Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Hey Terminus, thanks again for your replies. I think you might have missed a few of my questions -- or maybe I missed the responses -- or maybe I should stop asking so many questions! At some point I know we should let you guys get back to work! But in case you missed it:

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.

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?

1): Changes to the weather model fell by the way side, I'm afraid. I'd have loved to see changes to Alaskan weather myself, but it's not happening for the release version. We'd have been best off ripping down the whole weather model and starting over, but there's just no resource for it.

2+3): Not sure what you mean?

4+5): I'll have to get back to you on this one, not having had much to do with the new flak stuff.

6): No more than today, I'm afraid.[:(]

CV one-hex reaction is where Air Combat TFs will always move one hex towards an enemy Air Combat TF regardless of the React/Don't React setting.

Thanks for those replies. Understandable about weather and tracking tonnage; they wouldn't have been my top priorities either. Imagine tracking tonnage might be moddable, anyway. Weather can be handled with house rules.

On "one-hex reaction," I just mean the situation in which an Air Combat TF automatically reacts one hex toward an enemy Air Combat TF, even if the AC TF's "Reaction" range is set to zero. Er, maybe they no longer do that? I haven't seen it in the AI game I'm playing now, but then I haven't had a CV battle yet. But I did find some 2007 posts discussing it.

Sorry I wasn't clear about my other question. I was wondering whether there was any change to the basic mechanic that asks you to choose between "Patrol/Do Not Retire" and "Retirement Allowed." I don't have any problem with how it works -- just wondering if the patrol zones and waypoints have had any ripple effects on this mechanic. (For example, many of us use the "Retirement Allowed" setting as a substitute for a waypoint for a Transport TF: form up a Transport TF in Brisbane, give it destination of Pago Pago, give it home base of San Francisco, set it to "Retirement Allowed.")

ORIGINAL: Grotius

On "one-hex reaction," I just mean the situation in which an Air Combat TF automatically reacts one hex toward an enemy Air Combat TF, even if the AC TF's "Reaction" range is set to zero. Er, maybe they no longer do that? I haven't seen it in the AI game I'm playing now, but then I haven't had a CV battle yet. But I did find some 2007 posts discussing it.

For the moment, that's still in, as a factor of commander aggressiveness.

Sorry I wasn't clear about my other question. I was wondering whether there was any change to the basic mechanic that asks you to choose between "Patrol/Do Not Retire" and "Retirement Allowed." I don't have any problem with how it works -- just wondering if the patrol zones and waypoints have had any ripple effects on this mechanic. (For example, many of us use the "Retirement Allowed" setting as a substitute for a waypoint for a Transport TF: form up a Transport TF in Brisbane, give it destination of Pago Pago, give it home base of San Francisco, set it to "Retirement Allowed.")

The mechanism is still in, alongside the new stuff with waypoints and such. The patrol zone routine also has an option to linger at each point in the patrol zone for x number of days.

ORIGINAL: DerJimbo

Will you be able to organize your combat vessels in subunits such as "1st Cruiser Sqn" or "3rd Destroyer Flotilla"?


Yes, and No.

You can set lower level commands, although more likely something like Naval Districts within regional fleets, etc. This is just a display convenience however, there is no function for attach a complete DD squadron to a TF or any such thing. It is handy for "where's my ships"?

P.S. I looked into doing it already, don't bother to ask for it...

OK, thanks for your response. I'll be buying AE in any case, and I like everything that's been said about what will be changed/included. When I consider how many hours I've spent wrapped up in this game already, I can't imagine that I won't get hundreds of hours of additional enjoyment (if that's the right word!) out of this expansion/upgrade.

I'm certainly grateful for all the paid and unpaid time that so many individuals have put into this project and in other aspects of the game already. In 30+ years of wargaming, I don't think that I've ever seen another title that engaged the interest and passion of so many people in so many ways.

So...please take your time with AE and get it right!!

Will there be something to simulate permanent (not repairable) damage to ship units? I was thinking of subs getting battle weary after a few depth charge attacks, for example. 

MTB's PT's, barges, and Respawns

I hope Japan get's more than 5 PT/MTB in AD, Japan should always be able to build MTB's, Barges, Midgets as long as it has production. These are the types of ships that should respawn, or removed for the database and treated like the pilot pool where there is a pool of these ships and if it drops below a value more get produced.

Movement
I think these should be handled like mines where you can load a group of them up on a transport/tender ship and drop them off where you need them.

Now that mining is being reduced MTB's become even more important for forward based defense.

ORIGINAL: Nomad

And I thought MRE stood for Meals Rushing to Exit. [:D]

You apparently haven't eaten them. [:(]

ORIGINAL: Brausepaul

Will there be something to simulate permanent (not repairable) damage to ship units? I was thinking of subs getting battle weary after a few depth charge attacks, for example. 

No, you would have to scuttle it yourself.

ORIGINAL: pad152

MTB's PT's, barges, and Respawns

I hope Japan get's more than 5 PT/MTB in AD, Japan should always be able to build MTB's, Barges, Midgets as long as it has production. These are the types of ships that should respawn, or removed for the database and treated like the pilot pool where there is a pool of these ships and if it drops below a value more get produced.

Movement
I think these should be handled like mines where you can load a group of them up on a transport/tender ship and drop them off where you need them.

Now that mining is being reduced MTB's become even more important for forward based defense.

MTBs (PTs) do not and never did respawn. The availability of PTs, and now direct MGBs, is historical for both sides. Barges auto-replace (slightly different than respawn).

Midget subs will respawn if the respawn switch is on - always to Type D Koryu. With no respawn, you get what is in the OOB.

We looked at allowing small craft to be carried on larger ships, but it did not make the cut. Cool feature, big programming problem. Movement of such craft is still simulated by supply.

I noticed (like several other people [;)]) that midget subs are in AE, but how about the Royal Navy's XE class midget subs?

A few questions:

1. Will the Japanese Protected Cruisers (IE Iwate, Asama, Izumo, etc) that were stationed in the Inland sea as training ships be in the game? I realize these were of little naval value, but they could have been pressed into service if the need arose.
2. Asama was damaged and the Japanese opted not to repair her, however, her sister ship Tokiwa was converted into a Minelayer before the war. Would the player be given this option with Asama if it is present?
3. Will units that were interned be present in the game in their early Manchuko service? IE Ning Hai and Ping Hai (later as Ioshima and Yasoshima in IJN service.)

If these have been addressed earlier and I simply did not see it, my apologies.

Dixie,

Stupid question time, but were XEs used in the Pacific?
What's a REAL liney?

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

Dixie,

Stupid question time, but were XEs used in the Pacific?
What's a REAL liney?

They were present and were used for a few small scale operations, but there was always the possibility that other stuff could have been done with them.

XE1 & XE3 were used to cripple Takao in Singapore, there were plans to mine Myoko as well but they couldn't find her (Operation Struggle)
XE4 was used to cut telephone cables from Saigon (Operation Sabre)
XE5 was used to cut cables near Hong Kong (Operation Foil)

I realise that the last two are outside of the scope of WitP, but I'd like the chance to carry out sneaky raids on Jap shipping in port


A liney is an RAF term, it's a term mostly used when someone is debating doing something which probably goes against better judgement (sliding down a hanger roof in a drip tray for example [:D])

ORIGINAL: Dixie

I noticed (like several other people [;)]) that midget subs are in AE, but how about the Royal Navy's XE class midget subs?

No, not at this time.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A few questions:

1. Will the Japanese Protected Cruisers (IE Iwate, Asama, Izumo, etc) that were stationed in the Inland sea as training ships be in the game? I realize these were of little naval value, but they could have been pressed into service if the need arose.
2. Asama was damaged and the Japanese opted not to repair her, however, her sister ship Tokiwa was converted into a Minelayer before the war. Would the player be given this option with Asama if it is present?
3. Will units that were interned be present in the game in their early Manchuko service? IE Ning Hai and Ping Hai (later as Ioshima and Yasoshima in IJN service.)

If these have been addressed earlier and I simply did not see it, my apologies.

OOB is still not completely finished, so no comment for now.

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A few questions:

That’s mostly an OOB, or scenario design question but, as you mention, several of the Japanese War-I relics were converted to an operational use: minelayers, coastal defense gunships, and the like. Our OOBeings are very aware of these vessels, and are scourging the artists daily to make them up.

The whole idea of the ‘convert-to’ routines is to allow just these sorts of things to happen. The general answer to your question(s) is yes, but their specific form, configuration and mission will be at the (limited) option of IJNGHQ.

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Shark7

A few questions:

That’s mostly an OOB, or scenario design question but, as you mention, several of the Japanese War-I relics were converted to an operational use: minelayers, coastal defense gunships, and the like. Our OOBeings are very aware of these vessels, and are scourging the artists daily to make them up.

The whole idea of the ‘convert-to’ routines is to allow just these sorts of things to happen. The general answer to your question(s) is yes, but their specific form, configuration and mission will be at the (limited) option of IJNGHQ.

That answered my question well enough. I just like the idea of sending the relics out on one more mission. [:D]

Now I just have to be patient.

Request for New ship Type Sub-AV, a sub with AV support for float planes

A few times in 1942 Japan used subs to refuel the larger Float Planes (Mavis/Emilys) at the French Frigate shoals to bomb Pearl Harbor at night! You really can't do this with an AV ship it would be spotted before pulling off the attack.

ORIGINAL: pad152

Request for New ship Type Sub-AV, a sub with AV support for float planes

A few times in 1942 Japan used subs to refuel the larger Float Planes (Mavis/Emilys) at the French Frigate shoals to bomb Pearl Harbor at night! You really can't do this with an AV ship it would be spotted before pulling off the attack.

No, not at this time.