AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: EnricoR
CA Oregon City is in scen 1 a Baltimore class but she was leadship of her class and the ETA is wrong too, it is 16 March 1945 in game but her commissioning was on 16 February 1946.

Database typo, should be Oregon City Class # 406

CL Fargo has the wrong picture, in AE she looks like a Cleveland class but she has only one stack and her fire control equipment was at other locations.

Nope, Fargo uses the Cleveland image. Correctly listed as a Cleveland 42 Design, but no separate image.

Atlanta an Oakland classes: their 5in/38 Mk 12 EBR have an armor rating of 31, other classes with this weapon has only 5.

We'll look into it.

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I can only explain that by saying I came to the Taiho after adding that gun to all the other IJN carriers before it, and just kept rolling... RATS!!!

If I had stayed quiet about it the Taiho would probably have a better AA rating anyhow...The 10cm guns might have better ballistics but lack a certain punch that the larger caliber DPs do.[:D]

Never knew Terminus was a JFB.[;)]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

I can only explain that by saying I came to the Taiho after adding that gun to all the other IJN carriers before it, and just kept rolling... RATS!!!

Ah, well ... ok, it's in the punch-list.

[Mike Solli]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

This is a display problem, related how the data was entered in the editor. Not sure who did that particular one, but I don't disagree with your assessment that it's not pretty.

Uhhhhhh.......yeah sure. [;)] [:D]

[Terminus]

Not mine. I did IJN carriers and subs.

[pad152]

Campaign file 2

Carrier Ibuki (023) - has no airgroups?

Carrier Taiyo (024) - has multiple airgroups some that belong to the Chuyo and Kaiyo!

Carrier Kaiyo (028) - has missing air group that's on the Taiyo!

Carrier Chuyo (026) - has mission air group that's on the Taiyo!

Carrier Copahee(3056) - Air Group (2221) at "0" max aircraft!

CS (035 - 038) - Air groups show both float planes and carrier planes?

[pad152]

Not sure how to fix the air groups on the CS (Mizuzo, Nssin, etc.) How do I assign the carrier planes to the upgraded ship class?

Example:
Mizuzo (035) CS class 1876 - air groups (574, 575 - float planes)
Mizuzo (035) CVL class 1879 - air groups (758, 759 - Carrrier planes)

[kirk23_MatrixForum]

While using the editor, I noticed that the tonnage listed for all ships is Standard tonnage,and not full load, as they would be at time of war,this would increase the ships tonnage by between 4 - 8 thousand tons on average ?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: pad152

Not sure how to fix the air groups on the CS (Mizuzo, Nssin, etc.) How do I assign the carrier planes to the upgraded ship class?

Example:
Mizuzo (035) CS class 1876 - air groups (574, 575 - float planes)
Mizuzo (035) CVL class 1879 - air groups (758, 759 - Carrrier planes)

All this should be taken care of in the stock scenario. Airgroups switch when the ship converts to carrier.

[chesmart]

Fuso and Yamashiro use the bitmaps of ise and hyuga when the upgrade

[Terminus]

ORIGINAL: hellfirejet

While using the editor, I noticed that the tonnage listed for all ships is Standard tonnage,and not full load, as they would be at time of war,this would increase the ships tonnage by between 4 - 8 thousand tons on average ?

Tonnage is only interesting when the ship is docked, and especially when it's being repaired, and no ship would be going into drydock fully loaded. That's the reason.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: che200

Fuso and Yamashiro use the bitmaps of ise and hyuga when the upgrade

No, they do not. There are quite a few "vest pocket" possibilities that exist in the database, but are not implemented. The Ise/Hyuga graphics ONLY come into play if Fuso/Yamashiro are "converted" into a BB(S). Not bloody likely.

[Terminus]

Remember that there's not just old-fashioned upgrades, but also conversions nowadays. Please don't make assumptions based on stock; it's a brand-new ballgame.

[EnricoR]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: EnricoR
CA Oregon City is in scen 1 a Baltimore class but she was leadship of her class and the ETA is wrong too, it is 16 March 1945 in game but her commissioning was on 16 February 1946.

Database typo, should be Oregon City Class # 406

CL Fargo has the wrong picture, in AE she looks like a Cleveland class but she has only one stack and her fire control equipment was at other locations.

Nope, Fargo uses the Cleveland image. Correctly listed as a Cleveland 42 Design, but no separate image.

Atlanta an Oakland classes: their 5in/38 Mk 12 EBR have an armor rating of 31, other classes with this weapon has only 5.

We'll look into it.

But Fargo was lead ship in her class, Fargo class, wich was a result of redesigning the Cleveland class in 1942, Fargo looked a bit like a Cleveland class but their where differences. Now why a Cleveland class image?

[Andy Mac]

Ah rollocks I thought I had fixed that one - much as I would like to blame the air team that one is all me !!!

ORIGINAL: pad152

Campaign file 2

Carrier Ibuki (023) - has no airgroups?

Carrier Taiyo (024) - has multiple airgroups some that belong to the Chuyo and Kaiyo!

Carrier Kaiyo (028) - has missing air group that's on the Taiyo!

Carrier Chuyo (026) - has mission air group that's on the Taiyo!

Carrier Copahee(3056) - Air Group (2221) at "0" max aircraft!

CS (035 - 038) - Air groups show both float planes and carrier planes?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: EnricoR
But Fargo was lead ship in her class, Fargo class, wich was a result of redesigning the Cleveland class in 1942, Fargo looked a bit like a Cleveland class but their where differences. Now why a Cleveland class image?

Holy cow! Fargo doesn't show up till '46, and you are complaining about the art??? She's not even done from the yard at surrender time. Give us a break.

Maybe we can do a Fargo image, but for 1 ship in '46? Well, I think you had best consider Cleveland as an alternative.

[Bliztk]

Copahee`s VRF-3B arrives with no airplanes unlike all other VRFs

Victorious arrives with TBF Avengers. No 832 SQN FAA

I know it operated with USNavy, but should it not be Avengers I ?

BTW Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier

[spence]

Not such a horrendously large issue but USCGC TANEY (Treasury Class PC in WitP: Navy called her a PG) should withdraw from the Pacific in Feb 43. The refit armament configuration shown for 9/42 never happened to her (though all of her sisters already in the Atlantic had that fit). It does appear that she may have received 20mm before that refit though since there is a picture on the USCG Historian's Website that shows her with a couple of 20mm abaft the stack at the same time as she displayed a 5"/51cal on her stern. When she was rearmed in early 1943 she received a completely unique fit of 4 x 5"/38 in single mounts AND SHE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ATLANTIC/MED. She came back to the Pacific in late 1944 with the armament fit shown in AE though.

[spence]

It sorta devolves to an OOB issue because of the game mechanics since HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales are conveniently hanging their posteriors out for the Nipponese to bite during the first turn of the historical scenario and the Allied Player has no choices to make but simply gets to watch while the Nells/Bettys put enough torpedoes into each to insure that neither can possibly figure into the Japanese Players calculations for the rest of the battles of Malaya or the DEI. BTW the same sense of ahistoricality (must be a new word invented by me[;)]) is the air cover (inadequate) that the TF gets. Does allowing the Allied Player to make his own choices with these two ships totally unbalance the game?

[JWE]

Have to make compromises. Not seen as issue. Sorry.