RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

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: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

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: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread

Page: << < prev 52 53 [54] 55 56 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/31/2009 6:38:02 AM

Zebedee

Posts: 535
Joined: 8/30/2005
Status: offline

NM.

< Message edited by Zebedee -- 8/31/2009 7:53:02 AM >

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 1591

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/31/2009 10:44:15 AM

Gilbert

Posts: 243
Joined: 8/8/2009
From: Hendaye, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The B7A2 is classed as a dive bomber in the game.....but carries a torp as it should is this the way you want it?

Tiger!

It was a multi-purpose plane

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichi_B7A

Regards
Gilbert

_____________________________

UMI YUKABA
"If I go away to sea, I shall return a corpse awash, if duty calls me to the mountain, a verdant will be my pall, thus for the sake of the Emperor, I will not die peacefully at home...."

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 1592

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/31/2009 11:19:15 AM

herwin

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The B7A2 is classed as a dive bomber in the game.....but carries a torp as it should is this the way you want it?

Tiger!

Conceptually, it was an attack aircraft, with a combination of dive-bombing and torpedo-dropping capabilities similar to those of the Fairey Barracuda, Douglas Skyraider, Curtiss Helldiver and BTC, and Martin Mauler.

Yes, the SB2C could lug and drop a torpedo.

_____________________________

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 tigercub)

Post #: 1593

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 8/31/2009 11:47:42 PM

jcjordan

Posts: 1900
Joined: 6/27/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

quote:

ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

242 Squadron and 605 Squadron missing from the order of battle they should be available mid February 1942 in Java.

MJT

If you are referring to Scenario 1, they are in fact there - 232(P) Sqn renames to 242, and 258 Sqn renames to 605; both on 25 Feb 42.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan
Also it seems that the British Walrus's upgrade to NZ Walrus's though the unit stays Brit. I've seen it happen to 2 of the FAA 700 squadron on Brit CLs.

If those are the flights on Leander and Achilles, then OK since they were Kiwi cruisers but with FAA flights. If not...

DBS No these are the Brit cruisers that are converting not the NZ ones

(in reply to DBS)

Post #: 1594

RE: adding pilots - 9/1/2009 3:04:14 AM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Some Air Leader issues:

Keith Park - should be an Air Marshal (promoted in 1941 when he took over at Malta). His stats (IMO) are too low. He was considered one of the greatest Air Commanders ever produced by the RAF (even though he was a New Zealander), yet he rates (much) lower than Curtis LeMay. At the very least his Air Skill should be on par with LeMay and his Skill and Inspiration should be much higher.

Agree. He did an excellent job in the Battle of Britain, on Malta, and in the Far East.

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to bsq)

Post #: 1595

RE: adding pilots - 9/1/2009 5:37:49 AM

Montbrun

Posts: 1498
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Raleigh, NC, USA
Status: offline

v1083c Beta (Allies v Jap AI) - In addition to the pilot experience thing, which has already been discussed, I'm not seeing any "black letter" pilots, or pilots eligible to be transferred to training command, after the Beta patch.

(in reply to Pascal_slith)

Post #: 1596

RE: adding pilots - 9/1/2009 9:46:55 AM

langleyCV1

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/6/2008
From: Berkshire UK
Status: offline

I think this was removed in the patch you mentioned I seem to remember!

MJT

(in reply to Montbrun)

Post #: 1597

RE: adding pilots - 9/1/2009 9:50:25 AM

langleyCV1

Posts: 61
Joined: 9/6/2008
From: Berkshire UK
Status: offline

V1083c beta Scen1 VMF-211 Det is on wake as it should be but where is the main unit it was on PH in the the last version. Is this a bug or does VMF-211 only appear after the Det is destroyed.

MJT

(in reply to langleyCV1)

Post #: 1598

RE: adding pilots - 9/1/2009 5:25:29 PM

scott64

Posts: 4019
Joined: 9/12/2004
From: Colorado
Status: offline

PBJ-1H Mitchell
Info states available from 10/44 to 1/43

_____________________________

Lucky for you, tonight it's just me

Any ship can be a minesweeper..once !! :)

http://suspenseandmystery.blogspot.com/

(in reply to langleyCV1)

Post #: 1599

Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/1/2009 5:33:49 PM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

Could we please have an authoritative comment on Allied A/C production rates? See the "Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate" thread). I can understand that for AI play balance reasons Japanese A/C production could be boosted. That isn't what concerns me. I am concerned that the Allied A/C production rates are way off, by more than an order of magnitude.

For F4F (3s 3as and 4s) I get about 7000+ total production. I am a little uncertain as to how many were lend lease but I don't recall hearing that the majority went to Canada nor British units in the Far East. I am pretty sure 90% of them didn't go to the ETO. That "7000" could be 7500 or 7700 or so. But that is only a 10% error.

At 53/month (counting the recon models in the total to get to 53) that number can be built in 136 months ie by about August 1954.

For total production I get a ratio of about 7700 F4Fs (not to mention about 12,000 F6Fs) to about 11,000 A6M (_all_ A6M models 2>8). That isn't a ratio of 6:1 in favor of the Japanese economy.

I keep being told the Allied A/C prodcution is carefully researched and spot on. How do the Allies get to 7000+ F4Fs?

The problem with this is that with those allied production rates a war of attrition is a winning strategy for Japan and that doesn't seem all correct.

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to scott64)

Post #: 1600

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/1/2009 8:17:23 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle
Could we please have an authoritative comment on Allied A/C production rates? See the "Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate" thread). I can understand that for AI play balance reasons Japanese A/C production could be boosted. That isn't what concerns me.�I am concerned that the Allied A/C production rates are way off,�by more than an order of magnitude.

For F4F (3s 3as and 4s) I get about 7000+ total production.�I am a little�uncertain as to how many were lend lease but I don't recall hearing that the majority went to Canada nor British units in the Far East. I am pretty sure 90% of them didn't go to the ETO. �That "7000" could be 7500 or 7700 or so. But that is only a 10% error.

At 53/month (counting the recon models in the total to get to 53) that number can be built in 136 months ie by about August 1954.

For total production I get a ratio of about 7700 F4Fs (not to mention about 12,000 F6Fs) to about 11,000 A6M (_all_ A6M models 2>8). That isn't a ratio of 6:1 in favor of the Japanese economy.

I keep being told the Allied A/C prodcution is carefully researched and spot on. How do the Allies get to�7000+ F4Fs?

Not authoritative. Not on the Air Team. But good enough.

Raw production figures, for any weapon system, have very little relationship to what was allocated/issued to combat arms groups. All it says is someone has five minutes of free time and an internet connection.

What you get is a function of 3, 4, 5 separate limitation routines; more so for Japan than the Allies. So raw production numbers are nice and pretty, but not particularly relevant. The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.

quote:

The problem with this is that with those allied production rates a war of attrition is a winning strategy for Japan and that doesn't seem all correct.

Since you don�t understand the algorithm, and haven�t played to the end, I think you should do a bit of analysis before making such a sweeping statement.

This is a game. There is a certain amount of abstraction going on. It is not a diorama of pretty little panels that show pretty little historical numbers that don't mean much of anything.

< Message edited by JWE -- 9/1/2009 8:23:47 PM >

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 1601

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/1/2009 8:45:06 PM

DrewMatrix

Posts: 1429
Joined: 7/15/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.

Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?

_____________________________

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 1602

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/1/2009 9:16:19 PM

CJ Martin

Posts: 119
Joined: 5/20/2002
From: Pax River, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.

Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?

Just to be clear, is Japanese production also based on utilization vice actual raw production?

Just wondering if we have an apples to apples setup here. Jiggering Allied production in the name of "gameplay" would be a bad mistake IMHO. I hope that is not what is going on here.

-CJ

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 1603

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/1/2009 9:25:16 PM

JWE

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.

Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?

What I am saying is the developers thought a bit more deeply on the issue, than just running to the internet for pretty little production numbers.

That is the end of this particular discussion. This thread is not the place for this. Any more on this "issue" should be taken to the main boards.

_____________________________

Home of DaBabes

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 1604

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/1/2009 11:38:35 PM

Andrew Brown

Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle
Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?

I am no expert, and I am not involved in the decisions about aircraft production levels in AE, but looking back to my work on CHS: When I researched the F6F production, it turned out that about 60% of the airframes produced were actually available for front line service. Although I think (from memory) this figure didn't include the airframes exported to the UK, there were still a lot of aircraft that came off the production line but didn't become available to front line units. Some go to training, or spares, or op losses before reaching operational units, or to units not represented in the game.

So I do think it is correct that the number of aircraft produced in the game should be equal to the number that were available for in-game uses, not to the number that rolled off the production line.

However I don't know what percentage of the F4F aircraft produced were actually "available" in game terms.

Andrew

(in reply to DrewMatrix)

Post #: 1605

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/3/2009 1:28:03 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

I noticed the 12 gun (.303 caliber) Hurricanes have the same gun value as the 8 gun (.5 caliber) P-47's. Was this intentional?

(in reply to Andrew Brown)

Post #: 1606

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 9/3/2009 2:16:13 PM

invernomuto

Posts: 986
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Turin, Italy
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The B7A2 is classed as a dive bomber in the game.....but carries a torp as it should is this the way you want it?

Tiger!

In CHS there were two different version of B7A2 Grace. One classified as Torpedo Bombers, the other as Dive Bomber. In AE, could we upgrade TBs to B7A2 grace?

_____________________________

(in reply to tigercub)

Post #: 1607

RE: adding pilots - 9/3/2009 3:00:47 PM

Cathartes

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: scott1964

PBJ-1H Mitchell
Info states available from 10/44 to 1/43

I'm not seeing that in 1083, grand campaign, what version and what scenario are you seeing this?

(in reply to scott64)

Post #: 1608

RE: adding pilots - 9/4/2009 3:07:43 AM

fbs

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

Scenario 1, 1.0.1.1083:

one unit is named "Patrouille Samson", another is "Ambon Patrouille"; may want to reverse one of these, to make the naming consistent.

Thanks!

fbs

(in reply to Cathartes)

Post #: 1609

RE: adding pilots - 9/4/2009 7:23:07 PM

oldman45

Posts: 2320
Joined: 5/1/2005
From: Jacksonville Fl
Status: offline

Question about the gun values.

Hurrican XIIb is rated @ 24. 12x .303 rifle caliber ammo

P47 is rated @ 24 8x .5 ship/plane/man killing almost cannon ammo.

ok I love the 50 cal, but was it intended or is this a typo

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 1610

RE: adding pilots - 9/4/2009 9:19:24 PM

anarchyintheuk

Posts: 3921
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

Not much to do. The .303 is a x2 modifier, the .50 cal is a x3. I admit my opinion is subjective but a 50% advantage sounds about right. The fact that they'd have to rewrite the modifiers and, most likely, write a new a2s combat formula to fix a non-problem imho is more of an issue.

(in reply to oldman45)

Post #: 1611

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 9/5/2009 1:09:02 AM

timtom

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Slot 3594 3rd BG/13th BS (US Army) - Is set to upgrade to Dutch B-25C Mitchell.

Slot 3096 No 22 Sqn RAAF (Australian) - Is set to upgrade to Dutch DB-7B.

The initial consignment of bombers for the Dutch can be allocated to USAAF and/or RAAF (more or less what happened historically) or they can be used to upgrade the ML-KNIL/MLD. Players choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The B7A2 is classed as a dive bomber in the game.....but carries a torp as it should is this the way you want it?

Tiger!

It's the only way of setting up a TB/DB type a/c - the torpedo device acts as an override. The "B" in B7A of course indicates that the Japanese labelled it as a carrier attack aircraft.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Scenario 1, 1.0.1.1083:

one unit is named "Patrouille Samson", another is "Ambon Patrouille"; may want to reverse one of these, to make the naming consistent.

Thanks!
fbs

Dunno...merely how it's been passed on to me. Samson was a person and Ambon a place :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

V1083c beta Scen1 VMF-211 Det is on wake as it should be but where is the main unit it was on PH in the the last version. Is this a bug or does VMF-211 only appear after the Det is destroyed.

MJT

Bug.

Reg. .303 v .5 ->

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

< Message edited by timtom -- 9/5/2009 1:11:33 AM >

_____________________________

Where's the Any key?

(in reply to witpqs)

Post #: 1612

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 9/5/2009 2:49:52 AM

fbs

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

Scenario 1, 1.0.1.1083:

Aircraft naming in inconsistent:

"B-339D"
"B339-23"
"B339-23(PR)"

I don't know if the correct form is with an hyphen or not between the B and 339, but it should be used same way for these entries.

Thanks!

fbs

(in reply to timtom)

Post #: 1613

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 9/5/2009 3:17:57 AM

Pascal_slith

Posts: 1651
Joined: 8/20/2003
From: back in Commiefornia
Status: offline

Still using pre-Beta. Sorry if this has already been brought up, but is it normal, and dispensible, that in the aircraft database the Catalinas, Sunderlands, and other patrol aircraft that were amphibian are NOT designated as such in the little checkboxes?

_____________________________

So much WitP and so little time to play.... :-(

(in reply to fbs)

Post #: 1614

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 9/5/2009 5:54:32 PM

doc smith

Posts: 122
Joined: 7/21/2004
Status: offline

I sincerely apologize if these questions were raised elsewhere. I tried to search here (but really, 54 pages of comments?!?! Also tried the manual. No joy in either case.

1. CVL Ryujo is at Babeldoup (?), as are an air flotilla hq. It has a potential to carry 27 torpedoes but won't load more than 11 (the number of Kates on-board.

2. There is a lone Kate carrier-capable unit based here as well. When I try to change the load from bombs to torps, the torps red-out.

3. When I look at the Land Based Air Units screen, some aircraft have an asterisk (*) next to their assigned mission. Why? What does it mean?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Peace,
Doc Smith

(in reply to Hipper)

Post #: 1615

RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread - 9/5/2009 11:48:02 PM

Wirraway_Ace

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: doc smith

I sincerely apologize if these questions were raised elsewhere. I tried to search here (but really, 54 pages of comments?!?! Also tried the manual. No joy in either case.

1. CVL Ryujo is at Babeldoup (?), as are an air flotilla hq. It has a potential to carry 27 torpedoes but won't load more than 11 (the number of Kates on-board.

2. There is a lone Kate carrier-capable unit based here as well. When I try to change the load from bombs to torps, the torps red-out.

doc, I am not speaking for the AE team, but looking at page 287 of the manual, I note that it takes a port size 7 (or a smaller port with a lot of Nav Spt) to re-arm torp sortes for Carrier Air Groups. I am guessing this is the problem. Ryujo apparantly departed the home islands with only 1 torp per Kate.

(in reply to doc smith)

Post #: 1616

Small Scenario Pilot Issues - 9/9/2009 5:42:20 PM

Tanaka

Posts: 4378
Joined: 4/8/2003
From: USA
Status: offline

Small Scenario Pilot Issues

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2227479&mpage=1&key=�

< Message edited by Tanaka -- 9/10/2009 7:54:56 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Wirraway_Ace)

Post #: 1617

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/9/2009 10:41:35 PM

RevRick

Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.

Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?

What I am saying is the developers thought a bit more deeply on the issue, than just running to the internet for pretty little production numbers.

That is the end of this particular discussion. This thread is not the place for this. Any more on this "issue" should be taken to the main boards.

I hate to say this, but I think I have enough seniority, if not knowledge, to comment that your displayed attitude on the board is causing concern to me. I know it must be one of frustration with the amount of work you all have put in on this project to have something so closely questioned. But, I fear that what we are seeing currently is bordering on patronizing and condescending, if not, unfortunately I must add, arrogant. That is not like you from years past.

Some of us have valid, we feel, concerns about things like 35, now 45, production numbers F4F models, because it does not feel right, if nothing else. To treat us as if we are a bunch of whining three year olds does not solve the problem. When initial indications from game results indicate that much of the time spent in the initial stages will be simply watching the opponent do as he will with no viable way of ever beginning to contest the field for a considerable (more than a year) time, why the hell play the game? Not having anything other than "try it you'll like it" for a palliative for expressed concerns is not conducive to helping the situation. Summarily shutting off questions and discussion by fiat is childish. You are better than that. I know.

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.� ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to JWE)

Post #: 1618

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/9/2009 11:00:46 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

I think he is basically saying no one has raised any issues that were not already discussed in-depth by the devs, resulting in the current situation.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to RevRick)

Post #: 1619

RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates - 9/10/2009 3:22:36 AM

Jzanes

Posts: 471
Joined: 11/18/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.

Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?

What I am saying is the developers thought a bit more deeply on the issue, than just running to the internet for pretty little production numbers.

That is the end of this particular discussion. This thread is not the place for this. Any more on this "issue" should be taken to the main boards.

I hate to say this, but I think I have enough seniority, if not knowledge, to comment that your displayed attitude on the board is causing concern to me. I know it must be one of frustration with the amount of work you all have put in on this project to have something so closely questioned. But, I fear that what we are seeing currently is bordering on patronizing and condescending, if not, unfortunately I must add, arrogant. That is not like you from years past.

Some of us have valid, we feel, concerns about things like 35, now 45, production numbers F4F models, because it does not feel right, if nothing else. To treat us as if we are a bunch of whining three year olds does not solve the problem. When initial indications from game results indicate that much of the time spent in the initial stages will be simply watching the opponent do as he will with no viable way of ever beginning to contest the field for a considerable (more than a year) time, why the hell play the game? Not having anything other than "try it you'll like it" for a palliative for expressed concerns is not conducive to helping the situation. Summarily shutting off questions and discussion by fiat is childish. You are better than that. I know.