Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[Kull]

1) I'm VERY far from expert in these matters, but it does seem like respawning (at least in the case of CVs, CAs, and CLs) was a "hold-your-nose" programming solution to the duplicate name problem. But it truly smacks of "gamey", especially as implemented with the Essex Class carriers. Even a "one-day" upgrade for the existing Allied CVs (so you could move them to San Diego and turn them into their Essex-named counterparts on the historical date of arrival-in-theatre) would be vastly better than the current options. Anyway, I'm glad the team has decided to revisit the issue.

2) From everything I've read, it seems that the historical presence of German ships and subs in the Pacific is going to be omittted, because of the fact they did not operate under Japanese control. While this is undoubtedly true, it's also a fact that the WitP engine grants the Allied player a far from historical degree of centralized control over the Chinese (to include the laughable probability of joint Communist and Nationalist operations), the Dutch, and later, the Soviets.

Given the huge increase in OOB slots, surely some could be found for a very limited number of historical German units? And if the Japanese player chooses to use them in a non-historical fashion, well that seems to be a lesser crime than that of omitting the units altogether. Especially given the utterly ahistorical cooperation that is already "built-in" for the various Allied entities.

Edit: Lest the above seem overly critical, I should add that I've read every post in the AE Naval and Air threads, and what you guys have done and will do is simply amazing. I'm commenting on issues the size of nits that reside on nits.

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: Kull

1) I'm VERY far from expert in these matters, but it does seem like respawning (at least in the case of CVs, CAs, and CLs) was a "hold-your-nose" programming solution to the duplicate name problem. But it truly smacks of "gamey", especially as implemented with the Essex Class carriers. Even a "one-day" upgrade for the existing Allied CVs (so you could move them to San Diego and turn them into their Essex-named counterparts on the historical date of arrival-in-theatre) would be vastly better than the current options. Anyway, I'm glad the team has decided to revisit the issue.

2) From everything I've read, it seems that the historical presence of German ships and subs in the Pacific is going to be omittted, because of the fact they did not operate under Japanese control. While this is undoubtedly true, it's also a fact that the WitP engine grants the Allied player a far from historical degree of centralized control over the Chinese (to include the laughable probability of joint Communist and Nationalist operations), the Dutch, and later, the Soviets.

Given the huge increase in OOB slots, surely some could be found for a very limited number of historical German units? And if the Japanese player chooses to use them in a non-historical fashion, well that seems to be a lesser crime than that of omitting the units altogether. Especially given the utterly ahistorical cooperation that is already "built-in" for the various Allied entities.

Edit: Lest the above seem overly critical, I should add that I've read every post in the AE Naval and Air threads, and what you guys have done and will do is simply amazing. I'm commenting on issues the size of nits that reside on nits.

It seems like we are going to get both respawn and non-respawn scenarios, so the issue is not a major one. The only question will be what form the non-respawn scenarios take. Yes, I too am glad they looked at this. Even more happy for both {respawn and non-respawn} versions.

The allied player is not the only one that benefits from more control than historical fact. The Japanese get far more cooperation from IJN and IJA than was ever the case. Personally, I tend to keep Dutch fighting in DEI, the British in Burma/India; and limit mixing units from different nationalities. I even move U.S. AKs in India to the west coast. But then, I play against the AI.

I am sure that new, user created scenarios will be making appearances very shortly after AE hits the market.

[Rainerle]

Hi,
sorry if that has been posted before but are there plans to tie the availability of new ships to a decrease in the manpower pool or maybe even a special navy personal pool from which to draw manpower for the ships?

[Terminus]

No.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
sorry if that has been posted before but are there plans to tie the availability of new ships to a decrease in the manpower pool or maybe even a special navy personal pool from which to draw manpower for the ships?

[;)]
That would mean modelling crew factors (an excellent and simple to add idea IMO)!

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
sorry if that has been posted before but are there plans to tie the availability of new ships to a decrease in the manpower pool or maybe even a special navy personal pool from which to draw manpower for the ships?

[;)]
That would mean modelling crew factors (an excellent and simple to add idea IMO)!

First rule of Programming: Everything is easy for someone that doesn't have to do it himself.

[Sonny II]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Hi,
sorry if that has been posted before but are there plans to tie the availability of new ships to a decrease in the manpower pool or maybe even a special navy personal pool from which to draw manpower for the ships?

[;)]
That would mean modelling crew factors (an excellent and simple to add idea IMO)!

First rule of Programming: Everything is easy for someone that doesn't have to do it himself.

The second rule is: No matter what you give them, they want more.
[:D]

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: Sonny II

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



[;)]
That would mean modelling crew factors (an excellent and simple to add idea IMO)!

First rule of Programming: Everything is easy for someone that doesn't have to do it himself.

The second rule is: No matter what you give them, they want more.
[:D]

The second rule is certainly true with WITP. We have been lucky in that we keep getting more!

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

That would mean modelling crew factors (an excellent and simple to add idea IMO)!

First rule of Programming: Everything is easy for someone that doesn't have to do it himself.

Third rule is - so long as you give them something new to whine about, they will be happy.

Sauracker, you old fart, you - long time no talk, buddy. How do you like goat ? learned the Greek alphabet yet ? you been to the temple ruins ? ever get over to the Turkish Ionian coast ? PM me - we gotta chat. Ciao.

[freeboy]

two ?'s from an old time witp player
A. can the japs build a flight school, givingthem better and more late war pilots as an option?
B. Does the surface combat still use the same "we do not really have surface action" rutines?
my old bitch about needing to be able to run down slow tf's etc and other surface action upgrades? 

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

two ?'s from an old time witp player
A. can the japs build a flight school, givingthem better and more late war pilots as an option?
B. Does the surface combat still use the same "we do not really have surface action" rutines?
my old bitch about needing to be able to run down slow tf's etc and other surface action upgrades? 

If you want surface actions other than at landing beaches and bases, you will probably have to accept that the game engine will manoeuvre your TFs tactically. Currently, you have patrol reaction (where a SAG on patrol will intercept SACs attacking bases), and changes to the TF track in reaction to nearby TFs. We complain about that already, but it's the only way to get tactical responses in the game.

If you want it bad; you'll get it bad.

Nonetheless, something of the sort is probably necessary. So please comment on the following:

ATFs:
1. Should manoeuvre tactically to launch and recover airstrikes. This means they will slow down to allow the carriers to steam into the wind for landings and take-offs. Basically this can be modelled as the ATF not advancing during the launch or recovery periods, but still paying full speed fuel costs.
2. Should manoeuvre tactically to approach targets during periods of visibility. (If beyond 200 nm, they should approach to about that distance.)
3. Should manoeuvre tactically during air attack.
4. Should manoeuvre tactically to maintain a distance of at least 200 nm from known enemy SAG locations at dusk or periods when aircraft are grounded.
5. Should avoid accidentally engaging enemy coastal defences at any time.

SAGs:
1. On patrol, should react to SAGs attacking local bases.
2. When on patrol or in distant support of TFs, should maintain a distance of about 200 nm from spotted ATFs during periods of visibility.
3. When on patrol or in distant support of TFs, should attempt to engage spotted ATFs during periods when aircraft are grounded.
4. When on patrol or in distant support of TFs, should react towards spotted enemy TFs of inferior strength.
5. When on patrol or in distant support of TFs, should react away from spotted enemy TFs of superior strength.
6. Should avoid accidentally engaging enemy coastal defences at any time.

Implementation probably involves scoring the hexes around each TF based on the listed factors, the presence of land, the presence of enemy and friendly aircraft, the accessibility of the hex, and the next way point of the TF. The TF then moves to the most attractive hex. Think of the TF as a robot--what should it do?
1. It can react reflexively--for example, to launch and recover aircraft and receive air attacks.
2. It can react based on what has worked in the past. This would involve fine-tuning during alpha testing to generate the necessary payoff matrices. Look at actor-critic systems as a way of doing this.
3. It can react based on short-term plans. Again, this would involve fine-tuning, but it should be a lot easier than developing a chess-playing programme. The important element is a payoff estimate for each possible plan.
4. It can act based on long-term plans--basically following the player's orders. The payoff for doing that should depend on whether the player designates the mission as critical or desirable, and what the exact mission is.

Reflexive actions should take priority. The remaining three can be weighted (perhaps 0.3, 0,3, 0.4) to get scores for each destination hex within range of the TF. The TF then moves to the most desirable destination hex.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: freeboy

two ?'s from an old time witp player
A. can the japs build a flight school, givingthem better and more late war pilots as an option?

That's in AE and has been discussed. There will be classes (I think they begin annually). You can pull pilots out of operational units to become flight instructors. The more high quality instructors you have, the larger and better students you'll get.

Check out the air thread. I think it's in there.

[Mike Solli]

Freeboy, check the Air War Thread starting page 8 around post #234.  The serious discussion on flight instructors begins there.

[treespider]

Any hope of seeing subs used for bombardment attacks? Just reading about Japanese shelling of Midway in January and February of '42...

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: treespider

Any hope of seeing subs used for bombardment attacks? Just reading about Japanese shelling of Midway in January and February of '42...

Don't think so. It would require a new type of TF (submarine bombardment) and it was neither used that much nor that effective.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: treespider

Any hope of seeing subs used for bombardment attacks? Just reading about Japanese shelling of Midway in January and February of '42...

Don't think so. It would require a new type of TF (submarine bombardment) and it was neither used that much nor that effective.

But it would be fun....

[Terminus]

It would cause no damage, given the scale of the map and the dialing back of the bombardment routines.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

It would cause no damage, given the scale of the map and the dialing back of the bombardment routines.

...but it would still be fun.[;)]

[trojan58]

Actually a Sub Recon mission would be more use. Allow subs to perform recon on bases to show defences/minefields/etc especially prior to an invasion

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: treespider
...but it would still be fun.[;)]

Japanese submarines shelled Sydney and Newcastle during the war. Didn't do any significant damage, though.

Some info here:

www.ozatwar.com/japsubs/japsshell01.htm

Andrew