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  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/17/2009 2:23:37 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Will they perform this automatic repair assist whether they have supplies on board or not?


Yes. Supplies on board equates to ammo for rearming. Repairs only consume ship ops.

quote:


Also does it have to be in a TF or can it be disbanded to function


Disbanded for repairs.


quote:


, and how damaged can one be and still work? I've got one in Surabaya with 70+ system damage right now.


Less than 25 systems damage, less than 40 float, less than 70 engine, and less than 10 fire.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 421
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/17/2009 3:23:29 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline 		Don't know if this information (or that of my last post) is of any use, but the xAK Madras City (Euro M Cargo) is set to arrive on 2/30/42.  That's presumably a typo.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 422
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/17/2009 3:46:09 PM   
Buck Beach

 

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

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

Don't know if this information (or that of my last post) is of any use, but the xAK Madras City (Euro M Cargo) is set to arrive on 2/30/42.  That's presumably a typo.



No actually that was a millennium event to extend February one extra day (over that of leap year) to celebrate that year, the year of my birth.

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 423
Indian Headquarters - 8/17/2009 5:57:13 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline 		Scenario 001. The forces in the Indian Ocean are associated with these headquarters:

Eastern Fleet
Northern Command
Southern Command
Eastern Command
Admiraly
Ceylon Command

But none of these list under the HQ structure. What gives?

Cheers
fbs

< Message edited by fbs -- 8/18/2009 2:14:16 PM >

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 424
RE: Indian Headquarters - 8/17/2009 6:14:19 PM   
Akos Gergely

 

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline 		In the Thousand miles war scenario USS Santa Fé is listed with turret armor of 312 on her 6" turrets - I guess this is way more than Cleveland class CL's turret face plates ( IIRC it was 6"-es)

Edit: when the ship arrives it shows correctly as 165...

< Message edited by csatahajos -- 8/17/2009 10:04:57 PM >

_____________________________



My blog: https://warshipprojects.com/

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 425
RE: Indian Headquarters - 8/17/2009 6:18:49 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Scenario 001. The forces in the Indian Ocean are associated with these headquarters:

Eastern Fleet
Northern Command
Southern Command
Eastern Command

But none of these list under the HQ structure. What gives?

Cheers
fbs


The list is missing Western Command (the Pakistan tribal areas). These are the Indian Army territorial commands. General Irwin--a really poor general--ran the Eastern Command (into the ground). One thing to remember was that the Commonwealth lacked depth in commanders. Their second string consisted of Generals like Irwin, Percival, Leese, which tells you something about their first string.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 426
RE: Indian Headquarters - 8/17/2009 6:36:01 PM   
fbs

 

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

ORIGINAL: herwin
The list is missing Western Command (the Pakistan tribal areas). These are the Indian Army territorial commands. General Irwin--a really poor general--ran the Eastern Command (into the ground). One thing to remember was that the Commonwealth lacked depth in commanders. Their second string consisted of Generals like Irwin, Percival, Leese, which tells you something about their first string.



Very good; I also added Admiralty and Ceylon Command, which were also missing from the list.

I don't see how a land unit can be subordinate to a HQ if the HQ is not in the game. I assume that the HQ of a LCU does something... so if the LCU's HQ is not in the game, then it doesn't look right.

Cheers :mrgreen:
fbs7

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 427
RE: Indian Headquarters - 8/17/2009 10:43:39 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline 		It could exist elsewhere. Off map.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 428
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/18/2009 2:06:27 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline 		Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged.

The 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.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 429
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/18/2009 3:52:29 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: erstad

Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged.

The 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.


Bit confused by this. The design consideration was to consider oil/resource/refinery centers to have their own loading and unloading facilities. The intent was to allow a large refinery in a small port to load/unload based on refinery size, not port size. That way we did not have to falsely increase port size for a specific facility.

There really is no daily load limit. There is a daily port cargo handling limit - which can be expended by a combination of loading or unloading operations. A refinery (for example), increases all three (load rate, unload rate, daily limit). But the total for load and unload can only equal the daily limit.

Does that make sense? If not, post a specific example and a save and I'll trace it through the code

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 430
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/18/2009 4:19:44 AM   
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:

Submarine Aircraft Capacity - How many Glens can you fit into a Volkswagen....errr....Submarine?

You can add reserve aircraft to a Sub-borne Chutai. In fact, I-9 is now out at sea, carrying FOUR Glens! And the only reason there aren't more is there aren't any left in the pool. So here's a few questions:

Historically, how many Glens could be crated up and carried aboard an IJN sub? Four aircraft aboard a submarine sounds a bit excessive. Is this something that can be fixed, assuming it's non-historical? Or is this just the Devs way of saying, "Go ahead moron, load your entire pool of Glen's aboard a single sub, even though you can't fly more than one at a time. And better hope that sub doesn't run into any ASW!"


(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 431
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/18/2009 5:00:14 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline 		To be honest, this one will not be high on the list as you suggest a great work around is just don't push the "add reserve aircraft" bootawn.

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 432
RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/18/2009 5:19:29 AM   
Kull


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

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

....just don't push the "add reserve aircraft" bootawn.


I can see the Developers Meeting now:

jwilkerson: "OK guys, you know people are going to bitch about every last little thing after the release. And we'll have to be all civil and understanding about it, and that's going to get old fast. So here's an idea. Let's put in some "features" that will allow the player to completely screw himself. It will have to be something that won't affect the AI and it will be entirely optional. And let's see how many folks complain about."
don bowen: "Excellent. How about if we let the player upgrade Yamato to a Barge?!"
jwilkerson: "Too obvious, plus some guys will probably do it to cut down on the possible victory points."
treespider: "Glens. We let the player load up to 50 Glens on a sub, even though only one can be active!"
jwilkerson: "That might work. But seriously. What kind of moron would actually DO that??"


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 433
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/18/2009 2:13:30 PM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged.

The 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.


Bit confused by this. The design consideration was to consider oil/resource/refinery centers to have their own loading and unloading facilities. The intent was to allow a large refinery in a small port to load/unload based on refinery size, not port size. That way we did not have to falsely increase port size for a specific facility.

There really is no daily load limit. There is a daily port cargo handling limit - which can be expended by a combination of loading or unloading operations. A refinery (for example), increases all three (load rate, unload rate, daily limit). But the total for load and unload can only equal the daily limit.

Does that make sense? If not, post a specific example and a save and I'll trace it through the code


Don, sorry, can't post a save but may be worth mentioning this has been the subject of some discussion in the War Room's Resource Pathways thread.

It's the daily port cargo handling limit with which we are concerned. Fully understand that resources, oil and refineries can boost load/unload rates and daily limit, but the example erstad gives indicates that Toyohara is receiving that boost to its daily limit for loading operations but not for unloading ops.

Toyohara is a good example for this purpose because, as erstad says, without the boost, it has a daily port cargo handling limit of 11250, whereas, if the boost is applied, that nearly doubles to 21650, by my calculations.

There may be good reason to think that no one is ever going to want to offload big quantities of resources at Toyohara, but all the big ports in the Home Islands get such an increase in their daily port cargo handling limits (albeit a more modest one), and this could make a difference to efficient import of oil, fuel and resources.

HTH.

_____________________________




(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 434
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/18/2009 3:04:30 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you are saying because there is no such thing as a daily limit for load and a daily limit for unload.

There is one daily limit for both load and unload. You load, you use some. You unload, you use some.

I don't know what else to say. A save is always good because I can trace the action and watch the counters flip. I always shows what happens, not what I think should happen.

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 435
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/18/2009 3:13:09 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		If your port can handle 24,000 tons of cargo daily, and you load 8000 tons onto a ship, then you've only got 16000 tons of capacity left to unload other ships with.  I assume that this capacity is split equally between phases?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 436
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/18/2009 3:25:17 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

If your port can handle 24,000 tons of cargo daily, and you load 8000 tons onto a ship, then you've only got 16000 tons of capacity left to unload other ships with.  I assume that this capacity is split equally between phases?


Yes, but that only affects whether the ship can finish loading in one 12-hour pulse and put to see in the next.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 437
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/18/2009 3:33:54 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged.

The 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.


Bit confused by this. The design consideration was to consider oil/resource/refinery centers to have their own loading and unloading facilities. The intent was to allow a large refinery in a small port to load/unload based on refinery size, not port size. That way we did not have to falsely increase port size for a specific facility.

There really is no daily load limit. There is a daily port cargo handling limit - which can be expended by a combination of loading or unloading operations. A refinery (for example), increases all three (load rate, unload rate, daily limit). But the total for load and unload can only equal the daily limit.

Does that make sense? If not, post a specific example and a save and I'll trace it through the code


Don, sorry, can't post a save but may be worth mentioning this has been the subject of some discussion in the War Room's Resource Pathways thread.

It's the daily port cargo handling limit with which we are concerned. Fully understand that resources, oil and refineries can boost load/unload rates and daily limit, but the example erstad gives indicates that Toyohara is receiving that boost to its daily limit for loading operations but not for unloading ops.

Toyohara is a good example for this purpose because, as erstad says, without the boost, it has a daily port cargo handling limit of 11250, whereas, if the boost is applied, that nearly doubles to 21650, by my calculations.

There may be good reason to think that no one is ever going to want to offload big quantities of resources at Toyohara, but all the big ports in the Home Islands get such an increase in their daily port cargo handling limits (albeit a more modest one), and this could make a difference to efficient import of oil, fuel and resources.

HTH.


OK, I think I understand the point here (much aided by a second cup of coffee).

Yes, the daily capacity limit is increased only for loading. This assumes that a refinery, for example, has a loading terminal whose purpose is to load fuel onto tankers for transport. It is capable of unloading fuel as well, but that requires some reconfiguration of the pumps and temporarily disables the ability to load.

Sorry to be dense, all this was done quite a while ago and is not currently in the active memory portion of my fog encrusted brain.

I think a case could be made for changing this in any of several possible ways.
1. Eliminate the unload rate bonus - the facilities were primary for load.
2. Reduce the unload rate bonus to a fraction of the load rate bonus.
3. Provide full unload capacity increase
4. Leave it as it is.

#4 looks pretty good to me, being busy, lazy, and all.

(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 438
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/18/2009 10:40:24 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:


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.

I have a slightly different problem in that the sub bases have not changed but subs returning to them, especially when under computer control, run out of fuel prior to reaching port. I am seeing damage as high as 40 at the moment. We are installing S5G reactors to take care of the problem. Next shortage will be beans.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 439
Indian Command ships? - 8/19/2009 12:51:06 AM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline 		What do these ships have of special? They are the only boats assigned to India Command; everything else in the Indian Ocean (including a bunch of xAK) is assigned to Southeast Asia:






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by fbs -- 8/19/2009 1:09:17 AM >

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 440
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/19/2009 12:54:18 AM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

OK, I think I understand the point here (much aided by a second cup of coffee).

Yes, the daily capacity limit is increased only for loading. This assumes that a refinery, for example, has a loading terminal whose purpose is to load fuel onto tankers for transport. It is capable of unloading fuel as well, but that requires some reconfiguration of the pumps and temporarily disables the ability to load.

Sorry to be dense, all this was done quite a while ago and is not currently in the active memory portion of my fog encrusted brain.

I think a case could be made for changing this in any of several possible ways.
1. Eliminate the unload rate bonus - the facilities were primary for load.
2. Reduce the unload rate bonus to a fraction of the load rate bonus.
3. Provide full unload capacity increase
4. Leave it as it is.

#4 looks pretty good to me, being busy, lazy, and all.


Thank you for coming to grips with something not at the forefront of your concerns right now and clarifying matters - you're not being dense at all, as some of this stuff is quite convoluted.

The concept that a port will have enhanced facilities to handle the extra traffic its immediate hinterland generates makes good sense to me. I can also see a case for differentiating between loading and unloading facilities.

There's certainly an argument for increasing a port's overall handling capacity for loading bulk cargoes but not unloading them. The obvious example is the staithes erected in British ports in the 19th century for loading colliers: easy enough to run wagons to the end of these and tip them into the colliers' holds, but you still need a lower capacity crane with grab to unload at the destination, which is less efficient.

The only exception I can think of to the general rule that bulk loading was easier to automate than bulk unloading in the mid 20th centry was light cargoes such as grain where you could use suction.

Possibly the logic fails when you come to deal with tankships. I believe it is current practice (and suspect this has long been the case) that unloading is done via the ship's cargo pumps, suggesting that the only way you can enhance oil handling facilities is by providing additional pipe jetties, which permits the terminal to handle more ships, but at no greater speed, either for loading or unloading.

From what I've read, transhipment of inflammables is subject to constraints that tend to fix the rate of loading/unloading regardless of available pumping capacity - e.g. the pumping rate has to be controlled so as to manage the extent of the static charge generated by the operation.

Although I am much in favour of changes that produce a more accurate model of how a port's facilities affected cargo handling, it's more important to me to get a clear understanding of how whatever system is in place operates, so I can make plans I can rely upon. But that's just the way I look at it; others may take a different view.

_____________________________




(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 441
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/19/2009 6:21:24 PM   
HistoryGuy


Posts: 80
Joined: 1/7/2009
From: Woodbridge, VA
Status: offline 		Having access to the War Department's OPD records, I find it amazing that many of the problems surfaced in the forums were of similar concern to the US Army staff in early 1942.  They talk about getting lots of aviation down to Australia (wish I had listened to that tidbit before the Japanese AI sailed a carrier TF down to Sydney) and the difficulty of finding sufficient merchant and tanker hulls to carry everything where it needed to go.  I am very pleased, from the viewpoint of an Army historian, with the end result and trust that the superlative insights lent by WiTP AE players even more knowledgable than myself (and there are many) end up in a patch that fixes many of the issues surfaced in the forum.  And YES, I have downgraded the Corsairs to F4F's whenever I get sufficient replacement planes (by withdrawaling Marine Fighter squadrons on the West Coast!).

:-)


< Message edited by HistoryGuy -- 8/19/2009 6:25:10 PM >

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 442
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/19/2009 6:52:19 PM   
Samro11

 

Posts: 13
Joined: 4/10/2008
Status: offline 		a, opps.
is there any way I can "fix" that game? RTB one othe off map tfs?

(in reply to chesmart)
Post #: 443
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/19/2009 9:50:24 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Samro11

a, opps.
is there any way I can "fix" that game? RTB one othe off map tfs?


I'm actually not sure. The condition is so complex and I am so dumb that I am having trouble figuring it out. I had hoped to get to it by now but the constant din of other (more solvable) issues has kept me and my limited attention span from

(in reply to Samro11)
Post #: 444
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/19/2009 10:52:55 PM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

This thread is for AE Naval and Naval OOB Issues - post away!

I recently had some DDs repairing in a shipyard. After all damage was reduced to 0, they remained in the shipyard (greyed out) for 10 more days until they were released for service. Is this WAD?

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 445
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/19/2009 11:28:48 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

This thread is for AE Naval and Naval OOB Issues - post away!

I recently had some DDs repairing in a shipyard. After all damage was reduced to 0, they remained in the shipyard (greyed out) for 10 more days until they were released for service. Is this WAD?


If they were conversions, probably.

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 446
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/20/2009 1:17:22 AM   
khyberbill


Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

This thread is for AE Naval and Naval OOB Issues - post away!


I recently had some DDs repairing in a shipyard. After all damage was reduced to 0, they remained in the shipyard (greyed out) for 10 more days until they were released for service. Is this WAD?



If they were conversions, probably.

I see, so unlike in WITP, conversions/upgrades dont show damage? Or just conversions dont show damage?
Thanks for you quick response.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 447
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/20/2009 1:26:05 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Sometimes they show damage. Regardless, they have a minimum time. I see some that finish repairing the 'damage' from an upgrade but still have time remaining to complete the process.

(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 448
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/20/2009 1:46:38 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

ORIGINAL: khyberbill

quote:

This thread is for AE Naval and Naval OOB Issues - post away!


I recently had some DDs repairing in a shipyard. After all damage was reduced to 0, they remained in the shipyard (greyed out) for 10 more days until they were released for service. Is this WAD?



If they were conversions, probably.

I see, so unlike in WITP, conversions/upgrades dont show damage? Or just conversions dont show damage?
Thanks for you quick response.


No. Look at the editor value for a conversion. There are a number of independently specifyable values:
System Damage
Float Damage
Min Conversion Delay

Min Conversion delay means the ship is going to be out of service that long even if all the damage is repaired. When a ship is converted, it receives the specified systems and floatation damage. Also engine damage if the new class is of a different speed. And the min conversion delay. No matter how much resource you throw at the ship, it will not be available until the min coversion delay has expired.

The primary reason for this rule is conversion to other type of ship. Without min conversion delay, a player could convert a freighter into a seaplane tender and then use it (albeit damaged) on the first day.


(in reply to khyberbill)
Post #: 449
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/20/2009 10:13:44 AM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline 		the following ships appear to be of the wrong class and have incorrect ship side graphics

5058 Caribou class as a sun type-h
5059 Panda class as a T2-SE-A
5060 Porqupine class as a Esso type-T
5070 Mink class as a T2-SE-A
5077 Armadillo class as a Esso type-T
5078 Giraffe class as a T2-SE-A
5080 Moose class as a Esso type-T
5081 Whippet class as a T2-SE-A

these ships were Z-ET1-S-C3 Liberty tankers
they should have the same side as a normal liberty ship.

missing liberty tankers -- Served in Pacific

Racoon
Leopard
Kangeroo
Ibex
Beagle
Gazelle
Gemsbok

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 450
Page:   <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  13 14 [15] 16 17   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

1.359