RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (Full Version)

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



Message

sspahr -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/10/2009 8:35:47 PM)

V1084 Scenario 4 Guadalcanal --

I've noticed a few problems with this one:

The 19th BG squadrons are scheduled to withdraw, but when I withdrew them, they came back the next turn (with no planes or pilots).

The Rufe is classified as a Float Plane rather than as a Float Fighter.

The F4F-3P unit doesn't have a recon mission option.  I checked the camera device in the editor, and it has effect of 0.

This may be intentional, but I've noticed that a lot of the aircraft in Scen 4, such as the Betty and B-17, have much longer range than they do in Scen 1.



Mynok -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/12/2009 3:29:40 AM)


All float planes have been given the ability to do 'fighter' missions now, which they actually did at times. In that context, I think the devs will argue the Rufe is appropriately categorized.




sspahr -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/12/2009 4:09:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

All float planes have been given the ability to do 'fighter' missions now, which they actually did at times. In that context, I think the devs will argue the Rufe is appropriately categorized.



Maybe so, but the Rufe is classified as a Float Fighter in scenario one. It probably doesn't make much difference to a human player, but the AI probably handles Float Planes and Float Fighters differently.



Walloc -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (10/13/2009 8:45:44 AM)

Hi Elf/airteam

Quoting for another thread.

Hi JWE,

I've noticed some differences between scn 1 and 6 in regards to DB stuff.
2 examples. There are more.

Dutch Do-24K-1 has ranges 14/18 in scn 1 and 9/11 in scn 6.
Brit Hurricans start 16 replacements in 1/42 in scn 1 and first 3/42 in scn 6.

So since i can assume they arent put in by the scn designer, as seen by his responce, should i start making a list of inconsistancies and post here?

Kind regards,

Rasmus



davbaker -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/13/2009 10:56:11 AM)

Air Base Overstacking cookie again.

I see a lot of confusion over this , but no real definative answers.

Here's what I'm seeing:

Rangoon 7 (7) Assigned to SE Asia
221 Group RAF HQ (3) - SE Asia
10th USAAF HQ (5) - SE Asia

I have 14 Airgroups present, none training.

Have been there for several turns.

The manual (and lots of posts) clearly state that a Lvl 9 AF does not suffer from overstacking.

7 base + 5 command radius of best Air HQ > 9

Why am I getting 'Base Administration 14 of 12 supported groups" mesages.

a) Does it mean anything, is the base actually overstacked?
b) if the base isnt overstacked , why the confusing message?

Cheers!



JWE -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (10/13/2009 3:14:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Walloc
Hi Elf/airteam
Quoting for another thread.
Hi JWE,

I've noticed some differences between scn 1 and 6 in regards to DB stuff.
2 examples. There are more.

Dutch Do-24K-1 has ranges 14/18 in scn 1 and 9/11 in scn 6.
Brit Hurricans start 16 replacements in 1/42 in scn 1 and first 3/42 in scn 6.

So since i can assume they arent put in by the scn designer, as seen by his responce, should i start making a list of inconsistancies and post here?

Kind regards,
Rasmus

Whoops, sorry to have you post here, and then just follow right behind you, but the problem was found, and will be taken care of for patch-2. It was just an older vs newer aircraft file thing. Sorry about that.



Walloc -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (10/13/2009 4:44:29 PM)

Ok thx John, glad it will be fixed.

Ill go moan to my PBEM opponent about my lost production.[;)]
Now i have an excuse when i lose. [:D]

Kind regards,

Rasmus



Mynok -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/13/2009 6:13:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sspahr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mynok

All float planes have been given the ability to do 'fighter' missions now, which they actually did at times. In that context, I think the devs will argue the Rufe is appropriately categorized.



Maybe so, but the Rufe is classified as a Float Fighter in scenario one. It probably doesn't make much difference to a human player, but the AI probably handles Float Planes and Float Fighters differently.


Interesting. Guess the devs will have to address that then. I would suspect one of those classifications is an error.



Montbrun -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/16/2009 7:40:55 PM)

Australian Spit VIIIs are classified as "Night Fighters" - the Brit Spit VIIIs aren't. Is this correct?



[image]local://upfiles/2450/75C1BE06A38847128E4B62689934F797.jpg[/image]



Montbrun -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/16/2009 7:41:32 PM)

Australian Spit VIII:



[image]local://upfiles/2450/1E21DB6FD7404680A2C16E94E1298059.jpg[/image]



Montbrun -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/16/2009 7:42:13 PM)

Australian Spit VIII:



[image]local://upfiles/2450/D958653FBA034AE18FA5C50A2A1CAB13.jpg[/image]



Montbrun -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/16/2009 7:42:56 PM)

Australian v. British Spit VIII:



[image]local://upfiles/2450/817A621FDB424A77B446B3B3889B98C8.jpg[/image]



Cathartes -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/16/2009 8:22:46 PM)

methinks bug... TimTom?



sspahr -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/16/2009 11:40:16 PM)

The Aussie Spitfire bug is fixed as of v.1084 for Scenarios 1&2, but in Scen 6 it's still a night fighter. It seems that the scenario 6 aircraft database wasn't completely updated to the same state as the other scenarios'.



afspret -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/26/2009 6:41:47 AM)

The Det of 5 Sq RNZAF at Singapore has its HQ listed as a RNZAF Base Force (the one thats based at Suva). Intentional or error?



MechFO -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/27/2009 12:02:53 AM)

Scenario 2

262nd Sentai arrives in March 1942 with Helen IIa's. They are either arriving too early or with the wrong planes, since Helen IIa's only become available in September 42.  



herwin -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/27/2009 1:26:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Scenario 2

262nd Sentai arrives in March 1942 with Helen IIa's. They are either arriving too early or with the wrong planes, since Helen IIa's only become available in September 42.  


Was that the unit used to do the operational testing?



JWE -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/27/2009 1:35:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cathartes
methinks bug... TimTom?

Was a data error. It was an older vs newer aircraft file thing in scen006. Fixed for patch-2. Sorry 'bout that.



Jonathan Pollard -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/27/2009 1:38:39 PM)

Malang in Java has a level 1 AF and also a medium bomber squadron. I doubt the Dutch would have assigned a bomber to where it could not engage in offensive operations.



MechFO -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/27/2009 8:09:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: MechFO

Scenario 2

262nd Sentai arrives in March 1942 with Helen IIa's. They are either arriving too early or with the wrong planes, since Helen IIa's only become available in September 42.  


Was that the unit used to do the operational testing?


That is my presumption, but if so, they should have Ia's instead of IIa's



fbs -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/28/2009 6:08:39 AM)


What happened to my beloved VMF-211? Before patch 1 it used to be in Pearl Harbor, but now I can't find it anywhere on the map nor in the list of units per HQ/nationality/etc or in the reinforcements list... (scenario 1, 1.0.1.1084).

When I load that scenario on the editor, I see:

Unit #2588 (VMF 211 Det)... HQ #6778 (USN Forwd AirCenPac), Location #611 (Wake Island)
Unit #2587 (VMF 211)....... HQ #102 (Central Pacific), Location #6778 (USN Forwd AirCenPac)

It is right to have an HQ as the location? Someone help find my poor VMF-211 :-(

Thanks,
fbs



fbs -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (10/30/2009 3:37:56 AM)


The 58th PG at March Field is assigned to the 10th USAAF on Dec-1941, but the 10th USAAF was formed in Feb-1942.

Thanks,
fbs



oldman45 -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (11/3/2009 11:23:38 PM)

Perhaps I am reading the editor wrong, the Barracuda's are listed as DB but only seem to carry Torps.



jcjordan -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (11/3/2009 11:26:44 PM)

Not sure if it's been mentioned or not but the 2 marine airgroups that start the game on the Lex & Sara create some problems. I transferred them off to land bases but later on in the game I withdrew them to get some planes in the pool for other units but later on I noticed that when they are in the reinforcement queue they are set to come back onto the Lex & Sara instead of at SF [&:] This is scen 1 patch 1 so would assume any long campaign that has them starting on the carriers would have same problem should they be w/d or disbanded & allowed to come back.



Local Yokel -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (11/6/2009 1:58:37 PM)

Guadalcanal scenario, patches up to date.

Early on I appointed Lt Sasai Junichi to command S-1 detachment of the Tainan Ku (seemed historically appropriate). During current turn (14 Sep 42) I decided to draw some reinforcement a/c and pilots. First I drew additional a/c to bring the unit's strength to 18, then began to draw additional pilots. As I was doing so, and when the pilot total reached 16, Lt Sasai was displaced by LtJG Hirano - before me very eyes! What's more, Lt Sasai appears to have take a fast trip to Yasukuni, as he no longer appears in the list of available leaders, so that I cannot re-appoint him.

I've attached a screenie to show the 'before' and 'after' of this. Scarcely a game breaking issue, but why on earth should the code connected with drawing pilots have the effect of replacing the existing leader with another, and moreover one of inferior rank?

[&:]

[image]local://upfiles/23929/B10177F56BD74F108211CA7706D23A30.jpg[/image]

<edit> Reloaded and went about it a different way. This time I drew the additional pilots I required, then additional a/c. This time Lt Sasai remained in charge. Curioser and curioser. </edit>



bsq -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (11/8/2009 12:35:17 AM)

I know this has been mentioned before, but the answers seemed inconclusive and in some cases evasive.


So I will ask it again - Why is the largest airfield ever built (up to that point in history) only being portrayed as a Size 7?

With 6 x 9000 feet runways and nearly 1000 B29s being operated from the island in 1945, what gives with Tinian in the game?

At Size 7 there are stacking penalties and group admin penalties for operating more than 84 B29's (stacking) or more than 7 Sqns (admin - which amounts to 49 B29's).  I don't think the USAAF operated with such penalties, after all how would LeMay have mounted the huge fire-bombing raids of 1945 given such constraints.

This needs a proper answer or it needs addressing in a future patch.  The problem is that B29 groups now come as Sqn's and not BG's - this makes the group admin issue a real pain and turns Tinian red really quickly.

Even using Guam, Saipan and Tinian, it is not possible to base all the B29's the game will make available to the player by August 1945 without suffering a penalty, which just was not there IRL.

Sure I can just base the 1000 B29's there if I want to - but what I really want to know is what are the penalties for doing so and more to the point why am I penalised for doing something that happened (without penalty) in real life?

To my mind, no one has satisfactorily answered that last point.



wworld7 -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (11/8/2009 12:44:21 AM)

WITP-AE is a game not real life.



witpqs -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (11/8/2009 1:28:07 AM)

As far as the admin penalties go - they won't kick in at 7 squadrons as you say if you have an air HQ there or nearby. They certainly did IRL. [:)]



Barb -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (11/8/2009 10:21:31 AM)

Use Air HQ and administrative penalties will be out of question.
As to stacking penalties, they are intended to be in place.
For example: 8th USAAF squadrons were sending some 3-6 planes for a mission, not all of them. That way a Bomb group usually produced one or two Boxes (18 planes).

5th USAAF Medium bombardment squadron usually sent 6 plane missions.



bsq -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (11/8/2009 10:39:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: flipperwasirish

WITP-AE is a game not real life.


Granted it's game - but that adds nothing to the debate.

It's supposed to be a highly accurate simulation of real life - so it should stand scrutiny.


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

As far as the admin penalties go - they won't kick in at 7 squadrons as you say if you have an air HQ there or nearby. They certainly did IRL. [:)]


OK, so part way there but only insomuch as the admin limit now equals the stacking limit and you can only count your best HQ. We now get:

(Base) 7 + (Best Air HQ Command Radius) 5 = 12 Sqns (84 B29's) and
(Base) 7 * 12 (max stack of 4E per AF Point) = 84 B29's

So my question remains - when Tinian (the largest airfield complex in WW2) goes red, what penalties am I under because in mid 1945 I will have around 110 Sqns I want to base there!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

Use Air HQ and administrative penalties will be out of question.
As to stacking penalties, they are intended to be in place.
For example: 8th USAAF squadrons were sending some 3-6 planes for a mission, not all of them. That way a Bomb group usually produced one or two Boxes (18 planes).

5th USAAF Medium bombardment squadron usually sent 6 plane missions.



See above for worked Air HQ example. As for the low numbers per BG, then there are two issues.
1. We do not get BG's as in WITP, we get BS's
2. The firebombing raids used all available frames.

Thing is if I get there and find I cannot conduct an effective Strategic Bombing campaign because my B29's are crashing left right and centre on take off/landing or they are taking longer to repair than Boeing take to build them, then I am not going to be overly happy [&:]



Page: <<   < prev  56 57 [58] 59 60   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.390625