Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

[rockmedic109]

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: Barb

I would like to see D3A Vals carrying 250kg GP bombs. I think this was their standard ordonance, not the AP ones.

Target:
Land - Why the hell will you have APs? GPs and HEs are worth more...
Sea - priority:
Carriers - Unles you are going after RN, you will more likely have GPs then APs and HEs. The same for non-combatant ships, up to destroyer size.
Major ships - Well use Vals as flak distraction while the torpedobombers do the job.

It is somewhat funny (in WITP) to see Vals and Hellen/Sonias droping 250kg AP bombs on AKs... Well the other thing is to see Nells/Bettys droping 800kg AP bombs on AKs. [:D]

(According to Midway by Fuchida: Only Kates torpedos were rearmed for bombs and then back to torpedos. Vals were not mentioned to be rearmed. They were just taken below the flight deck to free it up to land 1st wave returning. Can someone confirm this?)

Unfortunately, from what I have been able to gather from reading various AE threads, we are stuck with standard load outs AND EXP playing a factor on what certain planes will carry. The standard SBD loadout was a 1000lb SAP bomb which had enough penetration to go through a IJN CV's flight deck and the deck armor of some of the CA's. It didn't matter if a "Nugget" was flying the bird or a sesoned cobat veteran. The armorers did not consider whether it was ENS. Noobie's plance vice LCMDR. Grizzledvet's plane. The bomb's were loaded for the mission. This is a very frustrating aspect of the game.

I think the EXP check was done in an effort to reduce the numbers of these rear bombs being used. I don't think the 2000LB bombs were ever a standard loadout. Much easier than tracking the numbers of these devices and transporting them to all over.

[foliveti]

yes, but I did not think the 800kg was standard either.

[Don Bowen]

This is the Naval thread....

[Barb]

Oooooooops!

[helldiver]

Greetings.
   Awaiting AE, I am in the midst of a stock WitP game playing as Japan against the Allied AI. I managed a decisive victory (43K-10K) at the start of 1943 and elected to continue. My general ASW strategy was to keep about two dozen ASW TFs patrolling in Home Waters areas adjacent to ports receiving resources/oil from the south. These consisted of MSW, PG, APD, and PC groups with ASW values ranging from 4-20. In addition, I had MSW, PC, PG escorts within the resource TFs whenever possible (especially protecting TKs). I had been profligate with DDs while expanding the Empire and really couldn't spare any for ASW work. 
    This worked generally fine until 1943. It seems as if a "switch" was thrown at the start of '43. USN fleet SS have bagged 35-40 ASW ships in Home Waters in the first three months of the year. The SS often get the first shot and the shot sinks a patrol craft. Leads me to my AE question:
    Can any of the AE dev. team members summarize/repeat some general advice or impressions (from playtesting) about the most favorable methods of deploying ASW assets (especially as Japan) in AE? So far I understand that the numbers of Es, etc. will mushroom and that close-in port patrol appears to pay dividends. Also, I got that ASW TFs will be limited in # of ships. I also read with interest the posts in the early 300s of this thread. Any other advice about composition/tactics or do I have to find out the hard way? [:'(]

Regards,
Helldiver

p.s. Yes, I know Japan is not supposed to win...

[Canoerebel]

In my WitP game against John III I am receiving new CVEs with names that don't make any sense in our game since there hasn't been any action at Savo Island, Makin, the Bismark Sea, etc.  It would be "cool" to be able to rename these to reflect places where we have clashed.  Please consider permitting players to rename later-in-the-war CVEs that carry real life battle names.
 
 

[JWE]

AE has the option to rename ships in the build queue. We did this because of the historical Essex renames, and the old respawn thingy, and because who knows who will get sunk in the game.

But once a ship shows up, that's it. You either rename in the queue, or forever hold your piece.

Ciao. John

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Helldiver

Greetings.
   Awaiting AE, I am in the midst of a stock WitP game playing as Japan against the Allied AI. I managed a decisive victory (43K-10K) at the start of 1943 and elected to continue. My general ASW strategy was to keep about two dozen ASW TFs patrolling in Home Waters areas adjacent to ports receiving resources/oil from the south. These consisted of MSW, PG, APD, and PC groups with ASW values ranging from 4-20. In addition, I had MSW, PC, PG escorts within the resource TFs whenever possible (especially protecting TKs). I had been profligate with DDs while expanding the Empire and really couldn't spare any for ASW work. 
    This worked generally fine until 1943. It seems as if a "switch" was thrown at the start of '43. USN fleet SS have bagged 35-40 ASW ships in Home Waters in the first three months of the year. The SS often get the first shot and the shot sinks a patrol craft. Leads me to my AE question:
    Can any of the AE dev. team members summarize/repeat some general advice or impressions (from playtesting) about the most favorable methods of deploying ASW assets (especially as Japan) in AE? So far I understand that the numbers of Es, etc. will mushroom and that close-in port patrol appears to pay dividends. Also, I got that ASW TFs will be limited in # of ships. I also read with interest the posts in the early 300s of this thread. Any other advice about composition/tactics or do I have to find out the hard way? [:'(]

Regards,
Helldiver

p.s. Yes, I know Japan is not supposed to win...

First, this sub-forum is for the AE product that they are still working on (not released yet), so this question probably belongs in either the War Room sub-forum or in the main WITP forum.

The direct answer to your question is that USN sub torpedoes have possibly improved by that date. Also, most or all of the USN subs should have refitted to add radar. Both of those things should move the scale toward their favor. They also get a ton of subs, so maybe sometimes your escorts are just overwhelmed. Hope this helps.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: JWE

AE has the option to rename ships in the build queue. We did this because of the historical Essex renames, and the old respawn thingy, and because who knows who will get sunk in the game.

But once a ship shows up, that's it. You either rename in the queue, or forever hold your piece.

Ciao. John

Yes, but. This ability is currently limited to ships in the reinforcement queue whose names end in " II". Yorktown II, Lexington II, etc.

We originally implemented a full rename capability, but it became obvious very quickly that it was an opening for a cheat. Rename all your carriers "Enterprise" and confuse the hell out of the enemy...

[NormS3]

Thanks for all info.

New question- As a modder then all I have to do to get replacements for those DDs that came back as Fletchers is to add II at end, then rename. Or is this just limited to carriers?

Thanks in advance

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Norm3

Thanks for all info.

New question- As a modder then all I have to do to get replacements for those DDs that came back as Fletchers is to add II at end, then rename. Or is this just limited to carriers?

Thanks in advance

Any ship whose name ends in " II" (space, capital I, capital I).

[NormS3]

Absolutely fantastic!

I am definately going out for beer after work now!

Time to celebrate all of team AE's great work!

[&o][&o]

[bradfordkay]

This should be only the ships which were renamed during construction in the real war (renamed for a ship that was sunk such as Lexington, Hornet, Yorktown, Canberra, etc).

I don't know if there were any destroyers or other non-capital ships that were named for a ship sunk earlier in the war, nor do I know if you'll be able to rename them in AE. 

[John Lansford]

In some of the current scenarios, ships that were damaged and sent off for repair and show up later in the reinforcement queue arrive in the state they were damaged; for example, the Pearl Harbor BB's such as California and West Virginia still have their prewar AA suites instead of the 20mm and 40mm AA guns when they arrive.  Will ships that were damaged and show up later on have their upgrades when they arrive?

[RevRick]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

This should be only the ships which were renamed during construction in the real war (renamed for a ship that was sunk such as Lexington, Hornet, Yorktown, Canberra, etc).

I don't know if there were any destroyers or other non-capital ships that were named for a ship sunk earlier in the war, nor do I know if you'll be able to rename them in AE. 

Well, you can still see one at Patriot's Point in Charleston, SC. The USS Laffey, DD724, for one. The first original Laffey in WWII was sunk at 1st Guadalcanal, IIRC. There were others, the Aaron Ward, I believe. Several of the Sumner/Gearing class were named for earlier DDs sunk in action.

[NormS3]

Actually several of the DDs lsot during the Guadalcanal campaign came back as Fletchers.

Preston DD379 then DD795
Monssen DD436 then DD798
Jarvis DD393 then DD799
Porter DD356 then DD800
Cushing DD376 then DD797

Also a few APDs as well

Colhoun DD85 then 801
Gregory DD82 then 802
Little DD79 then 803

There are definatelty others that I am not remebering at the moment

[NormS3]

beat me to it.

thanks Rick

[Long Lance]

Sorry, I didn't get the point.
If let's say DD ABC is sunk, I might rename DD xyz that is still in the build queue to ABC II.
Then it will arrive as ABC II and a new DD xyz is built?

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

Sorry, I didn't get the point.
If let's say DD ABC is sunk, I might rename DD xyz that is still in the build queue to ABC II.
Then it will arrive as ABC II and a new DD xyz is built?

As I understood it, some ships in the que will have a name ending in 'II'. These are the only ones you can rename.

So if Lexington is sunk, you can rename Lexington II to just Lexington to loose the numerals - or if it isnt sunk, you can rename Lexington II to something else, Constitution for example, to avoid having two Lexingtons in the theatre.


Does this extend beyond 'II'? To say, 'III', 'IV' and 'V'? Does it also work for the Japanese build que?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

ORIGINAL: Long Lance

Sorry, I didn't get the point.
If let's say DD ABC is sunk, I might rename DD xyz that is still in the build queue to ABC II.
Then it will arrive as ABC II and a new DD xyz is built?

As I understood it, some ships in the que will have a name ending in 'II'. These are the only ones you can rename.

So if Lexington is sunk, you can rename Lexington II to just Lexington to loose the numerals - or if it isnt sunk, you can rename Lexington II to something else, Constitution for example, to avoid having two Lexingtons in the theatre.


Does this extend beyond 'II'? To say, 'III', 'IV' and 'V'? Does it also work for the Japanese build que?

Correct. You can only rename ships FROM " II", not to it.

The feature does extend to " III" or " IV" (but no further). There is no nationality limitation, so it could be used for Japan.