Page 5 of 31
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 12:58 am
by jwilkerson
In game terms we start on 7 Dec .. so this is definitely possible. It is true that in reality for the vast bulk of the map area, the WITP started on 8 Dec .. but the game was made in the USA and apparently we think the war started on 7 Dec ... hence the game does ... [:)]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:16 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
... the game was made in the USA and apparently we think the war started on 7 Dec ... hence the game does ... [:)]
"Yesterday, December 7th, a day that will live in infamy ...."
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:59 pm
by bradfordkay
For shame... a WITP regular who got that quote wrong... [:-]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 8:04 pm
by Wirraway_Ace
But the finger-wagging imotocon may have been a disproportionate response to the omission of "1941"
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:05 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
For shame... a WITP regular who got that quote wrong... [:-]
Yeah, yeah, I'm appropriately ashamed. Should have added a [sic] to satisfy the word for word addicts.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:18 am
by Yamato hugger
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
"Yesterday, December 7th, a day that will live in infamy ...."
Wow, you nit-pickers really missed on this one. You got the obvious 1941 thing but still missed the mark.
a
date that will live in infamy
Edit: Don was testing you, and you all failed [:D]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:32 am
by Grotius
To pick one more nit, FDR used "which" rather than "that." Modern Standard English calls for "that", but maybe things were different then:
Yesterday, December 7, 1941 - a date which will live in infamy - the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan.
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/infamy.shtml
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:09 am
by Don Bowen
Ah, this forum will run a debate on anything...
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 3:08 am
by bradfordkay
ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
"Yesterday, December 7th, a day that will live in infamy ...."
Wow, you nit-pickers really missed on this one. You got the obvious 1941 thing but still missed the mark.
a
date that will live in infamy
Edit: Don was testing you, and you all failed [:D]
Where did I say anything other than that Don got the quote wrong?
[:'(]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:27 am
by Yamato hugger
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Ah, this forum will run a debate on anything...
You're just realizing that?
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 1:27 pm
by erstad
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Ah, this forum will run a debate on anything...
Including a "debate which will live in infamy"? [:D]
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:37 pm
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Ah, this forum will run a debate on anything...
Did I mention:
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:04 pm
by Don Bowen
Alright - let's get this thread back on track.
One of the new messages in AE is:
Previous report of sinking of (ship) incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service
Y'all chew on that for a while
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:17 pm
by Ol_Dog
Is the new intel really better than the old intel?
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 5:24 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Ol_Dog
Is the new intel really better than the old intel?
Beats the fog of war out of me.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:56 pm
by Iron Duke
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Alright - let's get this thread back on track.
One of the new messages in AE is:
Previous report of sinking of (ship) incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service
Y'all chew on that for a while
Does this message appear before the ship appears on the sunk ship list or can it appear after?
Ive always taken the ship sunk list to be set in stone - has this changed?
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:19 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Iron Duke
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Alright - let's get this thread back on track.
One of the new messages in AE is:
Previous report of sinking of (ship) incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service
Y'all chew on that for a while
Does this message appear before the ship appears on the sunk ship list or can it appear after?
Ive always taken the ship sunk list to be set in stone - has this changed?
Yes, changed. Fog of war extends to the sunk ship list.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:55 pm
by Ron Saueracker
Any changes to the Japanese and American sub doctrines?
What about the Japanese naval AA? Used to be a good arguement put forward by Spence and a few others regarding the need to more accurately reflect Japanese practice of spreading ship formations out to facilitate individual ship maneuvers (diluting the flak severely) while Allied practice called for tight formations and formation maneuvers (concentrating the flak).
What about CAP differences, specifically naval? I seem to remember an AE AAR test which mentioned fighter direction.
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:33 am
by m10bob
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Alright - let's get this thread back on track.
One of the new messages in AE is:
Previous report of sinking of (ship) incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service
Y'all chew on that for a while
Okay, does it indicate WHICH of the sinking reports was inaccurate, and is the bad report from this same date, or a prior date??
(Excellent enhancement, and not one which was expected!)
RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread II
Posted: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:45 am
by Splinterhead
ORIGINAL: m10bob
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Alright - let's get this thread back on track.
One of the new messages in AE is:
Previous report of sinking of (ship) incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service
Y'all chew on that for a while
Okay, does it indicate WHICH of the sinking reports was inaccurate, and is the bad report from this same date, or a prior date??
(Excellent enhancement, and not one which was expected!)
I'm pretty sure he meant "(ship)" would actually be replaced by the ship's name, ex.
Previous report of sinking of Lexington incorrect. Intelligence reports ship is still in service