Page 56 of 68
RE: Ship SUnk Screen
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:04 pm
by John Lansford
Didn't Callaghan issue his order to just "follow me" into that fight, or was that Doorman at Java Sea? Neither he nor Scott survived that battle, though; San Francisco had her superstructure nearly removed courtesy of 14" shells, and Atlanta blown out of the water via Long Lance.
RE: Ship SUnk Screen
Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:16 pm
by NormS3
I think that was Doorman. Callaghan kept Carlton Wright's battle plan if I recall, but it's been a while since I have studied Guadalcanal. I am currently studying for Gettysburg Tour Guide Test. So I guess my history has regressed.
RE: Ship SUnk Screen
Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 12:58 am
by Shark7
ORIGINAL: Norm3
I think that was Doorman. Callaghan kept Carlton Wright's battle plan if I recall, but it's been a while since I have studied Guadalcanal. I am currently studying for Gettysburg Tour Guide Test. So I guess my history has regressed.
What is obvious is that the Allies had a steep learning curve for the first 12 months of the war. And they did all of that learning the hard way.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 4:44 am
by olorin42
One question on logistics in the Pacific. Since the intent with AE seems to try to represent every ship (bravo!), would not the Allies have to ship a potload of supplies to Hawaii to feed the civilians??? India has sifficient internal production to feed the population. Same for Australia and NZ. Most other Pacific islands had small enough populations that there was probably not a great need for importing food. Hawaii on the other hand does not have much in the way of domestic food production (excepting sugar and pineapples). Most food and domestic products (simple stuff like soap and toilet paper) had to come from CONUS.
Where SF has a supply income each turn, maybe Pearl Harbor should have a negative daily supply income????
Bigger icons for enemy sighted TF's?
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:15 pm
by mussey
I don't know where to begin - all this looks very good, and it's most enjoyable reading the various comments. Maybe this has already been asked/suggested: do you plan on making sighted enemy TF's any different? I'm in a scenerio now where there are numerous TF's sighted (mostly AK's, etc), but it would make it easier if an enemy TF with CV's or BB's would have a bigger icon (x2). Maybe a flat top icon for CV's? As a matter of fact, my own CV TF's could be bigger too!
These ships are the most dangerous of all, with the most consequences - need to spot them more easily on the map[X(]
RE: Bigger icons for enemy sighted TF's?
Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 2:06 pm
by Sneer
question : multi tubed ship torpedo attack
in game it is always solved against 1 single target
but
torpedo attack were often made against formation of ship or convoy / spread /
so there should be at least some possibility of another ship hit
i don't even mention about ships like oi or kitakami
in battle they are useless alwways - even if they shoot torps check is made only against 1 ship - not many
RE: Get rid of the "react" feature!
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:03 am
by pad152
ORIGINAL: JeffK
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Please get rid of the entire "react" routine for aircraft carriers! Is there anything more universally loathed (at least judging from my forum reading for UV and WitP over the past six years)? People have come up with all kinds of routines to stop CVs from reacting, but none of them are reliable. Just do away with "react" entirely! Or, if the designers want a possibility of mayhem in the game, just have a chance (25% or whatever) that CVs will become dispersed or do stupid things.
So much angst and anger will disappear if players can simply issue orders to CV TFs knowing that those CVs will stay grouped with the ships they are supposed to be grouped with.
In all likelihood, this topic has already been addressed. I tried a search without luck, and who has time to read 36 pages of posts?
I'm unaware of a problem.
I've set a CVTF to react and had it work OK, never had problems with them reacting without orders.
I've seen it, I would almost like a "React to enemy ship Order" & "Retreat from enemy ship Order". Sometimes you want to fight and sometime you need to run!
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 9:06 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: olorin42
One question on logistics in the Pacific. Since the intent with AE seems to try to represent every ship (bravo!), would not the Allies have to ship a potload of supplies to Hawaii to feed the civilians??? India has sifficient internal production to feed the population. Same for Australia and NZ. Most other Pacific islands had small enough populations that there was probably not a great need for importing food. Hawaii on the other hand does not have much in the way of domestic food production (excepting sugar and pineapples). Most food and domestic products (simple stuff like soap and toilet paper) had to come from CONUS.
Where SF has a supply income each turn, maybe Pearl Harbor should have a negative daily supply income????
You are correct about the need to supply the civilians in Hawaii. In fact, during the war tons of "SPAM" was shipped there for them, and believe it or not, to this day, it can be ordered at local restaurants.
RE: Admiral's Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:49 am
by Akizuki
[font="times new roman"]Sorry if the question has been asked.[/font]
[font="times new roman"]But will "plane capacity" get their own location and effect on the ship data list ?[/font]So that it will be possible to correctly simulating the plane carryring tanker or grain ship
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:39 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: m10bob
You are correct about the need to supply the civilians in Hawaii. In fact, during the war tons of "SPAM" was shipped there for them, and believe it or not, to this day, it can be ordered at local restaurants.
I'm told it's well liked in Korea. Even given as a gift.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:48 pm
by goodboyladdie
I have been using the "marvellous" search engine to try to find out the result of the internal huddle about the missing CVs if you choose no respawn at start. I have been unable to dig out the answer. Did the team ever come up with one?
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:03 pm
by Ron Saueracker
I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:13 pm
by bradfordkay
"You are correct about the need to supply the civilians in Hawaii. In fact, during the war tons of "SPAM" was shipped there for them, and believe it or not, to this day, it can be ordered at local restaurants. "
See, Termie? Hawaii is a paradise! I expect to hear of your relocation in the near future...[:'(]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:33 pm
by goodboyladdie
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)]
There is a no respawn included I think, BUT without the missing CVs, which is pretty pointless...
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:44 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)]
There is a no respawn included I think, BUT without the missing CVs, which is pretty pointless...
Come again?
You mean there will be a no-respawn scenario, but it's missing the carriers that were on the stocks by 1/1/42?
That suggests one of the first mods will be...
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:18 pm
by Shark7
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
"You are correct about the need to supply the civilians in Hawaii. In fact, during the war tons of "SPAM" was shipped there for them, and believe it or not, to this day, it can be ordered at local restaurants. "
See, Termie? Hawaii is a paradise! I expect to hear of your relocation in the near future...[:'(]
And if you look on the tin, it probably says packaged 12-12-41. When people no longer roam this earth, no doubt the cockroaches and SPAM will still survive. [:D]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:03 pm
by JWE
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)]
There is a no respawn included I think, BUT without the missing CVs, which is pretty pointless...
I would like to put this particular issue to bed.
In AE, scenarios can be developed to either Spawn, or Not-Spawn, by setting a switch in the editor.
The release scenarios will Not-Spawn. There will be “replacement” of things like barges, and other ‘dinky’ things, but Spawning pertains to Carriers/Cruisers, as it was in WiTP-1.
In the release scenarios, every carrier or cruiser that was built will be in the game and will arrive at about its nominal arrival date.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:04 pm
by jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)]
There is a no respawn included I think, BUT without the missing CVs, which is pretty pointless...
I have stated numerous times, that ALL historical carriers and ONLY the HISTORICAL carriers are included in the game. People may disagree with this. But that is what the editor is for.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:47 pm
by goodboyladdie
Thanks Joe and JWE. Much obliged.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 8:54 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: JWE
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
I'm hoping they include a non respawn scenario in AE for sure, given it is the historically accurate one. Respawn is for kids.[;)]
There is a no respawn included I think, BUT without the missing CVs, which is pretty pointless...
I would like to put this particular issue to bed.
You're probably not that lucky, John... It's only been said about 11 million times and apparently it hasn't registered yet...