RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

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: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

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: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production

Page: << < prev 15 16 [17] 18 19 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/14/2008 11:24:27 PM

Jutland13

Posts: 112
Joined: 7/5/2006
Status: offline

I agree with both points made. The Japanese system "can" become more than historical. However, poor/unlucky play by an allied player can create new unhistorical results, which everyone seems to want to ignore, but which have far reaching downstream consequences, that while they never "did" occur, might have occured if events had been different. It is these things that a game captures, which makes it fun and frustrating at the same time.
For example, what if the Midway results never happen, or better yet are reversed or more? The Japanese fleet is capable of inflicting a majot defeat on the Allied Fleet early on. Many Allied players are overly aggressive. If this happens, there is no Gaudalcanal, or at least not for another 12-16 months. In that time an unchallenged Japanese fleet and air arm can escort many invasions and followup damage to allied forces without this counter threat. Not having to commit massive troops to counter Island invasions frees up many troops for Ops in China, Noumea, New Zealand etc. What if the Allied player also performs poorly in China and elsewhere? Troops pulled from there can impact Burma, India etc. The Japanese have an extra 12-16 months unchallenged at sea to reinforce, build bases, control supply lines and logistics. Build industry in Japan under less pressure. These situations favour Japanese forces on the ground, at sea and in the air. It is the compound affect. Significant Allied defeats early in the war can have and could have had very signifcant compounded consequences.
Since this did not occur, we do not know. It often seems the Allied player wants a war without consequences for poor play and no or very limited reward for a very well played Japanese game.
I do think that some multiplier for Allied reinforcement (aircraft, pilots etc) could be instituted if the Japanese player is out performing history and the allies.
The game does over emphasize Japanese production, especially if the Japanese can istitute an inproved convoy system, improve aircraft construction, improve logistics. These all could have been improved dramatically historically. So the game is not so far off in this respect. The fact they were not done historically does not negate the fact that it could have been done.
One commander, with historical insight of all Japanese forces further facilitates the potential of Japanese arms. Both sides IJN & IJa working together, sharing resources and goals. Unhistorical, in that it did not happen. Not unhistorical, in that it could not have happened. If argued so, is it any less historical than a completely unified Allied command from Dec 8, 1941 onward? China, india, Aus, US, UK, DEI all sharing military resources without question and sacrificing themselves for the long term victory from day 1 of the war? Coordinating all of these for one goal, without ego, culture, politics etc was completely unhistoric and also nearly impossible under any ideal situation that could have existed.
Despite all of this occurring the Allied player should still win every time! It might take longer, it might involve a great deal more work and combat in unhistorical areas, but it is still a certainty.
Given this, I greatly enjoy the extra capacity of Japan and its potential for more. I also find it makes for a better game for the Allied player. Without it, the game become a mindless cakewalk after 1942 if the Allies perform historically or better. I will gladly assume the Allied player vs any Japanese opponent. I am certainly no genius, but I know I will eventually win, with much room for error.
Many players are indignant and blame the system, when they cannot repeat or improve on the historical result of the Allies. With both sides learning from history and not repeating historical blunders, but likely new blunders, the game will be different from history. Thank goodness for that. I have read extensively on the Pacific War, watched the documentaries, I know who won and how, why do I want to spend the next 18+mos recreating it? I want the game to give and create something new.
The game still so favours the allies, which is historical, that I find so much of this fussing over the PDU of Japan a waste. What is more, with all of the opinions, no one will ever agree what it should be, what it should do, when it should do it, Why is should do it etc.
The game works great for me, is great fun and has great historical feel and still rewards the best player and the best run forces with vicory using historical units and planning decisions and activities in a historical manner.
Neither this game or any that follows it can be all things to everyone.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 481

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/14/2008 11:58:16 PM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Counterhistorical situations are par for the course in a WW2 consim. As is poor play. The only appropriate path is to allow both sides equal flexibility to deviate from historical pathways, and to start with factually well grounded assumptions about power-projection capabilities. To do otherwise means you don't have a game that "simulates" WW2 in any reasonable fashion.

quote:

For example, what if the Midway results never happen, or better yet are reversed or more?

I find it illustrative that many can with ease imagine the Japanese succeeding where they failed, but few seem capable of imagining the Japanese failing where they succeeded. The Japanese defeat at Midway occurred because of systematic modest deficiencies in Japanese carrier air operations, and the interplay of those deficiencies with a chain of events that seriously degraded Japanese performance. It is reasonable to imagine Japan foregoing operation MO or AK to concentrate on Midway, and winning there. But it is irrational to assume that the Japanese player *should* regularly outperform the historical Japanese, given players of roughly comparable knowledge of WW2. (By which I mean, the game system should encourage good play, not be a barrier to it).

quote:

Without it, the game become a mindless cakewalk after 1942 if the Allies perform historically or better.

There seems to be very little danger of the Allies doing "historically or better." In many ways, based on the AARs that I have read, it is rather more accurate to describe the Japanese playe'rs position as a "mindless cakewalk until mid-1943."

< Message edited by mdiehl -- 1/15/2008 12:00:01 AM >

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to Jutland13)

Post #: 482

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 12:33:53 AM

TheElf

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

This thread is for the discussion of Air Team enhancements to the AE Expansion of War in the Pacific.

Please take discussions of the ramifications of logistics modeling and OoB accuracy to the appropriate AE thread. if none is available in the AE sub-forum consider starting one in the main forum for the pontification of any theories not related to the discussion of AE Air War Enhancements.

Thank you.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 483

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 12:41:43 AM

bbbf

Posts: 493
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

There seems to be very little danger of the Allies doing "historically or better." In many ways, based on the AARs that I have read, it is rather more accurate to describe the Japanese playe'rs position as a "mindless cakewalk until mid-1943."

This is a case of a biased set producing results that are badly interpretted. AAR's are not run for the majority of games, and are a lousy source for judging what happens within most games apart from the trends in combat results.

I can certainly tell you from bitter experience that it is well and truly possible for the Allies to be running riot in 43/44 - with Japan utterly incapable of matching Allied forces in the air, at sea or on the ground.

Basically the game is a magnifier for success. If yor tactics are successful - they will tend to be very successful, if not, you pay a very heavy price.

Part of this is the natural tendency for the gamer to throw everything into an effort - using far more resources than would ever be possible within the political and other restraints faced by real world commanders.

_____________________________

Robert Lee

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 484

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 12:43:56 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

Will the revised Air Routines include parafrag load outs for base attacks, skip bombing for B-17s, and coastal mining for B-29s (all historical Allied mission types)?

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to bbbf)

Post #: 485

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 12:45:11 AM

TheElf

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bbbf

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

There seems to be very little danger of the Allies doing "historically or better." In many ways, based on the AARs that I have read, it is rather more accurate to describe the Japanese playe'rs position as a "mindless cakewalk until mid-1943."

This is a case of a biased set producing results that are badly interpretted. AAR's are not run for the majority of games, and are a lousy source for judging what happens within most games apart from the trends in combat results.

I can certainly tell you from bitter experience that it is well and truly possible for the Allies to be running riot in 43/44 - with Japan utterly incapable of matching Allied forces in the air, at sea or on the ground.

Basically the game is a magnifier for success. If yor tactics are successful - they will tend to be very successful, if not, you pay a very heavy price.

Part of this is the natural tendency for the gamer to throw everything into an effort - using far more resources than would ever be possible within the political and other restraints faced by real world commanders.

ahem....

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to bbbf)

Post #: 486

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 12:46:25 AM

TheElf

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Will the revised Air Routines include parafrag load outs for base attacks, skip bombing for B-17s, and coastal mining for B-29s (all historical Allied mission types)?

The first, yes. The latter two, not at this time. OTS I'm afraid.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 487

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 1:22:43 AM

Captain Cruft

Posts: 3652
Joined: 3/17/2004
From: England
Status: offline

Erm but aren't skip bombing and mining of ports already in WitP?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 488

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 2:45:08 AM

Jutland13

Posts: 112
Joined: 7/5/2006
Status: offline

Agreed, good point. I answered a specific question, but will not continue the debate here, as well as I should not have addressed here. My apologies. My main point is there is a great deal of great stuff being done on this thread and others in relation to AE. I appreciate the hard work. Thank you.

Will the introduction of new plane types ,the Tony comes to mind, be different (later) or will these largely stay the same?

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 489

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 3:44:25 AM

timtom

Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jutland13
Will the introduction of new plane types ,the Tony comes to mind, be different (later) or will these largely stay the same?

The OOB will hold a wide variaty of subvariants, including five different types of Ki-61's.

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to Jutland13)

Post #: 490

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 3:52:12 AM

bbbf

Posts: 493
Joined: 7/16/2000
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: bbbf

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

There seems to be very little danger of the Allies doing "historically or better." In many ways, based on the AARs that I have read, it is rather more accurate to describe the Japanese playe'rs position as a "mindless cakewalk until mid-1943."

This is a case of a biased set producing results that are badly interpretted. AAR's are not run for the majority of games, and are a lousy source for judging what happens within most games apart from the trends in combat results.

I can certainly tell you from bitter experience that it is well and truly possible for the Allies to be running riot in 43/44 - with Japan utterly incapable of matching Allied forces in the air, at sea or on the ground.

Basically the game is a magnifier for success. If yor tactics are successful - they will tend to be very successful, if not, you pay a very heavy price.

Part of this is the natural tendency for the gamer to throw everything into an effort - using far more resources than would ever be possible within the political and other restraints faced by real world commanders.

ahem....

Sorry, I posted that while you were posting your request not to post things like this.

_____________________________

Robert Lee

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 491

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 9:43:57 AM

Rainerle

Posts: 463
Joined: 7/24/2002
From: Burghausen/Bavaria
Status: offline

Will we no longer see the message 'unable to find target' when the primary target is arlready sunk but other ships are in the TF that the ammo could be used at?

_____________________________

Image brought to you by courtesy of Subchaser!

(in reply to bbbf)

Post #: 492

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 1:27:34 PM

TheElf

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bbbf

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: bbbf

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

There seems to be very little danger of the Allies doing "historically or better." In many ways, based on the AARs that I have read, it is rather more accurate to describe the Japanese playe'rs position as a "mindless cakewalk until mid-1943."

This is a case of a biased set producing results that are badly interpretted. AAR's are not run for the majority of games, and are a lousy source for judging what happens within most games apart from the trends in combat results.

I can certainly tell you from bitter experience that it is well and truly possible for the Allies to be running riot in 43/44 - with Japan utterly incapable of matching Allied forces in the air, at sea or on the ground.

Basically the game is a magnifier for success. If yor tactics are successful - they will tend to be very successful, if not, you pay a very heavy price.

Part of this is the natural tendency for the gamer to throw everything into an effort - using far more resources than would ever be possible within the political and other restraints faced by real world commanders.

ahem....

Sorry, I posted that while you were posting your request not to post things like this.

no worries.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to bbbf)

Post #: 493

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 1:36:32 PM

TheElf

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

Will the revised Air Routines include parafrag load outs for base attacks, skip bombing for B-17s, and coastal mining for B-29s (all historical Allied mission types)?

The first, yes. The latter two, not at this time. OTS I'm afraid.

I should clarify a bit. We have written new code to support the existence of a new class of aircraft called the attack bomber. This particular class is meant to emulate the 5th AF�s A-20 & B-25, both the field mods and the production strafers. The code essentially remains as it is in stock when handling the low alt skip bombing and such for all other A/C.

So yes a B-17 should still be able to make the low alt attacks as in stock, however due to the fact that we have coded attack bombers in such a way as to make it essential they have mass forward firepower it makes these kinds of attacks by traditional Medium & Heavy bombers not so equipped more vulnerable to AAA. As it should be. Else there would be nothing significant about what Kenney and Pappy Gunn did in New Guinea.

So the take away here is that Attack bombers will have special code that governs their attacks and resolves them using Attack bomber specifics, while all other Low alt attacks will resolve normally with higher FAT and vulnerability to AAA.

This is yet to be born out in testing.

EDIT: Added for all other A/C.

< Message edited by TheElf -- 1/17/2008 10:51:07 PM >

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 494

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 5:30:05 PM

PzB74

Posts: 5076
Joined: 10/3/2000
From: No(r)way
Status: offline

What I would like to see is a 'react' option for CAP fighters. As it is in WitP 'leaky' CAP occasionally provides CAP for nearby bases...but this option
is more an annoyance than anything else since it cannot be controlled.

If Base A has 200 CAP fighters and is surrounded by nearby Bases B, C and D (1-2 hexes away) it should be possible to order the CAP to protect not only Base A. Especially as radar comes into play this becomes more and more true, and even without it visual spotting would give enough early warning to send fighters from Base A to Base B, C or D.

In my AAR game I can only provide strong CAP to a handful bases and air balance numbers easily gives this away.
Andy is thereby able to send his bombers to targets just miles away from my 'CAP Zones' and bomb them almost unmolested.

Tokyo for instance could be designated as a 'CAP Zone' for the area 2-3 hexes around it and able to defend other locations according to priorities.
This could be impossible to implement, but it would have made the air war a lot more realistic if you add all the other improvements that will be incorporated in AE.

_____________________________

"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without"
- Dwight D. Eisenhower

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 495

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/15/2008 7:57:16 PM

Reiryc

Posts: 4991
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Will we no longer see the message 'unable to find target' when the primary target is arlready sunk but other ships are in the TF that the ammo could be used at?

This is a good question that I'd like to see addressed...

_____________________________

(in reply to Rainerle)

Post #: 496

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 2:51:08 AM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Naval Thread.

The IJ Player commonly forms the a/c-capable riff-raff of the IJN (Hosho and Taiyo representing the historical epitome of riff-raff) into something called the mini-KB which also quite commonly raises he!! in some corner of the map and although not quite up to a pitched battle with an equal number of US CVs is quite capable of dealing with the RN fleet carriers and inflicting serious harm to US CVs. Such capabilities for these ships and the airgroups assigned to them are IRL pretty much a IJ wetdream but I suppose in the interest of allowing creative strategy....

The USN had CVEs which IRL carried out serious missions. But for some reason the pilots in the airgroups assigned to them start off with experience that is 20-30 points below the standard for the time frame. Perhaps the pilots who drew CVE duty were not the cream of the crop but they were not the washouts either. Lacking any historical evidence that the pilots assigned to CVE duty were sub-par I think that they should just draw from the same experience pool for the year the ship enters play.

(in reply to Reiryc)

Post #: 497

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 8:39:08 AM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

Hi Elf,

I skimmed the thread and didn't see this asked so please forgive me if it has already been asked somewhere but, will Dutch and UK airgroups still not be able to upgrade until May '42? I never liked that rule a lot. It seems that if the Dutch or UK have the aircraft available, especially with PDUs on, they ought to be able to do some squadron management like everyone else. Also, do you know if such things as this will be editable in the editor?

Thanks.

(in reply to mdiehl)

Post #: 498

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 1:14:23 PM

witpqs

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

BTW, for the Dutch right now it's July '42.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 499

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 1:25:37 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

Woops. I mean UK May and Dutch July. Thanks.

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 500

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 2:35:40 PM

Dutch_slith

Posts: 330
Joined: 7/21/2005
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hi Elf,

I skimmed the thread and didn't see this asked so please forgive me if it has already been asked somewhere but, will Dutch and UK airgroups still not be able to upgrade until May '42? I never liked that rule a lot. It seems that if the Dutch or UK have the aircraft available, especially with PDUs on, they ought to be able to do some squadron management like everyone else. Also, do you know if such things as this will be editable in the editor?

Thanks.

And in RL they did. Most of the GVTs using the Dornier 24K-1 upgraded to the PBY-5 Catalina during January/March 1942.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 501

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 6:42:00 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

What I would like to see is a 'react' option for CAP fighters. As it is in WitP 'leaky' CAP occasionally provides CAP for nearby bases...but this option
is more an annoyance than anything else since it cannot be controlled.

If Base A has 200 CAP fighters and is surrounded by nearby Bases B, C and D (1-2 hexes away) it should be possible to order the CAP to protect not only Base A. Especially as radar comes into play this becomes more and more true, and even without it visual spotting would give enough early warning to send fighters from Base A to Base B, C or D.

In my AAR game I can only provide strong CAP to a handful bases and air balance numbers easily gives this away.
Andy is thereby able to send his bombers to targets just miles away from my 'CAP Zones' and bomb them almost unmolested.

Tokyo for instance could be designated as a 'CAP Zone' for the area 2-3 hexes around it and able to defend other locations according to priorities.
This could be impossible to implement, but it would have made the air war a lot more realistic if you add all the other improvements that will be incorporated in AE.

Yep...would be cool.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to PzB74)

Post #: 502

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 6:48:28 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hi Elf,

I skimmed the thread and didn't see this asked so please forgive me if it has already been asked somewhere but, will Dutch and UK airgroups still not be able to upgrade until May '42? I never liked that rule a lot. It seems that if the Dutch or UK have the aircraft available, especially with PDUs on, they ought to be able to do some squadron management like everyone else. Also, do you know if such things as this will be editable in the editor?

Thanks.

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 503

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 7:00:46 PM

GaryChildress

Posts: 6830
Joined: 7/17/2005
From: The Divided Nations of Earth
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.

I agree. Though, I didn't realize this was happening. Is this something peculiar to Allied reinforcements? Last I played as Japanese my Japanese reinforcements would linger in the pool until I had enough planes to fill out the TOE. I think this was supposedly changed in the last patch to where they would at least downgrade to the closest plane available in the pool.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)

Post #: 504

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 7:07:39 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.

I agree. Though, I didn't realize this was happening. Is this something peculiar to Allied reinforcements? Last I played as Japanese my Japanese reinforcements would linger in the pool until I had enough planes to fill out the TOE. I think this was supposedly changed in the last patch to where they would at least downgrade to the closest plane available in the pool.

Nope. I'm patched to 1.806 and the Dutch groups have been arriving in Sydney equipped with aircraft from another dimension. Only reason I keep the squadrons is because I still hold the DEI in July 42 but I won't use them until upgraded...aside from training of course...my mod has pilot exp massively reduced so these guys arrived between 7 and 15 exp!.

Otherwise if DEI is conquered I withdraw them or ground them in some lonesome hole and only use the historical Dutch reinforcement squadrons.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 505

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 7:09:40 PM

Yakface

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.

I agree. Though, I didn't realize this was happening. Is this something peculiar to Allied reinforcements? Last I played as Japanese my Japanese reinforcements would linger in the pool until I had enough planes to fill out the TOE. I think this was supposedly changed in the last patch to where they would at least downgrade to the closest plane available in the pool.

Yes, only Aliied. Not only do their carriers, cruiser and the entire chinese army respawn, but so does every aircraft.

(in reply to GaryChildress)

Post #: 506

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 7:14:07 PM

Ron Saueracker

Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.

I agree. Though, I didn't realize this was happening. Is this something peculiar to Allied reinforcements? Last I played as Japanese my Japanese reinforcements would linger in the pool until I had enough planes to fill out the TOE. I think this was supposedly changed in the last patch to where they would at least downgrade to the closest plane available in the pool.

Yes, only Aliied. Not only do their carriers, cruiser and the entire chinese army respawn, but so does every aircraft.

Only Allied? Guess this needs to be sorted pronto if we are to see any changes to the Japanese production model.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 507

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 7:15:30 PM

Yakface

Posts: 846
Joined: 8/5/2006
Status: offline

Hi Elf.

I understand that the air combat routines are being tweaked to reduce the effectveness of CAP...... I say I undersatnd it to be so simply because I've seen fairly non-specific anecdotes about it. Are there any more details?

Also, if they are being changed, won't this mean that the effectiveness of bombing a base needs to be toned down to keep any sort of balance between attacker and defender (rather than IJ and Allied) . It already seems taht one good strike will close a base and destroy huge numbers of aircraft based there.

Hmmm - if that's changed then we come to the speed with which engineers can repair the damage.....

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 508

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/16/2008 8:32:18 PM

herwin

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Hi Elf.

I understand that the air combat routines are being tweaked to reduce the effectveness of CAP...... I say I undersatnd it to be so simply because I've seen fairly non-specific anecdotes about it.� Are there any more details?

Also, if they are being changed, won't this mean that the effectiveness of bombing a base needs to be toned down to keep any sort of balance between attacker and defender (rather than IJ and Allied) .� It already seems taht one good strike will close a base and destroy huge numbers of aircraft based there.��

Hmmm - if that's changed then we come to the speed with which engineers can repair the damage.....

A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Yakface)

Post #: 509

RE: Japanese Aircraft Research and Production - 1/17/2008 12:11:39 AM

mdiehl

Posts: 5998
Joined: 10/21/2000
Status: offline

quote:

A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.

For example......?

_____________________________

Show me a fellow who rejects statistical analysis a priori and I'll show you a fellow who has no knowledge of statistics.

Didn't we have this conversation already?

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 510