Admirals Edition Naval Thread

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Terminus »

And beyond that, it brings up the "how-much-time-do-we-have-to-develop-this?" debate.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Don Bowen »


We're getting off on a bit of a tangent here.

There are, and always have been, two underway refueling methods in WITP. These are both retained in AE, with some adjustments:

1. Refueling by AO. An AO carrying fuel cargo uses that cargo to refuel other ships. Both ships acquire ops usage, which has the affect of slowing them down that turn.

2. Refueling from bunkers of other ships. Individual ships, usually those with larger fuel capacity, fuel other ships from their own fuel. Again, both ships acquire ops usage and so slow down that turn. This type of fueling was historically used primarily by larger warships refueling their escorting DDs, but is available universally in both WITH and AE.

AE makes some minor changes in the ships that can refuel from cargo while underway and adds the "sheltered anchorage" rule for other ships refueling from cargo while stopped.

Hope that is clear - there is some complexity.

Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: hueglin

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Germans did it, but not the USN or IJN.

Which brings about the age old debate of historical games - do I only play what was done using the mindset of the nation that I am playing, or do I play what was technically possible. To me its all a matter of gamer preference - do I want to try and recreate history, or do I want to experiment with how things could have gone differently - given different ideas and ways of approaching the problems at hand.


Wouldn't have a problem if the ship involved was a Sub Tender..., then you would be puting something valuable at risk in doing this. But AK's are a dime-a-dozen, so it's basically a throw-away...
User avatar
Micke II
Posts: 218
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 3:21 pm
Location: Paris France

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Micke II »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen



AE makes some minor changes in the ships that can refuel from cargo while underway and adds the "sheltered anchorage" rule for other ships refueling from cargo while stopped.

Hope that is clear - there is some complexity.



Does it mean that small ships escorting big AK or AP will refuel at sea less frequently or at the option of the players ?
In WIP the speed of the convoys is greatly reduced due to the constant refueling of the escort ships even if they have left the harbour the day before.

User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Micke II

Does it mean that small ships escorting big AK or AP will refuel at sea less frequently or at the option of the players ?
In WIP the speed of the convoys is greatly reduced due to the constant refueling of the escort ships even if they have left the harbour the day before.

The auto-refueling has been tempered a bit. Any TF underway that does not have sufficient total endurance to complete it's mission will CONSIDER refueling each turn (same as WITP). A check for percentage of total fuel has been put in to prevent every-day topping off. This means that the TF will refuel the short ranged ships every few days instead of every day.


User avatar
wworld7
Posts: 1726
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2003 2:57 am
Location: The Nutmeg State

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by wworld7 »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But AK's are a dime-a-dozen, so it's basically a throw-away...

Ok, you get to tell the family of the crew if she is sunk.
Flipper
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But AK's are a dime-a-dozen, so it's basically a throw-away...

Ok, you get to tell the family of the crew if she is sunk.


I'll break the news to the little pixels if the need arises.
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But AK's are a dime-a-dozen, so it's basically a throw-away...

Ok, you get to tell the family of the crew if she is sunk.


Oh.., and you are making my point. Both sides have AK's our the wazoo in the game, so losing several in such a silly ahistorical manner isn't going to bother the player or the score much. Sub Tender's are harder to come by, so less likely to be tossed away without thinking.
User avatar
Brady
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:48 pm
Location: Oregon,USA

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Brady »

So-Whear do I get torp's for:
 
Float planes?
 a)Tender's?
 b) Basses of size 4, and suficient suoply?
 
PT's:
 a)Tender's
 b)  Baseses of suficient size(4) and suply?
 
Sub's-
 Same as above?
 
DD's/CA' Same as above?
 
Auxilary's?
 
 
 
[center]Image[/center]



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
darken92
Posts: 92
Joined: Fri May 11, 2007 5:29 pm

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by darken92 »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Possibly... No further comment.

Sorry, just have to ask. There is a known issue with the naval attack routines and you will not comment?

Is it being looked into at all?
"I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion...
I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate...
All those... moments will be lost... in time. Like... tears... in rain."
User avatar
Skyland
Posts: 284
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 1:30 pm
Location: France

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Skyland »

[font=tahoma]Any chance to have Kabaya Ka-1 as a carrier capable aircraft (used for ASW duty on Akitsu Maru and Nigitsu Maru) ?[/font]


[font=tahoma]http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/kayaba_ka-1.php[/font][/align][font=tahoma][/font] [/align][font=tahoma]Thanks[/font][/align]
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: darken92
ORIGINAL: Terminus

Possibly... No further comment.

Sorry, just have to ask. There is a known issue with the naval attack routines and you will not comment?

Is it being looked into at all?

The "no further comment" came after I posted an "it's being worked on" and was asked for clarification. My very first post on this thread said that we wouldn't be telling you everything and why.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: Skyland

[font=tahoma]Any chance to have Kabaya Ka-1 as a carrier capable aircraft (used for ASW duty on Akitsu Maru and Nigitsu Maru) ?[/font]


[font=tahoma]http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/kayaba_ka-1.php[/font][/align][font=tahoma][/font] [/align][font=tahoma]Thanks[/font][/align]

It was on the list last time I looked, along with a bit of a discussion on what to type it as...
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Brady
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:48 pm
Location: Oregon,USA

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Brady »

Image
 
Image
[center]Image[/center]



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Terminus »

Brady, it's safe to stop posting all those graphics and assume that we already have this info. Thank you.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
User avatar
Brady
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2002 12:48 pm
Location: Oregon,USA

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Brady »

Was not just intended for your benifit, what I thought was interesting was the Depth chage referance and the Aircraft type,Ki-76.
[center]Image[/center]



Beta Team Member for:

WPO
PC
CF
AE
WiTE

Obi-wan Kenobi said it best: A lot of the reality we perceive depend on our point of view
User avatar
Dixie
Posts: 10303
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:14 pm
Location: UK

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Dixie »

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Brady, it's safe to stop posting all those graphics and assume that we already have this info. Thank you.

Maybe he just like pretty pictures, like I do [:D]
[center]Image

Bigger boys stole my sig
User avatar
hueglin
Posts: 297
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2006 2:03 pm
Location: Kingston, ON, Canada

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by hueglin »

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl
But AK's are a dime-a-dozen, so it's basically a throw-away...

Ok, you get to tell the family of the crew if she is sunk.


Oh.., and you are making my point. Both sides have AK's our the wazoo in the game, so losing several in such a silly ahistorical manner isn't going to bother the player or the score much. Sub Tender's are harder to come by, so less likely to be tossed away without thinking.

Back to my point though. If, as Terminus says, the Germans refueled sub using AKs, then the Japanese and the US could have done it. Let's suppose some Japanese sub officer with an understanding of the German expience, or with his own insight, got into a position of authority where he could affect a change in doctrine. You might argue that it is ahistorical, but it would be much harder to argue that it is unrealistic - ie. that it could never have happened.
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: hueglin

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish




Ok, you get to tell the family of the crew if she is sunk.


Oh.., and you are making my point. Both sides have AK's our the wazoo in the game, so losing several in such a silly ahistorical manner isn't going to bother the player or the score much. Sub Tender's are harder to come by, so less likely to be tossed away without thinking.

Back to my point though. If, as Terminus says, the Germans refueled sub using AKs, then the Japanese and the US could have done it. Let's suppose some Japanese sub officer with an understanding of the German expience, or with his own insight, got into a position of authority where he could affect a change in doctrine. You might argue that it is ahistorical, but it would be much harder to argue that it is unrealistic - ie. that it could never have happened.


I'm not claiming it couldn't be done, but the ships the Germans used for "at sea replenishment" (like the Altmarck) were fitted out as support ships for their Merchant Raiders as well as subs. They did use some merchant ships that were interned in places like Spain to re-fuel subs that slipped in, but not at sea. I'm mostly interested in keeping a practice that didn't occur at all in the Pacific from getting "out of hand".
spence
Posts: 5418
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:56 am
Location: Vancouver, Washington

RE: Admirals Edition Naval Thread

Post by spence »

Departs Saiki. Seven oilers are assigned to the Hawaii Operation, but the IJN’s practical experience in refueling at sea is almost nil.
Nihon Kaigun TROMs for IJN Oilers

The powers that be have already determined that they are not going to recode things to account for method of refuelling at sea. The USN conducted at sea alongside refuelling of DDs escorting convoys to England during WW1. It had continued to develop techniques and technology, admittedly intermittently, in between the wars. The Japanese decided it might be a useful thing to develop in late Oct 1941. They were able to do it to some extent but they were the newbies and their efforts clearly showed it.
For example the Akagi had to come alongside and refuel every other day on the trip from Japan to Hawaii. Clearly they were not transferring full bunkers. Nagumo complains in his Midway Report that he was forced to enter the battle with some of his ships carrying only a partial load of fuel. For the same reason Takagi broke off the action at Coral Sea even though he believed he had sunk both Lexington and Yorktown.
Though hardly perfect, the USN had a big lead in carrying out this type of operation in 1941. The USN could, at least with some of its oilers, make good a 15 kt speed of advance and fill the bunkers of a whole task force in a day. For the Japanese the speed of advance and quantities of oil transferred were still far below US capabilities.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”