AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[rockmedic109]

I am not sure if the AI is hindered by sorties available on a carrier.  It mikght be one of the cheats the AI gets.
 
If AE follows the WITP way of doing things the loadouts of USN planes is dependant upon range.  Normal range is 1000 pounders for SBDs and 500 pounders for extended range.  After a certain time, if an allied squadron makes a couple of skill rolls, it will carry the 2000 pound bomb.

[Kwik E Mart]

for what it's worth, reading Sea of Thunder by Thomas and noted that the USS Alden was commanded on Feb 27th, 1942 by Cdr. Lewis Coley in action off of Java....looked in tracker database and don't see any Coley's listed...[&:]

[JWE]

Oh, lordy, I really hate to do this; especially since I am one of the offenders. But the thread is getting way OT. People are asking questions on the main board or in the War Room, because this space has gotten wierd.

This thread is for AE Issues. Your favorite leader, not being in the box, is not an issue. Your favorite ship, not being in the box, is not an issue. Your thinking that an armament upgrade happened October, instead of December, is not an issue. There is a Scen Design and Mod sub-forum that is an appropriate place for this, and we do look at that.

Issues are for things that are broke, or for obvious data errors. I will try to keep Kosher. The rest of ya'll please do the same.

[afspret]

Has anybody already reported the fact that HMNZS Leander & Achilles start both Scen's 1 & 2 with Ensigns as commanders? This is because they have Ensigns for commanders in the data bases for both these scenerio's as well. The CO for Leander is shown as Ens Bell, A.A. (slot 17166) and Jones, H.W. (slot 17185) is the CO of Achilles.

[JWE]

Yes. Several times. I believe you have done so twice already. No need for more. Thank you.

[Local Yokel]

I'm still making a complete idiot of myself in management of my shipping, but suspect that something other than my idiocy may be at work here.
 
As before, Guadalcanal scen. PBEM, ver 1.0.1.1084e.  I despatch an amphibious TF from Rabaul with orders to pick up a certain LCU from a certain friendly base - in other words, it's an evacuation TF, but I won't give away too much about it here.  The evac. TF reaches the target base - I know this as that's where it was after end of combat resolution/start of new turn.  Evac. TF now has Rabaul as its new destination and home port, but this was as expected since I planned for it to pick up the LCU and RTB.  At the target base, the TF is still shown as having orders to pick up the LCU I designated for evacuation.
 
However, next turn I find the evac. TF a couple of hexes short of Rabaul with not a single soldier aboard.  Furthermore, the orders to pick up an LCU have been cleared.  A completely abortive voyage, therefore.  What did I do wrong? Or is the 'pick up LCU' mechanism as suspect in AE as I have heard it was in WitP?
 
'Before' and 'after' saves available if this is potentially a problem with the code rather than me being a clot.

[Don Bowen]

Nothing can be done without a save.

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Nothing can be done without a save.

Saves you shall have, sir. I will post them in Tech Support, with a .zip suffix you will just need to remove.

<edit>Now posted in this thread</edit>

[Roko]

wrong topic -delete - sorry

[InHarmsWay]

I am currently stumped and have even gone so far as looking in the manual without luck! I seem to be unable to reload torpedoes ammo onto my carriers at Truk. From what I understand, you need either a lvl 7 port, or at least lvl 6 port and 160 naval support available (page 288). Truk has a lvl 6 port and mucho naval support with the 4th fleet and SW fleet HQs there. Am I missing something else here that will allow my CVs to replenish naval torpedo ordinances? The port screen at truk shows only 120 naval support also... so is there a way to get the rest of the naval support to be counted?

Thanks!

[Q-Ball]

Quick question on Japanese OOB, apologize if already asked......

CVL Ryuho is scheduled to enter November, 1942 if not accelerated.

Her AIRGROUPS, however, enter separately, in November 1943.

Is this as designed? Just checking.

InHarmsWay: I had the same problem. The Nav Support on the HQs should not be displayed as such; they are not really there. That will be fixed in next patch. You have to either deploy a couple Naval Base Forces, or wait until it's size-7. A pain, I know.

[InHarmsWay]

Q-Ball

Thanks for the info. I was starting to wonder about my math skills, couldn't figure out how the computer was calculating naval support. guess I need to find a Naval base force now!

[Mynok]

I am currently stumped and have even gone so far as looking in the manual

Heavens to Murgatroid!! Surely you jest!?!? [:D][:D][:D]

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Nothing can be done without a save.

Saves you shall have, sir. I will post them in Tech Support, with a .zip suffix you will just need to remove.

<edit>Now posted in this thread</edit>

...and supplemented with a couple of other problems I have encountered.

[Kwik E Mart]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Oh, lordy, I really hate to do this; especially since I am one of the offenders. But the thread is getting way OT. People are asking questions on the main board or in the War Room, because this space has gotten wierd.

This thread is for AE Issues. Your favorite leader, not being in the box, is not an issue. Your favorite ship, not being in the box, is not an issue. Your thinking that an armament upgrade happened October, instead of December, is not an issue. There is a Scen Design and Mod sub-forum that is an appropriate place for this, and we do look at that.

Issues are for things that are broke, or for obvious data errors. I will try to keep Kosher. The rest of ya'll please do the same.

Sorry, JWE...didn't realize that our definitions of "issue" were so far apart...as for keeping "Kosher", I'm not sure I know how to do that...[:'(]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Kwik E Mart

as for keeping "Kosher", I'm not sure I know how to do that...[:'(]

Here you go! [:'(]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosher

[TerryHoax]

hello, haven't found something about this here, so i post it, sorry if it was mentioned before:

Is it possible to get a link at the informatiion of my own sunken ships, what the hell was loaded on this ship?
Sometimes i need to load the previous save just to look what the hell was on this ship as it was swimming before...

Thanks


Sorry for bad english, normaly we have our own language.

[Sonny II]

ORIGINAL: TerryHoax

hello, haven't found something about this here, so i post it, sorry if it was mentioned before:

Is it possible to get a link at the informatiion of my own sunken ships, what the hell was loaded on this ship?
Sometimes i need to load the previous save just to look what the hell was on this ship as it was swimming before...

Thanks


Sorry for bad english, normaly we have our own language.

Not possible.

[TerryHoax]

ORIGINAL: Sonny II

Not possible.

even with a future patch?
I know that it isn't possible with actual version, but with a little bit new code this should be possible (or am I wrong...?)

[Local Yokel]

Following on from my post #706, I am still having considerable problems with task forces that disregard the orders I have given them. I have already posted two relevant saves in a Tech Support thread, in which I gave the following details of one set of problems I had encountered:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

Final problem. There are various TF's with 'follow' orders, with the lead ASW TF 51 being followed by other TF's, each with an order to trail TF 51 by 1 hex, but with no stand-off at destination. In turn these following TF's are followed by other TF's but with NO separation. Thus, for example, TF 52 is to trail TF 51 by 1 hex, and in turn TF 12 is to trail TF 52 by 0 Hex - hope that's clear! Problem is that save 010 shows all these TF's in the same hex (short of their destination); i.e. the orders issued have failed to make TF 51 perform its role as a vanguard anti-submarine sweep.

Another turn has now passed, before which I had modified these TFs' orders so that TF 51 should still remain out in front by one hex, and all the other TF's should stand off TF 51 by one hex when it reached its destination hex. Following the combat resolution phase of the turn in which these amended orders were entered, the position is now as follows:

(1) TF 51 is one hex short of its destination hex.
(2) One TF that was ordered to trail TF 51 by one hex is occupying the same hex as TF 51
(3) Three TFs that were ordered to trail TF 51 by one hex are trailing it by 2 hexes
(4) Three more TFs that were ordered to trail the TFs mentioned in (3) by zero hexes are trailing them by three hexes. As a result of the orders issued these last three TFs should have ended up one hex behind TF 51, along with the TFs mentioned in (3); in fact they have ended up five hexes behind.

This outcome bears no resemblance to what should have happened, and has resulted in my major fleet units being spread out over a distance of 200 miles rather than 40. I could have no complaint if my ships had been dispersed by enemy action, but nothing like that has occurred, and my careful attempts to advance the fleet in mutually supporting task groups have been completely nullified by this failure to follow the orders I gave.

This isn't the only problem I am having with disobedient TFs. In this same turn I had a FT TF ordered to meet, then follow, an ASW TF ordered to sortie from its base then return. Instead, the FT transport simply went straight to the ASW TF's home base, leaving the ASW TF stranded at the point at which I had expected the meeting to take place and from which I expected it to return. It did not return ahead of the FT TF as ordered.

Another ASW TF was ordered out to meet an incoming convoy which it was then ordered to follow. It appears to have gone out to the meeting point, since it is now showing expenditure of op points, no doubt from refuelling. Trouble is, it didn't stay with the TF it was ordered to meet, but just went out and came straight back to base.

I'm sorry to have to say that I have lost all confidence in the game's ability to make task forces follow what appeared to me to be reasonably straightforward and sensible orders of the kind for which I assume the 'meet' and 'follow' mechanisms were devised. I can accept that some departure from given orders could take place, reflecting the effects of the elements and enemy action. However, when there is such a total failure of TFs to follow the movement orders I have given, there really isn't much point in my attempting to make effective plans for the use of my units. Instead, I might as well order a headlong charge at the enemy on the basis that the outcome is going to be determined entirely by chance and in no way influenced by anything I've done to enhance my prospects of victory.

I suppose I could follow Chad Harrison's suggestion and move the individual TFs manually to explicit destination hexes, but I can't say that I'm any more confident about how far task forces are going to move per turn. Rather than have a whole lot of new features for task force movement that cannot be relied upon to work, I would much rather have a few simple features that do work and that I can rely upon. Otherwise playing the game is just a waste of my time.

There. I've probably given much useful intelligence to my PBEM opponent in this post, but I'm past caring. Sorry, but I have well and truly exceeded my exasperation quotient for the day.