RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (Full Version)

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



Message

thegreatwent -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 3:19:16 AM)

Odd my P-36 at PH is a Float Fighter. I am not an expert but is that right?[&:]

Sorry it is a fighter Float equipped. Never knew they did that[X(]



TheElf -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 5:20:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

Odd my P-36 at PH is a Float Fighter. I am not an expert but is that right?[&:]

Sorry it is a fighter Float equipped. Never knew they did that[X(]

Probably a typo. We'll note it and have it set for the first patch. Alternatively, in the near term, players can change the setting with the editor.



Tanaka -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 5:48:23 AM)

I dont see any of the original Tainan group pilots in this scenario (Guadalcanal) or the others? Is there longer no historical pilots? [:(]

[image]local://upfiles/8937/A51ACB7381EF47CBA9FE585B9BEBD216.jpg[/image]



88l71 -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 8:10:19 AM)

Didn't the B-29 have 2x .50 cal and 1x 20mm in the tail gun position? None of the B-29's have a 20mm listed. Or am I wrong about that?




Terminus -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 10:22:40 AM)

Some marks did, and do in the game. I forget if there's three or four subspecies of Superforts.



88l71 -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 10:52:19 AM)

Ahh, okay, the B-29-1 has the 20mm/50cal combo, the other 2 versions have triple .50's in the tail. Must have missed one.



timtom -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 12:39:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheElf


quote:

ORIGINAL: thegreatwent

Odd my P-36 at PH is a Float Fighter. I am not an expert but is that right?[&:]

Sorry it is a fighter Float equipped. Never knew they did that[X(]

Probably a typo. We'll note it and have it set for the first patch. Alternatively, in the near term, players can change the setting with the editor.


Aaaaargh. Expletive expletive catherding.



Mike Solli -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 3:36:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

I dont see any of the original Tainan group pilots in this scenario (Guadalcanal) or the others? Is there longer no historical pilots? [:(]

[image]local://upfiles/8937/A51ACB7381EF47CBA9FE585B9BEBD216.jpg[/image]


I happened to see in the reserve pilot list (I think that was what it's called) S. Sakai (Saburo possibly)? He had the highest experience rating. But it showed him in Tainan daitai. Not sure why that is though. I don't really understand that part of it yet.



pad152 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (7/28/2009 3:52:29 PM)

Air Group (2221) VRF-3B  located on the Copahee (3056) has "0" aircraft!



DBS -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 4:00:25 PM)

Question - in the Editor, why are some fixed forward-firing weapons listed as Front, while others are listed as Centre-Line? Does it make any difference?

Very very very minor point - the Walrus II should have a Vickers K in the nose, not a Vickers V! The Swordfish Is used by No.4 AACU probably did not have any meaningful torpedo attack capability, since they were intended for utility duties, particularly as target tugs. The pilots will certainly have had no torpedo training. Suggest should be rerated as a light bomber with payload of 2x250lb.

Oh, and Stranraer misspelt for the RCAF.



michaelm75au -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 4:46:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tanaka

I dont see any of the original Tainan group pilots in this scenario (Guadalcanal) or the others? Is there longer no historical pilots? [:(]

[image]local://upfiles/8937/A51ACB7381EF47CBA9FE585B9BEBD216.jpg[/image]


I happened to see in the reserve pilot list (I think that was what it's called) S. Sakai (Saburo possibly)? He had the highest experience rating. But it showed him in Tainan daitai. Not sure why that is though. I don't really understand that part of it yet.


There is a cross-link issue when groups are initially assigned pilots. They sometimes get 'borrowed' by another group.

The pilots aren't lost. They either end up in the wrong group or in the pilot reserve.
This is down to be corrected in the first patch.



Mike Solli -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 5:03:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm
There is a cross-link issue when groups are initially assigned pilots. They sometimes get 'borrowed' by another group.

The pilots aren't lost. They either end up in the wrong group or in the pilot reserve.
This is down to be corrected in the first patch.


Hmm, does this mean there are incorrect numbers of pilots in some of the units, since they may be "borrowed" by another unit?



timtom -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 5:04:24 PM)

Boys, here's your chance to say thanks to long-suffering Michael McFarland, who's made all of AE's aviation-related goodness possible (all the F'-up's are pointy-ears fault [;)]).

Thanks Mike, for suffering me these past 30 months with such patience and good humour! [sm=00000436.gif]




Mike Solli -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 5:05:19 PM)

Question about the reserve aircraft in air units:  Is it worth keeping them in the air units (subject to destruction on the ground) since most of them have no pilots?  Also, is there a limit to the number of reserve aircraft there can be in an air unit?



Mike Solli -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 5:06:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom

Boys, here's your chance to say thanks to long-suffering Michael McFarland, who's made all of AE's aviation-related goodness possible (all the F'-up's are pointy-ears fault [;)]).

Thanks Mike, for suffering me these past 30 months with such patience and good humour! [sm=00000436.gif]




Thanks Michael!



m10bob -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 6:31:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Question - in the Editor, why are some fixed forward-firing weapons listed as Front, while others are listed as Centre-Line? Does it make any difference?



Centerline guns generally have better accuracy as wing guns rely on deflection shooting..



DBS -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 6:34:43 PM)

Thanks!



Terminus -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 6:35:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

Question about the reserve aircraft in air units:  Is it worth keeping them in the air units (subject to destruction on the ground) since most of them have no pilots?  Also, is there a limit to the number of reserve aircraft there can be in an air unit?


It's a very, very good idea to keep them in their units, because any attrition replacements are drawn from the reserves first, rather than the pool.

And no idea, that's for the flyboys to know.



Mike Solli -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 6:41:59 PM)

Thanks, T.  I had forgotten about the "enhanced" attrition. [:D]



Dili -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 6:49:51 PM)

quote:

Centerline guns generally have better accuracy as wing guns rely on deflection shooting..


also less rate of fire.



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 6:59:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Question - in the Editor, why are some fixed forward-firing weapons listed as Front, while others are listed as Centre-Line? Does it make any difference?



Centerline guns generally have better accuracy as wing guns rely on deflection shooting..



I think you may be referring to the issue of the convergence point of wing mounted guns. Deflection shooting, I believe, referred to the relationship of the targets path and speed to the shooter’s path and speed and the need to accurately judge the lead point for aim based on the amount of deflection.



Buck Beach -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 7:44:48 PM)

The initial OOB seems a little lite in comparison to some of the fine work that was done in some of the WITP mods. Maybe most of the missing groups didn't have that much of an impact on playing the game and were left out to save time and confusion.

Take for example the Panama Zone. Both bases are built up to fairly high levels but only one has any Air Support and there are no aircraft. Maybe the bases were configured for future modders. Then there's San Diego with only 5 serviceable aircraft out of 3 groups and 9 aircraft total and 4 of those are Patrol aircraft in one group.

Anyway I expect there will be many differences between the heavily modded original WITP and AE vanilla but I wanted to point out these. I am not a expert of the OOBs in anyway and my observations are most likely wrong.



bsq -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 7:50:43 PM)

Issues so far with the Brit Air OOB

1.  Lancasters. 
  • Listed is B Mk1 (FE), guns are that of a B Mk VII (FE)
  • FE's had a bomb bay fuel tank that took the place of the 4000lb 'cookie' (indeed one questions the need for the 4000lb HC given the experiences of the B-29 raids)
  • 617 Sqn, although famous for it's use of 'specials' received B Mk VII (FE) in mid 45
2.  Meteors - absent?
3.  Vampires - absent?
4.  York - absent?



Dixie -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 8:08:26 PM)

No.100 Sqn RAF should have a withdrawal date in Feb 1942 when the squadron was folded into the remnants of 36 Sqn.

Also, 44 (Rhodesia) Sqn wasn't actually a Commonwealth unit, it was an RAF squadron with a slightly higher percentage of Rhodesians than most units (around 25% at it's height) and named for the country's contribution to the war effort.



Cathartes -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 10:06:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

The initial OOB seems a little lite in comparison to some of the fine work that was done in some of the WITP mods. Maybe most of the missing groups didn't have that much of an impact on playing the game and were left out to save time and confusion.

Take for example the Panama Zone. Both bases are built up to fairly high levels but only one has any Air Support and there are no aircraft. Maybe the bases were configured for future modders. Then there's San Diego with only 5 serviceable aircraft out of 3 groups and 9 aircraft total and 4 of those are Patrol aircraft in one group.

Anyway I expect there will be many differences between the heavily modded original WITP and AE vanilla but I wanted to point out these. I am not a expert of the OOBs in anyway and my observations are most likely wrong.


TimTom needs to chime in here with this and other OOB comments.

My understanding of some of the off-map ports in regards to air OOB is that these bases were not completely worked up simply because they are only abstracted for ship/supply/reinforcement movement, and it's not possible for any air, land, or naval combat to ever take place at off-map locations. So, why have an off-map squadron present if they can't perform any function?



Bliztk -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/28/2009 10:16:01 PM)

Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier, I guess

Also P40N5 and P40N1 have the same arrival month too. Should be different ?? [&:]



thegreatwent -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/29/2009 12:15:17 AM)

Thanks Michael!



XENXEN -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/29/2009 1:37:34 AM)

A small thing i found, the audax 1 light bomber uses 2 engines and its default bomb load is 2 x 20 GP bombs but the reduced bomb load is 4x 20 GP bombs ?  is this right 



timtom -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/29/2009 1:47:15 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Take for example the Panama Zone. Both bases are built up to fairly high levels but only one has any Air Support and there are no aircraft.


My understanding of some of the off-map ports in regards to air OOB is that these bases were not completely worked up simply because they are only abstracted for ship/supply/reinforcement movement, and it's not possible for any air, land, or naval combat to ever take place at off-map locations. So, why have an off-map squadron present if they can't perform any function?


[sm=00000734.gif]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach

Maybe the bases were configured for future modders. Then there's San Diego with only 5 serviceable aircraft out of 3 groups and 9 aircraft total and 4 of those are Patrol aircraft in one group.



VMO-251 in fact had no a/c on hand. We have no way of assigning 0 a/c to a unit, so these get two token a/c to represent hacks.

I don't know exactly how many a/c VP-43 had on hand except it wasn't many. The unit was formed only that July and was in the process of working up. Come April '42 it was able to send a six-plane detachment to Alaska.

I don' t know the exact strenght of 49th PS either. On December 1st, 14th PG had a total strength of 12 P-40's, 5 P-38's and 5 P-36's, of which 6 P-40's, 2 P-38's and a single P-36 were actually servicable. Which isn't to say that the situation would necesarily be unchanged a week later, but I have no idea either way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Avenger I and Avenger II have the same operational date as 3/44. Avenger I should be earlier, I guess



Noted, but strictly a naval team issue. If you go badger them enough they might sign over the account to the professionals [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

No.100 Sqn RAF should have a withdrawal date in Feb 1942 when the squadron was folded into the remnants of 36 Sqn.



No.100 Sqn RAF becomes No.100 Sqn RAAF. Call it a compromise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie

Also, 44 (Rhodesia) Sqn wasn't actually a Commonwealth unit, it was an RAF squadron with a slightly higher percentage of Rhodesians than most units (around 25% at it's height) and named for the country's contribution to the war effort.


Makes sense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

Also P40N5 and P40N1 have the same arrival month too. Should be different ?? [&:]


The N-1 is a one-off issue intimately linked to 80th FG arriving mid-June '43. Their steeds will trickle in during July. This relationship will of course be lost on PDU-lovers who also (potentially) get to throw 80th FG directly into combat. Historically 80th FG had trained on P-47's, deployed to India without aircraft only to find a couple of ex-AVG P-40's (!) waiting for them. Subsequently the N-1's arrived and the (soon to be) Burma Banshees spend a couple of months getting the hang of their new aircraft before deploying forward.

The N-5 is the bog standard N which just happens to become available 7/43 also.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

1. Lancasters.
Listed is B Mk1 (FE), guns are that of a B Mk VII (FE). FE's had a bomb bay fuel tank that took the place of the 4000lb 'cookie' (indeed one questions the need for the 4000lb HC given the experiences of the B-29 raids)



My understanding is that the armament of the B.1 (FE) was 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.5 nose turret, 2x.303 Browning MK II in a F.N.150 mid-upper turret, also removable if the 400 gal BB tank(-s) was carried, and 2x0.5 Browning Mk II in an F.N.82 or 121 rear turret. Don't know how many, if any, came with the F.N.79 turret.

The Mk VII, I believe, had a similar armament suite except the upper turret was a Martin housing 2x0.50's.

What do you hold the correct armament to be, Robert?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

617 Sqn, although famous for it's use of 'specials' received B Mk VII (FE) in mid 45



Guess they did...AB won't be happy - he's got a special Dambuster .waw file 'nd everything.


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq
2. Meteors - absent?
3. Vampires - absent?
4. York - absent?


Yes. Gotta keep the modders sweet. Presently.

...Thanks guys - keep 'em coming [:)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: XENXEN

A small thing i found, the audax 1 light bomber uses 2 engines and its default bomb load is 2 x 20 GP bombs but the reduced bomb load is 4x 20 GP bombs ? is this right


Nęppe...






Mike Solli -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (7/29/2009 1:58:25 AM)

In the campaign, there are no B5N2 Kate factories. Is this correct?



Page: <<   < prev  43 44 [45] 46 47   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
9.214844