The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread

The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (Full Version)

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

Message

Shark7 -> The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/3/2011 2:57:11 AM)
I'm going to make 1 thread for all my future, 'what do you guys think?' questions so I don't fill the board up with question threads. Here is the latest, Light Cruiser Arethusa from 1914. While it was a cruiser in WWI, it has more of the characteristics of a DD Leader by WWII. So my question is, looking at the ship, how would the rest of you class it, as a CL like I have, or as something else? Gunboat perhaps? [image]local://upfiles/25927/925960DB450D4BDA9B6B78C194640C88.jpg[/image]

witpqs -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/3/2011 3:43:47 AM)
As a CL. 6" guns!

oldman45 -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/3/2011 3:48:59 AM)
Keep it a CL

Shark7 -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/3/2011 4:08:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs As a CL. 6" guns! Remember, the Porter class DD Leaders originally had 6" guns as well. This is an old CL and the armament is very light, which is why I thought possibly PG.

oldman45 -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/3/2011 4:13:17 AM)
Well its a valid arguement, look at the coastal class ships that are listed as PG's. On the same token, I think the "D" class CL's are rather old by WWII and they are CL's

Shark7 -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/3/2011 4:18:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: oldman45 Well its a valid arguement, look at the coastal class ships that are listed as PG's. On the same token, I think the "D" class CL's are rather old by WWII and they are CL's I'm thinking more about how the AI will handle it. You and I look at it, and we see it is a CL, but it is a very poor choice for the duties a CL would normally carry out. The AI simply sees it as a CL and might try to stick it in a carrier task force...to its own detriment. For the sake of the AI, I might be better off classing these as gunboats, so the AI will use them in a way that is more appropriate to their capabilities.

el cid again -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/3/2011 6:41:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shark7 quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs As a CL. 6" guns! Remember, the Porter class DD Leaders originally had 6" guns as well. This is an old CL and the armament is very light, which is why I thought possibly PG. I think ships are treated according to classification. Thus, a CL behaves differently than a DD. A CL can have an airplane - a DD is probably better at ASW. To the extent these things are known, classification ought to put a ship where it will be treated more like what it is. In an ancester of this system, you got better ASW if you classified as a DE. You got the ability to carry a plane if you classify as a CL (even though some DD and even auxiliaries carry planes IRL, code ignored them in game terms. So an auxiliary cruiser classified as a CL could have a plane, but one classified as a PG or AK could not.

Whisper -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/3/2011 6:51:53 PM)
Totally wrong. The developers put a high degree of flexibility into the system. Any ship can carry a plane, any ship can mines or DCs, or 16 inch guns. But what a ship can "do" depends on its place, and its type-flag in one of many, many type-matrix definitions. You have no clue how this game works. And I really wish you would just shut up, because you are giving false information to people.

Shark7 -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/3/2011 7:00:05 PM)
Well I ran a quick test using AE to check this and as you can see by the screenshot, the airgroup is snuggly nestled in with the ship classed as a PG. So it does seem to work to put a float plane on any ship in AE, without limits by the class type. [image]local://upfiles/25927/6BD52CCB2B8249209EBA5CC926A823AB.jpg[/image]

Andy Mac -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/3/2011 8:31:29 PM)
I would leave it as a CL the AI is smart enough to relaise its not a good CL for an ACTF BUT in a pinch if nothing better is available you want the AI to use it. When dealing with the AI my normal rule of thumb is there are three classes of shgip the AI uses really well or is always short of. 1. Destroyers Destroyers Destroyers my kingdom for more destroyers - Destroyers are the number 1 reason why the Ai occasionally does not form TF's they are multipurpose can be used by most TF types as escort and are required for some types to form - these work horses are always required 2. CL's again workhorses and multi purpose ships good AA decent endurance and speed CL's can be used by a large number of AI TF's and are good ships to have in TF's 3. Ironically AMC's - they are of use in a lot of TF's as aux surface escorts and they provide welcome hitting power for small convoys as multipurpose escorts they help the AI a lot they basically substiture for CL's and DD's in a lot of transfport/cargo/tanker/amphib type TF's which makes them usefull in allowing the Ai to form TF;s- (hence in ironman the prevalant use of that class of ship)

Shark7 -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/3/2011 8:39:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac I would leave it as a CL the AI is smart enough to relaise its not a good CL for an ACTF BUT in a pinch if nothing better is available you want the AI to use it. When dealing with the AI my normal rule of thumb is there are three classes of shgip the AI uses really well or is always short of. 1. Destroyers Destroyers Destroyers my kingdom for more destroyers - Destroyers are the number 1 reason why the Ai occasionally does not form TF's they are multipurpose can be used by most TF types as escort and are required for some types to form - these work horses are always required 2. CL's again workhorses and multi purpose ships good AA decent endurance and speed CL's can be used by a large number of AI TF's and are good ships to have in TF's 3. Ironically AMC's - they are of use in a lot of TF's as aux surface escorts and they provide welcome hitting power for small convoys as multipurpose escorts they help the AI a lot they basically substiture for CL's and DD's in a lot of transfport/cargo/tanker/amphib type TF's which makes them usefull in allowing the Ai to form TF;s- (hence in ironman the prevalant use of that class of ship) Thank you Andy Mac, for giving me a glimpse into how the AI works. That was a nice, clear explanation of what I was needing to know. I will change these back to CLs on your suggestion.

m10bob -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/9/2011 12:35:59 PM)
Just a matter of trivia...Something like 8 of the American Fletcher DD's were fitted out to carry Kingfisher aircraft..They were later removed..(I can provide the names of those ships)..

Terminus -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/9/2011 12:41:37 PM)
I think only one or two of them went to sea with their aircraft embarked.

Shark7 -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/9/2011 4:37:18 PM)
Speaking of ships having a capability that was later removed... The Porter class originally was designed with 6" guns as Leader Destroyers. Given no Washington or London Naval treaties...would it be unrealistic to have them start the war with the 6" guns, or would they still have gone to 5" guns?

m10bob -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/9/2011 6:10:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus I think only one or two of them went to sea with their aircraft embarked. I have traded banter with you for maybe 7 years?..I will let you know when you are wrong.

Don Bowen -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/9/2011 6:20:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus I think only one or two of them went to sea with their aircraft embarked. And that only for experimentation. None were so used operationally and the aircraft handling equipment was removed.

Terminus -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/9/2011 6:30:42 PM)
Good thing, too. Can you imagine going into combat somewhere like the Solomons with a molotov cocktail... er, floatplane on your destroyer? [X(]

Terminus -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/9/2011 7:14:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus I think only one or two of them went to sea with their aircraft embarked. I have traded banter with you for maybe 7 years?..I will let you know when you are wrong. Pffft... Only been here for six years, Gramps...[:'(]

m10bob -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/10/2011 8:40:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus I think only one or two of them went to sea with their aircraft embarked. I have traded banter with you for maybe 7 years?..I will let you know when you are wrong. Pffft... Only been here for six years, Gramps...[:'(] I didn't think it showed..[sm=cool0013.gif]

m10bob -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/10/2011 8:42:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus I think only one or two of them went to sea with their aircraft embarked. And that only for experimentation. None were so used operationally and the aircraft handling equipment was removed. Tin Cans roll enough as it is. Obviously an idea thought up by someone who had never served on one?

Terminus -> RE: The 'Shark needs an opinion' thread (6/10/2011 9:34:44 AM)
Yeah, like Musette Bags and the canopy of early-model P-47s...

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.109375