Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[freeboy]

ok, is there a new ship v ship intercept or attack? this was a game killer for me before

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Will damage control capability be more service specific? Ie..right now Allied damage control applies to every ship type in every service, including civilian merchants. Should really just apply to warships I'd say. Same goes for Japan, perhaps a different capability for warships and merchants.

You can probably handle this adequately by taking into account crew and captain ratings.

You may be right at that! Thanks Herwin.[;)]

[Apollo11]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: freeboy

ok, is there a new ship v ship intercept or attack? this was a game killer for me before

We were informed that open ocean ship vs. ship interceptions will be in upcoming WitP AE!


Leo "Apollo11"

[herwin]

I'm thinking it might be intelligent to turn over all responsibility for tactical operations to the AI.

Currently, a SAG on patrol will react away from a CVTF and will react into a base hex being attacked. CVTFs react towards enemy TFs. What I am suggesting is that CVTFs on patrol react automatically to maintain a distance of about 180 nm from enemy TFs during flying weather and 240 nm when socked in or at night. It might be possible to model turning into the wind as well. All this would be handled by the AI. SAGs on patrol would maintain a distance of 180 nm from enemy CVTFs during the day and night and would also have a chance of reacting into an enemy TF's hex (and back, so this would be at half reaction range) in non-flying conditions. Again this would be handled by the AI.

Alternatively, set the reaction distance as currently and use it to control the AI. CVTFs on patrol would react automatically to maintain that distance from spotted enemy TFs during flying weather and at least one greater when socked in or at night. SAGs on patrol would maintain that distance from spotted enemy CVTFs during the day and night and would also have a chance based on commander aggressiveness of reacting into an enemy TF's hex at that distance in non-flying conditions. Fuel usage should reflect this stuff, with CVTFs speeding up to full speed (without changing their hex) during air strike operations.

So a CVTF with a reaction distance of 6 would react to stay 6 hexes from enemy TFs during the day and 7 hexes during the night. A SAG with a reaction distance of 6 would maintain that distance and have a chance of reacting to an enemy TF at that distance. Typically, TFs would be given a reaction distance of 3 or 4. Setting the reaction distance to 0 would mean 'no AI, follow my orders'. Perhaps reaction distance could also be used to control the AI for other kinds of TFs.

[The Gnome]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: The Gnome
Hey I read and digested as much of this as I could, so sorry if a few or all of these questions were answered.
1) Will a ship have a kill list? I'd love to see who sunk what/when (assuming intelligence knows).
2) Any changes to TF management?
3) Is there a change list hanging around anyplace without having to pour through the small book of posts you guys have made?

1) No. Come'on, who ya kiddin, and does it matter ??

What does it matter? It matters for FUN of course - you know.... the reason to play!

[String]

Is there a chance for a TF to have a "fuel expenditure" field or something like that to indicate how much fuel on average would its current orders spend. Would make planning of large operations so much easier.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: String

Is there a chance for a TF to have a "fuel expenditure" field or something like that to indicate how much fuel on average would its current orders spend. Would make planning of large operations so much easier.

I think it already does; suggest you look at your present TF screens. See those fields that say 'endurance required', and those fields that say 'endurance' ? And those little endurance fields that only show up in red when you task a TF to go where it doesn't have the endurnce to go to ?

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: String

Is there a chance for a TF to have a "fuel expenditure" field or something like that to indicate how much fuel on average would its current orders spend. Would make planning of large operations so much easier.

I think it already does; suggest you look at your present TF screens. See those fields that say 'endurance required', and those fields that say 'endurance' ? And those little endurance fields that only show up in red when you task a TF to go where it doesn't have the endurnce to go to ?

Minor stuff in the 'would be nice' category:

A couple of shortcomings with those present displays -

1) The endurance required (on the TF screen) always includes the trip to 'home port'. This makes it hard to figure out how much to just get to where you told it to, which is useful if you have at sea refueling planned for sometime that the display (obviously) doesn't know about.

2) The endurance is always given for Mission Speed. Would be nice if it displayed for whatever the current setting is (Mission, Cruise, or Full).

3) On the ship display (click on a ship that's on the TF screen) only shows fuel on hand and range at mission speed. There should be a slash "/", after which is shown what the 100% totals would be. Currently the only way to know the full range of a ship is to get the ship refueled in port to see it actually full.

[GaryChildress]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

3) On the ship display (click on a ship that's on the TF screen) only shows fuel on hand and range at mission speed. There should be a slash "/", after which is shown what the 100% totals would be. Currently the only way to know the full range of a ship is to get the ship refueled in port to see it actually full.

I second this one. It would be nice to see what a ship's range "topped off" would be, even when the ship is in a TF in the middle of the map with half its fuel expended.

[Ron Saueracker]

Question. Is there anyway for a player to select a hex for his TFs to retire too after completion of a mission...the home port default is a killer to multiple TF cohesiveness. Better still, would it be possible to pre-order a TF to follow another TF upon completion of its mission (instead of the default home port destination)? Be really cool if a player had even more lattitude here, ie, be able to order a TF to remain 1 hex SE of main TF (the one it is ordered to follow)?

[witpqs]

They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.

Cool. Anything should help here.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.

Cool. Anything should help here.

Currently you can set up to three intermediate "waypoints" in AE. And you can also define a TF "patrol zone" of up to three "waypoints". Both are still being de-bugged a bit..., but seem to be working fairly well in my experiance. Warning: they do tempt you to do even more "clicking", so if your carpal tunnel is already acting up....

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Question. ... Be really cool if a player had even more lattitude here, ie, be able to order a TF to remain 1 hex SE of main TF (the one it is ordered to follow)?

IIRC there is also a provision to 'follow' a TF by X number of hexes...not necessarily the same as telling it to remain SE ...but similar.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: witpqs

They said they were working on that with the new waypoints for AE. Hopefully they pan out.

Cool. Anything should help here.

Currently you can set up to three intermediate "waypoints" in AE. And you can also define a TF "patrol zone" of up to three "waypoints". Both are still being de-bugged a bit..., but seem to be working fairly well in my experiance. Warning: they do tempt you to do even more "clicking", so if your carpal tunnel is already acting up....

Would giving even more of the tactical role to the AI make this work better?

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: treespider
IIRC there is also a provision to 'follow' a TF by X number of hexes...not necessarily the same as telling it to remain SE ...but similar.

Haven't seen one in AE so far....

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: herwin
Would giving even more of the tactical role to the AI make this work better?

Not sure how..., the AI really doesn't seem equipped to handle it---and I think the major reason for including "waypoints" and the like was player requests for more controllability. My "personal desire" would be for the AI to "back off" and let MY units follow MY orders... Might get clobbered..., but at least it will be my fault.

[siRkid]

Can you list the number of ships sunk for each class of ships on the Ship Sunk Screen? It would only show the numbers for the ships displayed. For example, if you turned off Allie it would only count the Jap ships sunk. It would really help with Battle Damage Assessment.

[Tankerace]

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Is there any place where we can view allies' naval OOB?

No, but since I'm doing the Allied OOB (well except Merchies, that's John's bit) I could answer any question you had. So ask away.

Sorry I haven't posted in the AE forum before. Been a little busy with AE and Carrier Force. Don't lurk the forums much anymore.

ORIGINAL: Bobthehatchit

I did ask this before but I think it got missed, or i missed the reply.

Has the resizing of the RN carrier airgroups been altered, could the airgoups just be set as default to the increased fighter compliment when they arrive, as they tend to resize within a month anyway. This allow would modding of the airgroups by people wanting to represent the increase in size on RN carrier compliments during the war.

Or will the airgroups re-size like the USN groups?

Regards

Neil.

Hi Neil. Not sure exactly, the coding works a bit over my head on this. But I can confirm in their late war refits British carriers are allowed to carry more planes, to represent the adoption of American style deck parks in late 1944. I believe my original idea way back when was to add in effect one more squadron for each carrier to arrive "Carrier Capable" with the intent that X amount of time spent on the carrier would make them Carrier Capable. Of course I was Naval Team Lead way back then, not sure if that ever panned out.

[resconq]

Will 25 still be the cap for TF size on ASW missions?  It always seemed gamey in that 25 destroyers making contact with a sub will usually result in the demise of said sub.