !!! As to the "where" question - much of the data for the Cruisers came from Lacroix's most excellent tome of the subject. For most ships the "maximum speed" in the game is reduced a knot or two or three off the "book speed" to reflect reality.






Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/23/2009 6:18:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Many thanks for the extra screens Joe! [&o]

With the new field called "Troop capacity" will we still be able to use just about ANY surface combatant in "Fast transport" role or will we be required to give ships a "troop capacity" in order to use them in that role? So for instance let's say that Tenryu has no troop capacity filled in in the editor. Would that mean that it would not be usable as a "Tokyo Express" troop transport ship?


Troop (and cargo) capacity for "fast transport" type ships (most small to medium combat ships) is used ONLY when they are in fast transport TFs. And it is used and must be specified. If you give Tenryu zero troop capacity it will not be able to carry troops.

Stock WITP gave a default amount of capacity to ships in Fast Transport TFs. A destroyer got 250 (if I recall) no matter what size it was. In AE we externalized this so different DD classes can have more appropriate amounts. But they gotta have them specified in the editor.

(edit) Damn it "T", quit posting while I'm a-typing!



Then "a-type" faster...[:'(][;)]



Anthropoid -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/23/2009 12:57:16 PM)

Ohhhhhh, WOW . . . you had me with post number three . . . *sigh* I can't possibly read the rest of this thrread or I might never GO to work again . . .

*struggles to regain composure, eyelashes fluttering*

Haven't been here in a while . . . Checkin' out some threads here, readin' up on the status of things with this AE project . . . 'firmware,' 'software,' 'beer,' 'whine,' 'aged whiskey,' 'paranoia,' 'gold shiny bits,' 'lust,' 'labor of love,' etc.

. . . its ALL starting to remind me of this one little girlfriend of mine, so many years ago, the one who broke my heart . . . *trails off into cheesy blue grass tragedy riff*


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

First off, aircraft. In the attached screenshot, we have the B5N2 Kate. Most of it is pretty self-explanatory, but there are a couple of things I want to explain.

First off, you see that the aircraft appears to come pre-installed with MAD and radar when it becomes available in April 1942. However, this is not the case. Instead, those devices do not appear until the devices themselves become available in 1944. In-Game, they will be greyed out until they become active.

Secondly, in the bottom right corner, you see that we have added the ability to enter specific ranges for any aircraft, with or without drop tanks. Very useful, and less difficult to find than you'd think.

[image]local://upfiles/16369/0CD1A7DAD4F44A37B03CA8320FD19FD4.jpg[/image]




Shark7 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/23/2009 2:44:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Segue'ing from aircraft to air groups, here's how that tab in the editor looks. Notice the following (from top to bottom):

- You can rename air groups at given dates. The Japs were fond of this.

- Any air group can be defined as the parent of a detachment of itself, which can be pre-defined. This functionality is similar to the land unit system, which I'll look at later.

- Any air groups can be withdrawn and returned later, like ships and land units.

- Air groups can be set to be resized at a given date (3 or 4 times, IIRC).



[image]local://upfiles/16369/4093100977FF4E449FBCFE8218ED32C7.jpg[/image]


I notice here under air groups that we have a check box for 'Trainer'. Does this mean that we will have on map training squadrons in AE, and could I get a look at such a group?



Terminus -> RE: Admiral's Edition Editor Thread (3/23/2009 2:52:11 PM)

Yes and no. We have no "trainer" aircraft per se, but there are squadrons with the training functionality.



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875