WPE and WPP day

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: YueJin

In the game CA's have a rather interesting new role now that their night attack range has been increased to 12 hexes. Load a couple of them up with the torpedo specialisation and they can smash blockade groups immune from carrier or air attack.

Agree, this is a nice addition. [;)]

[ncc1701e]

ORIGINAL: *Lava*

CAs are anti-air and served as support ships for BBs. The US fleets at Coral Sea and Midway had only cruisers and destroyers.

BBs were traditionally anti-ship but because they were well armed were favored for their anti-air capability as well.

Thanks, I was not sure of their role.

[kennonlightfoot]

As for task force names. I do like the idea. But implementing them in the counters would be incredibly tedious for players. Every time, you create or dissolve a a group of ships it has to be renamed. Second is that the font will be too small for the counter. It will have too much information. Maybe a hover can be done. Having players change unmutable strings is a pain in the ass.

I was think more along the lines of changing the counters.
Instead of a counter called "Maryland" which represents one Battleship plus some support ships.
Call it "Bombardment" and it represents 4-6 Battleships plus Cruisers and Destroyers.

Since they actual available fleets don't really change under player control (all predefined as at start or as reinforcements) they could just be pre-grouped as Task Forces.

For example in 1941 the US Navy OOB included:
Task Force 1 - Covering force for Pacific Fleet.
Task Force 2 - Recon/Raiding Force Pacific Fleet.
Task Force 3 - Scouting Force Pacific Fleet.
Task Force 4 - Patrol Force, Asiatic Fleet.
Task Force 7 - Submarine Force (20 subs)
Task Force 8 - Enterprise plus 3 CA, 9 DD.
Task Force 11 - Lexington plus 4 CA's, 9 DD.

While these were reorganized as needed the basic idea of not having units represent specific ships but represent the task they were designed to do. Fleet Carrier, Escort, Bombardment, Surface Combat, Submarine (anti-Merchant), Submarine (anti-Fleet), etc. Each one designed to operate stand alone.

[AlvaroSousa]

The reason the game has 1 capital ship per naval group is because it is sexy and when I asked players what they wanted they almost lynched me for putting more than one capital ship per naval group.

[AlvaroSousa]

Another thing about the small fleet scenario is that the PH strike force won't be attacked by the USA because it is too large lol

[AlvaroSousa]

I should have a beta ready this coming week. I need to modify the scripts some for the A.I.

[ncc1701e]

Thinking of it, 3 groups in WPE might also help the Italian navy in the Med.

[kennonlightfoot]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

The reason the game has 1 capital ship per naval group is because it is sexy and when I asked players what they wanted they almost lynched me for putting more than one capital ship per naval group.

I can believe that.[:D]

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

I should have a beta ready this coming week. I need to modify the scripts some for the A.I.

I'm playing a game right now with a trial of self limiting TF numbers.

The only problem I'm seeing right off the bat, is that the cost and amount of oilers needed to keep them at sea, probably needs to be adjusted.

[AlvaroSousa]

Or was it too easy before? With the new port ranges you won't keep them at sea long.

[*Lava*]

Well..

Actually it was quite a fight, island hopping, until I was able to finally capture Truk. I pretty much keep the US Navy continuously at sea (as it was historically) in 2 large groups.

Now if the maximum stack of ships is 6 (an idea I really like), I would have anywhere from 4 to 6 TFs to keep at sea where before I had only 2. Thus... I would need more oilers and that would be quite costly. So I was thinking, maybe reduce the cost a tad from 30 to 20 or 25.