Page 32 of 62

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 12:37 pm
by Roko
Typo :  ship 1370  Bankok Maru AMC  ( and class 2024 )

should be  Bangkok Maru
http://www.combinedfleet.com/Bangkok_c.htm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 1:15 pm
by 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.

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 2:29 pm
by JWE
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.
Missed that one. Ok, patch-2. Seattle, or maybe Astoria.

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:43 pm
by 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.

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

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:46 pm
by Montbrun
v1084d - Dutch PG "Soerabaja" shows a capacity of 500 Troops / 500 Cargo, which it doesn't have...

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:54 pm
by Don Bowen
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

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:54 pm
by JWE
ORIGINAL: 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.
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. John

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 4:58 pm
by JWE
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
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.
Which it does have.

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:06 pm
by Montbrun
ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
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.
Which it does have.

Can't transport anything with it....

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 6:12 pm
by Don Bowen
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter

Can't transport anything with it....

In what kind of TF?

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 8:44 pm
by Buck Beach
ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: 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.
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. John

Good to know. Thanks for the reply post.

Buck

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:09 pm
by Montbrun
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.

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Fri Sep 11, 2009 9:58 pm
by Herrbear
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

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 11:14 am
by JWE
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.
Things that have a valid upgrade schedule are supposed to upgrade.

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Sat Sep 12, 2009 4:43 pm
by Herrbear
Thank you for your answer.

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 1:18 pm
by 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.

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Sun Sep 13, 2009 3:56 pm
by Montbrun
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

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 7:44 pm
by JeffroK
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])

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:52 pm
by Mike Scholl
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 resolvedĀ  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

Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:43 am
by Barb
Well, because of time zones 8th dec 41 in malaya was actually the same day as 7th dec 41 in pearl harbor [:D]