"Scraps of Paper - in a World on Fire" Scenario 127

[RyanCrierie]

There is also 68MB of Ship Art that is too big for the forum, so I will have to figure out a way to give folks access to it.

I can provide hosting. Just PM me, but it may take a bit to get back to you on this as I'm very busy lately. [X(]

[Admiral DadMan]

Thank you Ryan.

I opened a dropbox account.

ORIGINAL: RyanCrierie

There is also 68MB of Ship Art that is too big for the forum, so I will have to figure out a way to give folks access to it.

I can provide hosting. Just PM me, but it may take a bit to get back to you on this as I'm very busy lately. [X(]

[Admiral DadMan]

So it seems that I created an issue modding torpedo bomber loadouts to specify alternate ordinance for Naval Attack missions. I read the following threads:

Aircraft Loads

Mark 17 Depth Charge

I am experiencing the "torpedo bomber naval attack double weapon loadout" issue described earlier in this thread: Post #1

To test the issue, I set Lexington and Enterprise in separate TFs in the same hex. Enterprise carries torpedoes, Lexington does not in order to test what happens when no torps are available here is what I get:

Lexington:
6 Hexes/Naval Attack/Use Torpedos/10000ft
*12 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 10000 feet * Naval Attack: 1 x 250 lb SAP Bomb, 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

6 Hexes/Naval Attack/Use Bombs/10000ft
*10 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 10000 feet * Naval Attack: 1 x 250 lb SAP Bomb, 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

3 Hexes/Naval Attack/Use Torpedos/10000ft
*9 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 10000 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

3 Hexes/Naval Attack/Use Bombs/10000ft
*8 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 10000 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb


Enterprise:
6 Hexes/Naval Attack/Use Torpedos/10000ft
*14 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 10000 feet * Naval Attack: 1 x 250 lb SAP Bomb, 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

6 Hexes/Naval Attack/Use Bombs/10000ft
*11 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 10000 feet * Naval Attack: 1 x 250 lb SAP Bomb, 1 x 500 lb SAP Bomb

3 Hexes/Naval Attack/Use Torpedos/10000ft
*9 x TBD-1 Devastator launching torpedoes at 200 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 22.5in Mk13 AerTorp, 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

3 Hexes/Naval Attack/Use Bombs/10000ft
*11 x TBD-1 Devastator bombing from 10000 feet Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Even looking at "Alt Device"/"Alt Use" settings here "ALT USE" device data field didn't alleviate the problem.

I have been forced to allow the underlying code to auto select the *n (alt_nav) ordinance.

[Admiral DadMan]

So the above issue is created by a hard-coded torpedo replacement algorithm that creates anomalies if you attempt to override it. I've elected to leave well enough alone and revert to standard loadouts.

Additionally, I've been re-thinking the Yorktown/Enterprise and Wasp/Hornet genesis.

In the current timeline, Yorktown/Enterprise (24,700 tons each) and Wasp (19,900 tons) are derived from having 69,300 tons left available for carrier building. It was initially interesting to be able to design/implement the larger Yorktown concept, but I'm now finding myself considering reverting to the 19,900 Yorktowns and allowing both Wasp and Hornet to be built earlier as a 14,500 Wasp class, giving the USN 4 carriers under treaty instead of 3.

It has me re-thinking the current timelines of arrival for most of the US carriers:

CVB-Langley -(Jan42)
CV-Lexington -(In theater)
CV-Saratoga -(San Diego)
CVL-Ranger -(Norfolk)
CV-Yorktown -(Mar42)
CV-Enterprise -(In theater)
CV-Wasp -(June42)
CV-Hornet -(July42)

Move to:
CVB-Langley -(Jun42 fitting out after re-construction)
CV-Lexington -(In theater)
CVB-Saratoga -(Dec42 being re-constructed)
CVL-Ranger -(Norfolk)
CV-Yorktown -(San Diego)
CV-Enterprise -(In theater)
CVL-Wasp -(Jan42)
CVL-Hornet -(Mar42)

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

So the above issue is created by a hard-coded torpedo replacement algorithm that creates anomalies if you attempt to override it. I've elected to leave well enough alone and revert to standard loadouts.

I think all of us have fallen victim to that particular piece of code during our modding attempts.

[8D][8D][8D]

[Admiral DadMan]

So I was talking with Alfred and Big B about this, and we were all struggling to sort this.

Then about 45 minutes ago, I had a thought...

What if I changed the aircraft type from "Torpedo Bomber" to "Level Bomber"

BINGO!!! Works like a charm. All weapons available in their intended modes. AND I play-tested this solution to make sure it worked.

BRILLIANT!!

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

So the above issue is created by a hard-coded torpedo replacement algorithm that creates anomalies if you attempt to override it. I've elected to leave well enough alone and revert to standard loadouts.

I think all of us have fallen victim to that particular piece of code during our modding attempts.

[8D][8D][8D]

[Alfred]

The game hard codes centreline to be a single hardpoint.  This creates some initial unexpected results for torpedo bombers who have the option to carry either a centreline torpedo or a centreline drop tank.  The hard coding means though the database shows both are possible, only one device can in fact be carried and that one is dependent on the player's choice of mission and range.  Checking the actual ordnance carried for the assigned mission shows exactly what will be carried.
 
Modders can either elect to have an aircraft which lacks drop tanks or elect to carry the 02 filter device (and by definition the 04 filter device) either as an internal or external device.  To have it centreline seems to override the hardcoded either/or limitation.
 
Alfred

[Admiral DadMan]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

The game hard codes centreline to be a single hardpoint.  This creates some initial unexpected results for torpedo bombers who have the option to carry either a centreline torpedo or a centreline drop tank.  The hard coding means though the database shows both are possible, only one device can in fact be carried and that one is dependent on the player's choice of mission and range.  Checking the actual ordnance carried for the assigned mission shows exactly what will be carried.

Modders can either elect to have an aircraft which lacks drop tanks or elect to carry the 02 filter device (and by definition the 04 filter device) either as an internal or external device.  To have it centreline seems to override the hardcoded either/or limitation.

Alfred

In my testing, I based my work on what you've stated above. In this instance, I was using the USN's TBD-1 Devastator torpedo plane. This aircraft carries its ordinance Centerline, but does not use a drop tank.

In widely various permutations and conditions, I did not find that the weapons' facing ("Centerline" vs "Internal" vs "External") in any combination made any difference to the filters working properly when having a torpedo on a torpedo bomber, in that undesired/unexpected results were produced in every weapon facing and combination thereof that I used that involved a torpedo on a torpedo bomber.

When I took the torpedo off the torpedo bomber, I could get the results I desired and expected.

That being said, once I changed the "Type" setting from "Torpedo Bomber" to "Level Bomber", I got the desired and expected results when a torpedo was involved regardless of weapons' type or facing.

One caveat: I did not test this solution with drop tanks; that will require further exploration. The USN's TBF Avenger series carries its ordinance Internal and its drop tanks External. It had the same problem that the TBD's did when I first encountered this problem.

[Admiral DadMan]

And then just as easy as that, I somehow stuffed up the works, and now cannot replicate yesterday's results. So, I begin again...

In other news, I have come to a decision on how US carriers will evolve and arrive.

US Carrier Air Group Sizes and Carrier Capacities
Each carrier (and the squadrons on that ship) will be limited in capacity at the start, and will grow during the first six months so as to more historically reflect how the US grew their airgroups over time as operational doctrine changed. Air group sizes will also morph in size as doctrine dictates and technology (folding wings) allows.

Carrier Capacity:
Dec41 -69
Jan42 -72
Mar42 -78
July42 -88
Mar43 -90

US Carrier Design Evolution
I decided to get off the fantasy carousel with the nearly Essex-sized 24,700 ton Yorktown class, which is really unfortunate because I really liked the art that I created for them:


They will revert to their original 19,900 ton design. They felt a little too game-breaking with near-Essex-size and nearly 100 aircraft.

Reverting to the historical Yorktown and Enterprise freed up treaty tonnage for two 14,700 ton Wasp designs (Wasp, Hornet). Having two carriers available to be built under treaty in turn helps to the story line of the rebuild of the former battlecruiser-turned-training carrier AG United States into CVB Langley, which provides the template for the ability of future rebuilds of the Lexington class. Building smaller carriers also lends more credibility to the CLV/CF building program as well.

Historically, while Wasp was well along on the building ways, consideration was given to upgrade her powerplant to increase her speed from barely 29 knots to well over 32 knots. It was rejected for her (and Ranger) due to the exorbitant cost which was also politically indefensible. In game, the upgraded power plant is incorporated early into the plans for Hornet at minimal cost, but Wasp must come back to the shipyard for 4-5 months to have the work done at a time of the player's choosing.

US Carrier Deployment

CVB-Langley -(Apr42 fitting out after re-construction)
CV-Lexington -(In theater)
CV-Saratoga -(San Diego fitting out)
CVL-Ranger -(Norfolk)
CV-Yorktown -(Norfolk)
CV-Enterprise -(In theater)
CVL-Wasp -(June42)
CV-Hornet -(June42)

The early availability of Ranger will offset Japan having 2 additional Ryujo class CVL's at the start of the game (and lets me add some historical flavor. I like my history tasty). Langley arrives where Hornet historically did in April 1942, and Hornet arrives with Wasp in June 1942.

[Admiral DadMan]

Ok, I THINK I have the torpedo replacement issue solved:

[Dili]

Can you confirm it works? it goes to anything i have read about including correspondence between slots 11-20 and 0-10

[Admiral DadMan]

Here are my test results. So far, so good.

Note: The letter "E" in "Devastator" was added on purpose by me for identification purposes.
Caveat: This is only for NO drop tanks:

Extended range, torpedoes
Morning Air attack on TF, near French Frigate Shoal at 171,101
15 x TBD-1 DevastatorE bombing from 10000 feet *
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Extended range, torpedoes
Afternoon Air attack on Mili , at 136,121
12 x TBD-1 DevastatorE bombing from 10000 feet *
Port Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Normal range, torpedoes
Morning Air attack on TF, near French Frigate Shoal at 171,101
15 x TBD-1 DevastatorE launching torpedoes at 200 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 22in Mk13 AerTorp

Normal range, bombs
Morning Air attack on Mili , at 136,121
11 x TBD-1 DevastatorE bombing from 10000 feet
Port Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Normal range, bombs
Morning Air attack on TF, near French Frigate Shoal at 171,101
15 x TBD-1 DevastatorE bombing from 10000 feet
Naval Attack: 1 x 1000 lb SAP Bomb

Normal range, bombs
Morning Air attack on 51st Naval Guard Unit, at 136,125 (Makin)
11 x TBD-1 DevastatorE bombing from 10000 feet *
Ground Attack: 1 x 1000 lb GP Bomb

[Dili]

Indeed so far so good. If there ant change please report it. What you discovered fixes the torpedo bomb issue.



Edit:
Can you do a city attack in normal range(value 1)? i see the sum of your numbers(excluding ASW) is not 63 but 62 in normal range.

In extended range your sum is 59 in theory you should not be able to do an alternate naval attack(value 4) - let's suppose we are talking about a B-26 and we have a torpedo in normal range and in extended range too, in theory you should not be able to do a naval attack with bombs in extended range.

[Admiral DadMan]

There is possibly a drop tank issue. Having difficulty getting Avengers to Naval attack beyond 8 hexes.

[Dili]

Repeat of above edit in case you don't notice:


Can you do a city attack in normal range(value 1)? i see the sum of your numbers(excluding ASW) is not 63 but 62 in normal range. In theory it should not be possible.

In extended range your sum is 59 in theory you should not be able to do an alternate naval attack(value 4) - let's suppose we are talking about a B-26 and we have a torpedo in normal range and in extended range too, in theory you should not be able to do a naval attack with bombs in extended range.

[Admiral DadMan]

I am using 41 (Ground, Airfield, City) in both Normal and Extended.

[Dili]

My mistake you have 63 in normal range that should be okay 2+20+41. It is the extended range were your sum does not reach 63. Misses the alternate naval.

[Admiral DadMan]

You're asking about permutations I'm not thinking about. There's only so much you can do, and so many slots to work with. And I wouldn't program an aircraft to carry at torp at extended range.

Extended Range does not reach 63 because without a torpedo there is no need for the 4 filter (*n Alt_Naval)

[Dili]

Yes i understand but in case of a B-26 like i posted above:

2000kg bombs normal range can take a torpedo
1000kg extended range still have weight available to take a torpedo.

But it is great you have found this, most medium bombers can only take a torpedo at normal range.

[Admiral DadMan]

If you're programming a torpedo at Extended range, then I would say that the same formulas used for Normal range would work