Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Allied Aircraft (last chance to add new planes)

 
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 >> Allied Aircraft (last chance to add new planes) Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Allied Aircraft (last chance to add new planes) - 1/21/2006 1:31:57 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		I have reorganized Allied aircraft into FIVE sections:

FAA carrier aircraft
US carrier aircraft
US land based aircraft
Soviet land based aircraft
Other Allied land based aircraft

all in alphabetical order. This makes it possible to have a sense of how many nearly identical aircraft there are - and there are many of these. So far I just got rid of one obscure Dutch trainer used for recon by two detachments - replacing them with Dutch torpedo bombers. And I added the SBD-3 at war start - replacing the generic SBD with it - because the existing plane is modeled on the SBD-5 - not available until 1943. I then created a separate, true SBD-5 upgrade. I added both the C-54A (from 10/42) and its USN cousin R5D (from 2/43) - which is only fair since I allow Japan to build its version of the DC-4. I am considering adding the Soviet heavy bomber (Pe-8) - but only if it was deployed in the Far East - which I have not yet established (most plane types did serve in all areas). I have seven free allied plane slots - and I may create a few more by combining types. Is there any type that should be added? Perhaps the big flying boat transports? Or the many kinds of light transports? Or some kind of combat aircraft?

< Message edited by el cid again -- 2/21/2006 3:22:56 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: Any requests for Allied Aircraft? - 1/21/2006 9:40:21 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		Cid, I am against the switching of the RNEIAF recon a/c to torpedo squadrons. I think that this will ahistorically increase the power of the RNEIAF, especially against Japanese invasion forces. I've been reading "Bloody Shambles" and was impressed by the work the CHS folks did to bring the RNEIAF a workable, historic OOB.

If you are switching them, what is their upgrade path? Are they going to be recon units or bomber units?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 2
RE: Any requests for Allied Aircraft? - 1/21/2006 10:20:58 PM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline 		cid what are you adding these aircraft to? The CHS or the RHS?

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 3
RE: Any requests for Allied Aircraft? - 1/21/2006 11:43:37 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Actually, the CHS mod has TOO many torpedo planes for the NEIAF - since it rates all Do-24Ks as torpedo planes - which is false. I added NO new torpedo plane type. I also did not increase the number of torpedo planes. I just reassigned fairly small detachments into the standard recon packages of 3 planes. I found one unverifiable plane in two detachments and wanted to save the plane slot. I found some of the trainers were indeed armed and I got exact machine counts, including NAF units sent from UK before the Pacific campaign began. Since they were historically used in the armed recon role, I kept them, with corrected counts. The only torpedo armed plane was not used, as it might have been, in a single armed unit, so I felt it was reasonable to use it in its historical role - for recon. However, it is possible to use other recon planes for the two detachments in question - and I almost did. There is no change to the number of units and plane counts are similar - but instead of production you get the exact historical plane count in the pool. There is no Dutch "production" at this time for the Allies.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 4
RE: Any requests for Allied Aircraft? - 1/21/2006 11:44:52 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

cid what are you adding these aircraft to? The CHS or the RHS?


I have no CHS assignment at this time - except to help with a review of Japanese aircraft if there are any questions. So for RHS. BUT anything I do is always available to CHS if they want it - and I expect some of it will be eventually.

(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 5
RE: Any requests for Allied Aircraft? - 1/22/2006 12:32:19 AM   
lucascuccia

 

Posts: 35
Joined: 5/26/2001
Status: offline 		Are we ever going to see a PB4y2 Privateer? Having a heavily armed, lower flying, longer ranged naval plane would be nice.

Also, what about the F-7 liberator recon for really long range photagraphy.


Lucas

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 6
RE: Any requests for Allied Aircraft? - 1/22/2006 1:27:55 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Are we ever going to see a PB4y2 Privateer?

There IS a PB4Y-1. I will review this subject - because I must review all planes for performance anyway - having changed the definition of ceiling - and I check all fields and counts when I look at a record. Perhaps the -2 is a better choice than the -1?


(in reply to lucascuccia)
Post #: 7
Carrier Plane issue - 1/22/2006 1:30:16 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		The F-7F, F-8F and F-4U-4 are NOT carrier planes! Anyone have a problem with this? If so, how can we deal with it?

One possibility would be to combine some FAA and USN plane types. Or USMC/USN plane types. If the numbers are small, it might be OK.
The other obvious one is get rid of some minor type.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 8
RE: Carrier Plane issue - 1/22/2006 1:38:19 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		The F-4U4 and the Bearcat ARE CV-capable! Slots 243-249 have been Allied carrier-capable since v.1.4.

I assume the Tigercat was placed where it was because it only operated from land bases during the short operational career it had before the end of the war.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 9
RE: Carrier Plane issue (Revised for Buffalo) - 1/22/2006 2:58:40 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

The F-4U4 and the Bearcat ARE CV-capable! Slots 243-249 have been Allied carrier-capable since v.1.4.


Thanks. Silly me for believing the manual - which was not updated (of course). I am so spoiled by professional documentation it is hard to get used to this informal system. I will now deal with that - consider it done.

I found the odd thing that Li-2 is in a carrier slot! [That is a C-47 - adm byrd anyone?] So I had a slot for the missing fighter.

Amendment: Oops: Turns out, for technical reasons, slot 243 is NOT a carrier capable slot after all. A programmer probably said slots 243 to 248 - and that translates to slots 244 to 249 for us users - due to an offset. Seems that 0 is used with a special meaning in the editor (no data I think) - and the entire stack gets offset by one so all slots are treated as meaningful. So the Li-2 is not a carrier capable slot and I have to figure out what to do for Tigercat after all. Since the scenario runs 9 months after the end of hostilities, and since Japan gets to use new carrier capable planes, I feel this must be addressed. But how? Where did I put my thinking cap?

Got it. There are two slots for F2Fs (Buffalos carrier capable) - used by only two units (three in stock and CHS, but VMF 111 should be F4F-3).
They have identical armament and engines - I can combine them and then we get the slot we need.

< Message edited by el cid again -- 1/23/2006 1:53:29 AM >

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 10
RE: Carrier Plane issue - 1/22/2006 3:57:16 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
Cid, I wasn't talking about production, but how a player could be able to warp the game if he had many extra squadrons of either F5 recon a/c or B25/B26 bombers available by withdrawing those a/c to Australia and using them once the a/c were available for upgrade. Thus my question about upgrade paths... are you placing a small limit on the numbers of a/c allowed in these units?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 11
RE: Carrier Plane issue - 1/22/2006 4:46:18 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline 		I think the F7F was envisioned for use aboard the Midway Class CVs. Don't know if you have them or not though.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 12
RE: Carrier Plane issue - 1/22/2006 8:29:50 AM   
GaryChildress

 

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline 		From what little I've seen mentioned about the F7F so far on the Inet it looks like they were just not suitable for carrier opperations during WW2 and were initially assigned to the Marines for land based use. They required a Midway class carrier to opperate from and most definitely couldn't opperate from anything less than a CV. I currently have them in a carrier capable slot in my mod but will be changing them when I get around to it to a non-carrier capable slot.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 13
RE: Any requests for Allied Aircraft? - 1/22/2006 9:19:51 AM   
TheElf


Posts: 3870
Joined: 5/14/2003
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

cid what are you adding these aircraft to? The CHS or the RHS?


I have no CHS assignment at this time -


How bout digging up some details for me on the VVS-TOF in DEC 41'?

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 14
RE: Carrier Plane issue - 1/22/2006 11:55:45 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Cid, I wasn't talking about production, but how a player could be able to warp the game if he had many extra squadrons of either F5 recon a/c or B25/B26 bombers available by withdrawing those a/c to Australia and using them once the a/c were available for upgrade. Thus my question about upgrade paths... are you placing a small limit on the numbers of a/c allowed in these units?


I do not understand your query.

First of all, I have not changed any numbers for Allied air units (unless you count elements of Dutch recon planes Joe once proposed be removed altogether - being smaller than squadrongs - I made these all a uniform 3 machines when some had been a few more - and I gave players every unassigned machine in the pools). For Japan, I used the real unit size. Now since I have not looked up Allied unit sizes, I have no reason to change any unit plane count - unless informed that "123rd bombardment group is too small" or some such.

Second, I do not understand how upgrading to any aircraft could be wrong, or "skew the game" - since real world commanders could really assign ANY plane they wanted to ANY unit - and often did? I have been advised to always define an upgrade for technical reasons I do not understand - so I will insure that some reaonable one is defined. But whatever it is, how could it be a problem if it gets used?

I am about 100% confused by your questions.


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 15
RE: Carrier Plane issue - 1/22/2006 11:58:39 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I think the F7F was envisioned for use aboard the Midway Class CVs. Don't know if you have them or not though.


Since I built on the foundation of CHS, and since CHS has all three Midways on their historical dates - all in 1945 - yes - I have them. I think F7F probably could operate from carriers sometime in 1945.

Anyway the game has no plane size limits for carriers. Japan can put big bombers on CVLs - so can USN and RN. So we cannot address this - except maybe as house rules. I myself - on principle - won't operate a big plane from too small a carrier.

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 16
LB-30??? - 1/22/2006 12:06:18 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		There is a wierd plane case:

LB-30 Liberator is a small batch (total 75) of Liberator Is which USAAF siezed from an export order. The Liberator I is an RAF equipped B-24D.
Four squadrons (12 planes each) - 21, 27, 392 and 435 - are assigned this aircraft. It is identical to B-24D in game terms. Is there any reason not to put those 75 machines in the B-24D pool and to assign B-24Ds to those four units?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 17
RE: LB-30??? - 1/22/2006 9:36:26 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

There is a wierd plane case:

LB-30 Liberator is a small batch (total 75) of Liberator Is which USAAF siezed from an export order. The Liberator I is an RAF equipped B-24D.
Four squadrons (12 planes each) - 21, 27, 392 and 435 - are assigned this aircraft. It is identical to B-24D in game terms. Is there any reason not to put those 75 machines in the B-24D pool and to assign B-24Ds to those four units?

I lack historical knowledge to add, but here is a game comment. I am currently in late December 1944 in current CHS as Allies (vs. AI). The LB-30 does not have the same stats as teh B-24D. It has a longer range - useful for maritime search - and (I think) a lesser bombload. I do not know about the Liberator I. Is that another name for the LB-30?

Here is a separate question for you. The RAF has a bunch of BS equipped with Liberator III's. The upgrade for that plane is Liberator VI's. The VI is almost the same (stats) as the III. It has a little more gun value, but significantly less range (3 or 4 hexes less for normal/extended range). Was this really the case with the Liberator III and VI? Why would the British consider it an upgrade?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 18
RE: LB-30??? - 1/23/2006 12:11:57 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"First of all, I have not changed any numbers for Allied air units (unless you count elements of Dutch recon planes Joe once proposed be removed altogether - being smaller than squadrongs - I made these all a uniform 3 machines when some had been a few more - and I gave players every unassigned machine in the pools)."


Okay, you now have these units starting at 3 aircraft ler unit. That's good. My question is three the maximum number of aircraft that these units will be allowed to have at any time?

Let's say for example, you start the game with a squadron of P-40Bs that has 12 aircraft, but it's maximum number of aircraft is 24. Once the extra P-40Bs come into the pool, they can be assigned to increase the size of the squadron beyond the twelve planes up to 24 planes. Now, if you've created a bunch of squadron fragments that have three aircraft at start, but are allowed to be increased up to twelve aircraft, this can be a problem. While we know that there will not be any more TIVs available, once the squadron has been upgraded to a different aircraft (say a B25, or F5A) this has ahistorically increased the allied order of battle.


BTW, I believe your problem with Do24Ks has to do not with their being listed as Torpedo Bombers, as they are listed as Patrol Bombers, but that they were given torpedoes as standard loadout. None of my reading has ever indicated that the Dutch used these aircraft with torpedoes (but my reading on this particular subject is quite limited), so I can agree with you in that respect. Maybe you should adjust the weapons load for the D024K-2 instead.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 19
RE: LB-30??? - 1/23/2006 1:39:31 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

I lack historical knowledge to add, but here is a game comment. I am currently in late December 1944 in current CHS as Allies (vs. AI). The LB-30 does not have the same stats as teh B-24D. It has a longer range - useful for maritime search - and (I think) a lesser bombload. I do not know about the Liberator I. Is that another name for the LB-30?


In the form you are playing with them, Liberators (and most other Allied heavies) have too little range (also too little bomb load). In future CHS and in RHS this will be fixed. The LB-30 IS the Liberator I, but the I order was only 139 machines, and 75 of those were siezed by USAAF (to become LB-30s). The Liberator I is not in the game and seems not to have made it to the Far East. I am proposing to fold the 75 LB-30s into the B-24D - and that B-24D will have the correct range. [It is not clear why, but game heavies ran only 80% of normal bomb load to significantly less ranges than data in reputable tables suggests. This may have been deliberate - once upon a time players felt heavies were "too effective" and Matrix listened and "fixed" the problem.] Note that by increasing the maximum bomb loads I also make it impossible to use heavies from smaller airfields - they will require big ones - as they should.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 20
RE: LB-30??? - 1/23/2006 1:41:09 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:


Here is a separate question for you. The RAF has a bunch of BS equipped with Liberator III's. The upgrade for that plane is Liberator VI's. The VI is almost the same (stats) as the III. It has a little more gun value, but significantly less range (3 or 4 hexes less for normal/extended range). Was this really the case with the Liberator III and VI? Why would the British consider it an upgrade?


Many upgrades are only marginal. Crews like anything that makes defense better. Contractors like anything that increases funds!

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 21
RE: LB-30??? - 1/23/2006 1:46:05 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Okay, you now have these units starting at 3 aircraft ler unit. That's good. My question is three the maximum number of aircraft that these units will be allowed to have at any time?


In this system, air units are not like land units. We do not get a TO&E they can build up to.

For Japan - where I did a comprehensive review of air groups - I am NOT doing this for the Allies (it would take a long time and no one has asked me to) - IF I wanted a unit to start at a particular size (because that was right for the first day of the war) and build UP to a higher size, I gave it the "extra" planes as "damaged" - and THEN I "damaged" the unit in that proportion. That way the unit cannot use the planes on the first day - nor some days thereafter. It won't take a long enough time to build up though - so I don't like that system very much. For training units I am considering "damaging" 100% of the planes and 99% of the unit (the most allowed) - just to delay how long before the unit can even begin gaining experience. It still is not severe enough - but it helps.

Anyway, a Dutch element with 3 planes will never get bigger as far as I know.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 22
RE: LB-30??? - 1/23/2006 1:50:42 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

BTW, I believe your problem with Do24Ks has to do not with their being listed as Torpedo Bombers, as they are listed as Patrol Bombers, but that they were given torpedoes as standard loadout. None of my reading has ever indicated that the Dutch used these aircraft with torpedoes (but my reading on this particular subject is quite limited), so I can agree with you in that respect. Maybe you should adjust the weapons load for the D024K-2 instead.


I have good material on all German aircraft (Dornier is a German company). It is a fine plane, but it had no provision for offensive weapons - just defensive ones. So yes, we adjust the weapons load - to zero. It only had machine guns and cannon. See Green's Warplanes of the Third Reich. Also Combat Aircraft of World War Two, Aircraft of the Luftwaffe and Seaplanes of the World.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 23
RE: LB-30??? - 1/23/2006 1:54:55 AM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Let's say for example, you start the game with a squadron of P-40Bs that has 12 aircraft, but it's maximum number of aircraft is 24. Once the extra P-40Bs come into the pool, they can be assigned to increase the size of the squadron beyond the twelve planes up to 24 planes. Now, if you've created a bunch of squadron fragments that have three aircraft at start, but are allowed to be increased up to twelve aircraft, this can be a problem. While we know that there will not be any more TIVs available, once the squadron has been upgraded to a different aircraft (say a B25, or F5A) this has ahistorically increased the allied order of battle.


What you may be talking about is not under my control. At certain times the hard code redefines air units. This at least happens to IJN carrier units. If a unit is defined as a squadron, and a squadron definition in hard code is 24, nothing I can do about it. I have never seen any Dutch unit actually go from 3 to anything - but they rarely survive long enough.
I know of no way to prevent it. For JAAF I can define a unit as a Chutai, a Daitai, or a Sentai - but not as a Shotai. I CALL some units Shotai - but they are DEFINED as Chutais - the smallest option available to code. At start the unit size is the sum of the ready plus damaged planes. But later that definition might change in hard code - if it does we don't know to what? Or when? And we cannot control it.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 24
RE: LB-30??? - 1/23/2006 3:46:52 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline 		"I have good material on all German aircraft (Dornier is a German company). It is a fine plane, but it had no provision for offensive weapons - just defensive ones. So yes, we adjust the weapons load - to zero."

Please don't. While the Germans may not have equipped the Do24K, the Dutch Do24Ks were capable of carrying bombs. They definitely carried out bombing missions against Japanese shipping in the theatre, even claiming the sinking of a destroyer (pp201, "Bloody Shambles" by Christopher Shores - though the authors point out that Japanese records show that the ship succumbed to a mine). The same page lists their weapons as 450lb (probably 200kg?) bombs.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 25
RE: LB-30??? - 1/23/2006 3:32:28 PM   
Hoplosternum


Posts: 690
Joined: 6/12/2002
From: Romford, England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I have never seen any Dutch unit actually go from 3 to anything - but they rarely survive long enough.



Hmmm, are you talking CHS here? The dutch patrols never went past 3 in stock as there were no replacements. But you could increase them to their maximum of 8 by either combining them or by waiting until they could upgrade to US Catalinas. If the combined squadrons were changed to SW Pacific the disbanded squadrons would reappear in Sydney with Cats later.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 26
RE: LB-30??? - 1/23/2006 4:21:28 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Please don't. While the Germans may not have equipped the Do24K, the Dutch Do24Ks were capable of carrying bombs. They definitely carried out bombing missions against Japanese shipping in the theatre, even claiming the sinking of a destroyer (pp201, "Bloody Shambles" by Christopher Shores - though the authors point out that Japanese records show that the ship succumbed to a mine). The same page lists their weapons as 450lb (probably 200kg?) bombs.


All very interesting. But CHS (according to my supervisor, Joe) is supposed to use VERIFIABLE data. I have NO reference stating ANY DO-24 EVER had bombs. I see your datum point - but that is not really good enough to produce a game model. What was the bomb load? What was the range with that bomb load? How were the bombs dropped? [In the Falklands war Argentina managed to actually HIT a tanker with a bomb rolled out the cargo door of a C-130 - but the bomb failed to detonate! But that incident did not cause me to rate C-130s as bombers.] UNLESS you could get a group consensus to say "lets make engineering calculations for the DO-24K that are realistic" I won't do it. [I was once resident computer engineer at two different Software Integration Laboratories at Boeing - and I spent years supporting other Boeing activities for a major defense subcontractor. I know how to make the calculations. You will NOT get the same phenominal range for the plane if it plays bomber, for one thing. And if there is no evidence of actual bomb racks and proper sights and release gear, this is going to be a nightmare to figure out - because it is like that C-130 kicking bombs out the cargo door - not a proper bomber and the hit chances have to be adjusted accordingly.] I won't do such an ahistoric thing UNLESS the community agrees to theoretical calculations - and then I will require they be reviewed for errors. It is probably MORE correct to rate the DO-24K as it was designed then to make up something off the top of your head - that is for sure. And that is what is in the game now - a DO-24K with torpedoes no less.

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 27
TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/23/2006 4:27:15 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16922
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline 		Oddly, TBF and TBM are both in the game as seperate planes - in spite of being the SAME plane!!! [Someone loves history so much they want OBs to look right, designation wise - no matter the impact on slots]. The difference is what company made the plane - not how the plane behaves!

But there were different models of this plane - later ones had better performance as you can imagine. The -3 is the critical change from the -1. So I propose to redefine the planes two lines as follows:

TBF/TBM-1
TBF/TBM-3

That way you get to have the higher performing plane as well as the original model in the game. But you can no longer tell in an OB what company made the plane!


(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 28
RE: TBF and TBM Avengers - 1/23/2006 8:14:39 PM   
Don Bowen


Posts: 8183
Joined: 7/13/2000
From: Georgetown, Texas, USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

Oddly, TBF and TBM are both in the game as seperate planes - in spite of being the SAME plane!!! [Someone loves history so much they want OBs to look right, designation wise - no matter the impact on slots]. The difference is what company made the plane - not how the plane behaves!

But there were different models of this plane - later ones had better performance as you can imagine. The -3 is the critical change from the -1. So I propose to redefine the planes two lines as follows:

TBF/TBM-1
TBF/TBM-3

That way you get to have the higher performing plane as well as the original model in the game. But you can no longer tell in an OB what company made the plane!




Sid, what WITP specs are you planning on using for your TBF variants? Also, what WITP specs are you planning for your SBD variants?

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 29
RE: LB-30??? - 1/23/2006 8:23:02 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: el cid again

quote:

Let's say for example, you start the game with a squadron of P-40Bs that has 12 aircraft, but it's maximum number of aircraft is 24. Once the extra P-40Bs come into the pool, they can be assigned to increase the size of the squadron beyond the twelve planes up to 24 planes. Now, if you've created a bunch of squadron fragments that have three aircraft at start, but are allowed to be increased up to twelve aircraft, this can be a problem. While we know that there will not be any more TIVs available, once the squadron has been upgraded to a different aircraft (say a B25, or F5A) this has ahistorically increased the allied order of battle.


What you may be talking about is not under my control. At certain times the hard code redefines air units. This at least happens to IJN carrier units. If a unit is defined as a squadron, and a squadron definition in hard code is 24, nothing I can do about it. I have never seen any Dutch unit actually go from 3 to anything - but they rarely survive long enough.
I know of no way to prevent it. For JAAF I can define a unit as a Chutai, a Daitai, or a Sentai - but not as a Shotai. I CALL some units Shotai - but they are DEFINED as Chutais - the smallest option available to code. At start the unit size is the sum of the ready plus damaged planes. But later that definition might change in hard code - if it does we don't know to what? Or when? And we cannot control it.


I think only carrier air units get redefined. I think what Bradford is talking about is just the maximum size for each squadron. If the max size is 12 and it has 7 planes, it will fill out when planes are available (like when the plane type is upgraded to a more plentiful model). If you want it to stay at 7 (even after model upgrades), make the max size be 7. I think that's what Bradford meant.

Right now in CHS various Allied land based squadrons have various maximum sizes: 24, 16, 12, 8, 6, and 3. Maybe other sizes that I can't think of right now.

(in reply to el cid again)
Post #: 30
Page:   [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 >> Allied Aircraft (last chance to add new planes) Page: [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

2.094