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

John Lansford -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/6/2009 6:02:06 PM)
dwbradley, If you look at the general discussion threads there are many examples of battles that appear to have been weighted one way or the other, or had some really odd outcomes. It may just be the result of now being able to intercept in midocean (more intercepts=more combat=more varied outcomes), or it may be that the subroutine needs to be tweaked somewhat.

Dili -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/6/2009 6:10:55 PM)
quote: You should lead with a surface combat TF and follow with the amphib TF. What happens if the amphib TF doesn't have enough speed?

Sonny II -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/6/2009 9:17:08 PM)
The SCTF should wait on it.

Dili -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/6/2009 10:45:43 PM)
Isn't the leading TF that defines the speed?

Mike Solli -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/6/2009 11:51:02 PM)
If the following TF is slower, it falls behind.

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/6/2009 11:53:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Solli If the following TF is slower, it falls behind. Both TFs will adjust speed, if possible. But none will stop and wait, so follow distance can not always be maintained when TFs have wildly different speeds. Also an issue when TFs are too far apart.

Mike Solli -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/6/2009 11:55:13 PM)
Very nice change. Thanks Don.

Kull -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 12:16:23 AM)
As a reminder for those who are reporting "combat balance" issues. If you are playing against the AI with the "Very Hard" setting, per the manual: "Computer is given some logistical and combat* advantages".* So before we send the developers off on a wild goose chase, please include your "AI Difficulty" setting along with your report.

Dili -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 1:32:35 AM)
Thanks Don.

msieving1 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 3:22:00 AM)
I don't know if this has been reported before, but in Scenario 6, the December 8 start, the CLs Achilles and Leander are commanded by ensigns. The correct COs for these ships should be W E Parry for Achilles and S W Roskill for Leander. Also, some of the Australian DDs were being refit at the start of the war. Stuart was in the shipyard in Melbourne, Voyager was in Sydney, and Vendetta was in Singapore. Voyager completed her refit in March 1942, Stuart finished in April 1942, and Vendetta was scheduled to complete in April 1942. In the event, Vendetta had to be towed from Singapore to Melbourne, and didn't complete refitting until September 1942. Voyager and Stuart start Scenario 6 with 10 and 15 points system damage, respectively, but that takes just a few days to repair, rather than the 4-5 months actually required. They should have a lot more damage to start. Vendetta is undamaged to start in the scenario; she should have about the same damage as Stuart. One more thing, which is maybe less significant. The scenario has all the US Asiatic Fleet submarines (except S-36 and S-39, which were at sea) in Manila. Several of the submarines (Sturgeon, Pike, Shark, Tarpon, Pickerel, and S-38), along with the AS Otus, were actually in Mariveles Bay, on the Bataan penisula, and one sub, Porpoise, was at Olongapo, in Subic Bay, which would also be in the Bataan hex (or maybe the Clark Field hex). Bataan has just a size 1(1) port in the scenario, but Mariveles and Olongapo were fairly significant ports, and it seems like Bataan's port size should be at least 3. And of course, Subic Bay became a major USN base after the war, so there was clearly a lot more potential for development than in the game.

pad152 -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 5:05:33 AM)
The Indian ship AMC Cornwallis (11173) (flower Q-boat) has no cargo capacity, is that correct? [image]local://upfiles/105/D9A32262CB534A099E3C4F66D35CDE24.jpg[/image]

Blackhorse -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 11:21:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: msieving1 I don't know if this has been reported before, but in Scenario 6, the December 8 start, the CLs Achilles and Leander are commanded by ensigns. The correct COs for these ships should be W E Parry for Achilles and S W Roskill for Leander. Also, some of the Australian DDs were being refit at the start of the war. Stuart was in the shipyard in Melbourne, Voyager was in Sydney, and Vendetta was in Singapore. Voyager completed her refit in March 1942, Stuart finished in April 1942, and Vendetta was scheduled to complete in April 1942. In the event, Vendetta had to be towed from Singapore to Melbourne, and didn't complete refitting until September 1942. Voyager and Stuart start Scenario 6 with 10 and 15 points system damage, respectively, but that takes just a few days to repair, rather than the 4-5 months actually required. They should have a lot more damage to start. Vendetta is undamaged to start in the scenario; she should have about the same damage as Stuart. One more thing, which is maybe less significant. The scenario has all the US Asiatic Fleet submarines (except S-36 and S-39, which were at sea) in Manila. Several of the submarines (Sturgeon, Pike, Shark, Tarpon, Pickerel, and S-38), along with the AS Otus, were actually in Mariveles Bay, on the Bataan penisula, and one sub, Porpoise, was at Olongapo, in Subic Bay, which would also be in the Bataan hex (or maybe the Clark Field hex). Bataan has just a size 1(1) port in the scenario, but Mariveles and Olongapo were fairly significant ports, and it seems like Bataan's port size should be at least 3. And of course, Subic Bay became a major USN base after the war, so there was clearly a lot more potential for development than in the game. FYI - Subic Bay is considered part of the Clark Field hex. The "Subic Bay Defenses" LCU includes two 10" guns.

Curty -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 12:05:46 PM)
Guadalcanal scenario. I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(]

Iridium -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 12:10:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curty Guadalcanal scenario. I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(] Are you sure you sank it? [:D] It's probably Fog Of War working as designed.

Curty -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 12:13:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium quote: ORIGINAL: Curty Guadalcanal scenario. I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(] Are you sure you sank it? [:D] It's probably Fog Of War working as designed. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers[:-]

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 12:28:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curty quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium quote: ORIGINAL: Curty Guadalcanal scenario. I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(] Are you sure you sank it? [:D] It's probably Fog Of War working as designed. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers[:-] Post a save, I'll take a look.

Sonny II -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 12:30:16 PM)
Occasionally you will find that a reported sunk ship has been identified as not being sunk. You can find these messages near the bottom of the Ops report.

Mike Scholl -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 12:38:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curty I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(] I've had this happen in testing. FOW in AE can drive you nuts if you are used to knowing things "for certain". First, the "combat report" isn't necessarily accurate. These are the same pilots that could report an oiler and a DD as a cruiser and a carrier..., and sank more "battleships" than either side ever had. And now you can't get immediate confirmation from the intel screens. It changes as time permits more data to be gathered. The Allies will eventually get it right (code breaking)..., but I don't know if the Japanese player can ever be certain.

Curty -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 12:47:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: Curty quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium quote: ORIGINAL: Curty Guadalcanal scenario. I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(] Are you sure you sank it? [:D] It's probably Fog Of War working as designed. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers[:-] Post a save, I'll take a look. On the way Don

Curty -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 1:52:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curty quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: Curty quote: ORIGINAL: Iridium quote: ORIGINAL: Curty Guadalcanal scenario. I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list[X(] Are you sure you sank it? [:D] It's probably Fog Of War working as designed. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers[:-] Post a save, I'll take a look. On the way Don So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill[&:]

Don Bowen -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 2:17:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Curty So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill[&:] If you have Fog of War turned on, it is as accurate as the original wartime claims. Maybe more.

Sardaukar -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 2:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: Curty So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill[&:] If you have Fog of War turned on, it is as accurate as the original wartime claims. Maybe more. [:D][:D][:D]

EasilyConfused -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 4:30:45 PM)
Hopefully this is the right thread to post this in. I'm a little confused about the database entries for naval weapons (in the normal grand scenario). I've been using the editor to find values so that I can wrap my head around the difference between various weapons (especially helpful for determining how essential ship upgrades are) and there are plenty of duplicate entries. My understanding is that the earlier ones are no longer used, but can I assume that the last entry of any device is the one that is used in the AE version? Thanks.

ChezDaJez -> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues (8/7/2009 9:27:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Don Bowen quote: ORIGINAL: Curty So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill[&:] If you have Fog of War turned on, it is as accurate as the original wartime claims. Maybe more. Exactly... I-122 is listed as sunk on 12/10/41 near Bataan in my game versus the AI. However, she put two torps into the Houston two turns later. [:@] (Yes, I'm playing the darkside against the Japanese AI.[:D]) Chez

pad152 -> Lex Aircraft Capacity (8/8/2009 1:31:15 AM)
I'm using the Lexingtion to transport an air group of P-43's to Canton and noticed something strange with the aircraft capacity. It only has 69 aircraft on board yet, it's showing as 90/137. Do non-carrier planes count as more? [image]local://upfiles/105/BEF9211F9A30485BADB3C54E2FD9F2AC.jpg[/image]

Jzanes -> akagi sunk by surfaced sub (8/8/2009 3:37:45 PM)
The following happened on Jan 12, 1942. Allied player vs. Japanese AI. Basically, a dutch sub missed the akagi, was forced to surface by the escorts, hit the akagi with 6 torpedoes while on the surface and then was sunk by gunfire from carriers and escorts. Akagi was listed as sunk at the end of the turn. Loaded up the turn as Japanese player to check to see if this was a FOW sinking but Akagi is definately sunk. If this is WAD, I hope it's a one in a million result. Submarine attack near Kolaka at 67,107 Japanese Ships CA Chikuma CL Nagara DD Tokitsukaze DD Yukikaze DD Kuroshio CV Akagi, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage CV Zuikaku Allied Ships SS KXVIII, hits 11, and is sunk KXVIII diving deep .... DD Tokitsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Yukikaze attacking submerged sub .... DD Kuroshio fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Tokitsukaze attacking submerged sub .... DD Yukikaze fails to find sub, continues to search... DD Kuroshio attacking submerged sub .... DD Tokitsukaze attacking submerged sub .... SS KXVIII forced to surface! DD Yukikaze firing on surfaced sub .... DD Kuroshio firing on surfaced sub .... CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub .... CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub .... CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub .... CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub .... CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub .... CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub .... CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub .... CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub .... DD Tokitsukaze firing on surfaced sub .... DD Yukikaze firing on surfaced sub .... DD Kuroshio firing on surfaced sub .... CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub .... DD Tokitsukaze firing on surfaced sub .... DD Yukikaze firing on surfaced sub .... Sub slips beneath the waves

Don Bowen -> RE: akagi sunk by surfaced sub (8/8/2009 4:14:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jzanes The following happened on Jan 12, 1942. Allied player vs. Japanese AI. Basically, a dutch sub missed the akagi, was forced to surface by the escorts, hit the akagi with 6 torpedoes while on the surface and then was sunk by gunfire from carriers and escorts. Akagi was listed as sunk at the end of the turn. Loaded up the turn as Japanese player to check to see if this was a FOW sinking but Akagi is definately sunk. If this is WAD, I hope it's a one in a million result. Now that is interesting. Post a save if you can, will'ya?

Mike Scholl -> RE: akagi sunk by surfaced sub (8/8/2009 5:16:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jzanes The following happened on Jan 12, 1942. Allied player vs. Japanese AI. Basically, a dutch sub missed the akagi, was forced to surface by the escorts, hit the akagi with 6 torpedoes while on the surface and then was sunk by gunfire from carriers and escorts. Akagi was listed as sunk at the end of the turn. Loaded up the turn as Japanese player to check to see if this was a FOW sinking but Akagi is definately sunk. If this is WAD, I hope it's a one in a million result. How did you determine the timing on this? There is no mention of Akagi being hit, nor of the sub firing torpedoes... Are you sure the sub didn't fire first, than get counter-attacked by the escorts?

erstad -> Manual inconsistency (8/8/2009 5:49:13 PM)
In one spot it says naval support increases the total daily rate, in another it says it doesn't. 6.3.3.2.3 Port Load ability This is the total cargo handling capacity of a port for a single day. Separate values are provided for liquids and all other cargos. The ability of a port to load/unload Task Forces is based on port size, adjusted for available Naval Support and any damage. 6.3.3.2.5 Port load rate adjustments Naval Support increases the rate at which a given ship can be loaded but cannot improve the total cargo handling limitations of the port.

Don Bowen -> RE: Manual inconsistency (8/8/2009 5:53:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: erstad In one spot it says naval support increases the total daily rate, in another it says it doesn't. 6.3.3.2.3 Port Load ability This is the total cargo handling capacity of a port for a single day. Separate values are provided for liquids and all other cargos. The ability of a port to load/unload Task Forces is based on port size, adjusted for available Naval Support and any damage. 6.3.3.2.5 Port load rate adjustments Naval Support increases the rate at which a given ship can be loaded but cannot improve the total cargo handling limitations of the port. Not as clear as it could have been but the intent is to say that Naval Support increases the rate per ship but not the total daily handling limits of the port. That is, lighters and longshorement functions in Naval Support can increase the speed at which things move across the pier(s) but not increase the size of the pier(s0.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.171875