War in the Pacific - Admiral's Edition: Pricing announced.

[Habsburg]

This War in the Pacific looks super yum-yum and complex.

Two questions:

1. Does it require a super computer.
2. Can I rename things.

Such as a CV from like USS Yorktown to USS Coco Chanel??!?

1. No, although with the right commands it can take advantage of Dual and Quad processors. However, with my AMD 3200+ things roll pretty well.

2. Not the individual ships, no, but you can now add subtitles to your task forces.
2B. If you REALLY insist having the USS Coco Chanel, you can use the new editor to add one.
2BB. Ship Arts can be modded. In fact they were already in WITP with the RHS mod.

PS. According to Andy Mac, Ai scripts can now accessible through the Editor, so in time a WOPR-like super-AI could be modded and implemented... although the current AI is killer enough. 

Thank you.

Rather than a "designer themed" carrier fleet, I think I might go with "great composers of film."

USS Bernard Herrmann

USS Elmer Bernstein

USS Alexandre Desplat

USS Bernard Herrmann II

USS Jerry Goldsmith

USS Bernard Herrmann III

:drool:


and thanks for the answers D.

[grumbler]

Thank you.

Rather than a "designer themed" carrier fleet, I think I might go with "great composers of film."

USS Bernard Herrmann

USS Elmer Bernstein

USS Alexandre Desplat

USS Bernard Herrmann II

USS Jerry Goldsmith

USS Bernard Herrmann III

:drool:


and thanks for the answers D.

I think the US built more carriers than there were "great composers of film."  Maybe the light carriers could be "mediocre composers of film" and the Jeep carriers "forgettable composers of film."

[Ed Anger]

USS Uwe Boll
USS the guy who did Robot Jox 2

[CountDeMoney]

I think the US built more carriers than there were "great composers of film."  Maybe the light carriers could be "mediocre composers of film" and the Jeep carriers "forgettable composers of film."

The Scorsese Class corvette. Closes in on the enemy, and stabs it in the fucking neck with a fucking pen.

[grumbler]

I got this, downloaded it, and started to play.  Then, I realized that the game wanted me to assign search sectors for each patrol squadron, and my morale broke.  Maybe I will go back to the Texas cheerleader fighting radscorpions.

[Ed Anger]

I got this, downloaded it, and started to play.  Then, I realized that the game wanted me to assign search sectors for each patrol squadron, and my morale broke.  Maybe I will go back to the Texas cheerleader fighting radscorpions.

[Drakken]

I got this, downloaded it, and started to play.  Then, I realized that the game wanted me to assign search sectors for each patrol squadron, and my morale broke.  Maybe I will go back to the Texas cheerleader fighting radscorpions.

It isn't necessary to assign a search sector, but that means that the squadron will do a full 360 degree search, which is useless when you have only 4 patrol planes in the squadron. A good rule of thumb is 10 degrees for each plane.

I use the map to set the patrol sector; left-button for the first bracket, right-button for the last. Never had a problem since.

In my current PBEM game, Lexington ate a torpedo from a lone Jap submarine on Dec 11th, but the damages are contained. Still need a refit, though.

Then, the Jap player has the "brillant" idea to actually come back from his route back to Japan and PARK the KB about 120 nm southeast of Johnson Island as I was sending my CVs back to Pearl, with the ailing Lexington just at the limit of the KB's attack range.  I wish they would run out of fuel (as they would IRL) and stall there, moving one hex per day.

Thank God, they were spotted on Dec 13th, so I redirected my three CVs to the West Coast at full speed for a day to get away as quickly as possible. They badly need fuel, though, so I must remember to prep Tankers to replenish the task forces between PH and the West Coast.

I sent three small ASW DD task force as decoys between the CVs and KB, and four of them ate bombs and torpedoes. That should deplete their fuel some more. Also, all available submarine patrols are redirected to spot that fleet and sink the flattops.

Also, most of my air squads on PH are repaired and the airfields are quite operational. If he decides to try if the Dec 7th bonus still works he will have a nasty surprise.

[grumbler]

It isn't necessary to assign a search sector, but that means that the squadron will do a full 360 degree search, which is useless when you have only 4 patrol planes in the squadron. A good rule of thumb is 10 degrees for each plane.

Right.  And I am playing Nimitz, and Admiral Nimitz personally organized the search sectors for every Allied patrol squadron.    Dumb design decision. 

Luckily, there are not too many of these horrible decisions.  I like the new fuel consumption model much better than the old one (where you could go top speed for days).  I haven't decided if I like the "fuel is the new oil" production model yet.  I definitely don't like the Allied unit withdrawal system.  A great many of the "withdraw and replace" actions they are showing in the game were air units that were re-named in place (e.g. "Fighter 5" to "Fighter 12" when the Enterprise would go into the yards and its fighter squadron was assigned to a new carrier air wing).  By and large, the game should ignore that kind of stuff, or else just change unit designations.

It is still far too easy to equip squadrons with radically different equipment without training in it.

I don't like the weird air organizations, with "HQ squadrons" and "recon squadrons" and all of the other ahistorical stuff they threw in rather than just tweaking the damned code so that the last bomber on each mission is a photo bird for BDA.  Having dedicated recon squadrons is fine; it is all these two and three plane detachments that are far more hassle than they are worth.

[grumbler]

Oh, and I detest this whole "xAK" and "xAP" class designations for civilian freighters.  If the designers really wanted to use a different ship class designation, they should have gone with the modern T-AK and T-AP.  better yet would have been to give the amphibious assault ships their proper AKA and APA designations, and leave the AK and AP designations for civilian ships taken over by the military.

[Bluebook]

better yet would have been to give the amphibious assault ships their proper AKA and APA designations, and leave the AK and AP designations for civilian ships taken over by the military.

They did, the allies get APAs and AKAs, as well as APs and AKs. Japs get xAKs and xAPs and thats basically it. Oh, and some xAKLs too.

[grumbler]

better yet would have been to give the amphibious assault ships their proper AKA and APA designations, and leave the AK and AP designations for civilian ships taken over by the military.

They did, the allies get APAs and AKAs, as well as APs and AKs. Japs get xAKs and xAPs and thats basically it. Oh, and some xAKLs too.

Having APs and xAPs makes no sense.  If all the Japanese AKs are xAks, why bother making the distinction?  It looks silly to see reports like 4xxAK.

[Bluebook]

better yet would have been to give the amphibious assault ships their proper AKA and APA designations, and leave the AK and AP designations for civilian ships taken over by the military.

They did, the allies get APAs and AKAs, as well as APs and AKs. Japs get xAKs and xAPs and thats basically it. Oh, and some xAKLs too.

Having APs and xAPs makes no sense.  If all the Japanese AKs are xAks, why bother making the distinction?  It looks silly to see reports like 4xxAK.

No, the xAK (civilian vessel) have much less troop-space than an AK (military vessel). The Japs can change xAKs to xAK-Ts (where some cargo space is modified to carry troops) as a conversion that takes 20-days or something, but that is basically all the Japs can do. They have some AKs, but no APs. Also Ive seen some LSDs, but other than that, its just xAKs that will do the troop lifting.

That means that when the initial landing bonus drops off (after three months) the japs will have a problem doing invasions. Not to mention that the new port-rules means that you cannot run the Japanese mega-convoys anymore. And not to mention that you have to pay much more attention to resource-movement in the home islands. Suddenly every Jap xAK and xAP is worth its weight in gold. That is a much refreshing change from witp where the Japs had more AKs and APs than they could use.

[grumbler]

No, the xAK (civilian vessel) have much less troop-space than an AK (military vessel). The Japs can change xAKs to xAK-Ts (where some cargo space is modified to carry troops) as a conversion that takes 20-days or something, but that is basically all the Japs can do. They have some AKs, but no APs. Also Ive seen some LSDs, but other than that, its just xAKs that will do the troop lifting.

That means that when the initial landing bonus drops off (after three months) the japs will have a problem doing invasions. Not to mention that the new port-rules means that you cannot run the Japanese mega-convoys anymore. And not to mention that you have to pay much more attention to resource-movement in the home islands. Suddenly every Jap xAK and xAP is worth its weight in gold. That is a much refreshing change from witp where the Japs had more AKs and APs than they could use.

None of that has anything to do with whether a civilian cargo vessel should be designated an AK or an xAK. 

And if the game would have us believe that the Japanese had no civilian passenger ships with which to carry troops, that's even more silly.  That they had few dedicated amphibious ships is well-known, but, again, dedicated amphibious ships had the designations of APA and AKA (or else something in the L series).

[Bluebook]

No, the xAK (civilian vessel) have much less troop-space than an AK (military vessel). The Japs can change xAKs to xAK-Ts (where some cargo space is modified to carry troops) as a conversion that takes 20-days or something, but that is basically all the Japs can do. They have some AKs, but no APs. Also Ive seen some LSDs, but other than that, its just xAKs that will do the troop lifting.

That means that when the initial landing bonus drops off (after three months) the japs will have a problem doing invasions. Not to mention that the new port-rules means that you cannot run the Japanese mega-convoys anymore. And not to mention that you have to pay much more attention to resource-movement in the home islands. Suddenly every Jap xAK and xAP is worth its weight in gold. That is a much refreshing change from witp where the Japs had more AKs and APs than they could use.

None of that has anything to do with whether a civilian cargo vessel should be designated an AK or an xAK. 

And if the game would have us believe that the Japanese had no civilian passenger ships with which to carry troops, that's even more silly.  That they had few dedicated amphibious ships is well-known, but, again, dedicated amphibious ships had the designations of APA and AKA (or else something in the L series).

The way I understand it is this.
xAP/xAK - the civilian ship-types are just that, "normal" passenger ships or cargo ships. And while they have "space" they  have very poor "amphibious operations"-equipment on board. And (and this is very important) they have limited cranes (up to 15 tons or something like that, cant remember the exact details..

AP/AK -the military ship passenger or cargo ships. They have better equipment to handle "unload in a non-port"-situations. The APs have some form of "assault vessels" on board, they have better cranes that can unload almost any type of equipment in a non-port area.

APA/AKA - the allied specialized assault ships. This is the "bow opens and assault-vessels swim out"-type ships. They are designed and constructed to handle "unload in a non-port"-situations. They carry a large number of specialized assault vessels to do beach invasions etc.

Now, the difference between these three is that you practically can not unload heavy equipment (such as a radar or a tank) from an xAK unless you are in a port size 3 or larger. You can unload infantry and guns, but it takes a long time, and you will not be landing very much in each turn-impulse. The AKs and APs can unload faster, they unload larger detachments in each go, and you can unload heavy equipment such as radars or tanks in a port size less than 3. Still it will take a while to unload in a small port.

The AKAs and APAs can practically unload their entire load in one go. 

[Tamas]

This debate is quite