RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (Full Version)

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

Message

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/17/2009 2:23:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford Will they perform this automatic repair assist whether they have supplies on board or not? Yes. Supplies on board equates to ammo for rearming. Repairs only consume ship ops. quote: Also does it have to be in a TF or can it be disbanded to function Disbanded for repairs. quote: , and how damaged can one be and still work? I've got one in Surabaya with 70+ system damage right now. Less than 25 systems damage, less than 40 float, less than 70 engine, and less than 10 fire.

EasilyConfused -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/17/2009 3:23:29 PM)
Don't know if this information (or that of my last post) is of any use, but the xAK Madras City (Euro M Cargo) is set to arrive on 2/30/42. That's presumably a typo.

Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/17/2009 3:46:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused Don't know if this information (or that of my last post) is of any use, but the xAK Madras City (Euro M Cargo) is set to arrive on 2/30/42. That's presumably a typo. No actually that was a millennium event to extend February one extra day (over that of leap year) to celebrate that year, the year of my birth.[:D][:D][:D]

fbs -> Indian Headquarters (8/17/2009 5:57:13 PM)
Scenario 001. The forces in the Indian Ocean are associated with these headquarters: Eastern Fleet Northern Command Southern Command Eastern Command Admiraly Ceylon Command But none of these list under the HQ structure. What gives? Cheers fbs

Akos Gergely -> RE: Indian Headquarters (8/17/2009 6:14:19 PM)
In the Thousand miles war scenario USS Santa Fé is listed with turret armor of 312 on her 6" turrets - I guess this is way more than Cleveland class CL's turret face plates ( IIRC it was 6"-es) Edit: when the ship arrives it shows correctly as 165...[&:] [X(]

herwin -> RE: Indian Headquarters (8/17/2009 6:18:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fbs Scenario 001. The forces in the Indian Ocean are associated with these headquarters: Eastern Fleet Northern Command Southern Command Eastern Command But none of these list under the HQ structure. What gives? Cheers fbs The list is missing Western Command (the Pakistan tribal areas). These are the Indian Army territorial commands. General Irwin--a really poor general--ran the Eastern Command (into the ground). One thing to remember was that the Commonwealth lacked depth in commanders. Their second string consisted of Generals like Irwin, Percival, Leese, which tells you something about their first string.

fbs -> RE: Indian Headquarters (8/17/2009 6:36:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: herwin The list is missing Western Command (the Pakistan tribal areas). These are the Indian Army territorial commands. General Irwin--a really poor general--ran the Eastern Command (into the ground). One thing to remember was that the Commonwealth lacked depth in commanders. Their second string consisted of Generals like Irwin, Percival, Leese, which tells you something about their first string. Very good; I also added Admiralty and Ceylon Command, which were also missing from the list. I don't see how a land unit can be subordinate to a HQ if the HQ is not in the game. I assume that the HQ of a LCU does something... so if the LCU's HQ is not in the game, then it doesn't look right. Cheers :mrgreen: fbs7

Mynok -> RE: Indian Headquarters (8/17/2009 10:43:39 PM)
It could exist elsewhere. Off map.

erstad -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/18/2009 2:06:27 AM)
Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged. The manual says loading and unloaded are governed by the same rates. However, resource centers appear to assist the loading daily rate, but not the unloading daily rate. Ran a test twice to confirm this (no other port activity). In Toyohara I can load 44670 cargo freighters in one turn. However, in the unloading only 11250 (port 3 limit) resources unload. Interestingly, the boost on the item load rate appears to apply to both. Load rate should only be 3200 (per phase), but I can both load and unload a 4670 in a 1 day turn. So the resource centers appear to be boosting both item load and item unload rates, but only load daily limit.

Don Bowen -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/18/2009 3:52:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erstad Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged. The manual says loading and unloaded are governed by the same rates. However, resource centers appear to assist the loading daily rate, but not the unloading daily rate. Ran a test twice to confirm this (no other port activity). In Toyohara I can load 44670 cargo freighters in one turn. However, in the unloading only 11250 (port 3 limit) resources unload. Interestingly, the boost on the item load rate appears to apply to both. Load rate should only be 3200 (per phase), but I can both load and unload a 4670 in a 1 day turn. So the resource centers appear to be boosting both item load and item unload rates, but only load daily limit. Bit confused by this. The design consideration was to consider oil/resource/refinery centers to have their own loading and unloading facilities. The intent was to allow a large refinery in a small port to load/unload based on refinery size, not port size. That way we did not have to falsely increase port size for a specific facility. There really is no daily load limit. There is a daily port cargo handling limit - which can be expended by a combination of loading or unloading operations. A refinery (for example), increases all three (load rate, unload rate, daily limit). But the total for load and unload can only equal the daily limit. Does that make sense? If not, post a specific example and a save and I'll trace it through the code

Kull -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/18/2009 4:19:44 AM)
This is cross posted over from the "Glug, glug, glug, in the Aleutians AAR" in the event it's a bug: Submarine Aircraft Capacity - How many Glens can you fit into a Volkswagen....errr....Submarine? You can add reserve aircraft to a Sub-borne Chutai. In fact, I-9 is now out at sea, carrying FOUR Glens! And the only reason there aren't more is there aren't any left in the pool. So here's a few questions: Historically, how many Glens could be crated up and carried aboard an IJN sub? Four aircraft aboard a submarine sounds a bit excessive. Is this something that can be fixed, assuming it's non-historical? Or is this just the Devs way of saying, "Go ahead moron, load your entire pool of Glen's aboard a single sub, even though you can't fly more than one at a time. And better hope that sub doesn't run into any ASW!" [image]local://upfiles/25668/742E0AAA54BC44DEABE796F6C2B1E15A.jpg[/image]

jwilkerson -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/18/2009 5:00:14 AM)
To be honest, this one will not be high on the list [:)] as you suggest a great work around is just don't push the "add reserve aircraft" bootawn.

Kull -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/18/2009 5:19:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jwilkerson ....just don't push the "add reserve aircraft" bootawn. I can see the Developers Meeting now: jwilkerson: "OK guys, you know people are going to bitch about every last little thing after the release. And we'll have to be all civil and understanding about it, and that's going to get old fast. So here's an idea. Let's put in some "features" that will allow the player to completely screw himself. It will have to be something that won't affect the AI and it will be entirely optional. And let's see how many folks complain about." don bowen: "Excellent. How about if we let the player upgrade Yamato to a Barge?!" jwilkerson: "Too obvious, plus some guys will probably do it to cut down on the possible victory points." treespider: "Glens. We let the player load up to 50 Glens on a sub, even though only one can be active!" jwilkerson: "That might work. But seriously. What kind of moron would actually DO that??" [:D][:D][:D]

Local Yokel -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/18/2009 2:13:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: erstad Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged. The manual says loading and unloaded are governed by the same rates. However, resource centers appear to assist the loading daily rate, but not the unloading daily rate. Ran a test twice to confirm this (no other port activity). In Toyohara I can load 44670 cargo freighters in one turn. However, in the unloading only 11250 (port 3 limit) resources unload. Interestingly, the boost on the item load rate appears to apply to both. Load rate should only be 3200 (per phase), but I can both load and unload a 4670 in a 1 day turn. So the resource centers appear to be boosting both item load and item unload rates, but only load daily limit. Bit confused by this. The design consideration was to consider oil/resource/refinery centers to have their own loading and unloading facilities. The intent was to allow a large refinery in a small port to load/unload based on refinery size, not port size. That way we did not have to falsely increase port size for a specific facility. There really is no daily load limit. There is a daily port cargo handling limit - which can be expended by a combination of loading or unloading operations. A refinery (for example), increases all three (load rate, unload rate, daily limit). But the total for load and unload can only equal the daily limit. Does that make sense? If not, post a specific example and a save and I'll trace it through the code Don, sorry, can't post a save but may be worth mentioning this has been the subject of some discussion in the War Room's Resource Pathways thread. It's the daily port cargo handling limit with which we are concerned. Fully understand that resources, oil and refineries can boost load/unload rates and daily limit, but the example erstad gives indicates that Toyohara is receiving that boost to its daily limit for loading operations but not for unloading ops. Toyohara is a good example for this purpose because, as erstad says, without the boost, it has a daily port cargo handling limit of 11250, whereas, if the boost is applied, that nearly doubles to 21650, by my calculations. There may be good reason to think that no one is ever going to want to offload big quantities of resources at Toyohara, but all the big ports in the Home Islands get such an increase in their daily port cargo handling limits (albeit a more modest one), and this could make a difference to efficient import of oil, fuel and resources. HTH.

Don Bowen -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/18/2009 3:04:30 PM)
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you are saying because there is no such thing as a daily limit for load and a daily limit for unload. There is one daily limit for both load and unload. You load, you use some. You unload, you use some. I don't know what else to say. A save is always good because I can trace the action and watch the counters flip. I always shows what happens, not what I think should happen.

John Lansford -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/18/2009 3:13:09 PM)
If your port can handle 24,000 tons of cargo daily, and you load 8000 tons onto a ship, then you've only got 16000 tons of capacity left to unload other ships with. I assume that this capacity is split equally between phases?

Don Bowen -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/18/2009 3:25:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: John Lansford If your port can handle 24,000 tons of cargo daily, and you load 8000 tons onto a ship, then you've only got 16000 tons of capacity left to unload other ships with. I assume that this capacity is split equally between phases? Yes, but that only affects whether the ship can finish loading in one 12-hour pulse and put to see in the next.

Don Bowen -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/18/2009 3:33:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Local Yokel quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: erstad Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged. The manual says loading and unloaded are governed by the same rates. However, resource centers appear to assist the loading daily rate, but not the unloading daily rate. Ran a test twice to confirm this (no other port activity). In Toyohara I can load 44670 cargo freighters in one turn. However, in the unloading only 11250 (port 3 limit) resources unload. Interestingly, the boost on the item load rate appears to apply to both. Load rate should only be 3200 (per phase), but I can both load and unload a 4670 in a 1 day turn. So the resource centers appear to be boosting both item load and item unload rates, but only load daily limit. Bit confused by this. The design consideration was to consider oil/resource/refinery centers to have their own loading and unloading facilities. The intent was to allow a large refinery in a small port to load/unload based on refinery size, not port size. That way we did not have to falsely increase port size for a specific facility. There really is no daily load limit. There is a daily port cargo handling limit - which can be expended by a combination of loading or unloading operations. A refinery (for example), increases all three (load rate, unload rate, daily limit). But the total for load and unload can only equal the daily limit. Does that make sense? If not, post a specific example and a save and I'll trace it through the code Don, sorry, can't post a save but may be worth mentioning this has been the subject of some discussion in the War Room's Resource Pathways thread. It's the daily port cargo handling limit with which we are concerned. Fully understand that resources, oil and refineries can boost load/unload rates and daily limit, but the example erstad gives indicates that Toyohara is receiving that boost to its daily limit for loading operations but not for unloading ops. Toyohara is a good example for this purpose because, as erstad says, without the boost, it has a daily port cargo handling limit of 11250, whereas, if the boost is applied, that nearly doubles to 21650, by my calculations. There may be good reason to think that no one is ever going to want to offload big quantities of resources at Toyohara, but all the big ports in the Home Islands get such an increase in their daily port cargo handling limits (albeit a more modest one), and this could make a difference to efficient import of oil, fuel and resources. HTH. OK, I think I understand the point here (much aided by a second cup of coffee). Yes, the daily capacity limit is increased only for loading. This assumes that a refinery, for example, has a loading terminal whose purpose is to load fuel onto tankers for transport. It is capable of unloading fuel as well, but that requires some reconfiguration of the pumps and temporarily disables the ability to load. Sorry to be dense, all this was done quite a while ago and is not currently in the active memory portion of my fog encrusted brain. I think a case could be made for changing this in any of several possible ways. 1. Eliminate the unload rate bonus - the facilities were primary for load. 2. Reduce the unload rate bonus to a fraction of the load rate bonus. 3. Provide full unload capacity increase 4. Leave it as it is. #4 looks pretty good to me, being busy, lazy, and all.

khyberbill -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/18/2009 10:40:24 PM)
quote: 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. I have a slightly different problem in that the sub bases have not changed but subs returning to them, especially when under computer control, run out of fuel prior to reaching port. I am seeing damage as high as 40 at the moment. We are installing S5G reactors to take care of the problem. Next shortage will be beans.

fbs -> Indian Command ships? (8/19/2009 12:51:06 AM)
What do these ships have of special? They are the only boats assigned to India Command; everything else in the Indian Ocean (including a bunch of xAK) is assigned to Southeast Asia: [image]local://upfiles/30872/F669E934DDC24B71A49335D80A05806F.jpg[/image]

Local Yokel -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/19/2009 12:54:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen OK, I think I understand the point here (much aided by a second cup of coffee). Yes, the daily capacity limit is increased only for loading. This assumes that a refinery, for example, has a loading terminal whose purpose is to load fuel onto tankers for transport. It is capable of unloading fuel as well, but that requires some reconfiguration of the pumps and temporarily disables the ability to load. Sorry to be dense, all this was done quite a while ago and is not currently in the active memory portion of my fog encrusted brain. I think a case could be made for changing this in any of several possible ways. 1. Eliminate the unload rate bonus - the facilities were primary for load. 2. Reduce the unload rate bonus to a fraction of the load rate bonus. 3. Provide full unload capacity increase 4. Leave it as it is. #4 looks pretty good to me, being busy, lazy, and all. Thank you for coming to grips with something not at the forefront of your concerns right now and clarifying matters - you're not being dense at all, as some of this stuff is quite convoluted. The concept that a port will have enhanced facilities to handle the extra traffic its immediate hinterland generates makes good sense to me. I can also see a case for differentiating between loading and unloading facilities. There's certainly an argument for increasing a port's overall handling capacity for loading bulk cargoes but not unloading them. The obvious example is the staithes erected in British ports in the 19th century for loading colliers: easy enough to run wagons to the end of these and tip them into the colliers' holds, but you still need a lower capacity crane with grab to unload at the destination, which is less efficient. The only exception I can think of to the general rule that bulk loading was easier to automate than bulk unloading in the mid 20th centry was light cargoes such as grain where you could use suction. Possibly the logic fails when you come to deal with tankships. I believe it is current practice (and suspect this has long been the case) that unloading is done via the ship's cargo pumps, suggesting that the only way you can enhance oil handling facilities is by providing additional pipe jetties, which permits the terminal to handle more ships, but at no greater speed, either for loading or unloading. From what I've read, transhipment of inflammables is subject to constraints that tend to fix the rate of loading/unloading regardless of available pumping capacity - e.g. the pumping rate has to be controlled so as to manage the extent of the static charge generated by the operation. Although I am much in favour of changes that produce a more accurate model of how a port's facilities affected cargo handling, it's more important to me to get a clear understanding of how whatever system is in place operates, so I can make plans I can rely upon. But that's just the way I look at it; others may take a different view.

HistoryGuy -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/19/2009 6:21:24 PM)
Having access to the War Department's OPD records, I find it amazing that many of the problems surfaced in the forums were of similar concern to the US Army staff in early 1942. They talk about getting lots of aviation down to Australia (wish I had listened to that tidbit before the Japanese AI sailed a carrier TF down to Sydney) and the difficulty of finding sufficient merchant and tanker hulls to carry everything where it needed to go. I am very pleased, from the viewpoint of an Army historian, with the end result and trust that the superlative insights lent by WiTP AE players even more knowledgable than myself (and there are many) end up in a patch that fixes many of the issues surfaced in the forum. And YES, I have downgraded the Corsairs to F4F's whenever I get sufficient replacement planes (by withdrawaling Marine Fighter squadrons on the West Coast!). :-)

Samro11 -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/19/2009 6:52:19 PM)
a, opps. is there any way I can "fix" that game? RTB one othe off map tfs?

Don Bowen -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/19/2009 9:50:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Samro11 a, opps. is there any way I can "fix" that game? RTB one othe off map tfs? I'm actually not sure. The condition is so complex and I am so dumb that I am having trouble figuring it out. I had hoped to get to it by now but the constant din of other (more solvable) issues has kept me and my limited attention span from

khyberbill -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/19/2009 10:52:55 PM)
quote: This thread is for AE Naval and Naval OOB Issues - post away! I recently had some DDs repairing in a shipyard. After all damage was reduced to 0, they remained in the shipyard (greyed out) for 10 more days until they were released for service. Is this WAD?

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/19/2009 11:28:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: khyberbill quote: This thread is for AE Naval and Naval OOB Issues - post away! I recently had some DDs repairing in a shipyard. After all damage was reduced to 0, they remained in the shipyard (greyed out) for 10 more days until they were released for service. Is this WAD? If they were conversions, probably.

khyberbill -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/20/2009 1:17:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: khyberbill quote: This thread is for AE Naval and Naval OOB Issues - post away! I recently had some DDs repairing in a shipyard. After all damage was reduced to 0, they remained in the shipyard (greyed out) for 10 more days until they were released for service. Is this WAD? If they were conversions, probably. I see, so unlike in WITP, conversions/upgrades dont show damage? Or just conversions dont show damage? Thanks for you quick response.

witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/20/2009 1:26:05 AM)
Sometimes they show damage. Regardless, they have a minimum time. I see some that finish repairing the 'damage' from an upgrade but still have time remaining to complete the process.

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/20/2009 1:46:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: khyberbill quote: ORIGINAL: khyberbill quote: This thread is for AE Naval and Naval OOB Issues - post away! I recently had some DDs repairing in a shipyard. After all damage was reduced to 0, they remained in the shipyard (greyed out) for 10 more days until they were released for service. Is this WAD? If they were conversions, probably. I see, so unlike in WITP, conversions/upgrades dont show damage? Or just conversions dont show damage? Thanks for you quick response. No. Look at the editor value for a conversion. There are a number of independently specifyable values: System Damage Float Damage Min Conversion Delay Min Conversion delay means the ship is going to be out of service that long even if all the damage is repaired. When a ship is converted, it receives the specified systems and floatation damage. Also engine damage if the new class is of a different speed. And the min conversion delay. No matter how much resource you throw at the ship, it will not be available until the min coversion delay has expired. The primary reason for this rule is conversion to other type of ship. Without min conversion delay, a player could convert a freighter into a seaplane tender and then use it (albeit damaged) on the first day.

Iron Duke -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/20/2009 10:13:44 AM)
the following ships appear to be of the wrong class and have incorrect ship side graphics 5058 Caribou class as a sun type-h 5059 Panda class as a T2-SE-A 5060 Porqupine class as a Esso type-T 5070 Mink class as a T2-SE-A 5077 Armadillo class as a Esso type-T 5078 Giraffe class as a T2-SE-A 5080 Moose class as a Esso type-T 5081 Whippet class as a T2-SE-A these ships were Z-ET1-S-C3 Liberty tankers they should have the same side as a normal liberty ship. missing liberty tankers -- Served in Pacific Racoon Leopard Kangeroo Ibex Beagle Gazelle Gemsbok

Page: << < prev 13 14 [15] 16 17 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.7646484