RE: Swordfish II

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: Swordfish II

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: Swordfish II

Page: << < prev 48 49 [50] 51 52 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Swordfish II - 8/5/2009 11:33:23 PM

Sauvequipeut

Posts: 79
Joined: 4/7/2007
Status: offline

1790 squadron FAA arrives on HMS Vindex with Firefly I's. Should possibly be the nightfighter variant instead?

(in reply to 88l71)

Post #: 1471

RE: Swordfish II - 8/6/2009 12:18:37 AM

bsq

Posts: 517
Joined: 1/5/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: 88l71

Should the F7F be "carrier capable" when in reality, they did not pass carrier qualification trials until 1947?

They might have tried harder and sooner if they knew the war was continuing...

Or perhaps it needs penalties like the US Marine Sqns get when flying from carriers - sure they're capable, but it's not what they normally do.

(in reply to 88l71)

Post #: 1472

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/6/2009 5:17:39 AM

terry1040

Posts: 139
Joined: 10/11/2000
From: The bright side of life
Status: offline

I asked the question already in the "AE Map, Base, Economic Issues" section, but they sent me here. So please have a look at the following:

Playing the Coral Sea Scenario.

I have air-moved 110 supply points with the PBY-5 Catalina from Noumea to Ndeni.
I also moved the AV to Ndeni in order to give aviation support.
Finally I moved the Catalina Squadron there as well.

Now after 4 Turns of Naval Search / Recon operations, I still have the full 110 supply points at the base.

That seems to be wrong as I thought that aircraft use supply points for operations.

Is this a bug, or do I miss something?

Terry

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 1473

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 2:39:17 AM

Mike Solli

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

I just noticed something odd. When I click on any 2 Air Division unit except for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Hikotai IMAF, I get all of the 2 Air Division units except for those 3:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to terry1040)

Post #: 1474

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 2:41:21 AM

Mike Solli

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

But, if I look at 1st, 2nd or 3rd Hikotai IMAF and then click to look at all of the 2 Air Division units, I get this:

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1475

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 2:41:42 AM

Mike Solli

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

Weird, isn't it?

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1476

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 8:26:27 AM

Kaletsch2007

Posts: 142
Joined: 4/2/2008
Status: offline

Possible reason is, that all 2.AirDiv Units are only temporarly restricted except these three Fighter Units which are permenatly Restricted

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1477

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 9:23:11 AM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

Yes, and those 3 are assigned to HQ #40, 2nd Air Army - which is permanently restricted, while the others are part of HQ #3026, 2nd Air Div - which isnt.

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Kaletsch2007)

Post #: 1478

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 9:26:55 AM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Odd one. Go to 5 RAF Squadron in Madras. Select transfer to base, select base on map and then use the mouse wheel! Voila you get this. Odd though since it doesn't replicate in other squadrons I tried..........

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 1479

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/7/2009 1:46:03 PM

timtom

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

1) Quite a few of the FAA sqns have, in their upgrade slot, Upgrade-1, which seems to be the default for a blank slot. Now since most of the sqns concerned seem to be on late-war models, suspect they should not upgrade, so presume that not being set on a self-reference (eg Corsair IV upgrade path set to Corsair IV) does not matter?

"Self-reference" is a just a tool to ensure that if an aircraft default upgrade changes, it won't automatically bleed into the air group upgrades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncdawg

In Scenario 1, VMF-111 & VMF-121 start out with the F4F; however, they upgrade to the F2A. Is this correct?

Historically they were stripped of their F4F-3's, which were then given to the Navy, and received F2's instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 88l71

Should the F7F be "carrier capable" when in reality, they did not pass carrier qualification trials until 1947?

According to the Squadron-Signal treatment this is a "myth". Either way it's already been stated that Carrier Capability is driven more by usage than potential, so I guess you'd be right as far the the -N & 3P are concerned at least.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hipper

Scenario 1 Illustrious starts in 1942 with FAA squadron 1840 equipped with corsair II's - sounds like fun !

Presume you mean 1830 Sqn? If so, it's delay is set to 431215 and it shouldn't appear till then. 1840 Sqns location is the HMS Speaker with Hellcats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sauvequipeut

1790 squadron FAA arrives on HMS Vindex with Firefly I's. Should possibly be the nightfighter variant instead?

'Pose. FAA belongs to navy team really

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I just noticed something odd. When I click on any 2 Air Division unit except for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Hikotai IMAF, I get all of the 2 Air Division units except for those 3:

We figured the Imperial Manchurian Air Force wouldn't deploy to the South Pacific or similar (it didn't).

Regarding the Fairey Swordfish, there seems to be some disagreement in my references whether the intial delivery date of the Mk II was early '41 or '43. If one has any material that might shed light on the matter, please do, but please also state the reference.

I don't know whether Michael monitors this tread regularly, so if something smells like a code bug rather than an OOB bug, I'd advice you post in to the Tech thread.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by timtom -- 8/7/2009 1:49:29 PM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to DBS)

Post #: 1480

RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups - 8/7/2009 2:18:38 PM

DBS

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom
Regarding the Fairey Swordfish, there seems to be some disagreement in my references whether the intial delivery date of the Mk II was early '41 or '43. If one has any material that might shed light on the matter, please do, but please also state the reference.

In the absence of a definitive history, I have always tended to go with the view that the Mk II = metal lower wing to allow use of RPs, and therefore = an ISD of 1943. However, that was, to all intents and purposes, the only real change from the Mk I. So in my view the options for AE would seem to be:

a) stick to history for Mk I vs Mk II, keeping Mk II only for 1943 onwards with the CVEs. But have two models of Swordfish I in the game - a non-producible light bomber without ASV for use by the likes of 4 AACU, and a producible torpedo bomber for the Fleet carriers with ASV.

b) ignore the IRL date for the Mk II, given there was no real difference from the Mk I, and use the Mk II for the ASV carrier bird with torps, and keep the Mk I as a light bomber for the AACU target tugs pressed into service as ASW patrol aircraft in 1941-2.

Either way, 788 Sqn ashore and 814 on Hermes should have torpedo aircraft but without ASV.

Furthermore, one should derate the RCAF Shark III from torpedo to light bomber since they were only ever operated by 7 Sqn RCAF as ASW patrol aircraft. That could also be allocated, in place of the Swordfish I, to, say the 4 AACU Det at Kuantan, since 4 AACU flew a mix of Swordfish and Sharks.

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 1481

IV Bomber Group - 8/7/2009 3:17:39 PM

fbs

Posts: 1048
Joined: 12/25/2008
Status: offline

On the West Coast (March Field & San Diego), these units are attached to IV Bomber Command (perhaps they should be attached to IV Fighter Command?):

14th PG/48th PS with P-38E
14th PG/49th PS with P-36A
14th PG/50th PS with P-40B
14th PG/HQ Sqn with P-40B

Cheers

fbs

< Message edited by fbs -- 8/7/2009 3:19:15 PM >

(in reply to DBS)

Post #: 1482

RE: IV Bomber Group - 8/7/2009 5:13:53 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

I have two squadrons in Rangoon (2518 & 3200). Plenty of aviation support @ 82. Morale @ 99 for both and Fatigue is @ 1 & 0. Between them they have 30 planes (8 of which damaged) and 47 "Ready" pilots. 46 of the 47 pilots are in the "black" and so are restricted from duty. Which also makes me wonder why 47 are shown as ready.

It's Christmas so maybe they've had too much egg nog but 46 out of 47 out of action even though they're happy, rested and spent a couple of weeks in a non-malaria hex, just seems out of wack.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by mjk428 -- 8/7/2009 5:15:06 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 1483

RE: IV Bomber Group - 8/7/2009 5:22:47 PM

mjk428

Posts: 1944
Joined: 6/15/2002
From: Western USA
Status: offline

Having just re-checked the manual I seem to have jumped the gun. I was assuming the white changing to black meant something but according to the manual the "name" turning black signifies unfit for duty. Which I've yet to see.

So I guess these guys are good to go and I was resting them unnecessarily.

So what does it mean when their rank turns black?

_____________________________

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 1484

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/7/2009 5:53:31 PM

cmcart

Posts: 3
Joined: 8/7/2009
Status: offline

In the Guadalcanal scenario the 1000lb SAP ID (198) and 1000/2000/4000lb GP's (204-206) accuracy values are half that of the other scenarios.

Also, are there any plans to show when using the get new pilot(s) buttons on the unit screen where they are coming from without having to hunt through the reserve pools? With all the new pools it seems rather easy to end up with situations occuring where you are putting bomber pilots in fighter squadrons for instance.

(in reply to TheElf)

Post #: 1485

RE: IV Bomber Group - 8/7/2009 6:18:45 PM

Dili

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

In my search for War in Mediterranean i have 820FAA with MK I w/ASV radar in Oct41 from Gibraltar. I have a question mark about April41 for initial date but no source on that, and it might just be first experiments. MK II only appears in 1943. So i agree about what DBS says, i would make a MKI and an MKI(ASV).

(in reply to mjk428)

Post #: 1486

RE: IV Bomber Group - 8/7/2009 7:33:44 PM

JuanG

Posts: 906
Joined: 12/28/2008
Status: offline

Device #181 13mm Type 2 MG has an effect of 4, compared to 3 for most HMGs. This is the same effect as most 20mm cannon - is this intentional?

_____________________________

Coral Sea HDM
AltWNT Scenarios

(in reply to Dili)

Post #: 1487

RE: IV Bomber Group - 8/7/2009 8:16:55 PM

timtom

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Device #181 13mm Type 2 MG has an effect of 4, compared to 3 for most HMGs. This is the same effect as most 20mm cannon - is this intentional?

All air device values are directly ported over from WitP "classic" or a derivate thereoff. So it's both intentional and unintentional, if you get my meaning.

Devices weren't overhauled due to manpower/time/prioritising issues. The issue wasn't so much reviewing/overhauling the devices themselves as the ramifications for other aspects of the relevant code. Fx there's an intimate interplay between gun values, aircraft armour and durability, and changing one really requires one to change all. So we left it alone. For now

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 1488

RE: IV Bomber Group - 8/7/2009 8:53:23 PM

Barb

Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline

mjk428: pilot allocation is done for a mission currently set. Try to give them 100% LRCAP and most of them will shine white

_____________________________

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 1489

KingFisher - flying CAP/LRCAP? - 8/7/2009 11:13:25 PM

pad152

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline

It seems when setting the patrol levels for the KingFisher air groups (2834, 2839,284) you can also set them for CAP/LR CAP even though they don't have them listed as a mission type, they do have a sweep mission! Looks like you can also do this with the USN Seagull and RAAF Seagull V float planes.

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by pad152 -- 8/7/2009 11:49:49 PM >

(in reply to Barb)

Post #: 1490

RE: KingFisher - flying CAP/LRCAP? - 8/8/2009 2:03:35 AM

TheTomDude

Posts: 372
Joined: 3/3/2006
From: Switzerland
Status: offline

I asked this question in the standard forum already but nobody seems to know an answer. Maybe you Air team guys can enlighten me:

The question was:
I put several pilots to training command and it shows them as beeing in TC. But next day they are gone? I mean I'm not sure if they are gone completely but not 1 single pilot is listed in the RP as in Training Command. It's now 3 months into GC and the few I sent to TC are not listed in the reserve pool as in Training Command. Are they listed somewhere else?

Thanks

(in reply to pad152)

Post #: 1491

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/8/2009 2:18:33 AM

Mike Solli

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Yes, and those 3 are assigned to HQ #40, 2nd Air Army - which is permanently restricted, while the others are part of HQ #3026, 2nd Air Div - which isnt.

Aha! Thanks!

_____________________________

Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to JuanG)

Post #: 1492

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/8/2009 3:01:34 PM

vonSchnitter

Posts: 310
Joined: 7/2/2004
From: Germany - still
Status: offline

Hi all,

since a thread I started in the war room on Jap AC production did not manage to solicit any "official" attention so far, let me condense the questions that have come up here, the proper place:

The thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2191396&mpage=1&key=

a) Nomenclature between AE and Staff is not consistent.
Example: LB is short for Ligth Bomber in AE, while Staff uses the old Level Bomber notation.

b) Some Air Groups are supposed to spawn, before their AC are in production. What is going to happen ?

c) As far as availability dates go, the H-6 radar is a little late. At least according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_World_War_II_radar
Since all other airborne radar availability dates correspond with the dates in wiki, why not the H-6, esp. since there is the later model Nell as a part of the upgrade path. The "do it yourself" approach of answering the content of an official scenario does not apply in this instant - to many issues involved.

d) How about out of production airframes and engines. Can those be reintroduced ? How about upgrades.

e) what does this mean: "In scenarios with production set to On, all new air units (including reinforcements, reformed disbanded and withdrawn groups) must take planes from the replacement pool to fill out the air unit when it arrives. Note that reinforcement units will arrive with the number of planes specified in the editor. These planes are not drawn from the pool as they are deemed to have been supplied elsewhere." (e-book, page 256)

f) How about spawning airgroups if the aiframes apecified are not available. Will those spawn with:
Older airframes
Newer airframes
Will a fraction of the airfames required suffice to bring the group on the map ? If so which number ?

(in reply to Mike Solli)

Post #: 1493

RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups - 8/9/2009 6:16:09 PM

herwin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

I'm moving this here from my Aleutians thread since there may be some kind of bug at work:

The Rufe unit was moved from Kiska to Attu early in the scenario, and no matter what CAP settings I give it, the unit frequently shifts over to LR CAP in support of a nearby Task Force (in the graphic, it is flying from Attu to Kiska). This happens even if I set the max range at one hex. The only way to stop the activity is to put the unit on standby. For three turns in a row, I changed the settings to Escort, 50% CAP, 0% LRCAP, and target at "Commander Discretion" - yet every following turn it reset to LRCAP 100% and target "TF 4" (the transport group slowly unloading at Kiska).

Under the assumption that "commander discretion" was responsible for the behaviour, I set the Target as "Attu", but it flipped back to "commander discretion" on the next turn. On the other hand, the next three turns in a row passed with no LRCAP events, even though Kiska was raided twice.

Not sure what's going on, but I'd really like to know if the air code now allows air unit commanders to arbitrarily wander off on Long Range CAP missions.

I've been playing around with that scenario as the Japanese and have been seeing similar things happening. In most cases, it has been useful, so I've simply returned the units to their nominal assignments afterwards. BTW, I have yet to see a Japanese fighter shoot down anything.

_____________________________

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 Kull)

Post #: 1494

RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups - 8/9/2009 7:39:12 PM

tanksone

Posts: 390
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: St Paul, Mn.
Status: offline

Hi, wow 50 pages. Not sure if this has been posted already. I don't believe it's a float fighter.

Attachment (1)

(in reply to herwin)

Post #: 1495

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/10/2009 3:15:34 AM

R8J

Posts: 238
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: Shelby County, Tennessee
Status: offline

Scenario 2

No art for:

Slots 838 and 839, Ki-102 Randy.

_____________________________

Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.

Who Dares Wins.

You smell like dead bunnies.

(in reply to Hipper)

Post #: 1496

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/10/2009 10:33:05 AM

Jim D Burns

Posts: 4013
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

Not sure if this has been pointed out yet or not. Take a look at the bomb loads, I think it's supposed to carry 100lb bombs for normal range missions.

Jim

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to R8J)

Post #: 1497

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/10/2009 3:28:15 PM

Speedysteve

Posts: 15998
Joined: 9/11/2001
From: Reading, England
Status: offline

Hi all,

I assume I'm right in saying some of the Allied rd planes will have 0 production/replacements since other currently producing factories are due to upgrade to them? Or are all rd factories still supposed to have a replacement/production value?

Regards

_____________________________

WitE 2 Tester
WitE Tester
BTR/BoB Tester

(in reply to Jim D Burns)

Post #: 1498

RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - 8/10/2009 10:04:13 PM

timtom

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

since a thread I started in the war room on Jap AC production did not manage to solicit any "official" attention so far, let me condense the questions that have come up here, the proper place:

The thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2191396&mpage=1&key=

Well, you seem to have fun unriddling the riddle

...anyway you guys are constantly breaking my heart over there

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

a) Nomenclature between AE and Staff is not consistent.
Example: LB is short for Ligth Bomber in AE, while Staff uses the old Level Bomber notation.

'K. Would be an issue for Markus (Woos). Please report on his thread on the Tech subforum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

b) Some Air Groups are supposed to spawn, before their AC are in production. What is going to happen ?

e) what does this mean: "In scenarios with production set to On, all new air units (including reinforcements, reformed disbanded and withdrawn groups) must take planes from the replacement pool to fill out the air unit when it arrives. Note that reinforcement units will arrive with the number of planes specified in the editor. These planes are not drawn from the pool as they are deemed to have been supplied elsewhere." (e-book, page 256)

f) How about spawning airgroups if the aiframes apecified are not available. Will those spawn with:
Older airframes Newer airframes Will a fraction of the airfames required suffice to bring the group on the map ? If so which number ?

All new air units will arrive on their historical formation date with a few a/c of the specified type. This regardless of whether the player has any aircraft of that type in pool or indeed if it's even in production. However units which the player has volunterily withdrawn or disbanded is a different story.

Basically if the value of any of the "air group" editor fields "ready", "damaged" or "reserve" of a given unit is greater than 0, that unit will appear on the specified "delay" (arrival) date. If the value of all those fields equals 0, then the unit will require filling out from the replacement pool. Same as in WitP. This is what the manuel is saying in a less technical manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

d) How about out of production airframes and engines. Can those be reintroduced ? How about upgrades.

Andrew will known, but I believe yes. Not sure what you mean with the second question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

c) As far as availability dates go, the H-6 radar is a little late. At least according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_World_War_II_radar Since all other airborne radar availability dates correspond with the dates in wiki, why not the H-6, esp. since there is the later model Nell as a part of the upgrade path. The "do it yourself" approach of answering the content of an official scenario does not apply in this instant - to many issues involved.

To my ken the H-6 didn't come into use on other than an experimental basis until late '43 and not into general use until late '44. However this is based on a post-war USN report on Japanese ASW, so there's always that question mark, 'pose.

The first a/c that I know of to carry it as standard was the G4M2a (the one with the pointy extension on the nose) hence the 6/44 date. The trouble is that once the device becomes available it automatically appears on all a/c designated to carry that device - there's no way currently of gradually introducing a device. It's this sort of consideration that drives a/c and device availability dates in AE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

I assume I'm right in saying some of the Allied rd planes will have 0 production/replacements since other currently producing factories are due to upgrade to them? Or are all rd factories still supposed to have a replacement/production value?

Regards

If it's an R&D a/c it should be greater than zero - I think - but it's one for Andrew again. Any particular R&D factory you've got in mind?

< Message edited by timtom -- 8/10/2009 10:18:04 PM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to vonSchnitter)

Post #: 1499

RE: Swordfish II - 8/10/2009 10:31:17 PM

mikemike

Posts: 501
Joined: 6/3/2004
From: a maze of twisty little passages, all different
Status: offline

Shouldn't the Kawasaki Ha-60 engine be the Kawasaki Ha-40?

_____________________________

DON�T PANIC - IT�S ALL JUST ONES AND ZEROES!

(in reply to Sauvequipeut)

Post #: 1500

Page: << < prev 48 49 [50] 51 52 next > >>

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Swordfish II

Page: << < prev 48 49 [50] 51 52 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

0.969

Slitherine

RE: Swordfish II