|
timtom -> RE: Allied A/C prodcution rates (10/6/2009 5:27:47 PM)
|
General note: When reporting issues, please state which scenario the issue pertains to. Thank you. And keep 'em coming.
quote:
ORIGINAL: langleyCV1
In Scen 6 or 9 why is 488 Squadron still upgradeing to Dutch Hurricanes!
MJT
Clearly someone's been asleep on the job ;).
quote:
ORIGINAL: Splinterhead
AE was designed by committee and the air team, according to Tim-Tom, decided to make Dutch purchased aircraft Dutch aircraft even if most were IRL delivered elsewhere, because they could have wound up in Dutch service.
Actually it's the other way round :) - apologies if I gave the wrong impression.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Roko
what happend with 4th Kokutai ( g4m ) in scenario 1 & 6 ?
i cant find it
The Takao Kokutai K-1 Hikotai detachment becomes 4th Kokutai. This isn't exactly what happened - 4th Ku's Hikotai was put together from two Buntai's of the Takao Ku and one from the Chitose Ku's attack Hikotai.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Tallyman662
Air Team,
I have a question regarding the withdrawal versus disband function for some US air groups. I noted that some airgroups have both the withdrawal and disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal date process. These are fine as is. There are some groups though that have only a disband option as part of their mandatory withdrawal process. Since you lose planes and pilots when you disband these groups, could the air team discuss the rationale between the two different types of mandatory withdrawal? The only reason I can think of with this variance is that we don't want thos pilots and planes to go back into the pool and still maintain historical accuracy of air groups in the US. Is there any thought about changing either the ability to withdraw or perhaps removing the airgroups as not relevant to the game? Appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
Pete
From an older thread ->
...underpinning the OOB design is a set of methodological guidelines which serves as rules-of-thumb when tackling the multitude of design decisions involved. Not only does this mean that the wheel doesn't have to be reinvented with every new unit, but it also ensures that there's one set of rules is applied to all, and hopefully leads to a structured design for which at least plausible defense can be mounted.
So, with the "useless" WC units, how does this methodology go? Well, the first question is whether we're dealing with a combat- or combat-support unit operating in a manner explicitly modelled in the game on-map. In the case of the "useless" units, the answer is yes - these were combat units either fully formed or in the process of forming, temporarily assigned to the defense of the US western seaboard at the outbreak of war. Once the press realised that invasion wasn't imminent, these units reverted to full-time training and/or transferred east.
The basic contention that these units are "useless" begs the question "to whom and by what definition". Some players might enjoy the attention to detail and historiosity (is that a word?) and think it a quality in itself, or take note of the woeful state of many USAAC units as a didactic point in its own right. And of course the a very slight chance that they might be used in other than a patrol capacity - a posibility which would only increase if these units were not there.
However accepting the basic contention that the air units in question are useless, the OOB designer is then left with the problem of formulation a workable methodology which can be applied across the board without prejudice. How do you define whether a unit is "useless" or not? If it's a question of location, should then the RCAF units go as well? What about Alaska? Exactly where does this imaginary line of "uselessness" run? Is it that they never left the US? Then what about units which never left metropolitan Japan, Australia, New Zealand or Canada? Is it the number of aircraft in a unit? Does this mean that all small or understrength units should be eliminated? How many aircraft is enough be "useful"? Same question with the short availability dates. So rather than make a number of arbitrary decisions on the behalf of the player, this OOB designer chose go back to the simple starting point: Is the unit in question combat- or combat-support unit operating in a manner explicitly modelled in the game on-map? If yes, leave the decision whether a unit is "useful" or not to the player.
Anyone is obviously at liberty to disagree, but there is - I believe - a considered reason for the current setup which has nothing to do with overblow egos or a lack of comprehension. That said on my personal top-three list of fix-its is making the withdrawal procedure automatic like the way it works for LCU's unless the player invests PPs to keep a unit in play, but I don't set patching priorities or do the coding so can only promise to push for it.
The total number of restricted WC air units called on to withdraw (this is, disband) is 65. This out of 2011 Allied units.
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2197214&mpage=2
quote:
ORIGINAL: afspret
Whats the story with ACUs in slots 1635, 1636, 1642-1645, 1647-1650, & 1652? They're all USN VF(N) Sqds or Dets and have 9999 for arrival dates.
Someone started fiddling with the USN carrier aviation OOB, then thought the better of it. For now.
quote:
ORIGINAL: jcjordan
I was going through scen 7 but assume the problem would be in most if not all of the long campaigns but in looking at the Marine air squadrons many of them are assigned to the USN Air West HQ but they come in at Pearl or even Nouema. Shouldn't they be either one of the Cent Pac or So Pac USN Air HQ's instead? Sometimes it was the first generation on the unit that comes in at one of the forward bases assigned to the west coast hq but then it's 2nd generation comes in at one of the west coast bases assigned to the west coast hq.
Will fix for patch 2.
quote:
ORIGINAL: erstad
I noticed in the replacement pool that the Val upgrade sequence goes from D3A1 Val to D3A2 Val to D5Y1 Myojo, skipping all of the Judys. Is that intentional?
Yup.
quote:
ORIGINAL: witpqs
The Beaufighter TFX - FB has an error in the drop tank configuration.
Not using drop tanks has Normal=Radar+Torpedo, Extended=Radar+Bombs
Using drop tanks has Normal=Radar+DropTanks, Extended=Radar+DropTanks+Bombs
Either have to add torpedo to normal or delete bombs from extended, I don't know which.
Arhh, drat. The difficulty is that the torp is slung under the fuselage as is the drop tank (= centreline). The bombs however are carried under the wings (= external). So to get round the inconsistancy you're seeing we'll have to define/fudge the TT/DT as "external", thus the code will call either the DT or the TT/bombs.
quote:
ORIGINAL: CJ Martin
There are significant differences in aircraft ranges between the "stock" 8 Dec start and the "quiet China" 8 Dec start. From what I have seen so far, the "quiet China" ranges are less - in some cases hundreds of miles so.
So I ask TimTom - which set of ranges are more correct?
Hi Martin, how that's '43 mod coming? [:'(]
The former. Slighty (just) puzzled why they should differ. Methinks me got a Scotsman to skin ;).
quote:
ORIGINAL: CJ Martin
I started poking around in these files to set the PH damage to match the stock 8 Dec files. I was also going to check the PBY max ranges, as they all seem off in AE. PBY's are incapable of self deploying to PH from the west coast in AE, and this is not historical. Given the newly aggressive AI subs (another change I am not fond of) and the inability to load air groups on more than one ship, this is a dangerous situation for the allied player.
-CJ
Hmm, the -5 should be able to reach PH but not the -5A prior to getting drop tanks. Will investigate.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
v1084 - Unit 4293 - 34th BG / HQ Sqn - This unit has no W/D requirement.
Wilco.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Brad Hunter
There appears to be 2 x WCDR R.N. Batesons...
[:D]
quote:
ORIGINAL: Pascal
No RNZAF Hudsons were on Fiji at the beginning of the war.
The first ones arrive on the 9th, no?
|
|
|
|
