Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

[eggmansdaddy]

ORIGINAL: String

ORIGINAL: eggmansdaddy

Does US 5" DP "to hit" chance go up to reflect deployment of proximity shells?

Afaik it already does in the vanilla version as well.

Thanks for the info.

[John 3rd]

It is--indeed--nice to see this thread open again.
 

[Shark7]

Since we now have the ability to set a definate withdrawal date on ships, are we possibly going to see the Monsun U-Boats in AE?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Since we now have the ability to set a definate withdrawal date on ships, are we possibly going to see the Monsun U-Boats in AE?

No Sir. No German units.

[Alikchi2]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Since we now have the ability to set a definate withdrawal date on ships, are we possibly going to see the Monsun U-Boats in AE?

No Sir. No German units.

Why not? I'm not criticizing, just wondering what the reasoning behind this is. [:)]

[jwilkerson]

This is "War in the Pacific"!!!
[:)]

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Alikchi

Why not? I'm not criticizing, just wondering what the reasoning behind this is. [:)]

Here's a 9/8/08 quote from Terminus which sort of synopsizes the decision:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Anyway, we're not including the German surface raiders and the Monsun group either, mainly because we decided not to include a German nationality in the game, so any of those ships and subs would be Japanese.

We had a list of 4-500 things we had to boil down to something like 65-70 things to put into the game, and a few German units were never going to get on there.

[scout1]

No Bismark ...... ?

[;)]

[goodboyladdie]

ORIGINAL: scout1

No Bismark ...... ?

[;)]

This sort of thing will get you a very short answer from Terminus. I will have to try to get up to date on turns to keep you out of mischief...[:'(]

[Nomad]

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie

ORIGINAL: scout1

No Bismark ...... ?

[;)]

This sort of thing will get you a very short answer from Terminus. I will have to try to get up to date on turns to keep you out of mischief...[:'(]

[font="Tahoma"]how short?[/font]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: scout1

No Bismark ...... ?

[;)]

Well, there is the Bismark Barrier...

[scout1]

At this point in my CHS game against Goodboyladdie, I'd settle for some E-boats and a license to assemble FW-190's on the Home Islands ......

[romanovich]

Re: Historical First Turn

In adherence to the below rules, I'll repost here from my own post to get my question answered (thanks for providing some answers already, Yamato hugger (YH)).

ORIGINAL: m10bob

1. Keep all posts relative to AE, and NAVAL comments/queries.... [check]
3. Post as if your comment/question were addressed to a member of the AE team, (not just a long-time forum poster.) [check]
4. Please allow the comment/question be answered/responded to by a AE team member. [I wish that'd be so, check]

Theories...history lessons...etc, can be posted in the general forum, not here in the AE area. [hope so, check!]

A lot of effort is going into making the OOB in AE historically accurate. That's wonderful. In a "Historical First Turn" and "Surprise On", it was nevertheless almost impossible (in WITP) to replicate the actual outcome of the attack on Pearl Harbor. If - as YH says - the outcome of the attack in AE is also only 2 BBs sunk (on average), all that historical accuracy in the initial OOB is kind of turned on its head. The attack cost the U.S. Fleet five BBs SUNK, along with others damaged, essentially their whole battle fleet train. This resulted - obviously - in the U.S. becoming masters of the new fast CV TF paradigm. They had to, given that their old heavies were at the bottom of the sea.

Given that you guys invested so much in getting the OOB right, I would sincerely hope that there is some option in AE that would allow for a relatively close replication of the actual Pearl Harbor results in game play. Does the main scenario (the one with great historical accuracy) have a Dec. 08, 41 start date option maybe? Or does the selection of "Historical First Turn" mean that the Pearl Harbor attack is hardcoded and not subject to the role of a dice?

The OOB right AFTER Pearl Harbor should be the OOB that counts. I personally don't care if that means all the other action in the first turn is also predetermined. In the end, what would be most fascinating to play (in a historical scenario) is the hand that was dealt both sides after the initial "bang". After all, doubtful it'd had been called the "day that'll live in infamy" if the Japs had succeeded in sinking nothing more than one lousy BB...

[Splinterhead]

The US didn't have five Battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor as defined in WITP. Three were refloated and repaired. In WITP sunk means GONE.

You realise that if you refight Coral Sea or Midway using historic forces, you probably won't get historic results either. [8|]

It would be pointless to play the 1st turn if it's hard coded, just play the Dec 8 scenario.
One or two old BB's extra in the US OOB won't make that much difference.

[romanovich]

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

The US didn't have five Battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor as defined in WITP. Three were refloated and repaired. In WITP sunk means GONE.

You realise that if you refight Coral Sea or Midway using historic forces, you probably won't get historic results either. [8|]

It would be pointless to play the 1st turn if it's hard coded, just play the Dec 8 scenario.
One or two old BB's extra in the US OOB won't make that much difference.

My other post was hijacked that way, too. I call foul. You can say what you want, the OOB is certainly NOT accurate if the U.S. Fleet train remains operational at the outbreak of hostilities. If you are concerned about the U.S. not getting their BBs back, just set the replacement rate higher and you get tons of nice ships to play with as U.S. You could pretend they are those BBs that were refloated and made combat ready late in the war.

If you can tell me that there IS a Dec 8 scenario, thanks. I was hoping for such an answer. If you're just guessing however, why post?

[Splinterhead]

ORIGINAL: romanovich

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

The US didn't have five Battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor as defined in WITP. Three were refloated and repaired. In WITP sunk means GONE.

You realise that if you refight Coral Sea or Midway using historic forces, you probably won't get historic results either. [8|]

It would be pointless to play the 1st turn if it's hard coded, just play the Dec 8 scenario.
One or two old BB's extra in the US OOB won't make that much difference.

My other post was hijacked that way, too. I call foul. You can say what you want, the OOB is certainly NOT accurate if the U.S. Fleet train remains operational at the outbreak of hostilities. If you are concerned about the U.S. not getting their BBs back, just set the replacement rate higher and you get tons of nice ships to play with as U.S. You could pretend they are those BBs that were refloated and made combat ready late in the war.

If you can tell me that there IS a Dec 8 scenario, thanks. I was hoping for such an answer. If you're just guessing however, why post?

I suppose it's easier to argue your point if nobody else posts their disagreement. If you don't like the scenarios offered why don't you write your own. It's not that hard to make a Dec 8 scenario if that's what you want.

The idea that the US would have reacted differently if Oklahoma had counterflooded and been salvageable or if the bomb that hit the Arizona had been dropped just a few feet away avoiding the magazine explosion is, IMO, a pretty silly argument.

BTW, you are demanding the unhistoric removal of 3 BBs from the US OOB. It seems to me that you are not so much motivated by a desire for historical accuracy as a JFB bias. If I'm wrong about that I'm sorry.

Edit: Oops, I forgot this was the naval thread. Sorry.
Romanovich, since your idea is controversial, why not drop it in this thread and continue the battle in the thread you started to discuss it.

[romanovich]

Argue my point? I posted this to NOT argue with anyone. I thought that was the whole point of this thread?

1. Keep all posts relative to AE, and NAVAL comments/queries.... [check]
3. Post as if your comment/question were addressed to a member of the AE team, (not just a long-time forum poster.) [check]
4. Please allow the comment/question be answered/responded to by a AE team member. [I wish that'd be so, check]

Theories...history lessons...etc, can be posted in the general forum, not here in the AE area. [hope so, check!]

If you are part of the AE team, sorry, Splinterhead, you just didn't make that very clear. And you didn't answer my question.

I had a simple question: given that there are apparently limited # of scenarios that the AE team is preparing, is there one that reflects the OOB taking the historical outcome of Pearl Harbor into account? Or, if no dedicated 12/8 scenario, is there some other option that would allow for the Pearl Harbor combat resolution to approximate the actual results of the attack?

Thanks.

[romanovich]

Cue the crickets...

.
.
.
.

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

The US didn't have five Battleships sunk at Pearl Harbor as defined in WITP. Three were refloated and repaired. In WITP sunk means GONE.

This is correct. A ship that is sunk is out of the game. One that is "sunk" but refloated and repaired (in game terms) is not sunk. It likely could be considered to have 99 sys and whatever flood damage. Now you can argue until the cows come home if you want but thats the way it works, thats the way it has always worked going back to GGs first game (that I know of) Guadalcanal Campaign on the old Apple II with SSI.

Edit: As for a Dec 8 scenario: there isnt one. Yet. That doesnt mean there will be. That doesnt mean there wont be. That means there isnt one. Yet. We are still tracking bugs at this point and trying to get the AI to be a challenge. Scenario stuff is way down on the list.

[drw61]

Romanovich,  Even if there is not an 8 Dec scenario for AE in the release, it will be easy to make one with the editor. 

If the opening PH attack does not have historical results it is because of randomized die rolls, not an error in the OOB.   In fact, I think that the initial PH results would be very unlikely to be the same as in real life.  

I actually prefer it this way, I don’t want to see an exact replay of the war, I want some surprises along the way.