Matrix Games Forums

will there be a respawn scenario in AE? [:'(]

Go have your brain lipo'ed...[:'(]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

will there be a respawn scenario in AE? [:'(]

Ain't gonna put you to bed, Nik. You're probably too hairy.

Really like your dog, though.

I've got a springer spaniel - Abby the Hamster. She has the same facial expressions. I'll shoot you some pix. Ciao.

I doubt your dog's as dumb as Nik's, John... At least I hope not...[:D]

Something just occurred to me that you folks might want to watch out for in testing.

You have made overhauls in the loading routines so that only so many ships (or tons of ships or something) can load at one time. You have also overhauled various resource sites.

Having seen in current WITP how long it takes to load at smaller ports presents the possibility for mismatches in places that produce a lot of resources or oil. For example, a base just might produce oil at a rate faster than it is possible to load up the oil to carry it away!

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie




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...

Be fair T, I did say that I had not been able to find the result of the team huddle on the subject. I was wondering whether there should be a summary posted or maybe an FAQ sticky to stop people like me bothering the busy team with stuff they have already answered...

Not aiming at you in particular, GBL... Just putting it out there...

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Something just occurred to me that you folks might want to watch out for in testing.

You have made overhauls in the loading routines so that only so many ships (or tons of ships or something) can load at one time. You have also overhauled various resource sites.

Having seen in current WITP how long it takes to load at smaller ports presents the possibility for mismatches in places that produce a lot of resources or oil. For example, a base just might produce oil at a rate faster than it is possible to load up the oil to carry it away!

Good point. That is definitely something to watch for.

Andrew

It's probably in here somewhere but has Allied SIGINT been changed in any way. Practically none of the present SIGINT is information pertaining to the movement of Japanese ships. IRL that type of information was obtainable early on and "easily" obtainable from 1943 on. Many many Japanese ships, merchant and naval, were sunk as a direct result of operations initiated in response to SIGINT.

ORIGINAL: JWE

Ain't gonna put you to bed, Nik. You're probably too hairy.

Really like your dog, though.

I've got a springer spaniel - Abby the Hamster. She has the same facial expressions. I'll shoot you some pix. Ciao.

Dumb as a Yugo full of anvils, but strangely lovable...

[quote]
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.

[\quote]


Will you be able to select which ships either re-spawn or get replacement with the editor?

No.

ORIGINAL: pad152
Will you be able to select which ships either re-spawn or get replacement with the editor?

Terminus is being a little bit "brief" (reminds me of Leonard "Pith" Carnell). Is true, No is the answer, but .. Spawn/Not-Spawn is a "scenario" switch. If you set Spawn, it happens just like WiTP-1 .. no changes, no options, no nothin ... Nothing Different, i.e., Nothing Different. So if you set Spawn "on" for a scenario, you can expect the game to respond just like WiTP-1; Nothing Different. Same as it ever was, i.e., Nothing Different.

Upon mature thought, and reconsideration, I don't know why I just didn't let Termie's "No", sit still. Pretty much says it all.

Sorry, T.

Ciao.

Don't apologize. You're Naval Team boss, you can do what you want...

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.

This sounds like a non respawn approach to me. Thanks.[;)]

Hi all,

Excuse me for being dim, but in a non-respawn scenario, what would the Lexington (for example) be called if the original wasn't sunk?

Mark

Well, she was laid down as the USS Cabot, so my guess is that this would be her name.

Now, does anyone know why the Hancock and Ticonderoga hulls exchanged names?

Essex Carriers (originally planned name)
CV-9:Essex
CV-10:Yorktown (Bon Homme Richard)
CV-11:Intrepid
CV-12:Hornet (Kearsarge)
CV-13:Franklin
CV-14:Ticonderoga
CV-15:Randolph
CV-16:Lexington (Cabot)
CV-17:Bunker Hill
CV-18:Wasp (Oriskany)
CV-19:Hancock
CV-20:Bennington
CV-31: Bon Homme Richard (so actually, this name would exist twice)
CV-38: Shangri La
further ships which did not see action in WW2 (but could if the war lasts until march 1946): CV-21 (Boxer), CV-36 (Antietam), CV 39 (Lake Champlain)
completed in 1945 and 1946: CV-32 (Leyte), CV-33 (Kearsarge), CV-37 (Princeton), CV-40 (Tarawa), CV-45 (Valley Forge), CV-47 (Philippine Sea)
final ship: CV-34 (Oriskany), completed in 1950
I could not find information why the hulls of Ticonderoga and Hancock exchanged names.

Well on that note I guess you could use the names of the planned but never completed ones in the case of Bon Homme Richard etc so as to not repeat names. Originally Cabot was an Essex, then when it was renamed a CVL became Cabot. So the CVL that became Cabot would also need a different name.

One problem leads right into another...