Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Two aircraft-related mysteries

 
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] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Two aircraft-related mysteries Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 2:07:41 AM   
sandman2575


Posts: 310
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline 		1. Aircraft variants that have identical stats. Lancaster B.I and Lancaster B.III, for ex. Or Mosquito BIX and BXVI. Just find it curious that the 'upgraded' versions are the same as the older versions. Obviously you need to eventually upgrade your squadrons because the older variant stops getting built and the pools decrease. But otherwise... ?

2. Loadouts for Level Bombers that are *all fuel*. For the Lancaster, for ex., why would you ever choose the loadout: 1x 525 lG fueltank + 2x 400 lG fueltank.

I find these... puzzling. Explanations welcome.

EDIT will add a third while I'm at it:

3. Units flying obsolete aircraft with *no* upgrade path and *no* factories building them. 15th & 16th USAAF Recon Sqds. fly the F-9 fortress. You can't upgrade it to anything. And there are none left in the replacement pool. Are you supposed to fly them til there's no more left to fly ?

< Message edited by sandman2575 -- 1/19/2018 2:15:48 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 4:52:27 AM   
Lovenought

 

Posts: 227
Joined: 8/21/2017
Status: offline 		All good questions and things that have puzzled me too.

(in reply to sandman2575)
Post #: 2
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 7:01:12 AM   
EddyBear81

 

Posts: 153
Joined: 2/10/2012
From: Lille, France
Status: offline 		Hello, yes it's puzzling and not really needed in my opinion.


Here my guess :

- Different version have different factories and build limits. So it's really about a different number of planes produced each turn rather than different planes

- All fuel loadouts are for ferrying planes over long distances, and it's not useful in the current game layout... yet. Maybe some kind of extension was planned involving transatlantic flights or, more realistically England-Egypt flights.
And then in the longer term, England-Russia, who knows ?

(in reply to Lovenought)
Post #: 3
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 7:27:18 AM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EddyBear81

...

- All fuel loadouts are for ferrying planes over long distances, and it's not useful in the current game layout... yet. Maybe some kind of extension was planned involving transatlantic flights or, more realistically England-Egypt flights.
And then in the longer term, England-Russia, who knows ?


Specifically all fuel can be useful to send single engine planes from the UK to the Med (or back). For the bombers I think it was used both for US-UK transits and for specific missions connected to the SOE/partisan war - where distance and a very light load was essential (of course both are out of the scope of the game).

re the Lancasters, I think there is a gain in terms of optimum altitude between the variants. You can only see this in the editor but that indicates an ideal operating height (the presented stats give you the max which can be very inefficient). But yes, at the level of presented statistics, some of the changes are pretty minor.

Re obsolete stuff. Yes sometimes. The Allies seem to have not built enough recon planes (or at least I always find myself running out). So I end up using anything that can still fly and then end up (usually by late 1944 when it doesn't really matter) scrapping some formations to release the planes.

_____________________________


(in reply to EddyBear81)
Post #: 4
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 1:02:31 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		The Lancs were separated for better production planning, rather low production in 42/43 vs high production from later 43 on. Technically Lanc I/III should be the same except engines (I= RR Merlin, III= Packard Merlin or the other way round)
Some bombers have max fuel loadouts, intention was to permit transfers to North Africa. Most had this replaced by alternate bomb loadouts.
The F-9s should be replaceable by other recon types once they become available. It's possible the F-9 units withdraw prior to this.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 5
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 2:48:18 PM   
GeneralDad

 

Posts: 111
Joined: 1/7/2018
Status: offline 		I am still struggling to understand air upgrades and air in general, but I think Denniss has a point - I think you have to do the upgrade or plane change manually. The air upgrade AI won't do it because the devs have not defined an upgrade path for some plane types, especially when the change is more than a model upgrade. P-40's have a similar problem - they don't upgrade to other types automatically.

GeneralDad

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 6
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 3:58:48 PM   
Denniss

 

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline 		In my tests done some months ago I found the AI to be very reluctant on upgrades but happily swapping types instead. This is with all air units set to auto upgrades, default at scenario start is all-manual for upgrades (due to bug in Editor I can't set them to auto from start). We currently lack the intermediate upgrade option that was added to WitE1 which permits upgrades only along the specified path, disabling swaps.

(in reply to GeneralDad)
Post #: 7
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 4:54:55 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GeneralDad

I am still struggling to understand air upgrades and air in general, but I think Denniss has a point - I think you have to do the upgrade or plane change manually. The air upgrade AI won't do it because the devs have not defined an upgrade path for some plane types, especially when the change is more than a model upgrade. P-40's have a similar problem - they don't upgrade to other types automatically.

GeneralDad



be careful about US upgrades. If you get everything onto P47s/P51s when the squadrons expand to their 60 plane unit (? not sure of the exact size) in late 1944 you will run out of planes. Best to keep some using P39s/40s so as to retain some spare P47s etc.

In general the P40 is ok for FB roles or in say Italy or S France. The later models of the P39 are not too bad either. You don't want them escorting bombers over the Reich or doing AS sweeps in Germany but as escorts to tactical air missions they are perfectly ok. The P-39 is not bad as an escort - it was one of the few LL planes that the Soviet pilots really rated for this function.

_____________________________


(in reply to GeneralDad)
Post #: 8
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 5:34:03 PM   
sandman2575


Posts: 310
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline 		Appreciate the informative responses, all. You've cleared these up for me.

One thing that remains puzzling: in Production, you can see that some Aircraft get way overproduced relative to the number of units in-game (of course, I'm only in March '44 in my current campaign, so perhaps this will change). But I see huge pools of some A/C models that no units are using and which don't seem to be upgrade options for A/C that do (A-20 Havocs, for example). Allies produce *tons* of medium and heavy bombers, way more than can be 'gotten into the war'(so far), and not nearly enough fighters (USA at least), recon, patrol and torpedo bombers.

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 9
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 7:21:03 PM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		Mediums, possibly but if you have way too many heavies, work them harder! It is easy to play them so as to be short!

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to sandman2575)
Post #: 10
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 8:27:11 PM   
sandman2575


Posts: 310
Joined: 9/5/2009
Status: offline 		I've probably been too conservative with the Strategic Bombing campaign -- as evidenced by my being about 150-60 VPs in the hole in 3/'44. I have been Strat Bombing every turn weather allows, though I only ever send 'em out Fair or better. I did go after U-Boat factories in Hamburg / Bremen in '43, though without huge success. Bombing the hell out of the V-weapon sites in early '44 is 1000x easier. I am pretty careful to micromanage the combining of Strat Recon followed by raids and bookended by more Strat Recon for damage assessment.

Overall, wow -- I've put a ton of hours into WitW over the several weeks. I really do enjoy it a great deal now that I have a solid grasp of how most things work. But I'm finding it much more challenging than WitE, for example.


(in reply to HMSWarspite)
Post #: 11
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 8:45:06 PM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

The Lancs were separated for better production planning, rather low production in 42/43 vs high production from later 43 on. Technically Lanc I/III should be the same except engines (I= RR Merlin, III= Packard Merlin or the other way round)
Some bombers have max fuel loadouts, intention was to permit transfers to North Africa. Most had this replaced by alternate bomb loadouts.
The F-9s should be replaceable by other recon types once they become available. It's possible the F-9 units withdraw prior to this.


There is no difference in game stats between the Lancaster I and Lancaster III, so the low production v. high production reason makes sense. IRL, the Lancaster I was designed to use Rolls Royce Merlins, while the Lancaster III was designed to use Packard Merlins; parts were not interchangeable between the two engines. However, all Merlins were designed as "power eggs" (I think that was the term), so that whole engine assemblies could be quickly swapped. This meant that it was not unusual for a Lancaster to have two RR Merlins, one Packard Merlin, and one Ford Merlin thrown in for good measure. All of the engines performed virtually the same.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 12
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 8:48:26 PM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Denniss

The F-9s should be replaceable by other recon types once they become available. It's possible the F-9 units withdraw prior to this.


In the 1943 campaign, at least, the F-9 units cannot upgrade to any other aircraft. I usually disband one unit as it gets below its maximum aircraft, freeing up some replacements for the other unit. I then use that unit until it runs out of airplanes. I have to look up what happened to those units IRL.

(in reply to Denniss)
Post #: 13
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 9:04:07 PM   
bomccarthy


Posts: 414
Joined: 9/6/2013
From: L.A.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sandman2575

Appreciate the informative responses, all. You've cleared these up for me.

One thing that remains puzzling: in Production, you can see that some Aircraft get way overproduced relative to the number of units in-game (of course, I'm only in March '44 in my current campaign, so perhaps this will change). But I see huge pools of some A/C models that no units are using and which don't seem to be upgrade options for A/C that do (A-20 Havocs, for example). Allies produce *tons* of medium and heavy bombers, way more than can be 'gotten into the war'(so far), and not nearly enough fighters (USA at least), recon, patrol and torpedo bombers.


The game generally doesn't permit the Allied player to fly as many sorties as RL. By late 1944, US bomber units had reached their staffing goal of 2 full aircrew for each airplane. This meant that air crew were rested while individual airplanes flew almost every day until they wore out or were destroyed. Thus, the huge number or surplus airframes you see in the game were needed to replace worn out aircraft.

You'll probably need those extra airplanes in 1945 - the AI-controlled Luftwaffe will start sending up hundreds of Me-262s almost every day. Worst-hit will be your escort fighters or those on air superiority missions. Historically, the Luftwaffe rarely had more the 40-50 Me-262s serviceable on any single day (their engines had an operational life of 15-25 hours, compared with 180 hours for the Gloster Meteor's engines and 400-500 hours for a typical piston engine; they also had a very high accident rate, even among veteran pilots).

(in reply to sandman2575)
Post #: 14
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/19/2018 10:00:00 PM   
loki100


Posts: 10920
Joined: 10/20/2012
From: Utlima Thule
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: sandman2575

Appreciate the informative responses, all. You've cleared these up for me.

One thing that remains puzzling: in Production, you can see that some Aircraft get way overproduced relative to the number of units in-game (of course, I'm only in March '44 in my current campaign, so perhaps this will change). But I see huge pools of some A/C models that no units are using and which don't seem to be upgrade options for A/C that do (A-20 Havocs, for example). Allies produce *tons* of medium and heavy bombers, way more than can be 'gotten into the war'(so far), and not nearly enough fighters (USA at least), recon, patrol and torpedo bombers.


Not sure the lack of naval air really matters. Once you've done the second set of landings they are pretty much redundant. I just use them to close off the Dutch ports and Genoa.

The A-20s I can burn off. They are incredibly useful as a slightly longer ranged tactical bomber, so can operate from England longer than other similar planes. All helps control supply etc demand on the continent.

I'd agree with HMS Warspite, if you have too many heavies you aren't pushing them enough.

Agree with your overall comment, even played as a sort of vs AI puzzle this is a truely fascinating game. Every time I try something new or uncover a new quirk ... and keep on getting very impressed about realism if I then go off to do some background research.

_____________________________


(in reply to sandman2575)
Post #: 15
RE: Two aircraft-related mysteries - 1/20/2018 8:16:45 AM   
HMSWarspite

 

Posts: 1401
Joined: 4/13/2002
From: Bristol, UK
Status: offline 		There is a also a problem (or at least a trap) with the way US SE fighter production appears on game that can cause you issues as well. Because there is a delay of 3 months after production starts before you can use the pool (simulating the delay in getting them across the pond), you get 3 months production all in one go. It is tempting to put most of these into units on that first week but you then drop to weekly production and you may find you cannot sustain losses. I always convert say one group per week and gauge losses vs stocks. Thus I play conservatively with pools and pace upgrades to avoid shortages

_____________________________

I have a cunning plan, My Lord

(in reply to loki100)
Post #: 16
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the West >> Two aircraft-related mysteries Page: [1]
Jump to:





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


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.734