Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: RagingKrikkit

Hi, all, I'm RagingKrikkit. I picked up AE a few months ago whilst reading the LP Archive playthrough of it, and I've been having the time of my life. This is the kind of unflinching detail I've been wanting in a strategy game for years now. I'll probably go hunting for a PBM game at some point, but for now I'll settle for some Q&A.



Training Squadrons: I've seen a lot of references to these among the Japanese AARs, and the big question sticking in my head is wither these are squadrons rotating pilots in and out of the pool to train them beyond the normal basic, or squadrons somehow dedicated to pilots in the training pool?

Yes, keep some squadrons for training pilots out of the pool rotate pilots out of squadrons if they are not good enough. Best you can do with training only is about 50 Exp. and 70 for any specific skill. Training carrier capable squadrons on a carrier will make them carrier trained in about three months. The advantage is minimal though.

Training Carriers: On the same note, is there any benefit to keeping an outdated carrier, say, Hosho, reserved for training squadrons? The "Carrier Trained" note seems to be given to squadrons instead of pilots, but can something along those lines be handed to pilots as well?

See above

1-Way Raids: I doubt it, but I might as well ask if there is some way to send bombers on raids from one base, to the target, and then land at another. And since I'm asking that, I might as well ask if there's any way to cram B-25s on a CV.

You can't do this.

Cross-Nation Transfers: In particular, I'm looking to move US Army MAJ Boyington in the AVG 2nd Squadron (with 17 kills and a purple heart) to VMF-214, a USMC squadron.

You can't do this.

Commanders Flying: Can anybody clarify why some squadrons have their commanders operating aircraft directly but not others?

Not sure why but it usually does not matter.

Multiple Landing Forces: The AI seems to like invading bases with multiple TFs, at what appears to be a ratio of 1 per unit. Is there any logistic or tactical advantage to this, or just a quirk of the AI?

Not familiar with playing the AI. Better to find a human opponent. Takes the game to another level.

Torpedo Supply: Do torpedo bombers need to be based within the command radius of a unit with torpedo supply, or can they be resupplied as long as their base has a certain level of supply, like the 20k needed to replace aircraft?

Has to be in range of a HQ that carries torpedoes. And the base has to be the right size. At least level two for the Japanese.

Wolf Packs: If you place multiple subs within a Sub Patrol TF, will some or all of them make attacks before the escorts move to engage?

There is no benefit to multiple subs in one TF. Multiple TF in one hex have more chances to attack but the game works in the same way for all attacks. Does not matter the number of subs present.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jmalter

Hi RK, & welcome to our world.

AFAIK, 'Training Groups' were a development idea that didn't get implemented in the game, so it's just a nomenclature thing. An airgroup is an airgroup regardless of its name - the USN gets many 'Replacement' VRF airgroups, they can provide replacement planes/pilots to CV airgroups, but can also function as normal fighter/strike groups.

'Carrier Trained' capability is gained by basing an airgroup on a carrier for 90 days. The 90 days need not be consecutive, a group will retain its CV 'training level' if it spends 45 days on a carrier, transfers to a land base for a while, then completes its training on a carrier. Carrier Training is by group, not by pilot.

1-way raids, or shuttle-bombing operations, or flying medium bombers from a CV deck aren't possible. Bummer, but just imagine the 'orrid code-complications involved!

I believe there are 2 Boyingtons in the game, one is an Army pilot, t' other is a USMC pilot. Similarly, there are 2 MacArthurs in the game - the 1st starts in the Phillipines, the 2nd appears in a reinforcement HQ in Oz - it's possible to have both MacA's active simultaneously!

Flying Commanders are usual, one can spend Political Points to buy a new commander, who will most often be a non-flyer. Given the usual thing where reinf airgroup cmders are bottom-feeders, there's a lot a pressure on you to replace/upgrade them. Don't deplete your PPs by upgrading every newly-arrived commander, save PPs & upgrade for advanced training or groups committed to combat.

Don't use the early-war IJ amph assaults as a model for your own ripostes. For best success, an Invasion requires Recon, Bombing, Bombardment, Target-Planning, adequate air-cover, shipping, follow-up forces & re-supply. AmphTF operations are the most difficult level of WitP gaming.

Torpedo supply for land-based aircraft (LBA) is provided by HQa land units, these units can purchase torps, or be set to automatically re-purchase more torps (if supply is available), to the limit of their command radius.

SubTFs are best done by individual boats. For WitP purposes, a 'wolf-pack' is not a 3-boat TF - rather, it is 3 individual boats assigned to the same 3-hex patrol zone, staggered w/ 1 boat occupying each hex on each day. W/ new / upgraded subs available to move to the zone, when patrolling boats have expended ammo or suffered damage. In the game, subs are best deployed in 1-boat TFs.

quote:

ORIGINAL:  RagingKrikkit

Hi, all, I'm RagingKrikkit.  I picked up AE a few months ago whilst reading the LP Archive playthrough of it, and I've been having the time of my life.  This is the kind of unflinching detail I've been wanting in a strategy game for years now.  I'll probably go hunting for a PBM game at some point, but for now I'll settle for some Q&A.

Training Squadrons: I've seen a lot of references to these among the Japanese AARs, and the big question sticking in my head is wither these are squadrons rotating pilots in and out of the pool to train them beyond the normal basic, or squadrons somehow dedicated to pilots in the training pool?

Any squadron can be given the "training mission".  The purpose of doing so is to train the pilots assigned to that squadron and on active duty to improve their skills.  Pilot experience is gained as a byproduct of improving pilot skills.  Allied players regularly dedicate the majority of their stateside squadrons which are permanently attached to a restricted HQ to this training activity.  Pilots which are in the "replacement pool" are placed in these squadrons and once they have reached the desired level, are sent to the "reserve pool" and a new draft of pilots from the "replacement pool" are inserted in their place in the squadron.
[color=#660000 size=3] 
[color=#660000 size=3]This is a much safer method than on the job training where a frontline squadron has a percentage dedicated to training.[/I]


Training Carriers: On the same note, is there any benefit to keeping an outdated carrier, say, Hosho, reserved for training squadrons?  The "Carrier Trained" note seems to be given to squadrons instead of pilots, but can something along those lines be handed to pilots as well?

No pilot ever receives a certification for flying off a carrier.  The terms "carrier trained" and "carrier capable" apply only to the unit itself, and in case of the former term, also to the aircraft which can fly operations off a carrier.  Equip a "carrier trained" squadron with an airframe which is not also so classified and that squadron will not operate off any carrier.


1-Way Raids: I doubt it, but I might as well ask if there is some way to send bombers on raids from one base, to the target, and then land at another.  And since I'm asking that, I might as well ask if there's any way to cram B-25s on a CV.

[color=#660000 size=3]There is no air way raids or air waypoints in AE.

[color=#660000 size=3]It is impossible to recreate the Doolittle raid because (a) until Soviet activation occurs, no Allied unit can be flown to a Soviet base, and (b) no air way raids possible.
[color=#660000 size=3] 
In no official AE scenario is the B-25 classified as a "carrier capable" airframe nor is it found in any "carrier capable/trained" squadron.  This means two things:
[color=#660000 size=3] 
[color=#660000 size=3](a) if embarked on a CV, the Mitchell will not launch a strike as it cannot return to the CV, and
(b) each airframes takes up the space of 4 airframes on the carrier.  This does not leave much room for other native carrier based airframes to be embarked
[color=#660000 size=3] 
[color=#660000 size=3]You could use the editor to create your own scenario with a "carrier capable" squadron equipped with a specialised "carrier capable" Mitchell but then that unit would retain that capability throughout the entire war.[/I]


Cross-Nation Transfers: In particular, I'm looking to move US Army MAJ Boyington in the AVG 2nd Squadron (with 17 kills and a purple heart) to VMF-214, a USMC squadron.

There are no cross nation pilot transfers.  In AE, the USA/USN/USMC are considered separate nations.

Commanders Flying: Can anybody clarify why some squadrons have their commanders operating aircraft directly but not others?

[color=#660000 size=3]The leaders database is comprised of documented historical leaders.  Where it is known that a certain individual was in charge of a ship or a squadron or LCU they have been assigned as the leader of that "unit".  For squadrons, (the same principle also applies to task forces) where no leader has been assigned in the OOB by the scenario designer or by the player, one of the pilots on the roster is elevated to be a flying leader.  It is not an advantage to have a flying pilot as the squadron leader as the strengths of leaders and pilots are different.  Not to overlook that a flying leader can be shot down whereas a non flying leader cannot.

Multiple Landing Forces: The AI seems to like invading bases with multiple TFs, at what appears to be a ratio of 1 per unit.  Is there any logistic or tactical advantage to this, or just a quirk of the AI?

[color=#660000 size=3]There is a tactical benefit.  Embarkation can be quicker as several ports may have been utilised with the different TFs rendezvousing before arriving.  Time spent on board ships may be reduced and this is beneficial as disruption for LCUs is increased for each day at sea.  Also there can be a benefit in the TF which disembarks a LCU over the beach also having some supply to top up that specific unit.

Torpedo Supply: Do torpedo bombers need to be based within the command radius of a unit with torpedo supply, or can they be resupplied as long as their base has a certain level of supply, like the 20k needed to replace aircraft?

[color=#660000 size=3]Torpedo sorties and resupply is dependent on having within range a unit (=Air HQ) with available torpedoes.  there are recent threads where I deal with this.

Wolf Packs: If you place multiple subs within a Sub Patrol TF, will some or all of them make attacks before the escorts move to engage?

[color=#660000 size=3]I'll track down the 2011 thread on the subject.  It is still the best on the subject.  Essentially do not bother attempting Kriegsmarine wolf pack tactics in AE.

quote:

'Carrier Trained' capability is gained by basing an airgroup on a carrier for 90 days. The 90 days need not be consecutive, a group will retain its CV 'training level' if it spends 45 days on a carrier, transfers to a land base for a while, then completes its training on a carrier. Carrier Training is by group, not by pilot.