RE: Manual inconsistency (Full Version)

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



Message

Don Bowen -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/11/2009 4:38:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Got one here Don. Sailfish is out of fish but staying on patrol. What's the best mail for you?



Post it as an attachment in a thread in the test support forum.

Don



Speedysteve -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/11/2009 4:42:50 PM)

Done



Speedysteve -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/11/2009 5:10:32 PM)

Odd one.....ship says it's unloading but there's no data of what's unloading in the LCU screen onboard the ship

[image]local://upfiles/4211/44CE2A2AD03C445A97F420A274ECA933.jpg[/image]



Don Bowen -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/11/2009 6:08:11 PM)


We've seen one other instance of this but can't find out why. What we really need is a save just before the TF starts unloading....




Speedysteve -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/11/2009 6:39:26 PM)

Damn. Afraid I don't have that. I'm going start keeping 5 days worth of saves in a row from now on....sorry.



Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/12/2009 1:30:59 AM)

While I'm sure it has already been mentioned (can't ever find a thing with the search function) the Robert L. Barnes (AO-14) is not at Guam at the start of the war. I am sure the JFB want those points for sinking her (actually she was bombed, captured and survived the war). Look here but she is reference on other sites as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Robert_L._Barnes_%28AO-14%29

She was also known as AG-27 http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/sh-usn/usnsh-r/id3088.htm



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/12/2009 1:50:01 AM)


Very familiar with this ship. Added her to CHS. After lots of games we decided that she was not worth while. Besides it is a one-up class, with all the overhead of something really useful, artwork included.

There are lots of ships that could be included. The line has to be drawn somewhere.



HMS Resolution -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/12/2009 4:54:55 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Very familiar with this ship. Added her to CHS. After lots of games we decided that she was not worth while. Besides it is a one-up class, with all the overhead of something really useful, artwork included.

There are lots of ships that could be included. The line has to be drawn somewhere.


I'm still mad there's no Georgios Averoff. The Japanese need to face the awesome fury of her four 9.2" guns!



pmelheck1 -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/12/2009 5:32:50 AM)

I'm sorry if this has been posted before please forgive if so.  For the auto convoy on the brit side it shows Colombo as the source for auto convoys.  In the Colombo base screen it has an option to turn on auto convoy however Karachi the auto convoy switch is grayed out.  The ships show up for auto convoy that are in Colombo.  shouldn't Colombo and Karachi have their buttons for auto convoy reversed.  Also home port for TF's in this area is Karachi does this need to be Colombo?




pmelheck1 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/12/2009 5:38:05 AM)

For down the road addition, how about a screen that you can select a conversion you want and have the screen show which ships can be converted to that class.  going through the ships one at a time looking for a hull to convert is more than a little pain.  Can it be added to WITPstaff ?



fbs -> CA Minneapolis & 4x DMS (8/12/2009 6:09:11 AM)

Scenario 001:

Minneapolis, Hovey, Boggs, Lamberton, Chandler are all set as reinforcements, appearing in Pearl Harbor on Dec 8, 1941. Hmmm.. where do they come from? If they appear in Pearl Harbor on Dec 8, then they should be a TF nearby heading to Pearl Harbor on Dec 7. Can they be put in a TF, instead of reinforcements?

Thanks!
fbs



Sardaukar -> RE: CA Minneapolis & 4x DMS (8/12/2009 7:58:45 AM)

Couple of issues:

1. Computer has disbanded couple of my Continuous Supply convoys going from SF to PH. Could this be because DDs in TF become eligible for upgrade?

2. When having Human controlled supply convoy from waypoints, SF -> PH -> Pago Pago? (don't remember exactly which island it was) -> Suva -> Brisbane, first leg went fine and TF got to Brisbane. I had ticked "Return same route" "Yes". To my surprise, TF did not backtrack from Waypoint 3 (Suva), but plotted course immediately to PH (Waypoint 1)! This of course would have taken it straight into middle of Japanese territory.



Speedysteve -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/12/2009 12:08:37 PM)

Seems odd......TAN 2 has 906 fuel onboard here and yet can't load anymore despote having a 1500 capacity..........

[image]local://upfiles/4211/254EDEE2E17C43878757171E206BF8B4.jpg[/image]



Speedysteve -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/12/2009 12:10:28 PM)

And here's TAN 2 up close and she's showing as being 1500 full of fuel which doesn't make sense..........

[image]local://upfiles/4211/5CEADCD583E74900981101676FC4AB02.jpg[/image]



Iridium -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/12/2009 12:16:09 PM)

TAN 2 might be a mixed cargo AO. She might carry 906 tons of fuel and the rest solid freight. or not........[:D]

That is strange, keep the save from before it loaded the cargo and give it to the Tech section?



khyberbill -> national home bases (8/12/2009 1:01:37 PM)

The manual states that ships may be withdrawn at "National Home Bases". A search of the manual did not list these bases. Is there a list somewhere?



Gilbert -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/12/2009 1:22:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution



I'm still mad there's no Georgios Averoff. The Japanese need to face the awesome fury of her four 9.2" guns!


Agreed. She would be a good target for our Kanbaku pilots and enhance their Dive Bombing skills[:D]

Gilbert



Sardaukar -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/12/2009 1:46:59 PM)

One more issue. When home base of your submarines is captured, your subs home port seems to revert to San Francisco. This is very annoying, especially if your subs are operating around Java etc. If you do not happen to notice it for couple of turns (like I who uses "Patrol around target"), your subs are travelling towards SF, soon out of fuel, then getting sys damage every turn and finally sinking because of that damage.

I think subs should revert to nearest major port when their home base is captured, not to SF.



John Lansford -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/12/2009 1:54:05 PM)

It's more annoying when you deploy a new sub that appeared at the Panama Canal, and forget to change its home port.  Having a sub return to Balbao is not good...



Don Bowen -> RE: CA Minneapolis & 4x DMS (8/12/2009 2:07:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Couple of issues:

1. Computer has disbanded couple of my Continuous Supply convoys going from SF to PH. Could this be because DDs in TF become eligible for upgrade?

2. When having Human controlled supply convoy from waypoints, SF -> PH -> Pago Pago? (don't remember exactly which island it was) -> Suva -> Brisbane, first leg went fine and TF got to Brisbane. I had ticked "Return same route" "Yes". To my surprise, TF did not backtrack from Waypoint 3 (Suva), but plotted course immediately to PH (Waypoint 1)! This of course would have taken it straight into middle of Japanese territory.



CS Convoys will auto disband based on damage to ships in the TF. They will not shed the damaged ships and continue as that might unbalance the TF (no escorts, etc). All the ships will remain assigned to auto convoy and will be used to create new TFs when required.

Need a save for the waypoint issue. Please post it in the Tech Support Forum.



Montbrun -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/12/2009 2:50:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

And here's TAN 2 up close and she's showing as being 1500 full of fuel which doesn't make sense..........

[image]local://upfiles/4211/5CEADCD583E74900981101676FC4AB02.jpg[/image]


Turn on "Remain on Station" and it will fill - I've had it happen a couple of times.




Don Bowen -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/12/2009 2:55:34 PM)


Mouseover here.

[image]local://upfiles/757/CA3AA076B4F14F618B8120DC3434EB8B.jpg[/image]



Speedysteve -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/12/2009 3:30:08 PM)

Yup and it says 906 fuel and the rest oil. Wasn't clear to me but WAD



Don Bowen -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/12/2009 4:07:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Yup and it says 906 fuel and the rest oil. Wasn't clear to me but WAD


It's just a matter of room on the screens. We'd have to double the size of the screen to put all the data on it, and then the background would be completely obscured. Lots of stuff in mouse overs.



Sardaukar -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/12/2009 11:16:32 PM)

And another thing...

Sub patrols do not seem to work. System works per se, but results are very deadly to one's subs. I use "Patrol around target" since it is quickest way to set sub patrols. Following problems:

1. Subs stay too long in their patrol area, running out of fuel and gathering massive sys damage.
2. Subs returning to patrol area despite being damaged. I do not think that subs should return to patrol automatically if having 20 sys damage etc.
3. Repeated surface attacks...often lot of damage to subs. Even worse, daylight surface attacks against armed ships.
4. Resetting home base to SF after base is captured -> subs trying to return there -> subs running out of fuel -> subs sinking because of accumulated sys damage.

I have now played 8 Dec campaign to end of May 42. Just checked and noticed that about half of my subs out on patrol sport quite heavy damage, caused by one or another reason. I think this makes submarine war quite unplayable and I have lost my "suspension of disbelief". I am quite fed up with subs running out of fuel 10 hexes before home port etc.




Terminus -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/12/2009 11:29:47 PM)

Submarine warfare is not "unplayable" at all.



Battleline -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/12/2009 11:50:45 PM)

Japanese Homing Torpedoes at PH
Every time I run the game with historical first turn or read an AAR in this forum, it seems that all battleships are being hit by torpedoes.
As we know, the historical setup that some battleships, such as the Tennessee and Maryland were moored inboard other battleships (which historically protected them from torpedo strikes, but wedged them in when the outboard ships sank) and Arizona was somewhat protected by Vestal. Also, the Pennsylvania was in drydock.
Is there any way to represent this historical setup?
It seems to be a punch below the belt to have a surprise attack with shallow running torpedoes AND homing qualities!
Thanks,
Battleline


Overall, this seems to be an excellent game which should provide years of entertainment.



Don Bowen -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/13/2009 12:20:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

4. Resetting home base to SF after base is captured -> subs trying to return there -> subs running out of fuel -> subs sinking because of accumulated sys damage.


From which base, and which scenario, please. There is code to try and find a nearby base of sufficient size and/or sufficient support units, with San Francisco is the default. Returning to San Francisco means the routine could not find anything else suitable.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/13/2009 1:13:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Battleline

Japanese Homing Torpedoes at PH
Every time I run the game with historical first turn or read an AAR in this forum, it seems that all battleships are being hit by torpedoes.
As we know, the historical setup that some battleships, such as the Tennessee and Maryland were moored inboard other battleships (which historically protected them from torpedo strikes, but wedged them in when the outboard ships sank) and Arizona was somewhat protected by Vestal. Also, the Pennsylvania was in drydock.
Is there any way to represent this historical setup?
It seems to be a punch below the belt to have a surprise attack with shallow running torpedoes AND homing qualities!
Thanks,
Battleline



Play the December 8th start....



Sonny II -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/13/2009 3:13:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

4. Resetting home base to SF after base is captured -> subs trying to return there -> subs running out of fuel -> subs sinking because of accumulated sys damage.


From which base, and which scenario, please. There is code to try and find a nearby base of sufficient size and/or sufficient support units, with San Francisco is the default. Returning to San Francisco means the routine could not find anything else suitable.


Scen 1 when Manila falls.



Page: <<   < prev  9 10 [11] 12 13   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9375