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 (9/11/2009 11:44:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

A few items relating to various devices on primarily U.S. ship classes. I am certainly far from being an expert so I will just throw these out for consideration.

Understand Buck, and will fix as we can, for patch-2. fyi, DC facings have nothing to do with nothing. ASW routine looks at # of DCs, # of ammo, and goes boom, boom, boom. In this case, the editor is way more grainy than the code, so tweaking data will have no impact on effect, so it's a trivial change and will be done. Ciao. John


Good to know. Thanks for the reply post.

Buck



Montbrun -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/12/2009 12:09:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Can't transport anything with it....



In what kind of TF?


I fooled around with it some more - also the "Tydeman," and found that it only works for the "Fast Transport" TF (not Cargo or Transport TFs) - which makes sense.



Herrbear -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/12/2009 12:58:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

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.




JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/12/2009 2:14:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear
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.

Things that have a valid upgrade schedule are supposed to upgrade.



Herrbear -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/12/2009 7:43:11 PM)

Thank you for your answer.



Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/13/2009 4:18:30 PM)

Moved here from below.

I would like to share this new resource I have found on the Internet. It is "The California State Military Museum". While the entire site looks good, I am including it here on this thread because of some interesting information regarding the armed forces in California on December 7, 1941, reflected at this link:

http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html

If this information can be believe, it provides very good new information for our game's OOBs. For those of us who are crying for more fuel wagons it reflects there were an additional 2 AOs available. Also, I note that Mare Island was a very active port/repair facility with much many more vessels there than reflected in the game (check out how many ships were being overhauled). To a lesser extent Alameda appears to have been actively used as a Coast Guard base with 11 Cutter & Sub Chaser craft located there These could be very useful in our battle against that Japanese AI sub activity laying in wait off the West Coast. Also, please note the other USN and CG ships and changes at the other locations.

I hope the Land and Air thread people also check this out to see if there is anything they can use. Anyway whether this is useful accurate information or not I will leave with you all.



Montbrun -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/13/2009 6:56:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Moved here from below.

I would like to share this new resource I have found on the Internet. It is "The California State Military Museum". While the entire site looks good, I am including it here on this thread because of some interesting information regarding the armed forces in California on December 7, 1941, reflected at this link:

http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html

If this information can be believe, it provides very good new information for our game's OOBs. For those of us who are crying for more fuel wagons it reflects there were an additional 2 AOs available. Also, I note that Mare Island was a very active port/repair facility with much many more vessels there than reflected in the game (check out how many ships were being overhauled). To a lesser extent Alameda appears to have been actively used as a Coast Guard base with 11 Cutter & Sub Chaser craft located there These could be very useful in our battle against that Japanese AI sub activity laying in wait off the West Coast. Also, please note the other USN and CG ships and changes at the other locations.

I hope the Land and Air thread people also check this out to see if there is anything they can use. Anyway whether this is useful accurate information or not I will leave with you all.



Dr. Niehorster's site is another nice source:

WWII OoBs



JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/14/2009 10:44:16 PM)

I'm one who as never been satisified with Force Z starting at sea ripe for sinking before an Allied player can do anything.

From this link it appears that Force Z didnt leave Singapore until 1735/081241 and thesrfore should be in port or at least te TF start at Singapore.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/RN/BS-14_POW+Repulse/index.html

(Maybe this has been resolved  in the previous 22 pages[8D])



Mike Scholl -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2009 12:52:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I'm one who as never been satisified with Force Z starting at sea ripe for sinking before an Allied player can do anything.

From this link it appears that Force Z didnt leave Singapore until 1735/081241 and thesrfore should be in port or at least te TF start at Singapore.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/RN/BS-14_POW+Repulse/index.html

(Maybe this has been resolved  in the previous 22 pages[8D])




It has..., and not the way you would want (although you are absolutely correct). Try starting with "historical" off..., so you can actually have an historical start.



Barb -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2009 1:43:36 PM)

Well, because of time zones 8th dec 41 in malaya was actually the same day as 7th dec 41 in pearl harbor [:D]



Roko -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2009 3:54:54 PM)

Im curious why in AE the top speed of many ships is reduced in compared to
Witp and available data. A few examples                
                        AE     Witp
cl. Shiratsuyu    32      34
cl. Akitsuki         32      33
cl. Fubuki           33      38



herwin -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2009 5:01:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko

Im curious why in AE the top speed of many ships is reduced in compared to
Witp and available data. A few examples                
                        AE     Witp
cl. Shiratsuyu    32      34
cl. Akitsuki         32      33
cl. Fubuki           33      38



Trials speed was often inflated. Top speed should be operational top speed.



Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2009 6:19:10 PM)

For the fuel starved Allied AI players (at the war's inception) I offer this link for consideration:

http://merchantships2.tripod.com/ian/ianfergusonshomepage1.html

Here are a few Tankers that may be available:

S.S. Albertolite
H.M. Storey (sunk in 1943) H.M. Storey II is in the game with a 10/18/43 arrive date.
S.S. Idaho (game has the BB and a cargo vessel by this name) another link showing it as a tanker http://www.militarymuseum.org/Montebello.html)
S.S. Connecticut

Within this history is a couple additional Cargo ships which may not be listed in the game.

Fort Camosun (Canadian)
M.V. Kookaburra (Swedish)

If posts such as this should be posted in the general threads, let me know.



scott64 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2009 6:39:23 PM)

Does CV Enterprise respawn if sunk? I lost her and has not shown up as being available..yet. [:)]



Chickenboy -> Transport TF to pick up A/C fragment? (9/15/2009 6:49:46 PM)

I went through the first 5 pages of this thead to see if this was addressed elsewhere.  I didn't see it.  I also didn't see it on the entire list of the first patch issue fixes so, I've done some due diligence before posting here.

Playing allied vs. Jap AI (v. hard), mid-February 1942.  I lost the Lexington in an exchange for Soryu and damage to Zuikaku in the DEI Southwest of The Celebes.  Planes from the Lex diverted to nearest landmass (base on SW Celebes corner nearest Soerbaja).  I eventually transfered them over to Java (Soerbaja) where they reside.

One of the DB units from the Lexington is sitting at 1 ready A/C 15 reserve, although there's more than sufficient pilots, aviation support and supply.  None are damaged.  I can't get the planes out of ready state into action.

The weird thing (the purpose of this post) follows.  While working out a turn, I noticed a TF between Midway Is. and Hawaii.  This TF consisted of one ship that was on a "Transport" mission.  It originated from SF and was tasked with picking up the DB fragment in Java (!).  Of course the route that it was going to take went right past Saipan and Guam, through the captured DEI / PI bases, etc.  Naturally, it would have been sunk had I not noticed it.

Is the computer creating odd TFs like this to pick up A/C fragments?  I know that I never gave any such orders.  I'd be happy to post a save to someone if it would help.  This sounds and looks 'buggy' to me.

Edited to add: I have not yet patched-playing stock AE.



scott64 -> RE: Transport TF to pick up A/C fragment? (9/15/2009 6:52:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I went through the first 5 pages of this thead to see if this was addressed elsewhere.  I didn't see it.  I also didn't see it on the entire list of the first patch issue fixes so, I've done some due diligence before posting here.

Playing allied vs. Jap AI (v. hard), mid-February 1942.  I lost the Lexington in an exchange for Soryu and damage to Zuikaku in the DEI Southwest of The Celebes.  Planes from the Lex diverted to nearest landmass (base on SW Celebes corner nearest Soerbaja).  I eventually transfered them over to Java (Soerbaja) where they reside.

One of the DB units from the Lexington is sitting at 1 ready A/C 15 reserve, although there's more than sufficient pilots, aviation support and supply.  None are damaged.  I can't get the planes out of ready state into action.

The weird thing (the purpose of this post) follows.  While working out a turn, I noticed a TF between Midway Is. and Hawaii.  This TF consisted of one ship that was on a "Transport" mission.  It originated from SF and was tasked with picking up the DB fragment in Java (!).  Of course the route that it was going to take went right past Saipan and Guam, through the captured DEI / PI bases, etc.  Naturally, it would have been sunk had I not noticed it.

Is the computer creating odd TFs like this to pick up A/C fragments?  I know that I never gave any such orders.  I'd be happy to post a save to someone if it would help.  This sounds and looks 'buggy' to me.

Could be...i had a fragment of AVG in a Chinese base with nowhere to get to the parent. The fragment eventually show up at the parent and recombines. [8|]



Whisper -> RE: Transport TF to pick up A/C fragment? (9/15/2009 8:41:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I went through the first 5 pages of this thead to see if this was addressed elsewhere.  I didn't see it.  I also didn't see it on the entire list of the first patch issue fixes so, I've done some due diligence before posting here.

Playing allied vs. Jap AI (v. hard), mid-February 1942.  I lost the Lexington in an exchange for Soryu and damage to Zuikaku in the DEI Southwest of The Celebes.  Planes from the Lex diverted to nearest landmass (base on SW Celebes corner nearest Soerbaja).  I eventually transfered them over to Java (Soerbaja) where they reside.

One of the DB units from the Lexington is sitting at 1 ready A/C 15 reserve, although there's more than sufficient pilots, aviation support and supply.  None are damaged.  I can't get the planes out of ready state into action.

The weird thing (the purpose of this post) follows.  While working out a turn, I noticed a TF between Midway Is. and Hawaii.  This TF consisted of one ship that was on a "Transport" mission.  It originated from SF and was tasked with picking up the DB fragment in Java (!).  Of course the route that it was going to take went right past Saipan and Guam, through the captured DEI / PI bases, etc.  Naturally, it would have been sunk had I not noticed it.

Is the computer creating odd TFs like this to pick up A/C fragments?  I know that I never gave any such orders.  I'd be happy to post a save to someone if it would help.  This sounds and looks 'buggy' to me.

Edited to add: I have not yet patched-playing stock AE.

Me too. I can't get get planes out of ready state. And theres always some little number, like 1 or 2 that makes it impossible to to figure out what can go onto a CV. I cant do what I'm trying to do from the manual. Whats goning on please.



witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2009 9:12:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: scott1964

Does CV Enterprise respawn if sunk? I lost her and has not shown up as being available..yet. [:)]


There is no respawn at all in AE. You get all the carriers that showed up. The four that were named after sunk carriers are instead called Lexington II, Yorktown II, Wasp II, Hornet II.

Lose fewer, have more!



Iridium -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2009 9:38:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: scott1964

Does CV Enterprise respawn if sunk? I lost her and has not shown up as being available..yet. [:)]

Lose fewer, have more!


Or lose more, have fewer....either way...[:D]



Chickenboy -> RE: Transport TF to pick up A/C fragment? (9/15/2009 10:09:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I went through the first 5 pages of this thead to see if this was addressed elsewhere.  I didn't see it.  I also didn't see it on the entire list of the first patch issue fixes so, I've done some due diligence before posting here.

Playing allied vs. Jap AI (v. hard), mid-February 1942.  I lost the Lexington in an exchange for Soryu and damage to Zuikaku in the DEI Southwest of The Celebes.  Planes from the Lex diverted to nearest landmass (base on SW Celebes corner nearest Soerbaja).  I eventually transfered them over to Java (Soerbaja) where they reside.

One of the DB units from the Lexington is sitting at 1 ready A/C 15 reserve, although there's more than sufficient pilots, aviation support and supply.  None are damaged.  I can't get the planes out of ready state into action.

The weird thing (the purpose of this post) follows.  While working out a turn, I noticed a TF between Midway Is. and Hawaii.  This TF consisted of one ship that was on a "Transport" mission.  It originated from SF and was tasked with picking up the DB fragment in Java (!).  Of course the route that it was going to take went right past Saipan and Guam, through the captured DEI / PI bases, etc.  Naturally, it would have been sunk had I not noticed it.

Is the computer creating odd TFs like this to pick up A/C fragments?  I know that I never gave any such orders.  I'd be happy to post a save to someone if it would help.  This sounds and looks 'buggy' to me.

Edited to add: I have not yet patched-playing stock AE.

I'm giving this a little bump. Thanks for the comments re: the fragment, but that's not really what I'm concerned about. I'm more concerned re: the automatic transport TF on the suicide run. Once upon a time in UV, my submarines would automatically leave port on their own with no rhyme or reason (a known and subsequently fixed bug). This seems passingly familiar.



JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2009 10:11:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Well, because of time zones 8th dec 41 in malaya was actually the same day as 7th dec 41 in pearl harbor [:D]


Not quite
From the above link.

3. The timing of initial Japanese attacks was as follows:

LOCAL TIME ZONE G.M.T ATTACK
0025/8 -7½ 1655/7 Landing Kota Bharu (N. Malaya).
0800/7 +10½ 1830/7 Air attack on Pearl Harbour.
0400/8 -7½ 2130/7 Air raid on Singapore.
0510/8 -8 2110/7 Air raid on Davao, Philippines.
0800/8 -8½ 2330/7 Air raid on Hongkong.
0900/8 -8½ 0030/8 Air raid on Hongkong (Kaitek) airfield; Japanese troops crossed frontier into New Territory.

10. MOVEMENTS OF FORCE "Z", 8TH-1OTH DECEMBER, 1941. (Plan 2)

Having formed his design, Admiral Phillips sailed from Singapore at 1735, 8th December. Just prior to sailing he was informed that it was doubtful if the fighter protection off Singora on 10th December could be provided.

The squadron, known as Force "Z", consisted of the Prince of Wales (flag), Repulse and the destroyers Electra, Express, Vampire and Tenedos.2 Course was shaped to the E.N.E. to pass east of the Anamba Islands in order to avoid possible minefields.

So Force Z sailed 17 hours after the initial landings, they weren't a hundred miles at sea.



Whisper -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2009 11:19:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Well, because of time zones 8th dec 41 in malaya was actually the same day as 7th dec 41 in pearl harbor [:D]


Not quite
From the above link.

3. The timing of initial Japanese attacks was as follows:

LOCAL TIME ZONE G.M.T ATTACK
0025/8 -7½ 1655/7 Landing Kota Bharu (N. Malaya).
0800/7 +10½ 1830/7 Air attack on Pearl Harbour.
0400/8 -7½ 2130/7 Air raid on Singapore.
0510/8 -8 2110/7 Air raid on Davao, Philippines.
0800/8 -8½ 2330/7 Air raid on Hongkong.
0900/8 -8½ 0030/8 Air raid on Hongkong (Kaitek) airfield; Japanese troops crossed frontier into New Territory.

10. MOVEMENTS OF FORCE "Z", 8TH-1OTH DECEMBER, 1941. (Plan 2)

Having formed his design, Admiral Phillips sailed from Singapore at 1735, 8th December. Just prior to sailing he was informed that it was doubtful if the fighter protection off Singora on 10th December could be provided.

The squadron, known as Force "Z", consisted of the Prince of Wales (flag), Repulse and the destroyers Electra, Express, Vampire and Tenedos.2 Course was shaped to the E.N.E. to pass east of the Anamba Islands in order to avoid possible minefields.

So Force Z sailed 17 hours after the initial landings, they weren't a hundred miles at sea.

This is getting wierd. This is the sixth or seventh different one of these out there.

Can somebody please do this in UTC.



Chad Harrison -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/16/2009 8:08:17 PM)

Hi all,

As I continue to work through my first turn I noticed something that seemed odd. This is an unmodified Scenario One that I am running.

When I go to the USAFFE HQ and click 'Show ships of this HQ' it correctly shows all my assigned USAFFE ships, but it also shows all the Asiatic Fleet ships. I just experimented by assigning ships to the Third US Fleet, and sure enough, they show up when I have Pacific Fleet 'Show ships of this HQ'. Also, if you click on say a ship assigned to USAFFE and click in the ship detail screen Show all ships of USAFFE, it will also show those of its subordinate command (Asiatic Fleet in this case). But if you access a ship in the subordinate command, it does *not* show the ships in the parent command. All that being said, I am not sure if this is WAD.

In other words, is it *intended* that a parent HQ shows both its ships and its subordiante command ships? Examples available at the start of the game would be the two above. Later in the game, you could see this with any number of commands. This does not appear to be a bug with my save, but the way it currently always is.

Again, this may be WAD, but it seems bass ackwards to me. It would make assigned ships to the subordiante command kind of pointless because you would always be seeing them when you accessed the ships in the parent command. Its just annoying for me because I heavily use the new ship command system and consider this one of the best improvements of AE over vanilla WitP.

Not a huge issue, but just one of those things.

Thanks in advance!

Chad



Chad Harrison -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/16/2009 8:12:53 PM)

Just as a follow up, I just tried it with the Japanese and it does the same thing. In other words, at the start of scenario 1, Southern Army has no ships assigned. But if I go to the Southern Command HQ, and click 'Show ships of this HQ', it will show the ships of all of its subordinate fleets - such as Combined Fleet.

Again, this may be WAD. I dont think it is, as it makes having ships assigned to the parent fleet pointless once you start using the subordiante fleets because you will be seeing multiple commands in the parent fleet OOB.

Just curious if this is WAD.

Thanks in advance!

Chad



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/16/2009 9:07:42 PM)


Yes, that is the way it is supposed to work.



Chad Harrison -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/16/2009 10:20:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Yes, that is the way it is supposed to work.


As always, thanks for the reply Don. Just wanted to make sure it wasnt user error [:D]



JuanG -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/17/2009 2:40:10 AM)

Later Yubari class (ID #1013 and #1014) has armour for device slot 4, Type 2 DC (#1700).

I assume this was a mistake left over from the device change during upgrade from the 12/41 class.



JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/17/2009 3:40:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Well, because of time zones 8th dec 41 in malaya was actually the same day as 7th dec 41 in pearl harbor [:D]


Not quite
From the above link.

3. The timing of initial Japanese attacks was as follows:

LOCAL TIME ZONE G.M.T ATTACK
0025/8 -7½ 1655/7 Landing Kota Bharu (N. Malaya).
0800/7 +10½ 1830/7 Air attack on Pearl Harbour.
0400/8 -7½ 2130/7 Air raid on Singapore.
0510/8 -8 2110/7 Air raid on Davao, Philippines.
0800/8 -8½ 2330/7 Air raid on Hongkong.
0900/8 -8½ 0030/8 Air raid on Hongkong (Kaitek) airfield; Japanese troops crossed frontier into New Territory.

10. MOVEMENTS OF FORCE "Z", 8TH-1OTH DECEMBER, 1941. (Plan 2)

Having formed his design, Admiral Phillips sailed from Singapore at 1735, 8th December. Just prior to sailing he was informed that it was doubtful if the fighter protection off Singora on 10th December could be provided.

The squadron, known as Force "Z", consisted of the Prince of Wales (flag), Repulse and the destroyers Electra, Express, Vampire and Tenedos.2 Course was shaped to the E.N.E. to pass east of the Anamba Islands in order to avoid possible minefields.

So Force Z sailed 17 hours after the initial landings, they weren't a hundred miles at sea.

This is getting wierd. This is the sixth or seventh different one of these out there.

Can somebody please do this in UTC.


Problem is that the file looks OK before posting, and if I go to edit it it looks OK[:(]

Landing Kota Bharu (N. Malaya). GMT 1655/7
Air attack on Pearl Harbour. GMT 1830/7
Air raid on Singapore. GMT 2130/7

Force Z sails from Singapore GMT 1205/8




afspret -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/17/2009 8:55:37 AM)

Came across this ship a little while ago and wonder if its the game (can't check now 'cause I'm @ work)?

HMAS Doomba (ex HMS Wexford, a RN Hunt class MSW, commissioned in 1919)
1921: sold to an Aussy shipping company and used as a cruise ship
04/09/39: requisitioned by RAN and rebuilt as a MSW
06/42: re-classified as an ASW ship (or as an AA ship according to Wiki)
03/13/46: decommissioned by RAN

Armament in RAN service: 1x4in, 1x40mm, 1x20mm, 2 ea Vickers & Lewis mgs, 51 depth charges (unknown if DCTs or racks).

Speed was rated @ 16kts

Has a similar, but not exactly the same profile as HMAS Moresby.

Wiki doesn't say much about its service, but considering it was requisitioned by the RAN in Oz, I'm guessing it spent its entire service with the RAN in and/or around Aussy waters.



JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/17/2009 9:10:13 AM)

A picture of HMAS Doomba from The State Library of Victoria

http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/pictoria/b/4/0/doc/b40683.shtml

and another
http://www.michaelmcfadyenscuba.info/viewpage.php?page_id=60



Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8583984