RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message


Ron Saueracker -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/5/2004 1:03:30 PM)

Mentioned this before as well. Since Twin engined bombers can torpedo ships in ports, how hard would it be to add a few development options for bases to counter this rather generous ability by Med Bombers, aside from port/airfield/fortification? I'd like to see ports be able to both develop anti torpedo nets defences AND barrage balloons (ala BoB and BTR).




pry -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/5/2004 1:36:29 PM)

Data Collected

This thread is for OOB and data base issues only... stay on that topic... Design and feature changes need to posted elsewhere... [:-]




Ron Saueracker -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/5/2004 2:33:53 PM)

cancelled




rtrapasso -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/5/2004 4:00:05 PM)

I'd like to see the the Swordfish and later the Catalina equipped with ASV radar. The Swordfish were operated mainly at night according to some references - they took rather high casualties when they didn't, i.e. entire squadrons getting shot down. Yes, I know they operated against Bismarck during the day and (sort of) got away with it, but this was the German AA batteries didn't have settings slow enough for them - then. Even so, they lost 25% of their aircraft when they crash-landed on the carriers in this strike.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, the typical British tactic with the Swordfish was to locate with radar, drop flares, and then attack visually. This is what they did at Taranto, and used this tactic widely in the Med in attacking Italian/German convoys. Don't know (yet- still researching) how the Cats operated - but I don't think they were much of a threat before they got ASV radar.

Aircraft without radar should have their NIGHT accuracy/attack rate SERIOUSLY degraded if they don't have radar. The Japanese developed some naval night attack tactics latter in the war, but they may have had radar in at least their lead planes by then - I'm still trying to research this point.




rtrapasso -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/5/2004 4:09:34 PM)

More on radar OOB: Radar units were available to Japanese base forces as early as April 1942, when the first Model 1 Type 1 fixed unit showed up at Rabaul. I think this radar is the same as the Combined Fleets website Type 11. That website says was not operational until 1943, but the book Radar History of World War II states rather categorically that this was not the case. Two of these units were captured at Guadalcanal when the Marines landed in August 1942 (see also posts in Something Strange #7).

At the risk of regretting this later (I have only played the Allies so far) - Model 1 Type 1 radar should be added to OOB of IJN Base Units. Since these units were fixed, I don't know how to model this - perhaps a separate unit with "self-planting" ability - i.e., once in place, they are fixed (like the Dutch Naval Base units that suddenly become fixed once they upgrade.)




tanjman -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/5/2004 4:26:31 PM)

Pry,

There are two VF-17 squadons in the game: slot # 1675 VF-17 is equiped with the F4U-1 Corsair and is a land based squadron which is correct. Slot # 1729 VF-17 is embarked on the (slot # 3009) Bunker Hill and should be renamed VF-18.

Sources:

Aircraft Carriers of the USN by Stefan Terzibaschitsch ISBN 0-87021-011-7
Corsair: The F4U in WWII and Korea by Barrett Tillman ISBN 0-87021-131-5
Hellcat: The F6F in WWII by Barrett Tillman ISBN 0-87021-265-6




Wallymanowar -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/6/2004 3:50:31 AM)

The following is from a list I compiled from 1.21 which were not corrected in 1.30. I didn't get a chance to submit them for 1.30 but they are eligible for the 1.4 update - they are for Scenario 15, the Japanese OOB only.

Locations:
-(0983)Maizuru Fort should be moved from Kyoto(0231) to Maizuru(0354) - Kyoto isn't a port so why does it have Maizuru's Fort with fixed CD Guns?
-(0998)Amani Ohsima Fort is mispelled - should be Amami Oshima Fort
-(1011)64th Const Bn should be moved from Sasebo(0345) to Nagasaki(0339) - to compensate for moving the Hensui Const Bn to Sasebo - (see 1052)
-(1045)Kure Base Force has a location of None(000) - should be changed to Hiroshima/Kure(1045)
-(1048)Maizuru Base Force should be moved from Kyoto(0231) to Maizuru(0354) - Same reason as for Maizuru Fort.
-(1051)Sasebo Base Force should be moved from Nagasaki(0339) to Sasebo(0345) - Why is a named static base force not in it's named city? Besides, in the Database editor it is sub-headed under units in Sasebo
-(1052)Hensui Const Bn should be moved from Nagasaki(0339) to Sasebo(0345) - It is under the Database editor sub-heading for Sasebo.
-(1672)2nd Tank Div should have it's Delay changed from 9999 to 440715 - that is the reinforcement date for the sub-heading it is under in the Database Editor
-(1764)114th IJN Base Force in Hakodate has it's HQ as the 5th Fleet - should be changed to the Northern Area Force

Air Group:
-(0536)Gi-2 Daitai should be GI-2 Daitai - spelling
-(0411)D1/523st Daitai should be D1/523rd Daitai - spelling
-(0412)D2/523st Daitai should be D2/523rd Daitai - spelling
-(0413)D3/523st Daitai should be D3/523rd Daitai - spelling
-(0445)F2/210th Hikoitai should be F2/210th Hikotai - spelling
-(0474)FF6/Yokohama chutai should be FF6/Yokohama Chutai - spelling
-(0475)FF7/Yokohama chutai should be FF7/Yokohama Chutai - spelling
-(0476)FF1/452nd chutai should be FF1/452nd Chutai - spelling
-(0477)FF2/452nd chutai should be FF2/452nd Chutai - spelling
-(0478)FF1/802nd chutai should be FF1/802nd Chutai - spelling

Ships:
-(035)Mizuho should be changed from Nisshin Class(054) to Mizuho Class(053) - The Mizuho Class CS currently has no ships assigned to it and logically the Mizuho should belong to that class.

Classes:
-(0117)(0593)Tomodzuru should be Tomozuru - spelling
-(0113)(0594)Ootori should be Otori - spelling

I have a seperate issue with certain units -
In addition to the 51st Heavy AA Bn, which has already been corrected, the Japanese have repeat names for the following units:
- 12th AA Regiment (in Maizuru and Peking)
- 21st AA Regiment (in Tatung and Nagasaki)
- 23rd Engineer Regiment (in Inch'on and Taan)
- 5th Engineer Regiment (@62,33 and in Taan)
According to Dr. Niehorster's OOB, all of these units (including the 51st Heavy AA Bn) are all duplicated and in the correct locations - I don't know whether he made a mistake naming them or not but I recommend that we rename the duplicates to something that isn't used in the game (as has already been done with the 51st).
Thanks[:)]




Dawy -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/6/2004 9:00:00 AM)

There are some engine factories in Japan that are producing engines that don't belong to any plane. They should be changed to produce useful engines. Of course a player could change them once the scenario starts, but then the factories will become damaged and you'll lose weeks of production. Better to change them in the database to have them producing something useful right from the start.




afspret -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/7/2004 7:53:06 AM)

Since LCUs can fall back (retreat) when a base hex is captured, is there anyway to change what happens to aircraft units that are in the same hex? Serviceable a/c should be able to fly to the nearest available friendly base and only unserviceable and reserve a/c should be lost.




Tankerace -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/7/2004 10:53:53 AM)

Holy crap. I just noticed this. In the Scenario 15 OOB:,

Lexington CV (Class 237) is listed as having 2 TRIPLE 5"/25 Mk 10 mounts on each side. Instead of 6 guns in triple turrets, they need to be in single mounts.

Shouldn't the TEV or Rudderow class DEs be added to the game, or are they considered part of the Butler (WGT) class DE?

I suggest that Destroyer Escorts Class names be Official nomenclature, so

Class 300 Evarts should be GMT Class
Class 301 Butler Should be WGT Class, or at Least to the more accepted J. C. Butler
Class 302 Cannon Should be DET Class
Class 303 Buckley Should Be TE Class

Class 303 Buckley's rear facing 40mm Bofors mount needs to be a quad mount, not a twin.

Class 340 Balao is listed as having a 20mm Oerlikon Gun firing in the "A" arc. This should be changed to forward arc.

Class 177 Nevada both sets of 3"/50 Mk 10 Guns are listed as being on the right side arc. One set needs to be changed to the left side arc.

That's all I can see for now.




pry -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/7/2004 3:00:37 PM)

Data Collected


Note,
Again I remind folks that this thread is for OOB and data base comments/suggestions only...
Any game feature changes or additions or tweaks need to be posted in Kid's wishlist thread...

Ron and afspret you will need to repost some of your comments there.




esteban -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/7/2004 7:06:35 PM)

-U.S. 1st and 2nd Marine divisions start under "West Coast Command" HQ




Tankerace -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/7/2004 9:44:44 PM)

As for 2nd USMC, look at the first thread. Its already DOA esteban.




madflava13 -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/7/2004 10:35:27 PM)

May 1st Start scenario (42A)- Japanese Air Units 32nd Lt. Sentai (Ki-32) and 65th Lt. Sentai (Ki-30) are based in Mandalay, but under Kwangtung Area control. Player must burn PPs to move them. I'm not sure which HQ they belong to, but this ain't right!


Edit: To add in which '42 scenario...




Banquet -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/8/2004 12:39:18 AM)

Not sure if this is strictly OOB, but 1849-FF880 aboard HMS Hermes in 1.3, scenario 16 is displayed as Sea Gladiator but pic shows a Hurricane.




jcjordan -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/8/2004 7:46:28 AM)

Shouldn't the 6th FS be Phillippine instead of US Army for pilots. It was this way in 1.21 not sure why it changed (Ver1.3 Scen 15)




fbastos -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/8/2004 9:01:47 AM)

I respectfully request to add the 2nd MTB Flotilla in Hong Kong, as a show of respect for their gallant fighting against much superior forces.

F.




akdreemer -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/8/2004 10:30:27 AM)

Well, here goes my list of suggestions.

First, all of the West Coast cities/ports need to have dedicated base forces attached at Dec 7, 1941. For instance, San Diego was home to a major Nave training base, a major Fleet base, a Marine Air Base, among others. In other words large support and administration services. San Francisco Bay area itself probably shipped over 70% of all of the beans and bullets for the entire Pacific. What I have in mind are dedicated base units similar to the ones found in India. Kind of a combination of support, engineers, and air support. Pearl Harbor should also get one by mid-1942.

Second, listed below is the standard munitions load out of american carriers at various dates during the war (Source U.S. Aircraft Carriers: An illsutrated Design History, By Norman Friedman,1983, Page 384-385)

Wartime Fleet Carriers:
Essex 1942 Enterprise Oct 1943 Bennington 1944 Bunker Hill 1945
100lbs GP Bmbs 504 504 508 300
250 " " ----- ----- ----- 50
500 " " 296 288 292 400
" SAP " ----- 288 292 60
1000 GP " 146 378 147 75
" SAP " 129 378 128 -----
" AP " 110 378 110 -----
1600 AP " 19 18 18 -----
2000 GP " 19 18 18 15
325lbs DB " 296 288 292 48
100lbs INC " 296 288 292 240
100lbs F ---- ----- ----- ----
200lbs F ----- ----- ----- 300
Torps 36 36 50 -----
3.5 AR ----- ----- 366 300
5.0 HVAR ----- ----- 4006 1700
11.72 AR ----- ----- ----- 108

Light Carriers and Escort Carriers have similar loadouts.

Several thing become apparent when viewing the above. First, US Carriers carried bombs heavier that 1000lbs, and in doing so would have the means to use them, i.e. there would have been an aircraft loadout for them. Indeed, it seems that they always had a few 2000lbr's on board. Must have used them for something other than ballast!!

Second, Although SAP and AP bombs fade from the picture late war, there is a massive increase in air lauched rockets. This appears to come at the expense of SAP and AP bombs initially, but note that in 1945 there were not any torpedoes on biard. This reflects the changing nature of the air war. As fewer Japanese naval and merchat marine ships are aflost, and carrier rainds aginst the home Islands, large AP and SAP bombs and torpedoes become superfluous.

So from the above there is a case for having loadouts on US Naval Planes for bombs heavier than 1000lbs and that there was an increased use of air launch rockets as the war progressed. Therefore I would like to see this reflected in the game...

The PBY should have sufficient range to fly from the West Coast to Hawaii, as they did it all the time during the war.


Another area that I will examine on a later posting involves endurance of naval vessels. To say the least, the current settings are much to generous. Under wartime service conditions no US Warship ever achieved "designed" endurance. Various factors that reduced endurance included split-plant steaming to limit the effects of prpulsion casualties. Build up of barnacles and other marine growth increased resistence of hulls that in turn made the propulstion system less efficient. Ships would always have some fuel on board that they could not use because of stability concerns ir possible sea-water contamination in fuel tanks ballasted with sea water for stability concerns.

getting late and have to get up early for work.. hope this is not too jumbled




PeteG662 -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/8/2004 4:53:36 PM)

Pry,

From the other board on missing leaders....Scenario 7 Russian leaders disappear during operations and become WOs 0/0.

Secondly, the AVD East of Hawaii in Scenario 15 (and I would assume others that have December 7, 1941 in the scenario) is in a REPLENISHMENT TF. First, this class ship is not supposed to be in a REPL TF since you can't add one to a TF in the game. Could we change it to something more obtuse like a transport TF? I change it anyway during turn to make it an ASW since it will pass through the sub infested waters around Hawaii.

One edit: The CVEs in (I believe Scenario 13) following the Carrier TFs northward around the PI......their squadrons are rated at 25 experience level. Is this realistic? They get plastered by the Betties and all the other land based stuff. The squadrons are NOT replacement squadrons as designated on these carriers. I will post specifics if you would like. Seems like MOST late war CVEs have 25 experience levels on their inherent assigned squadrons which means they are relatively useless except as ferries.

Thanks




BPRE -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/8/2004 7:59:34 PM)

Hi,

As bgibs noted in another thread ships of type LSM have their capacity listed as A/C Capacity instead of Cargo Capacity. This is also valid for the types LCI(R) and LCI(M). I'm posting this in the OOB thread although I suspect it might be a code fault so in case I should report in the support forum please let me know.

Regards
BPRE

PS. I've checked this for the two scenarios 10 (Campaign 44) and 11 (Campaign 45).




Pascal_slith -> OOB comment patch 1.4 (11/8/2004 11:45:46 PM)

USMC 7th Defense Battalion should be in San Diego on Dec. 7th, not on any island.

All New Caledonia bases should be under Australian command on Dec. 7th and only the Noumea base should exist.

The pic for the 'Singapore' type aircraft is WRONG. Check the OOB thread generated before patch 1.3, someone generously produced the correct graphic to modify the Allied planeside BMP file (plus a few others that were excellent).

There are many others errors I corrected after 1.21, but I'll have to go through my list again. These were the first that I noticed.




jcjordan -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/9/2004 1:24:07 AM)

I second about the 2MTB as well as adding the Brit Power class MTB as they had several in SE Asia but none are there, only a few US PT boats. Scen 15 ver 1.3. This may be along the lines of a wish but Kid's wish list is locked. Also the Brit ML Redstart in HK would be nice.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/9/2004 2:19:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

I second about the 2MTB as well as adding the Brit Power class MTB as they had several in SE Asia but none are there, only a few US PT boats. Scen 15 ver 1.3. This may be along the lines of a wish but Kid's wish list is locked. Also the Brit ML Redstart in HK would be nice.


Those minelayers/minesweepers in HK are really small harbor MLs. If we start sticking vessels of this size in we are going to have to model Chinese Junks and Sampans.[:D]




fbastos -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/9/2004 6:59:54 AM)

Base 735 "Goodenough island" upper case the "island".




michaelm75au -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/9/2004 11:14:35 AM)

The A6M3a cannot operate from a carrier.
This aircraft is in slot 8 of the database (using scenario#16). Only aircraft in slot 1-7 and 15-23 can operate from carriers, as per editor.

The upgrade path from A6M2 (slot3) to A6M3a (slot8) to A6M5 (slot5) takes the aircraft from carrier capable to not back to can.

IIRC slot 8 was blank in v1.2 and this aircraft was added in v1.3. It probably needs be moved to slot range 15-23 if can operate from carriers.

Michael




BlackVoid -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/9/2004 11:33:33 AM)

We need Oscar II upgrades for the japanese.




rtrapasso -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/9/2004 4:11:51 PM)

Here is a problem I listed in another forum:
quote:

you are holding Clark Field. You are short of supplies. The Japanese bomb your airbase, so your engineers stop construction on your desperately needed forts, and instead repair your airfield... an airfield you would like to blow up, so the Japanese can't use it if/when Clark Field falls. Your supplies are used to make sure the Japanese have a nice smooth field when they capture it. Is there anyway to at least to stop repairs to the airfield/port facilities in a base that is likely to fall? I know you can turn off repairs to resources/factories, etc.

From comments from other players, I think there is no way to do this. How about in version 1.4?


Also in that other thread (Supplies draining from large base to empty bases) from Sredni:
quote:

I've been reinforcing Port Moesby, and part of that has been dumping supplies into it. I had around 25k stored, and I've been sending little 9k supply runs into it as I could put them together, and I just checked to see what I was at... and it's down to 17k. Check the little empty bases nearby and Buna is up to 9k supplies.

Buna that will quickly fall to the japs, buna that has never had any allied units. Why is PM sending supplies to a port for the japanese to take? Do I have a japanese sympathiser in my supply core? Can I shoot the damn traitor?

In other words is there any way to stop this from happening? I don't want to supply the japanese when they start taking small bases. Allready Buna is a juicy target that'll supply a months worth of japanese offensives. I need to build up the supplies in PM while I still can before he starts running mad with mini KB's and subs between PM and townsville.


I am reposting here because I guess that is what we are/were supposed to do to get official attention to these problems.




Ron Saueracker -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/9/2004 5:10:14 PM)

Torres Strait Light Infantry Battalion (Thursday Island). Saw this at www.anzacday.org.au/history/ww2/bfa/island_defenders.html




Admiral Scott -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/9/2004 7:23:05 PM)

This may have or have not been asked before.
I wish when I read the signal ops report, I can click on a radio transmission detetected at a coordinates or a base, and I would go to that exact spot on the map.
Sorry if this has been asked before, or if this is the wrong place to post this.

Thanks




dtravel -> RE: ONLY!!! OOB Comments/Suggestions for Patch 1.4 (11/9/2004 10:37:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral Scott

This may have or have not been asked before.
I wish when I read the signal ops report, I can click on a radio trasnmission detetected at a coordinates or a base, and I would go to that exact spot on the map.
Sorry if this has been asked before, or if this is the wrong place to post this.

Thanks


Been asked for many times. Kid has said that it is not possible.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.796875