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

TOMLABEL -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/4/2009 4:21:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom


I blame the naval team...[;)]

Tomlabel is the resident Seahawk fanboy and I doubt he'll leave it alone :)



Thanks Timtom - and no I won't! [:@] I pleaded this case, but to no avail!!![:@]

If I were dead, I'd be rolling over in my grave!!![:@]

OK - vent over...[;)]

Let's mod the sucker!!

I've got some artwork (but can't remember who I got it from..) Would the artist for the Seahawk please step forward!
[:)][:D]



[image]local://upfiles/19527/E23F07D6815D41C899E3171BD28C141D.jpg[/image]



DBS -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/4/2009 8:27:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Lastly, the Blenheim V comes on stream too late - currently Dec 42. 113 had already re-equipped with Vs by October 42. Given that the Mk V was available in squadron strength by June 42, I would suggest a start date in this game of say July or August 42, since it will take a little time to get enough replacements to convert a squadron.



Hmm, I have 113 Sqn receiving Mk V's from October and phasing the Mk IV's out by end December (from Jefford)


I accept that is quite probably correct - the two types were certainly operating side by side in 113 since there are photos of the two types together. But if Mk V production only starts in December, and is only at 8, you won't have enough Mk Vs to reequip 113 until mid Jan at the earliest. (Unless I am missing something?) Given that the game mechanisms don't allow mixed fleets within a sqn, that by June 42 the Air Ministry had already realised that the Mk V was not up to use in NW Europe and should be focused on the Med and the Far East, and that the aircraft is hardly a world beater anyway, I would tend to favour erring towards the earlier end of the availability window. Hardly a major issue I warrant.


David



DBS -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/4/2009 8:36:38 AM)

Further to my previous post on the Blenheim IF, the more I think about it, the more I incline to the view that it should be rated as a fighter or fighter-bomber; it's entire service in the Far East with 27 Sqn was in strafing and bombing roles, or escorting Blenheim bombers, and as mentioned above there is no evidence that 27 Sqn had any particular night fighting skills or training. Worth remembering that 27 Sqn was, until the Buffaloes arrived, the only fighter squadron in the Far East and its equipment with Blenheims was less a concern that a twin-engined night fighter was needed there than the lack of any better fighter being available: same principle as the way in which many of the Spitfire and Hurricane squadrons in the Battle of Britain had been flying IFs in 1938-9.

If one thinks of the Blenheim IF as simply a long-range fighter, 27's reformation with Beau VICs rather than VIFs is the natural progression.



Speedysteve -> RE: Oops (8/4/2009 9:12:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Please look at screenie and tell me if I screwed up by having "accept replacements" on or did the game do this by accident. GC scenario vs AI

Oh, the question is how did so many pilots end up in this unit?

[image]local://upfiles/25806/C67E6D9C0610425E8A9A5A07B5E77F74.jpg[/image]


Hi Vettim,

This has happened to me too in my Coral Sea PBEM. If screenshots are needed AE team let me know........



Dixie -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/4/2009 10:17:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

If one thinks of the Blenheim IF as simply a long-range fighter, 27's reformation with Beau VICs rather than VIFs is the natural progression.


The actual 27 Sqn reformed with VIFs irl, so the way to go would be the F rather than the C IMO.



DBS -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/4/2009 10:25:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dixie


quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

If one thinks of the Blenheim IF as simply a long-range fighter, 27's reformation with Beau VICs rather than VIFs is the natural progression.


The actual 27 Sqn reformed with VIFs irl, so the way to go would be the F rather than the C IMO.

Doh! [8|]

But they used them in the low-level fighter-bomber role rather than as night-fighters, sans AI. Haven't got access to the database on this machine, but as far as I recall, the game (for understandable reasons) assumes all VIFs are NFs, and uses the VIC as the fighter-bomber.



latosusi -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/4/2009 11:30:49 AM)

Ya, hurricane XIIb (Can) and Hudson I (Aus) have wrong climb rates, like 10k more then they should



Speedysteve -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/4/2009 11:52:44 AM)

Not sure if this has been noted before but.......

'Next/previous group' button on CV based air groups does not work. As in CV docked in port, select air group from ship menu, then aircraft data and voila.....

[image]local://upfiles/4211/93B0D39A57F94F1A814584F4FC266172.jpg[/image]



Buck Beach -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/4/2009 4:16:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TOMLABEL

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom


I blame the naval team...[;)]

Tomlabel is the resident Seahawk fanboy and I doubt he'll leave it alone :)



Thanks Timtom - and no I won't! [:@] I pleaded this case, but to no avail!!![:@]

If I were dead, I'd be rolling over in my grave!!![:@]

OK - vent over...[;)]

Let's mod the sucker!!

I've got some artwork (but can't remember who I got it from..) Would the artist for the Seahawk please step forward!
[:)][:D]



[image]local://upfiles/19527/E23F07D6815D41C899E3171BD28C141D.jpg[/image]



If it was Cobra his art is in the various RHS files. Any tweaks to his work will have to be by someone else as he retired to playing with grandkids versus war toys.



crsutton -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/4/2009 6:30:02 PM)

Elf,

After about a month into a campaign it seems to be working pretty sweet. There are so many things working right One issue, I have noticed that some of my airgroups are filling up with too many pilots. I have one AVG group with 45 pilots. That is the worst example but I do have some sixteen plane groups with over 25-30 pilots and would like to get these veteran pilots back into the pool to use in other units.

Perhaps in a patch we could have a button to allow the return of excess pilots to the pool. That is, I want to send back pilots that are over the maximum need for the unit, and that options might send back all pilots save one or three spares.  I would not want to  be able return all the pilots to the pool from a unit in Manila that has no planes left. They would need to grab a rifle and hit the trenches.....I am more worried about excess.






langleyCV1 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/4/2009 10:45:05 PM)

Not sure of my dates for this but will check and confrim!

In 1941 the 31st Pursuit group was made up of the 39th 40th and 41st Pursuit squadrons so far so good.

However In Feb 1942 the 31st Pursuit group became the 35th pursuit containing the same three squadrons.

Does this happen in AE? I am not able to see a withdraw date or a refrom date for these units.

I will come back to you If I find any more information.

Many Thanks

MJT



langleyCV1 -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/4/2009 11:29:09 PM)

OK I was close.
The 31st fighter group became the 35 fighter group on the 20 April 1942.

The 39th squadron was still flying the P-39D but the 40th and 41st appear to of being given the P-400.

Information taken from the book " Bell P-39 Airacobra " of the crowood aviation series.

I hope this helps.

MJT



Splinterhead -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/5/2009 12:11:10 AM)

They change names Jan 15, 42 and all convert to P-400



scout1 -> RE: Oops (8/5/2009 12:29:06 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

Please look at screenie and tell me if I screwed up by having "accept replacements" on or did the game do this by accident. GC scenario vs AI

Oh, the question is how did so many pilots end up in this unit?

[image]local://upfiles/25806/C67E6D9C0610425E8A9A5A07B5E77F74.jpg[/image]


I'm guessing the Air Group got a couple of girls stashed away .......



Blackhorse -> RE: Oops (8/5/2009 1:22:36 AM)

quote:

I'm guessing the Air Group got a couple of girls stashed away .......


That would explain the '99' morale, then. [;)]



RevRick -> RE: Oops (8/5/2009 2:00:05 AM)

Can't be too many though. Their experience is still only fair...



jcjordan -> RE: Oops (8/5/2009 2:59:05 AM)

Pasting these here from another post I made as I didn't see these answers anywhere yet

On some of the late war a/c production/replacement rates like C46D, Helldiver, etc, should they be that high? I don't think the C46 was ever produced in those numbers.

When on air unit screen when you have it display only less than all countries, when you click on activate/inactivate units or replacements on/off etc it affects all even those not displayed, IE say you're looking at Dutch only & click act/inact, it affects all countries. Now if you select an individual type of a/c to display that part does work but along the same lines as all countries are effected not just the ones you're looking at ie select only fighters it affects all fighters of all countries.



TheElf -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/5/2009 3:43:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Elf,

After about a month into a campaign it seems to be working pretty sweet. There are so many things working right One issue, I have noticed that some of my airgroups are filling up with too many pilots. I have one AVG group with 45 pilots. That is the worst example but I do have some sixteen plane groups with over 25-30 pilots and would like to get these veteran pilots back into the pool to use in other units.

Perhaps in a patch we could have a button to allow the return of excess pilots to the pool. That is, I want to send back pilots that are over the maximum need for the unit, and that options might send back all pilots save one or three spares.  I would not want to  be able return all the pilots to the pool from a unit in Manila that has no planes left. They would need to grab a rifle and hit the trenches.....I am more worried about excess.

What you suggest is a good idea. But it leaves room for gaminess. I'll look into it. The excess you are seeing is normal. Most combat squadrons, throughout history, and even today are manned with more pilots than A/C. A simple solution with AE as it stands not is to begin the game with replacements turned off. I ALWAYS begin my games with this option. It allows me to determine which units get what.

You can turn off replacements to all your airgroups using one of the universal screens that views all ground-based or sea-based Air units. This will prevent the situation you are lamenting.



Speedysteve -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/5/2009 8:56:54 AM)

Ah ok. Thanks Elf. So WAD then?



Speedysteve -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/5/2009 12:29:52 PM)

In GC2 I can see many squadrons are due to upgrade to A29's but there are no A29 squadrons on map and no replacements are due I believe?



timtom -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/5/2009 3:53:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS


quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom
quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

Lastly, the Blenheim V comes on stream too late - currently Dec 42. 113 had already re-equipped with Vs by October 42. Given that the Mk V was available in squadron strength by June 42, I would suggest a start date in this game of say July or August 42, since it will take a little time to get enough replacements to convert a squadron.



Hmm, I have 113 Sqn receiving Mk V's from October and phasing the Mk IV's out by end December (from Jefford)


I accept that is quite probably correct - the two types were certainly operating side by side in 113 since there are photos of the two types together. But if Mk V production only starts in December, and is only at 8, you won't have enough Mk Vs to reequip 113 until mid Jan at the earliest. (Unless I am missing something?) Given that the game mechanisms don't allow mixed fleets within a sqn, that by June 42 the Air Ministry had already realised that the Mk V was not up to use in NW Europe and should be focused on the Med and the Far East, and that the aircraft is hardly a world beater anyway, I would tend to favour erring towards the earlier end of the availability window. Hardly a major issue I warrant.

David


Will reset AD to 10/42

quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

Ya, hurricane XIIb (Can) and Hudson I (Aus) have wrong climb rates, like 10k more then they should


Thanks. I think I got the message by now [:D]

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan

On some of the late war a/c production/replacement rates like C46D, Helldiver, etc, should they be that high? I don't think the C46 was ever produced in those numbers.



There's always Wikipedia :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

In GC2 I can see many squadrons are due to upgrade to A29's but there are no A29 squadrons on map and no replacements are due I believe?


Speedster, would you mind pointing me in the direction of these units?



Speedysteve -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/5/2009 3:55:05 PM)

Sure thing. Let me go in and post for you ASAP........



Speedysteve -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/5/2009 4:07:42 PM)

41BG/46BS
41BG/47BS
41BG/48BS
6th RS
41BG/Hq Squadron
16th RS



timtom -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/5/2009 4:08:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

41BG/46BS
41BG/47BS
41BG/48BS
6th RS
41BG/Hq Squadron
16th RS


Ta, mate.



Speedysteve -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/5/2009 4:09:38 PM)

NP[8D]



DBS -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/5/2009 6:14:30 PM)

Couple of oddities via the editor.

1) Quite a few of the FAA sqns have, in their upgrade slot, Upgrade-1, which seems to be the default for a blank slot. Now since most of the sqns concerned seem to be on late-war models, suspect they should not upgrade, so presume that not being set on a self-reference (eg Corsair IV upgrade path set to Corsair IV) does not matter?

(EDIT: eg units 1868, 1903-6, 1913-14, 1918, 1929-30)

2) Swordfish I is only in production for one month (2/42 to 3/42) with a rate of just 3. And Swordfish II start and end dates are identical (10/43) with no build rate. So does this mean in effect a grand total of Swordfish replacements in the whole campaign?

Personally I would have all the carriers (except Hermes) toting Swordfish II (and in production at a low rate), since ASV was pretty much available for all the Fleet carriers by Dec 41, with Swordfish I for 4 AACU as a light bomber rather than torpedo. Perhaps Hermes should get Swordfish II but with the radar edited out on the unit page.

David



lazydawg -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/5/2009 8:25:20 PM)

In Scenario 1, VMF-111 & VMF-121 start out with the F4F; however, they upgrade to the F2A. Is this correct?



Hipper -> Swordfish II (8/5/2009 9:51:33 PM)

Hi chaps I have to point out that the swordfish II was in use with 829 squadron in March 1942 aboard Illustrious

this is the squadron that had ASV radar so its worth getting right

I suspect there is a typo with the entry date of Swordfish II in the editor

bloody good work though just opened up AE today for first time :-)





88l71 -> RE: Swordfish II (8/5/2009 10:57:21 PM)

Should the F7F be "carrier capable" when in reality, they did not pass carrier qualification trials until 1947?



Hipper -> RE: Swordfish II (8/5/2009 11:30:43 PM)

Scenario 1 Illustrious starts in 1942 with FAA squadron 1840 equipped with corsair II's - sounds like fun !



Page: <<   < prev  47 48 [49] 50 51   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.890625