AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[JuanG]

Some questions regarding the shipclass database;

1) To my knowledge CA-37/38/39/44 (Tuscaloosa onwards New Orleans class) were armed with the 8in/55 Mk12, not the 8in/55 Mk9 like in the database.

2) The same 8in/55 Mk12 is listed as having an effect ("shell weight") of 335lbs. The 335lbs shells were only issued to the Baltimore class onwards. Thus there should be two versions of this gun, one with the standard 260lbs shell for the early CAs and one with the heavy 335lbs shell for the Baltimores.

3) The IJN 12.7cm/50 devices appear to be incorrectly assigned to some of the DDs.
-Fubuki(I) should be all Type A (#1668)
-Fubuki(II) and (III) should be all Type B (#1669)
-Hatsuharu should be Type B for duals (#1669), Type A single (#1672)
-Shiratsuyu should be Type C for duals (#1670), Type B single (#1673)
-Asashio and Kagero should be all Type C (#1670)
-Yugumo and Shimakaze should be all Type D (#1671)

Some of these are correct ingame, most are not. Worth checking.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

IMHO, the designers have played God in this, and too many other areas, it should be up to us to choose our fates. There argument for the ability for KB to stay on station is exactly opposite to this. What if the commander of the Miineapolis TF decides to head for San Diego?? Instead, he is stranded in port.

Can always change it in the editor, of course.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Some questions regarding the shipclass database;

Hello Juan,

There are a gazillion devices that are listed, but not really used or differentiated. The device list represents a starting point for lots of our “I think this would be cool” possibilities that didn’t get done for one reason or another (mostly time). Thus:

The Japanese 12.7cm all have the same specs except one is a DP Gun, for use in HA turrets, one is a Nav Gun. That’s about it. Single or Twin don’t matter because that is done with # Turrets in the Class file. So there are really only two 12.7cm guns (DP & Nav). The rest was potential (gee, if we got the time, wouldn’t it be great to …. ).

Same with the 8in. We picked the device named Mk-9 to represent the 260, and the device named Mk-12 to represent the 335. Data was primary, “name” was secondary.

There are a lot of cool names, and cool descriptions, and we wish we coulda used them all and made a hundred more as well, but they are just text.

Please don’t think this is disparaging you comments. Certainly NOT my intention. Just trying to explain why something be what it be. I think you give good info, and it’s excellent grist for a mod. Maybe we can do something, maybe not, don’t know, but don’t be discouraged.

Ciao. John

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Monter_Trismegistos
Do ACM need to be in TF to maintain a minefield - or being disbanded in port is enough?

Disbanded in port. Don't work when in a TF.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Nice distinction. I'll quit asking questions, I sure don't want to bother you.

No way!. I want all the questions I can get. Just not the same one too many times please.

And get snarled at because I asked a question someone else might have? No thank you. It will be easier to just forget about it or work it out myself.

OK, if you feel I snarled at you, goodbye.

[JuanG]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Some questions regarding the shipclass database;

Hello Juan,

There are a gazillion devices that are listed, but not really used or differentiated. The device list represents a starting point for lots of our “I think this would be cool” possibilities that didn’t get done for one reason or another (mostly time). Thus:

The Japanese 12.7cm all have the same specs except one is a DP Gun, for use in HA turrets, one is a Nav Gun. That’s about it. Single or Twin don’t matter because that is done with # Turrets in the Class file. So there are really only two 12.7cm guns (DP & Nav). The rest was potential (gee, if we got the time, wouldn’t it be great to …. ).

Same with the 8in. We picked the device named Mk-9 to represent the 260, and the device named Mk-12 to represent the 335. Data was primary, “name” was secondary.

There are a lot of cool names, and cool descriptions, and we wish we coulda used them all and made a hundred more as well, but they are just text.

Please don’t think this is disparaging you comments. Certainly NOT my intention. Just trying to explain why something be what it be. I think you give good info, and it’s excellent grist for a mod. Maybe we can do something, maybe not, don’t know, but don’t be discouraged.

Ciao. John

Dont worry, I understand you had to draw the line somewhere. Good thing these are all editable so we modders can waste our time on excessive detail like that..[;)]

The reason I brought it up is that right now way too many of the IJN DDs are DP capable. Historically only the Type D mounts were good DP weapons, the Type B was mediocre at best. Thus, all those ships which should have Type C mounts but have Type B instead are performing a task they really sucked at IRL.

Thats all.

For Scenario 2 I can understand changing them over to Type D as a 'smart' move by the IJN, but historically this did not happen. Thats why loosing a dual 12.7cm turret for a bunch of horrid 25mm AA was a good trade...

[fbs]

The game has a degradation ratio of 1% for minefields, what is very nice for offensive minefields -- but is too high for defensive minefields.

A 1% daily ratio for defensive minefields means that if their ACM sails away for 10 days, the minefield will have lost 10% of its mines. That's way, way too high for two reasons: first several of these minefields use bottom mines instead of moored mines, so they are less susceptible to the environment; second that they can be tended, in part, by port resources not represented in the game -- San Francisco used crab boats to lay and tend the mines in the 30s.

I'd recommend to reduce degradation of mines in friendly ports of size 6+ to be 0.1%/day. An even nicer approach would be to have the mines being destroyed at 0.05%/day, plus 0.05%/day being damaged (i.e., removed from the minefield and returned to the pool). For smaller ports a 1%/day degradation is probably right, reflecting the smaller resources they have available.

Thanks [:D]
fbs

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Dont worry, I understand you had to draw the line somewhere. Good thing these are all editable so we modders can waste our time on excessive detail like that..[;)]

The reason I brought it up is that right now way too many of the IJN DDs are DP capable. Historically only the Type D mounts were good DP weapons, the Type B was mediocre at best. Thus, all those ships which should have Type C mounts but have Type B instead are performing a task they really sucked at IRL.

Thats all.

For Scenario 2 I can understand changing them over to Type D as a 'smart' move by the IJN, but historically this did not happen. Thats why loosing a dual 12.7cm turret for a bunch of horrid 25mm AA was a good trade...

Not worried [;)] Succinct and intelligent analysis, Juan. Keep them cards and letters coming (concept stuff, like you describe, piques my parade). pm me.

Ciao. John

[Iridium]

Did we mean to give Ibuki low angle 12.7cm guns or were they supposed to be the DP models? I'm seeing them in WitPStaff as low angle.

[Kull]

Technically this may not be a Naval Issue, but several times now in the Aleutians scenario, I've seen the Allied TF markers come up with some very odd graphics choices! I know these are related to the Allied TF markers, because right after you click the "next turn" button, the graphic switches back to the "normal" TF graphic and then proceeds on to it's next location:

(Edit: In the snapshot below, the "zero" and the "yellow anchor" are actually Allied TFs)

[Don Bowen]

Not to worry, folks smarter than me are on this one.

[Iridium]

I noticed that Takao originally has 102 belt armor, etc. then loses the tower armor. Simultaneously, I noticed that Takao is lacking in belt armor compared to Mogami. Mogami is newer but I was always under the impression that it was built on a budget/diet to fool other nations. Takao was also given many prewar refits adding bulges, armor, TDS etc...I'm curious if these are indeed accurate figures.

[jwilkerson]

I got the cruiser armor figures from Lacroix- so unless there is a typo these are correct.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I got the cruiser armor figures from Lacroix- so unless there is a typo these are correct.

Well, if I can find Skulski's book on Takao I'll post some figures.

Skulski supports the 102mm belt as built and the 75mm Tower armor. Then there is a mention of removing Tower top weight during a refit but nothing else. Assuming the tower loses almost all it's armor to this refit is the only way I can see these figures being accurate.

Huh, never considered Mogami to be such a beast in the armor dept. Always thought it was a repeat of Takao but with a little 6" turret shell game going on and then refits of questionable value (not much hard data).

[jwilkerson]

Ah, I have that one two. But I don't have any of my sources in my hotel room with me today - doing a big project cutover in my day job ...

[GaryChildress]

Not sure if this is an oversight or not. Maybe it's supposed to be this way but I've found a few ships in the DB which are upgrading, which have "0" set for the "Upgrade Shipyard Size". If "0" is set for shipyard size does that mean it can upgrade at any level 3 port?

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I got the cruiser armor figures from Lacroix- so unless there is a typo these are correct.

Well, if I can find Skulski's book on Takao I'll post some figures.

Skulski supports the 102mm belt as built and the 75mm Tower armor. Then there is a mention of removing Tower top weight during a refit but nothing else. Assuming the tower loses almost all it's armor to this refit is the only way I can see these figures being accurate.

Huh, never considered Mogami to be such a beast in the armor dept. Always thought it was a repeat of Takao but with a little 6" turret shell game going on and then refits of questionable value (not much hard data).

I'd be happy to post the data from Lacroix once I get back home. Lacroix has details galore - in fact so much detail that you get lost in it. Like in some cases there are really multiple armored decks and multiple side armor faces as well - some made out of different materials - with different properties at different angles - and on and on. To try to translate the REAL data into game terms is not remotely a "look it up and plug it in" exercise!
[:)]

[Iridium]

Ah, here's the oddness with Takao...post '39 refit Skulski shows the 102mm belt covered with a bulge:

Above the waterline and a little below it is a 10mm Ducol steel plate holding numerous pipes up against the belt. It removed the vessels belt angle (the belt is still angled but the new exterior is verticle) and it's main purpose was to add bouyancy to the vessel to solve stability issues.

I would find it difficult to hazard a guess as to how much protection this new addition would afford to the ship. There would probably be a way but I don't feel like breaking out Nathan Okun's calculator etc...[:D]

[jwilkerson]

Right, those are the kinds of details I was referring too!

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

I'd be happy to post the data from Lacroix once I get back home. Lacroix has details galore - in fact so much detail that you get lost in it. Like in some cases there are really multiple armored decks and multiple side armor faces as well - some made out of different materials - with different properties at different angles - and on and on. To try to translate the REAL data into game terms is not remotely a "look it up and plug it in" exercise!
[:)]

I can imagine...attempting to determine 'fair' decisions on what can end up being far more complex than simple addition and subtraction compounded by steel compositions etc... Then trying to make that into usable figures for the game, it would be exhausting.