RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

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: AE Naval and OOB Issues

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: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/1/2009 9:45:12 PM

Don Bowen

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

Not to worry, folks smarter than me are on this one.

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 151

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/1/2009 10:01:30 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

I noticed that Takao originally has 102 belt armor, etc. then loses the tower armor. Simultaneously, I noticed that Takao is lacking in belt armor compared to Mogami. Mogami is newer but I was always under the impression that it was built on a budget/diet to fool other nations. Takao was also given many prewar refits adding bulges, armor, TDS etc...I'm curious if these are indeed accurate figures.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 152

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/1/2009 10:12:31 PM

jwilkerson

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

I got the cruiser armor figures from Lacroix- so unless there is a typo these are correct.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 153

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/1/2009 10:13:35 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I got the cruiser armor figures from Lacroix- so unless there is a typo these are correct.

Well, if I can find Skulski's book on Takao I'll post some figures.

Skulski supports the 102mm belt as built and the 75mm Tower armor. Then there is a mention of removing Tower top weight during a refit but nothing else. Assuming the tower loses almost all it's armor to this refit is the only way I can see these figures being accurate.

Huh, never considered Mogami to be such a beast in the armor dept. Always thought it was a repeat of Takao but with a little 6" turret shell game going on and then refits of questionable value (not much hard data).

< Message edited by Iridium -- 8/1/2009 10:21:39 PM >

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 154

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/1/2009 10:15:53 PM

jwilkerson

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

Ah, I have that one two. But I don't have any of my sources in my hotel room with me today - doing a big project cutover in my day job ...

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 155

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/1/2009 10:22:13 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

Not sure if this is an oversight or not. Maybe it's supposed to be this way but I've found a few ships in the DB which are upgrading, which have "0" set for the "Upgrade Shipyard Size". If "0" is set for shipyard size does that mean it can upgrade at any level 3 port?

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Gary Childress -- 8/1/2009 10:38:15 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 156

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/1/2009 10:33:42 PM

jwilkerson

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I got the cruiser armor figures from Lacroix- so unless there is a typo these are correct.

Well, if I can find Skulski's book on Takao I'll post some figures.

Skulski supports the 102mm belt as built and the 75mm Tower armor. Then there is a mention of removing Tower top weight during a refit but nothing else. Assuming the tower loses almost all it's armor to this refit is the only way I can see these figures being accurate.

Huh, never considered Mogami to be such a beast in the armor dept. Always thought it was a repeat of Takao but with a little 6" turret shell game going on and then refits of questionable value (not much hard data).

I'd be happy to post the data from Lacroix once I get back home. Lacroix has details galore - in fact so much detail that you get lost in it. Like in some cases there are really multiple armored decks and multiple side armor faces as well - some made out of different materials - with different properties at different angles - and on and on. To try to translate the REAL data into game terms is not remotely a "look it up and plug it in" exercise!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 157

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/1/2009 10:34:38 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

Ah, here's the oddness with Takao...post '39 refit Skulski shows the 102mm belt covered with a bulge:

Above the waterline and a little below it is a 10mm Ducol steel plate holding numerous pipes up against the belt. It removed the vessels belt angle (the belt is still angled but the new exterior is verticle) and it's main purpose was to add bouyancy to the vessel to solve stability issues.

I would find it difficult to hazard a guess as to how much protection this new addition would afford to the ship. There would probably be a way but I don't feel like breaking out Nathan Okun's calculator etc...

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 158

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/1/2009 10:37:03 PM

jwilkerson

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

Right, those are the kinds of details I was referring too!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 159

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/1/2009 10:38:14 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I'd be happy to post the data from Lacroix once I get back home. Lacroix has details galore - in fact so much detail that you get lost in it. Like in some cases there are really multiple armored decks and multiple side armor faces as well - some made out of different materials - with different properties at different angles - and on and on. To try to translate the REAL data into game terms is not remotely a "look it up and plug it in" exercise!

I can imagine...attempting to determine 'fair' decisions on what can end up being far more complex than simple addition and subtraction compounded by steel compositions etc... Then trying to make that into usable figures for the game, it would be exhausting.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 160

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/2/2009 12:28:22 AM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

Scen 6 (December 8th) problems:

Only one of these is naval but I thought I'd keep them linked because they do kind of counterbalance:

1) KB has a full ordnance load. Should be degraded by the 12/7 expenditure (or is this just an inherent limitation of the engine/editor?)
2) No IJ points for the 12/7 losses. I saw this in another thread, but lost track of which so I don't know if that's been addressed. Someone suggested it might be in the Tokyo base points, like it apparently was in Witp, but as far as I can tell the starting victory points for Japan are the same in both.

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 161

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/2/2009 2:30:53 AM

Nomad

Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline

moved to different thread

< Message edited by Nomad -- 8/2/2009 2:53:31 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 162

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/2/2009 2:47:36 AM

Keifer

Posts: 92
Joined: 9/27/2007
From: San Diego, CA
Status: offline

What is the Political Point penalty if a ship is sunk before its withdrawal date?

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 163

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/2/2009 3:20:00 AM

Rugens

Posts: 213
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hoosierland
Status: offline

The buttons to step through the TF's in a hex do not seem to be working. The buttons are working for both air and land units. Interestingly, if you click on the TF button and then click on the Air Group button, not only the Air Group increments but so does the TF. It would be really handy to have this feature in order to easly scroll through a visual of your ASW and MS patrols.

< Message edited by Carl Rugenstein -- 8/2/2009 3:21:36 AM >

(in reply to Keifer)

Post #: 164

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/2/2009 8:44:52 AM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

Campaign 2

Ise (051) as airgroup with 22 aircraft (623)
Hyuga (052) as airgroup with 22 aircraft (626)

< Message edited by pad152 -- 8/2/2009 8:45:50 AM >

(in reply to Rugens)

Post #: 165

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/2/2009 10:32:13 AM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

On that note, the Fuso/Yamashiro conversions DONT have airgroups, atleast in Scenario 1.

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 166

Bug: Hex overlay on TF destination select - 8/2/2009 12:43:55 PM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

I think this has been reported already but...

Caused by selecting TF destination with hex grid (& range rings) on.

Gets really freaky if you scroll around a bit.

Clears OK when you click on a destination hex (if you can see a valid one) and the screen refreshes.

EDIT: A shutdown and reload of AE (not the PC) and everything is back to normal.

I suspect that this was the graphics system (directx?) getting upset. I had the program running in windowed mode for several hours and I think the screen blanker cut in a couple of times. I also had the forums open on another monitor so the game lost focus several times. I think the biggest hint of what is going on is that the map, TF window and the game icons at the bottom (and the hex grid) don't get refreshed when it goes into the select destination on map routine. The new grid and base icons are simply written over the top without refreshing the map underneath. Same happens on scroll. However once destination is selected, everything is refreshed normally.

EDIT 2: After reading another thread in the tech support area, I think there is another common factor. At one point I grabbed the edge of the window by mistake and accidentally resized the AE window which messed up the display. I put the window back to what I thought was the correct size (could have been a pixel or two out) but it refreshed normally and I thought everything was back to normal. Maybe not. I don't think I reloaded AE after this and as I was just exploring some of the new AE features (such as the OOB and the new ship repair) and not playing a game so I did not notice something was up with the TF destination allocation until a bit later. I think that I could put this problem down as an artifact of resizing the game window. Is there any way of locking the window size??

But as I said, restarting AE fixed issue. Hope this helps.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Reg -- 8/2/2009 10:29:16 PM >

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 167

Scen 1 historical orders issue - 8/2/2009 2:54:23 PM

erstad

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

In Scen 1, the TFs heading to Vigan and Aparri seem backward. The surface combat TFs are following the transports, I assume it should be the other way around. If the AI/Allies sortie even a few warships it can make a big difference.

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 168

TF Tonnage - 8/2/2009 3:43:00 PM

ny59giants

Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline

On the main TF window, if a TF is "at sea" it shows what the TF tonnage is when at a base. Once you dock that TF, that information goes away. If you have multiple TF docked at a base you get the grand total, but lose individual TF information.

With the increased importance of TF tonnage, it would minimize multiple clicking to find a window with the tonnage if it (TF tonnage) was always displayed on the main TF window regardless if it is docked or at sea.

(in reply to erstad)

Post #: 169

RE: TF Tonnage - 8/2/2009 4:52:28 PM

Kull

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

Aleutians Campaign:

As Japan, I created a Bombardment TF in Paramushiro and raced it out to Attu at Full Speed. It arrived in 2 turns (average speed about 30), burning fuel heavily and picking up a fair amount of damage along the way, all as one might expect. A few turns later, I created a second Bombardment TF in Paramushiro and put this one on Cruise (average speed 15), with the same destination. This ALSO arrived in two days, but with minimal fuel consumption and little to no damage. What am I missing here?

(in reply to ny59giants)

Post #: 170

RE: TF Tonnage - 8/2/2009 5:06:16 PM

jwilkerson

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

You are missing exe hotfix 001 which will fix a FULL SPEED problem!

This should be out in 0-1 days.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 171

RE: TF Tonnage - 8/2/2009 6:34:51 PM

John Lansford

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

Last night one of my subs was depthcharged and hit (!) by a Japanese heavy cruiser (Chokai IIRC). I'm assuming that their CA's had sonar and depth charges but was there a recorded instance of them ever using them on a submerged sub? Having a 14,000 ton ASW ship seems a bit much...

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 172

RE: TF Tonnage - 8/2/2009 7:13:17 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

I would hope that the CA making depth charge runs is FOW at work. Otherwise, unless it's 1945 the IJN was not into, "depth charge racks on everything", mode yet.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 173

RE: TF Tonnage - 8/2/2009 7:49:15 PM

Iridium

Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

I just noticed that CVL Ryuho getting built as of 28th Nov '42 has no air groups assigned to it. Is this correct or an oversight?

Scenario #2

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Iridium)

Post #: 174

RE: TF Tonnage - 8/2/2009 8:09:04 PM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

You are missing exe hotfix 001 which will fix a FULL SPEED problem!

This should be out in 0-1 days.

If you dont mind me asking;
Is this only an exe fix or also a database fix?

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 175

RE: TF Tonnage - 8/2/2009 10:06:52 PM

John Lansford

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

Something appears to be going on with the sub transport routine. I've got 4 subs at Bataan trying to load the Bataan Base Force (the only LCU there that isn't restricted). One sub is loading as usual, the other two will not do anything but load supplies/fuel. They're all fleet boats with the same destination and home port, Sturgeon is loading, Pike, Spearfish and Seadragon all will not. Will some subs now load troops and others will not?

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 176

RE: TF Tonnage - 8/2/2009 10:25:36 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Something appears to be going on with the sub transport routine.� I've got 4 subs at Bataan trying to load the Bataan Base Force (the only LCU there that isn't restricted).� One sub is loading as usual, the other two will not do anything but load supplies/fuel.� They're all fleet boats with the same destination and home port, Sturgeon is loading, Pike, Spearfish and Seadragon all will not.� Will some subs now load troops and others will not?

Yes. Some quite tight restrictions on the number of submarines that can load troops at a base per turn were put in to stop the evacuate-a-division by sub cheat. Don't remember much about it, but it does about what you say.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 177

Bug: Hex overlay on TF destination select - 8/2/2009 10:32:24 PM

Reg

Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline

Please note update of post 167.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 178

RE: Bug: Hex overlay on TF destination select - 8/3/2009 12:41:00 AM

Historiker

Posts: 4742
Joined: 7/4/2007
From: Deutschland
Status: offline

Kyushu AKE has top speed 18, Kyushu xAK 22.

Std-A AKE 14, Std-A xAK 12

Yusen N AKE 16, Yusen N xAK 15

Kyushu xAK runs 22, all other Kyushus 18

< Message edited by Historiker -- 8/3/2009 1:01:33 AM >

_____________________________

Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson

(in reply to Reg)

Post #: 179

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/3/2009 3:07:16 AM

Buck Beach

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

In looking over the PC & PG data and comparing it to various online and previous WITP databases I offer you this information.

The 125' Active Class ships, available at the begining of the war: Kimball (WSC-143); Viglant (WSC-154); Crawford (WSC-134); Jackson (WSC-142); and Travis (WSC-153) all seem to be ships operating in other theaters. However, the following ships missing should be shown and are not: Mc Lane (WSC-146); Nemaha (WSC-148); Ewing (WSC-137); Alert (WSC-127).

In addition there are several 165' Thetis Class ships following that are not reflected: Aurora (WPC-103; Atalanta (WPC-102); Hermes (WPC-109) and the: Haida (WPG-45); Onondaga (WPG-79); Alder WAGL-216 (appears to be a tender)

All of this information came from: http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/CUTTERLIST.asp#N and support by other online sites.

(in reply to Kull)

Post #: 180