AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[fbs]

I never saw KV for Corvettes; can we use FFL?

Cheers [:D]
fbs

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Have to make compromises. Not seen as issue. Sorry.

Not really a compromise is it - so far I have lost the two ships before 10 Dec 41 on each time I have fired up the scenario. Now I am not RADM Phillips, I know what aeroplanes and their torpedoes can do to my shiny battlewaggons and I can see the bigger picture, but as they get detected and therefore attacked every single time on 7 Dec 41 what can I do...
If the Japanese get me every time, the person making the upgrades wasted their time and effort as the 'historical' first turn manages consistently to do what the Japanese did not...
I can accept the PH lottery, but this is not a lottery, it's pointless.

(Edit - Of course if naval search really is that good, then I am looking forward to any Sigint reports that allow me to arrange a little surprise for the IJN carriers in early/mid 42)

[Bladesss]

I am still learning all the ship types and had 2 questions.
 
1. I saw 2 x AMC in Vancouver. Per the manual pg 275 an AMC is a Armed Merchant Cruiser, and in the notes it says "Capable of performing escort roles and of carrying troops and supplies." But when i make a cargo TF. The AMC's are listed under Capacity as 0 Troops and 0 Cargo. How do the AMC carry supplies then?
 
2. Was trying to figure out how Special mine layers are and how they work. I have a AM ="Mine Sweeper" in Dutch Harber and was trying to see if it could lay mines. Per p.281 an AM is allowed in a Mine Laying Task Force.
Per 6.6.1.3.2.2 says "Any ship (including minelayers) that does not otherwise carry mines, may be configured to carry mines when assigned to a TF with a minelaying mission. These special mines may be in any weapon slot. ".
That seems to say that may ship that you assign to a mine laying TF can be configured to carry mines. But when i try to create a Mine laying TF in Dutch Harbor, it is not an option. Does the ship have to have a weapon slot that says mines to be allowed? Would that show up in the in game Ship Database?
Why would a ship that is already a Minelayer not carry mines and need this rule to be allowed to lay mines? Why the clause "(including Minelayers)"?
 

[spence]

Whilst I would like the IJN Player to have every possible advantage duiring the period of Japanese expansion I'm not sure I'm s0 sure about giving such advantages right from the start without at least an Allied Player turn where he)she could change something.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Bladess

I am still learning all the ship types and had 2 questions.

1. I saw 2 x AMC in Vancouver. Per the manual pg 275 an AMC is a Armed Merchant Cruiser, and in the notes it says "Capable of performing escort roles and of carrying troops and supplies." But when i make a cargo TF. The AMC's are listed under Capacity as 0 Troops and 0 Cargo. How do the AMC carry supplies then?

2. Was trying to figure out how Special mine layers are and how they work. I have a AM ="Mine Sweeper" in Dutch Harber and was trying to see if it could lay mines. Per p.281 an AM is allowed in a Mine Laying Task Force.
Per 6.6.1.3.2.2 says "Any ship (including minelayers) that does not otherwise carry mines, may be configured to carry mines when assigned to a TF with a minelaying mission. These special mines may be in any weapon slot. ".
That seems to say that may ship that you assign to a mine laying TF can be configured to carry mines. But when i try to create a Mine laying TF in Dutch Harbor, it is not an option. Does the ship have to have a weapon slot that says mines to be allowed? Would that show up in the in game Ship Database?
Why would a ship that is already a Minelayer not carry mines and need this rule to be allowed to lay mines? Why the clause "(including Minelayers)"?

AM is a minesweeper. A purpose built minelayer is a CM. Otherwise read the section 6.6 "Mine Warfare and Mine Taskforces" of the manual.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: spence

It sorta devolves to an OOB issue because of the game mechanics since HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales are conveniently hanging their posteriors out for the Nipponese to bite during the first turn of the historical scenario and the Allied Player has no choices to make but simply gets to watch while the Nells/Bettys put enough torpedoes into each to insure that neither can possibly figure into the Japanese Players calculations for the rest of the battles of Malaya or the DEI. BTW the same sense of ahistoricality (must be a new word invented by me[;)]) is the air cover (inadequate) that the TF gets. Does allowing the Allied Player to make his own choices with these two ships totally unbalance the game?

Hey don't yell at Termy for this one - this was my call (as I've indicated on other threads about the same topic). The "historical start" for scenario 1 allows the possibility that the historical result occurs (Repulse, PoW sunk). This is far from automatic and the testers have indicated - but it is a possibility. If a given player wants a guarantee that PoW and Repulse survive, then that player may advocate for the non-historical start - or may play scenario 6. I got the idea from the original WITP (SPI 1978) so hardly a new one!
[:)]

[dwbradley]

While trying out some of the new stuff I found what seems to be a bit of an awkward part of the new patrol zone controls.

I was playing the Coral Sea scenario as the Japanese and setting the subs to patrol zones. It is indeed a neat feature (well done, gentlemen!). The subs started on computer control. I was able to switch to human control and set both waypoints and patrol zones of several types. Then I set one sub for a single defined destination hex (DH) and then decided I wanted a patrol zone. I couldn't set a patrol zone because I had a defined location and there was no way I could see to cancel that. After some experimentation I found that setting the destination to the home port allowed the patrol zone controls to be un-greyed and available again. I guess this is an ok work-around and doesn’t need a fix but maybe should be in the manual errata/extras in due course.

Apologies if this is old news.

Dave Braldey

[jwilkerson]

This is intentional. The idea for patrol zones is you start and end at your home port - then you go out and patrol - then you return and refuel/rearm ... and then go patrol some more.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Bladess

I am still learning all the ship types and had 2 questions.

1. I saw 2 x AMC in Vancouver. Per the manual pg 275 an AMC is a Armed Merchant Cruiser, and in the notes it says "Capable of performing escort roles and of carrying troops and supplies." But when i make a cargo TF. The AMC's are listed under Capacity as 0 Troops and 0 Cargo. How do the AMC carry supplies then?

Some but not all AMC can carry troops and supplies. It depends entirely on what attributes they were given in the editor. The RCN "Prince" class AMC do not have any troop or cargo capacity defined - so they can go into transport TFs as an escort. Most or all of the British, Australian, and Japanese AMC do have capacity and can perform the dual role of transport and escort.

2. Was trying to figure out how Special mine layers are and how they work. I have a AM ="Mine Sweeper" in Dutch Harber and was trying to see if it could lay mines. Per p.281 an AM is allowed in a Mine Laying Task Force.
Per 6.6.1.3.2.2 says "Any ship (including minelayers) that does not otherwise carry mines, may be configured to carry mines when assigned to a TF with a minelaying mission. These special mines may be in any weapon slot. ".
That seems to say that may ship that you assign to a mine laying TF can be configured to carry mines. But when i try to create a Mine laying TF in Dutch Harbor, it is not an option. Does the ship have to have a weapon slot that says mines to be allowed? Would that show up in the in game Ship Database?
Why would a ship that is already a Minelayer not carry mines and need this rule to be allowed to lay mines? Why the clause "(including Minelayers)"?

Basically there are two types of minelayers:

1. Regular minelayers are ships of the defined minelaying types: CM, CMc, DM. The primary duty of such ships is to lay mines and you would expect to see mines defined normally as weapons of these ships. How many mines varies by class and could be anything from zero on up.

2. Special minelayers are ships whose primary duty is not minelaying but have minelaying capability. They would have minelaying capability because it was defined for their class in the editor. This would be mines as a weapon, with some special notation in the way it is entered as a device. Thus a DD, for instance, that was given minelaying capability in the editor, could load mines if placed into a minelaying TF, and lay them just like a regular minelayer.

Any, or almost any ship can be a special minelayer. But it has to be so set up in the editor.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: dwbradley

While trying out some of the new stuff I found what seems to be a bit of an awkward part of the new patrol zone controls.

I was playing the Coral Sea scenario as the Japanese and setting the subs to patrol zones. It is indeed a neat feature (well done, gentlemen!). The subs started on computer control. I was able to switch to human control and set both waypoints and patrol zones of several types. Then I set one sub for a single defined destination hex (DH) and then decided I wanted a patrol zone. I couldn't set a patrol zone because I had a defined location and there was no way I could see to cancel that. After some experimentation I found that setting the destination to the home port allowed the patrol zone controls to be un-greyed and available again. I guess this is an ok work-around and doesn’t need a fix but maybe should be in the manual errata/extras in due course.

Apologies if this is old news.

Dave Braldey

There is, or should be, a clear destination button in the upper right hand corner of the TF Routing screen. Not sure if it works for a non-base destination though. If not, it will probably have to stay that way for a while. The setting of destination to the home port is a good workaround.

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Hey don't yell at Termy for this one - this was my call (as I've indicated on other threads about the same topic). The "historical start" for scenario 1 allows the possibility that the historical result occurs (Repulse, PoW sunk).

Well, sure, and historically Hiroshima got nuked by a B-29, but not right off the bat.

More importantly though, HMS Cornwall has a Type 281 radar. Per ADM 1/12269, the British report on the loss of Dorsetshire and Cornwall, Cornwall had no RDF fitted.

Also, British VADM Willis, A. N.'s name is incorrect. He's Vice-Admiral Algernon Usborne Willis; his middle initial is a U. A minor gripe, but he's one of my favorite British admirals, albeit not a well-known one.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: spence

It sorta devolves to an OOB issue because of the game mechanics since HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales are conveniently hanging their posteriors out for the Nipponese to bite during the first turn of the historical scenario and the Allied Player has no choices to make but simply gets to watch while the Nells/Bettys put enough torpedoes into each to insure that neither can possibly figure into the Japanese Players calculations for the rest of the battles of Malaya or the DEI. BTW the same sense of ahistoricality (must be a new word invented by me[;)]) is the air cover (inadequate) that the TF gets. Does allowing the Allied Player to make his own choices with these two ships totally unbalance the game?

By definition, the "Historical Start" automates everything that happened on December 7, 1941. And by almost every conceivable measure, it's clear that the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was the opening act of the Pacific War - certainly the war being modeled by AE. With that rule in mind, a minimal amount of research shows that TF "Z" set sail from Singapore at 1710 on December 8, 1941. However, that time needs to be converted to Honolulu time, since that was "ground zero", and in effect the "Greenwich Meantime" from which all other 12/7 activities must be calculated. And when you run the numbers, it turns out that Repulse and PoW departed Singapore harbor at 11:10 PM on December 7th, 1941.

Sorry. Automated it is, and automated it should stay.

[Speedysteve]

May be having a mind-block here but if a main turret on California has been destroyed as indicated post PH attack here shouldn't the number of guns decrease by quantities iof 3 and not 1 as has happened?

[John Lansford]

In my Campaign game both PoW and Repulse survived their Turn One ordeal; a flight of Buffaloes disrupted enough of the Nells that PoW was not hit and Repulse only damaged by 3 torpedoes (although she's still staggering into Singapore with 80 Flotation damage), so variables do take place.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Kull
By definition, the "Historical Start" automates everything that happened on December 7, 1941. And by almost every conceivable measure, it's clear that the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was the opening act of the Pacific War - certainly the war being modeled by AE. With that rule in mind, a minimal amount of research shows that TF "Z" set sail from Singapore at 1710 on December 8, 1941. However, that time needs to be converted to Honolulu time, since that was "ground zero", and in effect the "Greenwich Meantime" from which all other 12/7 activities must be calculated. And when you run the numbers, it turns out that Repulse and PoW departed Singapore harbor at 11:10 PM on December 7th, 1941.

What? How can 5:10 in the afternoon of December 8th (local time) be 11:10 on the 7th? Singapore is 6 time zones West of PH, so the PH attack took place at 2AM on the 8th Singapore local time. POW and Repulse upped anchor more than 15 hours after PH took place..., and almost at the end of the local day. If you want to go by Hawaiian time, remember that 11:10 PM is after night has has fallen..., which in game terms is the first (night) phase of turn two.

It's simply a game device to make the POW/Repulse vulnerable. Historically they sailed North and were sunk (two days later)..., but as few players will make that choice it's been taken out of their hands... If you don't like it, don't play the "historical start".

[Dixie]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

In my Campaign game both PoW and Repulse survived their Turn One ordeal; a flight of Buffaloes disrupted enough of the Nells that PoW was not hit and Repulse only damaged by 3 torpedoes (although she's still staggering into Singapore with 80 Flotation damage), so variables do take place.

Similar thing happened to me. PoW and Repulse both survived after the Buffs managed to disrupt the incoming strike. PoW took 2 and Repulse waas hit by three, both are in Singers now but will be long gone by the end of Dec 41. She had a lot less flot damage than yours though [8D]

[latosusi]

Seems to take long to extinguish ship fires, even in big port like Pearl Harbor.
Also AI seems to not assign enough escorts for his landing task forces, like 3 merchants
and 1 pb

[whippleofd]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

May be having a mind-block here but if a main turret on California has been destroyed as indicated post PH attack here shouldn't the number of guns decrease by quantities iof 3 and not 1 as has happened?

Hi Speedy. I'm not seeing where it says a turret has been knocked out. It is possible for a single gun in a turret to be damaged while the other(s) is(are) still usable.

Whipple

[Speedysteve]

Hi Whipple,
 
The Rear 14" Guns have reduced from 6 to 5. Can AE distinguish between Barrel loss vs Turret loss then?

[whippleofd]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi Whipple,

The Rear 14" Guns have reduced from 6 to 5. Can AE distinguish between Barrel loss vs Turret loss then?

Seems like it does. Pretty cool. I've only seen it so far on BB's, so I have no evidence that it will/will not occur on smaller ships.

AE keeps amazing me.

Whipple