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  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/6/2009 7:51:14 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		In Dec '43 a ship arrives as:

xAP Golden Gate (C2 USAT Class 2/1942)

The designation "C2 USAT" makes me wonder if the "xAP" is correct or should it be either "AP" or "APA"?

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 751
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/6/2009 8:10:16 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: witpqs
In Dec '43 a ship arrives as:
xAP Golden Gate (C2 USAT Class 2/1942)
The designation "C2 USAT" makes me wonder if the "xAP" is correct or should it be either "AP" or "APA"?

USAT ships were very little better than Turkish slave galleys. They were commercial boats the USAT chartered (voyage or bare boat) and were under Army control. They had no boats, no LCs, no cranes, and couldn't assault if their life depended on it. They were nothing but chartered hulls, with a ton of flimsy bunks, and an extra 50 feet of tin urinal troughs. They were "slave" ships in every sense of the word.

Game has some USAT boats that are designated xAP, instead of xAK. This is the game's way of giving the Allies some troop capacity to make up for the Jap's ability to do the -t (xAK carry troops) conversion. It's basically the same thing, except USAT slave ships don't assault, unless you are really, really suicidal.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 752
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/6/2009 8:24:36 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Thanks. I was suckered by the 'USAT' figuring 'AT' stood for Attack Transport or something like it.

I guess people have been slapping lipstick on pigs for quite some time!

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 753
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/6/2009 11:38:54 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
USAT = U S Army Transport. Technically only those ships fitted for carriage of troops should have this designation, but it is frequently used for any ship chartered or owned by the Army.

Note that these were merchant ships, with merchant crews. As JWE said.

Some were owned by the Army, others owned by the shipping board and operated by the army. Many were either time or voyage chartered. But just regular old liners and freighters. US Merchant Marine crews with some army personnel for communications, security, and maybe light AA gun crews. Even the ships that went into dangerous waters (like Dona Nati, Don Jose and Anhui) had merchant crews.

One of the things that the Army complains about to this day was the decision in the first couple of months of the war to transfer many of the best ships to Navy control. This was because the Navy would man them with military crews and to Naval manning levels - with enough folks for damage control parites, two-watch gun crews, etc.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 754
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/7/2009 12:58:35 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		So why the complaints about better manning, etc.?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 755
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/7/2009 1:52:12 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

So why the complaints about better manning, etc.?


Sorry, don't understand the question.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 756
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/7/2009 2:00:52 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Sorry - I meant why the Army complaints. It seems like when they turned some of them over to Navy control they got manning of those ships - any they complain to this day about it?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 757
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/7/2009 2:43:43 AM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sorry - I meant why the Army complaints. It seems like when they turned some of them over to Navy control they got manning of those ships - any they complain to this day about it?


Because they lost operational control of the ships. They wanted to use them for Army requirements but once they ships belonged to the Navy, the Navy set the priorities.


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 758
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/7/2009 6:00:17 AM   
sven6345789

 

Posts: 1050
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Sandviken, Sweden
Status: offline 		The japanese submarine I-8 is classified as an A1 type sub;
IRL it was an J3 type sub (like I-7)
this is in scenario 1, patch 1.084

_____________________________

Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.

Letter from a U.S. Marine,November 1943

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 759
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/7/2009 7:59:56 PM   
Montbrun


Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline 		Campaign Game - there are 2x TK L.P. St. Clairs:



Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 760
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/7/2009 11:03:47 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Campaign 1 scenario...

ARD AFBD-2
Too large to traverse river hexsides at Portland.

Bummer...
Makes this asset useless.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 761
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/8/2009 1:46:05 AM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: Halsey
Campaign 1 scenario...

ARD AFBD-2
Too large to traverse river hexsides at Portland.

Bummer...
Makes this asset useless.

yeah, well, fifth break, fifth answer, patch-2, gonna be at Seattle. happy days.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 762
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/8/2009 9:49:58 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Sorry, must've missed it's past posting on one of the past 28 pages of posts.

Ciao!

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 763
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/9/2009 8:22:39 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: Halsey
Sorry, must've missed it's past posting on one of the past 28 pages of posts.

Ciao!

28 pages?? Shoot, I can do 28 pages of 'Second Stage lensman' in 6.4 minutes

Yeah, we're getting there. Maybe some surprises (AEaster Eggs) coming in patch-2 (we should be so lucky). Happy days.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 764
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/12/2009 9:57:00 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Minor data error maybe? Scenario 2. French KV with quite nice endurance. Ship has more fuel than tonnage...






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 765
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/12/2009 3:01:58 PM   
Monter_Trismegistos

 

Posts: 1359
Joined: 2/1/2005
From: Gdansk
Status: offline 		Why it's corvette instead of minesweeper???

Range sounds right, according to http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=752

_____________________________

Nec Temere Nec Timide
Bez strachu ale z rozwagą

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 766
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/12/2009 3:39:37 PM   
Gilbert


Posts: 243
Joined: 8/8/2009
From: Hendaye, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos

Why it's corvette instead of minesweeper???

Range sounds right, according to http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=752


Because some still used after 1940 were converted to ASW and given DCT.

Regards
Gilbert

_____________________________

UMI YUKABA
"If I go away to sea, I shall return a corpse awash, if duty calls me to the mountain, a verdant will be my pall, thus for the sake of the Emperor, I will not die peacefully at home...."

(in reply to Monter_Trismegistos)
Post #: 767
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/12/2009 3:45:37 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

Minor data error maybe? Scenario 2. French KV with quite nice endurance. Ship has more fuel than tonnage...



Look closely at the picture - it's towing a trailer!

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 768
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/12/2009 5:18:58 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
Minor data error maybe? Scenario 2. French KV with quite nice endurance. Ship has more fuel than tonnage...

Yes, typo. Cut and paste artifact. Fixed for patch-2.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos
Why it's corvette instead of minesweeper???
Range sounds right, according to http://www.warshipsww2.eu/lode.php?language=E&period=&idtrida=752

Class begins as a minesweeper but gets a DC suite and switches to a corvette in Feb. ’43.

10,000 nm range is only valid at 9 kts which is far too puny a cruise speed for game use. Tech specs show about 5800 nm at 14 kts on 110 tons of diesel. Some say about 4800 nm on 92 tons. Slight differences in serial construction for Elan and Chamois classes make specific determination difficult.

< Message edited by JWE -- 10/12/2009 5:45:21 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 769
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/12/2009 7:14:58 PM   
TommyG


Posts: 273
Joined: 9/25/2004
From: Irvine Ca
Status: offline 		How do you load remnents onto subs? I have lots of beat up little units on beach hexes in combat mode with Gato class subs in transport mode, but the subs will not load. Strat mode is greyed out for the units and when I try to load I get a "not in combat mode" message even though they are in combat mode and not in a restricted Hq. The units I want to load are banged up but are not disrupted, and I am only trying to load one sub at a time. If this has been answered a dozen times, I'm happy with a link


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 770
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/12/2009 7:33:41 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: TommyG

How do you load remnents onto subs? I have lots of beat up little units on beach hexes in combat mode with Gato class subs in transport mode, but the subs will not load. Strat mode is greyed out for the units and when I try to load I get a "not in combat mode" message even though they are in combat mode and not in a restricted Hq. The units I want to load are banged up but are not disrupted, and I am only trying to load one sub at a time. If this has been answered a dozen times, I'm happy with a link




The ability to load units onto subs has been severly reduced. Based on port size and air superiority you might well only be able to load one sub at a time.

This was done to prevent wholesale movement of units by submarines.

(in reply to TommyG)
Post #: 771
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/12/2009 8:24:43 PM   
fbs

 

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline
Scenario 001, 1.0.1.1084.

SS S-18 on San Diego is assigned to China Command rather than Pacific Fleet.

Thanks
fbs

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 772
very small error? - 10/12/2009 8:56:42 PM   
R8J


Posts: 238
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: Shelby County, Tennessee
Status: offline 		Slot 1730, Yamato:

Wpn 11, 1683: Num=2, Turrets=2, Right Side
Wpd 13, 1683: Num=2, Turrets=1, Left Side


_____________________________

Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.

Who Dares Wins.

You smell like dead bunnies.

(in reply to fbs)
Post #: 773
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/13/2009 6:22:41 PM   
TommyG


Posts: 273
Joined: 9/25/2004
From: Irvine Ca
Status: offline 		I'm trying to load them one at a time. No go. Can't change the units to strategic (greyed out) and the message when I try to load says "not in combat mode", but they are in combat mode. Is there a discussion somewhere on what's left of troop loading on subs? I'm not trying to offload the 4th Marines here. I'm just trying to pick up a few straggling Lark bn boys who are lost on the beach. They are not on a dot base, would that help?

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 774
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/13/2009 7:20:26 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: TommyG

I'm trying to load them one at a time. No go. Can't change the units to strategic (greyed out) and the message when I try to load says "not in combat mode", but they are in combat mode. Is there a discussion somewhere on what's left of troop loading on subs? I'm not trying to offload the 4th Marines here. I'm just trying to pick up a few straggling Lark bn boys who are lost on the beach. They are not on a dot base, would that help?


Actually I am not sure about the ability to load if not at a beach. Whole thing was shut down hard and ability is based on port size. No port might mean no load ability.

Really, the decision was to make it a living bitch to move troops by subs.

(in reply to TommyG)
Post #: 775
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/13/2009 7:50:56 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		I think I remember it being posted that the sub must be at a port to load... but that's strictly "IIRC".

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 776
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/13/2009 8:14:40 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		Yeah, if you don't have a level 1 port at least to load those remnants on a sub, you are SOL.  Even then it's kind of random as to how often and which units will load and which ones won't; I evacuated most of the Cebu BF out by xAKL, but some remnants were left and I evac'ed them via sub in 1/42.  After a few subs loaded there, though, I couldn't load the rest; not until 4/42 did I start getting some subs to accept the pitiful few support squads that were left there.

I've still got a British BF at Brunei that I cannot load by sub, even though it's only 4-5 support and aviation support squads left there.  For some reason the AI hasn't bothered to take the base either, even though they've taken every other base on Borneo.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 777
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/14/2009 2:39:46 PM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline 		8" British (and Australian) gun has a penetration of 180. Most 6" guns have a penetration of 200. Most 8" guns have a penetration of 275. This means the Brit gun can not penetrate most other CA armor, even at 1,000 yards. I'm not sure if the penetration is accurate. I've tried to find information on it, but I don't have the resources.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 778
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/14/2009 11:40:26 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
This means the Brit gun can not penetrate most other CA armor, even at 1,000 yards.

Hyperbolic vaporizations are counter productive.
Your statement is in error.
The largest Jap CA armor thickness in the database is 140mm for the Mogami belt. The others are around 100. One of the math classes I took suggests that 180 is bigger than 100 and even bigger than 140.
quote:

I'm not sure if the penetration is accurate.

And neither is anyone else. All sources indicate the major loadout of Brit 8" guns was SAPC. All US sources indicate SAPC had penetration characteristics somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70% that of an equivalent APC/APCBC round.

You find better balistics and penetration data for UK SAPC rounds, you will win a prize.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 779
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/15/2009 1:40:25 AM   
pad152

 

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

Ship (2797) Hie Maru - the ship has both an upgrade (AP) and conversion (AS) but, the upgrade only shows the AS conversion?






(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 780
Page:   <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   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

0.797