Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Do we get more of the Royal Navy's late war stuff? At least give me Bay Class AA Frigates [:D]

That's an OOB question, and I've only worked on some of the Jap stuff, but I'd be surprised if you didn't get some of the stuff you're hoping for, Dixie...[;)]

I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from [:D][;)]

Woohoo! This is sounding very heartwarming! One question for now. Are naval ship crew factors now in the game?[;)]

Eh, what do you mean, Ron?[&:]

ORIGINAL: Dixie
I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from [:D][;)]

As you say, there's a large pool of stuff. The number of available slots have been vastly expanded, however. Many interesting things will show up as a result of the increased availability of slots to put 'em in.

It’s historically appropriate, and therefore quite likely, that Bay and Loch class frigates will share an inter-conversion set.

Thanks for your further responses, Terminus. More questions for you (the first one referred to you by Andrew in the map thread):

1. Is there any change to cold-weather limits on operations? I ask because I often felt it was too easy to operate in the Alaska area, notwithstanding the penalties in stock. At the very least, the cold season should last longer, but I also think it should just generally be tougher to operate up there. I suppose the same might apply at the far southern edge of the map, depending on how far south the map goes.

2. Has Patrol/Do Not Retire changed at all?

3. Has CV "one-hex" reaction changed at all?

4. Still have diminishing returns on AA for TFs of more than 15 ships?

5. Can you tell us more about the directional flak? I assume it's primarily a function of ship/plane heading; is ship/plane speed also a factor?

6. I too wanted to ask about tracking tonnage sunk by subs, or for that matter total distance traveled, fuel consumed, ammo used, etc. but it sounds like AE won't do that. Not a big deal; just would be nice -- those sort of stats that would enrich an AAR like Cuttlefish's. Is it fair to say that modders will have a way to track that sort of data?

ORIGINAL: Grotius
4. Still have diminishing returns on AA for TFs of more than 15 ships? With "Directional Flak" in place, keeping this would be redundant, wouldn't it?

5. Can you tell us more about the directional flak? I assume it's primarily a function of ship/plane heading; is ship/plane speed also a factor? I'd like to hear more about this as well...

Oh yes, of course... I read your question as whether or not the cap had been removed, which it hasn't. But obviously we've set it higher to account for the new map scale.

 
Is there any reason for that cap? that prevents in practice a change of scale for modders.
 
----------
 
The artificial year aerial mine cap still exist?
 

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Dixie
I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from [:D][;)]

As you say, there's a large pool of stuff. The number of available slots have been vastly expanded, however. Many interesting things will show up as a result of the increased availability of slots to put 'em in.

It’s historically appropriate, and therefore quite likely, that Bay and Loch class frigates will share an inter-conversion set.

One quick question, forgive the possible obviousness of the answer but: What is an inter-conversion set?

ORIGINAL: Dixie

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Dixie
I'm bound to get some of it, after all there's a large pool of stuff to choose from [:D][;)]

As you say, there's a large pool of stuff. The number of available slots have been vastly expanded, however. Many interesting things will show up as a result of the increased availability of slots to put 'em in.

It’s historically appropriate, and therefore quite likely, that Bay and Loch class frigates will share an inter-conversion set.

One quick question, forgive the possible obviousness of the answer but: What is an inter-conversion set?

We basically create a series of classes where the first class can be converted into any one of the other classes in the set. Thus the example with the US 4-piper DD's being converted into their specialty uses. We can also do an enclosed conversion set (for the Japs, primarily), MSW -> Escort -> MSW -> you get the idea.

ORIGINAL: Dili

Oh yes, of course... I read your question as whether or not the cap had been removed, which it hasn't. But obviously we've set it higher to account for the new map scale.

Is there any reason for that cap? that prevents in practice a change of scale for modders.

----------

The artificial year aerial mine cap still exist?

Think that's more of a coding question, so I can't answer that one... Now where'd I put my coder...?

Sorry that is the answer to both questions? It is unclear.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

We basically create a series of classes where the first class can be converted into any one of the other classes in the set. Thus the example with the US 4-piper DD's being converted into their specialty uses. We can also do an enclosed conversion set (for the Japs, primarily), MSW -> Escort -> MSW -> you get the idea.

Fan-dabby-dozy [:D]

How many of these classes are there?

Sloop's?

Will the RMS Queen Mary and RMS Queen Elizabeth be in the game.....they were used as troopships in the war.....

ORIGINAL: Brady

Sloop's?

Frigates [:)] The Bay Class were AA conversions of the Loch Class ASW Frigates which were in turn an evolution of the River Class.

Sloop, behind the DUKW:
 

ORIGINAL: Dixie
Fan-dabby-dozy [:D]

How many of these classes are there?

The best answer to your question is … as many as appropriate. It’s based, of course, on what actually transpired. There are no ‘never weres’ or implausabilities.

ORIGINAL: Brady

Sloop, behind the DUKW:

I guess I misunderstood your question then [:D]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Dili

Oh yes, of course... I read your question as whether or not the cap had been removed, which it hasn't. But obviously we've set it higher to account for the new map scale.

Is there any reason for that cap? that prevents in practice a change of scale for modders.

----------

The artificial year aerial mine cap still exist?

Think that's more of a coding question, so I can't answer that one... Now where'd I put my coder...?

If this is an aerial mining question, somewhere on the Air Team.

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: herwin

In WWII, CVs stayed out of gunship range (200 miles) at night. (See Hughes, Naval Tactics). This was a _major_ consideration in WWII naval operations. Will it be possible for a TF commander to release his screen in the evening to go hunting carriers? Alternatively, will it be possible for a fueled-up surface TF to react at night out to five hexes and then return in the early morning, low on fuel but satisfied from having sunk a carrier or some cruisers?

No.

Pity. See the discussion on pages 91-92 of Wayne P. Hughes (1986) Fleet Tactics: theory and practice, Naval Institute Press. "Carriers dominated the daylight hours but were sitting ducks for gunfire at night. Detaching before darkness, a battleship or heavy cruiser formation could travel two hundred nautical miles at night, a distance engraved in every tactical commander's mind.... But the Japanese, who were aggressors in 1942, three times sent their surface ships carrier hunting...."