Page 104 of 109
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 1:49 pm
by inqistor
ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
But don't squad upgrades work differently from other device upgrades? Or is ground radar another exception?
The only difference, I can think of, is that squads returned to pool will upgrade, but that is no concern of recently upgraded LCU.
Radar sets must be produced first, but this is just simple upgrade. Same as artillery, AA guns, tanks etc.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sun Jul 10, 2011 8:52 pm
by Blackhorse
ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
Another replacements question. I've noticed that a lot of the Commonwealth base forces have a different radar/sound detector than their assigned TOE does. By my understanding of how replacements work, the base force will consider the initial radar as extra equipment and draw on the replacement pool for the TOE's radar.
So,
1. Am I correct in the above?
2. If so, is this intentional?'
Thanks
If the radar or sound detector device is set (in the device field of the editor) to upgrade to the TOE radar, then the upgrade will occur if the unit is set to "replacements allowed," there are enough of the appropriate radar devices in the pool for an upgrade, and the unit has sufficient supply &tc.
Even if the non-TOE radar or sound detector that the unit starts with is in a different "weapons slot" from the TOE radar, the TOE radar should appear whenever the conditions above are met, and the non-TOE radar-ish device that the unit has at start will also be replaced whenever enough of the TOE devices in its slot are in the pool to warrant an upgrade.
Inquisitor is correct -- Infantry and Engineer devices have a special rule where they upgrade when they return to the pool, all other devices (including sound detectors and radars), are simply sent to the pool whenever they have been replaced.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 12:41 am
by EasilyConfused
ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
Another replacements question. I've noticed that a lot of the Commonwealth base forces have a different radar/sound detector than their assigned TOE does. By my understanding of how replacements work, the base force will consider the initial radar as extra equipment and draw on the replacement pool for the TOE's radar.
So,
1. Am I correct in the above?
2. If so, is this intentional?'
Thanks
If the radar or sound detector device is set (in the device field of the editor) to upgrade to the TOE radar, then the upgrade will occur if the unit is set to "replacements allowed," there are enough of the appropriate radar devices in the pool for an upgrade, and the unit has sufficient supply &tc.
Even if the non-TOE radar or sound detector that the unit starts with is in a different "weapons slot" from the TOE radar, the TOE radar should appear whenever the conditions above are met, and the non-TOE radar-ish device that the unit has at start will also be replaced whenever enough of the TOE devices in its slot are in the pool to warrant an upgrade.
Inquisitor is correct -- Infantry and Engineer devices have a special rule where they upgrade when they return to the pool, all other devices (including sound detectors and radars), are simply sent to the pool whenever they have been replaced.
I may have been unclear, let me give an example.
20th RAAF Base Force [6129] has Sound Detector (A) [1046] as its radar. However its TOE (RAAF Base Force [2773]) uses Sound Detector (A) [920]. Despite the same name, they are on different upgrade paths.
From my understanding of the way replacements work, the 20th RAAF Base Force should end up with duplicate radars.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:45 am
by Blackhorse
ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
I may have been unclear, let me give an example.
20th RAAF Base Force [6129] has Sound Detector (A) [1046] as its radar. However its TOE (RAAF Base Force [2773]) uses Sound Detector (A) [920]. Despite the same name, they are on different upgrade paths.
From my understanding of the way replacements work, the 20th RAAF Base Force should end up with duplicate radars.
In principal, since the unit's sound detector (1046) is in weapon's slot #9, and the TOE sound detector (920) is also in weapon's slot #9, then the TOE sound detector should replace 1046 once the unit arrives, and there are sufficient 920s in the pool.
AndyMac crafted the various commonwealth OOBs and TOEs. I defer to him on which sound detector's were intended for which unit.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:06 am
by Omat
Hello
Some leader will never be accessible in game because they where wrong flaged. I belive this is a mistake because why should someone create a leader for nothing?
Leader 14051 Sprague, Thomas L. He is a Radm but flaged as „05 - Ship“. Because that there are never Radm selctable for ship`s (highest Rang is Captain) and leader which are are flaged as „05 -ship“ could never selected as a Task force commander I suggest to re flaged him as a „04 – Task Force“.
The same problem for e.g. McMorris, Chas H.; Number 12359. In Scenario 28 he is Right now he is classified as "type: 05-ship". So if u remove him (maybe by accident) he seems not to be accessible because he has a rank of an Rear Admiral.
Would it be better to give him the "type 04 Task Force" or "Type 01 Headquarters" like Leader Mitscher, Marc A?
Mitscher`s Number is 12510 and he is used as a ship commander but is internal a Task Force leader.
In WW2 McMorris was a ship Commander, Task force Commander and Chief of Staff of the Pacific Fleet.
There are also some Leader which have the same Problem
Number:
9009
9010
9311
10158
12359
14051
14052
P.S. I did not look at the axis side.
I suggest simply to reflaged them all to type “04 - Task Force"
Maybe Leader 16376 Erskine should be reflaged as “02 – Large Ground Unit”
Omat
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:52 am
by Blackhorse
ORIGINAL: Omat
Hello
Some leader will never be accessible in game because they where wrong flaged. I belive this is a mistake because why should someone create a leader for nothing?
Leader 14051 Sprague, Thomas L. He is a Radm but flaged as „05 - Ship“. Because that there are never Radm selctable for ship`s (highest Rang is Captain) and leader which are are flaged as „05 -ship“ could never selected as a Task force commander I suggest to re flaged him as a „04 – Task Force“.
The same problem for e.g. McMorris, Chas H.; Number 12359. In Scenario 28 he is Right now he is classified as "type: 05-ship". So if u remove him (maybe by accident) he seems not to be accessible because he has a rank of an Rear Admiral.
Would it be better to give him the "type 04 Task Force" or "Type 01 Headquarters" like Leader Mitscher, Marc A?
Mitscher`s Number is 12510 and he is used as a ship commander but is internal a Task Force leader.
In WW2 McMorris was a ship Commander, Task force Commander and Chief of Staff of the Pacific Fleet.
There are also some Leader which have the same Problem
Number:
9009
9010
9311
10158
12359
14051
14052
P.S. I did not look at the axis side.
I suggest simply to reflaged them all to type “04 - Task Force"
Maybe Leader 16376 Erskine should be reflaged as “02 – Large Ground Unit”
Omat
Omat,
Good observations. You should probably post this on the "Naval" thread.
In several cases, having Admirals start the game in command of ships, but set as 'HQ' or Task Force commanders was intentional; the game engine does not promote leaders, so this was the only way to accurately show leaders who started the war commandiung ships, but later commanded TFs and HQs. But, as you point out, flagging a Flag Rank officer as a 'ship' commander rather defeats the purpose, as he will never be listed as available to be selected to command a ship.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:49 am
by EasilyConfused
ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
I may have been unclear, let me give an example.
20th RAAF Base Force [6129] has Sound Detector (A) [1046] as its radar. However its TOE (RAAF Base Force [2773]) uses Sound Detector (A) [920]. Despite the same name, they are on different upgrade paths.
From my understanding of the way replacements work, the 20th RAAF Base Force should end up with duplicate radars.
In principal, since the unit's sound detector (1046) is in weapon's slot #9, and the TOE sound detector (920) is also in weapon's slot #9, then the TOE sound detector should replace 1046 once the unit arrives, and there are sufficient 920s in the pool.
AndyMac crafted the various commonwealth OOBs and TOEs. I defer to him on which sound detector's were intended for which unit.
Sorry to keep on this, but I think I may have misunderstood how replacements work. If a TOE has device X in weapon slot Y, will it replace or add on to a unit with device Z in weapon slot Y?
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:48 pm
by Blackhorse
ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
I may have been unclear, let me give an example.
20th RAAF Base Force [6129] has Sound Detector (A) [1046] as its radar. However its TOE (RAAF Base Force [2773]) uses Sound Detector (A) [920]. Despite the same name, they are on different upgrade paths.
From my understanding of the way replacements work, the 20th RAAF Base Force should end up with duplicate radars.
In principal, since the unit's sound detector (1046) is in weapon's slot #9, and the TOE sound detector (920) is also in weapon's slot #9, then the TOE sound detector should replace 1046 once the unit arrives, and there are sufficient 920s in the pool.
AndyMac crafted the various commonwealth OOBs and TOEs. I defer to him on which sound detector's were intended for which unit.
Sorry to keep on this, but I think I may have misunderstood how replacements work. If a TOE has device X in weapon slot Y, will it replace or add on to a unit with device Z in weapon slot Y?
A weapons slot can only contain 1 type of device at one time. If a sound detector is in weapon slot #9, and the TOE calls for a radar, eventually the sound detector should be replaced by the radar -- even if that particular radar is not in the upgrade path for the sound detector device.
When AE was initially released this did not always work as intended; in some situations a particular device would never upgrade if the TOE device was not in the upgrade path. Michaelm has done some fixing in the various patches.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 5:27 am
by inqistor
So, does LCU will always try to "smooth" its Device slots to what is shown in TOE, or upgraded TOE?
Does that mean, that if LCU starts Scenario with some non-standard equipment, it should be in slots not-used by parent TOE?
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 6:09 am
by Blackhorse
ORIGINAL: inqistor
So, does LCU will always try to "smooth" its Device slots to what is shown in TOE, or upgraded TOE?
Does that mean, that if LCU starts Scenario with some non-standard equipment, it should be in slots not-used by parent TOE?
Yes, if you don't want the non-standard device to be replaced by a TOE device.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Jul 16, 2011 9:53 am
by EasilyConfused
Thanks for your responses Blackhorse, they've been very helpful.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 10:10 am
by EasilyConfused
Few more things I noticed that might be mistakes or might be intentional.
1. The TOE Corps Engineer Battalion (2834) has Ind Inf Section 43 in the first ID slot, but all the units that use the TOE have some version of Ind Cmbt Eng, which would seem to make more sense given the unit type.
2. Should 7.2" Arty Gun be in the 60 Pounder Gun-4.5" Field Gun-5.5" Arty Gun upgrade path? Since it isn't, the 134th (East Ang) Regiment (6520) and the 55th Heavy Regiment (6576) will actually downgrade from the 7.2" Arty Gun to the 60-4.5"-5.5" devices.
3. Fifth USAAF Eng (5247) is party of the Far East USAAF rather than Fifth USAAF, which it presumably belongs.
I forgot to mention it before, but all the stuff I've been reporting is from the regular grand campaign (scenario 1).
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 1:22 pm
by Blackhorse
ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
Few more things I noticed that might be mistakes or might be intentional.
1. The TOE Corps Engineer Battalion (2834) has Ind Inf Section 43 in the first ID slot, but all the units that use the TOE have some version of Ind Cmbt Eng, which would seem to make more sense given the unit type.
2. Should 7.2" Arty Gun be in the 60 Pounder Gun-4.5" Field Gun-5.5" Arty Gun upgrade path? Since it isn't, the 134th (East Ang) Regiment (6520) and the 55th Heavy Regiment (6576) will actually downgrade from the 7.2" Arty Gun to the 60-4.5"-5.5" devices.
3. Fifth USAAF Eng (5247) is party of the Far East USAAF rather than Fifth USAAF, which it presumably belongs.
I forgot to mention it before, but all the stuff I've been reporting is from the regular grand campaign (scenario 1).
#3 -- You are correct. The LCU is assigned to the wrong HQ. Nice catch!
Checking this out reminded me again of how huge the U.S. late-war engineer units are: starting in 1944, the Air Force Engineer Aviation Battalions arrive packaged as 4-battalion brigades: each unit has 108 Engineers and 52 vehicles . . . the construction equivalent of 368 engineers!
AndyMac is the Keeper of the Flame of Knowledge for all British and Commonwealth TOE decisions.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2011 4:32 pm
by Alfred
ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
...AndyMac is the Keeper of the Flame of Knowledge for all British and Commonwealth TOE decisions.
Then quick, you better stop him from going to Las Vegas and losing the "Flame".[:)]
Alfred
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 4:23 am
by inqistor
There is Device 1044 12 Pounder CD Gun.
It is defined as DP, but its ceiling is 0. I wanted to find it somewhere, but I can not see any 12 Pounder with such large projectile, or such low range. It seems something is wrongly deined here.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2011 8:58 am
by Iron Duke
ORIGINAL: inqistor
There is Device 1044 12 Pounder CD Gun.
It is defined as DP, but its ceiling is 0. I wanted to find it somewhere, but I can not see any 12 Pounder with such large projectile, or such low range. It seems something is wrongly deined here.
Think this may be the British 12pdr QF Mk.1 (dated 1894) shell weight = 12.5 lb , max range = 8,000 or 10100 yd(both quoted in same reference) ,muz.vel = 2,258 ft/sec
cd gun for anti torpedo boat use (WW1 era torpedo boats)
not a DP gun
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2011 7:58 am
by inqistor
ORIGINAL: Iron Duke
Think this may be the British 12pdr QF Mk.1 (dated 1894) shell weight = 12.5 lb , max range = 8,000 or 10100 yd(both quoted in same reference) ,muz.vel = 2,258 ft/sec
cd gun for anti torpedo boat use (WW1 era torpedo boats)
not a DP gun
Database simply uses directly weight of projectile in lbs, as effect number.
So the only things, which roughly seems right is range.
Maybe this is some strange type of Howitzer/mortar? Maybe some special ammunition?
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 3:57 am
by inqistor
Scenario 6 (8th December beginning).
Chinese squads production numbers are not updated (they still produce at 200). It was changed in last data patch to 350 per month, but not in this Scenario.
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 1:04 pm
by Heeward
Unit 6260 Groupment Massu Bde French Armored Unit. In general as the Free French were equipped with US equipment. The unit appears to be a short combat command.
Looking at it It has in
WPN5 slot 1018 CW 1945 Rifle Squad Should this be 1055 FFR Infantry Squad
WPN7 slot 1010 Bren Section (PIAT) Should this be ?
Should the unit also have attached to it
1056 FFR Cmbt Engr - 9
1057 FFR MMG - 8
1126 0.5 M2HB AAMG x4 - 24?
251 Engineers - 3 to 4
Added Motorized Support (or not) This is a French unit.
Your thoughts?
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:28 pm
by Andy Mac
1. Error
2. No they were specialist weapons and I didnt want them becoming to available (i.e they were heavy guns not medium field guns)
3. Error
ta
Andy
ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
Few more things I noticed that might be mistakes or might be intentional.
1. The TOE Corps Engineer Battalion (2834) has Ind Inf Section 43 in the first ID slot, but all the units that use the TOE have some version of Ind Cmbt Eng, which would seem to make more sense given the unit type.
2. Should 7.2" Arty Gun be in the 60 Pounder Gun-4.5" Field Gun-5.5" Arty Gun upgrade path? Since it isn't, the 134th (East Ang) Regiment (6520) and the 55th Heavy Regiment (6576) will actually downgrade from the 7.2" Arty Gun to the 60-4.5"-5.5" devices.
3. Fifth USAAF Eng (5247) is party of the Far East USAAF rather than Fifth USAAF, which it presumably belongs.
I forgot to mention it before, but all the stuff I've been reporting is from the regular grand campaign (scenario 1).