AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[Zebedee]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Thanks.

Do you happen to have any data on an RAFA ship named Dumana? May have been a seaplane tender or base ship in Australia.

British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd ship? Laid down as Melma in 1923, but completed as Dumana?

Dumana (motor vessel, 2 screws, 140 passengers, oc), laid down 1923 by Barclay, Curle & Co ltd (Whiteinch, Glasgow), GRT 8427, deadweight 10400 tons, 464-0' x 58-4' x 28-0', service speed 12.0 knots.

(Source: The World's Merchant Fleets, Robert Jordan)

Originally did the Karachi to Plymouth run until 1939 when chartered by Admiralty. Used as accommodation for Sunderland personnel (also stated by p.17, The Sunderland Flying Boat Queen, John Evans) in the Med and elsewhere [edit: Alexandria and Iceland]. Converted in 1942 to flying-boat mother ship and sent to Bathurst (Gambia) to support two Sunderland squadrons. Sunk doing the Freetown-Takordi-Lagos (STL)run carrying 10000t cargo and 300t RAF supplies.

Could be confusion over Bathurst NSW and Bathurst, Gambia?

[Dili]

RFA Ranger 2,600 tons of fuel oil, 550 tons of diesel(could be bunkerage), and 90 tons of petroleum; 6000nm range.

Dale Group I had 880t bunkerage.
Dale Group II & III had 1000t bunkerage

[Jzanes]

It is March 6, 1942 and CV Lexington and CV Saratoga are sitting in Auckland (level 6 port with level 15 repair shipyard). They both have "yes" for their 3/42 upgrades and have been sitting in port since the 1st of the month. The upgrade is listed as needing at least a level 10 repair shipyard but Auckland seems to have this covered. I've repeatedly read thru rule 14.1.1 (upgrades) but can't figure out why they aren't upgrading. Anyone have any ideas as to what the problem is?

[Iridium]

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

It is March 6, 1942 and CV Lexington and CV Saratoga are sitting in Auckland (level 6 port with level 15 repair shipyard). They both have "yes" for their 3/42 upgrades and have been sitting in port since the 1st of the month. The upgrade is listed as needing at least a level 10 repair shipyard but Auckland seems to have this covered. I've repeatedly read thru rule 14.1.1 (upgrades) but can't figure out why they aren't upgrading. Anyone have any ideas as to what the problem is?

You sure it didn't say level 10 port with enough repair shipyard to hold them both? Each individual CV displaces far more than 10,000 tons (the capacity of a lvl 10 repair yard) so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

[Jzanes]

ORIGINAL: Iridium

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

It is March 6, 1942 and CV Lexington and CV Saratoga are sitting in Auckland (level 6 port with level 15 repair shipyard). They both have "yes" for their 3/42 upgrades and have been sitting in port since the 1st of the month. The upgrade is listed as needing at least a level 10 repair shipyard but Auckland seems to have this covered. I've repeatedly read thru rule 14.1.1 (upgrades) but can't figure out why they aren't upgrading. Anyone have any ideas as to what the problem is?

You sure it didn't say level 10 port with enough repair shipyard to hold them both? Each individual CV displaces far more than 10,000 tons (the capacity of a lvl 10 repair yard) so that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

I wondered the same thing but the manual talks about repair shipyards and not port sizes. It seems that other ships go to "pierside" repair when they are upgrading so I don't think the capacity of the repair shipyard is a factor.

[DrewMatrix]

Correction- problem is different than what I thought:

I need to check one more thing (one more turn) before wasting your time. Basically an AK that can't unload its cargo (an air group) although docked at a port.

[DrewMatrix]

Sorry for the confused last post. But I can't figure this out.

Scen 6 Allies vs AI/ I have a TF at Canton Is for many turns that can't unload its cargo. Cargo is an air group assigned to Seventh Af. Canton has a size 2 port, TF is docked. TF set to unload but doesn't turn after turn.

I suspect some sort of bug/glitch in this one unit, although it's certainly possible I am not seeing something. But all the other similar TFs unload fine.

Is there a limit on how many AC I can unload on an atoll? Canton has (already) 2 AGs of 5 (patrol) and 25 (fighter) A/C respectively.

[Kull]

I realize the patch is doing something to nerf PT Boats, but I would implore the devs to nerf them all the way down to "one-trick-pony" status. IRL these units were very effective against Barges, and that should stay in AE. But against everything else they were essentially useless. When the AE engine ensures that PT Boats can never be more effective than they were in the Surigao Strait (the "best case" instance of PTs in action against warships), you'll have it right.

[Dili]

I realize the patch is doing something to nerf PT Boats, but I would implore the devs to nerf them all the way down to "one-trick-pony" status. IRL these units were very effective against Barges, and that should stay in AE. But against everything else they were essentially useless. When the AE engine ensures that PT Boats can never be more effective than they were in the Surigao Strait (the "best case" instance of PTs in action against warships), you'll have it right.

Wrong.

[Cavalry Corp]

I noticed the Oi has 9 re loads - nce but I think its an error

Cav

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Zebedee

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Thanks.

Do you happen to have any data on an RAFA ship named Dumana? May have been a seaplane tender or base ship in Australia.

British India Steam Navigation Co Ltd ship? Laid down as Melma in 1923, but completed as Dumana?

Dumana (motor vessel, 2 screws, 140 passengers, oc), laid down 1923 by Barclay, Curle & Co ltd (Whiteinch, Glasgow), GRT 8427, deadweight 10400 tons, 464-0' x 58-4' x 28-0', service speed 12.0 knots.

(Source: The World's Merchant Fleets, Robert Jordan)

Originally did the Karachi to Plymouth run until 1939 when chartered by Admiralty. Used as accommodation for Sunderland personnel (also stated by p.17, The Sunderland Flying Boat Queen, John Evans) in the Med and elsewhere [edit: Alexandria and Iceland]. Converted in 1942 to flying-boat mother ship and sent to Bathurst (Gambia) to support two Sunderland squadrons. Sunk doing the Freetown-Takordi-Lagos (STL)run carrying 10000t cargo and 300t RAF supplies.

Could be confusion over Bathurst NSW and Bathurst, Gambia?

Yes, could be "Bathhurst" confusion. I've seen a couple of vague references to Dumana in Australia but this is by far the best data I have ever seen. Thanks.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Jzanes

It is March 6, 1942 and CV Lexington and CV Saratoga are sitting in Auckland (level 6 port with level 15 repair shipyard). They both have "yes" for their 3/42 upgrades and have been sitting in port since the 1st of the month. The upgrade is listed as needing at least a level 10 repair shipyard but Auckland seems to have this covered. I've repeatedly read thru rule 14.1.1 (upgrades) but can't figure out why they aren't upgrading. Anyone have any ideas as to what the problem is?

Post a save in the Tech Support Thread.

[John Lansford]

PT Boats are overemphasized in AE; not only do they get far more hits than they should, but the AI won't send TF's into any port that there are sizable numbers of them present. 
 
OTOH, I would like someone to look at the "withdrawing from combat" routine as it relates to both PT's and larger warships.  Far, far, far too many times in my campaign I've had ships withdraw from combat one hex, the other side "reacts" to their presence, the ships "withdraw" again, and this cycle repeats several times.  I once had an MTB squadron 'pursued' by a 'reacting' TF for more than 5 hexes, all in one 12 hour phase, and just in my last few turns had another one 'pursued' for 4 hexes.  Both times my PT boats were run out of fuel by these 'withdrawal/react' cycles.  I've also had surface TF's withdraw from combat and then move right back into the combat hex, repeating this until they ran out of allowable move.

[Speedysteve]

Seems like some ships have more ammo than their max allows in the Aleutians Scenario anyhow.....?

[TIMJOT]

Just wondering why USAT SS President Johnson doesn't appear to be included in the oob? It spent the entire war in the Pacific including 8 round trips to Hawaii. It was at sea delivering troops to the PI when war broke out. The President Garfield also doesnt appear but I think that ship's name may have changed during the war and may be in under that name.

[Herrbear]

I noticed that Singapore starts on Scen 1 with Port Damage of 50. Was that intentional? If it is, not questioning, but curious as to what caused it?

I thought that two US subs in Asiatic fleet was undergoing refit, but it does not seem to have any submarines damaged in Scen 1.

Thanks and sorry if this has been asked about before.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT

Just wondering why USAT SS President Johnson doesn't appear to be included in the oob? It spent the entire war in the Pacific including 8 round trips to Hawaii. It was at sea delivering troops to the PI when war broke out. The President Garfield also doesnt appear but I think that ship's name may have changed during the war and may be in under that name.

I think the Garfield is under that name of Thomas Jefferson.

[JWE]

[

ORIGINAL: TIMJOT
Just wondering why USAT SS President Johnson doesn't appear to be included in the oob?

I'm sorry, there was no President Johnson in the APL fleet.

502/522 design:
Pres Hayes (1st) – renamed Pres Tyler (1st) 1940 – requisitioned and renamed Howard McCurdy.
Pres Monroe (1st) – renamed Pres Buchanan (1st) 1940 – renamed AH Emily Weder 7/44.
Pres Polk (1st) – renamed Pres Taylor (1st) 1940 – sunk 02/14/42.
Pres Adams (1st) – renamed Pres Grant (2nd) 1940 – USAT troopship.
Pres Garfield (1st) – renamed Pres Madison (2nd) 1940 – renamed Kenmore 08/42.
Pres Harrison (1st) – captured 12/09/41.
Pres Van Buren (1st) – renamed Pres Fillmore (2nd) 1940 – renamed AH Marigold 6/44.
535 design:
Pres Cleveland (1st) – renamed USS Tasker Bliss, 7/41.
Pres Grant (1st) – renamed USS Harris, 8/40.
Pres Jackson (1st) – renamed USS Zeilin, 7/40.
Pres Jefferson (1st) – renamed USS Henry Allen, 12/41.
Pres McKinley (1st) – renamed USS Franklin Bell, 12/41.
Pres Pierce (1st) – renamed USS Hugh Scott, 7/41.
Pres Taft (1st) – renamed USS Willard Holbrook, 9/41.

[Don Bowen]

There does seem to have been a USAT named President Johnson. Apparently an ex-APL liner of 1904. Very little data on her, except that she was at sea enroute Hawaii with the 2nd/138th FA Battalion on December 7, 1941.

Data is given as 615' length, 16,111 Gross Tons, twin screwed, 11,000 hp = 16 kts. Build Camden, NJ in 1904 and still on the APL lists in 1939. She is listed as allocated to the army (not a time or bare boat charter).

One source indicates she was transfered to the Navy after Pearl Harbor but I can find no data on her in Navy lists. She survived the war and was renamed Santa Cruz under Panamanian flag in 1947.

Bit of a mystery. Anyone got more data??

[mikemike]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
The Cimarron (AO-22) is shown as a Neosho class oiler when it should be reversed.
<snippy, snippy>

Buck (an ex AO-22 swabby 1963)

Yep, Quite right. Woof! What a brain fart.

Probably too late for the patch, so .. next time.

Reading the book BuckBeach quotes, I think you should put Cimarron and Neosho in classes of their own, based on armament. Cimarron, Platte and Salamonie essentially had the armament that the game now has for the Neosho class, except that Cimarron had four twin .50 MG until October, 1942, when the two twin mounts on the pilot house were exchanged for 20 mm Oerlikons, two further 20 mm were mounted on the main deck, and the .50 MG on the aft deckhouse were exchanged for quad 1.1 in guns; these were later (1944) swapped for 40 mm twins. BTW, both 5in mounted aft were open mounts. The Cimarrons also had Mk37 directors while the other oilers had to make do with less sophisticated fire control arrangements.

Neosho, now, received one five-inch gun on the stern and three 3 in/23 AA guns. These were swapped sometime post-PH for a 5in/38 and four 3 in/50; essentially the same armament as the game has for the Kennebec class, quote

since the standard armament of all future oilers commissioned prior to mid-1943 included four 3-inch guns and one 5-inch gun.

From December 1944,

still more AA guns were being fitted to the latest oilers of the Ashtabula class so that the total armament aboard these ships consisted of one 5"/38 dual-purpose gun, four 3750 AA guns, four 40mm AA guns, and eight 20mm AA guns.

Seems like you should revise the US AO classes.