quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

It sorta devolves to an OOB issue because of the game mechanics since HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales are conveniently hanging their posteriors out for the Nipponese to bite during the first turn of the historical scenario and the Allied Player has no choices to make but simply gets to watch while the Nells/Bettys put enough torpedoes into each to insure that neither can possibly figure into the Japanese Players calculations for the rest of the battles of Malaya or the DEI. BTW the same sense of ahistoricality (must be a new word invented by me[;)]) is the air cover (inadequate) that the TF gets. Does allowing the Allied Player to make his own choices with these two ships totally unbalance the game?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Have to make compromises. Not seen as issue. Sorry.

Not really a compromise is it - so far I have lost the two ships before 10 Dec 41 on each time I have fired up the scenario. Now I am not RADM Phillips, I know what aeroplanes and their torpedoes can do to my shiny battlewaggons and I can see the bigger picture, but as they get detected and therefore attacked every single time on 7 Dec 41 what can I do...

If the Japanese get me every time, the person making the upgrades wasted their time and effort as the 'historical' first turn manages consistently to do what the Japanese did not...
I can accept the PH lottery, but this is not a lottery, it's pointless.

(Edit - Of course if naval search really is that good, then I am looking forward to any Sigint reports that allow me to arrange a little surprise for the IJN carriers in early/mid 42)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi Whipple,

The Rear 14" Guns have reduced from 6 to 5. Can AE distinguish between Barrel loss vs Turret loss then?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko
ship class 2135 Tonan Whaler tonnage looks incorrect ( 13340 )

it should be ~17549 GRT

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
The different types of tons has always made my head hurt.  I'll take your word for that part of the game. [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
The different types of tons has always made my head hurt.  I'll take your word for that part of the game. [:D]

Made my head hurt too, pal. Problem was that "tonnage" generates other things, like DUR, economy construction costs, all those other Nifty WiTP things. Warships were simple, you can always find a standard tonnage for them, so they are "relatively related". But GRT has no relationship whatever to displacement, so a 10k GRT Liberty would have the same costs, etc, as a heavy cruiser. Woof !!

Had to find a way to express auxiliary "tonnage" in similar terms as warship 'standard tonnage', taking all the different program uses of the 'tonnage' parameter into account.

Well ... finally figured it out - after much scotch - it sounds technical, guess it is technical, but the heavy duty ship pukes will know where it's coming from if it's expressed as:

Dspl Lt' + [(DwT-fl) - (DwT-net)] +/- (block differential multiplier) +/- (prismatic differential multiplier) +/- (outa John's butt factor to make it fit on the curve)

Dspl-Lt' is how she displaces utterly, and totally empty. The last factor is rather small and only applies to a few specialized ships, so modders need not freak.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium
So I'm looking at the Japanese CA upgrades and I noticed that Takao doesn't get it's center 8" turret removed and replaced by 2 dual 12.7cm DP guns late war...think it was somewhere in it's '44 refit off hand. I'd have to check a source that has been since stored in boxes since I moved...[:(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium
So I'm looking at the Japanese CA upgrades and I noticed that Takao doesn't get it's center 8" turret removed and replaced by 2 dual 12.7cm DP guns late war...think it was somewhere in it's '44 refit off hand. I'd have to check a source that has been since stored in boxes since I moved...[:(]

Yes it does. It is not listed under Takao "Class", it is listed under Maya "Class".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium
Ah, silly me...[:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS
Very minor typos - Ship #1470 has no space between Ansyu and Maru. Ditto 1483, 1389.
3179 should be Ramillies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bladess

Question on Ship repair. BB Maryland is my most damaged shp at Pearl. Port Damage is 0. No other ships have been assigned for repairs
With keeping the ship ready it estimates 157/132/69/65 days depending on priority. Pierside is 132/60/47/40, Repair Ship is 166/88/71/55.

All those seem reasonable, but when I put it in the shipyard I am getting 328/327/326 days to repair.

14.3.2 says " Ships may be repaired and will consume repair capacity, in the following decreasing order: 1) Shipyard Repair, 2) Repair Ship Repair, 3) Pierside Repair, and 4) Readiness Repair "
So I thought the shipyard was the best choise to repair a badly cripples ship. But it is coming out the worsest by far. The other choises seem to make sence.
The Maryland is 32K tonnage and that should fit per 14.3.2.1 for Pearls repair yard of size 72. Maryland is Flood 85 (56 major), System 41, Eng 10
I put BB Colorado into the Seattle Shipyard and it will be repaired faster as I expected.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

quote:

ORIGINAL: dwbradley

While trying out some of the new stuff I found what seems to be a bit of an awkward part of the new patrol zone controls.

I was playing the Coral Sea scenario as the Japanese and setting the subs to patrol zones. It is indeed a neat feature (well done, gentlemen!). The subs started on computer control. I was able to switch to human control and set both waypoints and patrol zones of several types. Then I set one sub for a single defined destination hex (DH) and then decided I wanted a patrol zone. I couldn't set a patrol zone because I had a defined location and there was no way I could see to cancel that. After some experimentation I found that setting the destination to the home port allowed the patrol zone controls to be un-greyed and available again. I guess this is an ok work-around and doesn’t need a fix but maybe should be in the manual errata/extras in due course.

Apologies if this is old news.

Dave Braldey

There is, or should be, a clear destination button in the upper right hand corner of the TF Routing screen. Not sure if it works for a non-base destination though. If not, it will probably have to stay that way for a while. The setting of destination to the home port is a good workaround.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

My experience is with a non-sub TF, but I would expect the mechanism to work the same way regardless of type. I didn't notice the "clear destination" button Don mentions (and don't have enough RAM to have both the game and the forums open, so can't check right now), but if you click "Select Destination," and then right-click on the map, it clears the destination. Whether it's supposed to or not, I don't know, but I got the idea to try this from some other function where right-click is the documented way to clear the setting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

My experience is with a non-sub TF, but I would expect the mechanism to work the same way regardless of type. I didn't notice the "clear destination" button Don mentions (and don't have enough RAM to have both the game and the forums open, so can't check right now), but if you click "Select Destination," and then right-click on the map, it clears the destination. Whether it's supposed to or not, I don't know, but I got the idea to try this from some other function where right-click is the documented way to clear the setting.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Dave. Could you please be a bit more specific, in AE terms, thanks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
By definition, the "Historical Start" automates everything that happened on December 7, 1941. And by almost every conceivable measure, it's clear that the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was the opening act of the Pacific War - certainly the war being modeled by AE. With that rule in mind, a minimal amount of research shows that TF "Z" set sail from Singapore at 1710 on December 8, 1941. However, that time needs to be converted to Honolulu time, since that was "ground zero", and in effect the "Greenwich Meantime" from which all other 12/7 activities must be calculated. And when you run the numbers, it turns out that Repulse and PoW departed Singapore harbor at 11:10 PM on December 7th, 1941.

What? How can 5:10 in the afternoon of December 8th (local time) be 11:10 on the 7th? Singapore is 6 time zones West of PH, so the PH attack took place at 2AM on the 8th Singapore local time. POW and Repulse upped anchor more than 15 hours after PH took place..., and almost at the end of the local day. If you want to go by Hawaiian time, remember that 11:10 PM is after night has has fallen..., which in game terms is the first (night) phase of turn two.

quote:

It's simply a game device to make the POW/Repulse vulnerable. Historically they sailed North and were sunk (two days later)..., but as few players will make that choice it's been taken out of their hands... If you don't like it, don't play the "historical start".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
2) TF "Z" departed Singapore harbor at 1710 on 12/8. That's exactly 15 hours and ten minutes after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
3) Add 15 hours and ten minutes to 8 AM Honolulu time and it becomes 11:10 PM (or 2310), which is still 12/7/1941, and thus it's still "Day 1" in Singapore.

I hear you that night actions happen in a different phase of the game - effectively on Day 2 - but there's no easy way to handle that differential in-game.

quote:

It's simply a game device to make the POW/Repulse vulnerable. Historically they sailed North and were sunk (two days later)..., but as few players will make that choice it's been taken out of their hands... If you don't like it, don't play the "historical start".

Its probably just semantics, but in my personal opinion, since it's clear that the ships sailed on "12/7", it's no more a game device any of the other "no choice" activities that happen that day. But yes, those who don't like it do have an option!