Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

DBB-c a/c replacements

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> DBB-c a/c replacements Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/10/2015 3:38:43 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline 		Hope this is the right place to ask ... here goes

Playing the above DaBabes Mod ( really good too) .. and game is now 3/8/42 .. AS the Commonwealth player in a 3 player game I have noticed a distinct lack of DC-3 replacements which according to the arrival date are 4/42 , I have received Nil so far. Is it just a question of mis labelled arrival date ? or something more serious?

If anyone knows more than I, please help ,, (im editor clueless btw).

Thank you

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)
Post #: 1
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/10/2015 10:39:27 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		You say you're in March 42 of the game and deliveries of DC-3 are supposed to start in April? You have a few weeks before deliveries start.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 2
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/11/2015 8:22:55 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Hello Bill! Thanks for replying. FYI, I am playing the US part of the Allies in this PBEM.

It is August 2nd ´42 currently in our game. Below is the screenshot of the CW TR replacements:



What Rob has an issue with is that from Apr 1st until Aug 2nd only 5 DC-3 airframes have been produced, while on average the ammount should be 12.
My explanation would be that the low production rate (3 per month) leads to extreme variations on how many airframes are actually produced and we poor battered Allies are just unlucky.

< Message edited by LoBaron -- 1/11/2015 9:23:45 AM >

_____________________________


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 3
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/11/2015 1:39:32 PM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline 		3/8/42 in English means 3rd august 1942 , American is 8th march . my apologies for not being clearer.

~I know production is tiny , but not seen any arrive in convoys either and new units have 2-4 a/c.

TTFN

Rob


Edit - looking at the production screenshot I'm somewhat embarrassed as i did say I'd received nil. And if asked I'd swear to it in court too.. until that 1 arrival this turn ( which is odd as i have no replacements turned on so should be still in the pool ). I'll double check this next turn just in case I am being stupid.

< Message edited by Rob Brennan UK -- 1/11/2015 2:46:15 PM >

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 4
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/11/2015 2:53:21 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Rob I think when we initially had the discussion about it (4+ weeks ago?) it was indeed 0. The arrivals indeed have to be from the last 2 months ingame time.

_____________________________


(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 5
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/12/2015 2:13:47 AM   
btd64


Posts: 9973
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in Lancaster, OHIO
Status: offline 		The brit DC2/3 have been short in every game I have played since the very beginning. I just never worried about it. Bigger fish to fry. In Andy's scenario 60 nasty I have the same problem. I am going to increase production and see if that helps. Will let you know....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

"Do everything you ask of those you command"....Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 6
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/12/2015 4:55:15 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		Hi Rob. Same as it ever was. Nothing new. Maybe worth a look, but it's gonna have to be in an overall context. Good call. Ciao JWE
[ed] I like her conchs.


< Message edited by Symon -- 1/12/2015 5:57:30 PM >

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 7
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/13/2015 6:01:30 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		So from a scenario perspective the abysimal replacement rate seems to be correct. Thanks for the support gentlemen!

Now, there remains the point of CW TR squads arriving @ 1/3rd strenght without the planes to max them out, let alone replace op losses for at least 16 months. Admittedly I don´t have access to reliable data about DC-3 in CW use in Asia, but it seems a tad low as Rob would say.

John, will you ever have time to review the airframe replacement rates end to end for DBB and balance it with historical as well as reinforcement ssquadrons?

_____________________________


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 8
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/13/2015 2:46:42 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		Yes, it really is 3/month, a holdover from who knows when. It's a build rate so it should be stable and not subject variation. Wierd. And yes, it's dismally low when one looks at the number of transport squadrons effected.

Guess I'm going have to find the time Snoopy. We've never really looked into many of the airplane and air group data fields because the air team was so righteous. But they were probably moving so fast to get the game released that they may have missed an implication or two.

Am doing a revision on airframe upgrades and air group upgrade lists for GreyJoy and the other PDU-Off people and it won't be too much extra work to fold in transport aircraft and squadrons. Don't know if I can do an "end to end", that's pretty extensive, but I can do the important ones. Anyway, will try. Can't guarantee historical accuracy, but at least it should work better within the game system.

Ciao. JWE

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 9
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/13/2015 3:44:56 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7704
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK

3/8/42 in English means 3rd august 1942 , American is 8th march . my apologies for not being clearer.



I believe the correct way to state that is "3/8/42 in British English means 3rd August 1942. 3/8/42 means March 8th 1942 in American English."

You even got it backwards in the explanation. In the American version it's March 8th not 8th March.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Rob Brennan UK)
Post #: 10
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/13/2015 3:49:57 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		John, am aware you are doing that kind of stuff for free and for all of us DBB fans.

Aprechiate the ammount of time you guys are putting into this! (I guess you know that anyways but needs to be said from time to time).

_____________________________


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 11
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/13/2015 3:53:27 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Yes, it really is 3/month, a holdover from who knows when. It's a build rate so it should be stable and not subject variation. Wierd. And yes, it's dismally low when one looks at the number of transport squadrons effected.

Guess I'm going have to find the time Snoopy. We've never really looked into many of the airplane and air group data fields because the air team was so righteous. But they were probably moving so fast to get the game released that they may have missed an implication or two.

Am doing a revision on airframe upgrades and air group upgrade lists for GreyJoy and the other PDU-Off people and it won't be too much extra work to fold in transport aircraft and squadrons. Don't know if I can do an "end to end", that's pretty extensive, but I can do the important ones. Anyway, will try. Can't guarantee historical accuracy, but at least it should work better within the game system.

Ciao. JWE


Just to refresh your memory of how the Air Team approached the issue, you might want to read this thread from 2009.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2220477&mpage=1&key=aircraft%2Creplacements

various posts from the Elf, jwilkerson and timtom responding to accusations that they got Allied aircraft replacement rates wrong and the devs didn't know what they were doing.

Of particular interest is post #180 on page 6 from timtom who explained that the real problem, for which the primary data sources simploy do not exist, is determining not how many aircraft were actually produced, but how much of the production was actually sent to the PTO. His rule of thumb was 70% of production sent to the PTO. All timtom was certain of was that less than 100% of production was sent to the PTO. Needless to say none of the detractors could provide valid data to show the 70% rule was too low (or in fact too high).

Alfred

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 12
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/13/2015 3:53:46 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline 		Just a small follow up question:

You say it is a buildrate and should not be subject to variation. In this case I wonder why the total ammount of airframes is only 5 at the beginning of August. Shouldn´t it be 12 by then?

_____________________________


(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 13
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/13/2015 4:02:50 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just a small follow up question:

You say it is a buildrate and should not be subject to variation. In this case I wonder why the total ammount of airframes is only 5 at the beginning of August. Shouldn´t it be 12 by then?


Even a build rate is still subject to the daily odds of x/30. However, unlike factory production, it is not subject to the other vagaries such as factory turned off, or lack of inputs or combat damage etc. As such, the build rate is a much more stable number than the factory production rate.

Any aircraft model whose build rate is less than 5 can often see very sluggish delivery. This is often see in models with only a monthly build rate of 2 such as the Allied dirigible and the British night fighter.

Alfred

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 14
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/13/2015 4:25:06 PM   
witpqs


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

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just a small follow up question:

You say it is a buildrate and should not be subject to variation. In this case I wonder why the total ammount of airframes is only 5 at the beginning of August. Shouldn´t it be 12 by then?


Even a build rate is still subject to the daily odds of x/30. However, unlike factory production, it is not subject to the other vagaries such as factory turned off, or lack of inputs or combat damage etc. As such, the build rate is a much more stable number than the factory production rate.

Any aircraft model whose build rate is less than 5 can often see very sluggish delivery. This is often see in models with only a monthly build rate of 2 such as the Allied dirigible and the British night fighter.

Alfred

+1

I've seen this.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 15
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/13/2015 4:34:03 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
John, am aware you are doing that kind of stuff for free and for all of us DBB fans.

Aprechiate the ammount of time you guys are putting into this! (I guess you know that anyways but needs to be said from time to time).

Thank you LoBaron. It's people like you that we do it for. Ciao. John

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 16
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/13/2015 10:32:47 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		Did DaBabes also deal with the SBD shortage in late 42 and early 43? SBD production doubled when the -4 went into production in August 42 (began to become available in October or November 42). The game doesn't have a -4 and -3 production remains the same all the way through to the -5. It creates an artificial shortage of SBDs from late 42 until the -5 goes into production.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 17
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/14/2015 1:39:23 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		No Bill, haven't done that yet. Probably need to. Do you have the production figures? I can get to it as soon as I get over the depression of watching Oregon lose the big one. JWE

[ed] For production, I have:
585 SBD-3s, '41-'42
780 SBD-4s, '42-'43, deliveries beginning 10/42
2965 SBD-5s, '43-'44, deliveries beginning 5/43

< Message edited by Symon -- 1/14/2015 5:01:40 PM >

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 18
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/14/2015 6:16:13 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline 		38 squadrons enter the game equipped with SBD-3s, for a total of roughly 395. LA has a production plant that makes 21/month for 18 months for a total of roughly 380. Grand total roughly 775. Actual production of dash 3s and 4s was roughly 1365. Shortfall of roughly 590 airframes. But one must factor in airframes used for training and reserve, so I’ll use an out-of-my-butt estimate of 135 (roughly 10%), leaving a shortfall of 455 airframes.

Bottom line, you don’t want to double up the LA production because it extends over to the dash 5s when the airframes upgrade. But there was a step-up in production with the expansion of the El Segundo plant. However, those production steps can’t be modeled too well. It was a simple seven month bump to the dash 3s (I don’t count the dash 4 as a separate airframe, because it was just a dash 3 on 24 volts with a few provisions for new toys; none of which is representable in-game).

The Babes solution would be 7 monthly “magic” convoys, each with roughly 50-60 SBD-3s for distribution to the pool. Think of it as an early Tulsa. Since dash 4 deliveries began in October, the first “magic” convoy arrives in November. Of course, they stop in May ’43 with the introduction of the dash 5. I think that would do the trick without getting too far outside the box. One would get 1160 ariframes out of a total of 1365 produced.

Considering the 135 held back for out-of-game reserve and training, that's a shortfall of only 205 airframes out of the historical production schedule. It works for me and it's simple, easy to implement, and doesn't dick with the stock production values.

Comments ?? JWE


_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 19
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/14/2015 6:24:40 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26087
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline 		Talking strictly out of my nether regions: 10% sounds good, but with the actual number being so low (135), how about 'rounding' it to 200?

This is more of a 'feel' than any calculation. On this one I think if a chance of being a little wrong, then make it more likely to be a little wrong in favor of Japan.

Just my thoughts.

_____________________________

Intel Monkey: https://sites.google.com/view/staffmonkeys/home

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 20
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/14/2015 6:56:36 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs
Talking strictly out of my nether regions: 10% sounds good, but with the actual number being so low (135), how about 'rounding' it to 200?

This is more of a 'feel' than any calculation. On this one I think if a chance of being a little wrong, then make it more likely to be a little wrong in favor of Japan.

Just my thoughts.

Dude, I'm reminded of the old story; everyone has a nether hole, and they all smell as sweet; your's as same as mine. Got no issues with "rounding". The airteam put the dash 6 at 2/3 of actual production and that doesn't seen to frost anyone's balls. You are talking about 65 airframes. I think we can accommodate that.

Jeez, brush your teeth pal! And those eyebrows! Woof !!

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 21
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/14/2015 7:07:00 PM   
Jim D Burns


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

ORIGINAL: Symon

38 squadrons enter the game equipped with SBD-3s,


Is it possible to give these 38 squadrons 4 or 5 extra reserve airframes? Might be an easier fix than worrying about the factory switch overproduction from the 4 model to the 5 model. Then again production ramped down historically late war due to how well the allies were doing. So it is more than justifiable to assume late war SBD's could/should far exceed historical production numbers since the game never has the allies doing near as well in the air war as they did historically. They'd have never ramped down production in the actual war if they did as badly as the allies do in most games.

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 22
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/14/2015 10:58:28 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

38 squadrons enter the game equipped with SBD-3s, for a total of roughly 395. LA has a production plant that makes 21/month for 18 months for a total of roughly 380. Grand total roughly 775. Actual production of dash 3s and 4s was roughly 1365. Shortfall of roughly 590 airframes. But one must factor in airframes used for training and reserve, so I’ll use an out-of-my-butt estimate of 135 (roughly 10%), leaving a shortfall of 455 airframes.

Bottom line, you don’t want to double up the LA production because it extends over to the dash 5s when the airframes upgrade. But there was a step-up in production with the expansion of the El Segundo plant. However, those production steps can’t be modeled too well. It was a simple seven month bump to the dash 3s (I don’t count the dash 4 as a separate airframe, because it was just a dash 3 on 24 volts with a few provisions for new toys; none of which is representable in-game).

The Babes solution would be 7 monthly “magic” convoys, each with roughly 50-60 SBD-3s for distribution to the pool. Think of it as an early Tulsa. Since dash 4 deliveries began in October, the first “magic” convoy arrives in November. Of course, they stop in May ’43 with the introduction of the dash 5. I think that would do the trick without getting too far outside the box. One would get 1160 ariframes out of a total of 1365 produced.

Considering the 135 held back for out-of-game reserve and training, that's a shortfall of only 205 airframes out of the historical production schedule. It works for me and it's simple, easy to implement, and doesn't dick with the stock production values.

Comments ?? JWE



From what I've read, almost all SBDs held back for training were obsolete versions. In 1943 new pilots learning to land on carriers on Lake Michigan were dropping battle weary SBD-2 and -3s into the lake. An SBD-3 that was a veteran of Midway was recovered from the lake.

Here are my numbers.

Model Start Date End Date Number Prod/Month Prod Game Notes
SBD-3 ? Oct-42 584 21 First 174 diverted from French order. According to the jim Baugher web site, a few were lost before the war, as early as Sept 1941.
SBD-4 Oct-42 Apr-43 780 111.4 0 Started arriving end of 1942, first production used Operation Torch. SBD-4 withdrawn from Atlantic soon after and SBD was not used in the Atlantic again until -5 was in production.
SBD-5 Feb-43 Apr-44 2965 197.67 21+67
A-24 168 SBD-3 Equivalent
A-24A Oct-42 Apr-43 170 SBD-4 Equivalent
A-24B Feb-43 Apr-44 615 SBD-5, 60 later returned to the Marines

Here is my analysis of SBD units arriving with -3/-4s. It was in an Excel spreadsheet.

UnitNumber Name Probable Version in Real World Type AircraftType ReadyCraft DamagedCraft
1696 VS-2 SBD-3 7 487 17 1
1702 VS-3 SBD-3 7 487 19 0
1703 VB-3 SBD-3 7 487 18 0
1708 VS-5 SBD-3 7 487 17 3
1709 VB-5 SBD-3 7 487 18 0
1731 VB-9 SBD-3 7 487 18 0
1761 VB-16 SBD-3 7 487 36 0
1776 VS-71 SBD-3 7 487 16 0
1777 VS-72 SBD-3 7 487 15 0
2217 VRF-1B SBD-3 5 487 24 0
2221 VRF-3B SBD-3 5 487 24 0
2225 VRF-5B SBD-3 5 487 24 0
2625 VMSB-242 SBD-3 7 487 0 2
246 6

1676 VC-26 SBD-4 7 487 9 0
1677 VC-28 SBD-4 7 487 9 0
2575 VMSB-133 SBD-4 7 487 0 24
2576 VMSB-134 SBD-4 7 487 0 24
2622 VMSB-235 SBD-4 7 487 0 18
2623 VMSB-236 SBD-4 7 487 0 18
2630 VMSB-245 SBD-4 7 487 0 24
2646 VMSB-331 SBD-4 7 487 19 0
2647 VMSB-332 SBD-4 7 487 24 0
2649 VMSB-341 SBD-4 7 487 21 0
2693 SB Det 1 SBD-4 7 487 2 7
84 115

In short 246 + 6 damaged would arrive as -3s and 84 + 115 damaged would arrive as -4s.

The spreadsheet is available to anyone who wants it.

You got 38 squadrons and I only found 24 (I think this was from stock). I may have missed some. I didn't include 4 Marine SBD units that were markets 9999.

PBY production is also off in game. The -5 was discontinued at the end of 1942 in favor of more -5A production, but the -5 and -5A continue production in close to equal numbers for the entire war. The USN got a handful of -5s in 1944 that were diverted from a British order, but that's the only -5s they got after 1942.

Bill

< Message edited by wdolson -- 1/15/2015 12:02:49 AM >

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 23
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/14/2015 11:00:44 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns
Is it possible to give these 38 squadrons 4 or 5 extra reserve airframes? Might be an easier fix than worrying about the factory switch overproduction from the 4 model to the 5 model. Then again production ramped down historically late war due to how well the allies were doing. So it is more than justifiable to assume late war SBD's could/should far exceed historical production numbers since the game never has the allies doing near as well in the air war as they did historically. They'd have never ramped down production in the actual war if they did as badly as the allies do in most games.

Jim



Against a human opponent, that may be true. Humans usually do much better than historical against the AI.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 24
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/15/2015 11:40:30 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Just a small follow up question:

You say it is a buildrate and should not be subject to variation. In this case I wonder why the total ammount of airframes is only 5 at the beginning of August. Shouldn´t it be 12 by then?


Even a build rate is still subject to the daily odds of x/30. However, unlike factory production, it is not subject to the other vagaries such as factory turned off, or lack of inputs or combat damage etc. As such, the build rate is a much more stable number than the factory production rate.

Any aircraft model whose build rate is less than 5 can often see very sluggish delivery. This is often see in models with only a monthly build rate of 2 such as the Allied dirigible and the British night fighter.

Alfred


Thanks for the clarification Alfred!

_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 25
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/15/2015 1:46:04 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1928
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Here are my numbers.

PBY production is also off in game. The -5 was discontinued at the end of 1942 in favor of more -5A production, but the -5 and -5A continue production in close to equal numbers for the entire war. The USN got a handful of -5s in 1944 that were diverted from a British order, but that's the only -5s they got after 1942.

Bill

Thank you Bill. This is doable. Got a pm with some suggestions that look real good. When I saw the answer, it was like a Homer Simpson moment, Du'oh. Even answers Jim Burns' concerns about getting too fancy. You know me; keep it simple, stupid.

I'm also using the weeklys off the Navy site as, I believe, Timtom did. Not far different. Solution is not quite as simple for Stock as it is for Babes, but shouldn't take much to make it work, if somebody wants to fiddle with it for their stock games. Will retro-fit it into BabesLite so there will be a quasi-stock, fully AI playable, version around somewhere. JWE

_____________________________

Nous n'avons pas peur! Vive la liberté! Moi aussi je suis Charlie!
Yippy Ki Yay.

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 26
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/15/2015 5:17:01 PM   
Skyros


Posts: 1570
Joined: 9/29/2000
From: Columbia SC
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon


quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson
Here are my numbers.

PBY production is also off in game. The -5 was discontinued at the end of 1942 in favor of more -5A production, but the -5 and -5A continue production in close to equal numbers for the entire war. The USN got a handful of -5s in 1944 that were diverted from a British order, but that's the only -5s they got after 1942.

Bill

Thank you Bill. This is doable. Got a pm with some suggestions that look real good. When I saw the answer, it was like a Homer Simpson moment, Du'oh. Even answers Jim Burns' concerns about getting too fancy. You know me; keep it simple, stupid.

I'm also using the weeklys off the Navy site as, I believe, Timtom did. Not far different. Solution is not quite as simple for Stock as it is for Babes, but shouldn't take much to make it work, if somebody wants to fiddle with it for their stock games. Will retro-fit it into BabesLite so there will be a quasi-stock, fully AI playable, version around somewhere. JWE



Awesome. Thanks for all you do JWE.

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 27
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/15/2015 8:02:08 PM   
packerpete

 

Posts: 129
Joined: 2/27/2010
Status: offline 		I have nothing to base this on but I think a considerable round up should be in order to account for the squadrons on the Ranger and I would assume all the other units in the atlantic as well. Just a thought. http://www.history.navy.mil/index.html The link is not working for me at the moment though. And before anyone asks, yes I did read Mr. Wdolson's response above. I cannot believe the squadrons assigned to the Ranger or her replacement/rotational squadrons just gave up their aircraft.

< Message edited by packerpete -- 1/15/2015 9:29:28 PM >

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 28
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/15/2015 11:14:51 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline 		The Ranger went into the yards for an overhaul after Torch and didn't have an airgroup for most of the rest of her career. The only time I can find where she did have an air group after Torch was when she participated in Operation Leader in October 1943. The picture on the Wikipedia page for Leader shows an SBD-5.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Leader

Shortly after Leader, Air Group 4 was converted to Essex class strength, given up to date aircraft and was put aboard the Bunker Hill, later transferring to the Essex. The Ranger was designated a training carrier in January 1944 and was transferred to the Pacific that year where she trained pilots off the California coast and occasionally was used as an aircraft ferry between the West Coast and Hawaii.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to packerpete)
Post #: 29
RE: DBB-c a/c replacements - 1/16/2015 3:03:46 AM   
Rob Brennan UK


Posts: 3685
Joined: 8/24/2002
From: London UK
Status: offline 		Seems I kicked a veritable hornets nest of fact finding wasp-like insects.

Hank - see my signature for why I'm incapable of being accurate in typing

Thanks all for being the self same great group of guys I remember from wayyyy back, now I'm getting forum hooked once again.
Thought I had kicked that habit ( seems i was just in denial ).

Although DC-2/3 doesn't really matter much is was irksome , and i really appreciate the answers. Oddly next turn we had 3 in
the pools ?? go figure !

TTFN

_____________________________

sorry for the spelling . English is my main language , I just can't type . and i'm too lazy to edit :)

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> DBB-c a/c replacements Page: [1] 2   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

1.859