AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]
Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Typo : ship 1370 Bankok Maru AMC ( and class 2024 )
should be Bangkok Maru
http://www.combinedfleet.com/Bangkok_c.htm
should be Bangkok Maru
http://www.combinedfleet.com/Bangkok_c.htm
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
This got missed in patch 1
ID 11316 AFDB-2 starts in Portland. The dry dock is too big to make it down the river.
(At least I could not get it to move) Suggest it start in Seattle or Mare Island like the others.
ID 11316 AFDB-2 starts in Portland. The dry dock is too big to make it down the river.
(At least I could not get it to move) Suggest it start in Seattle or Mare Island like the others.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Missed that one. Ok, patch-2. Seattle, or maybe Astoria.ORIGINAL: oldman45
This got missed in patch 1
ID 11316 AFDB-2 starts in Portland. The dry dock is too big to make it down the river.
(At least I could not get it to move) Suggest it start in Seattle or Mare Island like the others.
-
Buck Beach
- Posts: 1974
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Upland,CA,USA
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
A few items relating to various devices on primarily U.S. ship classes. I am certainly far from being an expert so I will just throw these out for consideration.
Class 732 &733 Aux have their DC device 1617 (& 1620 for the 733) as a Center facing (should these be rear?)
747 Gearing DDR AA has is it's DC device 1620 facing left (should this be rear?)
753 & 754 Active DC devices (1617 & 1620 respectively) facing Center (should these be rear)
764 Tacoma DC devices 1620 (times 8) facing Center (the ship already has 2 DC 1617 racks, shouldn't these 8 be throw weapons K or Y guns with facing determined by the weapon?)
778 SC-453 has DC device 1616 (K-gun x 2) facing Center (shouldn't there be one on each right and left side?)
802 & 804 have their DC devices 1614 (Y-guns) on each side of the ship (aren't these center line weapons)
Class 732 &733 Aux have their DC device 1617 (& 1620 for the 733) as a Center facing (should these be rear?)
747 Gearing DDR AA has is it's DC device 1620 facing left (should this be rear?)
753 & 754 Active DC devices (1617 & 1620 respectively) facing Center (should these be rear)
764 Tacoma DC devices 1620 (times 8) facing Center (the ship already has 2 DC 1617 racks, shouldn't these 8 be throw weapons K or Y guns with facing determined by the weapon?)
778 SC-453 has DC device 1616 (K-gun x 2) facing Center (shouldn't there be one on each right and left side?)
802 & 804 have their DC devices 1614 (Y-guns) on each side of the ship (aren't these center line weapons)
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...
WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...
Not sure about how much capacity, but she was used as a transport to move troops from Java to Timor.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Understand Buck, and will fix as we can, for patch-2. fyi, DC facings have nothing to do with nothing. ASW routine looks at # of DCs, # of ammo, and goes boom, boom, boom. In this case, the editor is way more grainy than the code, so tweaking data will have no impact on effect, so it's a trivial change and will be done. Ciao. JohnORIGINAL: Buck Beach
A few items relating to various devices on primarily U.S. ship classes. I am certainly far from being an expert so I will just throw these out for consideration.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Which it does have.ORIGINAL: Don BowenNot sure about how much capacity, but she was used as a transport to move troops from Java to Timor.ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: JWE
Which it does have.ORIGINAL: Don BowenNot sure about how much capacity, but she was used as a transport to move troops from Java to Timor.ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...
Can't transport anything with it....
WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
Can't transport anything with it....
In what kind of TF?
-
Buck Beach
- Posts: 1974
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Upland,CA,USA
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: JWE
Understand Buck, and will fix as we can, for patch-2. fyi, DC facings have nothing to do with nothing. ASW routine looks at # of DCs, # of ammo, and goes boom, boom, boom. In this case, the editor is way more grainy than the code, so tweaking data will have no impact on effect, so it's a trivial change and will be done. Ciao. JohnORIGINAL: Buck Beach
A few items relating to various devices on primarily U.S. ship classes. I am certainly far from being an expert so I will just throw these out for consideration.
Good to know. Thanks for the reply post.
Buck
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
Can't transport anything with it....
In what kind of TF?
I fooled around with it some more - also the "Tydeman," and found that it only works for the "Fast Transport" TF (not Cargo or Transport TFs) - which makes sense.
WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: Herrbear
I notice that the Mk 10 mine #1646 upgrades on 1-43 to the Mk 12 mine #1647. If a ship carries a Mk 10 mine will it automatically be able to carry a Mk 12 in 1-43 (assuming mines in the pool) or if you run out of Mk 10 mines then the ship will never be able to use there mine capability?
I ask because I noticed that the Elec Boat S-18 class #547 upgrade on 10-42 version carries the Mk 10 mine and the upgrade to that ship #648 on 6-43 still shows the ship carrying Mk 10 mines. Depending on the answer to the first question, was this in error and the mine should have been the Mk 12 for the 6-43 upgrade?
Thank you.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Things that have a valid upgrade schedule are supposed to upgrade.ORIGINAL: Herrbear
I notice that the Mk 10 mine #1646 upgrades on 1-43 to the Mk 12 mine #1647. If a ship carries a Mk 10 mine will it automatically be able to carry a Mk 12 in 1-43 (assuming mines in the pool) or if you run out of Mk 10 mines then the ship will never be able to use there mine capability?
I ask because I noticed that the Elec Boat S-18 class #547 upgrade on 10-42 version carries the Mk 10 mine and the upgrade to that ship #648 on 6-43 still shows the ship carrying Mk 10 mines. Depending on the answer to the first question, was this in error and the mine should have been the Mk 12 for the 6-43 upgrade?
Thank you.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Thank you for your answer.
-
Buck Beach
- Posts: 1974
- Joined: Sun Jun 25, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Upland,CA,USA
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Moved here from below.
I would like to share this new resource I have found on the Internet. It is "The California State Military Museum". While the entire site looks good, I am including it here on this thread because of some interesting information regarding the armed forces in California on December 7, 1941, reflected at this link:
http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html
If this information can be believe, it provides very good new information for our game's OOBs. For those of us who are crying for more fuel wagons it reflects there were an additional 2 AOs available. Also, I note that Mare Island was a very active port/repair facility with much many more vessels there than reflected in the game (check out how many ships were being overhauled). To a lesser extent Alameda appears to have been actively used as a Coast Guard base with 11 Cutter & Sub Chaser craft located there These could be very useful in our battle against that Japanese AI sub activity laying in wait off the West Coast. Also, please note the other USN and CG ships and changes at the other locations.
I hope the Land and Air thread people also check this out to see if there is anything they can use. Anyway whether this is useful accurate information or not I will leave with you all.
I would like to share this new resource I have found on the Internet. It is "The California State Military Museum". While the entire site looks good, I am including it here on this thread because of some interesting information regarding the armed forces in California on December 7, 1941, reflected at this link:
http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html
If this information can be believe, it provides very good new information for our game's OOBs. For those of us who are crying for more fuel wagons it reflects there were an additional 2 AOs available. Also, I note that Mare Island was a very active port/repair facility with much many more vessels there than reflected in the game (check out how many ships were being overhauled). To a lesser extent Alameda appears to have been actively used as a Coast Guard base with 11 Cutter & Sub Chaser craft located there These could be very useful in our battle against that Japanese AI sub activity laying in wait off the West Coast. Also, please note the other USN and CG ships and changes at the other locations.
I hope the Land and Air thread people also check this out to see if there is anything they can use. Anyway whether this is useful accurate information or not I will leave with you all.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Moved here from below.
I would like to share this new resource I have found on the Internet. It is "The California State Military Museum". While the entire site looks good, I am including it here on this thread because of some interesting information regarding the armed forces in California on December 7, 1941, reflected at this link:
http://www.militarymuseum.org/MilitaruUnits7Dec.html
If this information can be believe, it provides very good new information for our game's OOBs. For those of us who are crying for more fuel wagons it reflects there were an additional 2 AOs available. Also, I note that Mare Island was a very active port/repair facility with much many more vessels there than reflected in the game (check out how many ships were being overhauled). To a lesser extent Alameda appears to have been actively used as a Coast Guard base with 11 Cutter & Sub Chaser craft located there These could be very useful in our battle against that Japanese AI sub activity laying in wait off the West Coast. Also, please note the other USN and CG ships and changes at the other locations.
I hope the Land and Air thread people also check this out to see if there is anything they can use. Anyway whether this is useful accurate information or not I will leave with you all.
Dr. Niehorster's site is another nice source:
WWII OoBs
WitE Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE Research Team
WitE2.0 Alpha/Beta Tester
WitE2.0 Research Team
WitW Alpha/Beta Tester
WitW Research Team
Piercing Fortress Europa Research Team
Desert War 1940-1942 Alpha/Beta Tester
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
I'm one who as never been satisified with Force Z starting at sea ripe for sinking before an Allied player can do anything.
From this link it appears that Force Z didnt leave Singapore until 1735/081241 and thesrfore should be in port or at least te TF start at Singapore.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/R ... index.html
(Maybe this has been resolved in the previous 22 pages[8D])
From this link it appears that Force Z didnt leave Singapore until 1735/081241 and thesrfore should be in port or at least te TF start at Singapore.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/R ... index.html
(Maybe this has been resolved in the previous 22 pages[8D])
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
-
Mike Scholl
- Posts: 6187
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 1:17 am
- Location: Kansas City, MO
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
ORIGINAL: JeffK
I'm one who as never been satisified with Force Z starting at sea ripe for sinking before an Allied player can do anything.
From this link it appears that Force Z didnt leave Singapore until 1735/081241 and thesrfore should be in port or at least te TF start at Singapore.
http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/R ... index.html
(Maybe this has been resolved in the previous 22 pages[8D])
It has..., and not the way you would want (although you are absolutely correct). Try starting with "historical" off..., so you can actually have an historical start.
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues
Well, because of time zones 8th dec 41 in malaya was actually the same day as 7th dec 41 in pearl harbor [:D]






