RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (Full Version)

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



Message

jwilkerson -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (11/26/2009 3:01:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

... have you decided how to alien the ACMs types into a more historical basis for Da Babes?



Wow, I never knew "alien" was a verb - learn something new every day!!! [:D]



Buck Beach -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (11/26/2009 3:06:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

... have you decided how to alien the ACMs types into a more historical basis for Da Babes?



Wow, I never knew "alien" was a verb - learn something new every day!!! [:D]


Spell checker sometimes does not save one from being ignorant.

I should have placed my comments under Da Babes but the subject was already here. Please move it should you care to.

Buck



JWE -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (11/26/2009 9:57:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Please move it should you care to.

Buck

Hi Buck, moved the answer to Scen design .



Gary D -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (11/27/2009 3:06:02 AM)

Scenario One, yesterdays patch:

Chiang Kai-Chek is "removable"! For a mere 250 PPs we can start the peoples revolution 5 years early.

Now this is one way to help the Chinese that has not been kicked around the boards [:)]

Edit: Oops sorry I dumped this in the Naval section instead of the ground pounders camp.



Pascal_slith -> Underway replenishment (11/27/2009 8:10:26 AM)

I'm somewhat surprised still at how quickly underway replenishment can take place.

I currently have the Enterprise with 15 escorts (CA's, CL's and DD's) in the same hex as the Neosho's replenishment TF. I just gave the order to replenish at sea. The indication for each ship in the Enterprise TF under the Ops listing is 250. For the Neosho it is also 250. This is surprising. I'm only going to use a quarter of a day to replenish 16 ships with one tanker? Considering that at best I should be able to replenish 2 ships at one time (one on each side of Neosho), even 8 successive replenishments, given the set-up time, should take me pretty much the whole day (no replenishment, if I recall, took place at night).

I would submit that the underway replenishment time calculator is not functioning correctly in WitP AE, but perhaps jwilkerson could comment?

Thanks.

PS the two best sources on underway replenishment are publicly available. The first is more technical. It is FTP-218, the War Service Fuel Consumption of US Naval Surface Vessels available here http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/Fuel/index.html .

The second is Wildenberg's Gray Steel and Black Oil, available here http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/GSBO/index.html .



Don Bowen -> RE: Underway replenishment (11/27/2009 2:06:06 PM)


Not enough info here to figure anything out. If you will post a save I'll run it and verify everything is working as designed.



Pascal_slith -> RE: Underway replenishment (11/28/2009 2:45:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Not enough info here to figure anything out. If you will post a save I'll run it and verify everything is working as designed.


Certainly. I have saved each day. I gather I have to post you the .pws file, but how do I go about doing that? By private email?



Nomad -> RE: Underway replenishment (11/28/2009 3:24:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Not enough info here to figure anything out. If you will post a save I'll run it and verify everything is working as designed.


Certainly. I have saved each day. I gather I have to post you the .pws file, but how do I go about doing that? By private email?


zip it up and start a new thread in the tech support subforum and attach it there.



Don Bowen -> RE: Underway replenishment (11/28/2009 3:47:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Pascal


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Not enough info here to figure anything out. If you will post a save I'll run it and verify everything is working as designed.


Certainly. I have saved each day. I gather I have to post you the .pws file, but how do I go about doing that? By private email?


Post the save in the Tech Support thread.



HansBolter -> RE: Underway replenishment (11/28/2009 4:20:36 AM)

There is an error in one of the two photos on the Game Loading screen.

The photo of the two guys taking sextant readings is a staged picture and an obvious fake.

Check out the sun angle of the shadow on the nose of the guy taking the sighting.

The only star he is going to have a prayer's chance of sighting during that time of day is good ole Sol.



Pascal_slith -> RE: Underway replenishment (11/28/2009 7:15:22 AM)

Posted to tech forum. Thanks!



witpqs -> RE: Underway replenishment (11/28/2009 6:20:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

There is an error in one of the two photos on the Game Loading screen.

1) The photo of the two guys taking sextant readings is a staged picture and an obvious fake.

2) Check out the sun angle of the shadow on the nose of the guy taking the sighting.

The only star he is going to have a prayer's chance of sighting during that time of day is good ole Sol.


1) Proof that they knew how to stage photos a long time ago?

2) They do shoot good ol' Sol. See A Short Guide to Celestial Navigation for a great historical overview and introduction.



Smeulders -> Questions about ARD (12/4/2009 10:51:54 AM)

Is it WAD that an ARD needs either a shipyard or AR in the same port to be able to function ? I made a test with an ARD in a small scenario and I never got the option to use a repair ship if I there wasn't a shipyard or AR present in the port. Once one of those two was available, it was obvious that the ARD was functioning (80 major float on an AKV could be repaired when an ARD an AR were present)



Marty A -> RE: Questions about ARD (12/4/2009 1:17:29 PM)

Awajisan maru is xak-t on port button list but no button to convert back to cargo. not know if subject already address. is in kure with 91.000+ shipyard available. i miss something?

[image]local://upfiles/32513/2CAD6FD6F47B4327A22B552453F9DA7C.jpg[/image]



Don Bowen -> RE: Questions about ARD (12/4/2009 1:44:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

Is it WAD that an ARD needs either a shipyard or AR in the same port to be able to function ? I made a test with an ARD in a small scenario and I never got the option to use a repair ship if I there wasn't a shipyard or AR present in the port. Once one of those two was available, it was obvious that the ARD was functioning (80 major float on an AKV could be repaired when an ARD an AR were present)



No, that is not how it is designed. Please post your test in the Tech Support thread.

OK, I set up a little test myself and have found a display issue in Manage Damage ships. Looks like the issue is display only. Will address ASAP.



Don Bowen -> RE: Questions about ARD (12/4/2009 1:53:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Marty A

Awajisan maru is xak-t on port button list but no button to convert back to cargo. not know if subject already address. is in kure with 91.000+ shipyard available. i miss something?

[image]local://upfiles/32513/2CAD6FD6F47B4327A22B552453F9DA7C.jpg[/image]


Post your save in the tech support thread.




Windfire -> RE: Questions about ARD (12/5/2009 8:27:53 PM)

post deleted by author



mikemike -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/7/2009 2:23:10 AM)

Still uncorrected: the classes 247/248 Admiralty 'T' are not historic. Those ships belonged to the Admiralty 'S' class (245/246). DD names in WWI were not as orderly as in later years; the 'S' class comprised ships beginning with 'S' as well as 'T' to a total of 69 units, while the earlier and closely comparable 'R' class comprised 62 ships beginning with 'R', 'S', 'T' and 'U'.

In addition (and far more significant), the Classes 245/247 are defined as carrying Device 1515 4.5 in Mk IV guns (a 1940s DP gun) while the correct armament would be Device 1528 4in/40 QF Mk IV, a WWI gun of much worse performance firing separate ammunition. This seriously overstates their effectiveness in surface gunnery which should be worse than that of the average IJN escort.



JuanG -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/10/2009 3:45:35 PM)

Something I've noticed while going through the Japanese submarines - the KD3A/B class seems to have 8 forward tubes in the database whereas all the sources I've seen put it at 6 forward and 2 aft tubes.

The KD6B class has a similar problem - having 6 forward when I think it should have 4 forward and two aft like the KD6A.

Are my sources off or is this a mistake?

Juan



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/10/2009 5:41:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Something I've noticed while going through the Japanese submarines - the KD3A/B class seems to have 8 forward tubes in the database whereas all the sources I've seen put it at 6 forward and 2 aft tubes.

The KD6B class has a similar problem - having 6 forward when I think it should have 4 forward and two aft like the KD6A.

Are my sources off or is this a mistake?

Juan

Don't really know. Terminus did many of the Jap subs, and the ones he did not do were done by Tankerace or from stock. Believe all the Japanese stuff comes from Jentschura. Checked it against Conways, but that just gives total tubes - no breakout.

Not a game issue since the algorithm just totals up the tubes anyway. But, yeah, gimme a decent source and we can make it look better in the next patch, if it works out.



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/10/2009 6:01:05 PM)


I have Jentschura, Watts, and Conway. Only Watts gives a breakdown and indicates all bow tubes for all the classes mentioned.

I have some ONI stuff in pdf that I can check, and then there's always my friend google.



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/10/2009 6:09:08 PM)


Three ONI, take your pick.

[image]local://upfiles/757/F22916D2EFC244679F362E74A8B651E2.jpg[/image]



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/10/2009 6:09:45 PM)

or

[image]local://upfiles/757/D28CF49A9A5F4D2D8A6F6764B65EBF5A.jpg[/image]



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/10/2009 6:10:10 PM)

or


[image]local://upfiles/757/1F7DF679B8924D5B944F41C5DC6F7652.jpg[/image]



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/10/2009 6:13:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Something I've noticed while going through the Japanese submarines - the KD3A/B class seems to have 8 forward tubes in the database whereas all the sources I've seen put it at 6 forward and 2 aft tubes.

The KD6B class has a similar problem - having 6 forward when I think it should have 4 forward and two aft like the KD6A.

Are my sources off or is this a mistake?

Juan


ONI stuff confirms for both types. Some variation in ONI (it was wartime data) but it looks like your are spot on.



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/10/2009 7:37:44 PM)

Bowen - sama is my Master. When he speaks, I put my hands on the floor and bow my forehead between my palms. Oh! Koh! Can do for the babes mod. Will take a while for the AE next patch.



ny59giants -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/10/2009 8:29:25 PM)

I started Andy's Ironman mod (scen 80) with Patch 2 beta and have installed the official patch 2. However, both the 2 Dutch PT boat TF and the British TF at Hong Kong have an initial reaction range of 6, but if you manual go down to 0 they can only be increased to 1. 



rockmedic109 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/10/2009 9:46:06 PM)

I believe that one of the patches reduced the reaction range of PT boats to a max of 1.



oldman45 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/11/2009 8:42:08 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rockmedic109

I believe that one of the patches reduced the reaction range of PT boats to a max of 1.


I will confirm that the range is 1.



racndoc -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/12/2009 10:39:32 PM)

In the Guadalcanal scenario the USN has already upgraded their AKs into AKAs by 8/42. In the campaign game the upgrade from AK to AKA is not allowed until 3/43. Is the campaign game in error?



Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.5