Page 22 of 62
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:23 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: John Lansford
Will they perform this automatic repair assist whether they have supplies on board or not?
Yes. Supplies on board equates to ammo for rearming. Repairs only consume ship ops.
Also does it have to be in a TF or can it be disbanded to function
Disbanded for repairs.
, and how damaged can one be and still work? I've got one in Surabaya with 70+ system damage right now.
Less than 25 systems damage, less than 40 float, less than 70 engine, and less than 10 fire.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:23 pm
by EasilyConfused
Don't know if this information (or that of my last post) is of any use, but the xAK Madras City (Euro M Cargo) is set to arrive on 2/30/42. That's presumably a typo.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 12:46 pm
by Buck Beach
ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
Don't know if this information (or that of my last post) is of any use, but the xAK Madras City (Euro M Cargo) is set to arrive on 2/30/42. That's presumably a typo.
No actually that was a millennium event to extend February one extra day (over that of leap year) to celebrate that year, the year of my birth.[:D][:D][:D]
Indian Headquarters
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 2:57 pm
by fbs
Scenario 001. The forces in the Indian Ocean are associated with these headquarters:
Eastern Fleet
Northern Command
Southern Command
Eastern Command
Admiraly
Ceylon Command
But none of these list under the HQ structure. What gives?
Cheers
fbs
RE: Indian Headquarters
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:14 pm
by Akos Gergely
In the Thousand miles war scenario USS Santa Fé is listed with turret armor of 312 on her 6" turrets - I guess this is way more than Cleveland class CL's turret face plates ( IIRC it was 6"-es)
Edit: when the ship arrives it shows correctly as 165...[&:] [X(]
RE: Indian Headquarters
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:18 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: fbs
Scenario 001. The forces in the Indian Ocean are associated with these headquarters:
Eastern Fleet
Northern Command
Southern Command
Eastern Command
But none of these list under the HQ structure. What gives?
Cheers
fbs
The list is missing Western Command (the Pakistan tribal areas). These are the Indian Army territorial commands. General Irwin--a really poor general--ran the Eastern Command (into the ground). One thing to remember was that the Commonwealth lacked depth in commanders. Their second string consisted of Generals like Irwin, Percival, Leese, which tells you something about their first string.
RE: Indian Headquarters
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 3:36 pm
by fbs
ORIGINAL: herwin
The list is missing Western Command (the Pakistan tribal areas). These are the Indian Army territorial commands. General Irwin--a really poor general--ran the Eastern Command (into the ground). One thing to remember was that the Commonwealth lacked depth in commanders. Their second string consisted of Generals like Irwin, Percival, Leese, which tells you something about their first string.
Very good; I also added Admiralty and Ceylon Command, which were also missing from the list.
I don't see how a land unit can be subordinate to a HQ if the HQ is not in the game. I assume that the HQ of a LCU does something... so if the LCU's HQ is not in the game, then it doesn't look right.
Cheers
fbs7
RE: Indian Headquarters
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 7:43 pm
by Mynok
It could exist elsewhere. Off map.
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Mon Aug 17, 2009 11:06 pm
by erstad
Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged.
The 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.
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:52 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: erstad
Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged.
The 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.
Bit confused by this. The design consideration was to consider oil/resource/refinery centers to have their own loading and unloading facilities. The intent was to allow a large refinery in a small port to load/unload based on refinery size, not port size. That way we did not have to falsely increase port size for a specific facility.
There really is no daily load limit. There is a daily port cargo handling limit - which can be expended by a combination of loading or unloading operations. A refinery (for example), increases all three (load rate, unload rate, daily limit). But the total for load and unload can only equal the daily limit.
Does that make sense? If not, post a specific example and a save and I'll trace it through the code
RE: Docked tonnage in red?
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 1:19 am
by Kull
This is cross posted over from the
"Glug, glug, glug, in the Aleutians AAR" in the event it's a bug:
Submarine Aircraft Capacity - How many Glens can you fit into a Volkswagen....errr....Submarine?
You can add reserve aircraft to a Sub-borne Chutai. In fact, I-9 is now out at sea, carrying FOUR Glens! And the only reason there aren't more is there aren't any left in the pool. So here's a few questions:
Historically, how many Glens could be crated up and carried aboard an IJN sub? Four aircraft aboard a submarine sounds a bit excessive. Is this something that can be fixed, assuming it's non-historical? Or is this just the Devs way of saying, "Go ahead moron, load your entire pool of Glen's aboard a single sub, even though you can't fly more than one at a time. And better hope that sub doesn't run into any ASW!"
RE: Docked tonnage in red?
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:00 am
by jwilkerson
To be honest, this one will not be high on the list [:)] as you suggest a great work around is just don't push the "add reserve aircraft" bootawn.
RE: Docked tonnage in red?
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 2:19 am
by Kull
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
....just don't push the "add reserve aircraft" bootawn.
I can see the Developers Meeting now:
jwilkerson: "OK guys, you know people are going to bitch about every last little thing after the release. And we'll have to be all civil and understanding about it, and that's going to get old fast. So here's an idea. Let's put in some "features" that will allow the player to completely screw himself. It will have to be something that won't affect the AI and it will be entirely optional. And let's see how many folks complain about."
don bowen: "Excellent. How about if we let the player upgrade Yamato to a Barge?!"
jwilkerson: "Too obvious, plus some guys will probably do it to cut down on the possible victory points."
treespider: "Glens. We let the player load up to 50 Glens on a sub, even though only one can be active!"
jwilkerson: "That might work. But seriously. What kind of moron would actually DO that??"
[:D][:D][:D]
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 11:13 am
by Local Yokel
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: erstad
Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged.
The 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.
Bit confused by this. The design consideration was to consider oil/resource/refinery centers to have their own loading and unloading facilities. The intent was to allow a large refinery in a small port to load/unload based on refinery size, not port size. That way we did not have to falsely increase port size for a specific facility.
There really is no daily load limit. There is a daily port cargo handling limit - which can be expended by a combination of loading or unloading operations. A refinery (for example), increases all three (load rate, unload rate, daily limit). But the total for load and unload can only equal the daily limit.
Does that make sense? If not, post a specific example and a save and I'll trace it through the code
Don, sorry, can't post a save but may be worth mentioning this has been the subject of some discussion in the War Room's
Resource Pathways thread.
It's the daily port cargo handling limit with which we are concerned. Fully understand that resources, oil and refineries can boost load/unload rates and daily limit, but the example erstad gives indicates that Toyohara is receiving that boost to its daily limit for loading operations but not for unloading ops.
Toyohara is a good example for this purpose because, as erstad says, without the boost, it has a daily port cargo handling limit of 11250, whereas, if the boost is applied, that nearly doubles to 21650, by my calculations.
There may be good reason to think that no one is ever going to want to offload big quantities of resources at Toyohara, but all the big ports in the Home Islands get such an increase in their daily port cargo handling limits (albeit a more modest one), and this could make a difference to efficient import of oil, fuel and resources.
HTH.
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:04 pm
by Don Bowen
I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what you are saying because there is no such thing as a daily limit for load and a daily limit for unload.
There is one daily limit for both load and unload. You load, you use some. You unload, you use some.
I don't know what else to say. A save is always good because I can trace the action and watch the counters flip. I always shows what happens, not what I think should happen.
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:13 pm
by John Lansford
If your port can handle 24,000 tons of cargo daily, and you load 8000 tons onto a ship, then you've only got 16000 tons of capacity left to unload other ships with. I assume that this capacity is split equally between phases?
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:25 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: John Lansford
If your port can handle 24,000 tons of cargo daily, and you load 8000 tons onto a ship, then you've only got 16000 tons of capacity left to unload other ships with. I assume that this capacity is split equally between phases?
Yes, but that only affects whether the ship can finish loading in one 12-hour pulse and put to see in the next.
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 12:33 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: erstad
Posted this earlier but I never saw a response so i don't know if it's WAD (but wrong in the manual) or bugged.
The 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.
Bit confused by this. The design consideration was to consider oil/resource/refinery centers to have their own loading and unloading facilities. The intent was to allow a large refinery in a small port to load/unload based on refinery size, not port size. That way we did not have to falsely increase port size for a specific facility.
There really is no daily load limit. There is a daily port cargo handling limit - which can be expended by a combination of loading or unloading operations. A refinery (for example), increases all three (load rate, unload rate, daily limit). But the total for load and unload can only equal the daily limit.
Does that make sense? If not, post a specific example and a save and I'll trace it through the code
Don, sorry, can't post a save but may be worth mentioning this has been the subject of some discussion in the War Room's
Resource Pathways thread.
It's the daily port cargo handling limit with which we are concerned. Fully understand that resources, oil and refineries can boost load/unload rates and daily limit, but the example erstad gives indicates that Toyohara is receiving that boost to its daily limit for loading operations but not for unloading ops.
Toyohara is a good example for this purpose because, as erstad says, without the boost, it has a daily port cargo handling limit of 11250, whereas, if the boost is applied, that nearly doubles to 21650, by my calculations.
There may be good reason to think that no one is ever going to want to offload big quantities of resources at Toyohara, but all the big ports in the Home Islands get such an increase in their daily port cargo handling limits (albeit a more modest one), and this could make a difference to efficient import of oil, fuel and resources.
HTH.
OK, I think I understand the point here (much aided by a second cup of coffee).
Yes, the daily capacity limit is increased
only for loading. This assumes that a refinery, for example, has a loading terminal whose purpose is to load fuel onto tankers for transport. It is capable of unloading fuel as well, but that requires some reconfiguration of the pumps and temporarily disables the ability to load.
Sorry to be dense, all this was done quite a while ago and is not currently in the active memory portion of my fog encrusted brain.
I think a case could be made for changing this in any of several possible ways.
1. Eliminate the unload rate bonus - the facilities were primary for load.
2. Reduce the unload rate bonus to a fraction of the load rate bonus.
3. Provide full unload capacity increase
4. Leave it as it is.
#4 looks pretty good to me, being busy, lazy, and all.
RE: Manual inconsistency
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 7:40 pm
by khyberbill
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.
I have a slightly different problem in that the sub bases have not changed but subs returning to them, especially when under computer control, run out of fuel prior to reaching port. I am seeing damage as high as 40 at the moment. We are installing S5G reactors to take care of the problem. Next shortage will be beans.
Indian Command ships?
Posted: Tue Aug 18, 2009 9:51 pm
by fbs
What do these ships have of special? They are the only boats assigned to India Command; everything else in the Indian Ocean (including a bunch of xAK) is assigned to Southeast Asia:
