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: AE Naval and OOB Issues

 
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: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/11/2009 11:44:44 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

A few items relating to various devices on primarily U.S. ship classes. I am certainly far from being an expert so I will just throw these out for consideration.

Understand Buck, and will fix as we can, for patch-2. fyi, DC facings have nothing to do with nothing. ASW routine looks at # of DCs, # of ammo, and goes boom, boom, boom. In this case, the editor is way more grainy than the code, so tweaking data will have no impact on effect, so it's a trivial change and will be done. Ciao. John


Good to know. Thanks for the reply post.

Buck

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 631
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/12/2009 12:09:23 AM   
Montbrun


Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Can't transport anything with it....



In what kind of TF?


I fooled around with it some more - also the "Tydeman," and found that it only works for the "Fast Transport" TF (not Cargo or Transport TFs) - which makes sense.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 632
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/12/2009 12:58:48 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

I notice that the Mk 10 mine #1646 upgrades on 1-43 to the Mk 12 mine #1647. If a ship carries a Mk 10 mine will it automatically be able to carry a Mk 12 in 1-43 (assuming mines in the pool) or if you run out of Mk 10 mines then the ship will never be able to use there mine capability?

I ask because I noticed that the Elec Boat S-18 class #547 upgrade on 10-42 version carries the Mk 10 mine and the upgrade to that ship #648 on 6-43 still shows the ship carrying Mk 10 mines. Depending on the answer to the first question, was this in error and the mine should have been the Mk 12 for the 6-43 upgrade?

Thank you.


(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 633
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/12/2009 2:14:28 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: Herrbear
I notice that the Mk 10 mine #1646 upgrades on 1-43 to the Mk 12 mine #1647. If a ship carries a Mk 10 mine will it automatically be able to carry a Mk 12 in 1-43 (assuming mines in the pool) or if you run out of Mk 10 mines then the ship will never be able to use there mine capability?

I ask because I noticed that the Elec Boat S-18 class #547 upgrade on 10-42 version carries the Mk 10 mine and the upgrade to that ship #648 on 6-43 still shows the ship carrying Mk 10 mines. Depending on the answer to the first question, was this in error and the mine should have been the Mk 12 for the 6-43 upgrade?

Thank you.

Things that have a valid upgrade schedule are supposed to upgrade.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 634
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/12/2009 7:43:11 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		Thank you for your answer.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 635
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/13/2009 4:18:30 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		Moved here from below.

I would like to share this new resource I have found on the Internet. It is "The California State Military Museum". While the entire site looks good, I am including it here on this thread because of some interesting information regarding the armed forces in California on December 7, 1941, reflected at this link:

http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html

If this information can be believe, it provides very good new information for our game's OOBs. For those of us who are crying for more fuel wagons it reflects there were an additional 2 AOs available. Also, I note that Mare Island was a very active port/repair facility with much many more vessels there than reflected in the game (check out how many ships were being overhauled). To a lesser extent Alameda appears to have been actively used as a Coast Guard base with 11 Cutter & Sub Chaser craft located there These could be very useful in our battle against that Japanese AI sub activity laying in wait off the West Coast. Also, please note the other USN and CG ships and changes at the other locations.

I hope the Land and Air thread people also check this out to see if there is anything they can use. Anyway whether this is useful accurate information or not I will leave with you all.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 636
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/13/2009 6:56:51 PM   
Montbrun


Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Moved here from below.

I would like to share this new resource I have found on the Internet. It is "The California State Military Museum". While the entire site looks good, I am including it here on this thread because of some interesting information regarding the armed forces in California on December 7, 1941, reflected at this link:

http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html

If this information can be believe, it provides very good new information for our game's OOBs. For those of us who are crying for more fuel wagons it reflects there were an additional 2 AOs available. Also, I note that Mare Island was a very active port/repair facility with much many more vessels there than reflected in the game (check out how many ships were being overhauled). To a lesser extent Alameda appears to have been actively used as a Coast Guard base with 11 Cutter & Sub Chaser craft located there These could be very useful in our battle against that Japanese AI sub activity laying in wait off the West Coast. Also, please note the other USN and CG ships and changes at the other locations.

I hope the Land and Air thread people also check this out to see if there is anything they can use. Anyway whether this is useful accurate information or not I will leave with you all.



Dr. Niehorster's site is another nice source:

WWII OoBs

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 637
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/14/2009 10:44:16 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		I'm one who as never been satisified with Force Z starting at sea ripe for sinking before an Allied player can do anything.

From this link it appears that Force Z didnt leave Singapore until 1735/081241 and thesrfore should be in port or at least te TF start at Singapore.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/RN/BS-14_POW+Repulse/index.html

(Maybe this has been resolved  in the previous 22 pages)


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Montbrun)
Post #: 638
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/15/2009 12:52:23 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I'm one who as never been satisified with Force Z starting at sea ripe for sinking before an Allied player can do anything.

From this link it appears that Force Z didnt leave Singapore until 1735/081241 and thesrfore should be in port or at least te TF start at Singapore.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/RN/BS-14_POW+Repulse/index.html

(Maybe this has been resolved  in the previous 22 pages)




It has..., and not the way you would want (although you are absolutely correct). Try starting with "historical" off..., so you can actually have an historical start.

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 639
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/15/2009 1:43:36 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline 		Well, because of time zones 8th dec 41 in malaya was actually the same day as 7th dec 41 in pearl harbor 

_____________________________


(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 640
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/15/2009 3:54:54 PM   
Roko

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/4/2008
Status: offline 		Im curious why in AE the top speed of many ships is reduced in compared to
Witp and available data. A few examples                
                        AE     Witp
cl. Shiratsuyu    32      34
cl. Akitsuki         32      33
cl. Fubuki           33      38

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 641
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/15/2009 5:01:48 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko

Im curious why in AE the top speed of many ships is reduced in compared to
Witp and available data. A few examples                
                        AE     Witp
cl. Shiratsuyu    32      34
cl. Akitsuki         32      33
cl. Fubuki           33      38



Trials speed was often inflated. Top speed should be operational top speed.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Roko)
Post #: 642
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/15/2009 6:19:10 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		For the fuel starved Allied AI players (at the war's inception) I offer this link for consideration:

http://merchantships2.tripod.com/ian/ianfergusonshomepage1.html

Here are a few Tankers that may be available:

S.S. Albertolite
H.M. Storey (sunk in 1943) H.M. Storey II is in the game with a 10/18/43 arrive date.
S.S. Idaho (game has the BB and a cargo vessel by this name) another link showing it as a tanker http://www.militarymuseum.org/Montebello.html)
S.S. Connecticut

Within this history is a couple additional Cargo ships which may not be listed in the game.

Fort Camosun (Canadian)
M.V. Kookaburra (Swedish)

If posts such as this should be posted in the general threads, let me know.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 643
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/15/2009 6:39:23 PM   
scott64


Posts: 4019
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline 		Does CV Enterprise respawn if sunk? I lost her and has not shown up as being available..yet.

_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me


Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !! :)

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 644
Transport TF to pick up A/C fragment? - 9/15/2009 6:49:46 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline 		I went through the first 5 pages of this thead to see if this was addressed elsewhere.  I didn't see it.  I also didn't see it on the entire list of the first patch issue fixes so, I've done some due diligence before posting here.

Playing allied vs. Jap AI (v. hard), mid-February 1942.  I lost the Lexington in an exchange for Soryu and damage to Zuikaku in the DEI Southwest of The Celebes.  Planes from the Lex diverted to nearest landmass (base on SW Celebes corner nearest Soerbaja).  I eventually transfered them over to Java (Soerbaja) where they reside.

One of the DB units from the Lexington is sitting at 1 ready A/C 15 reserve, although there's more than sufficient pilots, aviation support and supply.  None are damaged.  I can't get the planes out of ready state into action.

The weird thing (the purpose of this post) follows.  While working out a turn, I noticed a TF between Midway Is. and Hawaii.  This TF consisted of one ship that was on a "Transport" mission.  It originated from SF and was tasked with picking up the DB fragment in Java (!).  Of course the route that it was going to take went right past Saipan and Guam, through the captured DEI / PI bases, etc.  Naturally, it would have been sunk had I not noticed it.

Is the computer creating odd TFs like this to pick up A/C fragments?  I know that I never gave any such orders.  I'd be happy to post a save to someone if it would help.  This sounds and looks 'buggy' to me.

Edited to add: I have not yet patched-playing stock AE.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 9/15/2009 6:56:54 PM >

(in reply to scott64)
Post #: 645
RE: Transport TF to pick up A/C fragment? - 9/15/2009 6:52:07 PM   
scott64


Posts: 4019
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I went through the first 5 pages of this thead to see if this was addressed elsewhere.  I didn't see it.  I also didn't see it on the entire list of the first patch issue fixes so, I've done some due diligence before posting here.

Playing allied vs. Jap AI (v. hard), mid-February 1942.  I lost the Lexington in an exchange for Soryu and damage to Zuikaku in the DEI Southwest of The Celebes.  Planes from the Lex diverted to nearest landmass (base on SW Celebes corner nearest Soerbaja).  I eventually transfered them over to Java (Soerbaja) where they reside.

One of the DB units from the Lexington is sitting at 1 ready A/C 15 reserve, although there's more than sufficient pilots, aviation support and supply.  None are damaged.  I can't get the planes out of ready state into action.

The weird thing (the purpose of this post) follows.  While working out a turn, I noticed a TF between Midway Is. and Hawaii.  This TF consisted of one ship that was on a "Transport" mission.  It originated from SF and was tasked with picking up the DB fragment in Java (!).  Of course the route that it was going to take went right past Saipan and Guam, through the captured DEI / PI bases, etc.  Naturally, it would have been sunk had I not noticed it.

Is the computer creating odd TFs like this to pick up A/C fragments?  I know that I never gave any such orders.  I'd be happy to post a save to someone if it would help.  This sounds and looks 'buggy' to me.

Could be...i had a fragment of AVG in a Chinese base with nowhere to get to the parent. The fragment eventually show up at the parent and recombines.

_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me


Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !! :)

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 646
RE: Transport TF to pick up A/C fragment? - 9/15/2009 8:41:00 PM   
Whisper

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 1/20/2008
From: LA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I went through the first 5 pages of this thead to see if this was addressed elsewhere.  I didn't see it.  I also didn't see it on the entire list of the first patch issue fixes so, I've done some due diligence before posting here.

Playing allied vs. Jap AI (v. hard), mid-February 1942.  I lost the Lexington in an exchange for Soryu and damage to Zuikaku in the DEI Southwest of The Celebes.  Planes from the Lex diverted to nearest landmass (base on SW Celebes corner nearest Soerbaja).  I eventually transfered them over to Java (Soerbaja) where they reside.

One of the DB units from the Lexington is sitting at 1 ready A/C 15 reserve, although there's more than sufficient pilots, aviation support and supply.  None are damaged.  I can't get the planes out of ready state into action.

The weird thing (the purpose of this post) follows.  While working out a turn, I noticed a TF between Midway Is. and Hawaii.  This TF consisted of one ship that was on a "Transport" mission.  It originated from SF and was tasked with picking up the DB fragment in Java (!).  Of course the route that it was going to take went right past Saipan and Guam, through the captured DEI / PI bases, etc.  Naturally, it would have been sunk had I not noticed it.

Is the computer creating odd TFs like this to pick up A/C fragments?  I know that I never gave any such orders.  I'd be happy to post a save to someone if it would help.  This sounds and looks 'buggy' to me.

Edited to add: I have not yet patched-playing stock AE.

Me too. I can't get get planes out of ready state. And theres always some little number, like 1 or 2 that makes it impossible to to figure out what can go onto a CV. I cant do what I'm trying to do from the manual. Whats goning on please.

_____________________________


(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 647
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/15/2009 9:12:54 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: scott1964

Does CV Enterprise respawn if sunk? I lost her and has not shown up as being available..yet.


There is no respawn at all in AE. You get all the carriers that showed up. The four that were named after sunk carriers are instead called Lexington II, Yorktown II, Wasp II, Hornet II.

Lose fewer, have more!

(in reply to scott64)
Post #: 648
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/15/2009 9:38:08 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: scott1964

Does CV Enterprise respawn if sunk? I lost her and has not shown up as being available..yet.

Lose fewer, have more!


Or lose more, have fewer....either way...

< Message edited by Iridium -- 9/15/2009 9:39:06 PM >

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 649
RE: Transport TF to pick up A/C fragment? - 9/15/2009 10:09:22 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I went through the first 5 pages of this thead to see if this was addressed elsewhere.  I didn't see it.  I also didn't see it on the entire list of the first patch issue fixes so, I've done some due diligence before posting here.

Playing allied vs. Jap AI (v. hard), mid-February 1942.  I lost the Lexington in an exchange for Soryu and damage to Zuikaku in the DEI Southwest of The Celebes.  Planes from the Lex diverted to nearest landmass (base on SW Celebes corner nearest Soerbaja).  I eventually transfered them over to Java (Soerbaja) where they reside.

One of the DB units from the Lexington is sitting at 1 ready A/C 15 reserve, although there's more than sufficient pilots, aviation support and supply.  None are damaged.  I can't get the planes out of ready state into action.

The weird thing (the purpose of this post) follows.  While working out a turn, I noticed a TF between Midway Is. and Hawaii.  This TF consisted of one ship that was on a "Transport" mission.  It originated from SF and was tasked with picking up the DB fragment in Java (!).  Of course the route that it was going to take went right past Saipan and Guam, through the captured DEI / PI bases, etc.  Naturally, it would have been sunk had I not noticed it.

Is the computer creating odd TFs like this to pick up A/C fragments?  I know that I never gave any such orders.  I'd be happy to post a save to someone if it would help.  This sounds and looks 'buggy' to me.

Edited to add: I have not yet patched-playing stock AE.

I'm giving this a little bump. Thanks for the comments re: the fragment, but that's not really what I'm concerned about. I'm more concerned re: the automatic transport TF on the suicide run. Once upon a time in UV, my submarines would automatically leave port on their own with no rhyme or reason (a known and subsequently fixed bug). This seems passingly familiar.

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 650
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/15/2009 10:11:26 PM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Well, because of time zones 8th dec 41 in malaya was actually the same day as 7th dec 41 in pearl harbor 


Not quite
From the above link.

3. The timing of initial Japanese attacks was as follows:

LOCAL TIME ZONE G.M.T ATTACK
0025/8 -7½ 1655/7 Landing Kota Bharu (N. Malaya).
0800/7 +10½ 1830/7 Air attack on Pearl Harbour.
0400/8 -7½ 2130/7 Air raid on Singapore.
0510/8 -8 2110/7 Air raid on Davao, Philippines.
0800/8 -8½ 2330/7 Air raid on Hongkong.
0900/8 -8½ 0030/8 Air raid on Hongkong (Kaitek) airfield; Japanese troops crossed frontier into New Territory.

10. MOVEMENTS OF FORCE "Z", 8TH-1OTH DECEMBER, 1941. (Plan 2)

Having formed his design, Admiral Phillips sailed from Singapore at 1735, 8th December. Just prior to sailing he was informed that it was doubtful if the fighter protection off Singora on 10th December could be provided.

The squadron, known as Force "Z", consisted of the Prince of Wales (flag), Repulse and the destroyers Electra, Express, Vampire and Tenedos.2 Course was shaped to the E.N.E. to pass east of the Anamba Islands in order to avoid possible minefields.

So Force Z sailed 17 hours after the initial landings, they weren't a hundred miles at sea.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 651
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/15/2009 11:19:53 PM   
Whisper

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 1/20/2008
From: LA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Well, because of time zones 8th dec 41 in malaya was actually the same day as 7th dec 41 in pearl harbor 


Not quite
From the above link.

3. The timing of initial Japanese attacks was as follows:

LOCAL TIME ZONE G.M.T ATTACK
0025/8 -7½ 1655/7 Landing Kota Bharu (N. Malaya).
0800/7 +10½ 1830/7 Air attack on Pearl Harbour.
0400/8 -7½ 2130/7 Air raid on Singapore.
0510/8 -8 2110/7 Air raid on Davao, Philippines.
0800/8 -8½ 2330/7 Air raid on Hongkong.
0900/8 -8½ 0030/8 Air raid on Hongkong (Kaitek) airfield; Japanese troops crossed frontier into New Territory.

10. MOVEMENTS OF FORCE "Z", 8TH-1OTH DECEMBER, 1941. (Plan 2)

Having formed his design, Admiral Phillips sailed from Singapore at 1735, 8th December. Just prior to sailing he was informed that it was doubtful if the fighter protection off Singora on 10th December could be provided.

The squadron, known as Force "Z", consisted of the Prince of Wales (flag), Repulse and the destroyers Electra, Express, Vampire and Tenedos.2 Course was shaped to the E.N.E. to pass east of the Anamba Islands in order to avoid possible minefields.

So Force Z sailed 17 hours after the initial landings, they weren't a hundred miles at sea.

This is getting wierd. This is the sixth or seventh different one of these out there.

Can somebody please do this in UTC.


_____________________________


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 652
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/16/2009 8:08:17 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline 		Hi all,

As I continue to work through my first turn I noticed something that seemed odd. This is an unmodified Scenario One that I am running.

When I go to the USAFFE HQ and click 'Show ships of this HQ' it correctly shows all my assigned USAFFE ships, but it also shows all the Asiatic Fleet ships. I just experimented by assigning ships to the Third US Fleet, and sure enough, they show up when I have Pacific Fleet 'Show ships of this HQ'. Also, if you click on say a ship assigned to USAFFE and click in the ship detail screen Show all ships of USAFFE, it will also show those of its subordinate command (Asiatic Fleet in this case). But if you access a ship in the subordinate command, it does *not* show the ships in the parent command. All that being said, I am not sure if this is WAD.

In other words, is it *intended* that a parent HQ shows both its ships and its subordiante command ships? Examples available at the start of the game would be the two above. Later in the game, you could see this with any number of commands. This does not appear to be a bug with my save, but the way it currently always is.

Again, this may be WAD, but it seems bass ackwards to me. It would make assigned ships to the subordiante command kind of pointless because you would always be seeing them when you accessed the ships in the parent command. Its just annoying for me because I heavily use the new ship command system and consider this one of the best improvements of AE over vanilla WitP.

Not a huge issue, but just one of those things.

Thanks in advance!

Chad

(in reply to Whisper)
Post #: 653
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/16/2009 8:12:53 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline 		Just as a follow up, I just tried it with the Japanese and it does the same thing. In other words, at the start of scenario 1, Southern Army has no ships assigned. But if I go to the Southern Command HQ, and click 'Show ships of this HQ', it will show the ships of all of its subordinate fleets - such as Combined Fleet.

Again, this may be WAD. I dont think it is, as it makes having ships assigned to the parent fleet pointless once you start using the subordiante fleets because you will be seeing multiple commands in the parent fleet OOB.

Just curious if this is WAD.

Thanks in advance!

Chad

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 654
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/16/2009 9:07:42 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
Yes, that is the way it is supposed to work.

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 655
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/16/2009 10:20:31 PM   
Chad Harrison


Posts: 1395
Joined: 4/2/2003
From: Boise, ID - USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Yes, that is the way it is supposed to work.


As always, thanks for the reply Don. Just wanted to make sure it wasnt user error

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 656
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/17/2009 2:40:10 AM   
JuanG


Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline 		Later Yubari class (ID #1013 and #1014) has armour for device slot 4, Type 2 DC (#1700).

I assume this was a mistake left over from the device change during upgrade from the 12/41 class.

< Message edited by JuanG -- 9/17/2009 2:41:31 AM >

_____________________________


Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Chad Harrison)
Post #: 657
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/17/2009 3:40:58 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Well, because of time zones 8th dec 41 in malaya was actually the same day as 7th dec 41 in pearl harbor 


Not quite
From the above link.

3. The timing of initial Japanese attacks was as follows:

LOCAL TIME ZONE G.M.T ATTACK
0025/8 -7½ 1655/7 Landing Kota Bharu (N. Malaya).
0800/7 +10½ 1830/7 Air attack on Pearl Harbour.
0400/8 -7½ 2130/7 Air raid on Singapore.
0510/8 -8 2110/7 Air raid on Davao, Philippines.
0800/8 -8½ 2330/7 Air raid on Hongkong.
0900/8 -8½ 0030/8 Air raid on Hongkong (Kaitek) airfield; Japanese troops crossed frontier into New Territory.

10. MOVEMENTS OF FORCE "Z", 8TH-1OTH DECEMBER, 1941. (Plan 2)

Having formed his design, Admiral Phillips sailed from Singapore at 1735, 8th December. Just prior to sailing he was informed that it was doubtful if the fighter protection off Singora on 10th December could be provided.

The squadron, known as Force "Z", consisted of the Prince of Wales (flag), Repulse and the destroyers Electra, Express, Vampire and Tenedos.2 Course was shaped to the E.N.E. to pass east of the Anamba Islands in order to avoid possible minefields.

So Force Z sailed 17 hours after the initial landings, they weren't a hundred miles at sea.

This is getting wierd. This is the sixth or seventh different one of these out there.

Can somebody please do this in UTC.


Problem is that the file looks OK before posting, and if I go to edit it it looks OK

Landing Kota Bharu (N. Malaya). GMT 1655/7
Air attack on Pearl Harbour. GMT 1830/7
Air raid on Singapore. GMT 2130/7

Force Z sails from Singapore GMT 1205/8



_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Whisper)
Post #: 658
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/17/2009 8:55:37 AM   
afspret


Posts: 851
Joined: 2/19/2004
From: Hanahan, SC
Status: offline 		Came across this ship a little while ago and wonder if its the game (can't check now 'cause I'm @ work)?

HMAS Doomba (ex HMS Wexford, a RN Hunt class MSW, commissioned in 1919)
1921: sold to an Aussy shipping company and used as a cruise ship
04/09/39: requisitioned by RAN and rebuilt as a MSW
06/42: re-classified as an ASW ship (or as an AA ship according to Wiki)
03/13/46: decommissioned by RAN

Armament in RAN service: 1x4in, 1x40mm, 1x20mm, 2 ea Vickers & Lewis mgs, 51 depth charges (unknown if DCTs or racks).

Speed was rated @ 16kts

Has a similar, but not exactly the same profile as HMAS Moresby.

Wiki doesn't say much about its service, but considering it was requisitioned by the RAN in Oz, I'm guessing it spent its entire service with the RAN in and/or around Aussy waters.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 659
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 9/17/2009 9:10:13 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		A picture of HMAS Doomba from The State Library of Victoria

http://www.slv.vic.gov.au/pictoria/b/4/0/doc/b40683.shtml

and another
http://www.michaelmcfadyenscuba.info/viewpage.php?page_id=60


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to afspret)
Post #: 660
Page:   <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  20 21 [22] 23 24   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

1.516