RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (Full Version)

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

Message

EnricoR -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/30/2009 2:34:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Seeadler Just a minor issue: Essex class carriers had all four single 5" guns mounted on port not two on port and two on starboard. AE is correct here because as original the single 5" guns where all on the port side, on starboard are the 4 5" dual turrets, two before and two aft of the island.

Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/30/2009 3:23:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl A game "turn" has two 12-hour segments. a "night phase", followed by a "day phase". With "Historic" and "Suprise" ON, turn one has a "Magic move" (night phase), and begins with the second (or day phase). So there are several ways to look at it. The Day phase is 12 hours long, and the POW TF sailed 15 hours and 10 minutes after it began..., or by Hawaiian time, the POW TF didn't leave port until after dark on the 7th (1st or night phase of turn two)..., or stick to "local times", in which the POW TF left Singapore in the early evening of 12/08 and might have gotten a hex or so out to sea (cruise speed) before nightfall and the beginning of turn two..., still well out of range to be sighted and attacked. In any of these cases, the POW TF could not be attacked on Game Turn One. So (as I said previously), it's vulnerability to such an attack is a "scenario design device", not an "historical reality"... The scenario designers were simply trying to replicate the historical reality that Force Z was committed to disrupt the landings in the first 24hours of the shooting war. All involved underestimated the skill of the IJN pilots and the capability (range) of their bombers. The historical start leaves the Allied player likely to pay the same price for their complacency the Allies actually did in the first moves of the war--thus historical start...From my perspective, this was one of the most elegent design choices the scenario designers made to put the Allied player really in the shoes of their historical counterparts. It makes running that first turn so much more exciting and shocking.

Seeadler -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/30/2009 5:03:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: EnricoR quote: ORIGINAL: Seeadler Just a minor issue: Essex class carriers had all four single 5" guns mounted on port not two on port and two on starboard. AE is correct here because as original the single 5" guns where all on the port side, on starboard are the 4 5" dual turrets, two before and two aft of the island. [image]local://upfiles/13239/29389DA5FC834B49A563DBD8C09A9FD8.jpg[/image] AE is not correct. Two single 5" mounts starboard and two single 5" mounts port. Quod erat demonstrandum!

JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/30/2009 5:52:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Seeadler quote: ORIGINAL: EnricoR quote: ORIGINAL: Seeadler Just a minor issue: Essex class carriers had all four single 5" guns mounted on port not two on port and two on starboard. AE is correct here because as original the single 5" guns where all on the port side, on starboard are the 4 5" dual turrets, two before and two aft of the island. AE is not correct. Two single 5" mounts starboard and two single 5" mounts port. Quod erat demonstrandum! Holy firing arcs Batman ! Hate to see arguments over something like that. Thing is, it's hard to determine the firing arcs for the twins since they are grouped so close together, but on one side of the vessel, although they do have a pretty good arc. So front?, right side? center? Maybe thing to do is 1 twin shooting front, 1 twin shooting rear, 2 twins shooting right side, and (yepperino folks) all 4 singles shooting left side.

JuanG -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/30/2009 7:23:20 PM)
Ship Class #171 and #172 Bangor Diesel Eng use the old 2pdr device (#76) instead of the new one (#1535) like the other Bangor classes. Ship Class #2179 Shirataka uses the old Type 93 Mine device (#121) instead of the new one (#1712) like its upgrades do. Ship Class #2122 Std-CT TK uses the old 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG device (#70) on the left side mount instead of the new one (#1683) like the rest of the mounts.

JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/30/2009 8:11:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JuanG Ship Class #171 and #172 Bangor Diesel Eng use the old 2pdr device (#76) instead of the new one (#1535) like the other Bangor classes. Ship Class #2179 Shirataka uses the old Type 93 Mine device (#121) instead of the new one (#1712) like its upgrades do. Ship Class #2122 Std-CT TK uses the old 13.2mm Type 93 AAMG device (#70) on the left side mount instead of the new one (#1683) like the rest of the mounts. Got it. Damn, thought we found all those. Guess not. Gracias Juan. Keep them cards and letters coming folks.

Dixie -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/30/2009 9:17:53 PM)
The final Pennsylvania class upgrade (#314) is scheduled for 3/54, by which point she was long gone [:D]

Don Bowen -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/30/2009 9:37:32 PM)
This is way back on the first page. If anyone is not aware of the problem with off map turnarounds, please read this: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2179384

JSBoomer -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/30/2009 10:32:20 PM)
Were destoryers Crystal, Croziers, Crown, Cromewll, Creole, and Crispin actual RCN destroyers? All the sources I've looked at list them as being RN and then transfered to other countries after the war. Or were They Canadian manned RN ships?

Don Bowen -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/30/2009 10:58:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: J Boomer Were destoryers Crystal, Croziers, Crown, Cromewll, Creole, and Crispin actual RCN destroyers? All the sources I've looked at list them as being RN and then transfered to other countries after the war. Or were They Canadian manned RN ships? Sort-a. After VE day, the RCN was to man a force of modern warships for Pacific Service. This force was set as two light carriers, 2 cruisers, and a full flotilla of destroyers. The crews from the ASW escorts that fought the Battle of the Atlantic were to be transferred to them. In addition, about 40 Canadian River class frigates were to tropicalized and assigned to the Pacific and Eastern Fleets. The two carriers and two cruisers were transferred to the RCN, but only one or two of the cruisers before VJ day. The "Cr" flotilla was intended for transfer but this was aborted when the war ended. The first few of the PFs were in the Pacific by that time. It's pushing it a bit, but the Cr Flotilla could have been completed somewhat earlier and become RCN.

JSBoomer -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/30/2009 11:07:25 PM)
Ah, I like a little what if and that makes sence to me. As for the carriers do you mean the Nabob and the Puncher or are you refering to the Warrior? And are they in the game? I didn't notice.

Don Bowen -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/30/2009 11:27:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: J Boomer Ah, I like a little what if and that makes sence to me. As for the carriers do you mean the Nabob and the Puncher or are you refering to the Warrior? And are they in the game? I didn't notice. Warrior and Magnificent, Uganda and Ontario, all eight Cr plus Algonquin and Sioux of the "V" class and three Canadian Tribals undergoing tropicalization. I think the CVE were to be decommissioned and their crews transfered to the CVL.

JSBoomer -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/30/2009 11:39:57 PM)
Does that mean that Warrior and Maggie are in the game?

Don Bowen -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/30/2009 11:41:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: J Boomer Does that mean that Warrior and Maggie are in the game? Yes and No. Take a look....

JSBoomer -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/31/2009 12:00:21 AM)
Sorry I'm not at home and have not gotten a good look at it. I'll check when I get home thanks. [:)]

Jzanes -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/31/2009 2:52:12 AM)
Convoluted question about rearming a PT boat. In the manual it says that an AGP will rearm a PT completely including torpedoes. However, it also says that the weapon's rearm cost must be less than the cargo capacity of the tender. A PT boat's 21 inch torpedo is listed as having a rearm cost of 1620. The largest AGP on the map has a cargo capacity of 840. Is this WAD and I'm out of luck until a bigger tender shows up or is the AGP an exception to the rule? Another issue that came up in trying to figure this out is that there is no where in the game to figure out the load cost of a torpedo. I couldn't find the rearm cost of the torpedo anywhere in game. It's not shown in the list of torpedoes and it's not shown on the list of each ship's weapons. The only number I could find was in the manual and it only has a listing for a "21 inch" torpedo and not the 21 inch mk 8 that the PT boat uses. I'm assuming they're the same but hard to know for sure.

Don Bowen -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/31/2009 3:50:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jzanes Convoluted question about rearming a PT boat. In the manual it says that an AGP will rearm a PT completely including torpedoes. However, it also says that the weapon's rearm cost must be less than the cargo capacity of the tender. A PT boat's 21 inch torpedo is listed as having a rearm cost of 1620. The largest AGP on the map has a cargo capacity of 840. Is this WAD and I'm out of luck until a bigger tender shows up or is the AGP an exception to the rule? That would be 1620 pounds or 1620/2000 of one capacity point. (edit) Whoops, that is for cargo consumption, not the capacity check. For capacity the load cost/2 is compared against the AGP capacity, so a 1620 torpedo requires a 810 or greater AGP. quote: Another issue that came up in trying to figure this out is that there is no where in the game to figure out the load cost of a torpedo. I couldn't find the rearm cost of the torpedo anywhere in game. It's not shown in the list of torpedoes and it's not shown on the list of each ship's weapons. The only number I could find was in the manual and it only has a listing for a "21 inch" torpedo and not the 21 inch mk 8 that the PT boat uses. I'm assuming they're the same but hard to know for sure. Not actually sure if it is in game. You can see it in the editor.

Jzanes -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/31/2009 4:37:02 AM)
Thanks for the answer Don. Is load cost divided by 2 standard for all tenders or is that special for AGPs only? I'm working from this part of the manual. The only part I could find that discusses the use of tenders for rearming. 20.1.2.2 SHIP REARMAMENT AT PORTS TABLE The Rearm Table shows the number of Naval Support squads, in different size Ports, and/or the types of tenders, required for rearming certain weapons. A TF can ‘completely’ rearm in a port if the Rearm Cost of the largest weapon is “less than or equal to” the native Rearm Level of a Port, plus the number of Naval Support squads in the Port. Each Naval Support squad = 5 Rearm points. Ports that are normally too small to rearm certain weapons may do so if an appropriate tender is at anchor in the Port. The weapon Rearm Cost must be “less than or equal to” the tender “cargo capacity”. As a TF rearms, it consumes supply. The amount of supply required for each weapon, for each ship, is [(Rearm Cost) * (number of guns) * (ammo per gun)] / 2000. * Yamato/Musashi may also rearm at a Port-9, or a Port-8 with at least 88 Naval Support squads. * AG may only rearm “Small Escort and Small Craft” as defined in 14.2.3.2 Maybe it's a big job but adding the rearm cost of each weapon to the ship screens would be a lotta help. It can be tedious to scroll through the in-game database (when it's listed) or the manual to find a rearm value. Adding the "current rearm capacity" (native port rearm value adjusted for current naval support*5) to the base screen would also be a nice feature.

Chad Harrison -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/31/2009 6:36:04 AM)
This may have been brought up already, or I am be missing something (most likely): In scenario 1, when I try to change the HQ of my ships, Southeast Asia does not show up on the list. If you select say the Prince of Whales, it shows that it is assigned to this fleet, and you can see the other ships in the fleet, but you cant assign ships to this HQ; atleast as far as I can tell. I also noticed that some HQ's which are not in play show up on the list and you can assign ships to them. For instance, on December 7th, you can assign ships to 3rd or 5th Fleet. Is this intentional? It may be because these fleets are attached to a HQ that is on map and in play (ie. Pacific Fleet). I say that because Southwest Pacific and the 7th Fleet are not on the list, I would assume because their HQ's are not in play yet. Edit: In another thread, someone pointed out that the HQ is missing simply because it has not arrived yet. So that atleast explains why its not on the list. But why is everything assigned to it then? If there are already 300 ships assigned to it, is it intended that you not be able to assign more to it?

Seeadler -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/31/2009 11:02:54 AM)
Ship ID 5223 Hercules and ID 5246 Tyrrell are both listed as APAs. Both ship were AKs. Hercules AK-41 and Tyrrell AKA-80 Ship ID 5456 Lycoming listed as AKA in AE. USS Lycomings hull number was APA-155.

Terminus -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/31/2009 11:57:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dixie The final Pennsylvania class upgrade (#314) is scheduled for 3/54, by which point she was long gone [:D] We have that one; was one of the first to get noticed.[:'(]

Mynok -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (7/31/2009 6:41:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mynok Going from memory...I'll update tonight if I got this spelling wrong...but one of the magic task forces has a TF name that differs from the destination base name....Narphodine or something like that. I believe the TF is on Hainan or at Saigon. TF 94 at Saigon is named Nakhorn Invasion but the destination is actually Nakhon Si Thammerat. Minor.

Roko -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/31/2009 6:43:39 PM)
Maybe not very important : - ship class 2024 and ship 1370 are named Bankok Maru IMO Bangkok Maru sounds better - 1271 Santos Maru, 2066 La Plata Maru and 2827 Montevideo Maru are sisters ships but in game they belongs to 3 different classes http://www.mol.co.jp/ships120years/04_apr/index.html

Barb -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/31/2009 7:19:22 PM)
Full Campaign: There are two ships named Sumac. Both are ACMs of the Alder ACM Class (Ship ID 9967 and 9970). They are both available at Seattle at 21.2.1942 and 07.04.1942. Are they clones?

Fokko -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/31/2009 7:30:41 PM)
I noticed following strange TF behavior Allies against Japanese AI scen 2 , Succesfully engaged a amphibious TF af Kuching , a dameged Cl with 2 DD withdrew to Singapore the other tried to return to Batavia . But everitime the second TF ran into the Japanese TF returning east , engament screens comes up and message TF's evades combat than the allied TF sailed east instead of west or north-west , happend severaL times during 1 turn and the TF is now only 2 hexes away from Miri [&:] Is this as designed ???? , can't imagine that a tf commander feels forced to sail in the wrong direction (5 hexes total) Specially when the TF with the damaged ships sailed in the correct direction without any problem. Or is it a hexsides owners issue as with landcombat ?? When in the orders screen again it shows the correct path towards Batavia P.s This happend for 2 turns in a row with same Allied and Japanes TF involved

JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/31/2009 7:36:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Roko Maybe not very important : - ship class 2024 and ship 1370 are named Bankok Maru IMO Bangkok Maru sounds better Not surprised. There were maybe 6 different Bankok Marus, when you count all the dinky ones. quote: - 1271 Santos Maru, 2066 La Plata Maru and 2827 Montevideo Maru are sisters ships but in game they belongs to 3 different classes I believe the allocations are historical, just like many, many other sisters that were allocated to different type functions. Japan tended to do that.

JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/31/2009 7:39:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Barb Full Campaign: There are two ships named Sumac. Both are ACMs of the Alder ACM Class (Ship ID 9967 and 9970). They are both available at Seattle at 21.2.1942 and 07.04.1942. Are they clones? Could be, but more likely a typo. Got it. Thank you.

Seeadler -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/31/2009 8:36:55 PM)
Can't find anything about the Alder ACMs in the net. Were they US Navy vessels? Hull numbers?

JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/31/2009 8:47:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Seeadler Can't find anything about the Alder ACMs in the net. Were they US Navy vessels? Hull numbers? We got it under control, thanks.

Seeadler -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/31/2009 9:37:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JWE quote: ORIGINAL: Seeadler Can't find anything about the Alder ACMs in the net. Were they US Navy vessels? Hull numbers? We got it under control, thanks. I promise to shut up and will not bother anyone with stupid questions anymore. [&o]

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.921875