Page 19 of 62
RE: TF's setting their own destinations
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:52 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
No way I'm even going to read thru this one without saves. Swamped.
Save it for later. Just giving you a running description so you can relate to what is happening. I'm sure other people will run into the same thing, so this item will start your data set.
OK, all of these appear to be related to use of "Set Home Port" then "Return to Home Port". This process may be bypassing some of controls set up in normal "Set Destination" processing. I'll check.
RE: TF's setting their own destinations
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 6:53 pm
by witpqs
I'll hold the saves separately in case you want them later.
RE: TF's setting their own destinations
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:23 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: witpqs
Please advise on how to send the save games to you.
Saves can be uploaded to posts in the Tech Support thread.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 7:25 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: pad152
The DD Schley (3682) is showing 200 torpedoes in it's left side launcher. I have another post with the same issue with the DD Chew (3681) also a Wicker Class DD in another game.
Do you have a save when it was still OK?
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:33 pm
by morganbj
Don't know if this is WAD, or if anyone has reported it before. If either is true, I apologize.
I created a TF with 3 ships and then ordered a unit loaded. When I did the verify procedure, I said to use minimum ships and took two ships out of the TF.
When I went to create another TF with those two ships to load another unit, I got the screenie below. It would not let me do it. Why?

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Thu Aug 13, 2009 8:53 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: bjmorgan
Don't know if this is WAD, or if anyone has reported it before. If either is true, I apologize.
I created a TF with 3 ships and then ordered a unit loaded. When I did the verify procedure, I said to use minimum ships and took two ships out of the TF.
When I went to create another TF with those two ships to load another unit, I got the screenie below. It would not let me do it. Why?
If you have a save, post it in the Tech Support Forum
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:00 am
by pad152
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: pad152
The DD Schley (3682) is showing 200 torpedoes in it's left side launcher. I have another post with the same issue with the DD Chew (3681) also a Wicker Class DD in another game.
Do you have a save when it was still OK?
Sorry, no but, I think it happens when a wickers DD is damaged in the Pearl Harbor attack and comes out of the Shipyard, will test with saves. So far I've only seen it with Wicker Class DD's maybe there's a (non-ASCII) character in database for this ship class?
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:26 am
by Buck Beach
I look at the load charts on pages 113-117 of the manual and I must have no idea what's happening. Please look at the column for Oil and tell if all those ships showing Yes do in fact have an oil capacity? Also numerous classes show as having a Troop capacity but when look at the Editor and the game screens they do not.
Now for my favorite the Tankers show that the can haul everything, but none are set up (editor) for a bulk cargo capacity that seems to be needed to allow them to load supplies or Air groups. They also do not reflect a troop capacity in contrary to the chart.
If this has been previously surfaced or discussed, please give me a reference thread.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:35 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I look at the load charts on pages 113-117 of the manual and I must have no idea what's happening. Please look at the column for Oil and tell if all those ships showing Yes do in fact have an oil capacity? Also numerous classes show as having a Troop capacity but when look at the Editor and the game screens they do not.
Now for my favorite the Tankers show that the can haul everything, but none are set up (editor) for a bulk cargo capacity that seems to be needed to allow them to load supplies or Air groups. They also do not reflect a troop capacity in contrary to the chart.
If this has been previously surfaced or discussed, please give me a reference thread.
The chart is defining the ability of each class type to carry various things, but only if the capacity is defined for each individual class. A transport can carry troops (obviously) but how many troops depends on the troop capacity and cargo capacity defined for each transport. If the troop and cargo capacity is zero, it can not carry troops even if it is a transport.
The classes defined in the editor are a realistic as we can make them. If you wish to have additional abilities, you can use the editor to put them in. Or just wait a few weeks until the mods start being released.
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:17 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
...
4. Resetting home base to SF after base is captured -> subs trying to return there -> subs running out of fuel -> subs sinking because of accumulated sys damage.
...
This issue has been addressed. It was caused by a combination of two checks on the new sub base: nationality match and (mostly) fuel levels at prospective ports.
DP Gun...
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:26 am
by RevRick
Cruising through the editor trying to figure out what the difference between 5"38 DP gun mounts is (never did) and noted one absence. IIRC, the 5"54 (device #1571) was developed for the Montana and Midway class as a DP gun as well, yet the only one equipping the Midway class in the editor is a Naval Gun. No ceiling is shown. Is this correct, and was the Navy really THAT dumb. Don't answer that!
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:13 pm
by Sardaukar
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
...
4. Resetting home base to SF after base is captured -> subs trying to return there -> subs running out of fuel -> subs sinking because of accumulated sys damage.
...
This issue has been addressed. It was caused by a combination of two checks on the new sub base: nationality match and (mostly) fuel levels at prospective ports.
Sounds very good. Subs are my only major gripe so far. [8D] Any chance for public beta soon?
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:54 pm
by Weidi72
On 2 Carriers I got the VBF-Squadrons with corsairs. Its June 42 now [&:]
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:55 pm
by Iridium
ORIGINAL: Weidi72
On 2 Carriers I got the VBF-Squadrons with corsairs. Its June 42 now [&:]
It's a noted bug. Good to see people paying attention to history though.[:D]
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:24 pm
by mitchell2
In scenario 2 I noticed an unexpected value for the Helena class CL: As part of the 4/44 upgrade the tower armor is changed from 125 to 0. I assume this is not intentional?
mitch
RE: Naval
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:38 pm
by Barb
Is OI supposed to have 9 ammo for Right Side Torpedoes and 1 ammo for left side?
Probably typo.

RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:54 pm
by pompack
ORIGINAL: mitchell2
In scenario 2 I noticed an unexpected value for the Helena class CL: As part of the 4/44 upgrade the tower armor is changed from 125 to 0. I assume this is not intentional?
mitch
In 1944 C&R (or maybe it was BuShips by then) decreed that the conning tower should be removed from the Brooklyns as weight compensation for all the the light AA added to the ship. It was only done on a few ships (if any, I can't find my Friedman at the moment) since it was to be performed only in a refit required by substantial battle damage..
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Fri Aug 14, 2009 8:16 pm
by pompack
New OOB issue (I think, I have not been able to find it in the other threads)
In the game, the Argonaut loads Mk 12 mines. This was a prewar configuration that was removed in 1942 with the refit that changed her into a transport/raid sub.
However, the Mk 12 mine does not begin production until Jan43.
According to NavWeaps, the Argonaut carried the Mk 11 and there were 200 on hand on 7dec41. Both the Mk 10 and the Mk 12 were launched from a 21 inch torpedo tube while the Mk 11 was launched from a 40" tube that seemed to be unique to the Argonaut.
While I could see a case for the game using something other than a strange one-off to arm Argonaut, it would seem that it should be a Mk 10 which was the standard pre-war tube-launched mine. Rather than creating an entire new mine type (Mk 11) I would suggest just changing the Argonaut loadout to the Mk 10 mine.
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 8:26 am
by Weidi72
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 358 encounters mine field at Midway Island (158,91)
Japanese Ships
CVL Ryujo, Mine hits 1, on fire, heavy damage
Midway is still a US-Base. I saw several "visits" of japanese carriergroups at allied bases. Can't remember this hapens in witp.
Docked tonnage in red?
Posted: Sat Aug 15, 2009 9:37 am
by BPRE
I've just docked a tanker TF in Cairns with a total tonnage of 11850 (2 TK at 5300 each and 2 AM at 625 each).
Why is docked tonnage shown in red? Limit for Cairns is 12000 tons.
The explanation for this part of the Location Info Display does not exist in the manual AFAIK. The table in page 109 is the closest I can find.
/BPRE
