RE: Swordfish II (Full Version)

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



Message

Sauvequipeut -> RE: Swordfish II (8/5/2009 11:33:23 PM)

1790 squadron FAA arrives on HMS Vindex with Firefly I's. Should possibly be the nightfighter variant instead?



bsq -> RE: Swordfish II (8/6/2009 12:18:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 88l71

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


They might have tried harder and sooner if they knew the war was continuing... [;)]

Or perhaps it needs penalties like the US Marine Sqns get when flying from carriers - sure they're capable, but it's not what they normally do.



terry1040 -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (8/6/2009 5:17:39 AM)

I asked the question already in the "AE Map, Base, Economic Issues" section, but they sent me here. So please have a look at the following:

Playing the Coral Sea Scenario.

I have air-moved 110 supply points with the PBY-5 Catalina from Noumea to Ndeni.
I also moved the AV to Ndeni in order to give aviation support.
Finally I moved the Catalina Squadron there as well.

Now after 4 Turns of Naval Search / Recon operations, I still have the full 110 supply points at the base.

That seems to be wrong as I thought that aircraft use supply points for operations.

Is this a bug, or do I miss something?

Terry



Mike Solli -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (8/7/2009 2:39:17 AM)

I just noticed something odd. When I click on any 2 Air Division unit except for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Hikotai IMAF, I get all of the 2 Air Division units except for those 3:



[image]local://upfiles/1598/3E6C41BB404745E580E4DC5E7C731937.jpg[/image]



Mike Solli -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (8/7/2009 2:41:21 AM)

But, if I look at 1st, 2nd or 3rd Hikotai IMAF and then click to look at all of the 2 Air Division units, I get this:



[image]local://upfiles/1598/FB50669268D44B688FC61EF0F3DD70E2.jpg[/image]



Mike Solli -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (8/7/2009 2:41:42 AM)

Weird, isn't it?



Kaletsch2007 -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (8/7/2009 8:26:27 AM)

Possible reason is, that all 2.AirDiv Units are only temporarly restricted except these three Fighter Units which are permenatly Restricted



JuanG -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (8/7/2009 9:23:11 AM)

Yes, and those 3 are assigned to HQ #40, 2nd Air Army - which is permanently restricted, while the others are part of HQ #3026, 2nd Air Div - which isnt.



Speedysteve -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (8/7/2009 9:26:55 AM)

Odd one. Go to 5 RAF Squadron in Madras. Select transfer to base, select base on map and then use the mouse wheel! Voila you get this. Odd though since it doesn't replicate in other squadrons I tried..........

[image]local://upfiles/4211/62536DC8481E41CEA9CB3A5C0FF11197.jpg[/image]



timtom -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/7/2009 1:46:03 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS

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?



"Self-reference" is a just a tool to ensure that if an aircraft default upgrade changes, it won't automatically bleed into the air group upgrades.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ncdawg

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


Historically they were stripped of their F4F-3's, which were then given to the Navy, and received F2's instead.

quote:

ORIGINAL: 88l71

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


According to the Squadron-Signal treatment this is a "myth". Either way it's already been stated that Carrier Capability is driven more by usage than potential, so I guess you'd be right as far the the -N & 3P are concerned at least.

[image]local://upfiles/8484/2258561B5FF34E16AFBE28F4B2B73826.jpg[/image]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hipper

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


Presume you mean 1830 Sqn? If so, it's delay is set to 431215 and it shouldn't appear till then. 1840 Sqns location is the HMS Speaker with Hellcats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sauvequipeut

1790 squadron FAA arrives on HMS Vindex with Firefly I's. Should possibly be the nightfighter variant instead?


'Pose. FAA belongs to navy team really [;)]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I just noticed something odd. When I click on any 2 Air Division unit except for the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Hikotai IMAF, I get all of the 2 Air Division units except for those 3:


We figured the Imperial Manchurian Air Force wouldn't deploy to the South Pacific or similar (it didn't).

Regarding the Fairey Swordfish, there seems to be some disagreement in my references whether the intial delivery date of the Mk II was early '41 or '43. If one has any material that might shed light on the matter, please do, but please also state the reference.

I don't know whether Michael monitors this tread regularly, so if something smells like a code bug rather than an OOB bug, I'd advice you post in to the Tech thread.



DBS -> RE: Advice on altitudes for CV strike groups (8/7/2009 2:18:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: timtom
Regarding the Fairey Swordfish, there seems to be some disagreement in my references whether the intial delivery date of the Mk II was early '41 or '43. If one has any material that might shed light on the matter, please do, but please also state the reference.


In the absence of a definitive history, I have always tended to go with the view that the Mk II = metal lower wing to allow use of RPs, and therefore = an ISD of 1943. However, that was, to all intents and purposes, the only real change from the Mk I. So in my view the options for AE would seem to be:

a) stick to history for Mk I vs Mk II, keeping Mk II only for 1943 onwards with the CVEs. But have two models of Swordfish I in the game - a non-producible light bomber without ASV for use by the likes of 4 AACU, and a producible torpedo bomber for the Fleet carriers with ASV.

b) ignore the IRL date for the Mk II, given there was no real difference from the Mk I, and use the Mk II for the ASV carrier bird with torps, and keep the Mk I as a light bomber for the AACU target tugs pressed into service as ASW patrol aircraft in 1941-2.

Either way, 788 Sqn ashore and 814 on Hermes should have torpedo aircraft but without ASV.

Furthermore, one should derate the RCAF Shark III from torpedo to light bomber since they were only ever operated by 7 Sqn RCAF as ASW patrol aircraft. That could also be allocated, in place of the Swordfish I, to, say the 4 AACU Det at Kuantan, since 4 AACU flew a mix of Swordfish and Sharks.



fbs -> IV Bomber Group (8/7/2009 3:17:39 PM)

On the West Coast (March Field & San Diego), these units are attached to IV Bomber Command (perhaps they should be attached to IV Fighter Command?):

14th PG/48th PS with P-38E
14th PG/49th PS with P-36A
14th PG/50th PS with P-40B
14th PG/HQ Sqn with P-40B

Cheers [:D]
fbs



mjk428 -> RE: IV Bomber Group (8/7/2009 5:13:53 PM)

I have two squadrons in Rangoon (2518 & 3200). Plenty of aviation support @ 82. Morale @ 99 for both and Fatigue is @ 1 & 0. Between them they have 30 planes (8 of which damaged) and 47 "Ready" pilots. 46 of the 47 pilots are in the "black" and so are restricted from duty. Which also makes me wonder why 47 are shown as ready.

It's Christmas so maybe they've had too much egg nog but 46 out of 47 out of action even though they're happy, rested and spent a couple of weeks in a non-malaria hex, just seems out of wack.


[image]local://upfiles/6817/602756DDA23846B9B0EC840E154DAE07.jpg[/image]



mjk428 -> RE: IV Bomber Group (8/7/2009 5:22:47 PM)

Having just re-checked the manual I seem to have jumped the gun. I was assuming the white changing to black meant something but according to the manual the "name" turning black signifies unfit for duty. Which I've yet to see.

So I guess these guys are good to go and I was resting them unnecessarily.

So what does it mean when their rank turns black?



cmcart -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (8/7/2009 5:53:31 PM)

In the Guadalcanal scenario the 1000lb SAP ID (198) and 1000/2000/4000lb GP's (204-206) accuracy values are half that of the other scenarios.

Also, are there any plans to show when using the get new pilot(s) buttons on the unit screen where they are coming from without having to hunt through the reserve pools? With all the new pools it seems rather easy to end up with situations occuring where you are putting bomber pilots in fighter squadrons for instance.



Dili -> RE: IV Bomber Group (8/7/2009 6:18:45 PM)

In my search for War in Mediterranean i have 820FAA with MK I w/ASV radar in Oct41 from Gibraltar. I have a question mark about April41 for initial date but no source on that, and it might just be first experiments. MK II only appears in 1943. So i agree about what DBS says, i would make a MKI and an MKI(ASV).



JuanG -> RE: IV Bomber Group (8/7/2009 7:33:44 PM)

Device #181 13mm Type 2 MG has an effect of 4, compared to 3 for most HMGs. This is the same effect as most 20mm cannon - is this intentional?



timtom -> RE: IV Bomber Group (8/7/2009 8:16:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Device #181 13mm Type 2 MG has an effect of 4, compared to 3 for most HMGs. This is the same effect as most 20mm cannon - is this intentional?


All air device values are directly ported over from WitP "classic" or a derivate thereoff. So it's both intentional and unintentional, if you get my meaning.

Devices weren't overhauled due to manpower/time/prioritising issues. The issue wasn't so much reviewing/overhauling the devices themselves as the ramifications for other aspects of the relevant code. Fx there's an intimate interplay between gun values, aircraft armour and durability, and changing one really requires one to change all. So we left it alone. For now [:)]





Barb -> RE: IV Bomber Group (8/7/2009 8:53:23 PM)

mjk428: pilot allocation is done for a mission currently set. Try to give them 100% LRCAP and most of them will shine white [:D]



pad152 -> KingFisher - flying CAP/LRCAP? (8/7/2009 11:13:25 PM)

It seems when setting the patrol levels for the KingFisher air groups (2834, 2839,284) you can also set them for CAP/LR CAP even though they don't have them listed as a mission type, they do have a sweep mission! Looks like you can also do this with the USN Seagull and RAAF Seagull V float planes.




[image]local://upfiles/105/B5AD6E3EDEF245C4A5E9D2CA1018CC90.jpg[/image]



TheTomDude -> RE: KingFisher - flying CAP/LRCAP? (8/8/2009 2:03:35 AM)

I asked this question in the standard forum already but nobody seems to know an answer. Maybe you Air team guys can enlighten me:

The question was:
I put several pilots to training command and it shows them as beeing in TC. But next day they are gone? I mean I'm not sure if they are gone completely but not 1 single pilot is listed in the RP as in Training Command. It's now 3 months into GC and the few I sent to TC are not listed in the reserve pool as in Training Command. Are they listed somewhere else?

Thanks



Mike Solli -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (8/8/2009 2:18:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Yes, and those 3 are assigned to HQ #40, 2nd Air Army - which is permanently restricted, while the others are part of HQ #3026, 2nd Air Div - which isnt.


Aha! Thanks!



vonSchnitter -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (8/8/2009 3:01:34 PM)

Hi all,

since a thread I started in the war room on Jap AC production did not manage to solicit any "official" attention so far, let me condense the questions that have come up here, the proper place:

The thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2191396&mpage=1&key=

a) Nomenclature between AE and Staff is not consistent.
Example: LB is short for Ligth Bomber in AE, while Staff uses the old Level Bomber notation.

b) Some Air Groups are supposed to spawn, before their AC are in production. What is going to happen ?

c) As far as availability dates go, the H-6 radar is a little late. At least according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_World_War_II_radar
Since all other airborne radar availability dates correspond with the dates in wiki, why not the H-6, esp. since there is the later model Nell as a part of the upgrade path. The "do it yourself" approach of answering the content of an official scenario does not apply in this instant - to many issues involved.

d) How about out of production airframes and engines. Can those be reintroduced ? How about upgrades.


e) what does this mean: "In scenarios with production set to On, all new air units (including reinforcements, reformed disbanded and withdrawn groups) must take planes from the replacement pool to fill out the air unit when it arrives. Note that reinforcement units will arrive with the number of planes specified in the editor. These planes are not drawn from the pool as they are deemed to have been supplied elsewhere." (e-book, page 256)

f) How about spawning airgroups if the aiframes apecified are not available. Will those spawn with:
Older airframes
Newer airframes
Will a fraction of the airfames required suffice to bring the group on the map ? If so which number ?





herwin -> RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (8/9/2009 6:16:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

I'm moving this here from my Aleutians thread since there may be some kind of bug at work:

The Rufe unit was moved from Kiska to Attu early in the scenario, and no matter what CAP settings I give it, the unit frequently shifts over to LR CAP in support of a nearby Task Force (in the graphic, it is flying from Attu to Kiska). This happens even if I set the max range at one hex. The only way to stop the activity is to put the unit on standby. For three turns in a row, I changed the settings to Escort, 50% CAP, 0% LRCAP, and target at "Commander Discretion" - yet every following turn it reset to LRCAP 100% and target "TF 4" (the transport group slowly unloading at Kiska).

Under the assumption that "commander discretion" was responsible for the behaviour, I set the Target as "Attu", but it flipped back to "commander discretion" on the next turn. On the other hand, the next three turns in a row passed with no LRCAP events, even though Kiska was raided twice.

Not sure what's going on, but I'd really like to know if the air code now allows air unit commanders to arbitrarily wander off on Long Range CAP missions.



I've been playing around with that scenario as the Japanese and have been seeing similar things happening. In most cases, it has been useful, so I've simply returned the units to their nominal assignments afterwards. BTW, I have yet to see a Japanese fighter shoot down anything.



tanksone -> RE: Resize of Jap CV Air Groups (8/9/2009 7:39:12 PM)

Hi, wow 50 pages. Not sure if this has been posted already. I don't believe it's a float fighter.

[sm=00000436.gif]

[image]local://upfiles/12681/496120CBA2B64E029EE46524AB66698D.jpg[/image]



R8J -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/10/2009 3:15:34 AM)

Scenario 2

No art for:

Slots 838 and 839, Ki-102 Randy.



Jim D Burns -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/10/2009 10:33:05 AM)

Not sure if this has been pointed out yet or not. Take a look at the bomb loads, I think it's supposed to carry 100lb bombs for normal range missions.

Jim


[image]local://upfiles/5815/49818D78999F46C5A5FE0D0D253E1F22.jpg[/image]



Speedysteve -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/10/2009 3:28:15 PM)

Hi all,

I assume I'm right in saying some of the Allied rd planes will have 0 production/replacements since other currently producing factories are due to upgrade to them? Or are all rd factories still supposed to have a replacement/production value?

Regards



timtom -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (8/10/2009 10:04:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

since a thread I started in the war room on Jap AC production did not manage to solicit any "official" attention so far, let me condense the questions that have come up here, the proper place:

The thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2191396&mpage=1&key=



Well, you seem to have fun unriddling the riddle [:)]

...anyway you guys are constantly breaking my heart over there [:(]

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

a) Nomenclature between AE and Staff is not consistent.
Example: LB is short for Ligth Bomber in AE, while Staff uses the old Level Bomber notation.



'K. Would be an issue for Markus (Woos). Please report on his thread on the Tech subforum.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

b) Some Air Groups are supposed to spawn, before their AC are in production. What is going to happen ?

e) what does this mean: "In scenarios with production set to On, all new air units (including reinforcements, reformed disbanded and withdrawn groups) must take planes from the replacement pool to fill out the air unit when it arrives. Note that reinforcement units will arrive with the number of planes specified in the editor. These planes are not drawn from the pool as they are deemed to have been supplied elsewhere." (e-book, page 256)

f) How about spawning airgroups if the aiframes apecified are not available. Will those spawn with:
Older airframes Newer airframes Will a fraction of the airfames required suffice to bring the group on the map ? If so which number ?



All new air units will arrive on their historical formation date with a few a/c of the specified type. This regardless of whether the player has any aircraft of that type in pool or indeed if it's even in production. However units which the player has volunterily withdrawn or disbanded is a different story.

Basically if the value of any of the "air group" editor fields "ready", "damaged" or "reserve" of a given unit is greater than 0, that unit will appear on the specified "delay" (arrival) date. If the value of all those fields equals 0, then the unit will require filling out from the replacement pool. Same as in WitP. This is what the manuel is saying in a less technical manner.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

d) How about out of production airframes and engines. Can those be reintroduced ? How about upgrades.



Andrew will known, but I believe yes. Not sure what you mean with the second question.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vonSchnitter

c) As far as availability dates go, the H-6 radar is a little late. At least according to Wiki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Japanese_World_War_II_radar Since all other airborne radar availability dates correspond with the dates in wiki, why not the H-6, esp. since there is the later model Nell as a part of the upgrade path. The "do it yourself" approach of answering the content of an official scenario does not apply in this instant - to many issues involved.



To my ken the H-6 didn't come into use on other than an experimental basis until late '43 and not into general use until late '44. However this is based on a post-war USN report on Japanese ASW, so there's always that question mark, 'pose.

The first a/c that I know of to carry it as standard was the G4M2a (the one with the pointy extension on the nose) hence the 6/44 date. The trouble is that once the device becomes available it automatically appears on all a/c designated to carry that device - there's no way currently of gradually introducing a device. It's this sort of consideration that drives a/c and device availability dates in AE.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Speedy

Hi all,

I assume I'm right in saying some of the Allied rd planes will have 0 production/replacements since other currently producing factories are due to upgrade to them? Or are all rd factories still supposed to have a replacement/production value?

Regards


If it's an R&D a/c it should be greater than zero - I think - but it's one for Andrew again. Any particular R&D factory you've got in mind?









mikemike -> RE: Swordfish II (8/10/2009 10:31:17 PM)

Shouldn't the Kawasaki Ha-60 engine be the Kawasaki Ha-40?



Page: <<   < prev  48 49 [50] 51 52   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
7.90625