RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (Full Version)

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



Message

afspret -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (7/31/2009 11:53:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Copahee`s VRF-3B arrives with no airplanes unlike all other VRFs

Victorious arrives with TBF Avengers. No 832 SQN FAA

I know it operated with USNavy, but should it not be Avengers I ?

BTW Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier


In regards to what a/c type 832 arrived with, according to the FAA website, its initial compliment of a/c when it arrived for duty with the USN consisted of 15 TBF-1 Avengers on loan from the USN. They later converted over to the Avenger Mk I, so apparently its WAD.



afspret -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 12:05:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Copahee`s VRF-3B arrives with no airplanes unlike all other VRFs

Victorious arrives with TBF Avengers. No 832 SQN FAA

I know it operated with USNavy, but should it not be Avengers I ?

BTW Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier


According to the FAA website, 832 Sq was initially equipped with TBF-1 Avengers on loan from the USN. They swapped them for Avenger Is after their tour in the Pacific ended.



Terminus -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 12:09:20 AM)

Yep. Since the unit is British, it can upgrade to British types later, but it came into theatre with TBFs. I thought it was a mistake too...



afspret -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 12:09:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: afspret


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Copahee`s VRF-3B arrives with no airplanes unlike all other VRFs

Victorious arrives with TBF Avengers. No 832 SQN FAA

I know it operated with USNavy, but should it not be Avengers I ?

BTW Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier


According to the FAA website, 832 Sq was initially equipped with TBF-1 Avengers on loan from the USN. They swapped them for Avenger Is after their tour in the Pacific ended.

Sorry about the double post, thought the first one didn't take, dopey me[sm=00000734.gif]



Terminus -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 12:10:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: afspret


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Copahee`s VRF-3B arrives with no airplanes unlike all other VRFs

Victorious arrives with TBF Avengers. No 832 SQN FAA

I know it operated with USNavy, but should it not be Avengers I ?

BTW Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier


According to the FAA website, 832 Sq was initially equipped with TBF-1 Avengers on loan from the USN. They swapped them for Avenger Is after their tour in the Pacific ended.


Didn't you just say that?[:'(]



Iridium -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 1:13:36 AM)

Is it me or is the Akitsuki class DD short on endurance by quite a bit. Perhaps original WitP gave them overly generous range, I recall them having a 9000 nm + range while in AE they seem to have a 5000 nm range. Then again, I don't have a working one yet in the Grand Campaign so maybe it's just a oddity of the availability stats.



JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 2:49:07 AM)

Why does the Minneapolis TF arrive as a reinforcement in PH??

Why isnt it on the map at sea??



rjopel -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 3:37:02 AM)

It's probably to keep it from being attacked on day one. The KB didn't know that the Minneapolis was out at the gunnery range over the weekend and weren't looking for it. The game would find it.



TIMJOT -> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds (8/1/2009 4:30:59 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Shouldn't USS Boise and Marblehead (amongst other USN ships) have a withdrawl date?  They both spent time in the Med after repair work.




Not sure that should be the case since both were originally wthdrawn to the east coast due to damaged recieved fighting in the NEIs. There is no way to know that they would have been withdrawn had they not been damaged or if they had been damaged in the central or eastern pacific and withdrawn to the west coast instead.



JeffroK -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 6:35:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rjopel

It's probably to keep it from being attacked on day one. The KB didn't know that the Minneapolis was out at the gunnery range over the weekend and weren't looking for it. The game would find it.



???

But shouldn't that be an option.

If the KB is silly enough to have its units on Naval attack they takes what they gets.

IMHO, the designers have played God in this, and too many other areas, it should be up to us to choose our fates. There argument for the ability for KB to stay on station is exactly opposite to this. What if the commander of the Miineapolis TF decides to head for San Diego?? Instead, he is stranded in port.



fbs -> ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (8/1/2009 6:43:05 AM)

Scenario 002 has all ACM Chimo class boats present on 1941, but perhaps they shouldn't.

From DANFS:

"The second Chimo (ACM-1) was built as Colonel Charles W. Bundy for the Army by Marietta Manufacturing Co., Point Pleasant, W. Va.; converted at Norfolk Navy Yard; acquired by the Navy 7 April 1944; commissioned the same day, Lieutenant J. W. Gross, USNR, in command; and reported to the Atlantic Fleet.
"


Another source has more details on the Army MP class:

"
ACM Name Notes
1 CHIMO Ex Army COL. CHARLES W. BUNDY (MP-15, completed Apr 43). Converted by the Norfolk Navy Yard 10-28 Apr 44. Sold by MC to Foss Launch & Tug Co, Seattle, Wash. (probably awarded 19 Feb 48 and delivered 9 Apr 48). Merc. DAY ISLAND (fishing vessel) 1963. Sank 7 Dec 77 in the Caribbean.

2 PLANTER Ex Army COL. GEORGE RICKER (MP-16, completed Apr 43). Converted by the Norfolk Navy Yard 4-27 (or 20) Apr 44. Sold by MC to Foss Launch & Tug Co, Seattle, Wash. (probably awarded Feb 48 and delivered Apr 48). Merc. SAN JUAN (fishing vessel) 1963.

3 BARRICADE Ex Army COL. JOHN STOREY (MP-8, commissioned 7 Nov 42). Converted by the Norfolk Navy Yard 11-29 Apr 44 . To USCG as buoy tender MAGNOLIA (WAGL/WLB-328, in commission 3 Sep 46-13 Aug 71). Sold 15 Nov 72.

5 BARBICAN Ex Army COL. GEORGE ARMISTEAD (MP-3, completed 23 Aug 42). Converted by the Charleston, S.C. Navy Yard 6 Jan-25 Mar 45. To USCG as buoy tender IVY (WAGL/WLB-329, in commission 21 Apr 47-26 Nov 69). Merc. BALBOA (1977), SEA FOX (1981).

6 BASTION Ex Army COL. HENRY J. HUNT (MP-2, completed 30 May 42). Converted by the Charleston, S.C. Navy Yard 4 Jan-14 Apr 45. To USCG as buoy tender JONQUIL (WAGL/WLB-330, in commission 29 Aug 46-15 Sep 69). Sold 6 May 70.

7 OBSTRUCTOR Ex Army 1st LT. WILLIAM G. SYLVESTER (MP-5, completed 7 Sep 42). Substituted for BRIG. GEN. ROYAL T. FRANK (MP-12) as ACM-7 ca. 30 Dec 44. Converted by the Charleston, S.C. Navy Yard 4 Jan-4 Apr 45. To USCG as buoy tender HEATHER (WAGL/WLB-331, in commission 1 Feb 47-15 Dec 67). To Seattle Community College via Dept. of Health, Education & Welfare 12 Apr 68.

8 PICKET Ex Army GEN. HENRY KNOX (MP-1, completed 15 Apr 42). Converted by the Charleston, S.C. Navy Yard 2 Jan-5 Mar 45. To USCG as buoy tender WILLOW (WAGL/WLB-332, in commission 20 Sep 47-10 Oct 69). Sold 22 Feb 72, later merc. KNOX and HENRY KNOX.

9 TRAPPER Ex Army MAJ. GEN. ARTHUR MURRAY (MP-9, completed Aug 42). Converted by the Charleston, S.C. Navy Yard 2 Jan-15 Mar 45. Decomm. and to USCG 20 Jun 46 as cable layer YAMACRAW (WARC-333), stk. 19 Jul 46. Loaned to Navy by USCG 16 Apr 59 (formally returned 1 Jun 59) and commissioned 30 Apr 59 as USS YAMACRAW (ARC-5). Administratively returned to USCG 1 Jul 65 and to MA for disposal. Scrapped by 1 May 68.
"


The perfect solution would be to make them available as Army MP class, and then upgrade to ACM by 1944. If not possible, I reckon it is ok to have both the Army mine planters and the Chimo ACM as a single entry, but they should be available from Apr-42 onwards, not from Dec-41.


Cheers [:D]
fbs



JeffroK -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (8/1/2009 6:58:41 AM)

Acquired from the Army & Commissioned on the same day in 1944-45.

They were launched in 1941-42

Maybe they should be ingame but under their Army names.



Nomad -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 1:35:55 PM)

I have a problem with HDMLs. They are listed as capable to provide local minesweeping. But that option is not available. I am trying to use the ones that start at Rangoon. The only TFs I can put them in are Support and Escort. Not entirely useful.



Don Bowen -> RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 (8/1/2009 2:11:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Scenario 002 has all ACM Chimo class boats present on 1941, but perhaps they shouldn't.

(snip)

The perfect solution would be to make them available as Army MP class, and then upgrade to ACM by 1944. If not possible, I reckon it is ok to have both the Army mine planters and the Chimo ACM as a single entry, but they should be available from Apr-42 onwards, not from Dec-41.


Cheers [:D]
fbs


We are aware of the deployment of American ACM at the start of the war. There were, in fact, only three of them (one each at Manila, San Franciso, Puget Sound). Also one converted into an inter-island transport and a named working boat at Manila. There were however, large numbers of smaller carft that were used in this war. Unnamed US Army "L" and "M" boats that serviced the mines themselves and electrical connections/junction boxes to them. A similar situation existed for most countries.

We certainly weren't going to put in a fleet of these small boats. So that left us three options:
1. Build mine maintenance directly into the port size. Similar to what WITP did but was in conflict with our basic decision to separate civilian port functions (port size) from military ones (Naval Support).
2. Use Naval Support for mine maintenance. Too general, and we already have a number of functions lumped into Naval Support (one of which I would have liked to move to yet another Support type - Shore Parties).
3. Expand the ACM fleets using ships that historically could have been used in that role. This is what we did.

The two main groups of US ACM are the US Army Mine Planters (represented by the Chino Class) and US Coast Guard Buoy/Lighthouse Tenders (Alders).

Japan also has an extensive force of ACM that includes could-have-beens.

The intent is to provide the player the ability to use a reasonable force of ACM to offset the unavailability of all those working boats and to allow the use of ACM to protect the harbors that the player decides to protect.

Having said that, I am a fanatic for historical accuracy and it will probably change when my buddies and I get around to doing a mod. Still not sure what to do about the working boat issue though.

Incidentally, the DANFS history for the ex-USAMP only starts when acquired by the navy. They were in army service earlier in the war - until the threat to US ports was considered to have abated and they were no longer deemed needed. The dividing line between army and navy in minelaying has always been "interesting".



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 2:16:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

I have a problem with HDMLs. They are listed as capable to provide local minesweeping. But that option is not available. I am trying to use the ones that start at Rangoon. The only TFs I can put them in are Support and Escort. Not entirely useful.


I believe the manual says they can go into Local Minesweeping TFs, not that they can provide local minesweeping.

Y'all read this, I've gotten a bunch of questions in a similar vein.

HDMLs can be in a number of TF Types (missions) as escorts. They can not be the primary type in those TFs. To create a minesweeping TF you need a minesweeper. If you do have a minesweeper and create a minesweeping TF, you can add an HDML to it. But you can not create a minesweeping TF with only an HDML as HDML is not a defined minesweeper type.

It's a bit clearer with destroyers and Air Combat TF. DDs can be added to Air Combat TFs but a port that has no carriers and is full of destroyers will not allow you to form an Air Combat TF.



Nomad -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 2:50:43 PM)

Nice distinction. I'll quit asking questions, I sure don't want to bother you.



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 3:14:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Nice distinction. I'll quit asking questions, I sure don't want to bother you.



No way!. I want all the questions I can get. Just not the same one too many times please.



Dili -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 4:04:56 PM)

quote:

Not sure that should be the case since both were originally wthdrawn to the east coast due to damaged recieved fighting in the NEIs. There is no way to know that they would have been withdrawn had they not been damaged or if they had been damaged in the central or eastern pacific and withdrawn to the west coast instead.


If WITM40 sees the light of the day i fixed that making the ships that were retired because of damage retiring only when they were repaired.



Nomad -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 4:06:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Nice distinction. I'll quit asking questions, I sure don't want to bother you.



No way!. I want all the questions I can get. Just not the same one too many times please.


And get snarled at because I asked a question someone else might have? No thank you. It will be easier to just forget about it or work it out myself.



Monter_Trismegistos -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 4:22:29 PM)

Do ACM need to be in TF to maintain a minefield - or being disbanded in port is enough?



JuanG -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 4:36:54 PM)

Some questions regarding the shipclass database;

1) To my knowledge CA-37/38/39/44 (Tuscaloosa onwards New Orleans class) were armed with the 8in/55 Mk12, not the 8in/55 Mk9 like in the database.

2) The same 8in/55 Mk12 is listed as having an effect ("shell weight") of 335lbs. The 335lbs shells were only issued to the Baltimore class onwards. Thus there should be two versions of this gun, one with the standard 260lbs shell for the early CAs and one with the heavy 335lbs shell for the Baltimores.

3) The IJN 12.7cm/50 devices appear to be incorrectly assigned to some of the DDs.
-Fubuki(I) should be all Type A (#1668)
-Fubuki(II) and (III) should be all Type B (#1669)
-Hatsuharu should be Type B for duals (#1669), Type A single (#1672)
-Shiratsuyu should be Type C for duals (#1670), Type B single (#1673)
-Asashio and Kagero should be all Type C (#1670)
-Yugumo and Shimakaze should be all Type D (#1671)

Some of these are correct ingame, most are not. Worth checking.



erstad -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 5:05:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

IMHO, the designers have played God in this, and too many other areas, it should be up to us to choose our fates. There argument for the ability for KB to stay on station is exactly opposite to this. What if the commander of the Miineapolis TF decides to head for San Diego?? Instead, he is stranded in port.


Can always change it in the editor, of course.






JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 5:11:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Some questions regarding the shipclass database;

Hello Juan,

There are a gazillion devices that are listed, but not really used or differentiated. The device list represents a starting point for lots of our “I think this would be cool” possibilities that didn’t get done for one reason or another (mostly time). Thus:

The Japanese 12.7cm all have the same specs except one is a DP Gun, for use in HA turrets, one is a Nav Gun. That’s about it. Single or Twin don’t matter because that is done with # Turrets in the Class file. So there are really only two 12.7cm guns (DP & Nav). The rest was potential (gee, if we got the time, wouldn’t it be great to …. ).

Same with the 8in. We picked the device named Mk-9 to represent the 260, and the device named Mk-12 to represent the 335. Data was primary, “name” was secondary.

There are a lot of cool names, and cool descriptions, and we wish we coulda used them all and made a hundred more as well, but they are just text.

Please don’t think this is disparaging you comments. Certainly NOT my intention. Just trying to explain why something be what it be. I think you give good info, and it’s excellent grist for a mod. Maybe we can do something, maybe not, don’t know, but don’t be discouraged.

Ciao. John



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 5:12:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos
Do ACM need to be in TF to maintain a minefield - or being disbanded in port is enough?

Disbanded in port. Don't work when in a TF.



Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 5:21:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Nice distinction. I'll quit asking questions, I sure don't want to bother you.



No way!. I want all the questions I can get. Just not the same one too many times please.


And get snarled at because I asked a question someone else might have? No thank you. It will be easier to just forget about it or work it out myself.



OK, if you feel I snarled at you, goodbye.



JuanG -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 5:24:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Some questions regarding the shipclass database;

Hello Juan,

There are a gazillion devices that are listed, but not really used or differentiated. The device list represents a starting point for lots of our “I think this would be cool” possibilities that didn’t get done for one reason or another (mostly time). Thus:

The Japanese 12.7cm all have the same specs except one is a DP Gun, for use in HA turrets, one is a Nav Gun. That’s about it. Single or Twin don’t matter because that is done with # Turrets in the Class file. So there are really only two 12.7cm guns (DP & Nav). The rest was potential (gee, if we got the time, wouldn’t it be great to …. ).

Same with the 8in. We picked the device named Mk-9 to represent the 260, and the device named Mk-12 to represent the 335. Data was primary, “name” was secondary.

There are a lot of cool names, and cool descriptions, and we wish we coulda used them all and made a hundred more as well, but they are just text.

Please don’t think this is disparaging you comments. Certainly NOT my intention. Just trying to explain why something be what it be. I think you give good info, and it’s excellent grist for a mod. Maybe we can do something, maybe not, don’t know, but don’t be discouraged.

Ciao. John



Dont worry, I understand you had to draw the line somewhere. Good thing these are all editable so we modders can waste our time on excessive detail like that..[;)]

The reason I brought it up is that right now way too many of the IJN DDs are DP capable. Historically only the Type D mounts were good DP weapons, the Type B was mediocre at best. Thus, all those ships which should have Type C mounts but have Type B instead are performing a task they really sucked at IRL.

Thats all.

For Scenario 2 I can understand changing them over to Type D as a 'smart' move by the IJN, but historically this did not happen. Thats why loosing a dual 12.7cm turret for a bunch of horrid 25mm AA was a good trade...



fbs -> Deffensive Minefields (8/1/2009 5:34:42 PM)


The game has a degradation ratio of 1% for minefields, what is very nice for offensive minefields -- but is too high for defensive minefields.

A 1% daily ratio for defensive minefields means that if their ACM sails away for 10 days, the minefield will have lost 10% of its mines. That's way, way too high for two reasons: first several of these minefields use bottom mines instead of moored mines, so they are less susceptible to the environment; second that they can be tended, in part, by port resources not represented in the game -- San Francisco used crab boats to lay and tend the mines in the 30s.

I'd recommend to reduce degradation of mines in friendly ports of size 6+ to be 0.1%/day. An even nicer approach would be to have the mines being destroyed at 0.05%/day, plus 0.05%/day being damaged (i.e., removed from the minefield and returned to the pool). For smaller ports a 1%/day degradation is probably right, reflecting the smaller resources they have available.

Thanks [:D]
fbs



JWE -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 5:53:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Dont worry, I understand you had to draw the line somewhere. Good thing these are all editable so we modders can waste our time on excessive detail like that..[;)]

The reason I brought it up is that right now way too many of the IJN DDs are DP capable. Historically only the Type D mounts were good DP weapons, the Type B was mediocre at best. Thus, all those ships which should have Type C mounts but have Type B instead are performing a task they really sucked at IRL.

Thats all.

For Scenario 2 I can understand changing them over to Type D as a 'smart' move by the IJN, but historically this did not happen. Thats why loosing a dual 12.7cm turret for a bunch of horrid 25mm AA was a good trade...

Not worried [;)] Succinct and intelligent analysis, Juan. Keep them cards and letters coming (concept stuff, like you describe, piques my parade). pm me.

Ciao. John



Iridium -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 9:10:18 PM)

Did we mean to give Ibuki low angle 12.7cm guns or were they supposed to be the DP models? I'm seeing them in WitPStaff as low angle.



Kull -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 9:34:38 PM)

Technically this may not be a Naval Issue, but several times now in the Aleutians scenario, I've seen the Allied TF markers come up with some very odd graphics choices! I know these are related to the Allied TF markers, because right after you click the "next turn" button, the graphic switches back to the "normal" TF graphic and then proceeds on to it's next location:

(Edit: In the snapshot below, the "zero" and the "yellow anchor" are actually Allied TFs)

[image]local://upfiles/25668/A8F13FBB12D54401B18E0782288D247E.jpg[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.578125