Admirals Edition Naval Thread II

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
. . . push the end of the "historical" scenario out even farther than WITP into April 1946 . . .

So what is the end date for Scenario One now? Not that very many games get to that point, but I have always been a fan of letting it go a little longer allowing Downfall to occur properly. That and getting to play with all the fun end war stuff [:D]

Just curious.

Thanks in advance! Chad

I really don't know. I know there is a Downfall scenario in the works, but don't know start/stop dates. That would be up to the strange fellow with eyeballs in the back of his head.

[Terminus]

The grand campaign has its final turn on May 29, 1946. 1634 days.

[dwesolick]

ORIGINAL: JWE


Not even there. The “enhanced” scenario is only that, enhanced, not hypothetical. It’s there to help out the AI and make it a bit more robust. It’s non-historical to the extent it allows Japan to build 20 of something rather than 16 or 18. But all you get is a few more DDs, a few more DEs, three more (iirc) CLs, and some more cargo, and passenger ships to provide extra lift, and some more tankers to keep the Allied submariners happy. That’s it.

No new BBs, no new CVs, no new CAs, no new nothing - just think ordinary, normal, regular, Japanese fleet that went to the gym one more day a week.

No “what if”, just a little bit more of “what was”.

That is great and very historically plausible. I'm re-reading Spector's "Eagle Against the Sun" (you know, to kill time till AE is released[;)]) and he discusses how Admiral Inoue (member of the Japanese Naval Ministry), prior to the war, wanted Japan to build just those sorts of ships. He foresaw a protracted war involving air power, amphibious ops, and lots of logistical problems. Very far-sighted man, but of course he was totally ignored by the rest of the IJN..."Hey, we can build one more battleship, instead of all those lowly DDs and DEs!"[8|]

[Terminus]

Note that timewise, the Grand Campaign isn't that much longer than stock. The BIG difference is that the reinforcement schedule is extended well into 1946.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: dwesolick
"Hey, we can build one more battleship, instead of all those lowly DDs and DEs!"[8|]

The release 'enhanced' scenario will only have a little bit more of “what was”. It will not have 'what if'.

All that stuff is rightfully the province of the modders. The editor lets ya'll do whatever your little heart desires.

Whoops, re-read your post, picked up on the different slant (sorry). Yeah, that’s pretty much where we are coming from. Just a tweak, here, and a bit, there.

[Chad Harrison]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The grand campaign has its final turn on May 29, 1946. 1634 days.

Great news! Not sure who on the AE team pushed for a longer game, but it is most appreciated! All the fun toys at the end will now have time to play in the Grand Campaign [:D]

Thanks for the responses John and Termy.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

That is great and very historically plausible. Admiral Inoue (member of the Japanese Naval Ministry), prior to the war, wanted Japan to build just those sorts of ships. He foresaw a protracted war involving air power, amphibious ops, and lots of logistical problems. Very far-sighted man, but of course he was totally ignored by the rest of the IJN..."Hey, we can build one more battleship, instead of all those lowly DDs and DEs!"[8|]

It may have been physically possible to have that building program but the fact that Inoue was a lone wolf howling in the wind would lead me to believe that there was no chance for the adoption of such a program by the IJN. Just my killjoy $.02.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
Not sure who on the AE team pushed for a longer game

The way I remember it - it was everyone but me - and I have scars to prove it!
[:D]

[RevRick]

"" That short!

[ny59giants]

Two quick questions that probably have already been answered, but I'll ask again.

Why do I have to tell my transport TF that is is unloaded at an enemy base to unload again on each successive turn until I take the base and can have it dock at the port? Will this issue be gone??

I often add a few 2,500 capacity AKs to my invasion transport TF, but they don't seem to unload supplies with the APs when they unload troops. Is this fixed??

Thanks!!

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Two quick questions that probably have already been answered, but I'll ask again.

Why do I have to tell my transport TF that is is unloaded at an enemy base to unload again on each successive turn until I take the base and can have it dock at the port? Will this issue be gone??

Whoops, don't understand the question.

I often add a few 2,500 capacity AKs to my invasion transport TF, but they don't seem to unload supplies with the APs when they unload troops. Is this fixed??

Thanks!!

AE has different ship classes: APs, AKs, (APAs, AKAs) and xAPs , xAKs. Amphib capable ships will unload quickly. Non-amphib capable ships (xAK/xAP) will unload very sloooooooooowly. As it was in the beginning; is now and ever shall be; world without end; Amen, Amen.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Two quick questions that probably have already been answered, but I'll ask again.

Why do I have to tell my transport TF that is is unloaded at an enemy base to unload again on each successive turn until I take the base and can have it dock at the port? Will this issue be gone??

Whoops, don't understand the question.

I think I might. An Amphib TF will unload using Amphib unload rules and processes until the base is captured. Once captured, it will switch to friendly base unload processes. Depending on the size of the TF and the condition of the port (port size, damage) it might or might not dock. If it can not dock, it will continue to unload using "undocked" processes. This is slower that amphibious, but still unloads even if the TF can not dock. Note that "dock" is temporary in this case.

AE has docking limits for ports of a given size (adjusted for damage). If the entire TF can not dock, the undocked unloading process considers available dock space and other resources to determine unload rates. Other resources are naval support at the port and certain amphib capable ships in the TF (true stand-off unload ships like APA and LSD plus barges/LCVP/LSM, etc). Both provide small landing craft or lighters that can help with unload for undocked ships.

The rate is slower than amphibious, but also causes less damage and destruction to the units/supplies being unloaded. This has expanded the vocabulary of many and AE tester.

All of this emulates:
1. Amphib TF unloads as fast as possible during assault - get the stuff ashore!
2. Once target is captured, unloading slows down for both safety and to represent congestion as cargos are landed and sorted out.
3. If dock space is available at the captured port, the TF will use it - subject to docking limits. Ships will unload as if they individually move to the docks, unload, and move back out.

From a game perspective, the TF is never split into docked and undocked portions. Calculations of unload rates consider unused dock space. TF will not dock (unless player orders it).

Remember for AE: amphibious operations are tough. Be prepared. Use true amphibious ships if you can (APA, etc). If you haven't got any, Naval transports (AP/AK) are better than merchant ships (xAK/xAP). Also - get naval support in as soon as possible. Naval support has many uses - in this case it represents shore parties and small lighters/amphib vehicles (like DUKWs). It really helps.

We made this as realistic as possible, which means its a bitch.

[Wirraway_Ace]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
Two quick questions that probably have already been answered, but I'll ask again.

Why do I have to tell my transport TF that is is unloaded at an enemy base to unload again on each successive turn until I take the base and can have it dock at the port? Will this issue be gone??

Whoops, don't understand the question.

I think I might. An Amphib TF will unload using Amphib unload rules and processes until the base is captured. Once captured, it will switch to friendly base unload processes. Depending on the size of the TF and the condition of the port (port size, damage) it might or might not dock. If it can not dock, it will continue to unload using "undocked" processes. This is slower that amphibious, but still unloads even if the TF can not dock. Note that "dock" is temporary in this case.

AE has docking limits for ports of a given size (adjusted for damage). If the entire TF can not dock, the undocked unloading process considers available dock space and other resources to determine unload rates. Other resources are naval support at the port and certain amphib capable ships in the TF (true stand-off unload ships like APA and LSD plus barges/LCVP/LSM, etc). Both provide small landing craft or lighters that can help with unload for undocked ships.

The rate is slower than amphibious, but also causes less damage and destruction to the units/supplies being unloaded. This has expanded the vocabulary of many and AE tester.

All of this emulates:
1. Amphib TF unloads as fast as possible during assault - get the stuff ashore!
2. Once target is captured, unloading slows down for both safety and to represent congestion as cargos are landed and sorted out.
3. If dock space is available at the captured port, the TF will use it - subject to docking limits. Ships will unload as if they individually move to the docks, unload, and move back out.

From a game perspective, the TF is never split into docked and undocked portions. Calculations of unload rates consider unused dock space. TF will not dock (unless player orders it).

Remember for AE: amphibious operations are tough. Be prepared. Use true amphibious ships if you can (APA, etc). If you haven't got any, Naval transports (AP/AK) are better than merchant ships (xAK/xAP). Also - get naval support in as soon as possible. Naval support has many uses - in this case it represents shore parties and small lighters/amphib vehicles (like DUKWs). It really helps.

We made this as realistic as possible, which means its a bitch.

Don, thanks for the excellent explanation. I wonder at ny59giants question however. In stock, I only have to reorder my TFs to unload at an enemy base hex if they have been attacked by surface forces during the previous turn. I always assumed that the TF commander made the smart decision to withdraw in the face of enemy surface forces and loitered until directed to return to the beachhead.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Wirraway_Ace

Don, thanks for the excellent explanation. I wonder at ny59giants question however. In stock, I only have to reorder my TFs to unload at an enemy base hex if they have been attacked by surface forces during the previous turn. I always assumed that the TF commander made the smart decision to withdraw in the face of enemy surface forces and loitered until directed to return to the beachhead.

It's been so long since I looked at stock that I can't remember. At least I do not recall if I can.

Anyway, in AE the decision to run away or return to unloading depends on the status of the TF (damage, ammo), presence of enemy, and Leader's aggression. A well-escorted Amphib TF can beat off an attack by a small surface force and go back to unloading. If it get's badly shot up it will almost always withdraw. If it fights an engagement and ends up in decent shape and any enemy left in the area are weak, it will probably go back to unloading.

Enemy strength is evaluated using Fog of War and detection levels. Leader's aggression is key.

[ny59giants]

I will post a screenshot from one of my two PBEM games tomorrow as I have various invasions about to take place to help clarify.

[m10bob]

Just too lazy to go thru both of the Naval threads.........

When the Brit player is required to withdraw destroyers, can he send back Commonwealth ships instead?........(Thank you for an answer and your tolerance.)

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Just too lazy to go thru both of the Naval threads.........

When the Brit player is required to withdraw destroyers, can he send back Commonwealth ships instead?........(Thank you for an answer and your tolerance.)

No, in the AE you're required to send back specific ships (e.g. if you're required to withdraw DD Nizam you have to send DD Nizam and not another destroyer). Btw., if the ship that is required has been sunk you don't have to send it back (that is, it does not cost PP's).

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Just too lazy to go thru both of the Naval threads.........

When the Brit player is required to withdraw destroyers, can he send back Commonwealth ships instead?........(Thank you for an answer and your tolerance.)

No, in the AE you're required to send back specific ships (e.g. if you're required to withdraw DD Nizam you have to send DD Nizam and not another destroyer). Btw., if the ship that is required has been sunk you don't have to send it back (that is, it does not cost PP's).

Thank you!! That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost...

[John Lansford]

Well at least the crew will have a nice place to relax if the ship sinks at one of those size 1 ports in AE (as long as it isn't on New Guinea or one of those other SW Pacific islands, that is).

[Dili]

That is way more detailed than I might have expected, and an improvement over vanilla if it won't penalize with pp's if already lost

Au contraire! It is worse. A player can risk more those ships and doesn't simulate well the requests of other theatres since it is not the specific ship per se that counts.