Looks like the Aleutians campaign objectives need a bit more work, lol. I was sent on a photo recon mission to Massacre Bay ("Photo Attu 01," in the campaign folder), so I carefully plot out a course, dodge a few warships, get inside the harbor and see...absolutely nothing. Lots of pine trees, but even the polar bears decided to not show up. :shifty:

In the meanwhile (aka, until you populate it with a ship or two ;)), is there a way to mod a file so the game thinks I've actually completed the objective so I can get a new assignment?

Yeah, I think I spaced that. I should have thrown a couple in the harbor layer in there. I copied the missions, and I uncommented them out, but haven't messed with the harbors much.

Wait until ships put in, the take pics? I think the patrols go back intot he harbor to despawn...

tater

Good idea, will try that.

I have tried to torpedo those gunboats in port but I believe it is the dock behind them that is being hit. I do not think there are any nets and am positive the explosions were behind the boats.

Wulfmann

Have you made it so the Northern Borneo ports are regular origin and destinations for oil tankers.

Oil is one of the key reasons why Japan spread into the South Pacific so aggressivly, Borneo was a significant oil source for Japan, with the northern ports being the busiest.

I'd assume the tankers would be mainly running back and forth from Borneo straight to Japan.

Wulfman, regaring your post in the other thread. I really haven't tweaked the content of many TFs yet.

There is a problem with the way it does stuff that required more work, basically.

Originally, I assumed that grouped ships were a % chance of the GROUP occuring.

Ie: 2xTakao CA @ 30%.

I had assumed that it meant that there was a 30% chance of 2 Takaos, and if it missed the die roll there would be ZERO Takaos. In reality, it is a 30% chance rolled twice. So you can have 0, 1, or 2 Takaos. Take a desire to hyave 3-4 DDs of a type (a typical desdiv). You can make an 80% chance of 4, but you might still see only ONE. I can aim at an expectation value of 3, but I can still get 0-2 DDs spawning. The ONLY way to insure proper groupings is to force them at 100%. The problem is that if that random group spawns more than once, they all look the same. There is no possible way to have the same group be accurate in terms of warship grouping (like types together in desdivs, crudivs, batdivs, etc) AND have variability in the same random group.

So in a few that I did tweak, I need to redo them to get grouped units.

Any time in there you see an 80% generic DD in mulitple rows, that's stock. I need to make groups of 3-4 DDs of a type.

I still might throw some odballs in here and there, too, like a single Minekaze (which is supping for all the TBs, ODDs, etc that might be joining a TF to transit to some other location).

It's kind of a pain for the goal of variability. The only way to have alternate groups of CAs, for example, is to make 2 different groups, say one with Takao, and another with Furitaka. Have them have lower % chance of occuring, but take similar paths. It's in my planned to do list, but it's more stuff to do. I will make a few "additional traffic layers like this, and merge them into multiple years probably to save work. Then I'll make the similar groups they enhance have lower spawn rates, and different contents.

Too bad, it would be nice to have an option to have a % chance of X ships occuring in a group.

tater

I cut down most of the TF to insure correct ships.
All BB's named
When there are Kongos there are no Ise etc.
That is just correcting to insure historical absolutes.
As for cruisers I just have to see, I might go with naming all CAs but just include variable %, One 100% one 75% one 25% or something
I want the variability I just want it to be historically possible.
I have only done 1942 TF and so far they do not cause a CTD although I have only seen a couple close up but have had them show up on the map and they would cause CTD if they had any bug.
I did use yours as a start I just do not want to start offering mods.
You can have it for reference or use it as it works and it is correct sort of.
I also redid the ships to show up correctly.
Maya starts in 44, she is now in the Takao as a 10 gun ship until then. Mogami starts in 43 so can not spawn in 42 with a 7 type.
I edited the roster but this is not required to use the 42TF jst my insisting on history.
Too bad there is no complete Mogami type.
Also, the Akitsu was not an aircraft carrier and was not even IJN.
It was a troop landing ship with a fly off deck a Jap Army ship.
They could not land on it and used it to transport army aircraft which could take off to land at their forward bases.
It also did not enter service until 44.
Seems like that effort could have been used to make the Kaga or Akagi
Not sure why they did not do their final homework.
Not secret info.

Wulfmann

I know Akitsu is not a CV, I deleted her air group, actually.

I have her in some TFs as what she was, a plane ferry. I have no TROM information to know if she (or other IJA ferries) was ever used cooperatively with the IJN, but I added her here and there at low % for variability. It's plausible that the IJA might have tagged long with a group heading to the SWPA, particularly early in the war when they were operating in a more coordinated fashion. Later I actually plan on adding a few IJA groups (I'm playing with some ersatz escorts, but it's hard to find data on what the IJA actually used for this role. I see references to small boats, sounds like DC armed PT boats.

My plan is to limit the ships to batdivs, etc, but when I do so I will then add multiple groups taking similar paths at lower spawn rates to make up for the lack of variability. That means 6 layers times 2-4 variant groups per TF. A fair bit of work.

I actually need to test the "generic" pulls. I ASSUME that if I have 4xGeneric DD at 100%, that it picks one DD type, then draws 4 of them, and not that there is a 100% chance of 4 possibly different DDs.

tater

I doubt they changed that from SH3 so it would be 4 of the same class.
I actually have named the DDs in the TF because they would have used the later ones and did not want the unhistorical older ones running with the CAs.
Likewise I did not want newer types escorting convoys so have named the older ones.
The thing is one must not only be in the same place on the same day but at the same hour to duplicate a TF so changing the number of Takao and Furutaki as well as Asashio vs Fubuki being the more prominent and various numbers will likely not be the same even if one met the day and hour repeat criteria.
IMO, historical relevance trumps other aspects at least to a reasonable point.
Ise and Kongo, nope, would not happen; shouldn't ota do it, wouldn't be prudent!
Plus their was only Taiyo in that class until Unyo finished (5/31/42) and Chuyo (11/25/43) all products of Mitsubishi!!!
So many little things to whine about!!!:rotfl:

Wulfmann

Taiyo is the only CVE, so it should be used for all IJN CVLs and CVEs IMO.

For substitutions I use:

CVL Chitose (post-rebuild) =CVETaiyo
CVL Chiyoda (post-rebuild) =CVETaiyo

CVL Hosho =CVETaiyo

CVL Ryujo =CVETaiyo

CVL Ryuho =CVETaiyo

CVL Shoho =CVETaiyo
CVL Zuiho =CVETaiyo

Escort Carriers
CVE Taiyo
CVE Chuyo =CVETaiyo
CVE Unyo =CVETaiyo

CVE Kaiyo =CVETaiyo
CVE Shinyo =CVETaiyo

Until someone add more ships. Limiting Taiyo to historical dates would eliminate ALL CVEs before her. Obviously Akitsu Maru is an even worse choice.

Even newer DDs got convoy duty from time to time, though it was usually a route from to or from the Empire from a naval anchorage (ie: a modern DD is sent home to refit, she might escort ships on her way home). All might have escorted invasion forces (which aren't really convoys).

Look at Akizuki's TROM, she escorted a troop ship, then an ammo ship as some of her very first duties.

Actually, you find convoy escorts here and there for all DD classes in the TROMs. A quick look shows not a single class of DD in the IJN without at least occasional convoy duty. Obviously the ODDs (minekaze as SH4 substitute), Minekaze, and Kamikaze and Mutsuki would be the most typical. in terms of general assignments.

Tater, does the game follow the DOC and DOD dates to any extent? I see the two Ise BBs have the proper dates for when they went into drydock for conversion and when they were put back into service, but does the game recognize those dates? It'd be kind of silly to see a standard Ise after their conversion date.

Good question, I assumed they did, which is why I changed Agano and Akizuki's dates.

Might need testing.

Was looking at the TF contents and they do need work, I have been chasing down other issues and really hadn't gotten around to tweaking them past gutting them.

Maybe this week.

I agree with everything you posted.
Except please note Taiyo was used a training carrier and delivery platform not a combat carrier so seeing it in a TF is not accurate, IMO
I do leave some variable type 4 in convoys for exactly that reason.
However, when there are 4 DDs I use an older named version so 4 Fubukis do not show up.
Last night I attacked a small convoy (I expanded a two ship group into a 5 merchant 2 type-1 and a DD) luck that I ran into it. I have made all type 1 crew rated 4 as they are lame at even a 3 much like SH3. The DD (about a 20% chance but was there) did not participate and I am guessing I forgot to change the escort false to escort true.
Note, anything with a 4 crew has laser guided gunfire!!! I like this because subs generally did not pick gunfights with such ships
Many of those older DDs were converted to fast transports and would not escort a TF.
I use Conway's as a basic quick source but I also have a fair sized collection of reference and reading WWII material to draw on. Nothing is perfect but close is good enough compared to it never could have happened.

Wulfmann

Yeah, but what small carrier would you then put in for Hosho, Shoho, Zuiho?

Hiryu (should be Soryu) has a bigger island, Taiyo makes a better stand-in for the various CVLs, IMO.

Remove Taiyo from TFs, and you effectively remove all CVL/CVEs as targets.

To me seeing Akitsu Maru in a TF in place of Taiyo as a Hosho/Shoho/etc stand-in would be far more jarring, but I want them out there.

<shrug>

I have the odd AI=4 merchant, too, just to keep people on their toes who might thing Battle Surface! was a way of life ;)

My substitution list (with help from nematode):

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...67&postcount=5


tater

I know most will disagree with my history uber alles attitude but if one looks at the war how many Jap BBs where sunk by subs? One, Kongo ob a lucky shot.
I sank a Fuso in the first week of playing SH4 and at 100% from my first patrol.
I have attacked a number of TF and in SH3 never did have a firing position except once I fired a spread at long range at a KGV scoring a hit and once I attacked a fleet carrier all this in two years of nearly daily playing.
I know most want more action I want more history.
I sank a Taiyo in a TF that had 2 of them as well as two Maya. That won't do for me.
There is no right way just the way one feels it is right for him.
I am hoping someone will make a Nachi and mod Furataka for Aoba (although they are close enough to add now but Nachi not to me).
I will likely reduce TF considerably to make them rare as in fact they were with BBs. Except for the Kongo class Japs hardly deployed any BBs because of furl consumption and they were slow.
I wished they had modeled the Kagero instead of the Asashio as that was close to the Yugumo class which would have added 38 units between the two similar ships compared with 10 Asashio
So far, the intensity of the SH4 action is weak compared to SH3-GWX, IMO but I love the new graphics and the feel of a new area but I have serious doubt this will hold my interest like SH3 over time.
However, modding made SH3 good enough for that and maybe SH4 will at some point.
There are too many juicy targets for history's sake right now so I will tone or Chikuma it down a Nachi!:rotfl:

Wulfmann