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: TF's setting their own destinations

 
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: TF's setting their own destinations Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: TF's setting their own destinations - 8/13/2009 9:52:22 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

No way I'm even going to read thru this one without saves. Swamped.


Save it for later. Just giving you a running description so you can relate to what is happening. I'm sure other people will run into the same thing, so this item will start your data set.


OK, all of these appear to be related to use of "Set Home Port" then "Return to Home Port". This process may be bypassing some of controls set up in normal "Set Destination" processing. I'll check.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 361
RE: TF's setting their own destinations - 8/13/2009 9:53:14 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I'll hold the saves separately in case you want them later.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 362
RE: TF's setting their own destinations - 8/13/2009 10:23:03 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Please advise on how to send the save games to you.


Saves can be uploaded to posts in the Tech Support thread.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 363
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/13/2009 10:25:34 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: pad152

The DD Schley (3682) is showing 200 torpedoes in it's left side launcher. I have another post with the same issue with the DD Chew (3681) also a Wicker Class DD in another game.





Do you have a save when it was still OK?

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 364
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/13/2009 11:33:16 PM   
morganbj


Posts: 3634
Joined: 8/12/2007
From: Mosquito Bite, Texas
Status: offline 		Don't know if this is WAD, or if anyone has reported it before. If either is true, I apologize.

I created a TF with 3 ships and then ordered a unit loaded. When I did the verify procedure, I said to use minimum ships and took two ships out of the TF.

When I went to create another TF with those two ships to load another unit, I got the screenie below. It would not let me do it. Why?






Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 365
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/13/2009 11:53:53 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: bjmorgan

Don't know if this is WAD, or if anyone has reported it before. If either is true, I apologize.

I created a TF with 3 ships and then ordered a unit loaded. When I did the verify procedure, I said to use minimum ships and took two ships out of the TF.

When I went to create another TF with those two ships to load another unit, I got the screenie below. It would not let me do it. Why?







If you have a save, post it in the Tech Support Forum

(in reply to morganbj)
Post #: 366
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/14/2009 3:00:24 AM   
pad152

 

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

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

The DD Schley (3682) is showing 200 torpedoes in it's left side launcher. I have another post with the same issue with the DD Chew (3681) also a Wicker Class DD in another game.





Do you have a save when it was still OK?


Sorry, no but, I think it happens when a wickers DD is damaged in the Pearl Harbor attack and comes out of the Shipyard, will test with saves. So far I've only seen it with Wicker Class DD's maybe there's a (non-ASCII) character in database for this ship class?


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 367
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/14/2009 3:26:10 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		I look at the load charts on pages 113-117 of the manual and I must have no idea what's happening. Please look at the column for Oil and tell if all those ships showing Yes do in fact have an oil capacity? Also numerous classes show as having a Troop capacity but when look at the Editor and the game screens they do not.

Now for my favorite the Tankers show that the can haul everything, but none are set up (editor) for a bulk cargo capacity that seems to be needed to allow them to load supplies or Air groups. They also do not reflect a troop capacity in contrary to the chart.

If this has been previously surfaced or discussed, please give me a reference thread.

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 368
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/14/2009 4:35:54 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

I look at the load charts on pages 113-117 of the manual and I must have no idea what's happening. Please look at the column for Oil and tell if all those ships showing Yes do in fact have an oil capacity? Also numerous classes show as having a Troop capacity but when look at the Editor and the game screens they do not.

Now for my favorite the Tankers show that the can haul everything, but none are set up (editor) for a bulk cargo capacity that seems to be needed to allow them to load supplies or Air groups. They also do not reflect a troop capacity in contrary to the chart.

If this has been previously surfaced or discussed, please give me a reference thread.


The chart is defining the ability of each class type to carry various things, but only if the capacity is defined for each individual class. A transport can carry troops (obviously) but how many troops depends on the troop capacity and cargo capacity defined for each transport. If the troop and cargo capacity is zero, it can not carry troops even if it is a transport.

The classes defined in the editor are a realistic as we can make them. If you wish to have additional abilities, you can use the editor to put them in. Or just wait a few weeks until the mods start being released.


(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 369
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/14/2009 2:17:13 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

...
4. Resetting home base to SF after base is captured -> subs trying to return there -> subs running out of fuel -> subs sinking because of accumulated sys damage.
...



This issue has been addressed. It was caused by a combination of two checks on the new sub base: nationality match and (mostly) fuel levels at prospective ports.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 370
DP Gun... - 8/14/2009 2:26:06 PM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		Cruising through the editor trying to figure out what the difference between 5"38 DP gun mounts is (never did) and noted one absence. IIRC, the 5"54 (device #1571) was developed for the Montana and Midway class as a DP gun as well, yet the only one equipping the Midway class in the editor is a Naval Gun. No ceiling is shown. Is this correct, and was the Navy really THAT dumb. Don't answer that!

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 371
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/14/2009 3:13:24 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

...
4. Resetting home base to SF after base is captured -> subs trying to return there -> subs running out of fuel -> subs sinking because of accumulated sys damage.
...



This issue has been addressed. It was caused by a combination of two checks on the new sub base: nationality match and (mostly) fuel levels at prospective ports.


Sounds very good. Subs are my only major gripe so far. Any chance for public beta soon?

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 372
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/14/2009 8:54:14 PM   
Weidi72


Posts: 61
Joined: 6/10/2006
Status: offline 		On 2 Carriers I got the VBF-Squadrons with corsairs. Its June 42 now 

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 373
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/14/2009 8:55:18 PM   
Iridium


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

ORIGINAL: Weidi72

On 2 Carriers I got the VBF-Squadrons with corsairs. Its June 42 now 


It's a noted bug. Good to see people paying attention to history though.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

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

(in reply to Weidi72)
Post #: 374
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/14/2009 10:24:15 PM   
mitchell2

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 8/31/2007
Status: offline 		In scenario 2 I noticed an unexpected value for the Helena class CL: As part of the 4/44 upgrade the tower armor is changed from 125 to 0. I assume this is not intentional?

mitch

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 375
RE: Naval - 8/14/2009 10:38:24 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		Is OI supposed to have 9 ammo for Right Side Torpedoes and 1 ammo for left side?
Probably typo.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to mitchell2)
Post #: 376
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/14/2009 10:54:15 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mitchell2

In scenario 2 I noticed an unexpected value for the Helena class CL: As part of the 4/44 upgrade the tower armor is changed from 125 to 0. I assume this is not intentional?

mitch


In 1944 C&R (or maybe it was BuShips by then) decreed that the conning tower should be removed from the Brooklyns as weight compensation for all the the light AA added to the ship. It was only done on a few ships (if any, I can't find my Friedman at the moment) since it was to be performed only in a refit required by substantial battle damage..

(in reply to mitchell2)
Post #: 377
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/14/2009 11:16:11 PM   
pompack


Posts: 2582
Joined: 2/8/2004
From: University Park, Texas
Status: offline 		New OOB issue (I think, I have not been able to find it in the other threads)

In the game, the Argonaut loads Mk 12 mines. This was a prewar configuration that was removed in 1942 with the refit that changed her into a transport/raid sub.

However, the Mk 12 mine does not begin production until Jan43.

According to NavWeaps, the Argonaut carried the Mk 11 and there were 200 on hand on 7dec41. Both the Mk 10 and the Mk 12 were launched from a 21 inch torpedo tube while the Mk 11 was launched from a 40" tube that seemed to be unique to the Argonaut.

While I could see a case for the game using something other than a strange one-off to arm Argonaut, it would seem that it should be a Mk 10 which was the standard pre-war tube-launched mine. Rather than creating an entire new mine type (Mk 11) I would suggest just changing the Argonaut loadout to the Mk 10 mine.

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 378
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/15/2009 11:26:55 AM   
Weidi72


Posts: 61
Joined: 6/10/2006
Status: offline 		--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 358 encounters mine field at Midway Island (158,91)

Japanese Ships
     CVL Ryujo, Mine hits 1,  on fire,  heavy damage



Midway is still a US-Base. I saw several "visits" of japanese carriergroups at allied bases. Can't remember this hapens in witp.


< Message edited by Weidi72 -- 8/15/2009 11:48:48 AM >

(in reply to pompack)
Post #: 379
Docked tonnage in red? - 8/15/2009 12:37:05 PM   
BPRE

 

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline
I've just docked a tanker TF in Cairns with a total tonnage of 11850 (2 TK at 5300 each and 2 AM at 625 each).
Why is docked tonnage shown in red? Limit for Cairns is 12000 tons.

The explanation for this part of the Location Info Display does not exist in the manual AFAIK. The table in page 109 is the closest I can find.

/BPRE





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Weidi72)
Post #: 380
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/15/2009 12:55:55 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		I've had the CA Chokai depthcharge my subs off the port of Balikpapan twice so far.  I didin't know such big ships had sonar and DC racks.

(in reply to BPRE)
Post #: 381
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/15/2009 1:10:24 PM   
Gilbert


Posts: 243
Joined: 8/8/2009
From: Hendaye, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I've had the CA Chokai depthcharge my subs off the port of Balikpapan twice so far.  I didin't know such big ships had sonar and DC racks.


Yes, IJN CA did have between 8 and 16 DC aboard depending of the different classes and timeframes


Gilbert



_____________________________

UMI YUKABA
"If I go away to sea, I shall return a corpse awash, if duty calls me to the mountain, a verdant will be my pall, thus for the sake of the Emperor, I will not die peacefully at home...."

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 382
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/15/2009 1:19:49 PM   
Sonny II

 

Posts: 2878
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BPRE


I've just docked a tanker TF in Cairns with a total tonnage of 11850 (2 TK at 5300 each and 2 AM at 625 each).
Why is docked tonnage shown in red? Limit for Cairns is 12000 tons.

The explanation for this part of the Location Info Display does not exist in the manual AFAIK. The table in page 109 is the closest I can find.

/BPRE






When the total tonnage gets close to the limit you get that color as a warning.

(in reply to BPRE)
Post #: 383
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/15/2009 1:31:22 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: BPRE


I've just docked a tanker TF in Cairns with a total tonnage of 11850 (2 TK at 5300 each and 2 AM at 625 each).
Why is docked tonnage shown in red? Limit for Cairns is 12000 tons.

The explanation for this part of the Location Info Display does not exist in the manual AFAIK. The table in page 109 is the closest I can find.

/BPRE






Should not be red, but orange. It's an indication of close to limit.

(in reply to BPRE)
Post #: 384
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/15/2009 2:12:38 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline 		Was looking through the editor and I noticed that the Bristol class DD Laffey is supposed to arrive at San Francisco on April 31, 1942.  Seeing as there are only 30 days in April, I figure it's an error.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 385
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/15/2009 3:07:09 PM   
erstad

 

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

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Should not be red, but orange. It's an indication of close to limit.


It's definitely red. Not that I'm overly stressed about it.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 386
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/15/2009 4:16:18 PM   
Don Bowen


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

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 387
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/15/2009 5:21:49 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline 		This is cross posted over from the "Glug, glug, glug, in the Aleutians AAR" in the event it's a bug (although I suspect it's WAD)"

I-175 ran out of fuel and has been limping home to Paramushiro. Fortunately I had a replenishment TF with a nearly full AO ready to go in the Paramushiro harbor, so two turns ago she was given the order to "rendevous with" I-175. And then never budged from port. After presenting the skipper with a colorful description of his family's near-certain descent from the slug branch of the evolutionary tree, he was tasked to travel to the same hex that I-175 would occupy on the next turn. And as you can see, there they are, side by side. And the sub TF is "unreplenishable"! Gah!!

I realize the IJN probably (?) didn't have an equivalent of the German u-boat "milch cow", but were subs never refueled at sea by merchants, capital ships, and/or tankers? Or is this a WAD to prevent the kind of gamey refueling tricks I failed to pull off earlier in the AAR?



(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 388
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/15/2009 5:26:17 PM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline 		When I talk about "gamey refueling tricks", this is one of them. Which didn't work. Again, I'm assuming this is WAD, not "Bug"?

Part Two in the ongoing duel between "Dastardly Developers and Gamey Player". Noticing that newly arrived I-5 has fuel galore and was sharing a hex with fuel-diminished I-35, I decided to combine them into one TF and pull the "Replenish TF at Sea" trick. Which doesn't work with Sub TFs! My feelings can basically be described as Grrrr! and Yesss!! at the same time.



[/quote]

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 389
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/15/2009 5:27:44 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline
Have you tried refueling it with an AS?


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 390
Page:   <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: TF's setting their own destinations Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   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

0.672