Page 26 of 68
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:40 pm
by Dixie
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Yup, with the greatest of ease.
Which would also mean that the Mizuho could perhaps be modded in a similar way?
I also have a couple of late war RN questions:
How are some of the more 'advanced' repair and maintenance vessels of the RFA Fleet Train going to moddelled (if at all)? I'm refering to those which aren't really AR ships such as HMNZS Arbutus and the air maintenance and air store ships such as HMS Deer Sound and Fort Langley.
Also how is HMCS Prince Robert going to modelled?
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:51 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: Barb
Terminus:
Seafires and Seahurricanes had only their wingtips able to be tilt. This resulted in only Furious, Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable to operate Seafires in their hangars due to the size of the lift. Other carriers used Seafires only parked on deck with cantilevers until Seafire Mk.III (with wings folding between fuselage and cannons) came into service in may 1943.
Ilustrious class had only one hangar deck.
Indomitable had one and half hangar deck.
Implacables had two hangar decks with limited ceiling.
I once read somewhere that Corsairs could be operated from Implacables as well, but only with blown-out tyres (so it was little bit impractical) [:D]
Then why wasn't it done? Hmmm? The Implacables used Seafires until the end of the war, because they couldn't use Corsairs.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 1:53 pm
by DuckofTindalos
ORIGINAL: Dixie
ORIGINAL: Terminus
Yup, with the greatest of ease.
Which would also mean that the Mizuho could perhaps be modded in a similar way?
Yep.
I also have a couple of late war RN questions:
How are some of the more 'advanced' repair and maintenance vessels of the RFA Fleet Train going to moddelled (if at all)? I'm refering to those which aren't really AR ships such as HMNZS Arbutus and the air maintenance and air store ships such as HMS Deer Sound and Fort Langley.
Also how is HMCS Prince Robert going to modelled?
That's still in progress, but don't expect anything immensely advanced for those ships.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:27 pm
by Dixie
ORIGINAL: Terminus
ORIGINAL: Barb
Terminus:
Seafires and Seahurricanes had only their wingtips able to be tilt. This resulted in only Furious, Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable to operate Seafires in their hangars due to the size of the lift. Other carriers used Seafires only parked on deck with cantilevers until Seafire Mk.III (with wings folding between fuselage and cannons) came into service in may 1943.
Ilustrious class had only one hangar deck.
Indomitable had one and half hangar deck.
Implacables had two hangar decks with limited ceiling.
I once read somewhere that Corsairs could be operated from Implacables as well, but only with blown-out tyres (so it was little bit impractical) [:D]
Then why wasn't it done? Hmmm? The Implacables used Seafires until the end of the war, because they couldn't use Corsairs.
T is right, the Implacables had an even lower ceiling than the Illustrious Class (14 feet). A Corsair was 16 feet high so would not have fitted (even with flat tyres).
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:11 pm
by Barb
I am not saying that I want to have Corsairs on Implacable class operationaly, but only they should get them into hangars if they realy wish it. But imagine how they could handle blow-out and blow-in of tyres operationaly? [:D]
F4U-4 was only 14 ft 9 in (4.50 m) high.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:20 pm
by Dixie
ORIGINAL: Barb
I am not saying that I want to have Corsairs on Implacable class operationaly, but only they should get them into hangars if they realy wish it. But imagine how they could handle blow-out and blow-in of tyres operationaly? [:D]
F4U-4 was only 14 ft 9 in (4.50 m) high.
That's not nearly complicated enough for a truely British solution [:D] The wartime Royal Navy would probably have taken the wheels off altogether to save inflating and delfating the tyres [:D][:D]
According to the Fleet Air Arm handbook we're both wrong about the Corsair's height, it's listed there as 15' 1"
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:44 pm
by GI Jive
Playing against the AI, I've noticed Japanese barges trekking hundreds of miles across open ocean to carry supplies to isolated garrisons. I admire their courage but this does not seem realistic. Is there any plan to restrict barges to coastal areas or to a certain distance from their home port?
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:57 pm
by DuckofTindalos
We're doing our level best to beat some sense into the AI, including teaching it to route ships sensibly, but there's only so much that can be done.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:45 pm
by NormS3
Will ships that were historically captured appear in the Japanese OOB?
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 7:51 pm
by Dixie
A fairly easy question for you [:D]
How are the various ships that start the game in refit going to be modelled? Are they simply going to have 'x' amount of 'damage'? Or will the new damage syatem be used to give them something more representative? For example HMS Mauritius was (IIRC) capable of making full speed but she had no weapons at the time she left Singapore.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:10 pm
by jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Norm3
Will ships that were historically captured appear in the Japanese OOB?
We answered this earlier, but decision was made not to do this to avoid risk of hundreds of duplicate ships wandering around the map. BTW stock does bring in a bunch of the captured ships for the Japanese. We are not. Instead, we are bringing in even more hundreds of ships on the Japanese side that stock left out. So net/net, I think we see an increase in Japanese vessels over stock.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:11 pm
by jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Dixie
A fairly easy question for you [:D]
How are the various ships that start the game in refit going to be modelled? Are they simply going to have 'x' amount of 'damage'? Or will the new damage syatem be used to give them something more representative? For example HMS Mauritius was (IIRC) capable of making full speed but she had no weapons at the time she left Singapore.
Up to the OOBer in question. On the Japanese side, for the ones I am doing, I am either delaying bringing in the ship, or giving it some damage, depending on the complexity of the work being done. For Allied warships, Tankerace would have to comment on those.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:23 pm
by NormS3
Thanks,
Will the naval slots be increased as a whole? I think its 3000 ship slots for Japan and 7000 for Allies. I have done heavy modding, so more slots would be fantastic. Sorry if I am repeating somebody's previous questions.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:41 pm
by jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Norm3
Thanks,
Will the naval slots be increased as a whole? I think its 3000 ship slots for Japan and 7000 for Allies. I have done heavy modding, so more slots would be fantastic. Sorry if I am repeating somebody's previous questions.
Oh yeah, I'm not sure if we've published the numbers, and I don't recall them off the top of my head, but the slot counts are going up considerably. Some ranges are doubled, some five fold, a few even higher.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:46 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Norm3
Thanks,
Will the naval slots be increased as a whole? I think its 3000 ship slots for Japan and 7000 for Allies. I have done heavy modding, so more slots would be fantastic. Sorry if I am repeating somebody's previous questions.
Yes, there will be more slots. more, more, more!!!
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:49 pm
by NormS3
You have just made a grown man cry.
Just kidding, but again fantastic! Thank you all for all of your work. Modding Bliss here I come . . . sometime this next year. [8|]
I always kind of dread the election years. Are any of you running for office? I have experiance campaigning.
Thanks many times again. [&o]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:59 pm
by DuckofTindalos
To misquote Groucho Marx: "I wouldn't run for office anywhere that would let me run for office..."
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:19 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Norm3
You have just made a grown man cry.
Just kidding, but again fantastic! Thank you all for all of your work. Modding Bliss here I come . . . sometime this next year. [8|]
I always kind of dread the election years. Are any of you running for office? I have experiance campaigning.
Thanks many times again. [&o]
I am not qualified to be an elected official - my parents were married.
I might just sneak in on a technicality, they were not married to each other.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 9:42 pm
by VSWG
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: Dixie
A fairly easy question for you [:D]
How are the various ships that start the game in refit going to be modelled? Are they simply going to have 'x' amount of 'damage'? Or will the new damage syatem be used to give them something more representative? For example HMS Mauritius was (IIRC) capable of making full speed but she had no weapons at the time she left Singapore.
Up to the OOBer in question. On the Japanese side, for the ones I am doing, I am either delaying bringing in the ship, or giving it some damage, depending on the complexity of the work being done. For Allied warships, Tankerace would have to comment on those.
A ship can start with disabled and missing devices, right? So HMS Mauritius could start the game with few sys damage, and all weapon devices disabled or missing.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread
Posted: Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:27 pm
by Brady
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Norm3
You have just made a grown man cry.
Just kidding, but again fantastic! Thank you all for all of your work. Modding Bliss here I come . . . sometime this next year. [8|]
I always kind of dread the election years. Are any of you running for office? I have experiance campaigning.
Thanks many times again. [&o]
I am not qualified to be an elected official - my parents were married.
I might just sneak in on a technicality, they were not married to each other.
Acording to a recent NPR radio story about 75% of kids today dont live with both their parents, only 25% do live with their natrual parents, so "Normal" would be about the opset of what one might think.