Admirals Edition Naval Thread

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Eh, what do you mean, Ron?[&:]

Heyho![:)] Ever play Wooden Ships and Iron Men, an Avalon Hill Napoleonic Era naval game? Crew factors are modelled and can suffer attrition due to combat for example. We have squads and squad pools for land units and pilots and pilot pools for air units, but WITP does not account for ships crews outside of a generic ship experience level. If we were to have crew factors, we would be able to assign VP to the crew factors (squads) which would add immensely to a ship's VP total, would allow for fatigue morale issues (such as they may be), and would allow for a more realistic approach to crew experience. Perhaps the player might be allowed to manage these crew factors from a naval crew factor pool so experienced/elite crew factors could be bled into new construction ships as was the case historically. See what I'm getting at?

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Eh, what do you mean, Ron?[&:]

Heyho![:)] Ever play Wooden Ships and Iron Men, an Avalon Hill Napoleonic Era naval game? Crew factors are modelled and can suffer attrition due to combat for example. We have squads and squad pools for land units and pilots and pilot pools for air units, but WITP does not account for ships crews outside of a generic ship experience level. If we were to have crew factors, we would be able to assign VP to the crew factors (squads) which would add immensely to a ship's VP total, would allow for fatigue morale issues (such as they may be), and would allow for a more realistic approach to crew experience. Perhaps the player might be allowed to manage these crew factors from a naval crew factor pool so experienced/elite crew factors could be bled into new construction ships as was the case historically. See what I'm getting at?

Yeah, I got you now; you're basically looking for every ship to have a crew, like an air unit has pilots and a brigade has squads. It's a good idea, but it's not feasible for this product. It would be a BIG THING to code and a BIG THING in the database. Sorry, Ron; that's for the product after AE.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Eh, what do you mean, Ron?[&:]

Heyho![:)] Ever play Wooden Ships and Iron Men, an Avalon Hill Napoleonic Era naval game? Crew factors are modelled and can suffer attrition due to combat for example. We have squads and squad pools for land units and pilots and pilot pools for air units, but WITP does not account for ships crews outside of a generic ship experience level. If we were to have crew factors, we would be able to assign VP to the crew factors (squads) which would add immensely to a ship's VP total, would allow for fatigue morale issues (such as they may be), and would allow for a more realistic approach to crew experience. Perhaps the player might be allowed to manage these crew factors from a naval crew factor pool so experienced/elite crew factors could be bled into new construction ships as was the case historically. See what I'm getting at?

Yeah, I got you now; you're basically looking for every ship to have a crew, like an air unit has pilots and a brigade has squads. It's a good idea, but it's not feasible for this product. It would be a BIG THING to code and a BIG THING in the database. Sorry, Ron; that's for the product after AE.

Thanks Terminus, for both the answer and the confirmation of WITP2!!!![:D]

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Terminus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker



Heyho![:)] Ever play Wooden Ships and Iron Men, an Avalon Hill Napoleonic Era naval game? Crew factors are modelled and can suffer attrition due to combat for example. We have squads and squad pools for land units and pilots and pilot pools for air units, but WITP does not account for ships crews outside of a generic ship experience level. If we were to have crew factors, we would be able to assign VP to the crew factors (squads) which would add immensely to a ship's VP total, would allow for fatigue morale issues (such as they may be), and would allow for a more realistic approach to crew experience. Perhaps the player might be allowed to manage these crew factors from a naval crew factor pool so experienced/elite crew factors could be bled into new construction ships as was the case historically. See what I'm getting at?

Yeah, I got you now; you're basically looking for every ship to have a crew, like an air unit has pilots and a brigade has squads. It's a good idea, but it's not feasible for this product. It would be a BIG THING to code and a BIG THING in the database. Sorry, Ron; that's for the product after AE.

Thanks Terminus, for both the answer and the confirmation of WITP2!!!![:D]

Damn, forgot to put in the disclaimer... Oh dear, what shall we do now?[:D]

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Damn, forgot to put in the disclaimer... Oh dear, what shall we do now?[:D]

Dare I say, we resurrect the ROASTING "BBQ Terminus over an open pit" idea?

Let's see...we need beer, soda, chips, spices, and one (1) Terminus Deputy Dog

And about 24 hours and much more beer.[:D][:D][:D]

[witpqs]

There is a refueling bug or 'short-coming' in the current released code that you might want to look for in testing AE. It works like this.

Suppose you want to put together a fast TF to move some planes or LCU's a long distance. So, you pick a fast AK or AP, and pair it with a DD that has a long range. You load them up and send them on their way.

What then happens is that the DD refuels from the AK/AP each and every day. In other words, the DD 'tops up its tanks' daily, which has the effect of greatly reducing the TF's speed because refueling uses up so many ops points (as it should). This happens every day until the remaining range of the AK/AP has been greatly reduced. Setting the TF to 'Do Not Refuel' does not have any effect.

The AK/AP starts out having a much greater range than the DD. It seems like the refueling algorithm compares the range remaining in each ship and tries to equal them out if they are vastly different. BTW, I gave an example with two ships but the problem happens for any size group. I think the key is the great difference in range for the AK/AP and the DD.

Suggest that the escorts should not try to 'top up' unless they are below 75% to 80% of their own fuel capacity.

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

There is a refueling bug or 'short-coming' in the current released code that you might want to look for in testing AE. It works like this.

Suppose you want to put together a fast TF to move some planes or LCU's a long distance. So, you pick a fast AK or AP, and pair it with a DD that has a long range. You load them up and send them on their way.

What then happens is that the DD refuels from the AK/AP each and every day. In other words, the DD 'tops up its tanks' daily, which has the effect of greatly reducing the TF's speed because refueling uses up so many ops points (as it should). This happens every day until the remaining range of the AK/AP has been greatly reduced. Setting the TF to 'Do Not Refuel' does not have any effect.

The AK/AP starts out having a much greater range than the DD. It seems like the refueling algorithm compares the range remaining in each ship and tries to equal them out if they are vastly different. BTW, I gave an example with two ships but the problem happens for any size group. I think the key is the great difference in range for the AK/AP and the DD.

Suggest that the escorts should not try to 'top up' unless they are below 75% to 80% of their own fuel capacity.

We're doing a fair bit of new stuff when it comes to refueling. Not 100% sure that this one is in, but still...

[bradfordkay]

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Damn, forgot to put in the disclaimer... Oh dear, what shall we do now?[:D]

Dare I say, we resurrect the ROASTING "BBQ Terminus over an open pit" idea?

Let's see...we need beer, soda, chips, spices, and one (1) Terminus Deputy Dog

And about 24 hours and much more beer.[:D][:D][:D]

Mmmmmm..... long pig... Danish ham to boot!

[wworld7]

[8|]

[Terminus]

[:'(] to the pair of you...[;)]

[ny59giants]

Glen carrying subs
 
Anything to tone down their ability to launch and recover their floatplanes regardless of weather. They should have operational losses directly related to weather above having a high op loss as was historical.

[Brady]

ny59giants-Have you read their trom's, Not shure about how they handel the weather aspect in AE, but they seamed to be able to launch and recover about the same way any other float plane equiped ship did.

One thing I always whised they could do was conduct night time recon mishions which they did a fair amount of.

Another was to do recon mishions and not always have the enemy see you doing it, that nice red line pointing to whear the sub was(or ship)...


TROM's:http://www.combinedfleet.com/sensuikan.htm

Scades of mishions flow by Glen's and very few op losses

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

There is a refueling bug or 'short-coming' in the current released code that you might want to look for in testing AE. It works like this.

Suppose you want to put together a fast TF to move some planes or LCU's a long distance. So, you pick a fast AK or AP, and pair it with a DD that has a long range. You load them up and send them on their way.

What then happens is that the DD refuels from the AK/AP each and every day. In other words, the DD 'tops up its tanks' daily, which has the effect of greatly reducing the TF's speed because refueling uses up so many ops points (as it should). This happens every day until the remaining range of the AK/AP has been greatly reduced. Setting the TF to 'Do Not Refuel' does not have any effect.

The AK/AP starts out having a much greater range than the DD. It seems like the refueling algorithm compares the range remaining in each ship and tries to equal them out if they are vastly different. BTW, I gave an example with two ships but the problem happens for any size group. I think the key is the great difference in range for the AK/AP and the DD.

Suggest that the escorts should not try to 'top up' unless they are below 75% to 80% of their own fuel capacity.

You can alleviate this somewhat through micromanagement of the DH and Home Port for these TFs. If the distance from the present hex to the DH to the Home Port is less, ships with short legs are willing to let their fuel levels go lower....

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

There is a refueling bug or 'short-coming' in the current released code that you might want to look for in testing AE. It works like this.

Suppose you want to put together a fast TF to move some planes or LCU's a long distance. So, you pick a fast AK or AP, and pair it with a DD that has a long range. You load them up and send them on their way.

What then happens is that the DD refuels from the AK/AP each and every day. In other words, the DD 'tops up its tanks' daily, which has the effect of greatly reducing the TF's speed because refueling uses up so many ops points (as it should). This happens every day until the remaining range of the AK/AP has been greatly reduced. Setting the TF to 'Do Not Refuel' does not have any effect.

The AK/AP starts out having a much greater range than the DD. It seems like the refueling algorithm compares the range remaining in each ship and tries to equal them out if they are vastly different. BTW, I gave an example with two ships but the problem happens for any size group. I think the key is the great difference in range for the AK/AP and the DD.

Suggest that the escorts should not try to 'top up' unless they are below 75% to 80% of their own fuel capacity.

I'll take a look at it.

The problem is this only one circumstance. If the TF includes an oiler, or is meeting a replenishment TF, or includes a big fat ship with lots of fuel, it is better to top off. Also, there is no way for the refueling routine to know what is going to happen next turn. That needed oiler might be just over the horizon, or maybe an enemy TF is there.

The old rule of keeping ones escorts well fueled is always worth remembering.

And, once the DD gets below 80%, it would tend to refuel frequently anyway. The ships with extra fuel will be reluctant to give it up. If they had lots, the DD would refuel more completely and therefore less often.

Anyway, I'll look.

[Splinterhead]

So...

1. Do British aircraft carriers get increased capacity and larger/additional air groups as the war progresses?

2. Is Hermes' airgroup fixed (no fighters)?

3. Do US S-boats get withdrawn/retired?

4. Do the Sangamons get fuel/cargo capacity?

5. Is Langley I now an AVT with air transport ability?

6. Is Utah included and is there the ability to remilitarize it?[:)]

[Grotius]

Terminus, thanks for answering my question about 1-hex CV reaction. Amazingly, I am, for the moment, question-less.

[faraonej]

Term,

I was wondering whether there could be a running tab of sub commander's victories, similar to pilot kill scores.

Thanks in advance for the answer and thanks to the team for keeping this great game alive & fresh.

Joe F

[pad152]

British withdrawal all Allied ships can have a withdrawal date set (and a date to return to the map).

What happens to a ship that's part of a TF when it's date of withdrawal arrives? I hope we are not going back to the old PacWar days where ships would just disapear from a TF in the middle of an operation! [:-]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
I'll take a look at it.

The problem is this only one circumstance. If the TF includes an oiler, or is meeting a replenishment TF, or includes a big fat ship with lots of fuel, it is better to top off. Also, there is no way for the refueling routine to know what is going to happen next turn. That needed oiler might be just over the horizon, or maybe an enemy TF is there.

The old rule of keeping ones escorts well fueled is always worth remembering.

And, once the DD gets below 80%, it would tend to refuel frequently anyway. The ships with extra fuel will be reluctant to give it up. If they had lots, the DD would refuel more completely and therefore less often.

Anyway, I'll look.

Don,

Thanks. I completely agree with and understand the operational need to top off, and I do want realism. It's just that in this kind of circumstance they do it daily, which I think is unrealistic. It seems like if a fast TF is trying to make some time they wouldn't top off when they still have 98% fuel on board. I tossed out the 75% to 80% area as a suggestion. I don't know what fuel level trigger the navy would use IRL. Maybe someone out there can jump in?

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: faraonej

Term,

I was wondering whether there could be a running tab of sub commander's victories, similar to pilot kill scores.

Thanks in advance for the answer and thanks to the team for keeping this great game alive & fresh.

Joe F

No, sorry... That fell by the wayside.