Allies Set-up Spreadsheet for AE

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Moltrey

ORIGINAL: Kull

ORIGINAL: Moltrey

First, in column G you can see in the heading "Cargo: Supply & Fuel" and all I have done is use the common color of creme to highlight the Unit Model/Type data, such as Euro L Cargo, etc. You can quickly see that both of the Euro L Cargo ships in Tjilatjap, Java need a port of size 2 minimum to dock for loading and unloading.

Second, in column K, denoted by the creme color, where "n" is the size port+ the ship can be docked. This helps me quickly scan the spreadsheet page and determine which ships are best suited for certain jobs during my setup phase.

Yes, very helpful! Feel free to post a link, should you so desire. I can then edit the first post and point to it.

Kull, I would need to go back and re-enter the info, etc. into your raw spreadsheet file and save it as an alternate version. No big deal as right now I am at home convalescing from a left shoulder biceps tendon tear surgery.

Shouldn't take that long. The other reason is I have moved units around to fit AndyMac's modified Scenario 1, so things would not match up and my own planned moves are in there.
If I have the spreadsheet file, what is the best way to make it available on the forum, upload or a link to an external site?

Yikes, good luck with the rehab - that's no fun! As for the file, no hurry. When you can, zip it and upload to matrix - should be small enough. And having the new Andy bases in there is another bonus. I'm sure folks will appreciate that.

[RangerJoe]

Ouch. I have had my left wrist broken while at the same time a right upper chest muscle tear. I could not lift much with my left hand and I could not reach far nor carry much with my right arm. But at least I did not lose any more body parts . . . [:)]

[Moltrey]

Thanks for the well-wishes gents.
Kull:
I need someone's help with testing an anomaly I just encountered regarding AndyMac's Scenario 1. While working on the stuff we are currently referring to... I came across some ship entries in Pearl that I had not entered the tonnage "n" numbers for yet. Fired up the game to check actual ship tonnages.
The issue is that for whatever reason, I cannot find the C2 Lassen AE Mauna Loa... anywhere. In Andy's scenarios (and I tried a few alternatives) she is just flat-out missing. Not in PH. Not under repair. Not in the coming reinforcements or active ships list. Not in any existing TF or sunk ships list.

What I would like you to do if you can, is fire up a Stock Scenario 1 in AE and see if the Mauna Loa is present at Pearl like I believe she should be to verify that Andy needs to make a correction in the scenarios.
Thanks!
And I didn't anticipate working in all the new bases, but I can put it on the list Kull!
Appreciate the help.

Oh, and I suppose it would be helpful if you could fire up an AndyMac scenario 1 game to verify the Mauna Loa is missing in your game too.

[Kull]

AE Mauna Loa is definitely in Pearl for the stock scenarios (at least the official Patch 07 updates), and even his Scen102 Ironman

[Moltrey]

Alright. Thanks for checking. I will go over to his thread and ask that he check the Scenario 1 to see whether it is there and somehow my files got corrupted (although I don't know how) or if the ship is indeed missing from PH.

[Kull]

I checked his Scen1 v5 (the latest) and yes, it is missing from Pearl......because the arrival date is now 1943:

Edit: Definitely some confusion. There was a cargo ship named Mauna Loa, and that was sunk at Darwin - which is the "sunk date" on the attached record. The AE Mauna Loa is a different ship and it arrived in the Pacific in January 1944.

In short, there shouldn't be ANY ship named Mauna Loa at Pearl Harbor on 12/7!

[Moltrey]

Wow... so the standard scenario has the glitch, not Andy. Huh.

Well, that is a development I wouldn't have anticipated.
Could you go to the AndyMac thread and post this stuff for him to see so he doesn't do a wild goose chase on my post?
Thanks and good catch Kull!

P.S. I'd would like to double check on this... but I am almost certain that in my AndyMac v5 game as Allies, there is NO Mauna Loa, period. Not in 1944 or elsewhere on the list of AEs for the campaign. So, I think he still needs an adjustment, just later than I thought initially.

[RangerJoe]

Just edit your post.

Maybe this is the result of the confusion where two different ships have the same name. That could be fun in the editor if a person makes a scenario with all of a certain class of ship with the same name.[;)] I mean, could you image the fun?[:D]

[Moltrey]

Good suggestion, will do it now. I did go into my current v5 AndyMac Allied game. The Mauna Loa isn't there in any list, or even a 1944 addition, neither AE or AK categories.
Edit for some ship info:

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Just edit your post.

Maybe this is the result of the confusion where two different ships have the same name. That could be fun in the editor if a person makes a scenario with all of a certain class of ship with the same name.[;)] I mean, could you image the fun?[:D]

There are two CLs named Birmingham - one British and one US ...

[RangerJoe]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Just edit your post.

Maybe this is the result of the confusion where two different ships have the same name. That could be fun in the editor if a person makes a scenario with all of a certain class of ship with the same name.[;)] I mean, could you image the fun?[:D]

There are two CLs named Birmingham - one British and one US ...

But think if the Japanese carriers were all renamed to "Yo'Mama!"

[Kull]

Moltrey made a small improvement to the Allies spreadsheet which provides minimum port docking sizes for individual ships and also identifies those cargo ships which have a fuel carrying component, as described in this post:

ORIGINAL: Moltrey

Kull:
I wanted to show you a small Mod I put together on your exemplary Setup spreadsheet.

It adds a couple pieces of logistical info explained below from another thread.

I modified Kull's AE Allied Setup Spreadsheet last fall by adding my own cargo ship minimum port size in column K and a designation for what I call "Dual Cargo" ships (both supply and fuel capacity) in column G.
Here is a pic of the Tjilatjap, Java portion of it:




First, in column G you can see in the heading "Cargo: Supply & Fuel" and all I have done is use the common color of creme to highlight the Unit Model/Type data, such as Euro L Cargo, etc. You can quickly see that both of the Euro L Cargo ships in Tjilatjap, Java need a port of size 2 minimum to dock for loading and unloading.

Second, in column K, denoted by the creme color, where "n" is the size port+ the ship can be docked. This helps me quickly scan the spreadsheet page and determine which ships are best suited for certain jobs during my setup phase.

His revised spreadsheet is available for download in the link below:

ORIGINAL: Moltrey

Kull:
I finished the stock Allied Scenario 1 modifications to your file.
Note I have not done any changes to your other tabs, so there are no descriptors of the additions, etc., I left that up to you.
Still working on the AndyMac Scenario 1 changes, including the new bases. Might take a while.
Cheers!

Moltrey Mod

Not sure this link is setup correctly, let me know.

I tested the link and it works fine. A nice update, highly recommended.

[Mock726]

Been working my way through the Allied setup spreadsheet. Very, very helpful.

I am curious why aircraft performing training only all have their range set at 0. What effect does that have versus leaving it at normal or extended range. Do planes on training get shot down if their radius takes them over enemy bases? Burn less fuel, cause less crew fatigue?

And on the issue of training the spreadsheet says to set some cruiser float planes to 100% training when their ship is already in the battle zone, British and Dutch cruiser around Singapore and Borneo for example. Does a day or two of training yield any improvement? Not to mention the need to remember to change them into ASW or Naval Search later.

[Alfred]

It is one of the great and most persistent AE urban myths. There is no real useful benefit from training at range 0.

Alfred

[Moltrey]

Alfred:
I thought that it would somewhat reduce the chance of a training flight getting the dreaded "Training flight XXX is caught up in battle at YYZ" combat result if they didn't stray from their base.
Obviously the chance is calculated differently then.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: Mock726

Been working my way through the Allied setup spreadsheet. Very, very helpful.

I am curious why aircraft performing training only all have their range set at 0. What effect does that have versus leaving it at normal or extended range. Do planes on training get shot down if their radius takes them over enemy bases? Burn less fuel, cause less crew fatigue?

And on the issue of training the spreadsheet says to set some cruiser float planes to 100% training when their ship is already in the battle zone, British and Dutch cruiser around Singapore and Borneo for example. Does a day or two of training yield any improvement? Not to mention the need to remember to change them into ASW or Naval Search later.

I will say that in umpteen zillion years of game play, I've never lost a single plane or pilot when training range is set to zero (which is not remotely realistic, of course, but there it is). There may be other factors at work, and perhaps increased range offers other benefits, but none that I'm aware of.

As for the war zone cruiser pilots set to train, it's probably a mix of factors - poor individual search skills, closeness to enemy bases (with the risk of being shot down by CAP), overlapping coverage from other Naval/ASW search, or some combination of the above.

[RangerJoe]

I have lost planes while the unit is in training only when they get caught up in a fight.

When I set the training range to "0" then there is very little fatigue.

[Alfred]

The training mishap rate is set very low and almost nothing which a player does will noticeably result in increased number of mishaps.

Originally the mishap rate was set much higher and player settings could complement the malus associated with training. This however proved to be very unpopular with the beta testers and the decision was made to apply a ridiculously low rate.

The concern about fatigue is simply not warranted. A combination of not exceeding the normal range of the aircraft model and filling the pilot roster to 133% would result in regular pilot rotation. Remember that training is not limited only to pilots with an aircraft. Pilot fatigue is only really relevant on combat missions.

I too have zillions of AE hours with training set to a range not exceeding the aircraft's normal range and I can't recall the last training mishap. It really doesn't matter if a pilot in training has a fatigue level of 20 or 30.

Alfred

[RangerJoe]

Trainees are supposed to be tired. If they are not tired, then they are not training hard enough.[:D]

[tomeck48]

Per your instructions I am trying to set up an AWS TF in Dutch Harbor. YP72 is supposed to go to 168,51, then to 169,47 and return to DH. How and where do I turn on the hex coordinates?

2 Week rookie.