RE: Aviation Support (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

witpqs -> RE: Aviation Support (1/26/2008 6:11:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

If I recall correctly, didn't the Japanese actually modify their Type 91 Torpedos so that they could use them at PH? I seem to remember something about them adding some type of fins to prevent them from diving as deep once released, cause that was the only way a torpedo was going to work in water as shallow as a port.


Yes - you are right on the money. Wooden fins that broke away in the water.



TheElf -> RE: Aviation Support (1/26/2008 7:00:11 PM)

El Cid, take it elsewhere. You are spamming an AE discussion thread after I clearly asked the debate to be moved elsewhere. You have hundreds of you own threads. This one belongs to the AE Air Team.

Start another one if you must.

Thank you.



herwin -> RE: Aviation Support (1/26/2008 7:37:26 PM)

It's more complicated than indicated. In port, many ship berths are protected, by the narrowness or shallowness of the channel or (later) by nets (baffles). At PH, only about half the BBs were even vulnerable to torpedo attack, and at Taranto, the RN used modified torpedos dropped from a very low altitude. See this paper. This and the attack on the Z Force should probably be treated as start-of-war surprise.



timtom -> RE: Aviation Support (1/26/2008 10:13:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Which leads into this question:

With all these new stock additions, will there still be ample slots for the modders amoung us to add additional a/c for all sides?

Keeping in mind that the stock WITP didn't really give the Japanese side a lot of extra slots to work with, one has to be willing to give to gain...I'd like to avoid this if possible.



Several hundred slots are reserved for modders to toy with. None of these are hardcoded for a particular service.



Dixie -> RE: Aviation Support (1/26/2008 11:13:27 PM)

This is just a minor visual thing, but will No.s 605, 607 & 615 RAF be named No.6xy RAuxAF Sqn* instead? It's just 'chrome' really, but I have too much time on my hands right now [:D][:D]

* With numbers instead of xy, before someone points that out [:'(]



witpqs -> RE: Aviation Support (1/27/2008 1:16:52 AM)

Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?



witpqs -> RE: Aviation Support (1/29/2008 3:41:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?


Any idea about this?



timtom -> RE: Aviation Support (1/29/2008 4:35:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

This is just a minor visual thing, but will No.s 605, 607 & 615 RAF be named No.6xy RAuxAF Sqn* instead? It's just 'chrome' really, but I have too much time on my hands right now [:D][:D]

* With numbers instead of xy, before someone points that out [:'(]


AFAIK, AAF sqds didn't use the RAuxAF designation during the war. I believe the RAuxAF didn't become "royal" until late '47.



timtom -> RE: Aviation Support (1/29/2008 4:37:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?


Any idea about this?


Same as stock, I'm afraid.



TheElf -> RE: Aviation Support (1/30/2008 12:36:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Folks, a general questions on AE - I'm aware of the differences in the WITP manual between fighters and fighter-bombers (FB's get a bit better bombing ability (=accuracy?), but FB's also get a bit less air to air ability).

How, if at all, does AE treat fighters and fighter-bombers differently from each other?


Any idea about this?


Same as stock, I'm afraid.

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.



herwin -> Attack Missions (1/30/2008 1:16:34 PM)

A relevant point is that modern USN light strike missions are usually unescorted--the aircraft can defend themselves effectively even though they're classified as light bombers. Their pilots are fighter-trained. I'm fairly sure this self-defence capability goes back to the early days of carrier aviation in the USN. Does the air-to-air model take this into account?



Mike Solli -> RE: Attack Missions (1/30/2008 3:48:38 PM)

Will AE give night fighters a night CAP ability?  Currently I can get around that by putting them on night naval attack with 90% CAP.



witpqs -> RE: Aviation Support (1/30/2008 5:11:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.


Thanks for the response! I'm surprised by part of your answer, so I just want to confirm - no air to air penalty when an FB is acting strictly as a fighter (meaning CAP or Escort)? Thanks in advance.



herwin -> RE: Aviation Support (1/30/2008 6:13:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.


Thanks for the response! I'm surprised by part of your answer, so I just want to confirm - no air to air penalty when an FB is acting strictly as a fighter (meaning CAP or Escort)? Thanks in advance.


There shouldn't be any.



mdiehl -> RE: Aviation Support (1/30/2008 6:52:17 PM)

quote:

The relevant point is that modern USN light strike missions are usually unescorted--the aircraft can defend themselves effectively even though they're classified as light bombers.


That was also the case for USN and USAAF f/bs in WW2. Indeed, the whole distinction between a fighter and a fighter-bomber is one that WitP uses to differentiate between missions. During WW2 there was no distinction between "fighters" and "fighter bombers" -- at least not in the USN and USAAF. All fighters had a ground attack capability with hard points for bombs or other ordnance. All fighter pilots were trained intensively in air to air combat and also somewhat in ground attack. As power plants improved, the ordnance load-outs of Allied fighters increased, giving them a much more robust ground attack capability, and leading to more diverse mission capability for allied fighter types.

quote:

There shouldn't be any.


Exactly so.



jcjordan -> RE: Aviation Support (1/31/2008 2:18:02 AM)

Not sure if it's been asked or not but probably has(didn't find in quick search) but will Op losses be increased? The book I'm reading talks of just how high the op losses were for missions sometimes due to the various causes. One mission, forget if it was Coral Sea, Midway or Kwajalein raid talked of a dozen or more lost a/c to op losses of pilots getting lost, mech breakdowns, etc out of only a few dozen a/c in the raid so that'd be almost 10-20% just in op losses not to combat reasons.



pad152 -> RE: Aviation Support (1/31/2008 8:53:06 PM)

Will we see more failed to find air attacks against naval targets? You almost never see this in Witp. Even today it's not easy to find a single ship at sea.





Feinder -> RE: Aviation Support (1/31/2008 11:45:43 PM)

quote:

Will we see more failed to find air attacks against naval targets? You almost never see this in Witp. Even today it's not easy to find a single ship at sea.


I'll second this.  From my resources, there were many days were

TF58 (staggerinly huge as it was) spots enemy search aircraft on radar.
CAP vectored to intercept.
CAP was unable to intercept.
Didn't matter anyway, because enemy search aircraft continues meandering away, and never spots the litterally hundreds of ships.

All within 60 miles (1 hex in WitP) of the coast.

Rest assured that would NEVER happen in WitP.

-F-



Grotius -> RE: Aviation Support (2/1/2008 11:22:07 PM)

Agreed, it should be more difficult to find a ship at sea. The sea is very, very big. :)



TheElf -> RE: Aviation Support (2/2/2008 12:35:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf

This is not exactly true. Fighter bombers are identical to Fighters except when they are performing the FB mission. When ordered to Attack AFs, ground units, etc. and if attacked they will check for jettisoning ordnance and engage the CAP at a temporary and slight defensive disadvantage.

Not ALL FBs will automatically jett their load and defend, only those flights that are attacked. So, not escorting your FBs will chance mission failure if there is no barrier (escort) between them and the CAP.


Thanks for the response! I'm surprised by part of your answer, so I just want to confirm - no air to air penalty when an FB is acting strictly as a fighter (meaning CAP or Escort)? Thanks in advance.


There shouldn't be any.

When acting strictly as a fighter, there are no FB penalties. Even as a FB the MVR penalty is not necessarily a given. Depends on the situation.



Cathartes -> RE: Aviation Support (2/2/2008 9:44:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Not sure if it's been asked or not but probably has(didn't find in quick search) but will Op losses be increased?


From the AE/WITP announcement:
Operational losses overall are now at a higher, more realistic level for the Pacific theater.



pad152 -> RE: Aviation Support (2/3/2008 7:50:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Not sure if it's been asked or not but probably has(didn't find in quick search) but will Op losses be increased?


From the AE/WITP announcement:
Operational losses overall are now at a higher, more realistic level for the Pacific theater.


Higher Op losses ?

In witp both Allies and Japan have way too many excess aircraft.

Higher Op losses I hope is to reflect the loss of aircraft due to aircraft that can't be repaired (replacement part shortages) and not higher pilot lost. Read anything about the flying tigers and you'll find out how fast they when through aircraft, yet had low pliot losses. They got new aircraft but very few spare parts, at times it took scraping two good aircraft to keep just 1 flying! The problems for Japan must have been worst due to not only supply shortages, but also fuel shortages.

The issue with Op losses is with Japans Naval pilots, Japan can lose more than 30 pilots due to op losses, no airforce in the world operated like this (operational losses exceeding replacement pilots). Japan had a shortages of carrier pilots but witp treats all naval pilots the same (transport, land based naval units, someone flying a glen off a sub, or other ship) the same as carrier pilots which is not correct)! Op losses should not exceed the number of replacement pilots otherwise the Japan's airforce just eats itself, they should include the loss of aircraft that have to be scraped due to replacement parts shortages.





langley -> RE: Aviation Support (2/4/2008 10:13:27 PM)

I take it we don't know any more about addictional aircraft that will be in this version!
Any ideas folks.

MJT



jcjordan -> RE: Aviation Support (2/5/2008 1:32:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

Not sure if it's been asked or not but probably has(didn't find in quick search) but will Op losses be increased?


From the AE/WITP announcement:
Operational losses overall are now at a higher, more realistic level for the Pacific theater.


Thanks new it would be somewhere just didn't find it myself.

pad152 - op losses can be a/c only losses but there is a chance to lose pilot as well not sure how chance is determined but with higher op losses will come a chance for more pilot losses. Think of the # of losses due to training accidents & the instance I mentioned, all of the losses I was refering to where pilot losses mostly due to at the time of the war very little sub lifeguard missions were run.



castor troy -> RE: Aviation Support (2/5/2008 9:35:15 AM)

If you do onmap training in WITP as the Japanese, letīs say two hexes range with 300 aircraft every day then you will lose some 800-1000 aircraft a year just from doing this training. Donīt know if Iīd like to see it being 3000 aircraft a year, from attacking an undefended target that is 2 hexes away. And it seems itīs like a 40:60 chance that you will lose your pilot too. So this will mean that you will lose at least 5 times your pilot replacements just from flying 2 hexes in perfect weather, crashing on a level 9 airfield. Of course, on map training will be not what it was, but thatīs just an example of how op losses look like at the moment in my games.

If you increase op losses to "realistic" levels than perhaps everything else has to be changed also: damage done by aircraft, ability of ships to survive, time it takes to repair an airbase (the airfield can be repaired pretty fast, but I doubt all the hangars, barracks are built up in 2 hours)...

With the attack routines in WITP you just have to fly 5 times more missions than in real life (and WITP that would be 100% realistic would be soooo boring as there would just nothing happen most times on the whole map). If you suffer 5 times the losses then you will soon run out of aircraft. But with the damage routines, it seems you have to do 5 times the attacks to do the same damage than it was done most often in real life.

Iīve never read about 300 Allied bombers doing attacks on Rabaul every third day to keep the airfield closed. And this goes on and on...



Ursa MAior -> RE: Aviation Support (2/5/2008 9:50:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder

quote:

Will we see more failed to find air attacks against naval targets? You almost never see this in Witp. Even today it's not easy to find a single ship at sea.


I'll second this. From my resources, there were many days were

TF58 (staggerinly huge as it was) spots enemy search aircraft on radar.
CAP vectored to intercept.
CAP was unable to intercept.
Didn't matter anyway, because enemy search aircraft continues meandering away, and never spots the litterally hundreds of ships.

All within 60 miles (1 hex in WitP) of the coast.

Rest assured that would NEVER happen in WitP.

-F-


Second to that but adding that in this case tf targeting and resource allocating routine should be upgraded. IMHO no one would like to see the whole deckload going after a secondary target (and not finding it) yet letting away a dmgd and defenceless CV.

Juts my 0,02 bucks.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Aviation Support (2/5/2008 3:12:39 PM)

Something I've not seen mentioned so far is whether or not we will stop seeing squadron fragmentation between targets, specifically those in seperate hexes. I'm pretty sure squadrons attacked as units, and were not divided up among multiple targets as WITP currently does.



treespider -> RE: Aviation Support (2/5/2008 5:30:50 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Something I've not seen mentioned so far is whether or not we will stop seeing squadron fragmentation between targets, specifically those in seperate hexes. I'm pretty sure squadrons attacked as units, and were not divided up among multiple targets as WITP currently does.



Interesting read - Fortress against the Sun....seems it happened more often than you would think.



Ron Saueracker -> RE: Aviation Support (2/5/2008 9:33:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Something I've not seen mentioned so far is whether or not we will stop seeing squadron fragmentation between targets, specifically those in seperate hexes. I'm pretty sure squadrons attacked as units, and were not divided up among multiple targets as WITP currently does.



Interesting read - Fortress against the Sun....seems it happened more often than you would think.


Like sending 2 P-38s to escort 18 4Es to Rabaul when 16 are available? Or 2 SBDs against a merchant 3 hexes away, 6 vs 2 merchies 2 hexes away and 8 vs 3 merchies 4 hexes away. Seems too "formula oriented" or something.

Boy...can't wait for AE to come out. Just got Carriers at War this morning and I'm already ho humming. I like large campaigns, these small battles just don't do it for me.[;)]



bradfordkay -> RE: Aviation Support (2/6/2008 7:44:43 AM)

Carriers At War was the first computer game I purchased, and I owned all the expansions to it. I happily ordered it as soon as Matrix and SSG released the new version, but after a couple of days of messing with it I haven't touched it since. In my book, nothing measures up to WITP...



Page: <<   < prev  19 20 [21] 22 23   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.453125