Status please

[Stratos]

Want to know the status of this project, we are close to March now and was hoping to get the game before the spanish next March holidays. 21 to 25 March

[Warship NWS]

Want to know the status of this project, we are close to March now and was hoping to get the game before the spanish next March holidays. 21 to 25 March

The beta version is getting ready to be tested within the next few weeks. We are getting ready to post the next PDF media pack within the next few days, it is going through the final review process right now. The PDF pack will give a step by step run through of a turn played out during a Pacific theater campaign. Stay tuned for further news.

I was starting to wonder when you would be bugging us again Stratos.. I was starting to miss your one post a week asking "well.. where is that game I want!!!??" LOL! ;)

Glad to see you made it into the new forums.

Thanks.

[Stratos]

I was starting to wonder when you would be bugging us again Stratos.. I was starting to miss your one post a week asking "well.. where is that game I want!!!??" LOL! ;)

Glad to see you made it into the new forums.

Thanks.

You tought that changing your forums will prevent my evil bugging plan to be completed?? MWHAHAHAHA :D
Glad to know that the game is still being worked on, I will open a champagne bottle the day that WCDB 2.0 and SAS are out!

[Warship NWS]

You tought that changing your forums will prevent my evil bugging plan to be completed?? MWHAHAHAHA :D
Glad to know that the game is still being worked on, I will open a champagne bottle the day that WCDB 2.0 and SAS are out!

Just another naval combat junkie like the rest of us around here, and that is never a bad thing. ;) Tony, the designer of SAS, is due back in just a few days from an out of town trip he had to go on and once he is back I will post the 2nd SAS media pack. I wanted to make sure he was around to answer questions if needed when I post it. A lot of time and effort went into the research and database work for the Atlantic and Pacific campaigns. The next PDF pack will show a lot of the functionality with the engine, some great views of the Pacific map, and offer further additional information that was started by the first media pack.

Thanks.

[Stratos]

Just finished reading the new PDF, and I have to say that I'm impressed, I expected something big but not that detailed, so congratulations.
Now the questions:

-Will be the German and Italian CiC be able to build carriers? Can be the Kriegsmarine a carrier based navy?

-Will be possible to create "NEW" carrer based planes? For example Naval Messerschmitt 262? Will really be cool

-Are the scout planes of the ships taken in acoount??

Only this, really look cool thank's for the efforts!

[tony_glazebrook]

Just finished reading the new PDF, and I have to say that I'm impressed, I expected something big but not that detailed, so congratulations.
Now the questions:

Stratos - please see my annotations below. My apologies for the delay. My home base is in Australia and time differences play their part.

-Will be the German and Italian CiC be able to build carriers? Can be the Kriegsmarine a carrier based navy?
A: Short answer is yes to both, if the campaign has carriers enabled (which is a setting affecting both sides). The Italians had the Aquila on the slips and almost complete by armistice time, and had experimented with carrier operations using arrestor-equipped aircraft; the Germans had the Graf Zeppelin launched in December 38 and 85% complete by May 1941 and had planned to have four carriers as part of the Z plan. Redesigned Stukas and Me 109s were to have equipped them. So it would not be ahistorical to allow an Italian or German player in SAS to more aggressively take charge and have carriers, thereby overcoming the sort of inter and intra-service rivalries that the Super Marina and the Kriegsmarine had. Though the details of the campaigns SAS will ship with have not been finalized, it is quite possible there will be a Mediterranean campaign and an Atlantic campaign that would have the Italians and Germans start with the carriers under completion. And the campaign creator in SAS will allow you to create your own campaigns anyway, where you can include as many as you want at the start.


-Will be possible to create "NEW" carrier based planes? For example Naval Messerschmitt 262? Will really be cool
A: This is not something we had planned. For historical balance, every country will have carrier capable fighters and bombers but the intention is to limit those to the types that historically flew from carriers or were planned for conversion or being converted by war's end.


-Are the scout planes of the ships taken in account??
A: Yes, but in an abstract way in the sense that you do not operate them directly; they contribute to the reconnaissance that fleets with battleships and carriers can do.


Only this, really look cool thank's for the efforts!
Thanks Stratos - We're trying to make SAS something that will win hearts and minds :-)

[Warship NWS]

As a quick note,

Naval development is the primary focus of the technology race portions of SAS, however, aircraft development has been discussed in terms of a possible future update. We will discuss this further after SAS-WW2 is released. As Tony mentioned however, it was not originally planned on during the initial development of the design. We did include a wide range of aircraft types in SAS that cover historical and hypothetical designs that had a high chance being entered into service.

Thanks.

[Stratos]

Good to know, but for example, germans have designed the 109T2 that is obsolete in 1941, hope to get something more advanced as the 109T4 ( 109 F4 ) or the 109 T6 ( 109G6 )

[tony_glazebrook]

Good to know, but for example, germans have designed the 109T2 that is obsolete in 1941, hope to get something more advanced as the 109T4 ( 109 F4 ) or the 109 T6 ( 109G6 )

Stratos - the final list of aircraft for release 1 of SAS WW2 is being done. I have on my list for Germany, as carrier fighters, a navalised version of the Bf109E, and the later so-called Bf 155 V2 (which was a navalised version of the Bf 109G), and for dive bombers naval versions of the Ju 87B and Ju87D (the so called Ju87E).

If you have strong evidence of other candidates for carrier-borne aircraft I would like to hear it. We are already stretching things including the Bf 155 V2 and the Ju87E, as none of the JU87E were ever completed as far as I know, whilst only 1 or 2 of the Bf 155 series were ever completed, none in time for production, far less war time service. But that is one of the nice things about SAS - we can include these proptypes, and a player can access them earlier for active service with aggressive aircraft technology development.

Cheers

[tony_glazebrook]

Good to know, but for example, germans have designed the 109T2 that is obsolete in 1941, hope to get something more advanced as the 109T4 ( 109 F4 ) or the 109 T6 ( 109G6 )

Stratos - this is entirley off topic, but I am interested in the fact that you are based in Spain, as Spain is in my mind for 2 reasons at the moment, one that a serious world chess championship is being fought in Linares at the moment, which I am following as an avid devotee of chess; the other is because this has reminded me of Andres Segovia, one of my heroes from my youth, when I had pretensions to be a classical guitar player. All hail to Spain and Spanish culture :-)

[Ed Rotondaro]

Stratos - this is entirley off topic, but I am interested in the fact that you are based in Spain, as Spain is in my mind for 2 reasons at the moment, one that a serious world chess championship is being fought in Linares at the moment, which I am following as an avid devotee of chess; the other is because this has reminded me of Andres Segovia, one of my heroes from my youth, when I had pretensions to be a classical guitar player. All hail to Spain and Spanish culture :-)

Tony:

I like Chess too and I love all Mediterrean culture and food and wine. Viva Espana!

[old_pop2000]

Tony:

I like Chess too and I love all Mediterrean culture and food and wine. Viva Espana!
I like chess, I should get back to it. I also love most north Mediterranean culture including Spain, Portugal, Greece and of course, Sicily. I know, its in the center, but what the heck, my grandpa was from Sicily. The Spanish produce great olive oil and wonderful guitar music. Darn, it's making me hungry.

[Warship NWS]

I love chess too.. but let's get back to the topic at hand please guys..;)

[Stratos]

Thank's for all the compliments to my country guys! :o
Now about the game, you're right nothing after the Bv155 was ever planned, but fighting American carriers in 1949 with 109G and Stukas will be a bit hard

[Warship NWS]

Thank's for all the compliments to my country guys! :o
Now about the game, you're right nothing after the Bv155 was ever planned, but fighting American carriers in 1949 with 109G and Stukas will be a bit hard

Considering the immature naval doctrines that the Germans would have been using for their only CV class even taking on the RN CVs around 1949 would have even proven difficult. Hey.. there you go, a good thread for our military history discussions section. ;)

[awolf]

No posts, nothing from NWS, did the project die SASE?

Awolf

[Warship NWS]

No posts, nothing from NWS, did the project die SASE?

Awolf


Not sure I follow you.. if your asking about SAS-WW2.. we are in the final states of last minute coding and beta testing right now.

[awolf]

Yes, was wondering about sas ww2, thanks. looking forward to playing it!

Awolf

[Warship NWS]

Quick update.. right now we are aiming for May to June for the release time frame.

A major feature being implemented right now is a internal help system during game play. Due to the added amount of flexibility, detail, and coverage of the design we felt this would greatly enhance the ability of the player to get help tips on the fly rather then jumping into the full manual while learning the interface. SAS-WW2 has a very intuitive BMI (battle management interface) and tying it together with a in-game help manual that can be accessed per command function will greatly speed up the learning process and allow players to learn the system right from the start.

We are also going through final coding and testing of the aircraft combat mechanics - due to the fact that we have added a good bit more detail over previous months for handling naval and land based air power we want to make as sure as possible that everything is working as expected.

We will also be testing the Pacific, Med, and Atlantic theaters in sequence so as to watch for how well the AI handles the various challenges of the different campaigns.

Thanks again for everyones support.. in the end I very much believe that the results will be worth the patience everyone has shown.

[Stratos]

Can I ask again If WCDB 2.0 will be compatible anytime soon with SAS?? Maybe made a linkable version that only let you play in SAS the WCDB 2.0 available ships??.If yes I will be able to wait for NAW a 1 or 2 years more

[Warship NWS]

Can I ask again If WCDB 2.0 will be compatible anytime soon with SAS?? Maybe made a linkable version that only let you play in SAS the WCDB 2.0 available ships??.If yes I will be able to wait for NAW a 1 or 2 years more

Not right away.. I want to get WCDB v2.0 working in good order first, plus we want to make sure SAS-WW2 is launched in good order.. then we can start working on the compatibility options between WCDB and SAS.

Thanks.

[old_pop2000]

Stratos - the final list of aircraft for release 1 of SAS WW2 is being done. I have on my list for Germany, as carrier fighters, a navalised version of the Bf109E, and the later so-called Bf 155 V2 (which was a navalised version of the Bf 109G), and for dive bombers naval versions of the Ju 87B and Ju87D (the so called Ju87E).

If you have strong evidence of other candidates for carrier-borne aircraft I would like to hear it. We are already stretching things including the Bf 155 V2 and the Ju87E, as none of the JU87E were ever completed as far as I know, whilst only 1 or 2 of the Bf 155 series were ever completed, none in time for production, far less war time service. But that is one of the nice things about SAS - we can include these proptypes, and a player can access them earlier for active service with aggressive aircraft technology development.

Cheers
Tony- Is fighter direction from the carriers modelled in SAS? There are some real issues about the fighter direction conducted in the four early carrier battles in the Pacific. Just curious.

[tony_glazebrook]

Tony- Is fighter direction from the carriers modelled in SAS? There are some real issues about the fighter direction conducted in the four early carrier battles in the Pacific. Just curious.

Dennis - SAS does have rules regarding the vectoring of fighters, which have been put together with help from William and Chris - but I am loath to say too much without knowing what your exact question is; I don't want to give away proprietary info also. Can you explain more fully what you wanted to know?

Many thanks

[old_pop2000]

Dennis - SAS does have rules regarding the vectoring of fighters, which have been put together with help from William and Chris - but I am loath to say too much without knowing what your exact question is; I don't want to give away proprietary info also. Can you explain more fully what you wanted to know?

Many thanks
Quite understandable, in view of how competition is. I guess I was just musing that it wasn't as simple as detection of incoming aircraft, vectoring CAP to the target and shooting down the opponent aircraft with a dice throw as to how many got through the defenses. If we are attempting simulate real time fleet defense, then there are some real variables that come into play that most people don't understand.

1. While many cruisers and other ships had SC radar, the carriers had only the CXAM during the four carrier battles of 1942. This radar had some very limited capability and was very susceptible to atmospherics. It was manually rotated with no plan position indicator. The stated range was a fighter size target at 50 miles@ 10,000 feet. A figure it rarely obtained. It could rarely detect targets over 40 miles and during cloudy conditions, the range was even less. Its height determination was almost non-existant. The reason this is important is because each carrier performed its own fighter defense, using the onboard FIDO and his team. In one instance, the Northhampton detected bogies inbound, but could not get the information to the carrier. Unfortunately, the Northampton had an SC radar, the carrier did not. She missed the bogies completely. It was determined through trial and error, that CAP interception of incoming bogies had to take place at 20 miles or more, or they did not have enough time to climb and destroy enough incoming aircraft. If the radar can't detect beyond 40 miles, then an aircraft moving at 200 MPH, would make that 20 miles in 6 minutes. An F4F at 10000 feet is going to require 10 minutes to climb, at full power to 20000 feet to execute the high side beam attack. He is four minutes late. In another 6 minutes, that bogie is going to be over the carrier or on the deck during the torpedo run. But the F4F is now at 20000 feet. See the problem. With a slow climbing aircraft and a bad radar or one that fails to detect early, plus a CAP at medium altitude, somebody is going to get hit. Somebody did, Yorktown, Lexington and Hornet, along with Enterprise.

2. Due to the limited fuel and oxygen carried on the F4F-4 aircraft, FIDO's kept the CAP at less than 10,000 on many occasions. One occasion was the Battle of Santa Cruz. The limited oxygen supply meant that if a CAP went above 15,000 feet, he had to go on oxygen and if he stayed too long, he was out of oxygen. Pilots were lost due to lack of oxygen and passed out, spirally into the water. However, the F4F-4 was such a slow climber that it just could not climb up to a good altitude to execute the best attack method, which was a high side beam attack.

3. There was also an exclusion zone around the ships, into which the CAP were not supposed to fly. This was to preclude being shot down by shipboard AA. It happened on more than one occasion.

4. Radios were not that reliable, even on our aircraft. Sometimes the chatter on the radios was so bad, the FIDOS could get vector information to the CAP. Sometimes a plane or two, would fail to change their coils and tune the radio, so they were deaf and dumb. No one could talk to them.

My point is not to overwhelm with nonsense that you can't simulate anyway, but to make you realize, that what you saw in 1943-1945 in terms of fighter defense, was being developed in 1942 and it was no where near as simple as portrayed in many books.
Hornet, Lexington and Yorktown were lost, with Enterprise damaged twice due to failures in the fighter defense and AAR's by squadron commanders, air wing commanders, ship captains and TF commanders all echoed the failures.

I am, in no way, casting dispersions upon the fine work at NWS, but fighter defense of the fleet was a very iffy thing, even in the later stages of the war. I don't understand it as well as I would like to, due to the lack of information available. It isn't the most interesting subject for most books.

[Smiffy]

Slightly hijacking the thread here, but I read somewhere (can't remember the book, but it was an American publication) that during most of '42 American carriers had British Fighter Direction Officers aboard to advise on interception technique. Much the same way as USN aircrew assisted the RAF in converting to the PBY Catalina. I believe that one RN officer was decorated by the USN for his actions in the USS Yorktown at Midway.