Hi all: Just a few bugs
v2.0 41 campaign PBEM non-historical 1st turn. Loaded entire Jap division (located in Tokyo) on several different transports, to invade wake. Only 9 squads made it, and rest of division disappeared.
v2.1 Jap aircraft attack MTBs with only cannon.
v2.1 41 campaign PBEM non-historical 1st turn. Some Jap CLs have 40 Type 93 torpedo tubes.
Is there any way we can get an "undo" button to correct stupid mistakes just made?
More bugs
Ver 2.1 bug noticed:
I started the '41 campaign as the US and evac'd a US Marine Reg from Bataan on the second turn. In the course of the evac, all the transports were sunk. However, when I do a "find units", the reg still shows up as being in the sunk task force. If I select that sunk task force the cursor goes to an empty spot on the map...
Otherwise, great game!
Rat Face
I started the '41 campaign as the US and evac'd a US Marine Reg from Bataan on the second turn. In the course of the evac, all the transports were sunk. However, when I do a "find units", the reg still shows up as being in the sunk task force. If I select that sunk task force the cursor goes to an empty spot on the map...
Otherwise, great game!
Rat Face
I ran into a problem like the one mentioned regarding LCUs. I mentioned this in another string. I was playing non-historical allies; loaded up the Brit 18th and a couple of Indian Brigades, everything went fine. Start of next week checked the transports, only 9 squads from each formation present. It was v2.1.
Two Japanese CLs have this large torpedo armament; the Kitakami and Oi. The web site "combinedfleet.com" has excellent coverage of the IJN. This site states that one of the two only had 32 tubes; can't remember which one though. Both ships were in the Northern Pacific, and didn't have an opportunity to let loose with their salvos.
Two Japanese CLs have this large torpedo armament; the Kitakami and Oi. The web site "combinedfleet.com" has excellent coverage of the IJN. This site states that one of the two only had 32 tubes; can't remember which one though. Both ships were in the Northern Pacific, and didn't have an opportunity to let loose with their salvos.
Regarding PT boats and Torpedo Boats.
In looking into the innards - the boat listed as a MTB and the Torpedo Boats should be switched. The Torpedo Boats - IJN vessels - are in the game slots normally assigned to the MTB's and are thus getting the boats produced and added to the production pool. The MTB slot is really an IJN slot, evidently. All I know is that if you have an editor and can reverse the slots in Bear's editor (both the ship class slots and the individual ship slots the game works better with the MTB's - which come in handy in the Solomon's and the SWPac.
God Bless;
Rev. Rick.
------------------
tincanman
In looking into the innards - the boat listed as a MTB and the Torpedo Boats should be switched. The Torpedo Boats - IJN vessels - are in the game slots normally assigned to the MTB's and are thus getting the boats produced and added to the production pool. The MTB slot is really an IJN slot, evidently. All I know is that if you have an editor and can reverse the slots in Bear's editor (both the ship class slots and the individual ship slots the game works better with the MTB's - which come in handy in the Solomon's and the SWPac.
God Bless;
Rev. Rick.
------------------
tincanman
"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4909
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Concerning the 40 tubes on Kitakami and Oi, my Jane's Warships of WWII states that both "were converted again before the concept could be tested in action". If this was the case, their number of tubes in PacWar should be reduced to the amount of the other Kuma class CLs.
---------------------------------------------
I'm retiring towards the enemy ...
[This message has been edited by LargeSlowTarget (edited October 12, 2000).]
---------------------------------------------
I'm retiring towards the enemy ...
[This message has been edited by LargeSlowTarget (edited October 12, 2000).]
I am having serious problems with disappearing LCU and Task Forces, the problems seem related. This is much worse then in Ver 2.0. I am playing the Japanese in Historical 1941 campaign. Attempted to load a division in Takao for invasion at Lingayan and it disapears. Look for the TF and it is in Nevada?Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget:
Concerning the 40 tubes on Kitakami and Oi, my Jane's Warships of WWII states that both "were converted again before the concept could be tested in action". If this was the case, their number of tubes in PacWar should be reduced to the amount of the other Kuma class CLs.
BTW, Taylor's Japanese Warships shows that in 1943 the Kitikami was converted to carry Kaiten suicide Subs. All of the Torpedo Tubes removed, deck cut down and subs placed on main deck. I don't know how you model that in PacWar.
Concerning the Kitakami and Ooi:
The Kitakami was modified at the Sasebo Navy Yard 25 August - 25 December 1941, and the Ooi was modified at the Maizuru Navy Yard 25 August - 30 September 1941. The number of torpedo-tube sets was ten quadruple Type 92 torpedo-tube mounts for both with no reserve torpedoes, but a rail system with centerline crossings allowed the transfer of torpedoes between the mounts.
On 20th November 1941 both cruisers were assigned to Sentai 9, attached to the Combined Fleet. After her recommissioning the Ooi moved from Maizuru to Kure and trained in the area; the Kitakami set out from Sasebo on 27 December, joining the Ooi at Kure for training.
During August and September 1942 they were modified as fast transports for reinforcement operations in the southern areas. They lost the four aftermost torpedo-tube mounts, reducing their number to six quadruple mounts leaving only twenty-four torpedoes.
Afterwards they landed the Maizuru No.4 SNLF on Shortland on the 6th October.
In December they brought reinforcements from Manila to Rabaul.
In December they were overhauled in homewaters. During January and February 1943 they took part in bringing the 20th Inf Div and 41st Inf Div from Korea and northern China to Wewak.
In the following months they conducted several transport duties in the southwestern area.
In may 1943 further conversion to fast transports was planned but not executed.
The Ooi was sunk on 19th July 1944 in the South China Sea by two torpedoes form USS Flasher.
The Kitakami was modified as a kaiten carrier from 14 August 1944 - 20 January 1945 in Sasebo. The entire armament was replaced by two twin Type 89 12.7-cm HA-gun mounts fore and aft and sixty-seven Type 96 25-mm mg mounts. Eight Model 1 kaiten could be stowed to port and starboard on rails. They could be launched over the stern, whose shape was modified for that purpose. To handle the kaiten a 30-ton derrick, removed form the seaplane tender Chitose during her conversion to a carrier, was fitted on the strengthend mainmast.
Kitakami stayed in the Inland Sea and was mainly used for training of the Kaiten Special Attack Units. Lack of fuel prevented any sortie against the U.S. forces off Okinawa. She received twenty-seven more Type 96 25-mm single mg mounts in the first days of July.
On 24 July aircraft of Task Force 38 attacked the Kure area. Kitakami sustained about ten near misses and additional damage from strafing. She could not move under her own power any more.
Finally she was scrapped at the Mitsubishi yard 1 October 1946 - 1 April 1947.
I think that answers the most questions.
Greetings, Marc
The Kitakami was modified at the Sasebo Navy Yard 25 August - 25 December 1941, and the Ooi was modified at the Maizuru Navy Yard 25 August - 30 September 1941. The number of torpedo-tube sets was ten quadruple Type 92 torpedo-tube mounts for both with no reserve torpedoes, but a rail system with centerline crossings allowed the transfer of torpedoes between the mounts.
On 20th November 1941 both cruisers were assigned to Sentai 9, attached to the Combined Fleet. After her recommissioning the Ooi moved from Maizuru to Kure and trained in the area; the Kitakami set out from Sasebo on 27 December, joining the Ooi at Kure for training.
During August and September 1942 they were modified as fast transports for reinforcement operations in the southern areas. They lost the four aftermost torpedo-tube mounts, reducing their number to six quadruple mounts leaving only twenty-four torpedoes.
Afterwards they landed the Maizuru No.4 SNLF on Shortland on the 6th October.
In December they brought reinforcements from Manila to Rabaul.
In December they were overhauled in homewaters. During January and February 1943 they took part in bringing the 20th Inf Div and 41st Inf Div from Korea and northern China to Wewak.
In the following months they conducted several transport duties in the southwestern area.
In may 1943 further conversion to fast transports was planned but not executed.
The Ooi was sunk on 19th July 1944 in the South China Sea by two torpedoes form USS Flasher.
The Kitakami was modified as a kaiten carrier from 14 August 1944 - 20 January 1945 in Sasebo. The entire armament was replaced by two twin Type 89 12.7-cm HA-gun mounts fore and aft and sixty-seven Type 96 25-mm mg mounts. Eight Model 1 kaiten could be stowed to port and starboard on rails. They could be launched over the stern, whose shape was modified for that purpose. To handle the kaiten a 30-ton derrick, removed form the seaplane tender Chitose during her conversion to a carrier, was fitted on the strengthend mainmast.
Kitakami stayed in the Inland Sea and was mainly used for training of the Kaiten Special Attack Units. Lack of fuel prevented any sortie against the U.S. forces off Okinawa. She received twenty-seven more Type 96 25-mm single mg mounts in the first days of July.
On 24 July aircraft of Task Force 38 attacked the Kure area. Kitakami sustained about ten near misses and additional damage from strafing. She could not move under her own power any more.
Finally she was scrapped at the Mitsubishi yard 1 October 1946 - 1 April 1947.
I think that answers the most questions.
Greetings, Marc
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LargeSlowTarget:
Concerning the 40 tubes on Kitakami and Oi, my Jane's Warships of WWII states that both "were converted again before the concept could be tested in action". If this was the case, their number of tubes in PacWar should be reduced to the amount of the other Kuma class CLs.
Jane's is often wrong on details. This is because the info printed is the best guestimate from the actual time period vs. modern day sources which could cross reference
Concerning the 40 tubes on Kitakami and Oi, my Jane's Warships of WWII states that both "were converted again before the concept could be tested in action". If this was the case, their number of tubes in PacWar should be reduced to the amount of the other Kuma class CLs.
Jane's is often wrong on details. This is because the info printed is the best guestimate from the actual time period vs. modern day sources which could cross reference
-
LargeSlowTarget
- Posts: 4909
- Joined: Sat Sep 23, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Good point. Seems I trust too much in my edition of Jane's "Warships of WWII" - which was first published in 1996. Should be a modern source itself. 50 years not enough time for cross reference, he?Originally posted by Nikademus:
Jane's is often wrong on details. This is because the info printed is the best guestimate from the actual time period vs. modern day sources which could cross reference
[/B]
---------------------------------------------
"Attack, REPEAT, attack" (well known US Admiral, aggressiveness "9" in PacWar...)
[This message has been edited by LargeSlowTarget (edited October 13, 2000).]
VCR seems to be missing a few events. Missed my Marines giving up Wake and Doorman the Flying Dutchman sinking a few IJN Transports In one turn....I know it is in the battle report but those would have been nice to see.Plus there are things that just dont show up on battle reports.
------------------
I HATE LONG LANCE TORPEDOES!
>>Good point. Seems I trust too much in my edition of Jane's "Warships of WWII" - which was first published in 1996. Should be a modern source itself. 50 years not enough time for cross reference, he? <<
Janes Warships of WWII is just a reprint of the 1946/47 edition of Janes. A better source (though not perfect) is Conways All the Worlds Warships 1922-1946.
<<Janes Warships of WWII is just a reprint of the 1946/47 edition of Janes. A better source (though not perfect) is Conways All the Worlds Warships 1922-1946.
Playing the Guadacanal scenario in 2.1 I've been unable to transfer ships from a TF to port. Can transfer from one TF to another. Had to resort to forming a new TF, transfering ships to it then disbanding. But this takes pp.
P.S. The nest two times I tried this the ships appear to have vanished. Am now nervous about all transfers and am tending to save the game a lot.
[This message has been edited by Paul Dyer (edited October 15, 2000).]
P.S. The nest two times I tried this the ships appear to have vanished. Am now nervous about all transfers and am tending to save the game a lot.
[This message has been edited by Paul Dyer (edited October 15, 2000).]
"It is also possible that blondes prefer gentlemen"