RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (Full Version)

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



Message

JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/10/2010 4:16:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk
I donīt know if this is a typo or intended feature, but Takao class CAs start with 75 Tower Armor, and in each upgrade they have 16mm.

Then looking further on Japanese CA upgrades, Maya has 16mm and Myoko 0!

I donīt recall the Japanese throwing away armor plates on their cruisers... [:)]

Intended. Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese CAs and researched them extensively using Lacroix, Jentschura, Watts, and many other sources. One would need an incontrovertable primary source to convince Joe to have any of these changed.



witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/10/2010 9:45:52 PM)

I remember discussion long ago on these boards that many of the IJN CA's were top-heavy. Maybe some armor had been removed to improve their stability. 50% guessing here.



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/11/2010 7:59:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk
I donīt know if this is a typo or intended feature, but Takao class CAs start with 75 Tower Armor, and in each upgrade they have 16mm.

Then looking further on Japanese CA upgrades, Maya has 16mm and Myoko 0!

I donīt recall the Japanese throwing away armor plates on their cruisers... [:)]

Intended. Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese CAs and researched them extensively using Lacroix, Jentschura, Watts, and many other sources. One would need an incontrovertable primary source to convince Joe to have any of these changed.

Very sorry, my mistake. Heard from Joe and yes, 75 Tower Armor for the initial Takao class is a typo. Should be 16.



vettim89 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/22/2010 2:56:43 AM)

From my question in the Tech Support forum I have discovered an error in the GC database. Device nos. 1736 Mousetrap Mk 20 and device 1737 Mousetrap Mk 22 both have a load cost of 9999. This makes them one shot weapons as they cannot reload. If Nik sees this, the error was carried through to you GC mod. Device values are correct in scenario 1 (load cost = 65)




Smeulders -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/27/2010 10:08:04 PM)

Not sure if anyone mentioned this before, but there seems to be a typo for the sub in slot 4786, could this be SS-342, the "Chopper" instead of the "Chipper" ? There seems to be similar error in SS-346, slot 4790 which I find as 'Corporal' instead of 'Corperal'.



Barb -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/31/2010 10:06:16 AM)

Scen 1, latest official patch
2/42 upgrade of Minekaze class destroyers removes 2xT95DC (Rear facing) and replace it with 2xT95DC (Left Side).

I suppose it is database error.
Can it be dealt with with hotfix? If yes, can the fix be applied before ships are allowed to upgrade? Or has it be applied before 1st february arrives? Does facing to the left limit DC effectivenes compared to facing rear?

I would like to know the answers, because its 29th january in our pbem already.
[image]local://upfiles/24245/04451901AF674D0A898849A7604CFC4E.jpg[/image]



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2010 6:42:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb
Scen 1, latest official patch
2/42 upgrade of Minekaze class destroyers removes 2xT95DC (Rear facing) and replace it with 2xT95DC (Left Side).
I suppose it is database error.

Yes.
quote:

Can it be dealt with with hotfix? If yes, can the fix be applied before ships are allowed to upgrade? Or has it be applied before 1st february arrives?

Can only be dealt with by a data patch. Any eventual data patch may, or may not, allow for in-game updating. I would not depend on it. Last time, there were many problems that came up.
quote:

Does facing to the left limit DC effectivenes compared to facing rear?
I would like to know the answers, because its 29th january in our pbem already.

Not really. I would just keep playing and not be alarmed.



Barb -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/1/2010 8:50:54 PM)

Going to convert my Minekazes to APDs anyway [;)]



Puhis -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/5/2010 9:43:48 AM)

In this game japanese Yugumo class destroyers lose their 3rd 12,7 cm turret. What I've read this is an error. Yugumos did keep all their turrets, unlike some other japanese DDs.

For example Combined fleet:
Their main armament of six 5"/50 cal. guns was the same as the KAGEROs, but these were mounted in the new Type D turret capable of 75-degree elevations as opposed to KAGERO's 55-degrees, a considerable advantage in the antiaircraft role which became more vital as the war progressed. In fact, this major upgrade, often overlooked, obviated the need to sacrifice a main-gun turret for extra light AA, and no YUGUMOs actually suffered the removal of their "X" turret to make room for extra 25 mm. machine guns, as has been widely reported. Instead, surviving YUGUMOs added their two triple 25 mm. mounts on bandstands abaft their fore-funnels.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/yugumo_n.htm

Here is pictures of Yugumos. All three ships have 3 turrets, including late war Kiyoshimo. In WitP AE, Kiyoshimo arrives with just 2 turrets.
http://blog.livedoor.jp/irootoko_jr/archives/974238.html

If there's going to be any database upgrades, I think this is worth checking. [:)]



PaxMondo -> Husimi AS (9/8/2010 6:05:10 PM)

Posted this in Tech support, but maybe here is better?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2569769

Conversion to Husimi AS is no longer available ... inspected with editor and bind 202 seems all ok.  Appreciate a looksee.

Thanks!



JWE -> RE: Husimi AS (9/9/2010 4:16:33 PM)

Sorry, but just don't see it. Checked scenarios 1, 6, and all the Babes - they all show Husimi with all options available in Dec '41.

[e]Dug a bit more. Started Scen001, went to Yokohama. Only Husimi there is Yamahuku Maru. Clicked on it and this is what shows up. Then clicked on the yellow ‘conversion’ and the bottom panel is what shows up. Husimi is very definitely convertible to an AS, as well as an AV, AR, AK, and AKE.

[image]local://upfiles/17451/DFEE49CA474B440B81352C2D6B21CAAE.jpg[/image]



Andrew Brown -> RE: Husimi AS (9/9/2010 9:35:29 PM)

Should the three Dutch DD Isaac Sweers, Van Galen and Tjerk Hiddes start in Colombo? Only ships built in on-map ports should appear at that port. Having these ships appear here causes issues if Ceylon is attacked before they arrive, which I see is happening in some AARs. I assume they should start in Cape Town instead?

Andrew



tigercub -> RE: Husimi AS (9/13/2010 11:32:13 AM)

The IJN DMS8 has a upgrade on 42/1 but does not change anything...it stays the same.

Tigercub



JWE -> RE: Husimi AS (9/13/2010 3:04:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Should the three Dutch DD Isaac Sweers, Van Galen and Tjerk Hiddes start in Colombo? Only ships built in on-map ports should appear at that port. Having these ships appear here causes issues if Ceylon is attacked before they arrive, which I see is happening in some AARs. I assume they should start in Cape Town instead?

Andrew

Hi Andrew,
The Colombo (and Trincomalee) thing was addressed in code in patch-3. Ships were moved in the database as well, for the possible data patch. The Dutch DDs show up at Mombassa.
Ciao.



Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2010 6:22:25 PM)

There are numerous classes of xAK ships that have a "Natural Load" liquid cargo capacity in addition to the bulk cargo capacity and apparently exclusive of "cross load" capabilities. Examples are: 2506-EC2's; 2516-Park/Fort's; 2517-Euro L; and 2520-Empires. How does one utilize this load ability?

Also, manual 6.3.2.3.1 Ship Type Carrying Ability Table (pages 113-117) show that TKs may carry Troops and Supplies AO's may carry supplies and YOs may carry troops. I recognize that these would be subject to ship class capabilies, but, this appears contrary to the game's current mechanics. Comment?

There may be other inconsistencies reflected in the subject table not noted.

Please forgive me if this has been previously surfaced tough to search the board for such items.



witpqs -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2010 6:37:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

There are numerous classes of xAK ships that have a "Natural Load" liquid cargo capacity in addition to the bulk cargo capacity and apparently exclusive of "cross load" capabilities. Examples are: 2506-EC2's; 2516-Park/Fort's; 2517-Euro L; and 2520-Empires. How does one utilize this load ability?



When you load supplies, that space will load fuel automagically. Look closely and you will see that it loaded, for instance, 6,250 supplies and 500 fuel.



Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (9/15/2010 6:50:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

There are numerous classes of xAK ships that have a "Natural Load" liquid cargo capacity in addition to the bulk cargo capacity and apparently exclusive of "cross load" capabilities. Examples are: 2506-EC2's; 2516-Park/Fort's; 2517-Euro L; and 2520-Empires. How does one utilize this load ability?



When you load supplies, that space will load fuel automagically. Look closely and you will see that it loaded, for instance, 6,250 supplies and 500 fuel.


Thank you I will certainly try this out and try to be more observant.

I now realize I should be playing more and using the editor less.

Buck



Heeward -> Leander and Achilles (9/22/2010 6:29:13 PM)

RNZNS Leander and Achilles:
After the 7/42 refit the aircraft capacity is reduced to zero. Is intended?

I removed the float planes prior to refit, therefore they are based in Sydney Harbor. What would have occurred if I had not removed the two air groups?



herwin -> RE: Leander and Achilles (9/22/2010 6:56:52 PM)

They would have gone into reserve. The airgroup would remain on the ship.



JWE -> RE: Leander and Achilles (9/22/2010 7:34:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Heeward
RNZNS Leander and Achilles:
After the 7/42 refit the aircraft capacity is reduced to zero. Is intended?

Yes. Aircraft gear removed during this refit. Therefore, the ships may no longer carry planes.
quote:

I removed the float planes prior to refit, therefore they are based in Sydney Harbor. What would have occurred if I had not removed the two air groups?

Treated as withdrawn. The "group" (one Walrus) can come back in 60 days, but it's hardly worth it.



redcoat -> RE: Leander and Achilles (9/23/2010 2:20:33 AM)


Didn't Leander and Achilles have their aircraft gear finally removed in 1943?



JWE -> RE: Leander and Achilles (9/23/2010 2:38:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: redcoat
Didn't Leander and Achilles have their aircraft gear finally removed in 1943?

Achilles lost her planes during refit of September 1942 at HM Dockyard, Auckland; Leander during refit of December 1942, also at Auckland. Game is apparently 2 months too early, so just don't push the 'yes, upgrade' bootawn till September. [;)]



Shark7 -> RE: Leander and Achilles (9/23/2010 3:20:33 PM)

Ok, here is another issue associated with a scenario of Japan invading the USSR in '41-'42. Again it is the auto-sinking of several ships. This is not a problem if the ships build yard is Vladivostok, but if they were built elsewhere and only have Vladivostok as an arrival point, the Allied AI/Player is deprived of ships that should arrive on schedule via other routes.



JWE -> RE: Leander and Achilles (9/23/2010 4:49:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7
This is not a problem if the ships build yard is Vladivostok, but if they were built elsewhere and only have Vladivostok as an arrival point, the Allied AI/Player is deprived of ships that should arrive on schedule via other routes.

Yes. That is indeed how the game works. It is wad, not an issue.



Stvitus2002 -> RE: Leander and Achilles (10/2/2010 12:51:26 AM)

Maybe this has already been covered... I have 2 Indian PG's named INDUS.
One is SWAN class, the other is INDUS class. Is this an error, or WAD?





WO 0/0




JWE -> RE: Leander and Achilles (10/2/2010 1:06:50 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Warrant officer 0/0
Maybe this has already been covered... I have 2 Indian PG's named INDUS.
One is SWAN class, the other is INDUS class. Is this an error, or WAD?
WO 0/0

Covered about 6 months ago..



oldman45 -> RE: Leander and Achilles (10/4/2010 4:19:28 PM)

I ran into a passage in Morrison's book, Vol VIII that the ASW ships armed with mousetraps/hedgehogs did not show up until June/July 1944. Yet the game has them arriving in '43. His passage is kind of vague but I am wondering if there is better data on this and if its worth doing a change to the DB?



Buck Beach -> RE: Leander and Achilles (10/4/2010 5:44:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

I ran into a passage in Morrison's book, Vol VIII that the ASW ships armed with mousetraps/hedgehogs did not show up until June/July 1944. Yet the game has them arriving in '43. His passage is kind of vague but I am wondering if there is better data on this and if its worth doing a change to the DB?


Here is a link I found: Hedgehogs and Mousetraps are at the bottom and show that the US Hedgehog production started late 1942 and that by November 1942 100 Mousetraps had been produced.

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WAMUS_ASW.htm

Buck



oldman45 -> RE: Leander and Achilles (10/4/2010 7:43:14 PM)

I am aware of that, but Morrison's passage suggests that those went to the Atlantic.



fcharton -> RE: Leander and Achilles (10/4/2010 9:06:19 PM)

Not on the OOB but on the reporting of some naval combat outcomes.

When some ships sink (so far I've noticed it on CL and CA) the combat event report sometimes give them an incorrect name at the time of their sinking, whereas the combat report, and ops report get the name right.

Here's an example, involving CL Boise (and DD Edsall, which is correctly identified in all reports).

Here's the combat report :

Allied Ships
DD Edsall, Torpedo hits 2, and is sunk
CL Boise, Torpedo hits 4, and is sunk

Here's the Allies Ops report (the Japanese report agrees on both counts, so it doesn't seem to be FOW)

Loss of CL Boise on Jan 08, 1942 is admitted
Loss of DD Edsall on Jan 08, 1942 is admitted

But here's the combat event log:

CL Leander sinks....
DD Edsall sinks....

And looking at the Allied fleet at the end of that game turn, I can still see CL Leander, but not CL Boise anymore.

Francois



Page: <<   < prev  34 35 [36] 37 38   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.390625