RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/28/2009 6:13:49 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

While using the editor, I noticed that the tonnage listed for all ships is Standard tonnage,and not full load, as they would be at time of war,this would increase the ships tonnage by between 4 - 8 thousand tons on average ?

Tonnage is only interesting when the ship is docked, and especially when it's being repaired, and no ship would be going into drydock fully loaded. That's the reason.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to hellfirejet)

Post #: 31

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/28/2009 6:19:53 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: che200

Fuso and Yamashiro use the bitmaps of ise and hyuga when the upgrade

No, they do not. There are quite a few "vest pocket" possibilities that exist in the database, but are not implemented. The Ise/Hyuga graphics ONLY come into play if Fuso/Yamashiro are "converted" into a BB(S). Not bloody likely.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 32

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/28/2009 6:29:55 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Remember that there's not just old-fashioned upgrades, but also conversions nowadays. Please don't make assumptions based on stock; it's a brand-new ballgame.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 33

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 7/28/2009 6:53:12 PM

EnricoR

Posts: 21
Joined: 2/20/2007
From: Frankfurt (Oder), Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnricoR
CA Oregon City is in scen 1 a Baltimore class but she was leadship of her class and the ETA is wrong too, it is 16 March 1945 in game but her commissioning was on 16 February 1946.

Database typo, should be Oregon City Class # 406

quote:

CL Fargo has the wrong picture, in AE she looks like a Cleveland class but she has only one stack and her fire control equipment was at other locations.

Nope, Fargo uses the Cleveland image. Correctly listed as a Cleveland 42 Design, but no separate image.

quote:

Atlanta an Oakland classes: their 5in/38 Mk 12 EBR have an armor rating of 31, other classes with this weapon has only 5.

We'll look into it.

But Fargo was lead ship in her class, Fargo class, wich was a result of redesigning the Cleveland class in 1942, Fargo looked a bit like a Cleveland class but their where differences. Now why a Cleveland class image?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 34

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/28/2009 7:24:55 PM

Andy Mac

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline

Ah rollocks I thought I had fixed that one - much as I would like to blame the air team that one is all me !!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Campaign file 2

Carrier Ibuki (023) - has no airgroups?

Carrier Taiyo (024) - has multiple airgroups some that belong to the Chuyo and Kaiyo!

Carrier Kaiyo (028) - has missing air group that's on the Taiyo!

Carrier Chuyo (026) - has mission air group that's on the Taiyo!

Carrier Copahee(3056) - Air Group (2221) at "0" max aircraft!

CS (035 - 038) - Air groups show both float planes and carrier planes?

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 35

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 7/28/2009 8:29:12 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EnricoR
But Fargo was lead ship in her class, Fargo class, wich was a result of redesigning the Cleveland class in 1942, Fargo looked a bit like a Cleveland class but their where differences. Now why a Cleveland class image?

Holy cow! Fargo doesn't show up till '46, and you are complaining about the art??? She's not even done from the yard at surrender time. Give us a break.

Maybe we can do a Fargo image, but for 1 ship in '46? Well, I think you had best consider Cleveland as an alternative.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to EnricoR)

Post #: 36

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 7/28/2009 10:15:10 PM

Bliztk

Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline

Copahee`s VRF-3B arrives with no airplanes unlike all other VRFs

Victorious arrives with TBF Avengers. No 832 SQN FAA

I know it operated with USNavy, but should it not be Avengers I ?

BTW Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 37

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/28/2009 11:41:02 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Not such a horrendously large issue but USCGC TANEY (Treasury Class PC in WitP: Navy called her a PG) should withdraw from the Pacific in Feb 43. The refit armament configuration shown for 9/42 never happened to her (though all of her sisters already in the Atlantic had that fit). It does appear that she may have received 20mm before that refit though since there is a picture on the USCG Historian's Website that shows her with a couple of 20mm abaft the stack at the same time as she displayed a 5"/51cal on her stern. When she was rearmed in early 1943 she received a completely unique fit of 4 x 5"/38 in single mounts AND SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ATLANTIC/MED. She came back to the Pacific in late 1944 with the armament fit shown in AE though.

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 38

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/28/2009 11:52:31 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

It sorta devolves to an OOB issue because of the game mechanics since HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales are conveniently hanging their posteriors out for the Nipponese to bite during the first turn of the historical scenario and the Allied Player has no choices to make but simply gets to watch while the Nells/Bettys put enough torpedoes into each to insure that neither can possibly figure into the Japanese Players calculations for the rest of the battles of Malaya or the DEI. BTW the same sense of ahistoricality (must be a new word invented by me

) is the air cover (inadequate) that the TF gets. Does allowing the Allied Player to make his own choices with these two ships totally unbalance the game?

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 39

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 12:15:56 AM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

Have to make compromises. Not seen as issue. Sorry.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 40

FFL or KV - 7/29/2009 12:30:04 AM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

I never saw KV for Corvettes; can we use FFL?

Cheers

fbs

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 41

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 12:41:39 AM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Have to make compromises. Not seen as issue. Sorry.

Not really a compromise is it - so far I have lost the two ships before 10 Dec 41 on each time I have fired up the scenario. Now I am not RADM Phillips, I know what aeroplanes and their torpedoes can do to my shiny battlewaggons and I can see the bigger picture, but as they get detected and therefore attacked every single time on 7 Dec 41 what can I do...
If the Japanese get me every time, the person making the upgrades wasted their time and effort as the 'historical' first turn manages consistently to do what the Japanese did not...
I can accept the PH lottery, but this is not a lottery, it's pointless.

(Edit - Of course if naval search really is that good, then I am looking forward to any Sigint reports that allow me to arrange a little surprise for the IJN carriers in early/mid 42)

< Message edited by bsq -- 7/29/2009 12:43:45 AM >

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 42

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 1:18:35 AM

Bladesss

Posts: 61
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Florida
Status: offline

I am still learning all the ship types and had 2 questions.

1. I saw 2 x AMC in Vancouver. Per the manual pg 275 an AMC is a Armed Merchant Cruiser, and in the notes it says "Capable of performing escort roles and of carrying troops and supplies." But when i make a cargo TF. The AMC's are listed under Capacity as 0 Troops and 0 Cargo. How do the AMC carry supplies then?

2. Was trying to figure out how Special mine layers are and how they work. I have a AM ="Mine Sweeper" in Dutch Harber and was trying to see if it could lay mines. Per p.281 an AM is allowed in a Mine Laying Task Force.
Per 6.6.1.3.2.2 says "Any ship (including minelayers) that does not otherwise carry mines, may be configured to carry mines when assigned to a TF with a minelaying mission. These special mines may be in any weapon slot. ".
That seems to say that may ship that you assign to a mine laying TF can be configured to carry mines. But when i try to create a Mine laying TF in Dutch Harbor, it is not an option. Does the ship have to have a weapon slot that says mines to be allowed? Would that show up in the in game Ship Database?
Why would a ship that is already a Minelayer not carry mines and need this rule to be allowed to lay mines? Why the clause "(including Minelayers)"?

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 43

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 1:42:06 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Whilst I would like the IJN Player to have every possible advantage duiring the period of Japanese expansion I'm not sure I'm s0 sure about giving such advantages right from the start without at least an Allied Player turn where he)she could change something.

(in reply to Bladesss)

Post #: 44

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 2:01:17 AM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bladess

I am still learning all the ship types and had 2 questions.

1. I saw 2 x AMC in Vancouver. Per the manual pg 275 an AMC is a Armed Merchant Cruiser, and in the notes it says "Capable of performing escort roles and of carrying troops and supplies." But when i make a cargo TF. The AMC's are listed under Capacity as 0 Troops and 0 Cargo. How do the AMC carry supplies then?

2. Was trying to figure out how Special mine layers are and how they work. I have a AM ="Mine Sweeper" in Dutch Harber and was trying to see if it could lay mines. Per p.281 an AM is allowed in a Mine Laying Task Force.
Per 6.6.1.3.2.2 says "Any ship (including minelayers) that does not otherwise carry mines, may be configured to carry mines when assigned to a TF with a minelaying mission. These special mines may be in any weapon slot. ".
That seems to say that may ship that you assign to a mine laying TF can be configured to carry mines. But when i try to create a Mine laying TF in Dutch Harbor, it is not an option. Does the ship have to have a weapon slot that says mines to be allowed? Would that show up in the in game Ship Database?
Why would a ship that is already a Minelayer not carry mines and need this rule to be allowed to lay mines? Why the clause "(including Minelayers)"?

AM is a minesweeper. A purpose built minelayer is a CM. Otherwise read the section 6.6 "Mine Warfare and Mine Taskforces" of the manual.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Bladesss)

Post #: 45

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 2:14:54 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

It sorta devolves to an OOB issue because of the game mechanics since HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales are conveniently hanging their posteriors out for the Nipponese to bite during the first turn of the historical scenario and the Allied Player has no choices to make but simply gets to watch while the Nells/Bettys put enough torpedoes into each to insure that neither can possibly figure into the Japanese Players calculations for the rest of the battles of Malaya or the DEI. BTW the same sense of ahistoricality (must be a new word invented by me) is the air cover (inadequate) that the TF gets. Does allowing the Allied Player to make his own choices with these two ships totally unbalance the game?

Hey don't yell at Termy for this one - this was my call (as I've indicated on other threads about the same topic). The "historical start" for scenario 1 allows the possibility that the historical result occurs (Repulse, PoW sunk). This is far from automatic and the testers have indicated - but it is a possibility. If a given player wants a guarantee that PoW and Repulse survive, then that player may advocate for the non-historical start - or may play scenario 6. I got the idea from the original WITP (SPI 1978) so hardly a new one!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 46

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 2:31:17 AM

dwbradley

Posts: 197
Joined: 3/21/2004
Status: offline

While trying out some of the new stuff I found what seems to be a bit of an awkward part of the new patrol zone controls.

I was playing the Coral Sea scenario as the Japanese and setting the subs to patrol zones. It is indeed a neat feature (well done, gentlemen!). The subs started on computer control. I was able to switch to human control and set both waypoints and patrol zones of several types. Then I set one sub for a single defined destination hex (DH) and then decided I wanted a patrol zone. I couldn't set a patrol zone because I had a defined location and there was no way I could see to cancel that. After some experimentation I found that setting the destination to the home port allowed the patrol zone controls to be un-greyed and available again. I guess this is an ok work-around and doesn�t need a fix but maybe should be in the manual errata/extras in due course.

Apologies if this is old news.

Dave Braldey

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 47

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 2:45:02 AM

jwilkerson

Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline

This is intentional. The idea for patrol zones is you start and end at your home port - then you go out and patrol - then you return and refuel/rearm ... and then go patrol some more.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to dwbradley)

Post #: 48

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 3:28:45 AM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bladess

I am still learning all the ship types and had 2 questions.

1. I saw 2 x AMC in Vancouver. Per the manual pg 275 an AMC is a Armed Merchant Cruiser, and in the notes it says "Capable of performing escort roles and of carrying troops and supplies." But when i make a cargo TF. The AMC's are listed under Capacity as 0 Troops and 0 Cargo. How do the AMC carry supplies then?

Some but not all AMC can carry troops and supplies. It depends entirely on what attributes they were given in the editor. The RCN "Prince" class AMC do not have any troop or cargo capacity defined - so they can go into transport TFs as an escort. Most or all of the British, Australian, and Japanese AMC do have capacity and can perform the dual role of transport and escort.

quote:

2. Was trying to figure out how Special mine layers are and how they work. I have a AM ="Mine Sweeper" in Dutch Harber and was trying to see if it could lay mines. Per p.281 an AM is allowed in a Mine Laying Task Force.
Per 6.6.1.3.2.2 says "Any ship (including minelayers) that does not otherwise carry mines, may be configured to carry mines when assigned to a TF with a minelaying mission. These special mines may be in any weapon slot. ".
That seems to say that may ship that you assign to a mine laying TF can be configured to carry mines. But when i try to create a Mine laying TF in Dutch Harbor, it is not an option. Does the ship have to have a weapon slot that says mines to be allowed? Would that show up in the in game Ship Database?
Why would a ship that is already a Minelayer not carry mines and need this rule to be allowed to lay mines? Why the clause "(including Minelayers)"?

Basically there are two types of minelayers:

1. Regular minelayers are ships of the defined minelaying types: CM, CMc, DM. The primary duty of such ships is to lay mines and you would expect to see mines defined normally as weapons of these ships. How many mines varies by class and could be anything from zero on up.

2. Special minelayers are ships whose primary duty is not minelaying but have minelaying capability. They would have minelaying capability because it was defined for their class in the editor. This would be mines as a weapon, with some special notation in the way it is entered as a device. Thus a DD, for instance, that was given minelaying capability in the editor, could load mines if placed into a minelaying TF, and lay them just like a regular minelayer.

Any, or almost any ship can be a special minelayer. But it has to be so set up in the editor.

(in reply to Bladesss)

Post #: 49

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 3:32:24 AM

Don Bowen

Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwbradley

While trying out some of the new stuff I found what seems to be a bit of an awkward part of the new patrol zone controls.

I was playing the Coral Sea scenario as the Japanese and setting the subs to patrol zones. It is indeed a neat feature (well done, gentlemen!). The subs started on computer control. I was able to switch to human control and set both waypoints and patrol zones of several types. Then I set one sub for a single defined destination hex (DH) and then decided I wanted a patrol zone. I couldn't set a patrol zone because I had a defined location and there was no way I could see to cancel that. After some experimentation I found that setting the destination to the home port allowed the patrol zone controls to be un-greyed and available again. I guess this is an ok work-around and doesn�t need a fix but maybe should be in the manual errata/extras in due course.

Apologies if this is old news.

Dave Braldey

There is, or should be, a clear destination button in the upper right hand corner of the TF Routing screen. Not sure if it works for a non-base destination though. If not, it will probably have to stay that way for a while. The setting of destination to the home port is a good workaround.

(in reply to dwbradley)

Post #: 50

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 4:23:45 AM

HMS Resolution

Posts: 350
Joined: 1/10/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Hey don't yell at Termy for this one - this was my call (as I've indicated on other threads about the same topic). The "historical start" for scenario 1 allows the possibility that the historical result occurs (Repulse, PoW sunk).

Well, sure, and historically Hiroshima got nuked by a B-29, but not right off the bat.

More importantly though, HMS Cornwall has a Type 281 radar. Per ADM 1/12269, the British report on the loss of Dorsetshire and Cornwall, Cornwall had no RDF fitted.

Also, British VADM Willis, A. N.'s name is incorrect. He's Vice-Admiral Algernon Usborne Willis; his middle initial is a U. A minor gripe, but he's one of my favorite British admirals, albeit not a well-known one.

_____________________________

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 51

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 7:23:08 AM

Kull

Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

It sorta devolves to an OOB issue because of the game mechanics since HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales are conveniently hanging their posteriors out for the Nipponese to bite during the first turn of the historical scenario and the Allied Player has no choices to make but simply gets to watch while the Nells/Bettys put enough torpedoes into each to insure that neither can possibly figure into the Japanese Players calculations for the rest of the battles of Malaya or the DEI. BTW the same sense of ahistoricality (must be a new word invented by me) is the air cover (inadequate) that the TF gets. Does allowing the Allied Player to make his own choices with these two ships totally unbalance the game?

By definition, the "Historical Start" automates everything that happened on December 7, 1941. And by almost every conceivable measure, it's clear that the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was the opening act of the Pacific War - certainly the war being modeled by AE. With that rule in mind, a minimal amount of research shows that TF "Z" set sail from Singapore at 1710 on December 8, 1941. However, that time needs to be converted to Honolulu time, since that was "ground zero", and in effect the "Greenwich Meantime" from which all other 12/7 activities must be calculated. And when you run the numbers, it turns out that Repulse and PoW departed Singapore harbor at 11:10 PM on December 7th, 1941.

Sorry. Automated it is, and automated it should stay.

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 52

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 8:16:10 AM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

May be having a mind-block here but if a main turret on California has been destroyed as indicated post PH attack here shouldn't the number of guns decrease by quantities iof 3 and not 1 as has happened?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 53

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 9:24:36 AM

John Lansford

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline

In my Campaign game both PoW and Repulse survived their Turn One ordeal; a flight of Buffaloes disrupted enough of the Nells that PoW was not hit and Repulse only damaged by 3 torpedoes (although she's still staggering into Singapore with 80 Flotation damage), so variables do take place.

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 54

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 10:26:30 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
By definition, the "Historical Start" automates everything that happened on December 7, 1941. And by almost every conceivable measure, it's clear that the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was the opening act of the Pacific War - certainly the war being modeled by AE. With that rule in mind, a minimal amount of research shows that TF "Z" set sail from Singapore at 1710 on December 8, 1941. However, that time needs to be converted to Honolulu time, since that was "ground zero", and in effect the "Greenwich Meantime" from which all other 12/7 activities must be calculated. And when you run the numbers, it turns out that Repulse and PoW departed Singapore harbor at 11:10 PM on December 7th, 1941.

What? How can 5:10 in the afternoon of December 8th (local time) be 11:10 on the 7th? Singapore is 6 time zones West of PH, so the PH attack took place at 2AM on the 8th Singapore local time. POW and Repulse upped anchor more than 15 hours after PH took place..., and almost at the end of the local day. If you want to go by Hawaiian time, remember that 11:10 PM is after night has has fallen..., which in game terms is the first (night) phase of turn two.

It's simply a game device to make the POW/Repulse vulnerable. Historically they sailed North and were sunk (two days later)..., but as few players will make that choice it's been taken out of their hands... If you don't like it, don't play the "historical start".

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 55

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 12:48:31 PM

Dixie

Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

In my Campaign game both PoW and Repulse survived their Turn One ordeal; a flight of Buffaloes disrupted enough of the Nells that PoW was not hit and Repulse only damaged by 3 torpedoes (although she's still staggering into Singapore with 80 Flotation damage), so variables do take place.

Similar thing happened to me. PoW and Repulse both survived after the Buffs managed to disrupt the incoming strike. PoW took 2 and Repulse waas hit by three, both are in Singers now but will be long gone by the end of Dec 41. She had a lot less flot damage than yours though

_____________________________

Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 56

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 12:54:32 PM

latosusi

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline

Seems to take long to extinguish ship fires, even in big port like Pearl Harbor.
Also AI seems to not assign enough escorts for his landing task forces, like 3 merchants
and 1 pb

(in reply to Dixie)

Post #: 57

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 12:56:53 PM

whippleofd

Posts: 617
Joined: 12/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

May be having a mind-block here but if a main turret on California has been destroyed as indicated post PH attack here shouldn't the number of guns decrease by quantities iof 3 and not 1 as has happened?

Hi Speedy. I'm not seeing where it says a turret has been knocked out. It is possible for a single gun in a turret to be damaged while the other(s) is(are) still usable.

Whipple

< Message edited by Whipple -- 7/29/2009 12:57:44 PM >

_____________________________

MMCS(SW/AW) 1981-2001
1981 RTC, SD
81-82 NPS, Orlando
82-85 NPTU, Idaho Falls
85-90 USS Truxtun (CGN-35)
90-93 USS George Washington (CVN-73)
93-96 NFAS Orlando
96-01 Navsea-08/Naval Reactors

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 58

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 1:01:24 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi Whipple,

The Rear 14" Guns have reduced from 6 to 5. Can AE distinguish between Barrel loss vs Turret loss then?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to whippleofd)

Post #: 59

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 1:20:02 PM

whippleofd

Posts: 617
Joined: 12/23/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi Whipple,

The Rear 14" Guns have reduced from 6 to 5. Can AE distinguish between Barrel loss vs Turret loss then?

Seems like it does. Pretty cool. I've only seen it so far on BB's, so I have no evidence that it will/will not occur on smaller ships.

AE keeps amazing me.

Whipple

_____________________________

MMCS(SW/AW) 1981-2001
1981 RTC, SD
81-82 NPS, Orlando
82-85 NPTU, Idaho Falls
85-90 USS Truxtun (CGN-35)
90-93 USS George Washington (CVN-73)
93-96 NFAS Orlando
96-01 Navsea-08/Naval Reactors

(in reply to Speedysteve)

Post #: 60