|
Post by fredsanford on Jan 4, 2014 13:28:43 GMT -6
The ports of Dalny and PA don't seem to change hands correctly. I took Dalny several turns ago and it's still listed as an enemy base, with ships even stationed there. Indeed, I've observed Russian ships fleeing under fire into the port and escaping. I took PA last turn, and the Russians scuttled their ships under repair. But, this turn a single Russian DD sortied from there, and the end of scenario shows the Russian shore batteries and other facilities still there. Also, when I reloaded the campaign the turn after taking PA, I got "cannot find [ship] in repair list" popups for all of the scuttled ships.
|
|
|
help
Dec 29, 2013 18:46:47 GMT -6
Post by fredsanford on Dec 29, 2013 18:46:47 GMT -6
WRT funnel smoke tactically, I will personally go to great lengths to gain the downwind position. The anti-weather gauge, if you will. This is another area where the SAI simulation concentrates on late, late 19th century to WW1, since after that, coal gives way to oil in large part. There's not much visible funnel smoke with oil-fired boilers (unless they're operated poorly), so it's tactically much less important.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 28, 2013 5:48:24 GMT -6
No, the Dalny event does not cost any VPs. No Idea what could have caused this, all VP changes should be specified in the scenario report. The VP report showed I netted ~16k points in the turn. Here's a zip file with the two campaign turns, and the end of scenario autosave (sac and sca). Maybe VP oddities are a factor in skewing the Russian campaign (haven't tried the Russian side yet)? Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 28, 2013 5:00:52 GMT -6
Does it "cost" you points if you take Dalny as the Japanese? I had +60k points (differential) at the start of my June 1 turn. During the turn, I sank 4 Russian DD's, and accomplished an 8k point TR mission. The Russians gained 1k points for one mission, and lost 5k points on another. But when I got to the June 15 turn (2 week turns), I was at -35k points. Nothing blew up at anchor or anything like that, the only message out of the ordinary was the "Dalny has fallen" message. What happened?
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 26, 2013 3:24:24 GMT -6
For the screen issue, what prompted the comment was that I was using the lone CL Yaeyama to lead my B's in the hope that it would be the first to hit any mines in my path. Coward won't stay in position, though. I did use the DD gunboat Miyako to screen a ML once, and that guy was circling the ML like a wild man. I don't recall actually confirming the screen order while the turn played, so may very well have been on independent the whole time.
On the orphan DD issue, it went away when I exited and reloaded. He's now back with his original division. I didn't relocated the div back to it's original base at the end of the turn, so that may have been why. I moved the orphan DD up to the new base the turn after the sortie, and then tried to reassign. That's when I got the error, but like I said now that I exited the game and reloaded, the reassignment worked fine. No biggie.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 25, 2013 18:10:44 GMT -6
Yeah, the 19th century time bug doesn't sound like it would be worth the effort. I started a campaign game as the Japanese, and have a couple of things to report: 1. Units on Screen duty don't seem to match fleet speed. Ever. 16 knots seems to be the favored setting. I noticed this in SAI, but it didn't matter as much then since that was default cruise speed. With lower cruise speeds and shorter DD ranges, this really hurts DD's operating ranges now, since they effectively steam twice as far as the rest of the fleet going back and forth. 2. Shore batteries are TOUGH! I had a destroy 2 shore target mission, so I targeted the southernmost 6" batteries by PA so that I could approach and stay to the south of the major caliber shore batteries. It took all 6 B's ALL of their ammo (and pretty much all day), and I still had to bring in some cruisers afterward to finish them off. One of the batteries took 15 major and 97 medium hits to destroy. All 6 B's were damaged, Mikasa out for 8 weeks. Won't do that again...WW1 SAI shore batteries were much easier to knock out. WAD? 3. I emergency activated most of 2nd fleet once, but had to leave 1 DD from 5th DD div back due to lack of OP's. Later, the DD's had to go into port in Nitaka due to getting low on fuel. I left them there-didn't relocate them back to Fusan. Ok so far, but now I can't recombine the 5th DD div. I get an 'access violation' error popup when I try to reassign the orphan DD back to the 5th, or any other division for that matter. 4. AI controlled units such as TR's sailing independently "blink" in and out of sight when observed by my units. I steamed alongside a TR for a couple hours or so in clear, daylight weather, not more than 1-2,000 yards away at closest approach on a parallel course. The TR would disappear for a few minutes, then reappear. This behavior repeated for the entire time that I approached from astern, came abreast of the TR, and then drew ahead. So this seems to happen regardless of relative wind direction (I thought maybe funnel smoke was the issue). It's an aesthetic thing so far as my own units go, but it made me wonder if it would possibly affect AI vs. AI engagement results. Didn't notice that in WW1 SAI, and I've followed AI convoys across the North Sea before.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 25, 2013 7:10:00 GMT -6
Here's one: It's dusk (NOT dawn) at 0500. Battle generator S-A war scenario. Could you explain some more what the problem is? It looks like dusk to me. Exactly. But it's 0500 local. 5 in the morning.
and Merry Christmas!
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 24, 2013 9:44:05 GMT -6
Here's one: It's dusk (NOT dawn) at 0500. Battle generator S-A war scenario. Attachment Deleted
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 18, 2013 17:37:34 GMT -6
I had that happen with the HMS Mars in the Beresford's Boast scenario. Had a CA take a torpedo, but it didn't sink immediately.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 16, 2013 17:25:11 GMT -6
The German vs USN scenario ends too soon. The victory conditions for the Germans is to reach a point with the transports that takes 27 hours at 5 knots (max speed of the TR's), but the scenario length is only 10 hours.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Dec 15, 2013 11:39:59 GMT -6
Woohoo! Downloaded. Guess I won't be doing any of the chores I was intending to accomplish today.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Nov 26, 2013 10:36:48 GMT -6
I agree. I'd like to see the expanded naval model for the pre-aviation period more fully developed before attempting to go to WW2. I'd like to hear more about Fredrik's vision for the grand-strategic model. It seems that such a game would have to cover at least a couple of decades, so 1880-1925 seems reasonable. I'd think going back to say 1850-60's, dawn of the steam ironclads, would be a more natural expansion, modeling naval development up until 1925 or so. BTW, the prior post about WW2 Med campaign was just wishful thinking, not necessarily for suggestion for the next step. But, if the strategic engine got developed for pre-WW2, combined/amphibious ops would be a really cool addition. I would respectfully suggest that developing S&I would be easier if this was confined to the period say 1880 - 1925 rather than attempting WW2.
- WW2 is much more complex and requires far more features to be developed than the earlier period.
- The historical campaigns present difficult practical problems.
- Many "naval" players interested in WW2 tend to think in terms of surface combat but the reality is that this was rather rare and the war was really determined by air combat. S&I is essentially a game that allows for the deployment of large fleets; this kind of combat is unlikely in WW2 as the major fleet actions were dominated by aircraft,
In my opinion, trying to "bolt on" aircraft to a surface naval game would probably be a mistake in a period that aircraft dominate combat.
That is not to say that the very talented Developers at NWS should not develop WW2 games or age of sail games (or even land based games for that matter) as these would no doubt be worth buying and playing; only that the S&I concept better lends itself to the period dominated by iron ships, surface gunnery and torpedoes.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Nov 18, 2013 19:15:59 GMT -6
I've been playing this for my naval ops fix, and playing Command Ops for my land warfare game. In either case, I wish they were the same game, and was maybe conducting a WW2 Med campaign with land, sea, subs and air all in one.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Nov 8, 2013 21:50:04 GMT -6
Maybe instead of expanding to another era, they take the Strategic engine to another level? IIR Fredric posted previously about wanting an in-game ship designer, and a player could guide a nation's navy over years to research and build ships, control budget and deployments, then have wars as "scenarios".
So imagine taking a nation of your choice from say 1900-1920 for starters.
Also add more features such as detailed sub and mine warfare, amphibious operations, starter air (seaplane carriers), command and signal. There's already so much unused map and ships already in the database that can be assembled to cover early 20th century naval combat for content, and focus budgeted future effort on the engine.
|
|
|
Post by fredsanford on Nov 8, 2013 11:08:47 GMT -6
I'd like to suggest a WW1 Mediterranean campaign pack. One that includes an alternate-history where Italy enters the war on the side of the Central Powers. Oldpop & I discussed this some in the Counter factual history thread in general discussion.
|
|