Page 50 of 62

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:51 pm
by JWE
Thanks Harald. We’ll get as many as possible into DaBigBabes. We’ll probably mess with the proposed class changes some. Just fyi, here’s how we are defining merchant classes. There’s two groups, older and modern. Oldies have plumb bows, counter sterns, old style superstructure, tall thin funnels. Modern vessels have clipper bows, cruiser sterns, modern superstructure, shorter fatter funnels. They are paired up, and go in lpl ranges: 475-525’, 425-450’, 350-395’, 300-340’. Anything smaller than 300’ gets put into one of several ‘small’ classes going all the way down to about 100’. Here’s the (general) breakout, and a pic showing how the models differ – if we can’t find a picture of a given ship, we generally take 1928-30 as the break point between old and modern and assign it accordingly.

Southwest Cargo – 490’
Dominion L Cargo – 490’
Dominion M Cargo - 425’
Pacific L Cargo - 365’
Pacific M Cargo - 315’

Euro L Cargo – 500’
Empire L Cargo – 500’
Euro K Cargo – 435’
Euro M Cargo – 380’
Euro D Cargo - 330’


Image

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 3:33 pm
by JWE
Also, we limited the “troopers” to those ship classes/groups that actually were affirmatively converted into troopships (Kotas, Poelaus, etc..). But don’t forget that any xAK with reasonable cargo capacity can also “troop” by cross loading. Your typical Euro K/Dominion M can carry over 900 troops cross loaded in cargo. Many vessels were used interchangeably as troopers and bulk carriers. Even though a ship might have been used to ‘troop’, it may well not have been affirmatively converted to the function; think the system models this fairly well and obviates the need to define certain vessels as a “troop” version – because once you convert, you can’t go back.

Mention all this so you will understand why we may not put some ships into the classes you suggest. We will, of course, evaluate them all, paying close attention to your suggestions. I have a friend from the Netherlands Antilles in the workgroup who is always on my brookie to make the Dutch perfect, as is Don Bowen. What you are doing for us is something special. Although we may have to tweak your suggestions a bit to have them fit into the game paradigm, believe me we are carefully listening. Please don’t stop.

Ciao. John

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 7:42 pm
by Dutch_slith
ORIGINAL: JWE

Thanks Harald. We’ll get as many as possible into DaBigBabes. We’ll probably mess with the proposed class changes some. Just fyi, here’s how we are defining merchant classes. There’s two groups, older and modern. Oldies have plumb bows, counter sterns, old style superstructure, tall thin funnels. Modern vessels have clipper bows, cruiser sterns, modern superstructure, shorter fatter funnels. They are paired up, and go in lpl ranges: 475-525’, 425-450’, 350-395’, 300-340’. Anything smaller than 300’ gets put into one of several ‘small’ classes going all the way down to about 100’. Here’s the (general) breakout, and a pic showing how the models differ – if we can’t find a picture of a given ship, we generally take 1928-30 as the break point between old and modern and assign it accordingly.

My proposed class changes were based on a) Shipowners (like KPM gets the Pacific-look) b) wether it is rated as passenger or general cargo c) GRT.
No doubt, your definition is much more sophisticated.

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 13, 2010 8:00 pm
by Dutch_slith
ORIGINAL: JWE

Also, we limited the “troopers” to those ship classes/groups that actually were affirmatively converted into troopships (Kotas, Poelaus, etc..). But don’t forget that any xAK with reasonable cargo capacity can also “troop” by cross loading. Your typical Euro K/Dominion M can carry over 900 troops cross loaded in cargo. Many vessels were used interchangeably as troopers and bulk carriers. Even though a ship might have been used to ‘troop’, it may well not have been affirmatively converted to the function; think the system models this fairly well and obviates the need to define certain vessels as a “troop” version – because once you convert, you can’t go back.

My intention was to limit the "troopers" as well. Far too many ships transporting livestock were designated as xAP, which they are not.

ORIGINAL: JWE

Mention all this so you will understand why we may not put some ships into the classes you suggest. We will, of course, evaluate them all, paying close attention to your suggestions. I have a friend from the Netherlands Antilles in the workgroup who is always on my brookie to make the Dutch perfect, as is Don Bowen. What you are doing for us is something special. Although we may have to tweak your suggestions a bit to have them fit into the game paradigm, believe me we are carefully listening.

Ciao. John

In the past I felt the class-decision, was somehow by chance. Now I think it's an individual decision to classify a given ship.
ORIGINAL: JWE

Please don’t stop.

Glad I could help. Just wanted to put in all the missing vessels. And at least the whereabouts of all those ships is now as close as it could be.

Harald

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:39 am
by Dutch_slith

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:40 am
by Dutch_slith
Kon. Marine updated!

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:41 am
by Dutch_slith
KPM updated!
Rotterdamsche lloyd updated!
JCJL updated!
HAL updated!
Nederland updated!
Oceaan updated!
VNS updated!
La Corona updated!

Sloet van de Beele added
Olivia added

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:46 am
by Dutch_slith
FG Class (Fak Fak, Flores, Garoet, Grissee)

All demolished on building slip. This class was almost identical to ABCDE Class (that is: Alor, Aroe, Bantam, Bogor, Ceram, Cheribon, Digoel, Djampea, Djember, Djombang, Endeh and Enggano)


Image

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:48 am
by Dutch_slith
Barentsz

AR (Repair Ship)




Image

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:48 am
by Dutch_slith
Boissevain

Image

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:49 am
by Dutch_slith
Tegelberg



Image

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:49 am
by Dutch_slith
Ruys



Image

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:51 am
by Dutch_slith
P 4 (after the war)

Image

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:53 am
by Dutch_slith
P 5 - P 8
P 9 - P 16
P 17 - P 22 (P 23)

Image

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2010 5:53 am
by Dutch_slith
Merak

AKE later coverted to AGP





Image

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:46 am
by geiramk
Was this old lady ever considered for inclusion in the game?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_cruiser_Georgios_Averof

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:03 am
by cantona2
ORIGINAL: Saltcreep

Was this old lady ever considered for inclusion in the game?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_cruiser_Georgios_Averof


She's in CHS for Witp stock

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 6:26 am
by geiramk
OK. Shame I can't have her around in AE, as I love oddballs for adding flavour. What's CHS, by the way?

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:52 am
by treespider
ORIGINAL: Saltcreep

OK. Shame I can't have her around in AE, as I love oddballs for adding flavour. What's CHS, by the way?

AE's Uncle...

CHS was an original mod done for WitP. Many of the contributors to CHS were/are on the AE team.

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Posted: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:49 am
by JWE
ORIGINAL: Saltcreep
Was this old lady ever considered for inclusion in the game?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_cruiser_Georgios_Averof
Yes, considered, but not not done. However, her ship image is at bitmap # 0395, in case someone wanted to add her in.