Matrix Games Forums

Andy Mac wrote: Tue Nov 22, 2022 5:26 pm Sorry Dont understand ??

I get there is some issues with the new lower automatic supply and fuel generation off map and partial replacement by convoys - and we will review to ensure the mix is correct on that - but it won't be to the point that supplies are meaningless to the Allies in 42

But are you saying something else is going on as well ??

I'm sending you a save tonight....GP

Is the Akizuki-Class DD still called Akitsuki-Class in all databases?

Alternate spellings. I have seen both used in books. That's what happens when you try to phonetically translate from a foreign language.

Hi

@Andy: Do you work on the scen 16 against Allied AI ("Beware the dorniers" Allied T1 Ironman)

See post here

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 5#p4927305

THank's

Scen 001, beta patch v1

Lusu War Area HQ now starts in Kweiteh, but is prepped for its former starting base, Hwaiyin.

Scen001, beta patch v1

There are two bases named Tingchow in China. One is Chinese (south China), another one is Japanese (north China).

Base id are #1914 and #1755

morphin wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 3:15 pm Hi

@Andy: Do you work on the scen 16 against Allied AI ("Beware the dorniers" Allied T1 Ironman)

See post here

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 5#p4927305

THank's

Yes although its moved locations

Yaab wrote: Fri Nov 25, 2022 9:20 pm Scen001, beta patch v1

There are two bases named Tingchow in China. One is Chinese (south China), another one is Japanese (north China).

Base id are #1914 and #1755

Interesting not sure whioch one is right r both will ask Andrew

in the editor under locations:
id 2312 shows a delay but does not have an upgrade to I assume it's meant to upgrade to 2313 but was just not added.
another case id 2327 shows a delay but no upgrade toe.
2356
2668
2672
2673
2687
2704
2767
2772
2806
2821
2845
2880
this is scenario 2 as well so I assume it's in all scenarios but I'm not sure if they have left overs from previous patches or if are they meant to upgrade.

In scenario 2, I think that the AI needs to check on the status of Singapore when sending ships to Jahore Bahru. The first two times, it was just two xAKs but this time . . .

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Feb 01, 42
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Gun Fire at Singapore

82 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Japanese Ships
xAK Yahiko Maru, Shell hits 4, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Kokai Maru, Shell hits 7, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Koryu Maru, Shell hits 12, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Mogamigawa Maru, Shell hits 10, Mine hits 1, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Nissyu Maru, Shell hits 6, Mine hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Noto Maru, Shell hits 7, Mine hits 2, heavy fires, heavy damage
xAK Naruto Maru, Mine hits 1
xAK Tatumiya Maru
xAK Teiyo Maru, Mine hits 1
xAK Tatutaki Maru, Mine hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
xAK Kogyo Maru, Mine hits 1
xAK Kenyo Maru, Mine hits 1
xAK Nankai Maru, Mine hits 1, on fire
xAK Arima Maru, Mine hits 2, heavy damage

Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Yahiko Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Kokai Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Koryu Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Mogamigawa Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Nissyu Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Noto Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Naruto Maru
Singapore Fortress firing at xAK Tatumiya Maru

Not a bug per se, but it would be nice to give device Vickers Section (id 1017) the PIAT tag just like device Bren Section (PIAT) (id 1010). Both devices have anti-armor rating of 75, but only the Bren device has the PIAT tag now. Without the tag, there is no feedback to Allied players that the Vickers section device ceases to be a simple MG squad and becomes a mixed MG/anti-tank squad.

Thread (with some erronoeus guesses)
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 3&t=361027
Conclusion:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 2#p4753572

Not a bug but while reading this PDF about US Marine Defense Battalions, maybe the first 90 mm AAA and the 3 inch AAA should be considered dual purpose since they were used that way. I also know of someone who was between a 90 mm and the target out at sea when the gun fired at the target. I don't know the mark nor when this occurred in the Aleutians during World War II but the man was a civilian carpenter. The 3 inch AAA guns damaged the Japanese destroyer Ushio at Midway shortly after the Pearl Harbor attack.

https://www.marines.mil/Portals/1/Publi ... /Condition Red Marine Defense Battalions in World War II%20 PCN 19000313300_1.pdf?ver=2012-10-11-163218-440

beta and all scenarios, that said I think that it's been this way since the beginning.

Another thread had made me think of researching a ship after the fact and I noticed something about how the allied Barnegat class was classified in the game. The Barnegat class was a seaplane tender design (AVP) that was started in 1939 and game has the entire 16 ships of the class listed as AVD. These went into service as a seaplane tender(16), MTB tender(4)or a catapult training ship(1) but never as a destroyer. I went out to www.history.navy.mil and looked them up as well and all 16 were AVP's through the war. So would changing these to be classified as an AVP be a big deal?

beta and all scenarios, that said I think that it's been this way since the beginning.

I had one more question about the Barnegat class, but this concerns the four that were reclassified as they were being built to AGP's. Additionally these four were referred to as the Oyster Bay class with the lead ship AVP-28 being changed to AGP-6.In the game, these four are listed as AGP's but I noticed that their cargo capacity is listed as 1095 tons versus 275 tons for those 16 ships that were seaplane tenders. As seaplane tenders they had an av gas capacity of about 80,000 gallons. I think that is what the 275 ton rating was based on. But if the empty ship weight is 1830 and fully loaded is (what I can find on the internet) is approx 2750 tons so it can't really have a 1095 ton cargo capacity. Plus, since these four were reclassified as AGP's and not converted to AGP's during construction, I don't think that their cargo capacity would be different.

Good information. Andy or Andrew will probably look at this....GP

Dewey169 wrote: Mon Dec 12, 2022 9:17 pm beta and all scenarios, that said I think that it's been this way since the beginning.

I had one more question about the Barnegat class, but this concerns the four that were reclassified as they were being built to AGP's. Additionally these four were referred to as the Oyster Bay class with the lead ship AVP-28 being changed to AGP-6.In the game, these four are listed as AGP's but I noticed that their cargo capacity is listed as 1095 tons versus 275 tons for those 16 ships that were seaplane tenders. As seaplane tenders they had an av gas capacity of about 80,000 gallons. I think that is what the 275 ton rating was based on. But if the empty ship weight is 1830 and fully loaded is (what I can find on the internet) is approx 2750 tons so it can't really have a 1095 ton cargo capacity. Plus, since these four were reclassified as AGP's and not converted to AGP's during construction, I don't think that their cargo capacity would be different.

The American PT Boats would have used 100 octane AvGas but they are using fuel in the game. So maybe something could be done giving them a liquid cargo capacity plus a refueling capability. Then the sailors can have fun water skiing or fishing with some things that have a 3-4 second fuse.

The new Scenario 2 from the new update beta. What kind of pull do the longshoreman unions and warehouse owners have in Bremerton, Seattle, and Vancouver? Bremerton with no units has a minimum supply level of 10k while it appears that Seattle and Vancouver have minimum supply levels of 20k? Later on, if somehow the supply production increases, it might make sense but otherwise I don't understand this. Is this to force the Allied player to ship from these ports?

Meanwhile, the East Coast can hardly get any supplies. Fuel is piling up in San Francisco and Los Angles yet that also can't seem to get to the East Coast. There appears nothing to draw any supplies and/or fuel to the East Coast, yet I like to ship both to Panama as well as to Cape Town. Shipping supplies from New Orleans is not an option since supplies don't seem to migrate there as well plus the industry is damaged and have to be repaired.

I do have some ideas on how to slow the initial buildup of supplies available to the Allies in North American which I would also believe would be somewhat historical. I won't mention them on this thread, however.

As a result, I have ships in the Atlantic ports who are in ports with the crews getting drunker than skunks!

The supply and fuel issue is a known issue. It's being fixed....GP

I just don't understand why to break things that did work previously...

RangerJoe wrote: Tue Dec 13, 2022 4:40 pm The new Scenario 2 from the new update beta. What kind of pull do the longshoreman unions and warehouse owners have in Bremerton, Seattle, and Vancouver? Bremerton with no units has a minimum supply level of 10k while it appears that Seattle and Vancouver have minimum supply levels of 20k? Later on, if somehow the supply production increases, it might make sense but otherwise I don't understand this. Is this to force the Allied player to ship from these ports?

Meanwhile, the East Coast can hardly get any supplies. Fuel is piling up in San Francisco and Los Angles yet that also can't seem to get to the East Coast. There appears nothing to draw any supplies and/or fuel to the East Coast, yet I like to ship both to Panama as well as to Cape Town. Shipping supplies from New Orleans is not an option since supplies don't seem to migrate there as well plus the industry is damaged and have to be repaired.

I do have some ideas on how to slow the initial buildup of supplies available to the Allies in North American which I would also believe would be somewhat historical. I won't mention them on this thread, however.

As a result, I have ships in the Atlantic ports who are in ports with the crews getting drunker than skunks!

Those high levels of required supplies in the West Coast bases made sense in stock scenarios, because this attracted the supplies arriving in the Eastern USA (65k supplies per day) to the West Coast. Without the 65k supplies, the problem arises, as you cannot lower the supply requirements at the West Coast bases (they seem to be hard-coded), thus making the West Coast hog all the supplies available in CONUSA