AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Iridium]

Just want to double check on this info, Yugumo class DDs carry 400 tons of bunker fuel giving them an endurance of 5000 nm. While Akitsuki carries 1097 tons of fuel and has the same endurance. Is there information alluding to the Akitsuki class having more than 2.5 times worse fuel efficiency than previous DDs? I realize that they were getting quite large for DDs while still being equipped with DD engines but would that truly affect the fuel usage this badly?

[JWE]

Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese warships, and used Jentschura for his consistent source. I'm sure other sources may say other things, but we can't pick and choose. We must use a consistent source. If you wish to vet this, please use Jentschura, and if there is an error, please give the data and the source ref. We'll be happy to fix, but must maintain consistency. Thanks.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese warships, and used Jentschura for his consistent source. I'm sure other sources may say other things, but we can't pick and choose. We must use a consistent source. If you wish to vet this, please use Jentschura, and if there is an error, please give the data and the source ref. We'll be happy to fix, but must maintain consistency. Thanks.

I see the figure 8300 pop up a lot, but I dont have a source. Will do some searching to find one.

On the Akizuki class, is there any reason why you've chosen to use the romanization of 'Akitsuki' for the class, but retained 'Akizuki', the more common one, for the ship itself?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: JuanG
I see the figure 8300 pop up a lot, but I dont have a source. Will do some searching to find one.

I see that too, but we must use Jentschura, for consistency. Gonna have to rely on Jentschura, there, pal.
[edit] if Jentschura says ca. 8000 nm with the noted bunkerage, be glad to do the switcheroo.

On the Akizuki class, is there any reason why you've chosen to use the romanization of 'Akitsuki' for the class, but retained 'Akizuki', the more common one, for the ship itself?

No particular reason. Had several people working on the different parts of the database, and each one, I'm sure, used their own transliteration convention.

[Iridium]

I'm just trying to get a feel for how these ships are going to drain fuel stores now.

Aoba class: 1858 tons of fuel; 4.41 nm/ton, weighs 10822 tons.

Oyodo: 2360 tons of fuel; 4.66 nm/ton, weighs 10252 tons.

Agano class: 1405 tons of fuel; 4.48 nm/ton, weighs 7590 tons.

Myoko class: 2214 tons of fuel; 3.37 nm/ton, weighs 14743 tons.

Mogami class: 2215 tons of fuel; 3.38 nm/ton, weighs 13668 tons.

Yugumo class: 400 tons of fuel; 12.5 nm/ton, weighs 2600 tons.

Akitsuki class: 1097 tons of fuel; 4.56 nm/ton, weighs 3430 tons.

Shimakaze class: 750 tons of fuel; 7.73 nm/ton, weighs 3000 tons.

Tenryu class: 1070 tons of fuel; 4.67 nm/ton, weighs 3948 tons.

Yamato class: 6300 tons of fuel; 1.28 nm/ton, weighs 67123 tons.

Nagato class: 5650 tons of fuel; 2.1 nm/ton, weighs 42750 tons.

Ise & Fuso class: 5100 tons of fuel; 2.12 nm/ton, weighs 39535 tons or 38536 tons.

Kongo class: 6330 tons of fuel; 1.89 nm/ton, weighs 35740 tons.


So according to the data used, Akitsuki is as fuel efficient as an Agano class CL weighing slightly more than twice it's weight. This is a decent match up due to the time of construction too. Tenryu is of similar efficiency but is old and weighs only 500 tons more. Aoba also comes close to Akitsuki's fuel efficiency but is older and sizes up to more than twice the DD's weight.

[Dili]

Yeah it shows probably an error in Akitzukis. I don't think "consistency" of sources is good enough when there is something clearely off, we should use the best judgement, that is of course only my opinion.
I never saw a serious normalisation effort in ships or aircraft in encyclopedic data. It is usually pick the data from here, there and there is it. The more outrageous are in aircraft mixing maximum ranges with weapon load.

[JuanG]

I agree that the data for them is likely off, but if the AE team feels they need to be consistent and stick to one source, I can respect that.

Thankfully we're free to mod it as we will.

With a range of 8300nm, her efficiency becomes 7.56nm/ton, much more inline with the other DDs - Shimakaze is a very good comparison here.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: JuanG
I agree that the data for them is likely off, but if the AE team feels they need to be consistent and stick to one source, I can respect that.

Thankfully we're free to mod it as we will.

With a range of 8300nm, her efficiency becomes 7.56nm/ton, much more inline with the other DDs - Shimakaze is a very good comparison here.

I cannot say I disagree Juan. I, too, am a believer in efficiency data. I have been waiting for Joe Wilkerson to hop in here. Maybe, if I don't hear anything from The Powers That Be, that tell me to keep my winkie in my pocket, I could maybe look at Conways , and maybe slip something in , but ... you would owe me a good Rioja or Rueda, or a tinto from Argentina or Chile. [;)]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: JWE
Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese warships, and used Jentschura for his consistent source.

I did use Jentschura, but also Lacroix and Watts, those were top three, but others for specific ships. I will try to answer specific data questions, but right now I am living in a hotel working on bringing up a big project for my day job and do not have my sources with me. Project finally went live today, so I should be home tonight and then can try to respond to some of the questions.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: JWE
Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese warships, and used Jentschura for his consistent source.

I did use Jentschura, but also Lacroix and Watts, those were top three, but others for specific ships. I will try to answer specific data questions, but right now I am living in a hotel working on bringing up a big project for my day job and do not have my sources with me. Project finally went live today, so I should be home tonight and then can try to respond to some of the questions.

And that would be God speaking, so far as I'm concerned. You guys might be brilliant, and I'm sure you are, but God can shrivel my winkie, and I like my winkie.

[Mike Solli]

TMI!

[dwbradley]

OK, I¡¦m back with some more impressions from my play so far. This time the subject is the new surface TF routines. As I say, these are impressions, not rigorous analysis, but I think how players respond to the game is feedback that may be of value.

I have played the Coral Sea (completed) and Guadalcanal scenarios (early Oct. so far) so this includes a fairly small sample size, yet I feel like I am getting a reasonable feel for how the play goes.

First let me say that I am a big fan of what the new routines can bring to the game. The added action of mid-ocean intercepts and enhanced reaction adds a lot of excitement. Big kudos to whoever thought this through and worked it into the game.

That said, I hope you don¡¦t mind if I say that for me the overall result misses the mark a little bit. To be a bit more specific:

1. It almost seems as if the action level is TOO high. Maybe it is just the comparison with WITP but it almost seemed that every time two TFs crossed paths a surface action ensued. Is there a probability of intercept variable that could be tuned?

2. Little big men. I¡¦ve seen the buzz about killer PTs and such. I saw no PT action but did see more that a few underdog TFs come off no worse then even and in some cases better than even. I¡¦m not sure there is an issue here but I am leaning that way.

3. Who fights who first? When a raiding surface combat TF enters a hex with multiple TFs what decides the order of actions. On a couple of occasions I had some fairly weak transport TFs absolutely destroyed by the raiding force and THEN the raiders would face off against protecting surface combat TF(s). And then break contact and slip away with a great victory. Could this happen? Certainly, and there are no doubt may examples. But I would think if you send a raiding TF into such a situation you would be taking a great risk of encountering the defenders first, which I would think should be the more probable outcome. How probable? I can¡¦t say and yes I have only a few examples to build a case on. It¡¦s feedback, yes?

4. Run away, run away!!! This comment is based upon but a single example, but it was quite confusing to me. I had an invasion fleet consisting of two amphibious TFs, a surface combat TF, an air combat TF, and a replenishment TF. The lead TF was one of the amphibious TFs with orders to go to Port Moresby and unload. All of the rest were set to follow the lead TF except for the replenishment TF which was set to follow the air combat TF. The lead TF was set to Remain on station (I¡¦m pretty sure, but can¡¦t prove it now and doubt does creep in). The fleet reached PM and began unloading in the first portion of the first day of a 2-day turn. The lead TF thereupon reacted to the presence of an enemy TF which consisted of a single damaged DD. The lead TF fled, dragging all the rest along. There are two possible cases here. One is that I indeed did have the TF set to Remain On Station in which case I don¡¦t think this should ever have happened, or maybe it would be the rarest of events. In the second case, If I had screwed up ( not the most unlikely of events ƒº) and had the TF set on Retirement Allowed doesn¡¦t the presence of the covering forces count for anything? Any of the TFs, including the amphibious ones had sufficiently powerful warships to take on this DD and win. Puzzling.


In summary, I am excited by the promise of the enhanced surface routines. I hope this feedback (in sum with everyone else) helps any review and improvements that may be needed.

Dave Bradley

[pad152]

Just had the Allied DD chew (3681) somehow end up with 200 torpedoes with the left side launcher in Pearl Harbor?

It looks ok in the editor for the campaign.


Question: Will this fix itself during a the next ship upgrade?

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

TMI!

Sola Deo Minutia....

[Skyland]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Skyland

xAKL Vichy never existed i think.

Have seen a reference to Vichy as a small cargo ship transporting resources from New Caledonia to New Zealand. I believe the reference is in the New Zealand On Line database, but I don't have time to look it up right now.

The ship is not listed in the 158 free french merchants list neither in Miramar ship index but anyway it is just a detail.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

So according to the data used, Akitsuki is as fuel efficient as an Agano class CL weighing slightly more than twice it's weight.

Go to the "Clunkers-for-Cash" web site, and you'll see this model qualifies for one of the largest available rebates!




[;)]

[Sonny II]

4. Run away, run away!!!

dwbradley,

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

[John Lansford]

I've seen the "transport TF withdraws from combat" or "evades combat" report, and then on the big map you get a "TF retreats towards xxx" and the icon moves to a new hex.  I've also seen transports in transit reverse course when they get an intel report that there's a carrier/surface TF ahead of them.  They reverse for a turn and then resume course.  The TF's evading combat will abort their unloading if there's a tough enough enemy in or near the port, a single damaged DD though shouldn't have triggered that response IMO unless the TF commander was had really low command values.
 
It does appear that the surface warfare routine is overly bloody and weighted towards the smaller ships.  A small squadron of MTB's sank Maya in my campaign, for example, even though she was in a TF with 3 DD's.  Several times PT boats have gotten within 1000 yds of transport and combat TF's and torpedoed something, then escaped scott free.  Destroyers appear to take a lot of gunfire to hit, but can't take a lot of damage once they do get hit.  That part makes sense, but not the getting hit part.  The IJN trained hard in night fighting tactics, but I've yet to see much evidence of it in the battles in my game.  I had a large ABDA TF maul a CL-led screening force and then take on a 2 BB TF with only damage to half the force and no sinkings, all at night.

[dwbradley]

ORIGINAL: Sonny II

4. Run away, run away!!!

dwbradley,

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

I think you are right. I was using my old WITP methodology. I'm learning, I hope.

Dave Bradley

[dwbradley]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

I've seen the "transport TF withdraws from combat" or "evades combat" report, and then on the big map you get a "TF retreats towards xxx" and the icon moves to a new hex.  I've also seen transports in transit reverse course when they get an intel report that there's a carrier/surface TF ahead of them.  They reverse for a turn and then resume course.  The TF's evading combat will abort their unloading if there's a tough enough enemy in or near the port, a single damaged DD though shouldn't have triggered that response IMO unless the TF commander was had really low command values.

It does appear that the surface warfare routine is overly bloody and weighted towards the smaller ships.  A small squadron of MTB's sank Maya in my campaign, for example, even though she was in a TF with 3 DD's.  Several times PT boats have gotten within 1000 yds of transport and combat TF's and torpedoed something, then escaped scott free.  Destroyers appear to take a lot of gunfire to hit, but can't take a lot of damage once they do get hit.  That part makes sense, but not the getting hit part.  The IJN trained hard in night fighting tactics, but I've yet to see much evidence of it in the battles in my game.  I had a large ABDA TF maul a CL-led screening force and then take on a 2 BB TF with only damage to half the force and no sinkings, all at night.

So the question is: Is there fire underneath all this smoke? Or is this just another case of mass hysteria? We'll have to trust the devs to give it a looksee and make changes if they find something.

Dave Bradley