AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Andy Mac]

My fault I thought I had removed them from the TF's I will adjust on next patch its not a major issue for the Ai as they will draw from other ships so it falls into the PITA camp

[witpqs]

I ran the first turn and then jumped in as Japan to have a look see. The TF with Yamato was fine - it had lots of fuel and reached its nuclear release point. The Musashi TF seemed OK (it hadn't far to move), but Musashi was still low on fuel. No biggie, just FYI.

[ckammp]

In the editor, several US BBs and CAs have their Tower Armor reduced to 0 in their final upgrades; is this WAD?
 
The classes affected are:
 
306 Nevada - Tower Armor 38 (previous version was 400)
307 Nevada - Tower Armor 38
334 Tennessee - Deck Armor 184 (previous version 108) and Tower Armor 127 (previous version 400)
388 Pensacola - Tower Armor 0 (previous version 62)
392 Northampton - Tower Armor 0 (previous version 62)
393 Northampton - Tower Armor 0
397 Portland - Tower Armor 0 (previous version 62)
413 Brooklyn - Tower Armor 0 (previous version 125)
414 Brooklyn - Tower Armor 0
 
 
 

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: ckammp
In the editor, several US BBs and CAs have their Tower Armor reduced to 0 in their final upgrades; is this WAD?

Yes.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: ckammp
In the editor, several US BBs and CAs have their Tower Armor reduced to 0 in their final upgrades; is this WAD?

Yes.

Thank you.

[sdevault]

I don't know if this has been addressed or if it is even a problem, but, the Pencacola Class' final upgrade reduces one of the armor plating ratings to 0....

You are correct. I looked into the history of both USS Pensacola and USS Salt Lake City and nothing indicates a superstructure change. Additionally, looking in the official Navy photo archive there is no visible difference in the superstructure bewteen photos in 42-43 and 44-45.

Suggest that you restore the armor rating by editing the database and post this message as a reply to the thread AE Naval and OOB Issues

[Don Bowen]

Armored towers were removed from many pre-war ships late war.

[JWE]

BuShips Design Order, June 1943, designated CA-24 class to receive the same bridge modifications as surviving CA-26 class. Foremast cut down; conning tower removed, replaced by open bridgework; bridge wings cut down; bridge deck profile altered to clear arcs of fire for wing AA.

Plans on file MINS, Sept. 1943; modifications to be performed on ships according to overhaul schedule. Louisville was first in Dec. 1943. Pensacola nominated for complete topsides modifications during May 1944 repair and overhaul. Only aft topsides modified due to yard timing and operational requests. Received bridge modifications during May 1945 annual overhaul.

Upgrades are available from the time they were available. If some ships didn't get them till later, that was their joss. Recommend you do NOT restore the armor rating, because that was not commensurate with that particular upgrade. If you must have strict, specific, exact adherence to your view of the historical record, then just don't push the final upgrade button for Pensacola till May 1945 and don't push the final upgrade button for Salt Lake City at all.

[anarchyintheuk]

So much additional topweight had accrued since their design (radar, increase in aa suite) that they had to find someway to lower the cog.

[Pascal_slith]

Hi guys,

many messages flash on the screen during the running of a turn. Almost all of these end up in the Ops report. However, I noticed that the ones concerning failing watertight integrity do not.

I was moving a few damaged BB's from Pearl to the West Coast and saw a message flash on the screen about watertightness failing. I don't always watch all that is going on when running the turn, so I would have missed this had I not seen it, and I would have sent my Escort TF on its merry way until it would have been too late to move it into a port. It did NOT appear in the Ops Report. Could this be added to the Ops Report?

Thanks.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


For a TF that is currently headed off map, you should NOT change the home port or destination of the TF to an on-map location (with the possible exception of the Return To buttons).

Don, could you clarify this? Do you mean any TF that is "headed off map" (including one which has not yet exited the map, but will on some future turn), or only one that is off map headed to an off map destination.

Thanks in advance.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: erstad

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


For a TF that is currently headed off map, you should NOT change the home port or destination of the TF to an on-map location (with the possible exception of the Return To buttons).

Don, could you clarify this? Do you mean any TF that is "headed off map" (including one which has not yet exited the map, but will on some future turn), or only one that is off map headed to an off map destination.

Thanks in advance.

I'm not Don, but from my experience when a TF is off-map do not change it's destination. If it is still on the map, go ahead and change what you want to. But when it's in any of the off-map areas don't mess with it until it arrives at it's destination.

Hope this helps.

[Don Bowen]

The issue is related to off map TFs. That is, TFs that are in the holding boxes and therefore do not have a valid on-map x,y coordinates. You can, I believe, safely change any TF that is on map to any destination. A TF that is off map and headed on map may have it's on-map destination changed.

The problem relates to TFs "in a pipe" that have their direction changed. Very specifically, a TF that you see as in a holding box should not be turned around. (some work, some don't, best not to do it). Turned around means that a TF off map and in a pipe moving on map being turned around to go off map or a TF in a pipe moving off map being turned around to head on-map.

[PzB74]

Raiders only have enough ammo for a very short engagement with enemy ships.
After 3-4 encounters all my Jap raiders have refused to continue or re-engage defenseless transports when ammo levels approached 50%.

1. Raiders carried more ammo than the usual combatant - it would not be sane to sail accross 3 oceans only to run out of ammo after 30 min! [8|] - So should raiders have reloads?

2. Destroyers and cruisers spend a lot of ammo on sinking even unescorted merchants.
I think something needs to be done to address this unbalance.

One of my thoughts is that when single enemy transports are caught by raiders or superior combatants
there should be a chance that the transports were abandoned by their crews and scuttled with minimum expanditure of ammo.
- Raiders should also have the opportunity to take prizes, imagine how kewl it would be to sail enemy vessels back to Japan loaded with goodies! [;)]

Raider Action

This engagement was the first action this raider got into since sailing from its base.
After shooting up a few ships it broke of and is now heading home to "replenish". One 14cm gun is out of ammo and another one is in the red - the rest are fully stocked. 2 out of 4 torps have also been spent.

[spence]

I just noticed that the Porter Class DDs which have been upgraded in April 1942 have 3 single 20mm mounts on the right side and only 2 single 20mm mounts on the left side. I'm not familiar with the ships in all their incarnations but it would seem it should be either two or three 20mm mounts on each side.

[Bahnsteig]

Hi,

hope Im in the right threat.

I have restarted a PBEM as Japan with the new patch (patch 2 + hotfixes) and now I have some bad luck with my amphibious forces.
All of my intercepted landings have been shot to pieces while the covering SCTFs reacted when the battle was over. None of the allied Tfs was intercepted before they got to the transporters by any of my covering SCTFs. In one case my SCTF didnt react while a mid-ocean-interception, my transporters were lost and the attacker escaped unharmed.

All SCTFs were ordered to follow the amphibious forces. I did the same things I did in the last patch and old witp.

So did I have very bad luck or has something changed for covering ships and so on...
 

[Speedysteve]

Hi all,

I assume it's accurate since you guys know way more than me on this part but I've noticed both BB's enter with different configs despite being the same class:

[Speedysteve]

Mississippi

[Cavalry Corp]

Where did the raider engagre these ships I am facinated

Cav

[Speedysteve]

Judging by ship names I would assume somewhere around Java?