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

HansBolter -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/19/2009 1:31:03 PM)

Just had an issue with LCU loading where two seperate LCUs at the same port were each ordered to load into seperate one ship transport TFs and both ships left port with only one device from each of the LCUs loaded.

When I noticed the ships had left port I looked at the port and the bulk of both LCUs were still there. An inspection of the ships revealed that they each carried one device from each of the LCUs. This happened in Aden with the 21st Light Artillery Regiment and B Squadron of the 3rd Hussars.

In both cases the loads were verified to fit 100% in the assigned ships when loading began.

I shipped the single devices back to Aden and unloaded them. Now I have one device fragments of each LCU that don't seem to want to recombine with the parent units.



Don Bowen -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/19/2009 2:55:44 PM)


Post a save in the tech support forum and I'll check it out. Need the save when allocation is verified.



bsq -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/19/2009 10:12:18 PM)

There seems to be too few APA's/AKA's/AP's/AK's in the game. Just looking at APA's for now, there are around 105 missing APA's.

All of these served in the Pacific, many with one or more battle stars, so I cannot see why they have been omitted. Taken together, this represents almost 1/2 the available Attack Transports deployed to the theatre (in terms of capacity).

Most noticeable are the missing Haskell (VC2 type Ship Class ID 2449). 117 were planned or built, yet the game does not include 72 of them and 2 are in, but as VC2 Cargo xAK's.

The source I used for this is http://www.navsource.org/archives/10/03/03idx.htm, which appears to be more complete (not claiming accuracy as I don't have all the sources - but it does look pretty good).

Having the correct number of APA's would certainly de-risk some of the more fraught landings as the troops could be spread amongst more ships (to compensate for the higher than historic losses in assault ships due to the necessary limitations of the game in this area).

Having just finished checking the APA's against the editor, I'll move on to the other types.



witpqs -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/19/2009 11:11:45 PM)

I'm relaying what the AE Team has posted in the past on this to maybe save them some typing.

Many ships served in the Pacific for a while, especially merchants and the various transports. Having withdrawals and entries for all of them would be a monumental project in its own right, not to mention increasing the micromanagement burden on players even more. So, they have some such ships stay in the Pacific for the duration, and others not arrive at all.

On the surface it might look like ships are missing, but other ships are present in excess to make up the difference.

That's heavily paraphrased, of course, but is the gist of it as best I recall.



bsq -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/19/2009 11:34:08 PM)

Of the 72 missing Haskells (all of which were not fleetingly in the Pacific as you allude to), many had combat stars of Iwo Jima and Okinawa - BTW it took me 3 hours of research to realise there was a huge discrepancy, most of which was taken up by checking the APA's in the game against the source I quoted. I would say if it had a battle star, then it has every right to be in the game. BTW (again) the Haskell class did not enter and leave as you say (thereby needing tracking) - of the 105 missing APA's most were placed in service in late 44 onwards, meaning they would never have been needed back in the ETO as the last assault was the Scheldt in October/November 44. Also, if you look very carefully, amphibs arrive 15th of the month - I know, I plan my assaults around those dates (good job I don't do PBEM - I'd be far too predicable), so tell me (other than a cut/paste and name change) what extra work would be required?

APA's are the single most useful assault ship and due to the limitation of the game engine (it cannot model the use of LCVP's DUKW, AMTRAC's etc launched outside the range of CD guns) making casualties amongst said APA's far higher than they should be, then I would argue that there are not enough.

Given as well that the stock game allows for a game into May 46, making assaults on the Home Islands possible (in time frame), why then make it less possible by limiting the number of APA's.

This strikes me very much an illustration of how the naval OB on the Allied side peters out around early/mid 45 because historically 'the war was all but over'. But if you allow us to play into 46, then give us something to play with. Many of the ISD's for units reflects the slowing pace of production when the war was one. To repeat this in the game is just like saying to us all 'well by early 45 the allies will have all but won come what may' - I am sure there are a lot of JFB's out there who will either verbally or physically (against the AI or a PBEM opponent) dispute that line - but at least the Japanese can keep production in full swing if he can hang on to his conquests and his merchant fleet.

Bottom line is that I would rather have the APA's that were used rather than a few extra xAK's - because I don't see what else extra the allies have been given.



witpqs -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 12:10:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

... so tell me (other than a cut/paste and name change) what extra work would be required?


OK, so I try to help out by relaying information that you might not have seen due to recently arriving on the forum and you expect me to argue with you. [8|]

[sm=scared0018.gif]



ckammp -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 12:21:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Of the 72 missing Haskells (all of which were not fleetingly in the Pacific as you allude to), many had combat stars of Iwo Jima and Okinawa - BTW it took me 3 hours of research to realise there was a huge discrepancy, most of which was taken up by checking the APA's in the game against the source I quoted. I would say if it had a battle star, then it has every right to be in the game. BTW (again) the Haskell class did not enter and leave as you say (thereby needing tracking) - of the 105 missing APA's most were placed in service in late 44 onwards, meaning they would never have been needed back in the ETO as the last assault was the Scheldt in October/November 44. Also, if you look very carefully, amphibs arrive 15th of the month - I know, I plan my assaults around those dates (good job I don't do PBEM - I'd be far too predicable), so tell me (other than a cut/paste and name change) what extra work would be required?

APA's are the single most useful assault ship and due to the limitation of the game engine (it cannot model the use of LCVP's DUKW, AMTRAC's etc launched outside the range of CD guns) making casualties amongst said APA's far higher than they should be, then I would argue that there are not enough.

Given as well that the stock game allows for a game into May 46, making assaults on the Home Islands possible (in time frame), why then make it less possible by limiting the number of APA's.

This strikes me very much an illustration of how the naval OB on the Allied side peters out around early/mid 45 because historically 'the war was all but over'. But if you allow us to play into 46, then give us something to play with. Many of the ISD's for units reflects the slowing pace of production when the war was one. To repeat this in the game is just like saying to us all 'well by early 45 the allies will have all but won come what may' - I am sure there are a lot of JFB's out there who will either verbally or physically (against the AI or a PBEM opponent) dispute that line - but at least the Japanese can keep production in full swing if he can hang on to his conquests and his merchant fleet.

Bottom line is that I would rather have the APA's that were used rather than a few extra xAK's - because I don't see what else extra the allies have been given.


Instead of spending 3 hours "researching" the editor, why didn't you just add those ships you claim are "missing"?
That way, everybody wins - you get the ships, and the devs don't have to waste their time explaining -AGAIN- why such and such a ship isn't in the game.
As for how - since you seem to have so much time for "research", try spending a little on READING THE EDITOR MANUAL!
Or is the point of your "research" simply to complain?



Buck Beach -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 2:01:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Of the 72 missing Haskells (all of which were not fleetingly in the Pacific as you allude to), many had combat stars of Iwo Jima and Okinawa - BTW it took me 3 hours of research to realise there was a huge discrepancy, most of which was taken up by checking the APA's in the game against the source I quoted. I would say if it had a battle star, then it has every right to be in the game. BTW (again) the Haskell class did not enter and leave as you say (thereby needing tracking) - of the 105 missing APA's most were placed in service in late 44 onwards, meaning they would never have been needed back in the ETO as the last assault was the Scheldt in October/November 44. Also, if you look very carefully, amphibs arrive 15th of the month - I know, I plan my assaults around those dates (good job I don't do PBEM - I'd be far too predicable), so tell me (other than a cut/paste and name change) what extra work would be required?

APA's are the single most useful assault ship and due to the limitation of the game engine (it cannot model the use of LCVP's DUKW, AMTRAC's etc launched outside the range of CD guns) making casualties amongst said APA's far higher than they should be, then I would argue that there are not enough.

Given as well that the stock game allows for a game into May 46, making assaults on the Home Islands possible (in time frame), why then make it less possible by limiting the number of APA's.

This strikes me very much an illustration of how the naval OB on the Allied side peters out around early/mid 45 because historically 'the war was all but over'. But if you allow us to play into 46, then give us something to play with. Many of the ISD's for units reflects the slowing pace of production when the war was one. To repeat this in the game is just like saying to us all 'well by early 45 the allies will have all but won come what may' - I am sure there are a lot of JFB's out there who will either verbally or physically (against the AI or a PBEM opponent) dispute that line - but at least the Japanese can keep production in full swing if he can hang on to his conquests and his merchant fleet.

Bottom line is that I would rather have the APA's that were used rather than a few extra xAK's - because I don't see what else extra the allies have been given.


There seems to be a never ending line of you people that think the game should be tailored especially for you. They give us the tools to "have it our way" (ala Burger King) and your to damn lazy or arrogant to use them. Some people's kids!



Don Bowen -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 5:11:01 AM)


Well, we are always happy for research and to find new information. We did have to make some approximations - keeping some ships that should have left for a while and excluding some that came later in payment. And maybe sometimes enough is just enough.

But you all keep pointing out things - we can always improve.



Bradley7735 -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 5:21:56 AM)

I definitely understand why it is better to not have some ships withdraw, and to balance, not have another ship come in. That makes sense on many levels. (development and player ease to name two.)

But, it might be a good idea to have the majority of these non-combat ships enter the game in late 44/early 45. I think the need for naval ships was pretty much done by late 44 in the European theatre. They would come to the Pacific theatre eventually. Since the game goes to 46, these ships would have at least a year of game time, in theory.



bsq -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 7:43:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

OK, so I try to help out by relaying information that you might not have seen due to recently arriving on the forum and you expect me to argue with you.



2 and 1/2 years may be recent to many, but it is enough to see the evolution of WITP-AE and I searched before I posted. I'm not expecting anyone to 'argue' with me at all, I just wanted to know why so many ships were missing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

Instead of spending 3 hours "researching" the editor, why didn't you just add those ships you claim are "missing"?
That way, everybody wins - you get the ships, and the devs don't have to waste their time explaining -AGAIN- why such and such a ship isn't in the game.
As for how - since you seem to have so much time for "research", try spending a little on READING THE EDITOR MANUAL!
Or is the point of your "research" simply to complain?



Something appeared wrong, it didn't survive scrutiny. When I have finished I'll post what I find for everyone (and if necessary place them into a game slot on my own load). Just wondered why they were not in stock?


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

There seems to be a never ending line of you people that think the game should be tailored especially for you. They give us the tools to "have it our way" (ala Burger King) and your to damn lazy or arrogant to use them. Some people's kids!


See above. I only just found it. I tried to post an observation for all and that makes me arrogant or a kid? Personally I think that it is dismissive answers like that which serve no one. I wouldn't have used it on my kids even when they were kids, nor would I use it at work on 'errant' 'juniors' (though I know many in my profession who still would mores the pity), so I see no place for it here...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Well, we are always happy for research and to find new information. We did have to make some approximations - keeping some ships that should have left for a while and excluding some that came later in payment. And maybe sometimes enough is just enough.

But you all keep pointing out things - we can always improve.


Thanks Don and as I said above, when I am done, I'll post it here for the benefit of all rather than just edit it into one of my games.





bsq -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 7:48:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I definitely understand why it is better to not have some ships withdraw, and to balance, not have another ship come in. That makes sense on many levels. (development and player ease to name two.)

But, it might be a good idea to have the majority of these non-combat ships enter the game in late 44/early 45. I think the need for naval ships was pretty much done by late 44 in the European theatre. They would come to the Pacific theatre eventually. Since the game goes to 46, these ships would have at least a year of game time, in theory.


Point one, I completely understand and found several examples of this.

Point two agreed and I think those doing the Downfall scenario will realise that stock is light on these vital ships.



eMonticello -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 12:27:08 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
But, it might be a good idea to have the majority of these non-combat ships enter the game in late 44/early 45. I think the need for naval ships was pretty much done by late 44 in the European theatre. They would come to the Pacific theatre eventually. Since the game goes to 46, these ships would have at least a year of game time, in theory.


If the ships participated in the European Operation Magic Carpet, I would shift the date to early 1946 at the earliest. Given the large number of troops in Europe, the political priority would be to get them back home as soon as possible.



bsq -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 2:40:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eMonticello

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
But, it might be a good idea to have the majority of these non-combat ships enter the game in late 44/early 45. I think the need for naval ships was pretty much done by late 44 in the European theatre. They would come to the Pacific theatre eventually. Since the game goes to 46, these ships would have at least a year of game time, in theory.


If the ships participated in the European Operation Magic Carpet, I would shift the date to early 1946 at the earliest. Given the large number of troops in Europe, the political priority would be to get them back home as soon as possible.



From what I can ascertain, none of these participated in the ETO Magic Carpet. They were certainly used in the Pacific Magic Carpet and for occupation duties in Japan and China. Here's a snippet containing the first 10 - the actual file is in excel format (converted to txt for the snippet). All of these served out their careers in the Pacific until they were scrapped, sunk in the Bikini tests or mothballed. Reckon it will take me a few weeks to do this, perhaps more depending on work.




JWE -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 2:53:21 PM)

There are several reasons why certain classes have fewer ships than appear on the construction lists. Some are, perhaps, less important now than they were then, but on the whole, remain valid.

If this is a concern, you might wish to check out Da Babes scenarios in which both Allied and Japanese naval OOBs were extensively expanded. They can be found at:
http://witp.tylerroguedesigns.com/

No need to spend hours researching the DB and paging through NavSource. Gunter Krebs has already organized all that into a nice set of nested lists.
http://usnavy.skyrocket.de/



bsq -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 3:18:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

There are several reasons why certain classes have fewer ships than appear on the construction lists. Some are, perhaps, less important now than they were then, but on the whole, remain valid.

If this is a concern, you might wish to check out Da Babes scenarios in which both Allied and Japanese naval OOBs were extensively expanded. They can be found at:
http://witp.tylerroguedesigns.com/

No need to spend hours researching the DB and paging through NavSource. Gunter Krebs has already organized all that into a nice set of nested lists.
http://usnavy.skyrocket.de/




It's a concern due to the vulnerability of the APA's during ops (which can't be mitigated in the game as it was mostly IRL and as explained to me by Don).

If you don't know that piece of game mechanics as an Allied player then your whole island hopping strategy can unravel to the point that no Downfall type invasions can be attempted (I for one have never ended the war with a 'bang' nor do I intend to). My first run through I have had to can because of a data corruption, but in any case it was becoming obvious that I was about to run out of assault ships and could not conduct either of the downfall invasions with the ships remaining.

Thanks for the 2 steers. The Gunter Kreb one will save me time and the one that Don has posted on the the other site has just been updated (today) to reflect AE, so I will definitely be looking at that.



Don Bowen -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 3:38:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

There are several reasons why certain classes have fewer ships than appear on the construction lists. Some are, perhaps, less important now than they were then, but on the whole, remain valid.

If this is a concern, you might wish to check out Da Babes scenarios in which both Allied and Japanese naval OOBs were extensively expanded. They can be found at:
http://witp.tylerroguedesigns.com/

No need to spend hours researching the DB and paging through NavSource. Gunter Krebs has already organized all that into a nice set of nested lists.
http://usnavy.skyrocket.de/




It's a concern due to the vulnerability of the APA's during ops (which can't be mitigated in the game as it was mostly IRL and as explained to me by Don).

If you don't know that piece of game mechanics as an Allied player then your whole island hopping strategy can unravel to the point that no Downfall type invasions can be attempted (I for one have never ended the war with a 'bang' nor do I intend to). My first run through I have had to can because of a data corruption, but in any case it was becoming obvious that I was about to run out of assault ships and could not conduct either of the downfall invasions with the ships remaining.

Thanks for the 2 steers. The Gunter Kreb one will save me time and the one that Don has posted on the the other site has just been updated (today) to reflect AE, so I will definitely be looking at that.


I believe the vulnerability that you refer to is due to weakly formed amphibious TFs. Transports are MUCH less likely to be hit by shore batteries if the invasion TF includes combat ships capable of engaging those shore batteries.



oldman45 -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/20/2009 7:27:34 PM)

I always like to use the Omaha's and the bigger DD's in the invasion fleet, they seem to do well surpressing the CD fire and absorbing hits. I have no qualms on 8 - 12 DD's in the actually landing group along with 1 or 2 CL's. The damage I take is pretty minimal to the AP's and supporting ships.



witpqs -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/21/2009 12:42:50 AM)

This is a scenario issue - unsure if it belongs here or elsewhere.

In the Ironman scenario, the Musashi begins with 0 fuel even though it is in a TF. Likewise, Yamato begins with very little fuel, even though it is in a TF. It seems like at least the Musashi's fuel status might mess up the first move.



JWE -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/21/2009 6:25:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
This is a scenario issue - unsure if it belongs here or elsewhere.

In the Ironman scenario, the Musashi begins with 0 fuel even though it is in a TF. Likewise, Yamato begins with very little fuel, even though it is in a TF. It seems like at least the Musashi's fuel status might mess up the first move.

Yes. Scenario issue. In the main campaign scenario data files we have ships that arrive from the construction yards, after opening day, enter the game with empty bunkers, to avoid a 'free fuel' issue. Quite possibly, Ironman created a Musashi TF and allocated the ship without updating the original ship parameters. Easily fixed - either update Musashi in a mod file, or waste a 1 day turn and dump her from the TF, gas her up, and put her back in.



Andy Mac -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/21/2009 6:42:32 PM)

My fault I thought I had removed them from the TF's I will adjust on next patch its not a major issue for the Ai as they will draw from other ships so it falls into the PITA camp



witpqs -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/21/2009 7:54:31 PM)

I ran the first turn and then jumped in as Japan to have a look see. The TF with Yamato was fine - it had lots of fuel and reached its nuclear release point. The Musashi TF seemed OK (it hadn't far to move), but Musashi was still low on fuel. No biggie, just FYI.



ckammp -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/29/2009 6:12:19 AM)

In the editor, several US BBs and CAs have their Tower Armor reduced to 0 in their final upgrades; is this WAD?

The classes affected are:

306 Nevada - Tower Armor 38 (previous version was 400)
307 Nevada - Tower Armor 38
334 Tennessee - Deck Armor 184 (previous version 108) and Tower Armor 127 (previous version 400)
388 Pensacola - Tower Armor 0 (previous version 62)
392 Northampton - Tower Armor 0 (previous version 62)
393 Northampton - Tower Armor 0
397 Portland - Tower Armor 0 (previous version 62)
413 Brooklyn - Tower Armor 0 (previous version 125)
414 Brooklyn - Tower Armor 0





JWE -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/29/2009 3:02:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
In the editor, several US BBs and CAs have their Tower Armor reduced to 0 in their final upgrades; is this WAD?

Yes.



ckammp -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/29/2009 3:12:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp
In the editor, several US BBs and CAs have their Tower Armor reduced to 0 in their final upgrades; is this WAD?

Yes.


Thank you.



sdevault -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/29/2009 3:20:54 PM)

I don't know if this has been addressed or if it is even a problem, but, the Pencacola Class' final upgrade reduces one of the armor plating ratings to 0....

quote:

You are correct. I looked into the history of both USS Pensacola and USS Salt Lake City and nothing indicates a superstructure change. Additionally, looking in the official Navy photo archive there is no visible difference in the superstructure bewteen photos in 42-43 and 44-45.

Suggest that you restore the armor rating by editing the database and post this message as a reply to the thread AE Naval and OOB Issues
quote:



Don Bowen -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/29/2009 3:26:13 PM)


Armored towers were removed from many pre-war ships late war.



JWE -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/29/2009 4:20:23 PM)

BuShips Design Order, June 1943, designated CA-24 class to receive the same bridge modifications as surviving CA-26 class. Foremast cut down; conning tower removed, replaced by open bridgework; bridge wings cut down; bridge deck profile altered to clear arcs of fire for wing AA.

Plans on file MINS, Sept. 1943; modifications to be performed on ships according to overhaul schedule. Louisville was first in Dec. 1943. Pensacola nominated for complete topsides modifications during May 1944 repair and overhaul. Only aft topsides modified due to yard timing and operational requests. Received bridge modifications during May 1945 annual overhaul.

Upgrades are available from the time they were available. If some ships didn't get them till later, that was their joss. Recommend you do NOT restore the armor rating, because that was not commensurate with that particular upgrade. If you must have strict, specific, exact adherence to your view of the historical record, then just don't push the final upgrade button for Pensacola till May 1945 and don't push the final upgrade button for Salt Lake City at all.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (12/29/2009 10:11:53 PM)

So much additional topweight had accrued since their design (radar, increase in aa suite) that they had to find someway to lower the cog.



Pascal_slith -> Ship watertight integrity message (12/31/2009 4:19:39 PM)

Hi guys,

many messages flash on the screen during the running of a turn. Almost all of these end up in the Ops report. However, I noticed that the ones concerning failing watertight integrity do not.

I was moving a few damaged BB's from Pearl to the West Coast and saw a message flash on the screen about watertightness failing. I don't always watch all that is going on when running the turn, so I would have missed this had I not seen it, and I would have sent my Escort TF on its merry way until it would have been too late to move it into a port. It did NOT appear in the Ops Report. Could this be added to the Ops Report?

Thanks.



Page: <<   < prev  27 28 [29] 30 31   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2