|
Grey Hunter posted:Have a great month. Get bitched at because of graphs. Don't give in to peer pressure. Your graphs are beautiful and so are you. 
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 11:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
We bitched about the graphs because we couldn't bitch about your performance. Remember, the pettier the bitch, the better you are doing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 13:18
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Graphs are fine but you are all suggesting Wrong Changes anyway That's awful and confusing Red = Japan, Green = Allied (as in the game) Dark = Current game, Light / dotted = "previous game"
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
   I hate these bombers.  At least we're costing them supplies in damaged aircraft.   These poor buggers are going to be bombed all the way home.   Not much going on right now. There is a critical fuel shortage at Rangoon, but they have a steady stream of tankers. Those sallies cost me a lot of fuel last month – but they were worth it! https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Mr2Rqw8aays4zr64bzcfImN4XxJxgkyb6Qcwme9np0U/edit#gid=946694386 Here is the stat sheet, go wild graphing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Cross posting: First part of a documentary on the start of Japanese Carrier Aviation (all parts on YouTube) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=YK4dreccM_Y Basically, blame Lord Sempill
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's awful and confusing However, at this point it's not too important so long as you know to compare yellow to blue and orange to green.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:That's awful and confusing Pretty sure 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 19:51
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
A mock up based on steinrokkan's color scheme:
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
the_seventh_cohort posted:A mock up based on steinrokkan's color scheme: This is good and very easy to follow even for us colourblind folk.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
the_seventh_cohort posted:A mock up based on steinrokkan's color scheme: When you say previous, did GH play as the Japanese or the filthy white imperialists?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:When you say previous, did GH play as the Japanese or the filthy white imperialists? DUnno if this a joke or not, but Grey did allies last time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Concerning subs, bombers and Japanese air things: Grey, you're still running cargo ships without escorts, which leads to losses, since subs are worse at attacking escorted ships. Use the crapboats you got for that. The sub chasers won't ever sink anything, but even they will drive subs away. Ditch every last Nate you still have and up production of Tojos. Can't remember what settings you're use, but use the Nick squadrons you'll be getting for base defense whenever American heavies show up. Otherwise, the first actually decent Army fighter you'll see that's capable of doing more than annoying bombers is the Frank that's available in January 1944. The George is the Navy's land-based plane that is actually decent and you get that in 1943. The main thing is that whenever the enemy bombers actually have to meet fighters in the air, they seem to do less well with bombing and while you won't be shooting down much bombers, damaging them still leads to operational losses for the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:I'll have a go at sticking the data onto google docs at some point in the next few days - its on open office atm, and that seems to not want to let me change colours of lines. I really don't think that its a big thing myself, but if people feel so strongly, then I'm okay to let someone sort it. yessssss it's graphs and generalized mixed models* time yessssss *no El Perkele fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIlNIVXpIns
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Missed an update due to inlaws, I'll catch up tonight. I'm not to anal about it this time, as I proved I can do it, and I have a kid now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Missed an update due to inlaws, I'll catch up tonight. Glad to hear it. The kid alone will be plenty to drive you crazy. There's no need to obsess over an update schedule any more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
  We lose a plane to B-17's.  Their gunners are improving.  We're losing a lot of fighters today.   I'm just going to call this a mass surrender.  I have no idea what the plan was in China, but I'm going to try a counter-attack tomorrow, as I seem to have the AV advantage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
  I wish I could do something about this.  The worst thing is knowing this is only the start of the nightmare.   Bombers, bombers every where, and not a cannon mounted fighter in the sky.  This batch of troops is today's RAF target, and they take several raids like this.  Attacking here has merit is seems. Only the terrain is keeping them alive.  Tum ti tum  Our brave scout is nearing the enemy. Maybe he can surprise a ship or two and get a kill. I really want to know what dive/torpedo bombers they have here ahead of the main attack.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
I was thinking getting all your Nates shot down isn't so bad since it's a garbage plane you don't want any more anyway, but then I realized this means you're getting all your pilots shot down, too. How many of your good skilled pilots are you losing in hopeless fights against those bombers every day? Maybe you could stick rookies into the Nates, and preserve your good pilots somehow?
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
Grey Hunter posted:Missed an update due to inlaws, I'll catch up tonight. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I was thinking getting all your Nates shot down isn't so bad since it's a garbage plane you don't want any more anyway, but then I realized this means you're getting all your pilots shot down, too. Most pilots should survive getting shot down on a defensive mission, but it's frustrating that there are still loving Nates flying around when we should be in the middle of the Tojo revolution, IIRC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
Why are all the Japanese planes named after a guy I'd grab a beer with or 50s easy girl names but one of them is the Emperor of Japan? I know the fighters are boys and the bombers are girls, but how does Tojo factor into this naming convention.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
I don't know why the name was chosen, but Tojo was not the emperor, that would be Hirohito / Showa.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 00:53
|
|
|
After some searching, the Tojo was named by a different intelligence unit than other Japanese planes, so it follows a different convention. It was in fact first reported and named by Chinese sources, and Allied intelligence adopted their chosen name, probably because it was historically a relatively rare airframe, and commonly mistaken for Oscars and Zeros by Western pilots.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
TildeATH posted:The improvement in spelling will be a dead giveaway. Also, Grey, can you post a map of your holdings and general plan for the next month? CannonFodder fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 04:46
|
|
|
  Our scout runs into trouble. The torpedo hit is not a good thing. Please survive long enough to attract air attacks.  New targets!  We hit the Chinese here again.  Well, my scout found a torpedo, I may have to try again with another ship to find the planes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Wait why are we throwing modern destroyers away one at a time rather than sending in recon planes or just setting bombers on airfield attack and seeing what they find?
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
  My tankers are surviving on luck more than anything else.  I need to have a word with our captain here, who tries to run before shooting up the freighter.  God drat....  By the time the planes come out, we see no sign of the cargo ship.  The destroyer spotted some ships, so I moved a couple of squadrons of bombers down to make some bombing runs.  We get a day one hit!  Of course, this gives the B-17's something more to shoot at.  Our men are bombed heavily again – this happens every day, but this is a bad run for us.  We did a bit of damage today, and we know they are massing shipping in the target area. But I don't have the fuel at Rabaul to sortie yet!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Tell those Navy cowards that they can have a vacation in Harbin if they keep that up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
  A surface attack cripples a cargo ship.  I land troops on Christmas Island, and they report a large tanker there – so we send some planes out to deal with it.  There are tankers everywhere!  This is a painful bombing run for us.  Our fighters score a kill!  The enemy is collapsing here.  Not a bad day, things seem to be heating up out there, so hopefully an enemy carrier will make a short appearance soon.  A mixed day on the old sinkings front.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Good luck and hope you get a lot of tanker kills in the next couple of days. And is there any real way to get a lot of your single ship cargo runs to be escorted by real low end craft like corvettes within the system or not really?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 08:54
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:Good luck and hope you get a lot of tanker kills in the next couple of days. And is there any real way to get a lot of your single ship cargo runs to be escorted by real low end craft like corvettes within the system or not really? If you're asking if that's possible in WITP:AE, the answer is very much yes. Boats are modelled in this game down to the individual armed fishing trawler. Grey's issue is going to be that managing all of that detail at such a small level consistently is 1.) basically impossible without devoting tons of time to it and 2.) contingent on Japan actually having enough small craft to do that, which it doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 09:13
|
|
|
Cool, thanks for the reply!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 12:34
|
|
|
  Heavy bombers continue to pound Ndeni.  A very dull day today, so I mess with my aircraft production a bit – it will take some time for the factories to come on line, but we are now making more Tojo's as someone suggested, although Nates are not in our production lines.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 18:12
|
|
|
Does the game model using warships for supplies like submarines in the Tokyo express or moving the bomb via batleship? What about submarines doing downed pilot duty?
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
I don't think it lets you do any of the fun things like sub-transporting special forces.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
You can transport supply via submarine and other warships, though it is generally in small amounts. There are also some APDs, destroyers modified to carry cargo, like the Japanese used at Guadalcanal. No bomb transport. I don't believe subs can rescue downed airmen either.
pthighs fucked around with this message at 23:53 on Nov 8, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
goatface posted:I don't think it lets you do any of the fun things like sub-transporting special forces. If we're going to go to that detail I want to manage military police and prisoner of war camps, and nuts and bolt production in every factory. Fast forward five hundred years and WiTP is a planetary-scale simulation with sentient virtual minds... 
RA Rx fucked around with this message at 20:08 on Nov 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 20:00
|
|
|
But still no Minelaying because apparently that's not ~fun~
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:10 |
|
|
Huh? The game definitely has minelaying and minesweeping ships. e. Oh you probably meant land mines. Yeah maybe detailed simulation of the horrors of war is a bad idea. Hence no POW camps, either. e2. Just to clarify, and hopefully stave off the argument: of course war is horror and of course the game already simulates many of the horrors of war. But the developers rightly drew some lines and while the exactly position those lines should be is debateable, where they drew it was reasonable and not really something we need to have a fight about. I hope. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Nov 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2016 21:11
|
|