RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (Full Version)

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

Message

RyanCrierie -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/20/2009 12:37:22 PM)
The Tench and Balao class SS for the US have Durability of 30, when they should be 40; the Tench and Balaos had thicker hulls allowing 400 ft test depths.

EasilyConfused -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/20/2009 4:03:21 PM)
I've been noticing more invalid date entries in the database. The convoy disbandings are often given as the 31st of months that only have 30 days. If you want I can list them, but I don't know if they would disband anyway.

Buck Beach -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/20/2009 5:28:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused I've been noticing more invalid date entries in the database. The convoy disbandings are often given as the 31st of months that only have 30 days. If you want I can list them, but I don't know if they would disband anyway. I know this is a completely different game but in one of the WITP mods I played regularly, listed a date for the the production of B-24Ds.to begin on 34/42. They didn't show up and I had played through 6/42 game date before I started check back in the editor and found the input error. Needless to say it ruined my game and I was to discouraged to correct the entry and start over. So I would say a correction of your dates mentioned above should be taken as a game stopper and be corrected.

Sonny II -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/20/2009 7:24:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Samro11 a, opps. is there any way I can "fix" that game? RTB one othe off map tfs? If you continue playing the TF will show up on the map in the days specified and will try to refuel itself at sea. Still in trouble but if you get an oiler there to refuel it it may be ok.

EasilyConfused -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/21/2009 1:50:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Osterhaut quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach quote: ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused I've been noticing more invalid date entries in the database. The convoy disbandings are often given as the 31st of months that only have 30 days. If you want I can list them, but I don't know if they would disband anyway. I know this is a completely different game but in one of the WITP mods I played regularly, listed a date for the the production of B-24Ds.to begin on 34/42. They didn't show up and I had played through 6/42 game date before I started check back in the editor and found the input error. Needless to say it ruined my game and I was to discouraged to correct the entry and start over. So I would say a correction of your dates mentioned above should be taken as a game stopper and be corrected. Hi. JWE is out sailing and is in and out of contact depends where the boat is. He asked me to keep a bug list for him and fix what I can. I cannot see anywhere a convoy has to have a disbandonment day. I cannot list what I cannot see. By disbandment I meant "withdrawal." My understanding is that the date on that is when the convoy will finish "unloading" and dump the supplies, fuel, and devices into the pool.

JWE -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/21/2009 7:00:27 PM)
Yes. Have to say, I'm with MO. There is no "withdrawal" or "disbandonment" for convoys and don't understand what you are saying. MO cheched and there are no ship withdrawal dates that took place on the 31st. Ship withdrawal dates are from TROMS, so are presumed to be correct. As MO suggests, please clarify by posting an editor page that shows the date issue that you are concerned about. We will fix what we can. Thanks. John

BPRE -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/21/2009 7:11:58 PM)
Isn't he talking about the convoys to Cape Town? They have withdrawal dates as ground units. I can't see any incorrect date though when I look at scenario 1. /BPRE

fbs -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/22/2009 4:10:06 AM)
Scenario 001: CL Achilles and Leander start the war with Ensigns as captains; that doesn't look right -- may be caused by something in the database? Thanks! fbs

RyanCrierie -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/22/2009 10:52:58 AM)
Device 1554 Squid has a effect of 35; when in real life, Squid had a mighty 200~ lbs of boom.

rockmedic109 -> RE: Docked tonnage in red? (8/22/2009 1:52:10 PM)
Scen 1. CM Bungaree is supposed to carry Mk VII mines. But the Mk VII mines don't begin to be made untill 12/42.

EasilyConfused -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/22/2009 3:01:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Yes. Have to say, I'm with MO. There is no "withdrawal" or "disbandonment" for convoys and don't understand what you are saying. MO cheched and there are no ship withdrawal dates that took place on the 31st. Ship withdrawal dates are from TROMS, so are presumed to be correct. As MO suggests, please clarify by posting an editor page that shows the date issue that you are concerned about. We will fix what we can. Thanks. John I think I see the confusion, I'm referring to the convoys that are classified as ground units. Now that I think about it, it's probably a land team issue. Should I report it over there?

Iron Duke -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/22/2009 3:20:25 PM)
ship slot 9330 Empire Lance should be Sir Hugo was under Royal Navy at this time ship slot 9331 Empire Anvil should be Rocksand was under Royal Navy at this time ship slot 9332 Empire Broadsword should be deleted - sunk off Normandy 2 July 1944

JWE -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/22/2009 3:28:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Yes. Have to say, I'm with MO. There is no "withdrawal" or "disbandonment" for convoys and don't understand what you are saying. MO cheched and there are no ship withdrawal dates that took place on the 31st. Ship withdrawal dates are from TROMS, so are presumed to be correct. As MO suggests, please clarify by posting an editor page that shows the date issue that you are concerned about. We will fix what we can. Thanks. John I think I see the confusion, I'm referring to the convoys that are classified as ground units. Now that I think about it, it's probably a land team issue. Should I report it over there? Aha - yep, those are some of AndyMac's little thingys. You need to talk to the land team. They don't let us mess with their stuff. They say we get everything all wet.[;)]

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/22/2009 3:38:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iron Duke ship slot 9330 Empire Lance should be Sir Hugo was under Royal Navy at this time ship slot 9331 Empire Anvil should be Rocksand was under Royal Navy at this time ship slot 9332 Empire Broadsword should be deleted - sunk off Normandy 2 July 1944 Were these first two RFA ships? If so, do you have any more data on RFAs? More! More!

Barb -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/22/2009 3:55:42 PM)
I am giving you into attention tests I run today: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2215485 It seems that ships set on cruise speed get their asses always handed by ships on mission speed! BUG or WAD? If you are interested I had turn before where you can play with speed settings. Tests conducted in Guadalcanal scenario, 1.080 Hotfix beta applied.

Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/22/2009 4:17:50 PM)
The Cimarron (AO-22) is shown as a Neosho class oiler when it should be reversed. "Rear Adm. Emory S. Land in full dress uniform while chief of the Bureau of Construction and Repair. Admiral Land played a key role in securing funds for the navy's rebuilding program in the early 1930s and prepared the original design criteria of the Cimarron-class oilers. (National Archives) " "Cimarron, first of the National Defense Features (NDF) tankers to be completed, slid down the ways at the Sun yard on the morning of 7 January 1939. At the time of her launching, the Cimarron, with an overall length of 553 feet and a beam of 75 feet, was the fastest tanker built in the United States and one of the largest in the world. The lines plan chosen for her hull form was designed specifically to enhance the high-speed characteristics desired by the navy and was radically different from that used on any previous tanker. The design was based on the latest advances in naval architecture, had been refined by extensive testing in the navy's model basin, and included a bulbous bow--the first ever to be used on a tanker. This feature was intended to improve the ship's performance by reducing the wave-forming resistance generated as the ship moved through the water. Cimarron also had a distinctive clipper bow, which with its raked stem was designed to improve sea keeping." See this link to see the AOs listed in the Cimarron class. http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/GSBO/GSBO-D.html Buck (an ex AO-22 swabby 1963)

Iron Duke -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/22/2009 6:21:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: Iron Duke ship slot 9330 Empire Lance should be Sir Hugo was under Royal Navy at this time ship slot 9331 Empire Anvil should be Rocksand was under Royal Navy at this time ship slot 9332 Empire Broadsword should be deleted - sunk off Normandy 2 July 1944 Were these first two RFA ships? If so, do you have any more data on RFAs? More! More! They were prefix'd with HMS so i don't think they were RFA's A couple more Empire Mace (9335) to RN 1944 as HMS Galtee More or Galteemore Empire Aquebus (9336) to RN 1944 as HMS Cicero Empire Halberd (9333) to RN 1944 as HMS Silvio Empire Battleaxe (9334) to RN 1944 as HMS Donovan As for RFA's I've one book --- The Royal Fleet Auxiliary A Century Of Service by Thomas A Adams & James R Smith--- What information are you looking for?

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/22/2009 6:36:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iron Duke ... Empire Battleaxe (9334) to RN 1944 as HMS Donovan As for RFA's I've one book --- The Royal Fleet Auxiliary A Century Of Service by Thomas A Adams & James R Smith--- What information are you looking for? OK, these do appear as renamed in my reference data. Missed that. As to RFA - any and all RFA ships that served in the Pacific, with types, dates, specifications (hope it's not too much to ask). Also RAFA if you could help (especially flying boat tenders, like Tung Song/Ann). Very hard to find data on those guys. Strangely enough I do have data on the RASC Fleet.

JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/22/2009 7:39:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Buck Beach The Cimarron (AO-22) is shown as a Neosho class oiler when it should be reversed. <snippy, snippy> Buck (an ex AO-22 swabby 1963) Yep, Quite right. Woof! What a brain fart. [sm=00000007.gif] Probably too late for the patch, so .. next time.

Barb -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/22/2009 10:13:36 PM)
Nothing in response to surface combat with cruise/mission speed settings? Would be nice to know what do you guys think about it. Also it seems that ships are consuming cruise speed amount of fuel when set at mission speed.

Kull -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/22/2009 10:45:25 PM)
The following is moved here from another thread. Although not a bug per se, the near-guaranteed loss of an AI-controlled IJN CVE at the start of the game would be a nice thing to fix. quote: ORIGINAL: sfbaytf Realize Japan is trying to do too much at once, but shouldn't carriers always be escorted? The CVE Taiyo was spotted and engaged by a PC. Both sides broke off. Finally I send a CL that was badly damaged and in Batavia being fixed up to finish the job. Night Time Surface Combat, near Toboali at 50,95, Range 1,000 Yards quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen Japan does not have enough escorts. If you are playing against the AI, it does the best it can with what it has. Note that Taiyo is (historically) proceeding alone at the start of Scenario 1. True, but the AI is doing something monumentally stupid with this ship. At the end of Turn 1, Taiyo is located at 89,93 and heading to Hiroshima. But where did sfbaytf take her down? 40 hexes away (as the Emily flies) at 50, 95 - just off the coast of Sumatra, where she is still a lone, unescorted ship. And (anecdotally) I've seen other AAR reports of her destruction as a solo ship in locations where she has no right to be traveling. So the team might want to see if there's some way to ensure that Taiyo heads to the Japanese mainland as ordered, instead of wandering off alone to certain death in the DEI.

PzB74 -> Merchant cruisers - do they work? (8/22/2009 11:25:41 PM)
One of my merchant cruisers (one of the 2 big ones initially deployed near Fiji in Scen 1) intercepted an enemy transport. The mission was "surface combat" - but still both TF's tried to withdraw - escape[&:] Is this a lack of aggressiveness, or does AE treat AMC's as transports that always will try to escape from battle? [image]local://upfiles/1466/CC37661E459141F7A8F7B070DAEB8344.jpg[/image]

Iron Duke -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/22/2009 11:43:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: Iron Duke ... Empire Battleaxe (9334) to RN 1944 as HMS Donovan As for RFA's I've one book --- The Royal Fleet Auxiliary A Century Of Service by Thomas A Adams & James R Smith--- What information are you looking for? OK, these do appear as renamed in my reference data. Missed that. As to RFA - any and all RFA ships that served in the Pacific, with types, dates, specifications (hope it's not too much to ask). Also RAFA if you could help (especially flying boat tenders, like Tung Song/Ann). Very hard to find data on those guys. Strangely enough I do have data on the RASC Fleet. This is info i've managed to pull from the book unfortunatley it doesn't give specific date as to when RFA's entered and left the Pacific theatre RFA Ebonol -Hong Kong-scuttled 'Belgol' class RFA Francol - war loss 'Belgol' class RFA War Sirdar - war loss 'war' class RFA Ruthenia - fuel hulk - Singapore- scuttled RAF Olcades 'Ol' class RFA Broomdale - 'Dale'(1) class (motor) RFA Echodale - 'Dale'(1) class (steam) RFA Bishopdale - 'Dale'(1) class (motor) RFA Olna (was HMS Olna) transfered to RFA 1945 RFA Gold Ranger - operation Dracula -- 'Ranger' class RFA Brown Ranger -- 'Ranger' class RFA Arndale - 'Dale'(1) class (motor) RFA Wave King - 'Wave' class RFA Cedardale - 'Dale'(1) class (motor) RFA Dingledale - 'Dale'(1) class (motor) RFA Wave Monarch -- 'Wave' class RFA Easedale - operation Dracula - operation Zipper -- 'Dale'(1) class (steam) RFA Olwen - operation Dracula 'Ol' class RFA Orangeleaf -- 'Fast Leaf' class RFA Dewdale - operation Zipper -- 'Dale'(1) class (motor) RFA Ennerdale - operation Zipper -- 'Dale'(1) class (steam) RFA Empire Salvage RFA Celerol -- 'Belgol' class RFA Derwentdale -- 'Dale'(1) class (motor) RFA's in British Pacific Fleet Train 15 Aug 1945 Olna , Wave Emperor , Arndale , Wave Governor , Bishopdale , Wave King , Cedardale , Wave Monarch , Dingledale , Green Ranger , Eaglesdale , Rapidol , Serbol 'War' Class bunkers 700tons speed 11.5knots consumption 24tpd dimmensions(loa/bp x beam) 410/400.3ft x 52.2ft tonnage 5,574 grt , 8,320 dwt displacement 11,680 tons full loaded crew 44 'Ol' Class speed 11 knots dimmensions -/419.7ft x 54.3ft tonnage 6,470grt , 9220 dwt displacement 13,690 tons full load crew 43 'Dale' (1) Class (motor tanker) speed 11knots dimmensions (loa/bp x beam) 481.5/466.3ft x 62ft tonnage 8,299 grt , 12,235 dwt displacement 17,219 tons crew 44 'Dale' Class (steam) speed 11.5knots dimmensions loa/bp x beam x draught) 479/463.5ft x 61.2ft x 16.5ft tonnage 8,630grt , 12,040dwt displacement 16,820 tons crew 70 'Ranger' Class speed 13knots dimmensions (loa/bp x beam x draught) 355/339.7ft x 48ft x 20.2ft tonnage 3,313 grt , 3950 dwt displacement 6,704 tons full load crew 40 + DEMS 'Wave' Class speed 15knots consumption 50tpd dimmensions (loa/bp x beam) 492.5/473ft x 64.3ft tonnage 8,181 grt 11,900 dwt displacement 16,483 tons full load crew 61 'Empire Salvage' speed 12knots dimensions (loa/bp x beam) 514/488ft x 73ft tonnage 10,953 grt , 15,597 dwt displacement 21,450 tons full load crew 78 'Belgol' Class speed 14.5knots bunkers 320tons consumption 38tpd dimensions (loa/bp x beam) 335/320ft x 41.5ft tonnage 2,647 grt , 2,226 dwt displacement 5,578 tons full load crew 39 'Fast Leaf' Class speed 15knots bunkers 320tons consumption 57tpd dimensions (loa/bp x beam) 426.7/405ft x 54.5ft tonnage 5,900 grt , 7,300 dwt displacement 12,300 tons full load crew 66

John Lansford -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/23/2009 12:42:52 AM)
There is a Base Force at Cebu I can evacuate, and so far 4 subs have picked up fragments and taken them to Darwin. Now the load routine is saying the subs cannot load anything else from this unit, even though there are still engineers, support and infantry squads present. Anyone had this happen to them?

seydlitz_slith -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/23/2009 2:31:04 AM)
The engineers are too fat from garrison duty to fit down the hatch on the subs.

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/23/2009 3:21:51 PM)
Thanks. Do you happen to have any data on an RAFA ship named Dumana? May have been a seaplane tender or base ship in Australia.

JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/23/2009 4:31:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barb Nothing in response to surface combat with cruise/mission speed settings? Would be nice to know what do you guys think about it. Noted. quote: Also it seems that ships are consuming cruise speed amount of fuel when set at mission speed. Mission speed is cruise speed, unless/until it comes time to make a dash somewhere at full speed. So just sailing around - mission speed IS cruise speed. Please note there are only 2 speeds given for ships in the database, cruise and full.

Kull -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/23/2009 5:37:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE Mission speed is cruise speed, unless/until it comes time to make a dash somewhere at full speed. So just sailing around - mission speed IS cruise speed. Please note there are only 2 speeds given for ships in the database, cruise and full. Out of curiousity, what (if anything) happens to the speed settings once TFs engage in Surface Combat? Is TF speed even part of the combat algorithm? Or do individual ship speeds take over once you shift from the Strat map to the Tactical engagement?

Page: << < prev 14 15 [16] 17 18 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.59375