RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (Full Version)

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



Message

Iron Duke -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/15/2005 12:12:29 AM)

Hi,

re 36th uk div. I believe two of the div's brigades are in the oob , the 29th uk and 72nd uk Bde's.

5th indian Div arrives 1 year early 5/42 should arrive 6/43 from Iraq

44th indian Div should be 44th Indian Airborne Div but should be deleted as it's brigades are already present

251 uk Brigade does not exsist and should be deleted, the number was one never used in the British army

just a few things i've noted.

cheers



spence -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/15/2005 12:53:41 AM)

In Scen 2 you've omitted the HMS Exeter from the Allied OOB. That's about 1/2 the gun power of the ABDA Fleet.



Andy Mac -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/15/2005 1:06:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iron Duke

Hi,

re 36th uk div. I believe two of the div's brigades are in the oob , the 29th uk and 72nd uk Bde's.

5th indian Div arrives 1 year early 5/42 should arrive 6/43 from Iraq

44th indian Div should be 44th Indian Airborne Div but should be deleted as it's brigades are already present

251 uk Brigade does not exsist and should be deleted, the number was one never used in the British army

just a few things i've noted.

Thanks Iron Duke ill stop whinging about 36th UK as I agree with you had I done my research right first time around I wouldnt have egg on my face [:D][:D] only the 26th Indian Bde is missing from 36th UK Div and I also can find no reference to a 251st UK Inf Bde.

5th Indian is early and should probably be replaced by 19th Indian which was present at the time of the Ceylon incursion 5th Indian arriving per Iron Dukes post.

Only one of 44ths Brigades is already represented the other two were deployed quite late in the war as 77th Parachute and 14th Air Landing and may already be incorporated as normal Infantry Brigades in other divisions (I am fairly sure 77th Para is represented as one of the Bdes of 3rd Indian which is included as a proxy for the Chindit Bdes)

Other missing Bdes

Missing is 3rd Indian Inf Bde on the NW frontier a pre war formation and 150th Indian Bde from 1944 which was used for garrison purposes.

So I guess either remove 44th entirely (as its motorised Bde when it was an armoured divison is already seperately identified and its para Bde is already listed) and instead put in independnet Bdes for 26th/ 3rd and 150th with varying arrival times or just leave it as is but I stop whinging about missing Bdes.

My main issue is not actually the 42 ORBAT despite my many posts on the subject
[;)][;)]

My main beef is the 43 buildup which is a tad slow IMO and doesnt seem to really happen until late 44.

Andy



spence -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/15/2005 5:05:27 PM)

Photo of one of the omitted CG Cutters: Duane as AGC. All of these cutters: BIBB, DUANE, CAMPBELL, SPENCER, TANEY, and INGHAM were converted to this configuration in 1944 and served in the Pacific from late 44 through the end of the war. Only TANEY served in the Pacific as an escort type; the others were all serving in the Atlantic.

[image]local://upfiles/9007/Lj221321088.jpg[/image]



spence -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/15/2005 6:05:46 PM)

CGC Taney - longest lived Pearl Harbor veteran. Armament configuration of 2 x 5"/51 cal, 4 x 3"/50 cal, 6 x 20mm, Y-gun DC thrower and stern racks (12/41 - 9/42). Subsequently rearmed with 4 x 5"/38 cal and additional ASW weaponry and deployed to the Atlantic/Med on escort duties.

[image]local://upfiles/9007/Mk275415021.jpg[/image]



mikemike -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/15/2005 9:49:02 PM)

The first Yamato upgrade (class 501) has no 6.1in guns on the right side, but two turrets at R. All scenarios. Must be a typo.



Tankerace -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/15/2005 10:46:30 PM)

When the Yamatos wre refitted, the Port and Starbard 6.1" guns were landed in favor of more AA.
However, it should be 1 Turret forward, 1 aft. Not 2 rear.



mikemike -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/15/2005 10:53:04 PM)

I looked over the sizes of Japanese naval shipyards. They donīt seem to conform to what was built there in RL. I went through my reference material and figured ot the maximum number of ships that were built at a single yard at the same time. Under the WitP model, to have the historical building rate, each of the yards should have the capacity to generate building points equaling the sum of the durabilities of all ships building there.

This is the list of the eight most important yards I came up with (only surface ships DD and bigger):

Kure Navy Yard (Loc Hiroshima/Kure) was building in 11/41:
Yamato (185)
Nisshin (45)
Oyodo (33)
Total: 263

Yokosuka Navy Yard (Loc Tokyo)was building in 8/41:
Shinano (180)
Shokaku (100)
Sum: 280

Uraga Docks, Yokosuka (Loc Tokyo) was building in 8/40:
4 x Kagero DD (44)
1 x Yugumo DD (11)
Sum: 55
Sum for Loc Tokyo: 335

Mitsubishi, Nagasaki (Loc Nagasaki) was building in 4/42:
Musashi (185)
Junyo (50)
4 x Akitsuki DD (52)

Sum: 287

Kawasaki, Kobe (Loc Osaka/Kobe) was building in 8/41:
Zuikaku (100)
Hiyo (50)
Taiho (115)
Sum: 265

Fujinagata, Osaka (Loc Osaka/Kobe) was building in 1/40:
5 x Kagero DD (55)

Sum for Loc Osaka/Kobe: 320

Sasebo Navy Yard (Loc Sasebo) was building in 11/43:
Ibuki (40)
Yahagi (27)
Sakawa (27)
2 x Akizuki DD (26)
Sum: 120

Maizuru Navy Yard (Loc Maizuru) was building in 8/41:
Shimakaze (13)
2 x Yugumo DD (22)
2 x Akizuki DD (26)
Sum: 61

The Naval Shipyard numbers as they are:
Nagasaki 292 (should be at least 287)
Sasebo 0 (should be at least 120)
Hiroshima/Kure 45 (should be at least 263)
Maizuru 308 (should be about 61)
Osaka/Kobe 42 (should be at least 320)
Tokyo 280 (should be at least 335)

The reason I say "at least" is because at most of these locations submarines were building, too, amounting to between 60 and 250 building points. Iīve left out submarines because my sources donīt give exact building dates and because I think that their durability numbers donīt properly reflect the time and effort needed to build them, especially the late-war types ST and STS which both have a Durability of 36, surpassing the CL Oyodo(and meaning they draw resources for a year), but were nailed together in RL in a couple of months using sectionalized methods.

So, according to these numbers
- Nagasaki is about right
- Tokyo is a bit small
- Maizuru is wildly oversize
- the other locations are far too small

Iīm sure my methodology can be criticized, but in the context of WitP this should make sense.

At least downsize Maizuru and increase Hiroshima and Osaka, they each had one of the "big four" yards.



mikemike -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/15/2005 10:58:21 PM)

Class 501 is the update before they swapped the 6.1in side turrets for three 5in/40 mounts each. Musashi was sunk in that configuration. Class 501 has a total of 12-6.1in, 12-5in. I think the guy doing this class selected Facing "R" instead of "RS" by mistake.



Tankerace -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/15/2005 11:00:50 PM)

Ok, I get ya. Wasn't sure when the Jap upgrades were, I assumed 501 was the '44 configuration. My mistake.



Kereguelen -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/16/2005 6:49:55 PM)

It seems that the 18th IJA Division is a little bit overstrenght in Scen. 15/16.

Both its 23rd Brigade (only consisting of 56th Rgt. + 12 75mm Mountain Guns and the 12th Engineer Bn. at this time; also called the Takumi Detachment) and its 35th Bde (only reinforced 124th Regiment; also called Kawaguchi Detachment) are seperately in the game (which makes sense because this formations were used in the initial landings and operated independent from their parent division). 18th IJA Division had still a square organisation and its Brigades were different in function and makeup from the Japanese Independent and Independent Mixed Brigades. Thus the division should be reduced in strength accordingly!

K



Andy Mac -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/18/2005 1:20:59 AM)

Can we get the Battalion sized

44th (RM) Commando
42nd (RM) Commando
1st Commando
5th Commando

Units arriving in late 43 please with an Allied Commando Squad to go with them.

I would rather have individual Bns than 3rd Commando Bde for ease of FT when attacking rather than one Brigade.

I would suggest that at least the army commandoes are Parachute Trained

Andy



Andy Mac -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/22/2005 12:31:02 AM)

Any way at all we can set a few of the UK Squns to be India as in every game I run out of British Pilots very very quickly



Reg -> ANZAC Air Group Designations (1/22/2005 8:06:40 AM)

I have just upgraded from U.V. and was a little disappointed to see that historical errors corrected in U.V have reappeared in WTIP.

The official designation for air force units from contemporary sources is "No. 75 Squadron RAAF" which is the same format used right across all the British Commonwealth forces.

I can understand this formal format is considered too large for the game data fields (though it does fit, try it), I feel that a historical designation for units in a historical game is appropriate. The British and Canadian air groups are labeled by an abbreviated format that still reflects the flavor of the historical designations so I think the ANZAC units should also follow suit.

Could someone please update the RAAF and RNZAF Air Group designations to the same format as the Canadian air groups (ie "75 Squadron RAAF").

At least it's better than the "75th FS RAAF" found in the original release of Uncommon Valor....

(posted on both 1.4 OOB and Combined Historical Scenario threads)



eMonticello -> December 7 OOB corrections (1/26/2005 12:43:23 AM)

Just a few minor corrections...

a) The Theater HQ for PatWing 1 (VP-11, VP-12, VP-14) should be Central Pacific.
b) The Theater HQ for PatWing 2 (VP-22, VP-23, VP-24) should be South Pacific.
c) The Theater HQ for PatWing 4 (VP-42, VP-43, VP-44) should be North Pacific.
d) VMSB-231 currently has a delay of 420830, which doesn't make much sense since they were being ferried by Lexington to Midway Island on Dec 7, 1941 and they participated in the Battle of Midway. So, VMSB-231 should have 18 aircraft and should be with Lexington at the beginning of the game. [Note: Historically, VMSB-231 didn't arrive at Midway until a few months later. Lexington returned to Pearl before completing the mission and the Marines ended up ferrying the aircraft from Pearl to Midway with an escort of a Catalina.]
e) Lexington and Enterprise Task Force locations should be swapped. Enterprise was returning from Wake Island and Lexington was heading to Midway.
finally,
f) The course of the Enterprise TF (formerly the Lexington TF) should be moving away from Wake and heading back to Pearl Harbor, not moving toward Wake. This would eliminate unhistorical airstrike by the AI carrier against the Wake invasion fleet.



Packrat -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/29/2005 7:19:13 AM)

RE: Ki-43-I "Oscar"
The Ki-43-I in the game is the Ki-43-Ib with 1x 7.7 mm and 1x 12.7mm machineguns.
Actual production for the Ki-43-I series:

Ki-43-Ia: aprox. 35 produced between Apr and Jun 41
Ki-43-Ib: aprox. 45 produced between Jul and Aug 41
Ki-43-Ic: over 800 produced beginning Sep 41.

The Ia, with 2x 7.7 and the Ib with 1x 7.7 & 1x 12.7 guns were distributed between the 59th and 64th Sentais who used them in the Malaya - Burma area at the opening of hostilities. these aircraft were rapidly replaced by the Ki-43-Ic with 2x 12.7 guns and the older aircraft sent to the Akeno flying school.

It would probably be more useful to just change the type to the Ki-43-Ic and use it for the entire early series as the OB now uses the Ib model.



Tankerace -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/29/2005 9:47:09 AM)

I just had a thought.... why is this in scenario editor subforum now?



Lemurs! -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/29/2005 5:08:42 PM)

Tanker, because its all up to us now!

Packrat,
The Oscar-1 was produced in the 'C' variant the most but the Japanese pilots at that stage of the war loved their 7.7's so they had mechanics strip off one of the 12.7's and replace it with a 7.7 .

Mike



pry -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/29/2005 5:35:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tankerace

I just had a thought.... why is this in scenario editor subforum now?


The mods had to reduce the number of sticky threads on the main page, I just now found where they put this thread... Go Figure



Ron Saueracker -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (1/31/2005 11:27:15 PM)

I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.



Kereguelen -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (2/2/2005 12:23:19 PM)

British units:

48th Light AA Rgt is at Khota Bharu at start of Scen. 15/16. It left the UK (from the Clyde) on 12-07-41 and was never send to Malaya. Instead it was transported to Batavia where it eventually surrendered.

125th Anti-Tank Regt is not in the game (it arrived together with 18th British Division but was not part of her; and it seems that it is not included in the OOB of the 18th Division). It arrived at Bombay on 12-27-41 and at Singapore on 02-05-42.

35th Light AA Rgt is not in the game. It left Durban/SA on 12-24-41 and arrived at Singapore on 01-13-42.



pry -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (2/2/2005 1:05:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.


Individual subs are all correct 6 forward with 2 ammo = 12, 4 aft with 3 ammo = 12 =24 Total...

OH here it is, the Tambor Class is set to 6 x 3 forward =18 and 4 x 3 =12 rear = 30

Thought I had found and fixed all the little *Ron BooBoo's ©* [;)] but I must have missed that one. Took care of it... Thanks Ron



PeteG662 -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (2/2/2005 4:58:57 PM)

Scenario 12

Leaders are missing at start for about 1/3 of Chinese and Russian land units.

Att start, in Colombo, The Royal Sovereign Class BBs have a discrepancy in their floatplanes. One member of the class (Resolution) has floatplane, the other three members of the class (Ramilles, Royal Sovereign, and Revenge) do not have a floatplane assigned.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (2/2/2005 7:06:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.


Individual subs are all correct 6 forward with 2 ammo = 12, 4 aft with 3 ammo = 12 =24 Total...

OH here it is, the Tambor Class is set to 6 x 3 forward =18 and 4 x 3 =12 rear = 30

Thought I had found and fixed all the little *Ron BooBoo's Đ* [;)] but I must have missed that one. Took care of it... Thanks Ron


Booboos.[:D]



Don Bowen -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (2/2/2005 8:00:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.


Individual subs are all correct 6 forward with 2 ammo = 12, 4 aft with 3 ammo = 12 =24 Total...

OH here it is, the Tambor Class is set to 6 x 3 forward =18 and 4 x 3 =12 rear = 30

Thought I had found and fixed all the little *Ron BooBoo's Đ* [;)] but I must have missed that one. Took care of it... Thanks Ron


Booboos.[:D]


Is that Boo-Boo or Boob-oh!



Tankerace -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (2/2/2005 8:15:08 PM)

Boobs? [:D]



Mr.Frag -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (2/2/2005 8:42:27 PM)

This is the OOB, not the BOOB thread [:'(]



Lemurs! -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (2/2/2005 8:55:30 PM)

My army shall be equiped with Uma Thurman as a morale building asset.

Mike



Bradley7735 -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (2/2/2005 9:00:42 PM)

I have a question regarding allied CVE's. This may not necessarily be an error, but it's something that bugs me.

Up through July 43, the US gets about 10 CVE's as reinforcements. The Long Island has no airgroup. Of the rest, all but 3 have replenishment airgroups. So, you only get 3 CVE's with airgroups that can actually function for CAP and offensive missions.

Also, up through July 43, the allied player has the 6 prewar carriers and the Essex and one CVL (there may be more essexes, but I don't have a perfect memory). Factor in the expected losses (probably 4 CV's), and you don't have all that many CV's in July 43.

So, why do we need 6 CVE's with 12 squadrons of replenishment groups in early 43? I'm practically begging for some CAP on my valuable transport task forces.

Can't we start getting the replenishment airgroups in mid to late 43 and get some useful CVE groups prior to that? (I know you can move the replenishment groups off and some carrier capable groups on, but I don't think that putting Corsairs on CVE's is a good option.)



eMonticello -> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues (2/3/2005 3:56:46 AM)

Spig spent a lot of time convincing the Navy Brass that jeep carriers were vital for extended carrier operations ... now you're telling him otherwise?! :)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I have a question regarding allied CVE's. This may not necessarily be an error, but it's something that bugs me.

Up through July 43, the US gets about 10 CVE's as reinforcements. The Long Island has no airgroup. Of the rest, all but 3 have replenishment airgroups. So, you only get 3 CVE's with airgroups that can actually function for CAP and offensive missions.

So, why do we need 6 CVE's with 12 squadrons of replenishment groups in early 43? I'm practically begging for some CAP on my valuable transport task forces.

Can't we start getting the replenishment airgroups in mid to late 43 and get some useful CVE groups prior to that? (I know you can move the replenishment groups off and some carrier capable groups on, but I don't think that putting Corsairs on CVE's is a good option.)


He's the guy who does not look like Clark Gable...

[image]local://upfiles/5926/Ca807771284.jpg[/image]



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

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
3.359375