AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Herrbear]

IIRC there were two subs in Cavite undergoing refit and in stock started with damage. This no longer seems to be the case. Was this not correct before? Thank you.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: erstad
On the ship screen, the "only show ships with pending upgrades" button also shows ships whose only "upgrade" is a conversion. It would be nice if it only showed upgrades. One generally wants all the upgrades, but not all the conversions, and the more conversions pending the harder it is to find the one or two ships that missed their upgrades.

Interestingly enough, there are five buttons at the bottom of the screen and room for six (two rows of three), so we could even add a "Show ships with available conversions"!

The “pending” note only shows upgrades/conversions that are available RIGHT NOW. If it’s ’42 you will not see either upgrades or conversions available in ’43. If the ‘upgrade’ button doesn’t show, it means there’s no upgrade scheduled AT THAT TIME. If only conversions show, it means only conversions are available.

Understand that, but my point is that I don't want to see the conversions in the list. As far as i can tell, there's nothing in the list that distinguishes an upgrade from a conversion, so I need to go to each ship one-by-one to see if it's an upgrade (which I will do at the first convenient opportunity) or a conversion (which I may never do for the next five years)

My thought would be to make a separate conversions screen, since there's room for a sixth button[8D] Alternately, since this may be the only screen in the entire game without asterisks[:D], maybe the "conversion only" ships on the screen could be asterisked.

[mikemike]

OOB issue: Most British DDs have incorrect armament.

1: The Admiralty 'V', 'W', 'S', and 'T' classes are defined with 4.5in guns instead of the correct 4in Mk IV; additionally there was no such thing as an Admiralty 'T' class; all those WWI ships with 'T' names belonged to the Admiralty 'S' class (Originally, there were DDs with 'S'- and 'T' names that belonged to the Admiralty 'R' class, but by 1939, the only 'R' class in service was HMS Skate operating in Britain.) The 'S' class should also be readily convertible between the DD form with three guns, four Torpedo tubes, and DC throwers and the DM form with two guns and 40 mines; all the ships of this class in the Far East were modified for that and in the run-up before Pearl Harbor frequently switched between forms as required. HMS Thracian in Hong Kong started off as a DM, laid a mine field on December 8th, and converted to the DD form during the replenishment periods between patrols, so I think conversion delay should be 1-2 days with no Sys damage.

2: The older DDs, 'A' to 'I' class, exchanged their aft Torpedo tubes for a 12pdr AA gun from mid-1940 on, with the exception of the 'D' class that was built with the 12pdr; likewise the 'J' and 'N' class exchanged their aft tubes for a 4in AA gun. In the AE OOB, all these ships have both the additional AA guns and both their torpedo tube sets, which clearly isn't correct.

3: From the 'S' class onwards, all DDs were equipped with a twin 40mm Bofors in a Hazemeyer mount amidships and 20mm Oerlikons in the bridge wings and on both sides of the searchlight; depending on availability, some ships had quad 2pdr or twin 20mm instead of the twin Bofors. When transferred to the Eastern Fleet, most DDs exchanged some or all of the 20mm for single 40mm Bofors or 2pdr guns; many also received a single Bofors instead of the searchlight. HMS Saumarez carried the twin Hazemeyer Bofors, four single 40mm Bofors instead of the searchlight, and twin power-operated 20mm mounts in the bridge wings. The stock OOB doesn't represent that correctly.

4: Stock AE has all British DD carrying six DC throwers and two DC racks. This is incorrect. Many DD, especially the classes equipped with mine-sweeping gear (the 'J' class, for instance), originally carried just two DC throwers and 20 Depth charges. From 1940 onwards, fleet destroyers generally had four DC throwers and two DC racks, while escort conversions had eight DC throwers, two DC racks and a Hedgehog.

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Could someone change names of SU submarines from ShCh to Shch - to depict that Shch is a single letter in Russian.

Also in seydlitz's AAR I saw a DD Revanch and DD Buistro - what's that? Could someone give a screenshot of Soviet Navy. I hope there isn't more misspellings.

[Dili]

mikemike i agree, just one thing but i never saw a British DD that went from 20mm to 2 Pdr single mounts. I have seen the inverse 2pdr to 20mm. Looking at specifications of 2pdr Low Velocity single mount shows why.

In my list for war in Med i have 12 pdr in spring 1940 replacing the last TT bank.
20mm arriving in 1941 March/April.
40mm Bofors i don't have any in 1942.

[Iridium]

You probably all know this but British DDs sorely lacked in AA. They rarely got DP mounts as their main armament and even when they did they were usually hampered by bad fire control systems. Even in 1945 the UK was building DDs with low angle guns...something about an inability to make them iirc. Seems strange to me but eh, must have been something to do with the mounts themselves rather than the gun barrels. Getting DP mounts to move fast, without technical problems and with low maintenance.

I recall reading some of their DDs getting refits including the removal of a main gun for a dual 3" DP mount or some silliness like that. Not impressive but better than nothing I guess.

Where's Tiornu when you need him? I think it was his book I read this in, he probably remembers it better than I.[:D]

[eMonticello]

Shouldn't Nimitz' old command (AD-13 Rigel) actually be the repair ship AR-11 Rigel (although I would add system damage to reflect that she was still being converted on Dec 7)?

http://ibiblio.net/hyperwar/USN/ships/A ... Rigel.html

http://wapedia.mobi/en/USS_Rigel_(AR-11)

[drw61]

Moved to the List of User Requested Gameplay Changes thread

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Another changes of names of Soviet Navy ships.

CA Lazar Kaganovich should be simply Kaganovich without first name
DD Tblisi should be Tbilisi.
DD Rezhtelnyi should be Reshitelnyi
DD Rezhvyi should be Rezvyi
DD Revostnyi should be Revnostnyi

And there are missing:
DDL Baku (withdrawal mid 42)
DD Razumnyi (withdrawal mid 42)
DD Razyashchyi
DD Razyaryonnyi (withdrawal mid 42)

[Pascal_slith]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

SCEN 1

Ship 14070 Ha-232 has a delay of 460230. February has only 28 days in 1946 (and every other year ) [:'(]

Except for leap years which have 29! 1940 and 1944 were leap years... [:D]

[Akos Gergely]

I've already mentioned this but seems it did not get fixed in the Patch 1 beta: in the Guadalcanal scenario USS Maryland arrives in her original fit, whereas Colorado arrives in her 10/1942 fit- They should be the same - there is photographic evidence that Maryland had a cut down main cagemast by Nov.

Pls copy+paste the link as navsource does not allow for direct linking.

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014640a.jpg

http://www.navsource.org/archives/01/014640b.jpg

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Dili

mikemike i agree, just one thing but i never saw a British DD that went from 20mm to 2 Pdr single mounts. I have seen the inverse 2pdr to 20mm. Looking at specifications of 2pdr Low Velocity single mount shows why.

In my list for war in Med i have 12 pdr in spring 1940 replacing the last TT bank.
20mm arriving in 1941 March/April.
40mm Bofors i don't have any in 1942.

Yes, 'A' to 'I' class ships swapped their amidships 2pdr or quad .5in MG for 20mm early in the war - post-Dunkirk. 1941 seems plausible.

Ships destined for the Eastern Fleet were intended to exchange their 20mm for 40mm Bofors due the Kamikaze threat. As not enough Bofors guns could be made available, some ships received power-driven 2pdr single mounts (Mk XV or Mk XVI) instead, for instance several 'W' class ships including HMS Wizard. Whelp and Wessex had quad 2pdr instead of the Hazemeyer twin. The 'Z' class carried 2pdr single mounts in varying configurations in addition to the Hazemeyer mount - Myngs had 2 2pdr, one Bofors and 2 20mm, Zephyr had four 2pdr. The whole 'CA' class had four 2pdr single mounts.

The light AA armament of Eastern Fleet DDs is a mess - practically every ship seems to have had its own configuration.

The first class equipped with 40mm Bofors was the 'S' class - first ship in service was Scorpion in May, 1943.

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

You probably all know this but British DDs sorely lacked in AA. They rarely got DP mounts as their main armament and even when they did they were usually hampered by bad fire control systems. Even in 1945 the UK was building DDs with low angle guns...something about an inability to make them iirc. Seems strange to me but eh, must have been something to do with the mounts themselves rather than the gun barrels. Getting DP mounts to move fast, without technical problems and with low maintenance.

I recall reading some of their DDs getting refits including the removal of a main gun for a dual 3" DP mount or some silliness like that. Not impressive but better than nothing I guess.

The Tribals that survived into 1941 swapped their 'X' 4.7in mount for a Mk XIX 4in twin; the Australian and Canadian Tribals were built that way. Four ships of the 'L' class had four 4in twin mounts, the 'O' class had five single 4in DP mounts. There are those that argue the British DDs would have been better served with an armament consisting of twin 4in DP mounts instead of 4.5 or 4.7 in low-angle mounts, as most of the threat came from aircraft, not surface ships. The last utility-size class, the 'Weapon' or 'Battleaxe' class, had that kind of armament.

Concerning medium-caliber DP mounts, Savage (in service June 8th, 1943) had a 4.5in twin DP mount forwards for trial purposes; the Battle class (in service from 1945) had two twin 4.5in DP mounts forwards, and the 'Daring' class was designed for those Mk VI twin turrets that were the hallmark of postwar RN frigates; however this class was ordered only a few months before the end of the war. You're correct in saying it took the Britons quite a while to get their act together, but at least they managed - in contrast to the Kriegsmarine.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: mikemike

The Tribals that survived into 1941 swapped their 'X' 4.7in mount for a Mk XIX 4in twin; the Australian and Canadian Tribals were built that way. Four ships of the 'L' class had four 4in twin mounts, the 'O' class had five single 4in DP mounts. There are those that argue the British DDs would have been better served with an armament consisting of twin 4in DP mounts instead of 4.5 or 4.7 in low-angle mounts, as most of the threat came from aircraft, not surface ships. The last utility-size class, the 'Weapon' or 'Battleaxe' class, had that kind of armament.

Concerning medium-caliber DP mounts, Savage (in service June 8th, 1943) had a 4.5in twin DP mount forwards for trial purposes; the Battle class (in service from 1945) had two twin 4.5in DP mounts forwards, and the 'Daring' class was designed for those Mk VI twin turrets that were the hallmark of postwar RN frigates; however this class was ordered only a few months before the end of the war. You're correct in saying it took the Britons quite a while to get their act together, but at least they managed - in contrast to the Kriegsmarine.

Indeed, I recall reading that the Admiralty was at fault to a degree. They were willing to shell out the cash for torpedoes but not for expensive, high maintenance DP mounts. This attitude changed eventually but the damage was done and they fell behind in design and construction of these turrets.

Odd considering that the UK were the first to invent Radar and apply it to early warning systems etc but ignore weapons to take down said aircraft on ships.

Yes, the Tribals and their successors were perhaps the only DDs well equipped for AA during the war. I really need to find that book somewhere but it's packed away for moving...[:@][:D]

[JWE]

This stuff is very interesting, but could I ask you guys to move it to a better place? This is supposed to be for bugs and issues. I know this is supposed to be an issue, but a single mention is enough. This is a big game, with big code, and big data. Please leave room. Thank you.

[John Lansford]

Has anyone found a US tanker that wouldn't load fuel or oil?  I've got one at LA that no matter what I do, won't load anything.  I noticed this when I had it in a TF with another tanker loading oil for Brisbane, and saw the other tanker had loaded oil but not the other one.
 
Thinking I'd added it later, I ordered the oil unloaded, then started the load process anew.  One loaded oil, the other sat there.  Unloaded the oil again, started loading fuel.  Again, one loaded fuel, the other sat there. 
 
I'm at work now so I don't have the name, but it's a typical commercial tanker, nothing special about it.

[Jzanes]

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Has anyone found a US tanker that wouldn't load fuel or oil?  I've got one at LA that no matter what I do, won't load anything.  I noticed this when I had it in a TF with another tanker loading oil for Brisbane, and saw the other tanker had loaded oil but not the other one.

Thinking I'd added it later, I ordered the oil unloaded, then started the load process anew.  One loaded oil, the other sat there.  Unloaded the oil again, started loading fuel.  Again, one loaded fuel, the other sat there. 

I'm at work now so I don't have the name, but it's a typical commercial tanker, nothing special about it.

I had the same thing happen when trying to load oil for oz from LA. In my case, I had two large tankers and neither one of them loaded oil no matter what I tried. I finally gave up after 4 or 5 turns. I haven't had this problem anywhere else other than LA. Is there something off with LA and loading oil/fuel?

[Monter_Trismegistos]

Please delete Soviet ships (old Noviks):
DD Buistro
DD Strelstsvo
DD Revanch.

There were no such ships. Where did you (the devs) found them?

You should add 5 escort ships of Shtorm/Uragan/Tayfun class instead.

Rename Soviet minesweepers:
AM Strela to Stryela (to be consistent with Conways)
AM Podsekate to Podsekatyel (missing L, Y added to be consistent with Conways)

Add 8th Soviet minesweeper:
AM Paravan

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Has anyone found a US tanker that wouldn't load fuel or oil?  I've got one at LA that no matter what I do, won't load anything.  I noticed this when I had it in a TF with another tanker loading oil for Brisbane, and saw the other tanker had loaded oil but not the other one.

Thinking I'd added it later, I ordered the oil unloaded, then started the load process anew.  One loaded oil, the other sat there.  Unloaded the oil again, started loading fuel.  Again, one loaded fuel, the other sat there. 

I'm at work now so I don't have the name, but it's a typical commercial tanker, nothing special about it.

I had the same thing happen when trying to load oil for oz from LA. In my case, I had two large tankers and neither one of them loaded oil no matter what I tried. I finally gave up after 4 or 5 turns. I haven't had this problem anywhere else other than LA. Is there something off with LA and loading oil/fuel?

I've had this happen once or twice. Put the ships in a new TF and the problem went away.

[JuanG]

Scenario 10 Ironman has two ships called 'Asama' for Japan. One Tone class and one Mogami class.