quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.

For example......?

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.

For example......?

See Mark Herman's monograph: Empire of the Sun (EoTS) Monograph on U.S. Air Operations versus Japanese Fleet Bases: Truk example

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: mdiehl

quote:

A lot of the bases on atolls and other small islands were so "brittle" that a good heavy raid did close them for weeks.

For example......?

See Mark Herman's monograph: Empire of the Sun (EoTS) Monograph on U.S. Air Operations versus Japanese Fleet Bases: Truk example

I can well believe that atol bases can fairly easily be put out of action, as you say. To be honest the whole atol thing doesn't reallty work for me - at the moment too many aircraft, men etc can be based at a single atol. I am really talking about the Rangoon's, Wuchow's, Nanchang's, Manila's. Full land bases which often represent a number of air strips, with aircraft that may be dispersed etc. If CAP is less effective the whole balance point shifts between defending a base and the incoming bombers. Expectations of bomber/escort lossese go down whilst damage to the defender goes up (more aircraft get through). It's just a personal opinion but I already think that generally the bomber has the whip-hand in this struggle, so with comparative forces (and recognising I am ignoring a whole load of variables), I find it is better to be attacking a base to close it than it is to be trying to defend it. Reducing only the effectiveness of CAP could IMHO make one of the critical (and fun) struggles in the game rather one sided.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Reiryc

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rainerle

Will we no longer see the message 'unable to find target' when the primary target is arlready sunk but other ships are in the TF that the ammo could be used at?

This is a good question that I'd like to see addressed...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

Hi Elf.

I understand that the air combat routines are being tweaked to reduce the effectveness of CAP...... I say I undersatnd it to be so simply because I've seen fairly non-specific anecdotes about it. Are there any more details?

Also, if they are being changed, won't this mean that the effectiveness of bombing a base needs to be toned down to keep any sort of balance between attacker and defender (rather than IJ and Allied) . It already seems taht one good strike will close a base and destroy huge numbers of aircraft based there.

Hmmm - if that's changed then we come to the speed with which engineers can repair the damage.....

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

What I would like to see is a 'react' option for CAP fighters. As it is in WitP 'leaky' CAP occasionally provides CAP for nearby bases...but this option
is more an annoyance than anything else since it cannot be controlled.

If Base A has 200 CAP fighters and is surrounded by nearby Bases B, C and D (1-2 hexes away) it should be possible to order the CAP to protect not only Base A. Especially as radar comes into play this becomes more and more true, and even without it visual spotting would give enough early warning to send fighters from Base A to Base B, C or D.

In my AAR game I can only provide strong CAP to a handful bases and air balance numbers easily gives this away.
Andy is thereby able to send his bombers to targets just miles away from my 'CAP Zones' and bomb them almost unmolested.

Tokyo for instance could be designated as a 'CAP Zone' for the area 2-3 hexes around it and able to defend other locations according to priorities.
This could be impossible to implement, but it would have made the air war a lot more realistic if you add all the other improvements that will be incorporated in AE.

Yep...would be cool.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Hi Elf,

I skimmed the thread and didn't see this asked so please forgive me if it has already been asked somewhere but, will Dutch and UK airgroups still not be able to upgrade until May '42? I never liked that rule a lot. It seems that if the Dutch or UK have the aircraft available, especially with PDUs on, they ought to be able to do some squadron management like everyone else. Also, do you know if such things as this will be editable in the editor?

Thanks.

I think something that needs to be addressed is the abilty for airgroups to draw aircraft from a pool which is non-existant when they arrive 90 days after having been disbanded. The Dutch AF is the most glaring instance with disbanded squadrons arriving fully outfitted with Demons or Brewster 339s for example when there are no more in existance. Happens even in CHS when the replacement rate for these a/c have been zeroed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

... serviceability ratings ...

quote:


There is also the new notion that A/C fatigue life will mean they actually age and force replacement or cause ops losses. But these factors take time to become evident in a game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Naval Thread.

The IJ Player commonly forms the a/c-capable riff-raff of the IJN (Hosho and Taiyo representing the historical epitome of riff-raff) into something called the mini-KB which also quite commonly raises he!! in some corner of the map and although not quite up to a pitched battle with an equal number of US CVs is quite capable of dealing with the RN fleet carriers and inflicting serious harm to US CVs. Such capabilities for these ships and the airgroups assigned to them are IRL pretty much a IJ wetdream but I suppose in the interest of allowing creative strategy....[8|]

The USN had CVEs which IRL carried out serious missions. But for some reason the pilots in the airgroups assigned to them start off with experience that is 20-30 points below the standard for the time frame. Perhaps the pilots who drew CVE duty were not the cream of the crop but they were not the washouts either. Lacking any historical evidence that the pilots assigned to CVE duty were sub-par I think that they should just draw from the same experience pool for the year the ship enters play.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PzB

What I would like to see is a 'react' option for CAP fighters. As it is in WitP 'leaky' CAP occasionally provides CAP for nearby bases...but this option
is more an annoyance than anything else since it cannot be controlled.

If Base A has 200 CAP fighters and is surrounded by nearby Bases B, C and D (1-2 hexes away) it should be possible to order the CAP to protect not only Base A. Especially as radar comes into play this becomes more and more true, and even without it visual spotting would give enough early warning to send fighters from Base A to Base B, C or D.

In my AAR game I can only provide strong CAP to a handful bases and air balance numbers easily gives this away.
Andy is thereby able to send his bombers to targets just miles away from my 'CAP Zones' and bomb them almost unmolested.

Tokyo for instance could be designated as a 'CAP Zone' for the area 2-3 hexes around it and able to defend other locations according to priorities.
This could be impossible to implement, but it would have made the air war a lot more realistic if you add all the other improvements that will be incorporated in AE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


We do now allow LRCAP by a % of a Unit vice the Stock 100% LRCAP. THe remainder not on LRCAP can be set to Normal CAP over their base or set to rest by leaving CAP set to 0%.

So theoretically you could set 3 different units from the same base to LRCAP and give them three different geographic LRCAP targets. Then use a smattering of each to defend the home Airfield.

Pretty cool, I know...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

IMO, AF damage models are too simplistic. No matter what size, 1-10, they are viewed as a single entity. I'd change it so that each numerical increment is a seperate entity (lvl 10 airfield has ten actual seperate airfields). As such, each lvl has to be knocked out, not just a single airfield that happens to have a size 10 capability. Added to this, the AF's levels do not get smacked from the highest to lowest, but can take damage simultaneously (ie Rabaul is a lvl 9 AF...after a B-17 strike the damage might look like this 1: 50% runway, 12% service; 2: 2% runway, 41% service) Knockout one level, it becomes a lvl 8 field until repaired, not a smouldering ruin as we have now.

This should make AFs much more resilient to both air and bombardment attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? [:'(]]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


The dutch problem is being addressed. I thought Thomas answered this a while back...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


The dutch problem is being addressed. I thought Thomas answered this a while back...

Does this mean that dates for upgrading aircraft for Dutch and UK are being debated/looked at or will they be the same?

Thanks. [&o]

EDIT: Sorry Ian, if the latter was directed at me, I skimmed through most of the thread but didn't see anything mentioned about upgrade dates for Dutch and UK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

... serviceability ratings ...

So the database now has a serviceability rating for each aircraft model?

quote:


There is also the new notion that A/C fatigue life will mean they actually age and force replacement or cause ops losses. But these factors take time to become evident in a game.

Does this mean that the life-time (flights) of each individual aircraft is tracked to influence the chance of an ops loss of that aircraft?

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

Not sure if this belongs here or in the Naval Thread.

The IJ Player commonly forms the a/c-capable riff-raff of the IJN (Hosho and Taiyo representing the historical epitome of riff-raff) into something called the mini-KB which also quite commonly raises he!! in some corner of the map and although not quite up to a pitched battle with an equal number of US CVs is quite capable of dealing with the RN fleet carriers and inflicting serious harm to US CVs. Such capabilities for these ships and the airgroups assigned to them are IRL pretty much a IJ wetdream but I suppose in the interest of allowing creative strategy....

The USN had CVEs which IRL carried out serious missions. But for some reason the pilots in the airgroups assigned to them start off with experience that is 20-30 points below the standard for the time frame. Perhaps the pilots who drew CVE duty were not the cream of the crop but they were not the washouts either. Lacking any historical evidence that the pilots assigned to CVE duty were sub-par I think that they should just draw from the same experience pool for the year the ship enters play.

One could argue that that couldn't be true because they were flying from CVEs. Much smaller and more difficult to operate from...

But I am having a hard time detecting a question in this post...

quote:

We do now allow LRCAP by a % of a Unit vice the Stock 100% LRCAP. THe remainder not on LRCAP can be set to Normal CAP over their base or set to rest by leaving CAP set to 0%.

So theoretically you could set 3 different units from the same base to LRCAP and give them three different geographic LRCAP targets. Then use a smattering of each to defend the home Airfield.

Pretty cool, I know...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Ron I think you have something there, but breaking an AF into singles is too much. After all, the larger aircraft need bigger runways - not more of them! [If it takes one woman 9 months to have a baby, how many women does it take to have a baby in 1 month? [:'(]]

Maybe the same idea but break it into some non-linear model. Just throwing out numbers for discussion:

AF Size______# Entities

1______________1
2______________1
3______________1
4______________2
5______________2
6______________3
7______________3
8______________4
9______________4
10_____________5

As I said, these are just starting number suggestions.

Part of the design doc went as far as to allow the player to designate or assign the total value of the AF as a combination of 1s, 2, 4, or whatever size AFs he wanted. So you could have lots of small to medium AFs (ie. diespersed) or one or two larger. Even one GINORMOUS one.

Got to be complicated, so it was shelved.

quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
Fair enough. What justification is there for assigning USN CVE air group pilots experience levels in the 30's and 40's when the standard USN pilot experience is 60-70?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "

I really like this, but it begs a question: will more experienced or better equipped aviation support units do better at repairing damaged aircraft? Or will aviation support still be just aviation support - only the number of squads matters?

quote:

There are some other things thrown in like damage from a round of combat being retained from one phase, and one turn to another. That was not happening in stock.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

" Meaning serviceability ratings should eventually take their toll on more complex a/c. "

I really like this, but it begs a question: will more experienced or better equipped aviation support units do better at repairing damaged aircraft? Or will aviation support still be just aviation support - only the number of squads matters?

Theoretically yes. Lower FAT and Higher MOR should also help...

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


No. No more details to give out. If you want to ask a specific question a bout a detail you are interested in I can make an attempt.