RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

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: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

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: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

Page: << < prev 17 18 19 [20] 21 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/13/2009 7:27:28 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
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??

Whoops, don't understand the question.

quote:

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!!

AE has different ship classes: APs, AKs, (APAs, AKAs) and xAPs , xAKs. Amphib capable ships will unload quickly. Non-amphib capable ships (xAK/xAP) will unload very sloooooooooowly. As it was in the beginning; is now and ever shall be; world without end; Amen, Amen.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 571

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/13/2009 7:56:46 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
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??

Whoops, don't understand the question.

I think I might. An Amphib TF will unload using Amphib unload rules and processes until the base is captured. Once captured, it will switch to friendly base unload processes. Depending on the size of the TF and the condition of the port (port size, damage) it might or might not dock. If it can not dock, it will continue to unload using "undocked" processes. This is slower that amphibious, but still unloads even if the TF can not dock. Note that "dock" is temporary in this case.

AE has docking limits for ports of a given size (adjusted for damage). If the entire TF can not dock, the undocked unloading process considers available dock space and other resources to determine unload rates. Other resources are naval support at the port and certain amphib capable ships in the TF (true stand-off unload ships like APA and LSD plus barges/LCVP/LSM, etc). Both provide small landing craft or lighters that can help with unload for undocked ships.

The rate is slower than amphibious, but also causes less damage and destruction to the units/supplies being unloaded. This has expanded the vocabulary of many and AE tester.

All of this emulates:
1. Amphib TF unloads as fast as possible during assault - get the stuff ashore!
2. Once target is captured, unloading slows down for both safety and to represent congestion as cargos are landed and sorted out.
3. If dock space is available at the captured port, the TF will use it - subject to docking limits. Ships will unload as if they individually move to the docks, unload, and move back out.

From a game perspective, the TF is never split into docked and undocked portions. Calculations of unload rates consider unused dock space. TF will not dock (unless player orders it).

Remember for AE: amphibious operations are tough. Be prepared. Use true amphibious ships if you can (APA, etc). If you haven't got any, Naval transports (AP/AK) are better than merchant ships (xAK/xAP). Also - get naval support in as soon as possible. Naval support has many uses - in this case it represents shore parties and small lighters/amphib vehicles (like DUKWs). It really helps.

We made this as realistic as possible, which means its a bitch.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 572

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/13/2009 8:11:17 PM

Wirraway_Ace

Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
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??

Whoops, don't understand the question.

I think I might. An Amphib TF will unload using Amphib unload rules and processes until the base is captured. Once captured, it will switch to friendly base unload processes. Depending on the size of the TF and the condition of the port (port size, damage) it might or might not dock. If it can not dock, it will continue to unload using "undocked" processes. This is slower that amphibious, but still unloads even if the TF can not dock. Note that "dock" is temporary in this case.

AE has docking limits for ports of a given size (adjusted for damage). If the entire TF can not dock, the undocked unloading process considers available dock space and other resources to determine unload rates. Other resources are naval support at the port and certain amphib capable ships in the TF (true stand-off unload ships like APA and LSD plus barges/LCVP/LSM, etc). Both provide small landing craft or lighters that can help with unload for undocked ships.

The rate is slower than amphibious, but also causes less damage and destruction to the units/supplies being unloaded. This has expanded the vocabulary of many and AE tester.

All of this emulates:
1. Amphib TF unloads as fast as possible during assault - get the stuff ashore!
2. Once target is captured, unloading slows down for both safety and to represent congestion as cargos are landed and sorted out.
3. If dock space is available at the captured port, the TF will use it - subject to docking limits. Ships will unload as if they individually move to the docks, unload, and move back out.

From a game perspective, the TF is never split into docked and undocked portions. Calculations of unload rates consider unused dock space. TF will not dock (unless player orders it).

Remember for AE: amphibious operations are tough. Be prepared. Use true amphibious ships if you can (APA, etc). If you haven't got any, Naval transports (AP/AK) are better than merchant ships (xAK/xAP). Also - get naval support in as soon as possible. Naval support has many uses - in this case it represents shore parties and small lighters/amphib vehicles (like DUKWs). It really helps.

We made this as realistic as possible, which means its a bitch.

Don, thanks for the excellent explanation. I wonder at ny59giants question however. In stock, I only have to reorder my TFs to unload at an enemy base hex if they have been attacked by surface forces during the previous turn. I always assumed that the TF commander made the smart decision to withdraw in the face of enemy surface forces and loitered until directed to return to the beachhead.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 573

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/13/2009 9:03:32 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

Don, thanks for the excellent explanation. I wonder at ny59giants question however. In stock, I only have to reorder my TFs to unload at an enemy base hex if they have been attacked by surface forces during the previous turn. I always assumed that the TF commander made the smart decision to withdraw in the face of enemy surface forces and loitered until directed to return to the beachhead.

It's been so long since I looked at stock that I can't remember. At least I do not recall if I can.

Anyway, in AE the decision to run away or return to unloading depends on the status of the TF (damage, ammo), presence of enemy, and Leader's aggression. A well-escorted Amphib TF can beat off an attack by a small surface force and go back to unloading. If it get's badly shot up it will almost always withdraw. If it fights an engagement and ends up in decent shape and any enemy left in the area are weak, it will probably go back to unloading.

Enemy strength is evaluated using Fog of War and detection levels. Leader's aggression is key.

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)

Post #: 574

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 5/14/2009 3:54:12 AM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

I will post a screenshot from one of my two PBEM games tomorrow as I have various invasions about to take place to help clarify.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 575

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 10:37:28 AM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

Just too lazy to go thru both of the Naval threads.........

When the Brit player is required to withdraw destroyers, can he send back Commonwealth ships instead?........(Thank you for an answer and your tolerance.)

_____________________________

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 576

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 11:45:30 AM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Just too lazy to go thru both of the Naval threads.........

When the Brit player is required to withdraw destroyers, can he send back Commonwealth ships instead?........(Thank you for an answer and your tolerance.)

No, in the AE you're required to send back specific ships (e.g. if you're required to withdraw DD Nizam you have to send DD Nizam and not another destroyer). Btw., if the ship that is required has been sunk you don't have to send it back (that is, it does not cost PP's).

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 577

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 12:15:08 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Just too lazy to go thru both of the Naval threads.........

When the Brit player is required to withdraw destroyers, can he send back Commonwealth ships instead?........(Thank you for an answer and your tolerance.)

No, in the AE you're required to send back specific ships (e.g. if you're required to withdraw DD Nizam you have to send DD Nizam and not another destroyer). Btw., if the ship that is required has been sunk you don't have to send it back (that is, it does not cost PP's).

Thank you!! That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost...

_____________________________

(in reply to Kereguelen)

Post #: 578

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 12:19:42 PM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

Well at least the crew will have a nice place to relax if the ship sinks at one of those size 1 ports in AE (as long as it isn't on New Guinea or one of those other SW Pacific islands, that is).

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 579

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 12:20:36 PM

Dili

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

quote:

That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost

Au contraire! It is worse. A player can risk more those ships and doesn't simulate well the requests of other theatres since it is not the specific ship per se that counts.

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 580

RE: Criticall hits - 6/18/2009 12:44:51 PM

EUBanana

Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
No plans for Atlantic-style Hunter-Killer groups.

From what I read it may work anyway - have an ASW TF set to react, have a CVE TF with some aircraft on ASW search. Have the ASW TF follow the CVE with an aggressive commander.

If the aircraft spot a nearby sub, the ASW TF will react and run off to depth charge it.

Assuming ASW TFs react the same as SCTFs do. Yamato Hugger's AAR involves a lot of discussion on this subject.

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 581

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 12:52:49 PM

Kereguelen

Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost

Au contraire! It is worse. A player can risk more those ships and doesn't simulate well the requests of other theatres since it is not the specific ship per se that counts.

Many ships return to the PTO after some time - and sunk ships still cost PP's (for being sunk). Would be quite silly to deliberately risk a specific ship only because one knows that it has to be withdrawn.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 582

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 12:56:10 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dili

quote:

That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost

Au contraire! It is worse. A player can risk more those ships and doesn't simulate well the requests of other theatres since it is not the specific ship per se that counts.

The problem, of course, is that the decision to request transfer of ships from one ocean to another is based on losses and operations. If Atlantic lost a lot of DDs they would request some from the Pacific and probably not transfer any to the Pacific. History goes out the window with the first random statement in the code, so it is absolutely impossible to figure out the force balance between the two theatres. We were faced with one reasonable option: to use historical arrivals and withdrawals.

We considered, and even tested, some code to use substitutes - type for type or reasonable alternative, in the withdrawals. But it was illogical from the beginning. If the ship that was historically withdrawn had been lost, would another have been ordered out instead? Or would force levels be considered and maybe even another ship transferred to the Pacific? How the hell could we ever figure all that out? Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years).

So we went historical. You get transfers from the Atlantic when they historically arrived and you send ships back when they historically left. No consideration for possible losses in either theatre.

If anyone has a better idea, send Joe Wilkerson an email and volunteer to give up your free time for a couple of years working on the next version of the game.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 583

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 2:04:51 PM

Dili

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

We have to agree to disagree. I think PP's would have been a less worse compromise, it gives a latitude to manage what to give away simulating the balance of what kind of losses hapened.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 584

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 5:15:38 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

Well, I have neither the time or the knowledge to work on it, just a thought. I understand the point on specifically withdrawing ships based on the historic context, and its not that big of a deal in the overall scheme of things, but the sunken ship = no withdrawal is pretty generous. My thought, and I wouldn't have the first clue on how to implement it:

The ETO was the priority (supposedly) so perhaps if a minimum number of ships of the various classes were set for the Atlantic/Med (e.g.: 150 DDs, 20 CL's etc - no idea if this is in the ball park) and adjusted monthly. Then a random value with a historical modifier can be applied to accumulate ETO losses (e.g. April 42 was a bad month so slightly heavier losses) than:

-IF historical withdraw called for:
- ship exists - no problem it gets withdrawn
- ship sunk - problem
-IF- ETO is at or above minimum for class - no problem no withdrawal
-IF- ETO is below minimum, perhaps with a risk tolerance applied - either:
- random ship of same class called for as a replacement withdrawal OR
- next reinforcement of that class doesn�t happen or is delayed until ETO minimum is satisfied

I know that this will not happen for release, or it might not be feasible at all. No big issue, just a thought. You guys have probably worked this one through and may well have tried a similar solution already. Just my 2 cents worth.

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 585

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 5:47:57 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Well, I have neither the time or the knowledge to work on it, just a thought. I understand the point on specifically withdrawing ships based on the historic context, and its not that big of a deal in the overall scheme of things, but the sunken ship = no withdrawal is pretty generous. My thought, and I wouldn't have the first clue on how to implement it:

The ETO was the priority (supposedly) so perhaps if a minimum number of ships of the various classes were set for the Atlantic/Med (e.g.: 150 DDs, 20 CL's etc - no idea if this is in the ball park) and adjusted monthly. Then a random value with a historical modifier can be applied to accumulate ETO losses (e.g. April 42 was a bad month so slightly heavier losses) than:

-IF historical withdraw called for:
- ship exists - no problem it gets withdrawn
- ship sunk - problem
-IF- ETO is at or above minimum for class - no problem no withdrawal
-IF- ETO is below minimum, perhaps with a risk tolerance applied - either:
- random ship of same class called for as a replacement withdrawal OR
- next reinforcement of that class doesn�t happen or is delayed until ETO minimum is satisfied

I know that this will not happen for release, or it might not be feasible at all. No big issue, just a thought. You guys have probably worked this one through and may well have tried a similar solution already. Just my 2 cents worth.

No offense, but this sounds like a Pandora's box full of worms. We looked at various things but never, ever considered changing the historical ship levels outside the Pacific.

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 586

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 5:50:40 PM

Gunner98

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline

I see your point. Wasn't suggesting changing the levels outside the pacific, just using those levels as a basis for adjusting withdrawals. Like I said, not a biggie.

B

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 587

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 7:05:17 PM

Long Lance

Posts: 274
Joined: 7/31/2002
From: Ebbelwoi Country
Status: offline

Another question, different, but belongs here: Will the Autoconvoyroutine be improved?

I'm so tired of seeing unescorted TKs been sunk by subs when tons of escorts sit at Osaka.

Or Autoconcoys to DEI going around Neu Guinea after Port Moresby is taken

.
Thus travelling nearly double the way - only to be sunk off Port Darwin

(in reply to Gunner98)

Post #: 588

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 7:17:29 PM

HMS Resolution

Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

Have Vice-Admiral Algernon Usborne Willis' stats changed? From what I recall in stock, he wasn't very good.

_____________________________

(in reply to Long Lance)

Post #: 589

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 8:08:12 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Attachment (1)

(in reply to HMS Resolution)

Post #: 590

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 6/18/2009 8:17:24 PM

HMS Resolution

Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

Gol-dang! Algernon, I hardly recognize you!

Why is his middle initial N, though? Willis' middle name is Usborne.

_____________________________

(in reply to Andy Mac)

Post #: 591

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 7/2/2009 12:02:31 PM

m10bob

Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

Bump..Open Naval Thread.

_____________________________

(in reply to m10bob)

Post #: 592

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 7/2/2009 2:21:27 PM

HMS Resolution

Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

Gol-dang! Algernon, I hardly recognize you!

Why is his middle initial N, though? Willis' middle name is Usborne.

Is there any chance of getting this corrected, or is it game-delaying minutia? If it's just minutia, but not game delaying, I'd be absurdly excited if it were corrected.

_____________________________

(in reply to HMS Resolution)

Post #: 593

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 7/2/2009 3:34:45 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 594

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 7/2/2009 3:41:04 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?

January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 595

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 7/2/2009 3:50:24 PM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?

Now that's what I am talking about! Question asked and answered. I can now plan around the release of WiTWWW. Of course the odds are that I will have been dead for several years before then, but I see that as only a minor annoyance.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 596

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 7/2/2009 3:52:01 PM

treespider

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?

January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM

Now is that January 28 Pearl Harbor time which is actually January 29 Singapore time or is it January 28 Singapore time which is actually January 27 Pearl Harbor time....

_____________________________

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 Don Bowen)

Post #: 597

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 7/2/2009 3:54:15 PM

HMS Resolution

Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM

I'll almost be sixty then! I won't know how computers work anymore! Sons of bitches!

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 598

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 7/3/2009 2:26:33 AM

stuman

Posts: 3907
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?

January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM

Now is that January 28 Pearl Harbor time which is actually January 29 Singapore time or is it January 28 Singapore time which is actually January 27 Pearl Harbor time....

You are just trying to confuse me now. And it worked.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 599

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 7/14/2009 8:44:50 AM

Dili

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

A ship or a submarine can transport a midget if edited that way but a midget sub can transport a midget sub too?

(in reply to stuman)

Post #: 600

Page: << < prev 17 18 19 [20] 21 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

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

2.000

Slitherine

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II