1.40 OOB Issues

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Herrbear

Ron, are those additions posted somewhere or could you send me a list at herrbear@hotmail.com.

Thanks.

They are posted on these forums...I'll look for them.

[Kereguelen]

Hi,

the British Eastern Fleet is still missing. That was mentioned before, but was is the reason for this omission? Design decision? Reasons with the AI? It surely is a more important Naval HQ than the US Asiatic Fleet HQ that was included and is utterly useless as a Naval HQ!

Would be nice to have it in the game!

K

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen

Hi,

the British Eastern Fleet is still missing. That was mentioned before, but was is the reason for this omission? Design decision? Reasons with the AI? It surely is a more important Naval HQ than the US Asiatic Fleet HQ that was included and is utterly useless as a Naval HQ!

Would be nice to have it in the game! The name changed a few times as the war progressed but it's there.

K

The Fleet HQ is in Colombo

[mark24]

Hi Ron,

Are your changes going to make it into 1.5?

Mark

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: mark24

Hi Ron,

Are your changes going to make it into 1.5?

Mark

No idea. I'm no longer with the beta/dev team. Once the scenario we are doing is ready (Don Bowen just purchased more ship sources on CD so it's going to be very detailed and will take longer to finish) it will have all the RN additions. You will then be able to send DDs as escorts as all the other escort types more than suffice for general escort duties.

[drstat]

witpqs,

I believe that this is an OOB issue. I checked the database and the Corsair FB squadrons attached to these carriers have a delay of 9999. [:(]

dr_stat

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: dr_stat

witpqs,

I believe that this is an OOB issue. I checked the database and the Corsair FB squadrons attached to these carriers have a delay of 9999. [:(]

dr_stat

Thanks. I guess that means we need to hear from pry?

[Herrbear]

Does the Kamo (550) belong to the Otori class of destroyer. I can find no listing for this ship's name.

[The Gnome]

Scenario: June 1944 Campaign

Couple of supply/fuel related issues, that I'm not entirely certain are correct.

- Supply levels for the Allies throughout the theater seem abnormally low, including the US bases. There seems to be no SoPac or SWPac supply hub. Most of the bases with air units (most are under strength) run through their supply in a week, while a fresh supply run is at least a week away.

- Also supply related. The vast majority of the allied TK fleet is located at Entinewok. Coupled with the fact that fuel levels at most bases are very low, this causes major supply headaches as you need to sail the TK's back to the US, then back to the operational areas.

Was CentPac, SoPac, and SWPac in that bad a supply situation in the summer of '44? Perhaps have a few supply convoys added as in route to Oz? Were 90% of the US tankers in Entinewok at the time? If not maybe throw a bunch in SF?

[PeteG662]

Issue with .50 Cal M2 machine gun range.

For aircraft the range is 2000, for ships it is 7000. 7000 is too long a range based upon all the range tables for the 50 cal machine gun. Can we get this fixed?

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: Tallyman662

Issue with .50 Cal M2 machine gun range.

For aircraft the range is 2000, for ships it is 7000. 7000 is too long a range based upon all the range tables for the 50 cal machine gun. Can we get this fixed?

What should the range be? The source here indicates the max range is 7400 yards http://www.microworks.net/pacific/. I realize effective range is probably half or less, but all the ranges are set at max I think.

[PeteG662]

Aircraft have a different range for their 50 cals than do ships or ground units. That is the issue. Considering the angle/trajectory of fire, 7400 would be too high. For aircraft I can understand a slightly lower number due to the inaccuracy issue but the two should be near equivalent, not 5000 different. The site you posted was for a flat trajectory shot, not AA fire. AA fire would reduce the range considerably.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I am in scenario 15, Sep '43, v1.40 but started under v1.30. I was tooling around in the ship availability display and I noticed the following.

CV's Franklin, Hancock, and Randolph are each scheduled to come in with the following loadout:

VF-xx 38 F6F
VB-xx 18 SB2C
VS-xx 18 SB2C
VT-xx 15 TBF
Total of 89 aircraft each

CV's Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, and Lake Champlain are each scheduled to come in with this loadout:

VF-xx 38 F6F
VB-xx 18 SB2C
VT-xx 15 TBF
Total of 71 aircraft each

They look a bit light on dive bombers. Is this correct? Do they change when they actually arrive, or are there other air units that I am supposed to transfer to them?

Any Moderator... Is this an actual OOB problem or not to worry?[&:][&:][&:]

[fbastos]

Scenario #15:

Per the DANFS, the group with Louisville / President Coolidge / Hugh L Scott was en route to Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941, not San Francisco as the OOB indicates.

Also per the DANFS, the Pensacola convoy was en route to the Phillippines and was diverted to Brisbane after the attack on PH. Therefore, scenario #15 should have it en route to Manila, while scenario #16 should have it en route to Brisbane. Both have it enroute to Suva.

F.

[fbastos]

Per the "McMillan Report", http://www.mansell.com/pow_resources/gu ... n-rpt.html, the captain of USS Penguin was Lt J. W. Haviland, 3rd.

Also, Guam on Dec 7 1941 is missing AG-27 Robert L Barnes, which can be modeled after a Small AK.

F.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Per the "McMillan Report", http://www.mansell.com/pow_resources/gu ... n-rpt.html, the captain of USS Penguin was Lt J. W. Haviland, 3rd.

Also, Guam on Dec 7 1941 is missing AG-27 Robert L Barnes, which can be modeled after a Small AK.

F.

Don Bowen has this ship.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: fbastos

Scenario #15:

Per the DANFS, the group with Louisville / President Coolidge / Hugh L Scott was en route to Pearl Harbor on Dec 7 1941, not San Francisco as the OOB indicates.

Also per the DANFS, the Pensacola convoy was en route to the Phillippines and was diverted to Brisbane after the attack on PH. Therefore, scenario #15 should have it en route to Manila, while scenario #16 should have it en route to Brisbane. Both have it enroute to Suva.

F.

Took around about route.

[fbastos]

Scenario #15:

The 58th BS at Pearl Harbor has A-20B on Dec 7, 1941 per the OOB, but in fact they had A-20A.

This would be only a detail if the A-20B wasn't available only on Jan 1942 per the OOB, so this group only has 6 aircrafts, has no replacements, and can't upgrade, as the A-20G will only be available on Jan-1943.

My suggestion is to create another entry on the OOB for the A-20A, with the same stats as the A-20B, and have the 58th BS be the only unit flying A-20A; give the A-20A a small production rate, like 1 per month, so the 58th BS can reach full strength sometime during 1941, and yet the player will have incentive to switch to A-20B when it becomes available.

Otherwise this group is useless.

F.

[michaelm75au]

In scenario #15/16 of v1.4, those CVs (Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, and Lake Champlain ) arrive with
38 F6F
18 F4U
18 SB2C
15 TBF

If you started under 1.30, then you are still using the OOBs from 1.3. They are part of the save file.

Michael

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: michaelm

In scenario #15/16 of v1.4, those CVs (Ticonderoga, Bennington, Boxer, Bon Homme Richard, Antietam, Shangri-La, and Lake Champlain ) arrive with
38 F6F
18 F4U
18 SB2C
15 TBF

If you started under 1.30, then you are still using the OOBs from 1.3. They are part of the save file.

Michael

Yes, thank you. But, there was no OOB change for this listed in the what's new file,[&:] so it's probably in 1.4 also.[:(] I submitted it because of that.