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  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/18/2008 4:52:15 PM   
romanovich

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 12/8/2004
From: SoCal
Status: offline 		We'll all be banned soon for mis-using the Naval thread...

I want to clarify why I asked my question earlier: it comes down to the question "at what point do you start a historical simulation". So much effort has gone into making the master scenario in AE a historically accurate one (down to tiny fragments of some rifle companies and private contractors doing work on some remote commercial airbases for the U.S. ...). If you have that level of detail, you want to start at some major point in history and "take over" with an OOB as a historical given.

If that starting point is 12/7/41, Yamamoto's design of the Pearl attack is already historical fact. So the outcome of the Pearl attack should be modeled as such and the results included in the starting OOB. The challenge is what to do with the hand that everyone was dealt after successful execution of the Pearl attack. That would be a neat scenario. (This is all in my humble opinion, of course).

As it is w/o such a scenario (12/8, if you want to call it that way), all the planning for the Pearl attack is a given parameter, but the outcome somehow is not, and the game engine tends to skew the result towards unfavorable outcomes for the Japs (at least it did in WITP, but also appears to do in AE, based on that Yamato Hugger wrote). The historical results weren't a huge smash for the Japs, I think everyone agrees. They failed to harm the carriers, and failed to put away Pearl as a functioning base. In retrospect, even the feat of sinking 5 BBs (to the bottom of the harbor) turned out to be a rather inconsequential feat. But it did hamper the U.S. battle fleet, and that should be a GIVEN in a historical scenario that accepts the Pearl attack as having occured. In most outcomes I get when I play out that turn, the Japs sink a BB and maybe a second if they are really, really lucky and pay with a ton of planes for the privilege. That distorts the historical realities to a degree that it cancels out all the fun I stand to get from the fact that even fragments of some obscure rifle company are now modeled correctly in AE's "starting" OOB.

If the outcomes of an attack on Pearl are variable (as they now are in the master scenario), such a scenario should have its starting point months earlier when the Japs still have the liberty of deciding AGAINST a Pearl attack and pursue some alternate battle plan. Then, if you chose to go through with a Pearl attack as Jap, you get what you gambled for with the roll of the (computerized) dice...

And now back to Naval topics.


(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 61
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/18/2008 4:57:52 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		The most average results i ever got with 12/7 turn was 1-2 BB's permanently "sunk" (aka...."Arizona" or "Oklahoma" scenario) Occasionally i'd get more than 2 out of the game permanantly....sometimes none. As has been explained before....its much harder to knock ships out of the game fully (i.e. "Sunk at sea") in a large port with a shipyard. Often you'll get a ship with huge SYS and some FLT. The FLT is quickly taken care of but SYS is a different story.

BB's with heavy SYS can be considered equivilent to what happened to Nevada, California, and West Virginia.

In the end the game can't cater to PH specifically....it has to cover an entire war. THATS why the Dec8 scenario was created....for those who want to start FULLY historical from after 12/7 PH attack and don't want to risk a variable result that may be less than fullfilling to their plans....or on the other coin, for an Allied player who might feel cheated if he fully loses more ships than what occured 12/7

_____________________________


(in reply to romanovich)
Post #: 62
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/18/2008 5:08:32 PM   
romanovich

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 12/8/2004
From: SoCal
Status: offline 		There's no Dec8 scenario for us in AE...

Yet?

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 63
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/18/2008 5:09:41 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		When I played the stock game, I prefered playing the Dec 8 scenario as the allies because it put me in the same position as the real leaders - having to salvage a victory from a real mess.

That scenario has the Oklahoma and Arizona permanently sunk and the others with varying levels of damage - so that it will take months upon months to repair some of them. It does not have 4 or 5 BBs permanently sunk, because this didn't happen IRL.


_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 64
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/18/2008 5:11:11 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I'm pretty sure there is, but i might be wrong.....been focused on the one i'm building for it so don't quote me.





_____________________________


(in reply to romanovich)
Post #: 65
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/18/2008 5:50:44 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		There is no Dec 8 starting date scenario.

Andy

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 66
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/18/2008 11:47:15 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

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

ORIGINAL: romanovich

I want to clarify why I asked my question earlier: it comes down to the question "at what point do you start a historical simulation".



There is no such thing. Unless you have a different player for each HQ in the game and a few representing the higher-up political leaders, and toss in some commanders from the ETO as well.

This is a GAME. Cant be a "simulation" unless you model the politics as well. A lot of the strategy decisions were based on pure political motives. And with a single player playing all aspects of either side, you simply can not have a simulation.

Even within a single battle: Nagumo - Yamaguchi at Midway. The Imperial Guards in the Malaya campaign, ectr ect ect.

Cant do it. Its a GAME. Get used to it.

_____________________________


(in reply to romanovich)
Post #: 67
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/19/2008 3:26:34 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline 		The game assumes a wartime footing at Pearl too (the only thing it can do) meaning that all hands were available to react to their stations...

But, as we know, the folks at Pearl were caught with their pants down...

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 68
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/19/2008 3:58:35 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline 		The first Naval Thread was locked precisely because people forgot about it's true purpose. Here's a good rule of thumb for posting in these AE Subject Threads: Are you asking a question? Excellent choice! Are you offering an opinion and you are NOT one of the AE team members? Don't hit the "OK" button.

(in reply to rogueusmc)
Post #: 69
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/19/2008 4:21:20 AM   
doc smith

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline 		Okay, here is a purely naval question.  If it was covered elsewhere, I apologize for raising it again.

In WitP, I was often frustrated by TFs not "moving to contact".  I would post a PT TF at sea at Lingayen and Japanese transport TFs would glide past them and begin unloading.  Or, move a surface action group (built around Wales and Repulse) to Kuantan, reaction range of 6, and they would sit there and not, well, react!

I would expend political points to select a TF leader with good initiative, naval skills, etc. and then watch them do nothing when they could have done something useful.  How do I get my gun TFs to react to enemy movement and actually DO something?

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 70
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/19/2008 4:54:37 AM   
rogueusmc


Posts: 4583
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: Texas...what country are YOU from?
Status: offline 		Alright...see ya...

_____________________________

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 71
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/19/2008 11:20:51 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: doc smith

Okay, here is a purely naval question.  If it was covered elsewhere, I apologize for raising it again.

In WitP, I was often frustrated by TFs not "moving to contact".  I would post a PT TF at sea at Lingayen and Japanese transport TFs would glide past them and begin unloading.  Or, move a surface action group (built around Wales and Repulse) to Kuantan, reaction range of 6, and they would sit there and not, well, react!

I would expend political points to select a TF leader with good initiative, naval skills, etc. and then watch them do nothing when they could have done something useful.  How do I get my gun TFs to react to enemy movement and actually DO something?



I seem to remmeber from old Naval Thread, that naval interception is substantially reworked in AE. Maybe someone from AE team can shed some light on this ?


_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to doc smith)
Post #: 72
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/19/2008 12:19:02 PM   
m10bob


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

ORIGINAL: Kull

The first Naval Thread was locked precisely because people forgot about it's true purpose. Here's a good rule of thumb for posting in these AE Subject Threads: Are you asking a question? Excellent choice! Are you offering an opinion and you are NOT one of the AE team members? Don't hit the "OK" button.



Please see my opening comment..

_____________________________




(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 73
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/20/2008 5:51:19 PM   
NormS3


Posts: 521
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: Wild and Wonderful WV, just don't drink the water
Status: offline 		Is this a good place to ask about grounding ships in shallow areas?  Can anyone explain the chance of it happening as well as the effect on the ship in question?  Does the captains ratings affect this in any way?

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 74
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/20/2008 6:11:57 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Norm3

Is this a good place to ask about grounding ships in shallow areas? 



Yes


quote:



Can anyone explain the chance of it happening as well as the effect on the ship in question? 




Both the chance of it happening and the damage resulting are random. Chance of happening is very rare, damage can range from minor to loss of ship.

Also can happen when passing through a hex that contains reefs.



quote:



Does the captains ratings affect this in any way?




No, it's all based on random. However, size/type of ship figures into chance of total loss.


(in reply to NormS3)
Post #: 75
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/20/2008 6:35:49 PM   
NormS3


Posts: 521
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: Wild and Wonderful WV, just don't drink the water
Status: offline 		Many thanks!

So smaller size has better chance of total loss?

or

Larger size has greater chance to ground?

Thanks in advance. Sounds like yet another fantastic addition!

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 76
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/20/2008 7:01:48 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline




Also can happen when passing through a hex that contains reefs.


quote:



Does this mean every trip to an atoll will result in a possible grounding?

Everything I read about AE makes me want to play it more.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 77
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/20/2008 7:26:52 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Norm3

Many thanks!

So smaller size has better chance of total loss?

or

Larger size has greater chance to ground?

Thanks in advance. Sounds like yet another fantastic addition!


There is no relationship between size of ship and chances of grounding.

There is a relationship between size of ship and chances of hitting reef.

There is a relationship between size of ship and direction of travel in reef hexes (no, not going into this now).

There is a SIGNIFICANTLY increased chance of grounding or hitting a reef if the ship is out of fuel (i.e. either adrift or emulating under tow).

There is no DIRECT relationship between ship size and damage inflicted by grounding, but there is a general chance that badly damaged small vessels at sea will be prematurely abandoned.

All of this will be quite rare.







(in reply to NormS3)
Post #: 78
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/20/2008 7:44:16 PM   
NormS3


Posts: 521
Joined: 12/10/2007
From: Wild and Wonderful WV, just don't drink the water
Status: offline 		Forget the game!

I can't wait for the manual!

That thing is gonna packed full of fun stuff!

Everytime I log back on I learn something new!

Thanks for your time Don, now back to work!


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 79
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/20/2008 10:12:23 PM   
Japan


Posts: 754
Joined: 10/26/2007
From: Heaven on Earth (Scandinavia of course)
Status: offline 		Is it possible to start the AE at DEC 6 1941  or   DEC 7  1941  ?
 


_____________________________

AAR VIDEO
THE FIRST YEAR + THE SECOND YEAR
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2133035&mpage=1&key=&

(in reply to NormS3)
Post #: 80
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/21/2008 2:58:39 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		In game terms we start on 7 Dec .. so this is definitely possible. It is true that in reality for the vast bulk of the map area, the WITP started on 8 Dec .. but the game was made in the USA and apparently we think the war started on 7 Dec ... hence the game does ...

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Japan)
Post #: 81
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/21/2008 4:16:41 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

... the game was made in the USA and apparently we think the war started on 7 Dec ... hence the game does ...


"Yesterday, December 7th, a day that will live in infamy ...."



(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 82
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/21/2008 4:59:24 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		For shame... a WITP regular who got that quote wrong... 

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 83
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/21/2008 10:04:31 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline 		But the finger-wagging imotocon may have been a disproportionate response to the omission of "1941"

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 84
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 12:05:41 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

For shame... a WITP regular who got that quote wrong... 


Yeah, yeah, I'm appropriately ashamed. Should have added a [sic] to satisfy the word for word addicts.




(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 85
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 3:18:42 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

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

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

"Yesterday, December 7th, a day that will live in infamy ...."



Wow, you nit-pickers really missed on this one. You got the obvious 1941 thing but still missed the mark.

a date that will live in infamy

Edit: Don was testing you, and you all failed

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 11/22/2008 3:20:28 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 86
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 3:32:45 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline 		To pick one more nit, FDR used "which" rather than "that." Modern Standard English calls for "that", but maybe things were different then:

quote:

Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.


http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/infamy.shtml

< Message edited by Grotius -- 11/22/2008 3:33:20 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 87
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 4:09:41 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Ah, this forum will run a debate on anything...


(in reply to Grotius)
Post #: 88
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 5:08:01 AM   
bradfordkay

 

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

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

"Yesterday, December 7th, a day that will live in infamy ...."



Wow, you nit-pickers really missed on this one. You got the obvious 1941 thing but still missed the mark.

a date that will live in infamy

Edit: Don was testing you, and you all failed


Where did I say anything other than that Don got the quote wrong?



_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 89
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II - 11/22/2008 9:27:12 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

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

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Ah, this forum will run a debate on anything...




You're just realizing that?

_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

1.844