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: Ship SUnk Screen

 
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: Ship SUnk Screen Page: <<   < prev  29 30 [31] 32 33   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/15/2008 3:14:25 PM   
freeboy

 

Posts: 9088
Joined: 5/16/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		ok, is there a new ship v ship intercept or attack? this was a game killer for me before

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 901
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/15/2008 3:24:30 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

Will damage control capability be more service specific? Ie..right now Allied damage control applies to every ship type in every service, including civilian merchants. Should really just apply to warships I'd say. Same goes for Japan, perhaps a different capability for warships and merchants.


You can probably handle this adequately by taking into account crew and captain ratings.


You may be right at that! Thanks Herwin.


_____________________________





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 #: 902
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/15/2008 3:50:27 PM   
Apollo11


Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline 		Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, is there a new ship v ship intercept or attack? this was a game killer for me before


We were informed that open ocean ship vs. ship interceptions will be in upcoming WitP AE!


Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________



Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 903
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/15/2008 3:50:29 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		I'm thinking it might be intelligent to turn over all responsibility for tactical operations to the AI.

Currently, a SAG on patrol will react away from a CVTF and will react into a base hex being attacked. CVTFs react towards enemy TFs. What I am suggesting is that CVTFs on patrol react automatically to maintain a distance of about 180 nm from enemy TFs during flying weather and 240 nm when socked in or at night. It might be possible to model turning into the wind as well. All this would be handled by the AI. SAGs on patrol would maintain a distance of 180 nm from enemy CVTFs during the day and night and would also have a chance of reacting into an enemy TF's hex (and back, so this would be at half reaction range) in non-flying conditions. Again this would be handled by the AI.

Alternatively, set the reaction distance as currently and use it to control the AI. CVTFs on patrol would react automatically to maintain that distance from spotted enemy TFs during flying weather and at least one greater when socked in or at night. SAGs on patrol would maintain that distance from spotted enemy CVTFs during the day and night and would also have a chance based on commander aggressiveness of reacting into an enemy TF's hex at that distance in non-flying conditions. Fuel usage should reflect this stuff, with CVTFs speeding up to full speed (without changing their hex) during air strike operations.

So a CVTF with a reaction distance of 6 would react to stay 6 hexes from enemy TFs during the day and 7 hexes during the night. A SAG with a reaction distance of 6 would maintain that distance and have a chance of reacting to an enemy TF at that distance. Typically, TFs would be given a reaction distance of 3 or 4. Setting the reaction distance to 0 would mean 'no AI, follow my orders'. Perhaps reaction distance could also be used to control the AI for other kinds of TFs.

_____________________________

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 freeboy)
Post #: 904
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/15/2008 4:41:04 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: The Gnome
Hey I read and digested as much of this as I could, so sorry if a few or all of these questions were answered.
1) Will a ship have a kill list? I'd love to see who sunk what/when (assuming intelligence knows).
2) Any changes to TF management?
3) Is there a change list hanging around anyplace without having to pour through the small book of posts you guys have made? :) :)

1) No. Come'on, who ya kiddin, and does it matter ??


What does it matter? It matters for FUN of course - you know.... the reason to play!

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 905
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/16/2008 7:47:34 AM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		Is there a chance for a TF to have a "fuel expenditure" field or something like that to indicate how much fuel on average would its current orders spend. Would make planning of large operations so much easier.

(in reply to The Gnome)
Post #: 906
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/17/2008 3:43:48 AM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: String

Is there a chance for a TF to have a "fuel expenditure" field or something like that to indicate how much fuel on average would its current orders spend. Would make planning of large operations so much easier.

I think it already does; suggest you look at your present TF screens. See those fields that say 'endurance required', and those fields that say 'endurance' ? And those little endurance fields that only show up in red when you task a TF to go where it doesn't have the endurnce to go to ?

(in reply to String)
Post #: 907
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/17/2008 5:04:34 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: String

Is there a chance for a TF to have a "fuel expenditure" field or something like that to indicate how much fuel on average would its current orders spend. Would make planning of large operations so much easier.

I think it already does; suggest you look at your present TF screens. See those fields that say 'endurance required', and those fields that say 'endurance' ? And those little endurance fields that only show up in red when you task a TF to go where it doesn't have the endurnce to go to ?


Minor stuff in the 'would be nice' category:

A couple of shortcomings with those present displays -

1) The endurance required (on the TF screen) always includes the trip to 'home port'. This makes it hard to figure out how much to just get to where you told it to, which is useful if you have at sea refueling planned for sometime that the display (obviously) doesn't know about.

2) The endurance is always given for Mission Speed. Would be nice if it displayed for whatever the current setting is (Mission, Cruise, or Full).

3) On the ship display (click on a ship that's on the TF screen) only shows fuel on hand and range at mission speed. There should be a slash "/", after which is shown what the 100% totals would be. Currently the only way to know the full range of a ship is to get the ship refueled in port to see it actually full.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 1/17/2008 5:06:41 AM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 908
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/17/2008 6:26:08 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

3) On the ship display (click on a ship that's on the TF screen) only shows fuel on hand and range at mission speed. There should be a slash "/", after which is shown what the 100% totals would be. Currently the only way to know the full range of a ship is to get the ship refueled in port to see it actually full.


I second this one. It would be nice to see what a ship's range "topped off" would be, even when the ship is in a TF in the middle of the map with half its fuel expended.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 909
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/17/2008 2:29:38 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Question. Is there anyway for a player to select a hex for his TFs to retire too after completion of a mission...the home port default is a killer to multiple TF cohesiveness. Better still, would it be possible to pre-order a TF to follow another TF upon completion of its mission (instead of the default home port destination)? Be really cool if a player had even more lattitude here, ie, be able to order a TF to remain 1 hex SE of main TF (the one it is ordered to follow)?

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/17/2008 2:32:16 PM >

_____________________________





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

(in reply to GaryChildress)
Post #: 910
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/17/2008 3:00:53 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 911
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/17/2008 4:43:48 PM   
Ron Saueracker


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.


Cool. Anything should help here.


_____________________________





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 #: 912
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/17/2008 5:43:06 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.


Cool. Anything should help here.




Currently you can set up to three intermediate "waypoints" in AE. And you can also define a TF "patrol zone" of up to three "waypoints". Both are still being de-bugged a bit..., but seem to be working fairly well in my experiance. Warning: they do tempt you to do even more "clicking", so if your carpal tunnel is already acting up....

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 913
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/17/2008 5:55:32 PM   
treespider


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

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Question. ... Be really cool if a player had even more lattitude here, ie, be able to order a TF to remain 1 hex SE of main TF (the one it is ordered to follow)?



IIRC there is also a provision to 'follow' a TF by X number of hexes...not necessarily the same as telling it to remain SE ...but similar.

_____________________________

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 #: 914
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/17/2008 6:20:54 PM   
herwin

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.


Cool. Anything should help here.




Currently you can set up to three intermediate "waypoints" in AE. And you can also define a TF "patrol zone" of up to three "waypoints". Both are still being de-bugged a bit..., but seem to be working fairly well in my experiance. Warning: they do tempt you to do even more "clicking", so if your carpal tunnel is already acting up....



Would giving even more of the tactical role to the AI make this work better?

_____________________________

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 Mike Scholl)
Post #: 915
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/17/2008 7:00:21 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
IIRC there is also a provision to 'follow' a TF by X number of hexes...not necessarily the same as telling it to remain SE ...but similar.



Haven't seen one in AE so far....

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 916
RE: Ship SUnk Screen - 1/17/2008 7:06:06 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
Would giving even more of the tactical role to the AI make this work better?



Not sure how..., the AI really doesn't seem equipped to handle it---and I think the major reason for including "waypoints" and the like was player requests for more controllability. My "personal desire" would be for the AI to "back off" and let MY units follow MY orders... Might get clobbered..., but at least it will be my fault.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 917
Ship Sunk Screen Numbers - 1/18/2008 3:54:57 PM   
siRkid


Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline 		Can you list the number of ships sunk for each class of ships on the Ship Sunk Screen? It would only show the numbers for the ships displayed. For example, if you turned off Allie it would only count the Jap ships sunk. It would really help with Battle Damage Assessment.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

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


(in reply to freeboy)
Post #: 918
RE: Submarine Bombardments - 1/19/2008 6:15:43 AM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Is there any place where we can view allies' naval OOB?


No, but since I'm doing the Allied OOB (well except Merchies, that's John's bit) I could answer any question you had. So ask away.

Sorry I haven't posted in the AE forum before. Been a little busy with AE and Carrier Force. Don't lurk the forums much anymore.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

I did ask this before but I think it got missed, or i missed the reply.

Has the resizing of the RN carrier airgroups been altered, could the airgoups just be set as default to the increased fighter compliment when they arrive, as they tend to resize within a month anyway. This allow would modding of the airgroups by people wanting to represent the increase in size on RN carrier compliments during the war.

Or will the airgroups re-size like the USN groups?

Regards

Neil.




Hi Neil. Not sure exactly, the coding works a bit over my head on this. But I can confirm in their late war refits British carriers are allowed to carry more planes, to represent the adoption of American style deck parks in late 1944. I believe my original idea way back when was to add in effect one more squadron for each carrier to arrive "Carrier Capable" with the intent that X amount of time spent on the carrier would make them Carrier Capable. Of course I was Naval Team Lead way back then, not sure if that ever panned out.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to mdiehl)
Post #: 919
ASW Missions - 1/20/2008 3:18:17 PM   
resconq


Posts: 21
Joined: 1/15/2008
Status: offline 		Will 25 still be the cap for TF size on ASW missions?  It always seemed gamey in that 25 destroyers making contact with a sub will usually result in the demise of said sub.

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 920
RE: ASW Missions - 1/20/2008 3:35:40 PM   
herwin

 

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

ORIGINAL: resconq

Will 25 still be the cap for TF size on ASW missions?  It always seemed gamey in that 25 destroyers making contact with a sub will usually result in the demise of said sub.


In reality, the primary constraint on ASW was search rate. 25 destroyers in a hex was doubly inefficient. It was so detectable that the subs would avoid it, and it meant that the search segments for each DD overlapped.

_____________________________

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 resconq)
Post #: 921
RE: ASW Missions - 1/20/2008 8:50:37 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		Practically the whole idea of ASW TFs is bogus. Having a bunch of DDs charging around the ocean (with or without a CV/CVE) had been tried and found to be ineffective long before there even was a war in the Pacific. The ocean is just too dang big and the surface ships are almost certainly going to be detected by the submarine before they detect it (and at such a range that it has plenty of time to manuever out of the surface ships' way).

With SIGINT support the USN had some success late in the war with ASW TFs that operated independently of convoys but the success of ASW TFs mostly came from rendering aid to convoys which had come under attack from a wolf pack. Players can actually employ this latter tactic effectively in WitP.

The same can be said of the aircraft ASW mission. General search of wide swaths of the ocean were for the most part about as effective as we see in WitP. Aircraft (particularly long range aircraft) which however, flew in direct support of a convoy were quite effective in both preventing attacks on the convoy and damaging or sinking submarines which were trying to intercept the convoy. An ASW mission which operated like the LRCAP mission (in WitP) would reflect what turned out to be the most effective employment of ASW aircraft. The only exception to the above IRL was the Bay of Biscay operations where ASW aircraft were able to search transit lanes (essentially very limited areas) to/from established and well known submarine bases or (once again) where SIGINT provided timely knowledge of a submarine's position.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 922
RE: ASW Missions - 1/20/2008 9:25:46 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline 		Accurate and to the point. Gibraltar was also a choke point.

_____________________________

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 spence)
Post #: 923
RE: ASW Missions - 1/20/2008 9:52:22 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I thought that a productive technique was when radar equipped ASW aircraft spotted a submarine ASW TF's could be vectored in.

In WITP sending ASW TF's around yields only chance encounters, but rushing toward an aerial search contact yields more ASW attacks. Seems to mirror what I've read. Note that I am not talking about any other aspects on ASW in game.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 924
RE: ASW Missions - 1/20/2008 11:10:22 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		Convoy system in fact was not only defensive weapon, but also an offensive one. With enough escort  forces (naval and air) it poses enough strike force to kill enemy submarines forced to attack convoys because of lack of solo-targets.
Adm. King realized this too (but late :o)


_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 925
RE: ASW Missions - 1/20/2008 11:27:48 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: resconq

Will 25 still be the cap for TF size on ASW missions?  It always seemed gamey in that 25 destroyers making contact with a sub will usually result in the demise of said sub.


Nope

(in reply to resconq)
Post #: 926
RE: ASW Missions - 1/21/2008 3:06:52 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		IIRC there is a limit of maybe 99 aircraft on a carrier. In AE will the code be able to handle the 130 aircraft for the CV Midway?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 927
RE: ASW Missions - 1/21/2008 3:35:05 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

I thought that a productive technique was when radar equipped ASW aircraft spotted a submarine ASW TF's could be vectored in.

In WITP sending ASW TF's around yields only chance encounters, but rushing toward an aerial search contact yields more ASW attacks. Seems to mirror what I've read. Note that I am not talking about any other aspects on ASW in game.



The ocean is big. Really, really big. Getting the a/c somewhere near the submarine in the first place was the problem (hence the importance of SIGINT and chokepoints). When you're using convoys most of the ocean is empty nothingness and the submarines are forced to come to you . You know where the convoys are.

Tactically the submarines were also forced to transmit on the radio to tell other submarines that they'd found something. Once HFDF receivers were put onto the convoy escorts and a/c that meant they could follow the transmission's line of bearing and attack the sub before it was in position to attack the convoy. When the number of escorts was large or a support group was handy the escorts could literally sit on the contact until it had to come up for air.

The use of HFDF by the escorts was an important contribution to defeating the U-boats in the Atlantic. Were Japanese escort vessels equipped with a tactical HFDF (I know they had the same sort of shore stations as the Allies but those did not give tactically useful information to an escort's captain; only general information such as knowledge that the subs were in the area)?

< Message edited by spence -- 1/21/2008 3:36:40 PM >

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 928
RE: ASW Missions - 1/21/2008 3:51:14 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
The ocean is big. Really, really big. Getting the a/c somewhere near the submarine in the first place was the problem (hence the importance of SIGINT and chokepoints). When you're using convoys most of the ocean is empty nothingness and the submarines are forced to come to you . You know where the convoys are.



Actually, thanks to code-breaking, we knew where most of them were most of the time. The Japs had their shipping (naval and civilian) reporting their "noontime positions" back to Tokyo every day. Only problems arose when the ship couldn't calculate it's own position accurately to report it.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 929
RE: ASW Missions - 1/21/2008 4:39:35 PM   
herwin

 

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

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
The ocean is big. Really, really big. Getting the a/c somewhere near the submarine in the first place was the problem (hence the importance of SIGINT and chokepoints). When you're using convoys most of the ocean is empty nothingness and the submarines are forced to come to you . You know where the convoys are.



Actually, thanks to code-breaking, we knew where most of them were most of the time. The Japs had their shipping (naval and civilian) reporting their "noontime positions" back to Tokyo every day. Only problems arose when the ship couldn't calculate it's own position accurately to report it.



Or when they changed the code, but just for a few days.

_____________________________

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 Mike Scholl)
Post #: 930
Page:   <<   < prev  29 30 [31] 32 33   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Ship SUnk Screen Page: <<   < prev  29 30 [31] 32 33   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

0.641