AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Buck Beach »

Can't locate any USN YOs (or any nation for that matter) in scenario 6 either on 12/8/1941 or in the ships scheduled to arrive through out the game. Where are they or were they just set up as a class to be available for modding?
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Don Bowen »


None made it into the stock OOB. Watch for a mod...
Buck Beach
Posts: 1974
Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Upland,CA,USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Buck Beach »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


None made it into the stock OOB. Watch for a mod...

So I'm not going crazy.

Thanks
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


None made it into the stock OOB. Watch for a mod...

So I'm not going crazy.

Thanks


I have no information to support a connection between these two statments.
User avatar
Splinterhead
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: Lenoir City, TN

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Splinterhead »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


None made it into the stock OOB. Watch for a mod...

[:)]........[&:]........[:(].........[>:].....[&:]

Is it ready yet?


[;)]
bsq
Posts: 682
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 11:11 pm

Ordnance on US Carriers

Post by bsq »

The loadout for air launched torpedoes is incorrect for the following:

Essex Class - 1944 - Increase from 36 to 50
Midway Class - 96 from the outset (not the 36 shown)
CVE's - Sangammon Class - 46, Commencement Bay - 9

The loadouts for Aircraft Ordnance seem not to relate well to each other.  Taking the loadout for a Yorktown as the baseline, the original Essex loadout would be correct, but increases later in the war to allow for the use of Fighter Bombers seems not to be reflected.  A better 'ball park' figure for the Essex from 1944 would be in the order of a 20% increase (720 - 860).  Similarly the Yorktowns should show a roughly 50% increase in ordnance as operations stepped up, which would take them to the level of the Essex class for 1943.  Finally, the figure for Midway is too low, given her increased Air Wing and use of Fighter Bombers - she should have around 1200, based upon comparisons with the other fleet carriers.

My source for these observations is Friedman N. (1983) U.S.Aircraft Carriers: An Illustrated Design History. Naval Institute Press.
User avatar
Herrbear
Posts: 883
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 9:17 pm
Location: Glendora, CA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Herrbear »

I notice that the Mk 10 mine #1646 upgrades on 1-43 to the Mk 12 mine #1647. If a ship carries a Mk 10 mine will it automatically be able to carry a Mk 12 in 1-43 (assuming mines in the pool) or if you run out of Mk 10 mines then the ship will never be able to use there mine capability?

I ask because I noticed that the Elec Boat S-18 class #547 upgrade on 10-42 version carries the Mk 10 mine and the upgrade to that ship #648 on 6-43 still shows the ship carrying Mk 10 mines. Depending on the answer to the first question, was this in error and the mine should have been the Mk 12 for the 6-43 upgrade?

Thank you.
User avatar
rattovolante
Posts: 188
Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:28 am
Location: Italy

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by rattovolante »

scenario 1, Japanese TF 113 from Babeldaob to Truk is named "Lombrum invasion", I think it's better to name it "Manus invasion" instead, as there is no base named Lombrum on the map (as far as I understand Lombrum is a naval base on an islet in what in-game is the Manus base hex)

User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by oldman45 »

Why can't the LST's and LCT's carry troops?


I think we should look at the AP vs APA. According to Silverstones book, the only difference between the two was the addition of a 5" gun. In fact on of the AP's the only difference was they changed the designation to APA with no changes. I think the amphib bonus should apply to the AP's and APA's evenly. The penalty should remain for xAP's.
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Why can't the LST's and LCT's carry troops?

They can. Although their capacity is expressed entirely in cargo capacity they are capable of carrying troops in cross load.


I think we should look at the AP vs APA. According to Silverstones book, the only difference between the two was the addition of a 5" gun. In fact on of the AP's the only difference was they changed the designation to APA with no changes. I think the amphib bonus should apply to the AP's and APA's evenly. The penalty should remain for xAP's.

Please forgive me if I just say no. I've had this discussion at least 100 times. Even though the change on designation was small, there were considerable differences in cargo handling and troop debarkation facilities. I would recommend Friedman as a better source than Silverstone. And it you really want an expert, wait until JWE posts.

The basic differentiation is:

xAP/xAK (etc). Merchant ships designed and fitted to carry things pier to pier. Minimum crews, perhaps augmented by a few gunners. Very limited ability to carry/handle small boats, almost no reserve crew for damage control.

AP/AK (etc). Militarized versions of the above. Larger crews, improved damage control facilities, full naval gun crews, trained damage control parties, more small craft and (probably) upgraded cargo booms. But still primarily oriented toward loading/unloading at established port factilites.

APA/AKA. Specifically modified for amphibious operations, carrying lots of landing craft, specially equipped boat launching and loading facilities, and with crews/weapons/damage control at combat ship levels.

User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by oldman45 »

Thanks Don, I will see if I can lay my hands on Friedmans book.

The cargo only threw me when I tried to load a battalion up and it said that it could not pick up the men. I will try it any way and see what happens.
User avatar
Pascal_slith
Posts: 1657
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:39 am
Location: In Arizona now!

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Pascal_slith »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Thanks Don, I will see if I can lay my hands on Friedmans book.

The cargo only threw me when I tried to load a battalion up and it said that it could not pick up the men. I will try it any way and see what happens.

Limited Preview online source for Friedman book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=oWX-x0 ... q=&f=false
So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

Image
User avatar
oldman45
Posts: 2325
Joined: Sun May 01, 2005 4:15 am
Location: Jacksonville Fl

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by oldman45 »

Thanks Pascal!
User avatar
tigercub
Posts: 2027
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:25 pm
Location: brisbane oz

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by tigercub »

My Escorts of one of my convoys was attacked but had taken no damage by a surface TF but after the battle the Escort headed back to its home port and stopped escorting a very important convoy,this should not happen and you my have seen this anyway but just letting you know.


Tiger!
Image
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
User avatar
Splinterhead
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: Lenoir City, TN

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Splinterhead »

Did you check their ammo state?
User avatar
tigercub
Posts: 2027
Joined: Mon Feb 03, 2003 12:25 pm
Location: brisbane oz

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by tigercub »

They were 95% ammo it was a very short battle only 2 hits all up and even if they were low you would not want then to head for Home.

Tiger!
Image
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
Speedysteve
Posts: 15975
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: upgrade question

Post by Speedysteve »

ORIGINAL: Pascal

I'm surprised at some 'testy' responses on both sides....

Also, though, if you don't give enough time for a response (5 days is probably a rational amount), don't bump. These guys are doing their best and are as dedicated as you are.

It's hot enough as it is (I'm in Southern California), so my suggestion is to get a nice large ice cube filled glass of iced tea before responding...[:)]

I'm a little surprised too. Only trying to help! Think I'll keep my thoughts to myself from now on I guess[;)][:'(]
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
Rainer
Posts: 1210
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2000 10:00 am
Location: Neuching, Bavaria, Germany

RE: upgrade question

Post by Rainer »

Think I'll keep my thoughts to myself from now on I guess

Don't. Please.
There are lots of forumites quietly following what's going on and benefit from what people like you find out.

Serve the community [:)]
WitP/AE
1.7.11.26b
Data base changes by Andy Mac October 16, 2012
Scen #1 Allied vs AI Level Hard Daily Turns
Art Mods by TomLabel and Reg
Topo Map by chemkid

WitW / Torch
1.01.37 - 1.01.44 beta
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: upgrade question

Post by John Lansford »

I'm beginning to think that the AI's repair routines for damaged ships has a hitch in it.  In two CG's (one before, one after the beta patch), I've sunk 4 BB's, 3 by single hits.  Two were from single torpedoes (one sub, one PBY), the third was a single 800kg bomb hit by a lucky Dutch bomber.  The PBY hit a BB sitting in Davao harbor (which was still mine at the time) and never left.  The other two BB's were "patrolling" in the middle of the ocean east of Palembang and had done so for over a week before they were hit.  I've not looked at the Japanese side of the game to tell, but it seems that damaged ships aren't getting told to "go get repaired" and are still trying to perform their mission (whatever that is). 
 
A second issue is the visitation of enemy ports and acting as if they are on shore leave.  Davao was never bombarded, the TF with the BB in it just sat there for several days prior to the torpedo hit.  The other two stationed themselves in a hex and just sat there as well.
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5190
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: tigercub

My Escorts of one of my convoys was attacked but had taken no damage by a surface TF but after the battle the Escort headed back to its home port and stopped escorting a very important convoy,this should not happen and you my have seen this anyway but just letting you know.


Tiger!

Gotta have a save. Without a save before the event (and after if you have two) there is nothig I can possibly do.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”