Admirals Edition Naval Thread

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

bigjoe96912
Posts: 67
Joined: Fri May 06, 2005 1:01 am

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by bigjoe96912 »

In reference to captured ships, would it be possible to capture ships that are in port under repair when you overrun the base, i.e the capture of the USS Stewart. I have overran Java and have seen auto scuttle of various transports Dutch CL's DD's and Pt Boats. Would it be possible for a die role of a capture instead of an automatic scuttle, and wouldn't that solve the duel oob of assuming capture. Also Ships assigned to repairs in a dockyard actually be tied to that base in the event of capture, or is this getting way out of the scope of the game engine.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Terminus »

Capturing ships isn't going to be in the AE.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Barb »

Spence: about the refueling at sea from AO.

US: practised refueling side-by-side = at least two ships can refuel at same time, and the number of fuel supply hoses can be more than one (2-4 and maybe 5) on each side of the ship each powered by its own fuel pump.
this resulted in more fuel and more vessels being refueled at shorter time

British practise was ship-after-ship (in fact they learned the US type refueling in 1944-1945 when they cooperated with TF38/58). There was only one fuel supply hose leading aft from tanker to the fore of the ship behind.

As japanese navy was in fact created on the British example, they should also use the ship-after-ship refueling( but I have not any direct informations, so it is only a hypothesis).
Also japanese limited numbers of AOs and fuel on hand can mean that IJN simply had worse AO/ships-to-refuel ratio than the USN.
Image
Cavalry Corp
Posts: 4158
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:28 pm
Location: Sampford Spiney Devon UK

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Cavalry Corp »

Any news on Jap refits like Ise and also the CA upgrades will they be included

Some additional ships like Jap CL also carried mines will that be allowed

Will AA refits only be on certian dates or will players be able to purchase the refits as it were ??

Michael
User avatar
Gunner98
Posts: 5965
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2005 12:49 am
Location: The Great White North!
Contact:

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Gunner98 »

May have missed this earlier but:  Will CS convoys be able to pick up/deliver resources & oil instead of just supply & Fuel?  Will you be able to have a CS convoy deliver resources and pick up supply for the return journy?
Check out our novel, Northern Fury: H-Hour!: http://northernfury.us/
And our blog: http://northernfury.us/blog/post2/
Twitter: @NorthernFury94 or Facebook https://www.facebook.com/northernfury/
Cavalry Corp
Posts: 4158
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2003 5:28 pm
Location: Sampford Spiney Devon UK

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Cavalry Corp »

OK I am going to ask this - Yamoto class ships

Will shinano be reworked so it can be completed ?

A BB
B SUPPORT CV
C Fleet Carrrier

Will the points make it realistic to complete for certain in RL the Japs thought it was worth completing ?
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Barb »

If someone is interested i can put up together some informations about British carriers operating in Indian ocean and their airgroups compositions and number of planes (mainly fighter squadrons) from some sources in time 9/1939-9/1943. I have an interesting books named "Palubní stíhači jeho veličenstva 1 , 2." (His majesty carrier fighter pilots vol 1. and vol 2.) written by Miroslav Šnajdr. Unfortunately i have not vol 3. (covering period 9/1943-9/1945).

It is known that in this time many british carriers used varying types and numbers of fighters (Martlets, Fulmars, Seahurricanes, Seafires).

Also will be the different deck-practise in RN and USN modelled? (I mean from the start of war British carriers carried such number of planes which can be carried in hangars. USN used also their flight deck for parking their aircrafts (some long landings resulted in planes crashing into the planes parked on fore fly-deck) such the US carriers carried more numerous groups. But RN begin to have few planes with tails over the water, and from 1944/1945 they also used the US deck-practise. Their capacity was still lower than of the US (Illustrious class with 45 planes, Indomitable with some 55, and Implacable class could have up to 70 planes) at the end of war.

I know that the actual numbers were different with each type of fighters carried as Martlets/Hellcats/Corsairs take less place than Seafires and SeaHurricanes.
Image
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: Barb

If someone is interested i can put up together some informations about British carriers operating in Indian ocean and their airgroups compositions and number of planes (mainly fighter squadrons) from some sources in time 9/1939-9/1943. I have an interesting books named "Palubní stíhači jeho veličenstva 1 , 2." (His majesty carrier fighter pilots vol 1. and vol 2.) written by Miroslav Šnajdr. Unfortunately i have not vol 3. (covering period 9/1943-9/1945).

It is known that in this time many british carriers used varying types and numbers of fighters (Martlets, Fulmars, Seahurricanes, Seafires).

Also will be the different deck-practise in RN and USN modelled? (I mean from the start of war British carriers carried such number of planes which can be carried in hangars. USN used also their flight deck for parking their aircrafts (some long landings resulted in planes crashing into the planes parked on fore fly-deck) such the US carriers carried more numerous groups. But RN begin to have few planes with tails over the water, and from 1944/1945 they also used the US deck-practise. Their capacity was still lower than of the US (Illustrious class with 45 planes, Indomitable with some 55, and Implacable class could have up to 70 planes) at the end of war.

I know that the actual numbers were different with each type of fighters carried as Martlets/Hellcats/Corsairs take less place than Seafires and SeaHurricanes.

We have all this already, but thanks anyway. Oh, and the American aircraft took up considerably MORE room than the British fighter types.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: cavalry

OK I am going to ask this - Yamoto class ships

Will shinano be reworked so it can be completed ?

A BB
B SUPPORT CV
C Fleet Carrrier

Will the points make it realistic to complete for certain in RL the Japs thought it was worth completing ?

It's been discussed, but shot down again. It's technically possible to do it with the new system, but the AI won't be able to.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Any news on Jap refits like Ise and also the CA upgrades will they be included

Some additional ships like Jap CL also carried mines will that be allowed

Will AA refits only be on certian dates or will players be able to purchase the refits as it were ??

Michael

Yes, yes, and no.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

May have missed this earlier but: Will CS convoys be able to pick up/deliver resources & oil instead of just supply & Fuel? Will you be able to have a CS convoy deliver resources and pick up supply for the return journy?

We're working on it.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by witpqs »

ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: Gunner98
May have missed this earlier but: Will CS convoys be able to pick up/deliver resources & oil instead of just supply & Fuel? Will you be able to have a CS convoy deliver resources and pick up supply for the return journy?

We're working on it.

Being able to select what is carried on each leg (out and back) would be better than having to select from a preprogrammed pair. For example, maybe you want one set of AK's to carry supplies out and resources back, and other to carry fuel out and resources back (short on tankers).
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: Terminus
We have all this already, but thanks anyway. Oh, and the American aircraft took up considerably MORE room than the British fighter types.


You sure on this, Terminus? I thought the "folding capabilities" of the wings on British planes was quite limited compared to that of US models......
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Terminus
We have all this already, but thanks anyway. Oh, and the American aircraft took up considerably MORE room than the British fighter types.


You sure on this, Terminus? I thought the "folding capabilities" of the wings on British planes was quite limited compared to that of US models......

True, but overall, the American fighters were much larger. The reason the Implacables couldn't carry Corsairs was because they were too tall.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
spence
Posts: 5421
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by spence »

Not sure whether you have this or not. USS Yorktown was undergoing refit in Norfolk when the war began. Her LAA was changed over to 20mm at that time (pretty much the 4/42 refit). source: CV-5.org
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Dixie »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Terminus
We have all this already, but thanks anyway. Oh, and the American aircraft took up considerably MORE room than the British fighter types.


You sure on this, Terminus? I thought the "folding capabilities" of the wings on British planes was quite limited compared to that of US models......

US Fighters were generally larger in height, and as the armoured flight deck/hangers of the RN carriers resulted in a lower ceilinged space....

EDIT: The hanger deck of HMS Illustrious:

Image
Attachments
HWScan00007.jpg
HWScan00007.jpg (116.79 KiB) Viewed 338 times
[center]Image

Bigger boys stole my sig
herwin
Posts: 6047
Joined: Thu May 27, 2004 9:20 pm
Location: Sunderland, UK
Contact:

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by herwin »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Terminus
We have all this already, but thanks anyway. Oh, and the American aircraft took up considerably MORE room than the British fighter types.


You sure on this, Terminus? I thought the "folding capabilities" of the wings on British planes was quite limited compared to that of US models......

The spot size for the Grummans was very small--they took up about 60% of the space of an Avenger, SBD, Sea Hurricane, or Seafire, and about 75% of the space of an A6M.
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
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Dixie »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: cavalry

OK I am going to ask this - Yamoto class ships

Will shinano be reworked so it can be completed ?

A BB
B SUPPORT CV
C Fleet Carrrier

Will the points make it realistic to complete for certain in RL the Japs thought it was worth completing ?

It's been discussed, but shot down again. It's technically possible to do it with the new system, but the AI won't be able to.

Am I correct in assuming that this could be managed by a modder in a similar way to the Flush Deck DDs?
[center]Image

Bigger boys stole my sig
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Terminus »

Yup, with the greatest of ease.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Barb »

Terminus:
Seafires and Seahurricanes had only their wingtips able to be tilt. This resulted in only Furious, Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable to operate Seafires in their hangars due to the size of the lift. Other carriers used Seafires only parked on deck with cantilevers until Seafire Mk.III (with wings folding between fuselage and cannons) came into service in may 1943.
Ilustrious class had only one hangar deck.
Indomitable had one and half hangar deck.
Implacables had two hangar decks with limited ceiling.
I once read somewhere that Corsairs could be operated from Implacables as well, but only with blown-out tyres (so it was little bit impractical) [:D]


Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”