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: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups

 
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: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups Page: <<   < prev  43 44 [45] 46 47   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 3:19:16 AM   
thegreatwent


Posts: 3011
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline 		Odd my P-36 at PH is a Float Fighter. I am not an expert but is that right?

Sorry it is a fighter Float equipped. Never knew they did that

_____________________________


(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 1321
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 5:20:57 AM   
TheElf


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

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

Odd my P-36 at PH is a Float Fighter. I am not an expert but is that right?

Sorry it is a fighter Float equipped. Never knew they did that

Probably a typo. We'll note it and have it set for the first patch. Alternatively, in the near term, players can change the setting with the editor.

_____________________________

IN PERPETUUM SINGULARIS SEDES



(in reply to thegreatwent)
Post #: 1322
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 5:48:23 AM   
Tanaka


Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline 		I dont see any of the original Tainan group pilots in this scenario (Guadalcanal) or the others? Is there longer no historical pilots?




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 7/28/2009 5:50:51 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 1323
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 8:10:19 AM   
88l71


Posts: 218
Joined: 9/17/2007
Status: offline 		Didn't the B-29 have 2x .50 cal and 1x 20mm in the tail gun position? None of the B-29's have a 20mm listed. Or am I wrong about that?


(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 1324
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 10:22:40 AM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		Some marks did, and do in the game. I forget if there's three or four subspecies of Superforts.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to 88l71)
Post #: 1325
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 10:52:19 AM   
88l71


Posts: 218
Joined: 9/17/2007
Status: offline 		Ahh, okay, the B-29-1 has the 20mm/50cal combo, the other 2 versions have triple .50's in the tail. Must have missed one.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 1326
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 12:39:07 PM   
timtom


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

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

Odd my P-36 at PH is a Float Fighter. I am not an expert but is that right?

Sorry it is a fighter Float equipped. Never knew they did that

Probably a typo. We'll note it and have it set for the first patch. Alternatively, in the near term, players can change the setting with the editor.


Aaaaargh. Expletive expletive catherding.


_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to TheElf)
Post #: 1327
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 3:36:40 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

I dont see any of the original Tainan group pilots in this scenario (Guadalcanal) or the others? Is there longer no historical pilots?





I happened to see in the reserve pilot list (I think that was what it's called) S. Sakai (Saburo possibly)? He had the highest experience rating. But it showed him in Tainan daitai. Not sure why that is though. I don't really understand that part of it yet.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Tanaka)
Post #: 1328
RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 7/28/2009 3:52:29 PM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline 		Air Group (2221) VRF-3B  located on the Copahee (3056) has "0" aircraft!

(in reply to Hipper)
Post #: 1329
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 4:00:25 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline 		Question - in the Editor, why are some fixed forward-firing weapons listed as Front, while others are listed as Centre-Line? Does it make any difference?

Very very very minor point - the Walrus II should have a Vickers K in the nose, not a Vickers V! The Swordfish Is used by No.4 AACU probably did not have any meaningful torpedo attack capability, since they were intended for utility duties, particularly as target tugs. The pilots will certainly have had no torpedo training. Suggest should be rerated as a light bomber with payload of 2x250lb.

Oh, and Stranraer misspelt for the RCAF.

< Message edited by DBS -- 7/28/2009 4:14:25 PM >

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1330
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 4:46:11 PM   
michaelm75au


Posts: 13500
Joined: 5/5/2001
From: Melbourne, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

I dont see any of the original Tainan group pilots in this scenario (Guadalcanal) or the others? Is there longer no historical pilots?





I happened to see in the reserve pilot list (I think that was what it's called) S. Sakai (Saburo possibly)? He had the highest experience rating. But it showed him in Tainan daitai. Not sure why that is though. I don't really understand that part of it yet.


There is a cross-link issue when groups are initially assigned pilots. They sometimes get 'borrowed' by another group.

The pilots aren't lost. They either end up in the wrong group or in the pilot reserve.
This is down to be corrected in the first patch.

_____________________________

Michael

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1331
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 5:03:22 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
There is a cross-link issue when groups are initially assigned pilots. They sometimes get 'borrowed' by another group.

The pilots aren't lost. They either end up in the wrong group or in the pilot reserve.
This is down to be corrected in the first patch.


Hmm, does this mean there are incorrect numbers of pilots in some of the units, since they may be "borrowed" by another unit?

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1332
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 5:04:24 PM   
timtom


Posts: 2358
Joined: 1/29/2003
From: Aarhus, Denmark
Status: offline 		Boys, here's your chance to say thanks to long-suffering Michael McFarland, who's made all of AE's aviation-related goodness possible (all the F'-up's are pointy-ears fault ).

Thanks Mike, for suffering me these past 30 months with such patience and good humour!



_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to michaelm75au)
Post #: 1333
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 5:05:19 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Question about the reserve aircraft in air units:  Is it worth keeping them in the air units (subject to destruction on the ground) since most of them have no pilots?  Also, is there a limit to the number of reserve aircraft there can be in an air unit?

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1334
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 5:06:12 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

Boys, here's your chance to say thanks to long-suffering Michael McFarland, who's made all of AE's aviation-related goodness possible (all the F'-up's are pointy-ears fault ).

Thanks Mike, for suffering me these past 30 months with such patience and good humour!




Thanks Michael!

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1335
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 6:31:06 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Question - in the Editor, why are some fixed forward-firing weapons listed as Front, while others are listed as Centre-Line? Does it make any difference?



Centerline guns generally have better accuracy as wing guns rely on deflection shooting..


_____________________________




(in reply to DBS)
Post #: 1336
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 6:34:43 PM   
DBS


Posts: 513
Joined: 4/29/2004
Status: offline 		Thanks!

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 1337
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 6:35:15 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Question about the reserve aircraft in air units:  Is it worth keeping them in the air units (subject to destruction on the ground) since most of them have no pilots?  Also, is there a limit to the number of reserve aircraft there can be in an air unit?


It's a very, very good idea to keep them in their units, because any attrition replacements are drawn from the reserves first, rather than the pool.

And no idea, that's for the flyboys to know.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Mike Solli)
Post #: 1338
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 6:41:59 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		Thanks, T.  I had forgotten about the "enhanced" attrition.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 1339
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 6:49:51 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Centerline guns generally have better accuracy as wing guns rely on deflection shooting..


also less rate of fire.

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 1340
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 6:59:30 PM   
Wirraway_Ace


Posts: 1400
Joined: 10/8/2007
From: Austin / Brisbane
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Question - in the Editor, why are some fixed forward-firing weapons listed as Front, while others are listed as Centre-Line? Does it make any difference?



Centerline guns generally have better accuracy as wing guns rely on deflection shooting..



I think you may be referring to the issue of the convergence point of wing mounted guns. Deflection shooting, I believe, referred to the relationship of the targets path and speed to the shooter’s path and speed and the need to accurately judge the lead point for aim based on the amount of deflection.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 1341
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 7:44:48 PM   
Buck Beach

 

Posts: 1973
Joined: 6/25/2000
From: Upland,CA,USA
Status: offline 		The initial OOB seems a little lite in comparison to some of the fine work that was done in some of the WITP mods. Maybe most of the missing groups didn't have that much of an impact on playing the game and were left out to save time and confusion.

Take for example the Panama Zone. Both bases are built up to fairly high levels but only one has any Air Support and there are no aircraft. Maybe the bases were configured for future modders. Then there's San Diego with only 5 serviceable aircraft out of 3 groups and 9 aircraft total and 4 of those are Patrol aircraft in one group.

Anyway I expect there will be many differences between the heavily modded original WITP and AE vanilla but I wanted to point out these. I am not a expert of the OOBs in anyway and my observations are most likely wrong.

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 1342
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 7:50:43 PM   
bsq


Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline 		Issues so far with the Brit Air OOB

1.  Lancasters. 
  • Listed is B Mk1 (FE), guns are that of a B Mk VII (FE)
  • FE's had a bomb bay fuel tank that took the place of the 4000lb 'cookie' (indeed one questions the need for the 4000lb HC given the experiences of the B-29 raids)
  • 617 Sqn, although famous for it's use of 'specials' received B Mk VII (FE) in mid 45
2.  Meteors - absent?
3.  Vampires - absent?
4.  York - absent?

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)
Post #: 1343
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 8:08:26 PM   
Dixie


Posts: 10303
Joined: 3/10/2006
From: UK
Status: offline 		No.100 Sqn RAF should have a withdrawal date in Feb 1942 when the squadron was folded into the remnants of 36 Sqn.

Also, 44 (Rhodesia) Sqn wasn't actually a Commonwealth unit, it was an RAF squadron with a slightly higher percentage of Rhodesians than most units (around 25% at it's height) and named for the country's contribution to the war effort.

< Message edited by Dixie -- 7/28/2009 8:11:26 PM >

_____________________________



Bigger boys stole my sig

(in reply to bsq)
Post #: 1344
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 10:06:56 PM   
Cathartes

 

Posts: 2155
Joined: 1/5/2001
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

The initial OOB seems a little lite in comparison to some of the fine work that was done in some of the WITP mods. Maybe most of the missing groups didn't have that much of an impact on playing the game and were left out to save time and confusion.

Take for example the Panama Zone. Both bases are built up to fairly high levels but only one has any Air Support and there are no aircraft. Maybe the bases were configured for future modders. Then there's San Diego with only 5 serviceable aircraft out of 3 groups and 9 aircraft total and 4 of those are Patrol aircraft in one group.

Anyway I expect there will be many differences between the heavily modded original WITP and AE vanilla but I wanted to point out these. I am not a expert of the OOBs in anyway and my observations are most likely wrong.


TimTom needs to chime in here with this and other OOB comments.

My understanding of some of the off-map ports in regards to air OOB is that these bases were not completely worked up simply because they are only abstracted for ship/supply/reinforcement movement, and it's not possible for any air, land, or naval combat to ever take place at off-map locations. So, why have an off-map squadron present if they can't perform any function?

(in reply to Buck Beach)
Post #: 1345
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/28/2009 10:16:01 PM   
Bliztk


Posts: 779
Joined: 4/24/2002
From: Electronic City
Status: offline 		Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier, I guess

Also P40N5 and P40N1 have the same arrival month too. Should be different ??

< Message edited by Bliztk -- 7/28/2009 10:23:27 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Cathartes)
Post #: 1346
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/29/2009 12:15:17 AM   
thegreatwent


Posts: 3011
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: Denver, CO
Status: offline 		Thanks Michael!

_____________________________


(in reply to Bliztk)
Post #: 1347
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/29/2009 1:37:34 AM   
XENXEN


Posts: 53
Joined: 12/1/2004
From: Denmark
Status: offline 		A small thing i found, the audax 1 light bomber uses 2 engines and its default bomb load is 2 x 20 GP bombs but the reduced bomb load is 4x 20 GP bombs ?  is this right 

_____________________________

For all his bluster, it is the sad province of man that he cannot choose his triumph, he can only choose how he will stand when the call of destiny comes, hoping that he will have the courage to answer

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 1348
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/29/2009 1:47:15 AM   
timtom


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

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Take for example the Panama Zone. Both bases are built up to fairly high levels but only one has any Air Support and there are no aircraft.


My understanding of some of the off-map ports in regards to air OOB is that these bases were not completely worked up simply because they are only abstracted for ship/supply/reinforcement movement, and it's not possible for any air, land, or naval combat to ever take place at off-map locations. So, why have an off-map squadron present if they can't perform any function?




quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Maybe the bases were configured for future modders. Then there's San Diego with only 5 serviceable aircraft out of 3 groups and 9 aircraft total and 4 of those are Patrol aircraft in one group.



VMO-251 in fact had no a/c on hand. We have no way of assigning 0 a/c to a unit, so these get two token a/c to represent hacks.

I don't know exactly how many a/c VP-43 had on hand except it wasn't many. The unit was formed only that July and was in the process of working up. Come April '42 it was able to send a six-plane detachment to Alaska.

I don' t know the exact strenght of 49th PS either. On December 1st, 14th PG had a total strength of 12 P-40's, 5 P-38's and 5 P-36's, of which 6 P-40's, 2 P-38's and a single P-36 were actually servicable. Which isn't to say that the situation would necesarily be unchanged a week later, but I have no idea either way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier, I guess



Noted, but strictly a naval team issue. If you go badger them enough they might sign over the account to the professionals

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

No.100 Sqn RAF should have a withdrawal date in Feb 1942 when the squadron was folded into the remnants of 36 Sqn.



No.100 Sqn RAF becomes No.100 Sqn RAAF. Call it a compromise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Also, 44 (Rhodesia) Sqn wasn't actually a Commonwealth unit, it was an RAF squadron with a slightly higher percentage of Rhodesians than most units (around 25% at it's height) and named for the country's contribution to the war effort.


Makes sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Also P40N5 and P40N1 have the same arrival month too. Should be different ??


The N-1 is a one-off issue intimately linked to 80th FG arriving mid-June '43. Their steeds will trickle in during July. This relationship will of course be lost on PDU-lovers who also (potentially) get to throw 80th FG directly into combat. Historically 80th FG had trained on P-47's, deployed to India without aircraft only to find a couple of ex-AVG P-40's (!) waiting for them. Subsequently the N-1's arrived and the (soon to be) Burma Banshees spend a couple of months getting the hang of their new aircraft before deploying forward.

The N-5 is the bog standard N which just happens to become available 7/43 also.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

1. Lancasters.
Listed is B Mk1 (FE), guns are that of a B Mk VII (FE). FE's had a bomb bay fuel tank that took the place of the 4000lb 'cookie' (indeed one questions the need for the 4000lb HC given the experiences of the B-29 raids)



My understanding is that the armament of the B.1 (FE) was 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.5 nose turret, 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.150 mid-upper turret, also removable if the 400 gal BB tank(-s) was carried, and 2x0.5 Browning Mk II in an F.N.82 or 121 rear turret. Don't know how many, if any, came with the F.N.79 turret.

The Mk VII, I believe, had a similar armament suite except the upper turret was a Martin housing 2x0.50's.

What do you hold the correct armament to be, Robert?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

617 Sqn, although famous for it's use of 'specials' received B Mk VII (FE) in mid 45



Guess they did...AB won't be happy - he's got a special Dambuster .waw file 'nd everything.


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq
2. Meteors - absent?
3. Vampires - absent?
4. York - absent?


Yes. Gotta keep the modders sweet. Presently.

...Thanks guys - keep 'em coming

quote:

ORIGINAL: XENXEN

A small thing i found, the audax 1 light bomber uses 2 engines and its default bomb load is 2 x 20 GP bombs but the reduced bomb load is 4x 20 GP bombs ? is this right


Næppe...





< Message edited by timtom -- 7/29/2009 1:50:03 AM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?


(in reply to Cathartes)
Post #: 1349
RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 7/29/2009 1:58:25 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15792
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline 		In the campaign, there are no B5N2 Kate factories. Is this correct?

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to timtom)
Post #: 1350
Page:   <<   < prev  43 44 [45] 46 47   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups Page: <<   < prev  43 44 [45] 46 47   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.656