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  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 6:02:06 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline 		dwbradley,

If you look at the general discussion threads there are many examples of battles that appear to have been weighted one way or the other, or had some really odd outcomes.  It may just be the result of now being able to intercept in midocean (more intercepts=more combat=more varied outcomes), or it may be that the subroutine needs to be tweaked somewhat.

(in reply to dwbradley)
Post #: 241
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 6:10:55 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

You should lead with a surface combat TF and follow with the amphib TF.


What happens if the amphib TF doesn't have enough speed?

(in reply to dwbradley)
Post #: 242
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 9:17:08 PM   
Sonny II

 

Posts: 2878
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline 		The SCTF should wait on it.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 243
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 10:45:43 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Isn't the leading TF that defines the speed?

(in reply to Sonny II)
Post #: 244
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 11:51:02 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
If the following TF is slower, it falls behind.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 245
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 11:53:42 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


If the following TF is slower, it falls behind.


Both TFs will adjust speed, if possible. But none will stop and wait, so follow distance can not always be maintained when TFs have wildly different speeds. Also an issue when TFs are too far apart.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 246
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 11:55:13 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Very nice change. Thanks Don.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 247
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 12:16:23 AM   
Kull


Posts: 2625
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
As a reminder for those who are reporting "combat balance" issues. If you are playing against the AI with the "Very Hard" setting, per the manual: "Computer is given some logistical and combat advantages". So before we send the developers off on a wild goose chase, please include your "AI Difficulty" setting along with your report.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 248
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 1:32:35 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks Don.

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 249
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 3:22:00 AM   
msieving1


Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline 		I don't know if this has been reported before, but in Scenario 6, the December 8 start, the CLs Achilles and Leander are commanded by ensigns.  The correct COs for these ships should be W E Parry for Achilles and S W Roskill for Leander.

Also, some of the Australian DDs were being refit at the start of the war.  Stuart was in the shipyard in Melbourne, Voyager was in Sydney, and Vendetta was in Singapore.  Voyager completed her refit in March 1942, Stuart finished in April 1942, and Vendetta was scheduled to complete in April 1942.  In the event, Vendetta had to be towed from Singapore to Melbourne, and didn't complete refitting until September 1942.

Voyager and Stuart start Scenario 6 with 10 and 15 points system damage, respectively, but that takes just a few days to repair, rather than the 4-5 months actually required.  They should have a lot more damage to start.  Vendetta is undamaged to start in the scenario; she should have about the same damage as Stuart.

One more thing, which is maybe less significant.  The scenario has all the US Asiatic Fleet submarines (except S-36 and S-39, which were at sea) in Manila.  Several of the submarines (Sturgeon, Pike, Shark, Tarpon, Pickerel, and S-38), along with the AS Otus, were actually in Mariveles Bay, on the Bataan penisula, and one sub, Porpoise, was at Olongapo, in Subic Bay, which would also be in the Bataan hex (or maybe the Clark Field hex).  Bataan has just a size 1(1) port in the scenario, but Mariveles and Olongapo were fairly significant ports, and it seems like Bataan's port size should be at least 3.  And of course, Subic Bay became a major USN base after the war, so there was clearly a lot more potential for development than in the game.


(in reply to dwbradley)
Post #: 250
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 5:05:33 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		The Indian ship AMC Cornwallis (11173) (flower Q-boat) has no cargo capacity, is that correct?






Attachment (1)

(in reply to msieving1)
Post #: 251
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 11:21:58 AM   
Blackhorse


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

ORIGINAL: msieving1

I don't know if this has been reported before, but in Scenario 6, the December 8 start, the CLs Achilles and Leander are commanded by ensigns.  The correct COs for these ships should be W E Parry for Achilles and S W Roskill for Leander.

Also, some of the Australian DDs were being refit at the start of the war.  Stuart was in the shipyard in Melbourne, Voyager was in Sydney, and Vendetta was in Singapore.  Voyager completed her refit in March 1942, Stuart finished in April 1942, and Vendetta was scheduled to complete in April 1942.  In the event, Vendetta had to be towed from Singapore to Melbourne, and didn't complete refitting until September 1942.

Voyager and Stuart start Scenario 6 with 10 and 15 points system damage, respectively, but that takes just a few days to repair, rather than the 4-5 months actually required.  They should have a lot more damage to start.  Vendetta is undamaged to start in the scenario; she should have about the same damage as Stuart.

One more thing, which is maybe less significant.  The scenario has all the US Asiatic Fleet submarines (except S-36 and S-39, which were at sea) in Manila.  Several of the submarines (Sturgeon, Pike, Shark, Tarpon, Pickerel, and S-38), along with the AS Otus, were actually in Mariveles Bay, on the Bataan penisula, and one sub, Porpoise, was at Olongapo, in Subic Bay, which would also be in the Bataan hex (or maybe the Clark Field hex).  Bataan has just a size 1(1) port in the scenario, but Mariveles and Olongapo were fairly significant ports, and it seems like Bataan's port size should be at least 3.  And of course, Subic Bay became a major USN base after the war, so there was clearly a lot more potential for development than in the game.




FYI - Subic Bay is considered part of the Clark Field hex. The "Subic Bay Defenses" LCU includes two 10" guns.

_____________________________

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 msieving1)
Post #: 252
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 12:05:46 PM   
Curty

 

Posts: 269
Joined: 11/25/2005
From: Barnard Castle,Durham County,UK
Status: offline 		Guadalcanal scenario.

I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 253
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 12:10:25 PM   
Iridium


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

ORIGINAL: Curty

Guadalcanal scenario.

I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list


Are you sure you sank it?

It's probably Fog Of War working as designed.

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

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

(in reply to Curty)
Post #: 254
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 12:13:35 PM   
Curty

 

Posts: 269
Joined: 11/25/2005
From: Barnard Castle,Durham County,UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curty

Guadalcanal scenario.

I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list


Are you sure you sank it?

It's probably Fog Of War working as designed.


Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers

_____________________________


(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 255
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 12:28:40 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Curty


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curty

Guadalcanal scenario.

I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list


Are you sure you sank it?

It's probably Fog Of War working as designed.


Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers


Post a save, I'll take a look.

(in reply to Curty)
Post #: 256
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 12:30:16 PM   
Sonny II

 

Posts: 2878
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline 		Occasionally you will find that a reported sunk ship has been identified as not being sunk. You can find these messages near the bottom of the Ops report.

(in reply to Curty)
Post #: 257
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 12:38:15 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Curty
I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list




I've had this happen in testing. FOW in AE can drive you nuts if you are used to knowing things "for certain". First, the "combat report" isn't necessarily accurate. These are the same pilots that could report an oiler and a DD as a cruiser and a carrier..., and sank more "battleships" than either side ever had.

And now you can't get immediate confirmation from the intel screens. It changes as time permits more data to be gathered. The Allies will eventually get it right (code breaking)..., but I don't know if the Japanese player can ever be certain.

(in reply to Curty)
Post #: 258
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 12:47:55 PM   
Curty

 

Posts: 269
Joined: 11/25/2005
From: Barnard Castle,Durham County,UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curty


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curty

Guadalcanal scenario.

I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list


Are you sure you sank it?

It's probably Fog Of War working as designed.


Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers


Post a save, I'll take a look.


On the way Don


_____________________________


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 259
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 1:52:10 PM   
Curty

 

Posts: 269
Joined: 11/25/2005
From: Barnard Castle,Durham County,UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Curty


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curty


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curty

Guadalcanal scenario.

I sank CVL Ryujo near Solomons. I went to the "ships sunk" screen to confirm, ok so far...later I sink a Jap destroyer, again I go to the "ships sunk" screen. The destroyer is there but CVL Ryujo has gone from the list


Are you sure you sank it?

It's probably Fog Of War working as designed.


Beyond a shadow of a doubt, 3 torps and 6 1000lb'ers


Post a save, I'll take a look.


On the way Don



So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill


_____________________________


(in reply to Curty)
Post #: 260
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 2:17:26 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Curty

So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill



If you have Fog of War turned on, it is as accurate as the original wartime claims. Maybe more.

(in reply to Curty)
Post #: 261
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 2:29:40 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curty

So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill



If you have Fog of War turned on, it is as accurate as the original wartime claims. Maybe more.





_____________________________

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


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 262
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 4:30:45 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline 		Hopefully this is the right thread to post this in.  I'm a little confused about the database entries for naval weapons (in the normal grand scenario).  I've been using the editor to find values so that I can wrap my head around the difference between various weapons (especially helpful for determining how essential ship upgrades are) and there are plenty of duplicate entries.  My understanding is that the earlier ones are no longer used, but can I assume that the last entry of any device is the one that is used in the AE version?

Thanks.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 263
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 9:27:37 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Curty

So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill



If you have Fog of War turned on, it is as accurate as the original wartime claims. Maybe more.


Exactly... I-122 is listed as sunk on 12/10/41 near Bataan in my game versus the AI. However, she put two torps into the Houston two turns later.

(Yes, I'm playing the darkside against the Japanese AI.)

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 264
Lex Aircraft Capacity - 8/8/2009 1:31:15 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		I'm using the Lexingtion to transport an air group of P-43's to Canton and noticed something strange with the aircraft capacity. It only has 69 aircraft on board yet, it's showing as 90/137. Do non-carrier planes count as more?






Attachment (1)

< Message edited by pad152 -- 8/8/2009 1:32:36 AM >

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 265
akagi sunk by surfaced sub - 8/8/2009 3:37:45 PM   
Jzanes

 

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline 		The following happened on Jan 12, 1942. Allied player vs. Japanese AI. Basically, a dutch sub missed the akagi, was forced to surface by the escorts, hit the akagi with 6 torpedoes while on the surface and then was sunk by gunfire from carriers and escorts. Akagi was listed as sunk at the end of the turn. Loaded up the turn as Japanese player to check to see if this was a FOW sinking but Akagi is definately sunk. If this is WAD, I hope it's a one in a million result.

Submarine attack near Kolaka at 67,107

Japanese Ships
CA Chikuma
CL Nagara
DD Tokitsukaze
DD Yukikaze
DD Kuroshio
CV Akagi, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
CV Zuikaku

Allied Ships
SS KXVIII, hits 11, and is sunk



KXVIII diving deep ....
DD Tokitsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yukikaze attacking submerged sub ....
DD Kuroshio fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tokitsukaze attacking submerged sub ....
DD Yukikaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kuroshio attacking submerged sub ....
DD Tokitsukaze attacking submerged sub ....
SS KXVIII forced to surface!
DD Yukikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Kuroshio firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Tokitsukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Yukikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Kuroshio firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Tokitsukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Yukikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
Sub slips beneath the waves

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 266
RE: akagi sunk by surfaced sub - 8/8/2009 4:14:11 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

The following happened on Jan 12, 1942. Allied player vs. Japanese AI. Basically, a dutch sub missed the akagi, was forced to surface by the escorts, hit the akagi with 6 torpedoes while on the surface and then was sunk by gunfire from carriers and escorts. Akagi was listed as sunk at the end of the turn. Loaded up the turn as Japanese player to check to see if this was a FOW sinking but Akagi is definately sunk. If this is WAD, I hope it's a one in a million result.



Now that is interesting. Post a save if you can, will'ya?

(in reply to Jzanes)
Post #: 267
RE: akagi sunk by surfaced sub - 8/8/2009 5:16:13 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

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

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

The following happened on Jan 12, 1942. Allied player vs. Japanese AI. Basically, a dutch sub missed the akagi, was forced to surface by the escorts, hit the akagi with 6 torpedoes while on the surface and then was sunk by gunfire from carriers and escorts. Akagi was listed as sunk at the end of the turn. Loaded up the turn as Japanese player to check to see if this was a FOW sinking but Akagi is definately sunk. If this is WAD, I hope it's a one in a million result.



How did you determine the timing on this? There is no mention of Akagi being hit, nor of the sub firing torpedoes... Are you sure the sub didn't fire first, than get counter-attacked by the escorts?

(in reply to Jzanes)
Post #: 268
Manual inconsistency - 8/8/2009 5:49:13 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline 		In one spot it says naval support increases the total daily rate, in another it says it doesn't.

6.3.3.2.3 Port Load ability
This is the total cargo handling capacity of a port for a single day. Separate values are provided
for liquids and all other cargos. The ability of a port to load/unload Task Forces is based on port
size, adjusted for available Naval Support and any damage.

6.3.3.2.5 Port load rate adjustments
Naval Support increases the rate at which a given
ship can be loaded but cannot improve the total cargo handling
limitations of the port.

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 269
RE: Manual inconsistency - 8/8/2009 5:53:19 PM   
Don Bowen


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

ORIGINAL: erstad

In one spot it says naval support increases the total daily rate, in another it says it doesn't.

6.3.3.2.3 Port Load ability
This is the total cargo handling capacity of a port for a single day. Separate values are provided
for liquids and all other cargos. The ability of a port to load/unload Task Forces is based on port
size, adjusted for available Naval Support and any damage.

6.3.3.2.5 Port load rate adjustments
Naval Support increases the rate at which a given
ship can be loaded but cannot improve the total cargo handling
limitations of the port.


Not as clear as it could have been but the intent is to say that Naval Support increases the rate per ship but not the total daily handling limits of the port. That is, lighters and longshorement functions in Naval Support can increase the speed at which things move across the pier(s) but not increase the size of the pier(s0.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 270
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   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

3.141