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: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941

 
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: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 - 11/26/2009 3:01:09 AM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10525
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: Kansas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

... have you decided how to alien the ACMs types into a more historical basis for Da Babes?



Wow, I never knew "alien" was a verb - learn something new every day!!!

_____________________________

AE Project Lead
New Game Project Lead

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 811
RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 - 11/26/2009 3:06:59 AM   
Buck Beach

 

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

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

... have you decided how to alien the ACMs types into a more historical basis for Da Babes?



Wow, I never knew "alien" was a verb - learn something new every day!!!


Spell checker sometimes does not save one from being ignorant.

I should have placed my comments under Da Babes but the subject was already here. Please move it should you care to.

Buck

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 812
RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 - 11/26/2009 9:57:07 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Please move it should you care to.

Buck

Hi Buck, moved the answer to Scen design .

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 813
RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 - 11/27/2009 3:06:02 AM   
Gary D


Posts: 164
Joined: 6/6/2002
From: Southern California
Status: offline 		Scenario One, yesterdays patch:

Chiang Kai-Chek is "removable"! For a mere 250 PPs we can start the peoples revolution 5 years early.

Now this is one way to help the Chinese that has not been kicked around the boards

Edit: Oops sorry I dumped this in the Naval section instead of the ground pounders camp.

< Message edited by Gary D -- 11/27/2009 3:08:00 AM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 814
Underway replenishment - 11/27/2009 8:10:26 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		I'm somewhat surprised still at how quickly underway replenishment can take place.

I currently have the Enterprise with 15 escorts (CA's, CL's and DD's) in the same hex as the Neosho's replenishment TF. I just gave the order to replenish at sea. The indication for each ship in the Enterprise TF under the Ops listing is 250. For the Neosho it is also 250. This is surprising. I'm only going to use a quarter of a day to replenish 16 ships with one tanker? Considering that at best I should be able to replenish 2 ships at one time (one on each side of Neosho), even 8 successive replenishments, given the set-up time, should take me pretty much the whole day (no replenishment, if I recall, took place at night).

I would submit that the underway replenishment time calculator is not functioning correctly in WitP AE, but perhaps jwilkerson could comment?

Thanks.

PS the two best sources on underway replenishment are publicly available. The first is more technical. It is FTP-218, the War Service Fuel Consumption of US Naval Surface Vessels available here http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/index.html .

The second is Wildenberg's Gray Steel and Black Oil, available here http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/GSBO/index.html .

< Message edited by Pascal -- 11/27/2009 8:15:38 AM >

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 815
RE: Underway replenishment - 11/27/2009 2:06:06 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Not enough info here to figure anything out. If you will post a save I'll run it and verify everything is working as designed.

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 816
RE: Underway replenishment - 11/28/2009 2:45:43 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Not enough info here to figure anything out. If you will post a save I'll run it and verify everything is working as designed.


Certainly. I have saved each day. I gather I have to post you the .pws file, but how do I go about doing that? By private email?

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 817
RE: Underway replenishment - 11/28/2009 3:24:07 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 5905
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: West Yellowstone, Montana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Not enough info here to figure anything out. If you will post a save I'll run it and verify everything is working as designed.


Certainly. I have saved each day. I gather I have to post you the .pws file, but how do I go about doing that? By private email?


zip it up and start a new thread in the tech support subforum and attach it there.

_____________________________


(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 818
RE: Underway replenishment - 11/28/2009 3:47:45 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Pascal


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Not enough info here to figure anything out. If you will post a save I'll run it and verify everything is working as designed.


Certainly. I have saved each day. I gather I have to post you the .pws file, but how do I go about doing that? By private email?


Post the save in the Tech Support thread.

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 819
RE: Underway replenishment - 11/28/2009 4:20:36 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline 		There is an error in one of the two photos on the Game Loading screen.

The photo of the two guys taking sextant readings is a staged picture and an obvious fake.

Check out the sun angle of the shadow on the nose of the guy taking the sighting.

The only star he is going to have a prayer's chance of sighting during that time of day is good ole Sol.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 820
RE: Underway replenishment - 11/28/2009 7:15:22 AM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		Posted to tech forum. Thanks!

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 821
RE: Underway replenishment - 11/28/2009 6:20:25 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

There is an error in one of the two photos on the Game Loading screen.

1) The photo of the two guys taking sextant readings is a staged picture and an obvious fake.

2) Check out the sun angle of the shadow on the nose of the guy taking the sighting.

The only star he is going to have a prayer's chance of sighting during that time of day is good ole Sol.


1) Proof that they knew how to stage photos a long time ago?

2) They do shoot good ol' Sol. See A Short Guide to Celestial Navigation for a great historical overview and introduction.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 822
Questions about ARD - 12/4/2009 10:51:54 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline 		Is it WAD that an ARD needs either a shipyard or AR in the same port to be able to function ? I made a test with an ARD in a small scenario and I never got the option to use a repair ship if I there wasn't a shipyard or AR present in the port. Once one of those two was available, it was obvious that the ARD was functioning (80 major float on an AKV could be repaired when an ARD an AR were present)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 823
RE: Questions about ARD - 12/4/2009 1:17:29 PM   
Marty A

 

Posts: 213
Joined: 8/7/2009
Status: offline 		Awajisan maru is xak-t on port button list but no button to convert back to cargo. not know if subject already address. is in kure with 91.000+ shipyard available. i miss something?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Marty A -- 12/4/2009 1:18:24 PM >

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 824
RE: Questions about ARD - 12/4/2009 1:44:26 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

Is it WAD that an ARD needs either a shipyard or AR in the same port to be able to function ? I made a test with an ARD in a small scenario and I never got the option to use a repair ship if I there wasn't a shipyard or AR present in the port. Once one of those two was available, it was obvious that the ARD was functioning (80 major float on an AKV could be repaired when an ARD an AR were present)



No, that is not how it is designed. Please post your test in the Tech Support thread.

OK, I set up a little test myself and have found a display issue in Manage Damage ships. Looks like the issue is display only. Will address ASAP.

< Message edited by Don Bowen -- 12/4/2009 2:53:09 PM >

(in reply to Smeulders)
Post #: 825
RE: Questions about ARD - 12/4/2009 1:53:04 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Marty A

Awajisan maru is xak-t on port button list but no button to convert back to cargo. not know if subject already address. is in kure with 91.000+ shipyard available. i miss something?





Post your save in the tech support thread.


(in reply to Marty A)
Post #: 826
RE: Questions about ARD - 12/5/2009 8:27:53 PM   
Windfire


Posts: 135
Joined: 10/24/2003
From: Colorado Springs, CO
Status: offline 		post deleted by author

< Message edited by Windfire -- 12/8/2009 6:35:18 PM >

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 827
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/7/2009 2:23:10 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline 		Still uncorrected: the classes 247/248 Admiralty 'T' are not historic. Those ships belonged to the Admiralty 'S' class (245/246). DD names in WWI were not as orderly as in later years; the 'S' class comprised ships beginning with 'S' as well as 'T' to a total of 69 units, while the earlier and closely comparable 'R' class comprised 62 ships beginning with 'R', 'S', 'T' and 'U'.

In addition (and far more significant), the Classes 245/247 are defined as carrying Device 1515 4.5 in Mk IV guns (a 1940s DP gun) while the correct armament would be Device 1528 4in/40 QF Mk IV, a WWI gun of much worse performance firing separate ammunition. This seriously overstates their effectiveness in surface gunnery which should be worse than that of the average IJN escort.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 828
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/10/2009 3:45:35 PM   
JuanG


Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline 		Something I've noticed while going through the Japanese submarines - the KD3A/B class seems to have 8 forward tubes in the database whereas all the sources I've seen put it at 6 forward and 2 aft tubes.

The KD6B class has a similar problem - having 6 forward when I think it should have 4 forward and two aft like the KD6A.

Are my sources off or is this a mistake?

Juan

< Message edited by JuanG -- 12/10/2009 4:22:39 PM >

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 829
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/10/2009 5:41:12 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Something I've noticed while going through the Japanese submarines - the KD3A/B class seems to have 8 forward tubes in the database whereas all the sources I've seen put it at 6 forward and 2 aft tubes.

The KD6B class has a similar problem - having 6 forward when I think it should have 4 forward and two aft like the KD6A.

Are my sources off or is this a mistake?

Juan

Don't really know. Terminus did many of the Jap subs, and the ones he did not do were done by Tankerace or from stock. Believe all the Japanese stuff comes from Jentschura. Checked it against Conways, but that just gives total tubes - no breakout.

Not a game issue since the algorithm just totals up the tubes anyway. But, yeah, gimme a decent source and we can make it look better in the next patch, if it works out.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 830
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/10/2009 6:01:05 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
I have Jentschura, Watts, and Conway. Only Watts gives a breakdown and indicates all bow tubes for all the classes mentioned.

I have some ONI stuff in pdf that I can check, and then there's always my friend google.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 831
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/10/2009 6:09:08 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Three ONI, take your pick.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 832
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/10/2009 6:09:45 PM   
Don Bowen


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




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 833
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/10/2009 6:10:10 PM   
Don Bowen


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





Attachment (1)

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 834
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/10/2009 6:13:29 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Something I've noticed while going through the Japanese submarines - the KD3A/B class seems to have 8 forward tubes in the database whereas all the sources I've seen put it at 6 forward and 2 aft tubes.

The KD6B class has a similar problem - having 6 forward when I think it should have 4 forward and two aft like the KD6A.

Are my sources off or is this a mistake?

Juan


ONI stuff confirms for both types. Some variation in ONI (it was wartime data) but it looks like your are spot on.

(in reply to JuanG)
Post #: 835
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/10/2009 7:37:44 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline 		Bowen - sama is my Master. When he speaks, I put my hands on the floor and bow my forehead between my palms. Oh! Koh! Can do for the babes mod. Will take a while for the AE next patch.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 836
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/10/2009 8:29:25 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		I started Andy's Ironman mod (scen 80) with Patch 2 beta and have installed the official patch 2. However, both the 2 Dutch PT boat TF and the British TF at Hong Kong have an initial reaction range of 6, but if you manual go down to 0 they can only be increased to 1. 

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 837
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/10/2009 9:46:06 PM   
rockmedic109

 

Posts: 2390
Joined: 5/17/2005
From: Citrus Heights, CA
Status: offline 		I believe that one of the patches reduced the reaction range of PT boats to a max of 1.

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 838
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 12/11/2009 8:42:08 PM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

I believe that one of the patches reduced the reaction range of PT boats to a max of 1.


I will confirm that the range is 1.

(in reply to rockmedic109)
Post #: 839
RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 - 12/12/2009 10:39:32 PM   
racndoc


Posts: 2519
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline 		In the Guadalcanal scenario the USN has already upgraded their AKs into AKAs by 8/42. In the campaign game the upgrade from AK to AKA is not allowed until 3/43. Is the campaign game in error?

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 840
Page:   <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   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

1.109