AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]
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
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?
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
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
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
None made it into the stock OOB. Watch for a mod...
So I'm not going crazy.
Thanks
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
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.
- Splinterhead
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:45 pm
- Location: Lenoir City, TN
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
None made it into the stock OOB. Watch for a mod...
[:)]........[&:]........[:(].........[>:].....[&:]
Is it ready yet?
[;)]
Ordnance on US Carriers
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.
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.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
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.
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.
- rattovolante
- Posts: 188
- Joined: Sun Aug 30, 2009 5:28 am
- Location: Italy
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
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)
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
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.
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.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
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.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
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.
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.
- Pascal_slith
- Posts: 1657
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:39 am
- Location: In Arizona now!
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
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.... 


RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Thanks Pascal!
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
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!
Tiger!

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life
- Splinterhead
- Posts: 189
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 11:45 pm
- Location: Lenoir City, TN
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Did you check their ammo state?
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
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!
Tiger!

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
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
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
RE: upgrade question
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
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
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.
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.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
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.





