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 22 23 [24] 25 26 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/22/2009 6:00:59 PM

Cavalry Corp

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline

Oh I see thanks very much

Cav

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 691

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/23/2009 4:10:30 PM

Buck Beach

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

I found us another fuel wagon. She is the Tanker George G. Henry who was to be later converted as the USS Victor AO-46 April 1942, in Australia with a still later name change to the USS Victoria

"George G. Henry arrived at Manila on 4 December 1941 with a cargo of 69,550 barrels of oil that had been taken on board at Palembang, Java, and at Tanjong Oeban, on Bintang Island, near Singapore." http://www.historycentral.com/Navy/oiler/victoriaII.html

Originally I came across her in reading http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN-CN-Java/USN-CN-JavaSea-10.html where she is referenced as being in Fremantle on Feb 25, 1942 as the George D. Henry and loaded and awaiting further orders. I also found various references to her name as George C. Henry at some sites.

Here it shows where she was originally built with another similar in game tanker the W.S. Rheem close by, however, the in game capacity of that tanker (Rheem) as a T2, seems way to high.

http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/history/shipyards/1major/inactive/bethsanfrancisco.htm

Anyway, here it is for those wanting more tankers/AOs during the first part of the war.

Opps, egg on my face again. There appears to have been two W.S. Rheems with the one indeed having the higher capacity which was built in 1922 the other lower capacity Rheem (1918) was more in line with George G. Henry/Victoria AO-46

< Message edited by Buck Beach -- 9/25/2009 3:19:56 AM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 692

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/24/2009 9:13:28 AM

John Lansford

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

Has anyone else noticed this? In my game the AI has taken Singapore, Bataan, Manila, all the Borneo ports, Penambang and northern Java. Most of these bases had defensive minefields, but the AI has made no effort to clean them up. I continue to get the "ship hits minefield" noise almost every turn, and my ships sunk list has at least a half dozen warships listed as sunk by various types of mines. Some are no doubt FOW, but it appears the AI won't try to 'clean up' defensive minefields once the base has fallen so ships keep hitting my mines long after it possesses the base.

(in reply to Buck Beach)

Post #: 693

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/24/2009 11:10:47 AM

Local Yokel

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

I am having difficulties with the micro-management of my Japanese AK's. I've already posted a new thread on Tech Support about my inability to combine amphibious TF's, but I have now hit a further problem with with AK to AK-t conversions.

If I click the button to convert a Standard-C AK's cargo space to carry troops, the button remains but gets re-captioned 'Cancel conversion of cargo space to carry troops'. So I can choose to cancel the conversion if I wish. But with some AK classes (e.g. Type 2A Standard, Lima Maru), the option to cancel isn't offered: you click to convert and you are committed to that conversion.

I don't mind if there's some good reason for this, but it would be good to know those troop-carrier conversions that can be rolled back, and those that cannot. As it stands, the behaviour of the interface seems inconsistent.

_____________________________

(in reply to John Lansford)

Post #: 694

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/24/2009 1:23:36 PM

Don Bowen

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

I am having difficulties with the micro-management of my Japanese AK's.� I've already posted a new thread on Tech Support about my inability to combine amphibious TF's, but I have now hit a further problem with with AK to AK-t conversions.

If I click the button to convert a Standard-C AK's cargo space�to carry troops, the button remains but gets re-captioned 'Cancel conversion of cargo space�to carry troops'.� So I can choose to cancel the conversion if I wish.� But with some AK classes (e.g. Type 2A Standard, Lima Maru), the option to cancel isn't offered: you click to convert and you are committed to that conversion.

I don't mind if there's some good reason for this, but it would be good to know those troop-carrier conversions that can be rolled back, and those that cannot.� As it stands, the behaviour of the interface seems inconsistent.

Post a save

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 695

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/24/2009 1:44:09 PM

Local Yokel

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

I am having difficulties with the micro-management of my Japanese AK's.� I've already posted a new thread on Tech Support about my inability to combine amphibious TF's, but I have now hit a further problem with with AK to AK-t conversions.

If I click the button to convert a Standard-C AK's cargo space�to carry troops, the button remains but gets re-captioned 'Cancel conversion of cargo space�to carry troops'.� So I can choose to cancel the conversion if I wish.� But with some AK classes (e.g. Type 2A Standard, Lima Maru), the option to cancel isn't offered: you click to convert and you are committed to that conversion.

I don't mind if there's some good reason for this, but it would be good to know those troop-carrier conversions that can be rolled back, and those that cannot.� As it stands, the behaviour of the interface seems inconsistent.

Post a save

I noticed this in the same turn as I hit the problem combining amphibious TF's, as described in this Tech Support thread, so the save posted there should reproduce the phenomenon. This is Guadalcanal scenario PBEM, Version 1.0.1.1084e. The posted save file there isn't compressed; just needs the .zip suffix stripping off. Can supply password if required.

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 696

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/24/2009 2:17:28 PM

Chad Harrison

Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline

Is anyone else having issues with following TF's?

In my Guadacanal PBEM, with the latest patch and playing as the Allies, I had all my ships following a single amphibious TF. No distance set to the follow command. After the last turn, all my following TF's were still in the same hex as where they started. In other words, the task force being followed moved, but all the following TF's stayed where they were last turn.

I *never* used the follow command in vanilla WitP for this exact reason. It was too buggy to risk. I just did all the moves manually.

Thanks in advance.

Chad

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 697

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/24/2009 3:30:19 PM

Don Bowen

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

OK, this is caused by the system damage for the conversion. The code that prevents ships being converted if they have too much damage is also preventing the cancellation of the conversion.

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 698

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/24/2009 3:45:47 PM

Local Yokel

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

Understood, thanks. Pending any fix that's possible the smart thing to do is not to convert unless you're sure - or save before you convert so you can get back to where you were. I can live with that

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 699

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/24/2009 8:30:52 PM

Richard III

Posts: 710
Joined: 10/24/2005
Status: offline

For an in progress Campaign Game Mod that I will finish and make available if it`s deemed worthy. I have the hard copy of the Game with printed manual coming and have trouble viewing the on line manual. ( old eyes )

Not a hostile question at all, but is the Ordnance loadouts ( Torps and Bombs ) of the Japanese Fleet Carriers accurate for the Pearl Harbor attack as well as post PH ?

Will low to 0 Ordnance loads cause AI controled CV TF`s to retire from combat.

In the ordnance loadouts for the pre - war US Fleet Carriers I see a number but no specific bomb type selected, will the SBD`s automatically select the bomb load based on range or target ( ship and say 500 to 1000 lbs AP or GPS or land and say 250GP`s ) ?

Thanks in advance.

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 700

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/24/2009 11:19:18 PM

rockmedic109

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

I am not sure if the AI is hindered by sorties available on a carrier. It mikght be one of the cheats the AI gets.

If AE follows the WITP way of doing things the loadouts of USN planes is dependant upon range. Normal range is 1000 pounders for SBDs and 500 pounders for extended range. After a certain time, if an allied squadron makes a couple of skill rolls, it will carry the 2000 pound bomb.

(in reply to Richard III)

Post #: 701

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/25/2009 7:08:42 AM

Kwik E Mart

Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

for what it's worth, reading Sea of Thunder by Thomas and noted that the USS Alden was commanded on Feb 27th, 1942 by Cdr. Lewis Coley in action off of Java....looked in tracker database and don't see any Coley's listed...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to Cavalry Corp)

Post #: 702

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/25/2009 7:27:03 PM

JWE

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

Oh, lordy, I really hate to do this; especially since I am one of the offenders. But the thread is getting way OT. People are asking questions on the main board or in the War Room, because this space has gotten wierd.

This thread is for AE Issues. Your favorite leader, not being in the box, is not an issue. Your favorite ship, not being in the box, is not an issue. Your thinking that an armament upgrade happened October, instead of December, is not an issue. There is a Scen Design and Mod sub-forum that is an appropriate place for this, and we do look at that.

Issues are for things that are broke, or for obvious data errors. I will try to keep Kosher. The rest of ya'll please do the same.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 703

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/25/2009 11:24:01 PM

afspret

Posts: 851
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Hanahan, SC
Status: offline

Has anybody already reported the fact that HMNZS Leander & Achilles start both Scen's 1 & 2 with Ensigns as commanders? This is because they have Ensigns for commanders in the data bases for both these scenerio's as well. The CO for Leander is shown as Ens Bell, A.A. (slot 17166) and Jones, H.W. (slot 17185) is the CO of Achilles.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 704

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/26/2009 12:34:39 AM

JWE

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

Yes. Several times. I believe you have done so twice already. No need for more. Thank you.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to afspret)

Post #: 705

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/26/2009 2:05:28 PM

Local Yokel

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

I'm still making a complete idiot of myself in management of my shipping, but suspect that something other than my idiocy may be at work here.

As before, Guadalcanal scen. PBEM, ver 1.0.1.1084e. I despatch an amphibious TF from Rabaul with orders to pick up a certain LCU from a certain friendly base - in other words, it's an evacuation TF, but I won't give away too much about it here. The evac. TF reaches the target base - I know this as that's where it was after end of combat resolution/start of new turn. Evac. TF now has Rabaul as its new destination and home port, but this was as expected since I planned for it to pick up the LCU and RTB. At the target base, the TF is still shown as having orders to pick up the LCU I designated for evacuation.

However, next turn I find the evac. TF a couple of hexes short of Rabaul with not a single soldier aboard. Furthermore, the orders to pick up an LCU have been cleared. A completely abortive voyage, therefore. What did I do wrong? Or is the 'pick up LCU' mechanism as suspect in AE as I have heard it was in WitP?

'Before' and 'after' saves available if this is potentially a problem with the code rather than me being a clot.

_____________________________

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 706

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/26/2009 2:43:36 PM

Don Bowen

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

Nothing can be done without a save.

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 707

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/27/2009 12:54:44 PM

Local Yokel

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Nothing can be done without a save.

Saves you shall have, sir. I will post them in Tech Support, with a .zip suffix you will just need to remove.

<edit>Now posted in this thread</edit>

< Message edited by Local Yokel -- 9/27/2009 1:11:54 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Don Bowen)

Post #: 708

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/29/2009 12:58:05 PM

Roko

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/4/2008
Status: offline

wrong topic -delete - sorry

< Message edited by Roko -- 9/29/2009 1:08:35 PM >

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 709

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/29/2009 3:27:17 PM

InHarmsWay

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline

I am currently stumped and have even gone so far as looking in the manual without luck! I seem to be unable to reload torpedoes ammo onto my carriers at Truk. From what I understand, you need either a lvl 7 port, or at least lvl 6 port and 160 naval support available (page 288). Truk has a lvl 6 port and mucho naval support with the 4th fleet and SW fleet HQs there. Am I missing something else here that will allow my CVs to replenish naval torpedo ordinances? The port screen at truk shows only 120 naval support also... so is there a way to get the rest of the naval support to be counted?

Thanks!

(in reply to Roko)

Post #: 710

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/29/2009 5:01:09 PM

Q-Ball

Posts: 7336
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Chicago, Illinois
Status: offline

Quick question on Japanese OOB, apologize if already asked......

CVL Ryuho is scheduled to enter November, 1942 if not accelerated.

Her AIRGROUPS, however, enter separately, in November 1943.

Is this as designed? Just checking.

InHarmsWay: I had the same problem. The Nav Support on the HQs should not be displayed as such; they are not really there. That will be fixed in next patch. You have to either deploy a couple Naval Base Forces, or wait until it's size-7. A pain, I know.

< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 9/29/2009 5:04:05 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to InHarmsWay)

Post #: 711

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/29/2009 6:36:31 PM

InHarmsWay

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/13/2008
Status: offline

Q-Ball

Thanks for the info. I was starting to wonder about my math skills, couldn't figure out how the computer was calculating naval support. guess I need to find a Naval base force now!

(in reply to Q-Ball)

Post #: 712

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/29/2009 9:36:04 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

quote:

I am currently stumped and have even gone so far as looking in the manual

Heavens to Murgatroid!! Surely you jest!?!?

_____________________________

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

(in reply to InHarmsWay)

Post #: 713

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/30/2009 12:35:17 PM

Local Yokel

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Nothing can be done without a save.

Saves you shall have, sir. I will post them in Tech Support, with a .zip suffix you will just need to remove.

<edit>Now posted in this thread</edit>

...and supplemented with a couple of other problems I have encountered.

_____________________________

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 714

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/30/2009 11:37:49 PM

Kwik E Mart

Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Oh, lordy, I really hate to do this; especially since I am one of the offenders. But the thread is getting way OT. People are asking questions on the main board or in the War Room, because this space has gotten wierd.

This thread is for AE Issues. Your favorite leader, not being in the box, is not an issue. Your favorite ship, not being in the box, is not an issue. Your thinking that an armament upgrade happened October, instead of December, is not an issue. There is a Scen Design and Mod sub-forum that is an appropriate place for this, and we do look at that.

Issues are for things that are broke, or for obvious data errors. I will try to keep Kosher. The rest of ya'll please do the same.

Sorry, JWE...didn't realize that our definitions of "issue" were so far apart...as for keeping "Kosher", I'm not sure I know how to do that...

_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 715

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 1:40:56 AM

witpqs

Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

as for keeping "Kosher", I'm not sure I know how to do that...

Here you go!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)

Post #: 716

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 9:01:57 AM

TerryHoax

Posts: 11
Joined: 9/30/2009
Status: offline

hello, haven't found something about this here, so i post it, sorry if it was mentioned before:

Is it possible to get a link at the informatiion of my own sunken ships, what the hell was loaded on this ship?
Sometimes i need to load the previous save just to look what the hell was on this ship as it was swimming before...

Thanks

Sorry for bad english, normaly we have our own language.

(in reply to jwilkerson)

Post #: 717

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 10:21:38 AM

Sonny II

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TerryHoax

hello, haven't found something about this here, so i post it, sorry if it was mentioned before:

Is it possible to get a link at the informatiion of my own sunken ships, what the hell was loaded on this ship?
Sometimes i need to load the previous save just to look what the hell was on this ship as it was swimming before...

Thanks

Sorry for bad english, normaly we have our own language.

Not possible.

(in reply to TerryHoax)

Post #: 718

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 10:48:38 AM

TerryHoax

Posts: 11
Joined: 9/30/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sonny II

Not possible.

even with a future patch?
I know that it isn't possible with actual version, but with a little bit new code this should be possible (or am I wrong...?)

(in reply to Sonny II)

Post #: 719

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/1/2009 7:26:22 PM

Local Yokel

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

Following on from my post #706, I am still having considerable problems with task forces that disregard the orders I have given them. I have already posted two relevant saves in a Tech Support thread, in which I gave the following details of one set of problems I had encountered:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Final problem. There are various TF's with 'follow' orders, with the lead ASW TF 51 being followed by other TF's, each with an order to trail TF 51 by 1 hex, but with no stand-off at destination. In turn these following TF's are followed by other TF's but with NO separation. Thus, for example, TF 52 is to trail TF 51 by 1 hex, and in turn TF 12 is to trail TF 52 by 0 Hex - hope that's clear! Problem is that save 010 shows all these TF's in the same hex (short of their destination); i.e. the orders issued have failed to make TF 51 perform its role as a vanguard anti-submarine sweep.

Another turn has now passed, before which I had modified these TFs' orders so that TF 51 should still remain out in front by one hex, and all the other TF's should stand off TF 51 by one hex when it reached its destination hex. Following the combat resolution phase of the turn in which these amended orders were entered, the position is now as follows:

(1) TF 51 is one hex short of its destination hex.
(2) One TF that was ordered to trail TF 51 by one hex is occupying the same hex as TF 51
(3) Three TFs that were ordered to trail TF 51 by one hex are trailing it by 2 hexes
(4) Three more TFs that were ordered to trail the TFs mentioned in (3) by zero hexes are trailing them by three hexes. As a result of the orders issued these last three TFs should have ended up one hex behind TF 51, along with the TFs mentioned in (3); in fact they have ended up five hexes behind.

This outcome bears no resemblance to what should have happened, and has resulted in my major fleet units being spread out over a distance of 200 miles rather than 40. I could have no complaint if my ships had been dispersed by enemy action, but nothing like that has occurred, and my careful attempts to advance the fleet in mutually supporting task groups have been completely nullified by this failure to follow the orders I gave.

This isn't the only problem I am having with disobedient TFs. In this same turn I had a FT TF ordered to meet, then follow, an ASW TF ordered to sortie from its base then return. Instead, the FT transport simply went straight to the ASW TF's home base, leaving the ASW TF stranded at the point at which I had expected the meeting to take place and from which I expected it to return. It did not return ahead of the FT TF as ordered.

Another ASW TF was ordered out to meet an incoming convoy which it was then ordered to follow. It appears to have gone out to the meeting point, since it is now showing expenditure of op points, no doubt from refuelling. Trouble is, it didn't stay with the TF it was ordered to meet, but just went out and came straight back to base.

I'm sorry to have to say that I have lost all confidence in the game's ability to make task forces follow what appeared to me to be reasonably straightforward and sensible orders of the kind for which I assume the 'meet' and 'follow' mechanisms were devised. I can accept that some departure from given orders could take place, reflecting the effects of the elements and enemy action. However, when there is such a total failure of TFs to follow the movement orders I have given, there really isn't much point in my attempting to make effective plans for the use of my units. Instead, I might as well order a headlong charge at the enemy on the basis that the outcome is going to be determined entirely by chance and in no way influenced by anything I've done to enhance my prospects of victory.

I suppose I could follow Chad Harrison's suggestion and move the individual TFs manually to explicit destination hexes, but I can't say that I'm any more confident about how far task forces are going to move per turn. Rather than have a whole lot of new features for task force movement that cannot be relied upon to work, I would much rather have a few simple features that do work and that I can rely upon. Otherwise playing the game is just a waste of my time.

There. I've probably given much useful intelligence to my PBEM opponent in this post, but I'm past caring. Sorry, but I have well and truly exceeded my exasperation quotient for the day.

_____________________________

(in reply to Local Yokel)

Post #: 720