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 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/20/2009 12:37:22 PM

RyanCrierie

Posts: 1461
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

The Tench and Balao class SS for the US have Durability of 30, when they should be 40; the Tench and Balaos had thicker hulls allowing 400 ft test depths.

< Message edited by RyanCrierie -- 8/20/2009 12:38:13 PM >

_____________________________

My Website with cool bits and pieces!

(in reply to chesmart)

Post #: 451

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/20/2009 4:03:21 PM

EasilyConfused

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline

I've been noticing more invalid date entries in the database. The convoy disbandings are often given as the 31st of months that only have 30 days. If you want I can list them, but I don't know if they would disband anyway.

(in reply to RyanCrierie)

Post #: 452

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/20/2009 5:28:00 PM

Buck Beach

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

I've been noticing more invalid date entries in the database.� The convoy disbandings are often given as the 31st of months that only have 30 days.� If you want I can list them, but I don't know if they would disband anyway.

I know this is a completely different game but in one of the WITP mods I played regularly, listed a date for the the production of B-24Ds.to begin on 34/42. They didn't show up and I had played through 6/42 game date before I started check back in the editor and found the input error. Needless to say it ruined my game and I was to discouraged to correct the entry and start over. So I would say a correction of your dates mentioned above should be taken as a game stopper and be corrected.

(in reply to EasilyConfused)

Post #: 453

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/20/2009 7:24:33 PM

Sonny II

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Samro11

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

If you continue playing the TF will show up on the map in the days specified and will try to refuel itself at sea. Still in trouble but if you get an oiler there to refuel it it may be ok.

(in reply to Samro11)

Post #: 454

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/21/2009 1:50:07 PM

EasilyConfused

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Osterhaut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

I've been noticing more invalid date entries in the database.� The convoy disbandings are often given as the 31st of months that only have 30 days.� If you want I can list them, but I don't know if they would disband anyway.

I know this is a completely different game but in one of the WITP mods I played regularly, listed a date for the the production of B-24Ds.to begin on 34/42. They didn't show up and I had played through 6/42 game date before I started check back in the editor and found the input error. Needless to say it ruined my game and I was to discouraged to correct the entry and start over. So I would say a correction of your dates mentioned above should be taken as a game stopper and be corrected.

Hi. JWE is out sailing and is in and out of contact depends where the boat is. He asked me to keep a bug list for him and fix what I can. I cannot see anywhere a convoy has to have a disbandonment day. I cannot list what I cannot see.

By disbandment I meant "withdrawal." My understanding is that the date on that is when the convoy will finish "unloading" and dump the supplies, fuel, and devices into the pool.

Post #: 455

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/21/2009 7:00:27 PM

JWE

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

Yes. Have to say, I'm with MO. There is no "withdrawal" or "disbandonment" for convoys and don't understand what you are saying. MO cheched and there are no ship withdrawal dates that took place on the 31st. Ship withdrawal dates are from TROMS, so are presumed to be correct. As MO suggests, please clarify by posting an editor page that shows the date issue that you are concerned about.

We will fix what we can. Thanks. John

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

Post #: 456

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/21/2009 7:11:58 PM

BPRE

Posts: 624
Joined: 10/16/2000
From: Stockholm,Sweden
Status: offline

Isn't he talking about the convoys to Cape Town? They have withdrawal dates as ground units. I can't see any incorrect date though when I look at scenario 1.

/BPRE

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 457

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/22/2009 4:10:06 AM

fbs

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

Scenario 001:

CL Achilles and Leander start the war with Ensigns as captains; that doesn't look right -- may be caused by something in the database?

Thanks!
fbs

(in reply to BPRE)

Post #: 458

RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/22/2009 10:52:58 AM

RyanCrierie

Posts: 1461
Joined: 10/14/2005
Status: offline

Device 1554 Squid has a effect of 35; when in real life, Squid had a mighty 200~ lbs of boom.

_____________________________

My Website with cool bits and pieces!

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 459

RE: Docked tonnage in red? - 8/22/2009 1:52:10 PM

rockmedic109

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline

Scen 1.

CM Bungaree is supposed to carry Mk VII mines. But the Mk VII mines don't begin to be made untill 12/42.

(in reply to RyanCrierie)

Post #: 460

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/22/2009 3:01:49 PM

EasilyConfused

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Yes. Have to say, I'm with MO. There is no "withdrawal" or "disbandonment" for convoys and don't understand what you are saying. MO cheched and there are no ship withdrawal dates that took place on the 31st. Ship withdrawal dates are from TROMS, so are presumed to be correct. As MO suggests, please clarify by posting an editor page that shows the date issue that you are concerned about.

We will fix what we can. Thanks. John

I think I see the confusion, I'm referring to the convoys that are classified as ground units. Now that I think about it, it's probably a land team issue. Should I report it over there?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 461

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/22/2009 3:20:25 PM

Iron Duke

Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

ship slot 9330 Empire Lance should be Sir Hugo was under Royal Navy at this time

ship slot 9331 Empire Anvil should be Rocksand was under Royal Navy at this time

ship slot 9332 Empire Broadsword should be deleted - sunk off Normandy 2 July 1944

_____________________________

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

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 462

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 8/22/2009 3:28:10 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE
Yes. Have to say, I'm with MO. There is no "withdrawal" or "disbandonment" for convoys and don't understand what you are saying. MO cheched and there are no ship withdrawal dates that took place on the 31st. Ship withdrawal dates are from TROMS, so are presumed to be correct. As MO suggests, please clarify by posting an editor page that shows the date issue that you are concerned about.

We will fix what we can. Thanks. John

I think I see the confusion, I'm referring to the convoys that are classified as ground units. Now that I think about it, it's probably a land team issue. Should I report it over there?

Aha - yep, those are some of AndyMac's little thingys. You need to talk to the land team. They don't let us mess with their stuff. They say we get everything all wet.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to EasilyConfused)

Post #: 463

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/22/2009 3:38:44 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

ship slot 9330 Empire Lance should be Sir Hugo was under Royal Navy at this time

ship slot 9331 Empire Anvil should be Rocksand was under Royal Navy at this time

ship slot 9332 Empire Broadsword should be deleted - sunk off Normandy 2 July 1944

Were these first two RFA ships? If so, do you have any more data on RFAs? More! More!

(in reply to Iron Duke)

Post #: 464

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/22/2009 3:55:42 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

I am giving you into attention tests I run today:
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2215485

It seems that ships set on cruise speed get their asses always handed by ships on mission speed! BUG or WAD?

If you are interested I had turn before where you can play with speed settings.
Tests conducted in Guadalcanal scenario, 1.080 Hotfix beta applied.

< Message edited by Barb -- 8/22/2009 4:46:28 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 465

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/22/2009 4:17:50 PM

Buck Beach

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

The Cimarron (AO-22) is shown as a Neosho class oiler when it should be reversed.

"Rear Adm. Emory S. Land in full dress uniform while chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair. Admiral Land played a key role in securing funds for the navy's rebuilding program in the early 1930s and prepared the original design criteria of the Cimarron-class oilers. (National Archives) "

"Cimarron, first of the National Defense Features (NDF) tankers to be completed, slid down the ways at the Sun yard on the morning of 7 January 1939. At the time of her launching, the Cimarron, with an overall length of 553 feet and a beam of 75 feet, was the fastest tanker built in the United States and one of the largest in the world. The lines plan chosen for her hull form was designed specifically to enhance the high-speed characteristics desired by the navy and was radically different from that used on any previous tanker. The design was based on the latest advances in naval architecture, had been refined by extensive testing in the navy's model basin, and included a bulbous bow--the first ever to be used on a tanker. This feature was intended to improve the ship's performance by reducing the wave-forming resistance generated as the ship moved through the water. Cimarron also had a distinctive clipper bow, which with its raked stem was designed to improve sea keeping."

See this link to see the AOs listed in the Cimarron class. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/GSBO/GSBO-D.html

Buck (an ex AO-22 swabby 1963)

< Message edited by Buck Beach -- 8/22/2009 4:19:27 PM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 466

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/22/2009 6:21:13 PM

Iron Duke

Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

ship slot 9330 Empire Lance should be Sir Hugo was under Royal Navy at this time

ship slot 9331 Empire Anvil should be Rocksand was under Royal Navy at this time

ship slot 9332 Empire Broadsword should be deleted - sunk off Normandy 2 July 1944

Were these first two RFA ships? If so, do you have any more data on RFAs? More! More!

They were prefix'd with HMS so i don't think they were RFA's

A couple more
Empire Mace (9335) to RN 1944 as HMS Galtee More or Galteemore

Empire Aquebus (9336) to RN 1944 as HMS Cicero

Empire Halberd (9333) to RN 1944 as HMS Silvio

Empire Battleaxe (9334) to RN 1944 as HMS Donovan

As for RFA's I've one book --- The Royal Fleet Auxiliary A Century Of Service by Thomas A Adams & James R Smith---
What information are you looking for?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 467

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/22/2009 6:36:36 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

...
Empire Battleaxe (9334) to RN 1944 as HMS Donovan

As for RFA's I've one book --- The Royal Fleet Auxiliary A Century Of Service by Thomas A Adams & James R Smith---
What information are you looking for?

OK, these do appear as renamed in my reference data. Missed that.

As to RFA - any and all RFA ships that served in the Pacific, with types, dates, specifications (hope it's not too much to ask). Also RAFA if you could help (especially flying boat tenders, like Tung Song/Ann). Very hard to find data on those guys.

Strangely enough I do have data on the RASC Fleet.

(in reply to Iron Duke)

Post #: 468

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/22/2009 7:39:49 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
The Cimarron (AO-22) is shown as a Neosho class oiler when it should be reversed.
<snippy, snippy>

Buck (an ex AO-22 swabby 1963)

Yep, Quite right. Woof! What a brain fart.

Probably too late for the patch, so .. next time.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 469

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/22/2009 10:13:36 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

Nothing in response to surface combat with cruise/mission speed settings? Would be nice to know what do you guys think about it.

Also it seems that ships are consuming cruise speed amount of fuel when set at mission speed.

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 470

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/22/2009 10:45:25 PM

Kull

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

The following is moved here from another thread. Although not a bug per se, the near-guaranteed loss of an AI-controlled IJN CVE at the start of the game would be a nice thing to fix.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Realize Japan is trying to do too much at once, but shouldn't carriers always be escorted? The CVE Taiyo was spotted and engaged by a PC. Both sides broke off. Finally I send a CL that was badly damaged and in Batavia being fixed up to finish the job. Night Time Surface Combat, near Toboali at 50,95, Range 1,000 Yards

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Japan does not have enough escorts. If you are playing against the AI, it does the best it can with what it has. Note that Taiyo is (historically) proceeding alone at the start of Scenario 1.

True, but the AI is doing something monumentally stupid with this ship. At the end of Turn 1, Taiyo is located at 89,93 and heading to Hiroshima. But where did sfbaytf take her down? 40 hexes away (as the Emily flies) at 50, 95 - just off the coast of Sumatra, where she is still a lone, unescorted ship. And (anecdotally) I've seen other AAR reports of her destruction as a solo ship in locations where she has no right to be traveling.

So the team might want to see if there's some way to ensure that Taiyo heads to the Japanese mainland as ordered, instead of wandering off alone to certain death in the DEI.

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 471

Merchant cruisers - do they work? - 8/22/2009 11:25:41 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

One of my merchant cruisers (one of the 2 big ones initially deployed near Fiji in Scen 1)
intercepted an enemy transport. The mission was "surface combat" - but still both TF's tried to withdraw - escape

Is this a lack of aggressiveness, or does AE treat AMC's as transports that always will try to escape from battle?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to RyanCrierie)

Post #: 472

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/22/2009 11:43:45 PM

Iron Duke

Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

...
Empire Battleaxe (9334) to RN 1944 as HMS Donovan

As for RFA's I've one book --- The Royal Fleet Auxiliary A Century Of Service by Thomas A Adams & James R Smith---
What information are you looking for?

OK, these do appear as renamed in my reference data. Missed that.

As to RFA - any and all RFA ships that served in the Pacific, with types, dates, specifications (hope it's not too much to ask). Also RAFA if you could help (especially flying boat tenders, like Tung Song/Ann). Very hard to find data on those guys.

Strangely enough I do have data on the RASC Fleet.

This is info i've managed to pull from the book unfortunatley it doesn't give specific date as to when RFA's entered and left
the Pacific theatre

RFA Ebonol -Hong Kong-scuttled 'Belgol' class
RFA Francol - war loss 'Belgol' class
RFA War Sirdar - war loss 'war' class
RFA Ruthenia - fuel hulk - Singapore- scuttled
RAF Olcades 'Ol' class
RFA Broomdale - 'Dale'(1) class (motor)
RFA Echodale - 'Dale'(1) class (steam)
RFA Bishopdale - 'Dale'(1) class (motor)
RFA Olna (was HMS Olna) transfered to RFA 1945
RFA Gold Ranger - operation Dracula -- 'Ranger' class
RFA Brown Ranger -- 'Ranger' class
RFA Arndale - 'Dale'(1) class (motor)
RFA Wave King - 'Wave' class
RFA Cedardale - 'Dale'(1) class (motor)
RFA Dingledale - 'Dale'(1) class (motor)
RFA Wave Monarch -- 'Wave' class
RFA Easedale - operation Dracula - operation Zipper -- 'Dale'(1) class (steam)
RFA Olwen - operation Dracula 'Ol' class
RFA Orangeleaf -- 'Fast Leaf' class
RFA Dewdale - operation Zipper -- 'Dale'(1) class (motor)
RFA Ennerdale - operation Zipper -- 'Dale'(1) class (steam)
RFA Empire Salvage
RFA Celerol -- 'Belgol' class
RFA Derwentdale -- 'Dale'(1) class (motor)

RFA's in British Pacific Fleet Train 15 Aug 1945
Olna , Wave Emperor , Arndale , Wave Governor , Bishopdale , Wave King , Cedardale , Wave Monarch , Dingledale ,
Green Ranger , Eaglesdale , Rapidol , Serbol

'War' Class
bunkers 700tons
speed 11.5knots
consumption 24tpd
dimmensions(loa/bp x beam) 410/400.3ft x 52.2ft
tonnage 5,574 grt , 8,320 dwt
displacement 11,680 tons full loaded
crew 44

'Ol' Class
speed 11 knots
dimmensions -/419.7ft x 54.3ft
tonnage 6,470grt , 9220 dwt
displacement 13,690 tons full load
crew 43

'Dale' (1) Class (motor tanker)
speed 11knots
dimmensions (loa/bp x beam) 481.5/466.3ft x 62ft
tonnage 8,299 grt , 12,235 dwt
displacement 17,219 tons
crew 44

'Dale' Class (steam)
speed 11.5knots
dimmensions loa/bp x beam x draught) 479/463.5ft x 61.2ft x 16.5ft
tonnage 8,630grt , 12,040dwt
displacement 16,820 tons
crew 70

'Ranger' Class
speed 13knots
dimmensions (loa/bp x beam x draught) 355/339.7ft x 48ft x 20.2ft
tonnage 3,313 grt , 3950 dwt
displacement 6,704 tons full load
crew 40 + DEMS

'Wave' Class
speed 15knots
consumption 50tpd
dimmensions (loa/bp x beam) 492.5/473ft x 64.3ft
tonnage 8,181 grt 11,900 dwt
displacement 16,483 tons full load
crew 61

'Empire Salvage'
speed 12knots
dimensions (loa/bp x beam) 514/488ft x 73ft
tonnage 10,953 grt , 15,597 dwt
displacement 21,450 tons full load
crew 78

'Belgol' Class
speed 14.5knots
bunkers 320tons
consumption 38tpd
dimensions (loa/bp x beam) 335/320ft x 41.5ft
tonnage 2,647 grt , 2,226 dwt
displacement 5,578 tons full load
crew 39

'Fast Leaf' Class
speed 15knots
bunkers 320tons
consumption 57tpd
dimensions (loa/bp x beam) 426.7/405ft x 54.5ft
tonnage 5,900 grt , 7,300 dwt
displacement 12,300 tons full load
crew 66

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 473

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/23/2009 12:42:52 AM

John Lansford

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

There is a Base Force at Cebu I can evacuate, and so far 4 subs have picked up fragments and taken them to Darwin. Now the load routine is saying the subs cannot load anything else from this unit, even though there are still engineers, support and infantry squads present. Anyone had this happen to them?

(in reply to Iron Duke)

Post #: 474

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/23/2009 2:31:04 AM

seydlitz_slith

Posts: 2036
Joined: 6/16/2002
From: Danville, IL
Status: offline

The engineers are too fat from garrison duty to fit down the hatch on the subs.

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 475

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/23/2009 3:21:51 PM

Don Bowen

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

Thanks.

Do you happen to have any data on an RAFA ship named Dumana? May have been a seaplane tender or base ship in Australia.

(in reply to Iron Duke)

Post #: 476

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/23/2009 4:31:13 PM

JWE

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb
Nothing in response to surface combat with cruise/mission speed settings? Would be nice to know what do you guys think about it.

Noted.

quote:

Also it seems that ships are consuming cruise speed amount of fuel when set at mission speed.

Mission speed is cruise speed, unless/until it comes time to make a dash somewhere at full speed. So just sailing around - mission speed IS cruise speed. Please note there are only 2 speeds given for ships in the database, cruise and full.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 477

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/23/2009 5:37:04 PM

Kull

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Mission speed is cruise speed, unless/until it comes time to make a dash somewhere at full speed. So just sailing around - mission speed IS cruise speed. Please note there are only 2 speeds given for ships in the database, cruise and full.

Out of curiousity, what (if anything) happens to the speed settings once TFs engage in Surface Combat? Is TF speed even part of the combat algorithm? Or do individual ship speeds take over once you shift from the Strat map to the Tactical engagement?

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 478