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: Escort by sub

 
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: Escort by sub Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Escort by sub - 4/26/2009 6:53:41 PM   
jwilkerson


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

ORIGINAL: Dixie
youngsters at my worplace


Hum, what the heque is a "worplace"???

Could be a:

War Place
Work Place
Wor3 Place

Or, probably all of the above!

(all my guess are probably wrong! )

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 541
RE: Escort by sub - 4/26/2009 6:59:11 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie
youngsters at my worplace


Hum, what the heque is a "worplace"???

Could be a:

War Place
Work Place
Wor3 Place

Or, probably all of the above!

(all my guess are probably wrong! )


How did T' miss that one? It could be a combination of the forst two, but war type stuff is the domain of the fast jet boys

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 542
RE: Escort by sub - 4/26/2009 6:59:57 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		"forst"?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 543
RE: Escort by sub - 4/26/2009 7:00:26 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

"forst"?


Oh, bugger...



_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 544
RE: Escort by sub - 4/26/2009 7:03:41 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		And then the stop sign falls on your head... I always felt a little sorry for that particular Winehouse character...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 545
RE: Escort by sub - 4/26/2009 7:09:20 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Oh, bugger...




Don't lick that pole!

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 546
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 4/29/2009 6:24:18 PM   
Czert

 

Posts: 255
Joined: 7/22/2006
Status: offline 		We will hwve improved damage report of ships ? Like if flooding/fire/sys damage is increasing/decreasing at small/medium/big speed (shown by colored arrow or something similiar) and with recomendations (like decrese speed down to cruise speed to geartly reduce flooding level or increse to max speed in attemp to save ship in port) ? And showinh minimal port size in which ship can se saved from sunking will be nice too.

_____________________________

Do you chalenge me ?
http://czert1938.mybrute.com
Mod for one of best games ever made ?
http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm&c=1
Great space shooter.
http://www.neurohack.com/transcendence/index.html

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 547
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 4/29/2009 6:58:11 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: Czert
We will hwve improved damage report of ships ? Like if flooding/fire/sys damage is increasing/decreasing at small/medium/big speed (shown by colored arrow or something similiar) and with recomendations (like decrese speed down to cruise speed to geartly reduce flooding level or increse to max speed in attemp to save ship in port) ? And showinh minimal port size in which ship can se saved from sunking will be nice too.

Aw, c’mon. No. Damage report is same as you always get. If you can’t figure it out from that, well …

Recommendations are easy – don’t operate too far from a decent support base. If you get big time combat damage and limp up to the cocoanut pier at the copra trading port at lac’a lot’a nuki, you .. will .. sink.


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Czert)
Post #: 548
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 4/29/2009 10:54:47 PM   
John 3rd


Posts: 17178
Joined: 9/8/2005
From: La Salle, Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Czert
We will hwve improved damage report of ships ? Like if flooding/fire/sys damage is increasing/decreasing at small/medium/big speed (shown by colored arrow or something similiar) and with recomendations (like decrese speed down to cruise speed to geartly reduce flooding level or increse to max speed in attemp to save ship in port) ? And showinh minimal port size in which ship can se saved from sunking will be nice too.

Aw, c’mon. No. Damage report is same as you always get. If you can’t figure it out from that, well …

Recommendations are easy – don’t operate too far from a decent support base. If you get big time combat damage and limp up to the cocoanut pier at the copra trading port at lac’a lot’a nuki, you .. will .. sink.



THAT was funny!

_____________________________



Member: Treaty, Reluctant Admiral and Between the Storms Mod Team.

Reluctant Admiral Mod:
https://sites.google.com/site/reluctantadmiral/

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 549
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 4/30/2009 2:26:40 PM   
Czert

 

Posts: 255
Joined: 7/22/2006
Status: offline 		JWE - I not so hardcore player of WITP, just causal. I love WITP for it complexicity and detail, but hate for it "hard to interpret data" (very nice example is how many exteriors programs are made for easy tracking/computing - hey, it will be great and ideal to have some of them included in AE relase).
And if AE is planed to attract players untouched with UV/WITP they will surely find AE hard to learn and itrepret data. (and grousing on it as me  ). It is 5 flooding gained per turn good (easy to handle) or very bad ? Question easy solved with enough experience, but without...

_____________________________

Do you chalenge me ?
http://czert1938.mybrute.com
Mod for one of best games ever made ?
http://www.ja-galaxy-forum.com/board/ubbthreads.php?ubb=cfrm&c=1
Great space shooter.
http://www.neurohack.com/transcendence/index.html

(in reply to John 3rd)
Post #: 550
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 4/30/2009 3:27:14 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		I’m afraid that experience is the only way Czert. Each turn, all ships attempt to repair damage and fight fires (damage control on the open sea), but it’s much easier to repair damage in a port. Normal damage can get fixed almost anywhere (large differences in repair time, though), major damage needs a suitably sized port (bigger the ship, bigger the port), a repair yard, or repair ship, or a tender, or Naval Support, or any combination.

Both the amount of repairs made, as well as likelihood of additional damage accruing depends on the amount of current damage, crew experience, whether the ship is in port, size of the port, presence of a shipyard, presence of an appropriate tender, presence of Naval Support squads and how many.

AE considers more factors and gives you more toys to mess with, but it functions basically the same as WiTP-1. If ya know stock, the knowledge ports over. If ya don’t know stock, you’ll have to learn the same basics anyway.

Simple rules of thumb: going full speed when damaged is bad, operating too far from a decent port (with tenders and/or NavSup) is bad.


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Czert)
Post #: 551
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/4/2009 9:30:44 PM   
CV Zuikaku

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline 		Can you name some ships that were never buildt but we can build them in the AE? Can we build more of the Shimakaze class (32 were planned and 16 laid down). Option to build more of the Shokaku class (cancellation of shinano). ? Since the work on OOB is over, can we see which laid but never buildt ships can we have? On both sides

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 552
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 4:06:46 AM   
jwilkerson


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

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku

Can you name some ships that were never buildt but we can build them in the AE? Can we build more of the Shimakaze class (32 were planned and 16 laid down). Option to build more of the Shokaku class (cancellation of shinano). ? Since the work on OOB is over, can we see which laid but never buildt ships can we have? On both sides


The Naval Team actually had some issues in this area - in part because we had probably 4 different Naval Team leads over the past 3.5 years on the project. Three of the four felt that we should be true to the original WITP concept that only historically built and involved ships should be in the OOB. So for the first 2.5 years of the project this was the guideline. And as regards upgrades and conversions, we were likewise very conservative. However, about a year ago, it came to light that the land and air teams wished to push the end of the "historical" scenario out even farther than WITP into April 1946 IIRC and land and air team wished to include hypothetical units and types. A debate raged on this for a while and the "extenders" won. Hence the naval team were forced to slightly modify their OOB to conform and a few smaller Japanese ships that were laid down but not actually completed have been added to support the extension of the war past the historical end date. Also, I believe the Midways are in - but not the Montanas on the Allied side. I do not believe any warship larger than DD was added on the Japanese side.

Of course there is a wonderful new editor - with plenty of new slots to enabler modders to add more ships as desired. Even with our a-historical extension of the game and OOB we are still trying to be mostly historical in our presentation.



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)
Post #: 553
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 5:32:59 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Even the ‘extenders’ didn’t get it all their own way. Joe uses an excellent term, ‘hypothetical’, and there are no hypothetical ships in the base scenario, only those that you could actually touch and feel.

There were quite a few on the stocks in mid ’45, and those were deemed to have been completed on a realistic schedule. Most of these were Matsu/Tachibaba types, escorts, sub chasers, etc .. It had to actually exist, somewhere, to become a late ‘45/early ’46 addition to the base scenario.


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 554
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 5:53:05 PM   
CV Zuikaku

 

Posts: 442
Joined: 12/18/2008
From: Legrad, Croatia
Status: offline 		So, no more heavies for either side? Even in "stock scenario which helps Japan a bit"?

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 555
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 6:28:16 PM   
herwin

 

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

ORIGINAL: eggmansdaddy

Does US 5" DP "to hit" chance go up to reflect deployment of proximity shells?


It should triple based on the statistics I've seen.

_____________________________

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 eggmansdaddy)
Post #: 556
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 7:09:29 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku
So, no more heavies for either side? Even in "stock scenario which helps Japan a bit"?

Not even there. The “enhanced” scenario is only that, enhanced, not hypothetical. It’s there to help out the AI and make it a bit more robust. It’s non-historical to the extent it allows Japan to build 20 of something rather than 16 or 18. But all you get is a few more DDs, a few more DEs, three more (iirc) CLs, and some more cargo, and passenger ships to provide extra lift, and some more tankers to keep the Allied submariners happy. That’s it.

No new BBs, no new CVs, no new CAs, no new nothing - just think ordinary, normal, regular, Japanese fleet that went to the gym one more day a week.

No “what if”, just a little bit more of “what was”.


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to CV Zuikaku)
Post #: 557
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 7:31:02 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The point is "where do you stop", not "where do you begin"?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 558
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 7:33:30 PM   
Chad Harrison


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

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

. . . push the end of the "historical" scenario out even farther than WITP into April 1946 . . .



So what is the end date for Scenario One now? Not that very many games get to that point, but I have always been a fan of letting it go a little longer allowing Downfall to occur properly. That and getting to play with all the fun end war stuff

Just curious.

Thanks in advance!

Chad

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 559
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 7:56:40 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		The premise behind the enhanced Japan scenario is 'reasonable' extensions

So more Tankers and AK's a few more CL's and DD's and more DE's modders can do out and out fantasy scenarios  

Some on the team would argue this is a fantasy scenario !!!- oh and Shinano is converted to a Taiho class to make it less of a strain to build

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 560
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 7:57:29 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
. . . push the end of the "historical" scenario out even farther than WITP into April 1946 . . .

So what is the end date for Scenario One now? Not that very many games get to that point, but I have always been a fan of letting it go a little longer allowing Downfall to occur properly. That and getting to play with all the fun end war stuff

Just curious.

Thanks in advance! Chad

I really don't know. I know there is a Downfall scenario in the works, but don't know start/stop dates. That would be up to the strange fellow with eyeballs in the back of his head.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 561
RE: Escort by sub - 5/6/2009 8:06:21 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The grand campaign has its final turn on May 29, 1946. 1634 days.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 562
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 8:07:30 PM   
dwesolick


Posts: 593
Joined: 6/24/2002
From: Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


Not even there. The “enhanced” scenario is only that, enhanced, not hypothetical. It’s there to help out the AI and make it a bit more robust. It’s non-historical to the extent it allows Japan to build 20 of something rather than 16 or 18. But all you get is a few more DDs, a few more DEs, three more (iirc) CLs, and some more cargo, and passenger ships to provide extra lift, and some more tankers to keep the Allied submariners happy. That’s it.

No new BBs, no new CVs, no new CAs, no new nothing - just think ordinary, normal, regular, Japanese fleet that went to the gym one more day a week.

No “what if”, just a little bit more of “what was”.



That is great and very historically plausible. I'm re-reading Spector's "Eagle Against the Sun" (you know, to kill time till AE is released) and he discusses how Admiral Inoue (member of the Japanese Naval Ministry), prior to the war, wanted Japan to build just those sorts of ships. He foresaw a protracted war involving air power, amphibious ops, and lots of logistical problems. Very far-sighted man, but of course he was totally ignored by the rest of the IJN..."Hey, we can build one more battleship, instead of all those lowly DDs and DEs!"


_____________________________

"The Navy has a moth-eaten tradition that the captain who loses his ship is disgraced. What do they have all those ships for, if not to hurl them at the enemy?" --Douglas MacArthur

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 563
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 8:10:08 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Note that timewise, the Grand Campaign isn't that much longer than stock. The BIG difference is that the reinforcement schedule is extended well into 1946.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to dwesolick)
Post #: 564
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 8:14:36 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: dwesolick
"Hey, we can build one more battleship, instead of all those lowly DDs and DEs!"

The release 'enhanced' scenario will only have a little bit more of “what was”. It will not have 'what if'.

All that stuff is rightfully the province of the modders. The editor lets ya'll do whatever your little heart desires.

Whoops, re-read your post, picked up on the different slant (sorry). Yeah, that’s pretty much where we are coming from. Just a tweak, here, and a bit, there.

< Message edited by JWE -- 5/6/2009 8:29:10 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to dwesolick)
Post #: 565
RE: Escort by sub - 5/6/2009 8:35:26 PM   
Chad Harrison


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

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The grand campaign has its final turn on May 29, 1946. 1634 days.


Great news! Not sure who on the AE team pushed for a longer game, but it is most appreciated! All the fun toys at the end will now have time to play in the Grand Campaign

Thanks for the responses John and Termy.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 566
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/6/2009 10:41:51 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

That is great and very historically plausible. Admiral Inoue (member of the Japanese Naval Ministry), prior to the war, wanted Japan to build just those sorts of ships. He foresaw a protracted war involving air power, amphibious ops, and lots of logistical problems. Very far-sighted man, but of course he was totally ignored by the rest of the IJN..."Hey, we can build one more battleship, instead of all those lowly DDs and DEs!"



It may have been physically possible to have that building program but the fact that Inoue was a lone wolf howling in the wind would lead me to believe that there was no chance for the adoption of such a program by the IJN. Just my killjoy $.02.

(in reply to dwesolick)
Post #: 567
RE: Escort by sub - 5/6/2009 11:58:34 PM   
jwilkerson


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

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
Not sure who on the AE team pushed for a longer game


The way I remember it - it was everyone but me - and I have scars to prove it!


_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 568
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/7/2009 12:36:43 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		"" That short!

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Nomad)
Post #: 569
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/13/2009 6:41:10 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		Two quick questions that probably have already been answered, but I'll ask again.

Why do I have to tell my transport TF that is is unloaded at an enemy base to unload again on each successive turn until I take the base and can have it dock at the port? Will this issue be gone??

I often add a few 2,500 capacity AKs to my invasion transport TF, but they don't seem to unload supplies with the APs when they unload troops. Is this fixed??

Thanks!!

(in reply to RevRick)
Post #: 570
Page:   <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Escort by sub Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   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

1.641