Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[VSWG]

What about the surface combat routine? Is the "Tom Hunter effect" (many ships remaining passive until being fired upon) still in the game? Do ships still dread to pair up with smaller ships? Any changes?

[Bobthehatchit]

This looks ace![X(][X(][:D]

Creditcard is ready and waiting.

One Question though....

RN carrier airgroups..... are these going to be fized?

Will they resize like the USN groups?

Prity please![:'(][&o]

[Brady]

Picket's?
 

 
 

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Brady

Picket's?

Yup.

[Brady]

Scaned these from one of the books I got from Japan recently:






Prety much every Aux. is depected in this volume, including the Army types in great detail:

[spence]

Beginning to get a little hazy what I've read and where but I think I recall something about assault landing craft being modelled in AE. The Landing Boat, Tank pictured above doesn't seem like a specialized assault craft in the same vein of an LCT/LST. Unloading tanks over the side with a derrick seems more like the kind of thing one does at dock rather than on an assault beach.

[Fishbed]

Terminus, sorry to disturb you with another japanese shipping issue, but Im told by my fellow French WITPers on some other forum that we can't load troops aboard the Japanese CS (Chitose, Chiyoda, Nisshin, or even the short-lived Mizuho). Myself I usually play the US (and I don't have WitP on my computer right here) so I can't say if it is true or not. But well they ask, as so I am, if indeed these CS can't carry troops nor supplies right now, if anything is planned to allow them to do so in AE? We all know how important they could be for successful high-speed slot rides, something they were somewhat good at (as long as they didn't meet some plane on the way like the ill-fated Nisshin...).

Thanks in advance

[Fishbed]

Beginning to get a little hazy what I've read and where but I think I recall something about assault landing craft being modelled in AE. The Landing Boat, Tank pictured above doesn't seem like a specialized assault craft in the same vein of an LCT/LST. Unloading tanks over the side with a derrick seems more like the kind of thing one does at dock rather than on an assault beach.

Well as far as I can see on the drawing, there seem to be a bow door to allow quick landing of vehicules, but I could be mistaken...

At least in Chinese (thanks to the Kanjis [:D]) the first two characters in the description would read like "forward door" [;)]

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Terminus, sorry to disturb you with another japanese shipping issue, but Im told by my fellow French WITPers on some other forum that we can't load troops aboard the Japanese CS (Chitose, Chiyoda, Nisshin, or even the short-lived Mizuho). Myself I usually play the US (and I don't have WitP on my computer right here) so I can't say if it is true or not. But well they ask, as so I am, if indeed these CS can't carry troops nor supplies right now, if anything is planned to allow them to do so in AE? We all know how important they could be for successful high-speed slot rides, something they were somewhat good at (as long as they didn't meet some plane on the way like the ill-fated Nisshin...).

Thanks in advance

Not sure. I'll go look it up.

[ctangus]

I think these questions belong here. I can move the first two to the air thread if appropriate. Maybe they can't all be answered yet, either, but they're pet peeves of mine...

1. The availability date of the F6F in stock seems to be a rough compromise between the F6F-3 & F6F-5. (In game terms the F6F-3 should probably arrive in Mar '43.) Are these two models now separate? Does Essex arrive equipped with F6F-3s?

2. On the other hand the Royal Navy seems to get Corsairs much earlier than they should. I've seen contradictory references on when the FAA equipped with them. (Jun - Nov '43). Looking through the squadron histories here: http://www.fleetairarmarchive.net/Squadrons/Index.html, I didn't notice any squadrons equipped with Corsairs in the IO or Pacific prior to October '44.

I guess my question is: is this being looked at? And are the Corsair I/II and III/IV modeled separately?

3. Any AFB knows that early-war the most effective US subs are the S-boats. Yet IRL the S-boats had a ton of mechanical problems, particularly those of the Asiatic fleet. And they didn't have a spectacular record. Is anything being done to model this? As a quick fix I personally think it would be worthwhile to give all the Asiatic Fleet S-boats 11 sys damage at the start of the war.

These are all probably trivial, but like I said they're pet peeves of mine so I decided to speak up when I had a chance.

[Terminus]

This is all really OOB stuff when it comes down to it, and that's still being finalized. The aircraft are going to be shaken out into their different submodels and assigned more realistic arrival dates (TimTom is working VERY hard on this).

As for the S-boats, we're still discussing this. As you say, they were dreadful clunkers and many were going into combat at the end of their useful service lives.

[Mangotree]

Any Chance for Sampans ? Supposedly from sub books (allies) they had up to 700 at one time , mostly for pickets and used a lot late in war for supplying nearby bases.
They usally had a crew of 5+ some with Mg's firing at surfaced subs

[ctangus]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

This is all really OOB stuff when it comes down to it, and that's still being finalized. The aircraft are going to be shaken out into their different submodels and assigned more realistic arrival dates (TimTom is working VERY hard on this).

As for the S-boats, we're still discussing this. As you say, they were dreadful clunkers and many were going into combat at the end of their useful service lives.

Thanks T. Glad to hear those points are being looked at.

[Terminus]

Er, probably not. There were too many different types of really small craft of limited use. We can't have all of them.

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Terminus, sorry to disturb you with another japanese shipping issue, but Im told by my fellow French WITPers on some other forum that we can't load troops aboard the Japanese CS (Chitose, Chiyoda, Nisshin, or even the short-lived Mizuho). Myself I usually play the US (and I don't have WitP on my computer right here) so I can't say if it is true or not. But well they ask, as so I am, if indeed these CS can't carry troops nor supplies right now, if anything is planned to allow them to do so in AE? We all know how important they could be for successful high-speed slot rides, something they were somewhat good at (as long as they didn't meet some plane on the way like the ill-fated Nisshin...).

Thanks in advance

Not sure. I'll go look it up.

Thanks Boss!

[asdicus]

I am very much looking forward to this new addition to witp - have a question about surface ships asw ( anti submarine warfare) capability.

At the moment the game cannot differentiate on the capabilty of hunting subs between say a japanese early war merchantman gunboat( basically just a small merchant ship with a gun, few depth charges and perhaps passive hydrophones) and a late war us or british purpose built frigate or destroyer escort( with advanced active depth finding sonar auto linked to asw weapons like squid or hedgehog). Sure the weapons fit is different bwtween ships but the crucial submarine detection equipment ( hydrophones,asdic or sonar ) is ignored. The result is that the japanese armada of early war PG are just as effective vs subs as proper usa or british escorts. Could the game introduce some kind of sonar capability data field to naval ships eg basic passive, basic active, advanced active etc. Jap PG would rate as basic passive while a late war allied escort would mount advanced active and so forth. Sonar type would determine submarine detection %.

[Brady]

LBT-Yes those are forward door's, for a "roro" capabality.
 
 

[Fishbed]

ORIGINAL: asdicus

I am very much looking forward to this new addition to witp - have a question about surface ships asw ( anti submarine warfare) capability.

At the moment the game cannot differentiate on the capabilty of hunting subs between say a japanese early war merchantman gunboat( basically just a small merchant ship with a gun, few depth charges and perhaps passive hydrophones) and a late war us or british purpose built frigate or destroyer escort( with advanced active depth finding sonar auto linked to asw weapons like squid or hedgehog). Sure the weapons fit is different bwtween ships but the crucial submarine detection equipment ( hydrophones,asdic or sonar ) is ignored. The result is that the japanese armada of early war PG are just as effective vs subs as proper usa or british escorts. Could the game introduce some kind of sonar capability data field to naval ships eg basic passive, basic active, advanced active etc. Jap PG would rate as basic passive while a late war allied escort would mount advanced active and so forth. Sonar type would determine submarine detection %.

Isn't it what the ASW value for each ship is here for already? [&:]
If I am not mistaken they are rated after these factors already aren't they?

[spence]

Isn't it what the ASW factor for each ship is here for already?
If I am not mistaken they are rated after these factors already aren't they?

I'm pretty sure that the ASW factor is almost entirely a function of #of AS weapons.

Speaking of AS weapons...will FIDO the ASW homing torpedo make it into the AE? A significant number of sub kills resulted from its use though I don't know how many in the Pacific.

[Brady]

ctangus- Your aware that the RN cleared the Coursare for Carrier use much sooner than the USN Navy did right?