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: 1.40 OOB Issues

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 7:04:54 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Ron, are those additions posted somewhere or could you send me a list at herrbear@hotmail.com.

Thanks.


They are posted on these forums...I'll look for them.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 61
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 7:25:08 PM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline 		Hi,

the British Eastern Fleet is still missing. That was mentioned before, but was is the reason for this omission? Design decision? Reasons with the AI? It surely is a more important Naval HQ than the US Asiatic Fleet HQ that was included and is utterly useless as a Naval HQ!

Would be nice to have it in the game!

K

< Message edited by Kereguelen -- 12/21/2004 5:25:18 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 62
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 7:27:40 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Hi,

the British Eastern Fleet is still missing. That was mentioned before, but was is the reason for this omission? Design decision? Reasons with the AI? It surely is a more important Naval HQ than the US Asiatic Fleet HQ that was included and is utterly useless as a Naval HQ!

Would be nice to have it in the game! The name changed a few times as the war progressed but it's there.

K


The Fleet HQ is in Colombo

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 12/21/2004 12:27:58 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Kereguelen)
Post #: 63
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 7:36:13 PM   
mark24

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 8/4/2002
Status: offline 		Hi Ron,

Are your changes going to make it into 1.5?

Mark

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 64
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 7:50:01 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mark24

Hi Ron,

Are your changes going to make it into 1.5?

Mark


No idea. I'm no longer with the beta/dev team. Once the scenario we are doing is ready (Don Bowen just purchased more ship sources on CD so it's going to be very detailed and will take longer to finish) it will have all the RN additions. You will then be able to send DDs as escorts as all the other escort types more than suffice for general escort duties.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 12/21/2004 12:52:00 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mark24)
Post #: 65
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 9:41:49 PM   
drstat

 

Posts: 17
Joined: 12/21/2004
From: Waukegan, IL (Just N of Great Lakes Naval Station)
Status: offline 		witpqs,

I believe that this is an OOB issue. I checked the database and the Corsair FB squadrons attached to these carriers have a delay of 9999.

dr_stat

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 66
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 9:50:48 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: dr_stat

witpqs,

I believe that this is an OOB issue. I checked the database and the Corsair FB squadrons attached to these carriers have a delay of 9999.

dr_stat


Thanks. I guess that means we need to hear from pry?

(in reply to drstat)
Post #: 67
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/22/2004 8:39:31 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		Does the Kamo (550) belong to the Otori class of destroyer. I can find no listing for this ship's name.

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 68
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/22/2004 5:40:06 PM   
The Gnome


Posts: 1233
Joined: 5/17/2002
From: Philadelphia, PA
Status: offline 		Scenario: June 1944 Campaign

Couple of supply/fuel related issues, that I'm not entirely certain are correct.

- Supply levels for the Allies throughout the theater seem abnormally low, including the US bases. There seems to be no SoPac or SWPac supply hub. Most of the bases with air units (most are under strength) run through their supply in a week, while a fresh supply run is at least a week away.

- Also supply related. The vast majority of the allied TK fleet is located at Entinewok. Coupled with the fact that fuel levels at most bases are very low, this causes major supply headaches as you need to sail the TK's back to the US, then back to the operational areas.

Was CentPac, SoPac, and SWPac in that bad a supply situation in the summer of '44? Perhaps have a few supply convoys added as in route to Oz? Were 90% of the US tankers in Entinewok at the time? If not maybe throw a bunch in SF?

(in reply to mark24)
Post #: 69
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/22/2004 6:03:47 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		Issue with .50 Cal M2 machine gun range.

For aircraft the range is 2000, for ships it is 7000. 7000 is too long a range based upon all the range tables for the 50 cal machine gun. Can we get this fixed?

(in reply to The Gnome)
Post #: 70
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/22/2004 7:07:51 PM   
Herrbear


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

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Issue with .50 Cal M2 machine gun range.

For aircraft the range is 2000, for ships it is 7000. 7000 is too long a range based upon all the range tables for the 50 cal machine gun. Can we get this fixed?


What should the range be? The source here indicates the max range is 7400 yards http://www.microworks.net/pacific/. I realize effective range is probably half or less, but all the ranges are set at max I think.

< Message edited by Herrbear -- 12/22/2004 9:21:10 AM >

(in reply to PeteG662)
Post #: 71
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/22/2004 8:07:48 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		Aircraft have a different range for their 50 cals than do ships or ground units. That is the issue. Considering the angle/trajectory of fire, 7400 would be too high. For aircraft I can understand a slightly lower number due to the inaccuracy issue but the two should be near equivalent, not 5000 different. The site you posted was for a flat trajectory shot, not AA fire. AA fire would reduce the range considerably.

< Message edited by Tallyman662 -- 12/22/2004 1:11:45 PM >

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 72
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/23/2004 5:31:30 AM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I am in scenario 15, Sep '43, v1.40 but started under v1.30. I was tooling around in the ship availability display and I noticed the following.

CV's Franklin, Hancock, and Randolph are each scheduled to come in with the following loadout:

VF-xx 38 F6F
VB-xx 18 SB2C
VS-xx 18 SB2C
VT-xx 15 TBF
Total of 89 aircraft each

CV's Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, and Lake Champlain are each scheduled to come in with this loadout:

VF-xx 38 F6F
VB-xx 18 SB2C
VT-xx 15 TBF
Total of 71 aircraft each

They look a bit light on dive bombers. Is this correct? Do they change when they actually arrive, or are there other air units that I am supposed to transfer to them?



Any Moderator... Is this an actual OOB problem or not to worry?

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 73
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/23/2004 9:03:02 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline 		Scenario #15:

Per the DANFS, the group with Louisville / President Coolidge / Hugh L Scott was en route to Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941, not San Francisco as the OOB indicates.

Also per the DANFS, the Pensacola convoy was en route to the Phillippines and was diverted to Brisbane after the attack on PH. Therefore, scenario #15 should have it en route to Manila, while scenario #16 should have it en route to Brisbane. Both have it enroute to Suva.

F.

< Message edited by fbastos -- 12/23/2004 7:16:29 AM >

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 74
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/23/2004 9:07:49 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline 		Per the "McMillan Report", http://www.mansell.com/pow_resources/guam/mcmillan-rpt.html, the captain of USS Penguin was Lt J. W. Haviland, 3rd.

Also, Guam on Dec 7 1941 is missing AG-27 Robert L Barnes, which can be modeled after a Small AK.

F.

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 75
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/23/2004 9:45:03 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Per the "McMillan Report", http://www.mansell.com/pow_resources/guam/mcmillan-rpt.html, the captain of USS Penguin was Lt J. W. Haviland, 3rd.

Also, Guam on Dec 7 1941 is missing AG-27 Robert L Barnes, which can be modeled after a Small AK.

F.


Don Bowen has this ship.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 76
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/23/2004 9:45:43 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Scenario #15:

Per the DANFS, the group with Louisville / President Coolidge / Hugh L Scott was en route to Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941, not San Francisco as the OOB indicates.

Also per the DANFS, the Pensacola convoy was en route to the Phillippines and was diverted to Brisbane after the attack on PH. Therefore, scenario #15 should have it en route to Manila, while scenario #16 should have it en route to Brisbane. Both have it enroute to Suva.

F.


Took around about route.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 77
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/23/2004 9:52:43 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline 		Scenario #15:

The 58th BS at Pearl Harbor has A-20B on Dec 7, 1941 per the OOB, but in fact they had A-20A.

This would be only a detail if the A-20B wasn't available only on Jan 1942 per the OOB, so this group only has 6 aircrafts, has no replacements, and can't upgrade, as the A-20G will only be available on Jan-1943.

My suggestion is to create another entry on the OOB for the A-20A, with the same stats as the A-20B, and have the 58th BS be the only unit flying A-20A; give the A-20A a small production rate, like 1 per month, so the 58th BS can reach full strength sometime during 1941, and yet the player will have incentive to switch to A-20B when it becomes available.

Otherwise this group is useless.

F.

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 78
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/23/2004 2:27:01 PM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline 		In scenario #15/16 of v1.4, those CVs (Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, and Lake Champlain ) arrive with
38 F6F
18 F4U
18 SB2C
15 TBF

If you started under 1.30, then you are still using the OOBs from 1.3. They are part of the save file.

Michael

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 79
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/23/2004 10:08:55 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: michaelm

In scenario #15/16 of v1.4, those CVs (Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, and Lake Champlain ) arrive with
38 F6F
18 F4U
18 SB2C
15 TBF

If you started under 1.30, then you are still using the OOBs from 1.3. They are part of the save file.

Michael


Yes, thank you. But, there was no OOB change for this listed in the what's new file, so it's probably in 1.4 also. I submitted it because of that.

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 80
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/24/2004 10:16:24 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline 		By the way, the issue with British/Australian warships having Wing Commanders commanding their embarked floatplanes... is that DOA?

I understand that's probably something in the code defaulting Wing Cmdrs to these units, but that could be solved by forcing some Lieutenant on the OOB... one less thing for Mike Wood to worry about.

F.

PS: Of course, there would still be one issue left, that is the embarked floatplanes can only change leaders to Sqn Ldr, but then who cares about changing the floatplanes leaders?

< Message edited by fbastos -- 12/24/2004 8:16:32 AM >

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 81
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/26/2004 6:37:18 PM   
Wallymanowar


Posts: 651
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Vernon, B.C., Canada
Status: offline 		Note from the general forum that there are two 413 squadrons - only the Canadian one should be present.

_____________________________

I never blame myself when I'm not hitting. I just blame the bat and if it keeps up, I change bats. After all, if I know it isn't my fault that I'm not hitting, how can I get mad at myself?
Yogi Berra

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 82
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/26/2004 8:20:56 PM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		I lost track of this along the way. Are VMF squadrons going to be changed to upgrade to F4Us instead of F6Fs?

Thanks to pry for his explanation on the other thread.

< Message edited by pasternakski -- 12/26/2004 5:26:49 PM >

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 83
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/27/2004 12:21:59 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Just curious, and I don't have the answer, but why don't the Chinese get any ground reinforcements after the first few months of the war? They are the only country left out in this area.

Does anyone know where an OOB for the Chinese can be located?

_____________________________


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 84
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/27/2004 12:29:48 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Just curious, and I don't have the answer, but why don't the Chinese get any ground reinforcements after the first few months of the war? They are the only country left out in this area.

Does anyone know where an OOB for the Chinese can be located?

I'm usually looking for a menu for Chinese, myself.

It may be that Chinese "recruits" are all funnelled into existing formations.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 85
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/27/2004 1:13:51 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Yes, I like Chinese too!

I just find it strange that they are the only country that doesn't receive new formations.

_____________________________


(in reply to pasternakski)
Post #: 86
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/27/2004 5:01:35 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		I guess it's just assumed that IJ will provide China with a steady stream of "fresh" formations.....

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 87
Aircraft Upgrades - 12/28/2004 5:21:15 AM   
dr. smith

 

Posts: 221
Joined: 6/30/2004
From: lost in space
Status: offline 		Just in Feb '42 of my game (damn you SINGAPORE!!!) and found these that looked a bit suspicious:
RAAF 22 Sqdn - Wirraways to A20B Bostons
273 Sqdn - Vildebeast to Hurricane II
243 Sqdn - Buffalo I to Dakota I

Amazingly, I researched before posting and found:
RAAF 22 Sqdn - the Ozzies took a shipment of A20s bound for DEI and put them in the 22nd, so legit
273 Sqdn - actually DID go to Hurricanes (though they were Fulmars mostly during the Ceylon raid)
243 Sqdn - was mostly wiped out in Singapore, was reformed in Oustam Northumberland, by June 42 were flying Spits Vb's.

So on 243 Squadron a question remains, is the switch to Dakotas to save a squadron spot of an incoming Transpo Sqdn? If so, OK!

Actually maybe the Dakotas will do better against a Zero than the Buffs.

Upgraded to 1.4 in 28 Jan game-frame, now at 12 Feb.

Edit: my sources were: RAF = http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/sqn_hist.html
and for the RAAF: http://www.raafmuseum.com.au/raaf2/html/022sqn.htm

< Message edited by dr. smith -- 12/27/2004 10:24:25 PM >

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 88
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 12/28/2004 7:44:19 AM   
fbastos


Posts: 827
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Amazingly, I researched before posting and found:
RAAF 22 Sqdn - the Ozzies took a shipment of A20s bound for DEI and put them in the 22nd, so legit
273 Sqdn - actually DID go to Hurricanes (though they were Fulmars mostly during the Ceylon raid)
243 Sqdn - was mostly wiped out in Singapore, was reformed in Oustam Northumberland, by June 42 were flying Spits Vb's.


Hah, what about them 62 Sqn and others going from Blenheim I to Hurricane II...

Them crazy brits...

F.

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...


(in reply to dr. smith)
Post #: 89
RE: Aircraft Upgrades - 12/28/2004 8:50:45 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 883
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline 		The switch to Dakotas was that was the type of plane being used by the squardron when they were resent to the Pacific in early '45.

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/h243.html

< Message edited by Herrbear -- 12/28/2004 10:51:20 AM >

(in reply to dr. smith)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   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

1.188