Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Well if you run out of torpedoes none will be carried... Cv's only carried so many torps.

For land based HQ's make sure you have an adequate supply on hand to arm your torpedo planes over the course of two days.

I don't think you understood what I was asking. If you are playing a 2 day turn PBEM and your CVs getting into a battle with other CVs on day 1, will they automatically reload with torpedoes, if available, on the CVs and use them again on day 2?? Or will they use just bombs the second day since the player is not able to manually reload them??

A test of this would be good for you developers using a 2 day turn of PBEM to see how the AI reacts to this possible situation.

Most Fleet Carriers carried enough torps in their magazines for two sorties of their full strength Torpedo Squadron. Roughly 36. Considering the potential for casualties in CV combat that means you'll probably be able to fly 3 before runningout. At which time you'll be left with bombs.

But hey, that's reality. Might want to have a back up plan in case you get stuck wondering if you should load bombs or torpedoes...

ORIGINAL: witpqs

What are the restrictions on CV's resupplying with torps?

I believe for unreps they are the same as resupplying BBs. For port calls I'll have to get back to you. We are still refining this. however the intent is not to require CVs to pull in to ports with Air HQs. Any appropriate size port with good supply should suffice.

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Since it seems that spending supply points to use torpedoes is a manual function, how does it work for games with 2 day turns?? I'm playing a PBEM with 2 day turns. Thus, would TB carry torpedoes only for the first day, if selected, and not reload for the second day?? This would not be good for a CV vs. CV battle. [:(]

Torpedoes work differently for CV-based and Land based units.

CVs have a finite supply. 36 for Fleet Carriers, less for escort and Light CVs. When they are used up that's it, so better make'em count. Have to unrep with and appropriate tender or pull into an appropriate port.

Land-based units are dependent on parent HQ's to supply the torps and a host of other factors previously mentioned. But they are supplied as they were in stock, just with more restrictions and hoops

In BOTH cases the player control is the same. You click a yellow phrase in the individual air unit that says "Use Torpedoes". If it is green after you click it you are in the supply chain. If it is red, then the chain is broken somewhere....

The OTHER player control is determining how many torpedoes are in the reserve of the HQ. You can select (increment /decrement) the number of torpedoes you want the HQ to have on hand for all the air units in supply range. For each torpedo you "Assemble" you pay 10 supply points. That HQ will automatically maintain that level of Torpedoes in it's reserve until you tell it to reduce it, or supply becomes and issue.

ORIGINAL: TheElf


But hey, that's reality. Might want to have a back up plan in case you get stuck wondering if you should load bombs of torpedoes...

Didn't something similar happen historically...can't quite place my finger on it ....[;)]

I don't know that many landbased airfields that can travel into the wind at 30 knots, though, so that 250m long mobile flight deck has a slight advantage over a level 1-2 airbase...

 
That is why i said 3 or 2 size.

Just noticed I had a double post here. No need in saying the same thing twice.

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: TheElf


But hey, that's reality. Might want to have a back up plan in case you get stuck wondering if you should load bombs of torpedoes...

Didn't something similar happen historically...can't quite place my finger on it ....[;)]

Having the advantage of knowing what happened historically, I'll just stick with Bombs instead of reloading with torpedos. They may not be as devastating, but it sure is better than getting caught with your with a bunch of half loaded planes on the deck
. [;)]

Hi all,

ORIGINAL: TheElf

Torpedoes work differently for CV-based and Land based units.

CVs have a finite supply. 36 for Fleet Carriers, less for escort and Light CVs. When they are used up that's it, so better make'em count. Have to unrep with and appropriate tender or pull into an appropriate port.

Land-based units are dependent on parent HQ's to supply the torps and a host of other factors previously mentioned. But they are supplied as they were in stock, just with more restrictions and hoops

In BOTH cases the player control is the same. You click a yellow phrase in the individual air unit that says "Use Torpedoes". If it is green after you click it you are in the supply chain. If it is red, then the chain is broken somewhere....

The OTHER player control is determining how many torpedoes are in the reserve of the HQ. You can select (increment /decrement) the number of torpedoes you want the HQ to have on hand for all the air units in supply range. For each torpedo you "Assemble" you pay 10 supply points. That HQ will automatically maintain that level of Torpedoes in it's reserve until you tell it to reduce it, or supply becomes and issue.

Again very nice stuff - thanks guys!!! [&o][&o][&o]


Leo "Apollo11"

Search came up empty for this question: Most Japanese CLs and USN Omaha class CLs were fitted for minelaying - is this modelled in AE?[/align]

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Search came up empty for this question: Most Japanese CLs and USN Omaha class CLs were fitted for minelaying - is this modelled in AE?[/align]

I can answer the Japanese ... I've generally followed the data given in Lacroix and Wells. This will see some of the IJN CLs still capable of carrying mines by the start of the war - and some carrying depth charges later. Justin will have to speak for the American side of the house.

ORIGINAL: TheElf

CVs have a finite supply (of torpedos). 36 for Fleet Carriers, less for escort and Light CVs. When they are used up that's it, so better make'em count. Have to unrep with and appropriate tender or pull into an appropriate port.

Land-based units are dependent on parent HQ's to supply the torps and a host of other factors previously mentioned. But they are supplied as they were in stock, just with more restrictions and hoops

In BOTH cases the player control is the same. You click a yellow phrase in the individual air unit that says "Use Torpedoes". If it is green after you click it you are in the supply chain. If it is red, then the chain is broken somewhere....

The OTHER player control is determining how many torpedoes are in the reserve of the HQ. You can select (increment /decrement) the number of torpedoes you want the HQ to have on hand for all the air units in supply range. For each torpedo you "Assemble" you pay 10 supply points. That HQ will automatically maintain that level of Torpedoes in it's reserve until you tell it to reduce it, or supply becomes and issue.

I like the complexity as imposed upon the human player, but is the AI capable of handling this? Will AI-KB keep patroling long after it's used up it's torpedos? And if/when it does need replenishment, does the AI know it must select an "appropriate port"? (i.e. one with torpedos in supply)

Kull, I believe that is one of the things they are working on right now. I know that it has been a problem already - the KB sailing around without enough sorties left to launch any serious attacks. It is possible that my experience with this has been because of the modified map changing the size of the ports where the KB expects to resupply, but it is a reasonable concern you are expressing. It is my understanding that the majority of the work that is being done right now on AE has to deal with the AI.

I hope the AI in AE will allow it to handle more than one Carrier TF at a time!

Will 20mm canon guns be more effective against transports? Usually, they can't even start fire on enemy transports....

Many thanks for answers guys[:)]

i guess nothing will be changed. Oh why i'm not suprised at all....

They said in other thread that lack of responses is because they are very busy right now.

"Sorry for the lack of responses lately guys, no disrespect intended - it's just that we've got our heads down for some serious grafting ATM."

ORIGINAL: pauk


Many thanks for answers guys[:)]

i guess nothing will be changed. Oh why i'm not suprised at all....

You're probably right nothing at all has changed....except for maybe those 150 other things that were changed.

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Kull, I believe that is one of the things they are working on right now. I know that it has been a problem already - the KB sailing around without enough sorties left to launch any serious attacks. It is possible that my experience with this has been because of the modified map changing the size of the ports where the KB expects to resupply, but it is a reasonable concern you are expressing. It is my understanding that the majority of the work that is being done right now on AE has to deal with the AI.

For the KB at any point, you'll have a set of actions available--where you go and what you do during the next turn. The actions implement operations--some reflexive, some basically habitual, and some involving planning. Each operation will have a value (discounted reward) and a variance. The value of an action is a weighted total of all the operations values that it supports, with the weighting based on the variance of each (like in a Kalman filter). You quickly calculate the values of all the actions and do the most rewarding. Refueling, rearming, and refitting raise the long-term value of available operations.

Habitual operations values are cached using the rewards of the operation in the past. (See actor-critic.) Hence the AI learns how to play its opponent tactically.

Planned operations need a forward model (and an inverse model so that actions can be abandoned when they no longer lead to a pay off). You can probably get by with a collection of generic plans plus some special cases for special situations. (See model-based reinforcement learning.) These would be like an opening or end-game library in a chess program or you might want to allow the program to look ahead.

Reflexive operations are like the TF approaching or avoiding an enemy TF or an AirTF releasing its screen to go carrier-hunting at night. These can probably be handled by the player defining SOPs for specific situations.

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: pauk


Many thanks for answers guys[:)]

i guess nothing will be changed. Oh why i'm not suprised at all....

You're probably right nothing at all has changed....except for maybe those 150 other things that were changed.

Get lost, Pauk, you spoiled brat...[:-][:-][:-]

Sard, perhaps they really are busy, but they do have time for insults and arrogant answers. As it was expected, of course.

I've questioned one normal question and what i've got was ingorance. Well, i'm not suprised ... how they say: "give someone authority and you will see what kind of person he is"...


I have been reading for months about "historical playibility", etc... several hundreds minor things that will be changed (especially like importance of transporting fuel with transport aircrafts[:D]).

I really dont see what is wrong with my question. Isn't little bit wierd that 20 mm AA gun can sink DD, but at the other hand, transports are invulnerable when ac with 20 mm canon guns attack AKs APs? It is not such a minor issue when comparing with transporting fuel with ac, for example[:D])

I hope that examples are not requiered.[:)] I have seen plenty of them. Perhaps even terminus saw few of them since he didn't played game more than a month...

So, ignoring my question gives me a right to make my own opinion that we have a AE religious sect here. "Hear, hear, im telling you what is good and what is wrong, so it will be as I said". ....... has spoken.

That is ok, if Matrix allows such behaviour i have nothing more than [:)]...

I'm just dissapointed that master of religious sect converted some members of the team - treespider, you have been very informative and well balanced. But thanks, if you going to answer to questions like that, please dont[:D]

I didn't ask about 149 things changed (I see that this is drunken AFB party for a months). I've asked about one specific issue. Please, don't be demagogue[:)]


Back to the original issue. Of course that this issue is not gamebreaker, but fixing/changing that requires 10 minutes. We all know why that is not going to be fixed - "I AM here to decide what is wrong and what is right - Get lost, Pauk, you spoiled brat..."....[:D]

I'm simply astonished that member of the team can act like that - so guess whose behavior is childish (oh no, you touched MY toy, get lost you spoiled brat. I know the best).[:)]

Such reaction was expected since they can not offer any counter arguments regarding this issue. And when you are proved wrong, all you can do is offer:

- sarcasam (except for maybe those 150 other things that were changed.)
- insults

[:D]

I would suggest Matrix officials changing the rules on this board, it's obivious that some people can't follow these rules (i will not say why[:D]):

tm.asp?m=1649590

So, in perfect scenario, terminus will get a warning (pehaps! not likely!), and he will keep going with arrogance and insults - just because others don't think like him.[:'(]

Thanks God, he doesnt live in WW II era....brrrrr[:D]