Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[Terminus]

You can lay as many MINES as you want, but the number of MINEFIELDS is capped at 4K.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Dili

I'm not aware of any changes to the "to hit" probabilities in AE for mines - but we are adding limits to minefields also from an "ammunition" perspective. So both sides will have mines as a producible device. This will provide additional constraints for mines in AE.

That will be great, then we can set up how many mines there were at war start, should be for torpedoes too but i suppose that is asking to much. And i hope that there will not be hardcode date limit to airplane mines but that be made set into availability device capabilities.

Aerial Torpedoes are dealt with in a different manner that limit their availability.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

You can lay as many MINES as you want, but the number of MINEFIELDS is capped at 4K.

You make it sound as if I'd be better served by using all my minelayers in one huge taskforce. The way its described, using smaller ones simply causes multiple minefields in 1 hex. Am I understanding this correctly?

[jwilkerson]

Depends on your priority. It has been alledged that the number of minefields in the hex is correlated with the overall hit probability of mines in a hex hitting enemy ships in a hex. If true, then more minefields in a hex might be a good thing.

However, if you want lots of mines in a hex with a minimal expendiature of minefields, then larger numbers of minelayers operating in one TF is better.

[bradfordkay]

Joe, I am one who believes that having more minefields is better, based upon my experience in my present game against Chez.

In just about every invasion, he has had at least one ship (usually two) hit a mine. In his invasion of Balikpapan, he had thirteen ships hit mines (including the Haruna and three destroyers). I remember that he asked about the total number of mines at that base and was surprised at the answer of "closer to 500 than 1000".

I recall that due to their short range, I had been running the small Dutch MLs into Balikpapan from Soerbaja and using the larger MLs for the bases further away. Thus, Balikpapan had a LOT of small minefields. They didn't take long to clear, but his ships kept finding undiscovered minefields (apparently by feel).

The downside of having a lot of small minefields is that each decays at the full rate, so ten 50 mine fields will decay ten times faster than one 500 mine field.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Joe, I am one who believes that having more minefields is better, based upon my experience in my present game against Chez.

In just about every invasion, he has had at least one ship (usually two) hit a mine. In his invasion of Balikpapan, he had thirteen ships hit mines (including the Haruna and three destroyers). I remember that he asked about the total number of mines at that base and was surprised at the answer of "closer to 500 than 1000".

I recall that due to their short range, I had been running the small Dutch MLs into Balikpapan from Soerbaja and using the larger MLs for the bases further away. Thus, Balikpapan had a LOT of small minefields. They didn't take long to clear, but his ships kept finding undiscovered minefields (apparently by feel).

The downside of having a lot of small minefields is that each decays at the full rate, so ten 50 mine fields will decay ten times faster than one 500 mine field.

If the decay is percentage (exponential), they should both decay at the same rate.

[Dili]

Will there be any sonar device? 

[jwilkerson]

No unfortunately - it was certainly discussed - but did not make the cut.

[Dili]

Thanks. It could have been just a on/off that would improve the odds of present ASW devices, but if the Devices Slots are opened with many more slots a modder can duplicate AS devices and make with or without sonar.

[Terminus]

Lots of elbow room in the database...

[pauk]

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Don't be like that. I am not convinced that convoy actions present a realistic range of outcomes. However the examples you chose to raise are not two of them. Either present views (or better facts) that support your case, or find another example that does.

ok, i know that i've said it is enough. But, i really hate when guys keep talking "i'm not convinced", "oh i have a good escort", "oh, it is realistical, remeber the xy battle..:" etc... you want the better facts, ok - here it is[:D]


Night Time Surface Combat, near Tinian at 62,65

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
BB Mutsu
CA Haguro
CL Yahagi, Shell hits 1
DD Suzunami
DD Asagumo
DD Hibiki
DD Yugiri
DD Ume
DD Sugi
DD Hatakaze

Allied Ships
DE Reynolds, Shell hits 17, on fire, heavy damage
AK Algol
AK Thuban, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Centarus
AK Aquarius, on fire
AK Arneb, Shell hits 1, on fire
AK Chara, on fire, heavy damage
AK Capricornus
AK Durham Victory
AK Iran Victory
AK Bedford Victory
AK Bluefield Victory
AK Boulder Victory
AK Australian Victory
AK Elmira Victory
AK Las Vegas Victory, on fire
AK Manderson Victory
AK Provo Victory
AK Diphda
LCI(G) LCI(G)-373
LCI(G) LCI(G)-396
LCI(G) LCI(G)-398
LCI(G) LCI(G)-401
LCI(R) LCI(R)-74
AK Liloa
AK Sage Brush
AK Sea Thrush
AK Wind Rush, on fire, heavy damage
AK Alcoa Pioneer
AK Cape Cumberland
AK Cape Friendship
AK Cape Georgia
AK Cape Isabel
AK Cape John
AK Cape Martin, on fire, heavy damage
AK Jean Lafite
AK Robin Wentley
AK Sea Runner, on fire
AK Sea Sturgeon
AK Unicoi
AK Abigail S. Duniway
AK Ada Rehan
AK Alan Seeger
AK Alexander Majors
AK Alexander Woolcott
AK Allen Johnson
AK Ambrose Bierce
AK Amerigo Vespucci
AK Antonin Dvorak, on fire, heavy damage
AK Empire Record, Shell hits 16, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage



Yeah, i know the convoy scattered and results are historical, reasonable, etc....[:D][:D][:D]... "there are many examples in the history when escort protected escorts blah blah"..


Andy, do you still think that naval combat is not broken?[:)]

[Dili]

Lots of elbow room in the database...

   Maybe someone needs to make a diet . If there will be ever a chance just put Sonar and an open field where, if a modder puts the number 100(as 100%) means doubling the AS weapon hit chances(note: not doubling the effects just the hit chances if it is not possible to make it in detection chances).

[wworld7]

A diet?

Ok, now I'm lost.

[Shark7]

Pauk, I've noticed the same thing. Had an enemy task force of 3 BBs and several cruiser engage and sink a single PT boat. Fired on that same boat for about 100 hits and completely ignored the others.

I've also had the same thing happen when engaging groups of barges. You'll have 1 of the 12 get attacked and the rest get away, even though they are slower than the cruisers and practically defenseless.

Both of these cases should have been a complete turkey shoot with most if not all of the PTs and AGs being sunk.

[jwilkerson]

"Naval Combat is broken" is a interesting statement. Both general "Naval Combat" and specific "is broken" ... I wonder if such a statement could be either proven or disproven ... ???

I would take neither side of the debate myself.

[pauk]

Joe, i'm getting tired of this. I've posted just one example. Then i was told everthing is working fine (just go back and see my recent posts and answers). Ok, then i posted another example - just one example of the numerous wierd results in many games. Now, i don't get any reasonable answer, just demagogic answer.

I could live with such naval combat model, but since you guys doing a more accurate game, i've tried to point that some things are not working well in WiTP. But unfortunatly, it seems that none is interested for improving the game in this particular area which is pitty . I perfectly understand that AE team will do what they thing is needed to be inproved - and that is ok. We, as customers have two choices and that is fine. I really really appreciate what is AE team trying to achive.

But, i can not accept that someone keeps telling me "hey, it is working fine" when i know no it is not working fine. And i really don't want to go into further debate. I recall how Tom Hunter tried to explain and prove some "glitchs" in naval combat, do you recall that too, Joe?

So, it is obvious that nothing is going to be changed/improved in naval combat and it is fine. But, i'm not naive, and i can not buy "the naval combat model is fine" fairy tale.

[Andy Mac]

Thats a better example of the point you were making earlier - there is less ambiguity in thats one. I am having my own problems in another game...

I still maintain the previous example was not a good example of the point you were making this one is better [:D][:D]

(my escort seems a little light I wonder what happened to the rest of em...)

Actually if thats the convo at Tinian they were supposed to withdraw last night so its user error as well....

ORIGINAL: pauk

ORIGINAL: HMSWarspite

Don't be like that. I am not convinced that convoy actions present a realistic range of outcomes. However the examples you chose to raise are not two of them. Either present views (or better facts) that support your case, or find another example that does.

ok, i know that i've said it is enough. But, i really hate when guys keep talking "i'm not convinced", "oh i have a good escort", "oh, it is realistical, remeber the xy battle..:" etc... you want the better facts, ok - here it is[:D]


Night Time Surface Combat, near Tinian at 62,65

Japanese Ships
BB Hiei
BB Mutsu
CA Haguro
CL Yahagi, Shell hits 1
DD Suzunami
DD Asagumo
DD Hibiki
DD Yugiri
DD Ume
DD Sugi
DD Hatakaze

Allied Ships
DE Reynolds, Shell hits 17, on fire, heavy damage
AK Algol
AK Thuban, Shell hits 3, Torpedo hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
AK Centarus
AK Aquarius, on fire
AK Arneb, Shell hits 1, on fire
AK Chara, on fire, heavy damage
AK Capricornus
AK Durham Victory
AK Iran Victory
AK Bedford Victory
AK Bluefield Victory
AK Boulder Victory
AK Australian Victory
AK Elmira Victory
AK Las Vegas Victory, on fire
AK Manderson Victory
AK Provo Victory
AK Diphda
LCI(G) LCI(G)-373
LCI(G) LCI(G)-396
LCI(G) LCI(G)-398
LCI(G) LCI(G)-401
LCI(R) LCI(R)-74
AK Liloa
AK Sage Brush
AK Sea Thrush
AK Wind Rush, on fire, heavy damage
AK Alcoa Pioneer
AK Cape Cumberland
AK Cape Friendship
AK Cape Georgia
AK Cape Isabel
AK Cape John
AK Cape Martin, on fire, heavy damage
AK Jean Lafite
AK Robin Wentley
AK Sea Runner, on fire
AK Sea Sturgeon
AK Unicoi
AK Abigail S. Duniway
AK Ada Rehan
AK Alan Seeger
AK Alexander Majors
AK Alexander Woolcott
AK Allen Johnson
AK Ambrose Bierce
AK Amerigo Vespucci
AK Antonin Dvorak, on fire, heavy damage
AK Empire Record, Shell hits 16, Torpedo hits 3, on fire, heavy damage



Yeah, i know the convoy scattered and results are historical, reasonable, etc....[:D][:D][:D]... "there are many examples in the history when escort protected escorts blah blah"..


Andy, do you still think that naval combat is not broken?[:)]

[pauk]

of course it is better[;)][:)]. You know that i still think what ive posted in recent post(s).

So, short question:

Is this being looked?

[Terminus]

Because one aspect of naval combat doesn't function according to your standards, it doesn't mean the whole thing is "broken". That's false logic.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: pauk


of course it is better[;)][:)]. You know that i still think what ive posted in recent post(s).

So, short question:

Is this being looked?

There have been some tweaks to Naval Combat...now whether those changes will completely prevent results like above remains to be seen....but perhaps the results will not be as extreme.

The changes involved comparing speeds between combat TF and non-combat TF such that a faster combat TF will likely have a greater opportunity to fire more shots before the sides break off...