AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Adronson
Regarding LST's, the Dictionary of American Naval Fighting Ships have recently updated and expanded their listing of LST's. It is now fairly complete and usually includes details of service. Transfers to the UK, theater of operations, assaults and landings, and number of battle stars are all there now. I'm not sure when they updated it, but I don't recall that level of detail last time I checked it.

Yes. We know that site, too. But there are hundreds of LSTs, and hundreds of other ships in other classes, and I would rather go boat racing on a weekend than lookup the history of LCI-666.

If you are volunteering to spec these out, I would be highly appreciative. You are a better man than I, gunga Adronson.

[Adronson]

ORIGINAL: JWE
If you are volunteering to spec these out, I would be highly appreciative.

I'll see what I can do.

[Chad Harrison]

I just wanted to check in here as to how the whole: Minimal, Tactical, Full refuel options *should* be working. I can not get them to work on my end and the manual is kind of mum about how exactly they should work ingame.

My understanding is that a TF set to either minimal or tactical refuel options would only draw enough fuel needed for its current assignment plus a little extra depending on whether it was minimal or tactical. So for instance, I have a cargo TF go from San Diego to Sydney. Once it gets to Sydney, it does not have enough fuel for the home run - but I dont want it to fully refuel because it only needs a little extra to make it home to San Diego. So I set it to *minimal* refuel, and hit *refuel TF from port*. All the ships fully top off. Even when I try it if the TF starts at SD, has a destination of Sydney but a home of SD and is set to *minimal* refuel, it will either not automatically refuel at all in Sydney so it has enough bunker for the leg home.

So anyways, how should it work? Do you have to let it do it on its own, or should it still work if you manually order a TF to refuel?

Again, this is most likely operator error. But I just want to make sure that it is working as designed and I am just missing something (which is . . . ? [:D])

Thanks in advance!

Chad

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
I just wanted to check in here as to how the whole: Minimal, Tactical, Full refuel options *should* be working. I can not get them to work on my end and the manual is kind of mum about how exactly they should work ingame.

My understanding is that a TF set to either minimal or tactical refuel options would only draw enough fuel needed for its current assignment plus a little extra depending on whether it was minimal or tactical. So for instance, I have a cargo TF go from San Diego to Sydney. Once it gets to Sydney, it does not have enough fuel for the home run - but I dont want it to fully refuel because it only needs a little extra to make it home to San Diego. So I set it to *minimal* refuel, and hit *refuel TF from port*. All the ships fully top off. Even when I try it if the TF starts at SD, has a destination of Sydney but a home of SD and is set to *minimal* refuel, it will either not automatically refuel at all in Sydney so it has enough bunker for the leg home.

So anyways, how should it work? Do you have to let it do it on its own, or should it still work if you manually order a TF to refuel?

Again, this is most likely operator error. But I just want to make sure that it is working as designed and I am just missing something (which is . . . ? [:D])

Thanks in advance!

Chad

I'm just a Bozo on this bus too, Chad, so take my comments with a large grain of salt. Don't know and am probably too stupid to have it right, but I "think" the refuel options work for "at sea" refuel. You hit port and gas up, you will gas up. But then, I'm probably wrong, as usual.

If this is important to you, maybe post it on the Nav Issues thread. Maybe a coder will see it and respond. Good luck.

[Chad Harrison]

John

As always, thanks for the prompt reply. I will make a thread outside of this and see if that gets a coder's attention.

By the way, everything looks great. Playing both against the AI and PBEM, and everything is superb.

Keep up the great work!

Chad

[Sardaukar]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but seems that unlike in WitP, in AE Amphibious Command Ship (AGC) cannot fully load Amphibious Force HQ. See:

tm.asp?m=2257368&mpage=1&key=&#2258804

This shouldn't be too hard to fix, after all, it did work in WitP. (Just don't hate me for saying it's easy). [:D]

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but seems that unlike in WitP, in AE Amphibious Command Ship (AGC) cannot fully load Amphibious Force HQ.

This shouldn't be too hard to fix, after all, it did work in WitP. (Just don't hate me for saying it's easy). [:D]

I see where people suggest using 2 or more AGCs to solve this. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that approach. The idea behind the AGC is to host a HQ unit that provides command and control (combat modifiers) to invasion units. The operational part of a Corps HQ ain’t really all that big.

In the game, an HQ LCU provides lots of other functions and is fairly large in terms of device/squad content, most of which have little bearing on the C&C functions. So why not split it up? And why shouldn’t any HQ fragment eventually rebuild? Even if Howlin Mad got whacked, it wouldn’t make his Corps HQ disappear – somebody would step up, maybe Navy TF and/or MC divisional staff would wear two hats for a while, but them slots gonna be filled.

Unless there is something else going on, I see no issue with landing a fragment, getting the parent whacked, and then promoting the fragment to parent. So, in my poor, stupid sense of things, I would probably resist increasing the “capacity” of an AGC, or reducing the “load cost” of an HQ LCU, so long as there is the option to load the HQ on multiple AGCs.

[El Savior]

I want to raise coastal gun and Japanese AI script issue.

In Grand Campaign Japanese are making naval bombardment raids against Pearl Harbor about once a month. The real issue here is that coastal guns are almost ineffective against attacking Japanese ships. In my last game Japanese attacked only with heavy cruisers and sunk CV Yorktown under repair and about 30 additional ships. Only handful of shots was shot against Japanese ships. Ouahu's coastal guns didn't do anything to counter them... The same problem lies with other fortress bases like Singapore.

Please make coastal guns much more deadly. Now defending coastal guns are a joke. Second, if coastal guns cannot be fixed, please fix Japanese AI that it will not make raids against PH so frequently.

[Mynok]

I'd like to see combat reports of that, because frankly, in my experience, any bombardment group that visits Singapore gets mauled. And I've never even heard of anyone stupid enough to try bombarding Pearl.

[Barb]

On the other hand I had several xAKs (tonnage 5900+) in amphibious invasions at aleutians scenario sunk after 1 (ONE) hit from 12cm CD gun [:D]... One would say that hole foot by foot big couldnt sink a ship that big... [X(]

[witpqs]

In Dec '43 a ship arrives as:

xAP Golden Gate (C2 USAT Class 2/1942)

The designation "C2 USAT" makes me wonder if the "xAP" is correct or should it be either "AP" or "APA"?

[JWE]

ORIGINAL: witpqs
In Dec '43 a ship arrives as:
xAP Golden Gate (C2 USAT Class 2/1942)
The designation "C2 USAT" makes me wonder if the "xAP" is correct or should it be either "AP" or "APA"?

USAT ships were very little better than Turkish slave galleys. They were commercial boats the USAT chartered (voyage or bare boat) and were under Army control. They had no boats, no LCs, no cranes, and couldn't assault if their life depended on it. They were nothing but chartered hulls, with a ton of flimsy bunks, and an extra 50 feet of tin urinal troughs. They were "slave" ships in every sense of the word.

Game has some USAT boats that are designated xAP, instead of xAK. This is the game's way of giving the Allies some troop capacity to make up for the Jap's ability to do the -t (xAK carry troops) conversion. It's basically the same thing, except USAT slave ships don't assault, unless you are really, really suicidal.

[witpqs]

Thanks. I was suckered by the 'USAT' figuring 'AT' stood for Attack Transport or something like it.

I guess people have been slapping lipstick on pigs for quite some time! [:D]

[Don Bowen]

USAT = U S Army Transport. Technically only those ships fitted for carriage of troops should have this designation, but it is frequently used for any ship chartered or owned by the Army.

Note that these were merchant ships, with merchant crews. As JWE said.

Some were owned by the Army, others owned by the shipping board and operated by the army. Many were either time or voyage chartered. But just regular old liners and freighters. US Merchant Marine crews with some army personnel for communications, security, and maybe light AA gun crews. Even the ships that went into dangerous waters (like Dona Nati, Don Jose and Anhui) had merchant crews.

One of the things that the Army complains about to this day was the decision in the first couple of months of the war to transfer many of the best ships to Navy control. This was because the Navy would man them with military crews and to Naval manning levels - with enough folks for damage control parites, two-watch gun crews, etc.

[witpqs]

So why the complaints about better manning, etc.?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

So why the complaints about better manning, etc.?

Sorry, don't understand the question.

[witpqs]

Sorry - I meant why the Army complaints. It seems like when they turned some of them over to Navy control they got manning of those ships - any they complain to this day about it?

[Don Bowen]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Sorry - I meant why the Army complaints. It seems like when they turned some of them over to Navy control they got manning of those ships - any they complain to this day about it?

Because they lost operational control of the ships. They wanted to use them for Army requirements but once they ships belonged to the Navy, the Navy set the priorities.

[sven6345789]

The japanese submarine I-8 is classified as an A1 type sub;
IRL it was an J3 type sub (like I-7)
this is in scenario 1, patch 1.084

[Montbrun]

Campaign Game - there are 2x TK L.P. St. Clairs: