Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
No plans for Atlantic-style Hunter-Killer groups.

From what I read it may work anyway - have an ASW TF set to react, have a CVE TF with some aircraft on ASW search. Have the ASW TF follow the CVE with an aggressive commander.

If the aircraft spot a nearby sub, the ASW TF will react and run off to depth charge it.

Assuming ASW TFs react the same as SCTFs do. Yamato Hugger's AAR involves a lot of discussion on this subject.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: Dili

That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost

Au contraire! It is worse. A player can risk more those ships and doesn't simulate well the requests of other theatres since it is not the specific ship per se that counts.

Many ships return to the PTO after some time - and sunk ships still cost PP's (for being sunk). Would be quite silly to deliberately risk a specific ship only because one knows that it has to be withdrawn.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Dili

That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost

Au contraire! It is worse. A player can risk more those ships and doesn't simulate well the requests of other theatres since it is not the specific ship per se that counts.

The problem, of course, is that the decision to request transfer of ships from one ocean to another is based on losses and operations. If Atlantic lost a lot of DDs they would request some from the Pacific and probably not transfer any to the Pacific. History goes out the window with the first random statement in the code, so it is absolutely impossible to figure out the force balance between the two theatres. We were faced with one reasonable option: to use historical arrivals and withdrawals.

We considered, and even tested, some code to use substitutes - type for type or reasonable alternative, in the withdrawals. But it was illogical from the beginning. If the ship that was historically withdrawn had been lost, would another have been ordered out instead? Or would force levels be considered and maybe even another ship transferred to the Pacific? How the hell could we ever figure all that out? Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years).

So we went historical. You get transfers from the Atlantic when they historically arrived and you send ships back when they historically left. No consideration for possible losses in either theatre.

If anyone has a better idea, send Joe Wilkerson an email and volunteer to give up your free time for a couple of years working on the next version of the game.

[Dili]

We have to agree to disagree. I think PP's would have been a less worse compromise, it gives a latitude to manage what to give away simulating the balance of what kind of losses hapened.

[Gunner98]

Well, I have neither the time or the knowledge to work on it, just a thought. I understand the point on specifically withdrawing ships based on the historic context, and its not that big of a deal in the overall scheme of things, but the sunken ship = no withdrawal is pretty generous. My thought, and I wouldn't have the first clue on how to implement it:

The ETO was the priority (supposedly) so perhaps if a minimum number of ships of the various classes were set for the Atlantic/Med (e.g.: 150 DDs, 20 CL's etc - no idea if this is in the ball park) and adjusted monthly. Then a random value with a historical modifier can be applied to accumulate ETO losses (e.g. April 42 was a bad month so slightly heavier losses) than:

-IF historical withdraw called for:
- ship exists - no problem it gets withdrawn
- ship sunk - problem
-IF- ETO is at or above minimum for class - no problem no withdrawal
-IF- ETO is below minimum, perhaps with a risk tolerance applied - either:
- random ship of same class called for as a replacement withdrawal OR
- next reinforcement of that class doesn’t happen or is delayed until ETO minimum is satisfied

I know that this will not happen for release, or it might not be feasible at all. No big issue, just a thought. You guys have probably worked this one through and may well have tried a similar solution already. Just my 2 cents worth.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Well, I have neither the time or the knowledge to work on it, just a thought. I understand the point on specifically withdrawing ships based on the historic context, and its not that big of a deal in the overall scheme of things, but the sunken ship = no withdrawal is pretty generous. My thought, and I wouldn't have the first clue on how to implement it:

The ETO was the priority (supposedly) so perhaps if a minimum number of ships of the various classes were set for the Atlantic/Med (e.g.: 150 DDs, 20 CL's etc - no idea if this is in the ball park) and adjusted monthly. Then a random value with a historical modifier can be applied to accumulate ETO losses (e.g. April 42 was a bad month so slightly heavier losses) than:

-IF historical withdraw called for:
- ship exists - no problem it gets withdrawn
- ship sunk - problem
-IF- ETO is at or above minimum for class - no problem no withdrawal
-IF- ETO is below minimum, perhaps with a risk tolerance applied - either:
- random ship of same class called for as a replacement withdrawal OR
- next reinforcement of that class doesn’t happen or is delayed until ETO minimum is satisfied

I know that this will not happen for release, or it might not be feasible at all. No big issue, just a thought. You guys have probably worked this one through and may well have tried a similar solution already. Just my 2 cents worth.

No offense, but this sounds like a Pandora's box full of worms. We looked at various things but never, ever considered changing the historical ship levels outside the Pacific.

[Gunner98]

I see your point. Wasn't suggesting changing the levels outside the pacific, just using those levels as a basis for adjusting withdrawals. Like I said, not a biggie.

B

[Long Lance]

Another question, different, but belongs here: Will the Autoconvoyroutine be improved?

I'm so tired of seeing unescorted TKs been sunk by subs when tons of escorts sit at Osaka.

Or Autoconcoys to DEI going around Neu Guinea after Port Moresby is taken[X(].
Thus travelling nearly double the way - only to be sunk off Port Darwin[:@].

[HMS Resolution]

Have Vice-Admiral Algernon Usborne Willis' stats changed? From what I recall in stock, he wasn't very good.

[Andy Mac]

ok

[HMS Resolution]

Gol-dang! Algernon, I hardly recognize you!
 
Why is his middle initial N, though? Willis' middle name is Usborne.

[m10bob]

Bump..Open Naval Thread.

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution

Gol-dang! Algernon, I hardly recognize you!

Why is his middle initial N, though? Willis' middle name is Usborne.

Is there any chance of getting this corrected, or is it game-delaying minutia? If it's just minutia, but not game delaying, I'd be absurdly excited if it were corrected.

[stuman]

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?

January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?

Now that's what I am talking about! Question asked and answered. I can now plan around the release of WiTWWW. Of course the odds are that I will have been dead for several years before then, but I see that as only a minor annoyance.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "

Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?

January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM

Now is that January 28 Pearl Harbor time which is actually January 29 Singapore time or is it January 28 Singapore time which is actually January 27 Pearl Harbor time....[&:]

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM

I'll almost be sixty then! I won't know how computers work anymore! Sons of bitches!

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: stuman

" Unless we expanded WITP to cover the whole world, add in all the things that would contribute to force balancing decisions, and produce an unplayable monstrosity (in a few more years). "
















































Don, so you guys will start work on WiTWWW ( War in The Whole Wide World ) shortly after AE comes out ? Can you ttell me when WiTWWW will be finished ?

January 28, 2041, around 3:30 PM

Now is that January 28 Pearl Harbor time which is actually January 29 Singapore time or is it January 28 Singapore time which is actually January 27 Pearl Harbor time....[&:]

You are just trying to confuse me now. And it worked.

[Dili]

A ship or a submarine can transport a midget if edited that way but a midget sub can transport a midget sub too?