AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[jcjordan]

Not sure if this is wrong or correct or not but on the 1/44 upgrades for the Northampton & Pensacola classes the tower armor goes from 62 to 0. This is scen 1 but would assume it hit all scenarios if wrong.

[sspahr]

ver. 1.0.4.1106

Starting with the 12/42 upgrade Sargo and Seadragon classes have two forward tubes and six aft.

Specifically, classes 611-616 and 619-624 have weapon 2 facing set to rear.

[R8J]

1.0.4.1106i

In Scenario 004 the ROF of fire for DP guns seems to be correct. In the other scenarios the ROF fire is a lot less. 1/5 to 1/3 of Sceanrio 4 ROF.

[Buck Beach]

Well I am still up to no good and have discovered something about the naval ship data that some of you may want to know. Normally, I would bounce this off our main man JWE, but now, well you know.

It seems we have a double counting of tankers representing those that the Japanese captured and used. I direct you too this site: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Yusosen.htm

I have researched several (most) of these and with exception the ships are shown as Allied (with a sinking date) and then Japanese but with different stats.

I am a DaBabes man, but the original game data is also incorrectly shown.

Micromanagement sort of guy that I am, I will show the duplicate Allied ships as having a withdrawal date and will adjusted the Japanese ship stats to be consistent and to show up after that date. If the ship is sunk before then, it will still show up as a Japanese ship at the appropriate date. Not perfect but then again better than both ships operating at the same time.

Woof and Ciao (TMs in honor of da main man of DaBabe (your a main man too Don).

Buck

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Well I am still up to no good and have discovered something about the naval ship data that some of you may want to know. Normally, I would bounce this off our main man JWE, but now, well you know.

It seems we have a double counting of tankers representing those that the Japanese captured and used. I direct you too this site: http://www.combinedfleet.com/Yusosen.htm

I have researched several (most) of these and with exception the ships are shown as Allied (with a sinking date) and then Japanese but with different stats.

I am a DaBabes man, but the original game data is also incorrectly shown.

Micromanagement sort of guy that I am, I will show the duplicate Allied ships as having a withdrawal date and will adjusted the Japanese ship stats to be consistent and to show up after that date. If the ship is sunk before then, it will still show up as a Japanese ship at the appropriate date. Not perfect but then again better than both ships operating at the same time.

Woof and Ciao (TMs in honor of da main man of DaBabe (your a main man too Don).

Buck

I think it would be better not to have the Japanese have the captured ships, much like how the Japanese do not get the captured US DD Stewart.

[Ldeathbow]

I was looking at conversions/upgrades and noticed, what I think is, an issue with the CVE Hosho.

The original (database #1802), 12/41, carries 20 planes, 4 (2*2 mounts) 14cm/503YT20deg guns (with 20 ammo)and 4 (2*2 mounts) 25mm TYPE 96 AA guns (with 36 ammo).

The first upgrade (#1803), 9/42, carries 18 planes, removes the 4* 14cm guns and ammo and doubles the 25mm AA guns (from 2*2's to 4*2's) but NOT the ammo (still 36).

The LAST (of 2) upgrades (#1804), 6/44, also carries 18 planes, adds 10 (new mounts 5*1 - LS and RS)for a total of 18*25mm type 96 AA guns and doubles the ammo (4*2 LS w/36 ammo, 4*2 RS w/36 ammo, 5*1 LS w/36 ammo and 5*1 RS w/36 ammo) - but TAKES NOTHING?!?

I can't see anything to explain why the Hosho sacrificed 2 planes AND 4 * 14cm guns and only received 4 * 25mm AA guns if it could mount 5*1 LS w/36 ammo and 5*1 RS w/36 ammo (21 months later) without losing anything else to compensate for the added weight of these new guns. At least give me more ammo for the AA guns (the 8 I do have in 42-44 upgrade).

[anarchyintheuk]

The IJN probably didn't care too much about her armament during her first 'upgrade'. Hosho had been reduced to a training role by this time.

[Puhis]

I think Hosho is a fantasy ship in this game. She couldn't operate 18 modern planes IRL...

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

The IJN probably didn't care too much about her armament during her first 'upgrade'. Hosho had been reduced to a training role by this time.

Like many IJN warships, wasn't she a bit unstable? I seem to recall the heavy AA was pulled to reduce the topweight.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

The IJN probably didn't care too much about her armament during her first 'upgrade'. Hosho had been reduced to a training role by this time.

Like many IJN warships, wasn't she a bit unstable? I seem to recall the heavy AA was pulled to reduce the topweight.

Yup. Catapults and arrestor gear were installed during one of her refits and the additional topweight had to be removed from somewhere. If it's just a training ship, why not the heavy aa?

No trom from combinedfleet.com for the Hosho. They didn't think much of her either.

[Puhis]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

No trom from combinedfleet.com for the Hosho. They didn't think much of her either.

Yes there is:
http://www.combinedfleet.com/Hosho.htm

140 mm guns were removed in 1944 when flight deck was lengthened.

[anarchyintheuk]

Thanks for the link. Didn't see it on the list of carriers and just assumed. Should have searched for it.

[CV2]

The Sargo and Seadragon classes have 4tt forward and 4 aft. In the Sargos 8/42 upgrade (and all after) and the Seadragons 12/42 upgrade (and all after) they have 2tt forward and 6tt aft. Conways lists 4 and 4 for both classes. I find it unlikely they moved 2 of the forward tts to the rear

Dont know how much of an impact that has on the game, probably minimal.

[Reg]

I had a look at the USS Pennsylvania (Ship 3150) in scenario 11 which starts in May 1944.

The ship class for the USS Pennsylvania is set to 314 which is the 3/45 upgrade. The ship class should be 313 which is the 6/43 upgrade.

[Buck Beach]

In my on line research I have found that the subject vessels may have been sister ships. In any case the Awajisan(1722)(that was also known as the Awazisan) was much larger than the game data reflects and the class probably should be changed accordingly.

The ship was part of TF 8085 and Major-General Hiroshi Takumi, commander of the detactment was on board her.

[Buck Beach]

A friend of mine suggested that a portion of Japan's existing merchant fleet, at the start of the war, were left out of the game to represent those ships dedicated to domestic purposes as opposed to those in the game towards the "war effort". I don't ever recall seeing this. Does it sound familiar?

Buck

[somali]

Three typos in GC1

leader ID23011 Tanguchi Shosaburo
correct Taniguchi Shosaburo

leader ID5901 Takama Tomotsu
correct Takama Tamotsu

The Name of leader ID5921 is also Takama Tomotsu. Is he a random created Leader?

ship ID212 DD Hatsushima
correct DD Hatsushimo

[BJStone]

Regarding the IJN Cruisers Oi & Kitakama:

Everything I see regarding these two ships as "Torpedo Cruisers" in 1941 shows them with 10 torpedo mounts, each with 4 torpedoes, but when I look at the cruisers in the game the both show 8 mounts of 5 torpedoes.

Was it intentional to set the cruisers up as 8X5 instead of 10X4?

Just curious. [&:]


Regards,

BJ

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: BJStone

Regarding the IJN Cruisers Oi & Kitakama:

Everything I see regarding these two ships as "Torpedo Cruisers" in 1941 shows them with 10 torpedo mounts, each with 4 torpedoes, but when I look at the cruisers in the game the both show 8 mounts of 5 torpedoes.

Was it intentional to set the cruisers up as 8X5 instead of 10X4?

Just curious. [&:]


Regards,

BJ

They are set to 10 quad mounts. The specifations are a bit confusing, but 20-4 indicates 20 tubes in quad mounts (five quads), not 20 tubes in four individual mounts (which would be four quint).

[inqistor]

As I understand, there is no San-Shiki?
I have changed main BB/CA guns into DP, and it seems to have small impact, probably enough, to be quite historical (lots of wasted ammo for maybe 1-2 extra planes shot down). Does changing from pure-Naval, into DP have any effect on surface combat? I see some guns, which are pure NAVAL, but still have ceiling. So, does gun shot at planes, when it have ceiling, or is it need to be set to AA/DP type?
However, this change brings a question:
Should not shrapnel ammunition, also increase ground bombardment effects?

There are few types of 12.7 cm/50 Type 3 naval gun. As I understand, only those with maximum elevation of 75 deg can be used as DP, which brings another question:
What was actual ammunition type used for anti-aircraft fire? Was it not a San-Shiki?
I am guessing T A means Twin A type, and S A means Single A type, as I see Single A was used at Hatsuharu class, but in game it uses only T B, not that it changes anything, because all guns have the same statistics, which bring another question:
Should not different maximum elevation, also change maximum range/ceiling?

And, since ammunition is THE SAME, should not all 12.7 cm guns be DP? With probably worse ceiling/accuracy for those, with lower maximum elevation? Why 12.7 AA type have WORSE accuracy, than standard DP? Is accuracy used in determining hit of planes?

Was not the special-fragmentation-ammunition, used several times at Guadalcanal, a San-Shiki? Does Kongo used it in main guns?

Ok, I found this:

APC Type 91 - 1,485 lbs. (673.5 kg)
Common Type 0 HE - 1,378 lbs. (625 kg)
Common Type 3 IS - 1,371 lbs. (622 kg)

So, there is San-Shiki for 14', and I do not see any special shrapnel ammunition type, besides San-Shiki.