AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: erstad




Can always change it in the editor, of course.

erstad,

Thats what I have already done to far too many units, far more than I would expect in a game which has had so many hours spent on it.

Too often they are areas where the designers made a decision to include or not include units.

In my opinion you are being very unkind to these uncompensated designers that have tried very hard to bring us an improvement to our WITP experience. They have also included a means to tweak many things in the database to your and my satisfaction and have pledged close support to address areas of concern. We have all been keenly aware there would be issues we would all find when the game was released to us. We have cried for the opportunity to participate in this process and here we are only one week past the release date and we are flooding the designers with our ideas.

Obviously they (designers) have failed in your eyes. Normally, I would suggest to you that you chalk up this experience to a bad investment and move on to something that will make you happier. However JeffK, you have brought to this game many worthy ideas in your 2123 posts and I would hate to see you leave.

Try to be more charitable in your approach and go back to surfacing things wrong and/or not working for the community's benefit.

Uncompensated??

So my 100 Sth Pacific Pesos only go into the coffers of Matrix?

Maybe a lack of charitability is based on the assumption(basd on the advertising) that the game would have OBB improvements on at least CHS & RHS WITP.

It seems to be closer to vanilla WITP and we go through umpteen patches again to bring things up to date.

In this case, we get Force Z at sea and in range of japanese bombers which in my experience either sink one or both, but the Minneapolis TF gets to avoid destruction by appearing in port on day 2. Why not both historical, or both in port??

IMHO, the game is tweaked down for the masses (which might make good business sense) rather that be sharp for the grognards (who I thought formed the swell beyond the need for an AE)

Now, having played just on 3mths, you get to bash out the quirks and get on with the action.

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: gunnergoz

CVE Anzio has an arrival date in the game of 1 Jun 43 but the Anzio landings that the CVE was named in honor of were made on 22 Jan 44 - 6 months after the ship arrives?...whazzup with that? [&:] BuShips Prescience? [:D]

She was originally called Coral Sea, when it was decided to name one of the CVB's Coral Sea, she got renamed. Don't think the game can handle in scenario renames of ships, so it looks like a sensible compromise.

Don't forget as well that the CVB's themselves were a change of direction and that the machinery and 5" guns (and other bits) were going to be Montana's. Also that the final Coral Sea also changed her name, so that the 2nd ship could recall the late President.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: JeffK
In this case, we get Force Z at sea and in range of japanese bombers which in my experience either sink one or both, but the Minneapolis TF gets to avoid destruction by appearing in port on day 2. Why not both historical, or both in port??

Wouldn't a better question be that given the difference in time zones, Nagumo's Kido Butai has already covered 275 miles in her return to Japan when Phillip's POW left port at Singapore? Why is one forced to sail towards disaster early while the other can hang around a few days? "Historical" Start? Not hardly..., it's a scenario design mechanism.

[Speedysteve]

Just to check this is WAD:

This puppy was tagged as below by 2 sub fish on 9th December nearing PH. When she reached port she'd lost a gun barrel from this attack!

Sub attack near Pearl Harbor at 179,110

Japanese Ships
SS I-5

Allied Ships
CA Indianapolis, Torpedo hits 2, on fire, heavy damage
DMS Elliot
DMS Long
DMS Hopkins
DMS Southard



SS I-5 launches 4 torpedoes at CA Indianapolis
DMS Elliot fails to find sub and abandons search
DMS Long fails to find sub and abandons search
DMS Hopkins fails to find sub and abandons search
DMS Southard fails to find sub, continues to search...
DMS Southard fails to find sub, continues to search...
DMS Southard fails to find sub, continues to search...
DMS Southard fails to find sub, continues to search...
Escort abandons search for sub

[Don Bowen]

Yes and no.

It is entirely possible for a torpedo hit to disable a weapons mount. Everything from knocking it off the ring to flooding an electrical room to who knows what.

We are looking at an issue with damaging a single barrel of a multiple mount. That is proably wrong.

[oldman45]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Yes and no.

It is entirely possible for a torpedo hit to disable a weapons mount. Everything from knocking it off the ring to flooding an electrical room to who knows what.

We are looking at an issue with damaging a single barrel of a multiple mount. That is proably wrong.

Turret design could play a factor in gun damage.

[Speedysteve]

Thanks Don.

Funny....when I went back into AE after posting this all of the the 'R's' have mysteriously disappeared[:D]

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Thanks Don.

Funny....when I went back into AE after posting this all of the the 'R's' have mysteriously disappeared[:D]

You're lucky - normally it is the e's. Known issue, memory corruption due to tabbing in and out of AE under certain circumstances. Smarter people than I are looking at it.

[NormS3]

At least you still have the capital r's!

[bsq]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: bsq
Look after your tankers where ever they are, accept that fuel is a limiting factor for your early combat ops and then make sure you convoy them with escorts later on.

Sounds advice.

Also, to help ease the load on the US tankers, use the British ones to ship fuel to Australia (from Abadan, as was done in real life).

Andrew

In addition, get the small 'coastal' tankers out of the DEI ASAP. They'll do you no good there, just target practice for the IJN and IJA aircraft.

Take them to the West Coast of Aus, ultimately Perth. Use the larger British tankers to bring fuel from Kuwait etc and then use these smaller tankers to bring the fuel round to Sydney and all points north up the Coral Sea.

It takes a while to set up, but it pays dividends later on.
In my experience, this eventually frees up the West Coast US merchant fleets to supply PH and all points down to Pago Pago and Fiji.

I like the variety of merchant ships in AE (much more realistic than the generic ships in WITP). It makes you think about logistics in a way that the earlier game never did. I think that the period Jun 42 to Jun 43 is going to be a real challenge from a logistical perspective - looking forward to it [8D]

[JuanG]

Not sure if this was reported already;

Scenario 1 & 2;
DD Kamikaze (#1422-1425) updares twice on 02/42, gaining a T13 radar set on the second update. I assume the update to #1424 should have been in 02/43 or something.

[Jorm]

Im at work so doing this from memory

MkXVII mine issues

some ships start loaded with them but they are not availabe in the production pool at the start of the game. ie you cant reload you CM's

[Mozo]

I think I found a bug - or something.

If I have a task force of transports with troops, and one ship is damaged (e.g. 15 sys), the entire task force won't unload. I mean never. All ships had troops and supplies in it.

Same happened on load. At Pearl, loading troops onto 4 healthy APs and one slightly damaged (orange). It just sat there with the same load for 5 turns. I remove the damaged ship, reload, and they move out in one turn (as they should).

Hope this was helpful. Does anyone want a saved game with it?

Mozo

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: JeffK
IMHO, the game is tweaked down for the masses (which might make good business sense) rather that be sharp for the grognards (who I thought formed the swell beyond the need for an AE)

What a sweeping statement to make based upon two miniscule portions of the scenario design which you don't happen to like! Fortunately for you, this "non-grognard" game has an editor which will allow you to fix those "bugs" - probably in much less time than it's taken you to complain about it.

[Akos Gergely]

Sorry if this was mentioned before but in the Dec 8th scenario BBs Idaho and Mississippi arrive inearly 1942 with their 1942 Novemberish upgrade (SG radars and 40mm Boforses). New Mexico is OK.

[Skyland]

Fantastic job,
but just some minor issues !

About Noumea area at start :
AM Chevreuil was already fitted with Asdic and DC rack and charges in summer 1940.
xAKL Vichy never existed i think.
In Noumea there was also in dec 41 :
- AMC Cap des Palmes
- Cargo ship Cagou (2795 tjb 1586 tjn length 93.9m) own by Cie Le Nickel.
- Cargo ship Capitaine Illiaquer (2138 tjb 1168 tjn 82.37m 10kn)
Several coasters : Mawata, Tour de Côte, Loyauté (disp 575t 47.3m 12.5 nds), Néo Hebridais (disp 709t 55.1m 9 nds).

[Local Yokel]

Not sure whether this is the right thread for this question about unloading a TF. 
 
I think I am right in saying that the ability of a ship to unload some load types depends upon the size of the port and the type of the ship. I've hit a problem with this when trying to unload a radar device from an AK at Lunga (port size 2): the text by the unload button is orange and a popup indicates the the TF concerned cannot unload the whole of its cargo.  I assume this is either because the AK's derricks aren't up to the task or the port is too small to handle a load type consisting of a radar device.  My bad for not anticipating this problem; I merely thought 'it's an AK not an xAK, so it will unload.'  Probably I should have put this unit fragment in an AKA, as they seem to have unloaded radars from an amphibious TF at Lunga without difficulty.
 
What I'd like to know is whether there is any way of determining in advance whether any part of a unit's heavy equipment will be incapable of unloading at any given destination port.  I've scoured the manual for the answer but drawn a blank.  Help would be appreciated.
 
On an entirely different note, even the inclusion of those tasty little JNR ferries Tenzan Maru and Konron Maru doesn't quite make up for the absence of Conte Verde.  Yes, I know the Italian crew opened her sea cocks, but it's within the bounds of possibility that the Japanese might have got some service out of her...   [;)]

[John Lansford]

I've got a DD in Victoria shipyard for repairs (nothing serious, just some system damage) but no matter what option for repairs I give it, the time for repair is the same.  The base has ample supply, no damage, and no other ship in the shipyard.  Every other shipyard has a lower repair time for a given ship compared to readiness or pierside, but not Victoria.  What's going on there?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Skyland

xAKL Vichy never existed i think.

Have seen a reference to Vichy as a small cargo ship transporting resources from New Caledonia to New Zealand. I believe the reference is in the New Zealand On Line database, but I don't have time to look it up right now.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: JuanG
Not sure if this was reported already;

Scenario 1 & 2;
DD Kamikaze (#1422-1425) updares twice on 02/42, gaining a T13 radar set on the second update. I assume the update to #1424 should have been in 02/43 or something.

Kamikazes were a bit boogered there and a couple other places. All fixed up now. Thanks, Juan.