Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Curty

So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill[&:]

If you have Fog of War turned on, it is as accurate as the original wartime claims. Maybe more.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Curty

So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill[&:]

If you have Fog of War turned on, it is as accurate as the original wartime claims. Maybe more.

[:D][:D][:D]

Hopefully this is the right thread to post this in.  I'm a little confused about the database entries for naval weapons (in the normal grand scenario).  I've been using the editor to find values so that I can wrap my head around the difference between various weapons (especially helpful for determining how essential ship upgrades are) and there are plenty of duplicate entries.  My understanding is that the earlier ones are no longer used, but can I assume that the last entry of any device is the one that is used in the AE version?

Thanks.

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Curty

So you are saying that the "ships sunk" screen isn't a 'confirmation' of a kill[&:]

If you have Fog of War turned on, it is as accurate as the original wartime claims. Maybe more.

Exactly... I-122 is listed as sunk on 12/10/41 near Bataan in my game versus the AI. However, she put two torps into the Houston two turns later. [:@]

(Yes, I'm playing the darkside against the Japanese AI.[:D])

Chez

I'm using the Lexingtion to transport an air group of P-43's to Canton and noticed something strange with the aircraft capacity. It only has 69 aircraft on board yet, it's showing as 90/137. Do non-carrier planes count as more?

The following happened on Jan 12, 1942. Allied player vs. Japanese AI. Basically, a dutch sub missed the akagi, was forced to surface by the escorts, hit the akagi with 6 torpedoes while on the surface and then was sunk by gunfire from carriers and escorts. Akagi was listed as sunk at the end of the turn. Loaded up the turn as Japanese player to check to see if this was a FOW sinking but Akagi is definately sunk. If this is WAD, I hope it's a one in a million result.

Submarine attack near Kolaka at 67,107

Japanese Ships
CA Chikuma
CL Nagara
DD Tokitsukaze
DD Yukikaze
DD Kuroshio
CV Akagi, Torpedo hits 6, on fire, heavy damage
CV Zuikaku

Allied Ships
SS KXVIII, hits 11, and is sunk



KXVIII diving deep ....
DD Tokitsukaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Yukikaze attacking submerged sub ....
DD Kuroshio fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Tokitsukaze attacking submerged sub ....
DD Yukikaze fails to find sub, continues to search...
DD Kuroshio attacking submerged sub ....
DD Tokitsukaze attacking submerged sub ....
SS KXVIII forced to surface!
DD Yukikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Kuroshio firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Akagi firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Tokitsukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Yukikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Kuroshio firing on surfaced sub ....
CV Zuikaku firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Tokitsukaze firing on surfaced sub ....
DD Yukikaze firing on surfaced sub ....
Sub slips beneath the waves

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

The following happened on Jan 12, 1942. Allied player vs. Japanese AI. Basically, a dutch sub missed the akagi, was forced to surface by the escorts, hit the akagi with 6 torpedoes while on the surface and then was sunk by gunfire from carriers and escorts. Akagi was listed as sunk at the end of the turn. Loaded up the turn as Japanese player to check to see if this was a FOW sinking but Akagi is definately sunk. If this is WAD, I hope it's a one in a million result.

Now that is interesting. Post a save if you can, will'ya?

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

The following happened on Jan 12, 1942. Allied player vs. Japanese AI. Basically, a dutch sub missed the akagi, was forced to surface by the escorts, hit the akagi with 6 torpedoes while on the surface and then was sunk by gunfire from carriers and escorts. Akagi was listed as sunk at the end of the turn. Loaded up the turn as Japanese player to check to see if this was a FOW sinking but Akagi is definately sunk. If this is WAD, I hope it's a one in a million result.

How did you determine the timing on this? There is no mention of Akagi being hit, nor of the sub firing torpedoes... Are you sure the sub didn't fire first, than get counter-attacked by the escorts?

In one spot it says naval support increases the total daily rate, in another it says it doesn't.

6.3.3.2.3 Port Load ability
This is the total cargo handling capacity of a port for a single day. Separate values are provided
for liquids and all other cargos. The ability of a port to load/unload Task Forces is based on port
size, adjusted for available Naval Support and any damage.

6.3.3.2.5 Port load rate adjustments
Naval Support increases the rate at which a given
ship can be loaded but cannot improve the total cargo handling
limitations of the port.

ORIGINAL: erstad

In one spot it says naval support increases the total daily rate, in another it says it doesn't.

6.3.3.2.3 Port Load ability
This is the total cargo handling capacity of a port for a single day. Separate values are provided
for liquids and all other cargos. The ability of a port to load/unload Task Forces is based on port
size, adjusted for available Naval Support and any damage.

6.3.3.2.5 Port load rate adjustments
Naval Support increases the rate at which a given
ship can be loaded but cannot improve the total cargo handling
limitations of the port.

Not as clear as it could have been but the intent is to say that Naval Support increases the rate per ship but not the total daily handling limits of the port. That is, lighters and longshorement functions in Naval Support can increase the speed at which things move across the pier(s) but not increase the size of the pier(s0.

I would suggest that in 6.3.3.2.3 "adjusted for available Naval Support and any damage" should be simply "adjusted for any damage" (since the context is total daily support)

I placed the Saratoga in the Shipyard at PH for repairs on or about 3/22/42. On 3/25/42, VBF-3 appears on-board the Saratoga with 18 x F4U-1D Corsairs - I don't think this is "working as intended"...

Aye, reported already, fixed already, thanks!

Here's another item.

Manual says loading and unloaded are governed by the same rates.

However, resource centers appear to assist the loading daily rate, but not the unloading daily rate. Ran a test twice to confirm this (no other port activity). In Toyohara I can load 4*4670 cargo freighters in one turn. However, in the unloading only 11250 (port 3 limit) resources unload.

Interestingly, the boost on the item load rate appears to apply to both. Load rate should only be 3*200 (per phase), but I can both load and unload a 4670 in a 1 day turn. So the resource centers appear to be boosting both item load and item unload rates, but only load daily limit.

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

The following happened on Jan 12, 1942. Allied player vs. Japanese AI. Basically, a dutch sub missed the akagi, was forced to surface by the escorts, hit the akagi with 6 torpedoes while on the surface and then was sunk by gunfire from carriers and escorts. Akagi was listed as sunk at the end of the turn. Loaded up the turn as Japanese player to check to see if this was a FOW sinking but Akagi is definately sunk. If this is WAD, I hope it's a one in a million result.

How did you determine the timing on this? There is no mention of Akagi being hit, nor of the sub firing torpedoes... Are you sure the sub didn't fire first, than get counter-attacked by the escorts?

wish i'd saved the 001 combat replay but it got overwritten. I picked up the sequence by watching it play out. The sub missed akagi with torpedoes, was forced to the surface by depth charge attack, a couple ships failed to hit it with gunfire, then Akagi got rocked by the torpedoes launched while the sub was on the surface. Then the escorts and carriers sunk the sub with gunfire. as a side note, once i closed the report screen, the narrative said "SS Narwhal" sunk which of course was not involved in the fight and was not actually sunk (or damaged). I'm guessing it should've said "CV Akagi sinks" but somehow listed the Narwhal instead.

Question regarding merchant conversions and the database dump from WitPDecoder2. This seemed as good as thread as any to post it.

WitPDecoder2 dumps many of the database items into multiple *.csv files. One is WitPcls.csv which contains bookoo info relative to the various ship classes, parameters, upgrades, etc ... One of these columns is labeled "convertFrom". The values is this column don't appear to match up with any class of ship.

Anyone have an idea what this column conveys ?

I'm trying to build up a conversion spreadsheet for the IJN merchant navy and the data should already be contained within this file (I think) .....

ORIGINAL: scout1
Question regarding merchant conversions and the database dump from WitPDecoder2. This seemed as good as thread as any to post it.

WitPDecoder2 dumps many of the database items into multiple *.csv files. One is WitPcls.csv which contains bookoo info relative to the various ship classes, parameters, upgrades, etc ... One of these columns is labeled "convertFrom". The values is this column don't appear to match up with any class of ship.

Anyone have an idea what this column conveys ?

I'm trying to build up a conversion spreadsheet for the IJN merchant navy and the data should already be contained within this file (I think) .....

That's the "bind" number.

Will publish a conversion flow for Allies and Japan very shortly.

[edit] soon as somebody tells me where to stick it. [:D][:D]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: JuanG
I agree that the data for them is likely off, but if the AE team feels they need to be consistent and stick to one source, I can respect that.

Thankfully we're free to mod it as we will.

With a range of 8300nm, her efficiency becomes 7.56nm/ton, much more inline with the other DDs - Shimakaze is a very good comparison here.

I cannot say I disagree Juan. I, too, am a believer in efficiency data. I have been waiting for Joe Wilkerson to hop in here. Maybe, if I don't hear anything from The Powers That Be, that tell me to keep my winkie in my pocket, I could maybe look at Conways , and maybe slip something in , but ... you would owe me a good Rioja or Rueda, or a tinto from Argentina or Chile. [;)]

M.J. Whitley, Destroyers of World War Two, has the range of Akizuki as 8300 nm at 18 kts, Yugumo 5000 nm at 18 kts, Shimakaze 1400 nm at 30 kts. Just my 0.012 €.

I have an issue with the so-called Admiralty S and T DD classes. First, there was no such thing as an Admiralty T class. All those ships belonged to the "Admiralty S" or "Old S" class (There was originally also a Thornycroft and a Yarrow S class, but all those ships had already been scrapped by 1939). The armament is almost correct, but ships with the full armament couldn't carry mines; Stronghold and Thracian, which were converted for minelaying, lost the aft 4-in gun, all torpedo tubes and the depth charges and DC-launchers. They could then carry 40 mines on two rails, but were useless for anti-surface or ASW work. It would be best to reclassify them as Admiralty S class DM's.

As for gun armament, they carried 4 in Mk4 low-angle guns straight from WWI, the guns still used separate ammunition and were prone to jamming (according to Navweaps); Scenario 1 has them mounting three 4.5 in DP guns which are at least two generations more modern and quite substantially more useful. I'm also doubtful about the maximum speed; they were "hostilities-only" ships with twenty-plus years of service under their belts and most certainly couldn't reach their design speed anymore.

Now for their disposition: Scout and Thanet were indeed stationed in Hong Kong, but left on December 8 for Singapore, as previously agreed upon with the USN, while Thracian stayed in HK for local minelaying duties, so while the former DD's would be in a task force on their way to Singapore, Thracian would most certainly have stayed in HK.

The CLAA class "D" class Delhi 071/072 should have a 5in/38 Mk 12 EBR in the center position instead of a 6 in gun; but the point is probably moot as the Delhi never operated in the PTO.