#### OFFICIAL ADMIRAL's EDITION AAR ####

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Barb »

Belt armor on Lady lex is 175, Yorktowns only 100. This could have some effect on Torpedo damage deflection.
Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

Thanks TheElf,

language barriers or not. I sincerely appriciate your response. Excuse my spelling.
Believe it or not - I have been a part of volunteer development groups before. And the pet peeves everyone has ..
And because of that, some "applauding noise" from the fences - touche or not - is well...
So much for making friends or influencing things.

Apart from the CVE/CVL issue - some rumors exist about RHS managing notwithstanding - I cannot confirm.

There is the big question of mutual support of multiple TFs in a single hex. Plus some sort of target "fixation". (like BBs as bomb magnets). The "death star" from UV.
If AE is not adressing the issues - fine by me. State it. It is not a statement of failure but of accomplishment in other areas.

I hope you do not mind, if I utter my expectation, that AE would address the singlehex/multiple TF issue with a very high priority. Because we are talking a naval asset based war ?

And yes, I am a bystander.
Cheers

Copy all Von...sometimes, no matter how much we want to change something, it just can't be done within the bounds of a deadline. And as I said we started BIG, and worked to SMALL. We haven't gotten to some of the BIG items yet, but we did get most if not all of the BROAD ones.

And we are not done. We will continue to improve through regular patches and honest critical thinking and dialogue with the community. After all we are players too...
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Barb

Belt armor on Lady lex is 175, Yorktowns only 100. This could have some effect on Torpedo damage deflection.
indeed...
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
User avatar
vonSchnitter
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Jul 02, 2004 5:42 pm
Location: Germany - still
Contact:

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by vonSchnitter »

Once again,

you are very patient and understanding - and I appologize for my earlier - quite personal in retrospect - attacks.
But I mistook some of the thread as a cover-up. Which it aint. On the contrary - you exposed some of the issues quite candidly in the latest posts. (in my rather dim lights)

Sorry, I just jumped the gun.

Considering the developments, your posts just accentuate my concerns.

I am not quite the diplomate [;)] but I am good a stirring a pot or two.

A Gun on hire, so to speak ---

by the way: the "v" in "von" is not supposed to be a capital - so much for - a big pond. If you care for a proper abbrevation it would be "vS" or "v.S."
Image

Remember that the first law of motion is to look where you're going. A man with a stiff neck has no place in an airplane.
Technical Manual No. 1-210, Elementary Flying, War Department, Washington,
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by JeffroK »

Gday Elf,
 
You pic of Enterprise's damage shows a pitiful AA fitout, is this just an example and not the real armament??
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by DuckofTindalos »

By "Enterprise", do you mean Lexington or Yorktown? Their AA fits are correct and final, but if you're talking about the Lexington, notice the scroll-bar.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Dili
Posts: 4742
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Dili »

Plus some sort of target "fixation". (like BBs as bomb magnets).

As they should, it worked that way in Santa Cruz if i am not mistaken(or was another Battle where american planes spent considersble resources attacking surface combat ships instead of carriers) . There are a lot of circunstances, like for example not finding the target, that makes attacking lesser targets a reality.
erstad
Posts: 1960
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: Midwest USA

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by erstad »

Elf, just to confirm - we can now disband carrier airgroups/fragments into other groups? You've mentioned twice that you would do that with the IJN fragments which, of course, was not possible in WiTP.
User avatar
Q-Ball
Posts: 7851
Joined: Tue Jun 25, 2002 4:43 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Q-Ball »

ORIGINAL: erstad

Elf, just to confirm - we can now disband carrier airgroups/fragments into other groups? You've mentioned twice that you would do that with the IJN fragments which, of course, was not possible in WiTP.

It is always possible in WITP, just only on dry land, which is where those fragments are. You are right in that fragments can't disband while on board a CV, and I would 'reckon that's probably still the case. But they will disband on land.
pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by pad152 »

Ship Damage - flooding, I see the Yorktown shows flooding of 92 (59) major. Will it sink of minor flood goes from 92 to 100, or does it only sink if major flooding goes to 100?
 
User avatar
Iridium
Posts: 932
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 7:50 pm
Location: Jersey

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Iridium »

ORIGINAL: pad152

Ship Damage - flooding, I see the Yorktown shows flooding of 92 (59) major. Will it sink of minor flood goes from 92 to 100, or does it only sink if major flooding goes to 100?

I was under the impression that 'major' damage was only repaired when at a major facility (ie port with repair yard). The rest can be fixed at sea or lesser ports. However no matter the type, a total of 100 = sunk.
Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.
Image
"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture
pad152
Posts: 2835
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2000 8:00 am

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by pad152 »

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: pad152

Ship Damage - flooding, I see the Yorktown shows flooding of 92 (59) major. Will it sink of minor flood goes from 92 to 100, or does it only sink if major flooding goes to 100?

I was under the impression that 'major' damage was only repaired when at a major facility (ie port with repair yard). The rest can be fixed at sea or lesser ports. However no matter the type, a total of 100 = sunk.


Your right, when my brain sees the word major next to one number, it assumes the other one must be minor![;)] The long term effects of too much data mining and pattern recognition!!
User avatar
TheElf
Posts: 2800
Joined: Wed May 14, 2003 1:46 am
Location: Pax River, MD

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by TheElf »

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: erstad

Elf, just to confirm - we can now disband carrier airgroups/fragments into other groups? You've mentioned twice that you would do that with the IJN fragments which, of course, was not possible in WiTP.

It is always possible in WITP, just only on dry land, which is where those fragments are. You are right in that fragments can't disband while on board a CV, and I would 'reckon that's probably still the case. But they will disband on land.
Q-ball is correct. In this case I disbanded the Zuikaku Zeroes into the Tainan Ku S-2 at Rabaul...on dry land.
IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

Image
moose1999
Posts: 781
Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 12:41 pm

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by moose1999 »

ORIGINAL: Q-Ball

ORIGINAL: erstad

Elf, just to confirm - we can now disband carrier airgroups/fragments into other groups? You've mentioned twice that you would do that with the IJN fragments which, of course, was not possible in WiTP.

It is always possible in WITP, just only on dry land, which is where those fragments are. You are right in that fragments can't disband while on board a CV, and I would 'reckon that's probably still the case. But they will disband on land.

Is it possible to gather all the fragments of a squadron that has evacuated to different airfields after the carrier sank and join them together?
This was not possible in WitP - at least not, as I remember it, if the main fragment had been destroyed. Then the other fragments could never be joined...
regards,

Briny
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6432
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by JeffroK »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

By "Enterprise", do you mean Lexington or Yorktown? Their AA fits are correct and final, but if you're talking about the Lexington, notice the scroll-bar.

That reading thing always gets me into trouble[8|] it's about the same length as the Yorktown's and I didnt look again.

? .303 Vickers ? on the Lex.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
Reg
Posts: 2793
Joined: Fri May 26, 2000 8:00 am
Location: NSW, Australia

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by Reg »

ORIGINAL: JeffK

? .303 Vickers ? on the Lex.

That's to round up prisoners after they crash on the deck (VTIC [:D])

[size=-1](Can't think of anything else they would be any good for...)[/size]
Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!
User avatar
DuckofTindalos
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by DuckofTindalos »

I apologize. That's an error; wrong device assigned in the correct numbers. It should be 32 Oerlikons, rather than 32 Vickers guns. Will be fixed.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
PeteG662
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:01 pm

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by PeteG662 »

No wonder why they got waxed! Their AA armament was SNAFU!  j/k Terminus!
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by JWE »

Yo Pad, a real quickie. Damage is a bit “different” in AE. Can’t give details yet. Yorkie FlotDam is 92, ‘of which’ 59 is major (BIG holes – shipyard time). Oh yeah, when FlotDam gets to 100 you are 100% full of water, i.e., sunk.

This should please go onto another thread – this one is Elf’s AAR for air thingys.
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: 5 May 42, Coral Sea

Post by HansBolter »

Quick question about the major flooding/shipyard repair issue.

Is there ANY way to temporarily patch the the holes at a minor port so a ship with heavy major float damage can have a prayers chance in hades of making to a repair yard?

I envision a ship with 80+ major float damage limping back to a minor port where the non-major float damage is dealt with yet the ship reamins unable to move from that minor port to a repair yard because the major float damage would increase along the journey at too fast a rate for the ship to ever make it to the repair yard.

Are we going to end up with a map littered with heavily damaged ships stuck for the duration of the war in minor ports? Or, will we be able to move a repair ship to that port to patch up the damage sufficiently to allow the ship to return to a major repair yard?
Hans

Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”