AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED] (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

jwilkerson -> AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED] (7/27/2009 10:13:54 PM)

[OUTDATED]

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



Miller -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/28/2009 12:00:35 AM)

I will get the ball rolling[;)]

The original Hornet comes equiped with Helldivers rather than SBDs.



Don Bowen -> Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 12:09:14 AM)

There is a know issue with turning TFs around when the TF is in the process of moving from on-map to off-map or off-map to on-map (i.e. in an off-map pipe).

These TFs are shown in the off map holding boxes and are effectively moving "through the pipe" from/to the off map base.

Players have considerable ability in changing the destinations and home ports of these TFs, but there are a couple of (now) known issues.

1. A TF that is already headed from off map to an on map location may have the on map destination and/or on map home base changed with no known problems.
2. A TF that is headed off map probably can be returned to it's on-map home port using the Return To buttons on the TF screen.
3. A TF that is headed on map maybe can be returned to it's off map home port using Return To buttons.

However:

For a TF that is currently headed off map, you should NOT change the home port or destination of the TF to an on-map location (with the possible exception of the Return To buttons).

For a TF that is currently headed on map, you should NOT change destination to an off map base nor to the off map home port. Just don't don't do it.

Although some turnaround using Return To buttons may work, players are strongly advised to NOT try and turnaround any TF that is in the pipe.

This issue appears to be centered on (but not necessarily limited to) the processing using the map-click method of selecting destination and home port.

Results of turnaround while in the off-map pipes are unpredictable, and could result in the TFs (and ships in them) becoming unusable.

(edit) de fat-fingered.



bsq -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 12:30:46 AM)

Where is HMS Vanguard?  She was launched to commission and be in theatre ready for mid/late 45 and she was only 'slowed' down once it was realised that Downfall wouldn't happen.



Don Bowen -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 12:34:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Where is HMS Vanguard?  She was launched to commission and be in theatre ready for mid/late 45 and she was only 'slowed' down once it was realised that Downfall wouldn't happen.


Vanguard was launched in November, 1944. The fastest launch to completion time for a King George V BB (some 10k tons lighter) was about 19 months**.

Using this as a guideline, the earliest possible availability for Vanguard would be mid-1946. And that in England, still needing to work up.

**Duke of York: 2/40-11/41 so very much wartime construction speed.



Mike Solli -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 1:40:57 AM)

Here is a shot of the Momi Escort Class at start in Scenario 1. Note the circled part. I think it's just a typo:



[image]local://upfiles/1598/2D979B7EF9B8424DBFE60CE72EE2B6B6.jpg[/image]



Mike Solli -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 1:44:04 AM)

Not an issue, but I find it curious that the 4 Akatsukis are now Fubuki (III)s! Where did that come from?



Shark7 -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 2:40:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Not an issue, but I find it curious that the 4 Akatsukis are now Fubuki (III)s! Where did that come from?


Sounds like they are no longer a separate class, but are being considered 'group 3' of the Fubuki Hulls.



JWE -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 2:46:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
Here is a shot of the Momi Escort Class at start in Scenario 1. Note the circled part. I think it's just a typo:

Yep, that would be an error. Typo in the database. Will be corrected.

Thanks, Mike.



tigercub -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 8:19:53 AM)

The CM Itsukushima was able to carry 500 small mines,although 300 larger mines was the usual complement in the game it is set to 75?
CM Yaeyama carried 185 mines in game set to 60?
CM Takashima carried 120 in game set to 20 mines.
you must have a reason for changing them?

Tiger!



JWE -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 2:49:01 PM)

Yes. For many reasons. One of which is the same reason that 5" guns have 18 ammo instead of 320.



Dixie -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:07:02 PM)

Shouldn't USS Boise and Marblehead (amongst other USN ships) have a withdrawl date?  They both spent time in the Med after repair work.



Terminus -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:14:58 PM)

They should. Noted.



Iridium -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:25:20 PM)

I noticed a few things I'm not sure about so I'll just show them and ask.

First off, I'm noticing that AAMGs are being placed under ASW weapons, this might be just aesthetics but it made me wonder. My silly additional nitpick is that the ship name line is always too close to that line above it, making it hard to read or just unpleasing to the eye.

[image]local://upfiles/16037/C005BFF11AF54F0FBC1BBAA524987CD9.jpg[/image]



Terminus -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:27:33 PM)

This is a display problem, related how the data was entered in the editor. Not sure who did that particular one, but I don't disagree with your assessment that it's not pretty.



Iridium -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:28:14 PM)

Next up is a similar issue with the AAMGs but in this case they are AA Rockets. I'm not up to snuff on the data behind these rockets but the 'AA' in the name makes me thing Anti-Air. They are also placed under ASW and have 5000 as their depth...

In both cases of AAMGs and AA Rockets they exist in more than just the shown examples.

[image]local://upfiles/16037/FCC82E8E520D4910BBB48B660203AF69.jpg[/image]



Terminus -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:30:37 PM)

It's definitely a display problem with the in-game database display routine. We'll look at it.



EnricoR -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/28/2009 4:32:25 PM)

CA Oregon City is in scen 1 a Baltimore class but she was leadship of her class and the ETA is wrong too, it is 16 March 1945 in game but her commissioning was on 16 February 1946.

CL Fargo has the wrong picture, in AE she looks like a Cleveland class but she has only one stack and her fire control equipment was at other locations.

Atlanta an Oakland classes: their 5in/38 Mk 12 EBR have an armor rating of 31, other classes with this weapon has only 5.



Iridium -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:33:14 PM)

Lastly I noticed that Taiho has a DP battery of 12.7cm guns. I could be wrong but I was under the impression that it had received a battery of 10cm guns that the Akitsuki class have instead.



[image]local://upfiles/16037/85F0595EE3154DB0BBC6EA9A136983BA.jpg[/image]



Terminus -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:42:34 PM)

I can only explain that by saying I came to the Taiho after adding that gun to all the other IJN carriers before it, and just kept rolling... RATS!!!



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/28/2009 4:44:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: EnricoR
CA Oregon City is in scen 1 a Baltimore class but she was leadship of her class and the ETA is wrong too, it is 16 March 1945 in game but her commissioning was on 16 February 1946.

Database typo, should be Oregon City Class # 406

quote:

CL Fargo has the wrong picture, in AE she looks like a Cleveland class but she has only one stack and her fire control equipment was at other locations.

Nope, Fargo uses the Cleveland image. Correctly listed as a Cleveland 42 Design, but no separate image.

quote:

Atlanta an Oakland classes: their 5in/38 Mk 12 EBR have an armor rating of 31, other classes with this weapon has only 5.

We'll look into it.



Iridium -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:45:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I can only explain that by saying I came to the Taiho after adding that gun to all the other IJN carriers before it, and just kept rolling... RATS!!!


If I had stayed quiet about it the Taiho would probably have a better AA rating anyhow...The 10cm guns might have better ballistics but lack a certain punch that the larger caliber DPs do.[:D]

Never knew Terminus was a JFB.[;)]



JWE -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:45:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I can only explain that by saying I came to the Taiho after adding that gun to all the other IJN carriers before it, and just kept rolling... RATS!!!

Ah, well ... ok, it's in the punch-list.



Mike Solli -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:56:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

This is a display problem, related how the data was entered in the editor. Not sure who did that particular one, but I don't disagree with your assessment that it's not pretty.


Uhhhhhh.......yeah sure. [;)] [:D]



Terminus -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 4:58:00 PM)

Not mine. I did IJN carriers and subs.



pad152 -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 5:10:11 PM)

Campaign file 2

Carrier Ibuki (023) - has no airgroups?

Carrier Taiyo (024) - has multiple airgroups some that belong to the Chuyo and Kaiyo!

Carrier Kaiyo (028) - has missing air group that's on the Taiyo!

Carrier Chuyo (026) - has mission air group that's on the Taiyo!

Carrier Copahee(3056) - Air Group (2221) at "0" max aircraft!

CS (035 - 038) - Air groups show both float planes and carrier planes?



pad152 -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 5:44:17 PM)

Not sure how to fix the air groups on the CS (Mizuzo, Nssin, etc.) How do I assign the carrier planes to the upgraded ship class?

Example:
Mizuzo (035) CS class 1876 - air groups (574, 575 - float planes)
Mizuzo (035) CVL class 1879 - air groups (758, 759 - Carrrier planes)



hellfirejet -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 5:50:26 PM)

While using the editor, I noticed that the tonnage listed for all ships is Standard tonnage,and not full load, as they would be at time of war,this would increase the ships tonnage by between 4 - 8 thousand tons on average ?



Don Bowen -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 5:52:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Not sure how to fix the air groups on the CS (Mizuzo, Nssin, etc.) How do I assign the carrier planes to the upgraded ship class?

Example:
Mizuzo (035) CS class 1876 - air groups (574, 575 - float planes)
Mizuzo (035) CVL class 1879 - air groups (758, 759 - Carrrier planes)



All this should be taken care of in the stock scenario. Airgroups switch when the ship converts to carrier.



chesmart -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/28/2009 6:01:56 PM)

Fuso and Yamashiro use the bitmaps of ise and hyuga when the upgrade



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9370117