RE: TF's setting their own destinations

RE: TF's setting their own destinations (Full Version)

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

Message

Don Bowen -> RE: TF's setting their own destinations (8/13/2009 9:52:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen No way I'm even going to read thru this one without saves. Swamped. Save it for later. Just giving you a running description so you can relate to what is happening. I'm sure other people will run into the same thing, so this item will start your data set. OK, all of these appear to be related to use of "Set Home Port" then "Return to Home Port". This process may be bypassing some of controls set up in normal "Set Destination" processing. I'll check.

witpqs -> RE: TF's setting their own destinations (8/13/2009 9:53:14 PM)
I'll hold the saves separately in case you want them later.

Don Bowen -> RE: TF's setting their own destinations (8/13/2009 10:23:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: witpqs Please advise on how to send the save games to you. Saves can be uploaded to posts in the Tech Support thread.

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/13/2009 10:25:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 The DD Schley (3682) is showing 200 torpedoes in it's left side launcher. I have another post with the same issue with the DD Chew (3681) also a Wicker Class DD in another game. [image]local://upfiles/105/2880B7F82424429295976F6E0447A0E7.jpg[/image] Do you have a save when it was still OK?

morganbj -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/13/2009 11:33:16 PM)
Don't know if this is WAD, or if anyone has reported it before. If either is true, I apologize. I created a TF with 3 ships and then ordered a unit loaded. When I did the verify procedure, I said to use minimum ships and took two ships out of the TF. When I went to create another TF with those two ships to load another unit, I got the screenie below. It would not let me do it. Why? [image]local://upfiles/26136/45DDEFD7028C461A98A379A08A6A43D7.jpg[/image]

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/13/2009 11:53:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bjmorgan Don't know if this is WAD, or if anyone has reported it before. If either is true, I apologize. I created a TF with 3 ships and then ordered a unit loaded. When I did the verify procedure, I said to use minimum ships and took two ships out of the TF. When I went to create another TF with those two ships to load another unit, I got the screenie below. It would not let me do it. Why? [image]local://upfiles/26136/45DDEFD7028C461A98A379A08A6A43D7.jpg[/image] If you have a save, post it in the Tech Support Forum

pad152 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/14/2009 3:00:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: pad152 The DD Schley (3682) is showing 200 torpedoes in it's left side launcher. I have another post with the same issue with the DD Chew (3681) also a Wicker Class DD in another game. [image]local://upfiles/105/2880B7F82424429295976F6E0447A0E7.jpg[/image] Do you have a save when it was still OK? Sorry, no but, I think it happens when a wickers DD is damaged in the Pearl Harbor attack and comes out of the Shipyard, will test with saves. So far I've only seen it with Wicker Class DD's maybe there's a (non-ASCII) character in database for this ship class?

Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/14/2009 3:26:10 AM)
I look at the load charts on pages 113-117 of the manual and I must have no idea what's happening. Please look at the column for Oil and tell if all those ships showing Yes do in fact have an oil capacity? Also numerous classes show as having a Troop capacity but when look at the Editor and the game screens they do not. Now for my favorite the Tankers show that the can haul everything, but none are set up (editor) for a bulk cargo capacity that seems to be needed to allow them to load supplies or Air groups. They also do not reflect a troop capacity in contrary to the chart. If this has been previously surfaced or discussed, please give me a reference thread.

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/14/2009 4:35:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach I look at the load charts on pages 113-117 of the manual and I must have no idea what's happening. Please look at the column for Oil and tell if all those ships showing Yes do in fact have an oil capacity? Also numerous classes show as having a Troop capacity but when look at the Editor and the game screens they do not. Now for my favorite the Tankers show that the can haul everything, but none are set up (editor) for a bulk cargo capacity that seems to be needed to allow them to load supplies or Air groups. They also do not reflect a troop capacity in contrary to the chart. If this has been previously surfaced or discussed, please give me a reference thread. The chart is defining the ability of each class type to carry various things, but only if the capacity is defined for each individual class. A transport can carry troops (obviously) but how many troops depends on the troop capacity and cargo capacity defined for each transport. If the troop and cargo capacity is zero, it can not carry troops even if it is a transport. The classes defined in the editor are a realistic as we can make them. If you wish to have additional abilities, you can use the editor to put them in. Or just wait a few weeks until the mods start being released.

Don Bowen -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/14/2009 2:17:13 PM)
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. ... This issue has been addressed. It was caused by a combination of two checks on the new sub base: nationality match and (mostly) fuel levels at prospective ports.

RevRick -> DP Gun... (8/14/2009 2:26:06 PM)
Cruising through the editor trying to figure out what the difference between 5"38 DP gun mounts is (never did) and noted one absence. IIRC, the 5"54 (device #1571) was developed for the Montana and Midway class as a DP gun as well, yet the only one equipping the Midway class in the editor is a Naval Gun. No ceiling is shown. Is this correct, and was the Navy really THAT dumb. Don't answer that!

Sardaukar -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/14/2009 3:13:24 PM)
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. ... This issue has been addressed. It was caused by a combination of two checks on the new sub base: nationality match and (mostly) fuel levels at prospective ports. Sounds very good. Subs are my only major gripe so far. [8D] Any chance for public beta soon?

Weidi72 -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/14/2009 8:54:14 PM)
On 2 Carriers I got the VBF-Squadrons with corsairs. Its June 42 now [&:]

Iridium -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/14/2009 8:55:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Weidi72 On 2 Carriers I got the VBF-Squadrons with corsairs. Its June 42 now�[&:] It's a noted bug. Good to see people paying attention to history though.[:D]

mitchell2 -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/14/2009 10:24:15 PM)
In scenario 2 I noticed an unexpected value for the Helena class CL: As part of the 4/44 upgrade the tower armor is changed from 125 to 0. I assume this is not intentional? mitch

Barb -> RE: Naval (8/14/2009 10:38:24 PM)
Is OI supposed to have 9 ammo for Right Side Torpedoes and 1 ammo for left side? Probably typo. [image]local://upfiles/24245/1A2CBF99DDCF4C678693448900035289.jpg[/image]

pompack -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/14/2009 10:54:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mitchell2 In scenario 2 I noticed an unexpected value for the Helena class CL: As part of the 4/44 upgrade the tower armor is changed from 125 to 0. I assume this is not intentional? mitch In 1944 C&R (or maybe it was BuShips by then) decreed that the conning tower should be removed from the Brooklyns as weight compensation for all the the light AA added to the ship. It was only done on a few ships (if any, I can't find my Friedman at the moment) since it was to be performed only in a refit required by substantial battle damage..

pompack -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/14/2009 11:16:11 PM)
New OOB issue (I think, I have not been able to find it in the other threads) In the game, the Argonaut loads Mk 12 mines. This was a prewar configuration that was removed in 1942 with the refit that changed her into a transport/raid sub. However, the Mk 12 mine does not begin production until Jan43. According to NavWeaps, the Argonaut carried the Mk 11 and there were 200 on hand on 7dec41. Both the Mk 10 and the Mk 12 were launched from a 21 inch torpedo tube while the Mk 11 was launched from a 40" tube that seemed to be unique to the Argonaut. While I could see a case for the game using something other than a strange one-off to arm Argonaut, it would seem that it should be a Mk 10 which was the standard pre-war tube-launched mine. Rather than creating an entire new mine type (Mk 11) I would suggest just changing the Argonaut loadout to the Mk 10 mine.

Weidi72 -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/15/2009 11:26:55 AM)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TF 358 encounters mine field at Midway Island (158,91) Japanese Ships �� CVL Ryujo, Mine hits 1,� on fire,� heavy damage Midway is still a US-Base. I saw several "visits" of japanese carriergroups at allied bases. Can't remember this hapens in witp.

BPRE -> Docked tonnage in red? (8/15/2009 12:37:05 PM)
I've just docked a tanker TF in Cairns with a total tonnage of 11850 (2 TK at 5300 each and 2 AM at 625 each). Why is docked tonnage shown in red? Limit for Cairns is 12000 tons. The explanation for this part of the Location Info Display does not exist in the manual AFAIK. The table in page 109 is the closest I can find. /BPRE [image]local://upfiles/1581/85BC6FB90F744BED85A1C965D657CF07.jpg[/image]

John Lansford -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/15/2009 12:55:55 PM)
I've had the CA Chokai depthcharge my subs off the port of Balikpapan twice so far. I didin't know such big ships had sonar and DC racks.

Gilbert -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/15/2009 1:10:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford I've had the CA Chokai depthcharge my subs off the port of Balikpapan twice so far.� I didin't know such big ships had sonar and DC racks. Yes, IJN CA did have between 8 and 16 DC aboard depending of the different classes and timeframes Gilbert

Sonny II -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/15/2009 1:19:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BPRE I've just docked a tanker TF in Cairns with a total tonnage of 11850 (2 TK at 5300 each and 2 AM at 625 each). Why is docked tonnage shown in red? Limit for Cairns is 12000 tons. The explanation for this part of the Location Info Display does not exist in the manual AFAIK. The table in page 109 is the closest I can find. /BPRE [image]local://upfiles/1581/85BC6FB90F744BED85A1C965D657CF07.jpg[/image] When the total tonnage gets close to the limit you get that color as a warning.

Don Bowen -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/15/2009 1:31:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BPRE I've just docked a tanker TF in Cairns with a total tonnage of 11850 (2 TK at 5300 each and 2 AM at 625 each). Why is docked tonnage shown in red? Limit for Cairns is 12000 tons. The explanation for this part of the Location Info Display does not exist in the manual AFAIK. The table in page 109 is the closest I can find. /BPRE [image]local://upfiles/1581/85BC6FB90F744BED85A1C965D657CF07.jpg[/image] Should not be red, but orange. It's an indication of close to limit.

EasilyConfused -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/15/2009 2:12:38 PM)
Was looking through the editor and I noticed that the Bristol class DD Laffey is supposed to arrive at San Francisco on April 31, 1942. Seeing as there are only 30 days in April, I figure it's an error.

erstad -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/15/2009 3:07:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen Should not be red, but orange. It's an indication of close to limit. It's definitely red. Not that I'm overly stressed about it.

Don Bowen -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/15/2009 4:16:18 PM)
Post a save

Kull -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/15/2009 5:21:49 PM)
This is cross posted over from the "Glug, glug, glug, in the Aleutians AAR" in the event it's a bug (although I suspect it's WAD)" I-175 ran out of fuel and has been limping home to Paramushiro. Fortunately I had a replenishment TF with a nearly full AO ready to go in the Paramushiro harbor, so two turns ago she was given the order to "rendevous with" I-175. And then never budged from port. After presenting the skipper with a colorful description of his family's near-certain descent from the slug branch of the evolutionary tree, he was tasked to travel to the same hex that I-175 would occupy on the next turn. And as you can see, there they are, side by side. And the sub TF is "unreplenishable"! Gah!! I realize the IJN probably (?) didn't have an equivalent of the German u-boat "milch cow", but were subs never refueled at sea by merchants, capital ships, and/or tankers? Or is this a WAD to prevent the kind of gamey refueling tricks I failed to pull off earlier in the AAR? [image]local://upfiles/25668/5407F7704EE941BBAC86F159A4B57388.jpg[/image]

Kull -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/15/2009 5:26:17 PM)
When I talk about "gamey refueling tricks", this is one of them. Which didn't work. Again, I'm assuming this is WAD, not "Bug"? Part Two in the ongoing duel between "Dastardly Developers and Gamey Player". Noticing that newly arrived I-5 has fuel galore and was sharing a hex with fuel-diminished I-35, I decided to combine them into one TF and pull the "Replenish TF at Sea" trick. Which doesn't work with Sub TFs! My feelings can basically be described as Grrrr! and Yesss!! at the same time. [image]local://upfiles/25668/E409223E66454283BD878BE9DD9C390D.jpg[/image] [/quote]

Mynok -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/15/2009 5:27:44 PM)
Have you tried refueling it with an AS?

Page: << < prev 11 12 [13] 14 15 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

7.46875