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: Manual inconsistency

 
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: Manual inconsistency Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/8/2009 6:17:10 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
I would suggest that in 6.3.3.2.3 "adjusted for available Naval Support and any damage" should be simply "adjusted for any damage" (since the context is total daily support)


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 271
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/8/2009 6:21:11 PM   
Montbrun


Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline
I placed the Saratoga in the Shipyard at PH for repairs on or about 3/22/42. On 3/25/42, VBF-3 appears on-board the Saratoga with 18 x F4U-1D Corsairs - I don't think this is "working as intended"...

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 272
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/8/2009 6:24:19 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Aye, reported already, fixed already, thanks!



_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 273
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/8/2009 6:29:58 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
Here's another item.

Manual says loading and unloaded are governed by the same rates.

However, resource centers appear to assist the loading daily rate, but not the unloading daily rate. Ran a test twice to confirm this (no other port activity). In Toyohara I can load 4*4670 cargo freighters in one turn. However, in the unloading only 11250 (port 3 limit) resources unload.

Interestingly, the boost on the item load rate appears to apply to both. Load rate should only be 3*200 (per phase), but I can both load and unload a 4670 in a 1 day turn. So the resource centers appear to be boosting both item load and item unload rates, but only load daily limit.



< Message edited by erstad -- 8/8/2009 7:05:05 PM >

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 274
RE: akagi sunk by surfaced sub - 8/8/2009 7:04:47 PM   
Jzanes

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

The following happened on Jan 12, 1942. Allied player vs. Japanese AI. Basically, a dutch sub missed the akagi, was forced to surface by the escorts, hit the akagi with 6 torpedoes while on the surface and then was sunk by gunfire from carriers and escorts. Akagi was listed as sunk at the end of the turn. Loaded up the turn as Japanese player to check to see if this was a FOW sinking but Akagi is definately sunk. If this is WAD, I hope it's a one in a million result.



How did you determine the timing on this? There is no mention of Akagi being hit, nor of the sub firing torpedoes... Are you sure the sub didn't fire first, than get counter-attacked by the escorts?


wish i'd saved the 001 combat replay but it got overwritten. I picked up the sequence by watching it play out. The sub missed akagi with torpedoes, was forced to the surface by depth charge attack, a couple ships failed to hit it with gunfire, then Akagi got rocked by the torpedoes launched while the sub was on the surface. Then the escorts and carriers sunk the sub with gunfire. as a side note, once i closed the report screen, the narrative said "SS Narwhal" sunk which of course was not involved in the fight and was not actually sunk (or damaged). I'm guessing it should've said "CV Akagi sinks" but somehow listed the Narwhal instead.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 275
RE: akagi sunk by surfaced sub - 8/8/2009 7:53:29 PM   
scout1


Posts: 2899
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline
Question regarding merchant conversions and the database dump from WitPDecoder2. This seemed as good as thread as any to post it.

WitPDecoder2 dumps many of the database items into multiple *.csv files. One is WitPcls.csv which contains bookoo info relative to the various ship classes, parameters, upgrades, etc ... One of these columns is labeled "convertFrom". The values is this column don't appear to match up with any class of ship.

Anyone have an idea what this column conveys ?

I'm trying to build up a conversion spreadsheet for the IJN merchant navy and the data should already be contained within this file (I think) .....



(in reply to Jzanes)
Post #: 276
RE: akagi sunk by surfaced sub - 8/8/2009 8:26:29 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: scout1
Question regarding merchant conversions and the database dump from WitPDecoder2. This seemed as good as thread as any to post it.

WitPDecoder2 dumps many of the database items into multiple *.csv files. One is WitPcls.csv which contains bookoo info relative to the various ship classes, parameters, upgrades, etc ... One of these columns is labeled "convertFrom". The values is this column don't appear to match up with any class of ship.

Anyone have an idea what this column conveys ?

I'm trying to build up a conversion spreadsheet for the IJN merchant navy and the data should already be contained within this file (I think) .....

That's the "bind" number.

Will publish a conversion flow for Allies and Japan very shortly.

[edit] soon as somebody tells me where to stick it.

< Message edited by JWE -- 8/8/2009 9:14:19 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 277
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/9/2009 12:00:56 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
I agree that the data for them is likely off, but if the AE team feels they need to be consistent and stick to one source, I can respect that.

Thankfully we're free to mod it as we will.

With a range of 8300nm, her efficiency becomes 7.56nm/ton, much more inline with the other DDs - Shimakaze is a very good comparison here.

I cannot say I disagree Juan. I, too, am a believer in efficiency data. I have been waiting for Joe Wilkerson to hop in here. Maybe, if I don't hear anything from The Powers That Be, that tell me to keep my winkie in my pocket, I could maybe look at Conways , and maybe slip something in , but ... you would owe me a good Rioja or Rueda, or a tinto from Argentina or Chile.


M.J. Whitley, Destroyers of World War Two, has the range of Akizuki as 8300 nm at 18 kts, Yugumo 5000 nm at 18 kts, Shimakaze 1400 nm at 30 kts. Just my 0.012 €.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 278
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/9/2009 1:12:52 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
I have an issue with the so-called Admiralty S and T DD classes. First, there was no such thing as an Admiralty T class. All those ships belonged to the "Admiralty S" or "Old S" class (There was originally also a Thornycroft and a Yarrow S class, but all those ships had already been scrapped by 1939). The armament is almost correct, but ships with the full armament couldn't carry mines; Stronghold and Thracian, which were converted for minelaying, lost the aft 4-in gun, all torpedo tubes and the depth charges and DC-launchers. They could then carry 40 mines on two rails, but were useless for anti-surface or ASW work. It would be best to reclassify them as Admiralty S class DM's.

As for gun armament, they carried 4 in Mk4 low-angle guns straight from WWI, the guns still used separate ammunition and were prone to jamming (according to Navweaps); Scenario 1 has them mounting three 4.5 in DP guns which are at least two generations more modern and quite substantially more useful. I'm also doubtful about the maximum speed; they were "hostilities-only" ships with twenty-plus years of service under their belts and most certainly couldn't reach their design speed anymore.

Now for their disposition: Scout and Thanet were indeed stationed in Hong Kong, but left on December 8 for Singapore, as previously agreed upon with the USN, while Thracian stayed in HK for local minelaying duties, so while the former DD's would be in a task force on their way to Singapore, Thracian would most certainly have stayed in HK.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 279
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/9/2009 1:21:26 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
The CLAA class "D" class Delhi 071/072 should have a 5in/38 Mk 12 EBR in the center position instead of a 6 in gun; but the point is probably moot as the Delhi never operated in the PTO.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 280
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/9/2009 3:16:54 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
Another manual inconsistency. The "Patrol/Do Not Retire" option has been replaced with "Remain on station" but there are still at least 9 references that use the old terminology.

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 281
Mouseover text issue - 8/9/2009 3:17:55 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
When on the Form New Taskforce screen, the mouseover text incorrectly describes the return to base/remain on station as affecting reaction to enemies.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 282
RE: Mouseover text issue - 8/9/2009 6:51:36 AM   
Don Bowen


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

When on the Form New Taskforce screen, the mouseover text incorrectly describes the return to base/remain on station as affecting reaction to enemies.



I think I can handle this one.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 283
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/9/2009 7:59:24 AM   
Seeadler


Posts: 57
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Kiel, Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

I have an issue with the so-called Admiralty S and T DD classes. First, there was no such thing as an Admiralty T class. All those ships belonged to the "Admiralty S" or "Old S" class (There was originally also a Thornycroft and a Yarrow S class, but all those ships had already been scrapped by 1939). The armament is almost correct, but ships with the full armament couldn't carry mines; Stronghold and Thracian, which were converted for minelaying, lost the aft 4-in gun, all torpedo tubes and the depth charges and DC-launchers. They could then carry 40 mines on two rails, but were useless for anti-surface or ASW work. It would be best to reclassify them as Admiralty S class DM's.

As for gun armament, they carried 4 in Mk4 low-angle guns straight from WWI, the guns still used separate ammunition and were prone to jamming (according to Navweaps); Scenario 1 has them mounting three 4.5 in DP guns which are at least two generations more modern and quite substantially more useful. I'm also doubtful about the maximum speed; they were "hostilities-only" ships with twenty-plus years of service under their belts and most certainly couldn't reach their design speed anymore.

Now for their disposition: Scout and Thanet were indeed stationed in Hong Kong, but left on December 8 for Singapore, as previously agreed upon with the USN, while Thracian stayed in HK for local minelaying duties, so while the former DD's would be in a task force on their way to Singapore, Thracian would most certainly have stayed in HK.


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

We got it under control, thanks.


(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 284
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/9/2009 12:14:22 PM   
davidjruss


Posts: 235
Joined: 5/25/2002
From: Derby, England
Status: offline
When setting the patrol areas for naval vessels ( in particular submarines ) the map screen always centres on the originating point of the vessel and not the destination hex (es).This means that when setting boundary 1 , 2, 3 etc one has to follow the highlighted ship path each time from the originating hex to the destination area before one can place the next patrol boundary.

Is there any chance that when setting patrol boundarys the map could centre by default on the patrol hex and not the originating hex?

DavidR

(in reply to Seeadler)
Post #: 285
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/9/2009 6:38:47 PM   
JWE

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Seeadler
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike
I have an issue with the so-called Admiralty S and T DD classes. First, there was no such thing as an Admiralty T class. All those ships belonged to the "Admiralty S" or "Old S" class (There was originally also a Thornycroft and a Yarrow S class, but all those ships had already been scrapped by 1939). The armament is almost correct, but ships with the full armament couldn't carry mines; Stronghold and Thracian, which were converted for minelaying, lost the aft 4-in gun, all torpedo tubes and the depth charges and DC-launchers. They could then carry 40 mines on two rails, but were useless for anti-surface or ASW work. It would be best to reclassify them as Admiralty S class DM's.

As for gun armament, they carried 4 in Mk4 low-angle guns straight from WWI, the guns still used separate ammunition and were prone to jamming (according to Navweaps); Scenario 1 has them mounting three 4.5 in DP guns which are at least two generations more modern and quite substantially more useful. I'm also doubtful about the maximum speed; they were "hostilities-only" ships with twenty-plus years of service under their belts and most certainly couldn't reach their design speed anymore.

Now for their disposition: Scout and Thanet were indeed stationed in Hong Kong, but left on December 8 for Singapore, as previously agreed upon with the USN, while Thracian stayed in HK for local minelaying duties, so while the former DD's would be in a task force on their way to Singapore, Thracian would most certainly have stayed in HK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
We got it under control, thanks.


Seeadler, I know you are trying to be helpful, but I did not say that in response to mikemike's post.

Since I have some small part to play in the AE effort, what I say on these "official" threads is supposed to be considered an "official" response. Please don't put words in my mouth that didn't flow therefrom. Thanks for your understanding.

_____________________________


(in reply to Seeadler)
Post #: 286
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/10/2009 12:29:31 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
Re the "Admiralty S" or "Old S" class of destroyers. After looking at the service history of the ships stationed at Singapore and Hong Kong I believe it would be best to have two different classes:

- DD "Old S" - 3 4 in guns, 1 2pdr 2x2 21 in TT, DC throwers
- DM "Old S" - 2 4 in guns, 1 2pdr, 2x20 mines

and make them convertible into each other, because all five ships were ASW equipped DDs at one time and ASW incapable DMs at some other time, some switched roles several times, in particular HMS Thracian which was in DM configuration on December 7th, 1941, and converted back to DD between December 10th and 15th, mainly in the replenish periods between combat sorties.

This conversion apparently usually took about six days.

< Message edited by mikemike -- 8/11/2009 12:21:10 AM >


_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 287
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/10/2009 12:31:25 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline
CVL Ibuki should have two twin 8 cm Type 98 guns and not two twin 12.7 cm Type 89 guns.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 288
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/10/2009 11:20:00 AM   
Barneyrubb90


Posts: 34
Joined: 3/17/2008
From: Oviedo, Florida
Status: offline
This thread is becoming awful long and my quick review didn't see this one yet, I am sorry if I missed it.

I am playing scenario 2 and just reached April as the allies and other than getting my tail beaten in every theater...I have noticed on at least three occasions a damaged task force with one ship defined as a computer controlled with damage in the South Pacific area that I didn't create when I turn off computer control it shows a home port of Vlad.

Anyone else aware of this one?

(in reply to mikemike)
Post #: 289
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/10/2009 3:34:31 PM   
Sonny II

 

Posts: 2878
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline
Dracula returns!

(in reply to Barneyrubb90)
Post #: 290
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/10/2009 10:12:00 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
You can switch a Transport TF to an Amphibious TF and vice versa after it's been loaded.  You can also create a Transport TF (or Amphib) and move ships from the other TF into it without apparent penalty.

When I switched the Transport TF to the Amphib mode all the ships changed, but when I tried to shift ships from a Transport to a new Amphib TF only about half of them were allowed to have the option to move.

(in reply to Sonny II)
Post #: 291
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/11/2009 2:50:48 AM   
Kull


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

At this point in the scenario (6/17/43), it must be a bug. The Allied AI does not use submarines in this scenario. There hasn't been a single confirmed sighting, and not a torp has been fired in anger - or even in sheer boredom. My carriers are now operating with a screen of only 2 DDs, and those will soon be withdrawn for more important Surface Combat duties (where they are infinitely more effective than CAs or Musashi).

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 292
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/11/2009 3:15:30 AM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline
Scenario 1.  AMC Kanimlba?  Should it be Kanimbla?

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 293
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/11/2009 9:37:57 AM   
Akos Gergely

 

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline
I'm pretty sure this has already been brought up but the USN 5"/38 accuracy seems to be too high. In night battles it makes more hits then other guns combined....

_____________________________


(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 294
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/11/2009 10:33:30 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Despite being out of torpedoes and damaged this sub didn't auto-return to Manila....it wanted to continue staying on patrol. WAD?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 295
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/11/2009 12:49:23 PM   
mark24

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 8/4/2002
Status: offline
Hornet arrives in 1942 with Corsairs (F4U1D) & Helldivers (SBC-4)

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 296
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/11/2009 2:01:09 PM   
Kull


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

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Despite being out of torpedoes and damaged this sub didn't auto-return to Manila....it wanted to continue staying on patrol. WAD?


I had a sub take 60 float damage and next turn it was still on patrol. It appears the Patrol algorithm is overriding the "save your butt" algorithm.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 297
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/11/2009 2:23:45 PM   
Don Bowen


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

Would need a save to look at this.

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 298
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/11/2009 4:05:18 PM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Got one here Don. Sailfish is out of fish but staying on patrol. What's the best mail for you?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 299
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/11/2009 4:22:41 PM   
Terminus


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mark24

Hornet arrives in 1942 with Corsairs (F4U1D) & Helldivers (SBC-4)


It's been noted.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to mark24)
Post #: 300
Page:   <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Manual inconsistency Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.750