Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Sub troop loading question

 
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: Sub troop loading question Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/15/2009 5:11:15 AM   
Bradley7735


Posts: 2073
Joined: 7/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
This means the Brit gun can not penetrate most other CA armor, even at 1,000 yards.

Hyperbolic vaporizations are counter productive.
Your statement is in error.
The largest Jap CA armor thickness in the database is 140mm for the Mogami belt. The others are around 100. One of the math classes I took suggests that 180 is bigger than 100 and even bigger than 140.
quote:

I'm not sure if the penetration is accurate.

And neither is anyone else. All sources indicate the major loadout of Brit 8" guns was SAPC. All US sources indicate SAPC had penetration characteristics somewhere in the neighborhood of 60-70% that of an equivalent APC/APCBC round.

You find better balistics and penetration data for UK SAPC rounds, you will win a prize.


I'm quite aware that 180 is more than 140. But, in acutal play, Mogami's armor does not get penetrated by the 8" Brit gun, even at 1,000 yards. I witnessed Australia, Canberra (and Perth, Hobart, Leander and Achilles) hitting Mogami at 1,000 yards (and at 4,000 yards) with main gun hits vs the belt with no penetrations. I did see one shot penetrate the 'superstructure', but that was it.

Maybe this is accurate. But, I'm surprised that Achilles could damage Graf Spee and not Mogami. Ok, Achilles probably couldn't penetrate Graf Spee's belt either.

_____________________________

The older I get, the better I was.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 781
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/15/2009 2:41:45 PM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline
Sorry if this has already been reported, but for scenario 1, BYMS-2055 (11364) and BYMS-2059 (11365) are set to arrive on 2/29/43.  I'm not sure if that would make them come in on 3/1/43 or if it would prevent them from being deployed.

(in reply to Bradley7735)
Post #: 782
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/15/2009 4:11:25 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
If the developers are using the "70% of AP penetration" for the RN SAP 8" shells, then their 180 value is really only 126, which explains why the ships couldn't penetrate Mogami's main belt thickness.  As for the CL's damaging Graf Spee, IIRC the damage was all in the superstructure and unarmored sections; their 6" shells did not penetrate any armored portion of that ship.

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 783
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/15/2009 6:31:42 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford
If the developers are using the "70% of AP penetration" for the RN SAP 8" shells, then their 180 value is really only 126, which explains why the ships couldn't penetrate Mogami's main belt thickness.  As for the CL's damaging Graf Spee, IIRC the damage was all in the superstructure and unarmored sections; their 6" shells did not penetrate any armored portion of that ship.

John, you give us too much credit for being able to play with the math. But, no, penetration is penetration. If the database says 180, the game uses 180.

Question is why is it 180 instead of some larger number, like 250. It is only in that determination that the properties of the rounds being fired come into considerstion.

[edit] Although this subject is very interesting, albeit rather technical, this thread isn't quite the place for it. So I will begin a thread in the Scenario Design Sub-forum that will, hopefully make things, if not clearer, at least a bit less apocryphal. Ciao. John

< Message edited by JWE -- 10/15/2009 8:12:52 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to John Lansford)
Post #: 784
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/16/2009 12:32:05 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4574
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
There is no way a 8" gun penetrates 180mm only . My calculations using Mr.Okun Facehard are 356mm.

Edit: the calculation was against Italian steel which is better than Japanese ones, it was indeed one of better steels around. So the gun will perform even better against Japanese targets by a dozen mm.

< Message edited by Dili -- 10/16/2009 12:35:45 AM >

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 785
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/16/2009 3:44:02 AM   
Whisper

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 1/20/2008
From: LA
Status: offline
The tower armor for the Helena class goes away in 1944 it was 125 up to than.

_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 786
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/16/2009 5:08:10 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Whisper

The tower armor for the Helena class goes away in 1944 it was 125 up to than.

Done for patch-2. Thanks.

_____________________________


(in reply to Whisper)
Post #: 787
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/20/2009 6:32:09 AM   
canuck64


Posts: 233
Joined: 8/25/2004
Status: offline
JW-must intrude with a question we're batting at in the general forum-

any possibility of ever including actual spotted enemy TF's as viable targets? I think it odd given the detail of the game, the range specifying and the loadouts, drop tanks and what have you, that my TF's cannot actually target (per my instructions) a TF. After all, there are detection levels, weather, FOW, commander traits and a whole whack-a-mole of air issues, fatigue, fuel, expertise, etc......that should still impact successfully attacking another TF.

It just seems downright strange I have no 'targetable' opfor TF as an option. Is it a coding nightmare? Could it not be implemented by allowing a coordinate (hex) attack?
I think this married with the ability to 'trail' (follow) TF's on my own side would only deepen (sensibly) the naval game, tactics and bluffing. These are decisions most players want to make I think-much more so than many of the logisitics.
Can you comment?

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 788
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/20/2009 6:39:06 AM   
wworld7


Posts: 1727
Joined: 2/25/2003
From: The Nutmeg State
Status: offline
I don't see this happening any time soon, if ever.

_____________________________

Flipper

(in reply to canuck64)
Post #: 789
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/22/2009 11:51:49 PM   
Boozecamp

 

Posts: 44
Joined: 7/13/2007
From: Bellingham, WA
Status: offline
Don't know if this has been brought up, but I've noticed some bizarre refit times/requirements.  Just hit April in my first game and noticed some weirdness:  Barnegat AVDs require a size 5 shipyard and take 3 weeks to swap 4 .50 cals for 4 20mms.  Same thing for the Bagley, McCall and Gridley DDs to add 4 K-guns.

I also noticed a few major upgrades that have no minimum time at all...  can't remember off the top of my head however.

EDIT: Oops, neither needs a shipyard. Times still seem odd though.

< Message edited by Boozecamp -- 10/23/2009 3:51:23 PM >

(in reply to wworld7)
Post #: 790
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/26/2009 5:33:18 AM   
EasilyConfused

 

Posts: 110
Joined: 6/11/2005
Status: offline
Shark Class submarines have incorrect ammo for the XT 21in Mk 14 Torp device (18 instead of 1)

(in reply to Boozecamp)
Post #: 791
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/26/2009 4:18:40 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: EasilyConfused
Shark Class submarines have incorrect ammo for the XT 21in Mk 14 Torp device (18 instead of 1)

Got it. TY

_____________________________


(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 792
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/27/2009 10:44:11 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3964
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Missing in naval OOB: The famous former Flying-P-Liner Pamir, seized as a prize of war by New Zealand in 1941 and then used as a cargo-carrying training ship on several voyages between NZ, US and Australia during and after the war. Should be included in the OOB, if only for eye-candy.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 793
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/27/2009 1:42:06 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Tops'ls, t'gallants and topmast staysails? How 'bout cross-catharpins?

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 794
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/27/2009 2:02:47 PM   
Jonathan Pollard


Posts: 562
Joined: 2/25/2007
From: Federal prison
Status: offline
Because the Pamir did not have engines, it might be impossible to model its fuel consumption properly in AE. One possibility would be to give it enough fuel to circle the globe several times, but in that case it would be possible to "cheat" by unloading the fake fuel and turning it into real fuel.

< Message edited by Jonathan Pollard -- 10/27/2009 2:04:00 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 795
RE: Sub troop loading question - 10/27/2009 2:52:51 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jonathan Pollard

Because the Pamir did not have engines, it might be impossible to model its fuel consumption properly in AE. One possibility would be to give it enough fuel to circle the globe several times, but in that case it would be possible to "cheat" by unloading the fake fuel and turning it into real fuel.



Ahh but how much food and fresh water was carried for the crew...that would be your "fuel" setting. The wind can only take you so far before you either starve or become dehydrated.

_____________________________

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 Jonathan Pollard)
Post #: 796
RE: AV and CS ships - 10/28/2009 12:33:08 PM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
The War Room thread about loading supply into the US AV-type ships (eg Curtiss and Tangier) indicates that they are to receive a cargo capacity so they can support seaplane operations. Can I make a plea for this also to be applied to the Japanese seaplane tenders, including the CS-type ships Chitose, Chiyoda, Mizuho and Nisshin? This would also make it possible for these to play a useful part in fast transport TF's, a role which they fulfilled historically, but of which they are currently incapable.

_____________________________




(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 797
RE: AV and CS ships - 10/28/2009 2:17:05 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel
The War Room thread about loading supply into the US AV-type ships (eg Curtiss and Tangier) indicates that they are to receive a cargo capacity so they can support seaplane operations. Can I make a plea for this also to be applied to the Japanese seaplane tenders, including the CS-type ships Chitose, Chiyoda, Mizuho and Nisshin? This would also make it possible for these to play a useful part in fast transport TF's, a role which they fulfilled historically, but of which they are currently incapable.

Yes indeed.

_____________________________


(in reply to Local Yokel)
Post #: 798
RE: AV and CS ships - 10/28/2009 2:43:41 PM   
Local Yokel


Posts: 1494
Joined: 2/4/2007
From: Somerset, U.K.
Status: offline
Excellent - thank you!

_____________________________




(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 799
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/29/2009 7:50:47 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3964
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
In AE, the USS Keokuk shows up in April 1942 as a CM- but the historic ship did not reach the Pacific until 1944, having been converted to a netlayer.

See http://www.navsource.org/archives/11/0608h.htm

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 800
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 10/29/2009 2:19:21 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
ok. hopefully can fix in time. still be a CM, though.

_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 801
RE: Patch 2 explanation - refuel and meet - 10/29/2009 2:39:01 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
I would request that when the meet command and the refuel command is fixed that we get a more detailed explanation than normal of the change and/or that one of the programmers (Dan Bowen, I hope) reads the manual on the commands carefully and make sure that the explanation of the function fully explains how each command is supposed to work.
(Dan Bowen consistently provides lucid explanations when he appears on the forum)

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 802
RE: Patch 2 explanation - refuel and meet - 10/29/2009 5:55:33 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 24067
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wpurdom

I would request that when the meet command and the refuel command is fixed that we get a more detailed explanation than normal of the change and/or that one of the programmers (Dan Bowen, I hope) reads the manual on the commands carefully and make sure that the explanation of the function fully explains how each command is supposed to work.
(Dan Bowen consistently provides lucid explanations when he appears on the forum)


From a prior question I asked, I believe the manual is NOT being updated. The manual is a huge additional piece of work. You might want to make notes in yours (or a separate file).

(in reply to wpurdom)
Post #: 803
RE: Patch 2 explanation - refuel and meet - 10/30/2009 12:27:38 AM   
Menser

 

Posts: 206
Joined: 5/2/2005
From: Peabody, Massachusetts
Status: offline
wpurdom, notes are being taken in the forums, check out this one. will probably be added too when patch 2 comes out :P
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2260137

_____________________________

"Alea iacta est." Caius Julius
"If you can't beat your computer at chess, try kickboxing." Emo Philips
"Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." Abbot Arnaud Amalric

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 804
Weapon repair - 11/9/2009 6:47:18 PM   
gingerbread


Posts: 2861
Joined: 1/4/2007
From: Sweden
Status: offline
Page 243 of the manual has a picture that shows 2240X in red for West Virginia.

How do I calculate repair for this? Is it 10 (Pearl shipyard) x 20 (per manual) = 200;

(disregarding naval support and AR's) so 2240 by 200 = 11.2 gives 12 days?



/g

(in reply to Menser)
Post #: 805
Meet and follow commands - 11/9/2009 8:27:47 PM   
wpurdom

 

Posts: 436
Joined: 10/27/2000
From: Decatur, GA, USA
Status: offline
Thanks Menser for the cite - a very nice little list.

I understand that the manual will not be updated - I never expected such a momental task to go with the patch.

What I was suggesting was more modest - in the notes (readme file) on what is new in the patch, a longer than normal explanation of how the program is supposed to work (on the Meet and follow commands) after the change would be warranted - particularly if it is not congruent to the description in the manual (or has secret limitations)

(in reply to gingerbread)
Post #: 806
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 11/12/2009 6:31:04 PM   
doc smith

 

Posts: 122
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline
I had two ships carrying parts of the 7th Aus Div moving from Aden to Darwin. The crash occurred SW of Bombay. I formed the two klutzes into an Escort convoy and diverted them to Bombay for repair. The TF was set with Aden as home port, unload troops at Bombay, then disband.

Around the time they should have reached Bombay, I checked the port and no Aussie troops, no damaged APs!! I reloaded the game turn during which the crash had occurred and got the ship names. I did a search on the ship list and found Mt. Vernon undergoing repair in San Francisco and the other ship undergoing repair in Aden?!?!? When I right-clicked on either ship, while it was amongst the ships being repaired at the port, I saw the usual ship characteristics PLUS the lost Aussies!! When Mt Vernon finished repair at SF, I created a TF around it and, lo and behold, it still had the fragment of the Aussie div! Expect the same from the ship at Aden when it comes out of the yards.

How could 2 ships move to dock at Bombay and get instantly transported (pun intended) to Aden and SF? I admit I'm puzzled. If anyone wants the turn, I think I can still provide it.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 807
RE: AE Naval and OOB Issues - 11/17/2009 7:55:53 AM   
Jo van der Pluym


Posts: 689
Joined: 10/28/2000
From: Netherlands
Status: offline
I have just read a book about PT-Boats "
Osprey New Vanguard 148 "US Patrol Torpedo Boats"

According this book have some boat in 1945 also 2x a 8 barrel 5-inch Mk50 rocketlanchers

These boats are from the 78ft Higgins PT 791-808 Class and the 80ft Elco PT 565-622 Class

_____________________________

Greetings from the Netherlands

Jo van der Pluym
CrazyDutch

(in reply to doc smith)
Post #: 808
RE: Known Issue - off map turnarounds - 11/17/2009 9:22:06 AM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Only because they were damaged and repaired in an East Coast yard. Maybe any ship sent to the East Coast has a chance of being retained for a period outside Pacific Theatre (CVs Excepted).
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Shouldn't USS Boise and Marblehead (amongst other USN ships) have a withdrawl date?  They both spent time in the Med after repair work.



_____________________________





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

(in reply to Dixie)
Post #: 809
RE: ACM Chimo should not be present on 1941 - 11/26/2009 2:57:03 AM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1960
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Scenario 002 has all ACM Chimo class boats present on 1941, but perhaps they shouldn't.

(snip)

The perfect solution would be to make them available as Army MP class, and then upgrade to ACM by 1944. If not possible, I reckon it is ok to have both the Army mine planters and the Chimo ACM as a single entry, but they should be available from Apr-42 onwards, not from Dec-41.


Cheers
fbs


We are aware of the deployment of American ACM at the start of the war. There were, in fact, only three of them (one each at Manila, San Franciso, Puget Sound). Also one converted into an inter-island transport and a named working boat at Manila. There were however, large numbers of smaller carft that were used in this war. Unnamed US Army "L" and "M" boats that serviced the mines themselves and electrical connections/junction boxes to them. A similar situation existed for most countries.

We certainly weren't going to put in a fleet of these small boats. So that left us three options:
1. Build mine maintenance directly into the port size. Similar to what WITP did but was in conflict with our basic decision to separate civilian port functions (port size) from military ones (Naval Support).
2. Use Naval Support for mine maintenance. Too general, and we already have a number of functions lumped into Naval Support (one of which I would have liked to move to yet another Support type - Shore Parties).
3. Expand the ACM fleets using ships that historically could have been used in that role. This is what we did.

The two main groups of US ACM are the US Army Mine Planters (represented by the Chino Class) and US Coast Guard Buoy/Lighthouse Tenders (Alders).

Japan also has an extensive force of ACM that includes could-have-beens.

The intent is to provide the player the ability to use a reasonable force of ACM to offset the unavailability of all those working boats and to allow the use of ACM to protect the harbors that the player decides to protect.

Having said that, I am a fanatic for historical accuracy and it will probably change when my buddies and I get around to doing a mod. Still not sure what to do about the working boat issue though.

Incidentally, the DANFS history for the ex-USAMP only starts when acquired by the navy. They were in army service earlier in the war - until the threat to US ports was considered to have abated and they were no longer deemed needed. The dividing line between army and navy in minelaying has always been "interesting".


Sorry for the reserection of this old thread, but, it has stimulated some thinking about the subject.

I understand the concept use for the Chimos and that is cool, but, have you decided how to alien the ACMs types into a more historical basis for Da Babes?

I believe the armament of the Alders is more realistic for the ACM ships of the early war period than that of the Chimo.

And now a non-related question, do any of the tools allow for a cross reference of ships to ship class? Example,
what are all the Alder class ships in the game?

BTW, I see where the Alder class is listed in the "in game database" but I can't locate any ships of that class in the game.


(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 810
Page:   <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Sub troop loading question Page: <<   < prev  25 26 [27] 28 29   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

0.176