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

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



Message

LoBaron -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/13/2010 7:10:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: WLockard


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I have a question about Realistic R&D.  When an airframe reaches it's production month and has an R&D facility, does that R&D facility become a production facility or remain an R&D facility?


I think it should, what would you do with an R&D factory for an aircraft you are producing?


Change it to a new AC type you want to accellerate research on? [;)]



erstad -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/14/2010 5:09:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I have a question about Realistic R&D.  When an airframe reaches it's production month and has an R&D facility, does that R&D facility become a production facility or remain an R&D facility?


Becomes a production facility.



LoBaron -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/14/2010 9:43:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I have a question about Realistic R&D.  When an airframe reaches it's production month and has an R&D facility, does that R&D facility become a production facility or remain an R&D facility?


Becomes a production facility.



And you lose a R&D ervery time you research one random AC? erstad do you change to another AC type right before to avoid
that or use the production points for the new planetype. I guess the second option but the you lose the R&D and you wont get it back right?

Doh! This again proved that Japanese industry is still a mystery to me... [8|]



erstad -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/14/2010 3:02:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

And you lose a R&D ervery time you research one random AC? erstad do you change to another AC type right before to avoid
that or use the production points for the new planetype. I guess the second option but the you lose the R&D and you wont get it back right?



So far, I always let them go into production because if I'm researching it, by definition it's a plane I want and I usually want a bunch of them. Might do it differently later on if what's being researched is a plane that will have a lot of factories auto-upgrade to the new model.



Mike Solli -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/15/2010 3:09:55 PM)

Thanks erstad. Yet another wrinkle to Japanese production to muddle......



doc smith -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/16/2010 12:42:47 AM)

Question on getting new pilots.  Playing Allied side in 8 Dec scenario.

Game doesn't seem to work as the manual suggests.  When I try to get a replacement pilot for a frontline sqdn, I'll set the type as "Trained/Rookie 50+", "Manual" and "Any" source.  Sometimes it works, sometimes I get a newbie with an overall experience < 50 - not what I've ordered.

When this happens, I'll try to pick a veteran.  I click on a name and it disappears from the selection array but isn't listed as a future reinf. on the sqdn list of pilots.  I've been in the case where I click 3 consecutive names in the array (i.e, which are in row X, row X+1, row X+2), I don't get the 1st or 3d but do get the second??? (1 and 3 disappear from the master list) All have the same experience, all are in "xxx reserve", and have a "1" under the "days" column.  I've found that if I find someone with the experiences I need who is assigned to a sqdn not currently in play, I'll get that person (even when trying to get someone from reserves with higher skills and that fails).

I hope someone can help me.  I also hope this plea made sense to potential helpers.

[sm=00000924.gif]

Doc Smith




jcjordan -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/16/2010 11:21:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: doc smith

Question on getting new pilots.  Playing Allied side in 8 Dec scenario.

Game doesn't seem to work as the manual suggests.  When I try to get a replacement pilot for a frontline sqdn, I'll set the type as "Trained/Rookie 50+", "Manual" and "Any" source.  Sometimes it works, sometimes I get a newbie with an overall experience < 50 - not what I've ordered.

When this happens, I'll try to pick a veteran.  I click on a name and it disappears from the selection array but isn't listed as a future reinf. on the sqdn list of pilots.  I've been in the case where I click 3 consecutive names in the array (i.e, which are in row X, row X+1, row X+2), I don't get the 1st or 3d but do get the second??? (1 and 3 disappear from the master list) All have the same experience, all are in "xxx reserve", and have a "1" under the "days" column.  I've found that if I find someone with the experiences I need who is assigned to a sqdn not currently in play, I'll get that person (even when trying to get someone from reserves with higher skills and that fails).

I hope someone can help me.  I also hope this plea made sense to potential helpers.

[sm=00000924.gif]

Doc Smith




On part 1 what normally is happening is that there are no pilots that fit the experience lvl setting due to wounds etc.
On part 2 what I've noticed (not sure if it's true or not, dev type would have to say for sure) but in my game when that happens (pilots disappearing when asking for a vet) it'll show up in the pilot list but will take some time (maybe a few days to a week) & then he'll still show due in a few more days but will show on the pilot roster. I'm not positive if this is what's happening or not but I think all pilots in the selected pilot pool will show regardless of whether he's available in the game ie Bong doesn't come in till mid 42 but in Dec 41 you can request a veteran & be able to select him into a unit but he probably won't show on the pilot roster till the time he's set to come in. I think wounded pilots show as well in the request a veteran so they won't appear on unit's pilot roster until they're healed. I've not conclusively tested this but just things I've noticed & done a very basic check on so all might not be true.



n01487477 -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/26/2010 1:33:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I have a question about Realistic R&D.  When an airframe reaches it's production month and has an R&D facility, does that R&D facility become a production facility or remain an R&D facility?


Becomes a production facility.


Why would you ever have a game set up to use "realistic R&D" then ... it's basically the same as not. I'm confused and will test this myself cause it seems strange to me at least.



WLockard -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/26/2010 4:53:07 PM)

Realistic R&D means you can not change a R&D factory to a production factory. But, when the aircraft for the R&D factory is available, it then becomes a production factory.



n01487477 -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/26/2010 10:59:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WLockard

Realistic R&D means you can not change a R&D factory to a production factory. But, when the aircraft for the R&D factory is available, it then becomes a production factory.

But when it becomes a production facility, I assume you can't then change it to another production choice only another R@D facility ... right ? Which means that to continuously use that facility to R&D, and produce planes that you've R&D'd you are expending double the supplies ... not something I'd care to undertake.






Andrew Brown -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/28/2010 11:38:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477
But when it becomes a production facility, I assume you can't then change it to another production choice only another R@D facility ... right ? Which means that to continuously use that facility to R&D, and produce planes that you've R&D'd you are expending double the supplies ... not something I'd care to undertake.


Realistic R&D means that you can't change a R&D factory to a production factory, and vice versa. Other changes are allowed (that is, you can change an R&D factory to another R&D factory, and you can change a production factory to another production factory).

Turning this off means that any changes are allowed, as in the original game.

Andrew



Mike Solli -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/28/2010 9:47:09 PM)

I just got this reinforcement. Note that it is a Val unit but upgrades to a Kate unit. Is this correct? I'm using the last official patch (not the beta that just came out).

Thanks.

[image]local://upfiles/1598/160914E4932A43EAAD6E4FE03BA44715.jpg[/image]



witpqs -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (2/28/2010 10:10:35 PM)

Don't know about that particular one, but there are lots of British/Australian, etc. air units that up grade to different types (bombers->fighters, fighters->bombers, search->transport, and so on).



Roko -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (3/1/2010 10:24:47 AM)

I think its correct for this unit

BTW
L2D2 Tabby max and cruising speed is in knots ( 191-140 ) insted of miles

http://www.combinedfleet.com/ijna/l2d.htm



mariandavid -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (3/13/2010 1:40:21 PM)

Apologies if mentioned before; does anyone know why the three Spit V squadrons that start in Melbourne in 1942 do not increase in plane numbers. The a/c type is not in production for either the RAF or the RAAF at this date, but I believe that the squadrons did get to full strength and fight (with varying success) the IJN over Darwin well before the end of 1942. Should they perhaps have arrived as complete?



wdolson -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (3/13/2010 2:10:20 PM)

If I remember right, that was a wing that was hastily transferred to Australia as an emergency, but they either saw no combat or only limited combat because most of their planes were delayed on delivery and there were few Spitfires in Australia until the threat to Darwin was gone.

Later there was a lot of friction between the RAAF and the 5th AF because this wing was one of the highest experienced in the theater (it was very active against the Germans before getting transferred home), but the Americans refused to put them on the front lines.  They spent the rest of the war cooling their heels in Darwin.

Bill



mariandavid -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (3/13/2010 5:17:07 PM)

Thanks wdolson: The problem is that I have a recollection (I may be wrong) that the squadrons went up to Darwin in full force in 1942. There they got thumped by the Zeros in the 1st battle (they were ex Battle of Britain pilots using tactics that worked against Me 109's); then, being experienced corrected and achieved equality or better in losses. Hence my issue over only having SIX Spit 5's in three squadrons in October 1942!



wdolson -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (3/13/2010 11:48:27 PM)

Here's a history of No 1 Wing RAAF http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._1_Wing_RAAF

Initially only 6 Spitfires arrived with the pilots in early October, the rest being diverted to Egypt.  Another batch of Spitfires did arrive in late October.  The Wing was not ready for combat until the end of January 1943.

Bill



Moss Orleni -> RE: Admiral's Edition Air War Thread (3/17/2010 4:31:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: michaelm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni

To my knowledge (correct me if I' m wrong), all patrol planes are also seaplanes in game terms (not sure bout the ZPK and the Ka-1).

The original question however is related to patrol planes. To put it more concretely:
will a PBY unit flying patrol missions from an airbase size 0 without Air HQ (the presence of aviation suport/tenders doesn't seem to be relevant for overstacking) suffer from administrative (or physical) overstacking?

If so, setting up a forward patrol/float plane base will always be hampered by the overstacking penalties.

Cheers,

Moss


IIRC, this was the main reason for treating float-equipped planes slightly differently.
Seaplanes in a coastal base hex don't count towards the physical stack (assumed floating on the surrounding water[:D]) and count as 1 administratively regardless of how many groups present (assumption is that the command/operational support is coming from outside the base e.g. AV/AVD/etc).


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni

Michael,

Thanks for the feedback!

I'm probably a bit slow [&:], but do I understand correctly that a seaplane-tagged float plane squadron will be administratively overstacked if no seaplane tender is available, and not overstacked if there is one available? And if one is available, is the administrative overstacking dependent on the amount of aviation support offered by that tender?

Moss



Since I feel this is important (due to the nature of search missions), I sort of bump this back into the Air thread , hoping to get a definitive answer...

To put the question as simple as possible: consider a float plane squadron (fi PBY Catalina) operating from a level 0 airfield with no HQ available to reduce/avoid overstacking and no seaplane tender present:

1) will the unit suffer from overstacking penalties (ie fewer planes taking off on a mission, more casualties from attack, slower aircraft repair)? This is particularly important for search missions, since if less planes than planned perform a search mission, certain search arcs will not be covered.

2) if 1) is true, will the presence of a seaplane tender have any effect on the administrative/physical overstacking and is this effect related to the amount of seaplane support?

3) if 2) is true, how will the presence of a seaplane tender affect airfield overstacking on level 1-10 airfields?

Thanks,

Moss





mikemike -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (3/18/2010 1:08:18 AM)

Something I only just realized:

All variants of the Ki-44 Tojo have the wrong engine: in the official scenarios they are defined as having the Nakajima Ha-35 (Device 1932) while in reality they had the Nakajima Ha-34 (Device 1931). This is an important difference because the Ha-35 is used in a lot of planes while the Ha-34 is used only for the Ki-49; if you don't build the Ki-49 you can stop building the Ha-34, whereas in real life that would cost you the Ki-44. This should be corrected.



Barb -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (3/18/2010 7:21:58 AM)

This could have critical impact on all japanese players as they planned their production based on Ki-44 using Ha-35. Altough if it is a Database change, it should not impact ongoing games, only the newly started after patch. My 0,02€



JuanG -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (3/22/2010 3:50:06 PM)

Scenario 1;

Device 209 - "800kg AP Bomb" has Device Type set to 3 (GP Bomb), whereas other Japanese "AP" bombs have Device Type set to 4 (AP Bomb).

No idea if this has a practical effect, but just something I noticed.

Edit; Device 210 - "2000lb AP Bomb" has the same problem.



FatR -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (3/27/2010 8:58:54 PM)

A question about Japanese recon planes (sorry if it already has been answered): it seems, that no Japanese specialized recon planes carry camera devices, but Ki-51 and Ki-36 do have them. Is this intentional? And what exactly camera does?



LoBaron -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (4/1/2010 10:30:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477
But when it becomes a production facility, I assume you can't then change it to another production choice only another R@D facility ... right ? Which means that to continuously use that facility to R&D, and produce planes that you've R&D'd you are expending double the supplies ... not something I'd care to undertake.


Realistic R&D means that you can't change a R&D factory to a production factory, and vice versa. Other changes are allowed (that is, you can change an R&D factory to another R&D factory, and you can change a production factory to another production factory).

Turning this off means that any changes are allowed, as in the original game.

Andrew


Thank you for this explanation. This answered all my open questions/doubts I had concerning this topic. Highly apprechiated!



somali -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues - withdrawal (4/3/2010 9:19:13 AM)

misspelling of IJN Air group

Maizura Ku T-1 miss

Maizuru Ku T-1 correct

Maizuru Ku was named after naval port Maizuru(110,58).



timtom -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/7/2010 12:06:28 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789

Question regarding A-24 Banshee
checked the dates for the A type (the first one you get, there are two), and it is listed as being available from 2/42 until 2/42; WAD? you get the second type (B ) in 3/43, so 2/43 would also make sense.


WAD. Limited issue only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Slot 339, the P-400. Has different machine gun armament for regular range versus extended range.

Wpn 1 is "1893 .30 Browning MG"

Wpn 11 is "150 .303 Browning MG"


Bug. Practical impact nill, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

I just got this reinforcement. Note that it is a Val unit but upgrades to a Kate unit. Is this correct? I'm using the last official patch (not the beta that just came out).

Thanks.

[image]local://upfiles/1598/160914E4932A43EAAD6E4FE03BA44715.jpg[/image]


WAD. 40th Kokutai was an inshore patrol unit, not a divebomber unit per se.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikemike

Something I only just realized:

All variants of the Ki-44 Tojo have the wrong engine: in the official scenarios they are defined as having the Nakajima Ha-35 (Device 1932) while in reality they had the Nakajima Ha-34 (Device 1931). This is an important difference because the Ha-35 is used in a lot of planes while the Ha-34 is used only for the Ki-49; if you don't build the Ki-49 you can stop building the Ha-34, whereas in real life that would cost you the Ki-44. This should be corrected.


Bug.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JuanG

Scenario 1;

Device 209 - "800kg AP Bomb" has Device Type set to 3 (GP Bomb), whereas other Japanese "AP" bombs have Device Type set to 4 (AP Bomb).

No idea if this has a practical effect, but just something I noticed.

Edit; Device 210 - "2000lb AP Bomb" has the same problem.


Bug.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FatR

A question about Japanese recon planes (sorry if it already has been answered): it seems, that no Japanese specialized recon planes carry camera devices, but Ki-51 and Ki-36 do have them. Is this intentional? And what exactly camera does?


The device allows the recon mission on a/c types that would otherwise not be able to do so. Also added to others to signal "this is a recon sorta a/c", however this is just chrome -the recon TYPE can undertake the recon mission regardless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: somali

misspelling of IJN Air group

Maizura Ku T-1 miss

Maizuru Ku T-1 correct

Maizuru Ku was named after naval port Maizuru(110,58).


[:)]



Milman -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/17/2010 10:22:49 PM)

I have one question.

When aircraft factory "consume" engine ? In turn when plane is produced and placed in pool or ....



Sardaukar -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/24/2010 10:02:35 AM)

Seems that IJN "Pre-CAP-phase" AAA might be bit too powerful. I don't know if it's Air issue, but since it affects planes, I hope Devs would take a look.

Discussions:

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2442114&mpage=1&key=�

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2446654&mpage=1&key=

I have seen this in my own games (vs. IJ AI, Historical difficulty) and was at loss why it was happening until new "combat phase" was revealed.



treespider -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (4/26/2010 12:49:33 PM)

Good thing I looked in here...three posts up TimTom lists a bunch of bugs I can correct in my mod....[:)]



hbrsvl -> RE: AE Air Issues and Air OOB Issues (5/7/2010 5:02:24 PM)

Hi-I don't know how else to get the following into the right hands. So, if I'm in the wrong place, I appologise.

My problem has to do with an air unit having incorrect aircraft.

Details: Playing Allies, scen.9, 6/16/42, v1102a. I have unit # 2628 at San Diego. Unit name is VMSB 244, but aircraft assigned to the unit are 18-F4F-4.

Can this be fixed? If so, how-please know that I am not a computer programmer. Are there other glitches like this around?

Thanks, Hugh Browne




Page: <<   < prev  61 62 [63] 64 65   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.1875