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  36 37 [38] 39 40   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 1/18/2011 6:17:50 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

No trom from combinedfleet.com for the Hosho. They didn't think much of her either.


Yes there is:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/Hosho.htm

140 mm guns were removed in 1944 when flight deck was lengthened.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 1111
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 1/18/2011 6:44:05 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline 		Thanks for the link. Didn't see it on the list of carriers and just assumed. Should have searched for it.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 1112
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 1/20/2011 12:12:14 PM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline 		The Sargo and Seadragon classes have 4tt forward and 4 aft. In the Sargos 8/42 upgrade (and all after) and the Seadragons 12/42 upgrade (and all after) they have 2tt forward and 6tt aft. Conways lists 4 and 4 for both classes. I find it unlikely they moved 2 of the forward tts to the rear ;)

Dont know how much of an impact that has on the game, probably minimal.

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 1113
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 1/22/2011 1:15:34 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2787
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: NSW, Australia
Status: offline
I had a look at the USS Pennsylvania (Ship 3150) in scenario 11 which starts in May 1944.

The ship class for the USS Pennsylvania is set to 314 which is the 3/45 upgrade. The ship class should be 313 which is the 6/43 upgrade.

_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 1114
RE: AWAJISAN, AYATOSAN and SAKURA MARUs - 1/28/2011 5:35:46 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		In my on line research I have found that the subject vessels may have been sister ships. In any case the Awajisan(1722)(that was also known as the Awazisan) was much larger than the game data reflects and the class probably should be changed accordingly.

The ship was part of TF 8085 and Major-General Hiroshi Takumi, commander of the detactment was on board her.



< Message edited by Buck Beach -- 1/28/2011 5:46:39 PM >

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 1115
Japan's Domestic merchant ships - 2/15/2011 10:35:35 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		A friend of mine suggested that a portion of Japan's existing merchant fleet, at the start of the war, were left out of the game to represent those ships dedicated to domestic purposes as opposed to those in the game towards the "war effort". I don't ever recall seeing this. Does it sound familiar?

Buck

< Message edited by Buck Beach -- 2/15/2011 10:36:34 PM >

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 1116
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 3/9/2011 9:18:14 AM   
somali

 

Posts: 33
Joined: 9/24/2009
From: Tachikawa, Japan
Status: offline 		Three typos in GC1

leader ID23011 Tanguchi Shosaburo
correct Taniguchi Shosaburo

leader ID5901 Takama Tomotsu
correct Takama Tamotsu

The Name of leader ID5921 is also Takama Tomotsu. Is he a random created Leader?

ship ID212 DD Hatsushima
correct DD Hatsushimo

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 1117
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 3/12/2011 6:25:55 PM   
BJStone


Posts: 135
Joined: 1/31/2009
Status: offline 		Regarding the IJN Cruisers Oi & Kitakama:

Everything I see regarding these two ships as "Torpedo Cruisers" in 1941 shows them with 10 torpedo mounts, each with 4 torpedoes, but when I look at the cruisers in the game the both show 8 mounts of 5 torpedoes.

Was it intentional to set the cruisers up as 8X5 instead of 10X4?

Just curious.


Regards,

BJ

< Message edited by BJStone -- 3/12/2011 6:26:35 PM >

(in reply to somali)
Post #: 1118
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 3/12/2011 7:24:22 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: BJStone

Regarding the IJN Cruisers Oi & Kitakama:

Everything I see regarding these two ships as "Torpedo Cruisers" in 1941 shows them with 10 torpedo mounts, each with 4 torpedoes, but when I look at the cruisers in the game the both show 8 mounts of 5 torpedoes.

Was it intentional to set the cruisers up as 8X5 instead of 10X4?

Just curious.


Regards,

BJ


They are set to 10 quad mounts. The specifations are a bit confusing, but 20-4 indicates 20 tubes in quad mounts (five quads), not 20 tubes in four individual mounts (which would be four quint).

(in reply to BJStone)
Post #: 1119
San-Shiki - 3/21/2011 6:58:09 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		As I understand, there is no San-Shiki?
I have changed main BB/CA guns into DP, and it seems to have small impact, probably enough, to be quite historical (lots of wasted ammo for maybe 1-2 extra planes shot down). Does changing from pure-Naval, into DP have any effect on surface combat? I see some guns, which are pure NAVAL, but still have ceiling. So, does gun shot at planes, when it have ceiling, or is it need to be set to AA/DP type?
However, this change brings a question:
Should not shrapnel ammunition, also increase ground bombardment effects?

There are few types of 12.7 cm/50 Type 3 naval gun. As I understand, only those with maximum elevation of 75 deg can be used as DP, which brings another question:
What was actual ammunition type used for anti-aircraft fire? Was it not a San-Shiki?
I am guessing T A means Twin A type, and S A means Single A type, as I see Single A was used at Hatsuharu class, but in game it uses only T B, not that it changes anything, because all guns have the same statistics, which bring another question:
Should not different maximum elevation, also change maximum range/ceiling?

And, since ammunition is THE SAME, should not all 12.7 cm guns be DP? With probably worse ceiling/accuracy for those, with lower maximum elevation? Why 12.7 AA type have WORSE accuracy, than standard DP? Is accuracy used in determining hit of planes?

Was not the special-fragmentation-ammunition, used several times at Guadalcanal, a San-Shiki? Does Kongo used it in main guns?

Ok, I found this:
quote:

APC Type 91 - 1,485 lbs. (673.5 kg)
Common Type 0 HE - 1,378 lbs. (625 kg)
Common Type 3 IS - 1,371 lbs. (622 kg)

So, there is San-Shiki for 14', and I do not see any special shrapnel ammunition type, besides San-Shiki.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 1120
RE: San-Shiki - 4/21/2011 7:24:40 PM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		Browsing TAKIs site I have found this in FAQ:
quote:

Q:

The ships (Landing Craft carriers) "Shinshu Maru" and "model Ko" and submarine "Maru Yu", did have IJA or IJN officers?
A:

As for the landing craft carriers, crews were civilians and they were hired by the IJA. The crews for the guns and landing crafts were IJA soldiers.

The crews of the "Maru Yu" were IJA soldiers. They were mainly converted from tankers.


So, what happens, when ship "nationality" is set to IJ Army? I am guessing the only difference will be different possible "Captains"?

Speaking of which. Is there only 10 Maru Yu in-game? According to wikipedia, seems 38 were completed. And at least another 15, should be due in late 1945.
Also, it seems they capacity is too generous. To keep with in-game model, they should have 36 person, and 12 cargo capacity, which gives them exactly "24 tons freight or 40 troops".


Similar change could be applied to Type D submarine, which is listed as 65 tons of cargo in hull, and 25 in upper deck (so maybe 25 cargo, and 195 personnel? Seems high. Maybe 25 liquid?).
Anyway, wikipedia shows them armed with 2 torpedo launchers, while in-game they have no torpedoes.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 1121
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 5/20/2011 10:54:04 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline 		In the game CA-30 Houston has a captain K.I. Riker as commanding officer. If I am not mistaken her real-life skipper on Dec 7th 1941 was captain Albert Howard Rooks - he is not even in the database.  PY-10 Isabel starts the game at Manila. IRL on Dec 7th (8th in the PI) she was at sea on her way back from her "defensive information patrol" between Cam Ranh Bay and Manila. In the game Isabel also carries depth charges as part of her armament. According to Winslow: "The Fleet the Gods Forgot: The U.S. Asiatic Fleet in World War II" Isabel had no anti-submarine weapons at the outbreak of the war. On Dec 10th she was at Cavite preparing to install depth charge racks when the Japanese bombing raid obliterated Cavite Naval Yard.

_____________________________

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to chesmart)
Post #: 1122
PG-22 Tulsa - 6/27/2011 1:08:38 AM   
Heeward


Posts: 343
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline 		From DAFS

"Equipped with a home-made depth charge rack constructed by the ship's crew, Tulsa now boasted an antisubmarine capacity and began escorting merchantmen along the south coast of Java to Tjilatjap, the only port on the island still out of reach of Japanese bombers. While engaged on convoy duty in late February, Tulsa received orders to proceed to a point 300 miles to the south of Java. En route, she learned that her mission included searching for survivors of Langley (AV-3), sunk on 26 February 1942. When she arrived at the scene, however, she found only traces of wreckage, but no survivors. Unbeknown to Tulsa, Langley's survivors had already been rescued by Whipple (DD-217) and Edsall (DD-219).

After this apparently fruitless rescue attempt, Tulsa came upon the scene of the sinking of British merchant ship City of Manchester. Whippoorwill already had begun rescue operations, yet needed medical facilities which Tulsa had on board. The gunboat hove to and assisted the minesweeper in the lifesaving, then returned to Tjilatjap where she awaited instructions, ready for sea at a moment's notice.

With Java being rapidly encircled by the onrushing Japanese, orders to retire were not long in coming. On 1 March 1942. Tulsa, Asheville, Lark, and Isabel (PY-10) crept out of Tjilatjap, bound for Australia. While the other three ships steamed resolutely onward, Asheville soon developed engine difficulties and fell behind, only to be trapped and sunk by superior Japanese surface forces.

Tulsa and her two companions arrived in Australia waters shortly thereafter. They were the last surface ships of the Asiatic Fleet to survive the Japanese onslaught in the East Indies ; and they escaped, by a hairsbreadth, the fate which befell Asheville.

For the seven months following her arrival in Fremantle, she engaged in routine patrols off the Australian coast before being refitted at Sydney in October 1942. Here, she received British ASDIC, degaussing equipment, Y-guns, and 20 millimeter Oerlikons. Thus outfitted, she served once again as a convoy escort, occasionally towing targets as well."

So we can see two refits
Say: 1/42 Adding Dept charges - DC Rack /Mk 6 DC 1x R Ammo 6 = equal to Bird Class Minesweeper

Say: 6/42 Refit
Change .303cal Lewis MG to x2 20mm Oerlikon AA Gun RS and LS Ammo 18
Change DC Rack / Mk 6 DC to Y-Gun Mk7/Mk6 DC x2 RS/LS Ammo 6

These two refits would make the Asheville and Tulsa effective ASW escorts.

Thoughts / Comments better sources?




< Message edited by Heeward -- 9/17/2011 4:46:36 PM >

_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 1123
RE: PG-22 Tulsa - 7/3/2011 1:18:43 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline 		Ignore this post, I was wrong in my error report.

< Message edited by EasilyConfused -- 7/30/2011 5:19:24 PM >

(in reply to Heeward)
Post #: 1124
RE: PG-22 Tulsa - 7/9/2011 7:27:46 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		It seems, that in IRONMAN Scenario not all Submarines have their Torpedo Tubes split.

US seems to be OK, but some Dutch, and UK subs still uses their old configuration.




Attachment (1)

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 1125
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 7/14/2011 11:57:03 AM   
Omat


Posts: 2414
Joined: 8/18/2004
Status: offline 		Hello

Blackhorse wrote that I should post it here see here

Some leader will never be accessible in game because they where wrong flaged. I belive this is a mistake because why should someone create a leader for nothing?


Leader 14051 Sprague, Thomas L. He is a Radm but flaged as „05 - Ship“. Because that there are never Radm selctable for ship`s (highest Rang is Captain) and leader which are are flaged as „05 -ship“ could never selected as a Task force commander I suggest to re flaged him as a „04 – Task Force“.

The same problem for e.g. McMorris, Chas H.; Number 12359. In Scenario 28 he is Right now he is classified as "type: 05-ship". So if u remove him (maybe by accident) he seems not to be accessible because he has a rank of an Rear Admiral.
Would it be better to give him the "type 04 Task Force" or "Type 01 Headquarters" like Leader Mitscher, Marc A?
Mitscher`s Number is 12510 and he is used as a ship commander but is internal a Task Force leader.
In WW2 McMorris was a ship Commander, Task force Commander and Chief of Staff of the Pacific Fleet.

There are also some Leader which have the same Problem
Number:
9009
9010
9311
10158
12359
14051
14052

P.S. I did not look at the axis side.

I suggest simply to reflaged them all to type “04 - Task Force"

Maybe Leader 16376 Erskine should be reflaged as “02 – Large Ground Unit”

Omat

_____________________________

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 1126
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 7/16/2011 8:22:16 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		I have seen several RADMs commanding Japanese tankers in WITP, so it is possible AI can choose this rank, if there is shortage of captains.
But obviously, this is not solution, we are looking for

(in reply to Omat)
Post #: 1127
RE: Japan's Domestic merchant ships - 7/16/2011 9:26:31 PM   
Pascal_slith


Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

A friend of mine suggested that a portion of Japan's existing merchant fleet, at the start of the war, were left out of the game to represent those ships dedicated to domestic purposes as opposed to those in the game towards the "war effort". I don't ever recall seeing this. Does it sound familiar?

Buck


Yes, I've seen this discussion before too. It seems logical as much traffic took place between China and Japan. I believe there was also some discussion about including them back in a variant of the "DaBabes" scenarios.

_____________________________

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


(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 1128
RE: Japan's Domestic merchant ships - 7/21/2011 4:02:05 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
A friend of mine suggested that a portion of Japan's existing merchant fleet, at the start of the war, were left out of the game to represent those ships dedicated to domestic purposes as opposed to those in the game towards the "war effort". I don't ever recall seeing this. Does it sound familiar?

Buck

He is incorrect.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Pascal_slith)
Post #: 1129
RE: Japan's Domestic merchant ships - 7/21/2011 7:24:44 PM   
Buck Beach

 

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

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
A friend of mine suggested that a portion of Japan's existing merchant fleet, at the start of the war, were left out of the game to represent those ships dedicated to domestic purposes as opposed to those in the game towards the "war effort". I don't ever recall seeing this. Does it sound familiar?

Buck

He is incorrect.


Wow, I posed this question on February 16 and had pretty much resolved it wasn't correct. Must have gotten lost in the mail.

Buck

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 1130
USN Torpedo warhead upgrade - 8/14/2011 5:23:49 PM   
Heeward


Posts: 343
Joined: 1/27/2003
From: Lacey Washington
Status: offline 		Does the game simulate the mid 1943 arrival of US torpedoes with larger warheads?

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 14
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  507 lbs. (230 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  668 lbs. (303 kg) TPX
This was the standard submarine torpedo of the World War II period

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 15
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  494 lbs. (224 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  801 lbs. (363 kg) TNT or 823 lbs. (373 kg) HBX
The standard destroyer weapon of World War II


< Message edited by Heeward -- 8/14/2011 11:58:49 PM >

_____________________________

The Wake

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 1131
M6A1 Seiran question - 8/17/2011 4:43:41 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline 		The M6A1 Seiran is a float torpedo bomber that comes on some of the late war japanese subs. Problem is, the squadrons don't seem to have torpedo capability on the subs - the "Torpedo" for the armament is red. I'm guessing because there are no torpedo sorties on the subs (if subs can even have torpedo sorties).

Is this the intended result? Or will it launch torpedoes even if the torpedo ordnance is red?

(in reply to Heeward)
Post #: 1132
RE: USN Torpedo warhead upgrade - 8/17/2011 1:44:00 PM   
msieving1


Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Heeward

Does the game simulate the mid 1943 arrival of US torpedoes with larger warheads?

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 14
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  507 lbs. (230 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  668 lbs. (303 kg) TPX
This was the standard submarine torpedo of the World War II period

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 15
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  494 lbs. (224 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  801 lbs. (363 kg) TNT or 823 lbs. (373 kg) HBX
The standard destroyer weapon of World War II



Looking in the database, it seems the torpedoes have the larger warhead from the start. However, the database makes no distinction for the type of explosive. According to Navweaps.com, Torpex and HBX have about 50% greater effect than TNT. The Japanese Type 97 explosive had about 7% more force than TNT.


(in reply to Heeward)
Post #: 1133
RE: USN Torpedo warhead upgrade - 8/20/2011 8:28:20 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		There is TK Moji Maru at Guam Invasion TF, however there is no fuel at Chichi-Jima, so it remains empty (not even mentioning, that TF is docked at lvl 1 port).
What is more important, I have found, that Tanker Moji Maru was actually registered as AO, and was taking part as support of Hong Kong operation, and struck a mine in January 1942, and sank.
This ship have sunk date set in 1944, and in fact, there is mention about Moji Maru sunk at that date around Truk, but it was supposed to be transport, not tanker.



Also few overlookings of TFs:
8004 Kuching Cbt TF (*). It is supposed to cover invasion TF (you can see it in editor), but this invasion TF is empty, and 8004 just returns to Cam Ranh Bay.

8120 Manado Invasion, and
8121 Ternate Invasion
have no destinations set. Maybe they should stay in port, but if not, it can mess historical first turn seting.

Also, it seems, that BB Mutsu should be at Hiroshima/Kure, not Tokyo, because it was at Hashirajima on 3rd December:
quote:

3 December 1941:
Undocked. Returns to Hashirajima. Anchors in readiness condition.

8 December 1941: Operation "Z" – The Attack on Pearl Harbor:
BatDiv 1's MUTSU and NAGATO sortie from Hashirajima to the Bonin Islands with the First Fleet's Bat Div 1, BatDiv 2's ISE, HYUGA, FUSO and YAMASHIRO, light carrier HOSHO, escorted by light cruisers OI and KITAKAMI and eight destroyers.


This should probably also include Yamashiro, which starts game in Yokohama.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Heeward

Does the game simulate the mid 1943 arrival of US torpedoes with larger warheads?

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 14
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  507 lbs. (230 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  668 lbs. (303 kg) TPX
This was the standard submarine torpedo of the World War II period

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 15
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  494 lbs. (224 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  801 lbs. (363 kg) TNT or 823 lbs. (373 kg) HBX
The standard destroyer weapon of World War II


It would be actually beneficial, if game would allow to define weapon upgrades in database. Considering number of modifications Allies got on their projectiles. Currently you have to make whole class upgrade, to use new weapon.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by inqistor -- 8/21/2011 9:37:22 PM >

(in reply to Heeward)
Post #: 1134
RE: USN Torpedo warhead upgrade - 8/24/2011 1:09:33 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Heeward

Does the game simulate the mid 1943 arrival of US torpedoes with larger warheads?

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 14
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  507 lbs. (230 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  668 lbs. (303 kg) TPX
This was the standard submarine torpedo of the World War II period

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 15
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  494 lbs. (224 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  801 lbs. (363 kg) TNT or 823 lbs. (373 kg) HBX
The standard destroyer weapon of World War II


It would be actually beneficial, if game would allow to define weapon upgrades in database. Considering number of modifications Allies got on their projectiles. Currently you have to make whole class upgrade, to use new weapon.


Couldn't this be at least partly simulated by having class upgrades with delays, damage, and required shipyards set at zero? Seeing as the vessels with torpedoes are mostly fairly small, the upgrade wouldn't require particularly large ports.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 1135
RE: USN Torpedo warhead upgrade - 8/27/2011 8:11:22 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Heeward

Does the game simulate the mid 1943 arrival of US torpedoes with larger warheads?

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 14
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  507 lbs. (230 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  668 lbs. (303 kg) TPX
This was the standard submarine torpedo of the World War II period

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 15
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  494 lbs. (224 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  801 lbs. (363 kg) TNT or 823 lbs. (373 kg) HBX
The standard destroyer weapon of World War II


It would be actually beneficial, if game would allow to define weapon upgrades in database. Considering number of modifications Allies got on their projectiles. Currently you have to make whole class upgrade, to use new weapon.


Couldn't this be at least partly simulated by having class upgrades with delays, damage, and required shipyards set at zero? Seeing as the vessels with torpedoes are mostly fairly small, the upgrade wouldn't require particularly large ports.

Yes, that seems to be simplest solution, however I have discovered, that there are additional damages, when upgraded classes have diiference in some statistics. For example:
- if there is difference in speed, engine will be damaged
- if there is difference in durability, there will be Sys damage

So, I am not sure, if changing weapons, do not damage them completely, and would need weapon repair. And torpedo tubes need large Shipyards to do it.

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 1136
RE: USN Torpedo warhead upgrade - 9/3/2011 1:06:48 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused

quote:

ORIGINAL: inqistor

quote:

ORIGINAL: Heeward

Does the game simulate the mid 1943 arrival of US torpedoes with larger warheads?

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 14
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  507 lbs. (230 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  668 lbs. (303 kg) TPX
This was the standard submarine torpedo of the World War II period

21" (53.3 cm) Mark 15
Explosive Charge
Mod 0:  494 lbs. (224 kg) TNT
Mod 3:  801 lbs. (363 kg) TNT or 823 lbs. (373 kg) HBX
The standard destroyer weapon of World War II


It would be actually beneficial, if game would allow to define weapon upgrades in database. Considering number of modifications Allies got on their projectiles. Currently you have to make whole class upgrade, to use new weapon.


Couldn't this be at least partly simulated by having class upgrades with delays, damage, and required shipyards set at zero? Seeing as the vessels with torpedoes are mostly fairly small, the upgrade wouldn't require particularly large ports.

Yes, that seems to be simplest solution, however I have discovered, that there are additional damages, when upgraded classes have diiference in some statistics. For example:
- if there is difference in speed, engine will be damaged
- if there is difference in durability, there will be Sys damage

So, I am not sure, if changing weapons, do not damage them completely, and would need weapon repair. And torpedo tubes need large Shipyards to do it.


I don't think that is the case, but I've never tested it. Incidentally, I believe that differences in durability result in floatation damage, not system damage.

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 1137
RE: USN Torpedo warhead upgrade - 9/10/2011 8:10:19 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1813
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline 		I have seen this only during my testing of Shinano conversion, so I can not be sure.

I am actually wondering if it is possible to get ship sunk this way:
it gets floatation damage, lots of system (it is conversion after all), then some unlucky roll, and it sinks in docks

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 1138
RE: USN Torpedo warhead upgrade - 9/10/2011 10:14:55 AM   
SgtSwanson


Posts: 212
Joined: 5/15/2005
From: Long Branch, NJ
Status: offline 		Good to see Matrix is still keeping within their usual standards of missing too much stuff.

_____________________________

Sgt Swanson
87-93 5/502 Inf. Berlin Bde
93-95 2/502 Inf. 101st Airborne Div.
Freedom is never free!!

Patch of the Week: 6th Infantry Division

(in reply to inqistor)
Post #: 1139
RE: USN Torpedo warhead upgrade - 9/10/2011 7:46:12 PM   
JWE

 

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

ORIGINAL: SgtSwanson
Good to see Matrix is still keeping within their usual standards of missing too much stuff.

Yeah, I do remember having meetings where we decided just what to screw up for people like you. So glad to know you are on top of it.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to SgtSwanson)
Post #: 1140
Page:   <<   < prev  36 37 [38] 39 40   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  36 37 [38] 39 40   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

1.500