Page 29 of 62
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:25 pm
by JWE
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: oldman45
I think we should look at the AP vs APA. According to Silverstones book, the only difference between the two was the addition of a 5" gun. In fact on of the AP's the only difference was they changed the designation to APA with no changes. I think the amphib bonus should apply to the AP's and APA's evenly. The penalty should remain for xAP's.
Please forgive me if I just say no. I've had this discussion at least 100 times. Even though the change on designation was small, there were considerable differences in cargo handling and troop debarkation facilities. I would recommend Friedman as a better source than Silverstone. And it you really want an expert, wait until JWE posts.
The basic differentiation is:
xAP/xAK (etc). Merchant ships designed and fitted to carry things pier to pier. Minimum crews, perhaps augmented by a few gunners. Very limited ability to carry/handle small boats, almost no reserve crew for damage control.
AP/AK (etc). Militarized versions of the above. Larger crews, improved damage control facilities, full naval gun crews, trained damage control parties, more small craft and (probably) upgraded cargo booms. But still primarily oriented toward loading/unloading at established port factilites.
APA/AKA. Specifically modified for amphibious operations, carrying lots of landing craft, specially equipped boat launching and loading facilities, and with crews/weapons/damage control at combat ship levels.
Hi oldman45. Don’s right on the money, and Friedman is indeed much better.
APs began life with LCPLs, some LCMs, conventional davits, 20-30 ton cranes/kingposts/winches, crew size abound 350, 4-5 diesel donkeys. APAs ended up with LCPRs, LCVPs, LCMs, LCIs, Wellin davits, 30-50 ton cranes/kingposts, 40 ton high speed winches, crew size around 400, 8-12 diesel donkeys, and significant changes in doctrine and technique.
AP to APA was a designation change for some classes, yes, but it was also an evolution in facilities and operation; and with a gray area in the middle. Lots of the oldies originally just got redesignated, but all subsequently got refitted to APA standards. Also note that several later war classes did not receive APA designation, but were simply APs (P2 Admirals, P2 Generals, C4 Generals) because they weren’t fitted to “assault” standards.
So yeah, there is a difference between AP and APA. How big should the difference be? Woof, that’s always open to interpretation.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 12:30 pm
by oldman45
JWE,
I read that excerpt that Pascal posted and it was pretty eye opening. Silverstone glossed over what it took to make the conversion. Much more work than I imagined. Nothing like learning something new, makes it a good day!
Based on the little bit that I read, I feel very comfortable with what you all came up with.
RE: upgrade question
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:04 pm
by herwin
ORIGINAL: John Lansford
I'm beginning to think that the AI's repair routines for damaged ships has a hitch in it. In two CG's (one before, one after the beta patch), I've sunk 4 BB's, 3 by single hits. Two were from single torpedoes (one sub, one PBY), the third was a single 800kg bomb hit by a lucky Dutch bomber. The PBY hit a BB sitting in Davao harbor (which was still mine at the time) and never left. The other two BB's were "patrolling" in the middle of the ocean east of Palembang and had done so for over a week before they were hit. I've not looked at the Japanese side of the game to tell, but it seems that damaged ships aren't getting told to "go get repaired" and are still trying to perform their mission (whatever that is).
A second issue is the visitation of enemy ports and acting as if they are on shore leave. Davao was never bombarded, the TF with the BB in it just sat there for several days prior to the torpedo hit. The other two stationed themselves in a hex and just sat there as well.
In stock games against the AI, we used to see it run out of fuel from time to time in mid-ocean. That now has a very nasty impact.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:05 pm
by Skyland
Database corrections (sorry if already posted) :
Ship Class 771, Duguay Trouin, has Wpn 3 and Wpn 4 both on the RIGHT side. One of them should probably be on the LEFT side.
Same for 776.
Same for 2903 Gnevnyi (Wpn 7 & 8), 2915 MK Cargo (Wpn 2 & 3), 2918 KT LST (Wpn 7 & 8)
Ship Class 2906 Fugas : Mines qty is in Armor column
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 1:27 pm
by JWE
ORIGINAL: Skyland
Database corrections (sorry if already posted) :
Ship Class 771, Duguay Trouin, has Wpn 3 and Wpn 4 both on the RIGHT side. One of them should probably be on the LEFT side.
Same for 776.
Same for 2903 Gnevnyi (Wpn 7 & 8), 2915 MK Cargo (Wpn 2 & 3), 2918 KT LST (Wpn 7 & 8)
Noted. Too late for Patch 01, but ... next one.
Ship Class 2906 Fugas : Mines qty is in Armor column
WAD. Please see manual 6.6.1.3.2 Special Minelayers and 6.6.1.3.2.2 Auxiliary Minelayers.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:06 pm
by bstarr
One of those minor issues that I noticed and keep forgetting to mention; and y'all may already have this one. The japanese 20cm/12 gun seems a little strong. It has the same stats as the 20cm/50 used in the Furutaka.
[Deleted]
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:33 pm
by Anonymous
[Deleted by Admins]
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:43 pm
by tigercub
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: tigercub
My Escorts of one of my convoys was attacked but had taken no damage by a surface TF but after the battle the Escort headed back to its home port and stopped escorting a very important convoy,this should not happen and you my have seen this anyway but just letting you know.
Tiger!
Gotta have a save. Without a save before the event (and after if you have two) there is nothig I can possibly do.
after checking,I needed to have remain on station!Doh!!
But i did see Escort TF default back to surface TF after a battle.
Tiger!
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Tue Sep 01, 2009 11:05 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: tigercub
But i did see Escort TF default back to surface TF after a battle.
After combat, the composition of a TF is examined and mission open to change. It might change from combat to escort, or air combat to surface combat if all carriers lost, or escort to combat if no damaged ships remain.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 12:58 am
by witpqs
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: tigercub
But i did see Escort TF default back to surface TF after a battle.
After combat, the composition of a TF is examined and mission open to change. It might change from combat to escort, or air combat to surface combat if all carriers lost, or escort to combat if no damaged ships remain.
Don,
A different slant on this: I've seen several times where I made an escort TF to get a damaged heavy unit from Pearl to the west coast for repairs and - without combat involved - it changed to a surface combat TF enroute. Didn't catch it when it happened so no save.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 1:23 am
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: tigercub
But i did see Escort TF default back to surface TF after a battle.
After combat, the composition of a TF is examined and mission open to change. It might change from combat to escort, or air combat to surface combat if all carriers lost, or escort to combat if no damaged ships remain.
Don,
A different slant on this: I've seen several times where I made an escort TF to get a damaged heavy unit from Pearl to the west coast for repairs and - without combat involved - it changed to a surface combat TF enroute. Didn't catch it when it happened so no save.
If the damaged ships are below the damage threshold the TF will go back to combat. This normally occurs when the damaged ship in an escort TF sinks and the remaining escort(s) revert to regular surface combat, but the check is made every turn and crew repairs could improve the status of the damaged ship(s) over the threshold.
If you see an example that seems out of line, please post a save.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:14 am
by LTC B
Apologize if this has been asked - but why can't the Japanese CS ships carry troops or supplies?
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:23 am
by Pascal_slith
Please pardon an ignorant question, but what does 'WAD' stand for?
ORIGINAL: JWE
ORIGINAL: Skyland
Database corrections (sorry if already posted) :
Ship Class 771, Duguay Trouin, has Wpn 3 and Wpn 4 both on the RIGHT side. One of them should probably be on the LEFT side.
Same for 776.
Same for 2903 Gnevnyi (Wpn 7 & 8), 2915 MK Cargo (Wpn 2 & 3), 2918 KT LST (Wpn 7 & 8)
Noted. Too late for Patch 01, but ... next one.
Ship Class 2906 Fugas : Mines qty is in Armor column
WAD. Please see manual 6.6.1.3.2 Special Minelayers and 6.6.1.3.2.2 Auxiliary Minelayers.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:30 am
by tigercub
Why have the ships on Escort at all if the game Will default back surface TF after a battle? sorry this does not make since to me?
Tiger!
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:21 am
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: Pascal
Please pardon an ignorant question, but what does 'WAD' stand for?
It means "Working As Designed".
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 4:22 am
by Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: tigercub
Why have the ships on Escort at all if the game Will default back surface TF after a battle? sorry this does not make since to me?
Tiger!
According to Don's comment, the TF will only revert when it doesn't have something to escort any more (either because the escorted ship is repaired, or sinks).
Andrew
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:17 am
by erstad
ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
ORIGINAL: tigercub
Why have the ships on Escort at all if the game Will default back surface TF after a battle? sorry this does not make since to me?
Tiger!
According to Don's comment, the TF will only revert when it doesn't have something to escort any more (either because the escorted ship is repaired, or sinks).
Andrew
It also happens at initial task force creation. If you create an escort TF but only select undamaged/lightly damaged ships the engine often selects an alternate TF type for you. Not a big deal but sometimes I want the type to be escort so the ships don't take on the behavior of the other type (e.g., I don't want an SCTF because I want the minimum chance of engagement.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:55 am
by afspret
I know the problem with subs not automatically returning to port when they hit bingo fuel has been addressed in Patch 1, but I've noticed that several of my ASW TFs are doing the same thing. WAD or possible bug?
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 6:04 am
by afspret
Speaking of subs issues, I've got two @ Midway with 0 fuel (one disbanded in port & the other docked) and neither will refuel because both refuel options are greyed out. The one that is still in a TF has auto-refuel on but won't refuel that way either. Midway is still a size 1 port with a small amount of fuel, but I also have a troop and tanker TF there as well. Boats have systems damages of 13 & 20 respectively.
I also have another sub @ sea about halfway between Midway & PH in the same hex as an AG but I can't refuel that boat either because the refuel at sea button is greyed out. This boat has systems damage of 22.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:40 am
by tigercub
IN the case i am talking about,I have am undamaged TF toop ship group moving a Div,i have a Escort TF CL and a few DDs,and a ASW TF.....We come under attack by 3 DDs,they fight a battle and withdraw (3dds) but MY Escort TF coverts to a surface TF WHY? i dont see the point.(there is no damage to anyone to talk about)
Tiger!