AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Rainer]

A result of the FOW routines of the game.
Admittedly not very convincing in this case.

[PAWMatrix]

Hello,

I am making fixes to WPO and and decided to check in my copy of WitP AE.

My Source:
Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships 1922-1946

According to Conway's the class carried 42 mines in two mine layers in the rear.

Weapon Slot 3:

Num: 2 (Correct)
Turret: 1 (why not 2?)
Facing: Front (I believe to be rear)
Ammo: 21 (Correct)

PAW

[Shark7]

Scenoario 8: Ironman

the following ships have ammo errors:

102 'R' Class Weapon 6 20mm only has 01 ammo
103 'S" Class Weapon 6 20mm Only 01 ammo
105 'T' Class Weapon 6 20mm only 01 ammo

[PAWMatrix]

Hello,

Was poking around today.

Found the Tower Armor on Myoko Class to be zero.

I would expect it to be something.

PAW

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: PAWMatrix

Hello,

Was poking around today.

Found the Tower Armor on Myoko Class to be zero.

I would expect it to be something.

PAW

Then you'd better inform the designers and builders [:)] ... for a summary check out Lacroix's "Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War", page 809. The conning tower is unprotected. There is much more detail on other pages of this work.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: PAWMatrix

Hello,

Was poking around today.

Found the Tower Armor on Myoko Class to be zero.

I would expect it to be something.

PAW

What was the metacentric height of the Japanese cruisers? I know the Cleveland class was quite marginal (producing a risk of capsizing if damaged in battle) and topweight had to be managed very carefully.

I'm also aware UK inter-war design of the engine rooms was deficient, producing a real risk of capsizing (more than a half-dozen major warships during the war) if there was underwater damage that reached the engineering spaces.

[JWE]

Suggest looking at Joe's reference; Lacroix, Wells, 'Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War'. The summary data tables have it all, including GM, BM, BD, all the coefficients and all the ratios.

To answer the specific question, between 0.72m and 0.78m (design), depending on class.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JWE

Suggest looking at Joe's reference; Lacroix, Wells, 'Japanese Cruisers of the Pacific War'. The summary data tables have it all, including GM, BM, BD, all the coefficients and all the ratios.

To answer the specific question, between 0.72m and 0.78m (design), depending on class.

The book is £150 used!

Close to instability, but with the advantage of a slow roll.

YMMV.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: herwin
The book is £150 used!

Close to instability, but with the advantage of a slow roll.

YMMV.

If one wants good, real, info, one must pay for it.

0.72m is actually pretty darn good given the appropriate midship and prismatic, and GM has very little to do with roll rate. As I read the data, I would consider them stiff. If you want to know what the terms actually mean, how they are applied, and learn something about ship design in general, there are two good basic books, Skeene and Marchaj, that were written for introductory naval architecture students but are written in a way that a layperson can understand the concepts. I recommend them.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: herwin
The book is £150 used!

Close to instability, but with the advantage of a slow roll.

YMMV.

If one wants good, real, info, one must pay for it.

0.72m is actually pretty darn good given the appropriate midship and prismatic, and GM has very little to do with roll rate. As I read the data, I would consider them stiff. If you want to know what the terms actually mean, how they are applied, and learn something about ship design in general, there are two good basic books, Skeene and Marchaj, that were written for introductory naval architecture students but are written in a way that a layperson can understand the concepts. I recommend them.

Not my field. There are some relevant results in complex systems theory, including an important recent paper. Early American CAs had a larger GM due to their unexpectedly low displacement and a really nasty roll.

[jcjordan]

I saw where this was reported back a few pages ago but didn't see any reply from a dev if they noticed it. Some of the New Mexico class BB's have an update as well as a conversion in 10/43??? I couldn't tell the diff between the 2 as far as armament. I've got the Idaho that only shows the 10/43 upgrade but other NM class ships show the upgrade as well as a BB conversion. This is scen 1 started under original release & the post I saw it also mentioned under was scen 9 so I assume it might affect all scenarios. I'm not sure if this is a game stopper or just a minor irritant of either/or on the conversion vs upgrade.

[oldman45]

Off the top of my head, I think the coversion removes the casement guns while the upgrade does not. I think there are changes to the 5" DP also. If you look one adds more AAA then the other so I made the choice to go with more AAA

[jcjordan]

ORIGINAL: oldman45

Off the top of my head, I think the coversion removes the casement guns while the upgrade does not. I think there are changes to the 5" DP also. If you look one adds more AAA then the other so I made the choice to go with more AAA

I'll double check that to be sure since my game was started under original release, the db entries of the ships in my game might be different than current version. When I viewed the upgrade & conversion in the ship screen they looked the same but old timers disease flicks in on occasion.

[Buck Beach]

The devices 1622 through 1627 for the 5in/38 Mk 12 guns appear to have exactly the same data for each device. Are the different devices for this weapon only for aesthetics?

Please excuse me if this has previously been surfaced or explained, I searched like hell for another thread.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

The devices 1622 through 1627 for the 5in/38 Mk 12 guns appear to have exactly the same data for each device. Are the different devices for this weapon only for aesthetics?

Please excuse me if this has previously been surfaced or explained, I searched like hell for another thread.

I believe so. I thought JWE mentioned that once in the modding thread.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
The devices 1622 through 1627 for the 5in/38 Mk 12 guns appear to have exactly the same data for each device. Are the different devices for this weapon only for aesthetics?

Please excuse me if this has previously been surfaced or explained, I searched like hell for another thread.

I believe so. I thought JWE mentioned that once in the modding thread.

Yep. What Herrbear said. Sent you a pm.

[Stvitus2002]

After the 7/42 refit the aircraft capacity is reduced to zero. Is intended?

Leander and Achilles

Also,after the 7/42 refit the forward turrets have ammo reduced to 10. WAD?




WO 0/0

[Speedysteve]

Hi all,
 
This may be WAD but I've noticed that the 1/43 upgrades for Dutch KXVI class subs (Radar upgrades/AA changes) don't incur any time/refit delay in port.
 
Thought I'd bring it up since all the US Fleet Class subs require over a week for refit.

[fjmeyer]

re.:

"There is another small photo of HMIS Barracuda at the bottom of this webpage. "

http://www.hongkongescape.org/Kukong.htm

""
The H.T. "Heinrich Jessen" under her 31 year old master Georg Hansen R.I.N.R. was the last ship to leave Rangoon, sailing out with members of the 2nd MTB Flotilla from Hong Kong through the Japanese war ships coming in.
""

See:

http://global-mariner.com/index111JacobJebsen.html

His full name is: Georg Rhod Hansen
and he is my grandfather.

/Frans

[JWE]

Because of the scope of the stock game, it is difficult to accommodate requests for individual ships. However, Barracuda, ex Heinrich Jessen, is represented in DaBabes. That is what DaBabes is all about.

Since you mention your grandfather, Frans, we will be pleased to add Georg Rhod Hansen as the skipper to this vessel. Thank you for the photo links, it helps us determine just what kind of ship she was and lets us make DaBabes just a bit more correct.

Again, thank you very much.