RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (Full Version)

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



Message

Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/29/2009 4:58:07 PM)

Can't locate any USN YOs (or any nation for that matter) in scenario 6 either on 12/8/1941 or in the ships scheduled to arrive through out the game. Where are they or were they just set up as a class to be available for modding?



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/29/2009 5:00:09 PM)


None made it into the stock OOB. Watch for a mod...



Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/29/2009 5:54:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


None made it into the stock OOB. Watch for a mod...


So I'm not going crazy.

Thanks



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/29/2009 5:58:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


None made it into the stock OOB. Watch for a mod...


So I'm not going crazy.

Thanks



I have no information to support a connection between these two statments.



Splinterhead -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/29/2009 7:15:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


None made it into the stock OOB. Watch for a mod...


[:)]........[&:]........[:(].........[>:].....[&:]

Is it ready yet?


[;)]



bsq -> Ordnance on US Carriers (8/31/2009 4:13:00 PM)

The loadout for air launched torpedoes is incorrect for the following:

Essex Class - 1944 - Increase from 36 to 50
Midway Class - 96 from the outset (not the 36 shown)
CVE's - Sangammon Class - 46, Commencement Bay - 9

The loadouts for Aircraft Ordnance seem not to relate well to each other.  Taking the loadout for a Yorktown as the baseline, the original Essex loadout would be correct, but increases later in the war to allow for the use of Fighter Bombers seems not to be reflected.  A better 'ball park' figure for the Essex from 1944 would be in the order of a 20% increase (720 - 860).  Similarly the Yorktowns should show a roughly 50% increase in ordnance as operations stepped up, which would take them to the level of the Essex class for 1943.  Finally, the figure for Midway is too low, given her increased Air Wing and use of Fighter Bombers - she should have around 1200, based upon comparisons with the other fleet carriers.

My source for these observations is Friedman N. (1983) U.S.Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History. Naval Institute Press.



Herrbear -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/31/2009 4:47:26 PM)

I notice that the Mk 10 mine #1646 upgrades on 1-43 to the Mk 12 mine #1647. If a ship carries a Mk 10 mine will it automatically be able to carry a Mk 12 in 1-43 (assuming mines in the pool) or if you run out of Mk 10 mines then the ship will never be able to use there mine capability?

I ask because I noticed that the Elec Boat S-18 class #547 upgrade on 10-42 version carries the Mk 10 mine and the upgrade to that ship #648 on 6-43 still shows the ship carrying Mk 10 mines. Depending on the answer to the first question, was this in error and the mine should have been the Mk 12 for the 6-43 upgrade?

Thank you.



rattovolante -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/31/2009 5:54:03 PM)

scenario 1, Japanese TF 113 from Babeldaob to Truk is named "Lombrum invasion", I think it's better to name it "Manus invasion" instead, as there is no base named Lombrum on the map (as far as I understand Lombrum is a naval base on an islet in what in-game is the Manus base hex)




oldman45 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/31/2009 9:03:06 PM)

Why can't the LST's and LCT's carry troops?


I think we should look at the AP vs APA. According to Silverstones book, the only difference between the two was the addition of a 5" gun. In fact on of the AP's the only difference was they changed the designation to APA with no changes. I think the amphib bonus should apply to the AP's and APA's evenly. The penalty should remain for xAP's.



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/31/2009 9:22:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Why can't the LST's and LCT's carry troops?



They can. Although their capacity is expressed entirely in cargo capacity they are capable of carrying troops in cross load.


quote:



I think we should look at the AP vs APA. According to Silverstones book, the only difference between the two was the addition of a 5" gun. In fact on of the AP's the only difference was they changed the designation to APA with no changes. I think the amphib bonus should apply to the AP's and APA's evenly. The penalty should remain for xAP's.


Please forgive me if I just say no. I've had this discussion at least 100 times. Even though the change on designation was small, there were considerable differences in cargo handling and troop debarkation facilities. I would recommend Friedman as a better source than Silverstone. And it you really want an expert, wait until JWE posts.

The basic differentiation is:

xAP/xAK (etc). Merchant ships designed and fitted to carry things pier to pier. Minimum crews, perhaps augmented by a few gunners. Very limited ability to carry/handle small boats, almost no reserve crew for damage control.

AP/AK (etc). Militarized versions of the above. Larger crews, improved damage control facilities, full naval gun crews, trained damage control parties, more small craft and (probably) upgraded cargo booms. But still primarily oriented toward loading/unloading at established port factilites.

APA/AKA. Specifically modified for amphibious operations, carrying lots of landing craft, specially equipped boat launching and loading facilities, and with crews/weapons/damage control at combat ship levels.




oldman45 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/31/2009 9:31:25 PM)

Thanks Don, I will see if I can lay my hands on Friedmans book.

The cargo only threw me when I tried to load a battalion up and it said that it could not pick up the men. I will try it any way and see what happens.



Pascal_slith -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2009 2:23:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Thanks Don, I will see if I can lay my hands on Friedmans book.

The cargo only threw me when I tried to load a battalion up and it said that it could not pick up the men. I will try it any way and see what happens.


Limited Preview online source for Friedman book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oWX-x0b4pw4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=intitle:design+intitle:history+inauthor:friedman&lr=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_brr=0#v=onepage&q=&f=false



oldman45 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2009 5:24:50 AM)

Thanks Pascal!



tigercub -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2009 7:31:03 AM)

My Escorts of one of my convoys was attacked but had taken no damage by a surface TF but after the battle the Escort headed back to its home port and stopped escorting a very important convoy,this should not happen and you my have seen this anyway but just letting you know.


Tiger!



Splinterhead -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2009 8:21:11 AM)

Did you check their ammo state?



tigercub -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2009 8:56:58 AM)

They were 95% ammo it was a very short battle only 2 hits all up and even if they were low you would not want then to head for Home.

Tiger!



Speedysteve -> RE: upgrade question (9/1/2009 9:44:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal

I'm surprised at some 'testy' responses on both sides....

Also, though, if you don't give enough time for a response (5 days is probably a rational amount), don't bump. These guys are doing their best and are as dedicated as you are.

It's hot enough as it is (I'm in Southern California), so my suggestion is to get a nice large ice cube filled glass of iced tea before responding...[:)]


I'm a little surprised too. Only trying to help! Think I'll keep my thoughts to myself from now on I guess[;)][:'(]



Rainer -> RE: upgrade question (9/1/2009 12:33:38 PM)

quote:

Think I'll keep my thoughts to myself from now on I guess


Don't. Please.
There are lots of forumites quietly following what's going on and benefit from what people like you find out.

Serve the community [:)]



John Lansford -> RE: upgrade question (9/1/2009 12:36:55 PM)

I'm beginning to think that the AI's repair routines for damaged ships has a hitch in it.  In two CG's (one before, one after the beta patch), I've sunk 4 BB's, 3 by single hits.  Two were from single torpedoes (one sub, one PBY), the third was a single 800kg bomb hit by a lucky Dutch bomber.  The PBY hit a BB sitting in Davao harbor (which was still mine at the time) and never left.  The other two BB's were "patrolling" in the middle of the ocean east of Palembang and had done so for over a week before they were hit.  I've not looked at the Japanese side of the game to tell, but it seems that damaged ships aren't getting told to "go get repaired" and are still trying to perform their mission (whatever that is). 

A second issue is the visitation of enemy ports and acting as if they are on shore leave.  Davao was never bombarded, the TF with the BB in it just sat there for several days prior to the torpedo hit.  The other two stationed themselves in a hex and just sat there as well.



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2009 1:29:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

My Escorts of one of my convoys was attacked but had taken no damage by a surface TF but after the battle the Escort headed back to its home port and stopped escorting a very important convoy,this should not happen and you my have seen this anyway but just letting you know.


Tiger!


Gotta have a save. Without a save before the event (and after if you have two) there is nothig I can possibly do.



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2009 3:25:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45
I think we should look at the AP vs APA. According to Silverstones book, the only difference between the two was the addition of a 5" gun. In fact on of the AP's the only difference was they changed the designation to APA with no changes. I think the amphib bonus should apply to the AP's and APA's evenly. The penalty should remain for xAP's.


Please forgive me if I just say no. I've had this discussion at least 100 times. Even though the change on designation was small, there were considerable differences in cargo handling and troop debarkation facilities. I would recommend Friedman as a better source than Silverstone. And it you really want an expert, wait until JWE posts.

The basic differentiation is:

xAP/xAK (etc). Merchant ships designed and fitted to carry things pier to pier. Minimum crews, perhaps augmented by a few gunners. Very limited ability to carry/handle small boats, almost no reserve crew for damage control.

AP/AK (etc). Militarized versions of the above. Larger crews, improved damage control facilities, full naval gun crews, trained damage control parties, more small craft and (probably) upgraded cargo booms. But still primarily oriented toward loading/unloading at established port factilites.

APA/AKA. Specifically modified for amphibious operations, carrying lots of landing craft, specially equipped boat launching and loading facilities, and with crews/weapons/damage control at combat ship levels.

Hi oldman45. Don’s right on the money, and Friedman is indeed much better.

APs began life with LCPLs, some LCMs, conventional davits, 20-30 ton cranes/kingposts/winches, crew size abound 350, 4-5 diesel donkeys. APAs ended up with LCPRs, LCVPs, LCMs, LCIs, Wellin davits, 30-50 ton cranes/kingposts, 40 ton high speed winches, crew size around 400, 8-12 diesel donkeys, and significant changes in doctrine and technique.

AP to APA was a designation change for some classes, yes, but it was also an evolution in facilities and operation; and with a gray area in the middle. Lots of the oldies originally just got redesignated, but all subsequently got refitted to APA standards. Also note that several later war classes did not receive APA designation, but were simply APs (P2 Admirals, P2 Generals, C4 Generals) because they weren’t fitted to “assault” standards.

So yeah, there is a difference between AP and APA. How big should the difference be? Woof, that’s always open to interpretation.



oldman45 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2009 3:30:01 PM)

JWE,

I read that excerpt that Pascal posted and it was pretty eye opening. Silverstone glossed over what it took to make the conversion. Much more work than I imagined. Nothing like learning something new, makes it a good day!

Based on the little bit that I read, I feel very comfortable with what you all came up with.



herwin -> RE: upgrade question (9/1/2009 4:04:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I'm beginning to think that the AI's repair routines for damaged ships has a hitch in it.  In two CG's (one before, one after the beta patch), I've sunk 4 BB's, 3 by single hits.  Two were from single torpedoes (one sub, one PBY), the third was a single 800kg bomb hit by a lucky Dutch bomber.  The PBY hit a BB sitting in Davao harbor (which was still mine at the time) and never left.  The other two BB's were "patrolling" in the middle of the ocean east of Palembang and had done so for over a week before they were hit.  I've not looked at the Japanese side of the game to tell, but it seems that damaged ships aren't getting told to "go get repaired" and are still trying to perform their mission (whatever that is). 

A second issue is the visitation of enemy ports and acting as if they are on shore leave.  Davao was never bombarded, the TF with the BB in it just sat there for several days prior to the torpedo hit.  The other two stationed themselves in a hex and just sat there as well.


In stock games against the AI, we used to see it run out of fuel from time to time in mid-ocean. That now has a very nasty impact.



Skyland -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2009 4:05:44 PM)

Database corrections (sorry if already posted) :

Ship Class 771, Duguay Trouin, has Wpn 3 and Wpn 4 both on the RIGHT side. One of them should probably be on the LEFT side.

Same for 776.

Same for 2903 Gnevnyi (Wpn 7 & 8), 2915 MK Cargo (Wpn 2 & 3), 2918 KT LST (Wpn 7 & 8)

Ship Class 2906 Fugas : Mines qty is in Armor column



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2009 4:27:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyland
Database corrections (sorry if already posted) :

Ship Class 771, Duguay Trouin, has Wpn 3 and Wpn 4 both on the RIGHT side. One of them should probably be on the LEFT side.

Same for 776.

Same for 2903 Gnevnyi (Wpn 7 & 8), 2915 MK Cargo (Wpn 2 & 3), 2918 KT LST (Wpn 7 & 8)

Noted. Too late for Patch 01, but ... next one.
quote:


Ship Class 2906 Fugas : Mines qty is in Armor column

WAD. Please see manual 6.6.1.3.2 Special Minelayers and 6.6.1.3.2.2 Auxiliary Minelayers.



bstarr -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2009 5:06:31 PM)

One of those minor issues that I noticed and keep forgetting to mention; and y'all may already have this one. The japanese 20cm/12 gun seems a little strong. It has the same stats as the 20cm/50 used in the Furutaka.



tigercub -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/2/2009 1:43:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

My Escorts of one of my convoys was attacked but had taken no damage by a surface TF but after the battle the Escort headed back to its home port and stopped escorting a very important convoy,this should not happen and you my have seen this anyway but just letting you know.


Tiger!


Gotta have a save. Without a save before the event (and after if you have two) there is nothig I can possibly do.

after checking,I needed to have remain on station!Doh!!
But i did see Escort TF default back to surface TF after a battle.

Tiger!




Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/2/2009 2:05:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub
But i did see Escort TF default back to surface TF after a battle.


After combat, the composition of a TF is examined and mission open to change. It might change from combat to escort, or air combat to surface combat if all carriers lost, or escort to combat if no damaged ships remain.



witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/2/2009 3:58:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub
But i did see Escort TF default back to surface TF after a battle.


After combat, the composition of a TF is examined and mission open to change. It might change from combat to escort, or air combat to surface combat if all carriers lost, or escort to combat if no damaged ships remain.


Don,

A different slant on this: I've seen several times where I made an escort TF to get a damaged heavy unit from Pearl to the west coast for repairs and - without combat involved - it changed to a surface combat TF enroute. Didn't catch it when it happened so no save.



Page: <<   < prev  17 18 [19] 20 21   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.15625