Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Submarine Bombardments

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Submarine Bombardments Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Submarine Bombardments - 1/6/2008 5:45:34 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		" We've been told that ships now have a withdrawl date attached to them rather than the current monthly withdraw ship routine:

1) Am I correct in assuming that this applies to all ships which are in the game, or just British? And not just warships?


Everything that's wet on the bottom and full of seamen.


Must fight... impulse... to make... bad joke...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 841
Ship SUnk Screen - 1/6/2008 1:36:20 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		Can we please get a date sunk column on the Ship Sunk screen?

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 842
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/6/2008 2:51:55 PM   
Q-Ball


Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline 		This may have been asked, but didn't see it. I get the new repair choices, but my question:

How long does it take to make a ship Offline vs. Online? And vice-versa? Basically, take it out of drydock and make it operational? I assume there is a lag, otherwise, why not just dock every ship?

(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 843
RE: Submarine Bombardments - 1/6/2008 5:28:57 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" We've been told that ships now have a withdrawl date attached to them rather than the current monthly withdraw ship routine:

1) Am I correct in assuming that this applies to all ships which are in the game, or just British? And not just warships?


Everything that's wet on the bottom and full of seamen.


Must fight... impulse... to make... bad joke...


Wow, I'm glad I didn't mention those screws in the rear end.



(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 844
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/6/2008 5:29:14 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

Can we please get a date sunk column on the Ship Sunk screen?


Yes




(in reply to siRkid)
Post #: 845
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/6/2008 5:35:08 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

This may have been asked, but didn't see it. I get the new repair choices, but my question:

How long does it take to make a ship Offline vs. Online? And vice-versa? Basically, take it out of drydock and make it operational? I assume there is a lag, otherwise, why not just dock every ship?


Taking a ship offline takes no time but does incur random additional damage. Returning a ship to service before completion of repairs takes a minimum number of days (around 3) or the time it has been offline (whichever is less).

Also, there is a limit on capacity for repairing ships offline (shipyard size, port size, available ARs). Take too many out of service and they have to queue up for repair services and some just sit and wait.

Increase priority on a ship and it steals repair resources from everyone else.

You will have to manage your repair resources carefully.


(in reply to Q-Ball)
Post #: 846
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/6/2008 9:13:55 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kid

Can we please get a date sunk column on the Ship Sunk screen?


Yes






Coolness! No chance of you guys adding an administrative tool for us grogs...the ability to organize ships into divisions, squadrons etc, to alleviate some of the workload (especially later in the game with bazillions of ships, is there? I asked before so I guess this qualifies as harassment!! Paaaaawleeeeeaaaaase......................


< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/6/2008 9:19:13 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 847
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/6/2008 9:31:12 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline 		My understanding (though I do not remember the source) is that the commander of the Japanese sub that shelled the USA had actually visited the oil terminal you shelled in the late 1930s.  The story I  read said that he fell through a peir and was laughed at by some of the guys working there.  Years later, he came back for revenge...

But it still does not justify submarine bombardment capabilities. 

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 848
RE: Ship Sunk Screen - 1/6/2008 9:57:50 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Coolness! No chance of you guys adding an administrative tool for us grogs...the ability to organize ships into divisions, squadrons etc, to alleviate some of the workload (especially later in the game with bazillions of ships, is there? I asked before so I guess this qualifies as harassment!! Paaaaawleeeeeaaaaase......................



Yes and No.

Yes - you can assign ships to lower level HQs as an organizational aid. Then search for ships assigned to that HQ. HQs in this regard will be things like Sub-Fleets within Command HQ, etc. They must be Naval HQs. You can group assign all of the ships in the sub HQ to another Command HQ.

No - you can not assign all ships of a given HQ to a Task Force. These are not squadrons or flotillas, and no mechanism exists to group them or keep them together on the map. We did look at this, but there were a large number of issues, both design and code.







(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 849
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/6/2008 9:58:22 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Coolness! No chance of you guys adding an administrative tool for us grogs...the ability to organize ships into divisions, squadrons etc, to alleviate some of the workload (especially later in the game with bazillions of ships, is there? I asked before so I guess this qualifies as harassment!! Paaaaawleeeeeaaaaase......................


Awww, dude …

No, that won’t work. Organization on that level requires HQs, and such, and there’s just no room for divisional level admin, outside a TF structure. Can you imagine the confusion of making and breaking up billions of DesRons; kinda like IRL in ’42, ain’t it.

I hear you though. In my wargaming group’s games, we’ve been organizing amphib TFs into TransRons and TransDivs forever, but that’s cause we want to keep Kosher. We are thinking, however, about bifurcating the cargo classes.

An AK(A) or AP(A), was a commissioned vessel with specific utility that the SS Wynette didn’t have. WiTP-1 allowed any old vessel to comprise an assault TF. If our thinking is clear, AE will force limitations on amphib TFs to those ships that were actually capable of participating.

That’s not to say the SS Wynette can’t go into an amphib TF, but if she does, she can’t unload at any reasonable rate (no boats, no strengthened kingposts, squat for AA), so anybody who wants to do that will get exactly what they deserve.

So, a very limited number of capable, commissioned ships, can play. Shouldn’t be hard to TF them into suitable TransRons or TransDivs. Know what I’m sayin ???

Ciao.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 850
RE: Submarine Bombardments - 1/6/2008 10:35:38 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Daily PP cost until withdrawl, I don't like it

1.How much does daily PP for a ship cost?

2.What happens to a ship on mission TF, it's withdrawl date comes up?

3. Am I going to start getiing charged daily PP's until the ship returns to port?
This will make any ship near a withdrawl date usless, or limit where you can send it, who wants to waste PP's!

4. What happens to damaged ships, zero speed far from home port when it's withdrawl date comes up?

5. A ship far from home, will I be charged PP's until it get back to it's home port?

6. Will ship be allowed to be withdrawn from any port?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 851
RE: Submarine Bombardments - 1/6/2008 10:57:36 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Daily PP cost until withdrawl, I don't like it

1.How much does daily PP for a ship cost?



Varies by ship type. I assure you, you can not afford it.


quote:



2.What happens to a ship on mission TF, it's withdrawl date comes up?



Nothing. You just start getting charged PPs


quote:



3. Am I going to start getiing charged daily PP's until the ship returns to port?
This will make any ship near a withdrawl date usless, or limit where you can send it, who wants to waste PP's!



Yup. You start getting warnings 30 days before withdrawal and a "who's due soon" screen is available.


quote:



4. What happens to damaged ships, zero speed far from home port when it's withdrawl date comes up?



The Atlantic Fleet does not care. They just want that ship back and you had better get it back.


quote:



5. A ship far from home, will I be charged PP's until it get back to it's home port?



You will be charged PPs until it is withdrawn. Home port is not an issue.


quote:



6. Will ship be allowed to be withdrawn from any port?



NO - you must move them off map.


Basically, Churchill or King or someone is banging on the desk. Torch, or Overload, or something is coming up and they want that ship!



(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 852
RE: Submarine Bombardments - 1/7/2008 12:57:37 AM   
Fishbed

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 11/21/2005
From: Beijing, China - Paris, France
Status: offline 		Good enough for me. I would complain if I had no clue about who's due when, but if we have a screen with warnings showing up 30 days before this very date we have to tell her goodbye, well that's fair-play.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 853
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 1:18:00 AM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tom Hunter

My understanding (though I do not remember the source) is that the commander of the Japanese sub that shelled the USA had actually visited the oil terminal you shelled in the late 1930s. 

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)



Cranky, maybe, but I didn't know Ron was that old! And an eco-warrior to boot!


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 854
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 2:45:42 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Coolness! No chance of you guys adding an administrative tool for us grogs...the ability to organize ships into divisions, squadrons etc, to alleviate some of the workload (especially later in the game with bazillions of ships, is there? I asked before so I guess this qualifies as harassment!! Paaaaawleeeeeaaaaase......................


Awww, dude …

No, that won’t work. Organization on that level requires HQs, and such, and there’s just no room for divisional level admin, outside a TF structure. Can you imagine the confusion of making and breaking up billions of DesRons; kinda like IRL in ’42, ain’t it.

I hear you though. In my wargaming group’s games, we’ve been organizing amphib TFs into TransRons and TransDivs forever, but that’s cause we want to keep Kosher. We are thinking, however, about bifurcating the cargo classes.

An AK(A) or AP(A), was a commissioned vessel with specific utility that the SS Wynette didn’t have. WiTP-1 allowed any old vessel to comprise an assault TF. If our thinking is clear, AE will force limitations on amphib TFs to those ships that were actually capable of participating.

That’s not to say the SS Wynette can’t go into an amphib TF, but if she does, she can’t unload at any reasonable rate (no boats, no strengthened kingposts, squat for AA), so anybody who wants to do that will get exactly what they deserve.

So, a very limited number of capable, commissioned ships, can play. Shouldn’t be hard to TF them into suitable TransRons or TransDivs. Know what I’m sayin ???

Ciao.



So, a player placing ships in an admin formation like a division and then placing this division into a TF (instead of individual ships...ie TF 200 is made up of CarDiv1 :Lex and Sara, Crudiv 4 :Astoria, Quincy and Vincennes and DesDiv 12: Lang, Benham, Ellet, Mayrant) is that much more complicated than placing individual ships in a TF? It is only one more step but once accomplished, simplifies the players burden.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 855
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 2:54:16 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Coolness! No chance of you guys adding an administrative tool for us grogs...the ability to organize ships into divisions, squadrons etc, to alleviate some of the workload (especially later in the game with bazillions of ships, is there? I asked before so I guess this qualifies as harassment!! Paaaaawleeeeeaaaaase......................


Awww, dude …

No, that won’t work. Organization on that level requires HQs, and such, and there’s just no room for divisional level admin, outside a TF structure. Can you imagine the confusion of making and breaking up billions of DesRons; kinda like IRL in ’42, ain’t it.

I hear you though. In my wargaming group’s games, we’ve been organizing amphib TFs into TransRons and TransDivs forever, but that’s cause we want to keep Kosher. We are thinking, however, about bifurcating the cargo classes.

An AK(A) or AP(A), was a commissioned vessel with specific utility that the SS Wynette didn’t have. WiTP-1 allowed any old vessel to comprise an assault TF. If our thinking is clear, AE will force limitations on amphib TFs to those ships that were actually capable of participating.

That’s not to say the SS Wynette can’t go into an amphib TF, but if she does, she can’t unload at any reasonable rate (no boats, no strengthened kingposts, squat for AA), so anybody who wants to do that will get exactly what they deserve.

So, a very limited number of capable, commissioned ships, can play. Shouldn’t be hard to TF them into suitable TransRons or TransDivs. Know what I’m sayin ???

Ciao.



So, a player placing ships in an admin formation like a division and then placing this division into a TF (instead of individual ships...ie TF 200 is made up of CarDiv1 :Lex and Sara, Crudiv 4 :Astoria, Quincy and Vincennes and DesDiv 12: Lang, Benham, Ellet, Mayrant) is that much more complicated than placing individual ships in a TF? It is only one more step but once accomplished, simplifies the players burden.




To put into english - Ron wants to be able to assign TF's to be part of TF's. So TF 1 may actually be CarDiv1 and he wants to asign TF 12 which is DesRon 12 to TF 1 and have them function like one TF.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 856
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 3:24:43 AM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

To put into english - Ron wants to be able to assign TF's to be part of TF's. So TF 1 may actually be CarDiv1 and he wants to asign TF 12 which is DesRon 12 to TF 1 and have them function like one TF.


Ron explained his request well and I like it. Since it won't make AE "maybe" it could make it into WITP2? One can hope.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 857
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 4:04:14 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Coolness! No chance of you guys adding an administrative tool for us grogs...the ability to organize ships into divisions, squadrons etc, to alleviate some of the workload (especially later in the game with bazillions of ships, is there? I asked before so I guess this qualifies as harassment!! Paaaaawleeeeeaaaaase......................


Awww, dude …

No, that won’t work. Organization on that level requires HQs, and such, and there’s just no room for divisional level admin, outside a TF structure. Can you imagine the confusion of making and breaking up billions of DesRons; kinda like IRL in ’42, ain’t it.

I hear you though. In my wargaming group’s games, we’ve been organizing amphib TFs into TransRons and TransDivs forever, but that’s cause we want to keep Kosher. We are thinking, however, about bifurcating the cargo classes.

An AK(A) or AP(A), was a commissioned vessel with specific utility that the SS Wynette didn’t have. WiTP-1 allowed any old vessel to comprise an assault TF. If our thinking is clear, AE will force limitations on amphib TFs to those ships that were actually capable of participating.

That’s not to say the SS Wynette can’t go into an amphib TF, but if she does, she can’t unload at any reasonable rate (no boats, no strengthened kingposts, squat for AA), so anybody who wants to do that will get exactly what they deserve.

So, a very limited number of capable, commissioned ships, can play. Shouldn’t be hard to TF them into suitable TransRons or TransDivs. Know what I’m sayin ???

Ciao.



So, a player placing ships in an admin formation like a division and then placing this division into a TF (instead of individual ships...ie TF 200 is made up of CarDiv1 :Lex and Sara, Crudiv 4 :Astoria, Quincy and Vincennes and DesDiv 12: Lang, Benham, Ellet, Mayrant) is that much more complicated than placing individual ships in a TF? It is only one more step but once accomplished, simplifies the players burden.



Yes, Ron, it is immensely more complex. Exponentially more difficult.

We looked at it, we ain't going to do it.





(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 858
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 5:37:05 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Original Question
quote:


4. What happens to damaged ships, zero speed far from home port when it's withdrawl date comes up?


Reply

quote:

The Atlantic Fleet does not care. They just want that ship back and you had better get it back.


Huh, so I'm trying to get a withdrawn ship far from an exit hex, it get's torpedoed, doesn't sink, zero speed, so I get charged PP's until it's repaired and makes it to the exit hex or sinks??? This doesn't even make sense and takes the whole withdrawal and PP process a couple of steps too far! Forget this, invest more time/effort in a better AI!


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 859
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 6:21:08 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		Ship withdrawal:

Why can't an identical, or better class suffice for the withdrawal. Does Home Fleet demand HMS Caradoc or would HMS Suffolk or Warspite suffice??

Making it the exact ship is too much reliving RL, but for one side only.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 860
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 6:30:39 AM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Original Question
quote:


4. What happens to damaged ships, zero speed far from home port when it's withdrawl date comes up?


Reply

quote:

The Atlantic Fleet does not care. They just want that ship back and you had better get it back.


Huh, so I'm trying to get a withdrawn ship far from an exit hex, it get's torpedoed, doesn't sink, zero speed, so I get charged PP's until it's repaired and makes it to the exit hex or sinks??? This doesn't even make sense and takes the whole withdrawal and PP process a couple of steps too far! Forget this, invest more time/effort in a better AI!




At zero speed isn't it likely you could SCUTTLE it? Which I would think should eliminate the ongoing PP cost.

This could be a good change for the game, only time and playing will tell.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 861
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 6:34:36 AM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Ship withdrawal:

Why can't an identical, or better class suffice for the withdrawal. Does Home Fleet demand HMS Caradoc or would HMS Suffolk or Warspite suffice??



This seems to make sense and be viable, unless I am missing some "intent" of this change by the team.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 862
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 8:25:17 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
Coolness! No chance of you guys adding an administrative tool for us grogs...the ability to organize ships into divisions, squadrons etc, to alleviate some of the workload (especially later in the game with bazillions of ships, is there? I asked before so I guess this qualifies as harassment!! Paaaaawleeeeeaaaaase......................


Awww, dude …

No, that won’t work. Organization on that level requires HQs, and such, and there’s just no room for divisional level admin, outside a TF structure. Can you imagine the confusion of making and breaking up billions of DesRons; kinda like IRL in ’42, ain’t it.

I hear you though. In my wargaming group’s games, we’ve been organizing amphib TFs into TransRons and TransDivs forever, but that’s cause we want to keep Kosher. We are thinking, however, about bifurcating the cargo classes.

An AK(A) or AP(A), was a commissioned vessel with specific utility that the SS Wynette didn’t have. WiTP-1 allowed any old vessel to comprise an assault TF. If our thinking is clear, AE will force limitations on amphib TFs to those ships that were actually capable of participating.

That’s not to say the SS Wynette can’t go into an amphib TF, but if she does, she can’t unload at any reasonable rate (no boats, no strengthened kingposts, squat for AA), so anybody who wants to do that will get exactly what they deserve.

So, a very limited number of capable, commissioned ships, can play. Shouldn’t be hard to TF them into suitable TransRons or TransDivs. Know what I’m sayin ???

Ciao.



So, a player placing ships in an admin formation like a division and then placing this division into a TF (instead of individual ships...ie TF 200 is made up of CarDiv1 :Lex and Sara, Crudiv 4 :Astoria, Quincy and Vincennes and DesDiv 12: Lang, Benham, Ellet, Mayrant) is that much more complicated than placing individual ships in a TF? It is only one more step but once accomplished, simplifies the players burden.



Yes, Ron, it is immensely more complex. Exponentially more difficult.

We looked at it, we ain't going to do it.







OK... had no idea such a simple concept was such a bugger to implement. Thanks for looking into it guys.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 863
RE: Submarine Bombardments - 1/7/2008 11:50:35 AM   
Brausepaul


Posts: 484
Joined: 8/11/2004
From: Braunschweig, Deutschland
Status: offline 		What about a more realistic ship upgrade procedure? Right now, if you put in a ship with two upgrades due (let's say 2/42 and 10/42) in 1/43 will first start the 2/42 upgrade (thus "damaging" the ship), and after repairing it it will "damage" the ship again with the 10/42 upgrade. Wouldn't it be more logical if these two upgrades caused less damaged when carried out at the same time?

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 864
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 12:30:33 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Original Question
quote:


4. What happens to damaged ships, zero speed far from home port when it's withdrawl date comes up?


Reply

quote:

The Atlantic Fleet does not care. They just want that ship back and you had better get it back.


Huh, so I'm trying to get a withdrawn ship far from an exit hex, it get's torpedoed, doesn't sink, zero speed, so I get charged PP's until it's repaired and makes it to the exit hex or sinks??? This doesn't even make sense and takes the whole withdrawal and PP process a couple of steps too far! Forget this, invest more time/effort in a better AI!




At zero speed isn't it likely you could SCUTTLE it? Which I would think should eliminate the ongoing PP cost.

This could be a good change for the game, only time and playing will tell.


The real-life advantage of scuttling is that you save the crew. I think that saves more than the game gives credit for.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 865
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 1:50:49 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The real-life advantage of scuttling is that you save the crew. I think that saves more than the game gives credit for.


You're quite right - maybe this is something that can be improved in AE (given that it's only a VP adjustment)?

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 866
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 2:09:54 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The real-life advantage of scuttling is that you save the crew. I think that saves more than the game gives credit for.


You're quite right - maybe this is something that can be improved in AE (given that it's only a VP adjustment)?


Oh, just add crew factors (like LCU squads) and be done with it. Improve the game and add a little humanity to the game...and massive VP increases for ships to boot.


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 867
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 4:22:33 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The real-life advantage of scuttling is that you save the crew. I think that saves more than the game gives credit for.


You're quite right - maybe this is something that can be improved in AE (given that it's only a VP adjustment)?


Oh, just add crew factors (like LCU squads) and be done with it. Improve the game and add a little humanity to the game...and massive VP increases for ships to boot.


How massive?

The RN R class had a peacetime crew of about 1100. The QE class was about 1300. The KGV was up to 1550. The USN South Dakota class was 1800 peacetime and 2500 wartime. The Iowas were designed for 1900 peacetime. The Yamato was 2767. Carriers were comparable.

How much is saved by scuttling them?

I checked and it isn't as much as it should. Just counting the crew as infantry (30/Allied VP loss, 60/Japanese VP loss) implies that scuttling an Allied DD saves 6-7 VPs, a CL or CA saves 26-27, a BB 40-80, and a CV saves about 60. In some cases, the crew is worth more as infantry than the ship.

< Message edited by herwin -- 1/7/2008 5:14:14 PM >

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 868
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 4:34:07 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Regarding Ship Damage and respective Damage Control. Anything being done with the changes to ship damage to alleviate the, what in my opinion anyway, is the rather severe progressive flooding model which all nationalities are impacted? The Japanese suffer especially from the perceived inability to stem flooding, yet I suspect this was based on such rare occurances as Shinano's sinking, the result of a rare set of conditions at the very least. Japan's only failing was an early war inability to combat shipboard fires, principally avgas fueled fires on its CVs.

Reducing the effects of flood damage might assist the poor AI as it fails to have any provision to deal with damaged ships...ie, send them to the nearest port, not to their "home port", which could be hundreds or thousands of miles away. Correcting this code issue would help too.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 869
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/7/2008 4:35:57 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

The real-life advantage of scuttling is that you save the crew. I think that saves more than the game gives credit for.


You're quite right - maybe this is something that can be improved in AE (given that it's only a VP adjustment)?


Oh, just add crew factors (like LCU squads) and be done with it. Improve the game and add a little humanity to the game...and massive VP increases for ships to boot.


How massive?

The RN R class had a peacetime crew of about 1100. The QE class was about 1300. The KGV was up to 1550. The USN South Dakota class was 1800 peacetime and 2500 wartime. The Iowas were designed for 1900 peacetime. The Yamato was 2767. Carriers were comparable.

How much is saved by scuttling them?


Well, if crew factors were modelled, they would have experience, would not be in infinite supply, and would have VP value like LCU squads. Currently, I think 10% of the ship VP value is "saved" (deducted) if scuttled.


< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/7/2008 4:36:56 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 870
Page:   <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Submarine Bombardments Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.156