Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

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

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/18/2004 4:49:33 PM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Admiral DadMan

Scenarios with 12/7/41 start:

3146 West Virginia should be class 181 Colorado


Class Name Corrections:

1217-1218 should be Tennessee, not California
1219-1221 should be Colorado, not Maryland


Will correct the upgrade classe names, however the WeeVee will stay the same...

This is the FIX for the radar never repairing issue and will stay... WeeVee was the only one with radar 12/7/41 the game can not deal with one class with two different configurations....

(in reply to Admiral DadMan)
Post #: 31
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/18/2004 5:05:57 PM   
pry


Posts: 1410
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas
Status: offline
Ron,

this is a hard coded featue and not an data base issue and does not belong here.

The withdrawl is a random roll each month to determine what gets withdrawn and carriers can and are subject to this withdrawl, it's a simple roll of the dice. There is no Historical order to the withdrawl it is totally random.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 32
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/18/2004 5:35:45 PM   
MadmanRick


Posts: 527
Joined: 4/9/2004
From: New York City, U.S.A.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Here is a wrench in the machinery. I've played this game about a dozen times into late 42 and countless times to mid 42. I've yet to notice a British CV withdrawl requirement, more importantly, a fleet carrier! Has this even been coded into the game? I don't think so.

Major problem then folks. While checking into this, I clarified a few things. The Illustrious, Formidable and Indomitable arrive between Jan - Apr 42 gametime. They are then available to the Allies for the rest of the game. Well, historically, Formidable and Indomitable were available by April 42, no problem here, but I'm sure Illustrious was undergoing repairs/refitting in Norfolk, Virginia until December 42!! She is not scheduled to arrive in the Indian Ocean until approx Feb, 1944. Further, both Indomitable and Formidable were withdrawn for "Ironside" (the Madagascar operation) in the spring of 42 and did not arrive back until 2nd quarter of 44 (Formidable)and 4th quarter of 44 for Indomitable!

This is a huge issue, especially for the already pressured Japanese player. These CVs should be part of the withdrawl requirement, especially since they were earmarked for the Med and the Malta convoys of mid 42.

I propose that CVs should have a PP cost of 2500, CVLs 2000, CVEs 1500. The probability of withdrawl (CVs worth 2500 PPs) should be high starting in May/42 until July/42.

What if Japan advances on India? The ability to pay PP instead of withdrawl is there but it carries a heavy cost for India if they go and heavy cost for Allied cause if they stay(Malta falls most likely). CV withdrawls are vital to the game.

This brings up another issue which I've been advocating. This CV oversight was made despite the Capiutal nature of their type. If this was overlooked, how many other ships and type of ships are available to combat lowly Japan when historically where not available for large portions of the game? Withdrawls should include smaller warships as the RN is short of DD types. Merchants should be included as well given their nomadic service.

Finally, the USN needs a withdrawl requirement. Too many USN ships are available to combat Japan. Panama needed defences, yet the very ships which defended the canal are being used by the Allied player in the Solomons, DEI, North Pacific etc...for the entire duration of the war!! Omahas, Clemsons, and smaller escorts like SCs would be required to withdraw randomly between Jan 42 and Jan 44.

It's not just the Omaha class CLs, Clemson class DDs and smaller escorts which need be included due to their involvement off map near Panama. Ships which used American ports when damaged in the Pacific did not necessarily go to WestCoast yards. Many went to the EastCoast yards and operated for a time in pother theatres before arriving back in the Pacific (eg. Nevada, Marblehead, Boise). There should be some small chance that a heavily damaged ship entering a WestCoast port triggers a withdrawl requirement for that specific ship).

Finally,the USN built so many ships that crews needed training so older types were withdrawn from combat. Older subs were therefore withdrawn for training, starting in mid 42 for Dolphin and Cachalot class, early 43 for S Boats, late 43 for Porpoise/Permit class, late 44 for Salmon/Sargo class, and early 45 for Tambor/Gar class. Since training needs need not be modelled, the classes that were used should be made withdrawl canditates.


Ron,
I agree with your comments. I particularly like the USN withdrawal requirement, as it would reflect real world concerns into the game, that are not present now.

Rick

_____________________________


"Our lives begin to end the moment we become silent about things that matter". Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 33
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/18/2004 6:48:18 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

Ron,

this is a hard coded featue and not an data base issue and does not belong here.

The withdrawl is a random roll each month to determine what gets withdrawn and carriers can and are subject to this withdrawl, it's a simple roll of the dice. There is no Historical order to the withdrawl it is totally random.


Understood but the Illustrious entry date is way off. Makes itan OOB issue as well. This post needed a home.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 12/18/2004 10:33:04 PM >


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 34
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/18/2004 10:48:41 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14777
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pry

Respawned ships must have their countries home port in this case Soerabaja in their possession or they will not arrive and will be listed as Unknown unitl the base is back in Allied hands.



Thanks - I didn't know that.

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 35
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/18/2004 10:54:57 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14777
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I've yet to notice a British CV withdrawl requirement, more importantly, a fleet carrier! Has this even been coded into the game? I don't think so.


Ron,

I have had British CV withdrawal (fleet carrier, mid '43), so it is coded in. Seems to be the least likely, because I've had more of everything else. I don't remember for sure but I think I had CVL withdrawal in my previous game.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 36
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/19/2004 7:03:13 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6587
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
1. 101st RN Base Force at Singapore has 100 prep-points for Hong Kong. Seems wrong.

2. Take a look at the current & TOE settings for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Aus Inf Divs. The current allotments, do not match the TOE settings even remotely (as in, often greatly exceed the TOE). I did -not- notice anything peculiar with the Cav Divs.

-F-

** Oh, scen #15.

< Message edited by Feinder -- 12/19/2004 12:03:54 AM >


_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 37
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/19/2004 9:15:35 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I've yet to notice a British CV withdrawl requirement, more importantly, a fleet carrier! Has this even been coded into the game? I don't think so.


Ron,

I have had British CV withdrawal (fleet carrier, mid '43), so it is coded in. Seems to be the least likely, because I've had more of everything else. I don't remember for sure but I think I had CVL withdrawal in my previous game.


CV withdrawl needs to be very high probability middle half of 42. But, not exactly a database issue as Paul said. Let's take it somewhere else if need be.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 12/19/2004 5:34:56 AM >


_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 38
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/19/2004 11:45:06 PM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline
RE HMS Illustrious

No she was in the indian ocean in may 42

HMS Illustrious was heavily damaged by a concerted enemy air attack by German dive-bombers on 10 January 1941, when the armoured flight deck armour was penetrated by an 1100lb (500kg) bomb. That and six other bomb hits kept her out of action until the following December. She had temporary repaired at Malta 10-23 January 1941, and further repairs at Alexandria between February -March 1941. Major repairs were undertaken at Norfolk, Va.(USA) between May-December 1941.

By May 1942, HMS Illustrious was on operations against Vichy French forces in Diego Suarez Madagascar, and remained in the Indian Ocean from May 1942 until January 1943, where she undertook further operations against Madagascar in September 1942. She undertook a refit in the UK between February -June 1943 then returned to the Mediterranean between August-November 1943 where she took part in the Salerno landings in September 1943.

_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 39
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/19/2004 11:54:44 PM   
Hipper

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 6/15/2004
Status: offline
Hurricane range problem

Hi folks There is a problem with Hurricane range in the game the hurricane is given a range of one more or less representing the hurricanes range of 140 miles on internal fuel

However by late 1942 Drop tanks were in use which extended the hurricanes range to about 3 1/2 hours flying time, this had a major effect on the air war in Burma ( hurricanes could now raid Akyb island from Cox's Bazar )

since we have only one huricane modeled in the game the IIC, with four cannons it would seem to be reasonable to give it the capacity it had for most of the war.

The other possibility is to add another hurricane model (the IIB) with 12 browning mmg (usually 8) and a shorter range, to be replaced by the IIC with longer range and (drop tanks)

hope this is the correct place to put these thoughts

cheers

_____________________________

"Gefechtwendung nach Steuerbord"

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 40
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/20/2004 11:39:11 AM   
ctid98


Posts: 146
Joined: 6/19/2003
Status: offline
Devastator Squadrons still getting replacements. All production of them was finished before the war started. You should have to make do with what you have until Avengers are in production.

_____________________________

---------------------
Tora! Tora! Tora!

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 41
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/20/2004 3:30:42 PM   
Halsey


Posts: 4922
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Indianapolis Indiana USA
Status: offline
If that's the case the the Avenger's should go into production sooner. Instead of 7/42. Weren't there some at Midway? Does anyone know when Avenger's started down the production line?

_____________________________

AE WITP Land Air Bitmap downloads

https://sites.google.com/site/aewitplandairartwork/home/ae-witp-bitmap-downloads

(in reply to ctid98)
Post #: 42
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/20/2004 4:04:51 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 520
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
Hi,

The first TBF came off the production line on 3 jan 1942 for pre -delivery trials and handed to the US Navy on 30 jan 1942. By Aug 1942 145 TBF-1 had been delivered.

ref:- Grumman TBF/TBM Avenger by Terry C. Treadwell

cheers

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 43
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/20/2004 4:42:37 PM   
Halsey


Posts: 4922
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Indianapolis Indiana USA
Status: offline
That looks like an OOB fix to me then. The production screen has 7/42 as first delivery date for the TBF. Thanks for the info Duke!

< Message edited by Halsey -- 12/20/2004 8:43:12 AM >


_____________________________

AE WITP Land Air Bitmap downloads

https://sites.google.com/site/aewitplandairartwork/home/ae-witp-bitmap-downloads

(in reply to Iron Duke)
Post #: 44
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/20/2004 7:18:09 PM   
irrelevant


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
VT-8, transferring to Saratoga with 16 aircraft on July 7, 1942, was the first TBF squadron to operate from a carrier. An early-arriving detachment of 6 TBFs from VT-8 was deployed to Midway Island on June 1; four days later only one of these remained. For more interesting (if very dry) info, check out this site

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 45
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/20/2004 8:20:40 PM   
Halsey


Posts: 4922
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Indianapolis Indiana USA
Status: offline
Interesting info. Do the production rates coincide with deployment? Or, is it based on production only? Or, has it been tweeked for play balance?

_____________________________

AE WITP Land Air Bitmap downloads

https://sites.google.com/site/aewitplandairartwork/home/ae-witp-bitmap-downloads

(in reply to irrelevant)
Post #: 46
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/20/2004 8:59:10 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6587
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
While I agree in a factualy sense to remove Devistator replacements, there are some wrinkles...

a. First USN CV battle (or 2 or 3 skirmishes), and no more torpedo bombers for USN.
b. If it had happened historically, you better believe that more TBDs would have be produced, or some other solution would have arisen, like...
c. There should be carrier-TRAINED SBD replacement squadrons then. Again, nobody would have historically said they were gonna send ther CV TFs around, sans 18 aircraft. "We just can't get the labor guyst to build us any!" If you take away TBDs, you need to give CV Captains something else to put on their carriers, that would be historically possible, like another SBD squadron or fighter sqdn.
d. That being the case, why would you want to encourage the the USN to replace TBDs with SPDs. I would think most USN Captains (at least in game), would welcome this.
e. We can nit-pick US production numbers till the cows come home, because they are well documented, and easily available. But the numbers are not as easily when looking at the Japanese repretoire of equipment. I'm sure you could find similar cases to the TBD, in the Japanese equipment.

Accuracy has to be blended with "what makes sense" in-game (notice that I did not use the word "balance", this has nothing to do with that).

Regards,
-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 12/20/2004 2:00:45 PM >


_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to ctid98)
Post #: 47
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/20/2004 9:42:55 PM   
fbastos


Posts: 826
Joined: 8/7/2004
Status: offline
Scenario 15, 4th New Chinese Corps, has objective set to 21st Air Flotilla(100) rather than Nanchang.

_____________________________

I'm running out of jokes...


(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 48
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/20/2004 9:55:00 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
For what it's worth, I've always thought that the TBDs should have no production. They were obsolete and out of production for years.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to fbastos)
Post #: 49
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 1:18:07 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14777
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by witpqs -- 12/20/2004 11:34:17 PM >

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 50
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 1:57:57 AM   
Herrbear


Posts: 859
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
The Mogami class is listed as 6-8" F and 4-8" R. Shouldn't it show 4-8" F, 2-8" C and 4-8" R?

< Message edited by Herrbear -- 12/20/2004 8:45:56 PM >

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 51
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 9:40:26 AM   
Splinterhead


Posts: 335
Joined: 8/31/2002
From: Lenoir City, TN
Status: offline
Shouldn't Algonquin-3698 be Canadian? (All Scenarios)

(in reply to Herrbear)
Post #: 52
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 9:44:26 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Splinterhead

Shouldn't Algonquin-3698 be Canadian? (All Scenarios)

Yep

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Splinterhead)
Post #: 53
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 1:36:21 PM   
Tomo


Posts: 66
Joined: 4/10/2004
From: JAPAN
Status: offline
One Indian division fought with UK army in Burma.
25000 Indian soldiers marched to Impar with Japanese troops but 8000 soldiers were killed by UK army

Philippine partisans were as aggressive as Chinese partisan.

After all, Is it impossible to add German U-boats to this game?

< Message edited by Tomo -- 12/21/2004 4:21:53 PM >


_____________________________

Japanese wargamer. Will post from "the other side" .

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 54
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 6:26:47 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6587
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
quote:

One Indian division fought with UK army in Burma.


Just to clarify for folks (as I think English may be your second language). What you're saying is that an Indian Div fought -against- the UK army in Burma. "With" implies beside, as allies, and there were certainly many India Divs that fought beside the conventional UK Divs.

That's quite true (altho I didn't know the numbers, but yes, quite a bit).

I've got the information on my home PC tho (the name of the unit and their leader). Basically, he was a Indian nationalist (self-rule), that went to Japan for help. The number of partisans that fought for him was disappointing to the Japanese (they were hoping the closer he got to the border, that more Indians would revolt), but it was no small number.

I think he was active for Japan in late 42 thru 43. He then saw that Japan wasn't going to win (and was therefore no use to him), so he went back to India, and offered his "services" for the British. The Brits obviously weren't real happy with him, and I don't think they actually lent him any support.

This is gonna bother me tho. I know who you're talking about, and have the info at home, but I want to look the info up for you.

Grrr.
-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 12/21/2004 11:33:10 AM >


_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Tomo)
Post #: 55
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 6:30:49 PM   
mark24

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 8/4/2002
Status: offline
Hi all,

Has the "British destroyer withdrawal" bug been reported? I noted that someone else had posted it in another thread, but though it worth mentioning here.

The game seems to require an unreasonable number of BR destroyers to be withdrawn. When capital ships arrive they do so singly, when they are withdrawn they require escort (or so it appears). As the game continues it is possible to end up with zero British destroyers, or one or two old ones at the very least.

Mark

(in reply to pry)
Post #: 56
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 6:44:56 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12108
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mark24

Hi all,

Has the "British destroyer withdrawal" bug been reported? I noted that someone else had posted it in another thread, but though it worth mentioning here.

The game seems to require an unreasonable number of BR destroyers to be withdrawn. When capital ships arrive they do so singly, when they are withdrawn they require escort (or so it appears). As the game continues it is possible to end up with zero British destroyers, or one or two old ones at the very least.

Mark


Not a bug. All they need to do is add the OOB additions sent in by me and allow Corvettes, Sloops, Minesweepers, to satisfy the withdrawl requirements at 100 PP instead of 200 for DDs.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to mark24)
Post #: 57
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 6:55:46 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 859
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
I show in two sources that the Fuso (330) should be the Huyo. (Imperial Japanese Navy - Watts and Gordon and http://smmlonline.com/articles/momi/momi.html

(in reply to Mr.Frag)
Post #: 58
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 6:57:36 PM   
Herrbear


Posts: 859
Joined: 7/26/2004
From: Glendora, CA
Status: offline
Ron, are those additions posted somewhere or could you send me a list at herrbear@hotmail.com.

Thanks.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 59
RE: 1.40 OOB Issues - 12/21/2004 7:02:28 PM   
mark24

 

Posts: 171
Joined: 8/4/2002
Status: offline
Ron,

Fine by me!

Thanks,

Mark

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Scenario Design >> RE: 1.40 OOB Issues 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

0.125