RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (Full Version)

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



Message

Zebedee -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/31/2009 6:38:02 AM)

NM.



Gilbert -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/31/2009 10:44:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The B7A2 is classed as a dive bomber in the game.....but carries a torp as it should is this the way you want it?


Tiger!



It was a multi-purpose plane

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aichi_B7A

Regards
Gilbert



herwin -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/31/2009 11:19:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The B7A2 is classed as a dive bomber in the game.....but carries a torp as it should is this the way you want it?


Tiger!



Conceptually, it was an attack aircraft, with a combination of dive-bombing and torpedo-dropping capabilities similar to those of the Fairey Barracuda, Douglas Skyraider, Curtiss Helldiver and BTC, and Martin Mauler.

Yes, the SB2C could lug and drop a torpedo.



jcjordan -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (8/31/2009 11:47:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DBS


quote:

ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

242 Squadron and 605 Squadron missing from the order of battle they should be available mid February 1942 in Java.

MJT

If you are referring to Scenario 1, they are in fact there - 232(P) Sqn renames to 242, and 258 Sqn renames to 605; both on 25 Feb 42.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jcjordan
Also it seems that the British Walrus's upgrade to NZ Walrus's though the unit stays Brit. I've seen it happen to 2 of the FAA 700 squadron on Brit CLs.

If those are the flights on Leander and Achilles, then OK since they were Kiwi cruisers but with FAA flights. If not...


DBS No these are the Brit cruisers that are converting not the NZ ones



Pascal_slith -> RE: adding pilots (9/1/2009 3:04:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bsq

Some Air Leader issues:

Keith Park - should be an Air Marshal (promoted in 1941 when he took over at Malta). His stats (IMO) are too low. He was considered one of the greatest Air Commanders ever produced by the RAF (even though he was a New Zealander), yet he rates (much) lower than Curtis LeMay. At the very least his Air Skill should be on par with LeMay and his Skill and Inspiration should be much higher.





Agree. He did an excellent job in the Battle of Britain, on Malta, and in the Far East.



Montbrun -> RE: adding pilots (9/1/2009 5:37:49 AM)

v1083c Beta (Allies v Jap AI) - In addition to the pilot experience thing, which has already been discussed, I'm not seeing any "black letter" pilots, or pilots eligible to be transferred to training command, after the Beta patch.



langleyCV1 -> RE: adding pilots (9/1/2009 9:46:55 AM)

I think this was removed in the patch you mentioned I seem to remember!

MJT



langleyCV1 -> RE: adding pilots (9/1/2009 9:50:25 AM)

V1083c beta Scen1 VMF-211 Det is on wake as it should be but where is the main unit it was on PH in the the last version. Is this a bug or does VMF-211 only appear after the Det is destroyed.

MJT



scott64 -> RE: adding pilots (9/1/2009 5:25:29 PM)

PBJ-1H Mitchell
Info states available from 10/44 to 1/43 [&:]



DrewMatrix -> Allied A/C prodcution rates (9/1/2009 5:33:49 PM)

Could we please have an authoritative comment on Allied A/C production rates? See the "Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate" thread). I can understand that for AI play balance reasons Japanese A/C production could be boosted. That isn't what concerns me. I am concerned that the Allied A/C production rates are way off, by more than an order of magnitude.

For F4F (3s 3as and 4s) I get about 7000+ total production. I am a little uncertain as to how many were lend lease but I don't recall hearing that the majority went to Canada nor British units in the Far East. I am pretty sure 90% of them didn't go to the ETO.  That "7000" could be 7500 or 7700 or so. But that is only a 10% error.

At 53/month (counting the recon models in the total to get to 53) that number can be built in 136 months ie by about August 1954.

For total production I get a ratio of about 7700 F4Fs (not to mention about 12,000 F6Fs) to about 11,000 A6M (_all_ A6M models 2>8). That isn't a ratio of 6:1 in favor of the Japanese economy.

I keep being told the Allied A/C prodcution is carefully researched and spot on. How do the Allies get to 7000+ F4Fs?

The problem with this is that with those allied production rates a war of attrition is a winning strategy for Japan and that doesn't seem all correct.



JWE -> RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates (9/1/2009 8:17:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle
Could we please have an authoritative comment on Allied A/C production rates? See the "Allied Replacement Aircraft Replacement Rate" thread). I can understand that for AI play balance reasons Japanese A/C production could be boosted. That isn't what concerns me. I am concerned that the Allied A/C production rates are way off, by more than an order of magnitude.

For F4F (3s 3as and 4s) I get about 7000+ total production. I am a little uncertain as to how many were lend lease but I don't recall hearing that the majority went to Canada nor British units in the Far East. I am pretty sure 90% of them didn't go to the ETO.  That "7000" could be 7500 or 7700 or so. But that is only a 10% error.

At 53/month (counting the recon models in the total to get to 53) that number can be built in 136 months ie by about August 1954.

For total production I get a ratio of about 7700 F4Fs (not to mention about 12,000 F6Fs) to about 11,000 A6M (_all_ A6M models 2>8). That isn't a ratio of 6:1 in favor of the Japanese economy.

I keep being told the Allied A/C prodcution is carefully researched and spot on. How do the Allies get to 7000+ F4Fs?

Not authoritative. Not on the Air Team. But good enough.

Raw production figures, for any weapon system, have very little relationship to what was allocated/issued to combat arms groups. All it says is someone has five minutes of free time and an internet connection.

What you get is a function of 3, 4, 5 separate limitation routines; more so for Japan than the Allies. So raw production numbers are nice and pretty, but not particularly relevant. The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.
quote:


The problem with this is that with those allied production rates a war of attrition is a winning strategy for Japan and that doesn't seem all correct.

Since you don’t understand the algorithm, and haven’t played to the end, I think you should do a bit of analysis before making such a sweeping statement.

This is a game. There is a certain amount of abstraction going on. It is not a diorama of pretty little panels that show pretty little historical numbers that don't mean much of anything.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates (9/1/2009 8:45:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.



Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?



CJ Martin -> RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates (9/1/2009 9:16:19 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.



Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?


[X(]

Just to be clear, is Japanese production also based on utilization vice actual raw production?

Just wondering if we have an apples to apples setup here. Jiggering Allied production in the name of "gameplay" would be a bad mistake IMHO. I hope that is not what is going on here.

-CJ



JWE -> RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates (9/1/2009 9:25:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.



Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?

What I am saying is the developers thought a bit more deeply on the issue, than just running to the internet for pretty little production numbers.

That is the end of this particular discussion. This thread is not the place for this. Any more on this "issue" should be taken to the main boards.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates (9/1/2009 11:38:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle
Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?


I am no expert, and I am not involved in the decisions about aircraft production levels in AE, but looking back to my work on CHS: When I researched the F6F production, it turned out that about 60% of the airframes produced were actually available for front line service. Although I think (from memory) this figure didn't include the airframes exported to the UK, there were still a lot of aircraft that came off the production line but didn't become available to front line units. Some go to training, or spares, or op losses before reaching operational units, or to units not represented in the game.

So I do think it is correct that the number of aircraft produced in the game should be equal to the number that were available for in-game uses, not to the number that rolled off the production line.

However I don't know what percentage of the F4F aircraft produced were actually "available" in game terms.

Andrew



oldman45 -> RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates (9/3/2009 1:28:03 PM)

I noticed the 12 gun (.303 caliber) Hurricanes have the same gun value as the 8 gun (.5 caliber) P-47's. Was this intentional?



invernomuto -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (9/3/2009 2:16:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The B7A2 is classed as a dive bomber in the game.....but carries a torp as it should is this the way you want it?


Tiger!




In CHS there were two different version of B7A2 Grace. One classified as Torpedo Bombers, the other as Dive Bomber. In AE, could we upgrade TBs to B7A2 grace?



Cathartes -> RE: adding pilots (9/3/2009 3:00:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: scott1964

PBJ-1H Mitchell
Info states available from 10/44 to 1/43 [&:]


I'm not seeing that in 1083, grand campaign, what version and what scenario are you seeing this?



fbs -> RE: adding pilots (9/4/2009 3:07:43 AM)

Scenario 1, 1.0.1.1083:

one unit is named "Patrouille Samson", another is "Ambon Patrouille"; may want to reverse one of these, to make the naming consistent.

Thanks! [:D]
fbs



oldman45 -> RE: adding pilots (9/4/2009 7:23:07 PM)

Question about the gun values.

Hurrican XIIb is rated @ 24. 12x .303 rifle caliber ammo

P47 is rated @ 24 8x .5 ship/plane/man killing almost cannon ammo. [8D]

ok I love the 50 cal, but was it intended or is this a typo



anarchyintheuk -> RE: adding pilots (9/4/2009 9:19:24 PM)

Not much to do. The .303 is a x2 modifier, the .50 cal is a x3. I admit my opinion is subjective but a 50% advantage sounds about right. The fact that they'd have to rewrite the modifiers and, most likely, write a new a2s combat formula to fix a non-problem imho is more of an issue.



timtom -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (9/5/2009 1:09:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Slot 3594 3rd BG/13th BS (US Army) - Is set to upgrade to Dutch B-25C Mitchell.

Slot 3096 No 22 Sqn RAAF (Australian) - Is set to upgrade to Dutch DB-7B.


The initial consignment of bombers for the Dutch can be allocated to USAAF and/or RAAF (more or less what happened historically) or they can be used to upgrade the ML-KNIL/MLD. Players choice.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tigercub

The B7A2 is classed as a dive bomber in the game.....but carries a torp as it should is this the way you want it?

Tiger!



It's the only way of setting up a TB/DB type a/c - the torpedo device acts as an override. The "B" in B7A of course indicates that the Japanese labelled it as a carrier attack aircraft.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fbs

Scenario 1, 1.0.1.1083:

one unit is named "Patrouille Samson", another is "Ambon Patrouille"; may want to reverse one of these, to make the naming consistent.

Thanks! [:D]
fbs


Dunno...merely how it's been passed on to me. Samson was a person and Ambon a place :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: langleyCV1

V1083c beta Scen1 VMF-211 Det is on wake as it should be but where is the main unit it was on PH in the the last version. Is this a bug or does VMF-211 only appear after the Det is destroyed.

MJT


Bug.

Reg. .303 v .5 ->

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 [:)]



fbs -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (9/5/2009 2:49:52 AM)

Scenario 1, 1.0.1.1083:

Aircraft naming in inconsistent:

"B-339D"
"B339-23"
"B339-23(PR)"

I don't know if the correct form is with an hyphen or not between the B and 339, but it should be used same way for these entries.

Thanks! [:D]
fbs



Pascal_slith -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (9/5/2009 3:17:57 AM)

Still using pre-Beta. Sorry if this has already been brought up, but is it normal, and dispensible, that in the aircraft database the Catalinas, Sunderlands, and other patrol aircraft that were amphibian are NOT designated as such in the little checkboxes?



doc smith -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (9/5/2009 5:54:32 PM)

I sincerely apologize if these questions were raised elsewhere. I tried to search here (but really, 54 pages of comments?!?! Also tried the manual. No joy in either case.

1. CVL Ryujo is at Babeldoup (?), as are an air flotilla hq. It has a potential to carry 27 torpedoes but won't load more than 11 (the number of Kates on-board.

2. There is a lone Kate carrier-capable unit based here as well. When I try to change the load from bombs to torps, the torps red-out.

3. When I look at the Land Based Air Units screen, some aircraft have an asterisk (*) next to their assigned mission. Why? What does it mean?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Peace,
Doc Smith



Wirraway_Ace -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (9/5/2009 11:48:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doc smith

I sincerely apologize if these questions were raised elsewhere. I tried to search here (but really, 54 pages of comments?!?! Also tried the manual. No joy in either case.

1. CVL Ryujo is at Babeldoup (?), as are an air flotilla hq. It has a potential to carry 27 torpedoes but won't load more than 11 (the number of Kates on-board.

2. There is a lone Kate carrier-capable unit based here as well. When I try to change the load from bombs to torps, the torps red-out.



doc, I am not speaking for the AE team, but looking at page 287 of the manual, I note that it takes a port size 7 (or a smaller port with a lot of Nav Spt) to re-arm torp sortes for Carrier Air Groups. I am guessing this is the problem. Ryujo apparantly departed the home islands with only 1 torp per Kate.



Tanaka -> Small Scenario Pilot Issues (9/9/2009 5:42:20 PM)

Small Scenario Pilot Issues

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2227479&mpage=1&key=�



RevRick -> RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates (9/9/2009 10:41:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.



Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?

What I am saying is the developers thought a bit more deeply on the issue, than just running to the internet for pretty little production numbers.

That is the end of this particular discussion. This thread is not the place for this. Any more on this "issue" should be taken to the main boards.



I hate to say this, but I think I have enough seniority, if not knowledge, to comment that your displayed attitude on the board is causing concern to me. I know it must be one of frustration with the amount of work you all have put in on this project to have something so closely questioned. But, I fear that what we are seeing currently is bordering on patronizing and condescending, if not, unfortunately I must add, arrogant. That is not like you from years past.

Some of us have valid, we feel, concerns about things like 35, now 45, production numbers F4F models, because it does not feel right, if nothing else. To treat us as if we are a bunch of whining three year olds does not solve the problem. When initial indications from game results indicate that much of the time spent in the initial stages will be simply watching the opponent do as he will with no viable way of ever beginning to contest the field for a considerable (more than a year) time, why the hell play the game? Not having anything other than "try it you'll like it" for a palliative for expressed concerns is not conducive to helping the situation. Summarily shutting off questions and discussion by fiat is childish. You are better than that. I know.



Mynok -> RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates (9/9/2009 11:00:46 PM)


I think he is basically saying no one has raised any issues that were not already discussed in-depth by the devs, resulting in the current situation.



Jzanes -> RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates (9/10/2009 3:22:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: RevRick


quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

The research was done on the basis of utilization; and is spot on, imho.



Utilization, not production? Does that mean the allied production in-game is not the amount of allied A/C produced, but the numbers put into front line units?

Doesn't that limit allied industry not to what the allies were actually building, but to what they consumed?

What I am saying is the developers thought a bit more deeply on the issue, than just running to the internet for pretty little production numbers.

That is the end of this particular discussion. This thread is not the place for this. Any more on this "issue" should be taken to the main boards.



I hate to say this, but I think I have enough seniority, if not knowledge, to comment that your displayed attitude on the board is causing concern to me. I know it must be one of frustration with the amount of work you all have put in on this project to have something so closely questioned. But, I fear that what we are seeing currently is bordering on patronizing and condescending, if not, unfortunately I must add, arrogant. That is not like you from years past.

Some of us have valid, we feel, concerns about things like 35, now 45, production numbers F4F models, because it does not feel right, if nothing else. To treat us as if we are a bunch of whining three year olds does not solve the problem. When initial indications from game results indicate that much of the time spent in the initial stages will be simply watching the opponent do as he will with no viable way of ever beginning to contest the field for a considerable (more than a year) time, why the hell play the game? Not having anything other than "try it you'll like it" for a palliative for expressed concerns is not conducive to helping the situation. Summarily shutting off questions and discussion by fiat is childish. You are better than that. I know.


my thoughts exactly and expressed better than I ever could've written it.



Page: <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.71875