Post Map and OOB Comments Here

McNaughton · Post by **McNaughton** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:56 am

Here are some other things I noticed.

No.222 Group should start the game in Colombo.
No.225 Group should arrive in January 1942, not January 1943.

Indian tank brigades should start almost completely empty of AFV's.

Damien Thorn · Post by **Damien Thorn** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 2:31 am

The TBF and TBM are listed as different planes but they were the same plane. The "M" designation just meant that they were produced by Ford on their assembly line. It wasn't an improved model.

Also, as I posted in another thread, the Soryu seems to have terrible low sortie points (or whatever you call them). It was very similar to Hiryu but Sortu has around 1/2 of all the other CVs. Unicorn has ZERO sortie points, which must be a mistake unless it is ony a transport CV.

jrcar · Post by **jrcar** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 2:56 am

Roads and rail in Australia is very poor. This was discussed a long time ago, its sad to see its not fixed. OTOH It doesn't really affect the game play.

Cheers

Rob

McNaughton · Post by **McNaughton** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 3:17 am

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

The TBF and TBM are listed as different planes but they were the same plane. The "M" designation just meant that they were produced by Ford on their assembly line. It wasn't an improved model.

Also, as I posted in another thread, the Soryu seems to have terrible low sortie points (or whatever you call them). It was very similar to Hiryu but Sortu has around 1/2 of all the other CVs. Unicorn has ZERO sortie points, which must be a mistake unless it is ony a transport CV.

I am almost 100% sure that the Unicorn only had replacement aircraft on board, but for some reason, I think that it MIGHT have had a squadron of Seafires for defense (probably not though).

Raverdave · Post by **Raverdave** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:01 am

Yeah there are problems with the Aust map but all in all in was a good compromise. The aussie testers even had to push to get Alice Springs added. As Jcar has stated, the current map does not effect the game play.

Ron Saueracker · Post by **Ron Saueracker** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:29 am

Not enough drinking establishments on the map of OZ. I heard they were serious boozers. Major oversight, as these would cause massive supply demands and disruption of units.[:)]

madmickey · Post by **madmickey** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 5:31 am

I bought the game downloaded but when I look at diagram of ship in the tutorial it kicks me out of the program.

Bill Durrant · Post by **Bill Durrant** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 12:23 pm

ORIGINAL: madmickey

I bought the game downloaded but when I look at diagram of ship in the tutorial it kicks me out of the program.

You need the patch in the support forum

dwesolick · Post by **dwesolick** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:18 pm

I was going to replace Mac with General Jonathan Wainwright in the PI, but I couldn't find him. Is he not there, or am I missing something? The final curtain is coming much faster than historically in PI.....this AI isn't bad!

pry · Post by **pry** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 3:30 pm

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

I was going to replace Mac with General Jonathan Wainwright in the PI, but I couldn't find him. Is he not there, or am I missing something? The final curtain is coming much faster than historically in PI.....this AI isn't bad!

He is in the data base but he is not able to command any formation larger than a US Division

Pascal_slith · Post by **Pascal_slith** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:01 pm

ORIGINAL: pry

ORIGINAL: dwesolick

I was going to replace Mac with General Jonathan Wainwright in the PI, but I couldn't find him. Is he not there, or am I missing something? The final curtain is coming much faster than historically in PI.....this AI isn't bad!

He is in the data base but he is not able to command any formation larger than a US Division

That doesn't make sense. He should be able to command a corps...

Pascal_slith · Post by **Pascal_slith** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:30 pm

Well, from playing around with Replenishment TF's, I notice that only AO's can be included, which is correct. Only fleet tankers were equipped for underway replenishment. Then why is the Replenishment TF in Etorofu Jima (NOT Etorofo Jima as on the map) on Dec. 7th, 1941, full of TK's? Shouldn't these be changed to AO's?

Pascal_slith · Post by **Pascal_slith** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:32 pm

Looking through the database and looking at the endurance of the Japanese subs. I'm comparing with Norman Polmar and Dorr Carpenter's book "Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy". I should cross-check with another book I have.

The type B1 has excessive endurance. It's endurance was 14'000nm at 16 kts, not 25'000 as in WitP. The cruising speed is probably low at 10 kts. It was probably more like 12-14kts.

Same can be said for A1 and C1's.

The type J1 is ok, 24'000nm at 10kts, though these, were built in the 20's, so their diesels were probably not as efficient anymore. Their true range by 1941 was probably more like 16-17'000nm.

What was your source, 2by3, for Japanese submarine technical data?

Pascal_slith · Post by **Pascal_slith** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 4:33 pm

There are far too many island bases with airfields and ports already on the map in Dec. 41, especially for the Allies. There should be far more "dot hexes" instead of these.

It will be worth coming up with a pure PBEM scenario that eliminates many of these errors. See "Building the Navy's Bases", 2 volume WW2 history of the Bureau of Yards and Docks.

freeboy · Post by **freeboy** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:22 pm

some lcu's while travelling through a part land and part water hex from land.. appears to be in the water on the display.. still in the hex but out to sea... Bug?

pry · Post by **pry** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:43 pm

ORIGINAL: freeboy

some lcu's while travelling through a part land and part water hex from land.. appears to be in the water on the display.. still in the hex but out to sea... Bug?

It is just a display issue, a single LCU is normally are shown in the lower right of a hex, on partial land/sea hexes it looks like they are out in the ocean but they are on land.

McNaughton · Post by **McNaughton** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 7:57 pm

Should the Royal Sovereign class BB's get a 1 capacity for aircraft? The HMS Resolution had a walrus seaplane on a catapult (the only one of the 4 survivors to get one). Should the class get 1 aircraft capacity, or a NEW Resolution class be created? I am working on creating RN Flying Boat squadrons (already have a Walrus graphic), and have come across this stumbling block (as capacity is a class issue, and cannot be modified for individual ships of a class, unlike other stats).

Hoplosternum · Post by **Hoplosternum** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 8:43 pm

The upgrades to all the the UK fleet carriers have NO air ordinance. i.e. they should not be able to launch air strikes. So remember not to upgrade Formidable, Indefatigable et al until this is fixed [X(]

freeboy · Post by **freeboy** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 11:40 pm

It is just a display issue, a single LCU is normally are shown in the lower right of a hex, on partial land/sea hexes it looks like they are out in the ocean but they are on land.

freeboy · Post by **freeboy** » Sun Jul 04, 2004 11:41 pm

It is just a display issue, a single LCU is normally are shown in the lower right of a hex, on partial land/sea hexes it looks like they are out in the ocean but they are on land.
ok.. just looks funny.. like hello.. we felt like a swim

Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here

RE: Post Map and OOB Comments Here