Matrix Games Forums

Thank you very much [8D]. I can't wait to put my hands in a new version of WitpEditorX ( great job, btw ). 

Has there been any thought about changing the victory point cost of ships vs planes ect. I have always thought that ships were undervalued in the game. I just dont get that an AP might be worth 15 points or less. How many artillery pieces could be made with the steel of even a medium sized ship? Only 15?  I think both sides would be less likley to do crazy things in an ahistoric manner is the VP's for ships were multiplied by 10.  Also I have alway said that the Number one problem for this game is the fact that we have no cure for hindsight.

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Am I Dan??

[:(]

I'm fraid so.
Thanks for the reply Don/Dan. [;)]

Funny, I knew a guy named Dan Bowman, so my first inclination has always been to call Don, Dan as well. Fortunately I've so far always caught myself before making the mistake. [:D]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: Grotius

Joe, will you be doing a new manual? If so, I might volunteer to index it. I've indexed two published books, so I have some experience with professional indexing. I prepared an index for the original manual, and David Heath expressed some interest in publishing it, but it never saw the light of day.

Yes the manual is being reworked. We can talk off line about indexing, one issue will be total number of pages. Every page of index added means a page of content must go. Life is full of trade offs!
[:)]

Or we could do separate file for index that would not be in the manual but would be separate, that would permit index with no loss of manual pages.

We can discuss, send me PM.

Ok guys I have to head to the day job, but I will check back in at lunch and try to catch up!

As a hair brained thought perhaps you might consider having the index in an online down loadable & printable file for those who want it could then get it.

Madgamer

I have acouple of questions about the editor:



1. In AE stock extra units are received if the US, India, Australia, Japan, or Vietnam are invaded. Can units be created in the editor that only activate by triggered events? For instance a squadron of Fairey Battles released only if Australia is invaded?


2. Can units be set to resize in the editor. 12 to 16 aircraft, for example.

3. If the answer to 2 is yes, can the trigger be time set (example: the Aussie Battles arrive with a strength of 4 ac and unit expands to 16 in 2 days, to give the player a chance to decide if he wants to deplete his pilot pool to bring a provisional squadron of obsolete bombers up to strength) or is the resizing totally date based?

Unfortunately the reinforcements in case of invasion is LCU only so no air units arrive if the criteria are met its on the list but not in yet an probably not in release.
 
Resizing of air units is possible

And made it to the end of this one also!&nbsp; Found out some stuff I did not know...like using the >< to scroll through the TFs.&nbsp; Woot!

My beloved Naval thread is locked! Scata malacca!

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

My beloved Naval thread is locked! Scata malacca!

Ron again. Did the statue of limitations run out?

More likely he was chased across another border. [:D][;)]

Do we have an updated release date for this product?
&nbsp;
Andy

Well actually we cannot either have or not have an updated release date since Matrix doesn't announce release dates in advance. The "expectation" was set for "summer 08" ... and to my knowledge has not been reset.

We wound up having to rewrite the (strategic level) AI processor in order to get it to do what we were trying to tell it to do. That has taken a good bit of energy - we are on the backside of the slope on this issue - but are tightening things up and continuing to test, test test.

Since the Naval Thread is locked a couple more questions.
&nbsp;
1 - The US Navy did not have large gun HE shells after 1915. HC shells able to be used as COM or HE were not&nbsp;introduced until in late 1942. Some 6in guns had COM shells and AA guns used their AA COM shells which had nose and base fuzes for bombardment. Will USN land bombardments be reduced in effectiveness to reflect this. Even with the HC, US shore bombardment could be less effective because the HC shell when used as a COM shell for hardened structures covered the nose fuze, which still initiated when it struck hard surfaces w/o penetration. Also the HC shells weighed less than the AP shells. The 16in HC weighed a nominal 1,900lbs against the 2,700lb and 2,240lbs APHE shells.
&nbsp;
2 - How will the FC for the various ships be adjusted? The IJN may have had heavy guns that ranged to 36kyds and more, but w/o aerial spotting, the max effective engagement range was around 24kyds. Night combat effective range did not exceed 10kyds for all IJN ships except the 8in cruisers which had illum rounds that could range to 15-17kyds. The IJN did not have effective FC radar until the Type 22 10cm radars were moded in Oct 1944. Is aerial spotting possible? In late 1943, US fast BBs could "bracket" a fleeing IJN DD with HC at 39kyds. The RN, however, could not match the performance of the Mk.8 FCR, much less the Mk.13 until 1945.
&nbsp;
3 - Penetration performance. Will it be adjusted for type of shell? The IJN Type 91 "diving" shell lost around 10% theoretical performance against vertical targets and increased by 5% against horizontal targets. The RN 8in Mk.VIII used SAPHE, which had about 60% performance of a similar APHE shell of the same weight and velocity. The USN had Special COM and the RN, CPC or SAPC shells which had partial piercing caps.
&nbsp;
4 - Effect - Will US torpedoes reflect the changes in warhead size (the Mk.13 went from 497lbs to 600lbs in 1942) and for torpedoes, mines and DCs, the change in warhead content, TORPEX vs TNT (TORPEX is 40-50% more effective) in 1943 for the US and 1944 for the RN?

#4 can be done since they have indicated that there is a huge increase in slots for everything. I think that torpedos, mines and DC could all have upgrades to reflect TORPEX vs TNT.
However, I do not know if they will do that for the stock release, but a mod could change things.

ORIGINAL: LTCMTS

Since the Naval Thread is locked a couple more questions.

1 - The US Navy did not have large gun HE shells after 1915. HC shells able to be used as COM or HE were not introduced until in late 1942. Some 6in guns had COM shells and AA guns used their AA COM shells which had nose and base fuzes for bombardment. Will USN land bombardments be reduced in effectiveness to reflect this. Even with the HC, US shore bombardment could be less effective because the HC shell when used as a COM shell for hardened structures covered the nose fuze, which still initiated when it struck hard surfaces w/o penetration. Also the HC shells weighed less than the AP shells. The 16in HC weighed a nominal 1,900lbs against the 2,700lb and 2,240lbs APHE shells.

2 - How will the FC for the various ships be adjusted? The IJN may have had heavy guns that ranged to 36kyds and more, but w/o aerial spotting, the max effective engagement range was around 24kyds. Night combat effective range did not exceed 10kyds for all IJN ships except the 8in cruisers which had illum rounds that could range to 15-17kyds. The IJN did not have effective FC radar until the Type 22 10cm radars were moded in Oct 1944. Is aerial spotting possible? In late 1943, US fast BBs could "bracket" a fleeing IJN DD with HC at 39kyds. The RN, however, could not match the performance of the Mk.8 FCR, much less the Mk.13 until 1945.

3 - Penetration performance. Will it be adjusted for type of shell? The IJN Type 91 "diving" shell lost around 10% theoretical performance against vertical targets and increased by 5% against horizontal targets. The RN 8in Mk.VIII used SAPHE, which had about 60% performance of a similar APHE shell of the same weight and velocity. The USN had Special COM and the RN, CPC or SAPC shells which had partial piercing caps.

4 - Effect - Will US torpedoes reflect the changes in warhead size (the Mk.13 went from 497lbs to 600lbs in 1942) and for torpedoes, mines and DCs, the change in warhead content, TORPEX vs TNT (TORPEX is 40-50% more effective) in 1943 for the US and 1944 for the RN?

WITP (and hence AE) has its lowest level of weapons representation at the "device" level. Sometimes a "device" could be thought of as "ammunition" like in the case of bombs .. but for "guns" the device represents the gun ... a certain model on a certain platform ... with a certain elevation etc. For "guns" the ammunition is not separately modeled .. so abstract values such as "penetration" and "effects" are used instead.

As Nomad says, your #4 could be handled by a modder.

How will Kablammo (tm) be handled in AE?&nbsp;[;)]

er - what would that be?

ORIGINAL: LTCMTS

4 - Effect - Will US torpedoes reflect the changes in warhead size (the Mk.13 went from 497lbs to 600lbs in 1942) and for torpedoes, mines and DCs, the change in warhead content, TORPEX vs TNT (TORPEX is 40-50% more effective) in 1943 for the US and 1944 for the RN?

50% more effective in blast radius or in effective warhead weight? The former is an effective increase in flooded volume by about 50%, while the latter is a 14% increase.

The USN Mk13 saw an increase from 401lbs of TNT to 600lbs of Torpex (~850lbs TNT equivalent) in '42/'43.

The IJN Type 91 also saw an increase from 331lbs (Mod 1) and 452lbs (Mod 2), to the later 529lbs (Mod 3) in '42, and 679lbs (Mod 4S) and 926lbs (Mod 7S) in '44.

ORIGINAL: Elouda

The USN Mk13 saw an increase from 401lbs of TNT to 600lbs of Torpex (~850lbs TNT equivalent) in '42/'43.

The IJN Type 91 also saw an increase from 331lbs (Mod 1) and 452lbs (Mod 2), to the later 529lbs (Mod 3) in '42, and 679lbs (Mod 4S) and 926lbs (Mod 7S) in '44.

The former is a 30% increase in flooded length. For the Japanese, Mod2/Mod1 = +10%, Mod3/Mod1 = +20%, Mod45/Mod1 = + 30%, and Mod75/Mod1 = +40%.