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: Admiral's Edition General Thread

 
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: Admiral's Edition General Thread Page: <<   < prev  28 29 [30] 31 32   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/5/2008 6:17:38 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Also, has there been any change in the way Sigint files are handled? Can we read each other's sigint fils in PBEM in AE?


As it stands now, yes. I would like to see them encrypted, but that maybe something for a patch.

_____________________________


(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 871
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/5/2008 10:57:02 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" Example:
from the ops file:
OS2U-3L Kingfisher sighting report: 5 Japanese ships at 228,77 near San Diego, speed 18, Moving Northwest
This is a false report. There is no Jap 5 ship TFs near San Diego on Dec 9 1941"

Does this mean that there was a sub sighting there, or that the FOW is now giving us completely bogus sightings where there was nothing at all? I'm okay with a search plane claiming that one of my own TFs is an eenmy TF, but I'm not so cool with hallucinitory sightings...


You should look at the accuracy of sub sightings...

Pod of Whales, Dolphins, Odd wave patterns etc etc etc kept ASW squadrons sending out reaction groups in all Theatres.

What does a periscope look like in rough seas, cloudy skies and from 5-1000ft?

Damned if they did, damned if they didnt.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 872
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/6/2008 12:30:12 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Does this mean that there was a sub sighting there, or that the FOW is now giving us completely bogus sightings where there was nothing at all? I'm okay with a search plane claiming that one of my own TFs is an eenmy TF, but I'm not so cool with hallucinitory sightings...


"hallucinitory" sightings exist in war , also there is navigation/position errors, decryptation errors that when info reaches Commanders confuses things a lot.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 873
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/6/2008 6:05:44 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
quote:

As it stands now, yes. I would like to see them encrypted, but that maybe something for a patch.

Ah, OK. No worries; it hasn't ever been an issue for me in my PBEMs. But then I have always been blessed with honorable opponents. :)

_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 874
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2008 5:08:40 PM   
Alikchi2

 

Posts: 1785
Joined: 5/14/2004
Status: offline 		What sort of changes can we expect to see in the 1942 scenarios? Has the OOB been looked at?

_____________________________


(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 875
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2008 5:12:17 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Sorry, Alikchi, but there are no 1942 starts for the grand campaign. We're looking at two variants on the 12/7 full campaign game and three smaller scenarios for initial release, and one more partial-map scenario for the first patch.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Alikchi2)
Post #: 876
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2008 5:50:19 PM   
aphrochine


Posts: 189
Joined: 3/24/2008
From: Phoenix, AZ
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Sorry, Alikchi, but there are no 1942 starts for the grand campaign. We're looking at two variants on the 12/7 full campaign game and three smaller scenarios for initial release, and one more partial-map scenario for the first patch.


I really dont like playing the game in '41 and early '42. It's all Japan marching across the pacific, or allies trying to evac/sir robin until Japan starts to over extend itself. Really boring in terms of combat if you ask me. Perhaps the mod community will have a good apr/may/jun '42 campaign or something.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 877
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2008 5:53:04 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Most likely. The problem with a '42 campaign start is that it's actually quite difficult to do proper OOB research for it (as we see in the stock scenarios) and we didn't want to just re-release the old mish-mash.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 878
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2008 6:39:52 PM   
Alikchi2

 

Posts: 1785
Joined: 5/14/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Sorry, Alikchi, but there are no 1942 starts for the grand campaign. We're looking at two variants on the 12/7 full campaign game and three smaller scenarios for initial release, and one more partial-map scenario for the first patch.


Fair enough. You guys have enough on your hands as it is, anyhow, and I'm only really interested in the 41 scenarios...

You've piqued my interest in re: the smaller scenarios, though, I must say.

_____________________________


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 879
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2008 6:42:52 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The four smaller scens are Coral Sea, Aleutians, Guadalcanal and Downfall.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Alikchi2)
Post #: 880
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2008 7:44:43 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: Alikchi
You've piqued my interest in re: the smaller scenarios, though, I must say.

I too like smaller scenarios. I'm working on a couple; Terminus suggested a Philippine recapture scen, and Joe Wilkerson suggested a Solomons recapture scen. Both look sweet. Might show up in a patch.

Ciao. John

(in reply to Alikchi2)
Post #: 881
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/8/2008 8:09:47 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: JWE
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alikchi
You've piqued my interest in re: the smaller scenarios, though, I must say.

I too like smaller scenarios. I'm working on a couple; Terminus suggested a Philippine recapture scen, and Joe Wilkerson suggested a Solomons recapture scen. Both look sweet. Might show up in a patch.
Ciao. John

Would like your input on these, actually. Joe's Toenails campaign folds in with the Gilberts campaign. Some interesting ship tradeoffs for the US, and some very interesting reinforcement options for Japan. Wouldn't take much to expand the map and wouldn't take a whole lot to up the ante an the various OOB. Could restrict the US LCUs to where they went, but open up the Japanese options to an either-or state.

You got any thoughts ? Love to hear them. John


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 882
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/14/2008 9:34:30 PM   
Alikchi2

 

Posts: 1785
Joined: 5/14/2004
Status: offline 		Thinking of Fog of War here.. will it still be possible to see exact enemy losses in the daily screen? I remember a bit from PzB's AAR where he said "two Fulmars reported lost today, now I know that the Brit CVs are about" or something to that affect.

In re: the smaller scenarios, the more flexibility the better.. people play them because they want a quick matchup but it still needs to have some replayability. So the more options and choices you give the player, the more likely your scenario will be played.

_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 883
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/17/2008 1:34:13 AM   
doc smith

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		About SigInt.  The WitP reports don't really help.  Didn't the USN have better knowledge of where IJN heavies were located?  Currently, WitP has NO useful ship sigint.  Just wondering if it might get better in AE.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 884
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/17/2008 3:35:11 PM   
Lützow


Posts: 1517
Joined: 7/22/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline 		I dunno if this got asked already, but will AE provide a higher screen resolution as 1024x768 ?

(in reply to doc smith)
Post #: 885
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/17/2008 4:39:04 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		No, but I routinely run both AE and WITP in 1920x1200 resolution with no problems.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Lützow)
Post #: 886
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/17/2008 5:56:06 PM   
Alikchi2

 

Posts: 1785
Joined: 5/14/2004
Status: offline 		A quick bump for Doc Smith and I's questions.

jwilkerson: are you talking about an ingame resolution, or your monitor's native res?

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 887
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/17/2008 9:00:55 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Downfall



Wait, thats the first I have heard of having Operation Downfall as a scenario. I thought it was going to be the Russian offensive again? Dont get me wrong, I would love to see Downfall as a scenario. Just a total beer and pretzel type of 'what if' scenario.

So if it is Downfall, any tidbits as to the date range of the scenario? Will it have the Allies main bases located at Okinawa? Will the Allies have the Mariana bases and B-29's available?

Thanks in advance.

Chad

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 888
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/17/2008 9:48:10 PM   
spence

 

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

About SigInt. The WitP reports don't really help. Didn't the USN have better knowledge of where IJN heavies were located? Currently, WitP has NO useful ship sigint. Just wondering if it might get better in AE.


I second the opinion that the current WitP has NO USEFUL INFORMATION regarding IJN ships and negligible information about the movement of any Japanese ships. I hope it gets better but I kind of doubt it will.

I would think that a Rising Sun Scenario akin to WitP #2 (first 100 days in the Philippines, Malaya, DEI and Burma) would be reasonably easy to get an initial OOB for. A few extra reinforcements for the Allied Player would be need to be added: HMS Exeter, Blackforce, the Texas NG Arty unit and one of the A-24 sqdrns come to mind.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 889
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/17/2008 10:22:03 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Downfall



Wait, thats the first I have heard of having Operation Downfall as a scenario. I thought it was going to be the Russian offensive again? Dont get me wrong, I would love to see Downfall as a scenario. Just a total beer and pretzel type of 'what if' scenario.

So if it is Downfall, any tidbits as to the date range of the scenario? Will it have the Allies main bases located at Okinawa? Will the Allies have the Mariana bases and B-29's available?

Thanks in advance.

Chad


I can't tell you that much, since I'm still in the earliest stages of entering OOB data (there's just so MUCH stuff in such a small area), so much of it is still liable to change. At the moment, it starts in mid-October 45 and runs until the spring of 46.

It won't be in the initial release, but in a subsequent patch.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 890
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/17/2008 10:25:39 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alikchi

A quick bump for Doc Smith and I's questions.

jwilkerson: are you talking about an ingame resolution, or your monitor's native res?


Not ingame. I'm thinking Joe runs it in a window, which is the only way to go.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Alikchi2)
Post #: 891
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/17/2008 10:32:47 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Although some old stick in the muds like me only run if full screen - I hate windowed mode !!!


(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 892
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/19/2008 6:36:26 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Although some old stick in the muds like me only run if full screen - I hate windowed mode !!!




/agree

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 893
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/19/2008 7:16:30 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alikchi

A quick bump for Doc Smith and I's questions.

jwilkerson: are you talking about an ingame resolution, or your monitor's native res?


Monitor res.


Also, I run in both windowed mode and non-windowed mode depending on circumstances.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Alikchi2)
Post #: 894
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/23/2008 8:25:47 PM   
Jmsimer


Posts: 40
Joined: 7/27/2004
From: Chaska, MN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aphrochine

I really dont like playing the game in '41 and early '42. It's all Japan marching across the pacific, or allies trying to evac/sir robin until Japan starts to over extend itself. Really boring in terms of combat if you ask me. Perhaps the mod community will have a good apr/may/jun '42 campaign or something.


Wow, I could not disagree more. I like trying to manage the "hopeless fights" in the Phillipines and especially in the Java-Sumatra area, trying to escape with as much as possible while still trying to slow the Japanese down and make them pay for every success.

And maybe I'm biased because I'm currently in 1-194 Armor (successor to the 194th Tank battalion which fought in Bataan), but still....

_____________________________

Remember Bataan - Never Forget!

(in reply to aphrochine)
Post #: 895
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/24/2008 7:57:14 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" Example:
from the ops file:
OS2U-3L Kingfisher sighting report: 5 Japanese ships at 228,77 near San Diego, speed 18, Moving Northwest
This is a false report. There is no Jap 5 ship TFs near San Diego on Dec 9 1941"

Does this mean that there was a sub sighting there, or that the FOW is now giving us completely bogus sightings where there was nothing at all? I'm okay with a search plane claiming that one of my own TFs is an eenmy TF, but I'm not so cool with hallucinitory sightings...


You should look at the accuracy of sub sightings...

Pod of Whales, Dolphins, Odd wave patterns etc etc etc kept ASW squadrons sending out reaction groups in all Theatres.

What does a periscope look like in rough seas, cloudy skies and from 5-1000ft?

Damned if they did, damned if they didnt.


I missed these comments earlier.

I guess that I took the "OS2U-3L Kingfisher sighting report: 5 Japanese ships at 228,77 near San Diego, speed 18, Moving Northwest" to mean that 5 surface ships were sighted, and thuse my comment about "hallucinatory" sightings. I have no problem with hallucinatory sub sightings, or friendlies being mistaken for enemies, or grain ships being mistaken for aircraft carriers, and whatnot...

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 896
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/24/2008 3:14:27 PM   
IndyShark


Posts: 303
Joined: 7/7/2002
From: Indianapolis
Status: offline 		I definately prefer a 1942 start. I hope the modders come out with one soon after AE comes out.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 897
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/24/2008 3:44:14 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" Example:
from the ops file:
OS2U-3L Kingfisher sighting report: 5 Japanese ships at 228,77 near San Diego, speed 18, Moving Northwest
This is a false report. There is no Jap 5 ship TFs near San Diego on Dec 9 1941"

Does this mean that there was a sub sighting there, or that the FOW is now giving us completely bogus sightings where there was nothing at all? I'm okay with a search plane claiming that one of my own TFs is an eenmy TF, but I'm not so cool with hallucinitory sightings...


You should look at the accuracy of sub sightings...

Pod of Whales, Dolphins, Odd wave patterns etc etc etc kept ASW squadrons sending out reaction groups in all Theatres.

What does a periscope look like in rough seas, cloudy skies and from 5-1000ft?

Damned if they did, damned if they didnt.


I missed these comments earlier.

I guess that I took the "OS2U-3L Kingfisher sighting report: 5 Japanese ships at 228,77 near San Diego, speed 18, Moving Northwest" to mean that 5 surface ships were sighted, and thuse my comment about "hallucinatory" sightings. I have no problem with hallucinatory sub sightings, or friendlies being mistaken for enemies, or grain ships being mistaken for aircraft carriers, and whatnot...


If you play with fog of war on - you get fog. Inaccurate reports, false reports, no reports when something is there. Enjoy the game.





(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 898
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/24/2008 4:47:52 PM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


... Enjoy the game.







...sigh.....

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 899
RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread - 12/27/2008 10:16:37 PM   
scout1


Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Also, has there been any change in the way Sigint files are handled? Can we read each other's sigint fils in PBEM in AE?


As it stands now, yes. I would like to see them encrypted, but that maybe something for a patch.


OK, let's take this to the next step ....... (presumably for a futire patch I'd guess) .......
How about making the SigInt somewhat variable in terms of it's accuracy (similar to a variable reinforcement schedule). This way the Yankees don't get to read ALL the mail .... Or if they do, it's mis-interpreted .....

Speaking of which, does the SigInt files contain false/inaccurate info as well ?

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 900
Page:   <<   < prev  28 29 [30] 31 32   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admiral's Edition General Thread Page: <<   < prev  28 29 [30] 31 32   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

1.062