AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]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

Roko
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 3:41 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Roko »

Typo :  ship 1370  Bankok Maru AMC  ( and class 2024 )

should be  Bangkok Maru
http://www.combinedfleet.com/Bangkok_c.htm
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 »

This got missed in patch 1

ID 11316 AFDB-2 starts in Portland. The dry dock is too big to make it down the river.

(At least I could not get it to move) Suggest it start in Seattle or Mare Island like the others.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: oldman45

This got missed in patch 1

ID 11316 AFDB-2 starts in Portland. The dry dock is too big to make it down the river.

(At least I could not get it to move) Suggest it start in Seattle or Mare Island like the others.
Missed that one. Ok, patch-2. Seattle, or maybe Astoria.
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 »

A few items relating to various devices on primarily U.S. ship classes. I am certainly far from being an expert so I will just throw these out for consideration.

Class 732 &733 Aux have their DC device 1617 (& 1620 for the 733) as a Center facing (should these be rear?)

747 Gearing DDR AA has is it's DC device 1620 facing left (should this be rear?)

753 & 754 Active DC devices (1617 & 1620 respectively) facing Center (should these be rear)

764 Tacoma DC devices 1620 (times 8) facing Center (the ship already has 2 DC 1617 racks, shouldn't these 8 be throw weapons K or Y guns with facing determined by the weapon?)

778 SC-453 has DC device 1616 (K-gun x 2) facing Center (shouldn't there be one on each right and left side?)

802 & 804 have their DC devices 1614 (Y-guns) on each side of the ship (aren't these center line weapons)

User avatar
Montbrun
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Montbrun »

v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...
WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5192
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...

Not sure about how much capacity, but she was used as a transport to move troops from Java to Timor.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

A few items relating to various devices on primarily U.S. ship classes. I am certainly far from being an expert so I will just throw these out for consideration.
Understand Buck, and will fix as we can, for patch-2. fyi, DC facings have nothing to do with nothing. ASW routine looks at # of DCs, # of ammo, and goes boom, boom, boom. In this case, the editor is way more grainy than the code, so tweaking data will have no impact on effect, so it's a trivial change and will be done. Ciao. John
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...
Not sure about how much capacity, but she was used as a transport to move troops from Java to Timor.
Which it does have.
User avatar
Montbrun
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Montbrun »

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...
Not sure about how much capacity, but she was used as a transport to move troops from Java to Timor.
Which it does have.

Can't transport anything with it....
WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5192
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Can't transport anything with it....

In what kind of TF?
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: JWE

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

A few items relating to various devices on primarily U.S. ship classes. I am certainly far from being an expert so I will just throw these out for consideration.
Understand Buck, and will fix as we can, for patch-2. fyi, DC facings have nothing to do with nothing. ASW routine looks at # of DCs, # of ammo, and goes boom, boom, boom. In this case, the editor is way more grainy than the code, so tweaking data will have no impact on effect, so it's a trivial change and will be done. Ciao. John

Good to know. Thanks for the reply post.

Buck
User avatar
Montbrun
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Montbrun »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Can't transport anything with it....

In what kind of TF?


I fooled around with it some more - also the "Tydeman," and found that it only works for the "Fast Transport" TF (not Cargo or Transport TFs) - which makes sense.
WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
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 »

ORIGINAL: 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
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: 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.
Things that have a valid upgrade schedule are supposed to upgrade.
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 »

Thank you for your answer.
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 »

Moved here from below.

I would like to share this new resource I have found on the Internet. It is "The California State Military Museum". While the entire site looks good, I am including it here on this thread because of some interesting information regarding the armed forces in California on December 7, 1941, reflected at this link:

http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html

If this information can be believe, it provides very good new information for our game's OOBs. For those of us who are crying for more fuel wagons it reflects there were an additional 2 AOs available. Also, I note that Mare Island was a very active port/repair facility with much many more vessels there than reflected in the game (check out how many ships were being overhauled). To a lesser extent Alameda appears to have been actively used as a Coast Guard base with 11 Cutter & Sub Chaser craft located there These could be very useful in our battle against that Japanese AI sub activity laying in wait off the West Coast. Also, please note the other USN and CG ships and changes at the other locations.

I hope the Land and Air thread people also check this out to see if there is anything they can use. Anyway whether this is useful accurate information or not I will leave with you all.
User avatar
Montbrun
Posts: 1507
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Raleigh, NC, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Montbrun »

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Moved here from below.

I would like to share this new resource I have found on the Internet. It is "The California State Military Museum". While the entire site looks good, I am including it here on this thread because of some interesting information regarding the armed forces in California on December 7, 1941, reflected at this link:

http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html

If this information can be believe, it provides very good new information for our game's OOBs. For those of us who are crying for more fuel wagons it reflects there were an additional 2 AOs available. Also, I note that Mare Island was a very active port/repair facility with much many more vessels there than reflected in the game (check out how many ships were being overhauled). To a lesser extent Alameda appears to have been actively used as a Coast Guard base with 11 Cutter & Sub Chaser craft located there These could be very useful in our battle against that Japanese AI sub activity laying in wait off the West Coast. Also, please note the other USN and CG ships and changes at the other locations.

I hope the Land and Air thread people also check this out to see if there is anything they can use. Anyway whether this is useful accurate information or not I will leave with you all.

Dr. Niehorster's site is another nice source:

WWII OoBs
WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6434
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by JeffroK »

I'm one who as never been satisified with Force Z starting at sea ripe for sinking before an Allied player can do anything.

From this link it appears that Force Z didnt leave Singapore until 1735/081241 and thesrfore should be in port or at least te TF start at Singapore.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/R ... index.html

(Maybe this has been resolved  in the previous 22 pages[8D])
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Mike Scholl
Posts: 6187
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
Location: Kansas City, MO

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Mike Scholl »

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I'm one who as never been satisified with Force Z starting at sea ripe for sinking before an Allied player can do anything.

From this link it appears that Force Z didnt leave Singapore until 1735/081241 and thesrfore should be in port or at least te TF start at Singapore.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/R ... index.html

(Maybe this has been resolved  in the previous 22 pages[8D])


It has..., and not the way you would want (although you are absolutely correct). Try starting with "historical" off..., so you can actually have an historical start.
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Barb »

Well, because of time zones 8th dec 41 in malaya was actually the same day as 7th dec 41 in pearl harbor [:D]
Image
Post Reply

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