Extremely early 1st impressions

[DiFool6]

First of all, this game system has tons of potential, that much is obvious. Even tho I was more overwhelmed than anything else while testing this out, I enjoyed most of the aspects of this sim. Point by point...

1. I ran the tutorial scenario as the Japanese. Had quite a bit of fun building my fleet up from scratch. Got 2 Shokakus and a Taiho, could only afford 1 BB (Kongo) and a smattering of cruisers before I had to face realities and get a bunch of escorts and merchants with my limited tonnage. Built one DD from scratch, an AA specialist to sail with the main fleet, and a bunch of DE's for my merchant convoys. In future building plans my 2-in-c laid down 2 Unryu CVs (Soryu/Hiryu knockoffs) and a CL, no BBs but a big fleet of escorts-no complaints there. My Fleets of World War Two reference book is going to get a workout for sure.

2. I let my second build my first set of fleet orders. He put in a wacky path for my main task force which took it from Tokyo Bay to the Aleutians to east of Hawaii (!), and back south of that chain and back home. Likes to live dangerously I guess (his overall strategy I set to moderately aggressive). He also likes to put one of my fleet CVs in with simple merchant convoys which typically run supplies behind my lines (guess I'd better invest in a CE/CL so he won't use my precious big boys).

3. That task force had a very long running battle with an American fleet near the Aleutians-and never once launched any air strikes from the 2 CVs I had, as I kept alternating intercept orders and shadow orders (how do I order a TF to attack with planes only?). Bad weather maybe? I also noticed a couple of typhoons in the south in August, moving east to west. In any event during the huge surface action which followed, my TF gave out more punishment than it absorbed.

4. Frustrations with fleet orders. My 2nd separated my 3 fleet CVs during month two (one in Rabaul and one in Japan), and in month 3 I tried to get them back together in Truk so I could launch a huge raiding force the next month, but they both sailed out and then back into the original ports again (perhaps it was the typhoons). The next month it worked tho and I got everybody together, but then...

5. Alas I suffered a game crash in month 4 when the game hung and refused to continue cycling the turn after two green confirmation boxes (for a repair and a rearm for several of my ships) popped up. When I hit the "X" key to try the reload and run the turn again, it crashed to desktop, with an old dos-style box full of error messages left in its wake.

All in all rather impressive, but some aspects of the interface are a bit clunky-sometimes it would take 2-3 mouse clicks to get the game to recognize some change I made (like transferring ships around). Sometimes when allocating resources to say research it wouldn't accept any number I typed in (maybe I had no resources left?). Buttons would disappear (like the flag icon which takes you back to the last screen) and I had to guess as to where they were to exit the screen. I'd turn off the sound, but it would be back on when I reloaded a save. Speaking of saves it is very odd for you to limit it to one save per campaign, as now the one I was playing is likely lost (crashed twice as described above, exact same point both times)-that's one feature I don't get at all-certainly I'm not going to have to manually move save files around in Windows to have more than one per campaign?

I'm going to reserve any final judgements for quite a ways down the road as there's certainly much to do here! I'll try the Italians next (if my 1st game is unsalvageable).

[Warship NWS]

To John,

If you could send me a full detailed report of those crash occurances and your system specs so I can have Tony, the coder of SAS-WW2, look it over. During our testing on a variety of systems I monitored our beta team and we did not see any reports of crashed and all theaters were tested heavily. However, if we spot a problem and verify it we will make it a priority to fix it.

You can email me anytime at nws-online@nws-online.net

Note, I am forwarding this thread to Tony immediately.

Thanks.

[tony_glazebrook]

First of all, this game system has tons of potential, that much is obvious. Even tho I was more overwhelmed than anything else while testing this out, I enjoyed most of the aspects of this sim. Point by point...

1. I ran the tutorial scenario as the Japanese. Had quite a bit of fun building my fleet up from scratch. Got 2 Shokakus and a Taiho, could only afford 1 BB (Kongo) and a smattering of cruisers before I had to face realities and get a bunch of escorts and merchants with my limited tonnage. Built one DD from scratch, an AA specialist to sail with the main fleet, and a bunch of DE's for my merchant convoys. In future building plans my 2-in-c laid down 2 Unryu CVs (Soryu/Hiryu knockoffs) and a CL, no BBs but a big fleet of escorts-no complaints there. My Fleets of World War Two reference book is going to get a workout for sure.

2. I let my second build my first set of fleet orders. He put in a wacky path for my main task force which took it from Tokyo Bay to the Aleutians to east of Hawaii (!), and back south of that chain and back home. Likes to live dangerously I guess (his overall strategy I set to moderately aggressive). He also likes to put one of my fleet CVs in with simple merchant convoys which typically run supplies behind my lines (guess I'd better invest in a CE/CL so he won't use my precious big boys).

3. That task force had a very long running battle with an American fleet near the Aleutians-and never once launched any air strikes from the 2 CVs I had, as I kept alternating intercept orders and shadow orders (how do I order a TF to attack with planes only?). Bad weather maybe? I also noticed a couple of typhoons in the south in August, moving east to west. In any event during the huge surface action which followed, my TF gave out more punishment than it absorbed.

4. Frustrations with fleet orders. My 2nd separated my 3 fleet CVs during month two (one in Rabaul and one in Japan), and in month 3 I tried to get them back together in Truk so I could launch a huge raiding force the next month, but they both sailed out and then back into the original ports again (perhaps it was the typhoons). The next month it worked tho and I got everybody together, but then...

5. Alas I suffered a game crash in month 4 when the game hung and refused to continue cycling the turn after two green confirmation boxes (for a repair and a rearm for several of my ships) popped up. When I hit the "X" key to try the reload and run the turn again, it crashed to desktop, with an old dos-style box full of error messages left in its wake.

All in all rather impressive, but some aspects of the interface are a bit clunky-sometimes it would take 2-3 mouse clicks to get the game to recognize some change I made (like transferring ships around). Sometimes when allocating resources to say research it wouldn't accept any number I typed in (maybe I had no resources left?). Buttons would disappear (like the flag icon which takes you back to the last screen) and I had to guess as to where they were to exit the screen. I'd turn off the sound, but it would be back on when I reloaded a save. Speaking of saves it is very odd for you to limit it to one save per campaign, as now the one I was playing is likely lost (crashed twice as described above, exact same point both times)-that's one feature I don't get at all-certainly I'm not going to have to manually move save files around in Windows to have more than one per campaign?

I'm going to reserve any final judgements for quite a ways down the road as there's certainly much to do here! I'll try the Italians next (if my 1st game is unsalvageable).

John - if you get more problems like you mentioned, if you could copy the DOS Box messages and paste them into a text file and send it to us that owuld be very helpful.

Cheers

[bssybeep]

Additional (very early) Observations:
1.I was also going to bring up the limitation of one save slot. For this type of complex turn based stategy game, the ability to have multiple save slots is imho necessary.

2.I also noticed the lack of feedback and response to mouse clicks. Some audible and visual feedback to mouse clicks would be useful.

3.I'm currently playing the Atlantic scenario as Germany and having a terrific time redesiging ships. I got rid of the two H class battleships, which freed up mucho RPs to design and build a number of large, fast subs with 8 torps, better protection and faster submerged and surface speed. The thinking that the goal is not to go toe-to-toe with the British navy but focus on convoy intervention. I also designed one fast large battleship with 16" guns that is reasonably fast with a little less protection to maintain range and speed.

Great fun:)

[harry]

I've been enjoying it so far, but have had the same CTD problem, but didn't get the DOS info, which I will next time. Wonder if it is because of clicking to much to see the next advancement of time, if that makes any sense,lol Must give the program more time to finish its calculations I bet! BTW, I am using the most up to date version of Java also.

I had to turn the sound off, because it was too choppy to listen to, using a SoundBlaster card, so wouldn't think that was the problem? Oh well, I imagine a person might turn it off eventually after hearing the same music quite a bit.

Would like to see abit more control when it comes to launching air strikes, whether land based or carrier. When a Japanese TF gets too close to San Francisco or Pearl, I want to hammer them before they can figure out whats going on! If they are still out of range, or weather conditions won't allow it, then let the program tell me that. But if conditions will permit it, let me call the strike. I have wanted to strike back at the Japanese bases on NG with landbased air, but haven't figured out how to do it yet. I know, read the manual,LOL

All and all, this is going to be fun, it has so much potential!! Now, its time to get back into this sim!!

[tony_glazebrook]

John - if you get more problems like you mentioned, if you could copy the DOS Box messages and paste them into a text file and send it to us that owuld be very helpful.

Cheers


John - further to the above, when you run the turn - could you let me know what the max and min memory is that is showing? You will see this figure on the turn calc progress bar at the bottom of the screen - just to the right of the centre of the bar. Eg it may say 334MB. The figure will change continually up and down a bit as the turn is being calculated.

[tony_glazebrook]

I've been enjoying it so far, but have had the same CTD problem, but didn't get the DOS info, which I will next time. Wonder if it is because of clicking to much to see the next advancement of time, if that makes any sense,lol Must give the program more time to finish its calculations I bet! BTW, I am using the most up to date version of Java also.

I had to turn the sound off, because it was too choppy to listen to, using a SoundBlaster card, so wouldn't think that was the problem? Oh well, I imagine a person might turn it off eventually after hearing the same music quite a bit.

Would like to see abit more control when it comes to launching air strikes, whether land based or carrier. When a Japanese TF gets too close to San Francisco or Pearl, I want to hammer them before they can figure out whats going on! If they are still out of range, or weather conditions won't allow it, then let the program tell me that. But if conditions will permit it, let me call the strike. I have wanted to strike back at the Japanese bases on NG with landbased air, but haven't figured out how to do it yet. I know, read the manual,LOL

All and all, this is going to be fun, it has so much potential!! Now, its time to get back into this sim!!

Harry - the AI will always try to launch a strike if the target is in range and you have a/c that can inflict some damage and the AI estimates you can send up enough fighter cover (based on an estimate of the defensive CAP). If you then have emergency tac air responses enabled for the given airfield or carrier you can amend the strike (abort or amend it). You can't directly initiate a strike though - the AI always makes the judgement call whether it is at all feasible based on the above factors.

PS - if you have any more CTDs, van you check for any DOS box messages; and can you also keep an eye on the memory figure on the turn calc progress bar - and let me know the min figure you see?

[tony_glazebrook]

Additional (very early) Observations:
1.I was also going to bring up the limitation of one save slot. For this type of complex turn based stategy game, the ability to have multiple save slots is imho necessary.

2.I also noticed the lack of feedback and response to mouse clicks. Some audible and visual feedback to mouse clicks would be useful.

3.I'm currently playing the Atlantic scenario as Germany and having a terrific time redesiging ships. I got rid of the two H class battleships, which freed up mucho RPs to design and build a number of large, fast subs with 8 torps, better protection and faster submerged and surface speed. The thinking that the goal is not to go toe-to-toe with the British navy but focus on convoy intervention. I also designed one fast large battleship with 16" guns that is reasonably fast with a little less protection to maintain range and speed.

Great fun:)

BssyBeep (and John) - the save limitation is deliberate - it helps synch PBEM games, and also helps synch things when you swap sides. Neverthless, if we get enough call for it, I'll see what we can do by way of an earlyish enhancement.

Adding better auditory indicators for mouse clicks, and enabling your sound on/off option to be saved when you exit is also something we'll look at for an early enhancement. (At the moment, sound is on by default every time you start SAS)

[tony_glazebrook]

First of all, this game system has tons of potential, that much is obvious. Even tho I was more overwhelmed than anything else while testing this out, I enjoyed most of the aspects of this sim. Point by point...

1. I ran the tutorial scenario as the Japanese. Had quite a bit of fun building my fleet up from scratch. Got 2 Shokakus and a Taiho, could only afford 1 BB (Kongo) and a smattering of cruisers before I had to face realities and get a bunch of escorts and merchants with my limited tonnage. Built one DD from scratch, an AA specialist to sail with the main fleet, and a bunch of DE's for my merchant convoys. In future building plans my 2-in-c laid down 2 Unryu CVs (Soryu/Hiryu knockoffs) and a CL, no BBs but a big fleet of escorts-no complaints there. My Fleets of World War Two reference book is going to get a workout for sure.

2. I let my second build my first set of fleet orders. He put in a wacky path for my main task force which took it from Tokyo Bay to the Aleutians to east of Hawaii (!), and back south of that chain and back home. Likes to live dangerously I guess (his overall strategy I set to moderately aggressive). He also likes to put one of my fleet CVs in with simple merchant convoys which typically run supplies behind my lines (guess I'd better invest in a CE/CL so he won't use my precious big boys).

3. That task force had a very long running battle with an American fleet near the Aleutians-and never once launched any air strikes from the 2 CVs I had, as I kept alternating intercept orders and shadow orders (how do I order a TF to attack with planes only?). Bad weather maybe? I also noticed a couple of typhoons in the south in August, moving east to west. In any event during the huge surface action which followed, my TF gave out more punishment than it absorbed.

4. Frustrations with fleet orders. My 2nd separated my 3 fleet CVs during month two (one in Rabaul and one in Japan), and in month 3 I tried to get them back together in Truk so I could launch a huge raiding force the next month, but they both sailed out and then back into the original ports again (perhaps it was the typhoons). The next month it worked tho and I got everybody together, but then...

5. Alas I suffered a game crash in month 4 when the game hung and refused to continue cycling the turn after two green confirmation boxes (for a repair and a rearm for several of my ships) popped up. When I hit the "X" key to try the reload and run the turn again, it crashed to desktop, with an old dos-style box full of error messages left in its wake.

All in all rather impressive, but some aspects of the interface are a bit clunky-sometimes it would take 2-3 mouse clicks to get the game to recognize some change I made (like transferring ships around). Sometimes when allocating resources to say research it wouldn't accept any number I typed in (maybe I had no resources left?). Buttons would disappear (like the flag icon which takes you back to the last screen) and I had to guess as to where they were to exit the screen. I'd turn off the sound, but it would be back on when I reloaded a save. Speaking of saves it is very odd for you to limit it to one save per campaign, as now the one I was playing is likely lost (crashed twice as described above, exact same point both times)-that's one feature I don't get at all-certainly I'm not going to have to manually move save files around in Windows to have more than one per campaign?

I'm going to reserve any final judgements for quite a ways down the road as there's certainly much to do here! I'll try the Italians next (if my 1st game is unsalvageable).

John - further to my other responses - the manual (and in-game help) covers the issue of plotting routes. The AI has a certain way of calculating shortest routes when it sends fleets out. Sometimes, you may consider the route not optimal. You have a way of nominating preferred routes and saving them - the AI will then use these instead. Of course, you can always set your own routes up manually for each mission as well.

Cheers

[harry]

Will do on the DOS info, and the memory figure. I've seen it as low as approximately 334, and as high as 423 or so. I am playing the Pac 1 campaign.

[bssybeep]

BssyBeep (and John) - the save limitation is deliberate - it helps synch PBEM games, and also helps synch things when you swap sides. Neverthless, if we get enough call for it, I'll see what we can do by way of an earlyish enhancement.

Adding better auditory indicators for mouse clicks, and enabling your sound on/off option to be saved when you exit is also something we'll look at for an early enhancement. (At the moment, sound is on by default every time you start SAS)

I guess we could take a vote. For myself, I never play PBEM and usually do not switch sides, so more save slots would be ideal.

[tony_glazebrook]

I guess we could take a vote. For myself, I never play PBEM and usually do not switch sides, so more save slots would be ideal.

bssybeep - can you tell me - what would you mainly want the extra save slots for?:
1. To enable you to go back to an earlier point in the same campaign if you wanted? (There already is the ability to restart from the beginning)
2. Or to have say more than 1 Pacific 1 or Med 1 campaign (or whatever) running at the same time? (Say each against different opponents or just for the heck of it)

[bssybeep]

Since this is a fairly complex game which requires many decisions and tweaks per move, I usually save at the beginning of each move. So that in the event there is a crash or I screw up something I can always reload the save.

Multiple slots allows saves during various points in the campaign, so if one save gets corrupted, you at least have another save file available going back only a few turns. Getting really deep into a game like this and losing your one and only save is very depressing.

Also as I am learning the game, I want the flexibility to be able to return to various points in my campaign in the event I made a mistake or forgot a step, or anything.

A lesser reason is the ability to have several campaigns going simultaneously.

[bssybeep]

btw Tony and Chris,

Thxs for the great support.

Also, the online help is really well done. Lessens the pain of having to flip through all those manual pages:D

[Warship NWS]

btw Tony and Chris,

Thxs for the great support.

Also, the online help is really well done. Lessens the pain of having to flip through all those manual pages:D

No problem.. :)

[tony_glazebrook]

Since this is a fairly complex game which requires many decisions and tweaks per move, I usually save at the beginning of each move. So that in the event there is a crash or I screw up something I can always reload the save.

Multiple slots allows saves during various points in the campaign, so if one save gets corrupted, you at least have another save file available going back only a few turns. Getting really deep into a game like this and losing your one and only save is very depressing.

Also as I am learning the game, I want the flexibility to be able to return to various points in my campaign in the event I made a mistake or forgot a step, or anything.

A lesser reason is the ability to have several campaigns going simultaneously.


Thanks bssybeep - btw I've started up a new thread just on this topic of game saves...

[bssybeep]

I have a Dell XPS laptop and the + / - keys don't seem to zoom the main map in / out.
Mapping the zoom feature to the mouse wheel would be nice and be consistent with a number of games. I admit in the beginning I kept scrolling my mouse wheel and expecting the map to zoom in.:D

So I tried the +/- keys with no luck.

Another observation, during the turn calculation, the main map screen gets very choppy and the screen and tactical option boxes in general get a little flaky (ie. text disapears, part of the map or box graphic disapears until I move the mouse around).

[tony_glazebrook]

I have a Dell XPS laptop and the + / - keys don't seem to zoom the main map in / out.
Mapping the zoom feature to the mouse wheel would be nice and be consistent with a number of games. I admit in the beginning I kept scrolling my mouse wheel and expecting the map to zoom in.:D

So I tried the +/- keys with no luck.

Another observation, during the turn calculation, the main map screen gets very choppy and the screen and tactical option boxes in general get a little flaky (ie. text disapears, part of the map or box graphic disapears until I move the mouse around).

bssybeep - the '+' and '-' commands are not on the keyboard - they are clickable buttons at the bottom of the screen. And you move the map by clicking anywhere and dragging

[Kriegsspieler]

Hi, Guys --

I'll throw in a couple of responses here as well. The game installed easily and runs well on my system. No crashes. The font sizes, especially on those fleet detail screens, are HORRIBLE for someone with my aging eyes. Most grognards I know do not have an 18-year-old's eyes! :eek:

The basic system looks pretty good, although there are a few weaknesses to point out. I was playing as Japan in the scenario that begins in '42, and I found the mission plotting kind of lunatic -- Yamamoto wants to attack San Francisco every turn, for some reason, instead of working toward the more sensible goal of taking Wake. That was the case even when I turned the strategy parameters down from "very Agressive" which is the default, to "Aggressive".

The mission creation interface, where you have to first form a fleet and then try to tell it what to do, is cumbersome but workable once you get the hang of it. However, I have two rather significant issues to point out in connection with fleet creation and mission assignment. First, it is by no means clear how you assign a TF to an aerial bombardment mission with respect to a particular target. Do you just send the fleet somewhere and then let the AI choose the target(s), as it would with any other air mission? How many hexes can I allow for stand-off range and still have hope of being able to launch air strikes against a hex such as Darwin, Australia? In any case, the lack of a clear mission distinction between "bombardment" and "aerial bombardment" strikes me as not so good. Don't know if that can be handled in a patch, however.

Second, it would REALLY help if the map would show where naval assets were docked and not just where mission fleets are located. If I want to know whether I've got any idle ships in a particular port, I can't tell that by hovering the mouse over the port. Instead, I need to go to another screen to find that out. You've already got that useful pop-up that shows what's what in any given port hex -- why not add info about ships in the port to the pop-up?

Finally, a more long-range thought: For my money, the next thing to work on for this game system is a more robust air war. The idea that you can't tell given air bases/units whether they should be focusing their efforts on strategic bombing, or naval interception, or sub hunting, etc. takes a lot of the fun out being a commander and puts too much of the game "under the hood". That's just my opinion, of course.

All in all, though, a very intelligent design. Well done. I'm glad I signed onto this project as a customer! :)

EDIT: Sorry, a second thought just occurred to me: it wasn't clear from reading the documentation whether tech research "unlocks" ship models that only appeared later in the war. I that the way you've got it working? (If I overlooked this somewhere, please forgive the dumb question!)

[Christian Schwietzke]

Related to what Kriegsspieler said... would it be feasible, in one of the upgrades, to add the ability to give bases a target, meaning that, whenever feasible they´ll attack their target base, and bases without a target concentrate on finding and sinking enemy ships and subs? Also, it should be useful to give your 2iC a target base - i.e. for the situation Kriegsspieler describe, he gives his 2iC Wake Island as a target, and the 2iC concentrates on plotting offensive missions against Wake Island. Hmm... maybe also set one of your own bases as a target, on which the 2iC concentrates his defensive missions.

[Kriegsspieler]

Related to what Kriegsspieler said... would it be feasible, in one of the upgrades, to add the ability to give bases a target, meaning that, whenever feasible they´ll attack their target base, and bases without a target concentrate on finding and sinking enemy ships and subs? Also, it should be useful to give your 2iC a target base - i.e. for the situation Kriegsspieler describe, he gives his 2iC Wake Island as a target, and the 2iC concentrates on plotting offensive missions against Wake Island. Hmm... maybe also set one of your own bases as a target, on which the 2iC concentrates his defensive missions.
Yes, these are excellent suggestions!

[Christian Schwietzke]

Yes, these are excellent suggestions!

IIRC you can already allow or disallow certain kinds of missions for the 2iC. So why not add an ability to allow or disallow missions involving certain bases?

[Saffron]

Just a couple of minor points:

Whenever you scroll the bar to the bottom of info pop-up boxes, the bar stays at the bottom in all future pop-ups. It would be nice if pop-ups "reset" the scroll bar to the top with each new box so you don't have to scroll back up and "reset" it manually.

One thing I would like to see is having the ability to do a mouse roll-over on fleets, troops, and bases while the turn is calculating. That way I can mouse over a fleet (etc.) and see information on it -- ships in the fleet, damage, fuel status, current mission, RPs, troop strength, etc. I feel a little "information-starved" during the calculation.

[DiFool6]

A relatively minor thing-in the ship build screen the ship classes are often jumbled all over the place-but if you click on the sidebar you can bring up a nicely formatted list of them all. I'd just like to be able to sort the main list (the one where you can actually change things), perhaps in order of tonnage from largest on down?

[tony_glazebrook]

All - I've created a new thread to consolidate all your feedback to this point and provide responses - see 'Very Early 1st Responses'

Cheers

[Warship NWS]

A follow up to the "very early 1st responses".. I renamed it Special Requests and Update Information"..

http://forums.navalwarfare.org//showthread.php?t=841

This thread will be updated with new noted special requests and future engine update/upgrade information by Tony or myself so definitely keep watch of it.

Thanks.

[Yolo911]

Sirs,

This doesn't warrant a new thread so I thought I would ask the my question(s) here. I prefer short turns so I will probably select the One Week option. I am unclear as to how to determine the number of replacement aircraft that are being manufactured at any given time and also how do deterime how long the manufactureing process takes(delivery date).
Fo instance, if I order 5 P-38's (which I have no clue as to how to do, and I have read the manual cover to cover) when would I be able to expect delivery and where would that information be located? I have spotted the queue field under aircraft stats but I don't understand how it relates to one week turns.

Thanks,

[tony_glazebrook]

Sirs,

This doesn't warrant a new thread so I thought I would ask the my question(s) here. I prefer short turns so I will probably select the One Week option. I am unclear as to how to determine the number of replacement aircraft that are being manufactured at any given time and also how do deterime how long the manufactureing process takes(delivery date).
Fo instance, if I order 5 P-38's (which I have no clue as to how to do, and I have read the manual cover to cover) when would I be able to expect delivery and where would that information be located? I have spotted the queue field under aircraft stats but I don't understand how it relates to one week turns.

Thanks,

Things like ship building and aircraft construction are tied to the strategic turn length.

Even a very complex aircraft could be built inside of a week (the current minimum strat turn length).

You don;t actually order a set number of a set type of aircraft. In SAS WW2 you are the Supreme Naval Commander and also the Supreme Commander in the theatre in which you are operating, but you don't control aircraft or troop production to the same level of detail as you do ships. This is covered in the manual and in-game help files.

You influence how many and what aircraft get produced by:
1. Increasing or reducing the share of resources that goes to aircraft proudction every turn
2. Restricting or prioritising nominated aircraft types.

The AI does the rest - selecting aircraft types and numbers in order to maintain the preferred mix of aircraft roles. More capable aircraft and those you have prioritised get more resources; those that are less capable or you have restricted are wound down. The number ordered then depends on the mix, and the cost of each aircraft given the total resorces you have. Each aircraft type has a production cost - 4 engine bombers are more expensive than single engine fighters.

[PDF]

Hmmm, Tony, so there's no way to see what is exactly the production rate for a given type of aircraft (I still don't have the game, that's just out of curiosity). :rolleyes:

[Philbill]

I have only played the intro Scenario as the Americans.
Had good fun so far, however on turn 2 at 50% with mine info up the turn crashed.
The DOS box was still up but unfortunately i did not record the info.
Will note it down next time.
Any comments I had about the interface have already been made.
Phil

[Scott Chisholm]

Hmmm, Tony, so there's no way to see what is exactly the production rate for a given type of aircraft (I still don't have the game, that's just out of curiosity). :rolleyes:

I'll see if I can offer some background on this - Tony will straighten me out if I goon it up....

The overall strategy you choose determines the mix of aircraft (fighters, bombers, recce) your 2IC builds. For instance, a more aggressive strategy favors aircraft that carry bombs, while a more cautious strategy favors defensive fighters.

Think of the aircraft build screen as a list of aircraft production lines, and the RPs you expend on building aircraft as the funding for those production lines. That's the first part of the equation.

The second part is the RPs you invest in Aircraft R&D. Aircraft only appear when they did historically. For instance, if an aircraft first appeared in March 1943, you will not be able to build them in December 1941. However, the RPs you invest in aircraft research serve to move their appearance to the left - earlier in the war. The more RPs you pump into Aircraft R&D, the earlier in the war aircraft will appear.

So, at the beginning of the war, you start with the aircraft that were historically available. When you "fund" a production line by applying RPs to it, you are in effect prioritizing the production of that particular aircraft type. As you "de-fund" obsolete/undesired aircraft production lines, you de-prioritize that aircraft type.

You don't necessarily "purchase" individual aircraft so much as you encourage their production via funding. There are some under-the-hood machinations of which I am not cognizant, but I believe that is pretty close to what goes on.

In any event, each turn, the aircraft that are produced are placed in a general pool from which you or your 2IC disburses them. For ease of gameplay, you do not need to ship them to where you want them; instead, you simply assign them to the airfield/aircraft carrier you desire, and they appear.

I don't have my manual with me right now, but I believe the total number of aircraft you can have at one time is driven by the number and infrastructure ratings of the airfield/carriers you have. Also, the infrastructure level of your airfields determines the size of aircraft that can operate from them. Picture infrastructure level as the size/number of runways and hangers: higher level=longer runways/bigger hangers=larger aircraft.

If your airfields suffer damage and have their infrastructure level reduced, then you might not be able to operate larger aircraft from them until you reestablish an appropriate infrastructure level. That could, conceiveably, result in your having larger aircraft stranded at an airfield.

I think I got most of this right; in any event, I hope it helps!

[Scott Chisholm]

I have only played the intro Scenario as the Americans.
Had good fun so far, however on turn 2 at 50% with mine info up the turn crashed.
The DOS box was still up but unfortunately i did not record the info.
Will note it down next time.
Any comments I had about the interface have already been made.
Phil

Phil,

There's an update on the SAS page that should correct that problem. This link should take you there:

http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?t=4

[tonedog]

as far as carriers are concerned, lets say a carrier battle takes place and planes are lost. how long till carrier planes are replaced? does this abstractly happen at sea or must they rtb to replenish?

the same question goes for ammo etc. is everything replenished at sea?

thanks in advance

[Scott Chisholm]

as far as carriers are concerned, lets say a carrier battle takes place and planes are lost. how long till carrier planes are replaced? does this abstractly happen at sea or must they rtb to replenish?

the same question goes for ammo etc. is everything replenished at sea?

thanks in advance

Provided you have them in your replacement pool, you can replace aircraft on the following turn from the Deploy Aircraft screen - they will immediately appear on your carriers wherever they are located.

You need to return to port for ammo, and fuel if you want to top off all of your ships' fuel bunkers.

I hope that helps!

[Philbill]

Phil,

There's an update on the SAS page that should correct that problem. This link should take you there:

http://forums.navalwarfare.net/showthread.php?t=4

Hi Scott
Thanks I will give it a go
Phil

[Saffron]

Is there any way to change the names of ships that the 21C decides to build? I'm just looking to name merchants something more colorful than "Merchant-13."

Whenever I try to rename ships already in the build queue, it lets me enter a new name, but it reverts back to the default name when I click away from it.

[DiFool6]

I don't know how to get my CV units to launch airstrikes against the enemy. Nor do I know why I can't force a surface engagement against a slower enemy task force.

I went back and ran the Intro scenario, got a Yamato, 2 Shokakus, and a typical mix of other ships, and formed a pretty substantial TF around those vessels. An American task force, 1 CV, one old and slow BB, 2 cruisers + escorts, sailed into my domain south of Japan. Despite frequent sightings of this task force and continued "intercept" orders, they never engaged this force despite its continued presence in this area, in clear weather, for almost a week. My speed was limited to 16 because of the Yamato, but his old battlewagon limited him to 12. I'd see my recon spot them, my force would move towards theirs, often adjacent or even overlapping, but no engagement would be forthcoming, none of my planes (or his) were ever launched, and other than running across one of his wolf packs which sank 2 of my DDs and damaged one of my CVs, nothing happened. This was consistent with the replay, which eliminated the fog of war (I think).

The AI doesn't seem to have much luck either. This TF of his later followed one of my merchant convoys (with a CVL in the middle) for almost two weeks, eventually trapping it south of Singapore (where the map ends). I'd see the same thing from the other perspective, endless jockeying as my convoy tried to escape the corner it was trapped in, but no airstrikes and no surface fight. When I ran the Med scenario I got my head handed to me, so what's going on here?

[tony_glazebrook]

Is there any way to change the names of ships that the 21C decides to build? I'm just looking to name merchants something more colorful than "Merchant-13."

Whenever I try to rename ships already in the build queue, it lets me enter a new name, but it reverts back to the default name when I click away from it.

Saffron - you can't change the name of a ship already built - whether by your 2IC or you.

[tony_glazebrook]

I don't know how to get my CV units to launch airstrikes against the enemy. Nor do I know why I can't force a surface engagement against a slower enemy task force.

I went back and ran the Intro scenario, got a Yamato, 2 Shokakus, and a typical mix of other ships, and formed a pretty substantial TF around those vessels. An American task force, 1 CV, one old and slow BB, 2 cruisers + escorts, sailed into my domain south of Japan. Despite frequent sightings of this task force and continued "intercept" orders, they never engaged this force despite its continued presence in this area, in clear weather, for almost a week. My speed was limited to 16 because of the Yamato, but his old battlewagon limited him to 12. I'd see my recon spot them, my force would move towards theirs, often adjacent or even overlapping, but no engagement would be forthcoming, none of my planes (or his) were ever launched, and other than running across one of his wolf packs which sank 2 of my DDs and damaged one of my CVs, nothing happened. This was consistent with the replay, which eliminated the fog of war (I think).

The AI doesn't seem to have much luck either. This TF of his later followed one of my merchant convoys (with a CVL in the middle) for almost two weeks, eventually trapping it south of Singapore (where the map ends). I'd see the same thing from the other perspective, endless jockeying as my convoy tried to escape the corner it was trapped in, but no airstrikes and no surface fight. When I ran the Med scenario I got my head handed to me, so what's going on here?

John - without being able to play the particular sequence you have been doing at the moment, two things are likely to be affecting the result:
1. Hexes in the Pacific scenario are 96nm across, compared to 48nm in the Med. The granularity is less. As search areas increase, the probability of converting an aerial sighting into a tangibe surface engagement dimishes when one side - as in this case - is likely to be also spotting you and trying to avoid battle

2. The reason why no planes were launched despite sightings must be due to how the AI calculates the probabilities of success. The proportion of fighters in navies with cautious strategies is higher than those with aggressive and very aggressive orders. So the US CV could well have had nearly as many fighters on board as the 2 Jap carriers. Plus, the attacking side always has a % on CAP, leaving feweer to escort any strikes. Also, maybe the Jap carriers had previously launched strikes against other targets and theire strength was diminished. In the other case you mentioned, the Jap carriers chasing a convoy with a CVL, CVLs by default have a higher proportion of their ac as fighters, so again, the Jap carriers, if depleted, may not have been in a condition to attack.

I can tell you that airtsrikes and surface engagementts DO occur with quite some frequency in the Pacific

It may be though that I need to tweak something.

I may well have been too cautious in requiring strikes to be properly escorted - there were many instances of course where strikes were sent out unescorted. The AI rates the risk according to the risk you generally want to accept - eg very aggessive strategy means accepts more risk than very cautious. But maybe I need to tweak the numbers as the result does seem a little odd. I can playtest the particular scenario if you can send me the files.

There are three files I need:
1. The campaign file called 'Intro.sas' in the \GameData|Campaigns folder under your install folder
2. Both player files - these start with 'Intro_' in the \GameData\LatestPlayerFiles folder under your install folder.

If you could zip them up, and send them to me via email probably is best. My email handle is tony_glazebrook. I am at yahoo.com.

Thanks for the feedback.

[Philbill]

Hi Tony,
Am I right that we cant actually force an air strike by a cv fleet?
Regards
Phil

[tony_glazebrook]

Hi Tony,
Am I right that we cant actually force an air strike by a cv fleet?
Regards
Phil

You can set enemy locations as targets for aerial bombardment missions, and the carriers will launch when in range (unless the commander assweses the risks as too great given the state he is in at the time). Apart from that, all - land based and carrier - are set up first by your 2IC (the AI) as targets of opportunity present themselves, every hour.if the . But apart from that, Bearing in mind that you have multiple carriers and airfields on both sides, it's just too onerous on the player to have to decide, every hour, for all of these assets, for all potential targets in range, whether to override the threshhold calculation the AI does. The AI acts as a sort of filter - making all these decision for you based on the value of all potentioal targets and the chances of a successful strike. The dialog poop ups you see are those where the AI has decided a strike should be launched - you can then cancel it or amend it in other ways.

I'm thinking though about ways that players can be more directive about strikes, whilst avoiding too much micro management. There's a balance there. I've added this to the Special Requests thread.

[DiFool6]

John - without being able to play the particular sequence you have been doing at the moment, two things are likely to be affecting the result:
1. Hexes in the Pacific scenario are 96nm across, compared to 48nm in the Med. The granularity is less. As search areas increase, the probability of converting an aerial sighting into a tangibe surface engagement dimishes when one side - as in this case - is likely to be also spotting you and trying to avoid battle

Okay, I get that fog of war can be a big problem to overcome, and that the enemy TF icon I saw rarely coincided with where he actually was (esp. after sundown).


2. The reason why no planes were launched despite sightings must be due to how the AI calculates the probabilities of success. The proportion of fighters in navies with cautious strategies is higher than those with aggressive and very aggressive orders. So the US CV could well have had nearly as many fighters on board as the 2 Jap carriers. Plus, the attacking side always has a % on CAP, leaving feweer to escort any strikes. Also, maybe the Jap carriers had previously launched strikes against other targets and theire strength was diminished. In the other case you mentioned, the Jap carriers chasing a convoy with a CVL, CVLs by default have a higher proportion of their ac as fighters, so again, the Jap carriers, if depleted, may not have been in a condition to attack.But I outnumbered him in flight decks 2-1, with Shokakus the Japanese CV with the largest air fleet, using a globally aggressive doctrine. Note that, for any surface engagement contingencies, the individual CVs were automatically set to "timid"-but would that setting affect how likely they are to launch strikes too? If so we should have two different settings, one for the ship and one for its planes, else when the Yamato finally does catch the buggers the CVs don't sail right for the enemy van. I've been reading Shattered Sword and it's 100% certain that any IJN admiral would launch an all-out raid in such a situation, enemy CAP be damned.

[Saffron]

Note that, for any surface engagement contingencies, the individual CVs were automatically set to "timid"-but would that setting affect how likely they are to launch strikes too?

I've been wondering about that, too, since my carriers never seem to launch strikes. I have them at timid to run from surface engagements.

[oldspec4]

Also playing the Japanese and also have not seen any carrier aircraft strikes through the first three months of the Pacific scenario. W/ an extremely aggressive strategy you would think there would have been some naval aircraft engagements (excluding the timid ROE for surface contact).

[Saffron]

I captured Surabaya like 3 months ago yet it continues to show up in my briefings every month as a 'special report.'

Is it supposed to persist that way?

[tony_glazebrook]

I've been wondering about that, too, since my carriers never seem to launch strikes. I have them at timid to run from surface engagements.

No, the RoE only affect orders during surface battles.

[tony_glazebrook]

Okay, I get that fog of war can be a big problem to overcome, and that the enemy TF icon I saw rarely coincided with where he actually was (esp. after sundown).

But I outnumbered him in flight decks 2-1, with Shokakus the Japanese CV with the largest air fleet, using a globally aggressive doctrine. Note that, for any surface engagement contingencies, the individual CVs were automatically set to "timid"-but would that setting affect how likely they are to launch strikes too? If so we should have two different settings, one for the ship and one for its planes, else when the Yamato finally does catch the buggers the CVs don't sail right for the enemy van. I've been reading Shattered Sword and it's 100% certain that any IJN admiral would launch an all-out raid in such a situation, enemy CAP be damned.

John - I'll retest the Pacific scenario a bit more and see if there isn't something that needs tweaking here. Can you tell me though - is the behaviour you are seeing only in the Intro scenario, where you created your own fleets, or also in the Pacific 1 Scenario?

[tony_glazebrook]

I captured Surabaya like 3 months ago yet it continues to show up in my briefings every month as a 'special report.'

Is it supposed to persist that way?

Saffron - no, this is a little bug which I will squash when I get the chance...

[tony_glazebrook]

Also playing the Japanese and also have not seen any carrier aircraft strikes through the first three months of the Pacific scenario. W/ an extremely aggressive strategy you would think there would have been some naval aircraft engagements (excluding the timid ROE for surface contact).

Mike - I'm going to recheck this scenario, the AI for launcjing carrier strikes may need tweaking. Can you tell me though - is the scenario you are talking about the Intro scenario or the full pacific 1 scenario?

[Saffron]

For me it's the intro scenario, using the USS Essex which you get by default. And it has 90 aircraft on board.

[PDF]

I had a similar exp in the tutorial campaign : one of my CV fleet (with Lexington) and a Jap CV TF were on close parallel route (1-3 hex apart) for more than 1 day and no strike was launched on neither side - yet they were in range for a bomber strike, and IRL both would have lauched as soon as possible. But maybe they did not confirm enemy sightings ? Can the player know what happened ?

Also, a Japanese CV TF came close to S F, where they were attacked by level bombers, but didn't launch any strike on their own - what were they here for then ? :confused:

[oldspec4]

Mike - I'm going to recheck this scenario, the AI for launcjing carrier strikes may need tweaking. Can you tell me though - is the scenario you are talking about the Intro scenario or the full pacific 1 scenario?

Tony- I'm playing the full pacific scenario.

[tony_glazebrook]

Tony- I'm playing the full pacific scenario.

OK, thanks Mike

[tony_glazebrook]

I had a similar exp in the tutorial campaign : one of my CV fleet (with Lexington) and a Jap CV TF were on close parallel route (1-3 hex apart) for more than 1 day and no strike was launched on neither side - yet they were in range for a bomber strike, and IRL both would have lauched as soon as possible. But maybe they did not confirm enemy sightings ? Can the player know what happened ?

Also, a Japanese CV TF came close to S F, where they were attacked by level bombers, but didn't launch any strike on their own - what were they here for then ? :confused:

Ok, thanks PDF, I am going to playtest the Intro and Pacific1 scenario some more and observe what is happening - when likely air strike chances come up - then why they might not be passing the AI's threshhold.

[Kriegsspieler]

Here's a quick note: One thing I've noticed in the Atlantic scenaro is that the weather is suspiciously clear. The scenario starts in October, right? I've played through the first few months several times and I have yet to see a serous weather system do anything other than more or less crawl across the top of the screen and settle in Scandanavia. Between the UK and Newfoudnland, it largely remains clear, which is certainly not what the weather is like at that time of year in reality!

[tony_glazebrook]

Here's a quick note: One thing I've noticed in the Atlantic scenaro is that the weather is suspiciously clear. The scenario starts in October, right? I've played through the first few months several times and I have yet to see a serous weather system do anything other than more or less crawl across the top of the screen and settle in Scandanavia. Between the UK and Newfoudnland, it largely remains clear, which is certainly not what the weather is like at that time of year in reality!

KS - I'm going to add a review of weather mecahnics tothe special requests list. The game engine generates weather in a fairly complex way, but the way it handles regional and seasonal variations can be improved.

[PDF]

Ok thanks for the superlative support !
I'd had another try also this evening (no access to the game right now), and wil try to show a better performance than the first time (maybe with the IJN .. :D).

On a "principle" note, what can possibly refrain a CV commander to send a strike asap when some enemy CV (or just big ship) is confirmed sighted ? The danger is to send a strike on a false alert and then be unable to respond to the real one, but it's still better than doing nothing and let the reported danger strike...
I played much Carriers at War, and the game often decided on the first to spot and strike, holding a strike was only a real option when several enemy fleets were sighted and that one needed to ensure it will strike the main CV fleet rather than a secondary one. OTOH it was possible to fool the AI by sending some advance cruiser fleet to get attacked (and sunk usually), then having a CV fleet behind and cripple the enemy CV fleet while their planes were "safely" away :cool:

[tony_glazebrook]

Ok thanks for the superlative support !
I'd had another try also this evening (no access to the game right now), and wil try to show a better performance than the first time (maybe with the IJN .. :D).

On a "principle" note, what can possibly refrain a CV commander to send a strike asap when some enemy CV (or just big ship) is confirmed sighted ? The danger is to send a strike on a false alert and then be unable to respond to the real one, but it's still better than doing nothing and let the reported danger strike...
I played much Carriers at War, and the game often decided on the first to spot and strike, holding a strike was only a real option when several enemy fleets were sighted and that one needed to ensure it will strike the main CV fleet rather than a secondary one. OTOH it was possible to fool the AI by sending some advance cruiser fleet to get attacked (and sunk usually), then having a CV fleet behind and cripple the enemy CV fleet while their planes were "safely" away :cool:

PDF - My AI rules give some regard to preservation of the aerial assets - the more cautious your strategy the less risk you want to accept. I'll certainly be reviewing the thershholds I have set to see if they are perhaps too constrictive.

Expect an update on this soon either - by way of a post to say I beleive we have it right, or just as possibly, a post to say we have a new patch with some amended rules ;)

[PDF]

Well, one important thing is that preservation of aerial assets is pretty different whether we're talking about land-based or carrier-based air.
An airfield is a very resilient target, a CV is clearly not, so saving the aerial assets when a CV shows up means striking it asap, the difference in CAP it makes will not offset the advantage of striking , as a sunk/disabled CV equals loss of planes or at least air capacity(plus you can even launch unescorted bombers, US admirals did that in critical moments such as Midway!).
I' m just wildly speculating, don't take it as a criticism.

Another option should be to consider that, given the player's ability to cancel an AI-decided strike (by removing the planes...), the player could be given the option to launch "possible" strikes when the AI didn't decide to (ie 0 planes in the default air mission boxes). T

[Philbill]

You can set enemy locations as targets for aerial bombardment missions, and the carriers will launch when in range (unless the commander assweses the risks as too great given the state he is in at the time). Apart from that, all - land based and carrier - are set up first by your 2IC (the AI) as targets of opportunity present themselves, every hour.if the . But apart from that, Bearing in mind that you have multiple carriers and airfields on both sides, it's just too onerous on the player to have to decide, every hour, for all of these assets, for all potential targets in range, whether to override the threshhold calculation the AI does. The AI acts as a sort of filter - making all these decision for you based on the value of all potentioal targets and the chances of a successful strike. The dialog poop ups you see are those where the AI has decided a strike should be launched - you can then cancel it or amend it in other ways.

I'm thinking though about ways that players can be more directive about strikes, whilst avoiding too much micro management. There's a balance there. I've added this to the Special Requests thread.

Ok thanks for the reply Tony.
The reason i asked is there are surface combats all the time with carriers in, yet previous to getting so close there are never airstrikes on either side. Having read the posts above it would seem there is a setting somewhere that is stopping all cv airstrikes. Where else would you get such instant and helpfull feedback on a game purchased :D keep up the good work guys :)
Phil

[Christian Schwietzke]

I agree with PDF. The best defense against an enemy carrier is to sink it first.

For what it´s worth, WitP has a similar mechanism for preventing strikes against targets that are too well-defended, but there, carriers attacking enemy carriers are not subject to this. They always strike with anything they can get airborne (minus CAP and search aircraft), no matter what the odds.


I would also say that heavy bombers should be exempt from this mechanism; back then, it was thought that "the bomber always gets through" - after all, 8th Air Force did strike beyond escort range against heavy fighter defenses, over and over again.

[tony_glazebrook]

I agree with PDF. The best defense against an enemy carrier is to sink it first.

For what it´s worth, WitP has a similar mechanism for preventing strikes against targets that are too well-defended, but there, carriers attacking enemy carriers are not subject to this. They always strike with anything they can get airborne (minus CAP and search aircraft), no matter what the odds.


I would also say that heavy bombers should be exempt from this mechanism; back then, it was thought that "the bomber always gets through" - after all, 8th Air Force did strike beyond escort range against heavy fighter defenses, over and over again.

Good thoughts Chaos and PDF. I'll be considereing these when I review the code over the next few days. (If I can just get a few moments away from the forums ;))

[Kriegsspieler]

I would also say that heavy bombers should be exempt from this mechanism; back then, it was thought that "the bomber always gets through" - after all, 8th Air Force did strike beyond escort range against heavy fighter defenses, over and over again.
Hmm. . . well, it did so at horrendous cost, which could be modeled in the game, needless to say. It really only began to be "effective" (if one is willing to argue that it was effective at all, which some people won't concede) once fighters could accompany them to the target.

[PDF]

Hmm. . . well, it did so at horrendous cost, which could be modeled in the game, needless to say. It really only began to be "effective" (if one is willing to argue that it was effective at all, which some people won't concede) once fighters could accompany them to the target.

Well, maybe that was true for strategic bombing, but in the naval war, I'd send any day 40 level bombers to any sighted CV just to take a chance at putting a torp in, even with a guaranteed 40% bomber losses (after all that'll be 60 guys in 15 planes, and a crippled CV is -100 planes and 1500+ guys, plus the loss of the "moving airfield" ability).

[Kriegsspieler]

Well, maybe that was true for strategic bombing, but in the naval war, I'd send any day 40 level bombers to any sighted CV just to take a chance at putting a torp in, even with a guaranteed 40% bomber losses (after all that'll be 60 guys in 15 planes, and a crippled CV is -100 planes and 1500+ guys, plus the loss of the "moving airfield" ability).
Oh, for sure. No question there. The use of land-based bombers at Midway against the
Japanese CV's, even if they didn't end up doing anything, was a decision that everyone one of us probably would have made as well. :)

[DiFool6]

John - I'll retest the Pacific scenario a bit more and see if there isn't something that needs tweaking here. Can you tell me though - is the behaviour you are seeing only in the Intro scenario, where you created your own fleets, or also in the Pacific 1 Scenario?

This in in the Intro-after getting the Regia Marina blown out of the water I decided I should stick with something with smaller more manageable forces, so I haven't run the full Pacific campaign yet.

[tony_glazebrook]

This in in the Intro-after getting the Regia Marina blown out of the water I decided I should stick with something with smaller more manageable forces, so I haven't run the full Pacific campaign yet.

John - I've just realised that part at least, perhaps a big part, of what you are seeing in the Intro campaign regarding launching of strikes is due to a potential shortage of aircraft.

I didn't put as much time into setting up this campaign, as it was mainly designed to get players going for a few turns, to learn the mechanics.

As a result, the resources available for aircraft at the start, without tweaking, will be insufficient to create any reserve, and replacements will come slowly. So carrier aircraft losses will possibly not be being replaced as they should.

I'd suggest you check the ac deployment screen to see how the number of aircraft are going on your carriers. You can manually swap aircraft around which may improve things if this is the problem.

This is just a thought. I certainly will be closely playtesting both scenarios in the Pacific.

[DiFool6]

Yeah I got the hang of moving planes around, and I confirmed that both CVs were fully manned with the typical 1942 mix before I hit the Go button. I suffered no aircraft losses in the latest turn I played (also the one which had the teleporting sub).

[tony_glazebrook]

Tomorrow, I should be turning seriously to examine the AI for launching carrier strikes; land-based air seems fine from playtesting. I'll give you all an update as soon as I can.