Page 11 of 31
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 12:33 am
by timtom
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
John, the problem is that it doesn't work like that. When you arrive at your destination you can't just create the LCIs, etc and then move the troops aboard them for the landings. It seems to me that you have to load the troops aboard them from a port. DO you have any suggestions on how to transfer the troops from the troopships directly to the LCIs?
It doesn't work like that - and didn't it WITP. Troop ships are assumed to have a complement of landing craft and can move troops ashore without any assistance from "defined" landing craft (of any size).
The smaller landing craft and barges are meant to emulate shore-to-shore short ranged amphibious assaults. Troops loaded directly into landing craft, which ran a short distance up the coast or to a nearby island, and unloaded.
Larger landing craft, like LCI, are not buy-for-supply types and are just ships.
If you want to use your small landing craft (LCVP, for instance) in short ranged shore-to-shore landings the best thing is to buy them on-the-spot using supply cargo from a TF or supply stores at a base. You can then load troops/supplies/donuts into them and move them forward. If you need them somewhere else, shuttle them there in a series of short hops (carrying supplies).
Historically they were loaded onto larger ships for transport, but we do not have a capability for a ship being on a ship. The basic structure of ship attachment does not allow it and extending the struture is one point six hells of a lot of work. You may notice that ships exist only at a port or in a TF. Just no linkage to put a ship on a ship.
We did experiment with special classifications for the Midget Sub Carrier TFs. The I-boat actually carried the midget but, no structure. So we put the two into the TF together and put in special code to treat them as "carried". Turned out to be a lot of special code and took a long time to get workig right. So any thought of ships-carrying-ships in quantity and in other types of TFs will have to wait for a complete rework of the basic structures. This will be the famous WITP II or
perhaps the onset of porcine aviation.
Air Team will fix that as soon as we get the attendant art organised. Meanwhile I'll file it under "Don's Babies" (tm).
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:33 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: timtom
Air Team will fix that as soon as we get the attendant art organised. Meanwhile I'll file it under "Don's Babies" (tm).
If you need a picture of a flying pig, I could give my ex-wife a broom....
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 10:31 am
by Terminus
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Of course the included H-44 will probably not be commissioned until 1948, but that is another story!
[:D]
Details, details...[;)]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 1:20 pm
by CV Zuikaku
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Of course the included H-44 will probably not be commissioned until 1948, but that is another story!
[:D]
Details, details...[;)]
But including H-44 will ruin your (AE team) dogma about not including German units into the game [:'(] [:-]
Will there be any naval AAR? Short AAR [8|]
Where we coul'd see how waypoint system and mid-ocean intercepts works.
That woul'd be our gift for Christmass. But including German ships wol'd be better gift [:D]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 2:48 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: CV Zuikaku
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Of course the included H-44 will probably not be commissioned until 1948, but that is another story!
[:D]
Details, details...[;)]
But including H-44 will ruin your (AE team) dogma about not including German units into the game [:'(] [:-]
Will there be any naval AAR? Short AAR [8|]
Where we coul'd see how waypoint system and mid-ocean intercepts works.
That woul'd be our gift for Christmass. But including German ships wol'd be better gift [:D]
AE team no longer has dogma. It was run over by our karma.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 4:30 pm
by jwilkerson
One reason (my reason) to keep marginal European units out of WITP is "scope". We are not working on a "game editor product" like TOAW, which I have spent plenty of time with, but admit that was far more time building games than playing them. WITP/AE is a "game" not a "game editor product". Also, WITP/AE is about the WITP, not the WITW (War In The World). Also, a reason to avoid expanding both the date range of the game and the nations is that Matrix may wish to reserve these other periods and nations for future games. So the "Thirties" is out of scope, as are European nations whose units did not have a discernable presence in the Theater(s) we are representing.
I know some of you want to (and some already have) used WITP to build ETO scenarios. But as those who have tried have found out, there are issues with such. If we solve all these issues (in lieu of finishing the AE scope we took on), we are building a "game editor product" (not the AE game) which, as stated above is "out of scope". I think most of you had already figured this out, but just thought it might help those who hadn't if we spell it out!
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:27 pm
by khyberbill
ORIGINAL: timtom
Air Team will fix that as soon as we get the attendant art organised. Meanwhile I'll file it under "Don's Babies" (tm).
If you need a picture of a flying pig, I could give my ex-wife a broom....
My ex would probably fly into her.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:52 pm
by Don Bowen
I have a full cup of coffee left and the heater needs to run the temp up a couple of degrees before I take my shower and go out. Someone ask a question...
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:53 pm
by Dixie
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I have a full cup of coffee left and the heater needs to run the temp up a couple of degrees before I take my shower and go out. Someone ask a question...
Why do you never see baby pigeons?
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:55 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Dixie
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I have a full cup of coffee left and the heater needs to run the temp up a couple of degrees before I take my shower and go out. Someone ask a question...
Why do you never see baby pigeons?
42
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:56 pm
by Dixie
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Dixie
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I have a full cup of coffee left and the heater needs to run the temp up a couple of degrees before I take my shower and go out. Someone ask a question...
Why do you never see baby pigeons?
42
Thanks for clearing that up [&o]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:56 pm
by Terminus
Phew, never thought I'd find out...[:D]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:57 pm
by Grotius
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I have a full cup of coffee left and the heater needs to run the temp up a couple of degrees before I take my shower and go out. Someone ask a question...
OK, since you invited questions -- how's the navy-related AI coming along? How is the AI handling its ships these days?
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 1:57 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Dixie
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Dixie
Why do you never see baby pigeons?
42
Thanks for clearing that up [&o]
The answer is right there in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Statues in the Park.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:02 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Grotius
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I have a full cup of coffee left and the heater needs to run the temp up a couple of degrees before I take my shower and go out. Someone ask a question...
OK, since you invited questions -- how's the navy-related AI coming along? How is the AI handling its ships these days?
There is really no Naval AI. The "strategic" AI requests Naval support and TFs are build as required (if ships are available) and sent on mission. Only "AI" functions are routine sub patrols, routine supply convoys, and local patrols (new to AE).
Local patrols and local minesweeping are very, very important. The new AI sub target assignments are vastly different. Any old WITP player who is used to running unescorted merchant ships and tankers in his home waters is in for a big surprise (and a big casualty list).
There is also increased sub minelaying and, of course, midget sub carrier attacks. You need to carefully assign your small patrol craft and minesweepers to important ports and keep active ASW/Minesweeper TFs in the port hex. Remember, you were warned!
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:03 pm
by Terminus
Listen to the man, kiddies. He knows whereof he speaks.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:10 pm
by Grotius
Wow, I'm listening. That all sounds terrific. Yeah, I've never needed much in the way of MSW TFs in my own port hexes against the AI (or even in PBEM). And I'd almost forgotten that you're now modeling midget subs...*shiver*. Very cool.
Are these "small patrol craft" new ships in AE?
As for "naval-related AI", I guess I meant the AI not sending surface ships at me unescorted, or sailing a single CV right into the heart of enemy LBA -- that sort of thing.
Thanks again for taking the time to answer all our questions.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:50 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Grotius
Wow, I'm listening. That all sounds terrific. Yeah, I've never needed much in the way of MSW TFs in my own port hexes against the AI (or even in PBEM). And I'd almost forgotten that you're now modeling midget subs...*shiver*. Very cool.
I hope you still say that when you get the message "Midget Sub torpedoes Battleship in harbor" (sic)
Are these "small patrol craft" new ships in AE?
We have some new ones, but any small ASW type will do. AE has YP, ML, and HDML (district patrol, motor launch, harbor defense motor launch). Also PB but that tends to have a wide range of size. All of these will do very nicely for a local patrol TF. Use ASW mission, set destination to home port, put in 2-4 ships and your "fairly" safe. Midgets or minelaying subs might still get it, but the odds have switched to your favor.
As for "naval-related AI", I guess I meant the AI not sending surface ships at me unescorted, or sailing a single CV right into the heart of enemy LBA -- that sort of thing.
The "AI" really has two components: the strategic AI, which decides what the computer player is going to do; and the operational AI that attempts to carry it out. Strategic is now scripted via the editor (you'll love it!). Operational forms TF when requested by the AI (and when it has the ships available). The composition of these TFs has several new options (which only the AI sees) to ensure a proper, balanced TF is built. The processes for support TFs (carrier and surface cover) is massively redone, but I'll let the AI folks brag about that.
Thanks again for taking the time to answer all our questions.
My pleasure, but coffee's drunk and shower's taken. Heat goes back to 66 and I'm out of here. Sorry to all of you who missed Q and A.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 2:57 pm
by Grotius
Thanks, Don!
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Dec 22, 2008 6:26 pm
by jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
There is really no Naval AI.
We love it when he says that! [:D]
But understand the context. When the public says "AI" they could mean almost any piece of code that starts off "If player==computer". But we the AE teams say "AI" (or even AEAI!) we mean the script processor that processes the scripts in the editor. That is the AI that dictates where all the LCU and LBA go and what they do. This is also the means by which the script writer(s) request naval support for their scripts. Everything from moving a unit from Miri to Brunei all the way up to KB showing up. But down under this layer, there are plenty of places where the code tells ships what to do, and those places are the realm of our Naval Team coder (a.k.a. Ex-missle-man-Don).