Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: upgrade question

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: upgrade question Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: upgrade question - 8/25/2009 10:09:06 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Seems like some ships have more ammo than their max allows in the Aleutians Scenario anyhow.....?





Bump

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 511
RE: oob question - 8/25/2009 12:14:47 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		These ships were bound for the theatre since 11/41..

http://www.cofepow.org.uk/pages/ships_convoy_william_sail.htm

_____________________________




(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 512
RE: oob question - 8/25/2009 12:25:28 PM   
Cavalry Corp

 

Posts: 3107
Joined: 9/2/2003
From: Sampford Spiney Devon UK
Status: offline 		In Guadal Canal scn I also have allied ships starting with more ammo than the brackets which i assume is the maximum. I also have some CA I think loaded with less 8 inch shells

cav

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 513
RE: oob question - 8/25/2009 2:51:25 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

Thanks Don, I believe the 70th Pursuit squadron and ground elements of the 7th BG were also embarked. Does this mean that the Johnson may be included in the next oob update? Also sources say that "a" President Garfield left with the President Johnson (albeit separately) with reinforcements for USAFFE as well. Now the old Garfield became the Madison and that we know was in the proximity of the PI when war broke out. So I assume that it must be the C3-A President Garfield prior being taken over by the navy and renamed President Jefferson, but in the game the President Jefferson doesnt enter the game until March 42 at Balboa. So I guess I am a bit confused. Any clarification?


Hi TIMJOT. The Garfield is the SS President Garfield, a C3-A-P&C, built for American President Lines, 1941. After PH she had 2 additional voyage charters for the Navy in the Pacific and returned to the Atlantic in January, 1942. In April, 1942, she began Navalization conversion to an AP at Newport News SB & DD Co. Officially acquired by the Navy, May, 1, 1942. Completed conversion and commissioned USS Thomas Jefferson (AP-60), August, 1942. Transited the canal to return to Pacific service, September, 1942.


_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 514
RE: oob question - 8/25/2009 4:46:45 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Thanks Don great info, BTW what happen to all those wonderful at sea merchant shipping that were in CHS? I thought it was one of the best features of CHS. Any reason they were not included in AE? Also, because I know you like this stuff here is an interesting link that confirms anecdotally that at least part of the ground echelon for the 19th BG were embarked on the Pres.Johnson.http://www.ww2pacific.com/johnson.html



quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


As far as I can tell, the army ships are sea were:
Transports Etolin, Tasker H Bliss, President Johnson, and President Garfield - enroute Hawaii from West Coast.
Luriline, enroute West Coast from Hawaii
Hugh L Scott and President Coolidge returning West Coast from Philippines
Republic and W.A. Holbrook enroute Philippines in the Pensacola Convoy

Freighters Cynthia Olson, Malama, Jupiter, and Montgomery City enroute Hawaii from West Coast (not sure of destination for last two)
Ludington enroute Philippines via Christmas and Canton Islands and then the Torres Strait.
Bloemfontein and Meigs in the Pensacola Convoy
Mauna Loa, Portmar and Jane Christenson, destinations unknown but probably Philippines. Diverted to Australia.
James (or John?) Lykes enroute Hawaii from Philippines, having been part of Boise Convoy. Diverted to Cebu, then NEI. Not sure, may have been voyage chartered and charter expired upon unload in Manila.




(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 515
RE: oob question - 8/26/2009 6:19:50 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Campaign 2

Japanese type SS class (1981) Subs have no torpedoes only a 25mm gun!

Editor Ships Ha-101 - Ha-112 (1003 -1014)

Same with the YU class (1985) subs, no torpedoes

Editor Ships Yu-01 - Yu-10 (1015-1024)


Same with the Type D1 class (1965) Subs, no torpedoes

Editor Ships I- 361 -373 (1187 - 1199)




< Message edited by pad152 -- 8/26/2009 6:28:29 AM >

(in reply to TIMJOT)
Post #: 516
RE: oob question - 8/26/2009 8:12:46 AM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline 		they mav be transport subs - torpedo tubes removed to carry more cargo - to isolated garrisons?

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 517
RE: oob question - 8/26/2009 10:19:41 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Maybe this could help. List and photos of some Shell ships, some captured by Japanese:

http://www.cnooks.nl/shell.htm and http://www.cnooks.nl/

< Message edited by Dili -- 8/26/2009 10:28:30 AM >

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 518
RE: oob question - 8/26/2009 6:05:49 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		moved to land oob!

< Message edited by pad152 -- 8/26/2009 6:06:27 PM >

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 519
RE: oob question - 8/26/2009 8:35:53 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
Campaign 2
Japanese type SS class (1981) Subs have no torpedoes only a 25mm gun!
Editor Ships Ha-101 - Ha-112 (1003 -1014)
Same with the YU class (1985) subs, no torpedoes
Editor Ships Yu-01 - Yu-10 (1015-1024)
Same with the Type D1 class (1965) Subs, no torpedoes
Editor Ships I- 361 -373 (1187 - 1199)

All campaign games.
Certain subs upgrading/converting to transport subs (SST) in the game, have their torpedoes removed.
If that doesn't work for you, then don't upgrade/convert.
Torpedoes or Transport - it's your choice.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 520
RE: oob question - 8/26/2009 10:07:33 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Beta v1083c

Campaign 2

Ship Mogami  077 has 2 sets of aircraft, arigroups (659 + 650 & 752 + 753)!

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 521
RE: oob question - 8/26/2009 10:16:35 PM   
Bongo

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 10/16/2004
Status: offline 		The New Zealand light cruisers in scenario 6 have Ensigns in charge. Using Beta v1083c.


< Message edited by Bongo -- 8/26/2009 10:18:29 PM >

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 522
RE: oob question - 8/26/2009 11:08:27 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bongo
The New Zealand light cruisers in scenario 6 have Ensigns in charge. Using Beta v1083c.

If you don't like the leaders, try doing this:
click on the ship;
click on the leader;
look at the list;
select whatever leader you want.
save.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Bongo)
Post #: 523
RE: oob question - 8/26/2009 11:14:55 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
Campaign 2
Japanese type SS class (1981) Subs have no torpedoes only a 25mm gun!
Editor Ships Ha-101 - Ha-112 (1003 -1014)
Same with the YU class (1985) subs, no torpedoes
Editor Ships Yu-01 - Yu-10 (1015-1024)
Same with the Type D1 class (1965) Subs, no torpedoes
Editor Ships I- 361 -373 (1187 - 1199)

All campaign games.
Certain subs upgrading/converting to transport subs (SST) in the game, have their torpedoes removed.
If that doesn't work for you, then don't upgrade/convert.
Torpedoes or Transport - it's your choice.


And some are BUILT as SSTs, because that's what happened historically. You can always decide not to build them, but the data is correct and will not be changed.

< Message edited by Terminus -- 8/27/2009 11:06:47 AM >

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 524
RE: oob question - 8/27/2009 12:42:02 AM   
rjopel

 

Posts: 614
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Charlottesville, VA, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

These ships were bound for the theatre since 11/41..

http://www.cofepow.org.uk/pages/ships_convoy_william_sail.htm


TF 422 carrying the 16th UK Div arriving from off map.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 525
RE: oob question - 8/27/2009 2:20:25 AM   
Bongo

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 10/16/2004
Status: offline
Thanks, I know how to do that. It wastes PPs and seems like a date base error. I was under the illusion that this was a place to report errors.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 526
RE: oob question - 8/27/2009 2:36:07 AM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1983
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bongo

The New Zealand light cruisers in scenario 6 have Ensigns in charge. Using Beta v1083c.



You'll want leader 17196 (Roskill) for Leander, and 17192 (Parry) on Achilles. I'll try to slip it into a future patch.

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to Bongo)
Post #: 527
RE: oob question - 8/27/2009 5:18:15 AM   
Bongo

 

Posts: 26
Joined: 10/16/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks. I appreciate the response.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bongo

The New Zealand light cruisers in scenario 6 have Ensigns in charge. Using Beta v1083c.



You'll want leader 17196 (Roskill) for Leander, and 17192 (Parry) on Achilles. I'll try to slip it into a future patch.


(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 528
RE: oob question - 8/27/2009 5:32:32 AM   
oldman45


Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline 		The Hermes losses its air group and there are no free FAA squadrons around. I also don't see any coming in the pool.

(in reply to Bongo)
Post #: 529
RE: upgrade question - 8/27/2009 9:09:26 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Seems like some ships have more ammo than their max allows in the Aleutians Scenario anyhow.....?





Bump


Bump de bump

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 530
Loading Supply - 8/27/2009 2:37:54 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline 		This issue may have been asked and answered, but in the "future," will you be able to regulate how much supply you load unto your transports?? I plan to play 2 day turns in at least one PBEM game as Japan. After I load my troops and cargo on my transports, the rest will automatically be filled with supplies. I would like to be able to regulate that amount in increments of 1000. If there is a way to regulate the amount of supply being loaded now, please share it with me.

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 531
RE: Loading Supply - 8/27/2009 3:02:16 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

This issue may have been asked and answered, but in the "future," will you be able to regulate how much supply you load unto your transports?? I plan to play 2 day turns in at least one PBEM game as Japan. After I load my troops and cargo on my transports, the rest will automatically be filled with supplies. I would like to be able to regulate that amount in increments of 1000. If there is a way to regulate the amount of supply being loaded now, please share it with me.


I'd like to have this too. This feature, and a number of others, was considered. It would be a mark one, left handed bitch to do. Adding base daily cargo handling capacity to the calculations proved unexpectedly difficult and generated an embarrassing number of bugs. Adding another level of control would be exponentially more so. Sorry to say it's probably going to have to wait for a major rewrite or until the famous WITP II.


(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 532
RE: Loading Supply - 8/27/2009 3:04:03 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants
This issue may have been asked and answered, but in the "future," will you be able to regulate how much supply you load unto your transports?? I plan to play 2 day turns in at least one PBEM game as Japan. After I load my troops and cargo on my transports, the rest will automatically be filled with supplies. I would like to be able to regulate that amount in increments of 1000. If there is a way to regulate the amount of supply being loaded now, please share it with me.

Nope. Incremental loading isn't going to fly either; ships have capacities from 80 to 7000 and everything in between. After you have loaded your troops and are in the middle of loading supply, you could just cast off early.

Pooh, Don beat me to it again.

< Message edited by JWE -- 8/27/2009 3:05:28 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 533
RE: Loading Supply - 8/27/2009 3:09:14 PM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9869
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Pooh, Don beat me to it again.


You just need to get a larger needle for your IV Caffiene drip.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 534
RE: upgrade question - 8/28/2009 9:42:03 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Seems like some ships have more ammo than their max allows in the Aleutians Scenario anyhow.....?





Bump


Bump de bump


Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmpppppppppppp


_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 535
RE: upgrade question - 8/28/2009 9:42:31 AM   
Speedysteve

 

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline 		Post patch.

Guad scenario.

CVE Chenango arriving without air groups. WAD?

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 536
RE: upgrade question - 8/28/2009 9:25:05 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmpppppppppppp

Sheesh, yeah, ok. 2 kinds of scenarios; the campaigns and the smaller, directed ones. Sometimes a global class fix for the campaigns comes through, and the Guad, Alaska, Coral Sea guys may not pick up on it. Lookin at stuff, that's just wha hoppen here.

If you are a 'perfectionist", I can show ya how to tweak the db to make everything just ducky. Otherwise, why not just deal with it. It don't hurt, and the first ammo rearm puts everything back to where it ought to go. The scenario designers are aware of this, but it's one of those 'restart' things so maybe tomorrow. Not something worth breaking anybody's bones over. Ciao.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 537
RE: upgrade question - 8/28/2009 9:27:58 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy
Post patch.

Guad scenario.

CVE Chenango arriving without air groups. WAD?

Looked at the db and the Chenango a/g for scen004 have delay set to 9999, so obviously, their non apperance is WAD.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 538
RE: upgrade question - 8/28/2009 11:05:36 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline 		I'm surprised at some 'testy' responses on both sides....

Also, though, if you don't give enough time for a response (5 days is probably a rational amount), don't bump. These guys are doing their best and are as dedicated as you are.

It's hot enough as it is (I'm in Southern California), so my suggestion is to get a nice large ice cube filled glass of iced tea before responding...

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 539
RE: upgrade question - 8/29/2009 3:17:45 AM   
mikemike

 

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline 		PUBLIC BETA:

The Ironman Scenario contains a Mogami class and a Tone class CA both named "Asama". You might rename one of them, perhaps to "Aso".

Also, Ship Class 2025, Kongo Maru AMC, has Wpn 3 and Wpn 4 both on the RIGHT side. One of them should probably be on the LEFT side.

_____________________________

DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Speedysteve)
Post #: 540
Page:   <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: upgrade question Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.719