AE Naval and OOB Issues [OUTDATED]

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by n01487477 »

Probably stated before ...

Bind 198
Yusen S Cargo & AMC Kinryu both have convert from, which doesn't allowing any conversions...
User avatar
karmannkc
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:27 am

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by karmannkc »

Ummm, I have a couple of issues to mention first is an OOB question as to why the CVB USS Franklin D. Roosevelt isnt in the December 8th campaign. From my very limited investigation on Wikipedia it was comissioned in october of 1945 and had her shakedown in february of 46. I only mention it as the USS Tarawa arrives in March 46. It would seem to me that the USS FDR would join the party if one actually gets to that point in the war. Curious if that's editorial decision not to make life too hard on the Japs or what. Otherwise it would seem that it should be available no later then March of 46.

More of a Technical issue. LCS(L)-class landing craft can't be put into Amphibious TFs only Transports, which seems odd as they are clearly designed to support landing operation, at least that what it looks like to me with their rockets and all. Oh and I have fully updated to the latest version 1.106g or whatever.

No catchy signature as of yet...
User avatar
JeffroK
Posts: 6395
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:05 am

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by JeffroK »

Back to the RAN.

Ballarat  - 3 of 4 sources have it enroute to Singapore, but arriving in Darwin on 8/12/41 OZ time. It later arrived in Singapore. Its odd that a usually accurate site got this & Toowoomba wrong.

Toowoomba - based in Sydney.   Later went to Singapore and formed a MSW Flotilla with the other RAN MSW.

Next check, Benalla & Bunbury, both have arival dates about 12 mths out of alignment.
Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
User avatar
redcoat
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:48 am
Location: UK

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by redcoat »


Is the Coastal Forces Depot Ship HMIS Barracuda (ex-Heinrich Jessen) in the game. I searched the 'Ships' section of the AE editor but couldn't find her. Apologies if she is there already. I'm not familiar with the editor yet.
“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

George Orwell, 1984
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: redcoat


Is the Coastal Forces Depot Ship HMIS Barracuda (ex-Heinrich Jessen) in the game. I searched the 'Ships' section of the AE editor but couldn't find her. Apologies if she is there already. I'm not familiar with the editor yet.

She is not in stock, but I am hoping to put her into Da Babes mod. Don't have much data on her, you got any? Could use a picture too.
User avatar
redcoat
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:48 am
Location: UK

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by redcoat »


HMIS Barracuda (pennant F.140) was the ex-Danish Heinrich Jessen, built and engined by the Hong Kong & Whampoa Dock Company (though there is, in fact, some evidence that she was built in Japan, and towed to Hong Kong only to have her engines fitted) and completed in 1940. She escaped from Hong Kong, Singapore, Rangoon and Akyab as Jap forces advanced, and was requisitioned for the Royal Indian Navy as a Coastal Forces Depot ship. Of 3335 tons (gross), she was 305ft overall, with a beam of 46ft 6in.

Her maiden voyage was as the last ship to leave Hong Kong. At Singapore she managed to collect enough coal to be again the last ship to leave and reach Rangoon.

From September 1942 she was a depot ship for RIN Fairmile B MLs based at Bombay and Calcutta. Later she was the mother ship for the coastal craft (Fairmile Bs, HDMLs and MTBs) of the Arakan Coastal Forces operating along the coast of Burma. If the war had continued she would have supported coastal operations off Malaya. In 1946 she was restored to her previous owners.

HMIS Barracuda in India. With a Fairmile B and Higgins LCP.

Image

Main source: Conway’s Allied Coastal Forces of World War 2.
“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

George Orwell, 1984
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Don Bowen »


Great, thanks. We had her history and tonnage, nothing else. Do you have any speed/endurance data?
User avatar
redcoat
Posts: 1034
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 9:48 am
Location: UK

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by redcoat »

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Do you have any speed/endurance data?

Unfortunately not.

There is another small photo of HMIS Barracuda at the bottom of this webpage.

It is interesting to see that she was the last ship to leave Hong Kong and Singapore and the first Allied ship to sail back to both of them after the Jap surrender. [:)]
“‘Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’”

George Orwell, 1984
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: redcoat
ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

Do you have any speed/endurance data?

Unfortunately not.

There is another small photo of HMIS Barracuda at the bottom of this webpage.

It is interesting to see that she was the last ship to leave Hong Kong and Singapore and the first Allied ship to sail back to both of them after the Jap surrender. [:)]

Not to worry. The fabulous JWE did some research/estimations. We'll probably add her to "Babes" as an AGP with a late '42 arrival in India.

We are in favor of this ship as she will be the only RIN AGP - and they have a couple of dozen MTBs.
User avatar
Bliztk
Posts: 777
Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 10:37 am
Location: Electronic City

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Bliztk »

I don´t know if this is a typo or intended feature, but Takao class CAs start with 75 Tower Armor, and in each upgrade they have 16mm.

Then looking further on Japanese CA upgrades, Maya has 16mm and Myoko 0!

I don´t recall the Japanese throwing away armor plates on their cruisers... [:)]
Image
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Bliztk
I don´t know if this is a typo or intended feature, but Takao class CAs start with 75 Tower Armor, and in each upgrade they have 16mm.

Then looking further on Japanese CA upgrades, Maya has 16mm and Myoko 0!

I don´t recall the Japanese throwing away armor plates on their cruisers... [:)]
Intended. Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese CAs and researched them extensively using Lacroix, Jentschura, Watts, and many other sources. One would need an incontrovertable primary source to convince Joe to have any of these changed.
User avatar
witpqs
Posts: 26376
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:48 pm
Location: Argleton

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by witpqs »

I remember discussion long ago on these boards that many of the IJN CA's were top-heavy. Maybe some armor had been removed to improve their stability. 50% guessing here.
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: JWE
ORIGINAL: Bliztk
I don´t know if this is a typo or intended feature, but Takao class CAs start with 75 Tower Armor, and in each upgrade they have 16mm.

Then looking further on Japanese CA upgrades, Maya has 16mm and Myoko 0!

I don´t recall the Japanese throwing away armor plates on their cruisers... [:)]
Intended. Joe Wilkerson did the Japanese CAs and researched them extensively using Lacroix, Jentschura, Watts, and many other sources. One would need an incontrovertable primary source to convince Joe to have any of these changed.
Very sorry, my mistake. Heard from Joe and yes, 75 Tower Armor for the initial Takao class is a typo. Should be 16.
User avatar
vettim89
Posts: 3664
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:38 pm
Location: Toledo, Ohio

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by vettim89 »

From my question in the Tech Support forum I have discovered an error in the GC database. Device nos. 1736 Mousetrap Mk 20 and device 1737 Mousetrap Mk 22 both have a load cost of 9999. This makes them one shot weapons as they cannot reload. If Nik sees this, the error was carried through to you GC mod. Device values are correct in scenario 1 (load cost = 65)

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry
Smeulders
Posts: 1879
Joined: Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:13 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Smeulders »

Not sure if anyone mentioned this before, but there seems to be a typo for the sub in slot 4786, could this be SS-342, the "Chopper" instead of the "Chipper" ? There seems to be similar error in SS-346, slot 4790 which I find as 'Corporal' instead of 'Corperal'.
The AE-Wiki, help fill it out
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Barb »

Scen 1, latest official patch
2/42 upgrade of Minekaze class destroyers removes 2xT95DC (Rear facing) and replace it with 2xT95DC (Left Side).

I suppose it is database error.
Can it be dealt with with hotfix? If yes, can the fix be applied before ships are allowed to upgrade? Or has it be applied before 1st february arrives? Does facing to the left limit DC effectivenes compared to facing rear?

I would like to know the answers, because its 29th january in our pbem already.
Image
Attachments
Minekaze_2_42.jpg
Minekaze_2_42.jpg (43.76 KiB) Viewed 46 times
Image
User avatar
JWE
Posts: 5039
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 5:02 pm

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by JWE »

ORIGINAL: Barb
Scen 1, latest official patch
2/42 upgrade of Minekaze class destroyers removes 2xT95DC (Rear facing) and replace it with 2xT95DC (Left Side).
I suppose it is database error.
Yes.
Can it be dealt with with hotfix? If yes, can the fix be applied before ships are allowed to upgrade? Or has it be applied before 1st february arrives?

Can only be dealt with by a data patch. Any eventual data patch may, or may not, allow for in-game updating. I would not depend on it. Last time, there were many problems that came up.
Does facing to the left limit DC effectivenes compared to facing rear?
I would like to know the answers, because its 29th january in our pbem already.
Not really. I would just keep playing and not be alarmed.
User avatar
Barb
Posts: 2503
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 7:17 am
Location: Bratislava, Slovakia

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Barb »

Going to convert my Minekazes to APDs anyway [;)]
Image
User avatar
Puhis
Posts: 1737
Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:14 pm
Location: Finland

RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues

Post by Puhis »

In this game japanese Yugumo class destroyers lose their 3rd 12,7 cm turret. What I've read this is an error. Yugumos did keep all their turrets, unlike some other japanese DDs.

For example Combined fleet:
Their main armament of six 5"/50 cal. guns was the same as the KAGEROs, but these were mounted in the new Type D turret capable of 75-degree elevations as opposed to KAGERO's 55-degrees, a considerable advantage in the antiaircraft role which became more vital as the war progressed. In fact, this major upgrade, often overlooked, obviated the need to sacrifice a main-gun turret for extra light AA, and no YUGUMOs actually suffered the removal of their "X" turret to make room for extra 25 mm. machine guns, as has been widely reported. Instead, surviving YUGUMOs added their two triple 25 mm. mounts on bandstands abaft their fore-funnels.
http://www.combinedfleet.com/yugumo_n.htm

Here is pictures of Yugumos. All three ships have 3 turrets, including late war Kiyoshimo. In WitP AE, Kiyoshimo arrives with just 2 turrets.
http://blog.livedoor.jp/irootoko_jr/arc ... 74238.html

If there's going to be any database upgrades, I think this is worth checking. [:)]
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9795
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

Husimi AS

Post by PaxMondo »

Posted this in Tech support, but maybe here is better?

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2569769

Conversion to Husimi AS is no longer available ... inspected with editor and bind 202 seems all ok.  Appreciate a looksee.

Thanks!
Pax
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”