RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (Full Version)

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



Message

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 9:45:12 PM)


Not to worry, folks smarter than me are on this one.



Iridium -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 10:01:30 PM)

I noticed that Takao originally has 102 belt armor, etc. then loses the tower armor. Simultaneously, I noticed that Takao is lacking in belt armor compared to Mogami. Mogami is newer but I was always under the impression that it was built on a budget/diet to fool other nations. Takao was also given many prewar refits adding bulges, armor, TDS etc...I'm curious if these are indeed accurate figures.

[image]local://upfiles/16037/5FD1BFE4799A45FDABBE274DE62FE51A.jpg[/image]



jwilkerson -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 10:12:31 PM)

I got the cruiser armor figures from Lacroix- so unless there is a typo these are correct.




Iridium -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 10:13:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I got the cruiser armor figures from Lacroix- so unless there is a typo these are correct.




Well, if I can find Skulski's book on Takao I'll post some figures.

Skulski supports the 102mm belt as built and the 75mm Tower armor. Then there is a mention of removing Tower top weight during a refit but nothing else. Assuming the tower loses almost all it's armor to this refit is the only way I can see these figures being accurate.

Huh, never considered Mogami to be such a beast in the armor dept. Always thought it was a repeat of Takao but with a little 6" turret shell game going on and then refits of questionable value (not much hard data).



jwilkerson -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 10:15:53 PM)

Ah, I have that one two. But I don't have any of my sources in my hotel room with me today - doing a big project cutover in my day job ...



GaryChildress -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 10:22:13 PM)

Not sure if this is an oversight or not. Maybe it's supposed to be this way but I've found a few ships in the DB which are upgrading, which have "0" set for the "Upgrade Shipyard Size". If "0" is set for shipyard size does that mean it can upgrade at any level 3 port?



[image]local://upfiles/17421/9AA4AE2EA1264BF2AC8E7E2E4DD282D5.jpg[/image]



jwilkerson -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 10:33:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I got the cruiser armor figures from Lacroix- so unless there is a typo these are correct.




Well, if I can find Skulski's book on Takao I'll post some figures.

Skulski supports the 102mm belt as built and the 75mm Tower armor. Then there is a mention of removing Tower top weight during a refit but nothing else. Assuming the tower loses almost all it's armor to this refit is the only way I can see these figures being accurate.

Huh, never considered Mogami to be such a beast in the armor dept. Always thought it was a repeat of Takao but with a little 6" turret shell game going on and then refits of questionable value (not much hard data).


I'd be happy to post the data from Lacroix once I get back home. Lacroix has details galore - in fact so much detail that you get lost in it. Like in some cases there are really multiple armored decks and multiple side armor faces as well - some made out of different materials - with different properties at different angles - and on and on. To try to translate the REAL data into game terms is not remotely a "look it up and plug it in" exercise!
[:)]



Iridium -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 10:34:38 PM)

Ah, here's the oddness with Takao...post '39 refit Skulski shows the 102mm belt covered with a bulge:

Above the waterline and a little below it is a 10mm Ducol steel plate holding numerous pipes up against the belt. It removed the vessels belt angle (the belt is still angled but the new exterior is verticle) and it's main purpose was to add bouyancy to the vessel to solve stability issues.

I would find it difficult to hazard a guess as to how much protection this new addition would afford to the ship. There would probably be a way but I don't feel like breaking out Nathan Okun's calculator etc...[:D]



jwilkerson -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 10:37:03 PM)

Right, those are the kinds of details I was referring too!



Iridium -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/1/2009 10:38:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I'd be happy to post the data from Lacroix once I get back home. Lacroix has details galore - in fact so much detail that you get lost in it. Like in some cases there are really multiple armored decks and multiple side armor faces as well - some made out of different materials - with different properties at different angles - and on and on. To try to translate the REAL data into game terms is not remotely a "look it up and plug it in" exercise!
[:)]


I can imagine...attempting to determine 'fair' decisions on what can end up being far more complex than simple addition and subtraction compounded by steel compositions etc... Then trying to make that into usable figures for the game, it would be exhausting.



erstad -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/2/2009 12:28:22 AM)

Scen 6 (December 8th) problems:

Only one of these is naval but I thought I'd keep them linked because they do kind of counterbalance:

1) KB has a full ordnance load. Should be degraded by the 12/7 expenditure (or is this just an inherent limitation of the engine/editor?)
2) No IJ points for the 12/7 losses. I saw this in another thread, but lost track of which so I don't know if that's been addressed. Someone suggested it might be in the Tokyo base points, like it apparently was in Witp, but as far as I can tell the starting victory points for Japan are the same in both.




Nomad -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/2/2009 2:30:53 AM)

moved to different thread



Keifer -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/2/2009 2:47:36 AM)

What is the Political Point penalty if a ship is sunk before its withdrawal date?



Rugens -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/2/2009 3:20:00 AM)

The buttons to step through the TF's in a hex do not seem to be working. The buttons are working for both air and land units. Interestingly, if you click on the TF button and then click on the Air Group button, not only the Air Group increments but so does the TF. It would be really handy to have this feature in order to easly scroll through a visual of your ASW and MS patrols.



[image]local://upfiles/1311/FFA37E23614541D1BBF2C0DC190AE56B.jpg[/image]



pad152 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/2/2009 8:44:52 AM)

Campaign 2

Ise (051) as airgroup with 22 aircraft (623)
Hyuga (052) as airgroup with 22 aircraft (626)







JuanG -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/2/2009 10:32:13 AM)

On that note, the Fuso/Yamashiro conversions DONT have airgroups, atleast in Scenario 1.



Reg -> Bug: Hex overlay on TF destination select (8/2/2009 12:43:55 PM)

I think this has been reported already but...

Caused by selecting TF destination with hex grid (& range rings) on.

Gets really freaky if you scroll around a bit.

Clears OK when you click on a destination hex (if you can see a valid one) and the screen refreshes.


[image]local://upfiles/446/3AEECA00048A4C4F81C86795D91EEEEF.gif[/image]


EDIT: A shutdown and reload of AE (not the PC) and everything is back to normal. [:)]

I suspect that this was the graphics system (directx?) getting upset. I had the program running in windowed mode for several hours and I think the screen blanker cut in a couple of times. I also had the forums open on another monitor so the game lost focus several times. I think the biggest hint of what is going on is that the map, TF window and the game icons at the bottom (and the hex grid) don't get refreshed when it goes into the select destination on map routine. The new grid and base icons are simply written over the top without refreshing the map underneath. Same happens on scroll. However once destination is selected, everything is refreshed normally.

EDIT 2: After reading another thread in the tech support area, I think there is another common factor. At one point I grabbed the edge of the window by mistake and accidentally resized the AE window which messed up the display. I put the window back to what I thought was the correct size (could have been a pixel or two out) but it refreshed normally and I thought everything was back to normal. Maybe not. I don't think I reloaded AE after this and as I was just exploring some of the new AE features (such as the OOB and the new ship repair) and not playing a game so I did not notice something was up with the TF destination allocation until a bit later. I think that I could put this problem down as an artifact of resizing the game window. Is there any way of locking the window size??

But as I said, restarting AE fixed issue. Hope this helps.




erstad -> Scen 1 historical orders issue (8/2/2009 2:54:23 PM)

In Scen 1, the TFs heading to Vigan and Aparri seem backward. The surface combat TFs are following the transports, I assume it should be the other way around. If the AI/Allies sortie even a few warships it can make a big difference.



ny59giants -> TF Tonnage (8/2/2009 3:43:00 PM)

On the main TF window, if a TF is "at sea" it shows what the TF tonnage is when at a base. Once you dock that TF, that information goes away. If you have multiple TF docked at a base you get the grand total, but lose individual TF information.

With the increased importance of TF tonnage, it would minimize multiple clicking to find a window with the tonnage if it (TF tonnage) was always displayed on the main TF window regardless if it is docked or at sea.



Kull -> RE: TF Tonnage (8/2/2009 4:52:28 PM)

Aleutians Campaign:

As Japan, I created a Bombardment TF in Paramushiro and raced it out to Attu at Full Speed. It arrived in 2 turns (average speed about 30), burning fuel heavily and picking up a fair amount of damage along the way, all as one might expect. A few turns later, I created a second Bombardment TF in Paramushiro and put this one on Cruise (average speed 15), with the same destination. This ALSO arrived in two days, but with minimal fuel consumption and little to no damage. What am I missing here?



jwilkerson -> RE: TF Tonnage (8/2/2009 5:06:16 PM)

You are missing exe hotfix 001 which will fix a FULL SPEED problem!
[:)]
This should be out in 0-1 days.



John Lansford -> RE: TF Tonnage (8/2/2009 6:34:51 PM)

Last night one of my subs was depthcharged and hit (!) by a Japanese heavy cruiser (Chokai IIRC).  I'm assuming that their CA's had sonar and depth charges but was there a recorded instance of them ever using them on a submerged sub?  Having a 14,000 ton ASW ship seems a bit much...



Iridium -> RE: TF Tonnage (8/2/2009 7:13:17 PM)

I would hope that the CA making depth charge runs is FOW at work. Otherwise, unless it's 1945 the IJN was not into, "depth charge racks on everything", mode yet.



Iridium -> RE: TF Tonnage (8/2/2009 7:49:15 PM)

I just noticed that CVL Ryuho getting built as of 28th Nov '42 has no air groups assigned to it. Is this correct or an oversight?

Scenario #2



JuanG -> RE: TF Tonnage (8/2/2009 8:09:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

You are missing exe hotfix 001 which will fix a FULL SPEED problem!
[:)]
This should be out in 0-1 days.


If you dont mind me asking;
Is this only an exe fix or also a database fix?



John Lansford -> RE: TF Tonnage (8/2/2009 10:06:52 PM)

Something appears to be going on with the sub transport routine.  I've got 4 subs at Bataan trying to load the Bataan Base Force (the only LCU there that isn't restricted).  One sub is loading as usual, the other two will not do anything but load supplies/fuel.  They're all fleet boats with the same destination and home port, Sturgeon is loading, Pike, Spearfish and Seadragon all will not.  Will some subs now load troops and others will not?



Don Bowen -> RE: TF Tonnage (8/2/2009 10:25:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Something appears to be going on with the sub transport routine.  I've got 4 subs at Bataan trying to load the Bataan Base Force (the only LCU there that isn't restricted).  One sub is loading as usual, the other two will not do anything but load supplies/fuel.  They're all fleet boats with the same destination and home port, Sturgeon is loading, Pike, Spearfish and Seadragon all will not.  Will some subs now load troops and others will not?



Yes. Some quite tight restrictions on the number of submarines that can load troops at a base per turn were put in to stop the evacuate-a-division by sub cheat. Don't remember much about it, but it does about what you say.



Reg -> Bug: Hex overlay on TF destination select (8/2/2009 10:32:24 PM)


Please note update of post 167.



Historiker -> RE: Bug: Hex overlay on TF destination select (8/3/2009 12:41:00 AM)

Kyushu AKE has top speed 18, Kyushu xAK 22.

Std-A AKE 14, Std-A xAK 12

Yusen N AKE 16, Yusen N xAK 15

Kyushu xAK runs 22, all other Kyushus 18



Buck Beach -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/3/2009 3:07:16 AM)

In looking over the PC & PG data and comparing it to various online and previous WITP databases I offer you this information. 

The 125' Active Class ships, available at the begining of the war: Kimball (WSC-143); Viglant (WSC-154); Crawford (WSC-134); Jackson (WSC-142); and Travis (WSC-153) all seem to be ships operating in other theaters.  However, the following ships missing should be shown and are not:  Mc Lane (WSC-146); Nemaha (WSC-148); Ewing (WSC-137); Alert (WSC-127).

In addition there are several 165' Thetis Class ships following that are not reflected: Aurora (WPC-103; Atalanta (WPC-102); Hermes (WPC-109) and the: Haida (WPG-45); Onondaga (WPG-79); Alder WAGL-216 (appears to be a tender)

All of this information came from:  http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/CUTTERLIST.asp#N and support by other online sites.




Page: <<   < prev  4 5 [6] 7 8   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.469238