Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Pride of NationsTo End All Wars Releasing on Steam! Slitherine is recruiting: Programmers requiredPandora: Eclipse of Nashira gets release dateCommunity impressions of To End All WarsAgeod's To End All Wars is now availableTo End All Wars is now available!Deal of the Week: Field of GloryTo End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!Ageod's To End All Wars: Video, AAR and Interview!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 1:22:20 PM   
steveh11Matrix


Posts: 943
Joined: 7/30/2004
Status: offline
Besides, if you don't like it - edit it! I'm going to.

Steve.

_____________________________

"Nature always obeys Her own laws" - Leonardo da Vinci

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 61
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 2:53:47 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9786
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

It sorta devolves to an OOB issue because of the game mechanics since HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales are conveniently hanging their posteriors out for the Nipponese to bite during the first turn of the historical scenario and the Allied Player has no choices to make but simply gets to watch while the Nells/Bettys put enough torpedoes into each to insure that neither can possibly figure into the Japanese Players calculations for the rest of the battles of Malaya or the DEI. BTW the same sense of ahistoricality (must be a new word invented by me) is the air cover (inadequate) that the TF gets. Does allowing the Allied Player to make his own choices with these two ships totally unbalance the game?



Well in my game with Prz...my Netties hit diddly squat so...yes I do have to contend with Force Z.

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 62
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 2:55:24 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2655
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
I like the damage reports during combat.  My 5" CD guns at Wake Island hit a PB and I got a report saying "topsides carried away" by the hit.  I've also seen "target obliterated" after a Devastator put a torpedo into a PB...

(in reply to steveh11Matrix)
Post #: 63
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 2:55:47 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9786
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Have to make compromises. Not seen as issue. Sorry.


Not really a compromise is it - so far I have lost the two ships before 10 Dec 41 on each time I have fired up the scenario. Now I am not RADM Phillips, I know what aeroplanes and their torpedoes can do to my shiny battlewaggons and I can see the bigger picture, but as they get detected and therefore attacked every single time on 7 Dec 41 what can I do...

If the Japanese get me every time, the person making the upgrades wasted their time and effort as the 'historical' first turn manages consistently to do what the Japanese did not...
I can accept the PH lottery, but this is not a lottery, it's pointless.

(Edit - Of course if naval search really is that good, then I am looking forward to any Sigint reports that allow me to arrange a little surprise for the IJN carriers in early/mid 42)



You could play me ...cause my Netties didn't hit them against Prz....or you could play without the historical 1st turn.


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 64
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 3:02:08 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8142
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi Whipple,

The Rear 14" Guns have reduced from 6 to 5. Can AE distinguish between Barrel loss vs Turret loss then?


We'll look at it.

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 65
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 3:03:20 PM   
Speedy

 

Posts: 14372
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline
Thanks Don

_____________________________

WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 66
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 3:38:48 PM   
Roko

 

Posts: 36
Joined: 4/4/2008
Status: offline
ship class 2135 Tonan Whaler tonnage looks incorrect ( 13340 )

it should be ~17549 GRT

http://books.google.pl/books?id=lhac0fSx-rsC&pg=PT254&vq=kyokuyo&dq=kyokuyo+maru&lr=&output=html&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1

(in reply to Speedy)
Post #: 67
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 4:36:51 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Roko
ship class 2135 Tonan Whaler tonnage looks incorrect ( 13340 )

it should be ~17549 GRT

The game parameter called "Tonnage" has nothing whatsoever to do with GRT. The Tonan Whaler "tonnage" parameter is correct.

"Tonnage" is a physical size/displacement parameter and is based on physical displacement, loa, moulded beam, draft, block and other coefficients, and in specific lading conditions. It is used for 'docking', 'shipyard repair', and the like.

"Tonnage" for warships is predicated on "Standard Tonnage".
"Tonnage" for auxiliary ships is predicated on Dspl-Navy Lt, Dspl-MC Lt, foreign analogs to Dspl-MC Lt, a footprint coefficient factor, and lading additions/subtractions as necessary.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Roko)
Post #: 68
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 4:50:13 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 13953
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
The different types of tons has always made my head hurt.  I'll take your word for that part of the game.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 69
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 5:25:43 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
The different types of tons has always made my head hurt.  I'll take your word for that part of the game.

Made my head hurt too, pal. Problem was that "tonnage" generates other things, like DUR, economy construction costs, all those other Nifty WiTP things. Warships were simple, you can always find a standard tonnage for them, so they are "relatively related". But GRT has no relationship whatever to displacement, so a 10k GRT Liberty would have the same costs, etc, as a heavy cruiser. Woof !!

Had to find a way to express auxiliary "tonnage" in similar terms as warship 'standard tonnage', taking all the different program uses of the 'tonnage' parameter into account.

Well ... finally figured it out - after much scotch - it sounds technical, guess it is technical, but the heavy duty ship pukes will know where it's coming from if it's expressed as:

Dspl Lt' + [(DwT-fl) - (DwT-net)] +/- (block differential multiplier) +/- (prismatic differential multiplier) +/- (outa John's butt factor to make it fit on the curve)

Dspl-Lt' is how she displaces utterly, and totally empty. The last factor is rather small and only applies to a few specialized ships, so modders need not freak.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 70
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 5:32:15 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 13953
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli
The different types of tons has always made my head hurt.  I'll take your word for that part of the game.

Made my head hurt too, pal. Problem was that "tonnage" generates other things, like DUR, economy construction costs, all those other Nifty WiTP things. Warships were simple, you can always find a standard tonnage for them, so they are "relatively related". But GRT has no relationship whatever to displacement, so a 10k GRT Liberty would have the same costs, etc, as a heavy cruiser. Woof !!

Had to find a way to express auxiliary "tonnage" in similar terms as warship 'standard tonnage', taking all the different program uses of the 'tonnage' parameter into account.

Well ... finally figured it out - after much scotch - it sounds technical, guess it is technical, but the heavy duty ship pukes will know where it's coming from if it's expressed as:

Dspl Lt' + [(DwT-fl) - (DwT-net)] +/- (block differential multiplier) +/- (prismatic differential multiplier) +/- (outa John's butt factor to make it fit on the curve)

Dspl-Lt' is how she displaces utterly, and totally empty. The last factor is rather small and only applies to a few specialized ships, so modders need not freak.





_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 71
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 5:41:11 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline
So I'm looking at the Japanese CA upgrades and I noticed that Takao doesn't get it's center 8" turret removed and replaced by 2 dual 12.7cm DP guns late war...think it was somewhere in it's '44 refit off hand. I'd have to check a source that has been since stored in boxes since I moved...

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 72
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 5:59:50 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium
So I'm looking at the Japanese CA upgrades and I noticed that Takao doesn't get it's center 8" turret removed and replaced by 2 dual 12.7cm DP guns late war...think it was somewhere in it's '44 refit off hand. I'd have to check a source that has been since stored in boxes since I moved...

Yes it does. It is not listed under Takao "Class", it is listed under Maya "Class".

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 73
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 6:06:42 PM   
Iridium


Posts: 932
Joined: 4/1/2005
From: Jersey
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium
So I'm looking at the Japanese CA upgrades and I noticed that Takao doesn't get it's center 8" turret removed and replaced by 2 dual 12.7cm DP guns late war...think it was somewhere in it's '44 refit off hand. I'd have to check a source that has been since stored in boxes since I moved...

Yes it does. It is not listed under Takao "Class", it is listed under Maya "Class".


Ah, silly me...

_____________________________

Yamato, IMO the best looking Battleship.

"Hey, a packet of googly eyes! I'm so taking these." Hank Venture

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 74
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 6:55:36 PM   
DBS


Posts: 493
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline
Very minor typos - Ship #1470 has no space between Ansyu and Maru. Ditto 1483, 1389.
3179 should be Ramillies.

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 75
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 7:32:07 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iridium
Ah, silly me...

No, NOT silly you. Keep them coming. We never know if we did a stupid typo or not, unless we have to look at it.

Upgrades and conversions and things are no longer linear, though. You are gonna have to lay out all the classes and all the options, over time, to see what's going on; more like a smorgasbord. Lots of opportunities for a blivet. Keep the cards and letters coming.

Ciao. John

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to Iridium)
Post #: 76
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 7:33:48 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS
Very minor typos - Ship #1470 has no space between Ansyu and Maru. Ditto 1483, 1389.
3179 should be Ramillies.

Easy to fix. Will do so. Thanks.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 77
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 9:10:41 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Going from memory...I'll update tonight if I got this spelling wrong...but one of the magic task forces has a TF name that differs from the destination base name....Narphodine or something like that.

I believe the TF is on Hainan or at Saigon.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 78
Ship repairs- Shipyard - 7/29/2009 11:15:23 PM   
Bladess

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Florida
Status: offline
Question on Ship repair. BB Maryland is my most damaged shp at Pearl. Port Damage is 0. No other ships have been assigned for repairs
With keeping the ship ready it estimates 157/132/69/65 days depending on priority. Pierside is 132/60/47/40, Repair Ship is 166/88/71/55.

All those seem reasonable, but when I put it in the shipyard I am getting 328/327/326 days to repair.

14.3.2 says " Ships may be repaired and will consume repair capacity, in the following decreasing order: 1) Shipyard Repair, 2) Repair Ship Repair, 3) Pierside Repair, and 4) Readiness Repair "
So I thought the shipyard was the best choise to repair a badly cripples ship. But it is coming out the worsest by far. The other choises seem to make sence.
The Maryland is 32K tonnage and that should fit per 14.3.2.1 for Pearls repair yard of size 72. Maryland is Flood 85 (56 major), System 41, Eng 10
I put BB Colorado into the Seattle Shipyard and it will be repaired faster as I expected.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 79
RE: Ship repairs- Shipyard - 7/29/2009 11:29:44 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1920
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bladess

Question on Ship repair. BB Maryland is my most damaged shp at Pearl. Port Damage is 0. No other ships have been assigned for repairs
With keeping the ship ready it estimates 157/132/69/65 days depending on priority. Pierside is 132/60/47/40, Repair Ship is 166/88/71/55.

All those seem reasonable, but when I put it in the shipyard I am getting 328/327/326 days to repair.

14.3.2 says " Ships may be repaired and will consume repair capacity, in the following decreasing order: 1) Shipyard Repair, 2) Repair Ship Repair, 3) Pierside Repair, and 4) Readiness Repair "
So I thought the shipyard was the best choise to repair a badly cripples ship. But it is coming out the worsest by far. The other choises seem to make sence.
The Maryland is 32K tonnage and that should fit per 14.3.2.1 for Pearls repair yard of size 72. Maryland is Flood 85 (56 major), System 41, Eng 10
I put BB Colorado into the Seattle Shipyard and it will be repaired faster as I expected.


The key is the major damage. That can only be repaired with the shipyard. So the longer time for shipyard includes all that major damage repair. The shorter times for the other modes will fix all the minor damage, but still leave the major damage.

(in reply to Bladess)
Post #: 80
RE: Ship repairs- Shipyard - 7/29/2009 11:33:58 PM   
Bladess

 

Posts: 46
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Florida
Status: offline
Ah, i knew i was missing something, i was assuming the other times to repair was complete repair.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 81
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/29/2009 11:51:17 PM   
CaptDave

 

Posts: 603
Joined: 6/21/2002
From: Federal Way, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: dwbradley

While trying out some of the new stuff I found what seems to be a bit of an awkward part of the new patrol zone controls.

I was playing the Coral Sea scenario as the Japanese and setting the subs to patrol zones. It is indeed a neat feature (well done, gentlemen!). The subs started on computer control. I was able to switch to human control and set both waypoints and patrol zones of several types. Then I set one sub for a single defined destination hex (DH) and then decided I wanted a patrol zone. I couldn't set a patrol zone because I had a defined location and there was no way I could see to cancel that. After some experimentation I found that setting the destination to the home port allowed the patrol zone controls to be un-greyed and available again. I guess this is an ok work-around and doesn’t need a fix but maybe should be in the manual errata/extras in due course.

Apologies if this is old news.

Dave Braldey



There is, or should be, a clear destination button in the upper right hand corner of the TF Routing screen. Not sure if it works for a non-base destination though. If not, it will probably have to stay that way for a while. The setting of destination to the home port is a good workaround.


My experience is with a non-sub TF, but I would expect the mechanism to work the same way regardless of type. I didn't notice the "clear destination" button Don mentions (and don't have enough RAM to have both the game and the forums open, so can't check right now), but if you click "Select Destination," and then right-click on the map, it clears the destination. Whether it's supposed to or not, I don't know, but I got the idea to try this from some other function where right-click is the documented way to clear the setting.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 82
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/30/2009 12:03:04 AM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6576
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

My experience is with a non-sub TF, but I would expect the mechanism to work the same way regardless of type. I didn't notice the "clear destination" button Don mentions (and don't have enough RAM to have both the game and the forums open, so can't check right now), but if you click "Select Destination," and then right-click on the map, it clears the destination. Whether it's supposed to or not, I don't know, but I got the idea to try this from some other function where right-click is the documented way to clear the setting.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Dave. Could you please be a bit more specific, in AE terms, thanks.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to CaptDave)
Post #: 83
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/30/2009 12:55:42 AM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8142
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

My experience is with a non-sub TF, but I would expect the mechanism to work the same way regardless of type. I didn't notice the "clear destination" button Don mentions (and don't have enough RAM to have both the game and the forums open, so can't check right now), but if you click "Select Destination," and then right-click on the map, it clears the destination. Whether it's supposed to or not, I don't know, but I got the idea to try this from some other function where right-click is the documented way to clear the setting.

I have no idea what you are talking about, Dave. Could you please be a bit more specific, in AE terms, thanks.


The problem is very deep and convoluted. The original poster of this issue set an At-Sea hex as a destination, then tried to create a Patrol Zone. Once can not create patrol zones for TFs that have destinations. So he tried to clear the destination and did not find a convenient way.

Now, there is a button on the TF Routing Screen to clear destination when the destination is a base. But when the destination is at At-Sea hex, this method does not work. It can not work, since At-Sea hex destinations is the pillar upon which Patrol Zones are built.

The only way to clear the destination was to first set it to a base, then use the normal clearing method. I'm not 100% sure what happens in the Right Click method above. The intent off Cancel during selection of destination was to allow the player to get out of the selection process cleanly. I don't recall exactly what it does but it goes thru some series of checks and defaults when you cancel.

There may be an issue here, but it is a small one with a simple workaround. Unless it becomes more of a problem it will probably wait a few patches.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 84
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/30/2009 2:04:32 AM   
Sonny II

 

Posts: 2879
Joined: 1/12/2007
Status: offline
The right click on the map to cancel a move has always worked - even i WitP.

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 85
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/30/2009 2:19:51 AM   
Mynok


Posts: 12119
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Right click doesn't cancel. It sets the destination from a base to 'at sea'. Always has. Since UV days.


_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Sonny II)
Post #: 86
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/30/2009 3:36:32 AM   
Kull


Posts: 1057
Joined: 7/3/2007
From: El Paso, TX
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
By definition, the "Historical Start" automates everything that happened on December 7, 1941. And by almost every conceivable measure, it's clear that the Bombing of Pearl Harbor was the opening act of the Pacific War - certainly the war being modeled by AE. With that rule in mind, a minimal amount of research shows that TF "Z" set sail from Singapore at 1710 on December 8, 1941. However, that time needs to be converted to Honolulu time, since that was "ground zero", and in effect the "Greenwich Meantime" from which all other 12/7 activities must be calculated. And when you run the numbers, it turns out that Repulse and PoW departed Singapore harbor at 11:10 PM on December 7th, 1941.



What? How can 5:10 in the afternoon of December 8th (local time) be 11:10 on the 7th? Singapore is 6 time zones West of PH, so the PH attack took place at 2AM on the 8th Singapore local time. POW and Repulse upped anchor more than 15 hours after PH took place..., and almost at the end of the local day. If you want to go by Hawaiian time, remember that 11:10 PM is after night has has fallen..., which in game terms is the first (night) phase of turn two.


Let's do the math (although we seem to be in agreement, so I'm not sure where the "What?" comes from):

1) As you noted, 8 AM in Honolulu on 12/7 (roughly the time at which the attacks began) is 2 AM in Singapore on 12/8. So that's our baseline.
2) TF "Z" departed Singapore harbor at 1710 on 12/8. That's exactly 15 hours and ten minutes after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
3) Add 15 hours and ten minutes to 8 AM Honolulu time and it becomes 11:10 PM (or 2310), which is still 12/7/1941, and thus it's still "Day 1" in Singapore.

I hear you that night actions happen in a different phase of the game - effectively on Day 2 - but there's no easy way to handle that differential in-game.

quote:

It's simply a game device to make the POW/Repulse vulnerable. Historically they sailed North and were sunk (two days later)..., but as few players will make that choice it's been taken out of their hands... If you don't like it, don't play the "historical start".


Its probably just semantics, but in my personal opinion, since it's clear that the ships sailed on "12/7", it's no more a game device any of the other "no choice" activities that happen that day. But yes, those who don't like it do have an option!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 87
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/30/2009 5:16:51 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Northern Rockies
Status: offline
I was trying to change my sub commander and I found no leaders that were suited to command a sub. The only recommendations were for surface combat ship or aux or cargo ship.

_____________________________



Don't ask me any questions, apparently I know nothing about WitP:AE

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 88
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 7/30/2009 6:22:36 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull
2) TF "Z" departed Singapore harbor at 1710 on 12/8. That's exactly 15 hours and ten minutes after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
3) Add 15 hours and ten minutes to 8 AM Honolulu time and it becomes 11:10 PM (or 2310), which is still 12/7/1941, and thus it's still "Day 1" in Singapore.

I hear you that night actions happen in a different phase of the game - effectively on Day 2 - but there's no easy way to handle that differential in-game.

quote:

It's simply a game device to make the POW/Repulse vulnerable. Historically they sailed North and were sunk (two days later)..., but as few players will make that choice it's been taken out of their hands... If you don't like it, don't play the "historical start".


Its probably just semantics, but in my personal opinion, since it's clear that the ships sailed on "12/7", it's no more a game device any of the other "no choice" activities that happen that day. But yes, those who don't like it do have an option!



A game "turn" has two 12-hour segments. a "night phase", followed by a "day phase". With "Historic" and "Suprise" ON, turn one has a "Magic move" (night phase), and begins with the second (or day phase).
So there are several ways to look at it.

The Day phase is 12 hours long, and the POW TF sailed 15 hours and 10 minutes after it began..., or

by Hawaiian time, the POW TF didn't leave port until after dark on the 7th (1st or night phase of turn two)..., or

stick to "local times", in which the POW TF left Singapore in the early evening of 12/08 and might have gotten a hex or so out to sea (cruise speed) before nightfall and the beginning of turn two..., still well out of range to be sighted and attacked.

In any of these cases, the POW TF could not be attacked on Game Turn One. So (as I said previously), it's vulnerability to such an attack is a "scenario design device", not an "historical reality"...

(in reply to Kull)
Post #: 89
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 7/30/2009 1:45:19 PM   
Seeadler


Posts: 53
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Kiel, Germany
Status: offline
Just a minor issue: Essex class carriers had all four single 5" guns mounted on port not two on port and two on starboard.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 90
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.121