1.40 OOB Issues

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design and the game editor for WITP.

Moderators: wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
Kereguelen
Posts: 1454
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:08 pm

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Kereguelen »

British units:

48th Light AA Rgt is at Khota Bharu at start of Scen. 15/16. It left the UK (from the Clyde) on 12-07-41 and was never send to Malaya. Instead it was transported to Batavia where it eventually surrendered.

125th Anti-Tank Regt is not in the game (it arrived together with 18th British Division but was not part of her; and it seems that it is not included in the OOB of the 18th Division). It arrived at Bombay on 12-27-41 and at Singapore on 02-05-42.

35th Light AA Rgt is not in the game. It left Durban/SA on 12-24-41 and arrived at Singapore on 01-13-42.
User avatar
pry
Posts: 938
Joined: Fri Dec 06, 2002 7:19 am
Location: Overlooking Galveston Bay, Texas

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by pry »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.

Individual subs are all correct 6 forward with 2 ammo = 12, 4 aft with 3 ammo = 12 =24 Total...

OH here it is, the Tambor Class is set to 6 x 3 forward =18 and 4 x 3 =12 rear = 30

Thought I had found and fixed all the little *Ron BooBoo's &copy* [;)] but I must have missed that one. Took care of it... Thanks Ron
User avatar
PeteG662
Posts: 1263
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:01 pm

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by PeteG662 »

Scenario 12

Leaders are missing at start for about 1/3 of Chinese and Russian land units.

Att start, in Colombo, The Royal Sovereign Class BBs have a discrepancy in their floatplanes. One member of the class (Resolution) has floatplane, the other three members of the class (Ramilles, Royal Sovereign, and Revenge) do not have a floatplane assigned.
User avatar
Ron Saueracker
Posts: 10967
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Ron Saueracker »

ORIGINAL: pry
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.

Individual subs are all correct 6 forward with 2 ammo = 12, 4 aft with 3 ammo = 12 =24 Total...

OH here it is, the Tambor Class is set to 6 x 3 forward =18 and 4 x 3 =12 rear = 30

Thought I had found and fixed all the little *Ron BooBoo's ©* [;)] but I must have missed that one. Took care of it... Thanks Ron

Booboos.[:D]
Image

Image

Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan
User avatar
Don Bowen
Posts: 5177
Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Georgetown, Texas, USA

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Don Bowen »

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
ORIGINAL: pry
ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I'm noticing in scen 15 that some USN 10 tube subes have 30 torps instead of 24. Trout is an example.

Individual subs are all correct 6 forward with 2 ammo = 12, 4 aft with 3 ammo = 12 =24 Total...

OH here it is, the Tambor Class is set to 6 x 3 forward =18 and 4 x 3 =12 rear = 30

Thought I had found and fixed all the little *Ron BooBoo's ©* [;)] but I must have missed that one. Took care of it... Thanks Ron

Booboos.[:D]

Is that Boo-Boo or Boob-oh!
User avatar
Tankerace
Posts: 5408
Joined: Fri Mar 21, 2003 12:23 pm
Location: Stillwater, OK, United States

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Tankerace »

Boobs? [:D]
Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.
User avatar
Mr.Frag
Posts: 11195
Joined: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Purgatory

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Mr.Frag »

This is the OOB, not the BOOB thread [:'(]
User avatar
Lemurs!
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:27 pm

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Lemurs! »

My army shall be equiped with Uma Thurman as a morale building asset.

Mike
Image
User avatar
Bradley7735
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:51 pm

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Bradley7735 »

I have a question regarding allied CVE's. This may not necessarily be an error, but it's something that bugs me.

Up through July 43, the US gets about 10 CVE's as reinforcements. The Long Island has no airgroup. Of the rest, all but 3 have replenishment airgroups. So, you only get 3 CVE's with airgroups that can actually function for CAP and offensive missions.

Also, up through July 43, the allied player has the 6 prewar carriers and the Essex and one CVL (there may be more essexes, but I don't have a perfect memory). Factor in the expected losses (probably 4 CV's), and you don't have all that many CV's in July 43.

So, why do we need 6 CVE's with 12 squadrons of replenishment groups in early 43? I'm practically begging for some CAP on my valuable transport task forces.

Can't we start getting the replenishment airgroups in mid to late 43 and get some useful CVE groups prior to that? (I know you can move the replenishment groups off and some carrier capable groups on, but I don't think that putting Corsairs on CVE's is a good option.)
The older I get, the better I was.
User avatar
eMonticello
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:35 am

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by eMonticello »

Spig spent a lot of time convincing the Navy Brass that jeep carriers were vital for extended carrier operations ... now you're telling him otherwise?! :)

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I have a question regarding allied CVE's. This may not necessarily be an error, but it's something that bugs me.

Up through July 43, the US gets about 10 CVE's as reinforcements. The Long Island has no airgroup. Of the rest, all but 3 have replenishment airgroups. So, you only get 3 CVE's with airgroups that can actually function for CAP and offensive missions.

So, why do we need 6 CVE's with 12 squadrons of replenishment groups in early 43? I'm practically begging for some CAP on my valuable transport task forces.

Can't we start getting the replenishment airgroups in mid to late 43 and get some useful CVE groups prior to that? (I know you can move the replenishment groups off and some carrier capable groups on, but I don't think that putting Corsairs on CVE's is a good option.)

He's the guy who does not look like Clark Gable...

Image
Attachments
spig_wead.jpg
spig_wead.jpg (14.89 KiB) Viewed 343 times

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson
User avatar
Bradley7735
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:51 pm

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Bradley7735 »

Spig spent a lot of time convincing the Navy Brass that jeep carriers were vital for extended carrier operations ... now you're telling him otherwise?! :)

I'm saying that in July of 43, most players will have 6 CVE's useful only for replenishment and only 1 to 4 CV's that need replenishment. What you need at July of 43 is useful CAP for your task forces. I'd rather have 2 (at most) CVE's useful for replenishment and 7 to 8 CVE's that have a useful airgroup. Now, when I get to 12/43 or early 44, then those 6 replenishment CVE's will start to become handy. I guess every game will come out differently, and some will have lots of CV's in mid 43, but right now, I'm wishing that those 6 CVE's could escort troop transport task forces.

Oh well. I think i get a useful one in October. That'll make 4.
The older I get, the better I was.
User avatar
eMonticello
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:35 am

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by eMonticello »

I can only respond by paraphrasing the current SecDef:

"As you know, you go to war with the navy you have, not the navy you might want or wish to have at a later time."
ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
Spig spent a lot of time convincing the Navy Brass that jeep carriers were vital for extended carrier operations ... now you're telling him otherwise?! :)

I'm saying that in July of 43, most players will have 6 CVE's useful only for replenishment and only 1 to 4 CV's that need replenishment. What you need at July of 43 is useful CAP for your task forces. I'd rather have 2 (at most) CVE's useful for replenishment and 7 to 8 CVE's that have a useful airgroup. Now, when I get to 12/43 or early 44, then those 6 replenishment CVE's will start to become handy. I guess every game will come out differently, and some will have lots of CV's in mid 43, but right now, I'm wishing that those 6 CVE's could escort troop transport task forces.

Oh well. I think i get a useful one in October. That'll make 4.

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson
User avatar
Kereguelen
Posts: 1454
Joined: Wed May 12, 2004 9:08 pm

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Kereguelen »

Hi,

there are Indian pilots in the pool but I was unable to find any units of the RIAF in the database/OOB. Would be nice to have them included in the game (would be somewhat problematic with No. 2 and No. 3 Squadrons because Hawker Audax is not in the game but the Westland Lysander might be an appropriate and similary useless substitute).

No. 1 Squadron. Formed on 1 April, 1933. Westland Wapiti, 1939-Hawker Hart, 1941-Westland Lysander, 1942-Hawker Hurricane.
No. 2 Squadron Formed 1 April 1941. Westland Wapiti, 1941-Audax, 1942-Hurricane
No. 3 Squadron Formed 1 October 1941. Hawker Audax, 1943-Hurricane
No. 4 Squadron Formed 1 February 1942. Westland Lysander, 1943-Hurricane IIC, 1945-Spitfire VIII
No. 6 Squadron. Formed on 1 December, 1942. It absorbed Nos 1 and 2 Coast Defence Flights. Hawker Hurricanes.
No. 7 Squadron. Formed on 1 December, 1942. It absorbed Nos 3 and 6 Coast Defence Flights. Vultee Vengeance 1944-Hurricane
No. 8 Squadron. Formed on 1 December, 1942. It absorbed No 5 Coast Defence Flight. Vultee Vengeance, 1944-Spitfire VIII
No. 9 Squadron. Formed on 3 January 1944. Hawker Hurricane IIC, 1945-Spitfire VIII
No. 10 Squadron. Formed on 20 February 1944. Hawker Hurricane IIC, 1945-Spitfire VIII.

K
User avatar
Bradley7735
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:51 pm

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Bradley7735 »

I can only respond by paraphrasing the current SecDef:

"As you know, you go to war with the navy you have, not the navy you might want or wish to have at a later time."

That is true, and I would prefer historic accuracy over anything. But, I was thinking that none of these VR squadrons existed in 42 or early 43. Maybe the airgroup that starts on Sangamon wasn't a VR squadron, but an actual useful squadron. I think by late 43 or 44, they may have replaced the squadron's with VR squadrons.

In real life, after October 42, the US only had two serviceable CV's. And how many did they have in May of 43? 4 or maybe 5? What was the use of a VR squadron in that time period? Hey, we've got 300 planes on CVE's to use to replace losses from your two CV's. (ok, I'm exaggerating)
The older I get, the better I was.
User avatar
Lemurs!
Posts: 788
Joined: Tue Jun 01, 2004 7:27 pm

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Lemurs! »

I have added a couple Indian squadrons to the combined mod. Most Indian squadrons were used anti insurgency and to watch the Soviets.

Mike
Image
User avatar
eMonticello
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:35 am

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by eMonticello »

Using the editor, I found that the Sangamon-class CVE had VF/T CAGs. The Bogue-class CVE has VR CAGs. The Casablanca-class CVE had VCF/T CAGs. Conway points out that in rough weather, aircraft handling was difficult in the Bogue-class ships. In addition, the Bouge-class ships were AK-conversions (flight deck was 495ft x 69ft) while the Sangamon-class ships were AO-conversion with a longer flight deck (flight deck was 553 ft x 75ft). Finally, Nassau is the only '42 jeep carrier with a VR CAG in the game. In real life, she was ferrying planes around in the Southwest Pacific until April 1943 when she was finally given an opportunity to take on it's own CAG. I think it would be more realistic to have all CVEs to show up without CAGs, since they didn't seem to be organic to the ships.

http://www.ussnassaucve16.com/

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

That is true, and I would prefer historic accuracy over anything. But, I was thinking that none of these VR squadrons existed in 42 or early 43. Maybe the airgroup that starts on Sangamon wasn't a VR squadron, but an actual useful squadron. I think by late 43 or 44, they may have replaced the squadron's with VR squadrons.

In real life, after October 42, the US only had two serviceable CV's. And how many did they have in May of 43? 4 or maybe 5? What was the use of a VR squadron in that time period? Hey, we've got 300 planes on CVE's to use to replace losses from your two CV's. (ok, I'm exaggerating)

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson
User avatar
Bradley7735
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:51 pm

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Bradley7735 »

Sorry, I was using my memory to come up with the game examples. I'll concede. I thought there was a possiblility that some of the VR ships coming in 42/43 started out with normal air groups that changed to VR groups later in the war. You have shown me that the game is accurate as is, in regards to the CVE air groups.

Thanks for the information.

bc
The older I get, the better I was.
User avatar
eMonticello
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:35 am

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by eMonticello »

Actually, you are correct with regard to Nassau. Historically, it didn't have any CAG assigned to it until later in '43, although folks probably won't be happy if it didn't show up with something.

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson
User avatar
Bradley7735
Posts: 2073
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:51 pm

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by Bradley7735 »

One thing I'd like to see:

Some devices upgrade to other devices with exactly the same name. (example: US Army squad, USMC squad, etc)

I wish there was a date after the device name, so you'd know if the US Army squad in question was a crappy one that started in 12/41 or the kick @ss one that you get in 43 or 44. It'd sure help my decision on what divisions to use in combat.

US Army Squad 12/41
US Army Squad 4/42
US Army Squad 7/43
etc

There's major differences between these devices (I guessed on dates, so don't tell me my dates are wrong).

bc
The older I get, the better I was.
User avatar
eMonticello
Posts: 525
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2002 7:35 am

RE: 1.40 OOB Issues

Post by eMonticello »

You can modify that information using the editor for you personal use. I'm thinking of adding the ship number to the Auxiliaries (AK-14 Regulus, for example), since I only want to use the Navy Auxiliaries for their proper role.
ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

One thing I'd like to see:

Some devices upgrade to other devices with exactly the same name. (example: US Army squad, USMC squad, etc)

I wish there was a date after the device name, so you'd know if the US Army squad in question was a crappy one that started in 12/41 or the kick @ss one that you get in 43 or 44. It'd sure help my decision on what divisions to use in combat.

US Army Squad 12/41
US Army Squad 4/42
US Army Squad 7/43
etc

There's major differences between these devices (I guessed on dates, so don't tell me my dates are wrong).

bc

Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example. -- Pudd'nhead Wilson
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design”