AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Whoa now!!!! You guys have made the Erie Class PG's (790 & 791) tough little cookies. Their Durability is at 9 (more than the DDS of the period) with a Belt Armor of 90 (greater than the CLs and some CAs) and the are armed with some kick ass guns. I sure want more of these little fellas around![:D][:D]

Well I have shown my ignorance again, looks like she did carry the big sticks (6"ers). Did she really have that kind of Armor and Durability?

Hey Buck those rum runners didn't mess around - called for serious firepower! [:D]

Durn tootin. Needed some kick ass naval rifles to keep those guys at a distance so they couldn't breathe on you. [:D]

Armor is not right - don't know where that came from - maybe a cut & paste artifact. Will try to fix.

She did displace more than a Benson or Benham, and 9 is 'technically' right from the math, but, yeah, 8 would probably be better. Will try to fix that too.

They installed the armour belt between the launch in 1936 and the beginning of the war. Wartime pictures of this class show it.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Whoa now!!!! You guys have made the Erie Class PG's (790 & 791) tough little cookies. Their Durability is at 9 (more than the DDS of the period) with a Belt Armor of 90 (greater than the CLs and some CAs) and the are armed with some kick ass guns. I sure want more of these little fellas around![:D][:D]

Well I have shown my ignorance again, looks like she did carry the big sticks (6"ers). Did she really have that kind of Armor and Durability?

Okey dokey, found her design specs in the pile of old notes. All fixed. Maybe show up in patch-2. They was kick ass. 1" over deck general, 2-3" over magazines, 4" tower, 3.5" belt, she was 2340 trial on a 2000 std design, but then the Bensons trialed out about 8-10% over design too, so yeah, 8 is a good one. I see from the notes where we had the deck armor tweak set up, but I guess it just didn't get done, so the original cut & paste is still in there.

I guess it's true: memory is the second thing to go when ya get old.

[Montbrun]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Whoa now!!!! You guys have made the Erie Class PG's (790 & 791) tough little cookies. Their Durability is at 9 (more than the DDS of the period) with a Belt Armor of 90 (greater than the CLs and some CAs) and the are armed with some kick ass guns. I sure want more of these little fellas around![:D][:D]

Well I have shown my ignorance again, looks like she did carry the big sticks (6"ers). Did she really have that kind of Armor and Durability?

Okey dokey, found her design specs in the pile of old notes. All fixed. Maybe show up in patch-2. They was kick ass. 1" over deck general, 2-3" over magazines, 4" tower, 3.5" belt, she was 2340 trial on a 2000 std design, but then the Bensons trialed out about 8-10% over design too, so yeah, 8 is a good one. I see from the notes where we had the deck armor tweak set up, but I guess it just didn't get done, so the original cut & paste is still in there.

I guess it's true: memory is the second thing to go when ya get old.

But they have medication now to take care of the first thing - better living through chemistry...

[Buck Beach]

Nosing around I found a reference that the Kane (ship 4110) was an APD when she participated in the "Assault on Kiska, 15 August 1943". http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Ale ... ans-A.html This conversion was also shown in her "Wikipedia" entry (for what it is worth).

In the game it shows the apparent upgrade at 4/43 but to another DD LR (715). Maybe this should be to a 724 Clemson APD


The above may be all wet, seems like any conversion would be my choice. People who don't know what they are doing should leave well enough alone, especially old tired minded farts such as myself. I am bumbling my way through the Editor and admit to being confused with the functions and field descriptions. What I need to do is wait until you folks get through at least another patch to ask questions and get explanations. Sorry for the confusion.

Posted before reading JWE's explaination below.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
Nosing around I found a reference that the Kane (ship 4110) was an APD when she participated in the "Assault on Kiska, 15 August 1943". http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/Ale ... ans-A.html This conversion was also shown in her "Wikipedia" entry (for what it is worth).

In the game it shows the apparent upgrade at 4/43 but to another DD LR (715). Maybe this should be to a 724 Clemson APD

Clemsons that begin as DDs follow the DD upgrade path. However, they may convert to other types which, in turn, follow their own upgrade paths. They may convert to APD, AVD, DMS, or DM. So all you need do is convert the Kane to an APD.

[Buck Beach]

JWE, will there be some sort of manual or instructions for the Editor? I am enjoying it very much but am too slow to think some of the things through without trying to connect the dots step by step. Sorry if this has been asked before.

[Cavalry Corp]

Ships in grey

I was wondeing how a grey ship in repair can stop repair and be added to TF to move it ??

I have North Carolina in Noumea but cannot allocate it to a TF ?

Cav

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: cavalry

Ships in grey

I was wondeing how a grey ship in repair can stop repair and be added to TF to move it ??

I have North Carolina in Noumea but cannot allocate it to a TF ?

Cav

Change the repair mode to "Readiness" and then a mouse-over of the ship will tell you how many days you have to wait for it to be ready.

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
JWE, will there be some sort of manual or instructions for the Editor? I am enjoying it very much but am too slow to think some of the things through without trying to connect the dots step by step. Sorry if this has been asked before.

Just guessing, but you might try the WITP AE-Editor. pdf in the Manuals folder.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: JWE

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
JWE, will there be some sort of manual or instructions for the Editor? I am enjoying it very much but am too slow to think some of the things through without trying to connect the dots step by step. Sorry if this has been asked before.

Just guessing, but you might try the WITP AE-Editor. pdf in the Manuals folder.

I should have added dumb to my self discription.[>:]

[Cavalry Corp]

Oh I see thanks very much

Cav

[Buck Beach]

I found us another fuel wagon. She is the Tanker George G. Henry who was to be later converted as the USS Victor AO-46 April 1942, in Australia with a still later name change to the USS Victoria

"George G. Henry arrived at Manila on 4 December 1941 with a cargo of 69,550 barrels of oil that had been taken on board at Palembang, Java, and at Tanjong Oeban, on Bintang Island, near Singapore." http://www.historycentral.com/Navy/oile ... riaII.html

Originally I came across her in reading http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN ... ea-10.html where she is referenced as being in Fremantle on Feb 25, 1942 as the George D. Henry and loaded and awaiting further orders. I also found various references to her name as George C. Henry at some sites.

Here it shows where she was originally built with another similar in game tanker the W.S. Rheem close by, however, the in game capacity of that tanker (Rheem) as a T2, seems way to high.

http://www.shipbuildinghistory.com/hist ... ncisco.htm

Anyway, here it is for those wanting more tankers/AOs during the first part of the war.


Opps, egg on my face again. There appears to have been two W.S. Rheems with the one indeed having the higher capacity which was built in 1922 the other lower capacity Rheem (1918) was more in line with George G. Henry/Victoria AO-46

[John Lansford]

Has anyone else noticed this?  In my game the AI has taken Singapore, Bataan, Manila, all the Borneo ports, Penambang and northern Java.  Most of these bases had defensive minefields, but the AI has made no effort to clean them up.  I continue to get the "ship hits minefield" noise almost every turn, and my ships sunk list has at least a half dozen warships listed as sunk by various types of mines.  Some are no doubt FOW, but it appears the AI won't try to 'clean up' defensive minefields once the base has fallen so ships keep hitting my mines long after it possesses the base.

[Local Yokel]

I am having difficulties with the micro-management of my Japanese AK's.  I've already posted a new thread on Tech Support about my inability to combine amphibious TF's, but I have now hit a further problem with with AK to AK-t conversions.
 
If I click the button to convert a Standard-C AK's cargo space to carry troops, the button remains but gets re-captioned 'Cancel conversion of cargo space to carry troops'.  So I can choose to cancel the conversion if I wish.  But with some AK classes (e.g. Type 2A Standard, Lima Maru), the option to cancel isn't offered: you click to convert and you are committed to that conversion.
 
I don't mind if there's some good reason for this, but it would be good to know those troop-carrier conversions that can be rolled back, and those that cannot.  As it stands, the behaviour of the interface seems inconsistent.

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

I am having difficulties with the micro-management of my Japanese AK's.  I've already posted a new thread on Tech Support about my inability to combine amphibious TF's, but I have now hit a further problem with with AK to AK-t conversions.

If I click the button to convert a Standard-C AK's cargo space to carry troops, the button remains but gets re-captioned 'Cancel conversion of cargo space to carry troops'.  So I can choose to cancel the conversion if I wish.  But with some AK classes (e.g. Type 2A Standard, Lima Maru), the option to cancel isn't offered: you click to convert and you are committed to that conversion.

I don't mind if there's some good reason for this, but it would be good to know those troop-carrier conversions that can be rolled back, and those that cannot.  As it stands, the behaviour of the interface seems inconsistent.

Post a save

[Local Yokel]

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

I am having difficulties with the micro-management of my Japanese AK's.  I've already posted a new thread on Tech Support about my inability to combine amphibious TF's, but I have now hit a further problem with with AK to AK-t conversions.

If I click the button to convert a Standard-C AK's cargo space to carry troops, the button remains but gets re-captioned 'Cancel conversion of cargo space to carry troops'.  So I can choose to cancel the conversion if I wish.  But with some AK classes (e.g. Type 2A Standard, Lima Maru), the option to cancel isn't offered: you click to convert and you are committed to that conversion.

I don't mind if there's some good reason for this, but it would be good to know those troop-carrier conversions that can be rolled back, and those that cannot.  As it stands, the behaviour of the interface seems inconsistent.

Post a save

I noticed this in the same turn as I hit the problem combining amphibious TF's, as described in this Tech Support thread, so the save posted there should reproduce the phenomenon. This is Guadalcanal scenario PBEM, Version 1.0.1.1084e. The posted save file there isn't compressed; just needs the .zip suffix stripping off. Can supply password if required.

[Chad Harrison]

Is anyone else having issues with following TF's?

In my Guadacanal PBEM, with the latest patch and playing as the Allies, I had all my ships following a single amphibious TF. No distance set to the follow command. After the last turn, all my following TF's were still in the same hex as where they started. In other words, the task force being followed moved, but all the following TF's stayed where they were last turn.

I *never* used the follow command in vanilla WitP for this exact reason. It was too buggy to risk. I just did all the moves manually.

Thanks in advance.

Chad

[Don Bowen]

OK, this is caused by the system damage for the conversion. The code that prevents ships being converted if they have too much damage is also preventing the cancellation of the conversion.

[Local Yokel]

Understood, thanks. Pending any fix that's possible the smart thing to do is not to convert unless you're sure - or save before you convert so you can get back to where you were. I can live with that [:)]

[Richard III]

For an in progress Campaign Game Mod that I will finish and make available if it`s deemed worthy. I have the hard copy of the Game with printed manual coming and have trouble viewing the on line manual. ( old eyes )

Not a hostile question at all, but is the Ordnance loadouts ( Torps and Bombs ) of the Japanese Fleet Carriers accurate for the Pearl Harbor attack as well as post PH ?

Will low to 0 Ordnance loads cause AI controled CV TF`s to retire from combat.

In the ordnance loadouts for the pre - war US Fleet Carriers I see a number but no specific bomb type selected, will the SBD`s automatically select the bomb load based on range or target ( ship and say 500 to 1000 lbs AP or GPS or land and say 250GP`s ) ?

Thanks in advance.