AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

erstad
Posts: 1944
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: Midwest USA

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by erstad »

Another manual inconsistency. The "Patrol/Do Not Retire" option has been replaced with "Remain on station" but there are still at least 9 references that use the old terminology.
erstad
Posts: 1944
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 11:40 pm
Location: Midwest USA

Mouseover text issue

Post by erstad »

When on the Form New Taskforce screen, the mouseover text incorrectly describes the return to base/remain on station as affecting reaction to enemies.
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5185
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Mouseover text issue

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: erstad

When on the Form New Taskforce screen, the mouseover text incorrectly describes the return to base/remain on station as affecting reaction to enemies.

I think I can handle this one.
User avatar
Seeadler
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:45 pm
Location: Kiel, Germany

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Seeadler »

ORIGINAL: mikemike

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.
ORIGINAL: JWE

We got it under control, thanks.
User avatar
davidjruss
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat May 25, 2002 11:03 am
Location: Derby, England

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by davidjruss »

When setting the patrol areas for naval vessels ( in particular submarines ) the map screen always centres on the originating point of the vessel and not the destination hex (es).This means that when setting boundary 1 , 2, 3 etc one has to follow the highlighted ship path each time from the originating hex to the destination area before one can place the next patrol boundary.

Is there any chance that when setting patrol boundarys the map could centre by default on the patrol hex and not the originating hex?

DavidR
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Seeadler
ORIGINAL: mikemike
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.
ORIGINAL: JWE
We got it under control, thanks.
Seeadler, I know you are trying to be helpful, but I did not say that in response to mikemike's post.

Since I have some small part to play in the AE effort, what I say on these "official" threads is supposed to be considered an "official" response. Please don't put words in my mouth that didn't flow therefrom. Thanks for your understanding. [:)]
mikemike
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: a maze of twisty little passages, all different

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by mikemike »

Re the "Admiralty S" or "Old S" class of destroyers. After looking at the service history of the ships stationed at Singapore and Hong Kong I believe it would be best to have two different classes:

- DD "Old S" - 3 4 in guns, 1 2pdr 2x2 21 in TT, DC throwers
- DM "Old S" - 2 4 in guns, 1 2pdr, 2x20 mines

and make them convertible into each other, because all five ships were ASW equipped DDs at one time and ASW incapable DMs at some other time, some switched roles several times, in particular HMS Thracian which was in DM configuration on December 7th, 1941, and converted back to DD between December 10th and 15th, mainly in the replenish periods between combat sorties.

This conversion apparently usually took about six days.
DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!
mikemike
Posts: 500
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 11:26 pm
Location: a maze of twisty little passages, all different

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by mikemike »

CVL Ibuki should have two twin 8 cm Type 98 guns and not two twin 12.7 cm Type 89 guns.
DON´T PANIC - IT´S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!
User avatar
Barneyrubb90
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 5:26 pm
Location: Oviedo, Florida

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by Barneyrubb90 »

This thread is becoming awful long and my quick review didn't see this one yet, I am sorry if I missed it.

I am playing scenario 2 and just reached April as the allies and other than getting my tail beaten in every theater...I have noticed on at least three occasions a damaged task force with one ship defined as a computer controlled with damage in the South Pacific area that I didn't create when I turn off computer control it shows a home port of Vlad.

Anyone else aware of this one?
Sonny II
Posts: 443
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2007 2:05 pm

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by Sonny II »

Dracula returns!
John Lansford
Posts: 2664
Joined: Mon Apr 29, 2002 12:40 am

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by John Lansford »

You can switch a Transport TF to an Amphibious TF and vice versa after it's been loaded.  You can also create a Transport TF (or Amphib) and move ships from the other TF into it without apparent penalty.

When I switched the Transport TF to the Amphib mode all the ships changed, but when I tried to shift ships from a Transport to a new Amphib TF only about half of them were allowed to have the option to move.
User avatar
Kull
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: El Paso, TX

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by Kull »

Aleutians Scenario:

At this point in the scenario (6/17/43), it must be a bug. The Allied AI does not use submarines in this scenario. There hasn't been a single confirmed sighting, and not a torp has been fired in anger - or even in sheer boredom. My carriers are now operating with a screen of only 2 DDs, and those will soon be withdrawn for more important Surface Combat duties (where they are infinitely more effective than CAs or Musashi).
rockmedic109
Posts: 2422
Joined: Tue May 17, 2005 11:02 am
Location: Citrus Heights, CA

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by rockmedic109 »

Scenario 1.  AMC Kanimlba?  Should it be Kanimbla?
Akos Gergely
Posts: 734
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 1:22 pm
Location: Hungary, Bp.
Contact:

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by Akos Gergely »

I'm pretty sure this has already been brought up but the USN 5"/38 accuracy seems to be too high. In night battles it makes more hits then other guns combined....
Speedysteve
Posts: 15974
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by Speedysteve »

Despite being out of torpedoes and damaged this sub didn't auto-return to Manila....it wanted to continue staying on patrol. WAD?

Image
Attachments
untitled.jpg
untitled.jpg (110.31 KiB) Viewed 273 times
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
mark24
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Aug 04, 2002 3:21 am

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by mark24 »

Hornet arrives in 1942 with Corsairs (F4U1D) & Helldivers (SBC-4)
User avatar
Kull
Posts: 2744
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 3:43 am
Location: El Paso, TX

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by Kull »

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Despite being out of torpedoes and damaged this sub didn't auto-return to Manila....it wanted to continue staying on patrol. WAD?

I had a sub take 60 float damage and next turn it was still on patrol. It appears the Patrol algorithm is overriding the "save your butt" algorithm.
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5185
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by Don Bowen »


Would need a save to look at this.
Speedysteve
Posts: 15974
Joined: Tue Sep 11, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Reading, England

RE: Manual inconsistency

Post by Speedysteve »

Got one here Don. Sailfish is out of fish but staying on patrol. What's the best mail for you?

Image
Attachments
untitled.jpg
untitled.jpg (100.5 KiB) Viewed 273 times
WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester
User avatar
Terminus
Posts: 39781
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 11:53 pm
Location: Denmark

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Terminus »

ORIGINAL: mark24

Hornet arrives in 1942 with Corsairs (F4U1D) & Helldivers (SBC-4)

It's been noted.
We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”