The Ensigns who command ships

[spence]

I find it quite extraodinary that AE gives command of the two light cruisers HMNZS Achilles and HMNZS Leander to ensigns (especially Ensigns of dubious skill even for Ensigns). HMNZS Achilles had been in action since 1939. The job rated a Captain (an experienced O-6 not an O-1 wet behind the ears). Somehow making the Allied Player spend political points to change out the CO's of those cruisers seems a blatant sop to the "I coulda conquered the world IJ Players if I'd been in charge crew".

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: spence

I find it quite extraodinary that AE gives command of the two light cruisers HMNZS Achilles and HMNZS Leander to ensigns (especially Ensigns of dubious skill even for Ensigns). HMNZS Achilles had been in action since 1939. The job rated a Captain (an experienced O-6 not an O-1 wet behind the ears). Somehow making the Allied Player spend political points to change out the CO's of those cruisers seems a blatant sop to the "I coulda conquered the world IJ Players if I'd been in charge crew".

I haven't checked the Editor, but many ship captain selections at start are set to "Random". I don't recall ensigns on my Achilles and Leander nor that the leaders were so bad. I think Achilles' captain was mediocre and I changed him about two months into the game when I could spare the PP.

[NigelKentarus]

I had to load my save and look, sure enough, they're commanded by Ensigns. I never noticed before. I'm playing Scen #28, DBB-B. I haven't looked in the editor yet to see what it's set at.

It's the same in stock Scen. 001, both are commanded by USN Ensigns. As near as I found, it should be Achilles (Capt. W.E.Parry-ID 17192) and Leander (Cdr. S.Roskill-ID 17196).

[Sardaukar]

It is an old bug. Seems it is still there (if you are using latest Beta-patch, that is).

It happens when ship CO is lost in binary world. [8D] Thus, game engine replaces him with random generated ENS CO. It can be annoying, but not critical.

So, be assured it is not intentional to have ENS commanding a cruiser. Just replace him with something more appropriate if available.

[crsutton]

Yes, the game has been around for a decade now. This is nothing new. Not sure why you are complaining. It is pretty minor compared to many things. And, it really is not something that I expect to get fixed.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, the game has been around for a decade now. This is nothing new. Not sure why you are complaining. It is pretty minor compared to many things. And, it really is not something that I expect to get fixed.

I wouldn't call it a complaint, that's not how I read it anyway. More a head scratcher.

By the way, there are a number of us who haven't been playing the game for 10 years... Or even a year. [;)]

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Yes, the game has been around for a decade now. This is nothing new. Not sure why you are complaining. It is pretty minor compared to many things. And, it really is not something that I expect to get fixed.

I wouldn't call it a complaint, that's not how I read it anyway. More a head scratcher.

By the way, there are a number of us who haven't been playing the game for 10 years... Or even a year. [;)]

Well, I would call it a "reasonable complaint" in that it costs precious early PP to fix and if you do not do so, the effectiveness of two pretty good ships is knackered. (look that one up)[;)].

[NigelKentarus]

In my current game, the Achilles, with Ens. Jones commanding, sank 2 xAK's off Aitape. So I think I'll keep him for the time being.

[Major Shane]

Wouldn't know. Lost both early in the war to torpedoes fighting off IJN invasion of PM.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Well, I would call it a "reasonable complaint" in that it costs precious early PP to fix and if you do not do so, the effectiveness of two pretty good ships is knackered. (look that one up)[;)].

Pretty sure it's been stated by devs that ranks of leaders have no effect in code. If an Ensign has a good Naval rating he has a good rating. You don't get a bump from a CDR.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Well, I would call it a "reasonable complaint" in that it costs precious early PP to fix and if you do not do so, the effectiveness of two pretty good ships is knackered. (look that one up)[;)].

Pretty sure it's been stated by devs that ranks of leaders have no effect in code. If an Ensign has a good Naval rating he has a good rating. You don't get a bump from a CDR.

But my historically accurate(ish) alarm bells start going off. It's pretty hard for some people to suspend disbelief when you've got ensigns in command of cruisers, game mechanics are no.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: Revthought

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Well, I would call it a "reasonable complaint" in that it costs precious early PP to fix and if you do not do so, the effectiveness of two pretty good ships is knackered. (look that one up)[;)].

Pretty sure it's been stated by devs that ranks of leaders have no effect in code. If an Ensign has a good Naval rating he has a good rating. You don't get a bump from a CDR.

But my historically accurate(ish) alarm bells start going off. It's pretty hard for some people to suspend disbelief when you've got ensigns in command of cruisers, game mechanics are no.

Then you spend the PP, don't spend on something else, and move on.

[spence]

So anything that hinders the Allies is good? Absolutely wouldn't want something that would hinder the IJN/IJA. That'd be bad for sure. Obviously, putting the real CO's who were in charge of HMNZS Achilles and HMNZS Leander on Dec 7, 41 would impose a horrendous burden on the devs who seem to maintain that this is something of a simulation.

[Revthought]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Then you spend the PP, don't spend on something else, and move on.

Agreed.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: spence

So anything that hinders the Allies is good? Absolutely wouldn't want something that would hinder the IJN/IJA. That'd be bad for sure. Obviously, putting the real CO's who were in charge of HMNZS Achilles and HMNZS Leander on Dec 7, 41 would impose a horrendous burden on the devs who seem to maintain that this is something of a simulation.

I play the Allies too, but your non-stop kvetching over the years wears thin. This is no hardship in terms of gameplay.

[NigelKentarus]

At least neither one is commanded by Ens. Pulver!

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: NigelKentarus

At least neither one is commanded by Ens. Pulver!

I can just imagine making a depth charge run with potted plants! LOL [:D]

[Reg]

ORIGINAL: NigelKentarus

I had to load my save and look, sure enough, they're commanded by Ensigns. I never noticed before. I'm playing Scen #28, DBB-B. I haven't looked in the editor yet to see what it's set at.

It's the same in stock Scen. 001, both are commanded by USN Ensigns. As near as I found, it should be Achilles (Capt. W.E.Parry-ID 17192) and Leander (Cdr. S.Roskill-ID 17196).

Just a scenario database error, pure and simple. Probably one of a million if you look closely enough. [;)]

If it really worries you, you can fix it in the editor though I think HMNZS Achilles was commanded by Capt. H.M.Barnes ID 17164 in Dec'41.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: NigelKentarus

At least neither one is commanded by Ens. Pulver!

I can just imagine making a depth charge run with potted plants! LOL [:D]

Yes Admiral - I got it with my palm ....

You slapped the sub with your hand?!!!

Well, not exactly sir!

[szmike]

what is this fuss all about? [&:] don't people have bigger problems these days? [8|]