Page 3 of 31
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:21 pm
by RevRick
ORIGINAL: Nomad
ORIGINAL: goodboyladdie
ORIGINAL: scout1
No Bismark ...... ?
[;)]
This sort of thing will get you a very short answer from Terminus. I will have to try to get up to date on turns to keep you out of mischief...[:'(]
[font="Tahoma"]how short?[/font]
[font="Trebuchet MS"]
short[/font]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:26 pm
by RevRick
[font="tahoma"]My [/font][font="times new roman"]After my smart#&&[/font] response above. Does AE still have the three basic speeds, full, mission, and cruising, or do they have naval speeds - flank, full, standard, 1/3, etc. Or like Bogie said in Action in the North Atlantic c""All ahead creeping speed!"
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 12:31 pm
by Don Bowen
AE still has the same TF speeds.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:23 pm
by m10bob
I sincerely do not know enough about the game engine nor algorithms to have the answer, so I will ask, from a sheer point of ignorance.:
Does the AE (or vanilla) give a better chance to hit on a stationary target, (ala, BATTLESHIP ROW)?
I suspect if the answer (for vanilla) were "no", it might be the reason the in game losses might not be as bad as some folks think they should be?
(I have personally seen 5-6 BB's lost in stock games.)
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 5:28 pm
by scout1
ORIGINAL: m10bob
I sincerely do not know enough about the game engine nor algorithms to have the answer, so I will ask, from a sheer point of ignorance.:
Does the AE (or vanilla) give a better chance to hit on a stationary target, (ala, BATTLESHIP ROW)?
I suspect if the answer (for vanilla) were "no", it might be the reason the in game losses might not be as bad as some folks think they should be?
(I have personally seen 5-6 BB's lost in stock games.)
5-6 BB losses with a SINGLE day strike ? Damn, now I know who's shifting the grading curve in the class [;)]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:45 pm
by John Lansford
RE: ship speeds. Other than the distance covered, is there any other differences between the three speeds? Increased SYS damage, fuel use, detection % increase, etc?
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 15, 2008 10:58 pm
by Yamato hugger
Fuel use is considerably increased for certain. Considerably. System damage has always been increased by fast speed, nothing new there. Detection level I cant answer.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 2:22 pm
by Brisco
I was wondering if any consideration was given to hospital ships. They could be configured like AR ships only having an impact on morale, fatigue & unit/manpower recovery for units within a 1-3 hex radius.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sun Nov 16, 2008 9:46 pm
by Yamato hugger
Well as Termie said, cant have everything. 400 "would be nice if" had to get boiled down to 70 or so. Was probably considered, but...
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 5:31 pm
by Ron Saueracker
In WITP we don't have enough air and naval phases in my opinion to do justice to reality. EG.. With 60 mile hexes we end up seeing naval units benefittiing from this shortcoming by completely avoiding air assets during the approach and withdrawl to and from enemy bases. 40 mile hexes do not change thid issue. Any thought given to adding a mid day set of phases in AE to address this issue?
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Mon Nov 17, 2008 6:33 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
In WITP we don't have enough air and naval phases in my opinion to do justice to reality. EG.. With 60 mile hexes we end up seeing naval units benefittiing from this shortcoming by completely avoiding air assets during the approach and withdrawl to and from enemy bases. 40 mile hexes do not change thid issue. Any thought given to adding a mid day set of phases in AE to address this issue?
Thought yes. Implementation no. Tain't a small thing.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 10:30 am
by jmscho
ORIGINAL: m10bob
Does the AE (or vanilla) give a better chance to hit on a stationary target, (ala, BATTLESHIP ROW)?
Based on previous readings (cannot quote) hitting an anchored/beached ship with a torpedo is actually harder than hitting a ship that is "dead in the water" because the torpedo is affected by currents and the ship is not.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 11:55 am
by Ron Saueracker
Finally caught up on all the AE posts. Wow...loads of changes or what?[X(]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 12:10 pm
by HansBolter
ORIGINAL: drw61
Romanovich, Even if there is not an 8 Dec scenario for AE in the release, it will be easy to make one with the editor.
If the opening PH attack does not have historical results it is because of randomized die rolls, not an error in the OOB. In fact, I think that the initial PH results would be very unlikely to be the same as in real life.
I actually prefer it this way, I don’t want to see an exact replay of the war, I want some surprises along the way.
Nobody who ever plays wargames wants to exactly recreate history. Why do people who feel the need to insult the opinions and arguments of others so often resort to this backhanded method of leveling insults.
The historical outcome HAS to be a baseline for any study of alternatives to have ANY validity.
If the randomized results fail to cover variations with results both lighter AND heavier than the historical outcome, then they have failed to correctly model the event in the first place.
The lack of historically accurate outcomes on the Pearl raid have as much to do with the lack of accurate physical structure modeling (ie...some targets inboard of other targets and thus immune to torpedo attack resulting in the torpedoes being concentrated on a few targets) as it does with mere randomization. If mere randomization was the express culprit then just as many games would have far more severe than historical outcomes as end up having far lighter than historical outcomes.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:39 pm
by mlees
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Nobody who ever plays wargames wants to exactly recreate history. Why do people who feel the need to insult the opinions and arguments of others so often resort to this backhanded method of leveling insults.
The historical outcome HAS to be a baseline for any study of alternatives to have ANY validity.
If the randomized results fail to cover variations with results both lighter AND heavier than the historical outcome, then they have failed to correctly model the event in the first place.
The lack of historically accurate outcomes on the Pearl raid have as much to do with the lack of accurate physical structure modeling (ie...some targets inboard of other targets and thus immune to torpedo attack resulting in the torpedoes being concentrated on a few targets) as it does with mere randomization. If mere randomization was the express culprit then just as many games would have far more severe than historical outcomes as end up having far lighter than historical outcomes.
Heh. Your also assuming that the real life Pearl Harbor results to be an average mean to measure your models against.
What if the actual real life results were at the "top" end of the curve? (As in, the best results that the Japanese could have gotten.) [;)]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 1:55 pm
by HansBolter
ORIGINAL: mlees
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Nobody who ever plays wargames wants to exactly recreate history. Why do people who feel the need to insult the opinions and arguments of others so often resort to this backhanded method of leveling insults.
The historical outcome HAS to be a baseline for any study of alternatives to have ANY validity.
If the randomized results fail to cover variations with results both lighter AND heavier than the historical outcome, then they have failed to correctly model the event in the first place.
The lack of historically accurate outcomes on the Pearl raid have as much to do with the lack of accurate physical structure modeling (ie...some targets inboard of other targets and thus immune to torpedo attack resulting in the torpedoes being concentrated on a few targets) as it does with mere randomization. If mere randomization was the express culprit then just as many games would have far more severe than historical outcomes as end up having far lighter than historical outcomes.
Heh. Your also assuming that the real life Pearl Harbor results to be an average mean to measure your models against.
What if the actual real life results were at the "top" end of the curve? (As in, the best results that the Japanese could have gotten.) [;)]
Nice try at a devil's advocate argument, but regardless of whether, or not, the historical outcomes of any event were the extremes of possibity in either direction, that they are the historical outcomes establishes them as the baseline for the study of alternative outcomes.
Besides, if the historical outcome is supposed to represent the upper extreme of possible outcomes, then the fuel storage yards would not have been left untouched!
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:07 pm
by Capt Henry_MatrixForum
mlees beat me to it.
If we accept the premise that history is to be the baseline for alternative outcomes, I would say both sides are hurt by the programming. I havn't kept close track, but from my reading on the forum, many posters have observed that Allied carriers stand little or no chance against Japanese carriers in 1942. Using historical outcomes from 1942, the allies should do significantly better than they seem to be doing.
I'm not making this observation to try to invalidate your complaints on Pearl Harbor, but merely indicating that if your position is valid it cuts both ways and should be examined in a larger context than one battle. Regardless of our individual positions, this is an issue that is likely impossible for Matrix or 2by3 to address to everyone's satisfaction. After all, we gamers aren't all on the same baseline either[:)]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:09 pm
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Besides, if the historical outcome is supposed to represent the upper extreme of possible outcomes, then the fuel storage yards would not have been left untouched!
A plane can only attack one target at a time.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:19 pm
by HansBolter
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Besides, if the historical outcome is supposed to represent the upper extreme of possible outcomes, then the fuel storage yards would not have been left untouched!
A plane can only attack one target at a time.
Which would be a valid qualification if the attack was carried out by a single plane!
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:29 pm
by Nikademus
ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Which would be a valid qualification if the attack was carried out by a single plane!
The point being, that a plane or group of planes cannot target both the oil storage tanks and bombard the warships at anchor. If you parse off some of the planes from the two historical strike waves to attack the land targets, then the potential damage to the warships goes down. So Miles' comments have some validity.