RE: Leander and Achilles (Full Version)

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



Message

Rainer -> RE: Leander and Achilles (10/4/2010 10:31:30 PM)

A result of the FOW routines of the game.
Admittedly not very convincing in this case.



PAWMatrix -> Type KRS (I-21 to I-24) (10/5/2010 9:29:58 AM)

Hello,

I am making fixes to WPO and and decided to check in my copy of WitP AE.

My Source:
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946

According to Conway's the class carried 42 mines in two mine layers in the rear.

Weapon Slot 3:

Num: 2 (Correct)
Turret: 1 (why not 2?)
Facing: Front (I believe to be rear)
Ammo: 21 (Correct)

PAW



Shark7 -> RE: Type KRS (I-21 to I-24) (10/9/2010 11:46:40 PM)

Scenoario 8: Ironman

the following ships have ammo errors:

102 'R' Class Weapon 6 20mm only has 01 ammo
103 'S" Class Weapon 6 20mm Only 01 ammo
105 'T' Class Weapon 6 20mm only 01 ammo



PAWMatrix -> Myoko Class (10/16/2010 2:36:17 AM)

Hello,

Was poking around today.

Found the Tower Armor on Myoko Class to be zero.

I would expect it to be something.

PAW



jwilkerson -> RE: Myoko Class (10/16/2010 3:23:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PAWMatrix

Hello,

Was poking around today.

Found the Tower Armor on Myoko Class to be zero.

I would expect it to be something.

PAW


Then you'd better inform the designers and builders [:)] ... for a summary check out Lacroix's "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War", page 809. The conning tower is unprotected. There is much more detail on other pages of this work.






herwin -> RE: Myoko Class (10/16/2010 11:16:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: PAWMatrix

Hello,

Was poking around today.

Found the Tower Armor on Myoko Class to be zero.

I would expect it to be something.

PAW


What was the metacentric height of the Japanese cruisers? I know the Cleveland class was quite marginal (producing a risk of capsizing if damaged in battle) and topweight had to be managed very carefully.

I'm also aware UK inter-war design of the engine rooms was deficient, producing a real risk of capsizing (more than a half-dozen major warships during the war) if there was underwater damage that reached the engineering spaces.



JWE -> RE: Myoko Class (10/16/2010 2:58:49 PM)

Suggest looking at Joe's reference; Lacroix, Wells, 'Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War'. The summary data tables have it all, including GM, BM, BD, all the coefficients and all the ratios.

To answer the specific question, between 0.72m and 0.78m (design), depending on class.



herwin -> RE: Myoko Class (10/16/2010 10:07:58 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Suggest looking at Joe's reference; Lacroix, Wells, 'Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War'. The summary data tables have it all, including GM, BM, BD, all the coefficients and all the ratios.

To answer the specific question, between 0.72m and 0.78m (design), depending on class.


The book is £150 used!

Close to instability, but with the advantage of a slow roll.

YMMV.



JWE -> RE: Myoko Class (10/17/2010 6:00:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
The book is £150 used!

Close to instability, but with the advantage of a slow roll.

YMMV.

If one wants good, real, info, one must pay for it.

0.72m is actually pretty darn good given the appropriate midship and prismatic, and GM has very little to do with roll rate. As I read the data, I would consider them stiff. If you want to know what the terms actually mean, how they are applied, and learn something about ship design in general, there are two good basic books, Skeene and Marchaj, that were written for introductory naval architecture students but are written in a way that a layperson can understand the concepts. I recommend them.



herwin -> RE: Myoko Class (10/17/2010 8:28:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin
The book is £150 used!

Close to instability, but with the advantage of a slow roll.

YMMV.

If one wants good, real, info, one must pay for it.

0.72m is actually pretty darn good given the appropriate midship and prismatic, and GM has very little to do with roll rate. As I read the data, I would consider them stiff. If you want to know what the terms actually mean, how they are applied, and learn something about ship design in general, there are two good basic books, Skeene and Marchaj, that were written for introductory naval architecture students but are written in a way that a layperson can understand the concepts. I recommend them.


Not my field. There are some relevant results in complex systems theory, including an important recent paper. Early American CAs had a larger GM due to their unexpectedly low displacement and a really nasty roll.



jcjordan -> RE: Myoko Class (10/25/2010 11:55:54 PM)

I saw where this was reported back a few pages ago but didn't see any reply from a dev if they noticed it. Some of the New Mexico class BB's have an update as well as a conversion in 10/43??? I couldn't tell the diff between the 2 as far as armament. I've got the Idaho that only shows the 10/43 upgrade but other NM class ships show the upgrade as well as a BB conversion. This is scen 1 started under original release & the post I saw it also mentioned under was scen 9 so I assume it might affect all scenarios. I'm not sure if this is a game stopper or just a minor irritant of either/or on the conversion vs upgrade.



oldman45 -> RE: Myoko Class (10/26/2010 7:01:23 AM)

Off the top of my head, I think the coversion removes the casement guns while the upgrade does not. I think there are changes to the 5" DP also. If you look one adds more AAA then the other so I made the choice to go with more AAA



jcjordan -> RE: Myoko Class (10/27/2010 1:11:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Off the top of my head, I think the coversion removes the casement guns while the upgrade does not. I think there are changes to the 5" DP also. If you look one adds more AAA then the other so I made the choice to go with more AAA


I'll double check that to be sure since my game was started under original release, the db entries of the ships in my game might be different than current version. When I viewed the upgrade & conversion in the ship screen they looked the same but old timers disease flicks in on occasion.



Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (11/12/2010 7:06:01 PM)

The devices 1622 through 1627 for the 5in/38 Mk 12 guns appear to have exactly the same data for each device. Are the different devices for this weapon only for aesthetics?

Please excuse me if this has previously been surfaced or explained, I searched like hell for another thread.



Herrbear -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (11/12/2010 11:50:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

The devices 1622 through 1627 for the 5in/38 Mk 12 guns appear to have exactly the same data for each device. Are the different devices for this weapon only for aesthetics?

Please excuse me if this has previously been surfaced or explained, I searched like hell for another thread.


I believe so. I thought JWE mentioned that once in the modding thread.



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (11/13/2010 5:48:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
The devices 1622 through 1627 for the 5in/38 Mk 12 guns appear to have exactly the same data for each device. Are the different devices for this weapon only for aesthetics?

Please excuse me if this has previously been surfaced or explained, I searched like hell for another thread.

I believe so. I thought JWE mentioned that once in the modding thread.

Yep. What Herrbear said. Sent you a pm.



Stvitus2002 -> RE: Leander and Achilles (11/13/2010 7:14:13 PM)

quote:

After the 7/42 refit the aircraft capacity is reduced to zero. Is intended?


Leander and Achilles

Also,after the 7/42 refit the forward turrets have ammo reduced to 10. WAD?




WO 0/0



Speedysteve -> RE: Leander and Achilles (12/1/2010 3:52:09 PM)

Hi all,

This may be WAD but I've noticed that the 1/43 upgrades for Dutch KXVI class subs (Radar upgrades/AA changes) don't incur any time/refit delay in port.

Thought I'd bring it up since all the US Fleet Class subs require over a week for refit.



fjmeyer -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/11/2010 5:36:48 PM)

re.:

"There is another small photo of HMIS Barracuda at the bottom of this webpage. "

http://www.hongkongescape.org/Kukong.htm

""
The H.T. "Heinrich Jessen" under her 31 year old master Georg Hansen R.I.N.R. was the last ship to leave Rangoon, sailing out with members of the 2nd MTB Flotilla from Hong Kong through the Japanese war ships coming in.
""

See:

http://global-mariner.com/index111JacobJebsen.html

His full name is: Georg Rhod Hansen
and he is my grandfather.

/Frans



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/11/2010 6:34:37 PM)

Because of the scope of the stock game, it is difficult to accommodate requests for individual ships. However, Barracuda, ex Heinrich Jessen, is represented in DaBabes. That is what DaBabes is all about.

Since you mention your grandfather, Frans, we will be pleased to add Georg Rhod Hansen as the skipper to this vessel. Thank you for the photo links, it helps us determine just what kind of ship she was and lets us make DaBabes just a bit more correct.

Again, thank you very much.



jcjordan -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/17/2010 3:09:48 AM)

Not sure if this is wrong or correct or not but on the 1/44 upgrades for the Northampton & Pensacola classes the tower armor goes from 62 to 0. This is scen 1 but would assume it hit all scenarios if wrong.



sspahr -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (12/17/2010 12:38:46 PM)

ver. 1.0.4.1106

Starting with the 12/42 upgrade Sargo and Seadragon classes have two forward tubes and six aft.

Specifically, classes 611-616 and 619-624 have weapon 2 facing set to rear.



R8J -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (1/4/2011 3:56:02 PM)

1.0.4.1106i

In Scenario 004 the ROF of fire for DP guns seems to be correct. In the other scenarios the ROF fire is a lot less. 1/5 to 1/3 of Sceanrio 4 ROF.



Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (1/14/2011 7:47:17 PM)

Well I am still up to no good and have discovered something about the naval ship data that some of you may want to know. Normally, I would bounce this off our main man JWE, but now, well you know.

It seems we have a double counting of tankers representing those that the Japanese captured and used. I direct you too this site: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Yusosen.htm

I have researched several (most) of these and with exception the ships are shown as Allied (with a sinking date) and then Japanese but with different stats.

I am a DaBabes man, but the original game data is also incorrectly shown.

Micromanagement sort of guy that I am, I will show the duplicate Allied ships as having a withdrawal date and will adjusted the Japanese ship stats to be consistent and to show up after that date. If the ship is sunk before then, it will still show up as a Japanese ship at the appropriate date. Not perfect but then again better than both ships operating at the same time.

Woof and Ciao (TMs in honor of da main man of DaBabe (your a main man too Don).

Buck



Herrbear -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (1/15/2011 6:43:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Well I am still up to no good and have discovered something about the naval ship data that some of you may want to know. Normally, I would bounce this off our main man JWE, but now, well you know.

It seems we have a double counting of tankers representing those that the Japanese captured and used. I direct you too this site: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Yusosen.htm

I have researched several (most) of these and with exception the ships are shown as Allied (with a sinking date) and then Japanese but with different stats.

I am a DaBabes man, but the original game data is also incorrectly shown.

Micromanagement sort of guy that I am, I will show the duplicate Allied ships as having a withdrawal date and will adjusted the Japanese ship stats to be consistent and to show up after that date. If the ship is sunk before then, it will still show up as a Japanese ship at the appropriate date. Not perfect but then again better than both ships operating at the same time.

Woof and Ciao (TMs in honor of da main man of DaBabe (your a main man too Don).

Buck



I think it would be better not to have the Japanese have the captured ships, much like how the Japanese do not get the captured US DD Stewart.




Ldeathbow -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (1/16/2011 11:17:10 PM)

I was looking at conversions/upgrades and noticed, what I think is, an issue with the CVE Hosho.

The original (database #1802), 12/41, carries 20 planes, 4 (2*2 mounts) 14cm/503YT20deg guns (with 20 ammo)and 4 (2*2 mounts) 25mm TYPE 96 AA guns (with 36 ammo).

The first upgrade (#1803), 9/42, carries 18 planes, removes the 4* 14cm guns and ammo and doubles the 25mm AA guns (from 2*2's to 4*2's) but NOT the ammo (still 36).

The LAST (of 2) upgrades (#1804), 6/44, also carries 18 planes, adds 10 (new mounts 5*1 - LS and RS)for a total of 18*25mm type 96 AA guns and doubles the ammo (4*2 LS w/36 ammo, 4*2 RS w/36 ammo, 5*1 LS w/36 ammo and 5*1 RS w/36 ammo) - but TAKES NOTHING?!?

I can't see anything to explain why the Hosho sacrificed 2 planes AND 4 * 14cm guns and only received 4 * 25mm AA guns if it could mount 5*1 LS w/36 ammo and 5*1 RS w/36 ammo (21 months later) without losing anything else to compensate for the added weight of these new guns. At least give me more ammo for the AA guns (the 8 I do have in 42-44 upgrade).



anarchyintheuk -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (1/17/2011 7:51:33 PM)

The IJN probably didn't care too much about her armament during her first 'upgrade'. Hosho had been reduced to a training role by this time.



Puhis -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (1/18/2011 6:36:41 AM)

I think Hosho is a fantasy ship in this game. She couldn't operate 18 modern planes IRL...



herwin -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (1/18/2011 7:24:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

The IJN probably didn't care too much about her armament during her first 'upgrade'. Hosho had been reduced to a training role by this time.


Like many IJN warships, wasn't she a bit unstable? I seem to recall the heavy AA was pulled to reduce the topweight.



anarchyintheuk -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (1/18/2011 4:35:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

The IJN probably didn't care too much about her armament during her first 'upgrade'. Hosho had been reduced to a training role by this time.


Like many IJN warships, wasn't she a bit unstable? I seem to recall the heavy AA was pulled to reduce the topweight.


Yup. Catapults and arrestor gear were installed during one of her refits and the additional topweight had to be removed from somewhere. If it's just a training ship, why not the heavy aa?

No trom from combinedfleet.com for the Hosho. They didn't think much of her either.



Page: <<   < prev  35 36 [37] 38 39   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75